2
10
74
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b939ad5e22d1ad14fa8c063033de056e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nGDgChrcNfQrYEoNDXGwTgFmh5TZRidhW6lCH4wmZVJrs7O4QEVbT19z0v1tVjGVAdQomtq4ybzlSyi5BGIb80OTyGizq89LhkvZV6CUPYdmn%7EuWlAMhwZHdObpCz9i1pPO%7EMPU1tISNjE7lO0Jkr0wOPhrk-Mht-Ihfl4yLh0PL9twhraxGbssWEJGs5FPCLmBBbAyjA0biaS9dtFkuzCoNab8vt7ro11u%7Et6Td6O6ME7r4-v-oSscROjo%7Ez7WaUCGZhWVbor4s8DXxwoN5UKrlLZ1yHE45ps5B3kkitj3V2gO9iVQveYZqYU2gnTkYHYZAYaYlXIp1ojuod05u9w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
215241710e3c97bca3620495c3cb3060
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
of
BY
Robert G. Ingersoll.
THE DESTROYER OE WEEDS, THISTLES AND THORNS, IS A BENEFACTOR
WHETHER HE SOWETH GRAIN OR NOT
----------- 4----------The only Complete Edition published in England.
Reprinted Verbatim from Colonel Ingersoll's authorised American edition
WITH
AN
INTRODUCTION
By G. W. FOOTE.
---------4--------
LONDON:
THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY
28 Stonecutter Street.
1885.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY RAilSEY AND FOOTE,
AT STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
�CONTENTS.
CHAPTER.
I. Some Mistakes of Moses
...
...
•••
t
II. Free Schools ...
...
...
•••
••
III. The Politicians.............................................................
IV. Man and Woman
...
...
•••
•••
V. The Pentateuch...
...
...
...
•••
VI. Monday............................................................
VII. Tuesday........................................................................
VIII. Wednesday
...
...
•••
•••
•••
•••
IX. Thursday
.............................................................
X. “ He made the Stars also ”
XI. Friday.........................................................................
XII. Saturday
...
...
•••
•••
•••
XIII. “ Let Us Make Man ”................................................ ••
XIV. Sunday.........................................................................
XV. The Necessity for a Good Memory ...
...
••
XVI. The Garden
...........................................................
XVII. The Fall
............................................................
XVIII. Dampness
...
...
...
•••
•••
•••
XIX. Bacchus andBabel ...
...
•••
•••
•••
XX. Faith in Filth.............................................................
XXI. The Hebrews.............................................................
XXII. The Plagues .............................................................
XXIII. The Flight
.............................................................
XXIV. Confess and Avoid
...
...
• ••
XXV. “ Inspired ” Slavery ..............
•••
•••
••
XXVI. “Inspired’’Marriage.................................................
XXVII. “ Inspired ” War
..................................................
XXVIII. “ Inspired ” Religious Liberty
...........................
XXIX Conclusion
...........................
PAGE.
9
16
18
20
25
30
34
33
38
43
44
43
48
52
56
62
66
71
87
90
93
97
107
123
125
127
128
129
I32
�EDITOR’S PREFACE.
This edition of Ingersoll’s “ Mistakes of Moses ” is the only
complete one published on this side of the Atlantic. It is
reprinted verbatim from the author’s American edition.
The Bijou edition, published by Mr. Larner Sugden, at
Leek, avowedly omits large portions of the work, which the
editor considered uninteresting or unnecessary, or which,
perhaps, he found too much for the size of his volume.
Ingersoll’s admirers can hardly consider this amputation
just. If his work is published at all it should be published
as he wrote it; and this is what is now done.
There is also a lecture on the “ Mistakes of Moses ” pub
lished in England. It is, however, very different from the
present work, and less than a quarter of the size.
An addendum to the author’s edition of this work contains
the beautiful and touching speech he delivered at his
brother’s grave. This has been omitted. It has no con
nexion with the “ Mistakes of Moses,” and it has already
been published in England.
This being a reprint of the author’s volume, and not
a reproduction from the newspapers, the publishers will
remit Colonel Ingersoll a fair share of any profits;
although they are not strictly obliged to do so, as
the gallant author belongs to a nation which resolutely
declines to enact an international copyright with England.
Colonel Ingersoll is less a writer than an orator. The
methods of the platform and of the press are diverse, and
few men employ both with equal brilliancy. Yet the
“ Mistakes of Moses ” would attract and deserve attention
though its author were not a great popular speaker, and its
�Editor s Preface.
V.
merits would excite more admiration if they were not over
shadowed by his eloquence. This volume contains some
searching analysis of the science of the Pentateuch, if we
may dignify its blunders with such a name ; plenty of witty
banter of its absurdities ; and a powerful impeachment of
its barbarous ethics. The last portion is particularly good.
Humorous as Colonel Ingersoll is, he is never more admirable
and effective than when he is arraigning the brutalities of
religion at the bar of Humanity.
The author of “ Mistakes of Moses ” is not a scholar.
But he is more; he is a man of feeling, and a man of ideas.
His play of mind is stimulating, and his geniality is like a
breath of sea-air in summer. - He does not dwell among
books like a bug or a beetle, or devour them like a worm ;
but he visits them for nourishment, and his lusty nature, in
the liberal air of the world, turns it into healthy blood, with
which he thinks, feels and acts like an heroic man. The
touchstone of such a nature, so fortified, is better than all
the tests of scholarship. It is a vital criterion, like that
applied to substances by the roots and leaves of plants and
the stomach and lungs of animals. Ingersoll’s method is
not the archgeologist’s, the antiquary’s, or the professor’s;
it is that recommended by Walt Whitman in one of the
finest passages of his introduction to the Leaves of Grass—
“ dismiss whatever insults your own soul.” Those who
follow that rule are the salt of the earth ; and Ingersoll not
only follows it, but flames it over a continent.
July, 1885.
G. W. Foote.
�PREFA CE.
For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply
as a record of a barbarous people, in which are found
a great number of the ceremonies of savagery, many
absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas incon
sistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it
seemed almost a crime to teach that this record was
written by inspired men ; that slavery, polygamy, wars
of conquest and extermination were right, and that
there was a time when men could win the approbation
of infinite Intelligence, Justice and Mercy, by violating
maidens and by butchering babes. To me it seemed
more reasonable that savage men had made these laws ;
and I endeavored in a lecture, entitled, “ Some Mis
takes of Moses,” to point out some of the errors, con
tradictions, and impossibilities contained in the Penta
teuch. The lecture was never written, and consequently
never delivered twice the same. On several occasions
it was reported and published without consent, and
without revision. All these publications were grossly
and glaringly incorrect. As published, they have been
answered several hundred times, and many of the
clergy are still engaged in the great work. To keep
these reverend gentlemen from wasting their talents
on the mistakes of reporters and printers, I concluded
to publish the principal points in all my lectures on
this subject. And here it may be proper for me to say
that arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse ;
that there is no logic in slander, and that falsehood, in
the long run, defeats itself. People who love their
enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their
friends. Should it turn out that I am the worst man
in the whole world, the story of the flood will remain
�Preface.
vii.-
just as improbable as before, and the contradictions of
the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation.
There was a time when a falsehood, fulminated from
the pulpit, smote like a sword ; but, the supply having
greatly exceeded the demand, clerical misrepresentation
has at last become almost an innocent amusement.
Remembering that only a few years ago men, women,
and even children were imprisoned, tortured and
burned for having expressed, in an exceedingly mild
and gentle way, the ideas entertained by me, I congra
tulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit’s last re
sort. The old instruments of torture are kept only to
gratify curiosity ; the chains are rusting away, and the
demolition of time has allowed even the dungeons of
the Inquisition to be visited by light. The Church,
impotent and malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the
loss of her power, and seeks to hold by falsehood what
she gained by cruelty and force, by fire and fear. Chris
tianity cannot live in peace with any other form of
faith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior,
one inspired book, and but one little narrow grassgrown path that leads to heaven. Such a religion is
necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive
and insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds
and forms in infinite contempt, divided the world into
enemies and friends, and verified the awful declara
tion of its founder—a declaration that wet with blood
the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a
thousand years lurid with the fagots’ flames.
Too great praise challenges attention, and often
brings to light a thousand faults that otherwise the
general eye would never see. Were we allowed to read
the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire
its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account
for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying
that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we
are told that it was written by inspired men ; that it
contains the will of God ; that it is perfect, pure and
true in all its parts ; the source and standard of all
moral and religious truth ; that it is the star and an
chor of all human hope ; the only guide for man, the
only torch in Nature’s night. These claims are so at
�viii.
Preface.
variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably
absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise
the standard of revolt.
We read the Pagan sacred books with profit and de
light. With myth and fable we are ever charmed, and
find a pleasure in the endless repetition of the beautiful,
poetic and absurd. We find, in all these records of the
past, philosophies and dreams, and efforts stained with
tears of great and tender souls, who tried to pierce the
mystery of life and death, to answer the eternal ques
tions of the Whence and Whither, and vainly sought
to make, with bits of shattered glass, a mirror that
would, in very truth, reflect the face and form of
Nature’s perfect self.
These myths were born of hopes, and fears, and
tears, and smiles, and they were touched and colored
by all there is of joy and grief between the rosy dawn
of birth and death’s sad night. They clothed even the
stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults and
frailties of the sons of men. In them the winds and
waves were music, and all the lakes, and streams, and
springs, the mountains, woods and perfumed dells
were haunted by a thousand fairy forms.
They
thrilled the veins of Spring with tremulous desire ;
made tawny Summer’s billowed breast the throne and
home of love ; filled Autumn’s arms with sun-kissed
grapes, and gathered sheaves ; and pictured Winter as
a weak old king, who felt, like Lear upon his withered
face, Cordelia’s tears. These myths, though false, are
beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless
ways enriched the heart and kindled the thought. But
if the world were taught that all these things are true
and all inspired of God, and that eternal punishment
will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the
sweetest myth of all the Fable World would lose its
beauty, and become a scorned and hateful thing to
every brave and thoughtful man.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
Washington, D.C., Oct. 7 th, 1879.
�Some Mistakes
of
Moses.
HE WHO ENDEAVORS TO CONTROL THE MIND BY EORCE
IS A TYRANT, AND HE WHO SUBMITS IS A SLAVE.
I.
I WANT to do what little I can to make my country truly
free, to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people, to
destroy the prejudices born of ignorance and fear, to do
away with the blind worship of the ignoble past, with the
idea that all the great and good are dead, that the living
are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs
and groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dan
gerous, that intellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice
is a virtue, that a certain belief is necessary to secure
salvation, that to carry a cross in this world will give us a
palm in the next, and that we must allow some priest to
be the pilot of our souls.
Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every
book and creed and dogma for itself, the world cannot be
free.
Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental
grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought
and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can upon
all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other’s hands
as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of
opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty
about should make us hate, persecute, and despise each
B
�10
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination or
the Trinity should make people imprison and burn each
other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet, in all
countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed
each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should
a believer in God hate an Atheist ? Surely the Atheist has
not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and
pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not
be far better to treat this Atheist, at least, as well as he
treats us ?
Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet
all I ask is—not that they love their enemies, not that they
love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ
from them with simple fairness. We do not wish to be for
given, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not
have to forgive them.
If all will admit that all have an equal right to think,
then the question is for ever solved; but as long as
organised and powerful churches, pretending to hold the
keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an out
cast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their
authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffer
ing. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum
of all the creeds.
That which has happened in most countries has hap
pened in ours. When a religion is founded, the educated,
the powerful—that is to say, the priests and nobles, tell the
ignorant and superstitious—that is to say, the people—that
the religion of their country was given to their fathers
by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all
others were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in
fraud, and that all who believe in the true religion will
be happy for ever, while all others will burn in hell. For
the purpose of governing the people—that is to say, for
the purpose of being supported by the people—the priests
and nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that who
ever adds to or takes from it will be burned here by man
and hereafter by God. The result of this is that the priests
and nobles will not allow the people to change ; and when,
after a time, the priests, having intellectually advanced,
wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people
will not allow them to change. At first the rabble are
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
11
enslaved by the priests, and afterwards the rabble become
the masters.
One of the first things I wish to do is to free the
orthodox clergy. I am a great friend of theirs, and, in
spite of all they may say against me, I am going to do
them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks are
visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those
of the lash. They are not allowed to read and think for
themselves. They are taught like parrots, and the best are
those who repeat, with the fewest mistakes, the sentences
they have been taught. They sit like owls upon some
dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old
hoots that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years.
Their congregations are not grand enough nor sufficiently
civilised to be willing that the poor preachers shall think for
themselves. They are not employed for that purpose. In
vestigation is regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the
ministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be
tolerated. They are notified to stand by the old creed, and
to avoid all original thought as a mortal pestilence. Every
minister is employed like an attorney—either for plaintiff
or defendant—and he is expected to be true to his client.
If he changes his mind he is regarded as a deserter,
and denounced, hated and slandered accordingly. Every
orthodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts
not to find new facts, and makes a bargain that he will
deny them if he does. Such is the position of a Protestant
minister in this nineteenth century. His condition excites
my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what little
I can.
Some of the clergy have the independence to break away
and the intellect to maintain themselves as free men ; but the
most are compelled to submit to the dictation of the orthodox
and the dead. They are not employed to give their thoughts,
but simply to repeat the ideas of others. They are not expected
to give even the doubts that may suggest themselves, but
are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path trodden
by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on
either side are nothing to them. They must not even look
at the purple hills, nor pause to hear the babble of the
brooks. They must remain in the dusty roads where the
guide-boards are. They must confine themselves to the
�12
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
“ fall of man,” the expulsion from the garden, the “scheme
of salvation,” the “second birth,” the atonement, the happi
ness of the redeemed, and the misery of the lost. They
must be careful not to express any new ideas upon these
great questions. It is much safer for them to quote from
the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe the
sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended
theatres and balls, and drank wine in summer gardens on
the sabbath-day, and laughed at priests, the better ministers
they are supposed to be. They must show that misery fits
the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad for
hell ; that the wicked get all their good things in this life,
and the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes
the people he loves, and in the next the ones he hates ;
that happiness makes us bad here, but not in heaven ; that
pain makes us good here, but not in hell. No matter
how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind,
they must be preached and they must be believed. If they
were reasonable, there would be no virtue in believing.
Even the publicans and sinners believe reasonable things.
To believe without evidence, or in spite of it, is accounted
as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian.
The ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intel
lectual pride, and show that we are never quite so dear to
God as when we admit that we are poor, corrupt and idiotic
worms ; that we never should have been born ; that we ought
to be damned without the least delay; that we are so in
famous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our
wives and children better than our God; that we are
generous only because we are vile ; that we are honest
from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we have
fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration
of the Jewish scriptures. In short, they are expected to
denounce all pleasant paths and rustling trees, to curse the
grass and flowers, and glorify the dust and weeds. They
are expected to malign the wicked people in the green and
happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs
or climb the hills and wander as they will. They are ex
pected to point out the dangers of freedom, the safety of
implicit obedience, and to show the wickedness of philo
sophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of science and
the purity of ignorance.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
13
Now and then a few pious people discover some young
man of a religious turn of mind and a consumptive habit of
body, not quite sickly enough to die, nor healthy enough to
be wicked. The idea occurs to them that he would make a
good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and
send the young man to some theological school where he
can be taught to repeat a creed and despise reason. Should
it turn out that the young man had some mind of his own,
and, after graduating, should change his opinions and preach
a different doctrine from that taught in the school, every
man who contributed a dollar towards his education would
feel that he had been robbed, and would denounce him as a
dishonest and ungrateful wretch.
The pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should
allow the minister a little liberty. They should, at least,
permit him to tell the truth.
They have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover,
a kind of minister factory, where each professor takes an
oath once in five years—that time being considered the life
of an oath—that he has not, during the last five years, and
will not, during the next five years, intellectually advance.
There is probably no oath they could easier keep. Probably,
since the foundation-stone of that institution was laid there
has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is
Still taught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise,
powerful and good, and that all men are totally depraved.
They insist that the best man God ever made deserved to
be damned the moment he was finished. Andover puts its
brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as Sheffield
and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the
brand know exactly what the minister believes, the books
he has read, the arguments he relies on, and just what he
intellectually is. They know just what he can be depended
On to preach, and that he will continue to shrink and shrivel,
and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches the
Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox for ever.
I have not singled out the Andover factory because it is
worse than the others. They are all about the same. The
professors, for the most part, are ministers who failed in the
pulpit and were retired to the seminary on account of their
deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As a rule,
they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next;
�14
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
but they have the power of stating- the most absurd propo
sitions with faces solemn as stupidity touched by fear.
Something- should be done for the liberation of these men.
They should be allowed to grow—to have sunlight and air.
They should no longer be chained and tied to confessions of
faith, to mouldy books and musty creeds. Thousands of
ministers are anxious to give their honest thoughts. The
hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They
must have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced
to preach a doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake
of shelter, food and clothes, they are obliged to defend the
childish miracles of the past, and denounce the sublime dis
coveries of to-day. They are compelled to attack all modern
thought, to point out the dangers of science, the wickedness
of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It
is for them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and
faith, while vice impudently feeds and fattens upon fact and
demonstration. It is a part of their business to malign and
vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines, Humboldts, Tyndalls,
Hmckels, Darwins, Spencers and Drapers, and to bow with
uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers and per
secutors of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged
in poisoning- the minds of the young, prejudicing children
against science, teaching the astronomy and geology of the
Bible, and inducing all to desert the sublime standard of
reason.
These orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of know
ledge. They produce nothing. They live upon alms. They
hate laughter and joy. They officiate at weddings, sprinkle
water upon babes, and utter meaningless words and barren
promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of un
believers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a
jest.. There are some noble exceptions. Now and then a
pulpit holds a brave and honest man. Their congregations
are willing that they should think—willing that their ministers
should have a little freedom.
As we become civilised, more and more liberty will be
accorded to these men, until finally ministers will give their
best and highest thoughts. The congregations will finally
get tired of hearing about the patriarchs and saints, the
miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing- some
thing about the men and women of our day, and the accom-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
15
plishments and discoveries of our time. They will finally
insist upon knowing how to escape the evils of this world
instead of the next. They will ask light upon the enigmas
of this life. They will wish to know what we shall do with
our criminals instead of what God will do with his, how we
shall do away with beggary and want, with, crime and
misery, with prostitution, disease and famine, with tyranny
in all its cruel forms, with prisons and scaffolds, and how
we shall reward the honest workers and fill the world with
happy homes I These are the problems for the pulpits and
congregations of an enlightened future. If Science cannot
finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless
thing.
The clergy, however, will continue to answer them in
the old way, until their congregations are good enough to
set them free. They will still talk about believing in the
Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the only remedy for
all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression is
the only path that leads to light—that we must go back;
that faith is the only sure guide, and that reason is a delu
sive glare, lighting only the road to eternal pain.
Until the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually
honest. We can never tell what they really believe until
they know that they can safely speak. They console them
selves now by a secret resolution to be as liberal as they
dare, with the hope that they can finally educate their con
gregations to the point of allowing them to think a little
for themselves. They hardly know what they ought to do.
The best part of their lives has been wasted in studyingsubjects of no possible value. Most of them are married,
have families and know but one way of making their living.
Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish
dogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after
all, restrain mankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit
that they are mistaken, that the whole thing is a delusion,
that the “ scheme of salvation” is absurd, and that the
Bible is no better than some other books, and worse than
most.
You can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or
the Pope to vacate the Vatican. As long as people want
Popes, plenty of hypocrites will be found to take the place.
And as long as labor fatigues, there will be found a
�16
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
good many men willing to preach once a week, if other
folks will work and give them bread. In other words,
while the demand lasts, the supply will never fail.
If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would
flourish ; if a little more enlightened, religion would perish!
II—FREE SCHOOLS.
It is also my desire to free the schools. When a pro
fessor in a college finds a fact, he should make it known,
even if it is inconsistent with something Moses said. Public
opinion must not compel the professor to hide a fact, and,
‘‘like the base Indian, throw the pearl away.” With the
single exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the
United States where truth has ever been a welcome g’uest.
The moment one of the teachers denies the inspiration of the
Bible, he is discharged. If he discovers a fact inconsistent
with that book, so much the worse for the fact, and especially
for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt the minds
of his pupils by demonstrations. He must beware of every
truth that cannot in some way be made to harmonise with the
superstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common
with religion. Facts and miracles never did, and never
will, agree. They are not in the least related. They are
deadly foes. What has religion to do with facts ? Nothing.
Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy,
Presbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany?
Why, then, should a sectarian college exist? Only that
which somebody knows should be taught in our schools.
We should not collect taxes to pay people for guessing.
The common school is the bread of life for the people, and
it. should not be touched by the withering hand of super
stition.
Our country will never be filled with great institutions of
learning until there is an absolute divorce between Church
and School. As long as the mutilated records of a bar
barous people are placed by priests and professors above
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
17
the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit from
church or school.
Instead of dismissing- professors for finding something
out, let us rather discharge those who do not. Let each
teacher understand that investigation is not dangerous for
him ; that his bread is safe, no matter how much truth he
may discover, and that his salary will not be reduced simply
because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the
entire history of the world.
Besides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support the
Protestant school, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels
and Atheists to support schools in which any system of
religion is taught.
The sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute
each other on account of disagreements in mathematics.
Families are not divided about botany, and astronomy does
not even tend to make a man hate his father and mother. It
is what people do not know that they persecute each other
about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace.
Just as long as religion has control of the schools,
science will be an outcast. Let us free our institutions of
learning. Let us dedicate them to the science of eternal
truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain all the facts
he can—to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter where
she leads ; to be infinitely true to himself and us ; to feel
that he is without a chain, except the obligation to be
honest; that he is bound by no books, by no creed, neither
by the sayings of the dead nor of the living ; that he is
asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for himself with
out fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to
bring us the fruit of all his work.
At present, a good many men engaged in scientific pur
suits, and who have signally failed in gaining recognition
among their fellows, are endeavoring to make reputations
among the churches by delivering weak and vapid lectures
upon the “ Harmony of Genesis and Geology.” Like all
hypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree,
and so turn and pervert facts and words that they succeed
only in gaining the applause of other hypocrites like them
selves. Among the great scientists they are regarded as
generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies.
Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world
�18
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds
and miraculous mistakes.
The time must come when
churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of
man; when? minister and priest will deem the discoveries of
the living of more importance than the errors of the dead;
when the truths of Nature will outrank the “ sacred ” false
hoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all
the miracles of Holy Writ.
Who can over-estimate the progress of the world if all
the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten,
elevate and civilise mankind ?
When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a
university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers
brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the
dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become
a real and blessed truth.
III.—THE POLITICIANS.
I WOULD like also to liberate the politician. At present the
successful office-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the
earth he weighs nothing himself, but draws everything
else to him. There are so many societies, so many churches,
so many isms, that it is almost impossible for an independent
man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are forced
to pretend that they are Catholics with Protestant procli
vities, or Christians with Liberal tendencies, or temperance
men who now and then take a glass of wine, or, that
although not members of any church their wives are, and
that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of all this is
that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute
of real principle; and this will never change until the people
become grand enough to allow each other to do their own
thinking.
Our Government should be entirely and purely secular.
The religious views of a candidate should be kept entirely
out oi sight. He should not be compelled to give his
opinion as to the inspiration of the Bible, the propriety of
infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
19
thing’s are private and personal. He should be allowed to
settle such things for himself, and should he decide contrary
to the law and will of God, let him settle the matter with
God. The people ought to be wise enough to select as their
officers men who know something of political affairs, who
comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the
future grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at
sea, with deck wave-washed and masts strained and bent
with storm, and it was necessary to reef the topsail, we cer
tainly would not ask the brave sailor who volunteered to go
aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of Calvinism.
Our Government has nothing to do with religion. It is
neither Christian nor pagan—it is secular. But as long as
the people persist in voting for or against men on account of
their religious views, just so long will hypocrisy hold
place and power. Just so long will the candidates crawl
in the dust—hide their opinions, flatter those with whom
they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they de
spise ; and just so long will honest men be trampled under
foot. Churches are becoming political organisations.
Nearly every Catholic is a Democrat; nearly every Metho
dist in the north is a Republican.
It probably will not be long until the churches will
divide as sharply upon political as upon theological ques
tions ; and when that day comes, if there are not Liberals
enough to hold the balance of power this government will
be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the
hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are
in partnership man is a slave.
All laws for the purpose of making man worship God
are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the
*
auto-da-ft and lovingly built the dungeons of the
Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy—
making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the
Bible or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or
to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion
of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be
at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to
* Act of faith. A judicial act of the Inquisition, or the judgment it
gave in order to condemn those whom it thought worthy of punish
ment for having infringed religious laws.
�20
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
be able to protect himself, without going1 in partnership
with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act
that laws become necessary to keep him from being
laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare
from ridicule by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It
strikes me that God might write a book that would not
necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact I
think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce
a work that would excite the admiration of mankind.
Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing
laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God.
IV.—MAN AND WOMAN.
Let us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics,
Presbyterians, or Freethinkers, and remember only that we
are men and women. After all man and woman are the
highest possible titles. All other names belittle us, and
show that we have, to a certain extent, given up our
individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of
authority—that we are followers. Throwing away these
names, let us examine these questions not as partisans, but
as human beings with hopes and fears in common.
We know that our opinions depend to a great degree
upon our surrounding—upon race, country and education.
We are all the result of numberless conditions and inherit
vices _ and virtues, truths and prejudices. If we had been
born in England, surrounded by wealth and clothed with
power, most of us would have been Episcopalians and
believed in Church and State. We should have in
sisted that the people needed a religion, and that not
having intellect enough to provide one for themselves
it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel
them to support it. We should have believed it in
decent to officiate in a pulpit without wearing a gown,
and that prayers should be read from a book. Had we
belonged to the lower classes we might have been Dis
senters and protested against the mummeries of the High
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
21
Church. Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would
have been Mohammedans and believed in the inspiration of
the Koran. We should have believed that Mohammed
actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an
angel by the name of Gabriel, who was so broad between
the eyes that it required three hundred days for a very
smart camel to travel the distance. If some man had
denied this story we should probably have denounced him
as a dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to under
mine the foundations of society, and to destroy all dis
tinction between virtue and vice. We should have said to
him, “ What do you propose to give us in place of that
angel ? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that
size for nothing.” We would have insisted that the best
and wisest men believed the Koran. We would have
quoted from the works and letters of philosophers, generals
and sultans to show that the Koran was the best of books,
and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that
alone for its greatness and prosperity. We would have
asked that man whether he knew more than all the great
minds of his country, whether he was so much wiser than
his fathers ? We would have pointed out to him the fact
that thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by
passages from the Koran; that they had died with glazed
eyes brightened by visions of the heavenly harem, and
gladly left this world of grief and tears. We would have
regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all
occasions would have repeated “ There is but one God, and
Mohammed is his prophet1”
So, if we had been born in India, we should in all
probability have believed in the religion of that country.
We should have regarded the old records as true and
sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as better than
the men from whom he begged and by whose labor he
lived.
We should have believed in a god with three
heads instead of three gods with one head, as we do now.
Now and then some one says that the religion of his
father and mother is good enough for him, and wonders why
anybody should desire a better. Surely we are. not bound
to follow our parents in religion any more than in politics,
science or art. China has been petrified by the worship
of ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the
�22
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
religion of theirs, we would be still less advanced than we
are. If we are in any way bound by the belief of our
fathers the doctrine will hold good back to the first people
who had a religion ; and if this doctrine is true, we ought
now to be believers in that first religion. In other words,
we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect
to your parents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers
and mothers wish their children to advance, to overcome
obstacles which baffled them, and to correct the errors of
theh? education. If you wish to reflect credit upon your
parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems
that they could not understand, and build better than they
knew. To sacrifice your manhood upon the grave of your
father is an honor to neither. Why should a son who has
examined a subject throw away his reason and adopt the
views of his mother ? Is not such a course dishonorable to
both ?
We must remember that this £< ancestor” argument is
as old at least as the second generation of men, that it has
served no purpose except to enslave mankind, and results
mostly from the fact that acquiesceence is easier than inves
tigation. This argument pushed to its logical conclusion
would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were
not Freethinkers.
It is hard for many people to give up the religion in
which they were born ; to admit that their fathers were
utterly mistaken, and the sacred records of their country
are but collections of myths and fables.
But when we look for a moment at the world we find
that each nation has its ‘ ‘ sacred records ”—its religion and
its ideas of worship. Certainly all cannot be right; and as
it would require a life time to investigate the claims of these
various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man for ever
simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All
these religions were produced by barbarians.
Civilised
nations have contented themselves with changing the
religions of their barbaric ancestors, but they have made none.
Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish.
Each
one was made by some contemptible little nation that
regarded itself as of almost infinite importance, and looked
upon the other nations as beneath the notice of their god.
In all these countries it was a crime to deny the sacred
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
23
records, to laugh at the priests, to speak disrespectfully of
the gods, to fail to divide your substance with the lazy
hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world
upon condition that you would support them in this. In
the olden time these theological people who quartered them
selves upon the honest and industrious, were called sooth
sayers, seers, charmers, prophets, enchanters, sorcerers,
wizards, astrologers and impostors, but now they are known
as clergymen.
We are no exception to the general rule, and conse
quently have our sacred books as well as the rest. Of
course it is claimed by many of our people that our books
are the only true ones, the only ones that the real God ever
wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist
that all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and
impostors; that the Jews were the only people that God
ever had any personal intercourse with, and that all other
prophets and seers were inspired only by impudence and
mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that God
should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who
had little or nothing to do with the other nations of the
earth as his messengers to the rest of mankind.
It is not easy to account for an infinite God making
people so low in the scale of intellect as to require a revela
tion. Neither is it easy to perceive why, if a revelation was
necessary for all, it was made only to a few. Of course I
know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these thoughts,
and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually
protect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that in
vestigators, with all their genius, never find the road to
heaven; that those who look where they are going are sure
to miss it, and that only those who voluntarily put out their
eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can surely keep
the narrow path.
Whoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it
or suffer for ever the torments of the lost. We are told
that we have the privilege of examining it for ourselves;
but this privilege is only extended to us on the condition
that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or not. We
may disagree with others as much as we please upon the
meaning of all passages in the Bible, but we must not deny
the truth of a single word. We must believe that the book
�24
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
is inspired. If we obey its every precept without believing
in its inspiration, we will be damned just as certainly as
though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right
to weigh it in the scales of reason—to test it by the laws of
nature, or the facts of observation and experience. To do
this, we are told, is to put ourselves above the word of God,
and sit in judgment on the works of our creator.
For my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary
thing. It seems to me that evidence, even in spite of our
selves, will have its weight, and that whatever our wish
may be, we are compelled to stand with fairness by the
scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say that
we reject the Bible because we are wicked. Our wicked
ness must be ascertained, not from our belief, but from our
acts.
I am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the
Bible; that I am leading thousands to perdition and render
ing certain the damnation of my own soul. They have had
the kindness to advise me that, if my object is to make con
verts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to
use gentler expressions and more cunning words. Do they
really wish me to make more converts ? If their advice is
honest, they are traitors to their trust. If their advice is
not honest, then they are unfair with me. Certainly they
should wish me to pursue the course that will make the
fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how rny
influence could be increased. It may be that upon this
principle John Bright advises America to adopt Free Trade,
so that our country can become a successful rival of Great
Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers are not
entirely candid.
Notwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have con
cluded to pursue my own course, to tell my honest thoughts
and to have my freedom in this world whatever my fate
may be in the next.
The real oppressor, enslaver, and corrupter of the people
is the Bible. That book is the chain that binds, the dun
geon that holds the clergy. That book spreads the pall of
superstition over the colleges and schools. That book puts
out the eyes of science, and makes honest investigation a
crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the
people. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy
�25
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
and fear.
It plays the same part in our country that has
been played by “ sacred records” in all the nations of the
world.
A little while ago I saw one of the Bibles of the Middle
Ages. It was about two feet in length, and one and a half
in width. It had immense oaken covers with hasps and
clasps and hinges large enough almost for the doors of a
penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged
angels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this
book carried to the cathedral altar in solemn pomp—heard
the chant of robed and kneeling priests, felt the strange
tremor of the organ’s peal; saw the colored light stream
ing through windows stained and touched by blood and
flame—the swinging censer with its perfumed incense
rising to the mighty roof, dim with height and rich with
legend carved in stone, while on the walls was hung, written
in light and shade, and all the colors that can tell of joy
and tears, the pictured history of the martyred Christ.
The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened,
and the priest read the messages from God to man. To
the multitude the book itself was evidence enough that it
was not the work of human hands. How could those
little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the
thoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of
light from human eyes, give up their dead ? How could
these characters span the vast chasm dividing the present
from the past, and make it possible for the living still to
hear the voices of the dead ?
V.—THE PENTATEUCH.
The first five books in our Bible are known as the Penta
teuch. For a long time it was supposed that Moses was
the author, and among the ignorant the supposition still
prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems to be well settled
that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and that
they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for
hundreds of years. But, as all the churches still insist that
c
�26
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
he was the author, that he wrote even an account of his
own death and burial, let us speak of him as though these
books were in fact written by him. As the Christians
maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little
difference whom he employed as his pen or clerk.
Nearly all authors of sacred books have given an account
of the creation of the universe, the origin of matter, and
the destiny of the human race. Nearly all have pointed
out the obligation that man is under to his Creator for
having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to
live and suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the
most abject worship could possibly compensate God for his
trouble and labor suffered and done for the good of man.
They have nearly all insisted that we should thank God for
all that is good in life; but they have not all informed us
as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we
endure.
Moses differed from most of the makers of sacred books
by his failure to say anything of a future life, by failing to
promise heaven and to threaten hell. Upon the subject of
a future state, there is not one word in the Pentateuch. Pro
bably at that early day God did not deem it important to make
a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man. He seems to
have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by
rewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the
frightful realities of eternal joy and torment a profound
secret from the people of his choice. ITe thought it far
more important to tell the Jews their origin than to en
lighten them as to their destiny.
We must remember that every tribe and nation has some
way in which the more striking phenomena of nature are
accounted for. These accounts are handed down by tra
dition, changed by numberless narrators as intelligence
increases, or to account for newly-discovered facts, or for
the purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvellous.
The way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and
night, the change of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the
flight of birds, the origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities
of animals, the dreams of sleep, the visions of the insane,
the existence of earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, lightning
and the thousand things that attract the attention and
excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
27
called the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all
phenomena are, by savage and barbaric man accounted for
as the action of intelligent beings for the accomplishment
of certain objects and as these beings were supposed to
have the power to assist or injure man, certain thing’s were
supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the
assistance and avoid the anger of these gods. Out of
this belief grew certain ceremonies, and these ceremonies
united with the belief formed religion ; and consequently
every religion has for its foundation a misconception of the
cause of phenomena.
All worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some
being exists who can, if he will, change the natural order
of events. The savage prays to a stone that he calls a
god, while the Christian prays to a god that he calls a
spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The
savage and the Christian put behind the universe an intelli
gent cause, and this cause, whether represented by one god
or many, has been in all ages the object of all worship. To
carry a fetish, or utter a prayer, to count beads, to abstain
from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an enemy, are
simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the
same object is sought, and are all the offspring of the same
error.
Many systems of religion must have existed many ages
before the art of writing was discovered, and must have
passed through many changes before the stories, miracles,
histories, prophecies and mistakes became fixed and pet rifled
in written words. After that, change was possible only by
giving new meanings to old words, a process rendered
necessary by the continual acquisition of facts somewhat
inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the “sacred
records.” In this way an honest faith often prolongs its
life by dishonest methods ; and in this way the Christians
of to-day are trying to harmonise the Mosaic account of
creation with the theories and discoveries of modern
science.
Admitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch,
or that he gave to the Jews a religion, the question arises
as to where he obtained his information. We are told by
the theologians that he received his knowledge from God,
and that every word he wrote was and is the exact truth.
�28
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son
of Pharaoh’s daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege
of a prince. Under such circumstances, he must have been
well acquainted with the literature, philosophy and religion
of the Egyptians, and must have known what they believed
and taught as to the creation of the world.
Now, if the account of the origin of this earth as given
by Moses is substantially like that given by the Egyptians,
then we must conclude that he learned it from them,
Should we imagine that he was divinely inspired because
he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him?
The Egyptian priests taught, first, that a god created
the original matter, leaving it in a state of chaos ; second,
that a god moulded it into form ; third, that the breath of
a god moved upon the face of the deep; fourth, that a god
created simply by saying “ Let it befifth, that a god
created light before the sun existed.
Nothing can be clearer than that Moses received from
the Egyptians the principal parts of his narrative, making
such changes and additions as were necessary to satisfy
the peculiar superstitions of his own people.
If some man at the present day should assert that he
had received from God the theories of evolution, the sur
vival of the fittest, and the law of heredity, and we should
afterwards find that he was not only an Englishman, but
had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly
should account for his having these theories in a natural
way. So if Darwin himself should pretend that he was
inspired, and had obtained his peculiar theories from God,
we should probably reply that his grandfather suggested
the same ideas, and that Lamarck published substantially
the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was
born.
Now, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the
same course of reasoning, account for the story of creation
found in the Bible. We will say that it contains the belief
of Moses, and that he received his information from the
Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account as
the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining
the value of modern thought, scientific advancement
becomes impossible.
And even if the account of the
creation as given by Moses should turn out to be true and
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
29
should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the claim
that he was inspired would still be without the least
particle of truth. We would be forced to admit that he
knew more than we had supposed. It certainly is no proof
that a man is inspired simply because he is right.
No one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet
all the writers of the books of the Old Testament put
together could not have produced “ Hamlet.”
Why should we, looking upon some rough and awkward
thing, or god in stone, say that it must have been produced
by some inspired sculptor, and with the same breath pro
nounce the Venus de Milo to be the work of man ? Why
should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or
virgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god ?
Let us account for all we see by the facts we know.
If there are things for which we cannot account, let us
wait for light. To account for anything by supernatural
agencies is, in fact, to say that we do not know. Theo
logy is not what we know about God, but what we do
not know about Nature. In order to increase our respect
for the Bible, it became necessary for the priests to exalt
and extol that book, and at the same time to decry and
belitttle the reasoning powers of man. The whole power
of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to
destroy the confidence of man in himself—to induce him
to distrust his own powers of thought, to believe that he
was wholly unable to decide any question for himself, and
that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience. The
Church has said, “ Believe and obey ! If you reason, you
will become an unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost.
If you disobey, you will do so through vain pride and
curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be thrust from
paradise for ever 1”
For my part, I care nothing for what the Church says,
except in so far as it accords with my reason; and the
Bible is nothing to me, only in so far as it agrees with what
I think or know.
All books should be examined in the same spirit, and
truth should be welcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter
in what volume they may be found.
Let us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch, and if any
thing appears unreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us
�30
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
have the honesty and courage to admit it. Certainly no
good can result either from deceiving ourselves or others.
Many millions have implicitly believed this book, and have
just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by
God. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation
of all human progress, and at the same time looked upon
slavery as a divine institution. Millions have declared this
book to have been infinitely holy, and, to prove that they
were right, have imprisoned, robbed and burned their
fellow men. The inspiration of this book has been esta
blished by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and
whip, by dagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud,
and generations have been bribed by threats of hell and
promises of heaven.
Let us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness
of our fear, but in the light of reason.
And, first, let us examine the account given of the crea
tion of this world, commenced, according to the Bible, on
Monday morning, about five thousand eight hundred and
eighty-three years ago.
VI.—MONDAY.
Moses commences his story by telling us that in the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If this means anything, it means that God produced,
caused to exist, called into being, the heaven and the earth.
It will not do to say that he formed the heaven and the
earth of previously existing matter. Moses conveys, and
intended to convey, the idea that the matter of which the
heaven and the earth are composed was created.
It is impossible for me to conceive of something being
created from nothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a
raw material, is a decided failure. I cannot conceive of
matter apart from force. Neither is it possible to think of
force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine
matter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you
imagine nothing being changed into something. You may
be eternally damned if you do not say that you can con-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
31
eeive these things, but you cannot conceive them. Such is
the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even
think of a commencement or an end of matter or force.
If God created the universe, there was a time when he
commenced to create. Back of that commencement there
must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was
this God doing? He certainly did not think. There was
nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing
had ever happened. What did he do ? Gan you imagine
anything more absurd than an infinite intelligence in infinite
nothing wasting an eternity ?
I do not pretend to tell how all these things really are ;
but I do insist that a statement that cannot possibly be
comprehended by any human being, and that appears utterly
impossible, repugnant to every fact of experience, and
contrary to everything that we .really know, must be
rejected by every honest man.
We can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive
of a cessation of time. We can conceive of infinite space
because we cannot conceive of so much matter that our
imagination will not stand upon the farthest star, and see
infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive
of a cessation of time ; therefore eternity is a necessity of
the mind. Eternity sustains the same relation to time that
space does to matter.
In the time of Moses it was perfectly safe for him to
write an account of the creation of the world. lie had
simply to put in form the crude notions of the people. At
that time no other Jew could have written a better account.
Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his imagination
full play. There was no one who could authoritatively
contradict anything he might say. It was substantially the
same story that had been imprinted in curious characters
upon the clay records of Babylon, the gigantic monuments
of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of India. In those days
there was an almost infinite difference between the educated
and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely
by signs and wonders. By the lever of fear priests moved
the world. The sacred records were made and kept and
altered by them. The people could not read, and looked
upon one who could as almost a god. In our day it is
hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in
�32
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
a barbarous age. It was only necessary to produce the
“sacred record,” and ignorance fell upon its face. The
people were taught that the record was inspired, and there
fore true.. They were not taught that it was true and
therefore inspired.
After all, the real question is not whether the Bible is
inspired, but whether it is true. If it is true, it does not
need to be inspired. If it is true, it makes no difference
whether it was written by a man or a god. The multipli
cation-table is just as useful, just as true, as though God
had arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really
true, the claim of inspiration need not be urged ; and if it
is not true, its inspiration can hardly be established. As a
matter of fact, the truth does not need to be inspired.
Nothing needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake.
Where truth ends, where probability stops, inspiration
begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.
Truth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will
fit every other fact in the universe, because it is the pro
duct of all other facts. A lie will fit nothing except another
lie made for the express purpose of fitting it. After a while
the man gets tired of lying, and then the last lie will not
fit the next fact, and then there is an opportunity to use a
miracle. Just at that point it is necessary to have a little
inspiration.
It seems to me that reason is the hig’hest attribute of
man, and that if there can be any communication from God
to man, it must be addressed to his reason. It does not
seem possible that in order to understand a message from
God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away.
How could God make known his will to any being destitute
of reason ? How can any man accept as a revelation from
God that which is unreasonable to him ? God cannot make
a revelation to another man for me. He must make it to
me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I can
not receive it.
The statement that in the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth I cannot accept. It is contrary to
my reason, and I cannot believe it. It appears reasonable
to me that force has existed from eternity. Force cannot,
as it appears to me, exist apart from matter. Force, in
its nature, is for ever active, and without matter it could
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
33
not act; and so I think matter must have existed for
ever. To conceive of matter without force, or of force
without matter, or of a time when neither existed, or of a
being* who existed for an eternity without either, and who
out of nothing' created both, is to me utterly impossible.
I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In
my judgment, Moses was mistaken.
It will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell
what God did in making the heavens and the earth out
of matter then in existence.
He distinctly says that in
the beginning God created them. If this account i» true,
we must believe that God, existing in infinite space sur
rounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, pro
duced, called into being, willed into existence, this universe
of countless stars.
The next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is
that God created light, and proceeded to divide it from the
dairkuGSS
Certainly the person who wrote this believed that dark
ness was a thing-, an entity, a material that could get mixed
and tangled up with light, and that these entities, light and
darkness, had to be separated. In his imagination he pro
bably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness
on one side, and rays and beams of light on the other.
It is hard for a man who has been born but once to
understand these things. For my part I cannot understand
how light can be separated from darkness. I had always
supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and
that under no circumstances could it be necessary to take
the darkness away from the light. It is certain, however,
that Moses believed darkness to be a form of matter, be
cause I find that in another place he speaks of a dark
ness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition
at Rome a bottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.
You cannot divide light from darkness any more than
you can divide heat from cold. Cold is an absence of heat,
and darkness is an absence of light. I suppose that we
have no conception of absolute cold. We know only
degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty
degrees warmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither
cold nor darkness are entities, and these words express
simply either the absolute or partial absence of heat or
�34
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided from
darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thou
sand years ago, writing upon a subject about which he
knew nothing, could make a mistake. The Creator of light
could not have written in this way. If such a being exists,
he must have known the nature of that “ mode of motion”
that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments
seven-hued this universe of worlds.
VII.—TUESDAY.
We are next informed by Moses that “ God said, Let there
be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
the waters from the waters;” and that “God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament fiom the waters which were above the firma
ment.”
What did the writer mean by the word “firmament?”
Theologians now tell us that he meant an “ expanse.” This
will not do. How could an expanse divide the waters from
the waters, so that the waters above the expanse would not
fall into and mingle with the waters below the expanse ?
The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament as a solid
affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept.
It was for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They
supposed that some angel could with a lever raise a gate
and let out the quantity of moisture desired. It was with
the water from this firmament that the world was drowned
when the windows of heaven were opened. It was in this
firmament that the sons of God lived—the sons who “saw
the daughters of men that they were fair and took them
wives of all which they chose?’ The issue of such mar
riages were giants, and “ the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown.”
Nothing is clearer than that Moses reg’arded the firma
ment as a vast material division that separated the waters
of the world, and upon whose floor God lived, surrounded
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
35
by his sons. In no other way could he account . for ram.
Where did the water come from ? He knew nothing about
the laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun
wooed with amorous kisses the waves of the sea, and that
they, clad in glorified mist rising to meet their lover, were,
by disappointment, changed to tears and fell as rain.
The idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity
must have been in the mind of Moses when he related the
dream of Jacob. “ And he dreamed, and behold, a ladder
set up on the earth and the top of it reached to heaven .
and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on
it. And, behold, the Lord stood above it and said, I am the
Lord God.”
.
So, when the people were building the tower of Babel
“ the Lord came down to see the city and the towei, which
the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold,
the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this
they begin to do ; and now nothing will be restrained from
them which they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and
there confound their language, that they may not under
stand one another’s speech.”
The man who wrote that absurd account must have
believed that God lived above the earth, in the firmament.
The same idea was in the mind of the Psalmist when he said
that God “ bowed the heavens and came down.”
Of course, God could easily remove any person bodily to
heaven, as it was but a little way above the earth.
Enoch
walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”
The accounts in the Bible of the ascension of Elijah, Christ
and St. Paul, were born of the belief that the firmament
was the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred
to these writers that if the firmament was seventy or eighty
miles away, Enoch and the rest would have been frozen
perfectly stiff long before the journey could have been
completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage,
as he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire “ by a whirl
wind.”
The truth is that Moses was mistaken, and upon that
mistake the Christians located their heaven and their hell.
The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the
heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of
our Lord and the assumption of his mother infinitely absurd,
�36
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New
Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of
worlds.
VIII.—WEDNESDAY.
We are next informed by the historian of creation that
after God had finished making the firmament and had
succeeded in dividing the waters by means of an “ expanse,”
he proceeded to gather the waters on the earth together
in seas so that the dry land might appear.
Certainly the writer of this did not have any concep
tion of the real form of the earth. He could not have
known anything of the attraction of gravitation. He must
have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that it
required considerable force and power to induce the water
to leave the mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as
soon as the water was forced to run down hill the dry land
appeared, and the grass began to grow and the mantles
of green were thrown over the shoulders of the hills, and
the trees laug’hed into bud and blossom and the branches
were laden with fruit.
And all this happened before a
ray had left the quiver of the sun, before a glittering
beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower, and before the
dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains
of the east and welcomed to her arms the eager god of
Day.
It does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow
and ripen into seed and fruit without the sun. According
to the account this all happened on the third day. Now, if
as the Christians say, Moses did not mean by the word “ day”
a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and almost
measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to
this view make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not
for millions of years after he made the grass and trees, for
what purpose did he cause the trees to bear fruit ?
Moses says that God said on the third day, “ Let the
earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
87
brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after
his kind ; and God saw that it was good, and the evening
and the morning were the third day. .
There was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with
painted wings sought the honey of the flowers; not a
single living, breathing thing upon the earth, llenty
of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance of fruit>
but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this
state of things lasted only two days; but if the modern
theologians are correct, it continued for millions of ages.
u It is now well known that the organic history of the
earth can be properly divided into five epochs—-the Prim
ordial, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary.
Each of these epochs is characterised by animal and vege
table life peculiar to itself. In the FIRST will be found
Algie and Skull-less Vertebrates ; in the SECOND, Ferns
and Fishes; in the Third, Pine Forests and Reptiles ; m
the FOURTH, Foliaceous Forests and Mammals; and in the
Fifth, Man.”
,. . ,
.
How much more reasonable this is than the idea tnat
the earth was covered with grass and herbs and trees
loaded with fruit for millions of years before an animal
existed.
There is, in Nature, an even balance for ever kept
between the total amounts of animal and vegetable life.
44 In her wonderful economy she must form and bountifully
nourish her vegetable progeny—twin-brother life to her
with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant
existences and animal existences must always be maintained
while matter courses through the eternal circle, becoming
each in turn. If an animal be resolved into its ultimate
constituents in a period according to the surrounding
circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four
years, or even of four thousand years—for it is impossible to
deny that there may be instances of all these periods during
which the process has continued—those elements which
assume the gaseous form mingle at once with the atmosphere
and are taken up from it without delay by the ever-open
mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores in every
leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit
for animal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated and
�38
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
assimilated to form the vegetable fibre which, as wood,
makes and furnishes our houses and ships, is burned for our
warmth, or is stored up under pressure for coal. All this
carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time, as
animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany
of to-day has been many negroes in its turn, and before the
African existed, was integral portions of many a generation
■of extinct species.”
It seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of
vegetation and certain kinds of animals should exist
together, and that as the character of the vegetation
changed, a corresponding change would take place in the
animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions
by “ total depravity,” or that I lack the necessary humility
of spirit to satisfactorily harmonise Hseckel and Moses;
or that, I am carried away by pride, blinded by reason’
given over to hardness of heart that I might be damned,
but I never can believe that the earth was covered with
leaves, and buds, and flowers and fruits before the sun with
glittering spear had driven back the hosts of Night.
IX.—THURSDAY.
After the world was covered with vegetation it occurred
to Moses that it was about time to make a sun and moon;
and so we are told that on the fourth day God said, “ Let
there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons,
and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth ; and
it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night;
he made the stars also.”
Can we believe that, the inspired writer had anv idea of
the size.of the sun ? Draw a circle five inches in diameter,
and by its side thrust a pin through the paper. The whole
made by the pin will sustain about the same relation to the
circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that
the sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
39
diameter; that it was enveloped in an ocean of fire thou
sands of miles in depth, hotter even than the Christian’s
hell, over which sweep tempests of flame moving’ at the
rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which
the wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this
world was but a calm ? Did he know that the sun, every
mom ent, of time, throws out as much heat as could be gene
rated by the combustion of eleven thousand millions of tons
of coal ? Did he know that the volume of the earth is less
than one-millionth of that of the sun ? Did he know of the
one hundred and four planets belonging to our solar system,
all children of the sun ? Did he know of Jupiter, eightyfive thousand miles in diameter, hundreds of times as large
as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of twenty-five
thousand miles an hour, accompanied by four moons, making
the tour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thou
sand million miles ? Did he know anything about Saturn,
his rings and his eight moons ? Did he have the faintest
idea that all these planets were once a part of the sun;
that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of
miles in diameter ; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter
and Mars were all born before our earth, and that by no
posssibility could this world have existed three days, nor
three periods, nor three “ good whiles” before its source,
the sun ?
Moses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in
diameter, and the moon about half that size. Compared
with the earth, they were but simple specks. This idea
seems to have been shared by all the “inspired ” men. We
find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the
moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon
their enemies. “ So the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.’
We are told that the sacred writer wrote in common
speech, as we do when we talk about the rising and setting
of the sun, and that all he intended to say was that
the earth ceased to turn on its axis “ for about a whole
day.”
My own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more
about the motions of the earth than he did about mercy and
justice. If he had known that the earth turned upon its
axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and swept in
�40
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand
miles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken
of in the same chapter, that the Lord cast down from
heaven, and allowed the sun and moon to rise and set in
the usual way.
It is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than
this about the stopping of the sun and moon, and yet
nothing so excites the malice of the orthodox preacher as to
call its truth in question. Some endeavor to account for
the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt to
show that God could by the refraction of light have made
the sun visible although actually shining on the opposite
side of the earth. The last hypothesis has been seriously
urged by ministers within the last few months. The Rev.
Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says “ that the
phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the
earth was not disturbed, but the light of the sun was pro
longed by the same laws of refraction and reflection by
which the sun now appears to be above the horizon when it
is really below.
The medium through which the sun’s
rays passed may have been miraculously influenced so asto have caused the sun to linger above the horizon long
after its usual time for disappearance.”
This is the latest and ripest product of Christian scholar
ship upon this question no doubt, but still it is not entirely
satisfactory to me. According to the sacred account the
sun did not linger merely above the horizon, but stood still
in the midst of heaven for about a whole day,” that is to
say for about twelve hours. If the air was miraculously
changed so that it would refract the rays of the sun while
the earth turned over as usual for “about a whole day,”
then at the end of that time the sun must have been visible
in the east, that is, it must by that time have been the next
morning. According to this, that most wonderful day
must have been at least thirty-six hours in length. We
have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve
hours of “refracted and reflected” light. By that time it
would again be morning, and the sun would shine for
twelve hours more in the natural way, making thirty-six
hours in all.
If the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on “ re
fraction ” and a little more on “ reflection,” he would con-
�41
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
elude that the whole story is simply a barbaric myth and
fable.
It hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one,
would either stop the globe, change the constitution of the
atmosphere or the nature of light simply to afford Joshua
an opportunity to kill people on that day, when he could
just as easily have waited until the next morning.
It
certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe
such childish things.
It has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is
for ever active, and eludes destruction by change of form.
Motion is a form of force, and all arrested motion changes
instantly to heat. The earth turns upon its axis at about
one thousand miles an hour. Let it be stopped, and a
force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has
been calculated that to stop the world would produce as
much heat as the burning of a solid piece of coal three
times the size of the earth.
And yet we are asked to
believe that this was done in order that one barbarian
might defeat another.
Such stories never would have
been written, had not the belief been general that the
heavenly bodies were as nothing compared with the earth.
The view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish
people and by the Christian world for thousands of years.
It is supposed that Moses lived about fifteen hundred
years before Christ, and although he was “ inspired,” and
obtained his information directly from God, he did not know
as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thou
sand years before he was born. “ The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch a conjunction of the planets
Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has been shown
by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2,449 years
before Christ.” The ancient Chinese knew not only the
motions of the planets, but they could calculate eclipses.
“In the reign of the Emperor Chow-Kang, the chief astro
nomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for neglecting
to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2,169 B.O., a
clear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the
duty of the imperial astronomers.”
Is it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his
own exertions more about the material universe than Moses
could when assisted by its creator ?
u
�42
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
About eight hundred years after God gave Moses the
principal facts about the creation of the “ heaven and the
earth ” he performed another miracle far more wonderful
than stopping the world. On this occasion he not only
stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other
way. A Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to con
vince him that he would ultimately recover, offered to make
the shadow on the dial go forward or backward ten degrees.
The king thought it was too easy a thing to make the shadow
go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon,
“ Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought
the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone
down in-the dial of Ahaz.” I hardly see how this miracle
could be accounted for even by “ refraction ” and “ reflec
tion.”
It seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle
was performed after the king' had been cured. The account
of the shadow going backward is given in the eleventh
verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings, while the
cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter.
“ And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took
and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.”
Stopping the world and causing it to turn back ten
degrees after that, seems to have been, as the boil was
already cured by the figs, a useless display of power.
The easiest way to account for all these wonders is to
say that the “ inspired ” writers were mistaken. In this
way a fearful burden is lifted from the credulity of man,
and he is left free to believe the evidences of his own
senses and the demonstrations of science. In this way he
can emancipate himself from the slavery of superstition,
the control of the barbaric dead, and the despotism of the
Church.
Only about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist,
was compelled by the faculty of theology at Paris to
publicly renounce fourteen “errors” in his work on Natural
History because they were at variance with the Mosaic
account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific
standard of the Church, and ig-norant priests, armed with
that, pronounce sentence upon the vast accomplishments of
modern thought.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
43
X.—“TIE MADE THE STARS ALSO.”
Moses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only
gave five words to all the hosts of heaven. Gan it be possible
that he knew anything about the stars beyond the mere fact
that he saw them shining above him ?
Did he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to
be the best acquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles
away, and that it is a sun shining by its own light ? Did he
know of the next, that is thirty-seven billion miles distant ?
Is it possible that he was acquainted with Sirius, a sun two
thousand six hundred and eighty-eight times larger than
our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies, several
of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two
billion miles ? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the
mariner his course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is
distant from this little world two hundred and ninety-two
billion miles, and that Capella wheels and shines one hundred
and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did he know that it
would require about seventy-two years for light to reach us
from this star ? Did he know that light travels one hundred
and eighty-five thousand miles a second ? Did he know that
some stars are so far away in the infinite abysses that five
millions of years are required for their light to reach this
globe ?
If this is true, and if, as the Bible tells us, the stars were
made after the earth, then this world has been wheeling in
its orbit for at least five million years.
It may be replied that it was not the intention of God to
teach geology and astronomy. Then why did he say any
thing upon these subjects ? and if he did say anything,
why did he not give the facts ?
According to the sacred records, God created, on the first
day, the heaven and the earth, “ moved upon the face of
the waters,” and made the light. On the second day he
made the firmament or the “ expanse ” and divided the
waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into
seas, let the dry land appear, and caused the earth to bring
forth grass, herbs and fruit trees, and on the fourth day he
�44
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
made the sun, moon and stars, and set them in the firma
ment of heaven to give light upon the earth. This division
of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is
as nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it
possible that it required the same time and labor to make
the grass, herbs and fruit trees, that it did to fill with count
less constellations the infinite expanse of space ?
XI.—FRIDAY.
We are then told that on the next day “ God said, Let the
waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that
hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God
blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
Is it true that while the dry land was covered with grass,
and herbs, and trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely
devoid of life, and so remained for millions of years ?
If Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then
it would make but little difference on which of the six days
animals were made ; but if the word day was used to express
millions of ages, during which life was slowly evolved from
monad up to man, then the account becomes infinitely absurd,
puerile and foolish. There is not a scientist of hig'h standing
who will say that in his judgment the earth was covered
with fruit-bearing trees before the monera, the ancestor it
may be of the human race, felt in Laurentian seas the first
faint throb of life. Nor is there one who will declare that
there was a single spire of grass before the sun had poured
upon the world his flood of gold.
Why should men in the name of religion try to harmonise
the contradictions that exist between Nature and a book ?
Why should philosophers be denounced for placing more
reliance upon what they know than upon what they have
been told ? If there is a God, it is reasonably certain that
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
45
he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is
the author of the Bible. Why then should we not place
greater confidence in Nature than in a book ? And even if
this God made not only the world but the book besides, it
does not follow that the book is the best part of creation,
and the only part that we shall be eternally punished for
denying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to
know something of the solar system, something of the
physical history of this globe, as it is to know the adven
tures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel. For my part, I
would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific
investigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing
the Bible to be true, why is it any worse or more wicked
for Freethinkers to deny it than for priests to deny the
doctrine of Evolution or the dynamic theory of heat ? Why
should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his foxes,
while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter con
tempt, go straight to heaven ? It seems to me that a belief
in the great truths of science is fully as essential to salva
tion as the creed of any Church. We are taught that a
man may be perfectly acceptable to God even if he denies
the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the three
laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the
attraction of gravitation. And we are also taught that a
man may be right upon all these questions, and yet, for
failing to believe in the “ scheme of salvation,” be eternally
lost.
XII.—SATURDAY.
On this, the last day of creation, God said:—“ Let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and it
was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth
upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was
good.”
Now, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky
with fowls, and the earth covered with grass, and herbs,
�46
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and fruit-bearing trees, millions of ages before there was a
creeping thing in existence ? Must we admit that plants and
animals were the result of the fiat of some incomprehensible
intelligence independent of the operation of what are known
as natural causes ? Why is a miracle any more necessary to
account for yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow ?
If there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain
than that this Power works in accordance with what we call
law, that is, by and through natural causes. If anything
can be found without a pedigree of natural antecedents, it
will then be time enough to talk about the fiat of creation.
There must have been a time when plants and animals did
not exist upon this globe. The question, and the only
question is, whether they were naturally produced. If the
account given by Moses is true, then the vegetable and
animal existences are the result of certain special fiats of
creation entirely independent of the operation of natural
causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with
the experience and observation of mankind, that it cannot
be adopted without abandoning forever the basis of scientific
thought and action.
It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred
record correctly. To this it may be replied that for thou
sands of years the account of the creation has, by the
J ewish and Christian world, been regarded as literally true.
If it was inspired, of course God must have known just
how it would be understood, and consequently must have
intended that it should be understood just as he knew it
would be. One man writing to another may mean one
thing, and yet be understood as meaning something else.
Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood,
and also knew that he could use other words that would
convey his real meaning, but did not, we would say that
he used words on purpose to mislead, and was not an honest
man.
If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused
it to be written, he must have known exactly how his
words would be interpreted by all the world, and he must
have intended to convey the very meaning that was con
veyed. He must have known that by reading that book
man would form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity
and size of this world ; that he would be misled as to the
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
47
time and oi’der of creation; that he would have the most
childish and contemptible views of the Creator ; that the
“sacred word” would be used to support slavery and
polygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good and
light fagots to consume the brave, and therefore he must
have intended that these results should follow. He also
must have known that thousands and millions of men and
women never could believe his Bible, and that the number
of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilisa
tion, and therefore he must have intended that result.
Let us understand this. An honest finite being uses the
best words, in his judgment, to convey his meaning. This
is the best he can do, because he cannot certainly know the
exact effect of his words on others. But an infinite being
must know not only the real meaning of the words, but
the exact meaning they will convey to every reader and
hearer. He must know every meaning that they are capable
of conveying to every mind. He must also know what
explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If
an infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use
such words that every person to whom revelation is essential
will understand distinctly what that revelation is, then a
revelation from God through the instrumentality of lan
guage is impossible, or it is not essential that all should
understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions
have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although
expressed in the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient
reply to ask why a being of infinite power should create
men so devoid of intelligence that he cannot by any means
make known to them his will ? We are told that it is ex
ceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool,
need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the
religious history of the Christian world. Every sect is a
certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man.
To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning.
About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there
have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame.
If written by an infinite God, he must have known that these
results mustfollow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible
for all.
Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book
the work of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and
�48
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
error, with mistakes and facts, and reflects, too faithfully
perhaps, the “ very form and pressure ” of its time ?
If there are mistakes in the Bible, certainly they were
made by man. If there is anything contrary to nature, it
was written by man. If there is anything immoral, cruel,
heartless or infamous, it certainly was never written by a
being worthy of the adoration of mankind.
XIII.—LET US MAKE MAN.
We are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch
that God said “ Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness,” and that “ God created man in his own
image, in the image'of God created he him; male and
female created he them.”
If this account means anything, it means that man was
created in the physical image and likeness of God. Moses,
while he speaks of man as having been made in the image
of God, never speaks of God except as having the form of
a man. He speaks of God as “ walking in the garden in
the cool of the dayand says that Adam and Eve “ heard his
voice.” He is constantly telling what God said, and in a
thousand passages he refers to him as not only having the
human form, but as performing actions such as man per
forms. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with
feet, with the organs of speech—a God of passion, of
hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance—a God who
made mistakes—in other words, an immense and powerful
man.
It will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the
idea that God made man in his mental or moral image.
Some have insisted that man was made in the moral image
of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be manu
factured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a
god. Every man must make his own moral character.
Consequently, if God is infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were
not made in his image in that respect. Others say that
Adam and Eve were made in the mental image of God. If
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
49
it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning
powers like, but not to the extent of, those possessed by a
god, then this may be admitted. But certainly this idea
was not in the mind of Moses. He regarded the human
form as being in the image of God, and for that reason
always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read
the Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the
author supposed that man was created in the physical likeness
of Deity. God said “ Go to, let us godown.” God “ smelled
asweetsavor
God “ repented ” him that he had made man;
“and God said,” and “walked,” and “ talked,” and “rested.”
All these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea
than that the person using them regarded God as having
the form of man.
As a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive
of a personal God, other than as a being having the human
form. No one can think of an infinite being having the
form of a horse, or of a bird, or of any animal beneath man.
It is one of the necessities of the mind to associate forms
with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which we
have any conception is man’s, and consequently, his is the
only form that we can find in imagination to give to a
personal God, because all other forms are, in our minds,
connected with lower intelligences.
It is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit
without form. We can use these words, but they do not
convey to the mind any real and tangible meaning. Every
one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks of him as
having the human form. Take from God the idea of form ;
speak of him simply as an all-pervading spirit—-which means
an all-pervading something about which we know nothing
—and Pantheism is the result.
We are told that God made man ; and the question
naturally arises, How was this done? Was it by a process
of “ evolution,” “ development,” the “ transmission of
acquired habits,” the “ survival of the fittest,” or was the
necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consis
tency, and then by the hands of God moulded into form ?
Modern science tells us that man has been evolved, through
countless epochs, from the lowest forms ; that he is the
result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions,
experiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did
�50
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Moses intend to convey such a meaning, or did he believe
that God took a sufficient amount of dust, made it the
proper shape, and breathed into it the breath of life ? Can
any believer in the Bible give any reasonable account of
this process of creation ? Is it possible to imagine what
was really done ? Is there any theologian who will contend
that man was created directly from the earth ? Will he say
that man was made substantially as he now is, with all his
muscles properly developed for walking and speaking, and
performing every variety of human action—that all his
bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of
nerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day ?
Looking back over the history of animal life from the
lowest to the highest forms, we find that there has been a
slow and gradual development; a certain but constant
relation between want and production; between use and
form. The monera is said to be the simplest form of animal
life that has yet been found. It has been described as “an
organism without organs.” It is a kind of structureless
structure; a little mass of transparent jelly that can
flatten itself out, and can expand and contract around its
food. It can feed without a mouth, digest without a
stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple
division. By taking this monera as the commencement of
animal life, or rather as the first animal, it is easy to follow
the development of the organic structure through all the
forms of life to man himself. In this way finally every
muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function
may be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, *
can the existence of rudimentary organs be explained.
Blot from the human mind the ideas of evolution, heredity,
adaptation, and “the survival of the fittest,” with which it
has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe, Darwin, II seek el
and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal life
become utterly disconnected and meaningless. Shall we
throw away all that has been discovered with regard to
organic life, and in its place take the statements of one who
lived in the rude morning of a barbaric day ? Will any
body now contend that man was a direct and independent
creation, and sustains and bears no relation to the animals
below him ? Belief upon this subject must be governed
at last by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
51
He can control his speech, and can say that he believes or
disbelieves; but after all, his will cannot depress or raise
the scales with which his reason finds the worth and weight
of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence, judgment
and reason are but empty words.
I ask again, how were Adam and Eve created ? In one
account they are created male and female, and apparently
at the same time. In the next account, Adam is made first,
and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a part of the man.
Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly to
expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and
flesh ? How was the woman created from a rib ? How
was man created simply from dust? For my part, I can
not believe this statement. I may suffer for this in the world
to come ; and may, millions of years hence, sincerely wish
that I had never investigated the subject but had been
content to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe
that any Deity works in that way. So far as my experience
goes, there is an unbroken procession of cause and effect.
Each thing is a necessary link in an infinite chain; and I
cannot conceive of this chain being broken even for one
instant. Back of the simplest monera there is a cause, and
back of that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever.
