1
10
74
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9b5044a49fa229820d2a19275716f07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VBI4xd9TkKPWaMNZOkF7bdT7NaqL-0uoSRysTuI63cZhfYXBvNF1zL2PIVzIhtRNfFz4yXNTIFK7Zidns5lul5qaiR2%7EeTlzmUzCCK-9XvXK0d0XTsCfjPbO5TrjR-RzXcgrpemRMg8QI2tQb0kPGajlV0j7vtukaj5gtByoaY3K839rPdqzkIdmC9dsunctKK%7ERjeh%7EkEq0GXVsxzKDUTdvmAN%7EoWe67DaAuDLLXbeoWpgzllOwvlxXRUQKt57LaRKwkfDe7XHJ9xC%7Eq7Jm1JYpkC8vbGIwntGHNDYBLYrmP5M4mfVUl-FuhUVx44kkU%7EKJEV2YFpyLHMVGtp5kzg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b90e2752ccca26a7c1cc27121b23d16a
PDF Text
Text
.NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FREETHOUGIIT PITBLISHING COMPANY’S EDITION'.
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
[tenth
thousand.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BT ANNIE BESAHT AND CHARLES BRADLAVGII,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�DIVINE
VIVISECTION.
a bell was born of revenge and brutality on the one
side, and cowardice on the other. In my judgment the American
people are too brave, too charitable, too generous, too magnanimous, to believe in the infamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have
no respect for any human being who believes in it. I have no
respect for any man who preaches it. I have no respect for the
man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that in
famous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the
sorrows of this world with that frightful dogma. I have no respect
for any man who endeavors to put that infinite cloud, that infinite
shadow, over the heart of humanity.
For a good many years the learned intellects of Christendom
j
into the religions of other countries in the
world, the religions of the thousands that have passed away. They
examined into the religion of Egypt, the religion of Greece, the
religion of home and of the Scandinavian countries. In the pre
sence of the ruins of those religions the learned men of Christen
dom insisted that those religions were baseless, that they were
fraudulent. But they have all passed away. While this was being
done the Christianity of our day applauded, and when the learned
^?en
brpugh with the religions of other countries they turned
bhen attention to our religion. By the same mode of reasoning,
by the same methods, by the same arguments that they used with
the old religions,. they are overturning the religion of our day.
Why Every religion in this world is the work of man. Every
t?k
bas been written by man. Men existed before the books.
It books had existed before man, I might admit there was such a
thing as a sacred volume. Man never had an idea, man will never
have an idea, except those supplied to him by his surroundings,
very idea m the world that man has, came to him by nature.
You can imagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with the
pouch of the kangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak
of a bn’d, and with the tail of the lion; and yet every point of this
monster you borrow from nature. Every thing you can think of,
eveiy 'thing you can dream of, is borrowed from your surround
ings. And there is nothing on this earth coming from any other
sphere whatever. Man has produced every religion in the world.
And why Because each religion bodes forth the knowledge and
the belief of the people at the time it was made, and in no book is
there any knowledge found, except that of the people who wrote
it. In no book is there found any knowledge, except that of the
�20
firnn in which it was written. Barbarians have produced, and
always will produce, barbarian religions; barbarians have pro
duced, and always will produce, ideas in harmony with then- sur
roundings, and all the religions of the past were produced by
barbarians. We are making religions to-day. That is to say, we
are changing them, and the religion of to-day is not the religion
of one year ago. What changed it ? Science has done it edu
cation and the growing heart of man has done it. And just to the
extent that we become civilised ourselves, will we improve thereligion of our fathers. If the religion of one hundred years ago,
compared with the religion of to-day, is so low, what will it be nr
one thousand years ?
, .
,
3
-u- 1,
If we continue making the inroads upon orthodoxy which we
have been making during the last twenty-five years, what will it
be fifty years from to-night ? It will have to be remonetized by
that time, or else it will not be legal tender. In my judgment,
every religion that stands by appealing to miracles is dishonored.
Every religion in the world has denounced every other rehgion asa fraud. That proves to me that they all tell the truth aBout
others. Why, suppose Mr. Smith should tell Mr. Brown that he
—Smith—saw a corpse get out of the grave and that when he
first saw it, it was covered with the worms of death, and that in
his presence it was reclothed m healthy, beautiful flesh. Ai
then suppose Mr. Brown should tell Mr. Smith I
sa
thing myself. I was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead man
rise.” Shippose then that Smith should say to Brown, You re a
liar” and Brown should reply to Smith, “And you re a bar
what would you think ? It would simply be because Smith, never
having seen it himself, did’nt believe Brown; and Brown, nevei
bavin* seen it, did’nt believe Smith had. Now, if Smith had
really°seen it, and Brown told him he had seen it too, then Smith
would regard it as a corroboration of his story, and he would legard Brown as one of his principal witnesses. But, on the con
trarv he says, “You never saw it.” So, when a man says, 1
was5 upon Mount Sinai, and there I met God, and he told me,
‘ Stand aside and let me drown these people ;
and anotJe1’
savsto him, “ I was up upon a mountain, and there 1 met tne
Supreme Brahma,” and Moses says, “That’s not true and con
tends that the other man never did see Brahma, and he conten
that Moses never did see God, that is in my judgment proof that
tkEver°y\X^onmthS,’ has charged every other religion with
havino-^been an unmitigated fraud ; and yet, if any man had evei
seen the miracle himself, his mind would be prepared to believe
that another man had seen the same thing. Whenever a man
appeals to a miracle he tells what is not true. Truth relies upon,
reason and the undeviating course of all the laws of nature.
Now, we have a religion—-that is, some people have.
ij
pretend to have religion myself. I Believe m
“ *
L t
—that’s my doctrine—to make everybody happy that y ou can.
�21
the future take care of itself, and if I ever touch the shores o£
another world, I will be just as ready and anxious to get into some
ramnn era,five employment as anybody else. Now, we have got in
this country a religion which men have preached for about eighteen
hundred years, and just in proportion as their belief in that religion
has grown great, men have grown mean and wicked; just in pro
portion as they have ceased to believe it, men have become just
and charitable. And if they believed it to-night as they once be
lieved it, I wouldn’t be allowed to speak in the city of New York.
It is from the coldness and infidelity of the churches that I get my
right to preach; and I say it to their credit. Now, we have a.
religion. What is it ? They say in the first place that all this
vast universe was created by a Deity. I don’t know whether it
was or not. They say, too, that had it not been for the first sin of
Adam there never would have been anyMdevil in this world, and if
there had been no devil there would have been no sin, and if there
had been no sin there never would have been any death. For my
part, I am glad there was death in this world, because that gave
me a chance. Somebody had to die to give me room, and when
my turn comes I’ll be willing to let somebody else take my place.
But whether there is another life or not, if there is any being who
gave me this, I shall thank him from the bottom of my heart, be
cause, upon the whole, my life has been a joy. Now they say,
because of this first sin all men .were consigned to eternal hell.
And this because Adam was our representative. Well, I always
had an idea that my representative ought to live somewhere about
the same time I do. I always had an idea that I should have some
voice in choosing my representative. And if I had a voice I never
should have voted for the old gentleman called Adam. Now, in
order to regain man from the frightful hell of eternity, Christ
himself came to this world and took upon himself flesh, and in
order that we might know the road to eternal salvation he gave us
:a book, and that book is called the Bible, and wherever that Bible
has been read men have immediately commenced cutting each
others’ throats. Wherever that Bible has been circulated, they
have invented inquisitions and instruments of torture, and have
commenced hating each other with all their hearts. But I am told
now, we are all told, that this Bible is the foundation of civilisa
tion ; I say that this Bible is the foundation of hell, and we never
shall get rid of the dogma of hell until we have got rid of the idea
that it is an inspired book.
Now, what does the Bible teach ? I am not going to talk about
what this minister or that ministei’ says it teaches ; the question
is: “ Ought a man to be sent to eternal hell for not believing this
Bible to be the work of a merciful Father ? ’ ’ and the only way to
find out is to read it; and as very few people do read it now, I will
read a few passages. This is the book to be read in the schools, in
•order to make our children charitable and good ; this is the book
that we must read in order that our children may have ideas of
mercy, charity, and justice.
�22
Does the Bible teach mercy ? Now be honest. I read : “ I will
make mine arrows drunk with blood; and my sword shall devour
flesh” (Deut. xxxii., 42). Pretty good start for a mercifjil God!
‘ ‘ That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and
the tongue of thy dogs in the same” (Ps. lxviii., 23.) Again:
‘ ‘ And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by
little and little; thou mayst not consume them at once, lest the
beasts of the field increase upon thee” (Deut. vii., 23).
Pead the glorious exploits of Joshua, chosen captain of theLord, and note how, having coveted the fertile land of Goshen, he
smote the people, houghed their horses, despoiled their cities, and
put all that breathed to the edge of the sword, as the moral God
had commanded. Moreover, he came against them suddenly, not
a solitary trumpet blast from the celestial orchestra was therecalling upon the people to yield, or to move out of their country,
bag and baggage. No; instantaneous fire and butchery. Ob
serve, too, the charming naivete of the statement: ‘ ‘ There was
not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the
Hivites.” Why ? Because the Lord “ hardened their hearts, that
they should come against Israel in battle that he might destroy
them utterly.”
Do you wish further examples of a God of mercy ? Pead in
Exodus how the Lord ordered the harrying of cities and thewholesale slaughter of the inhabitants. ‘ ‘ Thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them.”
The old men and the maidens, and the sweet-dimpled babe smiling
upon the lap of its mother.
Pecollect, these instructions were given to an army of invasion,
and the people who were fighting were guilty of the crime of
fighting for their homes. The Old Testament is full of curses,
vengeance, jealousy, and hatred; of barbarity and brutality..
Now, do not for one moment believe that these words were written
by the most merciful God. Don’t pluck from the heart the sweet
flowers of piety and crush them by superstition. Do not believe
that God ever ordered the murder of innocent women and helpless
babes. Do not let this supposition turn your hearts into stone.
When anything is said to have been written by the most merciful
God, and the thing is not merciful, then I deny it, and say he
never wrote it. I will live by the standard of reason, and if'
thinking in accordance with reason takes me to perdition, then I
will go to hell with my reason rather than to heaven without it.
Now, does this Bible teach political freedom, or does it teach
political tyranny ? Does it teach a man to resist oppression ? Does ■
it teach a man to tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned
thing and robber caUed a king ? Let us see. “ Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers ; for there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God ” (Pom. xiii., 1). All the
kings and princes, and governors, and thieves, and robbers that
happened to be in authority were placed there by the infinite fatherof all! “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
�23
ordinance of God.” And when George Washington resisted the
power of George the Third, he resisted the power of God. And
when our fathers said “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,”
they falsified the Bible itself. “ For he is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for,he
beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, the
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for con
science’s sake ” (Eom. xiii., 4, 5).
I deny this wretched doctrine. Wherever the sword of rebellion
is drawn to protect the rights of man, I am a rebel. Wherever the
sword of rebellion is drawn to give man liberty, to clothe him in
all his just rights, I am on the side of that rebellion. I deny that
rulers are crowned by the Most High; the rulers are the people,
and the presidents and others are but the servants of the people.
All authority comes from the people, and not from the aristocracy
of the air. Upon these texts of Scripture which I have just read
rest the thrones of Europe, and these are the voices that are re
peated from age to age by brainless kings and heartless kings.
Does the Bible give woman her rights ? Is this Bible humane ?
Does it treat woman as she ought to be treated, or is it barbarian ?
Let us see. “Let woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1
Timothy ii., 11). If a woman would know anything let her ask
her husband. Imagine the ignorance of a lady who had only that
source of information. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Observe the
magnificent reason. “ For Adam was first formed, then Eve.. And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the
transgression.” Splendid! “But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is of
the man ; and the head of Christ is God.” That is to say, there is
as much difference between the woman and man as there is between
Christ and man. There is the liberty of woman. “For the man
is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman.” Well, who was he created for ?
“ But the woman was created for the man.” “Wives, submit your
selves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.” There’s libe-ty 1
‘ ‘ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is, the
head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore,
as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in everything.” Even the Savior didn’t put man and.
woman upon any equality. The man could divorce the wife, but
the 'wife could not divorce the husband, and according to the Old
Testament, the mother had to ask forgiveness for being the mother
of babes. Splendid!
Here is something from the Old Testament: “ When thou goest
forth' to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath
delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive.
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife. Then thou shalt
�24
bring lier home to thine house ; and she shall shave her head, and
pare her nails” (Deut. xxi., 10, 11, 12). That is in self-defence, I
suppose!
This sacred book, this foundation of human liberty, of morality,
does it teach concubinage and polygamy ? Read the thirty-first
chapter of Numbers, read the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy,
read the blessed lives of Abraham, of David, or of Solomon, and
then tell me that the sacred scripture does not teach polygamy and
concubinage ! All the language of the world is not sufficient to
express the infamy of polygamy ; it makes a man a beast and
a woman a stone. It destroys the fireside and makes virtue an out
cast. And yet it is the doctrine of the Bible. The doctrine
defended by Luther and Melancthon ! It takes from our language
those sweetest words—father, husband, wife, and mother, and
takes us back to barbarism and fills our hearts with the crawling,
slimy serpents of loathsome lust.
Does the Bible teach the existence of devils? Of course it
does. Yes, it teaches not only the existence of a good Being, but
a bad being. This good Being had to have a home ; that home
was heaven. This bad being had to have a home j and that home
was hell. This hell is supposed to be nearer to earth than I would
care to have it, and to be peopled with spirits, hobgoblins, and all
the fiery shapes with which the imagination of ignorance and fear
could people that horrible place ; and the Bible teaches, the ^existence of hell and this big devil and all these little devils. The
Bible teaches the doctrine of witchcraft, and makes us behove that
there are sorcerers and witches, and that the dead could be raised
by the power of sorcery. Read the account of the spiritual séance
at which Saul and the Witch of Endor assisted, and which resulted
in the calling up of Samuel. Does anyone believe that now t
In another place it is declared that ‘witchcraft is an abomination
unto the Lord. He wanted no rivals in this business. Now what
does the New Testament teach ? Turn to the story of Jesus being
led into the wilderness for the devil to experiment upon him. He
was starved forty days and nights, and then asked to work a
miracle ! After that the devil placed him on a pinnacle of the temple,
ami endeavored to persuade him to cast himself down to prove that
he was the Son of God. Is it possible that anyone can believe that
the devil absolutely took God Almighty, and put him on the pin
nacle of the temple and endeavored to persuade him to jump down/
» Again the devil taketh him into an exceeding high mountain,
and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them ; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee,, it thou
wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him. Get
thee hence, Satan, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ” (Matt, iv., 8—11). ^9^’
the devil must have known at that time that he was God, and God.
at that time must have known that the other was the devil.. How
Could the latter be conceived to have the impudence to promise God
a world in which. he did not have a tax-title to an inch of land ♦
�25
Then there is that pig story. When, the “boss devil had left
Jesus and angels had ministered unto him, and he had taken a
short sea voyage, there came out to meet him a man possessed of a
number of minor devils, and a man whom no one could tame, nor
bind, no not with chains, and who dwelt among the tombs. A nice
puict citizen truly ! And after some parley the devils beseech Jesus,
saying:—“Send us into the swine that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits
went out, and entered into the swine ; and the herd ran violently
down a steep place into the sea (there were about two thousand)
and were choked in the sea.” No doubt a good riddance; hut what
the owner of the swine thought of the transaction, or whether he
was indemnified for the loss of his porkers deponent cannot say.
Are we reasonable men in the nineteenth century in the United
States of America and believe this ? I deny it. These fables of
devils have covered the world with blood; they have Tilled the
world with fear, and I am going to do what I can to free the
world of these insatiate monsters. Small and great, they aavG
-filler! the world with monsters, they have made the world a
synonym of bar and ferocity.
_
And it is this book that ought to be read in all the schools this book that teaches man to enslave his brother. If it is larceny
to steal the result of labor, how much more is it larceny to steal
the laborer himself ? ‘ ‘ Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye ouy, and of their
-Families that are with you, which they begat in your- land ; and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an in
heritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a posses
sion; they shall be your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigor ” (Lev. xxv., 45, 46). Why i Because they are not as good
as you will buy of the heathen roundabout.
These are edifying texts. Consult also Exod. xxi., where you
will find a complete slave code. No detail is wanting. . Ender cer
tain conditions the master is to bring his servants to the judges, then
he is to lug him to the doorpost and bore his ear through with an
awl—“And he shall serve him for ever.” This is the doctrine which
has ever lent itself to the chains of slavery, and makes a man im
prison himself rather than desert wife and children. I hate it!
What does this same book with its glad tidings of great joy for
all people say of the rights of children ? Let us see how they are
treated by the “ most merciful God.” “ If a man hath a stubborn
and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father,, or
the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him,
will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother
lay hold of him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and
unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders of
his city : This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey
our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his
city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil
�26
away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear ” ("Dout.
xxi., 18).
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice,
and he intended to obey. The boy was not consulted.
Did you ever hear the story of Jcpthah’s daughter ? Is there in
the history of the world a sadder story than that ? Can a God who
would accept such a sacrifice be worthy of the worship of civilised
men ? I believe in the rights of children. I plead for the republic
of home, for the democracy of the fireside, and for this I am culled
a heathen and a devil by those who believe in the cheerful and
comforting doctrine of eternal damnation. Dead the book of Job I
God met the devil and asked him where he had been, and he said:
“Walking up and down the country,” and the Lord said to him :
c ‘ Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he is ? ” And
the devil said : “Of course he’s good, you give him everything he
wants. Just take away his property and he’ll curse you. Youjust
try it.” And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still
remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been
tried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still
true.. Then he took away his children, but he remained faithfid,
and in the end, to show how much Job made by his fidelity, his
property was all doubled, and he had more children than ever. If
you have a child, and you love it, would you be satisfied with a
God who would destroy it, and endeavor to make it up by giving
you another that was better looking ? Mo, you want that one ;
you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of children
taught in the Bible.
Does the Bible teach you freedom of religion ? To-day we say
that every man has a right to worship God or not, to worship him
as he pleases. Is it the doctrine of the Bible ? Bead Deut. xii., 6.
If a brother, or son, or daughter or wife proposes to serve any god
but your own, or that of your fathers, thou shalt not pity, nor
spare, nor conceal. “ Thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall
be the first upon him to put him to death, and thou shalt stone
him with stones that he die.”
. And do you know, according to that, if you had lived in Pales
tine, and your wife that you love as your own soul had said to
you: ‘ ‘ Let us worship the sun whose golden beams clothe the
world in glory; let us bow to that great luminary; I love the sun
because it gave me your face; because it gave me the features of
my babe ; let us worship the sun ; ” it was then your duty to lay
your hands upon her, your eye must not pity her, but it was your
duty to cast the first stone against that tender and loving breast!
I hate such doctrine' I hate such books ! I hate gods that will
•write such books ! I tell you that it is infamous! That is the
religious liberty of the Bible—that’s it. And this God taught that
doctrine to the Jews, and said to them, “Anyone that teaches a
different religion, kill him ! ” Now, let me ask, and I want to do
it reverently:
If, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws to the Jews,
�and afterwards this same God took upon himself flesh, and came
among the Jews, and taught a different religion, and these Jews,
in accordance with the laws which this same God gave them, cruci
fied hire, did he not reap what he had sown. ? The mercy of all
this comes in what is called “the plan of salvation.” What is
that plan? According to this great plan the innocent suffer "for
the guilty to satisfy a law.
What sort of a law must it be that would be satisfied with the
suffering of innocence ? According to this plan, the salvation of
the whole world depends upon the bigotry of the Jews and the
treachery of Judas. According to the same plan, there would have
been no death in the world if there had been no sin, and if there
had been no deaths you and I would not have been called into ex
istence, and if we did not exist we could not have been saved, so
we owe our salvation to the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery
of Judas, and we are indebted to the devil for our existence. I
speak this reverently. It strikes me that what they call the atone
ment is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its merciful provisions
man is allowed the privilege of sinning credit, and whenever he is
guilty of a mean action, he says : “Charge it.” In my judgment,
this kind of bookkeeping breeds extravagance in sin.
Suppose we had a law in New York that every merchant should
give credit to every man who asked it, under pain and penitentiary,
and that every man should take the benefit of the bankruptcy sta
tute any Saturday night ? Doesn’t the credit system in morals
breed extravagance in sin ? That’s the question. Who’s afraid of
punishment which is so far away ? Whom does the doctrine of
hell stop ? The great, the rich, the powerful ? No ; the poor, the
weak, the despised, the mean. Did you ever hear of a man going
to hell who died in New York worth a million of dollars, or ■with
an income of twenty-five thousand a year ? Did you ever hear of
a man going to hell who rode in a carriage ? Never. They are the
gentlemen who talk about their assets, and who say: “ Hell is not
for me, it is for the poor. I have all the luxuries I want, give that
to the poor.” Who go to hell ? Tramps !
Let me tell you a story. There was once a frightful rain, and all
the animals held a convention to see whose fault it was, and the fox
nominated the bon for chairman. The -wolf seconded the motion,
and the hyena said, that suits. When the convention was called to
order, the fox was called upon to confess his sins. He stated, how
ever, that it would be much more appropriate for the bon to com
mence first. Thereupon the lion said: “I am not conscious of
having committed evil. It is true I have devoured a few men, but
for what other purpose were men made ? ” And they all cheered,
and were satisfied. The fox gave his views upon the goose ques
tion, and the wolf admitted that he had devoured sheep, and occa
sionally had killed a shepherd, but “ ab acquainted with the history
of my family wib bear me out when I say that shepherds have been
the enemies of my family from the beginning of the world.” Then
away in the rear there arose a simple donkey, with a kind of Abra-
�28
hamic countenance. He said: “I expect it’s, I. I had eaten nothing
for three days except three thistles. I was passing a monastery;
the monks were at mass. The gates were open leading to a yard
full of sweet clover. I knew it was wrong, but I did slip in and I
took a mouthful, but my conscience smote me, and I went out.”
Then all the animals shouted, “He’s the fellow! ” and in two
minutes they had his hide on the fence. That’s the kind of people
that go to hell.
Now, this doctrine of hell, that has been such a comfort to my
race, which so many ministers are pleading for, has been defended
for ages by the fathers of the Church. Your preachers say that the
sovereignty of God implies that he has an absolute, unlimited, and
independent right to dispose of his creatures as he will, because he
made them. Has he ? Suppose I take this book and change it
immediately into a sentient human being. Would I have a right
to torture it because I made it ? No ; on the contrary. I would
say: Having brought you into existence, it is my duty to do the
best for you I can. They say God has a right to damn me because
he made me. I deny it.
Another one says: God is not obliged to save even those who
believe in Christ, and that he can either bestow salvation upon his
children or retain it without any diminution of his glory. Another
one says : God may save any sinner whatsoever, consistently with
his justice. Let a natural person—and I claim to be one—moral or
immoral, wise or unwise, let him be as just as he can, no matter
what his prayers may be, what pains he may have taken to bo saved,
or whatever circumstances he may be in, God, according to this
writer, can deny him salvation, without the least disparagement of
his glory. His glories will not be in the least obscured; there is
no natural man, be his character what it may, but God . may cast
him down to hell, without being charged with unfair dealing in any
respect with regard to that man. Theologians tell us that God’s
design in the creation was simply to glorify himself. Magnificent
object! “ The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of .God,
which is poured out • without mixture into the cup of his indigna
tion ; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb
(Rev. i., 10).
Do you know nobody would have had an idea of hell in this
world if it hadn’t been for volcanoes ? They were looked upon as
the chimneys of hell. The idea of eternal fire never, would have
polluted the imagination of man but for them. An eminent theolo
gian, describing hell, says : ‘ ‘ There is no recounting up the million
of ages the damned shall suffer. All arithmetic ends here ” and
all sense, too .' “ They shall have nothing to do in passing away
this eternity but to conflict with torments. God shall have no other
use or employment for them.” These words were said by gentle
men who died Christians and who are now in the harp business in
the world to come. Another declares there is nothing to keep any
man or Christian out of hell except the mere pleasure of God, and
�29
their pains never grow any easier by their becoming accustomed to
them P It is also declared that the devil goes about like a hon, ready
to devour the wicked. Did it never occur to you what a con
tradiction it is to say that the devil will persecute his own friends
He wants all the recruits he can get; why then should he PerS0cute
his friends ? In my judgment he should give them the best hell
It is in the very nature of things that torments inflicted have no
tendency to bring a wicked man to repentance. Then why tor
ment him if it will not do him good ? It is simply unadulterated
revenge. All the punishment in the world will not reform a man
unless he knows that he who inflicts it upon him does it for the
sake of reformation, and really and truly loves him and has his
¡rood at heart. Punishment inflicted for gratifying the appetite
makes man afraid, but debases him. Various, reasons are given
for punishing the wicked; first that God will vindicate his ^jured
majesty. Well, I am afraid of that 1 Second, He will glorify his
justice-think of that. Third, He will show and glorify his grace
Every time the saved shall look upon the damned in hell it will
cause in them a lively and admiring sense of the grace of God.
Every look upon the damned will double the ardor and the joy of
the saints in heaven.' Can the believing husband in heaven look
down upon the torments of the unbelieving wife in hell and then
feel a thrill of joy ? That’s the old doctrine—that if you saw your
wife in hell—the wife you love, who, in your last sickness, nursed
you, that perhaps supported you by her needle when you were ill ;
the wife who watched by your couch mght and day, and held youi
corpse in her loving arms when you were dead—the sight would
give you great joy. That doctrine is not preached to-day. Ihey
do not preach that the sight would give you joy; but they do
preach that it will not diminish your happiness. That is the doc
trine of every orthodox minister in New York, and I repeat that
I have no respect for men who preach such, doctrines, lne signt
of the torments of the damned in hell will increase the ecstasy of
the saints for ever ! On this principle a man never enjoys a good.
dinner so much as when a fellow-creature is dying of famine before
his eyes, or he never enjoys the cheerful warmth of his own fiiesi e
so greatly as when a poor and abandoned wretch is dying on the
door-step. The saints enjoy the ecstasy, and the groans of the
tormented are music to them. I say here to-night that you cannot
commit a sin against an infinite being. I can sm against my
brother or my neighbor, because I can injure them. There can be
no sin where there is no injury. Neither can a finite being commit
infinite sin.
......
r
n.
An old saint believed that hell was in the interior of the earth,
and that the rotation of the earth was caused by the souls trying
to get away from the fire. The old church at Stratford-on-Avon,
Shakspere’s home, is adorned with pictures of hell and the like.
One of the pictures represents resurrection-morning. People are
getting out of their graves, and devils are catching hold oi tneir
�30
heels. In one place there is a huge brass monster, and devils are
driving scores of lost souls into his mouth. Over hot fires hang
chaldrons with fifty or sixty people in each, and devils are poking
the fires. People are hung up on hooks by their tongues, and
devils are lashing them. Up in the right-hand corner are some of
the saved, with grins on their faces stretching from ear to ear.
They seem to say: “Aha, what did I tell you ? ”
Some of the saints—gentlemen who died in the odor of sanctity,
and arc now in glory—insisted that heaven and hell would be
plainly in view of each other. Only a few years ago, Eev. J.
Furniss (an appropriate name) published a little • pamphlet called
“ A Sight of Hell.” I remember when I first read that. My little
child, seven years old, was ill and in bed. I thought she would
not hear me, and I read some of it aloud. She arose and asked :
“Who says that?” I answered: “That’s what they preach in
some of the churches.” “ I never will enter- a church as long as I
live ' ” she said, and she never has.
The doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that the damned shall
suffer torment for ever and for ever. And if you were a wanderer,
footsore, weary, with parched tongue, dying for a drop of water,
and you met one who divided his poor portion with you, and died
as he saw you reviving—if he was an -unbeliever and you a believer,
and he called you from hell for a draught of water, it would be
your duty to laugh at him.
Eev. C. Spurgeon says that everywhere in hell will be written
the words “for ever.” They-will be branded on every wave of
flame, they will be forged in every link of every chain, they will
be seen in every lurid flash of brimstone—everywhere will be the
words ‘ ‘ for ever.” Everybody will be yelling and screaming them.
Just think of that picture of the mercy and justice of the eternal
Father of us aU. If these words are necessary why are they not
written now everywhere in the world, on every tree, and every
field, and on every blade of grass ? I say I am entitled to have it
so. I say that it is God’s duty to furnish me with the evidence.
In old times they had to find a place for hell, and they found a
hundred places for it. One said that it was under Lake Avernus,
but the Christians thought differently. One divine tells us that
it must be below the earth because Christ descended into hell.
Another gives it as his opinion that hell is the sun, and he tells us
that nobody, without an express revelation from God, can prove
that it is not there. Most likely. Well, he had the idea at aU
events of utilising the damned as fuel to warm the earth. Another
divine preached a sermon no further back than 1876, in which he
said that the damned will grow worse, and the same divine says
that the devil was the first Universalist. Then I am on the side
cf the devil.
The fact is, that you have got not merely to believe the Bible ;
but you must also believe in a certain interpretation of it, and,
mind you, you must also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
If you don’t understand it, it is your own fault. You must believe
�31
in it all the same. If you do not all the orthodox churches agree
in condemning you to everlasting flames. We have got to burn
through all our lives simply with the view of making them happy.
We are taught to love our enemies, to pray for those that perse
cute us, to forgive. Should not the merciful God practise what he
preaches ? I say that reverently. Why should he say ‘ ‘ Fosgive
your enemies ” if he will not himself forgive ? Why should he say
‘ ‘ Pray for those that despise and persecute you, but if they refuse
to believe my doctrine I will burn them for ever?” I cannot
believe it. Here is a little child, residing in the purlieus of the
■city—some little boy who is taught that it is his duty to steal by
his mother, who applauds his success, and pats him on the head
.and calls him a good boy—would it be just to condemn him to an
eternity of torture ? Suppose there is a God; let us bring to this
■question some common sense.
I care nothing about the doctrines of religions or creeds of the
past. Let us come to the bar of the nineteenth century and judge
the matter by what we know, by what we think, by what we love.
But they say to us : “If you throw away the Bible what are we to
depend on then ? ” But no two persons in the world agree as to
what the Bible is, what they are to believe, or what they are not to
believe. It is like a guide-post that has been thrown down in
some time of disaster, and has been put up the wrong way. No
body can accept its guidance, for nobody knows where it would
direct him. I say, “ Tear- down the useless guide-post,” but they
.answer : “ Oh, do not do that or we will not have nothing to go
by.” I would say: “ Old Church, you take that road, and I will
take this.” Another minister has said that the Bible is the great
town clock, at which we all may set our watches. But I have said
to a friend of that minister: ‘ ‘ Suppose we all should set our
watches by that town clock, there would be many persons to tell
you that in old times the long hand was the hour hand, and be
sides, the clock hasn’t been wound up for a long time.” I say, let
us wait till the sun rises and set our watches by nature. For my
part I am willing to give up heaven to get rid of hell. I had
rather there should be no heaven, than that any solitary soul
should be condemned to suffer for ever and ever. But they tell
me that the Bible is the book of hope. Now, in the Old Testa
ment there is not, in my judgment, a single reference to another
life. Is there a burial service mentioned in it, in which a word of
hope is spoken at the grave of the dead ? The idea of eternal
life was not born of any book. The wave of hope and joy ebbs
and flows, and will continue to ebb and flow as long as love kisses
the lips of death.
Let me tell you a tale of the Persian religion—of a man who,
having done good for long years of his life, presented himself at
the gates of Paradise, but the gates remained closed against him.
He went back and followed up his good works for seven years
longer, and the gates of Paradise still remaining shut against him,
he toiled in works of charity until at last they were opened unto
�32
him. Think of that, and send out your missionaries among those
people. There is no religion but goodness, but justice, but charity.
Religion is not theory—it is life. It is not intellectual conviction
■—it is divine humanity, and nothing else. There is another tale
from the Hindu of a man who refused to enter Paradise without a
faithful dog, urging that ingratitude was the blackest of all sins.
“And the god,” he said, “ admitted him, dog and all.” Compare
that religion with the orthodox tenets of the city of New York.
There is a prayer which every Brahmin prays, in which he de
clares that he will never enter into a final state of bliss alone, but
that everywhere he will strive for universal redemption,' that
never will he leave the world of sin and sorrow, but remain suffer
ing and striving and sorrowing after universal salvation. Comparethat with the orthodox idea, and send out your missionaries to the
benighted Hindus.
The doctiine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express. I
wish there were words mean enough to express my feelings of
loathing on this subject. What harm has it not done? What
waste places has it not made ? It has planted misery and wretched
ness in this world; it has filled the future with selfish joys and.
lurid abysses of eternal flame. But we are getting marc sense
every day. We begin to despise those monstrous doctrines. If
you want to better men and women, change their conditions here.
Don’t promise them something somewhere else. One biscuit will do
more good than all the tracts that were ever peddled in the world.
Give them more whitewash, more light, more air. You have to
change men physically before you change them intellectually. I
believe the time will come when every criminal will be treated as
we now treat the diseased and sick, when every penitentiary will
become a reformatory; and that if criminals go to them with
hatred in their bosoms, they will leave them without feelings of
revenge. Let me tell you the story of Orpheus and Eurydice.
Eurydice had been carried away by the god of hell, and Orpheus,
her lover, went in quest of her. He took with him his. lyre, and
played such exquisite music that all hell was amazed. Ixion forgot
his labors at the wheel, the daughters of Danaus ceased from their
hopeless task, Tantalus forgot his thirst, oven Pluto smiled, and,
for the first time in the history of hell, the eyes of the Furies were
wet with tears. As it was -with the lyre of Orpheus, so it is to-day
with the great harmonies of science, which are rescuing from theprisons of superstition the torn and bleeding heart of man.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Divine vivisection
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: [19]-32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N340
Subject
The topic of the resource
Hell
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Divine vivisection), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Devil-Christianity
Hell
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e9343391d268096749df9e71d91b2b0f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=oFfGCO8Vnk-ZusCG1kj4i6EEh07wnpXxUAIN8eKljki0tnGSRE0C%7EIWLEpmnKzXXaO1D66BnwRdO3VKQlmBPRRRqsyHV6pwnXH8yHymfbpe5YwtXBZ4xbQkosKDEfzTt4qV6sxqAY4ihcm2eaY1YfxBg8Rog5JvbwBdK1wvOw6PHGwP878ymwbT46uzKL%7EFAOUYhUJFffaby9WAt0h6Al1db4Uo-a-5ZQUGkC9JPLDoiHRKTaYo1qcg6-dnhIkUTxdJf5q%7ESB1uOLeckv6zLr1jjbdXtsxbve-I17ukA7NoXr9AApA9D%7EmovL1vA5qQZuupvCmvdD1xmx4uNPR7qHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1794da17c3cdcc3ec53f11500d1df647
PDF Text
Text
—-SEC0ND
EDITION.
DIFFICULTIES
OF BELIEF,
A DISCOURSE DELIVERED TO OVERFLOWING AUDIENCES BY
*
SOLD BY
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63, Fleet Street, London;
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecntter-st., London;
TRUELOVE, 256, High Holborn, London;
MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine-st., Bristol.
The BOOKSTALL, 72, Humbeitone Gate, Leicester;
WITTY, Bookseller, Hull.
The BOOKSTALL, Freethought Institute, Southampton ;
ALEXANDER ORB, Edinburgh.
ROBERT FERGUSON, Glasgow.
wwiupsyaW mstitw
�BISHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
Classification
�DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF.
A DISCOURSE BY
COL.
IKGEBSOLL,
Delivered in Chicago and other Cities in America, to overflowing audiences,
(specially reported.)
Colonel Ingersoll lectured last night at the Opera House. The
night was a most disagreeable one, sleety snow and fierce winds
united in battling with the pedestrians. Indeed, it took a brave
man to venture out of doors. Nevertheless the Opera House was
crammed. From parquette to upper gallery there was not a vacant
seat. The audience was a peculiar one. There were quite a num
ber of the very best people in the city, and not a few church mem
bers, while saloon keepers and sporting men were out in force, and
occupied front seats. Probably one-fifth of the audience were
females. The great bulk of the audience was from the middle class
of society, intelligent, well-dressed, well-behaving men and women,
the class from whom free-thinkers draw most of their recruits. All
in all, it was an excellent audience, just the kind of audience that
suited the orator of the night.
At eight o clock Colonel Ingersoll came to the front in company
with the Rev. Dr. Cravens of the Unitarian Church. The reverend
gentleman in eloquent words introduced the orator as a noble man,
a man of genius and brains who was zealously laboring to break the
chains that bind the religious freedom of mankind. He rejoiced
that liberty and freedom had such a grand champion, who had con
secrated his great talent and his unsurpassed eloquence to the noble
cause.
Colonel Ingersoll bowed to the audience, and was received with
great applause.
He said that he was glad that he had lived long enough to see
one gentleman in the pulpit brave enough to say that God would
not be oftended at one who speaks according to the dictates of his
conscience; who does not believe that God will give wings to a bird
and then damn the bird for flying. He thanked the pastor and he
thanked the church for allowing its pastor to be so brave. He then
tackled the subject of discourse announced for the night, and for
two hours held the close attention of his audience. His argument
was, in the main, as ioilows :—
�4
One of my great objections to religion is that it makes enemies
instead of friends. Whenever a man believes that he has got the
truth of God, there is in him no spirit of compromise. Whenever
a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing or
to believe a certain thing in order to be happy for ever, there is in
that man no spirit of compromise. Our religion to-day divides the
whole world into saints and sinners: into people that will be
glorified, and people who will be damned. It cannot make any
compromise with any foreign nation; it must either compel that
nation to accept its doctrine, or it must remain hostile to that nation.
Another objection is that this religion consists primarily of the
duties we owe to God. In other words, we are taught that God is
exceedingly anxious that we should believe a certain way. Now I
do not believe there is any infinite being to whom we owe anything.
And the reason I say that, is this: I cannot owe any duty to any
being who requires nothing, to any being I cannot possibly help, to
any being that I cannot in any possible way increase the happiness
of ; and if God is infinite, I cannot make him happier than he is.
Anything that I can do, or may do, cannot in the slightest way
effect him, consequently there cannot exist any relations between
the finite and the infinite.
Some tell me it is the desire of God that I should worship him.
What for ? That I should sacrifice something for him. What for ?
Is He in want ? Can I assist Him ? If He is in want and I can
assist him and will not, I would be an ingrate and an infamous
wretch. But I am satisfied that I cannot by any possibility assist
the infinite. Whom can I assist ? My fellow men. (Applause I
can help to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and enlighten igno
rance. I can help at least, in some degree, towards covering this
world with a mantle of joy. I may be wrong but I do not believe
that there is any being in this universe who gives rain for praise,
who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply because
he kneels.
I find, too, that this religion has made man heartless to his fellow
men. Just think of the idea of sending Scotch Presbyterian
missionaries to Africa, and of the cruelties practiced there : is it not
the height of egotism to suppose that anyone could be more savage
and barbaric than the Scotch Presbyterian creed ?
The Colonel then referred to the subject of inspiration, and said
whatever else might be meant by the term they must mean that it
is true, and he added : Well, if it is true there is no need of its being
inspired. Anything actually true will take care of itself. I will
tell you what I mean by inspiration. I go and look at the sea, and
the sea says something to me; it makes an impression on my mind.
That impression depends, first, on my experience ; secondly, upon
my intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He
has a different brain, he has a different experience, he has different
memories and different hopes. The sea may speak to him of joy,
and to me of grief and sorrow. The sea cannot tell the same thing
to two beings, because no two human beings have had the same
�5
Hr
t
experience. So, when I look upon a flower, or a star, or a painting,
or a statue, the more I know about sculpture, the more that statue
speaks to me. The more I have had of human experience, the more
I have read, the greater brain I have, the more the star says to me.
In other words, nature says to me all that I am capable of under
standing. Now when I come to a book, for instance, I read the
writings of Shakespere—Shakespere, the greatest human being
who ever existed upon this globe. What do I get out of him ? All
that I have sense enough to understand. I get my little cup full.
Let another read him who knows nothing of the drama, who knows
nothing of the impersonation of passion; what does he get from
him ? Very little. In other words, every man gets from a book, a
flower, a star, or the sea, what he is able to get from his intellectual
development and experience.
Do you then believe that the Bible is a different book to every
human being that receives it ? I do. Can God, then, through the
Bible, make the same revelation to two men ? He cannot. Why ?
.Because the man who reads is the man who inspires. Inspiration
is in the man and not in the book. There was a time when the
Bible was the best book on geology. Has anybody now the hardi
hood to say that is a standard work on geology? There was a time
when it was the best astronomical treatise that anybody knew any
thing about. Does anybody claim now that it is a standard work
on astronomy ! According to this book a personal God made us all.
