{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8389/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8389","id":"gutenberg_8389","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8389","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by Jake Jaqua.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll--Latest\n\n\n\n\nContents\n\n   Thomas Paine\n   Liberty of Man, Woman and Child\n   Orthodoxy\n   Blasphemy\n   Some Reasons Why\n   Intellectual Development\n   Human Rights\n   Talmagian Theology (Second Lecture)\n   Talmagian Theology (Third Lecture)\n   Religious Intolerance\n   Hereafter\n   Review of His Reviewers\n   How the Gods Grow\n   The Religion of our Day\n   Heretics And Heresies\n   The Bible\n   Voltaire\n   Myth and Miracle\n   Ingersoll's Letter, on The Chinese God\n   Ingersoll's Letter, Is Suicide a Sin?\n   Ingersoll's Letter, The Right To One's Life\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Thomas Paine--Delivered in Central Music Hall,\nChicago, January 29, 1880 (From the Chicago Times, Verbatim Report)\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:--It so happened that the first speech--the very\nfirst public speech I ever made--took occasion to defend the memory of\nThomas Paine.\n\nI did it because I had read a little something of the history of my\ncountry.  I did it because I felt indebted to him for the liberty I\nthen enjoyed--and whatever religion may be true, ingratitude is the\nblackest of crimes.  And whether there is any God or not, in every star\nthat shines, gratitude is a virtue.\n\nThe man who will tell the truth about the dead is a good man, and for\none, about this man, I intend to tell just as near the truth as I can.\n\nMost history consists in giving the details of things that never\nhappened--most biography is usually the lie coming from the mouth of\nflattery, or the slander coming from the lips of malice, and whoever\nattacks the religion of a country will, in his turn, be attacked.\nWhoever attacks a superstition will find that superstition defended by\nall the meanness of ingenuity.  Whoever attacks a superstition will\nfind that there is still one weapon left in the arsenal of\nJehovah--slander.\n\nI was reading, yesterday, a poem called the \"Light of Asia,\" and I read\nin that how a Boodh seeing a tigress perishing of thirst, with her\nmouth upon the dry stone of a stream, with her two cubs sucking at her\ndry and empty dugs, this Boodh took pity upon this wild and famishing\nbeast, and, throwing from himself the Yellowrobe of his order, and\nstepping naked before this tigress, said:  \"Here is meat for you and\nyour cubs.\" In one moment the crooked daggers of her claws ran riot in\nhis flesh, and in another he was devoured.  Such, during nearly all the\nhistory of this world, has been the history of every man who has stood\nin front of superstition.\n\nThomas Paine, as has been so eloquently said by the gentleman who\nintroduced me, was a friend of man, and whoever is a friend of man is\nalso a friend of God--if there is one.  But God has had many friends\nwho were the enemies of their fellow-men.  There is but one test by\nwhich to measure any man who has lived.  Did he leave this world better\nthan he found it?  Did he leave in this world more liberty?  Did he\nleave in this world more goodness, more humanity, than when he was\nborn?  That is the test.  And whatever may have been the faults of\nThomas Paine, no American who appreciates liberty, no American who\nbelieves in true democracy and pure republicanism, should ever breathe\none word against his name.  Every American, with the divine mantle of\ncharity, should cover all his faults, and with a never-tiring tongue\nshould recount his virtues.\n\nHe was a common man.  He did not belong to the aristocracy.  Upon the\nhead of his father God had never poured the divine petroleum of\nauthority.  He had not the misfortune to belong to the upper classes.\nHe had the fortune to be born among the poor and to feel against his\ngreat heart the throb of the toiling and suffering masses.  Neither was\nit his misfortune to have been educated at Oxford.  What little sense\nhe had was not squeezed out at Westminster.  He got his education from\nbooks.  He got his education from contact with fellow-men, and he\nthought, and a man is worth just what nature impresses upon him.  A man\nstanding by the sea, or in a forest, or looking at a flower, or hearing\na poem, or looking in the eyes of the woman he loves, receives all that\nhe is capable of receiving--and if he is a great man the impression is\ngreat, and he uses it for the purpose of benefiting his fellow-man.\n\nThomas Paine was not rich, he was poor, and his father before him was\npoor, and he was raised a sailmaker, a very lowly profession, and yet\nthat man became one of the mainstays of liberty in this world.  At one\ntime he was an excise man, like Burns.  Burns was once--speak it\nsoftly--a gauger--and yet he wrote poems that will wet the cheek of\nhumanity with tears as long as the world travels in its orb around the\nsun.\n\nPoverty was his brother, necessity his master.  He had more brains than\nbooks; more courage than politeness; more strength than polish.  He had\nno veneration for old mistakes, no admiration for ancient lies.  He\nloved the truth for truth's sake and for man's sake.  He saw oppression\non every hand, injustice everywhere, hypocrisy at the altar, venality\non the bench, tyranny on the throne, and with a splendid courage he\nespoused the cause of the weak against the strong, of the enslaved many\nagainst the titled few.\n\nIn England he was nothing.  He belonged to the lower classes--that is,\nthe useful people.  England depended for her prosperity upon her\nmechanics and her thinkers, her sailors and her workers, and they are\nthe only men in Europe who are not gentlemen.  The only obstacles in\nthe way of progress in Europe were the nobility and the priests, and\nthey are the only gentlemen.\n\nThis, and his native genius, constituted his entire capital, and he\nneeded no more.  He found the colonies clamoring for justice; whining\nabout their grievances; upon their knees at the foot of the throne,\nimploring that mixture of idiocy and insanity, George III., by the\ngrace of God, for a restoration of their ancient privileges.  They were\nnot endeavoring to become free men, but were trying to soften the heart\nof their master.  They were perfectly willing to make brick if Pharaoh\nwould furnish the straw.  The colonists wished for, hoped for, and\nprayed for reconciliation.  They did not dream of independence.\n\nPaine gave to the world his \"Common Sense.\"  It was the first argument\nfor separation; the first assault upon the British form of government;\nthe first blow for a republic, and it aroused our fathers like a\ntrumpet's blast.  He was the first to perceive the destiny of the new\nworld.  No other pamphlet ever accomplished such wonderful results.  It\nwas filled with arguments, reasons, persuasions, and unanswerable\nlogic. It opened a new world.  It filled the present with hope and the\nfuture with honor. Everywhere the people responded, and in a few months\nthe Continental Congress declared the colonies free and independent\nstates. A new nation was born.\n\nIt is simple justice to say that Paine did more to cause the\nDeclaration of Independence than any other man.  Neither should it be\nforgotten that his attacks upon Great Britain were also attacks upon\nmonarchy, and while he convinced the people that the colonies ought to\nseparate from the mother country, he also proved to them that a free\ngovernment is the best that can be instituted among men.\n\nIn my judgment Thomas Paine was the best political writer that ever\nlived.  \"What he wrote was pure nature, and his soul and his pen ever\nwent together.\"  Ceremony, pageantry, and all the paraphernalia of\npower had no effect upon him.  He examined into the why and wherefore\nof things.  He was perfectly radical in his mode of thought.  Nothing\nshort of the bed-rock satisfied him. His enthusiasm for what he\nbelieved to be right knew no bounds. During all the dark scenes of the\nrevolution never for a moment did he despair.  Year after year his\nbrave words were ringing through the land, and by the bivouac fires the\nweary soldiers read the inspiring words of \"Common Sense,\" filled with\nideas sharper than their swords, and consecrated themselves anew to the\ncause of freedom.\n\nPaine was not content with having aroused the spirit of independence,\nbut he gave every energy of his soul to keep that spirit alive.  He was\nwith the army.  He shared its defeats, its dangers, and its glory.\nWhen the situation became desperate, when gloom settled upon all, he\ngave them the \"Crisis.\"    It was a cloud by day and a pillar of fire\nby night, leading the way to freedom, honor, and glory.  He shouted to\nthem \"These are the times that try men's souls.\"  The summer soldier\nand the sunshine patriot, will, in this crisis, shrink from the service\nof his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks\nof man and woman.\n\nTo those who wished to put the war off to some future day, with a lofty\nand touching spirit of self-sacrifice, he said:  \"Every generous parent\nshould say: 'If there must be war, let it be in my day, that my child\nmay have peace'.\"  To the cry that Americans were rebels, he replied:\n\"He that rebels against reason is a real rebel; but he that in defense\nof reason rebels against tyranny, has a better title to 'Defender of\nthe Faith' than George III.\"\n\nSome said it was to the interest of the colonies to be free. Paine\nanswered this by saying:  \"To know whether it be the interest of the\ncontinent to be independent, we need ask only this simple, easy\nquestion:  'Is it the interest of man to be a boy all his life?\"'  He\nfound many who would listen to nothing, and to them he said:  \"That to\nargue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine\nto the dead.\"  This sentiment ought to adorn the walls of every\northodox church.\n\nThere is a world of political wisdom in this: \"England lost her liberty\nin a long chain of right reasoning from wrong principles;\"  and there\nis real discrimination in saying:  \"The Greeks and Romans were strongly\npossessed of the spirit of liberty, but not the principles, for at the\ntime they were determined not to be slaves themselves, they employed\ntheir power to enslave the rest of mankind.\"\n\nIn his letter to the British people, in which he tried to convince them\nthat war was not to their interest, occurs the following passage\nbrimful of common sense:  \"War never can be the interest of a trading\nnation any more than quarreling can be profitable to a man in business.\nBut to make war with those who trade with us is like setting a bull-dog\nupon a customer at the shop door.\"\n\nThe Writings of Paine fairly glitter with simple, compact, logical\nstatements that carry conviction to the dullest and most prejudicial.\nHe had the happiest possible way of putting the case, in asking\nquestions in such a way that they answer themselves, and in stating his\npremises so clearly that the deduction could not be avoided.\n\nDay and night he labored for America.  Month after month, year after\nyear, he gave himself to the great cause, until there was \"a government\nof the people and for the people,\" and until the banner of the stars\nfloated over a continent redeemed and consecrated to the happiness of\nmankind.\n\nAt the close of the Revolution no one stood higher in America than\nThomas Paine.  The best, the wisest, the most patriotic were his\nfriends and admirers; and had he been thinking only of his own good he\nmight have rested from his toils and spent the remainder of his life in\ncomfort and in ease.  He could have been what the world is pleased to\ncall \"respectable.\"  He would have died surrounded by clergymen,\nwarriors, and statesmen, and at his death there would have been an\nimposing funeral, miles of carriages, civic societies, salvos of\nartillery, a Nation in mourning, and, above all, a splendid monument\ncovered with lies. He choose rather to benefit mankind.  At that time\nthe seeds sown by the great infidels were beginning to bear fruit in\nFrance. The eighteenth century was crowning its gray hairs with the\nwreath of progress.\n\nOn every hand science was bearing testimony against the church.\nVoltaire had filled Europe with light.  D'Holbach was giving to the\nelite of Paris the principles contained in his \"System of Nature.\"  The\nencyclopaedists had attacked superstition with information for the\nmasses.  The foundation of things began to be examined.  A few had the\ncourage to keep their shoes on and let the bush burn.  Miracles began\nto get scarce.  Everywhere the people began to inquire.  America had\nset an example to the world.  The word liberty was in the mouths of\nmen, and they began to wipe the dust from their superstitious knees.\nThe dawn of a new day had appeared.   Thomas Paine went to France.\nInto the new movement he threw all his energies.  His fame had gone\nbefore him, and he was welcomed as a friend of the human race and as a\nchampion of free government.\n\nHe had never relinquished his intention of pointing out to his\ncountrymen the defects, absurdities, and abuse of the English\ngovernment.  For this purpose; he composed and published his greatest\npolitical work. \"The Rights of Man.\"  This work should be read by every\nman and woman.  It is concise, accurate, rational, convincing, and\nunanswerable.  It shows great thought, an intimate knowledge of the\nvarious forms of government, deep insight into the very springs of\nhuman action, and a courage that compels respect and admiration.  The\nmost difficult political problems are solved in a few sentences.  The\nvenerable arguments in favor of wrong are refuted with a\nquestion--answered with a word.  For forcible illustration, apt\ncomparison, accuracy and clearness of statement, and absolute\nthoroughness, it has never been excelled.\n\nThe fears of the administration were aroused, and Paine was prosecuted\nfor libel, and found guilty; and yet there is not a sentiment in the\nentire work that will not challenge the admiration of every civilized\nman.  It is a magazine of political wisdom, an arsenal of ideas, and an\nhonor not only to Thomas Paine, but to nature itself.  It could have\nbeen written only by the man who had the generosity, the exalted\npatriotism, the goodness to say:  \"The world is my country, and to do\ngood my religion.\"\n\nThere is in all the utterances of the world no grander, no sublimer\nsentiment.  There is no creed that can be compared with it for a\nmoment. It should be wrought in gold, adorned with jewels, and\nimpressed upon every human heart:  \"The world is my country, and to do\ngood my religion.\"\n\nIn 1792, Paine was elected by the department of Calais as their\nrepresentative in the National Assembly.  So great was his popularity\nin France, that he was selected about the same time by the people of no\nless than four departments.\n\nUpon taking his place in the assembly, he was appointed as one of a\ncommittee to draft a constitution for France.  Had the French people\ntaken the advice of Thomas Paine, there would have been no \"reign of\nterror.\"  The streets of Paris would not have been filled with blood in\nthat reign of terror.  There were killed in the City of Paris not less,\nI think, than seventeen thousand people--and on one night, in the\nmassacre of St. Bartholomew, there were killed, by assassination, over\nsixty thousand souls--men, women, and children.  The revolution would\nhave been the grandest success of the world.  The truth is that Paine\nwas too conservative to suit the leaders of the French revolution.\nThey, to a great extent, were carried away by hatred and a desire to\ndestroy. They had suffered so long, they had borne so much, that it was\nimpossible for them to be moderate in the hour of victory.\n\nBesides all this, the French people had been so robbed by the\ngovernment, so degraded by the church, that they were not fit material\nwith which to construct a republic.  Many of the leaders longed to\nestablish a beneficent and just government, but the people asked for\nrevenge.  Paine was filled with a real love for mankind.  His\nphilanthropy was boundless.  He wished to destroy monarchy--not the\nmonarch.  He voted for the destruction of tyranny, and against the\ndeath of the tyrant.  He wished to establish a government on a new\nbasis--one that would forget the past; one that would give privileges\nto none, and protection to all.\n\nIn the assembly, where all were demanding the execution of the\nking,--where to differ with the majority was to be suspected, and where\nto be suspected was almost certain death--Thomas Paine had the courage,\nthe goodness, and the justice to vote against death. To vote against\nthe execution of the king was a vote against his own life.  This was\nthe sublimity of devotion to principle.  For this he was arrested,\nimprisoned, and doomed to death.  There is not a theologian who has\never maligned Thomas Paine that has the courage to do this thing.  When\nLouis Capet was on trial for his life before the French convention,\nThomas Paine had the courage to speak and vote against the sentence of\ndeath. In his speech I find the following splendid sentiments:\n\n\n\"My contempt and hatred for monarchical governments are sufficiently\nwell known, and my compassion for the unfortunate, friends or enemies,\nis equally profound.\n\nI have voted to put Louis Capet upon trial, because it was necessary to\nprove to the world the perfidy, the corruption, and the horror of the\nmonarchical system.\n\nTo follow the trade of a king destroys all morality, just as the trade\nof a jailer deadens all sensibility.\n\nMake a man a king today and tomorrow he will be a brigand.\n\nHad Louis Capet been a farmer, he might have been held in esteem by his\nneighbors, and his wickedness results from his position rather than\nfrom his nature.\n\nLet the French nation purge its territory of kings without soiling\nitself with their impure blood.\n\nLet the United States be the asylum of Louis Capet, where, in spite of\nthe overshadowing miseries and crimes of a royal life, he will learn by\nthe continual contemplation of the general prosperity that the true\nsystem of government is not that of kings, but of the people.\n\nI am an enemy of kings, but I can not forget that they belong to the\nhuman race.\n\nIt is always delightful to pursue that course where policy and humanity\nare united.\n\nAs France has been the first of all the nations of Europe to destroy\nroyalty, let it be the first to abolish the penalty of death.\n\nAs a true republican, I consider kings as more the objects of contempt\nthan of vengeance.\"\n\n\nSearch the records of the world and you will find but few sublimer acts\nthan that of Thomas Paine voting against the king's death.  He, the\nhater of despotism, the abhorer of monarchy, the champion of the rights\nof man, the republican, accepting death to save the life of a deposed\ntyrant--of a throneless king!  This was the last grand act of his\npolitical life--the sublime conclusion of his political career.\n\nAll his life he had been the disinterested friend of man.  He had\nlabored not for money, not for fame, but for the general good. He had\naspired to no office.  He had no recognition of his services, but had\never been content to labor as a common soldier in the army of progress,\nconfining his efforts to no country, looking upon the world as his\nfield of action.  Filled with a genuine love for the right, he found\nhimself imprisoned by the very people he had striven to save.\n\nHad his enemies succeeded in bringing him to the block, he would have\nescaped the calumnies and the hatred of the Christian world. And let me\ntell you how neat they came getting him to the block. He was in prison,\nthere was a door to his cell--it had two doors, a door that opened in\nand an iron door that opened out.  It was a dark passage, and whenever\nthey concluded to cut a man's head off the next day, an agent went\nalong and made a chalk mark upon the door where the poor prisoner was\nbound. Mr. Barlow, the American minister, happened to be with him and\nthe outer door was shut, that is, open against the wall, and the inner\ndoor was shut, and when the man came along whose business it was to\nmark the door for death, he marked this door where Thomas Paine was,\nbut he marked the door that was against the wall, so when it was shut\nthe mark was inside, and the messenger of death passed by on the next\nday.  If that had happened in favor of some Methodist preacher, they\nwould have clearly seen, not simply the hand of God, but both hands.\nIn this country, at least, he would have ranked with the proudest\nnames.  On the anniversary of the Declaration, his name would have been\nupon the lips of all orators, and his memory in the hearts of all the\npeople.\n\nThomas Paine had not finished his career.  He had spent his life thus\nfar in destroying the power of kings, and now turned his attention to\nthe priests.  He knew that every abuse had been embalmed in\nscripture--that every outrage was in partnership with some holy text.\nHe knew that the throne skulked behind the altar, and both behind a\npretended revelation of God.  By this time he had found that it was of\nlittle use to free the body and leave the mind in chains.  He had\nexplored the foundations of despotism, and had found them infinitely\nrotten.  He had dug under the throne, and it occurred to him that he\nwould take a look behind the altar.  The result of this investigation\nwas given to the world in the \"Age of Reason.\"  From the moment of its\npublication he became infamous.  He was calumniated beyond measure.\nTo slander him was to secure the thanks of the church.  All his\nservices were instantly forgotten, disparaged, or denied.  He was\nshunned as though he had been a pestilence. Most of his old friends\nforsook him.  He was regarded as a moral plague, and at the bare\nmention of his name the bloody hands of the church were raised in\nhorror.  He was denounced as the most despicable of men.\n\nNot content with following him to his grave, they pursued him after\ndeath with redoubled fury, and recounted with infinite gusto and\nsatisfaction the supposed horrors of his death-bed: gloried in the fact\nthat he was forlorn and friendless, and gloated like fiends over what\nthey supposed to be the agonizing remorse of his lonely death.\n\nIt is wonderful that all his services are thus forgotten.  It is\namazing that one kind word did not fall from some pulpit; that some one\ndid not accord to him, at least--honesty.  Strange that in the general\ndenunciation some one did not remember his labor for liberty, his\ndevotion to principle, his zeal for the rights of his fellow-men.  He\nhad, by brave and splendid effort, associated his name with the cause\nof progress.  He had made it impossible to write the history of\npolitical freedom with his name left out.  He was one of the creators\nof light, one of the heralds of the dawn.  He hated tyranny in the name\nof kings, and in the name of God, with every drop of his noble blood.\nHe believed in liberty and justice, and in the sacred doctrine of human\nequality. Under these divine banners he fought the battle of his life.\nIn both worlds he offered his blood for the good of man.  In the\nwilderness of America, in the French assembly, in the sombre cell\nwaiting for death, he was the same unflinching, unwavering friend of\nhis race; the same undaunted champion of universal freedom.  And for\nthis he has been hated; for this the church has violated even his grave.\n\nThis is enough to make one believe that nothing is more natural than\nfor men to devour their benefactors.  The people in all ages have\ncrucified and glorified.  Whoever lifts his voice against abuses,\nwhoever arraigns the past at the bar of the present, whoever asks the\nking to show his commission, or question the authority of the priest,\nwill be denounced as the enemy of man and God.  In all ages reason has\nbeen regarded as the enemy of religion.  Nothing has been considered so\npleasing to the Deity as a total denial of the authority of your own\nmind. Self-reliance has been thought deadly sin; and the idea of living\nand dying without the aid and consolation of superstition has always\nhorrified the church. By some unaccountable infatuation, belief has\nbeen and still is considered of immense importance.  All religions have\nbeen based upon the idea that God will forever reward the true\nbeliever, and eternally damn the man who doubts or denies.  Belief is\nregarded as the one essential thing.  To practice justice, to love\nmercy, is not enough; you must believe in some incomprehensible creed.\nYou must say: \"Once one is three, and three times one is one.\"  The man\nwho practiced every virtue, but failed to believe, was execrated.\nNothing so outrages the feelings of the church as a moral unbeliever,\nnothing so horrible as a charitable atheist.\n\nWhen Paine was born the world was religious, the pulpit was the real\nthrone, and the churches were making every effort to crush out of the\nbrain the idea that it had the right to think.  He again made up his\nmind to sacrifice himself.  He commenced with the assertion  \"That any\nsystem of religion that had anything in it that shocks the mind of a\nchild can not be a true system.\" What a beautiful, what a tender\nsentiment!  No wonder the church began to hate him.  He believed in one\nGod, and no more.  After his life he hoped for happiness.  He believed\nthat true religion consisted in doing justice, loving mercy; in\nendeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy, and in offering to God\nthe fruit of the heart. He denied the inspiration of the scriptures.\nThis was his crime.\n\nHe contended that it is a contradiction in terms to call anything a\nrevelation that comes to us at secondhand, either verbally or in\nwriting.  He asserted that revelation is necessarily limited to the\nfirst communication, and that after that it is only an account of\nsomething which another person says was a revelation to him.  We have\nonly his word for it, as it was never made to us.  This argument never\nhad been, and probably never will be answered.  He denied the divine\norigin of Christ and showed conclusively that the pretended prophecies\nof the Old Testament lead no reference to Him whatever.  And yet he\nbelieved that Christ was a virtuous and amiable man; that the morality\nhe taught and practiced was of the most benevolent and elevated\ncharacter, and that it had not been exceeded by any.  Upon this point\nhe entertained the same sentiments now held by the Unitarians, and in\nfact by all the most enlightened Christians.\n\nIn his time the church believed and taught that every word in the Bible\nwas absolutely true.  Since his day it has been proven false in its\ncosmogony, false in its astronomy, false in its chronology and geology,\nfalse in its history, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, false\nin almost everything.  There are but few, if any, scientific men, who\napprehend that the Bible is literally true.  Who on earth at this day\nwould pretend to settle any scientific question by a text from the\nBible?  The old belief is confined to the ignorant and zealous.  The\nchurch itself will before long be driven to occupy the position of\nThomas Paine. The best minds of the orthodox world, today, are\nendeavoring to prove the existence of a personal Deity.  All other\nquestions occupy a minor place.  You are no longer asked to swallow the\nBible whole, whale, Jonah and all; you are simply required to believe\nin God and pay your pew-rent.\n\nThere is not now an enlightened minister in the world who will\nseriously contend that Sampson's strength was in his hair, or that the\nnecromancers of Egypt could turn water into blood, and pieces of wood\ninto serpents.  These follies have passed away, and the only reason\nthat the religious world can now have for disliking Paine, is that they\nhave been forced to adopt so many of his opinions.\n\nPaine thought the barbarities of the Old Testament inconsistent with\nwhat he deemed the real character of God.  He believed the murder,\nmassacre, and indiscriminate slaughter had never been commanded by the\nDeity.  He regarded much of the Bible as childish, unimportant and\nfoolish.  The scientific world entertains the same opinion.  Paine\nattacked the Bible precisely in the same spirit in which he had\nattacked the pretensions of the kings.  He used the same weapons.  All\nthe pomp in the world could not make him cower.  His reason knew no\n\"Holy of Holies,\" except the abode of truth.  The sciences were then in\ntheir infancy.  The attention of the really learned had not been\ndirected to an impartial examination of our pretended revelation. It\nwas accepted by most as a matter of course.\n\nThe church was all-powerful, and no one else, unless thoroughly imbued\nwith the spirit of self-sacrifice, thought for a moment of disputing\nthe fundamental doctrines of Christianity.  The infamous doctrine that\nsalvation depends upon belief, upon a mere intellectual conviction, was\nthen believed and preached.  To doubt was to secure the damnation of\nyour soul.  This absurd and devilish doctrine shocked the common sense\nof Thomas Paine, and he denounced it with the fervor of honest\nindignation.  This doctrine, although infinitely ridiculous, has been\nnearly universal, and has been as hurtful as senseless.  For the\noverthrow of this infamous tenet, Paine exerted all his strength. He\nleft few arguments to be used by those who should come after him, and\nhe used none that have been refuted.\n\nThe combined wisdom and genius of all mankind can not possibly conceive\nof an argument against liberty of thought.  Neither can they show why\nanyone should be punished, either in this world or another, for acting\nhonestly in accordance with reason; and yet a doctrine with every\npossible argument against it has been, and still is, believed and\ndefended by the entire orthodox world. Can it be possible that we have\nbeen endowed with reason simply that our souls may be caught in its\ntoils and snares, that we may be led by its false and delusive glare\nout of the narrow path that leads to joy into the broad way of\neverlasting death?  Is it possible that we have been given reason\nsimply that we may through faith ignore its deductions and avoid its\nconclusions? Ought the sailor to throw away his compass and depend\nentirely upon the fog?  If reason is not to be depended upon in matters\nof religion, that is to say, in respect to our duties to the Deity, why\nshould it be relied upon in matters respecting the rights of our\nfellows?  Why should we throw away the law given to Moses by God\nHimself, and have the audacity to make some of our own?  How dare we\ndrown the thunders of Sinai by calling the ayes and naes in a petty\nlegislature?  If reason can determine what is merciful, what is just,\nthe duties of man to man, what more do we want either in time or\neternity?\n\nDown, forever down, with any religion that requires upon its ignorant\naltar its sacrifice of the goddess Reason; that compels her to abdicate\nforever the shining throne of the soul, strips from her form the\nimperial purple, snatches from her hand the sceptre of thought and\nmakes her the bond-woman of senseless faith.\n\nIf a man should tell you he had the most beautiful painting in the\nworld, and after taking you where it was should insist upon having your\neyes shut, you would likely suspect either that he had no painting or\nthat it was some pitiful daub.  Should he tell you that he was a most\nexcellent performer on the violin, and yet refused to play unless your\nears were stopped, you would think, to say the least of it, that he had\nan odd way of convincing you of his musical ability.  But would this\nconduct be any more wonderful than that of a religionist who asks that\nbefore examining his creed you will have the kindness to throw away\nyour reason?  The first gentleman says:  \"Keep your eyes shut; my\npicture will bear everything but being seen.  Keep your ears stopped;\nmy music objects to nothing but being heard.\"  The last says:  \"Away\nwith your reason; my religion dreads nothing but being understood.\"\n\nSo far as I am concerned, I most cheerfully admit that most Christians\nare honest and most ministers sincere.  We do not attack them; we\nattack their creed.  We accord to them the same rights that we ask for\nourselves.  We believe that their doctrines are hurtful, and I am going\nto do what I can against them.  We believe that the frightful text, \"He\nthat believes shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be\ndamned,\" has covered the earth with blood.  You might as well say that\nall that have red hair shall be damned.  It has filled the heart with\narrogance, cruelty, and murder.  It has caused the religious wars;\nbound hundreds of thousands to the stake; founded inquisitions; filled\ndungeons; invented instruments of torture; taught the mother to hate\nher child; imprisoned the mind; filled the world with ignorance;\npersecuted the lovers of wisdom; built the monasteries and convents;\nmade happiness a crime, investigation a sin, and self-reliance a\nblasphemy.  It has poisoned the springs of learning; misdirected the\nenergies of the world; filled all countries with want; housed the\npeople in hovels; fed them with famine; and but for the efforts of a\nfew brave infidels, it would have taken the world back to the midnight\nof barbarism, and left the heavens without a star.\n\nThe maligners of Paine say that he had no right to attack this\ndoctrine, because he was unacquainted with the dead languages, and, for\nthis reason, it was a piece of pure impudence to investigate the\nscriptures.\n\nIs it necessary to understand Hebrew in order to know that cruelty is\nnot a virtue, that murder is inconsistent with infinite goodness, and\nthat eternal punishment can be inflicted upon man only by an eternal\nfiend?  Is it really essential to conjugate the Greek verbs before you\ncan make up your mind as to the probability of dead people getting out\nof their graves?  Must one be versed in Latin before he is entitled to\nexpress his opinion as to the genuiness of a pretended revelation from\nGod? Common sense belongs exclusively to no tongue.  Logic is not\nconfirmed to, nor has it been buried with, the dead languages. Paine\nattacked the Bible as it is translated.  If the translation is wrong,\nlet its defenders correct it.\n\nThe Christianity of Paine's day is not the Christianity of our time.\nThere has been a great improvement since then.  It is better now\nbecause there is less of it.  One hundred and fifty years ago the\nforemost preachers of our time--that gentleman who preaches in this\nmagnificent hall--would have perished at the stake.  Lord, Lord, how\nJohn Calvin would have liked to have roasted this man, and the perfume\nof his burning flesh would have filled heaven with joy.  A Universalist\nwould have been torn to pieces in England, Scotland, and America.\nUnitarians would have found themselves in the stocks, pelted by the\nrabble with dead cats, after which their ears would have been cut off,\ntheir tongues bored, and their foreheads branded.  Less than one\nhundred and fifty years ago the following law was in force in Maryland:\n\n\n\"Be it enacted by the right honorable, the lord proprietor, by and with\nthe advice and consent of his lordship's governor, and the upper and\nlower houses of the assembly, and the authority of the same:  That if\nany person shall hereafter, within this province, willingly,\nmaliciously, and advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme or curse\nGod, or deny our Savior, Jesus Christ, to be the son of God, or shall\ndeny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, or the\nGod-head of any of the three persons, or the unity of the God-head, or\nshall utter any profane words concerning the Holy Trinity, or the\npersons thereof and shall therefore be convicted by verdict, shall, for\nthe first offense, be bored through the tongue, and fined L20, to be\nlevied on his body.  As for the second offense, the offender shall be\nstigmatized by burning in the forehead the letter B, and fined L40.\nAnd that for the third offense, the offender shall suffer death without\nthe benefit of clergy.\"\n\n\nThe strange thing about this law is, that it has never been repealed,\nand was in force in the District of Columbia up to 1875.  Laws like\nthis were in force in most of the colonies and in all countries where\nthe church had power.\n\nIn the Old Testament the death penalty was attached hundreds of\noffenses.  It has been the same in all Christian countries. Today, in\ncivilized governments, the death penalty is attached only to murder and\ntreason; and in some it has been entirely abolished.  What a commentary\nupon the divine systems of the World!\n\nIn the days of Thomas Paine the church was ignorant, bloody, and\nrelentless.  In Scotland the \"kirk\" was at the summit of its power.  It\nwas a full sister of the Spanish Inquisition.  It waged war upon human\nnature.  It was the enemy of happiness, the hater of joy, and the\ndespiser of liberty.  It taught parents to murder their children rather\nthan to allow them to propagate error.  If the mother held opinions of\nwhich the infamous \"kirk\" disapproved, her children were taken from her\narms, her babe from her very bosom, and she was not allowed to see\nthem, or write them a word.  It would not allow ship-wrecked sailors to\nbe rescued from drowning on Sunday.\n\nOh, you have no idea what a muss it kicks up in heaven to have anybody\nswim on Sunday.  It fills all the wheeling worlds with sadness to see a\nboy in a boat, and the attention of the recording secretary is called\nto it.  In a voice of thunder they say, \"Upset him!\"  It sought to\nannihilate pleasure, to pollute the heart by filling it with religious\ncruelty and gloom, and to change mankind into a vast horde of pious,\nheartless fiends.  One of the most famous Scotch divines said:  \"The\nkirk holds that religious toleration is not far from blasphemy.\"  And\nthis same Scotch kirk denounced, beyond measure, the man who had the\nmoral grandeur to say, \"The world is my country, and to do good my\nreligion.\"  And this same kirk abhorred the man who said, \"Any system\nof religion that shocks the mind of a child can not be a true system.\"\n\nAt that time nothing so delighted the church as the beauties of endless\ntorment, and listening to the weak wailing of damned infants struggling\nin the slimy coils and poison folds of the worm that never dies.\n\nAbout the beginning of the nineteenth century a boy by the name of\nThomas Aikenhead was indicted and tried at Edinburgh for having denied\nthe inspiration of the scriptures, and for having, on several\noccasions, when cold, wished himself in hell that he might get warm.\nNotwithstanding the poor boy recanted and begged for mercy, he was\nfound guilty and hanged.  His body was thrown in a hole at the foot of\nthe scaffold and covered with stones, and though his mother came with\nher face covered with tears, begging for the corpse, she was denied and\ndriven away in the name of charity.  That is religion, and in the\nvelvet of their politeness there lurks the claws of the tiger.  Just\ngive them the power and see how quick I would leave this part of the\ncountry. They know I am going to be burned forever; they know I am\ngoing to hell, but that don't satisfy them.  They want to give me a\nlittle foretaste here.\n\nProsecutions and executions like these were common in every Christian\ncountry, and all of them based upon the belief that an intellectual\nconviction is a crime.  No wonder the church hated and traduced the\nauthor of the \"Age of Reason.\"  England was filled with Puritan gloom\nand Episcopal ceremony.  The ideas of crazy fanatics and extravagant\npoets were taken as sober facts. Milton had clothed Christianity in the\nsoiled and faded finery of the gods--had added to the story of Christ\nthe fables of mythology.  He gave to the Protestant church the most\noutrageously material ideas of the Deity.  He turned all the angels\ninto soldiers--made heaven a battle-field, put Christ in uniform, and\ndescribed God as a militia-general.  His works were considered by the\nProtestants nearly as sacred as the Bible itself, and the imagination\nof the people was thoroughly polluted by the horrible imagery, the\nsublime absurdity of the blind Milton.\n\nHeaven and hell were realities--the judgment-day was expected--books of\naccounts would be opened.  Every man would hear the charges against him\nread.  God was supposed to sit upon a golden throne, surrounded by the\ntallest angels, with harps in their hands and crowns on their heads.\nThe goats would be thrust into eternal fire on the left, while the\northodox sheep, on the right, were to gambol on sunny slopes forever\nand ever.  So all the priests were willing to save the sheep for half\nthe wool.\n\nThe nation was profoundly ignorant, and consequently extremely\nreligious, so far as belief was concerned.  In Europe liberty was lying\nchained up in the inquisition, her white bosom stained with blood.  In\nthe new world the Puritans had been hanging and burning in the name of\nGod, and selling white Quaker children into slavery in the name of\nChrist, who said, \"Suffer little children to come unto Me.\"\n\nUnder such conditions progress was impossible.  Some one had to lead\nthe way.  The church is and always has been, incapable of a forward\nmovement.  Religion always looks back.  The church has already reduced\nSpain to a guitar, Italy to a hand-organ, and Ireland to exile.\n\nSome one, not connected with the church, had to attack the monster that\nwas eating out the heart of the world.  Some one had to sacrifice\nhimself for the good of all.  The people were in the most abject\nslavery; their manhood had been taken from them by pomp, by pageantry,\nand power.\n\nProgress is born of doubt and inquiry.  The church never doubts--never\ninquires.  To doubt is heresy--to inquire is to admit that you do not\nknow--the church does neither.\n\nMore than a century ago Catholicism, wrapped in robes red with the\ninnocent blood of millions, holding in her frantic clutch crowns and\nscepters, honors and gold, the keys of heaven and hell, tramping\nbeneath her feet the liberties of nations, in the proud movement of\nalmost universal dominion, felt within her heartless breast the deadly\ndagger of Voltaire.  From that blow the church can never recover.\nLivid with hatred she launched her eternal anathema at the great\ndestroyer, and ignorant Protestants have echoed the curse of Rome.\n\nIn our country the church was all-powerful, and, although divided into\nmany sects, would instantly unite to repel a common foe.  Paine did for\nProtestantism what Voltaire did for Catholicism.  Paine struck the\nfirst blow.\n\nThe \"Age of Reason\" did more to undermine the power of the Protestant\nchurch than all other books then known.  It furnished an immense amount\nof food for thought.  It was written for the average mind, and is a\nstraightforward, honest investigation of the Bible, and of the\nChristian System.\n\nPaine did not falter from the first page to the last.  He gives you his\ncandid thought, and candid thoughts are always valuable.\n\nThe \"Age of Reason\" has liberalized us all.  It put arguments in the\nmouths of the people; it put the church on the defensive, it enabled\nsomebody in every village to corner the parson; it made the world wiser\nand the church better; it took power from the pulpit and divided it\namong the pews.  Just in proportion that the human race has advanced,\nthe church has lost its power. There is no exception to this rule.  No\nnation ever materially advanced that held strictly to the religion of\nits founders.  No nation ever gave itself wholly to the control of the\nchurch without losing its power, its honor, and existence.\n\nEvery church pretends to have found the exact truth.  This is the end\nof progress.  Why pursue that which you have?  Why investigate when you\nknow.  Every creed is a rock in running water; humanity sweeps by it.\nEvery creed cries to the universe, \"Halt!\"  A creed is the ignorant\npast bullying the enlightened present.\n\nThe ignorant are not satisfied with what can be demonstrated. Science\nis too slow for them, and so they invent creeds.  They demand\ncompleteness. A sublime segment, a grand fragment, are of no value to\nthem.  They demand the complete circle--the entire structure.\n\nIn music they want a melody with a recurring accent at measured\nperiods. In religion they insist upon immediate answers to the\nquestions of creation and destiny.  The alpha and omega of all things\nmust be in the alphabet of their superstition.  A religion that can not\nanswer every question, and guess every conundrum, is in their\nestimation, worse than worthless.  They desire a kind of theological\ndictionary--a religious ready reckoner, together with guide-boards at\nall crossings and turns. They mistake impudence for authority,\nsolemnity for wisdom, and pathos for inspiration. The beginning and the\nend are what they demand.  The grand flight of the eagle is nothing to\nthem.  They want the nest in which he was hatched, and especially the\ndry limb upon which he roosts. Anything that can be learned is hardly\nworth knowing.  The present is considered of no value in itself.\nHappiness must not be expected this side of the clouds, and can only be\nattained by self-denial and faith; not self-denial for the good of\nothers, but for the salvation of your own sweet self.\n\nPaine denied the authority of Bibles and creeds; this was his crime,\nand for this the world shut the door in his face and emptied its slops\nupon him from the windows.\n\nI challenge the world to show that Thomas Paine ever wrote one line,\none word in favor of tyranny--in favor of immorality; one line, one\nword against what he believed to be for the highest and best interest\nof mankind; one line, one word against justice, charity, or liberty,\nand yet he has been pursued as though he had been a fiend from hell.\nHis memory had been execrated as though he had murdered some Uriah for\nhis wife; driven some Hagar into the desert to starve with his child\nupon her bosom; defiled his own daughters; ripped open with the sword\nthe sweet bodies of loving and innocent women; advised one brother to\nassassinate another; kept a harem with seven hundred wives and three\nhundred concubines, or had persecuted Christians even unto strange\ncities.\n\nThe church has pursued Paine to deter others.  The church used\npainting, music, and architecture simply to degrade mankind.  But there\nare men that nothing can awe.  There have been at all times brave\nspirits that dared even the gods.  Some proud head has always been\nabove the waves. Old Diogenes, with his mantle upon him, stiff and\ntrembling with age, caught a small animal bred upon people, went into\nthe Pantheon, the temple of the gods, and took the animal upon his\nthumb nail, and, pressing it with the other, \"he sacrificed Diogenes to\nall the gods.\" Just as good as anything!  In every age some Diogenes\nhas sacrificed to all the gods. True genius never cowers, and there is\nalways some Samson feeling for the pillars of authority.\n\nCathedrals and domes, and chimes and chants, temples frescoed and\ngrained and carved, and gilded with gold, altars and tapers, and\npaintings of virgin and babe, censer and chalice, chasuble, paten and\nalb, organs, and anthems and incense rising to the winged and blest,\nmaniple, anice and stole, crosses and crosiers, tiaras, and crowns,\nmitres and missals and masses, rosaries, relics and robes, martyrs and\nsaints, and windows stained as with the blood of Christ, never, never\nfor one moment awed the brave, proud spirit of the infidel.  He knew\nthat all the pomp and glitter had been purchased with liberty, that\npriceless jewel of the soul. In looking at the cathedral he remembered\nthe dungeon.  The music of the organ was not loud enough to drown the\nclank of fetters. He could not forget that the taper had lighted the\nfagot.  He knew that the cross adorned the hilt of the sword, and so\nwhere others worshiped, he wept and scorned.  He knew that across the\nopen Bible lay the sword of war, and so where others worshiped he\nlooked with scorn and wept.  And so it has been through all the ages\ngone.\n\nThe doubter, the investigator, the infidel, have been the saviors of\nliberty.  The truth is beginning to be realized, and the truly\nintellectual are honoring the brave thinker of the past.  But the\nchurch is as unforgiving as ever, and still wonders why any infidel\nshould be wicked enough to attempt to destroy her power. I will tell\nthe church why I hate it.\n\nYou have imprisoned the human mind; you have been the enemy of liberty;\nyou have burned us at the stake, roasted us before slow fires, torn our\nflesh with irons; you have covered us with chains, treated us as\noutcasts; you have filled the world With fear; you have taken our wives\nand children from our arms; you have confiscated our property; you have\ndenied us the right to testify in courts of justice; you have branded\nus with infamy; you have torn out our tongues; you have refused us\nburial.  In the name of your religion you have robbed us of every\nright; and after having inflicted upon us every evil that can be\ninflicted in this world, you have fallen upon your knees, and with\nclasped hands implored your God to finish the holy work in hell.\n\nCan you wonder that we hate your doctrines; that we despise your\ncreeds; that we feel proud to know that we are beyond your power; that\nwe are free in spite of you; that we can express our honest thought,\nand that the whole world is gradually rising into the blessed light?\nCan you wonder that we point with pride to the fact that infidelity has\never been found battling for the rights of man, for the liberty of\nconscience, and for the happiness of all?  Can you wonder that we are\nproud to know that we have always been disciples of reason and soldiers\nof freedom; that we have denounced tyranny and superstition, and have\nkept our hands unstained with human blood?\n\nI deny that religion is the end or object of this life.  When it is so\nconsidered it becomes destructive of happiness.  The real end of life\nis, happiness.  It becomes a hydra-headed monster, reaching in terrible\ncoils from the heavens, and thrusting its thousand fangs into the\nbleeding, quivering hearts of men.  It devours their substance, builds\npalaces for God (who dwells not in temples made with hands), and allows\nHis children to die in huts and hovels.  It fills the earth with\nmourning, heaven with hatred, the present with fear, and all the future\nwith fear and despair.  Virtue is a subordination of the passion of the\nintellect.  It is to act in accordance with your highest convictions.\nIt does not consist in believing, but in doing. This is the sublime\ntruth that the infidels in all ages have uttered.  They have handed the\ntorch from one to the other through all the years that have fled.  Upon\nthe altar of reason they have kept the sacred fire, and through the\nlong midnight of faith they fed the divine flame.  Infidelity is\nliberty; all superstition is slavery.  In every creed man is the slave\nof God, woman is the slave of man, and the sweet children are the\nslaves of all. We do not want creeds; we want some knowledge.  We want\nhappiness.  And yet we are told by the church that we have accomplished\nnothing; that we are simply destroyers; that we tear down without\nbuilding again.\n\nIs it nothing to free the mind?  Is it nothing to civilize mankind?  Is\nit nothing to fill the world with light, with discovery, with science?\nIs it nothing to dignify man and exalt the intellect.  Is it nothing to\ngrope your way into the dreary prisons, the damp and dropping dungeons,\nthe dark and silent cells of superstition, where the souls of men are\nchained to floors of stone; to greet them like a ray of light, like the\nsong of a bird, the murmur of a stream, to see the dull eyes open and\ngrow slowly bright; to feel yourself grasped by the shrunken and unused\nhands, and hear yourself thanked by a strange and hollow voice?  Is it\nnothing to conduct these souls gradually into the blessed light of\nday--to let them see again the happy fields, the sweet, green earth,\nand hear the everlasting music of the waves?  Is it nothing to make men\nwipe the dust from their swollen knees, the tears from their blanched\nand furrowed cheeks? Is it a small thing to reave the heavens of an\ninsatiate monster and write upon the eternal dome, glittering with\nstars, the grand word liberty?  Is it a small thing to quench the\nthirst of hell with the holy tears of piety, break all the chains, put\nout the fires of civil war, stay the sword of the fanatic, and tear the\nbloody hands of the church from the white throat of progress?  Is it a\nsmall thing to make men truly free, to destroy the dogmas of ignorance,\nprejudice, and power, the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive\nfrom the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of fear?\n\nIt does seem as though the most zealous Christians must at times\nentertain some doubt as to the divine origin of his religion. For\neighteen hundred years the doctrine has been preached.  For more than a\nthousand years the church had, to a great extent, the control of the\ncivilized world, and what has been the result? Are the Christian\nnations patterns of charity and forbearance? On the contrary, their\nprincipal business is to destroy each other.  More than five millions\nof Christians are trained and educated and drilled to murder their\nfellow-Christians.  Every nation is groaning under a vast debt incurred\nin carrying on war against other Christians, or defending itself from\nChristian assault.  The world is covered with forts to protect\nChristians from Christians, and every sea is covered with iron monsters\nready to blow Christian brains into eternal froth.  Millions upon\nmillions are annually expended in the effort to construct still more\ndeadly and terrible engines of death.  Industry is crippled, honest\ntoil is robbed, and even beggary is taxed to defray the expenses of\nChristian murder.  There must be some other way to reform this world.\nWe have tried creed and dogma, and fable, and they have failed--and\nthey have failed in all the nations dead.\n\nNothing but education--scientific education--can benefit mankind. We\nmust find out the laws of nature and conform to them.  We need free\nbodies and free minds, free labor and free thought, chainless hands and\nfetterless brains.  Free labor will give us wealth.  Free thought will\ngive us truth.  We need men with moral courage to speak and write their\nreal thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very\ndeath.  We need have no fear of being too radical.  The future will\nverify all grand and brave predictions.  Paine was splendidly in\nadvance of his time, but he was orthodox compared to the infidels of\ntoday.\n\nScience, the great iconoclast, has been very busy since 1809, and by\nthe highway of progress are the broken images of the past.  On every\nhand the people advance.  The vicar of God has been pushed from the\nthrone of the Caesars, and upon the roofs of the Eternal city falls\nonce more the shadow of the eagle.  All has been accomplished by the\nheroic few.  The men of science have explored heaven and earth, and\nwith infinite patience have furnished the facts.  The brave thinkers\nhave aided them. The gloomy caverns of superstition have been\ntransformed into temples of thought, and the demons of the past are the\nangels of today.\n\nScience took a handful of sand, constructed a telescope, and with it\nexplored the starry depths of heaven.  Science wrested from the gods\ntheir thunderbolts; and now, the electric spark freighted with thought\nand love, flashes under all the waves of the sea.  Science took a tear\nfrom the cheek of unpaid labor, converted it into steam, and created a\ngiant that turns with tireless arm the countless wheels of toil.\n\nThomas Paine was one of the intellectual heroes, one of the men to whom\nwe are indebted.  His name is associated forever with the great\nrepublic.  He lived a long, laborious, and useful life. The world is\nbetter for his having lived.  For the sake of truth he accepted hatred\nand reproach for his portion.  He ate the bitter bread of neglect and\nsorrow.  His friends were untrue to him because he was true to himself\nand true to them.  He lost the respect of what is called society, but\nkept his own.  His life is what the world calls failure, and what\nhistory calls success.\n\nIf to love your fellow-men more than self is goodness, Thomas Paine was\ngood.  If to be in advance of your time, to be a pioneer in the\ndirection of right, is greatness, Thomas Paine was great.  If to avow\nyour principles and discharge your duty in the presence of death is\nheroic, Thomas Paine was a hero.\n\nAt the age of 73, death touched his tired heart.  He died in the land\nhis genius defended, under the flag he gave to the skies. Slander can\nnot touch him now; hatred can not reach him more. He sleeps in the\nsanctuary of the tomb, beneath the quiet of the stars.  A few more\nyears, a few more brave men, a few more rays of light, and mankind will\nvenerate the memory of him who said:\n\n\"Any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child can not be a\ntrue system.  The world is my country, and to do good my religion.\"\n\nThe next question is:  Did Thomas Paine recant?  Mr. Paine had\nprophesied that fanatics would crawl and cringe around him during his\nlast moments.  He believed that they would put a lie in the mouth of\ndeath.  When the shadow of the coming dissolution was upon him, two\nclergymen, Messrs. Milledollar and Cunningham, called to annoy the\ndying man.  Mr. Cunningham had the politeness to say:  \"You have now a\nfull view of death; you can not live long; whoever does not believe in\nthe Lord Jesus Christ, will assuredly be damned.\"  Mr. Paine replied:\n\"Let me have none of your popish stuff.  Get away with you.  Good\nmorning.\" On another occasion a Methodist minister obtruded himself.\nMr. Willet Hicks was present.  The minister declared to Mr. Paine that\n\"unless he repented of his unbelief he would be damned.\" Paine,\nalthough at the door of death, rose in his bed and indignantly\nrequested the clergyman to leave the room.  On another occasion, two\nbrothers by the name of Pigott sought to convert him.  He was\ndispleased, and requested their departure. Afterward, Thomas Nixon and\nCapt. Daniel Pelton visited him for the express purpose of ascertaining\nwhether he had, in any manner, changed his religious opinions.  They\nwere assured, by the dying man that he still held the principles he had\nexpressed in his writings.\n\nAfterward, these gentlemen, hearing that William Cobbet was about to\nwrite a life of Paine, sent him the following note:  I must tell you\nnow that it is of great importance to find out whether Paine recanted.\nIf he recanted, then the Bible is true--you can rest assured that a\nspring of water gushed out of a dead dry bone.  If Paine recanted,\nthere is not the slightest doubt about that donkey making that speech\nto Mr. Baalam--not the slightest--and if Paine did not recant, then the\nwhole thing is a mistake.  I want to show that Thomas Paine died as he\nhas lived, a friend of man and without superstition, and if you will\nstay here I will do it.\n\n\n\"New York, April 21, 1818.--Sir:  Having been informed that you have a\ndesign to write a history of the life and writings of Thomas Paine, if\nyou have been furnished with materials in respect to his religious\nopinions, or rather of his recantation of his former opinions before\nhis death, all you have heard of his recanting is false.  Being aware\nthat such reports would be raised after his death by fanatics who\ninfested his house at the time it was expected he would die, we, the\nsubscribers, intimate acquaintances of Thomas Paine since the year\n1776, went to his house.  He was sitting up in a chair, and apparently\nin full vigor and use of all his mental faculties.  We interrogated him\nupon his religious opinions, and if he had changed his mind, or\nrepented of anything he had said or wrote on that subject.  He\nanswered, \"Not at all,\" and appeared rather offended at our supposition\nthat any change should take place in his mind.  We took down in writing\nthe questions put to him and his answers thereto, before a number of\npersons then in his room, among whom were his doctor, Mrs. Bonneville,\netc.  This paper is mislaid and can not be found at present, but the\nabove is the substance, which can be attested by many living\nwitnesses.--Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton\"\n\n\nMr. Jarvis, the artist, saw Mr. Paine one or two days before his death.\nTo Mr. Jarvis he expressed his belief in his written opinions upon the\nsubject of religion.  B.F. Haskin, an attorney of the City of New York,\nalso visited him, and inquired as to his religious opinions.  Paine was\nthen upon the threshold of death, but he did not tremble, he was not a\ncoward.  He expressed his firm and unshaken belief in the religious\nideas he had given to the world.\n\nDr. Manly was with him when he spoke his last words.  Dr. Manly asked\nthe dying man, and Dr. Manly was a Christian, if he did not wish to\nbelieve that Jesus was the Son of God, and the dying philosopher\nanswered:  \"I have no wish to believe on that subject.\"  Amasa\nWoodsworth sat up with Thomas Paine the night before his death.  In\n1839 Gilbert Vale, hearing that Woodsworth was living in or near\nBoston, visited him for the purpose of getting his statement, and the\nstatement was published in The Beacon of June 5, 1830, and here it is:\n\n\n\"We have just returned from Boston.  One object of our visit to that\ncity was to see Mr. Amasa Woodsworth, an engineer, now retired in a\nhandsome cottage and garden at East Cambridge, Boston.  This gentleman\nowned the house occupied by Paine at his death, while he lived next\ndoor.  As an act of kindness, Mr. Woodsworth visited Mr. Paine every\nday for six weeks before his death.  He frequently sat up with him and\ndid so on the last two nights of his life.  He was always there with\nDr. Manly, the physician, and assisted in removing Mr. Paine while his\nbed was prepared.  He was present when Dr. Manly asked Mr. Paine if he\nwished to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.  He said that\nlying on his back he used some action and with much emphasis replied:\n'I have no wish to believe on that subject.'  He lived some time after\nthis, but was not known to speak, for he died tranquilly.  He accounts\nfor the insinuating style of Dr. Manly's letter by stating that that\ngentleman, just after its publication, joined a church.  He informs us\nthat he has openly proved the doctor for the falsity contained in the\nspirit of that letter, boldly declaring before Dr. Manly, who is still\nliving, that nothing which he saw justified the insinuations.  Mr.\nWoodsworth assures us that he neither heard nor saw anything to justify\nthe belief of any mental change in the opinions of Mr. Paine previous\nto his death; but that being very ill and in pain, chiefly arising from\nthe skin being removed in some parts by long lying, he was generally\ntoo uneasy to enjoy conversation on abstract subjects.  This, then, is\nthe best evidence that can be procured on this subject, and we publish\nit while the contravening parties are yet alive, and with the authority\nof Mr. Woodsworth.--Gilbert Vale\"\n\n\nA few weeks ago I received the following letter, which confirms the\nstatement of Mr. Vale:\n\n\n\"Near Stockton, Cal., Greenwood Cottage, July 9. 1877.--Col. Ingersoll:\nIn 1812 I talked with a gentleman in Boston.  I have forgotten his\nname; but he was then an engineer of the Charleston navy yard.  I am\nthus particular so that you can find his name on the books.  He told me\nthat he nursed Thomas Paine in his last illness and closed his eyes\nwhen dead.  I asked him if he recanted and called upon God to save him.\nHe replied:  No; he died as he had taught.  He had a sore upon his\nside, and when we turned him it was very painful, and he would cry out,\n'O God!' or something like that.  'But,' said the narrator, 'that was\nnothing, for he believed in a God.'  I told him that I had often heard\nit asserted from the pulpit that Mr. Paine had recanted in his last\nmoment.  The gentleman said that it was not true, and he appeared to be\nan intelligent, truthful man.  With respect, I remain, etc., Philip\nGraves, M.D.\"\n\n\nThe next witness is Willet Hicks, a Quaker preacher.  He says that\nduring the last illness of Mr. Paine he visited him almost daily, and\nthat Paine died firmly convinced of the truth of the religious opinions\nthat he had given to his fellow-men.  It was to this same Willet Hicks\nthat Paine applied for permission to be buried in the cemetery of the\nQuakers.  Permission was refused. This refusal settles the question of\nrecantation.  If he had recanted, of course there would have been no\nobjection to his body being buried by the side of the best hypocrites\nin the earth.  If Paine recanted, why should he denied \"a little earth\nfor charity?\"  Had he recanted, it would have been regarded as a vast\nand splendid triumph for the gospel.  It would, with much noise and\npomp and ostentation, have been heralded about the world.\n\nHere is another letter:\n\n\"Peoria, Ill., Oct. 8, 1877.--Robert G. Ingersoll--Esteemed Friend:  My\nparents were Friends (Quakers).  My father died when I was very young.\nThe elderly and middle-aged Friends visited at my mother's house.  We\nlived in the City of New York.  Among the number I distinctly remember\nElias Hicks, Willet Hicks, and a Mr. -- Day, who was a bookseller in\nPearl St.  There were many others whose names I do not now remember.\nThe subject of the recantation of Thomas Paine of his views about the\nBible in his last illness, or any other time, was discussed by them in\nmy presence at different times.  I learned from them that some of them\nhad attended upon Thomas Paine in his last sickness, and ministered to\nhis wants up to the time of his death.  And upon the question of\nwhether he did recant there was but one expression.  They all said that\nhe did not recant in any manner. I often heard them say they wished he\nhad recanted.  In fact, according to them, the nearer he approached\ndeath the more positive he appeared to be in his convictions.  These\nconversations were from 1820 to 1822.  I was at that time from ten to\ntwelve years old, but these conversations impressed themselves upon me\nbecause many thoughtless people then blamed the society of Friends for\ntheir kindness to that \"arch-infidel,\" Thomas Paine.  Truly yours, A.C.\nHankenson\"\n\n\nA few days ago I received the following:\n\n\n\"Albany, N.Y., Sept. 27, 1877.--Dear Sir:  It is over twenty years ago\nthat, professionally, I made the acquaintance of John Hogeboom, a\njustice of the peace of the County Rensselaer, New York.  He was then\nover seventy years of age, and had the reputation of being a man of\ncandor and integrity.  He was a great admirer of Paine.  He told me he\nwas personally acquainted with him, and used to see him frequently\nduring the last years of his life in the City of New York, where\nHogeboom then resided.  I asked him if there was any truth in the\ncharge that Paine was in the habit of getting    drunk.  He said that\nit was utterly false; that he never heard of such a thing during the\nlifetime of Mr. Paine, and did not believe anyone else did.  I asked\nhim about the recantation of his religious opinions on his deathbed,\nand the revolting deathbed scenes that the world heard so much about.\nHe said there was no truth in them; that he had received his\ninformation from persons who attended Paine in his last illness, and\nthat he passed peacefully, as we may say, in the sunshine of a great\nsoul.  Yours truly, W.J. Hilton\"\n\n\nThe witnesses by whom I substantiate the fact that Thomas Paine did not\nrecant, and that he died holding the religious opinions he had\npublished are:\n\n1.  Thomas Nixon, Capt. Daniel Pelton, B.F. Haskin.  These gentlemen\nvisited him during his last illness for the purpose of ascertaining\nwhether he had, in any respect, changed his views upon religion.  He\ntold them that he had not.\n\n2.  James Cheetham.  This man was the most malicious enemy Mr. Paine\nhad, and yet he admits that \"Thomas Paine died placidly, and almost\nwithout a struggle.\"--Life of Thomas Paine, by James Cheetham.\n\n3.  The ministers, Milledollar and Cunningham.  These gentleman told\nMr. Paine that if he died without believing in the Lord Jesus Christ,\nhe would be damned, and Paine replied:  \"Let me have none of your\npopish stuff.  Good morning.\"--Sherwin's Life of Paine, page 220.\n\n4.  Mrs. Hedden.  She told these same preachers, when they attempted to\nobtrude themselves upon Mr. Paine again, that the attempt to convert\nMr. Paine was useless; \"that if God did not change his mind, no human\npower could.\"\n\n5.  Andrew A. Dean.  This man lived upon Paine's farm, at New Rochelle,\nand corresponded with him upon religious subjects.--Paine's Theological\nWorks, page 308.\n\n6.  Mr. Jarvis, the artist with whom Paine lived.  He gives an account\nof an old lady coming to Paine, and telling him that God Almighty had\nsent her to tell him that unless he repented and believed in the\nblessed savior he would be damned.  Paine replied that God would not\nsend such a foolish old woman with such an impertinent message.--Clio\nRickman's Life of Paine.\n\n7.  William Carver, with whom Paine boarded.  Mr. Carver said again and\nagain that Paine did not recant.  He knew him well, and had every\nopportunity of knowing.--Life of Paine, by Vale.\n\n8.  Dr. Manly, who attended him in his last sickness, and to whom Paine\nspoke his last words.  Dr. Manly asked him if he did not wish to\nbelieve in Jesus Christ. and he replied:  \"I have no wish to believe on\nthat subject.\"\n\n9.  Willet Hicks and Elias Hicks, who were with him frequently during\nhis last sickness, and both of whom tried to persuade him to recant.\nAccording to their testimony Mr. Paine died as he lived--a believer in\nGod and a friend to man.  Willet Hicks was offered money to say\nsomething false against Paine.  He was even offered money to remain\nsilent, and allow others to slander the dead.  Mr. Hicks, speaking of\nThomas Paine, said:  \"He was a good man.  Thomas Paine was an honest\nman.\"\n\n10.  Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him every day for some six weeks\nimmediately preceding his death, and sat up with him the last two\nnights of his life.  This man declares that Paine did not recant, and\nthat he died tranquilly.  The evidence of Mr. Woodsworth is conclusive.\n\n11.  Thomas Paine himself.  The will of Mr. Paine, written by himself,\ncommences as follows:  \"The last will and testament of me, the\nsubscriber, Thomas Paine, reposing confidence in my Creator, God, and\nin no other being, for I know of no other, nor believe in any other,\"\nand closes with these words:  \"I have lived an honest and useful life\nto mankind.  My time has been spent in doing good, and I die in perfect\ncomposure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God.\"\n\n12.  If Thomas Paine recanted, why do you pursue him?  If he recanted\nhe died in your belief.  For what reason, then, do you denounce his\ndeath as cowardly?  If upon his death-bed he renounced the opinions he\nhad published, the business of defaming him should be done by infidels,\nnot by Christians.  I ask Christians if it is honest to throw away the\ntestimony of his friends, the evidence of fair and honorable men, and\ntake the putrid words of avowed and malignant enemies?  When Thomas\nPaine was dying he was infested by fanatics, by the snaky spies of\nbigotry.  In the shadows of death were the unclean birds of prey\nwaiting to tear, with beak and claw, the corpse of him who wrote the\n\"Rights of Man,\" and there lurking and crouching in the darkness, were\nthe jackals and hyenas of superstition, ready to violate his grave.\nThese birds of prey--these unclean beasts--are the witnesses produced\nand relied upon to malign the memory of Thomas Paine.  One by one the\ninstruments of torture have been wrenched from the cruel clutch of the\nchurch, until within the armory of orthodoxy there remains but one\nweapon--Slander.\n\nAgainst the witnesses that I have produced there can be brought just\ntwo--Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale.  The first is referred to in the\nmemoir of Stephen Grellet.  She had once been a servant in his house.\nGrellet tells what happened between this girl and Paine.  According to\nthis account, Paine asked her if she had ever read any of his writings,\nand on being told that she had read very little of them, he inquired\nwhat she thought of them, adding that from such an one as she he\nexpected a correct answer.\n\nLet us examine this falsehood.  Why would Paine expect a correct answer\nabout his writings from one who read very little of them? Does not such\na statement devour itself?  This young lady further said that the \"Age\nof Reason\" was put in her hands, and that the more she read in it, the\nmore dark and distressed she felt, and that she threw the book into the\nfire.  Whereupon Mr. Paine remarked:  \"I wish all had done as you did,\nfor if the devil ever had any agency in any work, he had in my writing\nthat book.\"\n\nThe next is Mary Hinsdale.  She was a servant in the family of Willet\nHicks.  The church is always proving something by a nurse. She, like\nMary Roscoe, was sent to carry some delicacy to Mr. Paine.  To this\nyoung lady Paine, according to his account, said precisely the same\nthat he did to Mary Roscoe, and she said the same thing to Mr. Paine.\n\nMy own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale are one and the\nsame person, or the same story has been, by mistake, put in the mouths\nof both.  It is not possible that the identical conversation should\nhave taken place between Paine and Mary Roscoe and between him and Mary\nHinsdale.  Mary Hinsdale lived with Willet Hicks, and he pronounced her\nstory a pious fraud and fabrication.\n\nAnother thing about this witness.  A woman by the name of Mary\nLockwood, a Hicksite Quaker, died.  Mary Hinsdale met her brother about\nthat time and told him that his sister had recanted, and wanted her to\nsay so at her funeral.  This turned out to be a lie.\n\nIt has been claimed that Mary Hinsdale made her statement to Charles\nCollins.  Long after the alleged occurrence Gilbert Vale, one of the\nbiographers of Paine, had a conversation with Collins concerning Mary\nHinsdale.  Vale asked him what he thought of her. He replied that some\nof the Friends believed that she used opiates, and that they did not\ngive credit to her statements.  He also said that he believed what the\nFriends said, but thought that when a young Roman she might have told\nthe truth.\n\nIn 1818 William Cobbett came to New York.  He began collecting material\nfor a life of Thomas Paine.  In this way he became acquainted with Mary\nHinsdale and Charles Collins.  Mr. Cobbett gave a full account of what\nhappened in a letter addressed to The Norwich Mercury in 1819.  From\nthis account it seems that Charles Collins told Cobbett that Paine had\nrecanted.  Cobbett called for the testimony, and told Mr. Collins that\nhe must give time, place, and circumstances.  He finally brought a\nstatement that he stated had been made by Mary Hinsdale.  Armed with\nthis document, Cobbett, in October of that year, called upon the said\nMary Hinsdale, at No. 10 Anthony Street, New York, and showed her the\nstatement.  Upon being questioned by Mr. Cobbett she said that it was\nso long ago that she could not speak positively to any part of the\nmatter; that she would not say that any part of the paper was true;\nthat she had never seen the paper, and that she had never given Charles\nCollins authority to say anything about the matter in her name.  And so\nin the month of October, in the year of grace 1818, in the mist of fog\nand forgetfulness, disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale, the last and\nonly witness against the intellectual honesty of Thomas Paine.\n\nA letter was written to the editor of The New York World by the Rev.\nA.W. Cornell, in which he says:\n\n\n\"Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll discredits Mary Hinsdale's\nstory of the scenes which occurred at the death bed of Thomas Paine.\nNo one who knew that good old lady would for one moment doubt her\nveracity, or question her testimony.  Both she and her husband were\nQuaker preachers, and well known and respected inhabitants of New York\nCity.\n\n\"Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that Mary Roscoe and Mary\nHinsdale were the same person.  Her maiden name was Roscoe and she\nmarried Henry Hinsdale.  My mother was a Roscoe, a niece of Mary\nRoscoe, and lived with her for some time.--Rev. A.W. Cornell,\nHarpersville, N.Y.\"\n\n\nThe editor of the New York Observer took up the challenge that I had\nthrown down.  I offered $1000 in gold to any minister who would prove,\nor to any person who would prove that Thomas Paine recanted in his last\nhours.  The New York Observer accepted the wager, and then told a\nfalsehood about it.  But I kept after the gentlemen until I forced\nthem, in their paper, published on the 1st of November, 1877; to print\nthese words:\n\n\n\"We have never stated in any form, nor have we ever supposed, that\nPaine actually renounced his infidelity.  The accounts agree in stating\nthat he died a blaspheming infidel.\"\n\n\nThis, I hope, for all coming time will refute the slanders of the\nchurches yet to be.\n\nThe next charge they make is that Thomas Paine died in destitution and\nwant.  That, of course, would show that he was wrong.  They boast that\nthe founder of their religion had not whereon to lay his head, but when\nthey found a man who stood for the rights of man, when they say that he\ndid, that is an evidence that this doctrine was a lie.  Won't do!  Did\nThomas Paine die in destitution and want?  The charge has been made\nover and over again that Thomas Paine died in want and destitution;\nthat he was an abandoned pauper--an outcast, without friends and\nwithout money. This charge is just as false as the  rest.  Upon his\nreturn to this country, in 1802, he was worth $30,000, according to his\nown statement, made at that time in the following letter, and addressed\nto Clio Rickman:\n\n\n\"My dear friend, Mr. Monroe, who is appointed minister extraordinary to\nFrance, takes charge of this, to be delivered to Mr. Este, banker, in\nParis, to be forwarded to you.\n\n\"I arrived in Baltimore, 30th of October, and you can have no idea of\nthe agitation which my arrival occasioned.  From New Hampshire to\nGeorgia (an extent of 1,500 miles), every newspaper was filled with\napplause or abuse.\n\n\"My property in this country has been taken care of by my friends, and\nis now worth six thousand pounds sterling, which, put in the funds,\nwill bring about L400 sterling a year.\n\n\"Remember me in affection and friendship to your wife and family, and\nin the circle of your friends.--Thomas Paine\"\n\n\nA man in those days worth $30,000 was not a pauper.  That amount would\nbring an income of at least $2,000.  Two thousand dollars then would be\nfully equal to $5,000 now.  On the 12th of July, 1809, the year in\nwhich he died, Mr. Paine made his will.  From this instrument we learn\nthat he was the owner of a valuable farm within twenty miles of New\nYork.  He was also owner of thirty shares in the New York Phoenix\nInsurance Company, worth upward of $1,500.  Besides this, some personal\nproperty and ready money. By his will he gave to Walter Morton and\nThomas Addis Emmet, a brother of Robert Emmet, $200 each, and $100 to\nthe widow of Elihu Palmer.  Is it possible that this will was made by a\npauper, by a destitute outcast, by a man who suffered for the ordinary\nnecessities of life?\n\nBut suppose, for the sake of argument, that he was poor, and that he\ndied a beggar, does that tend to show that the Bible is an inspired\nbook, and that Calvin did not burn Servetus?  Do you really regard\npoverty as a crime?  If Paine had died a millionaire, would Christians\nhave accepted his religious opinions?  If Paine had drank nothing but\ncold water, would Christians have repudiated the five cardinal points\nof Calvinism? Does an argument depend for its force upon the pecuniary\ncondition of the person making it?  As a matter of fact, most\nreformers--most men and women of genius--have been acquainted with\npoverty. Beneath a covering of rags have been found some of the\ntenderest and bravest hearts.  Owing to the attitude of the churches\nfor the last fifteen hundred years, truth telling has not been a very\nlucrative business.  As a rule, hypocrisy has worn the robes, and\nhonesty the rags.  That day is passing away. You can not now answer a\nman by pointing at the holes in his coat.  Thomas Paine attacked the\nchurch when it was powerful; when it had what is called honors to\nbestow; when it was the keeper of the public conscience; when it was\nstrong and cruel. The church waited till he was dead, and then attacked\nhis reputation and his clothes.  Once upon a time a donkey kicked a\nlion. The lion was dead.  You just don't know how happy I am tonight\nthat justice so long delayed at last is going to be done, and to see so\nmany splendid looking people come here out of deference to the memory\nof Thomas Paine.  I am glad to be here.\n\nThe next thing is:  Did Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast,\nand did he die a drunken, cowardly, and beastly death? Well, we will\nsee.  Upon you rests the burden of substantiating these infamous\ncharges.  The Christians have, I suppose, produced the best evidence in\ntheir possession, and that evidence I will now proceed to examine.\nTheir first witness is Grant Thorburn. He made three charges against\nThomas Paine:\n\n1.  That his wife obtained a divorce from him in England for cruelty\nand neglect.\n\n2.  That he was a defaulter and fled from England to America.\n\n3. That he was a drunkard.\n\nThese three charges stand upon the same evidence--the word of Grant\nThorburn.  If they are not all true, Mr. Thorburn stands impeached.\nThe charge that Mrs. Paine obtained a divorce on account of the cruelty\nand neglect of her husband is utterly false.  There is no such record\nin the world, and never was. Paine and his wife separated by mutual\nconsent. Each respected the other.  They remained friends.  This charge\nis without any foundation.  In fact, I challenge the Christian world to\nproduce the record of this decree of divorce.  According to Mr.\nThorburn, it was granted in England.  In that country public records\nare kept of all such decrees.  I will give $1,000 if they will produce\na decree, showing that it was given on account of cruelty, or admit\nthat Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.\n\nThomas Paine was a just man.  Although separated from his wife, he\nalways spoke of her with tenderness and respect, and frequently lent\nher money without letting her know the source from whence it came.  Was\nthis the conduct of a drunken beast?\n\nThe next is that he was a defaulter, and fled from England to America.\nAs I told you in the first place, he was an exciseman; if he was a\ndefaulter, that fact is upon the records of Great Britain.  I will give\n$1,000 in gold to any man who will show, by the records of England,\nthat he was a defaulter of a single, solitary cent.  Let us bring these\ngentlemen to Limerick.\n\nAnd they charge that he was a drunkard.  That is another falsehood.  He\ndrank liquor in his day, as did the preachers.  It was no unusual thing\nfor a preacher going home to stop in a tavern and take a drink of hot\nrum with a deacon, and it was no unusual thing for the deacon to help\nthe preacher home.  You have no idea how they loved the sacrament in\nthose days.  They had communion pretty much all the time.\n\nThorburn says that in 1802 Paine was an \"old remnant of mortality,\ndrunk, bloated, and half asleep.\"  Can anyone believe this to be a true\naccount of the personal appearance of Mr. Paine in 1802?  He had just\nreturned from France.  He had been welcomed home by Thomas Jefferson,\nwho had said that he was entitled to the hospitality of every American.\nIn 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public dinner in the City of New\nYork.  He was called upon and treated with kindness and respect by such\nmen as De Witt Clinton.  In 1806 Mr. Paine wrote a letter to Andrew A.\nDean upon the subject of religion.  Read that letter and then say that\nthe writer of it was an old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated, and\nhalf asleep.  Search the files of Christian papers, from the first\nissue to the last, and you will find nothing superior to this letter.\nIn 1803 Mr. Paine wrote a letter of considerable length, and of great\nforce to his friend Samuel Adams.  Such letters are not written by\ndrunken beasts, nor by remnants of old mortality, nor by drunkards.  It\nwas about the same time that he wrote his \"Remarks on Robert Hall's\nSermons.\"  These \"Remarks\" were not written by a drunken beast, but by\na clear-headed and thoughtful man.\n\nIn 1804 he published an essay on the invasion of England and a treatise\non gun-boats, full of valuable maritime information; in 1805 a treatise\non yellow fever, suggesting modes of prevention. In short, he was an\nindustrious and thoughtful man.  He sympathized with the poor and\noppressed of all lands.  He looked upon monarchy as a species of\nphysical slavery.  He had the goodness to attack that form of\ngovernment.  He regarded the religion of his day as a kind of mental\nslavery.  He had the courage to give his reasons for his opinion.  His\nreasons filled the churches with hatred.  Instead of answering his\narguments they attacked him.  Men who were not fit to blacken his shoes\nblackened his character.  There is too much religious cant in the\nstatement of Mr. Thorburn.  He exhibits too much anxiety to tell what\nGrant Thorburn said to Thomas Paine.  He names Thomas Jefferson as one\nof the disreputable men who welcomed Paine with open arms.  The\ntestimony of a man who regarded Thomas Jefferson as a disreputable\nperson, as to the character of anybody, is utterly without value.\n\nNow, Grant Thorburn--this gentleman who was \"four feet and a half high,\nand who weighed ninety-eight pounds three and one-half ounces\"--says\nthat he used to sit nights at Carver's, in New York, with Thomas Paine.\nMrs. Ferguson, the daughter of William Carver, says that she knew\nThorburn when she saw him, but that she never saw him in her father's\nhouse.  The denial of Mrs. Ferguson enraged Thorburn, and he at once\nwrote a few falsehoods about her.  Thereupon a suit was commenced by\nMrs. Ferguson and her husband against Thorburn, the writer, and\nFanshaw, the publisher, of the libel.  Thorburn ran away to\nConnecticut. Fanshaw wrote him for evidence of what he had written.\nThorburn replied that what he had written about Mrs. Ferguson could not\nbe proved.  Fanshaw then settled with the Fergusons, paying them the\namount demanded.\n\nIn 1859 the Fergusons lived at 148 Duane Street, New York.  In The\nCommercial Advertiser of New York, in 1830, appeared the written\nacknowledgement of this same little Grant Thorburn that he did, on the\n22d of August, 1830, at half-past 6 in the morning, take four bottles\nof cider from the cellar of Mr. Comstock.\n\nMr. Comstock says that Thorburn was arrested, and that when brought\nbefore him he pleaded guilty and threw himself upon his (Comstock's)\nmercy.\n\nThe Philadelphia Tract Society gave Thorburn $100 to write his\nrecollections of Thomas Paine.\n\nLet us dispose of this four feet and a half of wretch.  In October,\n1877, I received the following letter from James Parton:\n\n\n\"Newburyport, Mass., Oct 27, 1877.--My dear Sir:  Touching Grant\nThorburn, I personally knew him to have been a liar.  At the age of 92\nhe copied with trembling hand a piece from a newspaper and brought it\nto the office of The Rome Journal as his own.  It was I who received it\nand detected the deliberate forgery..... James Parton\"\n\n\nSo much for Grant Thorburn.  In my judgment, the testimony of Mr.\nThorburn should be thrown aside as utterly unworthy of belief.\n\nThe next witness is the Rev. J.D. Wickham, D.D., who tells what an\nelder in his church said.  This elder said that Paine passed his last\ndays on his farm at New Rochelle, with a solitary female attendant.\nThis is not true.  He did not pass his last days at New Rochelle,\nconsequently, this pious elder did not see him during his last days at\nthat place.  Upon this elder we prove an alibi.  Mr. Paine passed his\nlast days in the City of New York, in a house upon Columbia Street.\nThe story of the Rev. J.D. Wickham, D.D., is simply false.\n\nThe next competent false witness was the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D., who\nproceeds to state that the story of the Rev. J.D. Wickham, D. D., is\ncorroborated by older citizens of New Rochelle.  The names of these\nancient residents are withheld. According to these unknown witnesses,\nthe account given by the deceased elder was entirely correct.  But as\nthe particulars of Mr. Paine's conduct \"were too loathsome to be\ndescribed in print,\" we are left entirely in the dark as to what he\nreally did.\n\nWhile at New Rochelle, Mr. Paine lived with Mr. Purdy, Mr. Dean, with\nCapt. Pelton, and with Mr. Staple.  It is worthy of note that all of\nthese gentlemen give the lie direct to the statements of \"older\nresidents\" and ancient citizens spoken of by the Rev. Charles Hawley,\nD.D., and leave him with the \"loathsome particulars\" existing only in\nhis own mind.\n\nThe next gentleman brought upon the stand is W.H. Ladd, who quotes from\nthe memoirs of Stephen Grellett.  This gentleman also has the\nmisfortune to be dead.  According to his account, Mr. Paige made his\nrecantation to a servant girl of his by the name of Mary Roscoe.  Mr.\nPaine uttered the wish that all who read his book had burned it.  I\nbelieve there is a mistake in the name of this girl.  Her name was\nprobably Mary Hinsdale, as it was once claimed that Paine made the same\nremark to her.\n\nThese are the witnesses of the church, and the only ones you bring\nforward to support your charge that Thomas Paine lived a drunken and\nbeastly life, and died a drunken, cowardly, and beastly death.  All\nthese calumnies are found in a life of Paine by James Cheetham, the\nconvicted libeler already referred to. Mr. Cheetham was an enemy of the\nman whose life he pretended to write.  In order to show you the\nestimation in which this libeler was held by Mr. Paine, I will give you\na copy of a letter that throws light upon this point:\n\n\n\"Oct. 27, 1807.--Mr. Cheethan:  Unless you make a public apology for\nthe abuse and falsehood in your paper of Tuesday, Oct. 27, respecting\nme, I will prosecute you for lying.--Thomas Paine\"\n\n\nIn another letter, speaking of this same man, Mr. Paine says: \"If an\nunprincipled bully can not be reformed, he can be punished.\"  Cheetham\nhas been so long in the habit of giving false information, that truth\nis to him like a foreign language. Mr. Cheetham wrote the life of Mr.\nPaine to gratify his malice and to support religion.  He was prosecuted\nfor libel--was convicted and fined.  Yet the life of Paine, written by\nthis liar, is referred to by the Christian world as the highest\nauthority.\n\nAs to the personal habits of Mr. Paine, we have the testimony of\nWilliam Carver; with whom he lived; of Mr. Jarvis, the artist, with\nwhom he lived; of Mr. Purdy, who was a tenant of Paine's; of Mr. Buyer,\nwith whom he was intimate; of Thomas Nixon and Capt. Daniel Pelton,\nboth of whom knew him well; of Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him when\nhe died; of John Fellows, who boarded at the same house; of James\nWilburn, with whom he boarded; of B.F. Haskins, a lawyer, who was well\nacquainted with him, and called upon him during h is last illness; of\nWalter Morton, President of the Phoenix Insurance Company; of Clio\nRickman, who had known him for many years; of Willet and Elias Hicks,\nQuakers, who knew him intimately and well; of Judge Hertell, H.\nMargary, Elihu Palmer and many others.  All these testified to the fact\nthat Mr. Paige was a temperate man.  In those days nearly everybody\nused spirituous liquors.  Paine was not an exception, but he did not\ndrink to excess. Mr. Lovett, who kept the City Hotel, where Paine\nstopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham declared that Paine drank less than\nany boarder he had.\n\nAgainst all this evidence Christians produce the story of Grant\nThorburn, the story of the Rev. J.D. Wickham, that an elder in his\nchurch told him that Paine was a drunkard, corroborated by the Rev.\nCharles Hawley, and an extract from Lossing's history to the same\neffect.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Will you have the\nfairness to admit it?  Their witnesses are merely the repeaters of the\nfalsehoods of James Cheetham, the convicted libeler.\n\nAfter all, drinking is not as bad as lying.  An honest drunkard is\nbetter than a calumniator of the dead.  \"A remnant of old mortality\ndrunk, bloated, and half-asleep,\" is better than a perfectly sober\ndefender of human slavery.  To become drunk is a virtue compared with\nstealing a babe from the breast of its mother.  Drunkenness is one of\nthe beatitudes, compared with editing a religious paper devoted to the\ndefense of slavery upon the ground that it is a divine institution.  Do\nyou think that Paine was a drunken beast when he wrote \"Common Sense,\"\na pamphlet that aroused three millions of people, as people were never\naroused by words before?  Was he a drunken beast when he wrote the\n\"Crisis?\"  Was it to a drunken beast that the following letter was\naddressed:\n\n\n\"Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783.--I have learned, since I have been at\nthis place, that you are at Bordentown.  Whether for the sake of\nretirement or economy, I know not.  Be it for either, or both, or\nwhatever it may, if you will come to this place and partake with me, I\nshall be exceedingly happy to see you at it. Your presence may remind\nCongress of your past services to this country; and if it is in my\npower to impress them, command my best exertions with freedom, as they\nwill be rendered cheerfully by one who entertains a lively sense of the\nimportance of your works, and who, with much pleasure, subscribes\nhimself your sincere friend.