In my philosophy I postulate neither beginning nor ending.
If the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man
has been upon this earth. If that account can be relied on,
the first man was made about five thousand eight hundred
and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred and fiftysix years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants
of the world, with the exception of eight people, were des
troyed by a flood. This flood occurred only about four
thousand two hundred and twenty-seven years ago. If
this account is correct, at that time only one kind of men
existed. Noah and his family were certainly of the same
blood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see
between the various races of men have been caused in about
four thousand years. If the account of the deluge is true,
then since that event all the ancient kingdoms of the earth
were founded, and their inhabitants passed through all the
stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilised life ;
through the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established
commerce, cultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with
�52
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
palaces and temples, invented writing, produced a literature,
and slowly fell to shapeless ruin. We must believe that all
this has happened within a period of four thousand years.
From representations found upon Egptian granite made
more than three thousand years ago, we know that the
negro was as black, his lips as full, and his hair as closely
curled then as now. If we know anything, we know that
there was at that time substantially the same difference
between the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know
anything, we know that magnificent statues were made in
Egypt four thousand years before our era—that is to say,
about six thousand years ago. There was at the World’s
Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of King
Cephren, known to have been chiselled more than six thousand
years ago. In other words, if the Mosaic account must be
believed, this statue was made before the world. We also
know,.if we know anything, that men lived in Europe with
the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and the
hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found
the stone hatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the
caves where they lived have been discovered the remains
of these animals that had been conquered, killed and de
voured as food, hundreds of thousands of years ago.
If these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my
part, I have infinitely more confidence in the discoveries of
to-day, than in the records of a barbarous people. It will
not now do to say that man has existed upon this earth for
only about six thousand years. One can hardly compute
in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge
from the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded
by animals far more powerful than he, to progress and
finally create the civilisations of India, Egypt and Athens.
The distance from savagery to Shakespeare must be
measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years.
XIV.—SUNDAY.
££ And on the seventh day God ended his work which he
had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
53
sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his
work which God created and made.”
The great work had been accomplished, the world, the
sun, and moon, and all the hosts of heaven were finished;
the earth was clothed in green, the seas were filled with
life, the cattle wandered by the brooks, insects with painted
wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve were making
each other’s acquaintance, and God was resting from his work.
He was contemplating the achievements of a week.
Because he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for
that reason and for that alone, it was by the Jews con
sidered a holy day. If he only rested on that day, there
ought to be some account of what he did the following
Monday. Did he rest on that day ? What did he do after
he got rested ? Has he done anything in the way of creation
since Saturday evening of the first week ?
It is now claimed by the “scientific ” Christians that the
“ days ” of creation were not ordinary days of twenty-four
hours each, but immensely long periods of time. If they
are right, then how long was the seventh day ? Was that,
too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages ? That
cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday
evening before, and according to the Bible that was about
five thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago.
I cannot state the time exactly, because there have been as
many as one hundred and forty different opinions given by
learned biblical students as to the time between the creation
of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain,
however, that according to the Bible, it is not more than
six thousand years since the creation of Adam. From this
it would appear that the seventh day was not a geologic
epoch, but was in fact a period of less than six thousand
years, and probably of only twenty-four hours.
The theologians who “ answer ” these things may take
their choice. If they take the ground that the “ days ” were
periods of twenty-four hours, then geology will force them
to throw away the whole account. If, on the other hand,
they admit that the days were vast “periods,” then the
sacredness of the Sabbath must be given up. •
There is found in the Bible no intimation that there was
the least difference in the days. They are all spoken of in
the same way. It may be replied that our translation is
�54
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
incorrect. If this is so, then only those who understand
Hebrew have had a revelation from God, and all the rest
have been deceived.
How is it possible to sanctify a space of time ? Is rest
holier than labor ? If there is any difference between days,
ought not that to be considered best in which the most use
ful labor has been performed ?
Of all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about
the “ sacred Sabbath ” is the most absurd. The idea of
feeling it a duty to be solemn and sad one-seventh of the
time! To think that we can please an infinite being- by
staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking
in the perfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a
man happy ? Why should it excite his wrath to see a
family in the woods, by some babbling stream, talking,
laughing and loving? Nature works on that “sacred”
day. The earth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, the
buds burst into flower, and birds fill the air with song.
Why should we look sad, and think about death, and hear
about hell ? Why should that day be filled with gloom
instead of joy ?
A poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise,
needs a day of rest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood,
a day to live with wife and child; a day in which to
laugh at care, and g’ather hope and strength for toils to
come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air,
away from street and wall, amid the hill, or by the margin
of the sea, where she can sit and prattle with her babe, and
fill with happy dreams the long, glad day.
The “ Sabbath ” was born of asceticism, hatred of human
joy, fanaticism, ignorance, egotism of priests and the
cowardice of the people. This day, for thousands of years,
has been dedicated to superstition, to the dissemination of
mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every Free
thinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He
should assert his independence, and do all within his power
to wrest the Sabbath from the gloomy church and give it
back to liberty and joy. Freethinkers should make the
Sabbath a day of mirth and music—a day to spend with
wife and child—a day of games, and books, and dreams—a
day to put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead, a day of
memory and hope, of love and rest.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
55
Why should we in this age of the world be dominated by
the dead? Why should barbarian Jews, who went down
to death and dust three thousand years ago, control the
living world ? Why should we care for the superstition of
men who began the Sabbath by paring their nails, “ begin
ning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to
the fifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb ?”
How pleasing to God this must have been. The Jews were
very careful of these nail parings. They who threw them
upon the ground were wicked, because Satan used them to
work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the
Sabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool
their burning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed
to be kindled nor extinguished, and upon that day it was a
sin to bind up wounds. “ The lame might use a staff, but
the blind could not.” So strict was the Sabbath kept, that
at one time “ if a Jew on a journey was overtaken by the
‘ sacred day ’ in a wood, or on the highway, no matter
where, nor under what circumstances, he must sit down,”
and there remain until the day was gone, ‘‘ If he fell down
in the dirt, there he was compelled to stay until the day was
done.” For violating the Sabbath, the punishment was
death, for nothing short of the offender’s blood could satisfy
the wrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two
reasons given for abstaining from labor on the Sabbath—
the resting of God, and the redemption of the Jews from
the bondage of Egypt.
Since the establishment of the Christian religion, the day
has been changed, and Christians do not regard the day as
holy upon which God actually rested, and which he
sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or the “ Lord’s day,”
was legally established by the murderer Constantine,
because upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen
from the dead.
It is not easy to see where Christians got the right to
disregard the direct command of God, to labor on the day
he sanctified, and keep as sacred a day upon which he com
manded men to labor. The Sabbath of God is Saturday,
and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not
the Sunday of the Christian.
Let us throw away these superstitions and take the
higher, nobler ground, that every day should be rendered
�56
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
sacred by some loving act, by increasing the happiness of
man, giving birth to noble thoughts, putting in the path of
toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate, lifting the
fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending
the helpless and filling homes with light and love.
XV.—THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY.
It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the
creation in Genesis. The first acccount stops with the
third verse of the second chapter. The chapters have been
improperly divided. In the original Hebrew the Pentateuch
was neither divided into chapters nor verses. There was
not even any system of punctuation. It was written
wholly with consonants, without vowels, and without any
marks, dots, or lines to indicate them.
These accounts are materially different, and both cannot
be true. Let us see wherein they differ.
The second account of the creation begins with the fourth
verse of the second chapter, and is as follows.
“ These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God
made the earth and the heavens,
“ And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord
God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was
not a man to till the ground.
“ But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered
the whole face of the ground.
“ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul.
“ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden ;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.
“ And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil.
�SOME MISTAKES OK MOSES.
57
li And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
“ The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold:
11 And the gold of that land is good : there is bdellium
and the onyx stone.
“ And the name of the second river is Gihon : the same
is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
“ And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it
which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth
river is Euphrates.
“ And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the
garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
“ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.
“ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him.
“ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air ; and brought them
unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatso
ever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
“ 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 help meet for him.
“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.
“ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be one flesh. ’
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and
were not ashamed.”
ORDER OF CREATION IN THE FIRST ACCOUNT :
1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made.
�58
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided.
3. The waters were gathered into seas—and then came
dry land, grass, herbs and fruit trees.
4. The sun and the moon. He made the stars also.
5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales.
6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman.
ORDER OF CREATION IN THE SECOND ACCOUNT :
1. The heavens and the earth.
2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground.
3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam.
4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man
in it.
5. Created the beasts and fowls.
6. Created a woman out of one of the man’s ribs.
In the second account, man was made before the beasts
and fowls. If this is true, the first account is false. And
if the theologians of our time are correct in their view that
the Mosaic day means thousands of ages, then, according to
the second account, Adam existed millions of years before
Eve was formed. lie must have lived one Mosaic day
before there were any trees, and another Mosaic day before
the beasts and fowls were created. Will some kind clergy
man tell us upon what kind of food Adam subsisted during
these immense periods ?
In the second account a man is made, and the fact that
he was without a helpmeet did not occur to the Lord God
until a couple of a vast periods ” afterwards. The Lord God
suddenly coming to an appreciation of the situation said,
“ It is not good that the man should be alone ; I will make
him an help meet for him.”
Now, after concluding to make “ an help meet ” for Adam,
what did the Lord God do ? Did he at once proceed to make
a woman ? No. What did he do ? He made the beasts,
and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for “ an help
meet.” If I am incorrect, read the following account, and
tell me what it means :
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him.
“ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every
beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
59
■ them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the
name thereof.
“ 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 help meet for him.”
Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for
Adam, why did he cause the animals to pass before him ?
And why did he, after the menagerie had passed by,
pathetically exclaim, “ But for Adam there was not found
an help meet for him ?”
It seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy.
The fairest ape, the sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest
baboon, the most bewitching orang-outang, the most fascin
ating gorilla failed to touch with love’s sweet pain, poor
Adam’s lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so. Had
he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Free
thinker in this world.
Dr. Adam Clarke, speaking of this remarkable proceeding
says :—“ God caused the animals to pass before Adam to
show him that no creature yet formed could make him a
suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that none
of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and
that therefore he must continue in a state that was not
good (celibacy) unless he became a further debtor to the
bounty of his maker, for among all the animals which he
had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam.”
Upon this same subject. Dr. Scott informs us “that-it
was not conducive to the happiness of the man to remain
without the consoling society and endearment of tender
friendship, nor consistent with the end of his creation to be
without marriage by which the earth might be replenished
and worshippers and servants raised up to render him praise
and glory. Adam seems to have been vastly better
acquainted by intuition or revelation with the distinct pro
perties of every creature than the most sagacious observer
since the fall of man.
“ Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in
outward form his counterpart, nor one suited to engage his
affections, participate in his enjoyments, or associate with
him in the worship of God.”
Dr. Matthew Henry admits that God brought all the
�60
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
animals together to see if there was a suitable match for
Adam in any of the numerous families of the inferior creatures,
but there was none. They were all looked over, but Adam
could not be matched among them all. Therefore God
created a new thing to be a helpmeet for him.”
Failing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals,
the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and
while in this sleep took out one of Adam’s ribs and “ closed
up the flesh instead thereof.” And out of this rib the Lord
Grod made a woman, and brought her to the man.
Was the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man
because he had used up all the original “ nothing ” out of
which the universe was made ? Is it possible for any sane
and intelligent man to believe this story ? Must a man be
born a second time before this account seems reasonable ?
Imagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which
to start a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to
make a blonde or a brunette !
Just at this point it may be proper for me to warn all
persons from laug’hing at, or making light of, any stories
found in the “ Holy Bible.” When you come to die, every
laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At that solemn
moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no
matter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined;
no matter how many women you have deceived and de
serted, all that can be forgiven ; but if you remember then
that you have laughed at even one story in God’s “ sacred
book,” you will see through the gathering shadows of death
the forked tongues of devils and the leering eyes of fiends.
These stories must be believed, or the work of regenera
tion can never be commenced. No matter how well you
act your part—live as honestly as you may, clothe the
naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing with the
poor—and you are simply travelling the broad road that
leads inevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time
you implicitly believe the Bible to be the inspired word of
God.
Let me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose,
for a moment, that we are at the Day of Judgment, listen
ing to the trial of souls as they arrive. The Recording
Secretary, or whoever does the cross-examining, says to a
soul:
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
61
Where are you from ?—I am from the Earth.
What kind of a man were, you ?—Well, I don’t like to
talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by looking at
your books.
No sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were.—
Well, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I
loved my wife and children. My home was my heaven.
My fireside was a paradise to me. To sit there and see
the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I loved,
was to me a perfect joy.
How did you treat your family ?—I never said an unkind
word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my children, a
moment’s pain.
Did you pay your debts ?—I did not owe a dollar when I
died, and left enough to pay my funeral expenses, and to
keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I loved.
Did you belong to any church ?—No, sir. They were
too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me; I never thought
that I could be very happy if other folks were damned.
Did you believe in eternal punishment?—Well, no. I
always thought that God could get his revenge in far less
time.
Did you believe the rib story ?—Do you mean the Adam
and Eve business ?
Yes. Did you believe that?—To tell you the God’s
truth, that was just a little more than I could swallow.
Away with him to hell 1 Next.
Where are you from ?—I am from the world too.
Did you belong to any church?—Yes, sir, and to the Young
Men’s Christian Association besides.
What was your business ?—Cashier in a Savings Bank.
Did you ever run away with any money ?—Where I came
from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate him
self.
The law is different here. Answer the question. Did
you run away with any money ?—Yes, sir.
How much ?—One hundred thousand dollars.
Did you take anything else with you ?—Yes, sir.
W ell, what else ?—I took my neighbor’s wife—we sang
together in the choir.
Did you have a wife and children of your own ?—Yes,
sir.
�62
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
And you deserted them ?—Yes, sir ; but such was my
confidence in God, that I believed he would take care of
them.
Have you heard of them since ?—No, sir.
Did you believe in the rib story ?—Bless your soul, of
course I did. A thousand times I regretted that there were
no harder stories in the Bible, so that I could have shown
my wealth of faith.
Do you believe the rib story yet ?—Yes, with all my
heart.
Give him a harp.
Well, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam’s
rib. Of course, I do not know exactly how this was done,
but when he got the woman finished, he presented her to
Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping
in the celebrated Garden of Eden.
Must we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our
lives, believe that the creation of woman was a second
thought ? That Jehovah really endeavored to induce Adam
to take one of the lower animals as an helpmeet for him ?
After all, is it not possible to live honest and courageous
lives without believing these fables ? It is said that from
Mount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings,
ten commandments for the guidance of mankind; and yet
among them is not found—“ Thou shalt believe the Bible.”
XVI.—THE GARDEN.
In the first account we are told that God made man, male
and female, and said to them, “ Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”
In the second account only the man is made, and he is
put in a garden “ to dress it and to keep it.” He is not
told to subdue the earth, but to dress and keep a garden.
In the first account man is given every herb bearing seed
upon the face of the earth and the fruit of every tree for
food, and in the second, he is given only the fruit of all the
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
63
trees in the garden with the exception “ of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil,” which was a deadly poison.
There was issuing from this garden a river that was ,
parted into four heads. The first of these, Pison, compassed
the whole land of Haviiah; the second, Gihon, compassed
the whole land of Ethiopia ; the third, Hiddekel, flowed
toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth was the Euphrates.
Where are these four rivers now ? The brave prow of dis
covery has visited every sea; the traveller has pressed with
weary feet the soil of every clime ; and yet there has been
found no place from which four rivers sprang. The Eu
phrates still journeys to the gulf, but where are Pison,
Gihon and the mighty Hiddekel ? Surely by going to the
source of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three
rivers or their ancient beds. Will some minister, when he
answers the “ Mistakes of Moses,” tell us where these rivers
are or were ? The maps of the world are incomplete without
these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources
of the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an
American; but these three rivers still rise in unknown
hills, still flow through unknown lands, and empty still in
unknown seas.
The account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David
Swing would call “ a geographical poem.” The orthodox
clergy cover the whole affair with the blanket of allegory,
while the “ scientific” Christian folks talk about cataclysms,
upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the
earth’s crust.
The question then arises, whether within the last six
thousand years there have been such upheavals and dis
placements? Talk as you will about the vast “ creative
periods ” that preceded the appearance of man; it is, accord
ing to the Bible, only about six thousand years since man
was created. Moses gives us the generations of men from
Adam until his day, and his account cannot be explained
away by calling centuries days.
According to the second account of creation, these four
rivers were made after the creation of man, and conse
quently they must have been obliterated by convulsions of
Nature within six thousand years.
Can we not account for these contradictions, absurdities
and falsehoods by simply saying that although the writer
�64
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
may have clone his level best, he failed because he was
limited in knowledge, led away by tradition, and depended
too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination ? Is
not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that.
all these things are true, and must stand though every
science shall fall to mental dust ?
Can any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of
the fruit of the tree of knowledge ?■ What kind of tree
was that ? If it is all an allegory, what truth is sought to
be conveyed ? Why should God object to that fruit being
eaten by man ? Why did he put it in the midst of the
garden ? There was certainly plenty of room outside. If
he wished to keep man and this tree apart, why did he put
them together ? And why, after he had eaten, was he
thrust out ? The only answer that we have a right to give
is the one given in the Bible. “ And the Lord God said, Be
hold, the man is become as one of us. to know good and
evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever : Therefore the
Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he was taken.”
Will some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us
what this means ? Are we bound to believe it without
knowing what the meaning is ? If ibis' a revelation, what
does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and
does that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by
theologians towards all scientific truth ? Was there in the
garden a tree of life, the eating of which would have ren-clered Adam and Eve immortal ? Is it true, that after the
Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed upon
its Eastern side “ Cherubinis, and a flaming sword which
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life ?”
Are the Cherubinis and the flaming sword guarding that
tree yet, or was it destroyed, or did its rotting trunk, as
the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests, “ nourish a bank of
violets ?”
What objection could God have had to the immortality
of man ? You see that after all this sacred record, instead
of assuring us of immortality, shows us only how we lost
it. In this there is assuredly but little consolation.
According to this story we have lost one Eden, but no
where in the Mosaic books are we told how we may gain
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
65
■another. I know that the Christians tell us there is another,
in which all true believers will finally be gathered, and
enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing- the unbelievers
in hell; but they do not tell us where it is.
Some commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in
the third heaven, some in the fourth, others have located
it in the moon, some in the air beyond the attraction of the
earth, some on the earth, some under the earth, some inside
the earth, some at the North Pole, others at the South, some
in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the Ganges
some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in
Africa, some under the equator, others in Mesopotamia, in
Syria, Persia, Arabia, Babylon, Assyria, Palestine and
Europe. Others have contended that it was invisible, that
it was an allegory, and must be spiritually understood.
But whether you understand these things or not, you
must believe them. You may be laughed at in this world
for insisting that God put Adam into a deep sleep and made
a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be crowned
and glorified in the next. You will also have the pleasure
of hearing the gentlemen howl there who laughed at you
here. While you will not be permitted to take any revenge,
you will be allowed to smilingly express your entire acqui
escence in the will of God. But where is the new Eden ?
No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not
been found.
Is it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent,
and that he became degenerate by disobedience ? No. The
real truth is, and the history of man shows, that he has ad
vanced. Events, like the pendulum of a clock, have swung
forward and backward, but after all, man, like the hands,
has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not
degenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and
make room for higher forms. The intellectual horizon of
the world widens as the centuries pass. Ideals grow
grander and purer; the difference between justice and
mercy becomes less and less ; liberty enlarges, and love in
tensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and
fear, of cruelty and wrong, are behind us, and the real Eden
is beyond. It is said that a desire for knowledge lost us
the Eden of the past; but whether that is true or not, it
will certainly give us the Eden of the future.
�66
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
XVII.—THE FALL.
WE are told that the serpent was more subtle than any
beast of the Held ; that he had a conversation with Eve, in
which he gave his opinion about the effect of eating certain
fruit; that he assured her it was good to eat, that it
was pleasant to the eve, that it would make her wise ; that
she was induced to take some ; that she persuaded her
husband to try it; that God found it out, that he then
cursed the snake ; condemning it to crawl and eat the dust;
that he multiplied the sorrows of Eve, cursed the ground
for Adam’s sake, started thistles and thorns, condemned
man to eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face,
pronounced the curse of death, “ Dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return,” made coats of skins for Adam and
Eve, and drove them out of Eden.
Who and what was this serpent ? Dr. Adam Clark says :
“ The serpent must have walked erect, for this is necessarily
implied in his punishment. That he was endued with the
gift of speech, also with reason. That these things were
given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often
seen him walking erect, and talking and reasoning, there
fore she testifies no sort of surprise when he accosts her in
' the language related in the text. It therefore appears to
me that a creature of the ape or orang-outang kind is
here intended, and that Satan made use of this creature as
the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his
murderous purposes against the life of the soul of man.
Under this creature he lay hid, and by this creature he
seduced our first parents. Such a creature answers to
every part of the description in the text. It is evident
from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might
have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing
else than the sovereign controlling power could induce it to
put down hands—in every respect formed like those of man
—and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed parts
prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours.
The stealthy cunning- and endless variety of the pranks and
tricks of these creatures, show them even now to be wiser
and more intelligent than any other creature, man alone ex-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
67
cepted. Being obliged to walk on all fours and gather
their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat
the dust; and though exceeding cunning, and careful in a
variety of instances to separate that part which is whole
some and proper for food from that which is not so, in the
article of cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety.
Add to this their utter aversion to walk upright. It requires
the utmost discipline to bring them to it, and scarcely any
thing offends or irritates them more than to be obliged to
do it. Long observation of these animals enables me to>
state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and for
chattering and babbling, they (the apes) have no fellows in the
animal world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter is
all they have left of their original gift of speech, of which
they appear to have been deprived at the fall as a part of
their punishment.”
Here then is the “ connecting link ” between man and
the lower creation. The serpent was simply an orangoutangthat spoke Hebrew with the greatest ease, and had the
outward appearance of a perfect gentleman, seductive in
manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to
deceive. It never did seem reasonable to me that a long,
cold and disgusting snake, with an apple in his mouth,
could deceive anybody; and I am glad, even at this late
date, to know that the something that persuaded Eve to
taste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a
man.
Dr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation
of Mr. Clark, but insists that “ it is certain that the Devil
that beg’uiled Eve is the old serpent, a malignant by creation,
an angel of light, an immediate attendant upon God’s throne,
but. by sin an apostate from his first state, and a rebel
against God’s crown and dignity. He who attacked our
first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader
in rebellion. The Devil chose to act his part in a serpent,
because it is a specious creature, has a spotted, dappled
skin and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent
which seemed to come from on high, as a messenger from
the upper world, one of the seraphim ; because the serpent
is a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent
speaking to her, we are not likely to tell, and, I believe,
she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, per-
�68
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
haps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet after
warcis might suspect something amiss. The person tempted
was a woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband,
but near the forbidden tree. It was the Devil’s subtlety to
assault the weaker vessel with his temptations, as we may
suppose her inferior to Adam in knowledge, strength and
presence of mind. Some think that Eve received the com
mand not immediately from God, but at second hand from
her husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily
pursuaded to discredit it. It was the policy of the Devil to
■enter into discussion with her when she was alone. He
took advantage by finding her near the forbidden tree.
God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and
holy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to
deny. He makes sceptics first, and by degrees makes them
Atheists.”
We are compelled to admit that nothing could be more
attractive to a woman than a snake walking erect, with a
“ spotted, dappled skin,” unless it were a serpent with
wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our ancestors
believed these things ? Why should we object to the
Darwinian doctrine of descent after this ?
Our fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a
sin to entertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed
that their credulity was exceedingly gratifying to God. To
them the story was entirely real. They could see the
.garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the perfume of
flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge
grew like plums or pears ; and they could plainly see the
serpent coiled amid its rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to
violate the laws of God.
Where did the serpent come from? On which of the
six days was he created ? Who made him ? Is it possible
that God would make a successful rival ? He must have
known that Adam and Eve would fall He knew what a
snake with a “spotted, dappled skin” could do with an
inexperienced woman. Why did he not defend his chil
dren ? He knew that if the serpent got into the garden,
Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive them
■out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and
that he himself would die upon the cross.
Again, I ask what and who was this serpent ? lie was
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
69
not a man, for only one man had been made. He was not
a woman. He was not a beast of the field, because “ he
was more subtile than any beast of the field which the Lord
God had made.” He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake,,
because he had the power of speech, and did not crawl
upon his belly until after he was cursed. Where did this
serpent come from ? Why was he not kept out of the
garden ? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail
and snap his head off ? Why did he not put Adam and
Eve on their guard about this serpent ? They, of course,
were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and knew nothing
. about, the serpent’s reputation for truth and veracity among
his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was
looking for “ an helpmeet,” and gave him a name, but Eve
had never met him before. She was not surprised to hear
a serpent talk, as that was the first one she had ever met..
Everything being new to her, and her husband not being
with her just at that moment, it need hardly excite our
wonder that she tasted the fruit by way of experiment.
Neither should we be surprised that when she saw it wasgood and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to be desired to
make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her
husband.
Theologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse
of this serpent, but it seems that he told the exact truth.
We are told that this serpent was, in fact, Satan, the great
est enemy of mankind, and that he entered the serpent,
appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is so, why
should the serpent have been cursed ? Why should God
curse the serpent for what had really been done by the
Devil ? Did Satan remain in the body of the serpent, and
in some mysterious manner share his punishment ? Is it
true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil
spirit, or is there but one Devil, and did he perish at the
death of the first serpent ? Is it on account of that trans
action in the garden of Eden, that all the descendants of
Adam and Eve known as Jews and Christians hate
serpents ?
Do you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa
and India in the same way ?
What was the form of the serpent when he entered the
garden, and in what way did he move from place to place ?
�70
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Did lie walk or fly? Certainly he did not crawl, because
that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him as a
■curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversa
tion with Eve ? We know that after that he lived upon dust,
but what did he eat before ? It may be that this is all
poetic; and the truest poetry is, according to Touchstone,
“the most feigning.”
In this same chapter we are informed that “ unto Adam
also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins
and clothed them.” Where did the Lord God get those
.skins ? He must have taken them from the animals ; he
was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them ; he was a
tanner. Then he made them into coats; he was a tailor.
How did it happen that they needed coats of skins, when
they had been perfectly comfortable in a nude condition ?
Did the “fall” produce a change in the climate ?
Is it really necessary to believe this account in order to
be happy here, or hereafter ? Does it tend to the elevation
•of the human race to speak of “ God” as a butcher, tanner
and tailor ?
And here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of
God, I mean the being described by Moses: the Jehovah
of the Jews. There may be for aught I know, somewhere
in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose dreams
are constellations and within whose thought the infinite
exists. About this being, if such an one exists, I have
nothing to say. He has written no books, inspired no
barbarians, required no worship, and has prepared no hell
in which to burn the honest seeker after truth.
When I speak of God, I mean that God who prevented
man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit
of the tree of life that he might live for ever ; of that god
who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary
toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world—of that God
whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered
babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth
with cruelty and crime; of that God who made heaven for
the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat for ever and
ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
71
XVIII. —DAMPNESS.
4£ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
“ That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair ; and they took them wives of all which they
chose.
£< And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive
with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an
hundred and twenty years.
“ There were giants in the earth in those days ; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters
of men, and they bare children to them, the same became
mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
“ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great m
the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
“ And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have
■created from the face of the earth ; both man, and beast
and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it
repenteth me that I have made them.”
from this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve
out of Eden did not have the effect of improving them or their
children. On the contrary, the world grew "worse and
worse. They were under the immediate control and gov
ernment of God, and he from time to time made known his
will ; but in spite of this, man continued to increase in
■crime.
Nothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a
school was established. There was no written language.
There was not a bible in the world. The “ scheme ^of
salvation ” was kept a profound secret. The five points of Cal
vinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been
opened. In short, nothing had been done for the- reformation
•of the world. God did not even keep his own sons at home,
but allowed them to leave their abode in the firmament, and
make love to the daughters of men. As a result of’ this
the world was filled with wickedness and giants to such an
�72
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
extent that God regretted “ that he had made man on theearth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
Of course God knew when he made man, that he would
afterwards regret it. Ide knew that the people would grow
worse and worse until destruction would be the only remedy.
He knew that he would have to kill all except Noah and
his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah
and his family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve
in the original dust. He knew that they would be tempted,
that he would have to drive them out of the garden to keep
them from eating of the tree of life; that the whole thing
would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his plan ; that
he could not reform the people; that his own sons would
corrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them
all except Noah and his family. Why was the garden of
Eden planted? Why was the experiment made? Why
were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of the
serpent ? Why did God wait until the cool of the day
before looking after his children? Why was he not on
hand in the morning ? Why did he fill the world with his
own children, knowing- that he would have to destroy
them ? And why does this same God tell me how to raise
my children when he had to drown his. .
It is a little curious that when God wished to reform the
antediluvian world he said nothing about hell; that he
had no revivals, no camp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings
of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms, no noon prayer meetings,
and never mentioned the great doctrine of salvation by
faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all
those people went to hell without ever having heard that
such a place existed. If eternal torment is a fact, surely
these miserable wretches ought to have been warned.
They were threatened only with water when they were in
fact doomed to eternal fire I
Is it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve
about a future life ; that he should have kept these “
verities ” to himself and allowed millions to live and die
without the hope of heaven, or the fear of hell ?
It may be that hell was not made at that time. In the
six days of creation nothing is said about the construction
of a bottomless pit, and the serpent himself did not make
his appearance until after the creation of man and woman.
�73
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that
fact came, it may be, the old couplet,
“ And Satan still some mischief finds
For idle hands to do.” .
The sacred historian failed also to tell us when tl e
cherubim and the flaming’ swcrd were made, and said
nothing- about two of the-persons composing- the trinity.
It certainly would have been an easy thing- to enlighten
Noah and his immediate descendants. The world was then
only about fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and
only about three or four generations of men had lived.
Adam had been dead only about six hundred and six years,
and some of his grandchildren must, at that time, have
been alive and well.
It is hard to see why God did not civilise these people..
He certainly had the power to use, and the wisdom to
devise the proper means. What right has a god to fill a
world with fiends ? Can there be goodness in this ? Why
should he make experiments that he knows must fail ? Is
there wisdom in this ? And what right has a man to charge
an infinite being with wickedness and folly ?
According to Moses, God made up his mind not only to
destroy the people, but the beasts and the creeping things.,
and the fowls of the air. What had the beasts, and the
creeping things, and the birds done to excite the anger of
God ? Why did he repent having made them ? Will some
Christian give us an explanation of this matter ? No good
man will inflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how, then,
can we worship a god who cares nothing for the agonies
of the dumb creatures that he made ?
Why did he make animals that he knew he would des
troy ? Dees God delight in causing pain ? He had the
power to make the beasts, and fowls, and creeping things
in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed
that he made them according to his wish. Why should he
destroy them ? They had committed no sin. They had
eaten no forbidden fruit, made no aprons, nor tried to reach
the tree of life. Yet this God, in blind unreasoning wrath
destroyed “ all flesh wherein was the breath of life, and
every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance
wherein was life that he had made.”
F
�74
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Jehovah, having made up his mind to drown the world,
told Noah to make an Ark of gopher wood three hundred
cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. A
cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was five hundred
and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide and
fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories,
and had, on top, one window twenty-two inches square,
Ventilation must have been one of Jehovah’s hobbies. Think
of a ship larger than the Great Eastern with only one
window, and that but twenty-two inches square !
The ark also had one door set in the side thereof that
shut from the outside. As soon as this ship was finished,
and properly victualed, Noah received seven days’ notice to
get the animals in the ark.
It is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that
the flood was partial, that the waters covered only a small
portion of the world, and that consequently only a few
animals were in the ark. It is impossible to conceive of
language that can more clearly convey the idea of a uni
versal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the
flood was only partial, why did God say he would
“ destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under
heaven, and that every thing that is in the earth shall die ?”
Why did he say, “ I w'ill destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the
creeping thing and the fowls of the air ?” Why did he say,
“ And every living substance that I have made will I de
stroy from off the face of the earth?” Would a partial,
local flood have fulfilled these threats ?
Nothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account
intended to convey, and did convey the idea that the flood
was universal. Why should Christians try to deprive God
of the glory of having wrought the most stupendous of
miracles ? Is it possible that the infinite could not over
whelm with waves this atom called the earth ? Do you
doubt his power, his wisdom, or his justice ?
Believers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them.
There is but one way to explain anything, and that is to
account for it by natural agencies. The moment you ex
plain a miracle, it disappears. You should depend not upon
explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven from
the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
75
You should reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither
should you be in the least disheartened if it is shown to be
impossible. The possible is not miraculous. You should
take the ground that if miracles were reasonable and pos
sible, there would be no reward paid for believing them.
The Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner
asks for evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles
without being called upon to substantiate them for the bene
fit of unbelievers.
Only a few years ago the Christians believed implicitly
in the literal truth of every miracle recorded in the Bible.
Whoever tried to explain them in some natural way, was
looked upon as an infidel in disguise, but now he is regarded
as a benefactor. The credulity of the Church is decreasing,
and the most marvellous miracles are now either “explained,”
or allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the trans
lators, or hide in the drapery of allegory.
In the sixth chapter (v. 19), Noah is ordered to take “ of
•every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort ” into the
ark—“ male and female.” In the seventh chapter (v. 2) the
order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according to the
Protestant Bible, as follows: “ Of every clean beast thou shalt
take to thee by sevens, the male and his female : and of
beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female.”
According to the Catholic Bible, Noah was commanded—
“ Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the
female. But of the beasts that are unclean two and two,
the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven
and seven, the male and the female.”
For the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commen
tators have taken the ground that Noah was not ordered to
take seven males and seven females of each kind of clean
beasts, but seven in all. Many Christians contend that
only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the
ark—three and a half of each sex.
If the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it
means first, that of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were
to be taken, seven males and seven females; second, that of
unclean beasts should be taken two of each kind, one of
each sex ; and third, that he should take of every kind of
fowls, seven of each sex.
�76
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
It is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th
verses of the 6th chapter is to take two of each sort, one
male and one female. And this agrees exactly with the
account in the Sth, 9th, 14th, loth and 16th verses of
the seventh chapter.
The next question is, How many beasts, fowls and creeping
things did Noah take into the ark ?
There are now known and classified at least twelve thou
sand five hundred species of birds. There are still vast
territories in China, South America, and Africa unknown to
the ornithologist.
Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species, accord
ing to the third verse of the seventh chapter, “ Of fowls
also of the air by sevens, the male and the female,” making
a total of 175,000 birds.
And right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood
was simply a partial flood, why were the birds taken into
the ark ? It seems to me that most birds, attending strictly
to business, might avoid a partial flood.
There are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds
of beasts. Let us suppose that twenty-five of these are
clean. Of the clean, fourteen of each kind—seven of each
sex_ were taken. These amount to 350. Of the unclean,
two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six
hundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind
amount to 1,300. And lastly, there are of insects, including
the creeping things, at least one million species, so that
Noah and his folks had to get of these into the ark about
2,000,000.
Animalculm have not been taken into consideration.
There are probably many hundreds of thousands of species,
many of them invisible, and yet Noah had to pick them out
by pairs. Very few people have any just conception of the
trouble Noah had.
We know that there are many animals on this continent
not found in the Old World. These must have been carried
from here to the ark, and then brought back afterwards.
Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth, agouti,
vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed
monkey, the racoon and musk-rat carried by the angels
from America to Asia ? How did they get there ? Did the
polar bear leave his field of ice and journey toward the
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
77
tropics ? How did he know where the ark was ? Did the
kangaroo swim or jump from Australia to Asia ? Did the
giraffe, hippopotamus, antelope and orang-outang journey
from Africa in search of the ark ? Can absurdities go
farther than this ?
What had these animals to eat while on the journey ?
What did they eat while in the ark ? What did they drink ?
When the rain came, of course the rivers ran to the seas,
and these seas rose and finally covered the world. The
waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would
make all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to
drown the world, about eight times as much water as was
in all the seas. To find how salt the waters of the flood
must have been, take eight quarts of fresh water, and
add one quart from the sea. Such water would create
instead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark
fresh water for all his beasts, birds and living things. He
had to take the proper food for all. How long was he in
the ark ? Three hundred and seventy-seven days 1 Think
of the food necessary for the monsters of the antediluvian
world !
Eight persons did all the work. They attended to the
wants of 175,000 birds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and
2,000,000 insects, saying nothing of countless animalculm.
Well, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window,
God shut the door, and the rain commenced.
How long did it rain ?—Forty days.
How deep did the water get ?—About five miles and a
half.
How much did it rain a day ?—Enough to cover the
whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and fortytwo feet.
Some Christians say that the fountains of the great deep
were broken up. Will they be kind enough to tell us what
the fountains of the great deep are ? Others say that God
had vast stores of water in the centre of the earth that he
used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to
run up hill ?
Gentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must
not try to explain these things. Your efforts in that direc
tion do no good, because your explanations are harder to
�78
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
believe than the miracle itself. Take my advice—stick to
assertion, and let explanation alone.
Then, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow
twenty-nine thousand feet above the level of the sea, and
on the cloudless cliffs of Chimborazo then, as now, sat the
condor; and yet the waters, rising seven hundred and
twenty-six feet a day—thirty feet an hour, six inches a
minute—rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the
vast craters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every
mountain peak until the vast world was but one shoreless
sea covered with the innumerable dead.
Was this the work of the most merciful God, the father
of us all ? If there is a God, can there be the slightest
danger of incurring his displeasure by doubting even in a
reverential way, the truth of such a cruel lie ? If we think
that God is kinder than he really is, will our poor souls be
burned for that ?
How many trees can live under miles of water for a year ?
What became of the soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and
covered with the debris of a world ? How were the tender
plants and herbs preserved ? How were the animals pre
served after leaving the ark ? There was no grass except
such as had been submerged for a year. There were no
animals to be devoured by the carnivorous beasts. What
became of the birds that fed on worms and insects ? What
became of the birds that devoured other birds ?
It must be remembered that the pressure of the water
when at the highest point—say twenty-nine thousand feet
—would have been about eight hundred tons on each square
foot. Such a pressure certainly would have destroyed
nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the
animals came out of the ark there was not a mouthful of
food in the wide world. How were they supported until
the world was again clothed with grass ? How were those
animals taken care of that subsisted on others ? Where did
the bees get honey, and the ants seed ? There was not a
creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing
creature beneath the whole heavens ; not a living substance.
Where did the tenants of the ark get food ?
There is but one answer, if the story is true. The food
necessary not only during the year of the flood, but suffi-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
79
cient for many months afterwards, must have been stored
in the ark.
There is probably not an animal in the world that will
not, in a year, eat and drink ten times its weight. Noah
must have provided food and water for a year while in the
ark, and food for at least six months after they got ashore.
It must have required for a pair of elephants, about one
hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of
mammoths would have required about twice that amount.
Of course there were other monsters that lived on trees
and in a year would have devoured quite a forest.
How could eight persons have distributed this food, even
if the ark had been large enough to hold it ? How was the
ark kept clean? We know how it was ventilated; but
what was done with the filth ? How were the animals
watered ? How were some portions of the ark heated for
animals from the tropics, and others kept cool for the polar
bears ? How did the animals get back to their respective
countries ? Some had to creep back about six thousand
miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of
the creeping things must have started for the ark just as
soon as they were made, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen
hundred years. Think of a couple of the slowest snails
leaving a point opposite the ark and starting for the plains
of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles. Going at
the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand
years. How did they get there ? Polar bears must have
gone several thousand miles, and so sudden a change in
climate must have been exceedingly trying upon their
health. How did they know the way to go ? Of course,
all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required.
Who selected these ?
Two sloths had to make the journey from South America.
These creatures cannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At
this rate they would make a mile in about a hundred days.
They must have gone about six thousand five hundred
miles to reach the ark. Supposing them to have travelled
by a reasonably direct route, in order to complete the jour
ney before Noah hauled in the plank, they must have started
several years before the world was created. We must also
consider that these sloths had to board themselves on the
way, and that most of their time had to he taken up getting
�80
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
food and water.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether a
sloth could travel six thousand miles and board himself in
less than three thousand years.
Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of
this most incredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables con
tained in that repository of the impossible, called the Bible.
To me it is a matter of amazement that it ever was for a
moment believed by any intelligent human being.
Dr. Adam Clark says that “ the animals were brought to
the ark by the power of God, and their enmities were so
removed or suspended, that the lion could dwell peaceably
with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by the side of the
kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was
ever used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of
this kind.”
Dr. Scott remarks : “There seems to have been a very
extraordinary miracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels,
in bringing two of every species to Noah, and rendering
them submissive and peaceful with each other. Yet it
seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened
spectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage
beasts during their continuance in the ark is generally con
sidered as an apt figure of the change that takes place in
the disposition of sinners when they enter the true church
of Christ.”
He believed the deluge to have been universal. In his
day science had not demonstrated the absurdity of this
belief, and he was not compelled to resort to some theory
not found in the Bible. He insisted that “by some vast
convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced up
wards, and rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts,
with no intermission for forty days and nights, and until
in every place a universal deluge was effected.
“ The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his
dreary confinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the
earth and its inhabitants, and especially of the human species
—of his companions, his neighbors, his relatives—all those
to whom he had preached, for whom he had prayed, and
over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped
to build the ark.
“ It seems that, by a peculiar providential interposition,
no animal of any sort died, although they had been shut
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
81
up in the ark above a year ; and it does not appear that
there had been any increase of them during- that time.
“ The ark was flat-bottomed—square at each end—roofed
like a house, so that it terminated at the top in the breadth
of a cubit. It was divided into many little cabins for its
intended inhabitants. Pitched within and without to keep
it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part. But
it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus
constructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly un
fitted to weather out the deluge, except it was under the
immediate guidance and protection of the Almighty.”
Dr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the fol
lowing :—
“ As our bodies have in them the humors which, when
God pleases, becomes the springs and seeds of mortal dis
ease, so that the earth had, in its bowels, those waters
which, at God’s command, sprung up and flooded it.
“ God made the world in six days, but he was forty days
in destroying it, because he is slow to anger.
“ The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased,
and ravenous creatures became mild and manageable, so
that the wolf lay down with the lamb, and the lion ate straw
like an ox.
“ God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to
keep him safe, and because it was necessary that the door
should be shut very close lest the water should break in
and sink the ark, and very fast lest others might break it
down.
“ The waters rose so high that not only the low, flat
countries were deluged, but to make sure work, and that
none might escape, the tops of the highest mountains were
overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven and a half yards,
so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or moun
tains.
“ Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark,
and hoped to shift for themselves there. But either they
perished there for want of food, or the dashing rain washed
them off the top. Others, it may be, hoped to prevail with
Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old acquain
tance.
“ ‘ Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence ? Hast
thou not preached in our streets?’ ‘Yea,’ said Noah,
�82
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
many a time, but to little purpose. I called but ye refused;
and now it is not in my power to help you. God has
shut the door and I cannot open it.’
“We may suppose that some of those who perished in
the deluge had themselves assisted Noah, or were employed
by him in building the ark.
“ Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the
products of the earth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all
sorts of greens, and milk, which was the first grant; but
the flood having perhaps washed away much of the fruits
of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and
nourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat
flesh, which perhaps man never thought of until now that
God directed him to it. Nor had he any more desire to it
than the sheep has to suck blood like the wolf. But now
man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as
upon the green herb.”
Such was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal
truth of the Bible upon these men, that their commentaries
are filled with passages utterly devoid of common sense.
Dr. Clark, speaking of the mammoth, says :
“ This animal, an astonishing proof of God’s power, he
seems to have produced merely to show what he could do.
And after suffering a few of them to propagate, he extin
guished the race by a merciful providence, that they might
not destroy both man and beast.
“We are told that it would have been much easier for
God to destroy all the people and make new ones, but he
would not want to waste anything, and no power or skill
should be lavished where no necessity exists.
“ The animals were brought to the ark by the power of
God.”
Again, gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of
trying to explain a miracle. Let it alone. Say that you
do not understand it, and do not expect to until taught in
the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more reasons you
give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear.
Through what you say in defence people are led to think,
and as soon as they really think, the miracle is thrown
away.
Among the most ignorant nations you will find the most
wonders, among the most enlightened, the least. It is with
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
83.
individuals the same as with nations. Ignorance believes,.
Intelligence examines and explains.
For about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men,
animals and insects, tossed and wandered without rudder
or sail upon a boundless sea. At last it grounded on the
mountains of Ararat; and about three months afterwards
the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not be
forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed tohave first touched bottom, was about seventeen thousand
feet high. Flow were the animals from the tropics kept
warm ? When the waters were abated it would be in
tensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the
level of the sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire
places and steam coils in the ark ; but they are not men
tioned in the inspired narrative. How wore the animals
kept from freezing ? It will not do to say that Ararat wasnot very high after all.
If you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight
chapter you will see that although “ the ark rested in the
seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon
the mountains of Ararat,” it was not until the first day of'
the tenth month that “ the tops of the mountains ” could be
seen. From this it would seem that the ark must have
rested upon about the highest peak in that country. Noah
waited forty days more, and then for the first time opened
the window and took a breath of fresh air.
He then
sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove that
returned.
He then waited seven days and sent forth a
dove that returned not. From this he knew that the waters
were abated.
Is it possible that he could not see whether
the waters had gone ? Is it possible to conceive of a more
perfectly childish way of ascertaining whether the earth
was dry ?
At last Noah “ removed the covering of the ark, and looked,
and, behold, the face of the ground was dry,” and thereupon
God told him to disembark. In his gratitude Noah built
an altar and took of every clean beast and of every clean
fowl, and offered burnt offerings. And the Lord smelled a
sweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any
more curse the ground for man’s sake. For saying this in
his heart the Lord gives as a reason, not that man is, or
will be good, but because “ the imagination of man’s heart
�84
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
is evil from his youth.” God destroyed man because “ the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and because every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con
tinually.” And he promised for the same reason not to
destroy him again. Will some gentleman skilled in theology
give us an explanation ?
After God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he
seems to have changed his idea as to the proper diet
for man. When Adam and Eve were created they were
allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of
trees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to
them “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field.” In the first
chapter of Genesis the “ green herb ” was given for food to
the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon being expelled
from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were
put upon an equality with the lower animals. According
to this, the antediluvians were vegetarians. This may
account for their wickedness and longevity.
After Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor,
he said—“ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat
for you ; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”
Afterwards this same God changed his mind again, and
divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and
made it a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food
was so scarce when Noah was let out of the ark that
Jehovah generously allowed him to eat anything and every
thing he could find.
According to the account, God then made a covenant
with Noah to the effect that he would not again destroy
the world with a flood, and, as the attesting- witness of this
■contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud. This bow was
placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God
of his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness
and reminder, it would seem that Jehovah was liable to for
get the contract, and drown the world again. Did the
rainbow originate in this way ?
Did God put it in the
cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory ?
For me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge.
It seems so cruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd
in all its parts, and so contrary to all we know of law, that
■even credulity itself is shocked.
Many nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
85
which all people, except a family or two, were destroyed.
Babylon was certainly a city before Jerusalem was.
founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when
there were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had
a literature before the name of Jehovah had passed the
lips of superstition. An account of a general deluge “was
discovered by George Smith, translated from another
account that was written about two thousand years before
Christ.” Of course it is impossible to tell how long the
story had lived in the memory of tradition before it was
reduced to writing by the Babylonians. According to this
account, which is, without doubt, much older than the one
given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of the
god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field.
He pitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and
as soon as it was finished, there came a flood of rain and
“ destroyed all life from the face of the whole earth. On
the seventh day there was a calm, and the ship stranded on
the mountain Nizir.” Tamzi waited for seven days more, and
then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and
that, as well as the dove, returned. Then he let out a
raven, and as that did not return, he concluded that the
water had dried away, and thereupon left the ship. Then
he made an offering to God, or the gods, and “ Hea inter
ceded with Bel,” so that the earth might never again be
drowned.
This is the Babylonian story, told without the contra
dictions of the original. For in that it seems, there are two
accounts, as well as in the Bible. Is it not a strange
coincidence that there should be contradictory accounts
mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish stories ?
In the Bible there are two accounts. In one account,
Noah was to take two of all beasts, birds and creeping
things into the ark, while in the other, he was commanded
to take of clean beasts and all birds by sevens of each kind.
According to one account, the flood only lasted one hundred
and fifty days—as related in the third verse of the eight
chapter ; while the other account fixes the time at three
hundred and seventy-seven days. Both of these accounts
cannot be true. Yet in order to be saved, it is not suffi
cient to believe one of them—you must believe both.
Among the Egyptians there was a story to the effect
�86
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that the great god Ra became utterly maddened with the
people, and deliberately made up his mind that he would
exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy,
and continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in
streams, when suddenly he ceased, and took an oath that
he would not again destroy the human race. This myth
was probably thousands of years old when Moses was
born.
So, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish
warned Manu that a flood was coming. Manu built a
“ box,” and the fish towed it to a mountain and saved all
hands.
Stories of the same kind were told in Greece, and among
•our own Indian tribes. At one time the Christian pointed
to the fact that many nations told of a flood, as evidence of
the truth of the Mosaic account; but now, it having been
shown that other accounts are much older, and equally
reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great
value.
It is probable that all these accounts had a common
•origin. They were likely born of something in nature
visible to all nations. The idea of a universal flood, pro
duced by a God to drown the world on account of the sins
•of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these
stories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial
floods in most countries ; and for a long time this solution
was satisfactory. But the fact that these stories are greatly
.alike, that only one man is warned, that only one family is
saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent out to find if
the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common
origin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all
countries ; it certainly cannot follow that in each instance
only one family would be saved, or that the same story
would in each instance be told. It may be urged that the
natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might
account for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must
be admitted that there is some force in the suggestion. I
believe, though, that the real origin of all these myths is
the same, and that it was originally an effort to account for
the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon were the man
and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their
children. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestial
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
87
one; the air, or ether-ocean became a flood, produced by
rain, and the sun, moon and stars became man, women and
children.
In the original story, the mountain was the place where
in the far east the sky was supposed to touch the earth, and
it was there that the ship containing the celestial passengers
finally rested from its voyage. But whatever may be the
origin of the stories of the flood, whether told first by Hindu,
Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that
they are all equally false.
XIX.—BACCHUS AND BABEL.
As soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant
a vineyard, and began to be a husbandman ; and when the
grapes were ripe he made wine and drank of it to excess ;
cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth, and after
that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did
■during these three hundred and fifty years, we are not
told. We never hear of him again. For three hundred
and fifty years he lived among his sons, and daughters, and
their descendants. He must have been a venerable man.
He was the man to whom Cod had made known his intention
of drowning the world. By his efforts, the human race
had been saved. He must have been acquainted with
Methuselah for six hundred years, and Methuselah was
about two hundred and forty years old when Adam died.
Noah must himself have known the history of mankind,
and must have been an object of almost infinite interest;
and yet for three hundred and fifty years he is neither
directly or indirectly mentioned. When Noah died, Abraham
must have been more than fifty years old; and Shem the
son of Noah, lived for several hundred years after the death
of Abraham; and yet he is never mentioned. Noah when
he died, was the oldest man in the whole world by about
five hundred years ; and everybody living at the time of his
death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no
account is given of his burial. No monument was raised
to mark the spot. This, however, is no more wonderful
�88
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
than the fact that no account is given of the death of Adam
or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial. This may all beaccounted for by the fact that the language of man was
confounded at the building of the Tower of Babel, whereby
all tradition may have been lost, so that even the sons of
Noah could not give an account of their voyage in the
ark; and consequently some one had to be directly inspired
to tell the story, after new languages had been formed.
It has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and
the serpent were taught the same language. Where did
they get it ? We know now, that it requires a great number
of years to form a language ; that it is of excedingly slow
growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to
his fellows the impressions made upon him by what he
sees, hears, smells and touches. We know that the language
of the savage consists of a few sounds, capable of express
ing only a few ideas or states of the mind, such as love,
desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt.
Many
centuries are required to produce a language capable
of expressing complex ideas. It does not seem to me that
ideas can be manufactured by a deity and put in the brain
of man. These ideas must be the result of observation and
experience.
Does anybody believe that God directly taught a
language to Adam and Eve, or that he so made them that
they by intuition spoke Hebrew, or some language capable
of conveying to each other their thoughts ? How did the
.serpent learn the same language ? Did God teach it to him,
or did he happen to overhear God, when he was teaching
Adam and Eve? We are told in the second chapter of
Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass before Adam
to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from
this that God named the animals and informed Adam what
to call them. Adam named them himself. Where did he
get his words ? We cannot imagine a man just made out of
dust, without the experience of a moment, having the power
to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we
cannot conceive of his having any thoughts until he has
combined, through experience and observation, the im
pressions that nature had made upon him through the
medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing
anything, in the first iistance, about different degrees of
�89
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
heat, nor about darkness, if he was made in the day-time,
nor about light, if created at night, until the next morning.
Before a man can have what we call thoughts, he must have
had a little experience. Something must have happened
to him before he can have a thought, and before he can
express himself in language. Language is a growth, not a
gift. We account now for the diversity of language by
the fact that tribes and nations have had different experiences
different wants, different surroundings, and, one result of
all these differences is, among other things, a difference in
language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account
for the different languages of the world by saying that the
original language was confounded at the Tower of Babel.
According to the Bible, up to the time of the building of
that tower, the whole earth was of one language and of one
speech, and would have so remained until the present time
had not an effort been made to build a tower whose top
should reach into heaven. Can anyone imagine what
objection God would have to the building of such a tower ?
And how could the confusion of tongues prevent its con
struction ? How could language be confounded ? It could
be confounded only by the destruction of memory. Did
God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so,
how ? Did he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding
over the organs of articulation, so that they could not speak
the words, although they remembered them clearly, or did
he so touch the brain that they could not hear ? Will some
theologian, versed in the machinery of the miraculous, tell
us in what way God confounded the language of mankind ?
Why should the confounding of the language make them
separate ? Why should they not stay together until they
could understand each other ? People will not separate
from weakness. When in trouble they come together and
desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance,
did they separate ? What particular ones would naturally
come together if nobody understood the language of any
other person ? Would it not have been just as hard to
agree when and where to go, without any language to
express the agreement, as to go on with the building of the
tower ?
Is it possible that any one now believes that the whole
world would have been of one speech had the language not
G
�90
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
been confounded at Babel ? Do we not know that every
word was suggested in some way by the experience of men?
Do we not know that words are continually dying, and
continually being born; that every language has its cradle
and its cemetery—its buds, its blossoms, its fruits and its
withered leaves ? Man has loved, enjoyed, hated, suffered
and hoped, and all words have been born of these
experiences.
Why did “ the Lord come down to see the city and the
tower ?” Could he not see them from where he lived or
from where he was? Where did he come down from?
Did he come in the day-time, or in the night? We are
taught now that God is everywhere; that he inhabits im
mensity ; that he is in every atom, and in every star. If
this is true, why did he “ come down to see the city and
the tower ?” Will some theologian explain this ?
After all, is it not much easier and altogether more
reasonable to say that Moses was mistaken, that he knew
little of the science of language, and that he guessed a
great deal more than he investigated ?
XX.—FAITH IN FILTH.
No light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world
after the confounding of language at Babel, until the birth
of Abraham. But, before speaking of the history of the
Jewish people, it may be proper for me to say that
many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books
attributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak.
There are many pages of these books unfit to read, many
stories not calculated, in my judgment, to improve the
morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call the attention
of my readers to these thing's, except in a general way. It
is to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters
and passages as cannot be read without leaving the blush
of shame upon the cheek of modesty, will be left out, and
not published as a part of the Bible. If there is a God, it
certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the authorship
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
91
of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the
presence of men and women.
The believers in the Bible are loud in their denunciation
of what they are pleased to call the immoral literature of
the world; and yet few books have been published con
taining more moral filth than this inspired word of God
These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or
humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid
vice. For one, I cannot afford to soil my pages with
extracts from them ; and all such portions of the Scriptures
I leave to be examined, written upon and explained by the
clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they
can extract honey from these flowers. Until these passages
are expunged from the Old Testament, it is not a fit book
to be read by either old or young. It contains pages that
no minister in the United States would read to his congre
gation for any reward whatever. There are chapters that
no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There
are chapters that no father would read to his child. There
are narratives utterly unfit to be told; and the time will
come when mankind will wonder that such a book was
ever called inspired.
I know that in many books besides the Bible there are
immodest lines. Some of the greatest writers have soiled
their pages with indecent words. We account for this by
saying that the authors were human; that they catered to
the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses, but
at the same time regret that in their works they left an
impure word. But what shall we say of God ? Is it
possible that a being of infinite purity—the author of
modesty—would smirch the pages of his book with stories
lewd, licentious and obscene ? If God is the author of the
Bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books
can and should be measured. If the Bible is not obscene,
what book is ? Why should men be imprisoned simply for
imitating God ? The Christian world should never say
another word against immoral books until it makes the
inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were
not written for the purpose of conveying and enforcing
moral truth, but seem to have been written because the
author loved an unclean thing. There is no moral depth
below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene
�92
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
books, that stain with lust the loving heart of youth. Such
men should be imprisoned and their books destroyed. The
literature of the world should be rendered decent, and no
book should be published that cannot be read by and in the
hearing of the best and purest people. But as long as the
Bible is considered as the Word of God, it will be hard to
make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long
as it is imitated there will be vile and filthy books. The
literature of our country will not be sweet and clean until
the Bible ceases to be regarded as the production of a god.
We are continually told that the Bible is the very foun
dation of modesty and morality ; while many of its pages
are so immodest and immoral that a minister, for reading
them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced as an un
clean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and
if the men stayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising
the minister.
Is there any saving grace in hypocrisy ? Will men be
come clean in speech by believing that God is unclean ?
Would it not be far better to admit that the Bible was
written by barbarians in a barbarous, course and vulgar
age ? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vul
garity instead of God ? Is it not altogether more probable
that some ignorant Hebrew would write the vulgar words ?
The Christians tell me that God is the author of these vile
and stupid things. I have examined the question to the
best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is—Not
Guilty. Faith should not rest in filth.
Every foolish and immodest thing should be expunged
from the Bible. Let us keep the good. Let us preserve
every great and splendid thought, every wise and prudent
maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and every word
calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us. have
the courage to throw the rest away. The souls of children
should not be stained and soiled. The charming instincts
of youth should not he corrupted and defiled. The girls
and boys should not be taught that unclean words were
uttered by “ inspired ” lips. Teach them that these words
were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the un
clean is the unholy, and that only the pure is sacred.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
..
XXI.-THE
03
HEBREWS.
After language had been confounded and the people
scattered, there appeared. in the land of Canaan a tribe of
Hebrews ruled by a chief or sheik called Abraham. They
had a few cattle, lived in tents, practised polygamy,
wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in
the whole world to whom God paid the slightest attention.
At this time there were hundreds of cities in India filled
with temples and palaces. Millions of Egyptians wor
shipped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their land with
marvellous monuments of industry, power and skill. But
these civilisations were entirely neglected by the deity, his
whole attention being taken up with Abraham and his
family.
It seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were
intimately acquainted, and conversed frequently upon a
great variety of subjects. By the twelfth chapter of
Genesis it appears that he made the following promises to
Abraham : “I will make of thee a great nation, and I will
bless thee, and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a
blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee.”
After receiving this communication from the Almighty,
Abraham went into the land of Canaan, and again God
appeared to him and told him to take a heifer three years
old, a g’oat of the same age, a sheep of equal antiquity, a
turtle dove and a young’ pigeon. Whereupon Abraham
killed the animals “ and divided them in the midst, and laid
each piece one against another.” And it came to pass that
when the sun went down and it was dark, behold a smoking
furnace and a burning lamp that passed between the raw
and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was a
preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an
American missionary in Central Africa find a negro chief
surrounded by a butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with
which to receive a communication from the infinite God, my
opinion is that the missionary would regard the proceedings
as the direct result of savagery. And if the chief insisted
that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning lamp
�94
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
going up and down between the pieces of meat, the mis
sionary would certainly conclude that the chief was not
altogether right in his mind.
If the Bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take
and sacrifice his only son, or rather the only son of his wife,
and a murder would have been committed had not God,
just at the right moment, directed him to stay his hand and
take a sheep instead.
God made a great number of promises to Abraham, but
few of them were ever kept. He agreed to make him the
father of a great nation, but he did not. He solemnly
promised to give him a great country, including all the
land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he
did not.
In due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac
took his place at the head of the tribe. Then came Jacob,
who “ watered stock ” and enriched himself with the spoil
of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his jealous
brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the
kingdom, and in a few years his father and brothers left
their own country and settled in Egypt. At this time there
were seventy Hebrews in the world, counting Joseph and
his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and
fifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that
coitntry for four hundred and thirty years. This is a mis
take. Josephus says they were in Egypt two hundred and
fifteen years, and this statement is sustained by the best
biblical scholars of all denominations. According to Gal.
iii., 17, it was four hundred and thirty years from the time
the promise was made to Abraham to the giving of the law,
and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two hundred
and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abra
ham, they could in no event have been in Egypt more than
two hundred and fifteen years. In our Bible Exodus xii., 40
is as follows:—“ Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty
years.”
This passage does not say that the sojourning was all
done in Egypt; neither does it say that the children of
Israel dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years ; but
it does say that the sojourning of the children of Israel who
dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. The
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
93
Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as
follows :—“ The sojourning of the children of Israel, which
they sojourned in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was
four hundred and thirty years.”
The Alexandrian Version says : “ The sojourning of the
children of Israel, which they and their fathers sojourned
in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and
thirty years.”
And in the Samaritan Bible we have : “ The sojourning
of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they
sojourned in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt,
was four hundred and thirty years.”
There were seventy souls when they went down into
Egypt, and they remained two hundred and fifteen years,
and at the end of that time they had increased to about
three million. How do we know that there were three
million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years ? We
know it because we are informed by Moses that “ there
were six hundred thousand men of war.” Now, to each
man of war, there must have been at least five other people.
In every State in this Union there will be to each voter five
other persons at least, and we all know that there are always
more voters than' men of war. If there were six hundred
thousand men of war, there must have been a population of
at least three million. Is it possible that seventy people
could increase to that extent in two hundred and fifteen
years ? You may say that it was a miracle; but what need
was there of working a miracle ? Why should God mira
culously increase the number of slaves ?
If he wished
miraculously to increase the population, why did he not
wait until the people were free ?
In 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three
million of people. In one hundred years we doubled four
times: that is to say, six, twelve, twenty-four, forty-eight
million—our present population.
We must not forget that during all these years there has
been pouring into our country a vast stream of emigration,
and that this, taken in connection with the fact that our
country is productive beyond all others, gave us only four
doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that the Hebrews
increased as rapidly without emigration as we in this
country have with it, we will give to them four doubles
�96
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
each century, commencing with seventy people, and they
would have, at the end of two hundred years, a population
of seventeen thousand nine hundred and twenty. Giving
them another double for the odd fifteen years and there
would be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five
thousand eight hundred and forty people. And yet we are
told that instead of having this number, they had increased
to such an extent that they had six hundred thousand men
of war—that is to say, a population of more than three
million I
Every sensible man knows that this account is not and
cannot be true. We know that seventy people could not
increase to three million in two hundred and fifteen years.
About this time the Hebrews took a census and found
that there were twenty-two thousand, two hundred-and
seventy-three first-born males. It is reasonable to suppose
that there were about as many first-born females. This
would make forty-four thousand, five hundred and fortysix first-born children. Now, there must have been about
as many mothers as there were first-born children.
If
there were only about forty-five thousand mothers and three
million of people, the mothers must have had on an average
about sixty-six children apiece.
At this time the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for
two hundred and fifteen years. A little while before, an
order had been made by the Egyptians that all the male
children of the Hebrews should be killed. One, contrary
to this order, was saved in an ark made of bulrushes
daubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter
of Pharaoh, and was adopted, it seems, as her own, and,
maybe, was. He grew to be a man, sided with the Hebrews,
killed an Egyptian that was smiting a slave, hid the body
in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of Midian, be
came acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters,
took the side of the daughters against the ill-mannered
shepherds of that country, and married Zipporah, one of
the girls, and became a shepherd for her father. After
wards, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to him in
a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of
Egypt and demand from him the liberation of the Hebrews.
In order to convince him that the something burning in the
bush was actually God, the rod in his hand was changed
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail, became
again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his
bosom, and when he took it out it was as leprous as snow.
Quite a number of strange things were performed, and
others promised. Moses then agreed to go back to Egypt
provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon the
Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses
in the wilderness. They met at the mount of God, went
to Egypt, gathered together all the elders of the children
of Israel, spake all the words which God had spoken unto
Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of the people. The
Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshipped ; and
Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh
the king.
,>
XXII.—THE PLAGUES.
Three million of people were in slavery. They were
treated with the utmost rigor, and so fearful were their
masters that they might, in time, increase in numbers suffi
cient to avenge themselves, that they took from the arms of
mothers all the male children and destroyed them. If the
account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel,
heartless and infamous people of which history gives any
record. God finally made up his mind to free the Hebrews ;
and for the accomplishment of this purpose he sent, as his
agents, Moses and Aaron to the king of Egypt. In order
that the king might know that these men had a divine
mission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick
into a serpent, and water into blood. Moses and Aaron
went before the king, stating that the Lord God of Israel
ordered the king of Egypt to let the Hebrews go, that
they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. There
upon Pharaoh, the king, inquired who the Lord was, at the
same time stating that he had never made his acquaintance,
and knew nothing about him. To this they replied that the
God of the Hebrews had met with them, and they asked
to go a three days’ journey into the desert and sacrifice
unto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall
�*98
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
upon them with pestilence or the sword. This interview
seems to have hardened Pharaoh, for he ordered the tasks
•of the children of Israel to be increased; so that the only
■effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the con
dition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto
the Lord and said, “ Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil
entreated this people ? Why is it that thou hast sent me ?
For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name he hath
■■done evil to his people; neither hast thou delivered thy
people at all.”
Apparently stung- by this reproach, God answered:—
■“ Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for
with a strong hand shall he let them go; and with a strong
hand shall he drive them out of his land.”
God then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that he had established a
■covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, that he
had heard the groanings of the children of Israel in Egyptian
bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of his
covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the
children of Israel with a stretched-out arm and with great
judgments. Moses then spoke to the children of Israel
■again, but they would listen to him no more. His first
■effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble, and
they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. There
upon Jehovah promised Moses that he would make him a
.god unto Pharaoh, and that Aaron should be his prophet,
but at the same time informed him that his message would
be of no avail ; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh
so that he would not listen; that he would so harden his
•heart that he might have an excuse for destroying the
Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses and Aaron again went
before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron : “ Cast down your
rod before Pharaoh ”—which he did, and it became a serpent.
Then Pharaoh, not in the least surprised, called for his
wise men and his sorcerers, and they threw down their rods
■and changed them into serpents. The serpent that had
been changed from Aaron’s rod was, at this time crawling
upon the' floor, and it proceeded to swallow up the serpents
that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What
became of these serpents that were swallowed, and whether
they turned back into sticks again, is not stated. Can we
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
99
believe that the stick was changed into a real living serpent,
or did it assume simply the appearance of a serpent ? If it
bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception,
■and could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it
necessary to believe that God is a kind of prestidigitateur—a
sleight-of-hand performer, a magician or sorcerer ? Can it
be possible that an infinite being would endeavor to secure
the liberation of a race by performing a miracle that could
be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians of a
barbarian king ?
Not one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the
wickedness of depriving a human being of his liberty. Not
a word was said in favor of liberty. Not the slightest in
timation that a human being was justly entitled to the
product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty of
masters who wTould destroy even the babes of slave mothers.
It seems to me wonderful that this God did not tell the
king cf Egypt that no nation could enslave another, with
out also enslaving itself; that -it was impossible to put
a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting manacles
upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him
that a nation founded upon slavery could not stand ? Instead
of declaring these things, instead of appealing to justice,
to mercy and to liberty, he resorted to feats of jugglery.
