{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8140/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8140","id":"gutenberg_8140","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8140","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by Mark R. Jaqua.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLECTURES OF COL. R. G. INGERSOLL\n\n\n\n  Including His Answers To The Clergy,\n  His Oration At His Brother's Grave, Etc., Etc.\n\n\n\nComplete In Two Volumes\n\n\nVolume I\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n     Gods\n     Ghosts\n     Hell\n     Individuality\n     Humboldt\n     Which Way\n     The Great Infidels\n     Talmagian Theology\n     At a Child's Grave\n     Ingersoll's Oration at His Brother's Grave\n     Mistakes of Moses\n     Skulls and Replies\n     What Shall We Do To Be Saved?\n     Ingersoll's Answer To Prof. Swing, Dr. Thomas, And Others\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON GODS\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: An honest god is the noblest work of man. Each\nnation has created a god, and the god has always resembled his\ncreators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved, and he was\ninvariably found on the side of those in power.  Each god was intensely\npatriotic, and detested all nations but his own.  All these Gods\ndemanded praise, flattery, and worship.  Most of them were pleased with\nsacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been considered a\ndivine perfume. All these gods have insisted upon having a vast number\nof priests, and the priests have always insisted upon being supported\nby the people, and the principal business of these priests has been to\nboast about their God, and to insist that he could easily vanquish all\nthe other gods put together.\n\nThese gods have been manufactured after numberless models, and\naccording to the most grotesque fashions.  Some have a thousand arms,\nsome a hundred heads, some are adorned with necklaces of living snakes,\nsome are armed with clubs, some with sword and shield, some with\nbucklers, and some with wings as a cherub; some were invisible, some\nwould show themselves entire, and some would only show their backs;\nsome were jealous, some were foolish, some turned themselves into men,\nsome into swans, some into bulls, some into doves, and some into holy\nghosts, and made love to the beautiful daughters of men.  Some were\nmarried--all ought to have been--and some were considered as old\nbachelors from all eternity.  Some had children, and the children were\nturned into gods and worshiped as their fathers had been.  Most of\nthese gods were revengeful, savage, lustful, and ignorant; as they\ngenerally depended upon their priests for information, their ignorance\ncan hardly excite our astonishment.\n\nThese gods did not even know the shape of the worlds they had created,\nbut supposed them perfectly flat.  Some thought the day could be\nlengthened by stopping the sun, that the blowing of horns could throw\ndown the walls of a city, and all knew so little of the real nature of\nthe people they had created, that they commanded the people to love\nthem.  Some were so ignorant as to suppose that man could believe just\nas he might desire, or as might command, and to be governed by\nobservation, reason, and experience was a most foul and damning sin.\nNone of these gods could give a true account of the creation of this\nlittle earth.  All were woefully deficient in geology and astronomy.\nAs a rule, they were most miserable legislators, and as executives,\nthey were far inferior to the average of American presidents.\n\nThe deities have demanded the most abject and degrading obedience. In\norder to please them, man must lay his very face in the dust. Of\ncourse, they have always been partial to the people who created them,\nand they have generally shown their partiality by assisting those\npeople to rob and destroy others, and to ravish their wives and\ndaughters.  Nothing is so pleasing to these gods as the butchery of\nunbelievers.  Nothing so enrages them, even now as to have some one\ndeny their existence.\n\nFew nations have been so poor as to have but one god.  Gods were made\nso easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god\nmarket was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms.\nThese gods not only attended to the skies, but were supposed to\ninterfere in all the affairs of men.  They presided over everybody and\neverything.  They attended to every department. All was supposed to be\nunder their immediate control.  Nothing was too small--nothing too\nlarge; the falling of sparrows and the motions of planets were alike\nattended to by these industrious and observing deities.  From their\nstarry thrones they frequently came to the earth for the purpose of\nimparting information to man.  It is related of one that he came amid\nthunderings and lightnings in order to tell the people they should not\ncook a kid in its mother's milk.  Some left their shining abode to tell\nwomen that they should, or should not, have children, to inform a\npriest how to cut and wear his apron, and to give directions as to the\nproper manner for cleaning the intestines of a bird.\n\nWhen the people failed to worship one of these gods, or failed to feed\nand clothe his priests, (which was much the same thing,) he generally\nvisited them with pestilence and famine.  Sometimes he allowed some\nother nation to drag them into slavery--to sell their wives and\nchildren; but generally he glutted his vengeance by murdering their\nfirst born.  The priests always did their whole duty, not only in\npredicting these calamities, but in proving, when they did happen, that\nthey were brought upon the people because they had not given quite\nenough to them.\n\nThese gods differed just as the nations differed; the greatest and most\npowerful had the most powerful gods, while the weaker ones were obliged\nto content themselves with the very off-scourings of the heavens.  Each\nof these gods promised happiness here and hereafter to all his slaves,\nand threatened to eternally punish all who either disbelieved in his\nexistence or suspected that some other God might be his superior; but\nto deny the existence of all gods was, and is, the crime of crimes.\nRedden your hands with human blood; blast by slander the fair fame of\nthe innocent; strangle the smiling child upon its mother's knees;\ndeceive, ruin and desert the beautiful girl who loves and trusts you,\nand your case is not hopeless.  For all this, and for all these, you\nmay be forgiven. For all this, and for all these, that bankrupt court\nestablished by the gospel, will give you a discharge; but deny the\nexistence of these divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and\ntearful face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate.  Heaven's golden\ngates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears,\nwith the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your endless\nwanderings in the lurid gloom of hell--an immortal vagrant--an eternal\noutcast--a deathless convict.\n\nOne of these gods, and one who demands our love, our admiration and our\nworship, and one who is worshiped, if mere heartless ceremony is\nworship, gave to his chosen people for their guidance the following\nlaws of war: \"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it,\nthen proclaim peace unto it.  And it shall be if it make thee answer of\npeace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is\nfound therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve\nthee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against\nthee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath\ndelivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with\nthe edge of the sword.  But the women and the little ones, and the\ncattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt\nthou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies\nwhich the Lord thy God hath given thee.  Thus shalt thou do unto all\nthe cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the\ncities of these nations.  But of the cities of these people which the\nLord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save alive\nnothing that breatheth.\"\n\nIs it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous?\nCan you believe that such directions were given by any except an\ninfinite fiend?  Remember that the army receiving these instructions\nwas one of invasion.  Peace was offered on condition that the people\nsubmitting should be the slaves of the invader; but if any should have\nthe courage to defend their home, to fight for the love of wife and\nchild, then the sword was to spare none--not even the prattling,\ndimpled babe.\n\nAnd we are called upon to worship such a god; to get upon our knees and\ntell him that he is good, that he is merciful, that he is just, that he\nis love.  We are asked to stifle every noble sentiment of the soul, and\nto trample under foot all the sweet charities of the heart.  Because we\nrefuse to stultify ourselves--refuse to become liars--we are denounced,\nhated, traduced and ostracized here, and this same god threatens to\ntorment us in eternal fire the moment death allows him to fiercely\nclutch our naked helpless souls.  Let the people hate, let the god\nthreaten--we will educate them, and we will despise and defy him.\n\nThe book, called the bible, is filled with passages equally horrible,\nunjust and atrocious.  This is the book to read in schools in order to\nmake our children loving, kind and gentle!  This is the book recognized\nin our Constitution as the source of authority and justice!\n\nStrange that no one has ever been persecuted by the Church for\nbelieving God bad, while hundreds of millions have been destroyed for\nthinking him good.  The orthodox church never will forgive the\nUniversalist for saying \"God is love.\"   It has always been considered\nas one of the very highest evidence of true and undefiled religion to\ninsist that all men, women and children deserve eternal damnation.  It\nhas always been heresy to say, \"God will at last save all.\"\n\nWe are asked to justify these frightful passages, these infamous laws\nof war, because the bible is the word of God.  As a matter of fact,\nthere never was, and there never can be, an argument, even tending to\nprove the inspiration of any book whatever.  In the absence of positive\nevidence, analogy and experience, argument is simply impossible, and at\nthe very best, can amount only to a useless agitation of the air.  The\ninstant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even\nreasoned about, we are mental serfs.  It is infinitely absurd to\nsuppose that a god would address a communication to intelligent beings,\nand yet make it a crime, to be punished in eternal flames for them to\nuse their intelligence for the purpose of understanding his\ncommunication.  If we have the right to use our reason, we certainly\nhave the right to act in accordance with it, and no god can have the\nright to punish us for such action.\n\nThe doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It\nis the infamy of infamies.  The notion that faith in Christ is to be\nrewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason,\nobservation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for\nrefutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of\ninsanity and ignorance, called \"faith.\"  What man, who ever thinks, can\nbelieve that blood can appease God?  And yet, our entire system of\nreligion is based upon that belief.  The Jews pacified Jehovah with the\nblood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of\nJesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the\nsalvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind\ncan give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read\nthe bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.\n\nWhether the bible is true or false, is of no consequence in comparison\nwith the mental freedom of the race.\n\nSalvation through slavery is worthless.  Salvation from slavery is\ninestimable.\n\nAs long as man believes the bible to be infallible, that is his master.\nThe civilization of this century is not the child of faith, but of\nunbelief--the result of free thought.\n\nAll that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable\nperson that the bible is simply and purely of human invention--of\nbarbarian invention--is to read it.  Read it as you would any other\nbook; think of it as you would any other; get the bandage of reverence\nfrom your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from\nthe throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition--then read the\nholy bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment,\nsupposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity to be the\nauthor of such ignorance and of such atrocity.\n\nOur ancestors not only had their God-factories, but they made devils as\nwell.  These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had\nheaded unsuccessful revolts; some had been caught sweetly reclining in\nthe shadowy folds of some fleecy clouds, kissing the wife of the God of\ngods.  These devils generally sympathized with man.  There is in regard\nto them a most wonderful fact: In nearly all the theologies, mythologic\nand religious, the devils have been much more humane and merciful than\nthe gods.  No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill\nchildren and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women.  Such\nbarbarities were always ordered by the good gods.  The pestilences were\nsent by the most merciful gods.  The frightful famine, during which the\ndying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead\nmother, was sent by the loving gods.  No devil was ever charged with\nsuch fiendish brutality.\n\nOne of these gods, according to the account, drowned an entire world,\nwith the exception of eight persons.  The old, the young, the beautiful\nand the helpless were remorselessly devoured by the shoreless sea.\nThis, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests\never conceived, was the act not of a devil, but of God so-called, whom\nmen ignorantly worship unto this day.  What a stain such an act would\nleave upon the character of a devil!  One of the prophets of one of\nthese gods, having in his power a captured king, hewed him in pieces in\nthe sight of all the people.  Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of\nsuch savagery?\n\nOne of these gods is reported to have given the following directions\nconcerning human slavery:  \"If thou buy a Hebrew servant six years\nshall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If\nhe came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married,\nthen his wife shall go out with him.  If his master have given him a\nwife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her\nchildren shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.  And if\nthe servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife and my\nchildren; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto\nthe judges: he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the\ndoorpost; and his Master shall bore his ear with an awl; and he shall\nserve him forever.\"\n\nAccording to this, a man was given liberty upon condition that he would\ndesert forever his wife and children.  Did any devil ever force upon a\nhusband, upon a father, so cruel and so heartless an alternative?  Who\ncan worship such a god?  Who can bend the knee to such a monster?  Who\ncan pray to such a fiend?\n\nAll these gods threatened to torment forever the souls of their\nenemies. Did any devil ever make so infamous a threat?  The basest\nthing recorded of the devil, is what he did concerning job and his\nfamily, and that was done by the express permission of one of these\ngods and to decide a little difference of opinion between their serene\nhighnesses as to the character of \"my servant Job.\"\n\nThe first account we have of the devil is found in that purely\nscientific book called Genesis, and is as follows: \"Now the serpent was\nmore subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made,\nand he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of the\nfruit of the trees of the garden?  And the woman said unto the serpent.\nWe may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of\nthe tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said,  Ye shall\nnot eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  And the serpent\nsaid unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.  For God doth know that\nin the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall\nbe as gods, knowing good and evil.  And when the woman saw that the\ntree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a\ntree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and\ndid eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat......\nAnd the Lord God said, Behold the man has become as one of us, to know\ngood and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of\nthe tree of life and eat, and live forever.  Therefore the Lord God\nsent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he\nwas taken.  So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the\ngarden of Eden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way to\nkeep the way of the tree of life.\"\n\nAccording to this account the promise of the devil was fulfilled to the\nvery letter.  Adam and Eve did not die, and they did become as gods,\nknowing good and evil.   The account shows, however, that the gods\ndreaded education and knowledge then just as they do now. The church\nstill faithfully guards the dangerous tree of knowledge, and has\nexerted in all ages her utmost power to keep mankind from eating the\nfruit thereof.  The priests have never ceased repeating the old\nfalsehood and the old threat: \"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye\ntouch it, lest ye die.\"  From every pulpit comes the same cry, born of\nthe same fear \"Lest they eat and become as gods, knowing good and\nevil.\"  For this reason, religion hates science, faith detests reason,\ntheology is the sworn enemy of philosophy, and the church with its\nflaming sword still guards the hated tree, and like its supposed\nfounder, curses to the lowest depths the brave thinkers who eat and\nbecome as gods.\n\nIf the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after\nall, to thank this serpent?  He was the first schoolmaster, the first\nadvocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to\nwhisper in human ears the sacred word liberty, the creator of ambition,\nthe author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investigation, of\nprogress and of civilization.\n\nGive me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the\ndead calm of ignorance and faith.  Banish me from Eden when you will;\nbut first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge!   Some\nnations have borrowed their gods; of this number, we are compelled to\nsay, is our own.   The Jews having ceased to exist as a nation, and\nhaving no further use for a god, our ancestors appropriated him and\nadopted their devil at the same time.  This borrowed god is still an\nobject of some adoration, and this adopted devil still excites the\napprehensions of our people. He is still supposed to be setting his\ntraps and snares for the purpose of catching our unwary souls, and is\nstill, with reasonable success, waging the old war against our god.\n\nTo me, it seems easy to account for these ideas concerning gods and\ndevils.  They are a perfectly natural production.  Man has created them\nall, and under the same circumstances will create them again.  Man has\nnot only created all these gods, but he has created them out of the\nmaterials by which he has been surrounded. Generally he has modeled\nthem after himself, and has given them hands, heads, feet, eyes, ears,\nand organs of speech.  Each nation made its gods and devils speak its\nlanguage not only, but put in their mouths the same mistakes in\nhistory, geography, astronomy, and in all matters of fact, generally\nmade by the people.\n\nNo god was ever in advance of the nation that created him.  The negroes\nrepresented their deities with black skins and curly hair. The\nMongolian gave to his a yellow complexion and dark almond-shaped eyes.\nThe Jews were not allowed to paint theirs, or we should have seen\nJehovah with a full beard, an oval face, and an aquiline nose. Zeus was\na perfect Greek and Jove looked as though a member of the Roman senate.\nThe gods of Egypt had the patient face and placid look of the loving\npeople who made them.  The gods of northern countries were represented\nwarmly clad in robes of fur; those of the tropics were naked.  The gods\nof India were often mounted upon elephants, those of some islanders\nwere great swimmers, and the deities of the Arctic zone were\npassionately fond of whale's blubber. Nearly all people have carved or\npainted representations of their gods, and these representations were,\nby the lower classes generally treated as the real gods, and to these\nimages and idols they addressed prayers and offered sacrifice.\n\nIn some countries, even at this day, if the people after long praying\ndo not obtain their desires, they turn their images off as impotent\ngods, or upbraid them in a most reproachful manner, loading them with\nblows and curses.  'How now, dog of a spirit,' they say,  'we give you\nlodging in a magnificent temple, we gild you with gold, feed you with\nthe choicest food, and offer incense to you; yet, after all this care,\nyou are so ungrateful as to refuse us what we ask.'  Hereupon they will\npull the god down and drag him through the filth of the street.  If, in\nthe meantime, it happens that they obtain their request, then with a\ngreat deal of ceremony, they wash him clean, carry him back and place\nhim in his temple again, where they fall down and make excuses for what\nthey have done.  'Of a truth,' they say,  'we were a little too hasty,\nand you were a little too long in your grant.  Why should you bring\nthis beating on yourself.  But what is done cannot be undone.'   Let us\nnot think of it any more.  If you will forget what is past, we will\ngild you over brighter again than before.\n\nMan has never been at a loss for gods.  He has worshiped almost\neverything, including the vilest and most disgusting beasts.  He has\nworshiped fire, earth, air, water, light, stars, and for hundreds of\nages, prostrated himself before enormous snakes. Savage tribes often\nmake gods of articles they get from civilized people.  The Todas\nworship a cow-bell.  The Kotas worship two silver plates, which they\nregard as husband and wife, and another tribe manufactured a god out of\na king of hearts.\n\nMan, having always been the physical superior of woman, accounts for\nthe fact that most of the high gods have been males.  Had woman been\nthe physical superior, the powers supposed to be the ruler of Nature\nwould have been woman, and instead of being represented in the apparel\nof man, they would have luxuriated in trains, low necked dresses, laces\nand back-hair.\n\nNothing can be plainer than that each nation gives to its god its\npeculiar characteristics, and that every individual gives to his God\nhis personal peculiarities.\n\nMan has no ideas, and can have none, except those suggested by his\nsurroundings.  He cannot conceive of anything utterly unlike what he\nhas seen or felt.  He can exaggerate, diminish, combine, separate,\ndeform, beautify, improve, multiply and compare what he sees, what he\nfeels, what he hears, and all of which he takes cognizance through the\nmedium of the senses; but he cannot create.  Having seen exhibitions of\npower, he can say, omnipotent.  Having lived, he can say, immortality.\nKnowing something of time, he can say, eternity. Conceiving something\nof intelligence, he can say God.  Having seen exhibitions of malice, he\ncan say, devil.  A few gleams of happiness having fallen athwart the\ngloom of his life, he can say, heaven. Pain, in its numberless forms,\nhaving been experienced, he can say, hell.  Yet all these ideas have a\nfoundation in fact, and only a foundation.  The superstructure has been\nreared by exaggerating, diminishing, combining, separating, deforming,\nbeautifying, improving or multiplying realities, so that the edifice or\nfabric is but the incongruous grouping of what man has perceived\nthrough the medium of the senses.  It is as though we should give to a\nlion the wings of an eagle, the hoofs of a bison, the tail of a horse,\nthe pouch of a kangaroo, and the trunk of an elephant.  We have in\nimagination created an impossible monster.  And yet the various parts\nof this monster really exist.  So it is with all the gods that man has\nmade.\n\nBeyond nature man cannot go even in thought--above nature he cannot\nrise--below nature he cannot fall.\n\nMan, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were produced by\nsome intelligent powers, and with direct reference to him.  To preserve\nfriendly relations with these powers was, and still is, the object of\nall religions.  Man knelt through fear and to implore assistance, or\nthrough gratitude for some favor which he supposed had been rendered.\nHe endeavored by supplication to appease some being who, for some\nreason, had, as he believed become enraged. The lightning and thunder\nterrified him.  In the presence of the volcano he sank upon his knees.\nThe great forests filled with wild and ferocious beasts, the monstrous\nserpents crawling in mysterious depths, the boundless sea, the flaming\ncomets, the sinister eclipses, the awful calmness of the stars, and\nmore than all, the perpetual presence of death, convinced him that he\nwas the sport and prey of unseen and malignant powers.  The strange and\nfrightful diseases to which he was subject, the freezings and burnings\nof fever, the contortions of epilepsy, the sudden palsies, the darkness\nof night, and the wild, terrible and fantastic dreams that filled his\nbrain, satisfied him that he was haunted and pursued by countless\nspirits of evil.  For some reason he supposed that these spirits\ndiffered in power--that they were not all alike malevolent--that the\nhigher controlled the lower, and that his very existence depended upon\ngaining the assistance of the more powerful.  For this purpose he\nresorted to prayer, to flattery, to worship and to sacrifice.  These\nideas appear to have been almost universal in savage man.\n\nFor ages all nations supposed that the sick and insane were possessed\nby evil spirits.  For thousands of years the practice of medicine\nconsisted in frightening these spirits away.  Usually the priests would\nmake the loudest and most discordant noises possible.  They would blow\nhorns, beat upon rude drums, clash cymbals, and in the meantime utter\nthe most unearthly yells.  If the noise-remedy failed, they would\nimplore the aid of some more powerful spirit.\n\nTo pacify these spirits was considered of infinite importance. The poor\nbarbarian, knowing that men could be softened by gifts, gave to these\nspirits that which to him seemed of the most value. With bursting heart\nhe would offer the blood of his dearest child. It was impossible for\nhim to conceive of a god utterly unlike himself, and he naturally\nsupposed that these powers of the air would be affected a little at the\nsight of so great and so deep a sorrow.  It was with the barbarian then\nas with the civilized now--one class lived upon and made merchandise of\nthe fears of another. Certain persons took it upon themselves to\nappease the gods, and to instruct the people in their duties to these\nunseen powers. This was the origin of the priesthood.  The priest\npretended to stand between the wrath of the gods and the helplessness\nof man.  He was man's attorney at the court of heaven.  He carried to\nthe invisible world a flag of truce, a protest and a request. He came\nback with a command, with authority and with power.  Man fell upon his\nknees before his own servant, and the priest, taking advantage of the\nawe inspired by his supposed influence with the gods, made of his\nfellow-man a cringing hypocrite and slave.  Even Christ, the supposed\nson of God, taught that persons were possessed of evil spirits, and\nfrequently, according to the account, gave proof of his divine origin\nand mission by frightening droves of devils out of his unfortunate\ncountrymen.  Casting out devils was his principal employment, and the\ndevils thus banished generally took occasion to acknowledge him as the\ntrue Messiah; which was not only very kind of them, but quite fortunate\nfor him.  The religious people have always regarded the testimony of\nthese devils as perfectly conclusive, and the writers of the New\nTestament quote the words of these imps of darkness with great\nsatisfaction.\n\nThe fact that Christ could withstand the temptations of the devil was\nconsidered as conclusive evidence that he was assisted by some god, or\nat least by some being superior to man.  St. Matthew gives an account\nof an attempt made by the devil to tempt the supposed son of God; and\nit has always excited the wonder of Christians that the temptation was\nso nobly and heroically withstood.  The account to which I refer is as\nfollows:\n\n\"Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted\nof the devil.  And when the tempter came to him, he said: 'If thou be\nthe son of God command that these stones be made bread.' But he\nanswered, and said  'It is written: man shall not live by bread alone,\nbut by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'  Then the\ndevil taketh him up into the holy city and setteth him upon a pinnacle\nof the temple and saith unto him: 'If thou be the son of God, cast\nthyself down, for it is written.  He shall give his angels charge\nconcerning thee, lest at any time thou shalt dash thy foot against a\nstone.'  Jesus said unto him  'It is written again, thou shalt not\ntempt the Lord thy God.'  Again the devil taketh him up into an\nexceeding high mountain and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world\nand the glory of them, and saith unto him 'All these will I give thee\nif thou wilt fall down and worship me.'\"\n\nThe Christians now claim that Jesus was God.  If he was God, of course\nthe devil knew that fact, and yet, according to this account, the devil\ntook the omnipotent God and placed him upon a pinnacle of the temple,\nand endeavored to induce him to dash himself against the earth.\nFailing in that, he took the creator, owner and governor of the\nuniverse up into an exceeding high mountain, and offered him this\nworld--this grain of sand--if he, the God of all the worlds, would fall\ndown and worship him, a poor devil, without even a tax title to one\nfoot of dirt!  Is it possible the devil was such an idiot?  Should any\ngreat credit be given to this deity for not being caught with such\nchaff?  Think of it!  The devil--the prince of sharpers--the king of\ncunning--the master of finesse, trying to bribe God with a grain of\nsand that belonged to God!\n\nIs there in ail the religious literature of the world any thing more\ngrossly absurd than this?\n\nThese devils, according to the bible, were various kinds--some could\nspeak and hear, others were deaf and dumb.  All could not be cast out\nin the same way.  The deaf and dumb spirits were quite difficult to\ndeal with.  St. Mark tells of a gentleman who brought his son to\nChrist.  The boy, it seems, was possessed of a dumb spirit, over which\nthe disciples had no control.  \"Jesus said unto the spirit: 'Thou dumb\nand deaf spirit.  I charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into\nhim.'\" Whereupon, the deaf spirit having heard what was said, cried out\n(being dumb) and immediately vacated the premises.  The ease with which\nChrist controlled this deaf and dumb spirit excited the wonder of his\ndisciples, and they asked him privately why they could not cast that\nspirit out.  To whom he replied: \"This kind can come forth by nothing\nbut prayer and fasting.\"  Is there a Christian in the whole world who\nwould believe such a story if found in any other book?  The trouble is,\nthese pious people shut up their reason, and then open their bible.\n\nIn the olden times the existence of devils was universally admitted.\nThe people had no doubt upon that subject, and from such belief it\nfollowed as a matter of course, that a person, in order to vanquish\nthese devils, had either to be a god, or to be assisted by one. All\nfounders of religions have established their claims to divine origin by\ncontrolling evil spirits--and suspending the laws of nature.  Casting\nout devils was a certificate of divinity.  A prophet, unable to cope\nwith the powers of darkness, was regarded with contempt.  The utterance\nof the highest and noblest sentiments, the most blameless and holy\nlife, commanded but little respect, unless accompanied by power to work\nmiracles and command spirits.\n\nThis belief in good and evil powers had its origin in the fact that man\nwas surrounded by what he was pleased to call good and evil phenomena.\nPhenomena affecting man pleasantly were ascribed to good spirits, while\nthose affecting him unpleasantly or injuriously, were ascribed to evil\nspirits.  It being admitted that all phenomena were produced by\nspirits, the spirits were divided according to the phenomena, and the\nphenomena were good or bad as they affected man. Good spirits were\nsupposed to be the authors of good phenomena, and evil spirits of the\nevil--so that the idea of a devil has been as universal as the idea of\na god.\n\nMany writers maintain that an idea to become universal must be true;\nthat all universal ideas are innate, and that innate ideas cannot be\nfalse.  If the fact that an idea has been universal proves that it is\ninnate, and if the fact that an idea is innate proves that it is\ncorrect, then the believer in innate ideas must admit that the evidence\nof a god superior to nature, and of a devil superior to nature, is\nexactly the same, and that the existence of such a devil must be as\nself-evident as the existence of such a god.  The truth is, a god was\ninferred from good, and a devil from bad, phenomena.  And it is just as\nnatural and logical to suppose that a devil would cause happiness as to\nsuppose that a god would produce misery.  Consequently, if an\nintelligence, infinite and supreme, is the immediate author of all\nphenomena, it is difficult to determine whether such intelligence is\nthe friend or enemy of man. If phenomena were all good, we might say\nthey were all produced by a perfectly beneficent being.  If they were\nall bad, we, might say they were produced by a perfectly malevolent\npower; but as phenomena are, as they affect man, both good and bad,\nthey must be produced by different and antagonistic spirits; by one who\nis sometimes actuated by kindness, and sometimes by malice; or all must\nbe produced of necessity, and without reference to their consequences\nupon man.\n\nThe foolish doctrine that all phenomena can be traced to the\ninterference of good and evil spirits, has been, and still is, almost\nuniversal.  That most people still believe in some spirit that can\nchange the natural order of events, is proven by the fact that nearly\nall resort to prayer.  Thousands, at this very moment, are probably\nimploring some supposed power to interfere in their behalf.  Some want\nhealth restored; some ask that the loved and absent be watched over and\nprotected, some pray for riches, some for rain, some want diseases\nstayed, some vainly ask for food, some ask for revivals, a few ask for\nmore wisdom, and now and then one tells the Lord to do as he thinks\nbest. Thousands ask to be protected from the devil; some, like David,\npray for revenge, and some implore, even God, not to lead them into\ntemptation.  All these prayers rest upon, and are produced by the idea\nthat some power not only can, but probably will, change the order of\nthe universe.  This belief has been among the great majority of tribes\nand nations.  All sacred books are filled with the accounts of such\ninterferences, and our own bible is no exception to this rule.\n\nIf we believe in a power superior to nature, it is perfectly natural to\nsuppose that such power can and will interfere in the affairs of this\nworld.  If there is no interference, of what practical use can such\npower be?  The scriptures give us the most wonderful accounts of divine\ninterference: Animals talk like men; springs gurgle from dry bones; the\nsun and moon stop in the heavens in order that General Joshua may have\nmore time to murder; the shadow on a dial goes back ten degrees to\nconvince a petty king of a barbarous people that he is not going to die\nof a boil; fire refused to burn; water positively declined to seek its\nlevel, but stands up like a wall; grains of sand become lice; common\nwalking-sticks, to gratify a mere freak, twist themselves into\nserpents, and then swallow each other by way of exercise; murmuring\nstreams, laughing at the attraction of gravitation, run up hill for\nyears, following wandering tribes from a pure love of frolic; prophecy\nbecomes altogether easier than history; the sons of God become enamored\nof the world's girls; women are changed into salt for the purpose of\nkeeping a great event fresh in the minds of man; an excellent article\nof brimstone is imported from heaven free of duty; clothes refuse to\nwear out for forty years, birds keep restaurants and feed wandering\nprophets free of expense; bears tear children in pieces for laughing at\nold men without wigs; muscular development depends upon the length of\none's hair; dead people come to life, simply to get a joke on their\nenemies and heirs; witches and wizards converse freely with the souls\nof the departed, and God himself becomes a stone-cutter and engraver,\nafter having been a tailor and dressmaker.\n\nThe veil between heaven and earth was always rent or lifted.  The\nshadows of this world, the radiance of heaven, and the glare of hell\nmixed and mingled until man became uncertain as to which country he\nreally inhabited.  Man dwelt in an unreal world.  He mistook his ideas,\nhis dream, for real things.  His fears became terrible and malicious\nmonsters.  He lived in the midst of furies and fairies, nymphs and\nnaiads, goblins and ghosts, witches and wizards, sprites and spooks,\ndeities and devils.  The obscure and gloomy depths were filled with\nclaw and wing--with beak and hoof--with leering look and sneering\nmouths--with the malice of deformity--with the cunning of hatred, and\nwith all the slimy forms that fear can draw and paint upon the shadowy\ncanvas of the dark.\n\nIt is enough to make one almost insane with pity to think what man in\nthe long night has suffered: of the tortures he has endured,\nsurrounded, as he supposed, by malignant powers and clutched by the\nfierce phantoms of the air.  No wonder that he fell upon his trembling\nknees--that he built altars and reddened them even with his own blood.\nNo wonder that he implored ignorant priests and impudent magicians for\naid.  No wonder that he crawled groveling in the dust to the temple's\ndoor, and there, in the insanity of despair, besought the deaf gods to\nhear his bitter cry of agony and fear.\n\nThe savage as he emerges from a state of barbarism, gradually loses\nfaith in his idols of wood and stone, and in their place puts a\nmultitude of spirits.  As he advances in knowledge, he generally\ndiscards the petty spirits, and in their stead believes in one, whom he\nsupposes to be infinite and supreme.  Supposing this great spirit to be\nsuperior to nature, he offers worship or flattery in exchange for\nassistance.  At last, finding that he obtains no aid from this supposed\ndeity--finding that every search after the absolute must of necessity\nend in failure--finding that man cannot by any possibility conceive of\nthe conditionless--he begins to investigate the facts by which he is\nsurrounded, and to depend upon himself.\n\nThe people are beginning to think, to reason and to investigate.\nSlowly, painfully, but surely, the gods are being driven from the\nearth.  Only upon rare occasions are they, even by the most religious,\nsupposed to interfere in the affairs of men.  In most matters we are at\nlast supposed to be free.  Since the invention of steamships and\nrailways, so that the products of all countries can be easily\ninterchanged, the gods have quit the business of producing famine.  Now\nand then they kill a child because it is idolized by its parents.  As a\nrule they have given up causing accidents on railroads, exploding\nboilers, and bursting kerosene lamps.  Cholera, yellow fever, and\nsmallpox are still considered heavenly weapons; but measles, itch and\nague are now attributed to natural causes.  As a general thing, the\ngods have stopped drowning children, except as a punishment for\nviolating the Sabbath. They still pay some attention to the affairs of\nkings, men of genius and persons of great wealth: but ordinary people\nare left to shift for themselves as best they may.  In wars between\ngreat nations, the gods still interfere; but in prize fights, the best\nman with an honest referee, is almost sure to win.\n\nThe church cannot abandon the idea of special providence.  To give up\nthat doctrine is to give up all.  The church must insist that prayer is\nanswered--that some power superior to nature hears and grants the\nrequest of the sincere and humble Christian, and that this same power\nin some mysterious way provides for all.\n\nA devout Clergyman sought every opportunity to impress upon the mind of\nhis son the fact, that God takes care of all his creatures; that the\nfalling sparrow attracts his attentions, and that his loving kindness\nis over all his works.  Happening, one day, to see a crane wading in\nquest of food, the good man pointed out to his son the perfect\nadaptation of the crane to get his living in that manner.  \"See,\" said\nhe, \"how his legs are formed for wading! What a long slender bill he\nhas!  Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or\ndrawing them out of the water!  He does not cause the slightest ripple.\nHe is thus enabled to approach the fish without giving them any notice\nof his arrival.\" \"My son,\" said he, \"it is impossible to look at that\nbird without recognizing the design, as well as the goodness of God, in\nthus providing the means of subsistence.\"  \"Yes\" replied the boy, \"I\nthink I see the goodness of God, at least so far as the crane is\nconcerned: but after all, father, don't you think the arrangement a\nlittle tough on the fish?\"\n\nEven the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in any great\namount of interference by the gods in this age of the world, still\nthinks that in the beginning some god made the laws governing the\nuniverse.  He believes that in consequence of these laws a man can lift\na greater weight with than without a lever; that this god so made\nmatter, and so established the order of things, that--two bodies cannot\noccupy the same space at the same time; so that a body once put in\nmotion will keep moving until it is stopped; so that it is a greater\ndistance around than across a circle; so that a perfect square has four\nequal sides, instead of five or seven. He insists that it took a direct\ninterposition of providence to make the whole greater than a part, and\nthat had it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one might\nhave been more than twice two, and sticks and strings might have had\nonly one end apiece. Like the old Scotch divine, he thanks God that\nSunday comes at the end instead of in the middle of the week, and that\ndeath comes at the close instead of at the commencement of life,\nthereby giving us time to prepare for that holy day and that most\nsolemn event. These religious people see nothing but design everywhere,\nand personal, intelligent interference in everything.  They insist that\nthe universe has been created, and that the adaptation of means to ends\nis perfectly apparent. They point us to the sunshine, to the flowers,\nto the April rain, and to all there is of beauty and of use in the\nworld.  Did it ever occur to them that a cancer is as beautiful in its\ndevelopment as is the reddest rose?  That what they are pleased to call\nthe adaptation of means to ends, is as apparent in the cancer as in the\nApril rain?  How beautiful the process of digestion!  By what ingenious\nmethods the blood is poisoned so that the cancer shall have food!  By\nwhat wonderful contrivances the entire system of man is made to pay\ntribute to this divine and charming cancer!  See by what admirable\ninstrumentalities it feeds itself from the surrounding, quivering,\ndainty flesh!   See how it gradually but surely expands and grows! By\nwhat marvelous mechanism it is supplied with long and slender roots\nthat reach out to the most secret nerves of pain for sustenance and\nlife!  What beautiful colors it presents!  Seen through the microscope\nit is a miracle of order and beauty.  All the ingenuity of man cannot\nstop its growth.  Think of the amount of thought it must have required\nto invent a way by which the life of one man might be given to produce\none cancer?  Is it possible to look upon it and doubt that there is\ndesign in the universe, and that the inventor of this wonderful cancer\nmust be infinitely powerful, ingenious and good?\n\nWe are told that the universe was designed and created, and that it is\nabsurd to suppose that matter has existed from eternity, but that it is\nperfectly self-evident that a god has.\n\nIf a god created the universe, then there must have been a time when he\ncommenced to create.  Back of that time there must have been an\neternity, during which there had existed nothing--absolutely\nnothing--except this supposed god.  According to this theory, this god\nspent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum, and in perfect\nidleness.\n\nAdmitting that a god did create the universe, the question then arises,\nof what did he create it?  It certainly was not made of nothing.\nNothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is a most decided\nfailure.  It follows, then, that a god must have made the universe out\nof himself, he being the only existence. The universe is material, and\nif it was made of god, the god must have been material.  With this very\nthought in his mind, Anaximander of Miletus said: \"Creation is the\ndecomposition of the infinite.\"\n\nIt has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun, only for\nthe fact that it is attracted by other worlds, and those worlds must be\nattracted by other worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end.\nThis proves the material universe to be infinite.  If an infinite\nuniverse has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is\nleft?\n\nThe idea of a creative deity is gradually being abandoned, and nearly\nall truly scientific minds admit that matter must have existed from\neternity.  It is indestructible, and the indestructible cannot be\ncreated.  It is the crowning glory of our century to have demonstrated\nthe indestructibility and the eternal persistence of force.  Neither\nmatter nor force can be increased nor diminished. Force cannot exist\napart from matter.  Matter exists only in connection with force, and\nconsequently a force apart from matter, and superior to nature, is a\ndemonstrated impossibility.\n\nForce, then, must have also existed from eternity, and could not have\nbeen created.  Matter in its countless forms, from dead earth to the\neyes of those we love, and force, in all its manifestations, from\nsimple motions to the grandest thought, deny creation and defy control.\n\nThought is a form of force.  We walk with the same force with which we\nthink.  Man is an organism that changes several forms of force into\nthought-force.  Man is a machine into which we put what we call food,\nand produce what we call thought.  Think of that wonderful chemistry by\nwhich bread was changed into the divine tragedy of Hamlet!\n\nA god must not only be material, but he must be an organism, capable of\nchanging other forms of force into thought-force.  This is what we call\neating.  Therefore, if the god thinks he must eat, that is to say, he\nmust of necessity have some means of supplying the force with which to\nthink.  It is impossible to conceive of a being who can eternally\nimpart force to matter, and yet have no means of supplying the force\nthus imparted.\n\nIf neither matter nor force were created, what evidence have we, then,\nof the existence of a power superior to nature?  The theologian will\nprobably reply,  \"We have law and order, cause and effect, and beside\nall this, matter could not have put itself in motion.\"\n\nSuppose, for the sake of an argument, that there is no being superior\nto nature, and that matter and force have existed from eternity.  Now\nsuppose that two atoms should come together, would there be an effect?\nYes.  Suppose they came in exactly opposite directions with equal\nforce, they would be stopped, to say the least.  This would be an\neffect.  If this is so, then you have matter, force and effect without\na being superior to nature.  Now suppose that two other atoms, just\nlike the first two, should come together under precisely the same\ncircumstances, would not the effect be exactly the same?  Yes.  Like\ncauses, producing like effects, is what we mean by law and order.  Then\nwe have matter, force, effect, law and order without a being superior\nto nature. Now, we know that every effect must also be a cause, and\nthat every cause must be an effect.  The atoms coming together did\nproduce an effect, and as every effect must also be a cause, the effect\nproduced by the collision of the atoms, must, as to something else,\nhave been a cause.  Then we have matter, force, law, order, cause and\neffect without a being superior to nature.  Nothing is left for the\nsupernatural but empty space.  His throne is a void, and his boasted\nrealm is without matter, without force, without law, without cause, and\nwithout effect.\n\nBut what put all this matter in motion?  If matter and force have\nexisted from eternity, then matter must have always been in motion.\nThere can be no force without motion.  Force is forever active, and\nthere is, and there can be no cessation.  If therefore, matter and\nforce have existed from eternity, so has motion.  In the whole universe\nthere is not even one atom in a state of rest.\n\nA deity outside of nature exists in nothing, and is nothing.  Nature\nembraces with infinite arms all matter and all force.  That which is\nbeyond her grasp is destitute of both, and can hardly be worth the\nworship and adoration even of a man.\n\nThere is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power\nindependent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only\nfor one moment, the continuity of cause and effect.  Pluck from the\nendless chain of existence one little link; stop for one instant the\ngrand procession, and you have shown beyond all contradiction that\nnature has a master.  Change the fact, just for one second, that matter\nattracts matter, and a god appears.\n\nThe rudest savage has always known this fact, and for that reason\nalways demanded the evidence of miracle.  The founder of a religion\nmust be able to turn water into wine--cure with a word the blind and\nlame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life.  It was necessary\nfor him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple,\nthat he was superior to nature.  In times of ignorance this was easy to\ndo.  The credulity of the savage was almost boundless.  To him the\nmarvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime.\nConsequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle--that is\nto say, a violation of nature--that is to say, a falsehood.\n\nNo one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a\ntruth by a miracle.  Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing\nbut falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle\never was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one,\nand until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence\nof any power superior to, and independent of nature.\n\nThe church wishes us to believe.  Let the church, or one of its\nintellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe.  We are\ntold that nature has a superior.  Let this superior, for one single\ninstant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertion.\n\nWe have heard talk enough.  We have listened to all the drowsy,\nidealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear.  We have read your bible\nand the works of your best minds.  We have heard your prayers, your\nsolemn groans and your reverential amens.  All these amount to less\nthan nothing.  We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little\nfact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and\nimplore you for just one fact.  We know all about your moldy wonders\nand your stale miracles.  We want this year's fact.  We ask only one.\nGive us one fact of charity.  Your miracles are too ancient.  The\nwitnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.  Their\nreputations for \"truth and veracity\" in the neighborhood where they\nresided is wholly unknown to us.  Give us a new miracle, and\nsubstantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of\nliving in this world.  Do not send us to Jericho to hear the winding\nhorns, nor put us in the fire with Shadrach, Moshech, and Abednego.  Do\nnot compel us to navigate the sea with Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr.\nEzekiel.  There is no sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with\nSamson.  We have positively lost interest in that little speech so\neloquently delivered by Balaam's inspired donkey.  It is worse than\nuseless to show us fishes with money in their mouths, and call our\nattention to vast multitudes stuffing themselves with five crackers and\ntwo sardines.  We demand a new miracle and we demand it now.  Let the\nchurch furnish at least one, or forever after hold her peace.\n\nIn the olden time, the church, by violating the order of nature, proved\nthe existence of her God.  At that time miracles were performed with\nthe most astonishing ease.  They became so common that the church\nordered her priests to desist.  And now this same church--the people\nhaving found so little sense--admits, not only, that she cannot perform\na miracle, but insists--that absence of miracle--the steady, unbroken\nmarch of cause and effect, proves the existence of a power superior to\nnature.  The fact is, however, that the indissoluble chain of cause and\neffect proves exactly the contrary.\n\nSir William Hamilton, one of the pillars of modern theology, in\ndiscussing this very subject, uses the following language: \"The\nphenomena of matter taken by themselves, so far from warranting any\ninference to the existence of a god, would on the contrary ground even\nan argument to his negation.  The phenomena of a material world are\nsubjected to immutable laws; are produced and reproduced in the same\ninvariable succession, and manifest only the blind force of mechanical\nnecessity.\"\n\nNature is but an endless series of efficient causes.  She cannot\ncreate, but she eternally transforms.  There was no beginning; and\nthere can be no end.\n\nThe best minds, even in the religious world, admit that in material\nnature there is no evidence of what they are pleased to call a god.\nThey find their evidence in the phenomena of intelligence, and very\ninnocently assert that intelligence is above, and in fact, opposed to\nnature.  They insist that man, at least, is a special creation; that he\nhad somewhere in his brain a divine spark, a little portion of the\n\"Great First Cause.\"  They say that matter cannot produce thought; but\nthat thought can produce matter.  They tell us that man has\nintelligence, and therefore there must be an intelligence greater than\nhis.  Why not say, God has intelligence, therefore there must be an\nintelligence greater than his?  So far as we know, there is no\nintelligence apart from matter.  We cannot conceive of thought, except\nas produced within a brain.\n\nThe science, by means of which they demonstrate the existence of an\nimpossible intelligence, and an incomprehensible power, is called\nmetaphysics or theology.  The theologians admit that the phenomena of\nmatter tend, at least, to disprove the existence of any power superior\nto nature, because in such phenomena we see nothing but an endless\nchain of efficient causes--nothing but the force of a mechanical\nnecessity. They therefore appeal to what they denominate the phenomena\nof mind to establish this superior power.\n\nThe trouble is, that in the phenomena of mind we find the same endless\nchain of efficient causes; the same mechanical necessity. Every thought\nmust have had an efficient cause.  Every motive, every desire, every\nfear, hope and dream must have been necessarily produced.  There is no\nroom in the mind of a man for providence or change.  The facts and\nforces governing thought are as absolute as those governing the motions\nof the planets.  A poem is produced by the forces of nature, and is as\nnecessarily and naturally produced as mountains and seas.  You will\nseek in vain for a thought in man's brain without its efficient cause.\nEvery mental operation is the necessary result of certain facts and\nconditions. Mental phenomena are considered more complicated than those\nof matter, and consequently more mysterious.  Being more mysterious,\nthey are considered better evidence of the existence of a god.  No one\ninfers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood,\nbut from the complex, from the unknown and incomprehensible.  Our\nignorance is God; what we know is science.\n\nWhen we abandon the doctrine that some infinite being created matter\nand force, and enacted a code of laws for their government, the idea of\ninterference will be lost.  The real priest will then be, not the\nmouth-piece of some pretended deity, but the interpreter of nature.\nFrom that moment the church ceases to exist.  The tapers will die out\nupon the dusty altar; the moths will eat the fading velvet of pulpit\nand pew; the Bible will take its place with the Shastras, Puranas,\nVedas, Eddas, Sagas and Korans, and the fetters of a degrading faith\nwill fall from the minds of men.\n\n\"But,\" says the religionist \"you cannot explain everything; you cannot\nunderstand everything; and that which you cannot explain, that which\nyou do not comprehend, is my god.\"\n\nWe are explaining more every day.  We are understanding more every day;\nconsequently your God is growing smaller every day.\n\nNothing daunted, the religionist then insists that nothing can exist\nwithout a cause, except cause, and that this uncaused cause is God.\n\nTo this we again replied: Every cause must produce an effect, because\nuntil it does produce an effect, it is not a cause.  Every effect must\nin its turn become a cause.  Therefore, in the nature of things, there\ncannot be a last cause, for the reason that a so-called last cause\nwould necessarily produce an effect, and that effect must of necessity\nbecome a cause.  The converse of these propositions must be true.\nEvery effect must have had a cause, and every cause must have been an\neffect. Therefore, there could have been no first cause.  A first cause\nis just as impossible as a last effect.\n\nBeyond the universe there is nothing, and within the universe the\nsupernatural does not and cannot exist.\n\nThe moment these great truths are understood and admitted, a belief in\ngeneral or special providence becomes impossible.  From that instant\nmen will cease their vain efforts to please an imaginary being, and\nwill give their time and attention to the affairs of this world.  They\nwill abandon the idea of attaining any object by prayer and\nsupplication. The element of uncertainty will, in a great measure, be\nremoved from the domain of the future, and man, gathering courage from\na succession of victories over the obstructions of nature, will attain\na serene grandeur unknown to the disciples of any superstition.  The\nplans of mankind will no longer be interfered with by the finger of a\nsupposed omnipotence, and no one will believe that nations or\nindividuals are protected or destroyed by any deity whatever.  Science,\nfreed from the chains of pious custom and evangelical prejudice, will,\nwithin her sphere, be supreme.  The mind will investigate without\nreverence and publish its conclusions without fear.  Agassiz will no\nlonger hesitate to declare the Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent\nwith the demonstrated truths of geology, and will cease pretending any\nreverence for the Jewish scriptures.  The moment science succeeds in\nrendering the church powerless for evil, the real thinkers will be\noutspoken.  The little flags of truce carried by timid philosophers\nwill disappear, and the cowardly parley will give place to victory\nlasting and universal.\n\nIf we admit that some infinite being has controlled the destinies of\npersons and people, history becomes a most cruel and bloody farce. Age\nafter age, the strong have trampled upon the weak; the crafty and\nheartless have ensnared and enslaved the simple and innocent, and\nnowhere, in all the annals of mankind, has any god succored the\noppressed.\n\nMan should cease to expect aid from on high.  By this time he should\nknow that heaven has no ear to hear, and no hand to help. The present\nis the necessary child of all the past.  There has been no chance, and\nthere can be no interference.\n\nIf abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them.  If slaves are freed,\nman must free them.  If new truths are discovered, man must discover\nthem.  If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is\ndone; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind, if\nthe defenseless are protected, and if the right finally triumphs, all\nmust be the work of man.  The grand victories of the future must be won\nby man, and by man alone.\n\nNature, so far as we can discern, without passion and without\nintention, forms, transforms, and retransforms forever.  She neither\nweeps nor rejoices.  She produces man without purpose, and obliterates\nhim without regret.  She knows no distinction between the beneficial\nand the hurtful.  Poison and nutrition, pain and joy, life and death,\nsmiles and tears are alike to her.  She is neither merciful nor cruel.\nShe cannot be flattered by worship nor melted by tears.  She does not\nknow even the attitude of prayer. She appreciates no difference between\npoison in the fangs of snakes and mercy in the hearts of men.  Only\nthrough man does nature take cognizance of the good, the true, and the\nbeautiful; and, so far as we know, man is the highest intelligence.\n\nAnd yet man continues to believe that there is some power independent\nof and superior to nature, and still endeavors, by form, ceremony,\nsupplication, hypocrisy, to obtain its aid.  His best energies have\nbeen wasted in the service of this phantom.  The horrors of witchcraft\nwere all born of an ignorant belief in the existence of a totally\ndepraved being superior to nature, acting in perfect independence of\nher laws; and all religious superstition has had for its basis a belief\nin at least two beings, one good and the other bad, both of whom could\narbitrarily change the order of the universe.  The history of religion\nis simply the story of man's efforts in all ages to avoid one of these\npowers and to pacify the other.  Both powers have inspired little else\nthan abject fear. The cold, calculating sneer of the devil, and the\nfrown of God, were equally terrible.  In any event, man's fate was to\nbe arbitrarily fixed forever by an unknown power superior to all law,\nand to all fact.  Until this belief is thrown aside, man must consider\nhimself the slave of phantom masters--neither of whom promise liberty\nin this world nor in the next.\n\nMan must learn to rely upon himself.  Reading bibles will not protect\nhim from the blasts of winter, but houses, fires, and clothing will.\nTo prevent famine, one plow is worth a million sermons, and even patent\nmedicines will cure more diseases than all the prayers uttered since\nthe beginning of the world.\n\nAlthough many eminent men have endeavored to harmonize necessity and\nfree will, the existence of evil, and the infinite power and goodness\nof God, they have succeeded only in producing learned and ingenious\nfailures.  Immense efforts have been made to reconcile ideas utterly\ninconsistent with the facts by which we are surrounded, and all persons\nwho have failed to perceive the pretended reconciliation, have been\ndenounced as infidels, atheists and scoffers.  The whole power of the\nchurch has been brought to bear against philosophers and scientists in\norder to compel a denial of the authority of demonstration,--and to\ninduce some Judas to betray Reason, one of the saviors of mankind.\n\nDuring that frightful period known as the \"Dark Ages,\" Faith reigned,\nwith scarcely rebellious subject.  Her temples were \"carpeted with\nknees,\" and the wealth of nations adorned her countless shrines.  The\ngreat painters prostituted their genius to immortalize her vagaries,\nwhile the poets enshrined them in song. At her bidding, man covered the\nearth with blood.  The scales of justice were turned with gold, and for\nher use were invented all the cunning instruments of pain.  She built\ncathedrals for God, and dungeons for men.  She peopled the clouds with\nangels and the earth with slaves.  For centuries the world was\nretracing its steps--going steadily back toward, barbaric night!  A few\ninfidels--a few heretics cried, \"Halt!\" to the great rabble of ignorant\ndevotion, and made it possible for the genius of the nineteenth century\nto revolutionize the cruel creeds and superstitions of mankind.\n\nThe thoughts of man, in order to be of any real worth, must be free.\nUnder the influence of fear the brain is paralyzed, and instead of\nbravely solving a problem for itself, tremblingly adopts the solution\nof another.  As long as a majority of men will cringe to the very earth\nbefore some petty prince or king, what must be the infinite abjectness\nof their little souls in the presence of their supposed creator and\nGod? Under such circumstances, what can their thoughts be worth?\n\nThe originality of repetition, and the mental vigor of acquiescence,\nare all that we have any right to expect from the Christian world. As\nlong as every question is answered by the word \"God,\" scientific\ninquiry is simply impossible.  As fast as phenomena are satisfactorily\nexplained the domain of the power, supposed to be superior to nature\nmust decrease, while the horizon of the known must as constantly\ncontinue to enlarge.\n\nIt is no longer satisfactory to account for the fall and rise of\nnations by saying, \"It is the will of God.\"  Such an explanation puts\nignorance and education upon exact equality, and does away with the\nidea of really accounting for anything whatever.\n\nWill the religionist pretend that the real end of science is to\nascertain how and why God acts?  Science, from such a standpoint, would\nconsist in investigating the law of arbitrary action, and in a grand\nendeavor to ascertain the rule necessarily obeyed by infinite caprice.\n\nFrom a philosophical point of view, science is knowledge of the laws of\nlife; of the condition of happiness; of the facts by which we are\nsurrounded, and the relations we sustain to men and things--by means of\nwhich man, so to speak, subjugates nature and bends the elemental\npowers to his will, making blind force the servant of his brain.\n\nA belief in special providence does away with the spirit of\ninvestigation, and is inconsistent with personal efforts.  Why should\nman endeavor to thwart the designs of God?  \"Which of you, with taking\nthought, can add to his stature one cubit?\"  Under the influence of\nthis belief, man, basking in the sunshine of a delusion, considers the\nlilies of the field and refuses to take any thought for the morrow.\nBelieving himself in the power of an infinite being, who can, at any\nmoment, dash him to the lowest hell or raise him to the highest heaven,\nhe necessarily abandons the idea of accomplishing anything by his own\nefforts.  So long as this belief was general, the world was filled with\nignorance, superstition and misery.  The energies of man were wasted in\na vain effort to obtain the aid of this power, supposed to be superior\nto nature.  For countless ages, even men were sacrificed upon the altar\nof this impossible god.  To please him, mothers have shed the blood of\ntheir own babies; martyrs have chanted triumphant songs in the midst of\nflames; priests have gorged themselves with blood; nuns have forsworn\nthe ecstasies of love; old men have tremblingly implored; women have\nsobbed and entreated; every pain has been endured, and every horror has\nbeen perpetrated.\n\nThrough the dim long years that have fled, humanity has suffered more\nthan can be conceived.  Most of the misery has been endured by the\nweak, the loving and the innocent.  Women have been treated like\npoisonous beasts, and little children trampled upon as though they had\nbeen vermin.  Numberless altars have been reddened, even with the blood\nof babies; beautiful girls have been given to slimy serpents; whole\nraces of men doomed to centuries of slavery, everywhere there has been\noutrage beyond the power of genius to express.  During all these years\nthe suffering have supplicated; the withered lips of famine have\nprayed; the pale victims have implored, and heaven has been deaf and\nblind.\n\nOf what use have the gods been to man?\n\nIt is no answer to say that some god created the world, established\ncertain laws, and then turned his attention to other matters, leaving\nhis children, weak, ignorant and unaided, to fight the battle of life\nalone.  It is no solution to declare that in some other world this god\nwill render a few or even all of his subjects happy.  What right have\nwe to expect that a perfectly wise, good and powerful being will ever\ndo better than he has done, and is doing?  The world is filled with\nimperfections.  If it was made by an infinite being, what reason have\nwe for saying that he will render it nearer perfect than it now is?  If\nthe infinite Father allows a majority of his children to live in\nignorance and wretchedness now, what evidence is there that he will\never improve their condition?  Will god have more power?  Will he\nbecome more merciful?  Will his love for his poor creatures increase?\nCan the conduct of infinite wisdom, power and love ever change?  Is the\ninfinite capable of any improvement whatever.\n\nWe are informed by the clergy that this world is a kind of school; that\nthe evils by which we are surrounded are for the purpose of developing\nour souls, and that only by suffering can men become pure, strong,\nvirtuous and grand.\n\nSupposing this to be true, what is to become of those who die in\ninfancy?  The little children, according to this philosophy, can never\nbe developed.  They were so unfortunate as to escape the ennobling\ninfluences of pain and misery, and as a consequence, are doomed to an\neternity of mental inferiority.  If the clergy are right on this\nquestion, none are so unfortunate as the happy, and we should envy only\nthe suffering and distressed.  If evil is necessary to the development\nof man, in this life, how is it possible for the soul to improve in the\nperfect joy of paradise?\n\nSince Paley found his watch, the argument of \"design\" has been relied\nupon as unanswerable.  The Church teaches that this world, and all that\nit contains, were created substantially as we now see them, that the\ngrasses, the flowers, the trees, and all animals, including man, were\nspecial creations, and that they sustain no necessary relation to each\nother.  The most orthodox will admit that some earth has been washed\ninto the sea, that the sea has encroached a little upon the land, and\nthat some mountains may be a trifle lower than in the morning of\ncreation.  The theory of gradual development was unknown to our\nfathers; the idea of evolution did not occur to them.  Our fathers\nlooked upon the then arrangement of things as the primal arrangement.\nThe earth appeared to them fresh from the hands of a deity.  They knew\nnothing of the slow evolutions of countless years, but supposed that\nthe almost infinite variety of vegetable and animal forms had existed\nfrom the first.\n\nSuppose that upon some island we should find a man a million years of\nage, and suppose that we should find him in the possession of a most\nbeautiful carriage, constructed upon the most perfect model. And\nsuppose further, that he should tell us that it was the result of\nseveral hundred thousand years of labor and of thought; that for fifty\nthousand years he used as flat a log as he could find, before it\noccurred to him that by splitting the log he could have the same\nsurface with only half the weight; that it took him many thousand years\nto invent wheels for this log; that the wheels he first used were\nsolid, and that fifty thousand years of thought suggested the use of\nspokes and tire; that for many centuries he used the wheels without\nlinch-pins: that it took a hundred thousand years more to think of\nusing four wheels, instead of two; that for ages he walked behind the\ncarriage, when going down hill, in order to hold it back, and that only\nby a lucky chance he invented the tongue; would we conclude that this\nman, from the very first, had been an infinitely ingenious and perfect\nmechanic?  Suppose we found him living in an elegant mansion, and he\nshould inform us that he lived in that house for five hundred thousand\nyears before he thought of putting on a roof, and that he had but\nrecently invented windows and doors; would we say that from the\nbeginning he had been an infinite accomplished and scientific architect.\n\nDoes not an improvement in the things created, show the corresponding\nimprovement in the creator?\n\nWould an infinitely wise, good and powerful God, intending to produce\nman, commence with the lowest possible forms of life; with the simplest\norganism that can be imagined, and during immeasurable periods of time,\nslowly and almost imperceptibly improve upon the rude beginning, until\nman was evolved?  Would countless ages thus be wasted in the production\nof awkward forms, afterward abandoned?  Can the intelligence of man\ndiscover the least wisdom in covering the earth with crawling, creeping\nhorrors, that live only upon the agonies and pangs of others?  Can we\nsee the propriety of so constructing the earth, that only an\ninsignificant portion of its surface is capable of producing an\nintelligent man?  Who can appreciate the mercy of so making the world\nthat all animals devour animals? so that every mouth is a\nslaughter-house, and every stomach a tomb?  Is it possible to discover\ninfinite intelligence and love in universal and eternal carnage?\n\nWhat would we think of a father, who should give a farm to his\nchildren, and before giving them possession should plant upon it\nthousands of deadly shrubs and vines; should stock it with ferocious\nbeasts; and poisonous reptiles; should take pains to put a few swamps\nin the neighborhood to breed malaria; should so arrange matters, that\nthe ground would occasionally open and swallow a few of his darlings,\nand besides all this, should establish a few volcanoes in the immediate\nvicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm his children with rivers\nof fire?  Suppose that this father neglected to tell his children which\nof the plants were deadly; that the reptiles were poisonous; failed to\nsay anything about the earthquakes, and kept the volcano business a\nprofound secret; would we pronounce him angel or fiend?\n\nAnd yet this is exactly what the orthodox God has done.\n\nAccording to the theologians, God prepared this globe expressly for the\nhabitation of his loved children, and yet he filled the forests with\nferocious beasts; placed serpents in every path; stuffed the world with\nearthquakes, and adorned its surface with mountains of flame.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, we are told that the world is perfect; that\nit was created by a perfect being, and is therefore necessarily\nperfect. The next moment, these same persons will tell us that the\nworld was cursed; covered with brambles, thistles and thorns, and that\nman was doomed to disease and death, simply because our poor, dear\nmother ate an apple contrary to the command of an arbitrary God.\n\nA very pious friend of mine, having heard that I had said the world was\nfull of imperfections, asked me if the report was true.  Upon being\ninformed that it was, he expressed great surprise that any one could be\nguilty of such presumption.  He said that, in his judgment, it was\nimpossible to point out an imperfection.  \"Be kind enough,\" said he,\n\"to name even one improvement that you could make, if you had the\npower.\" \"Well,\" said I, \"I would make good health catching, instead of\ndisease.\"\n\nThe truth is, it is impossible to harmonize all the ills, and pains,\nand agonies of this world with the idea that we were created by, and\nare watched over and protected by an infinitely wise, powerful and\nbeneficent God, who is superior to and independent of nature.\n\nThe clergy, however, balance all the real ills of this life with the\nexpected joys of the next.  We are assured that all is perfection in\nheaven--there the skies are cloudless--there all is serenity and peace.\nHere empires may be overthrown; dynasties may be extinguished in blood;\nmillions of slaves may toil 'neath the fierce rays of the sun, and the\ncruel strokes of the lash; yet all is happiness in heaven.  Pestilence\nmay strew the earth with corpses of the loved; the survivors may bend\nabove them in agony--yet the placid bosom of heaven is unruffled.\nChildren may expire vainly asking for bread; babies may be devoured by\nserpents, while the gods sit smiling in the clouds.  The innocent may\nlanguish unto death in the obscurity of dungeons; brave men and heroic\nwomen may be changed to ashes at the bigot's stake, while heaven is\nfilled with song and joy. Out on the wide sea, in darkness and in\nstorm, the shipwrecked struggle with the cruel waves, while the angels\nplay upon their golden harps. The streets of the world are filled with\nthe diseased, the deformed and the helpless; the chambers of pain are\ncrowded with the pale forms of the suffering, while the angels float\nand fly in the happy realms of day.  In heaven they are too happy to\nhave sympathy; too busy singing to aid the imploring and distressed.\nTheir eyes are blinded; their ears are stopped and their hearts are\nturned to stone by the infinite selfishness of joy.  The saved mariner\nis too happy when he touches the shore to give a moment's thought to\nhis drowning brothers.  With the indifference of happiness, with the\ncontempt of bliss, heaven barely glances at the miseries of earth.\nCities are devoured by the rushing lava; the earth opens and thousands\nperish; women raise their clasped hands towards heaven, but the gods\nare too happy to aid their children.  The smiles of the deities are\nunacquainted with the tears of men.  The shouts of heaven drown the\nsobs of earth.\n\nHaving shown how man created gods, and how he became the trembling\nslave of his own creation, the questions naturally arise: How did he\nfree himself even a little, from these monarchs of the sky, from these\ndespots of the clouds, from this aristocracy of the air? How did he,\neven to the extent that he has, outgrow his ignorant, abject terror,\nand throw off, the yoke of superstition?\n\nProbably, the first thing that tended to disabuse his mind was the\ndiscovery of order, of regularity, of periodicity in the universe. From\nthis he began to suspect that everything did not happen purely with\nreference to him.  He noticed, that whatever he might do, the motions\nof the planets were always the same; that eclipses were periodical, and\nthat even comets came at certain intervals.  This convinced him that\neclipses and comets had nothing to do with him, and that his conduct\nhad nothing to do with them.  He perceived that they were not caused\nfor his benefit or injury.  He thus learned to regard them with\nadmiration instead of fear.  He began to suspect that famine was not\nsent by some enraged and revengeful deity but resulted often from the\nneglect and ignorance of man. He learned that diseases were not\nproduced by evil spirits.  He found that sickness was occasioned by\nnatural causes, and would be cured by natural means.  He demonstrated,\nto his own satisfaction at least, that prayer is not a medicine.  He\nfound by sad experience that his gods were of no practical use, as they\nnever assisted him, except when he was perfectly able to help himself.\nAt last, he began to discover that his individual action had nothing\nwhatever to do with strange appearances in the heavens; that it was\nimpossible for him to be bad enough to cause a whirlwind, or good\nenough to stop one.  After many centuries of thought, he about half\nconcluded that making mouths at a priest would not necessarily cause an\nearthquake.  He noticed, and no doubt with considerable astonishment,\nthat very good men were occasionally struck by lightning, while very\nbad ones escaped.  He was frequently forced to the painful conclusion\n(and it is the most painful to which any human being ever was forced)\nthat the right did not always prevail. He noticed that the gods did not\ninterfere in behalf of the weak and innocent.  He was now and then\nastonished by seeing an unbeliever in the enjoyment of most excellent\nhealth.  He finally ascertained that there could be no possible\nconnection between an unusually severe winter and his failure to give\nsheep to a priest. He began to suspect that the order of the universe\nwas not constantly being changed to assist him because he repeated a\ncreed. He observed that some children would steal after having been\nregularly baptized.  He noticed a vast difference between religions and\njustice, and that the worshipers of the same God took delight in\ncutting each other's throats.  He saw that these religious disputes\nfilled the world with hatred and slavery.  At last he had the courage\nto suspect, that no God at any time interferes with the order of\nevents.  He learned a few facts, and these facts positively refused to\nharmonize with the ignorant superstitions of his fathers.  Finding his\nsacred books incorrect and false in some particulars, his faith in\ntheir authenticity began to be shaken; finding his priests ignorant on\nsome points, he began to lose respect for the cloth.  This was the\ncommencement of intellectual freedom.\n\nThe civilization of man has increased just to the same extent that\nreligious power has decreased.  The intellectual advancement of man\ndepends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new\ntruth.  The Church never enabled a human being to make even one of\nthese exchanges; on the contrary, all her power has been used to\nprevent them.  In spite, however, of the Church, man found that some of\nhis religious conceptions were wrong.  By reading his bible, he found\nthat the ideas of his God were more cruel and brutal than those of the\nmost depraved savage.  He also discovered that this holy book was\nfilled with ignorance, and that it must have been written by persons\nwholly unacquainted with the nature of the phenomena by which we are\nsurrounded; and now and then, some man had the goodness and courage to\nspeak his honest thoughts.  In every age some thinker, some doubter,\nsome investigator, some hater of hypocrisy, some despiser of sham, some\nbrave lover of the right, has gladly, proudly and heroically braved the\nignorant fury of superstition for the sake of man and truth.  These\ndivine men were generally torn in pieces by the worshipers of the gods.\nSocrates was poisoned because he lacked reverence for some of the\ndeities.  Christ was crucified by the religious rabble for the crime of\nblasphemy.  Nothing is more gratifying to a religionist than to destroy\nhis enemies at the command of God.  Religious persecution springs from\na due admixture of love towards God and hatred towards man.\n\nThe terrible religious wars that inundated the world with blood tended\nat least to bring all religion into disgrace and hatred. Thoughtful\npeople began to question the divine origin of a religion that made its\nbelievers hold the rights of others in absolute contempt.  