--George Washington\"\n\n\nDo you think that Paine was a drunken beast when the following letters\nwere received by him:\n\n\n\"You express a wish in your letter to return to America in a national\nship.  Mr. Dawson, who brings over the treaty, and who will present you\nwith this letter, is charged with orders to the Captain of the Maryland\nto receive and accommodate you back, if you can be ready to depart at\nsuch a short warning.  You will, in general, find us returned to\nsentiments worthy of former times; in these it will be your glory to\nhave steadily labored, and with as much effect as any man living.  That\nyou may live long to continue your useful labors, and reap the reward\nin the thankfulness of nations, is my sincere prayer.  Accept the\nassurances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment.--Thomas\nJefferson\"\n\n\n\"It has been very generally propagated through the continent that I\nwrote the pamphlet \"Common Sense.\"  I could not have written anything\nin so manly and striking a style.--John Adams\"\n\n\n\"A few more such flaming arguments as were exhibited at Falmouth and\nNorfolk, added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning\ncontained in the pamphlet \"Common Sense,\" will not leave numbers at a\nloss to decide on the propriety of a separation.--George Washington\"\n\n\n\"It is not necessary for me to tell you how much all your countrymen--I\nspeak of the great mass of the people--are interested in your welfare.\nThey have not forgotten the history of their own revolution, and the\ndifficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review its\nseveral stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of\nthe merits of those who served them in that great and arduous conflict.\nThe crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I trust never will\nstain, our national character.  You are considered by them as not only\nhaving rendered important services in our revolution, but as being on a\nmore extensive scale the friend of human right and a distinguished and\nable advocate in favor of public liberty.  To the welfare of Thomas\nPaine, the Americans are not, nor can they be, indifferent.--James\nMonroe\"\n\n\n\"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, in\nperspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple and\nunassuming language.--Thomas Jefferson\"\n\n\nWas it in consideration of the services of a drunken beast that the\nLegislature of Pennsylvania presented Thomas Paine with L500 sterling?\nDid the State of New York feel indebted to a drunken beast, and confer\nupon Thomas Paine an estate of several hundred acres?  Did the Congress\nof the United States thank him for his services because he had lived a\ndrunken and beastly life?  Was he elected a member of the French\nconvention because he was a drunken beast?  Was it the act of a drunken\nbeast to put his own life in jeopardy by voting against the death of\nthe King?  Was it because he was a drunken beast that he opposed the\n\"Reign of Terror \"--that he endeavored to stop the shedding of blood,\nand did all in his power to protect even his own enemies?  Do the\nfollowing extracts sound like the words of a drunken beast:\n\n\n\"I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties\nconsist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our\nfellow creatures happy.\n\n\"My own mind is my own church.\n\n\"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful\nto himself.\n\n\"Any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child can not be a\ntrue system.\n\n\"The work of God is the creation which we behold.\n\n\"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system.\n\n\"It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action--it begets a calamitous\nnecessity of going on.\n\n\"To read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is\ntender, sympathizing, and benevolent in the heart of man.\n\n\"The man does not exist who can say I have persecuted him, or that I\nhave, in any case, returned evil for evil.\n\n\"Of all the tyrants that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the\nworst.\n\n\"The belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.\n\n\"My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing\ngood, and endeavoring to make their fellow-mortals happy, will be happy\nhereafter.\n\n\"The intellectual part of religion is a private affair between every\nman and his Maker, and in which no third party has any right to\ninterfere. The practical part consists in our doing good to each other.\n\n\"No man ought to make a living by religion.  One person can not act\nreligion for another--every person must act for himself.\n\n\"One good school-master is of more use than a hundred priests. Let us\npropagate morality, unfettered by superstition.\n\n\"God is the power, or first cause; nature is the law, and matter is the\nsubject acted upon.\n\n\"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this\nlife.\n\n\"The key of happiness is not in the keeping of any sect, nor ought the\nroad to it to be obstructed by any.\n\n\"My religion, and the whole of it, is the fear and love of the Deity,\nand universal philanthropy.\n\n\"I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I have a good state of\nhealth and a happy mind.  I take care of both, by nourishing the first\nwith temperance and the latter with abundance.\n\n\"He lives immured within the Bastille of a word.\"\n\n\nHow perfectly that sentence describes the orthodox.  The Bastille in\nwhich they are immured is the word \"Calvinism.\"\n\n\"Man has no property in man.\"\n\n\"The world is my country, to do good my religion.\"\n\nI ask again whether these splendid utterances came from the lips of a\ndrunken beast?\n\n\"Man has no property in man.\"\n\nWhat a splendid motto that would make for the religious newspapers of\nthis country thirty years ago.  I ask, again, whether these splendid\nutterances came from the lips of a drunken beast?\n\nOnly a little while ago--two or three days--I read a report of an\naddress made by Bishop Doane, an Episcopal Bishop in apostolic\nsuccession--regular line from Jesus Christ down to Bishop Doane. The\nBishop was making a speech to young preachers--the sprouts, the\ntheological buds.  He took it upon him to advise them all against early\nmarriages.  Let us look at it.  Do you believe there is any duty that\nman owes to God that will prevent a man marrying the woman he loves?\nIs there some duty that I owe to the clouds that will prevent me from\nmarrying some good, sweet woman?  Now, just think of that!  I tell you,\nyoung man, you marry as soon as you can find her and support her.  I\nhad rather have one woman that I know than any amount of gods that I am\nnot acquainted with.  If there is any revelation from God to man, a\ngood woman is the best revelation he has ever made; and I will admit\nthat that revelation was inspired.\n\nNow, on the subject of marriage, let me offset the speech of Bishop\nDoane by a word from this \"wretched infidel:\"\n\n\n\"Though I appear a sorry wanderer, the marriage state has not a\nsincerer friend than I.  It is the harbor of human life, and is, with\nrespect to the things of this world, what the next world is to this.\nIt is home, and that one word conveys more than any other word can\nexpress.  For a few years we may glide along the tide of a single life,\nbut it is a tide that flows but once, and, what is still worse, it ebbs\nfaster than it flows, and leaves many a hapless voyager aground.  I am\none, you see, that has experienced the fall I am describing.  I have\nlost my tide; it passed by while every throb of my heart was on the\nwing for the salvation of America, and I have now, as contentedly as I\ncan, made myself a little tower of walls on that shore that has the\nsolitary resemblance of home.\"\n\n\nI just want you to know what this dreadful infidel thought of home.  I\njust wanted you to know what Thomas Paine thought of home.  Then here\nis another letter that Thomas Paine wrote to congress on the 21st day\nof January, 1808, and I wanted you to know those two.\n\nIt is only a short one:\n\n\n\"To the Honorable Senate of the United States:  The purport of this\naddress is to state a claim I feel myself entitled to make on the\nUnited States, leaving it to their representatives in congress to\ndecide on its worth and its merits.  The case is as follows:\n\n\"Toward the latter end of the year 1780 the continental money had\nbecome depreciated--the paper dollar being then not more than a\ncent--that it seemed next to impossible to continue the war.  As the\nUnited States was then in alliance with France it became necessary to\nmake France acquainted with our real situation.  I therefore drew up a\nletter to the Count De Vergennes, stating undisguisedly the whole case,\nand concluding with a request whether France could not, either as a\nsubsidy of a loan, supply the United States with a million pounds\nsterling, and continue that supply, annually, during the war.  \"I\nshowed this letter to Mr. Morbois, secretary of the French minister.\nHis remark upon it was that a million sent out of the nation exhausted\nit more than ten millions spent in it.  I then showed it to Mr. Ralph\nIzard, member of congress from South Carolina.  He borrowed the letter\nof me and said:  'We will endeavor to do something about it in\ncongress.'  Accordingly, congress then appointed John A. Laurens to go\nto France and make representation for the purpose of obtaining\nassistance.  Col. Laurens wished to decline the mission, and asked that\ncongress would appoint Col. Hamilton, who did not choose to do it.\nCol. Laurens then came and stated the case to me, and said that he was\nwell enough acquainted with the military difficulties of the army, but\nhe was not acquainted with political affairs, or with the resources of\nthe country, to undertake such a mission.  Said he, 'If you will go\nwith me I will accept the mission.' This I agreed to do, and did do.\nWe sailed from Boston in the Alliance frigate February, 1781, and\narrived in France in the beginning of March. The aid obtained from\nFrance was six millions of livres, as at present, and ten millions as a\nloan, borrowed in Holland on the security of France.  We sailed from\nBrest in the French frigate Resolue the 1st of June, and arrived at\nBoston on the 25th of August, bringing with us two millions and a half\nin silver, and conveying a chip and a brig laden with clothing and\nmilitary stores.\n\n\"The money was transported with sixteen ox teams to the National bank\nat Philadelphia, which enabled our army to move to Yorktown to attack\nin conjunction with the French army under Rochambeau, the British army\nunder Cornwallis.\n\n\"As I never had a single cent for these services, I felt myself\nentitled, as the country is now in a state of prosperity, to state the\ncase to congress.\n\n\"As to my political works, beginning with the pamphlet 'Common Sense,'\npublished the beginning of January 1776, which awakened America to a\ndeclaration of independence as the president and vice-president both\nknow, as they were works done from principle I can not dishonor that\nprinciple by ever asking any reward for them.  The country has been\nbenefited by them, and I make myself happy in the knowledge of that\nbenefit.  It is, however, proper for me to add that the mere\nindependence of America, were it to have been followed by a system of\ngovernment modeled after the corrupt system of the English government,\nwould not have interested me with the unabated ardor it did.  It was to\nbring forward and establish a representative system of government.  As\nthe work itself will show, that was the leading principle with me in\nwriting that work, and all my other works during the progress of the\nrevolution, and I followed the same principle in writing in English the\n'Rights of Man.'\n\n\"After the failure of the 5 percent duty recommended by congress to pay\nthe interest of the loan to be borrowed in Holland, I wrote to\nChancellor Livingston, then minister for foreign affairs, and Robert\nMorris, minister of finance, and proposed a method for getting over the\ndifficulty at once, which was by adding a continental legislature which\nshould be empowered to make laws for the whole union instead of\nrecommending them. So the method proposed met with their future\nprobation.  I held myself in reserve to take a step up whenever a\ndirect occasion occurred.\n\n\"In a conversation afterward with Gov. Clinton, of New York, now\nvice-president, it was judged that for the purpose of my going fully\ninto the subject, and to prevent any misconstruction of my motive or\nobject, it would be best that I received nothing from congress, but to\nleave it to the states individually to make the what acknowledgement\nthey pleased. The State of New York presented me with a farm which\nsince my return to America, I have found it necessary to sell, and the\nState of Pennsylvania voted me L500 of their currency, but none of the\nstates to the east of New York, or the south of Pennsylvania, have made\nme the least acknowledgment.  They had received benefits from me which\nthey accepted, and there the matter ended.  This story will not tell\nwell in history.  All the civilized world knows I have been of great\nservice to the United States, and have generously given away that which\nwould easily have made me a fortune.  I much question if an instance is\nto be found in ancient or modern times of a man who had no personal\ninterest in the case to take up that of the establishment of a\nrepresentative government and who sought neither place nor office after\nit was established; that pursued the same undeviating principles that I\nhad for more than thirty years, and that in spite of dangers,\ndifficulties, and inconveniences of which I have had my share.--Thomas\nPaine\"\n\n\nAn old man in Pennsylvania told me once that his father hired a old\nrevolutionary soldier by the name of Thomas Martin to work for him.\nMartin was then quite an old man; and there was an old Presbyterian\npreacher used to come there, by the name of Crawford, and he sat down\nby the fire and he got to talking one night, among other things about\nThomas Paine--what a wretched, infamous dog he was; and while he was in\nthe midst of this conversation the old soldier rose from the fireplace,\nand he walked over to the preacher, and he said to him \"Did you ever\nsee Thomas Paine?\"  \"No.\"  \"Well,\" he says, \"I have; I saw him at\nValley Forge.  I heard read at the head of every regiment and company\nthe letters of Thomas Paine.  I heard them read the 'Crisis,' and I saw\nThomas Paine writing on the head of a drum, sitting at the bivouac\nfire, those simple words that inspired every patriot's bosom, and I\nwant to tell you Mr. Preacher, that Thomas Paine did more for liberty\nthan any priest that ever lived in this world.\"\n\n\"And yet they say he was afraid to die!  Afraid of what?  Is there any\nGod in heaven that hates a patriot?  If there is Thomas Paine ought to\nbe afraid to die.  Is there any God that would damn a man for helping\nto free three millions of people?  If Thomas Paine was in hell tonight,\nand could get God's attention long enough to point him to the old\nbanner of the stars floating over America, God would have to let him\nout.  What would he be afraid of?  Had he ever burned anybody?  No.\nHad he ever put anybody in the inquisition?  No.  Ever put the\nthumb-screw on anybody?  No.  Ever put anybody in prison so that some\npoor wife and mother would come and hold her little babe up at the\ngrated window that the man bound to the floor might get one glimpse of\nhis blue-eyed babe? Did he ever do that?\"\n\n\"Did he ever light a fagot?  Did he ever tear human flesh?  Why, what\nhad he to be afraid of?  He had helped to make the world free.  He had\nhelped create the only republic then on the earth. What was he afraid\nof?  Was God a tory?  It won't do.\"\n\nOne would think from the persistence with which the orthodox have\ncharged for the last seventy years that Thomas Paine recanted, that\nthere must be some evidence of some kind to support these charges.\nEven with my ideas of the average honor of the believers in\nsuperstition, the average truthfulness of the disciples of fear, I did\nnot believe that all those infamies rested solely upon poorly-attested\nfalsehoods.  I had charity enough to suppose that something had been\nsaid or done by Thomas Paine capable of being tortured into a\nfoundation of all these calumnies.  What crime had Thomas Paine\ncommitted that he should have feared to die?  The only answer you can\ngive is that he denied the inspiration of the scriptures.  If that is\ncrime, the civilized world is filled with criminals.  The pioneers of\nhuman thought, the intellectual leaders of this world, the foremost men\nin every science, the kings of literature and art, those who stand in\nthe front of investigation, the men who are civilizing and elevating\nand refining mankind, are all unbelievers in the ignorant dogma of\ninspiration.\n\nWhy should we think Thomas Paine was afraid to die? and why should the\nAmerican people malign the memory of that great man? He was the first\nto advocate the separation from the mother country.  He was the first\nto write these words:  \"The United States of America.\"  Think of\nmaligning that man!  He was the first to lift his voice against human\nslavery, and while hundreds and thousands of ministers all over the\nUnited States not only believed in slavery, but bought and sold women\nand babes in the name of Jesus Christ, this infidel, this wretch who is\nnow burning in the flames of hell, lifted his voice against human\nslavery and said: \"It is robbery, and a slaveholder is a thief; the\nwhipper of women is a barbarian; the seller of a child is a savage.\"\nNo wonder that the thieving hypocrite of his day hated him!  I have no\nlove for any man who ever pretended to own a human being.  I have no\nlove for a man that would sell a babe from the mother's throbbing,\nheaving, agonized breast. I have no respect for a man who considered a\nlash on the naked back as a legal tender for labor performed.  So write\nit down, Thomas Paine was the first great abolitionist of America.\n\nNow let me tell you another thing.  He was the first man to raise his\nvoice for the abolition of the death penalty in the French convention.\nWhat more did he do?  He was the first to suggest a federal\nconstitution for the United States.  He saw that the old articles of\nconfederation were nothing; that they were ropes of water and chains of\nmist, and he said, \"We want a federal constitution so that when you\npass a law raising 5 percent you can make the states pay it.\"  Let us\ngive him his due.  What were all these preachers doing at that time?\n\nHe hated superstition; he loved the truth.  He hated tyranny; he loved\nliberty.  He was the friend of the human race.  He lived a brave and\nthoughtful life.  He was a good and true and generous man, and \"he died\nas he lived.\"  Like a great and peaceful river with green and shaded\nbanks, without a murmur, without a ripple, he flowed into the waveless\nocean of eternal peace.  I love him; I love every man who gave me, or\nhelped to give me the liberty I enjoy tonight; I love every man who\nhelped me put our flag in heaven.  I love every man who has lifted his\nvoice in any age for liberty, for a chainless body and a fetterless\nbrain.  I love everyman who has given to every other human being every\nright that he claimed for himself.  I love every man who has thought\nmore of principle than he has of position.  I love the men who have\ntrampled crowns beneath their feet that they might do something for\nmankind, and for that reason I love Thomas Paine.\n\nI thank you all, ladies and gentlemen, every one--every one, for the\nattention you have given me this evening.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Liberty of Man, Woman and Child\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  In my judgment slavery is the child of\nignorance. Liberty is born of intelligence.  Only a few years ago there\nwas a great awakening in the human mind.  Men began to inquire, By what\nright does a crowned robber make me work for him?  The man who asked\nthis question was called a traitor. Others said, by what right does a\nrobed priest rob me?  That man was called an infidel.  And whenever he\nasked a question of that kind, the clergy protested.  When they found\nthat the earth was round, the clergy protested; when they found that\nthe stars were not made out of the scraps that were left over on the\nsixth day of creation, but were really great, shining, wheeling worlds,\nthe clergy protested and said:  \"When is this spirit of investigation\nto stop?\"  They said then, and they say now, that it is dangerous for\nthe mind of man to be free.  I deny it.  Out on the intellectual sea\nthere is room  for every sail. In the intellectual air, there is space\nenough for every wing. And the man who does not do his own thinking is\na slave, and does not do his duty to his fellow men.  For one, I expect\nto do my own thinking. And I will take my own oath this minute that I\nwill express what thoughts I have, honestly and sincerely.  I am the\nslave of no man and of no organization.  I stand under the blue sky and\nthe stars, under the infinite flag of nature, the peer of every human\nbeing.  Standing as I do in the presence of the Unknown, I have the\nsame right to guess as though I had been through five theological\nseminary.  I have as much interest in the great absorbing questions of\norigin and destiny as though I had D.D., L. L. D. at the end of my name.\n\nAll I claim, all I plead is simple liberty of thought.  That is all.  I\ndo not pretend to tell what is true and all the truth.  I do not claim\nthat I have floated level with the heights of thought, or that I have\ndescended to the depths of things; I simply claim that what idea I have\nI have a right to express, and any man that denies it to me is an\nintellectual thief and robber. That is all.  I say, take those chains\noff from the human soul; I say, break these orthodox fetters, and if\nthere are wings to the spirit let them be spread.  That is all I say.\nAnd I ask you if I have not the same right to think that any other\nhuman has? If I have no right to think, why have I such a thing as a\nthinker. Why have I a brain?  And if I have no right to think, who has?\nIf I have lost my right, Mr. Smith, where did you find yours?  If I\nhave no right, have three or four men or 300 or 400, who get together\nand sign a card and build a house and put a steeple on it with a bell\nin it--have they any more right to think than they had before?  That is\nthe question.  And I am sick of the whip and lash in the region of mind\nand intellect.  And I say to these men, \"Let us alone.  Do your own\nthinking; express your own thoughts.\"  And I want to say tonight that I\nclaim no right that I am not willing to give to every other human being\nbeneath the stars--none whatever.  And I will fight tonight for the\nright of those who disagree with me to express their thoughts just as\nsoon as I will fight for my own right to express mine.\n\nIn the good old times, our fathers had an idea that they could make\npeople believe to suit them.  Our ancestors in the ages that are gone\nreally believed that by force you could convince a man. You cannot\nchange the conclusion of the brain by force, but I will tell you what\nyou can do by force, and what you have done by force.  You can make\nhypocrites by the million.  You can make a man say that he has changed\nhis mind, but he remains of the same opinion still.  Put fetters all\nover him; crush his feet in iron boots; lash him to the stock; burn him\nif you please, but his ashes are of the same opinion still.  I say our\nfathers, in the good old times--and the best thing I can say about them\nis, they are dead--they had an idea they could force men to think their\nway, and do you know that idea is still prevalent even in this country?\nDo you know they think they can make a man think their way if they say,\n\"We will not trade with that man; we won't vote for that man; we won't\nhire him, if he is a lawyer; we will die before we take his medicine,\nif he is a doctor, we won't invite him; we will socially ostracize him;\nhe must come to our church; he must think our way or he is not a\ngentleman.\"  There is much of that even in this blessed country--not\nexcepting the city of Albany itself.\n\nNow in the old times of which I have spoken, they said, \"We can make\nall men think alike.\"  All the mechanical ingenuity of this earth\ncannot make two clocks run alike, and how are you going to make\nmillions of people of different quantities and qualities and amount of\nbrain, clad in this living robe of passionate flesh--how are you going\nto make millions of them think alike? If the infinite God, if there is\none, who made us, wished us to think alike, why did he give a spoonful\nof brains to one man, and a bushel to another?  Why is it that we have\nall degrees of humanity, from the idiot to the genius, if it was\nintended that all should think alike?  I say our fathers concluded they\nwould do this by force, and I used to read in books how they persecuted\nmankind, and do you know I never appreciated it; I did not.  I read it,\nbut it did not burn itself, as it were, into my very soul what infamies\nhad been committed in the name of religion, and I never fully\nappreciated it until a little while ago I saw the iron arguments our\nfathers used to use.  I tell you the reason we are through that, is\nbecause we have better brains than our fathers had.  Since that day we\nhave become intellectually developed, and there is more real brain and\nreal good sense in the world today than in any other period of its\nhistory, and that is the reason we have more liberty, that is the\nreason we have more kindness.  But I say I saw these iron arguments our\nfathers used to use. I saw here the thumb-screw--two little innocent\nlooking pieces of iron, armed on the inner surface with protuberances\nto prevent their slipping--and when some man denied the efficacy of\nbaptism, or maybe said, \"I do not believe that the whale ever swallowed\na man to keep him from drowning,\" then they put these pieces of iron\nupon his thumb, and there was a screw at each end, and then, in the\nname of love and forgiveness, they began screwing these pieces of iron\ntogether.  A great many men, when they commenced, would say, \"I\nrecant.\"  I expect I would have been one of them.   I would have said,\n\"Now you just stop that; I will admit anything on earth that you want.\nI will admit there is one god or a million, one hell or a billion; suit\nyourselves, but stop that.\"  But I want to say, the thumbscrew having\ngot out of the way, I am going to have my say.\n\nThere was now and then some man who wouldn't turn Judas Iscariot to his\nown soul; there was now and then a man willing to die for his\nconviction, and if it were not for such men we would be savages\ntonight. Had it not been for a few brave and heroic souls in every age,\nwe would have been naked savages this moment, with pictures of wild\nbeasts tattooed upon our naked breasts, dancing around a dried snake\nfetish; and I tonight thank every good and noble man who stood up in\nthe face of opposition, and hatred, and death for what he believed to\nbe right.  And then they screwed this thumbscrew down as far as they\ncould and threw him into some dungeon, where, in throbbing misery and\nthe darkness of night, he dreams of the damned; but that was done in\nthe name of universal love.\n\nI saw there at the same time what they called the \"collar of torture.\"\nImagine a circle of iron, and on the inside of that more than a hundred\npoints as sharp as needles.  This being fastened upon the throat, the\nsufferer could not sit down, he could not walk, he could not stir\nwithout being punctured by those needles, and in a little while the\nthroat would begin to swell, and finally suffocation would end the\nagonies of that man, when may be the only crime he had committed was to\nsay, with tears upon his sublime cheeks, \"I do not believe that God,\nthe father of us all, will damn to eternal punishment any of the\nchildren of men.\"  Think of it!  And I saw there at the same time\nanother instrument, called \"the scavenger's daughter,\" which resembles\na pair of shears, with handles where handles ought to be, but at the\npoints as well.  And just above the pivot that fastens the blades, a\ncircle of iron through which the hands would be placed, into the lower\ncircles the feet, and into the center circle the head would be pushed,\nand in that position he would be thrown prone upon the earth, and kept\nthere until the strain upon the muscles produced such agony that\ninsanity and death would end his pain.  And that was done in the name\nof \"Whosoever smiteth thee upon one cheek, turn him the other also.\"\nThink of it!\n\nAnd I saw also the rack, with the windlass and chains, upon which the\nsufferer was laid.  About his ankles were fastened chains, and about\nhis wrists also, and then priests began turning this windlass, and they\nkept turning until the ankles, the shoulders and the wrists were all\ndislocated, and the sufferer was wet with the sweat of agony.  And they\nhad standing by a physician to feel his pulse.  What for?  To save his\nlife?  Yes.  What for?  In mercy?  No.  Simply that they might preserve\nhis life, that they might rack him once again.  And this was\ndone--recollect it--it was done in the name of civilization, it was\ndone in the name of law and order, it was done in the name of morality,\nit was done in the name of religion, it was done in the name of God.\n\nSometimes when I get to reading about it, and when I get to thinking\nabout it, it seems to me that I have suffered all these horrors myself,\nas though I had stood upon the shore of exile and gazed with a\ntear-filled eye toward home and native land; as though my nails had\nbeen torn from my hands, and into my throat the sharp needles had been\nthrust; as though my feet had been crushed in iron boots; as though I\nhad been chained in the cells of the Inquisition, and had watched and\nwaited in the interminable darkness to hear the words of release; as\nthough I had been taken from my fireside, from my wife and children,\nand taken to the public square, chained, and fagots had been piled\naround me; as though the flames had played around my limbs, and\nscorched the sight from my eyes; as though my ashes had been scattered\nto the four winds by the hands of hatred; as though I had stood upon\nthe scaffold and felt the glittering ax fall upon me.  And while I feel\nand see all this, I swear that while I live I will do what little I can\nto augment the liberty of man, woman and child.\n\nMy friends, it is all a question of sense; it is all a question of\nhonesty.  If there is a man in this house who is not willing to give to\neverybody else what he claims for himself he is just so much nearer to\nthe barbarian than I am.  It is a simple question of honesty; and the\nman who is not willing to give to every other human being the same\nintellectual rights he claims himself is a rascal, and you know it.  It\nis a simple question, I say, of intellectual development and of\nhonesty. And I want to say it now, so you will see it.  You show me the\nnarrow, contracted man; you show me the man who claims everything for\nhimself and leaves nothing for others, and that man has got a distorted\nand deformed brain.  That is the matter with him.  He has no sense; not\na bit.  Let me show you.\n\nA little while ago I saw models of everything man has made for his use\nand for his convenience.  I saw all the models of all the watercraft,\nfrom the dug-out, in which floated a naked savage--one of our\nancestors--a naked savage, with teeth two inches long, with a spoonful\nof brains in the back of his head; I saw the watercraft of the world,\nfrom that dug-out up to a man-of-war that carries a hundred guns and\nmiles of canvas; from that dug-out to the steamship that turns its\nbrave prow from the port of New York through 3,000 miles of billows,\nwith a compass like a conscience, that does not miss throb or beat of\nits mighty iron heart from one shore to the other.  I saw at the same\ntime the weapons that man has made, from a rude club, such as was\ngrasped by that savage when he crawled from his den, from his hole in\nthe ground, and hunted a snake for his dinner--from that club to the\nboomerang, to the sword, to the cross-bow, to the blunderbuss, to the\nflint-lock, to the cap-lock, to the needle-gun, up to the cannon cast\nby Krupp, capable of hurling a ball of 2,000 pounds through eighteen\ninches of solid steel.  I saw, too, the armor from the turtle-shell\nthat our ancestor lashed upon his skin when he went out to fight for\nhis country, to the skin of the porcupine, with the quills all\nbristling, which he pulled over his orthodox head to defend himself\nfrom his enemies--I mean, of course, the orthodox head of that day--up\nto the shirts of mail that were worn in the middle ages, capable of\nresisting the edge of the sword and the point of the spear; up to the\niron-clad, to the monitor completely clad in steel, capable only a few\nyears ago of defying the navies of the globe.\n\nI saw at the same time the musical instruments, from the tomtom, which\nis a hoop with a couple of strings of rawhide drawn across it--from\nthat tomtom up to the instruments we have today, which make the common\nair blossom with melody.  I saw, too, the paintings, from the daub of\nyellow mud up to the pieces which adorn the galleries of the world.\nAnd the sculpture, from the rude gods, with six legs and a half dozen\narms, and the rows of ears, up to the sculpture of now, wherein the\nmarble is clad with such loveliness that it seems almost a sacrilege to\ntouch it; and in addition I saw there ideas of books--books written\nupon skins of wild beasts, books written upon shoulder-blades of sheep;\nbooks written upon leaves, upon bark, up to the splendid volumes that\nadorn the libraries of our time.  When I think of libraries, I think of\nthe remark of Plato, \"The house that has a library in it has a soul.\"\n\nI saw there all these things, and also the implements of agriculture,\nfrom a crooked stick up to the plow which makes it possible for a man\nto cultivate the soil without being an ignoramus.  I saw at the same\ntime a row of skulls, from the lowest skull that has ever been found;\nskulls from the central portion of Africa, skulls from the bushmen of\nAustralia, up to the best skulls of the last generation.\n\nAnd I notice that there was the same difference between those skulls\nthat there is between the products of those skulls.  And I said to\nmyself:  \"It is all a question of intellectual development.  It is a\nquestion of brain and sinew.\"  I noticed that there was the same\ndifference between those skulls that there was between that dug-out,\nand that man-of-war and that steamship.  That skull was low.  It had\nnot a forehead a quarter of an inch high.  But shortly after, the\nskulls became doming and crowning, and getting higher and grander.\nThat skull was a den in which crawled the base and meaner instincts of\nmankind, and this skull was a temple in which dwelt joy, liberty and\nlove.  So said I:  \"This is all a question of brain, and anything that\ntends to develop, intellectually, mankind, is the gospel we want.\"\n\nNow I want to be honest with you.  Honor bright!  Nothing like it in\nthe world!  No matter what I believe.  Now, let us be honest. Suppose a\nking, if there was a king at the time this gentleman floated in the\ndugout and charmed his ears with the music of the tomtom; suppose the\nking at that time, if there was one, and the priest, if there was one,\nhad said:  \"That dug-out is the best boat that ever can be built.  The\npattern of that came from on high, and any man who says he can improve\nit, by putting a log or a stick in the bottom of it, with a rag on the\nend, is an infidel.\"  Honor bright, what, in your judgment, would have\nbeen the effect upon the circumnavigation of the globe?  That is the\nquestion.  Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, if there\nwas one--and I presume there was, because it was a very ignorant\nage--suppose they had said:  \"That tomtom is the most miraculous\ninstrument of music that any man can conceive of; that is the kind of\nmusic they have in heaven.  An angel, sitting upon the golden edge of a\nfleecy cloud, playing upon that tomtom became so enraptured, so\nentranced with her own music, that she dropped it, and that is how we\ngot it--and any man that says that it can be improved by putting a back\nand front to it, and four strings and a bridge on it, and getting some\nhorsehair and resin, is no better than one of the weak and\nunregenerate.\"\n\nI ask you what effect would that have had upon music?  I ask you, honor\nbright, if that course had been pursued, would the human ears ever have\nbeen enriched with the divine symphonies of Beethoven?  That is the\nquestion.  And suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest had\nsaid:  \"That crooked stick is the best plow we can ever have invented.\nThe pattern of that plow was given to a pious farmer in a 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, we will twist him.\"  Honor\nbright, what, in your judgment, would have been the effect upon the\nagricultural world?\n\nNow, you see, the people said, \"We want better weapons with which to\nkill our enemies;\" so the people said, \"we want better plows;\"  the\npeople said, \"we want better music;\"  the people said, \"we want better\npaintings;\"  and they said, \"whoever will give us better plows, and\nbetter arms, and better paintings, and better music, we will give him\nhonor; we will crown him with glory; we will robe him in the garments\nof wealth;\" and every incentive has been held out to every human being\nto improve something in every direction.  And that is the reason the\nclub is a cannon; that the reason the dugout is a steamship; that the\nreason the daub is a painting, and that is the reason that that piece\nof stone has finally become a glorified statue.\n\nNow, then, this fellow in the dug-out had a religion.  That fellow was\northodox.  He had no doubt; he was settled in his mind.  He did not\nwish to be insulted.  He wanted the bark of his soul to lie at the\nwharf of orthodoxy, and rot in the sun.  He wanted to hear the sails of\nold opinions flap against the mast of old creeds.  He wanted to see the\njoints in the sides open and gape, as though thirsty for water, and he\nsaid:  \"Now don't disturb my opinions; you'll get my mind unsettled; I\nhave got it all made up, and I don't want to hear any infidelity,\neither.\" As far as I am concerned, I want to be out on the high sea; I\nWant to take my chance with wind and wave and star; and I had rather go\ndown in the glory and grandeur of the storm than to rot at any orthodox\nwharf.  Of course I mean by orthodoxy all that don't agree with my\ndoxy. Do you understand?\n\nNow this man had a religion.  That fellow believed in hell.  Yes, sir;\nand he thought he would be happier in heaven if he could just lean over\nand see certain people that he disliked, broiled. That fellow has had a\ngreat many intellectual descendents.  It is an unhappy fact in nature\nthat the ignorant multiply much faster than the intellectual.  This\nfellow believed in the devil, and his devil had a cloven hoof.  (Many\npeople think I have the same kind of footing.)  He had a long tail,\narmed with a fiery dart, and he breathed brimstone.  And do you know\nthere has not been a patentable improvement made on that devil for\n4,000 years?  That fellow believed that God was a tyrant.  That fellow\nbelieved that the earth was flat.  That fellow believed, as I told you,\nin a literal burning, seething lake of fire and brimstone.  That is\nwhat he believed in.  That fellow, too, had his idea of politics, and\nhis idea was, \"Might makes right.\"  And it will take thousands of years\nbefore the world will believingly say, \"Right makes might.\"  Now all I\nask is the same privilege of improving on that gentleman's theology as\nupon his musical instrument; the same right to improve upon his\npolitics as upon his dug-out. That is all.  I ask for the human soul\nthe same liberty in every direction.  And that is all.  That is the\nonly crime that I have committed.  That is all.  I say, let us have a\nchance. Let us think, and let each one express his thoughts.  Let us\nbecome investigators, not followers; not cringers and crawlers.  If\nthere is in heaven an infinite being, he never will be satisfied with\nthe worship of cowards and hypocrites.  Honest unbelief will be a\nperfume in heaven when hypocrisy, no matter however religious it may be\noutwardly, will be a stench.  That is my doctrine.  That is all there\nis to it; give every other human being all the chance you claim for\nyourself.  To keep your mind open to the voices of nature, to new\nideas, to new thoughts, and to improve upon your doctrine whenever you\ncan; that is my doctrine.\n\nDo you know we are improving all the time?  Do you know that the most\northodox people in this town today, three hundred years ago would have\nbeen burned for heresy?  Do you know some ministers who denounce me\nwould have been in the Inquisition themselves two hundred years ago?\nDo you know where once burned and blazed the bivouac fires of the army\nof progress, the altars of the church glow today?  Do you know that the\nchurch today occupies about the same ground that unbelievers did one\nhundred years ago?  Do you know that while they have followed this army\nof progress, protesting and denouncing, they have had to keep within\nprotesting and denouncing distance, but they have followed it? They\nhave been the men, let me say, in the valley; the men in swamps,\nshouting to and cursing the pioneers on the hills; the men upon whose\nforehead was the light of the coming dawn, the coming day--but they\nhave advanced. In spite of themselves, they have advanced!  If they had\nnot, I would not speak here to night.  If they had not, not a solitary\none of you could have expressed your real and honest thought.  But we\nare advancing, and we are beginning to hold all kinds of slavery in\nutter contempt; do you know that?  And we are beginning to question\nwealth and power; we are questioning all creeds and all dogmas; and we\nare not bowing down, as we used to, to a man simply because he is in\nthe robe of a clergyman, and we are not bowing down to a man now simply\nbecause he is a king.  No!  We are not bowing down simply because he is\nrich.  We used to worship the golden calves, but we do not now.  The\nworst you can say of an American, is, he worships the gold of the calf,\nnot the calf; and even the calves are beginning to see this distinction.\n\nIt no longer fills the ambition of a man to be emperor or king. The\nlast Napoleon was not satisfied with being Emperor of the French; he\nwas not satisfied with having a circlet of gold about his head; he\nwanted some evidence that he had something within his head, so he wrote\nthe life of Julius Caesar, that he might become a member of the French\nAcademy. Compare, for instance, in the German Empire, King William and\nBismarck. King William is the one anointed of the most high, as they\nclaim--the one upon whose head has been poured the divine petroleum of\nauthority. Compare him with Bismarck, who towers, an intellectual\nColossus, above this man.  Go into England and compare George Eliot\nwith Queen Victoria--Queen Victoria, clothed in the garments given to\nher by blind fortune and by chance.  George Elliot, robed in garments\nof glory, woven in the loom of her own genius.  Which does the world\npay respect to?  I tell you we are advancing! The pulpit does not do\nall the thinking; the pews do it; nearly all of it.  The world is\nadvancing, and we question the authority of those men who simply say\n\"it is so.\"  Down upon your knees and admit it!  When I think of how\nmuch this world has suffered, I am amazed.  When I think of how long\nour fathers were slaves, I am amazed. Why, just think of it!  This\nworld has only been fit for a gentleman to live in fifty years.  No, it\nhas not.  It was not until the year 1808 that Great Britain abolished\nthe slave trade. Up to that time her judge, sitting upon the bench in\nthe name of justice; her priests, occupying the pulpit in the name of\nuniversal love, owned stock in slave ships and luxuriated in the\nprofits of piracy and murder.  It was not until the year 1808 that the\nUnited States abolished the slave trade between this and other\ncountries, but preserved it as between the States.  It was not until\nthe 28th day of August, 1833, that Great Britain abolished human\nslavery in her colonies; and it was not until the 1st day of January,\n1863, that Abraham Lincoln wiped from our flag the stigma of disgrace.\nAbraham Lincoln--in my judgment, the grandest man ever president of the\nUnited States, and upon whose monument these words could truthfully be\nwritten:  \"Here lies the only man in the history of the world who,\nhaving been clothed with almost absolute power, never abused it except\non the side of mercy.\"\n\nThink, I say, how long we clung to the institution of human slavery;\nhow long lashes upon the naked back were the legal tender for labor\nperformed!  Think of it! when the pulpit of this country deliberately\nand willfully changed the Cross of Christ into the whipping-post.\nThink of it!  And tell me then if I am right when I say this world has\nonly been fit for a gentleman to live in fifty years.  I hate with\nevery drop of my blood every form of tyranny.  I hate every form of\nslavery.  I hate dictation--I want something like liberty; and what do\nI mean by that?  The right to do anything that does not interfere with\nthe happiness of another, physically.  Liberty of thought includes the\nright to think right and the right to think wrong.  Why? Because that\nis the means by which we arrive at truth; for if we knew the truth\nbefore, we needn't think.  Those men who mistake their ignorance for\nfacts, never do think.  You may say to me, \"How far is it across this\nroom?\"  I say 100 feet.  Suppose it is 105; have I committed any crime?\nI made the best guess I could. You ask me about any thing; I examine it\nhonestly, and when I get through, what should I tell you--what I think\nor what you think?  What should I do?\n\nThere is a book put in my hands.  They say \"That is the Koran; that was\nwritten by inspiration; read it.\"  I read it.  Chapter VII, entitled\n\"The Cow,\" chapter IX, entitled \"The Bee,\" and so on.  I read it.  When\nI get through with it, suppose I think in my heart and in my brain, \"I\ndon't believe a word of it;\"  and you ask me, \"What do you think of\nit?\" Now, admitting that I live in Turkey, and have a chance to get an\noffice, what should I say?  Now, honor bright, should I just make a\nclean breast of it and say \"Upon my honor, I don't believe it?\"  Then\nis it right for you to say \"That fellow will steal--that fellow is a\ndangerous man--he is a robber?\"  Now, suppose I read the book called\nthe bible (and I read it, honor bright), and when I get through with it\nI make up my mind that book was written by men; and along comes the\npreacher of my church, and he says \"Did you read that book?\"  \"I did.\"\n\"Do you think it is divinely inspired?\"  I say to myself, \"Now if I say\nit is not, they will never send me to Congress from this district on\nearth.\"  Now, honor bright, what ought I to do?  Ought I to say, \"I\nhave read it.  I have been honest about it; don't believe it?\" Now,\nought I to say that, if that is a real transcript of my mind, or ought\nI to commence hemming and hawing and pretend that I do believe it, and\ngo away with the respect of that man, hating myself for a cringing\ncoward? Now which?  For my part I would rather a man would tell me what\nhe honestly thinks, and he will preserve his manhood.  I had rather be\na manly unbeliever than an unmanly believer.  I think I will stand\nhigher at the judgment day, if there is one, and stand with as good a\nchance to get my case dismissed without costs as a man who sneaks\nthrough life pretending he believes what he does not.  I tell you one\nthing; there is going to be one free fellow in this world.  I am going\nto say my say, I tell you.  I am going to do it kindly, I am going to\ndo it distinctly, but I am going to do it.\n\nNow, if men have been slaves, what about women?  Women have been the\nslaves of slaves; and that's a pretty hard position to occupy for life.\nThey have been the slaves of slaves; and in my judgment it took\nmillions of ages for women to come from the condition of abject slavery\nup to the institution of marriage. Let me say right here, tonight, I\nregard marriage as the holiest institution among men.  Without the\nfireside there is no human advancement; without the family relation,\nthere is no life worth living.  Every good government is made up of\ngood families.  The unit of government is family, and anything that\ntends to destroy the family is perfectly devilish and infamous.  I\nbelieve in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinions of\nlong-haired men and short-haired women who denounce the institution of\nmarriage.  Let me say right here--and I have thought a good deal about\nit--let me say right here, the grandest ambition that any man can\npossibly have is to so live and so improve himself in heart and brain\nas to be worthy of the love of some splendid woman; and the grandest\nambition of any girl is to make herself worthy of the love and\nadoration of some magnificent man.  That is my idea, and there is no\nsuccess in life without it.  If you are the grand emperor of the world,\nyou had better be the grand emperor of one loving and tender heart, and\nshe the grand empress of yours.  The man who has really won the love of\none good woman in this world, I do not care if he dies in the ditch a\nbeggar, his life has been a success.\n\nI say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject\nslavery up to the condition of marriage.  Ladies, the ornaments you\nbear upon your person tonight are but the souvenirs of your mothers'\nbondage. The chains around your necks and the bracelets clasped upon\nyour wrists by the thrilling hand of love, have been changed by the\nwand of civilization from iron to shining, glittering gold.  But nearly\nevery religion has accounted for the devilment in this world by the\ncrime of woman. What a gallant thing that is!  And if it is true, I had\nrather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to\nlive in heaven with nobody but men.\n\nI say that nearly every religion has accounted for all the trouble in\nthis world by the crime of woman.  I read in a book--and I will say now\nthat I cannot give the exact language; my memory does not retain the\nwords--but I can give the substance.  I read in a book that the supreme\nbeing concluded to make a world and one man; that he took some nothing\nand made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden:  but he\nnoticed that he got lonesome; he wandered around as if he was waiting\nfor a train; there was nothing to interest him; no news; no papers; no\npolitics; no policy; and as the devil had not yet made his appearance,\nthere was no chance for reconciliation; not even for civil service\nreform.  Well, he would wander about this garden in this condition\nuntil finally the supreme being made up his mind to make him a\ncompanion; and having used up all the nothing he originally took in\nmaking the world and one man, he had to take a part of the man to start\na woman with, and so he caused a deep sleep to fall upon this man--now,\nunderstand me. I didn't say this story is true. After the sleep fell\nupon this man, he took a rib, or, as the French would call it, a cutlet\nout of this man, and from that he made a woman; and considering the raw\nmaterial, I look upon it as the most successful job ever performed.\nWell, after He got the woman done, she was brought to the man; not to\nsee how she liked him, but to see how he liked her.  He liked her, and\nthey started housekeeping; and they were told of certain things they\nmight do, and one thing they could not do--and of course they did it.\nI would have done it in fifteen minutes, and I know it.  There wouldn't\nhave been an apple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs\ncould have been full of clubs.  And then they were turned out of the\npark, and an extra force was put on to keep them from getting back.\nThen devilment commenced.  The mumps, and the measles, and the whooping\ncough and the scarlet fever started in their race for man, and they\nbegan to have the toothache, the roses began to have thorns, and snakes\nbegan to have poisoned teeth, and people began to divide about religion\nand politics; and the world has been full of trouble from that day to\nthis. Now, nearly all of the religions of this world account for the\nexistence of evil by such a story as that.\n\nI read in another book what appeared to be an account of the same\ntransaction.  It was written about 4,000 years before the other; but\nall commentators agree that the one that was written last was the\noriginal, and that the one that was written first was copied from the\none that was written last; but I would advise you all not to allow your\ncreed to be disturbed by a little matter of four or five thousand\nyears.  In this other story the Supreme Brahma made up his mind to make\nthe world and man and woman; and he made the world, and he made the man\nand he made the woman, and he put them on the island of Ceylon; and\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.  The Supreme\nBrahma when he put them there said, \"Let them have a period of\ncourtship, for it is my desire and will that true love should forever\nprecede marriage.\"  When I read that, it was so much more beautiful and\nlofty than the other, that I said to myself, \"If either one of these\nstories ever turns out to be true, I hope it will be this one.\"\n\nThen they had their courtship, with the nightingales singing and the\nstars shining and the flowers blooming, and they fell in love.  Imagine\nthe courtship!  No prospective fathers or mothers in law; no prying and\ngossiping neighbors, nobody to say, \"Young man, how do you expect to\nsupport her?\"  Nothing of that kind. They were married by the Supreme\nBrahma, and he said to them:  \"Remain here; you must never leave this\nisland.\"  Well, after a little while the man--and his name was Amend,\nand the woman's name was Heva--and the man said to Heva:  \"I believe\nI'll look about a little;\"  and he went to the northern extremity of\nthe island, where there was a little, narrow neck of land connecting it\nwith the mainland; and the devil, who is always playing pranks with us,\ngot up a mirage, and when he looked over to the mainland, such hills\nand dells, vales and dales; such mountains, crowned with silver; such\ncataracts, clad in robes of beauty, did he see there, that he went back\nand told Heva:  \"The country over there is a thousand times better than\nthis; let us migrate.\"  She, like every other woman that ever lived,\nsaid: \"Let well enough alone; we have all we want; let us stay here.\"\nBut he said, \"No, let us go;\" so she followed him, and when they came\nto this narrow neck of land he took her on his back like a gentleman\nand carried her over.  But the moment they got over they heard a crash,\nand, looking back, discovered that this narrow neck of land had fallen\ninto the sea, with the exception of now and then a rock, and the mirage\nhad disappeared and there was naught but rocks and sand; and then a\nvoice called out, cursing them.  Then it was that the man spoke up--and\nI have liked him ever since for it--\"Curse me, but curse not her; it\nwas not her fault, it was mine.\"  That's the kind of man to start a\nworld with. The Supreme Brahma said, \"I will save her but not thee.\"\nShe spoke up out of her feelings of love, out of a heart in which there\nwas love enough to make all of her daughters rich in holy affection,\nand said, \"If thou wilt not spare him, spare neither me; I do not wish\nto live without him; I love him.\" Then the Supreme Brahma said--and I\nhave liked him first-rate ever since I read it--\"I will spare you both\nand watch over you.\"\n\nHonor bright, isn't that the better story?\n\nAnd from that same book I want to show you what ideas some of these\nmiserable heathen had--the heathen we are trying to convert.  We send\nmissionaries over yonder to convert heathen there, and we send soldiers\nout on the plains to kill heathen there.  If we can convert the\nheathen, why not convert those nearest home?  Why not convert those we\ncan get at?  Why not convert those who have the immense advantage of\nthe example of the average pioneer?  But to show you the men we are\ntrying to convert--in this book it says:  \"Man is strength, woman is\nbeauty; man is courage, woman is love.  When the one man loves the one\nwoman and the one woman loves the one man, the very angels leave heaven\nand come and sit in that house and sing for joy.\"  They are the men we\nare converting.  Think of it!  I tell you when I read these things I\nbegin to say, \"Love is not of any country; nobility does not belong\nexclusively here;\"  and through all the ages there have been a few\ngreat and tender souls lifted far above their fellows.\n\nNow, my friends, it seems to me that the woman is the equal of the man.\nShe has all the rights I have, and one more, and that is the right to\nbe protected.  That's my doctrine.  You are married; try and make the\nwoman you love happy; try and make the man you love happy.  Whoever\nmarries simply for himself will make a mistake; but whoever loves a\nwoman so well that he says \"I will make her happy,\" makes no mistake;\nand so with the woman who says \"I will make him happy.\"  There is only\none way to be happy, and that is to make somebody else so, and you\ncan't be happy cross-lots; you have got to go the regular turnpike road.\n\nIf there is any man I detest, it is the man who thinks he is the head\nof the family--the man who thinks he is \"boss\".  That fellow in the\ndug-out used that word \"boss;\"  that was one of his favorite\nexpressions--that he was \"boss\".  Imagine a young man and a young woman\ncourting, walking out in the moonlight, and the nightingale singing a\nsong of pain and love, as though the thorn touched her heart--imagine\nthem stopping there in the moonlight and starlight and song, and saying\n\"Now here, let's settle who's boss!\"  I tell you it is an infamous\nword, and an infamous feeling--a man who is \"boss,\" who is going to\ngovern his family, and when he speaks let all the rest of them be\nstill--some mighty idea is about to be launched from his mouth.  Do you\nknow I dislike this man unspeakably; and a cross man I hate above all\nthings.\n\nWhat right has he to murder the sunshine of the day?  What right has he\nto assassinate the joy of life?  Where you go home you ought to feel\nthe light there is in the house; if it is in the night it will burst\nout of doors and windows and illuminate the darkness.  It is just as\nwell to go home a ray of sunshine as an old sour, cross curmudgeon, who\nthinks he is the head of the family.  Wise men think their mighty\nbrains have been in a turmoil; they have been thinking about who will\nbe alderman from the fifth ward; they have been thinking about\npolitics; great and mighty questions have been engaging their minds;\nthey have bought calico at 8 cents, or 6, and want to sell it for 7.\nThink of the intellectual strain that must have been upon a man, and\nwhen he gets home everybody else in the house must look out for his\ncomfort.  A woman who has only taken care of five or six children, and\none or two of them may be sick; has been nursing them and singing to\nthem, and taking care of them, and trying to make one yard of cloth do\nthe work of two--she, of course, is fresh and fine, and ready to wait\nupon this great gentleman--the head of the family I don't like him a\nbit!\n\nDo you know another thing?  I despise a stingy man.  I don't see how it\nis possible for a man to die worth fifty millions of dollars, or ten\nmillions of dollars, in a city full of want, when he meets almost every\nday the withered hand of beggary and the white lips of famine.  How a\nman can withstand all that, and hold in the clutch of his greed twenty\nor thirty millions of dollars, is past my comprehension.  I do not see\nhow he can do it.  I should not think he could do it any more than he\ncould keep a pile of lumber where hundreds and thousands of men were\ndrowning in the sea.  I should not think he could do it.\n\nDo you know I have known men who would trust their wives with their\nhearts and their honor, but not with their pocketbook; not with a\ndollar.  When I see a man of that kind I always think he knows which of\nthese articles is the most valuable.  Think of making your wife a\nbeggar!  Think of her having to ask you every day for a dollar, or for\ntwo dollars, or for fifty cents!  \"What did you do with that dollar I\ngave you last week?\"  Think of having a wife that was afraid of you!\nWhat kind of children do you expect to have with a beggar and a coward\nfor their mother? Oh, I tell you, if you have but a dollar in the\nworld, and you have got to spend it, spend it like a king; spend it as\nthough it were a dry leaf and you the owner of unbounded forests!\nThat's the way to spend it!  I had rather be a beggar and spend my last\ndollar like a king, than be a king and spend my money like a beggar.\nIf it's got to go, let it go.\n\nGet the best you can for your family--try to look as well as you can\nyourself.  When you used to go courting, how nice you looked! Ah, your\neye was bright, your step was light, and you just put on the very best\nlook you could.  Do you know that it is insufferable egotism in you to\nsuppose that a woman is going to love you always looking as bad as you\ncan?  Think of it!  Any woman on earth will be true to you forever when\nyou do your level best.  Some people tell me, \"Your doctrine about\nloving, and wives, and all that is splendid for the rich, but it won't\ndo for the poor.\"  I tell you tonight there is on the average more love\nin the homes of the poor than in the palaces of the rich; and the\nmeanest but with love in it is fit for the gods, and a palace without\nlove is a den only fit for wild beasts.  That's my doctrine!\n\nYou can't be so poor but that you can help somebody.  Good nature is\nthe cheapest commodity in the world; and love is the only thing that\nwill pay 10 percent to borrower and lender both. Don't tell me that you\nhave got to be rich!  We have all a false standard of greatness in the\nUnited States.  We think here that a man to be great, must be\nnotorious; must be extremely wealthy, or his name must be between the\nlips of rumor.  It is all nonsense!  It is not necessary to be rich to\nbe great, or to be powerful to be happy; and the happy man is the\nsuccessful man. Happiness is the legal tender of the soul.  Joy is\nwealth.\n\nA little while ago I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon, a\nmagnificent tomb, fit for a dead deity almost, and gazed into the great\ncircle at the bottom of it.  In the sarcophagus, of black Egyptian\nmarble, at last rest the ashes of that restless man.  I looked over the\nbalustrade, and I thought about the career of Napoleon.  I could see\nhim walking upon the banks of the Seine contemplating suicide.  I saw\nhim at Toulon.  I saw him putting down the mob in the streets of Paris.\nI saw him at the head of the army of Italy.  I saw him crossing the\nbridge at Lodi.  I saw him in Egypt, fighting the battle of the\npyramids.  I saw him cross the Alps, and mingle the eagles of France\nwith the eagles of the crags.  I saw him at Austerlitz.  I saw him with\nhis army scattered and dispersed before the blast.  I saw him at\nLeipsic when his army was defeated and he was taken captive.  I saw him\nescape.  I saw him land again upon French soil, and retake an empire by\nthe force of his own genius.  I saw him captured once more, and again\nat St. Helena, with his arms behind him, gazing out upon the sad and\nsolemn sea; and I thought of the orphans and Widows he had made.\n\nI thought of the tears that had been shed for his glory.  I thought of\nthe only woman who ever loved him, who had been pushed from his heart\nby the cold hand of ambition; and as I looked at the sarcophagus, I\nsaid, \"I would rather have been a French peasant and worn wooden shoes;\nI would rather have lived in a hut, with a vine growing over the door,\nand the grapes growing and ripening in the autumn sun; I would rather\nhave been that peasant, with my wife by my side and my children upon my\nknees, twining their arms of affection about me; I would rather have\nbeen that poor French peasant, and gone down at last to the eternal\npromiscuity of the dust, followed by those who loved me; I would a\nthousand times rather have been that French peasant than that imperial\npersonative of force and murder.\"  And so I would, ten thousand times.\n\nIt is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not necessary to be\nrich to be just and generous, and to have a heart filled with divine\naffection.  No matter whether you are rich or poor, use your wife as\nthough she were a splendid creation, and she will fill your life with\nperfume and joy.  And do you know, it is a splendid thing for me to\nthink that the woman you really love will never grow old to you?\nThrough the wrinkles of time, through the music of years, if you really\nlove her, you will always see the face you loved and won.  And a woman\nwho really loves a man, does not see that he grows older; he is not\ndecrepit; he does not tremble; he is not old; she always sees the same\ngallant gentleman who won her hand and heart.  I like to think of it in\nthat way.  I like to think of all passions; love is eternal, and, as\nShakespeare says, \"Although Time, with his sickle, can rob ruby lips\nand sparkling eyes, let him reach as far as he can, he cannot quite\ntouch love; that reaches even to the end of the tomb.\"  And to love in\nthat way, and then go down the hill of life together, and as you go\ndown hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren--the birds of joy and\nlove sing once more in the leafless branches of age.  I believe in the\nfireside. I believe in the democracy of home.  I believe in the\nrepublicanism of the family.  I believe in liberty and equality with\nthose we love.\n\nIf women have been slaves, what shall I say of children; of the little\nchildren in the alleys and sub-cellars; the little children who turn\npale when they hear their father's footsteps; little children who run\naway when they only hear their names called by the lips of another;\nlittle children--the children of poverty, the children of crime, the\nchildren of brutality wherever you are--flotsam and jetsam upon the\nwild, mad sea of life, my heart goes out to you, one and all.  I tell\nyou the children have the same rights that we have, and we ought to\ntreat them as though they were human beings; and they should be reared\nby love, by kindness, by tenderness, and not by brutality.  That is my\nidea of children.  When your little child tells a lie, don't rush at\nhim as though the world were about to go into bankruptcy.  Be honest\nwith him.  A tyrant father will have liars for children; do you know\nthat? A lie is born of tyranny upon the one hand and weakness upon the\nother, and when you rush at a poor little boy with a club in your hand,\nof course he lies.  I thank Mother Nature that she has put ingenuity\nenough in the breast of a child, when attacked by a brutal parent, to\nthrow up a little breastwork in the shape of a lie.  When one of your\nchildren tells a lie, be honest with him; tell him you have told\nhundreds of them yourself. Tell him it is not the best way; you have\ntried it. Tell him, as the man did in Maine when his boy left home:\n\"John, honesty is the best policy; I have tried both.\"  Just be honest\nwith him.  Imagine now; you are about to whip a child five years of\nage. What is the child to do? Suppose a man, as much larger than you\nare larger than a child five years old, should come at you with\nliberty-pole in hand, and in a voice of thunder shout, \"Who broke the\nplate?\"  There is not a solitary one of you who wouldn't swear you\nnever saw it, or that it was cracked when you found it.  Why not be\nhonest with these children?  Just imagine a man who deals in stocks\nputting false rumors afloat!\n\nThink of a lawyer beating his own flesh and blood for evading the\ntruth, when he makes half of his own living that way!  Think of a\nminister punishing his child for not telling all he thinks!  Just think\nof it! When your child commits a wrong, take it in your arms; let it\nfeel your heart beat against its heart; let the child know that you\nreally and truly and sincerely love it.  Yet some Christians, good\nChristians, when a child commits a fault, drive it from the door, and\nsay, \"Never do you darken this house again.\"  Think of that!  And then\nthese same people will get down on their knees and ask God to take care\nof the child they have driven from home.  I will never ask God to take\ncare of my children unless I am doing my level best in that same\ndirection. But I will tell you what I say to my children:  \"Go where\nyou will; commit what crime you may; fall to what depth of degradation\nyou may; you can never commit any crime that will shut my door, my\narms, my heart to you; as long as I live you shall have no more sincere\nfriend.\"\n\nDo you know, I have seen some people who acted as though they thought\nwhen the Savior said, \"Suffer little children to come unto me, for such\nis the Kingdom of Heaven,\" that he had a rawhide under his mantle and\nmade that remark to get the children within striking distance.  I don't\nbelieve in the government of the lash.  If any one of you ever expect\nto whip your children again after you hear me, I want you to have a\nphotograph taken of yourself when you are in the act, with your face\nred with vulgar anger; and then the face of the little child, with eyes\nswimming in tears, and the little chin dimpled with fear, like a piece\nof water struck by a sudden, cold wind.  Have the picture taken.  If\nthat little child should die, I cannot find a sweeter way to spend an\nautumn afternoon than to go out to the cemetery, when the maples are\nclad in bright colors, and little scarlet runners are coming, like\npoems of regret, from the sad heart of the earth--than to go out to the\ncemetery and sit down upon the grave and look at this photograph, and\nthink of the flesh, now dust, that you beat.\n\nI tell you it is wrong; it is no way to raise children!  Make your home\nhappy.  Be honest with them, divide fairly with them in everything.\nGive them a little liberty, and you cannot drive them out of the house.\nThey will want to stay there.  Make home pleasant.  Let them play any\ngame they want to.  Don't be so foolish as to say:  \"You may roll balls\non the ground, but you must not roll them on green cloth.  You may\nknock them with a mallet, but you must not push them with a cue.  You\nmay play with little pieces of paper which have 'Authors' written on\nthem, but you must not have 'keerds.'\"  Think of it!  \"You may go to a\nminstrel show, where people blacken themselves up and degrade\nthemselves, and imitate humanity below themselves, but you must not go\nto the theater and see the characters of immortal genius put upon the\nstage.\"  Why? Well, I can't think of any reason in the world except\n\"minstrel\" is a word of two syllables and theater has three.  Let\nchildren have some daylight at home if you want to keep them there, and\ndon't commence at the cradle and yell, \"Don't!\"  \"Don't!\"  \"Stop!\"\nThat is nearly all that is said to a young one from the cradle until he\nis twenty one years old, and when he comes of age other people begin\nsaying \"Don't!\" And the church says \"Don't!\"  And the party that he\nbelongs to says \"Don't!\"  I despise that way of going through this\nworld. Let us have a little liberty--just a little bit.  There is\nanother thing.  In old times, you know, they thought some days were too\ngood for a child to enjoy himself in.  When I was a boy Sunday was\nconsidered altogether too good to be happy in; and Sunday used to\ncommence then when the sun went down Saturday night.  That was to get\ngood ready--a kind of running jump; and when the sun went down, a\ndarkness ten thousand times deeper than that of night fell on that\nhouse.  Nobody said a word then; nobody laughed; and the child that\nlooked the sickest was regarded the most pious.  You couldn't crack\nhickory nuts; you couldn't chew gum; and if you laughed, it was only\nanother evidence of the total depravity of man. That was a solemn\nnight; and the next morning everybody looked sad, mournful,\ndyspeptic--and thousands of people think they have religion when they\nhave only got dyspepsia--thousands!  But there is nothing in this world\nthat would break up the old orthodox churches as quick as some specific\nfor dyspepsia--some sure cure.\n\nThen we went to church, and the minister was up in a pulpit about\ntwenty feet high, with a little sounding-board over him, and he\ncommenced with Firstly and went on to about twenty-thirdly, and then\naround by way of application, and then divided it off again once or\ntwice, and after having put in about two hours, he got to Revelations.\nWe were not allowed to have any fire, even if it was in the winter.  It\nwas thought to be outrageous to be comfortable while you are thanking\nthe Lord, and the first church that ever had a stove put in it in New\nEngland was broken up on that account.  Then we went a-nooning, and\nthen came the catechism, the chief end of man.  We went through that;\nand then this same sermon was preached, commencing at the other end,\nand going back. After that was over we started for home, solemn and\nsad--\"not a soldier discharged his farewell shot;\"  not a word was\nsaid--and when we got home, if we had been good boys, they would take\nus up to the graveyard to cheer us up a little.\n\nIt did cheer me!  When I looked at those tombs the comforting\nreflection came to my mind that this kind of thing couldn't last\nalways.  Then we had some certain books that we read just by way of\ncheerfulness.  There was Milner's \"History of the Wilderness,\" Baxter's\n\"Call to the Unconverted,\" and Jenkins' \"On the Atonement.\"  I used to\nread Jenkins' \"On the Atonement;\"  and I have often thought the\natonement would have to be very broad in its provisions to cover the\ncase of a man who would write a book like that for a boy to read.\nWell, you know, the Sunday had to go at last; and the moment the sun\nwent down Sunday night we were free.  About 4 or 5 o'clock we would go\nto see how the sun was coming out.  Sometimes it seemed to me that it\nwas just stopping from pure cussedness; but finally it had to go down,\nand when the last rim of light sank below the horizon, out would come\nour traps, and we would give three cheers for liberty once more.  In\nthose times it was thought wrong for a child to laugh on Sunday.  Think\nof that!  A little child--a little boy--could go out in the garden, and\nthere would be a tree laden with blossoms, and this little fellow would\nlean up against the tree, and there would be a bird singing and\nswinging, and thinking about four little speckled eggs, warmed by the\nbreast of its mate--singing and swinging, and the music coming rippling\nout of its throat, and the flowers blossoming and the air full of\nperfume, and the great white clouds floating in the sky; and that\nlittle boy would lean up against that trunk, and think of hell.\n\nThat's true!  I have heard them preach when I sat in the pew, and my\nfeet didn't come within eighteen inches of the floor, about that hell.\nAnd they said, \"Suppose that once in a million years a bird would come\nfrom some far distant planet, and carry in its bill a grain of sand,\nthe time would finally come when the last atom composing this earth\nwould be carried away;\"  and the old preacher said, in order to impress\nupon the boys the length of time they would have to stay, \"it wouldn't\nbe sun-up in hell yet.\"\n\nThink of that to preach to children!  I tell you, my friends, no day\ncan be so sacred but that the laugh of a little child will make it\nholier still--no day!  And yet, at that time, the minds of children\nwere polluted by this infamous doctrine of eternal punishment; and I\ndenounce it today as an infamous doctrine beyond the power of language\nto express.  Where did that doctrine of eternal punishment for the\nchildren of men come from?  It came from that wretch in the dug-out.\nWhere did he get it?  It was a souvenir from the animals, and the\ndoctrine of eternal punishment was born in the eyes of snakes when they\nhung in fearful coils watching for their prey.  It was a doctrine born\nof the howling and barking and growling of wild beasts; it was born in\nthe grin of the hyenas, and of the depraved chatter of the baboons; and\nI despise it with every drop of my blood.  Tell me there is a God in\nthe serene heaven that will damn his children for the expression of an\nhonest belief!\n\nThere have been more men who died in their sins, according to your\northodox religion, than there are leaves on all the forests of this\nworld ten thousand times over.  Tell me they are in hell! Tell me they\nare to be punished for ever and ever!  I denounce it as an infamous lie!\n\nAnd when the great ship containing the hope and aspiration of the\nworld, when the great ship freighted with mankind goes down in the\nnight of death and disaster, I will go down with the ship.  I don't\nwant to paddle off in any orthodox canoe.  I will go down with the\nship; and if there is a God who will damn his children forever I had\nrather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an\ninfamous Deity.  I make my choice now.  I despise that doctrine, and\nI'll tell you why.  It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears.\nIt has polluted the heart of children.  It has been a pain and terror\nto every man that ever believed it.  It has filled the good with horror\nand fear, but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base.  I tell\nyou it is a bad doctrine.  I read in the papers today what Henry Ward\nBeecher, whom I regard as the most intellectual preacher in the pulpit\nof the United States--I will read from the paper what he said\nyesterday, and you will see an abstract of it in the New York Times of\ntoday.  He has had the courage, and he has had the magnificent manhood,\nto say:\n\n\"I say to you, and I swear to you, by the wounds in the hands of\nChrist--I swear to you by the wounds in the body and feet of Christ,\nthat this doctrine of eternal hell is a most infamous nightmare of\ntheology!  It never should be preached again.\"\n\nWhat right have you, sir; you, minister, as you are, to stand at the\nportal of eternity, or the portal of the tomb, and fill the future with\nhorror and with fear?  You have no right to do it.  I don't believe it,\nand neither do you.  You would not sleep one night.  Any man who\nbelieves it, who has got a decent heart in his bosom, will go insane.\nYes, sir, a man that really believes that doctrine and does not go\ninsane, has got the conscience of a snake and the intellect of a hyena.\nO! I thank my stars that you do not believe it.  You cannot believe it,\nand you never will believe it.  Old Jonathan Edwards, the dear old\nsoul, he is in heaven I suppose, said:  \"Can the believing husband in\nheaven be happy with his unbelieving wife in hell?  Can the believing\nfather in heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in hell? Can\nthe loving wife in heaven be happy with her unbelieving husband in\nhell?  I tell you yea.  Such will be their sense of justice that it\nwill increase rather than diminish their happiness.\"\n\nThink of these infamous doctrines that have been taught in the name of\nreligion!  Do not stuff these things into the minds of your children.\nGive them a chance.  Let them read.  Let them think.  Do not treat your\nchildren like posts, to be set in the orthodox road, but like trees,\nthat need light and sun and air. Be honest with them.  Be fair with\nthem.  In old times they used to make all children go to bed when they\nwere not sleepy, and all of them got up when they were sleepy.  I say\nlet them go to bed--when they are sleepy and get up when they are not.\nBut they say that will do for the rich, but not for the poor.  Well, if\nthe poor have to wake their children early in the morning, it is as\neasy to wake them with a kiss as with a club.  I believe in letting\nchildren commence at which end of the dinner they want to.\n\nLet them eat what they want.  It is their business.  They know what\nthey want to eat.  And if they have had their liberty from the first,\nthey can beat any doctor in the world.  All the improvement that has\never been made in medicine has been made by the recklessness of\npatients. Yes, sir.  Thousands and thousands of years the doctors\nwouldn't let a man have water in fever. Every now and then some fellow\ngot reckless and said:  \"I will die, I am so thirsty,\" and drank two or\nthree quarts of water and got well.  And they kept that up until\nfinally the doctors said, \"that is the best thing for a fever you can\ndo.\"\n\nI have more confidence to agree with nature about these things than any\nof the conclusions of the schools.  Just let your children have\nfreedom, and they will fall right into your ways and do just as you do.\nBut you try to make them, and there is some magnificent, splendid thing\nin the human heart that will not be driven.  And do you know it is the\nluckiest thing for this world that ever happened that people are so.\nWhat would we have been if the people in any age of the world had done\njust as the doctors told them?  They would have been all dead.  What\nwould we have done if, at any age of the world, we had followed\nimplicitly the direction of the church?  We would have been all idiots,\nevery one.\n\nIt is a splendid thing that there is always some fellow who won't mind,\nand will think for himself.  And I believe in letting children think\nfor themselves.  I believe in having a family like a democracy.  If\nthere is anything splendid in this world it is a home of that kind.\nThey used to tell us, \"Let your victuals close your mouth.\"  We used to\neat as though it was a religious performance.  I like to see the\nchildren about, and every one telling what he has seen and heard.  I\nlike to hear the clatter of the knives and spoons mingling with the\nlaughter of their voices.  I had rather hear it than any opera that has\never been put upon the boards.  Let them have liberty; let them have\nfreedom, and I tell you your children will love you to death.\n\nNow, I have some excuses to offer for the race to which I belong. I\nhave two.  My first excuse is that this is not a very good world to\nraise folks in anyway.  It is not very well adapted to raising\nmagnificent people.  There's only a quarter of it land to start with.\nIt is three times better fitted for raising fish than folks, and in\nthat one quarter of land there is not a tenth part fit to raise people\non.  You can't raise people without a good climate.  You have got to\nhave the right kind of climate, and you have got to have certain\nelements in the soil, or you can't raise good people.  Do you know that\nthere is only a little zig-zag strip around the world within which have\nbeen produced all men of genius?\n\nThe southern hemisphere has never produced a man of genius, never; and\nnever will until civilization, fighting the heat that way and the cold\nthis, widens this portion of the earth until it is capable of producing\ngreat men and great women.  It is the same with men that it is with\nvegetation; you go into a garden, and find there flowers growing.  And\nas you go up the mountain, the birch and the hemlock and the spruce are\nto be found.  And as you go toward the top, you find little, stunted\ntrees getting a miserable subsistence out of the crevices of the rocks,\nand you go on up and up and up, until finally you find at the top\nlittle moss-like freckles.  You might as well try to raise flowers\nwhere those freckles grow as to raise great men and women where you\nhaven't got the soil.\n\nI don't believe man ever came to any high station without woman. There\nhas got to be some restraint, something to make you prudent, something\nto make you industrious.  And in a country where you don't need any bed\nquilt but a cloud, revolution is the normal condition of the people.\nYou have got to have the fireside; you have got to have the home, and\nthere by the fireside will grow and bloom the fruits of the human race.\nI recollect a while ago I was in Washington when they were trying to\nannex Santo Domingo.  They said:  \"We want to take in Santo Domingo.\"\nSaid I:   \"We don't want it.\"  \"Why,\" said they, \"it is the best\nclimate the earth can produce.  There is everything you want.\"  \"Yes,\"\nsaid I, \"but it won't produce men. We don't want it.  We have got soil\nenough now.  Take 5,000 ministers from New England, 5,000 presidents of\ncolleges, and 5,000 solid business men, and their families, and take\nthem to Santo Domingo; and then you will see the effect of climate. The\nsecond generation, you will see barefooted boys riding bareback on a\nmule, with their hair sticking out of the top of their sombreros, with\na rooster under each arm, going to a cock-fight on Sunday.\"\n\nYou have got to have the soil; you have got to have the climate, and\nyou have got to have another thing--you have got to have the fireside.\nThat is one excuse I have for us.\n\nThe next excuse is that I think we came up from the lower animals.\nElse how can you account for all this snake and hyena and jackal in\nman? Now, when I first heard that doctrine, I didn't like it.  I felt\nsorry for people who had nothing but ancestors to be proud of.  It\ntouched my heart to think that they would have to go back to the Duke\nOrangutan or the Duchess Chimpanzee.  I was sorry, and I hated to\nbelieve it.  I don't know that it is the truth now.  I am not satisfied\nupon that question; I stand about eight to seven.  I thought it over.\nI read about it.  I read about these rudimentary bones and muscles. I\ndidn't like that.  I read that everybody had rudimentary muscles coming\nfrom the ear right down here (indicating); that the most intellectual\npeople in the world have got them.  I say, \"What are they?\"\n\"Rudimentary muscles.\"  \"What kind of muscles?\" \"Muscles that your\nancestors used to have fully developed.\" \"What for?\"  \"To flap their\nears with.\"\n\nWell, whether we ever had them or not, I know of lots of men who ought\nto have them yet.  And finally I said, \"Well, I guess we came up from\nthe lower animals.\"  I thought it all over; the best I could, and I\nsaid, \"I guess we did.\"  And after a while I began to like it, and I\nlike it better now than I did before.\n\nDo you know that I would rather belong to a race that started with\nskull-less vertebrae in the dim Laurentian seas, wiggling without\nknowing why they wiggled, swimming without knowing where they were\ngoing; but kept developing and getting a little further up and a little\nfurther up, all through the animal world, and finally striking this\nchap in the dug-out.  A getting a little bigger, and this fellow\ncalling that fellow a heretic, and that fellow calling the other an\ninfidel, and so on.  For in the history of the world, the man who has\nbeen ahead has always been called a heretic.  Recollect this!  I would\nrather come from a race that started from that skull-less vertebrae,\nand came up and up and up, and finally produced Shakespeare, who found\nthe human intellect wallowing in a hut, and touched it with a wand of\nhis genius, and it became a palace--dome and pinnacle.  I would rather\nbelong to a race that commenced then, and produced Shakespeare, with\nthe eternal hope of an infinite future for the children of progress\nleading from the far horizon, beckoning men forward--forward and onward\nforever.  I had rather belong to this race, and commence there, with\nthat hope, than to have sprung from a perfect pair on which the Lord\nhas lost money every day since.\n\nThese are the excuses I have for my race.\n\nNow, my friends, let me say another thing.  I do not pretend to have\nfloated even with the heights of thought; I do not pretend to have\nfathomed the abyss.  All I pretend is to give simply my honest thought.\nEvery creed that we have today has upon it the mark of whip and chain\nand fagot.  I do not want it.  Free labor will give us wealth, and has\ngiven us wealth, and why?  Because a free brain goes into partnership\nwith a free hand.  That is why. And when a man works for his wife and\nchildren, the problem of liberty is, how to do the most work in the\nshortest space of time; but the problem of slavery is, how to do the\nleast work in the longest space of time.  Slavery is poverty; liberty\nis wealth.\n\nIt is the same in thought.  Free thought will give us truth; and the\nman who is not in favor of free thought occupies the same relation to\nthose he can govern that the slaveholder occupied to his slaves,\nexactly.  Free thought will give us wealth.  There has not been a\ngeneration of free thought yet.\n\nIt will be time to write a creed when there have been a few generations\nof free-brained men and splendid women in this world. I don't know what\nthe future may bring forth; I don't know what inventions are in the\nbrain of the future; I don't know what garments may be woven, with the\nyears to come; but I do know, coming from the infinite sea of the\nfuture, there will never touch this \"bank and shoal of time\" a greater\nblessing, a grander glory, than liberty for man, woman and child.\n\nOh, liberty!  Float not forever in the far horizon!  Remain not forever\nin the dream of the enthusiast and the poet and the philanthropist!\nBut come and take up thine abode with the children of men forever!\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on \"Orthodoxy\"\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:   It is utterly inconceivable that any man\nbelieving in the truth of the Christian religion could publicly deny\nit, because he who believes in that religion would believe that, by a\npublic denial, he would peril the eternal salvation of his soul.  It is\nconceivable, and without any great effort of the mind, that millions\nwho don't believe in the Christian religion should openly say that they\ndid. In a country where religion is supposed to be in power--where it\nhas rewards for pretense, where it pays a premium upon hypocrisy, where\nit at least is willing to purchase silence--it is easily conceivable\nthat millions pretend to believe what they do not.  And yet I believe\nit has been charged against myself, not only that I was insincere, but\nthat I took the side I am on for the sake of popularity; and the\naudience tonight goes far toward justifying the accusation.\n\nIt gives me immense pleasure to say to this immense audience that\northodox religion is dying out of the civilized world.  It is a sick\nman.  It has been attacked with two diseases--softening of the brain\nand ossification of the heart.  It is a religion that no longer\nsatisfies the intelligence of this county; a religion that no longer\nsatisfies the brain; a religion against which the heart of every\ncivilized man and woman protests.  It is a religion that gives hope\nonly to a few; a religion that puts a shadow upon the cradle; a\nreligion that wraps the coffin in darkness and fills the future of\nmankind with flame and fear. It is a religion that I am going to do\nwhat little I can while I live to destroy; and in its place I want\nhumanity, I want good-fellowship, I want a brain without a chain, I\nwant a religion that every good heart will cheerfully applaud.\n\nWe must remember that this is a world of progress, a world of change.\nThere is perpetual death and there is perpetual birth. By the grave of\nthe old forever stands youth and joy; and, when an old religion dies, a\nbetter one is born.  When we find out that an assertion is a falsehood,\na shining truth takes its place, and we need not fear the destruction\nof the false.  The more false we destroy the more room there will be\nfor the true. There was a time when the astrologer sought to read in\nthe stars the fate of men and nations.  The astrologer has faded from\nthe world, but the astronomer has taken his place.  There was a time\nwhen the poor alchemist, bent and wrinkled and old, over his crucible,\nendeavored to find some secret by which he could change the baser\nmetals into purest gold.  The alchemist is gone; the chemist took his\nplace; and, although he finds nothing to change metals into gold, he\nfinds something that covers the earth with wealth.  There was a time\nwhen the soothsayer and auger flourished, and after them came the\nparson and the priest; and the parson and priest must go.  The preacher\nmust go, and in his place must come the teacher--that real interpreter\nof nature. We are done with the supernatural.  We are through with the\nmiraculous and the wonderful.  There was once a prophet who pretended\nto read in the book of the future.  His place was taken by the\nphilosopher, who reasons from cause to effect--a man who finds the\nfacts by which he is surrounded and endeavors to reason from these\npremises, and to tell what in all probability will happen in the\nfuture.  The prophet is gone, the philosopher is here.  There was a\ntime when man sought aid entirely from heaven--when he prayed to the\ndeaf sky.  There was a time when the world depended upon the\nsupernaturalist.  That time in Christendom has passed.  We now depend\nupon the naturalist--not upon the disciple of faith, but upon the\ndiscoverer of facts--upon the demonstrator of truth. At last we are\nbeginning to build upon a solid foundation, and just as we progress the\nsupernatural must die.\n\nReligion of the supernatural kind will fade from this world, and in its\nplace we will have reason.  In the place of the worship of something we\nknow not of, will be the religion of mutual love and assistance--the\ngreat religion of reciprocity.  Superstition must go.  Science will\nremain.  The church, however, dies a little hard.  The brain of the\nworld is not yet developed.  