1
10
74
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/adb141f9d0c06bbbc858be9f8969d22e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hrk87wVAEEywc5j8yoVjIy5U%7EixjjG6xFN1KJIB7JXrNYaKGDdCQpsO3DZb26YBpV3TKmvciF3OH3M%7EineTX%7E5oP3hUAYAHE6jsw6xWQ2w-ZXNRPnb0i2w4ukXMV6vmiBjbHjUK%7EqxT06fP5Nlfi3JCr-4WpWh9ciCCUBbqWDWoj%7ErwlN34LZEiOURho6vkBx97xVGvzZSj5bXFeOGEnNDygibZrjoLODppWFVWOZon1GkoByeBA2JTqs4WrQEA-lc7StFJ5PDT60P7MIdYWIEtr7Kp2AxnMFspq04xtqrSzsatesDHsvIlPj4z8CMiNsRdhdG1chlhSFg74xHvE8g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f4254be29345b037c88e43618625e1f2
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL secular society
FREETIIOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY'S EPTTfO^.
80, PICCADILLY, HANLEY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL?
l' Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do, in order
to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and religious folly,
Kant.
Several months ago, The North, American Review asked me to write an
article, sayiDg that it would be published if some one would furnish a
reply I wrote the article that appeared in the August number, and
by me it was entitled “ Is All of the Bible Inspired ? ”1 Not until the
article was written did I know who was expected to answer. I make
this explanation for the purpose of dissipating the impression that
Mr. Black had been challenged by me. To have struck his shield with
my lance might have given birth to the impression that I was some
what doubtful as to the correctness of my position. I naturally
expected an answer from some professional theologian, and was sur
prised to find that a reply had been written by a “policeman, ” who
imagined that he had answered my arguments by simply telling me
that my statements were false. It is somewhat unfortunate that in a
discussion like this anyone should resort to the slightest personal
detraction. The theme is great enough to engage the highest faculties
of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a subject vituper
ation is singularly and vulgarly out of place. Arguments cannot be
answered with insults. It is unfortunate that the intellectual arena
should be entered by a “ policeman” who has more confidence in con
cussion than discussion. Kindness is strength. Good nature is often
mistaken for virtue, and good health sometimes passes for genius.
Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great
and important question, every one should be serene, slow-pulsed, and
calm. Intelligence is not the foundation of arrogance. Insolence is
not logic. Epithets are the arguments of malice. Candor is the
courage of the soul. Leaving the objectionable portions of Mr. Black’s
reply, feeling that so grand a subject should not be blown and tainted
with malicious words, I proceed to answer as best I may the arguments
he has urged.
.
I am made to say that “ the universe is natural ; that “ it came into ,
being of its own accord ” ; that “ it made its own laws at the start, and
afterward improved itself considerably by spontaneous evolution.
I did say that “ the universe is natural,” but I did not say that “ it
came into being of its own accord” ; neither did I say that “it made
its own laws and afterward improved itself.” The universe, according
to my idea, is, always was, and for ever will be. It did not “come into
1 Published in this series under its later title, “ The Christian Religion.”
That article was answered by a Mr. Black, to whom the present is a reply.
�being,” it is the one eternal being,—the only thing that ever did, does,
or can exist. It did not “ make its own laws.” We know nothing of what
we call the laws of nature except as we gather the idea of law from the
uniformity of phenomena springing from like conditions. To make
myself clear. Water always runs down-hill. The theist says that
this happens because there is behind the phenomenon an active law.
As a matter of fact, law is this side of the phenomenon. Law does
not cause the phenomenon, but the phenomenon causes the idea of law
in our minds; and this idea is produced from the fact that under like
circumstances the same phenomenon always happens. Mr. Black
probably thinks that the difference in the weight of rocks and clouds
was created by law; that parallel lines fail to unite only because it is
illegal; that diameter and circumference could have been so made that it
would be a greater distance across than around a circle; that a straight
line could inclose a triangle if not prevented by law, and that a little
legislation could make it possible for two bodies to occupy the same
space at the same time. It seems to me that law cannot be the cause
of phsenomena, but is an effect produced in our minds by their succes
sion and resemblance. To put a God back of the universe, compels us
to admit that there.was a time when nothing existed except this God :
that this God had lived from eternity in an infinite vacuum, and in
absolute idleness. The mind of every thoughtful man is forced to
one of these two conclusions; either that the universe is self-existent,
or that it was created by a self-existent being. To my mind, there are
far more difficulties in the second hypothesis than in the firstr
Of course, upon a question like this, nothing can be absolutely
know’n. We live on an atom called Earth, and what we know of the
infinite is almost infinitely limited; but, little as we know, all have an
equal right to give their honest thought. Life is a shadowy, strange,
and winding road on which we travel for a little way—a few short
steps—just from the cradle, with its lullaby of love, to the low and
quiet way-side inn, where all at last must sleep, and where the only
salutation is—Good night.
I know as little as any one else about the “ plan ” of the universe ;
and as to the “design,” I know juBt as little. It will not do to say
ibat the universe waB designed, and therefore there must be a designer.
There must first be proof that it was “ designed.” It will not do to
say that the universe has a “plan,” and then assert that there must
have been an infinite maker. The idea that a design must have a
beginning and that a designer need not, is a sinople expression of human
ignorance. We find a watch, and we say : “ So curious and wonderful
a thing must have had a maker.” We find the watch-maker, and we say:
“ So curious and wonderful a thing as man must have had a maker.”
We find God, and we then say : “ He is so wonderful that he must not
have had a maker. ” In other words, all things a little wonderful must
have been created, but it is possible for a something to be so wonder
ful that it always existed. One would suppose that just as the wonder
increased the necessity for a creator increased, because it is the wonder
of the thing that suggests the idea of creation. Is it possible that a
designer exist from all eternity without design ? Was there no design
in having an infinite designer ? For me, it is hard to see the plan or
design in earthquakes and pestilences. It is somewhat difficult to dis
cern the design or the benevolence in so makins' the world that
billions of animals live only on the agonies of others. The justice of
God is not visible to me in the history of this world. When I think
�of the suffering and death, of the poverty and crime, of the cruelty
and malice, of the heartlessness of this “ design” and “plan,” where
beak and claw and tooth tear and rend the quivering flesh of weakness
and despair, I cannot convince myself that it is the result of infinite
wisdom, benevolence, and justice.
Most Christians have seen and recognised this difficulty, and have
endeavored to avoid it by giving God an opportunity in another world
to rectify the seeming mistakes of this. Mr. Black, however, avoids
the entire question by saying: “We have neither jurisdiction nor ca
pacity to re judge the justice of God.” In other words, we have no
right to think upon this subject, no right to examine the questions
most vitally affecting human kind. We are simply to accept the ignor
ant statements of barbarian dead. This question cannot be settled by
saying that “ it would be a mere waste of time and space to enumerate
the proofs which show that the Universe was created by a preexistent
and self-conscious Being.” The time and space should have been
“ wasted,” and the proofs should have been enumerated. These
“proofs” are what the wisestand greatest are trying to find. Logic
is not satisfied with assertion. It cares nothing for the opinions of the
“ great ”—nothing for the prejudices of the many, and least of all for
the superstitions of the dead. In the world of science a fact is a legal
tender. Assertions and miracles are base and spurious coins. We have
the right to rejudge the justice even of a god. No one should throw
away his reason—the fruit of all experience. It is the intellectual capi
tal of the soul, the only light, the only guide, and without it the brain
becomes the palace of an idiot king, attended by a retinue of thieves
and hypocrites.
Of course it is admitted that most of the Ten Commandments are
wise and just. In passing, it may be well enough to say, that the com
mandment, “ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,” was the absolute
death of Art, and that not until after the destruction of Jerusalem was
there a Hebrew painter or sculptor. Surely a commandment is not
inspired that drives from earth the living canvas and the breathing
stone—leaves all walls bare and all the niches desolate. In the Tenth
Commandment we find woman placed on an exact equality with other
property, which, to say the least of it, has never tended to the amelior
ation of her condition.
A very curious thing about these Commandments is that their sup
posed author violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the
account, he said : “ Thou shalt not kill,” and yet he ordered the
murder of millions; “ Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and yet he gave
captured maidens to gratify the lust of captors; “ Thou shalt not
steal,” and yet he gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and herds of
others; “ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, nor his wife,” and
yet he allowed his chosen people to destroy the homes of neighbors
and to steal their wives; “ Honor thy father and thy mother,” and yet
this same God had thousands of fathers butchered, and with the sword
of war killed children yet unborn ; “ Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor,” and yet he sent abroad “ lying spirits” to de
ceive his own prophets, and in a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit.
So far as we know, Jehovah kept only one of these Commandments—
he worshipped no other god.
The religious intolerance of the Old Testament is justified upon the
�100
ground that “blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance,” that
“ idolatry was an act of overt treason,” and that “ to worship the gods
of the hostile heathen was deserting to the public enemy, and giving
him aid and comfort.” According to Mr. Black, we should all have
liberty of conscience except when directly governed by God. In that
country where God is king, liberty cannot exist. In this position, I
admit that he is upheld and fortified by the “ sacred ” text. Within
the Old Testament there is no such thing as religious toleration. With
in that volume can be found no mercy for an unbeliever. For*all who
think for themselves, there are threatenings, curses, and anathemas.
Think of an infinite being who is so cruel, so unjust, that he will not
allow one of his own children the liberty of thought! Think of an in
finite God acting as the direct governor of a people, and yet not able to
command their love! Think of the author of all mercy imbruing his
hands in the blood of helpless men, women, and children, simply be
cause he did not furnish them with intelligence enough to understand
his law! An earthly father who cannot govern by affection is not fit to
be a father ; what, then, shall we say of an infinite being who resorts
to violence, to pestilence, to disease, and famine, in the vain effort to
obtain even the respect of a savage ? Read this passage, red from the
heart of cruelty:
“ If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee
secretly, saying. Lot us go and serve other gods which thou hast not known,
thou nor thy fathers, . . . thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto
him, neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt
thou conceal him. but thou shalt'surely kill him; thine hand shall be first
upon him to put him to death, and afterwards tho hand of all the people ; and
thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” . . .
This is the religious liberty of the Bible. If you had lived in Pales
tine, and if the wife of your bosom, dearer to you than your own soul,
had said: “ I like the religion of India better than that of Palestine/’
it would have been your duty to kill her, “ Your eye must not pity
her, your hand must be first upon her, and afterwards the hand of all
the people.” If she had said: “ Let us worship the sun—the sun that
clothes the earth in garments of green—the sun, the great fireside of
the world—the sun that covers the hills and valleys with flowers—that
gave me your face, and made it possible for me to look into the eyes
of my babe—let us worship the sun,” it was your duty to kill her.
You must throw the first stone, and when against her bosom—a bosom
filled with love for you—you had thrown the jagged and cruel rock,
and had seen the red stream of her life oozing from the dumb lips of
death, you could then look up and receive the congratulations of the
God whose commandment you had obeyed. Is it possible that a being
of infinite mercy ordered a husband to kill his wife for the crime of
having expressed an opinion on the subject of religion ? Has there
been found upon the records of the savage world anything more per
fectly fiendish than this commandment of Jehovah ? This is justified
on the ground that “ blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance,
and idolatry an act of overt treason.” We can understand how a
human king stands in need of the service of his people. We can
understand how the desertion of any of his soldiers weakens his army ;
but were the king infinite in power, his strength would still remain the
same, and under no conceivable circumstances could the enemy
triumph.
�101
I insist that, if there is an infinitely good and wise God, he beholds
with pity the misfortunes of his children. I insist that such a God
would know the mists, the clouds, the darkness enveloping the human
mind. He would know how few stars are visible in the intellectual sky.
His pity, not his wrath, would be excited by the efforts of his blind
children, groping in the night to find the cause of things, and endea
voring, through their tears, to see some dawn of hope. Filled with
awe by their surroundings, by fear of the unknown, he would know
that when, kneeling, they poured out their, gratitude to some unseen
power, even to a visible idol, it was, in fact, intended for him. An
infinitely good being, had he the power, would answer the reasonable
prayer of an honest savage,, even when addressed to wood and stone.
The atrocities of the Old Testament, the threatenings, maledictions,
and curses of the “ inspired book,” are defended on the ground that
the Jews had a right to treat their enemies as their enemies treated
them ; and in this connexion is this remarkable statement: “In your
treatment of hostile barbarians you not only may lawfully, you must
necessarily, adopt their mode of warfare. If they come to conquer
you, they may be conquered by you; if they give no quarter, they are
entitled to Done ; if the death of your whole population be their pur
pose, you may defeat it by exterminating theirs.”
For a man who is a “ Christian policeman,” and has taken upon him
self to defend the Christian religion; for one who follows the Master
who said that when smitten on one cheek you must turn the other, and
who again and again enforced the idea that you must overcome evil
with good, it is hardly consistent to declare that a civilized nation must
of necessity adopt the warfare of savages. Is it possible that in fight
ing, for instance, the Indians of America, if they scalp our soldiers we
should scalp theirs? If they ravish, murder, and mutilate our wives,
must we treat theirs in the same manner ? If they kill the babes in
our cradles, must we brain theirs ? If they take our captives, bind
them to trees, and if their squaws fill their quivering flesh with shar
pened faggots and set them on fire, that they may die clothed with flame,
must our wives, our mothers, and our daughters follow the fiendish
example ? Is this the conclusion of the most enlightened Christianity ?
Will the pulpits of the United States adopt the arguments of this
“ policeman ” ? Is this the last and most beautiful blossom of the Ser
mon on the Mount? Is this the echo of “ Father, forgive them; they
know not what they do ? ”
Mr..Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest because
the American people fought for the integrity of their own country ;
fought to do away with the infamous institution of slavery ; fought to
preserve the jewels of liberty and justice for themselves and for their
children. Is it possible that his mind is so clouded by political and
religious prejudice, by the recollections of an unfortunate administra
tion, that he sees no difference between a war of extermination and one
of self-preservation ? that he sees no choice between the murder of
helpless age, of weeping women and of sleeping babes, and the defence
of liberty and nationality ?
The soldiers of the Republic did not wage a war of extermination.
They did not seek to enslave their fellow-men. They did not mur
der trembling age. They did not sheathe their swords in women’s
breasts. They gave the old men bread, and let the mothers rock their
babes in peace. They fought to save the world’s great hope—to free
•a race and put the humblest hut beneath the canopy of liberty and law.
�102
Claiming neither praise nor dispraise for the part taken by me in
the civil war, for the purposes of this argument, it is sufficient to say
that I am perfectly willing that my record, poor and barren as it is,
should be compared with his.
Never for an instant did I suppose that any respectable American
citizen could be found willing at this day to defend the institution of
slavery; and never was I more astonished than when I found Mr. Black
denying that civilized countries passionately assert that slavery is and
always was a hideous crime. I was amazed when he declared that
“ the doctrine that slavery is a crime under all circumstances and at all
times was first started by the adherents of a political faction in this
country less than forty years ago.” He tells us that “ they denounced
God and Christ for not agreeing with them,” but that “they did not
constitute the civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be
told, a very respectable portion of it. Politically they were successful;
I need not say by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of
the country.”
Slavery held both branches of Congress, filled the chair of the Exe
cutive, sat upon the supreme bench, had in its hands all rewards, all
offices; knelt in the pew, occupied the pulpit, stole human beings in
the name of God, robbed the trundle-bed for love of Christ; incited
mobs, led ignorance, ruled colleges, sat in the chairs of professors,
dominated the public press, closed the lips of free speech, and polluted
with its leprous hand every source and spring of power.: -The abo
litionists attacked this monster. They were the bravest, grandest men
of their country and their century. Denounced by thieves, hated by
hypocrites, mobbed by cowards, slandered by priests, shunned by poli
ticians, abhorred by the seekers of office—these men “ of whom the
world was not worthy,” in spite of all opposition, in spite of poverty
and want, conquered innumerable obstacles, never faltering for one
moment, never dismayed—accepting defeat with a smile born of infinite
hope—knowing that they were right—insisted and persisted until every
chain was broken, until slavepens became school-houses, and three
millions of slaves became free men, women, and children. They did
not measure with “ the golden metewand of God,” but with “ the elas
tic cord of human feeling.” They were men the latchets of whose
shoes no believer in human slavery was ever worthy to unloose. And
yet we are told by this modern defender of the slavery of Jehovah
that they were not even respectable ; and this slander is justified be
cause the writer is assured “ that the infallible God proceeded upon
good grounds when he authorised slavery in Judea.”
Not satisfied with having slavery in this world, Mr. Black assures
us that it will last through all eternity, and that for ever and for ever
inferiors must be subordinated to superiors. Who is the superior man?
According to Mr. Black he is superior who lives upon the unpaid labor
of the inferior. With me the superior man is the one who uses his
superiority in bettering the condition of the inferior. The superior
man is strength for the weak, eyes for the blind, brains for the simple
he is the one who helps carry the burden that nature has put upon the
inferior. Any man who helps another to gain and retain his liberty is
superior to any infallible God who authorised slavery in Judea. For
my part I would rather be the slave than the master. It is better to
be robbed than to be a robber. I had rather bd stolen from than be
a thief.
According to Mr. Black there will be slavery in heaven, and fast by
�103
the throne of God will be the auction-block, and the streets of the
New Jerusalem will be adorned with the whipping-post, while the
music of the harp will be supplemented by the crack of the driver s
whip. If some good Republican would catch Mr. Black, “ incorporate
him into his family, tame him, teach him to think, and give him a
knowledge of the true principles of human liberty and government, he
would confer upon him a most beneficent boon.”
Slavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of the kid
napper, pirate, thief, murderer, and hypocrite. It degrades labor and
corrupts leisure. To lacerate the naked back, to sell wives, to steal
babes, to breed blood-hounds, to debauch your own soul—this is slavery.
This is what Jehovah “authorised in Judea.” This is what Mr. Black
believes in still. He “ measures with the golden metewand of God.”
I abhor slavery. With me liberty is not merely a means—it is an end.
Without that word all other words are empty sounds.
Mr. Black is too late with his protest against the freedom of his
fellow-man. Liberty is making the tour of the world. Russia has
emancipated her serfs; the slave trade is prosecuted only by thieves
and pirates; Spain feels upon her cheek the burning blush of shame ;
Brazil, with proud and happy eyes, is looking for the dawn of freedom s
day ; the people of the South rejoice that slavery is no more, and every
good and honest man (excepting Mr. Black), of every land and clime,
hopes that the limbs of men will never feel again the weary weight of
chains.
We are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded
nor prohibited in the Old Testament—that it is only “ discouraged. ’
It seems to me that a little legislation on that subject might have
tended to its “discouragement.” But where is the legislation? In the
moral code, which Mr. Black assures us “ consists of certain immutable
rules to govern the conduct of all men at all times and at all places in
their private and personal relation with others,” not one word is found
on the subject of polygamy. There is nothing “discouraging ” in the
Ten Commandments, nor in the records of any conversation Jehovah
is claimed to have had with Moses upon Sinai. The life of Abraham,
the story of Jacob and Laban, the duty of a brother to be the husband
of the widow of his deceased brother, tne life of David, taken in con
nexion with the practice of one who is claimed to have been the wisest
of men—all these things are probably relied on to show that polygamy
was at least “ discouraged.” Certainly, Jehovah had time to instruct
Moses as to the infamy of polygamy. He could have spared a few
moments from a description of the patterns of tongs and basins, for a
subject so important as this. A few words in favor of the one wife and
the one husband—in favor of the virtuous and loving home—might
have taken the place of instructions as to cutting the garments of priests
and fashioning candlesticks and ouches of gold. If he had left out
simply the order that rams’ skins should be dyed red, and in its place
had said, “ A man shall have but one wife, and the wife but one hus
band,” how much better it would have been.
All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express the filth
of polygamy. It makes man a beast, and woman a slave. It destroys
the fireside and makes virtue an outcast. It takes us back to the bar
barism of animals, and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss
the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. And yet Mr. Black insists
that we owe to the Bible the present elevation of woman. Where will
he find in the Old Testament the rights of wife, and mother, and
�104
daughter defined? Even in the New Testament she is told to “learn
in silence with all subjection ” ; that she “ is not suffered to teach, nor
to usurp any authority over the man, but to be in silence.” She is told
that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is
man, and the head of Christ is God.” In other words, there is the
same difference between the wife and husband that there is between
the husband and Christ.
z
The reasons given for this infamous doctrine are that “ Adam was
first formed, and then Eve
that “ Adam was not deceived,” but that
the woman being deceived, was in tbe transgression.” These childish
reasons are the only ones given by the inspired writers. We are also
told that “ a man, indeed, ought to cover his head, forasmuch as he is
the image and glory of God”; but that “the woman is the glory of
the man, and this is justified from the fact, and the remarkable fact,
set forth in the very next verse— that “ the man is not of the woman,
but the woman of the man.” And the same gallant Apostle says:
Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the
man ; “ Wives, submit, yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the
^ord;/or the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christis the
r pknrch, and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as
the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject to their
own husbands m everything.” These are the passages that have liber
ated woman!
.
According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had
to be purified, for the crime of having borne sons and daughters. If
in this world there is a figure of perfect purity, it is a mother holding
in her thrilled and happy arms her child. The doctrine that woman is
the slave, or serf, of man—whether it comes from heaven or from hell
from God or a demon, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem
or from the very Sodom of perdition—is savagery, pure and simple.
In no country in the world had women less liberty than in the Holy
Land, and no monarch held in less esteem the rights of wives and
mothers than Jehovah of the Jews. The position of woman was far
better in Egypt than in Palestine. Before the pyramids were built,
ihe sacred songs of Isis were sung by women, and women with pure
>ands had offered sacrifices to the gods. Before Moses was born,
women had sat upon the Egyptian throne. Upon ancient tombs the
husband and wife are represented as seated in the same chair. In
Persia women were priests, and in some of the oldest civilisations
“ they were reverenced on earth, and worshipped afterward as god
desses in heaven.” At the advent of Christianity, in all Pagan countries,
women officiated at the sacred altars. They guarded the eternal fire.
They kept the sacred books. From their lips came the oracles of fate.
Under the domination of the Christian church, woman became the
merest slave for at least a thousand years. It was claimed that through
woman the race had fallen, and that her loving kiss had poisoned all
the springs of life. Christian priests asserted that but for her crime,
the world would have been an Eden still. The ancient fathers ex
hausted their eloquence in the denunciation of woman, and repeated
again and again the slander of St. Paul. The condition of woman has
improved just in proportion that man has lost confidence in the inspi
ration of the Bible.
For the purpose of defending the character of his infallible God, Mr.
Black is forced to defend religious intolerance, wars of extermination,
human slavery, and almost polygamy. He admits that God established
�slavery; that he commanded his chosen people to buy the children of
the heathen ; that heathen fathers and mothers did right to sell their
girls and boys; that God ordered the Jews to wage wars of extermi
nation and conquest; that it was right to kill the old and young ; that
God forged manacles for the human brain; that he commanded hus
bands to murder their wives for suggesting the worship of the sun or
moon ; and that every cruel, savage passage in the Old Testament was
inspired by him. Such is a “ policeman’s ” view of God.
Will Mr. Black have the kindness to state a few of his objections to
the devil ?
Mr. Black should have answered my arguments, instead of calling
me “blasphemous” and “scurrilous.” In the discussion of these
questions I have nothing to do with the reputation of my opponent. His
character throws no light on the subject, and is to me a matter of per
fect indifference. Neither will it do for one who enters the lists as the
champion of revealed religion to say that “ we have no right to rejudge
the justice of God.” Such a statement is a white flag. The warrior
eludes the combat when he cries out that it is a “ metaphysical ques
tion.” He deserts the field and throws down his arms when he admits
that “no revelation has lifted the veil between time and eternity.”
Again I ask, why were the Jewish people as wicked, cruel, and igno
rant with a revelation from God, as other nations were without? Why
were the worshippers of false deities as brave, as kind, and generous as
those who knew the only true and living God ?
How do you explain the fact that while Jehovah was waging wars of
extermination, establishing slavery, and persecuting for opinions’ sake,
heathen philosophers were teaching that all men are brothers, equally
entitled to liberty and life ? You inBist that Jehovah believed in slavery
and yet punished the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews. Was your God
once an abolitionist? Did he at that time “denounce Christ for not
agreeing with him ” ? If slavery was a crime in Egypt, was it a virtue
in Palestine? Did God treat the Canaanites better than Pharaoh did
the Jews ? Was it right for Jehovah to kill the children of the people
because of Pharaoh’s sin ? Should the peasant be punished for the
king’s crime ? Do you not know that the worst thing that can be said
of Nero, Caligula, and Commodus is that they resembled the Jehovah
of the Jews? Will you tell me why God failed to give his Bible to
the whole world? Why did he not give the Scriptures to the Hindu,
the Greek, and Roman ? Why did he fail to enlighten the wor
shipers of “ Mammon ” and Moloch, of Belial and Baal, of Bacchus and
Venus? After all, was not Bacchus as good as Jehovah? Is it not
better to drink wine than to shed blood ? Was there anything in the
worship of Venus worfie than giving captured maidens to satisfy the
victor’s lust? Did “Mammon ” or Moloch do anything more infamous
than to establish slavery ? Did they order their soldiers to kill men,
women and children, and to save alive nothing that had breath ? Do
not answer these questions by saying that “ no veil has been lifted
between time and eternity,” and that “we have no right forejudge
the justice of God.”
If Jehovah was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning.
He knew that his Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny
and hypocrisy would crouch ; that it would be quoted by tyrants;
that it would be the defence of robbers called kings, and of hypo
crites called priests. He knew that he had taught the Jewish people
but little of importance. He knew that he found them free and left
�106
them captives. He knew that he had never fulfilled the promises made
to them. He knew that while other nations had advanced in art and
science, his chosen people were savage still. He promised them the
world, and gave them a desert. He promised them liberty, and he
made them slaves. He promised them victory, and he gave them
defeat. He said they should be kings, and he made them serfs. He
promised them universal empire, and gave them exile. When one
finishes the Old Testament, he is compelled to say: Nothing can add
to the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!
And here I take occasion to thank Mr. Black for having admitted
that Jehovah gave no commandment against the practice of polygamy,
that he established slavery, waged wars of extermination, and perse
cuted for opinions’ sake even unto death. Most theologians endeavor
to putty, patch, and paint the wretched record of inspired crime, but
Mr. Black has been bold enough and honeBt enough to admit the truth.
In this age of fact and demonstration it is refreshing to find a man
who believes so thoroughly in the monstrous and miraculous, the im
possible and immoral—who still clings lovingly to the legends of the
bib and rattle—who through the bitter experiences of a wicked world
has kept the credulity of the cradle, and finds comfort and joy in
thinking about the Garden of Eden, the subtil serpent, the flood, and
Babel’s tower, stopped by the jargon of a thousand tongues—who
reads with happy eyes the story of the burning brimstone storm that
fell upon the cities of the plain, and Bmilingly explains the transforma
tion of the retrospective Mrs. Lot—who laughs at Egypt’s plagues and
Pharaoh’s whelmed and drowning hosts—eats manna with the wander
ing Jews, warms himself at the burning bush, sees Korah’s company
by the hungry earth devoured, claps his wrinkled hands with glee above
the heathens’ butchered babes, and longingly looks back to the patriar
chal days of concubines and slaves. How touching when the learned
and wise crawl back in cribs and ask to hear the rhymes and fables
once again ! How charming in these hard and scientific times to see
old age in Superstition’s lap, with eager lips upon her withered breast.
Mr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact
harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are “connected
together ” ; and “that if one is true the other cannot be false.”
If this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other cannot
be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a right-minded,
sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of infinite
kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate
another; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes;
ever established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the
auction-block as an altar, or a blood-hound a3 an apostle.
Mr. Black contends (after having answered my indictment against
the Old Testament by admitting the allegations to be true) that the
rapidity with which Christianity spread “proves the supernatural origin
of the Gospel, or that it was propagated by the direct aid of the Divine
Being himself.”
Let us see. In his efforts to show that the “infallible God estab
lished slavery in Judea,” he takes occasion to say that “ the doctrine
that slavery is a crime under all circumstances was first started by the
adherents of a political faction in this country less than forty years
ago ’’; that “ they denounced God and Christ for not agreeing with
them ”; but that “they did not constitute the civilized world; nor
were they, if the truth must be told, a very respectable portion of it.”
/
�107
Let it be remembered that this was only forty years ago ; and yet,
according to Mr. Black, a few disreputable men changed the ideas of
nearly fifty millions of people, changed the Constitution of the United
States, liberated a race from slavery, clothed three millions of people
with political rights, took possession of the Government, managed its
affairs for more than twenty years, and have compelled the admiration
of the civilized world. Is it Mr. Black’s idea that this happened by
chance ? If not, then, according to him, there are but two ways to
account for it: either the rapidity with which Republicanism spread
proves its supernatural origin, “ or else its propagation was provided
for and carried on by the direct aid of the Divine Being himself.”
Between these two, Mr. Black may make his choice. He will at once
see that the rapid rise and spread of any doctrine does not even tend
to show that it was divinely revealed.
This argument is applicable to all religions. Mohammedans can use
it as well (as Christians. Mohammed was a poor man, a driver of
camels. He was without education, without influence and without
wealth, and yet in a few years he consolidated thousands of tribes, and
made millions of men confess that there is “ one God, and Mohammed
is his prophet.” His success was a thousand times greater during his
life than that of Christ. He was not crucified; he was a conqueror.
“ Of all men, he exercised the greatest influence upon the human race.”
Never in the world’s history did a religion spread with the rapidity of
his. It burst like a storm over the fairest portions of the globe. If
Mr. Black is right in his position that rapidity is secured only by the
direct aid of the Divine Being, then Mohammed was most certainly
the prophet of God. As to wars of extermination and slavery, Mo
hammed agreed with Mr. Black, and upon polygamy with Jehovab. As
to religious toleration, he was great enough to say that “ men holding
to any form of faith might be saved, provided they were virtuous.”
In this, he was far in advance both of Jehovah and Mr. Black.
It will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and spread of a
religion demonstrates its divine character. Years before Gautama died,
his religion was established, and his disciples were numbered by mil
lions. His doctrines were not enforced by the sword, but by an appeal
to the hopes, the fears, and the reason of mankind ; and more than
one-third of the human race are to-day the followers of Gautama. His
religion has outlived all that existed in his time ; and according to Dr.
Draper, “there is no other country in the world, except India, that has
the religion to-day it had at the birth of Jesus Christ.” Gautama be
lieved in the equality of all men, abhorred the spirit of caste, and pro
claimed justice, mercy, and education for all.
Imagine a Mohammedan answering an infidel; would he not use the
argument of Mr. Black, simply substituting Mohammed for Christ,
just as effectually as it has been used against me ? There was a time
when India was the foremost nation of the world. Would not your
argument, Mr. Black, have been just as good in the mouth of a Brahmin
then, as it is in yours now? Egypt, the mysterious mother of mankind,
with her pyramids built thirty-four hundred years before Christ, was
once the first in all the earth, and gave to us our trinity, and our
symbol of the cross. Could not a priest of Isis and Osiris have used
your arguments to prove that his religion was divine, and could he
not have closed by saying: “ From the facts established by this evi•dence it follows irresistibly that our religion came to us from God ” ?
�108
Do you not see that your argument proves too much, and that it is
equally applicable to all the religions of the world ?
Again, it is urged that “the acceptance of Christianity by a large
portion of the generation contemporary with its founder and his
apostles was, under the circumstances, an adjudication as solemn and
authoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.” If this is true,
then “ the acceptance of Buddhism by a large portion of the generation
contemporary with its founder was an adjudication as solemn and
authoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.” The same could
be said of Mohammedanism, and, in fact, of every religion that has
ever benefited or cursed this world. This argument, when reduced to
its simplest form, is this: All that succeeds is inspired.
The old argument that if Christianity is a human fabrication its
authors must have been either good men or bad men, takes it for
granted that there are but two classes of persons—the good and the
bad. There is, at least, one other class—the mistaken, and both of the
other classes may belong to this. Thousands of most excellent people
have been deceived, and the history of the world is filled with instances
where men have honestly supposed that they had received communi
cations from angels and gods.
In thousands of instances these pretended communications contained
the purest and highest thoughts, together with the most important
truths ; yet it will not do to say that these accounts are true ; neither
can they be proved by saying that the men who claimed to be inspired
were good. What we must say is, that being good men, they were
mistaken; and it is the charitable mantle of a mistake that I throw over
Mr. Black, when I find him defending the institution of slavery. He
seems to think it utterly incredible that any “combination of knaves,
however base, would fraudulently concoct a religious system to de
nounce themselves, and to invoke the curse of God upon their own
conduct.” How did religions other than Christianity and Judaism
arise ? Were they all “ concocted by a combination of knaves” ? The
religion of Gautama is filled with most beautiful and tender thoughts,
with most excellent laws, and hundreds of sentences urging mankind
to deeds of love and self-denial. Was Gautama inspired ?
Does not Mr. Black know that thousands of people charged with
witchcraft actually confessed in open court their guilt ? Does he not
know that they admitted that they had spoken face to face with Satan,
and had sold their souls for gold and power? Does he not know that
these admissions were made in the presence and expectation of death?
Does he not know that hundreds of judges, some of them as great as
the late lamented Gibson, believed in the existence of an impossible
crime ?
We are told that “ there is no good reason to doubt that the state
ments of the Evangelists, as we have them now, are genuine.” The
fact is, no one knows who made the “ statements of the Evangelists.”
There are three important manuscripts upon which the Christian
world relies. “ The first appeared in the catalogue of the Vatican, in
1475. This contains the Old Testament. Of the New, it contains the
four gospels—the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles, nine of the Pauline
Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as far as the fourteenth verse
of the ninth chapter ”—and nothing more. This is known as the Vati
can Codex. “ The second, the Alexandrine, was presented to King
Charles the First, in 1628. It contains the Old and New Testaments,
with some exceptions; passages are wanting in Matthew, in John, and
�109
in II. Corinthians. It also contains the epistle of Clemens Romanus, a
letter of Athanasius, and the treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms.”
The last is the Sinaitic Codex, discovered about 1850, at the Convent
of St. Catherine’s on Mount Sinai. “ It contains the Old and New
Testaments, and in addition the entire Epistle of Barnabas, and a
portion of the Shepherd of Hermas—two books which, up to the be
ginning of the fourth century, were looked upon by many as Scrip
ture.” In this manuscript, or codex, the gospel of St. Mark concludes
with the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, leaving out the frightful
passage: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.”
In matters of the utmost importance these manuscripts disagree, but
even if they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of
their truth. It will not do to call the statements made in the gospels
“ depositions,” until it is absolutely established who made them, and
the circumstances under which they were made. Neither can we say
that “ they were made in the immediate prospect of death,” until we
know who made them. It is absurd to say that “ the witnesses could
not have been mistaken, because the nature of the facts precluded the
possibility of any delusion about them.” Can it be pretended that the
witnesses could not have been mistaken about the relation the Holy
Ghost is alleged to have sustained to Jesus Christ ? Is there no possi
bility of delusion about a circumstance of that kind ? Did the writers
of the four gospels have “ ‘ the sensible and true avouch of their own
eyes ’ and ears ” in that behalf ? How was it possible for any one of
the four Evangelists to know that Christ was the Son of God, or that
he was God ? His mother wrote nothing on the subject. Matthew
says that an angel of the Lord told Joseph in a dream, but Joseph
never wrote an account of this wonderful vision. Luke tells us that
the angel had a conversation with Mary, and that Mary told Elizabeth,
but Elizabeth never wrote a word. There is no account of Mary, or
Joseph, or Elizabeth, or the angel, having had any conversation with
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, in which one word was said about the
miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. The persons who knew did not
write, so that the account is nothing but hearsay. Does Mr. Black
pretend that such statements would be admitted as evidence in any
court? But how do we know that the disciples of Christ wrote a word
of the gospels ? ' How did it happen that Christ wrote nothing ? How
do we know that the writers of the gospels “were men of unimpeach
able character ” ?
All this is answered by saying “that nothing was said by the most
virulent enemies against the personal honesty of the Evangelists.”
How is this known ? If Christ performed the miracles recorded in the
New Testament, why would the Jews put to death a man able to raise
their dead ? Why should they attempt to kill the Master of Death ?
How did it happen that a man who had done so many miracles was so
obscure, so unknown, that one of his disciples had to be bribed to
point him out ? Is it not strange that the ones he had cured were not
his disciples ? Can we believe, upon the testimony of those about
whose character we know nothing, that Lazarus was raised from the
dead? What became of Lazarus? We never hear of him again. It
seems to me that he would have been an object of great interest.
People would have said: “ He is the man who was once dead.”
Thousands would have inquired of him about the other world ; would
�r
v’
110
have asked him where he was when he received the information that he
was wanted on the earth. His experience would have been vastly more
interesting than everything else in the New Testament. A returned
traveller from the shores of Eternity—one who had walked twice
through the valley of the shadow—would have been the most interesting
of human beings. When he came to die again, people would have
said: “ He is not afraid ; he has had experience ; he knows what death
is.” But, strangely enough, this Lazarus fades into obscurity with
“ the wise men of the East,” and with the dead who came out of their
graves on the night of the crucifixion. How is it known that it was
claimed, during the life of Christ, that he had wrought a miracle ?
And if the claim was made, how is it known that it was not denied ?
Did the Jews believe that Christ was clothed with miraculous power ?
Would they have dared to crucify a man who ‘had the power to clothe
the dead with life ? Is it not wonderful that no one at the trial of
Christ said one word about the miracles he had wrought? Nothing
about the sick he had healed, nor the dead he had raised ?
Is it not wonderful that Josephus, the best historian the Hebrews
produced, says nothing about the life or death of Christ; nothing
about the massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word about the
wonderful star that visited the sky at the birth of Christ; nothing
about the darkness that fell upon the world for several hours in the
midst of day; and failed entirely to mention that hundreds of graves
were opened, and that multitudes of Jews arose from the dead, and
visited the Holy City? Is it not wonderful that no historian ever
mentioned any of these prodigies? and is it not more amazing than all
the rest that Christ himself concealed from Matthew, Mark, and Luke
the dogma of the atonement, the necessity of belief, and the mvsterv
of the second birth ?
