{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38811/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38811","id":"gutenberg_38811","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38811","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL\n\nBy Robert G. Ingersoll\n\n\"TO PLOW IS TO PRAY; TO PLANT IS TO PROPHESY, AND THE HARVEST ANSWERS\nAND FULFILLS.\"\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES, VOLUME XI.\n\nMISCELLANY\n\n1900\n\nDRESDEN EDITION\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME XI.\n\n\nADDRESS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.\n\nIntroduction by Frederick Douglass(\"Abou Ben Adhem\")--Decision of\nthe United States Supreme Court pronouncing the Civil Rights Act\nUnconstitutional--Limitations of Judges--Illusion Destroyed by the\nDecision in the Dred Scott Case--Mistake of Our Fathers in adopting\nthe Common Law of England--The 13th Amendment to the Constitution\nQuoted--The Clause of the Constitution upholding Slavery--Effect of\nthis Clause--Definitions of a State by Justice Wilson and Chief Justice\nChase--Effect of the Thirteenth Amendment--Justice Field on Involuntary\nServitude--Civil Rights Act Quoted--Definition of the Word Servitude by\nthe Supreme Court--Obvious Purpose of the Amendment--Justice Miller\non the 14th Amendment--Citizens Created by this Amendment--Opinion\nof Justice Field--Rights and Immunities guaranteed by the\nConstitution--Opinion delivered by Chief-Justice Waite--Further Opinions\nof Courts on the question of Citizenship--Effect of the 13th, 14th and\n15th Amendments--\"Corrective\" Legislation by Congress--Denial of equal\n\"Social\" Privileges--Is a State responsible for the Action of its Agent\nwhen acting contrary to Law?--The Word \"State\" must include the People\nof the State as well as the Officers of the State--The Louisiana Civil\nRights Law, and a Case tried under it--Uniformity of Duties essential to\nthe Carrier--Congress left Powerless to protect Rights conferred by the\nConstitution--Definition of \"Appropriate Legislation\"--Propositions laid\ndown regarding the Sovereignty of the State, the powers of the General\nGovernment, etc.--A Tribute to Justice Harlan--A Denial that Property\nexists by Virtue of Law--Civil Rights not a Question of Social\nEquality--Considerations upon which Social Equality depends--Liberty not\na Question of Social Equality--The Superior Man--Inconsistencies of the\nPast--No Reason why we should Hate the Colored People--The Issues that\nare upon Us.\n\nTRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.\n\nADDRESS TO THE JURY.\n\nReport of the Case from the New York Times (note)--The Right to express\nOpinions--Attempts to Rule the Minds of Men by Force--Liberty the\nGreatest Good--Intellectual Hospitality Defined--When the Catholic\nChurch had Power--Advent of the Protestants--The Puritans, Quakers.\nUnitarians, Universalists--What is Blasphemy?--Why this Trial should not\nhave Taken Place--Argument cannot be put in Jail--The Constitution of\nNew Jersey--A higher Law than Men can Make--The Blasphemy Statute\nQuoted and Discussed--Is the Statute Constitutional?--The Harm done\nby Blasphemy Laws--The Meaning of this Persecution--Religions are\nEphemeral--Let us judge each other by our Actions--Men who have braved\nPublic Opinion should be Honored--The Blasphemy Law if enforced would\nrob the World of the Results of Scientific Research--It declares the\nGreat Men of to-day to be Criminals--The Indictment Read and Commented\nupon--Laws that go to Sleep--Obsolete Dogmas the Denial of which was\nonce punished by Death--Blasphemy Characterized--On the Argument\nthat Blasphemy Endangers the Public Peace--A Definition of real\nBlasphemy--Trials for Blasphemy in England--The case of Abner\nKneeland--True Worship, Prayer, and Religion--What is Holy and\nSacred--What is Claimed in this Case--For the Honor of the State--The\nword Liberty--Result of the Trial (note).\n\nGOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.\n\nThe Feudal System--Office and Purpose of our Constitution--Which God\nshall we Select?--The Existence of any God a Matter of Opinion--What is\nentailed by a Recognition of a God in the Constitution--Can the Infinite\nbe Flattered with a Constitutional Amendment?--This government is\nSecular--The Government of God a Failure--The Difference between the\nTheological and the Secular Spirit--A Nation neither Christian nor\nInfidel--The Priest no longer a Necessity--Progress of Science and the\nDevelopment of the Mind.\n\nA REPLY TO BISHOP SPALDING.\n\nOn God in the Constitution--Why the Constitutional Convention ignored\nthe Question of Religion--The Fathers Misrepresented--Reasons why the\nAttributes of God should not form an Organic Part of the Law of the\nLand--The Effect of a Clause Recognizing God.\n\nCRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.\n\nThe Three Pests of a Community--I. Forms of Punishment and Torture--More\nCrimes Committed than Prevented by Governments--II. Are not Vices\ntransmitted by Nature?--111. Is it Possible for all People to be\nHonest?--Children of Vice as the natural Product of Society--Statistics:\nthe Relation between Insanity, Pauperism, and Crime--IV. The Martyrs of\nVice--Franklin's Interest in the Treatment of Prisoners--V. Kindness\nas a Remedy--Condition of the Discharged Prisoner--VI. Compensation\nfor Convicts--VII. Professional Criminals--Shall the Nation take\nLife?--Influence of Public Executions on the Spectators--Lynchers\nfor the Most Part Criminals at Heart--VIII. The Poverty of the Many a\nperpetual Menace--Limitations of Land-holding.--IX. Defective Education\nby our Schools--Hands should be educated as well as Head--Conduct\nimproved by a clearer Perception of Consequences--X. The Discipline of\nthe average Prison Hardening and Degrading--While Society cringes before\nGreat Thieves there will be Little Ones to fill the Jails--XI. Our\nIgnorance Should make us Hesitate.\n\nA WOODEN GOD.\n\nOn Christian and Chinese worship--Report of the Select Committee\non Chinese Immigration--The only true God as contrasted with\nJoss--Sacrifices to the \"Living God\"--Messrs. Wright, Dickey, O'Connor\nand Murch on the \"Religious System\" of the American Union--How to prove\nthat Christians are better than Heathens--Injustice in the Name of\nGod--An honest Merchant the best Missionary--A Few Extracts from\nConfucius--The Report proves that the Wise Men of China who predicted\nthat Christians could not be Trusted were not only Philosophers but\nProphets.\n\nSOME INTERROGATION POINTS.\n\nA New Party and its Purpose--The Classes that Exist in every\nCountry--Effect of Education on the Common People--Wants Increased by\nIntelligence--The Dream of 1776--The Monopolist and the Competitor--The\nWar between the Gould and Mackay Cables--Competition between\nMonopolies--All Advance in Legislation made by Repealing Laws--Wages\nand Values not to be fixed by Law--Men and Machines--The Specific of\nthe Capitalist: Economy--The poor Man and Woman devoured by\ntheir Fellow-men--Socialism one of the Worst Possible forms of\nSlavery--Liberty not to be exchanged for Comfort--Will the Workers\nalways give their Earnings for the Useless?--Priests, Successful Frauds,\nand Robed Impostors.\n\nART AND MORALITY.\n\nThe Origin of Man's Thoughts--The imaginative Man--\"Medicinal View\" of\nPoetry--Rhyme and Religion--The theological Poets and their Purpose in\nWriting--Moral Poets and their \"Unwelcome Truths\"--The really Passionate\nare the Virtuous--Difference between the Nude and the Naked--Morality\nthe Melody of Conduct--The inculcation of Moral Lessons not contemplated\nby Artists or great Novelists--Mistaken Reformers--Art not a\nSermon--Language a Multitude of Pictures--Great Pictures and Great\nStatues painted and chiseled with Words--Mediocrity moral from a\nNecessity which it calls Virtue--Why Art Civilizes--The Nude--The Venus\nde Milo--This is Art.\n\nTHE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.\n\nThe Way in which Theological Seminaries were Endowed--Religious\nGuide-boards--Vast Interests interwoven with Creeds--Pretensions of\nChristianity--Kepler's Discovery of his Three Great Laws--Equivocations\nand Evasions of the Church--Nature's Testimony against the\nBible--The Age of Man on the Earth--\"Inspired\" Morality of the\nBible--Miracles--Christian Dogmas--What the church has been Compelled to\nAbandon--The Appeal to Epithets, Hatred and Punishment--\"Spirituality\"\nthe last Resource of the Orthodox--What is it to be Spiritual?--Two\nQuestions for the Defenders of Orthodox Creeds.\n\nWHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?\n\nPart I. Inharmony of Nature and the Lot of Man with the Goodness and\nWisdom of a supposed Deity--Why a Creator is Imagined--Difficulty of the\nAct of Creation--Belief in Supernatural Beings--Belief and Worship among\nSavages--Questions of Origin and Destiny--Progress impossible without\nChange of Belief--Circumstances Determining Belief--How may the\nTrue Religion be Ascertained?--Prosperity of Nations nor Virtue\nof Individuals Dependent on Religions or Gods--Uninspired Books\nSuperior--Part II. The Christian Religion--Credulity--Miracles cannot\nbe Established--Effect of Testimony--Miraculous Qualities of all\nReligions--Theists and Naturalists--The Miracle of Inspiration--How\ncan the alleged Fact of Inspiration be Established?--God's work and\nMan's--Rewards for Falsehood offered by the Church.\n\nHUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.\n\nStatement by the Principal of King's College--On the Irrelevancy of a\nLack of Scientific Knowledge--Difference between the Agnostic and\nthe Christian not in Knowledge but in Credulity--The real name of\nan Agnostic said to be \"Infidel\"--What an Infidel is--\"Unpleasant\"\nsignificance of the Word--Belief in Christ--\"Our Lord and his Apostles\"\npossibly Honest Men--Their Character not Invoked--Possession by evil\nspirits--Professor Huxley's Candor and Clearness--The splendid Dream\nof Auguste Comte--Statement of the Positive Philosophy--Huxley and\nHarrison.\n\nERNEST RENAN.\n\nHis Rearing and his Anticipated Biography--The complex Character of the\nChrist of the Gospels--Regarded as a Man by Renan--The Sin against the\nHoly Ghost--Renan on the Gospels--No Evidence that they were written\nby the Men whose Names they Bear--Written long after the Events they\nDescribe--Metaphysics of the Church found in the Gospel of John--Not\nApparent why Four Gospels should have been Written--Regarded as\nlegendary Biographies--In \"flagrant contradiction one with another\"--The\nDivine Origin of Christ an After-growth--Improbable that he intended to\nform a Church--Renan's Limitations--Hebrew Scholarship--His \"People of\nIsrael\"--His Banter and Blasphemy.\n\nTOLSTOY AND \"THE KREUTZER SONATA.\"\n\nTolstoy's Belief and Philosophy--His Asceticism--His View of Human\nLove--Purpose of \"The Kreutzer Sonata\"--Profound Difference between the\nLove of Men and that of Women--Tolstoy cannot now found a Religion, but\nmay create the Necessity for another Asylum--The Emotions--The Curious\nOpinion Dried Apples have of Fruit upon the Tree--Impracticability of\nselling All and giving to the Poor--Love and Obedience--Unhappiness in\nthe Marriage Relation not the fault of Marriage.\n\nTHOMAS PAINE.\n\nLife by Moncure D. Conway--Early Advocacy of Reforms against Dueling\nand Cruelty to Animals--The First to write \"The United States of\nAmerica\"--Washington's Sentiment against Separation from Great\nBritain--Paine's Thoughts in the Declaration of Independence--Author of\nthe first Proclamation of Emancipation in America--Establishment of a\nFund for the Relief of the Army--H's \"Farewell Address\"--The \"Rights of\nMan\"--Elected to the French Convention--Efforts to save the Life of the\nKing--His Thoughts on Religion--Arrested--The \"Age of Reason\" and the\nWeapons it has furnished \"Advanced Theologians\"--Neglect by Gouverneur\nMorris and Washington--James Monroe's letter to Paine and to the\nCommittee of General Safety--The vaunted Religious Liberty of\nColonial Maryland--Orthodox Christianity at the Beginning of the 19th\nCentury--New Definitions of God--The Funeral of Paine.\n\nTHE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.\n\nI. Mr. A., the Professional Philanthropist, who established a Colony\nfor the Enslavement of the Poor who could not take care of themselves,\namassed a large Fortune thereby, built several churches, and earned\nthe Epitaph, \"He was the Providence of the Poor\"--II. Mr. B.,\nthe Manufacturer, who enriched himself by taking advantage of the\nNecessities of the Poor, paid the lowest Rate of Wages, considered\nhimself one of God's Stewards, endowed the \"B Asylum\" and the \"B\nCollege,\" never lost a Dollar, and of whom it was recorded, \"He Lived\nfor Others.\" III. Mr. C., who divided his Profits with the People who had\nearned it, established no Public Institutions, suppressed Nobody; and\nthose who have worked for him said, \"He allowed Others to live for\nThemselves.\"\n\nSHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED?\n\nTrampling on the Rights of Inferiors--Rise of the Irish and Germans\nto Power--The Burlingame Treaty--Character of Chinese Laborers--Their\nEnemies in the Pacific States--Violation of Treaties--The Geary Law--The\nChinese Hated for their Virtues--More Piety than Principle among the\nPeople's Representatives--Shall we go back to Barbarism?\n\nA WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.\n\nWhat the Educated Man Knows--Necessity of finding out the Facts\nof Nature--\"Scholars\" not always Educated Men; from necessaries to\nluxuries; who may be called educated; mental misers; the first duty of\nman; university education not necessary to usefulness, no advantage in\nlearning useless facts.\n\nWHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.\n\nWould have the Kings and Emperors resign, the Nobility drop their\nTitles, the Professors agree to teach only What they Know, the\nPoliticians changed to Statesmen, the Editors print only the\nTruth--Would like to see Drunkenness and Prohibition abolished,\nCorporal Punishment done away with, and the whole World free.\n\nFOOL FRIENDS.\n\nThe Fool Friend believes every Story against you, never denies a Lie\nunless it is in your Favor, regards your Reputation as Common Prey,\nforgets his Principles to gratify your Enemies, and is so friendly that\nyou cannot Kick him.\n\nINSPIRATION.\n\nNature tells a different Story to all Eyes and Ears--Horace Greeley and\nthe Big Trees--The Man who \"always did like rolling land\"--What the\nSnow looked like to the German--Shakespeare's different Story for each\nReader--As with Nature so with the Bible.\n\nTHE TRUTH OF HISTORY.\n\nPeople who live by Lying--A Case in point--H. Hodson Rugg's Account of\nthe Conversion of Ingersoll and 5,000 of his Followers--The \"Identity of\nLost Israel with the British Nation\"--Old Falsehoods about Infidels--The\nNew York Observer and Thomas Paine--A Rascally English Editor--The\nCharge that Ingersoll's Son had been Converted--The Fecundity of\nFalsehood.\n\nHOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER.\n\nThe Editor should not narrow his Horizon so that he can see only\nOne Thing--To know the Defects of the Bible is but the Beginning of\nWisdom--The Liberal Paper should not discuss Theological Questions\nAlone--A Column for Children--Candor and Kindness--Nothing should be\nAsserted that is not Known--Above All, teach the Absolute Freedom of the\nMind.\n\nSECULARISM.\n\nThe religion of Humanity; what it Embraces and what it Advocates--A\nProtest against Ecclesiastical Tyranny--Believes in Building a Home\nhere--Means Food and Fireside--The Right to express your Thought--Its\nadvice to every Human Being--A Religion without Mysteries, Miracles, or\nPersecutions.\n\nCRITICISM OF \"ROBERT ELSMERE,\" \"JOHN WARD, PREACHER,\" AND \"AN AFRICAN FARM.\"\n\nReligion unsoftened by Infidelity--The Orthodox Minister whose Wife has\na Heart--Honesty of Opinion not a Mitigating Circumstance--Repulsiveness\nof an Orthodox Life--John Ward an Object of Pity--Lyndall of the\n\"African Farm\"--The Story of the Hunter--Death of Waldo--Women the\nCaryatides of the Church--Attitude of Christianity toward other\nReligions--Egotism of the ancient Jews.\n\nTHE LIBEL LAWS.\n\nAll Articles appearing in a newspaper should be Signed by the\nWriter--The Law if changed should throw greater Safeguards around the\nReputation of the Citizen--Pains should be taken to give Prominence to\nRetractions--The Libel Laws like a Bayonet in War.\n\nREV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION.\n\nMr. Newton not Regarded as a Sceptic--New Meanings given to Old\nWords--The vanishing Picture of Hell--The Atonement--Confidence being\nLost in the Morality of the Gospel--Exclusiveness of the Churches--The\nHope of Immortality and Belief in God have Nothing to do with Real\nReligion--Special Providence a Mistake.\n\nAN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.\n\nThe Day regarded as a Holiday--A Festival far older\nthan Christianity--Relics of Sun-worship in Christian\nCeremonies--Christianity furnished new Steam for an old Engine--Pagan\nFestivals correspond to Ours--Why Holidays are Popular--They must be for\nthe Benefit of the People.\n\nHAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE?\n\nThe Object of Freethought--what the Religionist calls \"Affirmative\nand Positive\"--The Positive Side of Freethought--Constructive Work of\nChristianity.\n\nTHE IMPROVED MAN.\n\nHe will be in Favor of universal Liberty, neither Master nor Slave; of\nEquality and Education; will develop in the Direction of the Beautiful;\nwill believe only in the Religion of this World--His Motto--Will not\nendeavor to change the Mind of the \"Infinite\"--Will have no Bells or\nCensers--Will be satisfied that the Supernatural does not exist--Will be\nSelf-poised, Independent, Candid and Free.\n\nEIGHT HOURS MUST COME.\n\nThe Working People should be protected by Law--Life of no particular\nImportance to the Man who gets up before Daylight and works till\nafter Dark--A Revolution probable in the Relations between Labor and\nCapital--Working People becoming Educated and more Independent--The\nGovernment can Aid by means of Good Laws--Women the worst Paid--There\nshould be no Resort to Force by either Labor or Capital.\n\nTHE JEWS.\n\nMuch like People of other Religions--Teaching given Christian Children\nabout those who die in the Faith of Abraham--Dr. John Hall on\nthe Persecution of the Jews in Russia as the Fulfillment of\nProphecy--Hostility of Orthodox early Christians excited by Jewish\nWitnesses against the Faith--An infamous Chapter of History--Good\nand bad Men of every Faith--Jews should outgrow their own\nSuperstitions--What the intelligent Jew Knows.\n\nCRUMBLING CREEDS.\n\nThe Common People called upon to Decide as between the Universities and\nthe Synods--Modern Medicine, Law, Literature and Pictures as against the\nOld--Creeds agree with the Sciences of their Day--Apology the Prelude\nto Retreat--The Presbyterian Creed Infamous, but no worse than\nthe Catholic--Progress begins when Expression of Opinion is\nAllowed--Examining the Religions of other Countries--The Pulpit's\nPosition Lost--The Dogma of Eternal Pain the Cause of the orthodox\nCreeds losing Popularity--Every Church teaching this Infinite Lie must\nFall.\n\nOUR SCHOOLS.\n\nEducation the only Lever capable of raising Mankind--The\nSchool-house more Important than the Church--Criticism of New York's\nSchool-Buildings--The Kindergarten System Recommended--Poor Pay of\nTeachers--The great Danger to the Republic is Ignorance.\n\nVIVISECTION.\n\nThe Hell of Science--Brutal Curiosity of Vivisectors--The Pretence that\nthey are working for the Good of Man--Have these scientific Assassins\nadded to useful Knowledge?--No Good to the Race to be Accomplished by\nTorture--The Tendency to produce a Race of intelligent Wild Beasts.\n\nTHE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL CATECHISM.\n\nRight of the Government to ask Questions and of the Citizen to refuse\nto answer them--Matters which the Government has no Right to pry\ninto--Exposing the Debtor's financial Condition--A Man might decline to\ntell whether he has a Chronic Disease or not.\n\nTHE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS.\n\nNatural Phenomena and Myths celebrated--The great Day of the first\nReligion, Sun-worship--A God that Knew no Hatred nor Sought Revenge--The\nFestival of Light.\n\nSPIRITUALITY.\n\nA much-abused Word--The Early Christians too Spiritual to be\nCivilized--Calvin and Knox--Paine, Voltaire and Humboldt not\nSpiritual--Darwin also Lacking--What it is to be really Spiritual--No\nconnection with Superstition.\n\nSUMTER'S GUN.\n\nWhat were thereby blown into Rags and Ravelings--The Birth of a\nnew Epoch announced--Lincoln made the most commanding Figure of the\nCentury--Story of its Echoes.\n\nWHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.\n\nWhat might have been Asked of a Christian 100 years after\nChrist--Hospitals and Asylums not all built for Charity--Girard\nCollege--Lick Observatory--Carnegie not an Orthodox Christian--Christian\nColleges--Give us Time.\n\nCRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.\n\nBrockway a Savage--The Lash will neither develop the Brain nor cultivate\nthe Heart--Brutality a Failure--Bishop Potter's apostolical Remark.\n\nLAW'S DELAY.\n\nThe Object of a Trial--Justice can afford to Wait--The right of\nAppeal--Case of Mrs. Maybrick--Life Imprisonment for Murderers--American\nCourts better than the English.\n\nBIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.\n\nUniversities naturally Conservative--Kansas State University's\nObjection to Ingersoll as a commencement Orator--Comment by Mr. Depew\n(note)--Action of Cornell and the University of Missouri.\n\nA YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY.\n\nThe Chances a few Years ago--Capital now Required--Increasing\ncompetition in Civilized Life--Independence the first Object--If he has\nsomething to say, there will be plenty to listen.\n\nSCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.\n\nScience goes hand in hand with Imagination--Artistic and Ethical\nDevelopment--Science destroys Superstition, not true Religion--Education\npreferable to Legislation--Our Obligation to our Children.\n\n\"SOWING AND REAPING.\"\n\nMoody's Belief accounted for--A dishonest and corrupting Doctrine--A\nwant of Philosophy and Sense--Have Souls in Heaven no Regrets?--Mr.\nMoody should read some useful Books.\n\nSHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?\n\nTeachings of orthodox Sunday Schools--The ferocious God of the\nBible--Miracles--A Christian in Constantinople would not send his\nChild to a Mosque--Advice to all Agnostics--Strangle the Serpent of\nSuperstition.\n\nWHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?\n\nCharacter of the Bible--Men and Women not virtuous because of any\nBook--The Commandments both Good and Bad--Books that do not help\nMorality--Jehovah not a moral God--What is Morality?--Intelligence the\nonly moral guide.\n\nGOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION.\n\nDecline of the Christian Religion in New Hampshire--Outgrown\nBeliefs--Present-day Views of Christ and the Holy Ghost--Abandoned\nNotions about the Atonement--Salvation for Credulity--The Miracles\nof the New Testament--The Bible \"not true but inspired\"--The \"Higher\nCritics\" riding two Horses--Infidelity in the Pulpit--The \"restraining\nInfluences of Religion\" as illustrated by Spain and Portugal--Thinking,\nWorking and Praying--The kind of Faith that has Departed.\n\nA LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY.\n\nThe _Truth Seeker_ congratulated on its Twenty-fifth Birthday--Teachings\nof Twenty-five Years ago--Dodging and evading--The Clerical Assault\non Darwin--Draper, Buckle, Hegel, Spencer, Emerson--Comparison\nof Prejudices--Vanished Belief in the Devil--Matter and\nForce--Contradictions Dwelling in Unity--Substitutes for Jehovah--A\nProphecy.\n\nPOLITICAL MORALITY.\n\nArgument in the contested Election Case of Strobach against Herbert--The\nImportance of Honest Elections--Poisoning the Source of Justice--The\nFraudulent Voter a Traitor to his Sovereign, the Will of the\nPeople--Political Morality Imperative.\n\nA FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.\n\nDate and Manner of Composing the Old Testament--Other Books not now in\nExistence, and Disagreements about the Canon--Composite Character of\ncertain Books--Various Versions--Why was God's message given to the Jews\nalone?--The Story of the Creation, of the Flood, of the Tower, and\nof Lot's wife--Moses and Aaron and the Plagues of Egypt--Laws of\nSlavery--Instructions by Jehovah Calculated to excite Astonishment and\nMirth--Sacrifices and the Scapegoat--Passages showing that the Laws of\nMoses were made after the Jews had left the Desert--Jehovah's dealings\nwith his People--The Sabbath Law--Prodigies--Joshua's Miracle--Damned\nIgnorance and Infamy--Jephthah's Sacrifice--Incredible Stories--The\nWoman of Endor and the Temptation of David--Elijah and Elisha--Loss of\nthe Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah--The Jews before and after being\nAbandoned by Jehovah--Wealth of Solomon and other Marvels.\n\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.\n\n\nON the 22d of October, 1883, a vast number of citizens met at Lincoln\nHall, Washington, D. C., to give expression to their views concerning\nthe decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which it is\nheld that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.\n\nCol. Robert G. Ingersoll was one of the speakers.\n\nThe Hon. Frederick Douglass introduced him as follows:\n\n     Abou Ben Adhem--(may his tribe increase!)\n     Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,\n     And saw within the moonlight of his room,\n     Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,\n     An angel writing in a book of gold:\n     Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold;\n     And to the presence in the room he said,\n     \"What writest thou?\" The vision raised its head,\n     And, with a look made all of sweet accord,\n     Answered, \"The names of those who love the Lord.\"\n     \"And is mine one?\" asked Abou. \"Nay, not so,\"\n     Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,\n     But cheerily still; and said, \"I pray thee, then,\n     Write me as one that loves his fellow-men.\"\n     The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night\n     It came again, with a great wakening light,\n     And showed the names whom love of God had blest;\n     And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.\n\nI have the honor to introduce Robert G. Ingersoll.\n\nMR. INGERSOLL'S SPEECH.\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:\n\nWe have met for the purpose of saying a few words about the recent\ndecision of the Supreme Court, in which that tribunal has held the first\nand second sections of the Civil Rights Act to be unconstitutional; and\nso held in spite of the fact that for years the people of the North\nand South have, with singular unanimity, supposed the Act to be\nconstitutional--supposed that it was upheld by the 13th and 14th\nAmendments,--and so supposed because they knew with certainty the\nintention of the framers of the amendments. They knew this intention,\nbecause they knew what the enemies of the amendments and the enemies of\nthe Civil Rights Act claimed was the intention. And they also knew what\nthe friends of the amendments and the law admitted the intention to\nbe. The prejudices born of ignorance and of slavery had died or fallen\nasleep, and even the enemies of the amendments and the law had accepted\nthe situation.\n\nBut I shall speak of the decision as I feel, and in the same manner as I\nshould speak even in the presence of the Court. You must remember that\nI am not attacking persons, but opinions--not motives, but reasons--not\njudges, but decisions.\n\nThe Supreme Court has decided:\n\n1. That the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act of March\n1, 1875, are unconstitutional, as applied to the States--not being\nauthorized by the 13th and 14th Amendments.\n\n2. That the 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the\nlegislation forbidden to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it, is\nnot \"direct\" legislation, but \"corrective,\"--such as may be necessary\nor proper for counteracting and restraining the effect of laws or acts\npassed or done by the several States.\n\n3. That the 13th Amendment relates only to slavery and involuntary\nservitude, which it abolishes.\n\n4. That the 13th Amendment establishes universal freedom in the United\nStates.\n\n5. That Congress may probably pass laws directly enforcing its\nprovisions.\n\n6. That such legislative power in Congress extends only to the subject\nof slavery, and its incidents.\n\n7. That the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances\nand places of public amusement, imposes no badge of slavery or\ninvoluntary servitude upon the party, but at most infringes rights which\nare protected from State aggression by the 14th Amendment.\n\n8. The Court is uncertain whether the accommodations and privileges\nsought to be protected by the first and second sections of the Civil\nRights Act are or are not rights constitutionally demandable,--and if\nthey are, in what form they are to be protected.\n\n9. Neither does the Court decide whether the law, as it stands, is\noperative in the Territories and the District of Columbia.\n\n10. Neither does the Court decide whether Congress, under the commercial\npower, may or may not pass a law securing to all persons equal\naccommodations on lines of public conveyance between two or more States.\n\n11. The Court also holds, in the present case, that until some State law\nhas been passed, or some State action through its officers or agents has\nbeen taken adverse to the rights of citizens sought to be protected\nby the 14th Amendment, no legislation of the United States under said\namendment, or any proceeding under such legislation, can be called into\nactivity, for the reason that the prohibitions of the amendment are\nagainst State laws and acts done under State authority. The essence of\nsaid decision being, that the managers and owners of inns, railways, and\nall public conveyances, of theatres and all places of public amusement,\nmay discriminate on account of race, color, or previous condition of\nservitude, and that the citizen so discriminated against, is without\nredress.\n\nThis decision takes from seven millions of people the shield of the\nConstitution. It leaves the best of the colored race at the mercy of\nthe meanest of the white. It feeds fat the ancient grudge that vicious\nignorance bears toward race and color. It will be approved and quoted\nby hundreds of thousands of unjust men. The masked wretches who, in the\ndarkness of night, drag the poor negro from his cabin, and lacerate with\nwhip and thong his quivering flesh, will, with bloody hands, applaud\nthe Supreme Court. The men who, by mob violence, prevent the negro from\ndepositing his ballot--who with gun and revolver drive him from the\npolls, and those who insult with vile and vulgar words the inoffensive\ncolored girl, will welcome this decision with hyena joy. The basest will\nrejoice--the noblest will mourn.\n\nBut even in the presence of this decision, we must remember that it is\none of the necessities of government that there should be a court of\nlast resort; and while all courts will more or less fail to do justice,\nstill, the wit of man has, as yet, devised no better way. Even after\nreading this decision, we must take it for granted that the judges\nof the Supreme Court arrived at their conclusions honestly and in\naccordance with the best light they had. While they had the right to\nrender the decision, every citizen has the right to give his opinion as\nto whether that decision is good or bad. Knowing that they are liable\nto be mistaken, and honestly mistaken, we should always be charitable\nenough to admit that others may be mistaken; and we may also take\nanother step, and admit that we may be mistaken about their being\nmistaken. We must remember, too, that we have to make judges out of men,\nand that by being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and\ntheir intelligence is not increased. No matter whether a man wears a\ncrown or a robe or a rag. Under the emblem of power and the emblem\nof poverty, the man alike resides. The real thing is the man--the\ndistinction often exists only in the clothes. Take away the crown--there\nis only a man. Remove the robe--there remains a man. Take away the rag,\nand we find at least a man.\n\nThere was a time in this country when all bowed to a decision of the\nSupreme Court. It was unquestioned. It was regarded as \"a voice from\non high.\" The people heard and they obeyed. The Dred Scott decision\ndestroyed that illusion forever. From that day to this the people have\nclaimed the privilege of putting the decisions of the Supreme Court in\nthe crucible of reason. These decisions are no longer exempt from honest\ncriticism. While the decision remains, it is the law. No matter how\nabsurd, no matter how erroneous, no matter how contrary to reason and\njustice, it remains the law. It must be overturned either by the Court\nitself (and the Court has overturned hundreds of its own decisions), or\nby legislative action, or by an amendment to the Constitution. We do not\nappeal to armed revolution. Our Government is so framed that it provides\nfor what may be called perpetual peaceful revolution. For the redress\nof any grievance, for the purpose of righting any wrong, there is the\nperpetual remedy of an appeal to the people.\n\nWe must remember, too, that judges keep their backs to the dawn. They\nfind what has been, what is, but not what ought to be. They are tied and\nshackled by precedent, fettered by old decisions, and by the desire to\nbe consistent, even in mistakes. They pass upon the acts and words of\nothers, and like other people, they are liable to make mistakes. In\nthe olden time we took what the doctors gave us, we believed what the\npreachers said; and accepted, without question, the judgments of the\nhighest court. Now it is different. We ask the doctor what the medicine\nis, and what effect he expects it to produce. We cross-examine the\nminister, and we criticise the decision of the Chief-Justice. We do\nthis, because we have found that some doctors do not kill, that some\nministers are quite reasonable, and that some judges know something\nabout law. In this country, the people are the sovereigns. All\nofficers--including judges--are simply their servants, and the sovereign\nhas always the right to give his opinion as to the action of his agent.\nThe sovereignty of the people is the rock upon which rests the right of\nspeech and the freedom of the press.\n\nUnfortunately for us, our fathers adopted the common law of England--a\nlaw poisoned by kingly prerogative--by every form of oppression, by the\nspirit of caste, and permeated, saturated, with the political heresy\nthat the people received their rights, privileges and immunities from\nthe crown. The thirteen original colonies received their laws, their\nforms, their ideas of justice, from the old world. All the judicial,\nlegislative, and executive springs and sources had been touched and\ntainted.\n\nIn the struggle with England, our fathers justified their rebellion\nby declaring that Nature had clothed all men with the right to life,\nliberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The moment success crowned their\nefforts, they changed their noble declaration of equal rights for all,\nand basely interpolated the word \"white.\" They adopted a Constitution\nthat denied the Declaration of Independence--a Constitution that\nrecognized and upheld slavery, protected the slave-trade, legalized\npiracy upon the high seas--that demoralized, degraded, and debauched\nthe nation, and that at last reddened with brave blood the fields of the\nRepublic.\n\nOur fathers planted the seeds of injustice, and we gathered the harvest.\nIn the blood and flame of civil war, we retraced our fathers' steps. In\nthe stress of war, we implored the aid of Liberty, and asked once more\nfor the protection of Justice. We civilized the Constitution of our\nfathers. We adopted three Amendments--the 13th, 14th and 15th--the\nTrinity of Liberty.\n\nLet us examine these amendments:\n\n\"Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment\nfor crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist\nwithin the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.\n\n\"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate\nlegislation.\"\n\nBefore the adoption of this amendment, the Constitution had always been\nconstrued to be the perfect shield of slavery. In order that slavery\nmight be protected, the slave States were considered as sovereign.\nFreedom was regarded as a local prejudice, slavery as the ward of the\nNation, the jewel of the Constitution. For three-quarters of a century,\nthe Supreme Court of the United States exhausted judicial ingenuity in\nguarding, protecting and fostering that infamous institution. For the\npurpose of preserving that infinite outrage, words and phrases were\nwarped, and stretched, and tortured, and thumbscrewed, and racked.\nSlavery was the one sacred thing, and the Supreme Court was its\nconstitutional guardian.\n\nTo show the faithfulness of that tribunal, I call your attention to the\n3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the Constitution:\n\n\"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws thereof,\nescaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation\ntherein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be\ndelivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may\nbe due.\"\n\nThe framers of the Constitution were ashamed to use the word \"slave,\"\nand thereupon they said \"person.\" They were ashamed to use the word\n\"slavery,\" and they evaded it by saying, \"held to service or labor.\"\nThey were ashamed to put in the word \"master,\" so they called him \"the\nparty to whom service or labor may be due.\"\n\nHow can a slave owe service? How can a slave owe labor? How could a\nslave make a contract? How could the master have a legal claim against\na slave? And yet, the Supreme Court of the United States found no\ndifficulty in upholding the Fugitive Slave Law by virtue of that clause.\nThere were hundreds of decisions declaring that Congress had power to\npass laws to carry that clause into effect, and it was carried into\neffect.\n\nYou will observe the wording of this clause:\n\n\"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws thereof,\nescaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation\ntherein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be\ndelivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may\nbe due.\"\n\nTo whom was this clause directed? To individuals or to States? It\nexpressly provides that the \"person\" held to service or labor shall not\nbe discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any law or\nregulation in the \"State\" to which he has fled. Did that law apply to\nStates, or to individuals?\n\nThe Supreme Court held that it applied to individuals as well as to\nStates. Any \"person,\" in any State, interfering with the master who\nwas endeavoring to steal the person he called his slave, was liable\nto indictment, and hundreds and thousands were indicted, and hundreds\nlanguished in prisons because they were noble enough to hold in infinite\ncontempt such infamous laws and such infamous decisions. The best men in\nthe United States--the noblest spirits under the flag--were imprisoned\nbecause they were charitable, because they were just, because they\nshowed the hunted slave the path to freedom, and taught him where to\nfind amid the glittering host of heaven the blessed Northern Star.\n\nEvery fugitive slave carried that clause with him when he entered a free\nState; carried it into every hiding place; and every Northern man was\nbound, by virtue of that clause, to act as the spy and hound of slavery.\nThe Supreme Court, with infinite ease, made a club of that clause with\nwhich to strike down the liberty of the fugitive and the manhood of the\nNorth.\n\nIn the Dred Scott decision it was solemnly decided that a man of African\ndescent, whether a slave or not, was not, and could not be, a citizen\nof a State or of the United States. The Supreme Court held on the even\ntenor of its way, and in the Rebellion that tribunal was about the last\nfort to surrender.\n\nThe moment the 13th Amendment was adopted, the slaves became freemen.\nThe distinction between \"white\" and \"colored\" vanished. The negroes\nbecame as though they had never been slaves--as though they had always\nbeen free--as though they had been white. They became citizens--they\nbecame a part of \"the people,\" and \"the people\" constituted the\nState, and it was the State thus constituted that was entitled to the\nconstitutional guarantee of a republican government.\n\nThese freed men became citizens--became a part of the State in which\nthey lived.\n\nThe highest and noblest definition of a State, in our Reports, was given\nby Justice Wilson, in the case of Chisholm, &c., vs. Georgia;\n\n\"By a State, I mean a complete body of free persons, united for their\ncommon benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice\nto others.\"\n\nChief Justice Chase declared that:\n\n\"The people, in whatever territory dwelling, whether temporarily or\npermanently, or whether organized under regular government, or united by\nless definite relations, constitute the State.\"\n\nNow, if the people, the moment the 13th Amendment was adopted were\nall free, and if these people constituted the State; if, under\nthe Constitution of the United States, every State is guaranteed a\nrepublican government, then it is the duty of the General Government to\nsee to it that every State has such a government. If distinctions are\nmade between free men on account of race or color, the government is not\nrepublican. The manner in which this guarantee of a republican form of\ngovernment is to be enforced or made good, must be left to the wisdom\nand discretion of Congress.\n\nThe 13th Amendment not only destroyed, but it built. It destroyed the\nslave-pen, and on its site erected the temple of Liberty. It did not\nsimply free slaves--it made citizens. It repealed every statute that\nupheld slavery. It erased from every Report every decision against\nfreedom. It took the word \"white\" from every law, and blotted from the\nConstitution all clauses acknowledging property in man.\n\nIf, then, all the people in each State, were, by virtue of the 13th\nAmendment, free, what right had a majority to enslave a minority? What\nright had a majority to make any distinctions between free men? What\nright had a majority to take from a minority any privilege, or any\nimmunity, to which they were entitled as free men? What right had the\nmajority to make that unequal which the Constitution made equal?\n\nNot satisfied with saying that slavery should not exist, we find in the\namendment the words \"nor involuntary servitude.\" This was intended to\ndestroy every mark and badge of legal inferiority.\n\nJustice Field upon this very question, says:\n\n\"It is, however, clear that the words 'involuntary servitude' include\nsomething more than slavery, in the strict sense of the term. They\ninclude also serfage, vassalage, villanage, peonage, and all other forms\nof compulsory service for the mere benefit or pleasure of others. Nor\nis this the full import of the term. The abolition of slavery and\ninvoluntary servitude was intended to make every one born in this\ncountry a free man, and as such to give him the right to pursue the\nordinary avocations of life without other restraint than such as affects\nall others, and to enjoy equally with them the fruits of his labor.\nA person allowed to pursue only one trade or calling, and only in one\nlocality of the country, would not be, in the strict sense of the term,\nin a condition of slavery, but probably no one would deny that he would\nbe in a condition of servitude. He certainly would not possess the\nliberties, or enjoy the privileges of a freeman.\"\n\nJustice Field also quotes with approval the language of the counsel for\nthe plaintiffs in the case:\n\n\"Whenever a law of a State, or a law of the United States, makes a\ndiscrimination between classes of persons which deprives the one class\nof their freedom or their property, or which makes a caste of them, to\nsubserve the power, pride, avarice, vanity or vengeance of others--there\ninvoluntary servitude exists within the meaning of the 13th Amendment.\"\n\nTo show that the framers of the 13th Amendment intended to blot out\nevery form of slavery and servitude, I call attention to the Civil\nRights Act, approved April 9, 1866, which provided, among other things,\nthat:\n\n\"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign\npower--excluding Indians not taxed--are citizens of the United States;\nand such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any\nprevious condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, are entitled to\nthe full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security\nof person and property enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject\nto like punishments, pains and penalties--and to none other--any\nlaw, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary\nnotwithstanding; and they shall have the same rights in every State and\nTerritory of the United States as white persons.\"\n\nThe Supreme Court, in _The Slaughter-House Cases,_ (16 Wallace, 69) has\nsaid that the word servitude has a larger meaning than the word slavery.\n\"The word 'servitude' implies subjection to the will of another contrary\nto the common right.\" A man is in a state of involuntary servitude when\nhe is forced to do, or prevented from doing, a thing, not by the law of\nthe State, but by the simple will of another. He who enjoys less than\nthe common rights of a citizen, he who can be forced from the public\nhighway at the will of another, who can be denied entrance to the cars\nof a common carrier, is in a state of servitude.\n\nThe 13th Amendment did away with slavery not only, and with involuntary\nservitude, but with every badge and brand and stain and mark of slavery.\nIt abolished forever distinctions on account of race and color.\n\nIn the language of the Supreme Court:\n\n\"It was the obvious purpose of the 13th Amendment to forbid all shades\nand conditions of African slavery.\"\n\nAnd to that I add, it was the obvious purpose of that amendment to\nforbid all shades and conditions of slavery, no matter of what sort or\nkind--all marks of legal inferiority. Each citizen was to be absolutely\nfree. All his rights complete, whole, unmaimed and unabridged.\n\nFrom the moment of the adoption of that amendment, the law became\ncolor-blind. All distinctions on account of complexion vanished. It took\nthe whip from the hand of the white man, and put the nation's flag above\nthe negro's hut. It gave horizon, scope and dome to the lowest life. It\nstretched a sky studded with stars of hope above the humblest head.\n\nThe Supreme Court has admitted, in the very case we are now discussing,\nthat:\n\n\"Under the 13th Amendment the legislation meaning the legislation of\nCongress--so far as necessary or proper to eradicate all forms and\nincidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, may be direct and\nprimary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned by\nState legislation or not.\"\n\nHere we have the authority for dealing with individuals.\n\nThe only question then remaining is, whether an individual, being the\nkeeper of a public inn, or the agent of a railway corporation,\ncreated by a State, can be held responsible in a Federal Court for\ndiscriminating against a citizen of the United States on account of\nrace, color, or previous condition of servitude. If such discrimination\nis a badge of slavery, or places the party discriminated against in a\ncondition of involuntary servitude, then the Civil Rights Act may be\nupheld by the 13th Amendment.\n\nIn The United Slates vs. Harris, 106 U. S., 640, the Supreme Court says:\n\n\"It is clear that the 13th Amendment, besides abolishing forever slavery\nand involuntary servitude within the United States, gives power to\nCongress to protect all citizens from being in any way subjected to\nslavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime,\nand in the enjoyment of that freedom which it was the object of the\namendment to secure.\"\n\nThis declaration covers the entire case.\n\nI agree with Justice Field:\n\n\"The 13th Amendment is not confined to African slavery. It is general\nand universal in its application--prohibiting the slavery of white men\nas well as black men, and not prohibiting mere slavery in the strict\nsense of the term, but involuntary servitude in every form.\" 16 Wallace,\n90.\n\nThe 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary\nservitude shall exist. Who must see to it that this declaration is\ncarried out? There can be but one answer. It is the duty of Congress.\n\nAt last the question narrows itself to this: Is a citizen of the United\nStates, when denied admission to public inns, railway cars and\ntheatres, on account of his race or color, in a condition of involuntary\nservitude? If he is, then he is under the immediate protection of the\nGeneral Government, by virtue of the 13th Amendment; and the Civil\nRights Act is clearly constitutional.\n\nIf excluded from one inn, he may be from all; if from one car, why not\nfrom all? The man who depends for the preservation of his privileges\nupon a conductor, instead of the Constitution, is in a condition of\ninvoluntary servitude. He who depends for his rights--not upon the\nlaws of the land, but upon a landlord, is in a condition of involuntary\nservitude.\n\nThe framers of the 13th Amendment knew that the negro would be\npersecuted on account of his race and color--knew that many of the\nStates could not be trusted to protect the rights of the colored man;\nand for that reason, the General Government was clothed with power to\nprotect the colored people from all forms of slavery and involuntary\nservitude.\n\nOf what use are the declarations in the Constitution that slavery and\ninvoluntary servitude shall not exist, and that all persons born or\nnaturalized in the United States shall be citizens--not only of the\nUnited States, but of the States in which they reside--if, behind\nthese declarations, there is no power to act--no duty for the General\nGovernment to discharge?\n\nNotwithstanding the 13th Amendment had been adopted--notwithstanding\nslavery and involuntary servitude had been legally destroyed--it was\nfound that the negro was still the helpless victim of the white man.\nAnother amendment was needed; and all the Justices of the Supreme Court\nhave told us why the 14th Amendment was adopted.\n\nJustice Miller, speaking for the entire court, tells us that:\n\n\"In the struggle of the civil war, slavery perished, and perished as a\nnecessity of the bitterness and force of the conflict.\"\n\nThat:\n\n\"When the armies of freedom found themselves on the soil of slavery,\nthey could do nothing else than free the victims whose enforced\nservitude was the foundation of the war.\"\n\nHe also admits that:\n\n\"When hard pressed in the contest, the colored men (for they proved\nthemselves men in that terrible crisis) offered their services, and were\naccepted, by thousands, to aid in suppressing the unlawful rebellion.\"\n\nHe also informs us that:\n\n\"Notwithstanding the fact that the Southern States had formerly\nrecognized the abolition of slavery, the condition of the slave, without\nfurther protection of the Federal Government, was almost as bad as it\nhad been before.\"\n\nAnd he declares that:\n\n\"The Southern States imposed upon the colored race onerous disabilities\nand burdens--curtailed their rights in the pursuit of liberty and\nproperty, to such an extent that their freedom was of little value,\nwhile the colored people had lost the protection which they had received\nfrom their former owners from motives of interest.\"\n\nAnd that:\n\n\"The colored people in some States were forbidden to appear in the towns\nin any other character than that of menial servants--that they were\nrequired to reside on the soil without the right to purchase or\nown it--that they were excluded from many occupations of gain and\nprofit--that they were not permitted to give testimony in the courts\nwhere white men were on trial--and it was said that their lives were\nat the mercy of bad men, either because laws for their protection were\ninsufficient, or were not enforced.\"\n\nWe are informed by the Supreme Court that, \"under these circumstances,\"\nthe proposition for the 14th Amendment was passed through Congress, and\nthat Congress declined to treat as restored to full participation in\nthe Government of the Union, the States which had been in insurrection,\nuntil they ratified that article by a formal vote of their legislative\nbodies.\n\nThus it will be seen that the rebel States were restored to the Union\nby adopting the 14th Amendment. In order to become equal members of the\nFederal Union, these States solemnly agreed to carry out the provisions\nof that amendment.\n\nThe 14th Amendment provides that:\n\n\"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to\nthe jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the\nState wherein they reside.\"\n\nThat is affirmative in its character. That affirmation imposes\nthe obligation upon the General Government to protect its citizens\neverywhere. That affirmation clothes the Federal Government with power\nto protect its citizens. Under that clause, the Federal arm can reach to\nthe boundary of the Republic, for the purpose of protecting the weakest\ncitizen from the tyranny of citizens or States. That clause is a\ncontract between the Government and every man--a contract wherein the\ncitizen promises allegiance, and the nation promises protection.\n\nBy this clause, the Federal Government adopted all the citizens of all\nthe States and Territories, including the District of Columbia, and\nplaced them under the shield of the Constitution--made each one a ward\nof the Republic.\n\nUnder this contract, the Government is under direct obligation to the\ncitizen. The Government cannot shirk its responsibility by leaving\na citizen to be protected in his rights, as a citizen of the United\nStates, by a State. The obligation of protection is direct. The\nobligation on the part of the citizen to the Government is direct. The\ncitizen cannot be untrue to the Government because his State is, The\naction of the State under the 14th Amendment is no excuse for the\ncitizen. He must be true to the Government. In war, the Government has a\nright to his service. In peace, he has the right to be protected.\n\nIf the citizen must depend upon the State, then he owes the first\nallegiance to that government or power that is under obligation to\nprotect him. Then, if a State secedes from the Union, the citizen should\ngo with the State--should go with the power that protects.\n\nThat is not my doctrine. My doctrine is this: The first duty of the\nGeneral Government is to protect each citizen. The first duty of each\ncitizen is to be true--not to his State, but to the Republic.\n\nThis clause of the 14th Amendment made us all citizens of the United\nStates--all children of the Republic. Under this decision, the Republic\nrefuses to acknowledge her children. Under this decision of the Supreme\nCourt, they are left upon the doorsteps of the States. Citizens are\nchanged to foundlings.\n\nIf the 14th Amendment created citizens of the United States, the power\nthat created must define the rights of the citizens thus created, and\nmust provide a remedy where such rights are infringed. The Federal\nGovernment speaks through its representatives--through Congress;\nand Congress, by the Civil Rights Act, defined some of the rights,\nprivileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States--and\nCongress provided a remedy when such rights and privileges were invaded,\nand gave jurisdiction to the Federal courts.\n\nNo State, or the department of any State, can authoritatively define\nthe rights, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States.\nThese rights and immunities must be defined by the United States, and\nwhen so defined, they cannot be abridged by State authority.\n\nIn the case of Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wall., p. 140, Justice Field, in\na concurring opinion, speaking of the 14th Amendment, says:\n\n\"It grew out of the feeling that a nation which had been maintained by\nsuch costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless, if a citizen could not\nbe protected in all his fundamental rights, everywhere--North and South,\nEast and West--throughout the limits of the Republic. The amendment\nwas not, as held in the opinion of the majority, primarily intended to\nconfer citizenship on the negro race. It had a much broader purpose.\nIt was intended to justify legislation extending the protection of the\nNational Government over the common rights of all citizens of the United\nStates, and thus obviate objection to the legislation adopted for the\nprotection of the emancipated race. It was intended to make it possible\nfor all persons--which necessarily included those of every race and\ncolor--to live in peace and security wherever the jurisdiction of\nthe nation reached. It therefore recognized, if it did not create,\na national citizenship. This national citizenship is primary and not\nsecondary.\".\n\nI cannot refrain from calling attention to the splendor and nobility of\nthe truths expressed by Justice Field in this opinion.\n\nSo, Justice Field, in his dissenting opinion in what are known as _The\nSlaughter-House Cases_, found in 16 Wallace, p. 95, still speaking of\nthe 14th Amendment, says:\n\n\"It recognizes in express terms--if it does not create--citizens of the\nUnited States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the\nplace of their birth or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the\nconstitution or laws of any State, or the condition of their ancestry.\n\n\"A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing\nin that State. The fundamental rights, privileges and immunities which\nbelong to him as a free man and a free citizen of the United States, are\nnot dependent upon the citizenship of any State. * * *\n\n\"They do not derive their existence from its legislation, and cannot be\ndestroyed by its power.\"\n\nWhat are \"the fundamental rights, privileges and immunities\" which\nbelong to a free man? Certainly the rights of all citizens of the United\nStates are equal. Their immunities and privileges must be the same.\nHe who makes a discrimination between citizens on account of color,\nviolates the Constitution of the United States.\n\nHave all citizens the same right to travel on the highways of the\ncountry? Have they all the same right to ride upon the railways created\nby State authority? A railway is an improved highway. It was only by\nholding that it was an improved highway that counties and States aided\nin their construction. It has been decided, over and over again, that a\nrailway is an improved highway. A railway corporation is the creation\nof a State--an agent of the State. It is under the control of the\nState--and upon what principle can a citizen be prevented from using the\nhighways of a State on an equality with all other citizens?\n\nThese are all rights and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution of\nthe United States.\n\nNow, the question is--and it is the only question--can these rights\nand immunities, thus guaranteed and thus confirmed, be protected by the\nGeneral Government?\n\nIn the case of _The U. S. vs. Reese, et al._, 92 U. S., p. 207,\nthe Supreme Court decided, the opinion having been delivered by\nChief-Justice Waite, as follows:\n\n\"Rights and immunities created by, and dependent upon, the Constitution\nof the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and the\nmanner of the protection may be such as Congress in the legitimate\nexercise of its legislative discretion shall provide. This may be varied\nto meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected.\"\n\nThis decision was acquiesced in by Justices Strong, Bradley, Swayne,\nDavis, Miller and Field. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justices\nClifford and Hunt, but neither dissented from the proposition that:\n\n\"Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of\nthe United States can be protected by Congress,\" and that \"the form and\nmanner of the protection may be such as Congress in the exercise of its\nlegitimate discretion shall provide.\"\n\nSo, in the same case, I find this language:\n\n\"It follows that the Amendment\"--meaning the 15th--\"has invested the\ncitizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which\nis within the protecting power of Congress. This, under the express\nprovisions of the second section of the Amendment, Congress may enforce\nby appropriate legislation.\"\n\nIf the 15th Amendment invested the citizens of the United States with\na new constitutional right--that is, the right to vote--and if for that\nreason that right is within the protecting power of Congress, then I\nask, if the 14th Amendment made certain persons citizens of the United\nStates, did such citizenship become a constitutional right? And is such\ncitizenship within the protecting power of Congress? Does citizenship\nmean anything except certain \"rights, privileges and immunities\"?\n\nIs it not an invasion of citizenship to invade the immunities or\nprivileges or rights belonging to a citizen? Are not, then, all the\nimmunities and privileges and rights under the protecting power of\nCongress?\n\nThe 13th Amendment found the negro a slave, and made him a free man.\nThat gave to him a new constitutional right, and according to the\nSupreme Court, that right is within the protecting power of Congress.\n\nWhat rights are within the protecting power of Congress? All the rights\nbelonging to a free man.\n\nThe 14th Amendment made the negro a citizen. What then is under the\nprotecting power of Congress? All the rights, privileges and immunities\nbelonging to him as a citizen.\n\nSo, in the case of _Tennessee vs, Davis_, 100 U, S,, 263, the Supreme\nCourt, held that:\n\n\"The United States is a government whose authority extends over the\nwhole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States, and upon all\nthe people of all the States.\n\n\"No State can exclude the Federal Government from the exercise of any\nauthority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or withhold from it\nfor a moment the cognizance of any subject which the Constitution has\ncommitted to it.\"\n\nThis opinion was given by Justice Strong, and acquiesced in by\nChief-Justice Waite, Justices Miller, Swayne, Bradley and Harlan.\n\nSo in the case of _Pensacola Tel. Co. vs. Western Union Tel. Co_., 96 U.\nS., p. 10, the opinion having been delivered by Chief-Justice Waite, I\nfind this:\n\n\"The Government of the United States, within the scope of its power,\noperates upon every foot of territory under its jurisdiction. It\nlegislates for the whole Nation, and is not embarrassed by State lines.\"\n\nThis was acquiesced in by Justices Clifford, Strong, Bradley, Swayne and\nMiller.\n\nSo we are told by the entire Supreme Court in the case of _Tiernan vs.\nRynker_, 102 U. S., 126, that:\n\n\"When the subject to which the power applies is national in its\ncharacter, or of such a nature as to admit of uniformity of regulation,\nthe power is exclusive of State authority.\"\n\nSurely the question of citizenship is \"national in its character.\"\nSurely the question as to what are the rights, privileges and immunities\nof a citizen of the United States is \"national in its character.\"\n\nUnless the declarations and definitions, the patriotic paragraphs, and\nthe legal principles made, given, uttered and defined by the Supreme\nCourt are but a judicial jugglery of words, the Civil Rights Act is\nupheld by the intent, spirit and language of the 14th Amendment.\n\nIt was found that the 13th Amendment did not protect the negro. Then the\n14th was adopted. Still the colored citizen was trodden under foot. Then\nthe 15th was adopted. The 13th made him free, and, in my judgment, made\nhim a citizen, and clothed him with all the rights of a citizen. That\nwas denied, and then the 14th declared that he was a citizen. In my\njudgment, that gave him the right to vote. But that was denied--then\nthe 15th was adopted, declaring that his right to vote should never be\ndenied.\n\nThe 13th Amendment made all free. It broke the chains, pulled up the\nwhipping-posts, overturned the auction-blocks, gave the colored mother\nher child, put the shield of the Constitution over the cradle, destroyed\nall forms of involuntary servitude, and in the azure heaven of our flag\nit put the Northern Star.\n\nThe 14th Amendment made us all citizens. It is a contract between the\nRepublic and each individual--a contract by which the Nation agrees to\nprotect the citizen, and the citizen agrees to defend the Nation. This\namendment placed the crown of sovereignty on every brow.\n\nThe 15th Amendment secured the citizen in his right to vote, in his\nright to make and execute the laws, and put these rights above the\npower of any State. This amendment placed the ballot--the sceptre of\nauthority--in every sovereign hand.\n\nWe are told by the Supreme Court, in the case under discussion, that:\n\n\"We must not forget that the province and scope of the 13th and 14th\nAmendments are different;\" that the 13th Amendment \"simply abolished\nslavery,\" and that the 14th Amendment \"prohibited the States from\nabridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United\nStates; from depriving them of life, liberty or property, without due\nprocess of law; and from denying to any the equal protection of the\nlaws.\"\n\nWe are told that:\n\n\"The amendments are different, and the powers of Congress under them are\ndifferent. What Congress has power to do under one it may not have power\nto do under the other.\" That \"under the 13th Amendment it has only to do\nwith slavery and its incidents;\" but that \"under the 14th Amendment\nit has power to counteract and render nugatory all State laws or\nproceedings which have the effect to abridge any of the privileges or\nimmunities of the citizens of the United States, or to deprive them of\nlife, liberty or property, without due process of law, or to deny to any\nof them the equal protection of the laws.\"\n\nDid not Congress have that power under the 13th Amendment? Could the\nStates, in spite of the 13th Amendment, deprive free men of life or\nproperty without due process of law? Does the Supreme Court wish to be\nunderstood, that until the 14th Amendment was adopted the States had\nthe right to rob and kill free men? Yet, in its effort to narrow and\nbelittle the 13th Amendment, it has been driven to this absurdity. Did\nnot Congress, under the 13th Amendment, have power to destroy slavery\nand involuntary servitude? Did not Congress, under that amendment, have\nthe power to protect the lives, liberty and property of free men? And\ndid not Congress have the power \"to render nugatory all State laws and\nproceedings under which free men were to be deprived of life, liberty or\nproperty, without due process of law\"?\n\nIf Congress was not clothed with such power by the 13th Amendment, what\nwas the object of that amendment? Was that amendment a mere opinion, or\na prophecy, or the expression of a hope?\n\nThe 14th Amendment provides that:\n\n\"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the\nprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall\nany State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due\nprocess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal\nprotection of its laws.\"\n\nWe are told by the Supreme Court that Congress has no right to enforce\nthe 14th Amendment by direct legislation, but that the legislation under\nthat amendment can only be of a \"corrective\" character--such as may\nbe necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect\nof unconstitutional laws passed by the States. In other words, that\nCongress has no duty to perform, except to counteract the effect of\nunconstitutional laws by corrective legislation.\n\nThe Supreme Court has also decided, in the present case, that Congress\nhas no right to legislate for the purpose of enforcing these clauses\nuntil the States shall have taken action. What action can the State\ntake? If a State passes laws contrary to these provisions or clauses,\nthey are void. If a State passes laws in conformity to these\nprovisions, certainly Congress is not called on to legislate. Under\nwhat circumstances, then, can Congress be called upon to act by way\nof \"corrective\" legislation, as to these particular clauses? What can\nCongress do? Suppose the State passes no law upon the subject, but\nallows citizens of the State--managers of railways, and keepers of\npublic inns, to discriminate between their passengers and guests on\naccount of race or color--what then?\n\nAgain, what is the difference between a State that has no law on the\nsubject, and a State that has passed an unconstitutional law? In other\nwords, what is the difference between no law and a void law? If the\n\"corrective\" legislation of Congress is not needed where the State has\npassed an unconstitutional law, is it needed where the State has passed\nno law? What is there in either case to correct? Surely it requires no\nparticular legislation on the part of Congress to kill a law that never\nhad life.\n\nThe States are prohibited by the Constitution from making any\nregulations of foreign commerce. Consequently, all regulations made by\nthe States are null and void, no matter what the motive of the States\nmay have been, and it requires no law of Congress to annul such laws or\nregulations. This was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,\nlong ago, in what are known as _The License Cases_. The opinion may be\nfound in the 5th of Howard, 583.\n\n\"The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced\nby the declaration that the Constitution is supreme.\"\n\nThis was decided by the Supreme Court, the opinion having been delivered\nby Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of _Gibbons vs. Ogden_, 9 Wheat,\n210.\n\nThe same doctrine was held in the case of _Henderson et al., vs. Mayor\nof New York, et al._, 92 U. S. 272--the opinion of the Court being\ndelivered by Justice Miller.\n\nSo it was held in the case of _The Board of Liquidation vs. McComb_--2\nOtto, 541.\n\n\"That an unconstitutional law will be treated by the courts as null and\nvoid\"--citing _Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States_, 9 Wheaton,\n859, and _Davis vs. Gray_, 16 Wallace, 220.\n\nNow, if the legislation of Congress must be \"corrective,\" then I ask,\ncorrective of what? Certainly not of unconstitutional and void laws.\nThat which is void, cannot be corrected. That which is unconstitutional\nis not the subject of correction. Congress either has the right to\nlegislate directly, or not at all; because indirect or corrective\nlegislation can apply only, according to the Supreme Court, to\nunconstitutional and void laws that have been passed by a Stale; and\nas such laws cannot be \"corrected,\" the doctrine of \"corrective\nlegislation\" dies an extremely natural death.\n\nA State can do one of three things: 1. It can pass an unconstitutional\nlaw; 2. It can pass a constitutional law; 3. It can fail to pass any\nlaw. The unconstitutional law, being void, cannot be corrected. The\nconstitutional law does not need correction. And where no law has been\npassed, correction is impossible.\n\nThe Supreme Court insists that Congress can not take action until the\nState does. A State that fails to pass any law on the subject, has not\ntaken action. This leaves the person whose immunities and privileges\nhave been invaded, with no redress except such as he may find in the\nState Courts in a suit at law; and if the State Court takes the\nsame view that is apparently taken by the Supreme Court in this\ncase,--namely, that it is a \"social question,\" one not to be regulated\nby law, and not covered in any way by the Constitution--then,\ndiscrimination can be made against citizens by landlords and railway\nconductors, and they are left absolutely without remedy.\n\nThe Supreme Court asks, in this decision,\n\n\"Can the act of a mere individual--the owner of the inn, or public\nconveyance, or place of amusement, refusing the accommodation, be\njustly regarded as imposing any badge of slavery or servitude upon\nthe applicant, or only as inflicting an ordinary civil injury properly\ncognizable by the laws of the State, and presumably subject to redress\nby those laws, until the contrary appears?\"\n\nHow is \"the contrary to appear\"? Suppose a person denied equal\nprivileges upon the railway on account of race and color, brings suit\nand is defeated? And suppose the highest tribunal of the State holds\nthat the question is of a \"social\" character--what then? If, to use the\nlanguage of the Supreme Court, it is \"an ordinary civil injury,\nimposing no badge of slavery or servitude,\" then, no Federal question is\ninvolved.\n\nWhy did not the Supreme Court tell us what may be done when \"the\ncontrary appears\"? Nothing is clearer than the intention of the Supreme\nCourt in this case--and that is, to decide that denying to a man equal\naccommodations at public inns on account of race or color, is not an\nabridgment of a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States,\nand that such person, so denied, is not in a condition of involuntary\nservitude, or denied the equal protection of the laws. In other\nwords--that it is a \"social question.\"\n\nI have been told by one who heard the decision when it was read from the\nbench, that the following phrase was in the opinion:\n\n\"_There are certain physiological differences of race that cannot be\nignored_.\"\n\nThat phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole decision should\nbe read.\n\nSuppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes being in a\ndecided majority and having entire control, had drawn the color line,\nhad insisted that:\n\n\"There were certain physiological differences between the races that\ncould not be ignored,\" and had refused to allow white people to enter\ntheir hotels, to ride in the best cars, or to occupy the aristocratic\nportion of a theatre; and suppose that a white man, thrust from the\nhotels, denied the entrance to cars, had brought his suit in the Federal\nCourt. Does any one believe that the Supreme Court would have intimated\nto that man that \"there is only a social question involved,--a question\nwith which the Constitution and laws have nothing to do, and that he\nmust depend for his remedy upon the authors of the injury\"? Would a\nwhite man, under such circumstances, feel that he was in a condition of\ninvoluntary servitude? Would he feel that he was treated like an\nunderling, like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was under\nthe protection of the laws, shielded like other men by the Constitution?\nOf course, the argument of color is just as strong on one side as on the\nother. The white man says to the black, \"You are not my equal because\nyou are black;\" and the black man can with the same propriety, reply,\n\"You are not my equal because you are white.\" The difference is just as\ngreat in the one case as in the other. The pretext that this question\ninvolves, in the remotest degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow,\nand absurd.\n\nThe Supreme Court, some time ago, held that the 4th Section of the Civil\nRights Act was constitutional. That section declares that:\n\n\"No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or maybe\nprescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit\njuror in any court of the United States or of any State, on account of\ncolor or previous condition of servitude.\"\n\nIt also provides that:\n\n\"If any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection\nor summoning of jurors, shall exclude, or fail to summon, any citizen\nin the case aforesaid, he shall, on conviction, be guilty of misdemeanor\nand be fined not more than five hundred dollars.\"\n\nIn the case known as _Ex-parte vs. Virginia_--found in 100 U. S. 339--it\nwas held that an indictment against a State officer, under this section,\nfor excluding persons of color from the jury, could be sustained. Now,\nlet it be remembered, there was no law of the State of Virginia, by\nvirtue of which a man was disqualified from sitting on the jury by\nreason of race or color. The officer did exclude, and did fail to\nsummon, a citizen on account of race or color or previous condition of\nservitude. And the Supreme Court held:\n\n\"That whether the Statute-book of the State actually laid down any\nsuch rule of disqualification or not, the State, through its officer,\nenforced such rule; and that it was against such State action, through\nits officers and agents, that the last clause of the section was\ndirected.\"\n\nThe Court further held that:\n\n\"This aspect of the law was deemed sufficient to divest it of any\nunconstitutional character.\"\n\nIn other words, the Supreme Court held that the officer was an agent\nof the State, although acting contrary to the statute of the State; and\nthat, consequently, such officer, acting outside of law, was amenable\nto the Civil Rights Act, under the 14th Amendment, that referred only\nto States. The question arises: Is a State responsible for the action of\nits agent when acting contrary to law? In other words: Is the principal\nbound by the acts of his agent, that act not being within the scope of\nhis authority? Is a State liable--or is the Government liable--for the\nact of any officer, that act not being authorized by law?\n\nIt has been decided a thousand times, that a State is not liable for\nthe torts and trespasses of its officers. How then can the agent, acting\noutside of his authority, be prosecuted under a law deriving its entire\nvalidity from a constitutional amendment applying only to States? Does\nan officer, by acting contrary to State law, become so like a State that\nthe word State, used in the Constitution, includes him?\n\nSo it was held in the case of _Neal vs. Delaware_,--103 U. S.,\n307,--that an officer acting contrary to the laws of the State--in\ndefiance of those laws--would be amenable to the Civil Rights Act,\npassed under an amendment to the Constitution now held applicable only\nto States.\n\nIt is admitted, and expressly decided in the case of _The U. S. vs.\nReese et al._, (already quoted) that when the wrongful refusal at an\nelection is because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,\nCongress can interfere and provide for the punishment of any individual\nguilty of such refusal, no matter whether such individual acted under or\nagainst the authority of the State.\n\nWith this statement I most heartily agree. I agree that:\n\n\"When the wrongful refusal is because of race, color, or previous\ncondition of servitude, Congress can interfere and provide for the\npunishment of any individual guilty of such refusal.\"\n\nThat is the key that unlocks the whole question. Congress has\npower--full, complete, and ample,--to protect all citizens from unjust\ndiscrimination, and from being deprived of equal privileges on account\nof race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And this language is\njust as applicable to the 13th and 14th, as to the 15th Amendment. If\na citizen is denied the accommodations of a public inn, or a seat in\na railway car, on account of race or color, or deprived of liberty on\naccount of race or color, the Constitution has been violated, and the\ncitizen thus discriminated against or thus deprived of liberty, is\nentitled to redress in a Federal Court.\n\nIt is held by the Supreme Court that the word \"State\" does not apply\nto the \"people\" of the State--that it applies only to the agents of\nthe people of the State. And yet, the word \"State,\" as used in the\nConstitution, has been held to include not only the persons in\noffice, but the people who elected them--not only the agents, but the\nprincipals. In the Constitution it is provided that \"no State shall\ncoin money; and no State shall emit bills of credit.\" According to this\ndecision, any person in any State, unless prevented by State authority,\nhas the right to coin money and to emit bills of credit, and Congress\nhas no power to legislate upon the subject--provided he does not\ncounterfeit any of the coins or current money of the United States.\nCongress would have to deal--not with the individuals, but with the\nState; and unless the State had passed some act allowing persons to coin\nmoney, or emit bills of credit, Congress could do nothing. Yet, long\nago, Congress passed a statute preventing any person in any State from\ncoining money. No matter if a citizen should coin it of pure gold, of\nthe requisite fineness and weight, and not in the likeness of United\nStates coins, he would be a criminal. We have a silver dollar, coined by\nthe Government, worth eighty-five cents; and yet, if any person, in any\nState, should coin what he called a dollar, not like our money, but with\na dollar's worth of silver in it, he would be guilty of a crime.\n\nIt may be said that the Constitution provides that Congress shall have\npower to coin money, and provide for the punishment of counterfeiting\nthe securities and current coin of the United States; in other words,\nthat the Constitution gives power to Congress to coin money and denies\nit to the States, not only, but gives Congress the power to legislate\nagainst counterfeiting. So, in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments,\npower is given to Congress, and power is denied to the States, not\nonly, but Congress is expressly authorized to enforce the amendments by\nappropriate legislation. Certainly the power is as broad in the one case\nas in the other; and in both cases, individuals can be reached as well\nas States.\n\nSo the Constitution provides that:\n\n\"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several\nStates.\"\n\nUnder this clause Congress deals directly with individuals. The States\nare not engaged in commerce, but the people are; and Congress makes\nrules and regulations for the government of the people so engaged.\n\nThe Constitution also provides that:\n\n\"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes.\"\n\nIt was held in the case of _The United States vs. Holliday_, 3 Wall.,\n407, that:\n\n\"Commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the individuals\ncomposing those tribes.\"\n\nAnd under this clause it has been further decided that Congress has\nthe power to regulate commerce not only between white people and Indian\ntribes, but between Indian tribes; and not only that, but between\nindividual Indians. _Worcester vs. The State, 6 Pet., 575; The United\nStates vs. 4.3 Gallons, 93 U. S., 188; The United States vs. Shawmux, 2\nSaw., 304._\n\nNow, if the word \"tribe\" includes individual Indians, may not the word\n\"State\" include citizens?\n\nIn this decision it is admitted by the Supreme Court that where a\nsubject is submitted to the general legislative power of Congress, then\nCongress has plenary powers of legislation over the whole subject. Let\nus apply these words to the 13th Amendment. In this very decision I find\nthat the 13th Amendment:\n\n\"By its own unaided force and effect, abolished slavery and established\nuniversal freedom.\"\n\nThe Court admits that:\n\n\"Legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases\nand circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of\nredress for its violation in letter or spirit.\"\n\nThe Court further admits:\n\n\"And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character.\"\n\nAnd then gives the reason:\n\n\"For the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing\nor upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or\ninvoluntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.\"\n\nI now ask, has that subject--that is to say, Liberty,--been submitted to\nthe general legislative power of Congress? The 13th Amendment provides\nthat Congress shall have power to enforce that amendment by appropriate\nlegislation.\n\nIn construing the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act,\nit seems to me that the Supreme Court has forgotten the principle of\nconstruction that has been laid down so often by courts, and that is\nthis: that in construing statutes, courts may look to the history and\ncondition of the country as circumstances from which to gather the\nintention of the Legislature. So it seems to me that the Court failed\nto remember the rule laid down by Story in the case of _Prigg vs. The\nCommonwealth of Pennsylvania,_ 16 Pet., 611, a rule laid down in the\ninterest of slavery--laid down for the purpose of depriving human beings\nof their liberty:\n\n\"Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation, after all, will be found to\nbe to look to the nature and objects of the particular powers, duties\nand rights with all the lights and aids of contemporary history, and to\ngive to the words of each just such operation and force consistent\nwith their legitimate meaning, as may fairly secure and attain the ends\nproposed.\"\n\nIt must be admitted that certain rights were conferred by the 13th\nAmendment. Surely certain rights were conferred by the 14th Amendment;\nand these rights should be protected and upheld by the Federal\nGovernment. And it was held in the case last cited, that:\n\n\"If by one mode of interpretation the right must become shadowy and\nunsubstantial, and without any remedial power adequate to the end, and\nby another mode it will attain its just end and secure its manifest\npurpose--it would seem, upon principles of reasoning absolutely\nirresistable, that the latter ought to prevail. No court of justice can\nbe authorized so as to construe any clauses of the Constitution as to\ndefeat its obvious ends, when another construction, equally accordant\nwith the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.\"\n\nIn the present case, the Supreme Court holds, that Congress can not\nlegislate upon this subject until the State has passed some law contrary\nto the Constitution.\n\nI call attention in reply to this, to the case of _Hall vs. De Cuir,_\n95 U. S., 486. The State of Louisiana, in 1869, acting in the spirit of\nthese amendments to the Constitution, passed a law requiring that all\npersons engaged within that State in the business of common carriers of\npassengers, should make no discrimination on account of race, color, or\nprevious condition of servitude. Under this law, Mrs. De Cuir, a colored\nwoman, took passage on a steamer, buying a ticket from New Orleans to\nHermitage--the entire trip being within the limits of the State. The\ncaptain of the boat refused to give her equal accommodations with other\npassengers--the refusal being on the ground of her color. She commenced\nsuit against the captain in the State Court of Louisiana, and recovered\njudgment for one thousand dollars. The defendant appealed to the Supreme\nCourt of that State, and the judgment of the lower court was sustained.\nThereupon, the captain died, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court\nof the United States by his administrator, on the ground that a Federal\nquestion was involved.\n\nYou will see that this was a case where the State had acted, and had\nacted exactly in accordance with the constitutional amendments, and had\nby law provided that the privileges and immunities of the citizen of\nthe United States--residing in the State of Louisiana--should not be\nabridged, and that no distinction should be made on account of race or\ncolor. But in that case the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly\ndecided that the legislation of the State was void--that the State of\nLouisiana had no right to interfere--no right, by law, to protect a\ncitizen of the United States from being discriminated against under such\ncircumstances.\n\nYou will remember that the plaintiff, Mrs. De Cuir, was to be carried\nfrom New Orleans to Hermitage, and that both places were within the\nState of Louisiana. Notwithstanding this, the Supreme Court held:\n\n\"That if the public good required such legislation, it must come from\nCongress and not from the State.\"\n\nWhat reason do you suppose was given? It was this: The Constitution\ngives to Congress power to regulate commerce between the States; and\nit appeared from the evidence given in that case, that the boat plied\nbetween the ports of New Orleans and Vicksburg. Consequently, it was\nengaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, it was under the protection\nof Congress; and being under the protection of Congress, the State had\nno authority to protect its citizens by a law in perfect harmony with\nthe Constitution of the United States, while such citizens were within\nthe limits of Louisiana. The Supreme Court scorns the protection of a\nState!\n\nIn the case recently decided, and about which we are talking to-night,\nthe Supreme Court decides exactly the other way. It decides that if the\npublic good requires such legislation, it must come from the States, and\nnot from Congress; that Congress cannot act until the State has acted,\nand until the State has acted wrong, and that Congress can then only act\nfor the purpose of \"correcting\" such State action. The decision in _Hall\nvs. De Cuir_ was rendered in 1877. The Civil Rights Act was then in\nforce, and applied to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United\nStates, and provided expressly that:\n\n\"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall\nbe entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,\nprivileges, and facilities of inns, public conveyances on land or water,\ntheatres, and other places of public amusement, without regard to race\nor color.\"\n\nAnd yet the Supreme Court said:\n\n\"No carrier of passengers can conduct his business with satisfaction to\nhimself, or comfort to those employing him, if on one side of a State\nline his passengers, both white and colored, must be permitted to occupy\nthe same cabin, and on the other to be kept separate.\"\n\nWhat right had the other State to pass a law that passengers should be\nkept separate, on account of race or color? How could such a law have\nbeen constitutional? The Civil Rights Act applied to all States, and\nto both sides of the lines between all States, and produced absolute\nuniformity--and did not put the captain to the trouble of dividing his\npassengers. The Court further said:\n\n\"Uniformity in the regulations by which the carrier is to be governed\nfrom one end to the other of his route, is a necessity in his business.\"\n\nThe uniformity had been guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, and the\nstatute of the State of Louisiana was in exact conformity with the 14th\nAmendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Court also said:\n\n\"And to secure uniformity, Congress, which is untrammeled by State\nlines, has been invested with the exclusive power of determining what\nsuch regulations shall be.\"\n\nYes. Congress has been invested with such power, and Congress has used\nit in passing the Civil Rights Act--and yet, under these circumstances,\nthe Court proceeds to imagine the difficulty that a captain would have\nin dividing his passengers as he crosses a State line, keeping them\napart until he reaches the line of another State, and then bringing\nthem together, and so going on through the process of dispersing and\nhuddling, to the end of his unfortunate route.\n\nIt is held by the Supreme Court, that uniformity of duties is essential\nto the carrier, and so essential, that Congress has control of the whole\nmatter. If uniformity is so desirable for the carrier that Congress\ntakes control, then uniformity as to the rights of passengers is equally\ndesirable; and under the 13th and 14th Amendments, Congress has the\nexclusive power to state what the rights, privileges and immunities of\npassengers shall be. So that, in 1877, the Supreme Court decided that\nthe _States could not_ legislate; and in 1883, that _Congress could\nnot_, unless the State had. If Congress controls interstate commerce\nupon the navigable waters, it also controls interstate commerce upon the\nrailways. And if Congress has exclusive jurisdiction in the one case, it\nhas in the other. And if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it does not\nhave to wait until States take action. If it does not have to wait until\nStates take action, then the Civil Rights Act, in so far as it refers\nto the rights of passengers going from one State to another, must be\nconstitutional.\n\nIt must be remembered, in this discussion, that the 8th Section of the\nConstitution conferred upon Congress the power:\n\n\"To make all laws that may be necessary and proper for carrying into\nexecution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the\nUnited States.\"\n\nSo the 2nd Section of the 13th Article provides:\n\n\"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate\nlegislation.\"\n\nThe same language is used in the 14th and 15th Amendments.\n\n\"This clause does not limit--it enlarges--the powers vested in the\nGeneral Government. It is an additional power--not a restriction on\nthose already granted. It does not impair the right of the Legislature\nto exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry\ninto execution the constitutional powers of the Government. A sound\nconstruction of the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature\nthat discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers\nare to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform\nthe high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the\npeople. Let the end be legitimate--let it be within the scope of the\nConstitution, and all means which are appropriate--which are plainly\nadapted to that end--are constitutional.\"\n\nThis is the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of\n_M'Caulay, vs. The State_, 4 Wheaton, 316.\n\n\"Congress must possess the choice of means, and must be empowered to use\nany means which are in fact conducive to the exercise of a power granted\nby the Constitution.\" U. S. vs. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358.\n\nAgain:\n\n\"The power of Congress to pass laws to enforce rights conferred by\nthe Constitution is not limited to the express powers of legislation\nenumerated in the Constitution. The powers which are necessary and\nproper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given and duties\nexpressly enjoined, are always implied. The end being given, the means\nto accomplish it are given also.\" _Prigs vs. The Commonwealth_, 16\nPeters, 539.\n\nThis decision was delivered by Justice Story, and is the same one\nalready referred to, in which liberty was taken from a human being by\njudicial construction. It was held in that case that the 2nd Section\nof the 4th Article of the Constitution, to which I have already called\nattention, contained \"a positive and unqualified recognition of\nthe right\" of the owner in a slave, unaffected by any State law or\nregulation. If this is so, then I assert that the 13th Amendment\n\"contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right\" of every\nhuman being to liberty; that the 14th Amendment \"contains a positive and\nunqualified recognition of the right\" to citizenship; and that the 15th\nAmendment \"contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right\"\nto vote.\n\nJustice Story held in that case that:\n\n\"Under and by virtue of that section of the Constitution the owner of a\nslave was clothed with entire authority in every State in the nation to\nseize and recapture his slave.\"\n\nHe also held that:\n\n\"In that sense, and to that extent, that clause of the Constitution\nmight properly be said to execute itself, and to require no aid from\nlegislation--State or National.\"\n\n\"But,\" says Justice Story:\n\n\"The clause of the Constitution does not stop there, but says that he,\nthe slave, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such\nservice or labor may be due.\"\n\nAnd he holds that:\n\n\"Under that clause of the section Congress became clothed with the\nappropriate authority to legislate for its enforcement.\"\n\nNow let us look at the 13th and 14th Amendments in the light of that\ndecision.\n\nFirst. Liberty and citizenship were given the colored people by this\namendment. And Justice Story tells us that:\n\n\"The power of Congress to enforce rights conferred by the Constitution\nis not limited to the express powers of legislation enumerated in the\nConstitution, but the powers which are necessary to protect such rights\nare always implied.\"\n\nLanguage cannot be stronger; words cannot be clearer. But now this\ndecision has been reversed by the Supreme Court, and Congress is left\npowerless to protect rights conferred by the Constitution. It has been\nshorn of implied powers. It has duties to perform, and no power to act.\nIt has rights to protect, but cannot choose the means. It is entangled\nin its own strength. It is a prisoner in the bastile of judicial\nconstruction.\n\nLet us go further. Justice Story tells us that:\n\n\"The words 'but shall be given up on the claim of the person to whom\nsuch labor or service may be due,' clothes Congress with the appropriate\nauthority to legislate for its enforcement.\"\n\nIn the light of this remark, let us look at the 14th Amendment:\n\n\"All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the\njurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State\nwherein they reside.\"\n\nTo which are added these words:\n\n\"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the\nprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall\nany State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due\nprocess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal\nprotection of the laws.\"\n\nNow, if the words: \"But shall be delivered up on claim of the party to\nwhom such service or labor may be due,\" clothes Congress with power to\nlegislate upon the entire subject, then I ask if the words in the\n14th Amendment declaring that \"no law shall be made by any State, or\nenforced, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens\nof the United States; and that no State shall deprive any person of\nlife, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any\nperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,\" does\nnot clothe Congress with the power to legislate upon the entire subject?\n\nIn the two cases there is only this difference: The first decision was\nmade in the interest of human slavery--made to protect property in man;\nand the second decision ought to have been made for exactly the opposite\npurpose. Under the first decision, Congress had the right to select the\nmeans--but now that is denied. And yet it was decided in _M'Cauley vs.\nThe State_, 4 Wheaton, 316, that:\n\n\"When the Government has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the\nduty of performing an act, then it must, according to the dictates of\nreason, be allowed to select the means.\"\n\nAgain:\n\n\"The Government has the right to employ freely every means not\nprohibited, for the fulfillment of its acknowledged duties.\"\n\n_The Legal Tender Cases_--12 Wallace, 457.\n\nIt will thus be seen that Congress has the undoubted right to make all\nlaws necessary for the exercise of all the powers vested in it by the\nConstitution. When the Constitution imposes a duty upon Congress, it\ngrants the necessary means. Congress certainly, then, has the right to\npass all necessary laws for the enforcement of the 13th, 14th and 15th\nAmendments. Any legislation is \"appropriate\" that is calculated to\naccomplish the end sought and that is not repugnant to the Constitution.\nWithin these limits Congress has the sovereign power of choice. No\nbetter definition of \"appropriate legislation\" has been given than\nthat by the Supreme Court of California, in the case of The People vs.\nWashington, 38 California, 658:\n\n\"Legislation which practically tends to facilitate the securing to\nall, through the aid of the judicial and executive departments of the\nGovernment, the full enjoyment of personal freedom, is appropriate.\"\n\nThe Supreme Court despairingly asks:\n\n\"If this legislation is appropriate for enforcing the prohibitions of\nthe Amendment, it is difficult to see where it is to stop. Why may not\nCongress, with equal show of authority, enact a code of laws for\nthe enforcement and vindication of all rights of life, liberty and\nproperty?\"\n\nMy answer is: The legislation will stop when and where the\ndiscriminations on account of race, color or previous condition of\nservitude, stop. Whenever an immunity or privilege of a citizen of the\nUnited States is trodden down by the State, or by an individual, under\nthe circumstances mentioned in the Civil Rights Act--that is to say,\non account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--then\nthe Federal Government must interfere. The Government must defend the\nimmunities and privileges of its citizens, not only from State invasion,\nbut from individual invaders, when that invasion is based upon the\ndistinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The\nGovernment has taken upon itself that duty. This duty can be discharged\nby a law making a uniform rule, obligatory not only upon States, but\nupon individuals. All this will stop when the discriminations stop.\n\nAfter such examination of the authorities as I have been able to make, I\nlay down the following propositions, namely:\n\n1. The sovereignty of a State extends only to that which exists by its\nown authority.\n\n2. The powers of the General Government were not conferred by the people\nof a single State; they were given by the people of the United States;\nand the laws of the United States, in pursuance of the Constitution, are\nsupreme over the entire Republic.\n\n3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of each\nState.\n\n4. The United States is a Government whose authority extends over the\nwhole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States and upon all\nthe people of all the States.\n\n5. No State can exclude the Federal Government from the exercise of any\nauthority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or withhold from it,\nfor a moment, the cognizance of any subject which that instrument has\ncommitted to it.\n\n6. It is the duty of Congress to enforce the Constitution, and it\nhas been clothed with power to make all laws necessary and proper for\ncarrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the\nGeneral Government.\n\n7. It is the duty of the Government to protect every citizen of the\nUnited States in all his rights, everywhere, without regard to race,\ncolor, or previous condition of servitude; and this the Government has\nthe right to do by direct legislation.\n\n8. Every citizen, when his privileges and immunities are invaded by the\nlegislature of a State, has the right of appeal from such. State to the\nSupreme Court of the nation.\n\n9. When a State fails to pass any law protecting a citizen from\ndiscrimination on account of race or color, and fails, in fact, to\nprotect such citizen, then such citizen has the right to find redress in\nthe Federal Courts.\n\n10. Whenever, in the Constitution, a State is prohibited from doing\nanything that in the nature of the thing can be done by any citizen of\nthat State, then the word \"State\" embraces and includes all the people\nof a State.\n\n11. The 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary\nservitude shall exist within the jurisdiction of the United States.\n\nThis is not a mere negation--it is a splendid affirmation. The duty is\nimposed upon the General Government by that amendment to see to it that\nneither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist.\n\nIt is a question absolutely within the power of the Federal Government,\nand the Federal Government is clothed with power to make all necessary\nlaws to enforce that amendment against States and persons.\n\n12. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in\nthe United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens\nof the United States and of the States wherein they reside. This is also\nan affirmation. It is not a prohibition. The moment that amendment was\nadopted, it became the duty of the United States to protect the citizens\nrecognized or created by that amendment. We are no longer citizens\nof the United States because we are citizens of a State, but we are\ncitizens of the United States because we have been born or have been\nnaturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States. It therefore\nfollows, that it is not only the right, but it is the duty, of Congress,\nto pass all laws necessary for the protection of citizens of the United\nStates.\n\n13. Congress can not shirk this responsibility by leaving citizens of\nthe United States to the care and keeping of the several States.\n\nThe recent decision of the Supreme Court cuts, as with a sword, the tie\nthat binds the citizen to the nation. Under the old Constitution, it was\nnot certainly known who were citizens of the United States. There were\ncitizens of the States, and such citizens looked to their several States\nfor protection. The Federal Government had no citizens. Patriotism did\nnot rest on mutual obligation. Under the 14th Amendment, we are all\ncitizens of a common country; and our first duty, our first obligation,\nour highest allegiance, is not to the State in which we reside, but\nto the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment tends to destroy State\nprejudices and lays a foundation for national patriotism.\n\n14. All statutes--all amendments to the Constitution--in derogation of\nnatural rights, should be strictly construed.\n\n15. All statutes and amendments for the preservation of natural\nrights should be liberally construed. Every court should, by strict\nconstruction, narrow the scope of every law that infringes upon any\nnatural human right; and every court should, by construction, give the\nbroadest meaning to every statute or constitutional provision passed or\nadopted for the preservation of freedom.\n\n16. In construing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Supreme Court\nneed not go back to decisions rendered in the days of slavery--when\nevery statute was construed in favor of the sovereignty of the State\nand the rights of the master. These amendments utterly obliterated such\ndecisions. The Supreme Court should begin with the amendments. It need\nnot look behind them. They are a part of the fundamental organic law of\nthe nation. They were adopted to destroy the old statutes, to obliterate\nthe infamous clauses in the Constitution, and to lay a new foundation\nfor a new nation.\n\n17. Congress has the power to eradicate all forms and incidents of\nslavery and involuntary servitude, by direct and primary legislation\nbinding upon States and individuals alike. And when citizens are denied\nthe exercise of common rights and privileges--when they are refused\nadmittance to public inns and railway cars, on an equality with white\npersons--and when such denial and refusal are based upon race and color,\nsuch citizens are in a condition of involuntary servitude.\n\nThe Supreme Court has failed to take into consideration the intention of\nthe framers of these amendments. It has failed to comprehend the spirit\nof the age. It has undervalued the accomplishment of the war. It has\nnot grasped in all their height and depth the great amendments to the\nConstitution and the real object of government. To preserve liberty is\nthe only use for government. There is no other excuse for legislatures,\nor presidents, or courts, for statutes or decisions. Liberty is not\nsimply a means--it is an end. Take from our history, our literature, our\nlaws, our hearts--that word, and we are naught but moulded clay. Liberty\nis the one priceless jewel. It includes and holds and is the weal and\nwealth of life. Liberty is the soil and light and rain--it is the plant\nand bud and flower and fruit--and in that sacred word lie all the seeds\nof progress, love and joy.\n\nThis decision, in my judgment, is not worthy of the Court by which\nit was delivered. It has given new life to the serpent of State\nSovereignty. It has breathed upon the dying embers of ignorant hate. It\nhas furnished food and drink, breath and blood, to prejudices that\nwere perishing of famine, and in the old case of _Civilization vs.\nBarbarism_, it has given the defendant a new trial.\n\nFrom this decision, John M. Harlan had the breadth of brain, the\ngoodness of heart, and the loyalty to logic, to dissent. By the fortress\nof Liberty, one sentinel remains at his post. For moral courage I have\nsupreme respect, and I admire that intellectual strength that breaks the\ncords and chains of prejudice and damned custom as though they were but\nthreads woven in a spider's loom. This judge has associated his name\nwith freedom, and he will be remembered as long as men are free.\n\nWe are told by the Supreme Court that:\n\n\"Slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property and lands and\ngoods can exist without law.\"\n\nI deny that property exists by virtue of law. I take exactly the\nopposite ground. It was the fact that man had property in lands and\ngoods, that produced laws for the protection of such property. The\nSupreme Court has mistaken an effect for a cause. Laws passed for the\nprotection of property, sprang from the possession and ownership of the\nthing to be protected. When one man enslaves another, it is a violation\nof all justice--a subversion of the foundation of all law. Statutes\npassed for the purpose of enabling man to enslave his fellow-man,\nresulted from a conspiracy entered into by the representatives of brute\nforce. Nothing can be more absurd than to call such a statute, born of\nsuch a conspiracy a law. According to the idea of the Supreme Court, man\nnever had property until he had passed a law upon the subject. The first\nman who gathered leaves upon which to sleep, did not own them, because\nno law had been passed on the leaf subject. The first man who gathered\nfruit--the first man who fashioned a club with which to defend himself\nfrom wild beasts, according to the Supreme Court, had no property\nin these things, because no laws had been passed, and no courts had\npublished their decisions.\n\nSo the defenders of monarchy have taken the ground that societies were\nformed by contract--as though at one time men all lived apart, and came\ntogether by agreement and formed a government. We might just as well\nsay that the trees got into groves by contract or conspiracy. Man is a\nsocial being. By living together there grow out of the relation, certain\nregulations, certain customs. These at last hardened into what we call\nlaw--into what we call forms of government--and people who wish to\ndefend the idea that we got everything from the king, say that our\nfathers made a contract. Nothing can be more absurd. Men did not agree\nupon a form of government and then come together; but being together,\nthey made rules for the regulation of conduct. Men did not make some\nlaws and then get some property to fit the laws, but having property\nthey made laws for its protection.\n\nIt is hinted by the Supreme Court that this is in some way a question of\nsocial equality. It is claimed that social equality cannot be enforced\nby law. Nobody thinks it can. This is not a question of social equality,\nbut of equal rights. A colored citizen has the same right to ride upon\nthe cars--to be fed and lodged at public inns, and to visit theatres,\nthat I have. Social equality is not involved.\n\nThe Federal soldiers who escaped from Libby and Andersonville, and who\nin swamps, in storm, and darkness, were rescued and fed by the slave,\nhad no scruples about eating with a negro. They were willing to sit\nbeneath the same tree and eat with him the food he brought. The white\nsoldier was then willing to find rest and slumber beneath the negro's\nroof. Charity has no color. It is neither white nor black. Justice and\nPatriotism are the same. Even the Confederate soldier was willing to\nleave his wife and children under the protection of a man whom he was\nfighting to enslave.\n\nDanger does not draw these nice distinctions as to race or color. Hunger\nis not proud. Famine is exceedingly democratic in the matter of food.\nIn the moment of peril, prejudices perish. The man fleeing for his life\ndoes not have the same ideas about social questions, as he who sits\nin the Capitol, wrapped in official robes. Position is apt to be\nsupercilious. Power is sometimes cruel. Prosperity is often heartless.\n\nThis cry about social equality is born of the spirit of caste--the most\nfiendish of all things. It is worse than slavery. Slavery is at least\njustified by avarice--by a desire to get something for nothing--by a\ndesire to live in idleness upon the labor of others--but the spirit of\ncaste is the offspring of natural cruelty and meanness.\n\nSocial relations depend upon almost an infinite number of influences\nand considerations. We have our likes and dislikes. We choose our\ncompanions. This is a natural right. You cannot force into my house\npersons whom I do not want. But there is a difference between a public\nhouse and a private house. The one is for the public. The private house\nis for the family and those they may invite. The landlord invites the\nentire public, and he must serve those who come if they are fit to be\nreceived. A railway is public, not private. It derives its powers and\nits rights from the State. It takes private land for public purposes.\nIt is incorporated for the good of the public, and the public must be\nserved. The railway, the hotel, and the theatre, have a right to make\na distinction between people of good and bad manners--between the clean\nand the unclean. There are white people who have no right to be in\nany place except a bath-tub, and there are colored people in the same\ncondition. An unclean white man should not be allowed to force himself\ninto a hotel, or into a railway car--neither should the unclean colored.\nWhat I claim is, that in public places, no distinction should be made on\naccount of race or color. The bad black man should be treated like the\nbad white man, and the good black man like the good white man. Social\nequality is not contended for--neither between white and white, black\nand black, nor between white and black.\n\nIn all social relations we should have the utmost liberty--but public\nduties should be discharged and public rights should be recognized,\nwithout the slightest discrimination on account of race or color.\nRiding in the same cars, stopping at the same inns, sitting in the same\ntheatres, no more involve a social question, or social equality, than\nspeaking the same language, reading the same books, hearing the same\nmusic, traveling on the same highway, eating the same food, breathing\nthe same air, warming by the same sun, shivering in the same cold,\ndefending the same flag, loving the same country, or living in the same\nworld.\n\nAnd yet, thousands of people are in deadly fear about social equality.\nThey imagine that riding with colored people is dangerous--that the\nchance acquaintance may lead to marriage. They wish to be protected from\nsuch consequences by law. They dare not trust themselves. They appeal\nto the Supreme Court for assistance, and wish to be barricaded by a\nconstitutional amendment. They are willing that colored women shall\nprepare their food--that colored waiters shall bring it to them--willing\nto ride in the same cars with the porters and to be shown to their\nseats in theatres by colored ushers--willing to be nursed in sickness by\ncolored servants. They see nothing dangerous--nothing repugnant, in any\nof these relations,--but the idea of riding in the same car, stopping at\nthe same hotel, fills them with fear--fear for the future of our race.\nSuch people can be described only in the language of Walt Whitman. \"They\nare the immutable, granitic pudding-heads of the world.\".\n\nLiberty is not a social question. Civil equality is not social equality.\nWe are equal only in rights. No two persons are of equal weight,\nor height. There are no two leaves in all the forests of the earth\nalike--no two blades of grass--no two grains of sand--no two hairs. No\ntwo any-things in the physical world are precisely alike. Neither mental\nnor physical equality can be created by law, but law recognizes the fact\nthat all men have been clothed with equal rights by Nature, the mother\nof us all.\n\nThe man who hates the black man because he is black, has the same spirit\nas he who hates the poor man because he is poor. It is the spirit\nof caste. The proud useless despises the honest useful. The parasite\nidleness scorns the great oak of labor on which it feeds, and that lifts\nit to the light.\n\nI am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot. Men\nare not superior by reason of the accidents of race or color. They are\nsuperior who have the best heart--the best brain. Superiority is born of\nhonesty, of virtue, of charity, and above all, of the love of liberty.\nThe superior man is the providence of the inferior. He is eyes for\nthe blind, strength for the weak, and a shield for the defenceless. He\nstands erect by bending above the fallen. He rises by lifting others.\n\nIn this country all rights must be preserved, all wrongs redressed,\nthrough the ballot. The colored man has in his possession in his care, a\npart of the sovereign power of the Republic. At the ballot-box he is\nthe equal of judges and senators, and presidents, and his vote, when\ncounted, is the equal of any other. He must use this sovereign power for\nhis own protection, and for the preservation of his children. The ballot\nis his sword and shield. It is his political providence. It is the rock\non which he stands, the column against which he leans. He should vote\nfor no man who dees not believe in equal rights for all--in the same\nprivileges and immunities for all citizens, irrespective of race or\ncolor.