There are intellectual diseases the same\nas diseases of the body. Intellectual mumps and measles still afflict\nmankind.  Whenever the new comes, the old protests, and the old fights\nfor its place as long as it has a particle of power.  And we are now\nhaving the same warfare between superstition and science that there was\nbetween the stagecoach and the locomotive.  But the stage-coach had to\ngo.  It had its day of glory and power, but it is gone. It went West.\nIn a little while it will be driven into the Pacific, with the last\nIndian aboard.  So we find that there is the same conflict between the\ndifferent sects and the different schools, not only of philosophy, but\nof medicine.  Recollect that everything except the demonstrated truth\nis liable to die.  That is the order of nature.  Words die.  Every\nlanguage has a cemetery.  Every now and then a word dies and a\ntombstone is erected, and across it is written the word \"obsolete.\"\nNew words are continually being born.  There is a cradle in which a\nword is rocked.  A thought is molded to a sound, and the child-word is\nborn.  And then comes a time when the word gets old, and wrinkled, and\nexpressionless, and is carried mournfully to the grave, and that is the\nend of it.  So in the schools of medicine. You can remember, so can I,\nwhen the old alopathists reigned supreme.  If there was anything the\nmatter with a man, they let out his blood.  Called to the bedside, they\ntook him to the edge of eternity with medicine, and then practiced all\ntheir art to bring him back to life.  One can hardly imagine how\nperfect a constitution it took a few years ago to stand the assault of\na doctor. And long after it was found to be a mistake, hundreds and\nthousands of the old physicians clung to it, carried around with them,\nin one pocket, a bottle of jalap, and in the other a rusty lancet,\nsorry that they couldn't find some patient idiotic enough to allow the\nexperiment to be made again.\n\nSo these schools, and these theories, and these religions die hard.\nWhat else can they do?  Like the paintings of the old masters, they are\nkept alive because so much money has been invested in them.  Think of\nthe amount of money that has been invested in superstition!  Think of\nthe schools that have been founded for the more general diffusion of\nuseless knowledge! Think of the colleges wherein men are taught that it\nis dangerous to think, and that they must never use their brains except\nin an act of faith!  Think of the millions and billions of dollars that\nhave been expended in churches, in temples and in cathedrals! Think of\nthe thousands and thousands of men who depend for their living upon the\nignorance of mankind!  Think of those who grow rich on credulity and\nwho fatten on faith!  Do you suppose they are going to die without a\nstruggle?  They will die if they don't struggle.  What are they to do?\nFrom the bottom of my heart I sympathize with the poor clergyman that\nhas had all his common sense educated out of him, and is now to be\nthrown out upon the cold and uncharitable world.  His prayers are not\nanswered; he gets no help from on high, and the pews are beginning to\ncriticize the pulpit.  What is the man to do?  If he suddenly change,\nhe is gone.  If he preaches what he really believes, he will get notice\nto quit.  And yet if he and the congregation would come together and be\nperfectly honest, they would all admit they didn't believe anything of\nit.\n\nOnly a little while ago a couple of ladies were riding together from a\nrevival in a carriage late at night, and one said to the other; as they\nrode along:  \"I am going to say something that will shock you, and I\nbeg of you never to tell it to anybody else.  I am going to tell it to\nyou.\" \"Well, What is it?\"  Says she:  \"I don't believe in the bible.\"\nThe other replied: \"Neither do I.\"  I have often thought how splendid\nit would be if the ministers could but come together and say:  \"Now let\nus be honest.  Let us tell each other, honor bright--like Dr. Currie\ndid in the meeting here the other day--let us tell just what we\nbelieve.\"  They tell a story that in the old time a lot of people,\nabout twenty, were in Texas in a little hotel, and one fellow got up\nbefore the fire, put his hands behind him, and says he:  \"Boys, let us\nall tell our real names.\" If the ministers and the congregations would\nonly tell their real thoughts they would find that they are nearly as\nbad as I am, and that they believe just about as little.\n\nNow, I have been talking a great deal about the orthodox religion; and,\nafter having delivered a lecture, I would meet some good, religious\nperson, and he would say to me:  \"You don't tell it as we believe it.\"\n\"Well, but I tell it as you have it written in your creed.\"  \"Oh,\nwell,\" he says, \"we don't mind that any more.\"  \"Well, why don't you\nchange it?\"  \"Oh, well,\" he says, \"we understand it.\"  Possibly the\ncreed is in the best possible condition for them now.  There is a tacit\nunderstanding that they don't believe it.  There is a tacit\nunderstanding that they have got some way to get around it, that they\nread between the lines; and if they should meet now to form a creed,\nthey might fail to agree; and the creed is now so that they can say as\nthey please, except in public.  Whenever they do so in public, the\nchurch, in self-defense, must try them; and I believe in trying every\nminister that doesn't preach the doctrine as he agrees to.  I have not\nthe slightest sympathy with a Presbyterian preacher who endeavors to\npreach infidelity from his pulpit and receive Presbyterian money.  When\nhe changes his views, he should step down and out like a man, and say:\n\"I don't believe your doctrine, and I will not preach it.  You must\nhire some bigger fool than I am.\"\n\nBut I find that I get the creed very nearly right.  Today there was put\ninto my hands the new Congregational creed.  I have just read it, and I\nthought I would call your attention to it tonight, to find whether the\nchurch has made any advance; to find whether it has been affected by\nthe light of science; to find whether the sun of knowledge has risen in\nthe heavens in vain; whether they are still the children of\nintellectual darkness; whether they still consider it necessary for you\nto believe something that you by no possibility, can understand, in\norder to be a winged angel forever.  Now, let us see what their creed\nis.  I will read a little of it.  They commence by saying that they\n\"believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven, and of\nearth, and of all things visible and invisible.\"  I am perfectly\nwilling that He should make the invisible, if they want Him to. They\nsay, now, that there is this one personal God; that He is the maker of\nthe universe, and its ruler.  I again ask the old question:  of what\ndid He make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this\nGod made it.  Of what did He make it? What did He use for the purpose?\nThere was nothing in the universe except this God.  What had the God\nbeen doing for the eternity He had been living?  He had made\nnothing--called nothing into existence; never had had an idea, because\nit is impossible to have an idea unless there is something to excite an\nidea.  What had He been doing?  Why doesn't the Congregational Church\ntell us?  How do they know about this infinite being?  And if He is\ninfinite, how can they comprehend Him?  What good is it to believe\nsomething that you don't understand--that you never can understand?  In\nthe old creeds they described this God as a being without body and\nparts or passions.  Think of that! Something without body and parts or\npassions.  I defy any man in the world to write a letter descriptive of\nnothing.  You can not conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum\nthan a something without body and parts or passions.  And yet this God,\nwithout passions, is angry at the wicked every day; this God, without\npassions, is a jealous God, whose anger burneth to the lowest hell.\nThis God, without passions, loves the whole human race, and this God,\nwithout passions, damns a large majority of the same.  So, too, He is\nthe ruler of the world, and I find here that we find His providence in\nthe government of the nations. What nations?  What evidence can you\nfind, if you are absolutely honest and not frightened, in the history\nof nations, that this universe is presided over by an infinitely wise\nand good God? How do you account for Russia?  How do you account for\nSiberia? How do you account for the fact that whole races of men toiled\nbeneath the master's lash for ages without recompense and without\nreward?  How do you account for the fact that babes were sold from the\narms of mothers--arms that had been reached toward God in supplication?\nHow do you account for it? How do you account for the existence of\nmartyrs?  How do you account for the fact that this God allows people\nto be burned simply for loving Him? How do you account for the fact\nthat justice doesn't always triumph? How do you account for the fact\nthat innocence is not a perfect shield? How do you account for the fact\nthat the world has been filled with pain, and grief, and tears?  How do\nyou account for the fact that people have been swallowed by volcanoes,\nswept from the earth by storms, dying by famine, if there is above us a\nruler who is infinitely good and infinitely powerful?\n\nI don't say there is none.  I don't know.  As I have said before, this\nis the only planet I was ever on.  I live in one of the rural districts\nof the universe.  I know not about these things as much as the clergy.\nAnd if they know no more about the other world than they do about this,\nit is not worth mentioning.  How do they answer all this?  They say\nthat God \"permits it.\"  What would you say to me if I stood by and saw\na ruffian beat out the brains of a child, when I had full and perfect\npower to prevent it?  You would say truthfully that I was as bad as the\nmurderer. That is what you would say.  Is it possible for this God to\nprevent it?  Then, if He doesn't, He is a fiend; He is not good. But\nthey say He \"permits it.\"  What for?  So we may have freedom of choice.\nWhat for?  So that God may find, I suppose, who are good and who are\nbad.  Didn't He know that when He made us?  Did He not know exactly\njust what He was making?  Why should He make those whom He knew would\nbe criminals?  If I should make a machine that would walk your streets\nand commit murder, you would hang me.  Why not?  And if God made a man\nwhom He knew would commit murder, then God is guilty of that murder.\nIf God made a man, knowing he would beat his wife, that he would starve\nhis children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life\nthe wrecks of ruined homes, then, I say, the being who called that\nwretch into existence is directly responsible.  And yet we are to find\nthe providence of God in the history of nations. What little I have\nread shows me that when man has been helped, man had to do it; when the\nchains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when\nsomething bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to\ntrace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings.  You\nwill not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame; you\ncan find the efficient causes nearer home--right here.\n\nWhat is the next thing I find in this creed?  \"We believe that man was\nmade in the image of God, that he might know, love and obey God, and\nenjoy Him for ever.\"  I don't believe that anybody ever did love God,\nbecause nobody ever knew anything about Him. We love each other.  We\nlove something that we know.  We love something that our experience\ntells us is good and great, and good and beautiful.  We cannot by any\npossibility love the unknown.  We can love truth, because truth adds to\nhuman happiness.  We can love justice, because it preserves human joy.\nWe can love charity.  We can love every form of goodness that we know,\nor of which we can conceive, but we cannot love the infinitely unknown.\nAnd how can we be made in the image of something that has neither body\nand parts nor passions?\n\n\"That our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation\nof God, and that all men are so alienated from God that there is no\nsalvation from the guilt and power of sin except through God's\nredeeming power.\"  Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the\nworld who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If there is, strike\nhere (tapping his forehead) and you will hear an echo.  Something is\nfor rent.  Does any human being now believe that God made man of dust\nand a woman of a rib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the\nmiddle of it? Wasn't there room outside of the garden to put His tree,\nif He didn't want people to eat His apple?  If I didn't want a man to\neat my fruit I would not put him in my orchard.\n\nDoes anybody now believe in the snake story?  I pity any man or woman\nwho, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable.  Why\ndid they disobey?  Why, they were tempted.  Who by? The devil.  Who\nmade the devil?  What did He make him for?  Why didn't He tell Adam and\nEve about this fellow?  Why didn't he watch the devil instead of\nwatching Adam and Eve?  Instead of turning them out, why didn't He keep\nhim from getting in?  Why didn't He have His flood first and drown the\ndevil, before He made man and woman?\n\nAnd yet people who call themselves intelligent--professors in colleges\nand presidents of venerable institutions--teach children, and young men\nwho ought to be children, that the Garden of Eden story is an absolute,\nhistorical fact!  Well, I guess it will not be long until that will\nfade from the imagination of men.  I defy any man to think of a more\nchildish thing.  This God waiting around there, knowing all the while\nwhat would happen, made them on purpose so it would happen; and then\nwhat does he do?  Holds all of us responsible; and we were not there.\nHere is a representative before the constituency had been born. Before\nI am bound by a representative, I want a chance to vote for or against\nhim; and if I had been there, and known all the circumstances, I should\nhave voted against him.  And yet, I am held responsible.\n\nWhat did Adam do?  I cannot see that it amounted to much anyway. A god\nthat can create something out of nothing ought not to have complained\nof the loss of an apple.  I can hardly have the patience to speak upon\nsuch a subject.  Now, that absurdity gave birth to another--that, while\nwe could be rightfully charged with the rascality of somebody else, we\ncould also be credited with the virtues of somebody else; and the\natonement is the absurdity which offsets the other absurdity of the\nfall of man. Let us leave them both out; it reads a great deal better\nwith both of them out; it makes better sense.\n\nNow, in consequence of that, everybody is alienated from God. How?\nWhy? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all want to do wrong.  Well,\nwhy? Is that because we are depraved?  No.  Why do we make so many\nmistakes? Because there is only one right way, and there is an almost\ninfinite number of wrong ones; and as long as we are not perfect in our\nintellects we must make mistakes.  There is no darkness but ignorance;\nand alienation, as they call it, from God, is simply a lack of\nintellect upon our part.  Why were we not given better brains?  That\nmay account for the alienation.  But the church teaches that every soul\nthat finds its way to the shore of this world is against God--naturally\nhates God; that the little dimpled child in the cradle is simply a\nchunk of depravity.  Everybody against God!  It is a libel upon the\nhuman race; it is a libel upon all the men who have worked for wife and\nchild; it is a libel upon all the wives who have suffered and labored,\nwept and worked for children; it is a libel upon all the men who have\ndied for their country; it is a libel upon all who have fought for\nhuman liberty; it is a libel upon the human race.  Leave out the\nhistory of the church, and there is nothing in this world to prove the\ndepravity of man left.\n\nEverybody that comes is against God.  Every soul, they think, is like\nthe wrecked Irishman.  He was wrecked in the sea and drifted to an\nunknown island, and as he climbed up the shore he saw a man, and said\nto him, \"Have you a government here?\"  The man said, \"We have.\"\n\"Well,\" said he, \"I am agin it!\"   The church teaches us that that is\nthe attitude of every soul in the universe of God.  Ought a god to take\nany credit to himself for making depraved people?  A god that cannot\nmake a soul that is not totally depraved, I respectfully suggest,\nshould retire from the business.  And if a god has made us, knowing\nthat we would be totally depraved, why should we go to the same being\nfor repairs?\n\nWhat is the next?  \"That all men are so alienated from God that there\nis no salvation from the guilt and power of his sin except through\nGod's redeeming grace.\"\n\nReformation is not enough.  If the man who steals becomes perfectly\nhonest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his fellow-man changes\nand loves his fellowman, that is not enough; he must go through the\nmysterious thing called the second birth; he must be born again.  That\nis not enough unless he has faith; he must believe something that he\ndoes not understand. Reformation is not enough; there must be what they\ncall conversion.  I deny it.  According to the church, nothing so\nexcites the wrath of God--nothing so corrugates the brows of Jehovah\nwith revenge--as a man relying on his own good works. He must admit\nthat he ought to be damned, and that of the two he prefers it, before\nGod will consent to save him.  I saw a man the other day, and he said\nto me, \"I am a Unitarian Universalist; that is what I am.\"  Said I,\n\"What do you mean by that?\"  \"Well,\" said he, \"here is what I mean:\nthe Unitarian thinks he is too good to be damned, and the Universalist\nthinks God is too good to damn him, and I believe them both.\"\n\nWhat is the next thing in this great creed?\n\n\"We believe that the scriptures of the old and new testaments are the\nrecords of God's revelation of Himself in the work of redemption; that\nthey are written by men, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit,\nand that they constitute an authoritative standard by which religious\nteaching and human conduct are to be regulated and judged.\"\n\nThis is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, it is the\nresult of the high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for\nchurches; and there we have the statement that the bible was written\n\"by men, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit.\"  What part of\nthe bible?  All of it; all of it; and yet what is this old testament\nthat was written by an infinitely good God?  The being who wrote it did\nnot know the shape of the world He had made.  The being who wrote it\nknew nothing of human nature; He commands men to love Him, as if one\ncould love upon command.  The same God upheld the institution of human\nslavery; and the church says the bible that upholds that institution\nwas written by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Then I\ndisagree with the Holy Ghost upon that institution.\n\nThe church tells us that men, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost,\nupheld the institution of polygamy--I deny it; that under the guidance\nof the Holy Ghost these men upheld wars of extermination and\nconquest--I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Ghost these\nmen wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife\nif she happened to differ with him on the subject of religion--I deny\nit.  And yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the\nCongregational Church.  If the devil had written upon the subject of\nslavery, which side would he have taken?  Let every minister answer,\nhonor bright.  If you knew the devil had written a little work on human\nslavery, in your judgment would he uphold slavery or denounce it?\nWould you regard it as any evidence that he ever wrote it if he upheld\nslavery?  And yet, here you have a work upholding slavery, and you say\nthat it was written by an infinitely good, wise and beneficent God!  If\nthe devil upheld polygamy would you be surprised?  If the devil wanted\nto kill somebody for differing with him would you be surprised?  If the\ndevil told a man to kill his wife, would you be astonished?  And yet,\nyou say, that is exactly what the God of us all did.  If there be a\nGod, then that creed is blasphemy.  That creed is a libel upon Him who\nsits upon heaven's throne.  I want--if there be a God--I want Him to\nwrite in the book of his eternal remembrance that I denied these lies\nfor Him.\n\nI do not believe in a slave-holding God; I do not worship a polygamous\nHoly Ghost; I do not get upon my knees before any being who commands a\nhusband to slay his wife because she expresses her honest thought.\n\nDid it ever occur to you that if God wrote the old testament, and told\nthe Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on\nreligion, and that God afterward took upon Himself flesh and came to\nJerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed\nHim--did it ever occur to you that He reaped exactly what he had sown?\nDid it ever occur to you that He fell a victim to His own tyranny, and\nwas destroyed by His own law!  Of course I do not believe that any God\never was the author of the bible, or that any God was ever crucified,\nor that any God was ever killed or ever will be, but I want to ask you\nthat question.\n\nTake this old testament, then, with all its stories of murder and\nmassacre; with all its foolish and cruel fables; with all its infamous\ndoctrines; with its spirit of caste; with its spirit of hatred, and\ntell me whether it was written by a good God. Why, if you will read the\nmaledictions and curses of that book, you would think that God, like\nLear, had divided heaven among his daughters, and then, in the insanity\nof despair, had launched his curses upon the human race.\n\nAnd yet, I must say--I must admit--that the old testament is better\nthan the new.  In the old testament, when God got a man dead, He let\nhim alone.  When He saw him quietly in his grave He was satisfied.  The\nmuscles relaxed, and a smile broke over the Divine face.  But in the\nnew testament the trouble commences just at death.  In the new\ntestament God is to wreak His revenge forever and ever.  It was\nreserved for one who said, \"Love your enemies,\" to tear asunder the\nveil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze of men upon\nthe gulfs of eternal fire. The new testament is just as much worse than\nthe old, as hell is worse than sleep; just as much worse as infinite\ncruelty is worse than annihilation; and yet, the new testament is\npointed to as a gospel of love and peace.\n\nBut \"more of that hereafter,\" as the ministers say.\n\n\"We believe that Jesus Christ came to establish among men the Kingdom\nof God, the reign of truth and love, of righteousness and peace.\"\n\nWell, that may have been the object of Jesus Christ.  I do not deny it.\nBut what was the result?  The Christian world has caused more war than\nall the rest of the world besides; all the cunning instruments of death\nhave been devised by Christians; all the wonderful machinery by which\nthe brains are blown out of a man, by which nations are conquered and\nsubdued--all these machines have been born in Christian brains.  And\nyet He came to bring peace, they say.  But the testament says\notherwise:  \"I came not to bring peace, but a sword.\"  And the sword\nwas brought.  What are the Christian nations doing today in Europe? Is\nthere a solitary Christian nation that will trust any other? How many\nmillions of Christians are in the uniform of everlasting forgiveness,\nloving their enemies?  There was an old Spaniard upon the bed of death,\nand he sent for a priest, and the priest told him that he would have to\nforgive his enemies before he died.  He says, \"I have not any.\"  \"What!\nno enemies?\" \"Not one,\" said the dying man, \"I killed the last one\nthree weeks ago.\"\n\nHow many millions of Christians are now armed and equipped to destroy\ntheir fellow-Christians?  Who are the men in Europe crying out against\nwar?  Who wishes to have the nations disarmed? Is it the church?  No;\nit is the men who do not believe in what they call this religion of\npeace.  When there is a war, and when they make a few thousand widows\nand orphans, when they strew the plain with dead patriots, then\nChristians assemble in their churches and sing \"Te Deum Laudamus\" to\nGod.  Why?  Because He has enabled a few of His children to kill some\nothers of His children.  This is the religion of peace--the religion\nthat invented the Krupp gun, that will hurl a bullet weighing 2,000\npounds through twenty-four inches of solid steel.  This is the religion\nof peace, that covers the sea with men-of-war, clad in mail, all in the\nname of universal forgiveness.\n\nWhat effect had this religion upon the nations of the earth? What have\nthe nations been fighting about?  What was the Thirty Years' War in\nEurope for?  What was the war in Holland for?  Why was it that England\npersecuted Scotland?  Why is it that England persecutes Ireland even\nunto this day?  At the bottom of every one of these conflicts you will\nfind a religious question.  The religion of Jesus Christ, as preached\nby His church, causes war, bloodshed, hatred, and all uncharitableness;\nand why?  Because they say a certain belief is necessary to salvation.\nThey do not say, if you behave yourself pretty well you will get there;\nthey do not say, if you pay your debts and love your wife, and love\nyour children, and are good to your friends, and your neighbors, and\nyour country, you will get there; that will do you no good; you have\ngot to believe a certain thing.  Oh, yes, no matter how bad you are,\nyou can instantly be forgiven then; and no matter how good you are, if\nyou fail to believe that, the moment you get to the day of judgment\nnothing is left but to damn you forever, and all the angels will shout\n\"Hallelujah!\"\n\nWhat do they teach today?  Every murderer goes to heaven; there is only\none step from the gallows to God; only one jerk between the halter and\nheaven.  That is taught by this same church.  I believe there ought to\nbe a law to prevent the slightest religious consolation being given to\nany man who has been guilty of murder.  Let a Catholic understand that\nif he imbrues his hands in his brother's blood, he can have no extreme\nunction; let it be understood that he can have no forgiveness through\nthe church; and let the Protestant understand that when he has\ncommitted that crime, the community will not pray him into heaven.  Let\nhim go with his victim.  The victim, you know, dying in his sins, goes\nto hell, and the murderer has the happiness of seeing him there.  And\nif heaven grows dull and monotonous, the murderer can again give life\nto the nerve of pleasure by watching the agony of his victim.  I am\nopposed to that kind of forgiveness.  And yet that is the religion of\nuniversal peace to everybody.\n\nNow, what is the next thing that I wish to call your attention to?\n\n\"We believe in the ultimate prevalence of the Kingdom of Christ over\nall the earth.\"\n\nWhat makes you?  Do you judge from the manner in which you are getting\nalong now?  How many people are being born a year?  About fifty\nmillions.  How many are you converting a year; really, truthfully? Five\nor six thousand.  I think I have overestimated the number.  Is orthodox\nChristianity on the increase?  No. There are a hundred times as many\nunbelievers in orthodox Christianity as there were ten years ago. What\nare you doing in the missionary World?  How long is it since you\nconverted a Chinaman?  A fine missionary religion, to send\nmissionaries, with their bibles and tracts, to China, but if a Chinaman\ncomes here, mob him, simply to show him the difference between the\npractical and theoretical workings of the Christian religion.  How long\nsince you have had a convert in India?  In my judgment, never; there\nnever has been an intelligent Hindoo converted from the time the first\nmissionary put his foot upon that soil; and never, in my judgment, has\nan intelligent Chinaman been converted since the first missionary\ntouched that shore. Where are they? We hear nothing of them, except in\nthe reports.  They get money from poor old ladies, trembling on the\nedge of the grave, and go and tell them stories how hungry the average\nChinaman is for a copy of the new testament, and paint the sad\ncondition of a gentleman in the interior of Africa, without the work of\nDr. McCosh, longing for a copy of the Princeton Review.  In my\njudgment, it is a book that would suit a savage. Thus money is scared\nfrom the dying and frightened from the old and feeble. About how long\nis it before this kingdom is to be established?\n\nWhat is the next thing here?  They all also believe in the resurrection\nof the dead, and in their confession of faith hereto attached I find\nthey also believe in the resurrection of the body.  Does anybody\nbelieve that, that has ever thought?  Here is a man, for instance, that\nweighs 200 pounds, and gets sick and dies weighing 120; how much will\nhe weigh in the morning of the resurrection?  Here is a cannibal, who\neats another man; and we know that the atoms that you eat go into your\nbody and become a part of you.  After the cannibal has eaten the\nmissionary, and appropriated his atoms to himself, and then he dies,\nwho will the atoms belong to in the morning of the resurrection in an\naction of replevin brought by the missionary against the cannibal? It\nhas been demonstrated again and again that there is no creation in\nnature, and no destruction in nature.  It has been demonstrated again\nand again that the atoms that are in us have been in millions of other\nbeings; grown in the forest, in the grass, blossomed in the flowers,\nbeen in the metals; in other words, there are atoms in each one of us\nthat have been in millions of others, and when we die these atoms\nreturn to the earth, and again spring in vegetation, taken up in the\nleaves of the trees, turned into wood.  And yet we have a church, in\nthe nineteenth century, getting up this doctrine, presided over by\nprofessors, by presidents of colleges, and by theologians, who tell us\nthat they believe in the resurrection of the body.\n\nThey know better.  There is not one so ignorant but what knows better.\n\nAnd what is the next thing?  \"And in a final judgment.\"  It will be a\nset day.  All of us will be there, and the thousands, and millions, and\nbillions, and trillions, and quadrillions that have died will be there.\nIt will be the day of judgment, and the books will be opened and our\ncase will be called.  Does anybody believe in that now that has got the\nslightest sense?--one who knows enough to chew gum without a string?\"\n\n\"The issues of which are everlasting punishment for the wicked and\neverlasting life for the redeemed.   \"That is the doctrine today of the\nCongregational church, and that is the doctrine that I oppose.  That is\nthe doctrine that I defy and deny.\n\nBut I must hasten on.  Now this comes to us after all the discussion\nthat has been, and we are told that this religion is finally to conquer\nthis world.  This is the same religion that failed to successfully meet\nthe hordes of Mohammed.  Mohammed wrested from the disciples of the\ncross the fairest part of Europe.  It was known that he was an\nimpostor. They knew he was because the people of Mecca said so, and\nthey knew that Christ was not because the people of Jerusalem said he\nwas.  This impostor wrested from the disciples of Christ the fairest\npart of Europe, and that fact sowed the seeds of distrust and\ninfidelity in the minds of the Christian world.  And the next was an\neffort to rescue from the infidels the empty sepulchre of Christ.  That\ncommenced in the eleventh century and ended in 1291.  Europe was almost\ndepopulated.  For every man owed a debt, the debt was discharged if he\nput a cross upon his breast and joined the Crusades.  No matter what\ncrime he had committed the doors of the prison were open for him to\njoin the Crusades.  And what was the result?  They believed that God\nwould give them victory over the infidel, and they carried in front of\nthe first Crusade a goat and a goose, believing that both those animals\nhad been blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.  And I may say\nthat those same animals are in the lead today in the orthodox world.\nUntil 1291 they endeavored to get that sepulchre, until finally the\nhosts of Christ were driven back, baffled, beaten, and demoralized--a\npoor, miserable religious rabble.  They were driven back, and that fact\nsowed the seeds of distrust in Christendom.  You know at that time the\nworld believed in trial by battle--that God would take the side of\nright--and there had been a trial by battle between the Cross and\nMohammed, and Mohammed had been victorious.\n\nWell, what was the next?  You know when Christianity came into power it\ndestroyed every statue it could lay its ignorant hands upon.  It\ndefaced and obliterated every painting; it destroyed every beautiful\nbuilding; it destroyed the manuscripts, both Greek and Latin; it\ndestroyed all the history, all the poetry, all the philosophy it could\nfind, and burned every library that it could reach with its torch.  And\nthe result was the night of the middle ages fell upon the human race.\nBut by accident, by chance, by oversight, a few of the manuscripts\nescaped the fury of religious zeal; a few statues had been buried; and\nthe result was, that these manuscripts became the seed, the fruit of\nwhich is our civilization of today.  A few forms of beauty were dug\nfrom the earth that had protected them, and now the civilized world is\nfilled with art, with painting, and with statuary, in spite of the rage\nof the early church.\n\nWhat is the next blow that that this church received?  The discovery of\nAmerica.  That is the next.  The Holy Ghost, who inspired a man to\nwrite the bible, did not know of the existence of this continent, never\ndreamed of it; the result was that His bible never spoke of it.  He did\nnot dream that the earth is round.  He believed it was flat, although\nHe made it Himself, and at that time heaven was just up there beyond\nthe clouds. There was where the gods lived, there was where the angels\nwere, and it was against that heaven that Jacob's ladder was that the\nangels ascended and descended.  It was to that heaven that Christ\nascended after His resurrection.  It was up there where the New\nJerusalem was, with its streets of gold, and under this earth was\nperdition; there was where the devils lived; there was where a pit was\ndug for all unbelievers, and for men who had brains, and I say that for\nthis reason: That just in proportion that you have brains, just in that\nproportion your chances for eternal joy are lessened, according to this\nreligion. And just in proportion that you lack brains, your chances are\nincreased. They believe, under there that they discovered America. They\nfound that the earth is round.  It was circumnavigated by Magellan. In\n1519 that brave man set sail.  The church told him: \"The earth is flat,\nmy friend; don't go off.  You will go off the edge.\" Magellan said: \"I\nhave seen the shadow of the earth upon the moon, and I have more\nconfidence in the shadow even than I have in the church.\"  The ship\nwent round.  The earth was circumnavigated.  Science passed its hand\nabove it and beneath it, and where was the heaven, and where was the\nhell?  Vanished forever! And they dwell now only in the religion of\nsuperstition.  We found there was no place for Jacob's ladder to lean\nagainst; no place there for the gods and angels to live; no place there\nto empty the waters of the deluge; no place there to which Christ could\nhave ascended; and the foundations of the New Jerusalem crumbled, and\nthe towers and domes fell and became simply space--space sown with an\ninfinite number of stars; not with New Jerusalems, but with\nconstellations.\n\nThen man began to grow great, and with that you know came astronomy.\nNow just see what they did in that.  In 1473 Copernicus was born.  In\n1543 his great work.  In 1616 the system of Copernicus was condemned by\nthe pope, by the infallible Catholic church, and the church is about as\nnear right upon that subject as upon any other.  The system of\nCopernicus was denounced.  And how long do you suppose the church\nfought that? Let me tell you.  It was revoked by Pius VII. in the year\nof grace 1821.  For 205 years after the death of Copernicus the church\ninsisted that that system was false, and that the old idea was true.\nAstronomy is the first help that we ever received from heaven.  Then\ncame Kepler in 1609, and you may almost date the birth of science from\nthe night that Kepler discovered his first law.  That was the dawn of\nthe day of intelligence--his first law, that the planets do not move in\ncircles; his second law, that they described equal spaces in equal\ntimes; his third law, that there was a direct relation between weight\nand velocity. That man gave us a key to heaven.  That man opened its\ninfinite book, and we now read it, and he did more good than all the\ntheologians that ever lived.  I have not time to speak of the\nothers--of Galileo, of Leonardo da Vinci, and of hundreds of others\nthat I could mention.\n\nThe next thing that gave this church a blow was statistics.  Away went\nspecial providence.  We found by taking statistics that we could tell\nthe average length of human life; that this human life did not depend\nupon infinite caprice; that it depended upon conditions, circumstances,\nlaws and facts, and that those conditions, circumstances, and facts\nwere ever active.  And now you will see the man who depends entirely\nupon special providence gets his life insured.  He has more confidence\neven in one of these companies than he has in the whole Trinity.  We\nfound by statistics that there were just so many crimes on an average\ncommitted; just so many crimes of one kind and so many of another; just\nso many suicides, so many deaths by drowning; just so many accidents on\nan average; just so many men marrying women, for instance, older than\nthemselves; just so many murders of a particular kind; just the same\nnumber of accidents; and I say tonight statistics utterly demolish the\nidea of special providence.  Only the other day a gentleman was telling\nme of a case of special providence.  He knew it.  He had been the\nsubject of it.  Yes, sir!  A few years ago he was about to go on a ship\nwhen he was detained; he didn't go, and the ship was lost and all on\nboard.  Yes!  I said, \"Do you think the fellows that were drowned\nbelieved in special providence?\"  Think of the infinite egotism of such\na doctrine.  Here is a man that fails to go upon a ship with 500\npassengers, and they go down to the bottom of the sea--fathers,\nmothers, children, and loving husbands, and wives waiting upon the\nshores of expectation.  Here is one poor little wretch that didn't\nhappen to go! And he thinks that God, the infinite being, interfered in\nhis poor little withered behalf and let the rest all go.  That is\nspecial providence!\n\nYou know we have a custom every year of issuing a proclamation of\nthanksgiving.  We say to God, \"Although You have afflicted all the\nother countries, although You have sent war, and desolation, and famine\non everybody else, we have been such good children that you have been\nkind to us, and we hope you will keep on.\"  It don't make a bit of\ndifference whether we have good times or not--not a bit; the\nthanksgiving is always exactly the same.  I remember a few years ago a\ngovernor of Iowa got out a proclamation of that kind.  He went on to\ntell how thankful the people were, how prosperous the State had been;\nand there was a young fellow in the State who got out another\nproclamation, saying: \"Fearing that the Lord might be misled by\nofficial correspondence,\" he went on to say that the governor's\nproclamation was entirely false; that the State was not prosperous;\nthat the crops had been an almost entire failure; that nearly every\nfarm in the state was mortgaged; that if the Lord did not believe him,\nall he asked was He would send some angel in whom he had confidence to\nlook the matter over for himself.\n\nOf course I have not time to recount the enemies of the church. Every\nfact is an enemy of superstition.  Every fact is a heretic. Every\ndemonstration is an infidel.  Everything that ever happened testified\nagainst the supernatural.  I have only spoken of a few of the blows\nthat shattered the shield and shivered the lance of superstition.  Here\nis another one--the doctrine of Charles Darwin.  This century will be\ncalled Darwin's century, one of the greatest men who ever touched this\nglobe.  He has explained more of the phenomena of life than all of the\nreligious teachers. Write the name of Charles Darwin there (on the one\nhand) and the name of every theologian that ever lived there (on the\nother hand), and from that name has come more light to the world than\nfrom all those.  His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the\nsurvival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has\nremoved in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox\nChristianity.  He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that\nthe inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin\nof man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature;\nthat the bible is a book written by ignorance--by the instigation of\nfear!  Think of the man who replied to him.  Only a few years ago there\nwas no parson too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and\nthe more ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task.  He\nwas held up to the ridicule, the scorn, and the contempt of the\nChristian world, and yet when he died England was proud to put his dust\nwith that of her noblest and her grandest.\n\nCharles Darwin conquered the intellectual world, and the doctrine of\nevolution is now an accepted fact.  His light has broken in on some of\nthe early clergy, and the greatest man who today occupies the pulpit is\na believer in the evolution theory of Charles Darwin--and that is Henry\nWard Beecher--a man of more brains than the entire clergy of that\nentire church put together.  And yet we are told in this little creed\nthat orthodox religion is about to conquer the world.  It will be\ndriven to the wilds of Africa.  It must go to some savage country; it\nhas lost its hold upon civilization, and I tell you it is unfortunate\nto have a religion that cannot be accepted by the intellect of a\nnation. It is unfortunate to have a religion against which every good\nand noble heart protests.  Let us have a good one or none.  O! my pity\nhas been excited by seeing these ministers endeavor to warp and twist\nthe passages of scripture to fit some demonstration in science.  These\npious evasions! These solemn pretenses!  When they are caught in one\nway they give a different meaning to the words and say the world was\nnot made in seven days.  They say \"good whiles\"--epochs.  And in this\nsame confession here of faith and creeds they believe the Lord's day is\nholy--every seventh day.  Suppose you lived near the north pole, where\nthe day is three months long.  Then which day will you keep?  Suppose\nyou could get to the north pole, you could prevent Sunday from ever\novertaking you.  You could walk around the other way faster than the\nworld could revolve. How would you keep Sunday then? Suppose we ever\ninvent any thing that can go 1,000 miles an hour? We can just chase\nSunday clear around the globe.  Is there anything that can be more\nperfectly absurd than that a space of time can be holy!  You might as\nwell talk about a pious vacuum. These pious evasions.  I heard the\nother night of an old man.  He was not very well educated, you know,\nand he got into the notion that he must have reading of the bible and\nhave family worship; and there was a bad boy in the family--a pretty\nsmart boy--and they were reading the bible by course, and in the\nfifteenth chapter of Corinthians is this passage:  \"Behold, brethren, I\nshow you a mystery; we shall not all die, but we shall be changed.\"\nAnd this boy rubbed out the \"c\" in the \"changed.\"  So next night the\nold man got on his specs and got down his bible and said:  \"Behold,\nbrethren, I show you a mystery; we shall not all die, but we shall be\nhanged.\"  The old lady said, \"Father, I don't think it reads that way.\"\nHe says, \"Who is reading this?\" \"Yes, mother, it says be hanged, and,\nmore than that, I see the sense of it.  Pride is the besetting sin of\nthe human heart, and if there is anything calculated to take the pride\nout of a man it is hanging.\"\n\nI keep going back to this book; I keep going back to the miracles, to\nthe prophecies, to the fables, and people ask me, if I take away the\nbible, what are we going to do?  How can we get along without the\nrevelation that no one understands?  What are we going to do if we have\nno bible to quarrel about?  What are we to do without hell?  What are\nwe going to do with our enemies? What are we going to do with the\npeople we love but don't like? They tell me that there never would have\nbeen any civilization if it had not been for this bible.  Um!  The Jews\nhad a bible; the Romans had not.  Which had the greater and the grander\ngovernment?  Let us be honest.  Which of those nations produced the\ngreatest poets, the greatest soldiers, the greatest orators, the\ngreatest statesmen, the greatest sculptors?  Rome had no bible.  God\ncared nothing for the Roman Empire.  He let the men come up by chance.\nHis time was taken up by the Jewish people. And yet Rome conquered the\nworld, and even conquered God's chosen people.  The people that had the\nbible were defeated by the people who had not.  How was it possible for\nLucretius to get along without the bible?  How did the great and\nglorious of that empire?  And what shall we say of Greece?  No bible.\nCompare Athens with Jerusalem.  From Athens comes the beauty and\nintellectual grace of the world.  Compare the mythology of Greece with\nthe mythology of Judea.  One covering the earth with beauty, and the\nother filling heaven with hatred and injustice.  The Hindoos had no\nbible; they had been forsaken by the creator, and yet they became the\ngreatest metaphysicians of the world.  Egypt had no bible.  Compare\neven Egypt with Judea.  What are we to do without the bible?  What\nbecame of the Jews who had no bible; their temple was destroyed and\ntheir city was taken; and, as I said before, they never found real\nprosperity until their God deserted them.  Do without the bible?\n\nNow I come again to the new testament.  There are a few things in\nthere, I give you my word, I cannot believe.  I cannot--I cannot\nbelieve in the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ.  I believe He was the\nson of Joseph and Mary; that Joseph and Mary had been duly and legally\nmarried; that He was the legitimate offspring of that marriage, and\nnobody ever believed the contrary until He had been dead 150 years.\nNeither Matthew, Mark nor Luke ever dreamed that He was of divine\norigin.  He did not say to either Matthew, Mark or Luke, or to any one\nin their hearing, that He was the son of God, or that He was\nmiraculously conceived.  He did not say it.  The angel Gabriel, who,\nthey say, brought the news, never wrote a word upon the subject.  His\nmother never wrote a word upon the subject.  His father never wrote a\nword upon the subject.  We are lacking in the matter of witnesses.  I\nwould not believe it now!  I cannot believe it then.  I would not\nbelieve people I know, much less would I believe people I don't know.\nI say that at that time Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that He was the\nson of Joseph and Mary.  And why?  They say He descended from the blood\nof David, and in order to show that He was of the blood of David they\ngave the genealogy of Joseph.  And if Joseph was not his father, why\nnot give the genealogy of Pontius Pilate or Herod?  Could they, by\ngiving the genealogy of Joseph, show that He was of the blood of David\nif Joseph was in no way related to David; and yet that is the position\ninto which the Christian world is now driven.  It says the son of\nJoseph, and then interpolated the words \"as was supposed.\"  Why, then,\ndo they give a supposed genealogy.  It will not do.  And that is a\nthing that cannot in any way, by any human testimony, be established;\nand if it is important for us to know that He was the Son of God, I say\nthen that it devolves upon God to give us evidence.  Let Him write it\nacross the face of the heavens, in every language of mankind.  If it is\nnecessary for us to believe it, let it grow on every leaf next year.\nNo man should be damned for not believing unless the evidence is\noverwhelming.  And he ought not to be made to depend upon say-so.  He\nshould have it directly for himself.  A man says God told him so and\nso, and he tells me, and I haven't anyone's word but that fellow's.  He\nmay have been deceived.  If God has a message for me He ought to tell\nit to me, and not somebody that has been dead 4,000 or 5,000 years, and\nin another language; God may have changed His mind on many things; He\nhas on slavery at least, and polygamy; and yet His church now wants to\ngo out here and destroy polygamy in Utah with a sword.  Why don't they\nsend missionaries there with copies of the old testament?  By reading\nthe lives of Abraham, and Isaac, and Lot, and a few other fellows that\nought to have been in the penitentiary, they can soften their hearts.\n\nNow, there is another miracle I do not believe.  I want to speak about\nit as we would about any ordinary transaction in the world. In the\nfirst place, I do not believe that any miracle was ever performed, and\nif there was, you can't prove it.  Why?  Because it is altogether more\nreasonable that the people lied about it than that it happened.  And\nwhy?  Because, according to human experience, we know that people will\nnot always tell the truth, and we never saw a miracle, and we have got\nto be governed by our experience, and if we go by our experience, it is\nin favor that the thing never happened; that the man is mistaken.  Now,\nI want you to remember it.  Here is a man that comes into Jerusalem,\nand the first thing he does he cures the blind.  He lets the light of\nday visit the darkness of blindness.  The eyes are opened and the whole\nworld is again pictured upon the brain.  Another man is clothed with\nleprosy.  He touches him, and the disease falls from him, and he stands\npure, and clean, and whole.  Another man is deformed, wrinkled, bent.\nHe touches him and throws upon him again the garment of youth.  A man\nis in his grave, and He says, \"Come forth!\" and he again walks in life,\nfeeling his heart throb and beat, and his blood going joyously through\nhis veins.  They say that happened.  I don't know.  There is one\nwonderful thing about the dead people that were raised--we don't hear\nof them any more.  What became of them?  Why, if there was a man in\nthis town that had been raised from the dead, I would go to see him\ntonight. I would say, \"Where were you when you got the notice to come\nback?  What kind of country is it?  What kind of opening there for a\nyoung man?  How did you like it?\"  But nobody ever paid the slightest\nattention to them there.  They didn't even excite interest when they\ndied the second time. Nobody said, \"Why, that man isn't afraid.  He has\nbeen there.\"  Not a word. They pass away quietly.  You see I don't\nbelieve it.  There is something wrong somewhere about that business.\nAnd then there is another trouble in my mind.  Now, you know I may\nsuffer eternal punishment for all this.\n\nHere is a man that does all these things, and thereupon they crucify\nHim.  Now, then, let us be honest.  Suppose a man came into Chicago and\nhe should meet a funeral procession, and he should say, \"Who is dead?\"\nand they should say, \"The son of a widow; her only support,\" and he\nshould say to the procession, \"Halt!\"  And to the undertaker, \"Take out\nthat coffin, unscrew that lid.\"  \"Young man, I say unto thee, arise!\"\nAnd the latter should step from the coffin, and in one moment after\nhold his mother in his arms.  Suppose he should go to your cemetery and\nshould find some woman holding a little child in each hand, while the\ntears fell upon a new-made grave, and he should say to her, \"Who lies\nburied here?\" and she should reply, \"My husband,\" and he should say, \"I\nsay unto thee, oh grave, give up thy dead,\" and the husband should rise\nand in a moment after have his lips upon his wife's, and the little\nchildren with their arms around his neck.  Suppose that it is so.  Do\nyou think that the people of Chicago would kill him?  Do you think any\none would wish to crucify him?  Do you not rather believe that every\none who had a loved one out in that cemetery would go to him, even upon\ntheir knees, and beg him and implore him to give back their dead?  Do\nyou believe that any man was ever crucified who was the master of\ndeath? Let me tell you tonight if there shall ever appear on this earth\nthe master, the monarch of death, all human knees will touch the earth;\nhe will not be crucified, he will not be touched.  All the living who\nfear death; all the living who have lost a loved one will stand and\ncling to him.  And yet we are told that this worker of miracles, this\nworker of wonders, this man who could clothe the dead in the throbbing\nflesh of life, was crucified by the Jewish people.  It was never\ndreamed that he did a miracle until 100 years after he was dead.\n\nThere is another miracle I do not believe, I cannot believe it, and\nthat is the resurrection.  And why?  If it was the fact, if the dead\ngot out of the grave, why did He not show himself to his enemies?  Why\ndid He not again visit Pontius Pilate?  Why did He not call upon\nCaiaphas, the high priest?  Why did He not make another triumphal entry\ninto Jerusalem?  Why did He not again enter the temple and dispute with\nthe doctors?  Why didn't He say to the multitude:  \"Here are the wounds\nin My feet, and in My hands, and in My side.  I am the one you\nendeavored to kill, but Death is My slave.\"  Why didn't He?  Simply\nbecause the thing never happened.  I cannot believe it.  But recollect,\nit makes no difference with its teachings. They are exactly as good\nwhether He wrought miracles or not.  Twice two are four; that needs no\nmiracle. Twice two are five--a miracle would not help that. Christ's\nteachings are worth their effect upon the human race. It makes no\ndifference about miracle or about wonder, but you must remember in that\nday every one believed in miracles.  Nobody had any standing as a\nteacher, a philosopher, a governor, or a king, about whom there was not\na something miraculous.  The earth was then covered with the sons and\ndaughters of the gods and goddesses.  That was believed in Greece, in\nRome, in Egypt, in Hindustan; everybody, nearly, believed in such\nthings.\n\nThen there is another miracle that I cannot believe in, and that is the\nascension--the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ.  Where was He going?\nSince the telescope has been pointed at the stars, where was He going?\nThe New Jerusalem is not there.  The abode of the gods is not there.\nWhere was He going?  Which way did He go?  That depends upon the time\nof day that He left.  If He left in the night He went exactly the\nopposite way from what He would in the day.  Who saw this miracle?\nThey say the disciples.  Let us see what they say about it.  Matthew\ndid not think it was worth mentioning.  He doesn't speak of it at all.\nOn the contrary, he says that the last words of Christ were:  \"Lo, I am\nwith you always, even unto the end of the world.\"  That is what he\nsays.  Mark, he saw it.  \"So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them\nHe was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.\"  That\nis all he has to say about the most wonderful thing that ever blessed\nhuman vision--about a miracle great enough to have stuffed credulity to\nbursting; and yet we have one poor, little meagre verse.  So, then,\nafter He had quit speaking,  He was caught up and sat on the right hand\nof God.  How does he know He was on the right hand?  Did he see Him\nafter He had sat down? Luke says:  \"And it came to pass while He\nblessed them He was parted from them and was carried up into heaven.\"\nBut John does not mention it.  He gives as His last words this address\nto Peter:  \"Follow thou Me.\"  Of course He did not say that as He\nascended.  In the Acts we have another account.  A conversation is\ngiven not spoken of in any of the others, and we find there two men\nclad in white apparel, who said:  \"Men of Galilee, why stand ye here\ngazing up into heaven?  This same Jesus that was taken up into heaven\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go up into Heaven.\"\nMatthew didn't see that; Mark forgot it; Luke didn't think it was worth\nmentioning, and John didn't believe it; and yet upon that evidence we\nare led to believe that the most miraculous of all miracles actually\noccurred.  I cannot believe it.\n\nI may be mistaken; but the church is now trying to parry, and when they\ncome to the little miracles of the new testament all they say is:\n\"Christ didn't cast out devils; these men had fits.\"  He cured fits.\nThen I read in another place about the fits talking.  Christ held a\ndialogue with the fits, and the fits told Him his name, and the fits at\nthat time were in a crazy man. And the fits made a contract that they\nwould go out of the man provided they would be permitted to go into\nswine.  How can fits that attack a man take up a residence in swine?\nThe church must not give up the devil.  He is the right bower.  No\ndevil, no hell; no hell, no preacher; no fire, no insurance.  I read\nanother miracle--that this devil took Christ and put him on the\npinnacle of a temple.  Was that fits, too?  Why is not the theological\nworld honest?  Why do they not come up and admit what they know the\nbook means?  They have not the courage.  Now, their next doctrine is\nthe absolute necessity of belief.  That depends upon this:  Can a man\nbelieve as he wants to?  Can you?  Can anybody?  Does belief depend at\nall upon the evidence?  I think it does somewhat in some cases.  How is\nit that when a jury is sworn to try a case, hearing all the\nevidence--hearing both sides, hearing the charge of the judge, hearing\nthe law, and upon their oaths, are equally divided, six for the\nplaintiff and six for the defendant?  It is because evidence does not\nhave the same effect upon all people.  Why?  Our brains are not\nalike--not the same shape; we have not the same intelligence or the\nsame experience, the same sense.  And yet I am held accountable for my\nbelief.  I must believe in the Trinity--three times one is one, once\none is three--and my soul is to be eternally damned for failing to\nguess an arithmetical conundrum. And that is the poison part of\nChristianity--that salvation depends upon belief--that is the poison\npart, and until that dogma is discarded religion will be nothing but\nsuperstition.  No man can control his belief.  If I hear certain\nevidence I will believe a certain thing.  If I fail to hear it I may\nnever believe it.  If it is adapted to my mind I may accept it; if it\nis not, I reject it.  And what am I to go by?  My brain.  That is the\nonly light I have from nature, and if there be a God, it is the only\ntorch that this God has given me by which to find my way through the\ndarkness and the night called life.  I do not depend upon hearsay for\nthat.  I do not have to take the word of any other man, nor get upon my\nknees before a book.  Here, in the temple of the mind, I go and consult\nthe God--that is to say, my reason--and the oracle speaks to me, and I\nobey the oracle.  What should I obey?  Another man's oracle? Shall I\ntake another man's word and not what he thinks, but what God said to\nhim?\n\nI would not know a god if I should see one.  I have said before, and I\nsay again, the brain thinks in spite of me, and I am not responsible\nfor my thought.  No more can I control the beating of my heart, the\nexpansion and contraction of my lungs for a moment; no more can I stop\nthe blood that flows through the rivers of the veins.  And yet I am\nheld responsible for my belief.  Then why does not the God give me the\nevidence?  They say He has.  In what?  In an inspired book.  But I do\nnot understand it as they do.  Must I be false to my understanding?\nThey say:  \"When you come to die you will be sorry you did not.\"  Will\nI be sorry when I come to die that I did not live a hypocrite?  Will I\nbe sorry I did not say I was a Christian when I was not?  Will the fact\nthat I was honest put a thorn in the pillow of death?  God cannot\nforgive me for that.  They say when He was in Jerusalem, He forgave His\nmurderers.  Now He won't forgive an honest man for differing with Him\non the subject of the Trinity.  They say that God says to me, \"Forgive\nyour enemies.\"  I say, \"All right, I do;\"  but he says, \"I will damn\nmine.\" God should be consistent. If He wants me to forgive my enemies,\nHe should forgive His.  I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me.\nGod is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt Him.  He certainly\nought to be as generous as He asks us to be.  And I want no God to\nforgive me unless I do forgive others.  All I ask, if that be true, is\nthat this God should live according to His own doctrine.  If I am to\nforgive my enemies I ask Him to forgive His.  That is justice, that is\nright.  Here are these millions today who say:  \"We are to be saved by\nbelief, by faith; but what are we to believe?\"\n\nIn St. Louis last Sunday I read an interview with a Christian\nminister--one who is now holding a revival.  They call him the boy\npreacher--a name that he has borne for fifty or sixty years. The\nquestion was whether in these revivals, when they were trying to rescue\nsouls from eternal torture, they would allow colored people to occupy\nseats with white people, and that revivalist, preaching the\nunsearchable richness of Christ, said he would not allow the colored\npeople to sit with white people; they must go to the back of the\nchurch.  The same people go and sit right next to them in heaven, swap\nharps with them, and yet this man, believing as he says he does, that\nif he did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ he would eternally\nperish, was not willing that the colored man should sit by a white man\nwhile he heard the gospel of everlasting peace.  He was not willing\nthat the colored man should get into the lifeboat of Christ, although\nthose white men might be totally depraved, and if they had justice done\nthem, according to his doctrine. would be eternally damned--and yet he\nhas the impudence to put on airs, although he ought to be eternally\ndamned, and go and sit by the colored man.  His doctrine of religion,\nthe color line, has not my respect.  I believe in the religion of\nhumanity, and it is far better to love our fellow-men than to love God,\nbecause we can help them, and we cannot help Him.  You had better do\nwhat you can than to be always pretending to do what you cannot.\n\nNow I come to the last part of the bible--this creed--and that is,\neternal punishment, and I have concluded; and I have said I will never\ndeliver a lecture that I do not give the full benefit of its name.\nThat part of the Congregational creed would disgrace the lowest savage\nthat crouches and crawls in the jungles of Africa.  The man who now, in\nthe nineteenth century, preaches the doctrine of eternal punishment,\nthe doctrine of eternal hell, has lived in vain.  Think of that\ndoctrine! The eternity of punishment!  Why, I find in that same creed\nthat Christ is finally going to triumph in this world and establish His\nkingdom; but if their doctrine is true, He will never triumph in the\nother world. He will have billions in hell forever.  In this world we\nnever will be perfectly civilized as long as a gallows casts its shadow\nupon the earth.  As long as there is a penitentiary, behind the walls\nof which a human being is immured, we are not a civilized people.  We\nwill never be perfectly civilized until we do away with crime and\ncriminals. And yet, according to this Christian religion, God is to\nhave an eternal penitentiary; He is to be an everlasting jailor, an\neverlasting turnkey, a warden of an infinite dungeon, and He is going\nto keep prisoners there, not for the purpose of reforming them--because\nthey are never going to get any better, only getting worse--just for\nthe purpose of punishing them.  And what for?  For something they did\nin this world; born in ignorance, educated it may be in poverty, and\nyet responsible through the countless ages of eternity.  No man can\nthink of a greater horror; no man can think of a greater absurdity.\nFor the growth of that doctrine, ignorance was soil and fear was rain.\nThat doctrine came from the fanged mouths of wild beasts, and yet it is\nthe \"glad tidings of great joy.\"\n\n\"God so loved the world\" He is going to damn most everybody, and, if\nthis Christian religion be true, some of the greatest, and grandest,\nand best who ever lived upon this earth, are suffering its torments\ntonight.  It don't appear to make much difference, however, with this\nchurch.  They go right on enjoying themselves as well as ever.  If\ntheir doctrine is true, Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest, and best\nof men, who did so much to give us here a free government, is suffering\nthe tyranny of God tonight, while he endeavored to establish freedom\namong men.  If the churches were honest, their preachers would tell\ntheir hearts, \"Benjamin Franklin is in hell, and we warn any and all\nthe youth not to imitate Benjamin Franklin.  Thomas Jefferson, the\nauthor of the Declaration of Independence, with its self-evident\ntruths, has been damned these many years.\"  That is what all the\nministers ought to have the courage to say.  Talk as you believe. Stand\nby your creed or change it.  I want to impress it upon your mind,\nbecause the thing I wish to do in this world is to put out the fires of\nhell I want to keep at it just as long as there is one little coal red\nin the bottomless pit.  As long as the ashes are warm, I shall denounce\nthis infamous doctrine.\n\nI want you to know that the men who founded this great and glorious\ngovernment are there.  The most of the men who fought in the\nRevolutionary War and wrested from the clutch of Great Britain this\ncontinent; have been rewarded by the eternal wrath of God.  The old\nRevolutionary soldiers are in hell by the thousands.  Let the preachers\nhave the courage to say so.  The men who fought in 1812, and gave to\nthe United States the freedom of the seas, nearly all of them have been\ndamned since 1815--all that were killed.  The greatest of heroes, they\nare there.  The greatest of poets, the greatest scientists, the men who\nhave made the world beautiful and grand, they are all, I tell you,\namong the damned, if this creed is true.  Humboldt, who shed light, and\nwho added to the intellectual wealth of mankind, Goethe, and Schiller,\nand Lessing, who almost created the German language--all gone!  All\nsuffering the wrath of God tonight, and every time an angel thinks of\none of those men he gives his harp an extra twang.\n\nLa Place, who read the heaven like an open book--he is there. Robert\nBurns, the poet of human love--he is there because he wrote the \"Prayer\nof Holy Willie;\"  because he fastened upon the cross the Presbyterian\ncreed, and made a lingering crucifixion. And yet that man added to the\ntenderness of human heart. Dickens, who put a shield of pity before the\nflesh of childhood God is getting even with him.  Our own Ralph Waldo\nEmerson, although he had a thousand opportunities to hear Methodist\nclergymen, scorned the means of grace, and the Holy Ghost is delighted\nthat he is in hell tonight.\n\nLongfellow refined hundreds and thousands of homes, but he did not\nbelieve in the miraculous origin of the Savior.  No, sir; he doubted\nthe report of Gabriel.  He loved his fellow-men; he did what he could\nto free the slaves; he did what he could to make mankind happy; but God\nwas just waiting for him.  He had His constable right there.  Thomas\nPaine, the author of the \"Rights of Man,\" offering his life in both\nhemispheres for the freedom of the human race, and one of the founders\nof the Republic--it has often seemed to me that if we could get God's\nattention long enough to point Him to the American flag, He would let\nhim out. Compte, the author of the \"Positive Philosophy,\" who loved his\nfellow-men to that degree that he made of humanity a God, who wrote his\ngreat work in poverty, with his face covered with tears--they are\ngetting their revenge on him now.  Voltaire, who abolished torture in\nFrance; who did more for human liberty than any other man, living or\ndead; who was the assassin of superstition, and whose dagger still\nrusts in the heart of Catholicism--all the priests who have been\ntranslated have their happiness increased by looking at Voltaire.\nGlorious country where the principal occupation is watching the\nmiseries of the lost.  Geordani Bruno, Benedict Spinoza, Diderot, the\nencyclopedist, who endeavored to get all knowledge in a small compass\nso that he could put the peasant on an equality with the prince\nintellectually; the man who wished to sow all over the world the seeds\nof knowledge; who loved to labor for mankind. While the priests wanted\nto burn, he did all he could to put out the fire--he has been lost\nlong, long ago.  His cry for water has, become so common that his voice\nis now recognized through all the realms of hell, and they say to one\nanother, \"That is Diderot.\"  David Hume, the philosopher, he is there\nwith the rest.\n\nBeethoven, the Shakespeare of music, he has been lost, and Wagner, the\nmaster of melody, and who has made the air of this world rich forever,\nhe is there, and they have better music in hell than in heaven.\n\nShelley, whose soul, like his own skylark, was a winged joy--he has\nbeen damned for many, many years; and Shakespeare, the greatest of the\nhuman race, who has done more to elevate mankind than all the priests\nwho ever lived and died--he is there; and all the founders of\nInquisitions, the builders of dungeons, the makers of chains, the\ninventors of instruments of torture, tearers, and burners, and branders\nof human flesh, stealers of babes and sellers of husbands, and wives,\nand children, the drawers of the swords, of persecution, and they who\nkept the horizon lurid with the fagot's flame for a thousand\nyears--they are in heaven tonight. Well, I wish heaven joy of such\ncompany.\n\nAnd that is the doctrine with which we are polluting the souls of\nchildren.  That is the doctrine that puts a fiend by their dying bed\nand a prophesy of hell over every cradle.  That is \"glad tidings of\ngreat joy.\"  Only a little while ago, when the great flood came upon\nthe Ohio, sent by him who is ruling in the world and paying particular\nattention to the affairs of nations, just in the gray of the morning\nthey saw a house floating down, and on its top a human being; and a few\nmen went out to the rescue in a little boat, and they found there a\nmother, a woman, and they wanted to rescue her, and she said:  \"No, I\nam going to stay where I am.  I have three dead babes in this house.\"\nThink of a love so limitless, stronger and deeper than despair and\ndeath, and yet the Christian religion says that if that woman did not\nhappen to believe in their creed, God would send that mother's soul to\neternal fire.  If there is another world, and if in heaven they wear\nhats, when such a woman climbs up the opposite bank of the Jordan,\nChrist should lift His to her.\n\nThat is the trouble I had with this Christian religion--its infinite\nheartlessness; and I cannot tell them too often that during our last\nwar Christians who knew that if they were shot they would go right to\nheaven, went and hired wicked men to take their places, perfectly\nwilling the men should go to hell, provided they could stay at home.\nYou see they are not honest in it; they do not believe it, or, as the\npeople say, \"They don't sense it;\"  they have not religion enough to\nconceive what it is they believe and what a terrific falsehood they\nassert.  And I beg of every one who hears me tonight, I beg, I implore,\nI beseech you never give another dollar to build a church in which that\nlie is preached.  Never give another cent to send a missionary with his\nmouth stuffed with that falsehood to a foreign land.  Why, they say,\nthe heathen will go to heaven anyway if you let them alone; what is the\nuse of sending them to hell by enlightening them.  Let them alone.  The\nidea of going and telling a man a thing that if he does not believe he\nwill be damned, when the chances are ten to one that he won't believe\nit. Don't tell him, and as quick as he gets to the other world and\nfinds it necessary to believe, he will say \"yes.\"  Give him a chance.\n\nMy objection to the Christian religion is that it destroys human love,\nand tells you and me that the love of your dear-ones is not necessary\nin this world to make a heaven in the next.  No matter about your wife,\nyour children, your brother, your sister--no matter about all the\naffections of the human heart--when you get there you will be alone\nwith the angels.  I don't know whether I would like the angels.  I\ndon't know whether the angels would like me.  I would rather stand by\nthe folks who have loved me and whom I know; and I can conceive of no\nheaven without the love of this earth.  That is the trouble with the\nChristian religion; leave your father, leave your mother, leave your\nwife, leave your children, leave everything and follow Jesus Christ.  I\nwill not. I will stay with the folks.  I will not sacrifice on the\naltar of a selfish fear all the grandest and noblest promptings of my\nheart.  You do away with human love, and what are we without it? What\nwould we be in another world, and what would we be here without it?\nCan any one conceive of music without human love? Human love builds\nevery home--human love is the author of all the beauty in this world.\nLove paints every picture, and chisels every statue; love, I tell you,\nbuilds every fireside.  What would heaven be without love?  And yet\nthat is what we are promised--a heaven with your wife lost, your mother\nlost, some of your children gone.  And you expect to be made happy by\nfalling in with some angel.\n\nSuch a religion is demoralizing; and how are you to get there? On the\nefforts of another.  You are to be perpetually a heavenly pauper, and\nyou will have to admit through all eternity that you never would have\ngot here if you hadn't got frightened.  \"I am here,\" you will say, \"I\nhave these wings, I have this musical instrument, because I was\nscared.\" What a glorious world; and then think of it!  No reformation\nin the next world--not the slightest.  If you die in Arkansas that is\nthe end of you.  At the end you will be told that being born in\nArkansas you had a fair chance.  Think of telling a boy in the next\nworld, who lived and died in Delaware, that he had a fair show!  Can\nanything be more infamous?  All on an equality--the rich and the poor,\nthose with parents loving them, those with every opportunity for\neducation, on an equality with the poor, the abject, and the\nignorant--and the little ray called life, this little moment with a\nshadow and a tear, this little space between your mother's arms and the\ngrave, that balances an entire eternity.  And God can do nothing for\nyou when you get there.  A little Methodist preacher can do no more for\nthe soul here than its creator can when you get there.  The soul goes\nto heaven, where there is nothing but good society; no bad examples;\nand they are all there, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet they can do\nnothing for that poor unfortunate except to damn him.  Is there any\nsense in that?  Why should this be a period of probation?  It says in\nthe bible, I believe, \"Now is the accepted time.\"  When does that mean?\nThat means whenever the passage is pronounced.  Now is the accepted\ntime.  It will be the same tomorrow, won't it?  And just as appropriate\nthen as today, and if appropriate at any time, appropriate through all\neternity.  What I say is this:  There is no world--there can be no\nworld--in which every human being will not have an opportunity of doing\nright.  That is my objection to this Christian religion, and if the\nlove of earth is not the love of heaven, if those who love us here are\nto be separated there, then I want eternal sleep.  Give me a good cold\ngrave rather than the furnace of Jehovah's wrath.  Gabriel, don't blow!\nLet me alone!  If, when the grave bursts, I am not to meet faces that\nhave been my sunshine in this life, let me sleep on. Rather than that\nthe doctrine of endless punishment should be tried, I would like to see\nthe fabric of our civilization crumble and fall to unmeaning chaos and\nto formless dust, where oblivion broods and where even memory forgets.\nI would rather a Samson of some unprisoned force, released by chance,\nshould so wreck and strain the mighty world that man in stress and\nstrain of want and fear should shudderingly crawl back to savage and\nbarbaric night. I would rather that every planet would in its orbit\nwheel a barren star rather than that the Christian religion should be\ntrue.\n\nI think it is better to love your children than to love God, a thousand\ntimes better, because you can help them, and I am inclined to think\nthat God can get along without you.  I believe in the religion of the\nfamily. I believe that the roof-tree is sacred from the smallest fibre\nheld in the soft, moist clasp of the earth to the little blossom on the\ntopmost bough that gives its fragrance to the happy air.  The family\nwhere virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire--the\nfairest flower in all this world.  And I tell you God cannot afford to\ndamn a man in the next world who has made a happy family in this. God\ncannot afford to cast over the battlements of heaven the man who has\nbuilt a happy home here.  God cannot afford to be unpitying to a human\nheart capable of pity.  God cannot clothe with fire the man who has\nclothed the naked here; and God cannot send to eternal pain a man who\nhas done something toward improving the condition of his fellow-man.\nIf he can, I had rather go to hell than to heaven and keep the company\nof such a God.\n\nThey tell me the next terrible thing I do is to take away the hope of\nimmortality.  I do not, I would not, I could not. Immortality was first\ndreamed of by human love, and yet the church is going to take human\nlove out of immortality.  We love it; therefore we wish to love.  A\nloved ones dies, and we wish to meet again, and from the affection of\nthe human heart grew the great oak of the hope of immortality.  And\naround that oak has climbed the poisonous vine, superstition.\nTheologians, pretenders, soothsayers, parsons, priests, popes, bishops,\nhave taken all that hope, and they have had the impudence to stand by\nthe grave and prophesy a future of pain.  They have erected their\ntoll-gates on the highway to the other world, and have collected money\nfrom the poor people on the way, and they have collected it from their\nfear.  The church did not give us the idea of immortality; the bible\ndid not give us the idea of immortality. Let me tell you now that the\nold testament tells you how you lost immortality; it does not say\nanother word about another world from the first mistake in Genesis to\nthe last curse in Malachi. There is not in the old testament one burial\nservice.\n\nNo man in the old testament stands by the bed and says, \"I will meet\nthem again\"--not one word.  From the top of Sinai came no hope of\nanother world.  And when we get to the new testament, what do we find\nthere?  Have thy heart counted worthy to obtain that world and the\nresurrection of the dead.  As though some would be counted unworthy to\nobtain the resurrection of the dead. And, in another place:  \"Seek for\nhonor, glory, immortality.\"  If you have got it, why seek for it?  And\nin another place:  \"God, who alone hath immortality;\"  and yet they\ntell us that we get our ideas of immortality from the bible.  I deny\nit. If Christ was in fact God, why didn't He plainly say there was\nanother life?  Why didn't He tell us something about it?  Why didn't He\nturn the tear-stained hope of immortality into the glad knowledge of\nanother life?  Why did He go dumbly to his death, and leave the world\nin darkness and in doubt?  Why?  Because He was a man and didn't know.\nI would not destroy the smallest star of human hope, but I deny that we\ngot our idea of immortality from the bible.  It existed long before\nMoses existed.  We find it symbolized through all Egypt, through all\nIndia.  Wherever man has lived, his religion has made another world in\nwhich to meet the lost.  It is not born of the bible.  The idea of\nimmortality, like the great sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human\nheart, beating with its countless waves against the  rocks and sands of\nfate and time.  It was not born of the bible.  It was born of the human\nheart, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and\nclouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death.\nWe do not know.  We do not prophesy a life of pain.  We leave the dead\nwith nature, the mother of us all, under a seven-hued bow of hope.\nUnder the seven-hued arch let the dead sleep.  \"Ah, but you take the\nconsolation of religion.\"  What consolation has religion for the widow\nof the unbeliever, the widow of a good, brave, kind man who lies dead?\nWhat can the orthodox ministers say to relieve the bursting heart of\nthat woman?  What can the orthodox ministers say to relieve the aching\nhearts of the little orphans as they kneel by the grave of that father,\nif that father didn't happen to be an orthodox Christian? What\nconsolation have they?  I find that when a Christian loses a friend the\ntears spring from his eyes as quickly as from the eyes of others.\nTheir tears are as bitter as ours.  Why?  The echo of the promises\nspoken eighteen hundred years ago is so low, and the sound of the clods\nupon the coffin so loud, the promises are so far away, and the dead are\nso near.  That is the reason.  And they find no consolation there.  I\nsay honestly we do not know; we cannot say.  We cannot say whether\ndeath is a wall or a door; the beginning or end of a day; the spreading\nof pinions too soar or the folding forever of wings; whether it is the\nrising or the setting of sun, or an endless life that brings rapture\nand love to every one--we do not know; we can not say.\n\nThere is an old fable of Orpheus and Eurydice:  Eurydice had been\ncaptured and taken to the infernal regions, and Orpheus went after her,\ntaking with him his harp and playing as he went; and when he came to\nthe infernal regions he began to play, and Sysiphus sat down upon the\nstone that he had been heaving up the side of the mountain so many\nyears, and which continually rolled back upon him.  Ixion paused upon\nhis wheel of fire; Tantalus ceased in his vain efforts for water; the\ndaughters of the Danaidae left off trying to fill their sieves with\nwater; Pluto smiled, and for the first time in the history of hell the\ncheeks of the Furies were wet with tears; monsters relented and they\nsaid, \"Eurydice may go with you, but you must not look back.\"  So he\nagain threaded the caverns, playing as he went, and as he again reached\nthe light he failed to hear the footsteps of Eurydice, and he looked\nback and in a moment she was gone.  This old fable gives to us the idea\nof the perpetual effort to rescue truth from the churches of monsters.\nSome time Orpheus will not look back.   Some day Eurydice will reach\nthe blessed light, and at some time there will fade from the memory of\nmen the superstition of religion.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on \"Blasphemy\"\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  There is an old story of a missionary trying to\nconvert an Indian.  The Indian made a little circle in the sand and\nsaid, \"That is what the Indian knows.\"  Then he made another circle a\nlittle larger and said, \"that is what missionary knows; but outside\nthere the Indian knows just as much as missionary.\"\n\nI am going to talk mostly outside that circle tonight.\n\nFirst, what is the origin of the crime known as blasphemy?  It is the\nbelief in a God who is cruel, revengeful, quick tempered and\ncapricious; a God who punishes the innocent for the guilty; a God who\nlistens with delight to the shrieks of the tortured and gazes\nenraptured on their spurting blood.   You must hold this belief before\nyou can believe in the doctrine of blasphemy.  You must believe that\nthis God loves ceremonies, that this God knows certain men to whom He\nhas told all His will.  It then follows that, if this God loves\nceremonies and has certain men to teach His will and perform these\nceremonies, these men must have a place to live in.  This place was\ncalled a temple, and it was sacred.  And the pots and pans and kettles\nand all in it were sacred too.  No one but the priests must touch them.\nThen the God wrote a book in which He told His covenants to men, and\ngave this book to priests to interpret.  While it was sacrilege to\ntouch with the hands the pots and pans of the temple, it was blasphemy\nto doubt or question anything in the book.  And then the right to think\nwas gone, and the right to use the brain that God had given was taken\naway, and religion was entrenched behind that citadel called blasphemy.\n\nGod was a kind of juggler.  He did not wish man to be impudent or\ncurious about how He did things.  You must sit in audience and watch\nthe tricks and ask no questions.  In front of every fact He has hung\nthe impenetrable curtain of blasphemy.  Now, then, all the little\nreason that poor man had is useless.  To say anything against the\npriest was blasphemy and to say anything against God was blasphemy--to\nask a question was blasphemy.  Finally we sank to the level of\nfetishism.  We began to worship inanimate things. If you will read your\nbible you will find that the Jews had a sacred box.  In it were the rod\nof Aaron and a piece of manna and the tables of stone.  To touch this\nbox was a crime. You remember that one time when a careless Jew thought\nthe box was going to tip he held it.  God killed him.  What a warning\nto baggage smashers of the present day.\n\nWe find also that God concocted a hair oil and threatened death to any\none who imitated it.  And we see that He also made a certain perfume\nand it was death to make anything that smelt like it.  It seems to me\nthis is carrying protection too far.  It always has been blasphemy to\nsay  \"I do not know whether God exists or not.\"  In all Catholic\ncountries it is blasphemy to doubt the bible, to doubt the sacredness\nof the relics.  It always has been blasphemy to laugh at a priest, to\nask questions, to investigate the Trinity.  In a world of superstition,\nreason is blasphemy.  In a world of ignorance, facts are blasphemy.  In\na world of cruelty, sympathy is a crime, and in a world of lies, truth\nis blasphemy.  Who are the real blasphemers?  Webster offers the\ndefinition; blasphemy is an insult offered to God by attributing to Him\na nature and qualities differing from His real nature and qualities,\nand dishonoring Him.  A very good definition, if you only know what His\nnature and qualities are. But that is not revealed; for, studying Him\nthrough the medium of the bible, we find Him illimitably contradictory.\nHe commands us not to work on the Sabbath day, because it is holy.  Yet\nGod works himself on the Sabbath day.  The sun, moon and stars swing\nround in their orbits, and all the creation attributed to this God goes\non as on other days.  He says:  \"Honor thy father and mother,\" and yet\nthis God, in the person of Christ, offered honors, and glory, and\nhappiness a hundred fold to any who would desert their father and\nmother for Him.  Thou shalt not kill, yet God killed the first-born of\nEgypt, and he commanded Joshua to kill all His enemies, not sparing old\nor young, man, woman or child, even an unborn child.  \"Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery,\" he says, and yet this God gave the wives of defeated\nenemies to His soldiers of Joshua's army.  Then again He says, \"Thou\nshalt not steal.\"  By this command He protected the inanimate property\nand the cattle of one man against the hand of another, and yet this God\nwho said \"Thou shalt not steal,\" established human slavery.  The\nproducts of industry were not to be interfered with, but the producer\nmight be stolen as often as possible. \"Thou shalt not bear false\nwitness against thy neighbor.\"  And yet the God who said this said\nalso, \"I have sent lying spirits unto Ahab.\"  The only commandment He\nreally kept was, \"Thou shalt have none other gods but Me.\"\n\nIs it blasphemous to describe this God as malicious?  You know that\nlaughter is a good index of the character of a man.  You like and\nrejoice with the man whose laugh is free and joyous and full of good\nwill.  You fear and dislike him of the sneering laugh.  How does God\nlaugh?  He says, \"I will laugh at their calamity and mock at their\nmisfortune,\" speaking of some who have sinned.  Think of the malice and\nmalignity of that in an infinite God when speaking of the sufferings He\nis going to impose upon His children.  You know that it is said of a\nRoman emperor that he wrote laws very finely, and posted them so high\non the walls that no one could read them, and then he punished the\npeople who disobeyed the laws.  That is the acme of tyranny:  to\nprovide a punishment for breach of laws the existence of which were\nunknown.  Now we all know that there is sin against the Holy Ghost\nwhich will not be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come.\nHundreds of thousands of people have been driven to the lunatic asylum\nby the thought that they had committed this unpardonable sin.   Every\neducated minister knows that that part of the bible is an\ninterpolation, but they all preach it.  What that sin against the Holy\nGhost is, is not specified. I say, \"Oh, but my good God, tell me what\nthis sin is.\"  And He answers, \"Maybe now asking is the crime.  Keep\nquiet.\"  So I keep quiet and go about tortured with the fear that I\nhave committed that sin.  Is it blasphemy to describe God as needing\nassistance from the Legislature? Calling for the aid of a mob to\nenforce His will here, compare that God with a man, even with Henry\nBergh. See what Mr. Bergh has done to awaken pity in our people and\ncall sympathy to the rescue of suffering animals. And yet our God was a\ntorturer of dumb brutes.\n\nIt is blasphemy to say that our God sent the famine and dried the\nmother's breast from her infant's withered lips?  Is it blasphemy to\nsay that He is the author of the pestilence; that He ordered some of\nHis children to consume others with fire and sword?  Is it blasphemy to\nbelieve what we read in the 109th Psalm?  If these things are not\nblasphemy, then there is no blasphemy.  If there be a God I desire Him\nto write in the book of judgment opposite my name that I denied these\nlies for Him.\n\nLet us take another step; let us examine the Presbyterian confession of\nfaith.  If it be possible to commit blasphemy, then I contend that the\nPresbyterian creed is most blasphemous, for, according to that, God is\na cruel, unrelenting, revengeful, malignant and utterly unreasonable\ntyrant.  I propose now to pay a little attention to the creed.  First,\nit confesses that there is such a thing as a light of nature.  It is\nsufficient to make man inexcusable, but not sufficient for salvation;\njust light enough to lead man to hell.  Now imagine a man who will put\na false light on a hilltop to lure a ship to destruction.  What would\nwe say of that man?  What can we say of a God who gives this false\nlight of nature which, if its lessons are followed, results in hell?\nThat is the Presbyterian God.  I don't like Him.  Now it occurred to\nGod that the light of nature was somewhat weak, and He thought He'd\nlight another burner. Therefore He made His book and gave it to His\nservants, the priests, that they might give it to men.  It was to be\naccepted, not on the authority of Moses, or any other writer, but\nbecause it was the word of God.  How do you know it's the word of God?\nYou're not to take the word of Moses, or David, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah,\nor any other man, because the authenticity of their work has nothing to\ndo with the matter; this creed expressly lets them out.  How are you to\nknow that it is God's word?  Because it is God's word.  Why is it God's\nword? What proof have we that it is God's word?  Because it is God's\nword.\n\nNow, then, I find that the next thing in this wonderful confession of\nfaith of the Presbyterians is the decree of predestination.  [Reads the\ndecree.]  I am pleased to assure you that it is not necessary to\nunderstand this.  You have only to believe it.  You see that by the\ndecree of God some men and angels are predestinated to heaven and\nothers to eternal hell, and you observe that their number is so certain\nand definite that it can neither be changed nor altered.  You are asked\nto believe that billions of years ago this God knew the names of all\nthe men and women whom He was going to save.  Had 'em in His book, that\nbeing the only thing except Himself that then existed.  He had chosen\nthe names by the aid of the secret council.  The reason they called it\nsecret was because they knew all about it.\n\nIn making His choice, God was not at all bigoted.  He did not choose\nJohn Smith because He foresaw that Smith was to be a Presbyterian, and\nwas to possess a loving nature, was to be honest and true and noble in\nall his ways, doing good himself and encouraging others in the same.\nOh, no!  He was quite as likely to pick Brown, in spite of the fact\nthat He knew long before that Brown would be a wicked wretch.  