J
J
Of course I know that two letters were said to have been written by
Pilate to Tiberius, concerning the execution of Christ, but they have
been shown to be forgeries. I also know that “various letters were
circulated attributed to Jesus Christ,” and that one letter is said to
have been written by him to Abgarus, King of Edessa; but as there
was no king of Edessa at that time this letter is admitted to have been
a forgery. 1 also admit that a correspondence between Seneca and
St. Paul was forged.
Here in our own country, only a few years ago, men claimed to have
found golden plates upon which was written a revelation from God.
They founded a new religion, and, according to their statement, did
many miracles. They were treated as outcasts, and their leader was
murdered. These men made their “ depositions ” “ in the immediate
prospect of death ” They were mobbed, persecuted, derided, and yet
they insisted that their prophet had miraculous power, and that he,
too, could swing back the hingeless door of death. The followers of
these men have increased in these few years, so that now the murdered
prophet has at least two hundred thousand disciples. It will be hard
to find a contradiction of these pretended miracles, although this is an
age filled with papers, magazines, and books. As a matter of fact,
the claims of Joseph Smith were so preposterous that sensible people
did not take the pains to write and print denials. When we remem
ber that eighteen hundred years ago there were but few people who
could write, and that a manuscript did not become public in any
modern sense, it was possible for the gospels to have been written with
-all the foolish claims in reference to miracles without exciting comment
�Ill
or denial. There is not, in all the contemporaneous literature of the
| - world a single word about Christ or his apostles. The paragraph in
Josephus is admitted to be an interpolation, and the letters, the account
of the trial, and several other documents forged by the zeal of the early
fathers, are now admitted to be false.
Neither will it do to say that “ the statements made by the evange
lists are alike upon every important point.” if there is anything of
importance in the New Testament, from the theological stand-point,
it is the ascension of Jesus Christ. If that happened it was a miracle
great enough to surfeit wonder. Are the statements of the inspired
witnesses alike on this important point? Let us see.
Matthew says nothing upon the subject. Either Matthew was not
there, had never heard of the ascension—or, having heard of it, did
not believe it, or, having seen it, thought it too unimportant to record.
To this wonder of wonders Mark devotes one verse : “So then, after
the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and
sat on the right hand of God.’’ Can we believe that this verse was
written by one who witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ; by one
who watched his Master slowly rising through the air till distance reft
him from his tearful sight? Luke, another of the witnesses, says:
“ And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven.” John corroborates Matthew by saying
nothing on the subject. Now we find that the last chapter of Mark,
after the eighth verse, is an interpolation; so that Mark really says
nothing about the occurrence. Either the ascension of Christ must be
given up, or it must be admitted that the witnesses do not agree, and
'
that three of them never heard of that most stupendous event.
Again, if anything could have left its “ form and pressure ” on the
brain, it must have been the last words of Jesus Christ. The last
words, according to Matthew, are: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you : and lo, 1 am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world.” The last words, according to the inspired witness
known as Mark, are : “And these signs shall follow them that believe :
in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover.” Luke tells us that the last words uttered by
Christ, with the exception of a blessing, were : “ And behold, I send
forth the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” The last
words, according to John, were: “ Peter, seeing Him, saith to Jesus :
Lord, and what shall this man do ? Jesus saith unto him, If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
An account of the ascension is also given in the Acts of the
Apostles; and the last words of Christ, according to that inspired
witness, are : “ But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost
is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jeru
salem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part
of the earth.” In this account of the ascension we find that two men
stood by the disciples in white apparel, and asked them : “Ye men of
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which
is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye
have seen him go into heaven.” Matthew says nothing of the two
�112
men. Mark never saw them. Luke may have forgotten them when
writing his gospel, and John may have regarded them as optical
illusions.
,
•
Luke testifies that Christ ascended on the very day of his resurrec
tion. John deposes that eight days after the resurrection Christ ap
peared to the disciples and convinced Thomas. In the Acts we are
told that Christ remained on earth for forty days after his resurrection.
These “depositions” do not. agree. Neither do Matthew and Luke-i
agree in their histories of the infancy of Christ. It is impossible for
both to be true. One of these “witnesses” must have been mistaken.
The most wonderful miracle recorded in the New Testament, as
having been wrought by Christ, is the resurrection of Lazarug. While
all the writers of the gospels, in many instances^ record the same won
ders and the same conversations, is it not remarkable that the greatest
miracle is mentioned alone by John?
Two of the, witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give the genealogy of
Christ. Matthew says that there were forty-two generations from
Abraham to Christ. Luke insists that there were forty-two from
Christ to David, while Matthew gives the number as twenty-eight. It
may be said that this is an' old objection*. An objection remains young
until it has been answered. Is it not wonderful that Luke and Matthew
do not agree on a single name of Christ’s ancestors for thirty-seven
generations?
There is a difference of opinion among the “witnesses" as to what
the gospel of Christ is. If we take the “depositions” of Matthew,.
Mark, and Luke, then the gospel of Christ amounts simply to this:
That God will forgive the forgiving, aDd that he will be merciful to the
merciful. According to three witnesses, Christ knew nothing of the
doctrine of the atonement; never heard of the second birth ; and did
not base salvation, in whole nor in part, on belief. In the “ deposi
tion ” of John, we find that we must be born again; that we must
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that an atonement was made for
us. If Christ ever said theqe things to, or in the hearing of, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, they forgot to mention them.
To my mind, the failur^/of the evangelists to agree as to what is
necessary for man to do in order to insure the salvation of his soul, is a
demonstration that they were not inspired.
Neither do the witnesses agree as to the last words of Christ when
he was crucified. Matthew says that he cried: “ My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?” Mark agrees with Matthew. Luke
testifies that his last words were: “Father, into thy hands T com
mend my spirit.” John states that he cried : “ It is finished?’*
Luke says that Christ said of his murderers: “ Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do.” Matthew, Mark, and John do not
record these touching words. John says that Christ, on the day of his
resurrection, said to his disciples: “ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
The other disciples do not record this monstrous passage. They
did not hear the abdication of God. They were not present when
Christ placed in their hands the keys of heaven and hell, and put a
world beneath the feet of priests.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.—1883.
�
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
Is all of the Bible inspired? Part I
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: [97]-112 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published [1882] in the North American Review. At head of title: 'Freethought Publishing Company's edition'. On last page: 'Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh'. No. 9i in Stein checklist.
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
N363
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 (Is all of the Bible inspired? Part I), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
Christianity-Controversial Literature
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2862b427f7490e9e75f83b759bf37454.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SBy50byn8iR%7E2AJe1OC16NgHLu8dFfudYj0scdH8P4N0yxUTx8M228QNy%7EavEWqxtPrqm44-XWfwG-S16J4Kuo8chbanM%7E8sjGOlkdy8XjLnl7Pf427dQNmZkzj7GRYBOgqK7cQbYSSgGhf1vEVIna3q1lobp1LMqh5-y96a3MpgoL60d-6oUEkAWzrfWazPGBfTrdU25OqYmRMkcoJAo8Yl0oJbAv4QdPRNdGpHMvGuPLzLSai-WATzt2cYlOxps02GBiQaL9T4ZhqRLD-UFK8C2gSMlEYh8S8vBOgG2EQ8yLf3lHRBkKqXEAvpO2xr8hi3EWEN6wEm7Az2mAtpwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ef7ddc38e5b576601c1c75ab00115e9a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE.
A LECTURE
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
In the nature of things there can be no evidence to establish
the claim of inspiration.
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1894.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CONTENTS.
About the Holy Bible—Introductory
The Origin
of the
Bible
Is the Old Testament Inspired ?
The Ten Commandments
What
is it all
Was Jehovah
a
Worth ?
God of Love ?
Jehovah’s Administration
The New Testament
The Philosophy of Christ
Is .Christ our Example ?
Why should we Place Christ at the Top and
Summit of the Human Race ?
Inspiration
The Real Bible
5
7
io
15
20
30
32
34
44
48
5°
53
58
�5
B’
�ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE.
There are many millions of people who believe the Bible
to be the inspired word of God—millions who think that
this book is staff and guide, counsellor and consoler; that it
fills the present with peace and the future with hope—
millions who believe that it is the fountain of law, justice
and mercy, and that to its wise and benign teachings the
world is indebted for its liberty, wealth, and civilisation—
millions who imagine that this book is a revelation from the
wisdom and love of God to the brain and heart of man—
millions who regard this book as a torch that conquers the
darkness of death, and pours its radiance on another world
—a world without a tear.
They forget its ignorance and savagery, its hatred of
liberty, its religious persecution; they remember heaven,
but they forget the dungeon of eternal pain.
��Aboîit the Holy Bible.
1
I.
THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.
A few wandering families—poor, wretched ; without educa
tion, art, or power; descendants of those who had been
enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants
of Central Africa—had just escaped from their masters to
the desert of Sinai.
Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in
the family of Pharaoh, and had been taught the law and
mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his
followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted
by Jehovah, the god of these wanderers.
Everything that happened was attributed to the inter
ference of this god. Moses declared that he met this god
face to face; that on Sinai’s top from the hands of this
god he had received the tables of stone on which, by the
finger of this god, the Ten Commandments had been
written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made
known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to
him, and the laws by which the people should be governed.
In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code
were established.
It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were,
and are, revealed and established for all mankind.
At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other
nations—they had no written language—they could neither
read nor write. They had no means by which they could
make this revelation known to other nations, and so it
�Abolit the Holy Bible.
remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished,
and unknown tribes for more than two thousand years.
Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead—many
centuries after all his followers had passed away—the Pen
tateuch was written, the work of many writers ; and, to give
it force and authority, it was claimed that Moses was the
author.
We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by
Moses.
Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when
Moses lived.
Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is
mentioned.
So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on
the desert—laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of
oxen, sheep, and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about
ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land,
about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses
and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other
subjects of no possible application to a few starving wan
derers over the sands and rocks.
It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest
theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch,
but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were,
or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line.
We know that the books were not written in the same
generation; that they were not all written by one person ;
that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions.
It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book
that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not
happen until long after his death.
No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges ;
�About the Holy Bible.
9
all we know is that it was written centuries after all the
judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of
Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that
Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the
25 th chapter of First Samuel is an account of Samuel’s
death, and in the 27 th chapter is an account of the raising
of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.
No one knows the author of the First and Second Kings,
or First and Second Chronicles; all we' know is that these
books are of no value.
We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In
the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not
happen until about five hundred years after David slept with
his fathers.
We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the
Song ; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears
his name ; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes,
or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the
exception of Ezra.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred
to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is
cruel, absurd, and impossible.
God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best
book in the Old Testament.
And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an un
believer.
We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided
as to what books were inspired—were authentic—until the
second century after Christ.
We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth,
and that the inspiration was determined by those who had
certain ends to accomplish.
�IO
Abotit the Holy Bible.
II.
IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED ?
If it is, it should be a book that no man—no number of
men—could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as
to any subject or science.
Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should
be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accom
plishment of the ends desired.
It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel,
revengeful, vindictive, or infamous.
It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty,
mercy, and the spirit of liberty.
It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and
lust, to ignorance, credulity, and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilise the heart.
It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and
wisest.
It should be true.
Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard?
Is there anything in the Old Testament—in history, in
theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science—above
and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices
of its authors and the people among whom they lived ?
Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source ?
�About the Holy Bible.
11
The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the
centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, and stars
were specks in the sky.
With this the Bible agrees.
They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that
the sky, the firmament, was solid—the floor of Jehovah’s
house.
The Bible teaches the same.
They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth,
and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.
The Bible agrees with this.
They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and
woman; that they had been created but a few years before,
and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.
This the Bible teaches.
If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible
were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about
the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil, and the cause
of death.
Now, it must be admitted that if an Infinite Being is the
author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and
could not have made a mistake.
If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories,
ignorant myths, and blunders in the Bible, it must have been
written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and
mistaken men.
Nothing can be clearer than this.
For centuries the Church insisted that the Bible was
absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the
story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology
�12
About the Holy Bible.
were in accord with the facts ; that the scientists who differed
with the Old Testament were infidels and Atheists.
Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit
that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any
science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not
inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing
the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They
now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testa
ment knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote
about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance
with the general ignorance of the time.
It required many centuries to force the theologians
to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred,
the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with
science.
They took another position :
They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of
the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things ; that
Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and
his infinite love for his children ; that Jehovah, seeing his
people wicked, ignorant, and depraved, wished to make them
merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is
inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches, and in its ideas
of government.
This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in
its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality, or of religion than
in its conception of the sciences ?
Is it moral ?
It upholds slavery—it sanctions polygamy.
Could a devil have done worse ?
Is it merciful ?
In war it raised the black flag ; it commanded the destruc
�About the Holy Bible.
13
tion, the massacre, of all—of the old, infirm, and helpless
—of wives and babes.
Were its laws inspired ?
Hundreds of offences were punished with death. To pick
up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday,
were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world
no bloodier code. The law of revenge—of retaliation—was
the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,
a limb for a limb.
This is savagery—not philosophy.
Is it just and reasonable ?
The Bible is opposed to religious toleration—to religious
liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to
death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered
to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives.
It is the enemy of Art. “ Thou shalt make no graven
image.” This was the death of Art.
Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor.
Is the Bible civilised ?
It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of
diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human
beings to Jehovah.
Is it philosophical ?
It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to
an animal—to a goat. It makes maternity an offence, for
which a sin offering had to be made.
It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked
to give birth to a girl.
To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an
offence punishable with death.
The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded
as medicine.
�r4
About the Holy Bible.
Would a civilised God daub his altars with the blood of
oxen, lambs, and doves ? Would he make all his priests
butchers ? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh ?
�About the Holy Bible.
15
III.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Some Christian lawyers—some eminent and stupid judges—
have said, and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the
foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these
Commandments were given there were codes of laws in
India and Egypt—laws against murder, perjury, larceny,
adultery, and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society ;
as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of
prosperity; as old as human love.
All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old;
all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilised,
he would have left out the commandment about keeping the
Sabbath, and in its place would have said : “ Thou shalt not
enslave thy fellow-men.” He would have omitted the one
about swearing, and said : “ The man shall have but one
wife, and the woman but one husband.” He would have
left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would
have said: “ Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination,
and thou. shalt not unsheathe the sword except in selfdefence.”
If Jehovah had been civilised, how much grander the Ten
Commandments would have been.
All that we call progress—the enfranchisement of man, of
labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for
imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing
of free speech, of the rights of conscience ; in short, all that
�*6
About the Holy Bible.
has tended to the development and civilisation of man; all
the results of investigation, observation, experience, and
free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit
of man since the close of the Dark Ages—has been done in
spite of the Old Testament.
Let me further illustrate the morality, the mercy, the
philosophy and goodness of the Old Testament.
THE STORY OF ACHAN.
Joshua took the city of Jericho. Before the fall of the
city he declared that all the spoil taken should be given to
the Lord.
In spite of this order, Achan secreted a garment, some
silver and gold.
Afterwards Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed,
and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua sought for the
cause of his defeat, and he found that Achan had secreted a
garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold.
To this Achan confessed.
And thereupon Joshua took Achan, his sons and his
daughters, his oxen and his sheep—stoned them all to death
and burned their bodies.
There is nothing to show that the sons and daughters had
committed any crime.
Certainly the oxen and sheep
should not have been stoned to death for the crime of their
owner. This was the justice, the mercy, of Jehovah!
After Joshua had committed this crime, with the help of
Jehovah he captured the city of Ai.
THE STORY OF ELISHA.
“ And he went up thence unto Bethel, and as he was
going up by the way there came forth little children out of
�About the Holy Bible.
i7
the city and mocked him, and said unto him, 1 Go up, thou
baldhead.’
“ And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed
them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two
she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of
them.”
This was the work of the good God—the merciful
Jehovah!
THE STORY OF DANIEL.
King Darius had honored and exalted LDaniel, and the
native princes were jealous. So they induced the King to
sign a decree to the effect that any man who should make a
petition to any god or man except to King Darius, for thirty
days, should be cast into the den of lions.
Afterwards these men found that Daniel, with his face
toward Jerusalem, prayed three times a day to Jehovah.
Thereupon Daniel was cast into the den of lions j a stone
was placed at the mouth of the den and sealed with the
King’s seal.
The King passed a bad night. Tbe next morning he
went to the den and cried out to Daniel. Daniel answered
and told the King that God had sent his angel and shut the
mouths of the lions.
Daniel was taken out alive and well, and the King was
converted and believed in Daniel’s god.
Darius, being then a believer in the true God, sent for
the men who had accused Daniel, and for their wives and
their children, and cast them all into the lions’ den.
“ And the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all
their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of
the pit.”
B
�i8
About the Holy Bible.
What had the wives and little children done ? How had
they offended King Darius, the believer in Jehovah ? Who
protected Daniel? Jehovah! Who failed to protect the
innocent wives and children ? Jehovah !
THE STORY OF JOSEPH.
Pharaoh had a dream, and this dream was interpreted by
Joseph.
According to this interpretation, there was to be in Egypt
seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.
Joseph advised Pharaoh to buy all the surplus of the seven
plentiful years, and store it up against the years of famine.
Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his minister or agent, and
ordered him to buy the grain of the plentiful years.
Then came the famine. The people came to the King
for help. He told them to go to Joseph and do as he said.
Joseph sold corn to the Egyptians until all their money
was gone—until he had it all.
When the money was gone the people said: “ Give us
corn, and we will give you our cattle.”
Joseph let them have corn until all their cattle, their horses,
and their flocks had been given to him.
Then the people said : “ Give us corn, and we will give
you our lands.”
So Joseph let them have corn until all their lands were
gone.
But the famine continued, and so the poor wretches sold
themselves, and they became the servants of Pharaoh.
Then Joseph gave them seed, and made an agreement
with them that they should forever give one-fifth of all they
raised to Pharaoh.
Who enabled Joseph to interpret the dream of Pharaoh ?
�About the Holy Bible.
19
Jehovah ! Did he know at the time that Joseph would
use the information thus given to rob and enslave the
people of Egypt? Yes. Who produced the famine?
Jehovah!
It is perfectly apparent that the Jews did not think of
Jehovah as the God of Egypt—the God of all the world.
He was their God, and theirs alone. Other nations had
gods, but Jehovah was the greatest of all. He hated
other nations and other gods, and abhorred all religions
except the worship of himself,
�20
About the Holy Bible.
IV.
WHAT IS IT ALL WORTH?
Will some Christian scholar tell us the value of Genesis ?
We know that it is not true—that it contradicts itself.
There are two accounts of the creation in the first and
second chapters. In the first account birds and beasts
were created before man.
In the second, man was created before the birds and
beasts.
In the first, fowls are made out of the water.
In the second, fowls are made out of the ground.
In the first, Adam and Eve are created together.
In the second, Adam is made; then the beasts and birds,
and then Eve is created from one of Adam’s ribs.
These stories are far older than the Pentateuch.
Persian : God created the world in six days, a man called
Adama, a woman called Evah, and then rested.
The Etruscan, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean, and the
Egyptian stories are much the same.
The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and Hindus
have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life.
So the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, the people
of Southern India, all had the story of the Fall of Man and
the subtle serpent.
The Chinese say that sin came into the world by the
disobedience of woman. And even the Tahitians tell us
that man was created from the earth, and the first woman
from one of his bones.
�About the Holy Bible.
21
All these stories are equally authentic and of equal value
to the world, and all the authors were equally inspired.
We know also that the story of the Flood is much older
than the book of Genesis, and we know besides that it is not
true.
We know that this story in Genesis was copied from the
Chaldean. There you find all about the rain, the ark, the
.animals, the dove that was sent out three times, and the
mountain on which the ark rested.
So the Hindus, Chinese, Parsees, Persians, Greeks,
Mexicans, and Scandinavians have substantially the same
story.
We also know that the account of the Tower of Babel is
an ignorant and childish fable.
What, then, is left in this inspired book of Genesis ? Is
there a word calculated to develop the heart or brain ?
Is there an elevated thought—any great principle—any
thing poetic—any word that bursts into blossom ?
Is there anything except a dreary and detailed statement
•of things that never happened ?
Is there anything in Exodus calculated to make men
generous, loving, and noble ?
Is it well to teach children that God tortured the
innocent cattle of the Egyptians—bruised them to death
with hailstones—on account of the sins of Pharaoh ?
Does it make us merciful to believe that God killed the
firstborn of the Egyptians—the firstborn of the poor and
suffering people—of the poor girl working at the mill—
because of the wickedness of the King ?
Can we believe that the gods of Egypt worked miracles ?
Did they change water into blood, and sticks into ser
pents ?
�22
About the Holy Bible.
In Exodus there is not one original thought or line of
value.
We know, if we know anything, that this book was
written by savages—savages who believed in slavery,
polygamy, and wars of extermination. We know that the
story told is impossible, and that the miracles were never
performed. This book admits that there are other gods
besides Jehovah. In the 17 th chapter is this verse : “ Now
I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, for, in the
thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them.”
So, in this blessed book is taught the duty of human
sacrifice—the sacrifice of babes.
In the 22nd chapter is this command : “Thou shalt not
delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors :
the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me.”
Has Exodus been a help or a hindrance to the human
race?
Take from Exodus the laws common to all nations, and is
there anything of value left ?
Is there anything in Leviticus of importance ? Is there
a chapter worth reading ? What interest have we in the
clothes of priests, the curtains and caudles of the tabernacle,
the tongs and shovels of the altar, or the hair-oil used by
the Levites?
Of what use the cruel code, the frightful punishments,
the curses, the falsehoods, and the miracles of this ignorant
and infamous book ?
And what is there in the book of Numbers—with its
sacrifices and water of jealousy, with its shew-bread and
spoons, its kids and fine flour, its oil and candlesticks, its
cucumbers, onions, and manna—to assist and instruct man
kind? What interest have we in the rebellion of Korah,
�About the Holy Bible.
23
the water of separation, the ashes of a red heifer, the brazen
serpent, the water that followed the people uphill and down
for forty years, and the inspired donkey of the prophet
Balaam ? Have these absurdities and cruelties—these
childish, savage superstitions—helped to civilise the world ?
Is there anything in Joshua—with its wars, its murders
and massacres, its swords dripping with the blood of
mothers and babes, its tortures, maimings, and mutilations,
its fraud and fury, its hatred and revenge—calculated to
improve the world ?
Does not every chapter shock the heart of a good man ?
Is it a book to be read by children ?
The book of Joshua is as merciless as famine, as ferocious
as the heart of a wild beast. It is a history—a justification—•
a sanctification of nearly every crime.
The book of Judges is about the same, nothing but war
and bloodshed; the horrible story of Jael and Sisera; of
Gideon and his trumpets and pitchers ; of Jephtha and his
daughter, whom he murdered to please Jehovah.
Here we find the story of Samson, in which a sun-god is
changed to a Hebrew giant.
Read this book of Joshua—read of the slaughter of
women, of wives, of mothers and babes—read its impossible
miracles, its ruthless crimes, and all done according to the
commands of Jehovah, and tell me whether this book is
calculated to make us forgiving, generous, and loving.
I admit that the history of Ruth is, in some respects, a
beautiful and touching story; that it is naturally told, and
that her love for Naomi was deep and pure. But in the
matter of courtship we would hardly advise our daughters to
follow the example of Ruth. Still, we must remember that
Ruth was a widow.
�24
About the Holy Bible.
Is there anything worth reading in the first and second
books of Samuel? Ought a prophet of God to hew a
captured king in pieces ? Is the story of the ark, its
capture and return, of importance to us ? Is it possible
that it was right, just, and merciful to kill fifty thousand
men because they had looked into a box ? Of what use to
us are the wars of Saul and David, the stories of Goliath
and the Witch of Endor ? Why should Jehovah have
killed Uzzah for putting forth his hand to steady the ark,
and forgiven David for murdering Uriah and stealing his
wife ?
According to “Samuel,” David took a census of the
people. This excited the wrath of Jehovah, and, as a
punishment, he allowed David to choose seven years of
famine, a flight of three months from pursuing enemies, or
three days of pestilence. David, having confidence in God,
chose the three days of pestilence ; and, thereupon, God,
the compassionate, on account of the sin of David, killed
seventy thousand innocent men !
Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have
done ?
Is there anything in First and Second Kings that suggests
the idea of inspiration ?
When David is dying he tells his son Solomon to murder
joab—not to let his hoar head go down to the grave in
peace. With his last breath he commands his son to bring
down the hoar head of Shimei to the grave with blood.
Having uttered these merciful words, the good David, the
man after God’s heart, slept with his fathers.
Was it necessary to inspire the man who wrote the history
of the building of the temple, the story of the visit of the
Queen of Sheba, or to tell the number of Solomon’s wives ?
�About the Holy Bible.
25
What care we for the withering of Jeroboam’s hand, the
prophecy of Jehu, or the story of Elijah and the ravens ?
Can we believe that Elijah brought flames from heaven,
or that he went at last to Paradise in a chariot of fire ?
Can we believe in the multiplication of the widow’s oil by
Elisha, that an army was smitten with blindness, or that an
axe floated in the water ?
Does it civilise us to read about the beheading of the
seventy sons of Ahab, the putting out of the eyes of
Zedekiah and the murder of his sons ? Is there one word
in First and Second Kings calculated to make men better ?
First and Second Chronicles is but a re-telling of what is
told in First and Second Kings. The same old stories—a little
left out, a little added, but in no respect made better or worseThe book of Ezra is of no importance. He tells us that
Cyrus, King of Persia, issued a proclamation for building a
temple at Jerusalem, and that he declared Jehovah to be
the real and only God.
Nothing could be more absurd. Ezra tells us about the
return from captivity, the building of the temple, the
dedication, a few prayers, and this is all. This book is of no
importance, of no use.
Nehemiah is about the same, only it tells of the building
of the wall, the complaints of the people about taxes, a list
of those who returned from Babylon, a catalogue of those
who dwelt at Jerusalem, and the dedication of the walls.
Not a word in Nehemiah worth reading.
Then comes the book of Esther :
In this we are told that King Ahasuerus was intoxicated ;
that he sent for his Queen, Vashti, to come and show her
self to him and his guests. Vashti refused to appear.
This maddened the King, and he ordered that from
�26
About the Holy Bible.
every province the most beautiful girls should be brought
before him that he might choose one in place of Vashti.
Among others was brought Esther, a Jewess. She was
chosen, and became the wife of the King. Then a gentle
man, by the name of Haman, wanted to have all the Jews
killed, and the King, not knowing that Esther was of that
race, signed a decree that all the Jews should be killed.
Through the efforts of Mordecai and Esther the decree
was annulled, and the Jews were saved.
Haman prepared a gallows on which to have Mordecai
hanged, but the good Esther so managed matters that
Haman and his ten sons were hanged on the gallows that
Haman had built, and the Jews were allowed to murder
more than seventy-five thousand of the King’s subjects.
This is the inspired story of Esther.
In the book of Job we find some elevated sentiments,
some sublime and foolish thoughts, something of the wonder
and sublimity of nature, the joys and sorrows of life; but
the story is infamous.
Some of the Psalms are good, many are indifferent, and
a few are infamous. In them are mingled the vices and
virtues. There are verses that elevate ; verses that degrade.
There are prayers for forgiveness and revenge. In the
literature of the world there is nothing more heartless, more
infamous, than the 109th Psalm.
In the Proverbs there is much shrewdness, many pithy
and prudent maxims, many wise sayings. The same ideas
are expressed in many ways—the wisdom of economy and
silence, the dangers of vanity and idleness. Some are
trivial, some are foolish, and many are wise. These pro
verbs are not generous—not altruistic. Sayings to the
same effect are found among all nations.
�About the Holy Bible.
27
Ecclesiastes is the most thoughtful book in the Bible.
It was written by an unbeliever—a philosopher—an agnostic.
Take out the interpolations, and it is in accordance with
the thought of the nineteenth century. In this book are
found the most philosophic and poetic passages in the
Bible.
After crossing the desert of death and crime—after read
ing the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles—it is delightful to reach this grove of palms,
called the “Song of Solomon.” A drama of love—of
human love; a poem without Jehovah—a poem born of
the heart, and true to the divine instincts of the soul.
“ I sleep, but my heart waketh.”
Isaiah is the work of several. Its swollen words, its
vague imagery, its prophesies and curses, its ravings against
kings and nations, its laughter at the wisdom of man, its
hatred of joy, have not the slightest tendency to increase
the well-being of man.
In this book is recorded the absurdest of all miracles.
The shadow on the dial is turned back ten degrees, in
order to satisfy Hezekiah that Jehovah will add fifteen years
to his life.
In this miracle the world, turning from west to east at
the rate of more than a thousand miles an hour, is not only
stopped, but made to turn the other way until the shadow
on the dial went back ten degrees ! Is there in the whole
world an intelligent man or woman who believes this
impossible falsehood ?
Jeremiah contains nothing of importance—-no facts of
value; nothing but fault-finding, lamentations, croakings,
wailings, curses, and promises; nothing but famine and
prayer, the prosperity of the wicked, the ruin of the Jews,
�28
About the Holy Bible.
the captivity and return, and, at last, Jeremiah, the traitor,
in the stocks and in prison.
And Lamentations is simply a continuance of the ravings
of the same insane pessimist; nothing but dust and sack
cloth and ashes, tears and howls, railings and revilings.
And Ezekiel—eating manuscripts, prophesying siege and
desolation, with visions of coals of fire, and cherubim, and
wheels with eyes, and the type and figure of the boiling pot,
and the resurrection of dry bones—is of no use, of no
possible value.
With Voltaire, I say that anyone who admires Ezekiel
should be compelled to dine with him.
Daniel is a disordered dream—a nightmare.
What can be made of this book with its image with a
golden head, with breast and arms of silver, with belly and
thighs of brass, with legs of iron, and with feet of iron and
clay; with its writing on the wall, its den of lions, and its
vision of the ram and goat ?
Is there anything to be learned from Hosea and his
wife? Is there anything of use in Joel, in Amos, in
Obadiah? Can we get any good from Jonah and his
gourd ? Is it possible that God is the real author of Micah
and Nahum, of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, of Haggai and
Malachi and Zechariah, with his red horses, his four horns,
his four carpenters, his flying roll, his mountains of brass,
and the stone with four eyes ?
Is there anything in these “inspired” books that has
been of benefit to man?
Have they taught us how to cultivate the earth, to build
houses, to weave cloth, to prepare food ? Have they taught
us to paint pictures, to chisel statues, to build bridges, or
ships, or anything of beauty or of use ? Did we get our
�About the Holy Bible.
29
ideas of government, of religious freedom, of the liberty of
thought, from the Old Testament ? Did we get from any
of these books a hint of any science? Is there in the
“ sacred volume ” a word, a line, that has added to the
wealth, the intelligence, and the happiness of mankind?
Is there one of the books of the Old Testament as enter
taining as Robinson Crusoe, the Travels of Gulliver, or
Peter Wilkins and his Flying Wife? Did the author of
Genesis know as much about nature as Humboldt, or
Darwin, or Haeckel ? Is what is called the Mosaic Code
as wise or as merciful as the code of any civilised nation ?
Were the writers of Kings and Chronicles as great his
torians, as great writers, as Gibbon and Draper ? Is
Jeremiah or Habakkuk equal to Dickens or Thackeray ?
Can the authors of Job and the Psalms be compared with
Shakespeare? Why should we attribute the best to man
and the worst to God ?
�3°
About the Holy Bible.
N.
WAS JEHOVAH A GOD OF LOVE ?
Did these words come from the heart of love ?—
“When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee,
thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt
make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them.”
111 will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine
arrows upon them ; they shall be burned with hunger and
devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction.”
“ I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the
poison of serpents of the dust.”
“ The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both
the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the
man of gray hairs.”
“ Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let
his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them
seek their bread also out of their desolate places; let the
extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil
his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him,
neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.”
“ And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body—the
flesh of thy sons and daughters.”
“ And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the
earth that is under thee shall be iron.”
“ Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou
be in the field.”
“ I will make my arrows drunk with blood.”
“ I will laugh at their calamity.”
�About the Holy Bible.
3i
• Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of
love or from the mouth of savagery ?
Was Jehovah god or devil ?
Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods ?
Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a
greater monster ?
Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshipped
a more heartless god ?
Brahma was a thousand times nobler, and so were Osiris
and Zeus and Jupiter. So was the supreme god of the
Aztecs, to whom they offered only the perfume of flowers.
The worst god of the Hindus, with his necklace of skulls
and his bracelets of living snakes, was kind and merciful
compared with Jehovah.
Compared with Marcus Aurelius, how small Jehovah
seems. Compared with Abraham Lincoln, how cruel, how
contemptible, is this god.
�32
About the Holy Bible.
VI.
jehovah’s administration.
He created the world, the hosts of heaven, a man and
woman—placed them in a garden. Then the serpent
deceived them, and they were cast out and made to earn
their bread.
Jehovah had been thwarted.
Then he tried again. He went on for about sixteen
hundred years trying to civilise the people.
No schools, no churches, no Bible, no tracts—nobody
taught to read or write. No Ten Commandments. The
people grew worse and worse, until the merciful Jehovah
sent the flood and drowned all the people except Noah and
his family, eight in all.
Then he started again, and changed their diet. At first
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. After the flood Jehovah
said : “ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for
you ”—snakes and buzzards.
Then he failed again, and at the Tower of Babel he
dispersed and scattered the people.
Finding that he could not succeed with all the people,
he thought he would try a few, so he selected Abraham
and his descendants. Again he failed, and his chosen
people were captured by the Egyptians and enslaved for
four hundred years.
Then he tried again—rescued them from Pharaoh and
started for Palestine.
Then he changed their diet, allowing them to eat only
�About the Holy Bible.
33
the beasts that parted the hoof and chewed the cud.
Again he failed. The people hated him, and preferred the
slavery of Egypt to the freedom of Jehovah. So he kept
them wandering until nearly all who came from Egypt had
died. Then he tried again—took them into Palestine, and
had them governed by judges.
This, too, was a failure—no schools, no Bible. Then
he tried kings, and the kings were mostly idolaters.
Then the chosen people were conquered and carried into
captivity by the Babylonians.
Another failure.
Then they returned, and Jehovah tried prophets—howlers
and waiters—but the people grew worse and worse. No
schools, no sciences, no arts, no commerce. Then Jehovah
took upon himself flesh, was born of a woman, and lived
among the people that he had been trying to civilise for
several thousand years. Then these people, following the
law that Jehovah had given them in the wilderness, charged
this Jehovah-man—this Christ—with blasphemy; tried, con
victed, and killed him.
Jehovah had failed again.
Then he deserted the Jews and turned his attention to
the rest of the world.
And now the Jews, deserted by Jehovah, persecuted by
Christians, are the most prosperous people on the earth.
Again has Jehovah failed.
What an administration !
�34
About the Holy Bible
VII.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Who wrote the New Testament ?
Christian scholars admit that they do not know. 1 hey
admit that, if the four gospels were written by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, they must have been written in
Hebrew. And yet a Hebrew manuscript of any one of
these gospels has never been found. All have been, and
are, in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the
Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had
never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles in
James and Jude—no reference is made to any of the
gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them.
The first mention that has been found of one of our
gospels was made about one hundred and eighty years after
the birth of Christ, and the four gospels were first named
and quoted from at the beginning of the third century,
about one hundred and seventy years after the death of
Christ.
We now know that there were many other gospels besides
our four, some of which have been lost. There were the
gospels of Paul, of the Egyptians, of the Hebrews, of
Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of
Thomas, of Mary, of Andrew, of Nicodemus, of Marcion,
and several others.
So there were the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of
Paul and Thecla, and of many others. Another book
called the Shepherd of Hermes.
�About the Holy Bible.
35
At first not one of all the books was considered as
inspired. The Old Testament was regarded as divine;
but the books that now constitute the New Testament were
regarded as human productions. We now know that we
do not know who wrote the four gospels.
■ The question is, Were the authors of these four gospels
inspired ?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew nothing of the Atone
ment, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the
gospel of good deeds—of charity. They teach that if we
forgive others God will forgive us.
With this the gospel of John does not agree.
In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we
must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this
gospel we find the doctrine of the Atonement, and that
Christ died for us and suffered in our place.
This gospel is utterly at variance with the other
three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John
is false. If the gospel of John was written by an in
spired man, the writers of the other three were un
inspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four
cannot be true.
It is evident that there are many interpolations in the
four gospels.
For instance, in the 28th chapter of Matthew is an
account to the effect that the soldiers at the tomb of Christ
were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus stole away his
body while they, the soldiers, slept.
�36
About the Holy Bible.
This is clearly an interpolation. It is a break in the
narrative.
The 10th verse should be followed by the 16th. The
10th verse is as follows :
“Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Be not afraid ; go tell my
brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they
see me.’ ”
The 16th verse :
“ Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee into a
mountain, where Jesus had appointed them.”
The story about the soldiers contained in the nth, 12th,
13th, 14th, and 15 th verses is an interpolation—an
afterthought—long after. The 15th verse demonstrates
this.
Fifteenth verse : “ So they took the money and did as
they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported
among the Jews until this day.”
Certainly, this account was not in the original gospel, and
certainly the 15th verse was not written by a Jew. No Jew
could have written this: “And this saying is commonly
reported among the Jews until this day.”
Mark, John, and Luke never heard that the soldiers had
been bribed by the priests; or, if they had, did not think it
worth while recording. So the accounts of the Ascension
of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations.
Matthew says nothing about the Ascension.
Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet
Matthew, who was present—who saw the Lord rise, ascend,
and disappear—did not think it worth mentioning.
On the other hand, the last words of Christ, according to
Matthew, contradict the Ascension : “ Lo I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world.”
�About the Holy Bible.
37
John, who was present, if Christ really ascended, says not
one word on the subject.
As to the Ascension, the gospels do not agree.
Mark gives the last conversation that Christ had with his
disciples, as follows :
“ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs
shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast
out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall
take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall
not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover. So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto
them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.”
Is it possible that this description was written by one who
witnessed this miracle ?
This miracle is described by Luke as follows: “ And it
came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.”
“ Brevity is the soul of wit.”