A few began\nto compare Christianity with the religions of heathen people, and were\nforced to admit that the difference was hardly worth dying for.  They\nalso found that other nations were even happier and more prosperous\nthan their own.  They began to suspect, that their religion, after all,\nwas not of much real value.\n\nFor three hundred years the Christian world endeavored to rescue from\nthe \"Infidel\" the empty sepulchre of Christ.  For three hundred years\nthe armies of the cross were baffled and beaten by the victorious hosts\nof an impudent impostor.  This immense fact sowed the seeds of distrust\nthroughout all Christendom, and millions began to lose confidence in a\nGod who had been vanquished by Mohammed. The people also found that\ncommerce made friends where religion made enemies, and that religious\nzeal was utterly incompatible with peace between nations or\nindividuals. The discovered that those who loved the gods most were apt\nto love men least; that the arrogance of universal forgiveness was\namazing; that the most malicious had the effrontery to pray for their\nenemies, and that humility and tyranny were the fruit of the same tree.\n\nFor ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and\nwomen of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant\nreligious mass on the other.  This is the war between Science and\nFaith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom,\nto the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have\nappealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown,\nand to misery hereafter.  The few have said, \"Think!\" The many have\nsaid, \"Believe!\"\n\nThe first doubt was the womb and cradle of progress, and from the first\ndoubt, man has continued to advance.  Men began to investigate, and the\nchurch began to oppose.  The astronomer scanned the heavens, while the\nchurch branded his grand forehead with the word, \"Infidel\"; and now,\nnot a glittering star in all the vast expanse bears a Christian name.\nIn spite of all religion, the geologist penetrated the earth, read her\nhistory in books of stone, and found hidden within her bosom, souvenirs\nof all the ages.  Old ideas perished in the retort of the chemist,\nuseful truths took their places.  One by one religious conceptions have\nbeen placed in the crucible of science, and thus far, nothing but dross\nhas been found.  A new world has been discovered by the microscope;\neverywhere has been found the infinite; in every direction man has\ninvestigated and explored, and nowhere, in earth or stars, has been\nfound the footstep of any being superior to or independent of nature.\nNowhere has been discovered the slightest evidence of any interference\nfrom without.  These are the sublime truths that enable man to throw\noff the yoke of superstition.  These are the splendid facts that\nsnatched the sceptre of authority from the hands of priests.\n\nIn the vast cemetery called the past are most of the religions of men,\nand there, too, are nearly all their gods.  The sacred temples of India\nwere ruins long ago.  Over column and cornice; over the painted and\npictured walls, cling and creep the trailing vines. Brahma, the golden,\nwith four heads and four arms; Vishnu, the sombre, the punisher of the\nwicked, with his three eyes, his crescent, and his necklace of skulls;\nSiva, the destroyer, red with seas of blood; Kali, the goddess;\nDraupadi, the white-armed, and Chrishna, the Christ, all passed away\nand left the thrones of heaven desolate.  Along the banks of the sacred\nNile, Isis no longer wandering weeps, searching for the dead Osiris.\nThe shadow of Typhon's scowl falls no more upon the waves.  The sun\nrises as of yore, and his golden beams still smite the lips of Memnon,\nbut Memnon is as voiceless as the Sphinx.  The sacred fanes are lost in\ndesert sands; the dusty mummies are still waiting for the resurrection\npromised by their priests, and the old beliefs, wrought in curiously\nsculptured stone, sleep in the mystery of a language lost and dead.\nOdin, the author of life and soul, Vili and Ve, and the mighty giant\nYmir, strode long ago from the icy halls of the North; and Thor, with\niron glove and glittering hammer, dashes mountains to the earth no\nmore. Broken are the circles and cromlechs of the ancient Druids;\nfallen upon the summits of the hills, and covered with the centuries'\nmoss, are the sacred cairns.  The divine fires of Persia and of the\nAztecs, have died out in the ashes of the past, and there is none to\nrekindle, and none to feed the holy flames.  The harp of Orpheus is\nstill; the drained cup of Bacchus has been thrown aside; Venus lies\ndead in stone, and her white bosom heaves no more with love.  The\nstreams still murmur, but no naiads bathe; the trees still wave, but in\nthe forest aisles no dryads dance. The gods have flown from high\nOlympus.  Not even the beautiful women can lure them back, and Danee\nlies unnoticed, naked to the stars.  Hushed forever are the thunders of\nSinai; lost are the voices of the prophets, and the land once flowing\nwith milk and honey is but a desert and waste.\n\nOne by one, the myths have faded from the clouds; one by one, the\nphantom host has disappeared, and one by one facts, truths and\nrealities have taken their places.  The supernatural has almost gone,\nbut the natural remains.  The gods have fled, but man is here.\n\nNations, like individuals, have their periods of youth, of manhood and\ndecay.  Religions are the same.  The same inexorable destiny awaits\nthem all.  The gods created by the nations must perish with their\ncreators. They were created by men, and like men, they must pass away.\nThe deities of one age are the by-words of the next. The religion of\none day and country, is no more exempt from the sneer of the future\nthan others have been.  When India was supreme, Brahma sat upon the\nworld's throne. When the scepter passed to Egypt, Isis and Osiris\nreceived the homage of mankind.  Greece, with her fierce valor, swept\nto empire, and Zeus put on the purple of authority.  The earth trembled\nwith the tread of Rome's intrepid sons, and Jove grasped with mailed\nhand the thunderbolts of heaven. Rome fell, and Christians from her\nterritory, with the red sword of war, carved out the ruling nations of\nthe world, and now Christ sits upon the old throne.  Who will be his\nsuccessor?\n\nDay by day, religious conceptions grow less and less intense.  Day by\nday, the old spirit dies out of book and creed.  The burning\nenthusiasm, the quenchless zeal of the early church have gone, never,\nnever to return.  The ceremonies remain, but the ancient faith is\nfading out of the human heart.  The worn out arguments fail to\nconvince, and denunciations that once blanched the faces of a race,\nexcite in us only derision and disgust.  As time rolls on, the miracles\ngrow mean and small, and the evidences our fathers thought conclusive\nutterly fail to satisfy us.  There is an \"irrepressible conflict\"\nbetween religion and science, and they cannot peaceably occupy the same\nbrain nor the same world.\n\nWhile utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all\nreligions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for\nthe hopeful, loving and tender souls who believe that from all this\ndiscord will result a perfect harmony; that every evil will in some\nmysterious way become a good, and that above and over all there is a\nbeing who, in some way, will reclaim and glorify everyone of the\nchildren of men; but for those who heartlessly try to prove that\nsalvation is almost impossible; that damnation is almost certain; that\nthe highway of the universe leads to hell; who fill life with fear and\ndeath with horror; who curse the cradle and mock the tomb, it is\nimpossible to entertain other than feelings of pity, contempt and scorn.\n\nReason, Observation and Experience--the Holy Trinity of Science--have\ntaught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is\nnow, and the way to be happy is to make others so.  This is enough for\nus.  In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any\npossibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of,\nnature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel.\nUntil then, let us stand erect.\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that infidels in all ages have battled for the\nrights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of\nliberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with\ntearing down without building again.  The Church should by this time\nknow that it is utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions.  The\nhistory of religious persecutions fully establishes the fact that the\nmind necessarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by\nviolence.  The mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for\nthe new.  The moment we comprehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are\nof necessity cast aside.\n\nA surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render\nhim any assistance in his power.  The surgeon began to discourse very\nlearnedly upon the nature and origin of disease; of the curative\nproperties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air and\nlight, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be\nrestored.  These remarks were so full of good sense, and discovered so\nmuch profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple,\nbecoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out,  \"Do not, I pray you, take away\nmy crutches.  They are my only support, and without them, I should be\nmiserable, indeed.\"  \"I am not going,\" said the surgeon,  \"to take away\nyour crutches.  I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the\ncrutches away yourself.\"\n\nFor the vagaries of the clouds, the infidels propose to substitute the\nrealities of the earth; for superstition, the splendid demonstrations\nand achievements of science; and for the theological tyranny, the\nchainless liberty of thought.\n\nWe do not say we have discovered all; that our doctrines are the all in\nall in truth.  We know of no end to the development of man. We cannot\nunravel the infinite complications of matter and force. The history of\none monad is as unknown as that of the universe; one drop of water is\nas wonderful as all the seas; one leaf, as all the forests; and one\ngrain of sand, as all the stars.\n\nWe are not endeavoring to chain the future, but to free the present. We\nare not forgoing fetters for our children, but we are breaking those\nour fathers made for us.  We are the advocates of inquiry, of\ninvestigation and thought.  This of itself, is an admission that we are\nnot perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions.  Philosophy has not\nthe egotism of faith.  While superstition builds walls and creates\nobstructions, science opens all the highways of thought. We do not\npretend to have circumnavigated everything, and to have solved all\ndifficulties, but we do believe that it is better to love men than to\nfear gods, that it is grander and nobler to think and investigate for\nyourself than to repeat a creed.  We are satisfied that there can be\nbut little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven.  We\ndo not expect to accomplish everything in our day; but we want to do\nwhat good we can, and to render all the service possible in the holy\ncause of human progress. We know that doing away with gods and\nsupernatural persons and powers is not an end.  It is a means to an\nend; the real end being the happiness of man.\n\nFelling forests is not the end of agriculture.  Driving pirates from\nthe sea is not all there is of commerce.\n\nWe are laying the foundations of a grand temple of the future--not the\ntemple of all the gods, but of all the people--wherein, with\nappropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are\ndoing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society\nshall cease producing millionaires and mendicants--gorged indolence and\nfamished industry--truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned.\nWe are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable; and\nwhen REASON, throned upon the world's brain, shall be the King of\nKings, and God of Gods.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON GHOSTS.\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: In the first place, allow me to tender my sincere\nthanks to the clergy of this city.  I feel that I am greatly indebted\nto them for this magnificent audience.  It has been said, and I believe\nit myself, that there is a vast amount of intolerance in the church of\ntoday, but when twenty-four clergymen, three of whom, I believe, are\nbishops, act as my advance agents, without expecting any remuneration,\nor reward in this world, I must admit that perhaps I was mistaken on\nthe question of intolerance.  And I will say, further, that against\nthose men I have not the slightest feeling in the world; every man is\nthe product of his own surroundings; he is the product of every\ncircumstance that has ever touched him; he is the product to a certain\ndegree of the religion and creed of his day, and when men show the\nslightest intolerance I blame the creed, I blame the religion, I blame\nthe superstition that forced them to do so.  I do not blame those men.\n\nAllow me to say, further, that this world is not, in my judgment, yet\nperfect.  I am doing, in a very feeble way, to be sure, but I am still\nendeavoring, according to my Idea, to make this world just a little\nbetter; to give a little more liberty to men, a little more liberty to\nwomen.  I believe in the government of kindness; I believe in truth, in\ninvestigation, in free thought.  I do not believe that the hand of want\nwill be eternally extended in the world; I do not believe that the\nprison will forever scar the ground; I do not believe that the shadow\nof the gallows will forever curse the earth; I do not believe that it\nwill always be true that the men who do the most work will have the\nleast to wear and the least to eat.  I do believe that the time will\ncome when liberty and morality and justice, like the rings of Saturn,\nwill surround the world; that the world will be better, and every true\nman and every free man will do what he can to hasten the coming of the\nreligion of human advancement.\n\nI understand that for the thousands and thousands of years that have\ngone by, all questions have been settled by religion.  I understand\nthat during all this time the people have gotten their information from\nthe sacerdotal class--from priests.  I know that when India was supreme\nthey worshipped Brahma and Vishnu, and that when Rome held in its hand\nthe red sword of war they worshipped Jove, and I know now that our\nreligion has swept to the top.  Any man living in India a few hundred\nor thousand years ago would have said, this is the only true religion.\nWhy? Because here is the only true civilization.  A man afterward\nliving in Egypt would have said, this is the only true religion,\nbecause we have the best civilization; a Greek in Athens would have\nsaid this is the only true religion, and a Roman would have said we\nhave the true religion, and now those religions all having died,\nalthough they were all true religions, we say ours is the only\nreligion, because we are the greatest commercial nation in the world.\n\nThere will come other nations; there will come other religions. Man has\nmade every religion in this world, in my judgment, and the religion,\nhas been good or bad according as the men who made it were good or bad.\nIf they were savages and barbarians, they made a God like the Jehovah\nof the Jews; if they were civilized, if they were kind and tender, they\nfilled the heavens with kindness and love.  Every man makes his own\nGod. Show me the God a man worships, and I will tell you what kind of a\nman he is.  Every one makes his own God, every one worships his own\nGod; and if you are a civilized man you will have a civilized God, and\nwe have been civilizing ours for hundreds and hundreds of years.  He is\ngetting better every day.\n\nI am going to tell you tonight just exactly what I think.  The other\nlecture I delivered here was my conservative lecture; this is my\nradical one!  We even hear it suggested that our religion, our Bible,\nhas given us all we have of prosperity and greatness and grandeur.  I\ndeny it!  We have become civilized in spite of it, and I will show you\ntonight that the obstruction that every science has had is what we have\nbeen pleased to call our religion--or superstition.  I had a\nconversation with a gentleman once--and these gentlemen are always\nmistaking something that goes along with a thing for the cause of the\nthing--and he stated to me that his particular religion was the cause\nof all advancement.  I said to him: \"No, Sir; the causes of all\nadvancement, in my judgment, are plug hats and suspenders.\"  And I said\nto him: \"You go to Turkey, where they are semi-barbarians, and you\nwon't find a pair of suspenders or a plug hat in all that country; you\ngo to Russia, and you will find now and then a pair of suspenders at\nMoscow or St. Petersburg; you go on down till you strike Austria, and\nblack hats begin; then you go on to Paris, Berlin and New York, and you\nwill find everybody wears suspenders and everybody wears black hats.\nWherever you find education and music there you will find black hats\nand suspenders.\"  He said that any man who said to him that plug hats\nand suspenders had done more for mankind than the Bible and religion he\nwould not talk to.\n\nAs a matter of fact, we are controlled today by men who do not exist.\nWe are controlled today by phenomena that never did exist.  We are\ncontrolled by ghosts and dead men, and in the grasp of death is a\nscepter that controls the living present.  I propose that we shall\ngovern ourselves!  I propose that we shall let the past go, and let the\ndead past bury the dead past.  I believe the American people have\nbrains enough, and nerve enough, and courage enough, to control and\ngovern themselves, without any assistance from dust or ghosts. That is\nmy doctrine, and I am going to do what I can while I live to increase\nthat feeling of independence and manhood in the American people.--We\ncan control ourselves.  I believe in the gospel of this world; I\nbelieve in happiness right here; I do not believe in drinking skim milk\nall my life with the expectation of butter beyond the clouds.  I\nbelieve in the gospel, I say, in this world.  This is a mighty good\nworld.  There are plenty of good people in this world.  There is lots\nof happiness in this world and, I say, let us, in every way we can,\nincrease it.  I envy every man who is content with his lot, whether he\nis poor or whether he is rich.  I tell you, the man that tries to make\nsomebody else happy, and who owns his own soul, nobody having a\nmortgage or deed of trust upon his manhood or liberty--this world is a\npretty good world for such a man.  I do not care: I am going to say my\nsay, whether I make money or grow poor; no matter whether I get high\noffice or walk along the dusty highway of the common.  I am going to\nsay my say, and I had rather be a farmer and live on forty acres of\nland--live in a log cabin that I built myself, and have a little grassy\npath going down to the spring, so that I can go there and hear the\nwaters gurgling, and know that it is coming out from the lips of the\nearth, like a poem, whispering to the white pebbles--I would rather\nlive there, and have some hollyhocks at the corner of the house, and\nthe larks singing and swinging in the trees, and some lattice over the\nwindow, so that the sunlight can fall checkered on the babe in the\ncradle.  I had rather live there, and have the freedom of my own brain;\nI had rather do that than live in a palace of gold, and crawl, a slimy\nhypocrite, through this world.  Superstition has done enough harm\nalready; every religion, nearly, suspects everything that is pleasant,\neverything that is joyous, and they always have a notion that God feels\nbest when we feel worst.  They have chained the Andromeda of joy to the\ncold rock of ignorance and fear, there to be devoured by the dragon of\nsuperstition.  Church and State are two vultures that have fed upon the\nheart of chained Prometheus.  I say, let the human race have a chance\nlet every man think for himself and express that thought.  There is no\nwrath in the serene heavens; there is no scowl in the blue of the sky.\nUpon the throne of the universe tyranny does not sit as a king.\n\nThe speaker here took from his pocket a pair of spectacles, and\nadjusted them, saying: I am sorry to admit it; I have got to come to\nit.  I hate to put on a pair of spectacles, but the other day, as I was\nputting them on, a thought struck me.  I see progress in this.  To\nprogress is to overcome the obstacles of nature, and in order to\novercome this obstacle of the loss of sight man invented spectacles.\nSpectacles led men to the telescope, with which he read all the starry\nheavens; and had it not been for the failure of sight we wouldn't have\nseen a millionth part that we have.  In the first place, we owe nothing\nbut truth to the dead. I am going to tell the truth about them.  There\nare three theories by which men account for all phenomena--for\neverything that happens: First, the supernatural.  In the olden time,\neverything that happened some deity produced, some spirit, some devil,\nsome hobgoblin, some dryad, some fairy, some spook, something except\nnature. First, then, the supernatural; and a barbarian, looking at the\nwide, mysterious sea, wandering through the depths of the forest,\nencountering the wild beasts, troubled by strange dreams, accounted for\neverything by the action of spirits, good and bad.  Second, the\nsupernatural and natural.  There is where the religious world is\ntoday--a mingling of the supernatural and natural, the idea being that\nGod created the world and imposed upon men certain laws, and then let\nthem run, and if they ever got into any trouble then he would do a\nmiracle, and accomplish any good that he desired to do.  Third--and\nthat is the grand theory--the natural.  Between these theories there\nhas been from the dawn of civilization a conflict.  In this great war\nnearly all the soldiers have been in the ranks of the supernatural.\nThe believers in the supernatural insist that matter is controlled and\ndirected entirely by powers from without.  The naturalists maintain\nthat nature acts from within; that nature is not acted upon; that the\nuniverse is all there is; that nature, with infinite arms, embraces\neverything that exists, and that the supposed powers beyond the limits\nof the materially real are simply ghosts.\n\nYou say, ah! this is materialism! this is the doctrine of matter! What\nis matter?  I take a handful of earth in my hands, and into that dust I\nput seeds, and arrows from the eternal quiver of the sun smite it, and\nthe seeds grow and bud and blossom, and fill the air with perfume in my\nsight.  Do you understand that?  Do you understand how this dust and\nthese seeds and that light and this moisture produced that bud and that\nflower and that perfume?  Do you understand that any better than you do\nthe production of thought?  Do you understand that any better than you\ndo a dream? Do you understand that any better than you do the thoughts\nof love that you see in the eyes of the one you adore?  Can you explain\nit? Can you tell what matter is?  Have you the slightest conception?\nYet you talk about matter as though you were acquainted with its\norigin; as though you had compelled, with clenched hands, the very\nrocks to give up the secret of existence?  Do you know what force is?\nCan you account for molecular action?  Are you familiar with chemistry?\nCan you account for the loves and the hatreds of the atoms?  Is there\nnot something in matter that forever excludes you? Can you tell what\nmatter really is? Before you cry materialism, you had better find what\nmatter is.  Can you tell of anything without a material basis?  Is it\npossible to imagine the annihilation of a single atom?  Is it possible\nfor you to conceive of the creation of a single atom?  Can you have a\nthought that is not suggested to you by what you call matter?  Did any\nman or woman or child ever have a solitary thought, dream or\nconception, that was not suggested to them by something they had seen\nin nature? Can you conceive of anything the different parts of which\nhave been suggested to you by nature?  You can conceive of an animal\nwith the hoofs of a bison, with the pouch of a kangaroo, with the head\nof a buffalo, with the tail of a lion, with the scales of a fish, with\nthe wings of a bird, and yet every part of this impossible monster has\nbeen suggested to you by nature. You say time, therefore you can think\neternity.  You say pain, therefore you can think hell. You say\nstrength, therefore you can think omnipotence.  You say wisdom,\ntherefore you can think infinite wisdom. Everything you see, everything\nyou can dream of or think of, has been suggested to you by your\nsurroundings, by nature.  Man cannot rise above nature; below nature\nman cannot fall.  Imagine, if you please, the creation of a single\natom.  Can any one here imagine the creation out of nothing of one\natom?  Can any one here imagine the destruction of one atom?  Can you\nimagine an atom being changed to nothing?  Can you imagine nothing\nbeing changed to an atom?  There is not a solitary person here with an\nimagination strong enough to think either of the creation of an atom or\nof the annihilation of an atom.\n\nMatter and the universe are the same yesterday, today and forever.\nThere is just as much matter in the universe today as there ever was,\nand as there ever will be; there is just as much force and just as much\nenergy as there ever was or ever will be; but it is continually taking\ndifferent shapes and forms; one day it is a man, another day it is\nanimal, another day it is earth, another day it is metal, another day\nit is gas, it gains nothing and it loses nothing.  Our fathers\ndenounced materialism and accounted for all phenomena how?  By the\ncaprice of gods and devils.  For thousands of years it was believed\nthat ghosts, good ghosts, bad ghosts, benevolent and malevolent, in\nsome mysterious way produced all phenomena; that disease and health,\nhappiness and misery, fortune and misfortune, peace and war, life and\ndeath, success and failure, were but arrows shot by those ghosts or\nshadowy phantoms, to reward or punish mankind; that they were\ndispleased or pleased by our actions, that they blessed the earth with\nharvest or cursed it with famine; that they fed or starved the children\nof men; that they crowned or uncrowned kings; that they controlled war;\nthat they gave prosperous voyages, allowing the brave mariner to meet\nhis wife and children inside the harbor bar, or strewed the sad shore\nwith wrecks of ships and the bodies of men.  Formerly these ghosts were\nbelieved to be almost innumerable.  Earth, air and water were filled\nwith these phantoms, but in modern times they have greatly decreased in\nnumber, because the second proposition that I stated, the supernatural\nand the natural, has generally been adopted, but the remaining ghosts\nare supposed to perform the same functions as of yore.\n\nLet me say right here that the object of every religion ever made by\nman has been to get on the good side of supposed powers; has been to\npetition the gods to stop the earthquakes, to stop famine, to stop\npestilence.  It has always been something that man should do to prevent\nbeing punished by the powers of the air or to get from them some\nfavors. It has always been believed that these ghosts could in some way\nbe appeased; that they could be bettered by sacrifices, by prayer, by\nfasting, by the building of temples and cathedrals, by shedding the\nblood of men and beasts, by forms, by ceremonies, by kneelings, by\nprostrations and flagellations, by living alone in the wild desert, by\nthe practice of celibacy, by inventing instruments of torture, by\ndestroying men, women and children, by covering the earth with\ndungeons, by burning unbelievers and by putting chains upon the\nthoughts and manacles upon the lips of men, by believing things without\nevidence, by believing things against evidence, by disbelieving and\ndenying demonstrations, by despising facts, by hating reason, by\ndiscouraging investigation, by making an idiot of yourself--all these\nhave been done to appease the winged monsters of the air.\n\nIn the history of our poor world no horror has been omitted, no infamy\nhas been left undone by believers in ghosts, and all the shadows were\nborn of cowardice and malignity; they were painted by the pencil of\nfear upon the canvas of ignorance by that artist called Superstition.\nFrom these ghosts our fathers received their information.  These ghosts\nwere the schoolmasters of our ancestors. They were the scientists, the\nphilosophers, the geologists, the legislators, the astronomers, the\nphysicians, the metaphysicians and historians of the past.\n\nLet me give you my definition of metaphysics, that is to say, the\nscience of the unknown, the science of guessing.  Metaphysics is where\ntwo fools get together, and each one admits that neither can prove, and\nboth say, \"Hence we infer.\"  That is the science of metaphysics.  For\nthis these ghosts were supposed to have the only experience and real\nknowledge; they inspired men to write books, and the books were sacred.\nIf facts were found to be inconsistent with these books, so much the\nworse for the facts, and especially for the discoverers of these facts.\nIt was then and still is believed that these sacred books are the basis\nof the idea of immortality, to give up the idea that these books were\ninspired is and to renounce the idea of immortal life.  I deny it!  Men\nexisted before books; and all the books that were ever written were\nwritten, in my judgment, by men, and the idea of immortality was not\nborn of a book, but was born of the man who wrote the book.  The idea\nof immortality, like the great sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human\nheart, beating its countless waves of hope and joy against the shores\nof time, and was not born of any book, nor of any religion, nor of any\ncreed; it was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and\nflow beneath the clouds and mists of doubt and darkness as long as love\nkisses the lips of death.  It is the rainbow of hope shining upon the\ntears of grief.  We love, therefore we wish to live, and the foundation\nof the idea of immortality is human affection and human love, and I\nhave a thousand times more confidence in the affections of the human\nheart, in the deep and splendid feelings of the human soul than I have\nin any book that ever was or ever can be written by mortal man.\n\nFrom the books written by those ghosts we have at least ascertained\nthat they knew nothing whatever of the world in which we live. Did they\nknow anything about any other?  Upon every point where contradiction is\npossible, the ghosts have been contradicted.  By these ghosts, by these\ncitizens of the air, by this aristocracy of the clouds the affairs of\ngovernment were administered all authority to govern came from them.\nThe emperors, kings and potentates, every one of them, had the divine\npetroleum poured upon his head, the kerosene of authority.\n\nThe emperors, king and potentates had communications from the phantoms.\nMan was not considered as the source of power; to rebel against the\nking was to rebel against the ghosts, and nothing less than the blood\nof the offenders could appease the invisible phantoms and by the\nauthority of the ghosts man was crushed and slayed and plundered.  Many\ntoiled wearily in the sun and storm that a few favorites of the ghosts\nmight live in idleness, and many lived in huts and caves and dens that\nthe few might dwell in palaces, and many clothed themselves with rags\nthat a few might robe themselves in purple and gold, and many crept and\ncringed and crawled that a few might tread upon their necks with feet\nof iron. From the ghosts men received not only authority but\ninformation. They told us the form of the earth; they informed us that\neclipses were caused by the sins of man, especially the failure to pay\ntithes that the universe was made in six days; that gazing at the sky\nwith a telescope was dangerous; that trying to be wise beyond what they\nhad written was born of a rebellious and irreverent spirit; they told\nus there was no virtue like belief; no crime like doubt, that\ninvestigation was simply impudence, and the punishment therefore\nviolent torment; they not only told us all about this world but about\ntwo others, and if their statements about the other two are as true as\nthey were about this, no one can estimate the value of their\ninformation.\n\nFor countless ages the world was governed by ghosts, and they spared no\npains to change the eagle of the human intellect into a bat of\ndarkness. To accomplish this infamous purpose, to drive the love of\ntruth from the human heart; to prevent the advancement of mankind to\nshut out from the world every ray of intellectual light to pollute\nevery mind with superstition, the power of kings, the cunning and\ncruelty of priests, and the wealth of nations were used.\n\nIn order to show you the information we got from the ghosts, and the\ncondition of the world when the ghosts were the kings, let me call your\nattention to this: During these years of persecution, ignorance,\nsuperstition and slavery, nearly all the people, the kings, lawyers and\ndoctors, learned and unlearned, believed in that frightful production\nof ignorance, of fear and faith, called witchcraft.  Witchcraft today\nis religion carried out.  They believed that man was the sport and prey\nof devils; that the very air was thick with these enemies of man, and,\nwith few exceptions, this hideous belief was universal.  Under these\nconditions progress was almost impossible.  Fear paralyzed the brain.\n\nProgress is born of courage.  Fear believes, courage doubts.  Fear\nfalls upon the earth and prays; courage stands erect and thinks. Fear\nretreats; courage advances.  Fear is barbarism, courage is\ncivilization.  Fear believes in witchcraft; courage in science and in\neternal law.  The facts upon which this terrible belief rested were\nproved over and over again in nearly every court in Europe.  Thousands\nconfessed themselves guilty, admitted they had sold themselves to the\ndevil.  They gave the particulars of the sale; told what they said and\nwhat the devil replied.  They confessed themselves guilty when they\nknew that confession was death; knew that their property would be\nconfiscated and their children left to beg their bread.  This is one of\nthe miracles of history, one of the strangest contradictions of the\nhuman mind. Without doubt they really believed themselves guilty.\n\nIn the first place, they believed in witchcraft as a fact, and when\ncharged with it, they became insane.  They had read the account of the\nwitch of Endor calling up the dead body of Samuel. He is an old man; he\nhas his mantle on.  They had read the account of Saul stooping to the\nearth and conversing with the spirit that had been called from the\nregion of space by a witch.  They had read a command from the Almighty,\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,\" and they believed the world\nwas full of witches, or else the Almighty Would not have made a law\nagainst them.  They believed in witchcraft, and when they were charged\nwith it, they probably became insane, and in their insanity they\nconfessed their guilt. They found themselves abhorred and deserted,\ncharged with a crime they could not disprove.  Like a man in quicksand,\nevery effort only sunk them deeper.  Caught in this frightful web, at\nthe mercy of the devotees of superstition, hope fled and nothing\nremained but the insanity of confession.\n\nThe whole world appeared insane.  In the time of James I, a man was\nburned for causing a storm at sea, with the intention of drowning one\nof the royal family, but I do not think it would have been much of a\ncrime if he had been really guilty.  How could he disprove it?  How\ncould he show that he did not cause a storm at sea?  All storms were at\nthat time supposed to be inspired by the devil; the people believed\nthat all storms were caused by him, or by persons whom he assisted.  I\nimplore you to remember that the men who believed these things wrote\nour creeds and our confessions of faith, and it is by their dust that I\nam asked to kneel and pay implicit homage, instead of investigating;\nand I implore you to recollect that they wrote our creeds.\n\nA woman was tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale, one of the\ngreatest judges and lawyers of England, for having caused children to\nvomit crooked pins.  Think of that!  The learned judge charged the\nintelligent jury that there was no doubt as to the existence of\nwitches, that it was established by all history and expressly taught by\nthe Bible.  The woman was hung and her body was burned.  Sir Thomas\nMoore declared that to give up witchcraft was to throw away the sacred\nscriptures.  John Wesley, too, was a firm believer in ghosts, and\ninsisted upon their existence after all laws upon the subject had been\nrepealed in England, and I beg of you to remember that John Wesley was\nthe founder of the Methodist Church.  In New England a woman was\ncharged with being a witch and with having changed herself into a fox;\nwhile in that condition she was attacked and bitten by some dogs, and a\ncommittee of three men was ordered by the Court to examine this woman.\nThey removed her clothing, and searched for what they were pleased to\ncall witch-spots--that is to say, spots into which a needle could be\nthrust without giving pain; they reported to the Court that such spots\nwere found.  She denied that she had ever changed herself into a fox.\nOn the report of the committee she was found guilty, and she was\nactually executed by our Puritan fathers, the gentlemen who braved the\ndanger of the deep for the sake of worshiping God and persecuting their\nfellow men.  I belong to their blood, and the best thing I can say\nabout them, and that which rises like a white shaft to their eternal\nhonor, is that they were in favor of education.\n\nA man was attacked by a wolf; he defended himself and succeeded in\ncutting off one of the animal's paws, and the wolf ran away; he put it\nin his pocket and carried it home; there he found his wife with one of\nher hands gone, and he took that paw from his pocket and put it upon\nher arm, and it assumed the appearance of a human hand, and he charged\nhis wife with being a witch.  She was tried, she confessed her guilt,\nand she was hung and her body was burned! My! is it possible?  Did not\nsomebody say something against such an infamous proceeding?  Yes, they\ndid!  There was a Young Men's Association who invited a man to come and\ngive his ideas upon the subject.\n\nHe denounced it.  He said it was outrageous, that it was nonsensical,\nthat it was infamous and the moment he went away the young men met and\npassed a resolution that he had deceived them; and the clergy at that\ntime protested and said, of course, let the man think, if you call that\nkind of stuff thinking.\n\nBut there was one man belonging to this Association who had the courage\nto stand by the truth.\n\nWhether he believed in what the speaker said or not, he had that\nmanliness; and I take this opportunity to thank from the bottom of my\nheart a man.  I have no idea he agrees with me except in this: Whatever\nyou do, do it like a man and be honest about it.\n\nPeople were burned for causing frost in summer; for destroying crops\nwith hail; for causing storms--for making cows go dry; for souring\nbeer; for putting the devil in emptyings so that they would not rise.\nThe life of no one was secure.  To be charged was to be convicted.\nEvery man was at the mercy of every other.  This infamous belief was so\nfirmly seated in the minds of the people, that, to express a doubt as\nto its existence was to be suspected yourself.  They believed that\nanimals were often taken possession of by devils, and they believed\nthat the killing of the animal would destroy the devil.  They\nabsolutely tried, convicted and executed dumb beasts.\n\nAt Vail, in 1470, a rooster was tried upon the charge of having laid an\negg, and the clergy said they had no doubt of it.  Rooster eggs were\nused only in making witch-ointment.  This everybody knew. The rooster\nwas convicted, and with all due solemnity, he was burned in the public\nsquare.\n\nSo a hog and six pig died for having killed and partially eaten a\nchild. The hog was convicted, but the pigs, on account of their extreme\nyouth, were acquitted.\n\nAs late as 1740, a cow, charged with being possessed of a devil, was\ntried and was convicted.  They used to exorcise rats, snakes and\nvermin; they used to go through the alleys and streets and fields and\nwarn them to leave within a certain number of days, and if they did not\nleave, they threatened them with certain pains and penalties which they\nproceeded to recount.\n\nBut let us be careful how we laugh about those things; let us not pride\nourselves too much on the progress of our age.  We must not forget that\nsome of our people are yet in the same intelligent business.  Only a\nlittle while ago the Governor of Minnesota appointed a day of fasting\nand prayer to see if the Lord could not be induced to kill the\ngrasshoppers--or send them into some other State.\n\nAbout the close of the fifteenth century was the excitement in regard\nto witchcraft, and Pope Innocent the Eighth issued a bull directing the\ninquisitors to be vigilant in searching out and punishing all guilty of\nthis crime.  Forms for the crime were regularly issued.  For two\nhundred and fifty years the church was busy in punishing the impossible\ncrime of witchcraft by burning, hanging and torturing men, women and\nlittle children.\n\nProtestants were as active as Catholics; and in Geneva five hundred\nwitches were burned at the stake in three months, and one thousand were\nexecuted in one year in the diocese of Couro; at least one hundred\nthousand victims suffered in Germany, the last execution being in\nGalesburgh, and taking place in 1794, and the last in Switzerland,\n1780. In England statutes were passed from Henry VI to James I,\ndefining the crime and punishment, and the last act passed in the\nBritish Parliament was when Lord Bacon was a member of the house.\n\nIn 1716 Mrs. Hicks and daughter, nine years of age, were hung for\nselling their souls to the devil; and raising a storm at sea by pulling\noff their stockings and making a lather of soap.  In England it has\nbeen estimated that at least 30,000 were hung or burned.  The last\nvictim executed in Scotland was 1722.  She was an innocent old woman\nwho had so little idea of her condition, that she rejoiced at the sight\nof the fire destined to consume her to ashes.  She had a daughter, lame\nin her hands, a circumstance accounted for from the fact that the witch\nhad been used to transfer her daughter into a pony and get her shod by\nthe devil!  Intelligent ancestors!\n\nIn 1692 nineteen persons were executed in Salem, Massachusetts, for the\ncrime of witchcraft.  It was thought in those days that men and women\nmade contracts with the devil, and those contracts were confirmed at a\nmeeting of witches and ghosts, over which the devil presided; these\ncontracts in some cases were for a few years, others for life.  General\nassemblages of witches were held once a year.  To these they rode from\ngreat distances on brooms and dogs, and there they did homage to the\nprince of hell and offered him sacrifices.\n\nIn 1836 the populace of Holland plunged into the sea a woman reputed to\nbe a sorceress, and as the miserable woman persisted in rising to the\nsurface, she was pronounced guilty, and was beaten to death.  It was\nbelieved that the devil could transform people into any shape he\npleased, and whoever denounced this idea was denounced as an Infidel;\nthat the believers in witchcraft appealed to the devil; that with the\ndevil were associated innumerable spirits, who ranged over the world\nendeavoring to torment mankind; that these spirits possessed a power\nand wisdom transcending the limits of human faculties.  They believed\nthe devil could carry persons hundreds of miles in a few seconds; they\nbelieved this because they knew that Christ had been carried by the\ndevil, in the same manner, into a high mountain, and placed upon a\npinnacle.  According to their account, the prince of the air had\nabsolutely taken the God of this infinite Universe, the Creator of all\nits shining, wheeling stars--he had been absolutely taken by the devil\nto a pinnacle of the temple, and there had been tempted by the devil to\ncast himself to the earth.\n\nTake from the church itself the threat and fear of hell and it becomes\nan extinct volcano.  With the doctrine of hell taken from the Church,\nthat is the end of the fall of man, that is the end of the scheme of\natonement.  Take from them the idea of an eternal place of torment, and\nthe Church is thrown back simply upon facts.\n\nAnd Dean Stanley, the leading ecclesiastic of Great Britain, only the\nother day in Winchester Abbey, said science will be the only theology\nof the future.  Morality is the only religion of the years to come.\nNot withstanding all the infamous things laid to the charge of the\nChurch, we are told that the civilization of today is the child of what\nwe are pleased to call superstition. Let me call your attention to what\nthey received from their fears of these ghosts.  Let me give you an\noutline of the sciences as taught by those philosophers.  There is one\nthing that a man is interested in, if he is in anything, and that is in\nthe science of medicine.  A doctor is, so to speak, in partnership with\nNature. He is a preserver if he is worthy of the name.  And now I want\nto show what they have gotten from these ghosts upon the science of\nmedicine.\n\nAccording to them, all of the diseases were produced as a punishment by\nthe good ghosts, or out of pure malignity by the bad ones.  There were,\nproperly speaking, no diseases; the sick were simply possessed by\nghosts.  The science of medicine consisted in knowing how to persuade\nthese ghosts to vacate the premises and for thousands of years all\ndiseases were treated with incantations, hideous noises, with the\nbeating of drums and gongs; everything was done to make the position of\na ghost as unpleasant as possible; and they generally succeeded in\nmaking things so disagreeable that if the ghost did not leave, the\npatient died.  These ghosts were supposed to be different in rank,\npower and dignity.  Now, then, a man pretended to have won the favor of\nsome powerful ghost who gave him power over the little ones.  Such a\nman became a very great physician.  It was found that a certain kind of\nsmoke was exceedingly offensive to the nostrils of your ordinary ghost.\nWith this smoke the sick room would be filled until the ghost vanished\nor the patient died.  It was also believed that certain words, when\nproperly pronounced, were the most effective weapons, for it was for a\nlong time supposed that Latin words were the best, I suppose because\nLatin was a dead language.  For thousands of years medicine consisted\nin driving the devils out of men.  In some instances bargains and\npromises were made with the ghosts.  One case is given where a\nmultitude of devils traded a man off for a herd of swine.  In this\ntransaction the devils were the losers, the swine having immediately\ndrowned themselves in the sea.  This idea of disease appears to have\nbeen almost universal and is not yet extinct.  The contortions of the\nepileptic, the strange twitching of those afflicted with cholera, were\nall seized as proof that the bodies of men were filled with vile and\nmalignant spirits.  Whoever endeavored to account for these things by\nnatural causes; whoever endeavored to cure disease by natural means was\ndenounced as an Infidel. To explain anything was a crime.  It was to\nthe interest of the sacerdotal class that all things should be\naccounted for by the will and power of God and the devil.  The moment\nit is admitted that all phenomena are within the domain of the natural,\nand that all the prayers in the world cannot change one solitary fact,\nthe necessity for the priest disappears.  Religion breathes the idea of\nmiracles.  Take from the minds of men the idea of the supernatural, and\nsuperstition ceases to exist; for this reason the Church has always\ndespised the man who explains the wonderful.  The moment that it began\nto be apparent that prayer could do nothing for the body, the priest\nshifted his ground and began praying for the soul.\n\nAfter the devil was substantially abandoned in the practice of\nmedicine, and when it was admitted that God had nothing to do with\nordinary coughs and colds, it was still believed that all the diseases\nwere sent by Him as punishment for the people; it was thought to be a\nkind of blasphemy to even stay the ravages of pestilence.  Formerly,\nwhen a pestilence fell upon a people, the arguments of the priest were\nboundless.  He told the people that they had refused to pay their\ntithes, and they had doubted some of the doctrines of the church, that\nin their hearts they had contempt for some of the priests of the Lord,\nand God was now taking his revenge, and the people, for the most part,\nbelieved this issue of falsehood, and hastened to fall upon their knees\nand to pour out their wealth upon the altars of hypocrisy.\n\nThe Church never wanted disease to be absolutely under the control of\nman.  Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College, preached a sermon\nagainst vaccination.  His idea was that if God had decreed that through\nall eternity certain men should die of small pox, it was a frightful\nsin to endeavor to prevent it; that plagues and pestilence were\ninstruments in the hands of God with which to gain the love and worship\nof mankind; to find the cure for the disease was to take the punishment\nfrom the Church.  No one tries to cure the ague with prayer because\nquinine has been found to be altogether more reliable.  Just as soon as\na specific is found for a disease, that disease is left out of the list\nof prayer. The number of diseases with which God from time to time\nafflicts mankind is continually decreasing, because the number of\ndiseases that man can cure is continually increasing.  In a few years\nall diseases will be under the control of man.  The science of medicine\nhas but one enemy--superstition.  Man was afraid to save his body for\nfear he would lose his soul.  Is it any wonder that the people in those\ndays believed in and taught the infamous doctrine of eternal\npunishment, that makes God a heartless monster and man a slimy\nhypocrite and slave?\n\nThe ghosts were also historians, and wrote the grossest absurdities.\nThey wrote as though they had been eye witnesses of every occurrence.\nThey told all the past, they predicted all the future, with an\nimpudence that amounted to sublimity.  They said that the Tartars\noriginally came from hell, and that they were called Tartars because\nthat was one of the names of hell.  These gentlemen accounted for the\nred on the breasts of robins from the fact that those birds used to\ncarry water to the unhappy infants in hell.  Other eminent historians\nsay that Nero was in the habit of vomiting frogs.  When I read that, I\nsaid some of the croakers of the present day would be better for such a\nvomit.  Others say that the walls of a city fell down in answer to\nprayer.  They tell us that King Arthur was not born like other mortals;\nthat he had great luck in killing giants; that one of the giants that\nhe killed wore clothes woven from the beards of kings that he had\nslain, and, to cap the climax, the authors of this history were\nrewarded for having written the only reliable history of their country.\nThese are the men from whom we get our creeds and our confessions of\nfaith.\n\nIn all the histories of those days there is hardly a truth.  Facts were\nnot considered of any importance.  They wrote, and the people believed\nthat the tracks of Pharaoh's chariot were still visible upon the sands\nof the Red Sea, and that they had been miraculously preserved as\nperpetual witnesses of the miracles that had been performed, and they\nsaid to any man who denied it, \"Go there and you will find the tracks\nstill upon the sand.\"  They accounted for everything as the work of\ngood and evil spirits; with cause and effect they had nothing to do.\nFacts were in no way related to each other.  God, governed by infinite\ncaprice, filled the world with miracles and disconnected events, and\nfrom his quiver came the arrows of pestilence and death.  The moment\nthe idea is abandoned that everything in this universe is natural--that\nall phenomena are the necessary links in the endless chain of\nbeing--the conception of history becomes impossible that the ghost of\nthe present is not the child of the past; the present is not the mother\nof the future. In the domain of superstition all is accident and\ncaprice; and do not, I pray you, forget that the writers of our creeds\nand confessions of faith believed this to be a world of chance.\nNothing happens by accident; nothing happens by chance.  In the wide\nuniverse everything is necessarily produced, every effect has behind it\na cause, every effect is in its turn a cause, and there is in the wide\ndomain of the infinite not room enough for a miracle.\n\nWhen I say this, I mean this is my idea.  I may be wrong, but that is\nmy idea.  It was believed by our intelligent ancestors that all law\nderived its greatness and force from the fact that it had been\ncommunicated to man by ghosts.  Of course, it is not pretended that the\nghosts told everybody the law, but they told it to a few, and the few\ntold it to the people, and the people, as a rule, paid them exceedingly\nwell for the trouble.  It was a long time before the people commenced\nmaking laws for themselves, and, strange as it may appear, most of\ntheir laws are vastly superior to the ghost article. Through the web\nand woof of human legislation gradually began to run and shine and\nglitter the golden thread of justice.\n\nDuring these years of darkness it was believed that, rather than see an\nact of injustice done, rather than see the guilty triumph, some ghost\nwould interfere and I do wish, from the bottom of my heart, that that\nwas the truth.  There never was forced upon my heart a more frightful\nconviction than this--the right does not always prevail; there never\nwas forced upon my mind a more cruel conclusion than this--innocence is\nnot always a sufficient shield. I wish it was.  I wish, too, that man\nsuffered nothing but that which he brings upon himself and yet I find\nthat in nine districts in India, between the 1st day of last January\nand the 1st day of June, 2,800,000 people starved to death, and that\nlittle children, with their lips upon the breasts of famine, died,\nwasted away. And why, simply because a little while before the wind did\nnot veer the one hundredth part of a degree, and send clouds over the\ncountry, freighted with rain, freighted with love and joy.  But if that\nwind had just turned that way there would have been happy men, women\nand children, all clad in the garments of health.  I wish that I could\nknow in my heart that there was some power that would see to it that\nmen and women got exact justice somewhere.  I do wish that I knew--the\nright would prevail--that innocence was an infinite shield.\n\nDuring these years it was believed that rather than see an act of\ninjustice done some ghost would interfere.  This belief, as a rule,\ngave great satisfaction to the victorious party, and, as the other man\nwas dead, no complaint was ever made by him.  This doctrine was a\nsanctification of brute force and chance.  Prisoners were made to grasp\nhot irons, and if it burned them their guilt was established.  Others\nwere tied hands and feet and cast into the sea, and if they sank, the\nverdict of guilt was unanimous; if they did not sink then they said\nwater is such a pure element that it refuses to take a guilty person,\nand consequently he is a witch or wizard.  Why, in England, persons\naccused of crime could appeal to the cross, and to a piece of\nsacramental bread.  If he could swallow this without choking he was\nacquitted.  And this practice was continued until the time of King\nEdward, who was choked to death; after which it was discontinued.\n\nGhosts and their followers always took delight in torturing with\nunusual pain any infraction of their laws, and generally death was the\npenalty. Sometimes, when a man committed only murder, he was permitted\nto flee to a place of refuge--murder being only a crime against\nman--but for saying certain words, or denying certain doctrines, or for\nworshiping wrong ghosts, or for failing to pray to the right one, or\nfor laughing at a priest, or for saying that wine was not blood, or\nbread was not flesh, or for failing to regard rams' horns as artillery,\nor for saying that a raven as a rule, was a poor landlord, death,\nproduced by all the ways that ingenuity or hatred could devise, was the\npenalty suffered by these men.  I tell you tonight law is a growth; law\nis a science. Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.  Things\nare not right because they are commanded; they are not wrong because\nthey are prohibited.  They are prohibited because we believe them\nwrong; they are commended because we believe them right.  There are\nreal crimes enough without creating artificial ones.  All progress in\nlegislation for a thousand years has consisted in repealing the laws of\nthe ghosts.  The idea of right and wrong is born of man's capacity to\nenjoy and suffer.  If man could not suffer, if he could not inflict\ninjury upon his brother, if he could neither feel nor inflict\npunishment, the idea of law, the idea of right, the idea of wrong,\nnever could have entered into his brain.  If man could not suffer, if\nhe could not inflict suffering, the word conscience never would have\npassed the lips of man.  There is one good--happiness. There is one\nsin--selfishness.  All laws should be for the preservation of the one\nand the destruction of the other.  Under the regime of the ghosts the\nlaws were not understood to exist in the nature of things; they were\nsupposed to be irresponsible commands, and these commands were not\nsupposed to rest upon reason; they were simply the product of arbitrary\nwill.  These penalties for the violations of those laws were as cruel\nas the penalties were absurd.  There were over two hundred offenses for\nwhich man was punished with death.  Think of it! And these laws are\nsaid to have come from a most merciful God.  And yet we have become\ncivilized to that degree in this country that in the State of New York\nthere is only one crime punishable with death. Think of it!  Did I not\ntell you that we were now civilizing our gods?  The tendency of those\nhorrible laws, the tendency of those frightful penalties, was to blot\nthe idea of justice from the human soul.  Now, I want to show you how\nperfectly every department of human knowledge, or rather of ignorance,\nwas saturated with superstition.  I will for a moment refer to the\nscience of language.\n\nIt was thought by our fathers that Hebrew was the original language;\nthat it was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by the\nAlmighty himself.  Every fact inconsistent with that idea was thrown\naway. According to the ghosts, the trouble at the Tower of Babel\naccounted for the fact that all the people did not speak the Hebrew\nlanguage.  The Babel question settled all questions in the science of\nlanguage.  After a time so many facts were found to be so inconsistent\nwith the Hebrew idea that it began to fall into disrepute, and other\nlanguages began to be used.  Andrew Kent published a work on the\nscience of language, in which he stated that God spoke to Adam, and\nAdam answered, in Hebrew, and that the serpent probably spoke to Eve in\nFrench.  In 1580 another celebrated work was published at Antwerp, in\nwhich the whole matter was put at rest, showing beyond a doubt that the\nlanguage spoken in Paradise was neither more nor less than plain\nHolland Dutch.  Another celebrated writer, a contemporary of Sir Isaac\nNewton, discouraged the idea that all languages could be traced to one;\nhe maintained that language was of natural growth; that we speak as\nnaturally as we grow; we talk as naturally as sings a bird, or as\nblooms and blossoms a flower. Experience teaches us that this be so;\nwords are continually dying and continually may being born--words are\nthe garments of thought.  Through the lapse of time some were as rude\nas the skins of wild beasts, and others pleasing and cultured like silk\nand gold.  Words have been born of hatred and revenge, of love and self\nsacrifice and fear, of agony and joy the stars have fashioned them, and\nin them mingled the darkness and the dawn.\n\nEvery word that we get from the past is, so to speak, a mummy robed in\nthe linen of the grave.  They are the crystallizations of human\nhistory, of all that man enjoyed, of all that man has suffered, his\nvictories and defeats, all that he has lost and won.  Words are the\nshadows of all that has been; they are the mirrors of all that is. The\nghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and geology. According\nto them the world was made out of nothing, and a little more nothing\nhaving been taken than was used in the construction of the world, the\nstars were made out of the scraps that were left over.  Cosmos, in the\nsixth century, taught that the stars were impelled by angels, who\ncarried them upon their shoulders, rolled them in front of them, or\ndrew them after. He also taught that each angel who pushed a star took\ngreat pains to observe what the other angels were doing, so that the\nrelative distances between the stars might always remain the same.\n\nHe stated that this world was a vast body of water, with a strip of\nland on the outside; that Adam and Eve lived on the outer strip; that\ntheir descendants were drowned on the outer strip, all except Noah and\nhis family; he accounted for night and day by saying that on the outer\nstrip of land was a mountain, around which the sun revolved, producing\ndarkness when it was hidden from sight, and daylight when it emerged;\nhe also declared the earth to be flat. This he proved by many passages\nfrom the Bible; among other reasons for believing the earth to be flat\nhe referred to a passage in the New Testament, which says that Christ\nshall come again in glory and power, and every eye shall see him, and\nsaid, now, if the world is round how are the people on the other side\ngoing to see Christ when he comes?  That settled the question, and the\nchurch not only indorsed this book but declared that whoever believed\neither less or more was a heretic and would be dealt with as such.\n\nIn those blessed days ignorance was a king and science was an outcast.\nThe church knew that the moment the earth ceased to be the center of\nthe universe, and became a mere speck in the starry sphere of\nexistence, every religion would become a thing of the past. In the name\nand by the authority of the ghosts, men enslaved their fellowmen; they\ntrampled upon the rights of women and children.  In the name and by the\nauthority of ghosts, they bought and sold each other.  They filled\nheaven with tyrants and the earth with slaves. They filled the present\nwith intolerance and the future with horror. In the name and by the\nauthority of the ghosts, they declared superstition to be the real\nreligion.  In the name and by the authority of the ghosts, they\nimprisoned the human mind; they polluted the conscience, they subverted\njustice, and they sainted hypocrisy.  I have endeavored in some degree\nto show you what has been and always will be when men are governed by\nsuperstition.\n\nWhen they destroy the sublime standard of reason; when they take the\nwords of others and do not investigate them themselves, even the great\nmen of those days appear nearly as weak as the most ignorant.  One of\nthe greatest men of the world, an astronomer second to none, discoverer\nof the three great laws that explain the solar system, was an\nastrologer and believed that he could predict the career of a man by\nfinding what star was in the ascendant at his birth.  He believed in\nwhat is called the music of the spheres, and he ascribed the qualities\nof the music--alto, bass, tenor and treble--to certain of the planets.\nAnother man kept an idiot, whose words he put down and then put them\ntogether in such a manner as to make promises, and waited patiently to\nsee that they were fulfilled.  Luther believed he had actually seen the\ndevil and discussed points of theology with him.  The human mind was\nenchained. Every idea, almost, was a mystery.  Facts were looked upon\nas worthless; only the wonderful was worth preserving.  Devils were\nthought to be the most industrious beings in the universe, and with\nthese imps every occurrence of an unusual character was connected.\nThere was no order, certainty; everything depended upon ghosts and\nphantoms, and man, for the most part, considered himself at the mercy\nof malevolent spirits. He protected himself as best he could with holy\nwater, and with tapers, and wafers, and cathedrals.  He made noises to\nfrighten the ghosts and music to charm them; he fasted when he was\nhungry and he feasted when he was not; he believed everything\nunreasonable; he humbled himself; he crawled in the dust; he shut the\ndoors and windows; and excluded every ray of light from his soul; and\nhe delayed not a day to repair the walls of his own prison; and from\nthe garden of the human heart they plucked and trampled into the bloody\ndust the flowers and blossoms; they denounced man as totally depraved;\nthey made reason blasphemy; they made pity a crime; nothing so\ndelighted them as painting the torments and tortures of the damned.\nOver the worm that never dies they grew poetic. According to them, the\ncries ascending from hell were the perfume of heaven.\n\nThey divided the world into saints and sinners, and all the saints were\ngoing to heaven, and all the sinners yonder.  Now, then, you stand in\nthe presence of a great disaster.  A house is on fire, and there is\nseen at a window the frightened face of a woman with a babe in her\narms, appealing for help;  humanity cries out: \"Will someone go to the\nrescue?\"  They do not ask for a Methodist, a Baptist, or a Catholic;\nthey ask for a man; all at once there starts from the crowd one that\nnobody ever suspected of being a saint; one may be, with a bad\nreputation; but he goes up the ladder and is lost in the smoke and\nflame; and a moment after he emerges, and the great circles of flame\nhiss around him; in a moment more he has reached the window; in another\nmoment, with the woman and child in his arms, he reaches the ground and\ngives his fainting burden to the bystanders and the people all stand\nhushed for a moment, as they always do at such times, and then the air\nis rent with acclamations.  Tell me that that man is going to be sent\nto hell, to eternal flames, who is willing to risk his life rather than\na woman and child should suffer from the fire one moment!  I despise\nthat doctrine of hell!  Any man that believes in eternal hell is\nafflicted with at least two diseases--petrifaction of the heart and\npetrifaction of the brain.\n\nI have seen upon the field of battle a boy sixteen years of age struck\nby a fragment of a shell; I have seen him fall; I have seen him die\nwith a curse upon his lips and the face of his mother in his heart.\nTell me that his soul will be hurled from the field of battle where he\nlost his life that his country might live--where he lost his life for\nthe liberties of man--tell me that he will be hurled from that field to\neternal torment!  I pronounce it an infamous lie.  And yet, according\nto these gentlemen, that is to be the fate of nearly all the splendid\nfellows in this world.\n\nI had in my possession a little while ago a piece of fresco that used\nto adorn a church at Stratford-on-Avon, the place where Shakespeare\nlived, and there was a picture representing the morning of the\nresurrection and people were getting out of their graves and devils\nwere grabbing them by their heels.  And there was an immense monster,\nwith jaws open so wide that a man could walk down its throat, and the\nflames were issuing therefrom, and there were devils driving people in\ndroves down the throat of this monster; and there was an immense kettle\nin which they had put these men, and the fire was being stirred under\nit, and hot pitch was being poured on top, and little devils were\nsetting it on fire and then on the walls there were hundreds hung up by\ntheir tongues to hooks and nails; and then the saved--there were some\nfive or six saved--upon the horizon, and they had a most self-satisfied\ngrin of \"I told you so.\"\n\nAt the risk of being tiresome, I have said that I have to show the\ndirection of the human mind in slavery, the effects of widespread\nignorance, and the result of fear.  I want to convince you that every\nform of slavery, physical or mental, is a viper that will finally fill\nwith poison the breast of any man alive.  I want to show you that there\nshould be republicanism in the domain of thought as well as in civil\ngovernment.  The first step toward progress is for man to cease to be\nthe slave of the creatures of his creation. Men found at last that the\nevent is more valuable than the prophecy, especially if it never comes\nto pass.  They found that diseases were not produced by spirits; that\nthey could not be cured by frightening them away.  They found that\ndeath was as natural as life.  They began to study the anatomy and\nchemistry of the human body, and they found that all was natural, and\nthe conjurer and the sorcerer were dismissed, and the physician and\nsurgeon were employed.  They learned that being born under a star or\nplanet had nothing to do with their luck; the astrologer was discharged\nand the astronomer took his place.  They found that the world had swept\nthrough the constellation for millions of ages.  They found that\ndiseases were produced as easily as grass, and were not sent as\npunishment on men for failing to believe a creed.  They found that man,\nthrough intelligence, could take advantage of the affairs of nature;\nthat he could make the waves, the winds, the flames, and the lightnings\nslaves at his bidding to administer to his wants; they found the ghosts\nknew nothing of benefit to man; that they were entirely ignorant of\nhistory; that they were bad doctors and worse surgeons; that they knew\nnothing of the law and less of justice that they were poor politicians;\nthat they were tyrants, and that they were without brains and utterly\ndestitute of hearts.\n\nThe condition of this world during the dark ages shows exactly the\nresult of enslaving the souls of men.  In those days there was no\nliberty.  Liberty was despised, and the laborer was considered but\nlittle above the beast.  Ignorance, like a vast cowl, covered the brain\nof the world; superstition ran riot, and credulity sat upon the throne\nof the soul.  Murder and hypocrisy were the companions of man, and\nindustry was a slave.  Every country maintained that it was no robbery\nto take the property of Mohammedans by force, and no murder to kill the\nowner.  Lord Bacon was the first man who maintained that a Christian\ncountry was bound to keep its plighted faith with a Mohammedan nation.\nEvery man who could read or write was suspected of being a heretic in\nthose days.  Only one person in 40,000 could read or write.  All\nthought was discouraged.  The whole earth was ruled by the mitre and\nsceptre, by the altar and throne, by fear and force, by ignorance and\nfaith, by ghouls and ghosts.  In the 15th century the following law was\nin force in England:  \"Whosoever reads the Scripture in the mother\ntongue shall forfeit land, cattle, life and goods, for themselves and\ntheir heirs forever, and should be condemned for heretics to God,\nenemies to the crown, and traitors to the land.\"\n\nDuring the period this law was in force, thirty-nine were hanged and\ntheir bodies burned.  In the 16th century men were burned because they\nfailed to kneel to a procession of monks.  Even the Reformers, so\ncalled, had no idea of liberty only when in the minority; the moment\nthey were clothed with power, they began to exterminate with fire and\nsword.  Castillo--and I want you to recollect it--was the first\nminister in the world that declared in favor of universal toleration.\nCastillo was pursued by John Calvin like a wild beast.  Calvin said\nthat such a monstrous doctrine he crucified Christ afresh, and they\npursued that man until he died; recollect it!  They can't do that\nnow-a-days!  You don't know how splendid I feel about the liberty I\nhave.  The horizon is filled with glory and the air is filled with\nwings.  If there are any in this world who think they had better not\ntell what they really think because it will take bread from their\nlittle children, because it will take clothing from their\nfamilies--don't do it! don't make martyrs of yourselves!  I don't\nbelieve in martyrdom! Go right along with them; go to church and say\namen as near the right place as you can.  I will do your talking for\nyou.  They can't take the bread away from me.  I will talk.  Bodemus, a\nlawyer of France, wrote a few words in favor of freedom of conscience.\nMontaigne was the first to raise his voice against torture in France;\nbut what was the voice of one man against the terrible cry of ignorant,\ninfatuated, malevolent millions!  I intend to do what little I can, and\nI am going to do it kindly.  I am going to appeal to reason and to\ncharity, to justice, to science, and to the future. For my part, I\nglory in the fact that in the New World, in the United States, liberty\nof conscience was first granted to man, and that the Constitution of\nthe United States was the first great decree entered in the high court\nof human equity forever divorcing Church and State. It is the grandest\nstep ever taken by the human race and the Declaration of Independence\nwas the first document that retired ghosts from politics.  It is the\nfirst document that said authority does not come from the phantoms of\nthe air; authority is not from that direction; it comes from the people\nthemselves.  The Declaration of Independence enthroned man and\ndethroned the phantoms.  You will ask what has caused this change in\nthree hundred years.  I answer, the inventions and discoveries of the\nfew; the brave thoughts and heroic utterances of the few; the\nacquisition of a few facts; getting acquainted with our mother, Nature.\nBesides this, you must remember that every wrong in some way, tends to\nabolish itself.  It is hard to make a lie last always. A lie will not\nfit the truth; it will only fit another lie told on purpose to fit it.\nNothing but truth lives.\n\nThe nobles and the kings quarreled; the priests began to dispute, and\nthe millions began to get their rights.  In 1441 printing was\ndiscovered.  At that time the past was a vast cemetery, without an\nepitaph.  The ideas of men had mostly perished in the brains that had\nproduced them.  Printing gives an opening for thought; it preserves\nideas; it made it possible for a man to bequeath to the world the\nwealth of his thoughts.  About the same time, or a little before, the\nMoors had gone into Europe, and it can be truthfully said that science\nwas thrust into the brain of Europe upon the point of a Moorish lance.\nThey gave us paper, and what is printing without paper?\n\nA bird without wings.  I tell you paper has been a splendid thing.\n\nThe discovery of America, whose shores were trod by the restless feet\nof adventure and the people of every nation--out of this strange\nmingling of facts and fancies came the great Republic. Every fact has\npushed a superstition from the brain and a ghost from the cloud.  Every\nmechanical art is an educator; every loom, every reaper, every mower,\nevery steamboat, every locomotive, every engine, every press, every\ntelegraph is a missionary of science and an apostle of progress; every\nmill, every furnace with its wheels and levers, in which something is\nmade for the convenience, for the use and the comfort and the\nwell-being of man, is my kind of church, and every schoolhouse is a\ntemple. Education is the most radical thing in this world.  To teach\nthe alphabet is to inaugurate a revolution; to build a schoolhouse is\nto construct a fort; every library is an arsenal filled with the\nweapons and ammunition of progress; every fact is a monitor with sides\nof iron and a turret of steel.  I thank the inventors and discoverers.\nI thank Columbus and Magellan.  I thank Locke and Hume, Bacon and\nShakespeare. I thank Fulton and Watt, Franklin and Morse, who made\nlightning the messenger of man.  I thank Luther for protesting against\nthe abuses of the Church, but denounce him because he was an enemy of\nliberty. I thank Calvin for writing a book in favor of religious\nfreedom, but I abhor him because he burned Servetus.  I thank the\nPuritans for saying that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God, and\nyet I am compelled to admit that they were tyrants themselves.  I thank\nThomas Paine because he was a believer in liberty.  I thank Voltaire,\nthat great man who for half a century was the intellectual monarch of\nEurope, and who, from his throne at the foot of the Alps, pointed the\nfinger of scorn at every hypocrite in Christendom.  I thank the\ninventors, I thank the discoverers, the thinkers and the scientists,\nand I thank the honest millions who have toiled.  I thank the brave men\nwith brave thoughts. They are the Atlases upon whose broad and mighty\nshoulders rests the grand fabric of civilization; they are the men who\nhave broken, and are still breaking, the chains of superstition.\n\nWe are beginning to learn that to swap off a superstition for a fact,\nto ascertain the real, is to progress.  All that gives us better bodies\nand minds and clothes and food and pictures, grander music, better\nheads, better hearts, and that makes us better husbands and wives and\nbetter citizens, all these things combined produce what we call the\nprogress of the human race.  Man advances only as he overcomes the\nobstacles of nature.  It is done by labor and thought.  Labor is the\nfoundation. Without great labor it is impossible to progress.  Without\nlabor on the part of those who conduct all great industries of life, of\nthose who battle with the obstacles of the sea, on the part of the\ninventors, the discoverers, and the brave, heroic thinkers, no surplus\nis produced; and from the surplus produced by labor, spring the schools\nand universities, the painters, the sculptors, the poets, the hopes,\nthe loves and the aspirations of the world.\n\nThe surplus has given us the books.  It has given us all there is of\nbeauty and eloquence.  I am aware there is a vast difference of opinion\nas to what progress is, and that many denounce my ideas. I know there\nare many worshipers of the past.  They see no beauty in anything from\nwhich they do not blow the dust of ages with the breath of praise.\nThey see nothing like the ancients; no orators, poets or statesmen like\nthose who have been dust for thousands of years.\n\nIn a sermon on a certain evening, some time ago, the Rev. Dr. Magee of\nAlbany, N. Y., stated that Colonel Ingersoll, referring to Jesus\nChrist, called him a \"dirty little Jew.\"  I denounce that as a dirty\nlittle lie.\n\nI have as much reverence for any man who ever did what he believed was\nright, and died in order to benefit mankind, as any man in this world.\nDo they treat an opponent with fairness?  Are they investigating?  Do\nthey pull forward or do they hold back?  Is science indebted to the\nChurch for a single fact?  Let us know what it is.  What church has\nbeen the asylum for a persecuted truth? What reform has been\ninaugurated by the Church?  Did the Church abolish slavery?  No.  Who\ncommenced it? Such men as Garrison and Pillsbury and Wendel Phillips.\nThey were the titans that attacked the monster, and not a solitary one\nof them ever belonged to a church.  Has the Church raised its voice\nagainst war?  No. Are men restrained by superstition?  Are men\nrestrained by what you call religion?  I used to think they were not;\nnow I admit they are.  No man has ever been restrained from the\ncommission of a real crime, but from an artificial one he has.  There\nwas a man who committed murder.  They got the evidence, but he\nconfessed that he did it.  \"What did you do it for?\"  \"Money.\"   \"Did\nyou get any money?\"  \"Yes.\"  \"How much?\" \"Fifteen cents.\"   \"What kind\nof a man was he?\"  \"A laboring man I killed.\"  \"What did you do with\nthe money?\"   \"I bought liquor with it.\" \"Did he have anything else?\"\n\"I think he had some meat and bread.\" \"What did you do with that?\"   \"I\nate the bread and threw away the meat; it was Friday.\"  So you see it\nwill restrain in some things.\n\nJust to the extent that man has freed himself from the dominion of\nghosts he has advanced; to that extent he has freed himself from the\ntyrant's poison. Man has found that he must give liberty to others in\norder to have it himself.  He has found that a master is a slave; that\na tyrant is also a slave.  He has found that governments should be\nadministered by men for men; that the rights of all are to be\nprotected; that woman is at least the equal for man; that men existed\nbefore books; that all creeds were made by men; that the few have a\nright to contradict what the pulpit asserts; that man is responsible to\nhimself and to others.  True religion must be free; without liberty the\nbrain is a dungeon and the mind the convict.  The slave may bow and\ncringe and crawl, but he cannot worship, he cannot adore.  True\nreligion is the perfume of the free and grateful air.  True religion is\nthe subordination of the passions to the intellect.  It is not a creed;\nit is a life.  The theory that is afraid of investigation is not\ndeserving of a place in the human mind.\n\nI do not pretend to tell what all the truth is.  I do not pretend to\nhave fathomed the abyss, nor to have floated on outstretched wings\nlevel with the heights of thought.  I simply plead for freedom. I\ndenounce the cruelties and horrors of slavery.  I ask for light and air\nfor the souls of men.  I say, take off those chains--break those\nmanacles--free those limbs--release that brain.  I plead for the right\nto think--to reason--to investigate.  I ask that the future may be\nenriched with the honest thoughts of men.  I implore every human being\nto be a soldier in the army of progress.  I will not invade the rights\nof others.  You have no right to erect your toll-gates upon the\nhighways of thought.  You have no right to leap from the hedges of\nsuperstition and strike down the pioneers of the human race.  You have\nno right to sacrifice the liberties of man upon the altars of ghosts.\nBelieve what you may; preach what you desire; have all the forms and\nceremonies you please; exercise your liberties in your own way, and\nextend to all others the same right.\n\nI attack the monsters, the phantoms of imagination that have ruled the\nworld.  I attack slavery.  I ask for room--room for the human mind.\n\nWhy should we sacrifice a real world that we have for one we know not\nof?  Why should we enslave ourselves?  Why should we forge fetters for\nour own hands?  Why should we be the slaves of phantoms--phantoms that\nwe create ourselves?  The darkness of barbarism was the womb of these\nshadows.  In the light of science they cannot cloud the sky forever.\nThey have reddened the hands of man with innocent blood.  They made the\ncradle a curse, and the grave a place of torment.\n\nThey blinded the eyes and stopped the ears of the human race. They\nsubverted all the ideas of justice by promising infinite rewards for\nfinite virtues, and threatening infinite punishment for finite offenses.\n\nI plead for light, for air, for opportunity.  I plead for individual\nindependence.  I plead for the rights of labor and of thought.  