It seems to me than an infinite being has no right to make im
perfect things. I may be mistaken, but it has always seemed to
me that a perfect being should produce only the perfect. If God
made us all, why did he not make us all equally well ? He had the
power of an infinite God. Why did God people the earth with so
many idiots ? I admit that orthodoxy could not exist without them
but why did God make them ? If we believe the Bible then he
should have made us all idiots, for the orthodox Christian says idiots
will not be damned, but simply transplanted, while the sensible man
who believeth not will be sent to eternal damnation ? If there is
any God who made us, what right had he to make idiots ? Is a
man with a head like a pin under any obligation to thank God ? Is
.the black man, born in slavery, under any obligation to thank God
tor his badge of servitude ?
What kind of a God is it that will allow men and women to be
put in dungeons and chains simply because they loved him and
prayed to him? And what kind of a God is it that will allow such
men and women to be burned at the stake ? If God won’t love such
men and women, then under what circumstances will he love ?
As I look around I see that justice does not prevail, that inno
cence is not always effectual and a perfect shield. If there is a God
„these things should not be. Famine stalks over the land and
millions die, not only the bad but the good, and there in the heavens
above sits an infinite God who can do anything, can change the
rocks and the stones, and yet these millions die. I do not say there
,is.no God, but I do ask what is God doing ? Look at the agony,
�¿nd wretchedness and woe all over the land. Is there goodness, is
there mercy in this ? I do not say there is not, but I want to know,
and I want to know if a man is to be damned for asking the question.
But to go on: here we are and they say that this God picked
out one tribe and thought he would civilize them. He had no time
to waste upon the Egyptians, who at that time were a vast and
splendid nation, with systems of laws, free schools, who believed in
the rights of women; who believed in the one man marrying the
one wife ; who had courts of justice and understood the philosophy
of damages. He had no time to waste upon India, with a vast and
splendid civilization and a grammar more perfect than ours to-day.
But he took a few of the tribe of Abraham and thought he would
see what he could do with them. He established a perfect despotism,
with no schools, no knowledge of geology, astronomy or medicine.
He told them how to stop the leprosy, but it never occurred to Him
to tell them how to cure it. He told them a few things about what
they might eat, and one thing about cooking, that they should not
cook a kid in its mother’s milk. But He took these people under
His mighty care and for the purpose of controlling them He
wrought many wonderful miracles. Now is it not a remarkable
thing that no priest has ever yet been able to astonish another
priest by telling about a wonderful miracle. It reminds me of a
man who sat imperturbed while another told an improbable story,
and upon being told that he did not appear to take much interest
in it replied, “Well, no, I’m a liar myself.” (Great laughter.)
Now, without desiring to hurt the feelings of anyone, I propose
to give a few reasons for thinking that at least a few passages of
the Old Testament were not written by Jehovah or by the real God.
In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but fashionably
asserted, that slavery is, always was, and for ever will be, a hideous
crime; and I have no respect for a man who thinks slavery is right.
Such a man ought to be a slave himself, were it not for the fact
that somebody would have to be disgraced by being his master. It
is now asserted that a war of conquest is simply murder, and that a
war of extermination is simply savagery. It is also admitted that
polygamy is the enslavement of woman, destructive to home, and
the degradation of man. We also believe that nothing is more
infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men, helpless women, and
prattling babies. We all admit that nothing is more terrible than
rewarding soldiers after a victory by giving them the captured
w’omcn. We also admit that wives should not be stoned to death
on account of their religious opinions, and any man who does not
admit it is a savage. Any man who believes in slavery, polygamy,
or in a war of extermination, is a savage. But there was a time
when all these things were regarded as divine institutions. To-day,
nations that entertain such views are regarded as savage, and pro
bably, with the exception of the Fiji Indians and some citizens of
Delaware, no human beings can be found degraded enough to deny
these propositions. (Applause and laughter.) To every one except
the theologian it is perfectly easy to account for the mistakes, the
�atrocities and the crimes of the past, by saying that civilization is of
slow growth, that the moral perceptions must be cultivated, and
that it requires centuries for man to put out the eye of self and hold
in equal poise the golden scale of justice ; that conscience is born
of suffering, that mercy is the child of imagination, and that man
advances only as he finds out the laws of nature and his relations
to it and to his fellow-men.
But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to
declare that once God was savage, or that there was a time when
slavery was right; that there was a time when polygamy was the
highest expression of human virtue; that there was a time when
wars of extermination were waged for mercy; when death was the
just penalty for having and expressing an honest thought; that
Jehovah is just as bad now as He was 4,000 years ago, or that He
was just as good then as He is now.
Referring to the doctrine of the atonement, he said that under
the Old Testament dispensation every tabernacle was a slaughter
house and every priest an accomplished butcher. But when we
commit a sin now, we do not have to bring a pair of turtle doves,
nor a sheep, nor an ox. Now we say, “ Charge it.” (Laughter).
But you have got to settle. There are in nature neither rewards
nor punishments; there are consequences. There are in nature
neither love nor hatred; there are consequences. No God can give
you tares when you sow wheat, and no God can give you wheat
when you sowltares.
Speaking of the crimes which have been perpetrated in the name
of religion, he said : If Christ was in fact God, He knew all of the
future; He knew what sects would spring up like poisoned fungi
through every age. He saw the horizon of a thousand years red
with the flowers of the auto-da-fe, and He saw His followers bleeding
in th© dungeons of the Inquisition. He saw women holding their
little babes up to the grated windows so that the poor husband and
father, chained to the floor, might catch one glimpse of the blue
eyes of his babe; He saw His disciples driving stakes into the
earth, saw them chain heroic men and women, pitch the faggots
about them, touch them with fire, and see the flames consume to
ashes the best men and women of the earth. He knew that his
disciples would interpolate His book; He knew that hypocrisy
would write verses, and that these verses would be the foundation
for persecution; He knew that his disciples would make instru
ments of pain and use them ; He knew it, and yet he died voiceless.
Why did’nt He cry out, ‘ You must not persecute your fellow-men.’
Why did He say nothing definite, positive and satisfactory about
another world ? Why did He go dumbly to his death and leave
the world to misery and to doubt ?
'Speaking of the doctrine of eternal punishment, he said : No God
has a right to make a man He intends to drown. Eternal wisdom
has no right to make a bad investment, no right to engage in a
speculation that will not finally pay a dividend, No God has a
�8
right to make a failure, and surely a man who is to be damned for
ever is not a conspicuous success.
Yet upon love’s breast, the Church has placed that asp : around
the child of immortality the Church has coiled the Worm that never
dies. For my part I want no heaven if there is to be a hell. I
would rather be annihilated than be a God and know that one
human soul would have to suffer eternal agony. (Great applause).
Where did that doctrine of hell come from ? I despise it with
every drop of my blood! and defy it. Oh, is it not an infamous
doctrine to teach to little children, to put a shadow in the heart of
a child, to fill the insane asylums with that miserable infamous lie.
I see now and then a little girl—a dear little darling with a face
like the light, and eyes of joy, a human blossom, and I think, “ is
it possible that that little girl will ever grow up to be a Presby
terian ?” (loud laughter). . “ Is it possible, my goodness, that that
flower will finally believe in the five points of Calvanism or in the
eternal damnation of man ? Is it possible that that little fairy will
finally believe that she could be happy in heaven with her baby in
hell ? Think of it. Think of it 1 And that is the Christian religion.
We cry out against the Indian mother that throws her child into
the Ganges to be devoured by the alligator or crocodile, but that is
joy in comparison with the Christian mother’s hope, that she may
be in salvation while her brave boy is in hell. (Applause.) I tell
you I want to kick the doctrine about hell. I want to kick it out
every time I go by it. I want to get Americans in this country
placed so they will be ashamed to preach it. I want to get the
congregations so that they won’t listen to it. (Applause). We
cannot divide the world off into saints and sinners in that way.
There is a little girl, fair as a flower, and she grows up until she
^12, 13, or 14 years old. Are you going to damn her in the 15th,
16th or 17th year, when the arrow from Cupid’s bow touches her
heart and she is glorified—are you going to damn her now ? She
marries and loves, and holds in her arms a beautiful child. Ara
you going to damn her now ? Because she has listened to some
Methodist minister, and after all that flood of light failed to believe.
Are you going to damn her then ? I tell you God cannot afford to
damn such a woman. (Applause.)
A woman in the State of Indiana, forty or fifty years ago, who
carded the wool and made rolls and spun them, and made the cloth
and cut out the clothes for the children, and nursed them, and sat
up with them nights, and gave them medicine, and held them in
her arms and wept over them—cried for joy and wept for fear, and
finally raised ten or eleven good men and women with the ruddy
glow of health upon their cheeks, and she would have died for
any one of them any moment of her life, and finally she, bowed
with age, and bent with care and labor, dies, and at the moment
the magical touch of death is upon her face, she looks as if she
never had had a care, and her children burying her, cover her face
with tears. (Applause) Do you tell me God can afford to damn
that kind of a woman ? (Applause.)
�9
If there is any God, sitting above Him in infinite serenity, we
have the figure of justice- Even a God must do justice and any
form of superstition that destroys justice is infamous. (Applause).
Just think of teaching that doctrine to little children ! When I
was à boy I sometimes used to wonder how the mercy of God
lasted as long as it did—because I remember that on several occa
sions I had not been at school when I was supposed to be there,
(laughter.) Why I was not burned to a crisp was a mystery to me.
There was one day in each week too good for a child to be happy
in. On that day we were all taken to church, and the dear old
minister used to ask us, “ Boys, do yon know that you all ought to
be in hell ?” and we answered up as cheerfully as we could under
such circumstances, “Yes, sir,” (laughter). “ Well, boys, do you
know that you would go to hell if you died in your sins ?” and we
said, “Yes, sir.”
And then came the great test, “ Boys,” I can’t get the tone you
know, (laughter) And do you know that is how the preachers get
the bronchitis. You never heard of an auctioneer getting, the
bronchitis, nor the second mate on a steamboat—never, (laughter).
'What gives it to the ministers is talking solemnly when they don’t
feel that way, and it has the same influence upon the organs ot
speech that it would have upon the cords of the calves of your legs
to walk on your tiptoes—(laughter)—and so I call bronchitis
‘ parsonitis.” And if the ministers would all tell exactly what
they think they would all get well, but keeping back a part of the
truth is what gives them bronchitis. Well, the old man—the dear
old minister—used to try and show us how long we should be in
hell if we should locate there But to finish the other. The grand
test- question was : “ Boys, if it was God’s will that you should go
to hell, would you be willing to go ?”
And every little liar said, “Yes, sir.” Then in order to tell how
long we would stay there, he used to say, “ Suppose once in à
million ages a bird should come from a far distant clime and carry
of in its bill one little grain of sand, the time would finally come
when the last grain of sand would be carried away. Do you under
stand?” “Yes, sir.” “Boys, by that time it would not be sun-up
in hell.” (Laughter.)
I tell you, don’t make slaves of your children on Sunday. Thé
idea that there is any God that hates to hear a child laugh ! Let
the children play and be happy. Give them a chance. When your
child confesses to you that it has committed a fault, take that child
in your arms, and let it feel your heart beat against its heart, and
raise your children in the sunlight of love, and they. will be sun
beams to you along the pathway of life. (Applause). Abolish the
club and the whip from the house, because if the civilized use a
whip, the ignorant and brutal will use a. club, and they will use it
because you use a whip. ' Be perfectly honor bright with them, and
they will be your friends when you are old. Don’t try to teach
them something they can never learn. Don’t insist upon their
pursuing some calling they have no sort of faculty for. Don’t make
�10
that poor girl play ten years on a piano when she has no ear for
music, and when she has practised until she can play, Bonaparte
crossing the Alps,” and you can’t tell after she has played it whether
he ever got across or not. (Loud and prolonged laughter and
applause.)
Every day something happens to show me that the old spirit that
was in the Inquisition still slumbers in the breasts of men. I
know an instance in which a Presbyterian minister has been dis
missed for marrying a Catholic lady. Just as though a woman
could not beat any religion that a man ever heard of. I tell you
when you come to look upon it the love that man bears towards a
woman is a thousand times above any love he can bear toward the
unknown. It is altogether better to love your wife than to love
God; altogether better to love your children than to love Jesus
Christ: and I will tell you why. He is dead ; but if you love your
child you can put a little flower of joy into every footstep from the
time they leave the cradle until you die in their arms.
Men are oaks, women are vines, children are flowers, and if there
is any heaven in this world, it is in the family. It is where the
wife loves the husband, and the husband loves the wife, and where
the dimpled arms of children are about the necks of both. That is
heaven if there is any j and I do not want any better heaven in
another world than that, and if in another world I cannot live with
the ones I loved here, then I would rather not be there. I would
rather resign (applause).
Religion does not and cannot contemplate man as free. She
accepts only the homage of the prostrate, and scorns the offerings
of those who stand erect. She cannot tolerate the liberty of
thought. The wide and sunny fields belong not to her domain.
The starlit heights of genius are above and beyond her appreciation
and power. Her subjects cringe at her feet covered with the dust
of obedience. They are not athletes standing posed by rich life
and brave endeavour like the antique statues, but shrivelled defor
mities studying with furtive glance the cruel face of power.
No religionist seems capable of understanding this plain truth.
There is this difference between thought and action:—For our
actions we are responsible to ourselves and to those injuriously
affected; for thoughts there can, in the nature of things, be no
responsibility to gods or men, here or hereafter. And yet the
Protestant has vied with the Catholic in denouncing freedom of
thought, and while I was taught to hate Catholicism with every
drop of my blood, it is only justice to say that in all essential par
ticulars, it is precisely the same as every other religion. Luther
denounced mental liberty with all the coarse and brutal vigour of
his nature, Calvin despised from the very bottom of his petrified
heart anything that even looked like religious toleration, and
solemnly declared that to advocate it was to crucify Christ afresh.
All the founders of all the orthodox churches have advocated the
same infamous tenet. The truth is that what is called religion is
necessarily inconsistent with Free Thought-,
�A believer is a songless bird in a cage. A Freethinker is an
parting the clouds with tireless wings.
Thousands of young men are being educated at this moment by
the various churches. What for ? In order that they may be pre
pared to investigate the phenomena by which we are surrounded ?
No! The object, and the only object, is that they may learn the
arguments of their respective churches, and repeat them in the dull
ears of a thoughtless congregation. If one after being th us trained
at the expense of the Methodists turns Presbyterian or Baptist, he
is denounced as an ungrateful wretch.1 Honest investigation is
'.utterly impossible within the pale of any church, for the reason
that if you think the church is right you will not investigate, and
if you think it wrong the church will investigate you. The conse
quence of this is, that most of the theological literature is the lesult
of suppression, of fear, of tyranny, and hypocrisy.
Every Orthodox writer necessarily said to himself, “ If I write
that, my wife and children may want for bread, I will be covered
with shame and branded with infamy, but if I write this, I will gain
position, power, and honor. My church rewards defenders, and
burns reformers. (Applause.)
Who can tell what the world has lost by this infamous system of
suppression ? How many grand thinkers have died with the mailed
hand of superstition on their lips ? How many splendid ideas have
perished in the cradle of the brain, strangled in the poisonous coils
of that Python, the church 1
For thousands of years a thinker was hunted down like an escaped
convict. To him who had braved the church every door was shut,
every knife was open. To shelter him from the wild storm, to give
a crust of bread when dying, to put a cup of water to his cracked
and bleeding lips; these were all crimes, not one of which the
church ever did forgive; and with the justice taught of God his
helpless children were exterminated as scorpions and vipers.
Who at the present day can imagine the courage, the devotion to
principle, the intellectual and moral grandeur it once required to be
an Infidel, to brave the church, her racks, her faggots, her dungeons,
her tongues of fire—to defy and scorn her heaven, and her devil
and her God ? They were the noblest sons of earth. They were
the real saviours of our race, the destroyers of superstition and the
creators of science. They were the real Titans who bared their
grand foreheads to all the thunderbolts of all the gods. The church
has been, and still is, the great robber. She has rifled not only the
pockets but the brains of the world. She is the stone at the sepul
chre of liberty ; the Upas tree in whose shade the intellect of man
has withered; the Gorgon beneath whose gaze the human heart
has turned to stone.
» Reason has been denounced by all Christendom as the only un
safe guide. The church has left nothing undone to prevent man
following the logic of his brain. The plainest facts have been
covered with the mantle of mystery. The grossest absurdities have
been declared to be self-evident facts. The order of nature has
j eagle
�12
been as it were, reversed, in order that the hypocritical few might
govern the honest many. The man who stood by the conclusion
of his reason was denounced as a scorner and hater of God and His
holy church.
At present, owing to the inroads that have been made by Liberals
and Infidels, most of the churches pretend to be in favor of religious
liberty. Of these Churches we will ask this question : “ How can
a man who conscientiously believes in religious liberty worship a
God who does not ?” They say to us, “We will not imprison you
on account of your belief, but our God will. We will not burn you
because you throw away the sacred Scriptures, but their author
will. We think it an infamous crime to persecute our brethren
for opinion’s sake, but the God whom we worship will on that ac
count damn his own children for ever.”
“ Why is it that these
Christians do not only detest the Infidels, but so cordially despise each
other? Why do they refuse to worship in the temples of each other?"
There is but one way to get an honest opinion upon any subject
whatever. The person giving the opinion must be free from fear.
The merchant must not fear to lose Lis custom, the doctor his prac
tice, nor the preacher his pulpit. There can be no advance without
liberty. Suppression of honest enquiry is retrogression, and must
end in intellectual night. The tendency of Orthodox religion to
day is towards mental slavery and barbarism. Not one of the
Orthodox ministers dare preach what he thinks, if he knows that
a majority of his congregation thinks otherwise. He knows that
every member of his church stands guard over his brain with a
creed like a club in his hand. He knows that he is not expected to
search after the truth, but that he is employed to defend the creed.
Every pulpit is a pillory in which stands a hired culprit, defending
.the justice of his own imprisonment.
Is it desirable that all should be exactly alike in their religious
convictions ? Is any such thing possible ? Do we not know that
,there are no two persons alike in the whole world ? No two trees,
..no two leaves, no two anythings that are alike? Infinite diversity
is the law. Religion tries to force all minds into one mould.
Knowing that all cannot believe, the church endeavours to make
.all say that they believe. She longs for the unity of hypocrisy and
detests the splendid diversity of individuality and freedom.
(Applause.)
Mental slavery is mental death, and every man who has given up
.his intellectual freedom is the living coffin of his dead soul. In this
.sense every church is a cemetery, and every creed an epitaph.
Let us look at the church of to-day. Now, what is this religion.
To believe certain things that we may be saved, that we won’t be
damned What are they ?
. First, that the Old and New Testament are inspired. No matter
how good, how kind, how just a man may be, unless he believes in
the inspiration, he will be damned.
Second, he must believe in the Trinity. That there are three in
one. That Father and Son are precisely of the same age, the son
�possibly a little mite older ; that three times one is one, and that
■ once one is three. It is a mercy you don't know how to understand
-it, but you must believe it or be damned. Therein you see the
mercy of the Lord. This trinity doctrine was announced several
.hundred years after Christ was born.
Do you believe such a doctrine will make a man good or honest ?
h^Will it make him more just ? Is the man that believes any better
than the man who does not believe ? ,
How is it with nations ? Look at Spain, the last slaveholder in
the civilized world ; she’s Christian, she believes in the Trinity!
And Italy, the beggar of the world. Under the rule of priestcraft
money streamed in from every land, and . yet she did not advance.
To-day she is reduced to a hand-organ. Take poor Ireland, could
she cast off hei* priests she would soon be one with America in
freedom.
Protestantism is better than Catholicism, because there is less of
it. Both dread education. They say they brought the arts and
Sciences out of the dark ages, why, they made the dark ages and
■what did they preserve ? Nothing of value, only an account of
events that never happened. What did they teach the world ?
Slavery!
The best country the sun ever shone upon is the northern part of
the United States, and there you find less religion than anywhere
else on the face of the earth. You will find here more people that
don’t believe the Bible, and you will find better husbands, better
wives, happier homes, where the women are most respected, and
where the children get less blows and more huggings and kissings.
We have improved just as we have lost this religion and thia
superstition.
Great Britain is the religious nation par excellence, and there you
will find the most cant and most hypocrisy. They are always
thanking God that they have killed somebody. Look at the opium
war with China. They forced the Chinese to open their ports and
receive the deadly drug and then had the impudence to send a lot
of drivelling idiots of missionaries into China.
Why should we send missionaries to China if we cannot convert
the heathen when they come here ? When missionaries go to a
foreign land, the poor benighted people have to take their word for
the blessings showered upon a Christian people; but when the
heathen come here they can see for themselves. WLat was simply
a story becomes a demonstrated fact. They come in contact with,
people who love their enemies. They see that in a Christian land
men tell the truth; that they will not take advantage of strangers:
that they are just and patient; kind and tender ; and have no pre
judice on account of color, race, or religion; that they look upon
mankind as brethren ; that they speak of God as a universal Father,
and are willing to work and even to suffer, for the good not only
;Qf their own countrymen, but of the heathen as well. All this the
.Chinese see afid know, and why they still cling to the religion of
their country is to me a matter of amazement.
�•14
Our religion can only be brought into contempt by the actions of
those who profess to be governed by its teachings. It is easy to do
more in that direction than millions of Chinese could do by burning
pieces of paper before a wooden image. If you wish to impress the
Chinese with the value of your religion, of what you are pleased to
call “ The American system,” show them that Christians are better
than heathens. Prove to them that what you are pleased to call
“ the living God” teaches higher and holier things, a grander and
purer code of morals than can be found upon pagan pages. Excel
these wretches in industry, in honesty, in reverence for parents, in
cleanliness, in frugality, and above all by advocating the absolute
liberty of human thought.
Do not trample upon these people because they have a different
conception of things about which even you know nothing.
If you wish to drive out the Chinese do not make a pretext of
religion. Do not pretend that you are trying to do God a favor.
Injustice in His name is doubly detestable. The assassin cannot
sanctify his dagger by falling on his knees, and it does not help a
falsehood if it be uttered as a prayer. Religion, used, to intensify
the hatred of men toward men, under the pretence of pleasing God
has cursed this world.
If we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let us
reform our treaties with the vast empire from whence they came.
For thousands of years the Chinese secluded themselves from the
rest of the world. They did not deem the Christian nations fit
to associate with. We forced ourselves upon them. We called,
not with cards, but with cannon. The English battered down the
door in the names of Opium and Christ. This iufamy was regarded
as another triumph for the gospel. At last in self-defence the
Chinese allowed Christians to touch their shores. Their wise men,
their philosophers, protested, and prophesied that time would show
that Christians could not be trusted. Events have proved that the
wise men were not only philosophers, but prophets.
Treat China as you would England. Keep a treaty while it is
in force. Change it if you will, according to the laws of nations,
but on no account excuse a breach of national faith by pretending
that we are dishonest for God’s sake.
The Government has nothing to do with the religion of the
people. Its members are not responsible to God for the opinions of
their constituents, and it may tend to the happiness of the consti
tuents for me to state that they are in no way responsible for the
religion of the members. Religion is an individual not a national
matter. And where the nation interferes with the right of con
science, the liberties of the people are devoured by the monster
Superstition.
T^e orthodox Church says that religion does good; that it re
strains crime. It restrains a man from artificial not from natural
crimes. A man can be made so religious that he will not eat meat
on Friday, yet he will steal.
�ib
Go around the world, and where you find the least superstition,
there you will find the best men, the best women, the best children.
Two powerful levers are at work; love and intelligence. The true
test of a man is generosity, that covers a multitude of sms.
The Bible can’t stand to-day without the support of
power. No religion ever flourished except by the support of the
sword, and no religion like this could have been established except
^Doesan Infinite Being need to be protected by a State Legislalature? If the Bible is inspired, does the author of it need tie
support of the law to command respect ? We don t need any law
to make mankind respect Shakespeare. We come to the altar of
that great man and cover it with our gratitude without a statute.
Think of a law to govern tastes! Think of a law to govern mind
on any question whatever!
. , n
Shakespeare was an intellectual ocean whose waves touched all
the shores of human thought, within which were all the tides and
currents and pulses upon which lay all the lights and shadows, and
over which brooded all the calms and swept all the storms and
tempests of which the human soul is capable.
.
I tell you that all the sweet and beautiful things m the Bible
would not make one play of Shakespeare; all the philosophy in the
Bible would not make one scene in “ Hamlet:” all the beauties of
the Bible would not make one scene in “Midsummer Nights
Dream;” all the beautiful things about woman in the Bible would
not begin to create such a character as Perdita or Imogene or
If there is any man here to-night that believes the Bible was
inspired, in any other way than Shakespeare was inspired, I want
him to pick out something as beautiful and tender as Burns poem,
“ To Mary in Heaven.” I want him to tell whether he believes
the story about the bears eating up children; whether that is
inspired. I want him to tell whether he considers that a poem or
not. I want to know if the same God made those bears that
devoured the children because they laughed at an old man out of
hair. I want him to answer it, and answer it fairly. That is all I ask.
Think of the way in which they have supported the Bible.
They’ve terrorized the old with laws, and captured the dear littlo
innocent children and poisoned their minds with their false stories
until, when they have reached the age of manhood, they have been
afraid to think for themselves. Just see in some countries what
the blasphemy laws are now, by which they guard their Bible and
their God. Every honest man should see to it that these laws are
done away with at once and for ever.
See how men used to crawl before Cardinals, Bishops and Popes, _
Before wealth they bowed to the very earth, and in the presence of
titles they became abject. It is not so now. All this is slowly but
surely changing. At one time we thought a great deal of Clergy
men but now we have got to thinking they ain t of as much im
portance as a inan that’s invented something.
�16
As man proceeds, he begins to help himself and to take advantage
of mechanical powers to assist him, and he begins to see he can help,
himself a little, and exactly in the proportion he helps himself lie
comes to rely less on the power of priest or prayer to help him.
Just to the extent we are helpless, to that extent do we rely upon
the unknown.
As religion developed itself, keeping pace with the belief id
theology, came the belief in demonology. They gave one being the
credit of doing all the good things, and must give some one credit
for the bad things, and so they created a devil. At one time it was
as disreputable to deny the existence of a devil as to deny the
existence of a God ; to deny the existence of a hell, with its fire and
brimstone, as to deny the existence of a heaven with its harp and love.
With the development of religion came the idea that no man should
be allowed to bring the wrath of God on a nation by his transgres
sions, and this idea permeates the Christian world to-day. Now*
what does this prove ? Simply that our religion is founded on fear,
and when you are afraid you cannot think. Fear drops on its
knees and believes. It is only courage that can think.
It was the idea that man’s actions could do something, outside of
any effect his mechanical works might have, to change the order of
Nature; that he might commit some offence to bring on an earth
quake, but he can’t do it. You can’t be bad enough to cause an
earthquake; neither can you be good enough to stop one. Out of
that wretched doctrine and infamous mistake that man’s belief
could have any effect upon Nature grew all these inquisitions, racks
and collars of torture, and all the blood that was ever shed by
religious persecution.
Now I assert that there is not a man or woman in this entire
audience that can think of a thing that has not been suggested to
them by Nature, and they cannot think of anything that has been
suggested to them by the supernatural. You can’t get over that,
and you may as well give up speculating over it now as at any
other time.
Day by day, religious conceptions grow less and less intense.
Day by day the old spirit dies out of book and creed. The burning
enthusiasm, the quenchless zeal of the early church have gone,
never, never to return. The ceremonies remain, but the ancient
faith is fading out of the human heart. The worn-out arguments fail
to convince, and denunciations that once blanched the faces of a
race, excite in us only derision and disgust. As time rolls on the
miracles grow small and mean, and the evidencies our fathers
thought conclusive utterly fail to satisfy us. There is an irre
pressible conflict” between religion and science, and they cannot
peaceably occupy the same brain, nor the same world. (Applause.)
While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all
religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for
the hopeful, loving and tender souls who believe that from all this
discord will result a perfect harmony ; that every evil will in some
mysterious way become a good, that above and over all there is a
�.being who, in some way, will reclaim and glorify every one of the
children of men: but for those who heartlessly try to prove that
salvation is almost impossible; that damnation is almost certain;
that the highway of the universe leads to hell: who fill life with
fear and death with horror; who curse the cradle and mock the
tomb, it is impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity,
.contempt, and scorn.
Now, my friends, there’s a party started in this country with the
object of giving every man, woman, and child the rights they are
entitled to. Now every one of us has the same rights. I have the
right to labor and have the products of my labor. I have the right
to think, and furthermore, to express my thoughts, because ex
pression is the reward of my intellectual labor. And yet there are
some States in this country where men of my ideas would not be
allowed to testify in a court of justice. Is that right ? There are
States in this country where, if the law had been enforced, I would
have been sent to the Penitentiary for lecturing All such laws
were enacted by barbarians, and our country will not be free until
they are wiped from the statute books of every State.
These are our doctrines : We want an absolute divorce between
Church and State. We demand that Church property should not
be exempt from taxation. If you are going to exempt anything,
exempt the homesteads of the poor. Don’t exempt a. rich corpora
tion, and make men pay taxes to support a religion in which they
do not believe. But they say churches do good. I. don’t know
whether they do or not. Do you see such a wonderful difference
between a member of a church and one who does not believe in it ?
Do Church members pay their debts better than any others ? Do
they treat their families any better ? Are the people w’ho go to
Church the only good people ? Are there not a great many bad
people who go to Church ? Did you ever hear of a tramp coming
into the town and enquiring where the Deacon of a Presbyterian
Church lived ? (Great laughter.)
Not a Bank in this city will lend a dollar to theman who belongs
to the church, without security, quicker than to the man who don’t
go to church. Has not the Church opposed every science from the
first ray of light until now ? Didn’t they damn into c'ernal flames
the man who discovered the world was round ? Didn’t they damn
into eternal flames the man who discovered the movement of the
earth in its orbit ? Didn’t they persecute the astronomers ? Didn’t
they even try to put down life insurance by saying it was sinful to
bet on the time God has given you to live ?
Science built the Academy, superstition the Inquisition. Science
constructed the telescope, religion the rack ; science made us happy
here, and says if there s another world we’ll all stand an equal
chance there ; religion made us miserable here; and says a large
majority will be eternally miserable there. Should we, therefore,
exempt it from taxation for any good it has done ?
'Ihe next thing we ask is a perfect divorce between Church and
school. We say that every school should be secular, because it’s
�13
just to everybody. If I was an Israelite I would’nt want to be
taxed to have my children taught that his ancestors had murdered
a «aprenie
us teach, not the doctrines of the past, but
the discoveries of the present; not the five points of Calvinism, but
geology and geography. Education is the lever to raise mankind,
and superstition is the enemy of intelligence.
I want, if I can, to do a little to increase the rights of men, to
put every human being on an equality, to sweep away the clouds of
superstition, to make people think more of what happens to-day
than what somebody said happened 3000 years ago. This is what
I want: To do what little I can to clutch one-seventh of our time
from superstition, to give our Sundays to rest, serenity, and recrea• 1 7aUt a day °f enj°ymeilb a day to read old books, to meet
old friends, and get acquainted with one’s wife and children. I
want a day to gather strength to meet the toils of the next.
I want to get that day away from the Church, away from super
stition and the contemplation of hell, to be the best and sweetest
a,nd brightest of all the days in the week. That day is best on
which most good is done for the human race.
I want to have us all do what little we can to secularize the
Government—take it from the control of savagery and give it to
science, take it from the Government of the past and give it to the
enlightened present, and in this Government let us uphold every
man and woman in their rights, that every one, after he or she
comes to the age of discretion, may have a voice in the affairs of
the nation.
Do this, and we’ll grow in grandeur and splendour every day,
and the time will come when every man aud every woman shall
have the same rights as every other man and every other woman
has.
I believe we are growing better. I don’t believe the wail of want
shall be heard for ever: that the prison and the gallows will always
curse the ground.
The time will come when liberty and law, and love, like the Rings
of Saturn, will surround the world; when the world will cease
making these mistakes ; when every man will be judged according
to his worth and intelligence. I want to do all I can to hasten that
day.
(Immense cheering and applause, during which the Colonel
gracefully bowed and withdrew.)
�Reformer’s Library.
s d
VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY, 2 vols
8 0
VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL TALES & ROMANCES,
(cloth) ...
...
...
...
...
... 2 6
THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH, pub. at 2/6 (652 pages) 7 6
VOLNEY’S RUINS OF EMPIRES & LAW OF NATURE,
(cloth extra)
...
...
...
...
... 2 6
ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RELIGION, by Grote, the
Historian
...
...
...
...
... 1 0
THE JESUS OF J. S. MILL, by Antichrist
...
... 1 0
NEW RELIGIOUS THOUGHTS, by Douglas Campbell ... 2 6
ROBERT OWEN’S LECTURES ON MARRIAGE
... 0 8
ROBERT OWEN’S LECTURE ON SOCIALISM
... 2 0
TRUTH, LOVE & JOY, or the Garden of Eden (pub. at 8/-) 4 O'
MAZZINI: HIS LIFE AND WORKS (published at 5/-) ... 8 0
RABELAIS (2 vols) ...
...
...
...
...4 0
“THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE, or Physical.
Sexual and Natural Religion,” 2/6, or in cloth ... 3 0
E. TRUELOVE, Publisher, 256, High Holborn, London.
LESSONS FOR THE DAY.
Consisting of DISCOURSES delivered at South Place Chapel, Finsbury,
BY MONCURE
PRICE ONE PENNY.
D. CONWAY,
M.A,
Published Every Thursday.
THE publication of this Serial was commenced on October 5th, 1882,
to meet the constant application for copies of the discourses delivered
on Sunday Mornings, at South Place Chapel, Finsbury, and, also with
the view of disseminating as widely as possible the principles of
Rational Religion. Of those principles Mr. Conway is recognised as
one of the most able exponents, and when fairly examined they will be
found to meet the requirements of the modern intellect, and to have a
thoioughly piactical bearing on the every-day life of the individual,
the family, and the community.
E. W. ALLEN, Ave Maria Lane, an*1' all Booksellers.
�o
o
PEOPLE'S POPULAR LIBBAEY.
COLONEL INGERSOLL'S WORKS.
Price. Post free.
“BREAKING THE FETTERS,”
...............
2d.
2jd. .
“RELIGION OF THE FUTURE,”
...............
2d.
2|d.
“HEREAFTER,” (and including “ Great Infidels.”)
2d.
2|d.
“HELL.”.........................................................
2d.
2|d.
“ INGERSOLL’S REPLY TO TALMAGE,” ...
2d,
2|d.
(Six copies of any of the above, post free for 1/“FARM LIFE IN AMERICA.”...........................
Id.
3d.
“ MISTAKES OF MOSES.”
...........................
Larger Edition of “ MOSES ” (with illustrations)...
6d.
“THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.”
...............
3d.
“THE GHOSTS.”......................................................
4d.
“WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED.”
3d.
Five other Orations, “ THE GODS,” - “ THOMAS '
1/7
1/6
PAINE,” &c., neat volume-, bound dn cloth
DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF” '|...
2d.
2±d
Splendid PHOTOGRAPH of COL. INGERSOLL
<;d.
taken by “ Saroxy,” of New York
•••)
BIOGRAPHY of COL. INGERSOLL
Id.
l|d.
“ THE MARTYRDOM OF SERVRTUS,” by the '
Rev. II. V. Mills
...
Id.
“ FACTS & INCIDENTS OF REAL LIFE,”
Id.
“ THE STUDENT’S DARWIN,” by Dr. Aveling
5/«TEN DAYS IN JERUSALEM,” just out
...
6d.
■“A Religion which gives Heaven no trouble,” byllol^oake 2d.
“AGE OF REASON,* by Thomas Paine
..." 1/“ RIGHTS OF MAN.”
„
„
...
1/“ VOLNEY’S RUINS OF EMPIRES,” (bound)
“ Impeachment of the House of Brunswick” (Bradlaugh) 1/VOLTAIRE’S Philosophical Dictionary, 2 vols. ...
8/SECULARISM : Debate in London between Rev. Dr.
Mc.Cann and Mr. Bradlaugh, for 3 nights
1/1/
HOLY SCRIPTURES ANALYSED, by R. Cooper Gd.
7d.
Any of the above securely packed and posted to any a< Jil'CSS, 01)
receipt of Stamps or Postal Orders, by
W. H. MORRISH, BOOKSELLER,
18, NARROW WINE STREET, ER1S7CL.
>
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Difficulties of belief : a discourse ... delivered in Chicago and other cities in America, to overflowing audiences
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Notes: Stamp on p.[2]: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library, 21 Nov. 1991. Sold by: Freethought Publishing Company (London); Progressive Publishing Company (London); Truelove (London); Morrish (Bristol); The Bookstall (72 Humberstone Gate, Leicester); Witty (Hull); The Bookstall, Freethought Institute (Southampton); Alexander Orr (Edinburgh); Robert Ferguson (Glasgow)||(WIT) Publishers' advertisements at end include Reformer's Library (E. Truelove, London), and the People's popular library (Ingersoll's works) available from W.H. Morrish (Bristol). Date of publication from Stein's checklist (No. 18b). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1892]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N339
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Difficulties of belief : a discourse ... delivered in Chicago and other cities in America, to overflowing audiences), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Belief and Doubt
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/766c992c7367fd258c2886385c4817f5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=FDuAXQHZR%7ELnehEoR4OtBCJrqn6XkLAUn72%7EcteL%7EWEa9myiywMKvkjpKXSHi7KBJzsosug9-G3x6xZoxeejt4zeq4N2WYWI9KhQz1r1LACD8GNJUlTwRHdqH8IVk3Tj028tBjT6IvvWYumaY9tIfq4Wjv5OSMXpnGIQKIhvLc9puih7DuHyOgmcwpiuTm6i6XwwZqMsTY4lqoiM04OJ1pbBh2fo2%7EwNmer7UgubGFx1dsso4HwmgcXr1Tica%7E9HsESSnw03gdWAoc8mvhmVLQlU%7EY8LseCfZ-Sn-hi1fsYCijcU8uNYRFegAp5cdNwk-AKVqPmDQD0Y2Pd5%7EmBTGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
06f0914b1689e1b8c66e3756aadfd6a9
PDF Text
Text
nauonalsecularsoc^
BETWEEN
COLONEL
G.
R.
INGERSOLL
THE
HONORABLE F. D. COUDERT
AND
GOVERNOR S.
L. WOODFORD
AT THE
Nineteenth Century Club, New York.
VERBATIM REPORT.
\
</
PRICE TWOPENCE.
^Tnnlron:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�LONDON :
PAINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTB
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�£>1/710
Nj37°
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION;
The points for discussion, as submitted in advance were
the following propositions:
First. Thought is a necessary natural product—the
result of what is called impressions made through the
medium of the senses upon the brain, not forgetting the
fact of heredity.
Second. No human being is accountable to any being
< —human or divine—for his thoughts.
Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the
thoughts of each other, and one who undertakes to tell
his thoughts should be honest.
Fourth. All have an equal right to express their
thoughts upon all subjects.
Fifth. For one man to say to another, “ I tolerate
you,” is an assumption of authority—not a disclaimer, but
a waiver, of the right to persecute.
Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the
whole world his ideas that the rest of the world have to
express their thoughts to him.
THE PROCEEDINGS.
Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in
introducing Mr. Ingersoll, among other things said :
The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to
be that of the great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august
saying, “ There shall be no slavery of the mind.”
�4
Limits of Toleration.
When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the
tomb of Victor Hugo. It was placed in a recess in the
crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite it was the tomb of
Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another re.cess, was
the memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked
at these three monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been
born in France, and had he passed in his long life account,,
the acclaim of the liberal culture of France would have
enlarged that trio into a quartette.
Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important
debates in print, notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black,
formerly Attorney-General of the United States; lately
in the pages of the North American Review with the Rev.
Dr. Henry M. Field ; and last but not least the Right
Hon. William E. Gladstone, England’s Greatest citizen,
has taken up the cudgel against him in behalf of his
view of Orthodoxy. To-night, I believe for the first
time, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial
discussion. I have now the honor to introduce this dis
tinguished orator.
COLONEL INGERSOLL’S OPENING.
Ladies, Mr. President, and Gentlemen,—I am here, to
night for the purpose of defending your right to differ
with me. I want to convince you that you are under no
compulsion to accept my creed ; that you are, so far as I
am concerned, absolutely free t< follow the torch of your
reason according to your consc ence ; and I believe that
you are civilised io that degree that you will extend to
me the right that you claim for yourselves.
I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being
thinks as he must; and the first proposition really is,
whether man has the right to think. It will bear but
little discussion, for the reason that no man can control
his thought. If you think you can, what are you going
to think to-morrow ? What are you going to think
next year 1 If you can absolutely control your thought,
can you stop thinking ?