In the Acts we are told that: “ When he had spoken,
while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received
him out of their sight.”
Neither Luke, nor Matthew, nor John, nor the writer of
the Acts, heard one word of the conversation attributed to
Christ by Mark. The fact is that the Ascension of Christ
was not claimed by his disciples.
At first Christ was a man—nothing more. Mary was his
mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father,
Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David.
Then the claim was made that he was the son of God,
�38
About the Holy Bible.
and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a
virgin until her death.
Then the claim was made that Christ rose from the dead,
and ascended bodily to heaven.
It required many years for these absurdities to take pos
session of the minds of men.
If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to
his enemies ? Why did he not call on Caiphas, the high
priest ? Why did he not make another triumphal entry into
Jerusalem ?
If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in
the presence of his persecutors ? Why should this, the
greatest of miracles, be done in secret in a corner ?
It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast
multitude—a miracle that could not be simulated—one that
would have convinced hundreds of thousands.
After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became
a necessity. They had to dispose of the body.
So there are many other interpolations in the gospels and
epistles.
Again I ask : Is the New Testament true ? Does any
body now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a
celestial greeting; that a star led the Wise Men of the East;
that Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem of two years old
and under ?
The gospels are filled with accounts of miracles. Were
they ever performed ?
Matthew gives the particulars of about twenty-two miracles,
Mark of about nineteen, Luke of about eighteen, and John
of about seven.
According to the gospels, Christ healed diseases, cast out
devils, rebuked the sea, cured the blind, fed multitudes with
�About the Holy Bible.
39
five loaves and two fishes, walked on the sea, cursed a fig
tree, turned water into wine, and raised the dead.
Matthew is the only one that tells about the Star and
the Wise Men—the only one that tells about the murder of
babes.
John is the only one who says anything about the resur
rection of Lazarus, and Luke is the only one giving an
account of the raising from the dead the widow of Nain’s
son.
How is it possible to substantiate these miracles ?
The Jews, among whom they were said to have been
performed, did not believe them. The diseased, thè palsied,
the leprous, the blind who were cured, did not become
followers of Christ. Those that were raised from the dead
were never heard of again.
Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils ?
The writer of three of the gospels certainly did. John says
nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew,
Mark, and Luke give many instances.
Does any natural man now believe that Christ cast out
devils? If his disciples said he did, they were mistaken.
If Christ said he did, he was insane, or an impostor.
If the accounts of casting out devils are false, then the
writers were ignorant or dishonest. If they wrote through
ignorance, then they were not inspired. If they wrote what
they knew to be false, they were not inspired. If what they
wrote is untrue, whether they knew it or not, they were not
inspired.
At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness,
insanity, and many other diseases, were caused by devils ;
that devils took possession of, and lived in, the bodies of
men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to
�4°
About the Holy Bible.
others, and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out
of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything,
that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We
know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the
bodies of men.
If Christ said and did what the writers of the three gospels
say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was
mistaken, certainly he was not God. And if he was mis
taken, certainly he was not inspired.
Is it a fact that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ?
Is it a fact that the Devil carried Christ to the top of the
temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the ground ?
How can these miracles be established ?
The principals have written nothing, Christ has written
nothing, and the Devil has remained silent.
How can we know that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ?
Who wrote the account ? We do not know. How did the
writer get his information ? We do not know.
Somebody, some seventeen hundred years ago, said that
the Devil tried to bribe God; that the Devil carried God to
the top of the temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the
earth, and that God was intellectually too keen for the Devil.
This is all the evidence we have.
Is there anything in the literature of the world more per
fectly idiotic ?
Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards,
spooks, and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every
word in the New Testament about casting out devils is
utterly false.
Can we believe that Christ raised the dead ?
A widow living in Nain is following the body of her son
to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession, and raises
�About the Holy Bible.
4i
the young man from the dead, and gives him back to the
arms of his mother.
This young man disappears. He is never heard of again.
No one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned
from the realm of death. Luke is the only one who tells
the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark, and John never heard
of it, or did not believe it, and so failed to record it.
John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead;
Matthew, Mark, and Luke say nothing about it.
It was more wonderful than the raising of the widow’s
son. He had not been laid in the tomb for days. He was
only on his way to the grave, but Lazarus was actually dead.
He had begun to decay.
Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked
him about the other world. No one inquired of him about
their dead friends.
When he died the second time no one said : “ He is not
afraid. He has travelled that road twice, and knows just
where he is going.”
We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet
they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in
the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evi
dence is far greater, far better.
If a man should go about now pretending to raise the
dead, pretending to cast out devils, we would regard him as
insane; What, then, can we say of Christ ? If we wish to
save his reputation, we are compelled to say that he never
pretended to raise the dead; that he never claimed to have
cast out devils.
We must take the ground that these ignorant and im
possible things were invented by zealous disciples, who
sought to deify their leader.
�42
About the Holy Bible.
In those ignorant days these falsehoods added to the fame
of Christ. But now they put his character in peril and
belittle the authors of the gospels.
Can we now believe that water was changed into wine ?
John tells of this childish miracle, and says that the other
disciples were present; yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke say
nothing about it.
Take the miracle of the man cured by the pool of Bethesda.
John says that an angel troubled the waters of the pool of
Bethesda, and that whoever got into the pool first after the
waters were troubled was healed.
Does anybody now believe that an angel went into the
pool and troubled the waters ? Does anybody now think
that the poor wretch who got in first was healed? Yet the
author of the Gospel according to John believed and
asserted these absurdities. If he was mistaken about that,
he may have been about all the miracles he records.
John is the only one who tells about this pool of
Bethesda. Possibly the other disciples did not believe the
story.
How can we account for these pretended miracles ?
In the days of the disciples, and for many centuries after,
the world was filled with the supernatural. Nearly every
thing that happened was regarded as miraculous. God was
the immediate governor of the world. If the people were
good, God sent seed time and harvest; but if they were
bad, he sent flood and hail, frost and famine. If anything
wonderful happened, it was exaggerated until it became a
miracle.
Of the order of events—of the unbroken and the unbreak
able chain of causes and effects—the people had no know
ledge and no thought.
�About the Holy Bible.
43
A miracle is the badge and brand of fraud. No miracle
ever was performed. No intelligent, honest man ever pre
tended to perform a miracle, and never will.
If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him; if
he had cured the palsied and insane; if he had given
hearing to the deaf, vision to the blind ; if he had cleansed
the leper with a word, and with a touch had given life and
feeling to the withered limb; if he had given pulse and
motion, warmth and thought, to cold and breathless clay;
if he had conquered death and rescued from the grave its
pallid prey, no word would have been uttered, no hand
raised, except in praise and honor. In his presence all
heads would have been uncovered—all knees upon the
ground.
Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was
found to say a word in his favor ? No man stood forth and
said : “ I was a leper, and this man cured me with a touch.”
No woman said : “ I am a widow of Nain, and this is my son
whom this man raised from the dead.”
No man said: “ I was blind, and this man gave me
sight.”
All silent.
�44
About the Holy Bible.
VIII.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.
Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect—
that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech.
Let us see :
Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek, turn the other.
Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this ? Christ
takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right
of self-defence. Vice becomes the master of the world, and
the good become the victims of the infamous.
No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his
wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and
the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any
absurdity beyond this ?
Love your enemies.
Is this possible ? Did any human being ever love his
enemies ? Did Christ love his when he denounced them as
whited sepulchres, hypocrites, and vipers ?
We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts
of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is
absurd ; to love your enemies is impossible.
Take no thought for the morrow.
The idea was that God would take care of us as he did
of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that
belief?
Does God take care of anybody ?
Can we live without taking thought for the morrow ? To
plough, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for
�About the Holy Bible.
45
the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our
children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this
forethought there could be no progress, no civilisation.
The world would go back to the caves and dens of
savagery.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand
offend thee, cut it off.
Why? Because it is better that one of our members
should perish than that the whole body should be cast into
hell.
Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting
off your hands ? Is it possible to extract from these extrava
gant sayings the smallest grain of common sense ?
Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God s throne ;
nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool: nor by ferusalem, for
it is his holy city.
Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ.
Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch ; the earth is his
footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a
thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the
rate of over a thousand miles a minute !
Where did Christ think heaven was ?
Why was
Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants
were ignorant, cruel, and superstitious,?
Ifa man sue thee at law and take away your coat, give him
your cloak also.
Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that com
mandment ? Would it not be just as sensible to say : “ If a
man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars,
give him two hundred ” ?
Only the insane could give or follow this advice.
Think not I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to
�46
About the Holy Bible.
send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at
variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother.
If this is true, how much better it would have been had he
remained away.
Is it possible that he who said, “ Resist not evil,” came to
bring a sword ? That he who said, “ Love your enemies,”
came to destroy the peace of the world ?
To set father against son, and daughter against father—what a glorious mission !
He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for a
thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts
he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided
nations and families, put out the light of reason, and
petrified the hearts of men.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for
my name's sake, shall receive an .hundredfold, and shall
inherit everlasting life.
According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the com
passionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it
possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those
who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives
and children ? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by
deserting the ones we love ? Is a home to be ruined here
for the sake of a mansion there ?
And yet it is said that Christ is an example for all the
world. Did he desert his father and mother ? He said,
speaking to his mother : “ Woman, what have I to do with
thee ?”
The Pharisees said unto Christ: Is it lawful to pay tribute
unto Caesar ?
�About the Holy Bible.
47
Christ said : “ Show me the tribute money.
They
brought him a penny. And he saith unto them : “ Whose
is the image and the superscription ?”
They said:
“ Caesar’s.” And Christ said : “ Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s.”
Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar
because his image and superscription were stamped upon it ?
Did the penny belong to Caesar, or to the man who had
earned it ? Had Caesar the right to demand it because
it was adorned with his image ?
Does it appear from this conversation that Christ under
stood the real nature and use of money ?
Can we now say that Christ was the greatest of
philosophers ?
�About the Holy Bible.
IX.
IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?
He never said a word in favor of education. He never
even hinted at the existence of any science. He never
uttered a word in favor of industry, economy, or of any
effort to better our condition in this world. He was the
enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent
to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich.
Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but
because he was poor.
Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music
—nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of
nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the
rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the
freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness
of home; not one word for the fireside ; not a word in
favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.
He never married. He wandered homeless from place
to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to
have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to
have lived on alms.
All human ties were held in contempt; this world was
sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged.
God would support and protect.
At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he
was mistaken, cried out: “ My God! My God! Why
hast thou forsaken me ?”
We have found that man must depend on himself.
�About the Holy Bible.
49
Île must clear the land; he must build the home; he
must plough and plant ; he must invent ; he must work
with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties
and obstructions ; he must conquer and enslave the forces
of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.
�5°
About the Holy Bible,
X.
WHY SHOULD WE PLACE CHRIST AT THE TOP AND SUMMIT
OF THE HUMAN RACE ?
Was he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than
Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more
perfect calmness, than Socrates ? Was he more patient,
more charitable, than Epictetus?
Was he a greater
philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what
respect was he the superior of Zoroaster ? Was he gentler
than Laotse, more universal than Confucius ? Were his
ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno ?
Did he express grander truths than Cicero ? Was his mind
subtler than Spinoza’s ? Was his brain equal to Kepler’s or
Newton’s? Was‘he grander in death—a sublimer martyr
than Bruno ? Was he in intelligence, in the force and
beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in
wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge
of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes, and
fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human
race ?
If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before
him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew
how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes,
what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his
name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution
would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He
knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and
women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with
�About the Holy Bible.
5i
pain. He knew that his Church would invent and use
instruments of torture ; that his followers would appeal to
whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of
the future lurid with the flames of the auto da fé. He knew
what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every
text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each
other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of
priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw
thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest
blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain.
He heard the groans—saw the faces white with agony. He
heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning,
martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would
be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light
of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of
the teachings attributed to him.
He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy
would write and tell. He saw all wars that would be waged,
and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons,
these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a
thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross.
He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned—
that cruelty and credulity would rule the world ; knew that
liberty would perish from the earth ; knew that popes and
kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of
men ; knew that they would persecute and destroy the dis
coverers, thinkers, and inventors ; knew that his Church would
extinguish reason’s holy light, and leave the world without a
star.
He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flay
ing them alive, cutting out their tongues, seaching for all the
nerves of pain.
�52
About the Holy Bible.
He knew that in his name his followers would trade in
human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women’s
breasts unbabed for gold.
And yet he died with voiceless lips.
Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his
disciples, and through them the world: “You shall not burn,
imprison, and torture in my name. You shall not persecute
your fellow-men.”
Why did he not plainly say “ I am the Son of God,” or
“lam God ” ? Why did he not explain the Trinity ? Why
did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to
him ? Why did he not write a creed ? Why did he not
break the chains of slaves ? Why did he not say that the Old
Testament was or was not the inspired word of God ? Why
did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he
leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy, and chance ? Why
did he not say something positive, definite, and satisfactory
about another world ? Why did he not turn the tear-stained
hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life ?
Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the
liberty of hand and brain ?
Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to
misery and to doubt ?
I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.
�About the Holy Bible.
53
XI.
INSPIRATION.
Not before about the third century was it claimed or
believed that the books composing the New Testament were
inspired.
It will be remembered that there were a great number of
books, of Gospels, Epistles, and Acts, and that from these
the “ inspired ” ones were selected by “ uninspired ” men.
Between the “Fathers” there were great differences of
opinion as to which books were inspired; much discussion
and plenty of hatred. Many of the books now deemed
spurious were by many of the “ Fathers ” regarded as divine,
and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be
spurious. Many of the early Christians and some of the
“Fathers” repudiated the gospel of John, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Jude, James, Peter, and the Revelation of St.
John. On phe other hand, many of them regarded the
Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching
of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the
Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel
of Nicodemus, inspired books, equal to the very best.
From all these books, and many others, the Christians
selected the inspired ones.
The men who did the selecting were ignorant and
superstitious. They were firm believers in the miraculous.
They thought that diseases had been cured by the aprons
and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of the
�54
About the Holy Bible.
dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and
that the hyenas changed their sex every year.
Were the men who through many centuries made the
selections inspired ?
Were they—ignorant, credulous,
stupid, and malicious—as well qualified to judge of “ in
spiration ” as the students of our time ? How are we
bound by their opinion ? Have we not the right to judge
for ourselves?
Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul,
and he denied the inspiration of Second and Third John,
and also of Revelation. Luther was of the same opinion.
He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and denied
the inspiration of Revelation. Zwinglius rejected the book
of Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the
author of Hebrews.
The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what
books are inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of West
minster.
To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the
existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks,
acts, has objects, ends, and aims.
This is somewhat
difficult.
It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having
no conception of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell
whether all the facts we know tend to prove or disprove the
existence of such a being.
God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted,
how are we to prove that he inspired the writers of the
books of the Bible ?
How can one man establish the inspiration of another ?
How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired ? How
�About the Holy Bible.
55
can he know himself that he is inspired ? There is no way
to prove the fact of inspiration. The only evidence is the
word of some man who could by no possibility know any
thing on the subject.
What is inspiration ? Did God use men as instruments ?
Did he cause them to write his thoughts ? Did he take
possession of their minds and destroy their wills ?
Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their
mistakes, their ignorance, and their prejudices were mingled
with the wisdom of God? How are we to separate the
mistakes of men from the thoughts of God ? Can we do
this without being inspired ourselves ? If the original
writers were inspired, then the translators should have been,
and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible
means.
How is it possible for a human being to know that he is
inspired by an infinite being ? But of one thing we may be
certain : An inspired book should certainly excel all the
books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all,
be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in beauty—perfect.
Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack
the Bible.
I will tell them :
This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death,
the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the
onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned
the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of
man.
This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of
slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families
and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the
�56
About the Holy Bible.
world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants—
the enslaver of women and children. This book has
corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made
colleges and universities the teachers of error and the
haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with
hateful, cruel, ignorant, and warring sects. This book
taught men to kill their fellows for religion’s sake. This
book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of
torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving
languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh,
erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled
fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason
from the'minds of millions, and filled the asylums with the
insane.
This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the
blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on
which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her
child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader, and
made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the
fires that burned “witches” and “wizards.” This book
filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies
of men and women with devils. This book polluted the
souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain.
This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and
investigation [the greatest of crimes. This book filled
nations with hermits, monks, and nuns—with the pious and
the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean
saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book
taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be
happy in another—to waste this world for the sake of the
next.
I attack this book because it is the enemy of human
�About the Holy Bible.
57
liberty—the greatest obstruction across the highway of
human progress.
Let me ask the ministers one question : How can you be
wicked enough to defend this book ?
�58
About the Holy Bible.
XII.
THE REAL BIBLE.
For thousands of years men have been writing the real
Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will
never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we
know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and
inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and
levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the
brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy,
of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination’s world,
the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light
and shade, the marvellous marbles that seem to live and
breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and
flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding
stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed
sea.
All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life—all
that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain—all just and
perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all
thoughts that feed the flames of love, the music that trans
figures, enraptures, and enthralls, the victories of heart
and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the
deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife
and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and
useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother
love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth,
of all the best that all the men and women of the
�About the Holy Bible.
59
world have said, and thought, and done through all the
years.
These treasures of the heart and brain—these are the
Sacred Scriptures of the human race.
��Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll.
hy am
Some Mistakes of Moses. WPart I. 2d. I
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso, Why am I
an
Agnostic ?
an
Agnostic?
Part II. 2d.
and fascinating as a novel. ^3'2pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth is. od. Faith and Fact. Reply to
Defence of Freethought. Dr. Field. 2d.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
6d.
The Limits of Toleration.
The Gods. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With, A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
2d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply The Household of Faith.
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
2d.
_
Crimes against Criminals. Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman. The Clergy and Common
3d.
,
Sense. 2d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Social Salvation. 2d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Marriage and Divorce. An
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Agnostic’s View. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Skulls. 2d.
Paine. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Ernest Renan and Jesus Live Topics. Id.
Christ. 2d.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
True Religion. 2d.
. Id.
The Three Philanthropists. Real Blasphemydols. Id.
Repairing the I
2d.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
God and the State. 2d.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G, W.
Foote. Is.
Miscellaneous Theological Works, is.
Complete Theological Works. (Including the Age of
Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political
Biography by J. 1VE. Wheeler. Is. j bound in cloth., 2s.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d., post free,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
G. W. FOOTE AND J. M. WHEELER.
Hundreds of exact References to Standard Authorities. No pains spared
to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable
Indictment of Christianity.
Chapters :—1, Christ to Constantine; 2, Constantine to Hypatia; 3,
Monkery; Pious Forgeries; 5, Pious Frauds ; 6, Rise of the Papacy
7, Crimes of the Popes ; 8, Persecution of the Jews; 9, The Crusades.
“ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the
opponents of Christianity.”—0. Bradlaugh, in National Reformer.
“The book is worth reading. It is fair, and, on the whole, correct.” —
Weekly Times.
„
book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field, Examiner.
“The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aqe
(U.S.A.).
u
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
221 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
(FIRST SERIES)
BY
G.
Old Nick
Fire ! ! !
Sky Pilots
Devil Dodgers
Fighting Spooks
Damned Sinners
Where is Hell ?
Spurgeon and Hell
Shelley’s Atheism
Long Faces
Our Father
Wait Till You Die
Dead Theology
Mr. Gladstone on Devils
Is Spurgeon in Heaven ?
God in Japan
Stanley on Providence
Gone to God
Thank God
W.
FOOTE.
Contents :—
Judgment Day
Huxley’s Mistake
The Gospel of Freethought
On Ridicule
Who are the Blasphe
mers ?
Christianity and Com
mon Sense
The Lord of Lords
Consecrating the
Colors
Christmas in Holloway
Gaol
Who Killed Christ ?
Did Jesus Ascend?
The Rising Son
St. Paul’s Veracity
No Faith with Heretics |
The Logic of Persecu»
tion
Luther and the Devil
Bible English
Living by Faith
Victor Hugo
Walt Whitman
Desecrating a Church
Tennyson and the Bible
Christ’s Old Coat
Christ’s Coat, No. 2
Scotched, Not Slain
God-Making
God and the Weather
Miracles
A Real Miracle
Jesus on Women
Paul on Women
Mother’s Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�302 pp., superior paper, bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. post free,
FLOWERS OF
FREETHOUGHT
[Second Series]
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Contents :—
Christianity & Slavery Down Among the Dead
Luscious Piety
Men
Christ Up to Date
The Jewish Sabbath
Secularism and Chris Smirching a Hero
God’s Day
Kit Marlowe and Jesus
Professor Stokes ,on Im tianity
Christ
Altar and Throne
mortality
Jehovah the Ripper
Martin Luther
Paul Bert
The Parson’s Living
The Praise of Folly
Converting a Corpse
Wage
A Lost Soul
Bradlaugh’s Ghost
Did Bradlaugh Back
Christ and Brotherhood Happy in Hell
slide ?
The Act of God
The Sons of God
Keir Hardie on Christ Frederic Harrison on
Melchizedek
Atheism
Blessed be ye Poor
S’w’elp me God
Save the Bible !
Converted Infidels
Infidel Homes
Forgive and Forget
Mrs. Booth’s Ghost
Are Atheists Cruel ?
Are Atheists Wicked ? Talmage on the Bible The Star of Bethlehem
Mrs. Besant on Death The Great Ghost
Rain Doctors
Atheism and the French
and After
Pious Puerilities
Revolution
“ Thus Saith the Lord ” The Poets and Liberal
Pigottism
Theology
Believe or be Damned
Christianity and Labor Jesus at the Derby
Christian Charity
Atheist Murderers
Duel ng
Religion and Money
A Religion for Eunuchs
An Easter Egg for
Clotted Bosh
Rose-Water Religion
Christians
Lord Bacon on Atheism
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-■street, E.O.
Price Is. 6d., post free,
ESSAYS IN
RATIONALISM.
BY
CHARLES ROBERT NEWMAN
(Atheist Brother of Cardinal Newman).
With Preface by G. J. Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch
by J. M. Wheeler.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
�Handsomely bound in cloth, 7s. 6d., post free,
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY
OF
FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
J. M. WHEELER.
The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Freethought party.”—National Reformer.
“ The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought.
At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, asserting that all great
men have been on the side of Christianity.”— Truthseeker (New York).
‘ The most important Freethought work published this year.”—Re
Rageraaa (Amsterdam).
A good and useful work that was much needed.”—Commonweal.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
WILL CHRIST SAVE US?
By G, W. Foote ,
A Thorough Examination of the Claims of Jesus Christ
to be considered the Savior of the World.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Price Is.
Superior Edition for Subscribers, bound, numbered,
and signed, 2s.,
’
VOLTAIRE:
HIS LIFE AND WORKS.
With some Selections from his Writings, by
J. M. Wheeler and G. W. Foote.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday.
Price Twopence
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
About the Holy Bible : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 59, [4] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 1b 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
1894
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N322
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 (About the Holy Bible : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
Bible-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/21f5e6229e8260abdf94a1a0aa2374da.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MPZkIFr3xX7COtAl8QdxURIOFZebJdY-JxYGUa6v3CJomM1AdDXPqSIkvYXgto46XMU4cBeDWPPACSIp94I-IEJDv6cqvA1v6K%7Eh8fx3Lsg1c9HuqPIBmMQtVHY%7EJHcJuX0SXap7gODf5ySc7XHVJk6u9LtvxNrvGyT%7EOOYp8ophVBUOBd%7EZcEf4kRLNuYdjTmU-1ZNXQl8j%7EBdqat6jUHUlULZKQhmD0c5hy69Ayg4lv7Wgk6p6qCJO%7E42f9hTledyd7uWAAxWR4wRErz-qLCzYe-jPjImz1HFXesY26AYmvMJA8tKApw4VbplIkTpiWY5qV7lN14QBtCgkSKIAcw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b6b05c2e73eef03625b4987fadb6b5e7
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHING CO
NY'S EDITION.
A lecture
DELIVERED TO IMMENSE AUDIENCES IN THE
METHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.O.
1883.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�[“A brilliant, gonial gentleman; a man of brains, and a heart as tender as a
woman's; a man greatly respected and admired by all who know him, greatly
detested by many among those who do not, and who do not agree with him in
opinion; a man who does his own thinking, and who says what he thinks, and
thinks before he says, is about to address you in review of a great historical
character. He will do this from his own standpoint, and in his own way. Had
he lived one hundred years ago, and succeeded in doing this, he would, under the
forms of law, had been imprisoned — if, indeed, he were suffered to live —his
children taken from him, his property confiscated, his name traduced and his
memory vilified. Times have changed. The world of thought and opinion moves
as well as the world of matter. He may speak to you here to-day, freely and
without reserve. He may give his honest thought. You have come to hear him
and not me. Let me introduce him—Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.” ]
�MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Ladies and Gentlemen : Now and then some one
asks me why I am endeavoring to interfere with the
religious faith of others, and why I try to take from
the world the consolation naturally arising from a
belief in eternal fire. And I answer, I want to do
what little I can to make my country truly free. I
want to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people.
I want it so that we can differ upon all these questions,
and yet grasp each other’s hands in genuine friend
ship. I want, in the first place, to free the clergy. I
am a great friend of theirs, but they don’t seem to
have found it out generally. I want it so that every
minister will not be a parrot, not an owl sitting upon
a ‘dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hooting the
hoots that have been hooted for 1800 years. But I
want it so that each one can be an investigator, a
thinker; and I want to make his congregation grand
enough so that they will not only allow him to think,
but will demand that he shall think, and give to them
the honest truth of his thought. As it is now, ministers
are employed like attorneys—for the plaintiff or the
defendant. If a few people know of a young man in
the neighborhood, maybe, who has not had a good con
stitution—he may not be healthy enough to be wicked
—a young man who has shown no decided talent—
it occurs to them to make him a minister. They con
tribute and send him to some school. If it turns out
that that young man has more of the man in him
than they thought, and he changes his opinion, every
one who contributed will feel himself individually
swindled, and they will follow that young man to the
grave with the poisoned shafts of malice and slander.
�4
Mistakes of Moses.
I want it so that every one will be free—so that a
pulpit will not be a pillory. They have in Massachussetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of minister fac
tory, and every professor in that factory takes an oath
once in five years—that is as long as an oath will last
—that not only has he not during the last five years,
but so help him God, he will not during the next five
years, intellectually advance, and probably there is no
oath he could easier keep. Since the foundation of
that institution there has not been one case of perjury.
They believe the same creed they first taught when the
foundation stone was laid, and now when they send
out a minister they brand him, as hardware from Shef
field and Birmingham. And every man who knows
where he was educated knows his creed, knows every
argument of his creed, every book that he reads, and
just what he amounts to intellectually, and knows he
will shrink and shrivel, and become solemnly stupid,
day after day, until he meets with death. It is all
wrong; it is cruel. Those men should be allowed to
grow. They should have the air of liberty and the
sunshine of thought.
I want to free the schools of our country. I want it
so that when a professor in a college finds some fact
inconsistent with Moses, he will not hide the fact, that
it will not be the worse for him for having discovered
the fact. I wish to see an eternal divorce and separa
tion between church and schools. The common school
is the bread of life; but there should be nothing taught
in the schools except what somebody knows ; and any
thing else should not be maintained by a system of
general taxation. I want its professors so that they
will tell everything they find; that they will be free
to investigate in every direction, and will not be tram
melled by the superstitions of our day. What has
religion to do with facts ? Nothing. Is there any
such thing as Methodist mathematics, Presbyterian
botany, Catholic astronomy, or Baptist biology ? What
has any form of superstition or religion to do with a
fact or with any science? Nothing but to hinder,
delay, or embarrass. I want, then, to free the schools;
and I want to free the politicians, so that a man will
�Mistakes 0/ Moses.
5
not have to pretend that he is a Methodist, or his wife
a Baptist, or his grandmother a Catholic; so that he
can go through a campaign, and when he gets through
will find none of the dust of hypocrisy on his knees.
I want the people splendid enough that when they
desire men to make laws for them, they will take
one who knows something, who has brain enough to
prophesy the destiny of the American Republic, no
matter what his opinions may be upon any religious
subject. Suppose we are in a storm out at sea, and
the billows are washing over our ship, and it is
necessary that some one should reef the topsail, and
a man presents himself. Would you stop him at the
foot of the mast to find out his opinion on the five
points of Calvinism ? What has that to do with it ?
Congress has nothing to do with baptism or any par
ticular creed, and from what little experience I have
had of Washington, very little to do with any kind
of religion whatever. Now, I hope this afternoon
this magnificent and splendid audience will forget
that they are Baptists or Methodists, and remember
that they are men and women. These are the highest
titles humanity can bear—man and woman ; and every
title you add belittles them. Man is the highest ;
woman is the highest. Let us remember that we are
simply human beings, with interests in common. And
let us all remember that our views depend largely
upon the country in which we happen to live. Sup
pose we were born in Turkey, most of us would have
been Mohammedans ; and when we read in the book
that when Mohammed visited heaven he became ac
quainted with an angel named Gabriel, who was so
broad between his eyes that it would take a smart
camel three hundred days to make the journey, we
probably would have believed it. If we did not,
people would say: “ That young man is dangerous ;
he is trying to tear down the fabric of our religion.
What do you propose to give us instead of that angel ?
We cannot afford to trade off an angel of that size
for nothing.” Or if we had been born in India, we
would have believed in a god with three heads. Now,
we believe in three gods with one head. And so we
�6
Mistakes oj Moses.
might make a tour of the world and see that every
superstition that could be imagined by the brain of
man has been in some place held to be sacred.
Now, some one says: “The religion of my father
and mother is good enough for me.” Suppose we all
said that, where would be the progress of the world ?
We would have the rudest and most barbaric religion,
which no one could believe. I do not believe that
it is showing real respect to our parents to believe
something simply because they did. Every good
father and every good mother wish their children to
find out more than they knew ; every good father
wants his son to overcome some obstacle that he could
not grapple with ; and if you wish to reflect credit
on your father and mother, do it by accomplishing
more than they did, because you live in a better time.
Every nation has had what you call a sacred record,
and the older the more sacred, the more contradictory
and the more inspired is the record. We, of course,
are not an exception, and I propose to talk a little
about what is called the Pentateuch, a book, or a
collection of books, said to have been written by Moses.
And right here in the commencement let me say that
Moses never wrote one word of the Pentateuch—not
one word was written until he had been dust and
ashes for hundreds of years. But as the general
opinion is that Moses wrote these books, I have entitled
this lecture “ The Mistakes of Moses.” For the sake
of this lecture, we will admit that he wrote it. Nearly
every maker of religion has commenced by making
the world ; and it is one of the safest things to do,
because no one can contradict as having been present,
and it gives free scope to the imagination. These
books, in times when there was a vast difference be
tween the educated and the ignorant, became inspired,
and people bowed down and worshipped them.
I saw a little while ago a Bible with immense oaken
covers, with hasps and clasps large enough almost for
a penitentiary, and I can imagine how that book would
be regarded by barbarians in Europe when not more
than one person in a dozen could read and write. In
imagination I saw it carried into the cathedral, heard
�Mistakes of Moses.
7
the chant of the priest, saw the swinging of the censer
and the smoke rising; and when the Bible was put
on the altar I can imagine the barbarians looking at
it and wondering what influence that black book could
have on their lives and future. I do not wonder that
they imagined it was inspired. None of them could
write a book, and consequently when they saw it
they adored it ; they were stricken with awe ; and
rascals took advantage of that awe.
Now they say that the book is inspired. I do not
care whether it is or not; the question is, is it true ?
If it is true it does not need to be inspired. Nothing
needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake. A
fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth
scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every
other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell
whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit any
thing except another lie made for the express purpose ;
and, finally, someone gets tired of lying, and the last
lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is a chance
for inspiration. Right then and there a miracle is
needed. The real question is : In the light of science,
in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth
century, is this book true ? The gentleman who wrote
it begins by telling us that God made the universe out
of nothing. That I cannot conceive ; it may be so, but
I cannot conceive it. Nothing, in the light of raw
material, is, to my mind, a decided and disastrous
failure. I cannot imagine of nothing being made into
something, any more than I can of something being
changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force
aside from matter, because force, to be force, must be
active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for
force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active.
So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot
believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest
opinion. The next thing he proceeds to tell us is that
God divided the darkness from the light; and right
here let me say when I speak about God I simply mean
the being described by the Jews. There may be in
immensity some being beneath whose wing the uni
verse exists, whose every thought is a glittering star,
�8
Mistakes of Moses.
but I know nothing about him—not the slightest—and
this afternoon I am simply talking about the being
described by the Jewish people. When I say God, I
mean him. Moses describes God dividing the light
from the darkness. I suppose that at that time they
must have been mixed. You can readily see how light
and darkness can get mixed. They must have been
entities. The reason I think so is because in that same
book I find that darkness overspread Egypt so thick
that it could be felt, and they used to have on exhihition in Rome a bottle of -the darkness that once over
spread Egypt. The gentleman who wrote this in
imagination saw God dividing light from the darkness.
I am sure the man who wrote it believed darkness to
be an entity, a something, a tangible thing that can be
mixed with light.
The next thing that he informs us is that God divided
the waters above the firmament from those below the
firmament. The man who wrote that believed the
firmament to be a solid affair. And that is what the
Gods did. You recollect the Gods came down and made
love to the daughters of men—and I never blamed
them for it. I have never read a description of any
heaven I would not leave on the same errand. That is
where the Gods lived. That is where they kept the
water. It was solid. That is the reason the people
prayed for rain. They believed that an angel could
take a lever, raise a window, and let out the desired
quantity. I find in the Psalms that “ he bowed the
heavens and came down ; ” and we read that the chil
dren of men built a tower to reach the heavens and
climb into the abode of the Gods. The man who wrote
that believed the firmament to be solid. He knew
nothing of the laws of evaporation. He did not know
that the sun wooed with amorous kiss the waves of
the sea, and that, disappointed, their vaporous sighs
changed to tears and fell again as rain. The next
thing he tells us is that the grass began to grow, and
the branches of the trees laughed into blossom, and
the grass ran up the shoulder of the hills, and yet not
a solitary ray of light had left the eternal quiver of the
sun. Not a blade of grass had ever been touched by a
�Mistakes of Moses.
9
gleam of light. And I do not think that grass will
grow to hurt without a gleam of sunshine. I think
the man who wrote that simply made a mistake, and
is excusable to a certain degree. The next day he
made the sun and moon—the sun to rule the day, and
the moon to rule the night. Do you think the man
who wrote that knew anything about the size of the
sun ? I think he thought it was about three feet in
diameter, because I find in some book that the sun
was stopped a whole day to give a general named
Joshua time to kill a few more Amalekites; and the
moon was stopped also. Now, it seems to me the sun
would give light enough without stopping the moon ;
but as they were in the stopping business they did it
just for devilment. At another time, we read, the sun
was turned ten degrees backward to convince Heze
kiah that he was not going to die of a boil. How
much easier it would have been to cure the boil! The
man who wrote that thought the sun was two or three
feet in diameter, and could be stopped and pulled
around like the sun and moon in a theatre. Do you
know that the sun throws out every second of time as
much heat as could be generated by burning eleven
thousand millions tons of coal ? I don’t believe he
knew that, or that he knew the motion of the earth.
I don’t believe he knew that it was turning on its axis
at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, because, if he'
did, he would have understood the immensity of heat
that would have been generated by stopping the world.
It has been calculated by one of the best mathemati
cians and astronomers that to stop the world would
cause as much heat as it would take to burn a lump of
solid coal three times as big as the globe. And yet we
find in that book that the sun was not only stopped,
but turned back ten degrees, simply to convince a gen
tleman that he was not going to die of a boil! They
may say I will be damned if I do not believe that, and
I tell them I will if I do.
Then he gives us the history of astronomy, and he
gives it to us in five words. “ He made the stars also.”
He came very near forgetting the stars. Do you be
lieve that the man who wrote that knew that there are
�10
Mistakes of Moses.
stars as much larger than this earth as this earth is
larger than the apple which Adam and Eve are said to
have eaten ? Do you believe that he knew that this
world is but a speck in the shining, glittering universe
of existence ? I would gather from that that he made
the stars after he got the world done. The telescope,
in reading the infinite leaves of the heavens, has ascer
tained that light travels at the rate of 192,000 miles per
second, and it would require millions of years to come
from some of the stars to this earth. Yet* the beams of
those stars mingle in our atmosphere, so that if those
distant orbs were fashioned when this world began,
we must have been whirling in space not six thousand,
but many millions of years. Do you believe the man
who wrote that as a history of astronomy really knew
that this world was but a speck compared with mil
lions of sparkling orbs ? I do not. He then proceeds
to tell us that God made fish and cattle, and that man
and woman were created male and female. The first
account stops at the second verse of the second chapter.
You see the Bible originally was not divided into
chapters; the first Bible that was ever divided into
chapters in our language was made in the year of grace
1550. The Bible was originally written in the Hebrew
language, and the Hebrew language at that time had
no vowels in writing. It was written entirely with
consonants, and without being divided into chapters
or into verses, and there was no system of punctuation
whatever. After you go home to-night write an
English sentence or two with only consonants close
together, and you will find that it will take twice as
much inspiration to read it as it did to write it. When
the Bible was divided into verses and chapters, the
divisions were not always correct, and so the division
between the first and second chapter of Genesis is not
in the right place. The second account of the creation
commences at the third verse, and it differs from the
first in two essential points. In the first account man
is the last made; in the second, man is made before
the beasts. In the first account man is made “ male
and female ; ” in the second only a man is made, and
there is no intention of making a woman whatever.
�Mistakes of Moses.
11
You will find by reading that second chapter that
■God tried to palm off on Adam a beast as his helpmeet.