\n\nHe should not be misled by party cries, or by vague promises in\npolitical platforms. He should vote for the men, for the party, that\nwill protect him; for congressmen who believe in liberty, for judges who\nworship justice, whose brains are not tangled by technicalities, and whose\nhearts are not petrified by precedents; and for presidents who will\nprotect the blackest citizen from the tyranny of the whitest State. As\nyou cannot trust the word of some white people, and as some black people\ndo not always tell the truth, you must compel all candidates to put\ntheir principle' in black and white.\n\nOf one thing you can rest assured: The best white people are your\nfriends. The humane, the civilized, the just, the most intelligent, the\ngrandest, are on your side. The sympathies of the noblest are with\nyou. Your enemies are also the enemies of liberty, of progress and of\njustice. The white men who make the white race honorable believe in\nequal rights for you. The noblest living are, the noblest dead were,\nyour friends. I ask you to stand with your friends.\n\nDo not hold the Republican party responsible for this decision, unless\nthe Republican party endorses it. Had the question been submitted to\nthat party, it would have been decided exactly the other way--at least a\nhundred to one. That party gave you the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.\nThey were given in good faith. These amendments put you on a\nconstitutional and political equality with white men. That they have\nbeen narrowed in their application by the Supreme Court, is not the\nfault of the Republican party. Let us wait and see what the Republican\nparty will do. That party has a strange history, and in that history is\na mingling of cowardice and courage. The army of progress always becomes\nfearful after victory, and courageous after defeat. It has been the\ncustom for principle to apologize to prejudice. The Proclamation of\nEmancipation gave liberty only to slaves beyond our lines--those beneath\nour flag were left to wear their chains. We said to the Southern States:\n\"Lay down your arms, and you shall keep your slaves.\" We tried to buy\npeace at the expense of the negro.\n\nWe offered to sacrifice the manhood of the North, and the natural rights\nof the colored man, upon the altar of the Union. The rejection of that\noffer saved us from infamy. At one time we refused to allow the loyal\nblack man to come within our lines. We would meet him at the outposts,\nreceive his information, and drive him back to chain and lash. The\nGovernment publicly proclaimed that the war was waged to save the Union,\nwith slavery. We were afraid to claim that the negro was a man--afraid\nto admit that he was property--and so we called him \"contraband.\" We\nhesitated to allow the negro to fight for his own freedom--hesitated\nto let him wear the uniform of the nation while he battled for the\nsupremacy of its flag.\n\nThese are some of the inconsistencies of the past. In spite of them we\nadvanced. We were educated by events, and at last we clearly saw that\nslavery was rebellion; that the \"institution\" had borne its natural\nfruit--civil war; that the entire country was responsible for slavery,\nand that slavery was responsible for rebellion. We declared that slavery\nshould be extirpated from the Republic. The great armies led by\nthe greatest commander of the modern world, shattered, crushed and\ndemolished the Rebellion. The North grew grand. The people became\nsublime. The three sacred amendments were adopted. The Republic was\nfree.\n\nThen came a period of hesitation, apology and fear. The colored citizen\nwas left to his fate. For years the Federal arm, palsied by policy,\nwas powerless to protect; and this period of fear, of hesitation, of\napology, of lack of confidence in the right, has borne its natural\nfruit--this decision of the Supreme Court.\n\nBut it is not for me to give you advice. Your conduct has been above\nall praise. You have been as patient as the earth beneath, as the\nstars above. You have been law-abiding and industrious, You have not\noffensively asserted your rights, or offensively borne your wrongs. You\nhave been modest and forgiving. You have returned good for evil. When I\nremember that the ancestors of my race were in universities and colleges\nand common schools while you and your fathers were on the auction-block,\nin the slave-pen, or in the field beneath the cruel lash, in States\nwhere reading and writing were crimes, I am astonished at the progress\nyou have made.\n\nAll that I--all that any reasonable man--can ask is, that you continue\ndoing as you have done. Above all things--educate your children--strive\nto make yourselves independent--work for homes--work for yourselves--and\nwherever it is possible become the masters of yourselves.\n\nNothing gives me more pleasure than to see your little children with\nbooks under their arms, going and coming from school.\n\nIt is very easy to see why colored people should hate us, but why we\nshould hate them is beyond my comprehension. They never sold our wives.\nThey never robbed our cradles.. They never scarred our backs. They never\npursued us with bloodhounds. They never branded our flesh.\n\nIt has been said that it is hard to forgive a man to whom we have done\na great injury. I can conceive of no other reason why we should hate the\ncolored people. To us they are a standing reproach. Their history is our\nshame. Their virtues seem to enrage some white people--their patience\nto provoke, and their forgiveness to insult. Turn the tables--change\nplaces--and with what fierceness, with what ferocity, with what insane\nand passionate intensity we would hate them!\n\nThe colored people do not ask for revenge--they simply ask for\njustice. They are willing to forget the past--willing to hide their\nscars--anxious to bury the broken chains, and to forget the miseries and\nhardships, the tears and agonies, of two hundred years.\n\nThe old issues are again upon us. Is this a Nation? Have all citizens of\nthe United States equal rights, without regard to race or color? Is\nit the duty of the General Government to protect its citizens? Can the\nFederal arm be palsied by the action or non-action of a State?\n\nAnother opportunity is given for the people of this country to take\nsides. According to my belief, the supreme thing for every man to do is\nto be absolutely true to himself. All consequences--whether rewards or\npunishments, whether honor and power, or disgrace and poverty, are as\ndreams undreamt. I have made my choice. I have taken my stand. Where my\nbrain and heart go, there I will publicly and openly walk. Doing this,\nis my highest conception of duty. Being allowed to do this, is liberty.\n\nIf this is not now a free Government; if citizens cannot now be\nprotected, regardless of race or color; if the three sacred amendments\nhave been undermined by the Supreme Court--we must have another; and if\nthat fails, then another; and we must neither stop, nor pause, until\nthe Constitution shall become a perfect shield for every right, of every\nhuman being, beneath our flag.\n\n\n\n\nTRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.\n\nAddress to the Jury.\n\n     * Within thirty miles of New York, in the city of\n     Morristown, New Jersey, a man was put on trial yesterday for\n     distributing a pamphlet argument against the infallibility\n     of the Bible. The crime which the Indictment alleges Is\n     Blasphemy, for which the statutes of New Jersey provide a\n     penalty of two hundred dollars fine, or twelve months\n     imprisonment, or both. It is the first case of the kind ever\n     tried in New Jersey, although the law dates back to colonial\n     days. Charles B. Reynolds is the man on trial, and the State\n     of New Jersey, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Morris\n     County, is the prosecutor. The Circuit Court, Judge Francis\n     Child, assisted by County Judges Munson and Quimby, sit upon\n     the case. Prosecutor Wilder W. Cutler represents the State,\n     and Robert G. Ingersoll appears for the defendant.\n\n     Mr. Reynolds went to Boonton last summer to hold \"free-\n     thought\" meetings. Announcing his purpose without any\n     flourish, he secured a piece of ground, pitched a tent upon\n     it, and invited the towns-people to come and hear him. It\n     was understood that he had been a Methodist minister: that,\n     finding it impossible to reconcile his mind to some of the\n     historical parts of the Bible, and unable to accept it in\n     its entirety as a moral guide, he left the church and set\n     out to proclaim his conclusions. The churches in Boonton\n     arrayed themselves against him. The Catholics and Methodists\n     were especially active. Taking this opposition as an excuse,\n     one element of the town invaded his tent. They pelted\n     Reynolds with ancient eggs and vegetables. They chopped away\n     the guy ropes of the tent and slashed the canvas with their\n     knives. When the tent collapsed, the crowd rushed for the\n     speaker to inflict further punishment by plunging him in the\n     duck pond They rummaged the wrecked tent, but in vain. He\n     had made his way ont in the confusion and was no more seen\n     in Boonton.\n\n     But what he had said did not leave Boonton with him, and the\n     pamphlets he had distributed were read by many who probably\n     would not have looked between their covers had his visit\n     been attended by no unusual circumstances. Boonton was still\n     agitated up on the subject when Mr. Reynolds appeared in\n     Morristown. This time he did not try to hold meetings, but\n     had his pamphlets with him.\n\n     Mr. Reynolds appeared in Morristown with the pamphlets on\n     October thirteenth. A Boonton delegation was there,\n     clamoring for his indictment for blasphemy. The Grand Jury\n     heard of his visit and found two indictments against him;\n     one for blasphemy at\n\n     Boonton and the second for blasphemy at Morristown. He\n     furnished a five hundred dollar bond to appear for trial. On\n     account of Colonel Ingersoll's throat troubles the case was\n     adjourned several times through the winter and until Monday\n     last, when it was set peremptorily for trial yesterday.\n\n     The public feeling excited at Boonton was overshadowed by\n     that at Morristown and the neighboring region. For six\n     months no topic was so interesting to the public as this. It\n     monopolized attention at the stores, and became a fruitful\n     subject of gossip in social and church circles. Under such\n     circumstances it was to be expected that everybody who could\n     spare the time would go to court yesterday. Lines of people\n     began to climb the court house hill early in the morning. At\n     the hour of opening court the room set apart for the trial\n     was packed, and distaffs had to be stationed at the foot of\n     the stairs to keep back those who were not early enough.\n     From nine thirty to eleven o'clock the crowd inside talked\n     of blasphemy in all the phases suggested by this case, and\n     the outsiders waited patiently on the lawn and steps and\n     along the dusty approaches to the gray building.\n\n     Eleven o'clock brought the train from New York and on it\n     Colonel Ingersoll. His arrival at the court house with his\n     clerk opened a new chapter in the day's gossip. The event\n     was so absorbing indeed, that the crowd failed entirely to\n     notice an elderly man wearing a black frock snit, a silk\n     hat, with an army badge pinned to his coat, and looking like\n     a merchant of means, who entered the court house a few\n     minutes behind the famous lawyer. The last comer was the\n     defendant.\n\n     All was ready for the case. Within five minutes five jurors\n     were in the box. Then Colonel Ingersoll asked what were his\n     rights about challenges. He was informed that he might make\n     six peremptory challenges and must challenge before the\n     jurors took their seats. The only disqualification the Court\n     would recognize would be the inability of a juror to change\n     his opinion in spite of evidence. Colonel Ingersoll induced\n     the Court to let him examine the five in the box and\n     promptly ejected two Presbyterians.\n\n     Thereafter Colonel Ingersoll examined every juror as soon as\n     presented. He asked particularly about the nature of each\n     man's prejudice, if he had one. To a juror who did not know\n     that he understood the word, the Colonel replied: \"I may not\n     define the word legally, but my own idea is that a man is\n     prejudiced when he has made up his mind on a case without\n     knowing anything about it.\" This juror thought that he came\n     under that category.\n\n     Presbyterians had a rather hard time with the examiner.\n     After twenty men had been examined and the defence had\n     exercised five of its peremptory challenges, the following\n     were sworn as jurymen. * * * *\n\n     The jury having been sworn, Prosecutor Cutler announced that\n     he would try only the indictment for the offence in\n     Morristown. He said that Reynolds was charged with\n     distributing pamphlets containing matter claimed to be\n     blasphemous under the law. If the charge could be proved he\n     asked a verdict of guilty. Then he called sixteen towns-\n     people, to most of whom Reynolds had given a pamphlet.\n\n     Colonel Ingersoll tried to get the Presbyterian witnesses to\n     say that they had read the pamphlet. Not one of them\n     admitted it. Further than this he attempted no\n     cross-examination.\n\n     \"I do not know that I shall have any witnesses one way or\n     the other,\" Colonel Ingersoll said, rising to suggest a\n     recess. \"Perhaps after dinner I may feel like making a few\n     remarks.\"\n\n     \"There will be great disappointment if you do not\" Judge\n     Child responded, in a tone that meant a word for himself as\n     well as for the other listeners. The spectators nodded\n     approval to this sentiment. At 4:20 o'clock Col. Ingersoll\n     having spoken since 2 o'clock, Judge Child adjourned court\n     until this morning.\n\n     As Colonel Ingersoll left the room a throng pressed after\n     him to offer congratulations. One old man said: \"Colonel\n     Ingersoll I am a Presbyterian pastor, but I must say that\n     was the noblest speech in defence of liberty I ever heard!\n     Your hand, sir; your hand,\"--The Times, New York, May\n     20,1887.\n\n\nGENTLEMEN of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most important cases\nthat can be submitted to a jury. It is not a case that involves a little\nproperty, neither is it one that involves simply the liberty of one man.\nIt involves the freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty of every\ncitizen of New Jersey.\n\nThe question to be tried by you is whether a man has the right to\nexpress his honest thought; and for that reason there can be no case of\ngreater importance submitted to a jury. And it may be well enough for\nme, at the outset, to admit that there could be no case in which I could\ntake a greater--a deeper interest. For my part, I would not wish to live\nin a world where I could not express my honest opinions. Men who deny to\nothers the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men.\n\nI deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any church, of\nany State, to put a padlock on the lips--to make the tongue a convict.\nI passionately deny the right of the Herod of authority to kill the\nchildren of the brain. A man has a right to work with his hands, to\nplow the earth, to sow the seed, and that man has a right to reap the\nharvest. If we have not that right, then all are slaves except those who\ntake these rights from their fellow-men. If you have the right to\nwork with your hands and to gather the harvest for yourself and your\nchildren, have you not a right to cultivate your brain? Have you not the\nright to read, to observe, to investigate--and when you have so read and\nso investigated, have you not the right to reap that field? And what\nis it to reap that field? It is simply to express what you have\nascertained--simply to give your thoughts to your fellow-men.\n\nIf there is one subject in this world worthy of being discussed, worthy\nof being understood, it is the question of intellectual liberty. Without\nthat, we are simply painted clay; without that, we are poor, miserable\nserfs and slaves. If you have not the right to express your opinions,\nif the defendant has not this right, then no man ever walked beneath\nthe blue of heaven that had the right to express his thought. If others\nclaim the right, where did they get it? How did they happen to have it,\nand how did you happen to be deprived of it? Where did a church or a\nnation get that right?\n\nAre we not all children of the same Mother? Are we not all compelled to\nthink, whether we wish to or not? Can you help thinking as you do? When\nyou look out upon the woods, the fields,--when you look at the solemn\nsplendors of the night--these things produce certain thoughts in your\nmind, and they produce them necessarily. No man can think as he desires.\nNo man controls the action of his brain, any more than he controls the\naction of his heart. The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in spite\nof you. The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The ears hear,\nif they are unstopped, without asking your permission. And the brain\nthinks in spite of you. Should you express that thought? Certainly you\nshould, if others express theirs. You have exactly the same right. He\nwho takes it from you is a robber.\n\nFor thousands of years people have been trying to force other people\nto think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed? No. Why?\nBecause brute force is not an argument. You can stand with the lash over\na man, or you can stand by the prison door, or beneath the gallows, or\nby the stake, and say to this man: \"Recant or the lash descends, the\nprison door is locked upon you, the rope is put about your neck, or the\ntorch is given to the fagot.\" And so the man recants. Is he convinced?\nNot at all. Have you produced a new argument? Not the slightest. And\nyet the ignorant bigots of this world have been trying for thousands of\nyears to rule the minds of men by brute force. They have endeavored to\nimprove the mind by torturing the flesh--to spread religion with the\nsword and torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by putting\ntheir feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, patriots,\nphilosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been the\nresult? Are we any nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then?\n\nNo orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make\npeople think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that\never was established commenced in the minority, and while it was in the\nminority advocated free speech--every one. John Calvin, the founder\nof the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in France, wrote a book on\nreligious toleration in order to show that all men had an equal right to\nthink; and yet that man afterward, clothed in a little authority, forgot\nall his sentiments about religious liberty, and had poor Servetus burned\nat the stake, for differing with him on a question that neither of them\nknew anything about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration--in\nthe majority, he practiced murder.\n\nI want you to understand what has been done in the world to force men\nto think alike. It seems to me that if there is some infinite being who\nwants us to think alike, he would have made us alike. Why did he not do\nso? Why did he make your brain so that you could not by any possibility\nbe a Methodist? Why did he make yours so that you could not be a\nCatholic? And why did he make the brain of another so that he is an\nunbeliever--why the brain of another so that he became a Mohammedan--if\nhe wanted us all to believe alike?\n\nAfter all, may be Nature is good enough and grand enough and broad\nenough to give us the diversity born of liberty. May be, after all, it\nwould not be best for us all to be just the same. What a stupid world,\nif everybody said yes to everything that everybody else might say.\n\nThe most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than\nfood or clothes--more important than gold or houses or lands--more\nimportant than art or science--more important than all religions, is the\nliberty of man.\n\nIf civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree with\nMr. Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would I give up the\nsplendors of the nineteenth century--gladly would I forget every\ninvention that has leaped from the brain of man--gladly would I see all\nbooks ashes, all works of art destroyed, all statues broken, and all\nthe triumphs of the world lost--gladly, joyously would I go back to\nthe abodes and dens of savagery, if that were necessary to preserve the\ninestimable gem of human liberty. So would every man who has a heart and\nbrain.\n\nHow has the church in every age, when in authority, defended itself?\nAlways by a statute against blasphemy, against argument, against free\nspeech. And there never was such a statute that did not stain the book\nthat it was in, and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who\npassed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining blasphemy, the\nchurch sought to prevent discussion--sought to prevent argument--sought\nto prevent a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma,\na doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a statute that prevents your\nspeaking against it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives\nbecause lips are locked. It lives because men are slaves.\n\nIf I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines that in my\njudgment will make this world happier and better. If I know myself,\nI advocate only those things that will make a man a better citizen, a\nbetter father, a kinder husband--that will make a woman a better wife,\na better mother--doctrines that will fill every home with sunshine and\nwith joy. And if I believed that anything I should say to-day would have\nany other possible tendency, I would stop. I am a believer in liberty.\nThat is my religion--to give to every other human being every right\nthat I claim for myself, and I grant to every other human being, not the\nright--because it is his right--but instead of granting I declare that\nit is his right, to attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer\nevery argument that I urge--in other words, he must have absolute\nfreedom of speech.\n\nI am a believer in what I call \"intellectual hospitality.\" A man comes\nto your door. If you are a gentleman and he appears to be a good man,\nyou receive him with a smile. You ask after his health. You say: \"Take\na chair; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you not break bread with\nme?\" That is what a hospitable, good man does--he does not set the dog\non him. Now, how should we treat a new thought? I say that the brain\nshould be hospitable and say to the new thought: \"Come in; sit down; I\nwant to cross-examine you; I want to find whether you are good or bad;\nif good, stay; if bad, I don't want to hurt you--probably you think you\nare all right,--but your room is better than your company, and I will\ntake another idea in your place.\" Why not? Can any man have the egotism\nto say that he has found it all out? No. Every man who has thought,\nknows not only how little he knows, but how little every other human\nbeing knows, and how ignorant, after all, the world must be.\n\nThere was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church had power. And I\nwant it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am opposed\nto Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics--while I am opposed to\nPresbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I do not fight\npeople,--I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never go\ninto personalities. As I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but\nPresbyterianism--that is, I am opposed to their doctrine. I do not hate\na man that has the rheumatism--I hate the rheumatism when it has a man.\nSo I attack certain principles because I think they are wrong, but I\nalways want it understood that I have nothing against persons--nothing\nagainst victims.\n\nThere was a time when the Catholic Church was in power in the Old World.\nAll at once there arose a man called Martin Luther, and what did the\ndear old Catholics think? \"Oh,\" they said, \"that man and his followers\nare going to hell.\" But they did not go. They were very good people.\nThey may have been mistaken--I do not know. I think they were right in\ntheir opposition to Catholicism--but I have just as much objection to\nthe religion they founded as I have to the church they left. But they\nthought they were right, and they made very good citizens, and it turned\nout that their differing from the Mother Church did not hurt them.\nAnd then after awhile they began to divide, and there arose Baptists;\nand-the other gentlemen, who believed in this law that is now in New\nJersey, began cutting off their ears so that they could hear better;\nthey began putting them in prison so that they would have a chance to\nthink. But the Baptists turned out to be good folks--first rate--good\nhusbands, good fathers, good citizens. And in a little while, in\nEngland, the people turned to be Episcopalians, on account of a little\nwar that Henry VIII. had with the Pope,--and I always sided with the\nPope in that war--but it made no difference; and in a little while\nthe Episcopalians turned out to be just about like other folks--no\nworse--and, as I know of, no better.\n\nAfter awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian said, \"We don't\nwant anything of him--he is a bad man;\" and they finally drove some of\nthem away and they settled in New England, and there were among\nthem Quakers, than whom there never were better people on the\nearth--industrious, frugal, gentle, kind and loving--and yet these\nPuritans began hanging them. They said: \"They are corrupting our\nchildren; if this thing goes on, everybody will believe in being kind\nand gentle and good, and what will become of us?\" They were honest about\nit. So they went to cutting off ears. But the Quakers were good people\nand none of the prophecies were fulfilled.\n\nIn a little while there came some Unitarians and they said, \"The world\nis going to ruin, sure;\"--but the world went on as usual, and the\nUnitarians produced men like Channing--one of the tenderest spirits that\never lived--they produced men like Theodore Parker--one of the greatest\nbrained and greatest hearted men produced upon this continent--a good\nman--and yet they thought he was a blasphemer--they even prayed for his\ndeath--on their bended knees they asked their God to take time to kill\nhim. Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably.\n\nAfter awhile came the Universalists, who said: \"God is good. He will not\ndamn anybody always, just for a little mistake he made here. This is\na very short life; the path we travel is very dim, and a great many\nshadows fall in the way, and if a man happens to stub his toe, God will\nnot burn him forever.\" And then all the rest of the sects cried\nout, \"Why, if you do away with hell, everybody will murder just for\npastime--everybody will go to stealing just to enjoy themselves.\" But\nthey did not. The Universalists were good people--just as good as any\nothers. Most of them much better. None of the prophecies were fulfilled,\nand yet the differences existed.\n\nAnd so we go on until we find people who do not believe the Bible at\nall, and when they say they do not, they come within this statute.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first, that this statute\nunder which Mr. Reynolds is being tried is unconstitutional--that it is\nnot in harmony with the constitution of New Jersey; and I am going to\ntry to show you in addition to that, that it was passed hundreds of\nyears ago, by men who believed it was right to burn heretics and tie\nQuakers to the end of a cart; men and even modest women--stripped\nnaked--and lash them from town to town. They were the men who originally\npassed that statute, and I want to show you that it has slept all this\ntime, and I am informed--I do not know how it is--that there never has\nbeen a prosecution in this State for blasphemy.\n\nNow, gentlemen, what is blasphemy? Of course nobody knows what it is,\nunless he takes into consideration where he is. What is blasphemy in\none country would be a religious exhortation, in another. It is owing to\nwhere you are and who is in authority. And let me call your attention\nto the impudence and bigotry of the American Christians. We send\nmissionaries to other countries. What for? To tell them that their\nreligion is false, that their gods are myths and monsters, that their\nsaviors and apostles were impostors, and that our religion is true.\nYou send a man from Morristown--a Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes\nthere, and he tells the Mohammedans--and he has it in a pamphlet and he\ndistributes it--that the Koran is a lie, that Mohammed was not a prophet\nof God, that the angel Gabriel is not so large that it is four hundred\nleagues between his eyes--that it is all a mistake--there never was an\nangel so large as that. Then what would the Turks do? Suppose the Turks\nhad a law like this statute in New Jersey. They would put the Morristown\nmissionary in jail, and he would send home word, and then what would the\npeople of Morristown say? Honestly--what do you think they would say?\nThey would say, \"Why, look at those poor, heathen wretches. We sent a\nman over there armed with the truth, and yet they were so blinded\nby their idolatrous religion, so steeped in superstition, that they\nactually put that man in prison.\" Gentlemen, does not that show the need\nof more missionaries? I would say, yes.\n\nNow, let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes from Turkey to\nMorristown. He has got a pamphlet. He says, \"The Koran is the inspired\nbook, Mohammed is the real prophet, your Bible is false and your Savior\nsimply a myth.\" Thereupon the Morristown people put him in jail.\nThen what would the Turks say? They would say, \"Morristown needs more\nmissionaries,\" and I would agree with them.\n\nIn other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality. Let the\nworld talk. And see how foolish this trial is. I have no doubt that the\nprosecuting attorney-agrees with me to-day, that whether this law is\ngood or bad, this trial should not have taken place. And let me tell you\nwhy. Here comes a man into your town and circulates a pamphlet. Now,\nif they had just kept still, very few would ever have heard of it. That\nwould have been the end. The diameter of the echo would have been a few\nthousand feet. But in order to stop the discussion of that question,\nthey indicted this man, and that question has been more discussed in\nthis country since this indictment than all the discussions put together\nsince New Jersey was first granted to Charles II.'s dearest brother\nJames, the Duke of York.. And what else? A trial here that is to be\nreported and published all over the United States, a trial that will\ngive Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty millions of people. And yet\nthis was done for the purpose of stopping a discussion of this subject.\nI want to show you that the thing is in itself almost idiotic--that it\ndefeats itself, and that you cannot crush out these things by force. Not\nonly so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right to be defended, and his counsel\nhas the right to give his opinions on this subject.\n\nSuppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argument has not been sent\nto jail. That is still going the rounds, free as the winds. Suppose you\nkeep him at hard labor a year--all the time he is there, hundreds and\nthousands of people will be reading some account, or some fragment, of\nthis trial. There is the trouble. If you could only imprison a thought,\nthen intellectual tyranny might succeed. If you could only take an\nargument and put a striped suit of clothes on it--if you could only\ntake a good, splendid, shining fact and lock it up in some dungeon of\nignorance, so that its light would never again enter the mind of man,\nthen you might succeed in stopping human progress. Otherwise, no.\n\nLet us see about this particular statute. In the first place, the State\nhas a constitution. That constitution is a rule, a limitation to the\npower of the Legislature, and a certain breastwork for the protection\nof private rights, and the constitution says to this sea of passions\nand prejudices: \"Thus far and no farther.\" The constitution says to each\nindividual: \"This shall panoply you; this is your complete coat of mail;\nthis shall defend your rights.\" And it is usual in this country to make\nas a part of each constitution several general declarations--called the\nBill of Rights. So I find that in the old constitution of New Jersey,\nwhich was adopted in the year of grace 1776, although the people at that\ntime were not educated as they are now--the spirit of the Revolution at\nthat time not having permeated all classes of society--a declaration in\nfavor of religious freedom. The people were on the eve of a revolution.\nThis constitution was adopted on the third day of July, 1776, one day\nbefore the immortal Declaration of Independence. Now, what do we find\nin this--and we have got to go by this light, by this torch, when we\nexamine the statute.\n\nI find in that constitution, in its Eighteenth Section, this: \"No person\nshall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable privilege\nof worshiping God, in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own\nconscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any\nplace of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he\nbe obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates for the purpose\nof building or repairing any church or churches, contrary to what he\nbelieves to be true.\" That was a very great and splendid step. It was\nthe divorce of church and state. It no longer allowed the State to levy\ntaxes for the support of a particular religion, and it said to every\ncitizen of New Jersey: All that you give for that purpose must be\nvoluntarily given, and the State will not compel you to pay for the\nmaintenance of a church in which you do not believe. So far so good.\n\nThe next paragraph was not so good. \"There shall be no establishment of\nany one religious sect in this State in preference to another, and no\nProtestant inhabitants of this State shall be denied the enjoyment of\nany civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but all\npersons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who\nshall demean themselves peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to\nany office of profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every\nprivilege and immunity enjoyed by other citizens.\"\n\nWhat became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not know--whether\nthey had any right to be elected to office or not under this Act. But\nin 1844, the State having grown civilized in the meantime, another\nconstitution was adopted. The word Protestant was then left out.\nThere was to be no establishment of one religion over another. But\nProtestantism did not render a man capable of being elected to office\nany more than Catholicism, and nothing is said about any religious\nbelief whatever. So far, so good.\n\n\"No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office\nof public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil\nright on account of his religious principles.\"\n\nThat is a very broad and splendid provision. \"No person shall be denied\nany civil right on account of his religious principles.\" That was\ncopied from the Virginia constitution, and that clause in the Virginia\nconstitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that clause men\nwere entitled to give their testimony in the courts of Virginia whether\nthey believed in any religion or not, in any bible or not, or in any god\nor not.\n\nThat same clause was afterward adopted by the State of Illinois, also by\nmany other States, and wherever that clause is, no citizen can be denied\nany civil right on account of his religious principles. It is a broad\nand generous clause. This statute, under which this indictment is drawn,\nis not in accordance with the spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under\nthat clause, no man can be deprived of any civil right on account of his\nreligious principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account\nof this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute,\nthe same man who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can be\nsent to the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing his\nhonest thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you that\nthis statute is unconstitutional.\n\nBut we will go another step: \"Every person may freely speak, write, or\npublish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse\nof that right.\"\n\nThat is in the constitution of nearly every State in the Union, and the\nintention of that is to cover slanderous words--to cover a case where a\nman under pretence of enjoying the freedom of speech falsely assails or\naccuses his neighbor. Of course he should be held responsible for that\nabuse.\n\nThen follows the great clause in the constitution of 1844--more\nimportant than any other clause in that instrument--a clause that shines\nin that constitution like a star at night.--\n\n\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or\nof the press.\"\n\nCan anything be plainer--anything be more forcibly stated?\n\n\"No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech.\"\n\nNow, while you are considering this statute, I want you to keep in mind\nthis other statement:\n\n\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or\nof the press.\"\n\nAnd right here there is another thing I want to call your attention to.\nThere is a constitution higher than any statute. There is a law higher\nthan any constitution. It is the law of the human conscience, and no man\nwho is a man will defile and pollute his conscience at the bidding of\nany legislature. Above all things, one should maintain his selfrespect,\nand there is but one way to do that, and that is to live in accordance\nwith your highest ideal.\n\nThere is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they exist in this\npoor world--the absolute consequences of certain acts--they are\nabove all. And this higher law is the breath of progress, the very\noutstretched wings of civilization, under which we enjoy the freedom\nwe have. Keep that in your minds. There never was a legislature great\nenough--there never was a constitution sacred enough, to compel a\ncivilized man to stand between a black man and his liberty. There never\nwas a constitution great enough to make me stand between any human being\nand his right to express his honest thoughts. Such a constitution is an\ninsult to the human soul, and I would care no more for it than I would\nfor the growl of a wild beast. But we are not driven to that necessity\nhere. This constitution is in accord with the highest and noblest\naspirations of the heart--\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge\nthe liberty of speech.\"\n\nNow let us come to this old law--this law that was asleep for a hundred\nyears before this constitution was adopted--this law coiled like a\nsnake beneath the foundations of the Government--this law, cowardly,\ndastardly--this law passed by wretches who were afraid: to discuss--this\nlaw passed by men who could not, and who knew they could not, defend\ntheir creed--and so they said: \"Give us the sword of the State and we\nwill cleave the heretic down.\" And this law was made to control the\nminority. When the Catholics were in power they visited that law upon\ntheir opponents. When the Episcopalians were in power, they tortured and\nburned the poor Catholic who had scoffed and who had denied the truth of\ntheir religion. Whoever was in power used that, and whoever was out of\npower cursed that--and yet, the moment he got in power he used it: The\npeople became civilized--but that law was on the statute book. It simply\nremained. There it was, sound asleep--its lips drawn over its long and\ncruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken it. And it slept on, and New\nJersey has flourished. Men have done well. You have had average health\nin this country. Nobody roused the statute until the defendant in this\ncase went to Boonton, and there made a speech in which he gave his\nhonest thought, and the people not having an argument handy, threw\nstones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, published a pamphlet on\nBlasphemy and in it gave a photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is\nhis offence. Now let us read this infamous statute:\n\n\"_If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God by\ndenying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being_\"--\n\nI want to say right here--many a man has cursed the God of another man.\nThe Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant. The Presbyterians\nhave cursed the God of the Catholics--charged them with idolatry--cursed\ntheir images, laughed at their ceremonies. And these compliments have\nbeen interchanged between all the religions of the world. But I say here\nto-day that no man, unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the God in whom\nhe believed. No man, no human being, has ever lived who cursed his own\nidea of God. He always curses the idea that somebody else entertains. No\nhuman being ever yet cursed what he believed to be infinite wisdom and\ninfinite goodness--and you know it. Every man on this jury knows that.\nHe feels that that must be an absolute certainty. Then what have they\ncursed? Some God they did not believe in--that is all. And has a man\nthat right? I say, yes. He has a right to give his opinion of Jupiter,\nand there is nobody in Morristown who will deny him that right. But\nseveral thousands years ago it would have been very dangerous for him to\nhave cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just as powerful now as he was\nthen, but the Roman people are not powerful, and that is all there was\nto Jupiter--the Roman people.\n\nSo there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the god of the\nGreeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to drink\nhemlock. Yet now everybody can curse this god. Why? Is the god dead? No.\nHe is just as alive as he ever was. Then what has happened? The Greeks\nhave passed away. That is all. So in all of our churches here. Whenever\na church is in the minority it clamors for free speech. When it gets in\nthe majority, no. I do not believe the history of the world will show\nthat any orthodox church when in the majority ever had the courage to\nface the free lips of the world. It sends for a constable. And is it\nnot wonderful that they should do this when they preach the gospel of\nuniversal forgiveness--when they say, \"if a man strike you on one cheek\nturn to him the other also--but if he laughs at your religion, put him\nin the penitentiary\"? Is that the doctrine? Is that the law?\n\nNow, read this law. Do you know as I read it I can almost hear John\nCalvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to him. It\nis written exactly as he would have written it. There never was an\ninquisitor who would not have read that law with a malicious smile. The\nChristians who brought the fagots and ran with all their might to be at\nthe burning, would have enjoyed that law. You know that when they used\nto burn people for having said something against religion, they used\nto cut their tongues out before they burned them. Why? For fear that if\nthey did not, the poor, burning victims might say something that would\nscandalize the Christian gentlemen who were building the fire. All these\npersons would have been delighted with this law.\n\nLet us read a little further:\n\n\"--_Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ_.\"\n\nWhy, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God, was crucified?\nHow did they come to crucify him? Because they did not believe in free\nspeech in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a law against blasphemy\nin Jerusalem--a law exactly like this. Just think of it. Oh, I tell\nyou we have passed too many mile-stones on the shining road of human\nprogress to turn back and wallow in that blood, in that mire.\n\nNo: Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed that he\nwas actually a God. Others believed that he was not only a man, but that\nhe stood as the representative of infinite love and wisdom. No man ever\nsaid one word against that Being for saying \"Do unto others as ye would\nthat others should do unto you.\" No man ever raised his voice against\nhim because he said, \"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain\nmercy.\" And are they the \"merciful\" who when some man endeavors to\nanswer their argument, put him in the penitentiary? No. The trouble is,\nthe priests--the trouble is, the ministers--the trouble is, the people\nwhose business it was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled'\nwith each other, and they put meanings upon human expressions by malice,\nmeanings that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them.\nI believe that nearly all that has been done in this world has been\nhonestly done. I believe that the poor savage who kneels down and prays\nto a stuffed snake--prays that his little children may recover from the\nfever--is honest, and it seems to me that a good God would answer his\nprayer if he could, if it was in accordance with wisdom, because the\npoor savage was doing the best he could, and no one can do any better\nthan that.\n\nSo I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that nearly\neverybody was going to hell, said exactly what they believed. They were\nhonest about it, and I would not send one of them to jail--would never\nthink of such a thing--even if he called the unbelievers of the world\n\"wretches,\" \"dogs,\" and \"devils.\" What would I do? I would simply answer\nhim--that is all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but\nI would answer him in kindness.\n\nSo these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a necessity.\nDo you know that all the mechanics that ever lived--take the best\nones--cannot make two clocks that will run exactly alike one hour, one\nminute? They cannot make two pendulums that will beat in exactly the\nsame time, one beat. If you cannot do that, how are you going to make\nhundreds, thousands, billions of people, each with a different quality\nand quantity of brain, each clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh,\nand each driven by passion's storm over the wild sea of life--how are\nyou going to make them all think alike? This is the impossible thing\nthat Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been trying to do.\nThis was the object of the Inquisition and of the foolish Legislature\nthat passed this statute.\n\nLet me read you another line from this ignorant statute:--\n\n\"_Or the Christian religion_.\"\n\nWell, what is the Christian religion? \"If you scoff at the Christian\nreligion--if you curse the Christian religion.\" Well what is it?\nGentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the Catholic\nChurch. Is that the Christian religion? The Catholic believes it is the\nChristian religion, and you have to admit that it is the oldest one, and\nthen the Catholics turn round and scoff at the Protestants. Is that the\nChristian religion? If so, every Christian religion has been cursed\nby every other Christian religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish\nstatute?\n\nI say that the Catholic has the right to attack the Presbyterian and\ntell him, \"Your doctrine is all wrong.\" I think he has the right to say\nto him, \"You are leading thousands to hell.\" If he believes it, he not\nonly has the right to say it, but it is his duty to say it; and if the\nPresbyterian really believes the Catholics are all going to the devil,\nit is his duty to say so. Why not? I will never have any religion that\nI cannot defend--that is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be\nmistaken, because no man is absolutely certain that he knows. We all\nunderstand that. Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each\nindividual is very narrow, and in his poor sky the stars are few and\nvery small.\n\n\"_Or the Word of God_--\"\n\nWhat is that?\n\n\"_The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New\nTestaments_.\"\n\nNow, what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the right to\nshow that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one vote, and one\nonly? Has he the right to show that they passed in convention upon what\nbooks they would put in and what they would not? Has he the right\nto show that there were twenty-eight books called \"The Books of the\nHebrew's\"? Has he the right to show that? Has he the right to show that\nMartin Luther said he did not believe there was one solitary word of\ngospel in the Epistle to the Romans? Has he the right to show that some\nof these books were not written till nearly two hundred years afterward?\nHas he the right to say it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this\nis true or not, but has a man the right to say it if he believes it?\n\nSuppose I should read the Bible all through right here in Morristown,\nand after I got through I should make up my mind that it is not a true\nbook--what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my hand over my mouth and\nstart for another State, and the minute I got over the line say, \"It is\nnot true, It is not true\"? Or, ought I to have the right and privilege\nof saying right here in New Jersey, \"My fellow-citizens, I have read\nthe book--I do not believe that it is the word of God\"? Suppose I read\nit and think it is true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to\nTurkey and read the Koran and make up my mind that it is false, you\nwould all say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say so.\n\nBy force you can make hypocrites--men who will agree with you from the\nteeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no more hypocrites.\nWe have enough in every community. And how are you going to keep from\nhaving more? By having the air free,--by wiping from your statute books\nsuch miserable and infamous laws as this.\n\n\"_The Holy Scriptures_.\"\n\nAre they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be sincere?\nThere are thousands of things in the Scriptures that everybody believes.\nEverybody believes the Scriptures are right when they say, \"Thou shalt\nnot steal\"--everybody. And when they say \"Give good measure, heaped up\nand running over,\" everybody says, \"Good!\" So when they say \"Love your\nneighbor,\" everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and\npractices it, does it make any difference whether he believes in the\nflood or not? Is that of any importance? Whether a man built an ark or\nnot--does that make the slightest difference? A man might deny it and\nyet be a very good man. Another might believe it and be a very mean\nman. Could it now, by any possibility, make a man a good father, a good\nhusband, a good citizen? Does it make any difference whether you believe\nit or not? Does it make any difference whether or not you believe that a\nman was going through town, and his hair was a little short, like mine,\nand some little children laughed at him, and thereupon two bears from\nthe woods came down and tore to pieces about forty of these children? Is\nit necessary to believe that? Suppose a man should say, \"I guess that is\na mistake; they did not copy that right; I guess the man that reported\nthat was a little dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly\nright.\" Any harm in saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary\nfor that? Can you imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to hell\nbecause he did not believe the bear story?\n\nSo I say if you believe the Bible, say so; if you do not believe it, say\nso. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in Protestantism\nitself. The Protestants when they fought the Catholics said: \"Read the\nBible for yourselves--stop taking it from your priests--read the sacred\nvolume with your own eyes; it is a revelation from God to his children,\nand you are the children.\" And then they said: \"If after you read it you\ndo not believe it, and you say anything against it, we will put you in\njail, and God will put you in hell.\" That is a fine position to get a\nman in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and look at\nhis pictures, saying: \"They are the finest in the place, and I want your\ncandid opinion. A man who looked at them the other day said they were\ndaubs, and I kicked him downstairs--now I want your candid judgment.\" So\nthe Protestant Church says to a man, \"This Bible is a message from your\nFather,--your Father in heaven. Read it. Judge for yourself. But if\nafter you have read it you say it is not true, I will put you in the\npenitentiary for one year.\"\n\nThe Catholic Church has a little more sense about that--at least more\nlogic. It says: \"This Bible is not given to everybody. It is given to\nthe world, to be sure, but it must be interpreted by the church. God\nwould not give a Bible to the world unless he also appointed some one,\nsome organization, to tell the world what it means.\" They said: \"We do\nnot want the world filled with interpretations, and all the interpreters\nfighting each other.\" And the Protestant has gone to the infinite\nabsurdity of saying: \"Judge for yourself, but if you judge wrong you\nwill go to the penitentiary here and to hell hereafter.\".\n\nNow, let us see further:\n\n\"_Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule_\"\n\nThink of such a law as that, passed under a constitution that says, \"No\nlaw shall abridge the liberty of speech.\" But you must not ridicule\nthe Scriptures. Did anybody ever dream of passing a law to protect\nShakespeare from being laughed at? Did anybody ever think of such a\nthing? Did anybody ever want any legislative enactment to keep people\nfrom holding Robert Burns in contempt? The songs of Burns will be sung\nas long as there is love in the human heart. Do we need to protect him\nfrom ridicule by a statute? Does he need assistance from New Jersey?\nIs any statute needed to keep Euclid from being laughed at in this\nneighborhood? And is it possible that a work written by an infinite\nBeing has to be protected by a legislature? Is it possible that a book\ncannot be written by a God so that it will not excite the laughter of\nthe human race?\n\nWhy, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in the human\nbrain. It is the torch of the mind--it sheds light. Humor is the\nreadiest test of truth--of the natural, of the sensible--and when you\ntake from a man all sense of humor, there will only be enough left\nto make a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor--no sense of\nthe absurd--the Presbyterian creed, fill his darkened brain with\nsuperstition and his heart with hatred--then frighten him with the\nthreat of hell, and he will be ready to vote for that statute. Such men\nmade that law.\n\nLet us read another clause:--\n\n\"_And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined nor\nexceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding\ntwelve months, or both_.\"\n\nI want you to remember that this statute was passed in England hundreds\nof years ago--just in that language. The punishment, however, has\nbeen somewhat changed. In the good old days when the king sat on the\nthrone--in the good old days when the altar was the right-bower of\nthe throne--then, instead of saying: \"Fined two hundred dollars and\nimprisoned one year,\" it was: \"All his goods shall be confiscated; his\ntongue shall be bored with a hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall\nbe branded with the letter B; and for the second offence he shall suffer\ndeath by burning.\" Those were the good old days when people maintained\nthe orthodox religion in all its purity and in all its ferocity.\n\nThe first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case is: Is\nthis statute constitutional? Is this statute in harmony with, the part\nof the constitution of 1844 which says: \"The liberty of speech shall not\nbe abridged\"? That is for you to say. Is this law constitutional, or\nis it simply an old statute that fell asleep, that was forgotten, that\npeople simply failed to repeal? I believe I can convince you, if you\nwill think a moment, that our fathers never intended to establish a\ngovernment like that. When they fought for what they believed to be\nreligious liberty--when they fought for what they believed to be liberty\nof speech, they believed that all such statutes would be wiped from the\nstatute books of all the States.\n\nLet me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in this\ncountry naturalization laws. People may come here irrespective of their\nreligion. They must simply swear allegiance to this country--they must\nforswear allegiance to every other potentate, prince and power--but they\ndo not have to change their religion. A Hindoo may become a citizen of\nthe United States, and the Constitution of the United States, like the\nconstitution of New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo\nbelieves in a God--in a God that no Christian does believe in.\nHe believes in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a\ncollection of falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Savior--in Buddha. Now,\nI ask you,--when that man comes here and becomes a citizen--when the\nConstitution is about him, above him--has he the right to give his ideas\nabout his religion? Has he the right to say in New Jersey: \"There is\nno God except the Supreme Brahm--there is no Savior except Buddha, the\nIlluminated, Buddha the Blest\"? I say that he has that right--and you\nhave no right, because in addition to that he says, \"You are mistaken;\nyour God is not God; your Bible is not true, and your religion is a\nmistake,\" to abridge his liberty of speech. He has the right to say it,\nand if he has the right to say it, I insist before this Court and before\nthis jury, that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it; and\nin giving those reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not\nsimply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of logic, but\nhe has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use the smile of\nridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to\nstay in it.\n\nSo the Persian--the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of Good and\nEvil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph forever--if that\nis his religion--has the right to state it, and the right to give his\nreasons for his belief. How infinitely preposterous for you, one of the\nStates of this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to your\nshores. You do not ask him to renounce his God. You ask him to renounce\nthe Shah. Then when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of every\nother citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and to denounce\nyours.\n\nThere is another thing. What was the spirit of our Government at that\ntime? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What were their\nopinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the defendant\nin this case? Thomas Jefferson--and there is, in my judgment, only one\nname on the page of American history greater than his--only one name\nfor which I have a greater and tenderer reverence--and that is Abraham\nLincoln, because of all men who ever lived and had power, he was the\nmost merciful. And that is the way to test a man. How does he use power?\nDoes he want to crush his fellow citizens? Does he like to lock somebody\nup in the penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? Does he\nwish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist--like a devil,\nor like a man? Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views\nentertained by the defendant in this case, and he was made President of\nthe United States. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence,\nfounder of the University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the\nconstitution of that State, that made all the citizens equal before the\nlaw. And when I come to the very sentences here charged as blasphemy, I\nwill show you that these were the common sentiments of thousands of very\ngreat, of very intellectual and admirable men.\n\nI have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the occasion,\nto call your attention to the infinite harm that has been done in almost\nevery religious nation by statutes such as this. Where that statute is,\nliberty can not be; and if this statute is enforced by this jury and\nby this Court, and if it is afterwards carried out, and if it could be\ncarried out in the States of this Union, there would be an end of all\nintellectual progress. We would go back to the Dark Ages. Every man's\nmind, upon these subjects at least, would become a stagnant pool,\ncovered with the scum of prejudice and meanness.\n\nAnd wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people been friends?\nHere we are to-day in this blessed air--here amid these happy fields.\nCan we imagine, with these surroundings, that a man for having been\nfound with a crucifix in his poor little home, had been taken from his\nwife and children and burned--burned by Protestants? You cannot conceive\nof such a thing now. Neither can you conceive that there was a time when\nCatholics found some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of\nthe church, and took that poor honest wretch--while his wife wept--while\nhis children clung to his hands--to the public square, drove a stake in\nthe ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the fagots, and let\nthe wife whom he loved and his little children see the flames climb\naround his limbs--you cannot imagine that any such infamy was ever\npracticed. And yet I tell you that the same spirit made this detestable,\ninfamous, devilish statute.\n\nYou can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same kind of men\nthat made this law said to another man: \"You say this world is round?\"\n\"Yes, sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow on the moon.\"\n\"You have?\"--Now, can you imagine a society, outside of hyenas and\nboa-constrictors, that would take that man, put him in the penitentiary,\nin a dungeon, turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted from\nthe book of human life? Years afterward some explorer amid ruins finds\na few bones. The same spirit that did that, made this statute--the same\nspirit that did that, went before the grand jury in this case--exactly.\nGive the men that had this man indicted, the power, and I would not want\nto live in that particular part of the country. I would not willingly\nlive with such men. I would go somewhere else, where the air is free,\nwhere I could speak my sentiments to my wife, to my children, and to my\nneighbors.\n\nNow, this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies of the\nolden times. What does it mean? It means that the State of New Jersey\nhas all the light it wants. And what does that mean? It means that the\nState of New Jersey is absolutely infallible--that it has got its growth\nand does not propose to grow any more. New Jersey knows enough, and it\nwill send teachers to the penitentiary.\n\nIt is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all that it is\never going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They are the clouds.\nHumanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the waves of the sea. These\nwaves depend upon the force and direction of the wind--that is to say,\nof passion; but Humanity is the great sea. And so our religions change\nfrom day to day, and it is a blessed thing that they do. Why? Because we\ngrow, and we are getting a little more civilized every day,--and any\nman that is not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a\ncivilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to everybody\nelse the rights he claims for himself, is not in honest man.\n\nHere is a man who says, \"I am going to join the Methodist Church.\" What\nright has he? Just the same right to join it that I have not to join\nit--no more, no less. But if you are a Methodist and I am not, it simply\nproves that you do not agree with me, and that I do not agree with\nyou--that is all. Another man is a Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or\nis convinced that Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any\nman that would persecute him on that account, is a poor barbarian--a\nsavage; any man that would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian--a\nsavage.\n\nThen I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to any church.\nHow are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he treats his wife,\nhis children, his neighbors. Does he pay his debts? Does he tell the\ntruth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a heart that melts when he\nhears grief's story? That is the way to judge him. I do not care what\nhe thinks about the bears, or the flood, about bibles or gods. When some\npoor mother is found wandering in the street with a babe at her breast,\ndoes he quote Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way\nto judge. And suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If\nChristianity is true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should pity\nthe poor wretch that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You will get\nyour revenge on him through all eternity--is not that enough?\n\nSo I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories, not\nby what we happen to believe--because that depends very much on where we\nwere born.\n\nIf you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been a\nMohammedan. If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have been a\nBuddhist--I can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on oatmeal, I\nmight have been a Covenanter--nobody knows. If I had lived in Ireland,\nand seen my poor wife and children driven into the street, I think I\nmight have been a Home-ruler--no doubt of it. You see it depends on\nwhere you were born--much depends on our surroundings.\n\nOf course, there are men born in Turkey who are not Mohammedans, and\nthere are men born in this country who are not Christians--Methodists,\nUnitarians, or Catholics, plenty of them, who are unbelievers--plenty of\nthem who deny the truth of the Scriptures--plenty of them who say:\n\n\"I know not whether there be a God or not.\" Well, it is a thousand times\nbetter to say that honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in\nGod.\n\nIf you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his honest\nopinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to talk with a\nhypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest mind--and then you are\ngoing to judge him, not by what he says but by what he does. It is very\neasy to sail along with the majority--easy to sail the way the boats are\ngoing--easy to float with the stream; but when you come to swim against\nthe tide, with the men on the shore throwing rocks at you, you will get\na good deal of exercise in this world.\n\nAnd do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest obligation to\nmen who have fought the prevailing notions of their day? There is not a\nPresbyterian in Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the\nman that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they were in the\nminority--not one. There is not a Methodist in this State who does not\nadmire John and Charles Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner\nof that new and despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory\nin them because they braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose\nidiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like this. And there is not a\nUniversalist that does not worship dear old Hosea Ballou--I love him\nmyself--because he said to the Presbyterian minister: \"You are going\naround trying to keep people out of hell, and I am going around trying\nto keep hell out of the people.\" Every Universalist admires him and\nloves him because when despised and railed at and spit upon, he stood\nfirm, a patient witness for the eternal mercy of God. And there is not a\nsolitary Protestant who does not honor Martin Luther--who does not honor\nthe Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out\non the sand of the sea by Episcopalians, and kept there till the rising\ntide drowned her, and all she had to do to save her life was to say,\n\"God save the king,\" but she would not say it without the addition of\nthe words, \"If it be God's will.\" No one, who is not a miserable,\ncontemptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration before such\ncourage, such self-denial--such heroism. No matter what the attitude of\nyour body may be, your soul falls on its knees before such men and such\nwomen.\n\nLet us take another step. Where would we have been if authority had\nalways triumphed? Where would we have been if such statutes had always\nbeen carried out? We have now a science called astronomy. That science\nhas done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things\nelse. We now live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a\nmillion times larger than our earth, and we know that there are other\ngreat luminaries millions of times larger than our sun. We know that\nthere are planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of\none hundred and eighty-five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen\nthousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the\nearth--and we now know that all the fields of space are sown thick with\nconstellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science would\nnot now be the property of the human mind. That science is contrary to\nthe Bible, and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For\nwhat sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the\nscience of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the\nstory of the stars in spite of that statute.\n\nThe first men who said the world was round were scourged for scoffing at\nthe Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one of the greatest\nmen that ever lived, said: \"Does he think with his little lever to\noverturn the Universe of God?\" Martin Luther insisted that such men\nought to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been carried into\neffect, Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of\nthe three laws, would have died with the great secret locked in his\nbrain, and mankind would have been left ignorant, superstitious, and\nbesotted. And what else? If that statute had been carried out, the\nworld would have been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the\nphilosophy, of the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and\nmercy of Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of\nlife--the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and\nhelped to civilize a world.\n\nIf that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that enrich the\nlibraries of the world could not have been written. If that statute had\nbeen enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now known\nas \"The Cosmos.\" If that statute had been enforced, Charles Darwin would\nnot have been allowed to give to the world his discoveries that have\nbeen of more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever uttered. In\nEngland they have placed his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had\nlived in New Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would\nhave lived one year at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went\nso far as not simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely\nto deny the existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the\nnoblest and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever\nlived, was of the same opinion.\n\nAnd so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the men\nwho are leading the race upward and shedding light in the intellectual\nworld? They are the men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr.\nSpencer could not publish his books in the State of New Jersey. He would\nbe arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet that man has added to the\nintellectual wealth of the world.\n\nSo with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz--so with the greatest\nthinkers and greatest writers of modern times.\n\nYou may not agree with these men--and what does that prove? It simply\nproves that they do not agree with you--that is all. Who is to blame?\nI do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be right; but if they had\nthe power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you differed\nwith them, they would be savages; and if you have the power and imprison\nmen because they differ from you, why then, of course, you are savages.\n\nNo; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that have a little\nhorizon to their minds--a little sky, a little scope. I hate anything\nthat is narrow and pinched and withered and mean and crawling, and that\nis willing to live on dust. I believe in creating such an atmosphere\nthat things will burst into blossom. I believe in good will, good\nhealth, good fellowship, good feeling--and if there is any God on the\nearth, or in heaven, let us hope that he will be generous and grand. Do\nyou not see what the effect will be? I am not cursing you because you\nare a Methodist, and not damning you because you are a Catholic, or\nbecause you are an Infidel--a good man is more than all of these. The\ngrandest of all things is to be in the highest and noblest sense a man.\n\nNow let us see the frightful things that this man, the defendant in this\ncase, has done. Let me read the charges against him as set out in this\nindictment.\n\nI shall insist that this statute does not cover any publication--that\nit covers simply speech--not in writing, not in book or pamphlet. Let us\nsee:\n\n\"_This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the whole world\nin his mad fury_.\"\n\nWell, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the Bible\ndescribe God as having drowned the whole world with the exception of\neight people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know whether there is\nanybody in this county who has really read the Bible, but I believe the\nstory of the flood is there. It does say that God destroyed all flesh,\nand that he did so because he was angry. He says so, himself, if the\nBible be true.\n\nThe defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible. The Bible says\nthat God is loving, and says that he drowned the world, and that he was\nangry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the \"Sacred Scriptures\"?\n\n\"_Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, ever\nsupposed it could be._\"\n\nWell, the Bible does say that he repented having made man. Now, is\nthere any blasphemy in saying that the Bible is true? That is the only\nquestion. It is a fact that God, according to the Bible, did drown\nnearly everybody. If God knows all things, he must have known at the\ntime he made them that he was going to drown them. Is it likely that\na being of infinite wisdom would deliberately do what he knew he must\nundo? Is it blasphemy to ask that question? Have you a right to think\nabout it at all? If you have, you have the right to tell somebody what\nyou think--if not, you have no right to discuss it, no right to think\nabout it. All you have to do is to read it and believe it--to open your\nmouth like a young robin, and swallow--worms or shingle nails--no matter\nwhich.\n\nThe defendant further blasphemed and said that:--\n\n\"_An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience with a world\nwhich was just what his own stupid blundering had made it, knew no\nbetter way out of the muddle than to destroy it by drowning!_\"\n\nIs that true? Was not the world exactly as God made it? Certainly. Did\nhe not, if the Bible is true, drown the people? He did. Did he know he\nwould drown them when he made them? He did. Did he know they ought to\nbe drowned when they were made? He did. Where then, is the blasphemy\nin saying so? There is not a minister in this world who could explain\nit--who would be permitted to explain it--under this statute. And yet\nyou would arrest this man and put him in the penitentiary. But after you\nlock him in the cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible\nthat a good and wise God, knowing that he was going to drown them, made\nmillions of people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do not\npretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course, you cannot\nanswer the question. Is there anything blasphemous in that? Would it\nbe blasphemy in me to say I do not believe that any God ever made men,\nwomen and children--mothers, with babes clasped to their breasts, and\nthen sent a flood to fill the world with death?\n\nA rain lasting for forty days--the water rising hour by hour, and the\npoor wretched children of God climbing to the tops of their houses--then\nto the tops of the hills. The water still rising--no mercy. The people\nclimbing higher and higher, looking to the mountains for salvation--the\nmerciless rain still falling, the inexorable flood still rising.\nChildren falling from the arms of mothers--no pity. The highest hills\ncovered--infancy and old age mingling in death--the cries of women, the\nsobs and sighs lost in the roar of waves--the heavens still relentless.\nThe mountains are covered--a shoreless sea rolls round the world, and on\nits billows are billions of corpses.\n\nThis is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this crime is\ncalled a deed of infinite mercy.\n\nDo you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I have the\nright to say to all the world that this is false.\n\nIf there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a wise\nGod, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to the\npenitentiary for simply telling the truth?\n\nSuppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at science--whoever\nby profane language should bring the rule of three into contempt, or\nwhoever should attack the proposition that two parallel lines will never\ninclude a space, should be sent to the penitentiary--what would you\nthink of it? It would be just as wise and just as idiotic as this.\n\nAnd what else says the defendant?\n\n\"_The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous.\" \"Provoked him to\nanger._\"\n\nIs that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous?\n\nLet us read another line--\n\n\"_And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger bums like\nhell_.\"\n\nThat is true. The Bible says of God--\"My anger burns to the lowest\nhell.\" And that is all that the defendant says. Every word of it is\nin the Bible. He simply does not believe it--and for that reason is a\n\"blasphemer.\"\n\nI say to you now, gentlemen,--and I shall argue to the Court,--that\nthere is not in what I have read a solitary blasphemous word--not a word\nthat has not been said in hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world.\nTheodore Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this Bible-God said: \"Vishnu\nwith a necklace of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing\nserpents, is a figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old\nTestament.\" That, we might call \"blasphemy,\" but not what I have read.\n\nLet us read on:--\n\n\"_He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the wrath of the\nenemy_.\"\n\nThat is in the Bible--word for word. Then the defendant in astonishment\nsays:\n\n\"_The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!_\"\n\nThat is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible is true,\nGod was afraid.\n\n\"_Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?_\"\n\nIs not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and powerful, is\nit possible he is afraid of anything? If the defendant had said that God\nwas afraid of his enemies, that might have been blasphemy--but this man\nsays the Bible says that, and you are asked to say that it is blasphemy.\nNow, up to this point there is no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce\nthis infamous statute--this savage law.\n\n\"_The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the most foul\nand bestial instances of fornication, incest, and polygamy, perpetrated\nby God's own saints, and the New Testament indorses these lecherous\nwretches as examples for all good Christians to follow_.\".\n\nNow, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold polygamy?\nAbraham would have gotten into trouble in New Jersey--no doubt of that.\nSarah could have obtained a divorce in this State--no doubt of that.\nWhat is the use of telling a falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth\nabout the patriarchs.\n\nEverybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We have all heard of\nSolomon--a gentleman with five or six hundred wives, and three or four\nhundred other ladies with whom he was acquainted. This is simply what\nthe defendant says. Is there any blasphemy about that? It is only the\ntruth. If Solomon were living in the United States to-day, we would put\nhim in the penitentiary. You know that under the Edmunds Mormon law\nhe would be locked up. If you should present a petition signed by his\neleven hundred wives, you could not get him out.\n\nSo it was with David. There are some splendid things about David, of\ncourse. I admit that, and pay my tribute of respect to his courage--but\nhe happened to have ten or twelve wives too many, so he shut them up,\nput them in a kind of penitentiary and kept them there till they died.\nThat would not be considered good conduct even in Morristown. You know\nthat. Is it any harm to speak of it? There are plenty of ministers here\nto set it right--thousands of them all over the country, every one with\nhis chance to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word back. The pew\ncannot reply to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit there and\ntake it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, they ought to\nanswer it. But it is here, and the only answer is an indictment.\n\nI say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham, and of Jacob. Did you\never know of a more despicable fraud practiced by one brother on another\nthan Jacob practiced on Esau? My sympathies have always been with Esau.\nHe seemed to be a manly man. Is it blasphemy to say that you do not like\na hypocrite, a murderer, or a thief, because his name is in the Bible?\nHow do you know what such men are mentioned for? May be they are\nmentioned as examples, and you certainly ought not to be led away and\ninduced to imagine that a man with seven hundred wives is a pattern\nof domestic propriety, one to be followed by yourself and your sons. I\nmight go on and mention the names of hundreds of others who committed\nevery conceivable crime, in the name of religion--who declared war, and\non the field of battle killed men, women and babes, even children yet\nunborn, in the name of the most merciful God. The Bible is filled with\nthe names and crimes of these sacred savages, these inspired beasts. Any\nman who says that a God of love commanded the commission of these crimes\nis, to say the least of it, mistaken. If there be a God, then it is\nblasphemous to charge him with the commission of crime.\n\nBut let us read further from this indictment:\n\n\"The aforesaid printed document contains other scandalous, infamous and\nblasphemous matters and things, to the tenor and effect following, that\nis to say--\"\n\nThen comes this particularly blasphemous line:\n\n\"_Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over _.\"\n\nGentlemen, there are many things I have read that I should not have\nexpressed in exactly the same language used by the defendant, and many\nthings that I am going to read I might not have said at all, but the\ndefendant had the right to say every word with which he is charged in\nthis indictment. He had the right to give his honest thought, no matter\nwhether any human being agreed with what he said or not, and no matter\nwhether any other man approved of the manner in which he said these\nthings. I defend his right to speak, whether I believe in what he spoke\nor not, or in the propriety of saying what he did. I should defend a man\njust as cheerfully who had spoken against my doctrine, as one who had\nspoken against the popular superstitions of my time. It would make\nno difference to me how unjust the attack was upon my belief--how\nmaliciously ingenious; and no matter how sacred the conviction that\nwas attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And why? Because no\nattack can be answered by force, no argument can be refuted by a blow,\nor by imprisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but the\nargument is free; you may fell the man to the earth, but the statement\nstands.\n\nThe defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs, thought by the\nChristian world to be sacred. Yet, after all, nothing is sacred but the\ntruth, and by truth I mean what a man sincerely and honestly believes.\nThe defendant says:\n\n\"_Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the mother of\nGod, the mother of your God?_\"\n\nThe defendant probably asked this question, supposing that it must\nbe answered by all sensible people in the negative. If the Christian\nreligion is true, then a Jewish girl was the mother of Almighty God.\nPersonally, if the doctrine is true, I have no fault to find with the\nstatement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of God.--Millions believe,\nthat this is true--I do not believe,--but who knows? If a God came from\nthe throne of the universe, came to this world and became the child of\na pure and loving woman, it would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or\nthe greatness of that God.\n\nThere is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within the imagination\nof man, than a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms a child,\nthe fruit of love.\n\nNo matter how the statement is made, the fact remains the same. A Jewish\ngirl became the mother of God. If the Bible is true, that is true, and\nto repeat it, even according to your law, is not blasphemous, and to\ndoubt it, or to express the doubt, or to deny it, is not contrary to\nyour constitution.\n\nTo this defendant it seemed improbable that God was ever born of woman,\nwas ever held in the lap of a mother; and because he cannot believe\nthis, he is charged with blasphemy. Could you pour contempt on\nShakespeare by saying that his mother was a woman,--by saying that he\nwas once a poor, crying, little, helpless child? Of course he was; and\nhe afterwards became the greatest human being that ever touched the\nearth,--the only man whose intellectual wings have reached from sky to\nsky; and he was once a crying babe. What of it? Does that cast any scorn\nor contempt upon him? Does this take any of the music from \"Midsummer\nNight's Dream\"?--any of the passionate wealth from \"Antony and\nCleopatra,\" any philosophy from \"Macbeth,\" any intellectual grandeur\nfrom \"King Lear\"? On the contrary, these great productions of the brain\nshow the growth of the dimpled babe, give every mother a splendid\ndream and hope for her child, and cover every cradle with a sublime\npossibility.\n\nThe defendant is also charged with having said that: \"_God cried and\nscreamed_.\"\n\nWhy not? If he was absolutely a child, he was like other children,--like\nyours, like mine. I have seen the time, when absent from home, that I\nwould have given more to have heard my children cry, than to have heard\nthe finest orchestra that ever made the air burst into flower. What if\nGod did cry? It simply shows that his humanity was real and not assumed,\nthat it was a tragedy, real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant\nalso says that if the orthodox religion be true, that the\n\n\"_God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms, and made\naimless dashes into space with his little fists_.\"\n\nIs there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of the best pictures\nI ever saw of the Virgin and Child was painted by the Spaniard, Murillo.\nChrist appears to be a truly natural, chubby, happy babe. Such a\npicture takes nothing from the majesty, the beauty, or the glory of the\nincarnation.\n\nI think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church that it lifts\nup for adoration and admiration, a mother,--that it pays what it calls\n\"Divine honors\" to a woman. There is certainly goodness in that, and\nwhere a church has so few practices that are good, I am willing to point\nthis one out. It is the one redeeming feature about Catholicism, that it\nteaches the worship of a woman.\n\nThe defendant says more about the childhood of Christ. He goes so far as\nto say, that:\n\n\"_He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes._\"\n\nAnd why not? The Bible says, that \"he increased in wisdom and stature.\"\nThe defendant might have referred to something far more improbable. In\nthe same verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and\nstature, will be found the assertion that he increased in favor with God\nand man. The defendant might have asked how it was that the love of God\nfor God increased.\n\nBut the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus grew, as other\nchildren grow; that he acted like other children, and if he did, it is\nmore than probable that he did stare at his own toes. I have laughed\nmany a time to see little children astonished with the sight of their\nfeet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the little toes in motion.\nCertainly there is nothing blasphemous in supposing that the feet of\nChrist amused him, precisely as the feet of other children have amused\nthem. There is nothing blasphemous about this; on the contrary, it is\nbeautiful. If I believed in the existence of God, the Creator of this\nworld, the Being who, with the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of\nspace with stars, as a farmer sows his grain, I should like to think of\nhim as a little, dimpled babe, overflowing with joy, sitting upon the\nknees of a loving mother. The ministers themselves might take a lesson\neven from the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an effort to\nbring an infinite God a little nearer to the human heart.\n\nThe defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ, \"_He was nursed\nat Mary's breast._\"\n\nYes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in it. Nursed\nat the breast of woman. No painting, no statue, no words can make a\ndeeper and a tenderer impression upon the heart of man than this: The\ninfinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of woman.\n\nYou see these things do not strike all people the same. To a man\nthat has been raised on the orthodox desert, these things are\nincomprehensible. He has been robbed of his humanity. He has no humor,\nnothing but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with folded wings.\n\nImagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every seed of earth\nto seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of bud and flower and fruit.\nImagination gathers from every field of thought and pours the wealth\nof many lives into the lap of one. To the contracted, to the cast-iron\npeople who believe in heartless and inhuman creeds, the words of the\ndefendant seem blasphemous, and to them the thought that God was a\nlittle child is monstrous.\n\nThey cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the breast of a\nmaiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that he had the joys\nand sorrows of other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not only you,\nbut the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is known as the\n\"Apocryphal New Testament,\" books that were once considered inspired,\nonce admitted to be genuine, and that once formed a part of our New\nTestament. I hope you have read the books of Joseph and Mary, of the\nShepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and of Mary, in which many of the\nthings done by the youthful Christ are described--books that were once\nthe delight of the Christian world; books that gave joy to children,\nbecause in them they read that Christ made little birds of clay, that\nwould at his command stretch out their wings and fly with joy above his\nhead. If the defendant in this case had said anything like that, here\nin the State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted; the orthodox\nministers would have shouted \"blasphemy,\" and yet, these little stories\nmade the name of Christ dearer to children.\n\nThe church of to-day lacks sympathy; the theologians are without\naffection. After all, sympathy is genius. A man who really sympathizes\nwith another understands him. A man who sympathizes with a religion,\ninstantly sees the good that is in it, and the man who sympathizes with\nthe right, sees the evil that a creed contains.\n\nBut the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is charged with\nhaving said:\n\n\"_God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and was rocked\nto sleep._\"\n\nYes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that. Let some great\nreligious genius paint a picture of this kind--of a babe smiling with\ncontent, rocked in the cradle by the mother who bends tenderly and\nproudly above him. There could be no more beautiful, no more touching,\npicture than this. What would I not give for a picture of Shakespeare as\na babe,--a picture that was a likeness,--rocked by his mother? I would\ngive more for this than for any painting that now enriches the walls of\nthe world.\n\nThe defendant also says, that:\n\n\"_God was sick when cutting his teeth._\"\n\nAnd what of that? We are told that he was tempted in all points, as we\nare. That is to say, he was afflicted, he was hungry, he was thirsty,\nhe suffered the pains and miseries common to man. Otherwise, he was not\nflesh, he was not human.\n\n\"_He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the whooping\ncough_.\"\n\nCertainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was, in fact,\na child. Other children have them. Other children, loved as dearly by\ntheir mothers as Christ could have been by his, and yet they are taken\nfrom the little family by fever; taken, it may be, and buried in the\nsnow, while the poor mother goes sadly home, wishing that she was lying\nby its side. All that can be said of every word in this address, about\nChrist and about his childhood, amounts to this; that he lived the\nlife of a child; that he acted like other children. I have read you\nsubstantially what he has said, and this is considered blasphemous.\n\nHe has said, that:\n\n\"_According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian world\ncommanded people to destroy each other._\"\n\nIf the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant is true. Is it\ncalculated to bring God into contempt to deny that he upheld polygamy,\nthat he ever commanded one of his generals to rip open with the sword\nof war, the woman with child? Is it blasphemy to deny that a God of\ninfinite love gave such commandments? Is such a denial calculated to\npour contempt and scorn upon the God of the orthodox?\n\nIs it blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children to murder each\nother? Is it blasphemous to say that he was benevolent, merciful and\njust?\n\nIt is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God is good.\nI do not believe that a God made this world, filled it with people and\nthen drowned them. I do not believe that infinite wisdom ever made a\nmistake. If there be any God he was too good to commit such an infinite\ncrime, too wise, to make such a mistake. Is this blasphemy? Is it\nblasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous man, or that David was\nan adulterer?\n\nMust we say when this ancient King had one of his best generals placed\nin the front of the battle--deserted him and had him murdered for the\npurpose of stealing his wife, that he was \"a man after God's own heart\"?\nSuppose the defendant in this case were guilty of something like that?\nUriah was fighting for his country, fighting the battles of David, the\nKing. David wanted to take from him his wife. He sent for Joab, his\ncommander-in-chief, and said to him:\n\n\"Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front of the attacking\nforce, and when the people sally forth from the town to defend its gate,\nfall back so that this gallant, noble, patriotic man may be slain.\"\n\nThis was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is it blasphemy to\ntell the truth and to say exactly what David was? Let us be honest with\neach other; let us be honest with this defendant.\n\nFor thousands of years men have taught that the ancient patriarchs were\nsacred, that they were far better than the men of modern times, that\nwhat was in them a virtue, is in us a crime. Children are taught in\nSunday schools to admire and respect these criminals of the ancient\ndays. The time has come to tell the truth about these men, to call\nthings by their proper names, and above all, to stand by the right, by\nthe truth, by mercy and by justice. If what the defendant has said is\nblasphemy under this statute then the question arises, is the statute in\naccordance with the constitution? If this statute is constitutional, why\nhas it been allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this position:\nAny law made for the preservation of a human right, made to guard a\nhuman being, cannot sleep long enough to die; but any law that deprives\na human being of a natural right--if that law goes to sleep, it never\nwakes, it sleeps the sleep of death.\n\nI call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case in England\nwhere, only a few years ago, a man appealed to trial by battle. The law\nallowing trial by battle had been asleep in the statute book of England\nfor more than two hundred years, and yet the court held that, in spite\nof the fact that the law had been asleep--it being a law in favor of a\ndefendant--he was entitled to trial by battle. And why? Because it was\na statute at the time made in defence of a human right, and that statute\ncould not sleep long enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence\nof this decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act, doing\naway forever with the trial by battle.\n\nWhen a statute attacks an individual right, the State must never let it\nsleep. When it attacks the right of the public at large and is allowed\nto pass into a state of slumber, it cannot be raised for the purpose of\npunishing an individual.\n\nNow, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost infinite interest\nin this trial, and before you decide, I am exceedingly anxious that you\nshould understand with clearness the thoughts I have expressed upon this\nsubject I want you to know how the civilized feel, and the position now\ntaken by the leaders of the world.\n\nA few years ago almost everything spoken against the grossest possible\nsuperstition was considered blasphemous. The altar hedged itself about\nwith the sword; the Priest went in partnership with the King. In those\ndays statutes were leveled against all human speech. Men were convicted\nof blasphemy because they believed in an actual personal God; because\nthey insisted that God had body and parts. Men were convicted of\nblasphemy because they denied that God had form. They have been\nimprisoned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and they\nhave been torn in pieces for defending that doctrine. There are but few\ndogmas now believed by any Christian church that have not at some time\nbeen denounced as blasphemous.\n\nWhen Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the Episcopal Church a\ncreed was made, and in that creed there were five dogmas that must,\nof necessity, be believed. Anybody who denied any one, was to be\npunished--for the first offence, with fine, with imprisonment, or\nbranding, and for the second offence, with death. Not one of these five\ndogmas is now a part of the creed of the Church of England.\n\nSo I could go on for days and weeks and months, showing that hundreds\nand hundreds of religious dogmas, to deny which was death, have been\neither changed or abandoned for others nearly as absurd as the old ones\nwere. It may be, however, sufficient to say, that wherever the church\nhas had power it has been a crime for any man to speak his honest\nthought. No church has ever been willing that any opponent should give\na transcript of his mind. Every church in power has appealed to brute\nforce, to the sword, for the purpose of sustaining its creed. Not one\nhas had the courage to occupy the open field. The church has not been\nsatisfied with calling Infidels and unbelievers blasphemers. Each church\nhas accused nearly every other church of being a blasphemer. Every\npioneer has been branded as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin\nLuther a blasphemer, and Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer.\nPious ignorance always regards intelligence as a kind of blasphemy. Some\nof the greatest men of the world, some of the best, have been put to\ndeath for the crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of\nendeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.\n\nAs long as the church has the power to close the lips of men, so long\nand no longer will superstition rule this world.\n\n\"Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of the\nfew.\"\n\nAfter every argument of the church has been answered, has been refuted,\nthen the church cries, \"blasphemy!\"\n\nBlasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth.\n\nBlasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a this year's bud.\n\nBlasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.\n\nBlasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.\n\nAnd let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set out in this\nstatute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a book. No man can commit\nblasphemy by telling his honest thought. No man can blaspheme a God, or\na Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite cannot be blasphemed.\n\nIn the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition, when some\npoor man was struck by lightning, or when a blackened mark was left on\nthe breast of a wife and mother, the poor savage supposed that some god,\nangered by something he had done, had taken his revenge. What else did\nthe savage suppose? He believed that this god had the same feelings,\nwith regard to the loyalty of his subjects, that an earthly chief had,\nor an earthly king had, with regard to the loyalty or treachery of\nmembers of his tribe, or citizens of his kingdom. So the savage said,\nwhen his country was visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the\npeople away, or the storm scattered their poor houses in fragments:\n\"We have allowed some Freethinker to live; some one is in our town or\nvillage who has not brought his gift to the priest, his incense to the\naltar; some man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our\ngod.\" Then, for the purpose of appeasing the supposed god, for the\npurpose of again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of\nsecuring a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they drag the\naccused man from his home, from his wife and children, and with all\nthe ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They did it in\nself-defence; they believed that they were saving their own lives and\nthe lives of their children; they did it to appease their god. Most\npeople are now beyond that point. Now when disease visits a community,\nthe intelligent do not say the disease came because the people were\nwicked; when the cholera comes, it is not because of the Methodists, of\nthe Catholics, of the Presbyterians, or of the Infidels. When the wind\ndestroys a town in the far West, it is not because somebody there had\nspoken his honest thoughts. We are beginning to see that the wind\nblows and destroys without the slightest reference to man, without the\nslightest care whether it destroys the good or the bad, the irreligious\nor the religious. When the lightning leaps from the clouds it is just as\nlikely to strike a good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of\nflame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly and just\nas joyously, the home of virtue, as they do the den and lair of vice.\n\nThen the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws were made on\naccount of a superstition. That superstition has faded from the minds\nof intelligent men, and, as a consequence, the laws based on the\nsuperstition ought to fail.\n\nThere is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that men and nations\nmust reap the consequences of their acts--reap them in this world, if\nthey live, and in another if there be one. The man who leaves this\nworld a bad man, a malicious man, will probably be the same man when\nhe reaches another realm, and the man who leaves this shore good,\ncharitable and honest, will be good, charitable and honest, no matter\non what star he lives again. The world is growing sensible upon these\nsubjects, and as we grow sensible, we grow charitable.\n\nAnother reason has been given for these laws against blasphemy, the most\nabsurd reason that can by any possibility be given. It is this: There\nshould be laws against blasphemy, because the man who utters blasphemy\nendangers the public peace.\n\nIs it possible that Christians will break the peace? Is it possible\nthat they will violate the law? Is it probable that Christians will\ncongregate together and make a mob, simply because a man has given an\nopinion against their religion? What is their religion? They say, \"If\na man smites you on one cheek, turn the other also.\" They say, \"We must\nlove our neighbors as we love ourselves.\" Is it possible then, that you\ncan make a mob out of Christians,--that these men, who love even their\nenemies, will attack others, and will destroy life, in the name of\nuniversal love? And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to\nbe laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are controlled\nby universal love, will become so outraged, when they hear an honest man\nexpress an honest thought, that they will leap upon him and tear him in\npieces.\n\nWhat is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give you my\nthought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy?\n\nTo live on the unpaid labor of other men--that is blasphemy.\n\nTo enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body--that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, padlocks\nupon the lips--that is blasphemy.\n\nTo deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what you\nbelieve to be a lie--that is blasphemy.\n\nTo strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain the\napplause of the ignorant and superstitious mob--that is blasphemy.\n\nTo persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant\nmany--that is blasphemy.\n\nTo forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-men--that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal pain--that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo violate your conscience--that is blasphemy.\n\nThe jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge who pronounces an\nunjust sentence, are blasphemers.\n\nThe man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment and\nagainst his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.\n\nWhy should we fear our fellow-men? Why should not each human being have\nthe right, so far as thought and its expression are concerned, of all\nthe world? What harm can come from an honest interchange of thought?\n\nI have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken freely, and yet\nthe sun rose this morning, just the same as it always has. There is no\nparticular change visible in the world, and I do not see but that we are\nall as happy to-day as though we had spent yesterday in making somebody\nelse miserable. I denounced on yesterday the superstitions of the\nChristian world, and yet, last night I slept the sleep of peace. You\nwill pardon me for saying again that I feel the greatest possible\ninterest in the result of this trial, in the principle at stake. This is\nmy only apology, my only excuse, for taking your time. For years I\nhave felt that the great battle for human liberty, the battle that has\ncovered thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been won. When\nI read the history of this world, of what has been endured, of what has\nbeen suffered, of the heroism and infinite courage of the intellectual\nand honest few, battling with the countless serfs and slaves of kings\nand priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance and prejudice, of\nfaith and fear, there was in my heart the hope that the great battle had\nbeen fought, and that the human race, in its march towards the dawn, had\npassed midnight, and that the \"great balance weighed up morning.\" This\nhope, this feeling, gave me the greatest possible joy. When I thought\nof the many who had been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty had\nperished in ashes, of how many o! the noblest and greatest had stood\nupon scaffolds, and of the countless hearts, the grandest that ever\nthrobbed in human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of church\nand state, of how many of the noble and loving had sighed themselves\naway in dungeons, the only consolation was that the last bastile had\nfallen, that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn down and that\nthe scaffolds of the world could no longer be wet with heroic blood.\n\nYou know that sometimes, after a great battle has been fought, and one\nof the armies has been broken, and its fortifications carried, there\nare occasional stragglers beyond the great field, stragglers who know\nnothing of the fate of their army, know nothing of the victory, and for\nthat reason, fight on. There are a few such stragglers in the State of\nNew Jersey. They have never heard of the great victory. They do not know\nthat in all civilized countries the hosts of superstition have been put\nto flight. They do not know that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the\nleaders of the intellectual armies of the world.\n\nOne of the last trials of this character, tried in Great Britain,--and\nthat is the country that our ancestors fought in the sacred name of\nliberty,--one of the last trials in that country, a country ruled by a\nstate church, ruled by a woman who was born a queen, ruled by dukes and\nnobles and lords, children of ancient robbers--was in the year 1843.\nGeorge Jacob Holyoake, one of the best of the human race, was imprisoned\non a charge of Atheism, charged with having written a pamphlet and\nhaving made a speech in which he had denied the existence of the British\nGod. The judge who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went down\nto his grave with a stain upon his intellect and upon his honor. All the\nreal intelligence of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage. There\nwas a trial after that to which I will call your attention. Judge\nColeridge, father of the present Chief Justice of England, presided at\nthis trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas Pooley, a man who dug wells\nfor a living, wrote on the gate of a priest, that, if people would burn\ntheir Bibles and scatter the ashes on the lands, the crops would be\nbetter, and that they would also save a good deal of money in tithes. He\nwrote several sentences of a kindred character. He was a curious man. He\nhad an idea that the world was a living, breathing animal. He would not\ndig a well beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon\nthis animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge Coleridge, on that\ncharge. An infinite God was about to be dethroned, because an honest\nwell-digger had written his sentiments on the fence of a parson. He\nwas indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Afterward, many\nintelligent people asked for his pardon, on the ground that he was in\ndanger of becoming insane. The judge refused to sign the petition. The\npardon was refused. Long before his sentence expired, he became a raving\nmaniac. He was removed to an asylum and there died. Some of the greatest\nmen in England attacked that judge, among these, Mr. Buckle, author of\n\"The History of Civilization in England,\" one of the greatest books in\nthis world. Mr. Buckle denounced Judge Coleridge. He brought him before\nthe bar of English opinion, and there was not a man in England, whose\nopinion was worth anything, who did not agree with Mr. Buckle, and did\nnot with him, declare the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an infamous\noutrage. What were the reasons given? This, among others: The law was\ndead; it had been asleep for many years; it was a law passed during the\nignorance of the Middle Ages, and a law that came out of the dungeon\nof religious persecution; a law that was appealed to by bigots and by\nhypocrites, to punish, to imprison an honest man.\n\nIn many parts of this country, people have entertained the idea that New\nEngland was still filled with the spirit of Puritanism, filled with\nthe descendants of those who killed Quakers in the name of universal\nbenevolence, and traded Quaker children in the Barbadoes for rum, for\nthe purpose of establishing the fact that God is an infinite father.\n\nYet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this, was when\nAbner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of Atheism. He was tried for\nhaving written this sentence: \"The Universalists believe in a God which\nI do not.\" He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief Justice Shaw upheld\nthe decision, and upheld it because he was afraid of public opinion;\nupheld it, although he must have known that the statute under which\nKneeland was indicted was clearly and plainly in violation of the\nConstitution. No man can read the decision of Justice Shaw without\nbeing convinced that he was absolutely dominated, either by bigotry,\nor hypocrisy. One of the judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a\ndissenting opinion, and in that dissenting opinion is the argument of\na civilized, of an enlightened jurist. No man can answer the dissenting\nopinion of Justice Morton. The case against Kneeland was tried more\nthan fifty years ago, and there has been none since in the New England\nStates; and this case, that we are now trying, is the first ever\ntried in New Jersey. The fact that it is the first, certifies to my\ninterpretation of this statute, and it also certifies to the toleration\nand to the civilization of the people of this State. The statute is\nupon your books. You inherited it from your ignorant ancestors, and they\ninherited it from their savage ancestors. The people of New Jersey were\nheirs of the mistakes and of the atrocities of ancient England.\n\nIt is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been allowed to\nslumber? Who obtained this indictment? Were they actuated by good and\nnoble motives? Had they the public weal at heart, or were they simply\nendeavoring to be revenged upon this defendant? Were they willing to\ndisgrace the State, in order that they might punish him?\n\nI have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the question\narises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper? What is prayer? What is\nreal religion? Let me answer these questions.\n\nGood, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who ploughs the fields\nand fells the forests; the man who works in mines, the man who battles\nwith the winds and waves out on the wide sea, controlling the commerce\nof the world; these men are worshipers. The man who goes into the\nforest, leading his wife by the hand, who builds him a cabin, who makes\na home in the wilderness, who helps to people and civilize and cultivate\na continent, is a worshiper.\n\nLabor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only prayer that\ndeserves an answer,--good, honest, noble work.\n\nA woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter, gone down to\ndegradation and filth; the woman who follows him and lifts him out of\nthe mire and presses him to her noble heart, until he becomes a man once\nmore, this woman is a worshiper. Her act is worship.\n\nThe poor man and the poor woman who work night and day, in order that\nthey may give education to their children, so that they may have a\nbetter life than their father and mother had; the parents who deny\nthemselves the comforts of life, that they may lay up something to help\ntheir children to a higher place--they are worshipers; and the children\nwho, after they reap the benefit of this worship, become ashamed of\ntheir parents, are blasphemers.\n\nThe man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife,--a wife prematurely old\nand gray,--the husband who sits by her bed and holds, her thin, wan hand\nin his as lovingly, and kisses it as rapturously, as passionately, as\nwhen it was dimpled,--that is worship; that man is a worshiper; that is\nreal religion.\n\nWhoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper. He who adds to\nthe sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.