The question is, Has the will any power over the
thought I What is thought ? It is the result of nature
�Limits of Toleration.
5
—of the outer world—first upon the senses—those im
pressions left upon the brain as pictures of things in the
outward world, and these pictures are transformed into,
or produce, thought; and as long as the doors of the
senses are open, thoughts will be produced. Whoever
looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears any
sound—or any symphony—no matter what—thinks.
Whoever looks upon the sea, or on a star, or on a flower,
or on the face of a fellow-man, thinks, and the result of
that look is an absolute necessity. The thought producer
will depend upon your brain, upon your experience, upei
the history of your life.
One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one hr
loved the best had been devoured by its hungry waves
will have certain thoughts ; and he who sees it for the
first time, will have different thoughts. In other words,
^io two brains are alike ; no two lives have been or are or
ever will be the same. Consequently, nature cannot pro
duce the same effect upon any two brains, or upon any
two hearts.
The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is
that we are different. If we were all the same, we should
die dumb. No thought would be expressed after we
found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We differ
—our thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce
that we call conversation.
Back of language is thought. Back of language is
the desire to express our thought to another. This desire
not only gave us language—this desire has given us the
libraries of the world. And not only the libraries : this
desire to express thought, to show to others the splendid
children of the brain, has written every book, formed
every language, painted every picture, and chiseled every
statue—this desire to express our thought to others, to
reap the harvest of the brain.
If, then, thought is a necessity, “ it follows as the night
the day ” that there is, there can be, no responsibility for
thought to any being, human or divine.
A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes
upon it, and the sensitive plate receives a picture. Is
�6
Limits of Toleration.
it in fault ? Is it responsible for the picture ? So
with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture is im
printed there. The plate may not be perfectly level—it
may be too concave, or too convex, and the picture may
be a deformity; so with the brain. But the man does
not make his own brain, and the consequefice is, if the
picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.
We take then these two steps: first, thought is a
necessity; and second, the thought depends upon the
brain.
Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with
careless hands the seeds of thought. Some brains are
poor and barren fields, producing weeds and thorns, and
some are like the tropic world where grow the palm and
pine—children of the sun and soil.
You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of •
Shakespeare 1 All that your brain is able to hold. It
depends upon your brain. If you are great—if you have
been cultivated—if the wings of youi’ imagination have
been spread—if you have had great, free, and splendid
thoughts—if you have stood upon the edge of things—if you
have had the courage to meet all that can come—you get an
immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived nobly—
if you have loved with every drop of your blood and every
fibre of your being—if you have suffered—if you have
enjoyed—then you get an immensity from Shakespeare.
But if you have lived a poor, little, mean, wasted, barren,
weedy life—you get very little from that immortal man.
So it is from every source in nature—what you get
depends upon what you are.
Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity,
there can be no responsibility for thought. And why has
man ever believed that his fellow-man was responsible for
his thought ?
Everything that is, everything that has been, has been
naturally produced. Man has acted as under the same
circumstances we would have acted; because when you
say “ under the circumstances,” it is the same as to say
that you would do exactly as they have done.
�Limits of Toleration.
7
There has always been in men the instinct of self
preservation. There wras a time when men believed, and
honestly believed, that there was above them a God.
Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient
for my illustration to say, one. Mau believed that there
was in the sky above him a God who attended to the
affairs of men. He believed that that God, sitting
upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He
believed also that that God held the community respon
sible for the sins of individuals. He honestly believed»it.
When the flood came, or when the earthquake devoured,
he really believed that some God w’as filled with anger—
with holy indignation—at his children. He believed it,
and so he looked about among his neighbors to see who
was in fault, and if there was any man who had failed to
bring his sacrifice to the altar, had failed to kneel, it may
be to the priest, failed to be present in the temple, or had
given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe or of that
nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God
they seized the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar
of theii’ ignorance and of their fear.
They believed when the lightning leaped from the
cloud and left its blackened mark upon the man that he
had done something—that he had excited the wrath of the
gods. And while man so believed—while he believed
that it was necessary, in order to defend himself, to kill
his neighbor—he acted simply according to the dictates of
his nature.
What I claim is that we have now advanced far enough
not only to think, but to know, that the conduct of man
has nothing to do with the phenomena of nature. We
are nOw advanced far enough to absolutely know that no
man can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough
to cause an earthquake. I think we have got to that
point that we absolutely know that no man can be wicked
enough to entice one of the bolts from heaven—that no
man can be cruel enough to cause a drouth—and that you
could not have infidels enough on the earth to cause
another flood. I think we have advanced far enough
not only to say that, but to absolutely know it—I mean
�8
Limits of Toleration.
people who have thought, and in whose minds there is
something like reasoning.
We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is
just as apt to hit a good man as a bad man. We know
it. We know that the earthquake is just as liable to
swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as
well as I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt
to outride the storm as one crowded with missionaries.
You know it.
I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I
believe, as much as I believe that I live, that the reason a
thing is right is because it tends to the happiness of man
kind. I believe, as much as I believe that I live, that on
the average the good man is not only the happier man,
but that no man is happy who is not good.
If, then, we have gotten over that frightful, that awful
superstition—we are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts
of each other.
I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as
saying, that there is no God. All I intend to say is, that
so far as we can see, no man is punished, no nation is
punished by lightning, or famine, or storm. Everything
happens to the one as to the other.
Now let us admit that there is an infinite God. That
has nothing to do with the sinlessness of thought—nothing
to do with the fact that no man is accountable to any
being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And let me
tell you why.
If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men
who sin against him. You can trust him, if you believe
in him. He has the power. He has a heaven full of
bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that
the earthquake will not swallow you, nor the lightning
strike you, simply because you tell your thoughts, if one
of your neighbors differs with you, and acts improperly or
thinks or speaks improperly of your God, leave him with
your God—he can attend to him a thousand times better
than you can. He has the time. He lives from eternity
to eternity. More than that, he has the means. So
�Limits of Toleration.
9
that, whether there be this Being or not, you have no
right to interfere with your neighbor.
The next proposition is, that I have the same right to
express my thought to the whole world, that the whole
world has to express its thought to me.
I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy,
where the majority rule : it is not a republic. It is a
country with one inhabitant. The brain is the world in
which my mind lives, and my mind is the sovereign of
that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances the
rest of the world as one drop of water balances the sea.
Each soul is crowned. Each soul wears the purple dud
the tiara; and only those are good citizens of the intellentual world who give to every other human being every
right that they claim for themselves, and only those are
traitors in the great realm of thought who abandon reason
and appeal to force.
If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you
have to abuse your neighbors to keep on good terms with
God, then the question of religion is exactly like every
question—I mean of thought, of mind—I have nothing to
say now about action.
Is there authority in the world of art ? Can a legis
lature pass a law that a certain picture is beautiful, and
can it pass a law putting in the penitentiary any impudent
artistic wretch who says that to him it is not beautiful ?
Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all the
same ; we are not touched by the same sounds—the same
beautiful memories do not arise.
Suppose, you have
an authority in music ? You may make men, it may be,
bv offering them office or by threatening them with
punishment, swear that they all like that tune—but you
never will know till tbe day of your death whether they
do or not! The moment you introduce a despotism in
the world of thought, you succeed in making hypocrites
—and you get in such a position that you never know
what your neighbor thinks.
So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force.
No one can be compelled to pray. No matter how you
tie him down, or crush him down on his face or on his
�10
Limits of Toleration.
knees, it. is above the power of the human race to put in
that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do
t. Neither can you compel anybody to worship a God.
Worship rises from the heart like perfume from a flower.
It cannot obey; it cannot do that which some one else
commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its
own nature. And do you think any God would be satisfied
with compulsory worship ? Would he like to see long
rows of poor, ignorant slaves on their terrified knees
repeating words without a soul—giving him what you
might call the shucks of sound ? Will any God be
satisfied with that? And so I say we must be as free in
one department of thought as another.
Now I take the next step, and that is, that the rights
of all are absolutely equal.
I have the same right to give you my opinion that you
have to give me yours. I have no right to compel you to
hear, if you do not want to. I have no right to compel
you to speak if you don’t want to. If you do not wish to
know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.
The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this
liberty of expression, is of more, value than any other
thing beneath the stars. Of more value than any religion,
of more value than any government, of more value than
all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws
that he has passed, is this liberty—the absolute liberty of
the human mind. Take away that word from language,
and all other words become meaningless sounds, and there
is then no reason for a man being and living upon the
earth.
So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality
—that is all. You come to me with a new idea. I invite
you into the house. Let us see what you have. Let us
talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I will bid it
a polite “ good day.” If I do like it, I will say : “ Sit
down; stay with me, and become a part of the intellectual
wealth of my world.” That is all.
And how any human being ever has had the impudence
to speak against the right to speak is beyond the power
of my imagination. Here is a man who speaks—who
�Limits of Toleration.
11
exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can
liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration
possible beyond the liberty to speak against liberty—-the
real believer in free speech allowing others to speak against
the right to speak ? Is there any limitation beyond that ?
So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has
admitted that he violated his own doctrine. No man can
open his mouth against the freedom of speech without
denying every argument he may put forward. Why ?
He is exercising the right that he denies. How did he
get it ? Suppose there is one man on an island. You
will all admit now that he would have the right to do his
own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right
to express his thought. Now will somebody tell me how
many men would have to immigrate to that island before
the original settler would lose his right to think and his
right to express himself ?
If there be an infinite Being—and it is a question that
I know nothing about—you would be perfectly astonished
to know how little I do know on that subject, and yet I
know as much as the aggregated world knows, and as little
as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy wings
the summer air—if there be such a Being, I have the
same right to think that he has, simply because it is a
necessity of my nature—because I cannot help it. And
the Infinite would be just as responsible to the sjnallest
intelligence living in the infinite spaces—he would be just
as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can
be to him, provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity
of his nature.
There is another phrase to which I object—“ tolera
tion.” “ The limits of toleration.” Why say “ toleration T
I will tell you why. When the thinkers were in the
minority—when the philosophers were vagabonds—when
the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires—when
the majority were ignorantly orthodox—when they hated
the heretic as a last year’s leaf hates a this year’s bud—in
that delightful time these poor people in the minority had
to say to ignorant power, to conscientious rascality, to
cruelty born of universal love : “ Don^t kill us : don’t be
�12
Limits of Toleration.
so arrogantly meek as to burn us ; tolerate us.” At that
time the minority was too small to talk about rights, and
the great big ignorant majority when tired of shedding
blood, said : “ Well, we will tolerate you ; we can afford
to wait; you will not live long, and when the Being of
infinite compassion gets h*old of you we will glut our re
venge through an eternity of joy; we will ask you every
now and then, ‘What is your opinion now?’ ”
Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness
would have his revenge, they “ tolerated ” these thinkers,
and that word finally took the place almost of liberty.
But 1 do not like it. When you say “ I tolerate,” you
do not say you have no right to punish, no right to perse
cute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for
a few years, but you retain the right. I deny it.
And let me say here to-night—it is your experience, it
is mine—that the bigger a man is the more charitable he
is; you know it. The more brain he has, the more
excuses he finds for all the world; you know it. And if
there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander .
than any man; he must have a thousand times more
charity than the human heart can hold, and is it possible
that he is going to hold his ignorant children responsible
for the impressions made by nature upon their brain?
Let us have some sense.
ThSre is another side to this question, and that is with
regard to the freedom of thought and expression in mat
ters pertaining to this world.
No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor.
He has no right to utter slander. He has no right to
bear false witness. He has no right to be actuated by
any motive except for the general good—but the things
he does here to his neighbor—these are easily defined and
easily punished. All that I object to is setting up a stan
dard of authority in the world of art, the world of beauty,
the world of poetry, the world of worship, the world of
religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is what I object
to ; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every
human being that has benefited this world would have
been destroyed. If the people who believe that a certain
�Limits of Toleration.
13
belief is necessary to insure salvation had had control of
this world, we would have been as ignorant to-night as
wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in
spite of them. There has not been a book of any value
printed since the invention of that art—and when I say
“ of value,” I mean that contained new and splendid
truths—that was not anathematised by the gentlemen
who believed that man is responsible for his thought.
Every step has been taken in spite of that doctrine.
Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of
mind. And I have no fear about any other world—not
the slightest. When I get there, I will give my honest
opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought
there; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least
my self-respect.
A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it.
I cannot help it. I read a story—no matter whether in
the original Hewbrew, or whether it has been translated.
I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter whether it is
written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner—I
have my idea about its truth. And I insist that each
man has the right to judge that for himself, and for that
reason, as I have already said, I am defending your right
to differ with me—that is all. And if you do differ with
me, all that proves is that I do not agree with you. There
is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars—there is
no being—that can force my soul upon its knees, unless
the reason is given. I will be no slave. I do not care how
big my master is, I am just as small, if a slave, as though
the mastei’ were small. It is not the greatness of the
master that can honor the slave. In other words, I am
going to act according to my right, as I understand it,
without any other human being.
And now, if you think—any of you, that you can
control your thought, I want you try it. There is not
one here who can by any possibil ty think, only as he
must
You remember the story of the Methodist minister
who insisted that he could control his thoughts. A. man
said to him, “ Nobody can control his own mind.” “ Oh,
�14
Limits of Toleration.
yes, he can,” the preacher replied. “ My dear sir,” said
the man, “ you cannot even say the Lord’s Prayer with
out thinking of something else.” “ Oh, yes, I can.”
“ Well, if you will do it, I will give you that horse, the
best riding horse in this county.”
“Well who is to
judge ? ” said the preacher. “ I will take your own word
for it, and if you say the Lord’s Prayer through without
thinking of anything else, I will give you that horse.”
So the minister shut his eyes and began : “ Our father
who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom
come, thy will be done------ ” “ I suppose you will throw
in the saddle and bridle ? ”
I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel
more interest in the freedom of thought and speech than
in all other questions, knowing, as I do, that it is the con
dition of great and splendid progress for the race ; remem
bering, as I do, that the opposite idea has covered the
cheek of the world with tears ; remembering, and knowing
as I do, that the enemies of free thought and free
speech have covered this world with blood. These men
have filled the heavens with an infinite monster; they
have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have
made the present, when they have had the power, a per
dition. These men, these doctrines, have carried faggots
to the feet of philosophy. These men, these doctrines,
have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day. These
men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and de
nounced and killed every philosopher they could lay their
bloody, cruel, ignorant hands upon.
And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought,
everywhere, in every department, domain, and realm of the
human mind.
PRESIDENT PALMER.
In the very amusing sketch of “Father Tom and the
Pope,” Father Tom is represented as saying that “ every
sensible man is a man who judges by his senses; but we all
know that these seven senses are seven deluders, and that if
we want to know anything about mysteries, we call in the
�Limits of Toleration.
15
eighth sense—the only sense to be depended upon—which
is the sense of the Church/’
Mr. Kernan was to have attended to-night, to give us
“ the sense of the Church —the Roman Catholic—but he,
unfortunately, has been forced to go to Chicago. Mr.
Coudert, however, is one of the few men who I know who
could take his place in such an emergency, has kindly
consented to appear.
REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.
Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President,—It is not
only “the sense of the Church” that I am lacking
now, I am afraid it is any sense at all; and I am only won
dering how a reasonably intelligent human being—meaning
myself—could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr.
Kernan, have undertaken to speak to-night.
This is a new experience. I have never sang in any of
Verdi’s operas—I have never listened to one through—but
I think I would prefer to try all three of these perform
ances rather than go on with this duty which in a vain
moment of deluded vanity I’ heedlessly undertook.
I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the
master of a ship who thinks that he can safely guide his
bark. . (I am not alluding to the traditional bark of St.
Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always be, but the
ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a
guide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which
we generally take for granted, and which are as necessary
to our safety as the air which we breathe, or the sunshine
that we enjoy, have been quietly, pleasantly, and smilingly
thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just preceded
me.
Carlyle once said—and the thought came to me as the
gentleman was speaking—A Comic History of England !
—for some wretch had just written such a book—talk of
free thought and free speech when men do such things 1
—A Comic History of England ! The next thing we shali
hear of will be “ A Comic History of the Bible II think
�16
Limits of Toleration.
we have heard the first chapter of that comic history to
night; and the only comfort that I have—and possibly
some other antiquated and superannuated persons of either
sex, if such there be within my hearing—is that such
things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the
order of blasphemy, have been uttered with such charming
bonhomie, and received with such enthusiastic admiration,
that I have wondered whether we are in a Christian audi
ence of the nineteenth century, or in a possible Ingersollian audience of the Twenty-third.
And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and
desultory remarks which are the only ones that I can make
now and with which I may claim- your polite attention—
let me say a word about the comparison with which your
worthy President opened these proceedings.
There are two or three things upon which I am a little
sensitive : One, aspersions upon the land of my birth—the
city of New York; the next, the land of my fathers; and
the next, the bark that I was just speaking of.
Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to
exhibit in the best possible style the new actor upon his
stage, said that he had seen Victor Hugo’s remains, and
Voltaire’s and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s, and that he
thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll.
If that had been merely the expression of a natural desire
to see him speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the
interests of the Christian community have thought, but
not said, “ Amen! ” (Here you will at once observe
the distinction I make between free thought and free
speech!)
I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and par
ticularly the eloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will
think, that in anything I may say I intend any personal
discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent in freedom of
speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as tins
rises entirely above and beyond the plane of personali
ties.
I suppose that your President intended to compare
Colonel Ingersoll to Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau.
I have no retainer from either of those gentlemen, but for
�Limits of Toleration.
17
the reason that I just gave you, I wish to defend their
memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I
do not think—with all respect to the eloquent and learned
gentleman—that he is entitled to a place in that niche.
Voltaire did many wrong things. He did them for many
reasons, and chiefly because he was human. But Voltaire
did a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble
tragedies, which charmed and delighted his audiences, and
dignified the stage, throughout his work was some effort
to ameliorate the condition of the human race. He fought
against torture ; he fought against persecution ; he fought
against bigotry ; he clamored and wrote against littleness
and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed
when he entered Upon his domains at Femay, to erect a
church to the Gr^d of whom the most oui friend can say
is, “ I do not knoxy whether he exists or not.”
Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman,
and in our day would probably have been locked, up in an
asylum and treated by intelligent doctors. His works,
however, bear the impress of a religious education, and if
there be in his works tor sayings anything to parallel what
we have heard to-night—whether a parody on divine
revelation, or a parody upon the prayer of prayers—I have
not seen it.
Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with
prose- and poetry that have made him the Shakespeare of
the nineteenth century—poems as deeply imbued with a
devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as the
writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left
the traces of his beneficent action all over the literature
of his day, of his country, and of his race.
All these men, then, have built up something. Will
anyone, the most ardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell
me what he has built up ?
To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman
says that freedom of thought is a grand thing. Unfor
tunately, freedom of thought exists. What one of us
would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts,
if he only could? What persecution have any of us
suffered to compare with the involuntary recurrence of
�18
Limits of Toleration.
these demons that enter our brain—that bring back past
events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even
with our blood—and make us slaves of a power unseen but
uncontrollable and uncontrolled ? Is it not unworthy of
so eloquent and intelligent a man to preach before you
here to-night that thought must always be free ?
When in the history of the world has thought ever
been fettered ? If there be a page in history upon which
such an absurdity is written, I have failed to find it.
Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most
cruel and arbitrary ruler can no more penetrate into your
bosom and mine and extract the inner workings of our
brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun
from its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is un
seen, unhandled and untouched, and no despot has yet
been able to reach it, except when the thoughts burst
into words. And therefore, may we not consider now,
and say that liberty of word is what he wants, and not
liberty of thought, which no one has ever gainsaid or
disputed?
•'
Liberty of speeeh ;—and the gentleman generously tells
us, “ Why I only ask for myself what I would cheerfully
extend to you. I wish you to be free ; and you can even
entertain those old delusions which your mothers taught,
and look with envious admiratioA upon me while I scale
the giddy heights of Olympus, gather the honey and
approach the stars and tell y^u how pure the air is in
those upper regions which you are unable to reach/’’
Thanks for his kindness ! But I think that it is one
thing for us to extend to him that liberty that he asks for
—the liberty to destroy—and another thing for him to
give us the liberty which we claim, the liberty to con
serve.
Oh! destruction is so ea^y, destruction is so pleasant!
It marks the footsteps all through our life. The baby
begins by destroying his bib ; the older child by destroying
his . horse, and when the man is grown up he joins the
legiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a
chance he will destroy human life.
This building cost many thousand days* work. It was
�Limits of Toleration.
19
planned by more or less skilful architects ignorant of
ventilation, but well-meaning.
Men lavished their
thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance, upon
this building. It took months and possibly years to
build it and to adorn it and to beautify it. And yet, as it
stands complete to-night with all of you here in the vigor
of your life and in the enjoyment of such entertainment
as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen men
who, with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all
of us to instant destruction.
The dynamite man may say to me, “I give you all
liberty to build and occupy and insure, if you will give
me liberty to blow up.” Is that a fair bargain ! Am I
bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it.
Liberty of speech I Tell me where liberty of speech has
ever existed. There have been free societies. England
was a free country. France has struggled through crisis
after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We think we have
liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would
undertake to say that our society could live with liberty
of speech ? We have gone through many crises in our
short history, and we know that thought is nothing before
the law, but the word is an act—as guilty at.times as the
act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes
that disgrace humanity and require the police.
A word is an act—an act of the tongue ; and why
should my tongue go unpunished, and I who wield it
mercilessly toward those who are weaker than I, escape,
if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously .
Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona—
is it Iago or Othello ? Who was the villain, who was the
criminal, who deserved the scaffold—who but free speech ..
Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of
Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer
—but Iago went scot free. That was a word.
“Oh!” says the counsel, “ but that does not apply to
individuals; be tender and charitable to individuals.
Tender and charitable to men if they endeavor to destroy
all that you love and venerate and respect!
Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my
�20
Limits of Toleration.
house, my castle, and debauch my children from the faith
that, they have been taught? Are you tender and
charitable to them and to me when you teach them that
I have instructed them in falsehood, that their mother
has rocked them in blasphemy; and that they are now
among the fools and the witlings of the world because
they believe in my precepts ? Is that the charity that
you speak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such
as that should ever invade my home or yours!
We all understand, and the learned gentleman will
admit, that his discourse is but an eloquent apology for
blasphemy. And when I say this, I beg you to believe
me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice of strong
words to give points to a pointless argument, or to offend
a courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he
would, with characteristic candor, say, “ Yes, that is what
I claim the liberty to blaspheme; the world has out
grown these things ; and I claim to-day, as I claimed a
few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of
New Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your
tongue is free to revile and insult man’s maker.” New
Jersey was behind in the race for progress, and did not
accept his argument. His unfortunate client was con
victed and had to pay the fine which the press—which is
seldom mistaken—says came from the pocket of his
generous counsel.
The argument was a strong one; the argument was
brilliant, and was able ; and I say now, with all my pre
dilections for the church of my fathers, and for your
church (because it is not a question of oui’ differences, but
it is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the
roots, not what branches may bear richer fruit or deserve
to be lopped off) —I say, why has every Christian State
passed these statutes against blasphemy? Turning into
ridicule sacred things—-firing off the Lord’s Prayer as you
would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem—that is
what I mean by blasphemy. If there be any other or
better definition, give it me, and I will use it.
Now understand. All these States of ours care not one
fig what our religion is. Behave ourselves properly, obey
�Limits of Toleration.
21
the laws, do not require the intervention of the police,
and the majesty of your conscience will be as exalted as
the sun. But the wisest men and the best men-—possibly
not so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without
offence to him—other names that shine brightly in the
galaxy of our best men, have insisted and maintained
that the Christian faith was the ligament that kept our
modern society together, and our laws have said, and the
laws of most of our States say, to this day, “ Think what
- you like, but do not, like Sainson, pull the pillars down
upon us all.”
. .
If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is
time that I should say it now. My exordium has been
very long, but it was no longer than the dignity of the
subject, perhaps, demanded.
Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech
we never had. Did we have it before the war ? Many of
us here remember that if you crossed an imaginary line
and went among some of thd noblest and best men that
ever adorned this continent, one word against slavery
meant death. And if you say that that was the influence
of slavery, I will carry you to Boston, that city which
numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to the
acre as any city on the globe—-was it different there ?
Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he
got there, was seized and turned back; and when a few
good and brave men, in defence of free speech, undertook
to defend the slave and to try and give him liberty, they
were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city.
You may say, “ That proves there was no liberty of
speech.” No ; it proves this : that wherever, and where
soever, and whenever, liberty of speech is incompatible
with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall
back and give way, in order that the State may be pre
served.
First, above everything, above all things, the safety
of the people is the supreme law. And if rhetoricians,
anxious to tear down, anxious to pluck the faith from
the young ones who are unable to defend it, come for
ward with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces
�22
Limits of Toleration.
clothed in second-hand purple and tinsel, and try to tear
down the temple, then it is time, I shall not say for good
men—for I know so few they make a small battalion—
but for good women, to come to the rescue.
PRESIDENT PALMER.
In what I said, ladies and gentlemen, I tried to sink
my personality. I did not say, in introducing Colonel
Ingersoll, that in case he had been bom in France, and
in case he had passed away, I thought that a fourth niche
should be prepared for him with the three worthies I
mentioned; but that I thought the acclaim of the liberal
culture of France—the same free thought that had
erected these monuments, would have erected a fourth for
Colonel Ingersoll had he lived among them. But perhaps
even in saying that I was led away from the impartiality
I desired to show, in my admiration and love for the man.
I now have the honor to introduce to you that accom
plished gentleman and scholar, my friend, our neighbor
from the goodly city of Brooklyn, General Stewart L.
Woodford.
GENERAL WOODFORD’S SPEECH.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,—At this late
hour I could not attempt—even if I would—the elo
quence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll; nor the wit and
rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend Mr, Coudert.
But there are some things so serious about this subject
that we discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if,
without preface, and without rhetoric, I get at once to
what from my Protestant standpoint seems the fatal logical
error of Mr. Ingersoll’s position.
Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement—and that I
may not, for I could not, do him injustice, nor myself in
justice, in the quotation, I will give it as he stated it—he
starts with this statement: that thought is a necessary
natural product, the result of what we call impressions
made through the medium of the senses upon the brain.
�Limits of Toleration.
23
Do you think that is thought ? Now stop—turn right
into your own minds—is that thought? Does not will
power take hold? Does not reason take hold? Doesnot
memory take hold, and is not thought the action of the
brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed
by manifold and varying influences ?
Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human
being is accountable to any being, human or divine, for
his thought.
.
He starts with the assumption that thought is the
inevitable impression burnt upon the mind at once, . and
then jumps to the conclusion that there is no responsibility.
Now is not that a fair logical analysis of what he has
said?
.
,
.
My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then
my mind, out of that impression, works good or evil. The
glass of brandy, being presented to my physical sense,
inspires thirst—inspires the thought of thirst inspires
the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for
the result of the mind given me, whether I yield to the
debauch, or rise to the dignity of self-control ?
Every thing, of sense, leaves its impression upon the
mind. If there be no responsibility anywhere, then is
this world blind chance. If there be no responsibility
anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he
be guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve
no censure if I be carrying you back into the path
of superstition. Why, admit for a moment that a
man has no control over his thought, and you destroy
absolutely the power of regenerating the. world, the power
of improving the world. The world swings one way, or
it swings the other. If it be true that in all these ages
we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that
is true simply and alone because the mind of man, through
reason, through memory, through a thousand inspirations
and desires and hopes, has ever tended toward better
results and higher achievements.
.
No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I
recognise that I am accountable to myself; I recognise
that whether I rise or fall, that whether my life goes
�24
Limits of Toleration.
upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And
so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in
spite of all eloquence, each woman, each man within this
audience is responsible—first of all to herself and himself
—whether when bad thoughts, when passion, when
murder, when evil come into the heart or brain he harbors
them there or he casts them out.
I am responsible further—I am responsible to my
neighbor. I know that I am my neighbor’s keeper. I
know that as I touch your life, as you touch mine, I am
responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my
influence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am
dragging you down ; you are either helping me up or you
are dragging me down—and you know it. Sophistry
cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us
from it. You know that if you look back through the
record of your life, there are lives that you have helped
and lives that you have hurt. You know that there are
lives on the downward plane that went down because in
an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with
blessing, lives that have gone up because you have reached
out to them a helping hand. That responsibility for your
neighbor is a responsibility and an accountability that you
and I cannot avoid or evade.
I believe one thing further : that because there is a
creation there is a Creator. I believe that because there
is force, there is a Projector of force ; because there is
matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe these things.
I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not;
it may be that he is right, that I am wrong ; but if there
be a Power that sent me into this world, so far as that
Power has given me wrong direction, or permitted wrong
direction, that Power will judge me justly. So far as 1
disregard the light that I have, whatever it may be—
whether it be light of reason, light of conscience, light of
history—so far as I do that which my judgment tells me
is wrong, I am responsible and I am accountable.
Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply
this : It would vary from the theory as taught by the
mother Church—it certainly swings far away from the
�Limits of Toleration.
25
theory as suggested by my friend—I understand the
Protestant theory to be this : That every man is respon
sible to himself, to his neighbor, and to his God, for his
thought. Not for the first impression—but for that im
pression, for that direction and result which he intel
ligently gives to the first impression or deduces from it.
I understand that the Protestant idea is this : That man
may think—we know he will think—for himself ; but that
he is responsible for it. That a man may speak his
thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He
must use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the
well-being of any other one—so that when using this
liberty, when exercising this freedom, he is accountable
at the last to his God. And so Protestantism sends me
into the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.
It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the
bar of his conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man,
but it holds him in the inevitable grip of absolute re
sponsibility for every light word idly spoken. God grant
that he may use that power so that he can face that re
sponsibility at the last!
It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and
stand by his church according to his own conviction. It
stands for this : the absolute liberty to each individual
man to think, to write, to speak, to act, according to the
best light within him ; limited as to his fellows, by the
condition that he shall not use that liberty so as to injure
them ; limited in the other direction, by those tremendous
laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in spite of
all logic.
If I put my finger into the. fire, that fire burns. If I
do a wrong, that wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor,
the wrong reacts upon myself. If I would try to escape
what you call judgment, what you, call penalty, I cannot
escape the working of the inevitable law that follows a
cause by an effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law—
not the creation of some dark monster flashing through
the skies—but, asL I believe, the beneficent creation which
puts into the spiritual life, the same control of law that
guides the material life, which wisely makes me re-
�26
Limits of Toleration.
sponsible, that in the solemnity of that responsibility I
am bound to lift my brother up and never to drag my
brother down.
REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.
The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground
boldly that expression is not free—that no man has the
right to express his real thoughts—and I suppose that
he acted in accordance with that idea. How are you
to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he
said or not ? How is it possible for us to ascertain
whether he is simply the mouthpiece of some other ?
Whether he is a free man, or whether he says that which
he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.
He tells you that I am about to take away the religion
of your mothers. I have heard that said a great many
times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has the religion of his
mother, and judging from the argument he made, his
mother knew at least as much about these questiohs as
her son. I believe that every good father and good
mother wants to see the son and the daughter climb higher
upon the great and splendid mount of thought than they
reached. You never can honor your father by going
around swearing to his mistakes. You never can honor
your mother by saying that ignorance is blessed because
she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents
by finding out more than they did.
' There is another thing that I was a little astonished at
—that Mr. Coudert, knowing that he would be in eter
nal felicity with his harp in his hand seeing me in the
world of the damned, could yet grow envious here to-night
at my imaginary monument.
And he tells you—this Catholic—that Voltaire was an
exceedingly good Christian compared with me. Do you
know I am glad that I have compelled a Catholic—one
who does not believe he has the right to express his honest
thoughts—to pay a compliment to Voltaire simply because
he thought it was at my expense ?
1 have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and
�Limits of Toleration.
27
when 1 hear that name pronounced, I think of a plume
floating over a mailed knight—I think of a man that rode
to the beleaguecl City of Catholicism and demanded a
surrender—I think of a great man who thrust the dagger
eof assassination into your Mother Church, and from that
wound she never will recover.
One word more. This gentleman says that children
are destructive—that the first thing they do is to destroy
their bibs. The gentleman, I should think from his talk,
has preserved his !
They talk about blasphemy.
What is blasphemy?
Let us be honest with each other. Whoever lives upon
the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.. Whoever
slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. . Whoever
denies to others the rights that he claims for himself is a
blasphemer.
Who is a worshipper ? One who makes a happy home
—one who fills the lives of wives and children with sun
light—one who has a heart where the flowers of kindness
burst into blossom and fill the air with perfume—the man
who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted, and
holds her thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately
and loves her as truly and as rapturously as when she was
a bride—he is a worshipper—that is worship.
And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why
we should not have free speech, that only a few years ago
some of the best men in the world, if you said a word in
favor of liberty, would shoot you down. What an argu
ment was that 1 They were not good men. They were
the whippers of women and the stealers of babes—robbers
of the trundle-bed—assassins of human liberty. They
knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the
example of a barbarian because he was honestly a bar
barian.
So much for debauching his family by telling them
that his precepts are false. If he has taught them as he
has taught us to-night, he has debauched their minds. . I
would be honest at the cradle. I would not tell a child
ariything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be
absolutely honest.
�28
Limits of Toleration.
But he says that thought is absolutely free—nobody
can control thought. Let me tell him: Superstition is
the jailer of the mind. You can so stuff a child with
superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile and its
poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind,
and superstition is the assassin of liberty.
So when anybody goes into his family and tells these
great and shining truths, instead of debauching his children
they will kill the snakes that crawl in their cradles. Let
us be honest and free.
And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a
Protestant. The Catholic Church says : “ Don’t think ;
pay your fare ! this is a through ticket, and we will look
out for your baggage.” The Protestant Church says :
“ Read that Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves ;
but if you do not come to a right conclusion you will be
eternally damned.” Any sensible man will say, “ Then
I won’t read it—I’ll believe it without reading it.” And
that is the only way you can be sure you will believe it:
don’t read it.
Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our
thoughts. Why ? Could you help thinking as you did
on this subject? No. Could you help believing the
Bible ? I suppose not. Could you help believing that
story of Jonah ? Certainly not—it looks reasonable in
Brooklyn.
I stated that thought was the result of the impressions
of nature upon the mind through the medium of the
senses. He says you cannot have thought without
memory. How did you get the first one ?
Of course I intended to be understood—and the language
is clear—that there could be no thought except through
the impressions made upon the brain by nature through
the avenue called the senses. Take away the senses, how
would vou think then ? If you thought at all, I think
you would agree with Mr. Coudert.
Now I admit—so we need never have a contradiction
about it—I admit that every human being is responsible
' to the person he injures; if he injures any man, woman or
child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that crawls, he is
�Limits of Toleration.
29
responsible to that animal, to that being—in other words,
he is responsible to any being that he has injured.
But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one.
I will tell you why. You cannot help him, and you can
not hurt him.. If there be an infinite Being he is condition
less—he does not want anything, he has it. You cannot
help anybody that does not want something—you cannot
help him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a con
ditioned being and you change’ his condition so as to
inflict a harm. But'if God be conditionless, you cannot
hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do not trouble
yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within
reach—all our duties are right here ; and my religion is
simply this :
First—Give to every other human being every right
that you claim for yourself.
Second—If vou tell your thought at all, tell youi
honest thought. Do not be a parrot—do not be an in
strumentality for an organisation. Tell your own thought,
honor bright, what you think.
My next idea is, that the only possible good in the
universe is happiness. The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is
to try and make somebody else so.
My o-ood friend General Woodford—and he is a good
man telling the best he knows—says that I will be
accountable at the bar up yonder. I am ready to settle
that account now, and expect to be, every moment of my
life—and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I
do not believe that a solitary being can rise and say that
I ever injured him or her.
But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story,
how we will settle if we do get there.
You remember the story told about the Mexican who
believed that his country was the only one in the world,
and said so. The priest told him that there was another
country where a man lived who was eleven 01 twelve feet
high that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when
that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone
in his body. But he denied it. He was one of those
�30
Limits of Toleration.
men who would not believe further than his vision
extended.
. So one day in his boat he was rocking away when the
wind suddenly arose and he was blown out of sight of his
home. After several days he was blown so far that he
saw the shore of another country. Then he said, “ My
Lord, I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that
there was no other country, and here it is I ” So he did
his best—paddled with what little strength he had left,
reached the shore and got out of his boat. Sure enough,
there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet
high. The poor little wretch was frightened almost to
death, so he said to the tall man as he saw him coming
down, “Mister, whoever you are, I denied your existence,
I did not believe you lived ; I swore there was no such
country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am
gone. You are going to kill me, and the quicker you do
it the better and get me out of my misery. Do it
now I ”
The great man just looked at the little fellow and said
nothing, till he asked “ What are you going to do with
me, because over in that other country I denied your
existence ? ” “ What am I going to do with you ? ” said
the supposed god. “ Now that you have got here, if you
behave yourself I am going to treat you well.”
�Colonel Ingersoll’s Works.
-------- 0------- -
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. Price
-10
In cloth
_
-1,6
The only complete edition published in England.
136 pp.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at Trial of C. B. Reynolds
for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
With a biography.
ROME OR REASON? 0 4
A Reply to Cardinal Manning
FAITH AND FACT. A Reply to Rev. Dr. Field 0 2
GOD AND MAN.
Second Reply to Dr. Field
0
-
2
2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
-
-
THE DYING CREED -
-
-02
-
0
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
-
0.2
ART AND MORALITY
-
-
-
0
2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
-
-
-
0
1
LIVE TOPICS -
-
-
’
-
-
-01
REAL BLASPHEMY -
-
-
-01
SOCIAL SALVATION -
-
-
-01
u MYTH AND MIRACLE
-
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
01
�CRIMES
of
CHRISTIANITY.
By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
VOL. I. Chapters
(1) Christ to Constantine; (2) Constantine
to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pious
Frauds; (6) Rise of the Papacy; (7) Crimes of the Popes;
(8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades.
Hundreds of refeiences are.given to standard authorities. No pains
have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
224 pp., cloth boards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d.
“ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppo
nents of Christianity.”—National Reformer.
“ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—
Weekly Times.
“The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U. S. A.
Two keen writers.”—Truthseeker (London).
“ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity.”—Literary
World.
“ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as we have
been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open Court
(Chicago).
“Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—Weekly Dispatch.
“ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up, low priced,
and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle.
“ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of authorities.”—
Western Figaro,
Vol. II. is in Preparation.
THE “FREETHINKER,”
EDITED BY
G. W. FOOTE.
------- o-------
PUBLISHED
EVERY
THURSDAY
PRICE ONE PENNY.
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The limits of toleration : a discussion between Colonel R.G. Ingersoll and Honorable F.D. Coudert and Governor S.L. Woodford, at the Nineteenth Century Club, New York: verbatim report
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Coudert, F. D.
Woodford, Stewart L. (Stewart Lyndon) [1835-1913]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements inside and on back cover. No. 48d in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N370
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religious toleration
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The limits of toleration : a discussion between Colonel R.G. Ingersoll and Honorable F.D. Coudert and Governor S.L. Woodford, at the Nineteenth Century Club, New York: verbatim report), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Religious Tolerance
Toleration
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/79019de6a5a0a868b5d0c044919a3e38.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=m722mPZVBu6Js5tuNB%7Ed-AcVpyOphxyd%7EBeuld14A-%7E-6NM8fMkxZUKBc5W0u5z1aMV2BHmQbOhBLrjAxpIed%7EreGCC%7E8CJtrlxdWAKbj17JLZhQqzho3xaZGBvAJUVYJlhz9XxetluhZQreOMEaSHL5etC8dfywWb8kkrI7P4-ES9bIneyUD3f5UZ3CYqrg1ntqipyQ1vKcuX9E5EEROeBH1hQ%7EIbaWITaJR%7E3yuUyvJ8qIMNsfcPPWyt7GX%7EHwVxROt5NrMcDgj81HsjgZ0MNUnqRrG7LV3QF%7EargEfYKMeomAlRkrVxn7eHLtTXDAVgoYDpO03jBhtGiXMyHf6g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4f7eeee566577f75ec8b8d0de4b62bf6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
INGERSOLL’S TILT WITH TALMAGE.