Everybody talks about the Bible, and nobody reads it:
that is the reason it is so generally believed. I am
probably the only man in the United States who has
read the Bible through this year. I have wasted that
time, but I had a purpose in view. Just read it, and
you will find, about the twenty-third verse, that God
caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order
that he might name them. And the animals came
like a menagerie into town, and as Adam looked at
all the crawlers, jumpers, and creepers, this God stood
by to see what he would call them. After this proces
sion passed, it was pathetically remarked : “ Yet was
there not found any helpmeet for Adam.” Adam
didn’t see anything that he could fancy. And I am
glad he didn’t. If he had, there would not have been
a Freethinker in this world; we should have all died
orthodox. And finding Adam was so particular, God
had to make him a helpmeet; and, having used up the
nothing, he was compelled to take part of the man to
make the woman with, and he took from the man a
rib. How did he get it ? And then imagine a God
with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman,
trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde
or a brunette. Right here it is only proper that 1
should warn you of the consequences of laughing at
any story in the Holy Bible. When you come to die,
your laughing at this story will be a thorn in your
pillow. As you look back upon the record of your
life, no matter how many men you have wrecked and
ruined, and no matter how many women you have de
ceived and deserted—all that may be forgiven you;
but if you recollect that you have laughed at God’s
book you will see, through the shadows of death, the
leering looks of fiends and the forked tongues of
devils. Let me show you how it will be. For in
stance, it is the day of judgment. When the man is
•called up by the recording secretary, or whoever does
the cross-examining, he says to his soul: “ Where are
you from ? ” “ I am from the world.” “ Yes, sir.
What kind of a man were you ? ” “ Well, I don’t like
�12
Mistakes of Moses.
to talk about myself.” “ But you have to. What kind
of a man were you?” “Well, I was a good fellow; I
loved my wife, I loved my children. My home was
my heaven ; my fireside was my paradise, and to sit
there and see the lights and shadows falling on the
faces of those I love, that to me was a perpetual joy.
I never gave one of them a solitary moment of pain.
I don’t owe a dollar in the world, and I left enough
to pay my funeral expenses, and keep the wolf of
want from the door of the house I loved. That is
the kind of man I am.” “Did you belong to any
church ? ” “I did not. They were too narrow for me.
They were always expecting to be happy simply be
cause somebody else was to be damned.” “Well, did
you believe that rib story ? ” “ What rib story ? Do
you mean that Adam and Eve business ? No, I did not.
To tell you the God’s truth, that was a little more than
I could swallow ” “ To hell with him ! Next. Where
are you from?” “I’m from the world, too.” “ Do1
you belong to any church?” “Yes, sir, and to the
Young Men’s Christian Association.” “ What is your
business ? ” “ Cashier in a bank.” “ Did you ever run
off with any of the money ? ” “ I don’t like to tell, sir.”
“Well, but you have to.” “Yes, sir, I did.” “What
kind of a bank did you have ? ” “ A savings’ bank.”
“ How much did you run off with ?” “ One hundred
thousand dollars.” “ Did you take anything else along
with you?” “Yes, sir.” “What?” “I took my
neighbor’s wife.” “ Did you have a wife and children
of your own?” “Yes, sir.” “And you deserted
them ? ” “ Oh, yes ; 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 that rib story ? ” “ Ah, bless your soul,,
yes! I believed all of it, sir; I often used to be sorry
that there were not harder stories yet in the Bible, so
that I could show what my faith could do.” “ You
believed it, did you?” “Yes, with all my heart.”
“ Give him a harp.”
I simply wanted to show you how important it is to
believe these stories. Of all the authors in the world
God hates a critic the worst. Having got this woman
�Mistakes of Moses.
13
done he brought her to the man, and they started
housekeeping, and a few minutes afterwards a snake
came through a crack in the fence and commenced to
talk with her on the subject of fruit. She was not
acquainted with the neighborhood, and she did not know
whether snakes talked or not, or whether they knew
anything about the apples or not. Well, she was
misled, and the husband ate some of those apples and
laid it all on his wife; and there is where the mistake
was made. God ought to have rubbed him out at once.
He might have known that no good could come of
starting the world with a man like that. They were
turned out. Then the trouble commenced, and people
got worse and worse. God, you must recollect, was
holding the reins of government, but he did nothing for
them. He allowed them to live 669 years without
knowing their A. B. C. He never started a school, not
even a Sunday school. He didn’t even keep his own
boys at home. And the world got worse every day,
and finally he concluded to drown them. Yet that
same God has the impudence to tell me how to raise
my own children. What would you think of a neigh
bor who had just killed his babes, giving you his views
on domestic economy ? God found that he could do
nothing with them, and he said : “ I will drown them
all except a few.” And he picked out a fellow by the
name of Noah, that had been a bachelor for 500 years.
If I had to drown anybody, I would have drowned
him. I believe that Noah had then been married
something like 100 years. God told him to build a
boat, and he built one 500 feet long, 80 or 90 feet
broad, and 55 feet high, with one door shutting on the
outside, and one window 22 inches square. If Noah
had any hobby in the world it was ventilation. Then
into this ark he put a certain number of all the animals
in the world. Naturalists have ascertained that at
this time there were at least 100,000 insects necessary
to go into the ark, about 40,000 mammalia, 1,600 reptilla, to say nothing about the mastodon, the elephant
and the animalculae, of which thousands live upon a
single leaf, and which cannot be seen by the naked
eye. Noah had no microscope, and yet he had to pick
�14
Mistakes of Moses.
them out by pairs. You have no idea the trouble that
man had. Some say that the flood was not universal,
that it was partial. Why, then, did God say: “ I will
destroy every living thing beneath the heavens ?” If
it was partial, why did Noah save the birds ? An ordi
nary bird, tending strictly to business, can beat a
partial flood. Why did he put the birds in there—the
eagles, the vultures, the condors—if it was only a
partial flood ? And how did he get them in there ?
Were they inspired to go there, or did he drive them
up ? Did the polar bear leave his home of ice and
start for the tropics inquiring for Noah ; or could the
kangaroo come from Australia unless he was inspired,
or somebody was behind him ? Then there are animals
on this hemisphere, not on that. How did he get them
across ? And there are some animals which would be
very unpleasant in an ark unless the ventilation was
very perfect.
When he got the animals in the ark, God shut the
door and Noah pulled down the window. And then
it began to rain, and it kept on raining until the water
went 29 feet over the highest mountain. Chimborazo,
then as now, lifted its head above the clouds, and then
as now, there sat the condor. And yet the water rose
and rose over every mountain in the world—29 feet
above the highest peaks, covered with snow and ice.
How deep were these waters ? About 5-g- miles. How
long did it rain ? Forty days. How much did it have
to rain a day ? About 800 feet. How is that for
dampness ? No wonder they said the windows of the
heavens were open. If I had been there I would have
said the whole side of the house was out. How long
were they in this ark ? A year and ten days, floating
around with no rudder, no sail, nobody on the outside
at all. The window was shut, and there was no door,
except the one that shut on the outside. Who ran this
ark—who took care of it ? Finally it came down on
Mount Ararat, a peak 17,000 feet above the level of the
sea, with about 3,000 feet of snow, and it stopped there
simply to give the animals from the tropics a chance.
Then Noah opened the window and got a breath of
fresh air, and he let out all the animals ; and then
�Mistakes of Moses.
15
Noah took a drink, and God made a bargain with him
that he would not drown us any more, and he put a
rainbow in the clouds and said : “ When 1 see that I
will recollect that I have promised not to drown you.”
Because if it was not for that, he is apt to drown us at
any moment. Now, can anybody believe that that is
the origin of the rainbow ? Are you not all familiar
with the natural causes which bring those beautiful
arches before our eyes ? Then the people started out
again, and they were as bad as before. Here let me
ask why God did not make Noah in the first place ?
He knew he would have to drown Adam and Eve and
all his family. Then another thing, why did he want
to drown the animals ? What had they done ? What
crime had they committed ? It is very hard to answer
these questions—that is, for a man who has only been
born once. After a while they tried to build a tower
to get into heaven, and the Gods heard about it and
said : “ Let’s go down and see what man is up to.”
They came and found things a great deal worse than
they thought, and thereupon they confounded the
language to prevent them succeeding, so that the fellow
up above could not shout down “mortar ” or “ brick ”
to the one below, and they had to give it up. Is il
possible that anyone believes that that is the reason
why we have the variety of languages in the world ?
Do you know that language is born of human expe
rience, and is a physical science ? Do you know that
every word has been suggested in some way by the
feelings or observations of man—that there are words
as tender as the dawn, as serene as the stars, and others
as wild as the beasts ? Do you know that language is
dying and being born continually—that every language
has its cemetery and cradle, its bud and blossom, and
withered leaf ? Man has loved, enjoyed, and suffered,
and language is simply the expression he gives those
experiences.
Then the world began to divide, and the Jewish
nation was started. Now, I want to say that at one
time your ancestors, like mine, were barbarians. If
the Jewish people had to write these books now they
would be civilised books, and I do not hold them
�16
Mistakes of Moses,.
responsible for what their ancestors did. We find the
Jewish people first in Canaan, and there were seventy
of them, counting Joseph and his children, already
in Egypt. They lived 215 years, and they then went
down to Egypt and stayed there 215 years. They
were 430 years in Canaan and Egypt. How many
did they have when they went to Egypt ? Seventy.
How many were they at the end of 215 years ? Three
millions. That is a good many. We had at the time
of the Revolution in this country 3,000,000 of people.
Since that time there have been four doubles, until
we have 48,000,000 to-day. How many would the
Jews number at the same ratio in 215 years ? Call
it eight doubles, and we have 40,000. But instead
of 40,000 they had 3,000,000. How do I know they
had 3,000,000 ? Because they had 600,000 men of war.
For every honest voter in the State of Illinois there
will be five other people, and there are always more
voters than men of war. They must have had, at
the lowest possible estimate, 3,000,000 of people. Is
that true ? Is there a minister in the city of Chicago
that will certify to his own idiocy by claiming that
they could have increased to 3,000,000 by that time ?
If there is, let him say so. Do not let him talk about
the civilizing influence of a lie.
When they got into the desert they took a census
to see how many first-born children there were. They
found they had 22,273 first-born males. It is reason
able to suppose there was about the same number
•of first-born girls, or 45,000 first-born children. There
must have been about as many mothers as first-born
children. Dividing 3,000,000 by 45,000 mothers, and
you will find that the women in Israel had to have
on the average sixty-eight children apiece. Some
stories are too thin. This is too thick. Now, we
know that among 3,000,000 people there will be about
300 births a-day ; and according to the Old Testament
whenever a child was born the mother had to make
a sacrifice—a sin offering for the crime of having been
a mother. If there is in this universe anything that
is infinitely pure, it is a mother with her child in
her arms. Every woman had to have a sacrifice of
�Mistakes of Moses.
17
a couple of doves, a couple of pigeons, and the priests
had to eat those pigeons in the most holy place. At
that time there were at least 300 births a day, and the
priests had to cook and eat those pigeons in the most
holy place ; and at that time there were only three
priests. Two hundred birds apiece per day ! I look
upon them as the champion bird-eaters of the world.
Then where were these Jews ? They were upon
the desert of Sinai; and Sahara compared to that is
a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava, torn by storm
and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon,
and changed to stone. Such was the desert of Sinai.
The whole supplies of the world could not maintain
3,000,000 of people on the desert of Sinai for forty
years. It would cost one hundred thousand millions
of dollars, and would bankrupt Christendom. And
yet there they were with flocks and herds—so many
that they sacrificed over 150,000 first-born lambs at
one time. It would require millions of acres to sup
port those flocks, and yet there was no blade of grass,
and there is no account of it raining bailed hay. They
sacrificed 150,000 lambs, and the blood had all to be
sprinkled on the altar within two hours, and there
were only three priests. They would have to sprinkle
the blood of 1,250 lambs per minute. Then all the
people gathered in front of the tabernacle eighteen
feet deep. Three millions of people would make a
column six miles long. Some reverend gentlemen
say they were ninety feet deep. Well, that would
make a column of over a mile.
Where were these people going ? They were going
to the Holy Land. How large was it ? Twelve
thousand square miles—one-fifth the size of Illinois—
a frightful country, covered with rocks and desolation.
There never was a land agent in the city of Chicago
that would not have blushed with shame to have
described that land as flowing with milk and honey.
Do you believe that God Almighty ever went into
partnership with hornets ? Is it necessary unto salva
tion ? God said to the Jews : “ I will send hornets
before you to drive out the Canaanites.” How would
a hornet know a Canaanite ? Is it possible that God
�18
Mistakes of Moses.
inspired the hornets—that he granted letters of marque
and reprisals to hornets ? I am willing to admit that
nothing in the world would be better calculated to
make a man leave his native country than a few hor
nets attending strictly to business. God said : “ Kill
the Canaanites slowly.” Why ? “ Lest the beasts of
the field increase upon you.” How many Jews were
there ? Three millions. Going to a country, how
large ? Twelve thousand square miles. But were
there nations already in this Holy Land ? Yes, there
were seven nations “mightier than the Jews.” Say
there would' be 21,000,000 when they got there, or
24,000,000 with themselves. Yet they were told to kill
them slowly, lest the beasts of the field increased upon
them. Is there a man in Chicago that believes that ?
Then what does he teach it to little children for ? Let
him tell the truth.
So the same God went into partnership with snakes.
The children of Israel lived on manna—one account
says all the time, and another only a little while. That
is the reason there is a chance for commentaries, and
you can exercise faith. If the book was reasonable
everybody could go to heaven in a moment. But
whenever it looks as if it could not be that way, and
you believe, you are almost a saint, and when you
know it is not that way and believe, you are a
saint. He fed them on manna. Now manna is
very peculiar s'tuff. It would melt in the sun, and
yet they used to cook it by seething and baking. I
would as soon think of frying snow or boiling icicles.
But this manna had other peculiar qualities. It shrunk
to an omer, no matter how much they gathered, and
swelled up to an omer, no matter how little they
gathered. What a magnificent thing manna would be
for the currency, shrinking and swelling according to
the volume of business ! There was not a change in
the bill of fare for forty years, and they knew that
God could just as well give them three square meals
a day. They remembered about the cucumbers, and
the melons, and the leeks and the onions of Egypt, and
they said : “ Our souls abhorreth this light bread.”
Then this God got mad—you know cooks are always
�Mistakes of Moses.
19
touchy—and thereupon he sent snakes to bite the men,
women and children. He also sent them quails in
wrath and anger, and while they had the flesh between
their teeth, he struck thousands of them dead. He al
ways acted in that way, all of a sudden. People had no
chance to explain—no chance to move for a new trial—
nothing. I want to know if it is reasonable he should kill
people for asking for one change of diet in forty years.
Suppose you had been boarding with an old lady for
forty years, and she never had a solitary thing on her
table but hash, and one morning you said : “ My soul
abhorreth hash.” What would you say if she let a
basketful of rattlesnakes upon you ? Now is it possible
for people to believe this ? The Bible says that their
clothes did not wax old—they did not get shiny at the
knees or elbows—and their shoes did not wear out.
They grew right along with them. The little boy
starting out with his first pants grew up, and his pants
grew with him. Some commentators have insisted
that angels attended to their wardrobes. I never could
believe it. Just think of one angel hunting another
and saying : “ There goes another button.” I cannot
believe it.
There must be a mistake somewhere or somehow. Do
you believe the real God—if there is one—ever killed
a man for making hair oil ? And yet you find in
the Pentateuch that God gave Moses a recipe for
making hair oil to grease Aaron’s beard ; and said
if anybody made the same hair oil he should be killed.
And he gave him a formula for making ointment,
and he said if anybody made ointment like that he
should be killed. I think that is carrying patent laws
to excess. There must be some mistake about it. I
cannot imagine the infinite Creator of all the shining
worlds giving a recipe for hair oil. Do you believe
that the real God came down to Mount Sinai with
a lot of patterns for making a tabernacle—patterns
for tongs, for snuffers, and such things ? Do you
believe that God came down on that mountain and
told Moses how to cut a coat, and how it should be
trimmed ? What would an infinite God care on which
side he cut the breast, what color the fringe was, or
�20
Mistakes of Moses.
how the buttons were placed ? Do you believe God
told Moses to make curtains of fine linen ? Where
did they get their flax in the desert ? How did they
weave it ? Did he tell him to make things of gold,
silver, and precious stones when they hadn’t them?
Is it possible that God told them not to eat any fruit
until after the fourth year of planting the trees ? You
see all these things were written hundreds of years
afterwards, and the priests, in order to collect tithes,
dated the laws back. They did not say: “This is our
law,” but: “Thus said God to Moses in the wilderness.”’
Now, can you believe that ? Imagine a scene : The
eternal God tells Moses, “ Here is the way I want you
to consecrate my priests. Catch a sheep and cut his
throat.” I never could understand why God wanted
a sheep killed just because a man had done a mean
trick ; perhaps it was because his priests were fond
of mutton. He tells Moses further to take some of
the blood and put it on his right thumb, a little on
his right ear, and a little on his right big toe. Do
you believe God ever gave such instructions for the
consecration of his priests ? If you should see the
South Sea Islanders going through such a performance'
you could not keep your face straight. And will you
tell me that it had to be done in order to consecrate a
man to the service of the infinite God! Supposing the
blood got on the left toe !
Then we find in this book how God went to work
to make the Egyptians let the Israelites go. Supposewe wish to make a treaty with the Mikado of Japan,,
and Mr. Hayes sent a commissioner there ; and sup
pose he should employ Hermann, the wonderful Ger
man, to go along with him; and when they came in
the presence of the Mikado Hermann threw down an
umbrella, which changed into a turtle, and the com
missioner said : “ That is my certificate.” You would
say the country is disgraced. You would say the
president of a Republic like this disgraces himself'
with jugglery. Yet we are told God sent Moses and
Aaron before Pharaoh, and when they got there Moses
threw, down a stick, which turned into a snake. That
God is a juggler—he is the infinite prestidigitator..
�Mistakes of Moses.
21
Is that possible ? Was that really a snake, or was it
the appearance of a snake ? If it was the appearance
■of a snake, it was a fraud. Then the necromancers of
Egypt were sent for, and they threw down sticks,
which turned into snakes, but those were not so
large as Moses’ snake, which swallowed them. I
tain that it is just as hard to make small snakes
.as it is to make large ones ; the only difference is, that
.to make large snakes either larger sticks or more prac
tice is required.
Do you believe that God rained hail on the innocent
■cattle, killing them in the highways and in the field ?
Why should he inflict punishment on cattle for some
thing their owners had done ? I could never have any
respect for a God that would so inflict pain upon a
brute beast simply on account of the crime of its owner.
Is it possible that God worked miracles to convince
Pharaoh that slavery was wrong ? Why did he not
tell Pharaoh that any nation founded on slavery could
not stand ? Why did he not tell him: “ Your govern
ment is founded on slavery, and it will go down, and
the sands of the desert will hide from the view of man
your temples, your altars, and your fanes ? ” Why ,
did not he speak about the infamy of slavery ? Be
cause he believed in the infamy of slavery himself.
Oan we believe that God will allow a man to give his
wife the right of divorcement, and make the mother
•of his children a wanderer and a vagrant ? There is
not one word about women in the Old Testament ex
cept the word shame and humiliation. The God of the
Bible does not think woman is as good as man. She
was never worth mentioning. It did not take the pains
to recount the death of the mother of us all. I have no
respect for any book that does not treat woman as the
equal of man. And if there is any God in this uni
verse who thinks more of me than he thinks of my wife,
he is not well acquainted with both of us. And yet
they say that that was done on account of the hardness
of their hearts; and that was done in a community
where the law was so fierce that it stoned a man to
death for picking up sticks on Sunday. Would it not
have been better to stone to death every man who
�Mistakes of Moses.
abused his wife, and to allow them to pick up stickson account of the hardness of their hearts ? If God
wanted to take those Jews from Egypt to the land of
Canaan, why didn’t he do it instantly? If he wasgoing to do a miracle, why didn’t he do one worth
talking about ?
After God had killed all the first-born in Egypt, after
he had killed all the cattle, still Egypt could raise an
army that could put to flight 600,000 men. And be
cause this God overwhelmed the Egyptian army, he
bragged about it for a thousand years, repeatedly
calling the attention of the Jews to the fact that heoverthrew Pharaoh and his hosts. Did he help mucin
with their 600,000 men ? We find by the records of theday that the Egyptian standing army at that time was
never more than 100,000 men. Must we believe all
these stories in order to get to heaven when we die ?
Must you judge of a man’s character by the number of
stories he believes ? Are we to get to heaven by creed
or by deed ? That is the question. Shall we reason,,
or shall we simply believe? Ah, but they say the
Bible is not inspired about those little things. The
Bible says the rabbit and the hare chew the cud, but
they do not. They have a tremulous motion of the'
lip. But the being that made them says they chew
the cud. The Bible, therefore, is not inspired in na
tural history. Is it inspired in its astrology? No..
Well, what is it inspired in? In its law? Thousands
of people say that if it had not bee.n for the ten com
mandments we would not have known any better than
to rob and steal. Suppose a man planted an acre of
potatoes, hoed them all summer, and dug them in the
fall; and suppose a man had sat upon the fence all thetime and watched him, do you believe it would benecessary for that man to read the ten commandmentsto find out who, in his judgment, had a right to take
those potatoes ? All laws against larceny have been
made by industry to protect the fruits of its labor.
Why is there a law against murder ? Simply because
a large majority of people object to being murdered.
That is all. And all these laws were in force thou
sands of years before that time.
�Mistakes of Moses.
23
One of the commandments said they should not
make any graven images, and that was the death of art
in Palestine. No sculptor has ever enriched stone with
the divine forms of beauty in that country; and any
commandment that is the death of art is not a good
commandment. But they say the Bible is morally in
spired, and they tell me there is no civilisation without
this Bible. Then God knows that just as well as you
do. God always knew it, and if you can’t civilise a
nation without a Bible, why didn’t God give every
nation just one Bible to start with? Why did God
allow hundreds of thousands and billions of billions to
go down to hell just for the lack of a Bible ? They
say that it is morally inspired. Well, let us examine
it. I want to be fair about this thing, because I am
willing to stake my salvation or damnation on this
question, whether the Bible is true or not. I say it is
not; and upon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is
there a woman here who believes in the institution of
polygamy ? Is there a man here who believes in that
infamy? You say : “No, we do not.” Then you are
better than your God was 4,000 years ago. Four thou
sand years ago he believed in it, taught it, and upheld
it. I pronounce it and denounce it the infamy of in
famies. It robs our language of every sweet and
tender word in it. It takes the fireside away for ever.
It takes the meaning out of the words father, mother,
sister, brother, and turns the temple of love into a vile
den, where crawl the slimy snakes of lust and hatred.
I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the moun
tain where God used to talk to Brigham Young. He
never said anything to me. I said it was just as rea
sonable that God in the nineteenth century would talk
to a polygamist in Utah as it was that 4,000 years ago,
on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that hellish
and damnable question.
I have no love for any God who believes in poly
gamy. There is no heaven on this earth save where
the one woman loves the one man, and the one man
loves the one woman. I guess it is not inspired on the
polygamy question. Maybe it is inspired about reli
gious liberty. God says that if anybody differs with
�24
Mistakes of Moses.
you about religion, “ kill him.” He told his peculiar
people: “ If anyone teaches a different religion, kill
him! ” He did not say : “ Try and convince him that
he is wrong,” but “ kill him.” He did not say : “ I
am in the miracle business, and I will convince him,”
but “ kill him.” He said to every husband : “ If your
wife, that you love as your own soul, says, 1 Let us go
and worship other gods,’ then ‘ Thy hand shall be first
upon her, and she shall be stoned with stones until
she dies.’ ” Well, now, I hate a God of that kind, and
I cannot think of being nearer heaven than to be away
from him. A God tells a man to kill his wife simply
because she differs with him on religion 1 If the real
God were to tell me to kill my wife, I would not do it.
If you had lived in Palestine at that time, and your
wife—the mother of your children—had woke up at
night and said : “ I am tired of Jehovah. He is always
turning up that board bill. He is always telling about
whipping the Egyptians. He is always killing some
body. I am tired of him. Let us worship the sun.
The sun has clothed the world in beauty; it has
covered the earth with green and flowers ; by its
divine light I first saw your face; its light has enabled
me to look into the eyes of my beautiful babe. Let us
worship the sun, father and mother of light and love
and joy.” Then what would it be your duty to do—
kill her ? Do you believe any real God ever did that ?
Your hand should be first upon her, and when you
took up some ragged rock and hurled it against the
white bosom filled with love for you, and saw running
away the red current of her sweet life, then you would
look up to heaven and receive the congratulations of
the infinite fiend whose commandments you had to
obey. I guess the Bible was not inspired about reli
gious liberty. Let me ask you right here. Suppose, as
a matter of fact, God gave those laws to the Jews, and
told them : “ Whenever a man preaches a different
religion, kill him,” and suppose that afterwards that
same God took upon himself flesh and came to the
world and taught and preached a different religion,
and the Jews crucified him, did he not reap exactly
what he sowed ?
�Mistakes of Moses.
25
Maybe this book is inspired about war. God told
the Israelites to overrun that country, and kill every
man, woman, and child for defending their native
land. Kill the old men? Yes. Kill the women?
Certainly. And the little dimpled babes in the cradle
that smile and coo in the face of murder—dash out
their brains ? That is the will of God. Will you tell
me that any God ever commanded such infamy ? Kill
the men and the women, and the young men and the
babes! “What shall we do with the maidens?”
“Give them to the rabble murderers!” Do you be
lieve that God ever allowed the roses of love and the
violets of modesty that shed their perfume in the heart
of a maiden to be trampled beneath the brutal feet of
lust ? If there is any God, I pray him to write in the
book of eternal remembrance, opposite to my name,
that I denied that lie. Whenever a woman reads a
Bible and comes to that passage she ought to throw the
book from her with contempt and scorn. Do you tell
me that any decent God would do that ? What would
the devil have done under the same circumstances ?
Just think of it; and yet that is the God that we wish
to get into the Constitution. That is the God we teach
our children about, so that they will be sweet and
tender, amiable and kind ! That monster—that fiend!
I guess the Bible is not inspired about religious liberty,
nor about war.
Then, if it is not inspired about these things, may
be it is inspired about slavery. God tells the Jews to
buy up the children of the heathen round about, and
they should be servants for them. What is a “ser
vant” ? If they struck a “servant” and he died imme
diately, punishment was to follow; but if the injured
man lingered a while there was no punishment,
because the servant represented their money! Do you
believe that it is right—that God made one man to
work for another and to receive pay in rations ? Do
you believe God said that a whip on the naked back
was the legal tender for labor performed ? Is it possi
ble that the real God ever gave such infamous blood
thirsty laws ? What more does he say ?
When the time of a married slave expired, he could
�26
Mistakes of Moses.
not take his wife and children with him. Then if the
slave did not wish to desert his family, he had his ears
pierced with an awl, and became his master’s property
for ever. Do you believe that God ever turned the
dimpled cheeks of little children into iron chains to
hold a man in slavery ? Do you know that a God like
that would not make a respectable devil! I want
none of his mercy. I want no part and no lot in the
heaven of such a God. I will go to perdition where
there is human sympathy. The only voice we have
ever had from either of those other worlds came from
hell. There was a rich man who prayed his brothers
to attend to Lazarus, so that they might “ not come to
this place.” That is the only instance, so far as we
know, of souls across the river having any sympathy..
And I would rather be in hell asking for water than
in heaven denying that petition. Well, what is this
book inspired about? Where does the inspiration
come from ? Why was it that so many animals were
killed ? It was simply to make atonement for man—
that is all. They killed something that had not com
mitted a crime, in order that the one who had com
mitted a crime might be acquitted. Based upon that
dea is the atonement of the Christian religion. That
is the reason I attack this book; because it is the basis
of another infamy—viz., that one man can be good for
another, or that one man can sin for another. I deny
it. You have got to be good for yourself; you have
got to sin for yourself. The trouble about the atone
ment is, that it saves the wrong man. For instance, I
kill some one. He is a good man. He loves his wife
and children, and tries to make them happy ; but he is
not a Christian, and he goes to hell. Just as soon as I
am convicted and cannot get a pardon, I get religion,,
and I go to heaven. The hand of mercy cannot reach
down through the shadows of hell to my victim.
There is no atonement for the saint—only for the
sinner and the criminal. The atonement saves the
wrong man. I have said that I would never make a
lecture at all without attacking this doctrine. I did
not care what I started out on. I was always going to
attack this doctrine. And in my conclusion I want to
�Mistakes of Moses.
27
draw you a few pictures of the Christian heaven. But
before I do that I want to say the rest I have to say
about Moses. I want you to understand that the Bible
was never printed until 1488. I want you to know
that up to that time it was in manuscript, in possession
of those who could change it if they wished ; and they
did change it, because no two ever agreed. Much of
it was in the waste basket of credulity, in the open
mouth of tradition, and in the dull ear of memory. I
want you also to know that the Jews themselves neveragreed as to what books were inspired, and that therewere a lot of books written that were not incorporated
in the Old Testament. I want you to know that twoor three years before Christ, the Hebrew manuscript
was translated into Greek, and that the original from,
which the translation was made has never been seen
since. Some Latin Bibles were found in Africa, but
no two agreed ; and then they translated the Septua. gint into the languages of Europe, and no two agreed..
Henry VIII. took a little time between murdering his
wives to see that the Word of God was translated cor
rectly. You must recollect that we are indebted tomurderers for our Bibles and our creeds. Constantine,
who helped on the good work in its early stage, mur
dered his wife and child, mingling their blood with
the blood of the Savior.
The Bible that Henry VIII. got up did not suit, and
then his daughter, the murderess of Mary Queen of
Scots, got up another edition, whichfalso did not suit
and, finally, that philosophical idiot, King James, pre
pared the edition which we now have. There are at
least 100,000 errors in the Old Testament, but every
body sees that it is not enough to invalidate its claim
to infallibility. But these errors are gradually being
fixed, and hereafter the prophet will be fed by Arabs
instead of “ ravens,” and Samson’s 300 foxes will be
300 “sheaves” already bound, which were fired and
thrown into the standing wheat. I want you all toknow that there was no contemporaneous literature at
the time the Bible was composed, and that the Jews
were infinitely ignorant in their day and generation—
that they were isolated by bigotry and wickedness
�.28
Mistakes of Moses.
from the rest of the world. I want you to know that
there are 1,400,000,000 of people in the world; and that
with all the talk and work of the societies, only
120,000,000 have got Bibles. I want you to understand
that not one person in 100 in this world ever read the
Bible, and no two ever understood it alike who did
read it, and that no person probably ever understood it
-aright. I want you to understand that where this Bible
has been man has hated his brother—there have been
dungeons, racks, thumbscrews and the sword. I want
you to know that the cross has been in partnership
with the sword, and that the religion of Jesus Christ
was established by murderers, tyrants, and hypocrites.
I want you to know that the church carried the black
flag. Then talk about the civilizing influence of this
religion.
Now, I want to give an idea or two in regard to the
Christian’s heaven. Of all the selfish things in this
world, it is one man wanting to get to heaven caring
nothing what becomes of the rest of mankind. “ If I *
can only get my little soul in.” I have always noticed
that the people who have the smallest souls make the
most fuss about getting them saved. Here is what we
are taught by the Church to-day. We are taught
by it that fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters
can all be happy in heaven, no matter who may be in
hell ; that the husband can be happy there with the
wife that would have died for him at any moment
of his life, in hell. But they say : “We don’t believe
in fire. What we believe in now is remorse.”
What will you have remorse for ? For the mean
things you have done when you are in hell ? Will
.you have any remorse for the mean things you have
done when you are in heaven ? Or will you be so good
then that you won’t care how you used to be ? Don’t
.you see what an infinitely mean belief that is ? I tell
you to-day that, no matter in what heaven you may be,
no matter in what star you are spending the summer,
if you meet another man you have wronged you will
drop a little behind in the tune. And no matter in
what part of hell you are, and you meet some one
whom you have succored, whose nakedness you have
�Mistakes of Moses.
29'
clothed, and whose famine you have fed, the fire will
cool up a little. According to this Christian doctrine,
when you are in heaven you won’t care how mean you
were once.
What must be the social condition of a gentleman in
heaven who will admit that he never would have been
there if he had not got scared ? What must be the
social position of an angel who will always admit that
if another had not pitied him he ought to have been
damned ? Is it a compliment to an infinite God to say
that every being he ever made deserved to be damned
the minute he got him done, and that he will damn
everybody he has not had a chance to make over ? Is
it possible that somebody else can be good for me, and'
that this doctrine of the atonement is the only anchor
for the human soul ?
For instance, here is a man seventy years of age,,
who has been a splendid fellow and lived according to'
the laws of nature. He has got about him splendid'
children, whom he has loved and cared for with all
his heart. But he did not happen to believe in this
Bible ; he did not believe in the Pentateuch. He did
not believe that because some children made fun of a
gentleman who was short of hair, God sent two bears
and tore the little darlings to pieces. He had a tender
heart, and he thought about the mothers who would
take the pieces, the bloody fragments of the children,
and press them to their bosoms in a frenzy of grief ;
he thought about their wails and lamentations, and
could not believe that God was such an infinite mon
ster. That was all he thought, but he went to hell..
Then, there is another man who made a hell on earth
for his wife, who had to be taken to the insane asylum,
and his children were driven from home and were
wanderers and vagrants in the world. But just be
tween the last sin and the last breath, this fellow got
religion, and he never did another thing except to take
his medicine. He never did a solitary human being a
favor, and he died and went to heaven. Don’t you
think he would be astonished to see the other man
in hell, and say to himself: “ Is it possible that
such a splendid character should bear such fruit,.
�30
Mistakes of Moses.
and that all my rascality at last has brought me next
to God ? ”
Or, let us put another case. You were once alone in
in the desert—no provisions, no water, no hope. Just
when your life was at its lowest ebb, a man appeared,
gave you water and food and brought you safely out.
How you would bless that man. Time rolls on. You
die and go to heaven; and one day you see through
the black night of hell, the friend who saved your life,
begging for a drop of water to cool his parched lips. He
cries to you : “ Remember what I did in the desert—
give me to drink.” How mean, how contemptible you
would feel to see his suffering and be unable to relieve
him. But that is the Christian heaven. We sit by the
fireside and see the flames and the sparks fly up the
•chimney —everybody happy, and the cold wind and
sleet are beating on the window, and out on the door
step is a mother with a child on her breast freezing.
How happy it makes a fireside, that beautiful con
trast. And we say “ God is good,” and there we sit, and
she sits and moans, not one night but for ever. Or we
are sitting at the table with our wives and children,
everybody eating, happy and delighted, and Famine
•comes and pushes out its shrivelled palms, and with
hungry eyes, implores us for a crust; how that
would increase the appetite ! And yet that is the
Christian heaven. Don’t you see that these infamous
doctrines petrify the human heart. And I would have
every one who hears me, swear that he will never con
tribute another dollar to build another church, in which
are taught such infamous lies. I want every one of you
to say that you never will, directly or indirectly, give a
dollar tetany man to preach that falsehood. It has done
harm enough. It has covered the world with blood.
It has filled the asylums with the insane. It has cast
a shadow in the heart, in the sunlight, of every good
and tender man and woman. I say, let us rid the
heavens of this monster, and write upon the dome :
“ Liberty, love, and law.”
No matter what may come to me or what may come to
you, let us do exactly what we believe to be right, and
let us give the exact thought in our brains. Rather
�Mistakes of Moses.
31
than have this Christianity true, I would rather all the
'Gods would destroy themselves this morning. I would
rather the whole universe would go to nothing, if such
a thing were possible, this instant. Rather than have
the glittering dome of pleasure reared on the eternal
abyss of pain, I would see the utter and eternal destruc
tion of this universe. I would rather see the shining
fabric of our universe crumble to unmeaning chaos
and take itself where oblivion broods and memory for
gets. I would rather the blind Samson of some im
prisoned force, released by thoughtless chance, should
so rack and strain this world that man in stress and
straint, in astonishment and fear, should suddenly fall
back to savagery and barbarity. I would rather that
this thrilled and thrilling globe, shorn of all life, should
in its cycles rub the wheel, the parent star, on which the
light should fall as fruitlessly as falls the gaze of love
on death, than t@ have this infamous doctrine of eter
nal punishment true ; rather than have this infamous
selfishness of a heaven for a few and a hell for the
many established as the word of God !
One world at a time is my doctrine. Let us make
someone happy here. Happiness is the interest that a
decent action draws, and the more decent actions you
do the larger your income will be. Let every man try
to make his wife happy, his children happy. Let every
man try to make every day a joy, and God cannot afford
to damn such a man. I cannot help God ; I cannot
injure God. I can help people. I can injure people.
Consequently humanity is the only real religion.
I cannot better close this lecture than by quoting
four lines from Robert Burns :
“ To make a happy fireside clime
To weans and wife,
That’s the true pathos and sublime
Of human life.”
��
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
Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Inscription on front flyleaf half title page: Mr R.M. Elliott, 9 Henry St [?], Deptford, to be returned to the owner, not forgotten. No. 69k (1883 ed.) 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
N375
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 (Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States), 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
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9b7db96398ad3b40f1f1e77b984f9fc5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XHV1wg9TBMgPOPxNghhb3keUDT7RdylgNr9IXxrlecQhxACFdGWOPbBaKOizyygdLvcu1yTji%7EXgqUVMsUGQ7aM0rEi4YoXYzYSnacQd5OaicOYXgWd5DKGFwnJxwLzkumO-3BWQ9iQfR6xpacsNzgLl9FlPnKqmWXp4F7WOL8djl4GW%7EEQ4v2q2MpjPELrZ01Ag-bJ8bZ61qzNljme2NJdSq1EvBI7veaf7ZsvSPBATan7%7EySk6oL2ozSCxsEjYjU0Sc3t0cUDFJoUUYh280iYg3QzvwB-mlfwLZ9lgDnUpUPM5WhnTXzTvHrtKeU%7ELZWWFZ%7EqvFs-wyx957VWp1g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e6d6a5c70b595e2fd6c4c6bc07008710
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
GHOSTS
BY
COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
Let them cover their Eyeless Sockets with their Flesh
less Hands and fade for ever from the imagination
of Men.
Price Threepence.
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1893.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY
G. W. FOOTE,
AT 11 CLERK F KWELL GREEN, E.C.
�THE GHOSTS.
Let them cover their Eyeless Sockets with their Fleshless Hands
and fade for ever from the imagination of Men.