Suppose we wished to make a treaty with a barbarous
nation, and the President should employ a sleight-of-hand
performer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that
when he came into the presence of the savage monarch, he
should cast down an umbrella or a walking stick, which
would change into a lizard or a turtle; what should we
think ? Should we not regard such a performance as beneath
the dignity even of a President ? And what would be our
feelings if the savage king sent for his sorcerers and had
them perform the same feat ? If such things would appear
puerile and foolish in the President of a great republic, what
shall be said when they were resorted to by the Creator of
all worlds ? How small, how contemptible such a God
appears ! Pharaoh it seems, took about this view of the
matter, and he would not lie persuaded that such tricks
were performed by an infinite being.
Again, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was
going to the river’s bank, and the same rod which had
�100
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
changed to a serpent, and, by this time changed back, was
taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of Pharaoh, smote
the water of the river, which was immediately turned to
blood, as well as all the water in all the streams, ponds and
pools, as well as all water in vessels of wood and vessels of
stone in the entire land of Egypt. As soon as all the
waters in Egypt had been turned into blood, the magicians
of that country did the same with their enchantments.
We are not informed where they got the water to turn into
blood, since all the water in Egypt had already been sochanged. It seems from the account that the fish in the
Nile died, and the river emitted a stench, and there was not
a drop of water in the land of Egypt that had not been
changed into blood. In consequence of this, the Egyptians
digged “ around about the river ” for water to drink. Can
we believe this story ? Is it necessary to salvation to
admit that all the rivers, pools, ponds and lakes of a country
were changed into blood, in order that a king might be
induced to allowed the children of Israel the privilege of
going a three days’ journey into the wilderness to make
sacrifices to their God ?
It seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that
the God of the Hebrews would, if he refused to let the
Israelites go, change all the waters of Egypt into blood,
and that, upon his refusal, they were so changed. This
had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that
his own magicians did the same. It does not appear that
Moses and Aaron expressed the least surprise at the success
of the Egyptian sorcerers. At that time it was believed
that each nation had its own god. The only claim that
Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the
greatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with
anything like an equal chance he could vanquish the deity
of any other nation.
After the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron
waited for seven days. At the end of that time God told
Moses to again go to Pharaoh and demand the release of
his people, and to inform him that, if he refused, God would
strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs—that he would
make frogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses
of Pharaoh, into his bedchamber, upon his bed, into the
houses of his servants, upon his people, into their ovens,
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
101
and even into their kneading- troughs. This threat had no
effect whatever upon Pharaoh; and thereupon Aaron
stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the
frogs came up and covered the land. The magicians of
Egypt did the same, and with their enchantments brought
more frogs upon the land of Egypt.
These magicians do not seem to have been original in their
ideas, but so far as imitation was concerned, were perfect
masters of their art. The frogs seem to have made such
an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent for Moses and
asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away
the frogs. Moses agreed to remove them from the houses
and the land, and allow them to remain only in the rivers.
Accordingly the frogs died out of the houses, and out of
the villages, and out of the fields, and the people gathered
them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left the
houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again
hardened, and he refused to let the people go.
Aaron then, according to the command of God, stretched
out his hand, holding the rod, and smote the dust of the
earth, and it became lice in man and in beast, and all the
dust became lice throughout the land of Egypt. Pharaoh
again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do the
same with their enchantments, but they could not. Where
upon the sorcerers said unto Pharaoh : “ This is the finger
of God.”
Notwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let
the Hebrews go. God then caused a grievous swarm of
flies to come into the house of Pharaoh and into his servants’
houses, and into all the land of Egypt, to such an extent
that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the flies.
But into that part of the country occupied by the children
of Israel there came no flies Thereupon Pharaoh sent for
Moses and Aaron and said to them : “ Go, and sacrifice to
your God in this land.” They were not willing to sacrifice
in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a journey of three
days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and in
consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with
the Lord to induce him to send the flies out of the country.
He accordingly told the Lord of the bargain he had made
with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to the compromise, and
removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants and
�102
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
from his people, and there remained not a single fly in th©
land of Egypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh
again changed his mind, and concluded not to permit the
children of Israel to depart. The Lord then directed Moses
to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not allow the
children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle,
his horses, his camels and his sheep ; that these animals
would be afflicted with a grievous disease, but that theanimals belonging to the Hebrews should not be so afflicted.
Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all the cattle of
Egypt died ; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses, allcamels, all the oxen and all the sheep ; but of the animals
owned by the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster
had no effect upon Pharaoh, and he still refused to let the
children of Israel go. The Lord then told Moses and Aaron
to take some ashes out of a furnace, and told Moses to
sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh ;
saying that the ashes should become small dust in all the
land of Egypt, and should be a boil breaking forth with
blains upon man and upon beast thoughout all the land.
How these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle
that were already dead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little
hard to understand. It must not be forgotten that all the
cattle and all beasts had died with the murrain before the
boils had broken out.
This was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron.
The boils were upon the magicians to that extent that they
could not stand before Moses. But it had no effect upon
Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man of great firmness,
The Lord then instructed Moses to get up early in the
morning and tell Pharaoh that he would stretch out his hand
and smite his people with a pestilence, and would, on the
morrow, cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as had
never been known in the land of Egypt, He also told
Moses to give notice, so that they might get all the cattle
that were in the fields under cover.
It must be re
membered that all these cattle had recently died of the
murrain,' and their bodies had been covered with boils and
blains. This, however, had no effect, and Moses stretched
forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder
and hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the ground,
and the hail fell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that
�■ SOME MISTAKES OK MOSES.
103
were in the fields, both man and beast, were smitten, and
the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every treeof the country except that portion inhabited by the children
of Israel; there, there was no hail.
During- this hail-storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron
and admitted that he had sinned, that the Lord was
righteous, and that the Egyptians were wicked, and
requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more
thunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews
go. Moses agreed that as soon as he got out of the city
he would stretch forth his hands unto the Lord, and that
the thunderings should cease and the hail should stop..
But, when the rain and hail and the thundering ceased,
Pharaoh concluded that he would not let the children
of Israel go.
Again, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them totell Pharaoh that if he refused to let the people go, the face
of the earth would be covered with locusts, so that man
would not be able to see the ground, and that these locusts
would eat the residue of that which escaped from the hail;
that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they
would fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his ser
vants, and the houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered
his message, and went out from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh’s
servants entreated their master to let the children of Israel
go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and asked them,,
who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They
replied that they wished to go with the young and old ;
with their sons and daughters, with flocks and herds.
Pharaoh would not consent to this but agreed that the men.
might go. Thereupon Pharaoh drove Moses and Aaron out
of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth hishand upon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they
might come up and eat every herb, even all that the hail
had left. “ And Moses stretched out his rod over the land,
of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind all that day
and all that night; and when it was morning the east
wind brought the locusts; and they came up over all theland of Egypt and rested upon all the coasts covering the
face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened ;.
and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the trees which
the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing
�104
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
■on the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the
land of Egypt.” Pharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron
in great haste, admitted that he had sinned against the
Lord their God and against them, asked their forgiveness
and requested them to intercede with God that he might
take away the locusts. They went out from his presence
and asked the Lord to drive the locusts away, “And the
Lord made a strong west wind which took away the
. locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea, so that there
remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.”
As soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his
mind, and, in the language of the sacred text, “ the Lord
hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the
children of Israel go.”
The Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward
heaven that there might be darkness over the land of Egypt,
“ even darkness which might be felt.” “ And Moses
stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and there was a
thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days
during which time they saw not each other, neither arose
any of the people from their places for three days; but the
children of Israel had light in their dwellings.”
It strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered
with thick darkness—so thick that it could be felt, and
when light was in the dwellings of the Israelites, there
could have been no better time for the Hebrews to have
left the country.
Pharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his
people could go and serve the Lord, provided they would
leave their flocks and herds. Moses would not agree to
this, for the reason that they needed the flocks and herds
for sacrifices and burnt-offerings, and he did not know how
many of the animals God might require, and for that reason
he could not leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the
cattle, they divided, and Pharaoh again refused to let the
people go. God then commanded Moses to tell the Hebrews
to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver and gold.
By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in
the sight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles
asked for. After this, Moses again went to Pharaoh and
told him that all the first-born in the land of Egyyt, from
the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne, unto the first-
�105»
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well
as the first-born of beasts, should die.
As all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail,,
it is troublesome to understand the meaning- of the threat
as to their first-born.
Preparations were accordingly made for carrying this,
frightful threat into execution. Blood was put on the
door-posts of all houses inhabited by Hebrews, so that God,,
as he passed through that land, might not be mistaken and
destroy the first-born of the Jews. “And it came to pass,
that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the
land of Egypt, the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the
throne, and the first-born of the captive who was in the
dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, and all his.
servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry
in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not
one dead.”
What had these children done ? Why should the babes,
in the cradle be destroyed on account of the crime of
Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be destroyed because
man had enslaved his brother ? In those days women and
children and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and wereall considered as the property of the men ; and when man,
in some way excited the wrath of God, he punished them
by destroying all their cattle, their wives and their little
ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to describe
a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands
and fathers had failed to keep his law ? Every good man
and every good woman must hate and despise such a.
deity.
Upon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for
Moses and Aaron, and not only gave his consent that they
might go with the Hebrews into the wilderness, but be
sought them to go at once.
Is it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds
and sustainer of all life, said to Pharaoh : “ If you do not
let my people go, I will turn all the water of your country
into blood,” and that, upon the refusal of Pharaoh to release
the people, God did turn all the waters into blood ? Doi
you believe this ?
Do you believe that Pharaoh, even after all the water
was turned to blood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and,
H
�106
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that thereupon God told him he would cover his land with
frogs ? Do you believe this ?
Do you believe that after the land was covered with
frogs Pharaoh still refused to let the people go, and that
God then said to him, “ I will cover you and all your people
with lice ?” Do you believe God would make this threat ?
Do you also believe that God told Pharaoh—“ If you do
not let these people go, I will fill all your houses and cover
your country with flies ?” Do you believe God makes such
threats as this ?
Of course God must have known that turning the waters
into blood, covering the country with frogs, infesting all
flesh with lice, and filling all houses with flies, would not
accomplish his object, and that all these plagues would have
no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king.
Do you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by
flies, God told Pharaoh that, if he did not let the people go,
he would kill his cattle with murrain ? Does such a threat
sound God-like ?
Do you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing
the cattle, this same God then threatened to afflict all the
people with boils, including the magicians who had been
rivaling him in the matter of miracles; and failing to do
anything by boils, that he resorted to hail ? Does this sound
reasonable ? The hail experiment having accomplished
nothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born
of animals and men ? Is it possible to conceive of anything
more utterly absurd, stupid, revolting, cruel and senseless,
than the miracles said to have been wrought by the
Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate
the children of Israel ?
Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that the
Jewish people, being in slavery, accounted for the misfor
tunes and calamities, suffered by the Egyptians, by saying
that they were the judgments of God ?
When the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered
by the storm, the English people believed that God had
interposed in their behalf, and publicly gave thanks. When
the battle of Lepanto was won, it was believed by the
Catholic world that the victory was given in answer to
prayer. So, our forefathers in their revolutionary struggle
saw, or thought they saw, the hand of God, and most
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
107
firmly believed that, they achieved their independence by
the interposition of the most high.
Now, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved
•by the Egyptians, there were plagues of locusts and flies.
It may be that there were some diseases by which many of
the cattle perished. It may be that a pestilence visited that
■country so that in nearly every house there was some one
dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and super
stitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that
they were punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will
■be found in the history of every country.
For a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they
were handed from father to son simply by tradition. By
the time a written language had been produced, thousands
of additions had been made, and numberless details
invented; so that we have not only an account of the
plagues suffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven
into a connected story, containing the threats made by
Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by them, the pro
mises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews,
•as a result of the marvellous things performed in their
behalf by Jehovah.
In any event it is infinitely more probable that the author
was misinformed, than that the God of this universe was
guilty of these childish, heartless and infamous things.
‘The solution of the whole matter is this :—Moses was
mistaken.
XXIII.—THE FLIGHT.
Three millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with
borrowed jewellery and raiment, with unleavened dough
in kneading troughs bound in their clothes upon their
shoulders, in one night commenced their journey for the
land of promise. We are not told how they were informed
of the precise time to start. With all the modern appliances,
it would require months of time to inform three millions of
people of any fact.
In this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand
men of war, and with them were the old, the young, the
�108
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
diseased and helpless. Where were those people going ?
They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared with
which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn
by storm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a
Gorgon and changed instantly to stone ! Such was the
desert of Sinai.
All of the civilized nations of the world could not feed
and support three millions of people on the desert of Sinai
for forty years. It would cost more than one hundred
thousand millions of dollars, and would bankrupt Chris
tendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and
the sheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed,
at one time, more than one hundred and fifty thousand first
born lambs. How were these flocks supported? What
did they eat ? Where were meadows and pastures forthem ?
There was no grass, no forests—nothing! There is no
account of its having rained baled hay, nor is it even
claimed that they were miraculously fed. To support these
flocks, millions of acres of pastures would have been
required. God did not take the Israelites through the land
of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people
of that country they would return to Egypt, but he took
them by the way of the wilderness to the Red Sea, going
before them by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a
pillar of fire.
When it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he
made ready and took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt,
and pursued after the children of Israel, overtaking them
by the sea. As all the animals had long before that time
been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh obtained
the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of
Israel saw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six
hundred thousand men of war, they immediately cried unto
the Lord for protection. It is wonderful to me that a land
that had been ravaged by the plagues described in the
Bible, still had the power to put in the field an army that
would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand
men of war. Even with the help of God, it seems, they
were not strong enough to meet the Egyptians in the open
field, but resorted to strategy. Moses again stretched forth
his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea, and
they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
109
Zand, the waters standing up like a wall on either side.
The Egyptians pursued them ; “ and in the morning watch
the Lord looked into the hosts of the Egyptians through the
pillar of fire,” and proceeded to take the wheels off their
chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses
to stretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and
immediately “ the waters returned and covered the chariots
and horsemen and all the hosts of Pharaoh that came into
the sea, and there remained not so much as one of them.”
This account may be true, but still it hardly looks reason
able that God would take the wheels off the chariots. How
did he do it ? Did he pull out the linch-pins, or did he just
take them off by main force ?
What a picture this presents to the mind ! God the
creator of the universe, maker of every shining, glittering
star, engaged in pulling off the wheels of wagons, that he
might convince Pharaoh of his greatness and power.
Where were these people going ? They were going to
the promised land. How large a country was that ? About
twelve thousand square miles. About one-fifth the size of
the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country, covered
with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the
promised land already ? Moses tells us there were seven
nations in that country mightier than the Jews. As there
were at least three millions of Jews, there must have been
at least twenty-one millions of people already in that country.
These had to be driven out in order that room might be made
for the chosen people of God. It seems, however, that God
was not willing to take the children of Israel into the
promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit
the land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them
to wander in the desert until all who had left Egypt,
except two, should perish. Of all the slaves released from
Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to reach the
promised land.
As soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found
Themselves without food, and with water unfit to drink by
reason of its bitterness, and they began to murmur against
Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and “ the Lord showed
him a tree.” Moses cast this tree into the waters, and
they became sweet. “ And it came to pass in the morning
the dew lay around about the camp; and when the dew
�110
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that lay was gone, behold, upon the face of the wildernesslay a small round thing, small as the hoar-frost upon theground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread
which the Lord hath given you to eat.” This manna was
a very peculiar thing. It would melt in the sun, and yet
they could cook it by seething and baking. One would
as soon think of frying snow or of broiling icicles. But
this manna had another remarkable quality. No matterhow much or little any person gathered, he would have an
exact omer ; if he gathered more, it would shrink to that
amount, and if he gathered less, it would swell exactly to
that amount. What a magnificent substance manna would
be with which to make a currency—shrinking and swelling
according to the great laws of supply and demand I
“ Epon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty
years, until they came to a habitable land. With this meat
. were they fed until they reached the borders of the land of
Canaan.”
We are told in the twenty-first chapter of
Numbers that the people at last became tired of the manna,,
complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought them
out of the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And
they said :—“ There is no bread, nor have we any water.
Our soul loatheth this light food.”
We are told by some commentators that the Jews lived
on manna for forty years ; by others that lived upon it for
only a short time. As a matter of fact the accounts differ,
and this difference is the opportunity for commentators. It
also allows us to exercise faith in believing that both
accounts are true.
If the accounts agreed, and were
reasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and un
regenerated. But as they are different and unreasonable,,
they are believed only by the good. Whenever a state
ment in the Bible is unreasonable, and you believe it, you
are considered quite a good Christian. If the statement is
grossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believeit, you are a saint.
The children of Israel were in the desert, and they wereout of water. They had nothing to eat but manna, and
this ihey had had so long that the soul of every person
abhorred it. Under these circumstances they complained
to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well
have furnished them with an abundance of the purest and
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
Ill
coolest of water, and could, without the slightest trouble
to himself, have given them three excellent meals a day,
with a generous variety of meats and vegetables. It is
■ very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder
to conceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly
suggested that they would like a change of diet. Day after
day, week after week, month after month, year after
year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did the best they
could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of them
selves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they
asked Moses to use his influence to secure a change in the
bill of fare.
Now, I ask whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to
suggest that a little meat would be very gratefully received ?
It seems, however, that as soon as the request was made,
this God of infinite mercy became infinitely enraged, and
instead of granting it, went into partnership with serpents,
for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom
he had promised a land flowing with milk and honey.
Where did these serpents come from ? How did God
convey the information to the serpents, that he wished
them to go to the desert of Sinai and bite some Jews ? It
may be urged that these serpents were created for the
express purpose of punishing the children of Israel for
having had the presumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for
more.
There is another account in the eleventh chapter of
Numbers, of the people murmuring because of their food.
They remembered the fish, the cucumbers, the melons, the
leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt, and they asked
for meat. The people went to the tent of Moses and asked
him for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him
why he did not take care of the multitude. God thereupon
agreed that they should have meat, not for a day or two,
but for a month, until the meat should come out of their nostrils
and become loathsome to them. He then caused a wind to
bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the
camp, on every side of the camp around about for the space
of a day’s journey. And the people gathered them, and
while the flesh was yet between their teeth the wrath of
God being provokecl against them, struck them with an
exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among
�112
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
them, and thousands perished for the crime of having been
hungry.
The Rev. Alexander Cruden, commenting upon this
account, says:
“ God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within
•and about the camp of the Israelites ; and it is in this that
the miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably
to this place, and in so great numbers as to suffice above a
^million of persons above a month. Some authors affirm,
that in those eastern and southern countries, quails are
innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the com
pass of five miles, there were taken about a hundred thou
sand of them every day for a month together ; and that
•sometimes they fly so thick over the sea, that being weary
they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers that they
sink them with their weight.”
No wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account.
Must we believe that God made an arrangement with
hornets for the purpose of securing their services in driving
the Canaanites from the land of promise ? Is this belief
necessary unto salvation ? Must we believe that God said
to the Jews that he would send hornets before them to
drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third
chapter of Exodus, and the seventh chapter of Deutoronomy?
How would the hornets know a Canaanite ? In what way
would God put it in the mind of a hornet to attack a
Canaanite ? Did God create hornets for that especial pur
pose, implanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not
a Hebrew ? Can we conceive of the Almighty granting
letters of marque and reprisal to hornets ? Of course it is
not admitted that nothing in the world would be better
calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few
hornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite
being would resort to such expedients in order to drive the
Canaanites from their country ? He could just as easily
have spoken the Canaanites out of existence as to have
spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of
trouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it
possible that there is in this country an intelligent clergy
man who will insist that these stories are true; that we
must believe them in order to be good people in this world,
and glorified souls in the next ?
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
118
We are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill
the Canaanites slowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of
the field might increase upon his chosen people. When we
take into consideration the fact the Holy Land contained
•only about eleven or twelve thousand square miles, and was
■at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of
people, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts
could have been numerous enough to cause any great alarm.
The same ratio of population would give to the State of
Illinois at least one hundred and twenty millions of inhibitants.
Can anybody believe that, under such circumstances, the
danger from wild beasts could be very great ? What
would we think of a general, invading such a state, if he
•should order his soldiers to kill the people slowly lest the
wild beasts might increase upon them ? Is it possible that
a God capable of doing the miracles recounted in the Old
Testament could not, in some way, have disposed of the
wild beasts ? After the Canaanites were driven out, could
he not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild
beasts ? Think of a God that could drive twenty-one
millions of people out of the promised land, could raise up
innumerable stinging flies, and could cover the earth with
fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly power
less against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan !
Speaking of these hornets, one of the good old commen
tators, whose viewshave long been considered of great value
by the believers in the inspiration of the Bible, uses the
following language :—
“ Hornets are a sort of strong flies, which the Lord
used as instruments to plague the enemies of his
people. ■ They are of themselves very troublesome and
mischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it
is thought, of an extraordinary bigness and perniciousness.
It is said they live as the wasps, and that they have a king
or captain, and pestilent stings as bees, and that, if twenty
seven of them sting man or beast, it is certain death to
either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive out
the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen
writers give instances of some people driven from their
seats by frogs, others by mice, others by bees and wasps
And it is said that a Christian city, being besieged by Sapores,
king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for the elephants
�114
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the
whole army fled.”
Only a few years ago all such stories were believed by
the Christian world ; and it is an historical fact that Voltaire
was the third man of any note in Europe who took the
ground that the mythologies of Greece and Rome were
without foundation. Until his time, most Christians believed
as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and
Roman gods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The
Christian world cultivated credulity, not only as one of the
virtues but as the greatest of them all. But when Luther
and his followers left the Church of Rome, they were com
pelled to deny the power of the Catholic church at that
time to suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground
that such power ceased with the apostolic age. They
insisted that all things now happened in accordance with
the laws of nature with the exception of a few special
interferences in favor of the Protestant Church in answer
to prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy :
by one, they were to show the impossibility of Catholic
miracles, because opposed to the laws of nature; by the
other, the probability' of the miracles of the apostolic age,
because they were in conformity with the statement of the
scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of
nature, and the other, the word of God. The Protestants
have endeavored to carry on this double process of reason
ing, and the result has been a gradual increase of confidence
in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of confidence
in the word of God.
We are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing
of the Jewish people did not wax old, and that their shoes
refused to wear out. Some commentators have insisted
that angels attended to the wardrobes of the Hebrews,,
patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it
is, however, that the same clothes lasted them for forty
years during the entire journey from Egypt to the Holy
Land. Little boys starting out with their first pantaloons,,
grew as they travelled, and their clothes grew with them.
Can it be necessary to believe a story like this ? Will
men make better husbands, fathers, neighbors and citizens,,
simply by giving credence to these childish and impossible
things ? Certainly an infinite God could have transported
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
115
the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could as easily
have removed the Canaanites to some other country.
Surely there was no necessity for doing- thousands and thou
sands of petty miracles, day after day for forty years, looking
after the clothes of three millions of people, changing the
nature of wool, and linen, and leather, so they would not
“ wax old.” Every step, every motion, would wear away
some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were
these parts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was
the nature of things so changed that they could, not wear
away ? We know that whenever matter comes in contact
with matter certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were
these atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced
on the soles of the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the
knees of pantaloons, so that the next morning they would be
precisely in the condition they were on the morning before ?
There must be a mistake somewhere.
Can we believe that the real God, if there is one,. ever
ordered a man to be killed simply for making hair oil, or
ointment ? We are told in the thirtieth chapter of Exodus,
that the Lord commanded Moses to take myrrh, cinnamon,
sweet calamus, cassia and olive oil, and make a holy
ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables,
candlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his
sons; saying, at the same time that whosoever compounded
any like it, or whoever put any of it on a stranger, should
be put to death. In the same chapter, the Lord furnishes
Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying, that
whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be
cut off from his people. This, to me, sounds so unreason
able that I cannot believe it. Why should an infinite God
care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like
his or not ? Why should the Creator of all things threaten
to kill a priest who approached his altar without having
washed his hands and feet ? These commandments and
these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever
sat by chance upon a throne. There must be some mistake.
I cannot believe that an infinite intelligence appeared to
Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a variety of
patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes.
Neither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and
trim a coat for a priest. Why should a God care about
�1116
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
such things ? Why should he insist on having buttons
sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color?
Suppose an intelligent civilised man was to overhear, on
bmai, the following- instructions from God to Moses:__
“
mUSt consecrate my priests as follows:—You must
kill a bullock for a sin offering, and have Aaron and his
■sons lay their hands upon the head of the bullock. Then
you must take the blood and put it upon the horns of the
■altar round about with your finger, and pour some at the
■bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation ; and of the fat
.that is upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two
kidneys, and their fat, and burn them upon the altar. You
must get a ram for a burnt-offering, and Aaron and his
sons must lay their hands upon the head of the ram. Then
you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar, and
CU^ k ram
Pieces’ and burn the head, and the pieces,
and
an(t was^ the inwards and the lungs in water,
and then burn the whole ram upon the altar for a sweet
savor unto me. Then you must get another ram, and have
Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that,
then kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of
.Aaron s right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and
■on the great toe of his right foot. And you must also put
a little of the blood upon the top of the right ears of Aaron’s
sons, and on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the
great toes of their right feet. And then you must take of
the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver
and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder,
and out of a basket of unleavened bread you must take
•One unleavened cake and another of oil bread, and one wafer,
and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And you
must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle
it on Aaron, and on his garments, and on his sons’ garments,
and sanctify them and all their clothes.”—Do you believe
"that he would have even suspected that the Creator of the
universe was talking ?
Can any one now tell why God commanded the Jews,
"when they were upon the desert of Sinai, to plant trees,
telling them at the same time that they must not eat any
•of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year ? Trees
■could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had
•been they could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
117
while in the desert, to make curtains of fine linen ? Where
could he have obtained his flax ? There was no land upon
which it could have been produced. Why did he tell him
to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones,
when they could not have been in possession of thesethings ? There is but one answer, and that is, the Penta
tench was written hundreds of years after the Jews had
settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after
Moses was dust and ashes.
When the Jews had a written language, and that must
have been long after their flight from Egypt, they wrote
out their history and their laws. Tradition had filled the
infancy of the nation with miracles and special interpositions
in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow
these wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied
a miracle. There were traditions to the effect that God
had spoken face to face with Moses; that he had given
him the tables of the law, and had, in a thousand ways,,
made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to
make new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have
found something more that God said to Moses at Sinai. In
this way obedience was more easily secured. Only a very
few of the people could read, and, as a consequence, addi
tions, interpolations and erasures esaped detection. In
this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to
speak of things that did not exist in his day, and were
unknown for hundreds of years after his death.
In the thirtieth chapter of Exodus we are told that the
people when numbered must give each one a half shekel
after the shekel of the sanctuary. At that time no such
money existed, and consequently the account could not, by
any possibility, have been written until after there was a
shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until
long after the death of Moses. If we should read that
Caesar paid his troops in pounds, shillings and pence, we
would certainly know that the account was not written by
Caasar, nor in his time, but we would know that it was
written after the English had given these names to certain
coins.
So we find that when the Jews were upon the desert it
was commanded that every mother should bring, as a sinoffering, a couple of doves to the priests, and the priests
�118
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
were compelled to eat these doves in the most holy place.
At the time this law appears to have been given, there
were three million people, and only three priests : Aaron,
Eleazer and Ithamar. Among three million people there
would be, at least, three hundred births a day. Certainly
we are not expected to believe that these three priests
devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four hours.
Why should a woman ask pardon of God for having been
a mother ? Why should that be considered a crime in
Exodus which is commanded as a duty in Genesis ? Why
should a mother be declared unclean ? Why should giving
birth to a daughter be regarded as twice as criminal as
giving birth to a son ? Can we believe that such laws and
ceremonies were made and instituted by a merciful and
intelligent God ? If there is anything in this poor world
suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet, loving
and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy
arms her prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of
Leviticus, and you will see that when a woman became the
mother of a boy she was so unclean that she was not allowed
to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the sanctuary for
forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was
unfit for eighty days to enter the house of God, or to touch
the sacred tongs and snuffers. These laws, born of bar
barism, are unworthy of our day, and should be regarded
simply as the mistakes of savages.
Just as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions
given in the fifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife
■of whom the husband was jealous. This foolish chaptei
bas been the foundation of all appeals to God for the ascer
tainment cf facts, such as the corsned, trial by battle, by
water and by fire ; the last of which is our judicial oath. It
is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman
would be afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the
oath, and that, through fear, she might be made to confess.
Admitting that the deception tended not only to prevent
crime, but to discover it when committed, still, we cannot
admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort to
dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a
means of getting at the truth, and in this there is nothing
dishonest, provided falsehood is not resorted to for the pur
pose of producing the fear. Protestants laugh at Catholics
�ROME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
119
(because of their belief in the efficacy of holy water, and
yet they teach their children that a little holy water, in
which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the
sanctuary, would work a miracle in a woman s flesh. For
hundreds of years our fathers believed that a perjurer could
not swallow a piece of sacramental bread. Such stories
belong to the childhood of our race, and are now believed
only by mental infants and intellectual babes.
I cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of
tables of stone, upon which God had written the ten com
mandments, and that when he saw the golden calf and the
dancing he dashed the tables to the earth, and broke
them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a
golden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the
people drink it with water, as related in the thirty-second
chapter of Exodus.
There is another account of the giving of the ten com
mandments to Moses, in the nineteenth and twentieth
chapters of Exodus. In this account not one word is said
about the people having made a golden calf, nor about the
breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chap
ter of Exodus there is an account of the renewal of the
broken tables of the law, and the commandments are given,
but they are not the same commandments mentioned in the
twentieth chapter. There are two accounts of the same
transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet
both must be believed.
Anyone who will take the trouble
to read the nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last
verse of the thirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirtythird and thirty-fourth chapters of Exodus, will be com
pelled to admit that both accounts cannot be true.
From the last account it appears that while Moses was
upon Mount Sinai receiving the commandments from God,
tne people brought their jewellery to Aaron, and he cast
for them a golden calf. This happened before any com
mandment against idolatry had been given A'god ought,
certainly to publish his laws before inflicting penalties for
their violation. To inflict punishment for breaking unknown
and unpublished laws is, in the last degree, cruel and un
just. It may be replied that the Jews knew better than to
worship idols before the law was given. If this is so, why
should the law have been given ? In all civilised countries
�120
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
laws are made and promulgated, not simply for the purpose
of informing the people as to what is right and wrong, but
to inform them of the penalties to be visited upon those
who violate the laws. When the ten commandments were
given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was
written on the tables of stone as to the punishments that
would be inflicted for breaking any or all of the inspired
laws. The people should not have been punished for vio
lating a commandment before it was given. And yet, in
this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their
swords and slay every man his brother, his companion and
his neighbor. The brutal order was obeyed, and three
thousand men were butchered. The Levites consecrated
themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons and their
brothers for having violated a commandment before it had
been given.
It has been contended for many years that the ten com
mandments are the foundation of all ideas of justice and
of law. Eminent jurists have bowed to popular prejudice,
and deformed their works by statements to the effect that
the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all
ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly
false than such assertions.
Thousands of years before
Moses was born the Egyptians had a code of laws. They
had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, larceny,
perjury ; laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement
of contracts, the ascertainment of damag-es, the redemption
of property pawned, and upon nearly every subject of
human interest. The Egyptian code was far better than theMosaic.
Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. In
dustry objected to supporting idleness, and laws were made
against theft. Laws were made against murder, becausea very large majority of the people have always objected
to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply
of the instinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish
savages assembled at the foot of Sinai, laws had been madeand enforced, not only in Egypt and India, but by every
tribe that ever existed.
It is impossible for human beings to exist together with
out certain rules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and
improper, of the right and wrong, growing out of the rela-
�121
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
tion. Certain rules must be made, and must be enfoiced.
This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever produces
anything- by weary labor does not need a lev elation fiom
heaven to teach him that he has a right to the thing P10~
duced. Not one of the learned gentlemen who pretend
that the Mosaic laws are filled with justice and intelligence,
would live, for a moment, in any country where such laws
were not in force.
Nothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas ot
Jehovah. He had the strangest notions about the cause
and cure of disease. With him everything was. miracle and
wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus, we find
the law for cleansing a leper :—“ Then shall the priest take
for him that is to be cleansed two birds, alive and clean,
and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest
shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen
vessel, over running water. As for the living bird, he shall
take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop,
and shall dip them, and the living bird, in the blood of the
bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy,
seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let
the living bird loose into the open field.
We are told that God himself gave these directions. to
Moses. Does anybody believe this ? Why should the bird
be killed in an earthern vessel ? Would the charm be broken
if the vessel was of wood ? Why over running water ?
What would be thought of a physician now who would give
a prescription like that ?
Is it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of
directions for the purpose of discovering the presence of
leprosy, and for cleansing the leper after he was healed,
forgot to tell how that disease could be cured ? Is it not
wonderful that, while God told his people what animals
were fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man
might eat ? Why did he leave his children to find out the
hurtful and the poisonous by experiment, knowing that ex
periment, in millions of cases, must be death ?
When reading the history of the Jewish people, of their
flight from slavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I
must confess that my sympathies are all aroused in their
behalf. They were cheated, deceived and abused. Their
I
�122
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
God was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, revengeful
and dishonest. He was always promising, but never per
formed. He wasted time in ceremony and childish detail,
and in the exaggeration of what he had done. It is impos
sible for me to conceive of a character more utterly detest
able than that of the Hebrew God. He had solemnly pro
mised the Jews, that he would take them from Egypt to a
land flowing with milk and honey. He had led them to
believe that in a little while their troubles would be over,
and that soon, in the land of Canaan, surrounded by their
wives and little ones, they would forget the stripes and
tears of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again
and again that he would lead them in safety to the pro
mised land of joy and plenty, this God, forgetting every
promise, said to the wretches in his power :—“Your car
cases shall fall in this wilderness and your children shall
wander until your carcases be wasted.” This curse was the
conclusion of the whole matter. Into this dust of death and
night faded all the promises of God. Into this rottenness
of wandering despair fell all the dreams of liberty and home.
Millions of corpses were left to rot in the desert, and each
one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I cannot believe
these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my
blood is chilled and my sense of justice shocked. A book
that is equally abhorrent to my head and heart cannot be
accepted as a revelation from God.
When we think of the poor Jews destroyed, murdered,
bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, decimated by famine,
butchered by each other, swallowed by the earth, frightened
cursed, starved, deceived, robbed and outraged, how thank
ful we should be that we are not the chosen people of God.
No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and
remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they ex
changed masters. Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was
a benefactor, and the tyranny of Egypt was freedom to
those who suffered the despotism of God.
While reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indigna
tion, pity and horror. Nothing can be sadder than the
history of the starved and frightened wretches who wan
dered over the desolate crags and sands of wilderness and
desert, the prey of famine, sword and plague. Ignorant
and superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood,
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. .
123
plundered by hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests and
the victims of fear. God was their greatest enemy, and death
their only friend.
It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despic
able, hateful and arrogant being than the Jewish God. He
is without a redeeming feature. In the mythology of the
world he has no parallel. He only is never touched by
agony and tears. He .delights only in blood and pain.
Human affections are nought to him. He cares neither for
love nor music, beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust
judge, a braggart, hypocrite and tyrant; sincere in hatred,
'jealous, vain and revengeful; false in promise, honest in
curse ; suspicious, ignorant and changeable, infamous and
hideous—such is the God of the Pentateuch.
XXIV.—CONFESS AND AVOID.
The scientific Christians now admit that the Bible is not in
spired in its astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in
any science. In other words, they admit that on these
subjects the Bible cannot be depended upon. If all the
statements in the Scriptures were true there would be no
necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired.
A Christian will not admit that a passage in the Bible is un
inspired until he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy
itself has at last been compelled to say that, while a passage
may be true and uninspired, it cannot be inspired if false.
If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy
and geology when the Bible was introduced among them
as they do now, there never could have been one believer
in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various
parts of the Bible had known as much about the sciences as
is now known by every intelligent man, the book never
could have been written. It was produced by ignorance,
and has been believed and defended by its author. It has
lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge.
A few years ago this book was appealed to in the settle
ment of all scientific questions ; but now, even the clergy
confess that in such matters it has ceased to speak with the
�124
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
voice of authority.
For the establishment of facts the
word of man is now considered far better than the word of
God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by
Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. All that God told Moses,
admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes
compared to the discoveries of Descartes, La Place and
Humbolt. In matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be
regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking
the chains of theology.
A few years ago science en
deavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Bible.
The tables have been turned, and now religion is endeavor
ing to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with science.
The standard has been changed.
For many ages the Christians contended that the Bible,
viewed simply as a literary performance, was beyond all
other books, and that man, without the assistance of God,
could not produce its equal. This claim was made when
but few books existed, and the Bible, being the only book
generally known, had no rival. But this claim, like the
other, has been abandoned by many, and soon will be by
all. Compared with Shakespeare’s “ book and volume of
the brain,” the “ sacred ” Bible shrinks, and seems as feebly
impotent and vain as would a pipe of Pan, when some great
organ, voiced with every tone, from the hoarse thunder of
the sea to the winged warble of a mated bird, floods and
fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth of sound.
It is now maintained—and this appears to be the last
fortification behind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks
and crouches—that the Bible, although false and mistaken
in its astronomy, geology, geography, history and philo
sophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed that
had it not been for this book the world would have been
inhabited only by savages, and that had it not been for the
holy Scriptures, man never would have even dreamed of
the unity of God. It is claimed that belief in one God is a
dogma of almost infinite importance—that without this
belief civilisation is impossible, and that this fact is the sun
around which all the virtues revolve. For my part, I think
it infinitely more important to believe in man. Theology
is a superstition—humanity a religion.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
125
XXV—“ INSPIRED ” SLAVERY.
PERHAPS the Bible was inspired upon the subject of human
slavery. Is there in the civilised world to-day a clergyman
who believes in the divinity of slavery ? Does the Bible
teach man to enslave his brother ? If it does, is it not blas
phemous to say that it is inspired of God ? If you find the
institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been
written by God, what would you expect to find in a book
inspired by the Devil ? Would you expect to find that book
in favor of liberty ? Modern Christians, ashamed of the
God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to show that
slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah.
Nothing can be plainer than the following passages from
Leviticus xxv.:—“ Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 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 inheritance for your children after you, to
inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bond
men for ever.
Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you. Of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bond-maids.”
Can we believe in this, the nineteenth century, that these
infamous passages were inspired by God ?
That God
approved not only of human slavery, but instructed his
chosen people to buy the women, children and babes of the
heathen round about them ? If it was right for the Hebrews
to buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God,
by commanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling
of sons and daughters. The Canaanites who, tempted by
gold, lured by avarice, sold from the arms of his wife the
dimpled babe, simply made it possible for the Hebrews to
obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of the
Bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his
cheeks with shame. I ask the Christian world to-day, Was
it right for the heathen to sell their children ? Was it
right for God not only to uphold, but to command the in
famous traffic in human flesh ? Could the most revengeful
fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink
to a lower moral depth than this ?
�126
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
According to this God, his chosen people were not only
commanded to buy of the heathen round about them, but
were also permitted to buy each other for a term of years.
The law governing the purchase of Jews is laid down
in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. li If thou buy a
Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve : and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by
himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married,
then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have
given him a wife, and she have born him sons, or daughters,
the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall
go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I
love my master, my wife and my children ; I will not go
out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges ;
he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post;
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: and
he shall serve him for ever.”
Do you believe that God was the author of this infamous
law ? Do you believe that the loving father of us all, turned
the dimpled arms of babes into manacles of iron ? Do you
believe that he baited the dungeon of servitude with wife
and child ? Is it possible to love a God who would make
such laws ? Is it possible not to hate and despise him ?
The heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their
rights are never mentioned. They were the rightful food of
the sword, and their bodies were made for stripes and chains.
In the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are
told that, “ if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a
rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two he shall not
be punished, for he is his money.”
Must we believe that God called some of his children the
money of others ? Can we believe that God made lashes
upon the naked back a legal tender for labor performed ?
Must we regard the auction block as an altar ? Were
blood-hounds apostles ? Was the slave-pen a temple ?
M ere the stealers and whippers of babes and women the
justified children of God ?
It is now contended that while the Old Testament is
touched with the barbarism of its times, the New Testa
ment is morally perfect, and that on its pages can be found
no blot or stain. As a matter of fact, the New Testament
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
127
is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the
°ldFor my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God
who upholds the institution of slavery. Such a God I hate
and defy. I neither want his heaven nor fear his hell.
XXVI.—“ INSPIRED ”
MARRIAGE.
Is there an orthodox clergyman in the world who will now
declare that he believes the institution of polygamy to be
right ? Is there one who will publicly declare that, in his
judgment, that institution was ever right ? Was there ever
a time in the history of the world when it was right to
treat women simply as property ? Do not attempt to answer
these questions by saying that the Bible is an exceedingly
good book, that we are indebted for our civilisation to the
sacred volume, and that without it man would lapse into
savagery and mental night. This is no answer. Was
there a time when the institution of polygamy was the
highest expression of human virtue ? Is there a Chris
tian woman, civilised, intelligent and free, who believes
in the institution of polygamy ? Are we better, purer,
and more intelligent than God was four thousand years
ago ? Why should we imprison Mormons. and worship
God ? Polygamy is just as pure in Utah as it could have
been in the promised land. Love and virtue are the same
the whole world round, and justice is the same in every star.
All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express
the filth of polygamy. It makes of man a beast, of woman
a trembling slave. It destroys the fireside, makes viitue
an outcast, takes from human speech its sweetest words,
• and leaves the heart a den, where crawl and. hiss the slimy
serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilisation rests upon
the family. The good family is the unit of good govern
ment. The virtues grow about the holy hearth of home
thev cluster, bloom, and shed their perfume round the fire
side where the one man loves the one woman. Lover
husband—wife—mother— father—child—home ! without
these sacred words the world is but a lair, and men and
women merely beasts.
�128
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Why should the innocent maiden and the loving mother
worship the heartless J ewish God ? Why should they, with
pure and stainless lips, read the vile record of inspired lust ?
The marriage of the one man to the one woman is the
citadel and fortress of civilisation. Without this woman
becomes the prey and slave of lust and power, and man
goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of my
heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life of which
the pure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take
from the world the family, the fireside, the children born of
wedded love, and there is nothing left. The home where
virtue, dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire—
the fairest flower in all the world.
XXVII.—“INSPIRED ” WAR.
If the Bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to
destroy men simply for the crime of defending their native
land. They were not allowed to spare trembling and whitehaired age, nor dimpled babes clasped in the mother’s arms.
They were ordered to kill women, and to pierce, with the
sword of war, the unborn child. ‘‘Our heavenly father”
commanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the
fathers, sons and brothers, but to preserve the girls alive.
Why were not the maidens also killed ? Why were they
spared ? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and
you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers
and the priests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more
infamous thing than this ? Is it possible that God permitted
the violets of modesty, that grow and shed their perfume
in the maiden’s heart, to be trampled beneath the brutal
feet of lust ? If this was the order of God, what, under
the same circumstances, would have been the command of
a Devil ? When, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife,
a mother, reads this record, she should, with scorn and
loathing, throw the book away. A general, who now
should make such an order, giving over to massacre and.
rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by
the whole civilised world. Yet, if the Bible be true, the
supreme and infinite God was once a savage.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
129
A little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little
path leading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two
children and their mother. Her breast was filled with
wounds received in the defence of her darlings. They had
been murdered by the savages. Suppose, when looking at
their lifeless forms, some one had said, “ This was done by
the command of God I” In Canaan there were countless
scenes like this. There was no pity in inspired war. God
raised the black flag, and commanded his soldiers to kill
even the smiling infant in its mother’s arms. Who is the
blasphemer : The man who denies the existence of God, or
he who covers the robes of the infinite with innocent blood ?
We are told in the Pentateuch that God, the father of us
all, gave thousands of maidens, after having killed their
fathers, their mothers and their brothers, to satisfy the
brutal lusts of savage men. If there be a God, I pray him
to write in his book opposite my name that I denied this
lie for him.
XXVIII.—“ INSPIRED ” RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
According to the Bible, God selected the Jewish people,
through whom to make known the great fact that he was
the only true and living God. For this purpose he appeared
on several occasions to Moses—came down from Sinai’s
top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand
miracles for the preservation and education of the Jewish
people. In their presence he opened the waters of the sea.
For them he caused bread to rain from heaven. To quench
their thirst, water leaped from the dry and barren rock.
Their enemies were miraculously destroyed ; and for forty
years at least this God took upon himself the government
of the Jews. But after all this many of the people had
less confidence in him than in gods of wood and stone.
In moments of trouble, in periods of disaster, in the dark
ness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine, instead
of asking this God for aid they turned and sought the help
of senseless things. This God, with all his power and wis
dom, could not even convince a few wandering and wretched
savages that he was more potent than the idols of Egypt.
This God was not willing that the Jews should think and
�130
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
investigate for themselves. For heresy the penalty was
death. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was
unknown. He appealed only to brute force ; he collected
taxes by threatening plagues; he demanded worship on
pain of sword and fire. He acted as a spy, inquisitor, judge
and executioner.
In Deuteronomy xiii. we have the ideas of God as to
mental freedom : “If thy brother, the son of thy mother,
or thy son, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which
is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go
and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor
thy fathers—namely, of the gods of the people which are
round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from
the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the
earth, thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto
him. Neither shall thine eye pity him ; neither shalt thou
spare him; neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt
surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put
him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die.”
This is the religious liberty of God—the toleration of
Jehovah. If I had lived in Palestine at that time, and my
wife, the mother of my children, had said to me: “ I am
tired of Jehovah. He is always asking for blood; he is
never weary of killing ; he is always telling of his might
and strength; always telling what he has done for the
Jews ; always asking for sacrifices, for doves and lambs—
blood, nothing but blood.
Let us worship the sun.
Jehovah is too revengeful, too malignant, too exacting.
Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the world in
beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers. By its
divine light I first saw your face and my beautiful babe.”
If I had obeyed the command of God, I should have killed
her. My hand would have been first upon her, and after
that the hands of all the people ; and she would have been
stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would
never kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real
God of this universe. Think of taking up some ragged
rock and hurling it against the white bosom filled with love
for you ; and when you saw oozing from the bruised lips
ef the death-wound the red current of her sweet life, think
of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratula-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
131
tions of the infinite fiend whose commandment you had
obeyed!
Can we believe that any such command was ever given
by a merciful and intelligent God?
Suppose, however,
that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them
that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to
worship any other god, that they should kill him ; and
suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself
flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a
different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified
him. I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown ?
What right would this God have to complain of a cruci
fixion suffered in accordance with his own command ?
Nothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny.
To put chains upon the body is as nothing compared with
putting shackles on the brain. No god is entitled to the
worship or the respect of man who does not give, even to
the meanest of his children, every right that he claims for
himself.
If the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty.
The dungeons of the Inquisition were temples, and the
clank of every chain upon the limbs of heresy was music in
the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was inspired, every
heretic should be destroyed ; and every man who advocates
a fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be con
sumed by sword and flame.
In the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a
heretic, and not one word is said about relying upon
argument, upon education, or upon intellectual development
—nothing except simple brute force. Is there to-day a
Christian who will say that four thousand years ago it was
the duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed from
him upon the subject of religion ? Is there one who will
now say that, under such circumstances, the wife ought to
have been killed ? Why should God be so jealous of the
wooden idols of the heathen ? Could he not compete with
Baal ? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian
magicians ? Was it not possible for him to make such a
convincing display of his power as to silence forever the
voice of unbelief ? Did this God have to resort to force to
make converts ? Was he so ignorant of the structure of
the human mind as to believe all honest doubt a crime ? If
�132
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
he wished to do away with the idolatry of the Canaanites,
why did he not appear to them ? Why did he not give
them the tables of the law ? Why did he only make known
his will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai ?
Will some theologian have the kindness to answer these
questions ? Will some minister who now believes in
religious liberty, and eloquently denounces the intolerance
of Catholicism, explain these things; will he tell us why he
worships an intolerant God ? Is a God who burns a soul
forever in another world better than a Christian who burns
the body for a few hours in this ? Is there no intellectual
liberty in heaven ? Do the angels all discuss questions on
the same side ? Are all the investigators in perdition?
Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the
honest folks in hell ? Will the agony of the damned increase
or decrease the happiness of God ? Will there be in the
universe an eternal auto da fe?
XXXIV.—CONCLUSION.
If the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology,
geography, history or philosophy, if it is not inspired con
cerning slavery, polygamy, war, law, religious or political
liberty, or the rights of men, women and children, what is
it inspired in, or about ? The unity of God ?—that was
believed long before Moses was born. Special providence ?
—that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages. The
rights of property ?—theft was always a crime. The
sacrifice of animals ?—that was a custom thousands of years
before a Jew existed. The sacredness of life ?—there have
always been laws against murder. The wickedness of per
jury ?—truthfulness has always been a virtue. The beauty
of chastity ?—the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou
shalt worship no other God ?—that has been the burden of
all religions.
Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been
written by uninspired men ? that the assistance of God was
necessary to produce these books ? Is it possible that
Galileo ascertained the mechanical principles of “ Virtual
Velocity,” the laws of falling bodies and of all motion ; that
Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
133
accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler dis
covered his three laws—discoveries of such importance that
the 8th of May, 1618, may be called the birth-day of modern
science: that Newton gave to the world the Method of
Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the
Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes
and Leibnitz almost completed the science of mathematics ;
that all the discoveries in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics
and chemistry, the experiments, discoveries, and inventions
of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of Trevethick, Watt
andTulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that all this was
accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the
Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God ?
Is it possible that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece
and Rome were made by man, and that the laws recorded
in the Pentateuch were alone given by God ? Is it possible
that JEschylus and Shakespeare, Burns and Beranger,
Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the 'world, and all
their wondrous tragedies and songs, are but the work of
men, while no intelligence except the infinite God could be
the author of the Pentateuch ? Is it possible that of all
the books that crowd the libraries of the world, the books
of science, fiction, history and song, that all save only one,
have been produced by man ? Is it possible that of all
these the Bible only is the work of God ?
If the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilisation of our day
is a mistake and a crime. There should be no political liberty.
Heresy should be trodden out beneath the bigot’s brutal
feet. Husbands should divorce their wives at will, and
make the mothers of their children houseless and weeping
wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practised; women
should become slaves; we should buy the sons and
daughters of the heathen and make them bondmen and
bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh and
blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and
women should be stoned to death for laboring on the seventh
day. “ Mediums,” such as have familiar spirits, should be
burned with fire. Every vestige of mental liberty should
be destroyed, and reason’s holy torch extinguished in the
martyr’s blood.
Is it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch
while containing some good laws, some truths, some wise
�134
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and useful things is, after all, deformed and blackened by
the savagery of its time ? Is it not far better and wiser
to take the good and throw the bad away ?
Let us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was
mistaken about a thousand things; that the story of creation
is not true ; that the garden of Eden is a myth ; that the
serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the fall of man are
but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that
woman was not made out of a rib ; that serpents never had
the power of speech ; that the sons of God did not marry
the daughters of men; that the story of the flood and ark
is not exactly true ; that the tower of Babel is a mistake ;
that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing; that the
origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy ; that Melthuselah
did not live nine hundred and sixty-nine years ; that Enoch
did not leave this world, taking with him his flesh and
bones ; that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is somewhat
improbable ; that burning brimstone never fell like rain; that
Lot’s wife was not changed into chloride of sodium ; that
Jacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling
with God; that the history of Tamar might just as well
have been left out; that a belief in Pharaoh’s dreams is not
essential to salvation; that it makes but little difference
whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent or not;
that of all the wonders said to have been performed in
Egypt, the greatest is that anybody ever believed the
absurd account; that God did not torment the innocent
cattle on account of the sins of their owners ; that he did
not kill the first-born of the poor maid behind the mill
because of Pharaoh’s crimes ; that flies and frogs were not
ministers of God’s wrath; that lice and locusts were not
the executors of his will; that seventy people did not, in
two hundred and fifteen years, increase to three millions ;
that three priests could not eat six hundred pigeons in a
day ; that gazing at a brass serpent could not extract poison
from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with
hornets ; that he did not murder people simply because they
asked for something to eat; that he did not declare the
making of hair-oil and ointment an offence to be punished
with death; that he did not miraculously preserve cloth
and leather ; that he was not afraid of wild beasts ; that he
did not punish heresy with sword and fire ; that he was not
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
135
jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the
sun, moon and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people
for eating the fat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to
draw cuts to see which of two goats should be killed ; that
he never objected to clothes made of woollen mixed with
linen ; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses
and too many fingers, he ought not to have created such
folks ; that he did not demand human sacrifice as set forth
in the last chapter of Leviticus; that he did not object to
the raising of horses ; that he never commanded widows to
spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law; that several con
tradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all be
true ; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks
to another; that angels were not in the habit of walking
about the earth eating veal dressed with milk and butter,
and making bargains about the destruction of cities ; that
God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived in a
bush ; that he never met Moses in an hotel and tried to kill
him ; that it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a
king to act in a certain way and then harden his heart so
that he would refuse; that God was not kept from killing
the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would laugh at
him ; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow
the corpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never
believed the firmament to be solid ; that he knew slavery
was and always would be a frightful crime ; that polygamy
is but stench and filth ; that the brave soldier will always
spare an unarmed foe ; that only cruel cowards slay the
conquered and the helpless ; that no language can describe
the murderer of a smiling babe ; that God did not want the
blood of doves and lambs ; that he did not love the smell
of burning flesh; that he did not want his altars daubed
with blood ; that he did not pretend that the sins of a
people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not
believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils ; that he did
not test the virtue of woman with dirty water ; that he did
not suppose that rabbits chewed the cud ; that he never
thought there were any four-footed birds ; that he did not
boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an
Egyptian king; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and
bear almonds in one night; that manna did not shrink and
swell, so that each man could gather only just one omer ;
�136
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that it was never wrong to “ countenance the poor man in
his cause
that God never told a people not to live in
peace with their neighbors ; that he did not spend forty
days with Moses on Mount Sinai giving him patterns for
making clothes, tongs, basons, and snuffers ; that maternity
is not a sin ; that physical deformity is not a crime ; that an
atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding innocent
blood ; that killing a dove over running water will not
make its blood a medicine ; that a god who demands love
knows nothing of the human heart ; that one who frightens
savages with loud noises is unworthy the love of civilised
men ; that one who destroys children on account of the sins
of their fathers is a monster ; that an infinite god never
threatened to give people the itch ; that he never sent wild
beasts to devour babes ; that he never ordered the violation
of maidens ; that he never regarded patriotism as a crime ;
that he never ordered the destruction of unborn children ;
that he never opened the earth and swallowed wives and
babes because husbands had displeased him ; that he never
demanded that men should kill their sons and brothers for the
purpose of sanctifying themselves ; that we cannot please God
by believing the improbable ; that credulity is not a virtue ;
that investigation is not a crime ; that every mind should
be free ; that all religious persecution is infamous in God
as well as man ; that without liberty virtue is impossible ;
that without freedom even love cannot exist : that every
man should be allowed to think and to express his thoughts ;
that woman is the equal of man ; that children should be
governed by love and reason ; that the family relation is
sacred ; that war is a hideous crime ; that all intolerance is
born of ignorance and hate ; that the freedom of to-day is
the hope of to-morrow : that the enlightened present ought
not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship the barbaric
past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man
should publicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous,
heartless, hideous things recorded in the “ inspired ” Penta
teuch are not the words of God, but simply “ Some Mistakes
of Moses.”
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 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
Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll, the destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns, is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1916]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: viii, [9]-136 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "The only complete edition published in England. Reprinted verbatim from Colonel Ingersoll's authorized American edition" [Title page]. First published, Washington DC: Farrell, 1879. Printed and published by Ramsey and Foote. Signature on front page: 'A. [Arthur] Bonner'. No. 69c in Stein checklist.
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
1885
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N398
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
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 (Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll, the destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns, is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not), 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. O.T. Pentateuch
Moses (Biblical Leader)
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e6888c52abe92ce1f6f0de8a69302dee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IiPoOKEFU8M7qKk2LofQG8pqKf4OUsUvPmkpPMPoETiwF14lMu4FKgEbtP6Az9fEVEG0SgOWvCYO35S85peuRRjfrAS5xL%7EdSBdSKmVfMi%7E0weKRM%7EjL03BFHhHkVGl0J6zGUwKna%7EZrizap6hKDSziykhUKij0hBQX6arBnv8mTRXiMs%7ETuy63uK%7EB5wWWe6O7nuCOFHb7Bmr-YuEbMYr93rNIR3ePWoo1yfvTuOhSbVgm6R3V-wiJNCuu0un4Ot-hRnk1PZSPdaM6dSvCv9pBMc%7EnwxhZ%7ESsMa9iRFOG1EdzLOMbQ9r8dtdsKkO6beUDizu%7E-LvBzi62jRkdTt0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
838229220a4807e25929b83ac1c7c2d7
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ORATION
ON
VOLTAIRE
COLONEL H. G. INGERSOLL.
Price Threepence.
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.CL
1892.
�On Saturday evening, October 8, Colonel K. Gr. Ingersoll
delivered his new lecture on “Voltaire” before the Chicago
Press Club, the audience numbering six thousand persons.
The delivery of the lecture occupied two hours and a half, and
from boginning to end the orator held the attention of the
audience completely, and was most vociferously cheered
throughout.
�B X73 V
Oration on Voltaire.
O
Ladies and Gentlemen,—The infidels of one age have often
been the aureoled saints of the next. The destroyers of the
old are the creators of the new. (Applause.)
As time sweeps on, the old passes away and the new in its
turn becomes old. There is in the intellectual world, as in
the physical, decay and growth, and ever by the grave of
buried age stand youth and joy. (Applause.)
The history of intellectual progress is written in the lives
of infidels. Political rights have been preserved by traitors;
liberty of mind by heretics. (Applause.)
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest was
blasphemy. For many centuries the sword and the cross
were allies. Together they attacked the rights of man. They
defended each other. The throne and the altar were twins—
two vultures from the same egg. (Applause.)
James I. said, “No Bishop, no King.” He might have
added, No cross, no crown. The king owned the bodies of
men; the priest the souls. One lived on taxes collected by
force, the other on alms collected by fear. Both robbers—
both beggars.
These robbers and these beggars controlled two worlds.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds. Both obtained
their authority from God; both were the agents of the
infinite. With bowed backs the people carried the burdens
of the one, and with Wonder’s open mouth received the
dogmas of the other. If the people aspired to be free, they
were crushed by the king; and every priest was a Herod
who slaughtered the children of the brain. (Applause)
�( 4 )
The king ruled by force, the priest by fear, and each sup
ported the other. The king said to the people, “ God made
you peasants, and he made me to be king; he made you to
labor and me to enjoy; he made rags and hovels for you,
robes and palaces for me. He made you to obey, and me to
command. Such is the justice of God.” And the priest
said, “ God made you ignorant and vile; he made me holy
and wise. You are the sheep and I am the shepherd; your
fleeces belong to me. If you do not obey me here, God will
punish you now and torment you for ever in another world.
Such is the mercy of God. You must not reason. Reason
is a rebel. You must not contradict; contradiction is born
of egotism. You must believe. ‘ He that hath ears to ear,
let him hear.’ Heaven is a question of ears.” (Laughter
and applause.)
Fortunately for us, there have been traitors and there have
been heretics, blasphemers, thinkers, investigators, lovers of
liberty, men of genius, who have given theii’ lives to better
the condition of their fellow-men.
It may be well enough here to ask the question, “ What is
greatness ?” A great man adds to the sum of knowledge,
extends the horizon of thought, releases souls from the
Bastille of fear, crosses unknown and mysterious seas, gives
new islands and new continents to the domain of thought,
new constellations to the firmament of mind. A great man
does not seek applause or place; he seeks for truth; he seeks
the road to happiness, and what he ascertains he gives to
others. (Applause.)
A great man throws pearls before swine, and the swine are
sometimes changed to men. (Applause.) If the great men
had always kept their pearls, vast multitudes would be bar
barians now. (Applause.)
A great man is a torch in the darkness, a beacon in super
stition’s night, an inspiration and a prophecy. Greatness is
�( 5 )
not the gift of majorities; it cannot be thrust upon any man;
men cannot give it to another; they can give place and
power, but not greatness. The place does not make the
man nor the sceptre the king. Greatness is from within.
(Applause.)
The great men are the heroes who have freed the bodies
of men; they are the philosophers and thinkers who have
given liberty to the soul; they are the poets who have trans
figured the common, and filled the lives of many millions
with love and song. (Great applause.) They are the artists
who have covered the bare walls of weary life with triumphs
of genius. They are the heroes who have slain the monsters
of ignorance and fear, who have outgazed the Gorgon and
driven the cruel gods from their thrones. They are the
inventors, the discoverers, the great mechanics, the kings of
the useful who have civilised this world. (Applause.)
At the head of this heroic army—foremost of all—stands
Voltaire, whose memory we are honoring to-night. (Great
applause.) Voltaire! A name that excites the admiration
of men, the malignity of priests. Pronounce that name in
the presence of a clergyman, and you will find that you have
made a declaration of war. Pronounce that name, and from
the face of the priest the mask of meekness will fall, and from
the mouth of forgiveness will pour a Niagara of vituperation
and calumny. And yet Voltaire was the greatest man of his
century, and did more for the human race than any other of
the sons of men.
VOLTAIRE COMES TO “THIS GREAT STAGE OE TOOLS.”
On Sunday, Nov. 21, 1694, a babe was born—a babe exceed
ingly frail, whose breath hesitated about remaining. This
babe became the greatest man of the eighteenth century.
When Voltaire came to “this great stage of fools,” his
country had been Christianised—not civilised—for about
fourteen hundred years. For a thousand years the religion of
�( 6 )
peace and goodwill had been supreme. The laws had been
given by Christian kings and sanctioned by “ wise and holy
men.” (Laughter.)
Under the benign reign of universal love, every court had
its chamber of torture, and every priest relied on the thumb
screw and rack. (Laughter and applause.) Such had been
the success of the blessed gospel that every science was an
outcast. To speak your honest thoughts, to teach your
fellow men, to investigate for yourself, to seek the truth—
these were all crimes; and the “ Holy Mother Church ”
pursued the criminals with sword and flame. (Great
applause.)
The believers in a God of love—an infinite father—punished
hundreds of offences with torture and death. Suspected
persons were tortured to make them confess. Convicted
persons were tortured to make them give the names of their
accomplices. Under the leadership of the Church, cruelty
had become the only reforming power. In this blessed year
1694 all authors were at the mercy of king and priest. The
most of them were cast into prisons, impoverished by fines
and costs, exiled or executed. The little timejthat hangmen
could snatch from professional duties was occupied in
burning books. (Laughter and applause.) The courts of
justice were traps in which the innocent were caught. The
judges were almost as malicious and cruel as though they
had been bishops or saints. There was no trial by jury, and
the rules of evidence allowed the conviction of the supposed
criminal by the proof of suspicion or hearsay. The witnesses,
being liable to be tortured, generally told what the judges
wished to hear. (Laughter.)
ALMOST UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION.
When Voltaire was born, the Church ruled and owned
France. It was a period of almost universal corruption. The
priests were mostly libertines, the judges cruel and venal.
�( 7 )
The royal palace was a house of prostitution. The nobles
were heartless, arrogant, proud, and cruel to the last degree.
The common people were treated as beasts. It took the
Church a thousand years to bring about this happy condition
of things. (Applause and laughter.)
The seeds of the Revolution were being scattered uncon
sciously by every noble and by every priest. They were
germinating slowly in the hearts of the wretched ; they were
being watered by the tears of agony ; blows began to bear
interest. There was a faint longing for blood. Workmen,
blackened by the sun, bowed by labor, deformed by want,
looked at the white throats of scornful ladies and thought
about cutting them. In those days, witnesses were crossexamined with instruments of torture ; the Church was the
arsenal of superstition; miracles, relics, angels and devils
were as common as lies.
Voltaire was of the people. In the language of that day,
he had no ancestors. His real name was François Marie
Arouet. His mother was Marguerite d’Aumard. This
mother died when he was seven years of age. He had an
elder brother, Armand, who was a devotee, very religious,
and exceedingly disagreeable. This elder brother used to
present offerings to the Church, hoping to make amends for
the unbelief of his brother. So far as we know, none of his
ancestors were literary people. The Arouets had never
written a line. The Abbé de Chaulieu was his godfather,
and, although an abbé, was a Deist who cared nothing about
his religion except in connection with his salary. (Laughter.)
Voltaire’s father wanted to make a lawyer of him, but he
had no taste for law. At the age of ten he entered the
College of Louis le Grand. This was a Jesuit school, and
here he remained for seven years, leaving at seventeen, and
never attending any other school. According to Voltaire,
�he learned nothing at this school but a little Greek, a good
deal of Latin, and a vast amount of nonsense.
TORTURE BEHIND THE CREED.
In this College of Louis le Grand they did not teach geo
graphy, history, mathematics, or any science. This was a
Catholic institution, controlled by the Jesuits. In that day
the religion was defended, was protected, or supported by
the State. Behind the entire creed was the bayonet, the
axe, the wheel, the faggot, and the torture-chamber. While
Voltaire was attending the College of Louis le Grand, the
soldiers of the king were hunting Protestants in the moun
tains of Cevennes for magistrates to hang on gibbets, to put
to torture, to break on the wheel, or to burn at the stake.
There is but one use for law, but one excuse for govern
ment—the preservation of liberty, to give to each man his
own ; to secure to the farmer what he produces from the
soil, to the mechanic what he invents and makes, to the
artist what he creates, to the thinker the right to express his
thoughts. Liberty is the breath of progress. In France the
people were the sport of a king’s caprice. Everywhere was
the shadow of the Bastille. It fell upon the sunniest field,
upon the happiest home. With the king walked the heads
man, and back of the throne was the torture-chamber. The
Church appealed to the rack; faith relied on the faggot.
Science was an outcast, and philosophy, so-called, was the
pander of superstition. Nobles and priests were sacred;
peasants were vermin. Idleness sat at the banquet, and
industry gathered the crusts and crumbs. (Applause.)
At seventeen Voltaire determined to devote his life to
literature. The father said, speaking of his two sons Armand
and François : “ I have a pair of fools for sons, one in verse,
the other in prose.” (Laughter and applause.) In 1713,
Voltaire in a small way became a diplomat. He went to the
�( 9 )
Hague attached to the French Minister. There he fell in
love. The girl’s mother objected. Voltaire sent his clothes
to the young lady that she might visit him. Everything was
discovered and he was dismissed. To this girl he wrote a
letter, and in it you will find the key-note of Voltaire :
“ Do not expose yourself to the fury of your mother. You
know what she is capable of. You have experienced it too
well. Dissemble; it is your only chance. Tell her that you
have forgotten me, that you hate me. Then, after telling
her, love me all the more.”
On account of this episode, Voltaire was formally disin
herited by his father, who procured an order of arrest and
gave his son the choice of going to prison or beyond the seas.
Voltaire finally consented to become a lawyer, and says: “I
have already been a week at work in the office of a solicitor,
learning the trade of a pettifogger.” (Laughter.) About
this time he competed for a prize, writing a poem on the
king’s generosity in building the new choir in the Oathedral
of Notre Dame. He did not win it. After being with the
solicitor but a little while, he learnt to hate the law. He
began to write poetry and the outlines of tragedy. Great
questions were then agitating the public mind—questions
that throw a flood of light upon this epoch.
IN PRISON NOT KNOWING WHY.