Wu ^nsiucr of
ROBT. G. INGERSOLL
TO A SERMON PREACHED
BY THE
REV. DE WITT TALMAGE,
EROM THE TEXT :
“ The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Trade, supplied l>y
JOHN
HEYWOOD,
DEANSGATE AND RIDGEFIELD, MANCHESTER;
AND 11, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS,
LONDON.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�Mr. Ingersoll’s Answer to a Sermon by
the Rev. De Witt Talmage, preached
from the text:
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
The text taken by the reverend gentleman is an insult, and
was intended as such. Mr. Talmage seeks to apply this text
to any one who denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and
is the infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is perfectly
satisfied that any man who differs from him on this question
is a “ fool,” and he has the Christian forbearance and kindness
to say so. I presume he is honest in this opinion, and no
doubt regards Bruno, Spinoza, and Humboldt as idiots. He
entertains the same opinion of some of the greatest, wisest,
and best of Greece and Rome. No man is fitted to reason
upon this question who has not the intelligence to see the
difficulties in all theories. No man has yet evolved a theory
that satisfactorily accounts for all that is. No matter what
his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousand difficulties,
and innumerable things insist upon an explanation. The best
that any man can do is to take that theory which to his mind
presents the fewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been edu
cated in a certain way—has a brain of a certain quantity,
quality, and form—and accepts, in spite, it may be, of himself,
a certain theory. Others, formed differently, having lived
under different circumstances, cannot accept the Taimagian
view, and thereupon he denounces them as fools.
Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial brain to reason
out a “ design” in Nature, and in a moment afterward says
that “when the world slew Jesus, it showed what it would do
with the eternal God, if once it could get its hands on Him.”
�R. G. Ingersoll’s Reply to Mr. Talmage.
3
Why should a God of infinite wisdom create people who would
gladly murder their Creator? Was there any particular
“ design ” in that ? Does the existence of such people con
clusively prove the existence of a good Designer ? It seems to
me—and I take it that my thought is natural, as I have only
been bom once—that an infinitely wise and good God would
naturally create good people, and if He has not, certainly the
fault is His. The God of Mr. Talmage knew, when He created
Guiteau, that he would assassinate Garfield. Why did He
create him ? Did He want Garfield assassinated 1 Will some
body be kind enough to show the “ design ” in this transaction ?
Is it possible to see “design” in earthquakes, in volcanoes,
in pestilence, in famine, in ruthless and relentless war ? Can
we find design in the fact that every animal lives upon some
other—that every drop of every sea is a battlefield where the
strong devour the weak ? Over the precipice of cruelty rolls
a perpetual Niagara of blood. Is there design in this ? Why
should a good God people a world with men capable of burn
ing their fellow men—and capable of burning the greatest
and best ? Why does a good God permit these things ? It
is said of Christ that He was infinitely kind and generous,
infinitely merciful, because when on earth He cured the sick,
the lame, and blind. Has He not as much power now as He
had then ? If He was and is the God of all worlds, why does
He not now give back to the widow her son ? Why does He
withhold light from the eyes of the blind ? And why does
One who had the power miraculously to feed thousands, allow
millions to die for want of food 1 Did Christ only have pity
when He was part human ? Are we indebted for His kindness
to the flesh that clothed His Spirit? Where is He now?
Where has He been through all the centuries of slavery
and crime? If this universe was designed, then all that
happens was designed. If a man constructs an engine
the boiler of which explodes, we say either that he did
not know the strength of his materials, or that he was
reckless of human life. If an infinite being should con
struct a weak or imperfect machine, he must be held account
able for all that happens. He cannot be permitted to say
that he did not know the strength of the materials. He is
�4
R. Gr. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
directly and absolutely responsible. So, if this world was
designed by a being of infinite power and wisdom, he is
responsible for the result of that design.
My position is this: I do not know. But there are so many
objections to the personal God theory that it is impossible
for me to accept it. I prefer to say that the universe is all
the God there is. I prefer to make no being responsible. I
prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, man must clothe
them; if the hungry are fed, man must feed them. I
prefer to rely upon human endeavour, upon human intelli
gence, upon the heart and brain of man. There is no
evidence that God has ever interfered in the affairs of man.
The hand of earth is stretched uselessly toward heaven.
From the clouds there comes no help. In vain the ship
wrecked cry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for release—
the world moves on, and the heavens are deaf and dumb and
blind. The frost freezes, the fire burns, slander smites, the
wrong triumphs, the good suffer, and prayer dies upon the
lips of faith.
My creed is this :
1. Happiness is the only good.
2. The way to be happy is to make others happy. Other
things being equal, that man is happiest who is the nearest
just, who is truthful, merciful, and intelligent.
3. The time to be happy is now, and the place to be
happy is here.
4. Reason is the lamp of the mind, the only torch of
progress; and instead of blowing that out and depending
upon darkness and dogma, it is far better to increase the
sacred light.
5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietor of
himself—honest with himself and intellectually hospitable—
and upon every brain reason should be enthroned as king.
6. That every man must bear the consequences, at least,
of his own actions; that if he puts his hands in the fire, his
hands must smart, and not the hands of another. In other
words, that each man must eat the fruit of the tree he plants.
Mr. Talmage charges me with blasphemy. This is an
epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense.
�R. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
5
Whoever investigates a religion as he would any department
of science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever. contradicts a
priest, whoever has the impudence to use his own reason,
whoever is brave enough to express his honest thought, is a
blasphemer in the eyes of the religionist. When a missionary
•Speaks slightingly of the wooden god of a savage, the savage
regards him as a blasphemer. To laugh at the pretensions
of Mohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To say in
St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of God is also
blasphemy. There was a time when to acknowledge the
divinity of Christ was blasphemy in Jerusalem. To deny
His divinity is now blasphemy in New York. Blasphemy is
to a considerable extent a geographical question. It depends
not only on what you say, but where you are when you say
it. Blasphemy is what the old calls the new.
The founder of every religion was a blasphemer. The
Jews regarded Christ as a blasphemer. The Athenians had
the same opinion of Socrates. The Catholics have always
looked upon the Protestants as blasphemers, and the Pro
testants have always held the same generous opinion of the
Catholics. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is
blasphemy. To say that she is the Mother of God is
blasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake skin
stuffed with leaves is sacred and he who thinks otherwise is
a blasphemer. It was once blasphemy to laugh at Diana of
the Ephesians. Many people think that it is blasphemous
to tell your real opinion of the J ewish J ehovah. Others
imagine that words can be printed upon paper, and the
paper bound into a book covered with sheepskin, and that
the book is sacred, and that to question its sacredness is
blasphemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, and yet
nothing can be more absurd than a crime against God. . If
God is infinite you cannot injure Him. You cannot commit a
crime against any being that you cannot injure. Of course,
the infinite cannot be injured. Man is a conditioned being.
By changing his conditions, his surroundings, you can injure
him, but if God is infinite, he is conditionless. If he is con
ditionless, he cannot by any possibility be injured. You
can neither increase nor decrease the well-being of the infinite.
�6
H. G. Ingersoll’s Reply to Mr. Talmage.
Consequently, a crime against God is a demonstrated impossi
bility. The cry of blasphemy means only that the argument
of the blasphemer cannot be answered. The sleight of hand
performer, when some one tries to raise the curtain behind
which he operates, cries “ blasphemer! ” The priest, finding
that he has been attacked by common sense, by a fact,
resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is the black flag of
theology, and it means no argument and no quarter I It is
an appeal to prejudices, to passions and ignorance. It is the
last resort of a defeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point
where argument stops and slander begins. In old times it
was the signal for throwing stones, for gathering fagots, and
for tearing flesh; now, it means falsehood and calumny.
In my view, any one who knowingly speaks in favour of
injustice is a blasphemer.
Whoever wishes to destroy
liberty of thought, the honest expression of ideas, is a
blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malign his neighbour
simply because he differs with him upon a subject about
which neither of them knows anything for certain is a
blasphemer. If a crime can be committed against God, he
commits it who imputes to God the commission of crime.
The man who says that God ordered the assassination of
women and babes, that He gave maidens to satisfy the lust
of soldiers, that He enslaved His own children, that man is
a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be far better to
deny the existence of God entirely.
It is also charged against me that I am endeavouring to
“assassinate God.” Well, I think that is about as reason
able as anything Mr. Talmage says. The idea of assassinating
an infinite being is of course infinitely absurd. One would
think Mr. Talmage had lost his reason 1 And yet this man
stands at the head of the Presbyterian clergy. It is for this
reason that I answer him. He is the only Presbyterian
minister in the United States, so far as I know, able to draw
an audience. He is, without doubt, the leader of that denomination. He is orthodox and conservative. He believes
implicitly in the “Five Points” of Calvin, and says nothing
simply for the purpose of attracting attention. He believes
that God damns a man for His own glory j that He sends
�R. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
7
babes to hell to establish His mercy, and that He filled the
world with disease and crime simply to demonstrate His
wisdom. He believes that billions of years before the earth
was, God had made up His mind as to the exact number
that He would eternally damn, and had counted His
saints. This doctrine he calls “glad tidings of great joy.”
He really believes that every man who is true to himself is
waging war against God; that every infidel is a rebel; that
every free-thinker is a traitor, and that only those are good
subjects who have joined the Presbyterian Church, know the
Shorter Catechism by heart, and subscribe liberally toward
lifting the mortgage on the Brooklyn Tabernacle. All the
rest are endeavouring to assassinate God, plotting murder of
the Holy Ghost, and applauding the Jews for the crucifixion
of Christ. If Mr. Talmage is correct in his views as to the
power and wisdom of God, I imagine that his enemies at last
will be overthrown, that the assassins and murderers will not
succeed, and that the Infinite, with Mr. Talmage’s assistance,
will finally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainly he
ought to have made man grand enough to have and express
an opinion of his own. Is it possible that God can be
gratified with the applause of moral cowards 1 Does he seek
to enhance his glory by receiving the adulation of cringing
slaves ? Is God satisfied with the adoration of the frightened 1
But Mr. Talmage has made an exceedingly important dis
covery. He finds nearly all the inventions of modern times
mentioned in the Bible. I admit that I am somewhat amazed
at the wisdom of the ancients. This discovery has been made
just in the nick of time. Millions of people were losing their
respect for the Old Testament. They were beginning to
think that there was some discrepancy between the pro
phecies of Ezekiel and Daniel, and the latest developments in
physical science. Thousands of preachers were telling their
flocks that the Bible is not a scientific book : that Joshua
was not an inspired astronomer, that God never enlightened
Moses about geology, and that Ezekiel did not understand
the entire art of cookery. These admissions caused some
young people to suspect that the Bible, after all, was not
inspired; that the prophets of antiquity did not know as
�8
7?. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
much as the discoverers of to-day. The Bible was falling into
disrepute. Mr. Talmage has rushed to the rescue. He
shows, and shows conclusively, as anything can be shown
from the Bible, that Job understood all the laws of light
thousands of years before Newton lived ; that he anticipated’
the discoveries of Descartes, Huxley, and Tyndall; that he
was familiar with the telegraph and telephone ; that Morse,
Bell, and Edison simply put his discoveries in successful
operation; that Nahum was, in fact, a master mechanic;
that he understood perfectly the modem railway and
described it so accurately that Trevethick, Foster, and
Stephenson had no difficulty in constructing a locomotive.
He also has discovered that Job was well acquainted
with the trade winds, and understood the mysterious
currents, tides, and pulses of the sea; that Maury was
a plagiarist; that Humboldt was simply a Biblical
student. He finds that Isaiah and Solomon were far
behind Galileo, Morse, Meyer, and Watt. This is a
discovery wholly unexpected to me. If Mr. Talmage
is right, I am satisfied the Bible is an inspired book.
If it shall turn out that Joshua was superior to Laplace,
that Moses knew more about geology than Humboldt,
lhat Job as a scientist was the superior of Kepler, that
Isaiah knew more than Copernicus, and that even the
minor prophets excelled the inventors and discoverers of our
time then I will admit that infidelity must become speech
less for ever. Until I read this sermon, I had never even
suspected that the inventions of modern times were known
to the ancient Jews. I never supposed that Nahum knew
the least thing about railroads, or that Job would have
known a telegraph if he had seen it. I never supposed that
Joshua comprehended the three laws of Kepler. Of course
I have not read the Old Testament with as much care as
some other people have, and when I did read it I was not
looking for inventions and discoveries. I had been told so
often that the Bible was no authority upon scientific
questions, that I was lulled almost into a state of lethargy.
What is amazing to me is that so many men did read it
without getting the slightest hint of the smallest invention.
�R. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
9
To think that the Jews read that book for hundreds and
hundreds of years, and yet went to their graves without the
slightest notion of astronomy or geology, of railroads,
telegraphs, or steamboats. And then to think that the early
fathers made it the study of their lives, and died without
inventing anything! I am astonished that Mr. ' Talmage
does not figure in the records of the Patent Office himself,
I cannot account for this, except upon the supposition that
he was too honest to infringe on the patents of the patriarchs.
After this, I shall read the Old Testament with more care.
Mr. Talmage endeavours to convict me of great ignorance
in not knowing that the word translated “rib” should have
been translated “side,” and that Eve, after all, was not
made out of a rib, but out of Adam’s side. I may have been
misled by taking the Bible as it is translated. The Bible
account is simply this: “And the Lord God caused a deep
sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. And He took one of
his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib
which the Lord God had taken from man made He a woman,
and brought her unto the man. And Adam said: This is
now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be
called woman, because she was taken out of man.” If Mr.
Talmage is right, then the account should be as follows:
“ And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up
the flesh thereof; and the side which the Lord ’ God had
taken from man made He a woman, and brought her unto
the man. And Adam said : This is now side of my side, and
flesh of my flesh.” I do not see that the story is made any
better by using the word “ side ” instead of “ rib.” It would
be just as hard for God to make a woman out of a
man’s side as out of a rib. Mr. Talmage ought not to
question the power of God to make a woman out of a bone,
and he must recollect that the less the material the greater
the miracle. There are two accounts of the creation of man
in Genesis, the first being in the twenty-first verse of the
first chapter, and the second being in the twenty-first and
twenty-second verses of the second chapter. According to
the second account, “ God formed man of the dust of the
�10
R. G. Ingersoll’s Reply to Mr. Talmage.
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”
And after this, “ God planted a garden eastward in Eden,
and pnt the man” in this garden. After this, “He made
every tree to grow that was good for food and pleasant to
the sight,” and, in addition, “ the tree of life in the midst of
the garden” beside “the tree of the knowledge of good and
eviL” And He “put the man in the garden to dress it and.
keep it,” telling him that he might eat of everything he saw
except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After this,
God, having noticed that it was not good for man to be alone,
formed out of the ground every beast of the field, every fowl
of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would
call them, and Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl
of the air, and to every beast of the field. “But for Adam there
was not found an helpmeet for him.” We are not told how
Adam learned the language, nor how he understood what God
said. I can hardly believe that any man can be created with the
knowledge of a language. Education cannot be ready made
and stuffed into a brain. Each person must learn a language
for himself. Yet in this account we find a language ready
made for man’s use. And not only man was enabled to
speak, but a serpent also has the powei’ of speech, and the
woman holds a conversation with this animal and with her
husband; and yet no account is given of how any language
was learned. God is described as walking in the garden in
the cool of the day, speaking like a man—holding conversa
tions with the man and woman, occasionally addressing the
serpent. In the nursery rhymes of the world there is nothing
more childish than the creation of man and woman. The
early fathers of the church held that woman was inferior to
man, because man was not made for woman, but woman for
man; because Adam was made first and Eve afterward.
They had not the gallantry of Robert Burns, who accounted
for the beauty of woman from the fact that God practised on
man first, and then gave woman the benefit of his experience.
Think, in this age of the world, of a well educated, intelligent
gentleman telling his little child that about six thousand
years ago a mysterious being called God made the world out
of His “omnipotence;” then made a man out of some dust
�R. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
11
which he is supposed to have moulded into form; that he
put this man in a garden for the purpose of keeping the trees
trimmed j that after a little while he noticed that the man
seemed lonesome, not particularly happy, almost homesick;
that then it occurred to this God that it would be a good
thing for the man to have some company, somebody to help
him trim the trees, to talk to him and cheer him up on
rainy days; that thereupon this God caused a deep sleep to
fall on the man, took a knife, or a long, sharp piece of
“ omnipotence,” and took out one of the man’s sides, or a rib,
and of that made a woman; and then this man and woman
got along real well till a snake got into the garden and
induced the woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; that the woman got the man to take a bite;
and afterwards both of them were detected by God, who was
walking around in the cool of the evening, and thereupon
they were turned out of the garden, lest they should put
forth their hands and eat of the tree of life and live for ever.
This foolish story has been regarded as the sacred, the
inspired truth, as an account substantially written by God
himself; and thousands and millions of people have supposed
it necessary to believe this childish falsehood, in order to
save their souls. Nothing more laughable can be found in
the fairy tales and folk-lore of savages. Yet this is defended
by the leading Presbyterian divine, and those who fail to
believe in the truth of this story are called “ brazen faced
fools,” “deicides,” and “ blasphemers.”
By this story
woman in all Christian countries was degraded. She was
considered too impure to preach the gospel, too impure to
distribute the sacramental bread, too impure to hand about
the sacred wine, too impure to step within the “holy of
holies,” in the Catholic churches too impure to be touched
by a priest. Unmarried men were considered purer than
husbands and fathers. Nuns were regarded as superior to
mothers, a monastery holier than a home, a nunnery nearer
sacred than the cradle. And through all these years it has
been thought better to love God than to love man, better to
love God than to love your wife and children, better to
worship an imaginary deity than to help your fellow-men.
�12
II. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
I regard the rights of men and women equal. In love’s fair
realm husband and wife are king and queen, sceptred and
crowned alike, and seated on the self-same throne.
Mr. Talmage denies that the Bible sanctions polygamy,
but I see nothing in what he has said calculated to change
my opinion. It has been admitted by thousands of theolo
gians that the Old Testament upholds polygamy. Mr. Talmage
is among the first to deny it. It will not do to say that
David was punished for the crime of polygamy or concu
binage. He was 11a man after God’s own heart.” He was made
a king. He was a successful general, and his blood is said to
have flowed in the veins of God. Solomon was, according to
the account, enriched with wisdom above all human beings.
Was that a punishment for having had so many wives ? Was
Abraham pursued by the justice of God because of the crime
against Hagar, or for the crime against his own wife ? The
verse quoted by Mr. Talmage to show that God was opposed
to polygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the eighteenth
chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuity be tortured
into a command against polygamy. The most that can be
possibly said of it is, that you shall not marry the sister of
your wife while your wife is living. Yet this passage is
quoted by Mr. Talmage as “ a thunder of prohibition against
having more than one wife.” In the twentieth chapter of
Leviticus it is enacted: “ That if a man take a wife and her
mother they shall be burned with fire.” A commandment
like that shows that he might take his wife and somebody
else’s mother. These passages have nothing to do with
polygamy. They show whom you may marry, not how many;
and there is not in Leviticus a solitary word against poly
gamy—not one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, or
Exodus, or in the entire Pentateuch—not one word. And
yet these books are filled with the most minute directions
about killing sheep and goats and doves—about making
clothes for priests, about fashioning tongs and snuffers—and
yet not one word against polygamy. It never occurred to
the inspired writers that polygamy was a crime. It was taken
as a matter of course. Women were simple property. Mr.
Talmage, however, insists that, although God was against
�R. G. Ingersoll’s Reply to Mr. Talmage.
13
polygamy, he permitted it, and at the same time threw his
moral influence against it. Upon this subject he says : “No
doubt God permitted polygamy to continue for some time,
just as He permits murder, arson, and theft, and gambling
to-day to continue, although He is against them.” If God is
the author of the Ten Commandments, He prohibited mur
der and theft, but He said nothing about polygamy. If He
was so terribly against these crimes, why did He forget to
mention the other. Was there not room enough on the tables
of stone for just one word on this subject? Had He no time to
give a commandment against slavery? Mr. Talmage of course
insists that God has to deal with these things gradually,
his idea being that if God had made a commandment
against it all at once, the Jews would have had nothing more
to do with Him. For instance, if we wanted to break canni
bals of eating missionaries, we should not tell them all at
once that it was wrong, that it was wicked to eat missionaries
raw; we should induce them first to cook the missionaries,
and gradually wean them from raw flesh. This would be the
first great step. We would stew the missionaries, and after
a time put a little mutton in the stew, not enough to excite
the suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough to get him in
the habit of eating mutton without knowing it. Day after
day we would put in more mutton and less missionary, until
finally the cannibal would be perfectly satisfied with clear
mutton. Then we would tell him that it was wrong to eat
missionary. After the cannibal got so that he liked mutton
best, and cared nothing for missionary, then it would be safe
to have a law upon the subject. Mr. Talmage insists that
polygamy cannot exist among people who believe the Bible.
In this he is mistaken. The Mormons all believe the Bible.
There is not a single polygamist in Utah who does not insist
upon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. The
Bev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic theologian, once
had a discussion, I believe, with Elder Heber Kimball at Salt
Lake City, upon the question of polygamy. It is sufficient
to say of this discussion that it is now circulated among the
Mormons as a campaign document. The elder overwhelmed
the parson. Passages of Scripture in favour of polygamy were
�14
-K. G. Ingersoll's Teply to Mr. Talmage.
quoted by the hundred. The lives of all the patriarchs were
brought forward, and poor parson Newman was driven from
the field. The truth is, the Jews at that time were much like
our forefathers. They were barbarians, and many of their
laws were unjust and cruel. Polygamy was the right of all
practised, as a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and
the rich and powerful were envied by the poor. In such
esteem did the ancient Jews hold polygamy, that the number
of Solomon’s wives was given simply to enhance his glory.
My own opinion is, that Solomon had very few wives and that
polygamy was not general in Palestine. The country was
too poor, and Solomon in all his glory was hardly able to
support one wife. He was a poor barbarian king with a
limited revenue, with a poor soil, with a sparse population,
without art, without science, and without power. He sus
tained about the same relation to other kings as Delaware
does to other States. Mr. Talmage says that God persecuted
Solomon, and yet, if he will turn to the twenty-second
chapter of I. Chronicles, he will find what God promised to
Solomon. God, speaking to David, says: “ Behold, a son
shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will
give him rest from his enemies round about; for his name
shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto
Israel in his days. He shall build a house in my name, and
he shall be my son and I will be his father, and I will
establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.”
Did God keep his promise ? So he tells us that David was
persecuted by God, on account of his offences, and yet I
find in the twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-ninth chapter
of i. Chronicles, the following account of the death of
David . And he died in a good old age, full of days, riches,
and honour.” Is this true ?
Then I am charged with attacking Queen Victoria, and of
drawing a parallel between her and George Eliot, calculated
to lower the reputation of the Queen. I never said a word
against Victoria. The fact is, unlike Mr. Talmage, I am not
acquainted with her never met her in my life and know but
little of her. I never happened to see her in “ plain clothes,
reading the Bible to the poor in the lane,” neither did I ever
�E. G. Ingersoll’s Eeply to Mr. Talmage.
15
hear her sing. I most cheerfully admit that her reputation
is good in the neighbourhood where she resides. In one of
my lectures I drew a parallel between George Eliot and
Victoria. I was showing the difference between a woman who
had won her position in the world of thought and one who
was queen by chance. This is what I said: “ It no longer
satisfies the ambition of a great man to be a king or emperor.
The last Napoleon was not satisfied with being the Emperor
of the French. He was not satisfied with having a circlet of
gold about his head—he wanted some evidence that he had
something’of value in his head. So he wrote the life of Julius
Csesar that he might become a member of the French Academy.
The emperors, the kings, the popes, no longer tower above
their fellows. Compare King William with the philosopher
Haeckel. The king is one of the “anointed by the Most
High” —as they claim—one upon whose head has been
poured the divine petroleum of authority. Compare this king
with Haeckel, who towers an intellectual Colossus above the
crowned mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen
Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments given her by blind
fortune and unreasoning chance, while George Eliot wears
robes of glory woven in the loom of her own genius. The
world is beginning to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to
art. I said not one word against Queen Victoria, and did not
intend to even intimate that she was not an excellent woman,
wife, and mother. I was simply trying to show that the world
was getting great enough to place the genius above an acci
dental queen. Mr. Talmage, true to the fawning, cringing
spirit of orthodoxy, lauds the living queen and cruelly
maligns the genius dead. He digs open the grave of George
Eliot, and tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was the
greatest woman England has produced. He calls her “ an
adulteress.” He attacks her because she was an atheist—■
because she abhorred Jehovah, denied the inspiration of the
Bible, denied the dogma of eternal pain, and with all her
heart despised the Presbyterian creed. He hates her because
she was great and brave and free—because she lived without
“faith” and died without fear—because she dared to give
her honest thought, and grandly bore the taunts and slanders
�16
R. G. Ingersoll's Reply to Mr. Talmage.
of the Christian world. George Eliot tenderly carried in
her heart the burdens of our race. She looked through
pity’s tears upon the faults and frailties of mankind. She
knew the springs and seeds of thought and deed, and saw
with cloudless eyes through all the winding ways of greed,
ambition, and deceit, where folly vainly plucks with thornpierced hands the fading flowers of selfish joy—the highway
of eternal right. Whatever her relations may have been—
no matter what I think or others say, or how much all regret
the one mistake in all her self-denying, loving life—I feel
and know that in the court where her own conscience sat as
judge, she stood acquitted—pure as light and stainless as a
star. How appropriate here, with some slight change, the
wondrously poetic and pathetic words of Laertes at Ophelia’s
grave—
Leave her i’ the earth ;
And from her fair and unpolluted flesh
May violets spring ! I tell thee, churlish priest,
A ministering angel shall this woman be,
When thou liest howling !
I have no words with which to tell my loathing for a man
who violates a noble woman’s grave.
John Heywood, Excelsior Steam Printing and Bookbinding Works,
Hulme Hall Road, Manchester.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The answer of Robt. G. Ingersoll to a sermon preached by the Rev. T. De Witt Talmage, from the text: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Manchester; London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from British Library. Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Office, 68 Fleet Street., E.C., A. Bonner, Manager. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
John Heywood
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1882]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N330
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The answer of Robt. G. Ingersoll to a sermon preached by the Rev. T. De Witt Talmage, from the text: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/796b4d561572b252db7f1a2e525f994b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hy5Ry8VGziRwt1C1gBfgsLxZ9B5BCrw2dwCPRMkSHPAwL7MQYX5%7EU%7EYS55rSRKTSweutx9PXOJ%7EhL6lv5-MLBM9kiSsbDhA-OqVUTdz7%7EeVaNhMIICZDC%7Ewufrw7JASp99DbR-dnb3sbk4Zq3kkpJTiAFD%7E7hTFDfr%7EWs-z0zfsPwAnNtdQgMQWGSXz5QylrkELxPaOiWUN1cSM0-b5KJeb0I5bR9dAwlCcs88nFgb7AMTVb2dddy5vAf0gNhIaNKJtnkApX0lyhchdt8KWW7HmP32DCINmD8vilbdWtfu6mYoqClvASNOvV8VAQrrYadnJdkwgMbCqvQrWsvwlLYw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
256aa3d87a5b48d42296a9b93cf25b34
PDF Text
Text
ORATI O N
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ON
THOMAS PAINE.
COLONEL ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE FOURPENCE.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BESANT,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�b'L l S &
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
i
>
To speak the praises of the brave and thoughtful dead is to
me a labour of gratitude and love.
Through all the centuries gone, the mind of man has
been beleaguered by the mailed hosts of superstition.
Slowly and painfully has advanced the army of deliver
ance. Hated by those they wished to rescue, despised by
those they were dying to save, these grand soldiers, these
immortal deliverers, have fought without thanks, laboured
without applause, suffered without pity, and they have died
execrated and abhorred, h or the good of mankind they
accepted isolation, poverty, and calumny. They gave up
all, sacrificed all, lost all but truth and self-respect.
One of the bravest soldiers in this army was Thomas
Paine; and for one, I feel indebted to him for the liberty
we are enjoying this day. Born among the poor, where
children are burdens ; in a country where real liberty was
unknown ; where the privileges of class were guarded with
infinite jealousy, and the rights of the individual trampled
beneath the feet of .priests and nobles; where to advocate
justice was treason; where intellectual freedom was infi
delity, it is wonderful that the idea of true liberty ever
entered his brain.
- Poverty was his mother—necessity his master.
He had more brains than books; more sense than education ; more courage than politeness ; more strength than
polish. He had no veneration for old mistakes—no admi
ration for ancient lies. He loved the truth for the truth’s
sake, and for man’s sake. He saw oppression on every
hand ; injustice everywhere—hypocrisy at the altar, venality
. On the bench, tyranny on the throne ; and with a splendid
courage he espoused the cause of the weak against the
strong—-of the enslaved many against the titled few.
In England he was nothing. He belonged to' the lower
classes. There was no avenue open for him. The people
�4
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
hugged their chains, and the whole power of the Govern
ment was ready to crush any man who endeavoured to
Strike a blow for the right.
At the age of thirty-seven, Thomas Paine left England for
America with the high hope of being instrumental in the
establishment of a free Government. In his own country
he could accomplish nothing. Those two vultures—Church
and State—were ready to tear in pieces and devour the heart
of anyone who might deny their divine right to enslave the
world.
Upon his arrival in this country, he found himself pos
sessed of a letter of introduction, signed by another infidel,
the illustrious Franklin. This, and his native genius, con
stituted his entire capital; and he needed no more. He
found the colonies clamouring for justice ; whining about
their grievances; upon their knees at the foot of the throne,
imploring that mixture of idiocy and insanity, George III.
by the grace of God, for a restoration of their ancient
privileges. They were not endeavouring to become free
men, but were trying to soften the heart of their master.
They were perfectly willing to make brick if Pharaoh would
furnish the straw. The colonists wished for, hoped for,
and prayed for reconciliation. They did not dream of
independence.
Paine gave to the world his “ Common Sense.” It was
the first argument for separation, the first assault upon the
British form of government, the first blow for a republic,
and it aroused our fathers like a trumpet’s blast.
He was the first to perceive the destiny of the New
World.
■No other pamphlet ever accomplished such wonderful
results. It was filled with argument, reason, persuasion,
and unanswerable logic. It opened a new world. It filled
the present with hope, and the future with honour. Every
where the people responded, and in a few months the Con
tinental Congress declared the colonies free and independent
States.
A new nation was born.
It is simple justice to say that Paine did more to cause
the Declaration of Independence than any other man.
Neither should it be forgotten that his attacks upon
Great Britain were also attacks upon monarchy; and while
he convinced the people that the colonies ought to
separate from the mother country, he also proved to the^
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
'
.5
that a free government is the best that can be instituted
among men.
In my judgment, Thomas Paine was the best political
writer that ever lived. “ What he wrote was pure nature?
and his soul and his pen ever went together.” Ceremony^
pageantry, and all the paraphernalia of power had no
effect upon him. He examined into the why and where
fore of things. He was perfectly radical in his mode of
thought. Nothing short of the bed-rock satisfied him.
His enthusiasm for what he believed to be right knew no
bounds. During all the dark scenes of the Revolution,
never for one moment did he despair. Year after year his
brave words were ringing through the land, and by the
bivouac fires the weary soldiers read the inspiring words of
“ Common Sense,” filled with ideas sharper than their
swords, and consecrated themselves anew to the cause of
freedom.
Paine was not content with having aroused the spirit of
independence, but he gave every energy of his soul to keep
that spirit alive. He was with the army. He shared its
defeats, its dangers, and its glory. When the situation
became desperate, when gloom settled upon all, he gave
them the “ Crisis.” It was a cloud by day and a pillar of
fire by night, leading the way to freedom, honour, and glory.
He shouted to them, “ These are the times that try men’s
souls. The summer soldier, and the sunshine patriot, will,
in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country ; but
he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man
and woman.”
To those who wished to put the war off to some future
day, with a lofty and touching spirit of self-sacrifice he
said: “ Every generous parent should say, ‘ If there must
be war, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.’ ”
To the cry that Americans were rebels, he replied : “ He
that rebels against reason is a real rebel; but he that, in
defence of reason, rebels against tyranny, has a better
title to ‘ Defender of the Faith ’ than George the Third.”
Some said it was not to the interest of the colonies to be
free. Paine answered this by saying : “ To know whether it
be the interest of the Continent to be independent, we need
ask only this simple, easy question, ‘ Is it the interest of a
man to be a boy all his life ? ’ ” He found many who would
listen to nothing, and to them he said, “ That to argue with
a gran who has renounced his reason is like giving medi-
�C-RATION ON THOMÄS'' PAINE:
cine to the dead.” This sentiment ought to adorn the
walls of every orthodox church.
There is a world of political wisdom in this : “ England
lost her liberty in a long chain of right reasoning from
wrong principles
and there is real discrimination in
saying, “The Greeks and Romans were strongly possessed
of the spirit of liberty, but not the principles, for at
the time that they were determined not to be slaves them
selves, they employed their power to enslave the rest of
mankind.”
In his letter to the British people, in which he tried to
convince them that war was not to their interest, occurs the
following passage brimful of common sense : “War never
can be the interest of a trading nation any more than
quarrelling can be profitable to a man in business. But to
make war with those who trade with us, is like setting a
bull-dog upon a customer at the shop door.”
The writings of Paine fairly glitter with simple, compact,
logical statements, that carry conviction to the dullest and
most prejudiced. He had the happiest possible way of
putting the case ; in asking questions in such a way that
they answer themselves, and in stating his premises so
clearly that the deduction could not be avoided.
Day and night he laboured for America ; month after
month, year after year, he gave himself to the great cause,
until there was “ a government of the people and for the
people,” and until the banner of the stars floated over a
continent redeemed and consecrated to the happiness of
mankind.
At thé close of the Revolution, no one stood higher in
America than Thomas Paine. The best, the wisest, the
most patriotic were his friends and admirers j and had he
been thinking only of his own good, he might have rested
from his toils and spent the remainder of his life in comfort
and in ease. He could have been what the world is pleased
to call “ respectable.” He could have died surrounded by
clergymen, warriors, and statesmen. At his death there
would have been an imposing funeral, miles of carriages,
civic societies, salvos of artillery, a nation in mourning, and,
above all, a splendid monument covered with lies.
He chose rather to benefit mankind.
At that time the seeds sown by the great Infidels were
beginning to bear fruit in France. The people were begin
ning to think.
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
7
The Eighteenth Century was crowning its gray hairs with
the wreath of progress.
On every hand Science was bearing testimony against the
Church. Voltaire had .filled Europe with light ; D’Holbach
was giving to the ZZz'A of Paris the principles contained in
his i: System of Nature.” The Encyclopaedists had attacked
•superstition with information for the masses. The founda
tion of things began to be examined. A few had the
courage to keep their shoes on and let the bush burn.
Miracles began to get scarce. Everywhere the people
began to inquire. America had set an example to the
world. The word liberty began to be in the mouths of
men, and they began to wipe the dust from their knees.
The dawn of a new day had appeared.
Thomas Paine went to France. Into the new movement
he threw all his energies. His fame had gone before him,
and he was welcomed as a friend of the human race, and as
a champion of free government.
He had never relinquished ’ his intention of pointing out
to his countrymen the defects, absurdities, and abuses of
the English Government. For this purpose he composed
and published his greatest political work, “ The Rights ef
Man.” This work should be read by every man and
woman. It is concise, accurate, natural, convincing, and
unanswerable. It shows great thought, an intimate know
ledge of the various forms of government, deep insight into
the very springs of human action, and a courage that com
pels respect and admiration. The most difficult political
problems are solved in a few sentences. The venerable
arguments in favour of wrong are refuted with a question—
answered with a word. For forcible illustration, apt com
parison, accuracy and clearness of statement, and absolute
thoroughness, it has never been excelled.
The fears of the administration were ' aroused, and Paine
was prosecuted for libel and found guilty ; and yet there is
not a sentiment in the entire work that will not challenge
the admiration of every civilized man. It is a magazine of
political wisdom, an arsenal of ideas, and an honour, not
only to Thomas Paine, but to human nature itself. It
could have been written only by the man who had the
generosity, the exalted patriotism, the goodness to say,
“ The world is my country, and to do good my religion.”
There is in all the utterances of the world no grander, no
sublimer sentiment. There is no creed that can be com
�8
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
pared with it for a moment It should be wrought in gold,
adorned with jewels, and impressed upon every human
heart—“ The world is my country, and to do good my reli
gion-”
In 1792 Paine was elected by the department of Calais
as their representative in the National Assembly. So great
was his popularity in France that he was selected about
the same time by the people of no less than four depart
ments.
Upon taking his place in the Assembly he was appointed
as one of a committee to draft a constitution for France.
Had the French people taken the advice of Thomas Paine,
there would have been no “ Reign of Terror.” The streets
of Paris would not have been filled with blood. The Revolu
tion would have been the grandest success of the world.
The truth is, that Paine was too conservative to suit the
leaders of the French Revolution. They, to a great extent,
were carried away by hatred, and a desire to destroy. They
had suffered so long, they had borne so much, that it was
impossible for them to be moderate in the hour of victory.
Besides all this, the French people had been so robbed by
the Government, so degraded by the Church, that they were
not fit material with which to construct a Republic. Many
of the leaders longed to establish a beneficent and just
government, but the people asked for revenge.
Paine was filled with a real love for mankind. His phi
lanthropy was boundless. He wished to destroy monarchy
—not the monarch. He voted for the destruction of
tyranny, and against the death of the king. He wished toestablish a government on a new basis; one that would for
get the past; one that would give privileges to none, and
protection to all.
In the Assembly, where nearly all were demanding the
execution of the king—where to differ from the majority was
to be suspected, and where to be suspected was almost cer
tain death—Thomas Paine had the courage, the goodness,
and the justice to vote against death. To vote against the
execution of the king was a vote against his own life. This
was the sublimity of devotion to principle. For this he was
arrested, imprisoned, and doomed to death.
Search the records of the world, and you will find but few
sublimer acts than that of Thomas Paine voting against the
king’s death. He, the hater of despotism, the abhorrer of
monarchy, the champion of the rights of mao, the republi
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
9
can, accepting death to save the. life of a deposed tyrant—
of a throneless king. This was the last grand act of his
political life—the sublime conclusion of his political career.
All his life he had been the disinterested friend of man.
He had laboured—not for money, not for fame, but for the
general good. He had aspired to no office; had asked no
recognition of his services, but had ever been content to
labour as a common soldier in the army of progress. Con
fining his efforts to no country, looking upon the world as
his field of action, filled with a genuine love for the right,
he found himself imprisoned by the very people he had
striven to save.
Had his enemies succeeded in bringing him to the block,
he would have escaped the calumnies and the hatred of the
Christian world. In this country, at least, he would have
ranked with the proudest names. On the anniversary of the
Declaration his name would have been upon the lips of all
the orators, and his memory in the hearts of all of the
people.
Thomas Paine had not finished his career.
He had spent his life thus far in destroying the power of
kings, and now he turned his attention to the priests. He
knew that every abuse had been embalmed in Scripture—
that every outrage was in partnership with some holy text
He knew that the throne skulked behind the altar, and both
behind a pretended revelation from God. By this time he
had found that it was of little use to free the body and leave
the mind in chains. He had explored the foundations of
despotism, and had found them infinitely 'rotten. He had
dug under the throne, and it occurred to him that he would
take a look behind the altar.
The result of his investigations was given to the world in
the “ Age of Reason.” From the moment of its publication
he became infamous. He was calumniated beyond measure.
To slander him was to secure the thanks of the Church. AU
his services were instantly forgotten, disparaged, or denied.
He was shunned has tough he had been a pestilence. Most
of his old friends forsook him. He was regarded as a moral
plague, and at the bare mention of his name the bloody
hands of the Church were raised in horror. He was de
nounced as the most despicable of men.
Not content with following him to the grave, they pur
sued him with redoubled fury, and recounted with infinite
Jgusto and satisfaction the supposed horrors of his death
�IO
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
bed; gloried in the feet that he was forlorn and friendless,
and gloated like fiends over what they supposed to be the
agonising remorse of his lonely death.
It is wonderful that all his services were thus forgotten.
It is amazing that one kind word did not fall from some
pulpit ; that some one did not accord to him, at least—■
honesty. Strange that in the general _ denunciation some
one did not remember his labour for liberty, his devotion
to principle, his zeal for the rights of his fellow-men. He
had by brave and splendid effort, associated his name with
the cause of progress. He had made it impossible to write
the history of political freedom with his name left out. He
was one of the creators of light ; one of the heralds of the
dawn. He hated tyranny in the name of kings, and in the
name of God, with every drop of his noble blood. He be
lieved in liberty and justice, and in the sacred doctrine of
human equality. Under these divine banners he fought the
battle of his life. In both worlds he offered his, blood for
the good of man. In the wilderness of America, in the
French Assembly, in the sombre cell waiting for death, he
was the same unflinching, unwavering friend of his race,
the same undaunted champion of universal freedom.. And
for this he has been hated ; for this the Church has violated
even his grave.
