1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca411458dbfc4b3d0a7243a60f8abbb5.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=kpqvAkuXPAXIrNVg7uJzZLWealRb74cPnXTUlWs4QlOrwg7wou88y9W4C3raL1kTX63hOB9nRaobi3cGbejv6-mjrzwpZnifzgBJ8doqgJOsbUB6udzTm%7ETfWa4HS%7EM-02qwlapk8hEcpM3Nv1U3f0MhlyMJ8AwSYTv7JdiRdVqTxStXXEYadXQGM8UtyJR6lLKcKAGc5Bo2QI%7EMZw4bUe0H0kdeaWnQT3hvGzAtncIFi40Mg0381bOIecQMXcKzX2yv3PgxpCrqULxLS5ZsBir2Q2G7K1q8BnmmSHsOEYx3z97xoUkG%7ELc0iNpgKGGSACG8OimFMjc1D11hV9PRiA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5603a6bb0b1f98b0fbaf8ecd18d49fb8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SUCiETY
f
THE
CLERGY & COMMON SENSE
Bs COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
■
PROGRESSIVE
'^anbnn :
PUBLISHING
COMPANY
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�J.ON DON :
printed and published by g. w. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE.
—+—
Union has interviewed Robert G.
Ino-ersoll, who criticises the Union’s recent interviews
with clergymen. He is at Long Beach, and having
been shown back numbers of the Union containing
articles by clergymen, who have almost unanimously
declared that the Church is suffering very little from
the scepticism of the day, and that the influence of the
scientific writers, whose opinions, are regarded as
Atheistic or infidel, is not great, and that the books of
such writers are not read as much as some people think
they are, was asked, “What is your opinion with
regard to the subject ? ” Colonel Ingersoll said :
It is natural for a man to defend his business, to
stand by his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose
this accounts for the ministers all saying that infidelity
is not on the increase. Only a few years ago science
was superstition’s hired man. The scientific men
apologised for every fact they happened to find. With
hat in hand they begged pardon of the parson for find
ing a fossil, and asked the forgiveness of God for
making any. discovery in nature. Now religion is
taking off its hat to science. Humboldt stands higher
than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to
change human thought than all the priests who have
existed. Where there was one infidel twenty-five
years ago there are one hundred now.
“ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldli
ness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that
it is on the increase.”
What is worldliness ? I suppose worldliness con
sists in paying attention to the affairs of this world :
The Brooklyn
�4:
The Clergy and Common Sense.
getting enjoyment out of this life ; gratifying the
senses, giving the ears music, the eyes painting and
sculpture, the palate good food ; cultivating the ima
gination ; playing games of skill and chance ; adorning
the person ; developing the body, enriching the mind ;
investigating the facts by which we are surrounded ;
building homes, rocking cradles ; thinking, working,
inventing, buying, selling, hoping. All this, I sup
pose, is worldliness. These worldly people have
cleared the forests, ploughed the land, built the cities,
the steamships, the telegraphs, and have produced all
there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the
preachers denounce them. Were it not for worldly
people, how would the preachers get along ? Who
would build the churches ? Who would fill the con
tribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious
of all questions) would pay the salaries ? I be
lieve in the new firm of Health and Heresy
rather than the old partnership of Disease and
Divinity, doing business at the old sign of the
Skull and Crossbones. Some of the ministers
that you have interviewed, or at least one
of them, tells us the cure for worldliness. He says
that God is sending fires, and cyclones, and things of
that character, for the purpose of making people
spiritual ; of calling their attention to the fact that
everything in this world is of a transitory nature. The
clergy have always had great faith in famine, in
affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is a
thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a
crumb tflan for a banquet. They know that prosperity
has the same effect on the average Christian that thick
soup has, according to Bumble., on the English pauper—
“ it makes ’em impudent.” The devil made a mistake
in not doubling Job’s property, instead of leaving him
a pauper. In prosperity the ministers think we forget
death and are too happy. In the arms of those we
love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment for
gotten. According to the ministers, God kdis our
children in order that we may not forget him. They
imagine that the man who goes into Dakota, cultivates
the soil, and rears for himself a little home, is getting
�The Clergy ancl Common Sense.