I plead\nfor a chainless future.  Let the ghosts go--justice remains. Let them\ndisappear--men, women and children are left.  Let the monster fade\naway--the world remains, with its hills and seas and plains, with its\nseasons of smiles and frowns, its Springs of leaf and bud, its Summer\nof shade and flower, its Autumn with the laden boughs, when\n\n          The withered banners of the corn are still,\n          And gathered fields are growing strangely wan,\n          While Death, poetic Death, with hands that color\n          Whate'er they touch, weaves in the Autumn wood\n          Her tapestries of gold and brown.\n\nThe world remains, with its Winters and homes and firesides, where grow\nand bloom the virtues of our race.  All these are left; and music, with\nits sad and thrilling voice, and all there is of art and song and hope,\nand love and aspiration high.  All these remain. Let the ghosts go--we\nwill worship them no more.\n\nMan is greater than these phantoms.  Humanity is grander than all the\ncreeds, than all the books.   Humanity is the great sea, and these\ncreeds and books and religions are but the waves of a day. Humanity is\nthe sky, and these religions and dogmas and theories are but the mists\nand clouds, changing continually, destined finally to melt away.\n\nLet the ghosts go.  We will worship them no more.  Let them cover their\neyeless sockets with their fleshless hands, and fade forever from the\nimaginations of men.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON HELL\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: The idea of a hell was born of revenge and\nbrutality on the one side, and cowardice on the other. In my judgment\nthe American people are too brave, too charitable, too generous, too\nmagnanimous to believe in the infamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have\nno respect for any human being who believes in it. I have no respect\nfor the man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that\ninfamous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the sorrows\nof this world with the frightful dogma. I have no respect for any man\nwho endeavors to put that infinite cloud, that infinite shadow, over\nthe heart of humanity. I want to be frank with you. I dislike this\ndoctrine, I hate it, I despise it; I defy this doctrine. For a good\nmany years the learned intellects of christendom have been examining\ninto the religions of other countries in the world, the religions of\nthe thousands that have passed away. They examined into the religions\nof Egypt, the religion of Greece, the religion of Rome and of the\nScandinavian countries. In the presence of the ruins of those religions\nthe learned men of christendom insisted that those religions were\nbaseless, that they are fraudulent. But they have all passed away.\nWhile this was being done the christianity of our day applauded, and\nwhen the learned men got through with the religions of other countries\nthey turned their attention to our religion. By the same mode of\nreasoning, by the same methods, by the same arguments that they used\nwith the old religions, they were overturning the religion of our day.\nWhy? Every religion in this world is the work of man. Every one! Every\nbook has been written by man. Men existed before the books. If books\nhad existed before man, I might admit there was such a thing as a\nsacred volume.\n\nIn my judgment man has made every religion and made every book. There\nis another thing to which I wish to call your attention. Man never had\nan idea; man will never have an idea, except those supplied to him by\nhis surroundings. Every idea in the world that man has, came to him by\nnature. Man cannot conceive of anything the hint of which you have not\nreceived from your surroundings. You can imagine an animal with the\nhoof of a bison, with the pouch of the kangaroo, with the wings of an\neagle, with the beak of a bird, and with the tail of the lion; and yet\nevery point of this monster you borrowed from nature. Every thing you\ncan think of--every thing you can dream of, is borrowed from your\nsurroundings--everything. And there is nothing on this earth coming\nfrom any other sphere whatever. Man has produced every religion in the\nworld. And why? Because each generation bodes forth the knowledge and\nthe belief of the people at the time it was made, and in no book is\nthere any knowledge found, except that of the people who wrote it. In\nno book is there found any knowledge, except that of the time in which\nit was written. Barbarians have produced, and always will produce\nbarbarian religions. Barbarians have produced, and always will produce\nideas in harmony with their surroundings, and all the religions of the\npast were produced by barbarians--every one of them. We are making\nreligions today. We are making religions to-night. That is to say, we\nare changing them, and the religion of to-day is not the religion of\none year ago. What changed it? Science has done it; education and the\ngrowing heart of man has done it. We are making these religions every\nday, and just to the extent that we become civilized ourselves will we\nimprove the religion of our fathers. If the religion of one hundred\nyears ago, compared with the religion of to-day is so low, what will it\nbe in one thousand years?\n\nIf we continue making the inroads upon orthodoxy which we have been\nmaking during the last twenty-five years, what will it be fifty years\nfrom to-night? It will have to be remonetized by that time, or else it\nwill not be legal tender. In my judgment, every religion that stands by\nappealing to miracles is dishonor. [sic]  Every religion in the world\nhas denounced every other religion as a fraud. That proves to me that\nthey all tell the truth--about others. Why? Suppose Mr. Smith should\ntell Mr. Brown that he--Smith--saw a corpse get out of the grave, and\nthat when he first saw it, it was covered with the worm's of death, and\nthat in his presence it was reclothed in healthy, beautiful flesh. And\nthen suppose Mr. Brown should tell Mr. Smith, \"I saw the same thing\nmyself. I was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead man rise.\" Suppose\nthen that Smith should say to Brown, \"You're a liar,\" and Brown should\nreply to Smith, \"And you're a liar,\" what would you think? It would\nsimply be because Smith, never having seen it himself, didn't believe\nBrown; and Brown, never having seen it, didn't believe Smith had. Now,\nif Smith had really seen it, and Brown told him he had seen it too,\nthen Smith would regard it as a corroboration of his story, and he\nwould regard Brown as one of his principal witnesses. But, on the\ncontrary, he says, \"You never saw it.\" So, when man says, \"I was upon\nMount Sinai, and there I met God, and he told me, 'Stand aside and let\nme drown these people';\" and another man says to him, \"I was upon a\nmountain, and there I met the Supreme Brahma,\" and Moses says, \"That's\nnot true,\" and contends that the other man never did see Brahma, and he\ncontends that Moses never did see God, that is in my judgment proof\nthat they both speak truly.\n\nEvery religion, then, has charged every other religion with having been\nan unmitigated fraud; and yet, if any man had ever seen the miracle\nhimself, his mind would be prepared to believe that another man had\nseen the same thing. Whenever a man appeals to a miracle he tells what\nis not true. Truth relies upon reason, and the undeviating course of\nall the laws of nature.\n\nNow, we have a religion--that is, some people have. I do not pretend to\nhave religion myself. I believe in living for this world--that's my\ndoctrine--in living here, now, to-day, to-night--that's my doctrine, to\nmake everybody happy that you can. Now, let the future take care of\nitself and if I ever touch the shores of another world I will be just\nas ready and anxious to get into some remunerative employment as\nanybody else. Now, we have got in this country a religion which men\nhave preached for about eighteen hundred years, and just in proportion\nas their belief in that religion has grown great, men have grown mean\nand wicked; just in proportion as they have ceased to believe it, men\nhave become just and charitable.  And if they believe it to-night as\nthey once believed it, I wouldn't be allowed to speak in the city of\nNew York. It is from the coldness and infidelity of the churches that I\nget my right to preach; and I say it to their credit. Now we have a\nreligion. What is it? They say in the first place that all this vast\nuniverse was created by a deity. I don't know whether it was or not.\nThey say, too, that had it not been for the first sin of Adam there\nwould never have been any devil in this world, and if there had been no\ndevil there would have been no sin, and if there had been no sin there\nnever would have been any death. For my part I am glad there was\nSomebody had to die to give me room, and when my turn comes I'll be\nwilling to let somebody else take my place. But whether there is\nanother life or not, if there is any being who gave me this, I shall\nthank him from the bottom of my heart, because, upon the whole, my life\nhas been a joy. Now they say, because of this first sin all men were\nconsigned to eternal hell. And this because Adam was our\nrepresentative. Well, I always had an idea that my representative ought\nto live somewhere about the same time I do. I always had an idea that I\nshould have some voice in choosing my representative. And if I had a\nvoice I never should have voted for the old gentleman called Adam. Now\nin order to regain man from the frightful hell of eternity, Christ\nhimself came to this world and took upon himself flesh, and in order\nthat we might know the road to eternal salvation he gave us a book, and\nthat book is called the Bible, and whenever that Bible has been read\nmen have immediately commenced cutting each others' throats. Wherever\nthat Bible has been circulated, they have invented inquisitions and\ninstruments of torture, and they commenced hating each other with all\ntheir hearts. But I am told now, we are all told that this Bible is the\nfoundation of civilization, but I say that this Bible is the foundation\nof Hell, and we never shall get rid of the dogma of hell until we get\nrid of the idea that it is an inspired book. Now, what does the Bible\nteach? I am not going to talk about what this minister or that minister\nsays it teaches; the question is \"ought a man to be sent to eternal\nhell for not believing this Bible to be the work of a Merciful Father?\"\nand the only way to find out is to read it; and a very few people do\nread it now. I will read a few passages. This is the book to be read in\nthe schools, in order to make our children charitable and good; this is\nthe book that we must read in order that our children may have ideas of\nmercy, charity and justice. Does the Bible teach mercy? Now be honest,\nI read: \"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood; and the sword shall\ndevour flesh.\" (Deut. xxxii, 42.) Pretty good start for a merciful God!\n\"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies and the\ntongue of thy dogs in the same.\" (Ps. lxviii, 23.) Again: \"And the Lord\nthy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little;\nthou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field\nincrease upon thee.\" (Deut. vii, 22.)\n\n\"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them  unto thee, and shall destroy\nthem with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.\n\n\"And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt\ndestroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to\nstand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.\" (Deut. vii, 23, 24.)\n\n\"So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by\nwaters of Merom suddenly; and they fell upon them.\n\n\"And the lord delivered them into the hand of Israel, who smote them,\nand chased them unto great Zidon, and unto Misrephothimaim, and unto\nthe valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left\nthem none remaining.\n\n\"And Joshua did unto them as the Lord bade him; he houghed their\nhorses, and burnt their chariots with fire.\n\n\"And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the\nking thereof with the sword; for Hazor beforetime was the head of all\nthose kingdoms.\n\n\"And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the\nsword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe; and\nhe burnt Hazor with fire.\n\n\"And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did\nJoshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly\ndestroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded.\n\n\"But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burnt\nnone of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.\n\n\"And all the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the children of\nIsrael took for a prey unto themselves, but every man they smote with\nthe edge of the sword [Brave!] until they had destroyed them, neither\nleft they any to breathe. [As the moral god had commanded them.]\n\n\"As the Lord commanded Moses, his servant, so did Moses command Joshua,\nand so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord\ncommanded Moses.\n\n\"So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country,\nand all the land of Goshen, and the valley of the same.\n\n\"Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; even unto Baalgad in\nthe valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon; and all their kings he took,\nand smote them, and slew them.\n\n\"Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.\n\n\"There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save\nthe Hivites, the inhabitants of Gideon; all other they took in battle.\n\n\"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come\nagainst Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that\nthey might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord\ncommanded Moses.\n\n\"And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the\nmountains, from Hebron, for Debit, from Anab, and from all the\nmountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel; Joshua\ndestroyed them utterly with their cities.\n\n\"There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of\nIsrael, only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod there remained.\n\n\"So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said\nunto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according\nto their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.\"\n(Josh. xi, 7 to 23.)\n\n\"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim\npeace unto it.\n\n\"And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee,\nthen it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be\ntributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.\n\n\"And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against\nthee, then thou shalt besiege it.\n\n\"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou\nshalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.\n\n\"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in\nthe city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and\nthou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath\ngiven thee.\n\n\"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from\nthee, which are not of the cities of these nations.\n\n\"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give\nthee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:\n\n\"But thou shalt utterly destroy them.\" (Deut. xx, 10-17.)\n\nNeither the old men nor the women, nor the maidens,  nor the\nsweet-dimpled babe, smiling upon the lap   of his mother, were to be\nspared.\n\n\"And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord  God of Israel [a merciful\ngod indeed]. Put every  man his sword by his side, and go in and out\nfrom  gate to gate through-out the camp, and slay every man his\nbrother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.\"\n(Exod. xxxii, 27.)\n\nNow recollect, these instructions were given to an army of invasion,\nand the people who were slayed were guilty of the crime of fighting for\ntheir homes. Oh, most merciful God! The old testament is full of\ncurses, vengeance, jealousy and hatred, and of barbarity and brutality.\nNow do you not for one moment believe that these words were written by\nthe most merciful God. Don't pluck from the heart the sweet flowers of\npiety and crush them by superstition. Do not believe that God ever\nordered the murder of innocent women and helpless babes. Do not let\nthis supposition turn your hearts into stone. When anything is said to\nhave been written by the most merciful God, and the thing is not\nmerciful, then I deny it, and say he never wrote it. I will live by the\nstandard of reason, and if thinking in accordance with reason takes me\nto perdition, then I will go to hell with my reason rather that to\nheaven without it.\n\nNow does this bible teach political freedom, or does it teach political\ntyranny? Does it teach a man to resist oppression? Does it teach a man\nto tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned thing and robber called\na king? Let us see [Reading:]\n\n\"Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: For there is no power\nbut of God, the powers that  are ordained of God.\" (Rom. xii, 1.)\n\nAll the kings, and princes, and governors, and  thieves and robbers\nthat happened to be in authority were placed there by the infinite\nfather of all!\n\n\"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of\nGod.\"\n\nAnd when George Washington resisted the power of George the Third he\nresisted the power of God. And when our fathers said, \"Resistance to\ntyrants is obedience to God,\" they falsified the bible itself.\n\n\"For he is the minister of God to thee for   good. But if thou do that\nwhich is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he\nis the minister of God, revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth\nevil.\n\n\"Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for\nconscience sake.\" (Rom. xiii, 4, 5.)\n\nI deny this wretched doctrine. Wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn\nto protect the rights of man, I am a rebel. Wherever the sword of\nrebellion is drawn to give man liberty, to clothe him in all his just\nrights, I am on the side of that rebellion. I deny that the rulers are\ncrowned by the Most High; the rulers are the people, and the presidents\nand others are but the servants of the people. All authority comes from\nthe people, and not from the aristocracy of the air. Upon these texts\nof scripture which I have just read rest the thrones of Europe, and\nthese are the voices that are repeated from age to age by brainless\nkings and heartless kings.\n\nDoes the bible give woman her rights? Is this bible humane? Does it\ntreat woman as she ought to be treated, or is it barbarian? Let us see.\n\n\"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.\" (1 Timothy ii,\n11.)\n\n\nIf a woman would know anything let her ask her husband. Imagine the\nignorance of a lady who had only that source of information!\n\n\"But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to   usurp authority over the\nman, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [What\nmagnificent reason!]\"\n\n\"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the\ntransgression.\" [Splendid!]\n\n\"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and\nthe head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.\" That\nis to say, there is as much difference between the woman and man as\nthere is between Christ and man. This is the liberty of woman.\n\n\"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.\" It was\nthe man's cut till that was taken, not the woman's. \"Neither was the\nman created for the woman.\" Well, what was he created for? \"But the\nwoman was created for the man. Wives, submit yourselves unto your\nhusbands, as unto the Lord.\" There's Liberty!\n\n\"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of\nthe church; and he is the savior of the body.\n\n\"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be to\ntheir own husbands in everything.\"\n\nGood again! Even the savior didn't put man and woman upon an equality.\nThe man could divorce the wife, but the wife could not divorce the\nhusband, and according to the old testament, the mother had to ask for\nforgiveness for being the mother of babes. Splendid!\n\nHere is something from the old testament: \"When thou goest forth to war\nagainst thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into\nthine hands, and thou has taken them captive.\n\n\"And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto\nher, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife.\n\n\"Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her\nhead, and pare her nails.\" (Deut. xxi, 10-12.)\n\nThat is in self-defense, I suppose!\n\nThis sacred book, this foundation of human liberty,  of morality, does\nit teach concubinage and polygamy?  Read the thirty-first chapter of\nNumbers, read the  twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, read the\nblessed lives of Abraham, of David or of Solomon, and then tell me that\nthe sacred scripture does not teach polygamy and concubinage! All the\nlanguage of the world is not sufficient to express the infamy of\npolygamy; it makes man a beast and woman a stone. It destroys the\nfireside and makes virtue an outcast. And yet it is the doctrine of the\nbible--the doctrine defended by Luther and Melanchthon! It takes from\nour language those sweetest words, father, husband, wife, and mother,\nand takes us back to barbarism, and fills our hearts with the crawling,\nslimy serpents of loathsome lust.\n\nDoes the bible teach the existence of devils? Of course it does. Yes,\nit teaches not only the existence of a good being, but a bad being.\nThis good being had to have a home; that home was heaven. This bad\nbeing had to have a home; and that home was hell. This hell is supposed\nto be nearer to earth than I would care to have it, and to be peopled\nwith spirits, spooks, hobgoblins, and all the fiery shapes with which\nthe imagination of ignorance and fear could people that horrible place;\nand the bible teaches the existence of hell and this big devil and all\nthese little devils. The bible teaches the doctrine of witchcraft and\nmakes us believe that there are sorcerers and witches, and that the\ndead could be raised by the power of sorcery. Does anybody believe it\nnow?\n\n\"Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me   a woman that hath a\nfamiliar spirit, that I may  go to her, and inquire of her. And his\nservants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar\nspirit at Endor.\n\n\"And Saul disguised himself and put on other raiment, and he went, and\ntwo men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, I\npray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up\nwhom I shall name unto thee. [That was a pretty good spiritual seance.]\n\n\"And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done,\nhow he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards,\nout of the land; wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life to\ncause me to die?\n\n\"And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth there\nshall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.\n\n\"Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,\nBring me up Samuel.\n\n\"And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the\nwoman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art\nSaul.\n\n\"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid; for what sawest thou? And\nthe woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.\n\n\"And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man\ncometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it\nwas Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed\nhimself.\" (1 Saml. xxviii, 7-14.)\n\nIn another place he declares that witchcraft is an abomination unto the\nLord. He wanted no rivals in this business. Now what does the new\ntestament teach?\n\n\"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into    the wilderness to be\ntempted of the devil.\n\n\"And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward\nan hungered. [sic]\n\n\"And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God,\ncommand that these stones be made bread.\n\n\"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread\nalone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.\n\n\"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a\npinnacle of the temple,\n\n\"And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, Hell cast thyself down,\nfor it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee; and\nin their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy\nfoot against a stone.\n\n\"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the\nLord thy God.\" (Matt. iv, 1 7.)\n\nIs it possible that anyone can believe that the devil absolutely took\nGod almighty, and put him on the pinnacle of the temple, and endeavored\nto persuade him to jump down? Is it possible?\n\n\"Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding  high mountain and\nshoweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;\n\n\"And Saith unto him, All these things will I  give thee, if thou will\nfall down and worship me.\n\n\"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written,\nThou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.\"\n(Matt. iv, 8-10.)\n\nNow, the devil must have known at that time that  he was God, and God\nat that time must have known   that the other was the devil. How could\nthe latter be conceived to have the impudence to promise God a world in\nwhich he did not have a tax-title to an inch of land?\n\n\"Then the devil leaveth him; and, behold, angels  came and ministered\nunto him.\" (Matt. iv, 11.)\n\n\"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of\nthe Gadarines.\n\n\"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of\nthe tombs a man with an unclean spirit,\n\n\"Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,\nnot with chains,\n\n\"Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the\nchains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in\npieces; neither could any man tame him,\n\n\"And always, night and day, he was in the  mountains and tombs, crying\nand cutting himself with stones.\n\n\"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he came and worshiped him.\n\n\"And cried with a loud voice and said, What have I to do with thee,\nJesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, that thou\ntorment me not.\n\n\"(For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.)\n\n\"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered saying, My name is\nLegion: for we are many.\n\n\"And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the\ncountry.\n\n\"Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine\nfeeding.\n\n\"And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine that\nwe may enter into them.\n\n\"And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out,\nand entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep\nplace into the sea (they were about two thousand), and were choked in\nthe sea.\" (Mark v, 1-13.)\n\nNow I will ask a question: Should reasonable men, in the nineteenth\ncentury in the United States of America, believe that that was an\nactual occurrence? If my salvation depends upon believing that, I am\nlost. I have never experienced the signs by which it is said a believer\nmay be known. I deny all the witch stories in this world. These fables\nof devils have covered the world with blood; they have filled the world\nwith fear, and I am going to do what I can to free the world of these\ninsatiate monsters, small and great; they have filled the world with\nmonsters, they have made the world a synonym of liar and ferocity. And\nit is this book that ought to be read in all the schools--this book\nthat teaches man to enslave his brother! If it is larceny to steal the\nresult of labor, how much more is it larceny to steal the laborer\nhimself?\n\n\"Moreover,  of  the  children of the strangers that do sojourn among\nyou, of them shall ye buy,  and of their families that are with you,\nwhich  they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession.\n\n\"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,\nto inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever;\nbut over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one\nover another with rigor.\" (Lev. xxv, 45, 46.)\n\nWhy? Because they are not as good as you will buy of the heathen\nroundabout.\n\nNow these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.\n\n\"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the\nseventh he shall go  out free for nothing.\n\n\"If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were\nmarried, then his wife shall go out with him.\n\n\"If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or\ndaughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he\nshall go out by himself.\n\n\"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and\nmy children; I will not go out free.\n\n\"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring\nhim to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his\near through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.\" (Exod. xxi,\n1-6.)\n\nThis is the doctrine which has ever lent itself to the chains of\nslavery, and makes a man imprison himself rather than desert his wife\nand children. I hate it.\n\nNow, listen to the new testament, the tidings of great joy for all\npeople!\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to them that are your  masters according to the\nflesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto\nChrist.\n\n\"Not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ,\ndoing the will of God from the heart.\" (Eph. vi, 5, 6.) trembling, in\nsingleness of your heart, as unto Christ.\n\n\"Not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ,\ndoing the will of God from the heart.\" (Eph. vi, 5,6.) Splendid\ndoctrine.\n\n\"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle, but also to the froward.\n\n\"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure\ngrief, suffering wrongfully.\" (1 Peter ii, 18, 19.)\n\n\"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.\"\n\nHe was afraid they might not work all the time, so he adds:\n\n\"Not with the eye-service, as men pleasers, but in the singleness of\nheart fearing God.\"\n\nRead the twenty-first chapter of Exodus, 7 to  11.\n\n\"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid servant, she shall not go\nout as the men-servants  do.\n\n\"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed  her to himself, then\nshall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he\nshall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if\nhe have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the\nmanner of daughters.\n\n\"If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of\nmarriage shall he not diminish.\n\n\"And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free\nwithout money.\"\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to your masters,\" is the salutation of the most\nmerciful God to one who works for nothing and who receives upon his\nnaked back the lash, as legal tender for service performed.\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to your masters,\" is the  salutation of the most\nmerciful God to the slave-mother bending over her infant's grave.\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to your masters,\" is the salutation to a man\nendeavoring to escape pursuit, followed by savage blood-hounds, and\nwith his eye fixed upon the northern star. This book ought to be read\nin the schools, so that our children will love liberty.\n\nWhat does this same book say of the rights of little children? Let us\nsee how they are treated by the \"most merciful God.\"\n\n\"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,  which will not obey the\nvoice of his father, or  the voice of his mother, and that when they\nhave  chastened him, will not hearken unto them.\n\n\"Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him\nout unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place.\n\n\"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, this our son is\nstubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton,\nand a drunkard.\n\n\"And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die;\nso shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear\nand fear.\" (Deut. xxi, 18-21.)\n\nAbraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, and he\nintended to obey.  The boy was not consulted.\n\nDid you ever hear the story of Jephthah's daughter? Returning him\nJephthah said:\n\n\"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and  said, if thou shalt\nwithout fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,\n\n\"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth  of the doors of my\nhouse to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon\nshall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.\n\n\"So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against\nthem; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.\n\n\"And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even\ntwenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards with a very great\nslaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children\nof Israel.\n\n\"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter\ncame out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his\nonly child: besides her he had neither son nor daughter.\n\n\"And it came to pass when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and\nsaid, Alas, my daughter! thou has brought me very low, and thou art one\nof them that trouble me; for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and\nI cannot go back.\n\n\"And she said unto him, My father, if thou has opened thy mouth unto\nthe Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy\nmouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine\nenemies, even to the children of Ammon.\n\n\"And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me\nalone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and\nbewail my virginity, I and my fellows.\n\n\"And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months, and she went\nwith her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.\n\n\"And it came to pass at the end of two months that she returned unto\nher father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.\"\n\nIs there in the history of the world a sadder story than this? Can a\ngod who would accept such a sacrifice be worthy of the worship of\ncivilized men? I believe in the rights of children. I plead for the\nrepublic of home, for the democracy of the fireside, and for this I am\ncalled a heathen and a devil by those who believe in the cheerful and\ncomforting doctrine of eternal damnation.\n\nRead the book of Job; read that God met the devil and asked him where\nhe had been, and he said, \"Walking up and down the country;\" and the\nLord said to him, \"Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he\nis?\" And the devil said, \"Of course he's good, you give him everything\nhe wants. Just take away his property and he'll curse you. You just try\nit.\" And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still remained\ngood. The devil laughed and said that he had not been tried enough.\nThen the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still true. Then he took\naway his children, but he remained faithful, and in the end, to show\nhow much Job made by his fidelity, his property was all doubled, and he\nhad more children than ever. If you have a child, and you love it,\nwould you be satisfied with a god who would destroy it, and endeavor to\nmake it up by giving you another that was better looking? No, you want\nthat one; you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of\nchildren taught in the bible.\n\nDoes the bible teach you freedom of religion? To day we say that every\nman has a right to worship God or not, to worship him as he pleases. Is\nit the doctrine of the bible? Let us see.\n\n\"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or  thy son, or thy daughter,\nor the wife of thy  bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,\nentice thee secretly, saying. Let us go and serve other gods, which\nthou has not known, thou, nor thy fathers;\n\n\"Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto\nthee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the\nother end of the earth;\n\n\"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall\nthine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou\nconceal him;\n\n\"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to\nput him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.\n\n\"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he has\nsought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee\nout of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.\" (Deut. xiii,\n6-10.)\n\nAnd do you know, according to that, if your wife--your wife that you\nlove as your own soul--if you had lived in Palestine, and your wife had\nsaid to you, \"Let us worship a sun whose golden beams clothe the world\nin glory; let us worship the sun, let us bow to that great luminary; I\nlove the sun because it gave me your face; because it gave me the\nfeatures of my babe; let us worship the sun,\" it was then your duty to\nlay your hands upon her, your eye must not pity her, but it was your\nduty to cast the first stone against that tender and loving breast! I\nhate such doctrine! I hate such books! I hate gods that will write such\nbooks! I tell you that it is infamous!\n\n\"If there be found among you, within any of  thy gates which the Lord\nthy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the\nsight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,\n\n\"And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the\nsun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;\n\n\"And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired\ndiligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such\nabomination is wrought in Israel;\n\n\"Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have\ncommitted that wicked thing, unto thy gates even that man or that\nwoman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.\" (Deut. xvii,\n2-5.)\n\nThat is the religious liberty of the bible--that's it. And this god\ntaught that doctrine to the Jews, and said to them, \"Any one that\nteaches a different religion, kill him!\" Now, let me ask, and I want to\ndo it reverently, if, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws to\nthe flesh, and come among the Jews, and taught a different religion,\nand these Jews, in accordance with the laws which this same God gave\nthem, crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown? The mercy of all\nthis comes in what is called \"the plan of salvation.\" What is that\nplan? According to this great plan, the innocent suffer for the guilty\nto satisfy a law.\n\nWhat sort of a law must it be that would be satisfied with the\nsuffering of innocence? According to this plan, the salvation of the\nwhole world depends upon the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery of\nJudas. According to the same plan, we all would have gone to eternal\nhell. According to the same plan, there would have been no death in the\nworld if there had been no sin, and if there had been no death you and\nI would not have been called into existence, and if we did not exist we\ncould not have been saved, so we owe our salvation to the bigotry of\nthe Jews and the treachery of Judas, and we are indebted to the devil\nfor our existence. I speak this reverently. It strikes me that what\nthey call the atonement is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its\nmerciful provisions man is allowed the privilege of sinning credit, and\nwhenever he is guilty of a mean action he says, \"Charge it.\" In my\njudgment, this kind of bookkeeping breeds extravagance in sin. Suppose\nwe had a law in New York that every merchant should give credit to\nevery man who asked it, under pain and penitentiary, and that every man\nshould take the benefit of the bankruptcy statute any Saturday night?\nDoesn't the credit system in morals breed extravagance in sin? That's\nthe question. Who's afraid of punishment which is so far away? Whom\ndoes the doctrine of hell stop? The great, the rich, the powerful? No;\nthe poor, the weak, the despised, the mean. Did you ever hear of a man\ngoing to hell who died in New York worth a million of dollars, or with\nan income of twenty-five thousand a year? Did you? Did you ever hear of\na man going to hell who rode in a carriage? Never. They are the\ngentlemen who talk about their assets, and who say: \"Hell is not for\nme; it is for the poor. I have all the luxuries I want, give that to\nthe poor.\" Who goes to hell? Tramps!\n\nLet me tell you a story. There was once a frightful rain, and all the\nanimals held a convention, to see whose fault it was, and the fox\nnominated the lion for chairman. The wolf seconded the motion, and the\nhyena said \"that suits.\" When the convention was called to order the\nfox was called upon to confess his sins. He stated, however, that it\nwould be much more appropriate for the lion to commence first.\nThereupon the lion said: \"I am not conscious of having committed evil.\nIt is true I have devoured a few men, but for what other purpose were\nmen made?\" And they all cheered, and were satisfied. The fox gave his\nviews upon the goose question, and the wolf admitted that he had\ndevoured sheep, and occasionally had killed a shepherd, \"but all\nacquainted with the history of my family will bear me out when I say\nthat shepherds have been the enemies of my family from the beginning of\nthe world.\" Then way in the rear there arose a simple donkey, with a\nkind of Abrahamic countenance. He said: \"I expect it's me. I had eaten\nnothing for three days except three thistles. I was passing a\nmonastery, the monks were at mass. The gates were open leading to a\nyard full of sweet clover. I knew it was wrong but I did slip in and I\ntook a mouthful, but my conscience smote me and I went out;\" and all\nthe animals shouted, \"He's the fellow!\" and in two minutes they had his\nhide on the fence. That's the kind of people that go to hell.\n\nNow this doctrine of hell, that has been such a comfort to my race,\nwhich so many ministers are pleading for, has been defended for ages by\nthe fathers of the church. Your preacher says that the sovereignty of\nGod implies that He has an absolute, unlimited and independent right to\ndispose of His creatures as He will, because He made them. Has He?\nSuppose I take this book and change it immediately into a servient\nhuman being. Would I have a right to torture it because I made it? No;\non the contrary, I would say, having brought you into existence, it is\nmy duty to do the best for you I can. They say God has a right to damn\nme because He made me. I deny it. Another one says God is not obliged\nto save even those who believe in Christ, and that he can either bestow\nsalvation upon his children or retain it without any diminution of his\nglory. Another one says God may save any sinner whatsoever,\nconsistently with his justice. Let a natural person--and I claim to be\none--moral or immoral, wise or unwise; let him be as just as he can, no\nmatter what his prayers may be, what pains he may have taken to be\nsaved, or whatever circumstances he may be in. God, according to this\nwriter, can deny him salvation, without the least disparagement of His\nglory. His glories will not be in the least obscured--there is no\nnatural man, be his character what it may, but God may cast down to\nhell without being charged with unfair dealing in any respect with\nregard to that man. Theologians tell us that God's design in the\ncreation was simply to glorify himself. Magnificent object!\n\n\"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured\nout without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be\ntormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels,\nand in the presence of the Lamb.\" (Rev. xiv, 1-10.)\n\nDo you know nobody would have had an idea of hell in this world if it\nhadn't been for volcanoes? They were looked upon as the chimneys of\nhell. The idea of eternal fire never would have polluted the\nimagination of man but for them. An eminent theologian, describing\nhell, says: \"There is no recounting the millions of ages the damned\nshall suffer. All arithmetic ends here\"--and all sense, too! \"They\nshall have nothing to do in passing away this eternity but to conflict\nwith torments. God shall have no other use or employment for them.\"\nThese words were said by gentlemen who died Christians, and who are now\nin the harp business in the world to come. Another declares there is\nnothing to keep any man or Christian out of hell except the mere\npleasure of God, and their pains never grow any easier by their\nbecoming accustomed to them. It is also declared that the devil goes\nabout like a lion, ready to doom the wicked. Did it never occur to you\nwhat a contradiction it is to say that the devil will persecute his own\nfriends? He wants all the recruits he can get; why then should he\npersecute his friends? In my judgment he should give them the best hell\naffords.\n\nIt is in the very nature of things that torments inflicted have no\ntendency to bring a wicked man to repentance. Then why torment him if\nit will not do  him good? It is simply unadulterated revenge.  All the\npunishment in the world will not reform a man, unless he knows that he\nwho inflicts it upon him does it for the sake of reformation, and\nreally and truly loves him, and has his good at heart. Punishment\ninflicted for gratifying the appetite makes man afraid, but debases him.\n\nVarious reasons are given for punishing the wicked; first, that God\nwill vindicate his injured majesty. Well, I am glad of that! Second, He\nwill glorify his justice--think of that. Third,  He will show and\nglorify his grace. Every time the saved shall look upon the damned in\nhell it will cause in them a lively and admiring sense of the grace of\nGod. Every look upon the damned will double the ardor and the joy of\nthe saints in heaven. Can the believing husband in heaven look down\nupon the torments of the unbelieving wife in hell and then feel a\nthrill of joy? That's the old doctrine--not of our days; we are too\ncivilized for that. O, but it is the doctrine that if you saw your wife\nin hell--the wife you love, who, in your last sickness, nursed you,\nthat, perhaps supported you by her needle when you were ill; the wife\nwho watched by your couch night and day, and held your corpse in her\nloving arms when you were dead--the sight would give you great joy.\nThat doctrine is not preached to-day. They do not preach that the sight\nwould give you joy; but they do preach that it will not diminish your\nhappiness. That is the doctrine of every orthodox minister in New York,\nand I repeat that I have no respect for men who preach such doctrines.\nThe sight of the torments of the damned in hell will increase the\necstasy of the saints forever! On this principle man never enjoys a\ngood dinner so much as when a fellow-creature is dying of famine before\nhis eyes, or he never enjoys the cheerful warmth of his own fireside so\ngreatly as when a poor and abandoned wretch is dying on his doorstep.\nThe saints enjoy the ecstasy and the groans of the tormented are music\nto them. I say here to-night that you cannot commit a sin against an\ninfinite being. I can sin against my brother or my neighbor, because I\ncan injure them. There can be no sin where there is no injury. Neither\ncan a finite being commit infinite sin.\n\nAn old saint believed that hell was in the interior of the earth, and\nthat the rotation of the earth was caused by the souls trying to get\naway from the fire. The old church at Stratford-on-Avon, Shakespeare's\nhome, in adorned with pictures of hell and the like. One of the\npictures represents resurrection morning. People are getting out of\ntheir graves, and devils are catching hold of their heels. In one place\nthere is a huge brass monster, and devils are driving scores of lost\nsouls into his mouth. Over hot fires hang caldrons with fifty or sixty\npeople in each, and devils are poking the fires. People are hung up on\nhooks by their tongues, and devils are lashing them. Up in the right\nhand corner are some of the saved, with grins on their faces stretching\nfrom ear to ear. They seem to say: \"Aha, what did I tell you?\"\n\nSome of the old saints--gentlemen who died in the odor of sanctity, and\nare now in the harp business--insisted that heaven and hell would be\nplainly in view of each other. Only a few years ago, Rev. J. Furness\n(an appropriate name) published a little pamphlet called \"A Sight in\nHell.\" I remember when I first read that. My little child, seven years\nold, was ill and in bed. I thought she would not hear me, and I read\nsome of it aloud. She arose and asked, \"Who says that?\" I answered,\n\"That's what they preach in some of the churches.\" \"I never will enter\na church as long as I live!\" she said, and she never has.\n\nThe doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that the damned shall suffer\ntorment forever and forever. And if you were a wanderer, footsore,\nweary, with parched tongue, dying for a drop of water, and you met one\nwho divided his poor portion with you, and died as he saw you\nreviving--if he was an unbeliever and you a believer, and you died and\nwent to heaven, and he called to you from hell for a draught of water,\nit would be your duty to laugh at him.\n\nRev. Mr. Spurgeon says that everywhere in hell will be written the\nwords \"for ever.\" They will be branded on every wave of flame, they\nwill be forged in every link of every chain, they will be seen in every\nlurid flash of brimstone--everywhere will be those words \"for ever.\"\nEverybody will be yelling and screaming them. Just think of that\npicture of the mercy and justice of the eternal Father of us all. If\nthese words are necessary why are they not written now everywhere in\nthe world, on every tree, and every field, and on every blade of grass?\nI say I am entitled to have it so. I say that it is God's duty to\nfurnish me with the evidence. Here is another good book read in every\nSunday-school--a splendid book--Pollok's \"Course of Time.\" Every copy\nin the world of such books as that ought to be burned. Well, the author\npretends to have gone to hell, and I think that he ought to have\nstopped there.\n\n[The lecturer read the passage from the work descriptive of the\ntorments of the damned, and proceeded:] And that book is put into the\nhands of children in order that they may love and worship the most\nmerciful God. In old time they had to find a place for hell and they\nfound a hundred places for it. One says that it was under Lake Avernus,\nbut the Christians thought differently. One divine tells us that it\nmust be below the earth because Christ descended into hell. Another\ngives it as his opinion that hell is in the sun, and he tells us that\nnobody, without an express revelation from God, can prove  that it is\nnot there. Most likely. Well, he had the idea at all events of\nutilizing the damned as fuel to warm the earth. But I will quote from\nanother poet--if it is lawful to call him a poet. I mean Tupper.\n\n[Colonel Ingersoll quoted from that orthodox author, and continued:]\nAnother divine preached a sermon no further back than 1876, in which he\nsaid that the damned will grow worse; and the same divine says that the\ndevil was the first Universalist. Then I am on the side of the devil.\n\nThe fact is, that you have got not merely to believe the bible; but you\nmust also believe in a certain interpretation of it, and, mind you, you\nmust also believe in the doctrine of the trinity. I want to explain\nwhat that is, so that you may never have an excuse for not knowing it.\n\nI quote from the best theologian that ever wrote. [Then he went on to\ngive in substance the Athanasian definition of the trinity, winding up\nwith a long string of adjectives, culminating in the description\n\"entirely incomprehensible.\"] If you don't understand it after that, it\nis you own fault. Now, you must believe in that doctrine. If you do\nnot, all the orthodox churches agree in condemning you to everlasting\nflames. We have got to burn through all our lives simply with the view\nof making them happy. We are taught to love our enemies, to pray for\nthose that persecute us, to forgive. Should not the merciful God\npractice what he preaches? I say that reverently. Why should he say,\n\"Forgive your enemies,\" if he will not himself forgive? Why should he\nsay \"Pray for those that despise and persecute you,\" but if they refuse\nto believe his doctrine he will burn them forever? I cannot believe it.\nHere is a little child, residing in the purlieus of the city--some boy\nwho is taught that it is his duty to steal by his mother, who applauds\nhis success and pats him on the head and calls him a good boy--would it\nbe just to condemn him to an eternity of torture? Suppose there is a\nGod; let us bring to this question some common sense.\n\nI care nothing about the doctrines of religions or creeds of the past.\nLet us come to the bar of the nineteenth century and judge matter by\nwhat we know, by what we think, by what we love. But they say to us,\n\"If you throw away the Bible what are we to depend on then?\" But no two\npersons in the world agree as to what the Bible is, what they are to\nbelieve, or what they are not to believe. It is like a guidepost that\nhas been thrown down in some time of disaster, and has been put up the\nwrong way. Nobody can accept its guidance, for nobody knows where it\nwould direct him. I say, \"Tear down the useless guidepost,\" but they\nanswer, \"Oh, do not do that or we will have nothing to go by.\" I would\nsay, \"Old Church, you take that road and I will take this.\" Another\nminister has said that the Bible is the great town-clock, at which we\nall may set our watches. But I have said to a friend of that minister:\n\"Suppose we all should set our watches by that town-clock, there would\nbe many persons to tell you that in old times the long hand was the\nhour hand, and besides, the clock hasn't been wound up for a long\ntime.\" I say let us wait till the sun rises and set our watches by\nnature. For my part, I am willing to give up heaven to get rid of hell.\nI had rather there should be no heaven than that any solitary soul\nshould be condemned to suffer forever and ever. But they tell me that\nthe Bible is the good book. Now, in the Old Testament there is not in\nmy judgment a single reference to another life. Is there a burial\nservice mentioned in it in which a word of hope is spoken at the grave\nof the dead? The idea of eternal life was not born of any book. That\nwave of hope and joy ebbs and flows, and will continue to ebb and flow\nas long as love kisses the lips of death.\n\nLet me tell you a tale of the Persian religion  of a man who, having\ndone good for long years of his life, presented himself at the gates of\nParadise, but the gates remained closed against him. He went back and\nfollowed up his good works for seven years longer, and the gates of\nParadise still remaining shut against him, he toiled in works of\ncharity until at last they were  opened unto him. Think of that,\npursued the lecturer, and send out your missionaries among those\npeople. There is no religion but goodness, but justice, but charity.\nReligion is not theory; it is life. It is not intellectual conviction;\nit is divine humanity, and nothing else. Colonel Ingersoll here told\nanother tale from the Hindoo, of a man who refused to enter Paradise\nwithout a faithful dog, urging that ingratitude was the blackest of all\nsins. \"And the God,\" he said, \"admitted him, dog and all.\" Compare that\nreligion with the orthodox tenets of the city of New York.\n\nThere is a prayer which every Brahmin prays, in which he declares that\nhe will never enter into a final state of bliss alone, but that\neverywhere he will strive for universal redemption; that never will he\nleave the world of sin and sorrow, but remain suffering and striving\nand sorrowing after universal salvation. Compare that with the orthodox\nidea, and send out your missionaries to the benighted Hindoos.\n\nThe doctrine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express. I wish\nthere were words mean enough to express my feelings of loathing on this\nsubject. What harm has it not done? What waste places has it not made?\nIt has planted misery and wretchedness in this world; it peoples the\nfuture with selfish joys and lurid abysses of eternal flame. But we are\ngetting more sense every day. We begin to despise those monstrous\ndoctrines. If you want to better men and women, change their conditions\nhere. Don't promise them something somewhere else. One biscuit will do\nmore good than all the tracts that were ever peddled in the world. Give\nthem more whitewash, more light, more air. You have to change men\nphysically before you change them intellectually. I believe the time\nwill come when every criminal will be treated as we now treat the\ndiseased and sick, when every penitentiary will become a reformatory,\nand that if criminals go to them with hatred in their bosoms, they will\nleave them without feelings of revenge. Let me tell you the story of\nOrpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice had been carried away by the god of\nhell, and Orpheus, her lover, went in quest of her. He took with him\nhis lyre, and played such exquisite music that all hell was amazed.\nIxion forgot his labors at the wheel, the daughters of Danaus ceased\nfrom their hopeless task, Tantalus forgot his thirst, even Pluto\nsmiled, and, for the first time in the history of hell, the eyes of the\nFuries were wet with tears. As it was with the lyre of Orpheus, so it\nis to-day with the great harmonies of Science, which are rescuing from\nthe prisons of superstition the torn and bleeding heart of man.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON INDIVIDUALITY, AN ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\"His soul was like a star and dwelt apart.\"\n\n\nOn every hand are the enemies of individuality, and mental freedom.\nCustom meets us at the cradle,--and leaves us only at the tomb. Our\nfirst questions are answered by ignorance, and our last by\nsuperstition. We are pushed and dragged by countless hands along the\nbeaten track, and our entire training can be summed up in the word\n\"suppression.\"  Our desire to have a thing or to do a thing is\nconsidered as conclusive evidence that we ought to do it.  At every\nturn we run not to have it, and ought not against a cherubim and a\nflaming sword, guarding some entrance to the Eden of our desire. We are\nallowed to investigate all subjects in which we feel no particular\ninterest, and to express the opinions of the majority with the utmost\nfreedom.  We are taught that liberty of speech should never be carried\nto the extent of contradicting the dead witnesses of a popular\nsuperstition.  Society offers continual rewards for self-betrayal, and\nthey are nearly all earned and claimed, and some are paid.\n\nWe have all read accounts of Christian gentlemen remarking when about\nto be hanged, how much better it would have been for them if they had\nonly followed a mother's advice!  But, after all, how fortunate it is\nfor the world that the maternal advice has not been followed!  How\nlucky it is for us all that it is somewhat unnatural for a human being\nto obey! Universal obedience is universal stagnation; disobedience is\none of the conditions of progress. Select any age of the world and tell\nme what would have been the effect of implicit obedience.  Suppose the\nchurch had had absolute control of the human mind at any time, would\nnot the word liberty and progress have been blotted from the human\nspeech?  In defiance of advice, the world has advanced.\n\nSuppose the astronomers had controlled the science of astronomy;\nsuppose the doctors had controlled the science of medicine; suppose\nkings had been left to fix the form of government!  Suppose our fathers\nhad taken the advice of Paul, who was subject to the powers that be,\n\"because they are ordained of God;\" suppose the church could control\nthe world today, we would go back to chaos and old night.  Philosophy\nwould be branded as infamous; science would again press its pale and\nthoughtful face against the prison bars; and round the limbs of liberty\nwould climb the bigot's flame.\n\nIt is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality\nenough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions; some one who\nhad the grit to say his say.  I believe it was Magellan who said, \"the\nchurch says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon,\nand I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.\" On the\nprow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn and success.\n\nThe trouble with most people is that they bow to what is called\nauthority; they have a certain reverence for the old because it is old.\nThey think a man is better for being dead, especially if he has been\ndead a long time, and that the forefathers of their nation were the\ngreatest and best of all mankind.  All these things they implicitly\nbelieve because it is popular and patriotic, and because they were told\nso when very small, and remember distinctly of hearing mother read it\nout of a book, and they are all willing to swear that mother was a good\nwoman.  It is hard to overestimate the influence of early training--in\nthe direction of superstition. You first teach children that a certain\nbook is true--that it was written by God himself--that to question its\ntruth is sin, that to deny it is a crime, and that should they die\nwithout believing that book they will be forever damned without benefit\nof clergy; the consequence is that before they read that book they\nbelieve it to be true.  When they do read, their minds are wholly\nunfitted to investigate its claim.  They accept it as a matter of\ncourse.\n\nIn this way the reason is overcome, the sweet instincts of humanity are\nblotted from the heart, and while reading its infamous pages even\njustice throws aside her scales, shrieking for revenge; and charity,\nwith bloody hands, applauds a deed of murder.  In this way we are\ntaught that the revenge of man is the justice of God, that mercy is not\nthe same everywhere.  In this way the ideas of our race have been\nsubverted. In this way we have made tyrants, bigots, and inquisitors.\nIn this way the brain of man has become a kind of palimpsest upon\nwhich, and over the writings of Nature, superstition has scribbled her\ncountless lies. Our great trouble is that most teachers are dishonest.\nThey teach as certainties those things concerning which they entertain\ndoubts.  They do not say, \"We think this is so.\" but \"We know this is\nso.\"  They do not appeal to the reason of the pupil, but they command\nhis faith.  They keep all doubts to themselves; they do not explain,\nthey assert.  All this is infamous.  In this way you make Christians,\nbut you cannot make men; you cannot make women.  You can make followers\nbut no leaders; disciples, but no Christs.  You may promise power,\nhonor, and happiness to all those who will blindly follow, but you\ncannot keep your promise.\n\nAn eastern monarch said to a hermit, \"Come with me and I will give you\npower.\"  \"I have all the power that I know how to use,\" replied the\nhermit.  \"Come,\" said the king, \"I will give you wealth.\"  \"I have no\nwants that money can supply.\"  \"I will give you honor.\" \"Ah! honor\ncannot be given; it must be earned.\"  \"Come,\" said the king, making a\nlast appeal, \"and I will give you happiness.\"  \"No,\" said the man of\nsolitude; \"there is no happiness without liberty, and he who follows\ncannot be free.\"  \"You shall have liberty too.\" \"Then I will stay.\"\nAnd all the king's courtiers thought the hermit a fool.\n\nNow and then somebody examines, and, in spite of all, keeps up his\nmanhood and has courage to follow where his reason leads.  Then the\npious get together and repeat wise saws and exchange knowing nods and\nmost prophetic winks.  The stupidly wise sit owl-like on the dead limbs\nof the tree of knowledge, and solemnly, hoot.  Wealth sneers, and\nfashion laughs, and respectability passes on the other side, and scorn\npoints with all her skinny fingers, and, like the snakes of\nsuperstition, writhe and hiss, and slander lends her tongue, and infamy\nher brand, perjury her oath, and the law its power; and bigotry\ntortures and the church kills.\n\nThe church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason that a robber\ndislikes a sheriff, or that a thief despises the prosecuting witness.\nTyranny likes courtiers, flatterers, followers, fawners, and\nsuperstition wants believers, disciples, zealots, hypocrites, and\nsubscribers.  The church demands worship, the very thing that man\nshould give to no being, human or divine.  To worship another is to\ndegrade yourself.  Worship is awe, and dread, and vague fear, and blind\nhope. It is the spirit of worship that elevates the one and degrades\nthe many; and manacles even its own hands.  The spirit of worship is\nthe spirit of tyranny.  The worshiper always regrets that he is not the\nworshiped.  We should all remember that the intellect has no knees, and\nthat whatever the attitude of the body may be, the brave soul is always\nfound erect. Whoever worships, abdicates.  Whoever believes, at the\ncommands of power, tramples his own individuality beneath his feet, and\nvoluntarily robs himself of all that renders man superior to brute.\n\nThe despotism of faith is justified upon the ground that Christian\ncountries are the grandest and most prosperous of the world.  At one\ntime the same thing could have been truly said in India, in Egypt, in\nGreece, in Rome, and in every country that has in the history of the\nworld, swept to empire.  This argument proves too much not only, but\nthe assumption upon which it is based is utterly false.  Numberless\ncircumstances and countless conditions have produced the prosperity of\nthe Christian world.  The truth is that we have advanced in spite of\nreligious zeal, ignorance, and opposition.  The church has won no\nvictories for the rights of man.  Over every fortress of tyranny has\nwaved, and still waves, the banner of the church.  Wherever brave blood\nhas been shed the sword of the church has been wet.  On every chain has\nbeen the sign of the cross.  The alter and the throne have leaned\nagainst and supported each other.  Who can appreciate the infinite\nimpudence of one man assuming to think for others?  Who can imagine the\nimpudence of a church that threatens to inflict eternal punishment upon\nthose who honestly reject its claims and scorn its pretensions?  In the\npresence of the unknown we have all an equal right to guess.\n\nOver the vast plain called life we are all travelers, and not one\ntraveler is perfectly certain that he is going in the right direction.\nTrue it is that no other plain is so well supplied with guideboards. At\nevery turn and crossing you find them, and upon each one is written the\nexact direction and distance.  One great trouble is, however, that\nthese boards are all different, and the result is that most travelers\nare confused in proportion to the number they read.  Thousands of\npeople are around each of these signs, and each one is doing his best\nto convince the traveler that his particular board is the only one upon\nwhich the least reliance can be placed, and that if his road is taken\nthe reward for so doing will be infinite and eternal, while all the\nother roads are said to lead to hell, and all the makers of the other\nguideboards are declared to be heretics, hypocrites, and liars.\n\"Well,\" says a traveler \"you may be right in what you say, but allow me\nat least to read some of the other directions and examine a little into\ntheir claims.  I wish to rely a little upon my own judgment in a matter\nof such great importance.\"  \"No sir!\" shouts the zealot; \"that is the\nvery thing you are not allowed to do. You must go my way, without\ninvestigation or you are as good as damned already.\"  \"Well,\" says the\ntraveler, \"if that is so, I believe I had better go your way.\"  And so\nmost of them go along, taking the word of those who know as little as\nthemselves.  Now and then comes one who, in spite of all threats,\ncalmly examines the claims of all, and as calmly rejects them all.\nThese travelers take roads of their own, and are denounced by all the\nothers as infidels and atheists.\n\nIn my judgment every human being should take a road of his own. Every\nmind should be true to itself; should think, investigate and conclude\nfor itself. This is a duty alike incumbent upon pauper and prince.\nEvery soul should repel dictation and tyranny, no matter from what\nsource they come--from earth or heaven, from men or gods. Besides,\nevery traveler upon this vast plain should give to every other traveler\nhis best idea as to the road that should be taken. Each is entitled to\nthe honest opinion of all.  And there is but one way to get an honest\nopinion upon any subject whatever.  The person giving the opinion must\nbe free from fear.  The merchant must not fear to lose his custom, the\ndoctor his practice, nor the preacher his pulpit.  There can be no\nadvance without liberty. Suppression of honest inquiry is\nretrogression, and must end in intellectual night.  The tendency of\northodox religion today is towards mental slavery and barbarism.  Not\none of the orthodox ministers dare preach what he thinks if he knows\nthat a majority of his congregation think otherwise.  He knows that\nevery member of his church stands guard over his brain with a creed,\nlike a club, in his hand.  He knows that he is not expected to search\nafter the truth, but that he is employed to defend the creed.  Every\npulpit is a pillory in which stands a hired culprit, defending the\njustice of his own imprisonment.\n\nIs it desirable that all should be exactly alike in their religious\nconvictions?  Is any such thing possible?  Do we not know that there\nare no two persons alike in the whole world?  No two trees, no two\nleaves, no two anythings that are alike?  Infinite diversity is the\nlaw. Religion tries to force all minds into one mold.  Knowing that all\ncannot believe, the church endeavors to make all say that they believe.\nShe longs for the unity of hypocrisy, and detests the splendid\ndiversity of individuality and freedom.\n\nNearly all people stand in great horror of annihilation, and yet to\ngive up your individuality is to annihilate yourself.  Mental slavery\nis mental death, and every man who has given up his intellectual\nfreedom is the living coffin of his dead soul.  In this sense every\nchurch is a cemetery and every creed an epitaph.  We should all\nremember that to be like other folks is to be unlike ourselves, and\nthat nothing can be more detestable in character than servile\nimitation.  The great trouble with imitation is that we are apt to ape\nthose who are in reality far below us.  After all, the poorest bargain\nthat a human being can make is to trade off his individuality for what\nis called respectability.\n\nThere is no saying more degrading than this: \"It is better to be the\ntail of a lion than the head of a dog.\"  It is a responsibility to\nthink and act for yourself.  Most people hate responsibility; therefore\nthey join something and become the tail of some lion. They say, \"My\nparty can act for me--my church can do my thinking. It is enough for me\nto pay taxes and obey the lion to which I belong without troubling\nmyself about the right, the wrong, or the why or the wherefore of\nanything whatever.\" These people are respectable. They hate reformers,\nand dislike exceedingly to have their minds disturbed.  They regard\nconvictions as very disagreeable things to have.  They love forms, and\nenjoy, beyond everything else, telling what a splendid tail their lion\nhas, and what a troublesome dog their neighbor is.  Besides this\nnatural inclination to avoid personal responsibility is and always has\nbeen the fact that every religionist has warned men against the\npresumption and wickedness of thinking for themselves.  The reason has\nbeen denounced by all Christendom as the only unsafe guide.  The church\nhas left nothing undone to prevent, man following the logic of his\nbrain.  The plainest facts have been covered with the mantle of\nmystery.  The grossest absurdities have been declared to be\nself-evident facts.  The order of nature has been, as it were,\nreversed, in order that the hypocritical few might govern the honest\nmany.  The man who stood by the conclusion of his reason was denounced\nas a scorner and hater of God and his holy church. From the\norganization of the first church until this moment every member has\nborne the marks of collar and chain, and whip.  No man ever seriously\nattempted to reform a church without being cast out and hunted down by\nthe hounds of hypocrisy.  The highest crime against a creed is to\nchange it.  Reformation is treason.\n\nThousands of young men are being educated at this moment by the various\nchurches.  What for?  In order that they may be prepared to investigate\nthe phenomena by which we are surrounded?  No!  The object, and the\nonly object, is that they may be prepared to defend a creed.  That they\nmay learn the arguments of their respective churches and repeat them in\nthe dull ears of a thoughtless congregation.  If one after being thus\ntrained at the expense of the Methodists turns Presbyterian or Baptist,\nhe is denounced as an ungrateful wretch.  Honest investigation is\nutterly impossible within the pale of any church, for the reason that\nif you think the church is right you will not investigate, and if you\nthink it wrong, the church will investigate you.  The consequence of\nthis is that most of the theological literature is the result of\nsuppression, of fear, of tyranny, and hypocrisy.\n\nEvery orthodox writer necessarily said to himself, \"If I write that, my\nwife and children may want for bread, I will be covered with shame and\nbranded with infamy, but if I write this, I will gain position, power\nand honor.  My church rewards defenders and burns reformers.\"  Under\nthese conditions, all your Scotts, Henrys and McKnights have written;\nand weighed in these scales what are their commentaries worth?  They\nare not the ideas and decisions of honest judges, but the sophisms of\nthe paid attorneys of superstition.  Who can tell what the world has\nlost by this infamous system of suppression? How many grand thinkers\ndied with the mailed hand of superstition on their lips?  How many\nsplendid ideas have perished in the cradle of the brain, strangled in\nthe poisonous coils of that python, the church!\n\nFor thousands of years a thinker was hunted down like an escaped\nconvict.  To him, who had braved the church, every door was shut, every\nknife was open.  To shelter him from the wild storm, to give him a\ncrust of bread when dying, to put a cup of water to his cracked and\nbleeding lips; these were all crimes, not one of which the church ever\ndid forgive; and with the justice taught of God his helpless children\nwere exterminated as scorpions and vipers.\n\nWho at the present day can imagine the courage, the devotion to\nprinciple, the intellectual and moral grandeur it once required to be\nan infidel, to brave the church, her racks, her fagots, her dungeons,\nher tongues of fire--to defy and scorn her heaven and her devil and her\nGod? They were the noblest sons of earth.  They were the real saviors\nof our race, the destroyers of superstition and the creators of\nscience.  They were the real Titans who bared their grand foreheads to\nall the thunderbolts of all the gods.  The church has been, and still\nis, the great robber.  She has rifled not only the pockets but the\nbrains of the world.  She is the stone at the sepulcher of liberty; the\nupas tree in whose shade the intellect of man has withered; the gorgon\nbeneath whose gaze the human heart has turned to stone.\n\nUnder her influence even the Protestant mother expects to be in heaven,\nwhile her brave boy, who is fighting for the rights of man, shall\nwrithe in hell.  It is said that some of the Indian tribes place the\nheads of their children between pieces of bark until the form of the\nskull is permanently changed.  To us this seems a most shocking custom,\nand yet, after all, is it as bad as to put the souls of our children in\nthe straight-jacket of a creed, to so utterly deform their minds that\nthey regard the God of the bible as a being of infinite mercy, and\nreally consider it a virtue to believe a thing just because it seems\nunreasonable?  Every child in the Christian world has uttered its\nwondering protest against this outrage.  All the machinery of the\nchurch is constantly employed in thus corrupting the reason of\nchildren.  In every possible way they are robbed of their own thoughts\nand forced to accept the statements of others.  Every Sunday-school has\nfor its object the crushing out of every germ of individuality.  The\npoor children are taught that nothing can be more acceptable to God\nthan unreasoning obedience and eyeless faith, and that to believe that\nGod did an impossible act is far better than to do a good one yourself.\nThey are told that all the religions have been simply the John the\nBaptist of ours; that all the gods of antiquity have withered and\nsunken into the Jehovah of the Jews; that all the longings and\naspirations of the race are realized in the motto of the Evangelical\nAlliance, \"Liberty in non-essentials;\" that all there is, or ever was\nof religion can be found in the apostle's creed; that there is nothing\nleft to be discovered; that all the thinkers are dead, and all the\nliving should simply be believers; that we have only to repeat the\nepitaph found on the grave of wisdom; that graveyards are the best\npossible universities, and that the children must be forever beaten\nwith the bones of the fathers.\n\nIt has always seemed absurd to suppose that a God would choose for his\ncompanions during all eternity the dear souls whose highest and only\nambition is to obey.  He certainly would now and then be tempted to\nmake the same remark made by an English gentleman to his poor guest.\nThis gentleman had invited a man in humble circumstances to dine with\nhim. The man was so overcome with honor that to everything the\ngentleman said he replied, \"Yes.\"  Tired at last with the monotony of\nacquiescence, the gentleman cried out, \"For God's sake, my good man,\nsay 'No' just once, so there will be two of us.\"\n\nIs it possible that an infinite God created this world simply to be the\ndwelling-place of slaves and serfs?  Simply for the purpose of raising\northodox Christians; that he did a few miracles to astonish them; that\nall the evils of life are simply his punishments, and that he is\nfinally going to turn heaven into a kind of religious museum, filled\nwith Baptist barnacles, petrified Presbyterians, and Methodist mummies?\nI want no heaven for which I must give my reason; no happiness in\nexchange for my liberty, and no immortality that demands the surrender\nof my individuality.  Better rot in the windowless tomb to which there\nis no door but the red mouth of the pallid worm, than wear the jeweled\ncollar even of a God.\n\nReligion does not and cannot contemplate man as free.  She accepts only\nthe homage of the prostrate, and scorns the offerings of those who\nstand erect.  She cannot tolerate the liberty of thought.  The wide and\nsunny fields belong not to her domain.  The star-lit heights of genius\nand individuality are above and beyond her appreciation and power.  Her\nsubjects cringe at her feet covered with the dust of obedience.  They\nare not athletes standing posed by rich life and brave endeavor like\nthe antique statues, but shriveled deformities studying with furtive\nglance the cruel face of power.\n\nNo religionist seems capable of comprehending this plain truth. There\nis this difference between thought and action: For our actions we are\nresponsible to ourselves and to those injuriously affected; for\nthoughts there can, in the nature of things, be no responsibility to\ngods or men, here or hereafter.  And yet the Protestant has vied with\nthe Catholic in denouncing freedom of thought, and while I was taught\nto hate Catholicism with every drop of my blood, it is only justice to\nsay that in all essential particulars it is precisely the same as every\nother religion.  Luther denounced mental liberty with all the coarse\nand brutal vigor of his nature; Calvin despised from the very bottom of\nhis petrified heart anything that even looked like religious\ntoleration, and solemnly declared to advocate it was to crucify Christ\nafresh.  All the founders of all the orthodox churches have advocated\nthe same infamous tenet.  The truth is that what is called religion is\nnecessarily inconsistent with free thought.\n\nA believer is a songless bird in a cage, a freethinker is an eagle\nparting the clouds with tireless wings.\n\nAt present, owing to the inroads that have been made by liberals and\ninfidels, most of the churches pretend to be in favor of religious\nliberty.  Of these churches we will ask this question: \"How can a man\nwho conscientiously believes in religious liberty worship a God who\ndoes not?\"  They say to us: \"We will not imprison you on account of\nyour belief, but our God will.  We will not burn you because you throw\naway the sacred scriptures; but their Author will,\" \"We think it an\ninfamous crime to persecute our brethren for opinion's sake; but the\nGod whom we ignorantly worship will on that account damn his own\nchildren forever.\" Why is it that these Christians do not only detest\nthe infidels, but so cordially despise each other?  Why do they refuse\nto worship in the temples of each other?  Why do they care so little\nfor the damnation of men, and so much for the baptism of children?  Why\nwill they adorn their churches with the money of thieves, and flatter\nvice for the sake of subscription?  Why will they attempt to bribe\nscience to certify to the writings of God?  Why do they torture the\nwords of the great into an acknowledgment of the truth of Christianity?\nWhy do they stand with hat in hand before presidents, kings, emperors\nand scientists, begging like Lazarus for a few crumbs of religious\ncomfort?  Why are they so delighted to find an allusion to providence\nin the message of Lincoln? Why are they so afraid that some one will\nfind out that Paley wrote an essay in favor of the Epicurean\nphilosophy, and that Sir Isaac Newton was once an infidel? Why are they\nso anxious to show that Voltaire recanted, that Paine died palsied with\nfear; that the Emperor Julian cried out, \"Galilean, thou hast\nconquered;\"  that Gibbon died a Catholic; that Agassiz had a little\nconfidence in Moses; that the old Napoleon was once complimentary\nenough to say that he thought Christ greater than himself or Caesar;\nthat Washington was caught on his knees at Valley Forge; that blunt old\nEthan Allen told his child to believe the religion of her mother; that\nFranklin said, \"Don't unchain the tiger;\"  that Volney got frightened\nin a storm at sea, and that Oakes Ames was a wholesale liar?\n\nIs it because the foundation of their temple is crumbling, because the\nwalls are cracked, the pillars leaning, the great dome swaying to its\nfall, and because science has written over the high altar its mene,\nmene, tekel, upharsin, the old words destined to be the epitaph of all\nreligions?\n\nEvery assertion of individual independence has been a step towards\ninfidelity. Luther started toward Humboldt, Wesley toward Bradlaugh. To\nreally reform the church is to destroy it.  Every new religion has a\nlittle less superstition than the old, so that the religion of science\nis but a question of time.  I will not say the church has been an\nunmitigated evil in all respects.  Its history is infamous and\nglorious. It has delighted in the production of extremes.  It has\nfurnished murderers for its own martyrs.  