,
This is enough to make one believe that nothing is more
natural than for men to devour their benefactors The
people in all ages have crucified and glorified. Whoever
lifts his voice against abuses, whoever arraigns the past at
the bar of the present, whoever asks the king to show his
. commission, or questions the authority of the priest, wi be
denounced as the enemy of man and God. . In all ages
reason has been regarded as the enemy of religion. Nothing
has been considered so pleasing to the Deity as a total
denial of the authority of your own mind. Self-reliance has
been thought a deadly sin ; and the idea of living and dying
without the aid and consolation of superstition has always
horrified the Church. By some unaccountable infatuation
FaIW has been and still is, considered of immense import
ance All religions have been based upon the idea that God
wm for ever reward the true believer, and eternally damn the
who doubts or denies. Belief is regarded as the one
esæntial thing. To practise justice, to love mercy, is not
enough You must believe in some incomprehensible creed.
You must say, “Once one is three, and three times one i
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
II
one.” The man who practised every virtue, but failed to
believe, was execrated. Nothing so outrages the feelings of
the Church as a moral unbeliever—nothing so horrible as a
charitable Atheist.
When Paine was born, the world was religious. The
pulpit was the real throne, and the churches were making
every effort to crush out of the brain the idea that it had
the right to think.
The splendid saying of Lord Bacon, that “the inquiry of
truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it, the know
ledge of truth, which is the presence of it, and the belief
of truth, which is the enjoying of it, are the sovereign
good of human nature,” has been, and ever will be, rejected
by religionists. Intellectual liberty, as a matter of neces
sity, for ever destroys the idea that belief is either praise or
blameworthy, and is wholly inconsistent with every creed in
Christendom. Paine recognised this truth. He also, saw that
as long as. the Bible was considered inspired this infamous
doctrine of the virtue of belief would be believed and
preached. He examined the Scriptures for himself, and
found them filled with cruelty, absurdity, and immorality.
He again made up his mind to sacrifice himself for the
.good of his fellow-men.
He commenced with the assertion, “ That any system of
religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a
child cannot be a true system.” What a beautiful, what a
tender sentiment! No wonder that the Church began to
hate him. He believed in one God, and no more. After
this life he hoped for happiness. He believed that true re
ligion consisted in doing justice, loving mercy, in endea
vouring to make our fellow-creatures happy, and in offering
to God the fruit of the heart. He denied the inspiration of
the Scriptures. This was his crime.
He contended that it is a contradiction in terms to call
anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand,
either verbally or in writing. He asserted that revelation is'
’ necessarily limited to the first communication, and that after
that it is only an account of something which another person
says was a revelation to him. We have only his word for it,
as it was never made to us. This argument never has been,
and probably never will be answered. He denied the divine
origin of Christ, and showed conclusively that the pretended
prophecies of the Old Testament had no reference to him
whatever; and yet he believed that Christ was a virtuous and
�12
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE,
amiable mail: that the morality he taught and practised was
of the most benevolent and elevated character, and that it
had not been exceeded by any. Upon this point hd. entergained the same sentiments now held by the Unitarians, and
in fact by the most enlightened Christians.
In his time the Church believed and taught that every
word in the Bible was absolutely true. Since his day it has
been proven false in its cosmogony, false in its astronomy,
false in its chronology, false in its history, and, so far as the
Old Testament is concerned, false in almost everything.
There are but few if any scientific men who apprehend that
the Bible is literally true. Who on earth at this day would
pretend to settle any scientific question by a text from the
Bible ? The old belief is confined to the ignorant and
zealous. The Church itself will before long be driven to
occupy the position of Thomas Paine. The best minds of
the orthodox world, to-day, are endeavouring to prove the
existence of a personal Deity. All other questions occupy a
minor place. You are no longer asked to swallow the Bible
whole, whale, Jonah and all. You are simply required to
believe in God and pay your pew-rent. There is not now an
enlightened minister in the world who will seriously contend
that Samson’s strength was in his hair, nor that the necro
mancers of Egypt could turn water into blood, and pieces of
wood into serpents. These follies have passed away, and the
only reason that the religious world can now have for dis
liking Paine is that they have been forced to adopt so many
of his opinions.
Paine thought the barbarities of the Old Testament incon
sistent with what he deemed the real character of God.
He believed that murder, massacre, and indiscriminate
slaughter had never been commanded by the Deity. He re
garded much of the Bible as childish, unimportant, and
foolish. The scientific world entertains the same opinion.
Paine attacked the Bible precisely in the same spirit in which
he had attacked the pretensions of kings. He used the same
weapons. All the pomp in the world could not make him
cower. His reason knew no “ holy of holies,” except the
abode of truth. The sciences were then in their infancy.
The attention of the really learned had not been directed to
an impartial examination of our pretended revelation. It
was accepted by most as a matter of course. The Church
was all-powerful; and no one, unless thoroughly imbued with
the spirit of self-sacrifice, thought for a moment of disputing
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
I
'
*3
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The infamous
doctrine that salvation depends upon belief—upon a mere
intellectual conviction—was then believed and preached»
To doubt was to secure the damnation of your soul. This
absurd and devilish doctrine shocked the common sense of
Thomas Paine, and he denounced it with the fervour of
honest indignation. This doctrine, although infinitely ridicu-*
lous, has been nearly universal, and has been as hurtful . as
senseless. For the overthrow of the infamous tenet Paine
exerted all his strength. He left few arguments to be used
by those who should come after him, and he used none that
have been refuted. The combined wisdom and genius of all
mankind cannot possibly conceive of an argument against
liber y of thought. Neither can they show why anyor. e should
be punished, either in this world or another, for acting
honestly in accordance with reason ; and yet, a doctrine with
every possible argument against it has been, and still is, be
lieved and defended by the entire orthodox world. Can it be
possible that we have been endowed with reason simply that
our souls may be caught in its toils and snares, that we may
be led by its false and delusive glare out of the narrow path
that leads to joy into the broad way of everlasting death ? Is
it possible that we have been given reason simply that we
may through faith ignore its deductions, and avoid its con
clusions ? Ought the sailor to throw away his compass and
depend entirely upon the fog? If reason is not to be de
pended upon in matters of religion, that is to say, in respect
to our duties to the Deity, why should it be relied upon in
matters respecting the rights of our fellows ? Why should
we throw away the laws given to Moses by God himself, and
have the audacity to make some of our own ? How dare we
drown the thunders of Sinai by calling the ayes and noes in
a petty legislature ? If reason can determine what is merci
ful, what is just, the duties of man to man, what more do we
want, either in time or eternity ?
Down, for ever down, with any religion that requires upon
its ignorant altar the sacrifice of the goddess Reason ; that
compels her to abdicate for ever the shining throne of the
soul, strips from her form the imperial purple, snatches from
her hand the sceptre of thought, and makes her the bond
woman of a senseless faith !
If a man should tell you that he had the most beautiful
painting in the world, and after taking you where it was,
should insist upon having your eyes shut, you would likely
�H
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
suspect, either that he had no painting or that it was some
pitiable daub. Should he tell you that he was a most excel
lent performer on the violin, and yet refuse to play unless
your ears were stopped, you would think, to say the least of
it, that he had an odd way of convincing you of his musical
ability. But would his conduct be any more wonderful than
that of a religionist who asks that, before examining his
creed, you will have the kindness to throw away your reason ?
The first gentleman says, “ Keep your eyes shut, my picture
will bear everything but being seen“ keep your ears
stopped, my music objects to nothing but being heard.”
The last says, “Away with your reason, my religion dreads
nothing but being understood.”
So far as I am concerned, I most cheerfully admit that
most Christians are honest, and most ministers sincere. We
do not attack them; we attack their creed. We accord to
them the same rights that we ask for ourselves. We believe
that their doctrines are hurtful. We believe that the fright
ful text, “ He that believes shall be saved, and he that
believeth not shall be damned,” has covered the earth with
blood It has filled the world with arrogance, cruelty, and
murder. It has caused the religious wars ; bound hundreds
of thousands to the stake; founded inquisitions; filled
dungeons; invented instruments of torture; taught the
mother to hate her child ; imprisoned the mind; filled the
earth with ignorance; persecuted the lovers of wisdom
built the monasteries and convents ; made happiness a
crime, investigation a sin, and self-reliance a blasphemy. It
has poisoned the springs of learning; misdirected the ener
gies of the world; filled all the countries with want; housed
the people in hovels; fed them with famine ; and, but for
the efforts of a few brave Infidels, it would have taken the
world back to the midnight of barbarism, and left the
heavens without a star.
The maligners of Paine say that he had no right to attack
this doctrine because he was unacquainted with the dead
languages; and for this reason, it was a piece of pure impu
dence in him to investigate the Scriptures.
Is it necessary to understand Hebrew in order to know
that cruelty is not a virtue, and that murder is inconsistent
with infinite goodness, and that eternal punishment can be
inflicted upon man only by an eternal fiend ? Is it really
essential to conjugate the Greek verbs before you can make
up your mind as to the probability of dead people getting
�ORATION ON THOMAS FAINE.
î5
out of their graves ? Must one be versed in Latin . before
he is entitled to express his opinion as to the genuineness
of a pretended revelation from God? _ Common sense
belongs exclusively to no tongue. Logic is not confined to,
nor has it been buried with, the dead languages. Paine
attacked the Bible as it is translated. If the translation is
wrong, let its defenders correct it.
The Christianity of Paine’s day is not the Christianity of
our time. There has been a great improvement since then.
One hundred and fifty years ago the foremost preachers of
our time would have perished at the stake. A Umversalist ■
would have been torn in pieces in England, Scotland and
America; Unitarians would have found themselves in the
stocks, pelted by the rabble with dead cats, after which
their ears would have been cut off, their tongues bored^and
their foreheads branded. Less than one hundred and fifty
years ago the following law was in force in Maryland :—
“ Be it enacted by the Right Honourable, the Lord Proprietor, by arid
with the advice and consent of his lordship s governor, and the upper and
lower houses of the Assembly, and the authority of the same :
“That if any person should hereafter, within this province, wittingly,
■ maliciously, and advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme or curM
God, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall
deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the God
head of any of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead, or shall
utter any profane words concerning the Holy T rinity, 01 any of the
persons thereof, and shall thereof be convict by verdict, shall, for the
first offence be bored through the tongue, and be fined twenty pounds,
to be levied off his body. And for the second offence, the offender shall
be stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the lettei B, and fined
forty pounds. And that for the third offence, the offender shall suffer
death without the benefit of clergy.”
The strange thing about the law is, that it has never been,
repealed, and is still in force in the District of Columbia.
Laws like these were in force in most of the colonies, and in all
countries where the Church had power.
In the Old Testament, the death penalty was attached to
hundreds of offences. It has been the same in all Christian
countries. To-day, in civilized Governments, the death
penalty is attached only to murder and treason, and in
some it has been entirely abolished. What a commentary
upon the divine humbugs of the world !
In the day of Thomas Paine the Church was ignorant,
bloody, and relentless. In Scotland the “ Kirk ” was at the
summit of its power. It was a full sister of the Spanish In
quisition. It waged war upon human nature. It was the
�l6
ORATIONON THOMAS PAINE.
enemy of happiness, the hater of joy, and the despiser of
religious liberty. It taught parents to murder their children
rather than to allow them to propagate error. If the mother
held opinions of which the infamous “Kirk” disapproved,
her children were taken from her arms, her babe from her
very bosom, and she was not allowed to see them, or to write
them a word. It would not allow shipwrecked sailors to be
rescued on Sunday. It sought to annihilate pleasure, to
pollute the heart by filling it with religious cruelty and
gloom, and to change mankind into a vast horde of pious,
heartless fiends. One of the most famous Scotch divines
said: “The Kirk holds that religious toleration is not far
from blasphemy.” And this same Scotch Kirk denounced,
beyond measure, the man who had the moral grandeur to
say, “The world is my country, and to do good my religion.”
And this same Kirk abhorred the man who said, “Any
system of religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot be
a. true system.”
At that time nothing so delighted the Church as the beauties
of endless torment, and listening to the weak wailings of in
fants struggling in the slimy coils and poisonous folds of the
worm that never dies.
About the beginning of the nineteenth century, a boy by
the name of Thomas Aikenhead was indicted and tried at
Edinburgh Tor having denied the inspiration of the Scrip
tures, and for having, on several occasions, when cold, wished
himself in hell that he might get warm. Notwithstanding
the poor boy recanted and begged for mercy, he was found
guilty and hanged. His body was thrown in a hole at the
foot of the scaffold and covered with stones.
Prosecutions and executions like this were common in
every Christian country, and all of them were based upon the
belief that an intellectual conviction is a crime.
No wonder the Church hated and traduced the author of
the “ Age of Reason.”
England was filled with Puritan gloom and Episcopat
ceremony. All religious conceptions were of the grossest
nature. The ideas of crazy fanatics and extravagant poets
were taken as sober facts. Milton had clothed Christianity
in thé soiled and faded finery of the gods—had added to the
story of Christ the fables of Mythology. He gave to the
Protestant Church the most outrageously material ideas of the
Deity. He turned all the angels into soldiers—made
Heaven a battle-field, put Christ in uniform, and described
�17
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
1
IL.
l/
y
Q
;
1
I
I
I'
1
!
I
God as a militia general. His works were considered by the
Protestants nearly as sacred as the Bible itself, and the
imagination of the people was thoroughly polluted by the
horrible imagery, the sublime absurdity of the blind
Milton.
Heaven and hell were realities—the judgment-day was ex
pected—books of account would be opened. Every man
would hear the charges against him read. God was sup
posed to sit on a golden throne, surrounded by the tallest
angels, with harps in their hands and crowns on their heads.
• The goats would be thrust into eternal fire on the left, while
the orthodox sheep, on the right, were to gambol on sunny
slopes for ever and for ever.
The nation was profoundly ignorant, and consequently extremly religious, so far as belief was concerned.
• . .
In Europe, Liberty was lying chained in the Inquisity—
her white bosom stained with blood. In the new world the
Puritans had been hanging and burning in the name of
God, and selling white Quaker children into, slavery in the
name of Christ, who said, “ Suffer little children to come
unto me.”
Under such conditions progress was impossible. Some one
had to lead the way. The Church is, and always has been, in
capable of a forward movement. Religion always looks back.
The Church has already reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to
a hand-organ, and Ireland to exile.
Someone not connected with the Church had to attack the
monster that was eating out the heart of the world. Some'
one had to sacrifice himself for the good of all. The people
were in the most abject slavery; their manhood had been
taken from them by pomp, by pageantry, and power. Pro
gress is born of doubt and inquiry. The Church never
doubts—never inquires. To doubt is heresy to inquire is
to admit that you do not know—-the Church does neither.
More than a century ago Catholicism, wrapped in robes
red with the innocent blood of millions, holding in her frantic
clutch crowns and sceptres, honours and gold, the keys of
heaven and hell, trampling beneath her feet the liberties of
nations, in the proud moment of almost universal dominion,
felt within her heartless breast the deadly dagger of Voltaire.
From that blow the Church never can recover. Livid
with hatred, she launched her eternal anathema at the great
destroyer, and ignorant Protestants have echoed the curse of
Rome.
B
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
_ In our country the Church was all-powerful, and, although
divided into many sects, would instantly unite to repel a
common foe.
Paine struck the first grand blow.
The “ Age of Reason ” did more to undermine the power
of the Protestant Church than all other books then known.
It furnished an immense amount of food for thought. It
was written for the average mind, and is a straightforward,
honest investigation of the Bible, and of the Christian
system.
. Paine did not falter from the first page to the last. He
gives you his candid thought, and candid thoughts are
always valuable.
The “ Age of Reason ” has liberalised us all. It put argu
ments in the mouths of the people ; it put the Church on
the defensive j it enabled somebody in every village to
corner the parson ; it made the world wiser, and the Church
better; it took power from the pulpit and divided it among
the pews.
°
Just in proportion that the human race has advanced,
the Church has lost power. There is no exception to this
rule.
No nation ever materially advanced that held strictly to
the religion of its founders.
No nation ever gave itself wholly to the control of the
Church without losing its power, its honour, and existence.
Every Church pretends to have found the exact truth.
This is the end of progress. Why pursue that which you
have ? Why investigate when you know ?
Every creed is a rock in running water: humanity sweeps
by it.. Every creed cries to the Universe, “Halt !” A
creed is the ignorant past bullying the enlightened present.
The ignorant are not satisfied with what can be demon
strated. Science is too slow for them, and so they invent
creeds. They demand completeness. A sublime segment,
a grand fragment, are of no value to them. They demand
the complete circle—the entire structure.
In music they want a melody with a recurring accent at
measured periods. In religion they insist upon immediate
answers to the questions of creation and destiny. The alpha
and omega of all things must be in the alphabet of their
superstition. A religion that cannot answer every question,
and guess every conundrum, is, in their estimation, worse
than worthless. They desire a kind of theological diction-
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
19
ary—a religious ready-reckoner, together with guideboards
at all crossings and turns. They mistake impudence. for
authority, solemnity for wisdom, and pathos for inspiration.
The beginning and the end are what they demand. The
grand flight of the eagle is nothing to them. . They want
the nest in which he was hatched, and especially the dry
limb upon which he roosts. Anything that can be learned
is hardly worth knowing. The present is considered.of no
value in itself. Happiness must not be expected this side
of the clouds, and can only be attained by self-denial and
faith ; not seif-denial for the good of others, but for the sal
vation of your own sweet self.
Paine denied the authority of bibles and creeds—this w’as
his crime—and for this the vzorld shut the door in his face,
and emptied its slops upon him from the windows.
I challenge the world to show that Thomas . Paine ever
wrote one line, one word in favour of tyranny—in favour of
immorality; one line, one ivord against what he believed to
be for the highest and the best interests of mankind ; one
line, one word against justice, charity, or liberty; and yet he
has been pursued as though he had been a fiend from hell.
His memory has been execrated as though he had murdered
some Uriah for his wife ; driven some Hagar into the. desert
to starve with his child upon her bosom ; defiled his. own
daughters ; ripped open rvith the sword the sweet bodies of
loving and innocent women ; advised one brother to assas
sinate another ; kept a harem w’ith seven hundred waves, and
three hundred concubines, or had persecuted Christians
even unto strange cities.
The Church has pursued Paine to deter others. No effort
has been in any age of the world spared to crush out oppo
sition. The Church used painting, music, and architecture,
simply to degrade mankind. But there are men that, nothing
can awe. There have been at all times brave spirits that
dared even the gods. Some proud head has always been
above the waves. In every age some Diogenes has sacrificed
to all the gods. True genius never cowers, and there is
always some Samson feeling for the pillars of authority.
Cathedrals and domes, and chimes and chants—temples
frescoed and groined and carved, and gilded with gold—
altars and tapers, and paintings of virgin and babe—censer
and chalice, chasuble, paten and alb—organs and anthems
and incense rising to the winged and blest—maniple, amice
and stole—crosses and crosiers, tiaras and crowms—mitres
�20
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
and missals and masses—rosaries, relics and robes—martyrs
and saints, and windows stained as with the blood of Christ,—
never for one moment awed the brave, proud spirit of the
Infidel. He knew that all the pomp and glitter had been
purchased with liberty—-that priceless jewel of the soul. In
looking at the cathedral he remembered the dungeon. The
music of the organ was not loud enough to drown the clank
of fetters. He could not forget that the taper had lighted
the fagot. He knew that the cross adorned the hilt of the
sword, and so, where others worshipped, he wept and scorned.
The doubter, the investigator, the Infidel, have been the
saviours of liberty. The truth is beginning to be realised,
and the intellectual are beginning to honour the brave
thinkers of the past.
But the Church is as unforgiving as ever, and still wonder
why any Infidel should be wicked enough to endeavour to
destroy her power.
I will tell the Church why.
You have imprisoned the human mind; you have been
the enemy of liberty; you have burned us at the stake—
wasted us upon slow fires—torn our flesh with iron , you
have covered us with chains—treated us as outcasts ; you
have filled the world with fear; you have taken our wives
and children from our arms; you have confiscated our pro
perty ; you have denied us the right to testify in .courts of
justice, you have branded us with infamy j you have torn
out our tongues; you have refused us burial. In the name
of your religion, you have robbed us of every right; and
after having inflicted upon us every evil that can be inflicted
in this world, you have fallen upon your knees, and with
clasped hands implored your God to torment us for ever.
Can you wonder that we hate your doctrines—that we
despise your creeds—that we feel proud to know that we
are beyond your power—that we are free in spite of you—
that we can express our honest thought, and that the whole
world is grandly rising into the blessed light ?
Can you wonder that we point with pride to the fact, that
Infidelity has ever been found battling for the rights of man,
for the liberty of conscience, and for the happiness of all ?
Can you wonder that we are proud to know that we have
always been disciples of Reason, and soldiers of Freedom ;
that we have denounced tyranny and superstition, and have
kept our hands unstained with human blood ?
We deny that religion is the end or object of this life.
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
21
When it is so considered it becomes destructive of happiness
—the real end of life. It becomes a hydra-headed monster,
reaching in terrible coils from the heavens, and thrusting its
thousand fangs into the bleeding, quivering hearts of men.
It devours their substance, builds palaces for God (who
dwells not in temples made with hands), and allows his
children to die in huts and hovels. It fills the earth with
mourning, heaven with hatred, the present with fear, and all
the future with despair.
Virtue is a subordination of the passions to the intellect.
It is to act in accordance with your highest convictions. It
does not consist in believing, but in doing.
This is the sublime truth that the Infidels in all ages have
uttered. They have handed the torch from one to the other
through all the years that have fled. Upon the altar of Reason
they have kept the sacred fire, and through the long mid
night of faith they fed the divine flame.
Infidelity is liberty; all religion is slavery. In every
creed, man is the slave of God—woman is the slave of man,
and the sweet children are the slaves of all.
We do not want creeds; we want knowledge—we want
happiness.
And yet we are told by the Church that we have accom
plished nothing; that we are simply destroyers; that we tear
down without building again.
Is it nothing to free the mind ? Is it nothing to civilize
mankind? Is it nothing to fill the world with light, with
discovery, with science ? Is it nothing to dignify man and
exalt the intellect ? Is it nothing to grope your way into the
dreary prisons, the damp and dropping dungeons, the dark
and silent cells, where the souls of men are chained to the
floors of stone, to greet them like a ray of light, like the
song of a bird, the murmur of a stream; to see the dull eyes
open and grow slowly bright, to feel yourself grasped by the
shrunken and unused hands, and hear yourself thanked by a
strange and hollow voice ?
Is it nothing to conduct these souls gradually into the
blessed light of day—to let them see again the happy fields,
the sweet, green earth, and hear the everlasting music of the
waves ? Is it nothing to make men wipe the dust from their
swollen knees, the tears from their blanched and furrowed
cheeks ? Is it a small thing to reave the heavens of an
insatiate monster and write upon the eternal dome, glittering
with stars, the grand word—Freedom ?
�22
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
Is. it a small thing to quench the flames of hell with the
holy tears of pity—to unbind the martyr from the stake
break all the chains—put out the fires of civil war—stay the
sword of the fanatic, and tear the bloody hands of the
Church from the white throat of Science ?
Is it a small thing to make men truly free—to destroy the
dogmas of ignorance, prejudice, and power—the poisoned
fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of
the earth the fiend of Fear?
It does seem as though the most zealous Christian must at
times entertain some doubt as to the divine origin of his
religion. For eighteen hundred years the doctrine has been
preached. For more than a thousand years the Church had,
to a great extent, control of the civilized world, and what
has been the result ? Are the Christian nations patterns of
charity and forbearance ?
On the contrary, their principal business is to destroy
each other. More than five millions of Christians are
trained, educated, and drilled to murder their fellowChristians. Every nation is groaning under a vast debt in
curred in carrying on war against other Christians, or
defending themselves from Christian assault. The world is
covered with forts to protect Christians from Christians ; and
every sea is covered with iron monsters ready to "blow
Christian brains into eternal froth. Millions upon millions
are annually expended in the effort to construct still more
deadly and terrible engines of death. Industry is crippled,
honest toil is robbed, and even beggary is taxed to defray
the expenses of Christian warfare. There must be some other
way to reform this world. We have tried creed and dogma
and fable, and they have failed; and they have failed in all
the nations dead.
The people perish for the lack of knowledge.
Nothing but education—scientific education—can benefit
mankind. We must find out the laws of nature and conform
to them.
We need free bodies and free minds—free labour and free
thought—chainless hands, and fetterless'brains. Free labour
will give us wealth. Free thought will give us truth.
We need men with moral courage to speak and write their
real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the
very death. We nee^ have no fear of being too radical
The future will verify all grand and brave predictions. Paine
�ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
23
was splendidly in advance of his time; but he was orthodox
compared with the Infidels of to-day.
Science, the great Iconoclast, has been busy since 1809,
and by the highway of Progress are the broken images of the
past.
On every hand the people advance. The Vicar of God
has been pushed from the throne of the Caesars, and upon
the roofs of the Eternal City falls once more the shadow of
the Eagle.
All has been accomplished by the heroic few. The men
of science have explored heaven and earth, and with infinite
patience have furnished the facts. The brave thinkers have
used them. The gloomy caverns of superstition have been
transformed into temples of thought, and the demons of the
past are the angels of to-day.
Science took a handful of sand, constructed a telescope,
and with it explored the starry depths of heaven. Science
wrested from the gods their thunderbolts ; and now the
electric spark, freighted with thought and love, flashes under
all the waves of the sea. Science took a tear from the cheek
of unpaid labour, converted it into steam, created a giant that
turns with tireless arm the countless wheels of toil.
Thomas Paine was one of the intellectual heroes—one of
the men to whom we are indebted. His name is associated
for ever with the Great Republic. As long as free govern
ment exists he will be remembered, admired, and honoured.
He lived a long, laborious and useful life. The world is
better for his having lived. For the sake of truth he ac
cepted hatred and reproach for his portion. He ate the
bitter bread of sorrow. His friends were untrue to him
because he was true to himself and true to them. He lost
the respect of what is called society, but kept his own. His
life is what the world calls failure, and what history calls
success.
If to love your fellow-men more than self is goodness,
Thomas Paine was good.
If to be in advance of your time, to be a pioneer in the
direction of light, is greatness, Thomas Paine was great.
If to avow your principles and to discharge your duty
in the presence of death is heroic, Thomas Paine was &
hero.
At the age of seventy-three death touched his tired heart.
He died in the land his genius defended—under the flag he
^..gave to_the skies. Slander cannot touch him now—hatred
�24
ORATION ON THOMAS PAINE.
cannot reach him more. He sleeps in the sanctuary of the
tomb, beneath the quiet of the stars.
A few more years—a few more brave men—a few more
rays of light, and mankind will venerate the memory of him
who said :
“Any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child
cannot be a true system.”
“The world is my country, and to do good my religion.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Oration on Thomas Paine
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Stein's checklist (Item 78d). Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1877]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N380
Subject
The topic of the resource
Thomas Paine
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Oration on Thomas Paine), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Thomas Paine
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/024420c311acf3656f760e651e0e5459.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U9%7ExYBh6CLElTrfLzeE37wQ89ZKYqgfzmj74saMGtcM-AZhzETuNv82Hbk-p6sRwcoaJazOlN7Gl6W7iSf49PiZtkEp4-rfFNthPbs1iq3HtpkIBWa79qTzhW2TSioeUcvNX4Oj23reLYHDA5UMADdfVyFNfhwU47Rzy7ggrjF2ft8z7CGPya34e-X5EX42WNLx1i-H0YDMLq29kruqUZdQstnzg9MoSp7SMAEWVVWJkxNNmxSjwB0-pkBvYV-K4FJ3jJ%7ERh05K9yJar8Qzw-YJ%7EdaEDuiM1uzsMxIG-sL9vjXWBc6r-F0DHDgclA0rvs4QdCMDE-WnyTZtd4lw5tw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
09773b6c539ee13b2c9f1294e2471680
PDF Text
Text
NATld^AL SECULAR SOCIETY
FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH
A LECTURE
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
��THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
I.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
One of the foundation stones of our faith is the Old Testa
ment. If that book is not true, if its authors were unaided
men, if it contains blunders and falsehoods, then that stone
crumbles to dust.
The geologists demonstrated that the author of Genesis
was mistaken as to the age of the world, and that the story
of the universe having been created in six days, about six
thousand years ago, could not be true.
The theologians then took the ground that the “ days ”
spoken of in Genesis wrere periods of time, epochs, six
“ long whiles,” and that the work of creation might have
been commenced millions of years ago.
The change of days into epochs was considered by the
believers of the Bible as a great triumph over the hosts of
infidelity. The fact that Jehovah had ordered the Jews to
keep the Sabbath, giving as a reason that he had made the
world in six days and rested on the seventh, did not interfere
with the acceptance of the “ epoch ” theory.
But there is still another question. How long has man
been upon the earth ?
According to the Bible, Adam was certainly the first man,
and in his case the epoch theory cannot change the account.
The Bible gives the age at which Adam died, and gives the
generations to the flood—then to Abraham, and so on, and
shows that from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ
it was about four thousand and four years.
�4
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the sacred Scriptures, man has been on this
earth five thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine years, and
no more.
Is this true ?
Geologists have divided a few years of the world’s history
into periods, reaching from the azoic rocks to the soil of our
time. With most of these periods they associate certain
forms of life, so that it is known that the lowest forms of life
belonged with the earliest periods, and the higher with the
more recent. It is also known that certain forms of life
existed in Europe many ages ago, and that many thousands,
of years ago these forms disappeared.
For instance, it is well established that at one time there
lived in Europe, and in the British Islands, some of the
most gigantic mammals, the mammoth, the woolly-haired
rhinoceros, the Irish elk, elephants, and other forms that
have in those countries become extinct. Geologists say that
many thousands of years have passed since these animals
ceased to inhabit those countries.
It was during the Drift Period that these forms of life
existed in Europe and England, and that must have been
hundreds of thousands of years ago.
In caves, once inhabited by men, have been'"found
implements of flint and the bones of these extinct animals.
With the flint tools man had split the bones of these beasts
that he might secure the marrow for food.
Many such caves and hundreds of such tools, and of such
bones, have been found. And we now know that in the
Drift Period man was the companion of these extinct
monsters.
It is therefore certain that many, many thousands of years
before Adam lived, men, women, and children inhabited the
earth.
It is certain that the account in the Bible of the creation
of the first man is a mistake. It is certain that the inspired
writers knew nothing about the origin of man.
Let me give you another fact :—
The Egyptians were astronomers. A few years ago
representations of the stars were found on the walls of an
old temple, and it was discovered by calculating backward
that the stars did occupy the exact positions as represented
about seven hundred and fifty years before Christ. After
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
5
wards another representation of the stars was found, and,
by calculating in the same way, it was found that the stars
did occupy the exact positions about three thousand eight
hundred years before Christ.
According to the Bible, the first man was created four
thousand and four years before Christ. If this is true, then
Egypt was founded, its language formed, its arts cultivated,
its astronomical discoveries made and recorded about two
hundred years after the creation of the first man.
In other words, Adam was two or three hundred years
old when the Egyptian astronomers made these representa
tions.
Nothing can be more absurd.
Again I say that the writers of the Bible were mistaken.
How do I know ?
According to that same Bible, there was a flood some
fifteen or sixteen hundred years after Adam was created
that destroyed the entire human race with the exception of
eight persons; and, according to the Bible, the Egyptians
descended from one of the sons of Noah. How, then, did
the Egyptians represent the stars in the position they
occupied twelve hundred years before the Flood ?
No one pretends that Egypt existed as a nation before the
Flood. Yet the astronomical representations found must
have been made more than a thousand years before the
world was drowned.
There is another mistake in the Bible.
According to that book, the sun was made after the earth
was created.
Is this true ?
Did the earth exist before the sun ?
The men of science are believers in the exact opposite.
They believe that the earth is a child of the sun—that the
earth, as well as the other planets belonging to our constel
lation, came from the sun.
The writers of the Bible were mistaken.
There is another point :—
According to the Bible, Jehovah made the world in six
days, and the work done each day is described. What did
Jehovah do on the second day?
This is the record :—
“ And God said : Let there be a firmament in the midst
�6
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament. And it was so, and God called the firmament
heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second
day.”
The writer of this believed in a solid firmament—the
floor of Jehovah’s house. He believed that the waters had
been divided, and that the rain came from above the
firmament. He did not understand the fact of evapora
tion—did not know that the rain came from the water on
the earth.
Now, we know that there is no firmament, and we know
that the waters are not divided by a firmament. Conse
quently we know that, according to the Bible, Jehovah did
nothing on the second day. He must have rested on Tues
day. This being so, we ought to have two Sundays a week.
Can we rely on the historical parts of the Bible ?
Seventy souls went down into Egypt, and in two hundred
and fifteen years increased to three millions. They could
not have doubled more than four times a century. Say
nine times in two hundred and fifteen years.
This makes thirty-five thousand eight hundred and forty
(35,840), instead of three millions.
Can we believe the accounts of the battles ?
Take one instance:—
Jereboam had an army of eight hundred thousand men,
Abijah of four hundred thousand. They fought. The
Lord was on Abijah’s side, and he killed five hundred
thousand of Jereboam’s men.
All these soldiers were Jews—all lived in Palestine, a
poor, miserable little country about one-quarter as large as
the State of New York. Yet one million two hundred
thousand soldiers were put in the field. This required a
population in the country of ten or twelve millions. Of
course this is absurd. Palestine in its palmiest days could
not have supported two millions of people.
The soil is poor.
If the Bible is inspired, is it true ?
We are told by this inspired book of the gold and silver
collected by King David for the temple—the temple after
wards completed by the virtuous Solomon.
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7
According to the blessed Bible, David collected about
two thousand million dollars in silver, and five thousand
million dollars in gold, making a total of seven thousand
million dollars.
Is this true ?
There is in the Bank of France at the present time (1895)
nearly six hundred million dollars, and, so far as we know,
it is the greatest amount that was ever gathered together.
All the gold now known, coined and in bullion, does not
amount to much more than the sum collected by David.
Seven thousand millions. Where did David get this
gold? The Jews had no commerce. They owned no
ships. They had no great factories, they produced nothing
for other countries. There were no gold or silver mines in
Palestine. Where, then, was this gold, this silver found ?
I will tell you: In the imagination of a writer who had
more patriotism than intelligence, and who wrote, not for
the sake of truth, but for the glory of the Jews.
Is it possible that David collected nearly eight thousand
tons of gold—that he by economy got together about sixty
thousand tons of silver, making a total of gold and silver of
sixty-eight thousand tons ?
The average freight car carries about fifteen tons—David’s
gold and silver would load about four thousand five hundred
and thirty-three cars, making a train about thirty-two miles
in length. And all this for the temple at Jerusalem, a
building ninety feet long and forty-five feet high and thirty
wide, to which was attached a porch thirty feet wide, ninety
feet long, and one hundred and eighty feet high.
Probably the architect was inspired.
Is there a sensible man in the world who believes that
David collected seven thousand million dollars worth of
gold or silver ?
There is hardly five thousand million dollars of gold now
used as money in the whole world. Think of the millions
taken from the mines of California, Australia, and Africa
during the present century, and yet the total scarcely
exceeds the amount collected by King David more than a
thousand years before the birth of Christ. Evidently the
inspired historian made a mistake.
It required a little imagination and a few ciphers to
change seven million dollars or seven hundred thousand
�8
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH,
dollars into seven thousand million dollars. Drop four
ciphers, and the story becomes fairly reasonable.
The Old Testament must be thrown aside. It is no
longer a foundation. It has crumbled.
II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
But we have the New Testament, the sequel of the Old, in
which Christians find the fulfilment of prophecies made by
inspired Jews.
The New Testament vouches for the truth, the inspiration
of the Old; and if the Old is false, the New cannot be true.
In the New Testament we find all that we know about
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
It is claimed that the writers were divinely inspired, and.
that all they wrote is true.
Let us see if these writers agree.
Certainly there should be no difference about the birth of
Christ. From the Christian’s point of view, nothing could
have been of greater importance than that event.
Matthew says : “ Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold there came
wise men from the East to Jerusalem.
“ Saying, where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for
we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship
him.”
Matthew does not tell us who these wise men were, from
what country they came, to what race they belonged. He
did not even know their names.
We are also informed that when Herod heard these
things he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; that
he gathered the chief priests and asked of them where
Christ should be born, and they told him that he was to be
born in Bethlehem.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
9
Then Herod called the wise men and asked them when
the star appeared, and told them to go to Bethlehem and
report to him.
When they left Herod, the star again appeared, and went
before them until it stood over the place where the child
was.
When they came to the child they worshipped him—
gave him gifts, and, being warned by God in a dream, they
went back to their own country without calling on Herod.
Then the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
dream, and told him to take Mary and the child into
Egypt for fear of Herod.
So Joseph took Mary and the child to Egypt, and
remained there until the death of Herod.
Then Herod, finding that he was mocked by the wise
men, “ sent forth and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old
and under.”
After the death of Herod, an angel again appeared in
a dream to Joseph, and told him to take mother and child
and go back to Palestine.
So he went back and dwelt in Nazareth.
Is this story true? Must we believe in the star and the
wise men ? Who were these wise men ? From what
country did they come ? What interest had they in the
birth of the King of the Jews ? What became of them and
their star ?
Of course I know that the Holy Catholic Church has in
her keeping the three skulls that belonged to these wise men;
but I do not know where the Church obtained these relics,
nor exactly how their genuineness has been established.
Must we believe that Herod murdered the babes of
Bethlehem ?
Is it not wonderful that the enemies of Herod did not
charge him with this horror ? Is it not marvellous that
Mark and Luke and John forgot to mention this most
heartless of massacres ?
Luke also gives an account of the birth of Christ. He
says that there went out a decree from Csesar Augustus that
all the world should be taxed; that this was when Cyrenius
was governor of Syria; that, in accordance with this decree,
Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed ; that at
�IO
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
that place Christ was born and laid in a manger. He also
says that shepherds in the neighborhood were told of the
birth by an angel, with whom was a multitude of the
heavenly host; that these shepherds visited Mary and the
child, and told others what they had seen and heard.
He tells us that after eight days the child was named
Jesus; that forty days after his birth he was taken by
Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem ; and that, after they had
performed all things according to the law, they returned to
Nazareth. Luke also says that the child grew and waxed
strong in spirit, and that his parents went every year to
Jerusalem.
Do the accounts in Matthew and Luke agree ? Can both
accounts be true ?
Luke never heard of the star, and Matthew knew nothing
of the heavenly host. Luke never heard of the wise men,
nor Matthew of the shepherds. Luke knew nothing of the
hatred of Herod, the murder of the babes, or the flight into
Egypt. According to Matthew, Joseph, warned by an angel,
took Mary and the child and fled into Egypt. According
to Luke, they all went to Jerusalem, and from there back to
Nazareth.
Both of these accounts cannot be true. Will some Chris
tian scholar tell us which to believe ?
When was Christ born ?
Luke says that it took place when Cyrenius was governor.
Here is another mistake. Cyrenius was not appointed
governor until after the death of Herod, and the taxing
could not have taken place until ten years after the alleged
birth of Christ.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth,
and for the purpose of getting them to Bethlehem, so that
the child could be born in the right place, the taxing under
Cyrenius was used; but the writer, being “inspired,” made
a mistake of about ten years as to the time of the taxing and
of the birth.
Matthew says nothing about the date of the birth, except
that he was born when Herod was king. It is now known
that Herod had been dead ten years before the taxing under
Cyrenius. So, if Luke tells the truth, Joseph, being warned
by an angel, fled from the hatred of Herod ten years after
Herod was dead. If Matthew and Luke are both right,
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
11
Christ was taken to Egypt ten years before he was born, and
Herod killed the babes ten years after he was dead.
Will some Christian scholar have the goodness to harmonise
these “ inspired ” accounts ?
There is another thing.
Matthew and Luke both try to show that Christ was of the
blood of David, that he was a descendant of that virtuous king.
As both of these writers were inspired, and as both
received their information from God, they ought to agree.
According to Matthew, there were between David and
Jesus twenty-seven generations, and he gives all the names.
According to Luke, there were between David and Jesus
forty-two generations, and he gives all the names.
In these genealogies—both inspired—there is a difference
between David and Jesus, a difference of some fourteen or
fifteen generations.
Besides, the names of all the ancestors are different, with
two exceptions.
Matthew says that Joseph’s father was Jacob. Luke says
that Heli was Joseph’s father.
Both of these genealogies cannot be true, and the proba
bility is that both are false.
There is not in all the pulpits ingenuity enough to har
monise these ignorant and stupid contradictions.
There are many curious mistakes in the words attributed
to Christ.
We are told in Matthew (chapter xxiii., verse 35) that
Christ said :
“ That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar.”
It is certain that these words were not spoken by Christ.
He could not by any possibility have known that the blood
of Zacharias had been shed. As a matter of fact, Zacharias
was killed by the Jews, during the siege of Jerusalem by
Titus, and this siege took place seventy-one years after the
birth of Christ, thirty-eight years after he was dead.
There is still another mistake.
Zacharias was not the son of Barachias—no such
Zacharias was killed. The Zacharias that was slain was
the son of Barueh.
�12
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
But we must not expect the “ inspired ” to be accurate.