You see\nHe was just as apt to send Smith to the devil and take Brown to\nheaven--and all for \"His glory.\"  This God also blinds and hardens--ah!\nhe's a peculiar God.  If sinners persevere, He will blind and harden\nand give them over at last to their own wickedness instead of trying to\nreclaim and save them.\n\nNow we come to the comforting doctrine of the total depravity of man,\nand this leads us to consider how he came that way.  Can any person\nread the first chapters of Genesis and believe them unless his logic\nwas assassinated in the cradle?  We read that our first parents were\nplaced in a pleasant garden; that they were given the full run of the\nplace and only forbidden to meddle with the orchard; that they were\ntempted as God knew they were to be tempted; that they fell as God knew\nthey would fall, and that for this fall, which He knew would happen\nbefore He made them, He fixed the curse of original sin upon them, to\nbe continued to all their children.  Why didn't He stop right there?\nWhy didn't He kill Adam and Eve and make another pair who didn't like\napples? Then when He brought His flood why did He rescue eight people\nif their descendants were to be so totally depraved and wicked?  Why\ndidn't He have His flood first, and then drown the devil?  That would\nhave solved the problem, and He could then have tried experiments\nunmolested.\n\nThe Presbyterian confession says this corruption was in all men. It was\nborn with them, it lived through their life, and after death survived\nin the children.  Well, can't man help himself? No, I'll show you,\nGod's got him.  Listen to this.  [Reads extracts.]  So that a natural\nman is not only dead in sin and unable to accomplish salvation, but he\nis also incapable of preparing himself therefore.  Absolutely incapable\nof taking a trick.  He is saved, if at all, completely by the mercy of\nGod. If that's the case, then why doesn't He convert us all?  Oh, He\ndoesn't. He wishes to send the most of us to hell--to show His justice.\nElect infants dying in infancy are regenerate.  So also are all persons\nincapable of unbelief.  That includes insane persons and idiots,\nbecause an idiot is incapable of unbelief. Idiots are the only fellows\nwho've got the dead wood on God. Then according to this, the man who\nhas lived according to the light of nature, doing the best he knew how\nto make this earth happy, will be damned by God because he never heard\nof His son. Whose fault is it that an infinite God does not advertise?\nSomething wrong about that.  I am inclined to think that the\nPresbyterian church is wrong.  I find here how utterly unpardonable sin\nis.  There is no sin so small but it is punished with hell, and away\nyou go straight to the deepest burning pit unless your heart has been\npurified by this confession of faith--unless this snake has crawled in\nthere and made itself a nest. Why should we help religion?  I would\nlike people to ask themselves that question.  An infinite God, by\npracticing a reasonable economy, can get along without assistance.\nLoudly this confession proclaims that salvation comes from Christ\nalone. What, then, becomes of the savage who, having never known the\nname of Christ, has lived according to the light of nature, kind and\nheroic and generous, and possessed of and cultivating all the natural\nvirtues?  He goes to hell.  God, you see, loves us.  If He had not\nloved us what would He have done?  The light of nature then shows that\nGod is good and therefore to be feared--on account of his goodness, to\nbe served and honored without ceasing.  And yet this creed says that on\nthe last day God will damn anyone who has walked according to this\nlight.  It's blasphemy to walk by the light of nature.\n\nThe next great doctrine is on the preservation of the saints. Now,\nthere are peculiarities about saints.  They are saints without their\nown knowledge or free will; they may even be down on saints, but its no\ngood.  God has got a rolling hitch on them, and they have to come into\nthe kingdom sooner or later.  It all depends on whether they have been\nelected or not.  God could have made me a saint just as easy as not,\nbut He passed me by.  Now you know the Presbyterians say I trample on\nholy things.  They believe in hell and I come and say there is no hell.\nI hurt their hearts, they say, and they add that I am going to hell\nmyself.  I thank them for that; but now let's see what these tender\nPresbyterians say of other churches.  Here it is:\n\nThis confession of faith calls the pope of Rome anti-Christ and a son\nof perdition.  Now there are forty Roman Catholics to one Presbyterian\non this earth.  Do not the Presbyterians rather trample on the things\nthat are holy to the Roman Catholics, and do they respect their\nfeelings? But the Presbyterians have a pope themselves, composed of the\npresbyters and preachers.  This confession attributes to them the keys\nof heaven and hell and the power to forgive sins.  [Here extracts are\nread.] Therefore these men must be infallible, for God would never be\nso foolish as to entrust fallible men with the keys of heaven and hell.\nI care nothing for their keys, nor for any world these keys would open\nor lock; I prefer the country.\n\nWe are told by this faith that at the last day all the men and women\nand children who have ever lived on the earth will appear in the self\nsame bodies they have had when on earth.  Everyone who knows anything\nknows the constant exchange which is going on between the vegetable and\nanimal kingdom.  The millions of atoms which compose one of our bodies\nhave all come from animals and vegetables, and they in their turn drew\nthem from animals and vegetables which preceded them.  The same atoms\nwhich are now in our bodies have previously been in the bodies of our\nancestors. The negro from Central Africa has many times been mahogany\nand the mahogany has many times been negro.  A missionary goes to the\ncannibal islands and a cannibal eats him and dies.  The atoms which\ncomposed the missionary's body now compose in great part the cannibal's\nbody.  To whom will these atoms belong on the morning of the\nresurrection?\n\nHow did the devil, who had always lived in heaven among the best\nsociety, ever happen to become bad?  If a man surrounded by angels\ncould become bad, why cannot a man surrounded by devils become good?\n\nHere is the last Presbyterian joy:  At the day of judgment the\nrighteous shall be caught up to heaven and shall stand at the right\nhand of Christ and share with Him in judging the wicked. Then the\nPresbyterian husband may have the ineffable pleasure of judging his\nwife and condemning her to eternal hell, and the boy will say to his\nmother, echoing the command of God:  \"Depart, thou accursed, into\neverlasting torment!\"  Here will come a man who has not believed in\nGod.  He was a soldier who took up arms to free the slaves and who\nrotted to death in Andersonville prison rather than accept the offer of\nhis captors to fight against freedom. He loved his wife and his\nchildren and his Home and his native country and all mankind, and did\nall the good he knew.  God will say to the Presbyterians, \"What shall\nWe do to this man?\"; and they will answer, \"Throw him into hell.\"\n\nLast night there was a fire in Philadelphia, and at a window fifty feet\nabove the ground Mr. King stood amid flame and smoke and pressed his\nchildren to his breast one after the other, kissed them, and threw them\nto the rescuers with a prayer.  That was man.  At the last day God\ntakes His children with a curse and hurls them into eternal fire.\nThat's your God as the Presbyterians describe Him.  Do you believe that\nGod--if there is one--will ever damn me for thinking Him better than He\nis? If this creed be true, God is the insane keeper of a mad house.\n\nWe have in this city a clergyman who contends that this creed gives a\ncorrect picture of God, and furthermore says that God has the right to\ndo with us what He pleases--because He made us.  If I could change this\nlamp into a human being, that would not give me the right to torture\nhim, and if I did torture him and he cried out, \"Why torturest thou\nme?\" and I replied, \"Because I made you,\" he would be right in\nreplying, \"You made me, therefore you are responsible for my\nhappiness.\"  No God has a right to add to the sum of human misery.  And\nyet this minister believes an honest thought blasphemy.  No doubt he is\nperfectly honest. Otherwise he would have too much intellectual pride\nto take the position he does. He says that the bible offers the only\nrestraint to the savage passions of man.  In lands where there has been\nno bible there have been mild and beneficent philosophers, like Buddha\nand Confucius.  Is it possible that the bible is the only restraint,\nand yet the nations among whom these men lived have been as moral as\nwe?  In Brooklyn and New York you have the bible, yet do you find that\nthe restraint is a great success?  Is there a city on the globe which\nlacks more in certain directions than some in Christendom, or even the\nUnited States?  What are the natural virtues of man?  Honesty,\nhospitality, mercy in the hour of victory, generosity--do we not find\nthese virtues among some savages?  Do we find them among all\nChristians?  I am also told by these gentlemen that the time will come\nwhen the infidel will be silenced by society.  Why that time came long\nago.  Society gave the hemlock to Socrates, society in Jerusalem cried\nout for Barabbas and crucified Jesus.  In every Christian country\nsociety has endeavored to crush the infidel.\n\nBlasphemy is a padlock which hypocrisy tries to put on the lips of all\nhonest men.  At one time Christianity succeeded in silencing the\ninfidel, and then came the dark ages, when all rule was ecclesiastical,\nwhen the air was filled with devils and spooks, when birth was a\nmisfortune, life a prolonged misery of fear and torment, and death a\nhorrible nightmare.  They crushed the infidels, Galileo, Kepler,\nCopernicus, wherever a ray of light appeared in the ecclesiastical\ndarkness.  But I want to tell this minister tonight, and all others\nlike him, that that day is passed.  All the churches in the United\nStates can not even crush me.  The day for that has gone, never to\nreturn.  If they think they can crush free thought in this country, let\nthem try it. What must this minister think of you and the citizens of\nthis republic when he says, \"Take the fear of hell out of men's hearts\nand a majority of them will become ungovernably wicked.\" Oh, think of\nan angel in heaven having to allow that he was scared there.\n\nThis minister calls for my arrest.  He thinks his God needs help, and\nwould like to see the police crush the infidel.  I would advise Mr.\nTalmage (hisses) to furnish his God with a rattle, so that when he is\nin danger again he can summon the police immediately.\n\nI'll tell you what is blasphemy.  It is blasphemy to live on the fruits\nof other men's labor, to prevent the growth of the human mind, to\npersecute for opinion's sake, to abuse your wife and children, to\nincrease in any manner the sum of human misery.\n\nI'll tell you what is sacred.  Our bodies are sacred, our rights are\nsacred, justice and liberty are sacred.  I'll tell you what is the true\nbible.  It is the sum of all actual knowledge of man, and every man who\ndiscovers a new fact adds a new verse to this bible.  It is different\nfrom the other bible, because that is the sum of all that its writers\nand readers do not know.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture entitled \"Some Reasons Why\"\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  The history of the world shows that religion has\nmade enemies instead of friends. That one word \"religion\" paints the\nhorizon of the past with every form of agony and torture, and when one\npronounces the name of \"religion\" we think of 1,500 years of\npersecution, of 6,000 years of hatred, slander and vituperation.\nStrange, but true, that those who have loved God most have loved men\nleast; strange that in countries where there has been the most religion\nthere has been the most agony; and that is one reason why I am opposed\nto what is known as religion.  By religion I mean the duties that men\nare supposed to owe to God; by religion I mean, not what man owes to\nman, but what we owe to some invisible, infinite and supreme being.\nThe question arises, Can any relation exist between finite man and\ninfinite being?  An infinite being is absolutely conditional.  An\ninfinite being can not walk, cannot receive, and a finite being cannot\ngive to the infinite.  Can I increase his happiness or decrease his\nmisery?  Does he need my strength or my life?  What can I do for him?\nI say, nothing.\n\nFor one, I do not believe there is any God who gives rain or sunshine\nfor praying.  For one, I do not believe there is any being who helps\nman simply because he kneels.  I may be mistaken, but that is my\ndoctrine--that the finite cannot by any possibility help the infinite,\nor the infinite be indebted to the finite; that the finite cannot by\nany possibility assist a being who is all in all.  What can we do?  We\ncan help man; we can help clothe the naked, feed the hungry; we can\nhelp break the chains of the slave; we can help weave a garment of joy\nthat will finally cover this world.  That is all that man can do.\nWherever he has endeavored to do more he has simply increased the\nmisery of his fellows.  I can find out nothing of these things myself\nby my unaided reasoning.  If there is an infinite God and I have not\nreason enough to comprehend His universe, whose fault is it?  I am told\nthat we have the inspired will of God.  I do not know exactly what they\nmean by inspired. Not two sects agree on that word.  Some tell me that\nevery great work is inspired; that Shakespeare is inspired.  I would be\nless apt to dispute that than a similar remark about any other book on\nthis earth. If Jehovah had wanted to have a book written, the\ninspiration of which should not be disputed, He should have waited\nuntil Shakespeare lived.\n\nWhatever they mean by inspiration, they at least mean that it is true.\nIf it is true, it does not need to be inspired.  The truth will take\ncare of itself.  Nothing except a falsehood needs inspiration.  What is\ninspiration?  A man looks at the sea, and the sea says something to\nhim. Another man looks at the same sea, and the sea tells another story\nto him.  The sea cannot tell the same story to any two human beings.\nThere is not a thing in nature, from a pebble to a constellation, that\ntells the same story to any two human beings.  It depends upon the\nman's experience, his intellectual development, and what chord of\nmemory it touches.  One looks upon the sea and is filled with grief;\nanother looks upon it and laughs.\n\nLast year, riding in the cars from Boston to Portsmouth, sat opposite\nme a lady and gentleman.  As we reached the latter place the woman, for\nthe first time in her life, caught a burst of the sea, and she looked\nand said to her husband \"Isn't that beautiful!\"  And he looked and\nsaid: \"I'll bet you can dig clams right there.\"\n\nAnother illustration:  A little while ago a gentleman was walking with\nanother in South Carolina, at Charleston--one who had been upon the\nother side.  Said the Northerner to the Southerner, \"Did you ever see\nsuch a night as this; did you ever in your life see such a moon?\"  \"Oh,\nmy God,\" said he, \"you ought to have seen that moon before the War!\"\n\nI simply say these things to convince you that everything in nature has\na different story to tell every human being.  So the bible tells a\ndifferent story to every man that reads it. History proves what I say.\nWhy so many sects?  Why so much persecution?  Simply because two people\ncouldn't understand it exactly alike.  You may reply that God intended\nit should be so understood, and that is the real revelation that God\nintended.\n\nFor instance, I write a letter to Smith.  I want to convey to him\ncertain thoughts.  If I am honest I will use the words which will\nconvey to him my thoughts, but not being infinite, I don't know exactly\nhow Smith will understand my words; but if I were infinite I would be\nbound to use the words that I know Smith would get my exact idea from.\nIf God intended to make a revelation to me He has to make it to me\nthrough my brain and my reasoning.  He cannot make a revelation to\nanother man for me. That other man will have God's word for it but I\nwill only have that man's word for it.  As that man has been dead for\nseveral thousand years, and as I don't know what his reputation was for\ntruth and veracity in the neighborhood in which he lived, I will wait\nfor the Lord to speak again.\n\nSuppose when I read it, the revelation to me, through the bible, is\nthat it is not true, and God knew that I would know that when I did\nread it, and knew, if I did not say it, I would be dishonest.  Is it\npossible that He would damn me for being honest, and give me wings if I\nwould play the hypocrite?\n\nThe inspiration of the bible depends upon the ignorance of the\ngentleman who reads it.  Yet they tell me this book was written by the\ncreator of every shining star.  Now let us see.  I want to be honest\nand candid.  I have just as much at stake in the way of soul as any\ndoctor of divinity that ever lived, and more than some I have met.\nAccording to this book, the first attempt at peopling this world was a\nfailure.  God had to destroy all but eight.  He saved some of the same\nkind to start again, which I think was a mistake.  After that, the\npeople still getting worse, he selected from the wide world a few of\nthe tribe of Abraham. He had no time to waste with everybody.  He had\nno time to throw away on Egypt.  It had at that time a vast and\nsplendid civilization, in which there were free schools; in which the\none man married the one wife; where there were courts of law; where\nthere were codes of laws.\n\nNeither could He give attention to India, that had at that time a\nliterature as splendid almost as ours, a language as perfect; that had\nproduced poets, philosophers, statesmen.  He had no time to waste with\nthem, but took a few of the tribe of Abraham, and He did His best to\ncivilize these people.  He was their governor, their executive, their\nsupreme court.  He established a despotism, and from Mount Sinai He\nproclaimed His laws.  They didn't pay much attention to them.  He\nwrought thousands of miracles to convince them that He was God.\n\nIsn't it perfectly wonderful that the priest of one religion never\nbelieves the miracles told by the priest of another?  Is it possible\nthat they know each other?  I heard a story the other day.  A gentleman\nwas telling a very remarkable circumstance that happened to himself,\nand all the listeners except one said, \"Is it possible; did you ever\nhear such a wonderful thing in all your life?\"  They noticed that this\none man didn't appear to take a vivid interest in the story, so one\nsaid to him, \"You don't express much astonishment at the story?\"  \"No,\"\nsays he, \"I am a liar myself.\"\n\nI find by reading this book that a worse government was never\nestablished than that established by Jehovah; that the Jews were the\nmost unfortunate people who lived upon the globe.  Let us compare this\nbook.  In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but\npassionately asserted, that slavery is an infamous crime; that a war of\nextermination is murder; that polygamy enslaves woman, degrades man and\ndestroys home; that nothing is more infamous than the slaughter of\ndecrepit men and helpless women, and of prattling babes; that the\ncaptured maiden should not be given to her captors; that wives should\nnot be stoned to death for differing in religion from their husbands.\nWe know there was a time in the history of most nations when all these\ncrimes were regarded as divine institutions.  Nations entertaining\nthese views today are called savage, and with the exception of the\nFeejee islanders, some tribes in Central Africa, and a few citizens of\nDelaware, no human being can be found degraded enough to agree upon\nthose subjects with Jehovah.\n\nToday, the fact that a nation has abolished and abandoned those things\nis the only evidence that it can offer to show that it is not still\nbarbarous; but a believer in the inspiration of the bible is compelled\nto say there was a time when slavery was right, when polygamy was the\nhighest form of virtue, when wars of extermination were waged with the\nsword of mercy, and when the creator of the whole world commanded the\nsoldier to sheathe the dagger of murder in the dimpled breast of\ninfancy.  The believer of inspiration of the bible is compelled to say\nthere was a time when it was right for a husband to murder his wife\nbecause they differed upon subjects of religion.  I deny that such a\ntime ever was.  If I knew the real God said it, I would still deny it.\n\nFour thousand years ago, if the bible is true, God was in favor of\nslavery, polygamy, wars of extermination and religious persecution.\nNow we are told the devil is in favor of all those things, and God is\nopposed to them; in other words, the devil stands now where God stood\n4,000 years ago; yet they tell me God is just as good now as he was\nthen, and the devil just as bad now as God was then.  Other nations\nbelieved in slavery, polygamy, and war and persecution without ever\nhaving received one ray of light from heaven.  That shows that a\nspecial revelation is not necessary to teach a man to do wrong.  Other\nnations did no worse without the bible than the Jews did with it.\n\nSuppose the devil had inspired a book.  In what respect would he have\ndiffered from God on the subject of slavery, polygamy, wars of\nextermination, and religious persecution?  Suppose we knew that after\nGod had finished his book the devil had gotten possession of it, and\nwritten a few passages to suit himself. Which passages, O Christian,\nwould you pick out now as having probably been written by the devil?\nWhich of these two, \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" or \"Kill all the\nmales among the little ones, and kill every man, but all the women and\ngirls keep alive for yourselves\"--which of those two passages would\nthey select as having been written by the devil?\n\nIf God wrote the last, there is no need of a devil.  Is there a\nChristian in the wide world who does not wish that God, from the\nthunder and lightning of Sinai, had said:  \"You shall not enslave your\nfellow-man!\" I am opposed to any man who is in favor of slavery.  If\nrevolution is needed at all it is to prevent man enslaving his\nfellow-man.\n\nBut they say God did the best He could; that the Jews were so bad that\nHe had to come up kind of slow.  If He had told them suddenly they must\nnot murder and steal, they would not have paid any respect to the ten\ncommandments.  Suppose you go to the Cannibal Islands to prevent the\ngentlemen there from eating missionaries, and you found they ate them\nraw.  The first move is to induce them to cook them.  After you get\nthem to eat cooked missionaries, you will then, without their knowing\nit, occasionally slip in a little mutton.  We will go on gradually\ndecreasing missionaries and increasing mutton until finally the last\nwill be so cultivated that they will prefer the sheep to the priest, I\nthink the missionaries would object to that mode, of course.\n\nI know this was written by the Jews themselves.  If they were to write\nit now, it would be different.  Today they are a civilized people.  I\ndo not wish it understood that a word I say tonight touches the\nslightest prejudice in any man's mind against the Jewish people.  They\nare as good a people as live today.  I will say right here, they never\nhad any luck until Jehovah abandoned them.\n\nNow we come to the new testament.  They tell me that is better than the\nold,   I say it is worse.  The great objection to the old testament is\nthat it is cruel; but in the old testament the revenge of God stopped\nwith the portals of the tomb.  He never threatened punishment after\ndeath.  He never threatened one thing beyond the grave.  It was\nreserved for the new testament to make known the doctrine of eternal\npunishment.\n\nIs the new testament inspired?  I have not time to give many reasons,\nbut I will give some.  In the first place, they tell me the very fact\nthat the witnesses disagree in minor matters shows that they have not\nconspired to tell the same story.  Good.  And I say in every lawsuit\nwhere four or five witnesses testify, or endeavor to testify, to the\nsame transaction, it is natural that they should differ on minor\npoints. Why?  Because no two occupy exactly the same position; no two\nsee exactly alike; no two remember precisely the same, and their\ndisagreement is due to and accounted for by the imperfection of human\nnature, and the fact that they did not all have an equal opportunity to\nknow.  But if you admit or say that the four witnesses were inspired by\nan infinite being who did see it all, then they should remember all the\nsame, because inspiration does not depend on memory.\n\nThat brings me to another point.  Why were there four gospels? What is\nthe use of more than one correct account of anything?  If you want to\nspread it, send copies.  No human being has got the ingenuity to tell\nme why there were four gospels, when one correct gospel would have been\nenough.  Why should there have been four original multiplication\ntables? One is enough, and if anybody has got any use for it he can\ncopy that one.  The very fact that we have got four gospels shows that\nit is not an inspired book.\n\nThe next point is that, according to the new testament, the salvation\nof the world depended upon the atonement.  Only one of the books in the\nnew testament says anything about that, and that is John.  The church\nfollowed John, and they ought to follow John, because the church wrote\nthat book called John.  According to that, the whole world was to be\ndamned on account of the sins of one man; and that absurdity was the\nfather and mother of another absurdity--that the whole world could be\nsaved on account of the virtue of another man.  I deny both\npropositions. No man can sin for me; no man can be virtuous for me; I\nmust reap what I sow.  But they say the law must be satisfied.  What\nkind of a law is it that would demand punishment of the innocent? Just\nthink of it.  Here is a man about to be hanged, and another comes up\nand says:  \"That man has got a family, and I have not; that man is in\ngood health and I am not well, and I will be hung in his place.\"  And\nthe governor says:  \"All right; a murder has been committed, and we\nhave got to have a hanging--we don't care who.\"  Under the Mosaic\ndispensation there was no remission of sins without the shedding of\nblood.  If a man committed a murder he brought a pair of doves or a\nsheep to the priest, and the priest laid his hands on the animal, and\nthe sins of the man were transferred to the animal.  You see how that\ncould be done easy enough.  Then they killed the animal, and sprinkled\nits blood on the altar.  That let the man off.  And why did God demand\nthe sacrifice of a sheep?  I will tell you; because priests love mutton.\n\nTo make the innocent suffer is the greatest crime.  I don't wish to go\nto heaven on the virtues of somebody else.  If I can't settle by the\nbooks and go, I don't wish to go.  I don't want to feel as if I was\nthere on sufferance--that I was in the poorhouse of the universe,\nsupported by the town.\n\nThey tell us Judas betrayed Christ.  Well, if Christ had not been\nbetrayed, no atonement would have been made, and then every human soul\nwould have been damned, and heaven would have been for rent.\n\nSupposing that Judas knew the Christian system, then perhaps he thought\nthat by betraying Christ he could get forgiven, not only for the sins\nthat he had already committed but for the sin of betrayal, and if, on\nthe way to Calvary, and later, some brave, heroic soul had rescued\nChrist from the mob, he would have made his own damnation sure.  It\nwon't do.  There is no logic in that.\n\nThey say God tried to civilize the Jews.  If He had succeeded,\naccording to the Christian system, we all would have been damned,\nbecause if the Jews had been civilized they would not have crucified\nChrist.  They would have believed in the freedom of speech, and as a\nresult the world would have been lost for two thousand years.  The\nChristian world has been trying to explain the atonement, and they have\nalways ended by failing to explain it.\n\nNow I come to the second objection, which is that certain belief is\nnecessary to salvation.  I will believe according to the evidence.  In\nmy mind are certain scales, which weigh everything, and my integrity\nstands there and knows which side goes up and which side goes down.  If\nI am an honest man I will report the weights like an honest man.  They\nsay I must believe a certain thing or I will be eternally damned.  They\ntell me that to believe is the safer way.  I deny it.  The safest thing\nyou can do is to be honest.  No man, when the shadows of the last hours\nwere gathering around him, ever wished that he had lived the life of a\nhypocrite.  If I find at the Day of Judgment that I have been mistaken,\nI will say so, like a man.  If God tells me then that he is the author\nof the old testament I will admit that he is worse than I thought He\nwas, and when He comes to pronounce sentence upon me, I will   say to\nHim:  \"Do unto others as You would that others should do unto You.\"  I\nhave a right to think; I cannot control my belief; my brain is my\ncastle, and if I don't defend it, my soul becomes a slave and a serf.\n\nIf you throw away your reason, your soul is not worth saving. Salvation\ndepends, not upon belief but upon deed--upon kindness, upon justice,\nupon mercy.  Your own deeds are your savior, and you can be saved in no\nother way.  I am told in this testament to love my enemies.  I cannot;\nI will not.  I don't hate enemies; I don't wish to injure enemies, but\nI don't care about seeing them.  I don't like them.  I love my friends,\nand the man who loves enemies and friends loves me.  The doctrine of\nnon-resistance is born of weakness.  The man that first said it, said\nit because it was the best he could do under the circumstances. While\nthe church said, \"love your enemies,\" in her sacred vestments gleamed\nthe daggers of assassination.  With her cunning hand, she wore the\npurple for hypocrisy, and placed the crown upon the brow of crime.\n\nFor more than one thousand years larceny held the scales of justice,\nand hypocrisy wore the mitre, and the tiara of Christ was in fact God.\nHe knew of the future.  He knew what crimes and horrors would be\ncommitted in His name.  He knew the fires of persecution would climb\naround the limbs of countless martyrs; that brave men and women would\nlanguish in dungeons and darkness; that the church would use\ninstruments of torture; that in His name His followers would trade in\nhuman flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women's breasts unbabed\nfor gold, and yet He died with voiceless lips.  If Christ was God, why\ndid He not tell His disciples, and through them, the world, \"Man shall\nnot persecute his fellow-man?\"  Why didn't He say, \"I am God?\" Why\ndidn't He explain the doctrine of the Trinity?  Why didn't He tell what\nmanner of baptism was pleasing to Him?  Why didn't He say the old\ntestament is true?  Why didn't He write His testament himself?  Why did\nHe leave His words to accident, to ignorance, to malice, and to chance?\nWhy didn't He say something positive, definite, satisfactory, about\nanother world?  Why did He not turn the tear-stained hope of\nimmortality to the glad knowledge of another life?  Why did he go\ndumbly to His death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?  Because\nHe was a man.\n\n[Colonel Ingersoll read several extracts from the bible, which he said\noriginated with Zoroaster, Buddha, Cicero, Epictetus, Pythagoras and\nother ancient writers, and he read extracts from various pagan writers,\nwhich he claimed compared favorably with the best things in the bible.\nHe continued:]\n\nNo God has a right to create a man who is to be eternally damned.\nInfinite wisdom has no right to make a failure, and a man who is to be\neternally damned is not a conspicuous success.  Infinite Wisdom has no\nright to make an instrument that will not finally pay a dividend.  No\nGod has a right to add to the agony of this universe, and yet around\nthe angels of immortality Christianity has coiled this serpent of\neternal pain.  Upon love's breast the church has placed that asp, and\nyet people talk to me about the consolations of religion.\n\nA few days ago the bark Tiger was found upon the wide sea 126 days from\nLiverpool.  For nine days not a mouthful of food or a drop of water was\nto be had.  There was on board the captain, mate, and eleven men.  When\nthey had been out 117 days they killed the captain's dog.  Nine days\nmore--no food, no water, and Captain Kruger stood upon the deck in the\npresence of his starving crew.  With a revolver in his hand, put it\nupon his temple, and said, \"Boys, this can't last much longer; I am\nwilling to die to save the rest of you.\"  The mate grasped the revolver\nfrom his hand, and said, \"Wait;\"  and the next day upon the horizon of\ndespair was the smoke of the ship which rescued them.  Do you tell me\ntonight if Captain Kruger was not a Christian and he had sent that ball\ncrashing through his generous brain that there was an Almighty waiting\nto clutch his naked soul that He might damn him forever?  It won't do.\n\nAh, but they tell me \"You have no right to pick the bad things out of\nthe bible.\"  I say, an infinite God has no right to put bad things into\nHis bible.  Does anybody believe if God was going to write a book now\nHe would uphold slavery; that He would favor polygamy; that He would\nsay kill the heathen, stab the women, dash out the brains of the\nchildren? We have civilized him.  We make our own God, and we make Him\nbetter day by day.\n\nSome honest people really believe that in some wonderful way we are\nindebted to Moses for geology, to Joshua for astronomy and military\ntactics, to Samson for weapons of war, to Daniel for holy curses, to\nSolomon for the art of cross-examination, to Jonah for the science of\nnavigation, to Saint Paul for steamships and locomotives, to the four\nGospels for telegraphs and sewing-machines, to the Apocalypse; for\nlooms, saw-mills, and telephones; and that to the sermon on the mount\nwe are indebted for mortars and Krupp guns.  We are told that no nation\nhas ever been civilized without a bible.  The Jews had one, and yet\nthey crucified a perfectly innocent man.  They couldn't have done much\nworse without a bible.\n\nGod must have known 6,000 years ago that it was impossible to civilize\npeople without a bible just as well as they know it now. Why did He\never allow a nation to be Without a bible?  Why didn't He give a few\nleaves to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?  Take from the bible the\nmiracles, and I admit that the good passages are true.  If they are\ntrue they don't need to be inspired. Miracles are the children of\nmendacity. Nothing can be more wonderful than the majestic, sublime,\nand eternal march of cause and effect.  Reason must be the final\narbiter.  An inspired book cannot stand against a demonstrated fact.\nIs a man to be rewarded eternally for believing without evidence or\nagainst evidence? Do you tell me that the less brain a man has the\nbetter chance he has for heaven?  Think of a heaven filled with men who\nnever thought. Better that all that is should cease to be; better that\nGod had never been; better that all the springs and seeds of things\nshould fall and wither in great nature's realm; better that causes and\neffects should lose relation; better that every life should change to\nbreathless death and voiceless blank, and every star to blind oblivion\nand moveless naught, than that this religion should be true.\n\nThe religion of the future is humanity.  The religion of the future\nwill say to every man, \"You have the right to think and investigate for\nyourself.\"  Liberty is my religion--everything that is true, every good\nthought, every beautiful thing, every self-denying action--all these\nmake my bible.  Every bubble, every star, are passages in my bible.  A\nconstellation is a chapter.  Every shining world is a part of it.  You\ncannot interpolate it; you cannot change it.  It is the same forever.\nMy bible is all that speaks to man.  Every violet, every blade of\ngrass, every tree, every mountain crowned with snow, every star that\nshines, every throb of love, every honest act, all that is good and\ntrue combined, make my bible; and upon that book I stand.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Intellectual Development\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  In the first place I want to admit that there\nare a great many good people, quite pious people, who don't agree with\nme and all that proves in the world is, that I don't agree with them.\nI am not endeavoring to force my ideas or notions upon other people,\nbut I am saying what little I can to induce everybody in the world to\ngrant to every other person every right he claims for himself.  I\nclaim, standing under the flag of nature, under the blue and the stars,\nthat I am the peer of any other man, and have the right to think and\nexpress my thoughts.  I claim that in the presence of the unknown, and\nupon a subject that nobody knows anything about, and never did, I have\nas good a right to guess as anybody else.  The gentlemen who hold views\nagainst mine, if they had any evidence, would have no fears--not the\nslightest.\n\nIf a man has a diamond that has been examined by the lapidaries of the\nworld, and some ignorant stonecutter tells him that it is nothing but\nan ordinary rock, he laughs at him; but if it has not been examined by\nlapidaries, and he is a little suspicious himself that it is not\ngenuine, it makes him mad.  Any doctrine that will not bear\ninvestigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man.  Any\nman who is afraid to have his doctrine investigated is not only a\ncoward but a hypocrite.  Now, all I ask is simply an opportunity to say\nmy say. I will give that right to everybody else in the world.  I\nunderstand that owing to my success in the lecture field several\nclergymen have taken it into their heads to lecture--some of them, I\nbelieve, this evening.  I say all that I claim is the right I give to\nothers, and any man who will not give that right is a dishonest man, no\nmatter what church he may belong to or not belong to--if he does not\nfreely accord to all others the right to think, he is not an honest\nman.  I said some time ago that if there was any being who would\neternally damn one of his children for the expression of an honest\nopinion that he was not a God, but that he was a demon; and from that\nthey have said first, that I did not believe in any God, and, secondly,\nthat I called Him a demon.  If I did not believe in Him how could I\ncall Him anything?  These things hardly hang together.  But that makes\nno difference; I expect to be maligned; I expect to be slandered; I\nexpect to have my reputation blackened by gentlemen who are not fit to\nblacken my shoes.\n\nBut letting that pass--I simply believe in liberty; that is my\nreligion; that is the altar where I worship; that is my shrine--that\nevery human being shall have every right that I have--that is my\nreligion.  I am going to live up to it and going to say what little I\ncan to make the American people brave enough and generous enough and\nkind enough to give everybody else the rights they have themselves.\nCan there ever be any progress in this world to amount to anything\nuntil we have liberty?  The thoughts of a man who is not free are not\nworth much. A man who thinks with the club of a creed above his head--a\nman who thinks casting his eye askance at the flames of hell, is not\napt to have very good thoughts.  And for my part, I would not care to\nhave any status or social position even in heaven if I had to admit\nthat I never would have been there only I got scared.  When we are\nfrightened we do not think very well.  If you want to get at the honest\nthoughts of a man he must be free.  If he is not free you will not get\nhis honest thought. You won't trade with a merchant, if he is free; you\nwon't employ him if he is a lawyer, if he is free; you won't call him\nif he is a doctor, if he is free; and what are you going to get out of\nhim but hypocrisy. Force will not make thinkers, but hypocrites.  A\nminister told me awhile ago, \"Ingersoll,\" he says, \"if you do not\nbelieve the bible you ought not to say so.\"  Says I, \"Do you believe\nthe bible?\"  He says, \"I do.\" I says, \"I don't know whether you do or\nnot; maybe you are following the advice you gave me; how shall I know\nwhether you believe it or not?\"  Now, I shall die without knowing\nwhether that man believed the bible or not. There is no way that I can\npossibly find out, because he said that even if he did not believe it\nhe would not say so.  Now, I read, for instance, a book.  Now, let us\nbe honest.  Suppose that a clergyman and I were on an island--nobody\nbut us two--and I were to read a book, and I honestly believed it\nuntrue, and he asked me about it--what ought I to say?  Ought I to say\nI believed it, and be lying, or ought I to say I did not?--that is the\nquestion; and the church can take its choice between honest men, who\ndiffer, and hypocrites, who differ, but say they do not--you can have\nyour choice, all of you.*\n\n[* \"These black-coats are the only persons of my acquaintance who\nresemble the chameleon, in being able to keep one eye directed upwards\nto heaven, and the other downwards to the good things of this\nworld.\"--Alex. von Humboldt]\n\nIf you give to us liberty, you will have in this country a splendid\ndiversity of individuality; but if on the contrary you say men shall\nthink so and so, you will have the sameness of stupid nonsense.  In my\njudgment, it is the duty of every man to think and express his\nthoughts; but at the same time do not make martyrs of yourselves.\n\nThose people that are not willing you should be honest, are not worth\ndying for; they are not worth being a martyr for; and if you are afraid\nyou cannot support your wife and children in this town and express your\nhonest thought, why keep it to yourself, but if there is such a man\nhere he is a living certificate of the meanness of the community in\nwhich he lives.  Go right along, if you are afraid it will take food\nfrom the mouths of your dear babes--if you are afraid you cannot clothe\nyour wife and children, go along with them to church, say amen in as\nnear the right place as you can, if you happen to be awake, and I will\ndo your talking for you.\n\nI will say my say, and the time will come when every man in the country\nwill be astonished that there ever was a time that everybody had not\nthe right to speak his honest thoughts.  If there is a man here or in\nthis town, preacher or otherwise, who is not willing that I should\nthink and speak, he is just so much nearer a barbarian than I am.\nCivilization is liberty, slavery is barbarism; civilization is\nintelligence, slavery is ignorance; and if we are any nearer free than\nwere our fathers, it is because we have got better heads and more\nbrains in them--that is the reason.  Every man who has invented\nanything for the use and convenience of man has helped raise his\nfellow-man, and all we have found out of the laws and forces of nature\nso that we are finally enabled to bring these forces of nature into\nsubjection, to give us better houses, better food, better\nclothes--these are the real civilizers of our race; and the men who\nstand up as prophets and predict hell to their fellow-man, they are not\nthe civilizers of our race; the men who cut each other's throats\nbecause they fell out about baptism--they are not the civilizers of my\nrace; the men who built the inquisitions and put into dungeons all the\ngrand and honest men they could find--they are not the civilizers of my\nrace.\n\nThe men who have corrupted the imaginations and hearts of men by their\ninfamous dogma of hell--they are not the civilizers of my race.  The\nmen who have been predicting good for mankind, the men who have found\nsome way to get us better homes and better houses and better education,\nthe men who have allowed us to make slaves of the blind forces of\nnature--they have made this world fit to live in.\n\nI want to prove to you if I can that this is all a question of\nintellectual development, a question of sense, and the more a man knows\nthe more liberal he is; the less a man knows the more bigoted he is.\nThe less a man knows the more certain he is that he knows it, and the\nmore a man knows the better satisfied he is that he is entirely\nignorant.  Great knowledge is philosophic, and little, narrow,\ncontemptible knowledge is bigoted and hateful.  I want to prove it to\nyou.  I saw a little while ago models of nearly everything man has made\nfor his use--nearly everything.  I saw models of all the watercraft;\nfrom the rude dug-out, in which paddled the naked savage, with his\nforehead about half as high as his teeth were long--all the water craft\nfrom that dug-out up to a man of war that carries a hundred guns and\nmiles of canvas; from that rude dug-out to a steamship that turns its\nbrave prow from the port of New York, with three thousand miles of\nfoaming billows before it, not missing a throb or beat of its mighty\niron heart from one shore to the other.  I saw their ideas of weapons,\nfrom the rude club, such as was seized by that same barbarian as he\nemerged from his den in the morning, hunting a snake for his dinner;\nfrom that club to the boomerang, to the dagger, to the sword, to the\nblunderbuss, to the old flintlock, to the cap-lock, to the needle-gun,\nto the cannon invented by Krupp, capable of hurling a ball weighing two\nthousand pounds through eighteen inches of solid steel.\n\nI saw their ideas of defensive armor, from the turtle shell which one\nof these gentlemen lashed upon his breast preparatory to going to war,\nor the skin of a porcupine, dried with the quills on, that he pulled on\nhis orthodox head before he sallied forth. By \"orthodox\" I mean man who\nhas quit growing; not simply in religion, but it everything; whenever a\nman is done, he is orthodox whenever he thinks he has found out all, he\nis orthodox whenever he becomes a drag on the swift car of progress, he\nis orthodox.  I saw their defensive armor, from the turtle-shell and\nthe porcupine skin to the shirts of mail of the middle ages, that\ndefied the edge of the sword and the point of the spear.  I saw their\nideas of agricultural implements, from the crooked stick that was\nattached to the horn of an ox by some twisted straw, to the\nagricultural implements of today, that make it possible for a man to\ncultivate the soil without being an ignoramus.  When they had none of\nthese agricultural implements--when they depended upon one crop--they\nwere superstitious, for if the frosts struck one crop they thought the\ngods were angry with them.\n\nNow, with the implements, machinery and knowledge of mechanics of\ntoday, people have found out that no man can be good enough nor bad\nenough to cause a frost.  After having found out these things are\ncontrary to the laws of nature, they began to raise more than one kind\nof crop.  If the frost strikes one they have the other; if it happens\nto strike all in that locality there is a surplus somewhere else, and\nthat surplus is distributed by railways and steamers and by the\nthousand ways that we have to distribute these things; and as a\nconsequence the agriculturist begins to think and reason, and now for\nthe first time in the history of the world the agriculturist begins to\nstand upon a level with the mechanic and with the man who has\nconfidence in the laws and facts of nature.\n\nI saw there their musical instruments, from the tomtom (that is a hoop\nwith two strings of rawhide drawn across it) to the instruments we have\nthat make the common air blossom with melody. I saw their ideas on\nornaments, from a string of the claws of a wild beast that once\nornamented the dusky bosom of some savage belle, to the rubies and\nsapphires and diamonds with which civilization today is familiar.  I\nsaw the books, written upon the shoulder-blades of sheep, upon the bark\nof trees, down to the illustrated volumes that are now in the libraries\nof the world. I saw their ideas of paintings, from the rude daubs of\nyellow mud, to the grand pictures we see in the art galleries of today.\nI saw their ideas of sculpture, from a monster god with several legs, a\ngood many noses, a great many eyes, and one little, contemptible,\nbrainless head, to the sculpture that we have, where the marble is\nclothed with such personality that it seems almost impudence to touch\nit without an introduction.  I saw all these things, and how men had\ngradually improved through the generations that are dead.  And I saw at\nthe same time a row of men's skulls--skulls from the Bushmen of\nAustralia, skulls from the center of Africa, skulls from the farthest\nislands of the Pacific, skulls from this country--from the aborigines\nof America, skulls of the Aztecs, up to the best skulls, or many of the\nbest of the last generation; and I noticed there was the same\ndifference between the skulls as between the products of the skulls,\nthe same between that skull and that, as between the dugout and the\nman-of-war, as between the dugout and the steamship, as between the\ntomtom and an opera of Verdi, as between those ancient agricultural\nimplements and ours, as between that yellow daub and that landscape, as\nbetween that stone god and a statue of today; and I said to myself,\n\"This is a question of intellectual development; this is a question of\nbrain.\"  The man has advanced just in proportion as he has mingled his\nthoughts with his labor, and just in proportion that his brain has\ngotten into partnership with his hand.  Man has advanced just as he has\ndeveloped intellectually, and no other way.  That skull was a low den\nin which crawled and groped the meaner and baser instincts of mankind,\nand this was a temple in which dwelt love, liberty and joy.\n\nWhy is it that we have advanced in the arts?  It is because every\nincentive has been held out to the world; because we want better clubs\nor better cannons with which to kill our fellow Christians; we want\nbetter music, we want better houses, and any man who will invent them,\nand any man who will give them to us we will clothe him in gold and\nglory; we will crown him with honor.  That gentleman in his dugout not\nonly had his ideas of mechanics, but he was a politician.  His idea of\npolitics was, \"Might makes right;\" and it will take thousands of years\nbefore the world will be willing to say that, \"Right makes might.\" That\nwas his idea of politics, and he had another idea--that all power came\nfrom the clouds, and that every armed thief that lived upon the honest\nlabor of mankind had had poured out upon his head the divine oil of\nauthority.  He didn't believe the power to govern came from the people;\nhe did not believe that the great mass of people had any right\nwhatever, or that the great mass of people could be allowed the liberty\nof thought--and we have thousands of such today.\n\nThey say thought is dangerous--don't investigate;* don't inquire; just\nbelieve; shut your eyes, and then you are safe. You trust not hear this\nman or that man or some other man, or our dear doctrines will be\noverturned, and we have nobody on our side except a large majority; we\nhave nobody on our side except the wealth and respectability of the\nworld; we have nobody on our side except the infinite God, and we are\nafraid that one man, in one or two hours, will beat the whole party.\n\n[* There is no method of reasoning more common, or more blamable, than\nin philosophical disputes, to endeavor the refutation of any\nhypothesis, by a pretense of its dangerous consequences to religion and\nmorality.\"--David Hume]\n\nThis man in the dugout also had his ideas of religion--that fellow was\northodox, and any man who differed with him he called an infidel, an\natheist, an outcast, and warned everybody against him.  He had his\nreligion--he believed in hell; he was glad of it; he enjoyed it; it was\na great source of comfort to him to think when he didn't like people\nthat he would have the pleasure of looking over and seeing them squirm\nupon the gridiron.  When any man said he didn't believe there was a\nhell this gentleman got up in his pulpit and called him a hyena.  That\nfellow believed in a devil too; that lowest skull was a devil\nfactory--he believed in him.  He believed he had a long tail adorned\nwith a fiery dart; he believed he had wings like a bat, and had a\npleasant habit of breathing sulphur; and he believed he had a cloven\nfoot--such as most of your clergymen think I am blessed with myself.\nThey are shepherds of the sheep.  The people are the sheep--that is all\nthey are, they have to be watched and guarded by these shepherds and\nprotected from the wolf who wants to reason with them.  That is the\ndoctrine.  Now, all I claim is the same right to improve on that\ngentleman's politics, as on the dug-out, and the same right to improve\nupon his religion as upon his plough, or the musical instrument known\nas the tomtom--that is all.\n\nNow, suppose the king and priest, if there was one, and there probably\nwas one, as the farther you go back the more ignorant you find mankind\nand the thicker you find these gentlemen--suppose the king and priest\nhad said:  \"That boat is the best boat that ever can be built; we got\nthe model of that from Neptune, the god of the seas, and I guess the\ngod of the water knows how to build a boat, and any man that says he\ncan improve it by putting a stick in the middle with a rag on the end\nof it, and has any talk about the wind blowing this way, and that, he\nis a heretic--he is a blasphemer.\"  Honor bright, what, in your\njudgment, would have been the effect upon the circumnavigation of the\nglobe?  I think we would have been on the other side yet. Suppose the\nking and priests had said:  \"That plow is the best that ever can be\ninvented; the model of that was given to a pious farmer in a holy\ndream, and that twisted straw is the ne plus ultra of all twisted\nthings, and any man who says he can out-twist it, we will twist him.\"\nSuppose the king and priests had said:  \"That tomtom is the finest\ninstrument of music in the world--that is the kind of music found in\nheaven.  An angel sat upon the edge of a glorified cloud playing upon\nthat tomtom and became so entranced with the music that in a kind of\necstasy she dropped it and that is how we got it, and any man who talks\nabout putting any improvement on that, he is not fit to live.\"  Let me\nask you--do you believe if that had been done that the human ears ever\nwould have been enriched with the divine symphonies of Beethoven?\n\nAll I claim is the same right to improve upon this barbarian's ideas of\npolitics and religion as upon everything else, and whether it is an\nimprovement or not, I have a right to suggest it--that is my doctrine.\nThey say to me, \"God will punish you forever, if you do these things.\"\nVery well.  I will settle with Him.  I had rather settle with Him than\nany one of His agents.  I do not like them very well.  In theology I am\na granger--I do not believe in middle-men, what little business I have\nwith heaven I will attend to thyself.  Our fathers thought, just as\nmany now think, that you could force men to think your way and if they\nfailed to do it by reason, they tried it another way.  I used to read\nabout it when I was a boy--it did not seem to me that these things were\ntrue; it did not seem to me that there ever was such heartless bigotry\nin the heart of man,  but there was and is tonight.  I used to read\nabout it--I did not appreciate it.  I never appreciated it until I saw\nthe arguments of those gentlemen.  They used to use just such arguments\nas that man in the dug-out would have used to the next man ahead of\nhim. This low, miserable skull--this next man was a little higher, and\nthis fellow behind called him a heretic, and the next was still a\nlittle higher, and he was called an infidel.  And, so it went on\nthrough the whole row--always calling the man who was ahead an infidel\nand a heretic.  No man was ever called so who was behind the army of\nprogress. It has always been the man ahead that has been called the\nheretic. Heresy is the last and best thought always.  Heresy extends\nthe hospitality of the brain to a new idea; that is what the rotting\nsays to the growing; that is what the dweller in the swamp says to the\nman on the sun-lit hill; that is what the man in the darkness cries out\nto the grand man upon whose forehead is shining the dawn of a grander\nday; that is what the coffin says to the cradle.  Orthodoxy is a kind\nof shroud, and heresy is a banner--orthodoxy is a frog and heresy a\nstar shining forever above the cradle of truth.  I do not mean simply\nin religion, I mean in everything, and the idea I wish to impress upon\nyou is that you should keep your minds open to all the influences of\nnature; you should keep your minds open to reason.  Hear what a man has\nto say, and do not let the turtle-shell of bigotry grow above your\nbrain.  Give everybody a chance and an opportunity; that is all.\n\nI saw the arguments that those gentlemen have used on each other\nthrough all the ages.  I saw a little bit of thumbscrew not more than\nso long (illustrating), and attached to each end was a screw, and the\ninner surface vas trimmed with little protuberances to prevent their\nslipping; and when some man doubted--when a man had an idea--then those\nthat did not have an idea put the thumbscrew upon him who did.  He had\ndoubted something.  For instance, they told him, \"Christ says you must\nlove your enemies;\" he says, \"I do not know about that;\" then they\nsaid, \"We will show you!\"  \"Do unto others as you would be done by,\"\nthey said is the doctrine.  He doubted.  \"We will show you that it is!\"\nSo they put this screw on; and in the name of universal love and\nuniversal forgiveness--\"pray for those who despitefully use you\"--they\nbegan screwing these pieces of iron into him--always done in the name\nof religion--always. It never was done in the name of reason, never was\ndone in the name of science--never.  No man was ever persecuted in\ndefense of a truth--never. No man was ever persecuted except in defense\nof a lie--never.\n\nThis man had fallen out with them about something; he did not\nunderstand it as they did.  For instance he said, \"I do not believe\nthere ever was a man whose strength was in his hair.\" They said:  \"You\ndon't?  We'll show you!\"  \"I do not believe,\" he says, \"that a fish\never swallowed a man to save his life.\"  \"You don't?  Well, we'll show\nyou!\" And so they put this on, and generally the man would recant and\nsay, \"Well, I'll take it back.\"  Well I think I should.  Such men are\nnot worth dying for. The idea of dying for a man that would tear the\nflesh of another on account of an honest difference of opinion--such a\nman is not worth dying for; he is not worth living for, and if I was in\na position that I could not send a bullet through his brain, I would\nrecant.  I would say:  \"You write it down and I will sign it--I will\nadmit that there is one God, or a million--suit yourself; one hell or a\nbillion; you just write it--only stop this screw.  You are not worth\nsuffering for, you are not worth dying for and I am never going to take\nthe part of any Lord that won't take my part--you just write it down\nand I'll sign it.\"\n\nBut there was now and then a man who would not do that.  He said, \"No,\nI believe I am right, and I will die for it,\" and I suppose we owe what\nlittle progress we have made to a few men in all ages of the world who\nreally stood by their convictions.  The men who stood by the truth and\nthe men who stood by a fact, they are the men that have helped raise\nthis world, and in every age there has been some sublime and tender\nsoul who was true to his convictions, and who really lived to make men\nbetter.  In every age some men carried the torch of progress and handed\nit to some other, and it has been carried through all the dark ages of\nbarbarism, and had it not been for such men we would have been naked\nand uncivilized tonight, with pictures of wild beasts tattooed on our\nskins, dancing around some dried snake fetish.\n\nWhen a man would not recant, these men, in the name of the love of the\nLord, screwed them down to the last thread of agony and threw them into\nsome dungeon, where, in the throbbing silence of darkness, they\nsuffered the pangs of the fabled damned; and this was done in the name\nof civilization, love and order, and in the name of the most merciful\nChrist.  There are no thumbscrews now; they are rusting away; but every\nman in this town who is not willing that another shall do his own\nthinking and will try to prevent it, has in him the same hellish spirit\nthat made and used that very instrument of torture, and the only reason\nhe does not use it today is because he cannot.  The reason that I speak\nhere tonight is because they cannot help it.\n\nI saw at the same time a beautiful little instrument for the\npropagation of kindness, called \"The Scavenger's Daughter.\"  (The\nlecturer here described and illustrated construction of the\ninstrument.)  The victim would be thrown upon that instrument and the\nstrain upon the muscles was such that insanity would sometimes come to\nhis relief.  See what we owe to the civilizing influence of the\ngentlemen who have made a certain idea in metaphysics necessary to\nsalvation--see what we owe to them.\n\nI saw a collar of torture which they put about the neck of their\nvictim, and inside of that there were a hundred points; so that the\nvictim could not stir without the skin being punctured with these\npoints, and after a little while the throat would swell and suffocation\nwould end the agony, and they would have that done in the presence of\nhis wife and weeping children.  That was all done so that finally\neverybody would love everybody else as his brother.  I saw a rack.\nImagine a wagon with a windlass on each end, and each windlass armed\nwith leather bands, and a ratchet that prevented slipping.  The victim\nwas placed upon this.\n\nMaybe he had denied something that some idiot said was true; may be he\nhad a discussion--a division of opinion with a man, like John Calvin.\nJohn Calvin said Christ was the Eternal Son of God and Michael Servetus\nsaid that Christ was the son of the Eternal God.  That was the only\ndifference of opinion.  Think of it! What an important thing it was!\nHow it would have affected the price of food!  \"Christ is the Eternal\nSon of God,\" said one; \"No,\" said the other, \"Christ is the Son of\nEternal God\"--that was all, and for that difference of opinion Michael\nServetus was burned at a slow fire of green wood, and the wind\nhappening to blow the flames from him instead of towards him; he was in\nthe most terrible agony, writhing for minutes and minutes, and hours\nand hours, and finally he begged and implored those wretches to move\nhim so that the wind would blow the flames against him and destroy him\nwithout such hellish agony, but they were so filled with the doctrine\nof \"love your enemies\" that they would not do it.  I never will, for my\npart, depend upon any religion that has ever shed a drop of human\nblood.*\n\n[* Speaking of the Inquisition, Prof. Draper says:  \"With such savage\nalacrity did it carry out its object of protecting the interests of\nreligion, that between 1480 and 1808 it had punished 340,000 persons,\nand of these nearly 32,000 had been burnt!\"--Conflict between Religion\nand Science]\n\nUpon this rack I have described, this victim was placed, and those\nchains were attached to his ankles and then to his waist, and\nclergymen--good men! pious men! men that were shocked at the immorality\nof their day!  They talked about playing cards and the horrible crime\nof dancing! Oh, how such things shocked them; men going to theaters and\nseeing a play written by the grandest genius the world ever has\nproduced.  How it shocked their sublime and tender souls!  But then\ncommenced turning this machine, and they kept on turning until the\nankles, knees, hips, elbows, shoulders and wrists were all dislocated\nand the victim was red with the sweat of agony, and they had standing\nby a physician to feel the pulse, so that the last faint flutter of\nlife would not leave his veins.  Did they wish to save his life?  Yes.\nIn mercy?  No!  Simply that they might have the pleasure of racking him\nonce again.  That is the spirit, and it is a spirit born of the\ndoctrine that there is upon the throne of the universe a being who will\neternally damn his children, and they said:  \"If God is going to have\nthe supreme happiness of burning them forever, certainly he ought not\nto begrudge to us the joy of burning them for an hour or two.\"  That\nwas their doctrine, and when I read these things it seems to me that I\nhave suffered them myself.  When I look upon those instruments I look\nupon them as though I had suffered all these tortures myself.  It seems\nto me as though I had stood upon the shore an exile and looking with\ntear-filled eyes toward home and native land.  It seems as though my\nnails had been plucked out and into bleeding flesh needles had been\nthrust; as though my eyelids had been torn away and I had been set out\nin the ardent rays of the sun; as though I had been set out upon the\nsands of the sea and drowned by the inexorable tide; as though I had\nbeen in the dungeon waiting for the coming footsteps of relief; as\nthough I had been upon the scaffold arid seen the glittering axe\nfalling upon me; and seen bending above me the white faces of hypocrite\npriests; as though I had been taken from my wife and children to the\npublic square, where faggots had been piled around me and the flames\nhad climbed around my limbs and scorched my eyes to blindness; as\nthough my ashes had been scattered by all the hands of hatred; and I\nfeel like saying, that while I live I will do what little I can to\npreserve and augment the rights of men, women arid children; while I\nlive I will do a little something so that they who come after me shall\nhave the right to think and express that thought. The trouble is those\nwho oppose us pretend they are better than we are. They are more\nmortal, they are kinder, they are more generous.  I deny it.  They are\nnot.  And if they are the ones that are to be saved in another world,\nand if those who simply think they are honest, and express that honest\nthought, are to be damned, there will be but little originality, to say\nthe least of it, in heaven.  They say they are better than we are--and\nto show you how much better they are I have got at home copies of some\nletters that passed between gentlemen high in the church several\nhundred years ago, and the question was this:  \"Ought we to cut out the\ntongues of blasphemers before we burn them?\" And they finally decided\nthat they ought to do so, and I will tell you the reason they gave:\nThey said if they were not cut out that while they were being burned,\nthey might, by their heresies, scandalize the gentleman who would bring\nthe wood; they were too good to hear these things and they might be\ninjured; and the same idea appears to prevail in this world now that\nthey are too good and they must not be shocked.\n\nThey say to us:  \"You must not shock us, and when you say there is no\nhell we are shocked.  You must not say that.\"  When I go to church and\nthey tell me there is a hell I must not get shocked; and if they tell\nme that there is not only a hell, but that I am going to it, I must not\nbe shocked.  Even if they take the next step and act as though they\nwould be glad to see me there, still I must not be shocked.  I will\nagree to keep from being shocked as long as anybody in the world--they\ncan say what they please; I will not get shocked, but let me say it.\nYou send missionaries to Turkey and tell them that the Koran is a lie.\nYou shock them. You tell them that Mahomet was not a prophet.  You\nshock them. It is too bad to shock them.  You go to India and you tell\nthem that Vishnu was nothing, Puranas was nothing, that Buddha was\nnobody, and your Brahma, he is nothing.  Why do you shock these people?\nYou should not do that; you ought not to hurt their feelings.  I tell\nyou no man on earth has a right to be shocked at the expression of an\nhonest opinion when it is kindly done, and I don't believe there is any\nGod in the universe who has put a curtain over the fact and made it a\ncrime for the honest hand of investigation to endeavor to draw that\ncurtain.\n\nThis world has not been fit to live in fifty years.  There is no\nliberty in it--very little.  Why, it is only a few years ago that all\nthe Christian nations were engaged in the slave trade. It was not until\n1808, that England abolished the slave trade, and up to that time her\npriests in her churches, and her judges on her benches, owned stock in\nslave ships, and luxuriated on the profits of piracy and murder; and\nwhen a man stood up and denounced it, they mobbed him as though he had\nbeen a common burglar or a horse thief.  Think of it!  It was not until\nthe 28th day of August, 1833, that England abolished slavery in her\ncolonies; and it was not until the first day of January, 1863, that\nAbraham Lincoln, by direction of the entire North, wiped that infamy\nout of this country; and I never speak of Abraham Lincoln but I want to\nsay that he was, in my judgment, in many respects the grandest man ever\npresident of the United States.  I say that upon his tomb there ought\nto be this line--and I know of no other man deserving it so well as he:\n\"Here lies one who, having been clothed with almost absolute power,\nnever abused it except on the side of mercy.\"\n\nJust think of it!  Our churches and best people, as they call\nthemselves, defending the institution of slavery.  When I was a little\nboy I used to see steamers go down the Mississippi river with hundreds\nof men and women chained hand to hand, and even children, and men\nstanding about them with whips in their hands and pistols in their\npockets in the name of liberty, in the name of civilization and in the\nname of religion!  I used to hear them preach to these slaves in the\nSouth and the only text they ever took was  \"Servants, be obedient unto\nyour masters.\"  That was the salutation of the most merciful God to a\nman whose back was bleeding, that was the salutation of the most\nmerciful God to the slave mother bending over an empty cradle, to the\nwoman from whose breast a child had been stolen--\"Servants, be obedient\nunto you masters.\"  That was what they said to a man running for his\nlife and for his liberty through tangled swamps and listening to the\nbaying of bloodhounds, and when he listened for them the voice came\nfrom heaven:  \"Servants, be obedient unto your masters.\"\n\nThat is civilization.  Think what slaves we have been!  Think how we\nhave crouched and cringed before wealth even!  How they used to cringe\nin old times before a man who was rich--there are so many of them gone\ninto bankruptcy lately that we are losing a little of our fear.\n\nWe used to worship the golden calf, and the worst you can say of us\nnow, is, we worship the gold of the calf, and even the calves are\nbeginning to see this distinction.  We used to go down on our knees to\nevery man that held office; now he must fill it if he wishes any\nrespect.  We care nothing for the rich, except what will they do with\ntheir money? Do they benefit mankind?  That is the question.  You say\nthis man holds an office.  How does he fill it?--that is the question.\nAnd there is rapidly growing up in the world an aristocracy of heart\nand brain--the only aristocracy that has a right to exist.  We are\ngetting free.  We are thinking in every direction.  We are\ninvestigating with the microscope and the telescope.  We are digging\ninto the earth and finding souvenirs of all the ages.  We are finding\nout something about the laws of health and disease.  We are adding\nyears to the span of human life and we are making the world fit to live\nin. That is what we are doing, and every man that has an honest thought\nand expresses it, helps, and every man that tries to keep honest\nthought from being expressed is an obstruction and a hindrance.\n\nNow if men have been slaves what shall we say of women?  They have been\nthe slaves of slaves.  The meaner a man is, the better he thinks he is\nthan a woman.  As a rule, you take an ignorant, brutal man--don't talk\nto him about a woman governing him, he don't believe it--not he; and\nnearly every religion of this world has been gallant enough to account\nfor all the trouble and misfortune we have had by the crime of woman.\n\nEven if it is true, I do not care; I had rather live in a world full of\ntrouble with the woman I love than in heaven with nobody but men.\nNearly every religion accounts for all the trouble we have ever had by\nthe crime of woman.  I recollect one book where I read an account of\nwhat is called the creation--I am not giving the exact words, I will\ngive the substance of it.  The supreme being thought best to make a\nworld and one man--never thought about making a woman at that time;\nmaking a woman was a second thought, and I am free to admit that second\nthoughts as a rule are best.  He made this world and one man, and put\nthis man in a park, or garden, or public square, or whatever you might\ncall it, to dress and keep it.  The man had nothing to do.  He moped\naround there as though he was waiting for a train.  And the supreme\nbeing noticed that he got lonesome--I am glad He did! It occurred to\nHim that he would make a companion, and having made the world and one\nman out of nothing, and having used up all the nothing, He had to take\na part of the man to start the woman with--I am not giving the exact\nlanguage, neither do I say this story is true.  I do not know.  I would\nnot want to deceive anybody.\n\nSo sleep fell upon this man, and they took from his side a rib--the\nFrench would call it a cutlet.  And out of that they made a woman, and\ntaking into consideration the amount and quality of the raw material\nused, I look upon it as the most successful job ever accomplished in\nthis world.  I am giving just a rough outline of this story.  After He\ngot the woman done she was brought to the man--not to see how she liked\nhim, but to see how he liked her.  He liked her and they went to\nkeeping house. Before she was made there was really nothing to do;\nthere was no news, no politics, no religion, not even civil service\nreform. And as the devil had not yet put in an appearance, there was no\nchance to conciliate him.  They started in the housekeeping business,\nand they were told they could do anything they liked except eat an\napple.  Of course they ate it.  I would have done it myself I know.  I\nam satisfied I would have had an apple off that tree, if I had been\nthere, in fifteen minutes.  They were caught at it, and they were\nturned out, and there was an extra police force put on to keep them\nfrom coming in again.  And then measles, and whooping-cough, mumps,\netc., started in the race of man, roses began to have thorns and snakes\nbegan to have teeth, and people began to fight about religion and\npolitics, and they have been fighting and scratching each other's eyes\nout from that day to this.\n\nI read in another book an account of the same transaction.  They tell\nus the Supreme Brahma made up his mind to make a man, a woman, and a\nworld; and that he put this man and woman in the island of Ceylon.\nAccording to the description, it was the most beautiful isle that ever\nexisted; it beggared the description of a Chicago land agent\ncompletely.  It was delightful; the branches of the trees were so\narranged that when the wind swept through them they seemed like a\nthousand aeolian harps, and the man was named Adami, and the Woman's\nname was Heva.  This book was written about three or four thousand\nyears before the other one, and all the commentators in this country\nagree that the story that was written first was copied from the one\nthat was written last.  I hope you will not let a matter of three or\nfour thousand years interfere with your ideas on the subject.  The\nSupreme Brahma said:  \"Let them have a period of courtship, because it\nis my desire that true love always should precede marriage\"--and that\nwas so much better than lugging her up to him and saying, \"Do you like\nher?\" that upon my word I said when I read it, \"If either one of these\nstories turn out to be true, I hope it will be this one.\"\n\nThey had a courtship in the starlight and moonlight, and perfume-laden\nair, with the nightingale singing his song of joy, and they got in\nlove. There was nobody to bother them, no prospective fathers or\nmothers-in-law, no gossiping neighbors, nobody to say \"Young man, how\ndo you propose to support her\"--they got in love and they were married,\nand they started keeping house, and the Supreme Brahma said to them:\n\"You must not leave this island.\" After awhile the man got\nuneasy--wanted to go west.  He went to the western extremity of the\nisland, and there the devil got up, and when he looked over on the\nmainland he saw such hills and valleys and torrents, and such mountains\ncrowned with snow; such cataracts, robed in glory, that he went right\nback to Heva.  Says he: \"Come over here; it is a thousand times\nbetter;\"  says he: \"let us emigrate.\"  She said, like another woman:\n\"No, let well enough alone; we have no rent to pay, and no taxes; we\nare doing very well now, let us stay where we are.\"  But he insisted,\nand so she went with him, and when he got to this western extremity,\nwhere there was a little neck of land leading to this better land, he\ntook her on his back and walked over, and the moment he got over he\nheard a crash, and he looked back and this narrow neck of land had sunk\ninto the sea, leaving here and there a rock (and those rocks are called\neven unto this day the footsteps of Adami), and when he looked back\nthis beautiful mirage had disappeared.\n\nInstead of verdure and flowers there was naught but rocks and sand, and\nthen he heard the voice of the Supreme Brahma crying out cursing them\nboth to the lowest hell, and then it was that Adami said:  \"Curse me,\nif you choose, but not her; it was not her fault, it was mine; curse\nme.\" That is the kind of a man to start a world with.  And the Supreme\nBrahma said \"I will spare her, but I will not spare you.\"  Then she\nspoke, out of a breast so full of affection that she has left a legacy\nof love to all her daughters:  \"If thou wilt not spare him, spare\nneither me, because I love him.\"  Then the Supreme Brahma said--and I\nhave liked him ever since--\"I will spare both, and watch over you and\nyour children forever.\"  Now, really this story appears to me better\nthan the other one.  It is loftier; there is more in it than I can\nadmire.  In order to show you that humanity does not belong to any\nparticular nation, and that there are great and tender souls\neverywhere, let me tell you a little more that is in this book.\n\"Blessed is that man, and beloved of all the gods who is afraid of no\nman, and of whom no man is afraid.\" Think of that kind of character!\nAnother:  \"Man is strength, woman is beauty; man is courage, woman is\nlove; and where the one man loves the one woman the very angels leave\nheaven and come and sit in that house and sing for joy.\"  I think that\nis nearly equal to this:  \"If you do not want your wife, give her a\nwriting of divorcement,\" and make the mother of your children a\nhouseless wanderer and a vagrant--nearly as good as that.\n\nI believe that marriage should be a perfect partnership; that woman\nshould have all the rights that man has, and one more--the right to be\nprotected.  I believe in marriage.  It took hundreds and thousands of\nyears for woman to get from a state of abject slavery up to the height\neven of marriage.  I have not the slightest respect for the ideas of\nthose short-haired women and long-haired men who denounce the\ninstitution of the family, who denounce the institution of marriage;\nbut I hold in greater contempt the husband who would enslave his wife.\nI hold in greater contempt the man who is anything in his family except\nlove and tenderness, and kindness.  I say it took hundreds of years for\nwoman to come from a state of slavery to marriage; and ladies, the\nchains that are upon your necks and the bracelets that are put upon\nyour arms were iron, and they have been changed by the touch of the\nwand of civilization to shining, glittering gold.  Woman came from a\ncondition of abject slavery and thousands and thousands of them are in\nthat condition now.  I believe marriage should be a perfect and equal\npartnership.  I do not like a man who thinks he is boss.  That fellow\nin the dug-out was always talking about being boss.  I do not like a\nman who thinks he is the head of the family.  I do not like a man who\nthinks he has got authority and that the woman belongs to him--that\nwants for his wife a slave.  I would not have a slave for my wife.  I\nwould not want the love of a woman that is not great enough, grand\nenough, and splendid enough to be free.  I will never give to any woman\nmy heart upon whom I afterwards would put chains.\n\nDo you know sometimes I think generosity is about the only virtue there\nis.  How I do hate a man that has to be begged and importuned every\nminute for a few cents by his wife.  \"Give me a dollar?\"  \"What did you\ndo with that fifty cents I gave you last Christmas?\"  If you make your\nwife a perpetual beggar, what kind of children do you expect to raise\nwith a beggar for their mother?  If you want great children, if you\nwant to people this world with great and grand men and women they must\nbe born of love and liberty.  I have known men that would trust a woman\nwith their heart--if you call that thing which pushes their blood\naround a heart; and with their honor--if you call that fear, of getting\ninto the penitentiary, honor; I have known men that would trust that\nheart and that honor with a woman, but not their pocket-book--not a\ndollar bill.  When I see a man of that kind, I think they know better\nthan I do which of these three articles is the most valuable.  I\nbelieve if you have got a dollar in the world and you have got to spend\nit, spend it like a man; spend it like a king, like a prince.  If you\nhave to spend it, spend it as though it was a dried leaf, and you were\nthe owner of unbounded forests.  I had rather be a beggar and spend my\nlast dollar like a king than be a king and spend my money like a\nbeggar.  What is it worth compared with the love of a splendid woman?\n\nPeople tell me that is very good doctrine for rich folks, but it won't\ndo for poor folks.  I tell you that there is more love in the huts and\nhomes of the poor, than in the mansions of the rich, and the meanest\nbut with love in it is a palace fit for the gods, and a palace without\nthat, is a den only fit for wild beasts. The man who has the love of\none splendid woman is a rich man. Joy is wealth, and love is the legal\ntender of the soul!  Love is the only thing that will pay ten percent\nto borrower and lender both; and if some men were as ashamed of\nappearing cross in public as they are of appearing tender at home, this\nworld would be infinitely better.  I think you can make your home a\nheaven if you want to--you can make up your minds to that.  When a man\ncomes home let him come home like a ray of light in the night bursting\nthrough the doors and illuminating the darkness.  What right has a man\nto assassinate joy, and murder happiness in the sanctuary of love--to\nbe a cross man, a peevish man--is that the way he courted?  Was there\nalways something ailing him?  Was he too nervous to hear her speak?\nWhen I see a man of that kind I am always sorry that doctors know so\nmuch about preserving life as they do.\n\nIt is not necessary to be rich, nor powerful, nor great to be a\nsuccess; and neither is it necessary to have your name between the\nputrid lips of rumor to be great.  We have had a false standard of\nsuccess.  In the years when I was a little boy we read in our books\nthat no fellow was a success that did not make a fortune or get a big\noffice, and he generally was a man that slept about three hours a\nnight.  They never put down in the books the names of those gentlemen\nthat succeeded in life that slept all they wanted to; and we all\nthought that we could not sleep to exceed three or four hours if we\never expected to be anything in this world.  We have had a wrong\nstandard.  The happy man is the successful man; and the man who makes\nsomebody else happy, is a happy man.  The man that has gained the love\nof one good, splendid, pure woman, his life has been a success, no\nmatter if he dies in the ditch; and if he gets to be a crowned monarch\nof the world, and never had the love of one splendid heart, his life\nhas been an ashen vapor.\n\nA little while ago I stood by the tomb of the first Napoleon, a\nmagnificent tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a dead deity, and\nhere was a great circle, and in the bottom there, in a sarcophagus,\nrested at last the ashes of that restless man.  I looked at that tomb,\nand I thought about the career of the greatest soldier of the modern\nworld. As I looked, in imagination I could see him walking up and down\nthe banks of the Seine contemplating suicide.  I could see him at\nToulon; I could see him at Paris, putting down the mob; I could see him\nat the head of the army of Italy; I could see him crossing the bridge\nof Lodi, with the tri-color in his hand; I saw him in Egypt, fighting\nbattles under the shadow of the Pyramids; I saw him returning; I saw\nhim conquer the Alps, and mingle the eagles of France with the eagles\nof Italy; I saw him at Marengo, I saw him at Austerlitz; I saw him in\nRussia, where the infantry of the snow and the blast smote his legions,\nwhen death rode the icy winds of winter.  I saw him at Leipsic; hurled\nback upon Paris, banished; and I saw him escape from Elba and retake an\nempire by the force of his genius.  I saw him at the field of Waterloo,\nwhere fate and chance combined to wreck the fortune of their former\nking.  I saw him at St. Helena, with his hands behind his back, gazing\nout upon the sad and solemn sea, and I thought of all the widows he had\nmade, of all the orphans, of all the tears that had been shed for his\nglory; and I thought of the woman, the only woman who ever loved him,\npushed from his heart by the cold hand of ambition and I said to\nmyself, as I gazed, \"I would rather have been a French peasant and worn\nwooden shoes, and lived in a little hut but with a vine running over\nthe door and the purple grapes growing red in the amorous kisses of the\nautumn sun--I would rather have been that poor French peasant, to sit\nin my door, with my wife knitting by my side and my children upon my\nknees with their arms around my neck--I would rather have lived and\ndied unnoticed and unknown except by those who loved me, and gone down\nto the voiceless silence of the dreamless dust--I would rather have\nbeen that French peasant than to have been that imperial impersonation\nof force and murder who covered Europe with blood and tears.\"\n\nI tell you I had rather make somebody happy, I would rather have the\nlove of somebody; I would rather go to the forest, far away, and build\nme a little cabin--build it myself and daub it with mud, and live there\nwith my wife and children; I had rather go there and live by\nmyself--our little family--and have a little path that led down to the\nspring, where the water bubbled out day and night like a little poem\nfrom the heart of the earth; a little hut with some hollyhocks at the\ncorner, with their bannered bosoms open to the sun, and with the thrush\nin the air, like a song of joy in the morning; I would rather live\nthere and have some lattice work across the window, so that the\nsunlight would fall checkered on the baby in the cradle; I would rather\nlive there and have my soul erect and free, than to live in a palace of\ngold and wear the crown of imperial power and know that my soul was\nslimy with hypocrisy.  It is not necessary to be rich and great and\npowerful in order to be happy.  If you will treat your wife like a\nsplendid flower, she will fill your life with a perfume and with joy.\n\nI believe in the democracy of the fireside, I believe in the\nrepublicism of home, in the equality of man and woman, in the equality\nof husband and wife, and for this I am denounced by the sentinels upon\nthe walls of Zion.\n\nThey say there must be a head to the family.  I say no--equal rights\nfor man and wife, and where there is really love there is liberty, and\nwhere the idea of authority comes in you will find that love has spread\nits pinions and flown forever.  It is a splendid thing for me to think\nthat when a woman really loves a man he never grows old in her eyes;\nshe always sees the gallant gentleman that won her hand and heart; and\nwhen a man really and truly loves a woman she does not grow old to him;\nthrough the wrinkles of years he sees the face he loved and won.  That\nis all there is in this world--all the rest amounts to nothing--it is a\ntale told by an idiot signifying nothing.  You take from the family\nlove, and nothing is left.  There must be equality; there must be no\nmaster; there must be no servant.  There must be equality and kindness.\nThe man should be infinitely tender towards the woman--and\nwhy?--because she cannot go at hard work, she cannot make her own\nliving.  She has squandered her wealth of beauty and youth upon him.\n\nNow, if women have been slaves, what do you say about children?\nChildren have been the slaves of the slaves.  I know children that turn\npale with fright when they hear their mother's voice; children of\nproperty; children of crime, children of sub-cellars; children of the\nnarrow streets, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wild, rude sea of\nlife--my heart goes out to them one and all; I say they have all the\nrights we have and one more--the right to be protected.  I believe in\ngoverning children by kindness, by love, by tenderness.  If a child\ncommits a fault take it in your arms, let your heart beat against its\nheart; don't go and talk to it about hell and the bankruptcy of the\nuniverse.  If your child tells a lie--what of it?  Be honest with the\nchild, tell him you have told hundreds of them yourself. Then your\nchild will not be afraid to tell you when it commits a fault; it will\nnot regard you as old perfection, until it gets a few years older, and\nfinds you are an old hypocrite--and you cannot put a thick enough veil\nupon you but what the eyes of childhood will peep through it; they will\nsee; they will find out; and when your child tells a lie, examine\nyourself, and in all probability you will find you have been a tyrant.\nA tyrant father will have liars for his children.  A liar is born of\ntyranny on the one hand and fear on the other.  Truth comes from the\nlips of courage.  It is born in confidence and honor.  If you want a\nchild to tell you the truth you want to be a faithful man yourself.\nYou go at your little child, five or six years old, with a stick in\nyour hand--what is he to do? Tell the truth? Then he will get whipped.\nWhat is he to do?  I thank Mother Nature for putting ingenuity in the\nmind of a little child so that when it is attacked by a brutal parent\nit throws up a little breastwork in the shape of a lie.  That being\ndone by nations it is called strategy, and many a general wears his\nhonors for having practiced it; and will you deny it to little children\nto protect themselves from brutal parents.  Supposing a man as much\nlarger than we are, larger than child would come at us with a\nliberty-pole in his hand and would shout in tones of thunder, \"Who\nbroke that plate?\"  Every one of us--including myself--would just stand\nright up and swear either that we never saw that plate, or that it was\ncracked when we got it.  Give a child a chance; there is no other way\nto have children tell the truth--tell the truth to them--keep your\ncontracts with your children the same as you would to your banker.\n\nI was up at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the other day.  There was a\ngentleman there, and his wife, who had promised to take their little\nboy for a ride every night for ten days, or every day for ten days, but\nthey did not do it.  They slipped out to the barn and they went without\nhim. The day before I was there they played the same game on him again.\nHe is a nice little boy, an American boy, a boy with brains, one of\nthose boys that don't take the hatchet-story as a fact; he had his own\nideas. They fooled him again, and they came around the corner as big as\nlife, man and wife.  The little fellow was standing on the door step\nwith his nurse, and he looked at them, and he made this remark: \"There\ngo the two damndest liars in Grand Rapids.\"  I merely tell you this\nstory to show you that children have level heads; they understand this\nbusiness.\n\nTeach your children to tell you the truth--tell them the truth. If\nthere is one here that ever intends to whip his child I have a favor to\nask. Have your photograph taken when you are in the act, with your red\nand vulgar face, your brow corrugated, pretending you would rather be\nwhipped yourself.  Have the child's photograph taken too, with his eyes\nstreaming with tears, and his chin dimpled with fear, as a little sheet\nof water struck by a sudden cold wind; and if your child should die I\ncannot think of a sweeter way to spend an afternoon than to go to the\ngraveyard in the autumn, when the maples are clad in pink and gold,\nwhen the little scarlet runners come like poems out of the breast of\nthe earth--go there and sit down and look at that photograph and think\nof the flesh, now dust, and how you caned it to writhe in pain and\nagony.\n\nI will tell you what I am doing; I am doing what little I can to save\nthe flesh of children.  You have no right to whip them.  