It has sometimes fed the\nbody, but has always starved the soul.  It has been a charitable\nhighwayman, a generous pirate.  It has produced some angels and a\nmultitude of devils. It has built more prisons than asylums.  It made a\nhundred orphans while it cared for one. In one hand it carried the\nalms-dish, and in the other a sword. It has founded schools and endowed\nuniversities for the purpose of destroying true learning.  It filled\nthe world with hypocrites and zealots, and upon the cross of its own\nChrist it crucified the individuality of man.  It has sought to destroy\nthe independence of the soul, and put the world upon its knees.  This\nis its crime. The commission of this crime was necessary to its\nexistence.  In order to compel obedience it declared that it had the\ntruth and all the truth; that God had made it the keeper of all his\nsecrets; his agent and his vice-agent.  It declared that all other\nreligions were false and infamous.  It rendered all compromises\nimpossible, and all thought superfluous.  Thought was an enemy,\nobedience was its friend. Investigation was fraught with danger;\ntherefore investigation was suppressed.  The holy of holies was behind\nthe curtain.  All this was upon the principle that forgers hate to have\nthe signature examined by an expert, and that imposture detests\ncuriosity.\n\n\"He that hath ears to hear let him hear,\" has always been one of the\nfavorite texts of the church.\n\nIn short, Christianity has always opposed every forward movement of the\nhuman race.  Across the highway of progress it has always been building\nbreastworks of bibles, tracts, commentaries, prayerbooks, creeds,\ndogmas and platforms, and at every advance the Christians have gathered\nbehind these heaps of rubbish and shot the poisoned arrows of malice at\nthe soldiers of freedom.\n\nAnd even the liberal Christian of today has his holy of holies, and in\nthe niche of the temple of his heart has his idol.  He still clings to\na part of the old superstition, and all the pleasant memories of the\nold belief linger in the horizon of his thoughts like a sunset.  We\nassociate the memory of those we love with the religion of our\nchildhood.  It seems almost a sacrilege to rudely destroy the idols\nthat our fathers worshiped, and turn their sacred and beautiful truths\ninto the silly fables of barbarism.  Some throw away the old testament\nand cling to the new, while others give up everything except the idea\nthat there is a personal God, and that in some wonderful way we are the\nobjects of His care.\n\nEven this, in my opinion, as science, the great iconoclast, marches\nonward, will have to be abandoned with the rest.  The great ghost will\nsurely share the fate of the little ones.  They fled at the first\nappearance of the dawn, and the other will vanish with the perfect day.\nUntil then, the independence of man is little more than a dream.\nOvershadowed by an immense personality--in the presence of the\nirresponsible and the infinite, the individuality of man is lost, and\nhe falls prostrate in the very dust of fear. Beneath the frown of the\nabsolute, man stands a wretched, trembling slave--beneath his smile be\nis at best only a fortunate serf. Governed by a being whose arbitrary\nwill is law, chained to the chariot of power, his destiny rests in the\npleasure of the unknown. Under these circumstances what wretched object\ncan he have in lengthening out his aimless life?\n\nAnd yet, in most minds, there is a vague fear of what the gods may do,\nand the safe side is considered the best side.\n\nA gentleman walking among the ruins of Athens came upon a fallen statue\nof Jupiter.  Making an exceedingly low bow, he said: \"Jupiter, I salute\nthee.\"  He then added: \"Should you ever get up in the world again, do\nnot forget, I pray you, that I treated you politely while you were\nprostrate.\"\n\nWe have all been taught by the church that nothing is so well\ncalculated to excite the ire of Deity as to express a doubt as to His\nexistence, and that to deny it is an unpardonable sin.  Numerous\nwell-attested instances were referred to, of atheists being struck dead\nfor denying the existence of God.  According to these religious people,\nGod is infinitely above us in every respect, infinitely merciful, and\nyet He cannot bear to hear a poor finite man honestly question His\nexistence. Knowing as He does that His children are groping in darkness\nand struggling with doubt and fear; knowing that He could enlighten\nthem if He would, He still holds the expression of a sincere doubt as\nto His existence the most infamous of crimes.\n\nAccording to the orthodox logic, God having furnished us with imperfect\nminds has a right to demand a perfect result.  Suppose Mr. Smith should\noverhear a couple of small bugs holding a discussion as to the\nexistence of Mr. Smith, and suppose one should have the temerity to\ndeclare upon the honor of a bug that he had examined the whole question\nto the best of his ability, including the argument based upon design,\nand had come to the conclusion that no man by the name of Smith had\never lived. Think then of Mr. Smith flying into an ecstasy of rage,\ncrushing the atheist bug beneath his iron heel, while he exclaimed, \"I\nwill teach you, blasphemous wretch, that Smith is a diabolical fact!\"\nWhat then can we think of God who would open the artillery of heaven\nupon one of his own children for simply expressing his honest thought?\nAnd what man, who really thinks, can help repeating the words of\nAeneas, \"If there are gods they certainly pay no attention to the\naffairs of man.\"\n\nIn religious ideas and conceptions there has been for ages a slow and\nsteady development.  At the bottom of the ladder (speaking of modern\ntimes) is Catholicism, and at the top are atheism and science. The\nintermediate rounds of this ladder are occupied by the various sects,\nwhose name is legion.\n\nBut whatever may be the truth on any subject has nothing to do with our\nright to investigate that subject, and express any opinion we may form.\nAll that I ask is the right I freely accord to all others.\n\nA few years ago a Methodist clergyman took it upon himself to give me a\npiece of friendly advice.  \"Although you may disbelieve the bible,\"\nsaid he, \"you ought not to say so.  That you should keep to yourself.\"\n\"Do you believe the bible?\" said I.  He replied,  \"Most assuredly.\" To\nwhich I retorted, \"Your answer conveys no information to me.  You may\nbe following your own advice.  You told me to suppress my opinions. Of\ncourse a man who will advise others to dissimulate will not always be\nparticular about telling the truth himself.\"\n\nIt is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality.\n\"This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the\nnight the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.\"  It is a\nmagnificent thing to be the sole proprietor of yourself.  It is a\nterrible thing to wake up at night and say: \"There is nobody in this\nbed!\"  It is humiliating to know that your ideas are all borrowed, and\nthat you are indebted to your memory for your principles, that your\nreligion is simply one of your habits, and that you would have\nconvictions if they were only contagious.  It is mortifying to feel\nthat you belong to a mental mob and cry \"crucify him\" because the\nothers do. That you reap what the great and brave have sown, and that\nyou can benefit the world only by leaving it.\n\nSurely every human being ought to attain to the dignity of the unit.\nSurely it is worth something to be one and to feel that the census of\nthe universe would not be complete without counting you.\n\nSurely there is grandeur in knowing that in the realm of thought, at\nleast, you are without a chain; that you have the right to explore all\nheights and all depths; that there are no walls, fences, prohibited\nplaces, nor sacred corners in all the vast expanse of thought; that\nyour intellect owes no allegiance to any being, human or divine; that\nyou hold all in fee and upon no condition and by no tenure whatever;\nthat in the world of mind you are relieved from all personal dictation,\nand from the ignorant tyranny of majorities.\n\nSurely it is worth something to feel that there are no priests, no\npopes, no parties, no governments, no kings, no gods to whom your\nintellect can be compelled to pay a reluctant homage.\n\nSurely it is a joy to know that all the cruel ingenuity of bigotry can\ndevise no prison, no lock, no cell, in which for one instant to confine\na thought; that ideas cannot be dislocated by racks, nor crushed in\niron boots, nor burned with fire.\n\nSurely it is sublime to think that the brain is a castle, and that\nwithin its curious bastions and winding halls the soul, in spite of all\nworlds and all beings, is the supreme sovereign of itself.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON HUMBOLDT\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: Great minds seem to be a part of the infinite.\nThose possessing them seem to be brothers of the mountains and the seas.\n\nHumboldt was one of these.  He was one of the few great enough to rise\nabove the superstition and prejudice of his time, and to know that\nexperience, observation and reason are the only basis of knowledge.\n\nHe became one of the greatest of men in spite of having been born rich\nand noble--in spite of position.  I say in spite of these things,\nbecause wealth and position are generally the enemies of genius, and\nthe destroyers of talent.\n\nIt is often said of this or that man that he is a self-made man--that\nhe was born of the poorest and humblest parents, and that with every\nobstacle to overcome he became great.  This is a mistake. Poverty is\ngenerally an advantage.  Most of the intellectual giants of the world\nhave been nursed at the sad but loving breast of poverty.  Most of\nthose who have climbed highest on the shining ladder of fame commenced\nat the lowest round.  They were reared in the straw-thatched cottages\nof Europe, in the log-houses of America, in the factories of the great\ncities, in the midst of toil, in the smoke and din of labor, and on the\nverge of want. They were rocked by the feet of mothers whose hands, at\nthe same time, were busy with the needle or the wheel.\n\nIt is hard for the rich to resist the thousand allurements of pleasure,\nand so I say that Humboldt, in spite of having been born to wealth and\nhigh social position, became truly and grandly great.\n\nIn the antiquated and romantic castle of Tegel, by the side of the pine\nforest, on the shore of the charming lake, near the beautiful city of\nBerlin, the great Humboldt, one hundred years ago to-day, was born, and\nthere he was educated after the method suggested by Rousseau--Campe,\nthe philologist and critic, and the intellectual Kunth being his\ntutors. There he received the impressions that determined his career;\nthere the great idea that the universe is governed by law took\npossession of his mind, and there he dedicated his life to the\ndemonstration of this sublime truth.\n\nHe came to the conclusion that the source of man's unhappiness is his\nignorance of nature.\n\nHe longed to give a physical description of the universe--a grand\npicture of nature; to account for all phenomena; to discover the laws\ngoverning the world; to do away with that splendid delusion called\nspecial-providence, and to establish the fact that the universe is\ngoverned by law.\n\nTo establish this truth was, and is, of infinite importance to mankind.\nThat fact is the death-knell of superstition; it gives liberty to every\nsoul, annihilates fear, and ushers in the Age of Reason.\n\nThe object of this illustrious man was to comprehend the phenomena of\nphysical objects in their general connection, and to represent nature\nas one great whole, moved and animated by internal forces.\n\nFor this purpose he turned his attention to descriptive botany,\ntraversing distant lands and mountain ranges to ascertain with\ncertainty the geographical distribution of plants.  He investigated the\nlaws regulating the differences of temperature and climate, and the\nchanges of the atmosphere.  He studied the formation of the earth's\ncrust, explored the deepest mines, ascended the highest mountains, and\nwandered through the craters of extinct volcanoes.\n\nHe became thoroughly acquainted with chemistry, with astronomy, with\nterrestrial magnetism; and as the investigation of one subject leads to\nall others, for the reason that there is a mutual dependence and a\nnecessary connection between all facts, so Humboldt became acquainted\nwith all the known sciences.\n\nHis fame does not depend so much upon his discoveries (although he\ndiscovered enough to make hundreds of reputations) as upon his vast and\nsplendid generalizations.\n\nHe was to science what Shakespeare was to the drama.\n\nHe found, so to speak, the world full of unconnected facts, all\nportions of a vast system--parts of a great machine; he discovered the\nconnection that each bears to all, put them together, and demonstrated\nbeyond all contradiction that the earth is governed by law.\n\nHe knew that to discover the connection of phenomena is the primary aim\nof all natural investigation.  He was infinitely practical.\n\nOrigin and destiny were questions with which he had nothing to do.\n\nHis surroundings made him what he was.\n\nIn accordance with a law not fully comprehended, he was a production of\nhis time.\n\nGreat men do not live alone; they are surrounded by the great; they are\nthe instruments used to accomplish the tendencies of their generation;\nthey fulfill the prophecies of their age.\n\nNearly all of the scientific men of the eighteenth century had the same\nidea entertained by Humboldt, but most of them in a dim and confused\nway.  There was, however, a general belief among the intelligent that\nthe world is governed by law, and that there really exists a connection\nbetween all facts, or that all facts are simply the different aspects\nof a general fact, and that the task of science is to discover this\nconnection; to comprehend this general fact or to announce the laws of\nthings.\n\nGermany was full of thought, and her universities swarmed with\nphilosophers and grand thinkers in every department of knowledge.\n\nHumboldt was the friend and companion of the greatest poets,\nhistorians, philologists, artists, statesmen, critics and logicians of\nhis time.\n\nHe was the companion of Schiller, who believed that man would be\nregenerated through the influence of the beautiful; of Goethe, the\ngrand patriarch of German literature; of Wieland, who has been called\nthe Voltaire of Germany; of Herder, who wrote the outlines of a\nphilosophical history of man; of Kotzebue, who lived in the world of\nromance; of Schleiermacher, the pantheist; of Schlegel, who gave to his\ncountry the enchanted realm of Shakespeare--of the sublime Kant, author\nof the first work published in Germany on Pure Reason; of Fichte, the\ninfinite idealist; of Schopenhauer, the European Buddhist who followed\nthe great Gautama to the painless and dreamless Nirvana, and of\nhundreds of others whose names are familiar to and honored by the\nscientific world.\n\nThe German mind had been grandly roused from the long lethargy of the\ndark ages of ignorance, fear and faith.  Guided by the holy light of\nreason, every department of knowledge was investigated, enriched and\nillustrated.\n\nHumboldt breathed the atmosphere of investigation; old ideas were\nabandoned; old creeds, hallowed by centuries, were thrown aside;\nthought became courageous; the athlete, Reason, challenged to mortal\ncombat the monsters of superstition.\n\nNo wonder that under these influences Humboldt formed the great purpose\nof presenting to the world a picture of nature, in order that men\nmight, for the first time, behold the face of their Mother.\n\nEurope becoming too small for his genius, he visited the tropics in the\nnew world, where, in the most circumscribed limits, he could find the\ngreatest number of plants, of animals, and the greatest diversity of\nclimate, that he might ascertain the laws governing the production and\ndistribution of plants, animals and men, and the effects of climate\nupon them all.  He sailed along the gigantic Amazon--the mysterious\nOrinoco--traversed the Pampas--climbed the Andes until he stood upon\nthe crags of Chimborazo, more than eighteen thousand feet above the\nlevel of the sea, and climbed on until blood flowed from his eyes and\nlips.  For nearly five years he pursued his investigations in the new\nworld, accompanied by the intrepid Bonpland. Nothing escaped his\nattention.  He was the best intellectual organ of these new revelations\nof science.  He was calm, reflective and eloquent; filled with a sense\nof the beautiful, and the love of truth.  His collections were immense,\nand valuable beyond calculation to every science.  He endured\ninnumerable hardships, braved countless dangers in unknown and savage\nlands, and exhausted his fortune for the advancement of true learning.\n\nUpon his return to Europe he was hailed as the second Columbus; as the\nscientific discoverer of America; as the revealer of a new world; as\nthe great demonstrator of the sublime truth that universe is governed\nby law.\n\nI have seen a picture of the old man, sitting upon a mountain\nside--above him the eternal snow; below, smiling valley of the tropics,\nfilled with vine and palm.  His chin upon his breast, his eyes deep,\nthoughtful and calm, his forehead majestic--grander than the mountain\nupon which he sat.  \"Crowned with the snow of his whitened hair,\" he\nlooked the intellectual autocrat of this world.\n\nNot satisfied with his discoveries in America, he crossed the steppes\nof Asia, the wastes of Siberia, the great Ural range, adding to the\nknowledge of mankind at every step.  His energy acknowledged no\nobstacle, his life knew no leisure; every day was filled with labor and\nwith thought.  He was one of the apostles of science, and he served his\ndivine master with a self-sacrificing zeal that knew no abatement--with\nan ardor that constantly increased, and with a devotion unwavering and\nconstant as the polar star.\n\nIn order that the people at large might have the benefit of his\nnumerous discoveries, and his vast knowledge, he delivered at Berlin a\ncourse of lectures, consisting of sixty-one free addresses, upon the\nfollowing subjects:\n\nFive upon the nature and limits of physical geography.\n\nThree were devoted to a history of science.\n\nTwo to inducements to a study of natural science.\n\nSixteen on the heavens.\n\nFive on the form, density, latent heat, and magnetic power of the\nearth, and to the polar light.\n\nFour were on the nature of the crust of the earth, on hot springs,\nearthquakes and volcanoes.\n\nTwo on mountains, and the type of their formation.\n\nTwo on the form of the earth's surface, on the connection of\ncontinents, and the elevation of soil over ravines.\n\nThree on the sea as a globular fluid surrounding the earth.\n\nTen on the atmosphere--as an elastic fluid surrounding the earth, and\non the distribution of heat.\n\nOne on the geographic distribution of organized matter in general,\n\nThree on the geography of plants.\n\nThree on the geography of animals; and\n\nTwo on the races of men.\n\nThese lectures are what is known as the Cosmos, and present a\nscientific picture of the world--of infinite diversity in unity; of\nceaseless motion in the eternal grasp of law.\n\nThese lectures contain the result of his investigation, observation and\nexperience; they furnish the connection between phenomena; they\ndisclose some of the changes through which the earth has passed in the\ncountless ages; the history of vegetation, animals and men; the effects\nof climate upon individuals and nations; the relation we sustain to\nother worlds, and demonstrate that all phenomena, whether insignificant\nor grand, exist in accordance with inexorable law.\n\nThere are some truths, however, that we never should forget:\nSuperstition has always been the relentless enemy of science; faith has\nbeen a hater of demonstration; hypocrisy has been sincere only in its\ndread of truth, and all religions are inconsistent with mental freedom.\n\nSince the murder of Hypatia in the fifth century, when the polished\nblade of Greek philosophy was broken by the club of ignorant\nCatholicism, until today, superstition has detested every effort of\nreason.\n\nIt is almost impossible to conceive of the completeness of the victory\nthat the church achieved over philosophy.  For ages science was utterly\nignored; thought was a poor slave; an ignorant priest was master of the\nworld; faith put out the eyes of the soul; the reason was a trembling\ncoward; the imagination was set on fire of hell; every human feeling\nwas sought to be suppressed; love was considered infinitely sinful;\npleasure was the road to eternal fire, and God was supposed to be happy\nonly when his children were miserable.  The world was governed by an\nAlmighty's whim; prayers could change the order of things, halt the\ngrand procession of nature; could produce rain, avert pestilence,\nfamine, and death in all its forms.  There was no idea of the certain;\nall depended upon divine pleasure--or displeasure, rather; heaven was\nfull of inconsistent malevolence, and earth of ignorance.  Everything\nwas done to appease the divine wrath; every public calamity was caused\nby the sins of the people; by a failure to pay tithes, or for having,\neven in secret, felt a disrespect for a priest.  To the poor multitude\nthe earth was a kind of enchanted forest, full of demons ready to\ndevour, and theological serpents lurking, with infinite power, to\nfascinate and torture the unhappy and impotent soul.  Life to them was\na dim and mysterious labyrinth, in which they wandered weary, and lost,\nguided by priests as bewildered as themselves, without knowing that at\nevery step the Ariadne of reason offered them the long lost clue.\n\nThe very heavens were full of death; the lightning was regarded as the\nglittering vengeance of God, and the earth was thick with snares for\nthe unwary feet of man.  The soul was supposed to be crowded with the\nwild beasts of desire; the heart to be totally corrupt, prompting only\nto crime; virtues were regarded as deadly sins in disguise; there was a\ncontinual warfare being waged between the Deity and the devil for the\npossession of every soul, the latter generally being considered\nvictorious.  The flood, the tornado, the volcano, were all evidences of\nthe displeasure of heaven and the sinfulness of man.  The blight that\nwithered, the frost that blackened, the earthquake that devoured, were\nthe messengers of the creator.\n\nThe world was governed by fear.\n\nAgainst all the evils of nature there was known only the defense of\nprayer, of fasting, of credulity, and devotion.  Man, in his\nhelplessness, endeavored to soften the heart of God.  The faces of the\nmultitude were blanched with fear, and wet with tears; they were the\nprey of hypocrites, kings and priests.\n\nMy heart bleeds when I contemplate the sufferings endured by the\nmillions now dead; of those who lived when the world appeared to be\ninsane; when the heavens were filled with an infinite HORROR, who\nsnatched babes, with dimpled hands and rosy cheeks, from the white\nbreasts of mothers and dashed them into an abyss of eternal flame.\n\nSlowly, beautifully, like the coming of the dawn, came the grand truth\nthat the universe is governed by law--that disease fastens itself upon\nthe good and upon the bad; that the tornado cannot be stopped by\ncounting beads; that the rushing lava pauses not for bended knees, the\nlightning for clasped and uplifted hands, nor the cruel waves of the\nsea for prayer; that paying tithes causes rather than prevents famine;\nthat pleasure is not sin; that happiness is the only good; that demons\nand gods exist only in the imagination; that faith is a lullaby, sung\nto put the soul to sleep; that devotion is a bribe that fear offers to\nsupposed power; that offering rewards in another world for obedience in\nthis, is simply buying a soul on credit; that knowledge consists in\nascertaining the laws of nature, and that wisdom is the science of\nhappiness.  Slowly, grandly, beautifully, these truths are dawning upon\nmankind.\n\nFrom Copernicus we learned that this earth is only a grain of sand on\nthe infinite shore of the universe; that everywhere we are surrounded\nby shining worlds vastly greater than our own, all moving and existing\nin accordance with law.  True, the earth began to grow small, but man\nbegan to grow great.\n\nThe moment the fact was established that other worlds are governed by\nlaw, it was only natural to conclude that our little world was also\nunder its dominion.  The old theological method of accounting for\nphysical phenomena by the pleasure and displeasure of the Deity was, by\nthe intellectual, abandoned.  They found: that disease, death, life,\nthought, heat, cold, the seasons, the winds, the dreams of man, the\ninstinct of animals--in short, that all physical and mental phenomena\nare governed by law, absolute, eternal and inexorable.\n\nLet it be understood by the term Law is meant the same invariable\nrelations of succession and resemblance predicated of all facts\nspringing from like conditions.  Law is a fact--not a cause.  It is a\nfact that like conditions produce like results; this fact is LAW.  When\nwe say that the universe is governed by law, we mean that this fact,\ncalled law, is incapable of change; that it is, has been, and forever\nwill be, the same inexorable,  immutable FACT, inseparable from all\nphenomena.  Law, in this sense, was not enacted or made.  It could not\nhave been otherwise than as it is.  That which necessarily exists has\nno creator.\n\nOnly a few years ago this earth was considered the real center of the\nuniverse; all the stars were supposed to revolve around this\ninsignificant atom.  The German mind, more than any other, has done\naway with this piece of egotism.  Purbach and Mullerus, in the\nfifteenth century, contributed most to the advancement of astronomy in\ntheir day. To the latter the world is indebted for the introduction of\ndecimal fractions, which completed our arithmetical notation, and\nformed the second of the three steps by which, in modern times, the\nscience of numbers has been so greatly improved; and yet both of these\nmen believed in the most childish absurdities--at least in enough of\nthem to die without their orthodoxy having ever been questioned.\n\nNext came the great Copernicus, and he stands at the head of the heroic\nthinkers of his time, who had the courage and the mental strength to\nbreak the chains of prejudice, custom and authority, and to establish\ntruth on the basis of experience, observation and reason.  He removed\nthe earth, so to speak, from the center of the universe, and ascribed\nto it a twofold motion, and demonstrated the true position which it\noccupies in the solar system.\n\nAt his bidding the earth began to revolve.  At the command of his\ngenius it commenced its grand flight amid the eternal constellations\naround the sun.  For fifty years his discoveries were disregarded. All\nat once, by the exertions of Galileo, they were kindled into so grand a\nconflagration as to consume the philosophy of Aristotle, to alarm the\nhierarchy of Rome, and to threaten the existence of every opinion not\nfounded upon experience, observation and reason.\n\nThe earth was no longer considered a universe governed by the caprices\nof some revengeful Deity, who had made the stars out of what he had\nleft after completing the world, and had stuck them in the sky simply\nto adorn the night.\n\nI have said this much concerning astronomy because it was the first\nsplendid step forward!  The first sublime blow that shattered the lance\nand shivered the shield of superstition; the first real help that man\nreceived from heaven.  Because it was the first great lever placed\nbeneath the altar of a false religion; the first revelation of the\ninfinite to man, the first authoritative declaration that the universe\nis governed by law; the first science that gave the lie direct to the\ncosmogony of barbarism; and because it is the sublimest victory that\nreason has achieved.\n\nIn speaking of astronomy I have confined myself to the discoveries made\nsince the revival of learning.  Long ago, on the banks of the Ganges,\nages before Copernicus lived, Aryabhatta taught that the earth is a\nsphere and revolves on its own axis.  This, however, does not detract\nfrom the glory of the great German.  The discovery of the Hindoo had\nbeen lost in the midnight of Europe--in the age of faith--and\nCopernicus was as much a discoverer as though Aryabhatta had never\nlived.\n\nIn this short address there is no time to speak of other sciences, and\nto point out the particular evidence furnished by each to establish the\ndominion of law, nor to more than mention the name of Descartes, the\nfirst who undertook to give an explanation of the celestial motions, or\nwho formed the vast and philosophic conception of reducing all the\nphenomena of the universe to the same law; of Montaigne, one of the\nheroes of common sense; of Galvani, whose experiments gave the\ntelegraph to the world; of Voltaire, who contributed more than any\nother of the sons of men to the destruction of religious intolerance;\nof August Comte, whose genius erected to itself a monument that still\ntouches the stars; of Guttenberg, Watt, Stephenson, Arkwright, all\nsoldiers of science in the grand army of the dead kings.\n\nThe glory of science is that it is freeing the soul-breaking the mental\nmanacles--getting the brain out of bondage--giving courage to\nthought--filling the world with mercy, justice and joy.\n\nScience found agriculture plowing with a stick--reaping with a\nsickle--commerce at the mercy of the treacherous waves and the\ninconstant winds--a world without books--without schools--man denying\nthe authority of reason, employing his ingenuity in the manufacture of\ninstruments of torture--in building inquisitions and cathedrals.  It\nfound the land filled with malicious monks--with persecuting\nProtestants, and the burners of men.  It found a world full of fear,\nignorance upon its knees; credulity the greatest virtue; women treated\nlike beasts, of burden; cruelty the only means of reformation.  It\nfound the world at the mercy of disease and famine; men trying to read\ntheir fates in the stars, and to tell their fortunes by signs and\nwonders; generals thinking to conquer their enemies by making the sign\nof the cross, or by telling a rosary.  It found all history full of\npetty and ridiculous falsehood, and the Almighty was supposed to spend\nmost of his time turning sticks into snakes, drowning boys for swimming\non Sunday, and killing little children for the purpose of converting\ntheir parents.  It found the earth filled with slaves and tyrants, the\npeople in all countries downtrodden, half naked, half starved, without\nhope, and without reason in the world.\n\nSuch was the condition of man when the morning of science dawned upon\nhis brain, and before he had heard the sublime declaration that the\nuniverse is governed by law.\n\nFor the change that has taken place we are indebted solely to\nscience--the only lever capable of raising mankind.  Abject faith is\nbarbarism; reason is civilization.  To obey is slavish; to act from a\nsense of obligation perceived by the reason is noble. Ignorance\nworships mystery; reason explains it--the one grovels, the other soars.\n\nNo wonder that fable is the enemy of knowledge.  A man with a false\ndiamond shuns the society of lapidaries, and it is upon this principle\nthat superstition abhors science.\n\nIn all ages the people have honored those who dishonored them. The have\nworshiped their destroyers--they have canonized the most gigantic\nliars, and buried the great thieves in marble and gold. Under the\nloftiest monuments sleeps the dust of murder.\n\nImposture has always worn a crown.\n\nThe world is beginning to change because the people are beginning to\nthink.  To think is to advance.  Everywhere the great minds are\ninvestigating the creeds and the superstitions of men--the phenomena of\nnature, and the laws of things.  At the head of this great army of\ninvestigators stood Humboldt--the serene leader of an intellectual\nhost--a king by the suffrage of science, and the divine right of genius.\n\nAnd today we are not honoring some butcher called a soldier--some wily\npolitician called a statesman--some robber called a king--nor some\nmalicious metaphysician called a saint.  We are honoring the grand\nHumboldt, whose victories were all achieved in the arena of thought;\nwho destroyed prejudice, ignorance and error--not men: who shed\nlight--not blood, and who contributed to the knowledge, the wealth and\nthe happiness of all mankind.\n\nHis life was pure, his aims lofty, his learning varied and profound,\nand his achievements vast.\n\nWe honor him because he has ennobled our race, because he has\ncontributed as much as any man living or dead to the real prosperity of\nthe world.  We honor him because he honored us--because he labored for\nothers--because he was the most learned man of the most learned\nnation--because he left a legacy of glory to every human being.  For\nthese reasons he is honored throughout the world.  Millions are doing\nhomage to his genius at this moment, and millions are pronouncing his\nname with reverence, and recounting what he accomplished.\n\nWe associate the name of Humboldt with oceans, continents mountains and\nvolcanoes--with the great plains--the wide deserts--the snow-lipped\ncraters of the Andes--with primeval forests and European capitals--with\nwildernesses and universities--with savages and savants--with the\nlonely rivers of unpeopled wastes--with peaks and pampas, and steppes,\nand cliffs and crags--with the progress of the world--with every\nscience known to man, and with every star glittering in the immensity\nof space.\n\nHumboldt adopted none of the soul-shrinking creeds of his day; wasted\nnone of his time in the stupidities, inanities and contradictions of\ntheological metaphysics; he did not endeavor to harmonize the astronomy\nand geology of a barbarous people with the science of the nineteenth\ncentury.  Never, for one moment, did he abandon the sublime standard of\ntruth; he investigated, he studied, he thought, he separated the gold\nfrom the dross in the crucible of his grand brain.  He was never found\non his knees before the altar of superstition.  He stood erect by the\ngrand, tranquil column of reason. He was an admirer, a lover, an adorer\nof nature, and at the age of ninety, bowed by the weight of nearly a\ncentury, covered with the insignia of honor, loved by a nation,\nrespected by a world, with kings for his servants, he laid his weary\nhead upon her bosom--upon the bosom of the universal mother--and with\nher loving arms around him, sank into that slumber called death.\n\nHistory added another name to the starry scroll of the immortals.\n\nThe world is his monument; upon the eternal granite of her hills he\ninscribed his name, and there, upon everlasting stone, his genius wrote\nthis, the sublimest of truths:\n\n\"THE UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY LAW!\"\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON WHICH WAY?\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: For thousands of years men have been asking the\nquestions: \"How shall we civilize the world?  How shall we protect\nlife, liberty, property and reputations?  How shall we do away with\ncrime and poverty?  How clothe, and feed, and educate, and civilize\nmankind?\"  These are the questions that are asked by thoughtful men and\nthoughtful women.  The question with them is not, \"What will we do in\nsome other world?\"  Time enough to ask that when we get there.  The\nbusiness we will attend to now is, how are, we to civilize the world?\nWhat priest shall I ask?  What sacred volume shall I search?  What\noracle can I consult?  At what shrine must I bow to find out what is to\nbe done?  Each church has a different answer; each has a different\nrecipe for the salvation of the people, but not while they are in this\nworld.  All that is to be done in this world is to get ready for the\nnext.\n\nIn the first place I am met by the theological world.  Have I the right\nto inquire?  They say, \"Certainly; it is your duty to inquire.\"  Each\nchurch has a recipe for the salvation of this world, but not while you\nare in this world--afterward.  They treat time as a kind of pier--a\nkind of wharf running out into the great ocean of eternity; and they\ntreat us all as though we were waiting there, sitting on our trunks,\nfor the gospel ship.\n\nI want to know what to do here.  Have I the right to inquire?  Yes. If\nI have the right to inquire, then I have the right to investigate. If I\nhave the right to investigate, I have the right to accept. If I have\nthe right to accept, I have the right to reject.  And what religion\nhave I the right to reject?  That which does not conform with my\nreason, with my standard of truth, with my standard of common sense.\nMillions of men have been endeavoring to govern this world by means of\nthe supernatural. Thousands and thousands of churches exist, thousands\nof cathedrals and temples have been built, millions of men have been\nengaged to preach this gospel; and what has been the result in this\nworld?  Will one church have any sympathy with another?  Does the\nreligion of one country have any respect for that of another?  Or does\nnot each religion claim to be the only one?  And does not the priest of\nevery religion, with infinite impudence, consign the disciples of all\nothers to eternal fire?\n\nWhy is it the churches have failed to civilize this world?  Why is it\nthat the Christian countries are no better than any other countries?\nWhy is it that Christian men are no better than any other men?  Why is\nit that ministers as a class are no better than doctors, or lawyers, or\nmerchants, or mechanics, or locomotive engineers?  And a locomotive\nengineer is a thousand times more useful.  Give me a good engineer and\na bad preacher to go through this world with rather than a bad engineer\nand a good preacher; and there is this curious fact about the believers\nin the supernatural: The priests of one church have no confidence in\nthe miracles and wonders told by the priests of the other churches.\nMaybe they know each other.  A Christian missionary will tell the\nHindoo of the miracles of the bible; the Hindoo smiles.  The Hindoo\ntells the Christian missionary of the miracles of his sacred books; and\nthe missionary looks upon him with pity and contempt.  No priest takes\nthe word of another.\n\nI heard once a little story that illustrates this point: A gentleman in\na little party was telling of a most wonderful occurrence, and when he\nhad finished everybody said: \"Is it possible?  Why, did you ever hear\nanything like that?\"  All united in a kind of wondering chorus except\none man.  He said nothing.  He was perfectly still and unmoved; and one\nwho had been greatly astonished by the story said to him: \"Did you hear\nthat story?\"  \"Yes.\"  \"Well, you don't appear to be excited.\"  \"Well\nno,\" he said; \"I am a liar myself.\"\n\nThere is another trouble with the supernatural.  It has no honesty; it\nis consumed by egotism; it does not think--it knows; consequently it\nhas no patience with the honest doubter.  And how has the church\ntreated the honest doubter?  He has been answered by force, by\nauthority, by popes, by cardinals and bishops, and councils, and, above\nall, by mobs. In that way the honest doubter has been answered.  There\nis this difference between the minister, the church, the clergy, and\nthe men who believe in this world.  I might as well state the\nquestion--I may go further than you.  The real question is this: Are we\nto be governed by a supernatural being, or are we to govern ourselves?\nThat is the question.  Is God the source of power, or does all\nauthority spring, in governing, from the consent of the governed?  That\nis the question.  In other words, is the universe a monarchy, a\ndespotism, or a democracy?  I take the democratic side, not in a\npolitical sense.  The question is, whether this world should be\ngoverned by God or by man; and when I say \"God\" I mean the being that\nthese gentlemen have treated and enthroned upon the ignorance of\nmankind.\n\nNow let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true. Let\nus admit, for the sake of argument, that God once governed this\nworld--not that He did, but let us admit it, and I intend to speak of\nno god but our God, because we all insist that of all the gods ours is\nthe best, and if He is not good we need not trouble ourselves about the\nothers.  Let them take care of themselves.\n\nNow, the first question is, whether this world shall be governed by God\nor man.  Admitting that the being spoken of in the bible is God, He\ngoverned this world once.  There was a theocracy at the start.  That\nwas the first government of the world.  Now, how do you judge of a man?\nThe best test of a man is, how does he use power?  That is the supreme\ntest of manhood.  How does he treat those within his control?  The\ngreater the man, the grander the man, the more careful he is in the use\nof power--the tenderer he is, the nearer just, the greater, the more\nmerciful, the grander, the more charitable.  Tell me how a man treats\nhis wife or his children, his poor debtors, his servants, and I will\ntell you what manner of a man he be.  That, I say, is the supreme test,\nand we know tonight how a good and great man treats his inferiors.  We\nknow that.  And a man endeavoring to raise his fellow-men higher in the\nscale of civilization--what will that man appeal to?  Will he appeal to\nthe lowest or to the highest that is in man?  Let us be honest.  Will\nhe appeal to prejudice--the fortress, the armor, the sword and shield\nof ignorance? Will he appeal to credulity--the ring in the nose by\nwhich priests lead stupidity?  Will he appeal to the cowardly man?\nWill he play upon his fears--fear, the capital stock of imposture, the\nlever and fulcrum of hypocrisy?  Will he appeal to the selfishness and\nall the slimy serpents that crawl in the den of savagery?  Or will he\nappeal to reason, the torch of the mind?  Will he appeal to justice?\nWill he appeal to charity, which is justice in blossom?  Will he appeal\nto liberty and love? These are the questions.  What will he do?  What\ndid our God do? Let us see.  The first thing we know of Him is in the\nGarden of Eden. How did He endeavor to make His children great, and\nstrong, and good, and free?  Did He say anything to Adam and Eve about\nthe sacred relation of marriage?  Did He say anything to them about\nloving children?  Did He say anything to them about learning anything\nunder heaven?  Did He say one word about intellectual liberty?  Did he\nsay one word about reason or about justice?  Did He make the slightest\neffort to improve them?  All that He did in the world was to give them\none poor little miserable, barren command,  \"Thou shalt not eat of a\ncertain fruit.\"  That's all that amounted to anything; and, when they\nsinned, did this great God take them in the arms of His love and\nendeavor to reform them?  No; He simply put upon them a curse.  When\nthey were expelled He said to the woman: \"I will greatly multiply thy\nsorrow.  In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children.  Thy husband shall\nrule over thee.\"  God made every mother a criminal, and placed a\nperpetual penalty of pain upon human love. Our God made wives\nslaves--slaves of their husbands.  Our God corrupted the marriage\nrelation and paralyzed the firesides of this world.  That is what our\nGod did.  And what did He say to poor Adam? \"Cursed be the ground for\nthy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;\nthorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat\nthe herb of the field, and in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat\nbread.\"  Did He say one word calculated to make him a better man?  Did\nHe put in the horizon of the future one star of hope?  Let us be\nhonest, and see what this God did, and we will judge of Him simply by\nordinary common sense.\n\nAfter a while Cain murdered his brother, and he was detected by this\nGod.  And what did this God say to him?  Did He say one word of the\ncrime of shedding human blood?  Not a word.  Did He say one word\ncalculated to excite in the breast of Cain the slightest real sorrow\nfor his deed?  Not the slightest.  Did He tell him anything about where\nAbel was?  Nothing.  Did He endeavor to make him a better man?  Not a\nbit. What had He ever taught him before on that subject?  Nothing.  And\nso Cain went out to the other sons and daughters of Adam, according to\nthe bible, and they multiplied and increased until they covered the\nearth. God gave them no code of laws.  God never built them a\nschoolhouse.  God never sent a teacher. God never said a word to them\nabout a future state.  God never held up before their gaze that\ndazzling reward of heaven; never spoke about the lurid gulfs of hell;\nkept divine punishment a perfect secret, and without having given them\nthe slightest opportunity, simply drowned the world.  Splendid\nadministration! Cleveland will do better than that.  And, after the\nwaters had gone away, then He gave them some commandments.  I suppose\nthat He saw by that time that they needed guidance.\n\nAnd here are the commandments:\n\n1. You may eat all kinds of birds, beasts and fishes.\n\n2. You must not eat blood; if you do, I will kill you.\n\n3. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.\n\nNothing more.  No good advice; not a word about government; not a word\nabout the rights of man or woman, or children; not a word about any law\nof nature; not a word about any science--nothing, not even arithmetic.\n\nNothing.  And so He let them go on, and in a little while they came to\nthe same old state; and began building the Tower of Babel; and he went\nthere and confounded, as they said, their languages.  Never said a word\nto them; never told them how foolish it was to try and reach heaven\nthat way.  And the next we find Him talking to Abraham, and with\nAbraham He makes a contract.  And how did He do it?  \"I will bless them\nthat bless thee, and curse them that curse thee.\"  Fine contract for a\nGod. And thereupon He made certain promises to Abraham--promised to\ngive him the whole world, all the nations round about, and that his\nseed should be as the sands of the sea.  Never kept one of His\npromises--not one. He made the same promises to Isaac, and broke every\none.  Then He made them all over to Jacob, and broke every one; made\nthem again to Moses, and broke them all.  Never said a word about\nanybody behaving themselves--not a word.  Finally, these people whom He\nhad taken under His special care became slaves in the land of Egypt.\nHow ashamed God must have been!  Finally He made up His mind to rescue\nthem from that servitude, and He sent Moses and Aaron.  He never said a\nword to Moses or Aaron that Pharaoh was wrong.  He never said a word to\nthem about how the women felt when their male children were taken and\ndestroyed.  He simply sent Moses before Pharaoh with a cane in his hand\nthat he could turn into a serpent; and, when Pharaoh called in\nmagicians and they did the same, Pharaoh laughed.  And then they made\nfrogs; and Pharaoh sent for his magicians, and they did the same, and\nPharaoh still laughed. And this God had infinite power, but Pharaoh\ndefeated Him at every point!\n\nIt puts me in mind of the story that great Fenian told when the great\nexcitement was about Ireland.  An Irishman was telling about the\ncondition of Ireland.  He said: \"We have got in Ireland now over\n300,000 soldiers, all equipped.  Every man of them has got a musket and\nammunition.  They are ready to march at a minute's notice.\" \"But,\" said\nthe other man, \"why don't they march?\"  \"Why,\" said the other man, \"the\npolice won't let them.\"  How admirable!  Imagine the infinite God\nendeavoring to liberate the Hebrews, and prevented by a king, who would\nnot let the children of Israel go until he had done some little\nmiracles with sticks!  Think of it!  But, said Christians, \"you must\nwait a little while if you wish to find the foundation of law.\"\n\nChristians now assert that from Sinai came to this world all knowledge\nof right and wrong, and that from its flaming top we received the first\nideas of law and justice.  Let us look at those ten commandments.\nWhich of those ten commandments were new, and which of those ten\ncommandments were old?  \"Thou shalt not kill.\" That was as old as life.\nMurder has been a crime; also, because men object to being murdered.\nIf you read the same bible you will find that Moses, seeing an\nIsraelite and an Egyptian contending together, smote the Egyptian and\nhid his body in the sand.  After he had committed that crime Moses fled\nfrom the land.  Why? Simply because there was a law against murder.\nThat is all.  \"Honor thy father and thy mother.\"  That is as old as\nbirth.  \"Thou shalt not commit adultery.\"  That is as old as sex.\n\"Thou shalt not steal.\" That is as old as work, and as old as property.\n\"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.\"  That is as\nold as the earth.  Never was there a nation, never was there a tribe on\nthe earth that did not have substantially, those commandments.  What,\nthen, were new?  First, \"Thou shalt worship no other God; thou shalt\nhave no other God.\"  Why? \"Because I am a jealous God.\" Second,  \"Thou\nshalt not make any graven image.\"  Third, \"Thou shalt not take My name\nin vain.\"   Fourth, \"Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day.\"  What use\nwere these commandments? None--not the slightest.  How much better it\nwould have been if God from Sinai, instead of the commandments, had\nsaid: \"Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-man; no human being is\nentitled to the results of another's labor.\"  Suppose He had said:\n\"Thou shalt not persecute for opinion's sake; thought and speech must\nbe forever free.\"  Suppose He had said, instead of \"Thou shalt not work\non the Sabbath day,\"  \"A man shall have but one wife; a woman shall\nhave but one husband; husbands shall love their wives; wives shall love\ntheir husbands and their children with all their hearts and as\nthemselves\"--how much better it would have been for this world.\n\nLong before Moses was born the Egyptians taught one God; but\nafterwards, I believe, in their weakness, they degenerated into a\nbelief in the Trinity.  They taught the divine origin of the soul, and\ntaught judgment after death.  They taught as a reward for belief in\ntheir doctrine eternal joy, and as a punishment for non-belief eternal\npain. Egypt, as a matter of fact, was far better governed than\nPalestine.  The laws of Egypt were better than the laws of God. In\nEgypt woman was equal with man.  Long before Moses was born there were\nqueens upon the Egyptian throne.  Long before Moses was born they had a\nwritten code of laws, and their laws were administered by courts and\njudges.  They had rules of evidence.  They understood the philosophy of\ndamages.  Long before Moses was born they had asylums for the insane\nand hospitals for the sick.  Long before God appeared on Sinai there\nwere schools in Egypt, and the highest office next to the throne was\nopened to the successful scholar. The Egyptian married but one wife.\nHis wife was called the lady of the house.  Women were not secluded;\nand, above all and over all, the people of Egypt were not divided into\ncastes, and were infinitely better governed than God ever thought of.\nI am speaking of the God of this bible.  If Moses had remembered more\nof what he saw in Egypt his government would have been far better than\nit was. Long before these commandments were given, Zoroaster taught the\nHindoos that there was one infinite and supreme God.  They had a code\nof laws, and their laws were administered by judges in their courts.\nBy those laws, at the death of a father, the unmarried daughter\nreceived twice as much of his property as his son.  Compare those laws\nwith the laws of Moses.\n\nSo, too, the Romans had their code of laws.  The Romans were the\ngreatest lawyers the world produced.  The Romans had a code of civil\nlaws, and that code today is the foundation of all law in the civilized\nworld.  The Romans built temples to Truth, to Faith, to Valor, to\nConcord, to Modesty, to Charity and to Chastity.  And so with the\nGrecians.  And yet you will find Christian ministers today contending\nthat all ideas of law, of justice and of right came from Sinai, from\nthe ten commandments, from the Mosaic laws.  No lawyer who understands\nhis profession will claim that is so.  No lawyer who has studied the\nhistory of law will claim it.  No man who knows history itself will\nclaim it. No man will claim it but an ignorant zealot.\n\nLet us go another step--let us compare the ideas of this God with the\nideas of uninspired men.  I am making this long preface because I want\nto get it out of your minds that the bible is inspired.\n\nNow let us go along a little and see what is God's opinion of liberty.\nNothing is of more value in this world today than liberty--liberty of\nbody and liberty of mind.  Without liberty, the universe would be as a\ndungeon into which human beings are flung like poor and miserable\nconvicts.  Intellectual liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of\nthe mind.  Without it we should be in darkness. Now, Jehovah commanded\nthe Jewish people to take captives the strangers and sojourners amongst\nthem, and ordered that they and their children should be bondsmen and\nbondswomen for ever.\n\nNow let us compare Jehovah to Epictetus--a man to whom no revelation\nwas ever made--a man to whom this God did not appear.  Let us listen to\nhim: \"Remember your servants are to be treated as your own\nbrothers--children of the same God.\"  On the subject of liberty is not\nEpictetus a better authority than Jehovah, who told the Jews to make\nbondsmen and bondswomen of the heathen round about?  And He said they\nwere to make them their bondsmen and bondswomen forever. Why?  Because\nthey were heathen.  Why?  Because they were not children of the Jews.\nHe was the God of the Jews and not of the rest of mankind.  So He said\nto His chosen people: \"Pillage upon the enemy and destroy the people of\nother gods.  Buy the heathen round about.\"  Yet Cicero, a poor pagan\nlawyer, said this--and he had not even read the old testament--had not\neven had the advantage of being enlightened by the prophets: \"They who\nsay that we should love our fellow-citizens, and not foreigners,\ndestroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, and with it benevolence\nand justice would perish forever.\"  Is not Cicero greater than Jehovah?\nThe bible, inspired by Jehovah, says: \"If a man smite his servant with\na rod and he die under his hand he shall be punished.  It he continue a\nday or two and then die, he shall not be punished.\"  Zeno, the founder\nof the stoics, who had never heard of Jehovah, and never read a word of\nMoses, said this: \"No man can be the owner of another, and the title is\nbad. Whether the slave became a slave by conquest or by purchase, the\ntitle is bad.\"  Let us come and see whether Jehovah has any humanity in\nHim. Jehovah ordered the Jewish general to make war, and this was the\norder: \"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou\nshalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant\nwith them, nor show mercy unto them.\"  And yet Epictetus, whom I have\nalready quoted, said: \"Treat those in thy power as thou wouldst have\nthy superiors treat thee.\"\n\nI am on the side of the pagan.  Is it possible that a being of infinite\ngoodness said: \"I will heap mischief upon them; I will send My arrows\nupon them.  They shall be burned with hunger; they shall be devoured\nwith burning heat and with bitter destruction. I will also send the\nteeth of locusts upon them, with the poisonous serpent of the desert.\nThe sound without and the terror within, shall destroy both the young\nmen and the virgins, the sucklings also, and the men with gray hairs.\"\nWhile Seneca, a poor uninspired Roman, said: \"A wise man will not\npardon any crime that ought to be punished, but will accomplish in\nother way all that is sought.  He will spare some; he will pardon and\nwatch over some because of their youth; he will pardon these on account\nof their ignorance. His clemency will not fail what is sought by\njustice, but his clemency will fulfill justice.\"  That was said by\nSeneca.  Can we believe that this Jehovah said: \"Let his children be\nfatherless and his wife a widow.  Let his children be continually\nvagabonds, and beg. Let them seek their bread out of desolate places.\nLet the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil\nhis labor.  Let no one extend mercy unto them, neither let any favor\nhis fatherless children.\"  Did Jehovah say this?  Surely He had never\nheard this line--this plaintive music from the Hindoo: \"Sweet is the\nlute to those who have not heard the voices of their own children.\"\nLet us see the generosity of Jehovah out of the cloud of darkness on\nMount Sinai.  He said to the Jews: \"Thou shalt have no other God before\nMe.  Thou shalt not bow down to any other gods, for the Lord thy God is\na jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children\nto the third an fourth generation of them that hate Me.\"  Just think of\nGod saying to people: \"If you do not love Me I will damn you.\"\nContrast this with the words put by the Hindoo poet into the mouth of\nBrahma: \"I am the same to all mankind. The who honestly worship other\ngods involuntarily worship me.  I am he that partaketh of all worship.\nI am the reward of worship.\"  How perfectly sublime!  Let me read it to\nyou again: \"I am the same to all mankind.  They who honestly worship\nother gods involuntarily worship me.  I am he that partaketh of all\nworship.  I am the reward of worship.\"  Compare these passages. The\nfirst is a dungeon, which crude hands have digged with jealous slime.\nThe other is like the dome of the firmament, inlaid with\nconstellations.  Is it possible God ever said: \"If a prophet deceive\nwhen he hath spoken a thing, I, the Lord, hath deceived that prophet?\"\nCompare that passage with the poet, a pagan: \"Better remain silent the\nremainder of life than speak falsely.\"\n\nCan we believe a being of infinite mercy gave this command: \"Put every\nman his sword by his side; go from the gate throughout the camp, and\nslay every man his brother, every man his companion, and every man his\nneighbor.  Consecrate it, yourselves this day.  Let every man lay his\nsword even upon his son, upon his brother, that he bestow blessing upon\nMe this day.\"  Surely that was not the outcome of a great, magnanimous\nspirit, like that of the Roman emperor, who declared: \"I had rather\nkeep a single Roman citizen alive than slay a thousand enemies.\"\nCompare the last command given to the children of Israel with the words\nof Marcus Aurelius: \"I have formed an ideal of the State, in which\nthere is the same law for all, and equal rights and equal liberty of\nspeech established for all--an Empire where nothing is honored so much\nas the freedom of the citizens.\"  I am on the side of the Roman emperor.\n\nWhat is more beautiful than the old story from Sufi?  There was a man\nwho for seven years did every act of good, every kind of charity, and\nat the end of the seven years he mounted the steps to the gate of\nheaven and knocked.  A voice cried, \"Who is there?\" He cried, \"Thy\nservant, O Lord;\" and the gates were shut.  Seven other years he did\nevery good work, and again mounted the steps to heaven and knocked.\nThe voice cried, \"Who is there?\"  He answered, \"Thy slave, O God;\" and\nthe gates were shut.  Seven other years he did every good deed, and\nagain mounted the steps to heaven, and the voice said: \"Who is there?\"\nHe replied \"Thyself, O God;\" and the gates wide open flew.  Is there\nanything in our religion so warm or so beautiful as that?  Compare that\nstory from a pagan with the Presbyterian religion.\n\nTake this story of Endesthora, who was a king of Egypt, and started for\nthe place where the horizon touched the earth, where he was to meet\nGod. With him followed Argune and Bemis and Traubation.  They were\ntaught that, when any man started after God in that way, if he had been\nguilty of any crime he would fall by the way.  Endesthora walked at the\nhead and suddenly he missed Argune.  He said, \"He was not always\nmerciful in the hour of victory.\"  A little while after he missed\nBemis, and said, \"He fought not so much for the rights of man as for\nhis own glory.\"  A little farther on he missed Traubation. He said, \"My\nGod, I know no reason for his failing to reach the place where the\nhorizon touches the earth;\" and the god Ram appeared to him, and\nopening the curtains of the sky, said to him: \"Enter.\" And Endesthora\nsaid: \"But where are my brethren? Where are Argune and Beinis and\nTraubation?\"  And the god said: \"They sinned in their time, and they\nare condemned to suffer below.\"  Then said Endestbora: \"I do not wish\nto enter into your heaven without my friends. If they are below, then I\nwill join them.\"  But the god said: \"They are here before you; I simply\nsaid this to try your soul.\"  Endesthora simply turned and said: \"But\nwhat of my dog?\" The god said,  \"Thou knowest that if the shadow of a\ndog fall upon the sacrifice, it is unclean. How, then, can a dog enter\nheaven?\" And Endesthora replies: \"I know that, and I know another\nthing; that ingratitude is the blackest of crimes, whether it be to man\nor beast. That dog has been my faithful friend.  He has followed me and\nI will not desert even him.\"  And the god said: \"Let the dog follow.\"\nCompare that with the bible stories.\n\nLong before the advent of Christ, Aristotle said: \"We should conduct\nourselves toward others as we would have them conduct themselves toward\nus.\"  Seneca said: \"Do not to your neighbor what you would not have\nyour neighbor do to you.\"  Socrates said: \"Act toward others as you\nwould have others act toward you. Forgive your enemies, render good for\nevil, and kiss even the hand that is upraised to smite.\"  Krishna said:\n\"Cease to do evil; aim to do well; love your enemies.  It is the law of\nlove that virtue is the only thing that has strength.\"  Poor, miserable\npagans!  Did you ever hear anything like this?  Is it possible that one\nof the authors of the new testament was inspired when he said that man\nwas not created for woman, but woman for man?  Epictetus said: \"What is\nmore delightful than to be so dear to your wife as to be on her account\ndearer even to yourself?\"  Compare that with St. Paul: \"But I would\nhave you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the\nwoman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Wives, submit\nyourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord.\" That was inspiration.\nThis was written by a poor, despised heathen: \"In whatever house the\nhusband is contented with the wife and the wife with the husband, in\nthat house will fortune dwell.  In the house where the woman is not\nhonored, let the curse be pronounced. Where the wife is honored, there\nGod is truly worshiped.\"  I wish Jehovah had said something like that\nfrom Sinai.  Is there anything as beautiful as this in the new\ntestament: \"Shall I tell you where nature is more blest and fair?  It\nis where those we love abide. Though the space be small, it is ample as\nearth; though it be a desert, through it run the rivers of Paradise.\"\n\nCompare these things with the curses pronounced in the old testament,\nwhere you read of the heathen being given over to butchery and death,\nand the women and babes to destruction; and, after you have read them,\nread the chapters of horrors in the new testament, threatening eternal\nfire and flame; and then read this, the greatest thought uttered by the\ngreatest of human beings:\n\nThe quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain\nfrom heaven Upon the place beneath.  It is twice blessed: It blesseth\nhim that gives and him that takes; 'Tis mightiest in the mighty; It\nbecomes the throned monarch better this his crown.\n\nCompare that with your doctrine of the new testament!  If Jehovah was\nan infinite God and knew things from the beginning, He knew that His\nbible would be a breast-work behind which tyranny and hypocrisy would\ncrouch, and knew His bible would be the auction-block on which the\nmother would stand while her babe was sold from her, because He knew\nHis bible would be quoted by tyrants; that it would be quoted in\ndefense of robbers called kings, and by hypocrites called priests.  He\nknew that He had taught the Jewish people; He knew that He had found\nthem free and left them slaves; He knew that He had broken every single\npromise made to them; He knew that, while other nations advanced in\nknowledge, in art, in science, His chosen people were subjects still.\nHe promised them the world; He gave them a desert.  He promised them\nliberty, and made them slaves.  He promised them power; He gave them\nexile, and any one who reads the old testament is compelled to say that\nnothing could add to their misery.\n\nLet us be honest.  How do you account for this religion?  This world;\nwhere did it come from?  You hear every minister say that man is a\nreligious animal--that religion is natural.  While man is an ignorant\nanimal man will be a theological animal, and no longer. Where did we\nget this religion?  The savage knew but little of nature, but thought\nthat everything happened in reference to him. He thought his sins\ncaused earthquakes, and that his virtues made the sunshine.\n\nNothing is so egotistical as ignorance.  You know, and so do I, that if\nno human being existed, the sun would shine, and that tempests would\nnow and then devastate the earth; violets would spread their velvet\nbosoms to the sun, daisies would grow, roses would fill the air with\nperfume, and now and then volcanoes would illuminate the horizon with\ntheir lurid glare; the grass would grow, the waters would run, and so\nfar as nature is concerned, everything would be as joyous as though the\nearth were filled with happy homes.  We know the barbarian savage\nthinks that all this was on his account.  He thinks that there dwelt\ntwo very powerful deities; that there was a good one, because he knows\ngood things happen to him; and that there was a bad one, because he\nknows bad things happen to him.  Behind the evil influence he puts a\ndevil, and behind the good, an intention of God; and then he imagines\nboth these beings are in opposition, and that, between them, they\nstruggle for the possession of his ignorant soul.  He also thinks that\nthe place where the good deity lives is heaven, and that the place\nwhere the other deity keeps himself is a place of torture and\npunishment. And about that time other barbarians have chosen too keep\nthe ignorant ones in subjection by means of the doctrine of fear and\npunishment.\n\nThere is no reforming power in fear.  You can scare a man, maybe, so\nbad that he won't do a thing, but you can't scare him so bad he won't\nwant to do it.  There is no reforming power in punishment or brute\nforce; but our barbarians rather imagined that every being would punish\nin accordance with his power, and his dignity, and that God would\nsubject them to torture in the same way as those who made Him angry.\nThey knew the king would inflict torments upon one in his power, and\nthey supposed that God would inflict torture according to His power.\nThey knew the worst torture was a slow, burning fire; added to it the\nidea of eternity, and hell was produced.  That was their idea.  All\nmeanness, revenge, selfishness, cruelty, and hatred of which men here\nare capable burst into blossom and bore fruit in that one word, \"Hell.\"\n\nIn this way a God of infinite wisdom experimented with man, keeping him\nbetween an outstretched abyss beneath and a heaven above; and in time\nthe man came to believe that he could please God by having read a few\nsacred books, could count beads, could sprinkle water, eat little\nsquare pieces of bread, and that he could shut his eyes and say words\nto the clouds; but the moment he left this world nothing remained\nexcept to damn him.  He was to be kept miserable one day in seven, and\nhe could slander and persecute other men all the other days in the\nweek.  That was the chance that God gave a man here, but the moment he\nleft this world that settled it.  He would go to eternal pain or else\nto eternal joy.  That was the way that the supernatural governed this\nworld--through fear, through terror, through eternity of punishment;\nand that government, I say tonight, has failed.  How has it been kept\nalive so long?  It was born in ignorance.  Let me tell you, whoever\nattacks a creed will be confronted with a list of great men who have\nbelieved in it. Probably their belief in that creed was the only\nweakness they had. But he will be asked, \"So you know more than all the\ngreat men who have taught and all the respectable men who have believed\nin that faith?\" For the church is always going about to get a\ncertificate from some governor, or even perhaps members of the\nLegislature, and you are told, because so-and-so believed all these\nthings, and you have no more talents than they, that you should believe\nthe same thing.  But I contend, as against this argument, that you\nshould not take the testimony of these men unless you are willing to\ntake at the same time all their beliefs on other subjects.  Then,\nagain, they tell you that the rich people are all on their side, and I\nsay so, too.  The churches today seek the rich, and poverty unwillingly\nseeks them.  Light thrown from diamonds adorns the repentant here. We\nare told that the rich, the fortunate, and the holders of place are\nChristians now; and yet ministers grow eloquent over the poverty of\nChrist, who was born in a manger, and say that the Holy Ghost passed\nthe titled ladies of the world and selected the wife of a poor mechanic\nfor the mother of God. Such is the difference between theory and\npractice.  The church condemns the men of Jerusalem who held positions\nand who held the pretensions of the Savior in contempt.  They admit\nthat He was so little known that they had to bribe a man to point Him\nout to the soldiers.  They assert that He performed miracles; yet He\nremained absolutely unknown, hidden in the depth of obscurity.  No one\nknew Him, and one of His disciples had to be bribed to point Him out.\nSurely He and His disciples could have met the arguments which were\nurged against their religion at that time.\n\nSo long as the church honored philosophers she kept her great men in\nthe majority.  How is it now?  I say tonight that no man of genius in\nthe world is in the orthodox pulpit, so far as I know. Where are they?\nWhere are the orthodox great men?  I challenge the Christian church to\nproduce a man like Alexander Humboldt.  I challenge the world to\nproduce a naturalist like Haeckel.  I challenge the Christian world to\nproduce a man like Darwin.  Where in the ranks of orthodoxy are\nhistorians like Draper and Buckle? Where are the naturalists like\nTyndall, philosophers like Mills and Spencer, and women like George\nEliot and Harriet Martineau?  You may get tired of the great-men\nargument; but the names of the great thinkers, and naturalists and\nscientists of our time cannot be matched by the supernatural world.\n\nWhat is the next argument they will bring forward?  The father and\nmother argument.  You must not disgrace your parents.  How did Christ\ncome to leave the religion of His mother?  That argument proves too\nmuch.  There is one way every man can honor his mother--that is by\nfinding out more than she knew.  There is one way a man can honor his\nfather--by correcting the old man's errors.\n\nMost people imagine that the creed we have came from the brain and\nheart of Christ.  They have no idea how it was made.  They think it was\nall made at one time.  They don't understand that it was a slow growth.\nThey don't understand that theology is a science made up of mistakes,\nprejudices and falsehoods.  Let me tell you a few facts: The Emperor\nConstantine, who lifted the Christian religion into power, murdered his\nwife and his eldest son the very year that he convened the Council of\nNice to decide whether Jesus Christ was man or God; and that was not\ndecided until the year of grace 325.  Then Theodosius called a council\nat Constantinople in 381, and this council decided that the Holy Ghost\nproceeded from the Father.  You see, there was a little doubt on that\nquestion before this was done.  Then another council was called later\nto determine who the Virgin Mary really was, and it was solemnly\ndecided that she was the mother of Christ.  In 431, and then in 451, a\ncouncil was held in Chalcedon, by the Emperor Marcian, and that decided\nthat Christ had two natures--a human and a divine.  In 680 another\ncouncil was held at Constantinople; and in 1274 at Lyons, it was\ndecided that the Holy Ghost proceeded not only from the Father but from\nthe Son; and when you take into consideration the fact that a belief in\nthe Trinity is absolutely essential to salvation, you see how important\nit was that these doctrines should have been established in 1274, when\nmillions of people had dropped into hell in the interim solely because\nthey had forgotten that question.  At last we know how religions are\nmade.  We know how miracles are manufactured.  We know the history of\nrelics, and bones, and pieces of the true cross.  And at last we\nunderstand apostolic succession.  At last we have examined other\nreligions, and we find them all the same, and we are beginning to\nsuspect that ours is like the rest.  I think we understand it.\n\nI read a little story, a short time ago, from the Japanese, that throws\nlight upon the question.  There was an old priest at a monastery.  This\nmonastery was built over the bones of what he called a saint, and\npeople came there and were cured of many diseases.  This priest had an\nassistant.  After the assistant grew up and got quite to understand his\nbusiness, the old priest gave him a little donkey, and told him that\nhenceforth he was to take care of himself.  The young priest started\nout with his little donkey, and asked alms of those he met.  Few gave\nto him.  Finally he got very poor.  He could not raise money enough to\nfeed the donkey. Finally the donkey died; he was about to bury it when\na thought occurred to him.  He buried the donkey and sat down on the\ngrave, and to the next stranger that passed he said: \"Will you not give\na little money to erect a shrine over the bones of a sinless one?\"\nThereupon a man gave money.  Others followed his example, a shrine was\nraised, and in a little while a monastery was built over the bones of\nthe sinless one.  Down in the grave the young priest made an orifice,\nso that persons afflicted with any disease could reach down and touch\nthe bones of the sinless one.  Hundreds were thus cured, and persons\nleft their crutches as testimonials to the miraculous power of the\nbones of the sinless one.  Finally the priest became so rich that he\nthought he would visit his old master.  He went to the old monastery\nwith a fine retinue.  His old master asked him how he became so rich\nand prosperous. He replied: \"Old age is stupid, but youth has thought.\"\nLater on he explained to the old priest how the donkey had died, and\nhow he had raised a monastery over the bones of the sinless one; and\nagain reminded him that old age is stupid, but youth has thought.   The\nold priest exclaimed: \"Not quite so fast, young man; not quite so fast.\nDon't imagine you worked out anything new.  This shrine of mine is\nbuilt over the bones of the mother of your little donkey.\"\n\nWe have now reached a point in the history of the world when we know\nthat theocracy as a form of government is a failure, and we see that\ntheology as a foundation of government is an absolute failure.  We can\nsee that theocracy and theology created, not liberty, but despotism.\nWe know enough of the history of the churches in this world to know\nthat they never can civilize mankind; that they are not imbued with the\nspirit of progress; that they are not imbued with the spirit of justice\nand mercy.  What I ask you tonight is: What has the church done to\ncivilize mankind?  What has the church done for us?  How has it added\nto the prosperity of this world? Has it ever produced anything?\nNothing. Why, they say, it has been charitable.  How can a beggar be\ncharitable? A beggar produces nothing.  The church has been an eternal\nand everlasting pauper. It is not charitable.  It is an object of\ncharity, and yet it claims to be charitable.  The giver is the\ncharitable one. Somebody who has made something, somebody who has by\nhis labor produced something, he alone can be charitable.\n\nAnd let me say another thing: The church is always on the wrong side.\nLet us take, first, the Episcopal church--if you call that a church.\nLet me tell you one thing about that church.  You know what is called\nthe rebellion in England in 1688?  Do you know what caused it?  I will\ntell you.  King James was a Catholic, and notwithstanding that fact, he\nissued an edict of toleration for the Dissenters and Catholics.  And\nwhat next did he do?  He ordered all the bishops to have this edict of\ntoleration read in the Episcopal churches. They refused to do it--most\nof them.  You recollect that trial of the seven bishops?  That is what\nit was all about; they would not read the edict of toleration.  Then\nwhat happened?  A strange thing to say, and it is one of the miracles\nof this world: The Dissenters, in whose favor that edict was issued,\njoined hands with the Episcopalians, and raised the rebellion against\nthe king, because he wanted to give the Dissenters liberty, and these\nDissenters and these Episcopalians, on account of toleration, drove\nKing James into exile.  This is the history of the first rebellion the\nChurch of England ever raised against the king, simply because he\nissued an edict of toleration and the poor, miserable wretches in whose\nfavor the edict was issued joined hands with their oppressors.  I want\nto show you how much the Church of England has done for England. I get\nit from good authority.  Let me read it to you to show how little\ninfluence the Christian church, the Church of England, had with the\ngovernment of that country.  Let me tell you that up to the reign of\nGeorge I. there were in that country sixty-seven offenses punishable\nwith death.  There is not a lawyer in this city who can think of those\noffenses and write them down in one day.  Think of it! Sixty-seven\noffenses punishable with death!  Now, between the accession of George\nI. and the termination of the reign of George III. there were added 156\nnew crimes punishable with death, making in all 223 crimes in England\npunishable with death.  There is no lawyer in this State who can think\nof that many crimes in a week. Now, during all those years the\ngovernment was becoming more and more cruel; more and more barbarous;\nand we do not find, and we have not found, that the Church of England,\nwith its 15,000 or 20,000 Ministers, with its more than a score of\nbishops in the House of Lords, has ever raised its voice or perfected\nany organization in favor of a more merciful code, or in condemnation\nof the enormous cruelty which the laws were continually inflicting.\nAnd was not Voltaire justified in saying that \"The English were a\npeople who murdered by law?\"  Now, that is an extract from a speech\nmade by John Bright in May, 1883.  That shows what the Church of\nEngland did.  Two hundred and twenty-three offenses in England\npunishable with death, and no minister, no bishop, no church\norganization raising his or its voice, against the monstrous cruelty.\nAnd why?  Even then it was better than the law of Jehovah.\n\nAnd the Protestants were as bad as the Catholics. You remember the time\nof Henry IV. in France, when the edict of Nantes was issued simply to\ngive the Protestants the right to worship God according to the dictates\nof their conscience.   Just as soon as that edict was issued the\nProtestants themselves, in the cities where they had the power,\nprevented the Catholics from worshiping their God according to the\ndictates of their conscience, and it was on account of the refusal of\nthose Protestants to allow the Catholics to worship God as they desired\nthat there was a civil war lasting for seven years in France.\nRichelieu came into authority about the second or third year of that\nwar.  He made no difference between Protestants and Catholics; and it\nwas owing to Richelieu that the Thirty Years' War terminated.  It was\nowing to Richelieu that the peace of Westphalia was made in 1643,\nalthough I believe he had been dead a year before that time; but it was\nowing to him, and it was the first peace ever made between nations on a\nsecular basis, with everything religious left out, and it was the last\ngreat religious war.\n\nYou may ask me what I want.  Well, in the first place I want to get\ntheology out of government.  It has no business there.  Man gets his\nauthority from man, and is responsible only to man.  I want to get\ntheology out of politics.  Our ancestors in 1776 retired God from\npolitics, because of the jealousies among the churches, and the result\nhas been splendid for mankind.  I want to get theology out of\neducation. Teach the children what somebody knows, not what somebody\nguesses.  I want to get theology out of morality, and out of charity.\nDon't give for God's sake, but for man's sake.\n\nI want you to know another thing; that neither Protestants nor\nCatholics are fit to govern this world.  They are not fit to govern\nthemselves.  How could you elect a minister of any religion president\nof the United States.  Could you elect a bishop of the Catholic church,\nor a Methodist bishop, or Episcopal minister, or one of the elders? No.\nAnd why?  We are afraid of the ecclesiastic spirit.  We are afraid to\ntrust the liberties of men in the hands of people who acknowledge that\nthey are bound by a standard different from that of the welfare of\nmankind.\n\nThe history of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Cuba, and Brazil all\nshow that slavery existed where Catholicism was a power.  I would\nsuggest an education that would rule theology out of the government,\nand teach people to rely more on themselves and less on providence.\nThere are two ways of living--the broad way of life lived for others,\nand the narrow theological way.  It is wise to so live that death can\nbe serenely faced, and then, if there is another world, the best way to\nprepare for it is to make the best of this; and if there be no other\nworld, the best way to live here is to so live as to be happy and make\neverybody else happy.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON THE GREAT INFIDELS\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: There is nothing grander in this world than to\nrescue from the leprosy of slander a great and splendid name. There is\nnothing nobler than to benefit our benefactors.  The infidels of one\nage have been the aureole saints of the next.  The destroyers of the\nold have always been the creators of the new.  The old passes away and\nthe new becomes old.  There is in the intellectual world, as in the\nmaterial, decay and growth; and even by the sunken grave of age stand\nyouth and joy.  The history of progress is written in the lives of\ninfidels.  Political rights have been preserved by traitors;\nintellectual rights by infidels.\n\nTo attack the kings was treason; to dispute the priests blasphemy. The\nsword and cross have always been allies; they defended each other. The\nthrone and altar are twins--vultures born of the same egg.  It was\nJames I. who said: \"No king, no bishop; no church, no crown; no tyrant\nin heaven, no tyrant on earth.\"  Every monarchy that has disgraced the\nworld, every despotism that has covered the cheeks of men with fear has\nbeen copied after the supposed despotism of hell. The king owned the\nbodies and the priest owned the souls;  one lived on taxes and the\nother on alms; one was a robber and the other a beggar.\n\nThe history of the world will not show you one charitable beggar.  