There are three theories by which men. account for all phe
nomena, 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 material
ism!” 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 con
ception 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 chem
istry, and can you account for the loves and hatreds of the
atoms ? Is there not something in matter that for ever
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 the annihilation of a single atom ? Is it possible for
�( 4 )
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 ?
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 misfortune,
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 harbor bar, or sent the storms, strewing the
sad shore with wrecks of ships and the bodies of men.
Formerly, these ghosts were believed to be almost innu
merable. Earth, air, and water were filled with these phan
tom hosts. In modern times they have greatly decreased
in number, because the second theory—a mingling of the
supernatural 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 a wide desert, by the practice of celibacy,
by inventing instruments of torture, by destroying men,
women, and children, by covering the earth with dungeons,
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 and days,
by counting beads, by gazing at crosses, by hiring others to
repeat verses and prayers, by burning candles, and ringing
�( 5 )
bells, by enslaving each, other, and putting out the eyes of
the soul. All this has been done to appease and flatter this
monster 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, astro
nomers, 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
for 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 of 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 con
sidered as the source of any powei’ whatever. To rebel
against the king was to rebel against the ghosts, and nothing
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 the 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
�( 6 )
toiled wearily in the storm and sun that the few favorites 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 therefore, eternal torment. They not only told
us all about this world, but about two others ; and if their
statements about the other world are as true as about this,
no one can estimate the value of their information.
For countless ages the world was governed by ghosts, and
they spared no pains to change the eagle of the human intel
lect 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 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.
�( 7 )
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; knew that 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 sunk 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 show 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.
I implore you to remember that the believers in such
impossible things were the authors of our creeds and con
fessions 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 of witches; that it was established by all
history, and expressly taught by the Bible.
The woman was hanged and her body burned.
Sir Thomas More declared that to give up witchcraft was
to throw away 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.
�( 8)
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. This 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
lycanthropy—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. . The 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—for
destroying crops with hail—for causing storms—for making
cows go dry, and even for souring beer. There was no im
possibility 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 of
the people, that to express a doubu 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 of
by devils, and that the killing of the animal would destroy
the devil. They absolutely tried, convicted, and executed
dumb beasts.
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 con
victed 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
�( 9 )
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 grasshoppers, 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 VII. issued a bull directing the inquisitors to
be vigilant in searching out and punishing ail 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 Wurtzburg) taking place as
late as 1749. 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
feritish Parliament was when Lord Bacon was a member of
the House of Commons; and this Act was not repealed
until 1736.
Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws
of England, says : “ To deny the possibility, nay, actual
existence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to con
tradict 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 testimony,
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 Edin
burgh, 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 from scripture, and that they
ought to be put to death.”
�( 10 )
This work was re-published 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 raisin«a storm by pulling off their stockings and making a lather of
soap.
In England it has been estimated that at least thirty thou
sand 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 both of hands and of feet—a circum
stance 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 witch
craft.
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 broom
sticks, 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 was 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 suffer
ing, and they continually sought a temperate and somewhat
�(11)
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
gjy. He could beget children; and Martin Luther himself
had come in contact with one of these children.. He. recom
mended the mother to throw the child into the river,inorder
to free their house from the presence of a 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 demonstrating
the existence of witches and their power over human .beings.
By the Bible they proved that innumerable evil spirits were
ranging over the world endeavoring 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 toward 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
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 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 to the third
heaven.”
“ In those pious days, they believed that. Incubi and
Succubi were for ever 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 German 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 supersti-
�()
tion. To them, these things were awful and frightful realities.
Hovering about them in the open air, in their houses, in the
bosoms of friends, in their very bodies, in all the darkness of
i* everywhero, around, above and below, were innumer
able hosts of unclean and malignant devils.
From the malice of those leering and vindictive vampires
ot the air, the Church pretended to defend mankind. Pursued
by those phantoms, the frightened multitudes fell upon their
theft aD<* imPl°red
of robed hypocrisy and sceptered
Take from the orthodox Church of to-day the threat and
tear ot hell, and it becomes an extinct volcano.
Take from the Church the miraculous, the supernatural,
the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the
unknowable 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.
1
Religion has not civilised man—man has civilised religion.
God improves as man advances.
Ca^ your attention to what we have received from
the followers of the ghosts. Let me give you an outline of
" a sciences as taught by these philosophers of the clouds.
j diseases were produced, either as a punishment by the
good ghosts, or out of pure malignity by the bad ones,
lhere 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,
kor 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 un
pleasant as possible, and they generally succi-eded 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 favor of some powerful ghost, and that gave
him power oyer 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
i 3gly offeQsive ,t0 the nostrils of an ordinary ghost.
With this smoke the sick room would be filled until the ghost
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
Isatin 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 the 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
proofs that the bodies of men were filled with unclean and
malignant ghosts.
Whoever endeavored 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
bower 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
»till 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 arro
�( 14 )
gance 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
priestcraft. 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 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 and worship of mankind. To find
a cure for a 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 super
stitious 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 impudence
that amounted to sublimity. “ They traced the order of St.
Michael, in Prance, to the archangel himself, and alleged that
�( 15 )
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 dignitaries, and by direc
tion of the King himself.”
These gentlemen accounted for the red on the breasts of
robins from the fact that these birds carried water to unbap
tised infants in hell.
Matthew, of Paris, an eminent historian of the fourteenth
century, gave 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
Popeand that, having 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 that 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 kings he had devoured. To cap the climax,
one of the authors of this book was promoted for having
w ri tten the only reli able history of his country.
�( 16 )
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, ingeniously 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.
They wrote, and the people believed, that the tracts 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 discon
nected events. From the quiver of his hatred came the
arrows of famine, pestilence and death..
The moment that 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 co-temporaries 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 communi
cated 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 superioi’ 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
�( 17 )
Satisfaction to the victoi’ious 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 burnt
them their guilt was established. Others, with tied hands
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 erime 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 ram’s
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 ru e, 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 prohibitedThere 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.
�( 18 )
Under the regime of the.ghosts, laws were not supposed toexist m the nature of things. They were supposed to be
simply the irresponsible command of a ghost. These commands 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
a0 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 know
ledge, 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
°^jnal lan"ua#e 5 that it was taught to Adam in the Garden
of Eden by the Almighty, and that consequently all languages
came from, and can be traced to, the Hebrew. Every fact
inconsistent with that idea was discarded. According to the
ghosts, the trouble of 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 honor of beiii0the original.
°
Andre Kemp, in 1569, published a work on the language of
Paradise,111 which he maintained that God spoke to A d am in
Swedish; that Adam answered in Danish; and that the
serpent—which appears to me quite probable-spoke to Eve
in French. Erro, m a work published at Madrid, took the
Basque was the.language spoken in the Garden
of Eden.; but in 1580 Goropius published his celebrated work
at Antwerp, m 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 cotemporary 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
out 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 words
are born of the terror and beauty of nature. The stars have
�(ly)
fashioned them. In them mingle the darkness and the dawn.
From everything they have taken something. Words are the
crystalisations 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 this 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 follow
ing : 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 when he comes ? That settled
the question, and the Church, not only endorsed the 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.
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 childish fable
of the past.
�( 20 )
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 endeavored, in some faint degree, to show you what
has happened, and what will always 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
atmosphere 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 mannei’ as to make
prophecies, and then 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. Eacts were looked upon as worthless. Only
the wonderful was worth preserving. Things that actually
happened were not considered worth recording—real occur
rences were too common. Everybody expected the miraculous.
The 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
someway connected. There was no order, no serenity, no
certainty in anything. Everything depended upon ghosts
and phantoms. . Man was, for the most part, at the mercy of
malevolent spirits. 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.
�( 21 )
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 revelled in horrible descriptions of hell. Con
cerning the wrath of God, they grew eloquent. They
denounced man as totally depraved. They made reason
blasphemy, and pity a crime. Nothing so delighted them as
painting the torments and sufferings of the lost. Over the
worm that 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 fangs 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 prophesy. They found that diseases
were not produced by spirits, and could not be cured by
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 conjnror and sorcerer were discarded, and the phy
sician and surgeon employed. They found that the earth
was not flat; that the stars were not mere specks. They
found that being born undei’ a particular planet had nothing
to do with the fortunes of men.
The astrologer was discharged and the astronomer took
his place.
�( ¿2 )
# 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 enough 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 geography;—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. Labor was despised,
and a laborer was considered but little above a beast.
Ignorance, like a vast cowl, covered the brain of the world,
and 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
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 mind, 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 Foroe,
by Ignorance and Faith, by ghouls and ghosts.
In the fifteenth century the following law was in force in
England:
�( 23 )
“ 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 punished 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 favoi’ 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 blest 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.
In spite of the efforts of the brave few the infamous war
against the freedom of the soul was waged until at least one
pundred 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
broduced. 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 for ever divorcing Church and State—the
first injunction granted against the interference of the
ghosts. This was one of the grandest steps ever taken by
ijhe human race in the direction of Progress.
�( 24 )
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 lie 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 quar
relled: 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 powder, that put the peasant almost 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.
The discovery of America, whose shores were trod by the
restless feet of adventure; that brought people holding every
shade of superstition together ; that gave the world an oppor
tunity to compare notes, and to laugh at the follies of each
other. Out of this strange mingling of all creeds, and super
stitions, and facts, and theories, and countless opinions, came
the Great Republic.
Every fact has pushed a superstition from the brain and a
ghost from the clouds. Every mechanic art is an educator.
Every loom, every reaper and mower, every steamboat, every
locomotive, every engine, every press, every telegraph, is a
missionary of Science and an apostle of Progress. Every
mill, every furnace, every building with its wheels and levers,
in which something is made for the convenience, for the use,
and for the comfort and elevation of man, is a church, and
every school house is a temple.
Education is the most radical thing in the world.
To teach the alphabet is to inaugurate a revolution.
To build a school house is to construct a fort.
�(25)
Every library is an arsenal filled with the weapons and
ammunition of Progress, and every fact is a monitor with
fades of iron and a turret of steel.
T
I thank the inventors,., the discoverers, the thinkers. 1
thank Columbus and Magellan. I thank Galileo, and Coper
nicus, and Kepler, and Des Cartes, and Newton, and La
Place. I thank Locke, and Hume, and Bacon, and pbake'
speare, and Kant, and Fichte, and Liebmtz, and Goethe. 1
thank Fulton, and Watts, and Volta, and Galvani, and
Franklin, and Morse, who made lightning the messenger of
man. I thank Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science. 1
thank Crompton and Arkwright, from whose brains leaped
the looms and spindles that clothe the world. I thank Luther
for protesting against the abuses of the Church, and I
denounce him because he was the enemy of liberty. 1 thank
Calvin for writing a book in favor of religious freedom, and 1
abhor him because he burned Servetus. I thank Knox for
resisting episcopal persecution, and I hate him because he
persecuted in his turn. I thank the Puritans for saying,
“ Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God, and yet 1 am
compelled to say that they were tyrants themselves. 1 thank
Thomas Paine because he was a believer m liberty, and because
he did as much to make my country free as any other human
being. I thank Voltaire, that great man who, for halt a
century, was the 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 Biichner, 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, ana
who will soon stand victors upon Sinai’s crags.
We are beginning to learn that to exchange a mistake or
the truth—a superstition for a fact—to ascertain the real is
t0Happiness 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
�( 26 )
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 labor and by thought.
Labor is the foundation of all. Without labor, and without
great labor, progress is impossible. The progress of the
world depends upon the men who talk 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 labor, schools and univer
sities 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
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 Bee 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 labor is the basis of progress goes the
truth that labor must be free. The laborer 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 labor.
Slavery does the least work in the longest space of time.
�( 27 )
Free labor will give us wealth. Free thought will give us
truth.
Slowly, but surely, man is freeing his imagination of these
sexless phantoms, of the 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
labor 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 p
Have the churches the confidence of mankind ?
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 a
Methodist or Baptist P
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-mem—than doctors, lawyers,
merchants and farmers P
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
in sin ?
Why send missionaries to other lands while every peni
tentiary in ours iB 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 destinaon 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 infallibility
�( 28 )
of churches, of popes, and of books ? Does all this do anv
good ?
J
Are the theologians welcomers of new truths ? Are they
noted for their candor? Do they treat an opponent with
common fairness? Are they investigators? Do they pull
forward or do they hold back ?
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 used to think that there was in religion no real restrain
ing force. Upon this point my mind has changed. Religion
will prevent man from committing artificial crimes and
offences.
A man committed murder. The evidence was so conclusivethat he confessed his guilt.
He was asked why he killed his fellow man.
He replied: “Formoney.”
“Did you get any?”
“Yes.”
“ How much ?”
“ Fifteen cents.”
<< What did you do with this money ?”
li
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 thehe 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 investi. £or himself he has lost confidence in superstition.
With knowledge obedience becomes intelligent acquiescence.
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-
�( 29 )
■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
relig'on 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 impos-ibility;
that we know nothing of origin and destiny; that concerning
the unknown we are equally ignorant; that the pew has a
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 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 per
ceptions of the intellect. True religion is not a theory—it
is a practice. It is rot 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
$nd all, because they enslave the minds of men.
�( 30 )
I attack the monsters, the phantoms of imagination thathave 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 the shadows. In the light of science they'
cannot cloud the sky for ever. They have reddened thehands of man with innocent blood. They made the cradle a
curse, and the grave a place of torment.
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—i
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 labor and
of thought. I plead for a chainless future. Let the ghostsgo—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 laden boughs, when the withered banners of
the corn are still, and gathered fields are growing strangely
wan; while death, poetic death, with hands that color what
they touch, weaves in the autumn wood her tapestries of
gold and brown.
The world remains with its winters and homes and firesides,
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 hopo and love and aspiration
high. All these remain. Let the ghosts go—we will worship
them no more.
Manis 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 igno
rance, cannot endure. In the religion of the future there
�( 31 )
will be men and women and children, all the aspirations of
the soul, and all the tender1 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 for ever from the imaginations of men.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...
Superior edition, in cloth ...
..
...
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy. ...
...
. .
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler ...
...
...
...
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
...
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
...
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE ...
...
...
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
...
...
PAINE THE PIONEER
...
...
...
HUMANITY’S DEBT TO THOMAS PAINE
...
ERNEs 1' RENAN AND JESUS CHRIST
..
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
...
...
TRUE RELIGION
...
...
...
...
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
GOD AND MAN.Second Reply to Dr. Field
...
SKULLS ...
...
...
...
...
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
...
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert ...
THE DYING CREED
...
...
...
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
...
...
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
...
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
...
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
...
GOD AND THE STATE
...
...
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
...
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
...
ART AND MORALITY
...
...
...
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
...
...
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
...
...
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
...
...
LIVE TOPICS
...
.
...
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
...
...
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
...
...
...
MYTH AND MIRACtE
1
1
d.
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
3
B
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Prined by G W. Foote, 14 C erken well-green, London.
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
�
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: 31 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Works by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 26f in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N350
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
NSS
Supernatural
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/70cf2bac7fdd57726d77172875d774ce.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Km1tkiUyuawc2jRO8ng0Z2O%7Etn2cTgrN4-VVCNf9jeaydWz0a79yR1GZfcQvvWbLTNO0z6kmfsNtoRXTlr73wO6MPgDKgeOUgKCSvVAtqyIwjnZOzKko0BWbGDZeGmoP27dGjyiOss0Osf0kIIgJktyYFtE-sfNT0LqOaDrA7XQV0plKHsmUfvxIaRQ6QRpFyUYBjjXfO25-LhoOdBvh%7E7zBt4qLBwcpZlji-F9moM9Co8FCkdFHhllOPevfgU4LWgXzpNXpaoYoSLdg3zXOAgYJuZO60lWrLtMyzbo5w0M-BfOsOBToK4c75KFKU4o9g7UFgZPHxaNSGBmEtw6BTg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
19b00fa9a7514ee527cfbe55c0d89161
PDF Text
Text
THE
GODS1
AN
ORATION
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
Price Sixpence.
o'r;
LONDON:
rjq
$
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
$
��B7
NATIONAL secular SOCIETY
ORATION ON THE GODS
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
^onbau:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1893.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 14 CI.ERKENWELL GREEN, 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 con
sidered 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 number
less 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 invisible, 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
�4
Oration on the Gods.
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
fiat. Some 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 experi
ence 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
These deities have demanded the most abject and
degrading 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 someone 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
�Oration on the Gods.
5
frequently came to the earth for the purpose of
imparting information to man. It is related of one,
that he came amid thund erings 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 famine. Sometimes he allowed some
other nation to drag 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 in predicting
these calamities, but in proving, when they did happen,
that they were brought upon the people because they
had not given quite enough to them.
These gods differed just as the nations differed : the
greatest and most powerful had the most powerful god,
while the weaker ones were obliged to content them
selves with the very off-scourings of the heavens.
Each of these gods promised happiness here and here
after 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 innocent;
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, and for all these, you may be forgiven. For all
this, and 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 golden gates are shut, and you,
with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, with the
brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your
�6
Oration on the Gods.
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, for 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 shalt besiege
it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine
hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with 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 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 inherit
ance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breath eth.”
Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more
perfectly 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 invasion. Peace was offered
upon condition that the people submitting 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
�Oration on the Gods.
T
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 Constitution 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 damnation. It
has always been heresy to say “ God will at last save
all.”
We are asked to justify these frightful passages—•
these infamous laws of war, because the Bible is the word
of God. As a matter of fact, there never was, and there
never can 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 commu,
nication 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 certainly 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 on 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 experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd
�Oration on the Gods.
for refutation, and can be believed only by that un
happy mixture of insanity 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, according 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 conse
quence 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 the throne of your
brain the cowled form of superstition—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 unsuc
cessful revolts ; some had been caught sweetly reclining
in the shadowy folds of some fleecy clouds, kissing the
wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sym
pathised with man. There is in regard to them a most
wonderful fact : in nearly all the theologies, mytho
logies, and religions, the devils have been much more
�yy',r"r
Oration on the Gods.
* h,-
9
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 bar
barities 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 tragedy 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 1 One of the prophets of one
of these gods, having in his power a captured 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 fol
lowing 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 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 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 ?
< 7'S
�10
Oration on the Gods.
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 highnesses ” 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;
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 pleasant 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 evil.
The account shows, however, that the gods dreaded
education and knowledge then just as they do now.
The Church still faithfully guards the dangerous tree
of knowledge, 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 false
hood and the old threat: “Ye shall not eat of it,
�Oration on the Gods.
11
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 philo
sophy, 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 schoolmaster, 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 investi
gation, of progress, and of civilisation.
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 apprehensions 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, wfith reasonable success, waging the
old war against our God.
To me it seems easy to account for these ideas con
cerning gods and devils. They are a perfectly natural
production. Man has created them all, and under the
same circumstances 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 its gods and
devils speak its language not only, but put in their
�12
Oration on the Gods.
mouths the same mistakes in history, geography,
astronomy, and in all matters of fact, generally made
by the 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, and oval face, and an aquiline nose. Jove
was a perfect Greek, and Jupiter looked as though a
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 tropics were naked. The gods of India were
often mounted upon elephants ; those of the islanders
were great swimmers, and the deities of the Arctic
zone were passionately fond of whale’s blubber.
Nearly all people have carved or painted representa
tions of their gods, and these representations were, by
the lower classes, generally treated a,s 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 reproachful 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, and 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
uannot be undone. Let us not think of it any more.
�Oration on the Gods
13
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 wor
shipped almost everything, including the vilest and
most disgusting beasts. He has worshipped fire, earth,
air, water, light, stars, and for hundreds of ages pros
trated 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 husband
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 WQman been the physical
superior, the powers supposed to be the rulers of Nature
would have been women, and instead of being repre
sented 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
suggested 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, multiply, 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 immor
tality. 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 superstructu re has
been reared by exaggerating, diminishing, combining,
separating, deforming, beautifying, improving, or mul
tiplying realities, so that the edifice, or fabric, is but
�14
Oration on the Gods.
the incongruous grouping of what man has perceived
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 imagina
tion, 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.
Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena
were produced by some intelligent powers, and with
direct reference 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 favor which
he supposed had been rendered. He endeavored 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 cQmets, the sinister eclipses,
the awful calmness of the stars, and, more than all, the
perpetual presence 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.
�Oration on the Gods.
15
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
importance. 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. It was with the
barbarians then as with the civilised 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 advan
tage 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 frequently, according to the account, gave proof of
his divine origin and mission by frightening droves of
devils out of his unfortunate country-men. Casting
out devils was his principal 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
�1G
Oration on Ilio Gods.
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 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, according to this account the Devil took the omni
potent God and placed him upon a pinnacle of the
temple, and endeavored 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, with
out 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
�Oration on the Gods.
17
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 uni
versally admitted. The people had no doubt upon that
subject, and 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 contempt. The
utterance of the highest and noblest sentiments, 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,
B
�18
Oration on the Gods.
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 phenomena, 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 cannot 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 from good, and a devil
from bad phenomena. And it is just as natural and
logical to suppose that a devil would cause happiness,
as to suppose that a god would produce misery. Conse
quently, if an intelligence, infinite and supreme, is
the immediate author of all phenomena, it is difficult
to determine whether such intelligence 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 sometimes 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
�Oration on the Gods.
19
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.
Thousands 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 interferences.,
and our own Bible is no exception to this rule.
If we believe in a power superior to nature, it i»
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 wandering prophets free of expense ; bears tear
�20
Oration on the Gods.
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 stonecutter and engraver, after
having been a tailor and dressmaker
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 mis
took 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 look 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 magicians
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 assistance. At
�Oration on the Gods.
21
last, finding that he obtains no aid from this supposed
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 investigate 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 idolised 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 attributed 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
providence. 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 sincere 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
�22
Oration on the Gods.
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 his arrival. My son,” said he, “ it is im
possible to look at that bird without recognising the
design, as well the goodness of God, in thus providing
the means of subsistence.” “ 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 consequence 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 cirle ; so
that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of
five or seven. He insists that it took a direct inter
position of providence 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 ¿ime to prepare for that holy day and that most
solemn event. These religious people see nothing but
design everywhere, and personal, intelligent interfer
ence 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
�Oration on the Gods.
beauty and of use in the world. Did it ever occur to
them that a cancer is as. beautiful in its development
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 wonderful 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 surrounding 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 colors it presents ! Seen through the micro
scope, it is a miracle of order and beauty. All the
ingenuity of man cannot stop its growth. Think of the
amount of 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 in 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 for 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, so to speak, in an infinite
vacuum, and in perfect idleness.
Admitting that a god did create the universe, the
question then arises, of -what did he create it ? It cer
tainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered
in the light of a raw material, is a most decided failure.
It follows, then, 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,
�24
Oration on the Gods.
the god must have been material. With this very
thought in his mind, Anaximander, of Miletus, said :
“ Creation is the decomposition of the infinite.”
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to
the sun, only for the fact that it is attracted by other
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 in
destructible, and the indestructible cannot be created.
It is the crowning glory of our century to have demon
strated 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 con
sequently a force apart from matter, and superior to
nature, is a demonstrated impossibility.
Force, then, must have also existed from eternity,
and could not have been created. Matter, in its count
less 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.
Thought is a form of force. We walk with the same
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
produce what we call thought. Think of that wonderful
chemistry by which bread was changed into the divine
tragedy of Hamlet!
A god must not only be material, but he must be an
organism, capable of changing other forms of force into
thought-force. This is what we call eating. Therefore,
if the god thinks, he must eat, that is to say, he must
of necessity have some means of supplying the force
with 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 createcL what ev -
�Oration on the Gods.
25
dence have we then of the existence of a power superior
to nature ? The theologian will probably reply, “ We
have law and order, cause and effect, and besides all
this, matter could not have put itself in motion.”
Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there is
no being superior to nature, and that matter and force
have existed from eternity. Now suppose that twoatoms 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 be an effect. If this is so, then you
have matter, force, and 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 producing 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 been a cause. Then we have matter, force, law,
order, cause, and effect, without a being superior to
nature. Nothing is left for the supernatural but empty
space. His throne is a void, and his boasted realm is
without matter, without law, without cause, and with
out effect.
But what put all this matter in motion ? If matter
and force have existed from eternity, then matter must
have always been in motion. There can be no force
without motion. Force is for ever 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, and can hardly be worth the worship,
and adoration even of a man.
�26
Oration on the Gods.
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 con
tinuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless
■chain of evidence 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 matterattracts 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 cre
dulity 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
assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever
attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle was
ever 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.
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
�Oration on the Gods.
27
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 neighborhood where they resided is wholly
unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and sub
stantiate 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 demand 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 astonish
ing 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, un
broken march of cause and effect—proves the exist
ence of a power superior to nature. The fact is,
however, that indissoluble change of cause and effect
proves exactly the contrary.
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 themselves, so far from warranting an 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 ;
�28
Oration on the Gods.
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. They 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 an
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
incomprehensible 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 pheno
mena 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.
The trouble is, that in the phenomena of mind we
find the same endless chain of efficient causes, the
same mechanical 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 governing the motions
of the planets. A poem is produced by the forces of
nature, and is as necessarily and naturally produced as
�Oration on the Gods.
29
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 complicated than those of matter, and,
consequently more mysterious. 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 understood, but from the com
plex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. 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 pretended deity, but the inter
preter 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
mind of men.
“ But,” says the religionist, “ you cannot explain
everything ; 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 under
standing 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 necessarily produce an effect, and that effect
must of necessity become a cause. The converse of
these propositions must be true. Every effect must
have had a cause, and every cause must have been an
�30
Oration on the Gods.
effect. Therefore there could have been no first cause.
A first cause is just as impossible as a last effect.
Beyond the universe there is nothing, and within
the universe the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
The moment these great truths are understood and
admitted, 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 disciples of any superstition. The
plans of mankind will no longer be interfered with by
the finger of a supposed omnipotence, 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 prejudice,
will, within her sphere, be supreme. The mind will
investigate without reverence, and publish its con
clusion without fear. Agassiz will no longer hesitate
to declare the Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent
with the demonstrated 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 ensnared and enslaved the simple and innocent,
and nowhere, in all the annals of mankind, has any
god succored the oppressed.
Man should cease to expect aid from on high. By
this time he should know that heaven has no ear
�Oration on the Gods.
31
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 interference.
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 labor is rewarded ; if superstition is driven from the
mind ; if the 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
without 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 even know 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 cognisance 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
endeavors, 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 depraved being
superior to nature, acting in perfect independence 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
�32
Oration on the Gods.
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 iwhom 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
«ven patent medicines will cure more diseases than all
the prayers uttered since the beginning of the world.
Although many eminent men have endeavored to
harmonise necessity and free will, the existence of
evil, and the infinite power and goodness of God, they
have only succeeded in producing learned and ingeni
ous failures. Immense 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 reconciliation 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
•compel a denial of the authority of demonstration, and
to induce some Judas to betray Reason—one of the
saviors of mankind.
During that frightful period known as the “ 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
retracing 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
�Oration on the Gods.
33
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 vigor
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 constantly continue
to enlarge.
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 endeavor 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 sustain to men and things—by
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 endeavor to thwart the
c
�34
Oration on the G-ools.
designs of God ? “ Which of you, by taking thought,
can add one cubit to his stature ?” Under the influence
of this belief, man, basking in the sunshine of a
delusion, considers the lilies of the field and refuses to
take any thought for the morrow. Believing 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 accomplishing 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 ecstasies of love : old men have trem
blingly implored ; women have sobbed and entreated ;
every pain has been endured, and every horror has
been perpetrated.
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. Numberless altars
have been reddened, even with the blood of babes ;
beautiful girls have been given to slimy serpents;
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
world, established certain laws, and then turned his
attention to other matters, leaving his children weak,
ignorant, and unaided, to fight the battle of life alone.
It is no solution to declare that in some other world
�Oration on the Gods.
35
this god will render a few, or even all, his subjects
happy. What right have we to expect 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 creatures
increase ? Can the conduct of infinite wisdom, power,
and love ever change ? Is the infinite capable of any
improvement 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 suffering 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 philosophy, can never be developed.
They were so unfortunate 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 development of man in this life, how is it
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 substantially 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
�36
Oration on the Gods.
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 evolutions 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 labor 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 thè 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 infinitely accomplished
and scientific architect ?
Does not improvement in the things created show a
corresponding improvement in the creator ?
Would an infinitely wise, good, and powerful God,
�Oration on the Gods.
37
intending 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, slowly and almost imperceptibly,
improve upon the rude beginning until man was
evolved ? Would countless ages thus be wasted in the
production of awkward forms, afterwards abandoned ?
Can the intelligence of man discover the least wisdom
in covering the earth with crawling, creeping 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
capable of producing an intelligent man ? Who can
appreciate the mercy of so making the world that all
animals devour animals, so that every mouth is a
slaughter-house and every stomach a tomb? Is it
possible to discover infinite intelligence and love in
universal and eternal carnage ?
What would we think of a father who should give a
farm 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 neighborhood to breed 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 imme
diate vicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm
his children with rivers of fire ? Suppose that this
father neglected to tell his children which of the
plants were deadly ; that the reptiles were poisonous ;
failed to say anything 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.
According to the theologians, God prepared this
globe expressly for the habitation of his loved children,
and yet he filled the forests with ferocious beasts,
placed serpents in every path, stuffed the world with
earthquakes, and adorned its surface with mountains
of flame.
�38'
Oration on the Gods.
Notwithstanding all this, we are told that the world
is perfect ; that it was created by a perfect being, and
is therefore necessarily perfect. The next moment
the same persons will tell us that the world was cursed,
covered with brambles, thistles, and thorns, and that
man was doomed to disease and death, simply because
our poor dear mother ate an apple contrary to the com
mand of an arbitrary God.
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 anyone could be guilty
of such presumption. 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 impossible to harmonise
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 inde
pendent 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 overthrown ; 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
�Oration on the Gods.
39
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 implor
ing 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 indiffer
ence 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; 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, and that even comets
came at certain intervals. This convinced him that
eclipses and comets had nothing to do with him. He
perceived that they were not caused for his benefit nor
injury. He thus learned to regard them with admira
tion instead of fear. He began to suspect that famine
was not sent by some enraged and revengeful deity, but
�40
Oration on the Gods.
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 indi
vidual 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, or good
enough to stop one. After many centuries of thought,
he about half concluded that making mouths at a priest
would not necessarily cause an earthquake. He noticed,
and no doubt with considerable astonishment, that very
good men were occasionally 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)
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 con
stantly being changed to assist him because he repeated
a creed. He observed that some children would steal
after having been regularly baptised. He noticed a
vast difference between religion and justice, and that
the worshippers 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 har
monise with the ignorant superstitions 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,
�Oration on the Oods.
41
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 extent that religious power has decreased. The
intellectual advancement of man depends upon how
often he can exchange 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 were more
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 phenomena by which we are sur
rounded, 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 deities.
Christ was crucified by a religious rabble for the crime
of blasphemy. Nothing is more gratifying to a reli
gionist than to destroy his enemies at the command
of God. Religious persecution springs from a due
admixture of love towards God and hatred 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 con
tempt. 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
�42
Oration on the Gods.
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 endea
vored to rescue from the “ Infidel ” the empty sepulchre
of Christ. 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 of distrust throughout all Christendom, and
millions began to 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 indi
viduals. They discovered that those who loved the
gods most were apt to love men least; that the arro
gance of universal forgiveness was amazing ; 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 honor, 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 astronomer scanned the heavens,
while the Church 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 penetrated 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
�Oration on the Gods.
43-
placed in the crucibles of science, and thus far nothing
but dross has been found. A new world has been
discovered by the microscope ; everywhere has been
found the infinite ; in every direction man has investi
gated 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 dis
covered the slightest evidence of any interference 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
religions 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 desolate. Along the 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 mountains 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 sacred cairns.
�44
Oration on the Gods.
The divine fires of Persia and of the Aztecs have died
out in the ashes of the past, and there is none to re
kindle 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 Danae lies un
noticed, 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 had faded from
the clouds ; one by one the phantom hosts have dis
appeared ; 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 bye-words of the next. The religion 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 valor,
swept to empire, and Jove put on the purple of
authority. 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
�Oration on the Gods.
45
of the early Church have gone, never, never tc return.
The ceremonials 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 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 harmony ; 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.
Notwithstanding 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 per
secution fully establishes the fact that the mind neces
sarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by
�46
Oration on the Gods.
violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas
until prepared for the new. The moment we com
prehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are of necessity
east 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 and accurate knowledge, 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
miserable indeed !” “ I am not going,” said the sur
geon, “ to take away your crutches ; I am going to
cure you, and then you will throw the crutches awav
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 of force.
The history of one monad is as unknown as the uni
verse ; 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 endeavoring 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 investiga
tion, and thought. This of itself is an admission that
we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions.
Philosophy has not the egotism of faith. While super
stition builds Walls and creates obstructions, science
opens all the highways of thought. We do not pretend
�Oration on the Gods-
47
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 rites, will be
celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing
what little we can to hasten the coming of the day
when society shall cease producing millionaires and
mendicants—gorged indolence and famished industry
—truth in rags and superstition robed and crowned.
We are looking for the time when the useful shall be
the honorable, when the true shall be the beautiful,
and when Reason, throned upo$ the world’s brain,
shall be the King of kings and God of gods.
���WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
g
(J
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth
1 f;
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
77.
77 o 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheel er ...
...
...
..04
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
o 3
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE ...
. .
o 3
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
o 3
PAINE THE PIONEER
...
7i
0 2
HUMANITY’S DEBT TO THOMAS PAINE
7. 0 2
ERNEST RENAN AND JESUS CHRIST
0 2
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
...
0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
’7 o 2
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
... 0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
SKULLS ...
.
02
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
7.
*” 0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
... 0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Ooudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
o 2
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
*7 0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE*’
7. 0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
o 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
*02
GOD AND THE STATE
...
...
.7. 0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
... o 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II*”
.
o 2
ART AND MORALITY
...
...
o 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
0 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
0 1
THE GREA.T MISTAKE
...
” 0 1
LIVE TOPICS
...
”*0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
77
”*
*01
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
...
’
* 0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
’*’
” 0 1
Printed by G, W. Foote, 14 Clerkenweil-green, London.
�
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: 47 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Cover title: "The gods: an oration". "Works by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 28j in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N354
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Agnosticism
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 (Oration on the gods), 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
Agnosticism
Gods
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/393e7764856e9d3a74735a78e767c805.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M8TgfzsgrDnUXtSu-2BSwF03S14OLzNF0HUbMDRWa%7EOVjFHzWdSQC%7ELFbaBuYJhKlhuGk2TzP2bTlMjfCxadJQ0y2xFfFc3oHlekp1rANSyBNTWmbqhsn%7El77TPkSrVV4seXVplU8AnDDfzjlqu6t0tX-yvf%7EUozcAyVFz6UoGVvJmHInPaxMeSOn9RCqFDSZrIZR6zNiEZDy6LUhVEAL64LcQvle%7ENZWjJJcoi1L02Zr8p-1SI0y%7ECfRyE0EBrEdTMEn-vlzr7eS-Rfq4NP%7EDP1hfZ1y4wHZfsegt5lXfzaFX7kCFgNaKqx72%7E9OCtXz9xHoGabIcrjxZoqoVnlkA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0ab8bede19ed08363812c58e917b0f1c
PDF Text
Text
4-
NATIONAI. SECULAR SOCIETY-
IS SUICIDE A SIN ?
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
WITH A REPLY BY
MONSIGNOR
DUCEY.
(Reprinted from the New York “ World.”)
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1894.
4
4
�[Colonel Ingersoll’s letter on “ Is Suic
a Sin ?” was
written for the New York World, in August, 1894. Many
replies to it appeared in that journal, one of which was by
Monsignor Ducey, a dignitary of the Romish Church in
America. In reprinting Ingersoll’s letter on this side of
the Atlantic, it has been thought advisable to include
Monsignor Ducky’s reply.]
�£□-7°°
NJ 3 £4-
IS SUICIDE A SIN?
I do not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not.
Ifj it is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble,
more sorrow, more failure, and, consequently, more people
are driven to despair. In civilised life there is a great
struggle, great competition, and many fail. To fail in a
great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the country a
man has friends. He can get [a little credit, a little help;
but in the city it is different. The man is lost in the
multitude. In the roar of the streets his cry is not heard.
Death becomes his only friend. Death promises release
from want, from hunger and pain ; and so the poor wretch
lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders, and falls
asleep.
To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so
many endure and suffer to the natural end ; that so many
nurse the spark of life in huts and prisons; keep it and
guard it through years of misery and want; support it by
beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to
whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and
dread. Why should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all
he had—the loved ones dead, friends lost—seek to lengthen,
to preserve his life 1 What can the future have for him ?
Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill
himself. When life is of no value to him, when he can be of
no real assistance to others, why should a man continue ?
When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden to those he
loves, why should he remain ? The old idea was that God
made us and placed us here for a purpose, and that it was
�(4)
our duty to remain until he called us. The world is out
growing this absurdity. What pleasure can it give God to
see a man devoured by a cancer ? To see the quivering flesh
slowly eaten ? To see the nerves throbbing with pain ? Is
this a festival for God ? Why should the poor wretch stay
and suffer ? A little morphine would give him sleep; the
agony would be forgotten, and he would pass unconsciously
from happy dreams to painless death.
If God determines all births and deaths, of what use is
medicine, and why should doctors defy, with pills and
powders, the decrees of God ? No one, except a few insane,
act now according to this childish superstition. Why should
a man, surrounded by flames in the midst of a burning
building, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a
bullet through his brain or a dagger in his heart ? Would
it give God pleasure to see him burn ? When did the man
lose the right of self-defence ?
So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why
should he stay and ruin his family and friends ? Why should
he add to the injury 1 Why should he live, filling his days
and nights, and the days and nights of others, with grief
and pain, with agony and tears ?
Why should a man, sentenced to imprisonment for life,
hesitate to still his heart? The grave is better than the
cell. Sleep is sweeter than the ache of toil. The dead have
no master.
So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted—the door of home
closed against her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that
will help, no eye that will soften with pity, the future an
abyss filled with monstrous shapes of dread and fear, her
mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds broken by
storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying
from horrors too great to bear—rushes with joy through the
welcome door of death.
Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable
�( 5 )
suicide—cases in which not to end life would be a mistake,
sometimes almost a crime.