5
too “ worldly ” ; and so God starts a cyclone to scatter
his home and the limbs of his wife and children upon
the desolate plains, and the ministers of Brooklyn say
this is done because we are getting too “worldly.’
They think we should be more “spiritual”; that is to
say, willing to live upon the labor of others,
willing to ask alms, saying in the meantime,. “ It
is more blessed to give than to receive.” If this is so,
why not give the money back ? “ Spiritual ” people
are those who eat oatmeal and prunes, have great con
fidence in dried apples, read Cowper s Task, and
Pollock’s Course of Time, laugh at the jokes in Harper's
Monthly, wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows,
and call all that has elevated the world “beggarly
elements.”
“ You have stated your objections to the churches—
what would you have to take their place?”
There was a time when men had to meet together
for the purpose of being told the law. This was before
printing, and for hundreds and hundreds of years
most people depended for their information on what
they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain.
There was a time, of course, when Freemasonry was
necessary, so that a man could carry, not only all over
his own country, but to another, a certificate that he
was a gentleman ; that he was an honest man. There
was a time, and it was necessary, for the people to
assemble. They had no books, no papers, no way of
reaching each other. But now all that is changed.
The daily press gives you the happenings of the world.
The libraries give you the thoughts of the greatest and
best. Every family of moderate means can command
the principal sources of information. There is no
necessity for going to the Church and hearing the same
story for ever. Let the minister write what he wishes
to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,
people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a
Church in the name of duty, and then inflict upon
them a sermonthatunder.no circumstances they would
I do not think the ministers of to-day more intel
�6
The Clergy and Common Sense.
lectual than they were a hundred years ago ; that is,
1 do not think they have greater brain capacity, but
I think, on the average, the congregations have a
higher amount. The amelioration of orthodox Christi
anity is not by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by
the brain in the pews. Another thing : One hundred
years ago the Church had intellectual honors to bestow.
The pulpit opened a career. Not so now. There are
too many avenues to distinction and wealth — too
much ££ worldliness.” The best minds do not go into
the pulpit.
Martyrs would rather be burnt than
laughed at. Most ministers of to-day are not naturally
adapted to other professions promising eminence.
There are some great exceptions, but these exceptions
are the ministers nearest infidels. Theodore Parker
was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher is a great
man—not the most consistent man in the world—but
he is certainly a man of mark—a remarkable genius.
*
“How would you convey moral instruction from
youth up, and what kind of instruction would you
give ? ”
I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what
is Christianity ?
I do not include in the word
“ Christianity ” the average morality of the world, or
the morality taught in all systems of religion—that is,
as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A
belief in the inspiration of the scriptures, the atone
ment, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, an
eternal reward for the believers in Christ and eternal
punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from
Christianity its miracles, its absurdities of the atone
ment and fall of man, and the inspiration of the
scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I under
stand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity
which I suppose Christ taught—that is, in kindness,
gentleness, forgiveness. I do not believe in loving
enemies ; I have pretty hard work to love my friends.
Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford
to keep the viper of revenge in his heart. But I
* This was said in 1883, before Beecher’s death.
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
7
believe in justice, in self-defence. Christianity—that
is, the miraculous part—must be abandoned. As
morality—morality is born of the instinct of se
preservation.
If man could not suffer, the word
”conscience” never would have passed his lip . Self
preservation makes larceny a crime. Mui der will be
regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to
being murdered. Morality does not come from the
clouds ; it is born of human want and human ex
perience.
“ The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember,
savs that ‘man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy
him for ever.’ What is your idea of the chief end of
~r
man O’?