\n\nGentlemen, you can never make me believe--no statute can ever convince\nme, that there is any infinite Being in this universe who hates an\nhonest man. It is impossible to satisfy me that there is any God, or\ncan be any God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that has the courage to\nexpress his thought. Neither can the whole world convince me that any\nman should be punished, either in this world or in the next, for being\ncandid with his fellow-men. If you send men to the penitentiary for\nspeaking their thoughts, for endeavoring to enlighten their fellows,\nthen the penitentiary will become a place of honor, and the victim will\nstep from it--not stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.\n\nLet us take one more step.\n\nWhat is holy, what is sacred? I reply that human happiness is holy,\nhuman rights are holy. The body and soul of man--these are sacred. The\nliberty of man is of far more importance than any book; the rights of\nman more sacred than any religion--than any Scriptures, whether inspired\nor not.\n\nWhat we want is the truth, and does any one suppose that all of the\ntruth is confined in one book--that the mysteries of the whole world are\nexplained by one volume?\n\nAll that is--all that conveys information to man--all that has been\nproduced by the past--all that now exists--should be considered by an\nintelligent man. All the known truths of this world--all the philosophy,\nall the poems, all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing\nmusic--the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the words of honest\nmen, the trumpet calls to duty--all these make up the bible of the\nworld--everything that is noble and true and free, you will find in this\ngreat book.\n\nIf we wish to be true to ourselves,--if we wish to benefit our\nfellow-men--if we wish to live honorable lives--we will give to every\nother human being every right that we claim for ourselves.\n\nThere is another thing that should be remembered by you. You are the\njudges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In a case like\nthis, you are the final judges as to what the law is; and if you acquit,\nno court can reverse your verdict. To prevent the least misconception,\nlet me state to you again what I claim:\n\nFirst. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares that:\n\n\"_The liberty of speech shall not be abridged_.\" Second. That this\nstatute, under which this indictment is found, is unconstitutional,\nbecause it does abridge the liberty of speech; it does exactly that\nwhich the constitution emphatically says shall not be done.\n\nThird. I claim, also, that under this law--even if it be\nconstitutional--the words charged in this indictment do not amount to\nblasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the darkness, of this\nstatute.\n\nDo not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no matter\nwhat the Court may tell you about the law--how good it is, or how bad\nit is--no matter what the Court may instruct you on that subject--do not\nforget one thing, and that is: That the words charged in the indictment\nare the only words that you can take into consideration in this case.\nRemember that no matter what else may be in the pamphlet--no matter what\npictures or cartoons there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed\nthis man in the name of universal liberty and love--do not forget that\nyou have no right to take one word into account except the exact words\nset out in this indictment--that is to say, the words that I have\nread to you. Upon this point the Court will instruct you that you have\nnothing to do with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now claim,\nthat should the Court instruct you that the statute is constitutional,\nstill I insist that the words set out in this indictment do not amount\nto blasphemy.\n\nThere is still another point. This statute says: \"Whoever shall\n_willfully_ speak against.\" Now, in this case, you must find that the\ndefendant \"willfully\" did so and so--that is to say, that he made the\nstatements attributed to him knowing that they were not true. If you\nbelieve that he was honest in what he said, then this statute does not\ntouch him. Even under this statute, a man may give his honest opinion.\nCertainly, there is no law that charges a man with \"willfully\" being\nhonest--\"willfully\" telling his real opinion--\"willfully\" giving to his\nfellow-men his thought.\n\nWhere a man is charged with larceny, the indictment must set out that\nhe took the goods or the property with the intention to steal--with\nwhat the law calls the _animus furandi_. If he took the goods with\nthe intention to steal, then he is a thief; but if he took the goods\nbelieving them to be his own, then he is guilty of no offence. So in\nthis case, whatever was said by the defendant must have been \"willfully\"\nsaid. And I claim that if you believe that what the man said was\nhonestly said, you cannot find him guilty under this statute.\n\nOne more point: This statute has been allowed to slumber so long, that\nno man had the right to awaken it. For more than one hundred years it\nhas slept; and so far as New Jersey is concerned, it has been sound\nasleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug out of its grave. The\nbreath of life is sought to be breathed into it, to the end that some\npeople may wreak their vengeance on an honest man.\n\nIs there any evidence--has there been any--to show that the defendant\nwas not absolutely candid in the expression of his opinions? Is there\none particle of evidence tending, to show that he is not a perfectly\nhonest and sincere man? Did the prosecution have the courage to\nattack his reputation? No. The State has simply proved to you that he\ncirculated that pamphlet--that is all.\n\nIt was claimed, among other things, that the defendant circulated this\npamphlet among children. There was no such evidence--not the slightest.\nThe only evidence about schools, or school-children was, that when the\ndefendant talked with the bill-poster,--whose business the defendant was\ninterfering with,--he asked him something about the population of the\ntown, and about the schools. But according to the evidence, and as a\nmatter of fact, not a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any child, or\nto any youth. According to the testimony, the defendant went into two or\nthree stores,--laid the pamphlets on a show case, or threw them upon a\ndesk--put them upon a stand where papers were sold, and in one instance\nhanded a pamphlet to a man. That is all.\n\nIn my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in giving this\npamphlet to every citizen of your place.\n\nAgain I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep for all these\nyears--allowed to sleep by reason of the good sense and by reason of\nthe tolerant spirit of the State of New Jersey, should not be allowed\nto leap into life because a few are intolerant, or because a few lacked\ngood sense and judgment. This snake should not be warmed into vicious\nlife by the blood of anger.\n\nProbably not a man on this jury agrees with me about the subject of\nreligion. Probably not a member of this jury thinks that I am right in\nthe opinions that I have entertained and have so often expressed. Most\nof you belong to some church, and I presume that those who do, have the\ngood of what they call Christianity at heart. There maybe among you some\nMethodists. If so, they have read the history of their church, and they\nknow that when it was in the minority, it was persecuted, and they know\nthat they can not read the history of that persecution without becoming\nindignant. They know that the early Methodists were denounced as\nheretics, as ranters, as ignorant pretenders.\n\nThere are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know that there is a\ntendency in many parts of this country to persecute a man now because he\nis a Catholic. They also know that their church has persecuted in\ntimes past, whenever and wherever it had the power; and they know that\nProtestants, when in power, have always persecuted Catholics; and they\nknow, in their hearts, that all persecution, whether in the name of law,\nor religion, is monstrous, savage, and fiendish.\n\nI presume that each one of you has the good of what you call\nChristianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to acquit this man. If\nyou believe Christianity to be a good, it never can do any church any\ngood to put a man in jail for the expression of opinion. Any church that\nimprisons a man because he has used an argument against its creed, will\nsimply convince the world that it cannot answer the argument.\n\nChristianity will never reap any honor, will never reap any profit,\nfrom persecution. It is a poor, cowardly, dastardly way of answering\narguments. No gentleman will do it--no civilized man ever did do it--no\ndecent human being ever did, or ever will.\n\nI take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a certain\naffection, for the State in which you live--that you take a pride in the\nCommonwealth of New Jersey. If you do, I beg of you to keep the record\nof your State clean. Allow no verdict to be recorded against the freedom\nof speech. At present there is not to be found on the records of any\ninferior court, or on those of the Supreme tribunal--any case in which a\nman has been punished for speaking his sentiments. The records have not\nbeen stained--have not been polluted--with such a verdict.\n\nKeep such a verdict from the Reports of your State--from the Records of\nyour courts. No jury has yet, in the State of New Jersey, decided that\nthe lips of honest men are not free--that there is a manacle upon the\nbrain.\n\nFor the sake of your State--for the sake of her reputation throughout\nthe world--for your own sakes--and those of your children, and their\nchildren yet to be--say to the world that New Jersey shares in the\nspirit of this age,--that New Jersey is not a survival of the Dark\nAges,--that New Jersey does not still regard the thumbscrew as an\ninstrument of progress,--that New Jersey needs no dungeon to answer the\narguments of a free man, and does not send to the penitentiary, men who\nthink, and men who speak. Say to the world, that where arguments are\nwithout foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough in the brains of\nher people to feel that such arguments can be refuted by reason.\n\nFor the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the sake of something\nof far more value to this world than New Jersey--for the sake of\nsomething of more importance to mankind than this continent--for the\nsake of Human Liberty, for the sake of Free Speech, acquit this man.\n\nWhat light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty is to the\nsoul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, degradation and death.\n\nIn the name of Liberty, I implore--and not only so, but I insist--that\nyou shall find a verdict in favor of this defendant. Do not do the\nslightest thing to stay the march of human progress. Do not carry us\nback, even for a moment, to the darkness of that cruel night that good\nmen hoped had passed away forever.\n\nLiberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there remains\nonly barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no civilization.\n\nIf another man has not the right to think, you have not even the right\nto think that he thinks wrong. If every man has not the right to think,\nthe people of New Jersey had no right to make a statute, or to adopt a\nconstitution--no jury has the right to render a verdict, and no court to\npass its sentence.\n\nIn other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has the right\nto form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be such a thing\nas real religion without liberty. Without liberty there can be no such\nthing as conscience, no such word as justice. All human actions--all\ngood, all bad--have for a foundation the idea of human liberty, and\nwithout Liberty there can be no vice, and there can be no virtue.\n\nWithout Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy--no love, no\nhatred, no justice, no progress.\n\nTake the word Liberty from human speech and all the other words become\npoor, withered, meaningless sounds--but with that word realized--with\nthat word understood, the world becomes a paradise.\n\nUnderstand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the\nprosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the court\nare simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did not find the\nindictment. That was found by the grand jury. The grand jury did not\nfind the indictment of its own motion. Certain people came before the\ngrand jury and made their complaint--gave their testimony, and upon that\ntestimony, under this statute, the indictment was found.\n\nWhile I do not blame these people--they not being on trial--I do ask you\nto stand on the side of right.\n\nI cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge a public\nduty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to judgment, no\nmatter what authority may say, no matter what public opinion may demand.\nA man who stands by the right, against the world, cannot help applauding\nhimself, and saying: \"I am an honest man.\"\n\nI want your verdict--a verdict born of manhood, of courage; and I want\nto send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick. I wish you to\nfurnish the words of this dispatch--only two words--and these two words\nwill fill an anxious heart with joy. They will fill a soul with light.\nIt is a very short message--only two words--and I ask you to furnish\nthem: \"Not guilty.\"\n\nYou are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true to your\nconsciences, true to your best judgment, true to the best interests of\nthe people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty.\n\nI sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under the flag\nof the United States--that flag for which has been shed the bravest and\nbest blood of the world--under that flag maintained by Washington, by\nJefferson, by Franklin and by Lincoln--under that flag in defence of\nwhich New Jersey poured out her best and bravest blood--I hope it will\nnever be necessary again for a man to stand before a jury and plead for\nthe Liberty of Speech.\n\n     Note: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty.\n     The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs\n     amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel\n     Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.--C. P. Farrell.\n\n\n\n\nGOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.\n\n\"_All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the\ngoverned_.\"\n\nIN this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the\npeople themselves; that they are the only rightful source of authority.\nFor many centuries before the formation of our Government, before the\npromulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people had but\nlittle voice in the affairs of nations. The source of authority was not\nin this world; kings were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre\nwas not held by the consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne\nby the will of God, and for that reason was not accountable to the\npeople for the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people\nobeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was\nlord of their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the\nkingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was\nlaw, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will was law.\nThe God in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and the king on\nearth had certain favorites and officers to do his. These officers were\naccountable to him, and he was responsible to God.\n\nThe Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine\nplan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and\npromises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten\nthe common people; no one thought of educating a peasant--of developing\nthe mind of a laborer. The people were created to support thrones and\naltars. Their destiny was to toil and obey--to work and want. They were\nto be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their\nchildren must expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon\ntheir knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The\npoor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he imagined it\nprotected his body; he divided his crust with the church, believing that\nit protected his soul. He was the prey of Throne and Altar--one deformed\nhis body, the other his mind--and these two vultures fed upon his toil.\nHe was taught by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by\nthe priest to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made\nthe enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the\npeasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself., He was\nkept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of superstition,\nand because education is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for\npatriotism.\n\nThe intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true\nof every land--the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of\nhis sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who\nspeak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and those who\nsuffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends\nthe hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow before a\nprovincial and patriotic god--one who protects his tribe or nation, and\nabhors the rest of mankind.\n\nThrough all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted that it\nwas the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone had the true\nreligion--that the gods of other nations were false and fraudulent, and\nthat other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the\nseeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled the\nflames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of a different\ncomplexion, with those who knelt at other altars and expressed their\nthoughts in other words--and even a difference in garments placed\nthem beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of\nprejudice and the excuse for hatred.\n\nThe boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People\nbecame somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices\nwere quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat\nacquainted with kings--peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes,\nand it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in rags and\nnames.\n\nIn 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They\ndeclared that \"all governments derive their just powers from the consent\nof the governed.\" This was a contradiction of the then political ideas\nof the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy--a\nrenunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the\nindependence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests\nthat thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically\nit tore down every altar and denied the authority of every \"sacred\nbook,\" and appealed from the Providence of God to the Providence of Man.\n\nThose who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Constitution for the\ngreat Republic.\n\nWhat was the office or purpose of that Constitution?\n\nAdmitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, first,\nthat certain means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will\nof the people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate\ncertain departments that should exercise certain powers of the\nGovernment. There must be the legislative, the judicial and the\nexecutive departments. Those who make laws should not execute them.\nThose who execute laws should not have the power of absolutely\ndetermining their meaning or their constitutionality. For these reasons,\namong others, a Constitution was adopted.\n\nThis Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked out\nthe limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of passion, men\nshall not go beyond the point designated in the calm moment of reason.\n\nWhen man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to reason, it is well\nhe should define the limits of power, so that the waves driven by the\nstorm of passion shall not overbear the shore.\n\nA constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the\nchain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It\ndefines the limit of power and the limit of obedience.\n\nIt follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot\nbe enforced by the power of the state--that is, by the army and navy.\nBehind every provision of the Constitution should stand the force of the\nnation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.\n\nSuppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the\nexistence and supremacy of God--what becomes of the supremacy of the\npeople, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does\nnot enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.\nWill it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God? Can\nthe offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips\nbe closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration\nof religious persecution?\n\nAnd if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the\nquestion naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. Shall\nwe select the God of the Catholics--he who has established an infallible\nchurch presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted with\ncertain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly\ncommon Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the Five Points\nof Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and\nresponsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for damning most\nof his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy--of\nthe Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small\nenough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it\ninhabited was immersed or sprinkled?\n\nWhat God is it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the God of the\nOld Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy?\nIf slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right\nthen, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who issued a\ncommandment against all art--who was the enemy of investigation and of\nfree speech? Is it the God who commanded the husband to stone his wife\nto death because she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are\nwe to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds\nof offences with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is\nto define this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence,\nlaws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be\nas nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God? Will\nthere be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?\n\nOf course all persons elected to office will either swear or affirm to\nsupport the Constitution. Men who do not believe in this God, cannot\nso swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of\ntrust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not interfere with the\noaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only exclude\nhonest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent people know that 110\none knows whether there is a God or not. The existence of such a Being\nis merely a matter of opinion. Men who believe in the liberty of man,\nwho are willing to die for the honor of their country, will be excluded\nfrom taking any part in the administration of its affairs. Such a\nprovision would place the country under the feet of priests.\n\nTo recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country would be the\ndestruction of religious liberty. The God in the Constitution would have\nto be protected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws against the\npublication of honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers\nin the mails in which this constitutional God should be attacked.\nOur land would be filled with theological spies, with religious\neavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in\nthis sunshine of religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.\n\nIt is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and rightful\nGovernor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If\nthis God is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to\nacknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not add to his power. If\nhe governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of men.\nHaving this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized in\nthe Constitution of the United States? If he had the supreme authority\nand neglected to put himself in the Constitution, is not this, at least,\n_prima facie_ evidence that he did not desire to be there?\n\nFor one, I am not in favor of the God who has \"ordained the powers that\nbe.\" What have we to say of Russia--of Siberia? What can we say of the\npersecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and nobles who live on the\nstolen labor of others? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who\nwrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice earned?\n\nIs it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional amendment?\nThe Confederate States acknowledged God in their constitution, and yet\nthey were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law no reference to\nGod is made. All the kings of the earth acknowledge the existence of\nGod, and God is their ally; and this belief in God is used as a means to\nenslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people whom they call their\nsubjects.\n\nThe Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power\nfrom the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing\nwhatever to do--and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the\nfundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be\nabandoned. In this country there should be no oaths--no man should be\nsworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal\nto any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in\npartnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the\nman. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should\nbe considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not\nissue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to\nthank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of\nand beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in\nthe Constitution of the United States to justify this religious\nimpertinence.\n\nFor many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a\nreligious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our\nmoney: \"In God We Trust;\" and we have chaplains in the army and navy,\nand legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is\ncontrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration\nof Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United\nStates. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves\nwithout the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the\nposition that the people are the real and only rightful source of\nauthority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what\nis politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally\nexpressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national\nsuperstition--no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings--and\nthis does away with the necessity for political prayers.\n\nThe government of God has been tried. It was tried in Palestine several\nthousand years ago, and the God of the Jews was a monster of cruelty and\nignorance, and the people governed by this God lost their nationality.\nTheocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God was the Governor--the\npope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and cardinal was armed\nwith credentials from the Most High--and the result was that the noblest\nand best were in prisons, the greatest and grandest perished at the\nstake. The result was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues\nwhipped naked through the streets. The result was that hypocrisy swayed\nthe sceptre of authority, while honesty languished in the dungeons of\nthe Inquisition.\n\nThe government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his\nrepresentative; and under this government of God the flames climbed\naround the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he\ndared to express an honest thought. This government of God was tried\nin Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown, that bore,\nthrough hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and assassination. This\ngovernment of God was established in New England, and the result was\nthat Quakers were hanged or burned--the laws of Moses re-enacted and the\n\"witch was not suffered to live.\" The result was that investigation was\na crime, and the expression of an honest thought a capital offence. This\ngovernment of God was established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled,\nthe Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing\nleft but the ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this monster. This\ngovernment of God was tried in the United States when slavery was\nregarded as a divine institution, when men and women were regarded as\ncriminals because they sought for liberty by flight, and when others\nwere regarded as criminals because they gave them food and shelter. The\npulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes,\nand the mouths of slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture,\ndefending and upholding the traffic in human flesh.\n\nWe have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. Every\neffort to really better the condition of mankind has been opposed by the\nworshipers of some God. The church in all ages and among all peoples\nhas been the consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere and at all\ntimes, it has opposed the liberty of thought and expression. It has been\nthe sworn enemy of investigation and of intellectual development. It has\ndenied the existence of facts, the tendency of which was to undermine\nits power. It has always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.\nIt has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the dungeon for\nThinkers. And to-day the orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever\nwas to the mental freedom of the human race.\n\nOf course, there is a distinction made between churches and individual\nmembers. There have been millions of Christians who have been believers\nin liberty and in the freedom of expression--millions who have fought\nfor the rights of man--but churches as organizations, have been on\nthe other side. It is true that churches have fought churches--that\nProtestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased to\ncall the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the moment\nthese Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of\nconscience to others.\n\n'Let me show you the difference between the theological and the secular\nspirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the noblest of the human\nrace, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the Catholic Church--that\nis to say, by the \"Triumphant Beast.\" This man had committed certain\ncrimes--he had publicly stated that there were other worlds than\nthis--other constellations than ours. He had ventured the supposition\nthat other planets might be peopled. More than this, and worse than\nthis, he had asserted the heliocentric theory--that the earth made its\nannual journey about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that\nmatter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy to live, and\nabout his body were piled the fagots of the Catholic Church. This man,\nthis genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth century,\nperished as serenely as the sun sets. The Infidels of to-day find\nexcuses for his murderers. They take into consideration the ignorance\nand brutality of the times. They remember that the world was governed by\na God who was then the source of all authority. This is the charity of\nInfidelity,--of philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless, is\nstill so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for the murdered.\n\nThis is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy--between God and\nman.\n\nIf God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There is no\nroom for both. If the people of the great Republic become superstitious\nenough and ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the United\nStates, the experiment of self-government will have failed, and the\ngreat and splendid declaration that \"all governments derive their just\npowers from the consent of the governed\" will have been denied, and in\nits place will be found this: All power comes from God; priests are his\nagents, and the people are their slaves.\n\nReligion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely\nfree to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a\nsupposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever\nto do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never\ninterfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the\nrights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should\nbe for the benefit of man in this world.\n\nA nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel--a nation is incapable of\nhaving opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all\nthe citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will they all be damned? Of\ncourse it is admitted that the majority of citizens composing a nation\nmay believe or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what they\nplease. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying, \"it has\nno soul.\" There can be no such thing as a Christian corporation. Several\nChristians may form a corporation, but it can hardly be said that the\ncorporation thus formed was included in the atonement. For instance:\nSeven Christians form a corporation--that is to say, there are seven\nnatural persons and one artificial--can it be said that there are eight\nsouls to be saved?\n\nNo human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or experience\nenough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into this darkness\nScience has not yet carried its torch. No human being has gone beyond\nthe horizon of the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural, one\nman knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as another. Upon\nthis question, chimpanzees and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon exact\nequality. The smallest insect discernible only by the most powerful\nmicroscope, is as familiar with this subject, as the greatest genius\nthat has been produced by the human race.\n\nGovernments and laws are for the preservation of rights and the\nregulation of conduct. One man should not be allowed to interfere with\nthe liberty of another. In the metaphysical world there should be no\ninterference whatever, The same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot\nregulate what is or is not music, what is or what is not beautiful--and\nconstitutions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfection of\nstatues, the value of paintings, or the glory and subtlety of thought.\nIn spite of laws and constitutions the brain will think. In every\ndirection consistent with the well-being and peace of society, there\nshould be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the theology\nof another; neither should a minority, however small, be forced to\nacquiesce in the opinions of a majority, however large.\n\nIf there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help--we need not\nwaste our energies in his defence. It is enough for us to give to every\nother human being the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may\nnot be a Supreme Ruler of the universe--but we are certain that man\nexists, and we believe that freedom is the condition of progress; that\nit is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and that without\nit man will go back to the den of savagery, and will become the fit\nassociate of wild and ferocious beasts.\n\nWe have tried the government of priests, and we know that such\ngovernments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all\nthe instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to\nhave God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read\nthe history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of\nmillions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate the\nwrath, or win the approbation of this God.\n\nThere has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This\nfollows as a natural sequence of the declaration that \"governments\nderive their just powers from the consent of the governed.\" The priest\nwas no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the\nprinciple on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the\nauthority of the people, but of some \"Power from on High,\" and to\nrecognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The\nfounders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests,\nand said to them: \"You may turn your attention to the other world--we\nwill attend to the affairs of this.\" Equal liberty was given to all. But\nthe ultra theologian is not satisfied with this--he wishes to destroy\nthe liberty of the people--he wishes a recognition of his God as the\nsource of authority, to the end that the church may become the supreme\npower.\n\nBut the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the United States\nare intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in supernatural\nreligion. They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels of the\nDark Ages. They know the value of the free school. They appreciate the\nbenefits of science. They are believers in education, in the free play\nof thought, and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian,\nis destined to take his place with the necromancer, the astrologer, the\nworker of magic, and the professor of the black art.\n\nWe have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the\ntheologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for\nthe many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children\nof men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in\nrags and skins--they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of\nScience dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities\nof to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences\nand elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But\nabove and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of\nvalue in the brain of an average man of to-day--of a master-mechanic, of\na chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain\nof the world four hundred years ago.\n\nThese blessings did not fall from the skies, These benefits did not\ndrop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in\ncathedrals or behind altars--neither were they searched for with holy\ncandles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did\nthey come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children\nof freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience--and for\nthem all, man is indebted to man.\n\nLet us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist\nthat this, the Republic, is \"A government of the people, by the people,\nand for the people.\"--The Arena, Boston, Mass., January, 1890.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO BISHOP SPALDING.\n\n     * An unfinished reply to Bishop J. L. Spalding's article\n     \"God in the Constitution,\" which appeared in the Arena.\n     Boston, Mass., April, 1890.\n\n\nBISHOP SPALDING admits that \"The introduction of the question of\nreligion would not only have brought discord into the Constitutional\nconvention, but would have also engendered strife throughout the land.\"\nUndoubtedly this is true. I am compelled to admit this, for the reason\nthat in all times and in all lands the introduction of the question of\nreligion has brought discord and has engendered strife.\n\nHe also says: \"In the presence of such danger, like wise men and\npatriots, they avoided irritating subjects\"--the irritating subject\nbeing the question of religion. I admit that it always has been, and\npromises always to be, an \"irritating subject,\" because it is not a\nsubject decided by reason, but by ignorance, prejudice, arrogance\nand superstition. Consequently he says: \"It was prudence, then, not\nskepticism, which induced them to leave the question of religion to the\nseveral States.\" The Bishop admits that it was prudent for the founders\nof this Government to leave the question of religion entirely to\nthe States. It was prudent because the question of religion is\nirritating--because religious questions engender strife and hatred. Now,\nif it was prudent for the framers of the Constitution to leave religion\nout of the Constitution, and allow that question to be settled by the\nseveral States themselves under that clause preventing the establishment\nof religion or the free exercise thereof, why is it not wise still--why\nis it not prudent now?\n\nMy article was written against the introduction of religion into the\nConstitution of the United States. I am opposed to a recognition of God\nand of Jesus Christ in that instrument; and the reason I am opposed to\nit is, that: \"The introduction of the question of religion would not\nonly bring discord, but would engender strife throughout the land.\" I am\nopposed to it for the reason that religion is an \"irritating subject,\"\nand also because if it was prudent when the Constitution was made, to\nleave God out, it is prudent now to keep him out.\n\nThe Bishop is mistaken--as bishops usually are--when he says: \"Had our\nfathers been skeptics, or anti-theists, they would not have required\nthe President and Vice-President, the Senators and Representatives in\nCongress, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States,\nto call God to witness that they intended to perform their duties under\nthe Constitution like honest men and loyal citizens.\"\n\nThe framers of the Constitution did no such thing. They allowed every\nofficer, from the President down, either to swear or to affirm, and\nthose who affirmed did not call God to witness. In other words, our\nConstitution allowed every officer to abolish the oath and to leave God\nout of the question.\n\nThe Bishop informs us, however, that: \"The causes which would have\nmade it unwise to introduce any phase of religious controversy into the\nConstitutional convention have long since ceased to exist.\" Is there\nas much division now in the religious world as then? Has the Catholic\nChurch thrown away the differences between it and the Protestants? Are\nwe any better friends to-day than we were in 1789? As a matter of fact,\nis there not now a cause which did not to the same extent exist then?\nHave we not in the United States, millions of people who believe in no\nreligion whatever, and who regard all creeds as the work of ignorance\nand superstition?\n\nThe trouble about putting God in the Constitution in 1789 was, that they\ncould not agree on the God to go in; and the reason why our fathers\ndid not unite church and state was, that they could not agree on which\nchurch was to be the bride. The Catholics of Maryland certainly would\nnot have permitted the nation to take the Puritan Church, neither would\nthe Presbyterians of Pennsylvania have agreed to this, nor would the\nEpiscopalians of New York, or of any Southern State. Each church said:\n\"Marry me, or die a bachelor.\"\n\nThe Bishop asks whether there are \"still reasons why an express\nrecognition of God's sovereignty and providence should not form part of\nthe organic law of the land\"? I ask, were there any reasons, in 1789,\nwhy an express recognition of God's sovereignty and providence should\nnot form part of the organic law of the land? Did not the Bishop say,\nonly a few lines back of that, \"that the introduction of the question\nof religion into that body would have brought discord, and would\nhave engendered strife throughout the land.\" What is the \"question of\nreligion\" to which he referred? Certainly \"the recognition of God's\nsovereignty and providence,\" with the addition of describing the God\nas the author of the supposed providence. Thomas Jefferson would have\ninsisted on having a God in the Constitution who was not the author of\nthe Old and New Testaments. Benjamin Franklin would have asked for the\nsame God; and on that question John Adams would have voted yes. Others\nwould have voted for a Catholic God--others for an Episcopalian, and so\non, until the representatives of the various creeds were exhausted.\n\nI took the ground, and I still take the ground, that there is nothing\nin the Constitution that cannot on occasion be enforced by the army and\nnavy--that is to say, that cannot be defended and enforced by the sword.\nSuppose God is acknowledged in the Constitution, and somebody denies the\nexistence of this God--what are you to do with him? Every man elected to\noffice must swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution. Can\none who does not believe in this God, conscientiously take such oath, or\nmake such affirmation?\n\nThe effect, then, of such a clause in the Constitution would be to\ndrive from public life all except the believers in this God, and this\nprovidence. The Government would be in fact a theocracy and would resort\nfor its preservation to one of the old forms of religious persecution.\n\nI took the ground in my article, and still maintain it, that all\nintelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or not.\nThis cannot be answered by saying, \"that nearly all intelligent men in\nevery age, including our own, have believed in God and have held that\nthey had rational grounds for such faith.\" This is what is called a\ndeparture in pleading--it is a shifting of the issue. I did not say that\nintelligent people do not believe in the existence of God. What I did\nsay is, that intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is\na God or not.\n\nIt is not true that we know the conditions of thought. Neither is it\ntrue that we know that these conditions are unconditioned. There is no\nsuch thing as the unconditioned conditional. We might as well say that\nthe relative is unrelated--that the unrelated is the absolute--and\ntherefore that there is no difference between the absolute and the\nrelative.\n\nThe Bishop says we cannot know the relative without knowing the\nabsolute. The probability is that he means that we cannot know the\nrelative without admitting the existence of the absolute, and that we\ncannot know the phenomenal without taking the noumenal for granted.\nStill, we can neither know the absolute nor the noumenal for the reason\nthat our mind is limited to relations.\n\n\n\n\nCRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.\n\n     * \"An Address delivered before the State Bar Association at\n     Albany, N. Y., January 1, 1890.\"\n\n\nIN this brief address, the object is to suggest--there being no time to\npresent arguments at length. The subject has been chosen for the reason\nthat it is one that should interest the legal profession, because that\nprofession to a certain extent controls and shapes the legislation of\nour country and fixes definitely the scope and meaning of all laws.\n\nLawyers ought to be foremost in legislative and judicial reform, and\nof all men they should understand the philosophy of mind, the causes of\nhuman action, and the real science of government.\n\nIt has been said that the three pests of a community are: A priest\nwithout charity; a doctor without knowledge, and, a lawyer without a\nsense of justice.\n\nI.\n\nAll nations seem to have had supreme confidence in the deterrent power\nof threatened and inflicted pain. They have regarded punishment as the\nshortest road to reformation. Imprisonment, torture, death, constituted\na trinity under whose protection society might feel secure.\n\nIn addition to these, nations have relied on confiscation and\ndegradation, on maimings, whippings, brandings, and exposures to public\nridicule and contempt. Connected with the court of justice was\nthe chamber of torture. The ingenuity of man was exhausted in the\nconstruction of instruments that would surely reach the most sensitive\nnerve. All this was done in the interest of civilization--for the\nprotection of virtue, and the well-being of states. Curiously it was\nfound that the penalty of death made little difference. Thieves and\nhighwaymen, heretics and blasphemers, went on their way. It was then\nthought necessary to add to this penalty of death, and consequently, the\nconvicted were tortured in every conceivable way before execution. They\nwere broken on the wheel--their joints dislocated on the rack. They were\nsuspended by their legs and arms, while immense weights were placed upon\ntheir breasts. Their flesh was burned and torn with hot irons. They\nwere roasted at slow fires. They were buried alive--given to wild\nbeasts--molten lead was poured in their ears--their eye-lids were cut\noff and, the wretches placed with their faces toward the sun--others\nwere securely bound, so that they could move neither hand nor foot, and\nover their stomachs were placed inverted bowls; under these bowls rats\nwere confined; on top of the bowls were heaped coals of fire, so that\nthe rats in their efforts to escape would gnaw into the bowels of the\nvictims. They were staked out on the sands of the sea, to be drowned\nby the slowly rising tide--and every means by which human nature can be\novercome slowly, painfully and terribly, was conceived and carried into\nexecution. And yet the number of so-called criminals increased. Enough,\nthe fact is that, no matter how severe the punishments were, the crimes\nincreased.\n\nFor petty offences men were degraded--given to the mercy of the rabble.\nTheir ears were cut off, their nostrils slit, their foreheads branded.\nThey were tied to the tails of carts and flogged from one town to\nanother. And yet, in spite of all, the poor wretches obstinately refused\nto become good and useful citizens.\n\nDegradation has been thoroughly tried, with its maimings and brandings,\nand the result was that those who inflicted the punishments became as\ndegraded as their victims.\n\nOnly a few years ago there were more than two hundred offences in Great\nBritain punishable by death. The gallows-tree bore fruit through all the\nyear, and the hangman was the busiest official in the kingdom--but the\ncriminals increased.\n\nCrimes were committed to punish crimes, and crimes were committed to\nprevent crimes. The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons,\nwith chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumbscrews and\nracks, with hangmen and headsmen--and yet these frightful means\nand instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the\npreservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments\nhave committed far more crimes than they have prevented.\n\nWhy is it that men will suffer and risk so much for the sake of\nstealing? Why will they accept degradation and punishment and infamy as\ntheir portion? Some will answer this question by an appeal to the dogma\nof original sin; others by saying that millions of men and women are\nunder the control of fiends--that they are actually possessed by devils;\nand others will declare that all these people act from choice--that\nthey are possessed of free wills, of intelligence--that they know and\nappreciate consequences, and that, in spite of all, they deliberately\nprefer a life of crime.\n\nII.\n\nHave we not advanced far enough intellectually to deny the existence of\nchance? Are we not satisfied now that back of every act and thought and\ndream and fancy is an efficient cause? Is anything, or can anything,\nbe produced that is not necessarily produced? Can the fatherless and\nmotherless exist? Is there not a connection between all events, and is\nnot every act related to all other acts? Is it not possible, is it not\nprobable, is it not true, that the actions of all men are determined by\ncountless causes over which they have no positive control?\n\nCertain it is that men do not prefer unhappiness to joy.\n\nIt can hardly be said that man intends permanently to injure himself,\nand that he does what he does in order that he may live a life of\nmisery. On the other hand, we must take it for granted that man\nendeavors to better his own condition, and seeks, although by mistaken\nways, his own well-being. The poorest man would like to be rich--the\nsick desire health--and no sane man wishes to win the contempt\nand hatred of his fellow-men. Every human being prefers liberty to\nimprisonment.\n\nAre the brains of criminals exactly like the brains of honest men? Have\ncriminals the same ambitions, the same standards of happiness or of\nwell-being? If a difference exists in brain, will that in part account\nfor the difference in character? Is there anything in heredity? Are\nvices as carefully transmitted by nature as virtues? Does each man in\nsome degree bear burdens imposed by ancestors? We know that diseases of\nflesh and blood are transmitted--that the child is the heir of physical\ndeformity. Are diseases of the brain--are deformities of the soul, of\nthe mind, also transmitted?\n\nWe not only admit, but we assert, that in the physical world there are\ncauses and effects. We insist that there is and can be no effect\nwithout an efficient cause. When anything happens in that world, we are\nsatisfied that it was naturally and necessarily produced. The causes may\nbe obscure, but we as implicitly believe in their existence as when we\nknow positively what they are. In the physical world we have taken the\nground that there is nothing miraculous--that everything is natural--and\nif we cannot explain it, we account for our inability to explain, by\nour own ignorance. Is it not possible, is it not probable, that what is\ntrue in the physical world is equally true in the realm of mind--in that\nstrange world of passion and desire? Is it possible that thoughts or\ndesires or passions are the children of chance, born of nothing? Can we\nconceive of nothing as a force, or as a cause? If, then, there is behind\nevery thought and desire and passion an efficient cause, we can, in part\nat least, account for the actions of men.\n\nA certain man under certain conditions acts in a certain way. There are\ncertain temptations that he, with his brain, with his experience,\nwith his intelligence, with his surroundings cannot withstand. He is\nirresistibly led to do, or impelled to do, certain things; and there\nare other things that he can not do. If we change the conditions of\nthis man, his actions will be changed. Develop his mind, give him new\nsubjects of thought, and you change the man; and the man being Changed,\nit follows of necessity that his conduct will be different.\n\nIn civilized countries the struggle for existence is severe--the\ncompetition far sharper than in savage lands. The consequence is that\nthere are many failures. These failures lack, it may be, opportunity or\nbrain or moral force or industry, or something without which, under\nthe circumstances, success is impossible. Certain lines of conduct are\ncalled legal, and certain others criminal, and the men who fail in one\nline may be driven to the other. How do we know that it is possible for\nall people to be honest? Are we certain that all people can tell\nthe truth? Is it possible for all men to be generous or candid or\ncourageous?\n\nI am perfectly satisfied that there are millions of people incapable of\ncommitting certain crimes, and it may be true that there are millions\nof others incapable of practicing certain virtues. We do not blame a man\nbecause he is not a sculptor, a poet, a painter, or a statesman. We say\nhe has not the genius. Are we certain that it does not require genius\nto be good? Where is the man with intelligence enough to take into\nconsideration the circumstances of each individual case? Who has the\nmental balance with which to weigh the forces of heredity, of want, of\ntemptation,--and who can analyze with certainty the mysterious motions\nof the brain? Where and what are the sources of vice and virtue? In what\nobscure and shadowy recesses of the brain are passions born? And what is\nit that for the moment destroys the sense of right and wrong?\n\nWho knows to what extent reason becomes the prisoner of passion--of\nsome strange and wild desire, the seeds of which were sown, it may be,\nthousands of years ago in the breast of some savage? To what extent do\nantecedents and surroundings affect the moral sense?\n\nIs it not possible that the tyranny of governments, the injustice\nof nations, the fierceness of what is called the law, produce in the\nindividual a tendency in the same direction? Is it not true that the\ncitizen is apt to imitate his nation? Society degrades its enemies--the\nindividual seeks to degrade his. Society plunders its enemies, and now\nand then the citizen has the desire to plunder his. Society kills its\nenemies, and possibly sows in the heart of some citizen the seeds of\nmurder.\n\nIII.\n\nIs it not true that the criminal is a natural product, and that society\nunconsciously produces these children of vice? Can we not safely take\nanother step, and say that the criminal is a victim, as the diseased\nand insane and deformed are victims? We do not think of punishing a man\nbecause he is afflicted with disease--our desire is to find a cure. We\nsend him, not to the penitentiary, but to the hospital, to an asylum.\nWe do this because we recognize the fact that disease is naturally\nproduced--that it is inherited from parents, or the result of\nunconscious negligence, or it may be of recklessness--but instead of\npunishing, we pity. If there are diseases of the mind, of the brain, as\nthere are diseases of the body; and if these diseases of the mind, these\ndeformities of the brain, produce, and necessarily produce, what we\ncall vice, why should we punish the-criminal, and pity those who are\nphysically diseased?\n\nSocrates, in some respects at least one of the wisest of men, said:\n\"It is strange that you should not be angry when you meet a man with an\nill-conditioned body, and yet be vexed when you encounter one with an\nill-conditioned soul.\"\n\nWe know that there are deformed bodies, and we are equally certain that\nthere are deformed minds.\n\nOf course, society has the right to protect itself, no matter whether\nthe persons who attack its well-being are responsible or not, no matter\nwhether they are sick in mind, or deformed in brain. The right of\nself-defence exists, not only in the individual, but in society. The\ngreat question is, How shall this right of self-defence be exercised?\nWhat spirit shall be in the nation, or in society--the spirit of\nrevenge, a desire to degrade and punish and destroy, or a spirit born of\nthe recognition of the fact that criminals are victims?\n\nThe world has thoroughly tried confiscation, degradation, imprisonment,\ntorture and death, and thus far the world has failed. In this connection\nI call your attention to the following statistics gathered in our own\ncountry:\n\nIn 1850, we had twenty-three millions of people, and between six and\nseven thousand prisoners.\n\nIn 1860--thirty-one millions of people, and nineteen thousand prisoners.\n\nIn 1870--thirty-eight millions of people, and thirty-two thousand\nprisoners.\n\nIn 1880--fifty millions of people, and fifty-eight thousand prisoners.\n\nIt may be curious to note the relation between insanity, pauperism and\ncrime:\n\nIn 1850, there were fifteen thousand insane; in 1860, twenty-four\nthousand; in 1870, thirty-seven thousand; in 1880, ninety-one thousand.\n\nIn the light of these statistics, we are not succeeding in doing away\nwith crime. There were in 1880, fifty-eight thousand prisoners, and\nin the same year fifty-seven thousand homeless children, and sixty-six\nthousand paupers in almshouses.\n\nIs it possible that we must go to the same causes for these effects?\n\nIV.\n\nThere is no reformation in degradation. To mutilate a criminal is to say\nto all the world that he is a criminal, and to render his reformation\nsubstantially impossible. Whoever is degraded by society becomes its\nenemy. The seeds of malice are sown in his heart, and to the day of his\ndeath he will hate the hand that sowed the seeds.\n\nThere is also another side to this question. A punishment that degrades\nthe punished will degrade the man who inflicts the punishment, and will\ndegrade the government that procures the infliction. The whipping-post\npollutes, not only the whipped, but the whipper, and not only the\nwhipper, but the community at large. Wherever its shadow falls it\ndegrades.\n\nIf, then, there is no reforming power in degradation--no deterrent\npower--for the reason that the degradation of the criminal degrades\nthe community, and in this way produces more criminals, then the next\nquestion is, Whether there is any reforming power in torture? The\ntrouble with this is that it hardens and degrades to the last degree the\nministers of the law. Those who are not affected by the agonies of the\nbad will in a little time care nothing for the sufferings of the good.\nThere seems to be a little of the wild beast in men--a something that\nis fascinated by suffering, and that delights in inflicting pain. When\na government tortures, it is in the same state of mind that the criminal\nwas when he committed his crime. It requires as much malice in those\nwho execute the law, to torture a criminal, as it did in the criminal to\ntorture and kill his victim. The one was a crime by a person, the other\nby a nation.\n\nThere is something in injustice, in cruelty, that tends to defeat\nitself. There were never as many traitors in England as when the\ntraitor was drawn and quartered--when he was tortured in every possible\nway--when his limbs, torn and bleeding, were given to the fury of\nmobs or exhibited pierced by pikes or hung in chains. These frightful\npunishments produced intense hatred of the government, and traitors\ncontinued to increase until they became powerful enough to decide what\ntreason was and who the traitors were, and to inflict the same torments\non others.\n\nThink for a moment of what man has suffered in the cause of crime. Think\nof the millions that have been imprisoned, impoverished and degraded\nbecause they were thieves and forgers, swindlers and cheats. Think for\na moment of what they have endured--of the difficulties under which they\nhave pursued their calling, and it will be exceedingly hard to believe\nthat they were sane and natural people possessed of good brains,\nof minds well-poised, and that they did what they did from a choice\nunaffected by heredity and the countless circumstances that tend to\ndetermine the conduct of human beings.\n\nThe other day I was asked these questions: \"Has there been as much\nheroism displayed for the right as for the wrong? Has virtue had as many\nmartyrs as vice?\"\n\nFor hundreds of years the world has endeavored to destroy the good by\nforce. The expression of honest thought was regarded as the greatest of\ncrimes. Dungeons were filled by the noblest and the best, and the\nblood of the bravest was shed by the sword or consumed by flame. It was\nimpossible to destroy the longing in the heart of man for liberty and\ntruth. Is it not possible that brute force and cruelty and revenge,\nimprisonment, torture and death are as impotent to do away with vice as\nto destroy virtue?\n\nIn our country there has been for many years a growing feeling that\nconvicts should neither be degraded nor tortured. It was provided in the\nConstitution of the United States that \"cruel and unusual punishments\nshould not be inflicted.\" Benjamin Franklin took great interest in\nthe treatment of prisoners, being a thorough believer in the reforming\ninfluence of justice, having no confidence whatever in punishment for\npunishment's sake.\n\nTo me it has always been a mystery how the average man, knowing\nsomething of the weakness of human nature, something of the temptations\nto which he himself has been exposed--remembering the evil of his\nlife, the things he would have done had there been opportunity, had\nhe absolutely known that discovery would be impossible--should have\nfeelings of hatred toward the imprisoned.\n\nIs it possible that the average man assaults the criminal in a spirit\nof self-defence? Does he wish to convince his neighbors that the evil\nthought and impulse were never in his mind? Are his words a shield that\nhe uses to protect himself from suspicion? For my part, I sympathize\nsincerely with all failures, with the victims of society, with those who\nhave fallen, with the imprisoned, with the hopeless, with those who have\nbeen stained by verdicts of guilty, and with those who, in the moment of\npassion have destroyed, as with a blow, the future of their lives.\n\nHow perilous, after all, is the state of man. It is the work of a life\nto build a great and splendid character. It is the work of a moment to\ndestroy it utterly, from turret to foundation stone. How cruel hypocrisy\nis!\n\nIs there any remedy? Can anything be done for the reformation of the\ncriminal?\n\nHe should be treated with kindness. Every right should be given him,\nconsistent with the safety of society. He should neither be degraded\nnor robbed. The State should set the highest and noblest example. The\npowerful should never be cruel, and in the breast of the supreme there\nshould be no desire for revenge.\n\nA man in a moment of want steals the property of another, and he is\nsent to the penitentiary--first, as it is claimed, for the purpose of\ndeterring others; and secondly, of reforming him. The circumstances of\neach individual case are rarely inquired into. Investigation stops when\nthe simple fact of the larceny has been ascertained. No distinctions are\nmade except as between first and subsequent offences. Nothing is allowed\nfor surroundings.\n\nAll will admit that the industrious must be protected. In this world it\nis necessary to work. Labor is the foundation of all prosperity. Larceny\nis the enemy of industry. Society has the right to protect itself.\nThe question is, Has it the right to punish?--has it the right to\ndegrade?--or should it endeavor to reform the convict?\n\nA man is taken to the penitentiary. He is clad in the garments of\na convict. He is degraded--he loses his name--he is designated by a\nnumber. He is no longer treated as a human being--he becomes the slave\nof the State. Nothing is done for his improvement--nothing for his\nreformation. He is driven like a beast of burden; robbed of his labor;\nleased, it may be, by the State to a contractor, who gets out of his\nhands, out of his muscles, out of his poor brain, all the toil that he\ncan. He is not allowed to speak with a fellow-prisoner. At night he\nis alone in his cell. The relations that should exist between men are\ndestroyed. He is a convict. He is no longer worthy to associate even\nwith his keepers. The jailer is immensely his superior, and the man who\nturns the key upon him at night regards himself, in comparison, as a\nmodel of honesty, of virtue and manhood. The convict is pavement on\nwhich those who watch him walk. He remains for the time of his sentence,\nand when that expires he goes forth a branded man. He is given money\nenough to pay his fare back to the place from whence he came.\n\nWhat is the condition of this man? Can he get employment? Not if he\nhonestly states who he is and where he has been. The first thing he does\nis to deny his personality, to assume a name. He endeavors by telling\nfalsehoods to lay the foundation for future good conduct. The average\nman does not wish to employ an ex-convict, because the average man has\nno confidence in the reforming power of the penitentiary. He believes\nthat the convict who comes out is worse than the convict who went in.\nHe knows that in the penitentiary the heart of this man has been\nhardened--that he has been subjected to the torture of perpetual\nhumiliation--that he has been treated like a ferocious beast; and so he\nbelieves that this ex-convict has in his heart hatred for society, that\nhe feels he has been degraded and robbed. Under these circumstances,\nwhat avenue is opened to the ex-convict? If he changes his name, there\nwill be some detective, some officer of the law, some meddlesome wretch,\nwho will betray his secret. He is then discharged. He seeks employment\nagain, and he must seek it by again telling what is not true. He is\nagain detected and again discharged. And finally he becomes convinced\nthat he cannot live as an honest man. He naturally drifts back into the\nsociety of those who have had a like experience; and the result is\nthat in a little while he again stands in the dock, charged with the\ncommission of another crime. Again he is sent to the penitentiary--and\nthis is the end. He feels that his day is done, that the future has only\ndegradation for him.\n\nThe men in the penitentiaries do not work for themselves. Their labor\nbelongs to others. They have no interest in their toil--no reason for\ndoing the best they can--and the result is that the product of their\nlabor is poor. This product comes in competition with the work of\nmechanics, honest men, who have families to support, and the cry is that\nconvict labor takes the bread from the mouths of virtuous people.\n\nVI.\n\nWhy should the State take without compensation the labor of these men;\nand why should they, after having been imprisoned for years, be turned\nout without the means of support? Would it not be far better, far\nmore economical, to pay these men for their labor, to lay aside their\nearnings from day to day, from month to month, and from year to year--to\nput this money at interest, so that when the convict is released after\nfive years of imprisonment he will have several hundred dollars of his\nown--not merely money enough to pay his way back to the place from which\nhe was sent, but enough to make it possible for him to commence business\non his own account, enough to keep the wolf of crime from the door of\nhis heart?\n\nSuppose the convict comes out with five hundred dollars. This would be\nto most of that class a fortune. It would form a breastwork, a fortress,\nbehind which the man could fight temptation. This would give him food\nand raiment, enable him to go to some other State or country where he\ncould redeem himself. If this were done, thousands of convicts would\nfeel under immense obligation to the Government. They would think of the\npenitentiary as the place in which they were saved--in which they were\nredeemed--and they would feel that the verdict of guilty rescued them\nfrom the abyss of crime. Under these circumstances, the law would appear\nbeneficent, and the heart of the poor convict, instead of being filled\nwith malice, would overflow with gratitude. He would see the propriety\nof the course pursued by the Government. He would recognize and feel and\nexperience the benefits of this course, and the result would be good,\nnot only to him, but to the nation as well.\n\nIf the convict worked for himself, he would do the best he could, and\nthe wares produced in the penitentiaries would not cheapen the labor of\nother men.\n\nVII.\n\nThere are, however, men who pursue crime as a vocation--as a\nprofession--men who have been convicted again and again, and who will\npersist in using the liberty of intervals to prey upon the rights of\nothers. What shall be done with these men and women?\n\nPut one thousand hardened thieves on an island--compel them to produce\nwhat they eat and use--and I am almost certain that a large majority\nwould be opposed to theft. Those who worked would not permit those\nwho did not, to steal the result of their labor. In other words,\nself-preservation would be the dominant idea, and these men would\ninstantly look upon the idlers as the enemies of their society.\n\nSuch a community would be self-supporting. Let women of the same class\nbe put by themselves. Keep the sexes absolutely apart. Those who are\nbeyond the power of reformation should not have the liberty to reproduce\nthemselves. Those who cannot be reached by kindness--by justice--those\nwho under no circumstances are willing to do their share, should be\nseparated. They should dwell apart, and dying, should leave no heirs.\n\nWhat shall be done with the slayers of their fellow-men--with murderers?\nShall the nation take life?\n\nIt has been contended that the death penalty deters others--that it has\nfar more terror than imprisonment for life. What is the effect of the\nexample set by a nation? Is not the tendency to harden and degrade not\nonly those who inflict and those who witness, but the entire community\nas well?\n\nA few years ago a man was hanged in Alexandria, Virginia. One who\nwitnessed the execution, on that very day, murdered a peddler in the\nSmithsonian grounds at Washington. He was tried and executed, and one\nwho witnessed his hanging went home, and on the same day murdered his\nwife.\n\nThe tendency of the extreme penalty is to prevent conviction. In the\npresence of death it is easy for a jury to find a doubt. Technicalities\nbecome important, and absurdities, touched with mercy, have the\nappearance for a moment of being natural and logical. Honest and\nconscientious men dread a final and irrevocable step. If the penalty\nwere imprisonment for life, the jury would feel that if any mistake were\nmade it could be rectified; but where the penalty is death a mistake is\nfatal. A conscientious man takes into consideration the defects of human\nnature--the uncertainty of testimony, and the countless shadows that\ndim and darken the understanding, and refuses to find a verdict that, if\nwrong, cannot be righted.\n\nThe death penalty, inflicted by the Government, is a perpetual excuse\nfor mobs.\n\nThe greatest danger in a Republic is a mob, and as long as States\ninflict the penalty of death, mobs will follow the example. If the State\ndoes not consider life sacred, the mob, with ready rope, will strangle\nthe suspected. The mob will say: \"The only difference is in the trial;\nthe State does the same--we know the man is guilty--why should time\nbe wasted in technicalities?\" In other words, why may not the mob do\nquickly that which the State does slowly?\n\nEvery execution tends to harden the public heart--tends to lessen\nthe sacredness of human life. In many States of this Union the mob is\nsupreme. For certain offences the mob is expected to lynch the supposed\ncriminal. It is the duty of every citizen--and as it seems to me\nespecially of every lawyer--to do what he can to destroy the mob spirit.\nOne would think that men would be afraid to commit any crime in a\ncommunity where the mob is in the ascendency, and yet, such are the\ncontradictions and subtleties of human nature, that it is exactly the\nopposite. And there is another thing in this connection--the men who\nconstitute the mob are, as a rule, among the worst, the lowest, and the\nmost depraved.\n\nA few years ago, in Illinois, a man escaped from jail, and, in escaping,\nshot the sheriff. He was pursued, overtaken--lynched. The man who put\nthe rope around his neck was then out on bail, having been indicted for\nan assault to murder. And after the poor wretch was dead, another man\nclimbed the tree from which he dangled and, in derision, put a cigar in\nthe mouth of the dead; and this man was on bail, having been indicted\nfor larceny.\n\nThose who are the fiercest to destroy and hang their fellow-men for\nhaving committed crimes, are, for the most part, at heart, criminals\nthemselves.\n\nAs long as nations meet on the fields of war--as long as they sustain\nthe relations of savages to each other--as long as they put the laurel\nand the oak on the brows of those who kill--just so long will citizens\nresort to violence, and the quarrels of individuals be settled by dagger\nand revolver.\n\nVIII.\n\nIf we are to change the conduct of men, we must change their conditions.\nExtreme poverty and crime go hand in hand. Destitution multiplies\ntemptations and destroys the finer feelings. The bodies and souls of men\nare apt to be clad in like garments. If the body is covered with rags,\nthe soul is generally in the same condition. Selfrespect is gone--the\nman looks down--he has neither hope nor courage. He becomes sinister--he\nenvies the prosperous--hates the fortunate, and despises himself.\n\nAs long as children are raised in the tenement and gutter, the prisons\nwill be full. The gulf between the rich and poor will grow wider and\nwider. One will depend on cunning, the other on force. It is a great\nquestion whether those who live in luxury can afford to allow others to\nexist in want. The value of property depends, not on the prosperity\nof the few, but on the prosperity of a very large majority. Life and\nproperty must be secure, or that subtle thing called \"value\" takes its\nleave. The poverty of the many is a perpetual menace. If we expect a\nprosperous and peaceful country, the citizens must have homes. The more\nhomes, the more patriots, the more virtue, and the more security for all\nthat gives worth to life.\n\nWe need not repeat the failures of the old world. To divide lands among\nsuccessful generals, or among favorites of the crown, to give vast\nestates for services rendered in war, is no worse than to allow men of\ngreat wealth to purchase and hold vast tracts of land. The result is\nprecisely the same--that is to say, a nation composed of a few landlords\nand of many tenants--the tenants resorting from time to time to mob\nviolence, and the landlords depending upon a standing army. The property\nof no man, however, should be taken for either private or public use\nwithout just compensation and in accordance with law. There is in the\nState what is known as the right of eminent domain. The State reserves\nto itself the power to take the land of any private citizen for a public\nuse, paying to that private citizen a just compensation to be legally\nascertained. When a corporation wishes to build a railway, it exercises\nthis right of eminent domain, and where the owner of land refuses to\nsell a right of way, or land for the establishment of stations or shops,\nand the corporation proceeds to condemn the land to ascertain its value,\nand when the amount thus ascertained is paid, the property vests in the\ncorporation. This power is exercised because in the estimation of the\npeople the construction of a railway is a public good.\n\nI believe that this power should be exercised in another direction. It\nwould be well as it seems to me, for the Legislature to fix the amount\nof land that a private citizen may own, that will not be subject to be\ntaken for the use of which I am about to speak. The amount to be thus\nheld will depend upon many local circumstances, to be decided by each\nState for itself. Let me suppose that the amount of land that may be\nheld for a farmer for cultivation has been fixed at one hundred and\nsixty acres--and suppose that A has several thousand acres. B wishes to\nbuy one hundred and sixty acres or less of this land, for the purpose\nof making himself a home. A refuses to sell. Now, I believe that the law\nshould be so that B can invoke this right of eminent domain, and\nfile his petition, have the case brought before a jury, or before\ncommissioners, who shall hear the evidence and determine the value, and\non the payment of the amount the land shall belong to B.\n\nI would extend the same law to lots and houses in cities and\nvillages--the object being to fill our country with the owners of homes,\nso that every child shall have a fireside, every father and mother a\nroof, provided they have the intelligence, the energy and the industry\nto acquire the necessary means.\n\nTenements and flats and rented lands are, in my judgment, the enemies of\ncivilization. They make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. They put a\nfew in palaces, but they put many in prisons.\n\nI would go a step further than this. I would exempt homes of a certain\nvalue not only from levy and sale, but from every kind of taxation,\nState and National--so that these poor people would feel that they were\nin partnership with nature--that some of the land was absolutely theirs,\nand that no one could drive them from their home--so that mothers could\nfeel secure. If the home increased in value, and exceeded the limit,\nthen taxes could be paid on the excess; and if the home were sold, I\nwould have the money realized exempt for a certain time in order that\nthe family should have the privilege of buying another home.\n\nThe home, after all, is the unit of civilization, of good government;\nand to secure homes for a great majority of our citizens, would be to\nlay the foundation of our Government deeper and broader and stronger\nthan that of any nation that has existed among men.\n\nIX.\n\nNo one places a higher value upon the free school than I do; and no one\ntakes greater pride in the prosperity of our colleges and universities.\nBut at the same time, much that is called education simply unfits men\nsuccessfully to fight the battle of life. Thousands are to-day studying\nthings that will be of exceedingly little importance to them or to\nothers. Much valuable time is wasted in studying languages that long ago\nwere dead, and histories in which there is no truth.\n\nThere was an idea in the olden time--and it is not yet dead--that\nwhoever was educated ought not to work; that he should use his head\nand not his hands. Graduates were ashamed to be found engaged in manual\nlabor, in ploughing fields, in sowing or in gathering grain. To this\nmanly kind of independence they preferred the garret and the precarious\nexistence of an unappreciated poet, borrowing their money from their\nfriends, and their ideas from the dead. The educated regarded the useful\nas degrading--they were willing to stain their souls to keep their hands\nwhite.\n\nThe object of all education should be to increase the use fulness of\nman--usefulness to himself and others. Every human being should be\ntaught that his first duty is to take care of himself, and that to be\nself-respecting he must be self-supporting. To live on the labor of\nothers, either by force which enslaves, or by cunning which robs, or by\nborrowing or begging, is wholly dishonorable. Every man should be taught\nsome useful art. His hands should be educated as well as his head. He\nshould be taught to deal with things as they are--with life as it\nis. This would give a feeling of independence, which is the firmest\nfoundation of honor, of character. Every man knowing that he is useful,\nadmires himself.\n\nIn all the schools children should be taught to work in wood and\niron, to understand the construction and use of machinery, to become\nacquainted with the great forces that man is using to do his work. The\npresent system of education teaches names, not things. It is as though\nwe should spend years in learning the names of cards, without playing a\ngame.\n\nIn this way boys would learn their aptitudes--would ascertain what they\nwere fitted for--what they could do. It would not be a guess, or an\nexperiment, but a demonstration. Education should increase a boy's\nchances for getting a living. The real good of it is to get food and\nroof and raiment, opportunity to develop the mind and the body and live\na full and ample life.\n\nThe more real education, the less crime--and the more homes, the fewer\nprisons.\n\nX.\n\nThe fear of punishment may deter some, the fear of exposure others; but\nthere is no real reforming power in fear or punishment. Men cannot be\ntortured into greatness, into goodness. All this, as I said before, has\nbeen thoroughly tried. The idea that punishment was the only relief,\nfound its limit, its infinite, in the old doctrine of eternal pain; but\nthe believers in that dogma stated distinctly that the victims never\nwould be, and never could be, reformed.\n\nAs men become civilized they become capable of greater pain and of\ngreater joy. To the extent that the average man is capable of enjoying\nor suffering, to that extent he has sympathy with others. The average\nman, the more enlightened he becomes, the more apt he is to put himself\nin the place of another. He thinks of his prisoner, of his employee, of\nhis tenant--and he even thinks beyond these; he thinks of the community\nat large. As man becomes civilized he takes more and more into\nconsideration circumstances and conditions. He gradually loses faith in\nthe old ideas and theories that every man can do as he wills, and in the\nplace of the word \"wills,\" he puts the word \"must.\" The time comes\nto the intelligent man when in the place of punishments he thinks of\nconsequences, results--that is to say, not something inflicted by some\nother power, but something necessarily growing out of what is done. The\nclearer men perceive the consequences of actions, the better they will\nbe. Behind consequences we place no personal will, and consequently do\nnot regard them as inflictions, or punishments. Consequences, no matter\nhow severe they may be, create in the mind no feeling of resentment, no\ndesire for revenge.' We do not feel bitterly toward the fire because it\nburns, or the frost that freezes, or the flood that overwhelms, or the\nsea that drowns--because we attribute to these things no motives, good\nor bad. So, when through the development of the intellect man perceives\nnot only the nature, but the absolute certainty of consequences, he\nrefrains from certain actions, and this may be called reformation\nthrough the intellect--and surely there is no better reformation than\nthis. Some may be, and probably millions have been, reformed, through\nkindness, through gratitude--made better in the sunlight of charity.\nIn the atmosphere of kindness the seeds of virtue burst into bud\nand flower. Cruelty, tyranny, brute force, do not and can not by any\npossibility better the heart of man. He who is forced upon his knees has\nthe attitude, but never the feeling, of prayer.\n\nI am satisfied that the discipline of the average prison hardens and\ndegrades. It is for the most part a perpetual exhibition of arbitrary\npower. There is really no appeal. The cries of the convict are not heard\nbeyond the walls. The protests die in cells, and the poor prisoner feels\nthat the last tie between him and his fellow-men has been broken. He is\nkept in ignorance of the outer world. The prison is a cemetery, and his\ncell is a grave.\n\nIn many of the penitentiaries there are instruments of torture, and now\nand then a convict is murdered. Inspections and investigations go\nfor naught, because the testimony of a convict goes for naught. He is\ngenerally prevented by fear from telling his wrongs; but if he speaks,\nhe is not believed--he is regarded as less than a human being, and so\nthe imprisoned remain without remedy. When the visitors are gone, the\nconvict who has spoken is prevented from speaking again.\n\nEvery manly feeling, every effort toward real reformation, is trampled\nunder foot, so that when the convict's time is out there is little left\non which to build. He has been humiliated to the last degree, and his\nspirit has so long been bent by authority and fear that even the desire\nto stand erect has almost faded from the mind. The keepers feel that\nthey are safe, because no matter what they do, the convict when released\nwill not tell the story of his wrongs, for if he conceals his shame, he\nmust also hide their guilt.\n\nEvery penitentiary should be a real reformatory. That should be the\nprincipal object for the establishment of the prison. The men in charge\nshould be of the kindest and noblest. They should be filled with divine\nenthusiasm for humanity, and every means should be taken to convince\nthe prisoner that his good is sought--that nothing is done for\nrevenge--nothing for a display of power, and nothing for the\ngratification of malice. He should feel that the warden is his unselfish\nfriend. When a convict is charged with a violation of the rules--with\ninsubordination, or with any offence, there should be an investigation\nin due and proper form, giving the convict an opportunity to be heard.\nHe should not be for one moment the victim of irresponsible power. He\nwould then feel that he had some rights, and that some little of\nthe human remained in him still. They should be taught things of\nvalue--instructed by competent men. Pains should be taken, not to\npunish, not to degrade, but to benefit and ennoble.\n\nWe know, if we know anything, that men in the penitentiaries are not\naltogether bad, and that many out are not altogether good; and we feel\nthat in the brain and heart of all, there are the seeds of good and bad.\nWe know, too, that the best are liable to fall, and it may be that the\nworst, under certain conditions, may be capable of grand and heroic\ndeeds. Of one thing we may be assured--and that is, that criminals will\nnever be reformed by being robbed, humiliated and degraded.\n\nIgnorance, filth, and poverty are the missionaries of crime. As long as\ndishonorable success outranks honest effort--as long as society bows and\ncringes before the great thieves, there will be little ones enough to\nfill the jails.\n\nXI.\n\nAll the penalties, all the punishments, are inflicted under a belief\nthat man can do right under all circumstances--that his conduct is\nabsolutely under his control, and that his will is a pilot that can,\nin spite of winds and tides, reach any port desired. All this is, in my\njudgment, a mistake. It is a denial of the integrity of nature. It is\nbased upon the supernatural and miraculous, and as long as this mistake\nremains the corner-stone of criminal jurisprudence, reformation will be\nimpossible.\n\nWe must take into consideration the nature of man--the facts of\nmind--the power of temptation--the limitations of the intellect--the\nforce of habit--the result of heredity--the power of passion--the\ndomination of want--the diseases of the brain--the tyranny of\nappetite--the cruelty of conditions--the results of association--the\neffects of poverty and wealth, of helplessness and power.\n\nUntil these subtle things are understood--until we know that man, in\nspite of all, can certainly pursue the highway of the right, society\nshould not impoverish and degrade, should not chain and kill those who,\nafter all, may be the helpless victims of unknown causes that are deaf\nand blind.\n\nWe know something of ourselves--of the average man--of his thoughts,\npassions, fears and aspirations--something of his sorrows and his joys,\nhis weakness, his liability to fall--something of what he resists--the\nstruggles, the victories and the failures of his life. We know something\nof the tides and currents of the mysterious sea--something of the\ncircuits of the wayward winds--but we do not know where the wild storms\nare born that wreck and rend. Neither do we know in what strange realm\nthe mists and clouds are formed that darken all the heaven of the mind,\nnor from whence comes the tempest of the brain in which the will to\ndo, sudden as the lightning's flash, seizes and holds the man until the\ndreadful deed is done that leaves a curse upon the soul.\n\nWe do not know. Our ignorance should make us hesitate. Our weakness\nshould make us merciful.\n\nI cannot more fittingly close this address than by quoting the prayer\nof the Buddhist: \"I pray thee to have pity on the vicious--thou hast\nalready had pity on the virtuous by making them so.\"\n\n\n\n\nA WOODEN GOD.\n\nTo the Editor:\n\nTo-day Messrs. Wright, Dickey, O'Connor, and Murch, of the select\ncommittee on the causes of the present depression of labor, presented\nthe majority special report upon Chinese immigration.\n\nThese gentlemen are in great fear for the future of our most holy and\nperfectly authenticated religion, and have, like faithful watchmen,\nfrom the walls and towers of Zion, hastened to give the alarm. They have\ninformed Congress that \"Joss has his temple of worship in the Chinese\nquarters, in San Francisco. Within the walls of a dilapidated structure\nis exposed to the view of the faithful the god of the Chinaman, and here\nare his altars of worship. Here he tears up his pieces of paper; here he\noffers up his prayers; here he receives his religious consolations,\nand here is his road to the celestial land;\" that \"Joss is located in a\nlong, narrow room in a building in a back alley, upon a kind of altar;\"\nthat \"he is a wooden image, looking as much like an alligator as like a\nhuman being;\" that the Chinese \"think there is such a place as heaven;\"\nthat \"all classes of Chinamen worship idols;\" that \"the temple is open\nevery day at all hours;\" that \"the Chinese have no Sunday;\" that this\nheathen god has \"huge jaws, a big red tongue, large white teeth, a\nhalf-dozen arms, and big, fiery eyeballs. About him are placed offerings\nof meat and other eatables--a sacrificial offering.\"\n\n*A letter to the Chicago Times, written at Washington, D. C., March\n27,1880.\n\nNo wonder that these members of the committee were shocked at such an\nimage of God, knowing as they did that the only true God was correctly\ndescribed by the inspired lunatic of Patmos in the following words:\n\n\"And there sat in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks one like\nunto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt\nabout the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white\nlike wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and\nhis feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his\nvoice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven\nstars: and out of his mouth went a sharp, two-edged sword: and his\ncountenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.\"\n\nCertainly a large mouth filled with white teeth is preferable to one\nused as the scabbard of a sharp, two-edged sword. Why should these\ngentlemen object to a god with big, fiery eyeballs, when their own Deity\nhas eyes like a flame of fire?\n\nIs it not a little late in the day to object to people because they\nsacrifice meat and other eatables to their god? We all know that for\nthousands of years the \"real\" God was exceedingly fond of roasted meat;\nthat he loved the savor of burning flesh, and delighted in the perfume\nof fresh, warm blood.\n\nThe following account of the manner in which the \"living God\" desired\nthat his chosen people should sacrifice, tends to show the degradation\nand religious blindness of the Chinese:\n\n\"Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin\noffering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron brought the blood\nunto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the\nhorns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar:\nBut the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin\noffering, he burnt upon the altar; as the Lord commanded Moses. And the\nflesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp. And he slew the\nburnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which\nhe sprinkled round about upon the altar. * * * And he brought the meat\noffering, and took a handful thereof, and burnt it upon the altar. * * *\nHe slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offering,\nwhich was for the people: and Aaron's sons presented unto him the\nblood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about, and the fat of the\nbullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards\nand the kidneys, and the caul above the liver, and they put the fat upon\nthe breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar. And the breast and the\nright shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses\ncommanded.\"\n\nIf the Chinese only did something like this, we would know that they\nworshiped the \"living\" God. The idea that the supreme head of the\n\"American system of religion\" can be placated with a little meat and\n\"ordinary eatables\" is simply preposterous. He has always asked for\nblood, and has always asserted that without the shedding of blood there\nis no remission of sin.\n\nThe world is also informed by these gentlemen that \"the idolatry of\nthe Chinese produces a demoralizing effect upon our American youth by\nbringing sacred things into disrespect, and making religion a theme of\ndisgust and contempt.\"\n\nIn San Francisco there are some three hundred thousand people. Is it\npossible that a few Chinese can bring our \"holy religion\" into disgust\nand contempt? In that city there are fifty times as many churches as\njoss-houses. Scores of sermons are uttered every week; religious books\nand papers are plentiful as leaves in autumn, and somewhat dryer;\nthousands of Bibles are within the reach of all. And there, too, is the\nexample of a Christian city.\n\nWhy should we send missionaries to China if we can not convert the\nheathen when they come here? When missionaries go to a foreign land,\nthe poor, benighted people have to take their word for the blessings\nshowered upon a Christian people; but when the heathen come here they\ncan see for themselves. What was simply a story becomes a demonstrated\nfact. They come in contact with people who love their enemies. They see\nthat in a Christian land men tell the truth; that they will not take\nadvantage of strangers; that they are just and patient, kind and tender;\nthat they never resort to force; that they have no prejudice on account\nof color, race, or religion; that they look upon mankind as brethren;\nthat they speak of God as a universal Father, and are willing to work,\nand even to suffer, for the good not only of their own countrymen, but\nof the heathen as well. All this the Chinese see and know, and why\nthey still cling to the religion of their country is to me a matter of\namazement.\n\nWe all know that the disciples of Jesus do unto others as they would\nthat others should do unto them, and that those of Confucius do not unto\nothers anything that they would not that others should do unto them.\nSurely, such peoples ought to live together in perfect peace.\n\nRising with the subject, growing heated with a kind of holy indignation,\nthese Christian representatives of a Christian people most solemnly\ndeclare that:\n\n\"Anyone who is really endowed with a correct knowledge of our religious\nsystem, which acknowledges the existence of a living God and an\naccountability to him, and a future state of reward and punishment, who\nfeels that he has an apology for this abominable pagan worship is not a\nfit person to be ranked as a good citizen of the American Union. It is\nabsurd to make any apology for its toleration. It must be abolished,\nand the sooner the decree goes forth by the power of this Government the\nbetter it will be for the interests of this land.\"\n\nI take this, the earliest opportunity, to inform these gentlemen\ncomposing a majority of the committee, that we have in the United States\nno \"religious system\"; that this is a secular Government. That it has\nno religious creed; that it does not believe or disbelieve in a future\nstate of reward and punishment; that it neither affirms nor denies\nthe existence of a \"living God\"; and that the only god, so far as this\nGovernment is concerned, is the legally expressed will of a majority of\nthe people. Under our flag the Chinese have the same right to worship a\nwooden god that you have to worship any other. The Constitution protects\nequally the church of Jehovah and the house of Joss. Whatever their\nrelative positions may be in heaven, they stand upon a perfect equality\nin the United States.\n\nThis Government is an Infidel Government. We have a Constitution with\nman put in and God left out; and it is the glory of this country that we\nhave such a Constitution.\n\nIt may be surprising to you that I have an apology for pagan worship,\nyet I have. And it is the same one that I have for the writers of this\nreport. I account for both by the word _superstition_. Why should\nwe object to their worshiping God as they please? If the worship is\nimproper, the protestation should come not from a committee of Congress,\nbut from God himself. If he is satisfied that is sufficient.\n\nOur religion can only be brought into contempt by the actions of those\nwho profess to be governed by its teachings. This report will do more\nin that direction than millions of Chinese could do by burning pieces of\npaper before a wooden image. If you wish to impress the Chinese with the\nvalue of your religion, of what you are pleased to call \"The American\nsystem,\" show them that Christians are better than heathens. Prove to\nthem that what you are pleased to call the \"living God\" teaches higher\nand holier things, a grander and purer code of morals than can be found\nupon pagan pages. Excel these wretches in industry, in honesty, in\nreverence for parents, in cleanliness, in frugality; and above all by\nadvocating the absolute liberty of human thought.\n\nDo not trample upon these people because they have a different\nconception of things about which even this committee knows nothing.\n\nGive them the same privilege you enjoy of making a God after their own\nfashion. And let them describe him as they will. Would you be willing\nto have them remain, if one of their race, thousands of years ago, had\npretended to have seen God, and had written of him as follows:\n\n\"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth\ndevoured: coals were kindled by it, * * * and he rode upon a cherub and\ndid fly.\"\n\nWhy should you object to these people on account of their religion? Your\nobjection has in it the spirit of hate and intolerance. Of that spirit\nthe Inquisition was born. That spirit lighted the fagot, made the\nthumbscrew, put chains upon the limbs, and lashes upon the backs of men.\nThe same spirit bought and sold, captured and kidnapped human beings;\nsold babes, and justified all the horrors of slavery.\n\nCongress has nothing to do with the religion of the people. Its members\nare not responsible to God for the opinions of their constituents, and\nit may tend to the happiness of the constituents for me to state that\nthey are in no way responsible for the religion of the members.\nReligion is an individual, not a national, matter. And where the nation\ninterferes with the right of conscience, the liberties of the people are\ndevoured by the monster superstition.\n\nIf you wish to drive out the Chinese, do not make a pretext of religion.\nDo not pretend that you are trying to do God a favor. Injustice in his\nname is doubly detestable. The assassin can not sanctify his dagger by\nfalling on his knees, and it does not help a falsehood if it be uttered\nas a prayer. Religion, used to intensify the hatred of men toward men\nunder the pretence of pleasing God, has cursed this world.\n\nA portion of this most remarkable report is intensely religious. There\nis in it almost the odor of sanctity; and when reading it, one is\nimpressed with the living piety of its authors. But on the twenty-fifth\npage there are a few passages that must pain the hearts of true\nbelievers.\n\nLeaving their religious views, the members immediately betake themselves\nto philosophy and prediction. Listen:\n\n\"The Chinese race and the American citizen, whether native-born or one\nwho is eligible to our naturalization laws and becomes a citizen, are in\na state of antagonism. They cannot, or will not, ever meet upon common\nground, and occupy together the same social level. This is impossible.\nThe pagan and the Christian travel different paths. This one believes in\na living God; and that one in a type of monsters and the worship of wood\nand stone. Thus in the religion of the two races of men they are as wide\napart as the poles of the two hemispheres. They cannot now and never\nwill approach the same religious altar. The Christian will not recede\nto barbarism, nor will the Chinese advance to the enlightened belt\n(whatever it is) of civilization. * * * He cannot be converted to those\nmodern ideas of religious worship which have been accepted by Europe and\nwhich crown the American system.\"\n\nChristians used to believe that through their religion all the nations\nof the earth were finally to be blest. In accordance with that belief\nmissionaries have been sent to every land, and untold wealth has been\nexpended for what has been called the spread of the gospel.\n\nI am almost sure that I have read somewhere that \"Christ died for _all_\nmen,\" and that \"God is no respecter of persons.\" It was once taught that\nit was the duty of Christians to tell all people the \"tidings of\ngreat joy.\" I have never believed these things myself, but have always\ncontended that an honest merchant was the best missionary. Commerce\nmakes friends, religion makes enemies; the one enriches and the other\nimpoverishes; the one thrives best where the truth is told, the other\nwhere falsehoods are believed. For myself, I have but little confidence\nin any business or enterprise or investment that promises dividends only\nafter the death of the stockholders.\n\nBut I am astonished that four Christian statesmen, four members of\nCongress, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, who seriously\nobject to people on account of their religious convictions, should\nstill assert that the very religion in which they believe--and the\nonly religion established by the \"living God,\" head of the American\nsystem--is not adapted to the spiritual needs of one-third of the human\nrace. It is amazing that these four gentlemen have, in the defence\nof the Christian religion, announced the discovery that it is wholly\ninadequate for the civilization of mankind; that the light of the cross\ncan never penetrate the darkness of China; \"that all the labors of\nthe missionary, the example of the good, the exalted character of our\ncivilization, make no impression upon the pagan life of the Chinese;\"\nand that even the report of this committee will not tend to elevate,\nrefine, and Christianize the yellow heathen of the Pacific coast. In the\nname of religion these gentlemen have denied its power, and mocked at\nthe enthusiasm of its founder. Worse than this, they have predicted for\nthe Chinese a future of ignorance and idolatry in this world, and, if\nthe \"American system\" of religion is true, hell-fire in the next.\n\nFor the benefit of these four philosophers and prophets I will give a\nfew extracts from the writings of Confucius, that will, in my judgment,\ncompare favorably with the best passages of their report:\n\n\"My doctrine is that man must be true to the principles of his nature,\nand the benevolent exercise of them toward others.\n\nWith coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and with my bended arm for\na pillow, I still have joy.\n\nRiches and honor acquired by injustice are to me but floating clouds.\n\nThe man who, in view of gain, thinks of righteousness; who, in view of\ndanger, forgets life, and who remembers an old agreement, however far\nback it extends, such a man may be reckoned a complete man.\n\nRecompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.\n\nThere is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's\nlife: Reciprocity is that word.\"\n\nWhen the ancestors of the four Christian Congressmen were barbarians,\nwhen they lived in caves, gnawed bones, and worshiped dried snakes, the\ninfamous Chinese were reading these sublime sentences of Confucius. When\nthe forefathers of these Christian statesmen were hunting toads to\nget the jewels out of their heads, to be used as charms, the wretched\nChinese were calculating eclipses, and measuring the circumference\nof the earth. When the progenitors of these representatives of the\n\"American system of religion\" were burning women charged with nursing\ndevils, the people \"incapable of being influenced by the exalted\ncharacter of our civilization,\" were building asylums for the insane.\n\nNeither should it be forgotten that, for thousands of years, the Chinese\nhave honestly practiced the great principle known as Civil Service\nReform--a something that even the administration of Mr. Hayes has\nreached only through the proxy of promise.\n\nIf we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let us reform our\ntreaties with the vast empire from whence they came. For thousands of\nyears the Chinese secluded themselves from the rest of the world. They\ndid not deem the Christian nations fit to associate with. We forced\nourselves upon them. We called, not with cards, but with cannon. The\nEnglish battered down the door in the names of opium and Christ. This\ninfamy was regarded as another triumph for the gospel. At last, in\nself-defence, the Chinese allowed Christians to touch their shores.\nTheir wise men, their philosophers, protested, and prophesied that time\nwould show that Christians could not be trusted. This report proves that\nthe wise men were not only philosophers, but prophets.\n\nTreat China as you would England. Keep a treaty while it is in force.\nChange it if you will, according to the laws of nations, but on no\naccount excuse a breach of national faith by pretending that we are\ndishonest for God's sake.\n\n\n\n\nSOME INTERROGATION POINTS.\n\nA NEW party is struggling for recognition--a party with leaders who are\nnot politicians, with followers who are not seekers after place. Some of\nthose who suffer and some of those who sympathize, have combined.\nThose who feel that they are oppressed are organized for the purpose of\nredressing their wrongs. The workers for wages, and the seekers for\nwork have uttered a protest. This party is an instrumentality for the\naccomplishment of certain things that are very near and very dear to the\nhearts of many millions.\n\nThe object to be attained is a fairer division of profits between\nemployers and employed. There is a feeling that in some way the workers\nshould not want--that the industrious should not be the indigent. There\nis a hope that men and women and children are not forever to be the\nvictims of ignorance and want--that the tenement house is not always to\nbe the home of the poor, or the gutter the nursery of their babes.\n\nAs yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these aims have not been\nagreed upon. Many theories have been advanced and none has been adopted.\nThe question is so vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many\nways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a solution, or,\nif any one has furnished a solution, no one else has been wise enough to\nunderstand it.\n\n'The hope of the future is that this question will finally be\nunderstood. It must not be discussed in anger. If a broad and\ncomprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for hatred or for\nprejudice. Capital is not to blame. Labor is not to blame. Both have\nbeen caught in the net of circumstances. The rich are as generous as\nthe poor would be if they should change places. Men acquire through the\nnoblest and the tenderest instincts. They work and save not only for\nthemselves, but for their wives and for their children. There is but\nlittle confidence in the charity of the world. The prudent man in his\nyouth makes preparation for his age. The loving father, having struggled\nhimself, hopes to save his children from drudgery and toil.\n\nIn every country there are classes--that is to say, the spirit of caste,\nand this spirit will exist until the world is truly civilized. Persons\nin most communities are judged not as individuals, but as members of a\nclass. Nothing is more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines\nthat divide hearts on account of clothes or titles, are growing more and\nmore indistinct, and the philanthropists, the lovers of the human race,\nbelieve that the time is coming when they will be obliterated. We may\ndo away with kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich\nand poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed,\nthe industrious and idle, and it may be, the honest and vicious. These\nclassifications are in the nature of things. They are produced for the\nmost part by forces that are now beyond the control of man--but the old\nrule, that men are disreputable in the proportion that they are useful,\nwill certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always held to be the\nsuperior of the industrious peasant, the devourer better than the\nproducer, and the waster superior to the worker.\n\nWhile in this country we have no titles of nobility, we have the rich\nand the poor--no princes, no peasants, but millionaires and mendicants.\nThe individuals composing these classes are continually changing. The\nrich of to-day may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the\npoor may take their places. In this country, the children of the poor\nare educated substantially in the same schools with those of the rich.\nAll read the same papers, many of the same books, and all for many years\nhear the same questions discussed. They are continually being educated,\nnot only at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by\nperpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is that those\nwho are rich in gold are often poor in thought, and many who have\nnot whereon to lay their heads have within those heads a part of the\nintellectual wealth of the world.\n\nYears ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute toward the\neducation of the children of the poor. The support of schools by general\ntaxation was defended on the ground that it was a means of providing for\nthe public welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country\nby making better men and women. This policy has been pursued until at\nlast the schoolhouse is larger than the church, and the common people\nthrough education have become uncommon. They now know how little is\nreally known by what are called the upper classes--how little after all\nis understood by kings, presidents, legislators, and men of culture.\nThey are capable not only of understanding a few questions, but they\nhave acquired the art of discussing those that no one understands.\nWith the facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make\nbarricades of statistics, and _chevaux-de-frise_ of inferences and\nassertions. They understand the sophistries of those who have governed.\n\nIn some respects these common people are the superiors of the so-called\naristocracy. While the educated have been turning their attention to the\nclassics, to the dead languages, and the dead ideas and mistakes that\nthey contain--while they have been giving their attention to ceramics,\nartistic decorations, and compulsory prayers, the common people have\nbeen compelled to learn the practical things--to become acquainted with\nfacts--by doing the work of the world. The professor of a college is\nno longer a match for a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only\nunderstands principles, but their application. He knows things as they\nare. He has come in contact with the actual, with realities. He knows\nsomething of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is the highest\nand most valuable form of education. The men who make locomotives, who\nconstruct the vast engines that propel ships, necessarily know more than\nthose who have spent their lives in conjugating Greek verbs, looking for\nHebrew roots, and discussing the origin and destiny of the universe.\n\nIntelligence increases wants. By education the necessities of the people\nbecome increased. The old wages will not supply the new wants. Man longs\nfor a harmony between the thought within and the things without. When\nthe soul lives in a palace the body is not satisfied with rags and\npatches. The glaring inequalities among men, the differences in\ncondition, the suffering and the poverty, have appealed to the good\nand great of every age, and there has been in the brain of the\nphilanthropist a dream--a hope, a prophecy, of a better day.\n\nIt was believed that tyranny was the foundation and cause of the\ndifferences between men--that the rich were all robbers and the poor all\nvictims, and that if a society or government could be founded on equal\nrights and privileges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would\nhave food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable leisure, and\nthat content would be found by every hearth.\n\nThere was a reliance on nature--an idea that men had interfered with the\nharmonious action of great principles which if left to themselves would\nwork out universal wellbeing for the human race. Others imagined that\nthe inequalities between men were necessary--that they were part of a\ndivine plan, and that all would be adjusted in some other world--that\nthe poor here would be the rich there, and the rich here might be in\ntorture there. Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and\nhell their revenge.\n\nWhen our Government was established it was declared that all men are\nendowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which\nwere life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was then believed\nthat if all men had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make\nand execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the frightful\ninequalities seen in the despotisms and monarchies of the old world\nwould entirely disappear. This was the dream of 1776. The founders of\nthe Government knew how kings and princes and dukes and lords and barons\nhad lived upon the labor of the peasants. They knew the history of those\nages of want and crime, of luxury and suffering. But in spite of\nour Declaration, in spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal\nsuffrage, the inequalities still exist. We have the kings and\nprinces, the lords and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists,\ncorporations, capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places,\nand we are forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot clothe\nand feed the world.\n\nFor thousands of years men have been talking and writing about the great\nlaw of supply and demand--and insisting that in some way this mysterious\nlaw has governed and will continue to govern the activities of the human\nrace. It is admitted that this law is merciless--that when the demand\nfails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer, must perish--that the\nlaw feels neither pity nor malice--it simply acts, regardless of\nconsequences. Under this law capital will employ the cheapest. The\nsingle man can work for less than the married. Wife and children are\nluxuries not to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants\nthan the educated, and for this reason can afford to work for less.