He\nwho lives on charity never has anything to give away.  The robbers and\nbeggars controlled not only this world, but the next.  The king made\nlaws, the priest made creeds; with bowed backs the people received and\nbore the burdens of the one, and with the open mouth of wonder the\ncreed of the other.  If any aspired to be free they were crushed by the\nking, and every priest was a hero who slaughtered the children of the\nbrave. The king ruled by force, the priest by fear and by the bible.\nThe king said to the people: \"God made you peasants and me a king; He\nclothed you in rags and housed you in hovels; upon me He put robes and\ngave me a palace.\"  Such is the justice of God.  The priest said to the\npeople: \"God made you ignorant and vile, me holy and wise; obey me, or\nGod will punish you here and hereafter.\"  Such is the mercy of God.\n\nInfidels are the intellectual discoverers.  Infidels have sailed the\nunknown sea and have discovered the isles and continents in the vast\nrealms of thought.   What would the world have been had infidels never\nexisted?  What the infidel is in religion the inventor is in mechanics.\nWhat the infidel is in religion the man willing to fight the hosts of\ntyranny is in the political world.  An infidel is a gentleman who has\ndiscovered a fact and is not afraid to tell about it.  There has been\nfor many thousands of years an idea prevalent that in some way you can\nprove whether the theories defended or advanced by a man are right or\nwrong by showing what kind of a man he was, what kind of a life he\nlived, and what manner of death he died.  There is nothing to this.  It\nmakes no difference what the character of the man was who made the\nfirst multiplication table.  It is absolutely true, and whenever you\nfind an absolute fact, it makes no difference who discovered it.  The\ngolden rule would have been just as good if it had first been whispered\nby the devil.\n\nIt is good for what it contains, not because a certain man said it.\nGold is just as good in the hands of crime as in the hands of virtue.\nWhatever it may be, it is gold.  A statement made by a great man is not\nnecessarily true.  A man entertains certain opinions, and then he is\nproscribed because he refuses to change his mind.  He is burned to\nashes, and in the midst of the flames he cries out that he is of the\nsame opinion still.  Hundreds then say that he has sealed his testimony\nwith his blood, and that his doctrines must be true.  All the martyrs\nin the history of the world are not sufficient to establish the\ncorrectness of any one opinion.  Martyrdom as a rule establishes the\nsincerity of the martyr, not the correctness of his thought.  Things\nare true or false independently of the man who entertains them.  Truth\ncannot be affected by opinion; an error cannot be believed sincerely\nenough to make it the truth.  No Christian will admit that any amount\nof heroism displayed by a Mormon is sufficient to show that Joseph\nSmith was an inspired prophet.  All the courage and culture, all the\npoetry and art of ancient Greece do not even tend to establish the\ntruth of any myth.\n\nThe testimony of the dying concerning some other world, or in regard to\nthe supernatural, cannot be any better than that of the living. In the\nearly days of Christian experience an intrepid faith was regarded as a\ntestimony in favor of the church.  No doubt, in the arms of death, many\na one went back and died in the lay of the old faith.  After awhile\nChristians got to dying and clinging to their faith; and then it was\nthat Christians began to say: \"No man can die serenely without clinging\nto the cross.\"  According to the theologians, God has always punished\nthe dying who did not happen to believe in Him.  As long as men did\nnothing except to render their fellowmen wretched, God maintained the\nstrictest neutrality, but when some honest man expressed a doubt as to\nthe Jewish scriptures, or prayed to the wrong god, or to the right God\nby the wrong man, then the real God leaped like a wounded tiger upon\nthis dying man, and from his body tore his wretched soul.\n\nThere is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of murder has\nbeen paralyzed, or the innocent have been shielded by God.  Thousands\nof crimes are committed every day, and God has no time to prevent them.\nHe is too busy numbering hairs and matching sparrows; He is listening\nfor blasphemy; He is looking for persons who laugh at priests; He is\nexamining baptismal registers; He is watching professors in colleges\nwho begin to doubt the geology of Moses or the astronomy of Joshua.\nAll kinds of criminals, except infidels, meet death with reasonable\nserenity.  As a rule, there is nothing in the death of a pirate to cast\ndiscredit upon his profession.  The murderer upon the scaffold\nsmilingly exhorts the multitude to meet him in heaven.  The Emperor\nConstantine, who lifted Christianity into power, murdered his wife and\noldest son.\n\nNow and then, in the history of the world, there has been a man of\ngenius, a man of intellectual honesty.  These men have denounced the\nsuperstition of their day.  They were honest enough to tell their\nthoughts.  Some of them died naturally in their beds, but it would not\ndo for the church to admit that they died peaceably; that would show\nthat religion was not necessary in the last moments.  The first grave,\nthe first cathedral; the first corpse was the first priest. If there\nwas no death in the world there would be no superstition. The church\nhas taken great pains to show that the last moments of all infidels\nhave been infinitely wretched.  Upon this point, Catholics and\nProtestants have always stood together.  They are no longer men; they\nbecome hyenas, they dig open graves.  They devour the dead. It is an\nauto da fe presided over by God and his angels.  These men believed in\nthe accountability of men in the practice of virtue and justice.  They\nbelieved in liberty, but they did not believe in the inspiration of the\nbible.  That was their crime.  In order to show that infidels died\noverwhelmed with remorse and fear they have generally selected from all\nthe infidels since the days of Christ until now five men--the Emperor\nJulian, Bruno, Diderot, David Hume and Thomas Paine.\n\nThey forget that Christ himself was not a Christian, that He did what\nHe could to tear down the religion of His day; that He held the temple\nin contempt.  I like Him because He held the old Jewish religion in\ncontempt; because He had sense enough to say that doctrine was not\ntrue.  In vain have their calumniators been called upon to prove their\nstatements.  They simply charge it, they simply relate it, but that is\nno evidence.  The Emperor Julian did what he could to prevent\nChristians destroying each other.  He held pomp and pride in contempt.\nIn battle with the Persians he was mortally wounded.  Feeling that he\nhad but a short time to live, he spent his last hours in discussing\nwith his friends the immortality of the soul.  He declared that he was\nsatisfied with his conduct, and that he had no remorse to express for\nany act he had ever done.\n\nThe first great infidel was Giordano Bruno.  He was born in the year of\ngrace 1550.  He was a Dominican friar--Catholic--and afterwards he\nchanged his mind.\n\nThe reason he changed was because he had a mind.  He was a lover of\nnature, and said to the poor hermits in their caves, to the poor monks\nin their monasteries, to the poor nuns in their cells: \"Come out in the\nglad fields; come and breathe the fresh, free air; come and enjoy all\nthe beauty there is in the world.  There is no God who can be made\nhappier by you being miserable; there is no God who delights to see\nupon the human face the tears of pain, of grief, of agony.  Come out\nand enjoy all there is of human life; enjoy progress, enjoy thought,\nenjoy being somebody and belonging to yourself.\"\n\nHe revolted at the idea of transubstantiation; he revolted at the idea\nthat the eternal God could be in a wafer.  He revolted at the idea that\nyou could make the Trinity out of dough--bake God in an oven as you\nwould a biscuit.  I should think he would have revolted. The idea of a\nman devouring the creator of the universe by swallowing a piece of\nbread.  And yet that is just as sensible as any of it. Those who, when\nsmitten on one cheek turn the other, threatened to kill this man.  He\nfled from his native land and was a vagabond in nearly every nation of\nEurope.  He declared that he fought not what men really believed, but\nwhat they pretended to believe.  And, do you know, that is the business\nI am in?  I am simply saying what other people think; I am furnishing\nclothes for their children, I am putting on exhibition their offspring,\nand they like to hear it, they like to see it.  We have passed midnight\nin the history of the world.  Bruno was driven from his native country\nbecause he taught the rotation of the earth; you can see what a\ndangerous man he must have been in a well regulated monarchy.  You see\nhe had found a fact, and a fact has the same effect upon religion that\ndynamite has upon a Russian czar.  A fellow with a new fact was\nsuspected and arrested, and they always thought they could destroy it\nby burning him, but they never did.  All the fires of martyrdom never\ndestroyed one truth; all the churches of the world have never made one\nlie true. Germany and France would not tolerate Bruno.  According to\nthe Christian system, this world was the center of everything.  The\nstars were made out of what little God happened to have left when He\ngot the world done.  God lived up in the sky, and they said this earth\nmust rest upon something, and finally science passed its hand clear\nunder, and there was nothing.  It was self-existent in infinite space.\nThen the church began to say they didn't say it was flat--not so awful\nflat--it was kind of rounding.  According to the ancient Christians God\nlived from all eternity, and never worked but six days in His whole\nlife, and then had the impudence to tell us to be industrious. I heard\nof a man going to California over the plains, and, there was a\nclergyman on board, and he had a great deal to say, and finally he fell\nin conversation with the '49-er, and the latter said to the clergyman:\n\"Do you believe that God made this world in six days?\" \"Yes, I do.\"\nThey were then going along the Humboldt. Says he: \"Don't you think He\ncould put in another day to advantage right around here?\"\n\nBruno went to England and delivered lectures at Oxford.  He found that\nthere was nothing taught there but superstition, and so called Oxford\nthe \"wisdom of learning.\"  Then they told him they didn't want him any\nmore.  He went back to Italy, where there was a kind of fascination\nthat threw him back to the very doors of the Inquisition.  He was\narrested for teaching that there were other worlds, and that stars are\nsuns around which revolve other planets. He was in prison for six\nyears. (During those six years Galileo was teaching mathematics.)  Six\nyears in a dungeon; and then he was tried, denounced by the\nInquisition, excommunicated, condemned by brute force, pushed upon his\nknees while he received the benediction of the church, and on the 16th\nof February, in the year of our Lord 1600, he was burned at the stake.\n\nHe believed that the world is animated by an intelligent soul, the\ncause of force but not of matter; that matter and force have existed\nfrom eternity; that this force lives in all things, even in such as\nappear not to live--in the rock as much as in the man; that matter is\nthe mother of forms and the grace of forms; that the matter and force\ntogether constitute God.  He was a pantheist--that is to say, he was an\natheist.  He had the courage to die for what he believed to be right.\nThe murder of Bruno will never, in my judgment, be completely and\nperfectly revenged until from the city of Rome shall be swept every\nvestige of priests and pope--until from the shapeless ruins of St.\nPeter's, the crumbled Vatican and the fallen cross of Rome, rises a\nmonument sacred to the philosopher, the benefactor and the\nmartyr--Bruno.\n\nVoltaire was born in 1694.  When he was born, the natural was about the\nonly thing that the church did not believe in.  Monks sold amulets, and\nthe priests cured in the name of the church.  The worship of the devil\nwas actually established, which today is the religion of China. They\nsay: \"God is good; He won't bother you; Joss is the one.\" They offer\nhim gifts, and try and soften his heart;--so, in the middle ages, the\npoor people tried to see if they could not get a short cut, and trade\ndirectly with the devil, instead of going round-about through the\nchurch.  In these days witnesses were cross-examined with instruments\nof torture.  Voltaire did more for human liberty than any other man who\never lived or died.  He appealed to the common sense of mankind--he\nheld up the great contradictions of the sacred scriptures in a way that\nno man, once having read him, could forget. For one, I thank Voltaire\nfor the liberty I am enjoying this moment. How small a man a priest\nlooked when he pointed his finger at him; how contemptible a king.\n\nToward the last of May, 1778, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire\nwas dying.  He expired with the most perfect tranquility.  There have\nbeen constructed most shameless lies about the death of this great and\nwonderful man, compared with whom all his calumniators, living or dead,\nwere but dust and vermin.  From his throne at the foot of the Alps he\npointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Europe. He was the\npioneer of his century.\n\nIn 1771, in Scotland, David Hume was born.  Scotch Presbyterianism is\nthe worst form of religion that has ever been produced.  The Scotch\nKirk had all the faults of the Church of Rome, without a redeeming\nfeature. The church hated music, despised painting, abhorred statuary,\nand held architecture in contempt.  Anything touched with humanity,\nwith the weakness of love, with the dimple of joy, was detested by the\nScotch Kirk.  God was to be feared; God was infinitely practical; no\nnonsense about God.  They used to preach four times a day.  They\npreached on Friday before the Sunday upon which they partook of the\nsacrament, and then on Saturday; four sermons on Sunday, and two or\nthree on Monday to sober up on.  They were bigoted and heartless.  One\ncase will illustrate.  In the beginning of this nineteenth century a\nboy seventeen years of age was indicted at Edinburgh for blasphemy. He\nhad given it as his opinion that Moses had learned magic in Egypt, and\nhad fooled the Jews.  They proved that on two or three occasions, when\nhe was real cold, he jocularly remarked that he wished he was in hell,\nso that he could warm up.  He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to be\nhanged.  He recanted; he even wrote that he believed the whole\nbusiness; and that he just said it for pure devilment.  It made no\ndifference.  They hung him, and his bruised and bleeding corpse was\ndenied to his own mother, who came and besought them to let her take\nher boy home.  That was Scotch Presbyterianism.  If the devil had been\nlet loose in Scotland he would have improved that country at that time.\n\nDavid Hume was one of the few Scotchmen who was not owned by the\nchurch. He had the courage to examine things for himself, and to give\nhis conclusion to the world.  His life was unstained by an unjust act.\nHe did not, like Abraham, turn a woman from his door with his child in\nher arms.  He did not, like King David, murder a man that he might\nsteal his wife.  He didn't believe in Scotch Presbyterianism. I don't\nsee how any good man ever did.  Just think of going to the day of\njudgment, if there is one, and standing up before God and admitting,\nwithout a blush, that you have lived and died a Scotch Presbyterian.  I\nwould expect the next sentence would be,  \"Depart ye cursed in\neverlasting fire.\"  Hume took the ground that a miracle could not be\nused as evidence until you had proved the miracle.  Of course that\nexcited the church.  Why?  Because they could not prove one of them.\nHow are you going to prove a miracle? Who saw it, and who would know a\ndevil if he did see him?  Hume insisted that at the bottom of all good\nis something useful; that after all, human happiness was the great\nobject, end, and aim of life; that virtue was not a termagant, with\nsunken cheeks and frightful eyes, but was the most beautiful thing in\nthe world, and would strew your path with flowers from the cradle to\nthe grave.  When he died they gave an account of how he had suffered.\nThey knew that the horrors of death would fall upon him, and that God\nwould get his revenge.  But his attending physician said that his death\nwas the most serene and most perfectly tranquil of any he had ever\nseen.  Adam Smith said he was as near perfect as the frailty incident\nto humanity would allow human being to be.\n\nThe next is Benedict Spinoza, a Jew, born at Amsterdam in 1768.  He\nstudied theology, and asked the rabbis too many questions, and talked\ntoo much about what he called reason, and finally he was excommunicated\nfrom the synagogue, and became an outcast at the age of twenty-four,\nwithout friends.  Cursed, anathematized, bearing upon his forehead the\nmark of Cain, he undertook to solve the problem of the universe.  To\nhim the universe was one.  The infinite embraced the all.  That all was\nGod. He was right; the universe is all there is, and if God does not\nexist in the universe He exists nowhere.  The idea of putting some\nlittle Jewish jehovah outside the universe, as if to say that from an\neternity of idleness he woke up one morning and thought he would make\nsomething.\n\nThe propositions of Spinoza are as luminous as the stars, and his\ndemonstrations, each one of them, is a Gibraltar, behind which logic\nsits laughing at all the sophistries of theological thought.  In every\nrelation of life he was just, true, gentle, patient, loving,\naffectionate.  He died in 1812.  In his life of forty-four years he had\nclimbed to the very highest alpine of human thought.  He was a great\nand splendid man, an intellectual hero, one of the benefactors, one of\nthe Titans of our race.\n\nAnd now I will say a few words about our infidels.  We had three, to\nsay the least of them--Paine, Franklin and Jefferson.  In their day the\ncolonies were filled with superstition, and the Puritans with the\nspirit of persecution.  Law, savage, ignorant and malignant, had been\npassed in every colony for the purpose of destroying intellectual\nliberty.  Manly freedom was unknown.  The toleration act of Maryland\ntolerated only chickens, not thinkers, not investigators.  It tolerated\nfaith, not brains.  The charity of Roger Williams was not extended to\none who denied the bible.  Let me show you how we have advanced.\nSuppose you took every man and woman out of the Penitentiary in New\nEngland and shipped them to a new country where man before had never\ntrod, and told them to make a government, and constitution, and a code\nof laws for themselves. I say tonight that they would make a better\nconstitution and a better code of laws than any that were made in any\nof the original thirteen colonies of the United States.\n\nNot that they are better men, not that they are more honest, but that\nthey have got more sense.  They have been touched with the dawn of the\neternal day of liberty that will finally come to this world.  They\nwould have more respect for others' rights than they had at that time.\nBut the churches were jealous of each other, and we got a constitution\nwithout religion in it from the mutual jealousies of the church, and\nfrom the genius of men like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson.  We are\nindebted to them for a constitution without a God in it.  They knew\nthat if you put God in there, an infinite God, there wouldn't be any\nroom for the people.  Our fathers retired Jehovah from politics.  Our\nfathers, under the directions and leadership of those infidels, said,\n\"All power comes from the consent of the governed.\"  George Washington\nwanted to establish a church by law in Virginia.  Thomas Jefferson\nprevented it. Under the guaranty of liberty of conscience which was\ngiven, our legislation has improved, and it will not be many years\nbefore all laws touching liberty of conscience, excepting it may be in\nthe State of Delaware, will be blotted out, and when that time comes we\nor our children may thank the infidels of 1776.  The church never\npretended that Franklin died in fear.  Franklin wrote no books against\nthe bible. He thought it useless to cast the pearls of thought before\nthe swine of his generation.\n\nJefferson was a statesman.  He was the author of the Declaration of\nIndependence, founder of a university, father of a political body,\npresident of the United States, a statesman, and a philosopher.  He was\ntoo powerful for the churches of his day.  Paine attacked the Trinity\nand the bible both.  He had done these things openly--His arguments\nwere so good that his reputation got bad.  I want you to recollect\ntonight that he was the first man who wrote these words: \"The United\nStates of America.\"  I want you to know tonight that he was the first\nman who suggested the Federal Constitution.  I want you to know that he\ndid more for the actual separation from Great Britain than any man that\never lived.  I want you to know that he did as much for liberty with\nhis pen as any soldier did with his sword.  I want you to know that\nduring the Revolution his \"Crisis\" was the pillar of fire by night and\na cloud by day.  I want you to know that his \"Common Sense\" was the one\nstar in the horizon of despotism.  I want you to know that he did as\nmuch as any living man to give our free flag to the free air.  He was\nnot content to waste all his energies here.  When the volcano covered\nEurope with the shreds of robes and the broken fragments of thrones,\nPaine went to France.  He was elected by four constituencies.  He had\nthe courage to vote against the death of Louis, and was imprisoned.  He\nwrote to Washington, the president, and asked him to interfere.\nWashington threw the letter in the wastebasket of forgetfulness.  When\nPaine was finally released he gave his opinion of George Washington,\nand, under such circumstances, I say a man can be pardoned for having\nsaid even unjust things.  The eighteenth century was crowning its gray\nhairs with the wreaths of progress, and Thomas Paine said: \"I will do\nsomething to liberate mankind from superstition.\"  He wrote the \"Age of\nReason.\"  For his good, he wrote it too soon; for ours, not a day too\nquick.  From that moment he was a despised and calumniated man.  When\nhe came back to this country he could not safely walk the streets for\nfear of being mobbed.   Under the Constitution he had suggested, his\nrights were not safe; under the flag that he had helped give to heaven,\nwith which he had enriched the air, his liberty was not safe.  Is it\nnot a disgrace to us that all the lies that have been told about him,\nand will be told about him, are a perpetual disgrace?  I tell you that\nupon the grave of Thomas Paine the churches of America have sacrificed\ntheir reputation for veracity. Who can hate a man with a creed:\n\n\"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for immortality; I\nbelieve in the equality of man, and that religious duty consists in\ndoing justice, in doing mercy, and in endeavoring to make our\nfellow-creatures happy. It is necessary to the happiness of man that he\nbe faithful to himself.  One good schoolmaster is worth a thousand\npriests. Man has no property in man, and the key of heaven is in the\nkeeping of no saint.\"\n\nGrand, splendid, brave man!--with some faults, with many virtues; the\nworld is better because he lived; and if Thomas Paine had not lived I\ncould not have delivered this lecture here tonight.\n\nDid all the priests of Rome increase the mental wealth of man as much\nas Bruno?  Did all the priests of France do as great a work for the\ncivilization of this world as Diderot and Voltaire?  Did all the\nministers of Scotland add as much to the sum of human knowledge as\nDavid Hume?  Have all the clergymen, monks, friars, ministers, priests,\nbishops, cardinals and popes from the day of Pentecost to the last\nelection done as much for human liberty as Thomas Paine?  What would\nthe world be now if infidels had never been?  Infidels have been the\nflower of all this world.  Recollect, by infidels I mean every man who\nhas made an intellectual advance. By orthodox I mean a gentleman who is\npetrified in his mind, whopping around intellectually, simply to save\nthe funeral expenses of his soul. Infidels are the creditors of all the\nyears to come.  They have made this world fit to live in, and without\nthem the human brain would be as empty as the Chronicles soon will be.\nUnless they preach something that the people want to hear, it is not a\ncrime to benefit our fellow-man intellectually. The churches point to\ntheir decayed saints and their crumbled popes and say,  \"Do you know\nmore than all the ministers that ever lived?\"  And, without the\nslightest egotism or blush, I say, \"Yes; and the name of Humboldt\noutweighs them all.\" The men who stand in the front rank, the men who\nknow most of the secrets of nature, the men who know most are today the\nadvanced infidels of this world.  I have lived long enough to see the\nbrand of intellectual inferiority on every orthodox brain.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON TALMAGIAN THEOLOGY.\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: Nothing can be more certain than that no human\nbeing can by any possibility control his thought.  We are in this\nworld--we see, we hear, we feel, we taste; and everything in nature\nmakes an impression upon the brain, and that wonderful something,\nenthroned there with these materials, weaves what we call thought, and\nthe brain can no more help thinking than the heart can help beating.\nThe blood pursues its old accustomed round without our will.  The heart\nbeats without asking leave of us, and the brain thinks in spite of all\nthat we can do. This being true, no human being can justly be held\nresponsible for his thought any more than for the beating of his heart,\nany more than for the course pursued by the blood, any more than for\nbreathing air.  And yet for thousands of years thought has been thought\nto be a crime, and thousands and millions have threatened us with\neternal fire if we give the product of that brain.  Each brain, in my\njudgment, is a field where nature sows the seeds of thought, and\nthought is the crop that man reaps, and it certainly cannot be a crime\nto gather; it certainly cannot be a crime to tell it, which simply\namounts to the right to sell your crop or to exchange your product for\nthe product of some other man's brain.  That is all it is. Most\nbrains--at least some--are rather poor fields, and the orthodox worst\nof all.  That field produces mostly sorrel and mullin, while there are\nfields which, like the tropic world, are filled with growth, and where\nyou find the vine and palm, royal children of the sun and brain.  I\nthen stand simply for absolute freedom of thought--absolute; and I\ndon't believe, if there be a God, that it will be or can be pleasing to\nHim to see one of His children afraid to express what he thinks.  And,\nif I were God, I never would cease making men until I succeeded in\nmaking one grand enough to tell his honest opinion.\n\nNow there has been a struggle, you know, a long time between the\nbelievers in the natural and the supernatural--between gentlemen who\nare going to reward us in another world and those who propose to make\nlife worth living here and now.  In all ages the priest, the medicine\nman, the magician, the astrologer, in other words, gentlemen who have\ntraded upon the fear and ignorance of their fellow-man in all\ncountries--they have sought to, make their living out of others.  There\nwas a time when a God presided over every department of human interest,\nwhen a man about to take a voyage bribed the priest of Neptune so that\nhe might have a safe journey, and when he came back, he paid more,\ntelling the priest that he was infinitely obliged to him; that he had\nkept waves from the sea and storms in their caves.  And so, when one\nwas sick he went to a priest; when one was about to take a journey he\nvisited the priest of Mercury; if he were going to war he consulted the\nrepresentative of Mars.  We have gone along.  When the poor\nagriculturist plowed his ground and put in the seed he went to the\npriest of some god and paid him to keep off the frost.  And the priest\nsaid he would do it; \"but,\" added the priest, \"you must have faith.\"\nIf the frost came early he said, \"You didn't have faith.\"  And besides\nall that he says to him: \"Anything that has happened badly, after all,\nwas for your good.\"  Well, we found out, day by day, that a good boat\nfor the purpose of navigating the sea was better than prayers, better\nthan the influence of priests; and you had better have a good captain\nattending to business than thousands of priests ashore praying.\n\nWe also found that we could cure some diseases, and just as soon as we\nfound that we could cure diseases we dismissed the priest.  We have\nleft him out now of all of them, except it may be cholera and smallpox.\nWhen visited by a plague some people get frightened enough to go back\nto the old idea--go back to the priest, and the priest says: \"It has\nbeen sent as a punishment.\"  Well, sensible people began to look about;\nthey saw that the good died as readily as the bad; they saw that this\ndisease would attack the dimpled child in the cradle and allow the\nmurderer to go unpunished; and so they began to think in time that it\nwas not sent as a punishment; that it was a natural result; and so the\npriest stepped out of medicine.\n\nIn agriculture we need him no longer; he has nothing to do with the\ncrops.  All the clergymen in this world can never get one drop of rain\nout of the sky; and all the clergymen in the civilized world could not\nsave one human life if they tried it.\n\nOh, but they say, \"We do not expect a direct answer to prayer; it is\nthe reflex action we are after.\"  It is like a man endeavoring to lift\nhimself up by the straps of his boots; he will never do it, but he will\nget a great deal of useful exercise.\n\nThe missionary goes to some pagan land, and there he finds a man\npraying to a god of stone, and it excites the wrath of the missionary.\nI ask you tonight, does not that stone god answer prayer just as well\nas ours? Does he not cause rain?  Does he not delay frost?  Does he not\nsnatch the ones that we love from the grasp of death precisely the same\nas ours?  Yet we have ministers that are still engaged in that\nbusiness. They tell us that they have been \"called;\" that they do not\ngo at their profession as other people do, but they are \"called;\"  that\nGod, looking over the world, carefully selects His priests, His\nministers, and His exhorters.\n\nI don't know.  They say their calling is sacred.  I say to you tonight\nthat every kind of business that is honest that a man engages in for\nthe purpose of feeding his wife and children, for the purpose of\nbuilding up his home, for the purpose of feeding and clothing the ones\nhe loves--that business is sacred. They tell us that statesmen and\npoets, philosophers, heroes, and scientists and inventors come by\nchance; that all other departments depend entirely upon luck; but when\nGod wants exhorters He selects.\n\nThey also tell us that it is infinitely wicked to attack the Christian\nreligion, and when I speak of the Christian religion I do not refer\nespecially to the Christianity of the new testament; I refer to the\nChristianity of the orthodox church, and when I refer to the clergy I\nrefer to the clergy of the orthodox church.  There was a time when men\nof genius were in the pulpits of the orthodox church; that time is\npast.  When you find a man with brains now occupying an orthodox pulpit\nyou will find him touched with heresy--every one of them.\n\nHow do they get most of these ministers?  There will be a man in the\nneighborhood not very well--not having constitution enough to be\nwicked, and it instantly suggests itself to everybody who sees him that\nhe would make an excellent minister.  There are so many other\nprofessions, so many cities to be built, so many railways to be\nconstructed, so many poems to be sung, so much music to be composed, so\nmany papers to edit, so many books to read, so many splendid things, so\nmany avenues to distinction and glory, so many things beckoning from\nthe horizon of the future to every great and splendid man that the\npulpit has to put up with the leavings--ravelings, selvage.\n\nThese preachers say, \"How can any man be wicked and infamous enough to\nattack our religion and take from the world the solace of orthodox\nChristianity?\"  What is that solace?  Let us be honest.  What is it? If\nthe Christian religion be true, the grandest, greatest, noblest of the\nworld are now in hell, and the narrowest and meanest are now in heaven.\nHumboldt, the Shakespeare of science, the most learned man of the most\nlearned nation, with a mind grand enough to grasp not simply this\nglobe, but this constellation--a man who shed light upon the whole\nearth--a man who honored human nature, and who won all his victories on\nthe field of thought--that man, pure and upright, noble beyond\ndescription, if Christianity be true, is in hell this moment. That is\nwhat they call \"solace\"--\"tidings of great joy.\"  LaPlace, who read the\nheavens like an open book, who enlarged the horizon of human thought,\nis there too. Beethoven, Master of melody and harmony, who added to the\njoy of human life, and who has borne upon the wings of harmony and\nmelody millions of spirits to the height of joy, with his heart still\nfilled with melody--he is in hell today.  Robert Burns, poet of love\nand liberty, and from his heart, like a spring gurgling and running\ndown the highways, his poems have filled the world with music.  They\nhave added luster to human love.  That man who, in four lines, gave all\nthe philosophy of life--\n\n                To make a happy fireside clime\n                For weans and wife\n                Is the true pathos and\n                Sublime Of human life\n\n--he is there with the rest.\n\nCharles Dickens, whose genius will be a perpetual shield, saving\nthousands and millions of children from blows, who did more to make us\ntender with children than any other writer that ever touched a pen--he\nis there with the rest, according to our Christian religion. A little\nwhile ago there died in this country a philosopher--Ralph Waldo\nEmerson--a man of the loftiest ideal, a perfect model of integrity,\nwhose mind was like a placid lake and reflected truths like stars.  If\nthe Christian religion be true, he is in perdition today.   And yet he\nsowed the seeds of thought, and raised the whole world intellectually.\nAnd Longfellow, whose poems, tender as the dawn, have gone into\nmillions of homes, not an impure, not a stained word in them all; but\nhe was not a Christian.  He did not believe in the \"tidings of great\njoy.\"  He didn't believe that God so loved the world that He intended\nto damn most everybody.  And now he has gone to his reward.  And\nCharles Darwin--a child of nature--one who knew more about his mother\nthan any other child she ever had.  What is philosophy?  It is to\naccount for phenomena by which we are surrounded--that is, to find the\nhidden cord that unites everything. Charles Darwin threw more light\nupon the problem of human existence than all the priests who ever lived\nfrom Melchisedec to the last exhorter.  He would have traversed this\nglobe on foot had it been possible to have found one new fact or to\nhave corrected one error that he had made.  No nobler man has lived--no\nman who has studied with more reverence (and by reverence I mean simply\none who lives and studies for the truth)--no man who studied with more\nreverence than he.  And yet, according to orthodox religion, Charles\nDarwin is in hell.  Consolation!\n\nSo, if Christianity be true, Shakespeare, the greatest man who ever\ntouched this planet, within whose brain were the fruits of all thought\npast, the seeds of all to be--Shakespeare, who was an intellectual\nocean toward which all rivers ran, and from which now the isles and\ncontinents of thought received their dew and rain--that man who has\nadded more to the intelligence of the world than any other who ever\nlived--that man, whose creations will live as long as man has\nimagination, and who has given more happiness upon the stage and more\ninstruction than has flown from all the pulpits of this earth--that man\nis in hell, too.  And Harriet Martineau, who did as much for English\nliberty as any man, brave and free--she is there. \"George Eliot,\" the\ngreatest woman the English-speaking people ever produced--she is with\nthe rest.  And this is called \"Tidings of great joy.\"\n\nWho are in heaven?  How could there be much of a heaven without the men\nI have mentioned--the great men that have endeavored to make the world\ngrander--such men as Voltaire, such men as Diderot, such men as the\nencyclopedists, such men as Hume, such men as Bruno, such men as Thomas\nPaine?  If Christianity is true, that man who spent his life in\nbreaking chains is now wearing the chains of God; that man who wished\nto break down the prison walls of tyranny is now in the prison of the\nmost merciful Christ.  It will not do.  I can hardly express to you\ntoday my contempt for such a doctrine; and if it be true, I make my\nchoice today, and I prefer hell.\n\nWho is in heaven?  John Calvin!  John Knox!  Jonathan Edwards!\nTorquemada--the builders of dungeons, the men who have obstructed the\nmarch of the human race.  These are the men who are in heaven; and who\nelse?  Those who never had brain enough to harbor a doubt. And they ask\nme: How can you be wicked enough to attack the Christian religion?\n\n\"Oh,\" but they say,  \"God will never forgive you if you attack the\northodox religion.\"  Now, when I read the history of this world, and\nwhen I think of the experience of my fellow-men, when I think of the\nmillions living in poverty, and when I know that in the very air we\nbreathe and in the sunlight that visits our homes there lurks an\nassassin ready to take our lives, and even when we believe we are in\nthe fullness health and joy, they are undermining us with their\ncontagion--when I know that we are surrounded by all these evils, and\nwhen I think of what man has suffered, I do not wonder if God can\nforgive man, but I often ask myself, \"Can man forgive God?\"\n\nThere is another thing.  Some of these ministers have talked about me,\nand have made it their business to say unpleasant things.  Among others\nthe Rev. Mr. Talmage, of Brooklyn--a man of not much imagination, but\nof most excellent judgment--charges that I am a \"blasphemer.\"  A\nfrightful charge!  Terrible, if true!  What is blasphemy?  It is a sin,\nas I understand, against God.  Is God infinite?  He is, so they say; He\nis infinite; absolutely conditionless?  Can I injure the conditionless?\nNo. Can I sin against anything that I cannot injure? No.  That is a\nperfectly plain proposition.  I can injure my fellow-man, because he is\na conditioned being, and I can help to change those conditions.  He\nmust have air; he must have food, he must have clothing; he must have\nshelter; but God is conditionless, and I cannot by any possibility\naffect Him.  Consequently I cannot sin against Him.  But I can sin\nagainst my fellow-man, so that I ought to be a thousand times more\ncareful of doing injustice than of uttering blasphemy.  There is no\nblasphemy but injustice, and there is no worship except the practice of\njustice.  It is a thousand times more important that we should love our\nfellow-men than that we should love God.  It is better to love wife and\nchildren than to love Jesus Christ, He is dead; they are alive.  I can\nmake their lives happy and fill all their hours with the fullness of\njoy.  That is my religion; and the holiest temple ever erected beneath\nthe stars is the home; the holiest altar is the fireside.\n\nWhat is this blasphemy?  First, it is a geographical question.  There\nwas a time when it was blasphemy in Jerusalem to say that Christ was\nGod.  In this country it is now blasphemy to say that He was not.  It\nis blasphemy in Constantinople to deny that Mahomet was the Prophet of\nGod; it is blasphemy here to say that he was.  It is a geographical\nquestion; you cannot tell whether it is blasphemy or not without\nlooking at the map.  What is blasphemy?  It is what the mistake says\nabout the fact. It is what the last year's leaf says about this year's\nbud.  It is the last cry of the defeated priest.  Blasphemy is the\nlittle breast-work behind which hypocrisy hides; behind which mental\nimpotency feels safe. There is no blasphemy but the avowal of thought,\nand he who speaks what he thinks blasphemes.\n\nThat I have had the hardihood--it doesn't take much--to attack the\nsacred scriptures.  I have simply given my opinion; and yet they tell\nme that that book is holy--that you can take rags, make pulp, put ink\non it, bind it in leather, and make something holy.  The Catholics have\na man for a pope; the Protestants have a book.  The Catholics have the\nbest of it.  If they elect an idiot he will not live forever, and it is\nimpossible for us to get rid of the barbarisms in our book. The\nCatholics said, \"We will not let the common people read the bible.\"\nThat was right.  If it is necessary to believe it in order to get to\nheaven no man should run the risk of reading it.  To allow a man to\nread the bible on such conditions is to set a trap for his soul.  The\nright way is never to open it, and when you get to the day of judgment,\nand they ask you if you believe it say \"Yes, I have never read it.\"\nThe Protestant gives the book to a poor man and says: \"Read it.  You\nare at liberty to read it.\"  \"Well, suppose I don't believe it, when I\nget through?\" \"Then you will be damned.\" No man should be allowed to\nread it on those conditions.  And yet Protestants have done that\ninfinitely cruel thing.  If I thought it was necessary to believe it I\nwould say never read another line in it but just believe it and stick\nto it.  And yet these people really think that there is something\nmiraculous about the book.  They regard it as a fetish--a kind of\namulet--a something charmed, that will keep off evil spirits, or bad\nluck, stop bullets, and do a thousand handy-things for the preservation\nof life.\n\nI heard a story upon that subject.  You know that thousands of them are\nprinted in the Sunday-school books.  Here is one they don't print.\nThere was a poor man who had belonged to the church, but he got cold,\nand he rather neglected it, and he had bad luck in his business, and he\nwent down and down and down until he hadn't a dollar--not a thing to\neat; and his wife said to him, \"John, this comes of you having\nabandoned the church, this comes of your having done away with family\nworship.  Now, I beg of you, let's go back.\"  Well, John said it\nwouldn't do any harm to try.  So he took down the bible, blew the dust\noff it, read a little from a chapter, and had family worship.  As he\nwas putting it up he opened it again, and there was a $10 bill between\nthe leaves.  He rushed out to the butcher's and bought meat, to the\ngrocer's and bought tea and bread, and butter and eggs, and rushed back\nhome and got them cooked, and the house was filled with the perfume of\nfood; and he sat down at the table, tears in every eye and a smile on\nevery face. She said, \"What did I tell you?\"  Just then there was a\nknock on the door, and in came a constable, who arrested him for\npassing a $10 counterfeit bill.\n\nThey tell me that I ought not to attack the bible--that I have\nmisrepresented it, and among other things that I have said that,\naccording to the bible, the world was made of nothing.  Well, what was\nit made of?  They say God created everything.  Consequently, there must\nhave been nothing when He commenced.  If he didn't make it of nothing,\nwhat did he make it of?  Where there was, nothing, He made something.\nYes; out of what? I don't know.  This doctor of divinity, and I should\nthink such a divinity would need a doctor, says that God made the\nuniverse out of His omnipotence.  Why not out of His omniscience, or\nHis omnipresence?  Omnipotence is not a raw material.  It is the\nsomething to work raw material with. Omnipotence is simply all\npowerful, and what good would strength do with nothing?  The weakest\nman ever born could lift as much nothing as God.  And he could do as\nmuch with it after he got it lifted. And yet a doctor of divinity tells\nme that this world was made of omnipotence.  And right here let me say\nI find even in the mind of the clergymen the seeds of infidelity.  He\nis trying to explain things.  That is a bad symptom.  The greater the\nmiracle the greater the reward for believing it.  God cannot afford to\nreward a man for believing anything reasonable.  Why, even the scribes\nand Pharisees would believe a reasonable thing.  Do you suppose God is\nto crown you with eternal joy and give you a musical instrument for\nbelieving something where the evidence is clear?  No, sir.  The larger\nthe miracle the more grace.  And let me advise the ministers of Chicago\nand of this country, never to explain a miracle; it cannot be\nexplained.  If you succeed in explaining it, the miracle is gone. If\nyou fail you are gone. My advice to the clergy is, use assertion; just\nsay \"it is so,\" and the larger the miracle the greater the glory reaped\nby the eternal.  And yet this man is trying to explain, pretending that\nHe had some raw material of some kind on hand.  And then I objected to\nthe fact that He didn't make the sun until the fourth day, and that,\nconsequently, the grass could not have grown--could not have thrown its\nmantle of green over the shoulders of the hill--and that the trees\nwould not blossom and cast their shade upon the sod without some\nsunshine; and what does this man say?  Why, that the rocks, when they\ncrystallized, emitted light, even enough to raise a crop by.  And he\nsays \"vegetation might have depended on the glare of volcanoes in the\nmoon.\"  What do you think would be the fate of agriculture depending on\nthe \"glare of volcanoes in the moon?\" Then he says \"the aurora\nborealis.\"  Why, you couldn't raise cucumbers by the aurora borealis.\nAnd he says \"liquid rivers of molten granite.\" I would like to have a\nfarm on that stream.  He guesses everything of the kind except\nlightning-bugs and foxfire.  Now, think of that explanation in the last\nhalf of the nineteenth century by a minister. The truth is, the\ngentleman who wrote the account knew nothing of astronomy--knew as\nlittle as the modern preacher does--just about the same; and if they\ndon't know more about the next world than they do about this, it is\nhardly worth while talking with them on the subject. There was a time,\nyou know, when the minister was the educated man in the country, and\nwhen, if you wanted to know anything, you asked him. Now you do if you\ndon't.  So I find this man expounding the flood, and he says it was not\nvery wet.  He begins to doubt whether God had water enough to cover the\nwhole earth.  Why not stand by his book?  He says that some of the\nanimals got into the ark to keep out of the wet.  I believe that is the\nway the Democrats got to the polls last Tuesday.\n\nAnother divine says that God would have drowned them all, but it was\npurely for the sake of economy that He saved any of them.  Just think\nof that!  According to this Christian religion all the people in the\nworld were totally depraved through the fall, and God found he could\nnot do anything with them, so he drowned them.  Now, if God wanted to\nget up a flood big enough to drown sin, why did He not get up a flood\nbig enough to drown the snake?  That was His mistake.  Now, these\npeople say that if Jonah had walked rapidly up and down the whale's\nbelly he would have avoided the action of its gastric-juice. Imagine\nJonah sitting in the whale's mouth, on the back of a molar-tooth; and\nyet this doctor of divinity would have us believe that the infinite God\nof the universe was sitting under his gourd and made the worm that was\nat the root of Jonah's vine.  Great business.\n\nDavid is said to have been a man after God's own heart, and if you will\nread the twenty-eighth chapter of Chronicles you will find that David\ndied full of years and honors.  So I find in the great book of\nprophecy, concerning Solomon: \"He shall reign in peace and quietness,\nhe shall be my son, and I shall be his father, and I will preserve his\nKingdom.\" Was that true?\n\nIt won't do.  But they say God couldn't do away with slavery suddenly,\nnor with polygamy all at once--that He had to do it gradually--that if\nHe had told this man you mustn't have slaves, and one man that he must\nhave one wife, and one wife that she must have one husband, He would\nhave lost the control over them notwithstanding all the miraculous\npower.  Is it not wonderful that when they did all these miracles\nnobody paid any attention to them?  Isn't it wonderful that, in Egypt,\nwhen they performed these wonders--when the waters were turned into\nblood, when the people were smitten with disease and covered with the\nhorrible animals--isn't it wonderful that it had no influence on them?\nDo you know why all these miracles didn't affect the Egyptians?  They\nwere there at the time.  Isn't it wonderful, too, that the Jews who had\nbeen brought from bondage--had followed a cloud by day and a pillar of\nfire by night--who had been miraculously fed, and for whose benefit\nwater had leaked from the rocks and followed them up and down hill\nthrough all their journeying--isn't it wonderful, when they had seen\nthe earth open and their companions swallowed, when they had seen God\nHimself write in robes of flames from Sinai's crags, when they had seen\nHim talking face to face with Moses--isn't it a little wonderful that\nHe had no more influence over them?  They were there at the time.  And\nthat is the reason they didn't mind it--they were there.  And yet, with\nall these miracles, this God could not prevent polygamy and slavery.\nWas there no room on the two tables of stone to put two more\ncommandments? Better have written them on the back, then.  Better have\nleft the others all off and put these two on.  Man shall not enslave\nhis brother, (you shall not live on unpaid labor), and the one man\nshall have the one wife.  If these two had been written and the other\nten left off, it would have been a thousand times better for this world.\n\nBut, they say, God works gradually.  No hurry about it.  He is not\ngradual about keeping Sunday, because, if He met a man picking up\nsticks, He killed Him; but in other things He is gradual.  Suppose we\nwanted now to break certain cannibals of eating missionaries--wanted to\nstop them from eating them raw?  Of course we would not tell them, in\nthe first place, it was wrong.  That would not do. We would induce them\nto cook them.  That would be the first step toward civilization.  We\nwould have them stew them.  We would not say it is wrong to eat\nmissionary, but it is wrong to eat missionary raw.  Then, after they\nbegan stewing them, we would put in a little mutton--not enough to\nexcite suspicion but just a little, and so, day by day, we would put in\na little more mutton and a little less missionary until, in about what\nthe bible calls \"the fullness of time,\"  we would have clear mutton and\nno missionary.  That is God's way.  The next great charge against me is\nthat I have disgraced my parents by expressing my honest thoughts.  No\nman can disgrace his parents that way.  I want my children to express\ntheir real opinions, whether they agree with mine or not.  I want my\nchildren to find out more than I have found, and I would be gratified\nto have them discover the errors I have made.  And if my father and\nmother were still alive I feel and know that I am pursuing a course of\nwhich they would approve.  I am true to my manhood.  But think of it!\nSuppose the father of Dr. Talmage had been a Methodist and his mother\nan infidel. Then what.  Would he have to disgrace them both to be a\nPresbyterian. The disciples of Christ, according to this doctrine,\ndisgraced their parents.  The founder of every new religion, according\nto this doctrine, was a disgrace to his father and mother.  Now there\nmust have been a time when a Talmage was not a Presbyterian, and the\none that left something else to join that church disgraced his father\nand mother.  Why, if this doctrine be true why do you send missionaries\nto other lands and ask those people to disgrace their parents?  If this\ndoctrine be true nobody has religious liberty except foundlings, and it\nshould be written over every Foundling Hospital: \"Home for Religious\nLiberty.\"  It won't do.\n\nWhat is the next thing I have said?  I have taken the ground, and I\ntake it again today, that the bible has only words of humiliation for\nwoman. The bible treats woman as the slave, the serf of man, and\nwherever that book is believed in thoroughly woman is a slave. It is\nthe infidelity in the church that gives her what liberty she has today.\nOh!  but, says the gentleman, think of the heroines in the bible.  How\ncould a book be opposed to woman which has pictured such heroines?\nWell, that is a good argument.  Let's answer it. Who are the heroines?\nHe tells us.  The first is Esther.  Who was she?  Esther is a very\npeculiar book, and the story is about this: Ahasaerus was a king.  His\nwife's name was Vashti. She didn't please him.  He divorced her, and\nadvertised for another.  A gentleman by the name of Mordecai had a good\nlooking niece, and he took her to market.  Her name was Esther.  I\ndon't feel like reading the whole of the second chapter.  It is\nsufficient to say she was selected. After a time there was a gentleman\nby the name of Haman who, I should think, was in the cabinet, according\nto the story.  And this man Mordecai began to put on considerable style\nbecause his niece was the king's wife, and he would not bow, or he\nwould not rise, or he would not meet this gentleman with marks of\ndistinguished consideration, so he made up his mind to have him hung.\nThen they got out an order to kill the Jews, and this Esther went to\nsee the king.  In those days they believed in the Bismarkian style of\ngovernment--all power came from the king, not from the people; if\nanybody went to see this king without an invitation, and he failed to\nhold out his sceptre to him, the person was killed just to preserve the\ndignity of the monarch. When Esther arrived he held out the sceptre,\nand there-upon she induced him to send out another order for the\nfellows who were to kill the Jews, and they killed 75,000 or 80,000 of\nthem.  And they came back and said, \"Kill Haman and his ten sons,\" and\nthey hung the family up.  That is all there is to the story.  And yet\nthis Esther is held up as a model of womanly grace and tenderness, and\nthere is not a more infamous story in the literature of the world.\n\nThe next heroine is Ruth.  I admit, that is a very pretty story.  But\nRuth was guilty of more things that would be deemed indiscreet than any\ngirl in Brooklyn.  That is all there is about Ruth.  The next heroine\nis Hannah. And what do you suppose was the matter with her? She made a\ncoat for her boy; that's all.  I have known a woman make a whole suit!\nThe next heroine was Abigail.  She was the wife of Natal.  King David\nhad a few soldiers with him, and he called at the house of Natal, and\nasked if he could not get food for his men. Abigail went down to give\nhim something to eat, and she was very much struck with David, David\nevidently fancied her.  Natal died within a week.  I think he was\npoisoned.  David and Abigail were married.  If that had happened in\nChicago there would have been a coroner's jury, and an inquest; but\nthat is all there was to that.\n\nThe next is Dorcas.  She was in the new testament.  She was real good\nto the ministers.  Those ladies have always stood well with the church.\nShe was real good to the poor.  She died one day, and you never hear of\nher again.\n\nThen there was that person that was raised from the dead.  I would like\nto know from a person that had recently been raised from the dead,\nwhere he was when he was wanted, what he was traveling about, and what\nhe was engaged in.  I cannot imagine a more interesting person than one\nthat has just been raised from the dead.  Lazarus comes from the tomb,\nand I think sometimes that there must be a mistake about it, because\nwhen they come to die again thousands of people would say, \"Why, he\nknows all about it!\"  Would it not be noted if a man had two funerals?\n\nNow, then, these are all the heroines, to show you how little they\nthought of woman in that day.  In the days of the old testament they\ndid not even tell us when the mother of us all (Eve) died, nor where\nshe is buried, nor anything about it.  They do not even tell us where\nthe mother of Christ sleeps, nor when she died.  Never is she spoken of\nafter the morning of the resurrection.  He who descended from the cross\nwent not to see her; and the son had no word for the broken-hearted\nmother.\n\nThe story is not true.  I believe Christ was a great and good man, but\nHe had nothing about Him miraculous except the courage to tell what he\nthought about the religion of His day.  The new testament, in relating\nwhat occurred between Christ and his mother, mentions three instances;\nonce, when they thought He had been lost in Jerusalem, when He said to\nthem, \"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?\"  Next,\nat the marriage of Cana, when He said to the woman, \"What have I to do\nwith thee?\"--words which He never said; and again from the cross,\n\"Mother, behold Thy Son;\"  and to the disciple, \"Behold thy Mother!\"\nSo of Mary Magdalene.  In some respects there is no character in the\nnew testament that so appeals to us as loving Christ--first at the\nsepulchre--and yet when He meets her after the resurrection He had for\nher the comfort only of the chilling words, \"Touch me not!\"   I don't\nbelieve it.  There were thousands of heroic women then.  There are\nheroic women now.  Think of the women who cling to fallen and disgraced\nhusbands day by day, until they reach the gutter, and who stoop down to\nlift them from that position, and raise them up to be men once more!\nEvery country is civilized in proportion as it honors woman.  There are\nwomen in England working in mines, deformed by labor, that would become\nwild beasts were it not for the love they bear for home.  Can you find\namong the women of the new testament any women that can equal the women\nborn of Shakespeare's brain?  You can find no woman like Isabella,\nwhere reason and purity blend into perfect truth; no woman like Juliet,\nwhere passion and purity meet like red and white within the bosom of a\nflower; no woman like Imogen, who said, \"What is it to be false?\" No\nwoman like Cordelia, that would not show her wealth of love in hope of\ngain; nor like Hermione, who bore the cross of shame for years; nor\nlike Miranda, who told her love as the flower exposes its bosom to the\nsun; nor like Desdemona, who was so pure that she could not suspect\nthat another could suspect her of a crime.\n\nAnd we are told that woman sinned first and man second; that man was\nmade first and woman not till afterwards.  The idea is that we could\nhave gotten along without the woman well enough, but they never could\nhave gotten along without us.  I tell you that love is better than\npiety, love is better than all the ceremonial worship of the world, and\nit is better to love something than to believe anything on this globe.\nSo this minister, seeking a mark to throw an arrow somewhere--trying to\nfind some little place in the armor--charges me with having disparaged\nQueen Victoria.  That you know is next to blasphemy.  Well, I never did\nanything of the kind--never said a word against her in in life, neither\nas wife, or mother, or Queen--never doubted but that she is a good\nwoman enough, and I have always admitted that her reputation was good\nin the neighborhood where she resides.  I never had any other opinion.\nAll I said in the world was--I was endeavoring to show that we are now\nto have an aristocracy of brain and heart--that is all--and I said,\n'speaking of Louis Napoleon, he was not satisfied with simply being an\nemperor and having a little crown on his head, but wanted to prove that\nhe had something in his head, so he wrote the life of Julius Caesar,\nand that made him a member of the French Academy; and speaking of King\nWilliam, upon whose head is the divine petroleum of authority, I asked\nhow he would like to exchange brains with Haeckel, the philosopher.\nThen I went over to England, and said \"Queen Victoria wears the garment\nof power given her by blind fortune, by eyeless chance; 'George Eliot'\nis arrayed in robes of glory, woven in the loom of her own genius.\"\nThereupon I am charged with disparaging a woman.  And this priest, in\norder to get even with me, digs open the grave of \"George Eliot\" and\nendeavors to stain her unresisting dust.  He calls her an\nadulteress--the vilest word in the languages of men--and he does it\nbecause she hated the Presbyterian creed, because she, according to his\ndefinition, was an atheist, because she lived without faith and died\nwithout fear, because she grandly bore the taunts and slanders of the\nChristian world. \"George Eliot\" carried tenderly in her heart the\nfaults and frailties of her race. She saw the highway of eternal right\nthrough all the winding paths, where folly vainly stalks with\nthorn-pierced hands, the fading flowers of selfish joy; and whatever\nyou may think or I may think of the one mistake in all her sad and\nloving life, I know and feel that in the court where her conscience sat\nas judge she stood acquitted, pure as light and stainless as a star.\n\"George Eliot\" has joined the choir invisible whose music is the\ngladness of this world, and her wondrous lines, her touching poems,\nwill be read hundreds of years after every sermon in which a priest has\nsought to stain her name shall have vanished utterly from human speech.\nHow appropriate here, with some slight change, the words of Laertes at\nOphelia's grave:\n\nLay her in the earth; And from her fair and unpolluted flesh May\nviolets spring; I tell thee, priest and minister, A ministering angel\nshall this woman be When thou liest howling.\n\nI have no words with which to express my loathing hatred and\ncondemnation of the man who will stain a noble woman's grave.\n\nThe next argument in favor of the \"sacred scriptures\" is the argument\nof numbers; and this minister congratulates himself that the infidels\ncould not carry a precinct, or a county, or a state in the United\nStates.  Well, I tell you, they can come proportionately near it--just\nin proportion that that part of the country is educated. The whole\nworld doesn't move together in one life.  There has to be some man to\ntake a step forward and the people follow; and when they get where that\nman was, some other Titan has taken another step, and you can see him\nthere on the great mountain of progress.  That is why the world moves.\nThere must be pioneers, and if nobody is right except he who is with\nthe majority, then we must turn and walk toward the setting sun.  He\nsays \"We will settle this by suffrage.\"  The Christian religion was\nsubmitted to a popular vote in Jerusalem, and what was the result?\n\"Crucify Him \"--an infamous result, showing that you can't depend on\nthe vote of barbarians.  But I am told that there are 300,000,000\nChristians in the world.  Well, what of it? There are more Buddhists.\nAnd they say, what a number of bibles are printed!--more bibles than\nany other book.  Does this prove anything?  True, because more of them.\nSuppose you should find published in the New York Herald something\nabout you, and you should go to the editor and tell him: \"That is a\nlie;\"  and he should say: \"That can't be; the Herald has the largest\ncirculation of any paper in the world.\"  Three hundred millions of\nChristians, and here are the nations that prove the truth of\nChristianity: Russia 80,000,000 Christians.  I am willing to admit it;\na country without freedom of speech, without freedom of press--a\ncountry in which every mouth is a Bastille and every tongue a prisoner\nfor life--a country in which assassins are the best men in it.  They\ncall that Christian. Girls sixteen years of age, for having spoken in\nfavor of human liberty, are now working in Siberian mines.  That is a\nChristian country.  Only a little while ago a man shot at the emperor\ntwice. The emperor was protected by his armor.  The man was convicted,\nand they asked him if he wished religious consolation.  \"No.\"  \"Do you\nbelieve in a God?\"  \"No;\" if there was a God there would be no Russia.\nSixteen millions of Christians in Spain--Spain that never touched a\nshore except as a robber--Spain that took the gold and silver of the\nnew world and used it as an engine of oppression in the old--a country\nin which cruelty was worship, in which murder was prayer--a country\nwhere flourished the Inquisition--I admit Spain is a Christian country.\nIf you don't believe it I do.  Read the history of Holland, read the\nhistory of South America, read the history of Mexico--a chapter of\ncruelty beyond the power of language to express.  I admit that Spain is\northodox.  If you will go there you will find the man who robs you and\nasks God to forgive you--a country where infidelity hasn't made much\nheadway, but, thank God, where there is even yet a dawn, where there\nare such men as Castelar and others, who begin to see that one\nschoolhouse is equal to three cathedrals and one teacher worth all the\npriests.\n\nItaly is another Christian nation, with 28,000,000 Christians.  In\nItaly lives the only authorized agent of God, the pope.  For hundreds\nof years Italy was the beggar of the earth, and held out both hands.\nGold and silver flowed from every land into her palms, and she became\ncovered with nunneries, monasteries, and the pilgrims of the world.\nItaly was sacred dust.  Her soil was a perpetual blessing, her sky was\nan eternal smile.  Italy was guilty not simply of the death of the\nCatholic church, but Italy was dead and buried and would have been in\nher grave still had it not been for Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Cavour.\nWhen the prophecy of Garibaldi shall be fulfilled, when the priests,\nwith spades in their hands, shall dig ditches to drain the Pontine\nmarshes, when the monasteries shall be factories, when the whirling\nwheels of industry shall drown the drowsy and hypocritical prayers,\nthen and not till then, will Italy be great and free.  Italy is the\nonly instance in our history and in the history of the world, so far as\nwe know, of the resurrection of a nation.  She is the first fruits of\nthem that sleep.\n\nPortugal is another Christian country.  She made her living in the\nslave trade for centuries.  I admit that all the blessings that that\ncountry enjoyed flowed naturally from Catholicism, and we believe in\nthe same scriptures.  If you don't believe it, read the history of the\npersecution of the Jewish people.  I admit that Germany is a Christian\nnation; that is, Christians are in power.  When the bill was introduced\nfor the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the Jews, Bismark\nspoke against it, and said \"Germany is a Christian nation, and\ntherefore, we cannot pass the bill.\"  Austria is another Christian\nnation.  If you don't believe it, read the history of Hungary, and, if\nyou still have doubts, read the history of the partition of Poland.\nBut there is one good thing in that country. They believe in education,\nand education is the enemy of ecclesiasticism.  Every thoroughly\neducated man is his own church, and his own pope, and his own priest.\n\nThey tell me that the United States--our country--is Christian.  I deny\nit.  It is neither Christian nor pagan; it is human.  Our fathers\nretired all the gods from politics.  Our fathers laid down the doctrine\nthat the right to govern comes from the consent of the governed, and\nnot from the clouds.  Our fathers knew that if they put an infinite God\nin the Constitution there would be no room left for the people.  Our\nfathers used the language of Lincoln, and they made a government for\nthe people by the people.  This is not a Christian country.  Some\ngentleman said, \"How about Delaware?\"  I told him there was a man in\nWashington some twenty or thirty years ago who came there and said he\nwas a Revolutionary soldier and wanted a pension.  He was so bent and\nbowed over that the wind blew his shoestrings into his eyes.  They\nasked him how old he was, and he said fifty years. \"Why, good man, you\ncan't get a pension, because the war was over before you were born.\nYou mustn't fool us.\"  \"Well,\" said he, \"I'll tell you the truth: I\nlived sixty years in Delaware, but I never count it, and hope God\nwon't.\"  And these Christian nations which have been brought forward as\nthe witnesses of the truth of the scriptures owe $25,000,000,000, which\nrepresents Christian war, Christian cannon, Christian shot, and\nChristian shell. The sum is so great that the imagination is dazed in\nits contemplation. That is the result of loving your neighbor as\nyourself.\n\nThe next great argument brought forward by these gentlemen is the\npersecution of the Jews.  We are told in the nineteenth century that\nGod has the Jews persecuted simply for the purpose of establishing the\nauthenticity of the scriptures, and every Jewish home burned in Russia\nthrows light on the gospel, and every violated Jewish maiden is another\nevidence that God still takes an interest in the holy scriptures.  That\nis their doctrine.  They are \"fulfilling prophecy.\" The Christian\ngrasps the Jew, strips him, robs him, makes him an outcast, and then\npoints to him as a fulfillment of prophecy; and we are today laying the\nfoundation of future persecution--we are teaching our children the\nmonstrous falsehood that Jews crucified God, and the nation consented.\nThey crucified a good man.  What nation has not?  What race has not?\nThink of the number killed by the Presbyterians; by the Catholics.\nEvery sect, with maybe two or three exceptions, have crucified their\nfellows, and every race has burned its greatest and its best.  And yet\nwe are filling the minds of children with hatred of the Jewish people.\nIt is a poor business.  \"Ah?\" but they say, \"these people are cursed by\nGod.\" I say they never had any good fortune until the Jehovah of the\nbible deserted them.  Whenever they have had a reasonable chance they\nhave been the most prosperous people in the world.  I never saw one\nbegging. I never saw one in the criminal dock.  For hundreds of years\nthey were not allowed to own any land, for hundreds of years they were\nnot allowed to work at any trade; they were driven simply to dealing in\nmoney, and in precious stones, and things of that character, and, by a\nkind of poetic justice, they have today the control of the money of the\nworld.  I am glad to see that kings and emperors go to the offices of\nthe Jews, with their hats in their hands, to have their notes\ndiscounted.  And yet I am told by clergymen that all this infamy has\nbeen kept up simply to establish the truth of the gospel. I despise\nsuch doctrine.  As long as the liberty of one Jew is unsafe, my liberty\nis not secure.  Liberty for all, and not until then will the liberty of\nany be assured.  \"Ah\"; but says this man, \"nobody ever died cheerfully\nfor a lie.  The Jewish people have suffered persecution for 1,600\nyears, and they have suffered it cheerfully.\" If this doctrine is true,\nthen Judaism must be true and Christianity must be false.  But\nmartyrdom doesn't prove the truth if the martyr knows it.  It simply\nproves the barbarity of his persecutors, and has no sincerity. That is\nall it proves.\n\nBut you must remember that this gentleman who believes in this doctrine\nis a Presbyterian, and why should a Presbyterian object? After a few\nhundred years of burning he expects to enjoy the eternal auto da fe of\nhell--an auto da fe that will be presided over by God and His angels,\nand they will be expected to applaud.  He is a Presbyterian; and what\nis that?  It is the worst religion of this earth.  I admit that\nthousands and millions of Presbyterians are good people, no man ever\nbeing half so bad as his creed.  I am not attacking them.  I am\nattacking their creed.  I am attacking what this religion calls\n\"Tidings of great joy.\"  And, according to that, hundreds of billions\nand billions of years ago our fate was irrevocably and forever fixed,\nand God in the secret counsels of His own inscrutable will, made up His\nmind whom He would save and whom He would damn.  When thinking of that\nGod I always think of the mistake of a Methodist preacher during the\nwar.  He commenced the prayer--and never did one more appropriate for\nthe Presbyterian God or the Methodist go up--\"O, Thou great and\nunscrupulous God.\" This Presbyterian believes that billions of years\nbefore that baby in the cradle--that little dimpled child, basking in\nthe light of a mother's smile--was born, God had made up His mind to\ndamn it; and when Talmage looks at one of those children who will\nprobably be damned he is cheerful about it; he enjoys it.  That is\nPresbyterianism--that God made man and damned him for His own glory. If\nthere is such a God, I hate Him with every drop of my blood; and if\nthere is a heaven it must be where He is not.  Now think of that\ndoctrine!  Only a little while ago there was a ship from Liverpool out\neighty days with its rudder washed away; for ten days nothing to\neat--nothing but the bare decks and hunger; and the captain took a\nrevolver in his hand and put it to his brain and said: \"Some of us must\ndie for the others.  And it might as well be I.\"  One of his companions\ngrasped the pistol and said: \"Captain, wait; wait one day more.  We can\nlive another day.\"  And the next morning the horizon was rich with a\nsail, and they were saved.  And yet if Presbyterianism is true; if that\nman had put the bullet through his infinitely generous brain so that\nhis comrades could have eaten of his flesh and reached their homes and\nfelt about their necks the dimpled arms of children and the kisses of\nwives upon their lips--if Presbyterianism be true, God had a constable\nready there to clutch that soul and thrust it down to eternal hell.\nTidings of great joy.  And yet this is religion.  Why, if that doctrine\nbe true, every soldier in the Revolutionary War who died not a\nChristian has been damned; every one in the War of 1812, who kept our\nflag upon the sea, if he died not a Christian has been damned; and\nevery one in the Civil War who fought to keep our flag in heaven, not a\nChristian, and the ones who died in Andersonville and Libby, not\nChristians, are now in the prison of God, where the famine of\nAndersonville and Libby would be regarded as a joy. Orthodox\nChristianity!  Why, we have an account in the bible--it comes from the\nother world--from both countries--from heaven and from hell--let us see\nwhat it is.  Here is a rich man who dies.  The only fault about him\nwas, he was rich; no other crime was charged against him.  We are told\nthat the rich man died, and when he lifted up his eyes he found no\nsympathy, yet even in hell he remembered his five brethren, and prayed\nthat some one should be sent to them so that they should not come\nthere.  I tell you I had rather be in hell with human sympathy than in\nheaven without it.\n\nThe bible is not inspired, and ministers know nothing about another\nworld.  They don't know.  I am satisfied there is no world of eternal\npain.  If there is a world of joy, so much the better.  I have never\nput out the faintest star of human hope that ever trembled in the night\nof life.  There was a time when I was not; after that I was; now I am.\nAnd it is just as probable that I will live again as it was that I\ncould have lived before I did.  Let it go.  Ah! but what will life be?\nThe world will be here.  Men and women will be here. The page of\nhistory will be open.  The walls of the world will be adorned with art,\nthe niches with sculpture; music will be here, and all there is of life\nand joy.  And there will be homes here, and the fireside, and there\nwill be a common hope without a common fear. Love will be here, and\nlove is the only bow on life's dark cloud. Love was the first to dream\nof immortality.  Love is the morning and evening star.  It shines upon\nthe child; it sheds its radiance upon the peaceful tomb.  Love is the\nmother of beauty--the mother of melody, for music is its voice.  Love\nis the builder of every hope, the kindler of every fire on every\nhearth. Love is the enchanter, the magician that changes worthless\nthings to joy, and makes right royal kings and queens out of common\nclay.  Love is the perfume of that wondrous flower the heart.  Without\nthat divine passion, without that divine sway, we are less than beasts,\nand with it earth is heaven and we are gods.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S ORATION AT A CHILD'S GRAVE.\n\n\n\nIn a remote corner of the Congressional Cemetery at Washington, a small\ngroup of people with uncovered heads were ranged around a newly-opened\ngrave.  They included Detective and Mrs. George O. Miller and family\nand friends, who had gathered to witness the burial of the former's\nbright little son Harry.  As the casket rested upon the trestles there\nwas a painful pause, broken only by the mother's sobs, until the\nundertaker advanced toward a stout, florid-complexioned gentleman in\nthe party and whispered to him, the words being inaudible to the\nlookers-on.  This gentleman was Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, a friend of\nthe Millers, who had attended the funeral--at their request.  He shook\nhis head when the undertaker first addressed him, and then said\nsuddenly, \"Does Mrs. Miller desire it?\" The undertaker gave an\naffirmative nod.  Mr. Miller looked appealingly toward the\ndistinguished orator, and then Colonel Ingersoll advanced to the side\nof the grave, made a motion denoting a desire for silence, and, in a\nvoice of exquisite cadence, delivered one of his characteristic\neulogies for the dead.\n\nThe scene was intensely dramatic.  A fine drizzling rain was falling,\nand every head was bent, and every ear turned to catch the impassioned\nwords of eloquence and hope that fell from the lips of the famed\norator. Colonel Ingersoll was unprotected by either hat or umbrella.\nHis invocation thrilled his hearers with awe, each eye that had\npreviously been bedimmed with tears brightening, and sobs becoming\nhushed.  The colonel said:\n\n\nMy Friends: I know how vain it is to gild a grief with words, and yet I\nwish to take from every grave its fear.  Here in this world, where life\nand death are equal kings, all should be brave enough to meet what all\nhave met.  The future has been filled with fear, stained and polluted\nby the heartless past.  From the wondrous tree of life the buds and\nblossoms fall with ripened fruit, and in the common bed of earth\npatriarchs and babes sleep side by side. Why should we fear that which\nwill come to all that is?  We cannot tell.  We do not know which is the\ngreatest blessing, life or death. We cannot say that death is not good.\nWe do not know whether the grave is the end of this life or the door of\nanother, or whether the night here is not somewhere else a dawn.\nNeither can we tell which is the more fortunate, the child dying in its\nmother's arms before its lips have learned to form a word, or he who\njourneys all the length of life's uneven road, painfully taking the\nlast slow steps with staff and crutch.  Every cradle asks us \"Whence?\"\nand every coffin \"Whither?\"  The poor barbarian weeping above his dead\ncan answer the question as intelligently and satisfactorily as the\nrobed priest of the most authentic creed.  The tearful ignorance of the\none is just as consoling as the learned and unmeaning words of the\nother.  No man standing where the horizon of a life has touched a grave\nhas any right to prophesy a future filled with pain and tears. It may\nbe that death gives all there is of worth to life.  If those who press\nand strain against our hearts could never die, perhaps that love would\nwither from the earth.  Maybe a common faith treads from out the paths\nbetween our hearts the weeds of selfishness, and I should rather live\nand love where death is king than have eternal life where love is not.\nAnother life is naught, unless we know and love again the ones who love\nus here.\n\nThey who stand with breaking hearts around this little grave need have\nno fear.  The largest and the nobler faith in all that is, and is to\nbe, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only perfect rest.  We\nknow that through the common wants of life, the needs and duties of\neach hour, their grief will lessen day by day until at last these\ngraves will be to them a place of rest and peace--almost of joy.  There\nis for them this consolation: The dead do not suffer. If they live\nagain their lives will surely be as good as ours.  We have no fear; we\nare all children of the same mother and the same fate awaits us all.\nWe, too, have our religion, and it is this: \"Help for the living, hope\nfor the dead.\"\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL AT HIS BROTHER'S GRAVE.--A Most Exquisite, Yet One Of The\nMost Sad And Mournful Sermons\n\n\nThe funeral of Hon. Ebon C. Ingersoll, brother of Col. Robert G.\nIngersoll, of Illinois, took place at his residence in Washington,\nD.C., June 2, 1879.  The ceremonies were extremely simple, consisting\nmerely of viewing the remains by relatives and friends, and a funeral\noration by Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, brother of the deceased.  A large\nnumber of distinguished gentlemen were present, including Secretary\nSherman, Assistant Secretary Hawley, Senators Blaine, Vorhees, Paddock,\nAllison, Logan, Hon. Thomas Henderson, Gov. Pound, Hon. Wm. M.\nMorrison, Gen. Jeffreys, Gen. Williams, Col. James Fishback, and\nothers.  The pall-bearers were Senators Blaine, Vorhees, David Davis,\nPaddock and Allison, Col. Ward, H. Lamon, Hon. Jeremiah Wilson of\nIndiana, and Hon. Thomas A. Boyd of Illinois.\n\nSoon after Mr. Ingersoll began to read his eloquent characterization of\nthe dead, his eyes filled with tears.  He tried to hide them behind his\neye-glasses, but he could not do it, and finally he bowed his head upon\nthe dead man's coffin in uncontrollable grief.  It was after some delay\nand the greatest efforts of self-mastery, that Col. Ingersoll was able\nto finish reading his address, which was as follows:\n\n\nMy Friends: I am going to do that which the dead often promised he\nwould do for me.  The loved and loving brother, husband, father,\nfriend, died where manhood's morning almost touches noon, and while the\nshadows still were falling toward the west.  He had not passed on\nlife's highway the stone that marks the highest point, but being weary\nfor a moment he lay down by the wayside, and, using his burden for a\npillow, fell into that dreamless sleep that kisses down his eyelids\nstill.  While yet in love with life and raptured with the world, he\npassed to silence and pathetic dust.  Yet, after all, it may be best,\njust in the happiest, sunniest hour of all the voyage, while eager\nwinds are kissing every sail, to dash against the unseen rock, and in\nan instant hear the billows roar over a sunken ship. For, whether in\nmid-sea or among the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck must mark\nat last the end of each and all.  And every life, no matter if its\nevery hour is rich with love, and every moment jeweled with a joy,\nwill, at its close, become a tragedy, as sad, and deep, and dark as can\nbe woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death.  This brave and\ntender man in every storm of life was oak and rock, but in the sunshine\nhe was vine and flower.  He was the friend of all heroic souls.  