Matthew says that at the time of the crucifixion—“ the
graves were opened, and that many bodies of the saints
which slept arose and came out of their graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto
many.”
According to this, the graves were opened at the time of
the crucifixion, but the dead did not arise and come out
until after the resurrection of Christ.
They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and
wait for Christ to rise first.
To whom did these saints appear ? What became of
them ? Did they slip back into their graves and commit
suicide?
Is it not wonderful that Mark, Luke, and John never
heard of these saints ?
What kind of saints were they ? Certainly they were not
Christian saints.
So, the inspired writers do not agree in regard to Judas.
Certainly the inspired writers ought to have known what
happened to Judas, the betrayer. Matthew, being duly
“ inspired,” says that when Judas saw that Jesus had been
condemned, he repented and took back the money to the
chief priests and elders, saying that he had sinned in
betraying the innocent blood. They said to him : “ What
is that to us? See thou to that.” Then Judas threw down
the pieces of silver and went and hanged himself.
The chief priests then took the pieces of silver and bought
the potter’s field to bury strangers in, and it is called the
field of blood.
We are told in Acts of the Apostles that Peter stood
up in the midst of the disciples and said : “ Now this man
(Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity—and,
falling headlong, he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed
out—that field is called the field of blood.”
Matthew says Judas repented and gave back the money.
Peter says that he bought a field with the money.
Matthew says that Judas hanged himself. Peter says
that he fell down and burst asunder. Which of these
accounts is true ?
Besides, it is hard to see why Christians hate, loathe, and
despise Judas. According to their scheme of salvation, it
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
13
was absolutely necessary that Christ should be killed—
necessary that he should be betrayed; and, had it not been
for Judas, all the world, including Christ’s mother, and
the part of Christ that was human, would have gone to
hell.
Yet, according to the New Testament, Christ did not
know that one of his disciples was to betray him.
Jesus, when on his way to Jerusalem for the last time,
said, speaking to the twelve disciples, Judas being present,
that they, the disciples, should thereafter sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Yet, more than a year before this journey, John says that
Christ said, speaking to the twelve disciples : “ Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ?” And John
adds : “ He spake of Judas Iscariot, for it was he that
should betray him.”
Why did Christ, a year afterwards, tell Judas that he
should sit on a throne and judge one of the tribes of
Israel?
There is still another trouble.
Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection appeared to
the twelve disciples. According to Paul, Jesus appeared to
Judas with the rest.
Certainly Paul had not heard the story of the betrayal.
Why did Christ select Judas as one of his disciples,
knowing that he would betray him ? Did he desire to be
betrayed ? Was it his intention to be put to death ?
Why did he fail to defend himself before Pilate?
According to the accounts, Pilate wanted to save him.
Did Christ wish to be convicted?
The Christians are compelled to say that Christ intended
to be sacrificed—that he selected Judas with that end in
view, and that he refused to defend himself because he
desired to be crucified. All this is in accordance with the
horrible idea that without the shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin.
�14
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
III.
JEHOVAH.
God the Father.
The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the God of the
Christians.
He it was who created the universe, who made all
substance, all force, all life, from nothing. He it is who
has governed and still governs the world. He has established
and destroyed empires and kingdoms, despotisms and
republics. He has enslaved and liberated the sons of men.
He has caused the sun to rise on the good and on the evil,
and his rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
This shows his goodness.
He has caused his volcanoes to devour the good and the
bad, his cyclones to wreck and rend the generous and the
cruel, . his floods to drown the loving and the hateful, his
lightning to kill the virtuous and the vicious, his famines to
starve the innocent and criminal, and his plagues to destroy
the wise and good, the ignorant and wicked. He has
allowed his enemies to imprison, to torture, and to kill his
friends. He has permitted blasphemers to flay his wor
shippers alive, to dislocate their joints upon racks, and to
burn them at the stake. He has allowed men to enslave
their brothers, and to sell babes from the breasts of
mothers.
This shows his impartiality.
The pious negro who commenced his prayer, “ O thou
great and unscrupulous God,” was nearer right than he knew.
Ministers ask : Is it possible for God to forgive man ?
And when I think of what has been suffered—of the
centuries of agony and tears, I ask : Is it possible for man
to forgive God ?
How do Christians prove the existence of their God ?
Is it possible to think of an infinite being ? Does the word
God correspond with any image in the mind ? Does the
word God stand for what we know, or for what we do not
know?
�JEHOVAH.
15
Is not this unthinkable God a guess, an inference ?
Can we think of a being without form, without body,
without parts, without passions ? Why should we speak of
a being without body as of the masculine gender?
Why should the Bible speak of this God as a man—of
his walking in the garden in the cool of the evening—of
his talking, hearing, and smelling? If he has no passions,
why is he spoken of as jealous, revengeful, angry, pleased,
and loving?
In the Bible, God is spoken of as a person in the form
of man, journeying from place to place, as having a home,
and occupying a throne. These ideas have been abandoned,
and now the Christian’s God is the infinite, the incompre
hensible, the formless, bodiless, and passionless.
Of the existence of such a being there can be, in the
nature of things, no evidence.
Confronted with the universe, with fields of space sown
thick with stars, with all there is of life, the wise man, being
asked the origin and destiny of all, replies : “ I do not
know. These questions are beyond the powers of my
mind.” The wise man is thoughtful and modest. He
clings to facts. Beyond his intellectual horizon he does
not pretend to see. He does not mistake hope for evidence,
or desire for demonstration. He is honest. He neither
deceives himself nor others.
The theologian arrives at the unthinkable, the incon
ceivable, and he calls this God.
The scientist arrives
at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and calls it the
Unknown.
The theologian insists that his inconceivable governs the
world ; that it, or he, or they, can be influenced by prayers
and ceremonies; that it, or he, or they, punishes and
rewards; that it, or he, or they, has priests and temples.
The scientist insists that the Unknown is not changed, so
far as he knows, by prayers of people or priests. He admits
that he does not know whether the Unknown is good or
bad—whether he, or it, wants; or whether he, or it, is worthy
of worship. He does not say that the Unknown is God,
that it created substance and force, life and thought. He
simply says that of the Unknown he knows nothing.
.Why should Christians insist that a God of infinite
wisdom, goodness, and power governs the world ?
�16
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
Why did he allow millions of his children to be enslaved ?
Why did he allow millions of mothers to be robbed of their
babes ? Why has he allowed injustice to triumph ? Why
has he permitted the innocent to be imprisoned, and the
good to be burned ? Why has he withheld his rain and
starved millions of the children of men ? Why has he
allowed the volcanoes to destroy, the earthquakes to devour,
and the tempest to wreck and rend ?
IV.
THE TRINITY.
The New Testament informs us that Christ was the son of
Joseph and the son of God, and that Mary was his mother.
How is it established that Christ was the son of God ?
It is said that Joseph was told so in a dream by an angel.
But Joseph wrote nothing on that subject—said nothing,
so far as we know. Mary wrote nothing, said nothing.
The angel that appeared to Joseph, or that informed
Joseph, said nothing to anybody else. Neither has the
Holy Ghost, the supposed father, ever said or written one
word. We have received no information from the parties
who could have known anything on the subject. We get
all our facts from those who could not have known.
How is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the
father of Christ ?
Who knows that such a being as the Holy Ghost ever
existed ?
How was it possible for Mary to know anything about
the Holy Ghost ?
How could Joseph know that he had been visited by an
angel in a dream ?
Could he know that the visitor was an angel ? It all
occurred in a dream, and poor Joseph was asleep. What is
the testimony of one who was asleep worth ?
�THE TRINITY.
17
All the evidence we have is, that somebody who wrote
part of the New Testament says that the Holy Ghost was
the father of Christ, and that somebody who wrote another
part of the New Testament says that Joseph was the father
of Christ.
Matthew and Luke give the genealogy, and both show
that Christ was the son of Joseph.
The “ Incarnation ” has to be believed without evidence.
There is no way in which it can be established. It is
beyond the reach and realm of reason. It defies observa
tion, and is independent of experience.
It is claimed not only that Christ was the Son of God,
but that he was, and is, God.
Was he God before he was born ? Was the body of
Mary the dwelling place of God ?
What evidence have we that Christ was God ?'
Somebody has said that Christ claimed that God was his
father, and that he and his father were one. We do not
know who this somebody was, and do not know from whom
he received his information.
Somebody who was “ inspired ” has said that Christ was
of the blood of David through his father, Joseph.
This is all the evidence we have.
Can we believe that God, the creator of the universe,
learned the trade of a carpenter in Palestine—that he
gathered a few disciples about him, and, after teaching for
about three years, suffered himself to be crucified by a few
ignorant and pious Jews ?
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the
Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the
third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his
own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither
father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the
father, but existed before he was begotten—just the same
before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the
father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the
Father and Son before he proceeded—that is to say, before
he existed ; but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son
God, and the Holy Ghost God, and that these three Gods
make one God.
�18
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the celestial multiplication table, once one
is three, and three times one is one; and, according to
heavenly subtraction, if wjs take two from three, three are
left. The addition is equally peculiar : if we add two to
one, we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and
the other t,wo. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be,
more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the
Trinity.
How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity ?
Is it possible for a human being, who has been born but
once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of, three
beings each of whom is equal to the three ?
Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and
think of that one as half human and all God, and think of
the third as having proceeded from the other two, and
then think of all three as one. Think that, after the father
begot the son, the father was still alone; and after the
Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the
father was still alone—because there never was, and never
will be, but one God.
At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing
more can be said except “Let us pray.”
V.
THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
In the New Testament we find the teachings and sayings
of Christ. If we say that the book is inspired, then we
must admit that Christ really said all the things attributed
to him by the various writers. If the book is inspired, we
must accept it all. We have no right to reject the contra
dictory and absurd, and accept the reasonable and good.
We must take it all just as it is.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
19
My own observation has led me to believe that men are
generally consistent in their theories and inconsistent in
their lives.
So I think that Christ in his utterances was true to his
theory, to his philosophy.
If I find in the Testament sayings of a contradictory
character, I conclude that some of those sayings were never
uttered by him. The sayings that are, in my judgment, in
accordance with what I believe to have been his philosophy,
I accept, and the others I throw away.
There are some of his sayings which show him to have
been a devout Jew; others that he wished to destroy
Judaism ; others showing that he held all people except the
Jews in contempt, and that he wished to save no others;
others showing that he wished to convert the world; still
others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying, and
loving ; others that he was revengeful and malicious; others
that he was an ascetic, holding all human ties in utter con
tempt.
The following passages show that Christ was a devout
Jew
“Swear not, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne,
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem,
for it is his holy city.”
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
“For after all these things [clothing, food, and drink]
do the Gentiles seek.”
So, when he cured a leper, he said : “ Go thy way, show
thyself unto the priest, and offer the gift that Moses com
manded.”
Jesus sent his disciples forth, saying: “ Go not into the
way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.”
A woman came out of Canaan and cried to Jesus :
“ Have mercy on me, my daughter is sorely vexed with a
devil ” ; but he would not answer. Then the disciples
asked him to send her away, and he said: “ I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Then the woman worshipped him and said: “Lord help
me.” But he answered and said : “ It is not meet to take
�20
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
the children’s bread and cast it unto dogs.” Yet for her
faith he cured her child.
So, when the young man asked him what he must do to
be saved, he said: “ Keep the commandments.”
Christ said: “The scribesand the Pharisees sit in Moses’
seat; all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do.”
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for
one tittle of the law to fail.
Christ went into the temple and cast out them that sold
and bought there, and said: “It is written, my house is
the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
thieves.”
“We know what we worship, for salvation is of the
Jews.”
Certainly all these passages were written by persons who
regarded Christ as the Messiah.
Many of the sayings attributed to Christ show that he
was an ascetic, that he cared nothing for kindred, nothing
for father and mother, nothing for brothers or sisters, and
nothing for the pleasures of life.
Christ said to a man: “ Follow me.” The man said :
“ Let me go and bury my father.” Christ answered : “ Let
the dead bury the dead.” Another said: “ I will follow
thee, but first let me go and bid them farewell which are at
home.”
Jesus said : “No man having put his hand to the plough,
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven. If
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend
thee, cut it off.”
One said unto him: “ Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” And he
answered: “ Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
Then he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples and
said: “Behold my mother and my brethren.”
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren
or sisters, or father or mother, or children, or lands, for my
name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold and shall inherit
everlasting life.”
“ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me.”
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
21
Christ, it seems, had a philosophy.
He believed that God was a loving father, that he would
take care of his children, that they need do nothing except
to rely implicitly on God.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you and persecute you.
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what
ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.
* * * For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have
need of all these things.
Ask and it shall be given you. Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. If ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you. The very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Christ seemed to rely absolutely on the protection of God
until the darkness of death gathered about him, and then
he cried: “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken
me ?”
While there are many passages in the New Testament
showing Christ to have been forgiving and tender, there are
many others showing that he was exactly the opposite.
What must have been the spirit of one who said: “ I am
come to send fire on the earth. Suppose ye that I am
come to give peace on earth ? I tell you, nay, but rather
division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one
house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son
against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law against her
daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her motherin-law ” ?
“ If any man come to me and hate not his father and
mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
“ But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.”
This passage built dungeons and lighted fagots.
“ Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the
devil and his angels.”
�22
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
“ I came not to bring peace, but a sword.
All these sayings could not have been uttered by the
same person. They are inconsistent with each other. Love
does not speak the words of hatred.
The real philan
thropist does not despise all nations but his own. The
teacher of universal forgiveness cannot believe in eternal
torture.
From the interpolations, legends, accretions, mistakes,
and falsehoods in the New Testament is it possible to free
the actual man? Clad in mist and myth, hidden by the
draperies of gods, deformed, indistinct as faces in clouds,
is it possible to find and recognise the features, the natural
face of the actual Christ?
For many centuries our fathers closed their eyes to the
contradictions and inconsistencies of the Testament, and in
spite of their reason harmonised the interpolations and
mistakes.
This is no longer possible. The contradictions are too
many, too glaring. There are contradictions of fact, not
only, but of philosophy, of theory.
The accounts of the trial, the crucifixion, and ascension
of Christ do not agree. They are full of mistakes and
contradictions.
According to one account, Christ ascended the day of
or the day after his resurrection. According to another,
he remained forty days after rising from the dead. Accord
ing to one account, he was seen after his resurrection only
by a few women and his disciples. According to another,
he was seen by the women, by his disciples on several
occasions, and by hundreds of others.
According to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, Christ remained
for the most part in the country, seldom going to Jerusalem.
According to John, he remained mostly in Jerusalem, going
occasionally into the country, and then generally to avoid
his enemies.
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christ taught
that if you would forgive others God would forgive you.
According to John, Christ said that the only way to get to
heaven was to believe on him and be born again.
These contradictions are gross and palpable, and demon
strate that the New Testament is not inspired, and that
many of its statements must be false.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
23
If we wish to save the character of Christ, many of the
passages must be thrown away.
We must discard the miracles, or admit that he was insane
or an impostor. We must discard the passages that breathe
the spirit of hatred and revenge, or admit that he was malevo
lent.
If Matthew was mistaken about the genealogy of Christ,
about the wise men, the star, the flight into Egypt, and the
massacre of the babes by Herod, then he may have been
mistaken in many passages that he put in the mouth of
Christ.
The same may be said in regard to Mark, Luke, and
John.
The Church must admit that the writers of the New
Testament were uninspired men—that they made many
mistakes—that they accepted impossible legends as historical
facts—that they were ignorant and superstitious—that they
put malevolent, stupid, insane, and unworthy words in the
mouth of Christ, described him as the worker of impossible
miracles, and in many ways stained and belittled his char
acter.
The best that can be said about Christ is, that nearly
nineteen centuries ago he was born in the land of Palestine,
in a country without wealth, without commerce, in the midst
of a people who knew nothing of the greater world—a people
enslaved, crushed by the mighty power of Rome. That
this babe, this child of poverty and want, grew to manhood
without education, knowing nothing of art or science, and
at about the age of thirty began wandering about the hills
and hamlets of his native land, discussing with priests,
talking with the poor and sorrowful, writing nothing, but
leaving his words in the memory or forgetfulness of those to
whom he spoke.
That he attacked the religion of his time because it was
cruel. That this excited the hatred of those in power, and
that Christ was arrested, tried, and crucified.
For many centuries this great Peasant of Palestine has
been worshipped as God.
Millions and millions have given their lives to his service.
The wealth of the world was lavished on his shrines. His
name carried consolation to the diseased and dying. His
name dispelled the darkness of death, and filled the dungeon
�24
the foundations of faith.
with light. His name gave courage to the martyr, and in
the midst of fire, with shrivelling lips, the sufferer uttered it
again and again. The outcasts, the deserted, the fallen,
felt that Christ was their friend, felt that he knew their
sorrows and pitied their sufferings.
The poor mother, holding her dead babe in her arms,
lovingly whispered his name. His gospel has been carried
by millions to all parts of the globe, and his story has been
told by the self-denying and faithful to countless thousands
of the sons of men. In his name have been preached
charity, forgiveness, and love.
He it was who, according to the faith, brought immortality
to light, and many millions have entered the valley of the
shadow with their hands in his.
All this is true; and if it were all, how beautiful, how
touching, how glorious, it would be 1 But it is not all.
There is another side.
In his name millions and millions of men and women
have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed. In his name
millions and millions have been enslaved. In his name
the thinkers, the investigators, have been branded as
criminals, and his followers have shed the blood of the
wisest and best. In his name the progress of many nations
was stayed for a thousand years. In his gospel was found
the dogma of eternal pain, and his words added an infinite
horror to death. His gospel filled the world with hatred
and revenge; made intellectual honesty a crime; made
happiness here the road to hell; denounced love as base
and bestial; canonised credulity; crowned bigotry, and
destroyed the liberty of man.
It would have been far better had the New Testament
never been written—far better had the theological Christ
never lived. Had the writers of the Testament been re
garded as uninspired; had Christ been thought of only as a
man ; had the good been accepted, and the absurd, the
impossible, and the revengeful thrown away, mankind would
have escaped the wars, the tortures, the scaffolds, the
dungeons, the agony and tears, the crimes and sorrows of
a thousand years.
�THE
SCHEME.
25
VI.
THE “SCHEME.”
We have also the scheme of redemption.
According to this “ scheme,” by the sin of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden, human nature became evil,
corrupt, and depraved. It became impossible for human
beings to keep, in all things, the law of God. In spite of
this, God allowed the people to live and multiply for some
fifteen hundred years; and then, on account of their
wickedness, drowned them all, with the exception of eight
persons.
The nature of these eight persons was evil, corrupt, and
depraved ; and, in the nature of things, their children would
be cursed with the same nature. Yet God gave them
another trial, knowing exactly what the result would be. A
few of these wretches he selected, and made them objects
of his love and care ; the rest of the world he gave to indiffer
ence and neglect. To civilise the people he had chosen,
he assisted them in conquering and killing their neighbors,
and gave them the assistance of priests and inspired pro
phets. For their preservation and punishment he wrought
countless miracles, gave them many laws, and a great deal
of advice. He taught them to sacrifice oxen, sheep, and
doves, to the end that their sins might be forgiven. The
idea was inculcated that there was a certain relation between
the sin and the sacrifice—the greater the sin, the greater
the sacrifice. He also taught the savagery that without
the shedding of blood there was no remission of sin.
In spite of all his efforts, the people grew gradually worse.
They would not, they could not, keep his laws.
A sacrifice had to be made for the sins of the people.
The sins were too great to be washed out by the blood of
animals or men. It became necessary for God himself to
be sacrificed. All mankind were under the curse of
the law. Either all the world must be lost, or God must
die.
�26
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
In only one way could the guilty be justified, and that
was by the death, the sacrifice, of the innocent. And the
innocent being sacrificed must be great enough to atone
for the world. There was but one such being—God.
Thereupon God took upon himself flesh, was born into
the world—was known as Christ—was murdered, sacrificed
by the Jews, and became an atonement for the sins of the
human race.
This is the scheme of Redemption—the atonement.
It is impossible to conceive of anything more utterly
absurd.
A man steals, and then sacrifices a dove, or gives a lamb
to a priest. His crime remains the same. He need not
kill something. Let him give back the thing stolen, and in
future live an honest life.
A man slanders his neighbor, and then kills an ox. What
has that to do with the slander ? Let him take back his
slander, make all the reparation that he can, and let the ox
alone.
There is no sense in sacrifice, never was, and never
will be.
Make restitution, reparation, undo the wrong, and you
need shed no blood.
A good law, one springing from the nature of things,
cannot demand, and cannot accept, and cannot be satisfied
with, the punishment or the agony of the innocent. A
god could not accept his own sufferings in justification of
the guilty. This is a complete subversion of all ideas of
justice and morality. A god could not make a law for
man, then suffer in the place of the man who had violated
it, and say that the law had been carried out and the penalty
duly enforced. A man has committed murder, has been
tried, convicted, and condemned to death. Another man
goes to the governor and says that he is willing to die in
place of the murderer. The governor says : “ All right, I
accept your offer; a murder has been committed, somebody
must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law.”
But that is not the law. The law says, not that somebody
shall be hanged, but that the murderer shall suffer death.
Even if the governor should die in the place of the
criminal, it would be no better. There would be two
murders instead of one; two innocent men killed—one by
�BELIEF.
27
the first murderer, and one by the State—and the real
murderer free.
This Christians call “satisfyin the law.”
VII.
BELIEF.
We are told that all who believe in this scheme of redemp
tion and have faith in the redeemer will be rewarded with
eternal joy. Some think that men can be saved by faith
without works, and some think that faith and works are
both essential; but all agree that without faith there is no
salvation. If you repent and believe on Jesus Christ, then
his goodness will be imparted to you, and the penalty of the
law, so far as you are concerned, will be satisfied by the
sufferings of Christ.
You may repent and reform, you may make restitution,
you may practise all the virtues ; but without this belief
in Christ the gates of heaven will be shut against you for ever.
Where is this heaven ? The Christians do not know.
Does the Christian go there at death, or must he wait for
the general resurrection ?
They do not know.
The Testament teaches that the bodies of the dead are to
be raised. Where are their souls in the meantime ? They
do not know.
Can the dead be raised ? The atoms composing their
bodies enter into new combinations, into new forms, into
wheat and corn, into the flesh of animals, and into the
bodies of other men. Where one man dies, and some of
his atoms pass into the body of another man, and he
dies, to whom will these atoms belong in the day of
resurrection ?
�THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
If Christianity were only stupid and unscientific, if its
God were ignorant and kind, if it promised eternal joy to
believers, and if the believers practised the forgiveness they
teach, for one, I should let the faith alone.
But there is another side to Christianity. It is not only
stupid, but malicious. It is not only unscientific, but it is
heartless. Its God is not only ignorant, but infinitely cruel.
It not only promises the faithful an eternal reward, but
declares that nearly all of the children of men, imprisoned
in the dungeons of God, will suffer eternal pain. This is
the savagery of Christianity. This is why I hate its unthink
able God, its impossible Christ, its inspired lies, and its
selfish, heartless heaven.
,
Christians believe in infinite torture, in eternal pain.
Eternal pain 1
All the meanness of which the heart of man is capable is
in that one word—Hell.
That word is a den, a cave, in which crawl the slimy
reptiles of revenge.
That word certifies to the savagery of primitive man.
That word is the depth, the dungeon, the abyss, from
which civilised man has emerged.
That word is the disgrace, the shame, the infamy of our
revealed religion.
That word fills all the future with the shrieks of the
damned.
That word brutalises the New Testament, changes the
Sermon on the Mount to hypocrisy and cant, and pollutes
and hardens the very heart of Christ.
That word adds an infinite horror to death, and makes
the cradle as terrible as the coffin.
That word is the assassin of joy, the mocking murderer
of hope. That word extinguishes the light of life and wraps
the world in gloom.- That word drives reason from his
throne, and gives the crown to madness.
That word drove pity from the hearts of men, stained
countless swords with blood, lighted fagots, forged chains,
built dungeons, erected scaffolds, and filled the world with
poverty and pain.
That word is a coiled serpent in the mother’s breast, that
lifts its fanged head and hisses in her ear : “ Your child
will be the fuel of eternal fire.”
�CONCLUSION.
29
That word blots from the firmament the star of hope, and
leaves the heavens black.
That word makes the Christian’s God an eternal torturer,
an everlasting inquisitor—an infinite wild beast.
This is the Christian prophecy of the eternal future :—
No hope in hell.
No pity in heaven.
No mercy in the heart of God.
VIII.
CONCLUSION.
The Old Testament is absurd, ignorant, and cruel; the
New Testament is a mingling of the false and true—it is
good and bad.
The Jehovah of the Jews is an impossible monster. The
Trinity absurd and idiotic. Christ is a myth or a man.
The fall of man is contradicted by every fact concerning
human history that we know. The scheme of redemption,
through the atonement, is immoral and senseless. Hell
was imagined by revenge, and the orthodox heaven is the
selfish dream of heartless serfs and slaves. The founda
tions of the faith have crumbled and faded away. They
were miracles, mistakes, and myths, ignorant and untrue,
absurd, impossible, immoral, unnatural, cruel, childish,
savage. Beneath the gaze of the scientist they vanished;
confronted by facts, they disappeared. The orthodox
religion of our day has no foundation in truth. Beneath
the superstructure can be found no fact.
Some may ask : “ Are you trying to take our religion
away ?”
I answer No ; superstition is not religion. Belief with
out evidence is not religion. Faith without facts is not
religion.
�3°
THE FOUNDATIONS OF BELIEF.
To love justice ; to long for the right; to love mercy; to
pity the suffering; to assist the weak; to forget wrongs and
remember benefits; to love the truth; to be sincere; to
utter honest words ; to love liberty ; to wage relentless war
against slavery in all its forms ; to love wife and child and
friend; to make a happy home ; to love the beautiful in
art, in nature; to cultivate the mind ; to be familiar with
the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble
deeds of all the world; to cultivate courage and cheerful
ness ; to make others happy; to fill life with the splendor
of generous acts, the warmth of loving words ; to discard
error; to destroy prejudice; to receive new truths with
gladness ; to cultivate hope; to see the calm beyond the
storm, the dawn beyond the night; to do the best that can
be done, and then to be resigned—this is the religion of
reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and
heart.
But, says the prejudiced priest, the malicious minister:
“You take away a future life.”
I am not trying to destroy another world, but I am
endeavoring to prevent the theologians from destroying
this.
If we are immortal, it is a fact in nature, and that fact
does not depend on Bibles or Christs, on priests or creeds.
The hope of another life was in the heart long before the
“ sacred books ” were written, and will remain there long
after all the “ sacred books ” are known to be the work of
savage and superstitious men. Hope is the consolation of
the world.
The wanderers hope for home. Hope builds the house
and plants the flowers and fills the air with song.
The sick and suffering hope for health. Hope gives
them health, and paints the roses in their cheeks.
The lonely, the forsaken, hope for love. Hope brings
the lover to their arms. They feel the kisses on their eager
lips.
The poor in tenements and huts, in spite of rags and
hunger, hope for wealth. Hope fills their thin and trembling
hands with gold.
The dying hopes that death is but another birth, and Love
leans above the pallid face and whispers : “ We shall meet
again.”
�CONCLUSION
31
Hope is the consolation of the world.
Let us hope that, if there be a God, he is wise and good.
Let us hope that, if there be another life, it will bring
peace and joy to all the children of men.
And let us hope that this poor earth on which we live
may be a perfect world, a world without a crime, without a
tear.
London : Printed by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll
Some Mistakes
ok Moses.
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
6d.
The Gods. 6d.
The Holy Bible. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic?
Part I. 2d.
am I an Agnostic?
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
' Creeds & Spirituality. Id
Why
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition.
Biography by J. M. WHEELER.
Miscellaneous Theological Works,
The Age of Reason.
Foote.
is.
New edition, with Preface by G. W.
Is.
Complete Theological Works.
Reason.)
With a Political
Is.; bound in cloth, 2s.
(Including the Age of
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The foundations of faith : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover. No. 24b in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N347
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The foundations of faith : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AooGkGexfYD3mrl6QojRHhDQKCA8CnazM6r45DEpMJeuSrhmCJSmH0alkutwhacpbT%7E7gD0XKKivCl%7EjOXQsayfanZrkqpZI-0WJDo7Zlb2jgDkDYRmRz1M-6jSLatMhROljUbA7yFY1yjpap05cKKdBVVmlYMGwOo9b1RtlEWUvez3ADEo2LIDfxmW0vWGuoV1kePBQzvAdnDwGDD8qq8B9ZFyTMWQ6rJW914RQ7PgRdQSHjLyYZwDWOdZtp94on-GaTradkIwBPxGF5-iuwkIUeR6K%7EzR%7EXcnmaRDGH4Lt-brzwnBpaWjjmSNKgTAiHEKuf1oyKrkOKeNzW-CjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7e86938ab58770f86fa71f55469021e
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECU'
" "''CIETY
ROME OR REASON?
A
REPLY
TO
Cardinal Manning
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED EROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
■ October and November, 1888.
^onirou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�J ONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.,
�ROME, OR REASON?
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition Nias ears more deaf than adders to the voice
of any true decision.”
A REPLY TO
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches
The questions involved are among the most important
that can engage the human mind. No one having the
slightest regard for that superb thing known as intel
lectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in
any way to gain a victory over truth.
. Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
hght is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge. In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
or the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its mar
vellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible
fruitfulness m all good things, its catholic unity and
lnVinC\^e lability, is a vast and perpetual motive of
legationaU irrefragable witness of its own divine
�4
ROME OR REASON.
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are :
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations
of the civilised world; that it is extra-national and inde
pendent in a supernational unitv ; that it is the same in
every place ; that jt speaks all the languages in the civi
lised world; that it is obedient to one head; that as many
as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope ;
that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome,
and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident
way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the world,
treating with empires, republics and governments ; ” that
“ there is no other man on earth that can so bear him
self,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from Con
stantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and
people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlight
ened and purified the world ; that it has given us the
peace and purity of domestic life ; that it has destroyed
idolatry and demonology ; that it gave us a body of law
from a higher source than man ; that it has produced
the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes were the
greatest of statesmen and rulers ; that celibacy is better
than marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations
of the last three hundred years have been destructive
and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
every thing that exists; of every church, great and small,
of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ? All
success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of men
have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is
called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the most
part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old
errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in har
�ROME OR REASON.
5
mony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater clear
ness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some,
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond ; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we can
not say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
~
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the
whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The
truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, What shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say,
the rums of Paganism. And it is equally clear that
Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of
Catholicism.
- After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was forever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome,, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were en
gaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out
their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the
Conscience of .man. Bishops were concerned in assassina10ns, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons,
civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommuni
�6
ROME OR REASON.
eating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries
for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with gold and
courtesans and royal females with concessions of epis
copal love. Among legions of monks who carried terror
into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities
arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a
voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included, the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives withered
leaves. At his name, priests, bishops and cardinals fled
with white faces, popes trembled, and the armies of God,
fighting for the true faith, were conquered on a thousand
fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that anothei’ church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose the
second church lives and flourishes in spite of the first,
what does that prove ?
�ROME OR REASON.
7
As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or it
could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely
certain that the conditions are favorable. If it spreads
rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are exceed
ingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak
and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we
find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition began to
grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution,
and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven
from State to State by the believers in universal love,
until it left what was called civilisation, crossed the wide
plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great
Salt Lake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he
declared, had frequent conversations with God, and
received directions from that source.
Hundreds of
miracles were performed, multitudes upon the desert
were miraculously fed, the sick were cured—the dead
were raised, and the Mormon Church continued to grow,
until now, less than half a century after the death of its
founder, there are several hundred thousand believers in
the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that church ?
It seems to me that a “ supernatural ” religion—that it
to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle, is much
�8
ROME OR REASON.
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the
miraculous, in the supernatural.
The conception of
uniformity, of what may be called the eternal consistency
of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.
They are forced to think in accordance with their minds,
and as a consequence they account for all phenomena by
the acts of superior beings—that is to say, by the super
natural. In other words, that religion having most in
common with the savage, having most that was satis
factory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand
the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew
less and less—the domain of the natural larger ; that is
to say, the common became the natural, but the uncom
mon was still regarded as the miraculous. The rising
and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of
mankind—there was no miracle about that ; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this : The average man
regards the common as natural, the uncommon as super
natural. The educated man—and by that I mean the
developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
�BOMB OR BEASON.
9
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on. the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a pre
late of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good ?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the especial care, protection, and guidance
of an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has persecuted
and preached, and the salvation of the world is still
remote.
This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the word to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ? Do the Catholic nations
move in the van of progress? Withintheir jurisdiction
�10
ROME OR REASON.
are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else ?
Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other
Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to go
into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their con verts at any time, nor one of the
Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward, knew
of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During all
that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was
universal ? At the close of the fifteenth century, there
was one-half of the world in which the Catholic faith had
never been preached, and in the other half not one person
in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard
of it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic
Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personalitv. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed and been killed for the sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
�ROME OR REASON.
11
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes, but
his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—that
is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the
destruction of man’s well-being, that tend to his unhappi
ness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or
done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation and
inquiry led, oi’ might lead, to doubt ; that doubt leads, or
may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity
for joining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for
the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in ordei’ to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently, the
Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged
by the same standard. Has the Church been merciful ?
Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of justice,
charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man, believing a
�12
ROME OR REASON.
good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ? If the
Church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest
opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the
Church is wrong, or that the Church is bad ? Both can
not be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is impossible.
Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most malicious of
the human race. If the history of the world proves
anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many
centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed
among men. I cannot believe that the instruments of
persecution were made and used by the eminently good ;
neither can I believe that honest people were imprisoned,
tortured, and burned at the stake by a Church that was
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices
against Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices
against.Protestantism. I regard all religions either with
out prejudice or with the same prejudice. They were all,
according to my belief, devised by men, and all have for
a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.
All the gods have been made by men. They are all
equally powerful and equally useless. I like some of
them better than I do others, for the same reason that I
admire some characters in fiction more than I do others.
I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest
idea that either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to
Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both are myths.
I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and
fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing
as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there
is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church, we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the
members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned the
living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to the
-end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the end
�ROME OR REASON.
13
that it might take from widows their portions and from
orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
—the millions who perished by the sword—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all
the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers.
It hated geologists—it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to foi-get the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
�HOME OR REASON.
14
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
FonX presided over by the agent of God-punisbmg
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of his
head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
but having at the same time the impudence to call on
God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the Virgin
Marv to join in the curse ; and to curse him no _ y
herey’but forever hereafter—calling upon all the saints
and’upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of
cursesP so that earth and heaven should reverbrate with
countless curses launched at a human being simply or
having expressed an honest thought.
,
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things " invented
crimes that it might punish, This Church tried men or
a “suspicion of heresy’’—imprisoned themfoi ^e vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they bad_ on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This
W It Vtoo late^to talk about the “invincible stability ” of
the Seventh, in the Eighth, or
in the Ninth centuries. It was not invincible m Germany
in T other’s day. It was not invincible m the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme m any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not .triumph m Paris, or
Berlin • it is not dominant m London, m England ,
neither’ is it triumphant in the United States. It has not
within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the
thinkers who are the leaders of the human race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that m some it holds
the whole nation in its unity.
.
in
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful 1
Spain than in any other nation. The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy, the
result of an acknowledgment by a people that a certain
religion is too sacred to be examined.
�ROME OR REASOK.
15
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adoption
of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough to say
that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the most
thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavored to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they were
bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but because
they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not because
they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were
unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately
made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the
honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics.
It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for
the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas
with its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man.
And not only so—it established the Inquisition within its
borders. It imprisoned the honest, it burned the noble,
and succeeded after many years of devotion to the true
faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the
usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a
nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and
excited the pity of its former victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held
“ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In 1782
it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be friends
with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and Algiers
and the Barbary States.
It had become too poor to
ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It began to
appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor
convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise
proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic Church.
This may be said of every other nation in Christendom'
Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of
the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated
the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain is
�16
ROME OR REASON.
not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago
the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.. Physicians
were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host
through the streets for the purpose of staying the plague.
The streets were not cleaned ; the sewers were filled.
Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. The
Church, “eminent for its sanctity,” stood in the light and
cast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The
Church, in its “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
things,” allowed its children to perish through ignorance,
and used the diseases it had produced as an instrument
ality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It i§ necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and goodness
of these men. But their religion did more than all other
causes to produce the very evils that called. for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “godliness”;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity ; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary.
Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers
fmitloss*
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by
the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that sense,
and that in that sense it has what may be. called a
supernationai
xiw same,
“ supernational unity.” The muj-c, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it
is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in t e
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in. faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, that the Catholic Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. . This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
�ROME OR REASON.
17
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have
become permanent. New sects have been born and the
Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity
is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession :
Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,
external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years
had been supreme, was once more restored in the Council
of Constance, never to be broken again ? ”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again. Yet
it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the
Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its
divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made the
sword is that it never had been and never could be
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
B
�18
ROME OR REASON.
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin ?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored, and then’ it is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated. Put in a form to be easily understood it
is this :
’
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin.
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken? Was it universal while it was without unity?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was
immutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised ; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to
the pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of
the organisation.
.. How was the Roman empire formed ? By what means
did that Great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word, Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
�ROME OR REASON,
19
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The
gospel with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven and
hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it was
preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that Christ
had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell..
The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart ; it rewarded
every vice ; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured wit
nesses to compel the commission of perjury ; it tortured
children for the purpose of making them convict their
parents; it compelled men to establish their own innocence;
it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience
to wait; it left the accused without trial, and left them
in dungeons until released by death. There is no crime
that the Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that
it did not practice, no form of treachery that it did not
reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was
the greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights.
It did all that organisation, cunning, piety, self-denial,
heroism, treachery, zeal and brute force could do to
enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of
intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of
progress. It loaded the noble with chains and-th©
infamous with honors. In one hand it carried the alms
dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the sword,
persuaded with poison, and convinced with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a Church
can be established by showing that hundreds of bishops
have visited the pope.
Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran ? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
�20
ROME OR REASON.
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows ?
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He
who in power compels his fellow man to kneel, wili him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power;
■a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand face
to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who
kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop to
kneel in his presence ; and the bishop who kneels
■demands that the priest shall kneel to him ; and the priest
who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall
kneel ; and all, from pope to the lowest—that is to say,
from pope to exorcist, from pope to the one in charge of
the bones of saints—all demand that the people, the lay
men, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
'Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
•ashen face.
The cardinal insists that the pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute in office. He stands
in the place, or occupies the position in relation to the
Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would
occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, he
takes Christ’s place ; so that, according to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in
the person of the pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent.
A good king might leave his realm and put in his place a
tyrant and a wretch. The good man, and the good king,
■cannot certainly know what manner of man the agent is
—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad
may be chosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar,
knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would oppress
the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn
the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for
such a king ?
Now if the Church is of divine origin, and if each pope
is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen
by Jesus Christ ; and when he was chosen, Christ must
have known exactly what* his Vicar would do. Can we
believe that an infinitely wise and good Being would
�ROME OR REASON.
21
choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless,
fiendish and inhuman vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine
were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s place.
The tongue of the Bishop Theodoras was amputated by
the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop
was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III.
was seized in the street and forced into a church, where
the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his
eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V
was driven ignominiously from Rome. His successor,
Paschal I., was accused of blinding and murdering two
ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., unable
to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them
tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from other
Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the
pope ; afterwards he gave him absolution because he be
trayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others.
There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope,
and some of the treasures of the Church were seized, and
the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys to
admit the Saracens. Pormosus, who had been engaged
in these transactions, who had been excommunicated as
a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was himself
elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor.
He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the
priesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII.
was the next pope, and he had the dead body of Formosus
taken from the grave, clothed in papal habiliments,
propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The
corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off
and the body cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen
�'22
ROME OR REASON.
VII., this Vicar of Christ, was thrown into prison and
strangled.
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V.,
in less than two months after he became pope, was cast
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains. This
Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while was
expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope
in 905. This pope lived in criminal intercourse with the
celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters Marozia
and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordi
nary control over him. The love of Theodora was also
shared by John X. She gave him the Archbishopric of
Ravenna, and made him pope in 915. The daughter
of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him
in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed;
the pope was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
murdered. Afterward, this Marozia, daughter of Theo
dora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed
that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined
to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother
Guido she afterwards married. Another of her sons,
Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the Pope, cast him
and their mother into prison. Alberic’s son was then
elected pope as John XII.
“ John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the most
shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I. was
compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was
tried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the
consecration of bishops ; that he had ordained one who
was only ten years old ; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the
Lateran Palace had become a brothel.
He put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another
—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was
given to drunkeness and to gambling.