\nThe great law will give employment to the single and to the ignorant in\npreference to the married and intelligent. The great law has nothing\nto do with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing for\nhomes, for penitentiaries, or asylums. It simply acts--and some men\ntriumph, some succeed, some fail, and some perish.\n\nOthers insist that the curse of the world is monopoly. And yet, as\nlong as some men are stronger than others, as long as some are more\nintelligent than others, they must be, to the extent of such advantage,\nmonopolists. Every man of genius is a monopolist.\n\nWe are told that the great remedy against monopoly--that is to say,\nagainst extortion, is free and unrestricted competition. But after all,\nthe history of this world shows that the brutalities of competition are\nequaled only by those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a\nmonopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other, the instinct\nof self-preservation suggests a combination. In other words, competition\nis a struggle between two or more persons or corporations for the\npurpose of determining which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of\nextortion.\n\nIn this country the people have had the greatest reliance on\ncompetition. If a railway company charged too much a rival road was\nbuilt. As a matter of fact, we are indebted for half the railroads of\nthe United States to the extortion of the other half, and the same may\ntruthfully be said of telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions\nof monopoly constructed new roads and new lines, competition has either\ndestroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which is a means of keeping\nboth monopolies alive, or of producing a new monopoly with greater\nneeds, supplied by methods more heartless than the old. When a rival\nroad is built the people support the rival because the fares and\nfreights are somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaugurates\nwar, and the people, glorying in the benefits of competition, are absurd\nenough to support the old. In a little while the new company, unable to\nmaintain the contest, left by the people at the mercy of the stronger,\ngoes to the wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the\nintelligent people pay not only the old price, but enough in addition to\nmake up for the expenses of the contest.\n\nIs there any remedy for this? None, except with the people themselves.\nWhen the people become intelligent enough to support the rival at a\nreasonable price; when they know enough to allow both roads to live;\nwhen they are intelligent enough to recognize a friend and to stand by\nthat friend as against a known enemy, this question will be at least on\nthe edge of a solution.\n\nSo far as I know, this course has never been pursued except in one\ninstance, and that is the present war between the Gould and Mackay\ncables. The Gould system had been charging from sixty to eighty cents a\nword, and the Mackay system charged forty. Then the old monopoly tried\nto induce the rival to put the prices back to sixty. The rival refused,\nand thereupon the Gould combination dropped to twelve and a half, for\nthe purpose of destroying the rival. The Mackay cable fixed the tariff\nat twenty-five cents, saying to its customers, \"You are intelligent\nenough to understand what this war means. If our cables are defeated,\nthe Gould system will go back not only to the old price, but will add\nenough to reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If you really\nwish for competition, if you desire a reasonable service at a reasonable\nrate, you will support us.\" Fortunately an exceedingly intelligent class\nof people does business by the cables. They are merchants, bankers, and\nbrokers, dealing with large amounts, with intricate, complicated, and\ninternational questions. Of necessity, they are used to thinking for\nthemselves. They are not dazzled into blindness by the glare of the\npresent. They see the future. They are not duped by the sunshine of a\nmoment or the promise of an hour. They see beyond the horizon of a\npenny saved. These people had intelligence enough to say, \"The rival who\nstands between us and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not\nbe allowed to die.\"\n\nDoes not this tend to show that people must depend upon themselves, and\nthat some questions can be settled by the intelligence of those who buy,\nof those who use, and that customers are not entirely helpless?\n\nAnother thing should not be forgotten, and that is this: there is the\nsame war between monopolies that there is between individuals, and the\nmonopolies for many years have been trying to destroy each other. They\nhave unconsciously been working for the extinction of monopolies. These\nmonopolies differ as individuals do. You find among them the rich and\nthe poor, the lucky and the unfortunate, millionaires and tramps. The\ngreat monopolies have been devouring the little ones.\n\nOnly a few years ago, the railways in this country were controlled by\nlocal directors and local managers. The people along the lines were\ninterested in the stock. As a consequence, whenever any legislation was\nthreatened hostile to the interests of these railways, they had local\nfriends who used their influence with legislators, governors and juries.\nDuring this time they were protected, but when the hard times came many\nof these companies were unable to pay their interest. They suddenly\nbecame Socialists. They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They\nfelt like joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about rights\nand wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have passed into the hands\nof the richer roads--they were seized by the great monopolies. Now the\nimportant railways are owned by persons living in large cities or in\nforeign countries. They have no local friends, and when the time conies,\nand it may come, for the General Government to say how much these\ncompanies shall charge for passengers and freight, they will have no\nlocal friends. It may be that the great mass of the people will then be\non the other side. So that after all, the great corporations have been\nbusy settling the question against themselves.\n\nPossibly a majority of the American people believe to-day that in some\nway all these questions between capital and labor can be settled by\nconstitutions, laws, and judicial decisions. Most people imagine that a\nstatute is a sovereign specific for any evil. But while the theory has\nall been one way, the actual experience has been the other--just as the\nfree traders have all the arguments and the protectionists most of the\nfacts.\n\nThe truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred years all real\nadvance in legislation has been made by repealing laws. Of one thing\nwe must be satisfied, and that is that real monopolies have never\nbeen controlled by law, but the fact that such monopolies exist, is\na demonstration that the law has been controlled. In our country,\nlegislators are for the most part controlled by those who, by their\nwealth and influence, elect them. The few, in reality, cast the votes of\nthe many, and the few influence the ones voted for by the many. Special\ninterests, being active, secure special legislation, and the object of\nspecial legislation is to create a kind of monopoly--that is to say, to\nget some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests, and kings ruled, robbed,\ndestroyed, and duped, and their places have been taken by corporations,\nmonopolists, and politicians. The large fish still live on the little\nones, and the fine theories have as yet failed to change the condition\nof mankind.\n\nLaw in this country is effective only when it is the recorded will of a\nmajority. When the zealous few get control of the Legislature, and laws\nare passed to prevent Sabbath-breaking, or wine-drinking, they succeed\nonly in putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal\nphrase. There was a time when men worked from fourteen to sixteen hours\na day. These hours have not been lessened, they have not been shortened\nby law. The law has followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader\nand not a prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages--just as\nimpossible as to fix the values of all manufactured things, including\nworks of art. The field is too great, the problem too complicated, for\nthe human mind to grasp.\n\nTo fix the value of labor is to fix all values--labor being the\nfoundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be fixed unless we\nunderstand the relations that all things bear to each other and to man.\nIf labor were a legal tender--if a judgment for so many dollars could be\ndischarged by so many days of labor,--and the law was that twelve hours\nof work should be reckoned as one day, then the law could change the\nhours to ten or eight, and the judgments could be paid in the shortened\ndays. But it is easy to see that in all contracts made after the\npassage of such a law, the difference in hours would be taken into\nconsideration.\n\nWe must remember that law is not a creative force. It produces nothing.\nIt raises neither corn nor wine. The legitimate object of law is to\nprotect the weak, to prevent violence and fraud, and to enforce honest\ncontracts, to the end that each person may be free to do as he desires,\nprovided only that he does not interfere with the rights of others. Our\nfathers tried to make people religious by law. They failed. Thousands\nare now trying to make people temperate in the same manner. Such efforts\nalways have been and probably always will be failures. People who\nbelieve that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect code of laws,\nmust admit that even this code failed to civilize the inhabitants of\nPalestine.\n\nIt seems impossible to make people just or charitable or industrious\nor agreeable or successful, by law, any more than you can make them\nphysically perfect or mentally sound. Of course we admit that good\npeople intend to make good laws, and that good laws faithfully and\nhonestly executed, tend to the preservation of human rights and to the\nelevation of the race, but the enactment of a law not in accordance with\na sentiment already existing in the minds and hearts of the people--the\nvery people who are depended upon to enforce this law--is not a help,\nbut a hindrance. A real law is but the expression, in an authoritative\nand accurate form, of the judgment and desire of the majority. As\nwe become intelligent and kind, this intelligence and kindness find\nexpression in law.\n\nBut how is it possible to fix the wages of every man? To fix wages is to\nfix prices, and a government to do this intelligently, would necessarily\nhave to have the wisdom generally attributed to an infinite Being. It\nwould have to supervise and fix the conditions of every exchange of\ncommodities and the value of every conceivable thing. Many things can be\naccomplished by law, employeers may be held responsible for injuries to\nthe employed. The mines can be ventilated. Children can be rescued\nfrom the deformities of toil--burdens taken from the backs of wives and\nmothers--houses made wholesome, food healthful--that is to say, the weak\ncan be protected from the strong, the honest from the vicious, honest\ncontracts can be enforced, and many rights protected.\n\nThe men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance, compete not only\nwith other men of strength, but with the inventions of genius. What\nwould doctors say if physicians of iron could be invented with curious\ncogs and wheels, so that when a certain button was touched the proper\nprescription would be written? How would lawyers feel if a lawyer could\nbe invented in such a way that questions of law, being put in a kind of\nhopper and a crank being turned, decisions of the highest court could be\nprophesied without failure? And how would the ministers feel if somebody\nshould invent a clergyman of wood that would to all intents and purposes\nanswer the purpose?\n\nInvention has filled the world with the competitors not only of\nlaborers, but of mechanics--mechanics of the highest skill. To-day the\nordinary laborer is for the most part a cog in a wheel. He works with\nthe tireless--he feeds the insatiable. When the monster stops, the\nman is out of employment, out of bread; He has not saved anything. The\nmachine that he fed was not feeding him, was not working for him--the\ninvention was not for his benefit. The other day I heard a man say\nthat it was almost impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get\nemployment, and that, in his judgment, the Government ought to furnish\nwork for the people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that he\nwas selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of his machines\ncould do the work of twenty tailors, and that only the week before he\nhad sold two to a great house in New York, and that over forty cutters\nhad been discharged.\n\nOn every side men are being discharged and machines are being invented\nto take their places. When the great factory shuts down, the workers who\ninhabited it and gave it life, as thoughts do the brain, go away and it\nstands there like an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force of\nhabit, gather about the closed doors and broken windows and talk about\ndistress, the price of food and the coming winter. They are convinced\nthat they have not had their share of what their labor created. They\nfeel certain that the machines inside were not their friends. They look\nat the mansion of the employeer and think of the places where they live.\nThey have saved nothing--nothing but themselves. The employeer seems to\nhave enough. Even when employeers fail, when they become bankrupt, they\nare far better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is better\nthan the toilers' best.\n\nThe capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells the workingman\nthat he must be economical--and yet, under the present system, economy\nwould only lessen wages. Under the great law of supply and demand every\nsaving, frugal, self-denying workingman is unconsciously doing what\nlittle he can to reduce the compensation of himself and his fellows. The\nslaves who did not wish to run away helped fasten chains on those who\ndid. So the saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough.\nDoes the great law demand that every worker live on the least possible\namount of bread? Is it his fate to work one day, that he may get enough\nfood to be able to work another? Is that to be his only hope--that and\ndeath?\n\nCapital has always claimed and still claims the right to combine.\nManufacturers meet and determine upon prices, even in spite of the great\nlaw of supply and demand. Have the laborers the same right to consult\nand combine? The rich meet in the bank, the clubhouse, or parlor.\nWorkingmen, when they combine, gather in the street. All the organized\nforces of society are against them. Capital has the army and the navy,\nthe legislative, the judicial, and the executive departments. When the\nrich combine, it is for the purpose of \"exchanging ideas.\" When the poor\ncombine, it is a \"conspiracy.\" If they act in concert, if they really do\nsomething, it is a \"mob.\" If they defend themselves, it is \"treason.\"\nHow is it that the rich control the departments of government? In this\ncountry the political power is equally divided among the men. There are\ncertainly more poor than there are rich. Why should the rich control?\nWhy should not the laborers combine for the purpose of controlling the\nexecutive, legislative, and judicial departments? Will they ever find\nhow powerful they are?\n\nIn every country there is a satisfied class--too satisfied to care. They\nare like the angels in heaven, who are never disturbed by the miseries\nof earth. They are too happy to be generous. This satisfied class asks\nno questions and answers none. They believe the world is as it should\nbe. All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When they talk\nlow, they should not be listened to; when they talk loud, they should be\nsuppressed.\n\nThe truth is to-day what it always has been--what it always will\nbe--those who feel are the only ones who think. A cry comes from the\noppressed, from the hungry, from the down-trodden, from the unfortunate,\nfrom men who despair and from women who weep. There are times when\nmendicants become revolutionists--when a rag becomes a banner, under\nwhich the noblest and bravest battle for the right.\n\nHow are we to settle the unequal contest between men and machines? Will\nthe machine finally go into partnership with the laborer? Can these\nforces of nature be controlled for the benefit of her suffering\nchildren? Will extravagance keep pace with ingenuity? Will the workers\nbecome intelligent enough and strong enough to be the owners of the\nmachines? Will these giants, these Titans, shorten or lengthen the hours\nof labor? Will they give leisure to the industrious, or will they make\nthe rich richer, and the poor poorer?\n\nIs man involved in the \"general scheme of things\"? Is there no pity, no\nmercy? Can man become intelligent enough to be generous, to be just;\nor does the same law or fact control him that controls the animal and\nvegetable world? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller\ntrees. The strong animals devour the weak--everything eating something\nelse--everything at the mercy of beak and claw and hoof and tooth--of\nhand and club, of brain and greed--inequality, injustice, everywhere.\n\nThe poor horse standing in the street with his dray, overworked,\nover-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other horses groomed to\nmirrors, glittering with gold and silver, scorning with proud feet the\nvery earth, probably indulges in the usual socialistic reflections, and\nthis same horse, worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into\nthe dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at donkeys in\na field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist.\n\nIn the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak--actually ate\ntheir flesh. In spite of all the laws that man has made, in spite of\nall advance in science, literature and art, the strong, the cunning, the\nheartless still live on the weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True,\nthey do not eat their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they\nlive on their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness and want.\nThe poor man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for wife and child\nthrough all his anxious, barren, wasted life--who goes to the grave\nwithout even having had one luxury--has been the food of others. He has\nbeen devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman living in the bare\nand lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to keep\nstarvation from a child, is slowly being eaten by her fellow-men. When\nI take into consideration the agony of civilized life--the number of\nfailures, the poverty, the anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the\nbitter realities, the hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame--I\nam almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most\nmerciful form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow-man.\n\nSome of the best and purest of our race have advocated what is known\nas Socialism. They have not only taught, but, what is much more to\nthe purpose, have believed that a nation should be a family; that the\ngovernment should take care of all its children; that it should provide\nwork and food and clothes and education for all, and that it should\ndivide the results of all labor equitably with all.\n\nSeeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the destitution and crime,\nthese men were willing to sacrifice, not only their own liberties, but\nthe liberties of all.\n\nSocialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery.\nNothing, in my judgment, would so utterly paralyze all the forces, all\nthe splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilization\nof man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters, a few are\nsupposed to be free; but in a socialistic state all would be slaves.\n\nIf the government is to provide work it must decide for the worker\nwhat he must do. It must say who shall chisel statues, who shall\npaint pictures, who shall compose music, and who shall practice the\nprofessions. Is any government, or can any government, be capable\nof intelligently performing these countless duties? It must not only\ncontrol work, it must not only decide what each shall do, but it must\ncontrol expenses, because expenses bear a direct relation to products.\nTherefore the government must decide what the worker shall eat and\nwherewithal he shall be clothed; the kind of house in which he shall\nlive; the manner in which it shall be furnished, and, if this government\nfurnishes the work, it must decide on the days or the hours of leisure.\nMore than this, it must fix values; it must decide not only who shall\nsell, but who shall buy, and the price that must be paid--and it must\nfix this value not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be\nproduced, that can be exchanged or sold.\n\nIs it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this?\n\nThe present condition of the world is bad enough, with its poverty and\nignorance, but it is far better than it could by any possibility be\nunder any government like the one described. There would be less hunger\nof the body, but not of the mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of\na large penitentiary, and, as in every well regulated prison, somebody\nwould decide what each should do. The inmates of a prison retire\nearly; they rise with the sun; they have something to eat; they are not\ndissipated; they have clothes; they attend divine service; they have but\nlittle to say about their neighbors; they do not suffer from cold; their\nhabits are excellent, and yet, no one envies their condition. Socialism\ndestroys the family. The children belong to the state. Certain officers\ntake the places of parents. Individuality is lost.\n\nThe human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for any possible\ncomfort. You remember the old fable of the fat dog that met the lean\nwolf in the forest. The wolf, astonished to see so prosperous an animal,\ninquired of the dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that\nthere was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast, his\ndinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and that he had all\nthat he could eat and very little to do. The wolf said, \"Do you think\nthis man would treat me as he does you?\" The dog replied, \"Yes, come\nalong with me.\" So they jogged on together toward the dog's home. On the\nway the wolf happened to notice that some hair was worn off the dog's\nneck, and he said, \"How did the hair become worn?\" \"That is,\" said the\ndog, \"the mark of the collar--my master ties me at night.\" \"Oh,\" said\nthe wolf, \"Are you chained? Are you deprived of your liberty? I believe\nI will go back. I prefer hunger.\"\n\nIt is impossible for any man with a good heart to be satisfied with this\nworld as it now is. No one can truly enjoy even what he earns--what he\nknows to be his own, knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in\nmisery and want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is almost\nheartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering makes one almost\nashamed to be well dressed and warm--one feels as though his heart was\nas cold as their bodies.\n\nIn a world filled with millions and millions of acres of land waiting to\nbe tilled, where one man can raise the food for hundreds, millions are\non the edge of famine. Who can comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of\nthis truth?\n\nIs there to be no change? Are \"the law of supply and demand,\" invention\nand science, monopoly and competition, capital and legislation always to\nbe the enemies of those who toil?\n\nWill the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid enough to give\ntheir earnings for the useless? Will they support millions of soldiers\nto kill the sons of other workingmen? Will they always build temples\nfor ghosts and phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves? Will they\nforever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires with mitres, to\nlive upon their blood? Will they remain the slaves of the beggars they\nsupport? How long will they be controlled by friends who seek favors,\nand by reformers who want office? Will they always prefer famine in the\ncity to a feast in the fields? Will they ever feel and know that\nthey have no right to bring children into this world that they cannot\nsupport? Will they use their intelligence for themselves, or for others?\nWill they become wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their own\nliberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally see that every\nman has a right to choose his trade, his profession, his employment,\nand has the right to work when, and for whom, and for what he will?\nWill they finally say that the man who has had equal privileges with all\nothers has no right to complain, or will they follow the example\nthat has been set by their oppressors? Will they learn that force, to\nsucceed, must have a thought behind it, and that anything done, in order\nthat it may endure, must rest upon the corner-stone of justice?\n\nWill they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish the spark that\nsheds a little light in every brain? Will they ever recognize the fact\nthat labor, above all things, is honorable--that it is the foundation of\nvirtue? Will they understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that\nevery healthy man must earn the right to live? Will honest men stop\ntaking off their hats to successful fraud? Will industry, in the\npresence of crowned idleness, forever fall upon its knees, and will the\nlips unstained by lies forever kiss the robed impostor's hand?--North\nAmerican Review, March, 1887.\n\n\n\n\nART AND MORALITY.\n\nART is the highest form of expression, and exists for the sake of\nexpression. Through art thoughts become visible. Back of forms are the\ndesire, the longing, the brooding creative instinct, the maternity of\nmind and the passion that give pose and swell, outline and color.\n\nOf course there is no such thing as absolute beauty or absolute\nmorality. We now clearly perceive that beauty and conduct are relative.\nWe have outgrown the provincialism that thought is back of substance,\nas well as the old Platonic absurdity, that ideas existed before the\nsubjects of thought. So far, at least, as man is concerned, his thoughts\nhave been produced by his surroundings, by the action and interaction\nof things upon his mind; and so far as man is concerned, things have\npreceded thoughts. The impressions that these things make upon us\nare what we know of them. The absolute is beyond the human mind. Our\nknowledge is confined to the relations that exist between the totality\nof things that we call the universe, and the effect upon ourselves.\n\nActions are deemed right or wrong, according to experience and the\nconclusions of reason. Things are beautiful by the relation that certain\nforms, colors, and modes of expression bear to us. At the foundation of\nthe beautiful will be found the fact of happiness, the gratification of\nthe senses, the delight of intellectual discovery and the surprise and\nthrill of appreciation. That which we call the beautiful, wakens into\nlife through the association of ideas, of memories, of experiences, of\nsuggestions of pleasure past and the perception that the prophecies of\nthe ideal have been and will be fulfilled.\n\nArt cultivates and kindles the imagination, and quickens the conscience.\nIt is by imagination that we put ourselves in the place of another. When\nthe wings of that faculty are folded, the master does not put himself in\nthe place of the slave; the tyrant is not locked in the dungeon, chained\nwith his victim. The inquisitor did not feel the flames that devoured\nthe martyr. The imaginative man, giving to the beggar, gives to himself.\nThose who feel indignant at the perpetration of wrong, feel for the\ninstant that they are the victims; and when they attack the aggressor\nthey feel that they are defending themselves. Love and pity are the\nchildren of the imagination.\n\nOur fathers read with great approbation the mechanical sermons in rhyme\nwritten by Milton, Young and Pollok. Those theological poets wrote\nfor the purpose of convincing their readers that the mind of man\nis diseased, filled with infirmities, and that poetic poultices and\nplasters tend to purify and strengthen the moral nature of the human\nrace. Nothing to the true artist, to the real genius, is so contemptible\nas the \"medicinal view.\"\n\nPoems were written to prove that the practice of virtue was an\ninvestment for another world, and that whoever followed the advice found\nin those solemn, insincere and lugubrious rhymes, although he might\nbe exceedingly unhappy in this world, would with great certainty be\nrewarded in the next. These writers assumed that there was a kind of\nrelation between rhyme and religion, between verse and virtue; and that\nit was their duty to call the attention of the world to all the snares\nand pitfalls of pleasure. They wrote with a purpose. They had a distinct\nmoral end in view. They had a plan. They were missionaries, and their\nobject was to show the world how wicked it was and how good they, the\nwriters, were. They could not conceive of a man being so happy that\neverything in nature partook of his feeling; that all the birds were\nsinging for him, and singing by reason of his joy; that everything\nsparkled and shone and moved in the glad rhythm of his heart. They could\nnot appreciate this feeling. They could not think of this joy guiding\nthe artist's hand, seeking expression in form and color. They did not\nlook upon poems, pictures, and statues as results, as children of the\nbrain fathered by sea and sky, by flower and star, by love and light.\nThey were not moved by gladness. They felt the responsibility of\nperpetual duty. They had a desire to teach, to sermonize, to point\nout and exaggerate the faults of others and to describe the virtues\npracticed by themselves. Art became a colporteur, a distributer of\ntracts, a mendicant missionary whose highest ambition was to suppress\nall heathen joy.\n\nHappy people were supposed to have forgotten, in a reckless moment, duty\nand responsibility. True poetry would call them back to a realization of\ntheir meanness and their misery. It was the skeleton at the feast, the\nrattle of whose bones had a rhythmic sound. It was the forefinger of\nwarning and doom held up in the presence of a smile.\n\nThese moral poets taught the \"unwelcome truths,\" and by the paths of\nlife put posts on which they painted hands pointing at graves. They\nloved to see the pallor on the cheek of youth, while they talked, in\nsolemn tones, of age, decrepitude and lifeless clay.\n\nBefore the eyes of love they thrust, with eager hands, the skull of\ndeath. They crushed the flowers beneath their feet and plaited crowns of\nthorns for every brow.\n\nAccording to these poets, happiness was inconsistent with virtue. The\nsense of infinite obligation should be perpetually present. They assumed\nan attitude of superiority. They denounced and calumniated the reader.\nThey enjoyed his confusion when charged with total depravity. They loved\nto paint the sufferings of the lost, the worthlessness of human life,\nthe littleness of mankind, and the beauties of an unknown world. They\nknew but little of the heart. They did not know that without passion\nthere is no virtue, and that the really passionate are the virtuous.\n\nArt has nothing to do directly with morality or immorality. It is its\nown excuse for being; it exists for itself.\n\nThe artist who endeavors to enforce a lesson, becomes a preacher; and\nthe artist who tries by hint and suggestion to enforce the immoral,\nbecomes a pander.\n\nThere is an infinite difference between the nude and the naked, between\nthe natural and the undressed. In the presence of the pure, unconscious\nnude, nothing can be more contemptible than those forms in which are\nthe hints and suggestions of drapery, the pretence of exposure, and the\nfailure to conceal. The undressed is vulgar--the nude is pure.\n\nThe old Greek statues, frankly, proudly nude, whose free and perfect\nlimbs have never known the sacrilege of clothes, were and are as free\nfrom taint, as pure, as stainless, as the image of the morning star\ntrembling in a drop of perfumed dew.\n\nMorality is the harmony between act and circumstance. It is the melody\nof conduct. A wonderful statue is the melody of proportion. A great\npicture is the melody of form and color. A great statue does not suggest\nlabor; it seems to have been created as a joy. A great painting suggests\nno weariness and no effort; the greater, the easier it seems. So a great\nand splendid life seems to have been without effort. There is in it no\nidea of obligation, no idea of responsibility or of duty. The idea of\nduty changes to a kind of drudgery that which should be, in the perfect\nman, a perfect pleasure.\n\nThe artist, working simply for the sake of enforcing a moral, becomes\na laborer. The freedom of genius is lost, and the artist is absorbed in\nthe citizen. The soul of the real artist should be moved by this melody\nof proportion as the body is unconsciously swayed by the rhythm of a\nsymphony. No one can imagine that the great men who chiseled the statues\nof antiquity intended to teach the youth of Greece to be obedient\nto their parents. We cannot believe that Michael Angelo painted his\ngrotesque and somewhat vulgar \"Day of Judgment\" for the purpose of\nreforming Italian thieves. The subject was in all probability selected\nby his employeer, and the treatment was a question of art, without\nthe slightest reference to the moral effect, even upon priests. We are\nperfectly certain that Corot painted those infinitely poetic\nlandscapes, those cottages, those sad poplars, those leafless vines on\nweather-tinted walls, those quiet pools, those contented cattle, those\nfields flecked with light, over which bend the skies, tender as the\nbreast of a mother, without once thinking of the ten commandments. There\nis the same difference between moral art and the product of true genius,\nthat there is between prudery and virtue.\n\nThe novelists who endeavor to enforce what they are pleased to\ncall \"moral truths,\" cease to be artists. They create two kinds of\ncharacters--types and caricatures. The first never has lived, and the\nsecond never will. The real artist produces neither. In his pages you\nwill find individuals, natural people, who have the contradictions and\ninconsistencies inseparable from humanity. The great artists \"hold the\nmirror up to nature,\" and this mirror reflects with absolute accuracy.\nThe moral and the immoral writers--that is to say, those who have some\nobject besides that of art--use convex or concave mirrors, or those with\nuneven surfaces, and the result is that the images are monstrous and\ndeformed. The little novelist and the little artist deal either in the\nimpossible or the exceptional. The men of genius touch the universal.\nTheir words and works throb in unison with the great ebb and flow of\nthings. They write and work for all races and for all time.\n\nIt has been the object of thousands of reformers to destroy\nthe passions, to do away with desires; and could this object be\naccomplished, life would become a burden, with but one desire--that is\nto say, the desire for extinction. Art in its highest forms increases\npassion, gives tone and color and zest to life. But while it increases\npassion, it refines. It extends the horizon. The bare necessities of\nlife constitute a prison, a dungeon. Under the influence of art the\nwalls expand, the roof rises, and it becomes a temple.\n\nArt is not a sermon, and the artist is not a preacher. Art accomplishes\nby indirection. The beautiful refines. The perfect in art suggests the\nperfect in conduct. The harmony in music teaches, without intention, the\nlesson of proportion in life. The bird in his song has no moral purpose,\nand yet the influence is humanizing. The beautiful in nature acts\nthrough appreciation and sympathy. It does not browbeat, neither does\nit humiliate. It is beautiful without regard to you. Roses would be\nunbearable if in their red and perfumed hearts were mottoes to the\neffect that bears eat bad boys and that honesty is the best policy.\n\nArt creates an atmosphere in which the proprieties, the amenities, and\nthe virtues unconsciously grow. The rain does not lecture the seed. The\nlight does not make rules for the vine and flower.\n\nThe heart is softened by the pathos of the perfect.\n\nThe world is a dictionary of the mind, and in this dictionary of things\ngenius discovers analogies, resemblances, and parallels amid opposites,\nlikeness in difference, and corroboration in contradiction. Language\nis but a multitude of pictures. Nearly every word is a work of art, a\npicture represented by a sound, and this sound represented by a mark,\nand this mark gives not only the sound, but the picture of something in\nthe outward world and the picture of something within the mind, and with\nthese words which were once pictures, other pictures are made.\n\nThe greatest pictures and the greatest statues, the most wonderful and\nmarvelous groups, have been painted and chiseled with words. They are as\nfresh to-day as when they fell from human lips. Penelope still ravels,\nweaves, and waits; Ulysses' bow is bent, and through the level rings\nthe eager arrow flies. Cordelia's tears are falling now. The greatest\ngallery of the world is found in Shakespeare's book. The pictures and\nthe marbles of the Vatican and Louvre are faded, crumbling things,\ncompared with his, in which perfect color gives to perfect form the glow\nand movement of passion's highest life.\n\nEverything except the truth wears, and needs to wear, a mask. Little\nsouls are ashamed of nature. Prudery pretends to have only those\npassions that it cannot feel. Moral poetry is like a respectable canal\nthat never overflows its banks. It has weirs through which slowly\nand without damage any excess of feeling is allowed to flow. It makes\nexcuses for nature, and regards love as an interesting convict. Moral\nart paints or chisels feet, faces, and rags. It regards the body as\nobscene. It hides with drapery that which it has not the genius purely\nto portray. Mediocrity becomes moral from a necessity which it has\nthe impudence to call virtue. It pretends to regard ignorance as the\nfoundation of purity and insists that virtue seeks the companionship of\nthe blind.\n\nArt creates, combines, and reveals. It is the highest manifestation of\nthought, of passion, of love, of intuition. It is the highest form of\nexpression, of history and prophecy. It allows us to look at an unmasked\nsoul, to fathom the abysses of passion, to understand the heights and\ndepths of love.\n\nCompared with what is in the mind of man, the outward world almost\nceases to excite our wonder. The impression produced by mountains, seas,\nand stars is not so great, so thrilling, as the music of Wagner.\nThe constellations themselves grow small when we read \"Troilus and\nCres-sida,\" \"Hamlet,\" or \"Lear.\" What are seas and stars in the presence\nof a heroism that holds pain and death as naught? What are seas and\nstars compared with human hearts? What is the quarry compared with the\nstatue?\n\nArt civilizes because it enlightens, develops, strengthens, ennobles. It\ndeals with the beautiful, with the passionate, with the ideal. It is the\nchild of the heart. To be great, it must deal with the human. It must be\nin accordance with the experience, with the hopes, with the fears, and\nwith the possibilities of man. No one cares to paint a palace, because\nthere is nothing in such a picture to touch the heart. It tells of\nresponsibility, of the prison, of the conventional. It suggests a\nload--it tells of apprehension, of weariness and ennui. The picture of\na cottage, over which runs a vine, a little home thatched with content,\nwith its simple life, its natural sunshine and shadow, its trees bending\nwith fruit, its hollyhocks and pinks, its happy children, its hum of\nbees, is a poem--a smile in the desert of this world.\n\nThe great lady, in velvet and jewels, makes but a poor picture. There is\nnot freedom enough in her life. She is constrained. She is too far away\nfrom the simplicity of happiness. In her thought there is too much of\nthe mathematical. In all art you will find a touch of chaos, of liberty;\nand there is in all artists a little of the vagabond--that is to say,\ngenius.\n\nThe nude in art has rendered holy the beauty of woman. Every Greek\nstatue pleads for mothers and sisters. From these marbles come strains\nof music. They have filled the heart of man with tenderness and worship.\nThey have kindled reverence, admiration and love. The Venus de Milo,\nthat even mutilation cannot mar, tends only to the elevation of our\nrace. It is a miracle of majesty and beauty, the supreme idea of the\nsupreme woman. It is a melody in marble. All the lines meet in a kind\nof voluptuous and glad content. The pose is rest itself. The eyes are\nfilled with thoughts of love. The breast seems dreaming of a child.\n\nThe prudent is not the poetic; it is the mathematical. Genius is the\nspirit of abandon; it is joyous, irresponsible. It moves in the swell\nand curve of billows; it is careless of conduct and consequence. For a\nmoment, the chain of cause and effect seems broken; the soul is free. It\ngives an account not even to itself. Limitations are forgotten; nature\nseems obedient to the will; the ideal alone exists; the universe is a\nsymphony.\n\nEvery brain is a gallery of art, and every soul is, to a greater or less\ndegree, an artist. The pictures and statues that now enrich and adorn\nthe walls and niches of the world, as well as those that illuminate\nthe pages of its literature, were taken originally from the private\ngalleries of the brain.\n\nThe soul--that is to say the artist--compares the pictures in its own\nbrain with the pictures that have been taken from the galleries of\nothers and made visible. This soul, this artist, selects that which is\nnearest perfection in each, takes such parts as it deems perfect, puts\nthem together, forms new pictures, new statues, and in this way creates\nthe ideal.\n\nTo express desires, longings, ecstasies, prophecies and passions in form\nand color; to put love, hope, heroism and triumph in marble; to paint\ndreams and memories with words; to portray the purity of dawn, the\nintensity and glory of noon, the tenderness of twilight, the splendor\nand mystery of night, with sounds; to give the invisible to sight and\ntouch, and to enrich the common things of earth with gems and jewels of\nthe mind--this is Art.--North American Review, March, 1888.\n\n\n\n\nTHE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.\n\n\"Let determined things to destiny hold unbewailed their way.\" THERE is\na continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony that he knows\nmust exist between all known facts. It is hard for the scientist to\nimplicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsistent with a\nknown fact. He feels that every fact is a key to many mysteries--that\nevery fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual witness. He knows\nthat a fact has a countless number of sides, and that all these sides\nwill match all other facts, and he also suspects that to understand one\nfact perfectly--like the fact of the attraction of gravitation--would\ninvolve a knowledge of the universe.\n\nIt requires not only candor, but courage, to accept a fact. When a new\nfact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by the\nconservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept it with\nthe statement that they always supposed it was true.\n\nThe old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree and\nrespectability; it is filled with the spirit of caste; it is associated\nwith great events, and with great names; it is intrenched; it has an\nincome--it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the\nparasites always defend themselves.\n\nLong ago frightened wretches who had by tyranny or piracy amassed great\nfortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise with God\nand to let their money fall from their stiffening hands into the greedy\npalms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries were endowed,\nand in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known as religious\ntruths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead hypocrites have\npropagated and supported their kind.\n\nMost religions--no matter how honestly they originated--have been\nestablished by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them as a\nmeans to enslave, to degrade and rob. The priest, consciously and\nunconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers.\n\nNear Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle--twenty or\nthirty at a time--are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox leads\nthe way--the others follow. When the place is reached, this Bishop\nDupanloup turns and goes back for other victims.\n\nThis is the worst side: There is a better.\n\nHonest men, believing that they have found the whole truth--the real\nand only faith--filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of\npropagating the \"divine creed.\" They found colleges and universities,\nand in perfect, pious, ignorant sincerity, provide that the creed, and\nnothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any professor teaches\nanything contrary to that, he must be instantly dismissed--that is to\nsay, the children must be beaten with the bones of the dead.\n\nThese good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision to the\neffect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads are changed\nor not, and with the further provision that the professors who keep and\nrepair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads have not been\nchanged.\n\nThere is still another side.\n\nProfessors do not wish to lose their salaries. They love their families\nand have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise between their\nbread and their brain. On pay-day they believe--at other times they have\ntheir doubts. They settle with their own consciences by giving old words\nnew meanings. They take refuge in allegory, hide behind parables,\nand barricade themselves with oriental imagery. They give to the most\nfrightful passages a spiritual meaning--and while they teach the old\ncreed to their followers, they speak a new philosophy to their equals.\n\nThere is still another side.\n\nA vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied. They have\nno doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did. The \"scheme of\nsalvation\" suits them because they are satisfied that they are embraced\nwithin its terms. They give themselves no trouble. They believe because\nthey do not understand. They have no doubts because they do not think.\nThey regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow of orthodox slumber. Their\nsouls are asleep, and they hate only those who disturb their dreams.\nThese people keep their creeds for future use. They intend to have them\nready at the moment of dissolution. They sustain about the same relation\nto daily life that the small-boats carried by steamers do to ordinary\nnavigation--they are for the moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like\nlife-preservers, are to be used in disaster.\n\nWe must also remember that everything in nature--bad as well as\ngood--has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and\nall mistakes carry concealed weapons. Driven to the last corner, even\nnon-resistance appeals to the dagger.\n\nVast interests--political, social, artistic, and individual--are\ninterwoven with all creeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been\ninvested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the propagation\nand support of certain religious doctrines, and many millions have been\neducated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is more natural\nthan that they should defend themselves--that they should cling to a\ncreed that gives them roof and raiment.\n\nOnly a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It included\nand accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy satisfactory to the\nignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of its own; it answered\nall questions with the same readiness and the same inaccuracy; it had\nwithin its sacred volumes the history of the past, and the prophecies of\nall the future; it pretended to know all that was, is, or ever will be\nnecessary for the well-being of the human race, here and hereafter.\n\nWhen a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of\neverything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his\nsystem. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake of\nthe accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything and\neverything that does not endanger its success.\n\nThe writers of all sacred books--the inspired prophets--had no reason\nfor disagreeing with the common people about the origin of things, the\ncreation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and the\nuses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages have\nindorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred\nbooks the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of\nthe ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his\nfoundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For many\ncenturies the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our Bible\nwere accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that the world\nwas too ignorant to question.\n\nA few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world was\ndiscovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The arts\nwere born again. The world was filled with adventure; millions became\nself-reliant; old ideas were abandoned--old theories were put aside--and\nsuddenly, the old leaders of thought were found to be ignorant, shallow\nand dishonest. The literature of the classic world was discovered\nand translated into modern languages. The world was circumnavigated;\nCopernicus discovered the true relation sustained by our earth to the\nsolar system, and about the beginning of the seventeenth century many\nother wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609, a Hollander found that\ntwo lenses placed in a certain relation to each other magnified objects\nseen through them. This discovery was the foundation of astronomy. In\na little while it came to the knowledge of Galileo; the result was a\ntelescope, with which man has read the volume of the skies.\n\nOn the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his three\nlaws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchisement of\nthe human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient Hebrews were not\nastronomers. From that moment the church became the enemy of science.\nIn every possible way the inspired ignorance was defended--the lash, the\nsword, the chain, the fagot and the dungeon were the arguments used by\nthe infuriated church.\n\nTo such an extent was the church prejudiced against the new philosophy,\nagainst the new facts, that priests refused to look through the\ntelescope of Galileo.\n\nAt last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired\nwritings, literally translated, did not contain the truth--the Bible was\nin danger of being driven from the heavens.\n\nThe church also had its geology. The time when the earth was created had\nbeen definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact had not only\nbeen stated by inspired writers, but their statement had been indorsed\nby priests, by bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical councils; that\nwas settled.\n\nBut a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes not\nalways closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them; they\nobserved channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams; they saw\nthe vast territories that had been deposited by rivers; their attention\nwas called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas--to the deposits\nby volcanoes--to the sedimentary rocks--to the vast reefs that had been\nbuilt by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of the\nlapse of time--and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had been\npursuing its course about the sun for millions and millions of ages.\n\nThe church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every\ndevice that cunning could suggest or ingenuity execute, but the conflict\ncould not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerned, was\nin danger of being driven from the earth.\n\nBeaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate, to evade, and\nto give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having failed\nto harmonize the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius,\nthe leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to teach\nastronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was not a\nscientific book, but that it was written in the language of the people,\nand that as to unimportant things it contained the general beliefs of\nits time.\n\nThe ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its\nscience, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its\naccount of the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that\nit had to say on the subject of religion.\n\nThe moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in\neverything within its lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest\nbecame less arrogant. The church was forced to explain. The pulpit had\none language for the faithful and another for the philosophical, i. e.,\nit became dishonest with both.\n\nThe next question that arose was as to the origin of man.\n\nThe Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the stars\nwas against the sacred volume. The church had also been forced to admit\nthat the world was not created at the time mentioned in the Bible--so\nthat the very stones of the earth rose and united with the stars in\ngiving testimony against the sacred volume.\n\nAs to the creation of the world, the church resorted to the artifice\nof saying that \"days\" in reality meant long periods of time; so that\nno matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six\nperiods--in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to be\ndivided by six.\n\nBut when it came to the creation of man, this evasion, or artifice, was\nimpossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because\nit gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the\ngenerations from Adam to the flood, and from the flood to the birth of\nChrist, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor\nis given. So that, according to this account--according to the inspired\nfigures--man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years.\nThere is no room left for any people beyond Adam.\n\nIf the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man; consequently,\nwe know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived and\nlabored and suffered on this earth.\n\nThe church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation of\nAdam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the man. The\nchurch cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden--the serpent--the\nfall and the expulsion; these must be defended because they are vital.\nWithout these absurdities, the system known as Christianity cannot\nexist. Without the fall, the atonement is a _non sequitur._ Facts\nbearing upon these questions were discovered and discussed by the\ngreatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck, Humboldt, Haeckel, and\nabove all, Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is not\na special creation. If anything can be established by observation, by\nreason, then the fact has been established that man is related to all\nlife below him--that he has been slowly produced through countless\nyears--that the story of Eden is a childish myth--that the fall of man\nis an infinite absurdity.\n\nIf anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has existed\nupon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if we know\nanything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that they\nexisted in a highly civilized state; that thousands of years before the\nGarden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other their ideas\nby language, and that artists clothed the marble with thoughts and\npassions.\n\nThis is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old\nTestament is untrue--that the account was written by the ignorance, the\nprejudice and the egotism of the olden time.\n\nSo, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that\ncivilization is a growth--that man did not commence a perfect being, and\nthen degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen, to\nthe intellectual height he now occupies.\n\nThe church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths,\nbecause they contradict the sacred word. Some of the most ingenious\nof the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that there is no\nconflict--that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony with the\ntheories of Charles Darwin, and these clergymen in some way manage to\nretain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly destroys it.\n\nBut in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that\nthe Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its\nanthropology--that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of\nthe sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the\norigin of man--in other words, nothing of any particular value to the\nhuman race.\n\nIt is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its\nmorality. Let us examine this question.\n\nWe must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if conscience\nis more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such a thing\nas wrong beneath the dome of heaven--we must admit that slavery is\nimmoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old Testament\nupholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that Jehovah was opposed\nto the enslavement of one Hebrew by another. Christians may quote the\ncommandment \"Thou shalt not steal\" as being opposed to human slavery,\nbut after that commandment was given, Jehovah himself told his chosen\npeople that they might \"buy their bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen\nround about, and that they should be their bondmen and their bondwomen\nforever.\" So all that Jehovah meant by the commandment \"Thou shalt not\nsteal\" was that one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but\nthat all Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed.\n\nIt is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made only for\nthe Jews, not for the world, because the author of these commandments\ncommanded the people to whom they were given to violate them nearly all\nas against the surrounding people.\n\nA few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery was\nwrong. It was upheld by the church. Ministers bought and sold the very\npeople for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergymen of the\nEnglish church owned stock in slave-ships, and the man who denounced\nslavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and thereupon was duly\nmobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ. Churches were built with the\nresults of labor stolen from colored Christians. Babes were sold from\nmothers and a part of the money given to send missionaries from America\nto heathen lands with the tidings of great joy. Now every intelligent\nman on the earth, every decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution\nof human slavery.\n\nSo with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is\nimmoral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do\naway with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to cover\nthe hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The\nJehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution.\n\nCan we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality? Consider for\na moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah, wars were\nwaged. Remember the atrocities that were committed. Think of a war where\neverything was the food of the sword. Think for a moment of a deity\ncapable of committing the crimes that are described and gloated over in\nthe Old Testament. The civilized man has outgrown the sacred cruelties\nand absurdities.\n\nThere is still another side to this question.\n\nA few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural.\nMiracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days, that\nwhich actually occurred was not regarded of sufficient importance to\nbe recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited derision.\nA creed that did not fill the horizon--that did not account for\neverything--that could not answer every question, would have been\nregarded as worthless.\n\nAfter the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the\nleaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the power\nof working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in partnership\nwith God, what excuse could have been made for the Reformation? The\nProtestants took the ground that the age of miracles had passed.\nThis was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could not say\nthat miracles had never been performed, because that would take the\nfoundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves; consequently\nthey were compelled to admit that miracles were performed in the\napostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man must rely upon\nthe facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to carry on two kinds of\nwar; they had to contend with those who insisted that miracles had never\nbeen performed; and in that argument they were forced to insist upon the\nnecessity for miracles, on the probability that they were performed, and\nupon the truthfulness of the apostles. A moment afterward, they had to\nanswer those who contended that miracles were performed at that time;\nthen they brought forward against the Catholics the same arguments that\ntheir first opponents had brought against them.\n\nThis has made every Protestant brain \"a house divided against itself.\"\nThis planted in the Reformation the \"irrepressible conflict.\"\n\nBut we have learned more and more about what we call Nature--about\nwhat we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force is\nindestructible--that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from\nmatter--that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from\nforce--that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an\neffect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also\na cause. We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a\nmiracle. We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature--that\nit can have no father, no mother--that is to say, that it is an\nimpossibility.\n\nThe intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous.\n\nMost ministers are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain\nmiracles, and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few\ncongregations could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously\nassert the truth of the Old Testament miracles.\n\nMiracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the religious\nworld. The evidence accumulates every day, in every possible direction\nin which the human mind can investigate, that the miraculous is simply\nthe impossible.\n\nConfidence in the eternal constancy of Nature increases day by day. The\nscientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation--in\nchemical affinities--in the great fact of evolution, and feels\nabsolutely certain that the nature of things will remain forever the\nsame.\n\nWe have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly understood;\nthat there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are simply\ntransparent falsehoods.\n\nThe real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the\nattraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light\nbecome the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water runs,\nor why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in nature are\nthe eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange about the\nmiracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes of ignorance\nand fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to live on the labor\nof others.\n\nIn our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take the\nexact ground occupied by the Deists. They dare not defend in the open\nfield the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdities\nof the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent was\nstill there. They have nothing to say about the fall of man. They are\nsilent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They are ashamed\nto defend the miraculous. They talk about these things to Sunday schools\nand to the elderly members of their congregations; but when doing battle\nfor the faith, they misstate the position of their opponents and then\ninsist that there must be a God, and that the soul is immortal.\n\nWe may admit the existence of an infinite Being; we may admit the\nimmortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures\nand the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or\nthese dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in God\nand taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older than\nChristianity, and they have been almost universal.\n\nChristianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration\nof the Bible, on the fall of man, on the atonement, on the dogma of the\nTrinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from the\ndead, on his ascension into heaven.\n\nChristianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul--not simply\nthe immortality of joy--but it teaches the immortality of pain,\nthe eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that\nimmorality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated\nforever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and\nin a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a\ncurse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope of\nthe human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most infamous\nof men.\n\nLet us see what the church, within a few years, has been compelled\nsubstantially to abandon,--that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed\nto defend.\n\nFirst, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures; second, the geology;\nthird, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine\nof original sin, the fall of the human race; fifth, the mathematical\ncontradiction known as the Trinity; sixth, the atonement--because it was\nonly on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another,\nthat he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another;\nseventh, that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the\nimpossible; eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for\nthe reason that slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that\nwars of extermination are not merciful, and that nothing can be more\nimmoral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of the\nguilty; and ninth, the divinity of Christ.\n\nAll this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not afraid\nto think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and the\ncandor to express their thoughts. What then is left?\n\nLet me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true, is left; it still\nremains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the\ntruth needs no inspiration; neither can it be said too often that\ninspiration cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment\nuttered in the Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All\nthat is good in the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord's\nPrayer is not affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of\nforgiveness, and the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And\nbesides, there remains the great hope for all the human race.\n\nWhat is lost? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdities,\nall the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures.\nWe have almost lost the \"hope\" of eternal pain--the \"consolation\" of\nperdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has\nfallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.\n\nThe great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the clergy\nare not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old creed.\nThey have been educated in the universities of the Sacred\nMistake--universities that Bruno would call \"the widows of true\nlearning.\" They have been taught to measure with a false standard; they\nhave weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became convinced of\nthe truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them by the solemnity of\nprofessors who spoke in tones of awe. The enthusiasm of life's morning\nwas misdirected. They went out into the world knowing nothing of value.\nThey preached a creed outgrown. Having been for so many years\nentirely certain of their position, they met doubt with a spirit of\nirritation--afterward with hatred. They are hardly courageous enough to\nadmit that they are wrong.\n\nOnce the pulpit was the leader--it spoke with authority. By its side\nwas the sword of the state, with the hilt toward its hand. Now it is\napologized for--it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to\nwhom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has not\naccepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality cannot\nlive except in partnership with the sanctified follies and falsehoods of\nthe past.\n\nThe old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not within\nthe circumference of reason--they are not embraced in any of the facts\nwithin the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been exposed; all\nthe excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at last the church must\nmeet, and fairly meet, the objections of our time.\n\nSolemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred.\nPeople are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is more\nimportant than belief--far better than creeds, vastly more useful than\nsuperstitions. The church must accept the truths of the present, must\nadmit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the mental\nmuseums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past.\n\nThe time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be\ndetermined by ascertaining the character of the disputants; epithets\nare no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the church produces\nlaughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon; argument must be\nanswered with argument, and the church must appeal to reason, and by\nthat standard it must stand or fall. The theories and discoveries of\nDarwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods, or by quotations\nfrom the Old Testament.\n\nThe world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We must go back\nto the book--it cannot come to us--or we must leave it forever. In order\nto remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries, the inventions,\nthe intellectual efforts of many centuries; we must go back until our\nknowledge--or rather our ignorance--will harmonize with the barbaric\ncreeds.\n\nIt is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally\nproduced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same\nreligions would again ensnare the human race. It is also admitted that\nunder the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the great\nand intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition.\n\nThere is no necessity of attacking people--we should combat error.\nWe should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite--larceny, but not the\nthief--superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our\npower to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow-men.\n\nThere is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in\npunishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kindness,\nin the sunlight of intelligence.\n\nWe must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions of\nour reason.\n\nFor many centuries the church has insisted that man is totally depraved,\nthat he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are\ncontrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly\nasserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but\nhaving been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars; that\nthey constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were traps and\nsnares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses, or upon\nhis reason;--he must simply rely upon faith; in other words, that the\nonly way for man to really see was to put out his eyes.\n\nThere has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The\nimprovement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that\nreligion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by prejudice\nand by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its truth\nin question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal; whoever\ndemanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer, a scoffer, a\nmoral leper.\n\nThe church defended its mistakes by every means within its power.\n\nBut in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are\nenough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure\nthe distance that has been traveled by sensible people.\n\nThe world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher, and\nthat \"he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of dogmas,\nbut to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.\"\n\nAs a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not\n\"spiritual\"--that they are \"of the earth, earthy\"--that they cannot\nperceive that which is spiritual. They insist that \"God is a spirit, and\nmust be worshiped in spirit.\"\n\nBut let me ask, What is it to be spiritual? In order to be really\nspiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another?\nWere the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for\nthe miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual? Were\nthose who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the state*\non account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did John\nCalvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus? Were\nthey spiritual people who invented and used instruments of torture--who\ndenied the liberty of thought and expression--who waged wars for the\npropagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who insisted that\nInfinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children forever? Is it\nnecessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the meaning of the\nword spiritual? Is it necessary to hate those who disagree with you,\nand to calumniate those whose argument you cannot answer, in order to be\nspiritual? Must you hold a demonstrated fact in contempt; must you deny\nor avoid what you know to be true, in order to substantiate the fact\nthat you are spiritual?\n\nWhat is it to be spiritual? Is the man spiritual who searches for the\ntruth--who lives in accordance with his highest ideal--who loves his\nwife and children--who discharges his obligations--who makes a happy\nfireside for the ones he loves--who succors the oppressed--who gives his\nhonest opinions--who is guided by principle--who is merciful and just?\n\nIs the man spiritual who loves the beautiful--who is thrilled by music,\nand touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic and the\nself-denying? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought and deed to\nennoble the human race?\n\nThe defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that the\nfoundations are insecure.\n\nThey should have the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon. If the\nBible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders must admit\nthat Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but about the\nstars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about geology and\nastronomy even four thousand years ago.\n\nThe champions of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the truth\nabout the creation of man, the Garden of Eden, the temptation, the\nfall and the flood. They must take the ground that the sacred book is\nhistorically correct; that the events related really happened; that the\nmiracles were actually performed; that the laws promulgated from Sinai\nwere and are wise and just, and that nothing is upheld, commanded,\nindorsed, or in any way approved or sustained that is not absolutely\nright. In other words, if they insist that a being of infinite goodness\nand intelligence is the author of the Bible, they must be ready to show\nthat it is absolutely perfect. They must defend its astronomy, geology,\nhistory, miracle and morality.\n\nIf the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special\ncreation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago,\nto deceive the scientific world of to-day.\n\nIf the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back to\nthe barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible' is true, polygamy is\nthe highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, nature has a master,\nand the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect.\nIf the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer\neternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a\ncollection of mistakes--the telescope is a false witness, and light is\na luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is\nfalse and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.\n\nThe defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to candidly\nanswer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired? Second,\nIs the Bible true? And when they answer these questions, they should\nremember that if the Bible is true, it needs no inspiration, and that if\nnot true, inspiration can do it no good.--North American Review, August,\n1888.\n\n\n\n\nWHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?\n\nI.\n\n\"With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls.\"\n\nTHE same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious questions\nas in others. There is no subject--and can be none--concerning which any\nhuman being is under any obligation to believe without evidence. Neither\nis there any intelligent being who can, by any possibility, be flattered\nby the exercise of ignorant credulity. The man who, without prejudice,\nreads and understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an\northodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of\nany country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a\nbeliever.\n\nMost people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is not God,\nthat the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the Christian religion,\nlike other religions, is the creation of man, usually say: \"There must\nbe a Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the Bible is not\nhis word. There must be somewhere an over-ruling Providence or Power.\"\n\nThis position is just as untenable as the other. He who cannot harmonize\nthe cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot\nharmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a\nsupposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pestilence and\nfamine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the\nstrong over the weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will\nfind it impossible to account for martyrs--for the burning of the good,\nthe noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous.\n\nHow can the Deist satisfactorily account for the sufferings of women and\nchildren? In what way will he justify religious persecution--the flame\nand sword of religious hatred? Why did his God sit idly on his throne\nand allow his enemies to wet their swords in the blood of his friends?\nWhy did he not answer the prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless?\nAnd when he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why did he\nnot also hear the prayer of the slave? And when children were sold from\nthe breasts of mothers, why was he deaf to the mother's cry?\n\nIt seems to me that the man who knows the limitations of the mind, who\ngives the proper value to human testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic.\nHe gives up the hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of\ncomprehending the supernatural, or of conceiving of an infinite\npersonality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all\nmeaning falls.\n\nThe mind of man pursues the path of least resistance, and the\nconclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature and\nstructure of his mind, on his experience, on hereditary drifts and\ntendencies, and on the countless things that constitute the difference\nin minds. One man, finding himself in the midst of mysterious phenomena,\ncomes to the conclusion that all is the result of design; that back of\nall things is an infinite personality--that is to say, an infinite man;\nand he accounts for all that is by simply saying that the universe was\ncreated and set in motion by this infinite personality, and that it is\nmiraculously and supernaturally governed and preserved. This man\nsees with perfect clearness that matter could not create itself, and\ntherefore he imagines a creator of matter. He is perfectly satisfied\nthat there is design in the world, and that consequently there must\nhave been a designer. It does not occur to him that it is necessary to\naccount for the existence of an infinite personality. He is perfectly\ncertain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is\nequally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The\nabsurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration.\nHe takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was\nnot. He assumes that a creator existed from eternity, without cause,\nand created what is called matter out of nothing; or, whereas there was\nnothing, this creator made the something that we call substance.\n\nIs it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite\npersonality? Can it imagine a beginningless being, infinitely powerful\nand intelligent? If such a being existed, then there must have been an\neternity during which nothing did exist except this being; because, if\nthe Universe was created, there must have been a time when it was not,\nand back of that there must have been an eternity during which nothing\nbut an infinite personality existed. Is it possible to imagine an\ninfinite intelligence dwelling for an eternity in infinite nothing?\nHow could such a being be intelligent? What was there to be intelligent\nabout? There was but one thing to know, namely, that there was nothing\nexcept this being. How could such a being be powerful? There was nothing\nto exercise force upon. There was nothing in the universe to suggest an\nidea. Relations could not exist--except the relation between infinite\nintelligence and infinite nothing.\n\nThe next great difficulty is the act of creation. My mind is so that I\ncannot conceive of something being created out of nothing. Neither can\nI conceive of anything being created without a cause. Let me go one\nstep further. It is just as difficult to imagine something being created\nwith, as without, a cause. To postulate a cause does not in the least\nlessen the difficulty. In spite of all, this lever remains without a\nfulcrum.\n\nWe cannot conceive of the destruction of substance. The stone can be\ncrushed to powder, and the powder can be ground to such a fineness that\nthe atoms can only be distinguished by the most powerful microscope, and\nwe can then imagine these atoms being divided and subdivided again\nand again and again; but it is impossible for us to conceive of the\nannihilation of the least possible imaginable fragment of the least\natom of which we can think. Consequently the mind can imagine neither\ncreation nor destruction. From this point it is very easy to reach the\ngeneralization that the indestructible could not have been created.\n\nThese questions, however, will be answered by each individual according\nto the structure of his mind, according to his experience, according\nto his habits of thought, and according to his intelligence or his\nignorance, his prejudice or his genius.\n\nProbably a very large majority of mankind believe in the existence of\nsupernatural beings, and a majority of what are known as the civilized\nnations, in an infinite personality. In the realm of thought majorities\ndo not determine. Each brain is a kingdom, each mind is a sovereign.\n\nThe universality of a belief does not even tend to prove its truth. A\nlarge majority of mankind have believed in what is known as God, and an\nequally large majority have as implicitly believed in what is known as\nthe Devil. These beings have been inferred from phenomena. They were\nproduced for the most part by ignorance, by fear, and by selfishness.\nMan in all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and\ndeath, of substance, of force, for the ebb and flow of things, for earth\nand star. The savage, dwelling in his cave, subsisting on roots\nand reptiles, or on beasts that could be slain with club and stone,\nsurrounded by countless objects of terror, standing by rivers, so far as\nhe knew, without source or end, by seas with but one shore, the prey of\nbeasts mightier than himself, of diseases strange and fierce, trembling\nat the voice of thunder, blinded by the lightning, feeling the earth\nshake beneath him, seeing the sky lurid with the volcano's glare,--fell\nprostrate and begged for the protection of the Unknown.\n\nIn the long night of savagery, in the midst of pestilence and famine,\nthrough the long and dreary winters, crouched in dens of darkness,\nthe seeds of superstition were sown in the brain of man. The savage\nbelieved, and thoroughly believed, that everything happened in reference\nto him; that he by his actions could excite the anger, or by his worship\nplacate the wrath, of the Unseen. He resorted to flattery and prayer. To\nthe best of his ability he put in stone, or rudely carved in wood, his\nidea of this god. For this idol he built a hut, a hovel, and at last a\ncathedral. Before these images he bowed, and at these shrines, whereon\nhe lavished his wealth, he sought protection for himself and for\nthe ones he loved. The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They\npretended to have received messages from the Unknown. They stood between\nthe helpless multitude and the gods. They were the carriers of flags of\ntruce. At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man, and upon\nthe labor of the deceived they lived.\n\nThe Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who bowed before his idol;\nand yet it must be confessed that the god of stone answered prayer and\nprotected his worshipers precisely as the Christian's God answers prayer\nand protects his worshipers to-day.\n\nMy mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that substance is\neternal; that the universe was without beginning and will be without\nend; that it is the one eternal existence; that relations are transient\nand evanescent; that organisms are produced and vanish; that forms\nchange,--but that the substance of things is from eternity to eternity.\nIt may be that planets are born and die, that constellations will fade\nfrom the infinite spaces, that countless suns will be quenched,--but the\nsubstance will remain.\n\nThe questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond the powers of the\nhuman mind.\n\nHeredity is on the side of superstition. All our ignorance pleads\nfor the old. In most men there is a feeling that their ancestors were\nexceedingly good and brave and wise, and that in all things pertaining\nto religion their conclusions should be followed. They believe that\ntheir fathers and mothers were of the best, and that that which\nsatisfied them should satisfy their children. With a feeling of\nreverence they say that the religion of their mother is good enough\nand pure enough and reasonable enough for them. In this way the love of\nparents and the reverence for ancestors have unconsciously bribed the\nreason and put out, or rendered exceedingly dim, the eyes of the mind.\n\nThere is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to live and die where\ntheir parents lived and died--a tendency to go back to the homes of\ntheir youth. Around the old oak of manhood grow and cling these vines.\nYet it will hardly do to say that the religion of my mother is good\nenough for me, any more than to say the geology or the astronomy or\nthe philosophy of my mother is good enough for me. Every human being is\nentitled to the best he can obtain; and if there has been the slightest\nimprovement on the religion of the mother, the son is entitled to that\nimprovement, and he should not deprive himself of that advantage by\nthe mistaken idea that he owes it to his mother to perpetuate, in a\nreverential way, her ignorant mistakes.\n\nIf we are to follow the religion of our fathers and mothers, our fathers\nand mothers should have followed the religion of theirs. Had this been\ndone, there could have been no improvement in the world of thought. The\nfirst religion would have been the last, and the child would have died\nas ignorant as the mother. Progress would have been impossible, and on\nthe graves of ancestors would have been sacrificed the intelligence of\nmankind.\n\nWe know, too, that there has been the religion of the tribe, of the\ncommunity, and of the nation, and that there has been a feeling that\nit was the duty of every member of the tribe or community, and of every\ncitizen of the nation, to insist upon it that the religion of that\ntribe, of that community, of that nation, was better than that of any\nother. We know that all the prejudices against other religions, and\nall the egotism of nation and tribe, were in favor of the local\nsuperstition. Each citizen was patriotic enough to denounce the\nreligions of other nations and to stand firmly by his own. And there\nis this peculiarity about man: he can see the absurdities of other\nreligions while blinded to those of his own. The Christian can see\nclearly enough that Mohammed was an impostor. He is sure of it, because\nthe people of Mecca who were acquainted with him declared that he was\nno prophet; and this declaration is received by Christians as a\ndemonstration that Mohammed was not inspired. Yet these same Christians\nadmit that the people of Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ\nrejected him; and this rejection they take as proof positive that Christ\nwas the Son of God.\n\nThe average man adopts the religion of his country, or, rather, the\nreligion of his country adopts him. He is dominated by the egotism of\nrace, the arrogance of nation, and the prejudice called patriotism. He\ndoes not reason--he feels. He does not investigate--he believes. To him\nthe religions of other nations are absurd and infamous, and their gods\nmonsters of ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average man is\ntaught, first, that there is a supreme being; second, that he has made\nknown his will; third, that he will reward the true believer; fourth,\nthat he will punish the unbeliever, the scoffer, and the blasphemer;\nfifth, that certain ceremonies are pleasing to this god; sixth, that\nhe has established a church; and seventh, that priests are his\nrepresentatives on earth. And the average man has no difficulty in\ndetermining that the God of his nation is the true God; that the will of\nthis true God is contained in the sacred scriptures of his nation;\nthat he is one of the true believers, and that the people of other\nnations--that is, believing other religions--are scoffers; that the only\ntrue church is the one to which he belongs; and that the priests of his\ncountry are the only ones who have had or ever will have the slightest\ninfluence with this true God. All these absurdities to the average man\nseem self-evident propositions; and so he holds all other creeds in\nscorn, and congratulates himself that he is a favorite of the one true\nGod.\n\nIf the average Christian had been born in Turkey, he would have been a\nMohammedan; and if the average Mohammedan had been born in New England\nand educated at Andover, he would have regarded the damnation of the\nheathen as the \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nNations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and hallucinations, and\nthese find expression in their laws, customs, ceremonies, morals, and\nreligions. And these are in great part determined by soil, climate, and\nthe countless circumstances that mould and dominate the lives and\nhabits of insects, individuals, and nations. The average man believes\nimplicitly in the religion of his country, because he knows nothing of\nany other and has no desire to know. It fits him because he has been\ndeformed to fit it, and he regards this fact of fit as an evidence of\nits inspired truth.\n\nHas a man the right to examine, to investigate, the religion of his own\ncountry--the religion of his father and mother? Christians admit that\nthe citizens of all countries not Christian have not only this right,\nbut that it is their solemn duty. Thousands of missionaries are sent to\nheathen countries to persuade the believers in other religions not only\nto examine their superstitions, but to renounce them, and to adopt\nthose of the missionaries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard the\nreligion of his country and to hold in contempt the creed of his father\nand of his mother. If the citizens of heathen nations have the right\nto examine the foundations of their religion, it would seem that the\ncitizens of Christian nations have the same right. Christians, however,\ngo further than this; they say to the heathen: You must examine your\nreligion, and not only so, but you must reject it; and, unless you do\nreject it, and, in addition to such rejection, adopt ours, you will be\neternally damned. Then these same Christians say to the inhabitants of\na Christian country: You must not examine; you must not investigate; but\nwhether you examine or not, you must believe, or you will be eternally\ndamned.\n\nIf there be one true religion, how is it possible to ascertain which\nof all the religions the true one is? There is but one way. We must\nimpartially examine the claims of all. The right to examine involves the\nnecessity to accept or reject. Understand me, not the right to accept\nor reject, but the necessity. From this conclusion there is no possible\nescape. If, then, we have the right to examine, we have the right to\ntell the conclusion reached. Christians have examined other religions\nsomewhat, and they have expressed their opinion with the utmost\nfreedom--that is to say, they have denounced them all as false and\nfraudulent; have called their gods idols and myths, and their priests\nimpostors.\n\nThe Christian does not deem it worth while to read the Koran. Probably\nnot one Christian in a thousand ever saw a copy of that book. And yet\nall Christians are perfectly satisfied that the Koran is the work of an\nimpostor, No Presbyterian thinks it is worth his while to examine the\nreligious systems of India; he knows that the Brahmins are mistaken, and\nthat all their miracles are falsehoods. No Methodist cares to read the\nlife of Buddha, and no Baptist will waste his time studying the ethics\nof Confucius. Christians of every sort and kind take it for granted that\nthere is only one true religion, and that all except Christianity are\nabsolutely without foundation. The Christian world believes that all\nthe prayers of India are unanswered; that all the sacrifices upon the\ncountless altars of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome were without effect.\nThey believe that all these mighty nations worshiped their gods in vain;\nthat their priests were deceivers or deceived; that their ceremonies\nwere wicked or meaningless; that their temples were built by ignorance\nand fraud, and that no God heard their songs of praise, their cries of\ndespair, their words of thankfulness; that on account of their religion\nno pestilence was stayed; that the earthquake and volcano, the flood\nand storm went on their ways of death--while the real God looked on and\nlaughed at their calamities and mocked at their fears.\n\nWe find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their\nreligion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil\nand climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage\nof the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of\neducation, on the liberty of thought and action; and that in this\nmighty panorama of national life, reason has built and superstition has\ndestroyed.\n\nBeing satisfied that all believe precisely as they must, and that\nreligions have been naturally produced, I have neither praise nor blame\nfor any man. Good men have had bad creeds, and bad men have had good\nones. Some of the noblest of the human race have fought and died for the\nwrong. The brain of man has been the trysting-place of contradictions.\n\nPassion often masters reason, and \"the state of man, like to a little\nkingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrection.\"\n\nIn the discussion of theological or religious questions, we have almost\npassed the personal phase, and we are now weighing arguments instead of\nexchanging epithets and curses. They who really seek for truth must be\nthe best of friends. Each knows that his desire can never take the place\nof fact, and that, next to finding truth, the greatest honor must be won\nin honest search.\n\nWe see that many ships are driven in many ways by the same wind. So\nmen, reading the same book, write many creeds and lay out many roads to\nheaven. To the best of my ability, I have examined the religions of many\ncountries and the creeds of many sects. They are much alike, and the\ntestimony by which they are substantiated is of such a character that to\nthose who believe is promised an eternal reward. In all the sacred books\nthere are some truths, some rays of light, some words of love and\nhope. The face of savagery is sometimes softened by a smile--the human\ntriumphs, and the heart breaks into song. But in these books are also\nfound the words of fear and hate, and from their pages crawl serpents\nthat coil and hiss in all the paths of men.\n\nFor my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has not claimed. Such\nis the nature of my brain that Shakespeare gives me greater joy than all\nthe prophets of the ancient world. There are thoughts that satisfy the\nhunger of the mind. I am convinced that Humboldt knew more of geology\nthan the author of Genesis; that Darwin was a greater naturalist than he\nwho told the story of the flood; that Laplace was better acquainted with\nthe habits of the sun and moon than Joshua could have been, and that\nHaeckel, Huxley, and Tyndall know more about the earth and stars, about\nthe history of man, the philosophy of life--more that is of use, ten\nthousand times--than all the writers of the sacred books.\n\nI believe in the religion of reason--the gospel of this world; in the\ndevelopment of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual wealth, to\nthe end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end\nthat he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe\nthe world.\n\nLet us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of countless mysteries;\nstanding beneath the boundless heaven sown thick with constellations;\nknowing that each grain of sand, each leaf, each blade of grass, asks\nof every mind the answer-less question; knowing that the simplest thing\ndefies solution; feeling that we deal with the superficial and the\nrelative, and that we are forever eluded by the real, the absolute,--let\nus admit the limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage and\nthe candor to say: We do not know.\n\nNorth American Review, December, 1889.\n\nII.\n\nTHE Christian religion rests on miracles. There are no miracles in the\nrealm of science. The real philosopher does not seek to excite wonder,\nbut to make that plain which was wonderful. He does not endeavor to\nastonish, but to enlighten. He is perfectly confident that there are\nno miracles in nature. He knows that the mathematical expression of the\nsame relations, contents, areas, numbers and proportions must forever\nremain the same. He knows that there are no miracles in chemistry; that\nthe attractions and repulsions, the loves and hatreds, of atoms are\nconstant. Under like conditions, he is certain that like will always\nhappen; that the product ever has been and forever will be the\nsame; that the atoms or particles unite in definite, unvarying\nproportions,--so many of one kind mix, mingle, and harmonize with just\nso many of another, and the surplus will be forever cast out. There are\nno exceptions. Substances are always true to their natures. They have no\ncaprices, no prejudices, that can vary or control their action. They are\n\"the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.\"\n\nIn this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity, the\nintelligent man has absolute confidence. It is useless to tell him that\nthere was a time when fire would not consume the combustible, when water\nwould not flow in obedience to the attraction of gravitation, or that\nthere ever was a fragment of a moment during which substance had no\nweight.\n\nCredulity should be the servant of intelligence. The ignorant have not\ncredulity enough to believe the actual, because the actual appears to be\ncontrary to the evidence of their senses. To them it is plain that the\nsun rises and sets, and they have not credulity enough to believe in the\nrotary motion of the earth--that is to say, they have not intelligence\nenough to comprehend the absurdities involved in their belief, and the\nperfect harmony between the rotation of the earth and all known facts.\nThey trust their eyes, not their reason. Ignorance has always been\nand always will be at the mercy of appearance. Credulity, as a rule,\nbelieves everything except the truth. The semi-civilized believe in\nastrology, but who could convince them of the vastness of astronomical\nspaces, the speed of light, or the magnitude and number of suns and\nconstellations? If Hermann, the magician, and Humboldt, the philosopher,\ncould have appeared before savages, which would have been regarded as a\ngod?\n\nWhen men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of the correlation of force,\nand of its indestructibility, they were believers in perpetual motion.\nSo when chemistry was a kind of sleight-of-hand, or necromancy,\nsomething accomplished by the aid of the supernatural, people talked\nabout the transmutation of metals, the universal solvent, and the\nphilosopher's stone. Perpetual motion would be a mechanical miracle; and\nthe transmutation of metals would be a miracle in chemistry; and if we\ncould make the result of multiplying two by two five, that would be a\nmiracle in mathematics. No one expects to find a circle the diameter of\nwhich is just one fourth of the circumference. If one could find such a\ncircle, then there would be a miracle in geometry.\n\nIn other words, there are no miracles in any science. The moment we\nunderstand a question or subject, the miraculous necessarily disappears.\nIf anything actually happens in the chemical world, it will, under like\nconditions, happen again.\n\nNo one need take an account of this result from the mouths of others:\nall can try the experiment for themselves. There is no caprice, and no\naccident.\n\nIt is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that the age of\nmiracles has passed away, and, consequently, miracles cannot at present\nbe established by miracles; they must be substantiated by the testimony\nof witnesses who are said by certain writers--or, rather, by uncertain\nwriters--to have lived several centuries ago; and this testimony is\ngiven to us, not by the witnesses themselves, not by persons who say\nthat they talked with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did\nnot give the sources of their information.\n\nThe question is: Can miracles be established except by miracles? We know\nthat the writers may have been mistaken. It is possible that they may\nhave manufactured these accounts themselves. The witnesses may have told\nwhat they knew to be untrue, or they may have been honestly deceived,\nor the stories may have been true as at first told. Imagination may have\nadded greatly to them, so that after several centuries of accretion a\nvery simple truth was changed to a miracle.\n\nWe must admit that all probabilities must be against miracles, for\nthe reason that that which is probable cannot by any possibility be\na miracle. Neither the probable nor the possible, so far as man is\nconcerned, can be miraculous. The probability therefore says that the\nwriters and witnesses were either mistaken or dishonest.\n\nWe must admit that we have never seen a miracle ourselves, and we must\nadmit that, according to our experience, there are no miracles. If we\nhave mingled with the world, we are compelled to say that we have known\na vast number of persons--including ourselves--to be mistaken, and many\nothers who have failed to tell the exact truth. The probabilities are on\nthe side of our experience, and, consequently, against the miraculous;\nand it is a necessity that the free mind moves along the path of least\nresistance.\n\nThe effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and honesty of\nthe witness and the intelligence of him who weighs. A man living in a\ncommunity where the supernatural is expected, where the miraculous is\nsupposed to be of almost daily occurrence, will, as a rule, believe that\nall wonderful things are the result of supernatural agencies. He will\nexpect providential interference, and, as a consequence, his mind will\npursue the path of least resistance, and will account for all phenomena\nby what to him is the easiest method. Such people, with the best\nintentions, honestly bear false witness. They have been imposed upon by\nappearances, and are victims of delusion and illusion.\n\nIn an age when reading and writing were substantially unknown, and when\nhistory itself was but the vaguest hearsay handed down from dotage to\ninfancy, nothing was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful, the\nmiraculous. The more marvelous the story, the greater the interest\nexcited. Narrators and hearers were alike ignorant and alike honest. At\nthat time nothing was known, nothing suspected, of the orderly course of\nnature--of the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. The\nworld was governed by caprice. Everything was at the mercy of a being,\nor beings, who were themselves controlled by the same passions that\ndominated man. Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and the\ndeductions drawn were honest and monstrous.\n\nIt is probably certain that all of the religions of the world have been\nbelieved, and that all the miracles have found credence in countless\nbrains; otherwise they could not have been perpetuated. They were not\nall born of cunning. Those who told were as honest as those who heard.\nThis being so, nothing has been too absurd for human credence.\n\nAll religions, so far as I know, claim to have been miraculously\nfounded, miraculously preserved, and miraculously propagated. The\npriests of all claimed to have messages from God, and claimed to have\na certain authority, and the miraculous has always been appealed to for\nthe purpose of substantiating the message and the authority.\n\nIf men believe in the supernatural, they will account for all phenomena\nby an appeal to supernatural means or power. We know that formerly\neverything was accounted for in this way except some few simple things\nwith which man thought he was perfectly acquainted. After a time men\nfound that under like conditions like would happen, and as to those\nthings the supposition of supernatural interference was abandoned; but\nthat interference was still active as to all the unknown world. In other\nwords, as the circle of man's knowledge grew, supernatural interference\nwithdrew and was active only just beyond the horizon of the known.\n\nNow, there are some believers in universal special providence--that is,\nmen who believe in perpetual interference by a supernatural power,\nthis interference being for the purpose of punishing or rewarding, of\ndestroying or preserving, individuals and nations.\n\nOthers have abandoned the idea of providence in ordinary matters, but\nstill believe that God interferes on great occasions and at critical\nmoments, especially in the affairs of nations, and that his presence\nis manifest in great disasters. This is the compromise position. These\npeople believe that an infinite being made the universe and impressed\nupon it what they are pleased to call \"laws,\" and then left it to run in\naccordance with those laws and forces; that as a rule it works well,\nand that the divine maker interferes only in cases of accident, or at\nmoments when the machine fails to accomplish the original design.\n\nThere are others who take the ground that all is natural; that there\nnever has been, never will be, never can be any interference from\nwithout, for the reason that nature embraces all, and that there can be\nno without or beyond.\n\nThe first class are Theists pure and simple; the second are Theists\nas to the unknown, Naturalists as to the known; and the third are\nNaturalists without a touch or taint of superstition.\n\nWhat can the evidence of the first class be worth? This question\nis answered by reading the history of those nations that believed\nthoroughly and implicitly in the supernatural. There is no conceivable\nabsurdity that was not established by their testimony. Every law or\nevery fact in nature was violated. Children were bom without parents;\nmen lived for thousands of years; others subsisted without food,\nwithout sleep; thousands and thousands were possessed with evil spirits\ncontrolled by ghosts and ghouls; thousands confessed themselves guilty\nof impossible offences, and in courts, with the most solemn forms,\nimpossibilities were substantiated by the oaths, affirmations, and\nconfessions of men, women, and children.\n\nThese delusions were not confined to ascetics and peasants, but they\ntook possession of nobles and kings; of people who were at that time\ncalled intelligent; of the then educated. No one denied these wonders,\nfor the reason that denial was a crime punishable generally with death.\nSocieties, nations, became insane--victims of ignorance, of dreams, and,\nabove all, of fears. Under these conditions human testimony is not and\ncannot be of the slightest value. We now know that nearly all of the\nhistory of the world is false, and we know this because we have arrived\nat that phase or point of intellectual development where and when\nwe know that effects must have causes, that everything is naturally\nproduced, and that, consequently, no nation could ever have been great,\npowerful, and rich unless it had the soil, the people, the intelligence,\nand the commerce. Weighed in these scales, nearly all histories are\nfound to be fictions.\n\nThe same is true of religions. Every intelligent American is satisfied\nthat the religions of India, of Egypt, of Greece and Rome, of the\nAztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles on which they rest\nare mistakes. Our religion alone is excepted. Every intelligent Hindoo\ndiscards all religions and all miracles except his own. The question\nis: When will people see the defects in their own theology as clearly as\nthey perceive the same defects in every other?\n\nAll the so-called false religions were substantiated by miracles, by\nsigns and wonders, by prophets and martyrs, precisely as our own. Our\nwitnesses are no better than theirs, and our success is no greater. If\ntheir miracles were false, ours cannot be true. Nature was the same in\nIndia and in Palestine.\n\nOne of the corner-stones of Christianity is the miracle of inspiration,\nand this same miracle lies at the foundation of all religions. How can\nthe fact of inspiration be established? How could even the inspired man\nknow that he was inspired? If he was influenced to write, and did write,\nand did express thoughts and facts that to him were absolutely new, on\nsubjects about which he had previously known nothing, how could he know\nthat he had been influenced by an infinite being? And if he could know,\nhow could he convince others?\n\nWhat is meant by inspiration? Did the one inspired set down only the\nthoughts of a supernatural being? Was he simply an instrument, or did\nhis personality color the message received and given? Did he mix his\nignorance with the divine information, his prejudices and hatreds with\nthe love and justice of the Deity? If God told him not to eat the flesh\nof any beast that dieth of itself, did the same infinite being also tell\nhim to sell this meat to the stranger within his gates?\n\nA man says that he is inspired--that God appeared to him in a dream, and\ntold him certain things. Now, the things said to have been communicated\nmay have been good and wise; but will the fact that the communication\nis good or wise establish the inspiration? If, on the other hand, the\ncommunication is absurd or wicked, will that conclusively show that the\nman was not inspired? Must we judge from the communication? In other\nwords, is our reason to be the final standard?\n\nHow could the inspired man know that the communication was received from\nGod? If God in reality should appear to a human being, how could this\nhuman being know who had appeared? By what standard would he judge? Upon\nthis question man has no experience; he is not familiar enough with the\nsupernatural to know gods even if they exist. Although thousands have\npretended to receive messages, there has been no message in which there\nwas, or is, anything above the invention of man. There are just as\nwonderful things in the uninspired as in the inspired books, and the\nprophecies of the heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of the\nJudean prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot certainly know\nthat he is inspired, how is it possible for him to demonstrate his\ninspiration to others? The last solution of this question is that\ninspiration is a miracle about which only the inspired can have the\nleast knowledge, or the least evidence, and this knowledge and this\nevidence not of a character to absolutely convince even the inspired.\n\nThere is certainly nothing in the Old or the New Testament that could\nnot have been written by uninspired human beings. To me there is nothing\nof any particular value in the Pentateuch. I do not know of a solitary\nscientific truth contained in the five books commonly attributed to\nMoses. There is not, as far as I know, a line in the book of Genesis\ncalculated to make a human being better. The laws contained in Exodus,\nLeviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for the most part puerile and\ncruel. Surely there is nothing in any of these books that could not have\nbeen produced by uninspired men. Certainly there is nothing calculated\nto excite intellectual admiration in the book of Judges or in the wars\nof Joshua; and the same may be said of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings.\nThe history is extremely childish, full of repetitions of useless\ndetails, without the slightest philosophy, without a generalization bom\nof a wide survey. Nothing is known of other nations; nothing imparted of\nthe slightest value; nothing about education, discovery, or invention.\nAnd these idle and stupid annals are interspersed with myth and miracle,\nwith flattery for kings who supported priests, and with curses and\ndenunciations for those who would not hearken to the voice of the\nprophets. If all the historic books of the Bible were blotted from the\nmemory of mankind, nothing of value would be lost.\n\nIs it possible that the writer or writers of First and Second Kings\nwere inspired, and that Gibbon wrote \"The Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire\" without supernatural assistance? Is it possible that the author\nof Judges was simply the instrument of an infinite God, while John W.\nDraper wrote \"The Intellectual Development of Europe\" without one ray\nof light from the other world? Can we believe that the author of Genesis\nhad to be inspired, while Darwin experimented, ascertained, and reached\nconclusions for himself.\n\nOught not the work of a God to be vastly superior to that of a man? And\nif the writers of the Bible were in reality inspired, ought not that\nbook to be the greatest of books? For instance, if it were contended\nthat certain statues had been chiselled by inspired men, such statues\nshould be superior to any that uninspired man has made. As long as it is\nadmitted that the Venus de Milo is the work of man, no one will believe\nin inspired sculptors--at least until a superior statue has been found.