Louis XIV. having died, the Regent took possession, and
then the prisons were opened. The Regent called for a list
of all persons then in the prisons sent there at the will of the
king, and he found that, as to many prisoners, nobody knew
any cause Why they had been in prison. They had been for
gotten. Many of the prisoners did not know themselves, and
could not guess why they had been arrested. One Italian had
been in the Bastille thirty-three years without ever knowing
why. On his arrival in Paris thirty-three years before, he was
�( 10 )
arrested and sent to prison. He had grown old. He had
survived his family and friends. When the rest were liberated,
he asked to remain where he was, and lived there the rest of
his life. The old prisoners were pardoned, but in a little while
their places were taken by new ones. At this time Voltaire
was not interested in the great world—knew very little of
religion or of government. He was busy writing poetry,
busy thinking of comedies and tragedies. He was full
of life. All his fancies were winged like moths. He was
charged with having written some cutting epigrams. He
was exiled to Tulle, three hundred miles away. From this
place he wrote in the true vein : “ I am at a chateau, a place
that would be the most agreeable in the world if I had not
been exiled to it, and where there is nothing wanting to my
perfect happiness except the liberty of leaving. It would be
delicious to remain if I only were allowed to go.” At last
the exile was allowed to return. Again he was arrested;
this time sent to the ¡Bastille, where he remained for nearly
a year. While in prison he changed his name from Francois
Marie Arouet to Voltaire, and by that name he has since been
known. Voltaire began to think, to doubt, to inquire. He
studied the history of the Church and of the creed. He found
that the religion of his time rested on the inspiration of the
scriptures—the infallibility of the Church—the dreams of
insane hermits—the absurdities of the fathers—the mistakes
and falsehoods of saints—the hysteria of nuns—the cunning
of priests and the stupidity of the people. He found that the
Emperor Constantine, who lifted Christianity into power,
murdered his wife Fausta and his eldest son Crispus the
same year that he convened the Council of Nice to decide
whether Christ was a man or the son of God. The Council
decided in the year 325, that Christ was consubstantial with
the Father. He found that the Church was indebted to a
husband who assassinated his wife—a father who murdered
�( 11 )
his son—for settling the vexed question of the divinity of the
Savior. He found that Theodosius called a council at Con
stantinople m 381 by which it was decided that the Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father—that Theodosius, the younger,
assembled a council at Ephesus in 431 that declared the Virgin
Mary to be the mother of God—that the Emperor Marcian
called another council at Ohalcedon in 451 that decided that
Christ had two wills — that Pognatius called another
in 680, that declared that Christ had two natu'res to go with
his two wills—and that in 1274, at the Council of Lyons, the
important fact was found that the Holy Ghost “ proceeded ”
not only from the Father,, but also from the Son at the same
time. (Laughter and applause.)
WHAT THE GREAT EBENCHMAN MOCKED.
So Voltaire has been called a mocker ! What did he mopk P
He mocked kings that were unjust ; kings who cared nothing
for the sufferings of their subjects. He mocked the titled
fools of his day. He mocked the corruption of courts; the
meanness, the tyranny, and the brutality of judges. He
mocked the absurd and cruel laws, the barbarous customs.
He mocked popes and cardinals, bishops and priests, and all
the hypocrites on the earth. He mocked historians who filled
their books with lies, and philosophers who defended super
stition. He mocked the haters of liberty, the persecutors of
their fellow men. He mocked the arrogance, the cruelty the impudence, and the unspeakable baseness of his time.
(Applause.)
He has been blamed because he used the weapon of ridicule.
Hypocrisy has always hated laughter, and always will. Ab
surdity detests humor and stupidity despises wit. Voltaire
was the master of ridicule. He ridiculed the absurd, the
impossible. He ridiculed the mythologies and the miracles,
the stupid lives and lies of saints. He found pretence and
�( 12 )
mendacity crowned by credulity. He found the ignorant
many controlled by the cunning and cruel few. He found the
historian, saturated with superstition, filling his volumes with
the details of the impossible, and he found the scientists
satisfied with “ they say.” (Laughter.) Voltaire had the
instinct of the probable. He knew the law of average; the
sea level; he had the idea of proportion, and so he ridiculed
the mental monstrosities—the non sequiturs—of his day.
Aristotle said women had more teeth than men. This was
repeated again and again by the Catholic scientists of the
eighteenth century. Voltaire counted the teeth. The rest
were satisfied with “ they say.” (Laughter.)
THE APOSTLE OE COMMON SENSE.
We may, however, get an idea of the condition of France
from the fact that Voltaire regarded England as the land of
liberty. While he was in England he saw the body of Sir
Isaac Newton deposited in Westminster Abbey. He read the
works of this great man and afterwards gave to France the
philosophy of this great Englishman. (Applause.) Voltaire
was the apostle of common sense. He knew that there could
have been no primitive or first language from which all
human languages had been formed. He knew that every
language had been influenced by the surroundings of the
people. He knew that the language of snow and ice was not
the language of palm and flower. (Applause.) He knew also
that there had been no miracle in language. He knew it was
impossible that the story of the Tower of Babel should be
true. That everything in the whole world should be natural.
He was the enemy of alchemy, not only in language but in
science. One passage from him is enough to show his philo
sophy in this regard. He says: “To transmute iron into
gold two things are necessary. First, the annihilation of
iron; second, the creation of gold.” Voltaire was a man of
�( 13 )
humor, of good nature, of cheerfulness. He despised with
all his heart the philosophy of Calvin, the creed of the sombre,
of the severe, of the unnatural. He pitied those who needed
the aid of religion to be honest, to be cheerful. He had
the courage to enjoy the present and the philosophy to bear
what the future might bring. And yet for more than a
hundred and fifty years the Christian world has fought this
man and has maligned his memory. In every Christian
pulpit his name has been pronounced with scorn, and every
pulpit has been an arsenal of slander. He is one man of
whom no orthodox minister has ever told the truth. He has
been denounced equally by Catholics and Protestants.
Priests and ministers, bishops and exhorters, presiding
elders and popes have filled the world with slanders, with
calumnies about Voltaire. I am amazed that ministers will
not or cannot tell the truth about an enemy of the church.
As a matter of fact, for more than one thousand years
almost every pulpit has been a mint in which slanders were
coined.
PILLED EUROPE WITH HIS THOUGHTS.
For many years this restless man filled Europe with the
products of his brain. Essays, epigrams, epics, comedies,
tragedies, histories, poems, novels, representing every phase
and every faculty of the human mind. At the same time
engrossed in business, full of speculation, making money like
a millionaire, busy with the gossip of courts, and even with
scandals of priests. At the same time alive to all the dis
coveries of science and the theories of philosophers, and in
this babel never forgetting for a moment to assail the monster
of superstition. Sleeping and waking he hated the Church.
With the eyes of Argus he watched, and with the arms of
Briareius he struck. For sixty years he waged continuous
and unrelenting war, sometimes in the open field, sometimes
striking from the hedges of opportunity, taking care during
�( 14 )
all this time to remain independent of all men. He was in
the highest sense successful. He lived like a prince, became
one of the powers of Europe, and in him, for the first time,
literature was crowned. (Applause.) Voltaire, in spite of
his surroundings, in spite of almost universal tyranny and
oppression, was a believer in God and in what he was pleased
to call the religion of nature. He attacked the creed of his
time because it was dishonorable to his God. He thought of
the Deity as a father, as the fountain of justice, intelligence,
and mercy, and the creed of the Catholic Church made him a
monster of cruelty and stupidity. He attacked the Bible
with all the weapons at his command. He assailed its
geology, its astronomy, its idea of justice, its laws and cus
toms, its absurd and useless miracles, its foolish wonders, its
ignorance on all subjects, its insane prophecies, its cruel
threats, and its extravagant promises. At the same time he
praised the God of nature, the God who gives us rain and
light, and food and flowers, and health and happiness—
he who fills the world with youth and beauty. (Applause.)
LISBON EARTHQUAKE CHANGES VOLTAIRE.
In 1755 came the earthquake of Lisbon. This frightful
disaster became an immense interrogation. The optimist
was compelled to ask, “ What was my God doing? Why did
the Universal Father crush to shapelessness thousands of his
poor children, even at the moment when they were upon their
knees returning thanks to him ?” What could be done with
this horror P If earthquake there must be, why did it not
occur in some uninhabited desert, on some wide waste of
sea ? This frightful fact changed the theology of Voltaire.
He became convinced that this is not the best possible of all
worlds. He became convinced that evil is evil here now and
for ever. (Applause.)
Who can establish the existence of an infinite being ? It
is beyond the conception—the reason—the imagination of
�( 15 )
man—probably or possibly—where the zenith and nadir meet
this God can be found. (Applause.)
Voltaire, attacked on every side, fought with every weapon
that wit, logic, reason, scorn, contempt, laughter, pathos, and
indignation could sharpen, form, devise, or use. He often
apologised, and the apology was an insult. He often recanted,
and the recantation was a thousand times worse than the
thing recanted. He took it back by giving more. In the
name of eulogy he flayed his victim. In his praise there was
poison. He often advanced by retreating, and asserted by
retraction. He did not intend to give priests the satisfaction
of seeing him burn or suffer. Upon this very point of
recanting he wrote:
“ They say I must retract. Very willingly. I will declare
that Pascal is always right. That if St. Luke and St. Mark
contradict one another it is only anothei’ proof of the truth
of religion to those who know how to understand such things ;
and that another lovely proof of religion is that it is unintel
ligible. I will even avow that all priests are gentle and dis
interested; that Jesuits are honest people; that monks are
neither proud nor given to intrigue, and that their odor is
agreeable; that the Holy Inquisition is the triumph of
humanity and tolerance. In a word, I will say all that may
be desired of me, provided they leave me in repose, and wi’l
not prosecute a man who has done harm to none.”
He gave the best years of his wonderous life to succor
the oppressed, to shield the defenceless, to reverse infamous
decrees, to rescue the innocent, to reform the laws of France,
to do way with torture, to soften the hearts of priests,
to enlighten judges, to instruct kings, to civilise the people,
and to banish from the heart of man the love and lust
of war. (Applause.)
THE RELIGION OP HUMANITY.
Voltaire was not a saint.
He was educated by the
�( IB )
Jesuits. He was never troubled about the salvation of
his soul. All the theological disputes excited his laughter,
the creeds his pity, and the conduct of bigots his contempt.
He was much better than a saint. (Applause.) Most of
the Christians in his day kept their religion not for everyday
use but for disaster, as ships carry lifeboats to be used
only in the stress of storm. (Applause.)
Voltaire believed in the religion of humanity—of good
and generous deeds. For many centuries the Church had
painted virtue so ugly, sour, and cold, that vice was regarded
as beautiful. Voltaire taught the beauty of the useful,
the hatefulness and hideousness of superstition. He was
not the greatest of poets, or of dramatists, but he was the
greatest man in his time, the greatest friend of freedom,
and the deadliest foe of superstition.
(Applause.) He
wrote the best French plays—but they were not wonderful.
He wrote verses polished and perfect in their way. He
filled the air with painted moths—but not with Shakespeare
eagles.
You may think that I have said too much; that I have
placed this man too high. Let me tell you what Goethe,
the great German, said of this man: “ If you wish depth,
genius, imagination, taste, reason, sensibility, philosophy,
elevation, originality, nature, intellect, fancy, rectitude,
facility, flexibility, precision, art, abundance, variety, fertility,
warmth, magic, charm, grace, force, an eagle sweep of
vision, vast understanding, instruction rich, tone excellent,
urbanity, suavity, delicacy, correctness, purity, cleanliness,
eloquence, harmony, brilliancy, rapidity, gaiety, pathos,
sublimity, and universality, perfection indeed, behold
Voltaire.” (Applause.)
Even Carlyle, that old Scotch-terrier, with the growl
of a grizzly bear, who attacked shams, as I have sometimes
thought, because he hated rivals, was forced to admit that
�( 17 )
Voltaire gave the death-stab to modern superstition. It
was the hand of Voltaire that sowed the seeds of liberty
in the heart and brain of Franklin, of Jefferson, and of
Thomas Paine. (Applause.)
IN IGNORANT TOULOUSE.
Toulouse was a favored town. It was rich in relics.
The people were as ignorant as wooden images—(laughter)—
but they had in their possession the dried bones of seven
apostles—the bones of many of the infants slain by Herod—
part of a dress of the Virgin Mary, and lots of skulls and
skeletons of the infallible idiots known as saints. (Laughter
and applause.)
In this city the people celebrated every year with great
joy two holy events: The expulsion of the Huguenots and
the blessed massacre of Sb. Bartholomew. (Laughter.) The
citizens of Toulouse had been educated and civilised by
the Church. (Laughter.) A few Protestants, mild because
they were in the minority, lived among these jackals and
tigers. One of these Protestants was Jean Galas—a small
dealer in dry goods. For forty years he had been in this
business, and his character was without a stain. He was
honest, kind and agreeable. He had a wife and six children—
four sons and two daughters. One of his sons became a Catholic.
The eldest son, Marc Antoine, disliked his father’s business
and studied law. He could not be allowed to practise unless
he became a Catholic. He tried to get his license by conceal
ing that he was a Protestant. He was discovered—grew
morose. Finally he became discouraged and committed
suicide by hanging himself in his father’s store. The bigots
of Toulouse started the story that his parents had killed him
to prevent his becoming a Catholic. On this frightful charge
the father, mother, one son, one servant, and one guest at
their house were arrested. The dead son was considered a
B
�( 18 )
martyr, the Church taking possession of the body. This hap
pened in 1761. There was what was called a trial. There was
no evidence, not the slightest, except hearsay. All the facts
were in favor of the accused. The united strength of the
defendants could not have done the deed.
DOOMED TO DEATH UPON THE WHEEL.
Jean Calas was doomed to torture and to ^death upon the
wheel. This was on March 9, 1762, and the sentence was to
be carried out the next day. On the morning of the 10th the
father was to be taken to the toi’ture-room. The executioner
and his assistants were sworn on the cross to administer the
torture according to the judgment of the court. They bound
him by the wrists to an iron ring in the stone wall four feet
from the ground, and his feet to another ring in the floor.
Then they shortened the l’opes and chains until every joint
in his arms and legs were dislocated. Then he was ques
tioned. He declared that he was innocent. Then the ropes
were again shortened until life fluttered in the torn body;
but he remained firm. This was called the question ordinaire.
(Laughter.) Again the magistrates exhorted the victim to
confess, and again he refused, saying there was nothing to
confess. Then came the question extraordinaire. (Laughter.)
Into the mouth of the victim was placed a horn holding three
pints of water. In this way thirty pints of water were forced
into the body of the sufferer. The pain was beyond descrip
tion, and yet Jean Calas remained firm. He was then carried
to the scaffold in a tumbril. He was bound to a wooden cross
that lay on the scaffold. The executioner then took a bar of
iron, broke each arm and leg in two places, striking eleven
blows in all. He was then left to die if he could. He lived
for two hours, declaring his innocence to the last. He was
slow to die, and so the executioner strangled him. Then his
poor lacerated, bleeding and broken body was chained to a
�( 19 )
y
stake and burned. All this was a spectacle—a festival for
the savages of Toulouse. What would they have done if their
hearts had not been softened by the glad tidings of great joy,
peace on earth, goodwill to men ? (Laughter and applause.)
But this was not all. The property of the family was con
fiscated ; the son was released on condition that he became a
Catholic; the servant if she would enter a convent. The two
daughters were consigned to a convent, and the heart-broken
widow was allowed to wander where she would.
Voltaire heard of this case. In a moment his soul was on
fire. He took one of the sons under his roof. He wrote a
history of the case; he corresponded with Kings and Queens,
with chancellors and lawyers. If money was needed he
advanced it. For years he filled Europe with the echoes and
the groans of Jean Calas. He succeeded. The horrible judg
ment was annulled, the poor victim declared innocent and
thousands of dollars raised to support the mother and family.
(Applause.) This was the work of Voltaire.
Sirven, a Protestant, lived in Languedoc with his wife and
three daughters. The housekeeper of the Bishop wanted to
make one of the daughters a Catholic. The law allowed the
Bishop to take the child of Protestants from its parents for
the sake of its soul. This little girl was so taken and placed
in a convent. She ran away and came back to her parents.
Her poor little body was covered with marks of the convent
whip. “ Suffer little children to come unto me.” (Laughter
and applause.) The child was out of her mind. Suddenly
she disappeared, and a few days after her little body was
found in a well, three miles from home. The cry was raised
that her folks had murdered her to keep her from becoming
a Catholic. This happened only a little way from the
Christian city of Toulouse while Jean Calas was in prison.
The Sirvens knew that a trial would end in conviction. They
fled. In their absence they were convicted, theii’ property
�( 20 )
confiscated, the parents sentenced to die by the hangman,
the daughters to be under the gallows during the execution
of their mother, and then to be exiled. The family fled in
the midst of winter; the married daughter gave birth to a
child in the snows of the Alps; the mother died, and at last
the father, reaching Switzerland, found himself without
means of support. They went to Voltaire; he espoused their
cause; he took care of them, gave them the means to live,
and labored to annul the sentence that had been pronounced
against them for nine long and weary years. He appealed
to kings for money, to Catherine II. of Russia, and to
hundreds of others. He was successful. He said of this
case: The Sirvens were tried and condemned in two hours
in January, 1762; and now in January, 1772, after ten years
of effort, they have been restored to their rights. (Applause.)
This was the work of Voltaire. Why should the wor
shippers of God hate the lovers of men ? (Applause.)
THE ESPENASSE CASE.
Espenasse was a Protestant of good estate. In 1740 he
received into his house a Protestant clergyman, to whom he
gave supper and lodging. In a country where priests
repeated the parable of the “ Good Samaritan ” this was a
crime. (Laughter.) For this crime Espenasse was tried,
convicted, and sentenced to the galleys for life. When he
had been imprisoned for twenty-three years his case came
to the knowledge of Voltaire, and he was, through the
efforts of Voltaire, released and restored to his family,
(Applause.)
This was the work of Voltaire. There is not time to tell
of the case of General Lally, of the English General Byng,
of the niece of Corneille, of the Jesuit Adam, of the writers,
dramatists, actors, widows, and orphans for whose benefit he
gave his influence, his money, and his time.
But I will tell another case. In 1765, at the town of Abbe-
�( 21 )
ville, an old wooden cross on a bridge had been mutilated—
whittled with a knife—a terrible crime. (Laughter.) Sticks,
when crossing each other, were far more sacred than flesh
and blood. Two young men were suspected-—the Chevalier
de la Barre and d’Etallonde. D’Etallonde fled to Prussia and
enlisted as a common soldier.
La Barre remained and stood his trial. He was convicted
without the slightest evidence, and he and D’Etallonde were
both sentenced : First, to endure the torture, ordinary and
extraordinary; second, to have their tongues torn out by the
roots with pincers of iron; third, to have their right hands
cut off at the door of the church; and fourth, to be bound to
stakes by chains of iron and burned to death by a slow fire.
“ Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against ils.” (Laughter.) Remembering this, the judges
mitigated the sentence by providing that their heads should
be cut off before their bodies were given to the flames.
(Laughter.) The case was appealed to Paris; heard by a
court composed of twenty-five judges learned in law, and
the judgment was confirmed. The sentence was carried out
the 1st day of July, 1776.
WITH EVERY WEAPON OP GENIUS.
L
Voltaire had fought with every weapon that genius could
devise or use. He was the greatest of all caricaturists, and
he used this wonderful gift without mercy. Foi’ pure crystal
lised wit he had no equal. The art of flattery was carried by
him to the height of an exact science. He knew and practised
every subterfuge. He fought the army of hypocrisy and
pretence, the army of faith and falsehood. Voltaire was
annoyed by the meaner and baser spirits of his time, by the
cringers and crawlers, by the fawners and pretenders, by
those who wished to gain the favor of the priests, the
patronage of nobles. Sometimes he allowed himself to be
annoyed by these scorpions; sometimes he attacked them.
�( 22 )
And but for these attacks, long ago they would have been
forgotten. In the amber of his genius Voltaire preserved
these insects, these tarantulas, these scorpions. (Applause.)
It is fashionable to say that he was not profound. This
is because he was not stupid. In the presence of absurdity
he laughed, and was called irreverent. He thought God
would not damn even a priest forever. (Laughter.) This
was regarded as blasphemy. He endeavored to prevent
Christians from murdering each other, and did what he
could to civilise the disciples of Christ. (Laughter.) Had
he founded a sect, obtained control of some country, and
burned a few heretics at slow fires, he would have won
the admiration, respect, and love of the Christian world.
Had he only pretended to believe all the fables of antiquity,
had he mumbled Latin prayers, counted beads, crossed
himself, devoured now and then the flesh of God, and
carried faggots to the feet of Philosophy in the name of
Christ, he might have been in heaven this moment enjoying
a sight of the damned. (Laughter and applause.)
If he had only adopted the creed of his time—if he had
asserted that a God of infinite power and mercy had created
millions and billions of human beings to suffer eternal
pain, and all for the sake of his glorious justice—(laughter)—
that he had given his power of attorney to a cunning
and cruel Italian Pope, authorising him to save the soul
of his mistress and send honest wives to hell—if he had
given to the nostrils of this God the odor of burning
flesh—the incense of the faggot—if he had filled his ears
with the shrieks of the tortured—the music of the rack,
he would now be known as St. Voltaire. (Laughter and
applause.)
ALL RELIGIONS PRACTISE PERSECUTION.
Instead of doing these things he wilfully closed his eyes to
the light of the gospel, examined the Bible for himself,
�( 23 )
advocated intellectual liberty, struck from the brain the
fetters of an arrogant faith, assisted the weak, cried out
against the torture of man, appealed to reason, endeavored
to establish universal toleration, succored the indigent, and
defended the oppressed. (Applause.) He demonstrated that
the origin of all religions is the same, the same mysteries—
the same miracles—the same imposture—the same temples
and ceremonies—the same kind of founders, apostles and
dupes—the same promises and threats—the same pretence of
goodness and forgiveness and the practice of the same perse
cution and murder. He proved that religion made enemies
—philosophy, friends—and that above the rights of gods
were the rights of man. (Applause.) These were his crimes.
(Laughter.) Such a man God would not suffer to die in
peace. If allowed to meet death with a smile, others might
follow his example, until none would be left to light the holy
fires of the auto da fe. (Laughter.) It would not do for so
great, so successful an enemy of the Church to die without
leaving some shriek of fear, some shudder of remorse, some
ghastly prayer of shattered horror, uttered by lips covered
with blood and foam. For many centuries the theologians
have taught that an unbeliever—an infidel—one who spoke
or wrote against their creed, could not meet death with com
posure ; that in his last moment God would fill his conscience
with the serpents of remorse. For a thousand years the
clergy have manufactured the facts to fit this theory—this
infamous conception of the duty of man and the justice of
God. (Applause.) The theologians have insisted that crimes
against men were, and are, as nothing compared with crimes
against God. That, while kings and priestB did nothing
worse than to make their fellows wretched, that so long as
they only butchered and burnt the innocent and helpless,
God would maintain the strictest neutrality—(laughter)—but
when some honest man, some great and tender soul, expressed
�a doubt as to the truth of the scriptures, or prayed to the
wrong God, or to the right one by the wrong name, then the
real God leaped like a wounded tiger upon his victim, and
from his quiver-flesh tore his wretched soul. (Applause.)
CRUELTIES IN THE WORLD.
There is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of
murder has been paralysed—no truthful account in all the
literature of the world of the innocent child being shielded
by God. Thousands of crimes are committed every day
men are at this moment lying in wait for their human prey
—wives are whipped and crushed, driven to insanity and
death—little children begging for mercy, lifting imploring,
tear-filled eyes to the brutal faces of fathers and mothers—
sweet girls are deceived, lured and outraged, but God has no
time to prevent these things—no time to defend the good and
protect the pure. He is too busy numbering hairs and
watching sparrows. (Laughter.) He listens for blasphemy;
looks for persons who laugh at priests; examines baptismal
registers; watches professors in college who begin to doubt
the geology of Moses and the astronomy of Joshua. (Laughter
and applause.) He does not particularly object to stealing
if you don’t swear. (Laughter.)
A great many persons have fallen dead in the act of taking
God’s name in vain, but millions of men, women and children
have been stolen from their homes and used as beasts of
burden, but no one engaged in this infamy has ever been
touched by the wrathful hand of God. All kinds of criminals,
except infidels, meet death with reasonable serenity. As a
rule, there is nothing in the death of a pirate to cast any
discredit on his profession. (Laughter.) The murderer upon
the scaffold, with a priest on either side, smilingly exhorts
the multitude to meet him in heaven. The man who has
succeeded in making his home a hell meets death without a
�( 25 )
quiver, provided he has never expressed any doubt as to the
divinity of Christ or the eternal “ procession ” of the Holy
Ghost. (Laughter and applause.)
KILLED E0R SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
Now and then a man of genius, of sense, of intellectual
honesty, has appeared. Such men have denounced the
superstitions of their day. They have pitied the multitude
To see priests devour the substance of the people—priests
who made begging one of the learned professions—filled
them with loathing and contempt. These men were honest
enough to tell their thoughts, brave enough to speak the
truth. Then they were denounced, tried, tortured, killed by
rack or flame. But some escaped the fury of the fiends who
loved their enemies and died naturally ,in their beds. It
would not do for the Church to admit that they died peace
fully. That would never do. That would show that religion
was not essential at the last moment. Superstition gets its
power from the terror of death. It would not do to have the
common people understand that a man could deny the Bible,
refuse to kiss the cross, contend that humanity was greater
than Christ, and then die as sweetly as Torquemada did
after pouring molten lead into the ears of an honest man—
(laughter)—or as calmly as Calvin after he had burned Servetus, or as peacefully as King David after advising, with his
last breath, one son to assassinate another. (Laughter and
applause.)
The Church has taken great pains to show that the last
moments of all infidels (that Christians did not succeed in
burning)—(laughter)—were infinitely wretched and despair
ing. It was alleged that words could not paint the horrors
that were endured by a dying infidel. Every good Christian
was expected to, and generally did, believe these accounts.
(Laughter.) They have been told and retold in every pulpit
�( 26 )
of the world. Protestant ministers have repeated the lies
invented by Catholic priests, and Catholic, by a kind of
theological comity, have sworn to the lies told by the Protes
tants. (Laughter and applause.) Upon this point they
have always stood together, and will as long as the same
falsehood can be used by both. Upon the death-bed subject
the clergy grow eloquent. When describing the shudderings
and shrieks of the dying unbeliever their eyes glitter with
delight. It is a festival. (Laughter.) They are no longer
men; they become hyenas; they dig open graves; they
devour the dead. (Laughter.) It is a banquet. Unsatisfied
still, they paint the terrors of hell. ¿They gaze at the souls
of the infidels writhing in the coils of the worm that never
dies. They see them in flames—in oceans of fire—in abysses
of despair. They shout with joy; they applaud.
“let
me die in peace.”
It is an auto da fe, presided over by God. But let us come
back to Voltaire—to the dying philosopher. He was an old
man of 84. He had been surrounded with the comforts, the
luxuries of life. He was a man of great wealth, the richest
writer that the world bad known. Among the literary men
of the earth he stood first. He was an intellectual monarch
—one who had built his own throne and woven the purple of
his own power. He was a man of genius. The Catholic God
had allowed him the appearance of success. (Laughter.) His
last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery—of
almost worship. He stood at the summit of his age. The
priests became anxious. (Laughter.) They began to fear
that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to make
a terrible example of Voltaire. (Laughter and applause.)
Towards the last of May, 1778, it was whispered in Paris that
Voltaire was dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered
the unclean birds of superstition, impatiently waiting for
�( 27 )
their prey. Two days before his death, his nephew went to
seek the curé of St. Sulplice and the Abbé Gautier, and
brought thorn to his uncle’s sick chamber, who being informed
that they were there, said : “ Ah, well, give them my compli
ments and my thanks.” The abbé spoke some words to him,
exhorting him to patience. The curé of St. Sulplice then
came forward, having announced himself, and asked of
Voltaire, elevating his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity
of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Laughter.) The sick man pushed
one of his hands against the curé’s coif, shoving him back,
and cried, turning abruptly to the other side, “ Let me die in *
peace.” The curé seemingly considered his person soiled and
his coif dishonored by the touch of a philosopher. He made
the nurse give him a little brushing and went out with the
Abbé Gautier. He expired, says Wagniere, on May 30, 1778,
at about a quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfeet
tranquillity. A few moments before his last breath he took
the hand of Morand, his valet de chambre, who was watching
by him« pressed it, and said : “ Adieu, my dear Morand, I am
gone.” These were his last words. Like a peaceful river,
with green and shaded banks, he flowed without a murmur
into the waveless sea, where life is rest. (Applause.)
“ SHAMELESS LIES ” ABOUT HIS DEATH.
From this death, so simple and serere, so kind, so
philosophic and tender, so natural and peaceful ; from these
words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch, all
the frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have
been drawn and made. From these materials, and from
these alone, or rather, in spite of these facts, have been
constructed by priests and clergymen and their dupes,
all the shameless lies about the death of that great and
wonderful man. A man, compared with whom all of his
calumniators, dead and living, were, and are, but dust and
�( 28 )
vermin. (Applause.) Let us be honest. Did all the priests
of Rome increase the mental wealth of man as much as
BrunoP Did all the priests of France do as great a work
for the civilisation of the world as Voltaire or Diderot ? Did
all the ministers of Scotland add as much to the sum of
human knowledge as David Hume ? Have all the clergymen,
monks, friars, ministers, priests, bishops, cardinals, and
popes, from the day of Pentecost to the last election, done
as much for human liberty as Thomas Paine ? (Applause.)
What would the world be if infidels had never been P The
infidels have been the brave and thoughtful men; the flower
of the world; the pioneers and heralds of the blessed day
of liberty and love; the generous spirits of an unworthy
past; the seers and prophets of our race; the great chivalric
souls, proud victors on the battle-fields of thought, the
creditors of all the years to be. (Applause.)
VOLTAIRE’S SECRET BURIAL.
In those days the philosophers—that is to say, the thinkers
—were not buried in holy ground. It was feared that
their principles might contaminate the ashes of the just.
(Laughter.) And it was also feared that on the morning of
the Resurrection they might, in a moment of confusion, slip
into heaven. (Laughter.) Some were burned and their
ashes scattered, and the bodies of some were thrown naked to
beasts, and others were buried in unholy earth. Voltaire
knew the history of Adrienne De Oouvreur, a beautiful
actress denied burial. After all, we do feel an interest in
what is to become of our bodies. There is a modesty that
belongs to death. Upon this subject Voltaire was very
sensitive, and it was that he might be buried that he went
through the farce of confession, of absolution, and of the last
sacrament. The priests knew that he was not in earnest,
and Voltaire knew that they would not allow him to be
buried in any of the cemeteries of Paris. His death was kept
�( 29 )
a secret. The Abbé Mignot made arrangements for the
burial at Romilli-on-the-Seine, more than one hundred miles
from Paris. Sunday evening, on the last day of May, 177&,
the body of Voltaire, clad in a dressing-gown, clothed to
resemble an invalid, posed to simulate life, was placed in a
carriage ; at its side was a servant, whose business it was to
keep it in position. To this carriage were attached six
horses, so that people might think a great lord was going to
his estates. Another carriage followed, in which were a
grand-nephew and two cousins of Voltaire. All night they
travelled, and on the following day arrived at the court-yard
of the abbey. The necessary papers were shown, the mass
was performed in the presence of the body, and Voltaire
found burial. A few moments afterwards the Prior, who
« for charity had given a little earth,” received from his
bishop a menacing letter forbidding the burial of Voltaire.
It was too late. He could not then be removed, and he was
allowed to remain in peace until 1791.
LABOR AND THOUGHT BECAME FRIENDS.
Voltaire was dead. The foundations of State and throne
had been sapped. The people were becoming acquainted
with the real kings and with the actual priests. Unknown
men born in misery and want, men whose fathers and
mothers had been pavement for the rich, were rising towards
the light and their shadowy faces were emerging from
darkness. Labor and thought became friends. That
is, the gutter and the attic fraternised. The monsters
of the night and the angels of dawn—the first thinking of
revenge and the others dreaming of equality, liberty and
fraternity. (Applause.) For 400 years the Bastille had been
the outward symbol of oppression. Within its walls the
noblest had perished. It was a perpetual threat. It was the
last and often the first argument of king and priest. Its
�( 30 )
dungeons, damp and rayless, its massive towers, its secret
cells, its instruments of torture, denied the existence of God.
In 1789, on the 14th of July, the people, the multitude,
frenzied by suffering, stormed and captured the Bastille.
(Applause.) The battle-cry was “ Vive le Voltaire.” (Ap
plause.)
In 1791 permission was given to place in the Pantheon the
ashes of Voltaire. He had been buried 110 miles from Paris.
Buried by stealth, he was to be removed by a nation. A
funeral procession of a hundred miles; every village with its
flags and arches in his honor; all the people anxious to honor
the philosopher of France—the savior of Calas—the destroyer
of superstition! On reaching Paris the great procession
moved along the B>ue St. Antoine. Here it paused, and for
one night upon the ruins of the Bastille rested the body of
Voltaire—rested in triumph, in glory—rested on fallen wall
and broken arch, on crumbling stone still damp with tears,
on rusting chain, and bar, and useless bolt—above the
dungeons dark and deep, where light had faded from the
lives of men and hope had died in breaking hearts. (Ap
plause.) The conqueror resting upon the conquered. Throned
upon the Bastille, the fallen fortress of night, the body of
Voltaire, from whose brain had issued the dawn. (Applause.)
For a moment his ashes must have felt the Promethean fire,
and the old smile must have illumined once more the face of
the dead. (Applause.)
While the vast multitude were trembling with love and
awe, a priest was heard to cry : “ God shall be avenged 1”
voltaire’s grave violated.'
The grave of Voltaire was violated. The cry of the priest
“ God shall be avenged !” had borne its fruit. Priests, skulking
in the shadows, with faces sinister as night—ghouls—in the
name of the Gospel, desecrated the grave. They carried away
�( 31 )
the body of Voltaire. The tomb was empty. God was
avenged! The tomb is empty, but the world is filled with
Voltaire’s fame. Man has conquered!
What cardinal, what bishop, what priest raised his voice
for the rights of men ? What ecclesiastic, what nobleman,
took the side of the oppressed—of the peasant? Who
denounced the frightful criminal code—the torture of sus
pect ed persons ? What priest pleaded for the liberty of the
citizen? What bishop pitied the victims of the rack? Is
there the grave of a priest in France on which a lover of
liberty would now drop a flower or a tear ? Is there a tomb
holding the ashes of a saint from which emerges one ray of
light ? (Applause.) If there be another life, a day of judg
ment, no God can afford to torture in anothei’ world a man
who abolished torture in this. (Applause.) If God be the
keeper of an eternal penitentiary—(laughter)—he should not
imprison there those who broke the chains of slavery here.
(Applause.) He cannot afford to make eternal convicts of
Franklin, of Jefferson, of Paine, of Voltaire. (Applause.)
PERFECT EQUIPMENT FOR HIS WORK.
Voltaire was perfectly equipped for his work. A perfect
master of the French language, knowing all its moods,
tens es, and declinations—in fact and in feeling playing upon
it as skilfully as Paganini on his violin, finding expression
for every thought and fancy, writing on the most serious
subjects with the gaiety of a harlequin, plucking jests from
the mouth of death, graceful as the waving of willows,
dealing in double meanings that covered the asp with
flowers and flattery, master of satire and compliment,
mingling them often in the same line, always interested
himself, therefore interesting others, handling thoughts,
questions, subjects as a juggler does balls, keeping them in
the air with perfect ease, dressing old words in new meanings,
�( 32 )
charming, grotesque, pathetic, mingling mirth with tears,
wit and wisdom, and sometimes wickedness, logic and
laughter. (Applause.) With a woman’s instinct, knowing
the sensitive nerves—just where to touch—hating arrogance
of place, the stupidity of the solemn, snatching masks from
priest and king, knowing the springs of action and ambi
tion s ends, perfectly familiar with the great world, the inti
mate of kings and their favorites, sympathising with the
oppressed and imprisoned, with the unfortunate and poor,
hating tyranny, despising superstition, and loving liberty
with all his heart. Such was Voltaire writing “ CEdipus ” at
seventeen, “ Irene ” at eighty-three, and crowding between
these two tragedies the accomplishment of a thousand lives
(Long-continued applause.)
Printed and Published by G-. W. Foote, at 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
Oration on Voltaire
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: Lecture delivered before the Chicago Press Club on 8 October [189?]. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. No. 88d 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
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N381
Subject
The topic of the resource
Voltaire
Philosophy
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 Voltaire), 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
French Philosophy
NSS
Philosophers-France
Voltaire
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2540f2012bd97261bea683373b41ac85.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=iopS9yX4fYOrlYinBo1G6H-FEhM%7E3NoTz%7EbbGDDz5kfsPxZGNC%7EXcJaGC9pDAvG2pVyVYpsaRGRVS0EjPBi8uLh-yye2TJHvtanSBr0IxxmiA1bvI32oY0nH8zv%7E1i-A0TFAxq6eRXGKH-F0Tqnv2d0CS4CI0suNUGx4932uied8sF%7E4MNTvT8J7%7ENM%7El2njZmSwO9FR09aDDrtgxsKpoRgLq-0nSgT1iP4GvGnuIZsugShaX8TBht4sBbjT8grzVcTXcXnCcnfIyBy-N35j4Op-DqHhTfQSlZxxvVMLAGe0HqX7IBD2epRgdjQ2glxwO6tqXONkk2JYHSJ9KziOLA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de92f9cc9c2b4b3081f84c6f5676a73e
PDF Text
Text
NatiONALSECULa
THE
Dope of Hu; ggntitrfr
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
“ SOCIALISM seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery.
Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse all the forces, all
the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilisa
tion of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some
masters—a few are supposed to be free; but in a Socialistic state
all would be slaves."—Page 14.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
LONDON:
R. FOLDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1887
�I
<i
i
I
�NEW PARTY is struggling for recognition—a party
with leaders who are not politicians, with followers
who are not seekers after place. Some of those who1
suffer and some of those who sympathise have combined.
Those who feel that they are oppressed are organised for
the purpose of redressing their wrongs. The workers for
wages, and the seekers for work, have uttered a protest.
This party is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of
certain things that are very near and very dear to the hearts
of many millions.
The object to be attained is a fairer division of profits'be
tween employers and employed. There is a feeling that in
some way the workers should not want—that the indus
trious should not be the indigent. There is a hope that'
men and women and children are not forever to be the
victims of ignorance and want—that the tenement-house is
not always to be the home of the poor, nor the gutter the
nursery of their babes.
As yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these .aims
have not been agreed upon. Many theories have been ad
vanced, and none has been adopted. The question is so
vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many
ways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a
solution, or, if anyone has furnished a solution, no one else
has been wise enough to understand it.
The hope of the future is that this question will finally
be understood. It must not be discussed in anger. If A
broad and comprehensive view is to be taken, there is
no place for hatred or for prejudice. Capital is not td
blame. Labor is not to blame. Both have been caught
in the net of circumstances. The rich are as generous'
as the poor would be if they should change places. Men
acquire through the noblest and the tenderest instincts.
They work and save not only for themselves, but for1
their wives and for their children.
There is but little'
confidence in the charity of the world. The prudent man',
in his youth makes preparation for his age. The loving
father, having struggled himself, hopes to save his childrefi1
from drudgery and toil.
�( 4 )
In every country there are classes—that is to say, the
spirit of caste, and this spirit will exist until the world is
truly civilised. Persons in most communities are judged
not as individuals, but as members of a class. Nothing is
more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines
that divide hearts on account of clothes or titles are grow
ing more and more indistinct, and the philanthropists, the
lovers of the human race, believe that the time is coming
when they will be obliterated. We may do away with
kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich and
the poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and
deformed, the industrious and idle, and, it may be, the
honest and vicious. These classifications are in the nature
of things. They are produced for the most part by forces
that are now beyond the control of man—but the old rule,
that men are disreputable in the proportion that they are
useful, will certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always
held to be the superior of the industrious peasant, the
devourer better than the producer, and the waster superior
to the worker.
While in this country we have no titles of nobility, we
have the rich and the poor—no princes, no peasants, but
millionaires and mendicants. The individuals composing
these classes are continually changing. The rich of to-day
may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the poor
may take their places. In this country the children of the
poor are educated substantially in the same schools with
those of the rich. All read the same papers, many of the
same books, and all for many years hear the same questions
discussed. They are continually being educated, not only
at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by
perpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is
that those who are rich in gold are often poor in thought,
and many who have not whereon to lay their heads have
within those heads a part of the intellectual wealth of the
world.
Years ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute
toward the education of the children of the poor. The
support of schools by general taxation was defended on the
ground that it was a means of providing for the public
welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country
by making better men and women. This policy has been
pursued until at last the school-house is larger than the
church, and the common people through education have
become uncommon. They now know how little is really
�( 5 )
known by what are called the upper classes—how little
after all is understood by kings, presidents, legislators, and
men of culture. They are capable not only of understand
ing a few questions, but they have acquired the art of
discussing those that no one understands. With the facility
of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make barricades
of statistics, and chevaux-de-frise of inferences and asser
tions. They understand the sophistries of those who have
governed.
In some respects these common people are the superiors
of the so-called aristocracy. While the educated have been
turning their attention to the classics, to the dead languages,
and the dead ideas and mistakes that they contain—while
they have been giving their attention to ceramics, artistic
decorations, and compulsory prayers, the common people
have been compelled to learn the practical things—to be
come acquainted with facts—by doing the work of the
world. The professor of a college is no longer a match for
a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only under
stands principles, but their application. He knows things
as they are. He has come in contact with the actual, with
realities. He knows something of the adaptation of means
to ends, and this is the highest and most valuable form of
education. The men who make locomotives, who construct
the vast engines that propel ships, necessarily know more
than those who have spent their lives in conjugating Greek
verbs, looking for Hebrew roots, and discussing the origin
and destiny of the universe.
Intelligence increases wants. By education the necessities
of the people become increased. The old wages will not
supply the new wants. Man longs for a harmony between
the thought within and the things without. When the soul
lives in a palace, the body is not satisfied with rags and
patches. The glaring inequalities among men, the differ
ences in condition, the suffering and the poverty, have
appealed to the good and great of every age, and there has
been in the brain of the philanthropist a dream—a hope, a
prophecy, of a better day.
It was believed that tyranny was the foundation and
cause of the differences between men—that the rich were
all robbers and the poor all victims, and that if a society
or government could be founded on equal rights and privi
leges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would have
food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable leisure,
and that content’wonld be found by every hearth.
�( 6 )
There was a reliance on nature—an idea that men had
interfered with the harmonious action of great principles
v^hich, if left to themselves, would work out universal well
being for the human race. Others imagined that the in
equalities between men were necessary—that they were
part of a divine plan, and that all would be adjusted in
some other world—that the poor here would be the rich
there, and the rich here might be in torture there. Heaven
became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and hell theif
revenge.
When our government was established, it was declared
that all men are endowed by their creator with certain in
alienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. It was then believed that if all men
had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make
and execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the
frightful inequalities seen in the despotisms and monarchies
of the Old World would entirely disappear. This was the
dream of 1776. The founders of the government knew how
kings, and princes, and dukes, and lords, and barons had
lived upon the labor of the peasants.
They knew the
history of those ages of want and crime, of luxury and
suffering. But in spite of our Declaration, in spite of our
Constitution, in spite of universal suffrage, the inequalities
still exist. We have the kings and princes, the lords and
peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists, corporations,
capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places, and
we are forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot
clothe and feed the world.
For thousands of years men have been talking and writing
about the great law of supply and demand—and insisting
that in some way this mysterious law has governed and will
continue to govern the activities of the human race. It is
admitted that this law is merciless—that when the demand
fails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer, must perish—
that the law feels neither pity nor malice—it simply acts,
regardless of consequences. Under this law, capital will
employ the cheapest. The single man can work for less
than the married. Wife and children are luxuries not to
be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants
than the educated, and for this reason can afford to work
for less. The great law will give employment to the single
and to the ignorant in preference to the married and in
telligent. The great law has nothing to do with food or
clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing for homes,
�( 7 )
for penitentiaries or asylums. It simply acts—and some
men triumph, some succeed, some fail, and some perish.
Others insist that the curse of the world is monopoly.*
And yet, as long as some men are stronger than others, a$'
lofag as some are more intelligent than others, they must be,
to the extent of such advantages, monopolists. Every matt
Of genius is a monopolist.
We are told that the great remedy against monopoly—
that is to say, against extortion—is free and unrestricted
competition. But, after all, the history of this world showia
that the brutalities of competition are equalled only by
those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a
monopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other^
the instinct of self-preservation suggests a combination. In
other words, competition is a struggle between two or more
persons or corporations for the purpose of determining
which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of extortion.
In this country the people have had the greatest reliance
on competition. If a railway company charged too much, a
rival road was built. As a matter of fact, we are indebted,
for half the railroads of the United States to the extortions
of the other half, and the same may truthfully be said of
telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions of monopoly
constructed new roads and new lines, competition has either
destroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which is a means
of keeping both monopolies alive, or of producing a new
monopoly with greater needs, supplied by methods more
heartless than the old. When a rival road is built, the
people support the rival because the fares and freights are
somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaugu
rates war, and the people, glorying in the benefits of com
petition, are absurd enough to support the old. In a little
while the new company, unable to maintain the contest,
left by the people at the mercy of the stronger, goes to the
wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the
intelligent people pay not Only the old price, but enough in
addition to make up for the expenses of the contest.
Is there any remedy for this? None, except With the
people themselves. When the people become intelligent
enough to support the rival at a reasonable price; when
they know enough to allow both roads to live ; when they
are intelligent enough to recognise a friend and to stand by
that friend as against a known enemy, this question will be
at least on the edge of solution.
�( 8 )
So far as I know, this course has never been pursued
except in one instance, and that is in the present war be
tween the Gould and Mackey cables. The Gould system
had been charging from sixty to eighty cents a word, and
the Mackey system charged forty. Then the old monopoly
tried to induce the rival to put the prices back to sixty.
The rival refused, and thereupon the Gould combination
dropped to twelve and a half, for the purpose of destroying
the rival. The Mackey cable fixed the tariff at twenty-five
cents, saying to its customers, “ You are intelligent enough
to understand what this war means. If our cables are
defeated, the Gould system will go back not only to the old
price, but will add enough to reimburse itself for the cost of
destroying us. If you really wish for competition, if you
desire a reasonable service at a reasonable rate, you will
support us.” Fortunately, an exceedingly intelligent class
of people does business by the cables. They are merchants,
bankers, and brokers, dealing with large amounts, with
intricate, complicated, and international questions. Of
necessity they are used to thinking for themselves. They
are not dazzled into blindness by the glare of the present.
They see the future. They are not duped by the sunshine
of a moment or the promise of an hour. They see beyond
the horizon of a penny saved. These people had intelli
gence enough to say, “ The rival who stands between us
and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not be
allowed to die.”
Does not this tend to show that people must depend upon
themselves, and that some questions can be settled by the
intelligence of those who buy, of those who use, and that
customers are not entirely helpless ?
Another thing should not be forgotten, and that is this:
there is the same war between monopolies that there is
between individuals, and the monopolies for many years
have been trying to destroy each other. They have uncon
sciously been working for the extinction of monopolies.
These monopolies differ as individuals do. You find among
them the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unfortunate,
millionaires and tramps. The great monopolies have been
devouring the little ones.
Only a few years ago the railways in this country were
controlled by local directors and local managers. The
people along the lines were interested in the stock. As a
consequence, whenever any legislation was threatened hos
tile to the interests of these railways, they had local friends
�( 9 )
who used their influence with legislators, governors, and
juries. During this time they were protected, but when
the hard times came many of these companies were unable
to pay their interest. They suddenly became Socialists.
They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They felt
like joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk
about rights and wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they
have passed into the hands of the richer roads—they were
seized by the great monopolies. Now the important rail
ways are owned by persons living in large cities or in foreign
countries. They have no local friends, and when the time
comes, and it may come, for the general government to say
how much these companies shall charge for passengers and
freights, they will have no local friends. It may be that
the great mass of the people will then be on the other side.
So that after all the great corporations have been busy
settling the question against themselves.
Possibly a majority of the American people believe to-day
that in some way all these questions between capital and
labor can be settled by constitutions, laws, and judicial de
cisions. Most people imagine that a statute is a sovereign
specific for any evil. But while the theory has all been one
way, the actual experience has been the other—just as the
free-traders have all the arguments and the protectionists
most of the facts.
The truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred
years all real advance in legislation has been made by re
pealing laws. Of one thing we must be satisfied, and that
is, that real monopolies have never been controlled by law,
but the fact that such monopolies exist is a demonstration
that the law has been controlled. In our country, legis
lators are for the most part controlled by those who, by
their wealth and influence, elect them. The few in reality
cast the votes of the many, and the few influence the ones
voted for by the many. Special interests, being active, se
cure special legislation, and the object of special legislation
is to create a kind of monopoly—that is to say, to get some
advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests and kings ruled, robbed,
destroyed and duped; and their places have been taken by
corporations, monopolists and politicians. The large fish
still live on the little ones, and the fine theories have as yet
failed to change the condition of mankind.
Law in this country is effective only when it is the re
corded will of a majority. When the zealous few get con
trol of the legislature, and the laws are passed to prevent
�( 10 )
Sabbath-breaking or wine-drinking, they succeed only in
putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal
phrase. There was a time when men worked from fourteen
to sixteen hours a day. These hours have not been les
sened, they have not been shortened by law. The law has
followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader and not
a prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages—just
as impossible as to fix the values of all manufactured
things, including the works of art. The field is too great,
the problem too complicated, for the human mind to grasp.
To fix the value of labor is to fix all values—labor being
the foundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be
fixed unless we understand the relation that all things bear
to each other and to man. If labor were a legal tender—if
a judgment for so many dollars could be discharged by so
many days of labor—and the law was that twelve hours of
work should be reckoned as one day, then the law could
change the hours to ten or eight, and the judgments could
be paid in the shortened days. But it is easy to see that in
all contracts made after the passage of such a law, the diff
erence in hours would be taken into consideration.
We must remember that law is not a creative force. It
produces nothing. It raises neither corn nor wine. The
legitimate object of law is to protect the weak, to prevent
violence and fraud, and to enforce honest contracts, to the
end that each person may be free to do as he desires, pro
viding only that he does not interfere with the rights of
others.
Our fathers tried to make people religious by law.
They failed. Thousands are now trying to make people
temperate in the .same manner. Such efforts always have
been, and probably always will be, failures. People who
believe that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect
code of laws, must admit that even this code failed to civil
ise the inhabitants of Palestine.
It seems impossible to make people just, or charitable, or
industrious, or agreeable, or successful, by law, any more
than you cam make them physically perfect or mentally
sound. Of course, we admit that good people intend to
make good laws, and that good laws, faithfully and honestly
executed, tend to the preservation of human rights and to
the elevation of the race ; but the enactment of a law not
in accordance with a sentiment already existing in the
minds and hearts of the people—the very people who are
depended upon to enforce this law—is not a help, but a
hindrance.
A real law is but the expression in an authori-
�(11)
ttitive and accurate form of the judgment and desire of the
majority. As we become intelligent and kind, this intelli
gence and kindness find expression in law.
But how is it possible to fix the wages of every man ? To
fix wages is to fix prices, and a government, to do this in
telligently, would necessarily require the wisdom generally
attributed to an infinite being. It would have to supervise
and fix the conditions of every exchange of commodities and
the value of every conceivable thing. Many things can be
accomplished by law. Employers may be held responsible
for injuries to the employed. The mines can be ventilated.
Children can be rescued from the deformities of toil, burdens
taken from the backs of wives and mothers, houses made
wholesome, food healthful—that is to say, the weak can be
protected from the strong, the honest from the vicious,
honest contracts can be enforced, and many rights protected.
The men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance,
compete not only with other men of strength, but with the
inventions of genius. What would doctors say if physicians
of iron could be invented with curious cogs and wheels, so
that when a certain button was touched the proper pre
scription would be written ? How would lawyers feel if a
lawyer could be invented in such a way that questions of
law, being put into a kind of hopper and a crank being
turned, decisions of the highest court could be prophesied
without failure ? And how would the ministers feel if some
body should invent a clergyman of wood that would to all
intents and purposes answer the purpose ?
Invention has filled the world with the competitors not
only of laborers, but of mechanics—mechanics of the highest
skill. To-day the ordinary laborer is for the most part a
cog in a wheel. He works for the tireless—he feeds the in
satiable. When the monster stops, the man is out of em
ployment, out of bread. He has not saved anything. The
machine that he fed was not feeding him, was not working
for him—the invention was not for his benefit. The other
d'ay I heard a man say that it was almost impossible for
thousands of good mechanics to get employment, and that
in his judgment the government ought to furnish work for
the people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that
he was selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of
his machines could do the work of twenty tailors, and that
only the week before he had sold two to a great house in
New York, and that over forty cutters had been discharged.
�( 12 )
On every side men are being discharged and machines are
being invented to take their places. When the great factory
shuts down, the workers who inhabited it and gave it life,
as thoughts do the brain, go away, and it stands there Eke
an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force of habit,
gather about the closed doors and broken windows, and talk
about distress, the price of food, and the coming winter.
They are convinced that they have not had their share of
what their labor created.
They feel certain that the
machines inside were not their friends. They look at the
mansion of the employer and think of the places where
they live. They have saved nothing—nothing but them
selves. The employer seems to have enough. Even when
employers fail, when they become bankrupt, they are far
better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is better
than the toilers’ best.
The capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells
the working man that he must be economical—and yet,
under the present system, economy would only lessen wages.
Under the great law of supply and demand every saving,
frugal, self-denying working man is unconsciously doing what
little he can to reduce the compensation of himself and his
fellows. The slaves who did not wish to run away helped
fasten chains on those who did. So the saving mechanic is
a certificate that wages are high enough. Does the great
law demand that every worker live on the least possible
amount of bread ? Is it his fate to work one day, that he
may get enough food to be able to work another ? Is that
to be his only hope—that and death ?
Capital has always claimed and still claims the right to
combine. Manufacturers meet and determine upon prices,
even in spite of the great law of supply and demand. Have
the laborers the same right to consult and combine ? The
rich meet in the bank, the club-house, or parlor. Working
men, when they combine, gather in the street. All the or
ganised forces of society are against them. Capital has the
army and the navy, the legislative, the judicial and the ex
ecutive departments. When the rich combine, it is for the
purpose of “ exchanging ideas.” When the poor combine,
it is a “ conspiracy.” If they act in concert, if they really
do something, it is a “ mob.” If they defend themselves, it
is “ treason.” How is it that the rich control the depart
ments of government ? In this country the political power
is equally divided among the men. There are certainly more
poor than there are rich. Why should the rich control ?
�(13)
Why should not the laborers combine for the purpose of
controlling the executive, legislative and judicial depart
ments ? Will they ever find how powerful they are?
In every country there is a satisfied class—too satisfied
to care. They are like the angels in heaven who are never
disturbed by the miseries of earth. They are too happy to
be generous. This satisfied class asks no questions, and
answers none. They believe the world is as it should be.
All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When they
talk low they should not be listened to ; when they talk loud
they should be suppressed.
The truth is to-day what it always has been—what it al
ways will be—those who feel are the only ones who think.
A cry comes from the oppressed, from the hungry, from the
down-trodden, from the unfortunate, from men who despair
and from women who weep. There are times when mendi
cants become revolutionists—when a rag becomes a banner,
under which the noblest and bravest battle for the right.
How are we to settle the unequal contest between men
and machines ? Will the machine finally go into partner
ship with the laborer? Can these forces of nature be
controlled for the benefit of her suffering children ? Will
extravagance keep pace with ingenuity ? Will the workers
become intelligent enough and strong enough to be the
owners of the machines ? Will these giants, these Titans,
shorten or lengthen the hours of labor? Will they give
leisure to the industrious, or will they make the rich richer,
and the poor poorer ?
Is man involved in the “ general scheme of things ” ? Is
there no pity, no mercy? Can man become intelligent
enough to be generous, to be just; or does the same law or
fact control him that controls the animal and vegetable
world ? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller
trees. The strong animals devour the weak—everything
eating something else—everything at the mercy of beak, and
claw, and hoof, and tooth—of hand and club, of brain and
greed—inequality, injustice everywhere.
The poor horse standing in the street with his dray, over
worked, over-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other
horses groomed to mirrors, glittering with gold and silver,
scorning with proud feet the very earth, probably indulges
in the usual Socialistic reflections; and this same horse,
worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into the
dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at
donkeys in a field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist.
�QU)
In the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak—
actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that man
has made, in spite of all advance in science, literature, and
art, the strong, the cunning, the heartless still live on the
weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True, they do not eat
their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they live on
their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness, and want.
The poor man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for
wife and child, through all his anxious, barren, wasted life
—who goes to the grave without ever' having had one luxury
—has been the food of others. He has been devoured by
his fellow-men. The poor woman living in the bare and
lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to
keep starvation from a child, is slowly being eaten by her
fellow-men. When I take into consideration the agony of
civilised life—the number of failures, the poverty, the
anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the bitter realities,
the hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame—I am
almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most
merciful form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow
man.
Some of the best and purest of our race have advocated
what is known as Socialism. They have not only taught,
but, what is much more to the purpose, have believed, that
a nation should be a family ; that the government should
take care of all its children; that it should provide work,
and food, and clothes, and education for all, and that it
should divide the results of all labor equitably with all.
Seeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the desti
tution and crime, these men were willing to sacrifice, not
only their own liberties, but the liberties of all.
Socialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of
slavery. Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse
all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations
that now tend to the civilisation of man. In ordinary
systems of slavery there are some masters, a few are
supposed to be free ; but in a Socialistic state all would be
slaves.
If the government is to provide work, it must decide for
the worker what he must do. It must say who shall chisel
statues, who shall paint pictures, who shall compose music,
and who shall practise the professions. Is any government,
or can any government be, capable of intelligently perform
ing these countless duties? It must not only control work,
it must not only decide what each shall do, but it must
�( 15 )
|F
control expenses, because expenses bear a direct relation to
products. Therefore the government must decide what the
worker shall eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed; the
kind of house in which he shall live ; the manner in which
it shall be furnished, and, if the government furnishes the
work, it must decide on the days or the hours of leisure.
More than this, it must fix values; it must decide -not only
who shall sell, but who shall buy, and the price that must
be paid--and it must fix this value not simply upon the
labor, but on everything that can be produced, that can be
exchanged or sold.
Is it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this?
The present condition of the world is bad enough, with its
poverty and ignorance, but it is far better than it could by
any possibility be under any government like the one de
scribed ./ There would be less hunger of the body, but not
of the mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of a large
penitentiary, and, as in every well-regulated prison, some
body would decide what each should do. The inmates of a
prison retire early ; they rise with the sun ; they have somer,
thing to eat; they are not dissipated ; they have clothes ;
they attend divine service : they have but little to say about
their neighbors ; they do not suffer from cold ; their habits
are excellent, and yet no one envies their condition. Socialism
destroys the family. The children belong to the state. Cer
tain officers take the places of parents. Individuality is lost.
The human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for
any possible comfort. You remember the old fable of the
fat dog that met the lean wolf in the forest. The wolf,
astonished to see so prosperous an animal, inquired of the
dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that there
was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast,
his dinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and
that he had all that he could eat and very little to do.
The wolf said, “ Do you think this man would treat me as
he does you ? ” The dog replied, “ Yes ; come along with
me.” So they jogged on together toward the dog’s home.
On the way the wolf happened to notice that some hair
was worn off the dog’s neck, and he said, “ How did the
hair become worn ? ” “ That is,” said the dog, “ the mark
of the collar—my master ties me at night.” “ Oh,” said
the wolf, “are you chained? Are you deprived of vour
liberty ? I believe I will go back. I prefer hunger.
It is impossible for any man with a. good heart to be
satisfied with this world as it now is. No one can truly
enjoy even what he earns—what he knows to be his own—
�16
knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in misery and
want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is
almost heartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering
makes one almost ashamed to be well-dressed and warm—
one feels as though his heart was as cold as their bodies.
In a world filled with millions and millions of acres of
land waiting to be tilled, where one man can raise the food
for hundreds, millions are on the edge of famine. Who can
comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of this truth ?
Is there to be no change ? Are “ the law of supply and
demand,” invention and science, monopoly and competition,
capital and legislation, always to be the enemies of those
who toil ? Will the workers always be ignorant enough and
stupid enough to give their earnings for the useless ? Will
they support millions of soldiers to kill the sons of other
working-men? Will they always build temples for ghosts
and phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves ? Will
they forever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires with
mitres, to live upon their blood ? Will they remain the slaves
of the beggars they support ? How long will they be con
trolled by friends who seek favors, and by reformers who
want office ? Will they always prefer famine in the city to a
feast in the fields ? Will they ever feel and know that they
have no right to bring children into the world that they cannot
support ? Will they use their intelligence for themselves,
or for others ? Will they become wise enough to know that
they cannot obtain their own liberty by destroying that of
others? Will they finally see that every man has a right
to choose his trade, his profession, his employment, and has
the right to work when, and for whom, and for what he will?
Will they finally say that the man who has had equal pri
vileges with all others has no right to complain, or will they
follow the example that has been set by their oppressors ?
Will they learn that force, to succeed, must have a thought
behind it, and that anything done, in order that it may en
dure, must rest upon the corner-stone of justice ?
Will they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish
the spark that sheds a little light in every brain ? Will
they ever recognise the fact that labor, above all things, is
honorable—that it is the foundation of virtue ? Will they
understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that every
healthy man must earn the right to live ? Will honest men
stop taking off their hats to successful fraud ? Will industry,
in the presence of crowned idleness, forever fall upon its
knees, and will the lips unstained by lies forever kiss the
robed impostor’s hand ?
��
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 hope of the future
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: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Not 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
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N357
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
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 hope of the future), 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
Capitalism
NSS
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c44e9670b9b41a3a74f0ddf7700fccc1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PUUCOFxffCOoXKdxDXBAGJzrxSHuFyhMFv69kG-OkMcWC0pt1HsxzeRQi4zq6PzaqTXSlHRk7OZ-6qXFlilb-xmQyhZlGNeH8ePrQgxUTaSMoDnEogYjBHVAyJzhvA31Py3FZVzzueoa5kI7mlh4ZMc17y5uWWBSeQYb8xNh9%7EYitGJGLdq3kPTlCwepIaJIbVOHmo56zhr6EFvYTuYm%7EbYry-MZFpqsFEy7tOWRDJ3h5VjKXwuMIo-UZNnpV3DJrjjrnv5naejmpUk4WUhlLrirdHTj6Z8y6D6noUqfHg7VeOYwxA6mDAZKO1vAhVQTSwYESllXo%7E3gQrY7HNfZfw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ae3bb5665d01c1f5de01b4e51d829309
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
THE LIBERTY OF
MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD.
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
LIBERTY SUSTAINS THE SAME RELATION TO MIND THAT SPACE
DOES TO MATTER.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63,
FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1883.
PRICE
SIXPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�THE LIBERTY OF
MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD.
Thebe is no slavery but ignorance. Liberty is the child of
intelligence.
The history of man is simply the history of slavery, of in
justice and brutality, together with the means by which he
has, through the dead and desolate years, slowly and pain
fully advanced. He has been the sport and prey of priest
and king, the food of superstition and cruel might. Crowned
force has governed ignorance through fear. Hypocrisy and
tyranny—two vultures—have fed upon the liberties of man.
From all these there has been, and is, but one means of
escape—intellectual development.
Upon the back of in
dustry has been the whip. Upon the brain have been the
fetters of superstition. Nothing has been left undone by the
enemies of freedom. Every art and artifice, every cruelty
and outrage, have been practiced and perpetrated to destroy
the rights of man. In this great struggle every crime has
been rewarded and every virtue has been punished. Reading,
writing, thinking, and investigating have all been crimes.
Every science has been an outcast.
All the altars and all the thrones united to arrest the
forward march of the human race. The king said that man
kind must not work for themselves. The priest said that
mankind must not think for themselves. One forged chains
for the hands, the other for the soul. Under this infamous
regime the eagle of the human intellect was for ages a slimy
serpent of hypocrisy.
The human race was imprisoned. Through some of the
prison bars came a few struggling rays of light. Against
these bars Science pressed its pale and thoughtful face, wooed
by the holy dawn of human advancement. Bar after bar
�4
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
was broken away. A few grand men escaped and devoted
their lives to the liberation of their fellows.
5 Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the
human mind. Men began to enquire by what right a crowned
robber made them work for him ? The man who asked this
question was called a traitor. Others asked, by what right
does a robed hypocrite rule my thought ? Such men were
called infidels. The priest said, and the king said, where is
this spirit of investigation to stop ? They said then and they
say now, that it is dangerous for man to be free. I deny it.
Out on the intellectual sea there is room enough for every
sail. In the intellectual air there is space enough for every
wing.
The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and
is a traitor to himself and to his fellowmen.
Every man should stand under the blue and stars, under
he infinite flag of nature, the peer of every other man.
Standing in the presence of the Unknown, all have the
same right to think, and all are equally interested in the
great questions of origin and destiny. All I claim, all I plead
for, is liberty of thought and expression. That is all. I do
not pretend to tell what is absolutely true, but what I think
is true. I do not pretend to tell all the truth.
I do not claim that I have floated level with the heights
of thought, or that I have descended to the very depths of
things. I simply claim that what ideas I have, I have a
right to express; and that any man who denies that right to
me is an intellectual thief and robber. That is all.
Take those chains from the human soul. Break those
fetters. If I have no right to think, why have I a brain ? If
I have no such right, have three or four men, or any number,
who may get together, and sign a creed, and build a house,
and put a steeple upon it, and a bell in it—have they the
right to think ? The good men, the good women are tired of
the whip and lash in the realm of thought. They remember
the chain and faggot with a shudder. They are free, and
they give liberty to others. Whoever claims any right that
he is unwilling to accord to his fellow-men is dishonest and
infamous.
In the good old times, our fathers had the idea that they
could make people believe to suit them. Our ancestors, in
the ages that are gone, really believed that by force you could
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
5
convince a man. You cannot change the conclusion of the
brain by torture ; nor by social ostracism. But I will tell
you what you can do by these, and what you have done. You
can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man
say that he has changed his mind; but he remains of the
same opinion still. Put fetters all over him ; crush his feet
in iron boots; stretch him to the last gasp upon the holy
rack; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will be of the
same opinion still,
Our fathers in the good old times—and the best thing I
can say about them is, that they have passed away—had an
idea that they could force men to think their way. That
idea is still prevalent in many parts, even of this country.
Even in our day, some extremely religious people say: “We
will not trade with that man ; we will not vote for him ; we
will not hire him if he is a lawyer ; we will die before we
will take his medicine if he is a doctor; we will not invite
him to dinner; we will socially ostracise him ; he must come
to our church ; he must believe our doctrines ; he must wor
ship our God or we will not in any way contribute to his
support.”
In the old times of which I have spoken, they desired to
make all men think exactly alike. All the mechanical inge
nuity of the world cannot make two clocks run exactly alike,
and how are you going to make hundreds of millions of
people, differing in brain and disposition, in education and
aspiration, in conditions and surroundings, each clad in a
living robe of passionate flesh—how are you going to make
them think and feel alike ? If there is an infinite God, one
who made us, and wishes us to think alike, why did he give
a spoonful of brains to one, and a magnificent intellectual de
velopment to another ? Why is it that we have all degrees
of intelligence, from orthodoxy to genius, if it was intended
that all should think and feel alike ?
I used to read in books how our Fathers persecuted man
kind. But I never appreciated it. I read it, but it did not
burn itself into my soul. I really did not appreciate the
infamies that have been committed in the name of religion,
until I saw the iron arguments that Christians used. I saw
the Thumbscrew—two little pieces of iron, armed on the
inner surfaces with protuberances, to prevent their slipping ;
through each end a screw uniting the two pieces. And when
�6
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
some man denied the efficacy of baptism, or may be said: “
do not believe that a fish ever swallowed a man to keep him
from drowning,” then they put his thumb between these
pieces of iron, and in the name of love and universal forgive
ness, began to screw these pieces together. When this was
done most men said: “I will recant.” Probably I should
have done the same. Probably I would have said : “ Stop, I
will admit anything that you wish; I will admit that there
is one God or a million, one hell or a billion ; suit yourselves ;
but stop.”