It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy
should be held in such contempt ^ere, and y
nromised hereafter as an eternal reward ? Why not. be
happy here, as well as in heaven ? Why not have joy
here ? Why not go to heaven now—that is t(J-day •
Why not enjoy the sunshine of this world, and all there
is of good in it? It is bad enough ; so bad that I do
not believe that it was ever created by a benencen
Deity; but what little good there is in it, whj> not
have it? Neither do I believe that it is the end of
man to glorify God. How can the infinite be glorified?
Does he wish for reputation ? He has no equals, no
superiors. How. can he have what we call^ta^^
How can he achieve what we call glory .
y .
he wish the flattery of the average Presbyterian ?
What good will it do him to know that his course has
been approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church .
What does he care, even, for the religious weeklies, or
the presidents of religious colleges ? I do not s^ w
o
*
we can help God or hurt him. If there 06 a
.
being certainly nothing we can do can in any way
affect him. We can affect each other, and therefore
man should be careful not to sin against mam hoi
that reason I have said, a hundred times, mjustwe is
the only blasphemy. If there be a beaven^ Iwant to
associate there with the ones wno had loJ|d
me
I might not like the angels, and the angels might not
�8
The Clergy and Common Sense.
like me. I want to find old firieads. I do not care to
associate with the infinite ; there could be no freedom
in such society. I suppose I am not ‘ • spiritual ”
enough, and am somewhat touched with “ worldli
ness.” It seems to me that everybody ought to be
honest enough to say about the infinite, “I know
nothing”; of eternal joy, “ I have no conception”;
about another world, “I have no information.” At
the same time I am not attacking anybody for believing
in immortality. The more a man can hope, and the
less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could
to drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal
pain. I want to put out the fires of an ignorant and
revengeful hell.
In response to the reporter’s query as to the progress
made in theology, Colonel Ingersoll said:—
By comparing long periods of time, it is very easy
to see the progress that has been made. Only a few
years ago men who are now considered quite orthodox
would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for
heresy.
Only a few years ago men like Huxley and
Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would
have been considered as the most infamous of monsters.
At that time every scientific discovery was something
to be pardoned. Moses was authority in geology, and
Joshua was considered the first astronomer in the
world. Now, everything has changed, and everybody
knows it except the clergy. Religion is finding out
new meanings for old texts. We are told that God
spoke in the language of the common people ; that he
was not teaching any science ; that he allowed his chil
dren not only to remain in error, but kept them there. It
is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any
question of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality,
in a spiritual way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers,
see that the Bible has ceased to be regarded as
authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a
dispute of fact. The most intellectual men of the
world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men of the
greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in con
tempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
9
men who combat and deny the foundation of orthodox
Christianity. I can remember when I would be the
only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as
autumn leaves ; they are everywhere. In all the pro
fessions, trades, and employments the orthodox creeds
are despised. They are not simply disbelieved ; they
are execrated. They are regarded, not with indifference,
but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds
of thousands of mechanics ■ in this couutry abhor
orthodox Christianity. Millions of educated men hold
in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of eternal
punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as
absurd by millions. So with the dogma of imputed
guilt, vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that
the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the
arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this won
derful reason : That the hearers will get more doubts
from the answer than from reading the original argu
ments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he can
not defend Christianity from infidelity without creating
more infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that
he cannot answer the theories of Robertson Smith in
popular addresses. The only minister who feels abso
lutely safe on the subject, as far as his congregation is
concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He
declares that the young people in his church don’t
know enough to have intelligent doubts, and that the
old people are substantially in the same condition.
Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so
strong that other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev.
Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity should never be refuted
in the pulpit. I admit that it has never been success
fully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers
anmitted the impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed, to
all public discussion. Dr. Wells tells us that scientific
Atheism should be ignored ; that it should not be
spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Van Dyke has
the same feeling of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman,
and he declares that the great majority of Christian
people of to-day know nothing about current infidel
theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance ;
hat it would be dangerous for the Christian minister
�10
The Clergy and Common Sense.
even to state the position of the infidel; that after
stating it, he might not, even with the help of God,
successfully combat the theory.