\nSo in the world of painting. We admit that Corot was uninspired. Nobody\nclaims that Angelo had supernatural assistance. Now, if some one should\nclaim that a certain painter was simply the instrumentality of God,\ncertainly the pictures produced by that painter should be superior to\nall others.\n\nI do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human being to\nconclude that the Song of Solomon is the work of God, and that the\ntragedy of Lear was the work of an uninspired man. We are all liable to\nbe mistaken, but the Iliad seems to me a greater work than the Book of\nEsther, and I prefer it to the writings of Haggai and Hosea. AEschylus is\nsuperior to Jeremiah, and Shakespeare rises immeasurably above all the\nsacred books of the world.\n\nIt does not seem possible that any human being ever tried to establish a\ntruth--anything that really happened--by what is called a miracle. It\nis easy to understand how that which was common became wonderful by\naccretion,--by things added, and by things forgotten,--and it is easy\nto conceive how that which was wonderful became by accretion what was\ncalled supernatural. But it does not seem possible that any intelligent,\nhonest man ever endeavored to prove anything by a miracle.\n\nAs a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people who demanded no\nevidence; else how could they have believed the miracle? It also appears\nto be certain that, even if miracles had been performed, it would be\nimpossible to establish that fact by human testimony. In other words,\nmiracles can only be established by miracles, and in no event could\nmiracles be evidence except to those who were actually present; and in\norder for miracles to be of any value, they would have to be perpetual.\nIt must also be remembered that a miracle actually performed could by\nno possibility shed any light on any moral truth, or add to any human\nobligation.\n\nIf any man has, ever been inspired, this is a secret miracle, known to\nno person, and suspected only by the man claiming to be inspired. It\nwould not be in the power of the inspired to give satisfactory evidence\nof that fact to anybody else.\n\nThe testimony of man is insufficient to establish the supernatural.\nNeither the evidence of one man nor of twelve can stand when\ncontradicted by the experience of the intelligent world. If a book\nsought to be proved by miracles is true, then it makes no difference\nwhether it was inspired or not; and if it is not true, inspiration\ncannot add to its value.\n\nThe truth is that the church has always--unconsciously, perhaps--offered\nrewards for falsehood. It was founded upon the supernatural, the\nmiraculous, and it welcomed all statements calculated to support\nthe foundation. It rewarded the traveller who found evidences of the\nmiraculous, who had seen the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot\nhad been changed, and the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots on the sands of\nthe Red Sea. It heaped honors on the historian who filled his pages with\nthe absurd and impossible. It had geologists and astronomers of its own\nwho constructed the earth and the constellations in accordance with the\nBible. With sword and flame it destroyed the brave and thoughtful men\nwho told the truth. It was the enemy of investigation and of reason.\nFaith and fiction were in partnership.\n\nTo-day the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous. Ignorance\nis the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of Christianity has\ncrumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric must fall. The natural\nis true. The miraculous is false.\n\nNorth American Review, March, 1890.\n\n\n\n\nHUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.\n\n\nPROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.\n\nIN the February number of the Nineteenth Century, 1889, is an article\nby Professor Huxley, entitled \"Agnosticism.\" It seems that a church\ncongress was held at Manchester in October, 1888, and that the Principal\nof King's College brought the topic of Agnosticism before the assembly\nand made the following statement:\n\n\"But if this be so, for a man to urge as an escape from this article\nof belief that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of an unseen\nworld, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from Christians\nlies, not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but\nthat he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He\nmay prefer to call himself an Agnostic, but his real name is an older\none--he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel,\nperhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it\nshould. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have\nto say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.\"\n\nLet us examine this statement, putting it in language that is easily\nunderstood; and for that purpose we will divide it into several\nparagraphs.\n\nFirst.--\"For a man to urge that he has no means of a scientific\nknowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant.\"\n\nIs there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge? Are there\nseveral kinds of knowing? Is there such a thing as scientific ignorance?\nIf a man says, \"I know nothing of the unseen world because I have no\nknowledge upon that subject,\" is the fact that he has no knowledge\nabsolutely irrelevant? Will the Principal of King's College say that\nhaving no knowledge is the reason he knows? When asked to give your\nopinion upon any subject, can it be said that your ignorance of that\nsubject is irrelevant? If this be true, then your knowledge of the\nsubject is also irrelevant?\n\nIs it possible to put in ordinary English a more perfect absurdity? How\ncan a man obtain any knowledge of the unseen world? He certainly cannot\nobtain it through the medium of the senses. It is not a world that he\ncan visit. He cannot stand upon its shores, nor can he view them from\nthe ocean of imagination. The Principal of King's College, however,\ninsists that these impossibilities are irrelevant.\n\nNo person has come back from the unseen world. No authentic message has\nbeen delivered. Through all the centuries, not one whisper has broken\nthe silence that lies beyond the grave. Countless millions have sought\nfor some evidence, have listened in vain for some word.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove the\nnon-existence of another world--all this does not demonstrate that death\nends all. But it is the justification of the Agnostic, who candidly\nsays, \"I do not know.\"\n\nSecond.--The Principal of King's College states that the difference\nbetween an Agnostic and a Christian \"lies, not in the fact that he has\nno knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority\non which they are stated.\"\n\nIs this a difference in knowledge, or a difference in belief--that is to\nsay, a difference in credulity?\n\nThe Christian believes the Mosaic account. He reverently hears and\nadmits the truth of all that he finds within the Scriptures. Is this\nknowledge? How is it possible to know whether the reputed authors of the\nbooks of the Old Testament were the real ones? The witnesses are dead.\nThe lips that could testify are dust. Between these shores roll the\nwaves of many centuries. Who knows whether such a man as Moses existed\nor not? Who knows the author of Kings and Chronicles? By what testimony\ncan we substantiate the authenticity of the prophets, or of the\nprophecies, or of the fulfillments? Is there any difference between the\nknowledge of the Christian and of the Agnostic? Does the Principal of\nKing's College know any more as to the truth of the Old Testament than\nthe man who modestly calls for evidence? Has not a mistake been made? Is\nnot the difference one of belief instead of knowledge? And is not\nthis difference founded on the difference in credulity? Would not\nan infinitely wise and good being--where belief is a condition to\nsalvation--supply the evidence? Certainly the Creator of man--if such\nexist--knows the exact nature of the human mind--knows the evidence\nnecessary to convince; and, consequently, such a being would act in\naccordance with such conditions.\n\nThere is a relation between evidence and belief. The mind is so\nconstituted that certain things, being in accordance with its nature,\nare regarded as reasonable, as probable.\n\nThere is also this fact that must not be overlooked: that is, that just\nin the proportion that the brain is developed it requires more evidence,\nand becomes less and less credulous. Ignorance and credulity go hand in\nhand. Intelligence understands something of the law of average, has an\nidea of probability. It is not swayed by prejudice, neither is it driven\nto extremes by suspicion. It takes into consideration personal motives.\nIt examines the character of the witnesses, makes allowance for the\nignorance of the time,--for enthusiasm, for fear,--and comes to its\nconclusion without fear and without passion.\n\nWhat knowledge has the Christian of another world? The senses of the\nChristian are the same as those of the Agnostic.\n\nHe hears, sees, and feels substantially the same. His vision is limited.\nHe sees no other shore and hears nothing from another world.\n\nKnowledge is something that can be imparted. It has a foundation\nin fact. It comes within the domain of the senses. It can be told,\ndescribed, analyzed, and, in addition to all this, it can be classified.\nWhenever a fact becomes the property of one mind, it can become the\nproperty of the intellectual world. There are words in which the\nknowledge can be conveyed.\n\nThe Christian is not a supernatural person, filled with supernatural\ntruths. He is a natural person, and all that he knows of value can be\nnaturally imparted. It is within his power to give all that he has to\nthe Agnostic.\n\nThe Principal of King's College is mistaken when he says that the\ndifference between the Agnostic and the Christian does not lie in the\nfact that the Agnostic has no knowledge, \"but that he does not believe\nthe authority on which these things are stated.\"\n\nThe real difference is this: the Christian says that he has knowledge;\nthe Agnostic admits that he has none; and yet the Christian accuses the\nAgnostic of arrogance, and asks him how he has the impudence to admit\nthe limitations of his mind. To the Agnostic every fact is a torch, and\nby this light, and this light only, he walks.\n\nIt is also true that the Agnostic does not believe the authority relied\non by the Christian. What is the authority of the Christian? Thousands\nof years ago it is supposed that certain men, or, rather, uncertain men,\nwrote certain things. It is alleged by the Christian that these men were\ndivinely inspired, and that the words of these men are to be taken as\nabsolutely true, no matter whether or not they are verified by modern\ndiscovery and demonstration.\n\nHow can we know that any human being was divinely inspired? There has\nbeen no personal revelation to us to the effect that certain people were\ninspired--it is only claimed that the revelation was to them. For this\nwe have only their word, and about that there is this difficulty: we\nknow nothing of them, and, consequently, cannot, if we desire, rely upon\ntheir character for truth. This evidence is not simply hearsay--it\nis far weaker than that. We have only been told that they said these\nthings; we do not know whether the persons claiming to be inspired\nwrote these things or not; neither are we certain that such persons ever\nexisted. We know now that the greatest men with whom we are acquainted\nare often mistaken about the simplest matters. We also know that men\nsaying something like the same things, in other countries and in ancient\ndays, must have been impostors. The Christian has no confidence in the\nwords of Mohammed; the Mohammedan cares nothing about the declarations\nof Buddha; and the Agnostic gives to the words of the Christian the\nvalue only of the truth that is in them. He knows that these sayings get\nneither truth nor worth from the person who uttered them. He knows\nthat the sayings themselves get their entire value from the truth they\nexpress. So that the real difference between the Christian and the\nAgnostic does not lie in their knowledge,--for neither of them has any\nknowledge on this subject,--but the difference does lie in credulity,\nand in nothing else. The Agnostic does not rely on the authority of\nMoses and the prophets. He finds that they were mistaken in most matters\ncapable of demonstration. He finds that their mistakes multiply in the\nproportion that human knowledge increases. He is satisfied that the\nreligion of the ancient Jews is, in most things, as ignorant and cruel\nas other religions of the ancient world. He concludes that the efforts,\nin all ages, to answer the questions of origin and destiny, and to\naccount for the phenomena of life, have all been substantial failures.\n\nIn the presence of demonstration there is no opportunity for the\nexercise of faith. Truth does not appeal to credulity--it appeals to\nevidence, to established facts, to the constitution of the mind. It\nendeavors to harmonize the new fact with all that we know, and to bring\nit within the circumference of human experience.\n\nThe church has never cultivated investigation. It has never said: Let\nhim who has a mind to think, think; but its cry from the first until now\nhas been: Let him who has ears to hear, hear.\n\nThe pulpit does not appeal to the reason of the pew; it speaks by\nauthority and it commands the pew to believe, and it not only commands,\nbut it threatens.\n\nThe Agnostic knows that the testimony of man is not sufficient to\nestablish what is known as the miraculous. We would not believe to-day\nthe testimony of millions to the effect that the dead had been raised.\nThe church itself would be the first to attack such testimony. If we\ncannot believe those whom we know, why should we believe witnesses who\nhave been dead thousands of years, and about whom we know nothing?\n\nThird.--The Principal of King's College, growing somewhat severe,\ndeclares that \"he may prefer to call himself an Agnostic, but his real\nname is an older one--he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever.\"\n\nThis is spoken in a kind of holy scorn. According to this gentleman, an\nunbeliever is, to a certain extent, a disreputable person.\n\nIn this sense, what is an unbeliever? He is one whose mind is so\nconstituted that what the Christian calls evidence is not satisfactory\nto him. Is a person accountable for the constitution of his mind, for\nthe formation of his brain? Is any human being responsible for the\nweight that evidence has upon him? Can he believe without evidence? Is\nthe weight of evidence a question of choice? Is there such a thing as\nhonestly weighing testimony? Is the result of such weighing necessary?\nDoes it involve moral responsibility? If the Mosaic account does not\nconvince a man that it is true, is he a wretch because he is candid\nenough to tell the truth? Can he preserve his manhood only by making a\nfalse statement?\n\nThe Mohammedan would call the Principal of King's College an\nunbeliever,--so would the tribes of Central Africa,--and he would return\nthe compliment, and all would be equally justified. Has the Principal of\nKing's College any knowledge that he keeps from the rest of the world?\nHas he the confidence of the Infinite? Is there anything praiseworthy in\nbelieving where the evidence is sufficient, or is one to be praised for\nbelieving only where the evidence is insufficient? Is a man to be blamed\nfor not agreeing with his fellow-citizen? Were the unbelievers in the\npagan world better or worse than their neighbors? It is probably true\nthat some of the greatest Greeks believed in the gods of that nation,\nand it is equally true that some of the greatest denied their existence.\nIf credulity is a virtue now, it must have been in the days of Athens.\nIf to believe without evidence entities one to eternal reward in this\ncentury, certainly the same must have been true in the days of the\nPharaohs.\n\nAn infidel is one who does not believe in the prevailing religion. We\nnow admit that the infidels of Greece and Rome were right. The gods that\nthey refused to believe in are dead. Their thrones are empty, and long\nago the sceptres dropped from their nerveless hands. To-day the world\nhonors the men who denied and derided these gods.\n\nFourth.--The Principal of King's College ventures to suggest that \"the\nword infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance; perhaps it is\nright that it should.\"\n\nA few years ago the word infidel did carry \"an unpleasant significance.\"\nA few years ago its significance was so unpleasant that the man to\nwhom the word was applied found himself in prison or at the stake. In\nparticularly kind communities he was put in the stocks, pelted with\noffal, derided by hypocrites, scorned by ignorance, jeered by cowardice,\nand all the priests passed by on the other side.\n\nThere was a time when Episcopalians were regarded as infidels; when a\ntrue Catholic looked upon a follower of Henry VIII. as an infidel, as\nan unbeliever; when a true Catholic held in detestation the man who\npreferred a murderer and adulterer--a man who swapped religions for the\nsake of exchanging wives--to the Pope, the head of the universal church.\n\nIt is easy enough to conceive of an honest man denying the claims of\na church based on the caprice of an English king. The word infidel\n\"carries an unpleasant significance\" only where the Christians are\nexceedingly ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, cruel, and unmannerly.\n\nThe real gentleman gives to others the rights that he claims for\nhimself. The civilized man rises far above the bigotry of one who has\nbeen \"born again.\" Good breeding is far gentler than \"universal love.\"\n\nIt is natural for the church to hate an unbeliever--natural for the\npulpit to despise one who refuses to subscribe, who refuses to give. It\nis a question of revenue instead of religion. The Episcopal Church has\nthe instinct of self-preservation. It uses its power, its influence, to\ncompel contribution. It forgives the giver.\n\nFifth.--The Principal of King's College insists that \"it is, and it\nought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that\nhe does not believe in Jesus Christ.\"\n\nShould it be an unpleasant thing for a man to say plainly what he\nbelieves? Can this be unpleasant except in an uncivilized community--a\ncommunity in which an uncivilized church has authority?\n\nWhy should not a man be as free to say that he does not believe as to\nsay that he does believe? Perhaps the real question is whether all men\nhave an equal right to express their opinions. Is it the duty of the\nminority to keep silent? Are majorities always right? If the minority\nhad never spoken, what to-day would have been the condition of this\nworld? Are the majority the pioneers of progress, or does the pioneer,\nas a rule, walk alone? Is it his duty to close his lips? Must the\ninventor allow his inventions to die in the brain? Must the discoverer\nof new truths make of his mind a tomb? Is man under any obligation to\nhis fellows? Was the Episcopal religion always in the majority? Was it\nat any time in the history of the world an unpleasant thing to be\ncalled a Protestant? Did the word Protestant \"carry an unpleasant\nsignificance\"? Was it \"perhaps right that it should\"? Was Luther a\nmisfortune to the human race?\n\nIf a community is thoroughly civilized, why should it be an unpleasant\nthing for a man to express his belief in respectful language? If the\nargument is against him, it might be unpleasant; but why should simple\nnumbers be the foundation of unpleasantness? If the majority have the\nfacts,--if they have the argument,--why should they fear the mistakes of\nthe minority? Does any theologian hate the man he can answer?\n\nIt is claimed by the Episcopal Church that Christ was in fact God; and\nit is further claimed that the New Testament is an inspired account of\nwhat that being and his disciples did and said. Is there any obligation\nresting on any human being to believe this account? Is it within the\npower of man to determine the influence that testimony shall have upon\nhis mind?\n\nIf one denies the existence of devils, does he, for that reason, cease\nto believe in Jesus Christ? Is it not possible to imagine that a great\nand tender soul living in Palestine nearly twenty centuries ago was\nmisunderstood? Is it not within the realm of the possible that his\nwords have been inaccurately reported? Is it not within the range of the\nprobable that legend and rumor and ignorance and zeal have deformed his\nlife and belittled his character?\n\nIf the man Christ lived and taught and suffered, if he was, in reality,\ngreat and noble, who is his friend--the one who attributes to him feats\nof jugglery, or he who maintains that these stories were invented by\nzealous ignorance and believed by enthusiastic credulity?\n\nIf he claimed to have wrought miracles, he must have been either\ndishonest or insane; consequently, he who denies miracles does what\nlittle he can to rescue the reputation of a great and splendid man.\n\nThe Agnostic accepts the good he did, the truth he said, and rejects\nonly that which, according to his judgment, is inconsistent with truth\nand goodness.\n\nThe Principal of King's College evidently believes in the necessity of\nbelief. He puts conviction or creed or credulity in place of character.\nAccording to his idea, it is impossible to win the approbation of God by\nintelligent investigation and by the expression of honest conclusions.\nHe imagines that the Infinite is delighted with credulity, with belief\nwithout evidence, faith without question.\n\nMan has but little reason, at best; but this little should be used. No\nmatter how small the taper is, how feeble the ray of light it casts, it\nis better than darkness, and no man should be rewarded for extinguishing\nthe light he has.\n\nWe know now, if we know anything, that man in this, the nineteenth\ncentury, is better capable of judging as to the happening of any event,\nthan he ever was before. We know that the standard is higher to-day--we\nknow that the intellectual light is greater--we know that the human mind\nis better equipped to deal with all questions of human interest, than at\nany other time within the known history of the human race.\n\nIt will not do to say that \"our Lord and his apostles must at least be\nregarded as honest men.\" Let this be admitted, and what does it prove?\nHonesty is not enough. Intelligence and honesty must go hand in hand.\nWe may admit now that \"our Lord and his apostles\" were perfectly honest\nmen; yet it does not follow that we have a truthful account of what they\nsaid and of what they did. It is not pretended that \"our Lord\" wrote\nanything, and it is not known that one of the apostles ever wrote\na word. Consequently, the most that we can say is that somebody has\nwritten something about \"our Lord and his apostles.\" Whether that\nsomebody knew or did not know is unknown to us. As to whether what is\nwritten is true or false, we must judge by that which is written.\n\nFirst of all, is it probable? is it within the experience of mankind?\nWe should judge of the gospels as we judge of other histories, of other\nbiographies. We know that many biographies written by perfectly honest\nmen are not correct. We know, if we know anything, that honest men can\nbe mistaken, and it is not necessary to believe everything that a man\nwrites because we believe he was honest. Dishonest men may write the\ntruth.\n\nAt last the standard or criterion is for each man to judge according to\nwhat he believes to be human experience. We are satisfied that nothing\nmore wonderful has happened than is now happening. We believe that\nthe present is as wonderful as the past, and just as miraculous as the\nfuture. If we are to believe in the truth of the Old Testament, the\nword evidence loses its meaning; there ceases to be any standard of\nprobability, and the mind simply accepts or denies without reason.\n\nWe are told that certain miracles were performed for the purpose of\nattesting the mission and character of Christ. How can these miracles\nbe verified? The miracles of the Middle Ages rest upon substantially the\nsame evidence. The same may be said of the wonders of all countries and\nof all ages. How is it a virtue to deny the miracles of Mohammed and to\nbelieve those attributed to Christ?\n\nYou may say of St. Augustine that what he said was true or false. We\nknow that much of it was false; and yet we are not justified in saying\nthat he was dishonest. Thousands of errors have been propagated by\nhonest men. As a rule, mistakes get their wings from honest people. The\ntestimony of a witness to the happening of the impossible gets no weight\nfrom the honesty of the witness. The fact that falsehoods are in the\nNew Testament does not tend to prove that the writers were knowingly\nuntruthful. No man can be honest enough to substantiate, to the\nsatisfaction of reasonable men, the happening of a miracle.\n\nFor this reason it makes not the slightest difference whether the\nwriters of the New Testament were honest or not. Their character is not\ninvolved. Whenever a man rises above his contemporaries, whenever he\nexcites the wonder of his fellows, his biographers always endeavor to\nbridge over the chasm between the people and this man, and for that\npurpose attribute to him the qualities which in the eyes of the\nmultitude are desirable.\n\nMiracles are demanded by savages, and, consequently, the savage\nbiographer attributes miracles to his hero. What would we think now of a\nman who, in writing the life of Charles Darwin, should attribute to him\nsupernatural powers? What would we say of an admirer of Humboldt who\nshould claim that the great German could cast out devils? We would feel\nthat Darwin and Humboldt had been belittled; that the biographies were\nwritten for children and by men who had not outgrown the nursery.\n\nIf the reputation of \"our Lord\" is to be preserved--if he is to stand\nwith the great and splendid of the earth--if he is to continue a\nconstellation in the intellectual heavens, all claim to the miraculous,\nto the supernatural, must be abandoned.\n\nNo one can overestimate the evils that have been endured by the human\nrace by reason of a departure from the standard of the natural. The\nworld has been governed by jugglery, by sleight-of-hand. Miracles,\nwonders, tricks, have been regarded as of far greater importance than\nthe steady, the sublime and unbroken march of cause and effect. The\nimprobable has been established by the impossible. Falsehood has\nfurnished the foundation for faith.\n\nIs the human body at present the residence of evil spirits, or have\nthese imps of darkness perished from the world? Where are they? If the\nNew Testament establishes anything, it is the existence of innumerable\ndevils, and that these satanic beings absolutely took possession of\nthe human mind. Is this true? Can anything be more absurd? Does any\nintellectual man who has examined the question believe that depraved\ndemons live in the bodies of men? Do they occupy space? Do they live\nupon some kind of food? Of what shape are they? Could they be classified\nby a naturalist? Do they run or float or fly? If to deny the existence\nof these supposed beings is to be an infidel, how can the word infidel\n\"carry an unpleasant significance\"?\n\nOf course it is the business of the principals of most colleges, as well\nas of bishops, cardinals, popes, priests, and clergymen to insist upon\nthe existence of evil spirits. All these gentlemen are employeed to\ncounteract the influence of these supposed demons. Why should they take\nthe bread out of their own mouths? Is it to be expected that they will\nunfrock themselves?\n\nThe church, like any other corporation, has the instinct of\nself-preservation. It will defend itself; it will fight as long as it\nhas the power to change a hand into a fist.\n\nThe Agnostic takes the ground that human experience is the basis of\nmorality. Consequently, it is of no importance who wrote the gospels,\nor who vouched or vouches for the genuineness of the miracles. In his\nscheme of life these things are utterly unimportant. He is satisfied\nthat \"the miraculous\" is the impossible. He knows that the witnesses\nwere wholly incapable of examining the questions involved, that\ncredulity had possession of their minds, that \"the miraculous\" was\nexpected, that it was their daily food.\n\nAll this is very clearly and delightfully stated by Professor Huxley,\nand it hardly seems possible that any intelligent man can read what he\nsays without feeling that the foundation of all superstition has\nbeen weakened. The article is as remarkable for its candor as for its\nclearness. Nothing is avoided--everything is met. No excuses are given..\nHe has left all apologies for the other side. When you have finished\nwhat Professor Huxley has written, you feel that your mind has been\nin actual contact with the mind of another, that nothing has been\nconcealed; and not only so, but you feel that this mind is not only\nwilling, but anxious, to know the actual truth.\n\nTo me, the highest uses of philosophy are, first, to free the mind of\nfear, and, second, to avert all the evil that can be averted, through\nintelligence--that is to say, through a knowledge of the conditions of\nwell-being.\n\nWe are satisfied that the absolute is beyond our vision, beneath our\ntouch, above our reach. We are now convinced that we can deal only with\nphenomena, with relations, with appearances, with things that impress\nthe senses, that can be reached by reason, by the exercise of our\nfaculties. We are satisfied that the reasonable road is \"the straight\nroad,\" the only \"sacred way.\"\n\nOf course there is faith in the world--faith in this world--and always\nwill be, unless superstition succeeds in every land. But the faith of\nthe wise man is based upon facts. His faith is a reasonable conclusion\ndrawn from the known. He has faith in the progress of the race, in the\ntriumph of intelligence, in the coming sovereignty of science. He has\nfaith in the development of the brain, in the gradual enlightenment of\nthe mind. And so he works for the accomplishment of great ends, having\nfaith in the final victory of the race.\n\nHe has honesty enough to say that he does not know. He perceives and\nadmits that the mind has limitations. He doubts the so-called wisdom of\nthe past. He looks for evidence, and he endeavors to keep his mind\nfree from prejudice. He believes in the manly virtues, in the judicial\nspirit, and in his obligation to tell his honest thoughts.\n\nIt is useless to talk about a destruction of consolations. That which is\nsuspected to be untrue loses its power to console. A man should be brave\nenough to bear the truth.\n\nProfessor Huxley has stated with great clearness the attitude of\nthe Agnostic. It seems that he is somewhat severe on the Positive\nPhilosophy, While it is hard to see the propriety of worshiping Humanity\nas a being, it is easy to understand the splendid dream of August Comte.\nIs the human race worthy to be worshiped by itself--that is to say,\nshould the individual worship himself? Certainly the religion of\nhumanity is better than the religion of the inhuman. The Positive\nPhilosophy is better far than Catholicism. It does not fill the heavens\nwith monsters, nor the future with pain.\n\nIt may be said that Luther and Comte endeavored to reform the Catholic\nChurch. Both were mistaken, because the only reformation of which that\nchurch is capable is destruction. It is a mass of superstition.\n\nThe mission of Positivism is, in the language of its founder, \"to\ngeneralize science and to systematize sociality.\" It seems to me that\nComte stated with great force and with absolute truth the three phases\nof intellectual evolution or progress.\n\nFirst.--\"In the supernatural phase the mind seeks causes--aspires to\nknow the essence of things, and the How and Why of their operation. In\nthis phase, all facts are regarded as the productions of supernatural\nagents, and unusual phenomena are interpreted as the signs of the\npleasure or displeasure of some god.\"\n\nHere at this point is the orthodox world of to-day. The church still\nimagines that phenomena should be interpreted as the signs of the\npleasure or displeasure of God. Nearly every history is deformed with\nthis childish and barbaric view.\n\nSecond.--The next phase or modification, according to Comte, is the\nmetaphysical. \"The supernatural agents are dispensed with, and in\ntheir places we find abstract forces or entities supposed to inhere in\nsubstances and capable of engendering phenomena.\"\n\nIn this phase people talk about laws and principles as though laws and\nprinciples were forces capable of producing phenomena.\n\nThird.--\"The last stage is the Positive. The mind, convinced of the\nfutility of all enquiry into causes and essences, restricts itself to\nthe observation and classification of phenomena, and to the discovery of\nthe invariable relations of succession and similitude--in a word, to the\ndiscovery of the relations of phenomena.\"\n\nWhy is not the Positive stage the point reached by the Agnostic? He\nhas ceased to inquire into the origin of things. He has perceived the\nlimitations of the mind. He is thoroughly convinced of the uselessness\nand futility and absurdity of theological methods, and restricts himself\nto the examination of phenomena, to their relations, to their effects,\nand endeavors to find in the complexity of things the true conditions of\nhuman happiness.\n\nAlthough I am not a believer in the philosophy of Auguste Comte, I\ncannot shut my eyes to the value of his thought; neither is it possible\nfor me not to applaud his candor, his intelligence, and the courage\nit required even to attempt to lay the foundation of the Positive\nPhilosophy.\n\nProfessor Huxley and Frederic Harrison are splendid soldiers in the\narmy of Progress. They have attacked with signal success the sacred and\nsolemn stupidities of superstition. Both have appealed to that which is\nhighest and noblest in man. Both have been the destroyers of prejudice.\nBoth have shed light, and both have won great victories on the fields\nof intellectual conflict. They cannot afford to waste time in attacking\neach other.\n\nAfter all, the Agnostic and the Positivist have the same end in\nview--both believe in living for this world.\n\nThe theologians, finding themselves unable to answer the arguments\nthat have been urged, resort to the old subterfuge--to the old cry that\nAgnosticism takes something of value from the life of man. Does the\nAgnostic take any consolation from the world? Does he blot out, or dim,\none star in the heaven of hope? Can there be anything more consoling\nthan to feel, to know, that Jehovah is not God--that the message of the\nOld Testament is not from the infinite?\n\nIs it not enough to fill the brain with a happiness unspeakable to know\nthat the words, \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,\" will\nnever be spoken to one of the children of men?\n\nIs it a small thing to lift from the shoulders of industry the burdens\nof superstition? Is it a little thing to drive the monster of fear from\nthe hearts of men?--North American Review, April, 1889.\n\n\n\n\nERNEST RENAN.\n\n     \"Blessed are those\n     Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled\n     That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger\n     To sound what stop she please.\"\n\n\nERNEST RENAN is dead. Another source of light; another force of\ncivilization; another charming personality; another brave soul, graceful\nin thought, generous in deed; a sculptor in speech, a colorist in\nwords--clothing all in the poetry born of a delightful union of heart\nand brain--has passed to the realm of rest.\n\nReared under the influences of Catholicism, educated for the priesthood,\nyet by reason of his natural genius, he began to think. Forces that\nutterly subjugate and enslave the mind of mediocrity sometimes rouse to\nthought and action the superior soul.\n\nRenan began to think--a dangerous thing for a Catholic to do. Thought\nleads to doubt, doubt to investigation, investigation to truth--the\nenemy of all superstition.\n\nHe lifted the Catholic extinguisher from the light and flame of reason.\nHe found that his mental vision was improved. He read the Scriptures\nfor himself, examined them as he did other books not claiming to be\ninspired. He found the same mistakes, the same prejudices, the same\nmiraculous impossibilities in the book attributed to God that he found\nin those known to have been written by men.\n\nInto the path of reason, or rather into the highway, Renan was led by\nHenriette, his sister, to whom he pays a tribute that has the perfume of\na perfect flower.\n\n\"I was,\" writes Renan, \"brought up by women and priests, and therein\nlies the whole explanation of my good qualities and of my defects.\"\nIn most that he wrote is the tenderness of woman, only now and then a\nlittle touch of the priest showing itself, mostly in a reluctance to\nspoil the ivy by tearing down some prison built by superstition.\n\nIn spite of the heartless \"scheme\" of things he still found it in his\nheart to say, \"When God shall be complete, He will be just,\" at the same\ntime saying that \"nothing proves to us that there exists in the world\na central consciousness--a soul of the universe--and nothing proves the\ncontrary.\" So, whatever was the verdict of his brain, his heart asked\nfor immortality. He wanted his dream, and he was willing that others\nshould have theirs. Such is the wish and will of all great souls.\n\nHe knew the church thoroughly and anticipated what would finally\nbe written about him by churchmen: \"Having some experience of\necclesiastical writers I can sketch out in advance the way my biography\nwill be written in Spanish in some Catholic review, of Santa Fe, in the\nyear 2,000. Heavens! how black I shall be! I shall be so all the more,\nbecause the church when she feels that she is lost will end with malice.\nShe will bite like a mad dog.\"\n\nHe anticipated such a biography because he had thought for himself, and\nbecause he had expressed his thoughts--because he had declared that \"our\nuniverse, within the reach of our experience, is not governed by any\nintelligent reason. God, as the common herd understand him, the living\nGod, the acting God--the God-Providence, does not show himself in the\nuniverse\"--because he attacked the mythical and the miraculous in the\nlife of Christ and sought to rescue from the calumnies of ignorance and\nfaith a serene and lofty soul.\n\nThe time has arrived when Jesus must become a myth or a man. The idea\nthat he was the infinite God must be abandoned by all who are not\nreligiously insane. Those who have given up the claim that he was God,\ninsist that he was divinely appointed and illuminated; that he was\na perfect man--the highest possible type of the human race and,\nconsequently, a perfect example for all the world.\n\nAs time goes on, as men get wider or grander or more complex ideas of\nlife, as the intellectual horizon broadens, the idea that Christ was\nperfect may be modified.\n\nThe New Testament seems to describe several individuals under the same\nname, or at least one individual who passed through several stages or\nphases of religious development. Christ is described as a devout Jew,\nas one who endeavored to comply in all respects with the old law. Many\nsayings are attributed to him consistent with this idea. He certainly\nwas a Hebrew in belief and feeling when he said, \"Swear not by Heaven,\nbecause it is God's throne, nor by earth, for it is his footstool; nor\nby Jerusalem, for it is his holy city.\" These reasons were in exact\naccordance with the mythology of the Jews. God was regarded simply as\nan enormous man, as one who walked in the garden in the cool of the\nevening, as one who had met man face to face, who had conversed with\nMoses for forty days upon Mount Sinai, as a great king, with a throne\nin the heavens, using the earth to rest his feet upon, and regarding\nJerusalem as his holy city.\n\nThen we find plenty of evidence that he wished to reform the religion\nof the Jews; to fulfill the law, not to abrogate it Then there is still\nanother change: he has ceased his efforts to reform that religion and\nhas become a destroyer. He holds the Temple in contempt and repudiates\nthe idea that Jerusalem is the holy city. He concludes that it is\nunnecessary to go to some mountain or some building to worship or to\nfind God, and insists that the heart is the true temple, that ceremonies\nare useless, that all pomp and pride and show are needless, and that it\nis enough to worship God under heaven's dome, in spirit and in truth.\n\nIt is impossible to harmonize these views unless we admit that Christ\nwas the subject of growth and change; that in consequence of growth and\nchange he modified his views; that, from wanting to preserve Judaism as\nit was, he became convinced that it ought to be reformed. That he then\nabandoned the idea of reformation, and made up his mind that the only\nreformation of which the Jewish religion was capable was destruction. If\nhe was in fact a man, then the course he pursued was natural; but if he\nwas God, it is perfectly absurd. If we give to him perfect knowledge,\nthen it is impossible to account for change or growth. If, on the other\nhand, the ground is taken that he was a perfect man, then, it might be\nasked, Was he perfect when he wished to preserve, or when he wished to\nreform, or when he resolved to destroy, the religion of the Jews? If\nhe is to be regarded as perfect, although not divine, when did he reach\nperfection?\n\nIt is perfectly evident that Christ, or the character that bears that\nname, imagined that the world was about to be destroyed, or at least\npurified by fire, and that, on account of this curious belief, he became\nthe enemy of marriage, of all earthly ambition and of all enterprise.\nWith that view in his mind, he said to himself, \"Why should we waste our\nenergies in producing food for destruction? Why should we endeavor to\nbeautify a world that is so soon to perish?\" Filled with the thought of\ncoming change, he insisted that there was but one important thing, and\nthat was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for the\nties of kindred, nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of\nthe coming disaster. He should take care of himself. He endeavored, as\nit is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead, bury\nthe dead, and follow him. He told his disciples, or those he wished to\nmake his disciples, according to the Testament, that it was their duty\nto desert wife and child and property, and if they would so desert\nkindred and wealth, he would reward them here and hereafter.\n\nWe know now--if we know anything--that Jesus was mistaken about the\ncoming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in\nhis ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near,\nhe said, \"Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye\nshall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.\" It was in view of the\ndestruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples\nto the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of its\nraiment. Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we\ncannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.\n\nHe is regarded by many millions as the impersonation of patience, of\nforbearance, of meekness and mercy, and yet, according to the account,\nhe said many extremely bitter words, and threatened eternal pain.\n\nWe also know, if the account be true, that he claimed to have\nsupernatural power, to work miracles, to cure the blind and to raise the\ndead, and we know that he did nothing of the kind. So if the writers of\nthe New Testament tell the truth as to what Christ claimed, it is absurd\nto say that he was a perfect man. If honest, he was deceived, and those\nwho are deceived are not perfect.\n\nThere is nothing in the New Testament, so far as we know, that touches\non the duties of nation to nation, or of nation to its citizens; nothing\nof human liberty; not one word about education; not the faintest hint\nthat there is such a thing as science; nothing calculated to stimulate\nindustry, commerce, or invention; not one word in favor of art, of music\nor anything calculated to feed or clothe the body, nothing to develop\nthe brain of man.\n\nWhen it is assumed that the life of Christ, as described in the New\nTestament, is perfect, we at least take upon ourselves the burden of\ndeciding what perfection is. People who asserted that Christ was divine,\nthat he was actually God, reached the conclusion, without any laborious\ncourse of reasoning, that all he said and did was absolute perfection.\nThey said this because they had first been convinced that he was divine.\nThe moment his divinity is given up and the assertion is made that he\nwas perfect, we are not permitted to reason in that way. They said he\nwas God, therefore perfect. Now, if it is admitted that he was human,\nthe conclusion that he was perfect does not follow. We then take the\nburden upon ourselves of deciding what perfection is. To decide what is\nperfect is beyond the powers of the human mind.\n\nRenan, in spite of his education, regarded Christ as a man, and did the\nbest he could to account for the miracles that had been attributed\nto him, for the legends that had gathered about his name, and the\nimpossibilities connected with his career, and also tried to account for\nthe origin or birth of these miracles, of these legends, of these myths,\nincluding the resurrection and ascension. I am not satisfied with all\nthe conclusions he reached or with all the paths he traveled. The\nrefraction of light caused by passing through a woman's tears is hardly\na sufficient foundation for a belief in so miraculous a miracle as the\nbodily ascension of Jesus Christ.\n\nThere is another thing attributed to Christ that seems to me conclusive\nevidence against the claim of perfection. Christ is reported to have\nsaid that all sins could be forgiven except the sin against the Holy\nGhost. This sin, however, is not defined. Although Christ died for the\nwhole world, that through him all might be saved, there is this one\nterrible exception: There is no salvation for those who have sinned, or\nwho may hereafter sin, against the Holy Ghost. Thousands of persons are\nnow in asylums, having lost their reason because of their fear that they\nhad committed this unknown, this undefined, this unpardonable sin.\n\nIt is said that a Roman Emperor went through a form of publishing his\nlaws or proclamations, posting them so high on pillars that they could\nnot be read, and then took the lives of those who ignorantly violated\nthese unknown laws. He was regarded as a tyrant, as a murderer. And\nyet, what shall we say of one who declared that the sin against the\nHoly Ghost was the only one that could not be forgiven, and then left an\nignorant world to guess what that sin is? Undoubtedly this horror is an\ninterpolation.\n\nThere is something like it in the Old Testament. It is asserted by\nChristians that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law and\nof all civilization, and you will find lawyers insisting that the Mosaic\nCode was the first information that man received on the subject of law;\nthat before that time the world was without any knowledge of justice or\nmercy. If this be true the Jews had no divine laws, no real\ninstruction on any legal subject until the Ten Commandments were given.\nConsequently, before that time there had been proclaimed or published\nno law against the worship of other gods or of idols. Moses had been on\nMount Sinai talking with Jehovah. At the end of the dialogue he received\nthe Tables of Stone and started down the mountain for the purpose of\nimparting this information to his followers. When he reached the camp\nhe heard music. He saw people dancing, and he found that in his absence\nAaron and the rest of the people had cast a molten calf which they were\nthen worshiping. This so enraged Moses that he broke the Tables of Stone\nand made preparations for the punishment of the Jews. Remember that\nthey knew nothing about this law, and, according to the modern Christian\nclaims, could not have known that it was wrong to melt gold and silver\nand mould it in the form of a calf. And yet Moses killed about thirty\nthousand of these people for having violated a law of which they had\nnever heard; a law known only to one man and one God. Nothing could be\nmore unjust, more ferocious, than this; and yet it can hardly be said to\nexceed in cruelty the announcement that a certain sin was unpardonable\nand then fail to define the sin. Possibly, to inquire what the sin is,\nis the sin.\n\nRenan regards Jesus as a man, and his work gets its value from the\nfact that it is written from a human standpoint. At the same time he,\nconsciously or unconsciously, or may be for the purpose of sprinkling\na little holy water on the heat of religious indignation, now and then\nseems to speak of him as more than human, or as having accomplished\nsomething that man could not.\n\nHe asserts that \"the Gospels are in part legendary; that they contain\nmany things not true; that they are full of miracles and of the\nsupernatural.\" At the same time he insists that these legends, these\nmiracles, these supernatural things do not affect the truth of the\nprobable things contained in these writings. He sees, and sees clearly,\nthat there is no evidence that Matthew or Mark or Luke or John wrote the\nbooks attributed to them; that, as a matter of fact, the mere title\nof \"according to Matthew,\" \"according to Mark,\" shows that they were\nwritten by others who claimed them to be in accordance with the stories\nthat had been told by Matthew or by Mark. So Renan takes the ground that\nthe Gospel of Luke is founded on anterior documents and \"is the work of\na man who selected, pruned and combined, and that the same man wrote the\nActs of the Apostles and in the same way.\"\n\nThe gospels were certainly written long after the events described, and\nRenan finds the reason for this in the fact that the Christians believed\nthat the world was about to end; that, consequently, there was no need\nof composing books; it was only necessary for them to preserve in their\nhearts during the little margin of time that remained a lively image of\nHim whom they soon expected to meet in the clouds. For this reason\nthe gospels themselves had but little authority for 150 years, the\nChristians relying on oral traditions. Renan shows that there was\nnot the slightest scruple about inserting additions in the gospels,\nvariously combining them, and in completing some by taking parts from\nothers; that the books passed from hand to hand, and that each one\ntranscribed in the margin of his copy the words and parables he had\nfound elsewhere which touched him; that it was not until human tradition\nbecame weakened that the text bearing the names of the apostles became\nauthoritative.\n\nRenan has criticised the gospels somewhat in the same spirit that he\nwould criticise a modern work. He saw clearly that the metaphysics\nfilling the discourses of John were deformities and distortions, full of\nmysticism, having nothing to do really with the character of Jesus. He\nshows too \"that the simple idea of the Kingdom of God, at the time the\nGospel according to St. John was written, had faded away; that the\nhope of the advent of Christ was growing dim, and that from belief the\ndisciples passed into discussion, from discussion to dogma, from dogma\nto ceremony,\" and, finding that the new Heaven and the new Earth were\nnot coming as expected, they turned their attention to governing the old\nHeaven and the old Earth. The disciples were willing to be humble for\na few days, with the expectation of wearing crowns forever. They were\nsatisfied with poverty, believing that the wealth of the world was to\nbe theirs. The coming of Christ, however, being for some unaccountable\nreason delayed, poverty and humility grew irksome, and human nature\nbegan to assert itself.\n\nIn the Gospel of John you will find the metaphysics of the church. There\nyou find the Second Birth. There you find the doctrine of the atonement\nclearly set forth. There you find that God died for the whole world, and\nthat whosoever believeth not in him is to be damned. There is nothing of\nthe kind in Matthew. Matthew makes Christ say that, if you will forgive\nothers, God will forgive you. The Gospel \"according to Mark\" is the\nsame. So is the Gospel \"according to Luke.\" There is nothing about\nsalvation through belief, nothing about the atonement. In Mark, in the\nlast chapter, the apostles are told to go into all the world and preach\nthe gospel, with the statement that whoever believed and was baptised\nshould be saved, and whoever failed to believe should be damned. But we\nnow know that that is an interpolation. Consequently, Matthew, Mark and\nLuke never had the faintest conception of the \"Christian religion.\" They\nknew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith--nothing.\nSo that if a man had read only Matthew, Mark and Luke, and had strictly\nfollowed what he found, he would have found himself, after death, in\nperdition.\n\nRenan finds that certain portions of the Gospel \"according to John\" were\nadded later; that the entire twenty-first chapter is an interpolation;\nalso, that many places bear the traces of erasures and corrections. So\nhe says that it would be \"impossible for any one to compose a life of\nJesus, with any meaning in it, from the discourses which John attributes\nto him, and he holds that this Gospel of John is full of preaching,\nChrist demonstrating himself; full of argumentation, full of stage\neffect, devoid of simplicity, with long arguments after each miracle,\nstiff and awkward discourses, the tone of which is often false and\nunequal.\" He also insists that there are evidently \"artificial portions,\nvariations like that of a musician improvising on a given theme.\"\n\nIn spite of all this, Renan, willing to soothe the prejudice of his\ntime, takes the ground that the four canonical gospels are authentic,\nthat they date from the first century, that the authors were, generally\nspeaking, those to whom they are attributed; but he insists that their\nhistoric value is very diverse. This is a back-handed stroke. Admitting,\nfirst, that they are authentic; second, that they were written about\nthe end of the first century; third, that they are not of equal value,\ndisposes, so far as he is concerned, of the dogma of inspiration.\n\nOne is at a loss to understand why four gospels should have been\nwritten. As a matter of fact there can be only one true account of any\noccurrence, or of any number of occurrences. Now, it must be taken for\ngranted, that an inspired account is true. Why then should there be four\ninspired accounts? It may be answered that all were not to write\nthe entire story. To this the reply is that all attempted to cover\nsubstantially the same ground.\n\nMany years ago the early fathers thought it necessary to say why there\nwere four inspired books, and some of them said, because there were four\ncardinal directions and the gospels fitted the north, south, east and\nwest. Others said that there were four principal winds--a gospel for\neach wind. They might have added that some animals have four legs.\n\nRenan admits that the narrative portions have not the same authority;\n\"that many legends proceeded from the zeal of the second Christian\ngeneration; that the narrative of Luke is historically weak; that\nsentences attributed to Jesus have been distorted and exaggerated;\nthat the book was written outside of Palestine and after the siege of\nJerusalem; that Luke endeavors to make the different narratives agree,\nchanging them for that purpose; that he softens the passages which had\nbecome embarrassing; that he exaggerated the marvelous, omitted errors\nin chronology; that he was a compiler, a man who had not been an\neye-witness himself, and who had not seen eye-witnesses, but who labors\nat texts and wrests their sense to make them agree.\" This certainly is\nvery far from inspiration. So \"Luke interprets the documents according\nto his own idea; being a kind of anarchist, opposed to property, and\npersuaded that the triumph of the poor was approaching; that he was\nespecially fond of the anecdotes showing the conversion of sinners, the\nexaltation of the humble, and that he modified ancient traditions to\ngive them this meaning.\"\n\nRenan reached the conclusion that the gospels are neither biographies\nafter the manner of Suetonius nor fictitious legends in the style of\nPhilostratus, but that they are legendary biographies like the legends\nof the saints, the lives of Plotinus and Isidore, in which historical\ntruth and the desire to present models of virtue are combined in various\ndegrees; that they are \"inexact\" that they \"contain numerous errors and\ndiscordances.\" So he takes the ground that twenty or thirty years after\nChrist, his reputation had greatly increased, that \"legends had begun\nto gather about Him like clouds,\" that \"death added to His perfection,\nfreeing Him from all defects in the eyes of those who had loved Him,\nthat His followers wrested the prophecies so that they might fit Him.\nThey said, 'He is the Messiah.' The Messiah was to do certain things;\ntherefore Jesus did certain things. Then an account would be given of\nthe doing.\" All of which of course shows that there can be maintained no\ntheory of inspiration.\n\nIt is admitted that where individuals are witnesses of the same\ntransaction, and where they agree upon the vital points and disagree\nupon details, the disagreement may be consistent with their honesty,\nas tending to show that they have not agreed upon a story; but if\nthe witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their\ndisagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration\nthat they were not inspired, but it is not a demonstration that they\nare not honest. While perfect agreement may be evidence of rehearsal,\na failure to perfectly agree is not a demonstration of the truth or\nfalsity of a story; but if the witnesses claim to be inspired, the\nslightest disagreement is a demonstration that they were not inspired.\n\nRenan reaches the conclusion, proving every step that he takes, that\nthe four principal documents--that is to say, the four gospels--are in\n\"flagrant contradiction one with another.\" He attacks, and with perfect\nsuccess, the miracles of the Scriptures, and upon this subject says:\n\"Observation, which has never once been falsified, teaches us that\nmiracles never happen, but in times and countries in which they are\nbelieved and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever\noccurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous\ncharacter.\" He further takes the ground that no contemporary miracle\nwill bear inquiry, and that consequently it is probable that the\nmiracles of antiquity which have been performed in popular gatherings\nwould be shown to be simple illusion, were it possible to criticise them\nin detail. In the name of universal experience he banishes miracles\nfrom history. These were brave things to do, things that will bear good\nfruit. As long as men believe in miracles, past or present they remain\nthe prey of superstition. The Catholic is taught that miracles were\nperformed anciently not only, but that they are still being performed.\nThis is consistent inconsistency. Protestants teach a double doctrine:\nThat miracles used to be performed, that the laws of nature used to be\nviolated, but that no miracle is performed now. No Protestant will\nadmit that any miracle was performed by the Catholic Church. Otherwise,\nProtestants could not be justified in leaving a church with whom the\nGod of miracles dwelt. So every Protestant has to adopt two kinds of\nreasoning: that the laws of Nature used to be violated and that miracles\nused to be performed, but that since the apostolic age Nature has had\nher way and the Lord has allowed facts to exist and to hold the field.\nA supernatural account, according to Renan, \"always implies credulity or\nimposture,\"--probably both.\n\nIt does not seem possible to me that Christ claimed for himself what\nthe Testament claims for him. These claims were made by admirers, by\nfollowers, by missionaries.\n\nWhen the early Christians went to Rome they found plenty of demigods. It\nwas hard to set aside the religion of a demigod by telling the story of\na man from Nazareth. These missionaries, not to be outdone in ancestry,\ninsisted--and this was after the Gospel \"according to St. John\" had been\nwritten--that Christ was the Son of God. Matthew believed that he was\nthe son of David, and the Messiah, and gave the genealogy of Joseph, his\nfather, to support that claim.\n\nIn the time of Christ no one imagined that he was of divine origin. This\nwas an after-growth. In order to place themselves on an equality with\nPagans they started the claim of divinity, and also took the second step\nrequisite in that country: First, a god for his father, and second, a\nvirgin for his mother. This was the Pagan combination of greatness, and\nthe Christians added to this that Christ was God.\n\nIt is hard to agree with the conclusion reached by Renan, that Christ\nformed and intended to form a church. Such evidence, it seems to me,\nis hard to find in the Testament. Christ seemed to satisfy himself,\naccording to the Testament, with a few statements, some of them\nexceedingly wise and tender, some utterly impracticable and some\nintolerant.\n\nIf we accept the conclusions reached by Renan we will throw away, the\nlegends without foundation; the miraculous legends; and everything\ninconsistent with what we know of Nature. Very little will be left--a\nfew sayings to be found among those attributed to Confucius, to Buddha,\nto Krishna, to Epictetus, to Zeno, and to many others. Some of these\nsayings are full of wisdom, full of kindness, and others rush to such\nextremes that they touch the borders of insanity. When struck on one\ncheek to turn the other, is really joining a conspiracy to secure\nthe triumph of brutality. To agree not to resist evil is to become\nan accomplice of all injustice. We must not take from industry, from\npatriotism, from virtue, the right of self-defence.\n\nUndoubtedly Renan gave an honest transcript of his mind, the road his\nthought had followed, the reasons in their order that had occurred to\nhim, the criticisms born of thought, and the qualifications, softening\nphrases, children of old sentiments and emotions that had not entirely\npassed away. He started, one might say, from the altar and, during a\nconsiderable part of the journey, carried the incense with him. The\nfarther he got away, the greater was his clearness of vision and the\nmore thoroughly he was convinced that Christ was merely a man, an\nidealist. But, remembering the altar, he excused exaggeration in the\n\"inspired\" books, not because it was from heaven, not because it was\nin harmony with our ideas of veracity, but because the writers of the\ngospel were imbued with the Oriental spirit of exaggeration, a spirit\nperfectly understood by the people who first read the gospels, because\nthe readers knew the habits of the writers.\n\nIt had been contended for many years that no one could pass judgment\non the veracity of the Scriptures who did not understand Hebrew. This\nposition was perfectly absurd. No man needs to be a student of Hebrew\nto know that the shadow on the dial did not go back several degrees to\nconvince a petty king that a boil was not to be fatal. Renan, however,\nfilled the requirement. He was an excellent Hebrew scholar. This was a\nfortunate circumstance, because it answered a very old objection.\n\nThe founder of Christianity was, for his own sake, taken from the divine\npedestal and allowed to stand like other men on the earth, to be judged\nby what he said and did, by his theories, by his philosophy, by his\nspirit.\n\nNo matter whether Renan came to a correct conclusion or not, his work\ndid a vast deal of good. He convinced many that implicit reliance could\nnot be placed upon the gospels, that the gospels themselves are of\nunequal worth; that they were deformed by ignorance and falsehood, or,\nat least, by mistake; that if they wished to save the reputation of\nChrist they must not rely wholly on the gospels, or on what is found\nin the New Testament, but they must go farther and examine all legends\ntouching him. Not only so, but they must throw away the miraculous, the\nimpossible and the absurd.\n\nHe also has shown that the early followers of Christ endeavored to add\nto the reputation of their Master by attributing to him the miraculous\nand the foolish; that while these stories added to his reputation at\nthat time, since the world has advanced they must be cast aside or the\nreputation of the Master must suffer.\n\nIt will not do now to say that Christ himself pretended to do miracles.\nThis would establish the fact at least that he was mistaken. But we are\ncompelled to say that his disciples insisted that he was a worker of\nmiracles. This shows, either that they were mistaken or untruthful.\n\nWe all know that a sleight-of-hand performer could gain a greater\nreputation among savages than Darwin or Humboldt; and we know that the\nworld in the time of Christ was filled with barbarians, with people who\ndemanded the miraculous, who expected it; with people, in fact, who had\na stronger belief in the supernatural than in the natural; people who\nnever thought it worth while to record facts. The hero of such people,\nthe Christ of such people, with his miracles, cannot be the Christ of\nthe thoughtful and scientific.\n\nRenan was a man of most excellent temper; candid; not striving for\nvictory, but for truth; conquering, as far as he could, the old\nsuperstitions; not entirely free, it may be, but believing himself to be\nso. He did great good. He has helped to destroy the fictions of faith.\nHe has helped to rescue man from the prison of superstition, and this is\nthe greatest benefit that man can bestow on man.\n\nHe did another great service, not only to Jews, but to Christendom,\nby writing the history of \"The People of Israel.\" Christians for many\ncenturies have persecuted the Jews. They have charged them with the\ngreatest conceivable crime--with having crucified an infinite God.\nThis absurdity has hardened the hearts of men and poisoned the minds of\nchildren. The persecution of the Jews is the meanest, the most senseless\nand cruel page in history. Every civilized Christian should feel on\nhis cheeks the red spots of shame as he reads the wretched and infamous\nstory.\n\nThe flame of this prejudice is fanned and fed in the Sunday schools\nof our day, and the orthodox minister points proudly to the atrocities\nperpetrated against the Jews by the barbarians of Russia as evidences of\nthe truth of the inspired Scriptures. In every wound God puts a tongue\nto proclaim the truth of his book.\n\nIf the charge that the Jews killed God were true, it is hardly\nreasonable to hold those who are now living responsible for what their\nancestors did nearly nineteen centuries ago.\n\nBut there is another point in connection with this matter: If Christ was\nGod, then the Jews could not have killed him without his consent; and,\naccording to the orthodox creed, if he had not been sacrificed, the\nwhole world would have suffered eternal pain. Nothing can exceed the\nmeanness of the prejudice of Christians against the Jewish people. They\nshould not be held responsible for their savage ancestors, or for their\nbelief that Jehovah was an intelligent and merciful God, superior to all\nother gods. Even Christians do not wish to be held responsible for\nthe Inquisition, for the Torquemadas and the John Calvins, for the\nwitch-burners and the Quaker-whippers, for the slave-traders and\nchild-stealers, the most of whom were believers in our \"glorious\ngospel,\" and many of whom had been bom the second time.\n\nRenan did much to civilize the Christians by telling the truth in a\ncharming and convincing way about the \"People of Israel.\" Both sides are\ngreatly indebted to him: one he has ably defended, and the other greatly\nenlightened.\n\nHaving done what good he could in giving what he believed was light to\nhis fellow-men, he had no fear of becoming a victim of God's wrath, and\nso he laughingly said: \"For my part I imagine that if the Eternal in his\nseverity were to send me to hell I should succeed in escaping from it.\nI would send up to my Creator a supplication that would make him smile.\nThe course of reasoning by which I would prove to him that it was\nthrough his fault that I was damned would be so subtle that he would\nfind some difficulty in replying. The fate which would suit me best is\nPurgatory--a charming place, where many delightful romances begun on\nearth must be continued.\"\n\nSuch cheerfulness, such good philosophy, with cap and bells, such banter\nand blasphemy, such sound and solid sense drive to madness the priest\nwho thinks the curse of Rome can fright the world. How the snake of\nsuperstition writhes when he finds that his fangs have lost their\npoison.\n\nHe was one of the gentlest of men--one of the fairest in discussion,\ndissenting from the views of others with modesty, presenting his own\nwith clearness and candor. His mental manners were excellent. He was\nnot positive as to the \"unknowable.\" He said \"Perhaps.\" He knew that\nknowledge is good if it increases the happiness of man; and he felt that\nsuperstition is the assassin of liberty and civilization. He lived a\nlife of cheerfulness, of industry, devoted to the welfare of mankind.\n\nHe was a seeker of happiness by the highway of the natural, a destroyer\nof the dogmas of mental deformity, a worshiper of Liberty and the\nIdeal. As he lived, he died--hopeful and serene--and now, standing in\nimagination by his grave, we ask: Will the night be eternal? The brain\nsays, Perhaps; while the heart hopes for the Dawn.--North American\nReview, November, 1892.\n\n\n\n\nTOLSTOI AND \"THE KREUTZER SONATA.\"\n\nCOUNT TOLSTOI is a man of genius. He is acquainted with Russian life\nfrom the highest to the lowest--that is to say, from the worst to the\nbest. He knows the vices of the rich and the virtues of the poor. He is\na Christian, a real believer in the Old and New Testaments, an honest\nfollower of the Peasant of Palestine. He denounces luxury and ease, art\nand music; he regards a flower with suspicion, believing that beneath\nevery blossom lies a coiled serpent. He agrees with Lazarus and\ndenounces Dives and the tax-gatherers. He is opposed, not only to\ndoctors of divinity, but of medicine.\n\nFrom the Mount of Olives he surveys the world.\n\nHe is not a Christian like the Pope in the Vatican, or a cardinal in a\npalace, or a bishop with revenues and retainers, or a millionaire who\nhires preachers to point out the wickedness of the poor, or the director\nof a museum who closes the doors on Sunday. He is a Christian something\nlike Christ.\n\nTo him this life is but a breathing-spell between the verdict and the\nexecution; the sciences are simply sowers of the seeds of pride, of\narrogance and vice. Shocked by the cruelties and unspeakable horrors of\nwar, he became a non-resistant and averred that he would not defend his\nown body or that of his daughter from insult and outrage. In this he\nfollowed the command of his Master: \"Resist not evil.\" He passed,\nnot simply from war to peace, but from one extreme to the other, and\nadvocated a doctrine that would leave the basest of mankind the rulers\nof the world. This was and is the error of a great and tender soul.\n\nHe did not accept all the teachings of Christ at once. His progress has\nbeen, judging from his writings, somewhat gradual; but by accepting one\nproposition he prepared himself for the acceptance of another. He is\nnot only a Christian, but has the courage of his convictions, and goes\nwithout hesitation to the logical conclusion. He has another exceedingly\nrare quality; he acts in accordance with his belief. His creed is\ntranslated into deed. He opposes the doctors of divinity, because they\ndarken and deform the teachings of the Master. He denounces the doctors\nof medicine, because he depends on Providence and the promises of Jesus\nChrist. To him that which is called progress is, in fact, a profanation,\nand property is a something that the organized few have stolen from the\nunorganized many. He believes in universal labor, which is good, each\nworking for himself. He also believes that each should have only the\nnecessaries of life--which is bad. According to his idea, the world\nought to be filled with peasants. There should be only arts enough to\nplough and sow and gather the harvest, to build huts, to weave coarse\ncloth, to fashion clumsy and useful garments, and to cook the simplest\nfood. Men and women should not adorn their bodies. They should not make\nthemselves desirable or beautiful.\n\nBut even under such circumstances they might, like the Quakers, be proud\nof humility and become arrogantly meek.\n\nTolstoi would change the entire order of human development. As a matter\nof fact, the savage who adorns himself or herself with strings of\nshells, or with feathers, has taken the first step towards civilization.\nThe tatooed is somewhat in advance of the unfrescoed. At the bottom of\nall this is the love of approbation, of the admiration of their fellows,\nand this feeling, this love, cannot be torn from the human heart.\n\nIn spite of ourselves we are attracted by what to us is beautiful,\nbecause beauty is associated with pleasure, with enjoyment. The love of\nthe well-formed, of the beautiful, is prophetic of the perfection of the\nhuman race. It is impossible to admire the deformed. They may be loved\nfor their goodness or genius, but never because of their deformity.\nThere is within us the love of proportion. There is a physical basis for\nthe appreciation of harmony, which is also a kind of proportion.\n\nThe love of the beautiful is shared with man by most animals. The wings\nof the moth are painted by love, by desire. This is the foundation of\nthe bird's song. This love of approbation, this desire to please, to\nbe admired, to be loved, is in some way the cause of all heroic,\nself-denying, and sublime actions.\n\nCount Tolstoi, following parts of the New Testament, regards love\nas essentially impure. He seems really to think that there is a love\nsuperior to human love; that the love of man for woman, of woman for\nman, is, after all, a kind of glittering degradation; that it is better\nto love God than woman; better to love the invisible phantoms of the\nskies than the children upon our knees--in other words, that it is far\nbetter to love a heaven somewhere else than to make one here. He seems\nto think that women adorn themselves simply for the purpose of getting\nin their power the innocent and unsuspecting men. He forgets that\nthe best and purest of human beings are controlled, for the most part\nunconsciously, by the hidden, subtle tendencies of nature. He seems to\nforget the great fact of \"natural selection,\" and that the choice of one\nin preference to all others is the result of forces beyond the control\nof the individual. To him there seems to be no purity in love, because\nmen are influenced by forms, by the beauty of women; and women, knowing\nthis fact, according to him, act, and consequently both are equally\nguilty. He endeavors to show that love is a delusion; that at best it\ncan last but for a few days; that it must of necessity be succeeded by\nindifference, then by disgust, lastly by hatred; that in every Garden of\nEden is a serpent of jealousy, and that the brightest days end with the\nyawn of ennui.\n\nOf course he is driven to the conclusion that life in this world is\nwithout value, that the race can be perpetuated only by vice, and that\nthe practice of the highest virtue would leave the world without\nthe form of man. Strange as it may sound to some, this is the same\nconclusion reached by his Divine Master: \"They did eat, they drank, they\nmarried, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered\nthe ark and the flood came and destroyed them all.\" \"Every one that hath\nforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,\nor children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold,\nand shall inherit everlasting life.\"\n\nAccording to Christianity, as it really is and really was, the Christian\nshould have no home in this world--at least none until the earth has\nbeen purified by fire. His affections should be given to God; not to\nwife and children, not to friends or country. He is here but for a\ntime on a journey, waiting for the summons. This life is a kind of\ndock running out into the sea of eternity, on which he waits for\ntransportation. Nothing here is of any importance; the joys of life are\nfrivolous and corrupting, and by losing these few gleams of happiness in\nthis world he will bask forever in the unclouded rays of infinite joy.\nWhy should a man risk an eternity of perfect happiness for the sake of\nenjoying himself a few days with his wife and children? Why should he\nbecome an eternal outcast for the sake of having a home and fireside\nhere?\n\nThe \"Fathers\" of the church had the same opinion of marriage. They\nagreed with Saint Paul, and Tolstoi agrees with them. They had the same\ncontempt for wives and mothers, and uttered the same blasphemies against\nthat divine passion that has filled the world with art and song.\n\nAll this is to my mind a kind of insanity; nature soured or\nwithered--deformed so that celibacy is mistaken for virtue. The\nimagination becomes polluted, and the poor wretch believes that he is\npurer than his thoughts, holier than his desires, and that to outrage\nnature is the highest form of religion. But nature imprisoned,\nobstructed, tormented, always has sought for and has always found\nrevenge. Some of these victims, regarding the passions as low and\ncorrupting, feeling humiliated by hunger and thirst, sought through\nmaimings and mutilations the purification of the soul.\n\nCount Tolstoi in \"The Kreutzer Sonata,\" has drawn, with a free hand, one\nof the vilest and basest of men for his hero. He is suspicious, jealous,\ncruel, infamous. The wife is infinitely too good for such a wild\nunreasoning beast, and yet the writer of this insane story seems to\njustify the assassin. If this is a true picture of wedded life in\nRussia, no wonder that Count Tolstoi looks forward with pleasure to the\nextinction of the human race.\n\nOf all passions that can take possession of the heart or brain jealousy\nis the worst. For many generations the chemists sought for the secret by\nwhich all metals could be changed to gold, and through which the basest\ncould become the best. Jealousy seeks exactly the opposite. It endeavors\nto transmute the very gold of love into the dross of shame and crime.\n\nThe story of \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" seems to have been written for the\npurpose of showing that woman is at fault; that she has no right to\nbe attractive, no right to be beautiful; and that she is morally\nresponsible for the contour of her throat, for the pose of her body, for\nthe symmetry of her limbs, for the red of her lips, and for the dimples\nin her cheeks.\n\nThe opposite of this doctrine is nearer true. It would be far better to\nhold people responsible for their ugliness than for their beauty. It may\nbe true that the soul, the mind, in some wondrous way fashions the body,\nand that to that extent every individual is responsible for his looks.\nIt may be that the man or woman thinking high thoughts will give,\nnecessarily, a nobility to expression and a beauty to outline.\n\nIt is not true that the sins of man can be laid justly at the feet of\nwoman. Women are better than men; they have greater responsibilities;\nthey bear even the burdens of joy. This is the real reason why their\nfaults are considered greater.\n\nMen and women desire each other, and this desire is a condition of\ncivilization, progress, and happiness, and of everything of real value.\nBut there is this profound difference in the sexes: in man this desire\nis the foundation of love, while in woman love is the foundation of this\ndesire.\n\nTolstoi seems to be a stranger to the heart of woman.\n\nIs it not wonderful that one who holds self-denial in such high esteem\nshould say, \"That life is embittered by the fear of one's children, and\nnot only on account of their real or imaginary illnesses, but even by\ntheir very presence\"?\n\nHas the father no real love for the children? Is he not paid a thousand\ntimes through their caresses, their sympathy, their love? Is there no\njoy in seeing their minds unfold, their affections develop? Of course,\nlove and anxiety go together. That which we love we wish to protect. The\nperpetual fear of death gives love intensity and sacredness. Yet\nCount Tolstoi gives us the feelings of a father incapable of natural\naffection; of one who hates to have his children sick because the\norderly course of his wretched life is disturbed. So, too, we are told\nthat modern mothers think too much of their children, care too much for\ntheir health, and refuse to be comforted when they die. Lest these words\nmay be thought libellous, the following extract is given;\n\n\"In old times women consoled themselves with the belief, The Lord hath\ngiven, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.\nThey consoled themselves with the thought that the soul of the departed\nhad returned to him who gave it; that it was better to die innocent\nthan to live in sin. If women nowadays had such a comfortable faith to\nsupport them, they might take their misfortunes less hard.\"\n\nThe conclusion reached by the writer is that without faith in God,\nwoman's love grovels in the mire.\n\nIn this case the mire is made by the tears of mothers falling on the\nclay that hides their babes.\n\nThe one thing constant, the one peak that rises above all clouds, the\none window in which the light forever burns, the one star that darkness\ncannot quench, is woman's love.\n\nThis one fact justifies the existence and the perpetuation of the human\nrace. Again I say that women are better than men; their hearts are more\nunreservedly given; in the web of their lives sorrow is inextricably\nwoven with the greatest joys; self-sacrifice is a part of their nature,\nand at the behest of love and maternity they walk willingly and joyously\ndown to the very gates of death.\n\nIs there nothing in this to excite the admiration, the adoration, of a\nmodern reformer? Are the monk and nun superior to the father and mother?\n\nThe author of \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" is unconsciously the enemy of\nmankind. He is filled with what might be called a merciless pity, a\nsympathy almost malicious. Had he lived a few centuries ago, he might\nhave founded a religion; but the most he can now do is, perhaps, to\ncreate the necessity for another asylum.\n\nCount Tolstoi objects to music--not the ordinary kind, but to great\nmusic, the music that arouses the emotions, that apparently carries us\nbeyond the limitations of life, that for the moment seems to break the\ngreat chain of cause and effect, and leaves the soul soaring and free.\n\"Emotion and duty,\" he declares, \"do not go hand in hand.\" All art\ntouches and arouses the emotional nature. The painter, the poet, the\nsculptor, the composer, the orator, appeal to the emotions, to the\npassions, to the hopes and fears. The commonplace is transfigured;\nthe cold and angular facts of existence take form and color; the\nblood quickens; the fancies spread their wings; the intellect grows\nsympathetic; the river of life flows full and free; and man becomes\ncapable of the noblest deeds. Take emotion from the heart of man and\nthe idea of obligation would be lost; right and wrong would lose their\nmeaning, and the word \"ought\" would never again be spoken. We are\nsubject to conditions, liable to disease, pain, and death. We are\ncapable of ecstasy. Of these conditions, of these possibilities, the\nemotions are born.\n\nOnly the conditionless can be the emotionless.\n\nWe are conditioned beings; and if the conditions are changed, the result\nmay be pain or death or greater joy. We can only live within certain\ndegrees of heat. If the weather were a few degrees hotter or a few\ndegrees colder, we could not exist. We need food and roof and raiment.\nLife and happiness depend on these conditions. We do not certainly know\nwhat is to happen, and consequently our hopes and fears are constantly\nactive--that is to say, we are emotional beings. The generalization of\nTolstoi, that emotion never goes hand in hand with duty, is almost the\nopposite of the truth. The idea of duty could not exist without emotion.\nThink of men and women without love, without desires, without passions?\nThink of a world without art or music--a world without beauty, without\nemotion.\n\nAnd yet there are many writers busy pointing out the loathsomeness of\nlove and their own virtues. Only a little while ago an article appeared\nin one of the magazines in which all women who did not dress according\nto the provincial prudery of the writer were denounced as impure.\nMillions of refined and virtuous wives and mothers were described as\ndripping with pollution because they enjoyed dancing and were so well\nformed that they were not obliged to cover their arms and throats to\navoid the pity of their associates. And yet the article itself is far\nmore indelicate than any dance or any dress, or even lack of dress. What\na curious opinion dried apples have of fruit upon the tree!\n\nCount Tolstoi is also the enemy of wealth, of luxury. In this he follows\nthe New Testament. \"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a\nneedle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.\" He gathers\nhis inspiration from the commandment, \"Sell all that thou hast and give\nto the poor.\"\n\nWealth is not a crime any more than health or bodily or intellectual\nstrength. The weak might denounce the strong, the sickly might envy the\nhealthy, just as the poor may denounce or envy the rich. A man is not\nnecessarily a criminal because he is wealthy. He is to be judged, not\nby his wealth, but by the way he uses his wealth. The strong man can use\nhis strength, not only for the benefit of himself, but for the good of\nothers. So a man of intelligence can be a benefactor of the human race.\nIntelligence is often used to entrap the simple and to prey upon the\nunthinking, but we do not wish to do away with intelligence. So strength\nis often used to tyrannize over the weak, and in the same way wealth may\nbe used to the injury of mankind. To sell all that you have and give to\nthe poor is not a panacea for poverty. The man of wealth should help\nthe poor man to help himself. Men cannot receive without giving some\nconsideration, and if they have not labor or property to give, they\ngive their manhood, their self-respect. Besides, if all should obey this\ninjunction, \"Sell what thou hast and give to the poor,\" who would buy?\nWe know that thousands and millions of rich men lack generosity and have\nbut little feeling for their fellows. The fault is not in the money, not\nin the wealth, but in the individuals. They would be just as bad were\nthey poor. The only difference is that they would have less power. The\ngood man should regard wealth as an instrumentality, as an opportunity,\nand he should endeavor to benefit his fellow-men, not by making them the\nrecipients of his charity, but by assisting them to assist themselves.\nThe desire to clothe and feed, to educate and protect, wives and\nchildren, is the principal reason for making money--one of the great\nsprings of industry, prudence, and economy.\n\nThose who labor have a right to live. They have a right to what they\nearn. He who works has a right to home and fireside and to the comforts\nof life. Those who waste the spring, the summer, and the autumn of their\nlives must bear the winter when it comes. Many of our institutions are\nabsurdly unjust. Giving the land to the few, making tenants of the many,\nis the worst possible form of socialism--of paternal government. In\nmost of the nations of our day the idlers and non-producers are either\nbeggars or aristocrats, paupers or princes, and the great middle\nlaboring class support them both. Rags and robes have a liking for each\nother. Beggars and kings are in accord; they are all parasites, living\non the same blood, stealing the same labor--one by beggary, the other by\nforce. And yet in all this there can be found no reason for denouncing\nthe man who has accumulated. One who wishes to tear down his bams and\nbuild greater has laid aside something to keep the wolf of want from the\ndoor of home when he is dead.\n\nEven the beggars see the necessity of others working, and the nobility\nsee the same necessity with equal clearness. But it is hardly reasonable\nto say that all should do the same kind of work, for the reason that all\nhave not the same aptitudes, the same talents. Some can plough,\nothers can paint; some can reap and mow, while others can invent the\ninstruments that save labor; some navigate the seas; some work in mines;\nwhile others compose music that elevates and refines the heart of the\nworld.\n\nBut the worst thing in \"The Kreutzer Sonata\" is the declaration that a\nhusband can by force compel the wife to love and obey him. Love is not\nthe child of fear; it is not the result of force. No one can love on\ncompulsion. Even Jehovah found that it was impossible to compel the Jews\nto love him. He issued his command to that effect, coupled with threats\nof pain and death, but his chosen people failed to respond.\n\nLove is the perfume of the heart; it is not subject to the will of\nhusbands or kings or God.\n\nCount Tolstoi would establish slavery in every house; he would make\nevery husband a tyrant and every wife a trembling serf. No wonder that\nhe regards such marriage as a failure. He is in exact harmony with the\ncurse of Jehovah when he said unto the woman: \"I will greatly multiply\nthy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth\nchildren, and thy desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule\nover thee.\"\n\nThis is the destruction of the family, the pollution of home, the\ncrucifixion of love.\n\nThose who are truly married are neither masters nor servants. The idea\nof obedience is lost in the desire for the happiness of each. Love is\nnot a convict, to be detained with bolts and chains. Love is the highest\nexpression of liberty. Love neither commands nor obeys.\n\nThe curious thing is that the orthodox world insists that all men and\nwomen should obey the injunctions of Christ; that they should take him\nas the supreme example, and in all things follow his teachings. This is\npreached from countless pulpits, and has been for many centuries. And\nyet the man who does follow the Savior, who insists that he will not\nresist evil, who sells what he has and gives to the poor, who deserts\nhis wife and children for the love of God, is regarded as insane.\n\nTolstoi, on most subjects, appears to be in accord with the founder of\nChristianity, with the apostles, with the writers of the New Testament,\nand with the Fathers of the church; and yet a Christian teacher of a\nSabbath school decides, in the capacity of Postmaster-General, that \"The\nKreutzer Sonata\" is unfit to be carried in the mails.\n\nAlthough I disagree with nearly every sentence in this book, regard the\nstory as brutal and absurd, the view of life presented as cruel, vile,\nand false, yet I recognize the right of Count Tolstoi to express his\nopinions on all subjects, and the right of the men and women of America\nto read for themselves.\n\nAs to the sincerity of the author, there is not the slightest doubt. He\nis willing to give all that he has for the good of his fellow-men. He\nis a soldier in what he believes to be a sacred cause, and he has the\ncourage of his convictions. He is endeavoring to organize society in\naccordance with the most radical utterances that have been attributed\nto Jesus Christ. The philosophy of Palestine is not adapted to an\nindustrial and commercial age. Christianity was born when the nation\nthat produced it was dying. It was a requiem--a declaration that life\nwas a failure, that the world was about to end, and that the hopes of\nmankind should be lifted to another sphere. Tolstoi stands with his back\nto the sunrise and looks mournfully upon the shadow. He has uttered many\ntender, noble, and inspiring words. There are many passages in his works\nthat must have been written when his eyes were filled with tears. He has\nfixed his gaze so intently on the miseries and agonies of life that he\nhas been driven to the conclusion that nothing could be better than the\neffacement of the human race.\n\nSome men, looking only at the faults and tyrannies of government, have\nsaid: \"Anarchy is better.\" Others, looking at the misfortunes, the\npoverty, the crimes, of men, have, in a kind of pitying despair, reached\nthe conclusion that the best of all is death. These are the opinions of\nthose who have dwelt in gloom--of the self-imprisoned.\n\nBy comparing long periods of time, we see that, on the whole, the race\nis advancing; that the world is growing steadily, and surely, better;\nthat each generation enjoys more and suffers less than its predecessor.\nWe find that our institutions have the faults of individuals. Nations\nmust be composed of men and women; and as they have their faults,\nnations cannot be perfect. The institution of marriage is a failure to\nthe extent, and only to the extent, that the human race is a failure.\nUndoubtedly it is the best and the most important institution that has\nbeen established by the civilized world. If there is unhappiness in that\nrelation, if there is tyranny upon one side and misery upon the other,\nit is not the fault of marriage. Take homes from the world and only wild\nbeasts are left.\n\nWe cannot cure the evils of our day and time by a return to savagery.\nIt is not necessary to become ignorant to increase our happiness. The\nhighway of civilization leads to the light. The time will come when the\nhuman race will be truly enlightened, when labor will receive its due\nreward, when the last institution begotten of ignorance and savagery\nwill disappear. The time will come when the whole world will say that\nthe love of man for woman, of woman for man, of mother for child, is the\nhighest, the noblest, the purest, of which the heart is capable.\n\nLove, human love, love of men and women, love of mothers fathers, and\nbabes, is the perpetual and beneficent force. Not the love of phantoms,\nthe love that builds cathedrals and dungeons, that trembles and prays,\nthat kneels and curses; but the real love, the love that felled the\nforests, navigated the seas, subdued the earth, explored continents,\nbuilt countless homes, and founded nations--the love that kindled the\ncreative flame and wrought the miracles of art, that gave us all there\nis of music, from the cradle-song that gives to infancy its smiling\nsleep to the great symphony that bears the soul away with wings of\nfire--the real love, mother of every virtue and of every joy.--North\nAmerican Review, September, 1890.\n\n\n\n\nTHOMAS PAINE.\n\nA MAGAZINE ARTICLE.\n\n     \"A great man's memory may outlive his life half a year,\n     But, by'r lady, he must build churches then.\"\n\n\nEIGHTY-THREE years ago Thomas Paine ceased to defend himself. The moment\nhe became dumb all his enemies found a tongue. He was attacked on every\nhand. The Tories of England had been waiting for their revenge. The\nbelievers in kings, in hereditary government, the nobility of every\nland, execrated his memory. Their greatest enemy was dead. The believers\nin human slavery, and all who clamored for the rights of the States\nas against the sovereignty of a Nation, joined in the chorus of\ndenunciation. In addition to this, the believers in the inspiration of\nthe Scriptures, the occupants of orthodox pulpits, the professors in\nChristian colleges, and the religious historians, were his sworn and\nimplacable foes.\n\nThis man had gratified no ambition at the expense of his fellow-men;\nhe had desolated no country with the flame and sword of war; he had not\nwrung millions from the poor and unfortunate; he had betrayed no trust,\nand yet he was almost universally despised. He gave his life for the\nbenefit of mankind. Day and night for many, many weary years, he labored\nfor the good of others, and gave himself body and soul to the great\ncause of human liberty. And yet he won the hatred of the people for\nwhose benefit, for whose emancipation, for whose civilization, for whose\nexaltation he gave his life.\n\nAgainst him every slander that malignity could coin and hypocrisy pass\nwas gladly and joyously taken as genuine, and every truth with regard to\nhis career was believed to be counterfeit. He was attacked by thousands\nwhere he was defended by one, and the one who defended him was instantly\nattacked, silenced, or destroyed.\n\nAt last his life has been written by Moncure D. Conway, and the real\nhistory of Thomas Paine, of what he attempted and accomplished, of what\nhe taught and suffered, has been intelligently, truthfully and candidly\ngiven to the world. Henceforth the slanderer will be without excuse.\n\nHe who reads Mr. Conway's pages will find that Thomas Paine was more\nthan a patriot--that he was a philanthropist--a lover not only of his\ncountry, but of all mankind. He will find that his sympathies were\nwith those who suffered, without regard to religion or race, country or\ncomplexion. He will find that this great man did not hesitate to attack\nthe governing class of his native land--to commit what was called\ntreason against the king, that he might do battle for the rights of\nmen; that in spite of the prejudices of birth, he took the side of the\nAmerican Colonies; that he gladly attacked the political abuses and\nabsurdities that had been fostered by altars and thrones for many\ncenturies; that he was for the people against nobles and kings, and that\nhe put his life in pawn for the good of others.\n\nIn the winter of 1774, Thomas Paine came to America. After a time he was\nemployeed as one of the writers on the _Pennsylvania Magazine._\n\nLet us see what he did, calculated to excite the hatred of his\nfellow-men.\n\nThe first article he ever wrote in America, and the first ever published\nby him anywhere, appeared in that magazine on the 8th of 'March, 1775.\nIt was an attack on American slavery--a plea for the rights of the\nnegro. In that article will be found substantially all the arguments\nthat can be urged against that most infamous of all institutions. Every\nis full of humanity, pity, tenderness, and love of justice.\n\nFive days after this article appeared the American Anti-Slavery Society\nwas formed. Certainly this should not excite our hatred. To-day the\ncivilized world agrees with the essay written by Thomas Paine in 1775.\n\nAt that time great interests were against him. The owners of slaves\nbecame his enemies, and the pulpits, supported by slave labor, denounced\nthis abolitionist.\n\nThe next article published by Thomas Paine, in the same magazine, and\nfor the next month, was an attack on the practice of dueling, showing\nthat it was barbarous, that it did not even tend to settle the right or\nwrong of a dispute, that it could not be defended on any just grounds,\nand that its influence was degrading and cruel. The civilized world now\nagrees with the opinions of Thomas Paine upon that barbarous practice.\n\nIn May, 1775, appeared in the same magazine another article written by\nThomas Paine, a Protest Against Cruelty to Animals. He began the work\nthat was so successfully and gloriously carried out by Henry Bergh,\none of the noblest, one of the grandest, men that this continent has\nproduced.\n\nThe good people of this world agree with Thomas Paine.\n\nIn August of the same year he wrote a plea for the Rights of Woman, the\nfirst ever published in the New World. Certainly he should not be hated\nfor that.\n\nHe was the first to suggest a union of the colonies. Before the\nDeclaration of Independence was issued, Paine had written of and about\nthe Free and Independent States of America. He had also spoken of the\nUnited Colonies as the \"Glorious Union,\" and he was the first to write\nthese words: \"The United States of America.\"\n\nIn May, 1775, Washington said: \"If you ever hear of me joining in any\nsuch measure (as separation from Great Britain) you have my leave to set\nme down for everything wicked.\" He had also said; \"It is not the wish or\ninterest of the government (meaning Massachusetts), or of any other upon\nthis continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence.\"\nAnd in the same year Benjamin Franklin assured Chatham that no one in\nAmerica was in favor of separation. As a matter of fact, the people\nof the colonies wanted a redress of their grievances--they were not\ndreaming of separation, of independence.\n\nIn 1775 Paine wrote the pamphlet known as \"Common Sense.\" This was\npublished on the 10th of January, 1776. It was the first appeal for\nindependence, the first cry for national life, for absolute separation.\nNo pamphlet, no book, ever kindled such a sudden conflagration,--a\npurifying flame, in which the prejudices and fears of millions were\nconsumed. To read it now, after the lapse of more than a hundred years,\nhastens the blood. It is but the meagre truth to say that Thomas Paine\ndid more for the cause of separation, to sow the seeds of independence,\nthan any other man of his time. Certainly we should not despise him for\nthis. The Declaration of Independence followed, and in that declaration\nwill be found not only the thoughts, but some of the expressions of\nThomas Paine.\n\nDuring the war, and in the very darkest hours, Paine wrote what is\ncalled \"The Crisis,\" a series of pamphlets giving from time to time\nhis opinion of events, and his prophecies. These marvelous publications\nproduced an effect nearly as great as the pamphlet \"Common Sense.\" These\nstrophes, written by the bivouac fires, had in them the soul of battle.\n\nIn all he wrote, Paine was direct and natural. He touched the very heart\nof the subject. He was not awed by names or titles, by place or power.\nHe never lost his regard for truth, for principle--never wavered in his\nallegiance to reason, to what he believed to be right. His arguments\nwere so lucid, so unanswerable, his comparisons and analogies so apt, so\nunexpected, that they excited the passionate admiration of friends\nand the unquenchable hatred of enemies. So great were these appeals to\npatriotism, to the love of liberty, the pride of independence, the glory\nof success, that it was said by some of the best and greatest of that\ntime that the American cause owed as much to the pen of Paine as to the\nsword of Washington.\n\nOn the 2d day of November, 1779, there was introduced into the Assembly\nof Pennsylvania an act for the abolition of slavery. The preamble was\nwritten by Thomas Paine. To him belongs the honor and glory of having\nwritten the first Proclamation of Emancipation in America--Paine the\nfirst, Lincoln the last.\n\nPaine, of all others, succeeded in getting aid for the struggling\ncolonies from France. \"According to Lamartine, the King, Louis XVI.,\nloaded Paine with favors, and a gift of six millions was confided into\nthe hands of Franklin and Paine. On the 25th of August, 1781, Paine\nreached Boston bringing two million five hundred thousand livres in\nsilver, and in convoy a ship laden with clothing and military stores.\"\n\n\"In November, 1779, Paine was elected clerk to the General Assembly\nof Pennsylvania. In 1780, the Assembly received a letter from General\nWashington in the field, saying that he feared the distresses in the\narmy would lead to mutiny in the ranks. This letter was read by Paine to\nthe Assembly. He immediately wrote to Blair McClenaghan, a Philadelphia\nmerchant, explaining the urgency, and inclosing five hundred dollars,\nthe amount of salary due him as clerk, as his contribution towards\na relief fund. The merchant called a meeting the next day, and read\nPaine's letter. A subscription list was immediately circulated, and in\na short time about one million five hundred thousand dollars was raised.\nWith this capital the Pennsylvania bank--afterwards the bank of North\nAmerica--was established for the relief of the army.\"\n\nIn 1783 \"Paine wrote a memorial to Chancellor Livingston, Secretary of\nForeign Affairs, Robert Morris, Minister of Finance, and his assistant,\nurging the necessity of adding a Continental Legislature to Congress, to\nbe elected by the several States. Robert Morris invited the Chancellor\nand a number of eminent men to meet Paine at dinner, where his plea\nfor a stronger Union was discussed and approved. This was probably the\nearliest of a series of consultations preliminary to the Constitutional\nConvention.\"\n\n\"On the 19th of April, 1783, it being the eighth anniversary of the\nBattle of Lexington, Paine printed a little pamphlet entitled 'Thoughts\non Peace and the Probable Advantages Thereof.'\" In this pamphlet\nhe pleads for \"a supreme Nationality absorbing all cherished\nsovereignties.\" Mr. Conway calls this pamphlet Paine's \"Farewell\nAddress,\" and gives the following extract:\n\n\"It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force with\nwhich it struck my mind, and the dangerous condition in which\nthe country was in, by courting an impossible and an unnatural\nreconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of\nstriking out into the only line that could save her,--a Declaration\nof Independence.--made it impossible for me, feeling as I did, to be\nsilent; and if, in the course of more than seven years, I have rendered\nher any service, I have likewise added something to the reputation of\nliterature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in the great\ncause of mankind.... But as the scenes of war are closed, and every\nman preparing for home and happier times, I therefore take leave of the\nsubject. I have most sincerely followed it from beginning to end, and\nthrough all its turns and windings; and whatever country I may hereafter\nbe in, I shall always feel an honest pride at the part I have taken and\nacted, and a gratitude to nature and providence for putting it in my\npower to be of some use to mankind.\"\n\nPaine had made some enemies, first, by attacking African slavery, and,\nsecond, by insisting upon the sovereignty of the Nation.\n\nDuring the Revolution our forefathers, in order to justify making war\non Great Britain, were compelled to take the ground that all men are\nentitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In no other way\ncould they justify their action. After the war, the meaner instincts\nbegan to take possession of the mind, and those who had fought for\ntheir own liberty were perfectly willing to enslave others. We must\nalso remember that the Revolution was begun and carried on by a noble\nminority--that the majority were really in favor of Great Britain and\ndid what they dared to prevent the success of the American cause. The\nminority, however, had control of affairs. They were active, energetic,\nenthusiastic, and courageous, and the majority were overawed, shamed,\nand suppressed. But when peace came, the majority asserted themselves\nand the interests of trade and commerce were consulted. Enthusiasm\nslowly died, and patriotism was mingled with the selfishness of traffic.\n\nBut, after all, the enemies of Paine were few, the friends were many.\nHe had the respect and admiration of the greatest and the best, and was\nenjoying the fruits of his labor.\n\nThe Revolution was ended, the colonies were free. They had been united,\nthey formed a Nation, and the United States of America had a place on\nthe map of the world.\n\nPaine was not a politician. He had not labored for seven years to get an\noffice. His services were no longer needed in America. He concluded to\neducate the English people, to inform them of their rights, to expose\nthe pretences, follies and fallacies, the crimes and cruelties of\nnobles, kings, and parliaments. In the brain and heart of this man were\nthe dream and hope of the universal republic. He had confidence in the\npeople. He hated tyranny and war, despised the senseless pomp and vain\nshow of crowned robbers, laughed at titles, and the \"honorable\" badges\nworn by the obsequious and servile, by fawners and followers; loved\nliberty with all his heart, and bravely fought against those who could\ngive the rewards of place and gold, and for those who could pay only\nwith thanks.\n\nHoping to hasten the day of freedom, he wrote the \"Rights of Man\"--a\nbook that laid the foundation for all the real liberty that the English\nnow enjoy--a book that made known to Englishmen the Declaration of\nNature, and convinced millions that all are children of the same\nmother, entitled to share equally in her gifts. Every Englishman who\nhas outgrown the ideas of 1688 should remember Paine with love and\nreverence. Every Englishman who has sought to destroy abuses, to lessen\nor limit the prerogatives of the crown, to extend the suffrage, to do\naway with \"rotten boroughs,\" to take taxes from knowledge, to increase\nand protect the freedom of speech and the press, to do away with\nbribes under the name of pensions, and to make England a government of\nprinciples rather than of persons, has been compelled to adopt the creed\nand use the arguments of Thomas Paine. In England every step toward\nfreedom has been a triumph of Paine over Burke and Pitt. No man ever\nrendered a greater service to his native land.\n\nThe book called the \"Rights of Man\" was the greatest contribution that\nliterature had given to liberty. It rests on the bed-rock. No attention\nis paid to precedents except to show that they are wrong. Paine was not\nmisled by the proverbs that wolves had written for sheep. He had the\nintelligence to examine for himself, and the courage to publish his\nconclusions. As soon as the \"Rights of Man\" was published the Government\nwas alarmed. Every effort was made to suppress it. The author was\nindicted; those who published, and those who sold, were arrested and\nimprisoned. But the new gospel had been preached--a great man had shed\nlight--a new force had been born, and it was beyond the power of nobles\nand kings to undo what the author-hero had done.\n\nTo avoid arrest and probable death, Paine left England. He had sown with\nbrave hand the seeds of thought, and he knew that he had lighted a fire\nthat nothing could extinguish until England should be free.\n\nThe fame of Thomas Paine had reached France in many ways--principally\nthrough Lafayette. His services in America were well known. The pamphlet\n\"Common Sense\" had been published in French, and its effect had been\nimmense. \"The Rights of Man\" that had created, and was then creating,\nsuch a stir in England, was also known to the French. The lovers of\nliberty everywhere were the friends and admirers of Thomas Paine. In\nAmerica, England, Scotland, Ireland, and France he was known as the\ndefender of popular rights. He had preached a new gospel. He had given a\nnew Magna Charta to the people.\n\nSo popular was Paine in France that he was elected by three\nconstituencies to the National Convention. He chose to represent Calais.\nFrom the moment he entered French territory he was received with almost\nroyal honors. He at once stood with the foremost, and was welcomed\nby all enlightened patriots. As in America, so in France, he knew no\nidleness--he was an organizer and worker. The first thing he did was to\nfound the first Republican Society, and the next to write its Manifesto,\nin which the ground was taken that France did not need a king; that the\npeople should govern themselves. In this Manifesto was this argument:\n\n\"What kind of office must that be in a government which requires\nneither experience nor ability to execute? that may be abandoned to the\ndesperate chance of birth; that may be filled with an idiot, a madman,\na tyrant, with equal effect as with the good, the virtuous, the wise? An\noffice of this nature is a mere nonentity; it is a place of show, not of\nuse.\"\n\nHe said:\n\n\"I am not the personal enemy of kings. Quite the contrary. No man wishes\nmore heartily than myself to see them all in the happy and honorable\nstate of private individuals; but I am the avowed, open and intrepid\nenemy of what is called monarchy; and I am such by principles which\nnothing can either alter or corrupt, by my attachment to humanity, by\nthe anxiety which I feel within myself for the dignity and honor of the\nhuman race.\"\n\nOne of the grandest things done by Thomas Paine was his effort to save\nthe life of Louis XVI. The Convention was in favor of death. Paine was a\nforeigner. His career had caused some jealousies. He knew the danger he\nwas in--that the tiger was already crouching for a spring--but he\nwas true to his principles. He was opposed to the death penalty. He\nremembered that Louis XVI. had been the friend of America, and he very\ncheerfully risked his life, not only for the good of France, not only to\nsave the king, but to pay a debt of gratitude. He asked the Convention\nto exile the king to the United States. He asked this as a member of the\nConvention and as a citizen of the United States. As an American he felt\ngrateful not only to the king, but to every Frenchman. He, the adversary\nof all kings, asked the Convention to remember that kings were men, and\nsubject to human frailties. He took still another step, and said: \"As\nFrance has been the first of European nations to abolish royalty, let us\nalso be the first to abolish the punishment of death.\"\n\nEven after the death of Louis had been voted, Paine made another appeal.\nWith a courage born of the highest possible sense of duty he said:\n\n\"France has but one ally--the United States of America. That is the only\nnation that can furnish France with naval provisions, for the kingdoms\nof Northern Europe are, or soon will be, at war with her. It happens\nthat the person now under discussion is regarded in America as a\ndeliverer of their country. I can assure you that his execution will\nthere spread universal sorrow, and it is in your power not thus to wound\nthe feelings of your ally. Could I speak the French language I would\ndescend to your bar, and in their name become your petitioner to respite\nthe execution of your sentence on Louis. Ah, citizens, give not the\ntyrant of England the triumph of seeing the man perish on the scaffold\nwho helped my dear brothers of America to break his chains.\"\n\nThis was worthy of the man who had said: \"Where Liberty is _not_, there\nis my country.\"\n\nPaine was second on the committee to prepare the draft of a constitution\nfor France to be submitted to the Convention. He was the real author,\nnot only of the draft of the Constitution, but of the Declaration of\nRights.\n\nIn France, as in America, he took the lead. His first thoughts seemed\nto be first principles. He was clear because he was profound. People\nwithout ideas experience great difficulty in finding words to express\nthem.\n\nFrom the moment that Paine cast his vote in favor of mercy--in favor of\nlife--the shadow of the guillotine was upon him. He knew that when he\nvoted for the King's life, he voted for his own death. Paine remembered\nthat the king had been the friend of America, and to him ingratitude\nseemed the worst of crimes. He worked to destroy the monarch, not the\nman; the king, not the friend. He discharged his duty and accepted\ndeath. This was the heroism of goodness--the sublimity of devotion.\n\nBelieving that his life was near its close, he made up his mind to give\nto the world his thoughts concerning \"revealed religion.\" This he\nhad for some time intended to do, but other matters had claimed his\nattention. Feeling that there was no time to be lost, he wrote the first\npart of the \"Age of Reason,\" and gave the manuscript to Joel Barlow.\nSix hours after, he was arrested. The second part was written in prison\nwhile he was waiting for death.\n\nPaine clearly saw that men could not be really free, or defend the\nfreedom they had, unless they were free to think and speak. He knew that\nthe church was the enemy of liberty, that the altar and throne were in\npartnership, that they helped each other and divided the spoils.\n\nHe felt that, being a man, he had the right to examine the creeds and\nthe Scriptures for himself, and that, being an honest man, it was his\nduty and his privilege to tell his fellow-men the conclusions at which\nhe arrived.\n\nHe found that the creeds of all orthodox churches were absurd and cruel,\nand that the Bible was no better. Of course he found that there were\nsome good things in the creeds and in the Bible. These he defended, but\nthe infamous, the inhuman, he attacked.\n\nIn matters of religion he pursued the same course that he had in things\npolitical. He depended upon experience, and above all on reason. He\nrefused to extinguish the light in his own soul. He was true to himself,\nand gave to others his honest thoughts. He did not seek wealth, or\nplace, or fame. He sought the truth.\n\nHe had felt it to be his duty to attack the institution of slavery in\nAmerica, to raise his voice against dueling, to plead for the rights\nof woman, to excite pity for the sufferings of domestic animals,\nthe speechless friends of man; to plead the cause of separation, of\nindependence, of American nationality, to attack the abuses and crimes\nof mon-archs, to do what he could to give freedom to the world.\n\nHe thought it his duty to take another step. Kings asserted that they\nderived their power, their right to govern, from God. To this assertion\nPaine replied with the \"Rights of Man.\" Priests pretended that they were\nthe authorized agents of God. Paine replied with the \"Age of Reason.\"\n\nThis book is still a power, and will be as long as the absurdities\nand cruelties of the creeds and the Bible have defenders. The \"Age of\nReason\" affected the priests just as the \"Rights of Man\" affected nobles\nand kings. The kings answered the arguments of Paine with laws, the\npriests with lies. Kings appealed to force, priests to fraud. Mr. Conway\nhas written in regard to the \"Age of Reason\" the most impressive and the\nmost interesting chapter in his book.\n\nPaine contended for the rights of the individual,--tor the jurisdiction\nof the soul. Above all religions he placed Reason, above all kings, Men,\nand above all men, Law.