But there was now and then a man who would not swerve
the breadth of a hair. There was now and then some sub
lime heart, willing to die for an intellectual conviction. Had
it not been for such men we would be savages to-night. Had
it not been for a few brave, heroic souls in every age, we
would have been cannibals, with pictures of wild beasts tat
tooed upon our flesh, dancing around some dried snake fetich.
Let us thank every good and noble man who stood so
grandly, so proudly, in spite of opposition, of hatred and
death, for what he believed to be the truth.
Heroism did not excite the respect of our fathers. The
man who would not recant was not forgiven. They screwed
the thumbscrews down to the last pang, and then threw their
victim into some dungeon, where, in the throbbing silence
and darkness, he might suffer the agonies of the fabled
damned. This was done in the name of love—in the name
of mercy—in the name of the compassionate Christ.
I saw, too, what they called the Collar of Torture.
Imagine a circle of iron, and on the inside a hundred points
almost as sharp as needles. This argument was fastened
about the throat of the sufferer. Then he could not walk,
nor sit down, nor stir without the neck being punctured by
these points. In a little while the throat would begin to
swell, and suffocation would end the agonies of that man.
This man, it may be, had committed the crime of saying,
with tears upon his cheeks : “ I do not believe that God, the
father of us all, will damn to eternal perdition any of the
children of men.”
I saw another instrument, called the Scavenger’s Daughter.
Think of a pair of shears with handles, not only where they
now are, but at the points as well, and just above the pivot
that unites the blades, a circle of iron. In the upper handles
�The Liberty oj Man, Woman and Child.
7
the hands would he placed; in the lower, the feet; and
through the iron ring, at the centre, the head of the victim
would be forced. In this condition he would be thrown prone
upon the earth, and the strain upon the muscles produced
such agony that insanity would in pity end his pain.
This was done by gentlemen who said: “ Whosoever
smiteth thee upon one cheek turn to him the other also.”
I saw the Rack. This was a box like the bed of a waggon,
with a windlass at each end, with levers, and rachets to pre
vent slipping; over each windlass went chains ; some were
fastened to the ankles of the sufferer; others to his wrists.
And then priests, clergymen, divines, saints, began turning
these windlasses, and kept turning, until the ankles, the
knees, the hips, the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists of the
victim were all dislocated, and the sufferer was wet with the
sweat of agony, And they had standing by a physician to
feel his pulse. What for ? To save his life ? Yes. In
mercy ? No ; simply that they might rack him once again.
This was done, remember, in the name of civilisation; in
the name of law and order; in the name of mercy ; in the
name of religion ; in the name of the most merciful Christ.
Sometimes, when I read and think about these frightful
things, it seems to me that I have suffered all these horrors
myself. It seems sometimes, as though I had stood upon the
shore of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and
native land; as though my nails had been tom from my
hands, and into the bleeding quick needles had been thrust;
as though my feet had been crushed in iron boots ; as though
I had been chained in the cell of the Inquisition and listened
with dying ears for the coming footsteps of release; as
though I had stood upon the scaffold and had seen the
glittering axe fall upon me ; as though I had been upon,.the
rack and had seen, bending above me, the white faces of
hypocrite priests; as though I had been taken from my fire
side, from my wife and children, taken to the public square,
chained ; as though faggots had been piled about me; as
though the flames had climbed around my limbs and scorched
my eyes to blindness, and as though my ashes had been scat
tered to the four winds, by all the countless hands of hate.
And when I so feel, I swear that while I live I will do what
little I can to preserve and to augment the liberties of man,
woman, and child.
�8
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
It is a question of justice, of mercy, of honesty, of
intellectual development. If there is a man in the world who
is not willing to give to every human being every right he
claims for himself, he is just so’critich nearer a barbarian than
I am. It is a question of honesty. The man who is not
willing to give to every other the same intellectual rights he
claims for himself, is dishonest, selfish, and brutal.
It is a question of intellectual development. Whoever
holds another man responsible for his honest thought, has a
deformed and distorted brain. It is a question of intellectual
development.
A little while ago I saw models of nearly everything that
man has made. I saw models of all the water craft, from
the rude dug-out in which floated a naked savage—one of our
ancestors—a naked savage, with teeth two inches in length,
with a spoonful of brains in the back of his head—I saw
models of all the water craft of the world, from that dug-out
up to a man-of-war, that carries a hundred guns and miles
of canvas—from that dug-out to the steamship that turns
its brave prow from the port of New York, with a compass
like a conscience, crossing three thousand miles of billows
without missing a throb or beat of its mighty iron heart.
I saw at the same time the weapons that man has made,
from a club, such as was grasped by that same savage, when
he crawled from his den in the ground and hunted a snake
for his dinner; from that club to the boomerang, to the
sword, to the cross-bow, to the blunderbuss, to the flint-lock,
to the cap-lock, to the needle-gun, up to a cannon cast by
Krupp, capable of hurling a ball weighing two thousand
pounds through eighteen inches of solid steel.
I saw, too, the armour from the shell of a turtle, that one
of our brave ancestors lashed upon his breast when he went
to fight for his country ; the skin of a porcupine, dried with
the quills on, which this same savage pulled over his orthodox
head, up to the shirts of mail, that were worn in the Middle
Ages, that laughed at the edge of the sword and defied the
point of the spear ; up to a monitor clad in complete steel.
I saw at the same time their musical instruments, from the
tom-tom—that is, a hoop with a couple of strings of raw hide
drawn across it—from that tom-tom, up to the instruments
we have to-day, that make the common air blossom with
melody. -
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child
9
I saw, too, their paintings, from a daub of yellow mud, to
the great works which now adorn the galleries of the world.
I saw also their sculpture, from the rude god with four legs,
a half-dozen arms, severalties, and two or three rows of
ears, and one little, contemptible brainless head, up to the
figures of to-day—to the marbles that genius has clad in such
a personality that it seems almost impudent to touch them
without an introduction.
I saw their books—books written upon skins of wild beasts
—upon shoulder-blades of sheep—books written upon leaves,
upon bark, up to the splendid volumes that enrich the
libraries of our day. When I speak of libraries, I think of
the remark of Plato : “A house that has a library in it has
a soul.”
I saw their implements of agriculture, from a crooked
stick that was attached to the horn of an ox by some twisted
straw, to the agricultural implements of this generation, that
make it possible for a man to cultivate the,soil without being
an ignoramus.
While looking upon these things I was forced to say that
man advanced only as he mingled his thought with his labor,
—only as he got into partnership with the forces of natureonly as he learned to take advantage of his surroundings—
only as he depended upon himself—only as he lost confidence
in the Gods.
I saw at the same time a row of human skulls, from the
lowest skull that has been found, the Neanderthal skull—
skulls from Central Africa, skulls from the bushmen of
Australia, skulls from the farthest isles of the Pacific
sea—Up to the best skulls of the last generation;—and
I noticed that there was the same difference between the
products of those skulls, and I said to myself: “ After all,
it is a simple question of intellectual development.” There
was the same difference between those skulls, the lowest and
highest skulls, that there was between the dug-out and the
man-of-war and the steamship, between the club and the
Krupp gun, between the yellow daub, and the landscape,
between the tom-tom and an opera by Verdi.
The first and lowest skull in this row was the den in which
crawled the base and meaner instincts of mankind, and the
last was a temple in which dwelt joy, liberty, and love.
It is all a question of brain, of intellectual development.
�10
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
If we are nearer free than were our fathers, it is because we
have better heads upon the average, and more brains in them.
Now, I ask you to be honest with me. It makes no differ
ence to you what I believe, nor what I wish to prove. I simply ask you to be honest. Divest your minds, for a moment
at least, of all religious prejudice. Act, for a few moments, as
though you were men and women.
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, if there
was one, at the time this gentleman floated in the dug-out,
and charmed his ears with the music of the tom-tom, had
said : “ That dug-out is the best boat that ever can be built
by man ; the pattern of that came from on high, from the
great God of storm and flood, and any man who says that he
can improve it by putting a mast in it, with a sail upon it, is
an infidel, and shall be burned at the stake,” what, in your
judgment—honor bright—would have been the effect upon
the circumnavigation of the globe ?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest if
there was one—and I presume there was a priest, because
it was a very ignorant age—suppose this king and priest
had said : “ That tom-tom is the most beautiful instru
ment of music of which any man can conceive; that
is the kind of music they have in heaven; an angel
sitting upon the edge of a fleecy cloud, golden in the
setting sun, playing upon that tom-tom, became so enraptured,
so entranced with her own music, that in a kind of ecstacy
she dropped it—that is how we obtained it; and any man
who says that it can be improved by putting a back and
front to it, and four strings, and a bridge, and getting a bow
of hair with resin, is a blaspheming wretch, and shall die the
death.” I ask you, what effect would that have had upon
music ? If that course had been pursued, would the human
ears, in your judgment, ever have been enriched with the
divine symphonies of Beethoven ?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, had
said : “ That crooked stick is the best plough that can be in
vented : the pattern of that plough was given to a pious farmer
in a holy dream, and that twisted straw is the ne plus ultra
of all twisted things, and any man who says he can make an
improvement upon that plough is an atheistwhat, in your
judgment, would have been the effect upon the science of
agriculture ?
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
11
But the people said, and the king and priest said: “We
want better weapons with which to kill our fellow Christians ;
we want better ploughs, better music, better paintings, and
whoever will give us better weapons, and better music, better
houses to live in, better clothes, we will robe him in wealth
and crown him with honor.” Every incentive was held out
to every human being to improve these things. That is the
reason the club has been changed to a cannon, the dug-out
to a steamship, the daub to a painting; that is the reason
that the piece of rough and broken stone finally became a
glorified statue.
You must not, however, forget that the gentleman in the
dug-out, the gentleman who was enraptured with the music
of the tom-tom, and cultivated his land with a crooked stick,
had a religion of his own. That gentleman in the dug-out
was orthodox. He was never troubled with doubts. He
lived and died settled in his mind. He believed in hell; and
he thought he would be far happier in heaven, if he could
just lean over and see certain people who expressed doubts as
to the truth of his creed, gently but everlastingly broiled
and burned.
It is a very sad and unhappy fact that this man has had a
great many intellectual descendants. It is also an unhappy
fact in nature, that the ignorant multiply much faster than
the intellectual. This fellow in the dug-out believed in a
personal devil. His devil had a cloven hoof, a long tail,
aimed with a fiery dart; and his devil breathed brimstone.
This devil was at least the equal of God ; not quite so stout,
but a little shrewder. And do you know there has not been
a patentable improvement made upon that devil for six
thousand years ?
This gentleman in the dug-out believed that God was a
tyrant; that he would eternally damn the man who lived in
accordance with his highest and grandest ideal. He believed
that the earth was flat. He believed in a literal, burning,
seething hell of fire and sulphur. He had also his idea of
politics ; and his doctrine was, might makes right. And it
will take thousands of years before the world will reverse this
■doctrine, and believingly say: “Right makes might.”
All I ask is the same privilege to improve upon that
gentleman’s theology as upon his musical instrument; the
same right to improve upon his politics as upon his dug-out.
�12
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
That is all. I ask for the human soul the same liberty in
every direction. That is the only crime I have committed.
I say, let us think. Let each one express his thought. Let
us become investigators, not followers, not cringers and
crawlers. If there is in heaven an infinite being, he never
will be satisfied with the worship of coward and hypocrite.
Honest unbelief, honest infidelity, honest atheism, will be a
perfume in heaven when pious hypocrisy, no matter how
religious it may be outwardly, will be a stench.
This is my doctrine : Give every other human being every
right you claim for yourself. Keep your mind open to the
influences of nature. Receive new thoughts with hospitality.
Let us advance.
The religionist of to-day wants the ship of his soul to lie
at the wharf of orthodoxy and rot in the sun. He delights
to hear the sails of old opinions flap against the masts of old
creeds. He loves to see the joints and the sides open and
gape on the sun, and it is a kind of bliss for him to repeat
again and again : “ Do not disturb my opinions. Do not
unsettle my mind; I have it all made up, and I want no
infidelity. Let me go backward rather than forward.”
As far as I am concerned I wish to be out on the high
seas. I wish to take my chances with wind, and wave, and
star. And I had rather go down in the glory and grandeur
of the storm, than rot in any orthodox harbor whatever.
After all, we are improving from age to age. The most
orthodox people in this country two hundred years ago would
have been burned for the crime of heresy.
The ministers
who denounce me for expressing my thought would have been
in the Inquisition themselves.
Where once burned and
blazed the bivouac fires of the army of progress, now glow
the altars of the church. The religionists of oui’ time are
occupying about the same ground occupied by heretics and
infidels of one hundred years ago. The church has advanced
in spite, as it were, of itself. It has followed the army of
progress protesting and denouncing, and had to keep within
protesting and denouncing distance. If the church had not
made great progress I could not express my thoughts.
Man, however, has advanced just exactly in the proportion
with which he has mingled his thought with his labor. The
sailor, without control of the wind and wave, knowing
nothing or very little of the mysterious currents and pulses of
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
13
the sea, is superstitious. So also is the agriculturist, whose
prosperity depends upon something he cannot control. But
the mechanic, when a wheel refuses to turn, never thinks of
dropping on his knees and asking the assistance of some
divine power. He knows there is a reason. He knows that
something is too large or too small; that there is something
wrong with his machine ; and he goes to work and he makes
it larger or smaller, here or there, until the wheel will turn.
Now, just in proportion as man gets away from being, as it
were, the slave of his surroundings, the serf of the elements,
—of the heat, the frost, the snow, and the lightning—just to
the extent that he has gotten control of his own destiny, just
to the extent that he has triumphed over the obstacles of
nature, he has advanced physically and intellectually. As
man develops, he places a greater value upon his own rights.
Liberty becomes a grander and diviner thing. As he values
his own rights, he begins to value the rights of others. And
when all men give to all others all the rights they claim for
themselves, this world will be civilised.
A few years ago the people were afraid to question the
king, afraid to question the priest, afraid to investigate a
creed, afraid to deny a book, afraid to denounce a dogma,
afraid to reason, afraid to think. Before wealth they bowed
to the very earth, and in the presence of titles they became
abject. All this is slowly but surely changing. We no
longer bow to men simply because they are rich. Our fathers
worshipped the golden calf. The worst you can say of an
American now is, he worships the gold of the calf. Even the
calf is beginning to see this distinction.
It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man to be
king or emperor. The last Napoleon was not satisfied with
being 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 within his head. So
he wrote the life of Julius Caesar, 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 au
thority. Compare this king with Haeckel, who towers an
intellectual colossus above the crowned mediocrity. Compare
�14
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
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.
We have advanced. We have reaped the benefit of every
sublime and heroic self-sacrifice, of every divine and brave
act; and we should endeavor to hand the torch to the next
generation, having added a little to the intensity and glory of
the flame.
When I think of how much this world has suffered ; when
I think of how long our fathers were slaves, of how they
cringed and crawled at the foot of the throne, and in the
dust of the altar, of how they abased themselves, of how
abjectly they stood in the presence of superstition robed and
crowned, I am amazed.
This world has not been fit for a man to live in fifty years.
It was not until the year 1808 that Great Britain abolished
the slave trade. Up to that time her judges, sitting upon
the bench in the name of justice, her priests, occupying her
pulpits, in the name of universal love, owned stock in the
slave ships, and luxuriated upon the profits of piracy and
murder. It was not until the same year that the United
States of America abolished the slave trade between this and
other countries, but carefully preserved it as between the
States. It .was not until the 28th day of August, 1833, that
Great Britain abolished human slavery in her colonies ; and
it was not until the 1st day of January, 1863, that Abraham
Lincoln, sustained by the sublime and heroic North, rendered
our flag pure as the sky in which it floats.
Abraham Lincoln was, in my judgment, in many respects
the grandest man ever President of the United States. Upon
his monument these words should be written: “ Here sleeps
the only man in the history of the world, who, having been
clothed with almost absolute power, never abused it, except
upon the side of mercy.”
Think how long we clung to the institution of human
slavery, how long lashes upon the naked back were a legal
tender for labor performed. Think of it. The pulpit of this
country deliberately and willingly, for a hundred years,
turned the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
15
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form
of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love
liberty.
What do I mean by liberty ? By physical liberty I mean
the right to do anything which does not interfere with the
happiness of another. By intellectual liberty I mean the
right to think right and the right to think wrong. Thought
is the means by which we endeavor to arrive at truth. If we
know the truth already, we need not think. All that can be
required is honesty of purpose. You ask my opinion about
anything ; I examine it honestly, and when my mind is made
up, what should I tell you? Should I tell you my real
thought ? What should I do ? There is a book put in my
hands. I am told this is the Koran ; it was written by inspi
ration. I read it, and when I get through, suppose that I
think in my heart and in my brain, that it is utterly untrue,
and you then ask me, what do you think ? Now, admitting
that I live in Turkey, and have no chance to get any office
unless I am on the side of the Koran, what should I say ?
Should I make a clean breast and say, that upon my honor I
do not believe it? What would you think then of my
fellow citizens if they said : “ That man is dangerous, he is
dishonest.”
Suppose I read the Bible, and when I get through I make
up my mind that it was written by men. A minister asks
me : “ Did you read the Bible ?” I answer that I did. “ Do
you think it divinely inspired ?” What should I reply ?
Should I say to myself: “ If I deny the inspiration of the
scriptures, the people will never clothe me with power.”
What ought I to answer ? Ought I not say like a man : “ I
have read it; I do not believe it.” Should I not give the
real transcript of my mind ? Or should I turn hypocrite and
pretend what I do not feel, and hate myself for ever after for
being a cringing coward ? For my part I would rather a man
would tell me what he honestly thinks. I would rather he
would preserve his manhood. I had a thousand times rather
be a manly unbeliever than an unmanly believer. And if there
is a judgment day, a time when all will stand before some
supreme being, I believe I will stand higher, and stand a
better chance of getting my case decided in my favor, than
any man sneaking through life pretending to believe what he
does not.
�16
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
_ I have made up my mind to say my say. I shall do it
kindly, distinctly; but I am going to do it. I know there
are thousands of men who substantially agree with me, but
who are not in a condition to express their thoughts. They
are poor ; they are in business; and they know that should
they tell their honest thought, persons will refuse to patronise
them—to trade with them ; they wish to get bread for their
little children ; they wish to take care of their wives; they
wish to have homes and the comforts of life. Every such
person is a certificate of the meanness of the community in
which he resides. And yet I do not blame these people for
notexpressing their thought. I say to them: “Keep your
ideas to yourselves ; feed and clothe the ones you love ; I
will do your talking for you. The church cannot touch,
cannot crush, cannot starve, cannot stop or stay me; I will
express your thoughts.”
As an excuse for tyranny, as a justification of slavery, the
church has taught that man is totally depraved. Of the
truth of that doctrine, the church has furnished the only
evidence there is. The truth is, we are both good and bad.
The worst are capable of some good deeds, and the best are
capable of bad. The lowest can rise, and the highest may
fall. That mankind can be divided into two great classes,
sinners and saints, is an utter falsehood. In times of great
disaster, called it may be, by the despairing voices of women,
men, denounced by the church as totally depraved, rush to
death as to a festival. By such men, deeds are done so filled
with self-sacrifice and generous daring, that millions pay to
them the tribute not only of admiration, but of tears. Above
all creeds, above all religions, after all, is that divine thing—
Humanity; and now and then in shipwreck on the wide, wild
sea, or ’mid the rocks and breakers of some cruel shore, or
where the serpents of flame writhe and hiss, some glorious
heart, some chivalric soul does a deed that glitters like a
star, and gives the lie to all the dogmas of superstition. All
these frightful doctrines have been used to degrade and to
enslave mankind.
Away, for evei' away, with the creeds and books and forms
and laws and religions that take from the soul liberty and
reason. Down with the idea that thought is dangerous!
Perish the infamous doctrine that man can have property in
man. Let us resent with indignation every effort to put a
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
17
chain upon our minds. If there is no God, certainly we
should not bow and cringe and crawl. If there is a God,
there should be no slaves.
LIBERTY OF WOMAN.
Women have been the slaves of slaves ; and in my judg
ment it took millions of ages for woman to come from the
condition of abject slavery up to the institution of marriage.
Let me say right here, that I regard marriage as the holiest
institution among men. Without the fireside there is no
human advancement; without the family relation there is no
life worth living. Every good government is made up of
good families. The unit of good government is the family,
and anything that tends to destroy the family is perfectly
devilish and infamous. I believe in marriage, and I hold in
utter contempt the opinions of those long-haired men and
short-haired women who denounce the institution of mar
riage.
The grandest ambition that any man can possibly have, is
to so live, and so improve himself in heart and brain, as to
be worthy of the love of some splendid woman; and the
grandest ambition of any girl is to make herself worthy of
the love and adoration of some magnificent man. That is my
idea. There is no success in life without love and marriage.
You had better be the emperor of one loving and tender
heart, and she the empress of yours, than to be king of the
world. The man who has really won the love of one good
woman in this world, I do not care if he dies in the ditch a
beggar, his life has been a success.
I say it took millions of years to come from the condition
of abject slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies,
the ornaments you wear upon your persons to-night are but
the souvenirs of your mother’s bondage. The chains around
your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon your white arms
by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by the wand
of civilisation from iron to shining, glittering gold.
But nearly every religion has accounted for all the devil
ment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant
�18
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
thing that is ! And if it is true, I had rather live with the
woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in
heaven with nobody but men.
I read in a book—and I will say now that I cannot give
the exact language, as my memory does not retain the words,
but I can give the substance—I read in a book that the
Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man ;
that he took some nothing and made a world and one man,
and put this man in a garden. In a little while he noticed
that the man got lonesome ; that he wandered around as if
he was waiting for a train, There was nothing to interest
him ; no news ; no papers ; no politics; no policy ; and, as
the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no
chance for reconciliation ; not even for civil service reform.
Well, he wandered about the garden in this condition, until
finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him
a companion.
Having used up all the nothing he originally took in
making the world and one man, he had to take a part of the
man to start a woman with. So he caused a sleep to fall on
this man—now understand me, I do not say this story is true.
After the sleep fell upon this man, the Supreme Being took a
rib, or as the French would call it, a cutlet, out of this man,
and from that he made a woman. And considering the
amount of raw material used, I look upon it as the most suc
cessful job ever performed. Well, after he got the woman
done, she was brought to the man; not to see how she liked
him, but to see how he liked her. He liked her, and they
started housekeeping; and they were told of certain things
they might do and of one thing they could not do—and of
course they did it. I would have done it in fifteen minutes,
and I know it. There wouldn’t have been an apple on that
tree half an hour from date, and the limbs would have been
full of clubs. And then they were turned out of the park,
and extra policemen were put on to keep them from getting
back.
Devilment commenced. The mumps, and the measles,
and the whooping' cough, and the scarlet fever started in
their race for man. They began to have the toothache, roses
began to have thorns, snakes began to have poisoned teeth,
and people began to divide about religion and politics, and
the world has been full of trouble from that day to this.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
19
Nearly all of the religions of this world account for the
existence of evil by such a story as that!
I read in another book what appeared to be an account of
the same transaction. It was written about four thousand
years before the other, All commentators agree that the
one that was written last was the original, and that the one
that was written first was copied from the one that was writ
ten last. But I would advise you all not to allow your creed
to be disturbed by a little matter of four or five thousand
years. In this other story, Brahma made up his mind to
make the world and a man and woman. He made the world,
and he made the man and then the woman, and put them on
the island of Ceylon. According to the account it was the
most beautiful island of which man can conceive. Such
birds, such songs, such flowers and such verdure ! And the
branches of the trees were so arranged that when the wind
swept through them every tree was a thousand TFlolian
harps.
Brahma, when he put them there, said : “ Let them have
a period of courtship, for it is my desire and will that true
love should for ever precede marriage.” When I read that, it
was so much more beautiful and lofty than the other, that I
said to myself : “ If either one of these stories ever turns
out to be true, I hope it will be this one.”
Then they had their courtship, with the nightingale
singing, and the stars shining, and the flowers blooming, and
they fell in love. Imagine that courtship ! No prospective
fathers or mothers-in-law; no prying and gossiping neigh
bors; nobody to say: “Young man, how do you expect to
support her?” Nothing of that kind. They were married
by the Supreme Brahma, and he said to them : “ Remain
here ; you must never leave this island.” Well, after a little
while the man—and his name was Adami, and the woman’s
name was Heva—said to Heva : “ I believe I’ll look about a
little.” He went to the northern extremity of the island
where there was a little narrow neck of land connecting it
with the mainland, and the devil, who is always playing
pranks with us, produced a mirage, and when he looked over
to the mainland, such hills and vales, such dells and dales,
such mountains crowned with snow, such cataracts clad in
bows of glory did he see there, that he went back and told
Heva: “ The country over there is a thousand times better
�20
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
than this ; let us migrate.” She, like every other woman
.that ever lived, said : “ Let well enough alone ; we have all
we want; let us stay here.” But he said : “ No, let us go
so she followed him, and when they came to this narrow neck
of land, he took her on his back like a gentleman, and carried
her over. But the moment they got over they heard a crash,
and looking back, discovered that this narrow neck of land
had fallen into the sea. The mirage had disappeared, and
there were naught but rocks and sand ; and then the Su
preme Brahma cursed them both to the lowest hell.
Then it was that the man spoke—and I have liked him
ever since for it—“ Curse me, but curse not her, it was not
her fault, it was mine.”
That’s the kind of man to start a world with.
The Supreme Brahma said : “I will save her, but not
thee.” And then she spoke out of her fullness of love, out
of a heart in which there was love enough to make all her
daughters rich in holy affection, and said : “If thou wilt not
spare him, spare neither me; I do not wish to live without
him; I love him.” Then the Supreme Brahma said—and I
have liked him ever since I read it—“ I will spare you both
and watch over you and your children for ever.”
Honor bright, is not that the better and grander story ?
And from that same book I want to show you what ideas
some of these miserable heathen had; the heathen we are
trying to convert. We send missionaries over yonder to con
vert heathen there, and we send soldiers out on the plains to
kill heathen here. If we can convert the heathen, why not
convert those nearest home ? Why not convert those we can
get at ? Why not convert those who have the immense ad
vantage of the example of the average pioneer ? But to show
you the men we are trying to convert: In this book it says :
“ Man is strength, woman is beauty ; man is courage, woman
is love. When the one man loves the one woman and the
one woman loves the one man, the very angels leave heaven
and come and sit in that house and sing for joy.”
They are the men we are converting. Think of it! I tell
you, when I read these things, I say that love is not of any
country; nobility does not belong exclusively to any race, and
through all the ages, there have been a few great and tender
souls blossoming in love and pity.
In my judgment, the woman is the equal of the man.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
21
Slie has all the rights I have and one more, and that is the
right to be protected. That is my doctrine. You are mar
ried ; try to make the woman you love happy. Whoever
marries simply for himself will make a mistake ; but who
ever loves a woman so well that he says : “ I will make her
happy,” makes no mistake. And so with the woman who
says : “ I will make him happy.” There is only one way to
be happy, and that is to make somebody else so; and you
cannot be happy by going cross lots, you have got to go the
regular turnpike road.
If there is any man I detest, it is the man who thinks he is
the head of a family—the man who thinks he is “ boss ” I
The fellow in the dug-out used that word “ boss ; ” that was
one of his favorite expressions.
Imagine a young man and a young woman courting, walk
ing out in the moonlight, and the nightingale singing a song
of pain and love, as though the thorn touched her heart—
imagine them stopping there in the moonlight and starlight
and song, and saying: “ Now, here, let us settle who is
‘ boss.’ ” I tell you it is an infamous word and an infamous
feeling—I abhor a man who is “boss,” who is going to
govern in his family, And when he speaks orders all the rest
to be still as some mighty idea is about to be launched from
his mouth. Do you know I dislike this man unspeakably ?
I hate above all things a cross man. What right has he
to murder the sunshine of a day ? What right has he to
assassinate the joy of life ? When you go home you ought to
go like a ray of light—so that it will, even in the night, burst
out of the doors and windows and illuminate the darkness.
Some men think their mighty brains have been in a turmoil;
They have been thinking about who will be aiderman from
the fifth ward; they have been thinking about politics;
great and mighty questions have been engaging their minds ;
they have bought calico at five cents or six, and want to sell
it for seven. Think of the intellectual strain that must have
been upon that man, and when he gets home everybody else
in the house must look out for his comfort. A woman who
has only taken care of five or six children, and one or two of
them sick, has been nursing them, and singing to them, and
trying to make one yard of cloth do the work of two, she, of
course, is fresh and fine and ready to wait upon this gentle
man—the head of the family—the boss !
�22
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
Do you know another thing ? I despise a stingy man. I
do not see how it is possible for a man to die worth fifty
million of dollars, or ten million of dollars, in a city full of
want, when he meets almost every day the withered hand of
beggary and the white lips of famine. How a man can with
stand all that, and hold in the clutch of his greed twenty or
thirty million of dollars, is past my comprehension. I do
not see how he can do it. I should not think he could do it
any more than he could keep a pile of lumber on the beach,
where hundreds and thousands of men were drowning in the
sea.
Do you know that I have known men who would trust
their wives with their hearts and their honor, but not with
their pocket-book ; not with a dollar. When I see a man
of that kind, I always think he knows which of these articles
is the most valuable. Think of making your wife a beggar!
Think of her having to ask you every day for a dollar, or for
two dollars, or fifty cents! “ What did you do with that
dollar I gave you last week ? ” Think of having a wife that
is afraid of you! What kind of children do you expect to
have with a beggar and a coward for their mother ? Oh, I
tell you if you have but a dollar in the world, and you have
got to spend it, spend it like a king ; spend it as though it
were a dry leaf and you the owner of unbounded forests!
That’s the way to spend it! I had rather be a beggar and
spend my last dollar like a king, then be a king and spend
my money like a beggar I If it has got to go, let it go !
Get the best you can for your family—try to look as well
as you can yourself. When you used to go courting, how
elegantly you looked! Ah, your eye was blight, your step
was light, and you looked like a prince. Do you know that
it is insufferable egotism in you to suppose a woman is going
to love you always looking as slovenly as you can! Think
of it! Any good woman on earth will be true to you for ever
when you do your level best.
Some people tell me: “ Your doctrine about loving, and
wives, and all that, is splendid for the rich, but it won’t do
for the pcor.” I tell you to-night there is more love in the
homes of the poor than in the palaces of the rich. The
meanest hut with love in it is a palace fit for the gods, and a
palace without love is a den only fit for wild beasts. That is
my doctrine! You cannot be so poor that you cannot help
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
23
somebody. Good nature is the cheapest commodity^in the
world; and love is the only thing that will pay ten per cent,
to borrower and lender both. Do not tell me that you have
got to be rich! We have a false standard of greatness in the
United States. We think here that a man must be great,
that he must be notorious ; that he must be extremely
wealthy, or that his name must be upon the putrid lips of
rumor. It is all a mistake. It is not necessary to be rich or
to be great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy
man is the successful man.
Happiness is the legal tender of the soul!
Joy is wealth.
A little while ago, I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon
—a magnificent tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a dead
deity—and gazed upon the sarcophagus of rare and nameless
marble, where rest at last the ashes of that restless man. I
leaned over the balustrade and thought about the career of
the greatest soldier of the modem world.
I saw him walking upon the banks of the Seine, contem
plating suicide. I saw him at Toulon—I saw him putting
down the mob in the streets of Paris—I saw him at the head
of the army of Italy—I saw him crossing the bridge of Lodi
with the tricolor in his hand—I saw him in Egypt in the
shadows of the Pyramids—I saw him conquer the Alps and
mingle the eagles of France with the eagles of the crags. I
saw him at Marengo—at Ulm and Austerlitz. I saw him in
Russia, where the infantry of the snow and the cavalry of the
wild blast scattered his legions like winter’s withered leaves.
I saw him at Leipsic in defeat and disaster—driven by a
million bayonets back upon Paris—clutched like a wild beast
—banished to Elba. I saw him escape and retake an empire
by the force of his genius. I saw him upon the frightful
field of Waterloo, where Chance and Fate combined to wreck
the fortunes of their former king. And I saw him at St.
Helena, with his hands crossed behind him, gazing out upon
the sad and solemn sea.
I thought of the orphans and widows he had made—of the
tears that had been shed for his glory, and of the only woman
who ever loved him, pushed from his heart by the cold hand
of ambition. And I said I would rather have been a French
peasant and worn wooden shoes. I would rather have lived
in a hut with a vine growing over the door, and the grapes
�24
The, Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
growing purple in the kisses of the autumn sun. I would
rather have been that poor peasant with my loving wife by
my side, knitting as the day died out of the sky—with my
children upon my knees and their arms about me—I would
rather have been that man and gone down to the tongueless
silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been that imperial
impersonation of force and murder.
It is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not neces
sary to be rich to be just and generous and to have a heart
filled with divine affection. No matter whether you are rich
or poor, treat your wife as though she were a splendid flower,
and she will fill your life with perfume and with joy.
And do you know, it is a splendid thing to think that the
woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through
the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really
love her, you will always see the face you loved and won.
And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he
grows old ; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble ;
he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman
who won her hand and heart. I like to think of it in that
way ; I like to think that love is eternal. And to love in
that way and then go down the hill of life together, and as
you go down, hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren,
while the birds of joy and love sing once more in the leafless
branches of the tree of age.
I believe in the fireside. I believe in the democracy of
home. I believe in the republicanism of the family. I
believe in liberty, equality and love.
THE LIBERTY OF CHILDREN.
If women have been slaves, what shall I say of children;
of the little children in alleys and sub-cellars; the little
children who turn pale when they hear their father’s foot
steps ; little children who run away when they only hear their
names called by the lips of a mother; little children—the
children of poverty, the children of crime, the children of
brutality, wherever they are—flotsam and jetsam upon the
wild, mad sea of life—my heart goes out to them, one and
all.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
25
I tell you the children have the same rights that we have,
and we ought to treat them as though they were human
beings. They should be reared with love, with kindness,
with tenderness, and not with brutality. That is my idea
of children.
When your little child tells a lie, do not rush at him as though
the world were about to go into bankruptcy. Be honest with
him. A tyrant father will have liars for his children ; do
you know that ? A lie is born of tyranny upon the one hand
and weakness upon the other, and when you rush at a poor
little boy with a club in your hand, of course he lies.
I thank thee, Mother Nature, that thou hast put ingenuity
enough in the brain of a child, when attacked by a brutal
parent, to throw up a little breastwork in the shape of a lie.
When one of your children tells a lie, be honest with him ;
tell him that you have told hundreds of them yourself. Tell
him it is not the best way ; that you have tried it. Tell him
as the man did in Maine when his boy left home : “ John,
honesty is the best policy ; I have tried both.” Be honest
with him. Suppose a man as much larger than you as you
are larger than a child five years old, should come at you
with a liberty pole in his hand, and in a voice of thunder
shout: “ Who broke that plate ? ” There is not a solitary one
of you who would not swear you never saw it, or that it was
cracked when you got it. Why not be honest with these
children ? Just imagine a man who deals in stocks whipping
his boy for putting false rumors afloat! Think of a lawyer
beating his own flesh and blood for evading the truth when
he makes half of his own living that way! Think of a minister
punishing his child for not telling all he thinks! Just
think of it!
When your child commits a wrong, take it in your arms ;
let it feel your heart beat against its heart; let the child
know that you really and truly and sincerely love it. Yet
some Christians, good Christians, when a child commits a
fault, drive it from the door and say : “ Never do you darken
this house again.” Think of that! And then these same
people will get down on their knees and ask God to take care
of the child they have driven from home. I will never ask
God to take care of my children unless I am doing my level
best in that same direction.
But I will tell you what I say to my children : “Go where
�24
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
growing purple in the kisses of the autumn sun. I would
rather have been that poor peasant with my loving wife by
my side, knitting as the day died out of the sky—with my
children upon my knees and their arms about me—I would
rather have been that man and gone down to the tongueless
silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been that imperial
impersonation of force and murder.
It is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not neces
sary to be rich to be just and generous and to have a heart
filled with divine affection. No matter whether you are rich
or poor, treat your wife as though she were a splendid flower,
and she will fill your life with perfume and with joy.
And do you know, it is a splendid thing to think that the
woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through
the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really
love her, you will always see the face you loved and won.
And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he
grows old ; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble ;
he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman
who won her hand and heart. I like to think of it in that
way ; I like to think that love is eternal. And to love in
that way and then go down the hill of life together, and as
you go down, hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren,
while the birds of joy and love sing once more in the leafless
branches of the tree of age.
I believe in the fireside. I believe in the democracy of
home. I believe in the republicanism of the family. I
believe in liberty, equality and love.
THE LIBERTY OF CHILDREN.
If women have been slaves, what shall I say of children;
of the little children in alleys and sub-cellars; the little
children who turn pale when they hear their father’s foot
steps ; little children who run away when they only hear their
names called by the lips of a mother; little children—the
children of poverty, the children of crime, the children of
brutality, wherever they are—flotsam and jetsam upon the
wild, mad sea of life—my heart goes out to them, one and
all.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
25
I tell you the children have the same rights that we have,
and we ought to treat them as though they were human
beings. They should be reared with love, with kindness,
with tenderness, and not with brutality. That is my idea
of children.
When your little child tells a lie, do not rush at him as though
the world were about to go into bankruptcy. Be honest with
him. A tyrant father will have liars for his children ; do
you know that ? A lie is born of tyranny upon the one hand
and weakness upon the other, and when you rush at a poor
little boy with a club in your hand, of course he lies.
I thank thee, Mother Nature, that thou hast put ingenuity
enough in the brain of a child, when attacked by a brutal
parent, to throw up a little breastwork in the shape of a lie.
When one of your children tells a lie, be honest with him ;
tell him that you have told hundreds of them yourself. Tell
him it is not the best way ; that you have tried it. Tell him
as the man did in Maine when his boy left home : “ John,
honesty is the best policy; I have tried both.” Be honest
with him. Suppose a man as much larger than you as you
are larger than a child five years old, should come at you
with a liberty pole in his hand, and in a voice of thunder
shout: “ Who broke that plate ? ” There is not a solitary one
of you who would not swear you never saw it, or that it was
cracked when you got it. Why not be honest with these
children ? Just imagine a man who deals in stocks whipping
his boy for putting false rumors afloat! Think of a lawyer
beating his own flesh and blood for evading the truth when
he makes half of his own living that way ! Think of a minister
punishing his child for not telling all he thinks! Just
think of it!
When your child commits a wrong, take it in your arms ;
let it feel your heart beat against its heart; let the child
know that you really and truly and sincerely love it. Yet
some Christians, good Christians, when a child commits a
fault, drive it from the door and say : “ Never do you darken
this house again.” Think of that! And then these same
people will get down on their knees and ask God to take care
of the child they have driven from home. I will never ask
God to take care of my children unless I am doing my level
best in that same direction.
But I will tell you what I say to my children : “ Go where
�26
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
you will; commit what crime you may ; fall to what depth
of degradation you may ; you can never commit any crime
that will shut my door, my arms, or my heart to you. As
long as I live you shall have one sincere friend.”
Do you know that I have seen some people who acted as
though they thought that when the Savior said : “ Suffer
little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of
heaven,” he had a raw-hide under his mantle, and made that
remark simply to get the children within striking distance ?
I do not believe in the government of the lash. If any one
of you ever expects to whip your children again, I want you
to have a photograph taken of yourself when you are in the
act, with your face red with vulgar anger, and the face of the
little child, with eyes swimming in tears and the little chin
dimpled with fear, like a piece of water struck by a sudden
cold wind. Have the picture taken. If that little child
should die, I cannot think of a sweeter way to spend an
autumn afternoon than to go out to the cemetery, when the
maples are clad in tender gold, and little scarlet runners are
coming, like poems of regret, from the sad heart of the earth
—and sit down upon the grave and look at that photograph,
and think of the flesh now dust that you beat. I tell you it
is wrong; it is no way to raise children! Make your home
happy. Be honest with them. Divide fairly with them in
everything.
Give them a little liberty and love, and you cannot drive
them out of your house. They will want to stay there.
Make home pleasant. Let them play any game they wish.
Do not be so foolish as to say : ‘‘You may roll balls on the
ground, but you must not roll them on a green cloth. You
may knock them with a mallet, but you must not push them
with a cue. You may play with little pieces of paper which
have ‘ authors ’ written on them, but you must not have
‘cards.’” Think of it! “You may go to a minstrel show
where people blacken themselves and imitate humanity below
them, but you must not go to a theatre, and see the charac
ters created by immortal genius put upon the stage.” Why ?
Well, I can’t think of any reason in the world except
“ minstrel ” is a word of two syllables, and “ theatre ” has
three.
Let children have some daylight at home if you want to
keep them there, and do not commence at the cradle and
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
27
shout: “Don’t!” “Don’t!” “Stop!” That is nearly all
that is said to a child from the cradle until J^e is twenty-one
years old, and when he comes of age other people begin say
ing: “Don’t!” And the church says : “Don’t?” and the
party he belongs to says : “ Don’t! ”
I despise that way of going through this world. Let us
have liberty—just a little. Call me infidel, call me atheist,
call me what you will, I intend so to treat my children, that
they can come to my grave and truthfully say : “ He who
sleeps here never gave us a moment of pain. From his lips,
now dust, never came to us an unkind word.
People justify all kinds of tyranny towards children upon
the ground that they are totally depraved. At the bottom of
ages of cruelty lies this infamous doctrine of total depravity.
Religion contemplates a child as a living crime—heir to an
infinite curse—doomed to eternal fire.
In the olden time, they thought some days were too good
for a child to enjoy himself. When I was a boy Sunday was
considered altogether too holy to be happy in. Sunday used
to commence then when the sun went down on Saturday
night. We commenced at that time for the purpose of get
ting a good ready, and when the sun fell below the horizon
on Saturday evening, there was a darkness fell upon the
house ten thousand times deeper than that of night. Nobody
said a pleasant word ; nobody laughed ; nobody smiled ; the
child that looked the sickest was regarded as the most pious.
That night you could not even crack hickory nuts. If you
were caught chewing gum it was only another evidence of the
total depravity of the human heart. It was an exceedingly
solemn night. Dyspepsia was in the very air you breathed.
Everybody looked sad and mournful. I have noticed all my
life that many people think they have religion when they are
troubled with dyspepsia. If there could be found an absolute
specific for that disease, it would be the hardest blow the
church has ever received.
On Sunday morning the solemnity had simply increased.
Then we went to church. The minister was in a pulpit
about twenty feet high, with a little sounding-board above
“him, and he commenced at “ firstly ” and went on and on
to about “twenty-thirdly.” Then he made a few remarks by
way of application ; and then took a general view of the
�28
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
subject, and in about two hours reached the last chapter
in Revelations.
In those days, no matter how cold the weather was, there
was no fire in the church. It was thought to be a kind of
sin to be comfortable while you were thanking God. The
first church that ever had a stove in it in New England,
divided on that account. So the first church in which they
sang by note was torn in fragments.
After the sermon we had an intermission. Then came the
catechism with the chief end of man. We went through with
that. We sat in a row with our feet coming to about six
inches of the floor. The minister asked us if we knew that
we all deserved to go to hell, and we all answered : “Yes.”
Then we were asked if we would be willing to go to hell if it
was God’s will, and every little liar shouted : “Yes.” Then
the same sermon was preached once more, commencing at
the other end going back. After that, we started for home,
sad and solemn—overpowered with the wisdom displayed in
the scheme of the atonement. When we got home, if we had
been good boys, and the weather was warm, sometimes they
would take us out to the graveyard to cheer us up a little. It
did cheer me. When I looked at the sunken tombs and the
leaning stones, and read the half-effaced inscriptions through
the moss of silence and forgetfulness, it was a great comfort.
The reflexion came to my mind that the observance of the
Sabbath could not last always. Sometimes they would sing
that beautiful hymn in which occurs these cheerful lines :
“ Where congregations ne’er break up,
And Sabbaths never end.”
These lines, I think, prejudiced me a little against even
heaven. Then we had good books that we read on Sundays
by way of keeping us happy and contented. There were
Milners’ “ History of the Waldenses,” Baxter’s “ Call to the
Unconverted,” Yahn’s “Archaeology of the Jews,” and
Jenkyns’ “ On the Atonement.” I used to read Jenkyns’
“ On the Atonement.” I have often thought that an atone
ment would have to be exceedingly broad in its provisions to
cover the case of a man who would write a book like that for
a boy.
But at last the Sunday wore away, and the moment the
sun went down we were free. Between three and four o’clock
�The, Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
we would go out to see how the sun was coining on. Some
times it seemed to me that it was stopping from pure mean
ness. But finally it went down. It had to. And when the
last rim of light sank below the horizon, off would go our
caps, and we would give three cheers for liberty once more,
Sabbaths used to be prisons. Every Sunday was a Bastille.
Every Christian was a kind of turnkey, and every child was a
prisoner—a convict. In that dungeon, a smile was a crime.
It was thought wrong for a child to laugh upon this holy
day. Think of that!
A little child would go out into the garden, and there
would be a tree laden with blossoms, and the little fellow
would lean against it, and there would be a bird on one of
the boughs, singing and swinging, and thinking about four
little speckled eggs, warmed by the breast of its mate
singing and swinging, and the music in happy waves rippling
out of its tiny throat, and the flowers blossoming, the air
filled with perfume and the great white clouds floating in the
sky, and the little boy would lean up against that tree and
think about hell and the worm that never dies.
I have heard them preach, when I sat in the pew and my
feet did not touch the floor, about the final home of the
unconverted. In order to impress upon the children the
length of time they would probably stay if they settled in
that country, the preacher would frequently give us the
following illustration : “ Suppose that once in a billion years
a bird should come from some far-distant planet, and carry
off in its little bill a grain of sand, a time would finally come
when the last atom composing this earth would be carried
away; and when this last atom was taken, it would not even
be sun up in hell.” Think of such an infamous doctrine
being taught to children!
The laugh of a child will make the hcliest day more sacred
still. Strike with hand of fire, 0 weird musician, thy harp
strung with Apollo’s golden hair; fill the vast cathedral
aisles with symphonies sweet and dim, deft toucher of the
organ keys ; blow, bugler, blow, until thy silver notes do
touch and kiss the moonlit waves, and charm the lovers
wandering ’mid the vine clad hills. But know, your sweetest
strains are discords all, compared with childhood’s happy
laugh—the laugh that fills the eyes with light and every
heart with joy. 0 rippling river of laughter, thou art the
�30
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
“blessed boundary line between the beasts and men ; and
every wayward wave of thine doth drown some fretful fiend
of care. 0 Laughter, rose-lipped daughter of Joy, there are
dimples enough in thy cheeks to catch and hold and glorify
all the tears of grief.
And yet the minds of children have been polluted by this
infamous doctrine of eternal punishment. I denounce it to
day as a doctrine, the infamy of which no language is suffi
cient to express.
Where did that doctrine of eternal punishment for men and
women and children come from ? It came from the low and
“beastly skull of that wretch in the dug-out. Where did he
get it ? It was a souvenir from the animals. The doctrine
of eternal punishment was bom in the glittering eyes of
■snakes—snakes that hung in fearful coils watching for their
prey. It was born of the howl and bark and growl of wild
Leasts. It was bom of the grin of hyenas and of the depraved
chatter of unclean baboons. I despise it with every drop of
my blood. Tell me there is a God in the serene heavens that
will damn his children for the expression of an honest belief 1
More men have died in their sins, judged by your orthodox
creeds than there are leaves on all the forests in the wide
world ten thousand times over. Tell me these men are in
hell; that these men are in torment; that these children are
in eternal pain, and that they are to be punished for ever and
for ever ! I denounce this doctrine as the most infamous of
lies.
When the great ship containing the hopes and aspirations
of the world, when the great ship freighted with mankind
goes down in the night of death, chaos and disaster, I am
willing to go down with the ship. I will not be guilty of the
ineffable meanness of paddling away in some orthodox canoe.
I will go down with the ship, with those who love me, and
with those whom I have loved. If there is a God who will
damn his children for ever, I would rather go to hell than to
go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant.
I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has
covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted
the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.
It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good
man and woman and child. It has filled the good with
horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the in-
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
31
famous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender:
it has furrowed the cheeks of the good. This doctrine never
■should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr.
clergyman, you, minister of the gospel, to stand at the portals
of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future
with horror and with fear ? I do not believe this doctrine :
neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment.
Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent,
throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that
doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and
the conscience of a hyena.
Jonathan Edwards, the dear old soul, who, if his doctrine
is true, is now in heaven rubbing his holy hands with glee, as
he hears the cries of the damned, preached this doctrine ; and
he said : “ Can the believing husband in heaven be happy
with his unbelieving wife in hell ? Can the believing father
in heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in hell ?
Can the loving wife in heaven be happy with her unbelieving
husband in hell ? ” And he replies : “I tell you, yea. Such
will be their sense of justice, that it will increase rather than
diminish their bliss.” There is no wild beast in the jungles
of Africa whose reputation would not be tarnished by the
expression of such a doctrine.
These doctrines have been taught in the name of religion,
in the name of universal forgiveness, in the name of infinite
love and charity. Do not, I pray you, soil the minds of your
children with this dogma. Let them read for themselves ;
let them think for themselves.
Do not treat your children like orthodox posts to be set in
a row. Treat them like trees that need light and sun and
air. Be fair and honest with them ; give them a chance.
Recollect that their rights are equal to yours. Do not have
it in your mind that you must govern them ; that they must
obey. Throw away for ever the idea of master and slave.
In old times they used to make the children go to bed when
they were not sleepy, and get up when they were sleepy. I
say let them go to bed when they are sleepy, and get up when
they are not sleepy.
But you say, this doctrine will do for the rich but not for
the poor. Well, if the poor have to waken their children
early in the morning it is as easy to wake them with a kiss as
with a blow. Give your children freedom ; let them preserve
�32
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
their individuality. Let your children eat what they desire,
and commence at the end of a dinner they like. That is
their business and not yours. They know what they wish to
eat. If they are given their liberty from the first, they know
what they want better than any doctor in the world can pre
scribe. Do you know that all the improvement that has ever
been made in the practice of medicine has been made by the
recklessness of patients and not by the doctors ? For thou
sands and thousands of years the doctors would not let a man
suffering from fever have a drop of water. Water they
looked upon as poison. But every now and then some man
got reckless and said: “ I had rather die than not to slake
my thirst.” Then he would drink two or three quarts of
water and get well. And when the doctor was told of what
the patient had done, he expressed great surprise that he was
still alive, and complimented his constitution upon being able
to bear such a frightful strain. The reckless men, however,
kept on drinking the water, and persisted in getting well,
and finally the doctors said: “ In a fever water is the very
best thing you can take.” So, I have more confidence in the
voice of nature about such things than I have in the conclu
sions of the medical schools.
Let your children have freedom and they will fall into your
ways; they will do substantially as you do ; but if you try to
make them, there is some magnificent, splendid thing in the
human heart that refuses to be driven. And do you know
that it is the luckiest thing that ever happened for this world,
that people are that way. What would have become of the
people five hundred years ago if they had followed strictly
the advice of the doctors ? They would have all been dead.
What would the people have been, if at any age of the
world they had followed implicitly the direction of the
church ? They would all have been idiots. It is a splendid
thing that there is always some grand man who will not
mind, and who will think for himself.
I believe in allowing the children to think for themselves.
I believe in the democracy of the family. If in this world
there is anything splendid, it is a home where all are
equals.
You will remember that only a few years ago parents
would tell their children to “ let their victuals stop their
mouths.” They used to eat as though it were a religious
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
33
ceremony—a very solemn thing. Life should not be treated
as a solemn matter. I like to see the children at table, and
hear each one telling of the wonderful things he has seen and
heard. I like to hear the clatter of knives and forks and
spoons mingling with their happy voices. I had rather hear
it than any opera that was ever put upon the boards. Let
the children have liberty. Be honest and fair with them ;
be just; be tender, and they will make you rich in love and
i°yMen are oaks, women are vines, children are flowers.
The human race has been guilty of almost countless crimes;
but I have some excuse for mankind. This world, after all,
is not very well adapted to raising good people. In the first
place, nearly all of it is water. It is much better adapted to
fish culture than to the production of folks. Of that portion
which is land not one-eighth has suitable soil and climate to
produce great men and women. You cannot raise men and
women of genius, without the proper soil and climate, any
more than you can raise corn and wheat upon the ice fields of
the Arctic sea. You must have the necessary conditions and
surroundings. Man is a product; you must have the soil and
food. The obstacles presented by nature must not be so
great that man cannot, by reasonable industry and courage,
overcome them. There is upon this world only a narrow
belt of land, circling zigzag the globe, upon which you can
produce men and women of talent. In the Southern Hemi
sphere the real climate that man needs falls mostly upon the
sea, and the result is, that the southern half of our world has
never produced a man or woman of great genius. In the far
north there is no genius—it is too cold. In the far south
there is no genius—it is too warm. There must be winter,
and there must be summer. In a country where man needs
no coverlet but a cloud, revolution is his normal condition.
Winter is the mother of industry and prudence. Above all,
it is the mother of the family relation. Winter holds in
its icy arms the husband and wife and the sweet children. If
upon this earth we ever have a glimpse of heaven, it is when
we pass a home in winter, at night, and through the windows
the curtains drawn aside, we see the family about tho
pleasant hearth; the old lady knitting; the cat playing with the
yarn ; the children wishing they had as many dolls or dollars
or knives or somethings, as there are sparks going out to join
�34
The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
the roaring blast ; the father reading and smoking, and the
clouds rising like incense from the altar of domestic joy. I
never passed such a house without feeling that I had received
a benediction.
Civilisation, liberty, justice, charity, intellectual advance
ment, are all flowers that blossom in the drifted snow.
I do not know that I can better illustrate the great truth
that only part of the world is adapted to the production of
great men and women than by calling your attention to the
difference between vegetation in valleys and upon mountains.
In the valley you find the oak and elm tossing their branches
defiantly to the storm, and as you advance up the mountain
side the hemlock, the pine, the birch, the spruce, the fir, and
finally you come to little dwarfed trees, that look like other
trees seen through a telescope reversed—every limb twisted
as though in pain—getting a scanty subsistence from the
miserly crevices of the rocks. You go on and on, until at last
the highest crag is freckled with a kind of moss, and vegeta
tion ends. You might as well try to raise oaks and elms
where the mosses grow, as to raise great men and great
women where their surroundings are unfavorable.
You
must have the proper climate and soil.
A few years ago we were talking about the annexation of
Santo Domingo to this country. I was in Washington at the
time. I was opposed to it. I was told that it was a most
delicious climate ; that the soil produced everything. But I
said : “ We do not want it; it is not the right kind of country
in which to raise American citizens. Such a climate would
debauch us. You might go there with five thousand Congre
gational preachers, five thousand ruling elders, five thousand
professors in colleges, five thousand of the solid men of Boston
and their wives ; settle them all in Santo Domingo, and you
will see the second generation riding upon a mule, bareback,
no shoes, a grapevine bridle, hair sticking out at the top of
their sombreros, with a rooster under each arm, going to a
cock fight on Sunday.” Such is the influence of climate.
Science, however, is gradually widening the area within
which men of genius can be produced. We are conquering
the north with houses, clothing, food, and fuel. We are in
many ways overcoming the heat of the south. If we attend
to this world instead of another, we may in time cover the
land with men and women of genius.
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
35
I have still another excuse. I believe that man came up
from the lower animals. I do not say this as a fact. I
simply say I believe it to be a fact. Upon that question I
stand about eight to seven, which for all practical purposes, is
very near a certainty. When I first heard of that doctrine
I did not like it. My heart was filled with sympathy for
those people who have nothing to be proud of except ances
tors. I thought, how terrible this will be upon the nobility
of the old world. Think of their being forced to trace their
ancestry back to the duke Orang Outang, or to the princess
Chimpanzee. After thinking it all over, I came to the
conclusion that I liked that doctrine. I became convinced in
spite of myself. I read about rudimentary bones and muscles.
I was told that everybody had rudimentary muscles extend
ing from the ear into the cheek. I asked: “ What are
they ? ” I was told: “ They are the remains of muscles ;
that they became rudimentary from lack of use; they went
into bankruptcy. They are the muscles with which your
ancestors used to flap their ears.” I do not now so much
wonder that we once had them, as that we have outgrown
them.
After all I had rather belong to a race that started from the
skull-less vertebrates in the dim Laurentian seas, vertebrates
wiggling without knowing why they wiggled, swimming
without knowing where they were going, but that in some
way began to develop, and began to get a little higher and a
little higher in the scale of existence; that came up by
degrees through millions of ages through all the animal
world, through all that crawls and swims and floats and
climbs and walks, and finally produced the gentleman in the
dug-out: and then from this man, getting a little grander,
and each one below calling every one above him a heretic,
calling every one who had made a little advance an infidel or
an atheist—for in the history of this world the man who is
ahead has always been called a heretic—I would rather come
from a race that started from that skull-less vertebrate, and
came up and up and up and finally produced Shakspere,
the man who found the human intellect dwelling in a hut,
touched it with the wand of his genius and it became a palace
domed and pinnacled; Shakspere, who harvested all the
fields of dramatic thought, and from whose day to this, there
have been only gleaners of straw and chaff—I would rather
�36
The, Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
belong to that race that commenced a skull-less vertebrate and
produced Shakspere, a race that has before it an infinite
future, with the angel of progress leaning from the far horizon,
beckoning men forward, upward and onward for ever—I had
rather belong to such a race, commencing there, producing
this, and with that hope, than to have sprung from a perfect
pair upon which the Lord has lost money every moment from
that day to this.
CONCLUSION.
I have given you my honest thought. Surely investigation
is better than unthinking faith. Surely reason is a better
guide than fear. This world should be controlled by the
living, not by the dead. The grave is not a throne, and a
corpse is not a king. Man should not try to live on ashes.
The theologians dead, knew no more than the theologians
now living. More than this cannot be said. About this
world little is known,—about another world, nothing.
Oui’ fathers were intellectual serfs, and their fathers were
slaves. The makers of our creeds were ignorant and brutal.
Every dogma that we have, has upon it the mark of whip,
the rust of chain, and the ashes of fagot.
Our fathers reasoned with instruments of torture. They
^believed in the logic of fire and sword. They hated reason.
They despised thought. They abhorred liberty.
Superstition is the child of slavery. Free thought will
give us truth. When all have the right to think and to ex
press their thoughts, every brain will give to all the best it
has. The world will then be filled with intellectual wealth.
As long as men and women are afraid of the church, as
long as a minister inspires fear, as long as people reverence a
thing simply because they do not understand it, as long as it
is respectable to lose your self respect, as long as the church
has power, as long as mankind worship a book, just so long
will the world be filled with intellectual paupers and vagrants,
covered with the soiled and faded rags of superstition.
As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her
rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not writ
ten by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humi-
�The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child.
37
liation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property
of man. She is made to ask forgiveness for becoming a
mother. She is as much below her husband, as her husband
is below Christ. She is not allowed to speak. The gospel is
too pure to be spoken by her polluted lips. Woman should
learn in silence.
.
In the Bible will be found no description of a civilised
home. The free mother, surrounded by free and loving
children, adored by a free man, her husband, was unknown
to the inspired writers of the Bible. They did not believe in
the democracy of home—in the republicanism of the fireside.
These inspired gentlemen knew nothing of the rights of
children. They were the advocates of brute force—the disci
ples of the lash.
They knew nothing of human rights.
Their doctrines have brutalized the homes of millions, and
filled the eyes of infancy with tears.
Let us free ourselves from the tyranny of a book, from the
slavery of dead ignorance, from the aristocracy of the ail.
There has never been upon the earth a generation of free
men and women. It is not yet time to write a creed. Wait
until the chains are broken—until dungeons are not regarded
as temples. Whit until solemnity is not mistaken for wisdom
__ until mental cowardice ceases to be known as reverence.
Wait until the living are considered the equal of the dead—until
the cradle takes precedence of the coffin. Wait until what
we know can be spoken without regard to what others may
believe. Whit until teachers take the place of pieachers
until followers become investigators. Wait until the world is
free before you write a creed.
In this creed there will be but one word—Liberty.
Oh Liberty, float not for ever in the far horizon—remain
not for ever in the dream of the enthusiast, the philanthropist
and poet, but come arid make thy home among the children
of men !
I know not what discoveries, what inventions, what thoughts
may leap from the brain of the world. I know not what
garments of glory may be woven by the years to come. I
cannot dream of the victories to be won upon the fields of
thought; but I do know, that coming from the infinite sea of
the future, there will never touch this “bank and shoal of
time ” a richer gift, a rarer blessing than liberty for man, for
woman, and for child.
�Works by CHAS. BRADLAUGH—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Parti. Section I.—“ The Story
of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and by Science.” Sec
tion II.— “What is Religion? ” “ How has it Grown ? ” “God and
Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—Ninth edition. Is.
Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d
Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, >s.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on tbo
United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is.
Debates—
Four—with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool; the Rev. Dr.
Harrison, in London; Thomas Cooper, in London; the, Rev.
R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham ; with Three Discourses by
the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by C. Bradlaugh
Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s.
What does Christian Tneism Teach? A verbatim report of two
nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. Second
edition. Gd.
God, Man, and the Bible. A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. Gd. °
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the
Uuiveise. A verbatim report of a two nights’ Discussion with
Thomas Cooper. Gd.
Has Man a Soul? A verbatim report of two nights’debate at
Burnley, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethougbt, Scepticism and Faith.
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with
Special Replies. Gd.
Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial and Immoral.
Three
nights’ debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is.
Is it Reasonable to Worship God? A verbatim report of two
nights’debate at Nottingham with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
Is.
'
The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain
ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons ; Mr. Bradlaugh’s
Three Speeches at the Bar of the House, etc., etc. °... 0 G
Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th
Thousand
...
...
...
... 0 i
May the House of Commons Commit Treason? ...
... 0 i
A Cardinal’s Broken Oath
...
...
... 0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand
...
... 0 2
Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family
...
0 1
Real Representation of the People
...
... 0 2
Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry 0 1
Why do Men Starve?
...
...
...
... q ;
Poverty and its effect upon the People...
...
... 0 1
Labor's Prayer
...
...
...
...
.01
I he Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle...
... 0 2
live Dead Men whom I Know when Living. Sketches <>f
Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles
Sumner and Ledru Rollin ...
...
...
... 0 4
�Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast...
...
...
Life of George, Prince of Wales, with Recent Contrasts and
Coincidences
..
...
...
...
...
Anthropology. In neat wrapper
...
...
...
When were our Gospels Written?
...
...
...
Plea for Atheism
...
...
...
...
...
Has Man a Soul ?
...
...
...
...
...
Is there a God?
...
...
...
...
...
Who was Jesus Christ?
...
...
...
...
What did Jesus Teach ?
...
...
...
...
The Twelve Apostles
...
...
...
...
The Atonement
...
...
...
...
...
Life of David
...
...
...
...
...
Life of Jacob
...
...
...
...
Life of Abraham
...
...
...
...
...
Life of Moses
..,
...
...
...
...
Life of Jonah
...
...
...
...
...
A Few Words about the Devil
...
...
...
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
...
...
Heresy; its Morality and Utility. A Plea and a Justifica
tion
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy ...
...
Je6us, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population
Question
...
...
...
...
s. d.
0 6
0 2
0 4
0 6
0 3
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 9
0 6
0
2
Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole
ridge for Blasphemy, in three Special Extra Numbers of the
National Reformer. 6d.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Bradlaugh and
Besant. Cloth, 5s. With Portraits and Autographs of the two
Defendants. Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the
judgments of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
Works by ANNIE BESANT—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part II. “On Christianity.”
Section I.—“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section
II.—“Its Origin Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.”
Section IV.—“Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth,
3s. 6d.
History of the Groat French Revolution. Cloth, 2s.
Mv Path to Atheism. Collected Essays. The Deity of Jesus—
Inspiration—Atonement— Eternal Punishment — Prayer — Re
vealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examined and
rejected; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be. Second Edition.
In limp cloth, Is.
Light, Heat, and Sound. In three parts, 6d. each. Illustrated.
Bound in limp cloth, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Christianity on
the World. Two nights’ Debate with the Rev. A. Hatciiard. Is.
Social and Political Essays. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate. 2s. Gd.
�Pamphlets—
Christian Progress. Third Thousand ...
...
...
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
...
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought
Blasphemy
...
...
...
...
...
The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny...
God’s Views on Marriage
...
...
...
...
The Gospel of Atheism. Fifth Thousand
...
...
Is the Bible Indictable ?
...
...
...
...
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the
Standard of Morality. Seventh Thousand ...
...
The Ethics of Punishment. Third Thousand ...
...
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker,
with Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his
Sociology. Being a short and convenient r&umif of Posi
tivism for the general reader. Third Thousand
...
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth
Century. His Life and Works. Third Thousand
...
The Law of Population: Its consequences, and its bearing
upon Human Conduct and Morals. Seventieth thousand
Social Aspects of Malthusianism
...
...
...
The Physiology of Home — No. 1, “Digestion”; No. 2,
‘•Organs of Digestion”; No. 3, “Circulation”; No. 4,
“Respiration”; Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ...
Electricity and its modern applications. Four lectures.
Id. each. Together, in wrapper
...
...
...
Eyes and Ears
...
...
...
...
...
Vivisection...
...
...
...
...
...
Henry Varley Exposed
...
...
...
...
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity
...
...
...
Landlords, Tenant Farmers, and Laborers. Third Thou
sand
...
...
...
•••
•••
•••
The English Land System
...
...
...
...
English Marseillaise, with Music. Second Thousand
...
English Republicanism
...
...
...
...
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights.
Fourth Thousand...
...
...
...
...
Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hints taken from
the French Revolution. Sixth Thousand
...
...
The Transvaal
...
...
•••
•••
England, India, and Afghanistan, and The Story of Afghan
istan, bound together in limp cloth ...
...
...
The Story of Afghanistan
...
...
• ••
...
Force no Remedy. An analysis of the Coercion Act (Ire
land) 1882
...
................................................. 0
Coercion in Ireland and its Results
...
...
...
Egypt, a Protest against the War. Second Edition
...
Free Trade v. “Fair” Trade—Ne. 1, “England before the
Repeal of the Corn Laws”; No. 2, “The History of the
Anti-Corn Law Struggle”; No. 3, “Labor and Land:
their burdens, duties and rights ”; No. 4, “ What is
Really Free Trade”; No. 5, “The Landlords’Attempt
to Mislead the Landless ”; Id. each. In neat wrapper
with Appendix ...
...
•••
•••
•••
s.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d.
2
2
2
1
6
2
2
2
0 2
0 1
0 6
0
1
0 6
0 1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
2
1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 3
0 1
1 0
0 2
1
0 1
0 2
0
6
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, Fleet 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 liberty of man, woman, and child
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: 37 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Works by Bradlaugh and Besant listed on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 46b in Stein checklist. 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
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N368
Subject
The topic of the resource
Human rights
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 liberty of man, woman, and child), 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
Human Rights
Liberty
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6b0420998c11500a228ef8c145e1ee52.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qQpj7BqDdcAD-FKclUxGdtT1T%7Eb2FxnGaJqwIK-IwZN1MSAbmwiff-E5G9755X4eAHONPmFFDsL-6WuU0UjQM7rty-3AqjGW7e-fGcThuoYJtvF9BztJ0PNtTSFBgAvmb1wqluKtiQuPUBM09EPF79c2lXaE6m%7EHmKH9CSOFaptd0ab43e9gB2oKfvmC%7EqgT0zrmNm8fmXb0OMKaIwzePaiLN3ogrXHzB6ObRcHBVQ4%7Euj-RLiHUmNlyb2htLBrJh8NpN2IPMpMgJS0iriZeqqsYow-6XIqbxYutKM14z511qFiWTvhG1tIHqcJN02uc6pEoaubD8rxDSpfQbDGBZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b3379561eedefc75101ed102b6600143
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECUL^SOCIETf
ART
AND
MORALITY
>
I
BY
F
COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
1
”1!
c
REPRINTED FROM
AMERICAN REVIEW.
THE
£
Price Twopence.
--------------------- _—.
■
bonbon:
* PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
J
j
1888,
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�^332-
ART AND MORALITY.
Art is the highest form of expression, and exists for
the sake of expression. Through art thoughts become
visible. Back of the forms is the desire, the longing,
the brooding, creative instinct, the maternity of mind,
the passion that gives pose and swell, outline and
color.