These ministers
do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by
nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke. He thinks the
blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks
the Church is safe because the Christians read. He
differs with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So
the Rev. George E. Reed believes that infidelity should
be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
his general and in the weapons of his warfare than
some of his brethren. His confidence may arise from
the fact that he never had a discussion. The Rev.
Dr. McLelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the
Catechism ; that there is not now enough' of authority ;
not enough of brute force ; thinks that the family, the
Church, and the State, ought to use the rod ; that the
rod is the salvation of the world ; that the rod is a
divine institution ; that fathers ought to have it for
their children ; that mothers ought to use it. This is
part of the religion of universal love. The man who
cannot raise children without whipping them ought
not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh
of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human
being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps
a relic of barbarism in his heart. There is nothing
reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in
fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is the only
reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an aban
donment of love and reason, and puts father and child
upon a savage equality. The savageness in the heart
of the father prompting the use of the rod or club pro
duces a like savageness in the victim. The old idea
that a child’s spirit must be broken is infamous. All
this is passing away, however, with orthodox Chris
tianity. That children are treated better than formerly
shows conclusively the increase of what is called infi
delity. Infidelity has always been a protest against
tyranny in the State, against intolerance in the Church,
against barbarism in the family. It has always been
an appeal for light, for justice, for universal kindness
and tenderness.
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
11
“ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that
it is on the increase ? ”
It is the habit of ministers to belittle the men who
support them—to slander the spirit by which they live.
“ It is as though the mouth should tear the hand that
feeds it.” The nobility of the Old World hold the
honest working man in contempt, and yet are so con
temptible themselves that they are willing to live upon
his labor. And so the minister.. pretending o e
spiritual—pretending to be a spiritual guide-looks
with contempt upon men who make it possible for him
to live. It may be said by “ worldliness ” they only
mean enjoyment—that is, hearing music, going to the
theatre and the opera, taking a Sunday excursion to
the silvery margin of the sea. Of course, ministers
look upon theatres as rival attractions, and most of
their hatred is born of business views
They think
people ought to be driven to church by having all
other places closed. In my judgment, the theatre has
done good, while the Church has done harm, lhe
drama never has insisted upon burning anybody.
Persecution is not born of the stage. On the contrary,
upon the stage has for ever been found impersonations
of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and Justice,
and these impersonations have always been applauded,
and have been represented that they might be
applauded. In the pulpit hypocrites have been wor
shipped ; upon the stage they have been held up to
derision and execration. Shakespeare has done tar
more for the world than the Bible. The ministers
keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldli
ness. Nothing can be more absurd than this talk about
spirituality. As though readers of the Bible, repeaters
of texts, and sayers of prayers were engaged in a
higher work than honest industry. Is there anything
higher than human love ? A man is in love with a
girl and he has determined to work for her and to
give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is there
anything more spiritual than that anything higher .
They marry. He clears some land. He fences a field.
�12
The Clergy and Common Sense.
He builds a cabin ; and she, of this hovel, makes a
happy home, She plants flowers, puts a few simple
things of beauty upon the walls
This is what the
preachers call “ worldliness.” Is there anything more
spiritual ? In a little while, in this cabin, in this
home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle’s rock,
while softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air.
Is there anything more spiritual, is there anything
more infinitely tender, than to see husband and wife
bending with clasped hands over a cradle, gazing
upon the dimpled miracle of love ? I say that it is
spiritual to work for those you love. Spiritual to
improve the physical condition of mankind—for he
who improves the physical condition improves the
mental. I believe in the ploughers instead of the
prayers.
“ Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed
admit that the rich and the poor no longer meet
together, and deprecate the establishment of mission
chapels in connection with the large and fashionable
churches.”
The early Christians supposed that the end of the
world was at hand. They were all sitting on the dock
waiting for the ship. In the presence of such a belief^
what are known as class distinctions could not easily
exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and
poverty is a bond of union. As a rule, people are
hospitable in the proportion that they lack wealth. In
old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.
He took, in part, the place of the newspaper. He was
a messenger from the older parts of the country. Life
was monotonous. The appearance of the traveller gave
variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive.