He*was de
posed at last, and Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subse
quently he got the upper hand. He seized his an
tagonists ; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger,
and the tongue of others. His life was eventually
brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife
he had seduced.”
And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the
�ROME OR REASON.
S3
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when compared
with the orthodox God—with the God they worshipped.
These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute
only for a few years—they could burn only for a few
moments—but their God threatened to imprison and burn
forever ; and their God is as much worse than they were,
as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“ John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated
by Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one Vicar
of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and that these
men were “ the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen
of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose
cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to
the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than twelve years of
age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his suc
cessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to
describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The
people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides
and his abominations, rose against him, and in despair of
maintaining his position, he put up his papacy to auction,
and it was bought by a Presbyter named John, who
became Gregory VI., in the year of grace 1045. Well
may we ask, Were these the Vicegerents of God upon
earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond
which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass ?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “ some two hundred and fifty-eight ” Vicars
of Christ there were probably some good men. This
would have happened even if the intention had been to
get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfec
�24
ROME OR REASON.
tion neither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected
by Christ himself, if they were selected by a Church with
a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is
no way to account for the selection of a bad one. If one
hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer, one
strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes
were selected by men, and by men only, that the claim
of divine guidance is born of zeal and uttered without
knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many have
there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not know.
He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St. Peter to
Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty
eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the whole
Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of
Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word “some"?
Why “ claiming ” ? Does he positively know ? Is it
possible that the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as
to the number of his predecessors ? Is he infallible in
faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely,—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “the pope speaks to many people
in many nations : that he treats with empires and govern
ments,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from
Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisation.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists
put the hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be
lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ? Is not the
Church weakest at its centre ? Do those who have raised
�ROME OR REASON.
25
Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the
great nations, pay attention ? Does Great Britain care for
this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages ?
Do the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the
Great Republic ? Can anything be more absurd than for
the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science
with a passage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of
the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that
chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people.
If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if
Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe had
assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been as
virtuous as popes. But if this had happened, the verdict
of the world would be that the people are not capable of
selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of
God, and the supernatural Church, “ are being tormented
by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.” In
other words, this representative of God, this substitute of
Christ, this Church of divine origin, this supernatural
institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are being
“ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it possible that
this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other ?*
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden is
upon them.”
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
�26
ROME OR REASON.
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commenc
ing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered,
until it was believed that the sky bent above a subjugated
world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there
was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies of
Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
(older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan.
Long before popes began to murder each other, pagans ate
cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood of
Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile,
priests interceded for the people, and anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most religions
there has been a strange mingling of the good and bad,
of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and malicious.
Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man,
insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion
was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by
�ROME OR REASON.
27
persuasion and by kindness—yet in many things it wag
contrary to the human will, contrary to the human pas
sions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded.
Can we, for this reason, say that it is a supernatural
religion ? Is the unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every
Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the same ; it
must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic Church
has not grown—that it has been petrified from the first—
does not establish divine origin ; itsimply establishes the
fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in
nature changes—every atom is in motion—every star
moves. Nations, institutions and individuals have youth,
manhood, old age, death. This is and will be true of the
Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew stronger—
it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it
never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of
Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it
cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to disinte
gration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural. All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When the
acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it and
the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “ all natural
causes ” do not “ run to disintegration.” But there comes
a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the
forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally
the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if “ all
natural causes run to disintegration,” then every success
�28
ROME OR REASON.
must have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural
but destruction. This is Catholic science : “ All natural
causes run to disintegration.” What do these causes find
to disintegrate ? Nothing that is natural. The fact that
the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of
supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only
business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural.
To prevent this, the supernatural needs the protection of
the Infinite. According to this doctrine, if anything
lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature. Growth,
then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to
nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats the dis
integrating influences of rain and light. The generalisa
tion of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be
equally true to say : All natural causes run to integration.
But the whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created by
the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes at
this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the
work of their own hands ; they did not make it, but they
have for three hundred years been unmaking it by refor
mations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years ; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time, Phillip II. was king of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the in?
quisition was firmly established, and priests were busy
with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of
man and the love of God, the Church with every
instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human
body.
�ROME OR REASON.
29
In those happy clays the Duke qf Alva was devastating
the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive—their
tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids from
their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the destruction
of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million
and a half of industrious people—were being driven by
Sword and flame from their homes. The dews had been
expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had suc
ceeded in driving intelligence and industry from its
territory ; and this had been done with cruelty, with a
ferocity, unequalled in the*annals of crime. Nothing
was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the
Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly
Sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century,
living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets the change that
has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by the dis
coveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred
years.
Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son
of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after
nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after
hundreds of vicars of ^Christ had sat in St. Peter’s chair—
after the’natural passions of man had been “ softened ” by
the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew, the result of a conspiracy between the Vicar of
Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish mother.
Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre once
more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of
Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the Infinite,
persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great’
this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had ventured
to assert the rotary motion of the earth ; he had hazarded
the conjecture that there were in the fields of infinite
space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. For
these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction
of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned
for many years. But his noble spirit was not broken,
and finally in the year 1600, by the orders of the infam
ous Vicar, he was chained to the stake. Priests believing
�30
ROME OR REASON.
in the doctrine of universal forgiveness—priests who
when smitten upon one cheek turned the other—carried
with a kind of ferocious joy faggots to the feet of this
incomparable man. These disciples of “Our Lord” were
made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around
the body of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker
was dead, and the priests who had burned him fell upon
their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the
blessed work for ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquisition are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe1
?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church—in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin—if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that God
exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and good—
and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is
foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed the following :
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the Catholic faith.”
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more im
portant than conduct. The most important of all things
is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were thousands
of years during which it was not necessary to hold that
faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during
that time the virtues were just as important as now, just
as important as they ever can be. Millions of the noblest
of the human race never heard of this creed. Millions
of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and
rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed
it, and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their
�ROME OR REASON.
31
belief^ have murdered millions of their fellows. We
know that men can be, have been, and are just as wicked
with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary
to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self
denying. We admit that millions who have believed it
have also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions,
by such belief, were not prevented from torturing and
destroying the helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “ whoever will be saved, before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
u Which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth : The
believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We
know that faith is not the child or servant of the will.
We know that belief is a conclusion based upon what the
mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act
of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a
man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the
truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn
a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.
It resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the
creed is true, then a man rejects it because he lacks
intelligence. Is this a crime for which a man should
everlastingly perish ? If the creed is false, then a man
accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases
the crime is exactly the same. If a man is to be damned
for rejecting the truth, certainly he should not be saved
for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates
that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not
write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of
men who had neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this :
■“ That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ? Why
�32
ROME OR REASON.
should one God wish to be worshipped as three ? Why
should three Gods wish to be worshipped as one ? Why
should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to
three Gods and think of one ? Can this increase the
happiness of the one or of the three ? Is it possible to
think of one as three, or of three as one ? If you think
of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none
as one ? When you think of three as one, what do you
do with the other two ? You must not “ confound the
persons ”—they must be kept separate. When you think
of one as three, how do you get the other two ? You
must not “divide the substance.” Is it possible to write
greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason—for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered,
unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed ; one who loved to see fear upon its
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors ; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh ; he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fe
was a divine comedy.
The shrieks of wives, the
cries of babes when fathers were being burned,
gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup
with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the
earth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the
�BOMB OR REASON.
33
stars. > “ The stream of light which descended from the
beginning” was propagated by faggot to faggot, until
Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of
faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
Sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousandsfor the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to man their own relation toa Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics tothe Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of Mexico,
of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these
victims were taught to regard the true God as a loving
Father, and this lesson was taught with every instrument
of torture—with brandings and burnings, with Sayings and
flames. The world was filled with cruelty and credulity,
ignorance and intolerance and the soil in which all these
horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God,,
and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet,
we are compelled to say, that the one true Devil described
by the Catholic Church was not as malevolent as the one
true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship of
popes—of the doctrine of the Real presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuit5r in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithfulsoftened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
•
c
�34
ROME OR REASON,
assistance of forces that were above nature; ” and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement :
“Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacra
ment, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that
celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a sacra
ment—that marriage is not the highest state, but that
« the state of virginity unto death is thejhighest condition
of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can in
terfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public
to the end that the real contract may be known, so that
the world can see that the parties have been actuated by
the highest and holiest motives that find expression in
the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not
joined together by God, or by the Church, or by the
State. The Church and State may prescribe certain
•ceremonies, certain formalities—but all these are only
•evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the heaits of
the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma
that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.
It has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality.
Fear has borne children begotten by brutality. ^Countless
women have endured the insults, indignities and cruelties
■of fiendish husbands, because they thought that it was
the will of God. The contract of marriage is the most
important that human beings can make ; but no contract
can be so important as to release one of the parties from
the obligation of performance ; and no contract, whether
made between man and woman, or between them and
God, after a failure of consideration caused by the wilful
�HOME OR REASON.
35
act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent
and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago, a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her :
“ Do not touch me ; you have no right to beat me ; I am
not your wife.”
About a year ago, a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in the
indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming enraged,
seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.
She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately
repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim totally
blind. Would it not have been better if man, before
the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom
God had joined together? Thousands of husbands,
who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are the b eaters
of wives.
The Law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one wom'an. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family • and back
of all your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is
the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of. Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman ; made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “ fathers ” denounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The Church
worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had
pronounced his curse on woman, and had declared
that she should be the serf of the husband. This Church
followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the un
cleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were
�36
' ROME OR REASON.
conceived in sin. This Church pretended to have been
founded by one who offered a reward in this world, and
eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would forsake
their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend
to the elevation of woman ? Did this detestable doctrine
“create the purity and peace of domestic life’ ? Is it
true that a monk is purer than a good and noble father .
that a nun is holier than a loving mother ?
?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother 8
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most use
ful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers and
holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good and
not for the benefit of others. They are earning eternal
glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their fellow
men, their selfishness is only equalled by their foolish
ness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, counting
beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his
barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his
fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with
the mother and her babe.
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left worth
livino- for. The Church has treated this great, this
sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human
love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,
because man does not love God for God’s sake but for
his own. •
,
i 4.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought by
Christianity in the social, political and international
relations of the world’’-“that the root of this ethical,
change, private and public, is the Christian home.
A
moment afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is
far better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live in accordance with the “ highest state, this gene
ration would be the last. Why were men and women
created ? Why did not the Catholic God commence with
the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal ought to take the
�ROME OR REASON.
37
ground that to talk well is good, but that to be dumb is
the highest condition; that hearing is a pleasure, but that
deafness is ecstasy ; and that to think, to reason, is very
well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings and what
is left ? The great object should be not to destroy
passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To
indulge passion to the utmost is one form of intemper
ance, to destroy passion is another. The reasonable
gratification of passion under the domination of the
intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun,
of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct—all were produced by human affection,
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two lives
unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a melody.
Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the world
borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,
self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love.
Jjover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these
words shed light—they are the gems of human speech.
Without love all glory fades, the noble falls from life, art
dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of
the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal
then asks : “ Who will ascribe this to natural causes,
and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four thousand
years ? ”
If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature—if
this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal
that such religion must be of divine origin. Is it “against
the tendencies of human nature ” for a mother to throw
her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet
a religion that insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and
has, to-day, more believers than the Catholic Church can
boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
.gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
�38
ROME OR REASON.
“ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that
man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected
by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he is super
stitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed, if
he perceives clearly that all things are naturally produced,
he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scientific. He
is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philo
sopher. He does not worship, he works; he investigates ;
he thinks ; he takes advantage, through intelligence, of
the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim of
appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the
persecutor of his fellow men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier
than the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance
and fear.
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
What was the world when science came ?
What
was it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler ?
What was it when printing was invented ? What was it
when the Western World was found ? Would it not be
much easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it developes the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah prac
tically abandoned the children of men for four thousand
years, and gave them over to every abomination. He
claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness of time,
and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness of time
may mean is one of the mysteries of times and seasons,
that it is not for us to know.” Having declared that it is
a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal
explains it : “ One motive for the long delay of four
thousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and
�ROME OR REASON.
39
ample, for the utmost development and consolidation of
all the falsehood and evil of which the intellect and will
of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ” ?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this development
and consolidation ? What would be thought of a father
who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to drown
a world just for the want of a supernatural religion—a
religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish ? Was
there “ husbandry in heaven ” ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is it
possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man
can do without God, and I assert that the history of the
Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted by a
church of divine origin, presided over by the infallible
vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the test
of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been
�40
ROME OR REASON.
founded in precisely the same way. The credulity of
eighteen hundred years ago believed everything except
the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that. “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature
in all nations and all ages to this day.” What becomes of
the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin
because “ it has ascended the stream of human licence,
contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier than
nature ” ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and all ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against
the stream. How then can it be said that Christianity
has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has
marred it ? To what extent has man marred it ? In spite
of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and
moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in
harmony with the religion of Jesus Christ.
Are we justified in saying that the' Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy.Catholicism by persecutions
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution ;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecu
tion ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
�ROME OR REASON.
41
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and
Protestantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to which
no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear com
parison “ that the world-wide and secular legislation of
the Church was of a higher character, and that as water
cannot rise above its source, the Church could not, by
mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the
imperial law, and therefore its source must have been
higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon
Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most part,
original. In my judgment, the legislation of the Repub
lic of the United States is in many respects superior to
that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the
Common Law ; but it never occurred to me that our
Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon
Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft to take
interest for money. Without the right to take interest
the business of the world would, to a large extent, cease
and the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways
enough in the United States to make six tracks around
the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money
on which interest was paid or promised. In no other
way could the savings of many thousands have been
brought together and a capital great enough formed to
construct works of such vast and continental import
ance.
�42
ROME OR REASON.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the man
who had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth.
A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a
Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the
husband and father murder his wife and children, and
the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge
the name of the murderer. The world is wiser now, and
the Canon Law, given to us by infinite wisdom, has been
repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four ; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour ;' a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses
were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ; of a
deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made,
not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated per
sons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say : “ Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever a
garment of fire”? Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the
dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates confiscated
—that is to say, their widows and orphans robbed. The
most brutal part of the common law of England is that in
relation to the right of women—all of which was taken
from the Corpus Juris Canonist, “ the law that came
from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the
pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would not
live with the other who continued still an unbeliever.
Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of
�ROME OR REASON.
43:
his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided
she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers.
Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was
declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It'
has been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being
witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with devils.
Thousands perished at the stake, having been convicted
of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law, there
was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or
woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected,,
and under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of
infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt.
The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all
civilised courts, the presumption of innocence is theshield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took away this
shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of
presumptive guilt.
If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd
of the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the
vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded
church ought to know its own shepherd, and yet the
Catholic sheep have not always been certain who theshepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—
rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action
was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy
Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit.
The council then elected another vicar, whose authority
was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died, and John
XXIII. took his place ; Gregory XII. insisted that he
was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he was de
posed, and afterwards imprisoned; then Gregory XII.
resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole thing
reads like the annals of a South American Revolution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
�44
ROME OR REASON.
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great council
John Huss appeared and maintained his own tenets.
The council declared that the Church was not bound to
keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned
and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple,
Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having relapsed, was put
to death, May 30th, 1416. This cursed council shed the
blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Ecce Homo for
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted :
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who has
entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol
of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively the
origin of civil society ? He who can do these things can
explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says that
the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to find
and describe than that which unites men—than that
which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union—no harder to describe than th®
origin of civil society—because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
■climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and
swarms.
If we know anything we know that language is natural
—that it is a physical science. But if we take the ground
occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that everything
that cannot be accounted for by man, is supernatural.
Let me ask, by what man ? What man must we take as
the standard ? Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or
Darwin ? If everything that we cannot account for is
above nature, then ignorance is the test of the super
natural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where
his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does
not know. JSuch a man is a philosopher. Then the
�ROME OR REASON.
45
theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty of the
philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is
beyond the horizon of the human intellect.
■ Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the tele
phone by natural causes? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest
interest "in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow and
insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is un
fortunately lost, contained either to. 7rpcoTeia, or some
inflection of 7rp<DTeva>, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome rests on some “ inflection ” of a Greek word—and
that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to
have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the
following ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out: ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ”
Is it
possible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been
a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from
the following statement concerning this Father: “When
any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence he
would stop his ears.” After this, there can be no question
�46
ROME OR,REASON.
of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a
martyr—that a spear was run through his body and
that from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew
away. The history of his death is just as true as the
history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if oneof his inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. . All of these Fathers were familiar with won
ders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common with
them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they
not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order of
nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said,
or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There were
many centuries filled with forgeries, many generations in
which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased, oblite
rated and interpolated the records of the past, during
which they invented books, invented authors, and quoted
from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the slightest
value. They believed everything, they examined nothing.
They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever
accepts their testimony will exclaim with the Cardinal :
“ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. No. 65a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N390
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/800fc040e22b699c8089dfc59e0bace9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WRLubWIz-TDz8XzZImyP75p%7EQ4j0oGQVY0t6-TSFNyq2mP%7EDOmHI9bS6kRRYjziF6ljaCo8zn2FYue4wI9ysEOQLT41fYIKt7QpcGDLg5avhhCSfvIBdNlGNHxE7cJZbuk9v-oQ-Hfyaf-JQlQfYJ3AXpoLb17-dKJDW9pKDIVjKR12d0xzcXj3VE0Za-PQfoY-pXE5gtkAWjnwu-zOOK0WINChYV7Mydaa9UgoXMaaJLRbrCV0IRtre26cpYuSm40304nbHEgLya8UndyoTqGcjxdUal%7Ehcu%7E2KLEpGZEVq9peZRYQVWdxkH3J%7E7r-8lkwID5amcv7xam4W-drmpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3cc2425044d0a6626c12de58fa51760d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SEOULS SOCIETY
DO I BLASPHEME?
AN ORATION
>
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
B. FOBDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1893.
�Do I Blaspheme ?
Ladies and Gentlemen,—Nothing can be more
certain than that no human being can by any possi
bility control his thought. We are in this world—we
see, we hear, we feel, we taste; and everything in
nature makes an impression upon the brain, and that
wonderful something enthroned there, with these
materials, weaves what we call thought, and the brain
can no more help thinking than the heart can help
beating. The blood pursues its old accustomed round
without our will. The heart beats without asking leave
of us, and the brain thinks in spite of all we can do.
This being true, no human being can justly be held
responsible for his thought, any more than for the
beating of his heart, any more than for the course pur
sued by the blood, any more than for his breathing the
air. And yet, for thousands of years, thought has
been held to be a crime, and thousands and millions
have threatened us with eternal fire if we give to others
the product of our brain I Each brain, in my judg
ment, is a field where nature sows the seed of thought,
and thought is the crop that man reaps, and it certainly
cannot be a crime to gather it; it certainly cannot be
crime to tell it, which simply amounts to the right to
sell your crop or exchange your product for the product
of another man’s brain. That is all it is. Most brains
—at least some—are rather poor fields, and the orthodox
�( 5 )
the sea, was better than prayers, better than the
influence of priests; and that you had better have a
good captain on board, attending to business, than
thousands of priests ashore praying.
We also found that we could cure some diseases, and
just as soon as we found that we could cure disease we
dismissed the priest. We have left him out now of all
of them, except it may be cholera and small-pox.
When visited by a plague some people get frightened
enough to go back to the old idea—to go back to the
priest—and the priest says, “ It has been sent as a
punishment.” Well, sensible people began to look
about; they saw that the good died as readily as the
bad; they saw that disease would attack the dimpled
child in the cradle and allow the murderer to go un
punished ; and so they began to think, in time, that
it was not sent as a punishment; that it was a natural
result; and thus the priest has stepped out of medicine.
In agriculture we need him no longer; he has nothing
to do with the crops. All the clergymen in this world
can never get one drop of rain out of the sky; and all
the clergymen in the civilised world cannot save one
human life. They tried it. Oh, but they say, “We
do not expect a direct answer to prayer ; it is the reflex
action we are after.” It is like a man endeavoring to
lift himself up by the straps of his boots ; he will never
do it, but he will get a great deal of useful exercise.
The missionary goes to some pagan land and there finds
a man praying to a god of stone, and it excites the
wrath of the good man. I ask you to-night, does not
that god answer prayer just as well as ours? Does he
not cause rain ? Does he not delay frost ? Does he
not snatch the ones that we love from the grasp of
death, precisely the same as others ? Is not the reflex
action as wholesome in his case as in ours ? Yet we
have ministers that are still engaged in that business.
They tell us that they have been “ called ”; that they
do not go into their profession as other people do, but
�( 7 )
take from the world the solace of orthodox Christi
anity ? ” What is that solace ? Let us he honest.
What is it ? If the Christian religion be true, thegrandest, greatest, noblest of the world are now in
hell, and the narrowest and meanest are now in
heaven. Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science,, the
most learned man of the most learned nation—with a
mind grand enough to grasp not simply this globe, but
this constellation—a man who shed light upon the
whole earth, a man who honored human nature, and
who won all his victories upon the field of thought—
that man, pure and upright, noble beyond description,
if Christianity be true, is in hell this moment. That
is what they call “solace,” “tidings of great joy.”
La Place, who read the heavens like an open book, who
enlarged the horizon of human thought, is there too,
Beethoven, master of melody and harmony, who added
to the joy of human life, and who has borne upon the
wings of harmony and melody millions of spirits to the
heights of joy, with his heart still filled with melody—
he is in hell to-day. Robert Burns, poet of love and
liberty, from whose heart like a spring gurgling and
running down the highways have come poems that have
filled the world with music and added lustre to human
love—that man who, in four lines, gave all the philo
sophy of human life; he is there with the rest.
Charles Dickens, whose genius will be a perpetual
shield, saving thousands and millions of children from
blows; who did more to make us tender with children
than any other writer that ever touched a pen—he is
there with the rest, according to our Christian reli
gion. A little while ago there died in this country a
philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, a man of the
loftiest ideal, a perfect model of integrity, whose mind
was like a placid lake and reflected truths like stars.
If the Christian religion be true, he is in perdition
to-night. And yet he sowed the seeds of thought, and
raised the whole world intellectually to a high plane.
�()
greatest woman the English-speaking people ever pro
duced ; she is with the rest. And this doctrine is called
“ glad tidings of great joy.”
Who are in heaven ? How could there be much "of
a heaven without the men I have named, the great men
who have endeavored to make the world grander; such
men as Voltaire, such men as Diderot, such men as the
•encyclopedists, such men as Hume, such men as Bruno,
such men as Thomas Paine ? If Christianity is true,
that man who spent his life in breaking chains is now
wearing the chains of God; that man who wished to
break down the prison walls of tyranny is now in the
prison of the most merciful Christ. It wrill not do. I
can hardly express to you to-night my contempt for
such a doctrine; and if it be true, I make my choice
to-day, and I prefer hell.
Who is in heaven? John Calvin I John Knox!
Jonathan Edwards ! Torquemada !—the builders of
dungeons; the men who have obstructed the march of
the human race. These are the men who are in
heaven; and who else ? Those who never had brain
enough to harbor a doubt. And they ask me : “ How
can you be wicked enough to attack the Christian
religion ?”
“ Oh,” but they say, “ God will never forgive you if
you attack the orthodox religion.” Now, when I read
the history of this world, and when I think of my
fellow men; when I think of the millions living in
poverty, and when I know that in the very air we
Breathe and the sunlight that visits our homes there
lurks an assassin ready to take our lives, and even when
we believe we are in the fulness of health and joy, they
are undermining us with their contagion—when I know
that we are surrounded by all these evils, and when I
think what man has suffered, I do not wonder if God
can forgive man, but I do often ask myself, “ Can man
forgive God?”
There is another thing. Some of these ministers—
�(11)
ing at the map. What is blasphemy ? It is what the
mistake says about the fact. It is what last year’s leaf
says about this year’s bud. It is the last cry of the
defeated priest. Blasphemy is the little breastwork
behind which hypocrisy hides; behind which mental
impotency feels safe. There is no blasphemy but the
open avowal of your honest thought, and he who
speaks as he thinks blasphemes.
What is the next thing? That I have had the
hardihood—it doesn’t take much—to attack the
sacred Scriptures. I have simply given my opinion.
And yet they tell me that the book is holy—that you
can make rags, make pulp, put ink on it, bind it in
leather, and make something holy. The Catholics have
a man for a Pope ; the Protestants have a book. The
Catholics have the best of it. If they elect an idiot
he will not last for ever, but it is impossible for us to
get rid of the barbarisms in our book. The Catholics
said, “We will not let the common people read the
Bible.” That was right. If it is necessary to believe
it in order to get to heaven, no man should run the risk
. of reading it. To allow a man to read the Bible on
such conditions was to set a trap for his soul. The
right way is never to open it, and when you get to the
day of judgment, and they ask you if you believe it,
say, “ Yes, I have never read it.” The Protestant gives
the book to a poor man and says, “ Read it, you are at
liberty to read.” “ Well, suppose I don’t believe it
when I get through?” “ Then you will be damned.”
No man should be allowed to read it on these conditions.
And yet Protestants have done that infinitely cruel
thing. If I thought it was necessary to believe it I
would say, never read another line in it, but just believe
it and stick to it. And yet these people really think
that there is something miraculous about that book.
They regard it as a fetish—a kind of amulet—a some
thing charmed, that will keep off evil spirits, or bad
luck; stop bullets, or do a thousand handy things for
�( 13 )
potence is simply all-powerful, and what good would
strength do with nothing ? The weakest man ever born
could lift as much nothing as God. And he could do
as much with it after he got it lifted. And yet a
doctor of divinity tells me that this world was made of
omnipotence.
And right here let me say that I find even in the
mind of this clergyman the seeds of infidelity. He is
trying to explain things. That is a bad symptom. The
greater the miracle the greater the reward for believing
it. God cannot afford to reward a man for believing
anything reasonable. Why, even the scribes and
Pharisees would believe a reasonable thing. Do you
suppose God is to crown you with eternal joy, and give
you a musical instrument for believing something when
the evidence is clear? No, sir ! The larger the miracle
the more the faith. And let me advise ministers of
Chicago, and of this country, never to explain a miracle.
A miracle cannot be explained. If you succeed in
explaining it, the miracle is gone. If you fail, you are
gone I My advice to the clergy is, use assertion; just
say, “ it is so,” and the larger the miracle the greater
the glory reaped in believing it. And yet this man is
trying to explain, pretending that God had some raw
material of some kind on hand.
And then I objected to the fact that he didn't make
the sun until the fourth day, and that, consequently,
the grass could not have grown ; could not have thrown
its mantle of green over the shoulders of the hill, and
that the trees could not blossom and cast their shade
upon the sod without some sunshine. And what does
this man say ? Why, that the rocks, when they crys
tallised, emitted light—even enough to raise a crop by.
And he says, “ Vegetation must have depended on the
glare of volcanoes in the moon.” What do you think
would be the fate of agriculture depending on “ the
glare of volcanoes in the moon ” ? Then he says “ the
aurora borealis.” Why, you couldn’t raise cucumbers
�( 15 )
us believe that the infinite God of the universe made
the worm that was at the root of Jonah’s vine on
purpose to vex Jonah. Great business I
The theologians admit that David and Solomon didmany bad things, but they say the wrath of God pur
sued them, and they were punished for their crimes.
And yet David is said to have been “ a man after God’s
own heart,” and if you will read the twenty-eighth
chapter of first Chronicles you will find that David
died full of years and honors. So I find in the great
book of prophecy, concerning Solomon: “ He shall
reign in peace and quietness, he shall be my son, and I
will be his father, and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom for ever.” Was that true ? Does that look
like “ being pursued by the wrath of God ? ”
It won’t do. But they say God couln’t do away
with slavery suddenly, nor with polygamy all at once;
that he had to do it gradually, that if he had told these
Jews you mustn’t have slaves, and one man that he
must have one wife, and one wife that she must have
one husband, he would have lost the control over them
notwithstanding all the miraculous power he had dis
played. . Is it not wonderful that, when they did all
these miracles, nobody paid any attention to them?
Isn’t it wonderful that, in Egypt, when he performed
these wonders, when the waters were turned into
blood, when all the people were smitten with disease
and covered with horrible animals, isn’t it wonderful
that it had no influence on them ? Do you know why
all these miracles didn’t affect the Egyptians ? They
were there at the time. Isn’t it wonderful, too, that
the Jews who had been brought from bondage, had
followed cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, who
had been miraculously fed, and for whose benefit
water had leaped from the rocks and followed them up
and down hill through all their journeyings, isn’t it
wonderful when they had seen the earth opened and
their companions swallowed, when they had seen God
�( 17 )
foundling hospital, “ Home for Religious Liberty 1”
It won’t do.
, ,
, .
What is the next thing I have said 1 1 have taken
the ground, and I take it again to-day, that the Bible
has only words of humiliation for women. 1 he Bible
treats woman as the slave, the serf, of man, and
wherever that book is believed in thoroughly woman is
a slave. It is the infidelity in the Church that gives
her what liberty she has to-day. Oh, but says the
gentleman, think of the heroines of the Bible. How
could a book be opposed to woman which has pictured
such heroines ? IVell, that is a good argument.
® s
answer it. Who are the heroines ? The first is Esther.
Who was she 1 Esther is a very peculiar book, and
the story is about this :—Ahasuerus was a king.
is
wife’s name was Vashti. She didn t please him. He
divorced her and advertised for another. A gentleman
by the name of Mordecai had a good-looking niece, and
he took her to market. Her name was Esther. 1
don’t feel like reading the whole of the second chapter,
giving the details of the mode of selection. It is suffi
cient to say she was selected. After a time there was a
gentleman by the name of Haman, who, I should think,
was the cabinet, according to the story. And this man
Mordecai began to put on considerable style because
his niece was the king’s wife, and he would not bow,
and he would not rise, or he would not meet this gentle
man with marks of distinguished consideration, so he
made up his mind to have Mordecai hanged, lhen
they got out an order to kill the Jews, and Esther went
to see the king. In these days they believed in the
Bismarckian style of government-all power came from
the king, not from the people, and if anybody went to
see the king without an invitation, and he failed to
hold out his sceptre to him, the person was killed, just
to preserve the dignity of the monarch. When Esther
arrived he held out the sceptre, and thereupon she
induced him to rescind the order for killing the Jews,
l
�.(19)
comes from the tomb, and I think that sometimes there
must be some mistake about it, because when he came
to die again thousands of people would say, “ Why,
he knows all about it.” Would it not be noted?
Would it not be noted if a man had two funerals?
You know it is a very rare thing for a man to have
two funerals.
Now, then, these are all the heroines they bring
forward to show you how much they thought of woman
in that day. In the days of the Old Testament they
did not even tell us when the mother of us all (Eve)
died, nor where she is buried, nor anything about it.
They do not even tell us where the mother of Christ
sleeps, nor when she did. Never is she spoken of after
the morning of the resurrection. He who descended
from the cross went not to see her; and the son had no
word for the broken-hearted mother.
The story is not true. I believe Christ was a great
and good man, but he had nothing about him miraculous
except the courage to tell what he thought about the
religion of his day. The New Testament, in relating
what occurred between Christ and his mother, mentions
three instances. Once, when they thought he had been
lost in Jerusalem, when he said to them, “Wist ye not
that I must be about my father’s business ?” Next, at
the marriage of Cana, when he said to his mother,
“ Woman, what have I to do with thee ?”—words
which he never said; and again from the cross, “Mother,
behold thy son”; and to the disciple, “Behold thy
mother!”
J
So of Mary Magdalene. In some respects there is
no character in the New Testament that so appeals to
us as one who truly loved Christ. She was first at the
sepulchre ; and yet when he meets her, after the resur
rection, he had for her the comfort only of the chilling
words, “ Touch me not?” I don’t believe it. There
were thousand of heroic women then, there are thou
sands of heroic women now. Think of women who
�(21 )
good in the neighborhood where she resides. I have
never had any other opinion. I was endeavoring to
show that we are now to have an aristocracy of brain
and heart—that is all; and 1 said, speaking of Louis
Napoleon, that he was not satisfied with simply being
an emperor, and having a little crown on his head, but
wanted to prove that he had something in his head, so
he wrote the life of Julius Cossar, and that made him
a member of the French Academy; and speaking of
King William, upon whose head had been poured the
divine petroleum of authority, I asked how he would,
like to ^change brains with Haeckel, the philosopher.
Then I went over to England, and said, “ Queen Vic
toria wears the garments of power given her by blind
fortune, by eyeless chance, whilst George Eliot is
arrayed in robes of glory woven in the loom of her own
genius.” Thereupon I am charged with disparaging a
woman. And this priest, in order to get even with me,
digs open the grave of George Eliot and endeavors to
stain her unresisting dust. He calls her an adulteress
—the vilest word in the languages of men, and he
does it because she hated the Presbyterian creed;
because she, according to his definition, was an Atheist;
because she lived without faith and died without fear;
because she grandly bore the taunts and slanders of the
Christian world. George Eliot carried tenderly in her
heart the faults and frailties of her race. She saw the
highway of eternal right through all the winding paths
where folly vainly plucks with thorn-pierced hands the
fading flowers of selfish joy; and whatever you may
think, or I may think, of the one mistake in all her sad
and loving life, I know and feel that in the court where
her conscience sat as judge, she stood acquitted pure
as light and stainless as a star. George Eliot has
joined the choir invisible, whose music is the gladness
of this world, and her wondrous lines, her touching
poems, will be read hundreds of years after every
sermon in which a priest has sought to stain her name
�( 23 )
should say, “ That can’t be; the Herald has the largest
circulation of any paper in the world.”
Three hundred millions of Christians, and here are
the nations that prove the truth of Christianity—
Russia, 80,000,000 of Christians, I am willing to admit
it, a country without freedom of speech, without
freedom of press, a country in which every mouth is a
bastile and every tongue a prisoner for life, a country
in which assassins are the best men in it. They call
that Christian. Girls sixteen years of age, for having
spoken in favor of human liberty, are now working in
Siberian mines. That is a Christian country. Only a
little while ago a man shot at the Emperor twice. The
Emperor was protected by his armor. The man was
convicted, and they asked him if he wished religious
consolation. “ No.” “ Do you believe in a God ?”
“ If there was a God there would be no Russia.”
Sixteen millions of Christians in Spain; Spain, that
never touched a shore except as a robber ; Spain, that
took the gold and silver of the New World and used
it as an engine of oppression in the old; a country in
which cruelty was worship and murder was prayer, a
country where flourished the Inquisition. I admit that
Spain is a Christian country. If you don’t believe it
I do. Read the history of Holland, read the history of
South America, read the history of Mexico—a chapter
of cruelty beyond the power of language to express.
I admit that Spain is orthodox. If you go there you
will find the man wh© robs you and who asks God to
forgive you, both Christians! Spain is a country
where infidelity has not made much headway, but
where we see now a little dawn of a brighter day,
where such men as Castelar and others, who begin to
see that one school-house is equal to three cathedrals,
and one teacher worth all the priests. Italy is another
Christian nation, with 28,000,000 of Christians. In
Italy lives “ the only authorised agent ” of God—the
Pope. For hundreds of years Italy was the beggar of
�( 25 )
Pagan; it is human. Our fathers retired all the gods
from politics. Our fathers laid down the doctrine that
the right to govern comes, not from the clouds, but from
the consent to be governed. Our fathers knew that •
if they put an infinite God into the Constitution there
would be no room left for the people. Our fathers
used the language of Lincoln, and they made a govern
ment of the people, for the people, by the people.
This is not a Christian country. A gentleman, in one
of my lectures, interrupted me to ask, “ How about
Delaware ?” I replied : There was a man in Washing
ton, some twenty or thirty years ago, who came there
and said he was a Revolutionary soldier and wanted
a pension. He was so bent and bowed over that the
wind blew his shoe-strings into his eyes. They asked
him how old he was, and he said fifty years. “ Why,
good man, you can’t get a pension, because the war
was over before you were born. You mustn’t fool us.”
“ Well,” said he, “ I’ll tell you the truth; I lived sixty
years in Delaware, but 1 never count those years, and
hope God won’t.” And these Christian nations which
have been brought forward as the witnesses of the
truth of the Scriptures, owe 25,000,000,000 dols.,
which represents Christian war, Christian swords,
Christian cannon, Christian shot, and Christian shell.
The sum is so great that the imagination is dazed in
its contemplation. That is the result of loving your
neighbor as yourself.
The next great argument brought forward by these
gentlemen is the persecution of the Jews. We are
told in the nineteenth century that God has the Jews
persecuted simply for the purpose of establishing the
authenticity of the Scriptures, and that every Jewish
home burned in Russia throws light on the gospel, and
every violated Jewish maiden is another instance that
God still takes an interest in the holy Scriptures. That
is their doctrine. They are “ fulfilling prophecy.”
The Christian grasps the Jew, strips him, robs him,
�( 27 )
cerity of the martyr, and the barbarity of his persecutors.
That is all it proves. But you must remember that this
gentleman who believes in this doctrine is a Presbyterian,
and why should a Presbyterian object ? After a few
hundred years of burning he expects to enjoy the
eternal auto-da-fe of hell—an auto-da-fe that will
be presided over by God and his angels, and
they will be expected to applaud. He is a Presby
terian ; and what is that ? It is the worst religion of
this earth. I admit that thousands and millions of
Presbyterians are good people—no man ever being half
so bad as his creed. I am not attacking them. I am
attacking their creed. I am attacking what this
religion calls “ Glad tidings of great joy.” And accord
ing to these “ tidings,” hundreds of billions and billions
of years ago our fate was irrevocably and for ever
fixed; and God, in the secret counsels of his own in
scrutable will, made up his mind whom he would save
and whom he would damn. When thinking of that
God I always think of a mistake of a Methodist
minister during the war. He commenced the prayer—
and never did one more appropriate for the Presby
terian or Methodist God go up—“ O, thou great and
unscrupulous God.” This Presbyterian believes that
billions of years before that baby in the cradle—that
little dimpled child basking in the light of a mother’s
smile—w’as born, God had made up' his mind to damn
it; and when Talmage looks at one of those children
who will probably be damned he is cheerful about it;
he enjoys it. That is Presbyterianism—that God made
man and damned him for his own glory. If there is
such a God I hate him with every drop of my blood;
and if there is a heaven it must be where he is not.
Now think of that doctrine I Only a little while ago
there was a ship from Liverpool out eighty days with
the rudder washed away: for ten days nothing to eat
—nothing but bare decks and hunger ; and the captain
took a revolver in his hand, put it to his brain and said,
�(29 )
The Bible is not inspired. Ministers know nothing
about another world. They don’t know. I am satis
fied there is no world of eternal pain. If there is a
world of joy, so much the better. I have never put
out the faintest star of human hope that ever trembled
in the night of life. All I can say is, there was a time
when I was not: after that I was ; now I am. And it
is just as probable that I will live again as it was that
I could have lived before I did.
But they say to me, “ If we let the churches go,
what will be left ? ” The world will still be here.
Men and women will be here. The page of history
will be here. The walls of the world will be adorned
with art, the niches rich with sculpture; music will be
here, and all there is of life and joy. And there will be
homes here and the fireside, and there will be a common
hope without a common fear. Love will be here, and
love is the only bow on life’s dark cloud. Love was the
first to dream immortality. Love is the morning and
the evening star. It shines upon the cradle; it sheds
its radiance upon the peaceful tomb. Love is the mother
of melody, for music is its voice. Love is the builder of
every home, the kindler of every fire upon every hearth.
Love is the enchanter, the magician that changes
worthless things to joy, and makes right royal kings
and queens of common clay. Love is the perfume of
that wondrous flower, the heart. Without that sacred
passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts, and
with it earth is heaven, and we are gods.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
16
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
". 0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler ...
...
...
... 0 4
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
0 3
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE
...
...
0 3
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
" 0 3
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
..
0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
... o 2
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
.
0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
...
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
...
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
o 2
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
..’
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE*’
0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
...
.’
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
” o 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
.
0 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
o 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
0 1
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
0 ,
LIVE TOPICS
...
”■ 0 j
REAL BLASPHEMY
..’
0 1
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
..
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
”* 0 1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Do I blaspheme? an oration
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 29 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 76b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N341
G5788
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Do I blaspheme? an oration), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/942bcdae16dcac69905eac62b6a49dd7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZPiscNk6milv67Kb8l1CC2yZ%7EZweSjuqjkGzDiQt-f7QIR283-7f%7ESGn%7ESzpKWNqSxTFzO2iDlM1WyImFmNBQRYHocbUvTKHi1mCegHOGTincd7GBHyOLdLnNCNRknvVE0635b0-%7EK%7E8AjoA24oNEXX722gsmZG4QHT%7EypvkO6ApmqISboSPmv-EmILH8tOnYvG%7EaBe5WZf2XhKKX94YUjVMyWbihGth9qeuZyiji8z8suUV9ubkfQZOvpUC5yfHaC9mc0KMTAy8x27ZjK5QgIZdlwo2Ote64S3v8PS285m7yifklwc8Cs7R-vJQRYGj-dqtA0SBUUGr4YzaXeUoMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c4c9abe3107a61cd27706315954dd420
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AND FACT
4
A Letter
to
The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D.