Of course there is no such thing as absolute beauty
or absolute morality. We now clearly perceive that
beauty and conduct are relative. We have outgrown
the provincialism that thought is back of substance, as
well as the old Platonic absurdity, that ideas existed
before the subjects of thought. So far, at least, as
man is concerned, his thoughts have been produced by
his surroundings, by the action and inter-action of
things upon his mind; and so far as man is concerned,
things have preceded thoughts. The impressions that
these things make upon us are what we know of them.
The absolute is beyond the human mind. Our know
ledge is confined to the relations that exist between the
totality of things that we call the universe and the
effect upon ourselves.
�4
Art and Morality.
Actions are deemed right or wrong according to ex
perience and the conclusions of reason. Things are
beautiful by the relation that certain forms, colors, and
modes of expression bear to us. At the foundation of
the beautiful will be found the fact of happiness, the
gratification of the senses, the delight of intellectual
discovery and the surprise and thrill of appreciation.
That which we call the beautiful wakens into life
through the association of ideas, of memories, of ex
periences—through suggestions of pleasure past and
the perception that the prophecies of the ideal have
been fulfilled.
Art cultivates and kindles the imagination, and
quickens the conscience. It is by imagination that we
put ourselves in the place of another. When the
wings of that faculty are folded, the master does not
put himself in the place of the slave ; the tyrant is not
locked in the dungeon, chained with his victim. The
inquisitor did not feel the flames that devoured the
martyr. The imaginative man, giving to the beggar,
gives to himself. Those who feel indignant at the
perpetration of wrong, feel for the instant that they are
the victims ; and when they attack the aggressor they
feel that they are defending themselves. Love and
pity are the children of the imagination.
A little while ago I heard a discussion, in regard to
the genius of George Eliot. The gentleman who
appeared as her champion took the ground that she was
a very great novelist, a most wonderful writer, and
gave as a reason that her books were written with a
distinct moral purpose; that she was endeavoring to
inculcate the value of character, of integrity, of an
�Art and Morality.
5
absolute, and utter devotion to duty, to the glory and
heroism of self-denial; that she did not create charac
ters for the sake of Art, but that under all, and in all,
and over all, was the desire to teach and enforce some
moral truth.
Upon this very question George Eliot has given her
views with great force and beauty : “ On its theoretic
and perceptive side, morality touches science; on its
■emotional side, art. Now, the products of art are
.great in proportion as they result, from that immediate
prompting of innate power which we call genius, and
not from labored obedience to a theory or rule; and
the presence of genius, or innate prompting, is directly
■opposed to the perpetual consciousness of a rule. The
.action of faculty is imperious, and excludes the reflec
tion why it should act. In the same way, in proportion
as morality is emotional, i.e., has affinity with art, it
will exhibit itself in direct sympathetic feeling and
action, and not as the recognition of a rule. Love does
not say, ‘ I ought to love ’; it loves. Pity does not
say, ‘ It is right to be pitiful ’; it pities. Justice does
not say, ‘ I am bound to be just’; it feels justly. It
is only where moral emotion is comparatively weak»
that the contemplation of a rule or theory mingles with
its action, and in accordance with this we think experi
ence, both in literature and life, has shown that the
minds which are pre-eminently didactic, which insist
■on a ‘lesson/ and despise everything that will not
•convey a moral, are deficient in sympathetic emo
tion.” ....
“ A certain poet is recorded to have said that he
'4 wished everything of his burned that did not impress
�6
Art and Morality.
some moral; even in love-verses it might be flung in
by the way/
What poet was it who took this medicinal
view of poetry ? Dr. Watts, or James Montgomery,
or some other singer of spotless life and ardent piety ?
Not at all. It was Waller. A significant fact in
relation to our position, that the predominant didactic
tendency proceeds rather from the poet’s perception
that it is good for other men to be moral, than from
any overflow of moral feeling in himself. A man who
is perpetually thinking in apothegms, who has an unintermittent flux of admonition, can have little energy
left for simple emotion/'’
This tendency, this “ disposition to see a rebuke or a
yarning in every natural object,” was called by George
Eliot the “ pedagogic fallacy ” ; and yet a gentleman
well acquainted with her writings gives a reason for the
admiration he entertains for her genius that she would
have repudiated with the greatest warmth.
Nothing to the true artist, to the real genius, is so
contemptible as the “ medicinal view.”
John Quincy Adams had the goodness to write his
views about some of the plays of Shakespeare. He read
6‘ Othello,” and read it for the purpose of finding out
what lesson Shakespeare was endeavoring to teach.
Mr. Adams gravely tells us that the play was written
for two purposes ; first, to impress upon the minds of
men and maidens that no one should marry out of his
or her blood; and second, that where a girl married
contrary to the wishes of her parents she rarely ever
came to any good. He regarded Shakespeare very
much as he did a New England minister, and supposed
�Art and Morality.
7
that he wrote “ those plays ” for the purpose of inducing
children to mind their mothers.
Probably Mr. Adams believed that “ Romeo and
Juliet” was written for the one purpose of bringing
vividly before the mind the danger of love at first sight,
and that “ Lear,” the greatest tragedy in human speech»
was produced to show that fathers could not safely
divide their property among their children.
Our fathers read with great approbation the mechani
cal sermons in rhyme written by Milton, Young and
Pollok. Those theological poets wrote for the purpose
of convincing their readers that the mind of man is
diseased, filled with infirmities, and that poetic poultices
and plasters tend to purify and strengthen the moral
nature of the human race.
Poems were written to prove that the practice df
virtue was an investment for another world, and that
whoever followed the advice found in those solemn,
insincere and lugubrious rhymes, although he might
be exceedingly unhappy in this world, would with
great certainty be rewarded in the next.
These
writers assumed that there was a kind of relation
between rhyme and religion, between verse and virtue;
and that it was their duty to call the attention of the
world to all the snares and pitfalls of pleasure. They
wrote with a purpose. They had a distinct moral end
in view. They had a plan. They were missionaries,
and their object was to show the world how wicked it
was and how good they, the writers, were. They could
not conceive of a man being so happy that everything
in nature partook of his feeling; that all the birds
were singing for him, and singing by reason of his joy;
�8
Art and Morality.
that everything sparkleci ancl shone and moved in the
glad rhythm of his heart. They could not appreciate
this feeling. They could not think of this joy guiding
the artist’s hand, seeking expression in form and color.
They did not look upon poems, pictures, and statues as
results, as children of the brain fathered by sea and
sky, by flower and star, by love and light. They were
not moved by gladness. They felt the responsibility
of perpetual duty. They had a desire to teach, to
sermonise, to point out and exaggerate the faults of
others and to describe the virtues practised by them
selves. Art became a colporteur, a distributor of tracts,
a mendicant missionary whose highest ambition was to
suppress all heathen joy.
Happy people were supposed to 'have forgotten, in a
reckless moment, duty and responsibility.
True
poetry would call them back to a realisation of their
meanness and their misery. It was the skeleton at the
feast, the rattle of whose bones had a rhythmic sound.
It was the forefinger of warning and doom held up in
presence of a smile.
These moral poets taught the unwelcome truths, and
by the paths of life put posts on which they painted
hands pointing at graves. They loved to see the pallor
on the cheek of youth, while they talked, in solemn
tones, of age, decrepitude,' and lifeless clay.
Before the eyes of love they thrust, with eager hands,
the skull of death. They crushed the flowers beneath
their feet and plaited crowns of thorns for every brow.
According to these poets, happiness was inconsistent
with virtue. The sense of infinite obligation should be
perpetually present. They assumed an attitude of
�Art and Morality.
9
■superiority.
They denounced and calumniated the
reader. They enjoyed his confusion when charged
with total depravity. They loved to paint the sufferings
of the lost, the worthlessness of human life, the little
ness of mankind, and the beauties of an unknown
world. They knew but little of the heart. They
did not know that without passion there is no virtue
and that the really passionate are the virtuous.
Art has nothing to do directly with morality or
immorality. It is its own excuse for being; it exists
for itself.
The artist who endeavors to enforce a lesson becomes
a preacher ; and the artist who tries by hint and sug
gestion to enforce the immoral, becomes a pander.
There is an infinite difference between the nude and
the naked, between the natural and the undressed.
In the presence of the pure, unconscious nude, nothing
can be more contemptible than those forms in which
are the hints and suggestions of drapery, the pretence
of exposure, and the failure to conceal. The undressed
is vulgar, the nude is pure.
The old Greek statues, frankly, proudly nude, whose
free and perfect limbs have never known the sacrilege
of clothes, were and are as free from taint, as pure, as
stainless, as the image of the morning star trembling
in a drop of perfumed dew.
Morality is the harmony between act and circum
stance. It is the melody of conduct. A wonderful
statue is the melody of proportion. A great picture
is the melody of form and- color. A great statue does
not suggest labor; it seems to have been created as a
joy. A great painting suggests no weariness and no
�10
Art and Morality.
effort; the greater, the easier it seems. So a great and
splendid life seems to have been without effort. There
is in it no idea of obligation, no idea of responsibility or
of duty. The idea of duty changes to a kind of drudgery
that which should be, in the perfect man, a perfect
pleasure.
The artist, working simply for the sake of enforcing
a moral, becomes a laborer. The freedom of genius is
lost, and the artist is absorbed in the citizen. The
soul of the real artist should be moved by this melody
of proportion as the body is unconsciously swayed by
the rhythm of symphony. No one can imagine that
the great men who chiselled the statues of antiquity
intended to teach the youth of Greece to be obedient to
their parents. We cannot believe that Michael Angelo
painted his grotesque and somewhat vulgar “ Day of
Judgment” for the purpose of reforming Italian
thieves. The subject was in all probability selected by
his employer, and the treatment was a question of art,
without the slightest reference to the moral effect, even
upon priests. We are perfectly certain that Corot
painted those infinitely poetic landscapes, those cottages,
those sad poplars, those leafless vines on weather-tinted
walls, those quiet pools, those contented cattle, those
fields flecked with light, over which bend the skies,
tender as the breast of a mother, without once thinking
of the ten commandments. There is the same difference
between moral art and the product of true genius, that
there is between prudery and virtue.
The novelists who endeavor to enforce what they
are pleased to call “ moral truth,” cease to be artists.
They create two kinds of characters—types and cari
�Art and Morality.
11
catures. The first never has lived, and the second
never will. The real artist produces neither. In his
pages you will find individuals, natural people, who
have the contradictions and inconsistencies inseparable
from humanity. The great artists “ hold the .mirror
up to nature,” and this mirror reflects with absolute
accuracy. The moral and the immoral writers that
is to say, those who have some object besides that of
art—use convex or concave mirrors, or those with un
even surfaces, and the result is that the images are
monstrous and deformed. The little novelist and the
little artist deal either in the impossible or the excep
tional. The men of genius touch the universal. Their
words and works throb in unison with the great ebb
and flow of things. They write and work for all races
and for all time.
It has been the object of thousands of reformers to
destroy the passions, to do away with desires; and could
this object be accomplished, life would become a burden,
with but one desire; that is to say, the desire for ex
tinction. Art in its highest forms increases passion,
gives tone and color and zest to life. But, while it
increases passion, it refines. It extends the horizon.
The bare necessities of life constitute a prison, a dimgeon. Under the influence of art the walls expand,
the roof rises, and it becomes a temple.
Art is not a sermon, and the artist is not a preacher.
Art accomplishes by indirection. The beautiful refines.
The perfect in art suggests the perfect in conduct. The
harmony in music teaches without intention the lesson
of proportion in life. The bird in his song has no
moral purpose, and yet the influence is humanising.
�12
Ari and Morality.
The beautiful in nature acts through appreciation and
sympathy. It does not browbeat, neither does it
humiliate. It is beautiful without regard to you.
Roses would be unbearable if in their red and per
fumed hearts were mottoes to the effect that bears eat
bad boys and that honesty is the best policy.
Art creates an atmosphere in which the proprieties,
the amenities, and the virtues unconsciously grow. The
rain does not lecture the seed. The light does not
make rules for the vine and flower.
The heart is softened by the pathos of the perfect.
The world is a dictionary of the mind, and in this
dictionary of things genius discovers analogies, resem
blances, and parallels amid opposites, likeness in differ
ence, and corroboration in contradiction. Language is
but a multitude of pictures. Nearly every work is a
work of art, a picture represented by a sound, and this
sound represented by a mark, and this mark gives not
only the sound, but the picture of something in the
outward world and the picture of something within the
mind, and with these words which were once pictures,
other pictures are made.
The greatest pictures and the greatest statues, the
most wonderful and marvellous groups, have been
painted and chiselled with words. They are as fresh
to-day as when they fell from human lips. Penelope
still ravels, weaves, and waits; Ulysses’ bow is bent,
and through the level rings the eager arrow flies; Cor
delia’s tears are falling now. The greatest gallery of
the world is found in Shakespeare’s book. The pictures
and the marbles of the Vatican and Louvre are faded,
crumbling things, compared with his, in which perfect
�Art and Morality.
13
color gives to perfect form the glow and movement of
passion’s highest life.
Everything except the truth wears, and needs to
wear, a mask. Little souls are ashamed of nature.
Prudery pretends to have only those passions that it
cannot feel. Moral poetry is like a respectable canal
that never overflows its banks. It has weirs through
which slowly and without damage any excess of feeling
is allowed to flow. It makes excuses for nature, and
regards love as an interesting convict. Moral art
paints or chisels feet, faces and rags. It hides with
drapery what it has not the genius purely to portray.
Mediocrity becomes moral from a necessity which it
has the impudence to call virtue. It pretends to regard
ignorance as the foundation of purity and insists that
virtue seeks the companionship of the blind.
Art creates, combines, and reveals. It is the highest
manifestation of thought, of passion, of love, of intui
tion. It is the highest form of expression, of history
and prophecy. It allows us to look at an unmasked
soul, to fathom the abysses of passion, to understand
the heights and depths of love.
Compared with what is in the mind of man, 'the
outward world almost ceases to excite our wonder. The
impression produced by mountains, seas, and stars is
not so great, so thrilling, as the music of Wagner.
The constellations themselves grow small when we read
« Troilus and Cressida/’ “ Hamlet ” or “ Lear.” What
are seas and stars in the presence of a heroism that
holds pain and death as naught ? W^hat are seas and
stars compared with human hearts 1 What is the
quarry compared with the statue 1
�14
Art and Morality.
Art civilises because it enlightens, develops,
strengthens, and ennobles. It deals with the beautiful,
with the passionate, with the ideal. It is the child of
the heart. To be great it must deal with the human.
It must be in accordance with the experience, with the
hopes, with the fears, and with the possibilities of man.
No one cares to paint a palace, because there is nothing
in such a picture to touch the heart. It tells of
responsibility, of the prison of the conventional. It
suggests a load, it tells of apprehension, of weariness
and ennui. The picture of a cottage, over which runs
a vine, a little home thatched with content, with its
simple life, its natural sunshine and shadow, its trees
bending with fruit, its hollyhocks and pinks, its happy
children, its hum of bees, is a poem—a smile in the
desert of this world.
The great lady, in velvet and jewels, makes but a
poor picture. There is not freedom enough in her life,
She is constrained. She is too far away from the sim
plicity of happiness. In her thought there is too much
of the mathematical. In all art you will find a touch
of chaos, of liberty; and there is in all artists a little
of the vagabond—that is to say, genius.
The nude in art has rendered holy the beauty of
woman.
Every Greek statue pleads for mothers and
sisters. From these marbles came strains of music.
They have filled the heart of man with tenderness and
worship. They have kindled reverence, admiration,
and love. The Venus de Milo, that even mutilation
cannot mar, tends only to the elevation of our race.
It is a miracle of majesty and beauty, the supreme idea
of the supreme woman. It is a melody in marble. All
�Art and Morality.
15
the lines meet in a kind of voluptuous and glad content.
The pose is rest itself. The eyes are filled with
thoughts of love. The breast seems dreaming of a child.
The prudent is not the poetic ; it is the mathemati
cal. Genius is the spirit of abandon ; it is joyous, irre
sponsible. It moves in the swell and curve of billows ;
it is careless of conduct and consequence. For a
moment the chain of cause and effect seems broken;
the soul is free. It gives an account not even to itself.
Limitations are forgotten ; nature seems obedient to the
will; the ideal alone exists; the universe is a symphony.
Every brain is a gallery of art, and every soul is, to
a greater or less degree, an artist. The pictures and
statues that now enrich and adorn the walls and
niches of the world, as well as those that illuminate the
pages of its literature, were taken originally from the
private galleries of the brain.
The soul—that is to say the artist—compares the
pictures in its own brain with the pictures that have
been taken from the galleries of others and made visible.
This soul, this artist, selects that which is nearest per
fection in each, takes such parts as it deems perfect,
puts them together, forms new pictures, new statues,
and in this way creates the ideal.
To express desires, longings, ecstacies, prophecies, and
passions in form and color; to put love, hope, heroism,
and triumph in marble ; to paint dreams and memories
with words ; to portray the purity of dawn, the inten
sity and glory of noon, the tenderness of twilight, the
splendor and mystery of night, with sounds ; to give
the invisible to sight and touch, and to enrich the com
mon things of earth with gems and jewels of the mind—
this is Art.
�MISTAKES of MOSES
By Colonel R, G. Ingersoll,
The only Complete Edition Published *i,n*
Enqland.
17
a
_ Reprinted Verbatim from the Author's Edition '
Accurate as Colenso, and fascinating
as a Novel.
136pp.
Price Is.
In Cloth Is. 6d.
L » INGERSOLL’S
ORATIONS AND ESSAY
Live Topics
*r ¡Myth and Miracle
mReal Blasphemy Social Salvation The Dying Creed
Faith and Fact ' God and Alan
Defence of Freethought
Id..
Id. «
Id. :
Id/ r
2d.
2d. ‘ ,
2d.
6d.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPA’p
‘ 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
Art and morality
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: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Not in Stein checklist, but cf his Nos. 183 and 194. Printed by G.W. Foote. 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
N332
Subject
The topic of the resource
Art
Ethics
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 (Art and morality), 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
Art and Morals
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d99cef37a3ef250bdeb081b0ba2709f9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bSN1htcQ3nq04e2ata9RuWYEk8DJ1LZML%7EkMcNCn93-KesOnOMqfEhWelxe%7EazY046IinP2ZnDYSkxPnCyByp5VXaHG4J67R9FqFbQKN3DCegTJmC5EyRiYwqKdVsVj7zvw-OaP12iMBvkIxg4RYNIbkdy-czISmyPTLSHqIGLVxzNFRVWz8dxTEaxFBrTe3WwMdU7WPesHVQjvSTbUwBmyDpubPr%7EnokfJY2dXhPWlelN7sHfxzDfvcyxaYfOM1EY8KgKnDHUOedqS2hrCPC9PksG2v80n7GR76%7EXMb3h3zMstnvC78RleWGaxZQJp1tseLnBrGJkpV0KJpWVPfDg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c6758be3ebab8854bc0662f23b23d2ae
PDF Text
Text
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
, NXHONALSECUlMaötU^
COLONEL ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�6 0.73S
Kl 3.77
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
The Universe is Governed by Law.
Great men seem to be part of the infinite, brothers of the
mountains and the seas. Humboldt was one of these. He
was one of those serene men, in some respects like our own
Franklin, whose names have all the lustre of a star. He was
one of the few great enough to rise above the superstition
and prejudice of his time, and to know that experience,
observation, and reason are the only basis of knowledge.
He became one of the greatest of men, in spite of having
been born rich and noble—in spite of position. I say in
spite of these things, because wealth and position are gene
rally the enemies of genius, and the destroyers of talent.
It is often said of this or that man, that he is a self-made
man—that he was born of the poorest and humblest of
parents, and that, with every obstacle to overcome, he became
great. This is a mistake. Poverty is generally an advan
tage. Most of the intellectual giants of the world have been
nursed at the sad and loving breast of poverty. Most of
those who have climbed highest on the shining ladder of
fame commenced at the lowest round. They were reared
in the straw-thatched cottages of Europe ; in the log-houses
of America; in the factories of the great cities ; in the
midst of toil; in the smoke and din of labour, and on the
verge of want. They were rocked by the feet of mothers
whose hands, at the same time, were busy with the needle
or the wheel.
It is hard for the rich to resist the thousand allurements
of pleasure, and so I say, that Humboldt, in spite of having
�4
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
been born to wealth and high social position, became truly
and grandly great.
. In the antiquated and romantic castle of Tegel by the
side of the pine forest, on the shore of the charming lake
near the beautiful city of Berlin, the great Humboldt, one
hundred years ago, was born, and there he was educated
after the method suggested by Rousseau,—Campe, the
philologist and critic, and the intellectual Kunth being his
tutors. There he received the impressions that determined
his career; there the great idea that the Universe is governed
by law took possession of his mind, and there he dedicated
his life to the demonstration of this sublime truth.
He came to the conclusion that the source of man’s un
happiness is his ignorance of nature.
After having received the most thorough education at that
time possible, and having determined to what end he would
devote the labours of his life, he turned his attention to the
sciences of geology, mining, mineralogy, botany and distri
bution of plants, the distribution of animals, and the effect
of climate upon man. All grand physical phenomena were
investigated and explained. From his youth he had felt a
great desire for travel. He felt, as he says, a violent passion
for the sea, and longed to look upon Nature in her wildest
and most rugged forms. He longed to give a physical de
scription of the Universe—a grand picture of Nature; to
account for all phenomena ; to discover the laws governing
the world ; to do away with that splendid delusion called
special providence, and to establish the fact that the Universe
is governed by law.
To establish this truth was, and is, of infinite importance
to mankind. That fact is the death-knell of superstition ; it
gives liberty to every soul, annihilates fear, and ushers in the
age of reason.
The object of this illustrious man was to comprehend the
phenomena of physical objects in their general connection,
and to represent Nature as one great whole, moved and
animated by internal forces.
For this purpose he turned his attention to descriptive
botany, traversing distant lands and mountain ranges to
ascertain definitely the geographical distribution of plants.
He investigated the laws regulating the differences of
temperature and climate, and the changes of the atmo
sphere. He studied the formation of the earth’s crust,
explored the deepest mines, ascended the highest moun
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
5
tains, and wandered through the craters of extinct vol
canoes.
He became thoroughly acquainted with chemistry, with
astronomy, with terrestrial magnetism ; and as the investiga
tion of one subject leads to all others, for the reason that
there is a mutual dependence and a necessary connection
between all facts, so Humboldt became acquainted with all
the known sciences.
His fame does not depend so much upon his discoveries
(although he discovered enough to make hundreds of repu
tations), as upon his vast and splendid generalization.
He was to Science what Shakespeare was to the drama.
He found, so to speak, the world full of unconnected
facts—all portions of a vast system—parts of a great
machine. He discovered the connection which each bears
to all, put them together, and demonstrated beyond all con
tradiction that the earth is governed by law.
He knew that to discover the connection of phenomena
is the primary aim of all natural investigation. He was in
finitely practical.
Origin and destiny were questions with which he had
nothing to do.
His surroundings made him what he was.
In accordance with a law not fully comprehended he was
a production of his time.
Great men do not live alone; they are surrounded by the
great; they are the instruments used to accomplish the ten
dencies of their generation; they fulfil the prophecies of
their age.
Nearly all the scientific men of the eighteenth century
had the same idea entertained by Humboldt, but most of
them in a dim and confused way. There was, however, a
general belief among the intelligent that the world is
governed by law, and that there really exists a connection
between all facts, or that all facts are simply the different
aspects of a general fact, and that the task of science is to
discover this connection, to comprehend this general fact, or
to announce the laws of things.
Germany was full of thought, and her universities swarmed
with philosophers and grand thinkers in every department of
knowledge.
Humboldt was the friend and companion of the greatest
poets, historians, philologists, artists, statesmen, critics, and
logicians of his time.
�6
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
. _ He was the companion of Schiller, who believed that man
would be regenerated through the influence of the Beautiful;
of Goethe, the grand patriarch of German literature; of
Weiland, who has been called the Voltaire of Germany; of
Herder, who wrote the outlines of a philosophical history of
man of Kotzebue, who lived in the world of romance; of
Schleiermacher, the pantheist; of Schlegel, who gave to his
countrymen the enchanted realm of Shakespeare; of the
sublime Kant, author of the first work published in Germany
on Pure Reason; of Fichte, the infinite idealist; of
Schopenhauer, the European Buddhist, who followed the
great Gautama to the painless and dreamless Nirwana, and
of hundreds of others, whose names are familiar to, and
honoured by, the scientific world.
The German mind had been grandly roused from the long
lethargy of the dark ages of ignorance, fear, and faith.
Guided by the holy light of reason, every department of
knowledge was investigated, enriched, and illustrated.
Humboldt breathed the atmosphere of investigation• old
ideas were abandoned; old creeds, hallowed by centuries,
were thrown aside ; thought became courageous; the athlete,
Reason, challenged to mortal combat the monsters of
superstition.
No wonder that, under these influences, Humboldt
formed the great purpose of presenting to the world a picture
of Nature, in order that men might, for the first time, behold
the face of their mother.
Europe became too small for his genius; he visited the
tropics in the New World, where, in the most circumscribed
limits, he could find the greatest number of plants, of
animals, and the greatest diversity of climate, that he might
ascertain the laws governing the production and distribution
or plants, animals, and men, and the effects of climate upon
them all.
He sailed along the gigantic Amazon; the
mysterious Oronoco; traversed the Pampas; climbed the
Andes until he stood upon the crags of Chimborazo, more
than eighteen thousand feet above the level of the sea, and
climbed on until blood flowed from his eyes and lips. For
nearly five years he pursued his investigations in the New
World, accompanied by the intrepid Bonpland. Nothing
escaped his attention. He was the best intellectual organ
of these new revelations of science. He was calm, reflective
and eloquent; filled with the sense of the beautiful and the
love of truth. His collections were immense, and valuable
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
7
beyond calculation to every science. He endured innume
rable hardships, braved countless dangers in unknown savage
lands, and exhausted his fortune for the advancement of
true learning.
Upon his return to Europe, he was hailed as toe second
'Columbus ; as the scientific discoverer of America ; as the
revealer of a New World; as the great demonstrator of the
sublime truth, that the Universe is governed by law.
I have seen a picture of the old man, sitting upon the
•mountain side, above him the eternal snow, below, the
smiling valley of the tropics filled with vine and palm, his
chin upon his breast, his eyes deep, thoughtful, and calm,
his forehead majestic—grander than the mountain upon
which he sat—-crowned with the snow of his whitened hair,
he looked the intellectual autocrat of this world.
Not satisfied with his discoveries in America, he crossed
the steppes of Asia, the wastes of Siberia, the great Ural
wange, adding to the knowledge of mankind at every step.
His energy acknowledged no obstacle, his life knew no
leisure ; every day was filled with labour and with thought..
He was one of the apostles of Science, and he served his
divine Master with a self-sacrificing zeal that knew no
abatement; with an ardour that constantly increased, and
with a devotion unwavering and constant as the polar
star.
In order that the people at large might have the benefit
of his numerous discoveries and his vast knowledge, he
delivered, at Berlin, a course of lectures, consisting of sixtyone free addresses upon the following subjects:
Five, upon the nature and limits of physical geography.
Three were devoted to a history of Science.
Two, to inducements to a study of natural science.
Sixteen, on the heavens.
Five, on the form, density, latent heat and magnetic power
of the earth, and the polar light.
Four were on the nature of the crust of the earth, on hot
springs, earthquakes and volcanoes.
Two, on mountains and the type of their formation.
Two, on the form of the earth’s surface, on the connection
of continent, and the elevation of soil over ravines.
Three, on the sea as a globular fluid surrounding the
earth.
Ten, on the atmosphere as an elastic fluid surrounding the
earth, and on the distribution of heat.
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
One, on the geographic distribution- of organized matter
in general.
Three, on the geography of plants.
Three, on the geography of animals, and
Two, on the races of men.
These lectures are what is known as the Cosmos, and
present a scientific picture of the world, of infinite diversity
and unity, of ceaseless motion in the eternal grasp of law.
These lectures contain the result of his investigation,,
observation and experience; they furnish the connection;
between phenomena; they disclose some of the changes,
through which the earth has passed in the countless ages;
the history of vegetation, animals, and men; the effects of
climate upon individuals and nations, the relation we sustain
to other worlds, and demonstrate that all phenomena, whether
insignificant or grand, exist in accordance with inexorable
law.
There are some truths, however, that we never should
forget. Superstition has always been the relentless enemy
of science; faith has been a hater of demonstration;
hypocrisy has been sincere only in its dread of truth, and all
religions are inconsistent with mental freedom.
Since the murder of Hypatia, in the fifth century, when
the polished blade of Greek philosophy was broken by the
club of ignorant Catholicism, until to-day, superstition has
detested every effort of reason.
It is almost impossible to conceive of the completeness of
the victory that the Church achieved over philosophy. For
ages science was utterly ignored; thought was a poor slave;
an ignorant priest was the master of the world; faith put out
the eyes of the soul; the reason was a trembling coward;
the imagination was set on fire of hell; every human feeling;
was sought to be suppressed ; love was considered infinitely
sinful, pleasure was the road to eternal fire, and God was
supposed to be happy only when his children were miserable.
The world was governed by an Almighty’s whim ; prayers
could change the order of things, halt the grand procession
of Nature; could produce rain, avert pestilence, famine, and
death in all its forms. There was no idea of the certain ;
all depended upon divine pleasure, or displeasure rather;
heaven was full of inconsistent malevolence, and earth of
ignorance. Everything was done to appease the divine
wrath; every public calamity was caused by the sins of the
people ; by a failure to pay tithes, or for having, even in.
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
9
secret, felt a disrespect for a priest. To the poor multitude,
the earth was a kind of enchanted forest, full of demons,
ready to devour, and theological serpents lurking with infinite
power to fascinate and torture the unhappy and impotent
soul. Life to them was a dim and mysterious labyrinth, in
which they wandered weary and lost, guided by priests as.
bewildered as themselves, without knowing that at every step
the Ariadne of reason offered them the long lost clue.
The very heavens were full of death ; the lightning was.
regarded as the glittering vengeance of God, and the earth
was thick with snares for the unwary feet of man. The soul
was supposed to be crowded with the wild beasts of desire;,
the heart to be totally corrupt, prompting only to crime;
virtues were regarded as only deadly sins in disguise; therewas a continual warfare being waged between the Deity and
the Devil, for the possession of every soul; the latter being;
generally considered victorious. The flood, the tornado, the
volcano, were all evidences of the displeasure of heaven and
the sinfulness of man. The blight that withered, the frost
that blackened, the earthquake that devoured, were the
messengers of the Creator.
The world was governed by fear.
Against all the evils of nature, there was known only the
defence of prayer, of fasting, of credulity, and devotion.
Man in his helplessness endeavoured to soften the heart of God.
The faces of the multitude were blanched with fear and wet
with tears; they were the prey of hypocrites, kings, andpriests.
My heart bleeds when I contemplate the sufferings endured
by the millions now dead; of those who lived when the
» .-world appeared to be insane; when the heavens were filled
with an infinite Horror, who snatched babes with dimpled
hands and rosy cheeks from the white breasts of mothers, and
dashed them into an abyss of eternal flame.
Slowly, beautifully, like the coming of the dawn, came the
grand truth that the Universe is governed by law; that
disease fastens itself upon the good and upon the bad; that
the tornado cannot be stopped by counting beads; that the
rushing lava pauses not for bended knees; the lightning for
clasped and uplifted hands ; nor the cruel waves of the sea
for prayer; that paying tithes causes, rather than prevents,
famine; that pleasure is not sin ; that happiness is the only
good; that demons and gods exist only in the imagination;
that faith is a lullaby sung to put the soul to sleep; that
devotion is a bride that fear offers to supposed power; that
�IO
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
offering rewards in another world for obedience in this, is
simply buying a soul on credit; that knowledge consists in
ascertaining the laws of nature, and that wisdom is the science
of happiness. Slowly, grandly, beautifully, these truths are
dawning upon mankind.
From Copernicus we learn that this earth is only a grain
of sand on the infinite shore of the Universe; that every
where we are surrounded by shining worlds, vastly greater
than our own, all moving and existing in accordance with
law. True, the earth began to grow small, but man began
to grow great.
The moment the fact was established that other worlds
are governed by law, it was only natural to conclude that
our little world was also under its dominion.
The old
theological method of accounting for physical phenomena
by the pleasure and displeasure of the Deity was, by the
intellectual, abandoned. They found that disease, death,
life, thought, heat, cold, the seasons, the winds, the dreams
of man, the instinct of animals—in short, that all physical
and mental phenomena are governed by law, absolute, eternal
and inexorable.
Let it be understood, that by the term law is meant the
same invariable relations of succession and resemblance
predicated of all facts springing from like conditions. Law
is a fact—not a cause. It is a fact, that like conditions
produce like results; this fact is Law. When we say that the
Universe is governed by law, we mean that this fact, called
law, is incapable of change—that it has been, and forever
will be, the same inexorable, immutable Fact, inseparable
from all phenomena. Law, in this sense, was not enacted
or made. It eould not have been otherwise than as it is.
That which necessarily exists has no creator.
Only a few years ago this earth was considered the real
centre of the universe; all the stars were supposed to revolve
•around this insignificant atom. The German mind, more
than any other, has done away with this piece of egotism.
Purbach and Mulleras, in the fifteenth century, contributed
most to the advancement of astronomy in their day. To
the latter, the world is indebted for the introduction of
decimal fractions, which completed our arithmetical no
tation and formed the second of the three steps, by
which, in modern times, the science of numbers has been
so greatly improved; and yet both of these men believed
in the most childish absurdities, at least in enough of
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
11
them, to die without their orthodoxy having ever been
suspected.
Next came the great Copernicus, and he stands at the head
of the heroic thinkers of his time who had the courage and
the mental strength to break the chains of prejudice, custom,
and authority, and to establish truth on the basis of ex
perience, observation, and reason. He removed the earth,
so to speak, from the centre of the Universe, and ascribed
to it a two-fold motion, and demonstrated the true position
which it occupies in the solar system.
At his bidding the earth began to revolve, at the command
of his genius it commenced its grand flight ’mid the eternal
constellations round the sun.
For fifty years his discoveries were disregarded. All at
once, by the exertions of Galileo, they were kindled into so
grand a conflagration as to consume the philosophy of
Aristotle, to alarm the hierarchy of Rome, and to threaten
the existence of every opinion not founded upon experience,
observation, and reason.
The earth was no longer considered a Universe, governed
by the caprices of some revengeful deity, who had made the
stars out of what he had left after completing the world, and
had stuck them in the sky, simply to adorn the night.
I have said this much concerning astronomy because it
was the first splendid step forward ; the first sublime blow
that shattered the lance and shivered the shield of super
stition ; the first real help that man received from heaven,
because it was the first great lever placed beneath the altar
of a false religion ; the first revelation of the infinite to man ;
the first authoritative declaration that the Universe is
governed by law ; the first science that gave the lie direct
to the cosmogony of barbarism, and because it is the sublimest
victory that the reason has achieved.
In speaking of astronomy, I have confined myself to the
discoveries made since the revival of learning. Long ago,
on the banks of the Ganges, ages before Copernicus lived,
Aryabhatta taught that the earth is a sphere, and revolves on
its own axis. This, however, does not detract from the
glory of the great German. The discovery of the Hindoo
had been lost in the midnight of Europe—in the age of
faith, and Copernicus was as much a discoverer as though
Aryabhatta had never lived.
In this short address there is no time to speak of other
sciences, and to point out the particular evidence furnished
�12
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
by each, to establish the dominion of law, nor to more than
mention the name of Descartes, the first who undertook to
give an explanation of the celestial motions, or who formed
the vast and philosophic conception of reducing all the
phenomena of the Universe to the same law; of Montaigne,
one of the heroes of common sense; of Galvani, whose
experiments gave the telegraph to the world ; of Voltaire,
who contributed more than any other of the sons of men to
the destruction of religious intolerance; of Auguste Comte,
whose genius erected to itself a monument that still touches
the stars; of Gutenburg, Watt, Stephenson, Arkwright, all
soldiers of science in the grand army of the dead kings.
The glory of science is, that it is freeing the soul—break
ing the mental manacles—getting the brain out of bondage—•
giving courage to thought—filling the world with mercy,
justice, and joy.
Science found agriculture ploughing with a stick—reaping
with a sickle—commerce at the mercy of the treacherous
waves and the inconstant winds—a world without books—
without schools—man denying the authority of reason,
employing his ingenuity in the manufacture of instruments
of torture, in building inquisitions and cathedrals. It found
the land filled wtth malicious monks—with persecuting
Protestants and the burners of men. It found a world full
of fear; ignorance upon its knees; credulity the greatest
virtue; women treated like beasts of burden; cruelty the
only means of reformation. It found the world at the
mercy of disease and famine; men trying to read their fates
in the stars, and to tell their fortunes by signs and wonders;
generals thinking to conquer their enemies by making the
sign of the cross, or by telling a rosary. It found all history
full of petty and ridiculous falsehood, and the Almighty was
supposed to spend most of his time turning sticks into
snakes, drowning boys for swimming on Sunday, and killing
little children for the purpose of converting their parents.
It found the earth filled with slaves and tyrants, the people
in all countries down-trodden, half naked, half starved,
without hope, and without reason in the world.
Such was the condition of man when the morning of
science dawned upon his brain, and before he had heard the
sublime declaration that the Universe is governed by law.
For the change that has taken place we are indebted solely
to science—the only lever capable of raising mankind.
Abject faith is barbarism ; reason is civilization. To obey
�ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
13
is slavish; to act from a sense of obligation perceived by the
reason is noble. Ignorance worships mystery; reason ex
plains it: the one grovels, the other soars.
No wonder that fable is the enemy of knowledge. A man
with a false diamond shuns the society of lapidaries, and it
is upon this principle that superstition abhors science.
In all ages the people have honoured those who dis
honoured them. They have worshipped their destroyers,
they have canonized the most gigantic liars and ouried the
great thieves in marble and gold. Under the loftiest monu
ment sleeps the dust of murder.
Imposture has always won a crown.
The world is beginning to change because the people are
beginning to think. To think is to advance. Everywhere
the great minds are investigating the creeds and superstitions
of men, the phenomena of nature, and the laws of things.
At the head of this great army of investigators stood
Humboldt—the serene leader of an intellectual host—-a king
by the suffrage of science and the divine right of Genius.
And to-day we are not honouring some butcher called a
soldier, some wily politician called a statesman, some robber
called a king, nor some malicious metaphysician called a
saint. We are honouring the grand Humboldt, whose vic
tories were all achieved in the arena of thought; who
destroyed prejudice, ignorance, and error—not men; who
shed light—not blood, and who contributed to the know
ledge, the wealth and the happiness of all mankind.
His life was pure, his aims lofty, his learning varied and
profound, and his achievements vast.
We honour him because he has ennobled our race, be
cause he has contributed as much as any man living or dead
to the real prosperity of the world. We honour him because
he honoured us; because he laboured for others ; because he
was the most learned man of the most learned nation; be
cause he left a legacy of glory to every human being. For
these reasons he is honoured throughout the world.
Millions are doing- homage to his genius at this moment,
and millions are pronouncing his name with reverence and
recounting what he accomplished.
We associate the name of Humboldt with oceans, palms;
the wide deserts ; the snow-tipped craters of the Andes ; with
primeval forests and European capitals; wildernesses
and universities; with savages and savans; with the
lonely rivers of unpeopled wastes; with peaks and
�14
ORATION ON HUMBOLDT.
pampas, and. steppes, and cliffs, and crags j with the progress
of the world; with every science known to man, and with
every star glittering in the immensity of space.
. Humboldt adopted none of the soul-shrinking creeds of
his day ; wasted none of his time in the stupiditieSj inanities,
and contradiction of theological metaphysics; he did not
endeavour to harmonize the astronomy and geology of a
barbarous people with the science of the nineteenth century.
Never, for one moment, did he abandon the sublime
standard of truth; he investigated, he studied, he thought,
he separated the gold from the dross in the crucible of his
grand brain. He was never found on his knees before the
altar of superstition. He stood erect by the grand tranquil
column of reason. He was an admirer, a lover, and adorer
of nature, and at the age of ninety, bowed by the weight of
nearly a century, covered with the insignia of honour, loved
by a nation, respected by a world, with kings for his servants,
he laid his weary head upon her bosom—upon the bosom of
the Universal mother—and with her loving arms around him,
sank, into that slumber called death.
History added another name to the starry scroll of the
immortals.
The world is his monument; upon the eternal granite of
her hills he inscribed his name, and there upon everlasting
stone his genius wrote this, the sublimest of truths :
“ The Universe is Governed by Law.”
�
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 Humboldt
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: 14 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt was a Prussian polymath, geographer, naturalist, explorer, and influential proponent of Romantic philosophy and science. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Date of publication from Stein's checklist (Item 37f). 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
N377
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philosophy
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 Humboldt), 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
Alexander Von Humboldt
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1bfb79e37cadfec3d931c6d174bf037f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hSaMy6yXyknhJx3TpMxKW-T6GY%7EBixzZ6QgnqVhJ-NhMlP-nktFDa6w65zrsVHLHk460kfo2fYZIp%7EQsdD%7E0iLfySw1pE%7Ei-KJubeE8HdbJOyhR-Yzu8pEVZ0URCdYjoirXC2G3otVXc3cgpI1zI3nSA0AI5uk1dfVIi%7Eu4WFTt8eb8l-cS6Btbwbmgfza2UnITTH4N7Vc2lq2obQVkqP0vVOnHJI1Tbj4FzDjuKJ9X8tELLIKE9TCMDqEsN-u8gmnFFncu554OS23Q%7EKW8pe02DH5tUILY7AR0i65%7EOzDgbxdVRkBsUwCsU1QcTCzLu5FgbR%7EfCHG9-k4-J6cXOuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b56959b5512dd04066e34e3b2de4f4e8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ORATION ON THE GODS.
BY
COLONEL ROBT. G. INGERSOLL.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE SIXPENCE.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH
23, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�ORATION
ON
THE
GODS.
“ An Honest God is the Noblest Work of Man.'"
Nearly every people have created a god, and the god has
always resembled his creators. He hated and loved' what
they hated and loved, and he was invariably found on the
side of those in power. Each god was intensely patriotic,
and detested all nations but his own. All these gods
demanded praise, flattery, and worship. Most of them were
pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has
ever been considered a divine perfume. All these gods
have insisted upon having a vast number of priests, and the
priests have always insisted upon being supported by the
people, and the principal business of these priests has been
to boast about their god, and to insist that he could easily
vanquish all the other gods put together.
These gods have been manufactured after numberless
models, and according to the most grotesque fashions.
Some have a thousand arms, some a hundred heads, some
are adorned with necklaces of living snakes, some are
armed with clubs, some with sword and shield, some with
bucklers, and some have wings as a cherub ; some were in
visible, some would show themselves entire, and some would
only show their backs; some were jealous, some were
foolish, some turned themselves into men, some into swans,
some into bulls, some into doves, and some into Holy
Ghosts, and made love to the beautiful daughters of men.
Some were married—all ought to have been—and some
were considered as old bachelors from all eternity. Some
had children, and the children were turned into gods and
worshipped- as their fathers had been. Most of these gods
were revengeful, savage, lustful, and ignorant. As they
generally depended upon their priests for information, their
ignorance can hardly excite our astonishment.
These gods did not even know the shape of the worlds
they had created, but supposed them perfectly flat. Some
�4
ORATION ON THE GODS.
thought the day could be lengthened by stopping the sun,
that the blowing of horns could throw down the walls of a
city, and all knew so little of the real nature of the people
they had created, that they commanded the people to love
them. Some were so ignorant as to suppose that man could
believe just as he might desire, or as they might command,
and that to be governed by observation, reason, and expe
rience is a most foul and damning sin. None of these gods
could give a true account of the creation of this little earth.
All were wofully deficient in geology and astronomy. As a
rule, they were most miserable legislators, and as executives,
they were far inferior to the average of American presidents..
/"XThese deities have demanded the most abject and de
grading obedience. In order to please them, man must lay
his very face in the dust. Of course, they have always been
partial to the people who created them, and have generally
shown their partiality by assisting those people to rob and
destroy others, and to ravish their wives and daughters.
Nothing is so pleasing to these gods, as the butchery of
unbelievers. Nothing so enrages them, even now, as to
have some one deny their existence.
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god.
Gods were made so easy, and the raw material cost so little,
that generally the god-market was fairly glutted, and heaven
crammed with these phantoms. These gods not only
attended to the skies, but were supposed to interfere in
all the affairs of men. They presided over everybody and
everything. They attended to every department. All was
supposed to be under their immediate control. Nothing
was too small—nothing too large : the falling of sparrows,
the flatulence of the people, and the motions of the planets
were alike attended to by these industrious and observing
deities. From their starry thrones they frequently came to
the earth for the purpose of imparting information, to man.
It is related of one, that he came amid thunderings and
lightnings, in order to tell the people that they should not
cook a kid in its mother’s milk. Some left their shining
abodes to tell women that they should, or should not, have
children—to inform a priest how to cut and wear his apron,
and to give directions as to the proper manner of cleaning
the intestines of a bird.
When the people failed to worship one of these gods, or
failed to feed and clothe his priests (which was much the
same thing), he generally visited them with pestilence and
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
5
famine. Sometimes he allowed some other nation to drag I 1
them into slavery—to sell their wives and children; but - \
generally he glutted his vengeance by murdering their firstborn. The priests always did their whole duty, not only- n
in predicting these calamities, but in proving, when they
did happen, that they were brought upon the people I
because they had not given quite enough to them.
These gods differed justasthenations differed: the greatest
and most powerful had the most powerful god, while the
weaker ones were obliged to content themselves with the
very off-scourings of the heavens. Each of these gods pro
mised happiness here and hereafter to all his slaves, and
threatened to eternally punish all who either disbelieved
in his existence, or suspected that some other god might
be his.superior; but to deny the existence of all gods was, .
and is, the crime of crimes. Redden your hands with
human blood ; blast by slander the fair fame of the inno
cent ; strangle the smiling child upon its mother’s knees ;
deceive, ruin, and desert the beautiful girl who loves and
trusts you—and your case is not hopeless. For all this, 1
and for all these you may be forgiven. For all this, and j
for all these, that bankrupt court established by the gospel
will give you a discharge; but deny the existence of these |
divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and tearful
face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate. Heaven’s I
golden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse I
ringing in your ears, with the brand of infamy upon your
brow, commence your endless wanderings in the lurid
gloom of hell—an immortal vagrant—an eternal outcast—
a deathless convict.
One of these gods, and one who demands our love, our
admiration, and our worship, and one who is worshipped, if
mere heartless ceremony is worship, gave to his chosen
people, Tor their guidance, the following laws of war:—
“ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee
answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that
all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto
thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace
with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shall
besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it
into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with j
the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones,
and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil
�6
ORATION ON THE GODS.
thereof shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the
spoil of thine enemies which the Lord thy God hath given
thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very
far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God
doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive
nothing that breaiheth.”
Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more per
fectly infamous ? Can you believe that such directions were
given by any being except an infinite fiend ? Remember
that the army receiving these instructions was one of inva
sion. Peace was offered upon condition that the people sub
mitting should be the slaves of the invader; but if any
should have the courage to defend their homes, to fight for
the love of wife and child, then the sword was to spare none
—not even the prattling, dimpled babe.
And we are called upon to worship such a god; to get
upon our knees and tell him that he is good, that he is
merciful, that he is just, that he is love. We are asked to
stifle every noble sentiment of the soul, and to trample
under foot all the sweet charities of the heart. Because we
refuse to stultify ourselves—refuse to become liars—we are
denounced, hated, traduced, and ostracised here; and this
same God threatens to torment us in eternal fire the moment
death allows him to fiercely clutch our naked, helpless souls.
Let the people hate—let the god threaten; we will educate
them, and we will despise and defy him.
The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally
horrible, unjust, and atrocious. This is the book to be
read in schools, in order to make our children loving, kind,
and gentle ! This is the book to be recognised in our Con
stitution as the source of all authority and justice !
Strange ! that no one has ever been persecuted by the
church for believing God bad, while hundreds of millions
have been destroyed for thinking him good. The orthodox
church never will forgive the Universalists for saying, “ God
is love.” It has always been considered as one of the very
highest evidences of true and undefiled religion to insist
that all men, women, and children deserve eternal damna
tion. It has always been heresy to say “ God will at last
save all.”
We are asked to justify these frightful passages—these in
famous laws of war—because the Bible is the word of God.
As a matter of fact, there never was, and there never can
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
7
be, an argument, even tending to prove the inspiration of
any book whatever. In the absence of positive evidence,
analogy, and experience, argument is simply impossible, and
at the very best can amount only to a useless agitation of
the air. The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to
be doubted, or even reasoned about, we are mental serfs.
It is infinitely absurd to suppose that a god would address
a communication to intelligent beings, and yet make it a
crime, to be punished in eternal flames, for them to use
their intelligence for the purpose of understanding his com
munication. If we have the right to use our reason, we cer
tainly have the right to act in accordance with it, and no
god can have the right to punish us for such action.
The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is
monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The idea that
faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss,
while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experi
ence merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation,
and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of in
sanity and ignorance, called “ faith.” What man, who ever
thinks, can believe that blood can appease God ? And yet,
our entire system of religion is, based upon that belief. The
Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and, ac
cording to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened
the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salva
tion of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the
human mind can give its assent to such terrible ideas, or
how any sane man can read the Bible, and still believe in
the doctrine of inspiration.
Whether the Bible is true or false, is of no consequence
in comparison with the mental freedom of the race.
Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from
slavery is inestimable.
As long as man believes the Bible to be infallible, that
book is his master. The civilisation of this century is not
the child of faith, but of unbelief—the result of free
thought.
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any
reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of
human invention—of barbarian invention—is to read it.
Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you
would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your
eyes ; drive from your heart the phantom of fear ; push from
th& throne, of yfiur brain the cowled form of superstition—
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
then read the holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you
ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom.,
goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance
and of such atrocity.
Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they
made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced
and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuccessful revolts ;
some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds
of some fleecy cloud, kissing the wife of the god of gods.
These devils generally sympathised with man. There is in
regard to them a most wonderful fact: in nearly all the the
ologies, mythologies, and religions, the devils have been
much more humane and merciful than the gods. No devil
ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and
to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such barbari
ties were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences
were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine,
during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the
withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving
gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality.
One of these gods, according to the account, drowned an
entire world, with the exception of eight persons. The old,
the young, the beautiful, and the helpless were remorselessly
devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tra
gedy .that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived,
was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom
men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such
an act would leave upon the character of a devil ! One of
the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a cap
tured king, hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the.
people. Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such
savagery ?
One of these gods is reported to have given the following
directions concerning human slavery : “If thou buy a Hebrew
servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall
go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall
go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall
go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and
she have borne him sons dr daughters, the wife and her
children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by hinw
self. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my mast»®
my wife, and my children, I will not go out free. ThenJhis
master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also l^ipg
y>
/
'
,s
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
J?
v
.
9
him unto the door, or unto the door-post; and his master
shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve
him for ever.”
According to this, a man was given liberty upon condition.
that he would desert for ever his wife and children. Did
any devil ever force upon a husband, upon a father, so cruel
and so heartless an alternative ? Who can worship such a
god? Who can bend the knee to such a monster ? Who
can pray to such a fiend ?
All these gods threatened to torment for ever the souls of
their enemies. Did any devil ever make so infamous a
threat ? The basest thing recorded of the devil is what he
did concerning Job and his family, and that was done by
the express permission of one of these gods, and to decide
a little difference of opinion between their “ serene high»
nesses” as to the character of “my servant Job.”
The first account we have of the devil is found in that
purely scientific book called Genesis, and is as follows:
“ Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the
field which the Lord God had made, and he said unto the
woman, Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of the fruit
of the trees of the garden ? And the woman said unto the
serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden j
but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye
shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day
ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall
be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman
saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was plea
sant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto
her husband with her, and he did eat. * * * • And the
Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand»
and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of
Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he
drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the garden
of Eden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every
way to keep the way of the tree of life.”
According to this account, the promise of the devil was
fulfilled to the very letter. Adam and Eve did not die,
and they did become as gods, knowing good and evik _
�IO
ORATION ON THE GODS.
The account shows, however, that the gods dreaded edu
cation and knowledge then just as they do now. The
c.lurch still faithfully guards the dangerous tree of know
ledge,. and has exerted in all ages her utmost power to keep
mankind from eating the fruit thereof. The priests have
never ceased repeating the old falsehood and the old
threat : “ Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,
lest ye die.” From every pulpit comes the same cry, born
of the same fear: “ Lest they eat and become as gods,
knowing good and evil.” For this reason, religion hates
science, faith detests reason, theology is the sworn enemy
of philosophy, and the church with its flaming sword still
guards the hated tree, and, like its supposed founder, curses
to the lowest depths the brave thinkers who eat and become
as gods.
If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we
not after all to thank this serpent ? He was the first school
master, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of
ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred
word “liberty,” the creator of ambition, the author of
modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investigation, of progress,
and of civilization.
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith ! Banish
me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge !
Some nations have borrowed their gods ; of this number,
we are compelled to say, is our own. The Jews having
ceased to exist as a nation, and having no further use for a
god, our ancestors appropriated him, and adopted their devil
at the same time. This borrowed god is still an object of
some adoration, and this adopted devil still excites the ap
prehensions of our people. He is still supposed to be
setting his traps and snares for the purpose of catching our
. unwary souls, and is still, with reasonable success, waging
the old war against our god.
To me, it seems easy to account for these ideas concern- *
ing gods and devils. They are a perfectly natural produc
tion. Man has created them all, and under the same cir
cumstances would create them again. Man has not only
created all these gods, but he has created them out of the
materials by which he has been surrounded. Generally he
has modelled them after himself, and has given them hands,
feet, eyes, ears, and organs of speech. Each nation made
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
II
its gods and devils speak its language not only, but put in
their mouths the same mistakes in history, geography, astro
nomy, and in all matters of fact, generally made _ by th®
people. No god was ever in advance of the nation that
created him. The negroes represented their deities with
black skins and curly hair. The Mongolian gave to his a
yellow complexion and dark almond-shaped eyes. The
Jews were not allowed to paint theirs, or we should have
seen Jehovah with a full beard, an oval face, and an aqui
line nose. Jove was a perfect Greek, and Jupiter looked
as though a member of the Roman senate. The gods of
Egypt had the patient face and placid look of the loving
people who made them. The gods of northern countries
were represented warmly clad in robes of fur ; those of the
tropic were naked. The gods of India were often mounted
upon elephants ; those of some islanders were great swim
mers, and the deities of the Arctic zone were passionately
fond of whale’s blubber. Nearly all people have carved or
painted representations of their gods, 'and these representa
tions were, by the lower classes, generally treated as the real
gods, and to these images and idols they addressed prayers
and offered sacrifice.
In some countries, even at this day, if the people, after
long praying do not obtain their desires, they turn their
images off as impotent gods, or upbraid them in a most re
proachful manner, loading them with blows and curses.
“ How now, dog of a spirit,” they say, “ we give you lodging
in a magnificent temple, we gild you with gold, feed you with
the choicest food, and offer incense to you, yet after all this
care you are so ungrateful as to refuse us what we ask.”
Hereupon they will pull the god down and drag him through
the filth of the street. ■ If in the meantime it happens that
they obtain their request, then, with a great deal of ceremony,
'they wash him clean, carry him back and place him in his
temple again, where they fall down and make excuses for
what they have done. “ Of a truth,” say they, “we were a
little too hasty, and you were a little too long in your grant.
Why should you bring this beating on yourself? But what
is done cannot be undone. Let us not think of it any more.
If you will forget what is past we will gild you over again
brighter than before.”
Man has never been at a loss for gods. He has worshipped
almost everything, including the vilest and most disgusting
has worshipped fire, earth, air, water, light, stars,
�12
ORATION ON THE GODS.
and for hundreds of ages prostrated himself before enormous
snakes. Savage tribes often make gods of articles they get
from civilised people. The Todas worship a cow-bell. The
Kotas worship two silver plates, which they regard as hus
band and wife, and another tribe manufactured a god out of
a king of hearts.
Man having always been the physical superior of woman,
accounts for the fact that most of the high gods have been
males. Had woman been the physical superior, the powers
supposed to be the rulers of Nature would have been women,
and instead of being represented in the apparel of man, they
would have luxuriated in trains, low-necked dresses, laces, and
back-hair.
Nothing can be plainer than that each nation gives to its
god its peculiar characteristics, and that every individual gives
to his god his personal peculiarities.
Man has no ideas, and can have none, except those sug
gested by his surroundings. He cannot conceive of anything
utterly unlike what he has seen or felt. He can exaggerate,
diminish, combine, separate, deform, beautify, improve, mul
tiply, and compare what he sees, what he feels, what he hears,
and all of which he takes cognizance through the medium of
the senses ; but he cannot create. Having seen exhibitions
of power, he can say, omnipotent. Having lived, he can
say, immortality. Knowing something of time, he can say
eternity. Conceiving something of intelligence, he can say,
God. Having seen exhibitions of malice, he can say, devil.
A few gleams of happiness having fallen athwart the gloom
of his life, he can say, heaven. Pain, in its numberless
forms, having been experienced, he can say, hell. Yet all
these ideas have a foundation in fact, and only a foundation.
The superstructure has been reared by exaggerating,
diminishing, combining, separating, deforming, beautifying,
improving or multiplying realities, so that the edifice, or
fabric, is but the incongruous grouping of what man has per
ceived through the medium of the senses. It is as though
we should give to a lion the wings of an eagle, the hoofs
of a bison, the tail of a horse, the pouch of a kangaroo,
and the trunk of an elephant. We have in imagination
created an impossible monster. And yet the various parts
of this monster really exist. So it is with all the gods that
man has made.
Beyond nature man cannot go, even in thought; above nature
he cannot rise, below nature he cannot fall.
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
13
Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were
produced by some intelligent powers, and with direct refer
ence to him. To preserve friendly relations with these
powers was, and still is, the object of all religions. Man
knelt through fear and to implore assistance, or through
gratitude for some favour which he supposed had been ren
dered. He endeavoured by supplication to appease some
being who, for some reason, had, as he believed, become
enraged. The lightning and thunder terrified him. In the
presence of the volcano he sank upon his knees. The
great forests filled with wild and ferocious beasts, the mon
strous serpent crawling in mysterious depths, the boundless
sea, the flaming comets, the sinister eclipses, the awful
calmness of the stars, and, more than all, the perpetual pre
sence of death, convinced him that he was the sport and
prey of unseen and malignant powers. The strange and
frightful diseases to which he was subject, the freezings and
burnings of fever, the contortions of epilepsy, the sudden
palsies, the darkness of night, and the wild, terrible, and
fantastic dreams that filled his brain, satisfied him that he
was haunted and pursued by countless spirits of evil. For
some reason he supposed that these spirits differed in power
—that they were not all alike malevolent—that the higher
controlled the lower, and that his very existence depended
upon gaining the assistance of the more powerful. For this
purpose he resorted to prayer, to flattery, to worship, and to
sacrifice. These ideas appear to have been almost universal
in savage man.
For ages, all nations supposed that the sick and insane
were possessed by evil spirits. For thousands of years the
practice of medicine consisted in frightening these spirits
away. Usually the priests would make the loudest and
most discordant noises possible. They would blow horns,
beat upon rude drums, clash cymbals, and in the meantime
utter the most unearthly yells. If the noise-remedy failed,
they would implore the aid of some more powerful spirit.
To pacify these spirits was considered of infinite import
ance. The poor barbarian, knowing that men could be
softened by gifts, gave to these spirits that which to him
seemed of the most value. With bursting heart he would
offer the blood of his dearest child. It was impossible for
him to conceive of a god utterly unlike himself, and he
naturally supposed that these powers of the air would be
affected a little at the sight of so great and so deep a sorrow.
�14
ORATION ON THE GODS.
It was with the barbarians then as with the civilized
now : one class lived upon and made merchandise of the
fears of another. Certain persons took it upon themselves
to appease the gods, and to instruct the people in their
duties to these unseen powers. This was the origin of the
priesthood. The priest pretended to stand between the
wrath of the gods and the helplessness of man. He was
man’s attorney at the court of heaven. He carried to the
invisible world a flag of truce, a protest and a request. He
came back with a command, with authority, and with power.
Man fell upon his knees before his own servant, and the
priest, taking advantage of the awe inspired by his supposed
influence with the gods, made of his fellow-man a cringing
hypocrite and slave. Even Christ, the supposed son of God,
taught that persons were possessed of evil spirits, and fre
quently, according to the account, gave proof of his divine
origin and mission by frightening droves of devils out of his
unfortunate countrymen. Casting out devils was his prin
cipal employment, and the devils thus damaged generally
took occasion to acknowledge him as the true Messiah;
which was not only very kind of them, but quite fortunate
for him. The religious people have always regarded the
testimony of these devils as perfectly conclusive, and the
writers of the New Testament quote the words of these imps
of darkness with great satisfaction.
The fact that Christ could withstand the temptations of
the devil was considered as conclusive evidence that he was
assisted by some god, or at least by some being superior to
man. St. Matthew gives an account of an attempt made by
the devil to tempt the supposed son of God; and it has
always excited the wonder of Christians that the temptation
was so nobly and ^heroically withstood. The account to
which I refer is as follows :
“Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness
to be tempted of the devil. And when the tempter came
to him, he said, ‘ If thou be the son of God command that
these stones be made bread.’ But he answered and said,
‘ It is written : man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then
the devil taketh him up into the holy city and.setteth him
upon a pinnacle of the temple and saith unto him, If thou
be the son of God, cast thyself down; for it is written, He
shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time
thou shalt dash thy foot against a stone.’ Jesus said unto
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
IS
him, ‘ It is written, again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God.’ Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding
high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, ‘All
these will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship
me.’ ”
The Christians now claim that Jesus was God. If he
was God, of course the devil knew that fact, and yet, accord
ing to this account the devil took the omnipotent God and
placed him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and endeavoured
to induce him to dash himself against the earth. Failing in
that, he took the creator, and owner, and governor of the
universe up into an exceeding high mountain, and offered
him this world—this grain of sand, if he, the God of all
the worlds, would fall down and worship him, a poor devil,
without even a tax title to one foot of dirt! Is it possible the
devil was such an idiot ? Should any great credit be given to
this deity for not being caught with such chaff? Think of it !
The devil—the prince of sharpers—the king of cunning
—the master of finesse, trying to bribe God with a grain
of sand that belonged to God !
Is there in all the religious literature of the world anything,
more grossly absurd than this ?
These devils, according to the Bible, were of various
kinds,—some could speak and hear, others were deaf and
dumb. All could not be cast out in the same way. The
deaf and dumb spirits were quite difficult to deal with.
St. Mark tells of a gentleman who brought his son to Christ.
The boy, it seems, was possessed of a dumb spirit, over
which the disciples had no control. “Jesus said unto the
spirit, ‘ Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee come out
of him, and enter no more into him.’ ” Whereupon, the
deaf spirit (having heard what was said) cried out (being
dumb) and immediately vacated the premises. The ease
with which Christ controlled this deaf and dumb spirit
excited the wonder of his disciples, and they asked him
privately why they could not cast that spirit out. To whom
he replied : “ This kind can come forth by nothing but
prayer and fasting.” Is there a Christian in the whole world
who would believe such a story, if found in any other book ?
The trouble is, these pious people shut up their reason, and
then open their Bibles.
In the olden times, the existence of devils was universally
admitted. The people had no doubt upon that subject, and
�16
ORATION ON THE GODS.
from such belief it followed as a matter of course, that a
person, in order to vanquish these devils, had either to be a
god, or assisted by one. All founders of religions have
established their claims to divine origin by controlling evil
spirits and suspending the laws of nature. Casting out
devils was a certificate of divinity. A prophet, unable to
cope with the powers of darkness, was regarded with con
tempt. The utterance of the highest and noblest senti
ments, the most blameless and holy life, commanded but
little respect, unless accompanied by power to work miracles
and command spirits.
This belief in good and evil powers had its origin in the
fact that man was surrounded by what he was pleased to
■call good and evil phenomena. Phenomena affecting man
pleasantly were ascribed to good spirits, while those affecting
him unpleasantly or injuriously were ascribed to evil spirits.
It being admitted that all phenomena were produced by
spirits, the spirits were divided according to the pheno
mena, and the phenomena were good or bad as they affected
man. Good spirits were supposed to be the authors of good
phenomena, and evil spirits of the evil: so that the idea of
a devil has been as universal as the idea of a god.
Many writers maintain that an idea to become universal
must be true ; that all universal ideas are innate; and that
innate ideas can not be false. If the fact, that an idea has
been universal, proves that it is innate, and if the fact, that
an idea is innate, proves that it is correct, then the believers
in innate ideas must admit that, the evidence of a god
superior to nature, and of a devil superior to nature, is
exactly the same, and that the existence of such a devil
must be as self-evident as the existence of such a god. The
truth is, a god was inferred fropi good, and a devil from bad
phenomena. And it is just as natural and logical to sup
pose that a devil would cause happiness, as to suppose that
a god would produce misery. Consequently, if an intelli
gence, infinite and supreme, is the immediate author, of all
phenomena, it is difficult to determine whether such intelli
gence is the friend or enemy of man. If phenomena were
all good, we might say they were all produced by a perfectly
beneficent being. If they were all bad, we might say they
were produced by a perfectly malevolent power ; but as
phenomena are, as they affect man, both good and bad,
they must be produced by different and antagonistic spirits;
by one who is sometimes actuated by kindness, and some
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
17
times by malice ; or all must be produced of necessity, and
without reference to their consequences upon man.
The foolish doctrine, that all phenomena can be traced to
the interference of good and evil spirits, has been, and still
is, almost universal. That most people still believe in some
spirit that can change the natural order of events, is proven
by the fact, that nearly all resort to prayer. Thousands, at
this very moment, are probably imploring some supposed
power to interfere in their behalf. Some want health
restored; some ask that the loved and absent be watched
over and protected; some pray for riches ; some for rain ;
some want diseases stayed ; some vainly ask for food ; some
ask for revivals ; a few ask for more wisdom, and now and
then one tells the Lord to do as he may think best. Thou
sands ask to be protected from the devil; some, like David,
pray for revenge, and some implore, even God, not to lead
them into temptation. All these prayers rest upon, and are
produced by the idea that some power not only can, but
probably will, change the order of the universe. This belief
has been among the great majority of tribes and nations.
All sacred books are filled with the accounts of such inter
ferences, and our own Bible is no exception to this rule.
If we believe in a power superior to nature, it is perfectly
natural to suppose that such power can and will interfere in
the affairs of this world. If there is no interference, of what
practical use can such power be ? The scriptures give us the
most wonderful accounts of divine interference : Animals
talk like men; springs gurgle from dry bones ; the sun and
moon stop in the heavens in order that General Joshua may
have more time to murder; the shadow on a dial goes back
ten degrees to convince a petty king of a barbarous people
that he is not going to die of a boil; fire refuses to burn ;
water positively declines to seek its level, but stands up like
a wall; grains of sand become lice; common walking-sticks,
to gratify a mere freak, twist themselves into serpents, and
then swallow each other by way of exercise; murmuring
streams, laughing at the attraction of gravitation, run up hill
for years, following wandering tribes from a pure love of
frolic : prophecy becomes altogether easier than history ; the
sons of God become enamoured of the world’s girls; women
are changed into salt for the purpose of keeping a great event
fresh in the minds of men; an excellent article of brimstone
is imported from heaven free of duty ; clothes refuse to wear
out for forty years; birds keep restaurants and feed wanB
�18
ORATION ON THE GODS.
dering prophets free of expense; bears tear children in
pieces for laughing at old men without wigs; muscular
development depends upon the length of one’s hair; dead
people come to life, simply to get a joke on their enemies
and heirs; witches and wizards converse freely with the
souls of the departed, and God himself becomes a stone
cutter and engraver, after having been a tailor and dress
maker.