As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself.
And if a man honestly decides that death is best—best for
him and others—and acts upon the decision, why should he
be blamed ?
Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical
coward. He may have lacked moral courage, but not
physical. It may be said that some men fight duels because
they are afraid to decline. They are between two fires—the
chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they
take the chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were,
according to their belief, between two fires—the flames of
the fagot that could burn but for a few moments and the
fires of God that were eternal. And they chose the flames
of the fagot.
Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all
the pains and pangs that nerves can feel rather than die
cannot afford to call the suicide a coward. It does not seem
to me that Brutus was a coward, or that Seneca was. Surely
Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was not a craven.
He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who
felt that they had reached the end—that the journey was
done, the voyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It
seems certain that the man who commits suicide, who “ does
the thing that stops all other deeds, that shackles accident
and bolts up change,” is not lacking in physical courage.
If men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons,
in almshouses, in hospitals ; they would not bear the pangs
of incurable disease, the stains of dishonor; they would not
live in filth and want, in poverty and hunger; neither would
they wear the chain of slavery. All this can be accounted
for only by the fear of death or “of something after.”
Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had
no fear. He knew that he could defeat the emperor. He
�( 6 )
knew that “ at the bottom of every river, in the coil of every
rope, on the point of every dagger, Liberty sat and smiled.”
He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed himself to
be tortured to death by his enemy. He said : “ There is
this blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has
exits innumerable ; and, as I choose the house in which I
live, the ship in which I will sail, so will I choose the time
and manner of my death.”
To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble.
Under the Roman law persons found guilty of certain
offences were not only destroyed, but their blood' was
polluted, and their children became outcasts. If, however,
they died before conviction, their children were saved.
Many committed suicide to save their babes. Certainly
they were not cowards. Although guilty of great crimes,
they had enough of honor, of manhood, left to save their
innocent children. This was not cowardice.
Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity.
Men lose their property. The fear of the future overpowers
them. Things lose proportion, they lose poise and balance,
and, in a flash, a gleam of frenzy, kill themselves. The dis
appointed in love, broken in heart—the light fading from
their lives—seek the refuge of death.
Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways—
who mangle their throats with broken glass, dash them
selves from towers and roofs, take poisons that torture like
the rack—such persons must be insane. Butthose who take
the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and
against, and who decide that death is best—the only good—
and then resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can
see, in full possession of their minds.
Life is not the same to all—to some a blessing, to some a
curse, to some not much in any way. Some leave it with
unspeakable regret, some with the keenest joy, and some
with indifference.
�( 7 )
Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon
the number of suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of
eternal pain, will stay the hand, and people so believing
will suffer here until relieved by natural death. A belief in
eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such believers to
suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the
future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men
have less hesitation about ending their lives. On the other
hand, orthodox religion has driven millions to insanity. It
has caused parents to murder their children, and many
thousands to destroy themselves and others.
It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers
who kill themselves must be insane, and to such a degree
that their belief is forgotten. God and hell are out of their
minds.
I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane,
many are in the twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are
perfectly sane.
The law we have in this State, making it a crime to
attempt suicide, is cruel and absurd, and calculated to
increase the number of successful suicides. When a man
has suffered so much, when he has been so persecuted and
pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of
death, why should the State add to the sufferings of that
man ? A man seeking death, knowing that he will be
punished if he fails, will take extra pains and precautions to
make death certain.
This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtless
ness, and enforced by ignorance and cruelty.
When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon
has shrunk and narrowed to a cell, and when the convict
longs for the liberty of death, why should the effort to
escape be regarded as a crime 2
Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I
do not take gods, heavens, and hells into account. My
�( 8 )
horizon is the known, and my estimate of life is based upon
what I know of life here in this world. People should not
suffer for the sake of supernatural beings, or for other worlds,
or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our
sufferings, and our duties are here.
The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide
and the law as to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic.
Law cannot prevent suicide. Those who have lost all fear
of death care nothing for law and its penalties. Death is
liberty, absolute and eternal.
We should remember that nothing happens but the
natural. Back of every suicide and every attempt to
commit suicide is the natural and efficient cause. Nothing
happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each
other. There is no space between—no room for chance.
Given a certain heart and brain, certain conditions, and
suicide is the necessary result. If we wish to prevent suicide,
we must change conditions. We must, by education, by in
vention, by art, by civilisation, add to the value of the
average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart—do
away with false pride and false modesty. We must become
generous enough to help our fellows without degrading
hem. We must make industry—useful work of all kinds—
honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our
charity—a little fellowship. We should allow those who
have sinned to really reform. We should not think only of
what the wicked have done, but we should think of what
we have wanted to do. People do not hate the sick. Why
should they despise the mentally weak—the diseased in
brain ?
Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances—of
conditions—and we do as we must. This great truth should
fill the heart with pity for the failures of our race.
Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounce
the suicide; that in old times they buried him where the
�( 9 )
roads crossed, and drove a stake through his body. They
took his property from his children and gave it to the State.
If Christians would only think, they would see that
orthodox religion rests upon suicide—that man was re
deemed by suicide, and that, without suicide, the whole
world would have been lost.
If Christ was God, then he had the power to protect him
self from the Jews without hurting them. But, instead of
using his power, he allowed them to take his life.
If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack
him to death with knives, when he could easily have
brushed them aside, would we not say that he committed
suicide ?
There is no escape. If Christ was in fact God, and allowed
the Jews to kill him, then he consented to his own death—
refused, though perfectly able, to defend and protect himself,
and was, in fact, a suicide.
We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition.
As long as there shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow,
agony and crime, men and women will untie life’s knot and
seek the peace of death.
To the hopelessly imprisoned—to the dishonored and
despised—to those who have failed, who have no future, no
hope—to the abandoned, the broken-hearted, to those who
are only remnants and fragments of men and women—how
consoling, how enchanting, is the thought of death !
And even to the most fortunate death at last is a welcome
deliverer. Death is as natural and as merciful as life.
When we have journeyed long—when we are weary—when
we wish for the twilight, for the dusk, for the cool kisses of
the night—when the senses are dull—when the pulse is faint
and low—when the mists gather on the mirror of memory—
when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly per
ceived—when the future has but empty hands—death is as
welcome as a strain of music.
�( 10 )
After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next
to eternal happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool
earth, disturbed by no dream, by no thought, by no pain,
by no fear, unconscious of all and for ever.
The wonder is that so many live, that, in spite of rags and
want, in spite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain,
they limp and stagger and crawl beneath their burdens to
the natural end. The wonder is that so few of the miserable
are brave enough to die—that so many are terrified by the
“ something after death ”—by the spectres and phantoms of
superstition.
Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in
the arctic snows—how they struggle in the waves and
currents of the sea—how they linger in famine—how they
fight disaster and despair ! On the crumbling edge of death
they keep the flag flying, and go down at last full of hope
and courage.
But many have not such natures. They cannot bear
defeat. They are disheartened by disaster. They lie down
on the field of conflict, and give the earth their blood.
They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should
not curse or blame—we should pity. On their pallid faces
our tears should fall.
One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate
wife, a charming and loving daughter, committed suicide.
He was a man of generous impulses. His heart was loving
and tender. He was conscientious, and so sensitive that he
blamed himself for having done what at the time he thought
was wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let
us be merciful in our judgments.
All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving
and the malignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the
educated and the ignorant, actuated by many motives,
urged and pushed by circumstances and conditions—some
times in the calm of judgment, sometimes in passion’s storm
�(11)
and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of insanity—
raise their hands against themselves, and desperately put
out the light of life.
Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If
they are insane, they should, if possible, be restored to
reason ; if sane, they should be reasoned with, calmed, and
assisted.
R. G. INGERSOLL.
MONSIGNOR DUCEY’S REPLY.
Colonel Ingersoll has asked, “Is Suicide a Sin?” I do
not know how Colonel Ingersoll can put such a question.
He does not believe in sin, for he ignores and denies the
existence of the supernatural; and sin is defined as a crime
against the law of God.
Many people are very severe against Colonel Ingersoll.
They seem to be unwilling to recognise that he has any
good qualities, for the reason that he is a professed Agnostic
and Atheist. I am willing to admit that Colonel Ingersoll
is a first-class know-nothing when he deals with anything
�( 12 )
supernatural; but I am unwilling to recognise Colonel
Ingersoll as a know-nothing when his sympathies are called
upon in the interest of suffering humanity. I know that
Colonel Ingersoll is a man of large sympathies, and that he
is most kindly disposed to relieve generously the afflicted
whose suffering is brought to his notice. I know this, not
from hearsay, but from numerous cases where I have been
called, and to the relief of which cases Colonel Ingersoll has
contributed with his mind, his heart, and most generously
from his pocket.
The knowledge of his conduct broke down my prejudice
against the man. When I reflected on the goodness of his
conduct I could not help giving to him my recognition and
sympathy ; but I give to him my unqualified condemnation
when he attempts the part of the destroying angel against
the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
I was once present at a public dinner where Colonel
Ingersoll was to be the speaker of the evening. The pre
siding officer and toastmaster came to me and asked : “ Will
you say a few words before Colonel Ingersoll ? He has
requested me to ask you to give him some inspiration.” I
smilingly answered : “ Colonel Ingersoll does not believe in
inspiration, and I absolutely refuse to give him intellectual
direction.” When the Colonel delivered his address he had
the good sense and the good taste not to offend the clergy.
There were two Presbyterian ministers at the principal
table, and we were fearing that the Colonel might give us a
little of the hell in which he did not believe, and force us
to make a scene for self-protection and retire from the
Colonel’s flames. We saved ourselves, and were saved by the
Colonel. But I had great fun with him, and so did the
audience, when I was asked to speak. The Colonel did not
have the chance to review my language. Now I shall im
perfectly review him as reported in the New York World.
Colonel Ingersoll regards life from a natural point of view.
�( 13 )
He says he does not take God’s heavens and hells into
account. His horizon is the known, and his estimate of life
is based upon what he knows of the life here—in this world.
He says that people should not suffer for the sake of the
supernatural beings or for other worlds, or the hopes and
fears of some future state, and that our joys and sufferings
and our duties are here. It seems to me that Colonel
Ingersoll’s great fault is that he is a destroyer, and not a
constructor. He robs poor humanity of the only hope that
gives it comfort and makes its afflicted existence endurable,
and, having robbed it of the bread of hope, he reaches out to
it the stone of despair.
Another bad point about the Colonel’s propagandism of
destruction is, that he always gives his interesting lectures
for a large financial retainer. Perhaps the good Colonel
spends this one or two or three thousand dollars a night,
that he is said to receive, for the benefit of the poor and
despairing, and not for the comfort and luxury of those who
are near and dear to him. The religion against which he
fights is not without its compassion and devotion to
humanity, and the suicide which he justifies is condemned
by that religion which holds out to humanity hope and
encouragement.
The JForM will, no doubt, be pleased to print the con
demnation which the Holy Father, Leo XIII., in his ency
clical on labor, passes on the trusts and monopolies of the
day, which have driven honest labor to the verge of despair
and suicide. Leo XIII. says: “ The elements of conflict
to-day are unmistakable. The growth of industry and the
surprising discoveries of science; the changed relations of
masters and workmen; the enormous fortunes of individuals,
the poverty of the masses, and the general moral dete
rioration cause great fear to every honest and thoughtful
man. The momentous seriousness of the present state of
things fills every mind with painful apprehension. . . . All
�( 14 )
agree, and there can be no question whatever that some
remedy must be found for the misery and wretchedness
which press so heavily at this moment on the large majority
of the very poor. . . . the concentration of so many
branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals, so
that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay
upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery
itself.”
If Colonel Ingersoll and others whose chief aim seems to
be to pull down that reverence and religion which seeks
fearlessly to teach all men the obligations of justice would
spend the talent and time they devote to destruction to the
proper adjustment and construction of society upon equit
able bases, there would, in my judgment, be few temptations
to suicide, and only the insane and morally irresponsible
would flee from “ the ills they have and fly to others they
know not of.” If the Colonel would preach this doctrine of
justice and adjustment to the railroad wreckers and trust
corrupters who seek through the evil use of money to
increase their capital for luxurious indulgence, and to create
a society of despair among the honest and struggling brain
and brawn workers of humanity, I think he would be doing
a nobler work for his fellow man than contributing his
luminous brain as a capitalistic trust to rob his fellows of
the hope of a higher and happier realisation than they find
here below.
If death means oblivion, Colonel Ingersoll is right. Colonel
Ingersoll’s policy would make men cowards. A man might
abandon wife, children, and the obligations of justice to his
fellow man simply because he felt the pangs of disappoint
ment and suffering, and, freeing himself from his portion of
the burden, leave an additional burden to others.
As to the outcast who has abused every faculty of head
and heart, I cannot agree with the Colonel that he has a
right to take his life. I cannot agree with the Colonel, for
�(15)
I view natural and supernatural obligations, and the Colonel
has no regard for this view of the case.
Such a creature has, in my judgment, ceased to be a moral
agent, and I might say of him what I have heard of a
Yankee saying in a court of justice when asked* by the
presiding judge, “What do you think of this man’s moral
character 1” “ Well, yer honor, I don’t know nawthin’ about
his moral carrikter, but his immorals are first-class.” This
picture of the Colonel strikes me in the same way.
The Colonel’s classic historical examples are prescribed
in very bad chemicals. I don’t think his camera was in very
good order when he focussed the pictures. I do not think
that the cases of Seneca, Brutus, and Antony help his argu
ment. The historical reasons given for their self-destruction
convey no notion of heroic example, and I think the Colonel
has been most unhappy in presenting these creatures as
heroes. In naming Antony he left out Cleopatra. I pre
sume he was afraid to insult the memory of the classic Cato
by grouping him with two such immoral associates.
THOMAS J. DUCEY.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll.
Some Mistakes of Moses. Why
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
t»d.
The Gods. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Ch hist. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
am I an Agnostic 2
Part I. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic 2
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d.
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D
Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. An
Agnostic’s View. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
READ
“THE
FREETHINKER,”
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday.
Price Twopence.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Printed by G. W. Foote, 28 Stonecutter-street, Loudon, 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
Is suicide a sin? with a reply by Monsignor Ducey
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Ducey, Thomas J.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Signed on front cover: R. Killop. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. Letter written by Ingersoll for the New York "World", in August 1894. Ducey's reply was one of many. No. 73g in Stein checklist, but with different title. 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
1894
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N364
N365
Subject
The topic of the resource
Suicide
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 (Is suicide a sin? with a reply by Monsignor Ducey), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Sin-Christianity
Suicide
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e68430333bdc8a3decbb6bdaee6ecd68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ePgbIYhLiX4Ji-7GapDt2QGIF1P7Clkr-HHSPc6Uk79FXWP8q1QR9dWlarIash5z91uWe05nz6iJaNCCFlBTxds44m5EoU7kwJ1OYnXJ9KlKL%7EzaSpiYL8BeFD1xTkpI7U0BXXgB8hlDSfDd-CW3aOgWd69AoiE5B6T-Xlfot5WFgpo%7EXJZvmLs0bB1bP5DzEX9oOXLePHeIVc5GUkIJjVfPddN-jf1bC%7E0Yj%7EY1v8NCZn2f4K2A2g4wrV73fImUMn2tWOETbs1Z2LoMnzMJR5WXhvPPRhKquJfr2piYQLTpknj5i7cwj%7E3lgY1D46D-PYBmrj7juzPUt0tNZ3Jjxw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f50a74840b3b4827c08c1b2a11d082a9
PDF Text
Text
1
'4
NATIONAL SEOUL/
Rome
WTOTY
Reason
or
p
<
A REPLY TO
MANNING.
CARDINAL
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
Reprinted from
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
October and November, 1888.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
London:
1 THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD.,
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdgn Street, E.C.
1903.
I
41
�PRINTED BY
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD,,
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�ROME OR REASON?
A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition “ has ears more deaf than adders to the voice oj
any true, decision."
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position, and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian
Churches. The questions involved are among the most
important that can engage the human mind. No one
having the slightest regard for that superb thing known
as intellectual honesty will avoid the issues tendered, or
seek in any way to gain a victory over truth.
Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not, in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
light is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge.
In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
of the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its
marvellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things, its catholic
�4
ROME OR REASON ?
unity and invincible stability, is a vast and perpetu?
motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its
own divine legation.”
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are:-—
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world; that it is extra-national
and independent in a supernational unity ; that it is the
same in every place; that it speaks all the languages in
the civilised world ; that it is obedient to one head ; that
as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the
Pope ; that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts
to Rome, and that all these things set forth in the most
self-evident way the unity and universality of the Roman
Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the
world, treating with empires, republics, and govern
ments ” that “ there is no other man on earth that can
so bear himself,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople can such a voice go forth to which
rulers and people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has
enlightened and purified the world ; that it has given us
the peace and purity of domestic life; that it has
destroyed idolatry and demonology; that it gave us a
body of law from a higher source than man ; that it has
produced the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes
were the greatest of statesmen and rulers; that celibacy
is better than marriage, and that the revolutions and
reformations of the last three hundred years have been
destructive and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
everything that exists ; of every Church, great and
small; of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ?
All success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
�ROME OR REASON ?
5
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of
men have frequently been wrong. We believe in what
is called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the
most part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid
of old errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer
in harmony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater
clearness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we cannot
say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the whole
intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The truth
or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, what shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out
of the ruins of the Roman Empire—-that is to say, the
ruins of Paganism. And it is equally clear that Moham
medanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of Catholicism.
After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was for ever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt,
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
�6
ROME OR REASON ?
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were
engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying
out their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to
the conscience of man. Bishops were concerned in
assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots,
treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were
excommunicating and anathematising one another in
their rivalries for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with
gold and courtesans and royal females with concessions
of episcopal love. Among legions of monks who carried
terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great
cities arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but
never a voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged
rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives
�ROME OR REASON ?
7
withered leaves. At his name, priests, bishops, and
cardinals fled with white faces, popes trembled, and the
armies of God, fighting for the true faith, were conquered
on a thousand fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that another church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose
the second church lives and flourishes in spite of the
first, what does that prove ?
As a matter of fact, however, no Church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or
it could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is abso
lutely certain that the conditions are favorable. If it
spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are
exceedingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition
are weak and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as
we find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition
began to grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to
persecution, and the persecution increased its strength.
It was driven from State to State by the believers in
universal love, until it left what was called civilisation,
crossed the wide plains, and took up its abode on the
shores of the Great Salt Lake. It continued to grow.
Its founder, as he declared, had frequent conversations
with God, and received directions from that source.
Hundreds of miracles were performed, multitudes upon
the desert were miraculously fed, the sick were cured,
the dead were raised, and the Mormon Church continued
to grow, until now, less than half a century after the
death of its founder, there are several hundred thousand
believers in the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this Church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
�8
ROME OR REASON ?
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that Church ?
It seems to me that a “supernatural” religion—that
is to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle—is much
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in
the miraculous, in the supernatural. The conception
of uniformity, of what may be called the eternal con
sistency of nature, is an idea far above their compre
hension. They are forced to think in accordance with
their minds, and as a consequence they account for all
phenomena by the acts of superior beings—that is to
say, by the supernatural. In other words, that religion
having most in common with the savage, having most
that was satisfactory to his mind, or to his lack of mind,
would stand the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “ natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous
grew less and less—the domain of the natural larger ;
that is to say, the common became the natural, but the
uncommon was still regarded as the miraculous. I he
rising and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder
of mankind—there was no miracle about that; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty as the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
�ROME OR REASON ?
(J
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this: The average
man regards the common as natural, the uncommon as
supernatural. The educated man—and by that I mean
the developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and cannot
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot, triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a
prelate of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
�10
RoSiE OR REASON ?
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the special care, protection, and guidance of
an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has perse
cuted and preached, and the salvation of the world is
still remote. This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the world to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ?
Do the Catholic
nations move in the van of progress ? Within their
jurisdiction are life, liberty, and property safer than
anywhere else ? Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer ? Was Pius IX., or any
other Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to
go into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their converts at any time, nor one of
the Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward,
knew of the existence of the Western Hemisphere.
During all that time, can it be said that the Catholic
Church was universal ? At the close of the fifteenth
century, there was one half of the world in which the
Catholic faith had never been preached, and in the other
half not one person in ten had ever heard of it, and of
those who had heard of it, not one in ten believed it.
Certainly the Catholic Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
�ROME OR REASON ?
II
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personality. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed, and been killed, for the- sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes,
but his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—
that is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to
his unhappiness, are bad, no matter by whom they are
taught or done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation
and inquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads,
or may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
�12
ROME OR REASON ?
being of man here. It regards this life as an oppor
tunity for joining that Church, for accepting that creed,
and for the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in order to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course, nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently,
the Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving, and just. A Church must be
judged by the same standard. Has the Church been
merciful ? Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of
justice, charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man,
believing a good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ?
If the Church imprisons a man for the expression of an
honest opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine
of the Church is wrong or that the Church is bad ?
Both cannot be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is
impossible. Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most
malicious of the human race. If the history of the world
proves anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was
for many centuries the most merciless institution that
ever existed among men. I cannot believe that the
instruments of persecution were made and used by the
eminently good ; neither can I believe that honest people
were imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a
Church that was “ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good
things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant pre
judices against Catholicism, and have no Catholic
prejudices against Protestantism. I regard all religions
either without prejudice or with the same prejudice.
They were all, according to my belief, devised by men,
and all have for a foundation ignorance of this world
and fear of the next. All the gods have been made by
�ROME OR REASON ?
*3
men. They are all equally powerless and equally use
less. I like some of them better than I do others, for
the same reason that I admire some characters in fiction
more than I do others. I prefer Miranda to Caliban,
but have not the slightest idea that either of them existed.
So I prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied
that both are myths. I believe myself to be in a frame
of mind to justly and fairly consider the claims of
different religions, believing as I do that all are wrong,
and admitting as I do that there is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order,
the members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth-hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned
the living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to
the end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the
end that it might take from widows their portions and
from orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
-—the millions who perished by the sword-—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “ Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
�14
ROME OR REASON ?
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during
all the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers. It hated geologists, it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
Founder, presided over by the agent of God—punishing
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a fellow being
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of
his head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
particularity, but having at the same time the impudence
to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ,
and the. Virgin Mary, to join in the curse ; and to curse
him not only here, but for ever hereafter; calling upon
all the saints and upon all the redeemed to join in a
hallelujah of curses, so that earth and heaven should
reverberate with countless curses launched at a human
being simply for having expressed an honest thought.
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things,” invented
crimes that it might punish. This Church tried men for
�ROME OR REASON?
15
a “ suspicion of heresy ”—imprisoned them for the vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they had on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected.
This was a part of the Canon Law.
It is too late to talk about the “ invincible stability ”
of the Catholic Church.
It was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or
in the ninth centuries. It was not invincible in Germany
in Luther’s day. It was not invincible in the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England. It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme in any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not triumph in Paris, or
Berlin ; it is not dominant in London, in England;
neither is it triumphant in the United States. It
has not within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen,
and the thinkers, who are the leaders of the human
race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that “ in some it
holds- the whole nation in its unity.”
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in
Spain than in any other nation.
The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy,
the result of an acknowledgment by a people that a
religion is too sacred to be examined.
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adop
tion of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough
to say that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the
most thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavoured to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they
were bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but
because they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not
because they were ignorant or vicious, but because they
were unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and
�16
ROME OR REASON ?
deliberately made outcasts of the intelligent, the industri
ous, the honest and the useful, because they were not
Catholics. It leaped like a wfild beast upon the Low
Countries, for the destruction of Protestantism.
It
covered the seas with its fleets, to destroy the intellec
tual liberty of man. And not only so—it established
the Inquisition within its borders. It imprisoned the
honest, it burned the noble, and succeeded after many
years of devotion to the true faith, in destroying the
industry, the intelligence, the usefulness, the genius, the
nobility and the wealth of a nation. It became a wreck,
a jest of the conquered, and excited the pity of its former
victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church
held “ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In
1782 it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be
friends with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and
Algiers and the Barbary States. It had become too
poor to ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It
began to appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer
nor convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the pre
cise proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic
Church. This may be said of every other nation in
Christendom. Torquemada is dead ; Castelar is alive.
The dungeons of the Inquisition are empty, and a little
light has penetrated the clouds and mists—not much,
but a little. Spain is not yet clothed and in her right
mind. A few years ago the cholera visited Madrid and
other cities. Physicians were mobbed. Processions of
saints carried the host through the streets for the pur
pose of staying the plague.
The streets were not
cleaned ; the sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old
partners, reigned supreme. The Church, “ eminent for
its sanctity,” stood in the light and cast its shadow on
the ignorant and the prostrate. The Church, in its
“ inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,” allowed
its children to perish through ignorance, and used the
�ROME OR REASON ?
I?
diseases it had produced as an instrument to further
enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It is necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and good
ness of these men. But their religion did more than all
other causes to produce the very evils that called for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “ godliness ” ;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary. Faith
is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers fruitless.
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations ; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree,
by the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that
sense, and that in that sense it has what may be called
a “ supernational unity.” The same, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but
it is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in the
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, the Catholic’ Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom, differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions
have become permanent. New sects have been born,
and the Catholic Church has been weakened. The
boast of unity is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin, This is asserted over and over
�i8
ROMS OR REASON ?
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession:
“ Was it only by the human power of man that the
unity, external and internal, which for fourteen hundred
years had been supreme, was once more restored in the
Council of Constance, never to be broken again ?”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again.
Yet it is asserted that the internal and external unity of
the Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates
its divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made
the sword is that it never had been, and never could be,
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored,? and^ then it. is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
�ROME OR REASON ?
19
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated, Put in a form to be easily understood, it
is this :—
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken ; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin,
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken ? Was it universal while it was without unity ?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was im
mutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
Pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are, to a great extent, obedient
to the Pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness
of the organisation.
How was the Roman Empire formed ? By what means
did that great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established ? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word—Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous, and cruel.
The Gospel, with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven
and hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it
�ao
ROME OR REASON ?
was preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that
Christ had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid, and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell.
■ The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart; it rewarded
every vice; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess ; it tortured
witnesses to compel the commission of perjury; it tor
tured children for the purpose of making them convict
their parents; it compelled men to establish their own
innocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had the
malicious patience to wait; it left the accused without
trial, and left them in dungeons until released by death.
There is no crime that the Catholic Church did not
commit, no cruelty that it did not practise, no form of
treachery that it did not reward, and no virtue that it did
not persecute. It was the greatest and most powerful
enemy of human rights. It did all that organisation,
cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal, and
brute force could do to enslave the children of men. It
was the enemy of intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and
the destroyer of progress. It loaded the noble with
chains and the infamous with honors. In one hand it
carried the alms-dish, in the other a dagger. It argued
with the sword, persuaded with poison, and convinced
with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a
Church can be established by showing that hundreds of
bishops have visited the Pope.
Does the fact that millions of faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or. joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows?
�ROME OR REASON '?
21
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. .He
who in power compels his fellow-man to kneel, .will him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power ,
a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand
face to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal
who kneels in the presence of the Pope, wants the bishop
to kneel in his presence; and the bishop who kneels
demands that the priest shall kneel to. him; and the
priest who kneels demands that they in lower orders
shall kneel; and all, from Pope to the lowest—that is to
say, from Pope to exorcist, from Pope to the one in
charge of the bones of saints all demand that the
people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall
kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
ctsh-di
The Cardinal insists that the Pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all Popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute, in office. He
stands in the place, or occupies the position in relation
to the Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ
would occupy were he the Pope at Rome. In other
words, he takes Christ’s place; so that, according to the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is
present in the person of the Pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad
agent. A good king might leave his realm and put in
his place a tyrant and a wretch. The good man and the
good king cannot certainly know what manner of man
the agent is-—what kind of person the vicar is; conse
quently the bad may be chosen. But if the king
appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to. be bad, knowing
that he would oppress the people, knowing that he would
imprison and burn the noble and generous, what excuse
can be imagined for such a king ?
. .
Now, if the Church is of divine origin, and if each
Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been
chosen by Jesus Christ", and when he was chosen
Christ must have known exactly what his Vicar would
do. Can we believ^xthat an infinity wise and good
�22
ROME OR REASON r1
Being would choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant,
malicious, heartless, fiendish, and inhuman Vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “ the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constan
tine were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s
place. 1 he tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was
•
amputated by the man who had been substituted for
God. This bishop was left in a dungeon to perish of
thirst. Pope Leo III. was seized in the street and
forced into a church, where the nephew's of Pope Adrian
attempted to put out his eyes and cut off his tongue.
His successor, Stephen V., was driven ignominiously
from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused of
blinding and murdering twro ecclesiastics in the Lateran
Palace. John VIII.,unable to resist the Mohammedans,
was compelled to pay them tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from
other Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by
the Pope; afterwards he gave him absolution because
he betrayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated
others. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to mur
der the Pope, and some of the treasures of the Church
were seized, and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened
with false keys to admit the Saracens. Formosus, who
had been engaged in these transactions, who had been
excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of Pope
John, was himself elected Pope in 891. Boniface VI.
was his successor. He had been deposed from the
diaconate and from the priesthood for his immoral and
lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next Pope, and he had
the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave,
clothed in papal habiliments, propped up in a chair and
tried before a Council. The corpse w'as found guilty,
three fingers were cut off, and the body cast into the
Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII.. this Vicar of Christ,
was thrown into prison and strangled.
�ROME OR REASON ?
23
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated.
Leo V., in less than two months after he became Pope,
was cast into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains.
This Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while
was expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became
Pope in 905. This Pope lived in criminal intercourse
with the celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters
Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an
extraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora
was also shared by John X. She gave him the Arch
bishopric of Ravenna, and made him Pope in 915. The
daughter of Theodora overthrew this Pope. She sur
prised him in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter,
was killed; the Pope was thrown into prison, where he
was afterwards murdered. Afterward, this Marozia,
daughter of Theodora, made her own son Pope, John XI.
Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but his
mother inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic,
whose brother Guido she afterwards married. Another
of her sons, Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the
Pope, cast him and their mother into prison. Alberic s
son was then elected Pope as John XII.
“John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the
most shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I.
was compelled by the German clergy to inteifere. He
was tried. It appeared that John had received bribes
for the consecration of bishops; that he had ordained
one who was only ten years old; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran
Palace had become a brothel. He put out the eyes of
* one ecclesiastic; he maimed another—both dying in
consequence of their injuries. He was given to drunken
ness and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and
Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subsequently he got the
upper hand. He seized his antagonists ; he cut off the
hand of one, the nose, the finger, and the tongue of
others. His life was eventually brought to an end by
the vengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.”
And yet,I admit that the most infamous Popes, the
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when com
pared with the orthodox God—with the God they wor
shipped. These popes, these bishops, these priests could
persecute only for a few years—they could burn only for
�24
kOME OR REASON ?
a few moments—but their God threatened to imprison
and burn for ever; and their God is as much worse than
they were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“John XIII, was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassin
ated by Catholics—murdered by the faithful; that one
Vicar of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and
that these men were “ the greatest rulers and the
greatest statesmen of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his
nose cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was
sent through the streets mounted on an ass, with his
face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than
twelye years of age, was raised to the apostolic throne.
One of his successors, Victor III., declared that the life
of Benedict was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that
he shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain of
banditti. The people, unable to bear longer his
adulteries, his homicides and his abominations, rose
against him, and in despair of maintaining his position,
he put up his papacy to auction, and it was bought by a
Presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in the
year of grace 1045. Well may we ask, Were these the
Vicegerents of God upon earth—these, who had truly
reached that goal beyond which the last effort of human
wickedness cannot pass?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “some two hundred and fifty-eight”
Vicars of Christ there were probably some good men.
This would have happened even if the intention had
been to get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches
perfection neither in good nor in evil; but if they were
selected by Christ himself, if they were selected by a
Church with a divine origin and under divine guidance,
then there is no way to account for the selection of a
�roMe or
Reason?
25
bad one. If one hypocrite was duly elected Pope—one
murderer, one strangler, one starver—this demonstrates
that all the Popes were selected by men, and by men
only, that the claim of divine guidance is born of zeal
and uttered without knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many
have there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not
know. He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St.
Peter to Leo. XIII., there have been some two hundred
and fifty-eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the
whole Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and
Vicars of Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word
“some”? Why “claiming”? Does he positively
know ? Is it possible that the present Vicar of Christ is
not certain as to the number of his predecessors ? Is
he infallible in faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “ the Pope speaks to many people
in many nations; that he treats with empires and
governments,” and that “neither from Canterbury nor
from Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the Pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisa
tion.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists, and
scientists put the hand to the ear, fearing that an accent
�26
Rome or reason ?
may be lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ?
Is not the Church weakest at its centre ? Do those
who have raised Italy from the dead, and placed her
again among the great nations, pay attention ? Does
Great Britain care for this voice—this moan, this groan
—of the Middle Ages? Do the words of Leo XIII.
impress the intelligence of the Great Republic ? Can
anything be more absurd than for the Vicar of Christ to
attack a demonstration of science with a passage of
Scripture, or a quotation from one of the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens ; but it shows
that chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people. If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and
if Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe
had assassinated Madison, and John Quincey Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been
as virtuous as popes. But if this had happened the
verdict of the world would be that the people are not
capable of selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feeble day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the Vicar
of God and the supernatural Church “are being tor
mented by Falck laws, by Mancini laws, and by Crispi
laws.” In other words, this representative of God, this
substitute of Christ, this Church of divine origin, this
supernatural institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—
are being “ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it pos
sible that this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the
other ?
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will, and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden
is upon them.”
�ROME OR REASON ?
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Com
mencing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and con
quered, until it was believed that the sky bent above a
subjugated world. And yet all was natural. For every
effect there was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies
of Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born it w’as believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.”
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty, and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is
Pagan. Long before Popes began to murder each
other, Pagans ate cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank
wine—the blood of Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the
Ganges and Nile, priests interceded for the people, and
anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
�28
ROME OR REASON ?
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most reli
gions there has been a strange mingling of the good and
bad, of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and
malicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood
of man, insisted on the development of the mind ; and
this religion was propagated, not by the sword, but by
preaching, by persuasion, and kindness ; yet in many
things it was contrary to the human will, contrary to the
human passions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism
succeeded. Can we, for this reason, say that it is a super
natural religion ? Is the. unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other Churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ Upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress.
Every Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the
same ; it must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic
Church has not grown—that it has been petrified from
the first—does not establish divine origin ; it simply
establishes the fact that it retards the progress of man.
Everything in nature changes ; every atom is in motion;
every star moves. Nations, institutions, and individuals
have youth, manhood, old age, death. This is, and will
be, true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak; it
grew stronger ; it reached its climax of power ; it began
to decay ; it can never rise again. It is confronted by
the dawn of Science. In the presence of the nineteenth
century it cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to dis
integration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural.
All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
�ROME OR REASON ?
29
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When
the acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon
it, and the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “all
natural causes” do not “run to disintegration.” But
there comes a time when the oak has reached its limit,
and then the forces of nature run towards disintegration,
and finally the. old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is
right, if “ all natural causes run to disintegration,” then
every success must have been of divine origin, and
nothing is natural but destruction. This, is Catholic
science: “All natural causes run to disintegration.’
What do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing
that is natural. -The fact that the thing is not disinte
grated shows that it was, and is, of supernatural origin.
According to the Cardinal, the only business of nature
is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent this, the
supernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. Accord
ing to this doctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does
so in spite of nature. Growth, then, is not in accord
ance with, but in opposition to, nature. Every plant is
supernatural—it defeats the disintegrating influences of
rain and light. The generalisation of the Cardinal is
half the truth. It would be. equally true to say : All
natural causes run to integration.” But the whole truth
is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created
by the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes
at this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to
be the work of their own hands; they did not make it,
but they have for three hundred years been unmaking it
by reformations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
�3°
ROME OR REASON ?
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time Phillip II. was King of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the Inquisi
tion was firmly established, and priests were busy with
rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of man
and the love of God, the Church with every instrument
of torture, touched every nerve in the human body.
In those happy days the Duke of Alva was devasta
ting the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive;
their tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids
from their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the
destruction of the heretics of England, and the
Moriscoes, a million and a half of industrious people,
were being driven by sword and flame from their homes.
The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic
country had succeeded in driving intelligence and industry
from its territory; and this had been done with a cruelty,
with a ferocity, unequalled in the annals of crime.
Nothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance,
credulity, the Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the
seven deadly sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nine
teenth century, living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets
the change that has been wrought by the intellectual
efforts, by the discoveries, by the inventions and heroism
of three hundred years.
Three hundred years ago, under Charles IX., in France,
son of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—
after nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—
after hundreds of vicars of Christ had sat in St. Peter’s
chair—after the natural passions of man had been
“softened” by the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of
St. Bartholomew, the result of a conspiracy between the
Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish
mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre
once more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar
of Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the
�ROME OR REASON ?
31
Infinite, persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death,
This great, this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He
had ventured to assert the rotary motion of the earth ;
he had hazarded the conjecture that there were in the
fields of infinite space worlds larger and more glorious
than ours. For these low and groveling thoughts, for
this contradiction of the word and Vicar of God, this
man was imprisoned for many years. But his noble
spirit was not broken, and finally in the year 1600, by
the orders of the infamous Vicar, he was chained to the
stake. Priests believing in the doctrine of universal
forgiveness; priests who when smitten upon one cheek
turned the other ; carried with a kind of ferocious joy
faggots to the feet of this incomparable man. These
disciples of “ Our Lord ” were made joyous as the
flames, like serpents, climbed around the body of Bruno.
In a few moments the brave thinker was dead, and the
priests who had burned him fell upon their knees and
asked the infinite God to continue the blessed work for
ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquistion are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest ? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe ?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church ; in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility, we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin ; if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that
God exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and
good—-and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed
is foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed, the following:
“ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith,”
�32
ROME OR REASON ?