He\nclimbed the heights and left all superstitions far below, while on his\nforehead fell the golden dawning of a grander day.  He loved the\nbeautiful and was with color, form and music touched to tears.  He\nsided with the weak, and with a willing hand gave alms; with loyal\nheart and with the purest hand he faithful discharged all public\ntrusts.  He was a worshiper of liberty and a friend of the oppressed.\nA thousand times I have heard him quote the words: \"For justice all\nplace a temple and all season summer.\"  He believed that happiness was\nthe only good, reason the only torch, justice the only worshiper,\nhumanity the only religion, and love the priest.\n\nHe added to the sum of human joy, and were every one for whom he did\nsome loving service to bring a blossom to his grave he would sleep\ntonight beneath a wilderness of flowers.  Life is a narrow vale between\nthe cold and barren peaks of two eternities.  We strive in vain to look\nbeyond the heights.  We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of\nour wailing cry.  From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there\ncomes no word; but in the night of death hope sees a star and listening\nlove can hear the rustle of a wing. He who sleeps here, when dying,\nmistaking the approach of death for the return of health, whispered\nwith his latest breath, \"I am better now.\"  Let us believe, in spite of\ndoubts and dogmas and tears and fears that these dear words are true of\nall the countless dead.  And now, to you who have been chosen from\namong the many men he loved to do the last sad office, for the dead, we\ngive his sacred dust.  Speech can not contain our love.  There\nwas--there is--no gentler, stronger, manlier man.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON THE MISTAKES OF MOSES.\n\n\nNow and then some one asks me why I am endeavoring to interfere with\nthe religious faith of others, and why I try to take from the world the\nconsolation naturally arising from a belief in eternal fire. And I\nanswer, I want to do what little I can to make my country truly free. I\nwant to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people.  I want it so\nthat we can differ upon all those questions, and yet grasp each other's\nhands in genuine friendship.  I want in the first place to free the\nclergy.  I am a great friend of theirs, but they don't seem to have\nfound it out generally.  I want it so that every minister will be not a\nparrot, not an owl sitting upon the limb of the tree of knowledge and\nhooting the hoots that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years.\nBut I want it so that each one can be an investigator, a thinker; and I\nwant to make his congregation grand enough so that they will not only\nallow him to think, but will demand that he shall think, and give to\nthem the honest truth of his thought.  As it is now, ministers are\nemployed like attorneys--for the plaintiff or the defendant.  If a few\npeople know of a young man in the neighborhood maybe who has not a good\nconstitution,--he may not be healthy enough to be wicked--a young man\nwho has shown no decided talent--it occurs to them to make him a\nminister.  They contribute and send him to some school.  If it turns\nout that that young man has more of the man in him than they thought,\nand he changes his opinion, everyone who contributed will feel himself\nindividually swindled--and they will follow that young man to the grave\nwith the poisoned shafts of malice and slander.  I want it so that\nevery one will be free--so that a pulpit will not be a pillory.  They\nhave in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of minister\nfactory; and every professor in that factory takes an oath once in\nevery five years--that is as long as an oath will last--that not only\nhas he not during the last five years, but so help him God, he will not\nduring the next five years intellectually advance; and probably there\nis no oath he could easier keep.  Since the foundation of that\ninstitution there has not been one case of perjury.  They believe the\nsame creed they first taught when the foundation stone was laid, and\nnow when they send out a minister they brand him as hardware from\nSheffield and Birmingham. And every man who knows where he was educated\nknows his creed, knows every argument of his creed, every book that he\nreads, and just what he amounts to intellectually, and knows he will\nshrink and shrivel, and become solemnly stupid day after day until he\nmeets with death.  It is all wrong; it is cruel.  Those men should be\nallowed to grow.  They should have the air of liberty and the sunshine\nof thought.\n\nI want to free the schools of our country. I want it so that when a\nprofessor in a college finds some fact inconsistent with Moses, he will\nnot hide the fact.  I wish to see an eternal divorce and separation\nbetween church and schools.  The common school is the bread of life,\nbut there should be nothing taught except what somebody knows; and\nanything else should not be maintained by a system of general taxation.\nI want its professors so that they will tell everything they find; that\nthey will be free to investigate in every direction, and will not be\ntrammeled by the superstitions of our day. What has religion to do with\nfacts?  Nothing.  Is there any such thing as Methodist mathematics,\nPresbyterian botany, Catholic astronomy or Baptist biology?  What has\nany form of superstition or religion to do with a fact or with any\nscience?  Nothing but to hinder, delay or embarrass.  I want, then, to\nfree the schools; and I want to free the politicians, so that a man\nwill not have to pretend he is a Methodist, or his wife a Baptist, or\nhis grandmother a Catholic; so that he can go through a campaign, and\nwhen he gets through will find none of the dust of hypocrisy on his\nknees.\n\nI want the people splendid enough that when they desire men to make\nlaws for them, they will take one who knows something, who has brains\nenough to prophesy the destiny of the American Republic, no matter what\nhis opinions may be upon any religious subject.  Suppose we are in a\nstorm out at sea, and the billows are washing over our ship, and it is\nnecessary that some one should reef the topsail, and a man presents\nhimself.  Would you stop him at the foot of the mast to find out his\nopinion on the five points of Calvinism?  What has that to do with it?\nCongress has nothing to do with baptism or any particular creed, and\nfrom what little experience I have had in Washington, very little to do\nwith any kind of religion whatever.  Now I hope, this afternoon, this\nmagnificent and splendid audience will forget that they are Baptists or\nMethodists, and remember that they are men and women.  These are the\nhighest titles humanity can bear--and every title you add, belittles\nthem.  Man is the highest; woman is the highest.  Let us remember that\nour views depend largely upon the country in which we happen to live.\nSuppose we were born in Turkey most of us would have been Mohammedans;\nand when we read in the book that when Mohammed visited heaven he\nbecame acquainted with an angel named Gabriel, who was so broad between\nhis eyes that it would take a smart camel three hundred days to make\nthe journey, we probably would have believed it.  If we did not, people\nwould say: \"That young man is dangerous; he is trying to tear down the\nfabric of our religion.  What do you propose to give us instead of that\nangel? We cannot afford to trade off an angel of that size for\nnothing.\" Or if we had been born in India, we would have believed in a\ngod with three heads.  Now we believe in three gods with one head.  And\nso we might make a tour of the world and see that every superstition\nthat could be imagined by the brain of man has been in some place held\nto be sacred.\n\nNow some one says, \"The religion of my father and mother is good enough\nfor me.\"  Suppose we all said that, where would be the progress of the\nworld?  We would have the rudest and most barbaric religion--religion\nwhich no one could believe.  I do not believe that it is showing real\nrespect to our parents to believe something simply because they did.\nEvery good father and every good mother wish their children to find out\nmore than they knew every good father wants his son to overcome some\nobstacle that he could not grapple with and if you wish to reflect\ncredit on your father and mother, do it by accomplishing more than they\ndid, because you live in a better time.  Every nation has had what you\ncall a sacred record, and the older the more sacred, the more\ncontradictory and the more inspired is the record.  We, of course, are\nnot an exception, and I propose to talk a little about what is called\nthe Pentateuch, a book, or a collection of books, said to have been\nwritten by Moses.  And right here in the commencement let me say that\nMoses never wrote one word of the Pentateuch--not one word was written\nuntil he had been dust and ashes for hundreds of years.  But as the\ngeneral opinion is that Moses wrote these books, I have entitled this\nlecture \"The Mistakes of Moses.\"  For the sake of this lecture, we will\nadmit that he wrote it.  Nearly every maker of religion has commenced\nby making the world; and it is one of the safest things to do, because\nno one can contradict as having been present, and it gives free scope\nto the imagination. These books, in times when there was a vast\ndifference between the educated and the ignorant, became inspired and\npeople bowed down and worshiped them.\n\nI saw a little while ago a Bible with immense oaken covers, with hasps\nand clasps large enough almost for a penitentiary, and I can imagine\nhow that book would be regarded by barbarians in Europe when not more\nthan one person in a dozen could read and write.  In imagination I saw\nit carried into the cathedral, heard the chant of the priest, saw the\nswinging of the censer and the smoke rising; and when that Bible was\nput on the altar I can imagine the barbarians looking at it and\nwondering what influence that book could have on their lives and\nfuture.  I do not wonder that they imagined it was inspired.  None of\nthem could write a book, and consequently when they saw it they adored\nit; they were stricken with awe; and rascals took advantage of that awe.\n\nNow they say that the book is inspired.  I do not care whether it is or\nnot; the question is: Is it true?  If it is true it doesn't need to be\ninspired.  Nothing needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake.\nA fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the\nassistance of wonders.  A fact will fit every other fact in the\nuniverse, and that is how you can tell--whether it is or not a fact.  A\nlie will not fit anything except a lie made for the express purpose;\nand, finally, some one gets tired of lying, and the last lie will not\nfit the next fact, and then there is a chance for inspiration.  Right\nthen and there a miracle is needed. The real question is, in the light\nof science, in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth\ncentury, is this book true?  The gentleman who wrote it begins by\ntelling us that God made the universe out of nothing.  That I cannot\nconceive; it may be so, but I cannot conceive it.  Nothing in the light\nof raw material, is, to my mind, a decided and disastrous failure.  I\ncannot imagine of nothing being made into something, any more than I\ncan of something being changed back into nothing.  I cannot conceive of\nforce aside from matter, because force to be force must be active, and\nunless there is matter there is nothing for force to act upon, and\nconsequently it cannot be active.  So I simply say I cannot comprehend\nit.  I cannot believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest\nopinion. The next thing he proceeds to tell us is that God divided the\ndarkness from the light, and right here let me say when I speak about\nGod I simply mean the being described by the Jews.  There may be in\nimmensity a being beneath whose wing the universe exists, whose every\nthought is a glittering star, but I know nothing about Him,--not the\nslightest,--and this afternoon I am simply talking about the being\ndescribed by the Jewish people.  When I say God, I mean Him.  Moses\ndescribes God dividing the light from the darkness.  I suppose that at\nthat time they must have been mixed.  You can readily see how light and\ndarkness can get mixed.  They must have been entities.  The reason I\nthink so is because in that same book I find that darkness overspread\nEgypt so thick that it could be felt, and they used to have on\nexhibition in Rome a bottle of the darkness that once overspread Egypt.\nThe gentleman who wrote this in imagination saw God dividing light from\nthe darkness.  I am sure the man who wrote it, believed darkness to be\nan entity, a something, a tangible thing that can be mixed with light.\n\nThe next thing that he informs us is that God divided the waters above\nthe firmament from those below the firmament.  The man who wrote that\nbelieved the firmament to be a solid affair.  And that is what the gods\ndid.  You recollect the gods came down and made love to the daughters\nof men--and I never blamed them for it.  I have never read a\ndescription of any heaven I would not leave on the same errand.  That\nis where the gods lived.  There is where they kept the water.  It was\nsolid.  That is the reason the people prayed for rain.  They believed\nthat an angel could take a lever, raise a window and let out the\ndesired quantity.  I find in the Psalms that \"He bowed the heavens and\ncame down;\"  and we read that the children of men built a tower to\nreach the heavens and climb into the abode of the gods.  The man who\nwrote that believed the firmament to be solid.  He knew nothing about\nthe laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun wooed with\namorous kiss the waves of the sea, and that, disappointed, their\nvaporous sighs changed to tears and fell again as rain.  The next thing\nhe tells us is that the grass began to grow; and the branches of the\ntrees laughed into blossom, and the grass ran up the shoulder of the\nhills, and yet not a solitary ray of light had left the eternal quiver\nof the sun.  Not a blade of grass had ever been touched by a gleam of\nlight.  And I do not think that grass will grow to hurt without a gleam\nof sunshine.  I think the man who wrote that simply made a mistake, and\nis excusable to a certain degree. The next day he made the sun and\nmoon--the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night.  Do you\nthink the man who wrote that knew anything about the size of the sun?\nI think he thought it was about three feet in diameter, because I find\nin some book that the sun was stopped a whole day, to give a general\nnamed Joshua time to kill a few more Amalekites; and the moon was\nstopped also.  Now it seems to me that the sun would give light enough\nwithout stopping the moon; but as they were in the stopping business\nthey did it just for devilment.  At another time, we read, the sun was\nturned ten degrees backward to convince Hezekiah that he was not going\nto die of a boil.  How much easier it would have been to cure the boil.\nThe man who wrote that thought the sun was two or three feet in\ndiameter, and could be stopped and pulled around like the sun and moon\nin a theatre.  Do you know that the sun throws out every second of time\nas much heat as could be generated by burning eleven thousand millions\ntons of coal?  I don't believe he knew that, or that he knew the motion\nof the earth.  I don't believe he knew that it was turning on its axis\nat the rate of a thousand miles an hour, because if he did, he would\nhave understood the immensity of heat that would have been generated by\nstopping the world. It has been calculated by one of the best\nmathematicians and astronomers that to stop the world would cause as\nmuch heat as it would take to burn a lump of solid coal three times as\nbig as the globe.  And yet we find in that book that the sun was not\nonly stopped, but turned back ten degrees, simply to convince a\ngentleman that he was not going to die of a boil.  They will say I will\nbe damned if I do not believe that, and I tell them I will if I do.\n\nThen he gives us the history of astronomy, and he gives it to us in\nfive words: \"He made the stars also.\"  He came very near forgetting the\nstars.  Do you believe that the man who wrote that knew that there are\nstars as much larger than this earth as this earth is larger than the\napple which Adam and Eve are said to have eaten.  Do you believe that\nhe knew that this world is but a speck in the shining, glittering\nuniverse of existence?  I would gather from that that he made the stars\nafter he got the world done.  The telescope, in reading the infinite\nleaves of the heavens, has ascertained that light travels at the rate\nof 192,000 miles per second, and it would require millions of years to\ncome from some of the stars to this earth.  Yet the beams of those\nstars mingle in our atmosphere, so that if those distant orbs were\nfashioned when this world began, we must have been whirling in space\nnot six thousand, but many millions of years.  Do you believe the man\nwho wrote that as a history of astronomy really knew that this world\nwas but a speck compared with millions of sparkling orbs?  I do not.\nHe then proceeds to tell us that God made fish and cattle, and that man\nand woman were created male and female.  The first account stops at the\nsecond verse of the second chapter.  You see, the Bible originally was\nnot divided into chapters; the first Bible that was ever divided into\nchapters in our language was made in the year of grace 1550.  The Bible\nwas originally written in the Hebrew language, and the Hebrew language\nat that time had no vowels in writing.  It was written with consonants,\nand without being divided into chapters or into verses, and there was\nno system of punctuation whatever.  After you go home tonight write an\nEnglish sentence or two with only consonants close together, and you\nwill find that it will take twice as much inspiration to read it as it\ndid to write it.  When the Bible was divided into verses and chapters,\nthe divisions were not always correct, and so the division between the\nfirst and second chapter of Genesis is not in the right place. The\nsecond account of the creation commences at the third verse and it\ndiffers from the first in two essential points.  In the first account\nman is the last made; in the second man is made before the beasts.  In\nthe first account, man is made \"male and female\"; in the second only a\nmale is made, and there is no intention of making a woman whatever.\n\nYou will find by reading that second chapter that God tried to palm off\non Adam a beast as his helpmeet.  Everybody talks about the Bible and\nnobody reads it; that is the reason it is so generally believed. I am\nprobably the only man in the United States who has read the Bible\nthrough this year.  I have wasted that time, but I had a purpose in\nview.  Just read it, and you will find, about the twenty-third verse,\nthat God caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order that he\nmight name them.  And the animals came like a menagerie into town, and\nas Adam looked at all the crawlers, jumpers and creepers, this God\nstood by to see what he would call them.  After this procession passed,\nit was pathetically remarked, \"Yet was there not found any helpmeet for\nAdam.\" Adam didn't see anything that he could fancy. And I am glad he\ndidn't. If he had, there would not have been a free-thinker in this\nworld; we should have all died orthodox.  And finding Adam was so\nparticular, God had to make him a helpmeet, and having used up the\nnothing, he was compelled to take part of the man to make the woman\nwith, and he took from the man a rib.  How did he get it? And then\nimagine a God with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman,\ntrying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a brunette.\n\nRight here it is only proper that I should warn you of the consequences\nof laughing at any story in the Bible.  When you come to die, your\nlaughing at this story will be a thorn in your pillow.  As you look\nback upon the record of your life, no matter how many men you have\nwrecked and ruined, and no matter how many women you have deceived and\ndeserted--all that may be forgiven you but if you recollect that you\nhave laughed at God's book you will see through the shadows of death,\nthe leering looks of fiends and the forked tongues of devils.  Let me\nshow you how it will be.  For instance it is the day of judgment.  When\nthe man is called up by the recording secretary, or whoever does the\ncross-examining, he says to his soul \"Where are you from?\"  \"I am from\nthe world.\"  \"Yes sir.  What kind of a man were you?\"  \"Well, I don't\nlike to talk about myself.\"  \"But you have to. What kind of a man were\nyou?\" \"Well, I was a good fellow; I loved my wife, I loved my children.\nMy home was my heaven; my fire-side was my paradise, and to sit there\nand see the lights and shadows falling on the faces of those I love,\nthat to me was a perpetual joy.  I never gave one of them a solitary\nmoment of pain.  I don't owe a dollar in the world and I left enough to\npay my funeral expenses and keep the wolf of want from the door of the\nhouse I loved. That is the kind of a man I am.\"  \"Did you belong to any\nchurch?\" \"I did not.  They were too narrow for me.  They were always\nexpecting to be happy simply because somebody else was to be damned.\"\n\n\"Well, did you believe that rib story?\"  \"What rib story--Do you mean\nthat Adam and Eve business?  No, I did not.  To tell you the God's\ntruth, that was a little more than I could swallow.\"  \"To hell with\nhim. Next.  Where are you from?\"  \"I'm from the world, too.  Do you\nbelong to any church?\"  \"Yes, sir, and to the Young Men's Christian\nAssociation.\" \"What is your business?\"  \"Cashier in a bank.\"  \"Did you\never run off with any money?  I don't like to tell, Sir.\"  \"Well, you\nhave to.\" \"Yes, Sir I did.\"  \"What kind of a bank did you have?\" \"A\nsavings bank.\" \"How much did you run off with?\"  \"One hundred thousand\ndollars.\"  \"Did you take anything else along with you?\" \"Yes Sir.\"\n\"What?\"  \"I took my neighbor's wife.\"  \"Did you have a wife and\nchildren of your own?\" \"Yes, Sir.\"  \"And you deserted them?\" \"Oh, yes;\nbut such was my confidence in God that I believed he would take care of\nthem.\"  \"Have you heard of them since?\"  \"No, Sir. Did you believe that\nrib story?\" \"Ah, bless your soul, yes!  I believe all of it, Sir; I\noften used to be sorry that there were not harder stories yet in the\nBible, so that I could show what my faith could do.\"  \"You believed it,\ndid you?\"  \"Yes, with all my heart.\"  \"Give him a harp.\"\n\nI simply wanted to show you how important it is to believe these\nstories.  Of all the authors in the world God hates a critic the worst.\nHaving got this woman done he brought her to the man, and they started\nhouse-keeping, and a few minutes afterward a snake came through a crack\nin the fence and commenced to talk with her on the subject of fruit.\nShe was not acquainted in the neighborhood, and she did not know\nwhether snakes talked or not, or whether they knew anything about the\napples or not.  Well, she was misled, and the husband ate some of those\napples and laid it all on his wife; and there is where the mistake was\nmade.  God ought to have rubbed him out at once.  He might have known\nthat no good could come of starting the world with a man like that.\nThey were turned out.  Then the trouble commenced, and people got worse\nand worse.  God, you must recollect, was holding the reins of\ngovernment, but He did nothing for them.  He allowed them to live six\nhundred and sixty-nine years without knowing their A. B. C.  He never\nstarted a school, not even a Sunday school.  He didn't even keep His\nown boys at home.  And the world got worse every day, and finally he\nconcluded to drown them. Yet that same God has the impudence to tell me\nhow to raise my own children.  What would you think of a neighbor, who\nhad just killed his babes giving you his views on domestic economy?\nGod found that he could do nothing with them and He said: \"I will drown\nthem all except a few.\" And he picked out a fellow by the name of Noah,\nthat had been a bachelor for five hundred years.  If I had to drown\nanybody, I would have drowned him.  I believe that Noah had then been\nmarried something like one hundred years.  God told him to build a\nboat, and he built one five hundred feet long, eighty or ninety feet\nbroad and fifty-five feet high, with one door shutting on the outside,\nand one window twenty-two inches square.  If Noah had any hobby in the\nworld it was ventilation.  Then into this ark he put a certain number\nof all the animals in the world. Naturalists have ascertained that at\nthat time there were at least eleven hundred thousand insects necessary\nto go into the ark, about forty thousand mammalia, sixteen hundred\nreptiles, to say nothing of the mastodon, the elephant and the\nanimalcule, of which thousands live upon a single leaf and which cannot\nbe seen by the naked eye.  Noah had no microscope, and yet he had pick\nthem out by pairs.  You have no idea the trouble that man had.  Some\nsay that the flood was not universal, that it was partial.  Why then\ndid God say \"I will destroy every living thing beneath the heavens.\"\nIf it was partial why did Noah save the birds? An ordinary bird,\ntending strictly to business, can beat a partial flood. Why did he put\nthe birds in there--the eagles, the vultures, the condors--if it was\nonly a partial flood?  And how did he get them in there?  Were they\ninspired to go there, or did he drive them up? Did the polar bear leave\nhis home of ice and start for the tropic inquiring for Noah; or could\nthe kangaroo come from Australia unless he was inspired, or somebody\nwas behind him?  Then there are animals on this hemisphere not on that.\nHow did he get them across?  And there are some animals which would be\nvery unpleasant in an ark unless the ventilation was very perfect.\n\nWhen he got the animals in the ark, God shut the door and Noah pulled\ndown the window.  And then it began to rain, and it kept on raining\nuntil the water went twenty nine feet over the highest mountain.\nChimborazo, then as now, lifted its head above the clouds, and then as\nnow, there sat the condor.  And yet the waters rose and rose over every\nmountain in the world--twenty-nine feet above the highest peaks,\ncovered with snow and ice.  How deep were these waters?  About five and\na half miles.  How long did it rain?  Forty days.  How much did it have\nto rain a day?  About eight hundred feet.  How is that for dampness?\nNo wonder they said the windows of the heavens were open. If I had been\nthere I would have said the whole side of the house was out.  How long\nwere they in this ark?  A year and ten days, floating around with no\nrudder, no sail, nobody on the outside at all. The window was shut, and\nthere was no door, except the one that shut on the outside.  Who ran\nthis ark--who took care of it?  Finally it came down on Mount Ararat, a\npeak seventeen thousand feet above the level of the sea, with about\nthree thousand feet of snow, and it stopped there simply to give the\nanimals from the tropics a chance. Then Noah opened the window and got\na breath of fresh air, and let out all the animals; and then Noah took\na drink, and God made a bargain with him that He would not drown us any\nmore, and He put a rainbow in the clouds and said: \"When I see that I\nwill recollect that I have promised not to drown you.\"  Because if it\nwas not for that He is apt to drown us at any moment.  Now can anybody\nbelieve that that is the origin of the rainbow?  Are you not all\nfamiliar with the natural causes which bring those beautiful arches\nbefore our eyes?  Then the people started out again, and they were as\nbad as before.  Here let me ask why God did not make Noah in the first\nplace?  He knew He would have to drown Adam and Eve and all his family.\nThen another thing, why did He want to drown the animals? What had they\ndone?  What crime had they committed?  It is very hard to answer these\nquestions--that is, for a man who has only been born once.  After a\nwhile they tried to build a tower to get into heaven, and the gods\nheard about it and said \"Let's go down and see what man is up to.\"\nThey came, and found things a great deal worse than they thought, and\nthereupon He confounded the language to prevent them succeeding, so\nthat the fellow up above could not shout down \"mortar\" or \"brick\" to\nthe one below, and they had to give it up. Is it possible that any one\nbelieves that that is the reason why we have the variety of languages\nin the world?  Do you know that language is born of human experience,\nand is a physical science?  Do you know that every word has been\nsuggested in some way by the feelings or observations of man--that\nthere are words as tender as the dawn, as serene as the stars, and\nothers as wild as the beasts?  Do you know that language is dying and\nbeing born continually--that every language has its cemetery and its\ncradle, its bud and blossom, and withered leaf? Man has loved, enjoyed\nand suffered, and language is simply the expression he gives those\nexperiences.\n\nThen the world began to divide, and the Jewish nation was started. Now\nI want to say that at one time your ancestors, like mine, were\nbarbarians. If the Jewish people had to write these books now they\nwould be civilized books, and I do not hold them responsible for what\ntheir ancestors did.  We find the Jewish people first in Canaan, and\nthere were seventy of them, counting Joseph and his children already in\nEgypt. They lived two hundred and fifteen years, and they then went\ndown into Egypt and stayed there two hundred and fifteen years they\nwere four hundred and thirty years in Canaan and Egypt.  How many did\nthey have when they went to Egypt?  Seventy.  How many were they at the\nend of two hundred and fifteen years?  Three millions. That is a good\nmany.  We had at the time of the Revolution in this country three\nmillions of people. Since that time there have been four doubles, until\nwe have forty-eight millions today.  How many would the Jews number at\nthe same ratio in two hundred and fifteen years?  Call it eight doubles\nand we have forty thousand.  But instead of forty thousand they had\nthree millions.  How do I know they had three millions?  Because they\nhad six hundred thousand men of war.  For every honest voter in the\nState of Illinois there will be five other people, and there are always\nmore voters than men of war.  They must have had at the lowest possible\nestimate three millions of people.  Is that true?  Is there a minister\nin the city of Chicago that will testify to his own idiocy by claiming\nthat they could have increased to three millions by that time?  If\nthere is, let him say so.  Do not let him talk about the civilizing\ninfluence of a lie.\n\nWhen they got into the desert they took a census to see how man\nfirst-born children there were.  They found they had twenty-thousand\ntwo hundred and seventy-three first-born males.  It is reasonable to\nsuppose there was about the same number of first-born girls, or\nforty-five thousand first-born children.  There must have been about as\nmany mothers as first-born children.  Dividing three millions by\nforty-five thousand mothers, and you will find that the women in Israel\nhad to have on the average sixty-eight children apiece.  Some stories\nare too thin. This is too thick.  Now, we know that among three million\npeople there will be about three hundred births a day; and according to\nthe Old Testament, whenever a child was born the mother had to make a\nsacrifice--a sin-offering for the crime of having been a mother. If\nthere is in this universe anything that is infinitely pure, it is a\nmother with her child in her arms.  Every woman had to have a sacrifice\nof a couple of pigeons, and the priests had to eat those pigeons in the\nmost holy place.  At that time there were at least three hundred births\na day, and the priests had to cook and eat these pigeons in the most\nholy place; and at that time there were only three priests.  Two\nhundred birds apiece per day!  I look upon them as the champion\nbird-eaters of the world.\n\nThen where were these Jews?  They were upon the desert of Sinai; and\nSahara compared to that is a garden.  Imagine an ocean of lava, torn by\nstorm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon and changed\nto stone.  Such was the desert of Sinai.  The whole supplies of the\nworld could not maintain three millions of people on the desert of\nSinai for forty years.  It would cost one hundred thousand millions of\ndollars, and would bankrupt Christendom.  And yet there they were with\nflocks and herds--so many that they sacrificed over one hundred and\nfifty thousand first-born lambs at one time.\n\nIt would require millions of acres to support these flocks, and yet\nthere was no blade of grass, and there is no account of it raining\nbaled hay.  They sacrificed one hundred and fifty thousand lambs, and\nthe blood had all to be sprinkled on the altar within two hours, and\nthere, were only three priests.  They would have to sprinkle the blood\nof twelve hundred and fifty lambs per minute.  Then all the people\ngathered in front of the tabernacle eighteen feet deep. Three millions\nof people would make a column six miles long.  Some reverend gentlemen\nsay they were ninety feet deep.  Well, that would make a column of over\na mile.\n\nWhere were these people going?  They were going to the Holy Land. How\nlarge was it?  Twelve thousand square miles--one-fifth the size of\nIllinois--a frightful country, covered with rocks and desolation. There\nnever was a land agent in the city of Chicago that would not have\nblushed with shame to have described that land as flowing with milk and\nhoney.  Do you believe that God Almighty ever went into partnership\nwith hornets?  Is it necessary unto salvation?  God said to the Jews\n\"I will send hornets before you, to drive out the Canaanites.\"  How\nwould a hornet know a Canaanite?  Is it possible that God inspired the\nhornets--that he granted letters of marque and reprisal to hornets?  I\nam willing to admit that nothing in the world would be better\ncalculated to make a man leave his native country than a few hornets\nattending strictly to business. God said  \"Kill the Canaanites slowly.\"\nWhy?  \"Lest the beasts of the field increase upon you.\"  How many Jews\nwere there? Three millions.  Going to a country, how large?  Twelve\nthousand square miles.  But were there nations already in this Holy\nLand?  Yes, there were seven nations \"mightier than the Jews.\"  Say\nthere would be twenty-one millions when they got there, or twenty-four\nmillions with themselves.  Yet they were told to kill them slowly, lest\nthe beasts of the field increase upon them.  Is there a man in Chicago\nthat believes that!  Then what does he teach it to little children for?\nLet him tell the truth.\n\nSo the same God went into partnership with snakes.  The children of\nIsrael lived on manna--one account says all the time, and another only\na little while.  That is the reason there is a chance for commentaries,\nand you can exercise faith.  If the book was reasonable everybody could\nget to heaven in a moment.  But whenever it looks as if it could not be\nthat way and you believe, you are almost a saint, and when you know it\nis not that way and believe, you are a saint. He fed them on manna.\nNow manna is very peculiar stuff.  It would melt in the sun, and yet\nthey used to cook it by seething and baking. I would as soon think of\nfrying snow and boiling icicles.  But this manna had other peculiar\nqualities. It shrank to an omer, no matter how much they gathered, and\nswelled up to an omer, no matter how little they gathered.  What a\nmagnificent thing manna would be for the currency, shrinking and\nswelling according to the volume of business!  There was not a change\nin the bill of fare for forty years, and they knew that God could just\nas well give them three square meals a day.  They remembered about the\ncucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks and the onions of Egypt, and\nthey said: \"Our souls abhorreth this light bread.\"  Then this God got\nmad--you know cooks are always touchy--and thereupon He sent snakes to\nbite the men, women and children.  He also sent them quails in wrath\nand anger, and while they had the flesh between their teeth, he struck\nthousands of them dead.  He always acted in that way, all of a sudden.\nPeople had no chance to explain--no chance to move for a new\ntrial--nothing. I want to know if it is reasonable He should kill\npeople for asking for one change of diet in forty years.  Suppose you\nhad been boarding with an old lady for forty years, and she never had a\nsolitary thing on her table but hash, and one morning you said: \"My\nsoul abhorreth hash!\"  What would you say if she let a basketful of\nrattlesnakes upon you?  Now is it possible for people to believe this?\nThe Bible says their clothes did not wax old, they did not get shiny at\nthe knees or elbows; and their shoes did not wear out.  They grew right\nalong with them.  The little boy starting out with his first pants grew\nup and his pants grew with him.  Some commentators have insisted that\nangels attended to their wardrobes.  I never could believe it. Just\nthink of one angel hunting another and saying: \"There goes another\nbutton.\"  I cannot believe it.\n\nThere must be a mistake somewhere or somehow.  Do you believe the real\nGod--if there is one--ever killed a man for making hair-oil? And yet\nyou find in the Pentateuch that God gave Moses a recipe for making\nhair-oil to grease Aaron's beard; and said if anybody made the same\nhair-oil he should be killed.  And He gave him a formula for making\nointment, and He said if anybody made ointment like that he should be\nkilled.  I think that is carrying patent-laws to excess. There must be\nsome mistake about it.  I cannot imagine the infinite Creator of all\nthe shining worlds giving a recipe for hair-oil.  Do you believe that\nthe real God came down to Mount Sinai with a lot of patterns for making\na tabernacle-patterns for tongs, for snuffers, and such things?  Do you\nbelieve that God came down on that mountain and told Moses how to cut a\ncoat, and how it should be trimmed? What would an infinite God care on\nwhich side he cut the breast, what color the fringe was, or how the\nbuttons were placed?  Do you believe God told Moses to make curtains of\nfine linen? Where did they get their flax in the desert?  How did they\nweave it? Did He tell him to make things of gold, silver and precious\nstones, when they hadn't them?  Is it possible that God told them not\nto eat any fruit until after the fourth year of planting the trees?\nYou see all these things were written hundreds of years afterwards, and\nthe priests, in order to collect the tithes, dated the laws back.  They\ndid not say, \"This is our law,\" but,  \"Thus said God to Moses in the\nwilderness.\" Now, can you believe that?  Imagine a scene: The eternal\nGod tells Moses \"Here is the way I want you to consecrate my priests.\nCatch a sheep and cut his throat.\"  I never could understand why God\nwanted a sheep killed just because a man had done a mean trick; perhaps\nit was because his priests were fond of mutton.  He tells Moses further\nto take some of the blood and put it on his right thumb, a little on\nhis right ear, and a little on his right big toe?  Do you believe God\never gave such instructions for the consecration of His priests?  If\nyou should see the South Sea Islanders going through such a performance\nyou could not keep your face straight.  And will you tell me that it\nhad to be done in order to consecrate a man to the service of the\ninfinite God? Supposing the blood got on the left toe?\n\nThen we find in this book how God went to work to make the Egyptians\nlet the Israelites go.  Suppose we wish to make a treaty with the\nmikado of Japan, and Mr. Hayes sent a commissioner there; and suppose\nhe should employ Hermann, the wonderful German, to go along with him;\nand when they came in the presence of the mikado Herman threw down an\numbrella, which changed into a turtle, and the commissioner said: \"This\nis my certificate.\"  You would say the country is disgraced. You would\nsay the president of a republic like this disgraces himself with\njugglery.  Yet we are told God sent Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh, and\nwhen they got there Moses threw down a stick which turned into a snake.\nThat God is a juggler--he is the infinite prestidigitator.  Is that\npossible?  Was that really a snake, or was it the appearance of a\nsnake?  If it was the appearance of a snake, it was a fraud.  Then the\nnecromancers of Egypt were sent for, and they threw down sticks, which\nturned into snakes, but those were not so large as Moses' snakes, which\nswallowed them.  I maintain that it is just as hard to make small\nsnakes as it is to make large ones; the only difference is that to make\nlarge snakes either larger sticks or more practice is required.\n\nDo you believe that God rained hail on innocent cattle, killing them in\nthe highways and in the field?  Why should he inflict punishment on\ncattle for something their owners had done?  I could never have any\nrespect for a God that would so inflict pain upon a brute beast simply\non account of the crime of its owner.  Is it possible that God worked\nmiracles to convince Pharaoh that slavery was wrong?  Why did he not\ntell Pharaoh that any nation founded on slavery could not stand?  Why\ndid he not tell him, \"Your government is founded on slavery, and it\nwill go down, and the sands of the desert will hide from the view of\nman your temples, your altars, and your fanes?\"  Why did he not speak\nabout the infamy of slavery?  Because he believed in the infamy of\nslavery himself.  Can we believe that God will allow a man to give his\nwife the right of divorcement and make the mother of his children a\nwanderer and a vagrant.  There is not one word about woman in the Old\nTestament except the word of shame and humiliation. The God of the\nBible does not think woman is as good as man.  She never was worth\nmentioning.  It did not take the pains to recount the death of the\nmother of us all.  I have no respect for any book that does not treat\nwoman as the equal of man. And if there is any God in this universe who\nthinks more of me than he thinks of my wife, he is not well acquainted\nwith both of us.  And yet they say that that was done on account of the\nhardness of their hearts; and that was done in a community where the\nlaw was so fierce that it stoned a man to death for picking up sticks\non Sunday.  Would it not have been better to stone to death every man\nwho abused his wife and allowed them to pick up sticks on account of\nthe hardness of their hearts?  If God wanted to take those Jews from\nEgypt to the land of Canaan, why didn't He do it instantly?  If He was\ngoing to do a miracle why didn't He do one worth talking about?\n\nAfter God had killed all the first-born in Egypt, after He had killed\nall the cattle, still Egypt could raise an army that could put to\nflight six hundred thousand men.  And because this God overwhelmed the\nEgyptian army, he bragged about it for a thousand years, repeatedly\ncalling the attention of the Jews to the fact that he overthrew Pharaoh\nand his hosts.  Did he help much with their six-hundred thousand men?\nWe find by the records of the day that the Egyptian standing army at\nthat time was never more than one hundred thousand men.  Must we\nbelieve all these stories in order to get to Heaven when we die?  Must\nwe judge of a man's character by the number of stories he believes?\nAre we to get to Heaven by creed or by deed?  That is the question.\nShall we reason, or shall we simply believe?  Ah, but they say the\nBible is not inspired about those little things.  The Bible says the\nrabbit and the hare chew the cud.  But they do not.  They have a\ntremulous motion of the lip.  But the Being that made them says they\nchew the cud.  The Bible, therefore, is not inspired in natural\nhistory.  Is it inspired in its astrology? No. Well, what is it\ninspired in?  In its law?  Thousands of people say that if it had not\nbeen for the ten commandments we would not have known any better than\nto rob and steal.  Suppose a man planted an acre of potatoes, hoed them\nall summer, and dug them in the fall; and suppose a man had sat upon\nthe fence all the time and watched him?  Do you believe it would be\nnecessary for that man to read the ten commandments to find out who, in\nhis judgment had a right to take those potatoes?  All laws against\nlarceny have been made by industry to protect the fruits of its labor.\nWhy is there a law against murder?  Simply because a large majority of\npeople object to being murdered.  That is all.  And all these laws were\nin force thousands of years before that time.\n\nOne of the commandments said they should not make any graven images,\nand that was the death of art in Palestine.  No sculptor has ever\nenriched stone with the divine forms of beauty in that country; and any\ncommandment that is the death of art is not a good commandment. But\nthey say the Bible is morally inspired; and they tell me there is no\ncivilization without this Bible.  Then God knows that just as well as\nyou do.  God always knew it, and if you can't civilize a nation without\na Bible, why didn't God give every nation just one Bible to start with?\nWhy did God allow hundreds of thousands and billions of billions to go\ndown to hell just for the lack of a Bible? They say that it is morally\ninspired.  Well, let us examine it.  I want to be fair about this\nthing, because I am willing to stake my salvation or damnation upon\nthis question--whether the Bible is true or not.  I say it is not and\nupon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is there a woman here who\nbelieves in the institution of polygamy? Is there a man here who\nbelieves in that infamy?  You say: \"No, we do not.\"  Then you are\nbetter than your God was four thousand years ago.  Four thousand years\nago he believed in it, taught it and upheld it.  I pronounce it and\ndenounce it the infamy of infamies.  It robs our language of every\nsweet and tender word in it. It takes the fire-side away forever.  It\ntakes the meaning out of the words father, mother, sister, brother, and\nturns the temple of love into a vile den where crawl the slimy snakes\nof lust and hatred.  I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the\nmountain where God used to talk to Brigham Young.  He never said\nanything to me.  I said that it was just as reasonable that God in the\nnineteenth century should talk to a polygamist in Utah as it was that\nfour thousand years ago, on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that\nhellish and damnable question.\n\nI have no love for any God who believes in polygamy.  There is no\nheaven on this earth save where the one woman loves the one man and the\none man loves the one woman.  I guess it is not inspired on the\npolygamy question.  May be it is inspired about religious liberty. God\nsays if anybody differs with you about religion, \"kill him.\"  He told\nHis peculiar people, \"If any one teaches a different religion, kill\nhim!\" He did not say, \"Try and convince him that he is wrong,\" but\n\"kill him.\" He did not say, \"I am in the miracle business, and I will\nconvince him,\" but \"kill him.\"  He said to every husband, \"If your\nwife, that you love as you love your own soul, says, 'let us go and\nworship other gods,' then  'Thy hand shall be first upon her and she\nshall be stoned with stones until she dies.'\"  Well, now, I hate a God\nof that kind, and I cannot think of being nearer heaven than to be away\nfrom Him.  A God tells a man to kill his wife simply because she\ndiffers with him on religion!  If the real God were to tell me to kill\nmy wife, I would not do it. If you had lived in Palestine at that time,\nand your wife--the mother of your children--had woke up at night and\nsaid \"I am tired of Jehovah. He is always turning up that board-bill.\nHe is always telling about whipping the Egyptians.  He is always\nkilling somebody.  I am tired of Him.  Let us worship the sun.  The sun\nhas clothed the world in beauty; it has covered the earth with green\nand flowers; by its divine light I first saw your face; its light has\nenabled me to look into the eyes of my beautiful babe.  Let us worship\nthe sun, father and mother of light and love and joy.\"  Then what would\nit be your duty to do--kill her?  Do you believe a real God ever did\nthat? Your hand should be first upon her, and when you took up some\nragged rock and hurled it against the white bosom filled with love for\nyou, and saw running away the red current of her sweet life, then you\nwould look up to heaven and receive the congratulations of the infinite\nfiend whose commandments you had to obey.  I guess the Bible was not\ninspired about religious liberty.  Let me ask you right here: Suppose,\nas a matter of fact, God gave those laws to the Jews and told them\n\"whenever a man preaches a different religion, kill him,\" and suppose\nthat afterwards the same God took upon Himself flesh, and came to the\nworld and taught and preached a different religion, and the Jews\ncrucified Him--did He not reap exactly what He sowed?\n\nMay be this book is inspired about war.  God told the Israelites to\noverrun that country, and kill every man, woman and child for defending\ntheir native land.  Kill the old men?  Yes.  Kill the women?\nCertainly. And the little dimpled babes in the cradle, that smile and\ncoo in the face of murder--dash out their brains; that is the will of\nGod.  Will you tell me that any God ever commanded such infamy?  Kill\nthe men and the women, and the young men and the babes!  \"What shall we\ndo with the maidens?\"  \"Give them to the rabble murderers!\"  Do you\nbelieve that God ever allowed the roses of love and the violets of\nmodesty that shed their perfume in the heart of a maiden to be trampled\nbeneath the brutal feet of lust?  If there is any God, I pray Him to\nwrite in the book of eternal remembrance opposite to my name, that I\ndenied that lie.\n\nWhenever a woman reads a Bible and comes to that passage, she ought to\nthrow the book from her in contempt and scorn.  Do you tell me that any\ndecent god would do that?  What would the devil have done under the\nsame circumstances?  Just think of it, and yet that is the God that we\nwant to get into the Constitution.  That is the God we teach our\nchildren about so that they will be sweet and tender, amiable and kind!\nThat monster--that fiend--I guess the Bible is not inspired about\nreligious liberty, nor about war.\n\nThen, if it is not inspired about these things, may be it is inspired\nabout slavery.  God tells the Jews to buy up the children of the\nheathen round about and they should be servants for them.  What is a\n\"servant?\" If they struck a \"servant\" and he died immediately,\npunishment was to follow; but if the injured man should linger a while,\nthere was no punishment, because the servant represented their money!\nDo you believe that it is right--that God made one man to work for\nanother and to receive pay in rations?  Do you believe God said that a\nwhip on the naked back was the legal tender for labor performed? Is it\npossible that the real God ever gave such infamous, blood-thirsty laws?\nWhat more does He say?  When the time of a married slave expired, he\ncould not take his wife and children with him.  Then if the slave did\nnot wish to desert his family, he had his ears pierced with an awl, and\nbecame his master's property forever.  Do you believe that God ever\nturned the dimpled cheeks of little children into iron chains to hold a\nman in slavery?  Do you know that a God like that would not make a\nrespectable devil?  I want none of his mercy.  I want no part and no\nlot in the heaven of such a God.  I will go to perdition, where there\nis human sympathy.  The only voice we have ever had from either of\nthose other worlds came from hell.  There was a rich man who prayed his\nbrothers to attend to Lazarus so that they might \"not come to this\nplace.\"  That is the only instance, so far as we know, of souls across\nthe river having any sympathy.  And I would rather be in hell, asking\nfor water, than in heaven denying that petition.  Well, what is this\nbook inspired about? Where does the inspiration come from? Why was it\nthat so many animals were killed?  It was simply to make atonement for\nman--that is all. They killed something that had not committed a crime,\nin order that the one who had committed the crime might be acquitted.\nBased upon that idea is the atonement of the Christian religion.  That\nis the reason I attack this book--because it is the basis of another\ninfamy, viz: that one man can be good for another, or that one man can\nsin for another.  I deny it.  You have got to be good for yourself; you\nhave got to sin for yourself.  The trouble about the atonement is, that\nit saves the wrong man.  For instance, I kill some one.  He is a good\nman.  He loves his wife and children and tries to make them happy; but\nhe is not a Christian, and he goes to hell.  Just as soon as I am\nconvicted and cannot get a pardon I get religion, and I go to heaven.\nThe hand of mercy cannot reach down through the shadows of hell to my\nvictim.\n\nThere is no atonement for the saint--only for the sinner and the\ncriminal.  The atonement saves the wrong man.  I have said that I would\nnever make a lecture at all without attacking this doctrine. I did not\ncare what I started out on.  I was always going to attack this\ndoctrine. And in my conclusion I want to draw you a few pictures of the\nChristian heaven.  But before I do that I want to say the rest I have\nto say about Moses.  I want you to understand that the Bible was never\nprinted until 1488.  I want you to know that up to that time it was in\nmanuscript, in possession of those who could change it if they wished;\nand they did change it, because no two ever agreed. Much of it was in\nthe waste basket of credulity, in the open mouth of tradition, and in\nthe dull ear of memory.  I want you also to know that the Jews\nthemselves never agreed as to what books were inspired, and that there\nwere a lot of books written that were not incorporated in the Old\nTestament.  I want you to know that two or three years before Christ,\nthe Hebrew manuscript was translated into Greek, and that the original\nfrom which the translation was made, has never been seen since.  Some\nLatin Bibles were found in Africa but no two agreed; and then they\ntranslated the Septuagint into the languages of Europe, and no two\nagreed.  Henry VIII. took a little time between murdering his wives to\nsee that the Word of God was translated correctly.  You must recollect\nthat we are indebted to murderers for our Bibles and our creeds.\nConstantine, who helped on the good work in its early stage, murdered\nhis wife and child, mingling their blood with the blood of the Savior.\n\nThe Bible that Henry VIII. got up did not suit, and then his daughter,\nthe murderess of Mary, Queen of Scots, got up another edition, which\nalso did not suit; and finally, that philosophical idiot, King James,\nprepared the edition which we now have.  There are at least one hundred\nthousand errors in the Old Testament, but everybody sees that it is not\nenough to invalidate its claim to infallibility.  But these errors are\ngradually being fixed, and hereafter the prophet will be fed by Arabs\ninstead of \"ravens,\" and Samson's three hundred foxes will be three\nhundred \"sheaves\" already bound, which were fired and thrown into the\nstanding wheat.  I want you all to know that there was no\ncontemporaneous literature at the time the Bible was composed, and that\nthe Jews were infinitely ignorant in their day and generation--that\nthey were isolated by bigotry and wickedness from the rest of the\nworld.  I want you to know that there are fourteen hundred millions of\npeople in the world; and that with all the talk and work of the\nsocieties, only one hundred and twenty millions have got Bibles.  I\nwant you to understand that not one person in one hundred in this world\never read the Bible, and no two ever understood it alike who did read\nit, and that no one person probably ever understood it aright.  I want\nyou to understand that where this Bible has been, man has hated his\nbrother--there have been dungeons, racks, thumbscrews, and the sword.\nI want you to know that the cross has been in partnership with the\nsword, and that the religion of Jesus Christ was established by\nmurderers, tyrants and hypocrites.  I want you to know that the church\ncarried the black flag. Then talk about the civilizing influence of\nthis religion!\n\nNow, I want to give an idea or two in regard to the Christian's heaven.\nOf all the selfish things in this world, it is one man wanting to get\nto heaven, caring nothing what becomes of the rest of mankind.  \"If I\ncan only get my little soul in.\"  I have always noticed that the people\nwho have the smallest souls make the most fuss about getting them\nsaved. Here is what we are taught by the church today.  We are taught\nby it that fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters can all be happy\nin heaven, no matter who may be in hell; that the husband can be happy\nthere with the wife that would have died for him at any moment of his\nlife, in hell.  But they say, \"We don't believe in fire. What we\nbelieve in now is remorse.\"  What will you have remorse for? For the\nmean things you have done when you are in hell?  Will you have any\nremorse for the mean things you have done when you are in heaven? Or\nwill you be so good then that you won't care how you used to be? Don't\nyou see what an infinitely mean belief that is?  I tell you today that,\nno matter in what heaven you may be, no matter in what star you are\nspending the summer, if you meet another man whom you have wronged you\nwill drop a little behind in the tune.  And, no matter in what part of\nhell you are, and you meet some one whom you have succored, whose\nnakedness you have clothed, and whose famine you have fed, the fire\nwill cool up a little. According to this Christian doctrine, when you\nare in heaven you won't care how mean you were once.  What must be the\nsocial condition of a gentleman in heaven who will admit that he never\nwould have been there if he had not got scared?  What must be the\nsocial position of an angel who will always admit that if another had\nnot pitied him he ought to have been damned?  Is it a compliment to an\ninfinite God to say that every being He ever made deserved to be damned\nthe minute He got him done, and that He will damn everybody He has not\nhad a chance to make over. Is it possible that somebody else can be\ngood for me, and that this doctrine of the atonement is the only anchor\nfor the human soul?\n\nFor instance: here is a man seventy years of age, who has been a\nsplendid fellow and lived according to the laws of nature.  He has got\nabout him splendid children whom he has loved and cared for with all\nhis heart.  But he did not happen to believe in this Bible; he did not\nbelieve in the Pentateuch.  He did not believe that because some\nchildren made fun of a gentleman who was short of hair, God sent two\nbears and tore the little darlings to pieces.  He had a tender heart,\nand he thought about the mothers who would take the pieces, the bloody\nfragments of the children, and press them to their bosom in a frenzy of\ngrief; he thought about their wails and lamentations, and could not\nbelieve that God was such an infinite monster.  That was all he\nthought, but he went to Hell.  Then, there is another man who made a\nhell on earth for his wife, who had to be taken to the insane asylum,\nand his children were driven from home and were wanderers and vagrants\nin the world.  But just between the last sin and the last breath, this\nfellow got religion, and he never did another thing except to take his\nmedicine.  He never did a solitary human being a favor, and he died and\nwent to heaven.  Don't you think he would be astonished to see that\nother man in hell, and say to himself, \"Is it possible that such a\nsplendid character should bear such fruit, and that all my rascality at\nlast has brought me next to God?\"\n\nOr, let us put another case.  You were once alone in the desert--no\nprovisions, no water, no hope, just when your life was at its lowest\nebb a man appeared, gave you water and food and brought you safely out.\nHow you would bless that man.  Time rolls on.  You die and go to\nheaven; and one day you see through the black night of hell, the friend\nwho saved your life, begging for a drop of water to cool his parched\nlips. He cries to you, \"Remember what I did in the desert--give me to\ndrink.\" How mean, how contemptible you would feel to see his suffering\nand be unable to relieve him.  But this is the Christian heaven.  We\nsit by the fireside and see the flames and the sparks fly up the\nchimney--everybody happy, and the cold wind and sleet are beating on\nthe window, and out on the doorstep is a mother with a child on her\nbreast freezing.  How happy it makes a fireside, that beautiful\ncontrast.  And we say,  \"God is good,\" and there we sit, and she sits\nand moans, not one night but forever.  Or we are sitting at the table\nwith our wives and children, everybody eating, happy and delighted; and\nFamine comes and pushes out its shriveled palms, and, with hungry eyes,\nimplores us for a crust. How that would increase the appetite!  And yet\nthat is the Christian heaven.  Don't you see that these infamous\ndoctrines petrify the human heart?  And I would have everyone who hears\nme, swear that he will never contribute another dollar to build another\nchurch in which is taught such infamous lies.  I want everyone of you\nto say, that you never will, directly or indirectly, give a dollar to\nany man to preach that falsehood.  It has done harm enough.  It has\ncovered the world with blood.  It has filled the asylums for the\ninsane.  It has cast a shadow in the heart, in the sunlight of every\ngood and tender man and woman.  I say let us rid the heavens of this\nmonster, and write upon the dome \"Liberty, love and law.\"\n\nNo matter what may come to me or what may come to you, let us do\nexactly what we believe to be right, and let us give the exact thought\nin our brains.  Rather than have this Christianity true, I would rather\nall the gods would destroy themselves this morning.  I would rather the\nwhole universe would go to nothing, if such a thing were possible, this\ninstant.  Rather than have the glittering dome of pleasure reared on\nthe eternal abyss of pain, I would see the utter and eternal\ndestruction of this universe.  I would rather see the shining fabric of\nour universe crumble to unmeaning chaos, and take itself where oblivion\nbroods and memory forgets.  I would rather the blind Samson of some\nimprisoned force, released by thoughtless chance, should so rack and\nstrain this world that man in stress and strain, in astonishment and\nfear, should suddenly fall back to savagery and barbarity.  I would\nrather that this thrilled and thrilling globe, shorn of all life,\nshould in its cycles rub the wheel, the parent star, on which the light\nshould fall as fruitlessly as falls the gaze of love on death, than to\nhave this infamous doctrine of eternal punishment true; rather than\nhave this infamous selfishness of a heaven for a few and a hell for the\nmany established as the word of God.\n\nOne world at a time is my doctrine.  Let us make some one happy here.\nHappiness is the interest that a decent action draws, and the more\ndecent actions you do, the larger your income will be.  Let every man\ntry to make his wife happy, his children happy.  Let every man try to\nmake every day a joy, and God cannot afford to damn such a man. I\ncannot help God; I cannot injure God.  I can help people; I can injure\npeople.  Consequently humanity is the only real religion.\n\nI cannot better close this lecture than by quoting four lines from\nRobert Burns:\n\n              \"To make a happy fireside clime\n               To weans and wife--\n               That's the true pathos and sublime\n               Of human life.\"\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S LECTURE ON SKULLS,--And His Replies To Prof. Swing, Dr.\nCollyer, And Other Critics--Reprinted from \"The Chicago Times.\"\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: Man advances just in the proportion that he\nmingles his thoughts with his labor--just in the proportion that he\ntakes advantage of the forces of nature; just in proportion as he loses\nsuperstition and gains confidence in himself.  Man advances as he\nceases to fear the gods and learns to love his fellow-men.  It is all,\nin my judgment, a question of intellectual development.  Tell me the\nreligion of any man and I will tell you the degree he marks on the\nintellectual thermometer of the world.  It is a simple question of\nbrain.  Those among us who are the nearest barbarism have a barbarian\nreligion.  Those who are nearest civilization have the least\nsuperstition.  It is, I say, a simple question of brain, and I want, in\nthe first place, to lay the foundation to prove that assertion.\n\nA little while ago I saw models of nearly everything that man has made.\nI saw models of all the water craft, from the rude dug-out in which\nfloated a naked savage--one of our ancestors--a naked savage, with\nteeth twice as long as his forehead was high, with a spoonful of brains\nin the back of his orthodox head--I saw models of all the water craft\nof the world, from that dug-out up to a man-of-war that carries a\nhundred guns and miles of canvas; from that dug-out to the steamship\nthat turns its brave prow from the port of New York with a compass like\na conscience, crossing three thousand miles of billows without missing\na throb or beat of its mighty iron heart from shore to shore.  And I\nsaw at the same time the paintings of the world, from the rude daub of\nyellow mud to the landscapes that enrich palaces and adorn houses of\nwhat were once called the common people.  I saw also their sculpture,\nfrom the rude god with four legs, a half dozen arms, several noses, and\ntwo or three rows of ears, and one little, contemptible, brainless\nhead, up to the figures of today,--to the marbles that genius has clad\nin such a personality that it seems almost impudent to touch them\nwithout an introduction. I saw their books--books written upon the\nskins of wild beasts--upon shoulder-blades of sheep--books written upon\nleaves, upon bark, up to the splendid volumes that enrich the libraries\nof our day.  When I speak of libraries I think of the remark of Plato:\n\"A house that has a library in it has a soul.\"\n\nI saw at the same time the offensive weapons that man has made, from a\nclub, such as was grasped by that same savage when he crawled from his\nden in the ground and hunted a snake for his dinner; from that club to\nthe boomerang, to the sword, to the cross-bow, to the blunderbuss, to\nthe flintlock, to the caplock, to the needle-gun, up to a cannon cast\nby Krupp, capable of hurling a ball weighing two thousand pounds\nthrough eighteen inches of solid steel.  I saw too, the armor from the\nshell of a turtle that one of our brave ancestors lashed upon his\nbreast when he went to fight for his country, the skin of a porcupine,\ndried with the quills on, which this same savage pulled over his\northodox head, up to the shirts of mail that were worn in the middle\nages, that laughed at the edge of the sword and defied the point of the\nspear; up to a monitor clad in complete steel.  And I say orthodox not\nonly in the matter of religion, but in everything.  Whoever has quit\ngrowing, he is orthodox, whether in art, politics, religion,\nphilosophy--no matter what.  Whoever thinks he has found it all out he\nis orthodox.  Orthodoxy is that which rots, and heresy is that which\ngrows forever.  Orthodoxy is the night of the past, full of the\ndarkness of superstition, and heresy is the eternal coming day, the\nlight of which strikes the grand foreheads of the intellectual pioneers\nof the world.  I saw their implements of agriculture, from the plow\nmade of a crooked stick, attached to the horn of an ox by some twisted\nstraw, with which our ancestors scraped the earth, and from that to the\nagricultural implements of this generation, that make it possible for a\nman to cultivate the soil without being an ignoramus.\n\nIn the old time there was but one crop; and when the rain did not come\nin answer to the prayer of hypocrites a famine came and people fell\nupon their knees.  At that time they were full of superstition. They\nwere frightened all the time for fear that some god would be enraged at\nhis poor, hapless, feeble and starving children.  But now, instead of\ndepending upon one crop they have several, and if there is not rain\nenough for one there may be enough for another.  And if the frosts kill\nall, we have railroads and steamship--enough to bring what we need from\nsome other part of the world.  Since man has found out something about\nagriculture, the gods have retired from the business of producing\nfamines.\n\nI saw at the same time their musical instruments, from the tomtom--that\nis, a hoop with a couple of strings of rawhide drawn across it--from\nthat tom-tom, up to the instruments we have today, that make the common\nair blossom with melody, and I said to myself there is a regular\nadvancement.  I saw at the same time a row of human skulls, from the\nlowest skull that has been found, the Neanderthal skull--skulls from\nCentral Africa, skulls from the bushmen of Australia--skulls from the\nfarthest isles of the Pacific Sea--up to the best skulls of the last\ngeneration--and I noticed that there was the same difference between\nthose skulls that there was between the products of those skulls, and I\nsaid to myself: \"After all, it is a simple question of intellectual\ndevelopment.\"  There was the same difference between those skulls, the\nlowest and highest skulls, that there was between the dug-out and the\nman-of-war and the steamship, between the club and the Krupp gun,\nbetween the yellow daub and the landscape, between the tom-tom and an\nopera by Verdi.  The first and lowest skull in this row was the den in\nwhich crawled the base and meaner instincts of mankind, and the last\nwas a temple in which dwelt joy, liberty and love.  And I said to\nmyself, it is all a question of intellectual development.\n\nMan has advanced just as he has mingled his thought with his labor. As\nhe has grown he has taken advantage of the forces of nature; first of\nthe moving wind, then of the falling water and finally of steam.  From\none step to another he has obtained better houses, better clothes, and\nbetter books, and he has done it by holding out every incentive to the\ningenious to produce them.  The world has said, give us better clubs\nand guns and cannons with which to kill our fellow Christians.  And\nwhoever will give us better weapons and better music, and better houses\nto live in, we will robe him in wealth crown him in honor, and render\nhis name deathless.  Every incentive was held out to every human being\nto improve these things, and that is the reason we have advanced in all\nmechanical arts.  But that gentleman in the dugout not only had his\nideas about politics, mechanics, and agriculture; he had his ideas also\nabout religion. His idea about politics was \"Might makes right.\"  It\nwill be thousands of years, may be, before mankind will believe in the\nsaying that \"right makes might.\"  He had his religion.  That low skull\nwas a devil factory.  He believed in Hell, and the belief was a\nconsolation to him.  He could see the waves of God's wrath dashing\nagainst the rocks of dark damnation.  He could see tossing in the\nwhitecaps the faces of women, and stretching above the crests the\ndimpled hands of children; and he regarded these things as the justice\nand mercy of God.  And all today who believe in this eternal punishment\nare the barbarians of the nineteenth century.  That man believed in a\ndevil, that had a long tail terminating with a fiery dart; that had\nwings like a bat--a devil that had a cheerful habit of breathing\nbrimstone, that had a cloven foot, such as some orthodox clergymen seem\nto think I have.  And there has not been a patentable improvement made\nupon that devil in all the years since.  The moment you drive the devil\nout of theology, there is nothing left worth speaking of.  The moment\nthey drop the devil, away goes atonement.  The moment they kill the\ndevil, their whole scheme of salvation has lost all of its interest for\nmankind.  You must keep the devil and, you must keep Hell.  You must\nkeep the devil, because with no devil no priest is necessary. Now, all\nI ask is this--the same privilege to improve upon his religion as upon\nhis dug-out, and that is what I am going to do, the best I can. No\nmatter what church you belong to, or what church belongs to us.  Let us\nbe honor bright and fair.\n\nI want to ask you: Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest\nif there was one at that time, had told these gentlemen in the dug-out:\n\"That dug-out is the best boat that can be built by man; the pattern of\nthat came from on high, from the great God of storm and flood, and any\nman who says he can improve it by putting a stick in the middle of it\nand a rag on the stick, is an infidel, and shall be burned at the\nstake;\" what, in your judgment--honor bright--would have been the\neffect upon the circumnavigation of the globe?  Suppose the king, if\nthere was one, and the priest, if there was one--and I presume there\nwas a priest, because it was a very ignorant age--suppose the king and\npriest had said: \"The tomtom is the most beautiful instrument of music\nof which any man can conceive; that is the kind of music they have in\nHeaven; an angel sitting upon the edge of a glorified cloud, golden in\nthe setting sun, playing upon that tom-tom, became so enraptured, so\nentranced with her own music, that in a kind of ecstasy she dropped\nit--that is how we obtained it; and any man who says it can be improved\nby putting a back and front to it, and four strings, and a bridge, and\ngetting a bow of hair with rosin, is a blaspheming wretch, and shall\ndie the death,\"--I ask you, what effect would that have had upon music?\nIf that course had been pursued, would the human ears, in your\njudgment, ever have been enriched with the divine symphonies of\nBeethoven? Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, had said\n\"That crooked stick is the best plow that can be invented, the pattern\nof that plow was given to a pious farmer in an exceedingly holy dream,\nand that twisted straw is the ne plus ultra of all twisted things, and\nany man who says he can make an improvement upon that plow, is an\natheist;\" what, in your judgment, would have been the effect upon the\nscience of agriculture?\n\nNow, all I ask is the same privilege to improve upon his religion as\nupon his mechanical arts.  Why don't we go back to that period to get\nthe telegraph?  Because they were barbarians.  And shall we go to\nbarbarians to get our religion?  What is religion?  Religion simply\nembraces the duty of man to man.  Religion is simply the science of\nhuman duty and the duty of man to man--that is what it is. It is the\nhighest science of all.  And all other sciences are as nothing, except\nas they contribute to the happiness of man.  The science of religion is\nthe highest of all, embracing all others.  And shall we go to the\nbarbarians to learn the science of sciences?  The nineteenth century\nknows more about religion than all the centuries dead.  There is more\nreal charity in the world today than ever before. There is more thought\ntoday than ever before.  Woman is glorified today as she never was\nbefore in the history of the world.  There are more happy families now\nthan ever before--more children treated as though they were tender\nblossoms than as though they were brutes than in any other time or\nnation.  Religion is simply the duty a man owes to man; and when you\nfall upon your knees and pray for something you know not of, you\nneither benefit the one you pray for nor yourself. One ounce of\nrestitution is worth a million of repentances anywhere, and a man will\nget along faster by helping himself a minute than by praying ten years\nfor somebody to help him.  Suppose you were coming along the street,\nand found a party of men and women on their knees praying to a bank,\nand you asked them, \"Have any of you borrowed any money of this bank?\"\n\"No, but our fathers, they, too, prayed to this bank.\"  \"Did they ever\nget any?\" \"No, not that we ever heard of.\" I would tell them to get up.\nIt is easier to earn it, and it is far more manly.\n\nOur fathers in the \"good old times,\"--and the best that I can say of\nthe \"good old times\" is that they are gone, and the best I can say of\nthe good old people that lived in them is that they are gone,\ntoo--believed that you made a man think your way by force.  Well, you\ncan't do it. There is a splendid something in man that says: \"I won't;\nI won't be driven.\"  But our fathers thought men could be driven.  They\ntried it in the \"good old times.\"  I used to read about the manner in\nwhich the early Christians made converts--how they impressed upon the\nworld the idea that God loved them.  I have read it, but it didn't burn\ninto my soul.  I didn't think much about it--I heard so much about\nbeing fried forever in Hell that it didn't seem so bad to burn a few\nminutes.  I love liberty and I hate all persecutions in the name of\nGod. I never appreciated the infamies that have been committed in the\nname of religion until I saw the iron arguments that Christians used.\nI saw, for instance, the thumb-screw, two little innocent looking\npieces of iron, armed with some little protuberances on the inner side\nto keep it from slipping down, and through each end a screw, and when\nsome man had made some trifling remark, for instance, that he never\nbelieved that God made a fish swallow a man to keep him from drowning,\nor something like that, or, for instance, that he didn't believe in\nbaptism.  You know that is very wrong.  You can see for yourself the\njustice of damning a man if his parents happened to baptize him in the\nwrong way--God cannot afford to break a rule or two to save all the men\nin the world.  I happened to be in the company of some Baptist\nministers once--you may wonder how I happened to be in such company as\nthat--and one of them asked me what I thought about baptism.  Well, I\ntold them I hadn't thought much about it--that I had never sat up\nnights on that question. I said: \"Baptism--with soap--is a good\ninstitution.\" Now, when some man had said some trifling thing like\nthat, they put this thumb-screw on him, and in the name of universal\nbenevolence and for the love of God--man has never persecuted man for\nthe love of man; man has never persecuted another for the love of\ncharity--it is always for the love of something he calls God, and every\nman's idea of God is his own idea.  If there is an infinite God, and\nthere may be--I don't know--there may be a million for all I know--I\nhope there is more than one--one seems so lonesome.  They kept turning\nthis down, and when this was done, most men would say: \"I will recant.\"\nI think, I would.  There is not much of the martyr about me.  I would\nhave told them: \"Now you write it down, and I will sign it.  You may\nhave one God or a million, one Hell or a million. You stop that--I am\ntired.\"\n\nDo you know, sometimes I have thought that all the hypocrites in the\nworld are not worth one drop of honest blood.  I am sorry that any good\nman ever died for religion.  I would rather let them advance a little\neasier.  It is too bad to see a good man sacrificed for a lot of wild\nbeasts and cattle.  But there is now and then a man who would not\nswerve the breadth of a hair.  There was now and then a sublime heart\nwilling to die for an intellectual conviction, and had it not been for\nthese men we would have been wild beasts and savages today. There were\nsome men who would not take it back, and had it not been for a few such\nbrave, heroic souls in every age we would have been cannibals, with\npictures of wild beasts tattooed upon our breasts, dancing around some\ndried-snake fetish.  And so they turned it down to the last thread of\nagony, and threw the victim into some dungeon, where, in the throbbing\nsilence and darkness, he might suffer the agonies of the fabled damned.\nThis was done in the name of love, in the name of mercy, in the name of\nthe compassionate Christ.  And the men that did it are the men that\nmade our Bible for us.\n\nI saw, too, at the same time, the Collar of torture.  Imagine a circle\nof iron, and on the inside a hundred points almost as sharp as needles.\nThis argument was fastened about the throat of the sufferer.  Then he\ncould not walk nor sit down, nor stir without the neck being punctured\nby these points.  In a little while the throat would begin to swell,\nand suffocation would end the agonies of that man.  This man, it may\nbe, had committed the crime of saying, with tears upon his cheeks,  \"I\ndo not believe that God, the father of us all, will damn to eternal\nperdition any of the children of men.\" And that was done to convince\nthe world that God so loved the world that He died for us.  That was in\norder that people might hear the glad tidings of great joy to all\npeople.\n\nI saw another instrument, called the scavenger's daughter.  Imagine a\npair of shears with handles, not only where they now are, but at the\npoints as well and just above the pivot that unites the blades a circle\nof iron.  In the upper handles the hands would be placed; in the lower,\nthe feet; and through the iron ring, at the centre, the head of the\nvictim would be forced, and in that position the man would be thrown\nupon the earth, and the strain upon the muscle would produce such agony\nthat insanity took pity.  And this was done to keep people from going\nto Hell--to convince that man that he had made a mistake in his\nlogic--and it was done, too, by Protestants--Protestants that\npersecuted to the extent of their power, and that is as much as\nCatholicism ever did. They would persecute now if they had the power.\nThere is not a man in this vast audience who will say that the church\nshould have temporal power.  There is not one of you but what believes\nin the eternal divorce of church and state.  Is it possible that the\nonly people who are fit to go to heaven are the only people not fit to\nrule mankind?\n\nI saw at the same time the rack.  This was a box like the bed of a\nwagon, with a windlass at each end, and ratchets to prevent slipping.\nOver each windlass went chains, and when some man had, for instance,\ndenied the doctrine of the trinity, a doctrine it is necessary to\nbelieve in order to get to Heaven--but, thank the Lord, you don't have\nto understand it.  This man merely denied that three times one was one,\nor maybe he denied that there was ever any Son in the world exactly as\nold as his father, or that there ever was a boy eternally older than\nhis mother--then they put that man on the rack.  Nobody had ever been\npersecuted for calling God bad--it has always been for calling him\ngood.  When I stand here to say that, if there is a Hell, God is a\nfiend, they say that is very bad.  They say I am trying to tear down\nthe institutions of public virtue.  But let me tell you one thing:\nthere is no reformation in fear--you can scare a man so that he won't\ndo it sometimes, but I will swear you can't scare him so bad that he\nwon't want to do it.  Then they put this man on the rack and priests\nbegan turning these levers, and kept turning until the ankles, the\nhips, the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists, and all the joints of the\nvictim were dislocated, and he was wet with agony, and standing by was\na physician to feel his pulse.  What for?  To save his life?  Yes.  In\nmercy?  No. But in order that they might have the pleasure of racking\nhim once more. And this was the Christian spirit.  