The veil between heaven and earth was always rent or
lifted. The shadows of this world, the radiance of heaven,
and the glare of hell mixed and mingled until man became
uncertain as to which country he really inhabited. Man
dwelt in an unreal world. He mistook his ideas, his dreams,
for real things. His fears became terrible and malicious
monsters. He lived in the midst of furies and fairies,
nymphs and naiads, goblins and ghosts, witches and wizards,
sprites and spooks, deities and devils. The obscure and
gloomy depths were filled with claw and wing—with beak
and hoof—with leering looks and sneering mouths—with the
malice of deformity—with the cunning of hatred, and with
all the slimy forms that fear can draw and paint upon the
shadowy canvas of the dark.
It is enough to make one almost insane with pity to think
what man in the long night has suffered ; of the tortures he
has endured, surrounded, as he supposed, by malignant
powers and clutched by the fierce phantoms of the air. No
wonder that he fell upon his trembling knees—that he built
altars and reddened them even with his own blood. No
wonder that he implored ignorant priests and impudent magi
cians for aid. No wonder that he crawled grovelling in the
dust to the temple’s door, and there, in the insanity of
despair, besought the deaf gods to hear his bitter cry of
agony and fear.
The savage, as he emerges from a state of barbarism,
gradually loses faith in his idols of wood and stone, and in
their place puts a multitude of spirits. As he advances in
knowledge, he generally discards the petty spirits, and in
their stead believes in one, whom he supposes to be infinite
and supreme. Supposing this great spirit to be superior to
nature, he offers worship or flattery in exchange for assist
ance. At last, finding that he obtains no aid from this sup
posed deity—finding that every search after the absolute must
of necessity end in failure—finding that man cannot by any
possibility conceive of the conditionless—he begins to inves-
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
í /•
il
19
tigate the facts by which he is surrounded, and to depend
upon himself.
The people are beginning to think, to reason, and to
investigate. Slowly, painfully, but surely, the gods are being
driven from the earth. Only upon rare occasions are they,
even by the most religious, supposed to interfere with the
affairs of men. In most matters we are at last supposed to
be free. Since the invention of steamships and railways, so
that the products of all countries can be easily interchanged,
the gods have quit the business of producing famine. Now
and then they kill a child because it is idolized by its
parents. As a rule they have given up causing accidents on
railroads, exploding boilers, and bursting kerosene lamps.
Cholera, yellow fever, and small-pox are still considered
heavenly weapons; but measles, itch, and ague are now at
tributed to natural causes. As a general thing, the gods
have stopped drowning children, except as a punishment for
violating the Sabbath. They still pay some attention to the
affairs of kings, men of genius, and persons of great wealth;
but ordinary people are left to shirk for themselves as best
they may. In wars between great nations, the gods still
interfere; but in prize fights, the best man, with an honest
referee, is almost sure to win.
The church cannot abandon the idea of special provi
dence. To give up that doctrine, is to give up all. The
church must insist that prayer is answered—that some power
superior to nature hears the grants and requests of the sin
cere and humble Christian, and that this same power in some
mysterious way provides for all.
A devout clergyman sought every opportunity to impress
upon the mind of his son the fact that God takes care of all
creatures ; that the falling sparrow attracts his attention, and
that his loving kindness is over all his works. Happening,
one day, to see a crane wading in quest of food, the good
man pointed out to his son the perfect adaptation of the
crane to get his living in that manner. “ See,” said he,
“ how his legs are formed for wading ! What a long, slender
bill he has ! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when
putting them in or drawing them out of the water? He
does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enabled to
approach the fish without giving them any notice of Ms
arrival. My son,” said he, “ it is impossible to look at
that bird without recognizing the design, as well as the
goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistB 2
�20
ORATION ON THE GODS.
ence.” “ Yes,” replied the boy, “ I think I see the goodness
of God, at least so far as the crane is concerned : but after
all, father, don’t you think the arrangement a little tough on
the fish ?”
Even the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in
any great amount of interference by the gods in this age of
the world, still thinks that, in the beginning, some god made
the laws governing the universe. He believes that in con
sequence of these laws a man can lift a greater weight with,
than without, a lever ; that this god so made matter, and so
established the order of things, that two bodies cannot
occupy the same space at the same time; so that a body
once put in motion will keep moving until it is stopped; so
that it is a greater distance around, than across a circle; so
that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of five or
seven. He insists that it took a direct interposition of pro
vidence to make a whole greater than a part, and that had
it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one
might have been more than twice two, and sticks and strings
might have had only one end apiece. Like the old Scotch
divine, he thanks God that Sunday comes at the end instead
of in the middle of the week, and that death comes at the
close instead of at the commencement of life, thereby giving
us time to prepare for that holy day and that most solemn
event. These religious people see nothing but design every
where, and personal, intelligent interference in everything;
They insist that the universe has been created', and that the
adaptation of means to ends is perfectly' apparent. They
point us to the sunshine, to the flowers, to the April rain,
and to all there is of beauty and of use in the world. Did
it ever occur to them that a cancer is as beautiful in its de
velopment as is the reddest rose? That what they are
pleased to call the adaptation of means to ends, is as apparent
in the cancer as in the April rain? How beautiful the process
of digestion ! By what ingenious methods the blood is
poisoned so that the cancer shall have food ! By what won
derful contrivances the entire system of man is made to pay
tribute to this divine and charming cancer ! See by what
admirable instrumentalities it feeds itself from the surround
ing quivering, dainty flesh ! See how it gradually, but surely,
expands and grows ! By what marvellous mechanism it is
supplied with long and slender roots that reach out to the
?, most secret nerves of pain for sustenance and life ! What
* beautiful colours it presents ! Seen through the microscoj^
�ORATION ON THE GODS,
2I
a miracle of order and beauty. AU the ingenuity gf
man cannot stop its growth. Think of the amount qf
thought it must have required to invent a way by which the
life of one man might be given to produce one cancer ? Is
it possible to look upon it and doubt that there is design ini
the universe, and that the inventor of this wonderful cancer^
must be infinitely powerful, ingenious, and good ?
We are told that the universe was designed and created,
and that it is absurd to suppose that matter has existed
from eternity, but that it is perfectly self-evident that a god
has.
If a god created the universe, then, there must have been
a time when he commenced to create. Back of that time
there must have been an eternity, during which there had
existed nothing—absolutely nothing—except this supposed
god. According to this theory, this god spent an eternity, Í
so to speak, in an infinite vacuum, and in perfect idleness. A
Admitting that a god did' create the universe, the question then arises, of what did he create it ? It certainly was«
not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of A
a raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, thenBB
that the god must have made the universe out of himself, &
he being the only existence. The universe is material, and
if it was made of god, the god must have been material«
With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander, of K
Miletus, said: “ Creation is the decomposition of the in- $
finite.”
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to i|
the sun, only for the fact that it is attracted by other H
worlds, and those worlds must be attracted by other worlds >
still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves ■
the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe ■
has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god
is left ?
The idea of a creative deity is gradually being abandoned,
and nearly all truly scientific minds admit that matter must
have existed from eternity. It is indestructible, and the
indestructible cannot be created. It is the crowning glory
of our century to have demonstrated the indestructibility
and the eternal persistence of force. Neither matter nor
force can be increased nor diminished. Force cannot exist
apart from matter. Matter exists only in connection with
force, and consequently a force apart from matter, and
superior to nature, is a demonstrated impossibility.
it is
�22
ORATION ON THE GODS.
Force, then, must have also existed from eternity, and
could not have been created. Matter, in its countless
forms, from dead earth to the eyes of those we love, and
force in all its manifestations, from simple motion to the
* grandest thought, deny creation and defy control.
J
Thought is a form of force. We walk with the same
1
force with which we think. Man is an organism, that
| changes several forms of force into thought-force. Man is
£ a machine, into which we put what we call food, and pro
li,. duce what we call thought. . Think of that wonderful
k chemistry by which bread was changed into the divine
A tragedy of Hamlet!
E, A god must not only be material, but he must be an
Morganism, capable of changing other forms of force into
■ thought-force. This is what we call eating. Therefore, if
Shhe god thinks, he must eat, that is to say, he must of
■ necessity have some means of supplying the force with
'Ij which to think. It is impossible to conceive of a being
■ who can eternally impart force to matter, and yet have no
■ means of supplying the force thus imparted.
'
If neither matter nor force were created, what evidence
have we then of the existence of a power superior to nature ?
i The theologian will probably reply, “ We have law and
I order, cause and effect, and besides all this, matter could
1 not have put- itself in motion.”
' Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there is
no being superior is so, then you that matter and and
Ibe an effect. If thisto nature, and have matter, force,force
have existed from eternity. Now suppose that two atoms
should come together, would there be an effect ? Yes.
Suppose they came in exactly opposite directions with equal
force, they would be stopped, to say the least. This would
effect without a being superior to nature. Now, suppose
that two other atoms, just like the first two, should come
together under precisely the same circumstances, would not
the effect be exactly the same ? Yes. Like causes produc
ing like effects is what we mean by law and order. Then
we have matter, force, effect, law, and order without a being
Superior to nature. Now, we know that every effect must
also be a cause, and that every cause must be an effect.
The atoms coming together did produce an effect, and as
"every effect must also be a cause, the effect produced by
the collision of the atoms, must as to something else have
tbeen a cause. Then we have matter, force, law, order,
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
I
23
cause, and effect, without a being superior to nature. Nothing
is left for the supernatural but empty space. His throng
is a void, and his boasted realm is without matter, without
force, without law, without cause, and without effect.
But what put all this matter in motion ? If matter ancM
force have existed from eternity, then matter must havell
always been in motion. There can be no force without
motion. Force is forever active, and there is, and there!;
can be, no cessation. If, therefore, matter and force have»
existed from eternity, so has motion. In the whole universe
there is not even one atom in a state of rest.
A deity outside of nature exists in nothing, and is nothing.
Nature embraces with infinite arms all matter and all force!
That which is beyond her grasp is destitute of both, ano
can hardly be worth the worship and adoration even of a
man.
There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a
power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by
breaking, if only for one moment, the continuity of cause
and effect. Pluck from the endless chain of existence one
little link; stop for one instant the grand procession, and
you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a
master. Change the fact, just for one second, that matter
attracts matter, and a god appears.
The rudest savage has always known this fact, and for
that reason always demanded the evidence of miracle. The
founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine~
cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a
simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple
that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance, this
was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost
boundless. - To him the marvellous was the beautiful, the
mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion
has for its foundation a miracle—that is to say, a violation
■of nature—that is to say, a falsehood.
No one, in the world’s whole history, ever attempted to
substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assist
ance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself
by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed,
and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and
until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the
existence of any power superior to and independent of
nature.
�24
ORATION ON THE GODS.
The church wishes us to believe. Let the church, or one
of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will
believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this
superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will
admit the truth of your assertions.
We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the
drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We
have read your Bible, and the works of your best minds.
We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans, and your
reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing.
We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches
for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews
and under your pulpits, and implore you for just one fact.
We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale
miracles. We want a this year’s fact. We ask only one.
Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too
ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two
thousand years. Their reputation for “ truth and veracity ”
in the neighbourhood where they resided is wholly un
known to us. Give us a new miracle, and substantiate it by
witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living in this
world. Do not send us to' Jericho to hear the winding
horns, nor put us in the fire with Meshech, Shadrach, and
Abednego. Do not compel us to navigate the sea with
Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr. Ezekiel. There is no
sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with Samson. We
have positively lost all interest in that little speech so
eloquently delivered by Balaam’s inspired donkey. It is
worse than useless to show us fishes with money in their
mouths, and call our attention to vast multitudes stuffing
themselves with five crackers and two sardines. We de
mand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the
church furnish at least one, or for ever after hold her peace.
In the olden time, the church, by violating the order of
nature, proved the existence of her God. At that time
miracles were performed with the most astonishing ease.
They became so common that the church ordered her
priests to desist. And now this same church—the people
having found some little sense—admits, not only that she
cannot perform a miracle, but insists’ that the absence of
miracle—the steady, unbroken march of cause and effect—
prove the existence of a power superior to nature. The fact
is, however, that the indissoluble chain of cause and effect
proves exactly the contrary.
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
25
Sir William Hamilton, one of the pillars of modern
theology, in discussing this very subject, uses the following
language : “ The phenomena of matter, taken by . them
selves, so far from warranting any inference to the existence
of a god, would, on the contrary, ground even an argument
to his negation. The phenomena of the material world are
subjected to immutable laws ; are produced and reproduced
in the same invariable succession, and manifest only the
blind force of a mechanical necessity.”
Nature is but an endless series of efficient causes. She
cannot create, but she eternally transforms. There was no
beginning, and there can be no end.
The best minds, even in the religious world, admit that
in material nature there is no evidence of what they are
pleased to call a god. They find their evidence in the
phenomena of intelligence, and very innocently assert that
intelligence is above, and, in fact, opposed to nature, dhey
insist that man, at least, is a special creation; that he has
somewhere in his brain a divine spark, a little portion of the
“ Great First Cause.” They say that matter cannot produce
thought, but that thought can produce matter. They tell
us that man has intelligence, and, therefore, there must be
in intelligence greater than his? Why not say, God has
intelligence, therefore there must be an intelligence greater
than his ? So far as we know there is no intelligence apart
from matter. We' cannot conceive of thought, except as
produced within a brain.
The science by means of which they demonstrate the
existence of an impossible intelligence, and an incompre
hensible power, is called metaphysics, or theology. The
theologians admit that the phenomena of matter tend, at
least, to disprove the existence of any power superior to
nature, because in such phenomena we see nothing but an
endless chain of efficient causes—nothing but the force of
a mechanical necessity. They therefore appeal to what
they denominate the phenomena of mind to establish this
superior power.
x
The trouble is, that in the phenomena of mind we find ’
the same endless chain of efficient causes, the same mechameal necessity. Every thought must have had an efficient |
cause. Every motive, every desire, every fear, hope, and
dream must have been necessarily produced. There is no
room in the mind of man for providence or chance. The |<
facts and forces governing thought are as absolute as those »
�26
ORATION ON THE GODS.
governing the motions of the planets« A poem is produced
by the forces of nature, and is as necessarily and naturally
produced as mountains and seas. You will seek in vain for
a thought in man s brain without its efficient cause. Every
mental operation is the necessary result of certain facts and
conditions. Mental phenomena are considered more com
plicated than those of matter, and, consequently, more mys
terious. Being more mysterious, they are considered better
evidence of the existence of a god. No one infers a god
¡from the simple, from the known, from what is under
stood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and in|comprehensible. Our ignorance is God, what we know is
science.
~
When we abandon the doctrine that some infinite being
created matter and force, and enacted a code of laws for
their government, the idea of interference will be lost. The
real priest will then be, not the mouthpiece of some pre
tended deity, but the interpreter of nature. From that
moment the church ceases to exist. The tapers will die
out upon the dusty altar; the moths will eat the fading
velvet of pulpit and pew ; the Bible will take its place with
the Shastras, Puranas, Vedas, Eddas, Sagas, and Korans,
and the fetters of a degrading faith will fall from the minds
•of men.
“ But,” says the religionist, “you cannot explain every-,
thing; you cannot understand everything; and that which
you cannot explain, that which you do not comprehend, is
my God.”
We are explaining more every day. We are understanding
more every day ; consequently your God is growing smaller
every day.
Nothing daunted, the religionist then insists, that nothing
can exist without a cause, except cause, and that this uncaused
cause is God.
To this we again reply: Every cause must produce an
effect, because until it does produce an effect, it is not a
cause. Every effect must in its turn become a cause.
Therefore, in the nature of things, there cannot be a last
cause, for the reason that a so-called last cause would neces
sarily produce an effect, and that effect must of necessity be
come a cause. The converse of these propositions must be
true. Every effect must have had a cause, and every cause
must have been an effect. Therefore there could have been no
first cause. A first cause is just as impossible as a last effect.
1
41
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
27
Beyond the universe there is nothing, and within the uni
verse the supernatural does not and can not exist.
The moment these great truths are understood and ad
mitted, a belief in general or special providence becomes
impossible. From that instant men will cease their vain
efforts to please an imaginary being, and will give their time
and attention to the affairs of this world. They will abandon
the idea of attaining any object by prayer and supplication.
The element of uncertainty will, in a great measure, be
removed from the domain of the future, and man, gathering
courage from a succession of victories over the obstructions
of nature, will attain a serene grandeur unknown to the dis
ciples of any superstition. The plans of mankind will no
longer be interfered with by the finger of a supposed omni»
potence, and no one will believe that nations or individuals
are protected or destroyed by any deity whatever. Science,
freed from the chains of pious custom and evangelical pre
judice, will, within her sphere, be supreme. The mind will
investigate without reverence, and publish its conclusion
without fear. Agassiz will no longer hesitate to declare the
Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent with the demon
strated truths of geology, and will cease pretending. any
reverence for the Jewish scriptures. The moment science
succeeds in rendering the church powerless for evil, the real
thinkers will be outspoken. The little flags of truce carried
by timid philosophers, will disappear, and the cowardly
parley will give place to victory—lasting and universal.
If we admit that some infinite being has controlled the
destinies of persons and peoples, history becomes a most
cruel and bloody farce. Age after age, the strong have
trampled upon the weak ; the crafty and heartless have en
snared and enslaved the simple and innocent, and nowhere,
in all the annals of mankind, has any god succoured the
oppressed.
Man should cease to expect aid from on high. By thy!
time he should know that heaven has no ear to hear, and no.
hand to help. The present is the necessary child of all the
past. There has been no chance, and there can be no inter
ference.
If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them. If
slaves are freed, man must free them. If new truths are
discovered, man must discover them. If the naked are
clothed; if the hungry are fed ; if justice is done; if labour
is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the
�28
ORATION.ON THE GODS.
defenceless are protected, and if the right finally triumphs,
all must be the work of man. The grand victories of the
future must be won by man, and by man alone.
Nature, so far as we can discern, without passion and with
out intention, forms, transforms, and re-transforms for ever.
She neither weeps nor rejoices. She produces man without
purpose, and obliterates him without regret. She knows no
distinction between the beneficial and the hurtful. Poison
and nutrition, pain and joy, life and death, smiles and tears
are alike to her. She is neither merciful nor cruel. She
cannot be flattered by worship nor melted by tears. She
does not know even the attitude of prayer. She appreciates
no difference between poison in the fangs of snakes and
mercy in the hearts of men. Only through man does nature
take cognizance of the good, the true, and the beautiful; and,
so far as we know, man is the highest intelligence.
And yet man continues to believe that there is some power
independent of and superior to nature, and still endeavours,
by form, ceremony, supplication, hypocrisy, and sacrifice, to
obtain its aid. His best energies have been wasted in the
service of this phantom. The horrors of witchcraft were all
born of an ignorant belief in the existence of a totally de
praved being superior to nature, acting in perfect indepen
dence of her laws, and all religious superstition has had for
its basis a belief in at least two beings, one good and the
other bad, both of whom could arbitrarily change the order
of the universe. The history of religion is simply the story
of man’s efforts in all ages to avoid one of these powers, and
to pacify the other. Both powers have inspired little else
than abject fear. The cold, calculating sneer of the devil
and the frown of God were equally terrible. In any event,
man’s fate was to be arbitrarily fixed for ever by an unknown
power superior to all law, and to all fact. Until this belief
is thrown aside, man must consider himself the slave of
phantom, masters—neither of whom promise liberty in this
world nor the next.
Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading Bibles
will not protect him from the blasts of winter; but houses,
fires, and clothing will. To prevent famine, one plough is
worth a million sermons, and even patent medicines will cure
more diseases than all the prayftrs uttered since the beginning
of the world.
Although many eminent men have endeavoured to har
monize necessity and free will, the existence of evil, and
�OkAÏIOK '©W THE GObS.
«9
the infinite power and goodness of God, they have only suc
ceeded in producing learned and ingenious failures. In>
mense efforts have been made to reconcile ideas utterly
inconsistent with the facts by which we are surrounded, and
all persons who have failed to perceive the pretended recon
ciliation have been denounced as infidels, atheists, and
scoffers. The whole power of the church has been brought
to bear against philosophers and scientists in order to com
pel a denial of the authority of demonstration, and to induce
some Judas to betray Reason, one of the saviours of man
kind.
During that frightful period known as the 11 Dark Ages/*
Faith reigned, with scarcely a rebellious subject. Her
temples were “ carpeted with knees,” and the wealth of
nations adorned her countless shrines. The great painters
prostituted their genius to immortalise her vagaries, while
the poets enshrined them in song. At her bidding, man
covered the earth with blood. The scales of justice were
turned with her gold, and for her use were invented all the
cunning instruments of pain. She built cathedrals for God,
and dungeons for men. She peopled the clouds with angels
and the earth with slaves. For centuries the world was re
tracing its steps — going steadily back towards barbaric
night. A few infidels—a few heretics cried, “ Halt !” to the
great rabble of ignorant devotion, and made it’ possible for
the genius of the nineteenth century to revolutionise the
cruel creeds and superstitions of mankind.The thoughts of man, in order to be of any real worth,
must be free. Under the influence of fear, the brain is
paralysed, «and instead of bravely solving a problem for
itself, trembling adopts the solution of another. As long as
a majority of men will cringe to the very earth before some
petty prince or king, what must be the infinite abjectness of
their little souls in the presence of their supposed creator
and God ? Under such circumstances, what can their
thoughts be worth ?
The originality of repetition, and the mental vigour of
acquiescence, are all that we have any right to expect from
the Christian world. As long as every question is answered
by the word “ god,” scientific inquiry is simply impossible.
As fast as phenomena are satisfactorily explained, the
•domain of the power, supposed to be superior to nature,
must decrease, while the horizon of the known must as con
stantly continue to’ enlarge.
�3°
ORATION ON THE GUIRE
It is no longer satisfactory to account for the fall and rise
of nations by saying :—“ It is the will of God.” Such an
explanation puts ignorance and education upon an exact
equality, and does away with the idea of really accounting
for anything whatever.
Will the religionist pretend that the real end of science
is, to ascertain how, and why, God acts ? Science, from
such a standpoint, would consist in investigating the law of
arbitrary action, and in a grand endeavour to ascertain the
rules necessarily obeyed by infinite caprice.
From a philosophic point of view, science is a knowledge
of the laws of life ; of the conditions of happiness ; of the
facts by which we are surrounded, and the relations we sus
tain to men and things—by means of which, man, so to
speak, subjugates nature, and bends the elemental powers
to his will, making blind force the servant of his brain.
A belief in special providence does away with the spirit
of investigation, and is inconsistent with personal effort.
Why should man endeavour to thwart the designs of God ?
“ Which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to
his stature ?” Under the influence of this belief, man, bask
ing in the sunshine of a delusion, considers the lilies of the
field and refuses to take any thought for the morrow. Be• ' lieving himself in the power of an infinite being, who can,
at any moment, dash him to the lowest hell or raise him to
the highest heaven, he necessarily abandons the idea of ac
complishing anything by his own efforts. As long as this
belief was general, the world was filled with ignorance,
superstition, and misery. The energies of man were wasted
in a vain effort to obtain the aid of this power, supposed to
be superior to nature. For countless ages, even men were
sacrificed upon the altar of this impossible god. To please
him, mothers have shed the blood of their own babes;
martyrs have chanted triumphant songs in the midst of
flame; priests have gorged themselves with blood; nuns
have foresworn the ecstacies of love ; old men have trem
blingly implored; women have sobbed and entreated ; every
pain has been endured, and every horror has been perpe
trated.
Through the dim, long years that have fled, humanity has
suffered more than can be conceived. Most of the misery
has been endured by the weak, the loving, and the innocent.
Women have been treated like poisonous beasts, and little
children trampled upon as though they had been vermin.
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
31
Numberless altars have been reddened, even with the blood
of babes; beautiful girls have been given to slimy serpents s
whole races of men doomed to centuries of slavery, and
everywhere there has been outrage beyond the power of
genius to express. During all these years, the suffering have
supplicated ; the withered lips of famine have prayed ; the
pale victims have implored, and Heaven has been deaf and
blind.
Of what use have the gods been to man ?
It is no answer to say that some god created the worlds
established certain laws, and then turned his attention to
other matters, leaving his children weak, ignorant, and un
aided, to fight the battle of life alone. It is no solution to
declare that in some other world this god will render a few,
or even all, his subjects happy. What right have we to ex
pect that a perfectly wise, good, and powerful being will
ever do better than he has done, and is doing ? The world
is filled with imperfections. If it was made by an infinite
being what reason have we for saying that he will render it
nearer perfect than it now is ? If the infinite “ Father”
allows a majority of his children to live in ignorance and
wretchedness now, what evidence is there that he will ever
improve their condition ? Will God have more power ? Will
he become more merciful ? Will his love for his poor crea
tures increase ? Can the conduct of infinite wisdom, power,
and love ever change ? Is the infinite capable of any im
provement whatever ?
We are informed, by the clergy that this world is a kind of
school; that the evils by which we are surrounded are for
the purpose of developing our souls, and that only by suffer
ing can men become pure, strong, virtuous, and grand.
. Supposing this to be true, what is to become of those who
die in infancy ? The little children, according to this phi
losophy, can never be developed. They were so fortunate
as to escape the ennobling influences of pain and misery,
and as a consequence, are doomed to an eternity of mental
inferiority. If the clergy are right on this question, none
are so unfortunate as the happy, and we should envy only
the suffering and distressed. If evil is necessary to the de
velopment of man in this life, how it is possible for the soul
to improve in the perfect joy of paradise ?
Since Paley found his watch, the argument of “ design”'
has been relied upon- as unanswerable. The Church
teaches that this world, and all it contains, was created sub
�32
ORATION ON THE GODS.
stantially as we now see it; that the grasses, the flowers,
the trees, and all animals, including man, were special
creations, and that they sustain no necessary relation to
each other. The most orthodox will admit that some earth
has been washed into the sea ; that the sea has encroached
a little upon the land, and that some mountains may be
a trifle lower than in the morning of creation. The theory
of gradual development was unknown to our fathers; the
idea of evolution did not occur to them. That most
wonderful observer, Charles Darwin, had not then given
to the world his wonderful philosophy.
Our fathers
looked upon the then arrangement of things as the primal
arrangement. The earth appeared to them fresh from the
hands of a deity. They knew nothing of the slow evolu
tions of countless years, but supposed that the almost
infinite variety of vegetable and animal forms had existed
from the first.
Suppose that upon some island we should find a man a
million years of age, and suppose that we should find him
in the possession of a most beautiful carriage, constructed
upon the perfect model.
And suppose further that he
should tell us that it was the result of several hundred
thousand-years of labour and of thought; that for fifty
thousand years he used as flat a log as he could find,
before it occurred to him that, by splitting the log, he could
have the same surface with only half the weight; that it
took him many thousand years to invent wheels for this
log ; that the wheels he first used were solid, and that fifty
thousand years of thought suggested the use of spokes and
tire ; that for many centuries he used the wheels without
linch-pins ; that it took a hundred thousand years more to
think of using four wheels, instead of two; that for ages he
walked behind the carriage when going down hill, in order
to hold it back, and that only by a lucky chance he invented
the tongue;—would we conclude that this man, from the very
first, had been an infinitely ingenious and perfect mechanic ?
Suppose we found him living in an elegant mansion, and he
should inform us that he lived in that house for five hundred
thousand years before he thought of putting on a roof, and
that he had but recently invented windows and doors,
would we say that from the beginning he had been an infi
nitely accomplished and scientific architect ?
Does not an improvement in the things created show a
corresponding improvement in the creator ?
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
33
Would an infinitely wise, good, and powerful God, intend
ing to produce man, commence with the lowest possible ••
forms of life; with the simplest organism that can be ■
imagined, and during immeasurable periods of time, slowlyH
and almost imperceptibly improve upon the rude begin- |
ning, until man was evolved ? Would countless ages thus
be wasted in the production of awkward forms, afterwards S
abandoned ? Can the intelligence of man discover the least ?
Wisdom in covering the earth with crawling, creepin^M
horrors, that live only upon the agonies and pangs of
others ? Can we see the propriety of so constructing the |
earth, that only an insignificant portion of its surface is f
capable of producing an intelligent man ? Who can appre-;
ciate the mercy of so making the world that all animals I
devour animals ; so that every mouth is a slaughter-house, |
and every stomach a tomb ? Is it possible to discover infi
nite intelligence and love in universal and eternal carnage ?
What would we think of a father who should give a farm B
to his children, and before giving them possession should /
plant upon it thousands of deadly shrubs and vines ; should
stock it with ferocious beasts and poisonous reptiles ; should ■
take pains to put a few swamps in the neighbourhood tob
bleed malaria; should so arrange matters that the ground
would occasionally open and swallow a few of his darlings, £
and, besides all this, should establish a few volcanoes in the
immediate vicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm®
his children with rivers of fire? Suppose that this father fneglected to tell his children which of the plants were I
deadly ; that the reptiles were poisonous ; failed to say any- thing about the earthquakes, and kept the volcano business |
a profound secret, would we pronounce him angel or fiend? |
And yet this is exactly what the orthodox God has done. I
According to the . theologians, God prepared this globe I
expressly for the habitation of his loved children, and yet he |
filled the forests with ferocious beasts; placed serpents ini B
every path, stuffed the world with earthquakes, and adornedB
its surface with mountains of flame.
f
Notwithstanding all this, we are told that the world is I
perfect; that it was created by a perfect being, and is there- H
fore necessarily perfect.
The next moment, the same |
persons will tell us tnat the world was cursed; covered with |
brambles, thistles, and thorns, and that man was doomed to W
disease •tod death, simply because our poor dear mother ate I
an apple contrary to the command of an arbitrary God.
�34
ORATION ON THE GODS.
A very pious friend of mine, having heard that I had said
the world was full of imperfections, asked me if the report
was true. Upon being informed that it was, he expressed
great surprise that any one could be guilty of such pre
sumption. He said that, in his judgment, it was impossible
to point out an imperfection. “ Be kind enough,” said he,
“ to name even one improvement that you could make, if
you had the power.” “Well,” said I, “ I would make good
health catching, instead of disease.” The truth is, it is im
possible to harmonize all the ills, and pains, and agonies of
this world with the idea that we were created by, and are
watched over and protected by, an infinitely wise, powerful,
and beneficent God, who is superior to, and independent of,
nature.
The clergy, however, balance all the real ills of this life
with the expected joys of the next. We are assured that
all is perfection in heaven : there the skies are cloudless,
there all is serenity and peace. Here empires may be over
thrown ; dynasties may be extinguished in blood; millions of
slaves may toil beneath the fierce rays of the sun and the
cruel strokes of the lash, yet all is happiness in heaven.
Pestilence may strew the earth with corpses of the loved;
the survivors may bend above them in agony—yet the placid
bosom of heaven is unruffled. Children may expire vainly
asking for bread; babes may be devoured by serpents, while
the gods sit smiling in the clouds. The innocent may
languish unto death in the obscurity of dungeons; brave
men and heroic women may be changed to ashes at the
bigot’s stake, while heaven is filled with song and joy. Out
on the wide sea, in darkness and in storm, the shipwrecked
struggle with the cruel waves, while the angels play upon
their golden harps. The streets of the world are filled with
the diseased, the deformed, and the helpless; the chambers
of pain are crowded with the pale forms of the suffering,
while the angels float and fly in the happy realms of day. In
heaven they are too happy to have sympathy; too busy
singing to aid the imploring and distressed. Their eyes are
blinded, their ears are stopped, and their hearts are turned
to stone by the infinite selfishness of joy. The saved
mariner is too happy when he touches the shore to give a
moment’s thought to his drowning brothers. With the in
difference of happiness, with the contempt of bliss, heaven
barely glances at the miseries of earth. Cities are devoured
by the rushing lava; the earth opens and thousands perish ;
k
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
35
women raise their clasped hands towards heaven, but the
gods are too happy to aid their children. The smiles of the
deities are unacquainted with the tears of men. The shouts
of heaven drown the sobs of earth.
• In all ages man has prayed for help, and then helped
himself.
Having shown how man created gods, and how he became
the trembling slave of his own creation, the question naturally
arises: How did he free himself, even a little, from these
monarchs of the sky ; from these despots of the clouds ;
from this aristocracy of the air ? How did he, even to the
extent that he has, outgrow his ignorant, abject terror, and
throw off the yoke of superstition ?
Probably, the first thing that tended to disabuse his mind
was the discovery of order, of regularity, of periodicity in the
universe. From this, he began to suspect that everything
did not happen purely with reference to him. He noticed
that, whatever he might do, the motions of the planets were
always the same ; that eclipses were periodical, add that
even comets came at certain intervals. This convinced him
that eclipses and comets had nothing to do with him, and
that his conduct had nothing to do with them. He per
ceived that that they were not caused for his benefit nor
injury. He thus learned to regard them with admiration in
stead of fear. He began to suspect that famine was not sent
by some enraged and revengeful deity, but resulted often
from the neglect and ignorance of man. He learned that
diseases were not produced by evil spirits. He found that
sickness was occasioned by natural causes, and could be
cured by natural means. He demonstrated, to his own
satisfaction at least, that prayer is not a medicine. He found
by sad experience that his gods were of no practical use, as
they never assisted him, except when he was perfectly able
to help himself. At last he began to discover that his
individual action had nothing whatever to do with strange
appearances in the heavens; that it was impossible for him
to be bad enough to cause a whirlwind, ox good enough to
stop one. After many centuries of thought, he about half
concluded that making mouths at a priest would not neces
sarily cause an earthquake. He noticed, and no doubt with
considerable astonishment, that very good men were occa
sionally struck by lightning, while very bad ones escaped.
He was frequently forced to the painful conclusion (and it is
the most painful to which any human being ever was forced)
�3$
ORATION ON THE GODS.
that the right did not always prevail. He noticed that the
gods did not interfere in behalf of the weak and innocent.
He was now and then astonished by seeing an unbeliever in
the enjoyment of most excellent health.
He finally
ascertained that there could be no possible connection
between an unusually severe winter and his failure to give a
sheep to a priest. He began to suspect that the order of
the universe was not constantly being changed to assist him
because he repeated a creed. He observed that some
children would steal after having been regularly baptized.
He noticed a vast difference between religion and justice, and
that the worshipers of the same god took delight in cutting
each others’ throats. He saw that these religious disputes
filled the world with hatred and slavery. At last he had the
courage to suspect that no god at any time interferes with
the order of events. He learned a few facts, and these facts
positively refused to harmonize with the ignorant supersti
tions of his fathers. Finding his sacred books incorrect
and false in some particulars, his faith in their authenticity
began to be shaken ; finding his priests ignorant upon some
points, he began to lose respect for the cloth; this was the
commencement of intellectual freedom.
The civilisation of man has increased just to the same ex
tent that religious power has decreased. The intellectual
advancement of man depends upon how often he can ex
change an old superstition for a new truth. The Church
never enabled a human being to make even one of these
exchanges; on the contrary, all her power has been used to
prevent them. In spite, however, of the Church, man found
that some of his religious conceptions were wrong. By
reading his Bible, he found that the ideas of his god weremore cruel and brutal than those of the most depraved
savage. He also discovered that this holy book was filled
with ignorance, and that it must have been written by
persons wholly unacquainted with the nature of the pheno
mena by which we are surrounded, and now and then some
man had the goodness and courage to speak his honest
thoughts. In every age some thinker, some doubter, some
investigator, some hater of hypocrisy, some despiser of sham,
some brave lover of the right, has gladly, proudly, and
heroically braved the ignorant fury of superstition for the
sake of man and truth. These divine men were generally
torn in pieces by the worshippers of the gods. Socrates was
poisoned because he lacked reverence for some of the
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
37
deities. Christ was crucified by a religious rabble for the
crime of blasphemy. Nothing is more gratifying to a
religionist than to destroy his enemies at the command of
God. Religious persecution springs from a due admixture
of love towards God and hatrea. towards man.
The terrible religious wars that inundated the. world with
blood tended, at least, to bring all religion into disgrace and
hatred. Thoughtful people began to question the divine
origin of a religion that made its believers hold the rights
of others in absolute contempt. A few began to compare
Christianity with the religions of heathen people, and were
forced to admit that the difference was hardly worth dying
for. They also found that other nations were even happier
and more prosperous than their own. They began to
suspect that their religion, after all, was not of much real
value.
For three hundred years the Christian world endeavoured
to rescue from the “ Infidel ” the empty sepulchre of Chiist.
For three hundred years the armies of the Cross were baffled
and beaten by the victorious hosts of an impudent impostor.
This immense fact sowed the seeds oi distrust throughout
all Christendom, and millions began tp lose confidence in a
God who had been vanquished by Mohammed. The people
also found that commerce made friends where religion made
enemies, and that religious zeal was utterly incompatible
with peace between nations or individuals. Tney disco
vered that those who loved'the gods most were apt to lo’. e
men least j that the arrogance of universal forgiveness was
amazing j that the most malicious had the effrontery to pray
for their enemies, and that humility and tyranny were the
fruit of the same tree.
For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few
brave men and women of thought and genius on the one
side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other.
This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have
appealed to reason, to honour, to law, to freedom, to the
known, and to happiness here in this, world. The many
have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to
the unknown, and to misery hereafter. .The few have said,
“Think ! ” The many have said, “ Believe !”
The first doubt was the womb and the cradle of progress,
and from the first doubt man has continued to advance.
Men began to investigate and the Church began to oppose.
The astroriomer scanned the heavens, while the Church
�3§
ORATION ON THE GODS.
branded his grand forehead with the word “ Infidel,” and
now not a glittering star in all the vast expanse bears a
Christian name. In spite of all religion, the geologist pene
trated the earth, read her history in books of stone, and
found hidden within her bosom souvenirs of all ages. Old
ideas perished in the retort of the chemist, and useful truths
took their places. One by one religious conceptions have
been placed in the crucibles of science, and thus far nothing
but dross has been found. A new world has been disco
vered by the microscope; everywhere has been found the infi
nite ; in every direction man has investigated and explored,
and nowhere, in earth nor stars, has been found the footstep
of any being superior to or independent of nature. Nowhere
has been discovered the slightest evidence of any inter
ference from without.
These are the sublime truths that enabled man to throw
off the yoke of superstition. These are the splendid facts
that snatched the sceptre of authority from the hands of
priests.
In that vast cemetery, called the past, are most of the reli
gions of men, and there, too, are nearly all their gods. The
sacred temples of India were ruins long ago. Over column
and cornice; over the painted and pictured walls, cling and
creep the trailing vines. Brahma, the golden, with four
heads and four arms : Vishnu, the sombre, the punisher of
the wicked, with his three eyes, his crescent and his necklace
of skulls; Siva, the destroyer, red with seas of blood ; Kali,
the goddess ; Draupadi, the white-armed; and Chrishna, the
Christ, all passed away and left the thrones of heaven deso
late. Along We banks of the sacred Nile, Isis no longer
wandering weeps, searching for the dead Osiris. The shadow
of Typhon’s scowl falls no more upon the waves. The sun
rises as of yore, and his golden beams still smite the lips of
Memnon, but Memnon is as voiceless as the Sphinx. The
sacred fanes are lost in desert sands; the dusty mummies
are still waiting for the resurrection promised by their priests,
and the old beliefs, wrought in curiously sculptured stone,
sleep in the mystery of a language lost and dead. Odin, the
author of life and soul, Vili and Ve, and the mighty giant
Yamir, strode long ago from the icy halls of the North; and
Thor, with iron glove and glittering hammer, dashes moun
tains to the earth no more. Broken are the circles and
cromlechs of the ancient Druids ; fallen upon the summits
of the hills and covered with the centuries’ moss are the
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
3<?
sacred cairns. The divine fires of Pefsia and of the Aztecs
have died out in the ashes of the past, and there is none torekindle and none to feed the holy flames. The harp of
Orpheus is still; the drained cup of Bacchus has been
thrown aside; Venus lies dead in stone, and her white bosom
heaves no more with love. The streams still murmur, but
no Naiads bathe; the trees still wave, but in the forest aisles
no Dryads dance. The gods have flown from high Olympus.
Not even the beautiful women can lure them back, and even
Danse lies unnoticed, naked to the stars. Hushed for ever
are the thunders of Sinai; lost are the voices of the prophets,
and the land, once flowing with milk and honey, is but a desert
waste. One by one the myths have faded from the clouds ;
one by one the phantom host has disappeared, and one by
one, facts, truths, and realities have taken their places. The
supernatural has almost gone, but the natural remains. The
gods have fled, but man is here.
“ Nations, like individuals, have their periods of youth, of
manhood, and decay/’ Religions are the same. The same
inexorable destiny awaits them all. The gods, created by
the nations, must perish with their creators. They were
created by men, and like men they must pass away. The
deities of one age are the by-words of the next. The reli
gion of our day and country is no more exempt from the
sneer of the future than the others have been. When India
was supreme, Brahma sat upon the world’s throne. When
the sceptre passed to Egypt, Isis and Osiris received the
homage of mankind. Greece, with her fierce valour, swept
to empire, and Jove put on the purple of atg:hority. The
earth trembled with the tread of Rome’s intrepid sons, and
Jupiter grasped with mailed hand the thunderbolts of heaven.
Rome fell, and Christians from her territory, with the red
sword of war, carved out the ruling nations of the world,
and now Christ sits upon the old throne. Who will be his
successor ?
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 cere
monials 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 mean and small, and the evidences our
�40
ORATION ON THE GODS,.
fathers thought conclusive utterly fail to satisfy us. There
is an “irrepressible conflict” between religion and science,
and they cannot peaceably occupy.the same brain nor the
same world.
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 har
mony; that every evil will in some mysterious way become a
good, and 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 the creeds of those who glibly 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.
Reason, Observation, and Experience—the Holy Trinity
of Science—have taught us that happiness is the only good :
that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy
is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief
we are content to live and die. If, by any possibility, the
existence of a power superior to and independent of nature
shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to
kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.
Nothwithstanding the fact that Infidels in all ages have
battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the
fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly
charged by the Church with tearing down without building
again. The Church should by this time know that it is
utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions. The
history of religious persecution fully establishes the fact that
the mind necessarily resists and defies every attempt to con
trol it by violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas
until prepared for the new. The moment we comprehend
the truth, all erroneous ideas are of necessity cast,aside.
A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly
offered to render him any assistance in his power. The
surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature
and origin of disease; of the curative properties of certain
medicines ; of the advantages of exercise, air, and light, and
of the various ways in which health and strength could be
restored. These remarks were so full of good sense, and
discovered so much profound thought anti accurate know
�ORATION ON THE GODS.
41
ledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried
out, “Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They
are my only support, and without them I should be miser
able indeed !” “I am not going,” said the surgeon, “ to take
away your crutches; I am going to cure you, and then you
will throw the crutches away yourself.”
For the vagaries of the clouds the Infidels propose to
substitute the realities of earth; for superstition, the
splendid demonstrations and achievements of Science ; and
for theological tyranny, the chainless liberty of Thought.
We do not say that we have discovered all; that our
doctrines are the all-in-all of truth. We know of no
end to the development of man.
We cannot unravel
the infinite complications of matter and force.
The
history of one monad is as unknown as the universe ; one
drop of water is as wonderful as all the seas; one leaf as all
the forests ; and one grain of sand as all the stars.
We are not endeavouring to chain the future, but to free
the present. We are not forging fetters for our children,
but we are breaking those our fathers made for us. We are
the advocates of inquiry, of investigation, and thought.
This of itself is an admission that we are not perfectly satis*
fied with all our conclusions.
Philosophy has not the
egotism of faith.
While superstition builds walls and
creates obstructions, science opens all the highways of
thought. We do not pretend to have circumnavigated
everything, and to have solved all difficulties, but we do
believe that it is better to love men than to fear gods; that
it is grander and nobler to think and investigate for yourself
than to repeat a creed, or quote scripture like a religious
parrot, with the countenance of a dyspeptic owl. We are
satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth, while
men worship a tyrant in heaven. We do not expect to
accomplish everything in our day; but we want to do what
good we can, and to render all the service possible in the
holy cause of human progress. We know that doing away
with gods and supernatural persons and powers is not an
end. It is a means to an end: the real end being the
happiness of man.
Felling forests is not the end of agriculture. Driving
pirates from the sea is not all there is of commerce.
We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the
future—-not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people
—wherein, with appropriate rite's, will be celebrated the
�42
ORATION ON THE GODS.
religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to
hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease profamishpd1; H°natireS Td Kmendicants~gorged indolence and
crowned1 mdustry~iru^ln
and superstition robed and
shah
for the time when the useful
shall be the honourable ; when the true shall be the beautih Atnd/hen ?^S0N’ thJoned upon the world’s brain, shall
be the King of kings and God of gods.
�
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 the gods
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: 42 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Stein's checklist (Item 28g). Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Annotations in pencil and red crayon. 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
N378
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 the gods), 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
Gods
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f9fe47d40888fe02e8b874ed9f29e73.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gR-XPup41aKgtyrvgDt1zg7Xe7s4UPVUE9K0C5j-ltYEW1mecNBY6B4y3n8BY92xVPc3MnosRQbPa6Y5TFtH2x603NiXEgjKZMbrwRw7jobQR7hW0HfG%7ELb6wTXqdNrsfM6jLDqRSVLUO9vM1l-e2oEYwDw7QZmNRMDtJc0zR9QYFxOb61sq0eyG2ufDBR13OiQK7W6ft3t06Ja2kcH9omjVJbopTxJYkcwVz2tftMuoTGh2doJ3EA4kLG%7E1XrHMEyIOVyeQpdgqpADJWpW5ZpIMuUmPoQ4BsA2ZnPXX3UOPvBZ7Kmw5ruyxBu0MWiFef%7EtjBmVBJje12MwC6hYUjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a799d29086be6a1b6e4f3c0a895bc41a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
/O '
/ Z/0-&
FAITH AND FACT
A LETTER TO
THE BEV. HENBY M. FIELD, D.D.
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
------- «-------
REPRINTED PROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�FAITH AND FACT,
My Dear Mr. Field,—T 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 receive as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the inno
cence 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, concern
ing 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 P
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
�4
FAITH AND FACT.
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty
to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? W^as 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 wondrous 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 the 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 intel
lectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate con
clusion, 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, and
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 free
dom 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
addressed 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 star
less night—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is
the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains.
�FAITH AND FACT.
5
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 ? Why 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 con
vict 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 ecstacy that
all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred rela
tions 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 dis
tinguished 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
condemn 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 virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do
you not bring your own religion exactly within your own defini
tion 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
�6
FAITH AND FACT.
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must 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 P When, and where, and how
did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you on 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 frightful 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 in famous. 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 cruci
fied the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was com
mitted, 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 ac
count 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 Torque-
�FAITH AND FACT.
7
mada, 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
supernatural ; 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 existence of a malignant devil has been
as universal as the belief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent
men will say that the universality of this belief in an in finite
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
�8
FAITH AND FACT.
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 impartiality of the divine negligence?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelli
gence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better
than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts or
floods; the props 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 necessity 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.
�FAITH AND FACT.
9
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 constella
tions. 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 cannot in any measure comprehend. Such evidence
would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible
fact sought to be established 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 inflexible? 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 absurd to insist that such a state of mind is
necessary to salvation, or that it is a moral restraint, or that it
is the foundation of a social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
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 pro
duced 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 atjthe foundation of worship ? Nations,
like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like
�10
FAITH AND FACT.
individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplish
ment of certain ends.. Men defend their property because it i s
of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire
to live, and for that reason murdei’ 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 any thing in this world compared with
eternal joy P
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 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 asser
tion, 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 judg
ments, Lord God Almighty ” P
Do you really believe that this world is governed by an
infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even your
self of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ?
�FAITH AND FACT.
11
Why should the loving be tortured P 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 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
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 letter 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 anything 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, unin
tentionally, 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 loves 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.
�12
FAITH AND FACT.
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, after
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 P Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ?
There was the opportunity to “ bring life and immortality to
light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had leftspeechless as the stone that angels had rolled away.
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—for those who bend above their dream
of life to come. But I have denounced the selfishness and heart
lessness 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 than such a
hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of
the human race.
When I say that I do not know—when I deny the existence
of perdition, you reply that “ there is something very cruel in
this treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures.”
You have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which
a mother bends and weeps for her only son. I accept your
invitation. We will go together. Do not, I pray you, deal in
splendid generalities. Be explicit. Remember that 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 P Do
not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a
�FAITH AND FACT.
13
portion of the Presbyterian confession of faith ? Will you read
this?
“ Although, the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man
inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge 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 ever
lasting 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 :
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” WouldJyou 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 merit pardon of sin.
There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation. Works done by un
regenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which
God commands, and of good use both to themselves 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 P—
“ 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 i torment, both of body and
soul, with the Devil and his angels for ever.”
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
�14
FAITH AND FACT.
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
Btated 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
something. Your son does not suffer. Hext to a life of joy is
the dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox
Christianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in thiB 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 consolation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal
pain ” ? It is 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 P Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Com
pared 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
�FAITH AND FACT.
15
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.”
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 confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no
atonement.
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 compassion. 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 Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall
be happy forever; you shall live in the realms of infinite delight,
�16
FAITH AND FACT.
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 forgiveness—for your atonement ? Where is a
way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal ? Do you
not see that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your
hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theo
logical. 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 perfectly 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.
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
�FAITH AND FACT.
17
old and barbarous 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.. Accord
ing 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 millions 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
caricature 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, and concludes to
act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regenera
tion, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regenera
tion in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There
is some mysterious, 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 control, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and
whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regene
ration 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.”
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
rightB 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
�18
FAITH AND FACT.
is necessary to educate the human race. Is it 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 P How is it that he con
quered 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 P 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 brotherhood 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 acquainted with the
human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and
in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of 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 P
Do. you believe that any founder of any religion could have
written Lear or Hamlet ? Did Greece produce a man who could
by any possibility have been the author of Troilus and Cressida ?
Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Borne
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 philosophy of a world p
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
�FAITH AND FACT.
19
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “ My God, why hast thou forsaken me P”—
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 theo
logical 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
“ generation of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepul
chres.” 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.
A religion 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
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these things
because 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 differ
ence between one who can and will not cure, and one who causes
diseases.
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 been
produced by and are really the children of religion.
�20
FAITH AND FACT.
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 happiness 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 man
who is kind and loving to his family may or may not believe in
the Bible.
In order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessary to call your attention to the
fact that your Bible shows that the 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 Chris
tianity—or at least crimes that 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 some
thing, 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 star
vation 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;
�FAITH AND FACT.
21
whereupon God, the compassionate, struck him dead.. As soon
as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They
did not tell hei- that her husband had been killed. They deli
berately 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 hei’ 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.
\ ou 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 P
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
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
assassinated 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
centuries 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
�22
FAITH AND FACT.
sneer—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on house
hold 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 supposed God who has protected his fire
side. 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 thankful
ness 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 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 p
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifi
cation of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that
Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happi
ness in another to those who would desert their wives and
children and follow him P What effect has that promise had
upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Chris
tianity 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 io serve your neighbour 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 path
way 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
�FAITH AND FACT.
23
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 Bather 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 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 everlasting
death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real
savages.. 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
acquainted 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 with
out the sanctions of religions.
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
murder;” 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 insist 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 uni-
�24
FAITH AND FACT.
versai 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 cannot 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. 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 thé 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
entertained 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. Moralily 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 so say,
the supernatural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a
convict. Under the government of a personal deity, conse
quences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards.
�FAITH AND FACT.
25
Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments
and rewards are simply consequences. 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 Bhines, 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. Tem
perance 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 produce 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 heai’ 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 them
selves 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
�26
FAITH AND FACT.
or manly or womanly sentiment of love and7honor”—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 be
cause 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 Bible that teaches that is not
true.” And you say: “ How can you hurt my feelings ?”
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of Ids
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 Pres
byterian. After that you find a Presbyterian. Was he base
enough and. infamous enough to heap contempt 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 see that your
doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of for
giveness, 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 “ Christ is Christianity and that it
stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the
foundation of your religion. If it should be established beyond
doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Chris
tianity 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 “ abj’ect 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
�FAITH AND FACT.
27
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 ? Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ”
who believes your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere
women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have com
mitted “ the unpardonable 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 tribulation—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 millions 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 oppornity 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 advantage 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 fact 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 righteous
ness, and that there came a time when this nation became a
spendthrift, when it ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the
�28
FAITH AND FACT.
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
thousand 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 mission
ary 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 you 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
difference 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 truth by some fact
that science has demonstrated ? Do you know that the standard
has changed ? Other things are not measured by 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 ago “ the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a
descriptions of hell ? Do you 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 believe in “ the plenary inspiration ” of
the Bible, that from thousands 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 Testa
ment are considered simply as myths or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
�FAITH AND FACT.
29
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 massacre 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 : Inno
cence 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 slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death.
Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” Bees 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, in 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 P
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
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all
mistakes 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 has, 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
�30
FAITH AND FACT.
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
become convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of
men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years
is an 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.
Bor 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 creed that
should be shrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle
as terrible as the coffin. Preach I pray you, the gospel of intel
lectual 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 these who died in unbelief. Pity
the erring, wayward, suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim
as “tidings of great joy” that an Infinite Spider is weaving
webs to catch the souls of men.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC.
��WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... 1f>
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
... 0 0
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
...
...
... 0 4
With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 0
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ................ 0 3
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
THE DYING CREED
...
...
... 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
DO I BLASPHEME?
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
0 2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
0 1
LIVE TOPICS
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
0 1
SOCIAL SALVATION
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE .
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
0 2
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part H
Progressive Publishing Co, 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
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: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. 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
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N345
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Faith
NSS
Reason
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4aed29dd797f93b2b82e21203ac909ad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BlO-wSlHrMxeeGQ-jMfLUP6LFmxqxf8LtfbLSRmv1P5%7EkPsSC6VDdRrQWNBwJU%7Ep49Ibe7HA7AviRZWLV65re4%7E4QYOrEYYCS0%7EIejRoOlMDhxvidIyRCnddwBhwwMfmhdZhzSHXrawVzx9TmBvurDojD1eOut9b5SppGYEya3r24yhLM-xxmooOGP%7EOV8tlFBf%7Ehky9Ek-Va9JUDjo4cHSVNuu95lrEwU0y9FMfA%7E5HvdplF42K0-qci0QwU%7EVIo1CWDsBgz8e6RGzFtT58%7E0IRl2pmikLHtB65JveTVdYEtPquI8hNaT4A2iz9FTIWYSCw1t6ddYE3vYYGbs42Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
56cb1e0bf6a9080b1b0a61c149f50ca8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
repairing the idols.
Mrs. Humphrey Ward’s Robert Elsmere is no less
eagerly read in America than in England.
The press
teems with criticisms, and the pulpits are discussing
the novel as though it were a theological treatise by
an eminent divine.
In view of this widespread interest,
the New York World sent a reporter to wait on
Colonel Ingersoll, whose views on religion are con
sidered of the highest importance. He commands an
immense audience in America. His lectures are listened
to by thousands wherever he goes, his pamphlets are
circulated wholesale, and his brilliant defence of Freethought against Mr. Gladstone and Cardinal Manning
has, if possible, placed him still higher m the public
esteem. Colonel Ingersoll received the World reporter
with his usual affability, and launched forth as follows
in answer to leading questions.
“ Why do people read a book like Robert Elsmere,
and why do they take any interest in if!” Simply
because they are not satisfied with the rehgion of our
day. The civilised world has outgrown the greater
�4
Repairing the Idols.
part of the Christian creed. Civilised people have lost
their belief in the reforming power of punishment.
They find that whips and imprisonment have but little
influence for good. The truth has dawned upon their
minds that eternal punishment is infinite cruelty—that
it can serve no good purpose, and that the eternity of
hell makes heaven impossible. That there can be in
this universe no perfectly happy place while there is a •
perfectly miserable place—that no infinite being can
be good who knowingly and, as one may say, wilfully
created myriads of human beings, knowing that they
would be eternally miserable. In other words, the
civilised man is greater, tenderer, nobler, nearer just
than the old idea of God. The ideal of a few thou
sand years ago is far below the real of to-day. No
good man now would do what Jehovah is said to have
done four thousand years ago, and no civilised human
being would now do what, according to the Christian
religion, Christ threatens to do at the day of judgment.
Has the Christian religion changed in theory of late
years, Colonel Ingersoll ?
A few years ago the Deists denied the inspiration of
the Bible on account of its cruelty. At the same time
they worshipped what they were pleased to call the God
of Nature. Now we are convinced that nature is as
cruel as the Bible, so that, if the’ God of Nature did
not write the Bible, this god at least has caused earth
quakes and pestilence and famine, and this god has
allowed millions of his children to destroy one another.
So that now we have arrived at the question—not as to
whether the Bible is inspired, and not as to whether
Jehovah is the real God, but whether there is a God or
�Hep airing the Idols.
5
not. The intelligence of Christendom to-day does not
believe in an inspired religion any more than it
believes in an inspired art or an inspired literature. If
there be an infinite God, inspiration in some particular
regard would be a patch—it would be the puttying of
a crack, the hiding of a defect—in other words, it
would show that the general plan was defective.
Do you consider any religion adequate ?
A good man, living in England, drawing a certain
salary for reading certain prayers on stated occasions,
for making a few remarks on the subject of religion,
putting on clothes of a certain cut, wearing a gown
with certain frills and flounces starched in an orthodox
manner, and then looking about him at the suffering
and agony of the world, would not feel satisfied that
he was doing anything of value to the human race.
In the first place, he would deplore his own weakness,
his own poverty, his inability to help his fellow men.
He would long every moment for wealth, that he
might feed the hungry and clothe the naked—for
knowledge, for miraculous power, that he might heal
the sick and the lame, and that he might give to the
deformed the beauty of proportion. He would begin
to wonder how a being of infinite goodness and infinite
power could allow his children to die, to suffer, to be
deformed by necessity, by poverty, to be tempted
beyond resistance ; how he could allow the few to live
in luxury and the many in poverty and want, and the
more he wondered the more useless and ironical would
seem to himself his sermons and his prayers.
Such a
man is driven to the conclusion that religion accom
plishes but little; that it creates as much want as it
�6
Repairing the Idols.
alleviates, and that it burdens the world with parasites.
Such a man would be forced to think of the millions
wasted in superstition. In other words, the inadequacy,
the uselessness, of religion would be forced upon his
mind. He would ask himself the question : “ Is it
possible that this is a divine institution ? Is this all
that man can do with the assistance of God ? Is this
the best ?”
That is a perfectly reasonable question, is it not,
Colonel Ingersoll?
The moment a man reaches the point where he asks
himself this question he has ceased to be an orthodox
Christian.
It will not do to say that in some other
world justice will be done. If God allows injustice to
triumph here, why not there ?
Robert Elsmere stands in the dawn of philosophy.
There is hardly light enough for him to see clearly; but
there is so much light that the stars in the night of
superstition are obscured.
You do not deny that a religious belief is a great
comfort ?
There is one thing that it is impossible for me to
comprehend. Why should anyone, when convinced
that Christianity is a superstition, have or feel a sense
of loss ? Certainly a man acquainted with England,
with London, having at the same time something like
a heart, must feel overwhelmed by the failure of what
is knjown as- Christianity. Hundreds of thousands
exist there without decent food, dwelling in tenements,
clothed with rags, familiar with every form of vulgar
vice, where the honest poor eat the crust that the
�Repairing the Idols.
i
7
vicious throw away. When, this man of intelligence,
of heart, visits the courts ; when he finds human liberty
a thing treated as of no value, and when he hears the
judge sentencing girls and boys to the penitentiary—
knowing that a stain is being put upon them that all
the tears of all the coming years can never wash away
—knowing, too, and feeling that this is done without
the slightest regret, without the slightest sympathy, as
a mere matter of form, and that the jndge puts this
brand of infamy upon the forehead of the convict just
as cheerfully as a Mexican brands his cattle ; and when
this man of intelligence and heart knows that these
poor people are simply the victims of society, the
unfortunates who stumble and over whose body rolls
the Juggernaut—he knows that there is, or at least
appears to be, no power above or below working for
righteousness—that from the heavens is stretched no
protecting hand. And when a man of intelligence and
heart in England visits the workhouse, the last resting
place of honest labor ; when he thinks that the young
man, without any great intelligence but with a good
constitution, starts in the morning of, his life for the
workhouse, and that it is impossible for the laboring
man, one who simply has his muscle, to save anything ;
that health is not able to lay anything by for the days
of disease—when the man of intelligence and heart
sees all this, he is compelled to say that the civilisation
of to-day, the religion of to-day, the charity of to-day
—no matter how much of good there may be behind
them or in them—are failures.
A few years ago people were satisfied when the
minister said : “ All this will be made even in another
�8
Tiepairing the Idols.
world; a crust-eater here will sit at the head of the
banquet there, and the king here will beg for the
crumbs that fall from the table there.” When this
was said the poor man hoped and the king laughed.
A few years ago the Church said to the slave : “ You
will be free in another world and your freedom will be
made glorious by the perpetual spectacle of your master
in hell.” But the people—that is, many of the people
—are no longer deceived by what once were considered
fine phrases. They have suffered so much that they no
longer wish to see others suffer, and no longer think of
the suffering of others as a source of joy to themselves.
The poor see that the eternal starvation of kings and
queens in another world will be no compensation for
what they have suffered here. The old religions appear
vulgar, and the ideas of rewards and punishments are
only such as would satisfy a cannibal chief or one of
his favorites.
Do you think the Christian religion has
xvorld better1
?
made the
For many centuries there has been preached and
taught in an almost infinite number of ways a super
natural religion. During all this time the world has
been in the care of the infinite, and yet every
imaginable vice has flourished, every imaginable pang
has been suffered, and every injustice has been done.
During all these years the priests have enslaved the
minds and the kings the bodies of men. The priests
did what they did in the name of God, and the kings
appealed to the same source of authority. Man suffered
as long as he could.
Revolution, reformation, was
simply a reaction, a cry from the poor wretch that was
�Repairing the Idols.
9
between the upper and the nether millstone. The liberty
of man has increased just in the proportion that the
authority of the gods has decreased. In other words
the wants of man, instead of the wishes of God, have,
inaugurated what we call progress, and there is this
difference : Theology is based upon the narrowest and
intensest form of selfishness. Of course, the theologian
knows, the Christian knows, that he can do nothing for
God; consequently all that he does must be and is for
himself, his object being to win the approbation of this
God, to the end that he may become a favorite. On the
other side, men touched not only by theii’ owfl misf ortunes
but by the misfortunes of others are moved not simply
by selfishness but by a splendid sympathy with their
fellow men.
“ Christianity certainly fosters charity’’ the reporter
suggested.
Nothing is more cruel than orthodox theology, nothing
more heartless than a charitable institution. For
instance, in England, think for a moment of the manner
in which charities are distributed, the way in which the
crust is flung at Lazarus. If that parable could be now
retold, the dogs would bite him. The same is true in
this country. The institution has nothing but contempt
for the one it relieves. The people in charge regard
the pauper as one who has wrecked himself. They feel
very much as a man would feel rescuing from the water
some hare-brained wretch who had endeavored to s wim
the rapids of Niagara—the moment they reach him
they begin to upbraid him for being such a fool. This
course makes charity a hypocrite, with every pauper for
its enemy.
�10
Repairing the Idols.
Mrs. Ward compelled Robert Elsmere to perceive,
in some slight degree, the failure of Christianity to do
away with vice and suffering, with poverty and crime.
We know that the rich care but little for the poor.
No matter how religious the rich may be, the sufferings
of their fellows have but little effect upon them. We
are also beginning to see that what is called charity
will never redeem this world. The poor man willing
to work, eager to maintain his independence, knows
that there is something higher than charity—that is to
say, justice.
He finds that many years before he was
born his coufltry was divided out between certain suc
cessful robbers, flatterers, cringers, and crawlers, and
that in consequence of such division not only himself
but a large majority of his fellow men are tenants,
renters, occupying the surface of the earth only at the
pleasure of others. He finds, too, that these people
who have done nothing and who do nothing have every
thing, and that those who do everything have but little.
He finds that idleness has the money and that the
toilers are compelled to bow to the idlers. He finds
also that the young men of genius are bribed by social
distinctions—unconsciously it may be, but still bribed
in a thousand ways. He finds that the church is a
kind of waste-basket into which are thrown the younger
sons of titled idleness.
Do you consider that society in general has been
made better by religious influence ?
Society is corrupted because the laurels, the titles,
are in the keeping and within the gift of the corrupters.
Christianity is not an enemy of this system it is in
�Repairing the Idols.
11
harmony with it. Christianity reveals to us a universe
presided over by an infinite autocrat—a universe with
out republicanism, without democracy—a universe
where all power comes from one and the same
source, and where everyone using authority is account
able, not to the people, but to this supposed source of
authority. Kings reign by divine right. Priests are
ordained in a divinely-appointed way—they do not get
their office from man. Man is their servant, not their
master.
'
In the story of Robert Elsmere all there is of Chris
tianity is left after an excision of the miraculous«
Theism remains, and the idea of a protecting provi
dence is left, together with a belief in the immeasurable
superiority of Jesus Christ.
That is to say, the
miracles are discarded for lack of evidence; not on the
ground that they are impossible, not on the ground
that they impeach and deny the integrity of cause and
effect, not on the ground that they contradict the selfevident proposition that an effect must have an efficient
cause, but like the Scotch verdict: 44 Not proven.’
It is an effort to save and keep in repair the dungeons
of the Inquisition for the sake of the beauty of the
vines that have overrun them. Many people imagine
that falsehoods may become respectable on account of
age, that a certain reverence goes with antiquity, and
that if a mistake is covered with the moss of senti
ment, it is altogether more credible than a parvenu
fact. They endeavor to introduce the idea of aris
tocracy into the world of thought, believing, and
honestly believing that a falsehood long believed is far
superior to a truth that is generally denied.
�12
Repairing the Idols.
If Robert Elsmere's views were commonly adopted,
what would be the effect ?
The new religion of Elsmere is, after all, only a
system of outdoor relief, an effort to get successful
piracy to give up^larger percentage for the relief of its
victims. The aoolition of the system is not dreamed
of. A civilised minority could not by any possibility
be happy while a majority of the world were miserable;
a civilised majority could not be happy while a minority
were miserable. As a matter of fact, a civilised world
could not be happy while one man was really miserable.
At the foundation of civilisation is justice—that is to
say, the giving of an equal opportunity to all the chil
dren of men.
Secondly, there can be no civilisation in the highest
sense until sympathy becomes universal. We must
have a new definition for success. We must have
new ideals.
The man who succeeds in amassing
wealth, who gathers money for himself, is not a success.
It is an exceedingly low ambition to be rich, to excite
the envy of others, or for the sake of the vulgar power
it gives to triumph over others. Such men are failures.
So the man who wins fame, position, power, and wins
these for the sake of himself, and wields this power not
for the elevation of his fellow men, but simply to con
trol, is a miserable failure: He may dispense thousands
or millions in charity, and his charity may he prompted
by the meanest part of his nature—using it simply as
a bait to catch more fish, and to prevent the rising tide
of indignation that might overwhelm him. Men who
steal millions and then give a small percentage to the
Lord to gain the praise of the clergy, and to bring the
�Repairing the Idols.
13
salvation of their souls within the possibilities of im
agination, are all failures.
Robert Elsemere gains our affection and our applause
to the extent that he gives up what are known as
orthodox views, and his wife Catharine retains our
respect in the proportion that she lives the doctrine
that Elsmere preaches. By doing what she believes to
be right, she gains our forgiveness for her creed. One
is astonished that she can be as good as she is, believing
as she does. The utmost stretch of her intellectual
charity is to allow the old wine to be put in a new
bottle, and yet she regrets the absence of the old bottle
—she really believes that the bottle is the important
thing -that the wine is but a secondary consideration.
She misses the label, and not having perfect confidence
in her own taste, she does not feel quite sure that the
wine is genuine.
What, on the whole, is your judgment of the hook ?
I think the book conservative. It is an effort to save
something—a few shreds and patches and raveilings—
from the wreck. Theism is difficult to maintain. Why
should we expect an infinite being to do better in an
other world than he has done and is doing in this ? If
he allows the innocent to suffer here, why not there ?
If he allows rascality to succeed in this world, why not
in the next?
To believe in God and to deny his
personality is an exceedingly vague foundation for a
consolation. If you insist on his personality and power,
then it is impossible to account for what happens.