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more
important than conduct. The most important of all
things is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were
thousands of years during which it was not necessary to
hold that faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet
during that time the virtues were just as important as
now, just as important as they ever can be. Millions of
the noblest of the human race never heard of this
creed. Millions of the bravest and best have heard of
it, examined, and rejected it. Millions of the most
infamous have believed it, and because of their belief, or
notwithstanding their belief, have murdered millions of
their fellows. We know that men can be, have been,
and are just as wicked with it as without it. We know
that it is not necessary to believe it to be good, loving,
tender, noble, and self-denying.
We admit that
millions who have believed it have also been self
denying and heroic, and that millions, by such belief,
were not prevented from torturing and destroying the
helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “whosoever will be saved,before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
“ Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth:
The believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost.
We know that faith is not the child or servant of the
will. We know that belief is a conclusion based upon
what the mind supposes to be true. We know that it is
not an act of the will. Nothing can be more absurd
than to save a man because he is not intelligent enough
to accept the truth, and nothing can be more infamous
than to damn a man because he is intelligent enough to
reject the false. It resolves itself into a question of
intelligence. If the creed is true, then a man rejects it
because he lacks intelligence. Is this a crime for which
�ROME
or reason
?
33
a man should everlastingly perish ? If the creed is
false, then a man accepts it because he lacks intelligence.
In. both cases the crime is exactly the same. If a man
is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he
should not be saved for accepting the false. _ This one
clause demonstrates that a being of infinite wisdom and
goodness did not write it. It also demonstrates that it
was the work of men who had neither wisdom nor a
sense of justice.
.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this:
’
...
„ . .
u That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity m
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ?
Why should one God wish to be worshipped as three ?
Why should three Gods wish to be worshipped as
one ? Why should we pray to one God and think of
three, or pray to three Gods and think of one ? Can
this increase the happiness of the one or of the three ?
Is it possible to think of one as three, or of three as one ?
If you think of three as one, can you think of one as
none, or of none as one ? When you think of three as
one, what do you do with the other two? You must not
“ confound the persons ”—they must be kept separate.
When you think of one as three, how do you get the
other two ? You must not “ divide the substance.
Is
it possible to write greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered, un
reasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon its
�34
Rome or reason ?
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to’hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh, he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fc
was a divine comedy. The shrieks of wives, the cries
of babes, when fathers were being burned, gave contrast,
heightened the effect, and filled his cup with joy. This
true God did not know the shape of the earth he had
made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. “ The
stream of light which descended from the beginning ”
was propagated by faggot to faggot, until Christendom
was filled with the devouring fires of faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousands
for the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to men their own relation
to a Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to
the Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of
Mexico, of Peru—to philosophers, patriots, and thinkers.
All these victims were taught to regard the true God as
a loving Father, and this lesson was taught with every
instrument of torture—with branding and burnings,
with flayings and flames. The world was filled with
cruelty and credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the
soil in which all these horrors grew was the true know
ledge of the one true God, and the true knowledge of
the one true Devil. And yet we are compelled to say
�ROME OR REASON ?
35
that the one true Devil described by the Catholic Church
was not as malevolent as the one true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship
of popes, of the doctrine of the Real Presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
.
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuity in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithful—
softened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
assistance of forces that were above nature
and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement:
“ Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a
sacrament, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists
that celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a
sacrament—that marriage is not the highest state, but
that “the state of virginity unto death is the highest
condition of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can
interfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made
public to the end that the real contract may be known,
so that the world can see that the parties have been
actuated by the highest and holiest motives that find
�36
ROME OR REASON?
expression in the acts of human beings. The man and
woman are not joined together by God, or by the
Church, or by the State. The Church and State may
prescribe certain ceremonies, certain formalities; but all
these are only evidence of the existence of a sacred fact
in the hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of
marriage is a dogma that has filled the lives of millions
with agony and tears. It has given a perpetual excuse
for vice and immorality. Fear has borne children
begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured
the insults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands,
because they thought that it was the will of God. The
contract of marriage is the most important that human
beings can make ; but no contract can be so important
as to release one of the parties from the obligation of
performance; and no contract, whether made between
man and woman, or between them and God, after a
failure of consideration caused by the wilful act of the man
or woman, can hold and bind the innocent and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her,
“ Do not touch me; you have no right to beat me ; I
am not your wife.”
About a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in
the indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming en
raged, seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her
eyes. She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliber
ately repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim
totally blind. Would it not have been better if man,
before the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder
whom God had joined together ?
Thousands of
husbands, who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are
beaters of wives.
The law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all Churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one woman. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family ; and
�ROME OR REASON ?
37
back of all your holy mistakes and your sacred ab
surdities is the love of husband and wife, and of parent
and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception, of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of Christianity the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman, made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “fathers” denounced woman as a
perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The
Church worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy,
and had pronounced his curse on woman, and had
declared that she should be the serf of the husband.
This Church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It
taught the uncleanliness of marriage, and insisted that
all children were conceived in sin. This Church pre
tended to have been founded by one who offered a
reward in this world, and eternal joy in the next, to
husbands who would forsake their wives and children
and follow him. Did this tend to the elevation of
woman ? Did this detestable doctrine “ create the purity
and peace of domestic life ? ” Is it true that a monk is
purer than a good and noble father ? that a nun is holier
than a loving mother ?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother s
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most
useful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers
and holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good
and not for the benefit of others. They are earning
eternal glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their
fellow-men, their selfishness is only equalled by their
foolishness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell,
counting beads and saying prayers for the purpose, of
saving his barren soul, with a husband and father sitting
by his fireside with wife and children. Compare the
nun with the mother and her babe.
�38
ROME OR REASON ?
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love_ that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart.
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left
worth living for. The Church. has treated this great,
this sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man.
Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is
selfish, because man does not love God for God’s sake
but for his own.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought
by Christianity in the social, political, and international
relations of the world the root of this ethical change,
private and public, is the Christian home.” A moment
afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is far
better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live, in accordance with the “highest state,” this
generation would be the last. Why were men and
women created ? Why did not the Catholic God com
mence with the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal
ought to take the ground that to talk well is good, but
that to be dumb is the highest condition ; that hearing
is a pleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy ; and that to
think, to reason, is very well, but that to be a Catholic
is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings, and
what is left? The great object should be, not to
destroy passions, but to make them obedient to the
intellect. To indulge passion to the utmost is one form
of intemperance, to destroy passion is another. The
reasonable gratification of passion under the domination
of the intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the
nun, of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct; all were produced by human affection—
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies, and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two
lives unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a
�KOi\iE OR REASON '?
39
melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love
the world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory.
Justice, self-denial, charity, and pity are the children of
love. Lover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home
—these words shed light; they are the gems of human
speech. Without love all glory fades, the noble falls
from life, art dies, music loses meaning and becomes
mere motions of the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Car
dinal then asks: “ Who will ascribe this to natural
causes, and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four
thousand years ?”
If there is in a system of religion"a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature
if this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the
Cardinal that such religion must be of divine origin. Is
it 11 against the tendencies of human nature for a
mother to throw her child into the Ganges to please a
supposed god ? Yet a religion that insisted on that
sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more believers than
the Catholic Church can boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
“ ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know
that man is a conditioned being. We know that he is
affected by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he
is superstitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed,
if he perceives clearly that all things are naturally pro
duced, he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scien
tific. He is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but
a philosopher. He does not worship, he works; he inves
tigates ; he thinks; he takes advantage, through
intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer
the victim of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance,
and the persecutor of his fellow-men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier, than
�4°
fear10^
ROME OR REASON ?
phantom born of ignorance and
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
.What was the world when science came ? What was
it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler ? What
was it when printing was invented ? What was it when
the Western World was found ? Would it not be much
easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
. Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it develops the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah
practically abandoned the children of men for four
thousand years, and gave them over to every -abomina
tion. He claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness
of time,” and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness
of time may mean is one of the mysteries of times and
seasons that it is not for us to know.” Having declared
that it is a mystery, and one that we are not to know,
the Cardinal explains it: “One motive for the long
delay of four thousand years is not far to seek—it gave
time, full and ample, for the utmost development and
consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of which the
intellect and will of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ”?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this develop
ment and consolidation ? What would be thought of a
father who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to
�ROME OR REASON ?
4*
drown a world just for the want of a supernatural
religion ; a religion that man, by no possibility, could
furnish ? Was there “ husbandry in heaven ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is
it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what
man can do without God, and I assert that the history
of the Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted
by a church of divine origin, presided over by the
infallible vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the
test of divine origin. All supernatural religions have
been founded in precisely the same way. The credulity
of eighteen hundred years ago believed everything
except the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of .Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral
nature in all nations and all ages to this day.” What
�42
Rome
or reason
?
becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of
divine origin because “ it has ascended the stream of
human license, contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier
than nature ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone
against the stream. How then can it be said that
Christianity has been in changeless opposition to nature
as man has marred it? To what extent has man
marred it ? In spite of the marring by man, we are
told that the reason and moral nature of all nations in all
aqres to this day is ip harmony with, the religion of Jesus
Christ.
J
Are we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution,
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic:
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by per
secution ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religton.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and Pro
testantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
“ Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to
which no statutes at large or imperial pandects can
�ROME OR REASON ?
43
bear comparison ” ; that “ the world-wide and secular
legislation of the -Church was of a higher character, and
that as water cannot rise above its source, the Church
could not, by mere human wisdom, have corrected and
perfected the imperial law, and therefore its source must
have been higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the
Canon Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most
part, original. In my judgment, the legislation of the
Republic of the United States is in many respects
superior to that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted
to the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that
our Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet the
Canon Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft
to take interest for money. Without the right to take
interest the business of the world would, to a large
extent, cease and the prosperity of mankind end. There
are railways enough in the United States to make six
tracks around the globe, and every mile was built with
borrowed money on which interest was paid or promised.
In no other way could the savings of many thousands
have been brought together and a capital great enough
formed to construct works of such vast and continental
importance.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the
man who had been robbed was not allowed to open his
mouth. A Catholic could enter the house of an un
believer, of a Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before
the eyes of the husband and father murder his wife and
children and the father could not pronounce in the hear
ing of a judge the name of the murderer. The world is
wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite
wisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
�44
ROME OR REASON ?
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour . a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve wit
nesses were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ;
of a deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were
made, not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel to excommunicated
persons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say: “Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever
a garment of fire ? ” Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law
the dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates con
fiscated that is to say, their widowsand orphans robbed.
The most brutal part of the common law of England is
that in relation to the right of woman—all of which was
taken from the Corpus Juris Canonici, “ the law that
came from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by
the pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would
not live with the other who continued still an unbe
liever. Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be
rid of his wife had only to join the Catholic Church,
provided she remained faithful to the religion of her
fathers. Under this divine law, a man marrying a
widow was declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities, and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It
has. been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquary, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of
being witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with
�ROME OR REASON ?
45
devils. Thousands perished at the stake, having been
convicted of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon
Law, there was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy.
A man or woman could be arrested, charged with being
suspected, and under this Canon Law, flowing from the
intellect of infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor
of guilt. The suspected had to prove themselves inno
cent. In all civilised courts, the presumption of inno
cence is the shield of the indicted ; but the Canon Law
took away this shield, and put in the hand of the priest
the sword of presumptive guilt.
If the real Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the true
shepherd of the sheep, this fact should be known not
only to the vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely-founded
and guarded church ought to know its own shepherd,
and yet the Catholic sheep have not always been certain
who the shepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes
—rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual Vicar of Christ and the pretended. This
action was taken because a council, enlightened by the
Holy Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counter
feit. The council then elected another Vicar, whose
authority was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died,
and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted
that he was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he
was deposed, and afterwards imprisoned ; then Gregory
XII. resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole
thing reads like the annals of a South American Revo
lution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great
council John Huss appeared and maintained his own
tenets. The council declared that the Church was not
bound to keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was
condemned and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His
disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted; but, having
relapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed
council shed the blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Eccc Homo for
�46
ROME OR REASON ?
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who
has entered into the formation of speech, which is the
symbol of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively
the origin of civil society ? He who can do these things
can explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says
that the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to
find and describe than that which unites men ; than
that which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union ; no harder to describe than the
origin of civil society, because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
.matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities, and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and swarms.
If we know anything, we know that language is
natural-—that it is a physical science. But if we take
the ground occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that
everything that cannot be accounted for by man is
supernatural. Let me ask, by what man ? What
man must we take as the standard ?
Cosmos or
Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or Darwin ? If everything that
we cannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is
the test of the supernatural. The man who is mentally
honest stops where his knowledge stops. At that point
he says that he does not know. Such a man is a philo
sopher. Then the theologian steps forward, denounces
the modesty of the philosopher as blasphemy, and pro
ceeds to tell what is beyond the horizon of the human
intellect.
Could a savage account for the telegraph or the tele
phone by natural causes ? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
�ROME OR REASON ?
47
Bek nping to no rival Church, I have not the slightest
interest in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow
■and insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is unfortu
nately lost, contained either rd —pun-eca, or some inflection
of 7rpwT€t'w, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop
of Rome rests on some “inflection” of a Greek word,
and that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed
to have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the fol
lowing ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out : ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ” Is it pos
sible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have
been a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen
from the following statement concerning this Father :
“When any heretical doctrine was spoken in his
presence he would stop his ears.” After this, there can
be no question of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that
Polycarp was a martyr—that a spear was run through
his body, and that from the wound his soul, in the shape
of a bird, flew away. The history of his death is just
as true as the history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
�48
ROME OR REASON’ ?
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if one
of his “ inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. All of these Fathers were familiar with
wonders and impossibilities. N othing was so common
with them as to work miracles-, and on many occasions
they not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order
of nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles
said, or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There
were many centuries filled with forgeries, many genera
tions in which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased,
obliterated, and interpolated the records of the past,
during which they invented books, invented authors, and
quoted from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the
slightest value. They believed everything, they examined
nothing. They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever accepts their testimony will exclaim with the
Cardinal: “ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
PUBLISHED
EVERY
THURSDAY.
THE FREETHINKER
One of Liveliest and Most Outspoken Journals
in the World.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
SPECIMEN COPY POST FREE.
Send for a CATALOGUE of the Freethought
Publishing Company’s Publications. Post Free.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 48 p. ; 19 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. First published: London: Progressive Publishing Company, 1888. No. 65b 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
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N391
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f3d3fa9c261062655f6f78dba7ebd9e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sKYtST8PTxKAfq42i92vWV0rkMLm0mHsVy2t%7E89gSa2f2-l4PVpfPhNVK6n95iReMs%7EKNi53TDnFadCwvm%7E3dA2awbUDgkJ1S19x%7EQMEcIMTZDSkzjhu6dLc8kZ4a%7EtezJ1Dy727SSHZWrAyaprE8QoIRbAA1ll2tb1HWt5ysHJcoDk-hcgB6zp4pve5NNkIEBTcd7Q1vzTc3egGPvwvbdBfYHY%7ERbp1FiQkwZoxUi9bfmBhyf1AQ%7Ee47F4IfOEhOsarYveaOgTQ8Bgh5x94flj5awsUnsoam-BNt7%7E06phBdbsO5aIqfXLA6kCAb1DVfc68kyd7mQVKq0OKg9i8DA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e8f27ac8093d5c12985dae562ffc105a
PDF Text
Text
P
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD AND THE STATE
BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Verbatim from the New York “ Arena."
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�KT5S3
GOD AND THE STATE.
All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
In this country it is admitted that the power to govern
resides in the people themselves ; that they are the
only rightful source of authority. For many centuries
before the formation of our government, before the
promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the
people had but little voice in the affairs of nations.
The source of authority was not in this world ; kings
were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre
was not held by the consent of the governed. The
king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that
reason was not accountable to the people for the
exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people
obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner,
the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of
earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. God
was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law,
and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth, whose
will was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings
to do his will, and the king on earth had certain
favorites and officers to do his. These officers were
accountable to him, and he was responsible to God.
The feudal system was supposed to be in accordance
with the divine plan. The people were not governed
by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by
rewards and punishments. No effort was made to
enlighten the common people; no one thought of
educating a peasant—of developing the mind of a
�( 4 )
laborer. The people were created to support thrones
and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey—to
work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts
and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children
must expect no more. In the presence of the king
they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they
grovelled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided
his earnings with the state, because he imagined it
protected his body ; he divided his crust with the
church, believing it protected his soul. He was the
prey of throne and altar—one deformed his body, the
other his mind—and these two vultures fed upon his
toil. He was taught by the king to hate the people of
other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers
in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all
people except his own. He had no sympathy with the
peasants of other lands enslaved and plundered like
himself. He was kept in ignorance, because education
is the enemy of superstition, and because education is
the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.
The intelligent and good man holds in his affections
the good and true of every land—the boundaries of
countries are not the limitations of his sympathies.
Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who
speak other languages and worship other gods.
Between him and those that suffer, there is no
impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the
hand of friendship to the human race. He does not
bow before a provincial and patriotic God—one who
protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of
mankind.
Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has
insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God,
and that it alone had the true religion—that the gods
of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other
religions were wicked, ignorant, and absurd. In this
way the seeds of hatred have been sown, and in this
way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have
had no sympathy with those of a different complexion,
with those that knelt at other altars and expressed
their thoughts in other words—and even a difference
in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others.
�( 5 )
Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the
excuse for hatred.
The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by
commerce, People became somewhat acquainted, and
they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly
distributed.
At last subjects became somewhat
acquainted with kings—peasants had the pleasure of
gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the
differences were mostly in rags and names.
In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods
from politics. They declared that “ all governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.” This was a contradiction, of the then
political ideas of the world ; it was, as many believed,
an act of pure blasphemy—a renunciation of the deity.
It was in fact, a declaration of the independence of
the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests
that thereafter mankind would govern and protect
themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and
denied the authority of every “sacred book,” and
appealed from the providence of God to the Providence
of Man.
Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a
Constitution for the great Republic.
What was the office or purpose of that Constitution ?
Admitting that all power came from the people, it
was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for
the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people ;
and second, it was proper and convenient to designate
certain departments that should exercise certain powers
of the government. There must be the legislative, the
judicial, and the executive department. Those who
make laws should not execute them. Those who
execute laws should not have the power of absolutely
determining their meaning or their constitutionality.
For these reasons, among others, a constitution was
adopted.
The constitution also contained a declaration of
rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so
that in the excitement of passion men shall not go
beyond the point designated in the calm moment of
reason.
�( 6 )
When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject
to reason, it is well he should define the limits of
power, so that the waves driven by the storm of
passion shall not overbear the shore.
A constitution is for the government of man in this
world. It is the chain the people put upon their
servants as upon themselves. It defines the limit of
power and the limit of obedience.
It follows, then, that nothing should be in a consti
tution that cannot be enforced by the power of the
state—that is, by the army and navy. Behind every
provision of the constitution should stand the force of
the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon
should be there.
Suppose, then, that we amend the constitution and
acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God—
what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how
is this amendment to be enforced ? A constitution
does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by
appropriate legislation. Will it be a crime to deny
the existence of this Constitutional God ? Can the
offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts ?
Can his lips be closed by the power of the state ?
Would not this be the inauguration of religious
persecution ?
And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God
in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as
to which God is to have this honor. Shall we select
the God of the Catholics—he who has established an
infallible church presided over by an infallible pope,
and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and
placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common
Latin ? Is it the God of the Presbyterian, with the
Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough
to harmonise necessity and responsibility, and who
in some way justifies himself for damning most of
his own children ? Is it the God of the Puritan, the
enemy of joy—of the Baptist, who is great enough
to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the
destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it
inhabited was immersed or sprinkled ?
�( 7 )
What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution ?
Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a
believer in slavery and who justified polygamy ? If
slavery was right then, it is right now ; and if Jehovah
was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we
to have the God who issued a commandment against
all art—who was the enemy of investigation and of
free speech? Is it the God who commanded the
husband to stone his wife to death because she differed
with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have
a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish
hundreds of offences with death ? What court, what
tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who
is to make known his will ? In his presence laws
passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of
courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known
the will of this supreme God? Will there be a
supreme tribunal composed of priests ?
Of course all persons elected to office will either
swear or affirm to support the Constitution. Men who
do not believe in this God, cannot so swear or affirm.
Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of
trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not inter
fere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a
provision will only exclude honest and conscientious
believers. Intelligent people know that no one knows
whether there is a God or not. The existence of such
a being is merely a matter of opinion. Men who
believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die
for the honor of their country, will be excluded from
taking any part in the administration of its affairs.
Such a provision would place the country under the
feet of priests.
To recognise a deity in the organic law of our
country would be the destruction of religious liberty.
The God in the Constitution would have to be pro
tected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws
against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against
carrying books and papers in the mails, in which this
constitutional God should be attacked. Our land
would be filled with theological spies, with religious
eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the
�( 8 )
lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious authority,
would uncoil and crawl.
It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the
lawful and rightful governor of nations—the one who
ordained the powers that be. If this God is really the
governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge
him in the Constitution. This would not add to his
power. If he governs all nations now, he has always
controlled the affairs of men. Having this control,
why did he not see to it that he was recognised in the
Constitution of the United States ? If he had the
supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the
Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evidence
that he did not desire to be there ?
For one, I am not in favor of the God who has
“ ordained the powers that be.” What have we to say
of Russia—of Siberia ? What can we say of the per
secuted and enslaved ? What of the kings and nobles
who live on the stolen labors of others ? What of the
priest and cardinal and pope, who wrest even from the
hand of poverty the single coin thrice earned ?
Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitu
tional amendment?
The “Confederate States” ac
knowledged God in their constitution, and yet they
were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law
no reference to God is made. All the kings of the
earth acknowledge the existence of God, and God is
their ally ; and this belief in God is used as a means to
enslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people
whom they call their subjects.
The government of the United States is secular.
It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a
government with which God has nothing whatever to
do—and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the
fundamental fact that the people are the source of
authority, should be abandoned. In this country there
should be no oaths—no man should be sworn to tell
the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal
to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath
appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant
jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness
should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should
�( 9 )
be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and
Presidents should not issue religious proclamations.
They should not call upon the people to thank God. It
is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and
beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States to justify this
religious impertinence.
For many years priests have attempted to give to our
government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded
in putting the legend upon our money : “ In God we
Trust
and we have chaplains in the army and navy,
and legislative proceedings are usually opened with
prayer.
All this is contrary to the genius of the Re
public, contrary to the Declaration of Independence,
and contrary really to the Constitution of the United
States. We have taken the ground that the people can
govern themselves without the assistance of any super
natural power. We have taken the position that the
people are the real and only rightful source of authority.
We have solemnly declared that the people must
determine what is politically right and what is wrong
and that their legally expressed will is the supreme
law. This leaves no room for national superstition—
no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings—
and this does away with the necessity for political
prayers.
The government of God has been tried. It was tried
in Palestine several thousand years ago, and the God of
the Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and
the people governed by this God lost their nationality.
Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God
was the governor—the Pope was his agent, and every
priest and bishop and cardinal was armed with cre
dentials from the most high—and the result was that
the noblest and best were in prisons, the greatest and
grandest perished at the stake. The result was that
vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped
naked through the streets.
The result was that
hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while
honesty languished in the dungeons of the Inquisi
tion.
�( 10 )
The government of God was tried in Geneva when
John Calvin was his representative ; and under this
government of God the flames climbed around the
limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus,
because he dared to express an honest thought. This
government of God was tried in Scotland, and the
seeds of theological hatred were sown that bore,
through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and
assassination. This government of God was established
in New England, and the result was that Quakers were
hanged or burnt—the laws of Moses re-enacted and the
■“ witch was not suffered to live.” The result was that
investigation was a crime, and the expression of an
honest thought a capital offence. This government of
God was established in Spain, and the Jews were
expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were
exterminated, and nothing left but the ignorant and
bankrupt worshippers of this monster. This govern
ment of God was tried in the United States,when slavery
was regarded as a divine institution, when men and
women were regarded as criminals because they sought
for liberty by flight, and when others were regarded
as criminals because they gave them food and shelter.
The pulpit of that day defended the buying and
selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave
traders were filled with passages of scripture defending
and upholding the traffic in human flesh.
We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the
century of man. Every effort to really better the con
dition of mankind has been opposed by the worship
pers of some God. The church in all ages and among
all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human
race. Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the
liberty of thought and expression. It has been the
«worn enemy of investigation and of intellectual de
velopment. It has denied the existence of facts the
tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has
always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.
It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the
dungeon for thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church
is as much opposed as it ever was, to the mental free
dom of the human race.
�(11)
Of course there is a distinction made between
churches and individual members. There have been
millions of Christians who have been believers in
liberty and the freedom of expression—millions who
have fought for the rights of man—but churches as
organisations have been on the other side. It is true
that churches have fought churches—the Protestants
battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased
to call the freedom of conscience ; and it is also true
that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil
power, they denied this freedom of conscience to
Others.
Let me show you the difference between the theo
logical and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred
years ago, one of the noblest of the human race,
Giordano Bruno, was burnt at Rome by the Catholic
church—that is to say by the “ Thriumphant Beast.”
This man had committed certain crimes—he had
publicly stated that there were other worlds than
this —other constellations than ours. He had ventured
the supposition that other planets might be peopled.
More than this, and worse than this, he had asserted the
heliocentric theory—that the earth made its annual
journey about the sun. He had also given it as his
opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was
found unworthy to live, and about his body were piled
the fagots of the Catholic church. This man, this
genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth
century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The
Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They
take into consideration the ignorance and brutality of
the times.
They remember then the world was
governed by a God who was then the source of all
authority.
This is the charity of Infidelity—of
philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless,
is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for
the murdered.
This is the difference between Theocracy and
Democracy—between God and man.
If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must
abdicate. There is no room for both. If the people of
the great republic become superstitious enough and
�( 12 )
ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the
United States, the experiment of self-government will
have failed, and the great and splendid declaration
that “ all governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed ” will have been denied,
and in its place will be found this : All power comes
from God ; priests are his agents, and the people are
their slaves.
Religion is an individual matter, and each soul
should be left entirely free to form its own opinions
and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme
being. With religion, government has nothing what
ever to do. Government is founded upon force, and
force should never interfere with the religious opinions
of men. Laws should define the rights of men and
their duties toward each other, and these laws should
be for the benefit of man in this world.
A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel—a
nation is incapable of having opinions upon these
subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all the citizens
go to heaven ? If it is not, will they all be damned ?
Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens
composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and
they may call the nation what they please. A nation
is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying “ it has
no soul.” There can be no such thing as a Christian
Corporation. Several Christians may form a corpora
tion, but it can hardly be said that the corporation
thus formed was included in the atonement. For
instance : seven Christians form a corporation—that is
to say, there are seven natural persons and one
artificial—can it be said that there are eight souls to
be saved ?
No human being has brain enough, or knowledge
enough, or experience enough, to say whether there is,
or is not, a God. Into this darkness science has not
yet carried its torch. No human being has gone
beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence
of the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much,
and exactly as little as another. Upon this question,
chimpanzees, and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon
exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only
�( 13 )
by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar with
this subject as the greatest genius that has been
produced by the human race.
Governments and laws are for the preservation of
rights and the regulation of conduct. One man should
not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another.
In the metaphysical world there should be no inter
ference whatever. The same is true in the world of
art. Laws cannot regulate what is, or what is not,
music—what is or what is not beautiful—and constitu
tions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfec
tion of statues, the value of paintings, or the glory and
subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions
the brain will think. In every direction consistent
with the well-being and peace of society, there should
be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt
the theology of another ; neither should a minority
however small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions
of a majority, however large.
If there be an infinite being, he does not need our
help—we need not waste our energies in his defence.
It is enough for us to give to every other human being
the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may
not be a supreme ruler of the universe—but we are
certain that man exists, and we believe that freedom is
the condition of progress, that it is the sunshine of the
mental and moral world, and that without it man will
go back to the den of savagery and will become the
fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts
We have tried the government of priests, and we
know that such governments are without mercy. In
the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of
torture have been invented. If any man wishes to
have God recognised in the Constitution of our country,
let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him
remember that hundreds of millions of men, women,
and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath
nr win the approbation of this God.
There has been in our country a divorce of Church
and State. This follows as a natural sequence of the
declaration that “ governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed.” The priest was no
�( 14 )
longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction
of the principle on which the Republic was founded.
He represented, not the authority of the people, but of
some “power from on high,” and to recognise this
other power was inconsistent with free government.
The founders of the Republic at that time parted com
pany with the priests, and said to them : “ Y ou may
turn your attention to the other world—we will attend
to the affairs of this.” Equal liberty was given to all.
But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this ; he
wishes to destroy the liberty of the people ; he wishes
a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to
the end that the Church may become the supreme
power.
But the sun will not be turned backward. The
people of the United States are intelligent. They no
longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion.
They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels
of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free
school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They
are believers in education, in the free play of thought,
and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian,
is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the
astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of
the black art.
We have already compared the benefits of theology
and Science. When the theologian governed the world,
it was covered with huts and hovels for the many,
palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the
children of men reading and writing were unknown
arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins—they
devoured crusts and gnawed bones. The day of
Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are
the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks
of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies
than the princes and kings of the theological times.
But above and over all of this, is the development of
the mind. There is more of value in the brain of an
average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a
chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there
was in the brain of the world four hundred years
ago.
�( 15 )
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These
benefits did not crop from the outstretched hands of
priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind
altars—neither were they searched for with holy
candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes
of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious
supplication. They are the children of freedom, the
gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for
them all man is indebted to man.
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of
Lincoln : Let us insist that this, the Republic, is
“ a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.”
�Works by Colonel Ingersoll.
Mistakes of Moses
...
...
...
Superior edition, in cloth
...
...
Only complete edition published in England.
i o
i 6
Defence of Freethought
...
...
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds
for Blasphemy.
. Reply to Gladstone
...
...
With Biography by J. M. Wheeler,
...
0 4
Rome or Reason ? Reply to Cardinal Manning
0 4
Faith, and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
0 2
Second Reply to Dr. Field ...
0 2
God and Man.
The Dying Creed
...
The Household of Faith
...
...
0
2
...
...
0
2
...
0
2
The Limits of Toleration
...
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Courdert
and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
...
...
0 2
Marriage and Divorce...
...
...
0 2
Do I Blaspheme?
...
...
0 2
The Clergy & Common Sense...
...
Art and Morality
...
...
0
2
Social Salvation
...
...
...
0 2
The Great Mistake
...
...
' ...
0 1
Live Topics
... *
...
...
0 1
Myth and Miracle
...
...
...
0 1
Real Blasphemy
...
...
...
0 1
...
Progressive Publishing Company, 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
God and the state
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: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the New York "Arena." "Works by Colonel Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 27d in Stein checklist, but with different date and pagination (later printing?). 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
N353
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (God and the state), 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
Church and State
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3a55afd5027b32e51ae48c052b7eb1a1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fHUxftGhAnA4jUifOoWkDwH8%7ECR2RwRTM5UXP9QAMSG6SbowcI%7Ekt2%7ExT3HBPmSHgoPuKMeigVO3mmGpisDUNfJ3tsRC-igBMg749YU31N%7EfQoiRytaUqBYTopPKTEKOlXyuoOwwUO9FBx2OMWgSp7Jvdx4x5-1vI2wdYu08%7EfjuOvngkagCaHVGbq9%7E2rK0L1BGL8OYRJ6skbL0OqKA%7E4o-vTILx3iHIoJ4179LFFFzZjbZMnJAgA10i2bdKrvOZLxrvPMRqLpiVDSoaoP%7E-ODysHAW3FJ7JkxfZ%7EsFxOZOh36JbTEOxQMaoqYymLvTBttTtxTXYidB3fpaAd7Uhg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
edc589305a0d8a533d585ce160e5889b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SPOTT
a r»
'A-i
SALVATION
"V A>
Here
and
Hereafter
£1 Uecture
DELIVERED TO IMMENSE AUDIENCES IN THE
UNITED STATES
BV
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
plb
Grade supplied bp
JOHN HEYWOOD
RIDGEFIELD, JOHN DALTON STREET, MANCHESTER
ii PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, LONDON
ONE PENNY
�DISCOURSES BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES,
GODS: PAST AND PRESENT.
GREAT INFIDELS,
.3d.
HOW GODS GROW,
.
SALVATION: HERE AND HEREAFTER,
.
.
Id.
I
.
Id.
1
Id.
.
SPIRIT OF THE AGE; OR, MODERN THINKERS,
.
Id.
COLONEL INGERSOLL AT HOME—a Biography,
Id.
HELL,
2d.
.......
2d.
PROSE POEMS : Spoken on Memorable Occasions,
i
REPLY TO MR TALMAGE ON BLASPHEMY, &c.,
GHOSTS,
.
;
.
(handsome edition)
2d.
6d.
�62-7*#
SALVATION: HERE AND HEREAFTER.
Ladies and Gentlemen,—The history of the world shows
that religion, has made enemies instead of friends. That one
word “ religion ” paints the sky of the past with every form
of agony and torture. When we pronounce the word religion
we think of 1500 years of persecution, of 6000 years of
hatred, slander, and vituperation. Strange, but true, that
those who have loved God most have loved men least;
strange that in countries where there has been the most
religion there has been the most agony; and that is one
reason why I am opposed to what is known as religion.
By religion I mean the duties that men are supposed to owe
to God : by religion I mean, not what man owes to man,
but what we owe to some invisible, infinite, and Supreme
Being.
The question arises : Can any relation exist between finite
man and infinite being ? An infinite being cannot receive;
a finite being cannot give to an infinite one. Can I increase
his happiness or decrease his misery ? Does he need my
strength or my life? What can I do for him? I say,
nothing. For one, I do not believe in serving God, or that
there is any God who gives rain or sunshine for praying.
For one, I do not believe there is any being who helps man
simply because he kneels. I may be mistaken, but that is
my doctrine; that the finite cannot by any possibility help
the infinite or the infinite be indebted to the finite; that the
finite cannot by any possibility assist a being who is all in
all. What can we do ? We can help man; we can help to
clothe the naked; feed the hungry • we can help to break the
chains of the slave j we can help to weave a garment of joy
�4
Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
that will finally cover this world. That is all that man can do.
Wherever he has endeavoured to do more he has simply in
creased the misery of his fellows. My unaided reasoning does
not carry me beyond the limits of this life, but if there is an
infinite God and I have not reason enough to comprehend His
universe, whose fault is it ?
I am told that we have the inspired will of God. I do not
know exactly what is meant by inspired. Not two sects
agree on that word. Some tell me that every great work is in
spired, that Shakspeare is inspired. I would be less apt to dis
pute that than a similar remark about any other book on this
earth. If Jehovah wanted a book written, the inspiration
of which should not be disputed, he should have waited
until Shakspeare lived. Whatever theologians mean by
inspiration they at least mean that it is true. If it is true,
it does not need to be inspired. The truth will take care
of itself. Nothing except a falsehood needs inspiration.
What is inspiration ? A man looks at the sea and the sea
says something to him. Another man looks at the same sea,
and the sea tells another story to him. The sea cannot tell
the same story to any two human beings. There is not a
.thing in nature, from a pebble to a constellation, that tells
the same story to any two human beings. It depends upon
the man’s experience, his intellectual development, and what
chord of memory is touched. One looks upon the sea and
is filled with grief ; another looks upon it and laughs. Last
year, riding in the cars from Boston to Portsmouth, sat
opposite me a lady and gentleman. As we reached the latter
place the woman, for the first time in her life, caught a burst
of the sea, and she looked and said to her husband : “ Isn’t
that beautiful,” and he looked and said: “I’ll bet you can
dig clams right there.”
Another illustration. A little while ago a gentleman was
walking with another in South Carolina, at Charleston,
one who had been upon the other side. Said the Northerner
to the Southerner, “ Did you ever see such a night as this;
did you ever in your life see such a moon ? ” “ Ob my
God,” replied the Southerner, “ You ought to have seen that
moon before the war.” I simply say these things to convince
�Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
5
you that everything in nature has a different story to tell
every human being. So the Bible tells a different story to
every man that reads it. History proves what I say. Why
so many sects ? Why so much persecution ? Simply because
two people couldn’t understand the Bible exactly alike. You
may reply that God intended it should be understood in such
and such a way, but that decides nothing.
For instance, I write a letter to Smith ; I want to convey
>to him certain thoughts. If I am honest, I will use the
words which will convey to him my thoughts,, but not
being infinite I don’t know exactly how Smith will under
stand my words ; but if I were infinite I would be bound
to use the words that I know Smith would get my exact
idea from. If God intended to make a revelation to me
he has to make it to me through my brain and my reason
ing. He cannot make a revelation to another man for me.
That other man will have God’s word for it, but I will only
have that man’s word for it. As that man has been dead
for several thousand years, and as I don’t know what his
reputation was for truth and veracity in the neighbourhood
in which he lived, I will wait for the Lord to speak again.
Suppose when I read the Bible, the revelation to me, through
the Bible, is that it is not true, and God knew that this
would be the result of my reading, and knew that if I did
not make known this result I would be dishonest, is it pos
sible that he would damn me for being honest, and give me
wings if I would play the hypocrite ? The inspiration of
the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who
reads it.
They tell me this book was written by the Creator of
every shining star. Now let us see. I want to be honest
and candid. I have just as much at stake in the way of soul
as any doctor of divinity that ever lived, and more than
some I have met. According to this book, the first attempt
at peopling the world was a failure. God had to destroy all
but eight. He saved some of the same kind to start again,
which I think was a mistake. After that, the people still
getting worse, he selected from the wide world a few of the
tribe of Abraham. He had no time to waste with everybody.
�6
Salvation: Here and Hereafter.
He had no time to throw away on Egypt. It had at that
time a vast and splendid civilization, in which there were
free schools; in which the one man married the one wife ;
where there were courts of law; where there were codes of
laws.
Neither could he give attention to India, which had at
that time a literature as splendid almost as ours, a language
as perfect, which had produced poets, philosophers, statesmen.
He had no time to waste with them, hut took a few of the
tribe of Abraham, and did his best to civilise these people.
He was their Governor, their Executive, their Supreme Court.
He established a despotism, and from Mount Sinai he pro
claimed his laws. They didn’t pay much attention to them.