It is not the\nway; and yet some Christians drive their children from their doors if\nthey do wrong, especially if it is a sweet, tender girl--I believe\nthere is no instance on record of any veal being given for the return\nof a girl--some Christians drive them from their doors and then go down\nupon their knees and ask God to take care of their children!  I will\nnever ask God to take care of my children unless I am doing my level\nbest in that same direction.  Some Christians act as though they\nthought when the Lord said, \"Suffer little children to come unto me\"\nthat he had a raw-hide under His mantle--they act as if they thought\nso.  That is all wrong.  I tell yon my children this:  Go where you\nmay, commit what crime you may, fall to what depths of degradation you\nmay, I can never shut my arms, my heart or my door to you.  As long as\nI live you shall have one sincere friend; do not be afraid to tell\nanything wrong you have done; ten to one if I have not done the same\nthing.  I am not perfection, and if it is necessary to sin in order to\nhave sympathy, I am glad I have committed sin enough to have sympathy.\nThe sternness of perfection I do not want.  I am going to live so that\nmy children can come to my grave and truthfully say, \"He who sleeps\nhere never gave us one moment of pain.\"  Whether you call that religion\nor infidelity, suit yourselves; that is the way I intend to do it.\n\nWhen I was a little fellow most everybody thought that some days were\ntoo sacred for the young ones to enjoy themselves in.  That was the\ngeneral idea.  Sunday used to commence Saturday night at sundown, under\nthe old text, \"The evening and the morning were the first day.\"  They\ncommenced then, I think, to get a good ready.  When the sun went down\nSaturday night, darkness ten thousand times deeper than ordinary night\nfell upon the house. The boy that looked the sickest was regarded as\nthe most pious. You could not crack hickory nuts that night, and if you\nwere caught chewing gum it was another evidence of the total depravity\nof the human heart.  It was a very solemn evening.  We would sometimes\nsing \"Another Day has Passed.\"  Everybody looked as though they had the\ndyspepsia--you know lots of people think they are pious, just because\nthey are bilious, as Mr. Hood says. It was a solemn night, and the next\nmorning the solemnity had increased.  Then we went to church, and the\nminister was in a pulpit about twenty feet high.  If it was in the\nwinter there was no fire; it was not thought proper to be comfortable\nwhile you were thanking the Lord.  The minister commenced at firstly\nand ran up to about twenty-fourthly, and then he divided it up again;\nand then he made some concluding remarks, and then he said lastly, and\nwhen he said lastly he was about half through.  Then we had what we\ncalled the catechism--the chief end of man.  I think that has a\ntendency to make a boy kind of bubble up cheerfully.\n\nWe sat along on a bench with our feet about eight inches from the\nfloor. The minister said, \"Boys, do you know what becomes of the\nwicked?\"  We all answered as cheerfully as grasshoppers sing in\nMinnesota, \"Yes, sir.\"  \"Do you know, boys, that you all ought to go to\nhell?\"  \"Yes, sir.\"  As a final test:  \"Boys, would you be willing to\ngo to hell if it was God's will?\"  And every little liar said, \"Yes,\nsir.\"  The dear old minister used to try to impress upon our minds\nabout how long we would stay there after we got there, and he used to\nsay in an awful tone of voice--do you know I think that is what gives\nthem the bronchitis--that tone--you never heard of an auctioneer having\nit--\"Suppose that once in a billion of years a bird were to come from\nsome far, distant clime and carry off in its bill a grain of sand, when\nthe time came when the last animal matter of which this mundane sphere\nis composed would be carried away,\" said he, \"boys, by that time in\nhell it would not be sun up.\"  We had this sermon in the morning and\nthe same one in the afternoon, only he commenced at the other end.\nThen we started home full of doctrine--we went sadly and sole  solemnly\nback.  If it was in the summer and the weather was good and we had been\ngood boys, they used to take us down to the graveyard, and to cheer us\nup we had a little conversation about coffins, and shrouds, and worms,\nand bones, and dust, and I must admit that it did cheer me up when I\nlooked at those sunken graves those stones, those names half effaced\nwith the decay of years.  I felt cheered, for I said, \"This thing can't\nlast always.\"  Then we had to read a good deal.  We were not allowed to\nread joke books or anything of that kind.  We read Baxter's \"Call to\nthe Unconverted;\"  Fox's \"Book of Martyrs;\" Milton's \"History of the\nWaldenses,\" and \"Jenkins on the Atonement.\"  I generally read Jenkins;\nand I have often thought that the atonement ought to be pretty broad in\nits provisions to cover the case of a man that would write a book like\nthat for a boy.\n\nThen we used to go and see how the sun was getting on--when the sun was\ndown the thing was over.  I would sit three or four hours reading\nJenkins, and then go out and the sun would not have gone down\nperceptibly.  I used to think it stuck there out of simple, pure\ncussedness.  But it went down at last, it had to; that was a part of\nthe plan, and as the last rim of light would sink below the horizon,\noff would go our hats and we would give three cheers for liberty once\nagain. I do not believe in making Sunday hateful for children.  I\nbelieve in allowing them to be happy, and no day can be so sacred but\nthat the laugh of a child will make it holier still.  There is no God\nin the heavens that is pleased at the sadness of childhood.  You cannot\nmake me believe that.  You fill their poor, little, sweet hearts with\nthe fearful doctrine of hell.  A little child goes out into the garden;\nthere is a tree covered with a glory of blossoms and the child leans\nagainst it, and there is a little bird on the bough singing and\nswinging, and the waves of melody run out of its tiny throat, thinking\nabout four little speckled eggs in the nest, warmed by the breast of\nits mate, and the air is filled with perfume, and that little child\nleans against that tree and thinks about hell and the worm that never\ndies; think of filling the mind of a child with that infamous dogma!\n\nWhere was that doctrine of hell born?  Where did it come from? It came\nfrom that gentleman in the dug-out;  it was a souvenir from the lower\nanimal.  I honestly believe that the doctrine of hell was born in the\nglittering eyes of snakes that run in frightful coils watching for\ntheir prey.  I believe it was born in the yelping and howling and\ngrowling and snarling of wild beasts, I believe it was born in the grin\nof hyenas and in the malicious chatter of depraved apes, I despise it,\nI defy it and hate it; and when the great ship freighted with the world\ngoes down in the night of death, chaos and disaster, I will not be\nguilty of the ineffable meanness of pushing from my breast my wife and\nchildren and padding off in some orthodox canoe.  I will go down with\nthose I love and with those who love me.  I will go down with the ship\nand with my race.  I will go where there is sympathy.  I will go with\nthose I love. Nothing can make me believe that there is any being that\nis going to burn and torment and damn his children forever.  No, sir!\nYou will never make me believe you can divide the world up into saints\nand sinners, and that the saints are all going to heaven and the others\nto hell. I don't believe that you can draw the line.\n\nYou are sometimes in the presence of a great disaster; there is a fire;\nat the fourth story window you see the white face of a woman with a\nchild in her arms, and humanity calls out for somebody to go to the\nrescue through that smoke and flame, maybe death.  They don't call for\na Baptist, nor a Presbyterian, nor a Methodist, but humanity calls for\na man.  And all at once, out steps somebody that nobody ever did think\nwas much, not a very good man, and yet he springs up the ladder and is\nlost in the smoke, and a moment afterward he emerges, and the cruel\nserpents of fire climb and hiss around his brave form, but he goes on\nand you see that woman and child in his arms, and you see them come\ndown and they are handed to the bystanders, and he has fainted, maybe,\nand the crowd stand hushed, as they always do, in the presence of a\ngrand action, and a moment after the air is rent with a cheer.  Tell me\nthat that man is going to hell, who is willing to lose his life merely\nto keep a woman and child from the torment of a moment's flame--tell me\nthat he is going to hell; I tell you that it is a falsehood, and if\nanybody says so he is mistaken.\n\nI have seen upon the battlefield a boy sixteen years of age struck by\nthe fragment of a shell and life oozing slowly from the ragged lips of\nhis death-wound, and I have heard him and seen him die with a curse\nupon his lips, and he had the face of his mother in his heart.  Do you\ntell me that that boy left that field where he died that the flag of\nhis country might wave forever in the air--do you tell me that he went\nfrom that field, where he lost his life in defense of the liberties of\nmen, to an eternal hell? I tell you it is infamous!--and such a\ndoctrine as that would tarnish the reputation of a hyena and smirch the\nfair fame of an anaconda.\n\nLet us see whether we are to believe it or not.  We had a war a little\nwhile ago and there was a draft made, and there was many a good\nChristian hired another fellow to take his place, hired one that was\nwicked, hired a sinner to go to hell in his place for five hundred\ndollars!  While if he was killed he would go to heaven.  Think of that.\nThink of a man willing to do that for five hundred dollars!  I tell you\nwhen you come right down to it they have got too much heart to believe\nit; they say they do, but they do not appreciate it.  They do not\nbelieve it.  They would go crazy if they did.  They would go insane.\nIf a woman believed it, looking upon her little dimpled darling in the\ncradle, and said, \"Nineteen chances in twenty I am raising fuel for\nhell,\" she would go crazy.  They don't believe it, and can't believe\nit. The old doctrine was that the angels in heaven would become happier\nas they looked upon those in hell.  That is not the doctrine now; we\nhave civilized it.  That is not the doctrine.  What is the doctrine\nnow?  The doctrine is that those in heaven can look upon the agonies of\nthose in hell, whether it is a fire or whatever it is, without having\nthe happiness of those in heaven decreased--that is the doctrine.\n\nThat is preached today in every orthodox pulpit in Harrisburg. Let me\nput one case and I will be through with this branch of the subject.  A\nhusband and wife love each other.  The husband is a good fellow and the\nwife a splendid woman.  They live and love each other and all at once\nhe is taken sick, and they watch day after day and night after night\naround his bedside until their property is wasted and finally she has\nto go to work, and she works through eyes blinded with tears, and the\nsentinel of love watches at the bedside of her prince, and at the least\nbreath or the least motion she is awake; and she attends him night\nafter night and day after day for years, and finally he dies, and she\nhas him in her arms and covers his wasted face with the tears of agony\nand love.  He is a believer and she is not.  He dies, and she buries\nhim and puts flowers above his grave, and she goes there in the\ntwilight of evening and she takes her children, and tells her little\nboys and girls through her tears how brave and how true and how tender\ntheir father was, and finally she dies and she goes to hell, because\nshe was not a believer; and he goes to the battlements of heaven and\nlooks over and sees the woman who loved him with all the wealth of her\nlove, and whose tears made his dead face holy and sacred, and he looks\nupon her in the agonies of hell without having his happiness diminished\nin the least.\n\nWith all due respect to everybody, I say, damn any such doctrine as\nthat.  It is infamous!  It never ought to be preached; it never ought\nto be believed.  We ought to be true to our hearts, and the best\nrevelation of the infinite is the human heart.\n\nNow, I come back to where I started from.  They used to think that a\ncertain day was too good for a child to be happy in, so they filled the\nimagination of this child with these horrors of hell.  I said, and I\nsay again, no day can be so sacred but that the laugh of a child will\nmake the holiest day more sacred still. Strike with hand of fire, oh,\nweird musician, thy harp, strung with Apollo's golden hair; fill the\nvast cathedral aisles with symphonies sweet and dim, deft toucher of\nthe organ keys; blow bugler, blow, until thy silver notes do touch the\nskies, with moonlit waves, and charm the lovers wandering on the\nvine-clad hills; but know, your sweetest strains are discords all,\ncompared with childhood's happy laugh, the laugh that fills the eyes\nwith light and every heart with joy; oh, rippling river of life, thou\nart the blessed boundary-line between the beasts and man, and every\nwayward wave of thine doth drown some fiend of care; oh, laughter,\ndivine daughter of joy, make dimples enough in the cheeks of the world\nto catch and hold and glorify all the tears of grief.\n\nI am opposed to any religion that makes them melancholy, that makes\nchildren sad, and that fills the human heart with shadow.\n\nGive a child a chance.  When I was a boy we always went to bed when we\nwere not sleepy, and we always got up when we were sleepy.  Let a child\ncommence at which end of the day they please, that is their business;\nthey know more about it than all the doctors in the world.  The voice\nof nature when a man is free, is the voice of right, but when his\npassions have been damned up by custom, the moment that is withdrawn,\nhe rushes to some excess.  Let him be free from the first.  Let your\nchildren grow in the free air and they will fill your house with\nperfume. Do not create a child to be a post set in an orthodox row;\nraise investigators and thinkers, not disciples and followers;\ncultivate reason, not faith; cultivate investigation, not superstition;\nand if you have any doubt yourself about a thing being so, tell them\nabout it; don't tell them the world was made in six days--if you think\nsix days means six good whiles, tell them six good whiles.  If you have\nany doubts about anybody being in a furnace and not being burnt, or\neven getting uncomfortably warm, tell them so--be honest about it.  If\nyou look upon the jaw-bone of a donkey as not a good weapon, say so.\nGive a child a chance.  If you think a man never went to sea in a fish,\ntell them so, it won't make them any worse.  Be honest--that is all;\ndon't cram their heads with things that will take them years and years\nto unlearn; tell them facts--it is just as easy.  It is as easy to find\nout botany, and astronomy, and geology, and history--it is as easy to\nfind out all these things as to cram their minds with things you know\nnothing about,* and where a child knows what the name of a flower is\nwhen it sees it, the name of a bird and all those things, the world\nbecomes interesting everywhere, and they do not pass by the\nflowers--they are not deaf to all the songs of birds, simply because\nthey are walking along thinking about hell.\n\n[* \"We know of no difference between matter and spirit, because we know\nnothing with certainty about either.  Why trouble ourselves about\nmatters of which, however important they may be we do know nothing and\ncan know nothing?\"--Huxley]\n\nI tell you, this is a pretty good world if we only love somebody in it,\nif we only make somebody happy, if we are only honor-bright in it, if\nwe have no fear.  That is my doctrine.  I like to hear children at the\ntable telling what big things they have seen during the day; I like to\nhear their merry voices mingling with the clatter of knives and forks.\nI had rather hear that than any opera that was ever put on the stage.\nI hate this idea of authority.  I hate dignity.  I never saw a\ndignified man that was not after all an old idiot.  Dignity is a mask;\na dignified man is afraid that you will know he does not know\neverything. A man of sense and argument is always willing to admit what\nhe don't know--why?--because there is so much that he does know; and\nthat is the first step towards learning anything--willingness to admit\nwhat you don't know and when you don't understand a thing, ask--no\nmatter how small and silly it may look to other people--ask, and after\nthat you know.  A man never is in a state of mind that he can learn\nuntil he gets that dignified nonsense out of him, and so, I say let us\ntreat our children with perfect kindness and tenderness.\n\nNow, then, I believe in absolute intellectual liberty; that a man has a\nright to think, and think wrong, provided he does the best he can to\nthink right--that is all.  I have no right to say that Mr. Smith shall\nnot think; Mr. Smith has no right to say I shall not think; I have no\nright to go and pull a clergyman out of his pulpit and say:  \"You shall\nnot preach that doctrine,\" but I have just as much right as he has to\nsay my say.  I have no right to lie about a clergyman, and with great\nmodesty I claim--and with some timidity--that he has no right to\nslander me--that is all.\n\nI claim that every man and wife are equal, except that she has a right\nto be protected; that there is nothing like the democracy of the home\nand the republicism of the fire-side, and that a man should study to\nmake his wife's life one perpetual poem of joy; that there should be\nnothing but kindness and goodness; and then I say that children should\nbe governed by love, by kindness, by tenderness, and by the sympathy of\nlove, kindness and tenderness. That is the religion I have got, and it\nis good enough for me whether it suits anybody else in the world or\nnot. I think it is altogether more important to believe in my wife than\nit is to believe in the master; I think it is altogether more important\nto love my children than the twelve apostles--that is my doctrine.  I\nmay be wrong, but that is it.  I think more of the living than I do of\nthe dead.  This world is for the living.  The grave is not a throne,\nand a corpse is not a king.  The living have a right to control this\nworld.  I think a good deal more of today than I do of yesterday, and I\nthink more of tomorrow than I do of this day; because it is nearly\ngone--that is the way I feel, and this my creed.  The time to be happy\nis now; the way to be happy is to make somebody else happy; and the\nplace to be happy is here.  I never will consent to drink skim milk\nhere with the promise of cream somewhere else.\n\nNow, my friends, I have some excuses to offer for the race to which I\nbelong.  In the first place, this world is not very well adapted to\nraising good people; there is but one-quarter of it land to start with;\nit is three times as well adapted to fish-culture as it is to man, and\nof that one-quarter there is but a small belt where they raise men of\ngenius.  There is one strip from which all the men and women of genius\ncome.  When you go too far north yon find no brain; when you go too far\nsouth you find no genius, and there never has been a high degree of\ncivilization except where there is winter.  I say that winter is the\nfather and mother of the fireside, the family of nations; and around\nthat fireside blossom the fruits of our race.  In a country where they\ndon't need any bed-clothes except the clouds, revolution is the normal\ncondition not much civilization there.  When in the winter I go by a\nhouse where the curtain is a little bit drawn, and I look in there and\nsee children poking the fire and wishing they had as many dollars or\nknives or something else as there are sparks; when I see the old man\nsmoking and the smoke curling above his head like incense from the\naltar of domestic peace, the other children reading or doing something,\nand the old lady with her needle and shears--I never pass such a scene\nthat I do not feel a little ache of joy in my heart.\n\nAwhile ago they were talking about annexing San Domingo.  They said it\nwas the finest soil in the world, and so on.  Says I, \"It don't raise\nthe right kind of folks; you take five thousand of the best people in\nthe world and let them settle there and you will see the second\ngeneration barefooted, with the hair sticking out of the top of their\nsombreros; you will see them riding barebacked, with a rooster under\neach arm, going to a cockfight on Sunday.\"  That is one excuse I have.\n\nAnother is, I think we came from the lower animals, I am not dead sure\nof it.  On that question I stand about eight to seven.  If there is\nnothing of the snake, or hyena, or jackal in man, why would he cut his\nbrother's throat for a difference of belief? Why would he build\ndungeons and burn the flesh of his brother man with red hot irons?  I\nthink we came from the lower animals. When I first heard that doctrine\nI did not like it.  I felt sorry for our English friends, who would\nhave to trace their pedigree back to the Duke of Orangutan, or the Earl\nof Chimpanzee. But I have read so much about rudimentary bones and\nrudimentary muscles that I began to doubt about it.  Says I:  \"What do\nyou mean by rudimentary muscles?\"  They say:  \"A muscle that has gone\ninto bankruptcy--\"  \"Was it a large muscle?\"  \"Yes.\"  \"What did our\nforefathers use it for?\"  They say:  \"To flap their ears with.\" After I\nfound that out I was astonished to find that they had become\nrudimentary; I know so many people for whom it would be handy today, so\nmany people where that would have been on an exact level with their\nintellectual development.  So after while I began to like it, and says\nI to myself:  \"You have got to come to it.\"  I thought after all I had\nrather belong to a race of people that came from skull-less vertebrae\nin the dim Laurentian period, that wiggled without knowing they were\nwiggling, that began to develop and came up by a gradual development\nuntil they struck this gentleman in the dug-out; coming up\nslowly--up-up-up--until, for instance, they produced such a man as\nShakespeare--he who harvested all the fields of dramatic thought, and\nafter whom all others have been only gleaners of straw, he who found\nthe human intellect dwelling in a hut, touched it with the wand of his\ngenius and it became a palace--producing him and hundreds of others I\nmight mention--with the angels of progress leaning over the far horizon\nbeckoning this race of work and thought--I had rather belong to a race\ncommencing at the skull-less vertebrae producing the gentleman in the\ndug-out and so on up, than to have descended from a perfect pair upon\nwhich the Lord has lost money from that day to this.  I had rather\nbelong to a race that is going up than to one that is going down.  I\nwould rather belong to one that commenced at the skull-less vertebrae\nand started for perfection, than to belong to one, that started from\nperfection and started for the skull-less vertebrae.\n\nThese are the excuses I have for my race, and taking everything into\nconsideration, I think we have done extremely well.\n\nLet us have more liberty and free thought.  Free thought will give us\ntruth.  It is too early in the history of the world to write a creed.\nOur fathers were intellectual slaves; our fathers were intellectual\nserfs.  There never has been a free generation on the globe.  Every\ncreed you have got bears the mark of whip, and chain, and fagot.  There\nhas been no creed written by a free brain.  Wait until we have had two\nor three generations of liberty and it will then be time enough to\nseize the swift horse of progress by the bridle and say--thus far and\nno farther; and in the meantime let us be kind to each other;  let us\nbe decent towards each other.  We are all travelers on the great plain\nwe call life and there is nobody quite sure, what road to take--not\njust dead sure, you known.  There are lots of guide-boards on the plain\nand you find thousands of people swearing today that their guide-board\nis the only board that shows the right direction.  I go and talk to\nthem and they say: \"You go that way, or you will be damned.\"  I go to\nanother and they say:  \"You go this way, or you will be damned.\"  I\nfind them all fighting and quarreling and beating each other, and then\nI say: \"Let us cut down all these guide-boards.\"  \"What,\" they say,\n\"leave us without any guide-boards?\"  I say:  \"Yes.  Let every man take\nthe road he thinks is right; and let everybody else wish him a happy\njourney; let us part friends.\"\n\nI say to you tonight, my friends, that I have no malice upon this\nsubject--not a particle; I simply wish to express my thoughts. The\nworld has grown better just in proportion as it is happier; the world\nhas grown better just in proportion as it has lost superstition; the\nworld has grown better just in the proportion that the sacerdotal class\nhas lost influence--just exactly; the world has grown better just in\nproportion that secular ideas have taken possession of the world.  The\nworld has grown better just in proportion that it has ceased talking\nabout the visions of the clouds, and talked about the realities of the\nearth.  The world has grown better just in the proportion that it has\ngrown free, and I want to do what little I can in my feeble way to add\nanother flame to the torch of progress.  I do not know, of course, what\nwill come, but if I have said anything tonight that will make a husband\nlove his wife better, I am satisfied; if I have said anything, that\nwill make a wife love her husband better, I am satisfied; if I have\nsaid anything that will add one more ray of joy to life, I am\nsatisfied; if I have said anything that will save the tender flesh of a\nchild from a blow, I am satisfied; if I have said anything that will\nmake us more willing to extend to others the right we claim for\nourselves, I am satisfied.\n\nI do not know what inventions are in the brain of the future; I do not\nknow what garments of glory may be woven for the world in the loom of\nthe years to be; we are just on the edge of the great ocean of\ndiscovery.  I do not know what is to be discovered; I do not know what\nscience will do for us.  I do know that science did just take a handful\nof sand and make the telescope, and with it read all the starry leaves\nof heaven; I know that science took the thunderbolts from the hands of\nJupiter, and now the electric spark, freighted with thought and love,\nflashes under waves of the sea.  I know that science stole a tear from\nthe cheek of unpaid labor, converted it into steam, and created a giant\nthat turns with tireless arms the countless wheels of toil; I know that\nscience broke the chains from human limbs and gave us instead the\nforces of nature for our slaves; I know that we have made the\nattraction of gravitation work for us; we have made the lightnings our\nmessengers; we have taken advantage of fire and flames and wind and\nsea; these slaves have no backs to be whipped; they have no hearts to\nbe lacerated; they have no children to be stolen, no cradles to be\nviolated.  I know that science has given us better houses; I know it\nhas given us better pictures and better books; I know it has given us\nbetter wives and better husbands, and more beautiful children. I know\nit has enriched a thousand-fold our lives; and for that reason I am in\nfavor of intellectual liberty.\n\nI know not, I say, what discoveries may lead the world to glory; but I\ndo know that from the infinite sea of the future never a greater or\ngrander blessing will strike this bank and shoal of time than liberty\nfor man, woman and child.\n\nLadies and gentlemen, I have delivered this lecture a great many times;\nclergymen have attended, and editors of religious newspapers, and they\nhave gone away and written in their papers and declared in their\npulpits that in this lecture I advocated universal adultery; they have\ngone away and said it was obscene and disgusting.  Between me and my\nclerical maligners, between me and my religious slanderers, I leave\nyou, ladies and gentlemen, to judge.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Human Rights\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  I suppose that man, from the most grotesque\nsavage up to Heckle, has had a philosophy by which he endeavored to\naccount for all the phenomena of nature he may have observed.  From\nthat mankind may have got their ideas of right and wrong.  Now, where\nthere are no rights there can be no duties.  Let us always remember\nthat only as a man becomes free can he by any possibility become good\nor great. As I said, every savage has had his philosophy, and by it\naccounted for everything he observed.  He had an idea of rain and\nrainbow, and he had an idea of a controlling power.  One said there is\na being who presides over our world, and who will destroy us unless we\ndo right.  Others had many of these beings, but they were invariably\nlike themselves.  The most fruitful imagination cannot make more than a\nman, though it may make infinite powers and attributes out of the\npowers and attributes of man.  You can't build a God unless you start\nwith a human being.  The savage said, when there was a storm, \"Somebody\nis angry.\"  When lightning leaped from the lurid cloud, he thought,\n\"What have I been doing?\" and when he couldn't think of any wrong he\nhad been doing, he tried to think of some wrong his neighbor had been\ndoing.\n\nI may as well state here that I believe man has come up from the lowest\norders of creation, and may have not come up very far; still, I believe\nwe are doing very well, considering.\n\nBut, speaking of man's early philosophy, his morality was founded first\non self-defense.  When gathered together in tribes, he held that this\ninfinite being would hold the tribe responsible for the actions of any\nindividual who had angered him.  They imagined this being got angry.\nJust imagine the serenity of an infinite being being disturbed, and a\nGod breaking into a passion because some poor wretch had neglected to\nbring two turtle doves to a priest!\n\nThen they sought out this poor offending individual, to punish him and\nappease the wroth of this being.  And here commenced religious\npersecution.\n\nNow, I do not say there is no God, but what I do say is that I do not\nknow.  The only difference between me and the theologian is that I am\nhonest.  There may or there may not be an infinite being, but I do not\nknow it, and until I do I cannot conceive of any obedience I owe to any\nunknown being.\n\nAs soon as men began to imagine they would be held responsible for the\nact of any other person, came the necessity for some one to teach them\nhow to keep from offending the being.  Some called him medicine man,\nsome called him priest; now, we call him theologian.  These men set out\nto teach men how to keep from offending this being, and they laid down\ncertain laws to regulate the conduct of men.  First of all it was\nnecessary to believe in this power.  To disbelieve in him was the worst\noffense of all. To have some human being, dressed in the skin of a wild\nbeast, deny the existence of this infinite being, was more than the\ninfinite being could stand.  The first thing, therefore, was to believe\nin this power, the next to support this gentleman standing between you\nand the supreme wrath.  These gentlemen were the lobbyists with the\npower, and sometimes succeeded in getting the veto used in favor of\ntheir clients.\n\nFor ages, as mankind slowly came through the savage state, the world\nwas filled with infinite fear.  They accounted for everything bad that\nhappened as the wrath of this supreme being. But they went from\nsavagery to barbarism--a step in improvement--and then began to build\ntemples to, and make images of, this being.  Then man began to believe\nhe could influence this being by prayer, by getting on his knees to the\nimage he had made.\n\nNothing, I suppose astonishes a missionary more than to see a savage in\nCentral Africa on his knees before a stone praying for luck in hunting\nor in fighting.  And yet it strikes me--we have our army chaplains\nbefore a battle praying for the success of our side.  They don't pray\nfor assistance if our cause is just, but they pray, \"Lord help us!\"  I\ncan't see the difference between the two.\n\nBut there is this said in favor of prayer that, whether successful or\nnot, it is a sort of intellectual exercise.  Like a man trying to lift\nhimself, he may not succeed, but he gets a good deal of exercise.\n\nBut as man proceeds, he begins to help himself and to take advantage of\nmechanical powers to assist him, and he begins to see he can help\nhimself a little, and exactly in the proportion he helps himself he\ncomes to rely less on the power of priest or prayer to help him.  Just\nto the extent we are helpless, to that extent do we rely upon the\nunknown.\n\nAs religion developed itself, keeping pace with the belief in theology,\ncame the belief in demonology.  They gave one being all the credit of\ndoing all the good things, and must give some one credit for the bad\nthings, and so they created a devil.  At one time it was as\ndisreputable to deny the existence of a devil as to deny the existence\nof a God; to deny the existence of a hell, with its fire and brimstone,\nas to deny the existence of a heaven with its harp and love.\n\nWith the development of religion came the idea that no man should be\nallowed to bring the wrath of God on a nation by his transgressions,\nand this idea permeates the Christian world today.  Now what does this\nprove?  Simply that our religion is founded on fear, and when you are\nafraid you cannot think.  Fear drops on its knees and believes.  It is\nonly courage that can think.  It was the idea that man's actions could\ndo something, outside of any effect his mechanical works might have, to\nchange the order of nature; that he might commit some offense to bring\non an earthquake, but he can't do it.  You can't be bad enough to cause\nan earthquake; neither can you be good enough to stop one. Out of that\nwretched doctrine and infamous mistake that man's belief could have any\neffect upon nature grew all these inquisitions, racks and collars of\ntorture, and all the blood that was ever shed by religious persecution.\n\nIn Europe the country was divided between kings and priests.  The king\nheld that he got the power from the unknown; so did the priests.  They\ncould not say that they got it from the people; the people would deny\nit; the unknown could not deny it.  And thus the altar and throne stand\nside by side. And republicanism was a thing unknown.\n\nIt has been said that the pilgrim fathers came to this country to\nestablish religious liberty.  They did no such thing.  They were not in\nfavor of it.  They came with the Testament in their hands, and with it\nthey could have no idea of religious liberty.  When they had\nestablished thirteen colonies here, and had struggled for and obtained\ntheir independence, they established federal government, but did they\nseek after religious liberty?  No!  When they formed a federal\ngovernment each church and each colony was jealous of the other.  They\nsaid to the general government, \"You can't have any religion in the\nconstitution,\" but each state could make its own religion, and they\nmade them.\n\nHere the speaker read copious extracts from the statutes of the\ndifferent states in reference to the qualifications for the exercise of\ncitizenship--the religious belief necessary; and, on concluding, asked,\n\"Had they (the members who drew up these state constitutions) any idea\nof religious liberty.\"\n\nContinuing, he said:  \"Now, my friends, there's a party started in this\ncountry with the object of giving every man, woman and child the rights\nthey are entitled to.  Now every one of us has the same rights.  I have\nthe right to labor and to have the products of my labor.  I have the\nright to think, and furthermore, to express my thoughts, because\nexpression is the reward of my intellectual labor.  And yet in the\nUnited States there are states where men of my ideas would not be\nallowed to testify in a court of justice.  Is that right?  There are\nstates in this country where, if the law had been enforced, I would\nhave been sent to the penitentiary for lecturing.  All such laws are\nenacted by barbarians, and our country will not be free until they are\nwiped from the statute books of every state.\n\nDoes an infinite being need to be protected by a State Legislature?  If\nthe bible is inspired, does the author of it need the support of the\nlaw to command respect?  We don't need any law to make mankind respect\nShakespeare.  We come to the altar of that great man and cover it with\nour gratitude without a statute.  Think of a law to govern tastes!\nThink of a law to govern mind, or any question whatever!  Think of the\nway in which they have supported the bible!  They've terrorized the old\nwith laws, and captured the dear, little innocent children and poisoned\ntheir minds with their false stories until, when they have reached the\nage of manhood, they have been afraid to think for themselves.  Let us\nsee what the laws are now, by which they guard their bible and their\nGod.\n\n[Here the speaker read extracts from the statutes of several states in\nreference to blasphemy and profanation of the Sabbath, commenting on\neach as he ran them through:]  Pursuing the thread of his discourse, he\nsaid:  Every American should see to it that all these laws are done\naway with once and forever.\n\nThere has been a reaction of late years.  This country has begun to be\nprosperous.  We don't think much of religion; 'tis only when hard times\ncome we turn our attention toward it.  There are people in this country\nwho say we are getting too irreligious, too scientific.  Now, is it not\na fact that we are happier today than at any period in our history?\nYou live in a great country, though perhaps you do not know it.  But\nlive in any other country for a while, and you'll find it out.  See,\nthen, what we've got by looking a little to the affairs of the world!\nThe bible can't stand today without the support of the civil power.  No\nreligion ever flourished except by the support of the sword, and no\nreligion like this could have been established except by brute force.\n\nAt one time we thought a great deal of clergymen, but now we have got\nto thinking they ain't of as much importance as a man that has invented\nsomething.  The church seeing this has made up its mind that it is\nnecessary to do something, and so got up a plan to be acknowledged by\nlaw.  Here's what they wish to do:  [Here the speaker read some\nextracts from the constitution of the National Reform Association.]\nContinuing he said:  Our fathers, in 1776, building better than they\nknew, retired the gods from politics.  I do not believe Jesus Christ is\nthe ruler of nations. If he is the ruler of one he is the ruler of all.\nWhy does he not then rule one as well as another?  If you give him\ncredit for the good things of one you must denounce him for the tyranny\nand despotism of others.  The revealed word of God is not the standing\nof civil justice in this country!  The bible is not the standard of\nright and wrong or of decency in this country.\n\nYou can't put God in the constitution, because if you do there would be\nno room for the folks.  Whatever you put in the constitution you must\nenforce by the sword, and you can't go to war with any man for not\nbelieving in your God.  God has no business there, and any man that is\nin favor of putting him there is an enemy to the interests of American\ninstitutions.\n\nNow for the purpose of preventing the name of God being put in the\nconstitution, there's another little party has been started and these\nare its doctrines:  We want an absolute divorce between church and\nstate.  We demand that church property should not be exempt from\ntaxation.  If you are going to exempt anything, exempt the homesteads\nof the poor.  Don't exempt a rich corporation, and make men pay taxes\nto support a religion in which they do not believe.  But they say\nchurches do good.  I don't know whether they do or not.  Do you see\nsuch a wonderful difference between a member of a church and the man\nwho does not believe in it?  Do church members pay their debts any\nbetter than any others?  Do they treat their families any better?  Did\nyou ever hear of any man coming into a town broke and inquire where the\ndeacon of a Presbyterian church lived?  Has not the church opposed\nevery science from the first ray of light until now?  Didn't they damn\ninto eternal flames the man who discovered the world was round? Didn't\nthey damn into eternal flames the man who discovered the movement of\nthe earth in its orbit?  Didn't they persecute the astronomers?  Didn't\nthey even try to put down life insurance by saying it was sinful to bet\non the time God has given you to live?  Science built the Academy,\nsuperstition the Inquisition. Science constructed the telescope,\nreligion the rack; science made us happy here, and says if there's\nanother life we'll all stand an equal chance there; religion made us\nmiserable here, and says a large majority will be eternally miserable\nthere. Should we, therefore, exempt it from taxation for any good it\nhas done?\n\nThe next thing we ask is a perfect divorce between church and school.\nWe say that every school should be secular, because its just to\neverybody.  If I was an Israelite I wouldn't want to be taxed to have\nmy children taught that his ancestors had murdered a supreme being.\nLet us teach, not the doctrines of the past, but the discoveries of the\npresent; not the five points of Calvinism, but geology and geography.\nEducation is the lever to raise mankind, and superstition is the enemy\nof intelligence.\n\nWe demand, next, that woman shall be put upon an equality with man.\nWhy not?  Why shouldn't men be decent enough in the management of the\npolitics of the country for women to mingle with them?  It is an\noutrage that anyone should live in this country for sixty or seventy\nyears and be forced to obey the laws without having any voice in making\nthem.  Let us give woman the opportunity to care for herself, since men\nare not decent enough to seek to care for her.  The time will come when\nwe'll treat a woman that works and takes care of two or three children\nas well as a woman dressed in diamonds who does nothing.  The time will\ncome when we'll not tell our domestic we expect to meet her in heaven,\nand yet not be willing to have her speak to us in the drawing room.\n\nIgnorance is a poor pedestal to set virtue upon and mock-modesty should\nnot have the right to prevent people from knowing themselves.  Every\nchild has a right to be well-born, and ignorance has no right to people\nthe world with scrofula and consumption.  When we come to the\nconclusion that God is not taking care of us and that we have to take\ncare of ourselves, then we'll begin to have something in the world\nworth living for.\n\nI would wish there was seated upon the throne of the universe one who\nwould see to it that justice did always prevail.  I do not propose to\ngive up the little world I live in for the unknown.\n\nI would wish that the friends who bid us \"good night\" in this world\nmight meet us with \"good morning\" there.  Just as long as we love one\nanother we'll hope for another world; just as long as love kisses the\nlips of death will we believe and hope for a future reunion.  I would\nnot take one hope away from the human heart or one joy from the human\nsoul, but I hold in contempt the gentlemen who keep heaven on sale; I\nlook with contempt on him who keeps it on draught; I look with pitying\ncontempt on him who endeavors to prohibit honest thought by promising a\nreward in another world.  If there is another world we'll find when we\ncome there that no one has done enough good to be eternally rewarded,\nno one has done enough harm to meet with an unending, eternal pain and\nagony.  We'll find that there is no being that ever hindered a man from\nexercising his reason.  Now, while we are here, no matter what happens\nto us hereafter, let us cultivate strength of heart and brain to stand\nthe inevitable.  No creed can help you there. When the heart is touched\nwith agony nothing but time can heal it.\n\nI want, if I can, to do a little to increase the rights of men, to put\nevery human being on an equality, to sweep away the clouds of\nsuperstition, to make people think more of what happens today than what\nsomebody said happened 3,000 years ago.  This is all I want:  To do\nwhat little I can to clutch one-seventh of our time from superstition,\nto give our Sundays to rest and recreation.  I want a day of enjoyment,\na day to read old books, to meet old friends, and get acquainted with\none's wife and children.  I want a day to gather strength to meet the\ntoils of the next.  I want to get that day away from the church, away\nfrom superstition and the contemplation of hell, to be the best and\nsweetest and brightest of all the days in the week.  The best way to\nmake a day sacred is to fill it up with useful labor.  That day is best\non which most good is done for the human race.  I hope to see the time\nwhen we'll have a day for the opera, the play--good plays--for they do\ngood.  You never saw the villain foiled in a play where the audience\ndid not applaud.  You never saw them applaud when the rascal was\nsuccessful in his villainy.  If you could go to a theater and see put\nupon the stage the scenes of the old testament, with its butcheries and\nrapes and deeds of violence, you would detest it all the days of your\nlife.  I'd like to have every horror of the old testament set on this\nstage, to have somebody represent the being as he is represented there,\ngiving his brutal orders, and let the orthodox see their God as he\nreally is.\n\nI want to have us all do what little we can to secularize this\ngovernment--take it from the control of savagery and give it to\nscience, take it from the government of the past and give it to the\nenlightened present, and in this government let us uphold every man and\nwoman in their rights, that everyone, after he or she comes to the age\nof discretion, may have a choice in the affairs of the nation.\n\nDo this, and we'll grow in grandeur and splendor every day, and the\ntime will come when every man and every woman shall have the same\nrights as every other man and every other woman has.  I believe, we are\ngrowing better.  I don't believe the wail of want shall be heard\nforever; that the prison and gallows will always curse the ground.  The\ntime will come when liberty and law and love, like the rings of Saturn,\nwill surround the world; when the world will cease making these\nmistakes; when every man will be judged according to his worth and\nintelligence.  I want to do all I can to hasten that day.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Talmagian Theology (Second Lecture)\n\n\n\nCol. Ingersoll began, \"Only a few years ago the pulpit was almost\nsupreme.  The palace was almost in the shadow of the cathedral, and the\npower behind every throne was a priest.  Man was held in physical\nslavery by kings, and in a mental prison by the church. He was allowed\nto hold no opinions as to where he came from, nor as to where he was\ngoing.  It was sufficient for him to do the labor and believe the kings\nwould do the governing and the priests the thinking--and, my God, what\nthinking!  If the world had obeyed the priests we would all be idiots\ntonight.  The eagle of intellect would have given way to the blind bat\nof faith. They were the rack, the faggot, the thumbscrew in this world,\nand hell in the next.  Only a few years ago no man could express an\nhonest thought unless he agreed with the church.  The church has been a\nperpetual beggar.  It has never plowed, it never sowed, it never spun,\nyet Solomon in all his glory was not so arrayed. Thanks to modern\nthought, the brain of the nineteenth century, to Voltaire, Paine, Hume,\nto all the free men, that beggar--the church--is no longer upon\nhorseback; and it fills me with joy to state that even its walking is\nnot now good.  Only a little while ago a priest was thought more than\nhuman.  Nobody dared contradict the minister.  Now there are other\nlearned professions.  There are doctors, lawyers, writers, books,\nnewspapers, and the priest has hundreds of rivals.\n\nThe priest grew jealous, hateful; he was always thankful for an\nepidemic or pestilence, so that people would turn to him in despair.\nIn our country all the men of intellect were in the pulpit once.  Now\nthere are so many avenues to distinction the men of brain, heart and\nred blood have left the pulpit and gone to useful things.  I do not say\nall. There are still some men of mind in the pulpit, but they are\nnearer infidels than any others. Where do we get our ministers?  A\nyoung man, without constitution enough to be wicked, without health\nenough to enjoy the things of this world, naturally, fixes his gaze on\nhigh.  He is educated, sent to a university where he is taught that it\nis criminal to think.  Stuffed with a creed, he comes out a shepherd.\nMost of them are intellectual shreds and patches, mental ravelings,\nselvage.  Every pulpit is a pillory in which stands a convict; every\nmember of the church stands over him with a club, called a creed.  He\nis an intellectual slave, and dare not preach his honest thought.\nThere are thousands of good men in the pulpit, honest men.  I am simply\ndescribing the average shepherd; they tell me \"they've been called,\"\nthat Almighty God selected them. He looked all over the world and said:\n\"Now, there's a man I want!\"  And what selections!  Shakespeare was not\ncalled.  Yet he has done more for this world than all the ministers who\nhave ever lived in it.  Beethoven!  He was not called.  Raphael was not\ncalled. He was all an accident.  All the inventors, discoverers,\npoets--God never called one of them; he turned his attention to popes,\ncardinals, priests, exhorters; and what selections he has made!  It's\nastonishing.\n\nIn the United States a great many ministers have been good enough to\ntake me for a text.  Among others the Rev. Mr. Talmage, of Brooklyn.  I\nhave nothing to say about his reputation.  It has nothing to do with\nthe question.  Some ministers think he has more gesticulation than\ngrace. Some call him a pious pantaloon, a Christian clown; but such\nremarks, I think, are born of envy. He is the only Presbyterian\nminister in the United States who can draw an audience.  He stands at\nthe head of the denomination, and I answer him.  He's a strange man.  I\nbelieve he's orthodox, or intellectual pride would prevent his saying\nthese things. He believes in a literal resurrection of the dead; that\nwe shall see countless bones flying through the air.  He has some\ncharges against me, and he has denied some of my statements.  He has\nproduced what he calls arguments, and I am going to answer some of the\ncharges.  Next Sunday afternoon, at 2 o'clock; in this place, I shall\nhave a matinee, and answer his arguments.  He says I am the champion\nblasphemer.  What is blasphemy?  To contradict a priest?  to have a\nmind of your own? Whoever takes a step in advance is a blasphemer.\nBlasphemy is what a last year's leaf says to a this year's bud.  To\ndeny that Mohammed is the prophet of God is not blasphemy in New York.\nIt is in Constantinople. It is a question, then, largely of Geography.\nIt depends on where you are.  The missionary who laughs at a modern God\nis a blasphemer.  In a Catholic country whoever says Mary is not the\nmother of God is a blasphemer.  In a Protestant country to say she is\nthe mother of God is blasphemy.  Everything has been blasphemy.  My\ndoctrine is this:  He is a blasphemer who refuses to tell his honest\nthought; who is not true to himself; who enslaves his fellow man; who\ncharges that God was once in favor of slavery.  If there is any God,\nthat man is a blasphemer. They're afraid we'll injure God.  How?  Is\ninfinite goodness and mercy to become livid with wrath because a finite\nbeing expresses an opinion?  I cannot help the infinite.  That man only\nis the good man who helps his fellow man.  I know then who would do\nanything for God, who doesn't need it, but nothing for men, who do need\nit.  Why should God be so particular about my believing his book?  It's\nno more his work than the stars of gravitation. Yet I may declare that\nthe earth is flat, and he'll not damn me for that.  But if I make a\nmistake about that book I'm gone.  I can blaspheme the multiplication\ntable and deify the power of the wedge--in fact, the less I know the\nbetter my chance will be.  I say that book is not inspired, and there\nis no infinitely good God who will damn one human soul.  At the\njudgment, if I am mistaken I own up--I am here, I do not know where I\ncame from, nor where I am going--I'll be honest about it.  I am on a\nship and not on speaking terms with the captain, but I propose to have\na happy voyage, and the best way is to do what you can to make your\nfellow passengers happy.  If we run into a good port, I'll be as happy\nan angel as you'll meet that day.  Blasphemy is the cry of a defeated\npriest--the black flag of theology--it shows where argument stops and\nslander and persecution begin.  I am told by Mr. Talmage that whoever\ncontradicts this word is a fool, a howling wolf, one of the assassins\nof God.  I presume the gentleman is honest.  Take Mr. Talmage, now, he\nis a good man. Mr. Humboldt, he was another good man.  What Humboldt\nknew and what Talmage didn't know would make a library.\n\nThe next charge is that I have said the universe was made of nothing,\naccording to the bible.  False in one thing, false in all, he says.\nThink of that rule.  Let us apply that to man.  If the world was\ncreated, what was it make of?  and who made that? If the Lord created\nit, what did He make it of?  Nothing.  That's all He had.  No sides, no\ntop, nothing.  Yet God had lived there forever.  What did He think\nabout?  What did He do?  Nothing. Nothing had ever happened.  All at\nonce He made something.  What did He make it of?  Mr. Talmage explains.\n\nHe says if I knew anything I would know that God made this world out of\nHis omnipotence.  He might just as well made it out of His memory.\nWhat is omnipotence?  Is it a raw material?  The weakest man in the\nworld can lift as much nothing as God.  Yet He made this world out of\nHis omnipotence.  It is so stated by a doctor of divinity, and I should\nthink such divinity would need a doctor!  I don't believe this.  I\nbelieve this universe has existed throughout all eternity--everything.\nAll that is, is God.  I do not give to that universe a personality that\nwants man to get his knees into dust and his fingers in holy water;\nthat wants some body to ring a bell or eat a wafer.  I am a part of\nthis universe, and I believe all there is, is all the God there is.  I\nmay be mistaken; I don't know.  I just give my best opinion.  If\nthere's any heaven, I'll give it there.  But there'll be no discussion\nin heaven. Hell is the only place where mental improvement will be\npossible.\n\nI have said, it is charged, that the bible says the world was made in\nsix days.  He says I don't understand Hebrew.  The bible says the world\nwas made in six days.  God didn't work nights--evening and morning were\nthe first day.  God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it.\nThat, they say, didn't mean days; it meant good whiles.  He made the\nworld in six good whiles.  Adam was made, I think along about Saturday.\nIf the account is correct, it's only 6,000 years since man made his\nappearance. We know that to be false.  A few years ago a gentleman who\nwas going to California in the cars met a minister. They came to the\nplace called the Sink of the Humboldt, the most desolate place in the\nworld.  Just imagine perdition with the fire out.  The traveler asked\nthe minister whether God made the earth in six days, and the minister\nsaid he did. Then don't you think, said he, He could have put in\nanother day's work to great advantage right here?  I am charged, too,\nwith saying that the sun was not made till the fourth day, whereas,\naccording to the bible, vegetation began on the third day, before there\nwas any light.  But Mr. Talmage says there was light without the sun.\nThey got light, he says, from the crystallization of rocks.  A nice\nthing to raise a crop of corn by.  There may have been volcanoes, he\nsays.  How'd you like to farm it, and depend on volcanic glare to raise\na crop?  That's what they call religious science.  God won't damn a man\nfor things like that.  What else? The aurora borealis!  A great\ncucumber country!  It's strange He never thought of glow worms!\nImagine it!  a Presbyterian divine gravely saying vegetation could grow\nby the light of the crystallization of rocks--by the light of volcanoes\nin other worlds, probably now extinct.\n\nHe says of me, too in his pulpit, that I was in favor of the\ncirculation of immoral literature.  Let me tell you the truth. Several\ngentlemen, so-called, were trying to exclude from the mails, books\ncalled infidel. I said the law should be modified. It is impossible for\nanybody to reach the depth of one who will print or circulate obscene\nbooks.  One of my objections to the bible is that it contains obscene\nstories.  Any book, couched in decent language, should have the liberty\nof the United States mails.  Where books are immoral and obscene, I\nsay, burn them, and have always said it.  Mr. Talmage said what he knew\nto be untrue.  He said it out of hatred, and because he cannot answer\nthe arguments I have urged. I believe in pure books and pure\nliterature.  But when a God writes there is no excuse for Him. In\nShakespeare we say obscene things are impure--we do not say they are\ninspired.  That I have falsified the records of the bible showing the\nperiod of Jewish slavery, is another of the charges against me.  That\nslavery extended over a period of 215 years; and he proceeded to\nsubstantiate this statement by being through a long and somewhat\ncomplicated genealogical table.  If I made any misstatement I was\nmisled by the new testament.  Mr. Talmage may settle with St. Paul.  If\nyou can depend on what my friend Paul says, the Jews, in 215 years,\nincreased from seventy persons till they had 600,000 men of war.  I\nknow it isn't so, and so does any man who knows anything. For such an\nincrease as this each woman must have borne somewhat over fifty-seven\nchildren, and every child lived.\n\nThe next charge is that I have laughed at holy things.  Holy things!\nThe priest always says:  \"Now don't laugh; look solemn; this is no\nlaughing matter.\" There's nothing a priest hates like mirthfulness.  He\ndespises a smile.  I read in the bible that God gave a recipe to Aaron\nfor making hair-oil and said if anybody made any like it, kill him.\nWell, I don't believe it.  The penalty for infringing on that patent\nwas death.  Do you believe an infinite God gave a recipe for hair-oil?\nIs it possible for absurdity to go beyond that?  That's what they call\na holy thing. And water for baptism!  Do you believe God will look for\nthis water-mark on the soul?\n\nThe next charge is that I misquote the scriptures.  That's because I\ndon't know Hebrew.  Why didn't He write to me in English?  If He wishes\nto hold a gentleman responsible, why doesn't He address him in his\nnative tongue?  Why write His word in such a way that hundreds of\nthousands make their living explaining it?  If I'd only understood\nHebrew I would have known God didn't make Eve out of a rib.  He made\nher out of Adam's side.  How did He get it out?  Well, I suppose He cut\nit out with a kind of a splinter of His omnipotence!  Then our mother\nwas made from a rib.  When you consider the material used it was the\nmost successful job ever done.  There's even a serpent in the bible\nthat knows a language.  It won't do.  Sin, how did it come into the\nworld? Where did the serpent come from?  He was wicked. Adam's sin did\nnot make him bad.  Then there was sin in the world before Adam.\nThere's no sense in it--not a particle.  Then Talmage touches me upon\nthe flood.  His flood didn't come to America, because America was not\ndiscovered then. He says it was a partial flood.  Then why did they\nhave to take any birds in the ark?  How did Noah get the animals in the\nark?  Talmage says it was through the instinct to get out of the rain.\nAccording to the bible they went in before the rain began.  Dr. Scott\nsays the angels helped carry them in.  Imagine an angel with an animal\nunder each wing. It must have rained 800 feet a day for forty days.\nWhy does Talmage try to explain a miracle?  The beauty of a miracle is\nit cannot be explained.  The moment the church begins to explain the\nchurch is gone. All it's got to do is swear it is so.  The ark landed\non Ararat, which is 17,000 feet high.  There was only one window,\ntwenty-two inches square. Talmage says the window ran clear around the\nark.  The bible doesn't say so.  That's Brooklyn; that's no bible.\n\nIf the bible account is true the ark must have struck bottom on the top\nof a mountain.  Would any but a God of mercy and kindness people a\nworld, and then drown them all?  A God cruel enough to drown His own\nchildren ought not to have the impudence to tell me how to bring up\nmine.  Why did He save eight of the same kind of people to take a fresh\nstart?  Why didn't He make a fresh lot, kill His snake, and give His\nchildren a fair show?  It won't do.\n\nTalmage says the bible does not favor polygamy and slavery. There was\nroom enough on the table of stone for saying man should only have one\nwife and no slaves.  If not, God might have written it on the other\nside.  David and Solomon were pursued of God, but they had a pretty\ngood time of it.  Most anybody would be willing to be pursued that way.\nThere is not a word in the old testament against slavery or polygamy.\nFrederick Douglas, a slave in Maryland, is the greatest man that state\never produced.  He was enslaved by Christians.  Why did God pay so much\nattention to blasphemers, and so little to slaveholders and robbers?  I\nam opposed to any God that was ever in favor of slavery.  The bible\nupholds polygamy, and that's the reason I don't uphold the bible. The\nmost glorious temple ever erected is the home--that's my church.  I've\nmisquoted the story of Jonah, Talmage says.  When somebody had been\nguilty of blasphemy the winds rose; they tried to get Jonah ashore, but\ncouldn't do it.  The sea waxed.  He was swallowed by a whale.  The\npeople of Minerva wrapped all their cattle up in sack-cloth, and if\nanything would have pleased God I should think that would.  Jonah sat\nunder a gourd, and God made a worm out of some omnipotence he had left\nover, and set it work on the ground.  Talmage doesn't think Jonah was\nin the whale's belly--he said in his mouth.  Well, judging from the\ndoctor's photograph, that explanation would be quite natural to him.\nHe says he might have been in the whale's stomach, and avoided the\naction of the gastric juice by walking up and down.  Imagine Jonah,\nsitting on a back tooth, leaning against the upper jaw, longingly\nlooking through the open mouth for signs of land!  But that's scripture\nand you've got to believe it or be damned.  Let me say his brother\npreachers will not thank Talmage for his explanations.  I don't believe\nit, and if I am to be damned for it, I'll accept it cheerfully.\n\nThey say I was defeated for Governor of Illinois because I was an\ninfidel, and that I am an infidel because I was defeated.  That's\nlogic. Now I'll tell you.  They asked me whether I was an infidel, and\nI said I was!  I was defeated.  I preserved my manhood and lost an\noffice.  If everybody were as frank as I was, some men now in office\nwould be private citizens.  I would rather be what I am than hold any\noffice in the world and be a slimy hypocrite.\n\nNext they say I slandered my parents because I do not believe what they\nbelieved.  My father at one time believed the bible to be the inspired\nword of God.  He was an honorable man, and told me to read the bible\nfor myself and be honest.  He lived long enough to believe that the old\ntestament was not the word of God. He had not in his life as much\nhappiness as I have in one year. I hope my children will dishonor me by\nbeing nearer right than I am.  If I have made a mistake, I want my\nchildren to correct it. My mother died when I was 2 years old.  Were\nshe living tonight, or if she does live, she would say, be absolutely\ntrue to yourself and preserve your manhood.  If Talmage had been born\nin Constantinople he would have been a dervish.  He is what he is\nbecause he can't help it.  His head is just that shape.  I am taking\naway the hope and consolation of the world, he says.  His consolation\nis that ninety-nine out of every hundred are going to hell.  His church\nwas founded by John Calvin, a murderer. Better have no heaven than a\nhell. I would rather God would commit suicide this minute than that a\nsingle soul should go to hell.  I want no Presbyterian consolation, I\nwant no fore-ordination, no consolation, no damnation.\n\n[Col. Ingersoll concluded with a few remarks about the bible women,\nsaying that women today are as true to the gallows as Mary Magdalene\nwas to the cross.]\n\nWherever there are women there are heroines.  Shakespeare's women are\nvastly superior to the bible women.  I am accused of putting out the\nlight-houses on the shores of the other world.  The Christians are\ntrimming invisible wicks and pouring in allegorical oil.  The Christian\nis willing wife, children and parents shall burn if only he can sing\nand have a harp.  Mr. Talmage can see countless millions burn in hell\nwithout decreasing the length of his orthodox smile.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Talmagian Theology (Third lecture)\n\n\n\nWe must judge people somewhat by their creeds.  Mr. Talmage is a\nCalvinist, and he therefore regards every human being who has been born\nonly once as totally depraved.  He thinks that God never made a single\ncreature that didn't deserve to be damned the minute He finished him.\nSo every one who opposes Mr. Talmage is infamous.  The generosity of an\nagnostic is meanness, his honesty is larceny and his love is hate.\nTalmage is a consistent follower of Calvin and Knox, and a consistent\nworshiper of the Jehovah of the ancient Jews.  I oppose not him, but\nhis creed, because it tends to crush out the natural tendencies in men\nto joyousness and goodness.  There is something good in every human\nbeing, and there is something bad.  There are no perfect saints and no\ntotally bad persons.  There is the seed of goodness in every human\nheart and the capacity for improvement in every human soul.  Isn't it\npossible for a man who acts like Christ to be saved, whatever be his\nbelief?  Cannot a soul be infinitely generous?  And can any God damn\nsuch a soul?  If Mr. Talmage's creed be true, nearly all the great and\nglorious men of the past are burning today.  If it be true, the\ngreatest man England has produced in 100 years is in hell.  The world\nis poorer since I spoke here last, for Darwin has passed away.  He was\na true child of nature--one who knew more about his mother than any\nother child she had.  Yet he was not a Calvinist.  He did not get his\ninspiration from any book, but from every star in the heavens, from the\ninsect in the sunbeam, from the flowers in the meadows, and from the\neverlasting rocks.\n\nIf the doctrine of the Calvinists is true, what right had any one to\nask an unbeliever to fight for his country in the civil war? What right\nhas a believer to buy an unbelieving substitute, when some day he will\nlook over the edge of heaven, and pointing downward, would say to a\nfriend, \"that is my substitute blistering there\"?\n\nMr. Talmage says that my mind is poisoned, and that the reason why all\ninfidels' minds are poisoned is that they don't believe the Jew bible.\nLet us see whether it is worth believing.  I deny that an infinitely\nmerciful God would protect slavery or would uphold polygamy, which\npollutes the sweetest words in language. I will not believe that God\ntold men to exterminate their fellow-men, to plunge the sword into\nwomen's breasts and into the hearts of tender babes.  I am opposed to\nthe Jew bible because it is bad.  I don't deny that there are many good\npassages in it, nor that among all the thorns there are some roses.  I\nadmit that many Christians are doing all they can to idealize the\nfrightful things in the old testament.  It is the protest of human\nnature. Now, they tell me that this book is inspired.  Let us see what\ninspired means.  If it means anything, it is that the thoughts of God,\nthrough the instrumentality of men, constitute this Jew bible, and that\nthese thoughts were written.  Now just suppose that some voice\nwhispered in your ear, how would you know it was God's?  How did these\ngentlemen of old know it was God who was talking to them?  If anyone\nnow told you that God whispered in his ear, you wouldn't believe him.\nWhy?  Because you know him.  Why are we asked to believe those ancient\ngentlemen? Because we don't know them.  Another reason, according to\nMr. Talmage, why the Jew bible is inspired, is that prophecies in it\nhave been fulfilled.  How do we know that the prophecies were not\nfulfilled before they were written?  They are so vague that you can't\ntell what was prophesied.  If you will read the Jew bible carefully,\nyou will see that there was not a line, not a word, prophesying the\ncoming of Christ. Catholics were right in saying that if the Jew bible\nwas to be kept in awe it must be kept from the people.  Protestants are\nwrong in letting the people read it.\n\nAnother argument of Mr. Talmage for the inspiration of the bible is\nthat the Jews have been kept as a wandering, persecuted race to fulfill\nthe prophecies of the old testament.  I don't believe an infinitely\nmerciful God would persecute a race for thousands of years to use them\nas witnesses.  Christian hate has not allowed the Jews to earn a\n[living?] or at least to practice a profession, and now, by a kind of\npoetic justice, the Jews control the money of the world.  Emperors go\nto their bankers with hats in hand and beg them to discount their\nnotes.  This is because God has cursed the Jews.  Only a little while\nago Christians have robbed Hebrews, stripped them naked, turned them\ninto the streets, and pointed to them as a fulfillment of divine\nprophecy.  If you want to know the difference between some Jews and\nsome Christians compare the address of Felix Adler with the sermon of\nthe Rev. Dr. Talmage.  Mr. Talmage thinks that the light of every\nburning Jewish home in Russia throws light upon the gospel.  Every\nwound in a Jewish breast is to him a mouth to proclaim the divine\ninspiration of the bible.  Every Jewish maiden violated is another\nfulfillment of God's holy word.  What do these horrid persecutions\nprove, except the barbarity of Christians? Next it is said that martyrs\nprove the truth of the bible.  Mr. Talmage affirms that no man ever\ndied cheerfully for a lie.  Why, men have gone cheerfully to their\ndeath for believing that a wafer was God's flesh. Thousands have died\nfor their belief in Mohammed.  Men have died because they believed in\nimmersion.  Either Mr. Talmage is a Catholic, a Mohammedan, a Baptist,\nor else he believes that these thousands died for lies. Every religion\nhas had its martyrs, and every religion cannot be true.  Then it is\nsaid that miracles prove the inspiration of the bible. But it is\nimpossible by the human senses to establish a violation of nature's\nlaws.  When the Hebrews threw down sticks before Pharaoh, and they\nbecame snakes, did he believe?  No; because he was there.  After the\nJews had been lead through the desert and had been fed with bread\nrained from heaven, had been clothed in indestructible pantaloons, and\nhad quenched their thirst with water that followed them over mountains\nand through sands; when they saw Jehovah wrapped in the smoke of Sinai\nthey still had more faith in a calf that they could make than anything\nJehovah could give them.  It was so with the miracles of Christ. Not\ntwenty people were converted by one of them.  In fact, human testimony\ncannot substantiate a miracle.  Take the miracle about the bears which\nate the children who laughed at the bald-headed old prophet.  What do\nyou suppose Mr. Talmage would say that meant?  Why, first, that\nchildren ought to respect preachers, and second, that God is kind to\nanimals. Nearly every miracle in the old testament is wrought in the\ninterest of slavery, polygamy, creed or lust.  I wish by denying them\nto rescue the reputation of Jehovah from the assaults of the bible.\n\nWho are the witnesses to the truth of the narratives of the Jews'\nbible? Eusebius was one.  He lived in the reign of Constantine, and\nsaid that the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots could be seen--perfectly\npreserved in the sands of the Red sea.  He was the man who forged the\npassage in Josephus which speaks about the coming of Christ.  Good\nwitness, isn't he.  Another one was Polycarp. We don't know much about\nhim.  He suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and when\nthe fire wouldn't burn and he looked like gold through it, a heathen\nwas so mad about it that he ran his sword through Polycarp.  The blood\ngushed out and quenched the fire, while the martyr's soul flew up to\nheaven in the form of a dove.  And that's all we know about Polycarp.\nTo know how much reliance should be placed upon the judgment of such\ntrustworthy witnesses, we should look at what some of their beliefs\nwere.  They thought that the world was flat; that the phoenix story was\ntrue; that the stars had souls and sinned; and one said there were four\ngospels because there were four winds and four corners of the earth.\nHe might have added that it was also because a donkey has four legs.\n\nSo far as the argument drawn from the sufferings of the martyrs is\nconcerned, the speaker said that thousands upon thousands of men had\ndied as cheerfully in defense of the koran as Christians had died in\ndefense of the bible.  Their heroic suffering simply proved that they\nwere sinners in their beliefs, not that those beliefs were true.  This\nargument, as advanced by Mr. Talmage, proves too much.  Every religion\non the face of the globe has had its martyrs, but all religions cannot\nbe true.  Men do die cheerfully for falsehoods when they believe them\nto be true.\n\n[The question of miracles was discussed at some length, and Col.\nIngersoll declared it was impossible to establish by any human evidence\nthat a miracle had ever been performed.]\n\nPharaoh was not convinced by the alleged miracle performed by Aaron, of\nturning a stick into a serpent.  Why?  Because he was there, and no\nsuch miracle was ever done.  No twenty people were convinced by the\nreported miracles of Christ, and yet people of the nineteenth century\nwere coolly asked to be convinced on hearsay by miracles which those\nwho are supposed to have seen them refuse to credit.  It won't do.  The\nlaws of nature never have been interrupted, and they never will be.\nAll the books in the universe will never convince a thinking man that\nmiracles have been performed.\n\n[The lecture was sprinkled throughout with the satirical wit for which\nCol. Ingersoll is famous, and concluded by the enumeration of a long\nlist of \"unscientific\" facts and events recorded in the bible.]\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Religious Intolerance\n\n\n\n\"How anybody ever came to the conclusion that there was any God who\ndemanded that you should feel sorrowful and miserable and bleak\none-seventh of the time is beyond my comprehension. Neither can I\nconceive how they can say that one-seventh of time is holy.  That day\nis the most sacred day on which the most good has been done for\nmankind.  Now, there was a time among the Jews, when, if a man violated\nthe Sabbath, they would kill him.  They said God told them to do it.  I\nthink they were mistaken.  If not, if any God did tell them to kill\nhim, then I think he was mistaken.  I hope the time will come when\nevery man can spend the Sabbath just as he pleases, provided he does\nnot interfere with the happiness of others.  I would fight just as\nearnestly that the Christian may go to church as that the infidel may\nhave the right to spend the Sabbath as he wishes.  Are the people who\ngo to church the only good people?  Are there not a great many bad\npeople who go to church?  Not a bank in Pittsburgh will lend a dollar\nto the man who belongs to the church, without security, quicker than to\nthe man who don't go to church.  Now, I believe that all laws upon the\nstatute-book should be enforced.  I do not blame anybody in this town.\nI am perfectly willing that every preacher in this town should preach.\nThey are employed to preach, and to preach a certain doctrine, and if\nthey don't preach that doctrine they will be turned out.  I have no\nobjection to that.  But I want the same privilege to express my views,\nand what is the difference whether the man pays the day he goes in, or\npays for it the week before by subscription.\n\nWhat would the church people think if the theatrical people should\nattempt to suppress the churches?  What harm would it do to have an\nopera here tonight?  It would elevate us more than to hear ten thousand\nsermons on the world that never dies.  There is more practical wisdom\nin one of the plays of Shakespeare than in all the sacred books ever\nwritten.  What wrong would there be to see one of those grand plays on\nSunday?  There was a time when the church would not allow you to cook\non Sunday.  You had to eat your victuals cold.  There was a time they\nthought the more miserable you feel the better God feels.  There are\nsixty odd thousand preachers in the United States.  Some people regard\nthem as a necessary evil; some as an unnecessary evil.  There are sixty\nodd thousand churches in the United States; and it does seem to me that\nwith all the wealth on their side; with all the good people on their\nside; with Providence on their side; with all these advantages they\nought to let us at least have the right to speak our thoughts.\n\nThe history of the world shows me that the right has not always\nprevailed.  When you see innocent men chained to the stake and the\nflames licking their flesh, it is natural to ask, why does God permit\nthis?  If you see a man in prison with the chains eating into his flesh\nsimply for loving God, you've got to ask why does not a just God\ninterfere?  You've got to meet this; it won't do to say that it will\nall come out for the best.  That may do very well for God, but it's\nawful hard on the man.  Where was the God that permitted slavery for\ntwo hundred years in these United States?  The history of the world\nshows that when a mean thing was done, man did it; when a good thing\nwas done, man did it.\n\nBut there was a time when there was a drought, and this tribe of\nsavages with their false notions of religion says somebody has been\nwicked. Somebody has been lecturing on Sunday.  Then the tribe hunted\nout the wicked man.  They said you've got to stop. We cannot allow you\nto continue your wickedness, which brings punishment upon the whole of\nus. What is the reason they allow me to speak tonight.  Because the\nChristians are not as firm in their belief now as they were a thousand\nyears ago.  The luke warmness and hypocrisy of Christians now permit me\nto speak tonight.  If they felt as they did a thousand years ago they\nwould kill me.  So religious persecution was born of the instinct of\nself-defense.  Is there any duty we owe to God?  Can we help him, can\nwe add to his glory or happiness?  They tell me this God is infinitely\nwise, I cannot add to his wisdom; infinitely happy--I cannot add to his\nhappiness.  What can I do?  Maybe he wants me to make prayers that\nwon't be answered.  I cannot see any relation that can exist between\nthe finite and the infinite. I acknowledge that I am under obligations\nto my fellow man.  We owe duties to our fellow man.  And what?  Simply\nto make them happy.\n\nThe only good, is happiness; and the only evil, is misery, or\nunhappiness.  Only those things are right that tend to increase the\nhappiness of man; only those things are wrong which tend to increase\nthe misery of man.  That is the basis of right and wrong.  There never\nwould have been the idea of wrong except that man can inflict\nsufferings upon others.  Utility, then, is the basis of the idea of\nright and wrong.\n\nThe church tells us that this world is a school to prepare us for\nanother, that it is a place to build up character.  Well, if that is\nthe only way character can be developed it is bad for children who die\nbefore they get any character.  What would you think of a school-master\nwho would kill half his pupils the first day?\n\nNow, I read the bible, and I find that God so loved this world that He\nmade up His mind to damn the most of us.  I have read this book, and\nwhat shall I say of it?  I believe it is generally better to be honest.\nNow, I don't believe the bible.  Had I not better say so?  They say\nthat if you do you will regret it when you come to die.  If that be\ntrue, I know a great many religious people who will have no cause to\nregret it--they don't tell their honest convictions about the bible.\nThere are two great arguments of the church--the great man argument and\nthe death-bed. They say the religion of your fathers is good enough.\nWhy should your father object to your inventing a better plow than he\nhad.  They say to one, do you know more than all the theologians dead?\nBeing a perfectly modest man I say I think I do.  Now we have come to\nthe conclusion that every man has a right to think. Would God give a\nbird wings and make it a crime to fly?  Would he give me brains and\nmake it a crime to think? Any God that would damn one of his children\nfor the expression of his honest thought wouldn't make a decent thief.\nWhen I read a book and don't believe it, I ought to say so.  I will do\nso and take the consequence like a man.  And so I object to paying for\nthe support of another man's belief.  I am in favor of the taxation of\nall church property.  If that property belongs to God, He is able to\npay the tax. If we exempt anything, let us exempt the home of the widow\nand orphan.\n\n[A voice here interrupted the speaker.\n\nCol. Ingersoll--What did the gentleman say?  A voice--O, he's drunk.\n\nCol. Ingersoll--I didn't think any Christian ought to get drunk and\ncome here to disturb us.\n\nThe speaker resumed:]\n\nThe church has today $600,000,000 or $700,000,000 of property in this\ncountry.  It must cost $2,000,000 a week, that is to say $500 a minute,\nto run these churches.  You give me this money and if I don't do more\ngood with it than four times as many churches I'll resign.  Let them\nmake the churches attractive and they'll get more hearers.  They will\nhave less empty pews if they have less empty heads in the pulpit.  The\ntime will come when the preacher will become a teacher.\n\nAdmitting that the bible is the book of God, is that His only good job?\nWill not a man be damned as quick for denying the equator as denying\nthe bible?  Will he not be damned as quick for denying geology as for\ndenying the scheme of salvation?  When the bible was first written it\nwas not believed.  Had they known as much about science as we know now\nthat bible would not have been written.\n\n\nCol. Ingersoll next gave his views of the Puritans, declared they left\nHolland to escape persecution and came came here to persecute others.\nHe referred to the persecutions heaped upon those of other religious\nbelief by the Puritans, paid the Catholics the compliment to say that\nMaryland, which they ruled, was the first colony to enact a law\ntolerating religious views not held by themselves, and went on to\nexplain that God was never mentioned in the constitution of the United\nStates because each colony had a different religious belief, and each\nsect preferred to have God not mentioned at all than to having another\nreligious belief than their own recognized.\n\n\"In 1876,\" said the speaker, \"our forefathers retired God from\npolitics. They said all power comes from the people.  They kept God out\nof the constitution and allowed each state to settle the question for\nitself.\"\n\nThe present laws of different states were neatly reviewed, so far as\nthey relate to the prevention of infidels giving testimony and to\nreligious intolerance in any way, and these features were all branded\nand discussed as a gigantic evil.\n\nThe lecture was attentively listened to by the immense audience from\nbeginning to the end, and the speaker's most blasphemous fights were\nthe most loudly applauded.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Hereafter\n\n\n\nMy Friends:   I tell you tonight, as I have probably told many of you\ndozens of times, that the orthodox doctrine of eternal punishment in\nthe hereafter is an infamous one!  I have no respect for the man who\npreaches it, or pretends to you he believes it.  Neither have I any\nrespect for the man who will pollute the imagination of innocent\nchildhood with that infamous lie!  And I have no respect for the man\nwho will deliberately add to the sorrows of this world with this\nterrible dogma; no respect for the man who endeavors to put that\ninfinite cloud and shadow over the heart of humanity.  I will be frank\nwith you and say, I hate the doctrine; I despise it, I defy it; I\nloathe it--and what man of sense does not.  The idea of a hell was born\nof revenge and brutality on the one side, and arrant cowardice on the\nother.  In my judgment the American people are too brave, too generous,\ntoo magnanimous, too humane to believe in that outrageous doctrine of\neternal damnation.\n\nFor a great many years the learned intellects of Christendom have been\nexamining into the religions of other countries and other ages, in the\nworld--the religions of the myriads who have passed away.  They\nexamined into the religions of Egypt, the religion of Greece, that of\nRome and the Scandinavian countries.  In the presence of the ruins of\nthose religions, the learned men of Christendom insisted that those\nreligions were baseless, false and fraudulent.  But they have all\npassed away.\n\nNow, while this examination was being made, the Christianity of our day\napplauded, and when the learned men got through with the religion of\nother countries, they turned their attention to our religion, and by\nthe same methods, by the same mode of reasoning and the same\narrangements that they used with the old religions they were\noverturning the religion of our day.  How is that? Because every\nreligion in this world is the work of man.  Every book that was ever\nwritten was written by man.  Man existed before books.  If otherwise,\nwe might reasonably admit that there was such a thing as a sacred bible.\n\nI wish to call your attention to another thing.  Man never had an\noriginal idea, and he never will have one, except it be supplied to him\nby his surroundings.  Nature gave man every idea that he ever had in\nthe world; and nature will continue to give man his ideas so long as he\nexists.  No man can conceive of anything, the hint of which he has not\nreceived from the surroundings.  And there is nothing on this earth,\ncoming from any other sphere whatever.\n\nAs I have before said, man has produced every religion in the world.\nWhy is this?  Because each generation sends forth the knowledge and\nbelief of the people at the time it was made, and in no book is there\nany knowledge formed, except just at the time it was written.\nBarbarians have produced barbarian religions, and always will produce\nthem.  They have produced, and always will produce, ideas and belief in\nharmony with their surroundings, and all the religions of the past were\nproduced by barbarians.  We are making religions every day; that is to\nsay, we are constantly changing them, adapting them to our purposes,\nand the religion of today is not the religion of a few months or a year\nago. Well, what changes these religions?  Science does it, education\ndoes it; the growing heart of man does it.  Some men have nothing else\nto do but produce religions; science is constantly changing them.  If\nwe are cursed with such barbarian religions today--for our religions\nare really barbarous--what will they be an hundred or a thousand years\nhence?\n\nBut, friends, we are making inroads upon orthodoxy that orthodox\nChristians are painfully aware of, and what think you will be left of\ntheir fearful doctrines fifty or a hundred years from tonight?  What\nwill become of their endless hell--their doctrine of the future anguish\nof the soul; their doctrine of the eternal burning and never-ending\ngnashing of teeth.  Man will discard the idea of such a future--because\nthere is now a growing belief in the justice of a Supreme Being.\n\nDo you not know that every religion in the world has declared every\nother religion a fraud?  Yes, we all know it.  That is the time all\nreligions tell the truth--each of the other.\n\nNow, do you want to know why this is:  Suppose Mr. Johnson should tell\nMr. Jones that he saw a corpse rise from the grave, and that when he\nfirst saw it, it was covered with loathsome worms, and that while he\nwas looking at it, it suddenly was re-clothed in healthy, beautiful\nflesh. And then, suppose Jones should say to Johnson, \"Well, now, I saw\nthat same thing myself.  I was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead\nman rise and walk away as if nothing had ever happened to him!\"\nJohnson opens wide his eyes and says to Jones, \"Jones, you are a\nconfounded liar!\" And Jones says to Johnson, \"You are an unmitigated\nliar!\"  \"No, I'm not; you lie yourself.\"  \"No!  I say you lie!\"  Each\nknew the other lied, because each man knew he lied himself.  Thus when\na man says:  \"I was upon Mount Sinai for the benefit of my health, and\nthere I met God, who said to me, \"Stand aside, you, and let me drown\nthese people;\" and the other man says to him, \"I was upon a mountain,\nand there I met the Supreme Brahma.\"  And Moses steps in and says,\n\"That is not true!\" and contends that the other man never did see\nBrahma, and the other man swears that Moses never saw God; and each man\nutters a deliberate falsehood, and immediately after speaks truth.\n\nTherefore, each religion has charged every other religion with having\nbeen an unmitigated fraud.  Still, if any man had ever seen a miracle\nhimself, he would be prepared to believe that another man had seen the\nsame or a similar thing.  Whenever a man claims to have been cognizant\nof, or to have seen a miracle, he either utters a falsehood, or he is\nan idiot.  Truth relies upon the unerring course of the laws of nature,\nand upon reason. Observe, we have a religion--that is, many people\nhave.  I make no pretensions to having a religion myself--possibly you\ndo not. I believe in living for this beautiful world--in living for the\npresent, today; living for this very hour, and while I do live to make\neverybody happy that I can.  I cannot afford to squander my short\nlife--and what little talent I am blessed with in studying up and\nprojecting schemes to avoid that seething lake of fire and brimstone.\nLet the future take care of itself, and when I am required to pass over\n\"on the other side,\" I am ready and willing to stand my chances with\nyou howling Christians.\n\nWe have in this country a religion which men have preached for about\neighteen hundred years, and men have grown wicked just in proportion as\ntheir belief in that religion has grown strong; and just in proportion\nas they have ceased to believe in it, men have become just, humane and\ncharitable.  And if they believed in it tonight as they believed, for\ninstance, at the time of the immaculate Puritan fathers, I would not be\npermitted to talk here in the city of New York.  It is from the\ncoldness and infidelity of the churches that I get my right to preach;\nand I thank them for it, and I say it to their credit.\n\nAs I have said, we have a religion.  What is it?  In the first place,\nthey say this vast universe was created by a God.  I don't know, and\nyou don't know, whether it was or not.  Also, if it had not been for\nthe first sin of Adam, they say there would never have been any Devil,\nin this world, and if there had been no Devil, there would have been no\nsin, and if no sin, no death.  As for myself I am glad there is death\nin the world, for that gives me a chance.  Somebody has to die to give\nme room, and when my turn comes I am willing to let some one else take\nmy place.  But if there is a Being who gave me this life, I thank Him\nfrom the bottom of my heart--because this life has been a joy and a\npleasure to me.  Further, because of this first sin of Adam, they say,\nall men are consigned to eternal perdition!  But, in order to save man\nfrom that frightful hell of the hereafter, Christ came to this world\nand took upon himself flesh, and in order that we might know the road\nto eternal salvation.  He gave us a book called the bible, and wherever\nthat bible has been read men have immediately commenced throttling each\nother; and wherever that bible has been circulated they have invented\ninquisitions and instruments of torture, and commenced hating each\nother with all their hearts.  Then we are told that this bible is the\nfoundation of civilization, but I say it is the foundation of hell and\ndamnation!, and we never shall get rid of that dogma until we get rid\nof the idea that the book is inspired.  Now, what does the bible teach?\nI am not going to ask this preacher or that preacher what the bible\nteaches; but the question is, \"Ought a man be sent to an eternal hell\nfor not believing this bible to be the work of a merciful God?\"  A very\nfew people read it now; perhaps they should read it, and perhaps not;\nif I wanted to believe it, I should never read a word of it--never look\nupon its pages, I would let it lie on its shelf, until it rotted!\nStill, perhaps, we ought to read it in order to see what is read in\nschools that our children might become charitable and good; to be read\nto our children that they may get ideas of mercy, charity humanity and\njustice!  Oh, yes!  Now read:\n\n\"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour\nflesh.\"--Deut. xxxii, 42.\n\nVery good for a merciful God!\n\n\"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the\ntongue of the dogs in the same.\"--Psalms lxviii, 24.\n\nMerciful Being!  