\n\nThe first part of the \"Age of Reason\" was written in the shadow of a\nprison, the second part in the gloom of death. From that shadow, from\nthat gloom, came a flood of light. This testament, by which the wealth\nof a marvelous brain, the love of a great and heroic heart were given to\nthe world, was written in the presence of the scaffold, when the writer\nbelieved he was giving his last message to his fellow-men.\n\nThe \"Age of Reason\" was his crime.\n\nFranklin, Jefferson, Sumner and Lincoln, the four greatest statesmen\nthat America has produced, were believers in the creed of Thomas Paine.\n\nThe Universalists and Unitarians have found their best weapons, their\nbest arguments, in the \"Age of Reason.\"\n\nSlowly, but surely, the churches are adopting not only the arguments,\nbut the opinions of the great Reformer.\n\nTheodore Parker attacked the Old Testament and Calvinistic theology\nwith the same weapons and with a bitterness excelled by no man who has\nexpressed his thoughts in our language.\n\nPaine was a century in advance of his time. If he were living now\nhis sympathy would be with Savage, Chadwick, Professor Briggs and the\n\"advanced theologians.\" He, too, would talk about the \"higher criticism\"\nand the latest definition of \"inspiration.\" These advanced thinkers\nsubstantially are repeating the \"Age of Reason.\" They still wear the\nold uniform--clinging to the toggery of theology--but inside of their\nreligious rags they agree with Thomas Paine.\n\nNot one argument that Paine urged against the inspiration of the Bible,\nagainst the truth of miracles, against the barbarities and infamies of\nthe Old Testament, against the pretensions of priests and the claims of\nkings, has ever been answered.\n\nHis arguments in favor of the existence of what he was pleased to call\nthe God of Nature were as weak as those of all Theists have been. But\nin all the affairs of this world, his clearness of vision, lucidity\nof expression, cogency of argument, aptness of comparison, power\nof statement and comprehension of the subject in hand, with all its\nbearings and consequences, have rarely, if ever, been excelled.\n\nHe had no reverence for mistakes because they were old. He did not\nadmire the castles of Feudalism even when they were covered with ivy. He\nnot only said that the Bible was not inspired, but he demonstrated that\nit could not all be true. This was \"brutal.\" He presented arguments so\nstrong, so clear, so convincing, that they could not be answered. This\nwas \"vulgar.\"\n\nHe stood for liberty against kings, for humanity against creeds and\ngods. This was \"cowardly and low.\" He gave his life to free and civilize\nhis fellow-men. This was \"infamous.\"\n\nPaine was arrested and imprisoned in December, 1793. He was, to say the\nleast, neglected by Gouverneur Morris and Washington. He was released\nthrough the efforts of James Monroe, in November, 1794. He was called\nback to the Convention, but too late to be of use. As most of the actors\nhad suffered death, the tragedy was about over and the curtain was\nfalling. Paine remained in Paris until the \"Reign of Terror\" was ended\nand that of the Corsican tyrant had commenced.\n\nPaine came back to America hoping to spend the remainder of his life\nsurrounded by those for whose happiness and freedom he had labored so\nmany years. He expected to be rewarded with the love and reverence of\nthe American people.\n\nIn 1794 James Monroe had written to Paine these words:\n\n\"It is unnecessary for me to tell you how much all your countrymen, I\nspeak of the great mass of the people, are interested in your welfare.\nThey have not forgot the history of their own Revolution and the\ndifficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review its\nseveral stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of the\nmerits of those who served them in that great and arduous conflict. The\ncrime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I hope never will stain,\nour national character. You are considered by them as not only having\nrendered important services in our own Revolution, but as being on a\nmore extensive scale the friend of human rights and a distinguished and\nable advocate of public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine we are\nnot and cannot be indifferent.\"\n\nIn the same year Mr. Monroe wrote a letter to the Committee of General\nSafety, asking for the release of Mr. Paine, in which, among other\nthings, he said:\n\n\"The services Thomas Paine rendered to his country in its struggle\nfor freedom have implanted in the hearts of his countrymen a sense of\ngratitude never to be effaced as long as they shall deserve the title of\na just and generous people.\"\n\nOn reaching America, Paine found that the sense of gratitude had been\neffaced. He found that the Federalists hated him with all their hearts\nbecause he believed in the rights of the people and was still true\nto the splendid principles advocated during the darkest days of the\nRevolution. In almost every pulpit he found a malignant and implacable\nfoe, and the pews were filled with his enemies. The slaveholders\nhated him. He was held responsible even for the crimes of the French\nRevolution. He was regarded as a blasphemer, an Atheist, an enemy of God\nand man. The ignorant citizens of Bordentown, as cowardly as orthodox,\nlonged to mob the author of \"Common Sense\" and \"The Crisis.\" They\nthought he had sold himself to the Devil because he had defended God\nagainst the slanderous charges that he had inspired the writers of the\nBible--because he had said that a being of infinite goodness and purity\ndid not establish slavery and polygamy.\n\nPaine had insisted that men had the right to think for themselves. This\nso enraged the average American citizen that he longed for revenge.\n\nIn 1802 the people of the United States had exceedingly crude ideas\nabout the liberty of thought and expression Neither had they any\nconception of religious freedom. Their highest thought on that subject\nwas expressed by the word \"toleration,\" and even this toleration\nextended only to the various Christian sects. Even the vaunted religious\nliberty of colonial Maryland was only to the effect that one kind of\nChristian should not fine, imprison and kill another kind of Christian,\nbut all kinds of Christians had the right, and it was their duty, to\nbrand, imprison and kill Infidels of every kind.\n\nPaine had been guilty of thinking for himself and giving his conclusions\nto the world without having asked the consent of a priest--just as he\nhad published his political opinions without leave of the king. He had\npublished his thoughts on religion and had appealed to reason--to the\nlight in every mind, to the humanity, the pity, the goodness which he\nbelieved to be in every heart. He denied the right of kings to make laws\nand of priests to make creeds. He insisted that the people should make\nlaws, and that every human being should think for himself. While some\nbelieved in the freedom of religion, he believed in the religion of\nfreedom.\n\nIf Paine had been a hypocrite, if he had concealed his opinions, if he\nhad defended slavery with quotations from the \"sacred Scriptures\"--if\nhe had cared nothing for the liberties of men in other lands--if he had\nsaid that the state could not live without the church--if he had sought\nfor place instead of truth, he would have won wealth and power, and his\nbrow would have been crowned with the laurel of fame.\n\nHe made what the pious call the \"mistake\" of being true to himself--of\nliving with an unstained soul. He had lived and labored for the people.\nThe people were untrue' to him. They returned evil for good, hatred for\nbenefits received, and yet this great chivalric soul remembered their\nignorance and loved them with all his heart, and fought their oppressors\nwith all his strength.\n\nWe must remember what the churches and creeds were in that day, what the\ntheologians really taught, and what the people believed. To save a few\nin spite of their vices, and to damn the many without regard to their\nvirtues, and all for the glory of the Damner:--_this was Calvinism_. \"He\nthat hath ears to hear, let him hear,\" but he that hath a brain to think\nmust not think. He that believeth without evidence is good, and he that\nbelieveth in spite of evidence is a saint. Only the wicked doubt, only\nthe blasphemer denies. _This was orthodox Christianity_.\n\nThomas Paine had the courage, the sense, the heart, to denounce these\nhorrors, these absurdities, these infinite infamies. He did what he\ncould to drive these theological vipers, these Calvinistic cobras, these\nfanged and hissing serpents of superstition from the heart of man.\n\nA few civilized men agreed with him then, and the world has progressed\nsince 1809. Intellectual wealth has accumulated; vast mental estates\nhave been left to the world. Geologists have forced secrets from the\nrocks, astronomers from the stars, historians from old records and lost\nlanguages. In every direction the thinker and the investigator have\nventured and explored, and even the pews have begun to ask questions of\nthe pulpits. Humboldt has lived, and Darwin and Haeckel and Huxley, and\nthe armies led by them, have changed the thought of the world.\n\nThe churches of 1809 could not be the friends of Thomas Paine. No church\nasserting that belief is necessary to salvation ever was, or ever will\nbe, the champion of true liberty. A church founded on slavery--that\nis to say, on blind obedience, worshiping irresponsible and arbitrary\npower, must of necessity be the enemy of human freedom.\n\nThe orthodox churches are now anxious to save the little that Paine left\nof their creed. If one now believes in God, and lends a little financial\naid, he is considered a good and desirable member. He need not define\nGod after the manner of the catechism. He may talk about a \"Power that\nworks for righteousness,\" or the tortoise Truth that beats the rabbit\nLie in the long run, or the \"Unknowable,\" or the \"Unconditioned,\" or\nthe \"Cosmic Force,\" or the \"Ultimate Atom,\" or \"Protoplasm,\" or the\n\"What\"--provided he begins this word with a capital.\n\nWe must also remember that there is a difference between independence\nand liberty. Millions have fought for independence--to throw off some\nforeign yoke--and yet were at heart the enemies of true liberty. A man\nin jail, sighing to be free, may be said to be in favor of liberty, but\nnot from principle; but a man who, being free, risks or gives his life\nto free the enslaved, is a true soldier of liberty.\n\nThomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of\nhis old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on\nevery side, execrated, shunned and abhorred--his virtues denounced as\nvices--his services forgotten--his character blackened, he preserved the\npoise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his\nconvictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army\nof freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were\nimpatiently waiting for his death. Even those who loved their enemies\nhated him, their friend--the friend of the whole world--with all their\nhearts.\n\nOn the 8th of June, 1809, death came--Death, almost his only friend.\n\nAt his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military\ndisplay. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the\nbounty of the dead--On horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart\ndominated the creed of his head--and, following on foot, two negroes\nfilled with gratitude--constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine.\n\nHe who had received the gratitude of many millions, the thanks of\ngenerals and statesmen--he who had been the friend and companion of the\nwisest and best--he who had taught a people to be free, and whose words\nhad inspired armies and enlightened nations, was thus given back to\nNature, the mother of us all.\n\nIf the people of the great Republic knew the life of this generous, this\nchivalric man, the real story of his services, his sufferings and his\ntriumphs--of what he did to compel the robed and crowned, the priests\nand kings, to give back to the people liberty, the jewel of the soul; if\nthey knew that he was the first to write, \"The Religion of Humanity\";\nif they knew that he, above all others, planted and watered the seeds\nof independence, of union, of nationality, in the hearts of our\nforefathers--that his words were gladly repeated by the best and bravest\nin many lands; if they knew that he attempted, by the purest means, to\nattain the noblest and loftiest ends--that he was original, sincere,\nintrepid, and that he could truthfully say: \"The world is my country, to\ndo good my religion\"--if the people only knew all this--the truth--they\nwould repeat the words of Andrew Jackson: \"Thomas Paine needs no\nmonument made with hands; he has erected a monument in the hearts of all\nlovers of liberty.\"--North American Review, August, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nTHE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.\n\n     \"Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail,\n     And say there is no sin but to be rich.\"\n\n\nMR. A. lived in the kingdom of--------. He was a sincere professional\nphilanthropist. He was absolutely certain that he loved his fellow-men,\nand that his views were humane and scientific. He concluded to turn his\nattention to taking care of people less fortunate than himself.\n\nWith this object in view he investigated the common people that lived\nabout him, and he found that they were extremely ignorant, that many of\nthem seemed to take no particular interest in life or in business, that\nfew of them had any theories of their own, and that, while many had\nmuscle, there was only now and then one who had any mind worth speaking\nof. Nearly all of them were destitute of ambition. They were satisfied\nif they got something to eat, a place to sleep, and could now and\nthen indulge in some form of dissipation. They seemed to have great\nconfidence in to-morrow--trusted to luck, and took no thought for the\nfuture. Many of them were extravagant, most of them dissipated, and a\ngood many dishonest.\n\nMr. A. found that many of the husbands not only failed to support their\nfamilies, but that some of them lived on the labor of their wives; that\nmany of the wives were careless of their obligations, knew nothing about\nthe art of cooking; nothing about keeping house; and that parents, as a\ngeneral thing, neglected their children or treated them with cruelty. He\nalso found that many of the people were so shiftless that they died of\nwant and exposure.\n\nAfter having obtained this information Mr. A. made up his mind to do\nwhat little he could to better their condition. He petitioned the king\nto assist him, and asked that he be allowed to take control of five\nhundred people in consideration that he would pay a certain amount into\nthe treasury of the kingdom. The king being satisfied that Mr. A.\ncould take care of these people better than they were taking care of\nthemselves, granted the petition.\n\nMr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took these people from\ntheir old homes and haunts to a plantation of his own. He divided\nthem into groups, and over each group placed a superintendent. He\nmade certain rules and regulations for their conduct. They were only\ncompelled to work from twelve to fourteen hours a day, leaving ten hours\nfor sleep and recreation. Good and substantial food was provided. Their\nhouses were comfortable and their clothing sufficient. Their work was\nlaid out from day to day and from month to month, so that they knew\nexactly what they were to do in each hour of every day. These rules\nwere made for the good of the people, to the end that they might not\ninterfere with each other, that they might attend to their duties, and\nenjoy themselves in a reasonable way. They were not allowed to waste\ntheir time, or to use stimulants or profane language. They were told to\nbe respectful to the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A.; to be\nobedient, and, above all, to accept the position in which Providence had\nplaced them, without complaining, and to cheerfully perform their tasks.\n\nMr. A. had found out all that the five hundred persons had earned the\nyear before they were taken control of by him--just how much they had\nadded to the wealth of the world. He had statistics taken for the\nyear before with great care showing the number of deaths, the cases of\nsickness and of destitution, the number who had committed suicide, how\nmany had been convicted of crimes and misdemeanors, how many days they\nhad been idle, and how much time and money they had spent in drink and\nfor worthless amusements.\n\nDuring the first year of their enslavement he kept like statistics. He\nfound that they had earned several times as much; that there had been no\ncases of destitution, no drunkenness; that no crimes had been committed;\nthat there had been but little sickness, owing to the regular course\nof their lives; that few had been guilty of misdemeanors, owing to\nthe certainty of punishment; and that they had been so watched and\nsuperintended that for the most part they had traveled the highway of\nvirtue and industry.\n\nMr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride showed these\nstatistics to his friends. He not only demonstrated that the five\nhundred people were better off than they had been before, but that his\nown income was very largely increased. He congratulated himself that he\nhad added to the well-being of these people not only, but had laid the\nfoundation of a great fortune for himself. On these facts and these\nfigures he claimed not only to be a philanthropist, but a philosopher;\nand all the people who had a mind to go into the same business agreed\nwith him.\n\nSome denounced the entire proceeding as unwarranted, as contrary to\nreason and justice. These insisted that the five hundred people had\na right to live in their own way provided they did not interfere with\nothers; that they had the right to go through the world with little food\nand with poor clothes, and to live in huts, if such was their choice.\nBut Mr. A. had no trouble in answering these objectors. He insisted\nthat well-being is the only good, and that every human being is under\nobligation, not only to take care of himself, but to do what little\nhe can towards taking care of others; that where five hundred people\nneglect to take care of themselves, it is the duty of somebody else, who\nhas more intelligence and more means, to take care of them; that the man\nwho takes five hundred people and improves their condition, gives\nthem on the average better food, better clothes, and keeps them out of\nmischief, is a benefactor.\n\n\"These people,\" said Mr. A., \"were tried. They were found incapable of\ntaking care of themselves. They lacked intelligence or will or honesty\nor industry or ambition or something, so that in the struggle for\nexistence they fell behind, became stragglers, dropped by the wayside,\ndied in gutters; while many were destined to end their days either in\ndungeons or on scaffolds. Besides all this, they were a nuisance to\ntheir prosperous fellow-citizens, a perpetual menace to the peace of\nsociety. They increased the burden of taxation; they filled the ranks\nof the criminal classes, they made it necessary to build more jails, to\nemploy more policemen and judges; so that I, by enslaving them, not\nonly assisted them, not only protected them against themselves, not only\nbettered their condition, not only added to the well-being of-society at\nlarge, but greatly increased my own fortune.\"\n\nMr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by giving him superior\nintelligence, the genius of command, the aptitude for taking charge\nof others, had made it his duty to exercise these faculties for the\nwell-being of the people and for the glory of God. Mr. A. frequently\ndeclared that he was God's steward. He often said he thanked God that he\nwas not governed by a sickly sentiment, but that he was a man of sense,\nof judgment, of force of character, and that the means employeed by him\nwere in accordance with the logic of facts.\n\nSome of the people thus enslaved objected, saying that they had the same\nright to control themselves that Mr. A. had to control himself. But it\nonly required a little discipline to satisfy them that they were wrong.\nSome of the people were quite happy, and declared that nothing gave them\nsuch perfect contentment as the absence of all responsibility. Mr. A.\ninsisted that all men had not been endowed with the same capacity; that\nthe weak ought to be cared for by the strong; that such was evidently\nthe design of the Creator, and that he intended to do what little he\ncould to carry that design into effect.\n\nMr. A. was very successful. In a few years he had several thousands of\nmen, women, and children working for him. He amassed a large fortune.\nHe felt that he had been intrusted with this money by Providence. He\ntherefore built several churches, and once in a while gave large sums to\nsocieties for the spread of civilization. He passed away regretted by a\ngreat many people--not including those who had lived under his immediate\nadministration. He was buried with great pomp, the king being one of the\npall-bearers, and on his tomb was this:\n\nHE WAS THE PROVIDENCE OF THE POOR.\n\n\nII.\n\n     \"And, being rich, my virtue then shall be\n     To say there is no vice but beggary.\"\n\nMr. B. did not believe in slavery. He despised the institution with\nevery drop of his blood, and was an advocate of universal freedom. He\nheld all the ideas of Mr. A. in supreme contempt, and frequently spent\nwhole evenings in denouncing the inhumanity and injustice of the whole\nbusiness. He even went so far as to contend that many of A.'s slaves had\nmore intelligence than A. himself, and that, whether they had\nintelligence or not, they had the right to be free. He insisted that Mr.\nA.'s philanthropy was a sham; that he never bought a human being for the\npurpose of bettering that being's condition; that he went into the\nbusiness simply to make money for himself; and that his talk about his\nslaves committing less crime than when they were free was simply to\njustify the crime committed by himself in enslaving his fellow-men.\n\nMr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employeed some five or six thousand\nmen. He used to say that these men were not forced to work for him; that\nthey were at perfect liberty to accept or reject the terms; that, so far\nas he was concerned, he would just as soon commit larceny or robbery as\nto force a man to work for him. \"Every laborer under my roof,\" he used\nto say, \"is as free to choose as I am.\"\n\nMr B. believed in absolutely free trade; thought it an outrage to\ninterfere with the free interplay of forces; said that every man should\nbuy, or at least have the privilege of buying, where he could buy\ncheapest, and should have the privilege of selling where he could get\nthe most. He insisted that a man who has labor to sell has the right to\nsell it to the best advantage, and that the purchaser has the right to\nbuy it at the lowest price. He did not enslave men--he hired them. Some\nsaid that he took advantage of their necessities; but he answered\nthat he created no necessities, that he was not responsible for their\ncondition, that he did not make them poor, that he found them poor and\ngave them work, and gave them the same wages that he could employ others\nfor. He insisted that he was absolutely just to all; he did not give one\nman more than another, and he never refused to employ a man on account\nof the man's religion or politics; all that he did was simply to employ\nthat man if the man wished to be employed, and give him the wages, no\nmore and no less, that some other man of like capacity was willing to\nwork for.\n\nMr. B. also said that the price of the article manufactured by him\nfixed the wages of the persons employed, and that he, Mr. B., was not\nresponsible for the price of the article he manufactured; consequently\nhe was not responsible for the wages of the workmen. He agreed to pay\nthem a certain price, he taking the risk of selling his articles, and he\npaid them regularly just on the day he agreed to pay them, and if they\nwere not satisfied with the wages, they were at perfect liberty to\nleave. One of his private sayings was: \"The poor ye have always with\nyou.\" And from this he argued that some men were made poor so that\nothers could be generous. \"Take poverty and suffering from the world,\"\nhe said, \"and you destroy sympathy and generosity.\"\n\nMr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of his workmen complained\nthat their wages did not allow them to live in comfort. Many had large\nfamilies, and therefore but little to eat. Some of them lived in crowded\nrooms. Many of the children were carried off by disease; but Mr. B. took\nthe ground that all these people had the right to go, that he did not\nforce them to remain, that if they were not healthy it was not his\nfault, and that whenever it pleased Providence to remove a child, or one\nof the parents, he, Mr. B., was not responsible.\n\nMr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were extravagant; that they\nbought things that they did not need; that they wasted in beer and\ntobacco, money that they should save for funerals; that many of them\nvisited places of amusement when they should have been thinking about\ndeath, and that others bought toys to please the children when\nthey hardly had bread enough to eat. He felt that he was in no way\naccountable for this extravagance, nor for the fact that their wages did\nnot give them the necessaries of life, because he not only gave them the\nsame wages that other manufacturers gave, but the same wages that other\nworkmen were willing to work for.\n\nMr. B. said,--and he always said this as though it ended the\nargument,--and he generally stood up to say it: \"The great law of supply\nand demand is of divine origin; it is the only law that will work in\nall possible or conceivable cases; and this law fixes the price of all\nlabor, and from it there is no appeal. If people are not satisfied\nwith the operation of the law, then let them make a new world for\nthemselves.\"\n\nSome of Mr. B.'s friends reported that on several occasions, forgetting\nwhat he had said on others, he did declare that his confidence was\nsomewhat weakened in the law of supply and demand; but this was only\nwhen there seemed to be an over-production of the things he was engaged\nin manufacturing, and at such times he seemed to doubt the absolute\nequity of the great law.\n\nMr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A., because when his workmen\ngot old he did not have to care for them, when they were sick he paid no\ndoctors, and when their children died he bought no coffins. In this way\nhe was relieved of a large part of the expenses that had to be borne by\nMr. A. When his workmen became too old, they were sent to the poorhouse;\nwhen they were sick, they were assisted by charitable societies; and\nwhen they died, they were buried by pity.\n\nIn a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many millions. He also considered\nhimself as one of God's stewards; felt that Providence had given him the\nintelligence to combine interests, to carry out great schemes, and\nthat he was specially raised up to give employment to many thousands\nof people. He often regretted that he could do no more for his laborers\nwithout lessening his own profits, or, rather, without lessening his\nfund for the blessing of mankind--the blessing to begin immediately\nafter his death. He was so anxious to be the providence of posterity\nthat he was sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with\ncontemporaries. He felt that it was necessary for him to be economical,\nto save every dollar that he could, because in this way he could\nincrease the fund that was finally to bless mankind. He also felt that\nin this way he could lay the foundations of a permanent fame--that\nhe could build, through his executors, an asylum to be called the \"B.\nAsylum,\" that he could fill a building with books to be called the\n\"B. Library,\" and that he could also build and endow an institution of\nlearning to be called the \"B. College,\" and that, in addition, a\nlarge amount of money could be given for the purpose of civilizing the\ncitizens of less fortunate countries, to the end that they might become\nimbued with that spirit of combination and manufacture that results in\nputting large fortunes in the hands of those who have been selected by\nProvidence, on account of their talents, to make a better distribution\nof wealth than those who earned it could have done.\n\nMr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure such legislation as\nwould protect him from foreign competition. He did not believe the law\nof supply and demand would work when interfered with by manufacturers\nliving in other countries.\n\nMr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He had what is called a\nlevel head, was not easily turned aside from his purpose, and felt that\nhe was in accord with the general sentiment of his time. By his own\nexertions he rose from poverty to wealth. He was born in a hut and died\nin a palace. He was a patron of art and enriched his walls with the\nworks of the masters. He insisted that others could and should follow\nhis example. For those who failed or refused he had no sympathy. He\naccounted for their poverty and wretchedness by saying: \"These paupers\nhave only themselves to blame.\" He died without ever having lost a\ndollar. His funeral was magnificent, and clergymen vied with each other\nin laudations of the dead. Over his dust rises a monument of marble with\nthe words:\n\nHE LIVED FOR OTHERS.\n\n\nIII\n\n     \"But there are men who steal, and vainly try\n     To gild the crime with pompous charity.\"\n\nThere was another man, Mr. C., who also had the genius for combination.\nHe understood the value of capital, the value of labor; knew exactly\nhow much could be done with machinery; understood the economy of things;\nknew how to do everything in the easiest and shortest way. And he, too,\nwas a manufacturer and had in his employ many thousands of men, women,\nand children. He was what is called a visionary, a sentimentalist,\nrather weak in his will, not very obstinate, had but little egotism; and\nit never occurred to him that he had been selected by Providence, or any\nsupernatural power, to divide the property of others. It did not seem\nto him that he had any right to take from other men their labor without\ngiving them a full equivalent. He felt that if he had more intelligence\nthan his fellow-men he ought to use that intelligence not only for his\nown good but for theirs; that he certainly ought not to use it for the\npurpose of gaining an advantage over those who were his intellectual\ninferiors. He used to say that a man strong intellectually had no more\nright to take advantage of a man weak intellectually than the physically\nstrong had to rob the physically weak.\n\nHe also insisted that we should not take advantage of each other's\nnecessities; that you should not ask a drowning man a greater price for\nlumber than you would if he stood on the shore; that if you took into\nconsideration the necessities of your fellow-man, it should be only to\nlessen the price of that which you would sell to him, not to increase\nit. He insisted that honest men do not take advantage of their fellows.\nHe was so weak that he had not perfect confidence in the great law\nof supply and demand as applied to flesh and blood. He took into\nconsideration another law of supply and demand; he knew that the\nworkingman had to be supplied with food, and that his nature demanded\nsomething to eat, a house to live in, clothes to wear.\n\nMr. C. used to think about this law of supply and demand as applicable\nto individuals. He found that men would work for exceedingly small wages\nwhen pressed for the necessaries of life; that under some circumstances\nthey would give their labor for half of what it was worth to the\nemployer, because they were in a position where they must do something\nfor wife or child. He concluded that he had no right to take advantage\nof the necessities of others, and that he should in the first place\nhonestly find what the work was worth to him, and then give to the man\nwho did the work that amount.\n\nOther manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substantially insane, while\nmost of his workmen looked upon him as an exceedingly good-natured\nman, without any particular genius for business. Mr. C., however,\ncared little about the opinions of others, so long as he maintained his\nrespect for himself.\n\nAt the end of the first year he found that he had made a large profit,\nand thereupon he divided this profit with the people who had earned\nit. Some of his friends said to him that he ought to endow some public\ninstitution; that there should be a college in his native town; but Mr.\nC. was of such a peculiar turn of mind that he thought justice ought\nto go before charity, and a little in front of egotism, and a desire\nto immortalize one's self. He said that it seemed to him that of all\npersons in the world entitled to this profit were the men who had earned\nit, the men who had made it by their labor, by days of actual toil. He\ninsisted that, as they had earned it, it was really theirs, and if it\nwas theirs, they should have it and should spend it in their own way.\nMr. C. was told that he would make the workmen in other factories\ndissatisfied, that other manufacturers would become his enemies, and\nthat his course would scandalize some of the greatest men who had\ndone so much for the civilization of the world and for the spread of\nintelligence. Mr. C. became extremely unpopular with men of talent, with\nthose who had a genius for business. He, however, pursued his way, and\ncarried on his business with the idea that the men who did the work were\nentitled to a fair share of the profits; that, after all, money was not\nas sacred as men, and that the law of supply and demand, as understood,\ndid not apply to flesh and blood.\n\nMr. C. said: \"I cannot be happy if those who work for me are defrauded.\nIf I feel I am taking what belongs to them, then my life becomes\nmiserable. To feel that I have done justice is one of the necessities of\nmy nature. I do not wish to establish colleges. I wish to establish\nno public institution. My desire is to enable those who work for me to\nestablish a few thousand homes for themselves. My ambition is to\nenable them to buy the books they really want to read. I do not wish to\nestablish a hospital, but I want to make it possible for my workmen\nto have the services of the best physicians--physicians of their own\nchoice.\n\n\"It is not for me to take their money and use it for the good of others\nor for my own glory. It is for me to give what they have earned to them.\nAfter I have given them the money that belongs to them, I can give them\nmy advice--I can tell them how I hope they will use it; and after I have\nadvised them, they will use it as they please. You cannot make great\nmen and great women by suppression. Slavery is not the school in\nwhich genius is born. Every human being must make his own mistakes for\nhimself, must learn for himself, must have his own experience; and if\nthe world improves, it must be from choice, not from force; and every\nman who does justice, who sets the example of fair dealing, hastens the\ncoming of universal honesty, of universal civilization.\"\n\nMr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent, honestly and\nfaithfully. When he died, there were at the funeral those who had worked\nfor him, their wives and their children. Their tears fell upon his\ngrave. They planted flowers and paid to him the tribute of their love.\nAbove his silent dust they erected a monument with this inscription:\n\nHE ALLOWED OTHERS TO LIVE FOR THEMSELVES.\n\nNorth American Review, December, 1831.\n\n\n\n\nSHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED?\n\n\nTHE average American, like the average man of any country, has but\nlittle imagination. People who speak a different language, or worship\nsome other god, or wear clothing unlike his own, are beyond the horizon\nof his sympathy. He cares but little or nothing for the sufferings or\nmisfortunes of those who are of a different complexion or of another\nrace. His imagination is not powerful enough to recognize the human\nbeing, in spite of peculiarities. Instead of this he looks upon every\ndifference as an evidence of inferiority, and for the inferior he has\nbut little if any feeling. If these \"inferior people\" claim equal\nrights he feels insulted, and for the purpose of establishing his own\nsuperiority tramples on the rights of the so-called inferior.\n\nIn our own country the native has always considered himself as much\nbetter than the immigrant, and as far superior to all people of a\ndifferent complexion. At one time our people hated the Irish, then the\nGermans, then the Italians, and now the Chinese. The Irish and Germans,\nhowever, became numerous. They became citizens, and, most important of\nall, they had votes. They combined, became powerful, and the political\nparties sought their aid. They had something to give in exchange for\nprotection--in exchange for political rights. In consequence of this\nthey were flattered by candidates, praised by the political press, and\nbecame powerful enough not only to protect themselves, but at last to\ngovern the principal cities in the United States. As a matter of fact\nthe Irish and the Germans drove the native Americans out of the trades\nand from the lower forms of labor. They built the railways and canals.\nThey became servants. Afterward the Irish and the Germans were driven\nfrom the canals and railways by the Italians.\n\nThe Irish and Germans improved their condition. They went into other\nbusinesses, into the higher and more lucrative trades. They entered\nthe professions, turned their attention to politics, became merchants,\nbrokers, and professors in colleges. They are not now building railroads\nor digging on public works. They are contractors, legislators, holders\nof office, and the Italians and Chinese are doing the old work.\n\nIf matters had been allowed to work in a natural way, without the\ninterference of mobs or legislators, the Chinese would have driven the\nItalians to better employments, and all menial labor would, in time, be\ndone by the Mongolians.\n\nIn olden times each nation hated all others. This was considered natural\nand patriotic. Spain, after many centuries of war, expelled the Moors,\nthen the Moriscoes, and then the Jews. And Spain, in the name of\nreligion and patriotism, succeeded in driving from its territory its\nindustry, its taste and its intelligence, and by these mistakes became\npoor, ignorant and weak. France started on the same path when the\nHuguenots were expelled, and even England at one time deported the Jews.\nIn those days a difference of race or religion was sufficient to justify\nany absurdity and any cruelty.\n\nIn our country, as a matter of fact, there is but little prejudice\nagainst emigrants coming from Europe, except among naturalized citizens;\nbut nearly all foreign-born citizens are united in their prejudice\nagainst the Chinese.\n\nThe truth is that the Chinese came to this country by invitation. Under\nthe Burlingame Treaty, China and the United States recognized:\n\n\"The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and\nallegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and\nemigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country\nto the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent\nresidents.\"\n\nAnd it was provided:\n\n\"That the citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China\nand Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States should\nreciprocally enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions, in\nrespect to travel or residence, as shall be enjoyed by the citizens or\nsubjects of the most favored nation, in the country in which they shall\nrespectively be visiting or residing.\"\n\nSo, by the treaty of 1880, providing for the limitation or suspension of\nemigration of Chinese labor, it was declared:\n\n\"That the limitation or suspension should apply only to Chinese who\nemigrated to the United States as laborers; but that Chinese laborers\nwho were then in the United States should be allowed to go and come of\ntheir own free will and should be accorded all the rights, privileges,\nimmunities and exemptions, which were accorded to the citizens and\nsubjects of the most favored nations.\"\n\nIt will thus be seen that all Chinese laborers who came to this country\nprior to the treaty of 1880 were to be treated the same as the citizens\nand subjects of the most favored nation; that is to say, they were to be\nprotected by our laws the same as we protect our own citizens.\n\nThese Chinese laborers are inoffensive, peaceable and law-abiding.\nThey are honest, keeping their contracts, doing as they agree. They\nare exceedingly industrious, always ready to work and always giving\nsatisfaction to their employers. They do not interfere with other\npeople. They cannot become citizens. They have no voice in the making or\nthe execution of the laws. They attend to their own business. They have\ntheir own ideas, customs, religion and ceremonies--about as foolish as\nour own; but they do not try to make converts or to force their dogmas\non others. They are patient, uncomplaining, stoical and philosophical.\nThey earn what they can, giving reasonable value for the money they\nreceive, and as a rule, when they have amassed a few thousand dollars,\nthey go back to their own country. They do not interfere with our\nideas, our ways or customs. They are silent workers, toiling without any\nobject, except to do their work and get their pay. They do not establish\nsaloons and run for Congress. Neither do they combine for the purpose\nof governing others. Of all the people on our soil they are the least\nmeddlesome. Some of them smoke opium, but the opium-smoker does not beat\nhis wife. Some of them play games of chance, but they are not members of\nthe Stock Exchange. They eat the bread that they earn; they neither beg\nnor steal, but they are of no use to parties or politicians except as\nthey become fuel to supply the flame of prejudice. They are not citizens\nand they cannot vote. Their employers are about the only friends they\nhave.\n\nIn the Pacific States the lowest became their enemies and asked for\ntheir expulsion. They denounced the Chinese and those who gave\nthem work. The patient followers of Confucius were treated as\noutcasts--stoned by boys in the streets and mobbed by the fathers. Few\nseemed to have any respect for their rights or their feelings. They were\nunlike us. They wore different clothes. They dressed their hair in\na peculiar way, and therefore they were beyond our sympathies. These\nideas, these practices, demoralized many communities; the laboring\npeople became cruel and the small politicians infamous.\n\nWhen the rights of even one human being are held in contempt the rights\nof all are in danger. We cannot destroy the liberties of others without\nlosing our own. By exciting the prejudices of the ignorant we at last\nproduce a contempt for law and justice, and sow the seeds of violence\nand crime.\n\nBoth of the great political parties pandered to the leaders of the\ncrusade against the Chinese for the sake of electoral votes, and in the\nPacific States the friends of the Chinese were forced to keep still\nor to publicly speak contrary to their convictions. The orators of\nthe \"Sand Lots\" were in power, and the policy of the whole country was\ndictated by the most ignorant and prejudiced of our citizens. Both\nof the great parties ratified the outrages committed by the mobs, and\nproceeded with alacrity to violate the treaties and solemn obligations\nof the Government. These treaties were violated, these obligations were\ndenied, and thousands of Chinamen were deprived of their rights, of\ntheir property, and hundreds were maimed or murdered. They were driven\nfrom their homes. They were hunted like wild beasts. All this was done\nin a country that sends missionaries to China to tell the benighted\nsavages of the blessed religion of the United States.\n\nAt first a demand was made that the Chinese should be driven out, then\nthat no others should be allowed to come, and laws with these objects in\nview were passed, in spite of the treaties, preventing the coming of any\nmore. For a time that satisfied the haters of the Mongolian. Then came\na demand for more stringent legislation, so that many of the Chinese\nalready here could be compelled to leave. The answer or response to this\ndemand is what is known as the Geary Law.\n\nBy this act it is provided, among other things, that any Chinaman\nconvicted of not being lawfully in the country shall be removed to\nChina, after having been imprisoned at hard labor for not exceeding one\nyear. This law also does away with bail on _habeas corpus_, proceedings\nwhere the right to land has been denied to a Chinaman. It also compels\nall Chinese laborers to obtain, within one year after the passage of the\nlaw, certificates of residence from the revenue collectors, and if found\nwithout such certificate they shall be held to be unlawfully in the\nUnited States.\n\nIt is further provided that if a Chinaman claims that he failed to get\nsuch certificate by \"accident, sickness or other unavoidable cause,\"\nthen he must clearly establish such claim to the satisfaction of the\njudge \"by at least one credible white witness.\"\n\nIf we were at war with China then we might legally consider every\nChinaman as an enemy, but we were and are at peace with that country.\nThe Geary Act was passed by Congress and signed by the President simply\nfor the sake of votes. The Democrats in Congress voted for it to save\nthe Pacific States to the Democratic column; and a Republican President\nsigned it so that the Pacific States should vote the Republican ticket.\nPrinciple was forgotten, or rather it was sacrificed, in the hope of\npolitical success. It was then known, as now, that China is a peaceful\nnation, that it does not believe in war as a remedy, that it relies\non negotiation and treaty. It is also known that the Chinese in\nthis country were helpless, without friends, without power to defend\nthemselves. It is possible that many members of Congress voted in\nfavor of the Act believing that the Supreme Court would hold it\nunconstitutional, and that in the meantime it might be politically\nuseful.\n\nThe idea of imprisoning a man at hard labor for a year, and this man\na citizen of a friendly nation, for the crime of being found in this\ncountry without a certificate of residence, must be abhorrent to the\nmind of every enlightened man. Such punishment for such an \"offence\" is\nbarbarous and belongs to the earliest times of which we know. This law\nmakes industry a crime and puts one who works for his bread on a level\nwith thieves and the lowest criminals, treats him as a felon, and\nclothes him in the stripes of a convict,--and all this is done at the\ndemand of the ignorant, of the prejudiced, of the heartless, and because\nthe Chinese are not voters and have no political power.\n\nThe Chinese are not driven away because there is no room for them. Our\ncountry is not crowded. There are many millions of acres waiting for\nthe plow. There is plenty of room here under our flag for five hundred\nmillions of people. These Chinese that we wish to oppress and imprison\nare people who understand the art of irrigation. They can redeem the\ndeserts. They are the best of gardeners. They are modest and willing to\noccupy the lowest seats. They only ask to be day-laborers, washers and\nironers. They are willing to sweep and scrub. They are good cooks. They\ncan clear lands and build railroads. They do not ask to be masters--they\nwish only to serve. In every capacity they are faithful; but in this\ncountry their virtues have made enemies, and they are hated because of\ntheir patience, their honesty and their industry.\n\nThe Geary Law, however, failed to provide the ways and means for\ncarrying it into effect, so that the probability is it will remain a\ndead letter upon the statute book. The sum of money required to carry it\nout is too large, and the law fails to create the machinery and name the\npersons authorized to deport the Chinese. Neither is there any mode of\ntrial pointed out. According to the law there need be no indictment by\na grand jury, no trial by a jury, and the person found guilty of being\nhere without a certificate of residence can be imprisoned and treated as\na felon without the ordinary forms of trial.\n\nThis law is contrary to the laws and customs of nations. The punishment\nis unusual, severe, and contrary to our Constitution, and under its\nprovisions aliens--citizens of a friendly nation--can be imprisoned\nwithout due process of law. The law is barbarous, contrary to the spirit\nand genius of American institutions, and was passed in violation of\nsolemn treaty stipulations.\n\nThe Congress-that passed it is the same that closed the gates of the\nWorld's Fair on the \"blessed Sabbath,\" thinking it wicked to look at\nstatues and pictures on that day. These representatives of the people\nseem to have had more piety than principle.\n\nAfter the passage of such a law by the United States is it not indecent\nfor us to send missionaries to China? Is there not work enough for them\nat home? We send ministers to China to convert the heathen; but when we\nfind a Chinaman on our soil, where he can be saved by our example, we\ntreat him as a criminal.\n\nIt is to the interest of this country to maintain friendly relations\nwith China. We want the trade of nearly one-fourth of the human race.\nWe want to pay for all we get from that country in articles of our\nown manufacture. We lost the trade of Mexico and the South American\nRepublics because of slavery, because we hated people in whose veins was\nfound a drop of African blood, and now we are losing the trade of China\nby pandering to the prejudices of the ignorant and cruel.\n\nAfter all, it pays to do right. This is a hard truth to\nlearn--especially for a nation. A great nation should be bound by the\nhighest conception of justice and honor. Above all things it should be\ntrue to its treaties, its contracts, its obligations. It should\nremember that its responsibilities are in accordance with its power and\nintelligence.\n\nOur Government is founded on the equality of human rights--on the idea,\nthe sacred truth, that all are entitled to life, liberty and the\npursuit of happiness. Our country is an asylum for the oppressed of\nall nations--of all races. Here, the Government gets its power from\nthe consent of the governed. After the abolition of slavery these\ngreat truths were not only admitted, but they found expression in our\nConstitution and laws.\n\nShall we now go back to barbarism?\n\nRussia is earning the hatred of the civilized world by driving the Jews\nfrom their homes. But what can the United States say? Our mouths are\nclosed by the Geary Law. We are in the same business. Our law is as\ninhuman as the order or ukase of the Czar.\n\nLet us retrace our steps, repeal the law and accomplish what we justly\ndesire by civilized means. Let us treat China as we would England; and,\nabove all, let us respect the rights of men,--North American Review,\nJuly, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nA WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.\n\nTHE end of life--the object of life--is happiness. Nothing can be better\nthan that--nothing higher. In order to be really happy, man must be in\nharmony with his surroundings, with the conditions of well-being. In\norder to know these surroundings, he must be educated, and education is\nof value only as it contributes to the wellbeing of man, and only\nthat is education which increases the power of man to gratify his real\nwants--wants of body and of mind.\n\nThe educated man knows the necessity of finding out the facts in nature,\nthe relations between himself and his fellow-men, between himself and\nthe world, to the end that he may take advantage of these facts and\nrelations for the benefit of himself and others. He knows that a man may\nunderstand Latin and Greek, Hebrew and Sanscrit, and be as ignorant of\nthe great facts and forces in nature as a native of Central Africa.\n\nThe educated man knows something that he can use, not only for the\nbenefit of himself, but for the benefit of others. Every skilled\nmechanic, every good farmer, every man who knows some of the real\nfacts in nature that touch him, is to that extent an educated man. The\nskilled mechanic and the intelligent farmer may not be what we call\n\"scholars,\" and what we call scholars may not be educated men.\n\nMan is in constant need. He must protect himself from cold and heat,\nfrom sun and storm. He needs food and raiment for the body, and he needs\nwhat we call art for the development and gratification of his brain.\nBeginning with what are called the necessaries of life, he rises to\nwhat are known as the luxuries, and the luxuries become necessaries, and\nabove luxuries he rises to the highest wants of the soul.\n\nThe man who is fitted to take care of himself, in the conditions he may\nbe placed, is, in a very important sense, an educated man. The savage\nwho understands the habits of animals, who is a good hunter and fisher,\nis a man of education, taking into consideration his circumstances. The\ngraduate of a university who cannot take care of himself--no matter how\nmuch he may have studied--is not an educated man.\n\nIn our time, an educated man, whether a mechanic, a farmer, or one who\nfollows a profession, should know something about what the world has\ndiscovered. He should have an idea of the outlines of the sciences. He\nshould have read a little, at least, of the best that has been written.\nHe should know something of mechanics, a little about politics,\ncommerce, and metaphysics; and in addition to all this, he should know\nhow to make something. His hands should be educated, so that he can, if\nnecessary, supply his own wants by supplying the wants of others.\n\nThere are mental misers--men who gather learning all their lives and\nkeep it to themselves. They are worse than hoarders of gold, because\nwhen they die their learning dies with them, while the metal miser is\ncompelled to leave his gold for others.\n\nThe first duty of man is to support himself--to see to it that he\ndoes not become a burden. His next duty is to help others if he has a\nsurplus, and if he really believes they deserve to be helped.\n\nIt is not necessary to have what is called a university education in\norder to be useful or to be happy, any more than it is necessary to be\nrich, to be happy. Great wealth is a great burden, and to have more than\nyou can use, is to care for more than you want. The happiest are those\nwho are prosperous, and who by reasonable endeavor can supply their\nreasonable wants and have a little surplus year by year for the winter\nof their lives.\n\nSo, it is no use to learn thousands and thousands of useless facts, or\nto fill the brain with unspoken tongues. This is burdening yourself with\nmore than you can use. The best way is to learn the useful.\n\nWe all know that men in moderate circumstances cau have just as\ncomfortable houses as the richest, just as comfortable clothing, just\nas good food. They can see just as fine paintings, just as marvelous\nstatues, and they can hear just as good music. They can attend the same\ntheatres and the same operas. They can enjoy the same sunshine, and\nabove all, can love and be loved just as well as kings and millionaires.\n\nSo the conclusion of the whole matter is, that he is educated who knows\nhow to take care of himself; and that the happy man is the successful\nman, and that it is only a burden to have more than you want, or to\nlearn those things that you cannot use.--The High School Register,\nOmaha, Nebraska, January. 1891.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.\n\nIF I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next Christmas,\nI would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow the people to\ngovern themselves.\n\nI would have all the nobility drop their titles and give their lands\nback to the people. I would have the Pope throw away his tiara, take off\nhis sacred vestments, and admit that he is not acting for God--is\nnot infallible--but is just an ordinary Italian. I would have all the\ncardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen admit that they\nknow nothing about theology, nothing about hell or heaven, nothing about\nthe destiny of the human race, nothing about devils or ghosts, gods\nor angels. I would have them tell all their \"flocks\" to think for\nthemselves, to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their\npower to increase the sum of human happiness.\n\nI would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in schools\nof every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree that they would\nteach only what they know, that they would not palm off guesses as\ndemonstrated truths.\n\nI would like to see all the politicians changed to statesmen,--to men\nwho long to make their country great and free,--to men who care more for\npublic good than private gain--men who long to be of use.\n\nI would like to see all the editors of papers and magazines agree to\nprint the truth and nothing but the truth, to avoid all slander and\nmisrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of the people alone.\n\nI would like to see drunkenness and prohibition both abolished.\n\nI would like to see corporal punishment done away with in every home, in\nevery school, in every asylum, reformatory, and prison. Cruelty hardens\nand degrades, kindness reforms and ennobles.\n\nI would like to see the millionaires unite and form a trust for the\npublic good.\n\nI would like to see a fair division of profits between capital and\nlabor, so that the toiler could save enough to mingle a little June with\nthe December of his life.\n\nI would like to see an international court established in which to\nsettle disputes between nations, so that armies could be disbanded and\nthe great navies allowed to rust and rot in perfect peace.\n\nI would like to see the whole world free--free from injustice--free from\nsuperstition.\n\nThis will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may want\nmore.--The Arena, Boston, December, 1897.\n\n\n\n\nFOOL FRIENDS.\n\nNOTHING hurts a man, nothing hurts a party so terribly as fool friends.\n\nA fool friend is the sewer of bad news, of slander and all base and\nunpleasant things.\n\nA fool friend always knows every mean thing that has been said against\nyou and against the party.\n\nHe always knows where your party is losing, and the other is making\nlarge gains.\n\nHe always tells you of the good luck your enemy has had.\n\nHe implicitly believes every story against you, and kindly suspects your\ndefence.\n\nA fool friend is always full of a kind of stupid candor.\n\nHe is so candid that he always believes the statement of an enemy.\n\nHe never suspects anything on your side.\n\nNothing pleases him like being shocked by horrible news concerning some\ngood man.\n\nHe never denies a lie unless it is in your favor.\n\nHe is always finding fault with his party, and is continually begging\npardon for not belonging to the other side.\n\nHe is frightfully anxious that all his candidates should stand well with\nthe opposition.\n\nHe is forever seeing the faults of his party and the virtues of the\nother.\n\nHe generally shows his candor by scratching the ticket.\n\nHe always searches every nook and comer of his conscience to find a\nreason for deserting a friend or a principle.\n\nIn the moment of victory he is magnanimously on your side.\n\nIn defeat he consoles you by repeating prophecies made after the event.\n\nThe fool friend regards your reputation as common prey for all the\nvultures, hyenas and jackals.\n\nHe takes a sad pleasure in your misfortunes.\n\nHe forgets his principles to gratify your enemies.\n\nHe forgives your maligner, and slanders you with all his heart.\n\nHe is so friendly that you cannot kick him.\n\nHe generally talks for you but always bets the other way.\n\n\n\n\nINSPIRATION\n\nWE are told that we have in our possession the inspired will of God.\nWhat is meant by the word \"inspired\" is not exactly known; but whatever\nelse it may mean, certainly it means that the \"inspired\" must be the\ntrue. If it is true, there is in fact no need of its being inspired--the\ntruth will take care of itself.\n\nThe church is forced to say that the Bible differs from all other books;\nit is forced to say that it contains the actual will of God. Let us then\nsee what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea\nsays something to him. It makes an impression upon his mind. It awakens\nmemory, and this impression depends upon the man's experience--upon\nhis intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a\ndifferent brain; he has had a different experience. The sea may speak\nto him of joy; to the other of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the\nsame thing to any two human beings, because no two human beings have had\nthe same experience.\n\nAnother, standing upon the shore, listening to what the great Greek\ntragedian called \"The multitudinous laughter of the sea,\" may say: Every\ndrop has visited all the shores of the earth; every one has been frozen\nin the vast and icy North; every one has fallen in snow, has been\nwhirled by storms around mountain peaks; every one has been kissed to\nvapor by the sun; every one has worn the seven-hued garment of light;\nevery one has fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs and laughed\nin brooks while lovers wooed upon the banks, and every one has rushed\nwith mighty rivers back to the sea's embrace. Everything in Nature tells\na different story to all eyes that see, and to all ears that hear.\n\nOnce in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley deliver a\nlecture. I think the title was \"Across the Continent.\" At last he\nreached the mammoth trees of California, and I thought, \"Here is an\nopportunity for the old man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees that\nhave outlived a thousand human governments. There are limbs above his\nhead older than the pyramids. While man was emerging from barbarism\nto something like civilization, these trees were growing. Older than\nhistory, every one appeared to be a memory, a witness, and a prophecy.\nThe same wind that filled the sails of the Argonauts had swayed these\ntrees.\" But these trees said nothing of this kind to Mr. Greeley. Upon\nthese subjects not a word was told him. Instead, he took his pencil, and\nafter figuring awhile, remarked: \"One of these trees, sawed into inch\nboards, would make more than three hundred thousand feet of lumber.\"\n\nI was once riding in the cars in Illinois. There had been a violent\nthunder storm. The rain had ceased, the sun was going down. The\ngreat clouds had floated toward the west, and there they assumed most\nwonderful architectural shapes. There were temples and palaces domed\nand turreted, and they were touched with silver, with amethyst and gold.\nThey looked like the homes of the Titans, or the palaces of the gods.\nA man was sitting near me. I touched him and said, \"Did you ever see\nanything so beautiful?\" He looked out. He saw nothing of the cloud,\nnothing of the sun, nothing of the color; he saw only the country, and\nreplied, \"Yes, it is beautiful; I always did like rolling land.\"\n\nOn another occasion I was riding in a stage. There had been a snow, and\nafter the snow a sleet, and all the trees were bent, and all the boughs\nwere arched. Every fence, every log cabin, had been transfigured,\ntouched with a glory almost beyond this world. The great fields were a\npure and perfect white; the forests, drooping beneath their load of gems,\nmade wonderful caves, from which one almost expected to see troops of\nfairies come. The whole world looked like a bride, jeweled from head to\nfoot. A German on the back seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations\nof wonder, leaned forward, looked out of the stage window, and said,\n\"Y-a-a-s; it looks like a clean table cloth!\"\n\nSo, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a\nviolet, the more we know, the more we have experienced, the more we\nhave thought, the more we remember,--the more the statue, the star,\nthe painting, the violet, has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am\ncapable of understanding--gives all that I can receive.\n\nAs with star or flower or sea, so with a book. A man reads Shakespeare.\nWhat does he get from him? All that he has the mind to understand. He\ngets his little cup full. Let another read him who knows nothing of the\ndrama, nothing of the impersonations of passion, and what does he get?\nAlmost nothing. Shakespeare has a different story for each reader. He\nis a world in which each recognizes his acquaintances--he may know a\nfew--he may know all.\n\nThe impression that Nature makes upon the mind, the stories told by sea\nand star and flower, must be the natural food of thought. Leaving out\nfor the moment the impression gained from ancestors, the hereditary\nfears and drifts and trends--the natural food of thought must be the\nimpression made upon the brain by coming in contact, through the medium\nof the five senses, with what we call the outward world. The brain is\nnatural. Its food is natural. The result--thought--must be natural. The\nsupernatural can be constructed with no material except the natural. Of\nthe supernatural we can have no conception.\n\n\"Thought\" may be deformed, and the thought of one may be strange to, and\ndenominated as unnatural by, another; but it cannot be supernatural.\nIt may be weak, it may be insane, but it is not supernatural. Above\nthe natural, man cannot rise. There can be deformed ideas, as there are\ndeformed persons. There can be religious monstrosities and misshapen,\nbut they must be naturally produced. Some people have ideas about\nwhat they are pleased to call the supernatural; what they call the\nsupernatural is simply the deformed. The world is to each man according\nto each man. It takes the world as it really is, and that man to make\nthat man's world, and that man's world cannot exist without that man.\n\nYou may ask, and what of all this? I reply: As with everything in\nNature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is\nthen, the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It\nis. Can God, then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two\npersons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads it is the man who\ninspires. Inspiration is in the man, as well as in the book. God should\nhave \"inspired\" readers as well as writers.\n\nYou may reply, God knew that his book would be understood differently\nby each one; really intended that it should be understood as it is\nunderstood by each. If this is so, then my understanding of the Bible\nis the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to take the\nunderstanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me through\nmy understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose, then,\nthat I do read this Bible honestly, carefully, and when I get through I\nam compelled to say, \"The book is not true!\"\n\nIf this is the honest result, then you are compelled to say, either that\nGod has made no revelation to me, or that the revelation that it is not\ntrue is the revelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If the book\nand my brain are both the work of the same infinite God, whose fault\nis it that the book and the brain do not agree? Either God should have\nwritten a book to fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his\nbook.\n\nThe inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of him who\nreads.--The Truth Seeker Annual, New York, 1885.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRUTH OF HISTORY.\n\nTHOUSANDS of Christians have asked: How was it possible for Christ and\nhis apostles to deceive the people of Jerusalem? How came the miracles\nto be believed? Who had the impudence to say that lepers had been\ncleansed, and that the dead had been raised? How could such impostors\nhave escaped exposure?\n\nI ask: How did Mohammed deceive the people of Mecca? How has the\nCatholic Church imposed upon millions of people? Who can account for the\nsuccess of falsehood?\n\nMillions of people are directly interested in the false. They live by\nlying. To deceive is the business of their lives. Truth is a cripple;\nlies have wings. It is almost impossible to overtake and kill and bury\na lie. If you do, some one will erect a monument over the grave, and the\nlie is born again as an epitaph. Let me give you a case in point.\n\nA few days ago the Matlock _Register_, a paper published in England,\nprinted the following:\n\nCONVERSION OF THE ARCH ATHEIST.\n\n\"Mr. Isaac Loveland, of Shoreham, desires us to insert the following:--\n\n\"November 27, 1886.\n\n\"Dear Mr. Loveland.--A day or two since, I received from Mr.\nHine the exhilarating intelligence that through his lectures on the\n'Identity of the British Nation with Lost Israel,' in Canada and the\nUnited States, that Col. Bob Ingersoll, the arch Atheist, has been\nconverted to Christianity, and has joined the Episcopal Church. Praise\nthe Lord!!! 5,000 of his followers _have been won for Christ_ through\nMr. Hine's grand mission work, the other side of the Atlantic. The\nColonel's cousin, the Rev. Mr. Ingersoll, wrote to Mr. Hine soon after\nhe began lecturing in America, informing him that his lectures had made\na great impression on the Colonel and other Atheists. I noted it at the\ntime in the Messenger. Bradlaugh will yet be converted; his brother has\nbeen, and has joined a British Israel Identity Association. This is\nprogress, and shows what an energetic, determined man (like Mr. Hine),\nwho is earnest in his faith, can do.\n\n\"Very faithfully yours,\n\n\"H. HODSON RUGG.\n\n\"Grove-road, St. John's Wood, London.\"\n\nHow can we account for an article like that? Who made up this story? Who\nhad the impudence to publish it?\n\nAs a matter of fact, I never saw Mr. Hine, never heard of him until this\nextract was received by me in the month of December. I never read a word\nabout the \"Identity of Lost Israel with the British Nation.\" It is a\nquestion in which I never had, and never expect to have, the slightest\npossible interest.\n\nNothing can be more preposterous than that the Englishman in whose veins\ncan be found the blood of the Saxon, the Dane, the Norman, the Piet, the\nScot and the Celt, is the descendant of \"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.\" The\nEnglish language does not bear the remotest resemblance to the Hebrew,\nand yet it is claimed by the Reverend Hod-son Rugg that not only myself,\nbut five thousand other Atheists, were converted by the Rev. Mr. Hine,\nbecause of his theory that Englishmen and Americans are simply Jews in\ndisguise.\n\nThis letter, in my judgment, was published to be used by missionaries in\nChina, Japan, India and Africa.\n\nIf stories like this can be circulated about a living man, what may we\nnot expect concerning the dead who have opposed the church?\n\nCountless falsehoods have been circulated about all the opponents of\nsuperstition. Whoever attacks the popular falsehoods of his time will\nfind that a lie defends itself by telling other lies. Nothing is so\nprolific, nothing can so multiply itself, nothing can lay and hatch as\nmany eggs, as a good, healthy, religious lie.\n\nAnd nothing is more wonderful than the credulity of the believers in the\nsupernatural. They feel under a kind of obligation to believe everything\nin favor of their religion, or against any form of what they are pleased\nto call \"Infidelity.\"\n\nThe old falsehoods about Voltaire, Paine, Hume, Julian, Diderot and\nhundreds of others, grow green every spring. They are answered; they\nare demonstrated to be without the slightest foundation; but they\nrarely die. And when one does die there seems to be a kind of Caesarian\noperation, so that in each instance although the mother dies the child\nlives to undergo, if necessary, a like operation, leaving another child,\nand sometimes two.\n\nThere are thousands and thousands of tongues ready to repeat what the\nowners know to be false, and these lies are a part of the stock in\ntrade, the valuable assets, of superstition. No church can afford to\nthrow its property away. To admit that these stories are false now, is\nto admit that the church has been busy lying for hundreds of years, and\nit is also to admit that the word of the church is not and cannot be\ntaken as evidence of any fact.\n\nA few years ago, I had a little controversy with the editor of the New\nYork _Observer_, the Rev. Irenaeus Prime, (who is now supposed to be\nin heaven enjoying the bliss of seeing Infidels in hell), as to whether\nThomas Paine recanted his religious opinions. I offered to deposit a\nthousand dollars for the benefit of a charity, if the reverend doctor\nwould substantiate the charge that Paine recanted. I forced the New York\n_Observer_ to admit that Paine did not recant, and compelled that paper\nto say that \"Thomas Paine died a blaspheming Infidel.\"\n\nA few months afterward an English paper was sent to me--a religious\npaper--and in that paper was a statement to the effect that the editor\nof the New York _Observer_ had claimed that Paine recanted; that I had\noffered to give a thousand dollars to any charity that Mr. Prime might\nselect, if he would establish the fact that Paine did recant; and that\nso overwhelming was the testimony brought forward by Mr. Prime, that I\nadmitted that Paine did recant, and paid the thousand dollars.\n\nThis is another instance of what might be called the truth of history.\n\nI wrote to the editor of that paper, telling the exact facts, and\noffering him advertising rates to publish the denial, and in addition,\nstated that if he would send me a copy of his paper with the denial, I\nwould send him twenty-five dollars for his trouble. I received no reply,\nand the lie is in all probability still on its travels, going from\nSunday school to Sunday school, from pulpit to pulpit, from hypocrite\nto savage,--that is to say, from missionary to Hottentot--without the\nslightest evidence of fatigue--fresh and strong, and in its cheeks the\nroses and lilies of perfect health.\n\nSome person, expecting to add another gem to his crown of glory, put\nin circulation the story that one of my daughters had joined the\nPresbyterian Church,--a story without the slightest foundation--and\nalthough denied a hundred times, it is still being printed and\ncirculated for the edification of the faithful. Every few days I receive\nsome letter of inquiry as to this charge, and I have industriously\ndenied it for years, but up to the present time, it shows no signs of\ndeath--not even of weakness.\n\nAnother religious gentleman put in print the charge that my son, having\nbeen raised in the atmosphere of Infidelity, had become insane and died\nin an asylum. Notwithstanding the fact that I never had a son, the story\nstill goes right on, and is repeated day after day without the semblance\nof a blush.\n\nNow, if all this is done while I am alive and well, and while I have all\nthe facilities of our century for spreading the denials, what will be\ndone after my lips are closed?\n\nThe mendacity of superstition is almost enough to make a man believe in\nthe supernatural.\n\nAnd so I might go on for a hundred columns. Billions of falsehoods have\nbeen told and there are trillions yet to come. The doctrines of Malthus\nhave nothing to do with this particular kind of reproduction.\n\n\"And there are also many other falsehoods which the church has told, the\nwhich if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world\nitself could not contain the books that should be written.\"--The Truth\nSeeker, New York, February, 19,1887.\n\n\n\n\nHOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER.\n\nA LIBERAL paper should be edited by a Liberal man.\n\nAnd by the word Liberal I mean, not only free, not only one who thinks\nfor himself, not only one who has escaped from the prisons of customs\nand creed, but one who is candid, intelligent and kind.\n\nThis Liberal editor should not forever play upon one string, no matter\nhow wonderful the music. He should not have his attention forever fixed\nupon one question--that is to say, he should not look through a reversed\ntelescope and narrow his horizon to that degree that he sees only one\nthing.\n\nTo know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, to know\nthat it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural does not and\ncannot exist--all this is but the beginning of wisdom. This only lays\nthe foundation for unprejudiced observation. To kill weeds, to fell\nforests, to drive away or exterminate wild beasts--this is preparatory\nto doing something of greater value. Of course the weeds must be killed,\nthe forests must be felled, and the beasts must be destroyed before the\nbuilding of homes and the cultivation of fields.\n\nA Liberal paper should not discuss theological questions alone.\nIntelligent people everywhere have given up most of the old\nsuperstitions. They have pretty well made up their minds what is false,\nand they want to know some others.\n\nThat is to say, liberal toward everything that is true. For this reason,\na Liberal paper should keep abreast of the discoveries of the human\nmind. No science should be neglected; no fact should be overlooked.\nInventions should be described and understood. And not only this, but\nthe beautiful in thought, in form and color, should be preserved. The\npaper should be filled with things calculated to interest thoughtful,\nintelligent and serious people. There should be a column for children as\nwell as for men.\n\nAbove all, it should be perfectly kind and candid. In discussion there\nis no place for hatred, no opportunity for slander. A personality\nis always out of place. An angry man can neither reason himself, nor\nperceive the reason of what another says. The orthodox world has always\ndealt in personalities. Every minister can answer the argument of an\nopponent by attacking the character of the opponent. This example should\nnever be followed by a Liberal man. Nobody can be bad enough to prove\nthat the Bible is uninspired, and nobody can be good enough to prove\nthat it is the word of God. These facts have no relation. They neither\nstand nor fall together.\n\nNothing should be asserted that is not known. Nothing should be denied,\nthe falsity of which has not been, or cannot be, demonstrated. Opinions\nare simply given for what they are worth. They are guesses, and one\nguesser should give to another guesser all the right of guessing that he\nclaims for himself. Upon the great questions of origin, of destiny, of\nimmortality, of punishment and reward in other worlds, every honest man\nmust say, \"I do not know.\" Upon these questions, this is the creed of\nintelligence. Nothing is harder to bear than the egotism of ignorance\nand the arrogance of superstition. The man who has some knowledge of\nthe difficulties surrounding these subjects, who knows something of the\nlimitations of the human mind, must, of necessity, be mentally modest.\nAnd this condition of mental modesty is the only one consistent with\nindividual progress.\n\nAbove all, and over all, a Liberal paper should teach the absolute\nfreedom of the mind, the utter independence of the individual, the\nperfect liberty of speech. We should remember that the world is as it\nmust be; that the present is the necessary offspring of the past; that\nthe future must be what the present makes it, and that the real work of\nthe reformer, of the philanthropist, is to change the conditions of the\npresent, to the end that the future may be better.\n\nSecular Thought, Toronto, January 8,1887.\n\n\n\n\nSECULARISM.\n\n\nSEVERAL people have asked me the meaning of this term.\n\nSecularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the affairs of this\nworld; it is interested in everything that touches the welfare of a\nsentient being; it advocates attention to the particular planet in which\nwe happen to live; it means that each individual counts for something;\nit is a declaration of intellectual independence; it means that the pew\nis superior to the pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have\nthe profits and that they who fill the purse shall hold the strings.\nIt is a protest against theological oppression, against ecclesiastical\ntyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom, or of\nthe priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting this life for\nthe sake of one that we know not of. It proposes to let the gods take\ncare of themselves. It is another name for common sense; that is to say,\nthe adaptation of means to such ends as are desired and understood.\n\nSecularism believes in building a home here, in this world. It trusts\nto individual effort, to energy, to intelligence, to observation and\nexperience rather than to the unknown and the supernatural. It desires\nto be happy on this side of the grave.\n\nSecularism means food and fireside, roof and raiment, reasonable work\nand reasonable leisure, the cultivation of the tastes, the acquisition\nof knowledge, the enjoyment of the arts, and it promises for the human\nrace comfort, independence, intelligence, and above all, liberty. It\nmeans the abolition of sectarian feuds, of theological hatreds. It means\nthe cultivation of friendship and intellectual hospitality. It means\nthe living for ourselves and each other; for the present instead of\nthe past, for this world rather than for another. It means the right to\nexpress your thought in spite of popes, priests, and gods. It means that\nimpudent idleness shall no longer live upon the labor of honest men.\nIt means the destruction of the business of those who trade in fear. It\nproposes to give serenity and content to the human soul. It will put out\nthe fires of eternal pain. It is striving to do away with violence and\nvice, with ignorance, poverty and disease. It lives for the ever present\nto-day, and the ever coming to-morrow. It does not believe in praying\nand receiving, but in earning and deserving. It regards work as worship,\nlabor as prayer, and wisdom as the savior of mankind. It says to every\nhuman being, Take care of yourself so that you may be able to help\nothers; adorn your life with the gems called good deeds; illumine your\npath with the sunlight called friendship and love.\n\nSecularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It has no\nmysteries, no mummeries, no priests, no ceremonies, no falsehoods, no\nmiracles, and no persecutions. It considers the lilies of the field, and\ntakes thought for the morrow. It says to the whole world, Work that you\nmay eat, drink, and be clothed; work that you may enjoy; work that you\nmay not want; work that you may give and never need.--The Independent\nPulpit, Waco, Texas, 1887.\n\n\n\n\nCRITICISM OF \"ROBERT ELSMERE,\" \"JOHN WARD, PREACHER,\" AND \"AN AFRICAN FARM.\"\n\n\nIF one wishes to know what orthodox religion really is--I mean that\nreligion unsoftened by Infidelity, by doubt--let him read \"John Ward,\nPreacher.\" This book shows exactly what the love of God will do in the\nheart of man. This shows what the effect of the creed of Christendom is,\nwhen absolutely believed. In this case it is the woman who is free\nand the man who is enslaved. In \"Robert Els-mere\" the man is breaking\nchains, while the woman prefers the old prison with its ivy-covered\nwalls.\n\nWhy should a man allow human love to stand between his soul and the\nwill of God--between his soul and eternal joy? Why should not the true\nbeliever tear every blossom of pity, of charity, from his heart, rather\nthan put in peril his immortal soul?\n\nAn orthodox minister has a wife with a heart. Having a heart she cannot\nbelieve in the orthodox creed. She thinks God better than he is. She\nflatters the Infinite. This endangers the salvation of her soul. If she\nis upheld in this the souls of others may be lost. Her husband feels not\nonly accountable for her soul, but for the souls of others that may\nbe injured by what she says, and by what she does. He is compelled to\nchoose between his wife and his duty, between the woman and God. He is\nnot great enough to go with his heart. He is selfish enough to side with\nthe administration, with power. He lives a miserable life and dies a\nmiserable death.\n\nThe trouble with Christianity is that it has no element of\ncompromise--it allows no room for charity so far as belief is concerned.\nHonesty of opinion is not even a mitigating circumstance. You are not\nasked to understand--you are commanded to believe. There is no common\nground. The church carries no flag of truce. It does not say, Believe\nyou must, but, You must believe. No exception can be made in favor of\nwife or mother, husband or child. All human relations, all human love\nmust, if necessary, be sacrificed with perfect cheerfulness. \"Let the\ndead bury their dead--follow thou me. Desert wife and child. Human love\nis nothing--nothing but a snare. You must love God better than wife,\nbetter than child.\" John Ward endeavored to live in accordance with this\nheartless creed.\n\nNothing can be more repulsive than an orthodox life--than one who lives\nin exact accordance with the creed. It is hard to conceive of a more\nterrible character than John Calvin. It is somewhat difficult to\nunderstand the Puritans, who made themselves unhappy by way of\nrecreation, and who seemed to enjoy themselves when admitting their\nutter worthlessness and in telling God how richly they deserved to be\neternally damned. They loved to pluck from the tree of life every bud,\nevery blossom, every leaf. The bare branches, naked to the wrath of God,\nexcited their admiration. They wondered how birds could sing, and the\nexistence of the rainbow led them to suspect the seriousness of the\nDeity. How can there be any joy if man believes that he acts and lives\nunder an infinite responsibility, when the only business of this life\nis to avoid the horrors of the next? Why should the lips of men feel\nthe ripple of laughter if there is a bare possibility that the creed of\nChristendom is true?\n\nI take it for granted that all people believe as they must--that all\nthoughts and dreams have been naturally produced--that what we call the\nunnatural is simply the uncommon. All religions, poems, statues, vices\nand virtues, have been wrought by nature with the instrumentalities\ncalled men. No one can read \"John Ward, Preacher,\" without hating with\nall his heart the creed of John Ward; and no one can read the creed of\nJohn Ward, preacher, without pitying with all his heart John Ward; and\nno one can read this book without feeling how much better the wife was\nthan the husband--how much better the natural sympathies are than the\nreligions of our day, and how much superior common sense is to what is\ncalled theology.\n\nWhen we lay down the book we feel like saying: No matter whether God\nexists or not; if he does, he can take care of himself; if he does, he\ndoes not take care of us; and whether he lives or not we must take care\nof ourselves. Human love is better than any religion. It is better to\nlove your wife than to love God. It is better to make a happy home here\nthan to sunder hearts with creeds. This book meets the issues far more\nfrankly, with far greater candor. This book carries out to its logical\nsequence the Christian creed. It shows how uncomfortable a true believer\nmust be, and how uncomfortable he necessarily makes those with whom he\ncomes in contact. It shows how narrow, how hard, how unsympathetic,\nhow selfish, how unreasonable, how unpoetic, the creed of the orthodox\nchurch is.\n\nIn \"Robert Elsmere\" there is plenty of evidence of reading and\ncultivation, of thought and talent. So in \"John Ward, Preacher,\" there\nis strength, purpose, logic, power of statement, directness and courage.\nBut \"The Story of an African Farm\" has but little in common with the\nother two.\n\nIt is a work apart--belonging to no school, and not to be judged by the\nordinary rules and canons of criticism. There are some puerilities and\nmuch philosophy, trivialities and some of the profoundest reflections.\nIn addition to this, there is a vast and wonderful sympathy.\n\nThe following upon love is beautiful and profound: \"There is a love that\nbegins in the head and goes down to the heart, and grows slowly, but it\nlasts till death and asks less than it gives. There is another love that\nblots out wisdom, that is sweet with the sweetness of life and bitter\nwith the bitterness of death, lasting for an hour; but it is worth\nhaving lived a whole life for that hour. It is a blood-red flower, with\nthe color of sin, but there is always the scent of a god about it.\"\n\nThere is no character in \"Robert Elsmere\" or in \"John Ward, Preacher,\"\ncomparable for a moment to Lyndall in the \"African Farm.\" In her there\nis a splendid courage. She does not blame others for her own faults;\nshe accepts. There is that splendid candor that you find in Juliet in\n\"Measure for Measure.\" She is asked:\n\n\"Love you the man that wronged you?\"\n\nAnd she replies:\n\n\"Yes; as I love the woman that wronged him.\"\n\nThe death of this wonderful girl is extremely pathetic.\n\nNone but an artist could have written it:\n\n\"Then slowly, without a sound, the beautiful eyes closed. The dead\nface that the glass reflected was a thing of marvellous beauty and\ntranquillity. The gray dawn crept in over it and saw it lying there.\"\n\nSo the story of the hunter is wonderfully told. This hunter climbs above\nhis fellows--day by day getting away from human sympathy, away from\nignorance. He lost at last his fellow-men, and truth was just as far\naway as ever. Here he found the bones of another hunter, and as he\nlooked upon the poor remains the wild faces said:\n\n\"So he lay down here, for he was very tired. He went to sleep forever.\nHe put himself to sleep. Sleep is very tranquil. You are not lonely when\nyou are asleep, neither do your hands ache nor your heart.\"\n\nSo the death of Waldo is most wonderfully told. The book is filled with\nthought, and with thoughts of the writer--nothing is borrowed. It is\noriginal, true and exceedingly sad. It has the pathos of real life.\nThere is in it the hunger of the heart, the vast difference between the\nactual and the ideal:\n\n\"I like to feel that strange life beating up against me. I like to\nrealize forms of life utterly unlike my own. When my own life feels\nsmall and I am oppressed with it, I like to crush together and see it in\na picture, in an instant, a multitude of disconnected, unlike phases of\nhuman life--a mediaeval monk with his string of beads pacing the quiet\norchard, and looking up from the grass at his feet to the heavy fruit\ntrees; little Malay boys playing naked on a shining sea-beach; a Hindoo\nphilosopher alone under his banyan tree, thinking, thinking, thinking,\nso that in the thought of God he may lose himself; a troop of\nBacchanalians dressed in white, with crowns of vine-leaves, dancing\nalong the Roman streets; a martyr on the night of his death looking\nthrough the narrow window to the sky and feeling that already he has the\nwings that shall bear him up; an epicurean discoursing at a Roman\nbath to a knot of his disciples on the nature of happiness; a Kafir\nwitch-doctor seeking for herbs by moonlight, while from the huts on\nthe hillside come the sound of dogs barking and the voices of women\nand children; a mother giving bread and milk to her children in little\nwooden basins and singing the evening song. I like to see it all; I\nfeel it run through me--that life belongs to me; it makes my little life\nlarger, it breaks down the narrow walls that shut me in.\"\n\nThe author, Olive Schreiner, has a tropic zone in her heart. She\nsometimes prattles like a child, then suddenly, and without warning, she\nspeaks like a philosopher--like one who had guessed the riddle of the\nSphinx. She, too, is overwhelmed with the injustice of the world--with\nthe negligence of nature--and she finds that it is impossible to find\nrepose for heart or brain in any Christian creed.\n\nThese books show what the people are thinking--the tendency of modern\nthought. Singularly enough the three are written by women. Mrs. Ward,\nthe author of \"Robert Elsmere,\" to say the least is not satisfied with\nthe Episcopal Church. She feels sure that its creed is not true. At the\nsame time, she wants it denied in a respectful tone of voice, and she\nreally pities people who are compelled to give up the consolation of\neternal punishment, although she has thrown it away herself and the\ntendency of her book is to make other people do so. It is what the\northodox call \"a dangerous book.\" It is a flank movement calculated\nto suggest a doubt to the unsuspecting reader, to some sheep who has\nstrayed beyond the shepherd's voice.\n\nIt is hard for any one to read \"John Ward, Preacher,\" without hating\nPuritanism with all his heart and without feeling certain that nothing\nis more heartless than the \"scheme of salvation;\" and whoever finishes\n\"The Story of an African Farm\" will feel that he has been brought in\ncontact with a very great, passionate and tender soul. Is it possible\nthat women, who have been the Caryatides of the church, who have borne\nits insults and its burdens, are to be its destroyers?\n\nMan is a being capable of pleasure and pain. The fact that he can enjoy\nhimself--that he can obtain good--gives him courage--courage to defend\nwhat he has, courage to try to get more. The fact that he can suffer\npain sows in his mind the seeds of fear. Man is also filled with\ncuriosity. He examines. He is astonished by the uncommon. He is forced\nto take an interest in things because things affect him. He is liable at\nevery moment to be injured. Countless things attack him. He must defend\nhimself. As a consequence his mind is at work; his experience in some\ndegree tells him what may happen; he prepares; he defends himself from\nheat and cold. All the springs of action lie in the fact that he can\nsuffer and enjoy. The savage has great confidence in his senses. He\nhas absolute confidence in his eyes and ears. It requires many years of\neducation and experience before he becomes satisfied that things are\nnot always what they appear. It would be hard to convince the average\nbarbarian that the sun does not actually rise and set--hard to convince\nhim that the earth turns. He would rely upon appearances and would\nrecord you as insane.\n\nAs man becomes civilized, educated, he finally has more confidence in\nhis reason than in his eyes. He no longer believes that a being called\nEcho exists. He has found out the theory of sound, and he then knows\nthat the wave of air has been returned to his ear, and the idea of a\nbeing who repeats his words fades from his mind; he begins then to\nrely, not upon appearances, but upon demonstration, upon the result of\ninvestigation. At last he finds that he has been deceived in a thousand\nways, and he also finds that he can invent certain instruments that are\nfar more accurate than his senses--instruments that add power to his\nsight, to his hearing and to the sensitiveness of his touch. Day by day\nhe gains confidence in himself.\n\nThere is in the life of the individual, as in the life of the race,\na period of credulity, when not only appearances are accepted without\nquestion, but the declarations of others. The child in the cradle or\nin the lap of its mother, has implicit confidence in fairy\nstories--believes in giants and dwarfs, in beings who can answer wishes,\nwho create castles and temples and gardens with a thought. So the race,\nin its infancy, believed in such beings and in such creations. As the\nchild grows, facts take the place of the old beliefs, and the same is\ntrue of the race.\n\nAs a rule, the attention of man is drawn first, not to his own mistakes,\nnot to his own faults, but to the mistakes and faults of his neighbors.\nThe same is true of a nation--it notices first the eccentricities and\npeculiarities of other nations. This is especially true of religious\nsystems. Christians take it for granted that their religion is true,\nthat there can be about that no doubt, no mistake. They begin to examine\nthe religions of other nations. They take it for granted that all\nthese other religions are false. They are in a frame of mind to notice\ncontradictions, to discover mistakes and to apprehend absurdities. In\nexamining other religions they use their common sense. They carry in the\nhand the lamp of probability. The miracles of other Christs, or of the\nfounders of other religions, appear unreasonable--they find that\nthey are not supported by evidence. Most of the stories excite their\nlaughter. Many of the laws seem cruel, many of the ceremonies absurd.\nThese Christians satisfy themselves that they are right in their first\nconjecture--that is, that other religions are all made by men. Afterward\nthe same arguments they have used against other religions were found to\nbe equally forcible against their own. They find that the miracles of\nBuddha rest upon the same kind of evidence as the miracles in the Old\nTestament, as the miracles in the New--that the evidence in the one case\nis just as weak and unreliable as in the other. They also find that it\nis just as easy to account for the existence of Christianity as for the\nexistence of any other religion, and they find that the human mind in\nall countries has traveled substantially the same road and has arrived\nat substantially the same conclusions.\n\nIt may be truthfully said that Christianity by the examination of other\nreligions laid the foundation for its own destruction. The moment\nit examined another religion it became a doubter, a sceptic, an\ninvestigator. It began to call for proof. This course being pursued in\nthe examination of Christianity itself, reached the result that had been\nreached as to other religions. In other words, it was impossible for\nChristians successfully to attack other religions without showing that\ntheir own religion could be destroyed. The fact that only a few years\nago we were all provincial should be taken into consideration. A few\nyears ago nations were unacquainted with each other--no nation had\nany conception of the real habits, customs, religions and ideas of any\nother. Each nation imagined itself to be the favored of heaven--the only\none to whom God had condescended to make known his will--the only one in\ndirect communication with angels and deities. Since the circumnavigation\nof the globe, since the invention of the steam engine, the discovery of\nelectricity, the nations of the world have become acquainted with each\nother, and we now know that the old ideas were born of egotism, and that\negotism is the child of ignorance and savagery.\n\nThink of the egotism of the ancient Jews, who imagined that they were\n\"the chosen people\"--the only ones in whom God took the slightest\ninterest! Imagine the egotism of the Catholic Church, claiming that it\nis the only church--that it is continually under the guidance of the\nHoly Ghost, and that the pope is infallible and occupies the place of\nGod. Think of the egotism of the Presbyterian, who imagines that he\nis one of \"the elect,\" and that billions of ages before the world was\ncreated, God, in the eternal counsel of his own good pleasure, picked\nout this particular Presbyterian, and at the same time determined to\nsend billions and billions to the pit of eternal pain. Think of\nthe egotism of the man who believes in special providence. The old\nphilosophy, the old religion, was made in about equal parts of ignorance\nand egotism. This earth was the universe. The sun rose and set simply\nfor the benefit of \"God's chosen people.\" The moon and stars were made\nto beautify the night, and all the countless hosts of heaven were for no\nother purpose than to decorate what might be called the ceiling of the\nearth. It was also believed that this firmament was solid--that up there\nthe gods lived, and that they could be influenced by the prayers and\ndesires of men.\n\nWe have now found that the earth is only a grain of sand, a speck, an\natom in an infinite universe. We now know that the sun is a million\ntimes larger than the earth, and that other planets are millions of\ntimes larger than the sun; and when we think of these things, the old\nstories of the Garden of Eden and Sinai and Calvary seem infinitely out\nof proportion.\n\nAt last we have reached a point where we have the candor and the\nintelligence to examine the claims of our own religion precisely as we\nexamine those of other countries. We have produced men and women\ngreat enough to free themselves from the prejudices born of\nprovincialism--from the prejudices, we might almost say, of patriotism.\nA few people are great enough not to be controlled by the ideas of the\ndead--great enough to know that they are not bound by the mistakes of\ntheir ancestors--and that a man may actually love his mother without\naccepting her belief. We have even gone further than this, and we are\nnow satisfied that the only way to really honor parents is to tell our\nbest and highest thoughts. These thoughts ought to be in the mind when\nreading the books referred to. There are certain tendencies, certain\ntrends of thought, and these tendencies--these trends--bear fruit; that\nis to say, they produce the books about which I have spoken as well as\nmany others.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIBEL LAWS\n\nQuestion. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to remodeling the\nlibel laws?\n\nAnswer. I believe that every article appearing in a paper should\nbe signed by the writer. If it is libelous, then the writer and the\npublisher should both be held responsible in damages. The law on\nthis subject, if changed, should throw greater safeguards around the\nreputation of the citizen. It does not seem to me that the papers have\nany right to complain. Probably a good many suits are brought that\nshould not be instituted, but just think of the suits that are not\nbrought.\n\nPersonally I have no complaint to make, as it would be very hard to find\nanything in any paper against me, but it has never occurred to me that\nthe press needed any greater liberty than it now enjoys.\n\nIt might be a good thing for a paper to publish each week, a list of\nmistakes, if this could be done without making that edition too large.\nBut certainly when a false and scandalous charge has been made by\nmistake or as the result of imposition, great pains should be taken to\ngive the retraction at once and in a way to attract attention.\n\nI suppose the papers are liable to be imposed upon--liable to print\nthousands of articles to which the attention of the editor or proprietor\nwas not called. Still, that is not the fault of the man whose character\nis attacked. On the whole I think the papers have the advantage of the\naverage citizen as the law now is.\n\nIf all articles had to be signed by the writer, I am satisfied the\nwriter would be more careful and less liable to write anything of a\nlibelous nature. I am willing to admit that I have given but little\nattention to the subject, probably for the reason that I have never been\na sufferer.\n\nIt would hardly do to hold only the writer responsible. Suppose a man\nwrites a libelous article, leaves the country, and then the article is\npublished; is there no remedy? A suit for libel is not much of a remedy,\nI admit, but it is some. It is like the bayonet in war. Very few are\ninjured by bayonets, but a good many are afraid that they may be.\n\n--The Herald, New York, October 26,1888.\n\n\n\n\nREV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION.\n\n\nI HAVE read the report of the Rev. R. Heber Newton's sermon and I\nam satisfied, first, that Mr. Newton simply said what he thoroughly\nbelieves to be true, and second, that some of the conclusions at which\nhe arrives are certainly correct. I do not regard Mr. Newton as a\nheretic or sceptic. Every man who reads the Bible must, to a greater or\nless extent, think for himself. He need not tell his thoughts; he has\nthe right to keep them to himself. But if he undertakes to tell them,\nthen he should be absolutely honest.\n\nThe Episcopal creed is a few ages behind the thought of the world. For\nmany, years the foremost members and clergymen in that church have been\ngiving some new meanings to the old words and phrases. Words are no\nmore exempt from change than other things in nature. A word at one time\nrough, jagged, harsh and cruel, is finally worn smooth. A word known\nas slang, picked out of the gutter, is cleaned, educated, becomes\nrespectable and finally is found in the mouths of the best and purest.\n\nWe must remember that in the world of art the picture depends not alone\non the painter, but on the one who sees it. So words must find some part\nof their meaning in the man who hears or the man who reads. In the old\ntimes the word \"hell\" gave to the hearer or reader the picture of a vast\npit filled with an ocean of molten brimstone, in which innumerable souls\nwere suffering the torments of fire, and where millions of devils were\nengaged in the cheerful occupation of increasing the torments of the\ndamned. This was the real old orthodox view.\n\nAs man became civilized, however, the picture grew less and less vivid.\nFinally, some expressed their doubts about the brimstone, and others\nbegan to think that if the Devil was, and is, really an enemy of God he\nwould not spend his time punishing sinners to please God. Why should\nthe Devil be in partnership with his enemy, and why should he inflict\ntorments on poor souls who were his own friends, and who shared with him\nthe feeling of hatred toward the Almighty?\n\nAs men became more and more civilized, the idea began to dawn in their\nminds that an infinitely good and wise being would not have created\npersons, knowing that they would be eternal failures, or that they were\nto suffer eternal punishment, because there could be no possible object\nin eternal punishment--no reformation, no good to be accomplished--and\ncertainly the sight of all this torment would not add to the joy of\nheaven, neither would it tend to the happiness of God.\n\nSo the more civilized adopted the idea that punishment is a consequence\nand not an infliction. Then they took another step and concluded that\nevery soul, in every world, in every age, should have at least the\nchance of doing right. And yet persons so believing still used the word\n\"hell,\" but the old meaning had dropped out.\n\nSo with regard to the atonement. At one time it was regarded as a kind\nof bargain in which so much blood was shed for so many souls. This was a\nbarbaric view. Afterward, the mind developing a little, the idea got in\nthe brain that the life of Christ was worth its moral effect. And yet\nthese people use the word \"atonement,\" but the bargain idea has been\nlost.\n\nTake for instance the word \"justice.\" The meaning that is given to that\nword depends upon the man who uses it--depends for the most part on the\nage in which he lives, the country in which he was born. The same is\ntrue of the word \"freedom.\" Millions and millions of people boasted that\nthey were the friends of freedom, while at the same time they enslaved\ntheir fellow-men. So, in the name of justice every possible crime has\nbeen perpetrated and in the name of mercy every instrument of torture\nhas been used.\n\nMr. Newton realizes the fact that everything in the world changes; that\ncreeds are influenced by civilization, by the acquisition of knowledge,\nby the progress of the sciences and arts--in other words, that there\nis a tendency in man to harmonize his knowledge and to bring about a\nreconciliation between what he knows and what he believes. This will be\nfatal to superstition, provided the man knows anything.\n\nMr. Newton, moreover, clearly sees that people are losing confidence in\nthe morality of the gospel; that its foundation lacks common sense; that\nthe doctrine of forgiveness is unscientific, and that it is impossible\nto feel that the innocent can rightfully suffer for the guilty, or that\nthe suffering of innocence can in any way justify the crimes of the\nwicked. I think he is mistaken, however, when he says that the early\nchurch softened or weakened the barbaric passions. I think the early\nchurch was as barbarous as any institution that ever gained a footing\nin this world. I do not believe that the creed of the early church, as\nunderstood, could soften anything. A church that preaches the eternity\nof punishment has within it the seed of all barbarism and the soil to\nmake it grow.\n\nSo Mr. Newton is undoubtedly right when he says that the organized\nChristianity of to-day is not the leader in social progress. No one now\ngoes to a synod to find a fact in science or on any subject. A man in\ndoubt does not ask the average minister; he regards him as behind the\ntimes. He goes to the scientist, to the library. He depends upon the\nuntrammelled thought of fearless men.\n\nThe church, for the most part, is in the control of the rich, of the\nrespectable, of the well-to-do, of the unsympathetic, of the men who,\nhaving succeeded themselves, think that everybody ought to succeed.\nThe spirit of caste is as well developed in the church as it is in the\naverage club. There is the same exclusive feeling, and this feeling in\nthe next world is to be heightened and deepened to such an extent that a\nlarge majority of our fellow-men are to be eternally excluded.\n\nThe peasants of Europe--the workingmen--do not go to the church for\nsympathy. If they do they come home empty, or rather empty hearted.\nSo, in our own country the laboring classes, the mechanics, are not\ndepending on the churches to right their wrongs. They do not expect the\npulpits to increase their wages. The preachers get their money from\nthe well-to-do--from the employeer class--and their sympathies are with\nthose from whom they receive their wages.\n\nThe ministers attack the pleasures of the world. They are not so much\nscandalized by murder and forgery as by dancing and eating meat on\nFriday. They regard unbelief as the greatest of all sins. They are not\ntouching the real, vital issues of the day, and their hearts do not\nthrob in unison with the hearts of the struggling, the aspiring, the\nenthusiastic and the real believers in the progress of the human race.\n\nIt is all well enough to say that we should depend on Providence, but\nexperience has taught us that while it may do no harm to say it, it will\ndo no good to do it. We have found that man must be the Providence of\nman, and that one plow will do more, properly pulled and properly held,\ntoward feeding the world, than all the prayers that ever agitated the\nair.\n\nSo, Mr. Newton is correct in saying, as I understand him to say, that\nthe hope of immortality has nothing to do with orthodox religion.\nNeither, in my judgment, has the belief in the existence of a God\nanything in fact to do with real religion. The old doctrine that God\nwanted man to do something for him, and that he kept a watchful eye upon\nall the children of men; that he rewarded the virtuous and punished\nthe wicked, is gradually fading from the mind. We know that some of the\nworst men have what the world calls success. We know that some of\nthe best men lie upon the straw of failure. We know that honesty goes\nhungry, while larceny sits at the banquet. We know that the vicious have\nevery physical comfort, while the virtuous are often clad in rags.\n\nMan is beginning to find that he must take care of himself; that special\nprovidence is a mistake. This being so, the old religions must go down,\nand in their place man must depend upon intelligence, industry, honesty;\nupon the facts that he can ascertain, upon his own experience, upon his\nown efforts. Then religion becomes a thing of this world--a religion to\nput a roof above our heads, a religion that gives to every man a home, a\nreligion that rewards virtue here.\n\nIf Mr. Newton's sermon is in accordance with the Episcopal creed, I\ncongratulate the creed. In any event, I think Mr. Newton deserves great\ncredit for speaking his thought. Do not understand that I imagine that\nhe agrees with me. The most I will say is that in some things I agree\nwith him, and probably there is a little too much truth and a little too\nmuch humanity in his remarks to please the bishop.\n\nThere is this wonderful fact, no man has ever yet been persecuted for\nthinking God bad. When any one has said that he believed God to be so\ngood that he would, in his own time and way, redeem the entire human\nrace, and that the time would come when every soul would be brought home\nand sit on an equality with the others around the great fireside of\nthe universe, that man has been denounced as a poor, miserable, wicked\nwretch.--New York Herald, December 13,1888.\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.\n\n\nMY family and I regard Christmas as a holiday--that is to say, a day\nof rest and pleasure--a day to get acquainted with each other, a day to\nrecall old memories, and for the cultivation of social amenities. The\nfestival now called Christmas is far older than Christianity. It was\nknown and celebrated for thousands of years before the establishment of\nwhat is known as our religion. It is a relic of sun-worship. It is the\nday on which the sun triumphs over the hosts of darkness, and thousands\nof years before the New Testament was written, thousands of years before\nthe republic of Rome existed, before one stone of Athens was laid,\nbefore the Pharaohs ruled in Egypt, before the religion of Brahma,\nbefore Sanscrit was spoken, men and women crawled out of their caves,\npushed the matted hair from their eyes, and greeted the triumph of the\nsun over the powers of the night.\n\nThere are many relics of this worship--among which is the shaving of the\npriest's head, leaving the spot shaven surrounded by hair, in imitation\nof the rays of the sun. There is still another relic--the ministers of\nour day close their eyes in prayer. When men worshiped the sun--when\nthey looked at that luminary and implored its assistance--they shut\ntheir eyes as a matter of necessity. Afterward the priests looking\nat their idols glittering with gems, shut their eyes in flattery,\npretending that they could not bear the effulgence of the presence; and\nto-day, thousands of years after the old ideas have passed away, the\nmodern parson, without knowing the origin of the custom, closes his eyes\nwhen he prays.\n\nThere are many other relics and souvenirs of the dead worship of the\nsun, and this festival was adopted by Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and by\nChristians. As a matter of fact, Christianity furnished new steam for an\nold engine, infused a new spirit into an old religion, and, as a matter\nof course, the old festival remained.\n\nFor all of our festivals you will find corresponding pagan festivals.\nFor instance, take the eucharist, the communion, where persons partake\nof the body and blood of the Deity. This is an exceedingly old custom.\nAmong the ancients they ate cakes made of corn, in honor of Ceres and\nthey called these cakes the flesh of the goddess, and they drank wine in\nhonor of Bacchus, and called this the blood of their god. And so I could\ngo on giving the pagan origin of every Christian ceremony and custom.\nThe probability is that the worship of the sun was once substantially\nuniversal, and consequently the festival of Christ was equally wide\nspread.\n\nAs other religions have been produced, the old customs have been adopted\nand continued, so that the result is, this festival of Christmas is\nalmost world-wide. It is popular because it is a holiday. Overworked\npeople are glad of days that bring rest and recreation and allow them to\nmeet their families and their friends. They are glad of days when they\ngive and receive gifts--evidences of friendship, of remembrance and\nlove. It is popular because it is really human, and because it is\ninterwoven with our customs, habits, literature, and thought.\n\nFor my part I am willing to have two or three a year--the more holidays\nthe better. Many people have an idea that I am opposed to Sunday. I am\nperfectly willing to have two a week. All I insist on is that these days\nshall be for the benefit of the people, and that they shall be kept not\nin a way to make folks miserable or sad or hungry, but in a way to make\npeople happy, and to add a little to the joy of life. Of course, I am\nin favor of everybody keeping holidays to suit himself, provided he does\nnot interfere with others, and I am perfectly willing that everybody\nshould go to church on that day, provided he is willing that I should go\nsomewhere else.--The Tribune, New York, December, 1889.\n\n\n\n\nHAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE?\n\n\nTHE object of the Freethinker is to ascertain the truth--the conditions\nof well-being--to the end that this life will be made of value. This is\nthe affirmative, positive, and constructive side.\n\nWithout liberty there is no such thing as real happiness. There may be\nthe contentment of the slave--of one who is glad that he has passed the\nday without a beating--one who is happy because he has had enough to\neat--but the highest possible idea of happiness is freedom.\n\nAll religious systems enslave the mind. Certain things are\ndemanded--certain things must be believed--certain things must\nbe done--and the man who becomes the subject or servant of this\nsuperstition must give up all idea of individuality or hope of\nintellectual growth and progress.\n\nThe religionist informs us that there is somewhere in the universe an\northodox God, who is endeavoring to govern the world, and who for this\npurpose resorts to famine and flood, to earthquake and pestilence--and\nwho, as a last resort, gets up a revival of religion. That is called\n\"affirmative and positive.\"\n\nThe man of sense knows that no such God exists, and thereupon he affirms\nthat the orthodox doctrine is infinitely absurd. This is called a\n\"negation.