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED FROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence,
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING ¡COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
:
�LONDON :
FEINTED AND FUFIISHED BY U. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.U.
�N'34-4-
FAITH AND FACT.
My Dear Mr. Field,—I answer your letter because it is
manly, candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the
gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in
terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often
malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your brethren
look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief, tends to
show that those who love God are not always the friends of their
fellow men.
Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be'
eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and
that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro
gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ? ” And- yet
“some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous,
rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect
to receives as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence
of honest error—as to the right to express an honest thought.
You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im
portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the
advocates of protection. There are honest Democrats and sincere
Republicans. How do you account for these differences? Edu
cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions
capable of solution—questions that the mind can grasp, concerning
which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be with
accuracy ascertained.
How do you explain this ?
If such
differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those who
differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining different
views on subjects about which nothing can be positively known ?
You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ”
do. How do you account for this difference? Of course, your
brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian
God—are governed by charity and love.
They do not regard
me as a monster because I have committed an infamous crime,
but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest
thoughts.
What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great
�care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to
speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? Was it my duty to
remain silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined
the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word
of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a monster ?
Has religion had control of the world so long that an honest man
seems monstrous ?
According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same
being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and
sowed within those wonderous fields the seeds of every thought and
deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it as a guide to all
the world. Surely the book should satisfy the brain. And yet
there are millions who do not believe in the inspiration of the
Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best have held the claim of
inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian ever stood higher in the
realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar with nature
from sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries and
conclusions, “ more precious than the tested gold,” to all mankind.
Yet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied
the existence of their God. Certainly Charles Darwin was one of
the greatest and purest of men—as free from prejudice as the
mariner’s compass—desiring only to find amid the mists and clouds
of ignorance the star of truth. No man ever exerted a greater
influence on the intellectual world. His discoveries, carried to their
legitimate conclusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of
mankind. In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the
Fittest, and The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion
becomes a gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest,
thoughtful, brave, and generous man.
Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with
the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of
Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and
tell me, candidly, which, in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even
your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished
for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy,
or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of
the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular
hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and
yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same freedom
of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason is the
supreme and final test.
If God has made a revelation to man, it must have been ad
�dressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could even
decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and feeble
flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the starless night
—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is the only light.
Extinguish that, and naught remains.
You draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call
“ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo
mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com
mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ?
What is your opinion of Jehovah himself ? Is not the sacrifice of
a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ? Why
should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Wh y should the
infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg of the
glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of
the source of light ?
You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her
child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care of
the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through a
false belief on the part of the mother, She breaks her heart for
love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian mother
who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a convict in the
eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from which none
escape ? What do you say of those Christians who believe that
they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstasy that all the loved of
earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred relations of life and all
the passions of the heart will fade and die, so that they will look
with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the miseries of the lost ?
You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be distin
guished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime which
is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.” Let us
test your religion by this rule.
Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is
it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and is
it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also another
question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of ignorant
wonder the only entrance to Paradise ?
According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and
those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you con
demn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say, for
acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—do you
not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when you
reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that which
happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not make that a
�( 6 )
virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do you not bring
your own religion exactly within your own definition of superstition ?
The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his
thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We
believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a
result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales
turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of
being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We mnst. believe, or
we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.
That which must be, has the right to be.
We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart
beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old
accustomed ways.
The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that
being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest
thoughts? You certainly have the right to express yours, and you.
have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who regard me
as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question now is, have I
the right to express mine ? In other words, have I the right to
answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me which is a virtue
in you, certainly comes within your definition of superstition. To
exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is simply the act of
a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your honest
thoughts ? When, and where, and how did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you mn a subject about which neither of us knows
anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof
of the depravity of man. You are far better than your creed.
You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing the fright
ful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw are legitimate
arguments, calculated to convince those upon whom they are used,
that the religion of those who use them was founded by a God of
infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now persecutes
for opinion s sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship will,
according to your creed, torture through all the endless years the
man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is
the foundation and cause of ’ all religious persecution. You may
reply that only the belief in a false God causes believers to be
inhuman. But you must admit that the Jews believed in a true
God, and you are forced to say that they were so malicious, so cruel,
so savage, that they crucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived.
This crime was committed, not in spite of their religion, but in
�accordance with it. They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah.
And the followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries,
have denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on
account of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their
fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless Being
threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for the same
offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At this point
absurdity becomes infinite.
Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making
it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of death.
And this you call a “consolation.”
You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea
of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those
entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are
not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the
gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the
Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks
doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your
Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the
salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According
to your creed a man must believe in your god, All the nations
dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and
Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in
vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were
not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe
in any one of the heathen gods.
What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and to
put forth arguments that even Christians have answered ? The
Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and
at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian
replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the
Bible. This answer was complete.
I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have been,
that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the super
natural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission.
Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and purest of
the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous myths. Yet
a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make men charitable
or just. For most people, theism is the easiest solution of the
universe. They are satisfied with saying that there must be a
being who created and who governs the world. But the universality
of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The belief in the
�( 8 )
existence of a malignant devil has been as universal as the be lief in
a beneficent god, yet few intelligent men will say that the universality
of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to prove his existence.
In the world of thought majorities count for nothing. Truth has
always dwelt with the few.
Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has
been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and
hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man has
sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and child ;
he has fasted and prayed ; he has suffered beyond the power of
language to express, and yet he has received nothing from the gods
—they have heard no supplication, they have answered no prayer.
You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and
on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all
alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just
and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones
rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest and the
criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is cruel to all
alike ? In other words, do they not demonstrate the absolute im
partiality of the divine negligence ?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence,
having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is
being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts' or floods ; the
crops would not be permitted to wither and die, while rain was
being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good man with
power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones ? Would
you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the lightning ?
Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the
good and preserve the vile ? Why should he treat all alike here,
and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should
your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his
enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the noble,
to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ? Does
it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of shame
when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of her
babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with sobs,
commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ?
It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed,
you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci
tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence of
God. Now, ,if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of the
soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity ? Why
should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You seem to
�think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in order to be
religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain qualities to
me that you deem necessary. Do you account for the Atheism of
Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you quote his
lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being he so
passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon—one of the
most infamous of men—had a nature so finely strung that he was
sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you driven to the neces
sity of proving the existence of one tyrant by the words of another?
Personally, I have but little confidence in a religion that satisfied
the heart of a man who, to gratify his ambition, filled half the
world with widows and orphans. In regard to Agassiz, it is just
to say that he furnished a vast amount of testimony in favor of the
truth of the theories of Charles Darwin, and then denied the
correctness of these theories—preferring the good opinion of
Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause of the intellectual
world.
I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that
everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no
way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the
crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constellations.
But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the universe by
the mystery of God, you do not even exchange mysteries—you
simply make one more.
Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.
The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God.
That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it
cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond
the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that man can be
convinced by any evidence of the existence of that which he can
not in any measure comprehend. Such evidence would be equally
incomprehensible with the incomprehensible fact sought to be es
tablished by it, and the intellect of man can grasp neither the one
nor the other.
You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God—
is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship the in
flexible ? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ? You say
that your God “ does not bend to human thought any more than
to human will,” and that “ the more we study him, the more we
find that he is not what we imagined him to be.” So that after
all, the only thing you are really certain of in relation to your
God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is it not almost, ab
surd to insist that such a state of mind is necessary to salvation,
�( 10 )
or that it is a moral restraint, or that it is the foundation of
social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
I. cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the
Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian nation
more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ? Certainly
you must know that what you call religion has produced a thousand
civil wars, and has severed with the sword all the natural ties that
produce “ the unity and married calm of States.” Theology is
the fruitful mother of discord ; order is the child of reason. If you
will candidly consider this question, if you will for a few moments
forget your preconceived opinions, you will instantly see that the
instinct of self-preservation holds society together. People, being
ignorant, believed that the gods were jealous and revengeful.
They peopled space with phantoms that demanded worship and
delighted in sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms that could be
flattered by praise and changed by prayer. These ignorant people
wished to preserve themselves. They supposed that they could
in this way avoid pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the
day of death. Do you not see that self-preservation lies at the
foundation of worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and
protect themselves. Nations, like individuals, have fears, have
ideals, and live for the accomplishment of certain ends. Men
defend their property because it is of value. Industry is the
enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire to live, and for that reason
murder is a crime. Fraud is hateful to the victim. The majority
of mankind work and produce the necessities, the comforts, and
the luxuries of life. They wish to retain the fruits of their labor.
Government is one of the instrumentalities for the preservation of
what man deems of value. This is the foundation of social order,
and this holds society together.
Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs
the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its
votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The
effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together.
Of What consequence is anything in this world compared with
eternal joy ?
You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and
that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in
other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by
your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes and
preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your God is
responsible for the government of this world. Does he preserve
�(11)
S>
order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did he establish
the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of the Inquisition ?
You answer all these questions by calling my attention to
“the retributions of history.” What are the retributions of
history ? The honest were burned at the stake ; the patriotic,
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons ;
whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of
their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They who
committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified these
infamies were adorned with the tiara.
You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg
said: “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.”
Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he says__
speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—“ If it
shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be
paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must be said, ‘ The
judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ ” But
admitting that you are correct in the assertion, let me ask you one
question : Could one standing over the body of Lincoln, the blood
slowly oozing from the madman’s wound, have truthfully said :
“Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty ” ?
.Do you really believe that this world is governed by an infinitely
wise and good God ? Have you convinced even yourself of this ?
Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ? Why should
the loving be tortured ? Why should the noblest be destroyed ?
Why should the world be filled with misery, with ignorance and
with want ? What reason have you for believing that your God
will do better in another world than he has done and is doing in
this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he have more power ? Will he
be more merciful?
When I say “your God,” of course I mean the God described in
the Bible and the Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I
say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of the
existence of an Infinite Being.
An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason
there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any possibility
affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being so, man can
neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an Infinite Being.
The infinite cannot want, and man can do nothing for a Being
who wants nothing. A conditioned being can be made happy or
miserable by changing conditions, but the conditionless is absolutely
independent of cause and effect.
I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a
�( 12 )
God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can be no
evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and that my
mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an infinite
personality.
I know that in your creed you describe God as
“ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind, is simply
a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no experience
with gods. This world is the only one with which I am acquainted,
and I was surprised to find in your lettter the expression that
“ perhaps others are better acquainted with that of which I am so
ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say that you know any
thing of any other state of existence—that you have inhabited
some other planet—that you lived before you were born, and that
you recollect something of that other world, or of that other state ?
Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unintention
ally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have never
uttered a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a thousand
times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality, that, like a
sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless
waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time
and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any
religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to
ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness
as long as love kisses the lips of death.
I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not
know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the
beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or the
folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an endless life,
that brings rapture and love to every one.
The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had lived
and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in
love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven of the
New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, aftei’ they
were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word was said
to have been uttered by Christ—.-nothing philosophic, nothing clear,
nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the cloud of doubt.
According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead
for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did not
some one of his disciples ask him where he had been ? Why did
he not tell them what world he had visited ? There was the opportu
nity to “bring life and immortality to light.” And yet he was
silent as the grave that he had left—speechless as the stone that
angels had rolled away.
�( 13 )
How do you account for this ? Was it not infinitely cruel to
leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could
have filled time with hope and light ?
’
The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have
climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not
supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long as
men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the human
heart.
All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope
and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look
have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those who
hope to live again—Tor those who bend above their dream of life
to come. But I have denounced tjbf, selfishness and heartlessness
of those who.'expect for themselves an eternity of joy, and for the
rest of mankind predict, 'Without a tear, a world of endless pain.
Nothing can be more contemptible thair, such a hope—a hope that
can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of the human race.
When I say that>1 do not know^tfheh'dh.deny the existence of
perdition, you-reply that “therefis something very cruel in this
treatment of the,belief of my fellow creatures.”
You have had the goodness to inyijte me to a grave over which a
mother bends an^v^ps for
only son.1 I accept your invitation.
We will go togetlj^r. £ Do not, pray yon,'Ideal in splendid generali
ties. Bh. explicit. Bemember fhat the son for whom the loving
mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer in the inspiration
of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The mother turns
to you for consolation, for some star of hope in the midnight of
•her grief. What must you say ? Do not desert the Presbyterian
creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus: Christ. What
must you say ? Will you read a portion of the Presbyterian con
fession of faith ? Will you read this ?
“ Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi"
deuce, do so far maniflfc the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as
to leave man inexcusably yet they are not sufficient to give that know
ledge of God and of his will which is necessary to salvation.”
Or, will you read this ?
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men
and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained
to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and
foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their
number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
diminished.”
Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say:
�( 14 )
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” Would you then put this
serpent in her breast ?—
“ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any
other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives
according to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works meA^
pardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation’
Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of that they
may be things which God commands, and of good use both to them
selves and others, are sinful and cannot please God or make a man meet
to receive Christ or God.”
And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What has
become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still read
from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism, this ?—
“The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in
torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.
At the last day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the
wicked shall be cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torment,
both of body and soul, with the Devil and his angels forever.”
If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would
you thrust this dagger in her heart ?—
“ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the
clouds, shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged
and acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your
son.”
If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would you
repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of
Christ ?—
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who
believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting
fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.”
Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell
this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and
among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of
paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “Your son lived
in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach.
He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son is
for ever lost. You can meet your son again only by dying in your
sins ; but if you will give your heart to God you can never clasp
him to your breast again.”
What could I say ? Let me tell you.
“ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of
another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply
�( 15 )
stated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear.
If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you
are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him,
according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he gave
his life for him ; and why should that love be changed to hatred
the moment your son was dead ?
“My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no
rewards—there are consequences ; and of one thing you may
rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere it
may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing right.
“ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you
weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not
within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is some
thing. Your son does not suffer. Next to a life of joy is the
dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox Chris
tianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in this world, where every human
being is enshrouded in cloud and mist—where all lives are filled
with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is it “ a conso
lation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal pain ” ? Is
it possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from the doctrine of
hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If that doctrine be
true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why should he have
created uncounted billions destined to suffer for ever ? Why did
he not leave them unconscious dust ? Compared with this crime,
any crime that any man can by any possibility commit is a virtue.
Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite
penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal
turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this
infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a
scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth
part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world
remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was
made.
If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un
justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God
accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment
of the guilty ?
According to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will,
makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong
exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man,
and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature
is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.”
�( 16 )
I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural
effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment,
nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con
sequences ; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness
of man ; and the consequences must be borne.
A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be
pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own
well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power.
The laws of the State are made, and, being made, can be changed;
but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation
of act to consequence cannot be altered.
This is above all
power, and consequently, there is no analogy between the laws of
the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not
change the relation between the diameter and circumference of the
circle.
A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny
the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of
the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be to
suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in
Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end
that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all:
Nature cannot pardon.
You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is
to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with
the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest
hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another
must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition
must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can
be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has
by his perfidy broken a loving and a confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no atone
ment.
But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if
you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man
may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven to
insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships strain
at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught that this
poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of infinite com
passion. This is not all that you have taught. You have said to
the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would not listen to her
wailing cry—who would not even stretch forth his hand to catch
her fluttering garments—you have said to him : “ Believe in the
�( 17 J
Lord Jesus Christ; and you shall be happy forever; you shall live
iu the realms of infinite delight, from which you can, without a
shadow falling upon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim,
writhing in the agonies of hell.” You have taught this. For my
part, I do not see how an angel in heaven meeting another angel
whom he had robbed on the earth, could feel entirely blissful.
I go further. Any decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right
hand of God, should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave
heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of
the damned.
You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence
ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—that
he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You seem to
have forgotten the line which you emphasised with italics : “ The
effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause, is eternal.” In
the light of this sentence, where do you find a place for your for
giveness—for your atonement ? Where is a way to escape from the
effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not see that this sen
tence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands ? The scientific
part of your letter destroys the theological. You have put “ new
wine into old bottles,” and the predicted result has followed. Will
the angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose their memory ?
Will not all the redeemed rascals remember their rascality ?
Will
not all the redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ?
Will not the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears,
and the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the
redeemed be as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ?
If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if
the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain
and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly happy ;
and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the kind actions,
the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the memory of good
deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost can never be per
fectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a good action to live
as long as the memory of a bad one ? So that the undying memory
of the good, in heaven, brings undying pain, and the undying
memory of those in hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not see
that if men have done good and bad, the future can’ have neither
a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ?
I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must
bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly
saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness of
another.
�( 18 )
If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice,
the effects following a noble and disinterested action ; if you mean
that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the
human race—which your letter seems to show—then there is no
question between us. If you have thrown away the old and bar
barous idea that a law had been broken, that God demanded a
sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered up for us, and
that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our place, then I
congratulate you with all my heart.
It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous
to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and its
tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the globe,
so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men. According to
your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here, the
vicious-may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here, a few
gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in your
future state, for countless billions of the human race, there will
be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible gleam
of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see that your
future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem to mistake
the glare of hell for the light of morning.
Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us
“ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of this
life.”
You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for cari
cature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, you
mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in the
life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility, and
that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, aud concludes to act like
an honest man—if this is what you mean by regeneration, I am a
believer. But that is not the definition of regeneration in your
creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There is some mys
terious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency, called, I
believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the heart of
man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under the con
trol, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and whither it
listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regeneration that I
have attacked.
You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born
among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates
or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying,
“ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live
and die on the earth.”
�( 19 )
I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that
Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter
of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said
nothing against the institution of slavery; nothing against the
tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals;
nothing about education, about intellectual progress ; nothing of
art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the rights
and duties of nations.
You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as
you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this
is necessary to educate the human race. It is not enough to say
to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question
still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in
the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny. Mercy
without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue the right
of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the world.
Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver
of camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master
of hundreds of millions of human beings? How is it that he
conquered and overran more than half of the Christian world?
How is it that on a thousand fields' the banner of the cross went
down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ?
How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor
floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ?
Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius,
whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired
—this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has
been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of
millions of his fellow-men ? How do you account for Buddha, in
many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has ever
known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he who
was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was born, to
declare the universal brotherhoood of man, great enough to say
that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind ?
How do you account for him, who has had more followers than
any other ? Are you willing to say that all success is divine ? How
do you account for Shakespeare, born of parents who could neither
read nor write, held in the lap of ignorance and love, nursed at the
breast of poverty—how do you account for him, by far the greatest
of the human race, the wings of whose imagination still fill the
horizon of human thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly ac
quainted with the human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all
heights of joy, and in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of
�( 20 )
all experience, and a prophecy of all to be ; Shakespeare, the
wisdom and beauty and depth of whose words increase with the
intelligence and civilisation of mankind ? How do you account
for this miracle ? Do you believe that any founder of any religion
could have written “ Lear ” or “ Hamlet ” ? Did Greece pro
duce a man who could by any possibility have been the author of
“ Troilus and Cressida ” ? Was there among all the countless
millions of almighty Rome an intellect that could have written
the tragedy of “ Julius Caesar ” ? Is not the play of “ Antony
and Cleopatra ” as Egyptian as the Nile ? How do you account
for this man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of
every race, and in whose brain there were the poetry and philo
sophy of a world ?
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ”—for
that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me say,
once for all, that the place where man has died for man is holy
ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I gladly
pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer
in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theological mask,
and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a
great and genuine man.
It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course
pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness
“ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there was
something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his fellow
creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a “ gene
ration of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepulchres.” How
can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ? They go to other
lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They tell the people
of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their religion is a
lie, not only that their Gods are myths, but that the ancestors of
these people, their fathers and mothers, who never heard of God,
of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in perdition. Is not this a cruel
treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature ?
A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack
with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain.
Aireligion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out: “Do
not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my feelings,”
is fit only for asylums.
You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power.
While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the
�( 21 )
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these thingsbecause he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to
establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was actuated
by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ? Why does he
not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he not, with a
touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power to give sight
to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not exercise it, what
would be thought of you? What is the difference between one
who can, and will not cure, and one who causes disease?
Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet
her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of her
body like morning on the desert. What would I think of myself
had I the power by a word to send the blood through all her
withered limbs freighted again with life, should I refuse ?
Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have beenproduced by and are really the children of religion.
Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties
and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct
by means of which happines s can be attained in another world.
The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular.
They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and are
of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest, courageous,
charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure without being
religious—that is to say, without any belief in the supernatural;
and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same time a sincere
believer in the creed of any church—that is to say, in the existence
of a personal God, the inspiration of the scriptures and the divinity
of Jesus Christ. A man who believes in the Bible may or may not
be kind to his family, and a m an who is kind and loving in his
family may or may not believe in the Bible.
In order that you may see t he effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessa ry to call your attention to the fact
that your Bible shows that th e Devil himself is a believer in the
existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures and in
the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these things,
but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains a devil
still.
Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural
goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super
stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the
heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Christi
anity—or at least crimes th at involved the commission of all
others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made
�"blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in the
slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship was
called “The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds, the
fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ to
crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just
before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of
the Most High.
As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention
to an incident.
You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
The
Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of having
all things in common. Their followers, who had something, were
to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds over to
these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and Sapphira
had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking the matter
over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, concluded to
keep a little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good
and pious bankers should abscond.
When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had
kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not; where
upon God, the compassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the
corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They did not
tell her that her husband had been killed. They deliberately set
a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough or noble
enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to believe that
her husband had told his story, and that she was free to corroborate
what he had said. She probably felt that they were giving more
than they could afford, and, with the instinct of a woman, wanted
to keep a little. She denied that any part of the price had been
kept back. That moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered
her heart.
Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles
in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime
than mendacity.
You have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give
me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and
that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you
really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you really
wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army should send
word to the general of the other that his men were firing too high,
do you think the general would be misled ? Can you conceive of
his changing his orders by reason of the message ?
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
�( 23 )
worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not in
the interest- of freedom. It never entered their minds that other
men had the same right to worship God according to the dictates
of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment they had
power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison and burn.
They did not believe in religious freedom. They had no more
idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah.
I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and
martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have
was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these
martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or assassi
nated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in fighting
the hordes of religious superstition.
Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed
in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire.
He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There
was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white
ness of his soul.
For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church was
a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many cen
turies with the blood of the noblest.
Christianity has been
ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the
earth.
Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold sneer
—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on household
worship.”
Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they
are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in
this life, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have
my entire respect. Never have I said one word against the spirit
of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of the man who gathers
his family about him after the storm, or after the scourge, or after
long sickness, and pours out his heart in thankfulness to the sup
posed God who has protected his fireside. I understand the spirit
of the savage who thanks his idol of stone, or his fetish of wood.
It is not the wisdom of the one nor of the other that I respect, it
is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt the prayer.
I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my
objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this
subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the
roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, cool
clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to
the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its. perfume to the air. The
�( 24)
home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of
fire, the fairest flower in all this world.
What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home ?
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifica
tion of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that Christ
himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happiness in
another to those who would desert their wives and children and
follow him ? What effect has that promise had upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Christi
anity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ,
and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that.
Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife
to desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the
miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled
souls.
It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to
love God. It is better to love wife and children than to love
Christ. It is better to serve your neighbor than to serve your God
—even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing
for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can
add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the pathway
of another.
It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is
true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the
service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be
understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why should he
waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same thoughts
repeated again and again ?
Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The
mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust, the
laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul in his
body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich, may go to
the village church which you have described. They answer the
chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this village church ?
Is it that God is the father of the human race ; is that all ? If
that were all, you never would have heard an objection from my
lips. That is not all. If all ministers said : Bear the evil of this
life ; your Father in heaven counts your tears ; the time will come
when pain and death and grief will be forgotten words—I should
have listened with the rest. What else does the minister say to
the poor people who have answered the chimes of your bell
He
says : “The smallest sin deserves eternal pain.” “ A vast majority
of men are doomed to suffer the wrath of God for ever.’ He fills
�( 25 )
the present with fear and the future with fire. He has heaven for
the few, hell for the many. He describes a little grass-grown path
that leads to heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,”
and a great highway worn with countless feet that leads to ever
lasting death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real sav
ages. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I
turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get ac
quainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange civilities
with your neighbors ; and gladly would I see the church in which
such sermons are preached changed to a place of entertainment.
Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox sermons—the owls and
bats among the rafters, the snakes in crevices and corners—
driven out by the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly
would I see the Sunday-school, where the doctrine of eternal fire
is taught, changed to a happy dance upon the village green.
Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades.
Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.
You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without
the sanctions of religion.
Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit. It
has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all. Of
course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not mur
der
but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of escape ;
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I in
sist that such religion is no restraint. It is far better to teach that
there is no forgiveness, and that every human being must bear the
consequence of his acts.
The first great step toward national reformation is the universal
acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the consequences
of our acts. The young men who come from their country homes
into a city filled with temptations, may be restrained by the
thought of father and mother. This is a natural restraint. They
may be restrained by their knowledge of the fact that a thing is
evil on account of its consequences, and that to do wrong is always
a mistake. I cannot conceive of such a man being more liable to
temptation because he has heard one of my lectures in which I have
told him that the only good is happiness—that the only way to
attain that good is by doing what he believes to be right. I can
not imagine that his moral character will be weakened by the
statement that there is no escape from the consequences of his
acts.' You seem to think that he will be instantly led astray —
that he will go off under the flaring lamps to the riot of passion.
�( 26 )
Do you think the Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent
this would you recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old
Testament ? Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ?
Do you think this would enable him to withstand temptation?
Would it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts,
so that he may know exactly the physical consequences of such
acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ? Is
fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ?
You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that
the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves.
You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering at
morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious and
profligate.
The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of
Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have en
tertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say to
you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has
nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the
supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles
Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing
about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends upon
facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product
of which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no
mummery. It believes in the freedom of the human mind. It
asks for investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy
of all religion, because it has to do with this world, and with this
world alone.
My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the gaoler
of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is to say, the super
natural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a convict.
Under the government of a personal deity, consequences partake of
the nature of punishments and rewards. Under the government of
Nature, what you call punishments and rewards are simply conse
quences. Nature does not punish.
Nature does not reward.
Nature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do not think :
“ This is being done by a tyrant.” When the sun shines, I do not
say : “ This is being done by a friend.” Liberty means freedom
from personal dictation. It does not mean escape from the relations
we sustain to other facts in Nature. I believe in the restraining
influences of liberty. Temperance walks hand in hand with freedom.
To remove a chain from the body puts an additional responsibility
upon the soul. Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit
�yourself ; you increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a
question of intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant,
or to infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to
those you injure, and to none other.
I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power
above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do
that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any
extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or
that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature.
There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which happens
must happen. The present is the child of all the past, the mother
of all the future.
Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some
God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence have they
on which to found this belief ? When has any God listened to the
prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold freezes, the flood
destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven falls—when and where
has the prayer of man been answered ?
Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of
prayer ? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United States.
The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their
knees and asked God to spare the life of one man. You know the
result. You know just as well as I that the forces of Nature pro
duce the good and bad alike. You know that the forces of Nature
destroy the good and bad alike. You know that the lightning feels
the same keen delight in striking to death the honest man that it
does or would in striking the assassin with his knife lifted above
the bosom of innocence.
Did God hear the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the
prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear the
prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his
followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of glorious men ?
Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of those whose hearts
were his ? Why should any man depend on the goodness of a
God who created countless millions, knowing that they would suffer
eternal grief ?
The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate or
manly or womanly sentiment of love and honor ”—is the faith that
nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought an honest man
to be restrained from denouncing that faith because those who
entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ? You say to me :
“ There is a hell. A man advocating the opinions you advocate
will go there when he dies.” I answer : “ There is no hell. The
�( 28 )
And you say : “ How can
Bible that teaches that is not true.”
you hurt my feelings ? "
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his
parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother.
Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers and
mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless
sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the Apostles ?
Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of their fathers and
mothers? Did they not join with him who denounced their people
as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they not follow one who offered
a reward to those who would desert father and mother ? Of course
you have only to go back a few generations in your family to find
a Field who was not a Presbyterian. After that you find a Presby
terian. Was he base enough and infamous enough to heap con
tempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All the
Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion
of their fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is
a prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and
mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his mother
a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not se.e that your doctrine
gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of forgive
ness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and the
principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree with
you when you say that <l Christ is Christianity and that it stands
or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the founda
tion of your religion. If it should be established beyond doubt
that Christ never existed all that is of value in Christianity would
remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that we should find that
Euclid was a myth, the science known as mathematics would not
suffer. It makes no difference who painted or chiseled the greatest
pictures and statues so long as we have the pictures and statues.
When he who has given the world a truth passes from- the earth
the truth is left. A truth dies only when forgotten by the human
race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that
ever blossomed in the human heart, were known and practised for
uncounted ages before the birth of Christ.
You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abject terror ’ —
does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.”
Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the
names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible to
tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive a
worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the race ?
�( 29 )
Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ” who be
lieves your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere women are in
the asylums to-day fearing that they have committed “ the un
pardonable sin”—a sin to which your God has attached the penalty
of eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe the offence ?
Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the penalty of eternal pain for
the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the
secrecy of infinite darkness ? How much happier it is to know
nothing about it, and to believe nothing about it! How much
better to have no God.
You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so
that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer elements
of character, conduce to our future happiness.” This is an old
explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is, that this
world is a school in which man becomes educated through tri
bulation—the muscles of character being developed by wrestling
with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this life in order to
develop character, in order to become worthy of a better world,
how do you account for the fact that billions of the human race
die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this necessary education
and development ? What would you think of a schoolmaster who
should kill a large proportion of his scholars during the first day,
before they had even an opportunity to look at A ?
You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for
righteousness.”
If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of nature ?
If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ” that man, as
he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not only takes ad
vantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit, but perceives
more and more clearly that if he be happy he must live in harmony
with the conditions of his being, in harmony with the facts by
which he is surrounded, in harmony with the relations he sustains
to others and to things; if this is what you mean, then there is
“ a power making for righteousness.” But if you mean that there
is something supernatural at the back of nature directing events,
then I insist that there can by no possibility be any evidence of the
existence of such a power.
The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall.
There is a limit to the life of a race ; so that it can be said of every
nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the foundations
of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and virtue of the
people constituted a power working for righteousness, and that
there came a time when this nation became a spendthrift, when it
�( 30 )
ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the labors of its youth, and
passed from strength and glory to the weakness of old age, and
finally fell palsied to its tomb.
The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only
power that makes for righteousness.
You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give
as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two thou
sand years before I was born, and that it will live two thousand
years after I am dead.
Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself ?
Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this
to Christ ? Could he not have said : “ The religion of Jehovah
began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it will
live two thousand years after you are dead ?” Could not a follower
of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a missionary from
Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say: “You are
waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha began to be
twenty-five hundred years before vou were born, and hundreds of
millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s shrine ?”
Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two
thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on
and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider that
the survival of the fittest ?
Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during the
Middle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the
Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no differ
ence between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the
Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is the same
Christianity that has been living all these years ? Have you
noticed any change in the last generation? Do you remember
when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a passage from
the Bible, and do you now know that believers in the Bible are
exceeding anxious to prove its trurn by some fact that science has
demonstrated? Do you know that the standard has changed?
Other things are not measured by the Bible, but the Bible has to
submit to another test. It no longer owns the scales. It has to
be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing lighter and lighter
every day. Do you know that only a few years a go “the glad
tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a description of hell ?
Do vou know that nearly every intelligent minister is now ashamed
to preach about it, or to read about it, or to talk about it ? Is
there any change ? Do you know that but few ministers now be
lieve in “the plenary inspiration ” of the Bible, that from thou
�( 31 )
sands of pulpits people are now told that the creation according to
•Genesis is a mistake, that it never was as wet as the flood, and that
the miracles of the Old Testament are considered simply as myths
or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ? What
will there be left of the supernatural ?
It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many
years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the Old
Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld
polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to mas
sacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers
to persecute wives and daughters unto death for opinion’s sake.
It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the
cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the creator
and preserver of the universe.
Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a world
in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours and is
■devoured ? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Innocence is not
a certain shield ?
It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment.
If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.
Day after day there are mournful processions of men and women,
patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word
Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving lips, driven
like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. These
men, these women, these daughters go to exile and to slavery, to a
land where hope is satisfied with death. Does it seem possible to
you that an “ Infinite Father ” sees all this and sits as silent as a
god of stone ?
And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your
inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another procession,
in which are the noblest and the best, iu which you will find the
wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the human race, the
teachers of their fellow men, the greatest soldiers that ever battled
for the right; and this procession of countless millions in which
you will find the most generous and the most loving of the sons and
daughters of men, is moving on the Siberia of God, the land of
eternal exile, where agony becomes immortal.
How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this
infinite lie ?
Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After
all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
�( 32 )
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all mis
takes and all crimes were simply necessities ? Is it not possible
that out of this perception may come not only love and pity for
others, but absolute justification for the individual ? May we not
find that every soul Jias; like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild
horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of fate ?
You ask me to take the “sober second thought.” I beg of you
to take the first, and if you do you will throw-away the Presby
terian creed ; you will instantly perceive that he who commits the.
smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who does;
the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss you will becomj*
convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of men
knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years is ah
infinite demon ; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with its
philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is but
the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and cannot
exist.
For you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest
respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not«
to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a ereed- that should
be shrieked in a mad-house^ Do not make the cradle as terri-blbj
as the coffin. Preach, I.pxay you, the gospel of intellectwj
hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take from loving^
hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow men. Do not
drive to madness the mothers whose tears are falling on the pallid
faces of those who died in unbelief. ‘ Pity tbp,erring, wayward", I
suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as “ tidings of greatj
joy ” that an Infinite Spider*is weaving webs to catch the souls of
men.
1
I
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N344
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b21a4e09edeb3c9293068797d29391e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Q7Iu-3zgBGGgTAX%7Ek73LAIosgSOsEURx-u47hoOP1RM0fq9LxK4-s9ENOm1G8EalIKauQdV2cP5cdh8ypNwLfNttNfF1J2ArsDyxrPPnEOE84dGAR7w-Ew-AuysW1b%7E2gDjmwIuQCK6XiYdgG9rokvdVaHB2eHFIxSan0%7E6nB05l%7EcqHkiLA7rW7iQ4Hz-5S2gxivNZDgZgt2n26Ajc8xK3tllEPofeUQ47HMBlRLnclknLU33j1sXrTx81ME6MMeqHiz3pLwcuGDvDJc79gikeBNDhr04XJ0G%7E3RXI0eXdNoQVfBY403onOP8BCXRjdlPj9go-rgEK6-Z85UsmMnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4b811904f41b8abac1729ecbf8c80b93
PDF Text
Text
^*7 3/^
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
Ingersoll’s Advice to Parents.
keep children out of church
AND SUNDAY SCHOOL.
Nothing is More Outrageous than to Take Advantage
of the Helplessness of Childhood to Sow
in the Brain the Seeds of Error.
By
,
ROBERT
G. INGERSOLL.
Should parents who are Infidels, unbelievers, or Atheists
send their children to Sunday schools and churches to give
them the benefit of Christian education ?
Parents who do not believe the Bible to be an inspired
book should not teach their children that it is. They should
be absolutely honest. Hypocrisy is not a virtue, and, as a
rule, lies are less valuable than facts.
An unbeliever should not allow the mind of his child to
be deformed, stunted, and shrivelled by superstition. He
should not allow the child’s imagination to be polluted.
Nothing is more outrageous than to take advantage of the
helplessness of childhood to sow in the brain the seeds of
falsehood, to imprison the soul in the dungeon of fear, to
teach dimpled infancy the infamous dogma of eternal pain
—filling life with the glow and glare of hell.
No unbeliever should allow his child to be tortured in the
orthodox inquisitions. He should defend the mind from
attack as he would the body. He should recognise the
rights of the soul. In the orthodox Sunday schools children
are taught that it is a duty to believe, that evidence is not
�( 2 )
essential, that faith is independent of facts, and that religion
is superior to reason. They are taught not to use their
natural sense, not to tell what they really think, not to
entertain a doubt, not to ask wicked questions, but to accept
and believe what their teachers say. In this way the minds
of the children are invaded, corrupted, and conquered.
Would an educated man send his child to a school in which
Newton’s statement in regard to the attraction of gravitation
was denied; in which the law of falling bodies, as given by
Galileo, was ridiculed; Kepler’s three laws declared to be
idiotic, and the rotary motion of the earth held to be utterly
absurd ?
Why, then, should an intelligent man allow his child to be
taught the geology and astronomy of the Bible ? Children
should be taught to seek for the truth—to be honest, kind,
generous, merciful, and just. They should be taught to love
liberty and to live to the ideal.
Why, then, should an unbeliever, an Infidel, send his child
to an orthodox Sunday school, where he is taught that he
has no right to seek for the truth, no right to be mentally
honest, and that he will be damned for an honest doubt;
where he is taught that God was ferocious, revengeful,
heartless as a wild beast; that he drowned millions of his
children; that he ordered wars of extermination, and told
his soldiers to kill gray-haired and trembling age, mothers
and children, and to assassinate with the sword of war the
babes unborn ?
Why should an unbeliever in the Bible send his child to
an orthodox Sunday school, where he is taught that God
was in favor of slavery, and told the Jews to buy of the
heathen, and that they should be their bondmen and bond
women for ever—when he is taught that God upheld
polygamy and the degradation of women ?
Why should an “ unbeliever,” who believes in the uni
formity of nature—in the unbroken and unbreakable chain
of cause and effect—allow his child to be taught that
miracles have been performed ; that men have gone bodily
to heaven; that millions have been miraculously fed with
manna and quails ; that fire has refused to burn the clothes
�( 3 )
,
f
and flesh of men; that iron has been made to float; that
the earth and moon have been stopped, and that the earth
has not only been stopped, but made to turn the other way;
that devils inhabit the bodies of men and women; that
diseases have been cured with words; and that the dead,
with a touch, have been made to live again ?
The thoughtful man knows that there is not the slightest
evidence that these miracles ever were performed. Why
should he allow his children to be stuffed with these foolish
and impossible falsehoods ? Why should he give his lambs
to the care and keeping of the wolves and hyenas of super. stition ?
Children should be taught only what somebody knows.
Guesses should not be palmed off on them as demonstrated
facts. If a Christian lived in Constantinople he would not
send his children to the mosque to be taught that Mohammed
was a prophet of God and that the Koran is an inspired
book. Why ? Because he does not believe in Mohammed
or the Koran. That is reason enough. So an Agnostic,
living in New York, should not allow his children to be
taught that the Bible is an inspired book. I use the word
“ Agnostic ” because I prefer it to the word “ Atheist.” As
a matter of fact no one knows that God exists, and no one
knows that God does not exist. To my mind there is no
evidence that God exists—that this world is governed by a
being of infinite goodness, wisdom, and power—but I do
not pretend to know. What I do insist upon is that children
should not be poisoned, should not be taken advantage of
'
that they should be treated fairly, honestly ; that they should
be allowed to develop from the inside instead of being
crammed from the outside; that they should be taught to
reason, not to believe ; to think, to investigate, and to use
their senses, their minds.
Would a Catholic send his children to school to be taught
that Catholicism is superstition and that science is the onl
savior of mankind ?
Why, then, should a free and sensible believer in science
in the naturalness of the universe, send his child to a
Catholic school ?
�.
( 4 )
Nothing could be more irrational, foolish, and absurd.
My advice to all Agnostics is to keep their children from
the orthodox Sunday schools, from the orthodox churches,
from the poison of the pulpits.
Teach your children the facts you know. If you do not
know, say so. Be as honest as you are ignorant. Do all
you can to develop their minds to the end that they may
live useful and happy lives.
Strangle the serpent of superstition that crawls and hisses
about the cradle. Keep your children from the augurs, the
soothsayers, the medicine-men, the priests of the super- «
natural. Tell them that all religions have been made by I
folks and that all the “ sacred books ” were written by
ignorant men.
Teach them that the world is natural. Teach them to
be absolutely honest. Do not send them where they will
contract diseases of the mind—the leprosy of the soul. Let
us do all we can to make them intelligent.
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street,
London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Ingersoll's advice to parents : keep children out of church and Sunday School
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 4 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Not in Stein checklist but cf his No. 67. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N362
Subject
The topic of the resource
Child rearing
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Ingersoll's advice to parents : keep children out of church and Sunday School), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Children
Church Attendance
NSS
Sunday Observance
Sunday Schools