I will quote several more choice bits from this\ninspired book, although I have several times made use of them.\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\"And Joshua did unto them as the Lord bade him; he houghed their\nhorses, and burnt their chariots with fire.  And Joshua at that time\nturned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword;\nfor Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.\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\"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(Do not forget that these things were done by the command of God!)\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 those cities and the cattle, the children of\nIsrael took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with\nthe edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they\nany to breathe.\"  (As the moral and just 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 had\ncommanded Joshua.\n\n\"So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country,\nand all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain and mountain\nof Israel, 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 theme and slew them.\n\n\"Joshua made war a long time on all those kings.  There was not a city\nthat made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites, the\ninhabitants of Gibeon; all the others they took in battle.\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,\naccording to their divisions by their tribes.  And the land rested from\nwar.\"--Josh. xi, 7-23.\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, shaft 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 those nations.\n\n\"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give\nthee for an inheritance, thou shaft save alive nothing that breatheth.\n\n\"But thou shalt utterly destroy them.\"\n\n(Neither the old man nor the woman, nor the beautiful maiden, nor the\nsweet dimpled babe, smiling upon the lap of its mother.)\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 throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother,\nand every man his neighbor.\"--Es. xxxii, 29.\n\n(Now 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 and their firesides.  Oh, most merciful God!  The old\ntestament is full of curses, vengeance, jealousy and hatred, and of\nbarbarity and brutality.  Now, do you for one moment believe that these\nwords were written by the most merciful God?  Don't pluck from the\nheart the sweet flower of piety and crush it by superstition.  Do not\nbelieve that God ever ordered the murder of innocent women and helpless\nbabes. Do not let this superstition turn our heart into stone.  When\nanything is said to have been written by the most merciful God, and the\nthing is not merciful, that I deny it, and say He never wrote it. I\nwill live by the standard of reason, and if thinking in accordance with\nreason takes me to perdition, then I will go to hell with my reason,\nrather than to heaven without it.)\n\nNow, does this bible teach political freedom; or does it teach\npolitical tyranny?  Does it teach a man to resist oppression? Does it\nteach a man to tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned thing and\nrobber called king.  Let us see.\n\n\"Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; For there is no power\nbut God:  the powers that be are ordained of God.\"--Rom. xiii, I.\n\n\"Therefore to must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for\nconscience sake.\"--Rom. viii, 4, 4.\n\n(I deny this wretched doctrine.  Wherever the sword of rebellion is\ndrawn to protect the rights of man, I am a rebel.  Wherever the sword\nof rebellion is drawn to give men liberty, to clothe him in all his\njust rights, I am on the side of that rebellion.)\n\nDoes the bible give woman her rights?  Does it treat woman as she ought\nto be treated, or is it barbarian?  We will see:\n\n\"Let woman learn in silence with all subjection.\"--I Tim. ii, 11\n\n(If a woman should know anything let her ask her husband. Imagine the\nignorance of a lady who had only that source of information.)\n\n\"But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,\nbut to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (Indeed!)\n\n\"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the\ntransgression.\"  (Poor woman!)\n\nHere is something from the old testament:\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\ncaptives;\n\n\"And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto\nher, that thou wouldst have her to be 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, 11, 12.\n\n(That is self-defense, I suppose!)\n\nI need not go further in bible quotations to show that woman,\nthroughout the old testament, is a degraded being, having no rights\nwhich her husband, father, brother, or uncle is bound to respect.\nStill, that is bible doctrine, and that bible is the word of a just and\nomniscient God!\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 has to have a home; that home was heaven.  This bad\nbeing had to have a home; and that home was hell.  This hell is\nsupposed to be nearer to earth than I would care to have it, and to be\npeopled with spirits, spooks, hobgoblins, and all the fiery shapes with\nwhich the imagination of ignorance and fear could people that horrible\nplace; and the bible teaches the existence of hell and this big devil\nand all these little devils.  The bible teaches the doctrine of\nwitchcraft and makes us believe that there are sorcerers and witches,\nand that the dead could be raised by the power of sorcery.  Does\nanybody believe it now?\n\n\"Then said Saul unto his servants, seek me a woman that hath a familiar\nspirit, that I may go to her and inquire of her.  And his servants said\nto him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.\"\n\nIn another place he declares that witchcraft is an abomination unto the\nLord.  He wants no rivals in this business.  Now what does the new\ntestament teach:\n\n\"Then was Jesus lead up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted\nof the devil.\n\n\"And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward\na-hungered.\n\n\"And when the tempter came to him, he said if thou be the Son of God,\ncommand these stones to 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, cast thyself down, for\nit is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee; and in\ntheir 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, and Him only shalt thou serve.\"--Matt. iv, 1-7.\n\n(Is it possible that anyone can believe that the devil absolutely took\nGod Almighty, and put him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and\nendeavored to persuade him to jump down?  Is it possible?)\n\n\"Again, the devil taketh him into an exceedingly 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 wilt\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\nserve.\"--Matthew iv, 8-11.\n\n(Now only the devil must have known at that time that He was God, and\nGod at that time must have known that the other was the devil, who had\nthe impudence to promise God a world in which he did not have a\ntax-title to an inch of land.)\n\nNow, what of the Sabbath--the Lord's day?  Why is Sunday the Lord's\nday? If Sunday alone is the Lord's day, whose day is Monday, Tuesday,\nFriday, etc.?  No matter!  The idea, that God hates to hear your\nchildren laugh on Sunday!  On Sunday let your children play games.  I\nsee a poor man who hasn't money enough to go to a big church, and he\nhas too much independence to go to the little church which the big\nchurch built for charity.  If he enters the portals of the big church\nwith poor clothes on, the usher approaches him with a severe face, and\n\"Brother, I'm sorry, but only high-toned servants of the living God\ncongregate in this church for worship, and with that seedy suit on they\ncannot admit you. All the seats in this magnificent edifice are owned\nand represented by 'solid' men, by men of capital.  We pay our pastor\n$5,000 a year--the annual eight weeks vacation thrown in--and it would\nnot be profitable for us to seriously encourage the attendance of so\ninsignificant a person as yourself.  Just around the corner there is a\nlittle cheap church with a little cheap pastor, where they can dish up\nhell to you in an approved style--in a style more suitable to your\nneeds and condition; and the dish will not be as expensive to you,\neither!\"\n\nIf I had chanced to be that poor man in the seedy garments, and had\nbeen endeavoring to serve my Maker for even half a century, I would\nhave felt like muttering audibly, \"You go to hell!\"  (I am not much\ngiven to profanity, but when I am sorely aggravated and vexed in\nspirit, I declare to you that it is such a relief to me, such a solace\nto my troubled soul, and gives me such heavenly peace, to now and then\nallow a word or phrase to escape my lips which can serve the no other\nearthly purpose, seemingly, than to render emphatic my otherwise mildly\nexpressed ideas.  I make this confession parenthetically, and in a\nwhisper, my friends, trusting you will not allow it to go further.)\n\nNow, I tell you, if you don't want to go to church, go to the woods and\ntake your wife and children and a lunch with you, and sit down upon the\nold log and let the children gather flowers, and hear the leaves\nwhispering poems like memories of long ago! and when the sun is about\ngoing down, kissing the summits of the distant hills, go home with your\nhearts filled with throbs of joy and gladness, and the cheeks of your\nlittle ones covered with the rose-blushes of health!  There is more\nrecreation and solid enjoyment in that than putting on your Sunday\nclothes and going to a canal-boat with a steeple on top of it and\nlistening to a man tell you that your chances are about ninety-nine\nthousand nine hundred and ninety-nine to one for being eternally damned!\n\nOh, strike with a hand of fire, 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 but discord 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\nbeasts and men, and every wayward wave of thine doth drown some fretful\nfiend of care.  O, Laughter, rose-lipped daughter of joy, there are\ndimples enough in thy cheek to catch and hold and glorify all the tears\nof grief!\n\nDo not make slaves of your children on Sunday.  Don't place them in\nlong, straight rows, like fence-posts, and \"Sh! children, it's Sunday!\"\nwhen by chance you hear a sound or rustle.  Let winsome Johnny have\nlight and air, and let him grow beautiful; let him laugh until his\nlittle sides ache, if he feels like it; let him pinch the cat's tail\nuntil the house is in an uproar with his yells--let him do anything\nthat will make him happy.  When I was a little boy, children went to\nbed when they were not sleepy, and always got up when they were?  I\nwould like to see that changed--we may see it some day.  It is really\neasier to wake a child with a kiss than a blow; with kind words than\nwith harshness and a curse.  Another thing:  let the children eat what\nthey want to. Let them commence at whichever end of the dinner they\nplease. They know what they want much better than you do.  Nature knows\nperfectly well what she is about, and if you go a-fooling with her you\nmay get into trouble. The crime charged to me is this: I insist that\nthe bible is not the word of God; that we should not whip our children;\nthat we should treat our wives as loving equals; that God never upheld\npolygamy and slavery; deny that God ever commanded his generals to\nslaughter innocent babes and tear and rip open women with the sword of\nwar; that God ever turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt (although\nshe might have deserved that fate); that God ever made a woman out of a\nman's, or any other animal's rib!  And I emphatically deny that God\never signed or sealed a commission appointing his satanic majesty\ngovernor-general over an extensive territory popularly styled hell,\nwith absolute power to torture, burn, maim, boil, or roast at his\npleasure the victims of his master's displeasure!  I deny these things,\nand for that I am assailed by the clergy throughout the United States.\nNow, you have read the bible romance of the fall of Adam?  Yes, well,\nyou know that nearly or quite all the religions of this world account\nfor the existence of evil by such a story as that!  Adam, the miserable\ncoward, informed God that his wife was at the bottom of the whole\nbusiness!  \"She did tempt me and I did eat!\"  And then commenced a row,\nand we have been engaged in it ever since!  You know what happened to\nAdam and his wife for her transgressions?\n\nIn another account of what is said to have been the same\ntransaction--which is the most sensible account of the two--the Supreme\nBrahma concluded, as he had a little leisure, that he would make a\nworld, and a man and woman.  He made the world, the man, and then the\nwoman, and then placed the pair on the Island of Ceylon.  (Bear in\nmind, there were no ribs used in this affair.)  This island is said to\nbe the most beautiful that the mind of man can conceive of.  Such birds\nyou never saw, such songs you never heard! and then such flowers, such\nverdure!  The branches of the trees were so arranged that when the\nwinds swept through, there floated out from every tree melodious\nstrains of music from a thousand!  Aeolian harps!  After Brahma put\nthem there, he said: \"Let them have a period of courtship, for it is my\ndesire and will that true love should forever precede marriage.\"  And\nwith the nightingale singing, and the stars twinkling, and the little\nbrooklets murmuring, and the flowers blooming, and the gentle breezes\nfanning their brows, they courted, and loved!  What a sweet courtship.\nThen Brahma married the happy pair, and remarked:  \"Remain here; you\ncan be happy on this island, and it is my will that you never leave\nit.\"  Well, after a little while the man became uneasy, and said to the\nwife of his youth, \"I believe I'll look about a little.\"  He determined\nto seek greener pastures.  He proceeded to the western extremity of the\nisland, and discovered a little narrow neck of land connecting the\nisland with the mainland, and the devil--they had a genuine devil in\nthose days, too, it seems, who is always \"playing the devil\" with\nus--produced a mirage, and over on the mainland were such hills and\nvales, such dells and dales, such lofty mountains crowned with\nperpetual snow, such cataracts clad in bows of glory, that he rushed\nbreathlessly back to his wife, exclaiming:--\"O, Heva! the country over\nthere is a thousand times better and lovelier than this; let us\nmigrate.\"  She, woman-like, said \"Adami, we must let well enough alone;\nwe have all we want; let us stay here.\"  But he said:  \"No, we will\ngo.\" She followed him, and when they came to this narrow neck of land,\nhe took her upon his back and carried her across.  But at the instant\nhe put her down there was a crash, and looking back they discovered\nthat this narrow neck of land had fallen into the sea. The mirage had\ndisappeared, and there was nothing but rocks and sand, and the Supreme\nBrahma cursed them to the lowest hell. Then Adami spoke--and it showed\nhim to be every inch a man--\"Curse me, but curse not her; it was not\nher fault, it was mine.\" (Our Adam says, with a pusillanimous\nwhine,--Curse her, for it is her fault:  she tempted me and I did eat!\"\nThe world, today, is teeming with just such cowards!)  Then said\nBrahma, \"I will save her, but not thee.\"  And then spoke his wife, out\nof the fullness of the love of a heart in which there was enough to\nmake all her daughters rich in holy affection, \"If thou wilt not spare\nhim, spare neither me; I do not wish to live without him. I love him.\"\nThen magnanimously said the Supreme Brahma, \"I will spare you both, and\nwatch over you and your children forever!\"\n\nNow, tell me truly, which is the grander story?  The book containing\nthis story is full of good things; and yet Christians style as heathens\nthose who have adopted this book as their guide, and spend thousands of\ndollars annually in sending missionaries to convert them!\n\nIt has been too often conceded that because the new testament contains,\nin many passages, a lofty and terse expression of love as the highest\nduty of man, Christianity must have a tendency to ennoble his nature.\nBut Christianity is like sweetened whisky and water--it perverts and\ndestroys that which it should nourish and strengthen.\n\nChristianity makes an often fatal attack on a man's morality--if he\nhappens to be blessed with any--by substituting for the sentiments of\nlove and duty to our neighbors, a sense of obligation of blind\nobedience to an infinite, mysterious, revengeful, tyrannical God!  The\nreal principle of Christian morality, is servile obedience to a\ndangerous Power!  Dispute the assertions of even your priest as to the\nrequirements, dislikes, desires and wishes of the Almighty, and you\nmight as well count yourself as lost, sulphurically lost!  If you are\none of God's chosen, or in other words, have been saved, and are even\nso fortunate as to attain to the glories and joys of the gold-paved\nstreets of heaven, you are expected, in looking over the banisters of\nheaven down into the abyss of eternal torture, to view with complacency\nthe agonized features of your mother, sister, brother, or infant\nchild--who are writhing in hell--and laugh at their calamity!  You are\nnot allowed to carry them a drop of water to cool their parched tongue!\nAnd if you are a Christian, you at this moment believe you will enjoy\nthe situation!\n\nIf a man in a quarrel cuts down his neighbor in his sins, the poor,\nmiserable victim goes directly to hell!  The murderer may reasonably\ncount on a lease of a few weeks of life, interviews his pastor,\nconfesses the crime, repents, accepts the grace of God, is forgiven,\nand then smoothly and gently slides from the rudely-constructed\nscaffold into a haven of joy and bliss, there to sing the praises of\nthe Lamb of God forever and forever! Poor, unfortunate victim!  Happy\nmurderer!\n\nAh, what a beautiful religion humanitarianism and charity* might become!\n\n[* The following incident, showing Col. Ingersoll's disposition to\npractice what he preaches whenever the opportunity presents itself, we\nhave never before seen in print.  One day, during the winter of 1863-4,\nwhen the colonel had a law office in Peoria. Ill.--and before the close\nof the late war of the rebellion--a thinly clad, middle-aged, lady-like\nwoman came into his office and asked assistance, \"My good woman, why do\nyou ask it?\" \"Sir, my husband is a private in the --th Illinois\ninfantry, and stationed somewhere in Virginia, but I do not know where\nas I have not heard from him for nearly six months, although previous\nto that time I seldom failed to get a letter from him as often as once\na week, and whenever he received his pay the most of his money came to\nme. To tell the truth, I do not know whether he is living or not.  But\none thing I do know, I do not hear from him. I have seven children to\nprovide for, but no money in the house, not a particle of bread in the\npantry, nor a lump of coal in the shed, and the landlord threatening to\nturn us out in the storm. This city pledged itself to give wives a\ncertain sum monthly, providing they consented to their husband's\nresponding to the call of the President for troops, but, disregarding\nthese pledges, we and our children are left to starve and freeze, and\nto be turned out of our houses and homes by relentless landlords. Now,\nsir, can you tell me what I am to do?\n\nThe Colonel drew his bandanna from his great coat pocket, lightly\ntouched his eyes with it, and rising to his feet, pointed to a\nchair--\"Sit down, madame, and remain till I return.  I will be back in\na few minutes.\"  He picked up a half-sheet of legal-cap and a pencil,\nand departed for the law and other offices of the building--of which\nthere were several.  Entering the first that appeared, \"Good morning,\nSmith, give me half-a-dollar.\"  \"Well, now, colonel, you are--\"  \"Never\nmind if I am--I must have it!\"  It came.  He entered another.  \"Hello!\ncolonel, what's new?\"  \"I want a half-dollar from you!\"  \"What for?\"\n\"None of your business--I want the money.\"  He got it.  He entered a\nthird.  \"Hello, Bob!  Anything new on eter--\"  \"Never mind, I must have\nfifty cents!\"  \"But--\"  \"But nothing, Jones, give me what I ask for.\"\nOf course he got what he asked for.  So on through fourteen offices,\nfrom which he obtained $7.  Returning to his office, he put his hand in\nhis own pocket and drew forth a $5 note, and handed the woman $12.\n\"Take this, my good woman, and make it go as far as you can.  If you\nobtain relief from no other source, call on me again and I will do the\nbest I can for you!\"  And still Col. Ingersoll is styled by hell-fire\nadvocates an infidel, atheist, dog!]\n\nTo do so sweet a thing as to love our neighbors as we love ourselves;\nto strive to attain to as perfect a spirit as a Golden Rule would bring\nus into; to make virtue lovely by living it, grandly and nobly and\npatiently the outgrowth of a brotherhood not possible in this world\nwhere men are living away from themselves, and trampling justice and\nmercy and forgiveness under their feet!\n\nSpeaking of the different religions, of course they are represented by\nthe different churches; and the best hold of the churches, and the\nsurest way of giving totally depraved humanity a realizing sense of\ntheir utterly lost condition, is to talk and preach hell with all its\nhorrible, terrible concomitants.  True, the different priests advocate\nthe doctrine, only when they see that it is the only thing to rouse the\nsinners from their lethargy; for where is the man who will not accept\nthe grace of Jesus Christ, if he becomes convinced that his state in\nthe hereafter is a terrible one!  The ministers of the different\nchurches know full well which side of their bread is buttered.  A\npriest is a divinity among his people--a man around whom his\nparishioners throw a glamour of sanctity, and one who can do no wrong;\nalbeit, his chief and growing characteristics are tyranny, arrogancy,\nself-conceit, deception, bigotry and superstition!  Tyrannical do I\ncall them?  Most assuredly! Suppose, for example, the Methodist, or\nPresbyterian church had the power to decide whether you, or I, or any\nother man, should be a Methodist or Presbyterian, and we should decline\nto follow the path pointed out to us, or either of us, what I solemnly\nand candidly ask you, would be the result?  Our fate would be more\nterrible than their endless hell!  The inquisition would rise again in\nall its horrid blackness!  Instruments of torture would darken our\nvision on every hand!  But, thank God--not that terrible being whom\nChristians would have us believe is our Maker--this is a free\nland--free as the air we breathe; and you and I can partake of the\northodox waters of life freely, or we can let them alone!  When I see a\nman perched upon a pedestal called a \"pulpit\"     a man who is one of\nnature's noblemen, physically, and fully able to breast the storms of\nlife and earn his honest living--telling his hearers with perspiring\nbrow and all his might and main of the terrors of the seething cauldron\nof hell, and how certain it is that they are to be unceremoniously\ndumped therein to be boiled through all ages, yet never boiled\ndone--unless they seek salvation--when I look upon that man, honor\nbright, I pity him, for I cannot help comparing him with the lower\nanimals!  Then there is a reaction, and I feel an utter contempt for\nhim, for he may know, when he declares hell is a reality, that he is\nlying!\n\nNow, of the deception of the preacher.  At the close of a sermon in an\northodox church, Rev. Mr. Solemnface steps to the side of Bro.\nEverbright, who has been absent from the brimstone-mill for several\nmonths:\n\n\"Ah, Bro. Everbright, how do you do?  Long time since I have seen you;\nhow's your family?  Quite well?  Is it well with thee today?  Rather\nlukewarm, eh?  Sorry, sorry.  Well, brother, can you do something for\nus financially, today?  Our people think my pulpit is too common, and\nsay a couple hundred will put it in good shape, and make it desirable\nand attractive.  Can you contribute a few dollars to the fund?\"\n\n\"Well, Bro. Solemnface, for four long months I have been ill; not a\nday's work have I done, and not a cent of money have I that I can call\nmy own.  Next year I trust I can do something for the cause of my\nMaker.\"\n\n\"Ah-h-h-h-h-h!\" and Bro. S.'s face assumes a terrible look of\ndisappointment, and he is gone in a moment.  Out upon such a fraud!\nThe pulpits of the land are full of them.  The world is cursed with\nthem! They possess all the elements of vagabonds, dead-beats,\nfalsifiers, beggars, vultures, hyenas and jackals!\n\nIn past ages the cross has been in partnership with the sword, and the\nreligion of Christ was established by murderers, tyrants and\nhypocrites. I want you to know that the church carried the black flag,\nand I ask you what must have been the civilizing influence of such a\nreligion?  Of all the selfish things in this world, it is one man\nwanting to get to heaven, caring nothing what becomes of the rest of\nmankind, saying:  \"If I can only get my little soul in!\"  I have always\nnoticed that the people who have the smallest souls make the most fuss\nabout getting them saved.  Here is what we are taught by the church of\ntoday.  We are taught by them that fathers and mothers can all be happy\nin heaven, no matter who may be in hell; that the husband could be\nhappy there, with the wife that would have died for him at any moment\nof his life, in hell.  But they say, \"Hell, we don't believe in fire.\nI don't think you understand me.  What we believe in now is remorse.\"\nWhat will you have remorse for?  For the mean things you have done when\nyou are in hell? Will you have any remorse for the mean things you have\ndone when you are in heaven?  Or will you be so good then that you\nwon't care how you used to be?  I tell you today, that no matter in\nwhat heaven you may be, no matter in what star you are spending the\nsummer; if you meet another man whom you have wronged, you will drop a\nlittle behind in the tune.  And, no matter in what part of hell you\nare, you will meet some one who has suffered, whose nakedness you have\nclothed, and the fire will cool up a little.  According to this\nChristian doctrine, you won't care how mean you were once.  Is it a\ncompliment to an infinite God to say that every being He ever made\ndeserved to be damned the minute He had got him done, and that He will\ndamn everybody He has not had a chance to make over? Is it possible\nthat somebody else can be good for me, and that this doctrine of the\natonement is the only anchor for the human soul?\n\nWe sit by the fireside and see the flames and sparks fly up the\nchimney--everybody happy, and the cold wind and sleet beating on the\nwindow, and out on the doorstep a mother with a child on her breast\nfreezing.  How happy it makes a fire, that beautiful contrast.  And we\nsay God is good, and there we sit, and there she sits and moans, not\none night, but forever.  Or we are sitting at the table with our wives\nand children, everybody eating, happy and delighted, and Famine comes\nand pushes out its shriveled palms, and, with hungry eyes, implores us\nfor a crust; how that would increase the appetite!  And that is the\nChristian heaven. Don't you see that these infamous doctrines petrify\nthe human heart? And I would have every one who hears me swear that he\nwill never contribute another dollar to build another church, in which\nis taught such infamous lies.  Let every man try to make every day a\njoy, and God cannot afford to damn such a man. Consequently humanity is\nthe only real religion.\n\n\"Man's inhumanity to man Makes countless millions mourn.\"\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on the Review of His Reviewers\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:   \"What have I said?\"  \"What has been my offense?\nI have been spoken of as if I were a wolf endeavoring to devour the\nentire fold of sheep in the absence of the shepherd.\"  I believe in the\ntrinity of observation, reason and science; the trinity of man, woman\nand child; the trinity of love, joy and hope; and thought that every\nman has a right to think for himself, and no other man has the right to\ndebar him of this privilege by torture, by social ostracism, or any of\nthe numerous other expedients resorted to by the enemies of\nadvancement. I ask:  \"Does God wish the lip-worship of a slave? a\nsneak? of the man that dares not reason?  If I were the infinite God, I\nwould rather have the worship of one good man of brains than a world of\nsuch men.  I am told that I am in danger of everlasting fire, and that\nI shall burn forever in hell:  I tell you, my friends, if I were going\nto hell tonight I would take an overcoat with me.  Do not tell me that\nthe eternal future of a man may depend upon his belief, I deny it.\nThat a man should be punished for having come to an honest conclusion,\nthe honest production of his brain; that an honest conclusion should be\ndeemed a crime and so declared, it is an infamous, monstrous assertion,\nand I would rather go to hell than to keep the company of a God who\nwould damn his child for an honest belief.\n\n\"Next, I 'preached' that a woman was the equal of man, entitled to\neverything that he is entitled to, to be his partner, and to be\ncherished and respected because she is the weaker, to be treated as a\nsplendid flower.  I said that man should not be cross to her, but fill\nthe house that she is in with such joy that it would burst out at the\nwindow.  I have said that matrimony is the holiest of sacraments, and I\nhave said that the bible took woman up thousands of years ago and\nhanded her down to man as a slave, and I have said that the bible is a\nbarbarous book for teaching that she is a slave, and I repeat it, and\nwill prove later what I have said.  I have pleaded for the right of\nman, of wife, and of the little child; I have said we can govern\nchildren by love and affection; I have asked for tender treatment for\nthe child of crime; I have asked mothers to cease beating their\nchildren and take them to their hearts; and for this I am denounced by\nthe religious press and men in the pulpits as a demon and a monster of\nheresy, who should be driven out from among you as an unclean thing.\n\n\"But I should not complain.  Only a few years ago I should have been\ncompelled to look at my denouncers through flame and smoke; but they\ndare not treat me so now or they would.  One hundred years ago I should\nhave been burned for claiming the right of reason; fifty years ago I\nshould have been imprisoned and my wife and children would have been\ntorn away from me, and twenty-five years ago I could not have made a\nliving in the United States in my profession--the law.  But I live now\nand can see through it all, and all is light.  I delivered another\nlecture, on \"Ghosts,\" in which I sought to show that man had been\ncontrolled in the past by phantoms created by his own imagination; in\nwhich the pencil of fear had drawn pictures for him on the canvass of\nsuperstition, and that men had groveled in they dirt before their own\nsuperstitious creations.  I endeavored to show that man had received\nnothing from these ghosts but hatred, blood, ignorance and unhappiness,\nand that they had filled our world with woe and tears.  This is what I\nendeavored to show--no more.  Now, every one has as much right to\ndiffer with me as I with them, but it does not make the slightest\ndifference for the purpose of argument whether I am a good man or a\nbad, whether I am ugly or handsome--although I would not object to\nresting my case on that issue; the only thing to be considered and\ndiscussed is, is what I have said true, or is it untrue?\n\n\"Now, I said that the bible came from the ghosts, and that they gave us\nthe doctrine of immortality of the soul, which I deny. Now, the\nimmortality of the soul, if there is such a thing, is a fact, and\ntherefore no book could make it.  If I am immortal, I am; if not, no\nbook can make me so.  The doctrine of immortality is based in the hope\nof the human heart, and is not derived from any book or creed.  It has\nits origin in the ebb and flow of the human affections, and will\ncontinue as long as affection, and is the rainbow in the sky of hope.\nIt does not depend on a book, on ghosts, superstition of any kind; it\nis a flower of the human heart.  I did say that these ghosts, or the\nbook, taught that human slavery was right, that most monstrous of all\ncrimes, that makes miserable the victim and debases the master, for a\nslave can have all the virtues while the master can not.  I did say\nthat it riveted the chains upon the oppressed, and that it counseled\nthe robbing of that most precious of all boons--Liberty.  I add that\nthe book upheld all this, that it sustained and sanctified the\ninstitution of human slavery.  I did also assert that this same book,\nwhich my critics claim was inspired by God, inculcated the doctrine of\nwitchcraft, for which people, through its teaching were hanged and\nburned for bringing disease upon the regal persons of kings, and for\nsouring beer.  I did say that this book upheld that most of all\ninfamies, polygamy, and that it did not teach political liberty or\nreligious toleration, but political slavery and the most wretched\nintolerance.  I did try to prove that these ghosts knew less than\nnothing about medicine, politics, legislation, astronomy, geology and\nastrology, but I am also aware that in saving these things I have done\nwhat my censors think I ought not to have done.  But the victor ought\nnot to feel malice, and I shall have none.  As soon as I had said all\nthese things, some gentlemen felt called upon to answer them, which\nthey had a right to do.  Now, I like fairness, am enamored with it,\nprobably because I get so little of it.  I can say a great many mean\nthings, for I have read all the religious papers, and I ought to be\nable to account for every motive in a mean manner after.\n\n\"The first gentleman whom I shall call your attention to is the Rev.\nDr. Woodbridge.  It seems that when I delivered my lectures the\nconclusion had come to \"that man does not believe in anything but\nmatter and force--that man does not believe in spirit.\"  Why not?  If\nby spirit you mean that which thinks, I am one of them myself.  If you\nmean by spirit that which hopes and reasons and loves and aspires, why,\nthen, I am a believer in spirits; but whatever spirit there is in this\nuniverse I will take my oath is a natural product and not superimposed\nupon this world.  All I will say is that whatever is, is natural, and\nthere is as much goodness in my judgment, as much spirit here in this\nworld as in any other, and you are just as near the heart of the\nuniverse here as you ever can be.\n\nBut, they say, \"there is matter and force, and there is force and there\nis spirit.\"  Well, what of it?  There is no matter without force.  What\nwould keep it together unless there was force?  Can you imagine matter\nwithout force?    Honor bright, can you conceive of force without\nmatter?  And what is spirit?  They say spirit is the first thing that\never was.  It seems to me sometimes as though spirit was the blossom\nand fruit of all, and not the commencement.  But they say spirit was\nfirst. What would that spirit do?  No force--no matter--a spirit living\nin an infinite vacuum without side, edge or bottom.  This spirit\ncreated the world; and if this spirit did, there must have been a time\nwhen it commenced to create, and back of that an eternity spent in\nabsolute idleness.  Can a spirit exist without matter or without force?\nI honestly say I do not know what matter is, what force is, what spirit\nis; but if you mean by matter anything that I can touch, or by force\nanything that we can overcome then I believe in them.  If you mean by\nspirit anything that can think and love, I believe in spirits.\n\n\"The next critic who assailed me was the Rev. Mr. Kalloch.  I am not\ngoing to show you what I can withstand.  I am not going to say a word\nabout the reputation of this man, although he took some liberties with\nmine.  This gentleman says negation is a poor thing to die by.  I would\njust as lief die by that as the opposite.  He spoke of the last hours\nof Paine and Voltaire and the terrors of their death-beds; but the\nquestion arises, is there a word of truth in all he said?  I have\nobserved that the murderer dies with courage and firmness in many\ninstances, but that does not make me think that it sanctified his\ncrime; in fact, it makes no impression upon me one way or the other.\nWhen a man through old age or infirmity approaches death the\nintellectual faculties are dimmed, his senses become less and less, and\nas he loses these he goes back to his old superstition. Old age brings\nback the memories of childhood.  And the great bard gave in the corrupt\nand besotted Falstaff--who prattled of babbling brooks and green\nfields--an instance of the retracing steps taken by the memory at the\nlast gasp.  It has been said that the bible was sanctified by our\nmothers.  Every superstition in the world, from the beginning of all\ntime, has had such a sanctification.  The Turk dying on the Russian\nbattlefield, pressing the Koran to his bosom, breathes his last\nthinking of the loving adjuration of his mother to guard it.  Every\nsuperstition has been rendered sacred by the love of a mother.  I know\nwhat it has cost the noble and the brave to throw to the winds these\nsuperstitions.  Since the death of Voltaire, who was innocent of all\nelse than a desire to shake off the superstitions of the past, the\ncurse of Rome has pursued him, and ignorant protestants have echoed\nthat curse.  I like Voltaire. Whenever I think of him it is as a plumed\nknight coming from the fray with victory shining upon his brow.  He was\nonce in the Bastille, and while there he changed his name from Francis\nMarie Aloysius to Voltaire; and when the Bastille was torn down\n\"Voltaire\" was the battle cry of those who did it.  He did more to\nbring about religious toleration than any man in the galaxy of those\nwho strove for the privilege of free thought.  He was always on the\nside of justice.  He was full of faults and had many virtues. His\ndoctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country.  He died as\nserenely as anyone could.  Speaking to his servant, he said, \"Farewell\nmy faithful friend.\"  Could he have done a more noble act than to\nrecognize him who had served him faithfully as a man?  What more could\nhe wished?  And now let me say here, I will give a $1,000 in gold to\nany clergyman who can substantiate that the death of Voltaire was not\nas peaceful as the dawn.  And of Thomas Paine, whom they assert died in\nfear and agony, frightened by the clanking chains of devils, in fact,\nfrightened to death by God--I will give $1,000 likewise to anyone who\ncan substantiate this absurd story--a story without a word of truth in\nit.  And let me ask, who dies in the most fear, the man who, like the\nsaint, exclaims:  \"My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?\" or\nVoltaire, who peacefully and quietly bade his servant farewell?  The\nquestion is not who died right, but who lived right.  I look upon death\nas the most unimportant moment of life, and believe that not half the\nresponsibility is attached to dying that is to living properly.  This\nRev. Mr. Kalloch is a baptist.  He has a right to be a baptist.  The\nfirst baptist, though was a heretic; but it is among the wonders that\nwhen a heretic gets fifteen or twenty to join him he suddenly begins to\nbe orthodox.  Roger Williams was a baptist, but how he, or anyone not\ndestitute of good sense, could be one, passes my comprehension.  Let me\nillustrate:\n\nSuppose it was the Day of Judgment tonight and we were all assembled,\nas the ghosts say we will be, to be judged, and God should ask a man:\n\n\"Have you been a good man?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Have you loved your wife and children?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Have you taken good care of them and made them happy?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Have you tried to do right by your neighbors?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Paid all your debts?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\nAnd then cap the climax by asking:\n\n\"Were you ever baptized?\"\n\nCould a solitary being hear that question without laughing?  I think\nnot.  I once happened to be in the company of six or seven baptist\nelders (I never have been able to understand since how I got into such\nbad company), and they wanted to know what I thought of baptism.  I\nanswered that I had not given the matter any attention, in fact I had\nno special opinion upon the subject. But they pressed me and finally I\ntold them that I thought, with soap baptism was a good thing.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Guard has attacked me, and has described me, among other\nthings, as a dog barking at a train.  Of course he was the train.  He\nsaid, first, the bible is not an immoral book, because I swore upon it\nwhen I joined the Free and Accepted Masons.  That settles the question.\nSecondly, he says that Solomon had softening of the brain and fatty\ndegeneration of the heart; thirdly, that the Hebrews had the right to\nslay all the inhabitants of Canaan according to the doctrine of the\nsurvival of the fittest.  He says that the destruction of these\nCanaanites, the ripping open by the bloody sword of women with child\nwas an act of sublime mercy.  Think of that!  He says that the\nCanaanites should have been driven from their homes, and not only\ndriven, but that the men who simply were guilty of the crime of\nfighting for their native land--the old men with gray hairs; the old\nmothers, the young mothers, the little dimpled, prattling child--that\nit was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious\npersecution into old and young.  If that is mercy, let us have\ninjustice.  If there is that kind of a God I am sorry that I exist.\nFourthly, Mr. Guard said God has the right to do as he pleases with the\nbeings he has created; and, fifthly, that God, by choosing the Jews and\ngoverning them personally, spoiled them to that degree that they\ncrucified Him the first opportunity they had.  That shows what a good\nadministration will do. Sixthly, He says polygamy is not a bad thing\nwhen compared with the picture of Anthony and Cleopatra, now on\nexhibition in this city.  I will just say one word about art.  I think\nthis is one of the most beautiful words in our language, and do you\nknow, it never seemed to me necessary for art to go into partnership\nwith a rag?  I like the paintings of Angelo, of Raphael--I like those\nsplendid souls that are put upon canvas--all there is of human beauty.\nThere are brave souls in every land who worship nature grand and nude,\nand who, with swift, indignant hand, tear off the fig leaves of the\nprude.  Seventhly, it may be said that the bible sanctions slavery, but\nthat it is not an immoral book if it does.  Mr. Guard playfully says\nthat he is a puppy nine days old; that he was only eight days old when\nI came here.  I'm inclined to think he has over stated his age.  I\naccount for his argument precisely as he did for the sin of Solomon,\nsoftening of the brain, or fatty degeneration of the heart.  It does\nseem to me that if I were a good Christian and knew that another man\nwas going down to the bottomless pit to be miserable and in agony\nforever, I would try to stop him, and instead of filling my mouth with\nepithet and invective, and drawing the lips of malice back from the\nteeth of hatred, my eyes would be filled with tears, and I would do\nwhat I could to reclaim him and take him up in the arms of my affection.\n\nThe next gentleman is the Rev. Mr. Robinson, who delivered a sermon\nentitled 'Ghost against God, or Ingersoll against Honesty.'  Of course\nhe was honest.  He apologized for attending an infidel lecture upon the\nground that he hated to contribute to the support of a materialistic\nshowman.  I am willing to trade fagots for epithets, and the rack for\nanything that may be said in his sermon.  I am willing to trade the\ninstrument of torture with which they could pull the nails from my\nfingers for anything which the ingenuity of orthodoxy can invent.\nWhen I saw that report--although I do not know that I ought to tell\nit--I felt bad.  I knew that man's conscience must be rankling like a\nsnake in his bosom, that he had contributed a dollar to the support of\na man as bad as I.  I wrote him a letter, in which I said:  \"The Rev.\nSamuel Robinson, My Dear Sir.  In order to relieve your conscience of\nthe stigma of having contributed to the support of an unbeliever in\nGhosts, I herewith enclose the dollar you paid to attend my lecture.\"\nI then gave him a little good advice to be charitable, and regretted\nexceedingly that any man could listen to me for an hour and a half and\nnot go away satisfied that other men had the same right to think that\nhe had.\n\nThe speaker went on to answer the argument of Mr. Robinson with regard\nto persecution, contending that protestants had been guilty of it no\nless than catholics; and showing that the first people to pass an act\nof toleration in the new world were the catholics in Maryland.  The\nreverend gentleman has stated also that infidelity has done nothing for\nthe world in the development of art and science.  Has he ever heard of\nDarwin, of Tyndall, of Huxley, of John W. Draper, of Auguste Comte, of\nDescartes, Laplace, Spinoza, or any man who has taken a step in advance\nof his time?  Orthodoxy never advances, when it does advance, it ceases\nto be orthodoxy.\n\nA reply to certain strictures in the Occident led the lecturer up to\nanother ministerial critic, namely, the Rev. W.E. Ijams.\n\nI want to say that, so far as I can see, in his argument this gentleman\nhas treated me in a kind and considerate spirit.  He makes two or three\nmistakes, but I suppose they are the fault of the report from which he\nquoted.  I am made to say in his sermon that there is no sacred place\nin the universe.  What I did say was:  There is no sacred place in all\nthe universe of thought; there is nothing too holy to be investigated,\nnothing too sacred to be understood, and I said that the fields of\nthought were fenceless, that they should be without a wall.  I say so\ntonight. He further said that I said that a man had not only the right\nto do right, but to do wrong.  What I did say, was:  \"Liberty is the\nright to do right, and the right to think right, and the right to think\nwrong,\" not the right to do wrong.  That is all I have to say in regard\nto that gentleman, except that, so far as I could see, he was perfectly\nfair, and treated me as though I was a human being as well as he.\n\nThe speaker sarcastically referred to the slurs thrown upon him by his\nreviewers, who have claimed that his theories have no foundation, his\narguments no reason, and that his utterances are vapid, blasphemous,\nand unworthy a reply.  He said that their statements and their actions\nwere sadly at variance, for, while declaring him a senseless idiot,\nthey spent hours in striving to prove themselves not idiots; in other\nwords, in one breath they declare that his views were absolutely\nwithout point, and needed no explaining away; while in direct rebuttal\nof this declaration, they devoted time and labor in attempts to\ndisprove the very things they called self-evident absurdities.\n\nTurning from this subject, Mr. Ingersoll read numerous extracts from\nthe bible, with interpolated comments.  He claimed that the bible\nauthorized slavery, and that many devoted believers in that book had\nturned the cross of Christ into a whipping post.  He did not wish it\nunderstood that he could find no good in believers in creeds; far from\nit, for some of his dearest friends were most orthodox in their\nreligious ideas, and there had been hundreds of thousands of good men\namong both clergy and laymen.  History has shown no people more nobly\nself-sacrificing than the Jesuit Fathers who first visited this country\nto proselyte among the Indians.  But these men and their like were\nbetter than their creeds; better than the book in which their faith was\ncentered. The bible tells us distinctly that the world was made in six\ndays--not periods, but actual, bona fide days--a statement which it\niterates and reiterates.  It also tells us that God lengthened the day\nfor the benefit of a gentleman named Joshua, in other words, that he\nstopped the rotary motion of the earth.  Motion is changed into heat by\nstoppage, and the world turns with such velocity that its sudden\nstoppage would create a heat of intensity beyond the wildest flight of\nour imagination, and yet this impossible feat was performed that Joshua\nmight have longer time to expend in slaying a handful of Amorites.  The\nbible also upholds the doctrines of witchcraft and spiritualism, for\nSaul visited the witch of Endor, and she, after preparing the cabinet,\ntrotted out the spirit of Samuel, said spirit kindly joining in\nconversation with Saul, without requiring the aid of a trance medium.\nThe speaker then quoted at length from Leviticus concerning wizards and\nevil spirits, described the temptation of Christ by Satan, and the\ndriving of devils from man into swine. He sneered at the rights of\nchildren as biblically described, citing the law which sentenced them\nto be stoned to death for disobedience to parents, the almost sacrifice\nof Isaac by his father, and the actual murder of Jephthah's daughter,\nasking if a God who could demand such worship was worthy the love of\nman.  He next referred to the conversation between God and Satan\nconcerning the man Job, and of the reward given to the latter for his\nlong continued patience.  His three daughters and his seven sons had\nbeen taken from him merely to test his patience, and the merciful God\ngave him in exchange three other daughters and seven sons, but they\nwere not the children whom he had loved and lost. The bible represents\nwoman as vastly inferior to man, while he believed, with Robbie Burns,\nthat God made man with a prentice-hand, and woman after He had learned\nthe trade.  Polygamy, also, was a doctrine supported by this pure and\npious work; a doctrine so foul that language is not strong enough to\nexpress its infamy. The bible taught, as a religious creed, that if\nyour wife, your sister, your brother, your dearest friend, tempted you\nto change from the religion of your fathers, your duty to God demanded\nthat you should at once strike a blow at the life of your tempter. Let\nus suppose, then, that in truth God went to Palestine and selected the\nscanty tribes of Israel as his chosen people, and supposing that he\nafterward came to Jerusalem in the shape of a man and taught a\ndifferent doctrine from the one prescribed by their book and their\nclergy, and that the chosen people, in obedience to the education he\nhad prepared for them, struck at the life of him who tempted them.\nWere they to be cursed by God and man because the former had reaped the\nharvest of his own sowing?\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on \"How the Gods Grow\"\n\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  Priests have invented a crime called blasphemy.\nThat crime is the breastwork behind which ignorance, superstition and\nhypocrisy have crouched for thousands of years, and shot their poisoned\narrows at the pioneers of human thought.  Priests tell us that there is\na God somewhere in heaven who objects to a human being, thinking and\nexpressing his thought.  Priests tell us that there is a God somewhere\nwho takes care of the people of this world; a God somewhere who watches\nover the widow and the orphan; a God somewhere who releases the slave;\na God somewhere who visits the innocent man in prison; the same God\nthat has allowed men for thousands of years to burn to ashes human\nbeings simply for loving that God.  We have been taught that it is\ndangerous to reason upon these subjects--extremely dangerous--and that\nof all crimes in the world, the greatest is to deny the existence of\nthat God.\n\nRedden your hands in innocent blood; steal the bread of the orphan,\ndeceive, ruin and desert the beautiful girl who has loved and trusted\nyou, and for all this you may be forgiven; for all this you can have\nthe clear writ of that bankrupt court of the gospel.  But deny the\nexistence of one of these gods, and the tearful face of mercy becomes\nlurid with eternal hate; the gates of heaven are shut against you, and\nyou, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, commence your\nwanderings as an immortal vagrant, as a deathless convict, as an\neternal outcast.  And we have been taught that the infinite has become\nenraged at the finite simply when the finite said:  \"I don't know!\"\nWhy, imagine it.  Suppose Mr. Smith should hear a couple of small bugs\nin his front yard discussing the question as to the existence of Smith;\nand suppose one little red bug swore on the honor of a bug that, in his\njudgment, no such man as Smith lived.  What would you think of Mr.\nSmith if he fell into a rage, and brought his heel down on this little\natheist bug and said:  \"I will teach you that Smith is a diabolical\nfact!\"  And yet if there is an infinite God, there is infinitely a\ngreater difference between that God and a human being than between\nShakespeare and the smallest bug that ever crawled.  It cannot be;\nthere is something wrong in this thing somewhere.\n\nI am told, also, that this being watches over us, takes care of us.\nAnd the other day I read a sermon (you will hardly believe it, but I\ndid); I had nothing else to.  I had read everything in that paper,\nincluding the advertisements; so I read the sermon. It was a sermon by\nRev. Mr. Moody on prayer, in which he took the ground that our prayer\nshould be \"Thy will be  done;\"  and he seemed to believe that if we\nprayed that prayer often enough we could induce God to have his own\nway.  He gives an instance of a woman in Illinois who had a sick child,\nand she prayed that God would not take from her arms that babe.   She\ndid not pray \"Thy will be done,\" but she prayed, according to Mr.\nMoody, almost a prayer of rebellion, and said:  \"I cannot give up my\nbabe.\"  God heard her prayer, and the child got well; and Mr. Moody\nsays it was an idiot when it got well.  For fifteen years that woman\nwatched over and took care of that idiotic child; and Mr. Moody says\nhow much better would it have been if she had allowed God to have had\nhis own way.  Think of a God who would punish a mother for speaking to\nHim from an agonizing heart and saying, \"I cannot give up my babe,\" and\nmaking the child an idiot.  What would the devil have done under the\nsame circumstances?  That is the God we are expected to worship.  I\nrange myself with the opposition. The next day I read another sermon\npreached by the Rev. De Witt Talmage, a man of not much fancy, but of\ngreat judgment.  He preached a sermon on dreams, and went on to say\nthat God often visited us in dreams, and that He often convinces men of\nHis existence in that way.  So far as I am concerned I had rather see\nsomething in the light.  And, according to that sermon, there was a\npoor woman in England, a pauper who had the rheumatism, and there was\nanother pauper who had not the rheumatism; and the pauper who had not\nthe rheumatism used to take food to the pauper that had.  After a while\nthe pauper without rheumatism died, and then the pauper with the\nrheumatism began to think in her own mind, who will bring me food?\nThat night God appeared to her in a dream.  He did not cure her\nrheumatism though.  He appeared to her in a dream, and he took her out\nof the house and pointed on the right hand to an immense mountain of\nbread, and on the left hand to an immense mountain of butter.  And when\nI read that I said to myself, my Lord, what a place that would be to\nstart a political party.  And he said to her:  \"These belong to your\nfather; do you think that he will allow one of his children to starve?\nWhat a place would Ireland be with that mountain of bread and butter!\nUntil I read these two sermons I hardly believed that in this day and\ngeneration anybody believed that God would make a child an idiot simply\nbecause the mother had prayed for its sweet dear life, or that God's\nvisits are only in dreams.  But so it is.\n\nOrthodoxy has not advanced upon the religion of the Fiji Islander.  It\nis the same yesterday, today and forever.  Now we are told that there\nis a god; and nearly every nation has had a god; generally a good many\nof them.  You see the raw material was so cheap, and Gods were\nmanufactured so easily, that heaven has always been crammed with the\nphantoms of these monsters.  But they say there is a god, and every\nsavage tribe believes in a God.  It is an argument made to me every\nday.  I concede to you that fact; I concede to you that all savages\nagree with you.  I admit it takes a certain amount of civilization, a\ncertain amount of thought, to rise above the idea that some personal\nbeing, for his own ends, for his own glory, made and governs this\nuniverse. I admit that it takes some thought to see the universe is\ngood and all that is good, and every star that shines is a part of God,\nand I am something, no matter how little, and that the infinite cannot\nexist without me, and that therefore I am a part of the infinite.  I\nadmit that it takes a little civilization to get to that point.\n\nNow every nation has made a god, and every man that has made a god has\nused himself for a pattern; and men have put into the mouth of their\ngod all their mistakes in astronomy, in geography, in philosophy, in\nmorality, and the god is never wiser or better than his creators.  If\nthey believe in slavery, so did he; if they believe in eating human\nflesh, he wanted his share; if they were polygamous, so was he; if they\nwere cruel, so was he.  And just to the extent that man has become\ncivilized, he has civilized his god.  You can hardly imagine the\nprogress that our God has made in four thousand years.\n\nFour thousand years ago He was a barbarian; tonight He is quite an\neducated gentleman.  Four thousand years ago He believed in killing and\nbutchering little babes at the breasts of their mothers; He has\nreformed.  Four thousand years ago He did not believe in taking\nprisoners of war.  He said, kill the old men; mingle their blood with\nthe white hair.  Kill the women.  But what shall we do, O God, with the\nmaidens?  Give them to satisfy the lust of the soldiers and of the\npriests!  If there is anywhere in the serene heaven a real God.  I want\nhim to write in the book of His eternal remembrance, opposite my name,\nthat I deny that lie for Him.\n\nFour thousand years ago our God was in favor of slavery; four thousand\nyears ago our God would have a man beaten to death with rugged rocks\nfor expressing his honest thought; four thousand years ago our God told\nthe husband to kill his wife if she disagreed with him upon the\nimportant subject of religion; four thousand years ago our God was a\nmonster; and if He is any better now, it is simply because we have made\nHim so. I am talking about the God of the Christian world.  There may\nbe, for aught I know, upon the shore of the eternal vast, some being\nwhose very thought is the constellation of those numberless stars.  I\ndo not know; but if there is he has never written a bible; he has never\nbeen in favor of slavery; he has never advocated polygamy, and he never\ntold the murderer to sheathe his dagger in the dimpled breast of a\nbabe.  But they say to me, our God has written a book.  I am glad he\ndid, and it is by that book that I propose to judge them.  I find in\nthat book that it was a crime to eat of the tree of knowledge.  I find\nthat the church has always been the enemy of education, and I find that\nthe church still carries the flaming sword of ignorance and bigotry\nover the tree of knowledge.\n\nAnd if that story is true, ought we not after all to thank the devil?\nHe was the first school master; he was the first to whisper liberty in\nour ears; he was the author of modesty.  He was the author of ambition\nand progress.  And as for me, give me the storm and tempest of thought\nand action rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.  Punish me\nwhen and how you will, but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of\nknowledge.  And there is one peculiar thing I might as well speak of\nhere.  While the world has made gods, it has also made devils; and as a\nrule the devils have been better friends to man than the gods.  It was\nnot a devil that drowned the world; it was not a devil that covered\nwith the multitudinous waves of an infinite sea the corpses of men,\nwomen and children.\n\nThat was the good god.  The devil never sent pestilence and famine; the\ndevil never starved women and children; that was the good God.  The\nmeanest thing recorded of the devil is what happened concerning my\nservant Job.  According to that book God met the devil and said:\n\"Where have you been?\"  \"Oh, been walking up and down.\"  \"Have you\nnoticed my man Job; nobody like him!\"  \"Well, who wouldn't be; you have\ngiven him everything; but take away what he has, and he will curse you\nto your face.\" And so the devil went to work and tried it.  It was a\nmean thing. And that was all done to decide what you might call a wager\non a difference of opinion between the serene highnesses.  He took away\nhis property, but Job didn't sin; and when God met the devil, he said:\n\"Well, what did I tell you, smarty?\"  \"Ah,\" he said, \"that is all very\nwell, but you touch his flesh and he will curse you; and he did, but\nJob didn't curse him.  And then what did God do to help him!  He gave\nhim some other children better looking than the first ones.  What kind\nof an idea is that for a God to kill our children and then give us\nbetter looking ones! If you have loved a child, I don't care if it is\ndeformed, if you have held it in your arms and covered its face with\nkisses, you want that child back and no other.\n\nI find in this bible that there was an old gentleman a little short of\nthe article of hair.  And as he was going through the town a number of\nlittle children cried out to him \"Go up, thou bald head!\"  And this man\nof God turned and cursed them.  A real good-humored old fellow!  And\ntwo bears came out of the woods and tore in pieces forty-two children!\nHow did the bears get there? Elisha could not control the bears.\nNobody but God could control the bears in that way.  Now just think of\nan infinite God making a shining star, having his attention attracted\nby hearing some children saying to an old gentlemen, \"Go up, thou bald\nhead!\" and then speaking to his secretary or somebody else, \"Bring in a\ncouple of bears now!\"  What a magnificent God!  What would the devil\nhave done under the same circumstances?  And yet that is the God they\nwant to put into the constitution in order to make our children gentle\nand kind and loving.\n\nYou hate a God like that.  I do; I despise him.  And yet little\nchildren in the Sabbath-school are taught that infamous lie. Why, I\nhave very little respect for an old man that will get mad about such a\nthing, anyway.  What would the Christian world say of me if I should\nhave a few children torn to pieces if they should make that remark in\nmy face? What would the devil have done under the same circumstances?\nI tell you, I cannot worship a God who is no better than the devil!  I\ncannot do it.  And if you will just read the old testament with the\nbandage off your eyes and the cloud of fear from your heart, you will\ncome to the conclusion that it was written not only by men, but by\nbarbarians, by savages, and that it is totally unworthy of a civilized\nage.  I believe in no God who believes in slavery.  I will worship no\nGod who ever said that one of His children should own another of His\nchildren.  But they say to me, there must be a God somewhere!  Well, I\nsay I don't know. There may be.  I hope there is more than one--one is\nso lonesome.  Just think of an old bachelor, always alone!  I want more\nthan one.  And they say, somebody must have made this!  Well, I say I\ndon't know.  But it strikes me that the indestructible cannot be\ncreated.  What would you make it of?  \"Oh, nothing!\"  Well, it strikes\nme that nothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is a\ndecided failure.  For my part, I cannot conceive of force apart from\nmatter, and I cannot conceive of matter apart from force.  I cannot\nconceive of force somewhere without acting upon something; because\nforce must be active, or it is not force; and if it has no matter to\nact upon, it ceases to be force.  I cannot conceive of the smallest\natom of matter staying together without force. Beside, if some god made\nall this, there must have been some morning when he commenced!  And if\nhe has existed always, there is an eternity back of that when he never\ndid anything; when he lived in an infinite hole, without side, top or\nbottom!  He did not think, for there was nothing to think about.\nCertainly he did not remember, for nothing had ever happened.  Now I\ncannot conceive of this! I do not say it is not so.  I may be damned\nfor my smartness, yet--I simply say I cannot conceive of it, that is\nall.  But men tell me, you cannot conceive of eternity!  That is just\nwhat I can conceive of.  I cannot conceive of its stopping.  They say I\ncannot conceive of infinite space!  That is just what I can conceive\nof; because, let me imagine all I can, my imagination will stand upon\nthe verge and see infinite space beyond.  Infinite space is a necessity\nof the mind, because I cannot think of enough matter to fill it.\nEternity is a necessity of the mind, because I cannot dream of the\ncessation of time.  But they say there is a design in the world,\nconsequently there must be a designer. Well, I don't know.\n\nPaley says that the more wonderful a thing is, the greater the\nnecessity for creation; that a watch is a wonderful thing, and that it\nmust have had a creator; that the watchmaker is more wonderful than the\nwatch, therefore he must have had a creator. Then we come to God; He is\naltogether more wonderful than the watchmaker, therefore He had no\ncreator.  There is a link out somewhere; I don't pretend to understand\nit.  And so I say, that had the world been any other way, you would\nhave seen the same evidence of design, precisely.  We grow up with our\nconditions, and you cannot imagine of a first cause.  Why?  Every cause\nhas an effect.\n\nStrike your hands together; they feel warm.  The effect becomes a cause\ninstantly, and that cause produces another effect, and the effect\nanother cause; and there could not have been a cause until there was an\neffect.  Because until there was an effect, nothing had been caused;\nuntil something had been caused, I am positive there was no cause.  Now\nyou cannot conceive of a lost effect, because the lost effect of which\nyou can think, will in turn become a cause and that cause produce\nanother effect.  And as you cannot think of a lost effect, you cannot\nthink of a first cause; it is not thinkable by the human mind.\n\nThey say God governs this world.  Why does He not govern Russia as well\nas He does Massachusetts?  Why does He allow the Czar to send beautiful\ngirls of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, simply for saying a word in\nfavor of human liberty, to mines in Siberia, where they draw carts with\nknees bruised and bleeding, with hands scarred and swollen?  What is\nthat God worth that allows such things in the world He governs?  Did He\ngovern this country when it had four millions of slaves?--when it\nturned the cross of Christ into a whipping-post--when the holy bible\nwas an auction-block on which the mother stood while her babe was sold\nfrom her breast?--when bloodhounds were considered apostles?  Was God\ngoverning the world when the prisoners were confined in the Bastille?\nIt seems to me, if there is a God, and someone would repeat the word\n\"Bastille.\" it would cover almost his face with the blood of shame.\nBut they say heaven will balance all the ills of life.  Let us see:  A\nlarge majority of us are sinners--at least a large majority with whom I\nam acquainted; and a majority of the Christians with whom I am\nacquainted are worse than sinners.  And if their doctrine is true, you\nwill be astonished at the gentlemen you will see in hell that day.  You\nwill know by the cast of their countenance that they used to preach\nhere.  They say that it may be that the sinners here have a very good\ntime, and that the Christians don't have a very good time; that it is\nawful hard work to serve the Lord, and that you carry a cross when you\ndeny yourself the delights of murder and forgery, and all manner of\nrascality that fills life with delight.  But they say that while the\nrascals are having a good time, they will catch it in the other world.\nBut, according to their account, ninety-nine out of a hundred will be\ndamned, and I think it will be a close call for the hundredth.  Like\nthat dear old Scotch woman, when she was talking about the Presbyterian\nfaith, some one said to her:  \"My dear woman, if your doctrine is true,\nnobody but you and your husband will be saved.\"  \"Ah,\" said she,  \"I'm\nna' sae sure about John.\"  About one in a hundred will be saved, and\nthe other ninety-nine will be in misery.  So that on the average there\nwill not be half as much happiness in the next world as in this.  So,\ninstead of God's plan getting better, it gets worse; and throughout all\nthe ages of eternity there will be less happiness than in this world.\nThis world is a school; this world is where we develop moral muscle.\nIt may be that we are here simply because men cannot advance only\nthrough agony and pain. If it is necessary to have pain and agony to\nadvance morally, then nobody can advance in heaven.  Hell will be the\nonly place offering opportunities to any gentleman who wishes to\nincrease his moral muscle.\n\nA gentleman once asked me if I could suggest any improvement on the\npresent order of things, if I had the power.  Well, said I, in the\nfirst place, I would make good health catching instead of disease.\nThere will be no humanity until we get the orthodox God out of our\nreligion.  I want to do what little I can to put another one in God's\nname, so that we will worship a supreme human god, so that we will\nworship mercy, justice, love and truth, and not have the idea that we\nmust sacrifice our brother upon the altar of fear to please some\nimaginary phantom. See what Christianity has done for the world!  It\nhas reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a hand organ and Ireland to\nexile.  That is what religion has done.  Take every country in the\nwhole world, and the country that has got the least religion is the\nmost prosperous, and the country that has got the most religion is in\nthe worst condition.\n\nIn the vast cemetery, called the past, are most of the religions of men\nand there, too, are nearly all their gods.\n\nThe sacred temples of India were ruins long ago.  Over column and\ncornice; over the painted and pictured walls, cling and creep the\ntrailing vines.  Brahma, the golden, with four heads and four arms;\nVishnu, the sombre, the punisher of the wicked, with his three eyes,\nhis crescent, and his necklace of skulls; Siva, the destroyer, red with\nseas of blood; Kali, the goddess; Draupadi, the white-armed, and\nChrishna, the Christ, all passed away and left the thrones of heaven\ndesolate.  Along the banks of the sacred Nile, Iris no longer wandering\nweeps, searching for the dead Osiris.  The shadow of Typhon's scowl\nfalls no more upon the waves.  The sun rises as of yore, and his golden\nbeams still smite the lips of Memnon, but Memnon is as voiceless as the\nSphinx.  The sacred fanes are lost in desert sands; the dusty mummies\nare still waiting for the resurrection promised by their priests, and\nthe old beliefs wrought in curiously sculptured stone, sleep in the\nmystery of a language lost and dead Odin, the author of life and soul,\nVili and Ve, and the mighty giant Ymir, strode long ago from the ice\nhalls of the North; and Thor, with iron glove and glittering hammer,\ndashes mountains to the earth no more.\n\nBroken are the circles and the cromlechs of the ancient Druids; fallen\nupon the summits of the hills, and covered with the centuries' moss are\nthe sacred cairns.  The divine fires of Persia and of the Aztecs have\ndied out in the ashes of the past, and there is none to rekindle, and\nnone to feed the holy flames. The harp of Orpheus is still; the drained\ncup of Bacchus has been thrown aside; Venus lies dead in stone, and her\nwhite bosom heaves no more with love.  The streams still murmur, but no\nnaiads bathe; the trees still wave, but in the forest aisles no dryads\ndance.  The gods have flown from high Olympus.  Not even the beautiful\nwomen can lure them back, and Danae lies unnoticed, naked to the stars.\nHushed forever are the thunders of Sinai; lost are the voices of the\nprophets, and the lard once flowing with milk and honey is but a desert\nwaste.  One 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 man is the natural remains.  The gods have fled, but man is here.\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 with 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\nour 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 sceptre 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 Jehovah sits upon the old throne. Who will be His\nsuccessor?\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's lecture on The Religion of Our Day\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:--I am glad that I have lived long enough to see\none gentleman in the pulpit brave enough to say that God would not be\noffended at one who speaks according to the dictates of his conscience;\nwho does not believe that God will give wings to a bird, and then damn\nthe bird for flying.  I thank the pastor and I thank the church for\nallowing its pastor to be so brave.\n\nI admit that thousands and thousands of church people, with their\npastors and the deacons, are today advocating religious principles that\nthey deem right and good.  I honor these men, but I do not believe that\ntheir method is a good one.  I do not want these people to forgive me\nfor the views I entertain, but I want them so to act that I will not\nhave to forgive them.  I am the friend of every one who preaches the\ngospel of absolute intellectual liberty, and that man is my friend.\n\nIs there a God who says that if man does so and so He will damn him?\nCan there be such a fiend?  I am not responsible to man unless I injure\nhim; nor to God unless I injure Him, but one cannot injure God, for \"He\nis infinite.\"\n\nWhen I was young I was told that the bible was inspired, written by\nGod, that even the lids of the book were inspired.  They say He is a\npersonal God; if so, He has not revealed Himself to me. There may be\nmany gods. As I look around I see that justice does not prevail, that\ninnocence is not always effectual and a perfect shield.  If there be a\nGod these things could not be.  If God made us all, why did He not make\nus all equally well.  He had the power of an infinite god.  Why did God\npeople the earth with so many idiots?  I admit that orthodoxy could not\nexist without them, but why did God make them?  If we believe the bible\nthen He should have made us all idiots, for the orthodox Christian says\nthe idiots will not be damned, simply transplanted, while the sensible\nman, who believeth not, will be sent to eternal damnation?  If there is\nany God that made us, what right had He to make idiots?  Is a man with\na head like a pin under any obligation to thank God?  Is the black man,\nborn in slavery, under any obligation to thank God for his badge of\nservitude?\n\nWhat kind of a God is it that will allow men and women to be put in\ndungeons and chains simply because they loved Him and prayed to Him?\nAnd what kind of a God is it that will allow such men and women to be\nburned at the stake?  If God won't love such men and women, then under\nwhat circumstances will he love?\n\nFamine stalks over the land and millions die, not only the bad but the\ngood, and there in the heavens above sits an infinite God who can do\nanything, can change the rocks and the stones, and yet these millions\ndie.  I do not say there is no God, but I do ask, what is God doing?\nLook at the agony, and wretchedness and woe all over the land.  Is\nthere goodness, is there mercy in this?  I do not say there is not, but\nI want to know, and I want to know if a man is to be damned for asking\nthe question?\n\n(He eloquently recited the agonies that clustered around the French\nBastille, where great men and heroic women suffered and died for loving\nliberty, and said:  If there is a God, I think that one word, Bastille,\nwould bring the blush of shame to His face.)\n\nI find that the men who have received revelation are the worst; and\nthat where the bible goes there go the sword and the fagot. If an\ninfinite God makes a revelation to me He knows how I will understand\nit.  If God wrote the bible he knew that no two people would understand\nit alike.\n\nWhen I read the bible I found that God in His infinite wisdom couldn't\ncontrol the people He had created and that He had to drown them.  If I\nhad infinite power and couldn't make a people that I could control and\nhad to drown them, why I'd resign.\n\nThen I read in the bible such cruel things, and I do not believe that\nGod can be cruel.  Such cruelty may make one afraid, but cannot inspire\nlove.  I can't love a god that will inflict pain and sorrow, and I\nwon't.\n\nThe preachers say all unbelievers will go to hell--tidings of great\njoy. When I confront them they--say I'm taking away their consolation.\nThe old bible does not mention hell or heaven.  Now God should have\nnotified Adam and Cain of hell, but He didn't. When He came to drown\nall those people He didn't tell a single one that He would drown him.\nHe talked all about water--nothing about fire.  When He came down on\nMount Sinai, and told Moses how to cut out clothes for a priest, He\nnever said one word on the subject.  When God gave Moses the ten\ncommandments, engraved on stone, there He said not one word about hell.\nThere was plenty of room on the stone; why did He not add:  \"If you\ndon't keep these commandments you will be damned.\"  Through all these\nages, when God was talking all the time, and when every howling prophet\nhad His ear, not one word did He utter of hell or heaven.  For 4,000\nyears God got along without mentioning those places or even hinting of\nthem.  It seems to me that we ought to have been notified by Him.\n\n(Here the orator recalled many stories from the old bible and subjected\nthem to keen irony and ridicule.  Reciting the story wherein the she\nbears came out of the woods and tore to pieces the forty children who\nmocked the prophet, he asked:  If God did that, what would the devil\nhave done under the same circumstances?  Why; he said, did not God give\na sure cure for leprosy, unless He wanted to have His chosen people to\nhave that frightful disease?)\n\nDo you believe that God ever told a widow if her brother-in-law refused\nto marry her to spit in his face?  Do you believe any such nonsense\nfrom a god?  I call that courting under difficulties.  (Then Colonel\nIngersoll dwelt pathetically on the sweet, innocent babes eaten up by\nthe lions in the den, after Daniel was rescued from their jaws, and\nasked the question, what kind of a god was it that allowed such\nhorrible deeds?)\n\nThey say that I pick out all the bad things in the bible.  Well, God\nought not to have put bad things in the book.  If you only read the\nbible you will not believe it.  Why, it is such a bad book that it has\nto be supported by legislation.  In Maine and elsewhere they will send\nyou to jail for two years if you deny the bible or the judgment day.\n\nNo, we are told we must not only believe in the God we have been\ntalking about, but must also believe in another one.\n\nLet us look at the church today.  The orthodox church--that is, all but\nthe Universalist.  He is trying to be orthodox, but he can't get in.\nThe God of the Universalists, to say the least, is a gentleman.\n\nNow, what is this religion?  To believe certain things that we may be\nsaved, that we won't be damned.  What are they? First, that the old and\nnew testament are inspired.  No matter how kind, how just a man may be,\nunless he believes in the inspiration, he will be damned.\n\nSecond, he must believe in the trinity.  That there are three in one.\nThat father and son are precisely of the same age, the son, possibly, a\nlittle mite older; that three times one is one, and that once one is\nthree.  It is a mercy you don't know how to understand it, but you must\nbelieve it or be damned.  Therein you see the mercy of the Lord.  This\ntrinity doctrine was announced several hundred years after Christ was\nborn:  Do you believe such a doctrine will make a man good or honest?\nWill it make him more just?  Is the man that believes any better than\nthe man who does not believe?  How is it with nations?  Look at Spain,\nthe last slave-holder in the civilized world; she's christian, she\nbelieves in the trinity!  And Italy, the beggar of the world. Under the\nrule of priestcraft money streamed in from every land and yet she did\nnot advance.  Today she is reduced to a hand-organ.  Take poor Ireland,\ngroaning under the heel of British oppression; could she cast off her\npriests she would soon be one with America in freedom.\n\nProtestantism is better than Catholicism, because there is less of it.\nBoth dread education.  They say they brought the arts and sciences out\nof the dark ages; why, they made the dark ages and what did they\npreserve?  Nothing of value, only an account of events that never\nhappened.  What did they teach the world! Slavery!\n\nThe best country the sun ever shown upon is the northern part of the\nUnited States, and there you will find less religion than anywhere else\non the face of the earth.  You will find here more people that don't\nbelieve the bible, and you will find better husbands, better wives,\nhappier homes, where the women are most respected and where the\nchildren get less blows and more huggings and kissings.  We have\nimproved just as we lost this religion and this superstition.\n\nGreat Britain is the religious nation par excellence, and there you\nwill find the most cant and most hypocrisy.  They are always thanking\nGod that they have killed somebody.  Look at the opium war with China.\nThey forced the Chinese to open their ports and receive the deadly\ndrug, and then had the impudence to send a lot of driveling idiots of\nmissionaries into China.\n\nGo around the world, and where you find the least superstition, there\nyou will find the best men, the best women, the best children.  Two\npowerful levers are at work; love and intelligence.  The true test of a\nman is generosity, that covers a multitude of sins.\n\nThey have got so now they damn a man on a technicality.  You must be\nbaptized by immersion, sprinkling or pouring.  If you come to the day\nof judgment and can't show the watermark, you're damned!\n\nWhat more:  That a fellow named Adam, whom you don't know and never\nvoted for, is your representative.  You are charged with his sins.\nEqually abused is the doctrine of atonement, that you are created with\nthe sacrifice of another.  If Christ had more virtue than Adam had\nmeanness, then you are ahead.\n\nAtonement is the corner-stone of the Christian religion.  But there is\none great objection.  It saves the wrong man, and it is not honest.\n(In holding up the atonement to ridicule the orator said:  \"If Judas\nhad failed to betray Christ, the mother of Christ would be in hell\ntoday.\" Then he ridiculed the miracles recorded in the new testament,\npronounced them absurdities.  He said that the four apostolic writers\nwere very contradictory in their statements, and did not even agree as\nto the last word of this great man.)\n\nThe ascension was the most striking, the grandest of the miracles, if\ntrue, yet the ascension is only recorded by two of these writers.  If\nHe was God, I know he will forgive somebody for not believing the\nmiracles, unless convinced.\n\nAnother contradiction in the book:  in one gospel the condition of\nsalvation is \"whosoever believeth shall not be damned,\" and in another\nwe are promised that if we forgive our enemies God will forgive us--and\nthere's sense in this last promise.  The first I believe a lie--it was\nnever spoken by God.\n\nChrist said:  Love your enemies.  Nobody can do that.  The doctrine of\nConfucius is sound--to love one's friends and to do justice to one's\nenemies without any mixture of revenge.\n\nIf Christ was God, did He not know on His cross what crimes would be\ndone in His name?  Why didn't He settle all disputes about the trinity\nand about baptism?  Why didn't He post His disciples? Because He could\nno more see into the future than I can.  Only in this way can you\nacquit him of the crimes committed in His name. The way to save our own\nsouls is to save another soul.  God can't turn into hell a man who\nmakes on this earth a little heaven for himself, wife and babes.\n\nAny minister who preaches the doctrine of hell ought to be ashamed.  I\nwant, if I can while I live, to put an end to all belief in this\ninfamous doctrine.  That doctrine has done incalculable harm, wrought\nincalculable injury.  I despise it, and I defy it.\n\nThe orthodox church says that religion does good; that it restrains\ncrime.  It restrains a man from artificial, not from natural crimes.  A\nman can be made so religious that he will not eat meat on Friday, yet\nhe will steal.\n\nDid you ever hear of a tramp coming to town and inquiring where the\ndeacon of the Presbyterian church lived.\n\nThe bible says consider the lilies.  What good would it do a naked man\nstanding out in the bitter blasts of this night to consider the lilies.\n\nWhat is the social position of a man in heaven who through all eternity\nremembers that if he had had a grain of courage he would never have\nbeen there.\n\nThe realization of our day does not satisfy the intelligence of the\npeople--the people have outgrown it.  It shocks us and we have got to\nhave another religion. We must have a religion of charity; one that\nwill do away with poverty, close the prisons and cover this world with\nhomes.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Heretics and Heresies\n\n\"Liberty, a word without which--All other words are vain.\"\n\n\nWhoever has an opinion of his own, and honestly expresses it, will be\nguilty of heresy.  Heresy is what the minority believe; it is a name\ngiven by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak. This word was born\nof the hatred, arrogance, and cruelty of those who love their enemies,\nand who, when smitten on one cheek, turn the other.  This word was born\nof intellectual slavery in the feudal ages of thought.  It was an\nepithet used in the place of argument.  From the commencement of the\nChristian era, every art has been exhausted, and every conceivable\npunishment inflicted to force all people to hold the same religious\nopinions.  This effort was born of the idea that a certain belief was\nnecessary to the salvation of the soul.  Christ taught, and the church\nstill teaches, that unbelief is the blackest of crimes.  God is\nsupposed to hate with an infinite and implacable hatred, every heretic\nupon the earth, and the heretics who have died are supposed, at this\nmoment, to be suffering the agonies of the damned.  The church\npersecutes the living, and her God burns the dead.\n\nIt is claimed that God wrote a book called the bible, and it is\ngenerally admitted that this book is somewhat difficult to understand.\nAs long as the church had all the copies of this book, and the people\nwere not allowed to read it, there was comparatively little heresy in\nthe world; but when it was printed and read, people began honestly to\ndiffer as to its meaning.  A few were independent and brave enough to\ngive the world their real thoughts, and for the extermination of these\nmen the church used all her power.  Protestants and Catholics vied with\neach other in the work of enslaving the human mind.  For ages they were\nrivals in the infamous effort to rid the earth of honest people.  They\ninfested every country, every city, town, hamlet, and family.  They\nappealed to the worst passions of the human heart.  They sowed the\nseeds of discord and hatred in every land.  Brother denounced brother,\nwives informed against their husbands, mothers accused their children,\ndungeons were crowded with the innocent; the flesh of the good and true\nrotted in the clasp of chains, the flames devoured the heroic, and in\nthe name of the most merciful God, his children were exterminated with\nfamine, sword and fire.  Over the wild waves of battle rose and fell\nthe banner of Jesus Christ.  For sixteen hundred years the robes of the\nchurch were red with innocent blood.  The ingenuity of Christians was\nexhausted in devising punishment severe enough to be inflicted upon\nother Christians who honestly and sincerely differed with them upon any\npoint whatever.\n\nGive any orthodox church the power, and today they would punish heresy\nwith whip, and chain, and fire.  As long as a church deemed a certain\nbelief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it\nhas the power.  Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates?\nWhy should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will\nburn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God?\nIt is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity\nthan has been perpetrated by the church.  Let it be remembered that all\nchurches have persecuted heretics to the extent of their power. Every\nnerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched\nby the church.  Toleration has increased only when and where the power\nof the church has diminished.  From Augustine until now the spirit of\nthe Christian has remained the same. There has been the same\nintolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves,\nthe same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge\ninconsistent with the ignorant creed.\n\nEvery church pretends that it has a revelation from God, and that this\nrevelation must be given to the people through the church; that the\nchurch acts through its priests, and that ordinary mortals must be\ncontent with a revelation--not from God--but from the church.  Had the\npeople submitted to this preposterous claim, of course there could have\nbeen but one church, and that church never could have advanced.  It\nmight have retrograded, because it is not necessary to think, or\ninvestigate, in order to forget. Without heresy there could have been\nno progress.\n\nThe highest type of the orthodox christian does not forget. Neither\ndoes he learn.  He neither advances nor recedes.  He is a living\nfossil, imbedded in that rock called faith.  He makes no effort to\nbetter his condition, because all his strength is exhausted in keeping\nother people from improving theirs.  The supreme desire of his heart is\nto force all others to adopt his creed, and in order to accomplish this\nobject, he denounces all kinds of free thinking as a crime, and this\ncrime he calls heresy.  When he had the power, heresy was the most\nterrible and formidable of words.  It meant confiscation, exile,\nimprisonment, torture, and death.\n\nIn those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across\nthe open bible lay the sword and fagot.  Not content with burning such\nheretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the\nchurch might rob their wives and children.  The property of all\nheretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead\nwith being heretical--indicted, as it were, their dust--to the end that\nthe church might clutch the bread of orphans.  Learned divines\ndiscussed propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they\nwere burned, and the general opinion was that this ought to be done, so\nthat the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock\nthe christians who were burning them.  With a mixture of ferocity and\nchristianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at\na slow fire, giving as a reason, that more time was given them for\nrepentance.\n\nNo wonder that Jesus Christ said, \"I came not to bring peace but a\nsword!\"\n\nEvery priest regarded himself as the agent of God.  He answered all\nquestions by authority, and to treat him with disrespect was an insult\noffered to God.  No one was asked to think, but all were commanded to\nobey.\n\nIn 1208 the inquisition was established.  Seven years afterward; the\nfourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an\noath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions.  The\nsword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of\nignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies\nthey inflicted.  Acting as they believed, or pretended to believe under\nthe command of God, stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in\nanother world--hating heretics with every drop of their bastille\nblood--savage beyond description--merciless beyond conception--these\ninfamous priests in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless\nvictims of their rage.  They crushed their bones in iron boots, tore\ntheir quivering flesh with iron hooks and pinchers, cut off their lips\nand eyelids, pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust\nneedles, tore out their tongues, extinguished their eyes, stretched\nthem upon racks, flayed them alive, crucified them with their head\ndownward, exposed them to wild beasts, burned them at the stake, mocked\ntheir cries and groans, ravished their wives, robbed their children,\nand then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell.\n\nMillions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of bigotry.  The\nCatholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran burned the Catholic; the\nEpiscopalian tortured the Presbyterian, the Presbyterian tortured the\nEpiscopalian.   Every denomination killed all it could of every other;\nand each Christian felt it duty bound to exterminate every other\nChristian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed.\n\nIn the reign of Henry the VIII., that pious and moral founder of the\nApostolic Episcopal church, there was passed by the Parliament of\nEngland an act entitled, \"An act for abolishing of diversity of\nopinion.\"  And in this act was set forth what a good Christian was\nobliged to believe.\n\nFirst, that in the sacrament was the real body and blood of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nSecond, that the body and blood of Jesus Christ was in the bread, and\nthe blood and body of Jesus Christ was in the wine.\n\nThird, that priests should not marry.\n\nFourth, that vows of chastity were of perpetual obligation.\n\nFifth, that private masses ought to be continued.\n\nAnd sixth, that auricular confession to a priest must be maintained.\n\nThis creed was made by law, in order that all men might know just what\nto believe by simply reading the statute.  The church hated to see the\npeople wearing out their brains in thinking upon these subjects.  It\nwas thought far better that a creed should be made by Parliament, so\nthat whatever might be lacking in evidence might be made up in force.\nThe punishment for denying the first article was death by fire.  For\nthe denial of any other article, imprisonment, and for the second\noffense--death.\n\nYour attention is called to these six articles, established during the\nreign of Henry VIII, and by the Church of England, simply because not\none of these articles is believed by that church today.  If the law\nthen made by the church could be enforced now, every Episcopalian would\nbe burned at the stake.\n\nSimilar laws were passed in most Christian countries, as all orthodox\nchurches firmly believed that mankind could be legislated into heaven.\nAccording to the creed of every church, slavery leads to heaven,\nliberty leads to hell.  It was claimed that God had founded the church,\nand that to deny the authority of the church was to be a traitor to\nGod, and consequently an ally of the devil.  To torture and destroy one\nof the soldiers of Satan was a duty no good Christian cared to neglect.\nNothing can be sweeter than to earn the gratitude of God by killing\nyour own enemies.  Such a mingling of profit and revenge, of heaven for\nyourself and damnation for those you dislike, is a temptation that your\nordinary Christian never resists.\n\nAccording to the theologians, God, the father of us all wrote a letter\nto His children.  The children have always differed somewhat as to the\nmeaning of this letter.  In consequence of these honest differences,\nthese brothers began to cut out each other's hearts.  In every land,\nwhere this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for\nwhom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice.  They have\nimprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each\nother. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed,\nevery conceivable outrage has been perpetrated.  Brave men, tender and\nloving women, beautiful girls, prattling babes have been exterminated\nin the name of Jesus Christ.  For more than fifty generations the\nchurch has carried the black flag.  Her vengeance has been measured\nonly by her power.  During all these years of infamy no heretic has\never been forgiven.  With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the\nclutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of a dragon she has\ndevoured, pitiless as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of\na serpent. Such is the history of the church of God.\n\nI do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are as bad as their\ncreeds.  In spite of church and dogma, there have been millions and\nmillions of men and women true to the loftiest and most generous\npromptings of the human heart.  They have been true to their\nconvictions, and with a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none,\nhave labored and suffered for the salvation of men.  Imbued with the\nspirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort they could\nrescue at least a few souls from the infinite shadow of hell, they have\ncheerfully endured every hardship and scorned danger and death.  And\nyet, notwithstanding all this, they believed that honest error was a\ncrime.  They knew that the bible so declared, and they believed that\nall unbelievers would be eternally lost.  They believed that religion\nwas of God, and all heresy of the devil.  They killed heretics in\ndefense of their own souls and the souls of their children.  They\nkilled them, because, according to their idea, they were the enemies of\nGod, and because the bible teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is\na most acceptable sacrifice to heaven.\n\nNature never prompted a loving mother to throw her child into the\nGanges.  Nature never prompted men to exterminate each other for a\ndifference of opinion concerning the baptism of infants.  These crimes\nhave been produced by religions filled with all that is illogical,\ncruel and hideous.  These religions were produced for the most part by\nignorance, tyranny, and hypocrisy.  Under the impression that the\ninfinite ruler and creator of the universe had commanded the\ndestruction of heretics and infidels, the church perpetrated all these\ncrimes.\n\nMen and women have been burned for thinking that there was but one God;\nthat there was none; that the Holy Ghost is younger than God; that God\nwas somewhat older than his Son; for insisting that good works will\nsave a man, without faith; that faith will do without good works; for\ndeclaring that a sweet babe will not be barred eternally, because its\nparents failed to have its head wet by a priest; for speaking of God as\nthough He had a nose; for denying that Christ was His own father; for\ncontending that three persons, rightly added together, make more than\none; for believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell; for\npretending that priests can forgive sins; for preaching that God is an\nessence; for denying that witches rode through the air on sticks; for\ndoubting the total depravity of the human heart; for laughing at\nirresistible grace, predestination, and particular redemption; for\ndenying that good bread could be made of the body of a dead man; for\npretending that the Pope was not managing this world for God, and in\nplace of God, for disputing the efficacy of a vicarious atonement; for\nthinking that the Virgin Mary was born like other people; for thinking\nthat a man's rib was hardly sufficient to make a good sized woman; for\ndenying that God used His finger for a pen; for asserting that prayers\nare not answered, that diseases are not set to punish unbelief; for\ndenying the authority of the bible; for having a bible in their\npossession; for attending mass, and for refusing to attend, for wearing\na surplice; for carrying a cross, and for refusing; for being a\nCatholic, and for being a Protestant, for being an Episcopalian, a\nPresbyterian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker.  In short, every\nvirtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue.  The church has\nburned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy, and all this she did because it\nwas commanded by a book--a book that men had been taught implicitly to\nbelieve, long before they knew one word that was in it.  They had been\ntaught that to doubt the truth of this book, to examine it, even, was a\ncrime of such enormity that it could not be forgiven, either in this\nworld or in the next.\n\nThe bible was the real persecutor.  The bible burned heretics, built\ndungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties\nof men.\n\nHow long, O how long will mankind worship a book?  How long will they\ngrovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past?\nHow long, O how long will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper\nthan death?\n\nUnfortunately for the world, about the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury a man by the name of Gerard Chauvin was married to Jeanne\nLefranc, and still more unfortunately for the world, the fruit of this\nmarriage was a son, called John Chauvin, who afterward became famous as\nJohn Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian church.\n\nThis man forged five fetters for the brain.  These fetters he called\npoints.  That is to say, predestination, particular redemption, total\ndepravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.\nAbout the neck of each follower he put a collar, bristling with these\nfive iron points.  The presence of all these points on the collar is\nstill the test of orthodoxy in the church he founded.  This man, when\nin the flush of youth, was elected to the office of preacher in Geneva.\nHe at once, in union with Farel, drew up a condensed statement of the\nPresbyterian doctrine, and all the citizens of Geneva, on pain of\nbanishment, were compelled to take an oath that they, believed this\nstatement.  Of this proceeding Calvin very innocently remarked, that it\nproduced great satisfaction.  A man by the name of Caroli had the\naudacity to dispute with Calvin.  For this outrage he was banished.\n\nTo show you what great subjects occupied the attention of Calvin, it is\nonly necessary to state, that he furiously discussed the question, as\nto whether the sacramental bread should be leavened or unleavened.  He\ndrew up laws regulating the cut of the citizens' clothes, and\nprescribed their diet, and all whose garments were not in the Calvin\nfashion were refused the sacrament.  At last, the people becoming tired\nof this petty, theological tyranny, banished Calvin.  In a few years,\nhowever, he was recalled and received with great enthusiasm.  After\nthis, he was supreme, and the will of Calvin became the law of Geneva.\nUnder the benign administration of Calvin, James Gruet was beheaded\nbecause he had written some profane verses.  The slightest word against\nCalvin or his absurd doctrine was punished as a crime.\n\nIn 1553, a man was tried at Vienne by the Catholic church for heresy.\nHe was convicted and sentenced to death by burning.  It was his good\nfortune to escape.  Pursued by the sleuth hounds of intolerance he fled\nto Geneva for protection.  A dove flying from hawks, sought safety in\nthe nest of a vulture.  This fugitive from the cruelty of Rome asked\nshelter from John Calvin, who had written a book in favor of religious\ntoleration.   Servetus had forgotten that this book was written by\nCalvin when in the minority; that it was written in weakness to be\nforgotten in power; that it was produced by fear instead of principle.\nHe did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest at Vienne, in France,\nand had sent a copy of his work, which was claimed to be blasphemous to\nthe archbishop.  He did not then know that the Protestant, Calvin, was\nacting as one of the detectives of the Catholic church, and had been\ninstrumental in procuring his conviction for heresy.  Ignorant of all\nthis unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the power of this very\nCalvin.  The maker of the Presbyterian creed caused the fugitive\nServetus to be arrested for blasphemy.  He was tried; Calvin was his\naccuser. He was convicted and condemned to death by fire.  On the\nmorning of the fatal day, Calvin saw him; and Servetus, the victim,\nasked forgiveness of Calvin, the murderer, for anything he might have\nsaid that had wounded his feelings.  Servetus was bound to the stake,\nthe fagots were lighted.  The wind carried the flames somewhat away\nfrom his body, so that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he implored\na speedy death.  At last the flame climbed around his form; through\nsmoke and fire his murderers saw a white, heroic face.  And there they\nwatched until a man became a charred and shriveled mass.\n\nLiberty was banished from Geneva, and nothing but Presbyterianism was\nleft; honor, justice, mercy, reason and charity were all exiled; but\nthe five points of predestination, particular redemption, irresistible\ngrace, total depravity, and the certain perseverance of the saints\nremained instead.\n\nCalvin founded a little theocracy in Geneva, modeled after the old\ntestament, and succeeded in erecting the most detestable government\nthat ever existed, except the one from which it was copied.\n\nAgainst all this intolerance, one man, a minister, raised his voice.\nThe name of this man should never be forgotten.  It was Castellio.\nThis brave man had the goodness and the courage to declare the\ninnocence of honest error.  He was the first of the so-called reformers\nto take this noble ground.  I wish I had the genius to pay a fitting\ntribute to his memory.  Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a\ngrander compliment than to say, Castellio was in all things the\nopposite of Calvin.  To plead for the right of individual judgment was\nconsidered as a crime, and Castellio was driven from Geneva by John\nCalvin.  By him he was denounced as a child of the devil, as a dog of\nSatan, as a beast from hell, and as one who, by this horrid blasphemy\nof the innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh, and by him\nhe was pursued until rescued by the hand of death.\n\nUpon the name of Castellio, Calvin heaved every epithet, until his\nmalice was satisfied and his imagination exhausted.  It is impossible\nto conceive how human nature can become so frightfully perverted as to\npursue a fellow-man with the malignity of a fiend, simply because he is\ngood, just and generous.\n\nCalvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable,\ngloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless and infamous.  He\nwas a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness,\nferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice.\nIn other words, he was as near like the God of the old testament as his\nHealth permitted.\n\nThe best thing, however, about the Presbyterians of Geneva was, that\nthey denied the power of the Pope, and the best thing about the Pope\nwas, that he was not a Presbyterian.\n\nThe doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly, and were eagerly accepted by\nmultitudes on the continent.  But Scotland, in a few years, became the\nreal fortress of Presbyterianism.  The Scotch rivaled the adherents of\nCalvin, and succeeded in establishing the same kind of theocracy that\nflourished in Geneva.  The clergy took possession and control of\neverybody and everything.  It is impossible to exaggerate the slavery,\nthe mental degradation, the abject superstition of the people of\nScotland during the reign of Presbyterianism.  Heretics were hunted and\ndevoured as though they had been wild beasts.  The gloomy insanity of\nPresbyterianism took possession of a great majority of the people.\nThey regarded their ministers as the Jews did Moses and Aaron.  They\nbelieved that they were the especial agents of God, and that whatsoever\nthey bound in Scotland would be bound in heaven.  There was not one\nparticle of intellectual freedom.  No one was allowed to differ from\nthe church, or to even contradict a priest.  Had Presbyterianism\nmaintained its ascendancy, Scotland would have been peopled by savages\ntoday.  The revengeful spirit of Calvin took possession of the Puritans\nand caused them to redden the soil of the new world with the brave\nblood of honest men.  Clinging to the five points of Calvin, they, too,\nestablished governments in accordance with the teachings of the old\ntestament. They, too, attached the penalty of death to the expression\nof honest thought.  They, too, believed their church supreme, and\nexerted all their power to curse this continent with a spiritual\ndespotism as infamous as it was absurd.  They believed with Luther that\nuniversal toleration is universal error, and universal error is\nuniversal hell. Toleration was denounced as a crime.  Fortunately for\nus, civilization has had a softening effect upon the Presbyterian\nchurch.  To the ennobling influence of the arts and science the savage\nspirit of Calvinism has, in some slight degree, succumbed. True, the\nold creed remains substantially as it was written, but by a kind of\ntacit understanding it has come to be regarded as a relic of the past.\nThe cry of \"heresy\" has been growing fainter and fainter, and, as a\nconsequence, the ministers of that denomination have ventured now and\nthen to express doubts as to the damnation of infants, and the doctrine\nof total depravity. The fact is, the old ideas became a little\nmonotonous to the people.  The fall of man, the scheme of redemption\nand irresistible grace, began to have a familiar sound.  The preachers\ntold the old stories while the congregation slept. Some of the\nministers became tired of these stories themselves. The five points\ngrew dull, and they felt that nothing short of irresistible grace could\nbear this endless repetition.  The outside world was full of progress,\nand in every direction men advanced, while the church, anchored to a\ncreed, idly rotted at the shore.  Other denominations, imbued some\nlittle with the spirit of investigation, were springing up on every\nside, while the old Presbyterian ark rested on the Ararat of the past,\nfilled with the theological monsters of another age.\n\nLured by the splendors of the outer world, tempted by the achievements\nof science, longing to feel the throw and beat of the mighty march of\nthe human race, a few of the ministers of this conservative\ndenomination were compelled by irresistible sense, to say a few words\nin harmony with the splendid ideas of today.\n\nThese utterances have upon several occasions so nearly awakened some of\nthe members, that, rubbing their eyes, they have feebly inquired\nwhether these grand ideas were not somewhat heretical? These ministers\nfound that just in proportion as their orthodoxy decreased, their\ncongregations increased.  Those who dealt in the pure unadulterated\narticle, found themselves demonstrating the five points to a less\nnumber of hearers than they had points. Stung to madness by this bitter\ntruth, this galling contrast, this harassing fact, the really orthodox\nhave raised the cry of heresy, and expect with this cry to seal the\nlips of honest men. One of these ministers, and one who has been\nenjoying the luxury of a little honest thought, and the real rapture of\nexpressing it, has already been indicted, and is about to be tried by\nthe Presbytery of Illinois.\n\nHe has been charged:\n\nFirst.  With speaking in an ambiguous language in relation to that dear\nold doctrine of the fall of man.  With having neglected to preach that\nmost comforting and consoling truth, the eternal damnation of the soul.\n\nSurely, that man must be a monster who could wish to blot this blessed\ndoctrine out and rob earth's wretched children of this blissful hope!\n\nWho can estimate the misery that has been caused by this most infamous\ndoctrine of eternal punishment?  Think of the lives it has blighted--of\nthe tears it has caused--of the agony it has produced.  Think of the\nmillions who have been driven to insanity by this most terrible of\ndogmas.  This doctrine renders God the basest and most cruel being in\nthe universe.  Compared with him, the most frightful deities of the\nmost barbarous and degraded tribes are miracles of goodness and mercy.\nThere is nothing more degrading than to worship such a God.  Lower than\nthis the soul can never sink.  If the doctrine of eternal damnation is\ntrue, let me have my portion in hell, rather than in heaven with a God\ninfamous enough to inflict eternal misery upon any of the sons of men.\n\nSecond.  With having spoken a few kind words of Robert Collyer and John\nStuart Mill.\n\nI have the honor of a slight acquaintance with Robert Collyer. I have\nread with pleasure some of his exquisite productions.  He has a brain\nfull of the dawn, the head of a philosopher, the imagination of a poet,\nand the sincere heart of a child.\n\nIs a minister to be silenced because he speaks fairly of a noble and\ncandid adversary?  Is it a crime to compliment a lover of justice, an\nadvocate of liberty; one who devoted his life to the elevation of man,\nthe discovery of truth, and the promulgation of what he believed to be\nright?\n\nCan that tongue be palsied by a presbytery that praises a self-denying\nand heroic life?  Is it a sin to speak a charitable word over the grave\nof John Stuart Mill?  Is it heretical to pay a just and graceful\ntribute to departed worth?  Must the true Presbyterian violate the\nsanctity of the tomb, dig open the grave, and ask his God to curse the\nsilent dust? Is Presbyterianism so narrow that it conceives of no\nexcellence, of no purity of intention, of no spiritual and moral\ngrandeur outside of its barbaric creed?  Does it still retain within\nits stony heart all the malice of its founder?  Is it still warming its\nfleshless hands at the flames that consumed Servetus? Does it still\nglory in the damnation of infants, and does it still persist in\nemptying the cradle in order that perdition may be filled?  Is it still\nstarving the soul and famishing the heart?  Is it still trembling and\nshivering, crouching and crawling, before its ignorant confession of\nfaith?  Had such men as Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill been\npresent at the burning of Servetus, they would have extinguished the\nflames with their tears.  Had the Presbytery of Chicago been there,\nthey would have quietly turned their backs, solemnly divided their\ncoat-tails and warmed themselves.\n\nThird.  With having spoken disparagingly of the doctrine of\npredestination.\n\nIf there is any dogma that ought to be protected by law, predestination\nis that doctrine.  Surely it is a cheerful, joyous thing to one who is\nlaboring, struggling and suffering in this weary world, to think that\nbefore he existed, before the earth was, before a star had glittered in\nthe heavens, before a ray of light had left the quiver of the sun, his\ndestiny had been irrevocably fixed, and that for an eternity before his\nbirth he had been doomed to bear eternal pain!\n\nFourth.  With having failed to preach the efficacy of vicarious\nsacrifice.\n\nSuppose a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be\nhanged--the Governor acting as the executioner.  And suppose just as\nthe doomed man was to suffer death, some one in the crowd should step\nforward and say, \"I am willing to die in the place of that murderer.\nHe has a family, and I have none.\"  And suppose further that the\nGovernor should reply, \"Come forward, young man, your offer is\naccepted.  A murder has been committed, and somebody must be hung, and\nyour death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the\nmurderer.\"  What would you then think of the doctrine of  vicarious\nsacrifice?\"\n\nThis doctrine is the consummation of two outrages--forgiving one crime\nand committing another.\n\nFifth.  With having inculcated a phase of the doctrine commonly known\nas \"Evolution\" or \"Development.\"  The church believes and teaches the\nexact opposite of this doctrine.  According to the philosophy of\ntheology, man has continued to degenerate for six thousand years.  To\nteach that there is that in Nature which impels to higher forms and\ngrander ends, is heresy of course. The Deity will damn Spencer and his\n\"Evolution,\" Darwin and his \"Origin of Species,\" Bastin and his\n\"Spontaneous Generation,\" Huxley and his \"Protoplasm,\" Tyndall and his\n\"Prayer Guage,\" and will save those, and those only who declare that\nthe universe has been cursed from the smallest atom to the grandest\nstar; that everything tends to evil, and to that only; and that the\nonly perfect thing in Nature is the Presbyterian confession of faith.\n\nSixth.  With having intimated that the reception of Socrates and\nPenelope at heaven's gate was, to say the least, a trifle more cordial\nthan that of Catherine II.\n\nPenelope waiting patiently and trustfully for her lord's return,\ndelaying her suitors, while sadly weaving and un-weaving the shroud of\nLaertes, is the most perfect type of wife and woman produced by the\ncivilization of Greece.\n\nSocrates, whose life was above reproach, and whose death was beyond all\npraise, stands today, in the estimation of every thoughtful man, at\nleast the peer of Christ.\n\nCatharine II assassinated her husband.  Stepping upon his corpse, she\nmounted the throne.  She was the murderess of Prince Ivan, the\ngrand-nephew of Peter the Great, who was imprisoned for eighteen years,\nand who, during all that time, saw the sky but once.  Taken all in all,\nCatharine was probably one of the most intellectual beasts that ever\nwore a crown.\n\nCatharine, however, was the head of the Greek Church, Socrates was a\nheretic, and Penelope lived and died without having once heard of\n\"particular redemption,\" or \"irresistible grace.\"\n\nSeventh.  With repudiating the idea of a \"call\" to ministry, and\npretending that men were \"called,\" to preach as they were to the other\navocations of life.\n\nIf this doctrine is true, God, to say the least of it, is an\nexceedingly poor judge of human nature.  It is more than a century\nsince a man of true genius has been found in an orthodox pulpit.  Every\nminister is heretical just to the extent that his intellect is above\nthe average. The Lord seems to be satisfied with mediocrity; but the\npeople are not.\n\nAn old deacon, wishing to get rid of an unpopular preacher, advised him\nto give up the ministry, and turn his attention to something else.  The\npreacher replied that he could not conscientiously desert the pulpit,\nas he had a \"call\" to the ministry.  To which the deacon replied, \"That\nmay be so, but it's mighty unfortunate for you that when God called you\nto preach, He forgot to call anybody to hear you.\"\n\nThere is nothing more stupidly egotistic than the claim of the clergy\nthat they are, in some divine sense, set apart to the service of the\nLord; that they have been chosen and sanctified; that there is an\ninfinite difference between them and persons employed in secular\naffairs.  They teach us that all other professions must take care of\nthemselves; that God allows anybody to be a doctor, a lawyer,\nstatesman, soldier, or artist; that the Motts and Coopers--the\nMansfields and Marshalls--the Wilberforces and Sumners--the Angelos and\nRaphaels--were never honored by a \"call.\"  These chose their\nprofessions and won their laurels without the assistance of the Lord.\nAll these men were left free to follow their own inclinations while God\nwas busily engaged selecting and \"calling\" priests, rectors, elders,\nministers and exhorters.\n\nEighth.  With having doubted that God was the author of the 109th Psalm.\n\nThe portion of that Psalm which carries with it the clearest and most\nsatisfactory evidences of inspiration, and which has afforded almost\nunspeakable consolation to the Presbyterian church, is as follows:\n\n\"Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand.\n\n\"When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer\nbecome sin.\n\n\"Let his days be few; and let another take his office.\n\n\"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.\n\n\"Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek\ntheir bread also out of their desolate places.\n\n\"Let the extortioner catch all that he hated; and let the strangers\nspoil his labor.\n\n\"Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be none\nto favor his fatherless children.\n\n\"Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let\ntheir name be blotted out.\n\n\"But do thou for me, O God the Lord, for Thy name's sake; because Thy\nmercy is good, deliver thou me....  I will greatly praise the Lord with\nmy mouth.\"\n\nThink of a God wicked and malicious enough to inspire this prayer.\nThink of one infamous enough to answer it.  Had this inspired Psalm\nbeen found in some temple erected for the worship of snakes, or in the\npossession of some cannibal king, written with blood upon the dried\nskins of babes, there would have been a perfect harmony between its\nsurroundings and its sentiments.\n\nNo wonder that the author of this inspired Psalm coldly received\nSocrates and Penelope, and reserved his sweetest smiles for Catharine\nthe Second!\n\nNinth.  With having said that the battles in which the Israelites\nengaged with the approval and command of Jehovah surpassed in cruelty\nthose of Julius Caesar.\n\nWas it Julius Caesar who said, \"And the Lord our God delivered him\nbefore us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.  And we\ntook all his cities, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women and\nthe little ones, of every city, we left none to remain?\"\n\nDid Julius Caesar send the following report to the Roman Senate? \"And\nwe took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took\nnot from them, three-score city, all the region of Argob, the kingdom\nof Og, in Bashan.  All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates\nand bars; besides unwalled towns a great many.  And we utterly\ndestroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, king of Heshbon, utterly\ndestroying the men, women, and children of every city.\"\n\nDid Caesar take the city of Jericho \"and utterly destroy all that was\nin the city, both man and woman, young and old?\"  Did he smite \"all the\ncountry of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the\nsprings, and all their kings, and leave none remaining that breathed,\nas the Lord God had commanded?\"\n\nSearch the records of the whole world, find out the history of every\nbarbarous tribe, and you can find no crime that touched a lower depth\nof infamy than those the bible's God commanded and approved.  For such\na God I have no words to express my loathing and contempt, and all the\nwords in all the languages of man would scarcely be sufficient.  Away\nwith such a God!  Give me Jupiter rather, with Io and Europa, or even\nSiva with his skulls and snakes, or give me none.\n\nTenth.  With having repudiated the doctrines of total depravity.\n\nWhat a precious doctrine is that of the total depravity of the human\nheart!  How sweet it is to believe that the lives of all the good and\ngreat were continual sins and perpetual crimes; that the love a mother\nbears her child is, in the sight of God, a sin; that the gratitude of\nthe natural heart is simple meanness; that the tears of pity are\nimpure; that for the unconverted to live and labor for others is an\noffense to heaven; that the noblest aspirations of the soul are low and\ngroveling in the sight of God; that man should fall upon his knees and\nask forgiveness, simply for loving his wife and child, and that even\nthe act of asking forgiveness is in fact a crime.\n\nSurely it is a kind of bliss to feel that every woman and child in the\nwide world, with the exception of those who believe the five points, or\nsome other equally cruel creed, and such children as have been\nbaptized, ought at this very moment to be dashed down to the lowest\nglowing gulf of the hell!\n\nTake from the Christian the history of his own church; leave that\nentirely out of the question, and he has no argument left with which to\nsubstantiate the total depravity of man.\n\nA minister once asked an old lady, a member of his church, what she\nthought of the doctrine of total depravity, and the dear old soul\nreplied that she thought it a mighty good doctrine if the Lord would\nonly give the people grace enough to live up to it?\n\nEleventh.  With having doubted the \"perseverance of the saints.\"\n\nI suppose the real meaning of this doctrine is that Presbyterians are\njust as sure of going to heaven as all other folks are of going to\nhell. The real idea being, that it all depends upon the will of God,\nand not upon the character of the person to be damned or saved; that\nGod has the weakness to send Presbyterians to Paradise, and the justice\nto doom the rest of mankind to eternal fire.\n\nIt is admitted that no unconverted brain can see the least of sense in\nthis doctrine; that it is abhorrent to all who have not been the\nrecipients of a \"new heart;\"  that only the perfectly good can justify\nthe perfectly infamous.\n\nIt is contended that the saints do not persevere of their own free\nwill--that they are entitled to no credit for persevering; but that God\nforces them to persevere; while on the other hand, every crime is\ncommitted in accordance with the secret will of God, who does all\nthings for His own glory.  Compared with this doctrine, there is no\nother idea, that has ever been believed by man, that can properly be\ncalled absurd.\n\nAs to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, I wish with all\nmy heart that it may prove to be a fact, I really hope that every\nsaint, no matter how badly he may break on the first quarter, nor how\nmany shoes he may cast at the half-mile pole, will foot it bravely down\nthe long home-stretch, and win eternal heaven by at least a neck.\n\nTwelfth.  With having spoken and written somewhat lightly of the idea\nof converting the heathen with doctrinal sermons.\n\nOf all the failures of which we have any history or knowledge the\nmissionary effort is the most conspicuous.  The whole question has been\ndecided here, in our own country, and conclusively settled.  We have\nnearly exterminated the Indians; but we have converted none.  From the\ndays of John Eliot to the execution of the last Modoc, not one Indian\nhas been the subject of irresistible grace or particular redemption.\nThe few red men who roam the Western wilderness have no thought or care\nconcerning the five points of Calvin.  They are utterly oblivious to\nthe great and vital truths contained in the Thirty-nine articles, the\nSaybrook platform, and the resolutions of the Evangelical Alliance.  No\nIndian has ever scalped another on account of his religious belief.\nThis of itself shows conclusively that the missionaries have had no\neffect.\n\nWhy should we convert the heathen of China and kill our own?  Why\nshould we send missionaries across the seas, and soldiers over the\nplains?  Why should we send bibles to the East and muskets to the West?\nIf it is impossible to convert Indians who have no religion of their\nown; no prejudice for or against the \"eternal procession of the Holy\nGhost,\" how can we expect to convert a heathen who has a religion; who\nhas plenty of gods and bibles and prophets and Christs, and who has a\nreligious literature far grander than our own?  Can we hope, with the\nstory of Daniel in the lion's den, to rival the stupendous miracles of\nIndia?  Is there anything in our bible as lofty and loving as the\nprayer of the Buddhist?  Compare your \"Confession of Faith\" with the\nfollowing:\n\n\"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation--never\nenter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live\nand strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout\nall worlds.  Until all are delivered, never will I leave the world of\nsin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain where I am.\"\n\nThink of sending an average Presbyterian to convert a man who daily\noffers this tender, this infinitely generous and incomparable prayer!\nThink of reading the 109th Psalm to a heathen who has a bible of his\nown, in which is found this passage:  \"Blessed is that man, and beloved\nof all the gods, who is afraid of no man, and of whom no man is afraid!\"\n\nWhy should you read even the new testament to a Hindoo, when his own\nChrishna has said:  \"If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his\nstaff, pick it up and hand it to him again?\"  Why send a Presbyterian\nto a Sufi, who says:  \"Better one moment of silent contemplation and\ninward love, than seventy thousand years of outward worship?\"\n\"Whosoever would carelessly tread one worm that crawls on earth, that\nheartless one is darkly alienate from God; but he that, living,\nembraceth all things in his love, to live with him God bursts all\nbounds above, below.\"\n\nWhy should we endeavor to thrust our cruel and heartless theology upon\none who prays this prayer:  \"O God, show pity toward the wicked; for on\nthe good thou hast already bestowed thy mercy by having created them\nvirtuous?\"\n\nCompare this prayer with the curses and cruelties of the old\ntestament--with the infamies commanded and approved by the being whom\nthe are taught to worship as a God, and with the following tender\nproduct of Presbyterianism:  \"It may seem absurd to human wisdom that\nGod should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense;\nthat He should first deliver them over to evil, and then condemn them\nfor that evil; but the believing spiritual man sees no absurdity in all\nthis, knowing that God would never be a whit less good, even though He\nshould destroy all men.\"\n\nOf all the religions that have been produced by the egotism, the\nmalice, the ignorance and ambition of man, Presbyterianism is the most\nhideous.\n\nBut what shall I say more? for the time would fail me to tell of\nSabellianism, of a \"Model trinity\" and the \"eternal procession of the\nHoly Ghost.\"\n\nUpon these charges a minister is to be tried, here in Chicago; in this\ncity of pluck and progress--this marvel of energy, and this miracle of\nnerve.  The cry of \"heresy\" here, sounds like a wail from the Dark\nAges--a shriek from the Inquisition, or a groan from the grave of\nCalvin.\n\nAnother effort is being made to enslave a man.  It is claimed that\nevery member of the church has solemnly agreed never to outgrow the\ncreed; that he has pledged himself to remain an intellectual dwarf.\nUpon this condition the church agrees to save his soul, and he hands\nover his brains to bind the bargain. Should a fact be found\ninconsistent with the creed, he binds himself to deny the fact and\ncurse the finder.  With scraps of dogmas and crumbs of doctrine, he\nagrees that his soul shall be satisfied forever.  What an intellectual\nfeast the confession of faith must be!  It reminds one of the dinner\ndescribed by Sidney Smith, where everything was cold except the water,\nand everything sour except the vinegar.\n\nEvery member of a church promises to remain orthodox, that is to\nsay--stationary.  Growth is heresy.  Orthodox ideas are the feathers\nthat have been molted by the eagle of progress.  They are the dead\nleaves under the majestic palm; while heresy is the bud and blossom at\nthe top.\n\nImagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end\nthat grows is heresy; the end that rots is orthodox. The dead are\northodox, and your cemetery is the most perfect type of a well\nregulated church.  No thought, no progress, no heresy there.  Slowly\nand silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay.\nThere is only this difference--the dead do not persecute.\n\nAnd what does a trial for heresy mean?  It means that the church says\nto a heretic, \"Believe as I do, or I will withdraw my support; I will\nnot employ you; I will pursue you until your garments are rags; until\nyour children cry for bread; until your cheeks are furrowed with tears.\nI will hunt you to the very portals of the tomb, and then my God will\ndo the rest.  I will not imprison you.  I will not burn you.  The law\nprevents my doing that.  I helped make the law, not, however, to\nprotect you, nor deprive me of the right to exterminate you, but in\norder to keep other churches from exterminating me.\"\n\nA trial for heresy means that the spirit of persecution still lingers\nin the church; that it still denies the right of private judgment; that\nit still thinks more of creed than truth; that it is still determined\nto prevent the intellectual growth of man. It means that churches are\nshambles in which are bought and sold the souls of men.  It means that\nthe church is still guilty of the barbarity of opposing thought with\nforce.  It means that if it had the power, the mental horizon would be\nbounded by a creed, that it would bring again the whips, and chains,\nand dungeon keys, the rack and fagot of the past.\n\nBut let me tell the church it lacks the power.  There has been, and\nstill are, too many men who own themselves--too much thought, too much\nknowledge for the church to grasp again the sword of power.  The church\nmust abdicate.  For the Eglon of superstition, science has a message\nfrom truth.\n\nThe heretics have not thought and suffered and died in vain. Every\nheretic has been, and is, a ray of light.  Not in vain did Voltaire,\nthat great man, point from the foot of the Alps, the finger of scorn at\nevery hypocrite in Europe.  Not in vain were the splendid utterances of\nthe infidels, while beyond all price are the discoveries of science.\nThe church has impeded, but it has not and it cannot stop the onward\nmarch of the human race. Heresy can not be burned, nor imprisoned, nor\nstarved.  It laughs at presbyteries and synods, at Ecumenical councils\nand the impotent thunders of Sinai.  Heresy is the eternal dawn, the\nmorning star, the glittering herald of the day.  Heresy is the last and\nbest thought.  It is the perpetual new world; the unknown sea, toward\nwhich the brave all sail.  It is the eternal horizon of progress.\nHeresy extends the hospitalities of the brain to new thoughts.  Heresy\nis a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin.\n\nWhy should a man be afraid to think, and why should he fear to express\nhis thoughts?\n\nIs it possible that an infinite Deity is unwilling that man should\ninvestigate the phenomena by which he is surrounded?\n\nIs it possible that a God delights in threatening and terrifying men?\nWhat glory, what honor and renown a God must win in such a field!  The\nocean raving at a drop; a star envious of a candle; the sun jealous of\na firefly!\n\nGo on, presbyteries and synods, go on!  Thrust the heretics out of the\nchurch.  That is to say, throw away your brains--put out your eyes.\nThe Infidels will thank you.  They are willing to adopt your exiles.\nEvery deserter from your camp is a recruit for the army of progress.\nCling to the ignorant dogmas of the past; read the 109th Psalm; gloat\nover the slaughter of mothers and babes; thank God for total depravity;\nshower your honors upon hypocrites, and silence every minister who is\ntouched with that heresy called genius.\n\nBe true to your history.  Turn out the astronomers, the geologists, the\nnaturalists, the chemists, and all the honest scientists.  With a whip\nof scorpions, drive them all out.  We want them all.  Keep the\nignorant, the superstitious, the bigoted, and the writers of charges\nand specifications.  Keep them, and keep them all.  Repeat your pious\nplatitudes in the drowsy ears of the faithful, and read your bible to\nheretics, as kings read some forgotten riot-act to stop and stay the\nwaves of revolution.  You are too weak to excite anger.  We forgive\nyour efforts as the sun forgives a cloud--as the air forgives the\nbreath you waste.\n\nHow long, O how long will man listen to the threats of God, and shut\nhis ears to the splendid promises of Nature?  How long, O how long will\nman remain the cringing slave of a false and cruel creed.\n\nBy this time the whole world should know that the real bible has not\nyet been written; but is being written, and that it will never be\nfinished until the race begins its downward march or ceases to exist.\nThe real bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets, nor\napostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christ. Every man who finds a fact,\nadds, as it were, a word to this great book.  It is not attested by\nprophecy, by miracles or by signs.  It makes no appeal to faith, to\nignorance, to credulity of fear.  It has no punishment for unbelief,\nand no reward for hypocrisy.  It appears to men in the name of\ndemonstration.  It has nothing to conceal.  It has no fear of being\nread, of being investigated and understood.  It does not pretend to be\nholy or sacred; it simply claims to be true.  It challenges the\nscrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for\nhimself.  It is incapable of being blasphemed.  This book appeals to\nall the surroundings of man.  Each thing that exists testifies of its\nperfection.  The earth with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with\nits forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and\ncloud; with its every leaf, and bud, and flower, confirms its every\nword, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the\neternal witnesses of its truth.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on The Bible\n\n\n\nThe true bible appeals to man in the name of demonstration.  It has\nnothing to conceal.  It has no fear of being read, of being\ncontradicted, of being investigated and understood.  It does not\npretend to be holy or sacred, it simply claims to be true.  It\nchallenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify\nevery line for himself.  It is incapable of being blasphemed.  This\nbook appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists\ntestifies of its perfection.  The earth, with its heart of fire and\ncrowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with\nits every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower,\nconfirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite\nabysses, are the external witnesses of its truth.\n\nI will tell you what I mean by inspiration.  I go and look at the sea,\nand the sea says something to me; it makes an impression upon my mind.\nThat impression depends, first, upon my experience; secondly, upon my\nintellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a\ndifferent brain, he has had a different experience, he has different\nmemories and different hopes. The sea may speak to him of joy and to me\nof grief and sorrow. The sea cannot tell the same thing to two beings,\nbecause no two human beings have had the same experience. So, when I\nlook upon a flower, or a star, or a painting, or a statue, the more I\nknow about sculpture the more that statue speaks to me. The more I have\nhad of human experience, the more I have read, the greater brain I\nhave, the more the star says to me. In other words, nature says to me\nall that I am capable of understanding.\n\nThink of a God wicked and malicious enough to inspire this prayer in\nthe 109th Psalm! Think of one infamous enough to answer it! Had this\ninspired Psalm been found in some temple erected for the worship of\nsnakes, or in the possession of some cannibal king, written with blood\nupon the dried skins of babes, there would have been a perfect harmony\nbetween its surroundings and its sentiments.\n\nNow, I read the bible, and I find that God so loved this world that he\nmade up his mind to damn the most of us. I have read this book and what\nshall I say of it? I believe it is generally better to be honest. Now,\nI don't believe the bible. Had I not better say so? They say that if\nyou do you will regret it when you come to die. If that be true, I know\na great many religious people who will have no cause to regret it--they\ndon't tell their honest convictions about the bible.\n\nThe bible was the real persecutor. The bible burned heretics, built\ndungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties\nof men. How long, O how long, will mankind worship a book? How long\nwill they grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the\nbarbaric past? How long, O how long, will they pursue phantoms in a\ndarkness deeper than death?\n\nThe believers in the bible are loud in their denunciation of what they\nare pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; and yet few\nbooks have been published containing more moral filth than this\ninspired word of God. These stories are not redeemed by a single flash\nof wit or humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice.\nFor one, I cannot afford to soil my pages with extracts from them; and\nall such portions of the scriptures I leave to be examined, written\nupon, and explained by the clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which\nthey can extract honey from these flowers. Until these passages are\nexpunged from the old testament, it is not a fit book to be read by\neither old or young. It contains pages that no minister in the United\nStates would read to his congregation for any reward whatever. There\nare chapters that no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady.\nThere are chapters that no father would read to his child. There are\nnarratives utterly unfit to be told; and the time will come when\nmankind will wonder that such a book was ever called inspired.\n\nBut as long as the bible is considered as the work of God, it will be\nhard to make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long as it\nis imitated there will be vile and filthy books. The literature of our\ncountry will not be sweet and clean until the bible ceases to be\nregarded as the production of a god.\n\nIn the days of Thomas Paine the church believed and taught that every\nword in the bible was absolutely true. Since his day it has been proven\nfalse in its cosmogony, false in its astronomy, false in its\nchronology, false in its history, and so far as the old testament is\nconcerned, false in almost everything. There are but few, if any,\nscientific men who apprehend that the bible is literally true. Who on\nearth at this day would pretend to settle any scientific question by a\ntext from the bible? The old belief is confined to the ignorant and\nzealous. The church itself will before long be driven to occupy the\nposition of Thomas Paine!\n\nI love any man who gave me, or helped to give me, the liberty I enjoy\ntonight. I love every man who helped put our flag in heaven. I love\nevery man who has lifted his voice in all the ages for liberty, for a\nchainless body, and a fetterless brain. I love every man who has given\nto every other human being every right that he claimed for himself. I\nlove every man who thought more of principle than he did of position. I\nlove the men who have trampled crowns beneath their feet that they\nmight do something for mankind.\n\nThe best minds of the orthodox world, today, are endeavoring to prove\nthe existence of a personal Deity. All other questions occupy a minor\nplace. You are no longer asked to swallow the bible whole, whale, Jonah\nand all; you are simply required to believe in God, and pay your\npew-rent. There is not now an enlightened minister in the world who\nwill seriously contend that Samson's strength was in his hair, or that\nthe necromancers of Egypt could turn water into blood, and pieces of\nwood into serpents. These follies have passed away.\n\nFor my part, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results of\nscientific investigation than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing\nthe bible to be true; why is it any worse or more wicked for\nfree-thinkers to deny it, than for priests to deny the doctrine of\nevolution, or the dynamic theory of heat? Why should we be damned for\nlaughing at Samson and his foxes, while others, holding the nebular\nhypothesis in utter contempt, go straight to heaven?\n\nNow when I come to a book, for instance, I read the writings of\nShakespeare--Shakespeare, the greatest human being who ever existed\nupon this globe. What do I get out of him? All that I have sense enough\nto understand. I get my little cup full. Let another read him who knows\nnothing of the drama, who knows nothing of the impersonation of\npassion; what does he get from him? Very little. In other words, every\nman gets from a book, a flower, a star, or the sea, what he is able to\nget from his intellectual development and experience. Do you then\nbelieve that the bible is a different book to every human being that\nreceives it? I do. Can God, then, through the bible, make the same\nrevelation to two men? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads is the\nman who inspires. Inspiration is in the man and not in the book.\n\nThe real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the bible.\nThat book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy.\nThat book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and\nschools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest\ninvestigation a crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the\npeople. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.\n\nVolumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most\nincredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that\nrepository of the impossible, called the bible. To me it is a matter of\namazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent\nhuman being.\n\nIs it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work\nof man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes\nand facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the \"very form and\npressure of its time?\" If there are mistakes in the bible, certainly\nthey were made by man. If there is anything contrary to nature, it was\nwritten by man. If there is anything immoral, cruel, heartless or\ninfamous, it certainly was never written by a being worthy of the\nadoration of mankind.\n\nIt strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily\nexcite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe\nto say that a real god could produce a work that would excite the\nadmiration of mankind.\n\nThe man who now regards the old testament as, in any sense, a sacred or\ninspired book is, in my judgment, an intellectual and moral deformity.\nThere is in it so much that is cruel, ignorant and ferocious that it is\nto me a matter of amazement that it was ever thought to be the work of\na most merciful deity.\n\nAdmitting that the bible is the book of God, is that His only good job?\nWill not a man be damned as quick for denying the equator as denying\nthe bible? Will he not be damned as quick for denying geology as for\ndenying the scheme of salvation? When the bible was first written it\nwas not believed. Had they known as much about science as we know now,\nthat bible would not have been written.\n\nEvery sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will\nto man. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning. About the\nmeaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war\nand centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He\nmust have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He\nmust be responsible for all.\n\nPaine thought the barbarities of the old testament inconsistent with\nwhat he deemed the real character of God. He believed that murder,\nmassacre and indiscriminate slaughter had never been commanded by the\nDeity. He regarded much of the bible as childish, unimportant and\nfoolish. The scientific world entertains the same spirit in which he\nhad attacked the pretensions of kings. He used the same weapons. All\nthe pomp in the world could not make him cower. His reason knew no\n\"Holy of Holies,\" except the abode of Truth.\n\nNothing can be clearer than that Moses received from the Egyptians the\nprincipal parts of his narrative, making such changes and additions as\nwere necessary to satisfy the peculiar superstitions of his own people.\n\nAccording to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter\nto His children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the\nmeaning of this letter. In consequence of these honest difficulties,\nthese brothers began to cut out each other's hearts. In every land,\nwhere this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for\nwhom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have\nimprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each\nother. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed,\nevery conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and\nloving women, beautiful girls and prattling babes have been\nexterminated in the name of Jesus Christ.\n\nThe church has burned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy. And all this,\nbecause it was commanded by a book--a book that men had been taught\nimplicitly to believe, long before they knew one word that was in it.\nThey had been taught that to doubt the truth of this book--to examine\nit, even--was a crime of such enormity that it could not be forgiven,\neither in this world or in the next.\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 you 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 such atrocity.\n\nWhether the bible is false or true, is of no consequence in comparison\nwith the mental freedom of the race. Salvation through slavery is\nworthless. Salvation from slavery is inestimable. As long as man\nbelieves the bible to be infallible, that book is his master. The\ncivilization of this century is not the child of faith, but of\nunbelief--the result of free thought.\n\nWhat man who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And\nyet our entire system of religion is based on that belief. The Jews\npacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the\nchristian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a\nlittle, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few.\n\nIt is hard to conceive how any sane man can read the bible and still\nbelieve in the doctrine of inspiration.\n\nThe bible was originally written in the Hebrew language, and the Hebrew\nlanguage at that time had no vowels in writing. It was written entirely\nwith consonants, and without being divided into chapters and verses,\nand there was no system of punctuation whatever. After you go home\nto-night write an English sentence or two with only consonants close\ntogether, and you will find that it will take twice as much inspiration\nto read it as it did to write it.\n\nThe real bible is not the result of inspired men, nor prophets, nor\nevangelists, nor christs. The real bible has not been written, but is\nbeing written. Every man who finds a fact adds a word to this great\nbook.\n\nThe bad passages in the bible are not inspired. No god ever ordered a\nsoldier to sheathe his sword in the breast of a mother. No god ever\nordered a warrior to butcher a smiling, prattling babe. No god ever\nupheld tyranny. No god ever said, be subject to the powers that be. No\ngod endeavored to make man a slave and woman a beast of burden. There\nare thousands of good passages in the bible. Many of them are true.\nThere are in it wise laws, good customs, some lofty and splendid\nthings. And I do not care whether they are inspired or not, so they are\ntrue. But what I do insist upon is that the bad is not inspired.\n\nThere is no hope for you. It is just as bad to deny hell as it is to\ndeny heaven. Prof. Swing says the bible is a poem. Dr. Ryder says it is\na picture. The Garden of Eden is pictorial; a pictorial snake and a\npictorial woman, I suppose, and a pictorial man, and may be it was a\npictorial sin. And only a pictorial atonement!\n\nMan must learn to rely on himself. Reading bibles  will not protect him\nfrom the blasts of winter, but  houses, fire and clothing will. To\nprevent 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\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Voltaire\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  The infidels of one age have often been the\naureoled saints of the next.\n\nThe destroyers of the old are the creators of the new.  As time sweeps\non the old passes away and the new in its turn becomes of old.\n\nThere is in the intellectual world, as in the physical, decay and\ngrowth, and ever by the grave of buried age stand youth and joy.\n\nThe history of intellectual progress is written in the lives of\ninfidels.\n\nPolitical rights have been preserved by traitors; the liberty of mind\nby heretics.\n\nTo attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest was blasphemy.\n\nFor many years the sword and cross were allies.  Together they attacked\nthe rights of man.  They defended each other.\n\nThe throne and altar were twins--two vultures from the same egg.\n\nJames I said:  \"No bishop; no king.\"  He might have added:  No cross,\nno crown.  The king owned the bodies of men; the priest, the souls. One\nlived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by\nfear--both robbers, both beggars.\n\nThese robbers and these beggars controlled two worlds.  The king made\nlaws, the priest made creeds.  Both obtained their authority from God,\nboth were the agents of the infinite.  With bowed backs the people\ncarried the burdens of one, and with wonder's open mouth received the\ndogmas of the other.  If the people aspired to be free, they were\ncrushed by the king, and every priest was a Herod, who slaughtered the\nchildren of the brain.\n\nThe king ruled by force, the priest by fear, and both by both. The king\nsaid to the people:  \"God made you peasants, and He made me king; He\nmade you to labor, and me to enjoy; He made rags and hovels for you,\nrobes and palaces for me.  He made you to obey and me to command.  Such\nis the justice of God,\"  And the priest said:  \"God made you ignorant\nand vile; He made me holy and wise; you are the sheep, I am the\nshepherd; your fleeces belong to me.  If you do not obey me here, God\nwill punish you now and torment you forever in another world.  Such is\nthe mercy of God.\"\n\n\"You must not reason.  Reason is a rebel.  You must not\ncontradict--contradiction is born of egotism; you must believe. He that\nhas ears to hear let him hear.  Heaven is a question of ears.\"\n\nFortunately for us, there have been traitors and there have been\nheretics, blasphemers, thinkers, investigators, lovers of liberty, men\nof genius, who have given their lives to better the condition of their\nfellow-men.\n\nIt may be well enough here to ask the question:  \"What is greatness?\"\nA great man adds to the sum of knowledge, extends the horizon of\nthought, releases souls from the Bastille of fear, crosses unknown and\nmysterious seas, gives new islands and new continents to the domain of\nthought, new constellations to the firmament of mind.  A great man does\nnot seek applause or place; he seeks for truth; he seeks the road to\nhappiness, and what he ascertains he gives to others.       A great man\nthrows pearls before swine, and the swine are sometimes changed to men.\nIf the great had always kept their pearls, vast multitudes would be\nbarbarians now.\n\nA great man is a torch in the darkness, a beacon in superstition's\nnight, an inspiration and a prophecy.  Greatness is not the gift of\nmajorities; it cannot be thrust upon any man; men cannot give it to\nanother; they can give place and power, but not greatness.  The place\ndoes not make the man, nor the sceptre the king.  Greatness is from\nwithin.\n\nThe great men are the heroes who have freed the bodies of men; they are\nthe philosophers and thinkers who have given liberty to the soul; they\nare the poets who have transfigured the common and filled the lives of\nmany millions with love and song.  They are the artists who have\ncovered the bare walls of weary life with the triumphs of genius.  They\nare the heroes who have slain the monsters of ignorance and fear, who\nhave outgazed the Gorgon and driven the cruel gods from their thrones.\n\nThey are the inventors, the discoverers, the great mechanics, the kings\nof the useful who have civilized this world.\n\nAt the head of this heroic army, foremost of all, stands Voltaire,\nwhose memory we are honoring tonight.  Voltaire! a name that excites\nthe admiration of men, the malignity of priests. Pronounce that name in\nthe presence of a clergyman, and you will find that you have made a\ndeclaration of war.  Pronounce that name, and from the face of the\npriest the mask of meekness will fall, and from the mouth of\nforgiveness will pour a Niagara of vituperation and calumny.  And yet\nVoltaire was the greatest man of his century, and did more for the\nhuman race than ally other of the sons of men.\n\nOn Sunday, the 21st of November, 1694, a babe was born; a babe\nexceedingly frail, whose breath hesitated about remaining.  This babe\nbecame the greatest man of the eighteenth century.\n\nWhen Voltaire came to this \"great stage of fools,\" his country had been\nchristianized--not civilized--for about fourteen hundred years.  For a\nthousand years the religion of peace and good will had been supreme.\nThe laws had been given by christian kings, sanctioned by \"wise and\nholy men.\"\n\nUnder the benign reign of universal love, every court had its chamber\nof torture, and every priest relied on the thumbscrew and rack.  Such\nhad been the success of the blessed gospel that every science was an\noutcast.  To speak your honest thoughts, to teach your fellow men, to\ninvestigate for yourself, to seek the truth, these were crimes, and the\n\"Holy Mother Church\" pursued the criminals with sword and flame.\n\nThe believers in a God of love--an infinite father--punished hundreds\nof offenses with torture and death.  Suspected persons were tortured to\nmake them confess.  Convicted persons were tortured to make them give\nthe names of their accomplices.  Under the leadership of the church\ncruelty had become the only reforming power.  In this blessed year 1694\nall authors were at the mercy of king and priest.  The most of them\nwere cast into prisons, impoverished by fines and costs, exiled or\nexecuted. The little time that hangmen could snatch from professional\nduties was occupied in burning books.  The courts of justice were traps\nin which the innocent were caught.  The judges were almost as malicious\nand cruel as though they had been bishops or saints. There was no trial\nby jury, and the rules of evidence allowed the conviction of the\nsupposed criminal by the proof of suspicion or hearsay.  The witnesses,\nbeing liable to torture, generally told what the judges wished to hear.\n\nWhen Voltaire was born the church ruled and owned France.  It was a\nperiod of almost universal corruption.  The priests were mostly\nlibertines, the judges cruel and venal.  The royal palace was a house\nof prostitution.  The nobles were heartless, proud, arrogant and cruel\nto the last degree.  The common people were treated as beasts.  It took\nthe church a thousand years to bring about this happy condition of\nthings.\n\nThe seeds of the revolution unconsciously were being scattered by every\nnoble and by every priest.  They were germinating slowly in the hearts\nof the wretched; they were being watered by the tears of agony; blows\nbegan to bear interest.  There was a faint longing for blood.  Workmen,\nblackened by the sun, bowed by labor, deformed by want; looked at the\nwhite throats of scornful ladies and thought about cutting them.  In\nthose days the witnesses were cross-examined with instruments of\ntorture; the church was the arsenal of superstition; miracles, relics,\nangels, and devils were as common as lies.\n\nVoltaire was of the people.  In the language of that day, he had no\nancestors.  His real name was Francois Marie Arouet.  His mother was\nMarguerite d'Aumard.  This mother died when he was seven years of age.\nHe had an elder brother, Armand, who was a devotee, very religious and\nexceedingly disagreeable.  This brother used to present offerings to\nthe church, hoping to make amends for the unbelief of his brother.  So\nfar as we know none of his ancestors were literary people.  The Arouets\nhad never written a line.  The Abbe le Chaulieu was his godfather, and,\nalthough an abbe, was a deist who cared nothing about his religion\nexcept in connection with his salary.  Voltaire's father wanted to make\na lawyer of him, but he had no taste for law.  At the age of 10 he\nentered the college of Louis le Grand.  This was a Jesuit school, and\nhere he remained for seven years, leaving at 17, and never attending\nany other school.  According to Voltaire he learned nothing at this\nschool but a little Greek, a good deal of Latin, and a vast amount of\nnonsense.\n\nIn this college of Louis le Grand they did not teach geography,\nhistory, mathematics, or any science.  This was a Catholic institution,\ncontrolled by the Jesuits.  In that day the religion was defended, was\nprotected, or supported by the state.  Behind the entire creed were the\nbayonet, the ax, the wheel, the fagot, and the torture chamber.  While\nVoltaire was attending the college of Louis le Grand the soldiers of\nthe king were hunting Protestants in the mountains of Cevennes for\nmagistrates to hang on gibbets, to put to torture, to break on the\nwheel or to burn at the stake.\n\nThere is but one use for law, but one excuse for government--the\npreservation of liberty--to give to each man his own, to secure to the\nfarmer what he produces from the soil, the mechanic what he invents and\nmakes, to the artist what he creates, to the thinker the right to\nexpress his thoughts.  Liberty is the breath of progress.  In France\nthe people were the sport of a king's caprice.  Everywhere was the\nshadow of the Bastille.  It fell upon the sunniest field, upon the\nhappiest home. With the king walked the headsman; back of the throne\nwas the chamber of torture.  The church appealed to the rack, and faith\nrelied on the fagot.  Science was an outcast, and philosophy,\nso-called, was the pander of superstition.  Nobles and priests were\nsacred. Peasants were vermin.  Idleness sat at the banquet and industry\ngathered the crumbs and crusts.\n\nAt 17 Voltaire determined to devote his life to literature.  The father\nsaid, speaking of his two sons, Armand and Francois:  \"I have a pair of\nfools for sons, one in verse and the other in prose.\"  In 1713\nVoltaire, in a small way, became a diplomat.  He went to The Hague\nattached to the French minister, and there he fell in love.  The girl's\nmother objected. Voltaire sent his clothes to the young lady that she\nmight visit him. Everything was discovered and he was dismissed.  To\nthis girl he wrote a letter, and in it you will find the keynote of\nVoltaire:  \"Do not expose yourself to the fury of your mother.  You\nknow what she is capable of. You have experienced it too well.\nDissemble; it is your only chance. Tell her that you have forgotten me,\nthat you hate me; then after telling her, love me all the more.\"  On\naccount of this episode Voltaire was formally disinherited by his\nfather.  The father procured an order of arrest and gave his son the\nchoice of going to prison or beyond the seas.  He finally consented to\nbecome a lawyer, and says:  \"I have already been a week at work in the\noffice of a solicitor learning the trade of a pettifogger.\"  About this\ntime he competed for a prize, writing a poem on the king's generosity\nin building the new choir in the cathedral Notre Dame.  He did not win\nit.  After being with the solicitor a little while, he hated the law,\nhe began to write poetry and the outlines of tragedy.  Great questions\nwere then agitating the public mind, questions that throw a flood of\nlight upon that epoch.\n\nLouis XIV having died, the regent took possession; and then the prisons\nwere opened.  The regent called for a list of all persons then in the\nprisons sent there at the will of the king.  He found that, as to many\nprisoners, nobody knew any cause why they had been in prison.  They had\nbeen forgotten.  Many of the prisoners did not know themselves, and\ncould not guess why they had been arrested.  One Italian had been in\nthe Bastille thirty-three years without ever knowing why.  On his\narrival to Paris thirty-three years before he was arrested and sent to\nprison.  He had grown old.  He had survived his family and friends.\nWhen the rest were liberated he asked to remain where he was, and lived\nthere the rest of his life.\n\nThe old prisoners were pardoned; but in a little while their places\nwere taken by new ones.  At this time Voltaire was not interested in\nthe great world--knew very little of religion or of government.  He was\nbusy writing poetry, busy thinking of comedies and tragedies.  He was\nfull of life.  All his fancies were winged, like moths.  He was charged\nwith having written some cutting epigrams.  He was exiled to Tulle,\nthree hundred miles away.  From this place he wrote in the true vein:\n\"I am at a chateau, a place that would be the most agreeable in the\nworld if I had not been exiled to it, and where there is nothing\nwanting for my perfect happiness except the liberty of leaving.  It\nwould be delicious to remain if I only were allowed to go.\"  At last\nthe exile was allowed to return.  Again he was arrested; this time sent\nto the Bastille, where he remained for nearly a year. While in prison\nhe changed his name from Francois Marie Arouet to Voltaire, and by that\nname he has since been known.  Voltaire began to think, to doubt, to\ninquire.  He studied the history of the church of the creed.  He found\nthat the religion of his time rested on the usurpation of the\nscriptures--the infallibility of the church--the dreams of insane\nhermits--the absurdities of the fathers--the mistakes and falsehoods of\nsaints--the hysteria of nuns--the cunning of priests and the stupidity\nof the people.  He found that the Emperor Constantine, who lifted\nchristianity into power, murdered his wife Fansta and his eldest son\nCrispus the same year that he convened the council of Nice to decide\nwhether Christ was a man or the son of God.  The council decided, in\nthe year 325, that Christ was consubstantial with the Father.  He found\nthat the church was indebted to a husband who assassinated his wife--a\nfather who murdered his son--for settling the vexed question of the\ndivinity of the Savior.  He found that Theodosius called a council at\nConstantinople in 381 by which it was decided that the Holy Ghost\nproceeded from the Father--that Theodosius, the younger, assembled a\ncouncil at Ephesus in 431 that declared the Virgin Mary to be the\nmother of God--that the Emperor Martian called another council at\nChalcedon in 451 that decided that Christ had two wills--that Pognatius\ncalled another in 680 that declared that Christ had two natures to go\nwith his two wills--and that in 1274, at the council of Lyons, the\nimportant fact was found that the Holy Ghost \"proceeded\" not only from\nthe Father, but also from the Son at the same time.\n\nSo Voltaire has been called a mocker!  What did he mock?  He mocked\nkings that were unjust; kings who cared nothing for the sufferings of\ntheir subjects.  He mocked the titled fools of his day.  He mocked the\ncorruption of courts; the meanness, the tyranny, and the brutality of\njudges.  He mocked the absurd and cruel laws, the barbarous customs.\nHe mocked popes and cardinals, bishops and priests, and all the\nhypocrites on the earth.  He mocked historians who filled their books\nwith lies, and philosophers who defended superstition.  He mocked the\nhaters of liberty, the persecutors of their fellow-men.  He mocked the\narrogance, the cruelty, the impudence and the unspeakable baseness of\nhis time.\n\nHe has been blamed because he used the weapon of ridicule. Hypocrisy\nhas always hated laughter, and always will.  Absurdity detests humor\nand stupidity despises wit.  Voltaire was the master of ridicule.  He\nridiculed the absurd, the impossible.  He ridiculed the mythologies and\nthe miracles, the stupid lives and lies of the saints.  He found\npretense and mendacity crowned by credulity.  He found the ignorant\nmany controlled by the cunning and cruel few.  He found the historian,\nsaturated with superstition, filling his volumes with the details of\nthe impossible, and he found the scientists satisfied with \"they say.\"\nVoltaire had the instinct of the probable.  He knew the law of average;\nthe sea level; he had the idea of proportion; and so he ridiculed the\nmental monstrosities and deformities--the non sequiturs--of his day.\nAristotle said women had more teeth than men.  This was repeated again\nand again by the Catholic scientists of the eighteenth century.\nVoltaire counted the teeth.  The rest were satisfied with \"they say.\"\n\nWe may, however, get an idea of the condition of France from the fact\nthat Voltaire regarded England as the land of liberty. While he was in\nEngland he saw the body of Sir Isaac Newton deposited in Westminster\nAbbey.   He read the works of this great man and afterward gave to\nFrance the philosophy of the great Englishman.  Voltaire was the\napostle of common sense.  He knew that there could have been no\nprimitive or first language from which all other languages had been\nformed.  He knew that every language had been influenced by the\nsurroundings of the people. He knew that the language of snow and ice\nwas not the language of palm and flower.  He knew also that there had\nbeen no miracle in language.  He knew it was impossible that the story\nof the Tower of Babel should be true.  That everything in the whole\nworld had been natural.  He was the enemy of alchemy, not only in\nlanguage, but in science.  One passage from him is enough to show his\nphilosophy in this regard.  He says:  \"To transmute iron into gold two\nthings are necessary.  First, the annihilation of the iron; second, the\ncreation of gold.\"  Voltaire was a man of humor, of good nature, of\ncheerfulness. He despised with all his heart the philosophy of Calvin,\nthe creed of the somber, of the severe, of the unnatural.  He pitied\nthose who needed the aid of religion to be honest, to be cheerful.  He\nhad the courage to enjoy the present and the philosophy to bear what\nthe future might bring.  And yet for more than a hundred and fifty\nyears the Christian world has fought this man and has maligned his\nmemory. In every christian pulpit his name has been pronounced with\nscorn, and every pulpit has been an arsenal of slander.  He is one man\nof whom no orthodox minister has ever told the truth.  He has been\ndenounced equally by Catholics and Protestants.\n\nPriests and ministers, bishops and exhorters, presiding elders and\npopes have filled the world with slanders, with calm calumnies about\nVoltaire. I am amazed that ministers will not or cannot tell the truth\nabout an enemy of the church.  As a matter of fact, for more than 1,000\nyears almost every pulpit has been a mint in which slanders were coined.\n\nFor many years this restless man filled Europe with the product of his\nbrain.  Essays, epigrams, epics, comedies, tragedies, histories, poems,\nnovels, representing every phase and every faculty of the human mind.\nAt the same time engrossed in business, full of speculation, making\nmoney like a millionaire, busy with the gossip of courts, and even with\nthe scandals of priests.  At the same time alive to all the discoveries\nof science and the theories of philosophers, and in this babel never\nforgetting for a moment to assail the monster of superstition. Sleeping\nand waking he hated the church.  With the eyes of Argus he watched, and\nwith the arms of Briarieius he struck.  For sixty years he waged\ncontinuous and unrelenting war, sometimes in the open field, sometimes\nstriking from the hedges of opportunity, taking care during all this\ntime to remain independent of all men.  He was in the highest sense\nsuccessful.  He lived like a prince, became one of the powers of\nEurope, and in him, for the first time, literature was crowned.\nVoltaire, in spite of his surroundings, in spite of almost universal\ntyranny and oppression, was a believer in God and in what he was\npleased to call the religion of nature.  He attacked the creed of his\ntime because it was dishonorable to his God.  He thought of the Deity\nas a father, as the fountain of justice, intelligence and mercy, and\nthe creed of the Catholic church made him a monster of cruelty and\nstupidity.  He attacked the bible with all the weapons at his command.\nHe assailed its geology, its astronomy, its idea of justice, its laws\nand customs, its absurd and useless miracles, its foolish wonders, its\nignorance on all subjects, its insane prophecies, its cruel threats,\nand its extravagant promises.  At the same time he praised the God of\nnature, the God who gives us rain and light, and food and flowers, and\nhealth and happiness--he who fills the world with youth and beauty.\n\nIn 1755 came the earthquake at Lisbon.  This frightful disaster became\nan immense interrogation.  The optimist was compelled to ask, \"What was\nmy God doing?  Why did the Universal Father crush to shapelessness\nthousands of his poor children, even at the moment when they were upon\ntheir knees returning thanks to Him?\" What could be done with this\nhorror?  If earthquake there must be, why did it not occur in some\nuninhabited desert on some wide waste of sea?  This frightful fact\nchanged the theology of Voltaire.  He became convinced that this is not\nthe best possible of all worlds.  He became convinced that evil is evil\nhere, now and forever.\n\nWho can establish the existence of an infinite being?  It is beyond the\nconception--the reason--the imagination of man--probably or\npossibly--where the zenith and nadir meet this God can be found.\n\nVoltaire, attacked on every side, fought with every weapon that wit,\nlogic, reason, scorn, contempt, laughter, pathos and indignation could\nsharpen, form, devise or use.  He often apologized, and the apology was\nan insult.  He often recanted, and the recantation was a thousand times\nworse than the thing recanted.  He took it back by giving more.  In the\nname of eulogy he flayed his victim.  In his praise there was poison.\nHe often advanced by retreating, and asserted by retraction.  He did\nnot intend to give priests the satisfaction of seeing him burn or\nsuffer. Upon this very point of recanting, he wrote:  \"They say I must\nretract. Very willingly.  I will declare the Pascal is always right.\nThat if St. Luke and St. Mark contradict one another it is only another\nproof of the truth of religion to those who know how to understand such\nthings; and that another lovely proof of religion is that it is\nunintelligible.  I will even avow that all priests are gentle and\ndisinterested; that Jesuits are honest people; that monks are neither\nproud nor given to intrigue, and that their odor is agreeable; that the\nHoly Inquisition is the triumph of humanity and tolerance.  In a word,\nI will say all that may be desired of me, provided they leave me in\nrepose, and will not prosecute a man who has done harm to none.\"\n\nHe gave the best years of his wondrous life to succor the oppressed, to\nshield the defenseless, to reverse infamous decrees, to rescue the\ninnocent, to reform the laws of France, to do away with torture, to\nsoften the hearts of priests, to enlighten judges, to instruct kings,\nto civilize the people, and to banish from the heart of man the love\nand lust of war. Voltaire was not a saint.  He was educated by the\nJesuits. He was never troubled about the salvation of his soul.  All\nthe theological disputes excited his laughter, the creeds his pity, and\nthe conduct of bigots his contempt.  He was much better than a saint.\nMost of the Christians in his day kept their religion not for everyday\nuse but for disaster, as ships carry lifeboats to be used only in the\nstress of storm.\n\nVoltaire believed in the religion of humanity--of good and generous\ndeeds.  For many centuries the church had painted virtue so ugly, sour\nand cold that vice was regarded as beautiful. Voltaire taught the\nbeauty of the useful, the hatefulness and hideousness of superstition.\nHe was not the greatest of poets, or of dramatists, but he was the\ngreatest man of his time, the greatest friend of freedom, and the\ndeadliest foe of superstition.  He wrote the best French plays--but\nthey were not wonderful.  He wrote verses polished and perfect in their\nway. He filled the air with painted moths--but not with Shakespearean\neagles.\n\nYou may think that I have said too much; that I have placed this man\ntoo high.  Let me tell you what Goethe, the great German, said of this\nman:  \"If you wish depth, genius, imagination, taste, reason,\nsensibility, philosophy, elevation, originality, nature, intellect,\nfancy, rectitude, facility, flexibility, precision, art, abundance,\nvariety, fertility, warmth, magic, charm, grace, force, an eagle sweep\nof vision, vast understanding, instruction rich, tone excellent,\nurbanity, suavity, delicacy, correctness, purity, cleanness, eloquence,\nharmony, brilliancy, rapidity, gayety, pathos, sublimity, and\nuniversality perfection, indeed, behold Voltaire.\"\n\nEven Carlyle, the old Scotch terrier, with the growl of a grizzly bear,\nwho attacked shams, as I have sometime thought, because he hated\nrivals, was forced to admit that Voltaire gave the death stab to modern\nsuperstition.  It was the hand of Voltaire that sowed the seeds of\nliberty in the heart and brain of Franklin, of Jefferson, and of Thomas\nPaine.\n\nToulouse was a favored town.  It was rich in relics.  The people were\nas ignorant as wooden images, but they had in their possession the\ndried bodies of seven apostles--the bones of many of the infants slain\nby Herod--part of a dress of the Virgin Mary, and lots of skulls and\nskeletons of the infallible idiots known as saints.\n\nIn this city the people celebrated every year with great joy two holy\nevents:  The expulsion of the Huguenots and the blessed massacre of St.\nBartholomew.  The citizens of Toulouse had been educated and civilized\nby the church.  A few Protestants, mild because in the minority, lived\namong these jackals and tigers. One of these Protestants was Jean\nCalas--a small dealer in dry goods.  For forty years he had been in\nthis business, and his character was without a stain.  He was honest,\nkind and agreeable.  He had a wife and six children, four sons and two\ndaughters.  One of the sons became a Catholic.  The eldest son, Marc\nAntoine, disliked his father's business and studied law.  He could not\nbe allowed to practice unless he became a Catholic.  He tried to get\nhis license by concealing that he was a Protestant. He was\ndiscovered--grew morose.  Finally he became discouraged and committed\nsuicide by hanging himself one evening in his father's store.  The\nbigots of Toulouse started the story that his parents had killed him to\nprevent his becoming a Catholic. On this frightful charge the father,\nmother, one son, a servant, and one guest at their house were arrested.\nThe dead son was considered a martyr, the church taking possession of\nthe body. This happened in 1761.  There was what was called a trial.\nThere was no evidence, not the slightest, except hearsay.  All the\nfacts were in favor of the accused.  The united strength of the\ndefendants could not have done the deed.\n\nJean Calas was doomed to torture and to death upon the wheel. This was\non the 9th of March, 1762, and the sentence was to be carried out the\nnext day.  On the morning of the 10th the father was taken to the\ntorture room.  The executioner and his assistants were sworn on the\ncross to administer the torture according to the judgment of the court.\nThey bound him by the wrists to an iron ring in the stone wall four\nfeet from the ground and his feet to another ring in the floor.  Then\nthey shortened the ropes and chains until every joint in his arms and\nlegs were dislocated.  Then he was questioned.  He declared that he was\ninnocent.  Then the ropes were again shortened until life fluttered in\nthe torn body; but he remained firm.  This was called the question\nordinaire.  Again the magistrate exhorted the victim to confess, and\nagain he refused, saying that there was nothing to confess.  Then came\nthe question extraordinaire.  Into the mouth of the victim was placed a\nhorn holding three pints of water.  In this way thirty pints of water\nwere forced into the body of the sufferer.  The pain was beyond\ndescription, and yet Jean Calas remained firm.  He was then carried to\na scaffold in a tumbril.  He was bound to a wooden cross that lay on\nthe scaffold.  The executioner then took a bar of iron, broke each leg\nand arm in two places, striking eleven blows in all.  He was then left\nto die if he could.  He lived for two hours, declaring his innocence to\nthe last.  He was slow to die and so the executioner strangled him.\nThen his poor lacerated, bleeding and broken body was chained to a\nstake and burned.  All this was a spectacle--a festival for the savages\nof Toulouse.  What would they have done if their hearts had not been\nsoftened by the glad tidings of great joy, peace on earth and good will\nto men?\n\nBut this was not all.  The property of the family was confiscated; the\nson was released on condition that he become a Catholic; the servant if\nshe would enter a convent.  The two daughters were consigned to a\nconvent and the heart-broken widow was allowed to wander where she\nwould.\n\nVoltaire heard of this case.  In a moment his soul was on fire. He took\none of the sons under his roof.  He wrote a history of the case.  He\ncorresponded with kings and queens, with chancellors and lawyers.  If\nmoney was needed he advanced it. For years he filled Europe with the\nechoes of the groans of Jean Calas.  He succeeded.  The horrible\njudgment was annulled--the poor victim declared innocent and thousands\nof dollars raised to support the mother and family.  This was the work\nof Voltaire.\n\nSirven, a Protestant, lived in Languedoc with his wife and three\ndaughters.  The housekeeper of the bishop wanted to make one of the\ndaughters a Catholic.  The law allowed the bishop to take the child of\nProtestants from its parents for the sake of its soul. The little girl\nwas so taken and placed in a convent.  She ran away and came back to\nher parents.  Her poor little body was covered with the marks of the\nconvent whip.  \"Suffer little children to come unto me.\"  The child was\nout of her mind; suddenly she disappeared; and three days after her\nlittle body was found in a well, three miles from home.  The cry was\nraised that her folks had murdered her to keep her from becoming a\nCatholic. This happened only a little way from the christian city of\nToulouse while Jean Calas was in prison.  The Sirvens knew that a trial\nwould end in conviction.  They fled.  In their absence they were\nconvicted, their property confiscated.  The parents sentenced to die by\nthe hangman, the daughters to be under the gallows during the execution\nof their mother and then to be exiled.  The family fled in the midst of\nwinter; the married daughter gave birth to a child in the snows of the\nAlps; the mother died, and at last the father, reaching Switzerland,\nfound himself without the means of support.  They went to Voltaire.  He\nespoused their cause.  He took care of them, gave them the means to\nlive, and labored to annul the sentence that had been pronounced\nagainst them for nine long and weary years. He appealed to kings for\nmoney, to Catherine II of Russia, and to hundreds of others.  He was\nsuccessful.  He said of this case:--The Sirvens were tried and\ncondemned in two hours in January, 1762, and now in January, 1772,\nafter ten years of effort, they have been restored to their rights.\"\n\nThis was the work of Voltaire.  Why should the worshipers of God hate\nthe lovers of men?\n\nEspenasse was a Protestant, of good estate.  In 1740 he received into\nhis house a Protestant clergyman, to whom he gave supper and lodging.\nIn a country where priests repeated the parable of the \"Good Samaritan\"\nthis was a crime.  For this crime Espenasse was tried, convicted and\nsentenced to the galleys for life.  When he had been imprisoned for\ntwenty-three years his case came to the knowledge of Voltaire, and he\nwas, through the efforts of Voltaire, released and restored to his\nfamily.\n\nThis was the work of Voltaire.  There is not time to tell of the case\nof Gen. Lally, of the English Gen. Byng, of the niece of Corneille, of\nthe Jesuit Adam, of the writers, dramatists, actors, widows and orphans\nfor whose benefit he gave his influence, his money and his time.\n\nBut I will tell another case:  In 1765 at the town of Abbeville an old\nwooden cross on a bridge had been mutilated--whittled with a knife--a\nterrible crime.  Sticks, when crossing each other, were far more sacred\nthan flesh and blood.  Two young men were suspected--the Chevalier de\nla Barre and d'Ettalonde. D'Ettallonde fled to Prussia and enlisted as\na common soldier. La Barre remained and stood his trial.  He was\nconvicted without the slightest evidence, and he and d'Ettallonde were\nboth sentenced:  First, to endure the torture, ordinary and\nextraordinary; second, to have their tongues torn out by the roots with\npincers of iron; third, to have their right hands cut off at the door\nof the church; and fourth, to be bound to stakes by chains of iron and\nburned to death by a slow fire.  \"Forgive us our trespasses as we\nforgive those who trespass against us.\" Remembering this, the judges\nmitigated the sentence by providing that their heads should be cut off\nbefore their bodies were given to the flames.  The case was appealed to\nParis; heard by a court composed of twenty-five judges learned in law,\nand the judgment was confirmed.  The sentence was carried out on the\n1st day of July, 1766.\n\nVoltaire had fought with every weapon that genius could devise or use.\nHe was the greatest of all caricaturists, and he used this wonderful\ngift without mercy.  For pure crystallized wit he had no equal.  The\nart of flattery was carried by him to the height of an exact science.\nHe knew and practiced every subterfuge.  He fought the army of\nhypocrisy and pretense, the army of faith and falsehood.  Voltaire was\nannoyed by the meaner and baser spirits of his time, by the cringers\nand crawlers, by the fawners and pretenders, by those who wished to\ngain the favors of priests, the patronage of nobles.  Sometimes he\nallowed himself to be annoyed by these scorpions; sometimes he attacked\nthem.  And, but for these attacks, long ago they would have been\nforgotten. In the amber of his genius Voltaire preserved these insects,\nthese tarantulas, these scorpions.\n\nIt is fashionable to say that he was not profound.  This is because he\nwas not stupid.  In the presence of absurdity he laughed, and was\ncalled irreverent.  He thought God would not damn even a priest\nforever.  This was regarded as blasphemy.  He endeavored to prevent\nChristians from murdering each other, and did what he could to civilize\nthe disciples of Christ.  Had he founded a sect, obtained control of\nsome country, and burned a few heretics at slow fires, he would have\nwon the admiration, respect and love of the christian world.  Had he\nonly pretended to believe all the fables of antiquity, and had he\nmumbled Latin prayers, counted beads, crossed himself, devoured now and\nthen the flesh of God, and carried fagots to the feet of Philosophy in\nthe name of Christ, he might have been in heaven this moment, enjoying\na sight of the damned.\n\nIf he had only adopted the creed of his time--if he had asserted that a\nGod of infinite power and mercy had created millions and billions of\nhuman beings to suffer eternal pain, and all for the sake of his\nglorious justice--that he had given his power of attorney to a cunning\nand cruel Italian pope, authorizing him to save the soul of his\nmistress and send honest wives to hell--if he had given to the nostrils\nof this God the odor of burning flesh--the incense of the fagot--if he\nhad filled his ears with the shrieks of the tortured--the music of the\nrack, he would now be known as St. Voltaire.