This was done in the\nname of civilization, in the name of religion, and all these wretches\nwho did it died in peace.  There is not an orthodox preacher in the\ncity that has not a respect for every one of them.  As, for instance,\nfor John Calvin, who was a murderer and nothing but a murderer, who\nwould have disgraced an ordinary gallows by being hanged upon it.\nThese men when they came to die were not frightened.  God did not send\nany devils into their death-rooms to make mouths at them.   He reserved\nthem for Voltaire, who brought religious liberty to France.  He\nreserved them for Thomas Paine, who did more for liberty than all the\nchurches.  But all the inquisitors died with the white hands of peace\nfolded over the breast of piety.  And when they died, the room was\nfilled with the rustle of the wings of angels, waiting to bear the\nwretches to Heaven.\n\nWhen I read these frightful books it seems to me sometimes as though I\nhad suffered all these things myself.  It seems sometimes as though I\nhad stood upon the shore of exile, and gazed with tearful eyes toward\nhome and native land; it seems to me as though I had been staked out\nupon the sands of the sea, and drowned by the inexorable, advancing\ntide; as though my nails had been torn from my hands, and into the\nbleeding quick needles had been thrust; as though my feet had been\ncrushed in iron boots; as though I had been chained in the cell of\nInquisition, and listened with dying ears for the coming footsteps of\nrelease; as though I had stood upon the scaffold and saw the glittering\naxe fall upon me; as though I had been upon the rack and had seen,\nbending above me, the white faces of hypocrite priests; as though I had\nbeen taken from my fireside, from my wife and children, taken to the\npublic square, chained; as though fagots had been piled about me; as\nthough the flames had climbed around my limbs and scorched my eyes to\nblindness, and as though my ashes had been scattered to the four winds\nby all the countless hands of hate.  And, while I so feel, I swear that\nwhile I live I will do what little I can to augment the liberties of\nman, woman and child.  I denounce slavery and superstition everywhere.\nI believe in liberty, and happiness, and love, and joy in this world.\nI am amazed that any man ever had the impudence to try and do another\nman's thinking.  I have just as good a right to talk theology as a\nminister.  If they all agreed I might admit it was a science, but as\nall disagree, and the more they study the wider they get apart, I may\nbe permitted to suggest, it is not a science.  When no two will tell\nyou the road to Heaven,--that is, giving you the same route--and if you\nwould inquire of them all, you would just give up trying to go there,\nand say I may as well stay where I am, and let the Lord come to me.\n\nDo you know that this world has not been fit for a lady and gentleman\nto live in for twenty-five years, just on account of slavery.  It was\nnot until the year 1808 that Great Britain abolished the slave trade,\nand up to that time her judges, her priests occupying her pulpits, the\nmembers of the royal family, owned stock in the slave ships, and\nluxuriated upon the profits of piracy and murder.  It was not until the\nsame year that the United States of America abolished the slave trade\nbetween this and other countries, but carefully preserved it as between\nthe states.  It was not until the 28th day of August, 1833, that Great\nBritain abolished human slavery in her colonies; and it was not until\nthe 1st day of January, 1863, that Abraham Lincoln, sustained by the\nsublime and heroic North, rendered our flag pure as the sky in which it\nfloats.  Abraham Lincoln was, in my judgment, in many respects, the\ngrandest man ever president of the United States. Upon his monument\nthese words should be written: \"Here sleeps the only man in the history\nof the world, who, having been clothed with almost absolute power,\nnever abused it, except upon the side of mercy.\"\n\nFor two hundred years the Christians of the United States deliberately\nturned the cross of Christ into a whipping-post.  Christians bred\nhounds to catch other Christians.  Let me show you what the Bible has\ndone for mankind: \"Servants, be obedient to your masters.\" The only\nword coming from that sweet Heaven was, \"Servants, obey your masters.\"\nFrederick Douglas told me that he had lectured upon the subject of\nfreedom twenty years before he was permitted to set his foot in a\nchurch.  I tell you the world has not been fit to live in for\ntwenty-five years.  Then all the people used to cringe and crawl to\npreachers. Mr. Buckle, in his history of civilization, shows that men\nwere even struck dead for speaking impolitely to a priest.  God would\nnot stand it.  See how they used to crawl before cardinals, bishops and\npopes. It is not so now. Before wealth they bowed to the very earth,\nand in the presence of titles they became abject.  All this is slowly,\nbut surely changing.  We no longer bow to men simply because they are\nrich. Our fathers worshiped the golden calf.  The worst you can say of\nan American now is, he worships the gold of the calf.  Even the calf is\nbeginning to see this distinction.\n\nThe time will come when no matter how much money a man has, he will not\nbe respected unless he is using it for the benefit of his fellow-men.\nIt will soon be here.  It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great\nman to be king or emperor.  The last Napoleon was not satisfied with\nbeing the emperor of the French.  He was not satisfied with having a\ncirclet of gold about his head.  He wanted some evidence that he had\nsomething of value within his head.  So he wrote the life of Julius\nCaesar, that he might become a member of the French academy. The\nemperors, the kings, the popes, no longer tower above their fellows.\nCompare, for instance, King William and Helmholtz.  The king is one of\nthe anointed by the Most High, as they claim--one upon whose head has\nbeen poured the divine petroleum of authority.  Compare this king with\nHelmholtz, who towers an intellectual Colossus above the crowned\nmediocrity.  Compare George Eliot with Queen Victoria.  The queen is\nclothed in garments given her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance,\nwhile George Eliot wears robes of glory woven in the loom of her own\ngenius.  And so it is the world over.  The time is coming when a man\nwill be rated at his real worth, and that by his brain and heart.  We\ncare nothing now about an officer unless he fills his place.  No matter\nif he is president, if he rattles in the place nobody cares anything\nabout him.  I might give you an instance in point, but I won't. The\nworld is getting better and grander and nobler every day.\n\nNow, if men have been slaves, if they have crawled in the dust before\none another, what shall I say of women?  They have been the slaves of\nmen.  It took thousands of ages to bring women from abject slavery up\nto the divine height of marriage.  I believe in marriage.  If there is\nany Heaven upon earth, it is in the family by the fireside and the\nfamily is a unit of government.  Without the family relation that is\ntender, pure and true, civilization is impossible.  Ladies, the\nornaments you wear upon your persons tonight are but the souvenirs of\nyour mother's bondage.  The chains around your necks; and the bracelets\nclasped upon your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been\nchanged by the wand of civilization from iron to shining, glittering\ngold.  Nearly every civilization in this world accounts for the\ndevilment in it by the crimes of woman.  They say woman brought all the\ntrouble into the world. I don't care if she did. I would rather live in\na world full of trouble with the women I love, than to live in Heaven\nwith nobody but men.  I read in a book an account of the creation of\nthe world.  The book I have taken pains to say was not written by any\nGod.  And why do I say so? Because I can write a far better book\nmyself.  Because it is full of barbarism. Several ministers in this\ncity have undertaken to answer me--notably those who don't believe the\nBible themselves.  I want to ask these men one thing.  I want them to\nbe fair.\n\nEvery minister in the City of Chicago that answers me, and those who\nhave answered me had better answer me again--I want them to say, and\nwithout any sort of evasion--without resorting to any pious tricks--I\nwant them to say whether they believe that the Eternal God of this\nuniverse ever upheld the crime of polygamy.  Say it square and fair.\nDon't begin to talk about that being a peculiar time, and that God was\neasy on the prejudices of those old fellows.  I want them to answer\nthat question and to answer it squarely, which they haven't done.  Did\nthis God, which you pretend to worship, ever sanction the institution\nof human slavery?  Now, answer fair.  Don't slide around it.  Don't\nbegin and answer what a bad man I am, nor what a good man Moses was.\nStick to the text.  Do you believe in a God that allowed a man to be\nsold from his children?  Do you worship such an infinite monster?  And\nif you do, tell your congregation whether you are not ashamed to admit\nit.  Let every minister who answers me again tell whether he believes\nGod commanded his general to kill the little dimpled babe in the\ncradle. Let him answer it.  Don't say that those were very bad times.\nTell whether He did it or not, and then your people will know whether\nto hate that God or not.  Be honest.  Tell them whether that God in war\ncaptured young maidens and turned them over to the soldiers; and then\nask the wives and sweet girls of your congregation to get down on their\nknees and worship the infinite fiend that did that thing.  Answer!  It\nis your God I am talking about, and if that is what God did, please\ntell your congregation what, under the same circumstances, the devil\nwould have done.  Don't tell your people that is a poem.  Don't tell\nyour people that is pictorial. That won't do.  Tell your people whether\nit is true or false.  That is what I want you to do.\n\nIn this book I read about God's making the world and one man.  That is\nall He intended to make.  The making of woman was a second thought,\nthough I am willing to admit that as a rule second thoughts are best.\nThis God made a man and put him in a public park.  In a little while He\nnoticed that the man got lonesome; then He found He had made a mistake,\nand that He would have to make somebody to keep him company. But having\nused up all the nothing He originally used in making the world and one\nman, He had to take a part of a man to start a woman with.  So He\ncauses sleep to fall on this man--now understand me, I do not say this\nstory is true.  After the sleep had fallen on this man the Supreme\nBeing took a rib, or, as the French would call it, a cutlet, out of\nhim, and from that He made a woman; and I am willing to swear, taking\ninto account the amount and quality of the raw material used, this was\nthe most magnificent job ever accomplished in this world.  Well, after\nHe got the woman done she was brought to the man, not to see how she\nliked him, but to see how he liked her. He liked her and they started\nhousekeeping, and they were told of certain things they might do and of\none thing they could not do--and of course they did it.  I would have\ndone it in fifteen minutes, I know it.  There wouldn't have been an\napple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs would have\nbeen full of clubs.  And then they were turned out of the park and\nextra policemen were put on to keep them from getting back.  And then\ntrouble commenced and we have been at it ever since.  Nearly all the\nreligions of this world account for the existence of evil by such a\nstory as that.\n\nWell, I read in another book what appeared to be an account of the same\ntransaction.  It was written about four thousand years before the\nother. All commentators agree that the one that was written last was\nthe original, and the one that was written first was copied from the\none that was written last.  But I would advise you all not to allow\nyour creed to be disturbed by a little matter of four or five thousand\nyears. It is a great deal better to be mistaken in dates than to go to\nthe devil.  In this other account the Supreme Brahma made up his mind\nto make the world and a man and woman.  He made the world and he made\nthe man and then the woman, and put them on the Island of Ceylon.\nAccording to the account it was the most beautiful island of which man\ncan conceive.  Such birds, such songs, such flowers, and such verdure!\nAnd the branches of the trees were so arranged that when the wind swept\nthrough them every tree was a thousand aeolian harps.  Brahma, when he\nput them there, said: \"Let them have a period of courtship, for it is\nmy desire and will that true love should forever precede marriage.\"\nWhen I read that, it was so much more beautiful and lofty than the\nother, that I said to myself: \"If either one of these stories ever\nturns out to be true, I hope it will be this one.\"\n\nThen they had their courtship, with the nightingale singing and the\nstars shining and the flowers blooming, and they fell in love. Imagine\nthat courtship!  No prospective fathers or mothers-in-law; no prying\nand gossiping neighbors; nobody to say, \"Young man, how do you expect\nto support her?\"  Nothing of that kind, nothing but the nightingale\nsinging its song of joy and pain, as though the thorn already touched\nits heart. They were married by the Supreme Brahma, and he said to\nthem, \"Remain here; you must never leave this island.\" Well, after a\nlittle while the man--and his name was Adami, and the woman's name was\nHeva--said to Heva: \"I believe I'll look about a little.\"  He wanted to\ngo West.  He went to the western extremity of the island where there\nwas a little narrow neck of land connecting it with the mainland, and\nthe devil, who is always playing pranks with us, produced a mirage, and\nwhen he looked over to the mainland, such hills and vales, such dells\nand dales, such mountains crowned with snow, such cataracts clad in\nbows of glory did he see there, that he went back and told Heva: \"The\ncountry over there is a thousand times better than this, let us\nmigrate.\"  She, like every other woman that ever lived, said: \"Let well\nenough alone we have all we want; let us stay here.\"  But he said: \"No,\nlet us go;\" so she followed him, and when they came to this narrow neck\nof land, he took her on his back like a gentleman, and carried her\nover.  But the moment they got over, they heard a crash, and, looking\nback, discovered that this narrow neck of land had fallen into the sea.\nThe mirage had disappeared, and there was naught but rocks and sand,\nand the Supreme Brahma cursed them both to the lowest Hell.\n\nThen it was that the man spoke--and I have liked him ever since for\nit--\"Curse me, but curse not her; it was not her fault, it was mine.\"\nThat's the kind of a man to start a world with.  The Supreme Brahma\nsaid: \"I will save her but not thee.\"  And she spoke out of her\nfullness of love, out of a heart in which there was love enough to make\nall her daughters rich in holy affection, and said: \"If thou wilt not\nspare him, spare neither me.  I do not wish to live without him, I\nlove him.\"  Then the Supreme Brahma said--and I have liked him ever\nsince I read it--\"I will spare you both, and watch over you and your\nchildren forever.\"  Honor bright, is that not the better and grander\nstory?\n\nAnd in that same book I find this \"Man is strength, woman is beauty;\nman is courage, woman is love.  When the one man loves the one woman,\nand the one woman loves the one man, the very angels leave Heaven, and\ncome and sit in that house, and sing for joy.\"  In the same book this:\n\"Blessed is that man, and beloved of all the gods, who is afraid of no\nman, and of whom no man is afraid.\"  Magnificent character!  A\nmissionary certainly ought to talk to that man.  And I find this:\n\"Never will I accept private, individual salvation, but rather will I\nstay and work, strive and suffer, until every soul from every star has\nbeen brought home to God.\"  Compare that with the Christian that\nexpects to go to Heaven while the world is rolling over Niagara to an\neternal and unending Hell.  So I say that religion lays all the crime\nand troubles of this world at the beautiful feet of woman.  And then\nthe church has the impudence to say that it has exalted women. I\nbelieve that marriage is a perfect partnership; that woman has every\nright that man has--and one more--the right to be protected. Above all\nmen in the world I hate a stingy man--a man that will make his wife beg\nfor money.  \"What did you do with the dollar I gave you last week?  And\nwhat are you going to do with this?\"  It is vile. No gentleman will\never be satisfied with the love of a beggar and a slave--no gentleman\nwill ever be satisfied except with the love of an equal.  What kind of\nchildren does a man expect to have with a beggar for their mother?  A\nman can not be so poor but that he can be generous, and if you only\nhave one dollar in the word and you have got to spend it, spend it like\na lord--spend it as though it were a dry leaf, and you the owner of\nunbounded forests--spend it as though you had a wilderness of your own.\nThat's the way to spend it.\n\nI had rather be a beggar and spend my last dollar like a king, than be\na king and spend my money like a beggar.  If it has got to go, let it\ngo. And this is my advice to the poor.  For you can never be so poor\nthat whatever you do you can't do in a grand and manly way.  I hate a\ncross man.  What right has a man to assassinate the joy of life? When\nyou go home you ought to go like a ray of light--so that it will, even\nin the night, burst out of the doors and windows and illuminate the\ndarkness. Some men think their mighty brains have been in a turmoil;\nthey have been thinking about who will be Alderman from the Fifth Ward;\nthey have been thinking about politics, great and mighty questions have\nbeen engaging their minds, they have bought calico at five cents or\nsix, and want to sell it for seven.  Think of the intellectual strain\nthat must have been upon that man, and when he gets home everybody else\nin the house must look out for his comfort.  A woman who has only taken\ncare of five or six children, and one or two of them sick, has been\nnursing them and singing to them, and trying to make one yard of cloth\ndo the work of two, she, of course, is fresh and fine and ready to wait\nupon this gentleman--the head of the family--the boss.  I was reading\nthe other day of an apparatus invented for the ejecting of gentlemen\nwho subsist upon free lunches.  It is so arranged that when the fellow\ngets both hands into the victuals, a large hand descends upon him, jams\nhis hat over his eyes--he is seized, turned toward the door, and just\nin the nick of time an immense boot comes from the other side, kicks\nhim in italics, sends him out over the sidewalk and lands him rolling\nin the gutter.  I never hear of such a man--a boss--that I don't feel\nas though that machine ought to be brought into requisition for his\nbenefit.\n\nLove is the only thing that will pay ten per cent of interest on the\noutlay.  Love is the only thing in which the height of extravagance is\nthe last degree of economy.  It is the only thing, I tell you. Joy is\nwealth.  Love is the legal tender of the soul--and you need not be rich\nto be happy.  We have all been raised on success in this country.\nAlways been talked with about being successful, and have never thought\nourselves very rich unless we were the possessors of some magnificent\nmansion, and unless our names have been between the putrid lips of\nrumor we could not be happy.  Every little boy is striving to be this\nand be that.  I tell you the happy man is the successful man.  The man\nthat has won the love of one good woman is a successful man.  The man\nthat has been the emperor of one good heart, and that heart embraced\nall his, has been a success.  If another has been the emperor of the\nround world and has never loved and been loved, his life is a failure.\nIt won't do. Let us teach our children the other way, that the happy\nman is the successful man, and he who is a happy man is the one who\nalways tries to make some one else happy.\n\nThe man who marries a woman to make her happy; that marries her as much\nfor her own sake as for his own; not the man that thinks his wife is\nhis property, who thinks that the title to her belongs to him--that the\nwoman is the property of the man; wretches who get mad at their wives\nand then shoot them down in the street because they think the woman is\ntheir property.  I tell you it is not necessary to be rich and great\nand powerful to be happy.\n\nA little while ago I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon--a\nmagnificent tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a dead deity--and\ngazed upon the sarcophagus of black Egyptian marble, where rest at last\nthe ashes of the restless man.  I leaned over the balustrade and\nthought about the career of the greatest soldier of the modern world.\nI saw him walk upon the banks of the Seine, contemplating suicide--I\nsaw him at Toulon--I saw him putting down the mob in the streets of\nParis--I saw him at the head of the army of Italy--I saw him crossing\nthe bridge of Lodi with the tri-color in his hand--I saw him in Egypt\nin the shadows of the pyramids--I saw him conquer the Alps and mingle\nthe eagles of France with the eagles of the crags. I saw him at\nMarengo--at Ulm and Austerlitz.  I saw him in Russia, where the\ninfantry of the snow and the cavalry of the wild blast scattered his\nlegions like Winter's withered leaves.  I saw him at Leipzig in defeat\nand disaster--driven by a million bayonets back upon Paris--clutched\nlike a wild beast--banished to Elba.  I saw him escape and retake an\nempire by the force of his genius.  I saw him upon the frightful field\nof Waterloo, where chance and fate combined to wreck the fortunes of\ntheir former king.  And I saw him at St. Helena, with his hands crossed\nbehind him, gazing out upon the sad and solemn sea.  I thought of the\norphans and widows he had made--of the tears that had been shed for his\nglory, and of the only woman who ever loved him, pushed from his heart\nby the cold hand of ambition. And I said I would rather have been a\nFrench peasant and worn wooden shoes.  I would rather have lived in a\nhut with a vine growing over the door, and the grapes growing purple in\nthe kisses of the Autumn sun; I would rather have been that poor\npeasant with my loving wife by my side, knitting as the day died out of\nthe sky, with my children upon my knees and their arms about me; I\nwould rather have been that man and gone down to the tongueless silence\nof the dreamless dust than to have been that imperial impersonation of\nforce and murder, known as Napoleon the Great.  It is not necessary to\nbe rich in order to be happy.  It is only necessary to be in love.\nThousands of men go to college and get a certificate that they have an\neducation, and that certificate is in Latin and they stop studying, and\nin two years, to save their life, they couldn't read the certificate\nthey got.\n\nIt is mostly so in marrying.  They stop courting when they get married.\nThey think, we have won her and that is enough.  Ah! the difference\nbefore and after!  How well they look!  How bright their eyes!  How\nlight their steps, and how full they were of generosity and laughter! I\ntell you a man should consider himself in good luck if a woman loves\nhim when he is doing his level best!  Good luck!  Good luck! And\nanother thing that is the cause of much trouble is that people don't\ncount fairly.  They do what they call putting their best foot forward.\nThat means lying a little.  I say put your worst foot forward.  If you\nhave got any faults admit them.  If you drink say so and quit it.  If\nyou chew and smoke and swear, say so.  If some of your kindred are not\nvery good people, say so.  If you have had two or three that died on\nthe gallows, or that ought to have died there, say so.  Tell all your\nfaults and if after she knows your faults she says she will have you,\nyou have got the dead wood on that woman forever.  I claim that there\nshould be perfect equality in the home, and I can not think of anything\nnearer Heaven than a home where there is true republicanism and true\ndemocracy at the fireside.  All are equal.\n\nAnd then, do you know, I like to think that love is eternal; that if\nyou really love the woman, for her sake, you will love her no matter\nwhat she may do; that if she really loves you, for your sake, the same;\nthat love does not look at alterations, through the wrinkles of time,\nthrough the mask of years--if you really love her you will always see\nthe face you loved and won.  And I like to think of it. If a man loves\na woman she does not ever grow old to him.  And the woman who really\nloves a man does not see that he is growing older. He is not decrepit\nto her. He is not tremulous.  He is not old.  He is not bowed.  She\nalways sees the same gallant fellow that won her hand and heart.  I\nlike to think of it in that way, and as Shakespeare says: \"Let Time\nreach with his sickle as far as ever he can; although he can reach\nruddy cheeks and ripe lips, and flashing eyes, he can not quite reach\nlove.\"  I like to think of it.  We will go down the hill of life\ntogether, and enter the shadow one with the other, and as we go down we\nmay hear the ripple of the laughter of our grandchildren, and the\nbirds, and spring, and youth, and love will sing once more upon the\nleafless branches of the tree of age.  I love to think of it in that\nway--absolute equals, happy, happy, and free, all our own.\n\nBut some people say: \"Would you allow a woman to vote?\"  Yes, if she\nwants to; that is her business, not mine.  If a woman wants to vote, I\nam too much of a gentleman to say she shall not.  But, they say, woman\nhas not sense enough to vote.  It don't take much.  But it seems to me\nthere are some questions, as for instance, the question of peace or\nwar, that a woman should be allowed to vote upon.  A woman that has\nsons to be offered on the altar of that Moloch, it seems to me that\nsuch a woman should have as much right to vote upon the question of\npeace and war as some thrice-besotted sot that reels to the ballot box\nand deposits his vote for war.  But if women have been slaves, what\nshall we say of the little children, born in the sub-cellars, children\nof poverty, children of crime, children of wealth, children that are\nafraid when they hear their names pronounced by the lips of their\nmother, children that cower in fear when they hear the footsteps of\ntheir brutal father, the flotsam and jetsam upon the rude sea of life,\nmy heart goes out to them one and all.\n\nChildren have all the rights that we have and one more, and that is to\nbe protected.  Treat your children in that way.  Suppose your child\ntells a lie.  Don't pretend that the whole world is going into\nbankruptcy. Don't pretend that that is the first lie ever told.  Tell\nthem, like an honest man, that you have told hundreds of lies yourself,\nand tell the dear little darling that it is not the best way; that it\nsoils the soul.  Think of the man that deals in stocks whipping his\nchildren for putting false rumors afloat!  Think of an orthodox\nminister whipping his own flesh and blood, for not telling all it\nthinks! Think of that!  Think of a lawyer for beating his child for\navoiding the truth! when the old man makes about half his living that\nway.  A lie is born of weakness on one side and tyranny on the other.\nThat is what it is.  Think of a great big man coming at a little bit of\na child with a club in his hand!  What is the little darling to do?\nLie, of course.  I think that mother Nature put that ingenuity into the\nmind of the child, when attacked by a parent, to throw up a little\nbreastwork in the shape of a lie to defend itself.  When a great\ngeneral wins a battle by what they call strategy, we build monuments to\nhim.  What is strategy?  Lies. Suppose a man as much larger than we are\nas we are larger than a child five years of age, should come at us with\na liberty pole in his hand, and in tones of thunder want to know \"who\nbroke that plate,\" there isn't one of us, not excepting myself, that\nwouldn't swear that we never had seen that plate in our lives, or that\nit was cracked when we got it.\n\nAnother good way to make children tell the truth is to tell it\nyourself. Keep your word with your child the same as you would with\nyour banker. If you tell a child you will do anything, either do it or\ngive the child the reason why.  Truth is born of confidence.  It comes\nfrom the lips of love and liberty.  I was over in Michigan the other\nday. There was a boy over there at Grand Rapids about five or six years\nold, a nice, smart boy, as you will see from the remark he made--what\nyou might call a nineteenth century boy.  His father and mother had\npromised to take him out riding.  They had promised to take him out\nriding for about three weeks, and they would slip off and go without\nhim.  Well, after while that got kind of played out with the little\nboy, and the day before I was there they played the trick on him again.\nThey went out and got the carriage, and went away, and as they rode\naway from the front of the house, he happened to be standing there with\nhis nurse, and he saw them. The whole thing flashed on him in a moment.\nHe took in the situation, and turned to his nurse and said, pointing to\nhis father and mother, \"There go the two d--t liars in the State of\nMichigan!\"  When you go home fill the house with joy, so that the light\nof it will stream out the windows and doors, and illuminate even the\ndarkness. It is just as easy that way as any in the world.\n\nI want to tell you tonight that you can not get the robe of hypocrisy\non you so thick that the sharp eye of childhood will not see through\nevery veil, and if you pretend to your children that you are the best\nman that ever lived--the bravest man that ever lived--they will find\nyou out every time.  They will not have the same opinion of father when\nthey grow up that they used to have.  They will have to be in mighty\nbad luck if they ever do meaner things than you have done. When your\nchild confesses to you that it has committed a fault, take that child\nin your arms, and let it feel your heart beat against its heart, and\nraise your children in the sunlight of love, and they will be sunbeams\nto you along the pathway of life.  Abolish the club and the whip from\nthe house, because, if the civilized use a whip, the ignorant and the\nbrutal will use a club, and they will use it because you use the whip.\n\nEvery little while some door is thrown open in some orphan asylum, and\nthere we see the bleeding back of a child whipped beneath the roof that\nwas raised by love.  It is infamous, and a man that can't raise a child\nwithout the whip ought not to have a child.  If there is one of you\nhere that ever expect to whip your child again, let me ask you\nsomething. Have your photograph taken at the time and let it show your\nface red with vulgar anger, and the face of the little one with eyes\nswimming in tears, and the little chin dimpled with fear, looking like\na piece of water struck by a sudden cold wind. If that little child\nshould die, I can not think of a sweeter way to spend an Autumn\nafternoon than to take that photograph and go to the cemetery, when the\nmaples are clad in tender gold, and when little scarlet runners are\ncoming from the sad heart of the earth, and sit down upon that mound,\nand look upon that photograph, and think of the flesh, now dust, that\nyou beat.  Just think of it.  I could not bear to die in the arms of a\nchild that I had whipped. I could not bear to feel upon my lips, when\nthey were withered beneath the touch of death, the kiss of one that I\nhad struck.  Some Christians act as though they really thought that\nwhen Christ said, \"Suffer little children to come unto me,\" He had a\nrawhide under His coat.  They act as though they really thought that He\nmade that remark simply to get the children within striking distance.\n\nI have known Christians to turn their children from their doors,\nespecially a daughter, and then get down on their knees and pray to God\nto watch over them and help them.  I will never ask God to help my\nchildren unless I am doing my level best in that same wretched line.  I\nwill tell you what I say to my girls: \"Go where you will; do what crime\nyou may; fall to what depth of degradation you may; in all the storms\nand winds and earthquakes of life, no matter what you do, you never can\ncommit any crime that will shut my door, my arms or my heart to you.\nAs long as I live you have one sincere friend.\"  Call me an atheist;\ncall me an infidel because I hate the God of the Jew--which I do.  I\nintend so to live that when I die my children can come to my grave and\ntruthfully say: \"He who sleeps here never gave us one moment of pain.\"\n\nWhen I was a boy there was one day in each week too good for a child to\nbe happy in.  In these good old times Sunday commenced when the sun\nwent down on Saturday night and closed when the sun went down on Sunday\nnight.  We commenced Saturday to get a good ready.  And when the sun\nwent down Saturday night there was a gloom deeper than midnight that\nfell upon the house.  You could not crack hickory nuts then.  And if\nyou were caught chewing gum, it was only another evidence of the total\ndepravity of the human heart.  Well, after a while we got to bed sadly\nand sorrowfully after having heard Heaven thanked that we were not all\nin Hell.  And I sometimes used to wonder how the mercy of God lasted as\nlong as it did, because I recollected that on several occasions I had\nnot been at school, when I was supposed to be there.  Why I was not\nburned to a crisp was a mystery to me.  The next morning we got ready\nfor church--all solemn, and when we got there the minister was up in\nthe pulpit, about twenty feet high, and he commenced at Genesis about\n\"The fall of man,\" and he went on to about twenty thirdly; then he\nstruck the second application, and when he struck the application I\nknew he was about half way through.  And then he went on to show the\nscheme how the Lord was satisfied by punishing the wrong man.  Nobody\nbut a God would have thought of that ingenious way.  Well, when he got\nthrough that, then came the catechism--the chief end of man.  Then my\nturn came, and we sat along on a little bench where our feet came\nwithin about fifteen inches of the floor, and the dear old minister\nused to ask us:\n\n\"Boys, do you know that you ought to be in Hell?\"\n\nAnd we answered up as cheerfully as could be expected under the\ncircumstances.\n\n\"Yes, sir.\"\n\n\"Well, boys, do you know that you would go to Hell if you died in your\nsins?\"\n\nAnd we said: \"Yes, sir.\"\n\nAnd then came the great test:\n\n\"Boys\"--I can't get the tone, you know.  And do you know that is how\nthe preachers get the bronchitis.  You never heard of an auctioneer\ngetting the bronchitis,  nor the second mate on a steamboat--never.\nWhat gives it to the minister is talking solemnly when they don't feel\nthat way, and it has the same influence upon the organs of speech that\nit would have upon the cords of the calves of your legs to walk on your\ntip-toes, and so I call bronchitis \"parsonitis.\"  And if the ministers\nwould all tell exactly what they think they would all get well, but\nkeeping back a part of the truth is what gives them bronchitis.\n\nWell the old man--the dear old minister--used to try and show us how\nlong we would be in Hell if we would only locate there.  But to finish\nthe other.  The grand test question was:\n\n\"Boys, if it was God's will that you should go to Hell, would you be\nwilling to go?\"\n\nAnd every little liar said:\n\n\"Yes, sir.\"\n\nThen, in order to tell how long we would stay there, he used to say:\n\n\"Suppose once in a billion ages a bird should come from a far distant\nclime and carry off in its bill one little grain of sand, the time\nwould finally come when the last grain of sand would be carried away.\nDo you understand?\"\n\n\"Yes, sir.\"\n\n\"Boys, by that time it would not be sun-up in Hell.\"\n\nWhere did that doctrine of Hell come from?  I will tell you; from that\nfellow in the dug-out.  Where did he get it?  It was a souvenir from\nthe wild beasts.  Yes, I tell you he got it from the wild beasts, from\nthe glittering eye of the serpent, from the coiling, twisting snakes\nwith their fangs mouths; and it came from the bark, growl and howl of\nwild beasts; it was born of a laugh of the hyena and got it from the\ndepraved chatter of malicious apes.  And I despise it with every drop\nof my blood and defy it.  If there is any God in this universe who will\ndamn his children for an expression of an honest thought I wish to go\nto Hell.  I would rather go there than go to heaven and keep the\ncompany of a God that would thus damn his children.  Oh it is an\ninfamous doctrine to teach that to little children, to put a shadow in\nthe heart of a child to fill the insane asylums with that miserable,\ninfamous lie.  I see now and then a little girl--a dear little darling,\nwith a face like the light, and eyes of joy, a human blossom, and I\nthink, \"is it possible that little girl will ever grow up to be a\nPresbyterian?\"  Is it possible, my goodness, that that flower will\nfinally believe in the five points of Calvinism or in the eternal\ndamnation of man?  Is it possible that that little fairy will finally\nbelieve that she could be happy in Heaven with her baby in Hell?  Think\nof it!  Think of it! And that is the Christian religion!\n\nWe cry out against the Indian mother that throws her child into the\nGanges, to be devoured by the alligator or crocodile, but that is joy\nin comparison with the Christian mother's hope, that she may be in\nsalvation while her brave boy is in Hell.\n\nI tell you I want to kick the doctrine about Hell--I want to kick it\nout every time I go by it.  I want to get Americans in this country\nplaced so they will be ashamed to preach it.  I want to get the\ncongregations so that they won't listen to it.  We cannot divide the\nworld off into saints and sinners in that way.  There is a little girl,\nfair as a flower, and she grows up until she is twelve, thirteen, or\nfourteen years old.  Are you going to damn her in the fifteenth,\nsixteenth or seventeenth year, when the arrow from Cupid's bow touches\nher heart and she is glorified--are you going to damn her now?  She\nmarries and loves, and holds in her arms a beautiful child?  Are you\ngoing to damn her now? When are you going to damn her?  Because she has\nlistened to some Methodist minister and after all that flood of light\nfailed to believe? Are you going to damn her then?  I tell you God can\nnot afford to damn such a woman.\n\nA woman in the State of Indiana forty or fifty years ago who carded the\nwool and made rolls and spun them, and made the cloth and cut out the\nclothes for the children, and nursed them, and sat up with them nights\nand--gave them medicine, and held them in her arms and wept over\nthem--cried for joy and wept for fear, and finally raised ten or eleven\ngood men and women with the ruddy glow of health upon their cheeks, and\nshe would have died for any one of them any moment of her life, and\nfinally she, bowed with age and bent with care and labor, dies, and at\nthe moment the magical touch of death is upon her face, she looks as\nthough she never had had a care, and her children burying her cover her\nface with tears.  Do you tell me God can afford to damn that kind of a\nwoman? One such act of injustice would turn Heaven itself into Hell.\nIf there is any God, sitting above him in infinite serenity we have the\nfigure of justice.  Even a God must do justice; even a God must worship\njustice; and any form of superstition that destroys justice is\ninfamous!  Just think of teaching that doctrine to little children!  A\nlittle child would go out into the garden, and there would be a little\ntree laden with blossoms, and the little fellow would lean against it,\nand there would be a bird on one of the boughs, singing and swinging,\nand thinking about four little speckled eggs, warmed by the breast of\nits mate--and singing and swinging, and the music in in happy waves\nrippling out of the tiny throat, and the flowers blossoming, the air\nfilled with perfume, and the great white clouds floating in the sky,\nand the little boy would lean up against the tree and think about Hell\nand the worm that never dies.  Oh! the idea there can be any day too\ngood for a child to be happy in!\n\nWell, after we got over the catechism, then came the sermon in the\nafternoon, and it was exactly like the one in the forenoon, except the\nother end to.  Then we started for home--a solemn march--\"not a soldier\ndischarged his farewell shot\"--and when we got home, if we had been\nreally good boys, we used to be taken up to the cemetery to cheer us\nup, and it always did cheer me, those sunken graves, those leaning\nstones, those gloomy epitaphs covered with the moss of years always\ncheered me. When I looked at them I said: \"Well, this kind of thing\ncan't last always.\"  Then we came back home, and we had books to read\nwhich were very eloquent and amusing.  We had Josephus, and the\n\"History of the Waldenses,\" and Fox's \"Book of Martyrs,\"  Baxter's\n\"Saint's Rest,\" and \"Jenkyn on the Atonement.\" I used to read Jenkyn\nwith a good deal of pleasure, and I often thought that the atonement\nwould have to be very broad in its provisions to cover the case of a\nman that would I write such a book for boys.  Then I would look to see\nhow the sun was getting on, and sometimes I thought it had stuck from\npure cussedness.  Then I would go back and try Jenkyn's again.  Well,\nbut it had to go down, and when the last rim of light sank below the\nhorizon, off would go our hats and we would give three cheers for\nliberty once again.\n\nI tell you, don't make slaves of your children on Sunday.\n\nThe idea that there is any God that hates to hear a child laugh!  Let\nyour children play games on Sunday.  Here is a poor man that hasn't\nmoney enough to go to a big church and he has too much independence to\ngo to a little church that the big church built for charity.  He\ndoesn't want to slide into Heaven that way.  I tell you don't come to\nchurch, but go to the woods and take your family and a lunch with you,\nand sit down upon the old log and let the children gather flowers and\nhear the leaves whispering poems like memories of long ago, and when\nthe sun is about going down, kissing the summits of far hills, go home\nwith your hearts filled with throbs of joy.  There is more recreation\nand joy in that than going to a dry goods box with a steeple on top of\nit and hearing a man tell you that your chances are about ninety-nine\nto one for being eternally damned.  Let us make this Sunday a day of\nsplendid pleasure, not to excess, but to everything that makes man\npurer and grander and nobler.  I would like to see now something like\nthis: Instead of so many churches, a vast cathedral that would hold\ntwenty or thirty thousands of people, and I would like to see an opera\nproduced in it that would make the souls of men have higher and grander\nand nobler aims.  I would like to see the walls covered with pictures\nand the niches rich with statuary; I would like to see something put\nthere that you could use in this world now, and I do not believe in\nsacrificing the present to the future; I do not believe in drinking\nskimmed milk here with the promise of butter beyond the clouds.  Space\nor time can not be holy any more than a vacuum can be pious.  Not a\nbit, not a bit; and no day can be so holy but what the laugh of a child\nwill make it holier still.\n\nStrike with hand of fire, on, weird musician, thy harp, strung with\nApollo's golden hair!  Fill the vast cathedral aisles with symphonies\nsweet and dim, deft toucher of the organ's keys; blow, bugler, blow\nuntil thy silver notes do touch and kiss the moonlit waves, and charm\nthe lovers wandering 'mid the vine-clad hills.  But know your sweetest\nstrains are discords all compared with childhood's happy laugh--the\nlaugh that fills the eyes with light and every heart with joy!  O,\nrippling river of laughter, thou art the blessed boundary line between\nthe beasts and men, and every wayward wave of thine doth drown some\nfretful fiend of care.  O Laughter, rose lipped daughter of joy, there\nare dimples enough in thy cheeks to catch and hold and glorify all the\ntears of grief.\n\nDon't plant your children in long, straight rows like posts.  Let them\nhave light and air and let them grow beautiful as palms.  When I was a\nlittle boy children went to bed when they were not sleepy, and always\ngot up when they were.  I would like to see that changed, but they say\nwe are too poor, some of us, to do it.  Well, all right. It is as easy\nto wake a child with a kiss as with a blow; with kindness as with\ncurse.  And, another thing; let the children eat what they want to. Let\nthem commence at whichever end of the dinner they desire.  That is my\ndoctrine.  They know what they want much better than you do.  Nature is\na great deal smarter than you ever were.\n\nAll the advance that has been made in the science of medicine, has been\nmade by the recklessness of patients.  I can recollect when they\nwouldn't give a man water in a fever--not a drop.  Now and then some\nfellow would get so thirsty he would say \"Well, I'll die any way, so\nI'll drink it,\" and thereupon he would drink a gallon of water, and\nthereupon he would burst into a generous perspiration, and get\nwell--and the next morning when the doctor would come to see him they\nwould tell him about the man drinking the water, and he would say:\n\n\"How much?\"\n\n\"Well, he swallowed two pitchers full.\"\n\n\"Is he alive?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\nSo they would go into the room and the doctor would feel his pulse and\nask him:\n\n\"Did you drink two pitchers of water?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"My God! what a constitution you have got.\"\n\nI tell you there is something splendid in man that will not always\nmind. Why, if we had done as the kings told us five hundred years ago,\nwe would all have been slaves.  If we had done as the priests told us\nwe would all have been idiots.  If we had done as the doctors told us\nwe would all have been dead.  We have been saved by disobedience.  We\nhave been saved by that splendid thing called independence, and I want\nto see more of it, day after day, and I want to see children raised so\nthey will have it.  That is my doctrine. Give the children a chance.\nBe perfectly honor bright with them, and they will be your friends when\nyou are old.  Don't try to teach them something they can never learn.\nDon't insist upon their pursuing some calling they have no sort of\nfaculty for.  Don't make that poor girl play ten years on a  piano when\nshe has no ear for music, and when she has practiced until she can play\n\"Bonaparte crossing the Alps,\" and you can't tell after she has played\nit whether Bonaparte ever got across or not.  Men are oaks, women are\nvines, children are flowers, and if there is any Heaven in this world,\nit is in the family.  It is where the wife loves the husband, and the\nhusband loves the wife, and where the dimpled arms of children are\nabout the necks of both.  That is Heaven, if there is any--and I do not\nwant any better Heaven in another world than that, and if in another\nworld I can not live with the ones I loved here, then I would rather\nnot be there.  I would rather resign.\n\nWell, my friends, I have some excuses to make for the race to which I\nbelong.  In the first place, this world is not very well adapted to\nraising good men and good women.  It is three times better adapted to\nthe cultivation of fish than of people.  There is one little narrow\nbelt running zigzag around the world, in which men and women of genius\ncan be raised, and that is all.  It is with man as it is with\nvegetation.  In the valley you find the oak and elm tossing their\nbranches defiantly to the storm, and as you advance up the mountain\nside the hemlock, the pine, the birch, the spruce, the fir, and finally\nyou come to little dwarfed trees, that look like other trees seen\nthrough a telescope reversed--every limb twisted as through\npain--getting a scanty subsistence from the miserly crevices of the\nrocks. You go on and on, until at last the highest crag is freckled\nwith a kind of moss, and vegetation ends.  You might as well try to\nraise oaks and elms where the mosses grow, as to raise great men and\nwomen where their surroundings are unfavorable.  You must have the\nproper climate and soil.  There never has been a man or woman of genius\nfrom the southern hemisphere, because the Lord didn't allow the right\nclimate to fall upon the land. It falls upon the water.  There never\nwas much civilization except where there has been snow, and ordinarily\ndecent Winter.  You can't have civilization without it.  Where man\nneeds no bedclothes but clouds, revolution is the normal condition of\nsuch a people.  It is the Winter that gives us the home; it is the\nWinter that gives us the fireside and the family relation and all the\nbeautiful flowers of love that adorn that relation.  Civilization,\nliberty, justice, charity and intellectual advancement are all flowers\nthat bloom in the drifted snow.  You can't have them anywhere else, and\nthat is the reason we of the north are civilized, and that is the\nreason that civilization has always been with Winter.  That is the\nreason that philosophy has been here, and, in spite of all our\nsuperstitions, we have advanced beyond some of the other races, because\nwe have had this assistance of nature, that drove us into the family\nrelation, that made us prudent; that made us lay up at one time for\nanother season of the year.  So there is one excuse I have for my race.\n\nI have got another.  I think we came from the lower animals.  I am not\ndead sure of it, but think so.  When I first read about it I didn't\nlike it.  My heart was filled with sympathy for those people who have\nnothing to be proud of except ancestors.  I thought how terrible it\nwill be upon the nobility of the old world.  Think of their being\nforced to trace their ancestry back to the Duke Orang-Outang or to the\nPrincess Chimpanzee.  After thinking it all over I came to the\nconclusion that I liked that doctrine.  I became convinced in spite of\nmyself. I read about rudimentary bones and muscles.  I was told that\neverybody had rudimentary muscles extending from the ear into the\ncheek.  I asked: \"What are they?\"  I was told: \"They are the remains of\nmuscles; that they became rudimentary from the lack of use.\"  They went\ninto bankruptcy.  They are the muscles with which your ancestors used\nto flap their ears.  Well, at first, I was greatly astonished, and\nafterward I was more astonished to find they had become rudimentary.\nHow can you account for John Calvin unless we came up from the lower\nanimals?  How could you account for a man that would use the extremes\nof torture unless you admit that there is in man the elements of a\nsnake, of a vulture, a hyena, and a jackal? How can you account for the\nreligious creeds of today?  How can you account for that infamous\ndoctrine of Hell, except with an animal origin?  How can you account\nfor your conception of a God that would sell women and babes into\nslavery?\n\nWell, I thought that thing over and I began to like it after a while,\nand I said: \"It is not so much difference who my father was as who his\nson is.\"  And I finally said I would rather belong to a race that\ncommenced with the skull-less vertebrates in the dim Laurentian seas,\nthat wriggled without knowing why they wriggled, swimming without\nknowing where they were going, that come along up by degrees through\nmillions of ages, through all that crawls, and swims, and floats, and\nruns, and growls, and barks, and howls, until it struck this fellow in\nthe dug-out.  And then that fellow in the dugout getting a little\ngrander, and each one below calling every one above him a heretic,\ncalling every one who had made a little advance an infidel or an\natheist, and finally the heads getting a little higher and looming up a\nlittle grander and more splendidly, and finally produced Shakespeare,\nwho harvested all the field of dramatic thought and from whose day\nuntil now there have been none but gleaners of chaff and straw.\nShakespeare was an intellectual ocean whose waves touched all the\nshores of human thought, within which were all the tides and currents\nand pulses upon which lay all the lights and shadows, and over which\nbrooded all the calms, and swept all the storms and tempests of which\nthe soul is capable.  I would rather belong to that race that commenced\nwith that skull-less vertebrate; that produced Shakespeare, a race that\nhas before it an infinite future, with the angel of progress leaning\nfrom the far horizon, beckoning men forward and upward forever.  I\nwould rather belong to that race than to have descended from a perfect\npair upon which the Lord has lost money every moment from that day to\nthis.\n\nNow, my crime has been this: I have insisted that the Bible is not the\nword of God.  I have insisted that we should not whip our children. I\nhave insisted that we should treat our wives as loving equals.  I have\ndenied that God--if there is any God--ever upheld polygamy and slavery.\nI have denied that that God ever told his generals to kill innocent\nbabes and tear and rip open women with the sword of war.  I have denied\nthat and for that I have been assailed by the clergy of the United\nStates.  They tell me I have misquoted; and I owe it to you, and maybe\nI owe it to myself, to read one or two words to you upon this subject.\nIn order to do that I shall have to put on my glasses; and that brings\nme back to where I started--that man has advanced just in proportion as\nhis thought has mingled with his labor. If man's eyes hadn't failed he\nwould never have made any spectacles, he would never have had the\ntelescope, and he would never have been able to read the leaves of\nHeaven.\n\n\n\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO DR. COLLYER.\n\n\n\nNow, they tell me--and there are several gentlemen who have spoken on\nthis subject--the Rev. Mr. Collyer, a gentleman standing as high as\nanybody, and I have nothing to say against him--because I denounced God\nwho upheld murder, and slavery and polygamy, he said that what I said\nwas slang.  I would like to have it compared with any sermon that ever\nissued from the lips of that gentleman.  And before he gets through he\nadmits that the Old Testament is a rotten tree that will soon fall into\nthe earth and act as a fertilizer for his doctrine.\n\nIs it honest in that man to assail my motive?  Let him answer my\nargument!  Is it honest and fair in him to say I am doing a certain\nthing because it is popular?  Has it got to this, that, in this\nChristian country, where they have preached every day hundreds and\nthousands of sermons--has it got to this that infidelity is so popular\nin the United States?\n\nIf it has, I take courage.  And I not only see the dawn of a brighter\nday, but the day is here.  Think of it!  A minister tells me in this\nyear of grace, 1879, that a man is an infidel simply that he may be\npopular.  I am glad of it.  Simply that he may make money.  Is it\npossible that we can make more money tearing up churches than in\nbuilding them up?  Is it possible that we can make more money\ndenouncing the God of slavery than we can praising the God that took\nliberty from man?  If so, I am glad.\n\nI call publicly upon Robert Collyer--a man for whom I have great\nrespect--I call publicly upon Robert Collyer to state to the people of\nthis city whether he believes the Old Testament was inspired.  I call\nupon him to state whether he believes that God ever upheld these\ninstitutions; whether God was a polygamist; whether he believes that\nGod commanded Moses or Joshua or any one else to slay little children\nin the cradle.  Do you believe that Robert Collyer would obey such an\norder?  Do you believe that he would rush to the cradle and drive the\nknife of theological hatred to the tender heart of a dimpled child? And\nyet when I denounce a God that will give such a hellish order, he says\nit is slang.\n\nI want him to answer; and when he answers he will say he does not\nbelieve the Bible is inspired.  That is what he will say, and he holds\nthese old worthies in the same contempt that I do.  Suppose he should\nact like Abraham.  Suppose he should send some woman out into the\nwilderness with his child in her arms to starve, would he think that\nmankind ought to hold up his name forever, for reverence.\n\nRobert Collyer says that we should read and scan every word of the Old\nTestament with reverence; that we should take this book up with\nreverential hands.  I deny it.  We should read it as we do every other\nbook, and everything good in it, keep it and everything that shocks the\nbrain and shocks the heart, throw it away.  Let us be honest.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S REPLY TO PROF. SWING\n\n\n\nProf. Swing has made a few remarks on this subject, and I say the\nspirit he has exhibited has been as gentle and as sweet as the perfume\nof a flower.  He was too good a man to stay in the Presbyterian church.\nHe was a rose among thistles.  He was a dove among vultures and they\nhunted him out, and I am glad he came out.  I tell all the churches to\ndrive all such men out, and when he comes I want him to state just what\nhe thinks.  I want him to tell the people of Chicago whether he\nbelieves the Bible is inspired in any sense except that in which\nShakespeare was inspired.  Honor bright,  I tell you that all the sweet\nand beautiful things in the Bible would not make one play of\nShakespeare; all the philosophy in the world would not make one scene\nin Hamlet; all the beauties of the Bible would not make one scene in\nthe Midsummer Night's Dream; all the beautiful things about woman in\nthe Bible would not begin to create such a character as Perditu or\nImogene or Miranda.  Not one.\n\nI want him to tell whether he believes the Bible was inspired in any\nother way than Shakespeare was inspired.  I want him to pick out\nsomething as beautiful and tender as Burns' poem to Mary in Heaven. I\nwant him to tell whether he believes the story about the bears eating\nup children; whether that is inspired.  I want him to tell whether he\nconsiders that a poem or not.  I want to know if the same God made\nthose bears that devoured the children because they laughed at an old\nman out of hair.  I want to know if the same God that did that is the\nsame God who said, \"Suffer little children to come unto me, for such is\nthe kingdom of Heaven.\"  I want him to answer it, and answer it fairly.\nThat is all I ask.  I want just the fair thing.\n\nNow, sometimes Mr. Swing talks as though he believed the Bible, and\nthen he talks to me as though he didn't believe the Bible.  The day he\nmade this sermon I think he did, just a little, believe it.  He is like\nthe man that passed a ten dollar counterfeit bill.  He was arrested and\nhis father went to see him and said, \"John, how could you commit such a\ncrime?  How could you bring my gray hairs in sorrow to the grave?\"\n\"Well,\" he says, \"father, I'll tell you.  I got this bill and some days\nI thought it was bad and some days I thought it was good, and one day\nwhen I thought it was good I passed it.\"\n\nI want it distinctly understood that I have the greatest respect for\nProf. Swing, but I want him to tell whether the 109th psalm is\ninspired. I want him to tell whether the passages I shall afterward\nread in this book are inspired.  That is what I want.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S REPLY TO BROOKE HERFORD, D.D.\n\n\n\nThen there is another gentleman here.  His name is Herford.  He says it\nis not fair to apply the test of truth to the Bible--I don't think it\nis myself.  He says although Moses upheld slavery, that he improved it.\nThey were not quite so bad as they were before, and Heaven justified\nslavery at that time.  Do you believe that God ever turned the arms of\nchildren into chains of slavery?  Do you believe that God ever said to\na man: \"You can't have your wife unless you will be a slave?  You can\nnot have your children unless you will lose your liberty; and unless\nyou are willing to throw them from your heart forever, you can not be\nfree?\" I want Mr. Herford to state whether he loves such a God.  Be\nhonor bright about it.  Don't begin to talk about civilization or what\nthe church has done or will do.  Just walk right up to the rack and say\nwhether you love and worship a God that established slavery.  Honest!\nAnd love and worship a God that would allow a little babe to be torn\nfrom the breast of its mother and sold into slavery.  Now tell it fair,\nMr. Herford, I want you to tell the ladies in your congregation that\nyou believe in a God that allowed women to be given to the soldiers.\nTell them that, and then if you say it was not the God of Moses, then\ndon't praise Moses any more.  Don't do it.  Answer these questions.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL GATLING GUN TURNED ON DR. RYDER\n\n\n\nThen here is another gentleman, Mr. Ryder, the Rev. Mr. Ryder, and he\nsays that Calvinism is rejected by a majority of Christendom.  He is\nmistaken.  There is what they call the Evangelical Alliance.  They met\nin this country in 1875 or 1876, and there were present representatives\nof all the evangelical churches in the world, and they adopted a creed,\nand that creed is that man is totally depraved. That creed is that\nthere is an eternal, universal Hell, and that every man that does not\nbelieve in a certain way is bound to be damned forever, and that there\nis only one way to be saved, and that is by faith, and by faith alone;\nand they would not allow anybody to be represented there that did not\nbelieve that, and they would not allow a Unitarian there, and would not\nhave allowed Dr. Ryder there, because he takes away from the Christian\nworld the consolation naturally arising from the belief in Hell.\n\nDr. Ryder is mistaken.  All the orthodox religion of the day is\nCalvinism.  It believes in the fall of man.  It believes in the\natonement.  It believes in the eternity of Hell, and it believes in\nsalvation by faith; that is to say, by credulity.\n\nThat is what they believe, and he is mistaken; and I want to tell Dr.\nKyder today, if there is a God, and He wrote the Old Testament, there\nis a Hell.  The God that wrote the Old Testament will have a Hell.  And\nI want to tell Dr. Ryder another thing, that the Bible teaches an\neternity of punishment.  I want to tell him that the Bible upholds the\ndoctrine of Hell.  I want to tell Him that if there is no Hell,\nsomebody ought to have said so, and Jesus Christ should not have said:\n\"I will at the last day say: 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into\neverlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'\"  If there was\nnot such a place, Christ would not have said: \"Depart from me, ye\ncursed, and these shall go hence into everlasting fire.\"  And if you,\nDr. Ryder, are depending for salvation on the God that wrote the Old\nTestament, you will inevitably be eternally damned.\n\nThere is no hope for you.  It is just as bad to deny Hell as it is to\ndeny Heaven.  It is just as much blasphemy to deny the devil as to deny\nGod, according to the orthodox creed.  He admits that the Jews were\npolygamists, but, he says, how was it they finally quit it? I can tell\nyou--the soil was so poor they couldn't afford it.  Prof. Swing says\nthe Bible is a poem, Dr. Ryder says it is a picture.  The Garden of\nEden is pictorial; a pictorial snake and a pictorial woman, I suppose,\nand a pictorial man, and maybe it was a pictorial sin. And only a\npictorial atonement.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S REPLY TO RABBI BIEN\n\n\nThen there is another gentleman, and he a rabbi, a Rabbi Bien, or Bean,\nor whatever his name is, and he comes to the defense of the Great\nLaw-giver.  There was another rabbi who attacked me in Cincinnati, and\nI couldn't help but think of the old saying that a man got off when he\nsaid the tallest man he ever knew, his name was Short.  And the fattest\nman he ever saw, his name was Lean.  And it is only necessary for me to\nadd that this rabbi in Cincinnati was Wise.\n\nThe rabbi here, I will not answer him, and I will tell you why. Because\nhe has taken himself outside of all the limits of a gentleman; because\nhe has taken it upon himself to traduce American women in language the\nbeastliest I ever read; and any man who says that the American women\nare not just as good women as any God can make and pick his mud today,\nis an unappreciative barbarian.\n\nI will let him alone because he denounced all the men in this country,\nall the members of Congress, all the members of the Senate, and all the\njudges upon the Bench; in his lecture he denounced them as thieves and\nrobbers.  That won't do.  I want to remind him that in this country the\nJews were first admitted to the privileges of citizens; that in this\ncountry they were first given all their rights, and I am as much in\nfavor of their having their rights as I am in favor of having my own.\nBut when a rabbi so far forgets himself as to traduce the women and men\nof this country, I pronounce him a vulgar falsifier, and let him alone.\n\nStrange, that nearly every man that has answered me has answered me\nmostly on the same side.  Strange, that nearly every man that thought\nhimself called upon to defend the Bible was one who did not believe in\nit himself.  Isn't it strange?  They are like some suspected people,\nalways anxious to show their marriage certificate.  They want at least\nto convince the world that they are not as bad as I am.\n\nNow, I want to read you just one or two things, and then I am going to\nlet you go.  I want to see if I have said such awful things, and\nwhether I have got any scripture to stand by me.  I will read only two\nor three verses.  Does the Bible teach man to enslave his brother? If\nit does, it is not the word of God, unless God is a slaveholder.\n\n\"Moreover, all the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,\nof them shall ye buy of their families which are with you, which they\nbeget in your land, and they shall be your possession.  Ye shall take\nthem as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them.\nThey shall be your bondsmen forever.\"--(Old Testament.)\n\nUpon the limbs of unborn babes this fiendish God put the chains of\nslavery.  I hate him.\n\n\"Both thy bondmen and bondwomen shall be of the heathen round about\nthee and them shall ye buy, bondmen and bondwomen.\"\n\nNow let us read what the New Testament has.  I could read a great deal\nmore, but that is enough.\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the\nflesh in fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto\nChrist.\"\n\nThis is putting the dirty thief that steals your labor on an equality\nwith God.\n\n\"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle but also to the froward.\"\n\n\"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure\ngrief, suffering wrongfully.\"\n\nThe idea of a man on account of conscience toward God stealing another\nman, or allowing him nothing but lashes on his back as legal-tender for\nlabor performed.\n\n\"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters\nworthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not\nblasphemed.\"\n\nHow can you blaspheme the name of God by asserting your independence?\nHow can you blaspheme the name of a God by striking fetters from the\nlimbs of men?  I wish some of your ministers would tell you that. \"And\nthey that have believing masters let them not despise them.\" That is to\nsay, a good Christian could own another believer in Jesus Christ; could\nown a woman and her children, and could sell the child away from its\nmother. That is a sweet belief.  O, hypocrisy!\n\n\"Let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather do\nthem service because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the\nbenefit.\"\n\nOh, what slush!  Here is what they will tell the poor slave, so that he\nwill serve the man that stole his wife and children from him:\n\n\"For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry\nnothing out.  Having food and raiment let us be therewith content.\"\n\nDon't you think that it would do just as well to preach that to the\nthieving man as to the suffering slave?  I think so.  Then this same\nBible teaches witchcraft, that spirits go into the bodies of the man,\nand pigs, and that God himself made a trade with the devil, and the\ndevil traded him off--a man for a certain number of swine, and the\ndevil lost money because the hogs ran right down into the sea.  He got\na corner on that deal.\n\nNow let us see how they believed in the rights of children:\n\n\"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son which will not obey the\nvoice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they\nhave chastened him, will not harken unto them, then shall his father\nand his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of\nhis city, and unto the gate of his place.  And they shall say unto the\nelders of his city, 'This, our son, is stubborn and rebellious, he will\nnot obey our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' And all the men of\nthis city shall stone him with stones, that he die, so shalt thou put\nevil away.\"\n\nThat is a very good way to raise children.  Here is the story of\nJephthah.  He went off and he asked the Lord to let him whip some\npeople, and he told the Lord if He would let him whip them, he would\nsacrifice to the Lord the first thing that met him on his return; and\nthe first thing that met him was his own beautiful daughter, and he\nsacrificed her.  Is there a sadder story in all history than that? What\ndo you think of a man that would sacrifice his own daughter? What do\nyou think of a God that would receive that sacrifice?  Now, then, they\ncome to women in this blessed gospel, and let us see what the gospel\nsays about women.  Then you ought all to go to church, girls, next\nSunday and hear it.  \"Let the woman learn in silence with all\nsubjection; but I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority\nover the man, but to be in silence for Adam was formed first, not Eve.\"\n\nDon't you see?\n\n\"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the\ntransgression.  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing if\nthey continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.\" (That\nis Mr. Timothy.)  \"But I would have you know that the head of every man\nis Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ\nis God.\"\n\nI suppose that every old maid is acephalous.\n\n\"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the\nimage and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the\nman is not of the woman, but woman of the man.  Neither was the man\ncreated for the woman, but the woman for the man.\"  \"Wives, submit\nyourselves unto your own husband as unto the Lord, for the husband is\nthe head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the Church.\"\n\nDo you hear that?  You didn't know how much we were above you.  When\nyou go back to the old testament, to the great law-giver, you find that\nthe woman has to ask forgiveness for having borne a child.  If it was a\nboy, thirty-three days she was unclean; if it was a girl, sixty-six.\nNice laws!  Good laws!  If there is a pure thing in this world, if\nthere is a picture of perfect purity, it is a mother with her child in\nher arms. Yes, I think more of a good woman and a child than I do of\nall the gods I have ever heard these people tell about. Just think of\nthis:\n\n\"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy\nGod hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them\ncaptive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman and hast a\ndesire unto her that thou wouldst have her to thy wife, then thou shalt\nbring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare\nher nails.\"\n\nWherefore, ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but for\nconscience sake.  \"For this cause pay you tribute also, for they are\nGod's ministers.\"\n\nI despise this wretched doctrine.  Wherever the sword of rebellion is\ndrawn in favor of the right, I am a rebel.  I suppose Alexander, czar\nof Russia, was put there by the order of God, was he?  I am sorry he\nwas not removed by the nihilist that shot at him the other day.\n\nI tell you, in a country like that, where there are hundreds of girls\nnot 16 years of age prisoners in Siberia, simply for giving their ideas\nabout liberty, and we telegraphed to that country, congratulating that\nwretch that he was not killed, my heart goes into the prison, my heart\ngoes with the poor girl working as a miner in the mines, crawling on\nher hands and knees getting the precious ore out of the mines, and my\nsympathies go with her, and my sympathies cluster around the point of\nthe dagger.\n\nDoes the bible describe a god of mercy?  Let me read you a verse or two:\n\n\"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour\nflesh.\" \"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the\ntongue of thy dogs in the same.\"\n\n\"And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little\nand little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of\nthe field increase upon thee.\n\n\"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy\nthem with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.\"\n\n\"And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt\ndestroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to\nstand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.\"\n\nI can see what he had her nails pared for.  Does the bible teach\npolygamy? The Rev. Dr. Newman, consul general to all the world--had a\ndiscussion with Elder Heber of Kimball, or some such wretch in\nUtah--whether the bible sustains polygamy, and the Mormons have printed\nthat discussion as a campaign document.  Read the order of Moses in the\n31st chapter of Numbers.  A great many chapters I dare not read to you.\nThey are too filthy.  I leave all that to the clergy.  Read the 31st\nchapter of Exodus, the 31st chapter of Deuteronomy, the life of\nAbraham, and the life of David, and the life of Solomon, and then tell\nme that the bible does not uphold polygamy and concubinage!\n\nLet them answer.  Then I said that the bible upheld tyranny.  Let me\nread you a little: \"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.\nFor there is no power but of God.  The powers that be are ordained of\nGod.\"\n\nGeorge III was king by the grace of God, and when our fathers rose in\nrebellion, according to this doctrine, they rose against the power of\nGod; and if they did they were successful.\n\nAnd so it goes on, telling of all the cities that were destroyed, and\nof the great-hearted men, that they dashed their brains out, and all\nthe little babes, and all the sweet women that they killed and\nplundered--all in the name of a most merciful God.  Well, think of it!\nThe Old Testament is filled with anathemas, and with curses, and with\nwords of revenge, and jealousy, and hatred, and meanness, and\nbrutality.  Have I read enough to show that what I said is so? I think\nI have.  I wish I had time to read to you further of what the dear old\nfathers of the church said about woman--wait a minute, and I will read\nyou a little. We have got them running.  St. Augustine in his 22d book\nsays: \"A woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that\nwoman ought to be braced and bridled betimes, if she aspire to any\ndominion, alleging that dangerous and perilous it is to suffer her to\nprecede, although it be in temporal and corporeal things.  How can\nwoman be in the image of God, seeing she is subject to man, and hath no\nauthority to teach, neither to be a witness, neither to judge, much\nless to rule or bear the rod of empire.\"\n\nOh, he is a good one.  These are the very words of Augustine.  Let me\nread some more.  \"Woman shall be subject unto man as unto Christ.\"\nThat is St. Augustine, and this sentence of Augustine ought to be noted\nof all women, for in it he plainly affirms that women are all the more\nsubject to man.  And now, St. Ambrose, he is a good boy. \"Adam was\ndeceived by Eve--called Heva--and not Heva by Adam, and therefore just\nit is that woman receive and acknowledge him for governor whom she\ncalled sin, lest that again she slip and fall with womanly facility.\nDon't you see that woman has sinned once, and man never?  If you give\nwoman an opportunity, she will sin again, whereas if you give it to\nman, who never, never betrayed his trust in the world, nothing bad can\nhappen.  Let women be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord,\nfor man is the head of woman, and Christ is the head of the\ncongregation.\"  They are all real good men, all of them.  \"It is not\npermitted to woman to speak; let her be in silence; as the law said:\nunto thy husband shalt thou ever be, and he shall bear dominion over\nthee.\"\n\nSo St. Chrysostom.  He is another good man.  \"Woman,\" he says, \"was put\nunder the power of man, and man was pronounced lord over her; that she\nshould obey man, that the head should not follow the feet.  False\npriests do commonly deceive women, because they are easily persuaded to\nany opinion,--especially if it be again given, and because they lack\nprudence and right reason to judge the things that be spoken; which\nshould not be the nature of those that are appointed to govern others.\nFor they should be constant, stable, prudent, and doing everything with\ndiscretion and reason, which virtues woman can not have in equality\nwith man.\"\n\nI tell you women are more prudent than men.  I tell you, as a rule,\nwomen are more truthful than men.  I tell you that women are more\nfaithful than men--ten times as faithful as man.  I never saw a man\npursue his wife into the very ditch and dust of degradation and take\nher in his arms.  I never saw a man stand at the shore where she had\nbeen morally wrecked, waiting for the waves to bring back even her\ncorpse to his arms but I have seen woman do it.  I have seen woman with\nher white arms lift man from the mire of degradation, and hold him to\nher bosom as though he were an angel.\n\nAnd these men thought woman not fit to be held as pure in the sight of\nGod as man.  I never saw a man that pretended that he didn't love a\nwoman; that pretended that he loved God better than he did a woman,\nthat he didn't look hateful to me, hateful and unclean.  I could read\nyou twenty others, but I haven't time to do it.  They are all to the\nsame effect exactly.  They hate woman, and say man is as much above her\nas God is above man.  I am a believer in absolute equality.  I am a\nbeliever in absolute liberty between man and wife. I believe in\nliberty, and I say, \"Oh, liberty, float not forever in the far\nhorizon--remain not forever in the dream of the enthusiast, the\nphilanthropist and poet; but come and make thy home among the children\nof men.\"\n\nI know not what discoveries, what inventions, what thoughts may leap\nfrom the brain of the world.  I know not what garments of glory may be\nwoven by the years to come.  I can not dream of the victories to be\nwon. I do know that, coming upon the field of thought; but down the\ninfinite sea of the future, there will never touch this \"bank and shoal\nof time\" a richer gift, a rarer blessing than liberty for man, woman\nand child.\n\nI never addressed a more magnificent audience in my life, and I thank\nyou, I thank you a thousand times over.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S CATECHISM AND BIBLE-CLASS\n\n\n\nNothing is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received with\nscorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval.  Only a few weeks ago I\nstated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was mistaken, that\nthe \"flood\" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of Babel existed only in\ncredulity; that God did not create the universe from nothing, that He\ndid not start the first woman with a rib; that He never upheld slavery;\nthat He was not a polygamist; that He did not kill people for making\nhair-oil,  that He did not order His Generals to kill the dimpled\nbabes; that He did not allow the roses of love and the violets of\nmodesty to be trodden under the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew\nlanguage was written without vowels; that the Bible was composed of\nmany books written by unknown men; that all translations differed from\neach other, and that this book had filled the world with agony and\ncrime.\n\nAt that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned\nclergymen in Chicago would substantially agree with me--in public. I\nhave read the replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi\nKohler, Rev. Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing, and Dr. Ryder, and will now\nask them a few questions, answering them in their own words.\n\n\nFirst, REV. ROBERT COLLYER:\n\nQuestion.  What is your opinion of the Bible?  Answer.  \"It is a\nsplendid book.  It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the meanest\nbigots.  Through this book men give their hearts for good to God, or\nfor evil to the Devil.  The best argument for the intrinsic greatness\nof the book is that it can touch such wide extremes, and seem to\nmaintain us in the most unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most\ntender mercy; that it can inspire purity like that of the great saints\nand afford arguments in favor of polygamy.  The Bible is the text book\nof ironclad Calvinism and sunny Universalism.  It makes the Quaker\nquiet and the Millerite crazy.  It inspired the Union soldier to live\nand grandly die for the right, and Stonewall Jackson to live nobly and\ndie grandly for the wrong.\"\n\nQ.  But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a book with as many\npassages in favor of wrong as right, is inspired?  A.  I look upon the\nOld Testament as a rotting tree.  When it falls it will fertilize a\nbank of violets.\n\nQ.  Do you believe that God upheld slavery and polygamy?  Do you\nbelieve that He ordered the killing of babes and the violation of\nmaidens?  A.  \"There is three-fold inspiration in the Bible, the first\npeerless and perfect, the Word of God to man;--the second simply and\npurely human, and then below this again, there is an inspiration born\nof an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as anything well\ncan be.  A three-fold inspiration, of Heaven first, then of the Earth,\nand then of Hell, all in the same book, all sometimes in the same\nchapter, and then, besides, a great many things that need no\ninspiration.\"\n\nQ.  Then, after all, you do not pretend that the Scriptures are really\ninspired?  A.  \"The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves as the\nChurch make's for them.  They leave me free to say this is false, or\nthis is true.  The truth even within the Bible dies and lives, makes on\nthis side and loses on that.\"\n\nQ.  What do you say to the last verse in the Bible, where a curse is\nthreatened to any man who takes from or adds to the book?  A. \"I have\nbut one answer to this question, and it is: Let who will have written\nthis, I can not for an instant believe that it was written by a divine\ninspiration.  Such dogmas and threats as these are not of God, but of\nman, and not of any man of a free spirit and heart eager for the truth,\nbut a narrow man who would cripple and confine the human soul in its\nquest after the whole truth of God, and back those who have done the\nshameful things in the name of the Most High.\"\n\nQ. Do you not regard such talk as slang?\n\n(Supposed) Answer.  If an infidel had said that the writer of\nRevelations was narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his\ndiscourse as \"slang,\" but I think  that Unitarian ministers can do so\nwith the greatest propriety.