As they become educated there is a tendency to pick
their society. It is the same in the Church. The
Church no longer believes the creed, no longer acts as
though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded
the sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope
thrown by the minister to a man just above the falls ;
if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as a lighthouse, he
would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If
�The Clergy ancl Common Sense.
:i3
he really believed that the coachman, had an immortal
soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain,
he would do his utmost to make the calling and election
of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact, the
rich man now cares but little for servants. They are
not included in the scheme of salvation, except as a
kind of job lot. The Church has become a club. It is
a social affair, and the rich don’t care to associate in
the week days with the poor they may happen to meet
at Church. As they expect to be in heaven together for
ever, they can afford to be separated here. There will
certainly be time enough there to get acquainted.
Another thing is the magnificence of the churches.
The Church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor
people feel out of place in such magnificent buildings.
They drop into the nearest seat ; like poor relations,
they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table
of Christ they are below the salt. They are constantly
humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they
feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the
thousands given by the millionaire. Their pennies feel
ashamed to mingle with the silver in the contribution
plate.
The result is that most of them avoid the
Church. It costs too much to worship God in public.
Good clothes are necessary, fashionably cut. The poor
come in contact with too much silk, too many jewels,
too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be
superiority.
“ Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead
of Churches, we had societies of ethical culture ?
Would not the rich there predominate and the poor be
just as much out of place ? ”
,
I think the effect would be precisely the same, n<?
matter what the society is, what object it has, if com
posed of rich and poor. Class distinctions, to a greatei
or less extent, will creep in—in fact they do not have
to creep in. They are there at the commencement,
and they are born of the different conditions of the
members.
These class distinctions are not always made by
men of wealth. For instance, some men obtain money,
�14
The Clergy and Common Sense,
and are what we call snobs. Others obtain it and retain
their democratic principles, and meet men according to
the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on- intel
lectual grounds, for instance.
There is not only the distinction which is produced
by wealth and power, but there are also the distinctions
which are born of intelligence, of culture, of character,
of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt.
Neither can any one blame respectable poverty for
declining to associate with arrogant wealth. The right
to make the distinction is with all classes, and with
the individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have
any society for any purpose—that is, where they meet
together—without certain embarrassments being pro
duced by these distinctions. Now, for instance, suppose
•there should be a society simply of intelligent and
cultured people. There wealth, to a great degree, would
be disregarded. But, after all, the distinction that,
intelligence draws between talent and genius is as
marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty
and wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some
object is deemed of such vast importance that, for the
moment, all minor distinctions are forgotten, then it is
possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and intel
ligent, to act in concert. This happens in political
parties, in time of war, and it has also happened
whenever a new religion has been founded. Whenevei’
the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions
are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we
gave liberty to the slave during the civil war, and clad
him in the uniform of the nation ; we wanted him, we
needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly
willing to forget the distinction of color. Common
peril produces pure democracy. It is with societies as
with individuals. A poor young man coming to New
York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk
about the old fogies ; holds in contempt many of the
rules and regulations of the trade ; is loud in his
denunciation of monopoly ; wants competition ; shouts
for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him
succeed ; let him have a palace upon Fifth Avenue,
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
15
with, his monogram on spoons and coaches ; then,
instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for-more
police. He will then say, “We want protection , the
rabble must be put down.” We have an aristocracy o
wealth • in some parts of our country an aristocracy of
literature—men and women who imagine J^emselv^s
writers and who hold m contempt all people who
cannot express commonplaces m the most ele§a^
diction ; people who look upon a mistake m grammar
as far worse than a crime. So, m some communities,
we have an aristocracy of muscle. The only true
aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness. Intellect
without heart is infinitely cruel ; as cruel as wealth
without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle witho
mercy. So that, after all, the real aristocracy must be
that of goodness where the intellect is directed by th
heart.