Why should an infinite God allow some of his children
to enslave others ? Why should he allow a child of
�14
Repairing the Idols.
his to burn another child of his, under the impression
that such a sacrifice was pleasing to him ?
Unitarianism lacks, the motive power.
Orthodox
people who insist that nearly everybody is going, ty .hell,
and that it is their duty to do what little, they, can-to
save their souls, have what you might call a spur to
action. We can imagine a philanthropic man engaged
in the business of throwing ropes to persons about to
go over the falls of Niagara, but we can hardly think
of his carrying on the business after becoming con
vinced that there are no falls, or that people go oyer
them in perfect safety. In this country the question
has come up whether all the heathen are bound to be
damned unless they believe in the Gospel. Many
admit that the heathen will be saved if they are good
people, and that they will not be damned for not
believing something that they never heard. The really
orthodox people—that is to say, the missionaries—
instantly see that this doctrine destroys their business.
They take the ground that there is but one way to be
saved—you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ—
and they are willing to admit—and to cheerfully admit,
that the heathen for many generations have gone in an
unbroken column down to eternal wrath.
�
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
Repairing the idols
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: [3]-14 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication and imprint from Stein (Item 61a). New York World interview with Ingersoll, reprinted. Mrs Humphrey Ward's (Mary Augusta Ward) novel 'Robert Elsmere' which inspired Ingersoll's lecture, tells of an Oxford clergyman who begins to doubt the doctrines of the Anglican Church after encountering the writings of the German rationalists including Schelling and David Strauss. 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
N388
Subject
The topic of the resource
Literature
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 (Repairing the idols), 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
Literature
Mrs Humphry Ward
NSS
Robert Elsmere
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a0f8c7c201e7b4cacdf78a9b65a040a8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XcjAEECwMEAKFsvf7KRrlIMmo%7EDMT1%7E9HXYxuzcfuQTpxBDdBGbloJw3dwfKCHIJ9qfzooB-0aA3i-WsVfykXQadqisyYGETB58G9HX3rC3kSCoMVoSx04vzZ9F5a3sgSQ-TB5xRc28iJvO4g8HjOSHAcr9cHxWpVLwGLAkw0tcZZuXnVU1keAD-uU-VgjdgIUKWcldYAkqG58h1MJfs47Rl2udWiYj39R9bAhyyd21RmQpwk3D-YhQ41EjZ25No3z35lf3ZJi4z7I7ouJx33KAR4hayVW93wUQ0suk4Fc9VZrRyaC1ndpsHvEeLOPT8Fu6bxy%7ExtWPY2eBMbGDN3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
839bd6c71531ae485ac594ab54d46fc8
PDF Text
Text
32
Pa m p h Iets for the Million—No» 10
THE GHOSTS
By R. G. INGERSOLL
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�THE
RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION,
LIMITED.
Chairman :
Edward Clodd
Honorary Associates :
Alfred William Benn
Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner
Sir Edward Brabrook, C.B.
George Brandes
Dr. Charles Callaway
Dr. Paul Carus
Prof. B. H. Chamberlain
Dr. Stanton Coit
W. W. Collins
F. J. Gould
Prof. Ernst Haeckel
Leonard Huxley
'Joseph McCabe
Eden Phillpotts
John M. Robertson
Dr. W. R. Washington Sullivan
Prof. Lester F. Ward
Prof. Ed. A. Westermarck
Secretary and Registered Offices:
Charles E. Hooper, Nos. 5 & 6 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
How to Join and Help the R.P. A.
The minimum subscription to constitute Membership is 5s., renewable in January of
each year.
A form of application for Membership, with full particulars, including latest Annual
Report and specimen copy of the Literary Guide (the unofficial organ of the Associa
tion), can be obtained gratis on application to the Secretary.
Copies of new publications are forwarded regularly on account of Members’sub
scriptions, or a Member can arrange to make his own selection from the lists of
new books which are issued from time to time.
To join the Association is to help on its work, but to subscribe liberally is of course
to help more effectually. As Subscribers of from 5s. to 10s. and more are entitled to
receive back the whole value of their subscriptions in books, on which there is little
if any profit made, the Association is dependent, for the capital required to carryout
its objects, upon subscriptions of a larger amount and upon donations and bequests.
Ube Xiterar^ Guide
(the unofficial organ of the' R. P. A.)
is published on the 1st of each month, price 2d., by post 2W. Annual subscrip
tion : 2S. 6d. post paid.
The contributors comprise the leading writers in the Rationalist Movement,
including Mr. Joseph McCabe, Mrs. H. Bradlaugh Bonner, Mr. F. J. Gould
Mr. Charles T. Gorham, Dr. C. Callaway, Mr. A. W. Benn, and “ Mimnermus
SPECIMEN COPY POST FREE.
London : Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�'B U <
Pamphletsfor the Million.—No. io
national secular society
R. G. INGERSOLL
THE GHOSTS
ISSUED FOR THE RATIONALIST
PRESS
ASSOCIATION,
LIMITED
WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. — 1912
�PUBLISHERS ’ NOTE
This famous Lecture of Colonel Ingersoll is taken from the
Dresden edition of his works (12 vols.; £6 net), which was
published in America shortly after his death. In this country
nearly all his principal lectures and essays, apart from his
legal addresses, are included in the series of Lectures and
Essays issued in three parts at 6d. each (by post 8d.; the
three parts is. iod.), or in one handsome cloth volume at
2s. 6d. net (by post 2s. nd.).
PAMPHLETS FOR THE MILLION
ALREADY ISSUED
1. Why I Left the Church.
6. Liberty of Man, Woman,
By Joseph McCabe.
48
and Child.
By Colonel
PP-; id.
R. G. Ingersoll. 48 pp.; id.
2. Why Am I An Agnostic?
7. The Age of Reason. By
By Colonel R. G. Ingersoll.
Thomas Paine. 124 pp. ; 2d.
24 PP-; id.
8. Last Words on Evolu
3. Christianity’s Debt to
TO
tion. By Prof. Haeckel.
Earlier Religions.
By
64 pp.; id.
P. Vivian. (A Chapter from
9. Science and the Purpose
The Churches and Modern
OB' Life.
By Fridtjof
Thought.} 64 pp.; id.
Nansen. 16 pp.; £d.
4. How to Reform Mankind. 10. The Ghosts. By Colonel
By Colonel R. G. Ingersoll.
R. G. Ingersoll. 32 pp.; id.
24 pp.; ¿d.
11. The Passing of Histo
5. Myth or History in the
rical Christianity.
By
■Old Testament? By S.
Rev. R. Roberts. 16 pp.;
Laing. 48 pp.; id.
id.
�THE GHOSTS
let them cover their eyeless sockets with their flesh
less HANDS AND FADE FOREVER FROM THE IMAGINATION OF MEN.
HERE are three theories by which men account for all
phenomena, for everything that happens: first, the
supernatural; second, the supernatural and natural; third, the
natural. Between these theories there has been, from the
dawn of civilisation, a continual conflict. In this great war
nearly all the soldiers have been in the ranks of the super
natural. The believers in the supernatural insist that matter
is controlled and directed entirely by powers from without;
while naturalists maintain that nature acts from within;
that nature is not acted upon; that the universe is all there
is * that nature with infinite arms embraces everything that
exists, and that all supposed powers beyond the limits of
the material are simply ghosts.
You say,
Oh, this is
materialism 1 ” What is matter? I take in my hand some
earth—in this dust put seeds. Let the arrows of light from
the quiver of the sun smite upon it; let the rain fall upon it.
The seeds will grow, and a plant will bud and blossom.
Do you understand this? Can you explain it better than
you can the production of thought? Have you the slightest
conception of what it really is?
And yet you speak of
matter as though acquainted with its origin, as though you
had torn from the clenched hands of the rocks the secrets
of material existence. Do you know what force is? Can
you account for molecular action? Are you really familiar
with chemistry, and can you account for the loves and hatre s
of the atoms? Is there not something in matter that forever
-eludes?
After all, can you get beyond, above, or below
appearances? Before you cry “Materialism! ” had you not
better ascertain what matter really is? Can you think even
of anything without a material basis? Is it possible to
imagine annihilation of a single atom? Is it possible for you
to conceive of the creation of an atom? Can you have a
thought that was not suggested to you by what you call
matter ?
T
�4
THE GHOSTS
Our fathers denounced materialism, and accounted for all
phenomena by the caprice of gods and devils.
For thousands of years it was believed that ghosts, good
and bad, benevolent and malignant, weak and powerful
in some mysterious way, produced all phenomena: that
disease and health, happiness and misery, fortune and misortune, peace and war, life and death, success and failure
were but arrows from the quivers of these ghosts; that
shadowy phantoms rewarded and punished mankind; that
they were pleased and displeased by the actions of men;
that they sent and withheld the snow, the light, and the
rain ; that they blessed the earth with harvests or cursed
it with famine; that they fed or starved the children of men;
that they crowned and uncrowned kings; that they took
sides in war; that they controlled the winds; that they
gave prosperous voyages, allowing the brave mariner to
meet his wife and child inside the harbour bar, or sent
the storms, strewing the sad shores with wrecks of ships
and the bodies of men.
Formerly these ghosts were believed to be almost innumer
able. Earth, air, and water were filled with these phantom
hosts.
In modern times they have greatly decreased in
number, because the second theory—a mingling of the super
natural and natural—has generally been adopted.
The
remaining ghosts, however, are supposed to perform the same
offices as the hosts of yore.
It has always been believed that these ghosts could in
some way be appeased ; that they could be flattered by
sacrifices, by prayer, by fasting, by the building of temples
and cathedrals, by the blood of men and beasts, by forms
and ceremonies, by chants, by kneelings and prostrations,
by flagellations and maimings, by renouncing the joys of
home, by living alone in the wide desert, by the practice of
celibacy, by inventing instruments of torture, by destroying
men, women, and children, by covering the earth with
ungeons, by burning unbelievers, by putting chains upon the
thoughts and manacles upon the limbs of men, by believing
things without evidence and against evidence, by disbelieving
and denying demonstration, by despising facts, by hating
reason,, by denouncing liberty, by maligning heretics, by
slandering the dead, by subscribing to senseless and cruel
creeds, by discouraging investigation, by worshipping a book,
by the cultivation of credulity, by observing certain times
�THE GHOSTS
F
5
and days, by counting beads, by gazing at crosses, by hiring
others, to repeat verses and prayers, by burning candles and
ringing bells, by enslaving each other and putting out the
eyes of the soul. All this has been done to appease and
flatter these monsters of the air.
In the history of our poor world, no horror has been omitted,
no infamy has been left undone, by the believers in ghosts
by the worshippers of these fleshless phantoms.. And yet
these shadows were born of cowardice and malignity. They
were painted by the pencil of fear upon the canvas of ignorance
by that artist called superstition.
.
From these ghosts our fathers received information. They
were the schoolmasters of our ancestors.. They were the
scientists and philosophers, the geologists, legislators,
astronomers, physicians, metaphysicians, and historians of
the past. For ages these ghosts were supposed to be the
only source of real knowledge. They inspired men to write
books, and the books were considered sacred. If facts were
found to be inconsistent with these books, so much the
worse tor the facts, and especially for their discoverers. It
was then, and still is, believed that these books are the
basis of the idea of immortality; that to give up these volumes,
or, rather, the idea that they are inspired, is to renounce
the idea of immortality. This I deny.
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.
It is the rainbow—Hope shining upon the tears of grief.
From the books written by the ghosts we have at last
ascertained that they knew nothing about the world in which
we live. Did they know anything about the next? Upon
every point where contradiction is possible they have been
contradicted.
By these ghosts, by these citizens of the air, the affairs
of government were administered; all authority to govern
came from them. The emperors, kings, and potentates all
had commissions from these phantoms.
Man was not
considered as the source of any power whatever. T<? rebel
against the king was to rebel against the ghosts, and nothing
�6
THE GHOSTS
less than the blood of the offender could appease the invisible
phantom or the visible tyrant. Kneeling was the proper
position to ,be assumed by the multitude. The prostrate
were thé good. Those who stood erect were infidels and
traitors. In the name and by the authority of the ghosts,
man was enslaved, crushed, and plundered. The many toiled
wearily in the storm and sun that the few favourites of the
ghosts might live in idleness. The many lived in huts, and
caves, and dens, that the few might dwell in palaces. The
many covered themselves with rags, that the few might
robe themselves in purple and in gold. The many crept, and
cringed, and crawled, that the few might tread upon their
flesh with iron feet.
From the ghosts men received, not only authority, but
information of every kind. They told us the form of this
earth. They informed us that eclipses were caused by the
sins of man ; that the universe was made in six days ; that
astronomy and geology were devices of wicked men,
instigated by wicked ghosts ; that gazing at the sky with a
telescope was a dangerous thing ; that digging into the earth
was sinful curiosity ; that trying to be wise above what they
had written was born of a rebellious and irreverent spirit.
They told us there was no virtue like belief, and no crime
like doubt ; that investigation was pure impudence, and the
punishment therefor eternal torment. They not only told
us all about this world, but about two others ; and, if their
statements about the other worlds are as true as about this,
no one can estimate the value of their information.
For counless ages the world was governed by ghosts, and
they spared no pains to change the eagle of the human
intellect into a bat of darkness. To accomplish this infamous
purpose ; to drive the love of truth from the human heart ;
to prevent the advancement of mankind ; to shut out from
the world every ray of intellectual light ; to pollute every
mind with superstition, the power of kings, the cunning and
cruelty of priests, and the wealth of nations were exhausted.
During these years of persecution, ignorance, superstition,
and slavery, nearly all the people, the kings, lawyers, doctors,
the learned and the unlearned, believed in that frightful
production of ignorance, fear, and faith, called witchcraft.
They believed that man was the sport and prey of devils.
They really thought that the very air was thick with these
enemies of man.
With few exceptions, this hideous and
�i
/
/
THE GHOSTS
7{
infamous belief was universal.
Under these conditions
progress was almost impossible.
Fear paralyses the brain. Progress is born of courage.
Fear_ believes courage doubts. Fear falls upon the earth
and prays—courage stands erect and thinks. Fear retreats__
courage advances. Fear is barbarism—courage is civilisa
tion. _ Fear believes in witchcraft, in devils, and in ghosts.
Fear is religion—courage is science.
The facts upon which this terrible belief rested were proved
over and over again in every court of Europe. Thousands
confessed themselves guilty—admitted that they had sold
themselves to the devil. They gave the particulars of the
sale; told what they said and what the devil replied. They
confessed this, when they knew that confession was death;
their property would be confiscated, and their
children left to beg their bread. This is one of the miracles
of history—one of the strangest contradictions of the human
mind Without doubt, they really believed themselves guilty.
In the first place they believed in witchcraft as a fact, and
when charged with it they probably became insane. In their
insanity they confessed their guilt. They found themselves
abhorred and deserted—charged with a crime that they could
not disprove. Like a man in quicksand, every effort only
sank them deeper.
Caught in this frightful web, at the
mercy of the spiders of superstition, hope fled, and nothing
remained but the insanity of confession. The whole world
appeared to be insane.
In the time of James the First a man was executed for
causing a storm at sea with the intention of drowning one
of the royal family. How could he disprove it? How could he
snow that he did not cause the storm? All storms were at
that time generally supposed to be caused by the devil—the
prince of the power of the air—and by those whom he assisted.
. 1 implore you to remember that the believers in such
impossible things were the authors of our creeds and
confessions of faith.
A woman was tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale
one of the great judges and lawyers of England, for having
caused children to vomit crooked pins. She was also charged
with having nursed devils. The learned judge charged the
intelligent jury that there was no doubt as to the existence
teujht by the’ Kfe’ eStabHshed by a11 llis,or-v- “d exPr“sl>-
�THE GHOSTS
The woman was hanged and her body burned.
Sir Thomas More declared that to give up witchcraft was to
throwaway the sacred Scriptures. In my judgment, he was right.
John Wesley was a firm believer in ghosts and witches,
and insisted upon it, years after all laws upon the subject had
been repealed in England. I beg of you to remember that
John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church..
In New England a woman was charged with being a. witch,and with having changed herself into a fox. While in that
condition she was attacked and bitten by some dogs. A
committee of three men, by order of the court, examined this
woman. They removed her clothing and searched for witch
spots.” That is to say, spots into which needles could be
thrust without giving her pain. They, reported to the court
that such spots were found. She denied, however, that she
ever had changed herself into a fox. Upon the report of the
committee she was found guilty and actually executed. 1 his
was done by our Puritan fathers, by the gentlemen who
braved the dangers of the deep for the sake of worshipping
God and persecuting their fellow-men.
In those days people believed in what was known as
lycanthrophy—that is, that persons, with the assistance of. the
devil, could assume the form of wolves. An instance is. given
where a man was attacked by a wolf. He defended himself,
and succeeded in cutting off one of the animal’s paws. . lne
wolf ran away. The man picked up the paw, put it in his
pocket, and carried it home. There he found his wife with one '
of her hands gone. He took the paw from his pocket. It had
changed to a human hand. He charged his wife with being a
witch. She was tried. She confessed her guilt, and was burned.
People were burned for causing frosts in summer-tor
destroying crops with hail—for causing storms for making
cows go dry, and even for souring beer. There was no
impossibility for which someone was not tried and convicted.
The life of no one was secure. To be charged was to be
convicted. Every man was at the mercy of every, other
This infamous belief was so firmly seated in the minds ot
the people that to express a doubt as to its truth, was to be
suspected. Whoever denied the existence of witches and
devils was denounced as an infidel.
.
They believed that animals were often taken possession ot by
devils, and that the killing of the animal would destroy the
devil. They absolutely tried, convicted, and executed dumb beasts.
�THE GHOSTS
9
At Basle, in 1470, a rooster was tried upon the charge
of having laid an egg. Rooster eggs were used only in
making witch ointment—this everybody knew. The rooster
was convicted, and with all due solemnity was burned in the
public square. So a hog and six pigs were tried for having
killed and partially eaten a child. The hog was convicted,
but the pigs, on account probably of their extreme youth,
were acquitted. As late as 1740 a cow was tried and
convicted of being possessed by a devil.
They used to exorcise rats, locusts, snakes, and vermin.
They used to go through the alleys, streets, and fields, and
warn them to leave within a certain number of days. In case
they disobeyed, they were threatened with pains and penalties.
But let us be careful how we laugh at these things. Let
us not pride ourselves too much on the progress of our age.
We must not forget that some of our people are yet in the
same intelligent business.
Only a little while ago the
Governor of Minnesota appointed a day of fasting and prayer,
to see if some power could not be induced to kill the grass
hoppers, or send them into some other State.
About the close of the fifteenth century, so great was the
excitement with regard to the existence of witchcraft that
Pope Innocent VIII. issued a bull directing the inquisitors
to be vigilant in searching out and punishing all guilty of
this crime. Forms for the trial were regularly laid down in
a book or pamphlet called the Malleus Maleficorum (Hammer
of Witches), which was issued by the Roman See. Popes
Alexander, Leo, and Adrian issued like bulls.
For two
hundred and fifty years the Church was busy in punishing
the impossible crime of witchcraft; in burning, hanging, and
torturing men, women, and children. Protestants were as
active as Catholics, and in Geneva five hundred witches were
burned at the stake in a period of three months. About one
thousand were executed in one year in the diocese of Como.
At least one hundred thousand victims suffered in Germany
alone, the last execution (in Wurzburg) taking place as late
as 1739. Witches were burned in Switzerland as late as 1780.
In England the same frightful scenes were enacted.
Statutes were passed from Henry VI. to James I. defining
the crime and its punishment. The last Act passed by the
British Parliament was when Lord Bacon was a member of
theHouseof Commons; and this Act was not repealed until 1736*
Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws
�IO
THE GHOSTS
of England, says: “ To deny the possibility, nay, actual
existence, of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to
contradict the word of God in various passages both of the
Old and New Testament; and the thing itself is a truth to
which every nation in the world hath in its turn borne testi
mony, either by examples seemingly well attested or by
prohibitory laws, which at least suppose the possibility of a
commerce with evil spirits.”
In Brown’s Dictionary of the Bible, published at
Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1807, it is said that “A witch is a
woman that has dealings with Satan. That such persons
are among men is abundantly plain fr.om Scripture, and that
they ought to be put to death.”
This work was' republished in Albany, New York, in 1816.
No wonder the clergy of that city are ignorant and bigoted
even unto this day.
In 1716 Mrs. Hicks and her daughter, nine years of age,
were hanged for selling their souls to the devil, and raising
a storm by pulling off their stockings and making a lather
of soap.
In England it has been estimated that at least thirty
thousand were hanged and burned. The last victim executed
in Scotland perished in 1722. “She was an innocent old
woman, who had so little idea of her situation as to rejoice
at the sight of the fire which was destined to consume her.
She had a daughter, lame of both hands and of feet—a
circumstance attributed to the witch having been used to
transform her daughter into a pony and getting her shod
by the devil.”
In 1692 nineteen persons were executed and one pressed
to death in Salem, Massachusetts, for the crime of witchcraft.
It was thought in those days that men and women made
compacts with the devil, orally and in writing; that they
abjured God and Jesus Christ, and dedicated themselves
wholly to the devil.
The contracts were confirmed at a
general meeting of witches and ghosts, over which the
devil himself presided; and the persons generally signed the
articles of agreement with their own blood. These contracts
were, in some instances, for a few years; in others, for life.
General assemblies of the witches were held at least once a
year, at which they appeared entirely naked, besmeared with
an ointment made from the bodies of unbaptised infants. “To
these meetings they rode from great distances on broomsticks,
�THE GHOSTS
ii
pokers, goats, hogs, and dogs. Here they did homage to the
prince of hell, and offered him sacrifices of young children,
and practised all sorts of license until the break of day.”
“As late as 1815 Belgium was disgraced by a witch trial;
and guilt was established by the water ordeal.” “ In 1836
the populace of Hela, near Dantzic, twice plunged into the
sea a woman reputed to be a sorceress; and as the miserable
creature persisted in rising to the surface, she was
pronounced guilty and beaten to death.”
“ It was believed that the bodies of devils are not, like those
of men and animals, cast in an unchangeable mould. It
\Vas thought they were like clouds, refined and subtle matter,
capable of assuming any form and penetrating into any
orifice. The horrible tortures they endured in their place
of punishment rendered them extremely sensitive to suffering,
and they continually sought a temperate and somewhat moist
warmth in order to allay their pangs. It was for this reason
they so frequently entered into men and women.”
The devil could transport men, at his will, through the
air. He could beget children; and Martin Luther himself
had come into contact with one of these children. He
recommended the mother to throw the child into the river,
in order to free their house from the presence of the devil.
It was believed that the devil could transform people into
any shape he pleased.
Whoever denied these things was denounced as an infidel.
All the believers in witchcraft confidently appealed to the
Bible. Their mouths were filled with passages demonstra
ting the existence of witches and their power over human
beings. By the Bible they proved that innumerable evil
spirits were ranging over the world endeavouring to ruin
mankind; that these spirits possessed a power and wisdom
far. transcending the limits of human faculties; that they
delighted in every misfortune that could befall the world;
that their malice was superhuman.
That they caused
tempests was proved by the action of the devil towards Job;
by the passage in the' book of Revelation describing the four
angels who held the four winds, and to whom it was given
to afflict the earth. They believed the devil could carry
persons hundreds of miles, in a few seconds, through the
air. They believed this, because they knew that Christ had
been carried by the devil in the same manner and placed on
a pinnacle of the temple. “The prophet Habakkuk had been
�12
THE GHOSTS
transported by a spirit from Judea to Babylon; and Philip,
the evangelist, had been the object of a similar miracle;
and in the same way St. Paul had been carried in the body
into the third heaven.”
“ In those pious days they believed that Incubi and Succubi
were forever wandering among mankind, alluring, by more
than human charms, the unwary to their destruction, and
laying plots, which were too often successful, against the
virtue of the saints. Sometimes the witches kindled in the
monastic priest a more terrestrial fire. People told, with
bated breath, how, under the spell of a vindictive woman,
four successive abbots in a Germian monastery had been
wasted away by an unholy flame.”
An instance is given in which the devil not only assumed
the appearance of a holy man, in order to pay his addresses
to a lady, but, when discovered, crept under the bed, suffered
himself to be dragged out, and was impudent enough to
declare that he was the veritable bishop. So perfectly had
he assumed the form and features of the prelate that those
who knew the bishop best were deceived.
One can hardly imagine the frightful state of the human
mind during these long centuries of darkness and super
stition.
To them these things were awful and frightful
realities. Hovering above them in the air, in their houses,
in the bosoms of friends, in their very bodies, in all the
darkness of night, everywhere, around, above, and below,
were innumerable hosts of unclean and malignant devils.
From the malice of those leering and vindictive vampires
of the air the Church pretended to defend mankind. Pursuedby these phantoms, the frightened multitudes fell upon their
faces and implored the aid of robed hypocrisy and sceptred
theft.
Take from the orthodox Church of to-day the threat and
fear of hell, and it becomes an extinct volcano.
Take from the Church the miraculous, the supernatural,
the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the un
knowable, and the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains.
Notwithstanding all the infamous things justly laid to
the charge of the Church, we are told that the civilisation of
to-day is the child of what we are pleased to call the super
stition of the past.
Religion has not civilised man—man has civilised religion.
God improves as man advances.
�THE GHOSTS
13
Let me call your attention to what we have received from
the followers of the ghosts. Let me give you an outline of
the sciences as taught by these philosophers of the clouds.
All diseases were produced either as a punishment by the
good ghosts or out of pure malignity by the bad ones. There
were, properly speaking, no diseases. The sick were
possessed by ghosts. The science of medicine consisted in
knowing how to persuade these ghosts to vacate the premises.
For thousands of years the diseased were treated with
incantations, with hideous noises, with drums and gongs.
Everything was done to make the visit of the ghost as
unpleasant as possible, and they generally succeeded in
making things so disagreeable that, if the ghost did not leave,
the patient did. These ghosts were supposed to be of different
rank, power, and dignity. Now and then a man pretended
to have won the favour of some powerful ghost, and that
gave him power over the little ones. Such a man became
an eminent physician.
It was found that certain kinds of smoke, such as that
produced by burning the liver of a fish, the dried skin of a
serpent, the eyes of a toad, or the tongue of an adder, were
exceedingly offensive to the nostrils of an ordinary ghost.
With this smoke the sick room would be filled until the ghost
had vanished or the patient died.
It was also believed that certain words—the names of the
most powerful ghosts—when properly pronounced, were very
effective weapons. It was for a long time thought that
Latin words were .the best, Latin being a dead language,
and known by the clergy. , Others thought that two sticks
laid across each other and held before thé wicked ghost
would cause it instantly to flee in dread away.
For thousands of years ,the practice of medicine consisted
in driving these evil spirits out of the bodies of men.
In some instances bargains and compromises were made
with the ghosts. One case is given where a multitude of
devils traded a man for a herd of swine. In this transaction
the devils were the losers, as the swine immediately drowned
themselves in the sea. This idea of disease appears to have
been almost universal, and is by no means yet extinct.
The contortions of the epileptic, the strange twitchings
of those afflicted with chorea, the shakings of palsy, dreams,
trances, and the numberless frightful phenomena produced
by diseases of the nerves, were all seized upon as so many
\
.
�14
THE GHOSTS
proofs that the bodies of men were filled with unclean and
malignant g*hosts.
Whoever endeavoured to account for these things by
natural causes, whoever attempted to cure diseases by
natural means, was denounced by the Church as an infidel.
To explain anything was a crime. It was to the interest of
the priest that all phenomena should be accounted for by the
will and power of gods and devils.
The moment it is
admitted that all phenomena are within the domain of the
natural, the necessity for a priest has disappeared. Religion
breathes the air of the supernatural. Take from the mind of
man the idea of the supernatural, and religion ceases to exist.
For this reason, the Church has always despised the man who
explained the wonderful. Upon this principle, nothing was
left undone to stay the science of medicine. As long as
plagues and pestilences could be stopped by prayer, the priest
was useful. The moment the physician found a cure, the
priest became an extravagance. The moment it began to
be apparent that prayer could do nothing for the body, the
priest shifted his ground and began praying for the soul.
Long after the devil idea was substantially abandoned in
the practice of medicine, and when it was admitted that
God had nothing to do with ordinary coughs and colds, it
was still believed that all the frightful diseases were sent
by him as punishments for the wickedness of the people. It
was thought to be a kind of blasphemy to even try, by any
natural means,.to stay the ravages of pestilence. Formerly,
during the prevalence of plague and epidemics, the arrogance
of the priest was boundless. He told the people that they
had slighted the clergy, that they had refused to pay tithes,
that they had doubted some of the doctrines of the Church,
and that God was now taking his revenge. The people,
for the most part, believed this infamous tissue of priest
craft. They hastened to fall upon their knees; they poured
out their wealth upon the altars of hypocrisy; they abased
and debased themselves; from their minds they banished all
doubts, and made haste to crawl in the very dust of humility.
The Church never wanted disease to be under the control
of man.
Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College,
preached a sermon against vaccination. His idea was that,
if God had decreed from all eternity that a certain man should
die with the small-pox, it was a frightful sin to avoid and
annul that decree by the trick of vaccination. Small-pox
�THE GHOSTS
ij
being regarded as one of the heaviest guns in the arsenal of
heaven, to spike it was the height of presumption. Plagues
and pestilences were instrumentalities' in the hands of God
with which to gain the love arid worship of mankind. To
find a cure for disease was to take a weapon from the Church.
No one tries to cure the ague with prayer. Quinine has
been found altogether more reliable.
Just as soon as a
specific is found for a disease, that disease will be left out
of the list of prayer. The number of diseases with which
God from time to time afflicts mankind is continually decreas
ing. In a few years all of them will be under the control
of& man, the gods will be left unarmed, and the threats of
their priests will excite only a smile.
The science of medicine has had but one enemy—religion.
Man was afraid to save his body for fear he might lose his soul.
Is it any wonder that the people in those days believed in
and taught the infamous doctrine of eternal punishment—
a doctrine that makes God a heartless monster and man a
slimy hypocrite and slave?
The ghosts were historians, and their histories were the
grossest absurdities. “Tales told by idiots, full of sound
and fury, signifying nothing.” In those days the histories
were written by the monks, who, as a rule, were almost as
superstitious as they were dishonest. They wrote as though
they had been witnesses of every occurrence they related.
They wrote the history of every country of importance. They
told all the past, and predicted all the future with an impu
dence that amounted to sublimity. “ They traced the order of
St. Michael, in France, to the archangel himself, and alleged
that he was the founder of a chivalric order in heaven itself.
They said that Tartars originally came from hell, and that
they were called Tartars because Tartarus was one of the
names of perdition. They declared that Scotland was so
named after Scota, a daughter of Pharaoh, who landed in
Ireland, invaded Scotland, and took it by force of arms.
This statement was made in a letter addressed to the Pope
in the fourteenth century, and was alluded to as a well-known
fact. The letter was written by some of the highest digni
taries, and by the direction of the King himself.
These gentlemen accounted for the red on the breasts of
robins from the fact that these birds carried water to
unbaptised infants in hell.
�16
THE GHOSTS
Matthew, of Paris, an eminent historian of the fourteenth
century, gaye the world the following piece of information :
It is well known that Mohammed was once a cardinal, and
became a heretic because he failed in his effort to be elected
Pope ; and that, haying drank to excess, he fell by the road
side, and in this condition was killed by swine. “And for that
reason his followers abhor pork even unto this day.”
Another eminent historian informs us that Nero was in
the habit of vomiting frogs. When I read this I said to
myself : Some of the croakers of the present day against
progress would be the better for such a vomit.
The history of Charlemagne was written by Turpin, of
Rheims. He was a bishop. He assures us that the walls
of a city fell down in answer to prayer; that there were
giants in those days who could take fifty ordinary men under
their arms and walk away with them. “ With the greatest
of these, a direct descendant of Goliath, one Orlando, had a
theological discussion; and in the heat of the debate, when
the giant was overwhelmed with the argument, Orlando
rushed forward and inflicted a fatal stab.”
The history of Britain, written by the archdeacons of
Monmouth and Oxford, was wonderfully popular. According
to them, Brutus conquered England and built the city of
London. During his time it rained pure blood for three days.
At another time a monster came from the sea, and, after
having devoured great multitudes of people, swallowed the
king and disappeared. They tell us that King Arthur was
not born like other mortals, but was the result of a magical
Contrivance; that he had great luck in killing giants; that
he killed one in France that had the cheerful habit of eating
some thirty men a day; that this giant had clothes woven
of the beards of the kings he had devoured. To cap the
climax, one of the authors of this book was promoted for
having written the only reliable history of his country.
In all the histories of those days there is hardly a single
truth.
Facts were considered unworthy of preservation.
Anything that really happened was not of sufficient interest
or importance to be recorded. The great religious historian,
Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully
omitted whatever tended to discredit the Church, and that
he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory.
The same glorious principle was scrupulously adhered to
by all the historians of that time.
�THE GHOSTS
• i7
They wrote, and the people believed, that .the tracks of
Pharaoh’s chariots were still visible on the sands of the Red
Sea, and that they had been miraculously preserved from the
winds and waves as perpetual witnesses of the great miracle
there performed.
It is safe to say that every truth in the histories of those
times is the result of accident or mistake.
They accounted for everything as the work of good and
evil spirits. With cause and effect they had nothing to do.
Facts were in no way related to each other. God, governed
by infinite caprice, filled the world with miracles and dis
connected events. From the quiver of his hatred came the
arrows of famine, pestilence, and death.
The moment the idea is abandoned that all is natural, that
all phenomena are the necessary links in the endless chain
of being, the conception of history becomes impossible. With
the ghosts, the present is not the child of the past, nor the
mother of the future. In the domain of religion all is chance,
accident, and caprice.
Do not forget, I pray you, that our creeds were written
by the contemporaries of these historians.
The same idea was applied to law. It was believed by
our intelligent ancestors that all law derived its sacredness
and its binding force from the fact that it had been com
municated to man by the ghosts.
Of course it was not
pretended that the ghosts told everybody the law; but they
told it to a few, and the few told it to the people, and the
people, as a rule, paid them exceedingly well for their trouble.
It was thousands of ages before the people commenced
making laws for themselves, and, strange as it may appear,
most of these laws were vastly superior to the ghost article.
Through the web and woof of human legislation began to
run and shine and glitter the golden thread of justice.
During these years of darkness it was believed that rather
than see an act of injustice done, rather than see the
innocent suffer, rather than see the guilty triumph, some
ghost would interfere. This belief, as a rule, gave great
satisfaction to the victorious party, and, as the other man
was dead, no complaint was heard from him.
This doctrine was the sanctification of brute force and
chance. They had trials by battle, by fire, by water, and by
lot. Persons were made to grasp hot iron, and if it burned
them their guilt was established. Others, with tied hands
�THE GHOSTS
and feet, were cast into the sea, and if they sank the verdict
of guilty was unanimous; if they did not sink, they were in
league with devils.
So, in England, persons charged with crime could appeal
to the corsned. The corsned was a piece of the sacramental
bread. If the defendant could swallow this piece, he went
acquit. Godwin, Earl of Kent, in the time of Edward the
Confessor, appealed to the corsned. He failed to swallow it,
and was choked to death.
. The ghosts and their followers always took delight in
torture, in cruel and unusual punishments. For the infrac
tion of most of their laws death was the penalty—death
produced by stoning and by fire.
Sometimes, when man
committed only murder, he was allowed to flee to some city
of refuge. Murder was a 'crime against man. But for
saying certain words, or denying certain doctrines, or for
picking up sticks on certain days, or for worshipping the
wrong ghost, or for failing to pray to the right
one, or for laughing at a priest, or for saying that
wine was not blood, or that bread was not flesh, or for
failing to regard rams’ horns as artillery, or for insisting
that a dry bone was scarcely sufficient to take the place
of water works, or that a raven, as a rule, made a poor
landlord—death, produced by all the ways that the ingenuity
of hatred could devise, was the penalty.
Law is a growth—it is a science. Right and wrong exist
in the nature of things. Things are not right because they
are commanded, nor wrong because they are prohibited.
There are real crimes enough without creating artificial ones.
All progress in legislation has for centuries consisted in
repealing the laws of the ghosts.
The idea of right and wrong is born of man’s capacity
to enjoy and suffer. If man could not suffer, if he could not
inflict injury upon his fellow, if he could neither feel nor
inflict pain, the idea of right and wrong never would have
entered his brain.
But for this, the word “conscience”
never would have passed the lips of man. *
There is one good—happiness. There is but one sin—
selfishness.
All law should be for the preservation of
the one and the destruction of the other.
Under the regime of the ghosts, laws were not supposed
to exist in the nature of things. They were supposed to be
simply the irresponsible command of a ghost. These com-
�THE GHOSTS
19
mands were not supposed to rest upon reason ; they were
the product of arbitrary will.
The penalties for the violation of these laws were as cruel as
the laws were senseless and absurd. Working on the Sabbath
and murder were both punished with death. The tendency of
such laws is to blot from the human heart the sense of justice.
To show you how perfectly every department of knowledge,
or ignorance rather, was saturated with superstition, I will
for a moment refer to the science of language.
It was thought by our fathers that Hebrew was the original
language ; that it was taught to Adam in the Garden of Eden
by the Almighty, and that consequently all languages came
from, and could be traced to, the Hebrew. Every fact incon
sistent with that idea was discarded.
According to the
ghosts, the trouble at the tower of Babel accounted for the
fact that all people did not speak Hebrew.
The Babel
business settled all questions in the science of language.
After a time, so many facts were found to be inconsistent
with the Hebrew idea that it began to fall into disrepute, and
other languages began to compete for the honour of being
the original.
André Kempe, in 1569, published a work on the language
of Paradise, in which he maintained that God spoke to Adam
in Swedish ; that Adam answered in Danish ; and that the
serpent—which appears to me quite probable—spoke to Eve
in French. Erro, in a work published at Madrid, took the
ground that Basque was the language spoken in the Garden
of Eden; but in 1580 Goropius published his celebrated work
at Antwerp, in which he put the whole matter at rest by
showing, beyond all doubt, that the language spoken in
Paradise was neither more nor less than plain Holland Dutch.
The real founder of the science of language was Leibnitz,
, a contemporary of Sir Isaac Newton. He discarded the idea
that all languages could be traced to one language.
He
maintained that language was a natural growth. Experience
teaches us that this must be so. Words are continually dying
and continually being born.
Words are naturally and
necessarily produced.. Words are the garments of thought,
the robes of ideas. Some are as rude as the skins of wild
beasts, and others glisten and glitter like silk and gold.
They have been born of hatred and revenge ; of love and
self-sacrifice ; of hope and fear ; of agony and joy. These
�20
THE GHOSTS
words are born of the terror and beauty of nature.
The
stars have fashioned them. In them mingle the darkness
and the dawn. From everything they have taken something.
Words are the crystallisations of human history, of all that
man has enjoyed and suffered—his victories and defeats—all
that he has lost and won. Words are the shadows of all
that has been—the mirrors of all that is.
The ghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and
geology. According to them, the earth was made out of
nothing, and, a little more nothing having been taken than
was used in the construction of the world, the stars were
made out of what was left over.'- Cosmos, in the sixth
century, taught that the stars were impelled by angels, who
either carried them on their shoulders, rolled them in front
of them, or drew them after. He also taught that each angel
that pushed a star took great pains to observe what the other
angels were doing, so that the relative distances between the
stars might always remain the same. He also gave his idea
as to the form of the world.
He stated that the world was a vast parallelogram ; that
on the outside was a strip of land, like the frame of a common
slate; that then there was a strip of water, and in the middle
a great piece of land; that Adam and Eve lived on the
outer strip; that their descendants, with the exception of the
Noah family, were drowned by a flood on this outer strip;
that the ark finally rested on the middle piece of land where
we now are. He accounted for night and day by saying that
on the outside strip of land there was a high mountain around
which the sun and moon revolved, and that when the sun
was on the other side of the mountain it was night, and when
on this side it was day.
He also declared that the earth was flat. This he proved
by many passages from the Bible.
Among other reasons
for believing the earth to be flat, he brought forward the
following : We are told in the New Testament that Christ
shall come again in glory and power, and all the world shall
see him. Now, if the world is round, how are the people
on the other side going to see Christ if he comes? That
settled the question, and the Church not only endorsed he
book, but declared that whoever believed less or more than
stated by Cosmos was a heretic.
In those blessed days Ignorance was a king and Science an
outcast.
�THE GHOSTS
21
They knew the moment this earth ceased to.be the centre
of the universe, and became a mere speck in the starry
heaven of existence, that their religion would become a child
ish fable of the past.
In the name and by the authority of the ghosts men enslaved
their fellow-men; they trampled upon the rights of women
and children. In the name and by the authority of the ghosts
they bought and sold and destroyed each other; they filled
heaven with tyrants and earth with slaves, the present with
despair and the future with horror. In the name and by the
authority of the ghosts they imprisoned the human, mind,
polluted the conscience, hardened the heart, subverted justice,
crowned robbery, sainted hypocrisy, and extinguished for a
thousand years the torch of reason.
I have endeavoured, in some faint degree, to show you
what has happened, and what always will happen when men
are governed by superstition and fear; when they desert the
sublime standard of reason; when they take the words of
others and do not investigate for themselves.
Even the great men of those days were nearly as weak
in this matter as the most ignorant.
Kepler, one of the
greatest men of the world, an astronomer second to none,
although he plucked from the stars the secrets of the universe,
was an astrologer, and really believed that he could predict the
career of a man by finding what star was in the ascendant at
his birth. This great man breathed, so to speak, the atmos
phere of his time. He believed in the music of the spheres,
and assigned alto, bass, tenor, and treble to certain stars.
Tycho Brahe, another astronomer, kept an idiot, whose
disconnected and meaningless words he carefully set down,
and then put them together in such manner as to make
prophecies, and waited patiently to see them fulfilled. . Luther
believed that he had actually seen the devil, and had discussed
points of theology with him. The human mind was in chains.
Every idea almost was a monster. Thought was deformed.
Facts were looked upon as worthless. Only the wonderful
was worth preserving. Things that actually happened were
not considered worth recording—real occurrences were too
common. Everybody expected the miraculous.
I'he ghosts were supposed to be busy ; devils were thought
to be the most industrious things in the universe, and with
these imps every occurrence of an unusual character was in
some way connected. There was no order, no serenity, no
/
�-
the ghosts
certainty in anything.
Everything depended upon ghosts
and phantoms. Man. was, for the most part, at the mercy
of maleyoient ^Pints. He protected himself as best he could
with holy water and tapers and wafers and cathedrals He
made noises and rung bells to frighten the ghosts, and he
made music to charm them. He used smoke to choke them
and incense to please them. He wore beads and crosses.
He said prayers, and hired others to say them. He fasted
when he was hungry, and feasted when he was not
He
believed everything that seemed unreasonable, just to appease
the ghosts. He humbled himself. He crawled in the dust.
He shut the doors and windows, and excluded every ray of
light from the temple of the soul. He debauched and polluted
his own mind, and toiled night and day to repair the walls
of his own prison. From the garden of his heart he plucked
and trampled upon the holy flowers of pity.
The priests reveiiea in horrible descriptions of hell
revelled
hell. Con
xue
cerning the wrath of God they grew eloquent. They
HPnniinf'Pri
x
J
denounced mor* oo 4-^4-nllr, depraved. mt
man as totally J;____________ 1
They made reason
blasphemy and pity a crime. Nothing so delighted them as
painting the torments and sufferings of the. lost. Over the
,never dies they grew poetic; and the second
death filled them with a kind of holy delight. According to
them, the smoke and cries ascending from hell were the
perfume and music of heaven.
At the risk of being tiresome, I have said what I have
to show you the productions of the human mind, when
enslaved; the effects of widespread ignorance—the results
of fear. I want to convince you that every form of slavery
is a viper that, sooner or later, will strike its poison fang's
into the bosoms of men.
The first great step towards progress is for man to cease
to be the slave of man ; the second, to cease to be the slave of
the monsters of his own creation—of the ghosts and phantoms
of the air.
For ages the human race was imprisoned. Through the
bars and grates came a few struggling rays of light. Against
these grates and bars Science pressed its pale and thoughtful
face, wooed by the holy dawn of human advancement.
Men found that the real was the useful; that what a man
knows is better than what a ghost says; that an event is
more valuable than a prophecy.
They found that diseases
were not produced by spirits, and could not be cured by
�THE GHOSTS
23
frightening them away. They found that death was as natural
as life. They began to study the anatomy and chemistry of
the human body, and found that all was natural and within the
domain of law.
The conjurer and sorceror were discarded, and the physician
and surgeon employed. They found that the earth was not
flat; that the stars were not mere specks. They found that
being born under a particular planet had nothing to do with
the fortunes of men.
The astrologer was discharged, and the astronomer took
his place.
They found that the earth had swept through the constella
tions for millions of ages. They found that good and evil
were produced by natural causes, and not by ghosts; that
man could not be good or bad enough to stop or cause a rain ;
that diseases were produced as naturally as grass, and were
not sent as punishments upon man for failing to believe a
certain creed. They found that man, through intelligence,
could take advantage of the forces of Nature—that he could
make the waves, the winds, the flames, and the lightnings
of heaven do his bidding and minister to his wants. They
found that the ghosts knew nothing of benefit to man; that
they were utterly ignorant of geology, of astronomy, of geo
graphy ; that they knew nothing of history; that they were
poor doctors and worse surgeons; that they knew nothing of
’law and less of justice ; that they were without brains,, and
utterly destitute of hearts ; that they knew nothing of the rights
of men; that they were despisers of women, the haters of
progress, the enemies of science, and the destroyers of liberty.
The condition of the world during the Dark Ages shows
exactly the result of enslaving the bodies and souls of men.
In those days there was no freedom. Labour was despised,
and a labourer was considered but little above a beast.
Ignorance, like a vast cowl, covered the brain of the world,
¿ind superstition ran riot with the imagination of man. The air
was filled with angels, with demons and monsters. Credulity
sat upon the throne of the soul, and Reason was an exiled
king. A man to be distinguished must be a soldier or a monk.
War and theology—that is to say, murder and hypocrisy—
were the principal employments of man. Industry was a slave,
theft was commerce ; murder was war, hypocrisy was religion.
Every Christian country maintained that it was no robbery
�24
THE GHOSTS
to take the property of Mohammedans by force, and no
murder to kill the owners. Lord Bacon was the first man
of note who maintained that a Christian country was bound
to keep its plighted faith with an infidel nation. Reading
and writing were considered dangerous arts. Every layman
who could read and write was suspected of being a heretic.
All thought was discouraged. They forged chains of super
stition for the minds and manacles of iron for the bodies of
men. The earth was ruled by the cowl and sword, by the
mitre and sceptre, by the altar and throne, by Fear and Force,
by Ignorance and Faith, by ghouls and ghosts.
In the fifteenth century the following law was in force in
England :—
“ That whosoever reads the Scriptures in the mother tongue
shall forfeit land, cattle, life, and goods from their heirs for
ever, and so be condemned for heretics to God, enemies to
the Crown, and most arrant traitors to the land.”
During the first year this law was in force thirty-nine were
hanged for its violation and their bodies burned.
In the sixteenth century men were burned because they
failed to kneel to a procession of monks.
The slightest word uttered against the superstition of the
time was published with death.
Even the reformers, so-called, of those days had no idea
of intellectual liberty—no idea even of toleration. Luther,
Knox, Calvin, believed in religious liberty only when they*
were in the minority. The moment they were clothed with
power they began to exterminate with fire and sword.
Castellio was the first minister who advocated the liberty
of the soul. He was regarded by the reformers as a criminal,
and treated as though he had committed the crime of crimes.
Bodinus, a lawyer of France, about the same time, wrote a
few words in favour of the freedom of conscience, but public
opinion was overwhelmingly against him. The people were
ready, anxious, and willing with whip and chain and fire to
drive from the mind of man the heresy that he had a right,
to think.
Montaigne, a man blessed with so much common sense that
he was the most uncommon man of his time, was the first
to raise a voice against torture in France. But what was
the voice of one man against the terrible cry of ignorant,
infatuated, superstitious, and malevolent millions? It was
the cry of a drowning man in the wild roar of the cruel sea.
�THE GHOSTS
25
In spite of the efforts of the brave few, the infamous war
against the freedom of the soul was waged until at least one
hundred millions of human beings—fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters—with hopes, loves, and aspirations like ourselves,
were sacrificed upon the cruel altar of an ignorant faith.
They perished in every way by which death can be produced.
Every nerve of pain was sought out and touched by the
believers in ghosts.
.
. ,
For my part, I glory in the fact that here in the new world —in the United States—liberty of conscience was first
guaranteed to man, and that the Constitution of the United
States was the first great decree entered in the high court of
human equity forever divorcing Church and State—the first
injunction granted against the interference of the ghosts.
This was one of the grandest steps ever taken by the human
race in the direction of progress.
.
You will ask what has caused this wonderful change in
three hundred years. And I answer—the inventions and
discoveries of the few; the brave thoughts, the heroic utter
ances of the few; the acquisition of a few facts.
Besides, you must remember that every wrong in some
way tends to abolish itself. It is hard to make a he stand
always. A lie will not fit a fact. It will only fit another
lie made for the purpose. The life of a lie is simply a question
of time. Nothing but truth is immortal. The nobles and
kings quarrelled; the priests began to dispute; the ideas of
government began to change.
,
In 1441 printing was discovered. At that time the past
was a vast cemetery, with hardly an epitaph. The ideas of
men had mostly perished in the brain that produced them.
The lips of the human race had been sealed. Printing gave
”• pinions to thought. It preserved ideas. It made it possible
for man to bequeath to the future the riches of his brain,
the wealth of his soul. At first it was used to flood the world
with the mistakes of the ancients, but since that time it has
been flooding the world with light.
When people read they begin to reason, and when they
reason they progress. This was another grand step in the
direction of progress.
The discovery of gunpowder, that put the peasant almos
upon a par with the prince; that put an end to the so-called
age of chivalry ; that released a vast number of men from the
armies ; that gave pluck and nerve a chance with brute strength.
�26
THE GHOSTS
resdessdi«7ofradvLtori“ha7broe it“'68 T? ‘r°d by the
°f -> * • <tt
• iSr
o build a school-house is to construct a fort
livery library is an arsenal filled with the weanons and
~Z ix»
is a ™“b
niTui fndK^er“6 ^eIlan
^ank Gahleo^^
nicus, and Kepler, and Descartes, and Newton, and Lanlace
I thank Locke and Hume, and Bacon, and Shakespearfind
IndW^ts andVnknd
Goetbe' 1 thank Fu’lton’
wt>r>
a’ vt. °.ta’ an^ Galvani, and Franklin, and Morse
^ho made lightning- the messenger of man
r think
Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science. I thank Crompton
and Arkwright, from whose brains leaped the looms find
spindles that clothe the world. I thank Luther for protesting
S ' „ ‘ Je abuses of tht Church, and I denounce him becausf
he was the enemy of liberty. I thank Calvin for wridnTa
book m favour of religious freedom, and I abhor him because
pLtecX XVh / XX
resistin“opal
persecution, and I hate him because he persecuted in his
is obed efcT M C 7’’f°r SaTying’ “ Resistance to tyrants
is obedience to God, and yet I am compelled to say that
they were tyrants themselves. I thank Thomas Paine because
he was a believer in liberty, and because he did as much to
vfuG.my c°untry free as any other human being. I thank
A oltaire, that great man who, for half a century, was the
�THE GHOSTS
intellectual emperor of Europe, and who, from his throne at
the foot of the Alps, pointed the finger of scorn at every
hypocrite in Christendom. I thank Darwin, • Haeckel, and
Buchner, Spencer, Tyndall, and Huxley, Draper, Lecky, and
Buckle.
I thank the inventors, the discoverers, the thinkers, the
scientists, the explorers. I thank the honest millions who
have toiled.
I thank the brave men with brave thoughts. They are
the Atlases upon whose broad and mighty shoulders rests
the grand fabric of civilisation. They are the men who have
broken, and are still breaking, the chains of Superstition.
They are the Titans who carried Olympus by assault, and
who will soon stand victors upon’s Sinai’s crags.
We are beginning to learn that to exchange a mistake
for the truth—a superstition for a fact—to ascertain the
real—is to progress.
Happiness is the only possible good, and all that tends
to the happiness of man is right, and is of value. All that
tends to develop the bodies and minds of men; all that gives
us better houses, better clothes, better food, better pictures,
grander music, better heads, better hearts; all that renders
us more intellectual and more loving, nearer just; that makes
us better husbands and wives, better children, better citizens
—all these things combined produce what I call Progress.
Man advances only as he overcomes the obstructions of
Nature, and this can be done only by labour and by thought.
Labour is the foundation of all. Without labour, and without
great labour, progress is impossible. The progress of the
world depends upon the men who walk in the fresh furrows
and through the rustling corn ; upon those who sow and reap ;
upon those whose faces are radiant with the glare of furnace
fires; upon the delvers in the mines, and the workers in
shops; upon those who give to the winter air the ringing
music of the axe; upon those who battle with the boisterous
billows of the sea; upon the inventors and discoverers; upon
the brave thinkers.
From the surplus produced by labour schools and
universities are built and fostered. From this surplus the
painter is paid for the productions of the pencil; the sculptor
for chiselling shapeless rock into forms divinely beautiful, and
the poet for singing the hopes, the loves, the memories, and
�28
•
THE GHOSTS
the aspirations of the world. This surplus has given us the
books in which we converse with the dead and living kings
of the human race. It has given us all there is of beauty,
of elegance, and of refined happiness.
I am aware that there is a vast difference of opinion as to
what progress really is; that many denounce the ideas of
to-day as destructive of all happiness—of all good. I know
that there are many worshippers of the past. They venerate
the ancient because it is ancient. They see no beauty in
anything from which they do not blow the dust of ages with
the breath of praise. They say, no masters like the old;
no religion, no governments, like the ancient; no orators,
no poets, no statesmen, like those who have been dust for
two thousand years. Others love the modern simply because
it is modern.
We should have gratitude enough to acknowledge the
obligations we are under to the great and heroic of antiquity,
and independence enough not to believe what they said simply
because they said it.
With the idea that labour is the basis of progress goes the
truth that labour must be free. The labourer must be a free man.
The free man, working for wife and child, gets his head
and hands in partnership.
To do the greatest amount of work in the shortest space of
time is the problem of free labour.
Slavery does the least work in the longest space of time.
Free labour will give us wealth. Free thought will give
us truth.
Slowly but surely man is freeing his imagination of these
sexless phantoms, of these cruel ghosts. Slowly but surely
he is rising above the superstitions of the past. He is learning
to rely upon himself. He is beginning to find that labour
is the only prayer that ought to be answered, and that hoping,
toiling, aspiring, suffering men and women are of more
importance than all the ghosts that ever wandered through
the fenceless fields of space.
The believers in ghosts claim still that they are the only
wise and virtuous people upon the earth ; claim still that there
is a difference between them and unbelievers so vast that they
will be infinitely rewarded and the others infinitely punished.
I ask you to-night, do the theories and doctrines of the
theologians satisfy the heart or brain of the nineteenth century ?
Have the Churches the confidence of mankind?
�THE GHOSTS
29
Does the merchant give credit to a man because he belongs
to a Church?
Does the banker loan money to a man because he is
Methodist or Baptist?
Will a certificate of good standing in any Church be taken
as collateral security for one dollar?
Will you take the word of a Church member, or his note,
or his oath, simply because he is a Church member?
Are the clergy, as a class, better, kinder, and more generous
to their families—to their fellow-men—than doctors, lawyers,
merchants, and farmers?
Does a belief in ghosts and unreasonable things necessarily
make people honest?
When a man loses confidence in Moses, must the people
lose confidence in him?
Does not the credit system in morals breed extravagance
L
in sin ?
Why send missionaries to other lands while every peniten
tiary in ours is filled with criminals?
Is it philosophical to say that they who do right carry a cross ?
Is it a source of joy to think that perdition is the destina
tion of nearly all of the children of men ?
Is it worth while to quarrel about original sin—when there
is so much copy?
Does it pay to dispute about baptism, and the Trinity,
and predestination, and Apostolic succession, and the infalli|. bility of Churches, of Popes, and of books? Does all this
do any good?
Are the theologians welcomers of new truths? Are they
noted for their candour? Do they treat an opponent with
common fairness ?
Are they investigators ?
Do they pull
forward, or do they hold back? s
Is science indebted to the Church for a solitary fact?
'
What Church is an asylum for a persecuted truth?
What great reform has been inaugurated by the Church?
Did the Church abolish slavery?
Has the Church raised its voice against war?
I * I used to think that there was in religion no real restrainf ing force. Upon this point my mind has changed. Religion
I will prevent man from committing artificial crimes and offences.
■*
A man committed murder. The evidence was so conclusive
i
that he confessed his guilt.
He was asked why he killed his fellow-man.
�3°
THE GHOSTS
He replied: “For money.”
“ Did you get any? ”
“Yes.”
“ How much? ”
“Fifteen cents.”
“What did you do with the money?”
“ Spent it.”
“What for?”
“ Liquor.”
“What else did you find upon the dead man? ”
“He had his dinner in a bucket—some meat and bread.”
“What did you do with that?”
“ I ate the bread.”
“What did you do with the meat? ”
“I threw it away.”
“Why? ”
“ It was Friday.”
Just to the extent that man has freed himself from the
dominion of ghosts he has advanced. Just to the extent that
he has freed himself from the tyrants of his own creation he
has progressed. Just to the extent that he has investigated
for himself he has lost confidence in superstition.
With knowledge, obedience becomes intelligent acqui
escence—it is no longer degrading. Acquiescence in the
understood—in the known-—is the act of a sovereign, not
of a slave. It ennobles, it does not degrade.
Man has found that he must give liberty to others in order
to have it himself. He has found that a master is also a
slave; that a tyrant is himself a serf. He has found that
Governments should be founded and administered by man
and for man ; that the rights of all are equal; that the powers
that be are not ordained by God; that woman is at least
the equal of man; that men existed before books; that
religion is one of the phases of thought through which the
world is passing; that all creeds were made by man; that
everything is natural; that a miracle is an impossibility;
that we know nothing of origin and destiny; that concern
ing the unknown we are all equally ignorant; that the pew
has the right to contradict what the pulpit asserts; that man
is responsible only to himself and those he injures, and that
all have a right to think.
True religion must be free. Without perfect liberty of the
�THE GHOSTS
3i
mind there can be no true religion. Without liberty the brain
is a dungeon—the mind a convict. The slave may bow and
cringe and crawl, but he cannot adore—he cannot love.
True religion is the perfume of a free and grateful heart.
True religion is a subordination of the passions to the percep
tions of the intellect. True religion is not a theory—it is
a practice. It is not a creed—it is a life.
A theory that is afraid of investigation is undeserving a
place in the human mind.
I do not pretend to tell what all the truth is. I do not
pretend to have fathomed the abyss, nor to have floated on
outstretched wings level with the dim heights of thought.
I simply plead for freedom.
I denounce the cruelties and
horrors of slavery. I ask for light and air for the souls
of men. I say, Take off those chains—break those manacles
—free those limbs—release that brain ! I plead for the right
to think—to reason—to investigate. I ask that the future
may be enriched with the honest thoughts of men. I implore
every human being to be a soldier in the army of progress.
I will not invade the rights of others. You have no right
to erect your toll-gate upon the highways of thought. You
have no right to leap from the hedges of superstition and
strike down the pioneers of the human race. You have no
right to sacrifice the liberties of man upon the altars of
ghosts. Believe what you may; preach what you desire;
have all the forms and ceremonies you please; exercise your
liberty in your own way, but extend to all others the same right.
I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they
accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous
—if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one
and all, because they enslave the minds of men.
I attack the monsters, the phantoms of imagination that
have ruled the world. I attack slavery. I ask for room—
room for the human mind.
Why should we sacrifice a real world that we have for one
we know not of? Why should we enslave ourselves?
Why should we forge fetters for our own hands?
Why
should we be the slaves of phantoms? The darkness of
barbarism was the womb of these shadows. In the light
of science they cannot cloud the sky forever. They have
reddened the hands of man with innocent blood. They made
the cradle a curse, and the grave a place of torment.
�32
THE GHOSTS
They blinded the eyes and stopped the ears of the human
race. They subverted all ideas of justice by promising infinite
rewards for finite virtues, and threatening infinite punish
ment for finite offences.
They filled the future with heavens and with hells, with
the shining peaks of selfish joy and the lurid abysses of
flame. For ages they kept the world in ignorance and awe,
in want and misery, in fear and chains.
I plead for light, for air, for opportunity.
I plead for
individual independence. I plead for the rights of labour
and of thought. I plead for a chainless future. Let the
ghosts go—justice remains. Let them disappear—men and
women and children are left. Let the monsters fade away—
the world is here with its hills and seas and plains, with its
seasons of smiles and frowns; its spring of leaf and bud;
its summer of shade and flower and murmuring stream;
its autumn with the laden boughs, when the withered
banners of the corn are stilly and gathered fields are growing
strangely wan; while death, poetic death, with hands that
colour what they touch, weaves in the autumn wood her
tapestries of gold and brown.
The world remains, with its winters and homes and fire
sides, where grow and bloom the virtues of our race. All
these are left; and music, with its sad and thrilling voice,
and all there is of art and song and hope and love and
aspiration high. All these remain. Let the ghosts go—we
will worship them no more.
Man i's greater than these phantoms.
Humanity is
grander than all the creeds, than all the books. Humanity
is the great sea, and these creeds, and books, and religions
are but the waves of a day. Humanity is the sky, and these
religions and dogmas and theories are but the mists and
clouds changing continually, destined finally to melt away.
That which is founded upon slavery, and fear, and ignor
ance cannot endure. In the religion of the future there will
be men and women and children, all the aspirations of the
soul, and all the tender humanities of the heart.
Let the ghosts go. We will worship them no more. Let
them cover their eyeless sockets with their fleshless hands,
and fade forever from the imaginations of men.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�VARIOUS 6d. BOOKS
Issued by the R. P. A.
Jesus Christ:
His Apostles
and Disciples in the Twen
tieth Century. By Count de
Renesse.
Haeckel’s Critics Answered.
By Joseph McCabe.
¡Penalties Upon Opinion.
By
Hypatia
Bonner.
Bradlaugh
¡The Children’s Book of
Moral Lessons. By F. J.
Gould.
First Series.
Science and Speculation. tiThe Churches and Modern
By G. H. Lewes.
Thought. By P. Vivian.
New Light on Old Problems. The Legend of Christ. By
By John Wilson, M.A.
Professor Virolleaud.
Picton.
Origin and Meaning.
By
W. W. Hardwicke, M.D.
Ethics of the Great Reli Confession of Faith of a
gions. By C. T. Gorham.
Man Of Science. By Ernst
A New Catechism. By M. M.
Haeckel.
Mangasarian.
JThe Darkness, the Dawn,
The Religion of Woman. By
and the Day. By Keridon.
J. McCabe.
*Do We Believe? A Brief
The Fundamental Principles
Exposition of the Rationalist
of the Positive Philo
Faith. By J. A. Hedderwick.
sophy. By Auguste Comte. ¡The Martyrdom of Ferrer.
Ethical Religion. By w. m.
By Joseph McCabe.
Salter.
The New Theology.
By
Religious Persecution. By
A. S. Mories.
E. S. P. Haynes.
The Truth About Secular
Concerning Children. By
Education : Its History and
C. P. Gilman.
Results. By Joseph McCabe.
The Bible in School. By J. A. Sunday Observance: its
*+J. S. Mill’s Autobiography.
(Unabridged.)
SIXPENNY BOOKS
Issued indepehdently by Messrs. Watts ¿P Co.
Man
•versus
the State.
Herbert Spencer.
^Social Statics.
By ¡The
Later
J. S. B.
Gospel.
By
+The Liberal State. By T.
Spencer.
Whittaker, M.A.
Ingersoll’s Lectures and Women in Political Evolu
Essays. Three Series. 160 pp.
tion. By Joseph McCabe.
each.
The Age of Reason. By
A Few Footprints. By J.
Thomas Paine.
Passmore Edwards.
Rights of Man. By Thomas
The Unity of Comte’s Life
Paine.
and Doetrine. By J. h. Paine’s Political Writings.
Bridges.
By Herbert
(A Selection.)
The whole of the above List, excepting' those marked with an * or a I, may
be had in cloth at is. net. f Published at 6d. net (paper).
I Published in cloth at is. 6d. net.
London : Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�R.P.A. SIXPENNY^REPRINTS.
(Five
op
more free at published price to any inland address.)
1. Huxley’s Lectures and . 25. God and the Bible.
By
Essays. (A Selection.)
Matthew Arnold.
2. The Pioneers of Evolu 26 & 27. \The Evolution of
tion. By Edward Clodd.
Man. By Ernst Haeckel.
3. Modern Science & Modern 28. Hume’s Essays: I.—An In
Thought. By Samuel Laing.
quiry Concerning Human Under
4. -Literature and Dogma.
By Matthew Arnold.
5. The Riddle of the Uni
verse. By Ernst Haeckel.
6. ’Education; Intellectual,
Moral, and Physical.
By
Herbert Spencer.
7. The Evolution of the Idea
Of God. By Grant Allen.
8. Human Origins. By S. Laing.
9. The Service of Man. By J.
Cotter Morrison.
10. Tyndall's Lectures and
Essays. (A Selection.)
11. The Origin of Species.
By C. Darwin.
12. Emerson’s Addresses &
Essays.
13. On Liberty. By J. S. Mill.
74. *77>e Story of Creation.
By Edward Clodd.
15. ~An Agnostic’s
Apology.
standing. II.— An Inquiry Con
cerning the Principles ot Morals.
29. Herbert Spencer’s Es
says. (A Selection.)
30. An Easy Outline of Evo
lution. By Dennis Hird, M.A.
. 31 Phases of Faith. By F. W.
Newman.
32. Asiatic
Studies.
A. C. Lyall.
By Sir
33. Man’s Place in Nature.
By T. H. Huxley.
34. The Origins of ReSigion,
and Other Essays.
Lang.
By Andrew
35. Twelve
Lectures
and
Essays. By T. H. Huxley.
36. Haeckel: His Life and
Work. By W ILHEI.M BÖLSCHE.
37. 38,
and 39. ’Life of
Thomas Paine. By Moncure
D. Conway.
40. The Hand of God, and
Other Posthumous Es
16. The Life of Jesus.
By
says. By Grant Allen.
Ernest Renan.
41. The Nature and Origin of
Living Matter.
By Dr. H.
17. A Modern Zoroastrian. I
By Sir Leslie Stephen.
By S Laing.
Charlton Bastian.
18. An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Herbert
Spencer. By Professor W. H.
Hudson.
19. Three Essays on Religion.
By John Stuart Mill.
20. Creed of
Christendom.
By W. R. Greg.
21. The Apostles.
Renan.
By Ernest
22. Problems of the Future.
By S. Laing.
23. Wonders of Life.
Haeckel.
By Ernst
24. Jesus of Nazareth,
Edward Clodd.
42. Last Words on Evolution.
By Ernst Haeckel.
43. Paganism and Christi
anity. By J. A. Farrer.
44 & 45. * History of Ration
alism. By W. E. H. Lecky.
46. Aphorisms and Reflec
tions. By T. H. Huxley.
47 & 48. ’i History of Euro
pean Morals. By W. E. H.
Lecky.
49. Selected Works of Vol
taire. Translated, with Intro
duction, by Joseph McCabe.
By | 50. The Kingdom of Man.
1
By Sir Ray Lankbster.
* The whole of the above list, with the exception of those marked with an
asterisk, are supplied in cloth at is. net.
t Published at 6d. net.
Complete Catalogue and copy of “The Literary Guide” (16 large pages)
free on receipt of post-card.
London : Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet 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 ghosts
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. : ill. (front. port) ; 19 cm.
Series title: Pamphlets for the Millions
Series number: No. 10
Notes: Issued for the Rationalist Press Association. RPA "Sixpenny books" listed inside and on back cover. No. 26h in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1912
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G1062
RA1765
N351
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
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 ghosts), 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
Ghosts
Materialism
NSS
Supernatural