\" But to my mind it is an affirmation, and is a part of the\npositive side of Freethought.\n\nA man who compels this Deity to abdicate his throne renders a vast and\nsplendid service to the human race.\n\nAs long as men believe in tyranny in heaven they will practice tyranny\non earth. Most people are exceedingly imitative, and nothing is so\ngratifying to the average orthodox man as to be like his God.\n\nThese same Christians tell us that nearly everybody is to be punished\nforever, while a few fortunate Christians who were elected and selected\nbillions of ages before the world was created, are to be happy. This\nthey call the \"tidings of great joy.\" The Freethinker denounces this\ndoctrine as infamous beyond the power of words to express. He says, and\nsays clearly, that a God who would create a human being, knowing that\nthat being was to be eternally miserable, must of necessity be an\ninfinite fiend.\n\nThe free man, into whose brain the serpent of superstition has not\ncrept, knows that the dogma of eternal pain is an infinite falsehood. He\nalso knows--if the dogma be true--that every decent human being should\nhate, with every drop of his blood, the creator of the universe. He also\nknows--if he knows anything--that no decent human being could be happy\nin heaven with a majority of the human race in hell. He knows that\na mother could not enjoy the society of Christ with her children in\nperdition; and if she could, he knows that such a mother is simply\na wild beast. The free man knows that the angelic hosts, under such\ncircumstances, could not enjoy themselves unless they had the hearts of\nboa-constrictors.\n\nIt will thus be seen that there is an affirmative, a positive, a\nconstructive side to Freethought.\n\nWhat is the positive side?\n\nFirst: A denial of all orthodox falsehoods--an exposure of all\nsuperstitions. This is simply clearing the ground, to the end that seeds\nof value may be planted. It is necessary, first, to fell the trees, to\ndestroy the poisonous vines, to drive out the wild beasts. Then comes\nanother phase--another kind of work. The Freethinker knows that the\nuniverse is natural--that there is no room, even in infinite space, for\nthe miraculous, for the impossible. The Freethinker knows, or feels that\nhe knows, that there is no sovereign of the universe, who, like some\npetty king or tyrant, delights in showing his authority. He feels that\nall in the universe are conditioned beings, and that only those are\nhappy who live in accordance with the conditions of happiness, and this\nfact or truth or philosophy embraces all men and all gods--if there be\ngods.\n\nThe positive side is this: That every good action has good\nconsequences--that it bears good fruit forever--and that every bad\naction has evil consequences, and bears bad fruit. The Freethinker also\nasserts that every man must bear the consequences of his actions--that\nhe must reap what he sows, and that he cannot be justified by the\ngoodness of another, or damned for the wickedness of another.\n\nThere is still another side, and that is this: The Freethinker knows\nthat all the priests and cardinals and popes know nothing of the\nsupernatural--they know nothing about gods or angels or heavens or\nhells--nothing about inspired books or Holy Ghosts, or incarnations or\natonements. He knows that all this is superstition pure and simple.\nHe knows also that these people--from pope to priest, from bishop to\nparson, do not the slightest good in this world--that they live upon the\nlabor of others--that they earn nothing themselves--that they contribute\nnothing toward the happiness, or well-being, or the wealth of mankind.\nHe knows that they trade and traffic in ignorance and fear, that they\nmake merchandise of hope and grief--and he also knows that in every\nreligion the priest insists on five things--First: There is a God.\nSecond: He has made known his will. Third: He has selected me to explain\nthis message. Fourth: We will now take up a collection; and Fifth: Those\nwho fail to subscribe will certainly be damned.\n\nThe positive side of Freethought is to find out the truth--the facts of\nnature--to the end that we may take advantage of those truths, of those\nfacts--for the purpose of feeding and clothing and educating mankind.\n\nIn the first place, we wish to find that which will lengthen human\nlife--that which will prevent or kill disease--that which will do away\nwith pain--that which will preserve or give us health.\n\nWe also want to go in partnership with these forces of nature, to the\nend that we may be well fed and clothed--that we may have good houses\nthat protect us from heat and cold. And beyond this--beyond these simple\nnecessities--there are still wants and aspirations, and free-thought\nwill give us the highest possible in art--the most wonderful and\nthrilling in music--the greatest paintings, the most marvelous\nsculpture--in other words, free-thought will develop the brain to\nits utmost capacity. Freethought is the mother of art and science, of\nmorality and happiness.\n\nIt is charged by the worshipers of the Jewish myth, that we destroy,\nthat we do not build.\n\nWhat have we destroyed? We have destroyed the idea that a monster\ncreated and governs this world--the declaration that a God of infinite\nmercy and compassion upheld slavery and polygamy and commanded the\ndestruction of men, women, and babes. We have destroyed the idea that\nthis monster created a few of his children for eternal joy, and the vast\nmajority for everlasting pain. We have destroyed the infinite absurdity\nthat salvation depends upon belief, that investigation is dangerous, and\nthat the torch of reason lights only the way to hell. We have taken a\ngrinning devil from every grave, and the curse from death--and in the\nplace of these dogmas, of these infamies, we have put that which is\nnatural and that which commends itself to the heart and brain.\n\nInstead of loving God, we love each other. Instead of the religion of\nthe sky--the religion of this world--the religion of the family--the\nlove of husband for wife, of wife for husband--the love of all for\nchildren. So that now the real religion is: Let us live for each other;\nlet us live for this world, without regard for the past and without fear\nfor the future. Let us use our faculties and our powers for the benefit\nof ourselves and others, knowing that if there be another world, the\nsame philosophy that gives us joy here will make us happy there.\n\nNothing can be more absurd than the idea that we can do something to\nplease or displease an infinite Being. If our thoughts and actions can\nlessen or increase the happiness of God, then to that extent God is the\nslave and victim of man.\n\nThe energies of the world have been wasted in the service of a\nphantom--millions of priests have lived on the industry of others and no\neffort has been spared to prevent the intellectual freedom of mankind.\n\nWe know, if we know anything, that supernatural religion has no\nfoundation except falsehood and mistake. To expose these falsehoods--to\ncorrect these mistakes--to build the fabric of civilization on the\nfoundation of demonstrated truth--is the task of the Freethinker. To\ndestroy guide-boards that point in the wrong direction--to correct\ncharts that lure to reef and wreck--to drive the fiend of fear from the\nmind--to protect the cradle from the serpent of superstition and dispel\nthe darkness of ignorance with the sun of science--is the task of the\nFreethinker.\n\nWhat constructive work has been done by the church? Christianity gave us\na flat world a few thousand years ago--a heaven above it where Jehovah\ndwells and a hell below it where most people will dwell. Christianity\ntook the ground that a certain belief was necessary to salvation and\nthat this belief was far better and of more importance than the practice\nof all the virtues. It became the enemy of investigation--the bitter and\nrelentless foe of reason and the liberty of thought. It committed every\ncrime and practiced every cruelty in the propagation of its creed. It\ndrew the sword against the freedom of the world. It established schools\nand universities for the preservation of ignorance. It claimed to have\nwithin its keeping the source and standard of all truth. If the church\nhad succeeded the sciences could not have existed.\n\nFreethought has given us all we have of value. It has been the great\nconstructive force. It is the only discoverer, and every science is its\nchild.--The Truth Seeker, New York 1890.\n\n\n\n\nTHE IMPROVED MAN.\n\nTHE Improved Man will be in favor of universal liberty, that is to say, he\nwill be opposed to all kings and nobles, to all privileged classes.\nHe will give to all others the rights he claims for himself. He will\nneither bow nor cringe, nor accept bowing and cringing from others. He\nwill be neither master nor slave, neither prince nor peasant--simply\nman.\n\nHe will be the enemy of all caste, no matter whether its foundation be\nwealth, title or power, and of him it will be said: \"Blessed is that man\nwho is afraid of no man and of whom no man is afraid.\"\n\nThe Improved Man will be in favor of universal education. He will\nbelieve it the duty of every person to shed all the light he can, to the\nend that no child may be reared in darkness. By education he will mean\nthe gaining of useful knowledge, the development of the mind along the\nnatural paths that lead to human happiness.\n\nHe will not waste his time in ascertaining the foolish theories of\nextinct peoples or in studying the dead languages for the sake of\nunderstanding the theologies of ignorance and fear, but he will turn his\nattention to the affairs of life, and will do his utmost to see to it\nthat every child has an opportunity to learn the demonstrated facts of\nscience, the true history of the world, the great principles of right\nand wrong applicable to human conduct--the things necessary to the\npreservation of the individual and of the state, and such arts and\nindustries as are essential to the preservation of all.\n\nHe will also endeavor to develop the mind in the direction of the\nbeautiful--of the highest art--so that the palace in which the mind\ndwells may be enriched and rendered beautiful, to the end that these\nstones, called facts, may be changed into statues.\n\nThe Improved Man will believe only in the religion of this world. He\nwill have nothing to do with the miraculous and supernatural. He will\nfind that there is no room in the universe for these things. He will\nknow that happiness is the only good, and that everything that tends to\nthe happiness of sentient beings is good, and that to do the things--and\nno other--that add to the happiness of man is to practice the highest\npossible religion. His motto will be: \"Sufficient unto each world is the\nevil thereof.\" He will know that each man should be his own priest, and\nthat the brain is the real cathedral. He will know that in the realm\nof mind there is no authority--that majorities in this mental world can\nsettle nothing--that each soul is the sovereign of its own world, and\nthat it cannot abdicate without degrading itself. He will not bow to\nnumbers or force; to antiquity or custom. He, standing under the flag of\nnature, under the blue and stars, will decide for himself. He will not\nendeavor by prayers and supplication, by fastings and genuflections, to\nchange the mind of the \"Infinite\" or alter the course of nature, neither\nwill he employ others to do those things in his place. He will have no\nconfidence in the religion of idleness, and will give no part of what he\nearns to support parson or priest, archbishop or pope. He will know that\nhonest labor is the highest form of prayer. He will spend no time\nin ringing bells or swinging censers, or in chanting the litanies\nof barbarism, but he will appreciate all that is artistic--that is\nbeautiful--that tends to refine and ennoble the human race. He will not\nlive a life of fear. He will stand in awe neither of man nor ghosts. He\nwill enjoy not only the sunshine of life, but will bear with fortitude\nthe darkest days. He will have no fear of death. About the grave, there\nwill be no terrors, and his life will end as serenely as the sun rises.\n\nThe Improved Man will be satisfied that the supernatural does not\nexist--that behind every fact, every thought and dream is an efficient\ncause. He will know that every human action is a necessary product,\nand he will also know that men cannot be reformed by punishment, by\ndegradation or by revenge. He will regard those who violate the laws\nof nature and the laws of States as victims of conditions, of\ncircumstances, and he will do what he can for the wellbeing of his\nfellow-men.\n\nThe Improved Man will not give his life to the accumulation of wealth.\nHe will find no happiness in exciting the envy of his neighbors. He will\nnot care to live in a palace while others who are good, industrious and\nkind are compelled to huddle in huts and dens. He will know that great\nwealth is a great burden, and that to accumulate beyond the actual\nneeds of a reasonable human being is to increase not wealth, but\nresponsibility and trouble.\n\nThe Improved Man will find his greatest joy in the happiness of others\nand he will know that the home is the real temple. He will believe in\nthe democracy of the fireside, and will reap his greatest reward in\nbeing loved by those whose lives he has enriched.\n\nThe Improved Man will be self-poised, independent, candid and free.\nHe will be a scientist. He will observe, investigate, experiment and\ndemonstrate. He will use his sense and his senses. He will keep his mind\nopen as the day to the hints and suggestions of nature. He will always\nbe a student, a learner and a listener--a believer in intellectual\nhospitality. In the world of his brain there will be continuous summer,\nperpetual seed-time and harvest. Facts will be the foundation of his\nfaith. In one hand he will carry the torch of truth, and with the other\nraise the fallen.--The World, New York, February 28,1890.\n\n\n\n\nEIGHT HOURS MUST COME.\n\n\nI HARDLY know enough on the subject to give an opinion as to the\ntime when eight hours are to become a day's work, but I am perfectly\nsatisfied that eight hours will become a labor day.\n\nThe working people should be protected by law; if they are not, the\ncapitalists will require just as many hours as human nature can bear.\nWe have seen here in America street-car drivers working sixteen and\nseventeen hours a day. It was necessary to have a strike in order to\nget to fourteen, another strike to get to twelve, and nobody could blame\nthem for keeping on striking till they get to eight hours.\n\nFor a man to get up before daylight and work till after dark, life is\nof no particular importance. He simply earns enough one day to prepare\nhimself to work another. His whole life is spent in want and toil, and\nsuch a life is without value.\n\nOf course, I cannot say that the present effort is going to succeed--all\nI can say is that I hope it will. I cannot see how any man who does\nnothing--who lives in idleness--can insist that others should work ten\nor twelve hours a day. Neither can I see how a man who lives on the\nluxuries of life can find it in his heart, or in his stomach, to say\nthat the poor ought to be satisfied with the crusts and crumbs they get.\n\nI believe there is to be a revolution in the relations between labor\nand capital. The laboring people a few generations ago were not very\nintellectual. There were no schoolhouses, no teachers except the church,\nand the church taught obedience and faith--told the poor people that\nalthough they had a hard time here, working for nothing, they would be\npaid in Paradise with a large interest. Now the working people are more\nintelligent--they are better educated--they read and write. In order to\ncarry on the works of the present, many of them are machinists of the\nhighest order. They must be reasoners. Every kind of mechanism insists\nupon logic. The working people are reasoners--their hands and heads are\nin partnership. They know a great deal more than the capitalists. It\ntakes a thousand times the brain to make a locomotive that it does to\nrun a store or a bank. Think of the intelligence in a steamship and\nin all the thousand machines and devices that are now working for the\nworld. These working people read. They meet together--they discuss. They\nare becoming more and more independent in thought. They do not believe\nall they hear. They may take their hats off their heads to the priests,\nbut they keep their brains in their heads for themselves.\n\nThe free school in this country has tended to put men on an equality,\nand the mechanic understands his side of the case, and is able to\nexpress his views. Under these circumstances there must be a revolution.\nThat is to say, the relations between capital and labor must be changed,\nand the time must come when they who do the work--they who make the\nmoney--will insist on having some of the profits.\n\nI do not expect this remedy to come entirely from the Government, or\nfrom Government interference. I think the Government can aid in passing\ngood and wholesome laws--laws fixing the length of a labor day; laws\npreventing the employment of children; laws for the safety and security\nof workingmen in mines and other dangerous places. But the laboring\npeople must rely upon themselves; on their intelligence, and especially\non their political power. They are in the majority in this country.\nThey can if they wish--if they will stand together--elect Congresses\nand Senates, Presidents and Judges. They have it in their power to\nadminister the Government of the United States.\n\nThe laboring man, however, ought to remember that all who labor are\ntheir brothers, and that all women who labor are their sisters, and\nwhenever one class of workingmen or working women is oppressed all other\nlaborers ought to stand by the oppressed class. Probably the worst paid\npeople in the world are the working-women. Think of the sewing women in\nthis city--and yet we call ourselves civilized! I would like to see all\nworking people unite for the purpose of demanding justice, not only for\nmen, but for women.\n\nAll my sympathies are on the side of those who toil--of those who\nproduce the real wealth of the world--of those who carry the burdens of\nmankind.\n\nAny man who wishes to force his brother to work--to toil--more than\neight hours a day is not a civilized man.\n\nMy hope for the workingman has its foundation in the fact that he is\ngrowing more and more intelligent. I have also the same hope for the\ncapitalist. The time must come when the capitalist will clearly and\nplainly see that his interests are identical with those of the laboring\nman. He will finally become intelligent enough to know that his\nprosperity depends on the prosperity of those who labor. When both\nbecome intelligent the matter will be settled.\n\nNeither labor nor capital should resort to force.--The Morning Journal,\nApril 27, 1890.\n\n\n\n\nTHE JEWS.\n\n\nWHEN I was a child, I was taught that the Jews were an exceedingly\nhard-hearted and cruel people, and that they were so destitute of the\nfiner feelings that they had a little while before that time crucified\nthe only perfect man who had appeared upon the earth; that this perfect\nman was also perfect God, and that the Jews had really stained their\nhands with the blood of the Infinite.\n\nWhen I got somewhat older, I found that nearly all people had been\nguilty of substantially the same crime--that is, that they had destroyed\nthe progressive and the thoughtful; that religionists had in all ages\nbeen cruel; that the chief priests of all people had incited the mob, to\nthe end that heretics--that is to say, philosophers--that is to say, men\nwho knew that the chief priests were hypocrites--might be destroyed.\n\nI also found that Christians had committed more of these crimes than all\nother religionists put together.\n\nI also became acquainted with a large number of Jewish people, and I\nfound them like other people, except that, as a rule, they were more\nindustrious, more temperate, had fewer vagrants among them, no beggars,\nvery few criminals; and in addition to all this, I found that they were\nintelligent, kind to their wives and children, and that, as a rule, they\nkept their contracts and paid their debts.\n\nThe prejudice was created almost entirely by religious, or rather\nirreligious, instruction. All children in Christian countries are taught\nthat all the Jews are to be eternally damned who die in the faith\nof Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; that it is not enough to believe in\nthe inspiration of the Old Testament--not enough to obey the Ten\nCommandments--not enough to believe the miracles performed in the days\nof the prophets, but that every Jew must accept the New Testament\nand must be a believer in Christianity--that is to say, he must be\nregenerated--or he will simply be eternal kindling wood.\n\nThe church has taught, and still teaches, that every Jew is an outcast;\nthat he is to-day busily fulfilling prophecy; that he is a wandering\nwitness in favor of \"the glad tidings of great joy;\" that Jehovah is\nseeing to it that the Jews shall not exist as a nation--that they shall\nhave no abiding place, but that they shall remain scattered, to the end\nthat the inspiration of the Bible may be substantiated.\n\nDr. John Hall of this city, a few years ago, when the Jewish people were\nbeing persecuted in Russia, took the ground that it was all fulfillment\nof prophecy, and that whenever a Jewish maiden was stabbed to death, God\nput a tongue in every wound for the purpose of declaring the truth of\nthe Old Testament.\n\nJust as long as Christians take these positions, of course they will do\nwhat they can to assist in the fulfillment of what they call prophecy,\nand they will do their utmost to keep the Jewish people in a state\nof exile, and then point to that fact as one of the corner-stones of\nChristianity.\n\nMy opinion is that in the early days of Christianity all sensible Jews\nwere witnesses against the faith, and in this way excited the hostility\nof the orthodox. Every sensible Jew knew that no miracles had been\nperformed in Jerusalem. They all knew that the sun had not been\ndarkened, that the graves had not given up their dead, that the veil\nof the temple had not been rent in twain--and they told what they knew.\nThey were then denounced as the most infamous of human beings, and this\nhatred has pursued them from that day to this.\n\nThere is no other chapter in history so infamous, so bloody, so cruel,\nso relentless, as the chapter in which is told the manner in which\nChristians--those who love their enemies--have treated the Jewish\npeople. This story is enough to bring the blush of shame to the cheek,\nand the words of indignation to the lips of every honest man.\n\nNothing can be more unjust than to generalize about nationalities, and\nto speak of a race as worthless or vicious, simply because you have met\nan individual who treated you unjustly. There are good people and bad\npeople in all races, and the individual is not responsible for the\ncrimes of the nation, or the nation responsible for the actions of the\nfew. Good men and honest men are found in every faith, and they are not\nhonest or dishonest because they are Jews or Gentiles, but for entirely\ndifferent reasons.\n\nSome of the best people I have ever known are Jews, and some of the\nworst people I have known are Christians. The Christians were not bad\nsimply because they were Christians, neither were the Jews good because\nthey were Jews. A man is far above these badges of faith and race. Good\nJews are precisely the same as good Christians, and bad Christians are\nwonderfully like bad Jews.\n\nPersonally, I have either no prejudices about religion, or I have equal\nprejudice against all religions. The consequence is that I judge of\npeople not by their creeds, not by their rites, not by their mummeries,\nbut by their actions.\n\nIn the first place, at the bottom of this prejudice lies the coiled\nserpent of superstition. In other words, it is a religious question.\nIt seems impossible for the people of one religion to like the people\nbelieving in another religion. They have different gods, different\nheavens, and a great variety of hells. For the followers of one god to\ntreat the followers of another god decently is a kind of treason. In\norder to be really true to his god, each follower must not only hate all\nother gods, but the followers of all other gods.\n\nThe Jewish people should outgrow their own superstitions. It is time\nfor them to throw away the idea of inspiration. The intelligent jew of\nto-day knows that the Old Testament was written by barbarians., and he\nknows that the rites and ceremonies are simply absurd. He knows that\nno intelligent man should care anything about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,\nthree dead barbarians. In other words, the Jewish people should leave\ntheir superstition and rely on science and philosophy.\n\nThe Christian should do the same. He, by this time, should know that his\nreligion is a mistake, that his creed has no foundation in the eternal\nverities. The Christian certainly should give up the hopeless task of\nconverting the Jewish people, and the Jews should give up the useless\ntask of converting the Christians. There is no propriety in swapping\nsuperstitions--neither party can afford to give any boot.\n\nWhen the Christian throws away his cruel and heartless superstitions,\nand when the Jew throws away his, then they can meet as man to man.\n\nIn the meantime, the world will go on in its blundering way, and I shall\nknow and feel that everybody does as he must, and that the Christian,\nto the extent that he is prejudiced, is prejudiced by reason of his\nignorance, and that consequently the great lever with which to raise all\nmankind into the sunshine of philosophy, is intelligence.\n\n\n\n\nCRUMBLING CREEDS.\n\nTHERE is a desire in each brain to harmonize the knowledge that it has.\nIf a man knows, or thinks he knows, a few facts, he will naturally use\nthose facts for the purpose of determining the accuracy of his opinions\non other subjects. This is simply an effort to establish or prove the\nunknown by the known--a process that is constantly going on in the minds\nof all intelligent people.\n\nIt is natural for a man not governed by fear, to use what he knows\nin one department of human inquiry, in every other department that he\ninvestigates. The average of intelligence has in the last few years\ngreatly increased. Man may have as much credulity as he ever had, on\nsome subjects, but certainly on the old subjects he has less. There\nis not as great difference to-day between the members of the learned\nprofessions and the common people. Man is governed less and less by\nauthority. He cares but little for the conclusions of the universities.\nHe does not feel bound by the actions of synods or ecumenical\ncouncils--neither does he bow to the decisions of the highest tribunals,\nunless the reasons given for the decision satisfy his intellect. One\nreason for this is, that the so-called \"learned\" do not agree among\nthemselves--that the universities dispute each other--that the synod\nattacks the ecumenical council--that the parson snaps his fingers at the\npriest, and even the Protestant bishop holds the pope in contempt. If\nthe learned cau thus disagree, there is no reason why the common people\nshould hold to one opinion. They are at least called upon to decide as\nbetween the universities or synods; and in order to decide, they must\nexamine both sides, and having examined both sides, they generally have\nan opinion of their own.\n\nThere was a time when the average man knew nothing of medicine--he\nsimply opened his mouth and took the dose. If he died, it was simply a\ndispensation of Providence--if he got well, it was a triumph of science.\nNow this average man not only asks the doctor what is the matter with\nhim--not only asks what medicine will be good for him,--but insists\non knowing the philosophy of the cure--asks the doctor why he gives\nit--what result he expects--and, as a rule, has a judgment of his own.\n\nSo in law. The average business man has an exceedingly good idea of the\nlaw affecting his business. There is nothing now mysterious about what\ngoes on in courts or in the decisions of judges--they are published in\nevery direction, and all intelligent people who happen to read these\nopinions have their ideas as to whether the opinions are right or wrong.\nThey are no longer the victims of doctors, or of lawyers, or of courts.\n\nThe same is true in the world of art and literature. The average man has\nan opinion of his own. He is no longer a parrot repeating what somebody\nelse says. He not only has opinions, but he has the courage to express\nthem. In literature the old models fail to satisfy him. He has the\ncourage to say that Milton is tiresome--that Dante is prolix--that they\ndeal with subjects having no human interest. He laughs at Young's \"Night\nThoughts\" and Pollok's \"Course of Time\"--knowing that both are filled\nwith hypocrisies and absurdities. He no longer falls upon his knees\nbefore the mechanical poetry of Mr. Pope. He chooses--and stands by his\nown opinion. I do not mean that he is entirely independent, but that he\nis going in that direction.\n\nThe same is true of pictures. He prefers the modern to the old masters.\nHe prefers Corot to Raphael. He gets more real pleasure from Millet and\nTroyon than from all the pictures of all the saints and donkeys of the\nMiddle Ages.\n\nIn other words, the days of authority are passing away.\n\nThe same is true in music. The old no longer satisfies, and there is a\nbreadth, color, wealth, in the new that makes the old poor and barren in\ncomparison.\n\nTo a far greater extent this advance, this individual independence, is\nseen in the religious world. The religion of our day--that is to say,\nthe creeds--at the time they were made, were in perfect harmony with the\nknowledge, or rather with the ignorance, of man in all other departments\nof human inquiry. All orthodox creeds agreed with the sciences of\ntheir day--with the astronomy and geology and biology and political\nconceptions of the Middle Ages. These creeds were declared to be the\nabsolute and eternal truth. They could not be changed without abandoning\nthe claim that made them authority. The priests, through a kind of\nunconscious self-defence, clung to every word. They denied the truth of\nall discovery. They measured every assertion in every other\ndepartment by their creeds. At last the facts against them became\nso numerous--their congregations became so intelligent--that it\nwas necessary to give new meanings to the old words. The cruel was\nsoftened--the absurd was partially explained, and they kept these old\nwords, although the original meanings had fallen out. They became empty\npurses, but they retained them still.\n\nSlowly but surely came the time when this course could not longer be\npursued. The words must be thrown away--the creeds must be changed--they\nwere no longer believed--only occasionally were they preached. The\nministers became a little ashamed--they began to apologize. Apology is\nthe prelude to retreat.\n\nOf all the creeds, the Presbyterian, the old Congregational, were the\nmost explicit, and for that reason the most absurd. When these creeds\nwere written, those who wrote them had perfect confidence in their\ntruth. They did not shrink because of their cruelty. They cared nothing\nfor what others called absurdity. They failed not to declare what they\nbelieved to be \"the whole counsel of God.\"\n\nAt that time, cruel punishments were inflicted by all governments.\nPeople were torn asunder, mutilated, burned. Every atrocity was\nperpetrated in the name of justice, and the limit of pain was the limit\nof endurance. These people imagined that God would do as they would do.\nIf they had had it in their power to keep the victim alive for years in\nthe flames, they would most cheerfully have supplied the fagots.\nThey believed that God could keep the victim alive forever, and that\ntherefore his punishment would be eternal. As man becomes civilized he\nbecomes merciful, and the time came when civilized Presbyterians and\nCongregationalists read their own creeds with horror.\n\nI am not saying that the Presbyterian creed is any worse than the\nCatholic. It is only a little more specific. Neither am I saying that it\nis more horrible than the Episcopal. It is not. All orthodox creeds are\nalike infamous. All of them have good things, and all of them have bad\nthings. You will find in every creed the blossom of mercy and the oak of\njustice, but under the one and around the other are coiled the serpents\nof infinite cruelty.\n\nThe time came when orthodox Christians began dimly to perceive that\nGod ought at least to be as good as they were. They felt that they\nwere incapable of inflicting eternal pain, and they began to doubt the\npropriety of saying that God would do that which a civilized Christian\nwould be incapable of.\n\nWe have improved in all directions for the same reasons. We have better\nlaws now because we have a better sense of justice. We are believing\nmore and more in the government of the people. Consequently we are\nbelieving more and more in the education of the people, and from that\nnaturally results greater individuality and a greater desire to hear the\nhonest opinions of all.\n\nThe moment the expression of opinion is allowed in any department,\nprogress begins. We are using our knowledge in every direction. The\ntendency is to test all opinions by the facts we know. All claims are\nput in the crucible of investigation--the object being to separate the\ntrue from the false. He who objects to having his opinions thus tested\nis regarded as a bigot.\n\nIf the professors of all the sciences had claimed that the knowledge\nthey had was given by inspiration--that it was absolutely true, and that\nthere was no necessity of examining further, not only, but that it was\na kind of blasphemy to doubt--all the sciences would have remained\nas stationary as religion has. Just to the extent that the Bible was\nappealed to in matters of science, science was retarded; and just to\nthe extent that science has been appealed to in matters of religion,\nreligion has advanced--so that now the object of intelligent\nreligionists is to adopt a creed that will bear the test and criticism\nof science.\n\nAnother thing may be alluded to in this connection. All the countries\nof the world are now, and have been for years, open to us. The ideas\nof other people--their theories, their religions--are now known; and we\nhave ascertained that the religions of all people have exactly the\nsame foundation as our own--that they all arose in the same way, were\nsubstantiated in the same way, were maintained by the same means, having\nprecisely the same objects in view.\n\nFor many years, the learned of the religious world were examining the\nreligions of other countries, and in that work they established certain\nrules of criticism--pursued certain lines of argument--by which they\noverturned the claims of those religions to supernatural origin. After\nthis had been successfully done, others, using the same methods on our\nreligion, pursuing the same line of argument, succeeded in overturning\nours. We have found that all miracles rest on the same basis--that all\nwonders were born of substantially the same ignorance and the same fear.\n\nThe intelligence of the world is far better distributed than ever\nbefore. The historical outlines of all countries are well known.\nThe arguments for and against all systems of religion are generally\nunderstood. The average of intelligence is far higher than ever before.\nAll discoveries become almost immediately the property of the whole\ncivilized world, and all thoughts are distributed by the telegraph and\npress with such rapidity, that provincialism is almost unknown. The\negotism of ignorance and seclusion is passing away. The prejudice of\nrace and religion is growing feebler, and everywhere, to a greater\nextent than ever before, the light is welcome.\n\nThese are a few of the reasons why creeds are crumbling, and why such a\nchange has taken place in the religious world.\n\nOnly a few years ago the pulpit was an intellectual power. The pews\nlistened with wonder, and accepted without question. There was something\nsacred about the preacher. He was different from other mortals. He had\nbread to eat which they knew not of. He was oracular, solemn, dignified,\nstupid.\n\nThe pulpit has lost its position. It speaks no longer with authority.\nThe pews determine what shall be preached. They pay only for that which\nthey wish to buy--for that which they wish to hear. Of course in every\nchurch there is an advance guard and a conservative party, and nearly\nevery minister is obliged to preach a little for both. He now and then\nsays a radical thing for one part of his congregation, and takes it\nmostly back on the next Sabbath, for the sake of the others. Most of\nthem ride two horses, and their time is taken up in urging one forward\nand in holding the other back.\n\nThe great reason why the orthodox creeds have become unpopular is, that\nall teach the dogma of eternal pain.\n\nIn old times, when men were nearly wild beasts, it was natural enough\nfor them to suppose that God would do as they would do in his place, and\nso they attributed to this God infinite cruelty, infinite revenge. This\nrevenge, this cruelty, wore the mask of justice. They took the ground\nthat God, having made man, had the right to do with him as he pleased.\nAt that time they were not civilized to the extent of seeing that a God\nwould not have the right to make a failure, and that a being of infinite\nwisdom and power would be under obligation to do the right, and that\nhe would have no right to create any being whose life would not be a\nblessing. The very fact that he made man, would put him under obligation\nto see to it that life should not be a curse.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the\nsavagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with\ntorture, with flaying alive and with burnings. The men who burned\ntheir fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies\nforever.\n\nNo civilized men ever believed in this dogma. The belief in eternal\npunishment has driven millions from the church. It was easy enough for\npeople to imagine that the children of others had gone to hell; that\nforeigners had been doomed to eternal pain; but when it was brought\nhome--when fathers and mothers bent above their dead who had died in\ntheir sins--when wives shed their tears on the faces of husbands who had\nbeen born but once--love suggested doubts and love fought the dogma of\neternal revenge.\n\nThis doctrine is as cruel as the hunger of hyenas, and is infamous\nbeyond the power of any language to express--yet a creed with this\ndoctrine has been called \"the glad tidings of great joy\"--a consolation\nto the weeping world. It is a source of great pleasure to me to know\nthat all intelligent people are ashamed to admit that they believe\nit--that no intelligent clergyman now preaches it, except with a preface\nto the effect that it is probably untrue.\n\nI have been blamed for taking this consolation from the world--for\nputting out, or trying to put out, the fires of hell; and many orthodox\npeople have wondered how I could be so wicked as to deprive the world of\nthis hope.\n\nThe church clung to the doctrine because it seemed a necessary excuse\nfor the existence of the church. The ministers said: \"No hell, no\natonement; no atonement, no fall of man; no fall of man, no inspired\nbook; no inspired book, no preachers; no preachers, no salary; no hell,\nno missionaries; no sulphur, no salvation.\"\n\nAt last, the people are becoming enlightened enough to ask for a better\nphilosophy. The doctrine of hell is now only for the poor, the ragged,\nthe ignorant. Well-dressed people won't have it. Nobody goes to hell\nin a carriage--they foot it. Hell is for strangers and tramps. No soul\nleaves a brown-stone front for hell--they start from the tenements, from\njails and reformatories. In other words, hell is for the poor. It is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor man\nto get into heaven, or for a rich man to get into hell. The ministers\nstand by their supporters. Their salaries are paid by the well-to-do,\nand they can hardly afford to send the subscribers to hell. Every creed\nin which is the dogma of eternal pain is doomed. Every church teaching\nthe infinite lie must fall, and the sooner the better.--The Twentieth\nCentury, N, Y., April 21,1890.\n\n\n\n\nOUR SCHOOLS.\n\n\nI BELIEVE that education is the only lever capable of raising mankind.\nIf we wish to make the future of the Republic glorious we must educate\nthe children of the present. The greatest blessing conferred by our\nGovernment is the free school. In importance it rises above everything\nelse that the Government does. In its influence it is far greater.\n\nThe schoolhouse is infinitely more important than the church, and if\nall the money wasted in the building of churches could be devoted to\neducation we should become a civilized people. Of course, to the extent\nthat churches disseminate thought they are good, and to the extent that\nthey provoke discussion they are of value, but the real object should be\nto become acquainted with nature--with the conditions of happiness--to\nthe end that man may take advantage of the forces of nature. I believe\nin the schools for manual training, and that every child should be\ntaught not only to think, but to do, and that the hand should be\neducated with the brain. The money expended on schools is the best\ninvestment made by the Government.\n\nThe schoolhouses in New York are not sufficient. Many of them are small,\ndark, unventilated, and unhealthy. They should be the finest public\nbuildings in the city. It would be far better for the Episcopalians to\nbuild a university than a cathedral. Attached to all these schoolhouses\nthere should be grounds for the children--places for air and sunlight.\nThey should be given the best. They are the hope of the Republic and, in\nmy judgment, of the world.\n\nWe need far more schoolhouses than we have, and while money is being\nwasted in a thousand directions, thousands of children are left to be\neducated in the gutter. It is far cheaper to build schoolhouses than\nprisons, and it is much better to have scholars than convicts.\n\nThe Kindergarten system should be adopted, especially for the young;\nattending school is then a pleasure--the children do not run away from\nschool, but to school. We should educate the children not simply in\nmind, but educate their eyes and hands, and they should be taught\nsomething that will be of use, that will help them to make a living,\nthat will give them independence, confidence--that is to say, character.\n\nThe cost of the schools is very little, and the cost of land--giving the\nchildren, as I said before, air and light--would amount to nothing.\n\nThere is another thing: Teachers are poorly paid. Only the best should\nbe employeed, and they should be well paid. Men and women of the highest\ncharacter should have charge of the children, because there is a vast\ndeal of education in association, and it is of the utmost importance\nthat the children should associate with real gentlemen--that is to say,\nwith real men; with real ladies--that is to say, with real women.\n\nEvery schoolhouse should be inviting, clean, well ventilated,\nattractive. The surroundings should be delightful. Children forced to\nschool, learn but little. The schoolhouse should not be a prison or the\nteachers turnkeys.\n\nI believe that the common school is the bread of life, and all should\nbe commanded to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It would have\nbeen far better to have expelled those who refused to eat.\n\nThe greatest danger to the Republic is ignorance. Intelligence is the\nfoundation of free government.--The World, New York, September 7, 1800.\n\n\n\n\nVIVISECTION.\n\n     *A letter written to Philip G. Peabody. May 27, 1800.\n\n\nVIVISECTION is the Inquisition--the Hell--of Science.\n\nAll the cruelty which the human--or rather the inhuman--heart is capable\nof inflicting, is in this one word. Below this there is no depth. This\nword lies like a coiled serpent at the bottom of the abyss.\n\nWe can excuse, in part, the crimes of passion. We take into\nconsideration the fact that man is liable to be caught by the whirlwind,\nand that from a brain on fire the soul rushes to a crime. But\nwhat excuse can ingenuity form for a man who deliberately--with an\nunaccelerated pulse--with the calmness of John Calvin at the murder\nof Servetus--seeks, with curious and cunning knives, in the living,\nquivering flesh of a dog, for all the throbbing nerves of pain? The\nwretches who commit these infamous crimes pretend that they are working\nfor the good of man; that they are actuated by philanthropy; and that\ntheir pity for the sufferings of the human race drives out all pity for\nthe animals they slowly torture to death. But those who are incapable\nof pitying animals are, as a matter of fact, incapable of pitying men.\nA physician who would cut a living rabbit in pieces--laying bare the\nnerves, denuding them with knives, pulling them out with forceps--would\nnot hesitate to try experiments with men and women for the gratification\nof his curiosity.\n\nTo settle some theory, he would trifle with the life of any patient\nin his power. By the same reasoning he will justify the vivisection of\nanimals and patients. He will say that it is better that a few animals\nshould suffer than that one human being should die; and that it is far\nbetter that one patient should die, if through the sacrifice of that\none, several may be saved.\n\nBrain without heart is far more dangerous than heart without brain.\n\nHave these scientific assassins discovered anything of value? They may\nhave settled some disputes as to the action of some organ, but have they\nadded to the useful knowledge of the race?\n\nIt is not necessary for a man to be a specialist in order to have and\nexpress his opinion as to the right or wrong of vivisection. It is not\nnecessary to be a scientist or a naturalist to detest cruelty and to\nlove mercy. Above all the discoveries of the thinkers, above all the\ninventions of the ingenious, above all the victories won on fields of\nintellectual conflict, rise human sympathy and a sense of justice.\n\nI know that good for the human race can never be accomplished by\ntorture. I also know that all that has been ascertained by vivisection\ncould have been done by the dissection of the dead. I know that all the\ntorture has been useless. All the agony inflicted has simply hardened\nthe hearts of the criminals, without enlightening their minds.\n\nIt may be that the human race might be physically improved if all the\nsickly and deformed babes were killed, and if all the paupers, liars,\ndrunkards, thieves, villains, and vivisectionists were murdered. All\nthis might, in a few ages, result in the production of a generation\nof physically perfect men and women; but what would such beings be\nworth,--men and women healthy and heartless, muscular and cruel--that is\nto say, intelligent wild beasts?\n\nNever can I be the friend of one who vivisects his fellow-creatures. I\ndo not wish to touch his hand.\n\nWhen the angel of pity is driven from the heart; when the fountain of\ntears is dry,--the soul becomes a serpent crawling in the dust of a\ndesert.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL CATECHISM.\n\n\nI SUPPOSE the Government has a right to ask all of these questions, and\nany more it pleases, but undoubtedly the citizen would have the right\nto refuse to answer them. Originally the census was taken simply for\nthe purpose of ascertaining the number of people--first, as a basis of\nrepresentation; second, as a basis of capitation tax; third, as a basis\nto arrive at the number of troops that might be called from each State;\nand it may be for some other purposes, but I imagine that all are\nembraced in the foregoing.\n\nThe Government has no right to invade the privacy of the citizen; no\nright to inquire into his financial condition, as thereby his credit\nmight be injured; no right to pry into his affairs, into his diseases,\nor his deformities; and, while the Government may have the right to ask\nthese questions, I think it was foolish to instruct the enumerators to\nask them, and that the citizens have a perfect right to refuse to\nanswer them. Personally, I have no objection to answering any of these\nquestions, for the reason that nothing is the matter with me that money\nwill not cure.\n\nI know that it is thought advisable by many to find out the amount of\nmortgages in the United States, the rate of interest that is being paid,\nthe general indebtedness of individuals, counties, cities and States,\nand I see no impropriety in finding this out in any reasonable way.\nBut I think it improper to insist on the debtor exposing his financial\ncondition. My opinion is that Mr. Porter only wants what is perfectly\nreasonable, and if left to himself, would ask only those questions that\nall people would willingly answer.\n\nI presume we can depend on medical statistics--on the reports of\nhospitals, etc., in regard to diseases and deformities, without\ninterfering with the patients. As to the financial standing of people,\nthere are already enough of spies in this country attending to that\nbusiness. I don't think there is any danger of the courts compelling a\nman to answer these questions. Suppose a man refuses to tell whether\nhe has a chronic disease or not, and he is brought up before a United\nStates Court for contempt. In my opinion the judge would decide that the\nman could not be compelled to answer. It is bad enough to have a chronic\ndisease without publishing it to the world. All intelligent people, of\ncourse, will be desirous of giving all useful information of a character\nthat cannot be used to their injury, but can be used for the benefit of\nsociety at large.\n\nIf, however, the courts shall decide that the enumerators have the right\nto ask these questions, and that everybody must answer them, I doubt\nif the census will be finished for many years. There are hundreds and\nthousands of people who delight in telling all about their diseases,\nwhen they were attacked, what they have taken, how many doctors have\ngiven them up to die, etc., and if the enumerators will stop to listen,\nthe census of 1890 will not be published until the next century.--The\nWorld, New York, June 8, 1890.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS\n\n\nAGAIN we celebrate the victory of Light over Darkness, of the God of day\nover the hosts of night. Again Samson is victorious over Delilah, and\nHercules triumphs once more over Omphale. In the embrace of Isis, Osiris\nrises from the dead, and the scowling Typhon is defeated once more.\nAgain Apollo, with unerring aim, with his arrow from the quiver of\nlight, destroys the serpent of shadow. This is the festival of Thor,\nof Baldur and of Prometheus. Again Buddha by a miracle escapes from the\ntyrant of Madura, Zoroaster foils the King, Bacchus laughs at the rage\nof Cadmus, and Chrishna eludes the tyrant.\n\nThis is the festival of the sun-god, and as such let its observance be\nuniversal.\n\nThis is the great day of the first religion, the mother of all\nreligions--the worship of the sun.\n\nSun worship is not only the first, but the most natural and most\nreasonable of all. And not only the most natural and the most\nreasonable, but by far the most poetic, the most beautiful.\n\nThe sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of warmth, of\nhappiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing, the all-pitying, the\nall-loving.\n\nThis bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never sought for revenge.\n\nAll evil qualities were in the breast of the God of darkness, of shadow,\nof night. And so I say again, this is the festival of Light. This is the\nanniversary of the triumph of the Sun over the hosts of Darkness.\n\nLet us all hope for the triumph of Light--of Right and Reason--for the\nvictory of Fact over Falsehood, of Science over Superstition.\n\nAnd so hoping, let us celebrate the venerable festival of the Sun.--The\nJournal, New York, December 25,1892.\n\n\n\n\nSPIRITUALITY.\n\n\nIF there is an abused word in our language, it is \"spirituality.\"\n\nIt has been repeated over and over for several hundred years by pious\npretenders and snivelers as though it belonged exclusively to them.\n\nIn the early days of Christianity, the \"spiritual\" renounced the world\nwith all its duties and obligations. They deserted their wives and\nchildren. They became hermits and dwelt in caves. They spent their\nuseless years in praying for their shriveled and worthless souls. They\nwere too \"spiritual\" to love women, to build homes and to labor for\nchildren. They were too \"spiritual\" to earn their bread, so they became\nbeggars and stood by the highways of Life and held out their hands and\nasked alms of Industry and Courage. They were too \"spiritual\" to be\nmerciful. They preached the dogma of eternal pain and gloried in \"the\nwrath to come.\" They were too \"spiritual\" to be civilized, so they\npersecuted their fellow-men for expressing their honest thoughts. They\nwere so \"spiritual\" that they invented instruments of torture, founded\nthe Inquisition, appealed to the whip, the rack, the sword and the\nfagot. They tore the flesh of their fellow-men with hooks of iron,\nburied their neighbors alive, cut off their eyelids, dashed out the\nbrains of babes and cut off the breasts of mothers. These \"spiritual\"\nwretches spent day and night on their knees, praying for their own\nsalvation and asking God to curse the best and noblest of the world.\n\nJohn Calvin was intensely \"spiritual\" when he warmed his fleshless hands\nat the flames that consumed Servetus.\n\nJohn Knox was constrained by his \"spirituality\" to utter low and\nloathsome calumnies against all women. All the witch-burners and\nQuaker-maimers and mutilators were so \"spiritual\" that they constantly\nlooked heavenward and longed for the skies.\n\nThese lovers of God--these haters of men--looked upon the Greek marbles\nas unclean, and denounced the glories of Art as the snares and pitfalls\nof perdition.\n\nThese \"spiritual\" mendicants hated laughter and smiles and dimples, and\nexhausted their diseased and polluted imaginations in the effort to make\nlove loathsome.\n\nFrom almost every pulpit was heard the denunciation of all that adds\nto the wealth, the joy and glory of life. It became the fashion for the\n\"spiritual\" to malign every hope and passion that tends to humanize\nand refine the heart. Man was denounced as totally depraved. Woman was\ndeclared to be a perpetual temptation--her beauty a snare and her touch\npollution.\n\nEven in our own time and country some of the ministers, no matter how\nradical they claim to be, retain the aroma, the odor, or the smell of\nthe \"spiritual.\"\n\nThey denounce some of the best and greatest--some of the benefactors\nof the race--for having lived on the low plane of usefulness--and for\nhaving had the pitiful ambition to make their fellows happy in this\nworld.\n\nThomas Paine was a groveling wretch because he devoted his life to the\npreservation of the rights of man, and Voltaire lacked the \"spiritual\"\nbecause he abolished torture in France and attacked, with the enthusiasm\nof a divine madness, the monster that was endeavoring to drive the hope\nof liberty from the heart of man.\n\nHumboldt was not \"spiritual\" enough to repeat with closed eyes\nthe absurdities of superstition, but was so lost to all the \"skyey\ninfluences\" that he was satisfied to add to the intellectual wealth of\nthe world.\n\nDarwin lacked \"spirituality,\" and in its place had nothing but\nsincerity, patience, intelligence, the spirit of investigation and\nthe courage to give his honest conclusions to the world. He contented\nhimself with giving to his fellow-men the greatest and the sublimest\ntruths that man has spoken since lips have uttered speech.\n\nBut we are now told that these soldiers of science, these heroes of\nliberty, these sculptors and painters, these singers of songs, these\ncomposers of music, lack \"spirituality\" and after all were only common\nclay.\n\nThis word \"spirituality\" is the fortress, the breastwork, the rifle-pit\nof the Pharisee. It sustains the same relation to sincerity that Dutch\nmetal does to pure gold.\n\nThere seems to be something about a pulpit that poisons the\noccupant--that changes his nature--that causes him to denounce what he\nreally loves and to laud with the fervor of insanity a joy that he\nnever felt--a rapture that never thrilled his soul. Hypnotized by his\nsurroundings, he unconsciously brings to market that which he supposes\nthe purchasers desire.\n\nIn every church, whether orthodox or radical, there are two parties--one\nconservative, looking backward, one radical, looking forward, and\ngenerally a minister \"spiritual\" enough to look both ways.\n\nA minister who seems to be a philosopher on the street, or in the home\nof a sensible man, cannot withstand the atmosphere of the pulpit.\nThe moment he stands behind the Bible cushion, like Bottom, he is\n\"translated\" and the Titania of superstition \"kisses his large, fair\nears.\"\n\nNothing is more amusing than to hear a clergyman denounce\nworldliness--ask his hearers what it will profit them to build railways\nand palaces and lose their own souls--inquire of the common folks\nbefore him why they waste their precious years in following trades and\nprofessions, in gathering treasures that moths corrupt and rust devours,\ngiving their days to the vulgar business of making money,--and then see\nhim take up a collection, knowing perfectly well that only the worldly,\nthe very people he has denounced, can by any possibility give a dollar.\n\n\"Spirituality\" for the most part is a mask worn by idleness, arrogance\nand greed.\n\nSome people imagine that they are \"spiritual\" when they are sickly.\n\nIt may be well enough to ask: What is it to be really spiritual?\n\nThe spiritual man lives to his ideal. He endeavors to make others happy.\nHe does not despise the passions that have filled the world with art and\nglory. He loves his wife and children--home and fireside. He cultivates\nthe amenities and refinements of life. He is the friend and champion of\nthe oppressed. His sympathies are with the poor and the suffering. He\nattacks what he believes to be wrong, though defended by the many, and\nhe is willing to stand for the right against the world. He enjoys the\nbeautiful. In the presence of the highest creations of Art his eyes are\nsuffused with tears. When he listens to the great melodies, the divine\nharmonies, he feels the sorrows and the raptures of death and love. He\nis intensely human. He carries in his heart the burdens of the world.\nHe searches for the deeper meanings. He appreciates the harmonies of\nconduct, the melody of a perfect life.\n\nHe loves his wife and children better than any god. He cares more for\nthe world he lives in than for any other. He tries to discharge the\nduties of this life, to help those that he can reach. He believes in\nbeing useful--in making money to feed and clothe and educate the ones he\nloves--to assist the deserving and to support himself. He does not wish\nto be a burden on others. He is just, generous and sincere.\n\nSpirituality is all of this world. It is a child of this earth, born and\ncradled here. It comes from no heaven, but it makes a heaven where it\nis.\n\nThere is no possible connection between superstition and the spiritual,\nor between theology and the spiritual.\n\nThe spiritually-minded man is a poet. If he does not write poetry,\nhe lives it. He is an artist. If he does not paint pictures or chisel\nstatues, he feels them, and their beauty softens his heart. He fills the\ntemple of his soul with all that is beautiful, and he worships at the\nshrine of the Ideal.\n\nIn all the relations of life he is faithful and true. He asks for\nnothing that he does not earn. He does not wish to be happy in heaven\nif he must receive happiness as alms He does not rely on the goodness of\nanother. He is not ambitious to become a winged pauper.\n\nSpirituality is the perfect health of the soul. It is noble, manly,\ngenerous, brave, free-spoken, natural, superb.\n\nNothing is more sickening than the \"spiritual\" whine--the pretence\nthat crawls at first and talks about humility and then suddenly becomes\narrogant and says: \"I am 'spiritual.' I hold in contempt the vulgar joys\nof this life. You work and toil and build homes and sing songs and weave\nyour delicate robes. You love women and children and adorn yourselves.\nYou subdue the earth and dig for gold. You have your theatres, your\noperas and all the luxuries of life; but I, beggar that I am, Pharisee\nthat I am, am your superior because I am 'spiritual.'\"\n\nAbove all things, let us be sincere.--The Conservator, Philadelphia,\n1891.\n\n\n\n\nSUMTER'S GUN.\n\n\n1861--April 12th--1891\n\nFOR about three-quarters of a century the statesmen, that is to say, the\npoliticians, of the North and South', had been busy making compromises,\nadopting constitutions and enacting laws; busy making speeches, framing\nplatforms and political pretences, to the end that liberty and slavery\nmight dwell in peace and friendship under the same flag.\n\nArrogance on one side, hypocrisy on the other.\n\nRight apologized to Wrong for the sake of the Union.\n\nThe sources of justice were poisoned, and patriotism became the defender\nof piracy. In the name of humanity mothers were robbed of their babes.\n\nThirty years ago to-day a shot was fired, and in a moment all the\npromises, all the laws, all the constitutional amendments, and all\nthe idiotic and heartless decisions of courts, and all the speeches of\norators inspired by the hope of place and power, were blown into rags\nand ravelings, pieces and patches.\n\nThe North and South had been masquerading as friends, and in a moment,\nwhile the sound of that shot was ringing in their ears, they faced each\nother as enemies.\n\nThe roar of that cannon announced the birth of a new epoch. The echoes\nof that shot went out, not only over the bay of Charleston, but over the\nhills, the prairies and forests of the continent.\n\nThese echoes said marvelous things and uttered prophecies that none were\nwise enough to understand.\n\nWho at that time had the slightest conception of the immediate future?\nWho then was great enough to see the end? Who then was wise enough\nto know that the echoes would be kept alive and repeated for years by\nthousands and thousands of cannon, by millions of muskets, on the fields\nof ruthless war?\n\nAt that time Abraham Lincoln, an Illinois lawyer, was barely a month in\nthe President's chair, and that shot made him the most commanding and\nmajestic figure of the nineteenth century--a figure that stands alone.\n\nWho could have guessed the names of the heroes to be repeated by\ncountless lips before the echoes of that shot should have died away?\n\nThere was at that time a young man at Galena, silent, unobtrusive,\nunknown; and yet, the moment that shot was fired he was destined to lead\nthe greatest host ever marshaled on a field of war, destined to receive\nthe final sword of the Rebellion.\n\nThere was another, in the Southwest, who heard one of the echoes of that\nshot, and who afterward marched from Atlanta to the sea; and another,\nfar away by the Pacific, who also heard one of the echoes, and who\nbecame one of the immortal three.\n\nBut, above all, the echoes were heard by millions of men and women in\nthe fields of unpaid toil, and they knew not the meaning, but felt that\nthey had heard a prophecy of freedom. And the echoes told of death\nand glory for many thousands--of the agonies of women--the sobs of\norphans--the sighs of the imprisoned, and the glad shouts of the\ndelivered, the enfranchised, the redeemed.\n\nThey who fired that gun did not dream that they were giving liberty to\nmillions of people, including themselves, white as well as black, North\nas well as South, and that before the echoes should die away, all the\nshackles would be broken, all the constitutions and statutes of slavery\nrepealed, and all the compromises merged and lost in a great compact\nmade to preserve the liberties of all.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.\n\n\nONE HUNDRED years after Christ had died suppose some one had asked a\nChristian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums have you founded?\nThey would have said \"None.\" Suppose three hundred years after the death\nof Christ the same questions had been asked the Christian, he would have\nsaid \"None, not one.\" Two hundred years more and the answer would\nhave been the same. And at that time the Christian could have told the\nquestioner that the Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians.\nHe could also have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China\nfor hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and hospitals\nfor the sick at Athens.\n\nHere it may be well enough to say that all hospitals and asylums are\nnot built for charity. They are built because people do not want to be\nannoyed by the sick and the insane. If a sick man should come down the\nstreet and sit upon your doorstep, what would you do with him? You\nwould have to take him into your house or leave him to suffer. Private\nfamilies do not wish to take the burden of the sick. Consequently,\nin self-defence, hospitals are built so that any wanderer coming to a\nhouse, dying, or suffering from any disease, may immediately be packed\noff to a hospital and not become a burden upon private charity. The fact\nthat many diseases are contagious rendered hospitals necessary for the\npreservation of the lives of the citizens. The same thing is true of the\nasylums. People do not, as a rule, want to take into their families, all\nthe children who happen to have no fathers and mothers. So they endow\nand build an asylum where those children can be sent--and where they\ncan be whipped according to law. Nobody wants an insane stranger in\nhis house. The consequence is, that the community, to get rid of these\npeople, to get rid of the trouble, build public institutions and send\nthem there.\n\nNow, then, to come to the point, to answer the interrogatory often flung\nat us from the pulpit, What institutions have Infidels built? In the\nfirst place, there have not been many Infidels for many years and, as\na rule, a known Infidel cannot get very rich, for the reason that the\nChristians are so forgiving and loving they boycott him. If the average\nInfidel, freely stating his opinion, could get through the world\nhimself, for the last several hundred years, he has been in good luck.\nBut as a matter of fact there have been some Infidels who have done\nsome good, even from a Christian standpoint. The greatest charity ever\nestablished in the United States by a man--not by a community to get rid\nof a nuisance, but by a man who wished to do good and wished that\ngood to last after his death--is the Girard College in the city of\nPhiladelphia. Girard was an Infidel. He gained his first publicity by\ngoing like a common person into the hospitals and taking care of those\nsuffering from contagious diseases--from cholera and smallpox. So there\nis a man by the name of James Lick, an Infidel, who has given the finest\nobservatory ever given to the world. And it is a good thing for an\nInfidel to increase the sight of men. The reason people are theologians\nis because they cannot see. Mr. Lick has increased human vision, and\nI can say right here that nothing has been seen through the telescope,\ncalculated to prove the astronomy of Joshua. Neither can you see with\nthat telescope a star that bears a Christian name. The reason is\nthat Christianity was opposed to astronomy. So astronomers took their\nrevenge, and now there is not one star that glitters in all the vast\nfirmament of the boundless heavens that has a Christian name. Mr.\nCarnegie has been what they call a public-spirited man. He has given\nmillions of dollars for libraries and other institutions, and he\ncertainly is not an orthodox Christian.\n\nInfidels, however, have done much better even than that. They have\nincreased the sum of human knowledge. John W. Draper, in his work on\n\"The Intellectual Development of Europe,\" has done more good to the\nAmerican people and to the civilized world than all the priests in it.\nHe was an Infidel. Buckle is another who has added to the sum of human\nknowledge. Thomas Paine, an Infidel, did more for this country than any\nother man who ever lived in it.\n\nMost of the colleges in this country have, I admit, been founded\nby Christians, and the money for their support has been donated by\nChristians, but most of the colleges of this country have simply\nclassified ignorance, and I think the United States would be more\nlearned than it is to-day if there never had been a Christian college in\nit. But whether Christians gave or Infidels gave has nothing to do with\nthe probability of the Jonah story or with the probability that the mark\non the dial went back ten degrees to prove that a little Jewish king was\nnot going to die of a boil. And if the Infidels are all stingy and the\nChristians are all generous it does not even tend to prove that three\nmen were in a fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than was its wont\nwithout even scorching their clothes.\n\nThe best college in this country--or, at least, for a long time the\nbest--was the institution founded by Ezra Cornell. That is a school\nwhere people try to teach what they know instead of what they guess. Yet\nCornell University was attacked by every orthodox college in the United\nStates at the time it was founded, because they said it was without\nreligion.\n\nEverybody knows that Christianity does not tend to generosity.\nChristianity says: \"Save your own soul, whether anybody else saves his\nor not.\" Christianity says: \"Let the great ship go down. You get into\nthe little life-boat of the gospel and paddle ashore, no matter what\nbecomes of the rest.\" Christianity says you must love God, or something\nin the sky, better than you love your wife and children. And the\nChristian, even when giving, expects to get a very large compound\ninterest in another world. The Infidel who gives, asks no return except\nthe joy that comes from relieving the wants of another.\n\nAgain the Christians, although they have built colleges, have built them\nfor the purpose of spreading their superstitions, and have poisoned the\nminds of the world, while the Infidel teachers have filled the world\nwith light. Darwin did more for mankind than if he had built a thousand\nhospitals. Voltaire did more than if he had built a thousand asylums for\nthe insane. He will prevent thousands from going insane that otherwise\nmight be driven into insanity by the \"glad tidings of great joy.\"\nHaeckel is filling the world with light.\n\nI am perfectly willing that the results of the labors of Christians and\nthe labors of Infidels should be compared. Then let it be understood\nthat Infidels have been in this world but a very short time. A few years\nago there were hardly any. I can remember when I was the only Infidel in\nthe town where I lived. Give us time and we will build colleges in which\nsomething will be taught that is of use. We hope to build temples that\nwill be dedicated to reason and common sense, and where every effort\nwill be made to reform mankind and make them better and better in this\nworld.\n\nI am saying nothing against the charity of Christians; nothing against\nany kindness or goodness. But I say the Christians, in my judgment, have\ndone more harm than they have done good. They may talk of the asylums\nthey have built, but they have not built asylums enough to hold the\npeople who have been driven insane by their teachings. Orthodox religion\nhas opposed liberty. It has opposed investigation and free thought. If\nall the churches in Europe had been observatories, if the cathedrals had\nbeen universities where facts were taught and where nature was studied,\nif all the priests had been real teachers, this world would have been\nfar, far beyond what it is to-day.\n\nThere is an idea that Christianity is positive, and Infidelity is\nnegative. If this be so, then falsehood is positive and truth is\nnegative. What I contend is that Infidelity is a positive religion; that\nChristianity is a negative religion. Christianity denies and Infidelity\nadmits. Infidelity stands by facts; it demonstrates by the conclusions\nof the reason. Infidelity does all it can to develop the brain and the\nheart of man. That is positive. Religion asks man to give up this\nworld for one he knows nothing about. That is negative. I stand by the\nreligion of reason. I stand by the dogmas of demonstration.\n\n\n\n\nCRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.\n\n\nIN my judgment, no human being was ever made better, nobler, by being\nwhipped or clubbed.\n\nMr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply a savage. He\nbelongs to the Dark Ages--to the Inquisition, to the torture-chamber,\nand he needs reforming more than any prisoner under his control. To\nput any man within his power is in itself a crime. Mr. Brockway is a\nbeliever in cruelty--an apostle of brutality. He beats and bruises flesh\nto satisfy his conscience--his sense of duty. He wields the club himself\nbecause he enjoys the agony he inflicts.\n\nWhen a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endurance, submits or\nbecomes unconscious, he is regarded as reformed. During the remainder of\nhis term he trembles and obeys. But he is not reformed. In his heart is\nthe flame of hatred, the desire for revenge; and he returns to society\nfar worse than when he entered the prison.\n\nMr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up, and the Elmira\nReformatory should be superintended by some civilized man--some man with\nbrain enough to know, and heart enough to feel.\n\nI do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and lacerating\nthe flesh of another, can reform him. The lash will neither develop the\nbrain nor cultivate the heart. There should be no bruising, no scarring\nof the body in families, in schools, in reformatories, or prisons. A\ncivilized man does not believe in the methods of savagery. Brutality\nhas been tried for thousands of years and through all these years it has\nbeen a failure.\n\nCriminals have been flogged, mutilated and maimed, tortured in a\nthousand ways, and the only effect was to demoralize, harden and\ndegrade society and increase the number of crimes. In the army and navy,\nsoldiers and sailors were flogged to death, and everywhere by church and\nstate the torture of the helpless was practiced and upheld.\n\nOnly a few years ago there were two hundred and twenty-three offences\npunished with death in England. Those who wished to reform this savage\ncode were denounced as the enemies of morality and law. They were\nregarded as weak and sentimental.\n\nAt last the English code was reformed through the efforts of men who\nhad brain and heart. But it is a significant fact that no bishop of\nthe Episcopal Church, sitting in the House of Lords, ever voted for the\nrepeal of one of those savage laws. Possibly this fact throws light\non the recent poetic and Christian declaration by Bishop Potter to the\neffect that \"there are certain criminals who can only be made to realize\nthrough their hides the fact that the State has laws to which the\nindividual must be obedient.\"\n\nThis orthodox remark has the true apostolic ring, and is in perfect\naccord with the history of the church. But it does not accord with the\nintelligence and philanthropy of our time. Let us develop the brain by\neducation, the heart by kindness. Let us remember that criminals\nare produced by conditions, and let us do what we can to change the\nconditions and to reform the criminals.\n\n\n\n\nLAW'S DELAY.\n\n\nTHE object of a trial is not to convict--neither is it to acquit. The\nobject is to ascertain the truth by legal testimony and in accordance\nwith law.\n\nIn this country we give the accused the benefit of all reasonable\ndoubts. We insist that his guilt shall be really established by\ncompetent testimony.\n\nWe also allow the accused to take exceptions to the rulings of the judge\nbefore whom he is tried, and to the verdict of the jury, and to have\nthese exceptions passed upon by a higher court.\n\nWe also insist that he shall be tried by an impartial jury, and that\nbefore he can be found guilty all the jurors must unite in the verdict.\n\nSome people, not on trial for any crime, object to our methods. They\nsay that time is wasted in getting an impartial jury; that more time is\nwasted because appeals are allowed, and that by reason of insisting on a\nstrict compliance with law in all respects, trials sometimes linger for\nyears, and that in many instances the guilty escape.\n\nNo one, so far as I know, asks that men shall be tried by partial and\nprejudiced jurors, or that judges shall be allowed to disregard the law\nfor the sake of securing convictions, or that verdicts shall be allowed\nto stand unsupported by sufficient legal evidence. Yet they talk as\nif they asked for these very things. We must remember that revenge is\nalways in haste, and that justice can always afford to wait until the\nevidence is actually heard.\n\nThere should be no delay except that which is caused by taking the time\nto find the truth. Without such delay courts become mobs, before which,\ntrials in a legal sense are impossible. It might be better, in a city\nlike New York, to have the grand jury in almost perpetual session,\nso that a man charged with crime could be immediately indicted and\nimmediately tried. So, the highest court to which appeals are taken\nshould be in almost constant session, in order that all appeals might be\nquickly decided.\n\nBut we do not wish to take away the right of appeal. That right tends to\ncivilize the trial judge, reduces to a minimum his arbitrary power, puts\nhis hatreds and passions in the keeping and control of his intelligence.\nThat right of appeal has an excellent effect on the jury, because they\nknow that their verdict may not be the last word. The appeal, where the\naccused is guilty, does not take the sword from the State, but it is a\nshield for the innocent.\n\nIn England there is no appeal. The trials are shorter, the judges more\narbitrary, the juries subservient, and the verdict often depends on the\nprejudice of the judge. The judge knows that he has the last guess--that\nhe cannot be reviewed--and in the passion often engendered by the\nconflict of trial he acts much like a wild beast.\n\nThe case of Mrs. Maybrick is exactly in point, and shows how dangerous\nit is to clothe the trial judge with supreme power.\n\nWithout doubt there is in this country too much delay, and this, it\nseems to me, can be avoided without putting the life or liberty of\ninnocent persons in peril. Take only such time as may be necessary to\ngive the accused a fair trial, before an impartial jury, under and in\naccordance with the established forms of law, and to allow an appeal to\nthe highest court.\n\nThe State in which a criminal cannot have an impartial trial is not\ncivilized. People who demand the conviction of the accused without\nregard to the forms of law are savages.\n\nBut there is another side to this question. Many people are losing\nconfidence in the idea that punishment reforms the convict, or that\ncapital punishment materially decreases capital crimes.\n\nMy own opinion is that ordinary criminals should, if possible, be\nreformed, and that murderers and desperate wretches should be imprisoned\nfor life. I am inclined to believe that our prisons make more criminals\nthan they reform; that places like the Reformatory at Elmira plant and\ncultivate the seeds of crime.\n\nThe State should never seek revenge; neither should it put in peril the\nlife or liberty of the accused for the sake of a hasty trial, or by the\ndenial of appeal.\n\nIn my judgment, defective as our criminal courts and methods are, they\nare far better than the English.\n\nOur judges are kinder, more humane; our juries nearer independent, and\nour methods better calculated to ascertain the truth.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.\n\n     * A newspaper dispatch from Lawrence, Kansas, published\n     yesterday, stated that Col. Robert O. Ingersoll had been\n     invited by the law students of the Kansas State University\n     to address them at the commencement exercises, and that the\n     faculty council had objected and had invited Chauncey M.\n     Depew instead.\n\n     The dispatch also stared that the council had notified\n     representatives of the law school that if they insisted on\n     the great Agnostic speaking before the school, the faculty\n     would take heroic measures to thwart their design.\n\n     It was also stated that the law students had made it clearly\n     understood that the lecture Ingersoll had been invited to\n     deliver was to be on the subject of law, and that his views\n     on religion, the Bible and the Deity were not to be alluded\n     to, and they considered that the faculty council had\n     \"subjected them to an insult,\" and had gone out of its way,\n     also, to affront Colonel Ingersoll without cause.\n\n     Colonel Ingersoll, when seen yesterday and questioned about\n     the matter, took it, as he does all things of that nature,\n     philosophically and in a true manly spirit.\n\n     Chauncey M. Depew was seen at his residence, No. 43 West\n     Fifty-fourth Street, last night and asked if he had been\n     invited to address the students of the Kansas University in\n     the place of Colonel Ingersoll. He said he had not.\n\n     \"Would you go if you were invited?\" he was asked.\n\n     \"No; I would not,\" he answered. \"You see, I am so busy here;\n     besides, my social and semi-political engagements are such\n     that I would not have time to go to such a distant point,\n     anyhow.\n\n     \"No, I do not care to express any opinion regarding the\n     action of the faculty council of the Kansas University, but\n     I consider Colonel Ingersoll one of the greatest intellects\n     of the century, from whose teaching all can profit.\"--The\n     Journal, New York, January 24, im.\n\n\nUNIVERSITIES are naturally conservative. They know that if suspected of\nbeing really scientific, orthodox Christians will keep their sons away,\nso they pander to the superstitions of the times.\n\nMost of the universities are exceedingly poor, and poverty is the\nenemy of independence. Universities, like people, have the instinct of\nself-preservation. The University of Kansas is like the rest.\n\nThe faculty of Cornell, upon precisely the same question, took exactly\nthe same action, and the faculty of the University of Missouri did\nthe same. These institutions must be the friends and defenders of\nsuperstition.\n\nThe Vanderbilt College, or University of Tennessee, discharged Professor\nWinchell because he differed with the author of Genesis on geology.\n\nThese colleges act as they must, and we should blame nobody. If Humboldt\nand Darwin were now alive they would not be allowed to teach in these\ninstitutions of \"learning.\"\n\nWe need not find fault with the president and professors. They want\nto keep their places. The probability is that they would like to do\nbetter--that they desire to be free, and, if free, would, with all their\nhearts, welcome the truth. Still, these universities seem to do good.\nThe minds of their students are developed to that degree, that they\nnaturally turn to me as the defender of their thoughts.\n\nThis gives me great hope for the future. The young, the growing, the\nenthusiastic, are on my side. All the students who have selected me are\nmy friends, and I thank them with all my heart.\n\n\n\n\nA YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY.\n\n     * Col. Robert G. Ingersoll represents what is intellectually\n     highest among the whole world's opponents of religion. He\n     counts theology as the science of a superstition. He decries\n     religion as it exists, and holds that the broadest thing a\n     man, or all human nature, can do is to acknowledge ignorance\n     when it cannot know. He accepts nothing on faith. He is the\n     American who is forever asking, \"Why?\"--who demands a reason\n     and material proof before believing.\n\n     As Christianity's corner-stone is faith, he rejects\n     Christianity, and argues that all men who are broad enough\n     to know when to narrow their ideas down to fact or\n     demonstrable theory must reject it. Believe as he does or\n     not, all Americans must be interested in him. His mind is\n     marvelous, his tongue is silvern, his logic is invincible--\n     as logic.\n\n     Col. Ingersoll is a shining example of the oft-quoted fact\n     that, given mental ability, health and industry, a young man\n     may make for himself whatever place in life he desires and\n     is fitted to fill. His early advantages were limited, for\n     his father, a Congregational minister whose field of labor\n     often changed, was a man of far too small an income to send\n     his sons to college. Whatever of mental training the young\n     man had he was obliged to get by reason of his own exertion,\n     and his splendid triumphs as an orator, and his solid\n     achievements as a lawyer are all the result of his own\n     efforts. The only help he had was that which is the common\n     heritage of all American young men--the chance to fight even\n     handed for success. It is not surprising, therefore, that\n     Col. Ingersoll feels a deep interest in every bright young\n     man of his acquaintance who is struggling manfully for the\n     glittering prize so brilliantly won by the great Agnostic\n     himself. He does not believe, however, that the young man\n     who goes out mto the world nowadays to seek his fortune has\n     so easy a battle to fight as had the young men of thirty\n     years ago. In conversation with the writer Col. Ingersoll\n     spoke earnestly upon this subject.\n\n     Col. Ingersoll's views regarding the Bible and Christianity\n     were not generally understood by the public for some time\n     after he had become famous as an orator, although he  began\n     to diverge from orthodoxy when quite young, and was as\n     pronounced an Agnostic when he went into the army, as he is\n     now.\n\n     Col. Ingersoll is an inch less than six feet tall, and\n     weighs ten more than two hundred pounds. He will be sixty-\n     one next August, and his hair is snowy. His shoulders are\n     broad and as straight as they were eighteen years ago when\n     he electrified a people and place! his own name upon the\n     list of a nation's greatest orators with his matchless\n     \"Plumed Knight\" speech in nominating\n\n     James G. Blaine for the presidency. His blue eyes look\n     straight into yours when he speaks to you, and his sentences\n     are punctuated by engaging little tricks of facial\n     expression--now the brow is criss-crossed with the lines of\n     a frown, sometimes quizzical and sometimes indignant--next,\n     the smooth-shaven lips break into a curving smile, which may\n     grow into a broad grin if the point just made were a\n     humorous one, and this is quite likely to be followed by a\n     look of sueh intense earnestness that you wonder if he will\n     ever smile again. And all the time his eyes flash,\n     illuminating, sometimes anticipatory, glances that add\n     immensely to the clearness with which the thought he is\n     expressing is set before you. He delights to tell a story,\n     and he never tells any but good ones, but--and in this he is\n     like Lincoln--he is apt to use his stories to drive some\n     proposition home. This is almost invariably true, even when\n     he sets out to spin a yarn for the story's simple sake. His\n     mentality seems to be duplex, quadruplex, multiplex, if you\n     please--and while his lips and tongue are effectively\n     delivering the story, his wonderful brain is, seemingly,\n     unconsciously applying the point of the story to the proving\n     of a pet theory, and when the tale has been told the verbal\n     application follows.\n\n     His birthplace was Dresden, N. Y. His early boyhood was\n     passed in New York State and his youth and young manhood in\n     Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin.\n\n     His handgrasp is hearty and his manner and words are the\n     very essence of straightforward directness. I called at his\n     office once when the Colonel was closeted with a person who\n     wished to retain him in a law case involving a good deal of\n     money. After a bit I was told that I could see him, and as I\n     entered he was saying: \"The case can't be won, for you are\n     in the wrong. I don't want it.\"\n\n     \"But,\" pleaded the would-be client, \"It seems to me that a\n     good deal can be done in such a case by the way it is\n     handled before the jury, and I thought if you were to be the\n     man I might get a verdict.\"\n\n     \"No, sir,\" was the reply, and the words fell like the lead\n     of a plumb line; \"I won't take it. Good morning, sir.\"\n\n     It has been sometimes said, indulgently, of Col. Ingersoll\n     that he is indolent, but no one can hold that view who is at\n     all familiar with him or his work. As a matter of fact, his\n     industry is phenomenal, though, indeed, it is not carried on\n     after the fashion of less brainy men. When he has an\n     important case ahead of him his devotion to the mastery of\n     its details absorbs him at once and completely. It sometimes\n     becomes necessary for him to take up a line of chemical\n     inquiry entirely new to him; again, to elaborate\n     genealogical researches are necessary; still again, it may\n     be essential for him to thoroughly inform himself concerning\n     hitherto uninvestigated local historical records. But\n     whatever is needful to be studied he studies, and so\n     thoroughly that his mind becomes saturated with the\n     knowledge required. And once acquired no sort of information\n     ever leaves him, for he has a memory quite as marvelous as\n     any other of his altogether marvelous characteristics.\n\n     It is the same when he has an address to prepare. Every\n     authority that can be consulted upon the subject to be\n     treated in the address, is consulted, and often the material\n     that suggests some of the most telling points is one which\n     no one but Ingersoll himself would think of referring to.\n     Here again his wonderful memory stands him in good stead for\n     he has packed away within the convolutions of his brain a\n     lot of facts that bear upon almost every conceivable branch\n     of human thought or investigation.\n\n     His memory is quite as retentive of the features of a man he\n     has seen as of other matters; it retains voices also, as a\n     war time friend of his discovered last summer. It was a busy\n     day with the Colonel, who had given instructions to his\n     office boy that under no circumstances was he to be\n     disturbed; so when his old friend called he was told that\n     Col. Ingersoll could not see him \"But,\" said the visitor: \"I\n     must see him. I haven't seen him for twenty years; I am\n     going out of town this afternoon, and I wouldn't miss\n     talking with him for a few minutes for a good deal of\n     money.\"\n\n     \"Well,\" said the boy, \"he wasn't to be disturbed by\n     anybody.\"\n\n     At this moment the door of the Colonel's private office\n     opened, and the Colonel's portly form appeared upon the\n     scene.\n\n     \"Why, Maj. Blank,\" he said, \"come in. I did tell the boy I\n     wouldn't see anybody, but you are more important than the\n     biggest law case in the world.\"\n\n     The Colonel's memory had retained the sound of the major's\n     voice, and because of that, the latter was not obliged to\n     leave New York without seeing and renewing his old\n     acquaintance.\n\n     Col. Ingersoll's retorts are as quick as a flash-light and\n     as searching. One of them was so startling and so effective\n     as to give a certain famous long drawn out railroad suit the\n     nickname. \"The Ananias and Sapphira ease.\" Ingersoll was\n     speaking and had made certain statements highly damaging to\n     the other side, in such a way as to thoroughly anger a\n     member of the opposing counsel, who suddenly interrupted the\n     speaker with the abrupt and sarcastic remark:\n\n     \"I suppose the Colonel, in the nature of things, never heard\n     of the story of Ananias ana Sapphira.\"\n\n     There were those present who expected to witness an angry\n     outburst on the part of Ingersoll in response to this plain\n     implication that his statement had not the quality of\n     veracity, but they were disappointed. Ingersoll didn't even\n     get angry. He turned slightly, fixed his limpid blue eyes\n     upon the speaker, and looked cherubically. Then he gently\n     drawled out.\n\n     \"Oh, yes, I have, yes, I have. And I've watched the\n     gentleman who has just spoken all through this case with a\n     curious Interest. I've been expecting every once in a while\n     to see him drop dead, but he seems to be all right down to\n     the present moment.\"\n\n     Ingersoll never gets angry when he is interrupted, even if\n     it is in the middle of an address or a lecture. A man\n     interrupted him in Cincinnati once, cutting right into one\n     of the lecturer's most resonant periods with a yell:\n\n     \"That's a lie. Bob lngersoll, and you know it.\"\n\n     The audience was in an uproar in an instant, and cries of\n     \"Put him out!\" \"Throw him down stairs!\" and the like were\n     heard from all parts of the house. Ingersoll stopped talking\n     for a moment, and held up his hands, smiling.\n\n     \"Don't hurt the man,\" he said. \"He thinks he is right. But\n     let me explain this thing for his especial benefit.\"\n\n     Then he reasoned the matter out in language so simple and\n     plain that no one of any intelligence whatever could fail to\n     comprehend. The man was not ejected, but sat through the\n     entire address, and at the close asked the privilege of\n     begging the lecturer's pardon.\n\n     Like most men of genius, Colonel lngersoll is a passionate\n     lover of music, and the harmonies of Wagner seem to him to\n     be the very acme of musical expression....\n\n     Notwithstanding his thoroughly heretical beliefs or lack of\n     beliefs, or, as he would say, because of them, Colonel\n     lngersoll is a very tender-hearted man. No one has ever made\n     so strong an argument against vivisection in the alleged\n     interests of science as lngersoll did in a speech a few\n     years ago. To the presentation of his views against the\n     refinements of scientific cruelty he brought his most vivid\n     imagination, his most careful thought and his most\n     impassioned oratory.\n\n     Colonel Ingersoll's popularity with those who know him is\n     proverbial. The clerks in his offices not only admire him\n     for his ability and his achievements, but they esteem him\n     for his kindliness of heart and his invariable courtesy in\n     his intercourse with them. His offices are located in one of\n     the buildings devoted to corporations and professional men\n     on the lower part of Nassau street and consist of three\n     rooms. The one used by the head of the firm is farthest from\n     the entrance. All are furnished in solid black walnut. In\n     the Colonel's room there is a picture of his loved brother\n     Ebon, and hanging below the frame thereof is the tin sign\n     that the two brothers hung out for a shingle when they went\n     into the law business in Peoria. There are also pictures of\n     a judge or two. The desks in all the rooms are littered with\n     papers. Books are piled to the ceiling. Everywhere there is\n     an air of personal freedom. There is no servility either to\n     clients or the head of the business, but there is everywhere\n     an informal courtesy somewhat akin to that which is born of\n     a fueling of great comradeship.\n\n     Of the Colonel's ideal home life the world has often been\n     told. He lives during the winter at his town house in Fifth\n     Avenue; in the summer at Dobbs Ferry, a charming place a few\n     miles up the Hudson from New York.--Boston Herald, July,\n     1894.\n\n\nA FEW years ago there were many thousand miles of railroads to be built,\na great many towns and cities to be located, constructed and filled;\nvast areas of uncultivated land were waiting for the plow, vast forests\nthe axe, and thousands of mines were longing to be opened. In those days\nevery young man of energy and industry had a future. The professions\nwere not overcrowded; there were more patients than doctors, more\nlitigants than lawyers, more buyers of goods than merchants. The young\nman of that time who was raised on a farm got a little education, taught\nschool, read law or medicine--some of the weaker ones read theology--and\nthere seemed to be plenty of room, plenty of avenues to success and\ndistinction.\n\nSo, too, a few years ago a political life was considered honorable,\nand so in politics there were many great careers. So, hundreds of towns\nwanted newspapers, and in each of those towns there was an opening for\nsome energetic young man. At that time the plant cost but little; a few\ndollars purchased the press--the young publisher could get the paper\nstock on credit.\n\nNow the railroads have all been built; the canals are finished; the\ncities have been located; the outside property has been cut into lots,\nand sold and mortgaged many times over. Now it requires great capital\nto go into business. The individual is counting for less and less; the\ncorporation, the trust, for more and more. Now a great merchant employs\nhundreds of clerks; a few years ago most of those now clerks would have\nbeen merchants. And so it seems to be in nearly every department of\nlife. Of course, I do not know what inventions may leap from the brains\nof the future; there may be millions and millions of fortunes yet to be\nmade in that direction, but of that I am not speaking.\n\nSo, I think that a few years ago the chances were far more numerous and\nfavorable to young men who wished to make a name for themselves, and to\nsucceed in some department of human energy than now.\n\nIn savage life a living is very easy to get. Most any savage can hunt\nor fish; consequently there are few failures. But in civilized life\ncompetition becomes stronger and sharper; consequently, the percentage\nof failures increases, and this seems to be the law. The individual is\nconstantly counting for less. It may be that, on the average, people\nlive better than they did formerly, that they have more to eat, drink\nand wear; but the individual horizon has lessened; it is not so wide and\ncloudless as formerly. So I say that the chances for great fortunes, for\ngreat success, are growing less and less.\n\nI think a young man should do that which is easiest for him to do,\nprovided there is an opportunity; if there is none, then he should\ntake the next. The first object of every young man should be to be\nself-supporting, no matter in what direction--be independent. He should\navoid being a clerk and he should avoid giving his future into the hands\nof any one person. He should endeavor to get a business in which the\ncommunity will be his patron, and whether he is to be a lawyer, a doctor\nor a day-laborer depends on how much he has mixed mind with muscle.\n\nIf a young man imagines that he has an aptitude for public\nspeaking--that is, if he has a great desire to make his ideas known to\nthe world--the probability is that the desire will choose the way, time\nand place for him to make the effort.\n\nIf he really has something to say, there will be plenty to listen. If he\nis so carried away with his subject, is so in earnest that he becomes an\ninstrumentality of his thought--so that he is forgotten by himself; so\nthat he cares neither for applause nor censure--simply caring to present\nhis thoughts in the highest and best and most comprehensive way, the\nprobability is that he will be an orator.\n\nI think oratory is something that cannot be taught. Undoubtedly a man\ncan learn to be a fair talker. He can by practice learn to present his\nideas consecutively, clearly and in what you may call \"form,\" but there\nis as much difference between this and an oration as there is between a\nskeleton and a living human being clad in sensitive, throbbing flesh.\n\nThere are millions of skeleton makers, millions of people who can\nexpress what may be called \"the bones\" of a discourse, but not one in a\nmillion who can clothe these bones.\n\nYou can no more teach a man to be an orator than you can teach him to be\nan artist or a poet of the first class. When you teach him, there is the\nsame difference between the man who is taught, and the man who is what\nhe is by virtue of a natural aptitude, that there is between a pump\nand a spring--between a canal and a river--between April rain and\nwater-works. It is a question of capacity and feeling--not of education.\nThere are some things that you can tell an orator not to do. For\ninstance, he should never drink water while talking, because the\ninterest is broken, and for the moment he loses control of his audience.\nHe should never look at his watch for the same reason. He should never\ntalk about himself. He should never deal in personalities. He should\nnever tell long stories, and if he tells any story he should never say\nthat it is a true story, and that he knew the parties. This makes it a\nquestion of veracity instead of a question of art. He should never clog\nhis discourse with details. He should never dwell upon particulars--he\nshould touch universals, because the great truths are for all time.\n\nIf he wants to know something, if he wishes to feel something, let him\nread Shakespeare. Let him listen to the music of Wagner, of Beethoven,\nor Schubert. If he wishes to express himself in the highest and most\nperfect form, let him become familiar with the great paintings of the\nworld--with the great statues--all these will lend grace, will give\nmovement and passion and rhythm to his words. A great orator puts into\nhis speech the perfume, the feelings, the intensity of all the great and\nbeautiful and marvelous things that he has seen and heard and felt. An\norator must be a poet, a metaphysician, a logician--and above all, must\nhave sympathy with all.\n\n\n\n\nSCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.\n\nIT was thought at one time by many that science would do away with\npoetry--that it was the enemy of the imagination. We know now that is\nnot true. We know that science goes hand in hand with imagination. We\nknow that it is in the highest degree poetic and that the old ideas once\nconsidered so beautiful are flat and stale. Compare Kepler's laws with\nthe old Greek idea that the planets were boosted or pushed by angels.\nThe more we know, the more beauty, the more poetry we find. Ignorance is\nnot the mother of the poetic or artistic.\n\nSo, some people imagine that science will do away with sentiment. In my\njudgment, science will not only increase sentiment but sense.\n\nA person will be attracted to another for a thousand reasons, and why\na person is attracted to another, may, and in some degree will, depend\nupon the intellectual, artistic and ethical development of each.\n\nThe handsomest girl in Zululand might not be attractive to Herbert\nSpencer, and the fairest girl in England might not be able to hasten the\npulse of a Choctaw brave. This does not prove that there is any lack\nof sentiment. Men are influenced according to their capacity, their\ntemperament, their knowledge.\n\nSome men fall in love with a small waist, an arched instep or curly\nhair, without the slightest regard to mind or muscle. This we call\nsentiment.\n\nNow, educate such men, develop their brains, enlarge their intellectual\nhorizon, teach them something of the laws of health, and then they may\nfall in love with women because they are developed grandly in body and\nmind. The sentiment is still there--still controls--but back of the\nsentiment is science.\n\nSentiment can never be destroyed, and love will forever rule the human\nrace.\n\nThousands, millions of people fear that science will destroy not only\npoetry, not only sentiment, but religion. This fear is idiotic. Science\nwill destroy superstition, but it will not injure true religion. Science\nis the foundation of real religion. Science teaches us the consequences\nof actions, the rights and duties of all. Without science there can be\nno real religion.\n\nOnly those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the enemies of\nscience. Real love and real religion are in no danger from science. The\nmore we know the safer all good things are.\n\nDo I think that the marriage of the sickly and diseased ought to be\nprevented by law?\n\nI have not much confidence in law--in law that I know cannot be carried\nout. The poor, the sickly, the diseased, as long as they are ignorant,\nwill marry and help fill the world with wretchedness and want.\n\nWe must rely on education instead of legislation.\n\nWe must teach the consequences of actions. We must show the sickly and\ndiseased what their children will be. We must preach the gospel of the\nbody. I believe the time will come when the public thought will be so\ngreat and grand that it will be looked upon as infamous to perpetuate\ndisease--to leave a legacy of agony.\n\nI believe the time will come when men will refuse to fill the future\nwith consumption and insanity. Yes, we shall study ourselves. We shall\nunderstand the conditions of health and then we shall say: We are under\nobligation to put the flags of health in the cheeks of our children.\n\nEven if I should get to heaven and have a harp, I know that I could\nnot bear to see my descendants still on the earth, diseased, deformed,\ncrazed--all suffering the penalties of my ignorance. Let us have more\nscience and more sentiment--more knowledge and more conscience--more\nliberty and more love.\n\n\n\n\nSOWING AND REAPING.\n\n\nI HAVE read the sermon on \"Sowing and Reaping,\" and I now understand Mr.\nMoody better than I did before. The other day, in New York, Mr. Moody\nsaid that he implicitly believed the story of Jonah and really thought\nthat he was in the fish for three days.\n\nWhen I read it I was surprised that a man living in the century of\nHumboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel, should believe such an\nabsurd and idiotic story.\n\nNow I understand the whole thing. I can account for the amazing\ncredulity of this man. Mr. Moody never read one of my lectures. That\naccounts for it all, and no wonder that he is a hundred years behind the\ntimes. He never read one of my lectures; that is a perfect explanation.\n\nPoor man! He has no idea of what he has lost. He has been living on\nmiracles and mistakes, on falsehood and foolishness, stuffing his mind\nwith absurdities when he could have had truth, facts and good, sound\nsense.\n\nPoor man!\n\nProbably Mr. Moody has never read one word of Darwin and so he still\nbelieves in the Garden of Eden and the talking snake and really thinks\nthat Jehovah took some mud, moulded the form of a man, breathed in its\nnostrils, stood it up and called it Adam, and that he then took one\nof Adam's ribs and some more mud and manufactured Eve. Probably he has\nnever read a word written by any great geologist and consequently still\nbelieves in the story of the flood. Knowing nothing of astronomy, he\nstill thinks that Joshua stopped the sun.\n\nPoor man! He has neglected Spencer and has no idea of evolution. He\nthinks that man has, through all the ages, degenerated, the first pair\nhaving been perfect. He does not believe that man came from lower forms\nand has gradually journeyed upward.\n\nHe really thinks that the Devil outwitted God and vaccinated the human\nrace with the virus of total depravity.\n\nPoor man!\n\nHe knows nothing of the great scientists--of the great thinkers, of the\nemancipators of the human race; knows nothing of Spinoza, of Voltaire,\nof Draper, Buckle, of Paine or Renan.\n\nMr. Moody ought to read something besides the Bible--ought to find\nout what the really intelligent have thought. He ought to get some\nnew ideas--a few facts--and I think that, after he did so, he would be\nastonished to find how ignorant and foolish he had been. He is a good\nman. His heart is fairly good, but his head is almost useless.\n\nThe trouble with this sermon, \"Sowing and Reaping,\" is that he\ncontradicts it. I believe that a man must reap what he sows, that every\nhuman being must bear the natural consequences of his acts. Actions are\ngood or bad according to their consequences. That is my doctrine.\n\nThere is no forgiveness in nature. But Mr. Moody tells us that a man may\nsow thistles and gather figs, that having acted like a fiend tor seventy\nyears, he can, between his last dose of medicine and his last breath,\nrepent; that he can be washed clean by the blood of the lamb, and that\nmyriads of angels will carry his soul to heaven--in other words, that\nthis man will not reap what he sowed, but what Christ sowed, that this\nman's thistles will be changed to figs.\n\nThis doctrine, to my mind, is not only absurd, but dishonest and\ncorrupting.\n\nThis is one of the absurdities in Mr. Moody's theology. The other is\nthat a man can justly be damned for the sin of another.\n\nNothing can exceed the foolishness of these two ideas--first: \"Man can\nbe justly punished forever for the sin of Adam.\" Second: \"Man can be\njustly rewarded with eternal joy for the goodness of Christ.\"\n\nYet the man who believes this, preaches a sermon in which he says that\na man must reap what he sows. Orthodox Christians teach exactly the\nopposite. They teach that no matter what a man sows, no matter how\nwicked his life has been, that he can by repentance change the crop.\nThat all his sins shall be forgotten and that only the goodness of\nChrist will be remembered.\n\nLet us see how this works:\n\nMr. A. has lived a good and useful life, kept his contracts, paid his\ndebts, educated his children, loved his wife and made his home a heaven,\nbut he did not believe in the inspiration of Mr. Moody's Bible. He died\nand his soul was sent to hell. Mr. Moody says that as a man sows so\nshall he reap.\n\nMr. B. lived a useless and wicked life. By his cruelty he drove his wife\nto insanity, his children became vagrants and beggars, his home was a\nperfect hell, he committed many crimes, he was a thief, a burglar, a\nmurderer. A few minutes before he was hanged he got religion and his\nsoul went from the scaffold to heaven. And yet Mr. Moody says that as a\nman sows so shall he reap.\n\nMr. Moody ought to have a little philosophy--a little good sense.\n\nSo Mr. Moody says that only in this life can a man secure the reward of\nrepentance.\n\nJust before a man dies, God loves him--loves him as a mother loves her\nbabe--but a moment after he dies, he sends his soul to hell. In the\nother world nothing can be done to reform him. The society of God and\nthe angels can have no good effect. Nobody can be made better in heaven.\nThis world is the only place where reform is possible. Here, surrounded\nby the wicked in the midst of temptations, in the darkness of ignorance,\na human being may reform if he is fortunate enough to hear the words\nof some revival preacher, but when he goes before his maker--before the\nTrinity--he has no chance. God can do nothing for his soul except to\nsend it to hell.\n\nThis shows that the power for good is confined to people in this world\nand that in the next world God can do nothing to reform his children.\nThis is theology. This is what they call \"Tidings of great joy.\"\n\nEvery orthodox creed is savage, ignorant and idiotic.\n\nIn the orthodox heaven there is no mercy, no pity. In the orthodox hell\nthere is no hope, no reform. God is an eternal jailer, an everlasting\nturnkey.\n\nAnd yet Christians now say that while there may be no fire in hell--no\nactual flames--yet the lost souls will feel forever the tortures of\nconscience.\n\nWhat will conscience trouble the people in hell about? They tell us that\nthey will remember their sins.\n\nWell, what about the souls in heaven? They committed awful sins, they\nmade their fellow-men unhappy. They took the lives of others--sent many\nto eternal torment. Will they have no conscience? Is hell the only place\nwhere souls regret the evil they have done? Have the angels no regret,\nno remorse, no conscience?\n\nIf this be so, heaven must be somewhat worse than hell.\n\nIn old times, if people wanted to know anything they asked the preacher.\nNow they do if they don't.\n\nThe Bible has, with intelligent men, lost its authority.\n\nThe miracles are now regarded by sensible people as the spawn of\nignorance and credulity. On every hand people are looking for facts--for\ntruth--and all religions are taking their places in the museum of myths.\n\nYes, the people are becoming civilized, and so they are putting out the\nfires of hell. They are ceasing to believe in a God who seeks eternal\nrevenge.\n\nThe people are becoming sensible. They are asking for evidence. They\ncare but little for the winged phantoms of the air--for the ghosts and\ndevils and supposed gods. The people are anxious to be happy here and\nthey want a little heaven in this life.\n\nTheology is a curse. Science is a blessing. We do not need preachers,\nbut teachers; not priests, but thinkers; not churches, but schools; not\nsteeples, but observatories. We want knowledge.\n\nLet us hope that Mr. Moody will read some really useful books.\n\n\n\n\nSHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?\n\nSHOULD parents, who are Infidels, unbelievers or Atheists, send their\nchildren to Sunday schools and churches to give them the benefit of\nChristian education?\n\nParents who do not believe the Bible to be an inspired book should\nnot teach their children that it is. They should be absolutely honest.\nHypocrisy is not a virtue, and, as a rule, lies are less valuable than\nfacts.\n\nAn unbeliever should not allow the mind of his child to be deformed,\nstunted and shriveled by superstition. He should not allow the child's\nimagination to be polluted. Nothing is more outrageous than to take\nadvantage of the helplessness of childhood to sow in the brain the seeds\nof falsehoods, to imprison the soul in the dungeon of Fear, to teach\ndimpled infancy the infamous dogma of eternal pain--filling life with\nthe glow and glare of hell.\n\nNo unbeliever should allow his child to be tortured in the orthodox\ninquisitions. He should defend the mind from attack as he would the\nbody. He should recognize the rights of the soul. In the orthodox Sunday\nschools, children are taught that it is a duty to believe--that evidence\nis not essential--that faith is independent of facts and that religion\nis superior to reason. They are taught not to use their natural\nsense--not to tell what they really think--not to entertain a doubt--not\nto ask wicked questions, but to accept and believe what their teachers\nsay. In this way the minds of the children are invaded, corrupted and\nconquered. Would an educated man send his child to a school in which\nNewton's statement in regard to the attraction of gravitation was\ndenied--in which the law of falling bodies, as given by Galileo, was\nridiculed--Kepler's three laws declared to be idiotic, and the rotary\nmotion of the earth held to be utterly absurd?\n\nWhy then should an intelligent man allow his child to be taught the\ngeology and astronomy of the Bible? Children should be taught to seek\nfor the truth--to be honest, kind, generous, merciful and just. They\nshould be taught to love liberty and to live to the ideal.\n\nWhy then should an unbeliever, an Infidel, send his child to an orthodox\nSunday school where he is taught that he has no right to seek for the\ntruth--no right to be mentally honest, and that he will be damned for\nan honest doubt--where he is taught that God was ferocious,\nrevengeful, heartless as a wild beast--that he drowned millions of his\nchildren--that he ordered wars of extermination and told his soldiers\nto kill gray-haired and trembling age, mothers and children, and to\nassassinate with the sword of war the babes unborn?\n\nWhy should an unbeliever in the Bible send his child to an orthodox\nSunday school where he is taught that God was in favor of slavery\nand told the Jews to buy of the heathen and that they should be their\nbondmen and bondwomen forever; where he is taught that God upheld\npolygamy and the degradation of women?\n\nWhy should an unbeliever, who believes in the uniformity of Nature, in\nthe unbroken and unbreakable chain of cause and effect, allow his child\nto be taught that miracles have been performed; that men have gone\nbodily to heaven; that millions have been miraculously fed with manna\nand quails; that fire has refused to burn clothes and flesh of men; that\niron has been made to float; that the earth and moon have been stopped\nand that the earth has not only been stopped, but made to turn the other\nway; that devils inhabit the bodies of men and women; that diseases have\nbeen cured with words, and that the dead, with a touch, have been made\nto live again?\n\nThe thoughtful man knows that there is not the slightest evidence that\nthese miracles ever were performed. Why should he allow his children to\nbe stuffed with these foolish and impossible falsehoods? Why should\nhe give his lambs to the care and keeping of the wolves and hyenas of\nsuperstition?\n\nChildren should be taught only what somebody knows. Guesses should not\nbe palmed off on them as demonstrated facts. If a Christian lived in\nConstantinople he would not send his children to the mosque to be taught\nthat Mohammed was a prophet of God and that the Koran is an inspired\nbook. Why? Because he does not believe in Mohammed or the Koran. That is\nreason enough. So, an Agnostic, living in New York, should not allow his\nchildren to be taught that the Bible is an inspired book. I use the word\n\"Agnostic\" because I prefer it to the word Atheist. As a matter of fact,\nno one knows that God exists and no one knows that God does not exist.