He wrought thousands of miracles to convince them that he
was a God. Isn’t it perfectly wonderful that the priest of
one religion never believes the miracle told by the priest of
another ? Is it possible that they know each other ? I heard
a story the other day. A gentleman was telling a very
remarkable circumstance that happened to himself, and all
the listeners except one said, “ Is it possible; did you ever
hear such a wonderful thing in all your life ? ” They noticed
that this one man didn’t appear to take a vivid interest in
the story, so one said to him, “ You don’t express much
astonishment at the story ? ” “ No,” says he, “I am a liar
myself.”
I find by reading this book that a worse government was
never established than that established by Jehovah; that the
Jews were the most unfortunate people who lived upon the
globe. In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but
passionately asserted, that slavery is an infamous crime ; that
a war of extermination is murder; that polygamy enslaves
woman, degrades man, and destroys home; that nothing is
more infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men and help
less women and of prattling babes; that the captured maiden
should not be given to her captors ; that wives should not be
stoned to death for differing in religion from their husbands.
We know there was a time in the history of most nations
when all these crimes were regarded as divine institutions.
Nations entertaining these views to-day are called savage,.
�Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
7 '
and with the exception of the Fiji Islanders, some tribes in
Central Africa, no human being can be found degraded enough
to agree upon those subjects with Jehovah.
To-day the fact that a nation has abolished and abandoned
those beliefs and practices is the only evidence that it
can offer to show that it is not still barbarous. But a be
liever in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to say
there was a time when slavery was right, when polygamy was
the highest form of virtue, when wars of extermination were
waged with the sword of mercy, and when the Creator of the
whole world commanded the soldier to sheathe the dagger of
murder in the dimpled breast of infancy. The believer in
inspiration of the Bible is compelled to say there was a time
when it was right for a husband to murder his wife because
they differed upon subjects of religion. I deny that such a
time ever was. If I knew the real God said it, I would still
deny it. Four thousand years ago, if the Bible is true, God
was in favour of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination,
and religious persecution. Now we are told the devil is in
favour of all those things, and God is opposed to them; in
other words, the devil stands now where God stood 4000
years ago; yet I am assured God is just as good now as he
was then, and the devil just as abominably bad now as
lod was then. Other nations believed in slavery, poly
gamy, and war and persecution, without ever having received
oie ray of light from heaven. That shows that a special
rvelation is not necessary to teach a man to do wrong.
Gher nations did no worse without the Bible than the Jews
di with it. Suppose the devil had inspired a book. In
wat respect would he have differed from God on the subject
of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious
peiecution ? Suppose we knew that after God had finished
hisbook the devil had gotten possession of it, and wrote a
fewpassages to suit himself, which passages, 0 Christian,
word you pick out now as having probably been written by
the levil ? which of these two, “ Love thy neighbour as
thysif,” or “ Kill all the males among the little ones, and
kill ^ery man, but all the women and girls keep alive for
your^.ves,”—which of those two passages would you select
�8
Salvation: Here and Hereafter.
as having been written by the devil ? If God wrote the last,
there is no need of a devil.
Is there a Christian in the wide world who does not wish
that God, from the thunder and lightning of Sinai, had said :
“ You shall not enslave your fellow-man ” ? But they feay
God did the best he could; that the Jews were so bad that
he had to come up kind of slow. If he had told them sud
denly they must not murder and steal, they would not hare
paid any respect to the Ten Commandments. Suppose you
go to the Cannibal Islands to prevent the gentlemen there
from eating missionaries, and you find they ate them rav.
The first move is to induce them to cook them. After you
get them to eat cooked missionaries, you will then, without
their knowing it, occasionally slip in a little mutton. You
will go on gradually decreasing missionaries and increasing
mutton, until finally the Islanders will be so cultivated tha,
they will prefer the sheep to the priest. I think the mis
sionaries would object to that mode, of course.
I know this book was written by the Jews themselves.
If they were to write it to-day it would be different. They
are a civilized people. I do not wish it understood that a
word I say to-night touches the slightest prejudice in any
man’s mind against the Jewish people. They are as good a/
people as live to-day. I will say right here, they ne ver had
any luck until Jehovah abandoned them.
Now we come to the New Testament. Theologians clain
that is better than the Old. I say it is worse. The gres'
objection to the Old Testament is that it is cruel, but in th
Old Testament the revenge of God stopped with the portgs
of the tomb. He never threatened punishment after death
He never threatened one thing beyond the grave. It
reserved for the New Testament to make known the doctine
of eternal punishment.
Is the New Testament inspired ? I have not time to ive
many reasons, but I will give some. In the first placet is
argued, that the very fact the witnesses disagree in nhor
matters shows that they have not conspired to tell the time
story. Good. And I say in every lawsuit where if or
five witnesses testify, or endeavour to testify, to the same ting,
�Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
9
it is natural that they should differ on minor points. Why '?
Because no two occupy exactly the same position; no two see
exactly alike ; no two remember precisely the same, and their
disagreement is due to and accounted for by the imperfection
of human nature, and the fact that they did not all have an
equal opportunity to know. But if you admit or say that the
four witnesses were inspired by an infinite being who did see
it all, then they should remember all the same, because inspi
ration does not depend on memory.
That brings me to another point. Why were there four
gospels 1 What is the use of more than one correct account
of any thing ? If you want to spread it send copies. No
human being has got the ingenuity to tell me why there were
four gospels when one correct gospel would have been enough.
Why should there not have been four original multiplication
tables ? One is enough, and if anybody has got any use for
it he can copy that one. The very fact that we have got four
gospels shows that the book is not inspired.
The next point is that according to the New Testament the
salvation of the world depends upon the atonement. Only
one of the books in the New Testament says anything about
that, and that is John. The Church followed John, and
it ought to follow John, because the Church wrote that book
called John. According to that the whole world was to
be damned on account of the sins of one man; and that
absurdity was the father and mother of another absurdity,
that the whole world could be saved on account of the virtue
of another man. I deny both propositions. No man can
sin for me; no man can be virtuous for me; I must reap
what 1 sow. But they say the law must be satisfied. What
kind of a law is it that would demand punishment of the
innocent ? Just think of it. Here is a man about to be
hanged, and another comes up and says : “ That man has
got a family, and I have not; that man is in good health,
and I am not well, and I will be hung in his place.’’ And
the Governor says, “ All right. There has a murder been
committed, and we have got to have a hanging,—we don’t
care who.” Under the Mosaic dispensation there was no
remission of sins without the shedding of blood. If a man
�IO
Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
committed a murder he brought a pair of doves or a sheep to
the priest, and the priest laid his hands on the animal, and
the sins of the man were transferred to the animal. You see
how that could be done easy enough. Then they killed the
animal, and sprinkled its blood on the altar.
That let the
man off. And why did God demand the sacrifice of a sheep ?
I will tell you: because priests love mutton. To make the
innocent suffer is the greatest crime. I don’t wish to go to
heaven on the virtues of somebody else. If I can’t settle by
the books and go, I don’t wish to go. I don’t want to feel as
if I was there on sufferance,—that I was in the poorhouse of
the universe, supported by the town.
We are told Judas betrayed Christ. Well, if Christ had
not been betrayed no atonement would have been made,
and then every human soul, according to the dispensation,
would have been damned, and heaven would have been to
let. Supposing that Judas knew the Christian system, then
perhaps he thought that by betraying Christ he could get
forgiven not only for the sins that he had already committed,
but for the sin of betrayal, and if, on the way to Calvary, and
later, some brave, heroic soul had rescued Christ from the
mob, he would have made his own damnation sure. It won’t
do. There is no logic in that. They say God tried to civi
lize the Jews. If he had succeeded, according to the Christian
system, we all would have been damned, because if the Jews
had been civilized they would not have crucified Christ.
They would have believed in freedom of speech, and as a
result the world would have been lost for 2000 years. The
Christian world has been trying to explain the atonement,
and they have always ended by failing to explain it.
Now I come to the second objection, which is that a certain
belief is necessary to salvation. I will believe according to
the evidence. In my mind are certain scales which weigh
everything, and my integrity stands there and knows which
side goes up and which side goes down. If I am an honest man.
I will report the weights like an honest man. They say I must
believe a certain thing or I will be eternally damned. They
tell me that to believe is the safer way. I deny it. The safest
thing you can do is to be honest. No man, when the shadows
�Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
11
of the last hours were gathering around him, ever wished
that he had lived the life of a hypocrite. If I find at the
day of judgment that I have been mistaken, I will say so like
a man. If God tells me then that he is the author of the Old
Testament, I will admit that he is worse than I thought he
was, and when he comes to pronounce sentence upon me I
will say to him : do unto others as you would that others
should do unto you. I have a right to think, I cannot con
trol my belief; my brain is my castle, and if I don’t defend
it, my soul becomes a slave and a serf. If you throw away
your reason, your soul is not worth saving. Salvation depends
not upon belief, but upon deed—upon kindness, upon justice,
upon mercy. Your own deeds are your saviour, and you
can be saved in no other way. I am told in this Testament
to love my enemies. I cannot; I will not. I don’t hate
enemies ; I don’t wish to injure enemies, but I don’t care
about seeing them. I don’t like them. I love my friends,
and the man who loves enemies and friends loves me. The
doctrine of non-resistance is born of weakness. The man
that first said it, said it because it was the best he could do
under the circumstances. While the Church said love your
enemies, in her sacred vestments gleamed the daggers of
assassination. With her cunning hand she placed the crown
upon the brow of crime. For more than 1000 years larceny
held the scales of justice and hypocrisy wore the mitre, and
the tiara of Christ. He knew of the future, he knew what
crimes and horrors would be committed in his sacred name.
He knew the fires of persecution would climb around the
limbs of countless martyrs, that brave men and women would
languish in dungeons and darkness, that the Church would
use instruments of torture, that in his name his followers
would trade in human flesh, that cradles would be robbed
and women’s breasts unbabed for gold, and yet he died with
voiceless lips. If Christ was God, why did he not tell his
disciples, and through them the world, man shall not per
secute his fellow-man? Why didn’t he say, “lam God”?
why didn’t he explain the doctrine of the Trinity ? why didn’t
he tell what manner of baptism was pleasing to him ? why
didn’t he say the Old Testament is true? why didn’t he
�I2
Salvation: Here and Hereafter.
write his Testament himself ? why did he leave his words
to accident, to ignorance, to malice, and to chance 1 Why
didn’t he say something positive, definite, satisfactory about
another world ? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope
of immortality to the glad knowledge of another life ? Why
did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery
and to doubt ? Because he was a man.
I care not for salvation hereafter. I contend that no God
has a right to create a man who has to be eternally damned.
Infinite wisdom has no right to make a failure, and a man
that is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous success.
Infinite wisdom has no right to make an instrument that will
not finally pay a dividend. No God has a right to add to the
agony of this universe, and yet around the angels of immor
tality Christianity has coiled this serpent of eternal pain.
Upon love’s breast the Church has placed that asp, and yet
talks to me about the consolations of religion.
A few days ago the bark Tiger foundered upon the wide
sea 126 days from Liverpool. For nine days not a mouthful
of food or a drop of water was to be had. There were on
board the captain, mate, and eleven men. When they had
been out 117 days they killed the captain’s dog.
Nine days more—no food, no water. Capt. Kruger stood
upon the deck in the presence of his starving crew, with a
revolver in his hand; he put it upon his temple, and said,
“ Boys, this can’t last much longer; I am willing to die to
save the rest of you.” The mate grasped the revolver, and said,
wait; and the next day upon the horizon of despair rose the
smoke of the ship which rescued them. Do you tell me
to-night if Capt. Kruger was not a Christian and he had sent
that ball crashing through his generous brain that there was
an Almighty waiting to clutch his naked soul that he might
damn him for ever 1
The fact is we have civilized God. We make our own God,
and we make him better day by day. Some honest people
really believe that in some wonderful way we are indebted to
Moses for geology, to Joshua for astronomy and military
tactics, to Samson for weapons of war, to Daniel for holy
curses, to Solomon for the art of cross-examination, to Jonah
�Salvation: Here and Hereafter.
13
for the science of navigation, to St Paul for steamships and
locomotives, to the four Gospels for telegraphs, and sewingmachines, to the Apocalypse for looms, saw-mills, and tele
phones ; and that to the Sermon on the Mount we are indebted
for mortars and Krupp guns. We are told that no nation
has ever been civilized without a Bible. The Jews had one,
and yet they crucified a perfectly innocent man. They
couldn’t have done much worse without a Bible.
Take from the Bible the barbarities, the absurdities,
the miracles, and I admit that the good passages are true. If
they are true they don’t need to be inspired. Miracles are
the children of mendacity. Nothing can be more miraculous
than the majestic, sublime, and eternal march of cause and
effect. Reason must be the final arbiter. An inspired book
cannot stand against a demonstrated fact. Is a man to be
rewarded eternally for believing without evidence or against
evidence ? Do you tell me that the less brain a man has the
better chance he has for heaven? Think of a heaven filled
with men who never thought. Better that all that is should
cease to be ; better that God had never been ; better that all
the springs and seeds of things should fall and wither in great
Nature’s realm; better that causes and effects should lose
relation; better that every life should change to breathless
death and voiceless blank, and every star to blind oblivion
and moveless naught, than that this religion should be true.
The religion of the future is humanity. The religion of the
future will say to every man, you have the right to think and
investigate for yourself. Liberty is my religion. Everything
that is true, every good thought, every beautiful thing, every
self-denying action—all these make my Bible. Every bubble,
every star, are passages in my Bible. A constellation is a
chapter. Every shining world is a part of it. You cannot
interpolate it; you cannot change it. It is the same for
ever. My Bible is all that speaks to man. Every violet,
every blade of grass, every tree, every mountain crowned with
snow, every star that shines, every throb of love, every honest
act, all that is good and true combined, make my Bible, and
upon that book I stand.
Somebody asked Confucius about another world, and his
�14
Salvation: Here and Hereafter.
reply was, “ How should I, who know so little about this,
know anything about another?” For my part, I know
nothing of any other state of existence, either before or after
this, and I have never become personally acquainted with
anybody that did. There may be another life, and if there
is, the . best, way to prepare for it is by making somebody
happy in this. God certainly cannot afford to put a man in
hell who has made a little heaven m this world, f propose
simply to take my chance with the rest of the folks, and
prepare to go where the people I am best acquainted with will
probably settle. I can’t afford to leave the great ship and
sneak off to shore in some orthodox canoe. I hope there is
another life, for I would like to see how things come out in
this world when I am dead. There are some people I would
like to see again, and hope there are some who would not
object to seeing me; but if there is no other life I shall never
know it. I don’t remember the time when I did not exist;
and if, when I die, that is the end, I shall not know, because
the last thing I will know is that I am alive, and if nothing
is left, nothing will be left to know that I am dead; so that,
so far as I am concerned, I am immortal; that is to say, I
can’t recollect when I did not exist, and there never will be
a time when I will remember that I do not exist. Our hope
of immortality does not come from any religion, but nearly all
religions come from that hope. The Old Testament, instead
of telling us that we are immortal, tells us how we lost
immortality. You will recollect that if Adam and Eve could
have gotten to the tree of life, they would have eaten of its
fruit and would have lived for ever; but for the purpose of
preventing immortality God turned them out of the Garden
of Eden, and put certain angels with swords or sabres at the
gate to keep them from getting back. The Old Testament
proves, if it proves anything, which I do not think it does,
that there is no life after this; and the New Testament is
not very specific on the subject.
Since hanging has got to be a means of grace, I would
prefer hell. I had a thousand times rather associate with the
Pagan philosophers than with the inquisitors of the Middle
Ages. I certainly should prefer the worst man in Greek or
�Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
i5
Roman History to John Calvin; and I can imagine no men
in the world that I would not rather sit on the same bench
with than the Puritan fathers and the founders of orthodox
churches. I would trade off my harp any minute for a seat
in the other country. All the poets will be in perdition, and
the greatest thinkers, and, I should think, most of the women
whose society would tend to increase the happiness of man;
nearly all the painters, nearly all the sculptors, nearly all the
writers of plays, nearly all the great actors, most of the best
musicians, and nearly all the good fellows—the persons who
know stories, who can sing songs, or who will loan a friend a
dollar. They will mostly all be in that country, and if I did
not live there permanently, I certainly would want it so I
could spend my winter months there. But, after all, what I
really want to do is to destroy the idea of eternal punishment.
That doctrine subverts all ideas of justice. That doctrine
fills hell with honest men, and heaven with intellectual and
moral paupers. That doctrine allows people to sin on a credit.
That doctrine allows the basest to be eternally happy, and
the most honourable to suffer eternal pain. I think of all
doctrines it is the most infinitely infamous, and would dis
grace the lowest savage ; and any man who believes it, and
has imagination enough to understand it, has the heart of a
serpent and the conscience of a hyena.
I am afraid that the old hell is cooling off, and that
many Christians are slowly giving up the consolations
naturally springing from the old belief. Another terrible
blow to the old infamy is the fact that in the revised New
Testament the consoling word “ hell ” has been left out. I am
informed that in the revised New Testament the word Hades
has been substituted. As nobody knows exactly what
Hades means, it will not be quite so easy to frighten people
at revivals by threatening them with something that they
don’t clearly understand. After this, when the impas
sioned orator cries out that all the unconverted will be sent
to Hades, the poor sinners, instead of getting frightened, will
begin to ask each other what and where that is. It will
take many years of preaching to clothe that word in all the
terrors and horrors, pains and penalties, and pangs of hell.
�t6
Salvation : Here and Hereafter.
Hades is a compromise. It is concession to the philosophy
of our day. It is a graceful acknowledgment to the growing
spirit of investigation that hell, after all, is a barbaric mis
take. Hades is the death of revivals. It cannot be used in
song. It won’t rhyme with anything with the same force
that hell does. It is altogether more shadowy than hot. It
is not associated with brimstone and flame. It sounds some
what indistinct, somewhat lonesome,—a little desolate, but
not altogether uncomfortable. For revival purposes, Hades
is simply useless, and few conversions will be made in the
old way under the revised Testament.
It is said a negation is a poor thing to die by. I would just
as lief die by that as the opposite. The murderer dies with
courage and firmness in many instances, but that does not make
me think that it sanctifies his crime; in fact, it makes no
impression upon me one way or the other. When a man
through old age or infirmity approaches death the intellectual
faculties are dimmed, his senses become less active, and as
he loses these he goes back to his old superstition. Old age
brings back the memories of childhood. And the great bard
gave even in the corrupt and besotted Falstaff—who prattled
of babbling brooks and green fields—an instance of the retrac
ing steps taken by the memory at the last gasp. It has been
said that the Bible was sanctified by our mothers. Every
superstition in the world, from the beginning of all time, has
had such a sanctification. The Turk dying on the Russian
battle-field pressing the Koran to his bosom, breathes his last
thinking of the loving adjuration of his mother to guard it.
Every superstition has been rendered sacred by the love of a
mother. I know what it has cost the noble and the brave to
throw to the winds these superstitions.
But I perceive the intimations of the dawn of Freedom in
the morning sky; and the “ free man thinks of nothing so
little as of death.”
�
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
Salvation here and hereafter : a lecture, delivered to immense audiences in the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Manchester; London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Office, 68 Fleet Street, E.C., A. Bonner, manager. "Discourses by Robert G. Ingersoll' listed inside front cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
John Heywood, Ridgefield
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N393
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 (Salvation here and hereafter : a lecture, delivered to immense audiences in the United States), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Salvation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d913cd9ebff095abb94061b3f5fc899.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BiHVOSL9OIOHGEwpl243qfDxx4sApnuPBiYpx41eu4XHUQ0yoflvj4N4wjJW8WEm1jqhV%7Ej09I%7EeXYqDEmR6YQ-F0MusaJiF8BMOgzfJ7nL5HU3PiFUDWVhaByna2mJhd83l2%7EIwaHTJac-RgugSSsBqts9sD%7E6ZHEycYgpluS8n4H4rVDVStKYEtL6wzU9Ymv7u9GkWYPZzv-JNz7AZaQGe4wsltkRvv4b9w-RVxi2oOba9RQsKd7YfgONYXWxqUZFwnYoW5ihSma5ktHxyBVGzow2q2SskJwn3MFoZ-cNAliAbOj-GeErXH0zBMyBQLmyIn8uQJ3UaN9-0L0J%7Egw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9670b765126071aea0152887033a5a6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
K
K1
L
THE
| HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH {
8
4
<
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL
Reprinted Verbatim from the “ North American Review,”
August, 1888.
Price Twopence,
LONDON
/ PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
<■
1888.
i
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C..
�B2-6J5
35?
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.
There is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony
that he knows must exist between all known facts. It is hard for the
scientist to implicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsis
tent with a known fact. He feels that every fact is a key "to many
mysteries—that every fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual
witness. He knows that a fact has a countless number of sides, and
that all these sides will match all other facts; and he also suspects
that to understand one fact perfectly—like the fact of the attraction
of gravitation—would involve a knowledge of the universe.
It requires not only candor but courage to accept a fact. When a
new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by
the conservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept
it with the statement that they always supposed it was true.
The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree
and respectability ; it is filled with the spirit of caste ; it is associated
with great events and with great names; it is intrenched, it has an
income—it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the
parasites always defend themselves.
Long ago frightened wretches, who had by tyranny or piracy amassed
great fortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise
with God, and to let their inoney fall from their stiffening hands into
the greedy palms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries
were endowed, and in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known
as religious truths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead
hypocrites have propagated and supported their kind.
Most religions—no matter how honestly they originated—have
been established by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them
as a means to enslave, to degrade, and rob. The priest, consciously
and unconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers.
Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle—twenty
or thirty at a time—are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox
�4
The Household of Faith.
leads the way—the others follow. When the place is reached, this
Bishop Dupanloup turns and goes back for other victims.
This is the worst side : There is a better.
Honest men, believing that they have found the whole truth—the
real and only faith—filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of
propagating the “ divine creed.” They found colleges and universities,
and in perfect pious, ignorant, sincerity provide that the creed,
and nothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any pro
fessor teaches anything contrary to that, he must be instantly dis
missed—that is to say, the children must be beaten with the bones of
the dead.
These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision
to the effect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads
are changed or not, and with the further provision that the professors
who keep and repair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads
have not been changed.
There is still another side.
Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. ■ They love their
families and have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise
between their bread and their brain. On pay-day they believe—at
other times they have their doubts. They settle with their own con
sciences by giving old words new meanings. They take refuge in
allegory, hide behind parables, and barricade themselves with oriental
imagery. They give to the most frightful passages a spiritual meaning
—and while they teach the old creed to their followers, they speak a
uew philosophy to their equals.
There is still another side.
A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied.
They have no doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did.
The “ scheme of salvation ” suits them because they are satisfied that
they are embraced within its terms. They give themselves no troubleThey believe because they do not understand. They have no doubts
b ecause they do not think. They regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow
of orthodox slumber. Their souls are asleep, and they hate only those
who disturb their dreams. These people keep their creeds for future
use. They intend to have them ready at the moment of dissolution.
They sustain about the same relation to daily life that the small boats
earned by steamers do to ordinary navigation—they are for the
moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like life-preservers, are to be used
’n disaster.
�The Household of Faith.
5
We must remember that everything in nature—bad as well as good—
has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and all mis
takes carry concealed weapons.. Driven to the last corner, even nonresistance appeals to the dagger.
Vast interests—political, social, artistic, and individual—are inter
woven with all craeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been
invested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the pro
pagation and support of certain religious doctrines, and many milions
have been educated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is
more natural than that they should defend themselves—that they should
cling to a creed that gives them roof and raiment.
Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It
included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy
satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of
jts own; it answered all questions with the same readiness and the
same inaccuracy; it had within its sacred volumes the history of the
past, and the prophecies of all the future ; it pretended to know all that
was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being of the human race,
here and hereafter.
When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of
everything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his
system. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake
of the accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything
and everything that does not endanger its success.
The writers of all sacred books—the inspired prophets—had no
reason for disagreeing with the common people about the origin of
things, the creation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and
the uses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages
have endorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred
books the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of
the ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his
foundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For
many centuries the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our
bible were accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that
the world was too ignorant to question.
A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world
was discovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The
arts were born again. The world was filled with adventure ; millions
became self-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old theories were put
aside—and suddenly the old leaders of thought were found to be
�6
The Household of Faith.
ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The literature of the classic world
was discovered and translated into modern languages. The world was
circumnatigated; Copernicus discovered the true relation sustained
by our earth to the solar system, and about the beginning of the seven
teenth century many other wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609,
a Hollander found that two lenses placed in a certain relation to each
other magnified objects seen through them. This discovery was the
foundation of astronomy. In a little while it came to the knowledge
of Galileo; the result was a telescope, with which man has read the
volume of the sides.
On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his
three laws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchise
ment of the human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient
Hebrews were not astronomers. From that moment the Church became
the enemy of Science. In every possible way the inspired ignorance
was defended—the lash, the sword, the chain, the fagot and the dun
geon were the arguments used by the infuriated Church.
To such an extent was the Church prejudiced against the new
philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused to look through
the telescope of Galileo.
At last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired
writings, literally translated, did not contain the truth—the Bible was
in danger of being driven from the heavens.
The Church also had its geology. The time when the earth was
created had been definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact
had not only been stated by inspired writers, but their statement had
been endorsed by priests, but bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical
councils ; that was settled.
But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes
not always closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them ;
they observed channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams ;
they saw the vast territories that had been deposited by rivers ; their
attention was called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas—to the
deposits by volcanoes—to the sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that
had been built by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of
the lapse of time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had
been pursuing.its course about the sun for millions and millions of
ages.
The Church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every
device that cunning could suggest or ingenuityjexecute, but the conflict
�The Household oj Faith.
7
could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerend,
was in danger of being driven from the earth.
Beaten in the open field, the Church began to equivocate, to evade,
and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having
failed to harmonise the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of
genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written
to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was
not a scientific book, but that it was written in the language of the
people, and that as to unimportant things it contained the general
beliefs of its time.
The ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its
science, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its account of
the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that it had to say
on the subject of religion.
The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in
everything within it lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest
became less arrogant. The Church was forced to explain. The pulpit
had one language for the faithful and another for the philosophical
i.e., it became dishonest -with both.
The next question that arose was as to the origin of man.
The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the
stars was against the sacred volume. The Church had also been
forced to admit that the world was not created at the time mentioned
in the Bible—so that the very stones of the earth rose and united with
the stars in giving testimony against the sacred volume.
As to the creation of the world, the Church resorted to the artifice
of saying that “ days ” in reality meant long periods of time ; so that
no matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six
periods—in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to
be divided by six.
But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion or artifice was .
impossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because
jt gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the gene
rations from Adam to the Flood, and from the Flood to the birth of
Christ, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor
is given. So that, according to this account—according to the inspired
figures—man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years.
There is no room left for any people beyond Adam.
If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man ; consequently,
�8
The Household oj Faith.
we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived
and labored and suffered on this earth.
The Church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation
of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the
man. The Church cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden—
the Serpent, the Fall, and the Expulsion: these must be defended
because they are vital. Without these absurdities the system known
as Christianity cannot exist. Without the Fall, the Atonement is a
non sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were discovered and
discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck,
Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, Darwin, not only asserted, but
demonstrated, that man is not a special creation. If anything can be
established by observation, by reason, then the fact has been estab
lished that man is related to all life below him —that he has been slowly
produced through countless years ; that the story of Eden is a childish
myth ; that the Fall of Man is an infinite absurdity.
If anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has
existed upon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if
we know anything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that
they existed in a highly civilised state ; that thousands of years before
the Garden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other
their ideas by language, and that artists clothed the marble with
thoughts and passions.
This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old
Testament is untrue ; that the account was written by the ignoranc e,
the prejudice, and the egotism of the olden time.
So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that
civilisation is a growth ; that man did not commence a perfect being,
and then degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen
to the intellectual height he now occupies.
The Church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths,
because they contradict the Sacred Word. Some of the most ig-<
genious of the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that
there is no conflict—that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony
with the theories of Charles Darwin ; and these clergymen in some way
manage to retain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly
destroys it.
But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that
the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its
anthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of
�The Household oj Faith.
9
the sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the
origin of man—in other words, nothing of any particular value to the
human race.
It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its morality.
Let us examine this question.
We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if con
science is more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such
a thing as wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must admit that
slavery is immoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old
Testament upholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that
Jehovah was opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew by another.
Christians may quote the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” as
being opposed to human slavery, but after that commandment was given
Jehovah himself told his chosen people that they might “ buy their
bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen round about, and that they
should be their bondmen and their bondwomen for ever.” So all that
Jehovah meant by the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” was that
one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but that all
Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed.
It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made
only for the Jews, not for the world, because the author of these com
mandments commanded the people to whom they were given to violate
them nearly all as against the surrounding people.
A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery
was wrong. It was upheld by the Church. Ministers bought and sold
the very people for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergy
man of the English Church owned stock in slave ships, and the man
whp denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and
thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ.
Churches were built with the results of labor stolen from colored
Christians. Babes were sold from mothers and a part of the money
given to send missionaries from America to heathen lands with the
tidings of great joy. Now, every intelligent man on the earth, every
decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human slavery.
■ So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is im
moral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do
away with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to'oover the
hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The
Jehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution.
Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality ? Consider
�10
The Household of Faith.
for a moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah,
wars were waged. Remember the atrocities that were committed.
Think of a war where everything was the food of the sword. Think
for a moment of a deity capable of committing the crimes that are
described and gloated over in the Old Testament. The civilised man
has outgrown the sacred cruelties and absurdities.
There is still another side to this question.
A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural.
Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days,
that which actually occurred was not regarded as of sufficient importance
to be recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited
derision. A creed that did not fill the horizon—that did not account
for everything—that could not answer every question, would have
been regarded as worthless.
After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the
leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the
power of working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in
partnership with God, what excuse could have been made for the Re
formation ? The Protestants took the ground that the age of miracles
had passed. This was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could
not say that miracles had never been performed, because that would
take the foundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves;
consequently, they were compelled to admit that miracles were per
formed in the Apostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man
must rely upon the facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to
carry on two kinds of war: they had to contend -with those who
insisted that miracles had never been performed; and in that argu
ment they were forced to insist upon the necessity for miracles, on the
probability that they were performed, and upon the truthfulness of the
Apostles. A moment afterward, they had to answer those who con
tended that miracles were performed at that time; then they brought
forward against the Catholics the same arguments that their first
opponents had brought against them.
This has made every Protestant brain “a house divided against
itself.” This planted in the Reformation the “ irrepressible conflict.”
But we have learned more and more about what we call Nature—
about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force
is indestructible—that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from
matter—that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from force
—that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an
�The, Household of Faith.
11
effect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also a cause.
We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a miracle.
We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that it
can have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an impossibility
The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous. Most ministers
are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain miracles,
and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few congrega
tions could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously assert the
truth of the Old Testament miracles.
Miracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the
religious world. The evidence accumulates every day, in every pos
sible direction in which the human mind can investigate, that the
miraculous is simply the impossible.
Confidence in the eternal constancy ol Nature increases day by day
The scientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation—
in chemical affinities—rin the great fact of evolution, and feels abso
lutely certain that the nature of things ■will remain for ever the same.
We have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly under
stood ; that there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are
simply transparent falsehoods.
The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the
attraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light
become the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water
runs, or why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in
nature are the eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange
about the miracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes
of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to
live on the labor of others.
In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take
the exact ground occupied by the deists. They dare not defend in the
open field the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdi
ties of the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent
was still there. They have nothing to say about the Fall of Man.
They are silent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They
are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk about these things
to Sunday-schools and to the elderly members of their congregations ;
but when doing battle for the faith, they mis-state the position of their
opponents and then insist that there must be a God, and that the soul
is immortal.
We may admit the existence of an infinite being; we may admit the
�12
The Household of Faith.
immortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures
and the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or
these dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in
God and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older
than Christianity, and they have been almost universal.
Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration
of the Bible, on the Fall of Man, on the Atonement, on the dogma of
the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from
the dead, on his ascension into heaven.
Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul—not
simply the immortality of joy—but it teaches the immortality of pain,
the eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that im
morality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated
forever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and
in a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a
curse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope
of the human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most
infamous of men.
Let us see what the Church, within a few years, has been compelled
substantially to abandon—that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed
to defend.
First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures ; second, the geology ;
third, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine of
original sin, the fall of the human race ; fifth, the mathematical con
tradiction known as the Trinity ; sixth, the atonement—because it was
only on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another, that
he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another; seventh,
that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the impossible;
eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that
slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermina
tion are not merciful, 'and that nothing can be more immoral than to
punish the innocent on account of the sins of the guilty ; and, ninth,
the divinity of Christ.
All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not
afraid to think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and
the candor to express their thoughts. What then is left ?
Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true is left; it still
remains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the truth *
needs no inspiration ; neither can it be said too often that inspiration
cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment uttered in the
�The Household oj Faith.
13
Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All that is good in
the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord’s Prayer is not
affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of forgiveness, and
the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And besides, there
remains the great hope for all the human race.
What is lost ? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdi
ties, all the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures.
We have almost lost the “ hope ” of eternal pain—the “ consolation,”
of perdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has
fallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.
The great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the
clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old
creed. They have been educated in the Universities of the Sacred
Mistake—Universities that Bruno would call “ the widows of true
learning.” They have been taught to measure with a false standard
they have weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became
convinced of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them
by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe.
The
enthusiasm of life’s morning was misdirected. They went out into the
world knowing nothing of value. They preached a creed outgrown.
Having been for so many years entirely certain of their position, they
met doubt with a spirit of irritation—afterwards with hatred. They
are hardly courageous enough to admit that they are wrong.
Once the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By its side
was the sword of the State, with the hilt toward its hand. Now, it is
apologised for—it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to
whom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has
not accepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality
cannot live except in partnership with the sanctified follies and false
hoods of the past.
The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not
-within the circumference of reason—they are not embraced in any of
the facts within the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been
exposed; all the excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at
last the Church must meet, and fairly meet, the objections of ou
time.
Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred.
People are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is
- more important than belief—far better than creeds, vastly more useful
than superstitions. The Church must accept the truths of the present.
�14
The Household of Faith.
must admit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the
mental museums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past.
The time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be
determined by ascertaining the character of the disputants ; epithets
are no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the Church pro
duces laughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon ; argument
must be answered with argument, and the Church must appeal to
reason, and by that standard it must stand or fall. The theories and
discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods,
or by quotations from the Old Testament.
The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We
must go back to the book—it cannot come to us—or we must leave it
forever. In order to remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries,
the inventions, the intellectual efforts of many centuries ; we must go
back until our knowledge—or rather our ignorance—will harmonise
with the barbaric creeds.
It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally pro
duced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same
religions would again ensnare the human rac£. It is also admitted that
under the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the
great and intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition.
There is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat error.
We should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite—larceny, but not the
thief—superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our
power to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow men.
There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in
punishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kind
ness, in the sunlight of intelligence.
We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions
of our reason.
For many centuries the Church has insisted that man is totally
depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are
contrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly
asserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but
having been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars;
that they constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were
traps and snares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses,
or upon his reason ;—he must simply rely upon faith; in other words
that the only way for man to really see was to put out his eyes.
There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The
�The Household of Faith.
15
improvement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that
religion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by preju
dice and by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its
truth in question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal;
whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer,
a scoffer, a moral leper.
The Church defended its mistakes by every means within its power.
But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are
enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure
the distance that has been travelled by sensible people.
The world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher,
and that “ he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of
dogmas, but to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.’’
As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not
“ spiritual ”; that they are “ of the earth, earthy ” ; that they cannot
perceive that which is spiritual. They insist that “ God is a spirit,
and must be worshipped in spirit.”
But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual ? In order to be really
spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another?
Were the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for the
miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual ? Were
those who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the
stake on account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did
John Calvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus ?
Were they spiritual people who invented and used instruments of tor
ture, who denied the liberty of thought and expression, who waged
wars for the propagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who
insisted that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children for
ever? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the
meaning of the word spiritual ? Is it necessary to hate those who
disagree with you, and to calumniate those whose argument you cannot
answer, in order to be spiritual ? Must you hold a demonstrated fact
in contempt; must you deny or avoid what you know to be true, in
order to substantiate the fact that you are spiritual ?
What is it to be spiritual ? Is the man spiritual who searches for
the truth ; who lives in accordance with his highest ideal; who loves
his wife and children ; who discharges his obligations; who makes a
happy fireside for the ones he loves; who succors the oppressed : who
gives his honest opinions; who is guided by principle ; who is merciful
and just ?
�16
The Household of Faith.
. Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful; who is thrilled by
music, and touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic,
and the self-denying ? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought
and deed to ennoble the hunian race ?
The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that
the foundations are insecure*
They should hav£the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon*
If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders
must admit that Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but
about the stars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about
geology and astronomy even four thousand years ago'
The champions'of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the
truth about the Creation of Man, the Garden of Eden, the Tempta
tion, the Fall, and the Flood. They must take the ground that the
sacred book is historically correct; that the events related really hap
pened ; that the miracles were actually performed,; that the laws pro
mulgated from Sinai were and are wise and just, and that nothing ig
upheld, commanded, endorsed, or in any way approved or sustained
that is not absolutely right. In other words, if they insist that a being
of infinite goodness and intelligence is the author,of the Bible, they
must be ready to show that it is absolutely perfect. They must defend
its astronomy, geology, history, miracle, and morality.
If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special
creation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago, to
deceive the scientific world of to-day.
If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back
to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible is true, polygamy
is the highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, Nature has a master,,
and the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect.
If the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer
eternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a
collection of mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is a
luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is»
false and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.
The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to
candidly answer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired?»
Second, Is the Bible true? And when they answer these questions,
they should remember that if the Bible is true, it meeds no inspiration,,
and that if not true; inspiration can do it no good.
4
�
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 household of faith
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. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted verbatim from the North American Review, August, 1888." No. 35a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N359
G5775
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The household of faith), 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
Christianity
Faith
NSS