\n\nQ.  Do you believe in the stories of the Bible, about Jael, and the sun\nstanding still, and the walls falling at the blowing of horns? A.\n\"They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they will, but they are not\nthe Word of God.  So I say again, it was not the God and Father of us\nall who inspired the woman to drive that nail crashing through the\nking's temple after she had given him that bowl of milk and bid him\nsleep in safety, but a very mean Devil of hatred and revenge that I\nshould hardly expect to find in a squaw on the plains. It was not the\nram's horns and the shouting before which the walls fell flat.  If they\nwent down at all, it was through good solid pounding.  And not for an\ninstant did the steady sun stand still or let his planet stand still\nwhile barbarian fought barbarian.  He kept just the time then he keeps\nnow.  They might believe it who made the record.  I do not.  And since\nthe whole Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather\nin this church.  A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way.\nNewton might believe it as a Christian and disbelieve it as a\nphilosopher.  We stand then with the philosopher against the Christian,\nfor we must believe what is true to us in the last test, and these\nthings are not true.\"\n\n\nSECOND, REV. DR. THOMAS.\n\nQuestion.  What is your opinion of the Old Testament?  Answer.  \"My\nopinion is that it is not one book, but many--thirty-nine books bound\nup in one.  The date and authorship of most of these books are wholly\nunknown.  The Hebrews wrote without vowels and without dividing the\nletters into syllables, words or sentences.  The books were gathered up\nby Ezra.  At that time only two of the Jewish tribes remained. All\nprogress had ceased.  In gathering up the sacred book, copyists\nexercised great liberty in making changes and additions.\"\n\nQ. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament inspired?  A. \"There\nmaybe the inspiration of art, of poetry, or oratory; of patriotism--and\nthere are such inspirations.  There are moments when great truths and\nprinciples come to men.  They seek the man and not the man them.\"\n\nQ.  Yes, we will admit that, but is the Bible inspired?  A.  \"But still\nI know of no way to convince any one of spirit and inspiration and God\nonly as His reason may take hold of these things.\"\n\nQ.  Do you think the Old Testament true?  A.  \"The story of Eden may be\nan allegory; the history of the children of Israel may have mistakes.\"\n\nQ.  Must inspiration claim infallibility?  A.  \"It is a mistake to say\nthat if you believe one part of the Bible you must believe all.  Some\nof the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others not; or there may be\ndegrees of inspiration.\"\n\nQ.  Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers to kill the children\nand the married women and save for themselves the maidens, as recorded\nin Numbers 31:2?  Do you believe that God upheld slavery?  Do you\nbelieve that God upheld polygamy?  A.  \"The Bible may be wrong in some\nstatements.  God and right can not be wrong.  We must not exalt the\nBible above God.  It may be that we have claimed too much for the\nBible, and thereby given not a little occasion for such men as Mr.\nIngersoll to appear at the other extreme, denying too much.\"\n\nQ.  What then shall be done?  A. \"We must take a middle ground.  It is\nnot necessary to believe that the bears devoured the forty-two\nchildren, nor that Jonah was swallowed by the whale.\"\n\n\nTHIRD, REV. DR. KOHLER.\n\nQuestion.  What is your opinion about the Old Testament?  Answer. \"I\nwill not make futile attempts of artificially interpreting the letter\nof the Bible so as to make it reflect the philosophical, moral and\nscientific views of our time.  The Bible is a sacred record of\nhumanity's childhood.\"\n\nQ.  Are you an orthodox Christian?  A.  \"No. Orthodoxy, with its face\nturned backward to a ruined temple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming\nlike Lot's wife, a pillar of salt.\"\n\nQ.  Do you really believe the Old Testament was inspired?  A.  \"I\ngreatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men like Voltaire and Thomas\nPaine, whose bold denial and cutting wit were so instrumental in\nbringing about this glorious era of freedom, so congenial and blissful,\nparticularly to the long-abused Jewish race.\"\n\nQ.  Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible?  A.  \"Of course\nthere is a destructive ax needed to strike down the old building in\norder to make room for the grander new.  The divine origin claimed by\nthe Hebrews for their national literature was claimed by all nations\nfor their old records and laws as preserved by the priesthood.  As\nMoses--the Hebrew law giver, is represented as having received the law\nfrom God on the holy mountains, so is Zoroaster, the Persian, Manu, the\nHindoo, Minos, the Cretan, Lycurgus, the Spartan, and Numa, the Roman.\"\n\nQ.  Do you believe all the stories in the Bible?  A.  \"All that can and\nmust be said against them is that they have been too long retained\naround the arms and limbs of grown-up manhood to check the spiritual\nprogress of religion; that by Jewish ritualism and Christian dogmatism\nthey became fetters unto the soul, turning the light of heaven into a\nmisty haze to blind the eye, and even into a Hell fire of fanaticism to\nconsume souls.\"\n\nQ.  Is the Bible inspired?  A.  \"True, the Bible is not free from\nerrors, nor is any work of man and time.  It abounds in childish views\nand offensive matters.  I trust it will, in a time not far off, be\npresented for common use in families, schools, synagogues and churches,\nin a refined shape, cleansed from all dross and chaff, and\nstumbling-blocks on which the scoffer delights to dwell.\"\n\n\nFOURTH, REV. MR. HERFORD.\n\nQuestion.  Is the Bible true?  Answer.  \"Ingersoll is very fond of\nsaying 'The question is not, is the Bible inspired, but is it true?'\nThat sounds very plausible, but you know as applied to any ancient book\nit is simply nonsense.\"\n\nQ.  Do you think the stories in the Bible exaggerated?  A.  \"I dare say\nthe numbers are immensely exaggerated.\"\n\nQ.  Do you think that God upheld polygamy?  A. \"The truth of which\nsimply is, that four thousand years ago polygamy existed among the\nJews, as everywhere else on earth then, and even their prophets did not\ncome to the idea of its being wrong.  But what is there to be indignant\nabout in that?  And so you really wonder why any man should be\nindignant at the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that beastliness\ncalled polygamy?  What is there to be indignant about in that?\"\n\n\nFIFTH, PROF. SWING.\n\nQuestion.  What is your idea of the Bible?  Answer.  \"I think it a\npoem.\"\n\n\nSIXTH, REV. DR. RYDER.\n\nQuestion.  And what is your idea of the sacred Scriptures?  Answer.\n\"Like other nations, the Hebrews had their patriotic, descriptive,\ndidactic and lyrical poems in the same varieties as other nations; but\nwith them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form of their\npoetry, it always possesses the characteristic of religion.\"\n\nQ.  I suppose you fully appreciate the religious characteristics of the\nSong of Solomon?  No answer.\n\nQ.  Does the Bible uphold polygamy?  A.  \"The law of Moses did not\nforbid it, but contained many provisions against its worst abuses, and\nsuch as were intended to restrict it within narrow limits.\"\n\nQ.  So you think God corrected some of the worst abuses of polygamy,\nbut preserved the institution itself?\n\nI might question many others, but have concluded not to consider those\nas members of my Bible class who deal in calumnies and epithets. From\nthe so-called \"replies\" of such ministers it appears that, while\nChristianity changes the heart, it does not improve the manners,  and\none can get into Heaven in the next world without having been a\ngentleman in this.\n\nIt is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling satisfaction I\nhave experienced in reading the admissions of the clergy of Chicago.\nSurely the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won when ministers\nadmit that the Bible is filled with ignorant and cruel mistakes; that\neach man has the right to think for himself, and that it is not\nnecessary to believe the Scriptures in order to be saved.\n\nFrom the bottom of my heart, I congratulate my pupils on the advance\nthey have made, and hope soon to meet them on the serene heights of\nperfect freedom.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S NEW DEPARTURE--His Lecture Entitled \"What Shall We do to be\nSaved?\"--Delivered in McVicker's Theatre, Chicago, Sept. 19, 1880 [From\nthe Chicago Times. Verbatim Report.]\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen: Fear is the dungeon of the mind, and superstition\nis a dagger with which hypocrisy assassinates the soul. Courage is\nliberty.  I am in favor of absolute freedom of thought. In the realm of\nthe mind every one is monarch.  Every one is robed, sceptered, and\ncrowned, and every one wears the purple of authority. I belong to the\nrepublic of intellectual liberty, and only those are good citizens of\nthat republic who depend upon reason and upon persuasion, and only\nthose are traitors who resort to brute force.\n\nNow, I beg of you all to forget just for a few moments that you are\nMethodists, or Baptists, or Catholics, or Presbyterians, and let us for\nan hour or two remember only that we are men and women.  And allow me\nto say \"man\" and \"woman\" are the highest titles that can be bestowed\nupon humanity.  \"Man\" and \"woman.\"  And let us if possible banish all\nfear from the mind.  Do not imagine that there is some being in the\ninfinite expanse who is not willing that every man and woman should\nthink for himself and herself.  Do not imagine that there is any being\nwho would give to his children the holy torch of reason and then damn\nthem for following where the holy light led.  Let us have courage.\n\nPriests have invented a crime called \"blasphemy,\"  and behind that\ncrime hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years.  There is but one\nblasphemy, and that is injustice.  There is but one worship, and that\nis justice.\n\nYou need not fear the anger of a God whom you cannot injure.  Rather\nfear to injure your fellow-men.  Do not be afraid of a crime you cannot\ncommit.  Rather be afraid of the one that you may commit.\n\nThere was a Jewish gentleman went into a restaurant to get his dinner,\nand the devil of temptation whispered in his ear: \"Eat some bacon.\"\n\nHe knew if there was anything in the universe calculated to excite the\nwrath of the Infinite Being, who made every shining star, it was to see\na gentleman eating bacon.  He knew it, and He knew the Infinite Being\nwas looking, and that he was the Infinite Eaves-dropper of the\nuniverse. But his appetite got the better of his conscience, as it\noften has with us all, and he ate that bacon.  He knew it was wrong.\nWhen he went into that restaurant the weather was delightful, the sky\nwas as blue as June, and when he came out the sky was covered with\nangry clouds, the lightning leaping from one to the other, and the\nearth shaking beneath the voice of the thunder.  He went back into that\nrestaurant with a face as white as milk, and he said to one of the\nkeepers:\n\n\"My God, did you ever hear such a fuss about a little piece of bacon?\"\n\nAs long as we harbor such opinions of Infinity; as long as we imagine\nthe heavens to be filled with such tyranny, so long the sons of men\nwill be cringing, intellectual cowards.  Let us think, and let us\nhonestly express our thought.\n\nDo not imagine for a moment that I think people who disagree with me\nare bad people.  I admit, and I cheerfully admit, that a very large\nproportion of mankind and a very large majority, a vast number, are\nreasonably honest.  I believe that most Christians believe what they\nteach; that most ministers are endeavoring to make this world better. I\ndo not pretend to be better than they are.  It is an intellectual\nquestion.  It is a question, first, of intellectual liberty, and after\nthat, a question to be settled at the bar of human reason.  I do not\npretend to be better than the are.  Probably I am a good deal worse\nthan many of them, but that is not the question. The question is \"Bad\nas I am, have I a right to think?\"  And I think I have, for two reasons.\n\nFirst, I can't help it.  And secondly, I like it.  The whole question\nis right at a point.  If I have not a right to express my thoughts, who\nhas?\n\n\"Oh,\" they say, \"we will allow you, we will not burn you.\"\n\n\"All right; why won't you burn me?\"\n\n\"Because we think a decent man will allow others to think and express\nhis thought.\"\n\n\"Then the reason you do not persecute me for my thought is that you\nbelieve it would be infamous in you!\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And yet you worship a God who will, all you declare, punish me\nforever.\"\n\nThe next question then is: Can I commit a sin against God by thinking?\nIf God did not intend I should think, why did He give me a \"thinker.\"\nNow, then, we have got what they call the Christian system of religion,\nand thousands of people wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack\nthat system.\n\nThere are many good things about it, and I shall never attack anything\nthat I believe to be good!  I shall never fear to attack anything I\nhonestly believe to be wrong.  We have, I say, what they call the\nChristian religion, and, I find, just in proportion that nations have\nbeen religious, just in the proportion they have gone back to\nbarbarism. I find that Spain, Portugal, Italy are the three worst\nnations in Europe; I find that the nation nearest infidel is the most\nprosperous France.  And so I say there can be no danger in the exercise\nof absolute intellectual freedom.  I find among ourselves the men who\nthink at least as good as those who do not. We have, I say, a Christian\nsystem, and that is founded upon what they are pleased to call system\nthe \"New Testament.\"  Who wrote the New Testament?  I don't know.  Who\ndoes know? Nobody!\n\nWe have found some fifty-two manuscripts containing portions of the New\nTestament.  Some of those manuscripts leave out five or six books--many\nof them.  Others more others less.  No two of these manuscripts agree.\nNobody knows who wrote these manuscripts.  They are all written in\nGreek; the disciples of Christ knew only Hebrew.  Nobody ever saw, so\nfar as we know, one of the original Hebrew manuscripts. Nobody ever saw\nanybody who had seen anybody who had heard of anybody that had seen\nanybody that had ever seen one of the original Hebrew manuscripts.  No\ndoubt the clergy of your city have told you these facts thousands of\ntimes, and they will be obliged to me for having repeated them once\nmore.  These manuscripts are written in what are called capital Greek\nletters.  They are called Uncial characters; and the New Testament was\nnot divided into chapters and verses, even, until the year of grace\n1551.  Recollect it.\n\nIn the original the manuscripts and gospels are signed by nobody. The\nepistles are addressed to nobody; and they are signed by the same\nperson.  All the addresses, all the pretended earmarks showing to whom\nthey are written and by whom they are written are simply\ninterpolations, and everybody who has studied the subject knows it.\n\nIt is further admitted that even these manuscripts have not been\nproperly translated, and they have a syndicate now making a new\ntranslation; and I suppose that I cannot tell whether I really believe\nthe Testament or not until I see that new translation.\n\nYou must remember, also, one other thing.  Christ never wrote a\nsolitary word of the New Testament--not one word.  There is an account\nthat He once stooped and wrote something in the sand, but that has not\nbeen preserved.  He never told anybody to write a word. He never said:\n\"Matthew, remember this.  Mark, don't forget to put that down.  Luke,\nbe sure that in your gospel you have this.  John, don't forget it.\"\nNot one word.  And it has always seemed to me that a Being coming from\nanother world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should\nat least have verified that message by his own signature.\n\nWhy was nothing written?  I will tell you.  In my judgment they\nexpected the end of the world in a very few days.  That generation was\nnot to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and\nuntil the earth should melt with fervent heat.  That was their belief.\nThey believed that the world was to be destroyed, and that there was to\nbe another coming, and that the saints were then to govern the world.\nAnd they even went so far among the Apostles, as we frequently do now\nbefore election, as to divide out the offices in advance.  This\nTestament was not written for hundreds of years after the Apostles were\ndust.  These facts lived in the open mouth of credulity.  They were in\nthe wastebaskets of forgetfulness. They depended upon the inaccuracy of\nlegend, and for centuries these doctrines and stories were blown about\nby the inconstant winds.  And finally, when reduced to writing, some\ngentleman would write by the side of the passage his idea of it, and\nthe next copyist would put that in as a part of the text.  And,\nfinally, when it was made, and the Church got in trouble, and wanted a\npassage to help it out, one was interpolated to order.  So that now it\nis among the easiest things in the world to pick out at least one\nhundred interpolations in the Testament.   And I will pick some of them\nout before I get through.\n\nAnd let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have\ninfinite respect.  Let me say, once for all, that the place where man\nhas died for man is holy ground; and let me say, once for all, to that\ngreat and serene man I gladly pay the homage of my admiration and my\ntears.  He was a reformer in His day.  He was an infidel in His time.\nHe was regarded as a blasphemer, and His life was destroyed by\nhypocrites, who have, in all ages, done what they could to trample\nfreedom out of the human mind.  Had I lived at that time I would have\nbeen His friend, and should He come again He would not find a better\nfriend than I will be.\n\nThat is for the man.  For the theological creation I have a different\nfeeling.  If He was, in fact, God, He knew that there was no such thing\nas death.  He knew that what we call death was but the eternal opening\nof the golden gates of everlasting joy; and it took no heroism to face\na death that was simply eternal life.\n\nBut when a man, when a poor boy sixteen years of age, goes upon the\nfield of battle to keep his flag in heaven, not knowing but that death\nends all--not knowing but that, when the shadows creep over him, the\ndarkness will be eternal--there is heroism.\n\nAnd so for the man who, in the darkness, said: \"My God, why hast Thou\nforsaken Me?\"--for that man I have nothing but respect, admiration, and\nlove.\n\nA while ago I made up my mind to find out what was necessary for me to\ndo in order to be saved.  If I have got a soul, I want it saved. I do\nnot wish to lose anything that is of value.  For thousands of years the\nworld has been asking that question \"What shall we do to be saved?\"\n\nSaved from poverty?  No.  Saved from crime?  No.  Tyranny?  No. But\n\"What shall we do to be saved from the eternal wrath of the God who\nmade us all?\"\n\nIf God made us, He will not destroy us.  Infinite wisdom never made a\npoor investment.  And upon all the works of an infinite God, a dividend\nmust finally be declared.  The pulpit has cast a shadow over even the\ncradle.  The doctrine of endless punishment has covered the cheeks of\nthis world with tears.  I despise it, and I defy it.\n\nI made up my mind, I say, to see what I had to do in order to save my\nsoul according to the Testament, and thereupon I read it.  I read the\ngospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  But I found that the Church had\nbeen deceiving me.  I found that the clergy did not understand their\nown book.  I found that they had been building upon passages that had\nbeen interpolated.  I found that they had been building upon passages\nthat were entirely untrue.  And I will tell you why I think so.\n\nThe first of these gospels was written by St. Matthew, according to the\nclaim.  Of course he never wrote a word of it.  Never saw it. Never\nheard of it.  But, for the purpose of this lecture, I will admit that\nhe wrote it.  I will admit that he was with Christ for three years,\nthat he heard much of His conversation during that time and that he\nbecame impregnated with the doctrines, or dogmas, and the ideas of\nJesus Christ.\n\nNow let us see what Matthew says we must do in order to be saved. And I\ntake it that, if this be true, Matthew is as good an authority as any\nminister in the world.\n\nThe first thing I find upon the subject of salvation is in the fifth\nchapter of Matthew, and is embraced in what is commonly known as the\nsermon on the Mount.  It is as follows:\n\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\"\nGood!\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\"  Good! Whether\nthey belonged to any church or not; whether they believed the Bible or\nnot.\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\"  Good!\n\n\"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  Blessed are\nthe peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed\nare they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake,\" (that's me,\nlittle) \"for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.\"\n\nIn the same sermon he says: \"Think not that I am come to destroy the\nlaw or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.\" And\nthen he makes use of this remarkable language, almost as applicable\ntoday as it was then: \"For I say unto you that except your\nrighteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and\nPharisees ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of Heaven.\"  Good!\n\nIn the sixth chapter I find the following, and it comes directly after\nthe prayer known as the Lord's prayer: \"For if you forgive men their\ntrespasses your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye\nforgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your\ntrespasses.\"  I accept the conditions.  There is an offer; I accept it.\nIf you will forgive men that trespass against you, God will forgive\nyour trespasses against Him.  I accept, and I never will ask any God to\ntreat me any better than I treat my fellowmen.  There is a square\npromise. There is a contract.  If you will forgive others, God will\nforgive you. And it does not say you must believe in the Old Testament,\nnor be baptized, nor join the Church, nor keep Sunday.  It simply says,\nif you forgive others God will forgive you; and it must be true.  No\nGod could afford to damn a forgiving man.  (A voice: \"Will He forgive\nDemocrats?\")  Oh, certainly.  Let me say right here that I know lots of\nDemocrats, great, broad, whole-souled, clever men, and I love them.\nAnd the only bad thing about them is that they vote the Democratic\nticket. And I know lots of Republicans so mean and narrow that the only\ndecent thing about them is that they vote the Republican ticket.\n\nNow let me make myself plain upon that subject, perfectly plain. For\ninstance, I hate Presbyterianism, but I know hundreds of splendid\nPresbyterians.  Understand me.  I hate Methodism, and yet I know\nhundreds of splendid Methodists.  I dislike a certain set of principles\ncalled Democracy, and yet I know thousands of Democrats that I respect\nand like.  I like a certain set of principles--that is, most of\nthem,--called Republicanism, and yet I know lots of Republicans that\nare a disgrace to those principles.\n\nI do not war against men.  I do not war against persons.  I war against\ncertain doctrines that I believe to be wrong.  And I give to every\nother human being every right that I claim for myself.  Of course I did\nnot intend today to tell what we must do in the election for the\npurpose of being saved.\n\nThe next thing that I find is in the seventh chapter and the second\nverse: \"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with\nwhat measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.\"  Good! That\nsuits me!\n\nAnd in the twelfth chapter of Matthew: \"For whosoever shall do the will\nof my Father that is in Heaven, the same is my brother and sister and\nmother.  For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with\nHis angels, and then He shall reward every man according--\"  To the\nchurch he belongs to?  No.  To the manner in which he was baptized?\nNo. According to his creed?  No.  \"Then he shall reward every man\naccording to his works.\"  Good!  I subscribe to that doctrine.\n\nAnd in the sixteenth chapter: \"And Jesus called a little child to Him\nand stood him in the midst, and said: 'Verily, I say unto you, except\nye become converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter\ninto the Kingdom of Heaven.'\"  I do not wonder that a reformer in His\nday that met the Scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites, I do not wonder\nthat at last He turned to children and said: \"Except ye become as\nlittle children,\"  I do not wonder.  And yet, see what children the\nchildren of God have been.  What an interesting dimpled darling John\nCalvin was.  Think of that prattling babe known as Jonathan Edwards!\nThink of the infants that founded the Inquisition, that invented\ninstruments of torture to tear human flesh.  They were the ones who had\nbecome as little children.\n\nSo I find in the nineteenth chapter: \"And behold, one came and said\nunto Him: 'Good master, what good thing shall I do in order to inherit\neternal life?'  And He said unto him, 'why callest thou Me good?  There\nis none good but one, and that is God, but if thou will enter into\neternal life, keep the commandments,' and he said unto Him,  'Which?'\"\n\nNow, there is a pretty fair issue.  Here is a child of God asking God\nwhat is necessary for him to do in order to inherit eternal life. And\nGod says to him: Keep the commandments.  And the child said to the\nAlmighty: \"Which?\"  Now if there ever had been an opportunity given to\nthe Almighty to furnish a gentleman with an inquiring mind with the\nnecessary information upon that subject, here was the opportunity.  He\nsaid unto Him, 'which?'   And Jesus said: \"Thou shalt do no murder;\nthou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not\nbear false witness; honor thy father and mother; and, thou shalt love\nthy neighbor as thyself.\"  He did not say to him: \"You must believe in\nMe--that I am the only begotten Son of the living God.\"  He did not\nsay: \"You must be born again.\" He did not say: \"You must believe the\nBible.\" He did not say: \"You must remember the Sabbath day, to keep it\nholy.\" He simply said: \"Thou shalt do no murder.  Thou shalt not commit\nadultery.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not bear false witness.\nHonor thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbor as\nthyself.\"  And thereupon the young man, who I think was a little\n\"fresh,\" and probably mistaken, said unto Him: \"All these things have I\nkept from my youth up.\"  I don't believe that.\n\nNow comes in an interpolation.  In the old times when the Church got a\nlittle scarce for money, they always put in a passage praising poverty.\nSo they had this young man ask: \"What lack I yet?\"  And Jesus said unto\nhim: \"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give it\nto the poor, and thou shalt have treasures in heaven.\"  The Church has\nalways been willing to swap off treasures in heaven for cash down.\n\nAnd when the next verse was written the Church must have been nearly\ndead-broke.  \"And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go\nthrough the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the\nkingdom of God.\"  Did you ever know a wealthy disciple to unload on\naccount of that verse?\n\nAnd then comes another verse, which I believe is an interpolation: \"And\nevery one that has forsaken houses, or brethren or sisters, or father\nor mother, or wife or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall\nreceive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\" Christ\nnever said it.  Never.  \"Whosoever shall forsake father and mother.\"\nWhy He said to this man who asked him \"What shall I do to inherit\neternal life?\" among other things, He said  \"Honor thy father and thy\nmother.\"  And we turn over the page and He says: \"If you will desert\nyour father and your mother you shall have everlasting life.\"  It won't\ndo.  If you desert your wife and your little children, or your\nlands--the idea of putting a house and lot on equality with wife and\nchildren.  Think of that!  I do not accept the terms.  I will never\ndesert the one I love for the promise of any God.\n\nIt is far more important that we shall love our wives than that we\nshall love God.  And I will tell you why you cannot help Him.  You can\nhelp her.  You can fill her life with the perfume of perpetual joy.  It\nis far more important that you love your children than that you love\nJesus Christ.--And why?  If He is God you cannot help Him, but you can\nplant a little flower of happiness in every footstep of the child, from\nthe cradle until you die in that child's arms.  Let me tell you to-day,\nit is far more important to build a home than to erect a church.  The\nholiest temple beneath the stars is a home that love has built.  And\nthe holiest altar in all the wide world is the fireside around which\ngather father and mother and children.\n\nThere was a time when people believed that infamy.  There was a time\nwhen they did desert fathers; and mothers, and wives and children. St.\nAugustine says to the devotee: \"Fly to the desert, and though your wife\nput her arms around your neck, tear her hands away; she is a temptation\nof the devil.  Though your father and mother throw their bodies athwart\nyour threshold, step over them; and though your children pursue and\nwith weeping eyes beseech you to return, listen not.  It is the\ntemptation of the evil one.  Fly to the desert and save your soul.\"\nThink of such a soul being worth saving. While I live I propose to\nstand by the folks.\n\nHere there is another condition of salvation.  I find it in the 25th\nchapter: \"Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, 'Come,\nye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the\nfoundation of the world. For I was a hungered and ye gave Me meat; I\nwas thirsty and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger and ye took Me in;\nnaked and ye clothed Me; and I was sick and ye visited Me; and I was in\nprison, and ye came unto me.\"  Good!  And I tell you tonight that God\nwill not punish with eternal thirst the man who has put the cup of cold\nwater to the lips of his neighbor.  God will not allow to live in\neternal nakedness of pain the man who has clothed others.\n\nFor instance, here is a shipwreck, and here is some brave sailor stands\naside and allows a woman whom he never saw before to take his place in\nthe boat, and he stands there, grand and serene as the wide sea, and he\ngoes down.  Do you tell me there is any God who will push the life-boat\nfrom the shore of eternal life, when that man wishes to step in?  Do\nyou tell me that God can be unpitying to the pitiful, that He can be\nunforgiving to the forgiving?  I deny it; and from the aspersions of\nthe pulpit I seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity.\n\nNow, I have read you everything in Matthew on the subject of salvation.\nThat is all there is.  Not one word about believing anything.  It is\nthe gospel of deed, the gospel of charity, the gospel of self-denial;\nand if only that gospel had been preached, persecution never would have\nshed one drop of blood.  Not one.  Now, according to the testimony,\nMatthew was well acquainted with Christ.  According to the testimony,\nhe had been with Him, and His companion for years, and if it was\nnecessary to believe anything in order to get to heaven, Matthew should\nhave told us. But he forgot it.  Or he didn't believe it.  Or he never\nheard of it. You can take your choice.\n\nThe next is Mark.  Now let us see what he says.  And for the purpose of\nthis lecture it is sufficient for me to say that Mark agrees,\nsubstantially, with Matthew, that God will be merciful to the merciful;\nthat He will be kind to the kind that He will pity the pitying.  And it\nis precisely, or substantially, the same as Matthew until I come to the\n16th verse of the 16th chapter, and then I strike an interpolation, put\nin by hypocrisy, put in by priests, who longed to grasp with bloody\nhands the sceptre of universal authority.\n\nLet me read it to you.  And it is the most infamous passage in the\nBible.  Christ never said it.  No sensible man ever said it.  \"And He\nsaid unto them\"--that is, unto His disciples--\"Go ye into all the world\nand preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\nNow, I propose to prove to you that that is an interpolation.  Now how\nwill I do it?  In the first place, not one word is said about belief in\nMatthew.  In the next place, not one word is said about belief in Mark,\nuntil I come to that verse.  And when is that said to have been spoken?\nAccording to Mark, it is a part of the last conversation of Jesus\nChrist--just before, according to the account, He ascended bodily\nbefore their eyes.  If there ever was any important thing happened in\nthis world, that is one of them.  If there was any conversation that\npeople would be apt to recollect, it would be the last conversation\nwith God before He rose through the air and seated Himself upon the\nthrone of the Infinite.  We have in this Testament five accounts of the\nlast conversation happening between Jesus Christ and His apostles.\nMatthew gives it.  And yet Matthew does not state that in that\nconversation He said: \"Whoso believeth and is baptized shall be saved,\nand whoso believeth not shall be damned.\" And if He did say those\nwords, they were the most important that ever fell from His lips.\nMatthew did not hear it, or did not believe it, or forgot it.\n\nThen I turn to Luke, and he gives an account of this same last\nconversation, and not one word does he say upon that subject.  Now it\nis the most important thing, if Christ said it, that He ever said.\n\nThen I turn to John, and he gives an account of the last conversation,\nbut not one solitary word on the subject of belief or unbelief.  Not\none solitary word on the subject of damnation.  Not one.\n\nThen I turn to the first chapter of the Acts, and there I find an\naccount of the last conversation; and in that conversation there is not\none word upon this subject.  Now, I say, that demonstrates that the\npassage in Mark is an interpolation.\n\nWhat other reason have I got?  That there is not one particle of sense\nin it.  Why?  No man can control his belief.  You hear evidence for and\nagainst, and the integrity of the soul stands at the scales and tells\nwhich side rises and which side falls.  You cannot believe as you wish.\nYou must believe as you must.  And He might as well have said: \"Go into\nall the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever has red hair shall\nbe saved, and whosoever hath not shall be damned.\"\n\nI have another reason.  I am much obliged to the gentleman who\ninterpolated these passages.  I am much obliged to him that he put in\nsome more--two, more.  Now hear:\n\n\"And these signs shall follow them that believe.\"  Good.\n\n\"In My name shall they cast out devils.  They shall speak with new\ntongues, and they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly\nthing it shall not hurt them.  They shall lay hands on the sick, and\nthey shall recover.\"\n\nBring on your believer!  Let him cast out a devil.  I do not claim a\nlarge one, \"just a little one for a cent.\"  Let him take up serpents.\n\"And if he drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt him.\"  Let me mix\nup a dose for the theological believer, and if it does not hurt him\nI'll join a church.  O, but, \"they say those things only lasted through\nthat apostolic age.\"  Let us see.  \"Go ye into all the world and preach\nthe gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall\nbe saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs\nshall follow them that believe.\"\n\nHow long?  I think at least until they had gone into all the world.\nCertainly these signs should follow until all the world had been\nvisited.  And yet if that declaration was in the mouth of Christ, he\nthen knew that one-half of the world was unknown and that he would be\ndead 1,492 years before his disciples would know that there was another\nworld.  And yet he said, \"Go into all the world and preach the gospel,\"\nand he knew then that it would be 1,492 years before anybody went.\nWell, if it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the old\nworld, surely it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the\nnew world.  And the very reason that signs should follow would be to\nconvince the unbeliever, and there are as many unbelievers now as ever,\nand the signs are as necessary today as they ever were.  I would like a\nfew myself.\n\nThis frightful declaration, \"He that believeth and is baptized shall be\nsaved, but he that believeth not shall be damned,\" has filled the world\nwith agony and crime.\n\nEvery letter of this passage has been sword and fagot; every word has\nbeen dungeon and chain.\n\nThat passage made the sword of persecution drip with innocent blood for\nten centuries.  That passage made the horizon of a thousand years lurid\nwith the flames of fagots.  That passage contradicts the sermon on the\nmount.  That passage travesties the Lord's prayer.  That passage turns\nthe splendid religion of deed and duty into the superstition of creed\nand cruelty.  I deny it.  It is infamous. Christ never said it!  Now I\ncome to Luke, and it is sufficient to say that Luke substantially\nagrees with Matthew and with Mark. Substantially agrees, as the\nevidence is read.  I like it.\n\n\"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.\"  Good!\n\n\"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.  Condemn not, and ye shall not\nbe condemned; forgive and ye shall be forgiven.\"  Good!\n\n\"Give, and it shall be given unto you, good measure, pressed down, and\nshaken together, and running over.\"  Good!  I like it.\n\n\"For with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to\nyou again.\"\n\nHe agrees substantially with Mark; he agrees substantially with\nMatthew; and I come at last to the nineteenth chapter.\n\n\"And Zaccheus stood and said unto the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, the half of\nmy goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man\nby false accusation, I restore him four-fold.'  And Jesus said unto\nhim, 'This day is salvation come to this house.'\"\n\nThat is good doctrine.  He didn't ask Zaccheus what he believed. He\ndidn't ask him, Do you believe in the Bible?  Do you believe in the\nfive points?  Have you ever been baptized-sprinkled? Oh! immersed.\n\"Half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from\nany man by false accusation, I restore him four-fold.\"  \"And Christ\nsaid, 'This day is salvation come to this house.'\"  Good!\n\nI read also in Luke that Christ when upon the cross forgave His\nmurderers, and that is considered the shining gem in the crown of His\nmercy--that He forgave His murderers.  That He forgave the men who\ndrove the nails in His hands, in His feet, that plunged a spear in His\nside; the soldier that in the hour of death offered Him in mockery the\nbitterness to drink; that He forgave them all freely, and that yet,\nalthough He would forgive them, He will in the nineteenth century damn\nto eternal fire an honest man for the expression of his honest\nthoughts. That won't do.  I find too, in Luke, an account of two\nthieves that were crucified at the same time.  The other gospels speak\nof them.  One says they both railed upon Him.  Another says nothing\nabout it.  In Luke we are told that one did, but one of the thieves\nlooked and pitied Christ, and Christ said to that thief:\n\n\"This day shalt thou meet me in Paradise.\"\n\nWhy did He say that?  Because the thief pitied Him.  And God cannot\nafford to trample beneath the feet of His infinite wrath the smallest\nblossom of pity that ever shed its perfume in the human heart!\n\nWho was this thief?  To what church did he belong?  I don't know. The\nfact that he was a thief throws no light on that question.  Who was he?\nWhat did he believe?  I don't know.  Did he believe in the Old\nTestament?  In the miracles?  I don't know.  Did he believe that Christ\nwas God?  I don't know.  Why, then, was the promise made to him that he\nshould meet Christ in Paradise.  Simply because he pitied innocence\nsuffering on the cross.\n\nGod cannot afford to damn any man that is capable of pitying anybody.\n\nAnd now we come to John, and that is where the trouble commences. The\nother gospels teach that God will be merciful to the merciful,\nforgiving to the forgiving, kind to the kind, loving to the loving,\njust to the just, merciful to the good.\n\nNow we come to John, and here is another doctrine.  And allow me to say\nthat John was not written until centuries after the others.  This, the\nChurch got up:\n\n\"And Jesus answered and said unto him: 'Furthermore I say unto thee\nthat except a man be born again he cannot see the \"Kingdom of God.\"'\"\n\nWhy didn't He tell Matthew that?  Why didn't He tell Luke that?  Why\ndidn't He tell Mark that?  They never heard of it, or forgot it, or\nthey didn't believe it.\n\n\"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into\nthe Kingdom of God.\"  Why?\n\n\"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of\nthe spirit is spirit.  Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'ye must be\nborn again.'  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which\nis born of the spirit is spirit,\"--and He might have added that which\nis born of water is water.\n\n\"Marvel not that I say unto thee, 'ye must be born again.'\"  And then\nthe reason is given, and I admit I did not understand it myself until I\nread the reason, and will understand it as well as I do; and here it\nis: \"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound\nthereof, and canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth.\"  So\nI find in the book of John the idea of the real presence.\n\nSo I find in the book of John, that in order to be saved we must eat of\nthe flesh and we must drink of the blood of Jesus Christ, and if that\ngospel is true, the Catholic Church is right.  But it is not true.  I\ncannot believe it, and yet for all that it may be true. But I don't\nbelieve it.  Neither do I believe there is any God in the universe who\nwill damn a man simply for expressing his belief.\n\n\"Why,\" they say to me, \"suppose all this should turn out to be true,\nand you should come to the day of judgment and find all these things to\nbe true.  What would you do then?\"  I would walk up like a man, and\nsay, \"I was mistaken.\"\n\n\"And suppose God was about to pass judgment on you, what would you\nsay?\" I would say to Him, \"Do unto others as you would that others\nshould do unto you.\"   Why not?\n\nI am told that I must render good for evil.  I am told that if smitten\non one cheek I must turn the other.  I am told that I must overcome\nevil with good.  I am told that I must love my enemies; and will it do\nfor this God who tells me, \"Love my enemies,\" to say, \"I will damn\nmine.\" No, it will not do; it will not do.\n\nIn the book of John all this doctrine of regeneration; all this\ndoctrine that it is necessary to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; all\nthe doctrine that salvation depends upon belief--in this book of John\nall these doctrines find their warrant; nowhere else.\n\nRead these three gospels and then read John, and you will agree with me\nthat the gospels that teach \"We must be kind, we must be merciful, we\nmust be forgiving, and thereupon that God will forgive us,\" is true,\nand then say whether or no that doctrine is not better than the\ndoctrine that somebody else can be good for you, that somebody else can\nbe bad for you, and that the only way to get to heaven is to believe\nsomething that you do not understand.\n\nNow upon these gospels that I have read the churches rest; and out of\nthose things that I have read they have made their creeds.  And the\nfirst Church to make a creed, so far as I know, was the Catholic. I\ntake it that is the first Church that had any power.  That is the\nChurch that has preserved all these miracles for us.  That is the\nChurch that preserved the manuscripts for us.  That is the Church whose\nword we have to take.  That Church is the first witness that\nProtestantism brought to the bar of history to prove miracles that took\nplace eighteen hundred years ago; and while the witness is there\nProtestantism takes pains to say: \"You can't believe one word that\nwitness says, now.\"\n\nThat Church is the only one that keeps up a constant communication with\nheaven through the instrumentality of a large number of decayed saints.\nThat Church is an agent of God on earth.  That Church has a person who\nstands in the place of Deity; and that Church, according to their\ndoctrine, is infallible.  That Church has persecuted to the exact\nextent of her power--and always will.  In Spain that Church stands\nerect, and that Church is arrogant.  In the United States that Church\ncrawls.  But the object in both countries is the same, and that is the\ndestruction of intellectual liberty.  That Church teaches us that we\ncan make God happy by being miserable ourselves. That Church teaches\nyou that a nun is holier in the sight of God than a loving mother with\na child in her thrilled and thrilling arms. That Church teaches you\nthat a priest is better than a father.  That Church teaches you that\ncelibacy is better than that passion of love that has made everything\nof beauty in this world.  That Church tells the girl of 16 or 18 years\nof age, with eyes like dew and light--that girl with the red of health\nin the white of her beautiful checks--tells that girl, \"Put on the veil\nwoven of death and night, kneel upon stones, and you will please God.\"\n\nI tell you that, by law, no girl should be allowed to take the veil,\nand renounce the beauties of the world, until she was at least 25 years\nof age.  Wait until she knows what she wants.\n\nI am opposed to allowing these spider-like priests weaving webs to\ncatch the flies of youth; and there ought to be a law appointing\ncommissioners to visit such places twice a year, and release every\nperson who expresses a desire to be released.  I don't believe in\nkeeping penitentiaries for God.  No doubt they are honest about it.\nThat is not the question.\n\nNow this Church, after a few centuries of thought, made a creed, and\nthat creed is the foundation of orthodox religion.  Let me read it to\nyou:\n\n\"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he\nhold the Catholic faith; which faith, except every one do keep entire\nand inviolate, without doubt, he shall everlastingly perish.\"  Now the\nfaith is this: \"That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in\nunity.\"\n\nOf course you understand how that's done, and there's no need of my\nexplaining it.  Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the\nsubstance.  You see what a predicament that would leave the Deity in if\nyou divided, the substance.\n\n\"For one is the person of the Father, another of the Son, and another\nof the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost is all one \"--you know what I mean by Godhead. In\nglory equal, and in majesty co-eternal.  Such as the Father is, such is\nthe Son, such is the Holy Ghost.  The Father is uncreated, the Son\nuncreated, the Holy Ghost uncreated.  The Father incomprehensible, the\nSon incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.\n\nAnd that is the reason we know so much about the thing.  \"The Father is\neternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal,\" and yet there are\nnot three eternals, only one eternal, as also there are not three\nuncreated, nor three incomprehensibles, only one uncreated, one\nincomprehensible.\n\n\"In like manner, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy\nGhost almighty.\"  Yet there are not three almighties, only one\nAlmighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, and\nyet not three Gods; and so likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is\nLord, the Holy Ghost is Lord, yet there are not three Lords, for as we\nare compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by\nhimself to be God and Lord, so we are all forbidden by the Catholic\nreligion to say there are three Gods, or three Lords.  \"The Father is\nmade of no one, not created or begotten.  The Son is from the Father\nalone, not made, nor created, or begotten.  The Holy Ghost is from the\nFather and the Son, not made nor begotten, but proceeded--\" You know\nwhat proceeding is.\n\n\"So there is one Father, not three Fathers.\"  Why should there be three\nFathers, and only one Son?\n\n\"One Son, and not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts;\nand in this Trinity there is nothing before or afterward, nothing\ngreater or less, but the whole three persons are coeternal with one\nanother, and coequal, so that in all things the unity is to be\nworshiped in Trinity, and the Trinity is to be worshiped in unity, and\ntherefore we will believe.\"  Those who will be saved must thus think of\nthe Trinity.  Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation\nthat he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\nNow the right of this thing is this: That we believe and confess that\nour Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.  He is God\nof the substance of His Father begotten before the world was.  That was\na good while before His mother lived.\n\n\"And He is man of the substance of His mother, born in this world,\nperfect God and perfect man, and the rational soul in human flesh\nsubsisting equal to the Father according to His Godhead, but less than\nthe Father, according to His manhood, who being both God and man is not\ntwo but one--one not by conversion of God into flesh but by the taking\nof the manhood into God.\"\n\nYou see that it is a great deal easier than the other.  \"One\naltogether, not by a confusion of substance, but by unity of person,\nfor as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God the man, is one\nChrist, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again\nthe third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, and He sitteth at\nthe right hand of God, the Father Almighty, and He shall come to judge\nthe living and the dead.\"\n\nIn order to be saved it is necessary to believe this.  What a blessing,\nthat we do not have to understand it.  And in order to compel the human\nintellect to get upon its knees, before that infinite absurdity,\nthousands and millions have suffered agonies; thousands and millions\nhave perished in dungeons and in fire; and if all the bones of all the\nvictims of the Catholic Church could be gathered together, a monument\nhigher than all the pyramids would rise in our presence, and the eyes\neven of priests would be suffused with tears.\n\nThat Church covered Europe with cathedrals and dungeons.  That Church\nrobbed men of the jewel of the soul.  That Church had ignorance upon\nits knees.  That Church went into partnership with the tyrants of the\nthrone, and between these two vultures, the altar and the throne, the\nheart of man was devoured.  Of course I have met, and cheerfully admit\nthat there is thousands of good Catholics; but Catholicism is contrary\nto human liberty.  Catholicism bases salvation upon belief. Catholicism\nteaches man to trample his reason under foot.  And for that reason, it\nis wrong.\n\nNow, the next Church that comes along in the way that I wish to speak\nof is the Episcopalian.  That was founded by Henry VIII., now in\nheaven. He cast off Queen Catherine and Catholicism together.  And he\naccepted Episcopalianism and Annie Boleyn at the same time.  That\nChurch, if it had a few more ceremonies, would be Catholic.  If it had\na few less, nothing.  We have an Episcopalian Church in this country,\nand it has all the imperfection of a poor relation.  It is always\nboasting of a rich relative.  In England the creed is made by law, the\nsame as we pass statutes here.  And when a gentleman dies in England,\nin order to determine whether he shall be saved or not, it is necessary\nfor the power of heaven to read the acts of Parliament.  It becomes a\nquestion of law, and sometimes a man is damned on a very nice point.\nLost on demurrer.\n\nA few years ago, a gentleman by the name of Seabury, Samuel Seabury,\nwas sent over to England to get some apostolic succession.  We hadn't a\ndrop in the house.  It was necessary for the bishops of the English\nchurch to put their hands upon his head.  They refused; there was no\nact of Parliament justifying--it.  He had then to go to the Scotch\nBishops; and, had the Scotch Bishops refused, we never would have had\nany apostolic succession in the new world.  And God would have been\ndriven out of half the world; and the true church never could have been\nfounded.  But the Scotch Bishops put their hands on his head, and now\nwe have an unbroken succession of heads and hands from St. Paul to the\nlast bishop.\n\nIn this country the Episcopal Church has done some good, and I want to\nthank that Church.  Having, on an average, less religion than the\nothers, on an average you have done more good to mankind.  You\npreserved some of the humanities.  You did not hate music, you did not\nabsolutely despise painting, and you did not altogether abhor\narchitecture, and you finally admitted that it was no worse to keep\ntime with your feet than with your hands.  And some went so far as to\nsay that people could play cards, and God would overlook it, or would\nlook the other way.  For all these things accept my thanks.\n\nWhen I was a boy, the other Churches looked upon dancing as probably\nthe mysterious sin against the Holy Ghost; and they used to teach that\nwhen four boys got in a hay-mow, playing seven-up, that the Eternal God\nstood whetting the sword of His eternal wrath waiting to strike them\ndown to the lowest hell.  And so that Church has done some good.\n\nAfter a while, in England, a couple of gentlemen, or a couple of men by\nthe name of Wesley and Whitfield, said: \"If everybody is going to hell,\nnearly, somebody ought to mention it.\"  The Episcopal clergy said:\n\"Keep still; don't tear your gown.\"  Wesley and Whitfield said: \"This\nfrightful truth ought to be proclaimed from the housetops at every\nopportunity, from the highway of every occasion.\" They were good,\nhonest men.  They believed their doctrine.  And they said: \"If there is\na hell, and a Niagara of souls pouring over an eternal precipice of\nignorance, somebody ought to say something.\" They were right; somebody\nought, if such thing was true.  Wesley was a believer in the Bible.  He\nbelieved in the actual presence of the Almighty.  God used to do\nmiracles for him; used to put off a rain several days to give his\nmeeting a chance; used to cure his horse of lameness; used to cure Mr.\nWesley's headaches.\n\nAnd Mr. Wesley also believed in the actual existence of the devil. He\nbelieved that devils had possession of people.  He talked to the devil\nwhen he was in folks, and the devil told him that he was going to\nleave; and that he was going into another person; that he would be\nthere at a certain time; and Wesley went to that other person, and\nthere the devil was, prompt to the minute.  He regarded every\nconversion as an absolute warfare between God and this devil for the\npossession of that human soul.  Honest, no doubt.  Mr. Wesley did not\nbelieve in human liberty. Honest, no doubt.  Was opposed to the liberty\nof the colonies.  Honestly so.  Mr. Wesley preached a sermon entitled,\n\"The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes,\" in which he took the ground that\nearthquakes were caused by sin and the only way to stop them was to\nbelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ.  No doubt an honest man.\n\nWesley and Whitfield fell out on the question of predestination. Wesley\ninsisted that God invited everybody to the feast.  Whitfield said He\ndid not invite those He knew would not come.  Wesley said He did.\nWhitfield said: \"Well, He didn't put plates for them, anyway.\" Wesley\nsaid He did.  So that, when they were in hell, he could show them that\nthere was a seat left for them.  And that Church that they founded is\nstill active.  And probably no Church in the world has done so much\npreaching for as little money as the Methodists. Whitfield believed in\nslavery and advocated the slave trade.  And it was of Whitfield that\nWhittier made the two lines:\n\nHe bade the slave ships speed from coast to coast, Fanned by the wings\nof the Holy Ghost.\n\nWe have lately had a meeting of the Methodists, and I find, by their\nstatistics, that they believe they have converted 130,000 folks in a\nyear.  That in order to do this, they have 26,000 preachers, 226,000\nSunday-school scholars, and about $1,000,000,000  invested in church\nproperty.  I find, in looking over the history of the world, that there\nare 40,000,000 or 50,000,000,000 of people born a year, and if they are\nsaved at the rate of 30,000 a year, about how long will it take that\ndoctrine to save this world?  Good, honest people; they are mistaken.\n\nIn old times they were very simple.  Churches used to be like barns.\nThey used to have them divided--men on that side, and women on this. A\nlittle barbarous.  We have advanced since then, and we now find as a\nfact, demonstrated by experience, that a man sitting by the woman he\nloves can thank God as heartily as though sitting between two men that\nhe has never been introduced to.\n\nThere is another thing these Methodists should remember, and that is,\nthat the Episcopalians were the greatest enemies they ever had.  And\nthey should remember that the Free-Thinkers have always treated them\nkindly and well.\n\nThere is one thing about the Methodist Church in the North that I like.\nBut I find that it is not Methodism that does that.  I find that the\nMethodist Church in the South is as much opposed to liberty as the\nMethodist Church North is in favor of liberty.  So it is not Methodism\nthat is in favor of liberty or slavery.  They differ a little in their\ncreed from the rest.  They do not believe that God does everything.\nThey believe that He does His part, and that you must do the rest, and\nthat getting to heaven is a partnership business.\n\nThe next church is the Presbyterians--in my judgment the worst of all,\nas far as creed is concerned.  This Church was founded by John Calvin,\na murderer!  John Calvin, having power in Geneva, inaugurated human\ntorture.  Voltaire abolished torture in France.  The man who abolished\ntorture, if the Christian religion be true, God is now torturing in\nhell; and the man who inaugurated torture, is now a glorified angel in\nheaven.  It won't do.\n\nJohn Knox started this doctrine in Scotland, and there is this\npeculiarity about Presbyterianism, it grows best where the soil is\npoorest.  I read the other day an account of a meeting between John\nKnox and John Calvin.  Imagine a dialogue between a pestilence and a\nfamine! Imagine a conversation between a block and an ax!  As I read\ntheir conversation it seemed to me as though John Knox and John Calvin\nwere made for each other; that they fitted each other like the upper\nand lower jaws of a wild beast.  They believed happiness was a crime;\nthey looked upon laughter as blasphemy, and they did all they could to\ndestroy every human feeling, and to fill the mind with the infinite\ngloom of predestination and eternal damnation. They taught the doctrine\nthat God had a right to damn us because He made us.  That is just the\nreason that He has not a right to damn us. There is some dust.\nUnconscious dust!  What right has God to change that unconscious dust\ninto a human being, when He knows that human being will sin; and He\nknows that human being will suffer eternal agony?  Why not leave him in\nthe unconscious dust?  What right has an infinite God to add to the sum\nof human agony?  Suppose I knew that I could change that piece of\nfurniture into a living, sentient human being, and I knew that that\nbeing would suffer untold agony forever.  If I did it, I would be a\nfiend.  I would leave that being in the unconscious dust.  And yet we\nare told that we must believe such a doctrine, or we are to be\neternally damned!  It won't do.\n\nIn 1839 there was a division in this Church, and they had a lawsuit to\nsee which was the Church of God.  And they tried it by a judge and\njury, and the jury decided that the new school was the Church of God,\nand then they got a new trial, and the next jury decided that the old\nschool was the Church of God, and that settled it. That Church teaches\nthat infinite innocence was sacrificed for me! I don't want it!  I\ndon't wish to go to heaven unless I can settle by the books, and go\nthere because I ought to go there.  I have said, and I say again, I\ndon't want to be a charity angel.  I have no ambition to become a\nwinged pauper of the skies.\n\nThe other day a young gentleman, a Presbyterian, who had just been\nconverted, came to me and gave me a tract and he told me he was\nperfectly happy.  Ugh!  Says I: \"Do you think a great many people are\ngoing to hell?\"  \"Oh, yes.\"  \"And you are perfectly happy?\" \"Well, he\ndidn't know as he was quite.\" \"Wouldn't you be happier if they were all\ngoing to heaven?\"   \"O, yes.\"  \"Well, then you are not perfectly\nhappy?\" \"No, he didn't think he was.\" Says I: \"When you get to heaven,\nthen you would be perfectly happy?\"  \"Oh, yes.\"  \"Now, when we are only\ngoing to hell, you are not quite happy; but when we are in hell, and\nyou in heaven, then you will be perfectly happy?\" You won't be as\ndecent when you get to be an angel as you are now, will you?   \"Well,\"\nhe said, \"that was not exactly it.\"  Said I: \"Suppose your mother were\nin hell, would you be happy in heaven then?\" \"Well,\"  he says,  \"I\nsuppose God would know the best place for mother.\"  And I thought to\nmyself, then, if I was a woman, I would like to have five or six boys\nlike that.\n\nIt will not do.  Heaven is where are those we love, and those who love\nus.  And I wish to go to no world unless I can be accompanied by those\nwho love me here.  Talk about the consolations of this infamous\ndoctrine.  The consolations of a doctrine that makes a father say,  \"I\ncan be happy with my daughter in hell\"; that makes a mother say, \"I can\nbe happy with my generous, brave boy in hell\"; that makes a boy say, \"I\ncan enjoy the glory of heaven with the woman who bore me, the woman who\nwould have died for me, in eternal agony.\" And they call that tidings\nof great joy.\n\nI have not time to speak of the Baptists,--that Jeremy Taylor said were\nas much to be rooted out as anything that is the greatest pest and\nnuisance on the earth.  Nor of the Quakers, the best of all, and abused\nby all.  I can not forget that George Fox, in the year of grace 1640,\nwas put in the pillory and whipped from town to town, scarred, put in a\ndungeon, beaten, trampled upon, and what for? Simply because he\npreached the doctrine: \"Thou shalt not resist evil with evil. Thou\nshalt love thy enemies.\"  Think what the Church must have been that day\nto scar the flesh of that loving man!  Just think of it!  I say I have\nnot time to speak of all these sects. And of the varieties of\nPresbyterians and Campbellites.  The people who think they must dive in\norder to go up. There are hundreds and hundreds of these sects, all\nfounded upon this creed that I read, differing simply in degree.  Ah\nbut they say to me: \"You are fighting something that is dead.  Nobody\nbelieves this, now.\" The preachers do not believe what they preach in\nthe pulpit.  The people in the pews do not believe what they hear\npreached.  And they say to me: \"You are fighting something that is\ndead.  This is all a form, we do not believe a solitary creed in it.\nWe sign it and swear that we believe it, but we don't.  And none of us\ndo. And all the ministers they say in private, admit that they do not\nbelieve it, not quite.\" I don't know whether this is so or not.  I take\nit that they believe what they preach.  I take it that when they meet\nand solemnly agree to a creed, I take it they are honest and solemnly\nbelieve in that creed.\n\nThe Evangelical Alliance, made up of all orthodox denominations of the\nworld, met only a few years ago, and here is their creed: They believe\nin the divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy\nScriptures; the right and duty of private judgment in the\ninterpretation of Holy Scriptures, but if you interpret wrong you are\ndamned.  They believe in the unity of the Godhead and the trinity of\nthe persons therein.  They believe in the utter depravity of human\nnature. There can be no more infamous doctrine than that.  They look\nupon a little child as a lump of depravity.  I look upon it as a bud of\nhumanity, that will, under proper circumstances, blossom into rich and\nglorious life.\n\nTotal depravity of human nature!  Here is a woman whose husband has\nbeen lost at sea; the news comes that he has been drowned by the\never-hungry waves, and she waits.  There is something in her heart that\ntells her he is alive.  And she waits.  And years afterwards as she\nlooks down toward the little gate, she sees him; he has been given back\nby the sea, and she rushes to his arms and covers his face with kisses,\nand with tears. And if that infamous doctrine is true, every tear is a\ncrime, and every kiss a blasphemy.  It won't do.  According to that\ndoctrine, if a man steals and repents, and takes back the property, the\nrepentance and the taking back of the property are two other crimes if\nhe is totally depraved: It is an infamy.  What else do they believe?\n\"The justification of a sinner by faith alone,\" without works, just\nfaith. Believing something that you don't understand.  Of course God\ncannot afford to reward a man for believing anything that is\nreasonable.  God rewards only for believing something that is\nunreasonable, if you believe something that you know is not so.  What\nelse?  They believe in the eternal blessedness of the righteous, and in\nthe eternal punishment of the wicked.  Tidings of great joy!  They are\nso good that they will not associate with Universalists.  They will not\nassociate with Unitarians. They will not associate with scientists.\nThey will only associate with those who believed that God so loved the\nworld that He made up his mind to damn the most of us.  Then they say\nto me: \"What do you propose?  You have torn this down; what do you\npropose to give in the place of it?\"  I have not torn the good down.  I\nhave only endeavored to trample out the ignorant, cruel fires of hell.\nI do not tear away the passage, \"God will be merciful to the merciful.\"\nI do not destroy the promise,  \"If you will forgive others, God will\nforgive you.\"  I would not for anything blot out the faintest stars\nthat shine in the horizon of human despair, nor in the horizon of human\nhope; but I will do what I can to get that infinite shadow out of the\nheart of man.\n\n\"What do you propose to put in place of this?\"\n\nWell, in the first place, I propose good fellowship--good friends all\naround.  No matter what we believe, shake hands and let it go. That is\nyour opinion.  This is mine: \"Let us be friends.\"  Science makes\nfriends, religion--superstition--makes enemies.  They say, \"Belief is\nimportant.\"  I say no, good actions are important. Judge by deed, not\nby creed, good fellowship.  We have had too many of these solemn\npeople. Whenever I see an exceedingly solemn man, I know he is an\nexceedingly stupid man.  No man of any humor ever founded any\nreligion--never. Humor sees both sides, while reason is the holy light;\nhumor carries the lantern and the man with a keen sense of humor is\npreserved from the solemn stupidities of superstition.  I like a man\nwho has got good feeling for everybody--good fellowship.  One man said\nto another:\n\n\"Will you take a glass of wine?\"\n\n\"I don't drink.\"\n\n\"Will you smoke a cigar?\"\n\n\"I don't smoke.\"\n\n\"Maybe you will chew something?\"\n\n\"I don't chew.\"\n\n\"Let us eat some hay.\"\n\n\"I tell you I don't eat hay.\"\n\n\"Well, then, good-bye; for you are no company for man or beast.\"\n\nI believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, the gospel of good nature, the\ngospel of good health.  Let us pray to our bodies.  Take care of our\nbodies, and our souls will take care of themselves.  Good health! And I\nbelieve that 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. I believe the time will come when man will not fill the future\nwith consumption and insanity.  I believe the time will come when we\nstudy ourselves, and understand the laws of health, that we will say,\n\"We are under obligation to put the flags of health in the cheeks of\nour children.\"  Even if I got to heaven, and had a harp, I would hate\nto look back upon my children and grandchildren, and see them diseased,\ndeformed, crazed, all suffering the penalties of crimes I had committed.\n\nI, then, believe in the gospel of good health, and I believe in a\ngospel of good living.  You can not make any God happy by fasting. Let\nus have good food, and let us have it well cooked--and it is a thousand\ntimes better to know how to cook it than it is to understand any\ntheology in the world.  I believe in the gospel of good clothes. I\nbelieve in the gospel of good houses, in the gospel of water and soap.\nI believe in the gospel of intelligence, in the gospel of education.\nThe school-house is my cathedral.  The universe is my Bible.  I believe\nin that gospel of justice that we must reap what we sow.\n\nI do not believe in forgiveness.  If I rob Mr. Smith and God forgives\nme, how does that help Smith?  If I, by slander, cover some poor girl\nwith the leprosy of some imputed crime, and she withers away like a\nblighted flower, and afterward I get forgiveness, how does that help\nher?  If there is another world we have got to settle.  No bankrupt\ncourt there.  Pay down.  The Christians say, that among the ancient\nJews, if you committed a crime you had to kill a sheep, now they\nsay,--\"Charge it.\"  \"Put it upon the slate.\"  It won't do, for every\ncrime you commit you must answer to yourself and to the one you injure.\nAnd if you have ever clothed another with unhappiness, as with a\ngarment of pain, you will never be quite as happy as though you hadn't\ndone that thing. No forgiveness.  Eternal, inexorable, everlasting\njustice.  That is what I believe in.  And if it goes hard with me, I\nwill stand it, and I will stick to in logic and I will bear it like a\nman.\n\nAnd I believe, too, in the gospel of liberty, in giving to others what\nwe claim for ourselves.  I believe there is room everywhere for\nthought, and the more liberty you give away the more you will have. In\nliberty, extravagance is economy.  Let us be just.  Let us be generous\nto each other.\n\nI believe in the gospel of intelligence.  That is the only lever\ncapable of raising mankind.  Intelligence must be the savior of this\nworld. Humanity is the grand religion, and no God can put another in\nhell in another world who has made a little heaven in this.  God cannot\nmake a man miserable if that man has made somebody else happy.  God\ncannot hate anybody who is capable of loving anybody.\n\nSo I believe in this great gospel of generosity.\n\n\"Ah! but,\" they say,  \"it won't do.  You must believe.  I say no. My\ngospel of health will bring life.  My gospel of intelligence, my gospel\nof good living, my gospel of good-fellowship will cover the world with\nhappy homes.  My doctrine will put carpets upon your floors, pictures\nupon your walls.  My doctrine will put books upon your shelves, ideas\nin your minds.  My doctrine will rid the world of the abnormal monsters\nborn of the ignorance of superstition.  My doctrine will give us\nhealth, wealth, and happiness.  That is what I want. That is what I\nbelieve in. Give us intelligence.  In a little while a man may find\nthat he cannot steal without robbing himself.  He will find that he\ncannot murder without assassinating his own joy.  He will find that\nevery crime is a mistake.  He will find that only that man carries the\ncross who does wrong, and that the man who does right the cross turns\nto wings upon his shoulders that will bear him upwards forever.  He\nwill find that intelligent self-love embraces within its mighty arms\nall the human race.\n\n\"Oh,\" but they say to me, \"you take away immortality.\"  I do not. If we\nare immortal it is a fact in nature, and we are not indebted to priests\nfor it, nor to Bibles for it, and it cannot be destroyed by unbelief.\n\nAs long as we love we will hope to live, and when the one dies that we\nlove, we will say: \"Oh, that we could meet again!\"  And whether we do\nor not, it will not be the work of theology.  It will be a fact in\nnature.  I would not for my life destroy one star of human hope; but I\nwant it so that when a poor woman rocks the cradle, and sings a lullaby\nto the dimpled darling, that she will not be compelled to believe that,\nninety-nine chances in a hundred, she is raising kindling-wood for\nhell. One world at a time--that is my doctrine.\n\nIt is said in the Testament, \"Sufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof\" and I say, sufficient unto each world is the evil thereof. And\nsuppose, after all, that death does end all, next to eternal joy, next\nto being forever with those we love and those who have loved us, next\nto that is to be wrapt in the dreamless drapery of eternal peace.\n\nNext to external life is eternal death.  Upon the shadowy shore of\ndeath the sea of trouble casts no wave.  Eyes that have been curtained\nby the everlasting dark will never know again the touch of tears. Lips\nthat have been touched by eternal silence will never utter another word\nof grief.  Hearts of dust do not break; the dead do not weep. And I had\nrather think of those I have loved, and those I have lost, as having\nreturned, as having become a part of the elemental wealth of the\nworld--I would rather think of them as unconscious dust--I would rather\nthink of them as gurgling in the stream, floating in the clouds,\nbursting in the foam of light upon the shores of worlds--I would rather\nthink of them as the inanimate and eternally unconscious, that to have\neven a suspicion that their naked souls had been clutched by an\northodox God.\n\nBut for me, I will leave the dead where nature leaves them.  And\nwhatever flower of hope springs up in my heart I will cherish; but I\ncan not believe that there is any being in this universe who has\ncreated a human soul for eternal pain.  And I would rather that every\nGod would destroy himself; I would rather that we all should go to\neternal chaos, to black and starless night, that that just one soul\nshould suffer eternal agony.  I have made up my mind that if there is a\nGod, he will be merciful to the merciful.  Upon that rock I stand. That\nhe will forgive the forgiving.  Upon that rock I stand.  That every man\nshould be true to himself, and that there is no world, no star, in\nwhich honesty is a crime.  And upon that rock I stand.  The honest man,\nthe good, kind, sweet woman, the happy child, has nothing to fear,\nneither in this world, nor the world to come.  And upon that rock I\nstand.\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL'S ANSWER TO PROF. SWING, DR. THOMAS, AND OTHERS\n\n\n\nAfter looking over the replies made to his new lecture, Col. Ingersoll\nwas asked by a Tribune reporter what he thought of them.  He replied as\nfollows:\n\nI think they dodge the point.  The real point is this: If salvation by\nfaith is the real doctrine of Christianity, I asked on Sunday before\nlast, and I still ask, why didn't Matthew tell it?  I still insist that\nMark should have remembered it, and I shall always believe that Luke\nought, at least, to have noticed it.  I was endeavoring to show that\nmodern Christianity has for its basis an interpolation.  I think I\nshowed it. The only gospel on the orthodox side is that of John, and\nthat was certainly not written, or did not appear in its present form,\nuntil long after the others were written.  I know very well that the\nCatholic Church claimed during the Dark Ages, and still claims, that\nreferences had been made to the gospels by persons living in the first,\nsecond and third centuries; but I believe such manuscripts were\nmanufactured by the Catholic Church.  For many years in Europe there\nwas not one person in 20,000 who could read and write. During that time\nthe Church had in its keeping the literature of our world.  They\ninterpolated as they pleased.  They created.  They destroyed.  In other\nwords, they did whatever in their opinion was necessary to substantiate\nthe faith.  The gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the\nquestion, and I again call upon the clergy to explain to the people\nwhy, if salvation depended upon belief in the Lord Jesus Christ,\nMatthew did not mention it.  Some one has said that Christ didn't make\nknown this doctrine of salvation by belief or faith until after His\nresurrection. Certainly none of the gospels were written until after\nHis resurrection; and if He made that doctrine known after His\nresurrection, and before His ascension, it should have been in Matthew,\nMark, and Luke, as well as John.\n\nThe replies of the clergy show that they have not investigated the\nsubject; that they are not well acquainted with the New Testament. In\nother words, they have not read it except with the regulation\ntheological bias.  There is one thing I wish to correct here.  In an\neditorial in the Tribune it was stated that I had admitted that Christ\nwas beyond and above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and others. I didn't\nsay so.  Another point was made against me, and those who made it\nseemed to think it was a good one.  In my lecture I asked why it was\nthat the Disciples of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, in fact, they\nunderstood only Hebrew.  It is now claimed that Greek was the language\nof Jerusalem at that time; that Hebrew had fallen into disuse; that no\none understood it except the literati and the highly educated.  If I\nfell into an error upon this point it was because I relied upon the New\nTestament.  I find in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts an account\nof Paul having been mobbed in the city of Jerusalem; that he was\nprotected by a Chief Captain and some soldiers; that, when upon the\nstairs of the castle to which he was being taken for protection, he\nobtained leave from the Captain to speak unto the people.  In the\nfortieth verse of that chapter I find the following:\n\n\"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and\nbeckoned with the hand unto the people; and when there was made a great\nsilence he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying--\"\n\nAnd then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives an account of his\nconversion.  It seems a little curious to me that Paul for the purpose\nof quieting the mob, would speak to that mob in an unknown language.\nIf I were mobbed in the city of Chicago, and wished to defend myself\nwith an explanation, I certainly would not make that explanation in\nChocktaw, even if I understood that tongue.  My present opinion is that\nI would speak in English; and the reason I would speak in English is,\nbecause that language is generally understood in this city.  And so I\nconclude from the account in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts that\n\"Hebrew was the language of Jerusalem at that time, or that Paul would\nnot have addressed the mob in that tongue.\"\n\n\"Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer?\"\n\n\"I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and think some of his\nquotations very good; and have no doubt that the authors will feel\ncomplimented by being quoted.\"\n\n\"But what about there being belief in Matthew?\"\n\n\"Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured of diseases on\naccount of faith.  Admitting that mumps, measles, and whooping-cough\ncould be cured in that way, there is not even a suggestion that\nsalvation depended upon a like faith.  I think he can hardly afford to\nrely upon the miracles of the New Testament to prove his doctrine.\nThere is one instance in which a miracle was performed by Christ\nwithout His knowledge.  And I hardly think that even Mr. Courtney would\ninsist that any faith could have been great enough for that. The fact\nis, I believe that all these miracles were ascribed to Christ long\nafter His death, and that Christ never, at any time or place, pretended\nto have any supernatural power whatever.  Neither do I believe that He\nclaimed any supernatural origin.  He claimed simply to be a man--no\nless, no more. I don't believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own\nreply.\"\n\n\"And now as to Prof. Swing?\"\n\n\"Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church so long that he seems to\nhave forgotten the reasons for which he left it. I don't believe there\nis an orthodox minister in the city of Chicago who will agree with Mr.\nSwing that salvation by faith is no longer preached.  Prof. Swing seems\nto think it of no importance who wrote the Gospel of St. Matthew.  In\nthis I agree with him.   Judging from what he said, there is hardly\ndifference enough of opinion between us to justify a reply on his part.\nHe, however, makes one mistake. I did not in the lecture say one word\nabout tearing churches down. I have no objection to people building all\nthe churches they wish. While I admit that it is a pretty sight to see\nchildren on a morning in June going through the fields to the country\nchurch, I still insist that the beauty of that sight doesn't answer the\nquestion how it is that Matthew forgot to say anything about salvation\nthrough Christ.  Prof. Swing is a man of poetic temperament; but this\nis not a poetic question.\"\n\n\"How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you?\"\n\n\"I think the reply of Dr. Thomas in the best possible spirit.  I regard\nhim to day as the best intellect in the Methodist denomination. He\nseems to have what is generally understood as a Christian spirit. He\nhas always treated me with perfect fairness, and I should have said\nlong ago many grateful things, had I not feared I might hurt with his\nown people. He seems to be by nature a perfectly fair man; and I know\nof no man in the United States for whom I have a profounder respect.\nOf course I don't agree with Mr. Thomas.  I think in many things he is\nmistaken. But I believe him to be perfectly sincere. There is one\ntrouble about him,--he is growing; and this fact will no doubt give\ngreat trouble to many of his brethren.  Certain Methodist hazelbrush\nfeel a little uneasy in the shadow of his oak.\"\n\n\"Are you going to make a formal reply to their sermons.\"\n\n\"Not unless something better is done than has been.  Of course I don't\nknow what another Sabbath may bring forth.  I am waiting.  But of one\nthing I feel perfectly assured; that no man in the United States, or in\nthe world, can account for the fact, if we are to be saved only by\nfaith in Christ, that Matthew forgot it, that Luke said nothing about\nit, and that Mark never mentioned it except in two passages written by\nanother person.  Until that is answered, as one grave-digger says to\nthe other in \"Hamlet,\" I shall say: 'Ay, tell me that and unyoke.'  In\nthe meantime, I wish to keep on the best terms with all parties\nconcerned. I cannot see why my forgiving spirit fails to gain their\nsincere praise.\"","title":"Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Volume I: Including His Answers to the Clergy, His Oration at His Brother's Grave, Etc., Etc.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":122075}