\nTo my mind there is no evidence that God exists--that this world is\ngoverned by a being of infinite goodness, wisdom and power, but I do\nnot pretend to know. What I insist upon is that children should not be\npoisoned--should not be taken advantage of--that they should be treated\nfairly, honestly--that they should be allowed to develop from the inside\ninstead of being crammed from the outside--that they should be taught\nto reason, not to believe--to think, to investigate and to use their\nsenses, their minds.\n\nWould a Catholic send his children to a school to be taught that\nCatholicism is superstition and that Science is the only savior of\nmankind?\n\nWhy then should a free and sensible believer in Science, in the\nnaturalness of the universe, send his child to a Catholic school?\n\nNothing could be more irrational, foolish and absurd.\n\nMy advice to all Agnostics is to keep their children from the orthodox\nSunday schools, from the orthodox churches, from the poison of the\npulpits.\n\nTeach your children the facts you know. If you do not know, say so. Be\nas honest as you are ignorant. Do all you can to develop their minds, to\nthe end that they may live useful and happy lives.\n\nStrangle the serpent of superstition that crawls and hisses about\nthe cradle. Keep your children from the augurs, the soothsayers, the\nmedicine-men, the priests of the supernatural. Tell them that all\nreligions have been made by folks and that all the \"sacred books\" were\nwritten by ignorant men.\n\nTeach them that the world is natural. Teach them to be absolutely\nhonest. Do not send them where they will contract diseases of the\nmind--the leprosy of the soul. Let us do all we can to make them\nintelligent.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?\n\n     * Written for The Boston Investigator.\n\n\nYOU ask me what I would \"substitute for the Bible as a moral guide.\".\n\nI know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide\nand believe that in that book only can be found the true and perfect\nstandard of morality.\n\nThere are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good\nregulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad\nprecepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.\n\nBut we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many books\nwritten centuries apart, and that it in part represents the growth and\ntells in part the history of a people. We must also remember that the\nwriters treat of many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to\nsay about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.\n\nThe book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not a line in\nit calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No one can call that\nbook a moral guide. It is made up of myth and miracle, of tradition and\nlegend.\n\nIn Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered\nthe Jews from Egyptian bondage.\n\nWe now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the\nentire story is a fiction. We know this, because there is not found in\nHebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and there is not found in the language\nof the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. This being so, we know that\nthe Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together for hundreds of\nyears.\n\nCertainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book you\ncannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah\nwas a believer in that institution.\n\nThe killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the\nfirst-born, so that in every house was death, because the king refused\nto let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was fiendish. The\nwriter of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, their children,\ntheir flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and\nthese cattle were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but\nsimply for the purpose of punishing the king. Is it possible to get any\nmorality out of this history?\n\nAll the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as\nthey are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all\nthe peoples of the world.\n\nMurder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long as a\nmajority of people object to being murdered.\n\nIndustry always has been and always will be the enemy of larceny.\n\nThe nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth and\ndespises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth-telling has\nbeen considered a virtue and false swearing or false speaking a vice.\n\nThe love of parents for children is natural, and this love is found\namong all the animals that live. So the love of children for parents is\nnatural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love does not spring\nfrom a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.\n\nSo men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books or\ncreeds.\n\nAll the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result of\nexperience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah were\nfoolish.\n\nThe worship of \"any other God\" could not have been worse than the\nworship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd than the\nsacredness of the Sabbath.\n\nIf commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, against\nwars of invasion and extermination, against religious persecution in all\nits forms, so that the world could be free, so that the brain might be\ndeveloped and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call\nsuch commandments a moral guide.\n\nBefore we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments constitute a\nmoral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw away some, and\nwrite others in their places.\n\nThe commandments that have a known application here, in this world, and\ntreat of human obligations are good, the others have no basis in fact,\nor experience.\n\nMany of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and\nDeuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.\n\nThe entire ceremonial of worship is insane.\n\nMost of the punishment for violations of laws are un-philosophic and\nbrutal.... The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all crimes,\nand to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful\nor true.\n\nNothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges. These books\nare filled with crimes, with massacres and murders. They are about the\nsame as the real history of the Apache Indians.\n\nThe story of Ruth is not particularly moral.\n\nIn first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to develop\nthe brain or conscience.\n\nJehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a census of\nthe people. David, according to the account, was the guilty one, but\nonly the innocent were killed.\n\nIn first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical value. All\nthe kings who refused to obey the priests were denounced, and all the\ncrowned wretches who assisted the priests, were declared to be the\nfavorites of Jehovah. In these books there cannot be found one word in\nfavor of liberty.\n\nThere are some good Psalms, and there are some that are infamous. Most\nof these Psalms are selfish. Many of them, are passionate appeals for\nrevenge.\n\nThe story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this book there\nis some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this\ndrama called Job, is heartless to the last degree. The children of\nJob are murdered to settle a little wager between God and the Devil.\nAfterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the\nplace of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children\nwho were murdered.\n\nThe book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming feature in\nthe book is that the name of Jehovah is not mentioned.\n\nI like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and that is\nsomething I can understand. That book in my judgment, is worth all the\nones that go before it, and is a far better moral guide.\n\nThere are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish and some are\nflat and commonplace.\n\nI like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some sense, some\npoetry, and some philosophy. Take away the interpolations and it is a\ngood book.\n\nOf course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men better,\nnothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen vice, and only\na few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good cause.\n\nIn Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.\n\nIn some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good verse, now\nand then an elevated thought.\n\nYou can, by selecting passages from different books, make a very good\ncreed, and by selecting passages from different books, you can make a\nvery bad creed.\n\nThe trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its disposition,\nits temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most fiendish things are\ncommanded, commended and applauded.\n\nThe stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and Gideon,\nand of many others, are hideous; hellish.\n\nOn the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.\n\nJehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the\nvirtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully\nkept a promise.\n\nAt the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural\nproduction, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling\ntoward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they\nsaid, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even\ntheir crimes.\n\nI know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation\nand the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are\nfaults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is\nthe flower and perfect fruit.\n\nI admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we\ntake from that book the dogmas of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of\nthe atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood;\nif we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies,\nthe idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that poverty is a\npreparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good,\nsensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good\nmoral guide,--narrow, but moral.\n\nOf course, many important things would be left out. You would have\nnothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for\neducation, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still\nyou would have a fairly good moral guide.\n\nOn the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme\nones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.\n\nIf you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal\nhatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed\nthat would shock the heart of a hyena.\n\nIt may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament,\nbut certainly no book contains worse.\n\nBelow the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that\nkiss, you find the poison of the cobra.\n\nThe Bible is not a moral guide.\n\nAny man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society\nand will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.\n\nWhat is morality?\n\nIn this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed\nto many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides\nthese wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.\n\nWe are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions.\nThere are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase,\nwell-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others\nthat preserve.\n\nHappiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and\neverything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is\ngood, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes\nwell-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is\ngood is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.\n\nWhat then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible\nanswer is one word: Intelligence.\n\nWe want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want\nthe history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical,\nof the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We\nwant to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human\nmind.\n\nThese facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached,\nthe conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would\nform the best conceivable moral guide.\n\nWe cannot depend on what are called \"inspired books,\" or the religions\nof the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and\naccording to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some\nsupernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with\nintellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation,\nof mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise\neternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.\n\nThis is not only absurd, but it is immoral.\n\nThese religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things\nholy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat\non Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy\nin Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to\nexpress your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against\nsome god. To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ,\nis far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question\nor doubt miracles, is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the\nobedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the\nunquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous.\nIt is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be\ngoverned by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe.\nThese things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural\nconceptions of virtue.\n\nAll \"inspired books,\" teaching that what the supernatural commands\nis right, and right because commanded, and that what the supernatural\nprohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are absurdly\nunphilosophic.\n\nAnd all \"inspired books,\" teaching that only those who obey the\ncommands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and that\nunquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are grossly\nimmoral.\n\nAgain I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.\n\n\n\n\nGOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION.\n\n\nTHE Governor of New Hampshire, undoubtedly a good and sincere man,\nissued a Fast-Day Proclamation to the people of his State, in which I\nfind the following paragraph:\n\n\"The decline of the Christian religion, particularly in our rural\ncommunities, is a marked feature of the times, and steps should be taken\nto remedy it. No matter what our belief may be in religious matters,\nevery good citizen knows that when the restraining influences of\nreligion are withdrawn from a community, its decay, moral, mental\nand financial, is swift and sure. To me this is one of the strongest\nevidences of the fundamental truth of Christianity. I suggest to-day,\nas far as possible on Fast-Day, union meetings be held, made up of all\nshades of belief, including all who are interested in the welfare of our\nState, and that in your prayers and other devotions and in your mutual\ncouncils you remember and consider the problem of the condition of\nreligion in the rural communities. There are towns where no church bell\nsends forth its solemn call from January to January. There are villages\nwhere children grow to manhood unchristened. There are communities where\nthe dead are laid away without the benison of the name of the Christ,\nand where marriages are solemnized only by Justices of the Peace. This\nis a matter worthy of your thoughtful consideration, citizens of New\nHampshire. It does not augur well for the future. You can afford to\ndevote one day in the year to your fellow-men, to work and thought and\nprayer for your children and your children's children.\"\n\nThese words of the Governor have caused surprise, discussion and danger.\nMany ministers have denied that Christianity is declining, and have\nattacked the Governor with the malice of meekness and the savagery of\nhumility. The question is: Is Christianity declining?\n\nIn order to answer this question we must state what Christianity is.\n\nChristians tell us that there are certain fundamental truths that must\nbe believed.\n\nWe must believe in God, the creator and governor of the universe; in\nJesus Christ, his only begotten son; in the Holy Ghost; in the atonement\nmade by Christ; in salvation by faith; in the second birth; in heaven\nfor believers, in hell for deniers and doubters, and in the\ninspiration of the Old and New Testaments. They must also believe in a\nprayer-hearing and prayer-answering God, in special providence, and\nin addition to all this they must practice a few ceremonies. This, I\nbelieve, is a fair skeleton of Christianity. Of course I cannot give\nan exact definition. Christians do not and never have agreed among\nthemselves. They have been disputing and fighting for many centuries,\nand to-day they are as far apart as ever.\n\nA few years ago Christians believed the \"fundamental truths\" They had\nno doubts. They knew that God existed; that he made the world. They\nknew when he commenced to work at the earth and stars and knew when he\nfinished. They knew that he, like a potter, mixed and moulded clay into\nthe shape of a man and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life.\nThey knew that he took from this man a rib and framed the first woman.\n\nIt must be admitted that sensible Christians have outgrown this belief.\nJehovah the gardener, the potter, the tailor, has been dethroned. The\nstory of creation is believed only by the provincial, the stupid, the\ntruly orthodox. People who have read Darwin and Haeckel and had sense\nenough to understand these great men, laugh at the legends of the Jews.\n\nA few years ago most Christians believed that Christ was the son of God,\nand not only the son of God, but God himself.\n\nThis belief is slowly fading from the minds of Christians, from the\nminds of those who have minds.\n\nMany Christians now say that Christ was simply a man--a perfect man.\nOthers say that he was divine, but not actually God--a union of God and\nman. Some say that while Christ was not God, he was as nearly like God\nas it is possible for man to be.\n\nThe old belief that he was actually God--that he sacrificed himself unto\nhimself--that he deserted himself; that he bore the burden of his\nown wrath; that he made it possible to save a few of his children by\nshedding his own blood; that he could not forgive the sins of men until\nthey murdered him--this frightful belief is slowly dying day by\nday. Most ministers are ashamed to preach these cruel and idiotic\nabsurdities. The Christ of our time is not the Christ of the New\nTestament--not the Christ of the Middle Ages; nor of Luther, Wesley or\nthe Puritan fathers.\n\nThe Christ who was God--who was his own son and his own father--who\nwas born of a virgin, cast out devils, rose from the dead, and ascended\nbodily to heaven--is not the Christ of to-day.\n\nThe Holy Ghost has never been accurately defined or described. He has\nalways been a winged influence--a divine aroma; a disembodied essence;\na spiritual climate; an enthusiastic flame; a something sensitive and\nunforgiving; the real father of Jesus Christ.\n\nA few years ago the clergy had a great deal to say about the Holy Ghost,\nbut now the average minister, while he alludes to this shadowy deity\nto round out a prayer, seems ta have but little confidence in him. This\ndeity is and always has been extremely vague. He has been represented\nin the form of a dove; but this form is not associated with much\nintelligence.\n\nFormerly it was believed that all men were by nature wicked, and that it\nwould be perfectly just for God to damn the entire human race. In fact,\nit was thought that God, feeling that he had to damn all his children,\ninvented a scheme by which some could be saved and at the same time\njustice could be satisfied. God knew that without the shedding of blood\nthere could be no remission of sin. For many centuries he was satisfied\nwith the blood of oxen, lambs and doves. But the sins continued to\nincrease. A greater sacrifice was necessary. So God concluded to make\nthe greatest possible sacrifice--to shed his own blood, that is to say,\nto have it shed by his chosen people. This was the atonement--the scheme\nof salvation--a scheme that satisfied justice and partially defeated the\nDevil.\n\nNo intelligent Christians believe in this atonement. It is utterly\nunphilosophic. The idea that man made salvation possible by murdering\nGod is infinitely absurd. This makes salvation the blossom of a\ncrime--the blessed fruit of murder. According to this the joys of heaven\nare born of the agonies of innocence. If the Jews had been civilized--if\nthey had believed in freedom of conscience and had listened kindly and\ncalmly to the teachings of Christ, the whole world, including Christ's\nmother, would have gone to hell.\n\nOur fathers had two absurdities. They balanced each other. They said\nthat God could justly damn his children for the sin of Adam, and that he\ncould justly save his children on account of the sufferings and virtues\nof Christ; that is to say, on account of his own sufferings and virtues.\n\nThis view of the atonement has mostly been abandoned. It is now\npreached, not that Christ bought souls with his blood, but that he has\nennobled souls by his example. The supernatural part of the atonement\nhas, by the more intelligent, been thrown away. So the idea of imputed\nsin--of vicarious vice--has been by many abandoned.\n\nSalvation by faith is growing weak. People are beginning to see that\ncharacter is more important than belief; that virtue is above all\ncreeds. Civilized people no longer believe in a God who will damn an\nhonest, generous man. They see that it is not honest to offer a reward\nfor belief. The promise of reward is not evidence. It is an attempt to\nbribe.\n\nIf God wishes his children to believe, he should furnish evidence.\nHe should not endeavor to make promises and threats take the place\nof facts. To offer a reward for credulity is dishonest and\nimmoral--infamous.\n\nTo say that good people who never heard of Christ ought to be damned for\nnot believing on him is a mixture of idiocy and savagery.\n\nPeople are beginning to perceive that happiness is a result, not a\nreward; that happiness must be earned; that it is not alms. It is also\nbecoming apparent that sins cannot be forgiven; that no power can step\nbetween actions and consequences; that men must \"reap what they sow;\"\nthat a man who has lived a cruel life cannot, by repenting between the\nlast dose of medicine and the last breath, be washed in the blood of the\nLamb, and become an angel--an angel entitled to an eternity of joy.\n\nAll this is absurd, but you may say that it is not cruel. But to say\nthat a man who has lived a useful life; who has made a happy home; who\nhas lifted the fallen, succored the oppressed and battled to uphold\nthe right; to say that such a man, because he failed to believe without\nevidence, will suffer eternal pain, is to say that God is an infinite\nwild beast.\n\nSalvation for credulity means damnation for investigation.\n\nAt one time the \"second birth\" was regarded as a divine mystery--as a\nmiracle--a something done by a supernatural power; probably by the Holy\nGhost. Now ministers are explaining this mystery. A change of heart is a\nchange of ideas. About this there is nothing miraculous.\n\nThis happens to most men and women--happens many times in the life\nof one man. If this happens without excitement--as the result of\nthought--it is called reformation. If it occurs in a revival--if it is\nthe result of fright--it is called the \"second birth.\"\n\nA few years ago Christians believed in the inspiration of the Bible.\nThey had no doubts. The Bible was the standard. If some geologist found\na fact inconsistent with the Scriptures he was silenced with a text.\nIf some doubter called attention to a contradiction in the Bible he was\ndenounced as an ungodly and blaspheming wretch. Christians then knew\nthat the universe was only about six thousand years old, and any man who\ndenied this was an enemy of Christ and a friend of the Devil.\n\nAll this has changed. The Bible is no longer the standard. Science has\ndethroned the inspired volume. Even theologians are taking facts\ninto consideration. Only ignorant bigots now believe in the plenary\ninspiration of the Bible.\n\nThe intelligent ministers know that the Holy Scriptures are filled with\nmistakes, contradictions and interpolations. They no longer believe in\nthe flood, in Babel, in Lot's wife or in the fire and brimstone storm.\nThey are not sure about the burning bush, the plagues of Egypt, the\ndivision of the Red Sea or the miracles in the wilderness. All these\nwonders are growing foolish. They belong to the Mother Goose of the\npast, and many clergymen are ashamed to say that they believe them. So,\nthe lengthening of the day in order that General Joshua might have more\ntime to kill, the journey of Elijah to heaven, the voyage of Jonah\nin the fish, and many other wonders of a like kind, have become so\ntransparently false that even a theologian refuses to believe.\n\nThe same is true of many of the miracles of the New Testament. No\nsensible man now believes that Christ cast devils and unclean spirits\nout of the bodies of men and women. A few years ago all Christians\nbelieved all these devil miracles with all the mind they had. A few\nyears ago only Infidels denied these miracles, but now the theologians\nwho are studying the \"Higher Criticism\" are reaching the conclusions of\nVoltaire and Paine. They have just discovered that the objections made\nto the Bible by the Deists are supported by the facts.\n\nAt the same time these \"Higher Critics,\" while they admit that the Bible\nis not true, still insist that it is inspired.\n\nThe other evening I attended Forepaugh & Sell's Circus at Madison Square\nGarden and saw a magnificent panorama of performances. While looking at\na man riding a couple of horses I thought of the \"Higher Critics.\" They\naccept Darwin and cling to Genesis. They admit that Genesis is false in\nfact, and then assert that in a higher sense it is absolutely true.\n\nA lie bursts into blossom and has the perfume of truth. These critics\ndeclare that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and then establish\nthe truth of the declaration by showing that it is filled with\ncontradictions, absurdities and false prophecies.\n\nThe horses they ride, sometimes get so far apart that it seems to me\nthat walking would be easier on the legs.\n\nSo, I saw at the circus the \"Snake Man.\" I saw him tie himself into all\nkinds of knots; saw him make a necktie of his legs; saw him throw back\nhis head and force it between his knees; saw him twist and turn as\nthough his bones were made of rubber, and as I watched him I thought of\nthe mental doublings and contortions of the preachers who have answered\nme.\n\nLet Christians say what they will, the Bible is no longer the actual\nword of God; it is no longer perfect; it is no longer quite true.\n\nThe most that is now claimed for the Bible by the \"Higher Critics\" is,\nthat some passages are inspired; that some passages are true, and that\nGod has left man free to pick these passages out.\n\nThe ministers are preaching Infidelity. What would Lyman Beecher have\nthought of a man like Dr. Abbott? he would have consigned him to hell.\nWhat would John Wesley have thought of a Methodist like Dr. Cadman? He\nwould have denounced him as a child of the Devil. What would Calvin have\nthought of a Presbyterian like Professor Briggs? He would have burned\nhim at the stake, and through the smoke and flame would have shouted,\n\"You are a dog of Satan.\" How would Jeremy Taylor have treated an\nEpiscopalian like Heber Newton?\n\nThe Governor of New Hampshire is right when he says that Christianity\nhas declined. The flames of faith are flickering, zeal is cooling and\neven bigotry is beginning to see the other side. I admit that there\nare still millions of orthodox Christians whose minds are incapable of\ngrowth, and who care no more for facts than a monitor does for bullets.\nSuch obstructions on the highway of progress are removed only by death.\n\nThe dogma of eternal pain is no longer believed by the reasonably\nintelligent. People who have a sense of justice know that eternal\nrevenge cannot be enjoyed by infinite goodness. They know that hell\nwould make heaven impossible. If Christians believed in hell as they\nonce did, the fagots would be lighted again, heretics would be stretched\non the rack, and all the instruments of torture would again be stained\nwith innocent blood. Christianity has declined because intelligence has\nincreased.\n\nMen and women who know something of the history of man, of the horrors\nof plague, famine and flood, of earthquake, volcano and cyclone, of\nreligious persecution and slavery, have but little confidence in special\nprovidence. They do not believe that a prayer was ever answered.\n\nThousands of people who accept Christ as a moral guide have thrown, away\nthe supernatural.\n\nChristianity does not satisfy the brain and heart. It contains too many\nabsurdities. It is unphilosophic, unnatural, impossible. Not to resist\nevil is moral suicide. To love your enemies is impossible. To desert\nwife and children for the sake of heaven is cowardly and selfish. To\npromise rewards for belief is dishonest. To threaten torture for honest\nunbelief is infamous. Christianity is declining because men and women\nare growing better.\n\nThe Governor was not satisfied with saying that Christianity had\ndeclined, but he added this: \"Every good citizen knows that when the\nrestraining influences of religion are withdrawn from a community, its\ndecay, moral, mental and financial is swift and sure.\"\n\nThe restraining influences of religion have never been withdrawn from\nSpain or Portugal, from Austria or Italy. The \"restraining influences\"\nare still active in Russia. Emperor William relies on them in Germany,\nand the same influences are very busy taking care of Ireland. If these\ninfluences should be withdrawn from Spain there would be \"mental, moral\nand financial decay.\" Is not this statement perfectly absurd?\n\nThe fact is that religion has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a\nhand organ and Ireland to exile. What are the restraining influences of\nreligion? I admit that religion can prevent people from eating meat on\nFriday, from dancing in Lent, from going to the theatre on holy days and\nfrom swearing in public. In other words, religion can restrain people\nfrom committing artificial offences. But the real question is: Can\nreligion restrain people from committing natural crimes?\n\nThe church teaches that God can and will forgive sins.\n\nChristianity sells sin on a credit. It says to men and women, \"Be good;\ndo right; but no matter how many crimes you commit you can be forgiven.\"\nHow can such a religion be regarded as a restraining influence! There\nwas a time when religion had power; when the church ruled Christendom;\nwhen popes crowned and uncrowned kings. Was there at that time moral,\nmental and financial growth? Did the nations thus restrained by\nreligion, prosper? When these restraining influences were weakened, when\npopes were humbled, when creeds were denied, did morality, intelligence\nand prosperity begin to decay?\n\nWhat are the restraining influences of religion? Did anybody ever hear\nof a policeman being dismissed because a new church had been organized?\n\nChristianity teaches that the man who does right carries a cross. The\nexact opposite of this is true. The cross is carried by the man who\ndoes wrong. I believe in the restraining influences of intelligence.\nIntelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind. If you wish\nto make men moral and prosperous develop the brain. Men must be taught\nto rely on themselves. To supplicate the supernatural is a waste of\ntime.\n\nThe only evils that have been caused by the decline of Christianity,\nas pointed out by the Governor, are that in some villages they hear no\nsolemn bells, that the dead are buried without Christian ceremony, that\nmarriages are contracted before Justices of the Peace, and that children\ngo unchristened.\n\nThese evils are hardly serious enough to cause moral, mental and\nfinancial decay. The average church bell is not very musical--not\ncalculated to develop the mind or quicken the conscience. The absence of\nthe ordinary funeral sermon does not add to the horror of death, and\nthe failure to hear a minister say, as he stands by the grave, \"One star\ndiffers in glory from another star. There is a difference between the\nflesh of fowl and fish. Be not deceived. Evil communications corrupt\ngood manners,\" does not necessarily increase the grief of the mourners.\nSo far as children are concerned, if they are vaccinated, it does not\nmake much difference whether they are christened or not.\n\nMarriage is a civil contract, and God is not one of the contracting\nparties. It is a contract with which the church has no business to\ninterfere. Marriage with us is regulated by law. The real marriage--the\nuniting of hearts, the lighting of the sacred flame in each--is the work\nof Nature, and it is the best work that nature does. The ceremony of\nmarriage gives notice to the world that the real marriage has taken\nplace. Ministers have no real interest in marriages outside of the fees.\nCertainly marriages by Justices of the Peace cannot cause the mental,\nmoral and financial decay of a State.\n\nThe things pointed out by the Governor were undoubtedly produced by\nthe decline of Christianity, but they are not evils, and they cannot\npossibly injure the people morally, mentally or financially. The\nGovernor calls on the people to think, work and pray. With two-thirds of\nthis I agree. If the people of New Hampshire will think and work without\npraying they will grow morally, mentally and financially. If they pray\nwithout working and thinking, they will decay.\n\nPrayer is beggary--an effort to get something for nothing. Labor is the\nhonest prayer.\n\nI do not think that the good and true in Christianity are declining. The\ngood and true are more clearly perceived and more precious than ever.\nThe supernatural, the miraculous part of Christianity is declining.\nThe New Testament has been compelled to acknowledge the jurisdiction of\nreason. If Christianity continues to decline at the same rate and ratio\nthat it has declined in this generation, in a few years all that is\nsupernatural in the Christian religion will cease to exist. There is a\nconflict--a battle between the natural and the supernatural. The natural\nwas baffled and beaten for thousands of years. The flag of defeat was\ncarried by the few, by the brave and wise, by the real heroes of our\nrace. They were conquered, captured, imprisoned, tortured and burned.\nOthers took their places. The banner was kept in the air. In spite of\ncountless defeats the army of the natural increased. It began to gain\nvictories. It did not torture and kill the conquered. It enlightened\nand blessed. It fought ignorance with science, cruelty with kindness,\nslavery with justice, and all vices with virtues. In this great conflict\nwe have passed midnight. When the morning comes its rays will gild but\none flag--the flag of the natural.\n\nAll over Christendom religions are declining. Only children and the\nintellectually undeveloped have faith--the old faith that defies facts.\nOnly a few years ago to be excommunicated by the pope blanched the\ncheeks of the bravest. Now the result would be laughter. Only a few\nyears ago, for the sake of saving heathen souls, priests would brave all\ndangers and endure all hardships.\n\nI once read the diary of a priest--one who long ago went down the\nIllinois River, the first white man to be borne on its waters. In this\ndiary he wrote that he had just been paid for all that he had suffered.\nHe had added a gem to the crown of his glory--had saved a soul for\nChrist. He had baptized a papoose.\n\nThat kind of faith has departed from the world.\n\nThe zeal that flamed in the hearts of Calvin, Luther and Knox, is\ncold and dead. Where are the Wesleys and Whitfields? Where are the old\nevangelists, the revivalists who swayed the hearts of their hearers with\nwords of flame? The preachers of our day have lost the Promethean fire.\nThey have lost the tone of certainty, of authority. \"Thus saith the\nLord\" has dwindled to \"perhaps.\" Sermons, messages from God, promises\nradiant with eternal joy, threats lurid with the flames of hell--have\nchanged to colorless essays; to apologies and literary phrases; to\ninferences and peradventures.\n\n\"The blood-dyed vestures of the Redeemer are not waving in triumph over\nthe ramparts of sin and rebellion,\" but over the fortresses of faith\nfloat the white flags of truce. The trumpets no longer sound for battle,\nbut for parley. The fires of hell have been extinguished, and heaven\nitself is only a dream. The \"eternal verities\" have changed to doubts.\nThe torch of inspiration, choked with ashes, has lost its flame. There\nis no longer in the church \"a sound from heaven as of a rushing, mighty\nwind;\" no \"cloven tongues like as of fire;\" no \"wonders in the heaven\nabove,\" and no \"signs in the earth beneath.\" The miracles have faded\naway and the sceptre is passing from superstition to science--science,\nthe only possible savior of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nA LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY.\n\n     * Written for the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Number of  the\n     New York Truth Seeker, September 3, 1898.\n\n\nI CONGRATULATE _The Truth Seeker_ on its twenty-fifth birthday. It has\nfought a good fight. It has always been at the front. It has carried the\nflag, and its flag is a torch that sheds light.\n\nTwenty-five years ago the people of this country, for the most part,\nwere quite orthodox. The great \"fundamental\" falsehoods of Christianity\nwere generally accepted. Those who were not Christians, as a rule,\nadmitted that they ought to be; that they ought to repent and join the\nchurch, and this they generally intended to do.\n\nThe ministers had few doubts. The most of them had been educated not\nto think, but to believe. Thought was regarded as dangerous, and the\nclergy, as a rule, kept on the safe side. Investigation was discouraged.\nIt was declared that faith was the only road that led to eternal joy.\n\nMost of the schools and colleges were under sectarian control, and the\npresidents and professors were defenders of their creeds. The people\nwere crammed with miracles and stuffed with absurdities. They were\ntaught that the Bible was the \"inspired\" word of God, that it was\nabsolutely perfect, that the contradictions were only apparent, and\nthat it contained no mistakes in philosophy, none in science. The great\nscheme of salvation was declared to be the result of infinite wisdom and\nmercy. Heaven and hell were waiting for the human race. Only those could\nbe saved who had faith and who had been born twice.\n\nMost of the ministers taught the geology of Moses, the astronomy of\nJoshua, and the philosophy of Christ. They regarded scientists as\nenemies, and their principal business was to defend miracles and deny\nfacts. They knew, however, that men were thinking, investigating in\nevery direction, and they feared the result. They became a little\nmalicious--somewhat hateful. With their congregations they relied\non sophistry, and they answered their enemies with epithets, with\nmisrepresentations and slanders; and yet their minds were filled with a\nvague fear, with a sickening dread. Some of the people were reading and\nsome were thinking. Lyell had told them something about geology, and in\nthe light of facts they were reading Genesis again. The clergy called\nLyell an Infidel, a blasphemer, but the facts seemed to care nothing\nfor opprobrious names. Then the \"called,\" the \"set apart,\" the \"Lord's\nanointed\" began changing the \"inspired\" word. They erased the word \"day\"\nand inserted \"period,\" and then triumphantly exclaimed: \"The world was\ncreated in six periods.\" This answer satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and\nhonest ignorance, but honest intelligence was not satisfied.\n\nMore and more was being found about the history of life, of living\nthings, the order in which the various forms had appeared and the\nrelations they had sustained to each other. Beneath the gaze of\nthe biologist the fossils were again clothed with flesh, submerged\ncontinents and islands reappeared, the ancient forest grew once more,\nthe air was filled with unknown birds, the seas with armored monsters,\nand the land with beasts of many forms that sought with tooth and claw\neach other's flesh.\n\nHaeckel and Huxley followed life through all its changing forms from\nmonad up to man. They found that men, women, and children had been on\nthis poor world for hundreds of thousands of years.\n\nThe clergy could not dodge these facts, this conclusion, by calling\n\"days\" periods, because the Bible gives the age of Adam when he died,\nthe lives and ages to the flood, to Abraham, to David, and from David to\nChrist, so that, according to the Bible, man at the birth of Christ had\nbeen on this earth four thousand and four years and no more.\n\nThere was no way in which the sacred record could be changed, but of\ncourse the dear ministers could not admit the conclusion arrived at by\nHaeckel and Huxley. If they did they would have to give up original sin,\nthe scheme of the atonement, and the consolation of eternal fire.\n\nThey took the only course they could. They promptly and solemnly, with\nupraised hands, denied the facts, denounced the biologists as irreverent\nwretches, and defended the Book. With tears in their voices they talked\nabout \"Mother's Bible,\" about the \"faith of the fathers,\" about the\nprayers that the children had said, and they also talked about the\nwickedness of doubt. This satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and honest\nignorance, but honest intelligence was not satisfied.\n\nThe works of Humboldt had been translated, and were being read; the\nintellectual horizon was enlarged, and the fact that the endless chain\nof cause and effect had never been broken, that Nature had never been\ninterfered with, forced its way into many minds. This conception of\nnature was beyond the clergy. They did not believe it; they could not\ncomprehend it. They did not answer Humboldt, but they attacked him with\ngreat virulence. They measured his works by the Bible, because the Bible\nwas then the standard.\n\nIn examining a philosophy, a system, the ministers asked: \"Does it agree\nwith the sacred book?\" With the Bible they separated the gold from the\ndross. Every science had to be tested by the Scriptures. Humboldt did\nnot agree with Moses. He differed from Joshua. He had his doubts about\nthe flood. That was enough.\n\nYet, after all, the ministers felt that they were standing on thin\nice, that they were surrounded by masked batteries, and that something\nunfortunate was liable at any moment to happen. This increased their\nefforts to avoid, to escape. The truth was that they feared the truth.\nThey were afraid of facts. They became exceedingly anxious for morality,\nfor the young, for the inexperienced. They were afraid to trust human\nnature. They insisted that without the Bible the world would rush to\ncrime. They warned the thoughtless of the danger of thinking. They knew\nthat it would be impossible for civilization to exist without the Bible.\nThey knew this because their God had tried it. He gave no Bible to the\nantediluvians, and they became so bad that he had to destroy them.\nHe gave the Jews only the Old Testament, and they were dispersed.\nIrreverent people might say that Jehovah should have known this without\na trial, but after all that has nothing to do with theology.\n\nAttention had been called to the fact that two accounts of creation are\nin Genesis, and that they do not agree and cannot be harmonized, and\nthat, in addition to that, the divine historian had made a mistake as\nto the order of creation; that according to one account Adam was made\nbefore the animals, and Eve last of all, from Adam's rib; and by the\nother account Adam and Eve were made after the animals, and both at the\nsame time. A good many people were surprised to find that the Creator\nhad written contradictory accounts of the creation, and had forgotten\nthe order in which he created.\n\nThen there was another difficulty. Jehovah had declared that on Tuesday,\nor during the second period, he had created the \"firmament\" to divide\nthe waters which were below the firmament from the waters above the\nfirmament. It was found that there is no firmament; that the moisture\nin the air is the result of evaporation, and that there was nothing to\ndivide the waters above, from the waters below. So that, according to\nthe facts, Jehovah did nothing on the second day or period, because the\nmoisture above the earth is not prevented from falling by the firmament,\nbut because the mist is lighter than air.\n\nThe preachers, however, began to dodge, to evade, to talk about\n\"oriental imagery.\" They declared that Genesis was a \"sublime poem,\"\na divine \"panorama of creation,\" an \"inspired vision;\" that it was\nnot intended to be exact in its details, but that it was true in a far\nhigher sense, in a poetical sense, in a spiritual sense, conveying a\ntruth much higher, much grander than simple, fact. The contradictions\nwere covered with the mantle of oriental imagery. This satisfied\nbigotry, hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, but honest intelligence was\nnot satisfied.\n\nPeople were reading Darwin. His works interested not only the\nscientific, but the intelligent in all the walks of life. Darwin was the\nkeenest observer of all time, the greatest naturalist in all the world.\nHe was patient, modest, logical, candid, courageous, and absolutely\ntruthful. He told the actual facts. He colored nothing. He was anxious\nonly to ascertain the truth. He had no prejudices, no theories, no\ncreed. He was the apostle of the real.\n\nThe ministers greeted him with shouts of derision. From nearly all the\npulpits came the sounds of ignorant laughter, one of the saddest of all\nsounds. The clergy in a vague kind of way believed the Bible account\nof creation; they accepted the Miltonic view; they believed that all\nanimals, including man, had been made of clay, fashioned by Jehovah's\nhands, and that he had breathed into all forms, not only the breath of\nlife, but instinct and reason. They were not in the habit of descending\nto particulars; they did not describe Jehovah as kneading the clay or\nmodeling his forms like a sculptor, but what they did say included these\nthings.\n\nThe theory of Darwin contradicted all their ideas on the subject, vague\nas they were. He showed that man had not appeared at first as man, that\nhe had not fallen from perfection, but had slowly risen through many\nages from lower forms. He took food, climate, and all conditions into\nconsideration, and accounted for difference of form, function, instinct,\nand reason, by natural causes. He dispensed with the supernatural. He\ndid away with Jehovah the potter.\n\nOf course the theologians denounced him as a blasphemer, as a dethroner\nof God. They even went so far as to smile at his ignorance. They said:\n\"If the theory of Darwin is true the Bible is false, our God is a myth,\nand our religion a fable.\"\n\nIn that they were right.\n\nAgainst Darwin they rained texts of Scripture like shot and shell.\nThey believed that they were victorious and their congregations were\ndelighted. Poor little frightened professors in religious colleges sided\nwith the clergy. Hundreds of backboneless \"scientists\" ranged themselves\nwith the enemies of Darwin. It began to look as though the church was\nvictorious.\n\nSlowly, steadily, the ideas of Darwin gained ground. He began to be\nunderstood. Men of sense were reading what he said. Men of genius were\non his side. In a little while the really great in all departments of\nhuman thought declared in his favor. The tide began to turn. The smile\non the face of the theologian became a frozen grin. The preachers began\nto hedge, to dodge. They admitted that the Bible was not inspired for\nthe purpose of teaching science--only inspired about religion, about the\nspiritual, about the divine. The fortifications of faith were crumbling,\nthe old guns had been spiked, and the armies of the \"living God\" were in\nretreat.\n\nGreat questions were being discussed, and freely discussed. People\nwere not afraid to give their opinions, and they did give their honest\nthoughts. Draper had shown in his \"Intellectual Development of Europe\"\nthat Catholicism had been the relentless enemy of progress, the bitter\nfoe of all that is really useful. The Protestants were delighted with\nthis book.\n\nBuckle had shown in his \"History of Civilization in England\" that\nProtestantism had also enslaved the mind, had also persecuted to the\nextent of its power, and that Protestantism in its last analysis was\nsubstantially the same as the creed of Rome.\n\nThis book satisfied the thoughtful.\n\nHegel in his first book had done a great work and it did great good in\nspite of the fact that his second book was almost a surrender. Lecky in\nhis first volume of \"The History of Rationalism\" shed a flood of\nlight on the meanness, the cruelty, and the malevolence of \"revealed\nreligion,\" and this did good in spite of the fact that he almost\napologizes in the second volume for what he had said in the first.\n\nThe Universalists had done good. They had civilized a great many\nChristians. They declared that eternal punishment was infinite revenge,\nand that the God of hell was an infinite savage.\n\nSome of the Unitarians, following the example of Theodore Parker,\ndenounced Jehovah as a brutal, tribal God. All these forces worked\ntogether for the development of the orthodox brain.\n\nHerbert Spencer was being read and understood. The theories of this\ngreat philosopher were being adopted. He overwhelmed the theologians\nwith facts, and from a great height he surveyed the world. Of course he\nwas attacked, but not answered.\n\nEmerson had sowed the seeds of thought--of doubt--in many minds, and\nfrom many directions the world was being flooded with intellectual\nlight. The clergy became apologetic; they spoke with less certainty;\nwith less emphasis, and lost a little confidence in the power of\nassertion. They felt the necessity of doing something, and they began to\nharmonize as best they could the old lies and the new truths. They tried\nto get the wreck ashore, and many of them were willing to surrender if\nthey could keep their side-arms; that is to say, their salaries.\n\nConditions had been reversed. The Bible had ceased to be the standard.\nScience was the supreme and final test.\n\nThere was no peace for the pulpit; no peace for the shepherds. Students\nof the Bible in England and Germany had been examining the inspired\nScriptures. They had been trying to find when and by whom the books of\nthe Bible were written. They found that the Pentateuch was not written\nby Moses; that the authors of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings,\nChronicles, Esther, and Job were not known; that the Psalms were\nnot written by David; that Solomon had nothing to do with Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, or the Song; that Isaiah was the work of at least three\nauthors; that the prophecies of Daniel were written after the happening\nof the events prophesied. They found many mistakes and contradictions,\nand some of them went so far as to assert that the Hebrews had never\nbeen slaves in Egypt; that the story of the plagues, the exodus, and the\npursuit was only a myth.\n\nThe New Testament fared no better than the Old. These critics found that\nnearly all of the books of the New Testament had been written by unknown\nmen; that it was impossible to fix the time when they were written; that\nmany of the miracles were absurd and childish, and that in addition\nto all of this, the gospels were found filled with mistakes, with\ninterpolations' and contradictions; that the writers of Matthew, Mark,\nand Luke did not understand the Christian religion as it was understood\nby the author of the gospel according to John.\n\nOf course, the critics were denounced from most of the pulpits, and the\nreligious papers, edited generally by men who had failed as preachers,\nwere filled with bitter denials and vicious attacks. The religious\neditors refused to be enlightened. They fought under the old flag. When\ndogmas became too absurd to be preached, they were taught in the Sunday\nschools; when worn out there, they were given to the missionaries;\nbut the dear old religious weeklies, the Banners, the Covenants, the\nEvangelists, continued to feed their provincial subscribers with known\nmistakes and refuted lies.\n\nThere is another fact that should be taken into consideration. All\nreligions are provincial. Mingled with them all and at the foundation of\nall are the egotism of ignorance, of isolation, the pride of race, and\nwhat is called patriotism. Every religion is a natural product--the\nresult of conditions. When one tribe became acquainted with another,\nthe ideas of both were somewhat modified. So when nations and races come\ninto contact a change in thought, in opinion, is a necessary result.\n\nA few years ago nations were strangers, and consequently hated each\nother's institutions and religions. Commerce has done a great work in\ndestroying provincialism. To trade commodities is to exchange ideas.\nSo the press, the steamships, the railways, cables, and telegraphs\nhave brought the nations together and enabled them to compare their\nprejudices, their religions, laws and customs.\n\nRecently many scholars have been studying the religions of the world\nand have found them much the same. They have also found that there is\nnothing original in Christianity; that the legends, miracles, Christs,\nand conditions of salvation, the heavens, hells, angels, devils, and\ngods were the common property of the ancient world. They found that\nChrist was a new name for an old biography; that he was not a life, but\na legend; not a man, but a myth.\n\nPeople began to suspect that our religion had not been supernaturally\nrevealed, while others, far older and substantially the same, had been\nnaturally produced. They found it difficult to account for the fact that\npoor, ignorant savages had in the darkness of nature written so well\nthat Jehovah thousands of years afterwards copied it and adopted it as\nhis own. They thought it curious that God should be a plagiarist.\n\nThese scholars found that all the old religions had recognized the\nexistence of devils, of evil spirits, who sought in countless ways to\ninjure the children of men. In this respect they found that the sacred\nbooks of other nations were just the same as our Bible, as our New\nTestament.\n\nTake the Devil from our religion and the entire fabric falls. No Devil,\nno fall of man. No Devil, no atonement. No Devil, no hell.\n\nThe Devil is the keystone of the arch.\n\nAnd yet for many years the belief in the existence of the Devil--of\nevil spirits--has been fading from the minds of intelligent people. This\nbelief has now substantially vanished. The minister who now seriously\ntalks about a personal Devil is regarded with a kind of pitying\ncontempt.\n\nThe Devil has faded from his throne and the evil spirits have vanished\nfrom the air.\n\nThe man who has really given up a belief in the existence of the Devil\ncannot believe in the inspiration of the New Testament--in the divinity\nof Christ. If Christ taught anything, if he believed in anything, he\ntaught a belief in the existence of the Devil..His principal business\nwas casting out devils. He himself was taken possession of by the Devil\nand carried to the top of the temple.\n\nThousands and thousands of people have ceased to believe the account in\nthe New Testament regarding devils, and yet continue to believe in the\ndogma of \"inspiration\" and the divinity of Christ.\n\nIn the brain of the average Christian, contradictions dwell in unity.\n\nWhile a belief in the existence of the Devil has almost faded away, the\nbelief in the existence of a personal God has been somewhat weakened.\nThe old belief that back of nature, back of all substance and force, was\nand is a personal God, an infinite intelligence who created and\ngoverns the world, began to be questioned. The scientists had shown\nthe indestructibility of matter and force. Buechner's great work had\nconvinced most readers that matter and force could not have been\ncreated. They also became satisfied that matter cannot exist apart from\nforce and that force cannot exist apart from matter.\n\nThey found, too, that thought is a form of force, and that consequently\nintelligence could not have existed before matter, because without\nmatter, force in any form cannot and could not exist.\n\nThe creator of anything is utterly unthinkable.\n\nA few years ago God was supposed to govern the world. He rewarded the\npeople with sunshine, with prosperity and health, or he punished with\ndrought and flood, with plague and storm. He not only attended to the\naffairs of nations, but he watched the actions of individuals. He sank\nships, derailed trains, caused conflagrations, killed men and women with\nhis lightnings, destroyed some with earthquakes, and tore the homes and\nbodies of thousands into fragments with his cyclones.\n\nIn spite of the church, in spite of the ministers, the people began to\nlose confidence in Providence. The right did not seem always to triumph.\nVirtue was not always rewarded and vice was not always punished. The\ngood failed; the vicious succeeded; the strong and cruel enslaved the\nweak; toil was paid with the lash; babes were sold from the breasts of\nmothers, and Providence seemed to be absolutely heartless.\n\nIn other words, people began to think that the God of the Christians and\nthe God of nature were about the same, and that neither appeared to take\nany care of the human race.\n\nThe Deists of the last century scoffed at the Bible God. He was too\ncruel, too savage. At the same time they praised the God of nature. They\nlaughed at the idea of inspiration and denied the supernatural origin of\nthe Scriptures.\n\nNow, if the Bible is not inspired, then it is a natural production, and\nnature, not God, should be held responsible for the Scriptures. Yet the\nDeists denied that God was the author and at the same time asserted the\nperfection of nature.\n\nThis shows that even in the minds of Deists contradictions dwell in\nunity.\n\nAgainst all these facts and forces, these theories and tendencies, the\nclergy fought and prayed. It is not claimed that they were consciously\ndishonest, but it is claimed that they were prejudiced--that they were\nincapable of examining the other side--that they were utterly destitute\nof the philosophic spirit. They were not searchers for the facts,\nbut defenders of the creeds, and undoubtedly they were the product of\nconditions and surroundings, and acted as they must.\n\nIn spite of everything a few rays of light penetrated the orthodox mind.\nMany ministers accepted some of the new facts, and began to mingle\nwith Christian mistakes a few scientific truths. In many instances they\nexcited the indignation of their congregations. Some were tried for\nheresy and driven from their pulpits, and some organized new churches\nand gathered about them a few people willing to listen to the sincere\nthoughts of an honest man.\n\nThe great body of the church, however, held to the creed--not quite\nbelieving it, but still insisting that it was true.\n\nIn private conversation they would apologize and admit that the old\nideas were outgrown, but in public they were as orthodox as ever. In\nevery church, however, there were many priests who accepted the new\ngospel; that is to say, welcomed the truth.\n\nTo-day it may truthfully be said that the Bible in the old sense is\nno longer regarded as the inspired word of God. Jehovah is no longer\naccepted or believed in as the creator of the universe. His place\nhas been taken by the Unknown, the Unseen, the Invisible, the\nIncomprehensible Something, the Cosmic Dust, the First Cause, the\nInconceivable, the Original Force, the Mystery. The God of the Bible,\nthe gentleman who walked in the cool of the evening, who talked face to\nface with Moses, who revenged himself on unbelievers and who gave laws\nwritten with his finger on tables of stone, has abdicated. He has become\na myth.\n\nSo, too, the New Testament has lost its authority. People reason about\nit now as they do about other books, and even orthodox ministers\npick out the miracles that ought to be believed, and when anything is\nattributed to Christ not in accordance with their views, they take the\nliberty of explaining it away by saying \"interpolation.\"\n\nIn other words, we have lived to see Science the standard instead of the\nBible. We have lived to see the Bible tested by Science, and, what is\nmore, we have lived to see reason the standard not only in religion,\nbut in all the domain of science. Now all civilized scientists appeal to\nreason. They get their facts, and then reason from the foundation.\nNow the theologian appeals to reason. Faith is no longer considered a\nfoundation. The theologian has found that he must build upon the truth\nand that he must establish this truth by satisfying human reason.\n\nThis is where we are now.\n\nWhat is to be the result? Is progress to stop? Are we to retrace our\nsteps? Are we going back to superstition? Are we going to take authority\nfor truth?\n\nLet me prophesy.\n\nIn modern times we have slowly lost confidence in the supernatural\nand have slowly gained confidence in the natural. We have slowly lost\nconfidence in gods and have slowly gained confidence in man. For\nthe cure of disease, for the stopping of plague, we depend on the\nnatural--on science. We have lost confidence in holy water and religious\nprocessions. We have found that prayers are never answered.\n\nIn my judgment, all belief in the supernatural will be driven from the\nhuman mind. All religions must pass away. The augurs, the soothsayers,\nthe seers, the preachers, the astrologers and alchemists will all lie\nin the same cemetery and one epitaph will do for them all. In a little\nwhile all will have had their day. They were naturally produced and\nthey will be naturally destroyed. Man at last will depend entirely upon\nhimself--on the development of the brain--to the end that he may take\nadvantage of the forces of nature--to the end that he may supply the\nwants of his body and feed the hunger of his mind.\n\nIn my judgment, teachers will take the place of preachers and the\ninterpreters of nature will be the only priests.\n\n\n\n\nPOLITICAL MORALITY.\n\n\nTHE room of the House Committee on Elections was crowded this morning\nwith committeemen and spectators to listen to an argument by Col. Robert\nG. Ingersoll in the contested election case of Strobach against Herbert,\nof the IId Alabama district. Colonel Ingersoll appeared for Strobach,\nthe contestant. While most of his argument was devoted to the dry\ndetails of the testimony, he entered into some discussion of the general\nprinciples involved in contested election cases, and spoke with great\neloquence and force.\n\nThe mere personal controversy, as between Herbert and Strobach, is\nnot worth talking about. It is a question as to whether or not the\nrepublican system is a failure. Unless the will of the majority can be\nascertained, and surely ascertained, through the medium of the ballot,\nthe foundation of this Government rests upon nothing--the Government\nceases to be. I would a thousand time rather a Democrat should come\nto Congress from this district, or from any district, than that a\nRepublican should come who was not honestly elected. I would a thousand\ntimes rather that this country should honestly go to destruction than\ndishonestly and fraudulently go anywhere. We want it settled whether\nthis form of government is or is not a failure. That is the real\nquestion, and it is the question at issue in every one of these cases.\nHas Congress power and has Congress the sense to say to-day, that no man\nshall sit as a maker of laws for the people who has not been honestly\nelected? Whenever you admit a man to Congress and allow him to vote and\nmake laws, you poison the source of justice--you poison the source of\npower; and the moment the people begin to think that many members of\nCongress are there through fraud, that moment they cease to have respect\nfor the legislative department of this Government--that moment they\ncease to have respect for the sovereignty of the people represented by\nfraud.\n\nNow, as I have said, I care nothing about the personal part of it, and,\nmaybe you will not believe me, but I care nothing about the political\npart. The question is, Who has the right on his side? Who is honestly\nentitled to this seat? That is infinitely more important than any\npersonal or party question. My doctrine is that a majority of the people\nmust control--that we have in this country a king, that we have in this\ncountry a sovereign, just as truly as they can have in any other, and,\nas a matter of fact, a republic is the only country that does in truth\nhave a sovereign, and that sovereign is the legally expressed will of\nthe people. So that any man that puts in a fraudulent vote is a traitor\nto that sovereign; any man that knowingly counts an illegal vote is a\ntraitor to that sovereign, and is not fit to be a citizen of the great\nRepublic. Any man who fraudulently throws out a vote, knowing it to be a\nlegal vote, tampers with the source of power, and is, in fact, false to\nour institutions. Now, these are the questions to be decided, and I want\nthem decided, not because this case happens to come from the South any\nmore than if it came from the North. It is a matter that concerns the\nwhole country. We must decide it. There must be a law on the subject. We\nhave got to lay down a stringent rule that shall apply to these cases.\nThere should be--there must be--such a thing as political morality so\nfar as voting is concerned.--New York Tribune, May 13, 1883.\n\n\n\n\nA FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\n     * Printed from manuscript notes found among Colonel\n     Ingersoll's papers, evidently written in the early '80's.\n     While much of the argument and criticism will be found\n     embodied in his various lectures magazine articles and\n     contributions to the press, it was thought too valuable in\n     its present form to be left out of a complete edition of his\n     works, on account of too much repetition. Undoubtedly it was\n     the author's intention to go through the Bible in this same\n     manner and to publish in book form. \"A few Reasons for\n     doubting the Inspiration of the Bible.\"\n\n\nTHE Old Testament must have been written nearly two thousand years\nbefore the invention of printing. There were but few copies, and\nthese were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted\ninterpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.\n\nSecond. The written Hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without\nany points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy\nwas impossible. Anyone can test this for himself by writing an English\nsentence, leaving out the vowels. It will take far more inspiration to\nread than to write a book with consonants alone.\n\nThird. The books composing the Old Testament were not divided into\nchapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known. Think of\nthis a moment and you will see how difficult it must be to read such a\nbook.\n\nFourth. There was not among the Jews any dictionary of their language,\nand for this reason the accurate meaning of words could not be\npreserved. Now the different meanings of words are preserved so that by\nknowing the age in which a writer lived we can ascertain with reasonable\ncertainty his meaning.\n\nFifth. The Old Testament was printed for the first time in 1488. Until\nthis date it existed only in manuscript, and was constantly exposed to\nerasures and additions.\n\nSixth. It is now admitted by the most learned in the Hebrew language\nthat in our present English version of the Old Testament there are\nat least one hundred thousand errors. Of course the believers in\ninspiration assert that these errors are not sufficient in number to\ncast the least suspicion upon any passages upholding what are called the\n\"fundamentals.\"\n\nSeventh. It is not certainly known who in fact wrote any of the books of\nthe Old Testament. For instance, it is now generally conceded that Moses\nwas not the author of the Pentateuch.\n\nEighth. Other books, not now in existence, are referred to in the Old\nTestament as of equal authority, such as the books of Jasher, Nathan,\nAhijah, Iddo, Jehu, Sayings of the Seers.\n\nNinth. The Christians are not agreed among themselves as to what books\nare inspired. The Catholics claim as inspired the books of Maccabees,\nTobit, Esdras, etc. Others doubt the inspiration of Esther,\nEcclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.\n\nTenth. In the book of Esther and the Song of Solomon the name of God is\nnot mentioned, and no reference is made to any supreme being, nor to any\nreligious duty. These omissions would seem sufficient to cast a little\ndoubt upon these books.\n\nEleventh. Within the present century manuscript copies of the Old\nTestament have been found throwing new light and changing in many\ninstances the present readings. In consequence a new version is now\nbeing made by a theological syndicate composed of English and American\ndivines, and after this is published it may be that our present Bible\nwill fall into disrepute.\n\nTwelfth. The fact that language is continually changing, that words are\nconstantly dying and others being born; that the same word has a variety\nof meanings during its life, shows hew hard it is to preserve the\noriginal ideas that might have been expressed in the Scriptures, for\nthousands of years, without dictionaries, without the art of printing,\nand without the light of contemporaneous literature.\n\nThirteenth. Whatever there was of the Old Testament seems to have been\nlost from the time of Moses until the days of Josiah, and it is probable\nthat nothing like the Bible existed in any permanent form among the Jews\nuntil a few hundred years before Christ. It is said that Ezra gave\nthe Pentateuch to the Jews, but whether he found or originated it is\nunknown. So it is claimed that Nehemiah gathered up the manuscripts\nabout the kings and prophets, while the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs,\nRuth, Ecclesiastes, and some others were either collected or written\nlong after. The Jews themselves did not agree as to what books were\nreally inspired.\n\nFourteenth. In the Old Testament we find several contradictory\nlaws about the same thing, and contradictory accounts of the same\noccurrences. In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first\naccount of the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth\nchapter another account is given. These two accounts could never have\nbeen written by the same person. Read these two accounts and you will\nbe forced to admit that one of them cannot be true. So there are two\nhistories of the creation, of the flood, and of the manner in which Saul\nbecame king.\n\nFifteenth. It is now generally admitted that Genesis must have been\nwritten by two persons, and the parts written by each can be separated,\nand when separated they are found to contradict each other in many\nimportant particulars.\n\nSixteenth. It is also admitted that copyists made verbal changes not\nonly, but pieced out fragments; that the speeches of Elihu in the book\nof Job were all interpolated, and that most of the prophecies were made\nby persons whose names we have never known.\n\nSeventeenth. The manuscripts of the Old Testament were not alike, and\nthe Greek version differed from the Hebrew, and there was no absolutely\nreceived text of the Old Testament until after the commencement of the\nChristian era. Marks and points to denote vowels were invented probably\nabout the seventh century after Christ. Whether these vowels were put in\nthe proper places or not is still an open question.\n\nEighteenth. The Alexandrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint,\ntranslated by seventy learned Jews, assisted by \"miraculous power,\"\nabout two hundred years before Christ, could not have been, it is said,\ntranslated from the Hebrew text that we now have. The differences can\nonly be accounted for by supposing that they had a different Hebrew\ntext. The early Christian Churches adopted the Septuagint, and were\nsatisfied for a time. But so many errors were found, and so many were\nscanning every word in search of something to sustain their peculiar\nviews, that several new versions appeared, all different somewhat from\nthe Hebrew manuscripts, from the Septuagint, and from each other.\nAll these versions were in Greek. The first Latin Bible originated in\nAfrica, but no one has ever found out which Latin manuscript was the\noriginal. Many were produced, and all differed from each other. These\nLatin versions were compared with each other and with the Hebrew, and\na new Latin version was made in the fifth century, but the old Latin\nversions held their own for about four hundred years, and no one yet\nknows which were right. Besides these there were Egyptian, Ethiopie,\nArmenian, and several others, all differing from each other as well as\nfrom all others in the world.\n\nIt was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was translated\ninto German, and not until the fifteenth that Bibles were printed in\nthe principal languages of Europe. Of these Bibles there were several\nkinds--Luther's, the Dort, King James's, Genevan, French, besides the\nDanish and Swedish. Most of these differed from each other, and gave\nrise to infinite disputes and crimes without number. The earliest\nfragment of the Bible in the \"Saxon\" language known to exist was written\nsometime in the seventh century. The first Bible was printed in England\nin 1538. In 1560 the first English Bible was printed that was divided\ninto verses. Under Henry VIII. the Bible was revised; again under Queen\nElizabeth, and once again under King James. This last was published in\n1611, and is the one now in general use.\n\nNineteenth. No one in the world has learning enough, nor has he time\nenough even if he had the learning, and could live a thousand years, to\nfind out what books really belong to and constitute the Old Testament,\nthe authors of these books, when they were written, and what they really\nmean. And until a man has the learning and the time to do all this he\ncannot certainly tell whether he believes the Bible or not.\n\nTwentieth. If a revelation from God was actually necessary to the\nhappiness of man here and to his salvation hereafter, it is not easy to\nsee why such revelation was not given to all the nations of the\nearth. Why were the millions of Asia, Egypt, and America left to the\ninsufficient light of nature. Why was not a written, or what is still\nbetter, a printed revelation given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of\nEden? And why were the Jews themselves without a Bible until the days\nof Ezra the scribe? Why was nature not so made that it would give light\nenough? Why did God make men and leave them in darkness--a darkness that\nhe, knew would fill the world with want and crime, and crowd with damned\nsouls the dungeons of his hell? Were the Jews the only people who needed\na revelation? It may be said that God had no time to waste with other\nnations, and gave the Bible to the Jews that other nations through them\nmight learn of his existence and his will. If he wished other nations\nto be informed, and revealed himself to but one, why did he not choose\na people that mingled with others? Why did he give the message to those\nwho had no commerce, who were obscure and unknown, and who regarded\nother nations with the hatred born of bigotry and weakness? What would\nwe now think of a God who made his will known to the South Sea\nIslanders for the benefit of the civilized world? If it was of such vast\nimportance for man to know that there is a God, why did not God make\nhimself known? This fact could have been revealed by an infinite being\ninstantly to all, and there certainly was no necessity of telling it\nalone to the Jews, and allowing millions for thousands of years to die\nin utter ignorance.\n\nTwenty-first. The Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Tartars, Africans, Eskimo,\nPersians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Polynesians, and many other peoples,\nare substantially ignorant of the Bible. All the Bible societies of\nthe world have produced only about one hundred and twenty millions of\nBibles, and there are about fourteen hundred million people. There\nare hundreds of languages and tongues in which no Bible has yet been\nprinted. Why did God allow, and why does he still allow, a vast majority\nof his children to remain in ignorance of his will?\n\nTwenty-second. If the Bible is the foundation of all civilization, of\nall just ideas of right and wrong, of our duties to God and each other,\nwhy did God not give to each nation at least one copy to start with? He\nmust have known that no nation could get along successfully without a\nBible, and he also knew that man could not make one for himself. Why,\nthen, were not the books furnished? He must have known that the light\nof nature was not sufficient to reveal the scheme of the atonement, the\nnecessity of baptism, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the\narithmetic of the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead.\n\nTwenty-third. It is probably safe to say that not one-third of the\ninhabitants of this world ever heard of the Bible, and not one-tenth\never read it. It is also safe to say that no two persons who ever read\nit agreed as to its meaning, and it is not likely that even one person\nhas ever understood it. Nothing is more needed at the present time than\nan inspired translator. Then we shall need an inspired commentator,\nand the translation and the commentary should be written in an inspired\nuniversal language, incapable of change, and then the whole world should\nbe inspired to understand this language precisely the same. Until these\nthings are accomplished, all written revelations from God will fill the\nworld with contending sects, contradictory creeds and opinions.\n\nTwenty-fourth. All persons who know anything of constitutions and laws\nknow how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas\nto all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely\nabout the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about\nthe Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the\ncourts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the\nreal meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United\nStates understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell\nwhat the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to\naccept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what\nmost churches have asked for in religion.\n\nTwenty-fifth. Is it very wicked to deny that the universe was created\nof nothing by an infinite being who existed from all eternity? The human\nmind is such that it cannot possibly conceive of creation, neither can\nit conceive of an infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infinite\nlength of time.\n\nTwenty-sixth. The idea that the universe was made in six days, and is\nbut about six thousand years old, is too absurd for serious refutation.\nNeither will it do to say that the six days were six periods, because\nthis does away with the Sabbath, and is in direct violation of the text.\n\nTwenty-seventh. Neither is it reasonable that this God made man out of\ndust, and woman out of one of the ribs of the man; that this pair were\nput in a garden; that they were deceived by a snake that had the power\nof speech; that they were turned out of this garden to prevent them from\neating of the tree of life and becoming immortal; that God himself made\nthem clothes; that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters\nof men; that to destroy all life upon the earth a flood was sent that\ncovered the highest mountains; that Noah and his sons built an ark and\nsaved some of all animals as well as themselves; that the people tried\nto build a tower that would reach to heaven; that God confounded their\nlanguage, and in this way frustrated their design.\n\nTwenty-eighth. It is hard to believe that God talked to Abraham as one\nman talks to another; that he gave him land that he pointed out; that he\nagreed to give him land that he never did; that he ordered him to murder\nhis own son; that angels were in the habit of walking about the earth\neating veal dressed with butter and milk, and making bargains about the\ndestruction of cities.\n\nTwenty-ninth. Certainly a man ought not to be eternally damned for\nentertaining an honest doubt about a woman having been turned into\na pillar of salt, about cities being destroyed by storms of fire and\nbrimstone, and about people once having lived for nearly a thousand\nyears.\n\nThirtieth. Neither is it probable that God really wrestled with Jacob\nand put his thigh out of joint, and that for that reason the\nJews refused \"to eat the sinew that shrank,\" as recounted in the\nthirty-second chapter of Genesis; that God in the likeness of a flame\ninhabited a bush; that he amused himself by changing the rod of Moses\ninto a serpent, and making his hand leprous as snow.\n\nThirty-first. One can scarcely be blamed for hesitating to believe that\nGod met Moses at a hotel and tried to kill him that afterward he made\nthis same Moses a god to Pharaoh, and gave him his brother Aaron for a\nprophet;2 that he turned all the ponds and pools and streams and all the\nrivers into blood,3 and all the water in vessels of wood and stone; that\nthe rivers thereupon brought forth frogs;4 that the frogs covered the\nwhole land of Egypt; that he changed dust into lice, so that all the\nmen, women, children, and animals were covered with them;6 that he sent\nswarms of flies upon the Egyptians;8 that he destroyed the innocent\ncattle with painful diseases; that he covered man and beast with blains\nand boils;7 that he so covered the magicians of Egypt with boils that\nthey could not stand before Moses for the purpose of performing the\nsame feats, that he destroyed every beast and every man that was in\nthe fields, and every herb, and broke every tree with storm of hail and\nfire;9 that he sent locusts that devoured every herb that escaped the\nhail, and devoured every tree that grew;10 that he caused thick darkness\nover the land and put lights in the houses of the Jews;11 that he\ndestroyed all of the firstborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh\nupon the throne to the firstborn of the maidservant that sat behind the\nmill,\"12 together with the firstborn of all beasts, so that there was\nnot a house in which the dead were not.\"\n\n     1 Ex. iv, 24.    5 Ex. viii, 16, 17.  9 Ex. ix, 25.\n\n     2 Ex. vii. 1.    6 Ex. viii, 21.     10 Ex. x, 15.\n\n     3 Ex. viii, 19.  7 Ex. ix, 9.        11 Ex. x, 22, 23.\n\n     4 Ex. viii, 3.   8 Ex. ix, 11.       12 Ex. xi, 5.\n\n     13 Ex. xii, 29.\n\nThirty-second. It is very hard to believe that three millions of people\nleft a country and marched twenty or thirty miles all in one day. To\nnotify so many people would require a long time, and then the sick, the\nhalt, and the old would be apt to impede the march. It seems impossible\nthat such a vast number--six hundred thousand men, besides women and\nchildren--could have been cared for, could have been fed and clothed,\nand the sick nursed, especially when we take into consideration that\n\"they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they\nprepared for themselves any victual.\" 1\n\nThirty-third. It seems cruel to punish a man forever for denying that\nGod went before the Jews by day \"in a pillar of a cloud to lead' them\nthe way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light to go by\nday and night,\" or for denying that Pharaoh pursued the Jews with six\nhundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and that the six\nhundred thousand men of war of the Jews were sore afraid when they saw\nthe pursuing hosts. It does seems strange that after all the water in a\ncountry had been turned to blood--after it had been overrun with frogs\nand devoured with flies; after all the cattle had died with the murrain,\nand the rest had been killed by the fire and hail and the remainder had\nsuffered with boils, and the firstborn of all that were left had died;\nthat after locusts had devoured every herb and eaten up every tree of\nthe field, and the firstborn had died, from the firstborn of the king\non the throne to the firstborn of the captive in the dungeon; that after\nthree millions of people had left, carrying with them the jewels of\nsilver and gold and the raiment of their oppressors, the Egyptians still\nhad enough soldiers and chariots and horses left to pursue and destroy\nan army of six hundred thousand men, if God had not interfered.\n\n     1 Ex. xii, 37-39\n\nThirty-fourth. It certainly ought to satisfy God to torment a man for\nfour or five thousand years for insisting that it is but a small thing\nfor an infinite being to vanquish an Egyptian army; that it was rather a\nsmall business to trouble people with frogs, flies, and vermin; that it\nlooked almost malicious to cover people with boils and afflict cattle\nwith disease; that a real good God would not torture innocent beasts\non account of something the owners had done; that it was absurd to do\nmiracles before a king to induce him to act in a certain way, and then\nharden his heart so that he would refuse; and that to kill all the\nfirstborn of a nation was the act of a heartless fiend.\n\nThirty-fifth. Certainly one ought to be permitted to doubt that twelve\nwells of water were sufficient for three millions of people, together\nwith their flocks and herds,1 and to inquire a little into the nature of\nmanna that was cooked by baking and seething and yet would melt in the\nsun,2 and that would swell or shrink so as to make an exact omer, no\nmatter how much or how little there really was.3 Certainly it is not a\ncrime to say that water cannot be manufactured by striking a rock with a\nstick, and that the fate of battle cannot be decided by lifting one hand\nup or letting it fall.4 Must we admit that God really did come down upon\nMount Sinai in the sight of all the people; that he commanded that all\nwho should go up into the Mount or touch the border of it should be put\nto death, and that even the beasts that came near it should be killed?5\nIs it wrong to laugh at this? Is it sinful to say that God never spoke\nfrom the top of a mountain covered with clouds these words to Moses, \"Go\ndown, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze,\nand many of them perish; and let the priests also, which come near to\nthe Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them\"?6\n\n     1 Ex. xv, 27.      3 Ex. xix. 12.       5 Ex. xix, 13, 13.\n\n     2 Ex. xvi, 23, 21  4 Ex. xvii, 11, 13.  6 Ex. xix, 21, 22\n\nCan it be that an infinite intelligence takes delight in scaring\nsavages, and that he is happy only when somebody trembles? Is it\nreasonable to suppose that God surrounded himself with thunderings and\nlightnings and thick darkness to tell the priests that they should not\nmake altars of hewn stones, nor with stairs? And that this God at the\nsame time he gave the Ten Commandments ordered the Jews to break the\nmost of them? According to the Bible these infamous words came from the\nmouth of God while he was wrapped and clothed in darkness and clouds\nupon the Mount of Sinai:\n\nIf thou buy an Hebrew servant six years he shall serve: and in the\nseventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself he\nshall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out\nwith him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him\nsons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and\nhe shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love\nmy master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his\nmaster shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the\ndoor or unto the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through\nwith an awl; and he shall serve him forever.2 And if a man smite his\nservant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be\nsurely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall\nnot be punished; for he is his money.3\n\nDo you really think that a man will be eternally damned for endeavoring\nto wipe from the record of God those barbaric words?\n\nThirty-sixth. Is it because of total depravity that some people refuse\nto believe that God went into partnership with insects and granted\nletters of marque and reprisal to hornets;4 that he wasted forty\ndays and nights furnishing Moses with plans and specifications for a\ntabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat and two cherubs of gold, a table,\nfour rings, some dishes and spoons, one candlestick, three bowls, seven\nlamps, a pair of tongs, some snuff dishes (for all of which God had\npatterns), ten curtains with fifty loops, a roof for the tabernacle of\nrams' skins dyed red, a lot of boards, an altar with horns, ash pans,\nbasins, and flesh hooks, and fillets of silver and pins of brass; that\nhe told Moses to speak unto all the wise-hearted that he had filled with\nwisdom, that they might make a suit of clothes for Aaron, and that\nGod actually gave directions that an ephod \"shall have the two\nshoulder-pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof.\"\n\n     1 Ex. xix, 25, 26.  3 Ex. xxi, 20, 21\n\n     2 Ex. xxi, 2-6,     4 Ex, xxiii, 28\n\nAnd gave all the orders concerning mitres, girdles, and onyx stones,\nouches, emeralds, breastplates, chains, rings, Urim and Thummim, and the\nhole in the top of the ephod like the hole of a habergeon?1\n\nThirty-seventh. Is there a Christian missionary who could help laughing\nif in any heathen country he had seen the following command of God\ncarried out? \"And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons\nshall put their hands upon the head of the ram. Then shalt thou kill the\nram and take of his blood and put it upon the tip of the right ear of\nAaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb\nof their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot.\"2 Does\none have to be born again to appreciate the beauty and solemnity of such\na performance? Is not the faith of the most zealous Christian somewhat\nshaken while reading the recipes for cooking mutton, veal, beef, birds,\nand unleavened dough, found in the cook book that God made for Aaron and\nhis sons?\n\nThirty-eighth. Is it to be wondered at that some people have doubted the\nstatement that God told Moses how to make some ointment, hair oil, and\nperfume, and then made it a crime punishable with death to make any like\nthem? Think of a God killing a man for imitating his ointment!3 Think of\na God saying that he made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the\nseventh day and was refreshed!4 Think of this God threatening to destroy\nthe Jews, and being turned from his purpose because Moses told him that\nthe Egyptians might mock him!5\n\n    1 Ex. xxvii and xxviii.  3 Ex. xxx, 23.  5 Ex. xxxii, 11, 12\n\n    2 Ex. xxix, 19, 20       4 Ex. xxxi, 17.\n\nThirty-ninth. What must we think of a man impudent enough to break in\npieces tables of stone upon which God had written with his finger? What\nmust we think of the goodness of a man that would issue the following\norder: \"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by\nhis side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and\nslay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man\nhis neighbor. Consecrate yourselves to-day to the Lord, even every\nman upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a\nblessing this day\"?1 Is it true that the God of the Bible demanded human\nsacrifice? Did it please him for man to kill his neighbor, for brother\nto murder his brother, and for the father to butcher his sou? If there\nis a God let him cause it to be written in the book of his memory,\nopposite my name, that I refuted this slander and denied this lie.\n\nFortieth. Can it be true that God was afraid to trust himself with the\nJews for fear he would consume them? Can it be that in order to keep\nfrom devouring them he kept away and sent one of his angels in his\nplace?2 Can it be that this same God talked to Moses \"face to face, as a\nman speaketh unto his friend,\" when it is declared in the same chapter,\nby God himself, \"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see\nme, and live\"?3\n\nForty-first. Why should a man, because he has done a bad action, go and\nkill a sheep? How can man make friends with God by cutting the throats\nof bullocks and goats? Why should God delight in the shedding of blood?\nWhy should he want his altar sprinkled with blood, and the horns of his\naltar tipped with blood, and his priests covered with blood? Why should\nburning flesh be a sweet savor in the nostrils of God? Why did he compel\nhis priests to be butchers, cutters and stabbers?\n\n     1 Ex. xxxii, 27-29.  2 Ex. xxxiii, 2, 3.\n\n     3 Ex. xxxiii, 11, 20.\n\nWhy should the same God kill a man for eating the fat of an ox, a sheep,\nor a goat?\n\nForty-second. Could it be a consolation to a man when dying to think\nthat he had always believed that God told Aaron to take two goats and\ndraw cuts to see which goat should be killed and which should be a\nscapegoat?1 And that upon the head of the scapegoat Aaron should lay\nboth his hands and confess over him all the iniquities of the children\nof Israel, and all their transgressions, and put them all on the head\nof the goat, and send him away by the hand of a fit man into the\nwilderness; and that the goat should bear upon him all the iniquities\nof the people into a land not inhabited?2 How could a goat carry away\na load of iniquities and transgressions? Why should he carry them to a\nland uninhabited? Were these sins contagious? About how many sins\ncould an average goat carry? Could a man meet such a goat now without\nlaughing?\n\nForty-third. Why should God object to a man wearing a garment made of\nwoolen and linen? Why should he care whether a man rounded the corners\nof his beard?3 Why should God prevent a man from offering the sacred\nbread merely because he had a flat nose, or was lame, or had five\nfingers on one hand, or had a broken foot, or was a dwarf? If he\nobjected to such people, why did he make them?4\n\nForty-fourth. Why should we believe that God insisted upon the sacrifice\nof human beings? Is it a sin to deny this, and to deny the inspiration\nof a book that teaches it? Read the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth\nverses of the last chapter of Leviticus, a book in which there is more\nfolly and cruelty, more stupidity and tyranny, than in any other book in\nthis world except some others in the same Bible. Read the thirty-second\nchapter of Exodus and you will see how by the most infamous of crimes\nman becomes reconciled to this God.\n\n     1 Lev, xvi, 8.  2 Lev. xvi, 21, 22.  3 Lev. xix, 19, 27,\n\n     4 Lev. xxi, 18-20.\n\nYou will see that he demands of fathers the blood of their sons. Read\nthe twelfth and thirteenth verses of the third chapter of Numbers, \"And\nI, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel,\"\netc.\n\nHow, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains of fine linen?\nHow did these absconding slaves make cherubs of gold? Where did they get\nthe skins of badgers, and how did they dye them red? How did they make\nwreathed chains and spoons, basins and tongs? Where did they get the\nblue cloth and their purple? Where did they get the sockets of brass?\nHow did they coin the shekel of the sanctuary? How did they overlay\nboards with gold? Where did they get the numberless instruments and\ntools necessary to accomplish all these things? Where did they get the\nfine flour and the oil? Were all these found in the desert of Sinai?\nIs it a sin to ask these questions? Are all these doubts born of a\nmalignant and depraved heart? Why should God in this desert prohibit\npriests from drinking wine, and from eating moist grapes? How could\nthese priests get wine?\n\nDo not these passages show that these laws were made long after the Jews\nhad left the desert, and that they were not given from Sinai? Can you\nimagine a God silly enough to tell a horde of wandering savages upon a\ndesert that they must not eat any fruit of the trees they planted until\nthe fourth year?\n\nForty-fifth. Ought a man to be despised and persecuted for denying that\nGod ordered the priests to make women drink dirt and water to test their\nvirtue? 1 Or for denying that over the tabernacle there was a cloud\nduring the day and fire by night, and that the cloud lifted up when God\nwished the Jews to travel, and that until it was lifted they remained in\ntheir tents?2\n\n     1 Num. v, 12-31.  2 Num. ix, 16-18.\n\nCan it be possible that the \"ark of the covenant\" traveled on its own\naccount, and that \"when the ark set forward\" the people followed, as is\nrelated in the tenth chapter of the holy book of Numbers?\n\nForty-sixth. Was it reasonable for God to give the Jews manna, and\nnothing else, year after year? He had infinite power, and could just as\neasily have given them something good, in reasonable variety, as to\nhave fed them on manna until they loathed the sight of it, and longingly\nremembered the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of\nEgypt. And yet when the poor people complained of the diet and asked for\na little meat, this loving and merciful God became enraged, sent them\nmillions of quails in his wrath, and while they were eating, while the\nflesh was yet between their teeth, before it was chewed, this amiable\nGod smote the people with a plague and killed all those that lusted\nafter meat. In a few days after, he made up his mind to kill the rest,\nbut was dissuaded when Moses told him that the Canaanites would laugh at\nhim.1 No wonder the poor Jews wished they were back in Egypt. No wonder\nthey had rather be the slaves of Pharaoh than the chosen people of God.\nNo wonder they preferred the wrath of Egypt to the love of heaven. In my\njudgment, the Jews would have fared far better if Jehovah had let them\nalone, or had he even taken the side of the Egyptians.\n\nWhen the poor Jews were told by their spies that the Canaanites were\ngiants, they, seized with fear, said, \"Let us go back to Egypt.\" For\nthis, their God doomed all except Joshua and Caleb to a wandering\ndeath. Hear the words of this most merciful God: \"But as for you, your\ncarcasses they shall fall in this wilderness, and your children shall\nwander in the wilderness forty years and bear your sins until your\ncarcasses be wasted in the wilderness.\"2 And yet this same God promised\nto give unto all these people a land flowing with milk and honey.\n\n     1 Num. xiv, 15, 16.  2 Num. xiv. 32-33.\n\nForty-seventh. \"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness\nthey found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.\n\n\"And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and\nAaron, and unto all the congregation.\n\n\"And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be\ndone to him.\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all\nthe congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.\n\n\"And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him\nwith stones, and he died.\" 1\n\nWhen the last stone was thrown, and he that was a man was but a mangled,\nbruised, and broken mass, this God turned, and, _touched with pity_,\nsaid: \"Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they\nmake them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their\ngenerations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband\nof blue.\"2\n\nIn the next chapter, this Jehovah, whose loving kindness is over all his\nworks, because Korah, Dathan, and Abiram objected to being starved to\ndeath in the wilderness, made the earth open and swallow not only them,\nbut their wives and their little ones. Not yet satisfied, he sent a\nplague and killed fourteen thousand seven hundred more. There never was\nin the history of the world such a cruel, revengeful, bloody, jealous,\nfickle, unreasonable, and fiendish ruler, emperor, or king as Jehovah.\nNo wonder the children of Israel cried out, \"Behold we die, we perish,\nwe all perish.\"\n\nForty-eighth. I cannot believe that a dry stick budded, blossomed, and\nbore almonds; that the ashes of a red heifer are a purification for\nsin;3 that God gave the cities into the hands of the Jews because they\nsolemnly agreed to murder all the inhabitants; that God became enraged\nand induced snakes to bite his chosen people; that God told Balaam to go\nwith the Princess of Moab, and then got angry because he did go; that an\nanimal ever saw an angel and conversed with a man.\n\n     1 Num. xv, 32-36.  2 Num. xv, 38,  3 Num. xix, 2-10.\n\nI cannot believe that thrusting a spear through the body of a woman ever\nstayed a plague;1 that any good man ever ordered his soldiers to slay\nthe men and keep the maidens alive for themselves; that God commanded\nmen not to show mercy to each other; that he induced men to obey his\ncommandments by promising them that he would assist them in murdering\nthe wives and children of their neighbors; or that he ever commanded a\nman to kill his wife because she differed with him about religion;2 or\nthat God was mistaken about hares chewing the cud;3 or that he objected\nto the people raising horses 4 or that God wanted a camp kept clean\nbecause he walked through it at night;5 or that he commanded widows to\nspit in the faces of their brothers-in-law;6 or that he ever threatened\nto give anybody the itch;7 or that he ever secretly buried a man and\nallowed the corpse to write an account of the funeral.\n\nForty-ninth. Does it necessarily follow that a man wishes to commit some\ncrime if he refuses to admit that the river Jordan cut itself in two\nand allowed the lower end to run away? Or that seven priests could blow\nseven ram's horns loud enough to throw down the walls of a city;8 or\nthat God, after Achan had confessed that he had secreted a garment and\na wedge of gold, became good natured as soon as Achan and his sons and\ndaughters had been stoned to death and their bodies burned?10 Is it not\na virtue to abhor such a God?\n\n     1 Num. XXV, 8.       4 Deut. xvii, 16.       7 Deut. xxviii, 27.\n\n     2 Deut. xiii, 6-10.  5 Deut. xxiii, 13, 14.  8 Josh, iii, 16.\n\n     3 Deut. xiv, 7.      6 Deut. xxv, 9.,        9 Josh. vi, 20.\n\n                         10 Josh, vii, 24, 25.\n\nMust we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all the cruelties\nand horrors described in the Old Testament; that he waged the most\nrelentless and heartless wars; that he declared mercy a crime; that to\nspare life was to excite his wrath; that he smiled when maidens were\nviolated, laughed when mothers were ripped open with a sword, and\nshouted with joy when babes were butchered in their mothers' arms? Read\nthe infamous book of Joshua, and then worship the God who inspired it if\nyou can.\n\nFiftieth. Can any sane man believe that the sun stood still in the midst\nof heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day, and that the moon\nstayed?1 That these miracles were performed in the interest of massacre\nand bloodshed; that the Jews destroyed men, women, and children by the\nmillion, and practiced every cruelty that the ingenuity of their God\ncould suggest? Is it possible that these things really happened? Is it\npossible that God commanded them to be done? Again I ask you to read\nthe book of Joshua. After reading all its horrors you will feel a grim\nsatisfaction in the dying words of Joshua to the children of Israel:\n\"Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any\nof these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps\nunto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye\nperish from off this good land.\"2\n\nThink of a God who boasted that he gave the Jews a land for which they\ndid not labor, cities which they did not build, and allowed them to eat\nof oliveyards and vineyards which they did not plant.3 Think of a God\nwho murders some of his children for the benefit of the rest, and then\nkills the rest because they are not thankful enough. Think of a God who\nhad the power to stop the sun and moon, but could not defeat an army\nthat had iron chariots.4\n\n     1 Josh, x, 13.  2 Josh, xiii, 13.  3 Josh. xxiv, 13.\n\n     4 Judges i, 19.\n\nFifty-first. Can we blame the Hebrews for getting tired of their God?\nNever was a people so murdered, starved, stoned, burned, deceived,\nhumiliated, robbed, and outraged. Never was there so little liberty\namong men. Never did the meanest king so meddle, eavesdrop, spy out,\nharass, torment, and persecute his people. Never was ruler so jealous,\nunreasonable, contemptible, exacting, and ignorant as this God of the\nJews. Never was such ceremony, such mummery, such stuff about bullocks,\ngoats, doves, red heifers, lambs, and unleavened dough--never was such\ndirections about kidneys and blood, ashes and fat, about curtains,\ntongs, fringes, ribands, and brass pins--never such details for killing\nof animals and men and the sprinkling of blood and the cutting of\nclothes. Never were such unjust laws, such punishments, such damned\nignorance and infamy! Fifty-second. Is it not wonderful that the creator\nof all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his own\nagainst the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange that after he had\nappeared to his chosen people, delivered them from slavery, fed them\nby miracles, opened the sea for a path, led them by cloud and fire,\nand overthrown their pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their\nown making? Is it not beyond belief that this God, by statutes and\ncommandments, by punishments and penalties, by rewards and promises,\nby wonders and plagues, by earthquakes and pestilence, could not in the\nleast civilize the Jews--could not get them beyond a point where they\ndeserved killing? What shall we think of a God who gave his entire time\nfor forty years to the work of converting three millions of people, and\nsucceeded in getting only two men, and not a single woman, decent enough\nto enter the promised land? Was there ever in the history of man so\ndetestible an administration of public affairs? Is it possible that\nGod sold his children to the king of Mesopotamia; that he sold them to\nJabin, king of Canaan, to the Philistines, and to the children of Ammon?\nIs it possible that an angel of the Lord devoured unleavened cakes and\nbroth with fire that came out of the end of a stick as he sat under an\noak-tree?1 Can it be true that God made known his will by making dew\nfall on wool without wetting the ground around it?2 Do you really\nbelieve that men who lap water like a dog make the best soldiers?3 Do\nyou think that a man could hold a lamp in his left hand, a trumpet in\nhis right hand, blow his trumpet, shout \"the sword of the Lord and of\nGideon,\" and break pitchers at the same time? 4\n\nFifty-third. Read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, and then tell\nme what you think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to God,\nand what you think of a God who would receive such a sacrifice. This one\nstory should be enough to make every tender and loving father hold this\nbook in utter abhorrence. Is it necessary, in order to be saved, that\none must believe that an angel of God appeared unto Manoah in the\nabsence of her husband; that this angel afterward went up in a flame of\nfire; that as a result of this visit a child was born whose strength was\nin his hair? a child that made beehives of lions, incendiaries of foxes,\nand had a wife that wept seven days to get the answer to his riddle?\nWill the wrath of God abide forever upon a man for doubting the story\nthat Samson killed a thousand men with a new jawbone? Is there enough\nin the Bible to save a soul with this story left out? Is hell hungry for\nthose who deny that water gushed from a \"hollow place\" in a dry bone? Is\nit evidence of a new heart to believe that one man turned over a house\nso large that over three thousand people were on the roof? For my part,\nI cannot believe these things, and if my salvation depends upon my\ncredulity I am as good as damned already. I cannot believe that the\nPhilistines took back the ark with a present of five gold mice, and that\nthereupon God relented.5\n\n     1 Judges vi, 21.   2 Judges vi, 37.  3 Judges vii, 5.\n\n     4 Judges vii, 20.  5 I Sam. vi. 4.\n\nI can not believe that God killed fifty thousand men for looking into a\nbox.1 It seems incredible, after all the Jews had done, after all their\nwars and victories, even when Saul was king, that there was not among\nthem one smith who could make a sword or spear, and that they were\ncompelled to go to the Philistines to sharpen every plowshare, coulter,\nand mattock.2 Can you believe that God said to Saul, \"Now go and smite\nAmalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;\nbut slay both man and woman, infant and suckling\"? Can you believe that\nbecause Saul took the king alive after killing every other man, woman,\nand child, the ogre called Jehovah was displeased and made up his mind\nto hurl Saul from the throne and give his place to another?3 I cannot\nbelieve that the Philistines all ran away because one of their number\nwas killed with a stone. I cannot justify the conduct of Abigail, the\nwife of Nabal, who took presents to David. David hardly did right when\nhe said to this woman, \"I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted\nthy person.\" It could hardly have been chance that made Nabal so deathly\nsick next morning and killed him in ten days. All this looks wrong,\nespecially as David married his widow before poor Nabal was fairly\ncold.4\n\nFifty-fourth. Notwithstanding all I have heard of Katie King, I cannot\nbelieve that a witch at Endor materialized the ghost of Samuel and\ncaused it to appear with a cloak on.5 I cannot believe that God\ntempted David to take the census, and then gave him his choice of three\npunishments: First, Seven years of famine; Second, Flying three months\nbefore their enemies; Third, A pestilence of three days; that David\nchose the pestilence, and that God destroyed seventy thousand men.6\n\n     1 I Sam. vi, 19.        3 I Sam. xv.   5 I Sam. xxviii.\n\n     2 I Sam. xiii, 19, 20.  4 I Sam. xxv.  6 2 Sam. xxiv.\n\nWhy should God kill the people for what David did? Is it a sin to be\ncounted? Can anything more brutally hellish be conceived? Why should man\nwaste prayers upon such a God?\n\nFifty-fifth. Must we admit that Elijah was fed by ravens; that they\nbrought him bread and flesh every morning and evening? Must we believe\nthat this same prophet could create meal and oil, and induce a departed\nsoul to come back and take up its residence once more in the body? That\nhe could get rain by praying for it; that he could cause fire to burn\nup a sacrifice and altar, together with twelve barrels of water?1 Can we\nbelieve that an angel of the Lord turned cook and prepared two suppers\nin one night for Elijah, and that the prophet ate enough to last him\nforty days and forty nights?* Is it true that when a captain with fifty\nmen went after Elijah, this prophet caused fire to come down from heaven\nand consume them all? Should God allow such wretches to manage his fire?\nIs it true that Elijah consumed another captain with fifty men in the\nsame way?3 Is it a fact that a river divided because the water was\nstruck with a cloak? Did a man actually go to heaven in a chariot\nof fire drawn by horses of fire, or was he carried to Paradise by a\nwhirlwind? Must we believe, in order to be good and tender fathers and\nmothers, that because some \"little children\" mocked at an old man with\na bald head, God--the same God who said, \"Suffer little children to come\nunto me\"--sent two she-bears out of the wood and tare forty-two of these\nbabes? Think of the mothers that watched and waited for their children.\nThink of the wailing when these mangled ones were found, when they\nwere brought back and pressed to the breasts of weeping women. What an\namiable gentleman Mr. Elisha must have been.4\n\nFifty-sixth. It is hard to believe that a prophet by lying on a dead\nbody could make it sneeze seven times.5\n\n     1 I Kings xviii.  3 2 Kings i.  5 2 Kings iv.\n\n     2 I Kings xix.    4 2 Kings ii.\n\nIt is hard to believe that being dipped seven times in the Jordan could\ncure the leprosy.1 Would a merciful God curse children, and children's\nchildren yet unborn, with leprosy for a father's fault?2 Is it possible\nto make iron float in water?3 Is it reasonable to say that when a corpse\ntouched another corpse it came to life?4 Is it a sign that a man wants\nto commit a crime because he refuses to believe that a king had a boil\nand that God caused the sun to go backward in heaven so that the shadow\non a sun-dial went back ten degrees as a sign that the aforesaid would\nget well?5 Is it true that this globe turned backward, that its motion\nwas reversed as a sign to a Jewish king? If it did not, this story is\nfalse, and that part of the Bible is not true even if it is inspired.\n\nFifty-seventh. How did the Bible get lost?5 Where was the precious\nPentateuch from Moses to Josiah? How was it possible for the Jews to get\nalong without the directions as to fat and caul and kidney contained\nin Leviticus? Without that sacred book in his possession a priest might\ntake up ashes and carry them out without changing his pantaloons. Such\nmistakes kindled the wrath of God.\n\nAs soon as the Pentateuch was found Josiah began killing wizards and\nsuch as had familiar spirits.\n\nFifty-eighth. I cannot believe that God talked to Solomon, that he\nvisited him in the night and asked him what he should give him; I cannot\nbelieve that he told him, \"I will give thee riches and wealth and honor,\nsuch as none of the kings have had before thee, neither shall there any\nafter thee have the like.\"7 If Jehovah said this he was mistaken. It is\nnot true that Solomon had fourteen hundred chariots of war in a country\nwithout roads. It is not true that he made gold and silver at Jerusalem\nas plenteous as stones. There were several kings in his day, and\nthousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine\nwithout missing the amount.\n\n     1 2 Kings v.      3 2 Kings, vi. 6.    5 2 Kings xx, 1-11.\n\n     2 2 Kings v. 27.  4 2 Kings xiii, 21.  6 2 Kings xxii, 8.\n\n     7 2 Chron. i, 7, 12.\n\nThe Holy Land was and is a wretched country. There are no monuments, no\nruins attesting former wealth and greatness. The Jews had no commerce,\nknew nothing of other nations, had no luxuries, never produced a\npainter, a sculptor, architect, scientist, or statesman until after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. As long as Jehovah attended to their affairs\nthey had nothing but civil war, plague, pestilence, and famine. After he\nabandoned, and the Christians ceased to persecute them, they became the\nmost prosperous of people. Since Jehovah, in anger and disgust, cast\nthem away they have produced painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen,\ncomposers, and philosophers.\n\nFifty-ninth. I cannot admit that Hiram, the King of Tyre, wrote a letter\nto Solomon in which he admitted that the \"God of Israel made heaven and\nearth.\" 1 This King was not a Jew. It seems incredible that Solomon had\neighty thousand men hewing timber for the temple, with seventy thousand\nbearers of burdens, and thirty-six hundred overseers.2\n\nSixtieth. I cannot believe that God shuts up heaven and prevents rain,\nor that he sends locusts to devour a land, or pestilence to destroy the\npeople.3 I cannot believe that God told Solomon that his eyes and heart\nshould perpetually be in the house that Solomon had built.4\n\nSixty-first. I cannot believe that Solomon passed all the kings of the\nearth in riches; that all the kings of the earth sought his presence\nand brought presents of silver and gold, raiment, harness, spices, and\nmules--a rate year by year.5 Is it possible that Shishak, a King of\nEgypt, invaded Palestine with seventy thousand horsemen and twelve\nhundred chariots of war?6\n\n     1 2 Chron. ii, 12.  3 2 Chron. vii, 13.  5 2 Chron. ix, 22-24.\n\n     2 2 Chron. ii, 18.  4 2 Chron. vii, 16.  6 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3.\n\nI cannot believe that in a battle between Jeroboam and Abijah, the army\nof Abijah actually slew in one day five hundred thousand chosen men.1\nDoes anyone believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, invaded Palestine with a\nmillion men?2 I cannot believe that Jehoshaphat had a standing army\nof nine hundred and sixty thousand men.3 I cannot believe that God\nadvertised for a liar to act as his messenger.4 I cannot believe that\nKing Amaziah did right in the sight of the Lord, and that he broke in\npieces ten thousand men by casting them from a precipice.5 I cannot\nthink that God smote a king with leprosy because he tried to burn\nincense.6 I cannot think that Pekah slew one hundred and twenty thousand\nmen in one day.7\n\n     1 2 Chron. xiii, 17. 3 2 Chron. xvii, 14-19.  5 2 Chron. xxv, 12.\n\n     2 2 Chron. xiv, 9.   4 2 Chron. xviii, 19-22. 6 2 Chron. xxvi, 19.\n\n     7 2 Chron. xxviii, 6.","title":"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 11 (of 12): Dresden Edition\u2014Miscellany","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":163186}