\n\nInstead of doing these things he willfully closed his eyes to the light\nof the gospel, examined the bible for himself, advocated intellectual\nliberty, struck from the brain the fetters of an arrogant faith,\nassisted the weak, cried out against the torture of man, appealed to\nreason, endeavored to establish universal toleration, succored the\nindigent, and defended the oppressed. He demonstrated that the origin\nof all religions is the same, the same mysteries--the same\nmiracles--the same impostures--the same temples and ceremonies--the\nsame kind of founders, apostles and dupes--the same promises and\nthreats--the same pretense of goodness and forgiveness and the practice\nof the same persecution and murder.  He proved that religion made\nenemies--philosophy, friends--and that above the rites of gods were the\nrights of man. These were his crimes.  Such a man God would not suffer\nto die in peace.      If allowed to meet death with a smile, others\nmight follow his example, until none would be left to light the holy\nfires of the auto da fe.  It would not do for so great, so successful\nan enemy of the church to die without leaving some shriek of fear, some\nshudder of remorse, some ghastly prayer of chattered horror, uttered by\nlips covered with blood and foam. For many centuries the theologians\nhave taught that an unbeliever--an infidel--one who spoke or wrote\nagainst their creed, could not meet death with composure; that in his\nlast moments God would fill his conscience with the serpents of\nremorse.  For a thousand years the clergy have manufactured the facts\nto fit this theory--this infamous conception of the duty of man and the\njustice of God.  The theologians have insisted that crimes against men\nwere, and are, as nothing compared with crimes against God.  That,\nwhile kings and priests did nothing worse than to make their fellows\nwretched, that so long as they only butchered and burnt the innocent\nand helpless, God would maintain the strictest neutrality; but when\nsome honest man, some great and tender soul, expressed a doubt as to\nthe truth of the scriptures, or prayed to the wrong god, or to the\nright one by the wrong name, then the real God leaped like a wounded\ntiger upon his victim, and from his quivering flesh tore the wretched\nsoul.\n\nThere is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of murder has\nbeen paralyzed--no truthful account in all the literature of the world\nof the innocent child being shielded by God.  Thousands of crimes are\nbeing committed ever day--men are at this moment lying in wait for\ntheir human prey--wives are whipped and crushed, driven to insanity and\ndeath--little children begging for mercy, lifting imploring,\ntear-filled eyes to the brutal faces of fathers and mothers--sweet\ngirls are deceived, lured and outraged, but God has no time to prevent\nthese things--no time to defend the good and protect the pure.  He is\ntoo busy numbering hairs and watching sparrows.  He listens for\nblasphemy; looks for persons who laugh at priests; examines baptismal\nregisters; watches professors in college who begin to doubt the geology\nof Moses and the astronomy of Joshua.  He does not particularly object\nto stealing, if you don't swear.  A great many persons have fallen dead\nin the act of taking God's name in vain, but millions of men, women and\nchildren have been stolen from their homes and used as beasts of\nburden, but no one engaged in this infamy has ever been touched by the\nwrathful hand of God.  All kinds of criminals, except infidels, meet\ndeath with reasonable serenity.  As a rule there is nothing in the\ndeath of a pirate to cast any discredit on his profession.  The\nmurderer upon the scaffold, with a priest on either side, smilingly\nexhorts the multitude to meet him in heaven.  The man who has succeeded\nin making his home a hell meets death without a quiver, provided he has\nnever expressed any doubt as to the divinity of Christ or the eternal\n\"procession\" of the Holy Ghost.\n\nNow and then a man of genius, of sense, of intellectual honesty, has\nappeared.  Such men have denounced the superstition of their day.  They\nhave pitied the multitude.  To see priests devour the substance of the\npeople--priests who made begging one of the learned professions--filled\nthem with loathing and contempt. These men were honest enough to tell\ntheir thoughts, brave enough to speak the truth.  Then they were\ndenounced, tried, tortured, killed by rack or flame.  But some escaped\nthe fury of the fiends who loved their enemies and died naturally in\ntheir beds.  It would not do for the church to admit that they died\npeacefully. That would show that religion was essential at the last\nmoment. Superstition gets its power from the terror of death.  It would\nnot do to have the common people understand that a man could deny the\nbible, refuse to kiss the cross; contend that humanity was greater than\nChrist, and then die as sweetly as Torquemada did after pouring molten\nlead into the ears of an honest man, or as calmly as Calvin after he\nhad burned Servetus, or as peacefully as King David after advising with\nhis last breath one son to assassinate another.\n\nThe church has taken great pains to show that the last moments of all\ninfidels (that Christians did not succeed in burning) were infinitely\nwretched and despairing.  It was alleged that words could not paint the\nhorrors that were endured by a dying infidel. Every good Christian was\nexpected to, and generally did, believe these accounts.  They have been\ntold and retold in every pulpit of the world.  Protestant ministers\nhave repeated the lies invented by Catholic priests, and Catholics, by\na kind of theological comity, have sworn to the lies told by the\nProtestants. Upon this point they have always stood together, and will\nas long as the same falsehood can be used by both.  Upon the death-bed\nsubject the clergy grew eloquent.  When describing the shudderings and\nshrieks of the dying unbeliever their eyes glitter with delight.  It is\na festival. They are no longer men. They become hyenas.  They dig open\ngraves.  They devour the dead. It is a banquet.  Unsatisfied still,\nthey paint the terrors of hell.  They gaze at the souls of the infidels\nwrithing in the coils of the worm that never dies.  They see them in\nflames--in oceans of fire--in gulfs of pain--in abysses of despair.\nThey shout with joy. They applaud.\n\nIt is an auto da fe, presided over by God.  But let us come back to\nVoltaire--to the dying philosopher.  He was an old man of 84. He had\nbeen surrounded with the comforts, the luxuries of life. He was a man\nof great wealth, the richest writer that the world had known.  Among\nthe literary men of the earth he stood first. He was an intellectual\nmonarch--one who had built his own throne and had woven the purple of\nhis own power.  He was a man of genius.  The Catholic God had allowed\nhim the appearance of success.  His last years were filled with the\nintoxication of flattery--of almost worship.  He stood at the summit of\nhis age. The priests became anxious.  They began to fear that God would\nforget, in a multiplicity of business, to make a terrible example of\nVoltaire.  Toward the last of May, 1778, it was whispered in Paris that\nVoltaire was dying.  Upon the fences of expectation gathered the\nunclean birds of superstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.  Two\ndays before his death, his nephew went to seek the cure of Saint\nSurplice and the Abbe Gautier, and brought them to his uncle's sick\nchamber, who, being informed that they were there, said:  \"Ah, well,\ngive them my compliments and my thanks.\"  The abbe spoke some words to\nhim, exhorting him to patience.  The cure of Saint Surplice then came\nforward, having announced himself, and asked of Voltaire, elevating his\nvoice, if he acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  The\nsick man pushed one of his hands against the cure's coif, shoving him\nback, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side:  \"Let me die in\npeace.\"  The cure seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif\ndishonored by the touch of a philosopher.  He made the nurse give him a\nlittle brushing and went out with the Abbe Gautier.  He expired, says\nWagnierre, on the 30th of May, 1778, at about a quarter past 11 at\nnight, with the most perfect tranquility.  A few moments before his\nlast breath he took the hand of Morand, his valet de chambee, who was\nwatching by him, pressed it, and said:  \"Adieu, my dear Morand, I am\ngone.\"  These were his last words.  Like a peaceful river, with green\nand shaded banks, he flowed without a murmur into the waveless sea,\nwhere life is rest.\n\nFrom this death, so simple and serene, so kind, so philosophic and\ntender; so natural and peaceful; from these words so utterly destitute\nof cant or dramatic touch, all the frightful pictures, all the\ndespairing utterances have been drawn and made. From these materials,\nand from these alone, or rather, in spite of these facts, have been\nconstructed by priests and clergymen and their dupes all the shameless\nlies about the death of this great and wonderful man.  A man, compared\nwith whom all of his calumniators, dead and living, were, and are, but\ndust and vermin.  Let us be honest.  Did all the priests of Rome\nincrease the mental wealth of man as much as Bruno?  Did all the\npriests of France do as great a work for the civilization of the world\nas Voltaire or Diderot?  Did all the ministers of Scotland add as much\nto the such of human knowledge as David Hume?  Have all the clergymen,\nmonks, friars, ministers, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes, from\nthe day of Pentecost to the last election, done as much for human\nliberty as Thomas Paine?  What would the world be if infidels had never\nbeen?  The infidels have been the brave and thoughtful men; the flower\nof all the world; the pioneers and heralds of the blessed day of\nliberty and love; the generous spirits of the unworthy past; the seers\nand prophets of our race; the great chivalric souls, proud victors on\nthe battlefields of thought, the creditors of all the years to be.\n\nIn those days the philosophers--that is to say, the thinkers--were not\nburied in holy ground.  It was feared that their principles might\ncontaminate the ashes of the just.  And they also feared that on the\nmorning of the resurrection they might, in a moment of confusion, slip\ninto heaven.  Some were burned and their ashes scattered; and the\nbodies of some were thrown naked to beasts, and others buried in unholy\nearth.  Voltaire knew the history of Adrienne Le Couvreur, a beautiful\nactress, denied burial.  After all, we do feel an interest in what is\nto become of our bodies.  There is a modesty that belongs to death.\nUpon this subject Voltaire was infinitely sensitive.  It was that he\nmight be buried that he went through the farce of confession, of\nabsolution, and of the last sacrament.  The priests knew that he was\nnot in earnest, and Voltaire knew that they would not allow him to be\nburied in any of the cemeteries of Paris.  His death was kept a secret.\nThe Abbe Mignot made arrangements for the burial at\nRomilli-on-the-Seine, more than 100 miles from Paris. Sunday evening,\non the last day of May, 1778, the body of Voltaire, clad in a dressing\ngown, clothed to resemble an invalid, posed to simulate life, was\nplaced in a carriage; at its side a servant, whose business it was to\nkeep it in position.  To this carriage were attached six horses, so\nthat people might think a great lord was going to his estates.  Another\ncarriage followed in which were a grand-nephew and two cousins of\nVoltaire.  All night they traveled, and on the following day arrived at\nthe courtyard of the abbey.  The necessary papers were shown, the mass\nwas performed in the presence of the body, and Voltaire found burial.\nA few moments afterward the prior who \"for charity had given a little\nearth\" received from his bishop a menacing letter forbidding the burial\nof Voltaire.  It was too late.  He could not then be removed, and he\nwas allowed to remain in peace until 1791.\n\nVoltaire was dead.  The foundations of State and throne had been\nsapped. The people were becoming acquainted with the real kings and\nwith the actual priests.  Unknown men born in misery and want, men\nwhose fathers and mothers had been pavement for the rich, were rising\ntowards the light and their shadowy faces were emerging from darkness.\nLabor and thought became friends.  That is, the gutter and the attic\nfraternized. The monsters of the night and the angels of dawn--the\nfirst thinking of revenge and the others dreaming of equality, liberty\nand fraternity. For 400 years the Bastille had been the outward symbol\nof oppression. Within its walls the noblest had perished.  It was a\nperpetual threat. It was the last and often the first argument of king\nand priest.  Its dungeons, damp and rayless, its massive towers, its\nsecret cells, its instruments of torture, denied the existence of God.\nIn 1789, on the 14th of July, the people, the multitude, frenzied by\nsuffering, stormed and captured the Bastille.  The battlecry was, \"Vive\nle Voltaire!\"\n\nIn 1791 permission was given to place in the Pantheon the ashes of\nVoltaire.  He had been buried 110 miles from Paris.  Buried by stealth\nhe was to be removed by a nation.  A funeral procession of a hundred\nmiles; every village with its flags and arches in his honor; all the\npeople anxious to honor the philosopher of France--the savior of\nCalas--the destroyer of superstition!  On reaching Paris the great\nprocession moved along the Rue St. Antoine.  Here it paused, and for\none night upon the ruins of the Bastille rested the body of\nVoltaire--rested in triumph, in glory--rested on fallen wall and broken\narch, on crumbling stone still damp with tears, on rusting chain, and\nbar and useless bolt--above the dungeons dark and deep, where light had\nfaded from the lives of men and hope had died in breaking hearts.  The\nconqueror resting upon the conquered.  Throned upon the Bastille, the\nfallen fortress of night, the body of Voltaire, from whose brain had\nissued the dawn.\n\nFor a moment his ashes must have felt the Promethean fire, and the old\nsmile must have illumined once more the face of the dead.\n\nWhile the vast multitude were trembling with love and awe, a priest was\nheard to cry, \"God shall be avenged!\"\n\nThe grave of Voltaire was violated.  The cry of the priest, \"God shall\nbe avenged!\" had borne its fruit.  Priests, skulking in the shadows,\nwith faces sinister as night-ghouls--in the name of the gospel,\ndesecrated the gave.  They carried away the body of Voltaire.  The tomb\nwas empty.  God was avenged!  The tomb was empty, but the world is\nfilled with Voltaire's fame.  Man has conquered!\n\nWhat cardinal, what bishop, what priest raised his voice for the rights\nof men?  What ecclesiastic, what nobleman, took the side of the\noppressed--of the peasant?  Who denounced the frightful criminal code\nthe torture of suspected persons?  What priest pleaded for the liberty\nof the citizen?  What bishop pitied the victim of the rack?  Is there\nthe grave of a priest in France on which a lover of liberty would now\ndrop a flower or a tear?  Is there a tomb holding the ashes of a saint\nfrom which emerges one ray of light?  If there be another life, a day\nof judgment, no God can afford to torture in another world a man who\nabolished torture in his.  If God be the keeper of an eternal\npenitentiary, He should not imprison there those who broke the chain of\nslavery here.  He cannot afford to make eternal convicts of Franklin,\nof Jefferson, of Paine, of Voltaire.\n\nVoltaire was perfectly equipped for his work.  A perfect master of the\nFrench language, knowing all its moods, tenses, and declinations, in\nfact and in feeling, playing upon it as skillfully, as Paganini on his\nviolin, finding expression for every thought and fancy, writing on the\nmost serious subjects with the gayety of a harlequin, plucking jests\nfrom the mouth of death, graceful as the waving of willows, dealing in\ndouble meanings--that covered the asp with flowers and flattery, master\nof satire and compliment, mingling them often in the same line, always\ninterested himself, therefore interesting others, handling thoughts,\nquestions, subjects, as a juggler does balls, keeping them in the air\nwith perfect ease, dressing old words in new meanings, charming,\ngrotesque, pathetic, mingling mirth with tears, wit with wisdom, and\nsometimes wickedness, logic, and laughter.  With a woman's instinct\nknowing the sensitive nerves--just where to touch--hating arrogance of\nplace, the stupidity of the solemn, snatching masks from priest and\nking, knowing the springs of action and ambition's ends, perfectly\nfamiliar with the great world, the intimate of kings and their\nfavorites, sympathizing with the oppressed and imprisoned, with the\nunfortunate and poor, hating tyranny, despising superstition, and\nloving liberty with all his heart.  Such was Voltaire, writing \"Edipus\"\nat seventeen, \"Irene\" at eighty-three, and crowding between these two\ntragedies, the accomplishment of a thousand lives.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Lecture on Myth and Miracles\n\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:  What, after all, is the object of life? What is\nthe highest possible aim?  The highest aim is to accomplish the only\ngood.  Happiness is the only good of which man by any possibility can\nconceive.  The object of life is to increase human joy, and that means\nintellectual and physical development.  The question, then, is:  Shall\nwe rely upon superstition or upon growth?  Is intellectual development\nthe highway of progress or must we depend on the pit of credulity? Must\nwe rely on belief or credulity, or upon manly virtues, courageous\ninvestigation, thought, and intellectual development? For thousands of\nyears men have been talking about religious freedom.  I am now\ncontending for the freedom of religion, not religious freedom--for the\nfreedom which is the only real religion.  Only a few years ago our poor\nancestors tried to account for what they saw.  Noticing the running\nriver, the shining star, or the painted flower, they put a spirit in\nthe river, a spirit in the star, and another in the flower. Something\nmakes this river run, something makes this star shine, something paints\nthe blossom of that flower.  They were all spirits.  That was the first\nreligion of mankind--fetichism--and in everything that lived,\neverything that produced an effect upon them, they said:  \"This is a\nspirit that lives within.\"  That is called the lowest phase of\nreligious thought, and yet it is quite the highest phase of religious\nthought.  One by one these little spirits died.  One by one nonentities\ntook their places, and last of all we have one infinite fetich that\ntakes the place of all others.  Now, what makes the river run?  We say\nthe attraction of gravitation, and we know no more about that than we\ndo about this fetich.  What makes the tree grow?  The principle of\nlife--vital forces. These are simply phrases, simply names of\nignorance. Nobody knows what makes the river run, what makes the trees\ngrow, why the flowers burst and bloom--nobody knows why the stars\nshine, and probably nobody ever will know.\n\nThere are two horizons that have never been passed by man--origin and\ndestiny.  All human knowledge is confined to the diameter of that\ncircle.  All religions rest on supposed facts beyond the circumference\nof the absolutely known.  What next?  The next thing that came in the\nworld--the next man--was the mythmaker. He gave to these little spirits\nhuman passions; he clothed ghosts in flesh; he warmed that flesh with\nblood, and in that blood he put desire--motive.  And the myths were\nborn, and were only produced through the fact of the impressions that\nnature makes upon the brain of man.  They were every one a natural\nproduction, and let me say here, tonight, that what men call\nmonstrosities are only natural productions.  Every religion has grown\njust as naturally as the grass; every one, as I said before, and it\ncannot be said too often, has been naturally produced.  All the\nChrists, all the gods and goddesses, all the furies and fairies, all\nthe mingling of the beastly and human, were all produced by the\nimpressions of nature upon the brain of man--by the rise of the sun,\nthe silver dawn, the golden sunset, the birth and death of day, the\nchange of seasons, the lightning, the storm, the beautiful bow--all\nthese produced within the brain of man all myths, and they are all\nnatural productions.\n\nThere have been certain myths universal among men.  Gardens of Eden\nhave been absolutely universal--the golden age, which is absolutely the\nsame thing.  And what was the golden age born of? Any old man in Boston\nwill tell you that fifty years ago all people were honest.  Fifty years\nago all people were sociable--there was no stuck-up aristocracy then.\nNeighbors were neighbors.  Merchants gave full weight.  Everything was\nfull length; everything was a yard wide and all wool.  Now everybody\nswindles everybody else, and calls it business.  Go back fifty years\nand you will find an old man who will tell you that there was a time\nwhen all were honest.  Go back another fifty years and you will find\nanother sage who will tell you the same story. Every man looks back to\nhis youth, to the golden age, and what is true of the individual is\ntrue of the whole human race.  It has its infancy, its manhood, and,\nfinally, will have an old age. The garden of Eden is not back of us.\nThere are more honest men, good women, and obedient children in the\nworld today than ever before.\n\nThe myth of the Elysian fields--universally born of sunsets. When the\ngolden clouds in the west turned to amethyst, sapphire, and purple, the\npoor savage thought it a vision of another land--a land without care or\ngrief--a world of perpetual joy.  This myth was born of the setting of\nthe sun.  A universal myth, all nations have believed in floods.\nSavages found everywhere evidences of the sea having been above the\nearth, and saw in the shells souvenirs of the ocean's visit.  It had\nleft its cards on the tops of mountains.  The savage knew nothing of\nthe slow rise and sinking of the crust of the earth.  He did not dream\nof it. We now know that where the mountains lift their granite\nforeheads to the sun, the billows once held sway, and that where the\nwaves dash into white caps of joy, the mountains will stand once more.\nEverywhere the land is, the ocean will be; and where the ocean is the\nland will be. The Hindoos believed in the flood myth. Their hero, who\nlived almost entirely on water, went to the Ganges to perform his\nablutions, and, taking up a little water in his hand, he saw a small\nfish that prayed him to save it from the monster of the river, and it\nwould save him in turn from his enemies.  He did so, and put it into\ndifferent receptacles until it grew so large that he let it loose in\nthe sea; then it was large enough to take care of itself.  The fish\ntold him that there was going to be an immense flood, and told him to\ngather all kinds of seed and take two of each kind of animals of use to\nman, and he would come along with an ark and take them all in. He told\nhim to pick out seven saints.  And the fish towed the ark along tied to\nits horns, and took them in and carried them to the top of a mountain,\nwhere he hitched the ark to a tree.  When the waters receded, they came\nout and followed them down until they reached the plain.  There were\nthe same number--eight--in this ark as there were with Noah.\n\nI find that the myth of the virgin mother is universal.  The virgin\nmother is the earth.  I find also in countries the idea of a trinity.\nIn Egypt I find Isis, Osiris, and Horus.  This idea prevailed in\nCentral America among the Aztecs.  We find the myth of the judgment\nalmost universal.  I imagine men have seen so much injustice here that\nthey naturally expect that there must be some day of final judgment\nsomewhere.  Nearly every theist is driven to the necessity of having\nanother world in which his god may correct the mistakes he has made in\nthis.  We find on the walls of Egyptian temples pictures of the\njudgment; the righteous all go on the right hand, and those unworthy on\nthe left.  The myth of the sun god was universal.  Agni was the sun god\nof the Hindoos.  He was called the most generous of all gods, yet he\nate his own father and mother.  Baldur was another sun god; he was a\nsun myth.  Hercules was a sun god, and so was Samson.  Jonah, too, was\na sun god, and was swallowed by a fish. So was Hercules, and a\nwonderful thing is that they were swallowed in about the same place,\nnear Joppa.  Where did the big fish go?  When the sun went down under\nthe earth, it was thought to be followed by the fish, which was said to\nswallow it, and carry it safely through the under world.  The sun thus\ncame to be represented as the body of a woman with the tail of a fish,\nand so the mermaid was born.  Another strange thing is that all the sun\ngods were born near Christmas.  The myth of Red Riding Hood, was known\namong the Aztecs.  The myth of eucharist came from the story of Ceres\nand Bacchus. When the cakes made by the product of the field were\neaten, it was the body of Ceres, and when the wine was drank it was the\nblood of Bacchus. From this idea the eucharist was born.  There is\nnothing original in christianity. Holy water!  Another myth.  The\nHindoos imagined that the water had its source in the throne of God.\nThe Egyptians thought the Nile sacred.  Greece was settled by Egyptian\ncolonies, and they carried with them the water of the Nile, and when\nany one died the water was sprinkled on him.  Finally Rome conquered\nGreece physically, but Greece conquered Rome intellectually.  This is\nthe myth of holy water, and with it grew up the idea of baptism, and I\npresume that that is as old as water and dirt.  The cross is another\nuniversal symbol.  There was once an ancient people in Italy before the\nRomans, before the Etruscans. They faded from the world, and history\ndoes not even know the name of that nation.  We find where they buried\nthe ashes of their dead, and we find chiseled, hundreds of years before\nChrist, the cross, a symbol of a hope of another life.  We find the\ncross in Egypt, in the cylinders from Babylon, and, more than that, we\nfind them in Central America.  On the temples of the Aztecs we find the\ncross, and on it a bleeding, dying god.  Our cross was built in the\nmiddle ages.\n\nWhen Adam was very sick he sent Seth, his son, to the garden of Eden.\nHe told him he would have no trouble in finding it; all he had to do\nwas to follow the tracks made by his mother and father when they left\nit.  He wanted a little balsam from the tree of life that he might not\ndie.  Seth found there a cherub, with flaming sword, who would not let\nhim pass the door.  He moved  his wings so that he could see in, and he\nsaw the tree of life, with its roots running down to hell, and among\nthem Cain, the murderer.  The angel gave Seth three seeds, and told him\nto put them in his father's mouth when he was buried and to watch the\neffect.  The result was that these trees grew up--one pine, one cedar,\nand on cypress.  Solomon cut down one of these trees to put in the\ntemple, but it grew through the roof and he threw it into the pool of\nBethesda.  When the soldiers went for a beam on which to crucify Christ\nthey took this tree and made a cross of it.  Helen, the mother of\nConstantine, went to Jerusalem to find this cross.  She found the two\ncrosses, also, that the thieves were crucified on.  They could not tell\nwhich was which, so they called a sick woman who touched them, and when\nshe touched the right one she was immediately made whole.\n\nSuch is myth and fable.  The history of one religion is substantially\nthe history of all religions.  In embryo man lives all lives.  The man\nof genius knows within himself the history of the human race; he knows\nthe history of all religions.  The man of imagination, genius, having\nseen a leaf and a drop of water, can construct the forests, the rivers,\nand the seas.  In his presence all the cataracts fall and foam, the\nmists rise, and the clouds form and float.  To really know one fact is\nknown its kindred and its neighbors.  Shakespeare, looking at a coat of\nmail, instantly imagined the society, the conditions that produced it,\nand what it, in its turn, produced.  He saw the castle, the moat, the\ndrawbridge, the lady in the tower, and the knightly lover spurring over\nthe plain.  He saw the bold baron and the rude retainer, the trampled\nserfs, and all the glory and the grief of feudal life.  The man of\nimagination has lived the life of all people, of all races.  He has\nbeen a citizen of Athens in the days of Pericles; listened to the eager\neloquence of the great orator, and has sat upon the cliff, and with the\ntragic poet heard \"the multitudinous laughter of the sea.\"  He has seen\nSocrates thrust the spear of question through the shield and heart of\nfalsehood--was present when the great man drank hemlock and met the\nnight of death tranquil as a star meets morning.  He has followed the\nperipatetic philosophers, and has been puzzled by the sophists.  He has\nwatched Phidias, as he chiseled shapeless stone to forms of love and\nawe.  He has lived by the slow Nile, amid the vast and monstrous.  He\nknows the very thought that wrought the form and features of the\nSphinx. He has heard great Memnon's morning song, has laid him down\nwith the embalmed dead, and felt within their dust the expectation of\nanother life, mingled with cold and suffocating doubts--the children\nborn of long delay.  He has walked the ways of mighty Rome, has seen\nthe great Caesar with his legions in the field, has stood with vast and\nmotley throngs and watched the triumphs given to victorious men,\nfollowed by uncrowned kings, the captured hosts and all the spoils of\nruthless war. He has heard the shout that shook the Coliseum's roofless\nwalls when from the reeling gladiator's hand the short sword fell,\nwhile from his bosom gushed the stream of wasted life.  He has lived\nthe life of savage men--has trod the forest's silent depths, and in the\ndesperate name of life or death has matched his thought against the\ninstinct of the beast. He has sat beneath the bo tree's contemplative\nshade, rapt in Buddha's mighty thought, and he has dreamed all dreams\nthat light, the alchemist, hath wrought from dust and dew and stored\nwithin the slumbrous poppy's subtle blood.  He has knelt with awe and\ndread at every prayer; has felt the consolation and the shuddering\nfear; has seen all the devils; has mocked and worshiped all the gods;\nenjoyed all heavens, and felt the pangs of every hell.  He has lived\nall lives, and through his blood and brain have crept the shadow and\nthe chill of every death, and his soul, Mazeppa-like, has been lashed\nnaked to the wild horse of every fear and love and hate. The\nimagination hath a stage within the brain, whereon he sets all scenes\nthat lie between the morn of laughter and the night of tears, and where\nhis players body forth the false and true, the joys and griefs, the\ncareless shadows, and the tragic deeps of human life.\n\nThrough with the myth-makers, we now come to the wonder-worker. There\nis this difference between the miracle and the myth--a myth is an\nidealism of a fact, and a miracle is a counterfeit of a fact.  There is\nsome difference between a myth and a miracle. There is the difference\nthat there is between fiction and falsehood and poetry and perjury.\nMiracles are probably only in the far past or the very remote future.\nThe present is the property of the natural.  You say to a man:  \"The\ndead were raised 4,000 years ago.\"  He says, \"Well, that's reasonable.\"\nYou say to him, \"In 4,000,000 years we shall all be raised.\" He says,\n\"That is what I believe.\"  Say to him, \"A man was raised from the dead\nthis morning,\" and he will say, \"What are you giving us?\"  Miracles\nnever convince at the time they were said to have been performed.\n\nJohn the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ.  He was cast into\nprison. When Christ heard of it He \"departed from that country.\"\nAfterward he returned and heard that John had been beheaded, and he\nagain departed from that country.  There is no possible relation\nbetween the miraculous and the moral.  The miracles of the middle ages\nare the children of superstition.  In the middle ages men told\neverything but the truth, and believed everything but the facts.  The\nmiddle ages--a trinity of ignorance, mendacity and insanity.  There is\none thing about humanity. You see the faults of others, but not your\nown.  A Catholic in India sees a Hindoo bowing before an idol and\nthinks it absurd.  Why does he not get him a plaster of paris virgin\nand some beads and holy water? Why does the protestant shut his eyes\nwhen he prays? The idea is a souvenir of sun worship.  It is the most\nnatural worship in the world. Religious dogmas have become absurd.  The\ndoctrine of eternal torment today has become absurd, low, groveling,\nignorant, barbaric, savage, devilish and no gentleman would preach it.\n\nScience, thou art the great magician!  Thou alone performest the true\nmiracles.  Thou alone workest the real wonders.  Fire is thy servant,\nlightning thy messenger.  The waves obey thee, and thou knowest the\ncircuits of the wind.  Thou art the great philanthropist.  Thou hast\nfreed the slave and civilized the master.  Thou hast taught man to\nchain, not his fellow-man, but the forces of nature--forces that have\nno backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat--forces\nthat never know fatigue, that shed no tears--forces that have no hearts\nto break. Thou gavest man the plow, the reaper and the loom--thou hast\nfed and clothed the world.  Thou art the great physician.  Thy touch\nhath given sight.  Thou hast made the lame to leap, the dumb to speak,\nand in the pallid cheek thy hand hath set the rose of health.  \"Thou\nhast given thy beloved sleep\"--a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the\nthrobbing nerves of pain.  Thou art the perpetual providence of\nman--preserver of life and love.  Thou art the teacher of every virtue,\nand the enemy of every vice. Thou has discovered the true basis of\nmorals--the origin and office of conscience--and hast revealed the\nnature and measure of obligation.  Thou hast taught that love is\njustice in its highest form, and that even self-love, guided by wisdom,\nembraces with loving arms the human race.  Thou hast slain the monsters\nof the past. Thou hast discovered the one inspired book.  Thou hast\nread the records of the rocks, written by wind and wave, by frost and\nflame--records that even priestcraft cannot change--and in thy wondrous\nscales thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars.  Thou art the founder\nof the only true religion.  Thou art the very Christ, the only savior\nof mankind!\n\nTheology has always been in the way of the advance of the human race.\nThere is this difference between science and theology--science is\nmodest and merciful, while theology is arrogant and cruel.  The hope of\nscience is the perfection of the human race. The hope of theology is\nthe salvation of a few and the damnation of almost everybody.  As I\ntold you in the first place, I believe in the religion of freedom.  O\nliberty! thou art the god of my idolatry.  Thou art the only deity that\nhates the bended knee. In thy vast and unwalled temple, beneath the\nroofless dome, star-gemmed and luminous with suns, thy worshipers stand\nerect.  They do not bow or cringe or crawl or bend their foreheads to\nthe earth.  Thy dust hast never borne the impress of lips, upon thy\nsacred altars mothers do not sacrifice their babes, nor men their\nrights.  Thou askest naught from man except the things that good men\nhate, the whip, the chain, the dungeon key.  Thou hast no kings, no\npopes, no priests to stand between their fellow-men and thee.  Thou\nhast no monks, no nuns, who, in the name of duty, murder joy.  Thou\ncarest not for forms nor mumbled prayers.  At thy sacred shrine\nhypocrisy does not bow, fear does not crouch, virtue does not tremble,\nsuperstition's feeble tapers do not burn, but reason holds aloft her\ninextinguishable torch, while on the ever-broadening brow of science\nfalls the ever coming morning of the ever better day.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll on The Chinese God\n\n\nMessrs. Wright, Dickey, O'Conner and Murch, of the select committee on\nthe causes of the present depression of labor, presented the majority\nspecial report upon Chinese immigration.\n\nThese gentlemen are in great fear for the future of our most holy and\nperfectly authenticated religion, and have, like faithful watchmen from\nthe walls and towers of Zion, hastened to give the alarm.  They have\ninformed Congress that \"Joss has his temple of worship in the Chinese\nquarters, in San Francisco.  Within the walls of a dilapidated\nstructure is exposed to the view of the faithful the god of the\nChinaman, and here are his altars of worship.  Here he tears up his\npieces of paper; here he offers up his prayers; here he receives his\nreligious consolations, and here is his road to the celestial land.\"\nThat \"Joss is located in a long, narrow room, in a building in a back\nalley, upon a kind of altar;\" that \"he is a wooden image, looking as\nmuch like an alligator as like a human being;\"  that the Chinese \"think\nthere is such a place as heaven;\" that \"all classes of Chinamen worship\nidols;\"  that \"the temple is open every day at all hours;\"  that \"the\nChinese have no Sunday;\"  that this heathen god has \"huge jaws, a big\nred tongue, large white teeth, a half-dozen arms, and big, fiery\neyeballs.  About him are placed offerings of meat, and other\neatables--a sacrificial offering.\"\n\nNo wonder that these members of the committee were shocked at such a\ngod, knowing as they did that the only true God was correctly described\nby the inspired lunatic of Patmos in the following words:\n\n\"And there sat in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks one like\nunto the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt\nabout the paps with a golden girdle.  His head and his hairs were white\nlike wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and\nhis feet like unto fine brass as if they burned in a furnace; and his\nvoice as the sound of many waters.  And he had in his right hand seven\nstars; and out of his mouth went a sharp, two-edged sword; and his\ncountenance was as the sun shining in his strength.\"\n\nCertainly, a large mouth, filled with white teeth, is preferable to one\nused as the scabbard of a sharp, two-edged sword.  Why should these\ngentlemen object to a god with big fiery eyeballs, when their own Deity\nhas eyes like a flame of fire?\n\nIs it not a little late in the day to object to people because they\nsacrifice meat and other eatables to their god?  We all know that for\nthousands of years the \"real\" God was exceedingly fond of roasted meat;\nthat He loved the savor of burning flesh, and delighted in the perfume\nof fresh, warm blood.\n\nThe following account of the manner in which the \"living God\" desired\nthat His people should sacrifice tends to show the degradation and\nreligious blindness of the Chinese--:\n\n\"Aaron therefore went unto the altar and slew the calf of the\nsin-offering which was for himself.  And the sons of Aaron brought the\nblood unto him.  And he dipped his fingers in the blood and put it upon\nthe horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the\naltar; but the fat and the kidneys and the caul above the liver of the\nsin-offering he burnt upon the altar, as the Lord commanded Moses, and\nthe flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp.  And he\nslew the burnt offering.  And Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood\nwhich he sprinkled round about the altar....  And he brought the meat\noffering and took a handful thereof and burnt upon the altar..... He\nslew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offering,\nwhich was for the people.  And Aaron's sons presented unto him the\nblood which he sprinkled upon the altar, round about, and the fat of\nthe bullock and of the ram, the rump and that which covereth the\ninwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver, and they put\nthe fat upon the breasts and he burnt the fat upon the altar.  And the\nbreasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave-offering before\nthe Lord, as Moses had commanded.\"\n\nIf the Chinese only did something like this, we would know that they\nworshiped the \"living\" God.  The idea that the supreme head of the\n\"American system of religion\" can be placated with a little meat and\n\"ordinary eatables,\" is simply preposterous.  He has always asked for\nblood, and has always asserted that without the shedding of blood there\nis no remission of sin.\n\nThe world is also informed by these gentlemen that \"the idolatry of the\nChinese produces a demoralizing effect upon our American youth by\nbringing sacred things into disrespect, and making religion a theme of\ndisgust and contempt.\"\n\nIn San Francisco there are some three hundred thousand people. Is it\npossible that a few Chinese can bring \"our holy religion\" into disgust\nand contempt?  In that city there are fifty times as many churches as\njoss-houses.  Scores of sermons are uttered every week; religious books\nand papers are plentiful as leaves in autumn, and somewhat dryer;\nthousands of bibles are with in the reach of all.  And there, too, is\nthe example of a Christian city.\n\nWhy should we send missionaries to China if we cannot convert the\nheathen when they come here?  When missionaries go to a foreign land,\nthe poor, benighted people have to take their word for the blessings\nshowered upon a Christian people; but when the heathen come here, they\ncan see for themselves.  What was simply a story becomes a demonstrated\nfact.  They come in contact with people who love their enemies.  They\nsee that in a Christian land men tell the truth; that they will not\ntake advantage of strangers; that they are just and patient; kind and\ntender; and have no prejudice on account of color, race, or religion;\nthat they look upon mankind as brethren; that they speak of God as a\nuniversal Father, and are willing to work, and even to suffer, for the\ngood, not only of their own countrymen, but of the heathen as well.\nAll this the Chinese see and know, and why they still cling to the\nreligion of their country is to me a matter of amazement.\n\nWe all know that the disciples of Jesus do unto others as they would\nthat others should do unto them, and that those of Confucius do not\nunto others anything that they would not that others should do unto\nthem. Surely, such peoples ought to live together in perfect peace.\nRising with the subject, growing heated with a kind of holy\nindignation, these Christian representatives of a Christian people most\nsolemnly declare that anyone who is really endowed with a correct\nknowledge of our religious system which acknowledges the existence of a\nliving God and an accountability to Him, and a future state of reward\nand punishment, who feels that he has an apology for this abominable\npagan worship, is not a fit person to be ranked as a good citizen of\nthe American union.  It is absurd to make any apology for its\ntoleration.  It must be abolished, and the sooner the decree goes forth\nby the power of this government, the better it will be for the\ninterests of this land.\n\nI take this the earliest opportunity to inform these gentlemen\ncomposing a majority of the committee that we have in the United States\nno \"religious system;\"  that this is a secular government. That it has\nno religious creed; that it does not believe nor disbelieve in a future\nstate of reward and punishment; that it neither affirms nor denies the\nexistence of a \"living God;\"  and that the only god, so far as this\ngovernment is concerned; is the legally expressed will of a majority of\nthe people.  Under our flag the Chinese have the same right to worship\na wooden god that you have to worship any other.  The constitution\nprotects equally the church of Jehovah and the house of Joss.  Whatever\ntheir relative positions may be in heaven, they stand upon a perfect\nequality in the United States.  This government is an infidel\ngovernment.  We have a constitution with man put in and God left out;\nand it is the glory of this country that we have such a constitution.\n\nIt may be surprising to you that I have an apology for pagan worship,\nyet I have.  And it is the same one that I have for the writers of this\nreport.  I account for both by the word superstition.  Why should we\nobject to their worshiping God as they please?  If the worship is\nimproper, the protestation should come not from a committee of\ncongress, but from God himself.  If He is satisfied, that is sufficient.\n\nOur religion can only be brought into contempt by the actions of those\nwho profess to be governed by its teachings.  This report will do more\nin that direction than millions of Chinese could do by burning pieces\nof paper before a wooden image.  If you wish to impress the Chinese\nwith the value of your religion, of what you are pleased to call \"the\nAmerican system,\" show them that Christians are better than heathens.\nProve to them that what you are pleased to call the \"living God\"\nteaches higher and holier things, a grander and purer code of morals,\nthan can be found upon pagan pages.  Excel these wretches in industry,\nin honesty, in reverence for parents, in cleanliness, in frugality, and\nabove all by advocating the absolute liberty of human thought.\n\nDo not trample upon these people because they have different conception\nof things about which even this committee knows nothing.\n\nGive them the same privilege you enjoy of making a god after their own\nfashion, and let them describe him as they will.  Would you be willing\nto have them remain, if one of their race, thousands of years ago, had\npretended to have seen God, and had written of Him as follows:  \"There\nwent up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth; coals\nwere kindled by it.... and he rode upon a cherub and did fly?\"  Why\nshould you object to these people on account of their religion?  Your\nobjection has in it the spirit of hate and intolerance.  Of that spirit\nthe inquisition was born.  That spirit lighted the fagot, made the\nthumbscrew, put chains upon the limbs, and lashes upon the backs of\nmen. The same spirit bought and sold, captured and kidnapped human\nbeings; sold babes, and justified all the horrors of slavery.  Congress\nhas nothing to do with the religion of the people.  Its members are not\nresponsible to God for the opinions of their constituents, and it may\ntend to the happiness of the constituents for me to state that they are\nin no way responsible for the religion of the members.  Religion is an\nindividual not a national matter, and where the nation interferes with\nthe right of conscience, the liberties of the people are devoured by\nthe monster, superstition.\n\nIf you wish to drive out the Chinese, do not make a pretext of\nreligion. Do not pretend that you are trying to do God a favor.\nInjustice in His name is doubly detestable.  The assassin cannot\nsanctify his dagger by falling on his knees, and it does not help a\nfalsehood if it be uttered as a prayer.  Religion, used to intensify\nthe hatred of men toward men, under the pretense of pleasing God, has\ncursed this world.\n\nA portion of this most remarkable report is Intensely religious. There\nis in it almost the odor of sanctity; and when reading it, one is\nimpressed with the living piety of its authors.  But on the\ntwenty-fifth page, there are a few passages that must pain the hearts\nof true believers.  Leaving their religious views, the members\nimmediately betake themselves to philosophy and prediction.  Listen:\n\n\"The Chinese race and the American citizen, whether native-born or who\nis eligible to our naturalization laws and becomes a citizen, are in a\nstate of antagonism.  They cannot, nor will not, ever meet upon common\nground and occupy together the same so-called level.  This is\nimpossible.  The pagan and the Christian travel different paths.  This\none believes in a living God; that one in the type of monsters and\nworship of wood and stone.  Thus in the religion of the two races of\nmen, they are as wide apart as the poles of the two hemispheres.  They\ncannot now, nor never [sic] will, approach the same religious altar.\nThe Christian will not recede to barbarism, nor will the Chinese\nadvance to the enlightened belt [wherever it is] of civilization.... He\ncannot be converted to those modern ideas of religious worship which\nhave been accepted by Europe, and which crown the American system.\"\n\nChristians used to believe that through their religion all the nations\nof the earth were finally to be blest.  In accordance with that belief\nmissionaries have been sent to every land, and untold wealth has been\nexpended for what has been called the spread of the gospel.\n\nI am almost sure that I have read somewhere that \"Christ died for all\nmen,\" and that \"God is no respecter persons.\"  It was once taught that\nit was the duty of Christians to tell to all people the \"tidings of\ngreat joy.\"  I have never believed these things myself, but have always\ncontended that an honest merchant was the best missionary.  Commerce\nmakes friends, religion makes enemies; the one enriches, and the other\nimpoverishes; the one thrives best where the truth is told, the other\nwhere falsehoods are believed.  For myself, I have but little\nconfidence in any business, or enterprise, or investment, that promises\ndividends only after the death of the stockholders.\n\nBut I am astonished that four Christian statesmen, four members of\nCongress in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, who seriously\nobject to people on account of their religious convictions, should\nstill assert that the very religion in which they believe--and the only\nreligion established by the living God--head of the American system--is\nnot adapted to the spiritual needs of one-third of the human race.  It\nis amazing that these four gentlemen have, in the defense of the\nChristian religion, announced the discovery that it is wholly\ninadequate for the civilization of mankind that the light of the cross\ncan never penetrate the darkness of China; \"that all the labors of the\nmissionary, the example of the good, the exalted character of our\ncivilization, make no impression upon the pagan life of the Chinese;\"\nand that even the report of this committee will not tend to elevate,\nrefine and Christianize the yellow heathen of the Pacific Coast.  In\nthe name of religion these gentlemen have denied its power and mocked\nat the enthusiasm of its founder. Worse than this, they have predicted\nfor the Chinese a future of ignorance and idolatry in this world, and,\nif the \"American system\"--of religion us true, hellfire in the next.\n\nFor the benefit of these four philosophers and prophets, I will give a\nfew extracts from the writings of Confucius that will in my judgment,\ncompare favorably with the best passages of their report:\n\n\"My doctrine is that man must be true to the principles of his nature,\nand the benevolent exercises of them toward others.\n\n\"With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and with my bended arm\nfor a pillow, I still have joy.\n\n\"Riches and honor acquired by injustice are to me but floating clouds.\n\n\"The man who, in view of gain, thinks of righteousness; who, in view of\ndanger, forgets life, and who remembers an old agreement, however far\nback it extends, such a man may be reckoned a complete man.\n\n\"Recompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.\"\n\nThere is one Word which may serve as rule of practice for all one's\nlife.  Reciprocity is that word.\n\nWhen the ancestors of the four Christian Congressmen were barbarians,\nwhen they lived in caves, gnawed bones, and worshiped dried snakes, the\ninfamous Chinese were reading these sublime sentences of Confucius.\nWhen the forefathers of these Christian statesmen were hunting toads to\nget the jewels out of their heads to be used as charms, the wretched\nChinese were calculating eclipses and measuring the circumference of\nthe earth.  When the progenitors of these representatives of the\n\"American system of religion\" were burning women charged with nursing\ndevils, these people, \"incapable of being influenced by the exalted\ncharacter of our civilization,\" were building asylums for the insane.\n\nNeither should it be forgotten that, for thousands of years, the\nChinese have honestly practiced the great principle known as civil\nservice reform--a something that even the administration of Mr. Hayes\nhas reached only through the proxy of promise.\n\nIf we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let us reform our\ntreaties with the vast empire from whence they came. For thousands of\nyears the Chinese secluded themselves from the rest of the world.  They\ndid not deem the Christian nations fit to associate with.  We forced\nourselves upon them.  We called, not with cards, but with cannon.  The\nEnglish battered down the door in the names of Opium and Christ.  This\ninfamy was regarded as another triumph for the gospel.  At last, in\nself-defense, the Chinese allowed Christians to touch their shores.\nTheir wise men, their philosophers protested, and prophesied that time\nwould show that Christians could not be trusted.  This report proves\nthat the wise men were not only philosophers, but prophets.\n\nTreat China as you would England.  Keep a treaty while it is in force.\nChange it if you will, according to the laws of nations, but on no\naccount excuse a breach of national faith by pretending that we are\ndishonest for God's sake.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Letter, Is Suicide a Sin? (Colonel Ingersoll's First Letter)\n\n\nI do not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not.  If it\nis, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow, more\nfailure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair.  In\ncivilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many\nfall.  To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea.  In the\ncountry a man has friends.  He can get a little credit, a little help,\nbut in the city it is different.  The man is lost in the multitude.  In\nthe roar of the streets his cry is not heard.  Death becomes his only\nfriend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so\nthe poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and\nfalls asleep.\n\nTo me all this seems very natural.  The wonder is that so many endure\nand suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in\nhuts and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and\nwant; support it by beggary; by eating the crust found in the gutter,\nand to whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and\ndread.  Why should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the\nloved ones dead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life?\nWhat can the future have for him?\n\nUnder many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life\nis of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others,\nwhy should a man continue?  When he is of no benefit, when he is a\nburden to those he loves, why should he remain?  The old idea was that\n\"God\" made us and placed us here for a purpose, and that it was our\nduty to remain until He called us.  The world is outgrowing this\nabsurdity. What pleasure can it give \"God\" to see a man devoured by a\ncancer?  To see the quivering flesh slowly eaten?  To see the nerves\nthrobbing with pain?  Is this a festival for \"God\"?  Why should the\npoor wretch stay and suffer?  A little morphine would give him\nsleep--the agony would be forgotten and he would pass unconsciously\nfrom happy dreams to painless death.\n\nIf \"God\" determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine, and\nwhy should doctors defy, with pills and powders, the decrees of \"God\"?\nNo one, except a few insane, act now according to this childish\nsuperstition.  Why should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of\na burning building, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a\nbullet through his brain or a dagger in his heart?  Would it give \"God\"\npleasure to see him burn?  When did the man lose the right of\nself-defense?\n\nSo, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and\nruin his family and friends?  Why should he add to the injury?  Why\nshould he live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of\nothers, with grief and pain, with agony and tears?\n\nWhy should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still\nhis heart?  The grave is better than the cell.  Sleep is sweeter than\nthe ache of toil.  The dead have no masters.\n\nSo the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed\nagainst her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no\neye that will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with\nmonstrous shapes of dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of\nthoughts like clouds broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the\nserpents of remorse, flying from horrors too great to bear, rushes with\njoy through the welcome door of death.\n\nUndoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable\nsuicide--cases in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes\nalmost a crime.\n\nAs to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself.  And if a\nman honestly decides that death is best--best for him and others--and\nacts upon the decision, why should he be blamed?\n\nCertainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward.  He may\nhave lacked moral courage, but not physical.  It may be said that some\nmen fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between\ntwo fires--the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they\ntake the chance of death.  So the Christian martyrs were, according to\ntheir belief, between two fires--the flames of the fagot that could\nburn but for a few moments and the fires of God, that were eternal.\nAnd they chose the flames of the fagot.\n\nMen who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and\npangs that nerves can feel rather than die, cannot afford to call the\nsuicide a coward.  It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or\nthat Seneca was.  Surely Anthony had nothing left to live for.  Cato\nwas not a craven.  He acted on his judgment.  So with hundreds of\nothers who felt that they had reached the end--that the journey was\ndone, the voyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped.  It seems certain\nthat the man who commits suicide, who \"does the thing that stops all\nother deeds, that shackles accident and bolts up change,\" is not\nlacking in physical courage.\n\nIf men had the courage they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,\nin hospitals, they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the\nstains of dishonor, they would not live in filth and want, in poverty\nand hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery.  All this can\nbe accounted for only by the fear of death or \"of something after.\"\n\nSeneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He\nknew that he could defeat the Emperor.  He knew that \"at the bottom of\nevery river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger,\nLiberty sat and smiled.\"  He knew that it was his own fault if he\nallowed himself to be tortured to death by his enemy.  He said, \"There\nis this blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits\ninnumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in\nwhich I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death.\"\nTo me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble.\n\nUnder the Roman law persons found guilty, of certain offenses were not\nonly destroyed, but their blood was polluted, and their children became\noutcasts.  If, however, they died before conviction, their children\nwere saved.  Many committed suicide to save their babes.  Certainly\nthey were not cowards.  Although guilty of great crimes, they had\nenough of honor, of manhood, left to save their innocent children.\nThis was not cowardice.\n\nWithout doubt many suicides are caused by insanity.  Men lose their\nproperty.  The fear of the future over powers them.  Things lose\nproportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of\nfrenzy, kill their selves.  The disappointed in love, broken in\nheart--the light fading from their lives--seek the refuge of death.\nThose who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways--who mangle their\nthroats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take\npoisons that torture like the rack--such persons must be insane.  But\nthose who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and\nagainst, and who decide that death is best--the only good--and then\nresort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full\npossession of their minds.\n\nLife is not the same to all--to some a blessing, to some a curse, to\nsome not much in any way.  Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some\nwith the keenest joy, and some with indifference.\n\nReligion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number\nof suicides.  The fear of \"God,\" of judgment, of eternal pain will stay\nthe hand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by\nnatural death.  A belief in the eternal agony beyond the grave will\ncause such believers to suffer the pangs of this life.  When there is\nno fear of the future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep,\nmen have less hesitation about ending their lives.  On the other hand,\northodox religion has driven millions to insanity.  It has caused\nparents to murder their children and many thousands to destroy\nthemselves and others.\n\nIt seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill\nthemselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is\nforgotten, \"God\" and hell are out of their minds.  I am satisfied that\nmany who commit suicide are insane, many are in the twilight or dusk of\ninsanity, and many are perfectly sane.\n\nThe law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is\ncruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful\nsuicides.  When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so\npersecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of\ndeath, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man?  A man\nseeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take\nextra pains and precautions to make death certain.\n\nThis law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and\nenforced by ignorance and cruelty.\n\nWhen the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk\nand narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of\ndeath, why should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?\n\nOf course, I regard life from a natural point of view.  I do not take\ngods, heavens or hells into account.  My horizon is the known, and my\nestimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world.\nPeople should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for\nother worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state.  Our joys,\nour sufferings and our duties are here.  The law of New York about the\nattempt to commit suicide and the law as to divorce are about equal.\nBoth are idiotic. Law cannot prevent suicide.  Those who have lost all\nfear of death, care nothing for law and its penalties.  Death is\nliberty, absolute and eternal.\n\nWe should remember that nothing happens but the natural.  Back of every\nsuicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and\nefficient cause.  Nothing happens by chance.  In this world the facts\ntouch each other.  There is no space between--no room for chance.\nGiven a certain heart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the\nnecessary result.  If we wish to prevent suicide we must change\nconditions.  We must, by education, by invention, by art, by\ncivilization, add to the value of the average life.  We must cultivate\nthe brain and heart--do away with false pride and false modesty.  We\nmust become generous enough to help our fellows without degrading them.\nWe must make industry useful work of all kinds--honorable.  We must\nmingle a little affection with our charity--a little fellowship.  We\nshould allow those who have sinned to really reform.  We should not\nthink only of what the wicked have done, but we should think of what we\nhave wanted to do.  People do not hate the sick.  Why should they\ndespise the mentally weak--the diseased in brain?\n\nOur actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances--of\nconditions--and we do as we must.  This great truth should till the\nheart with pity for the failures of our race.\n\nSometimes I have wondered that Christians denounce the suicide; that in\nold times they buried him where the roads crossed, and drove a stake\nthrough his body.  They took his property from his children and gave it\nto the State.\n\nIf Christians would only think, they would see the orthodox religion\nrests upon suicide--that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without\nsuicide the whole world would have been lost.\n\nIf Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the\nJews without hurting them.  But instead of using his power he allowed\nthem to take his life.\n\nIf a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death\nwith knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not\nsay that he committed suicide?\n\nThere is no escape.  If Christ were, in fact, God and allowed the Jews\nto kill Him, then He consented to His own death--refused, though\nperfectly able, to defend and protect Himself, and was, in fact, a\nsuicide.\n\nWe cannot reform the world by law or by superstition.  As long as there\nshall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and\nwomen will untie life's knot and seeks the peace of death.\n\nTo the hopelessly imprisoned--to the dishonored and despised--to those\nwho have failed, who have no future, no hope--to the abandoned, the\nbroken-hearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and\nwomen--how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!\n\nAnd even to the most fortunate death at last is a welcome deliverer.\nDeath is as natural and as merciful as life.  When we have journeyed\nlong--when we are weary--when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk,\nfor the cool kisses of the night--when the senses are dull--when the\npulse is faint and low--when the mists gather on the mirror of\nmemory--when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly\nperceived--when the future has but empty hands--death is as welcome as\na strain of music.\n\nAfter all, death is not so terrible as joyless life.  Next to eternal\nhappiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by\nno dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and\nforever.\n\nThe wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in\nspite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they limp and stagger\nand crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end.  The wonder is that\nso few of the miserable are brave enough to die--that so many are\nterrified by the \"something after death\"--by the specters and phantoms\nof superstition.\n\nMost people are in love with life.  How they cling to it in the arctic\nsnows--how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea--how they\nlinger in famine--how they fight disaster and despair!  On the\ncrumbling edge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last\nfull of hope and courage.\n\nBut many have not such natures.  They cannot bear defeat.  They are\ndisheartened by disaster.  They lie down on the field of conflict and\ngive the earth their blood.\n\nThey are our unfortunate brothers and sisters.  We should not curse or\nblame--we should pity.  On their pallid faces our tears should fall.\n\nOne of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming\nand loving daughter, committed suicide.  He was a man of generous\nimpulses.  His heart was loving and tender.  He was conscientious, and\nso sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he\nthought wise and best.  He was the victim of his virtues.  Let us be\nmerciful in our judgments.\n\nAll we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the\nmalignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the\nignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances\nand conditions sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in\npassion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of\ninsanity--raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out\nthe light of life.\n\nThose who attempt suicide should not be punished.  If they are insane\nthey should, if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be\nreasoned with, calmed and assisted.\n\n\n\n\n\nIngersoll's Letter, The Right to One's Life Colonel Ingersoll's\nEloquent Reply to His Critics\n\n\nIn the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that\n\"under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself.\"\n\nThis has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and the\nwriters of letters.  These people contend that the right of\nself-destruction does not and can not exist.  They insist that life is\nthe gift of God, and that He only has the right to end the days of men;\nthat it is our duty to beat the sorrows that He sends with grateful\npatience.  Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes--worse\nthan the murder of another.\n\nThe first question, then, is:\n\nHas a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?\n\nA man is being slowly devoured by a cancer--his agony is intense--his\nsuffering all that nerves can feel.  His life is slowly being taken.\nIs this the work of the good God?  Did the compassionate God create the\ncancer so that it might feed on the quivering flesh of this victim?\n\nThis man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of\nno use to himself.  His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no\nuse to his wife, his children, his friends or society.  Day after day\nhe is rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the\nbrain to sleep.  Has he the right to render himself unconscious?  Is it\nproper for him to take refuge in sleep?\n\nIf there be a good God I cannot believe that He takes pleasure in the\nsufferings of men--that He gloats over the agonies of His children.  If\nthere be a good God, He will, to the extent of His power, lessen the\nevils of life.\n\nSo I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer--a burden to himself\nand others, useless in every way--has the right to end his pain and\npass through happy sleep to dreamless rest.\n\nBut those who have answered me would say to this man:    \"It is your\nduty to be devoured.  The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is\nthe gift of God.  You hold it in trust, and you have no right to end\nit. The cancer is the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it\nwith food.\"\n\nTake another case:  A man is on a burning ship; the crew and the rest\nof the passengers have escaped--gone in the lifeboats--and he is left\nalone.  In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help.  He\ncannot swim.  If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the\nship he burns.  In any event he can live but a few moments.\n\nThose who have answered me, those who insist that under no\ncircumstances a man has the right to take his life, would say to this\nman on the deck, \"Remain where you are.  It is the desire of your\nloving, heavenly father that you be clothed in flame--that you slowly\nroast--that your eyes be scorched to blindness and that you die insane\nwith pain.  Your life is not your own, only the agony is yours.\"\n\nI would say to this man:  \"Do as you wish.  If you prefer drowning to\nburning, leap into the sea.  Between inevitable evils you have the\nright of choice.  You can help no one, not even God, by allowing\nyourself to be burned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by\nchoosing the easier death.\"\n\nLet us suppose another case.\n\nA man has been captured by savages in central Africa.  He is about to\nbe tortured to death.  His captors are going to thrust splinters of\npure into his flesh and then set them on fire.  He watches them as they\nmake the preparations.  He knows what they are about to do and what he\nis about to suffer.  There is no hope of rescue, of help.  He has a\nvial of poison.  He knows that he can take it and in one moment pass\nbeyond their power, leaving to them only the dead body.\n\nIs this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it until\nthe savages by torture take it?  Are the savages the agents of the good\nGod?  Are they the servants of the infinite?  Is it the duty of this\nman to allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame?  Has he no\nright to defend himself?  Is it the will of God that he die by torture?\nWhat would any man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this?  Is\nthere room for discussion?\n\nIf the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped\nthe tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another\nworld be tortured forever by an infinite savage?\n\nSuppose another case.  In the good old days, when the inquisition\nflourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends,\nmany frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of\npain.\n\nThose who loved God, who had been \"born twice,\" would take a fellow-man\nwho had been convicted of heresy, \"lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,\nsecure his arms and legs with chains, fasten trim to the earth so that\nhe could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his\nstomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his\nbody.  Then these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking\nfood and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.\n\nNow, if a man about to be subjected to this torture had within his hand\na dagger, would it excite the wrath of the \"good God,\" if with one\nquick stroke he found the protection of death?\n\nTo this question there can be but one answer.\n\nIn the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have\nthe right to destroy himself.  It does not seem possible that the man\nwas under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the\nship and perish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to\ndeath by savages; to drop the dagger and endure the \"mercies\" of the\nchurch.\n\nIf, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take\ntheir lives, then I was right when I said that \"under many\ncircumstances a man has a right to kill himself.\"\n\nSecond, I denied that persons who killed themselves were physical\ncowards.  They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their\nmisfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the\ndagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps\nfrom some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not\nand cannot be a physical coward.\n\nThe basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and\nwhen that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die,\nno matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist.\nThe suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears.  He seeks the\nvery thing that cowardice endeavors to escape.\n\nSo the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a\ncoward, but a reasonable man.  It must be admitted that the suicide is\nhonest with himself.  He is to bear the injury, if it be one.\nCertainly there is no hypocrisy, and just as certainly there is no\nphysical cowardice.\n\nIs the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer\na coward?\n\nIs the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is\nthe man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages\nor \"Christians\" a coward?\n\nThird, I also took the position that some suicides were sane; that they\nacted on their best judgment, and that they were in full possession of\ntheir minds.\n\nNow, if, under some circumstances, a man has the right to take his\nlife, and if, under such circumstances, he does take his life, then it\ncannot be said that he was insane.\n\nMost of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground\nthat suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it is\nthe greatest of crimes.  Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must\nhave been sane.  So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal\nadmit that he was sane.  Under the law, an insane person is incapable\nof committing a crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who\nhave passionately asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that\nassertion admitted that those who killed themselves were sane.\n\nThey agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that \"some who have\ncommitted suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds.\"\n\nIt seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to\nbe true:  First, that under some circumstances a man has the right to\ntake his life; second, that the man who commits suicide is not a\nphysical coward; and, third, that some who have committed suicide were\nat the time sane and in full possession of their minds.\n\nFourth, I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is the\nfoundation of the Christian religion.\n\nI still insist that if Christ were God He had the power to protect\nHimself without injuring His assailants--that having that power it was\nHis duty to use it, and that failing to use it He consented to His own\ndeath and was guilty of suicide.  To this the clergy answer that it was\nself-sacrifice for the redemption of man, that He made an atonement for\nthe sins of believers. These ideas about redemption and atonement are\nborn of a belief in the  \"fall of man,\" on account of the sins of our\n\"first parents,\" and of the declaration that \"without the shedding of\nblood there is no remission of sin.\"  The foundation has crumbled.  No\nintelligent person now believes in the \"fall of man\"--that our first\nparents were perfect, and that their descendants grew worse and worse,\nat least until the coming of Christ.\n\nIntelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of\nhistory man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage,\nwhose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and\ndelight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but not\nall the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from the den to the\nhome, the palace, has been long and painful, through many centuries of\nsuffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages of discovery,\ninvention, self-sacrifice and thought.\n\nRedemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest.  The\nidea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain of\nsand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and\nscribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put Him to death that\nHe might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from the\nconsequences of His own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and\nnatural brain.\n\nIn no mythology can anything more monstrously Unbelievable be found.\n\nBut if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of His times because\nit was cruel and absurd; if He endeavored to found a religion of\nkindness, of good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and\nceremony, and if, rather than to deny what He believed to be right and\ntrue; He suffered death, then He was a noble man--a benefactor of His\nrace.  But if He were God there was no need of this.  The Jews did not\nwish to kill God.  If He had only made himself known, all knees would\nhave touched the ground.  If He were God it required no heroism to die.\nHe knew that what we call death is but the opening of the gates of\neternal life.  If He were God, there was no self-sacrifice.  He had no\nneed to suffer pain.  He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.\n\nEven the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from\nthese conclusions--from these arguments--and so, instead of attacking\nthe arguments, they attack the man who makes them.\n\nFifth, I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt to commit\nsuicide a crime.\n\nIt seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately\nlongs for death should be pitied, instead of punished--helped rather\nthan imprisoned.\n\nA despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman\nwithout home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with\ntear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night\nleaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of death.\nShe is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the\nauthorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb\nand locked in a felon's cell.\n\nTo me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages\nwould enforce.\n\nSixth, in this discussion a curious thing has happened.  For several\ncenturies the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very good\nthing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the\nhour of death.  They have, in spite of the truth, declared that all the\ngreat unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,\nsurrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair.  Think of the\nthousands and thousands of clergymen who have described the last\nagonies of Voltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly\npasses from play to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into\nhis last sleep as serenely as a river, running between green and shaded\nbanks, reaches the sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the\nbravest, one of the noblest men, who met the night of death untroubled\nas a star that meets the morning.\n\nAt the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer\ncould meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could\nsmilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him killed meet him in\nheaven.\n\nBut the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the\ncreed of the church in power could not die in peace.  God would see to\nit that his last moments should be filled with the insanity of\nfear--that with his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse,\nthe cry for pardon.\n\nThis has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering\nme, declare that the atheists, the free-thinkers, have no fear of\ndeath--that to avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience,\nthey gladly and cheerfully put out the light of life.  It is now said\nthat infidels believe that death is the end--that it is a dreamless\nsleep--that it is without pain--that therefore they have no fear, care\nnothing for gods or heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the\npulpit, nothing for the day of judgment, and that when life becomes a\nburden they carelessly throw it down.\n\nThe infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide. This\ncertainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having forced\nthe clergy to contradict themselves.\n\nSeventh, the clergy take the position that the atheist, the unbeliever,\nhas no standard of morality--that he can have no real conception of\nright and wrong.  They are of the opinion that it is impossible for one\nto be moral or good unless he believes in some being far above himself.\n\nIn this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he\nbelieves in some being superior to himself.\n\nWhat is morality?  It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.\nWhat is the best thing to do under the circumstances?  That which will\nincrease the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least.\nHappiness, in its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which\nincreases or preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which\ndecreases it, or puts it in peril, is immoral.\n\nIt is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands out\nof the fire.  He knows that burning his hands will not increase his\nwell-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.\n\nSo it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so\nfar as what he considers his own good is concerned.  Sometimes he is\nswayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance, but when he is really\nintelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for\nhim.  If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for\nhim is good for others--for all the world.\n\nIt is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is\nnecessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong.  Every man who\nhas the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to\ngive the same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis\nof all morality.   The idea of morality was born here, in this world,\nof the experience, the intelligence of mankind.  Morality is not of\nsupernatural origin.  It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no\nbelief in the supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no\nsupernatural heavens or hells to give it force and life.  Subjects who\nare governed by the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves.\nThey are not governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong.\nThey are obedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by\nrewards, by alms.\n\nRight and wrong exist in the nature of things.  Murder was just as\ncriminal before as after the promulgation of the ten commandments.\n\nEighth, many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of letters\nwho have answered me have said that suicide is the worst of crimes,\nthat a man had better murder somebody else than himself.  One clergyman\ngives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in an act of\nsin, and therefore he had better kill another person.  Probably he\nwould commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.\n\nI do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin.  To say\nthat it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd.\nThe man about to kill himself wishes to die.  Why is it better for him\nto kill another man, who wishes to live?\n\nTo my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than\nanother.  Better be a spendthrift than thief.  Better throw away your\nown money than steal the money of another.  Better kill yourself if you\nwish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.\n\nThe clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the\ngreatest possible crimes to rush into His presence.  It is wonderful\nhow much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men.\nWonderful the amount of their information about other worlds and how\nlimited their knowledge is of this.\n\nThere may or may not be an infinite being.  I neither affirm nor deny.\nI am honest enough to say that I do not know.  I am candid enough to\nadmit that the question is beyond the limitations of my mind.  Yet I\nthink I know as much on that subject as any human being knows or ever\nknew, and that is--nothing.\n\nI do not say that there is not another world, another life; neither do\nI say that there is.  I say that I do not know.  It seems to me that\nevery sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is an\ninfinitely good God and another world, then the infinitely good God\nwill be just as good to us in that world as he is in this.  If this\ninfinitely good God loves His children in this world, He will love them\nin another.  If He loves a man when he is alive, He will not hate him\nthe instant he is dead. If we are the children of an infinitely wise\nand powerful God, He knew exactly what we would do--the temptations\nthat we could and could not withstand--knew exactly the effect that\neverything would have upon us, knew under what circumstances we would\ntake our lives--and produced such circumstances himself.  It is\nperfectly apparent that there are many people incapable by nature of\nbearing the burdens of life, incapable or preserving their mental poise\nin stress and strain of disaster, disease and loss, and who by failure,\nby misfortune and want, are driven to despair and insanity, in whose\ndarkened minds there comes like a flash of lightning in the night, the\nthought of death, a thought so strong, so vivid, that all fear is lost,\nall ties broken, all duties, all obligations, all hopes forgotten, and\nnaught remains except a fierce and wild desire to die.  Thousands and\nthousands become moody, melancholy, brood upon loss of money, of\nposition, of friends, until reason abdicates, and frenzy takes\npossession of the soul.  If there be an infinitely wise and powerful\nGod, all this was known to Him from the beginning, and He so created\nthings, established relations, put in operation causes and effects that\nall that has happened was the necessary result of his own acts.\n\nNinth, nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have been\nexceeding careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I\nnever uttered.  They have declared that I have advised people who were\nin trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men\nwho have lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not\ngood in health, to kill themselves at once, without taking into\nconsideration any duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or\nsociety.\n\nNo man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he is\nable to help.  No man has a right to desert his children if he can\npossibly be of use.  As long as he can add to the comfort of those he\nloves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery, between child\nand want, as long as he can be of use, it is his duty to remain.\n\nI believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things,\nin bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against\nadversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having\nconfidence in tomorrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints\nand shards, and in changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things\nto good.  I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and\ngood-nature.\n\nOf the future I have no fear.  My fate is the fate of the world, of all\nthat live.  My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the\nphantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no\nfear.\n\nThe existence of God I neither affirm nor deny.  I wait.  The\nimmortality of the soul I neither affirm nor deny.  I hope, hope for\nall of the children of men.  I have never denied the existence of\nanother world, nor the immortality of the soul.  For many years I have\nsaid that the idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed\nin the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating\nagainst the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any\nbook, nor of any creed, nor of any religion.  It was born of human\naffection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and\nclouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death.\n\nWhat I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.\n\nAfter all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong.  People do not\nkill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies.  All wish to be\nhappy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for\nfriends, and as long as life gives joy the idea of self-destruction\nnever enters the human mind.\n\nThe oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,\nthe robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point,\nthe ministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal\npain; these are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the\nhelpless down to death.\n\nIt will not do to say that \"God\" has appointed a time for each to die.\nOf this there is, and there can be, no evidence.  There is no evidence\nthat any god takes any interest in the affairs of men--that any sides\nwith the right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the\noppressed.  Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has\nallowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and\nmurdered by His enemies.  Such is the protection of God.  Billions of\nprayers have been uttered; has one been answered?  Who sends plague,\npestilence and famine?  Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano\nto overwhelm?\n\nTenth, again I say that it is wonderful to me that so many men, so many\nwomen endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that so many,\nin spite of \"age, ache and penury,\" guard with trembling hands the\nspark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last;\nthat the helpless wretches in poor-houses and asylums cling to life;\nthat the exiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout,\nlive on; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for\nwhom the future has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp\nof death.\n\nIt is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short\njourney.  The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon,\nthe twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what\nhe cannot bear.  In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of\nmadness or in the calm of thought and choice the beleaguered soul finds\nthe serenity of death.\n\nLet us leave the dead where nature leaves them.  We know nothing of any\nrealm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of\nlife. Let us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the\nsuffering, the despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by\ngrief and shame, by misery and want, by chance and fate until their\nonly friend is death.","title":"Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll - Latest","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":138189}