“ You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as
cruel as the aristocracy of wealth—what do you mean
by that ? ”
Bv intellect, I mean simply intellect ; that is to say,
the aristocracy of education—of simple brain—expressed
in innumerable ways—in invention, painting, sculpture,
literature. And I meant to say that that aristocracy
was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth. Atter
all, why should a man be proud of something given him
by nature ; something that he did not earn, did not
produce ; something that he could not help, is it not
more reasonable to be proud of wealth, which you have
accumulated, than of brain which nature gave you
And, to carry this idea clear out, why should we be
proud of anything ? Is there any proper occasion on
which to crow ? If you succeed, your success crows
for you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not m the
best of taste.
And why should man be proud o
brain ? Why should he be proud of disposition or of
good acts ?
“ You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet,
of course, you must recognise the right of everyone o
select his own companions. Would it be arrogant for
�16
The Clergy and Common Sense.
the intellectual man to prefer the companionship of
people of his own class in preference to commonplace
and unintelligent persons ? ”
All men should have the same rights, and one right
that every man should have is to associate with con
genial people. There are thousands of good men whose
society I do rot covet. They may be stupid, or they
ma5T be stupid only in the direction in which I am
interested, and may be exceedingly intelligent as to
matters about which I care nothing. In either case
they are not congenial. They have the right to select
congenial company ; so have I. And while distinctions
are thus made, they are not cruel ; they are not heart
less. They are for the good of all concerned, spring
naturally from the circumstances, and are consistent
with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these
distinctions in the Church more than we do in the club
is that the Church talks one way and acrs another ;
because the Church insists that a certain line of con
duct is essential to salvation, and that every human
being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were
true, then, in the presence of such an infinite variety,
all earthly distinctions should instantly vanish. Every'
Christian should exert himself for the salvation of the
soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness
that he -would show to save a king. The accidents of
wealth, education, social position, should be esteemed
as naught, and the richest should gladly work side by
side with the poorest. The churches will never reach
the poor as long’ as they sell pews ; so long as the rich
members wear their best clothes on Sunday. A s lone
as the fashions of the drawing-room are taken to the
table of the Last Supper, the poor will remain in the
highways and„ hedges. Present ' fashion is. more
powerful than faith, So long as the ministers shut up
their churches and allow the poor to go to hell in
summer; as long as they lea re the Devil without a
competitor for three months in the year, the churches
will not materially impede the march of human pro
gress. People, often unconsciously and without malice,
say something or do something that throws an unex
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
17
pected light upon a question. The other day, in one
of the New York comic papers, there was a picture
representing the foremost preachers of the country at
the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that
they could enjoy each other’s society. These ministers
are suppised to be the apostles of the religion of kind
ness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and yet
the idea that they could associate happily together is
regarded as a joke! After all, churches are like other
institutions—they have to be managed, and they now
rely upon music and open elocution rather than upon
the Gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They
are giving up the doctrine of eternal punishment, and
have consequently lost their hold. The orthodox
Churches used to tell us there was going to be a fire,
and they offered to insure ; and as long as the fire was
expected the premiums were paid and the policies were
issued. Then came the Universalist Church, saying
that there would be no fire, and yet asking the people
to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It
undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other
churches. So with the Unitarian. That Church has
no basis for organisation ; no reason, because no hell is
threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just
as the Churches have lost their belief in eternal fire,
they have lost their influence, and the reason they have
lost their belief is on account of the diffusion of know
ledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and infamous.
Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelli
gent people can no longer believe it. It is regarded
with horror, and the Churches must finally abandon it,
and when they do that is the end of the church
militant.
“ What do you say to the progress of the Roman
Catholic Church, in view of the fact that they have not
changed their belief, in any particular, in regard to
future punishment ?”
Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win
another battle. The last victory of Protestantism was
won in Holland. Nations have not been converted
�18
The Clergy and Common Sense.
since then. The time has passed to preach with sword
and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no
more victories. That Church increases in this country
mostly from immigration.
Catholicism does not
belong to the New World. It is at war with the idea
our government, antagonistic to true republicanism,
and in every sense anti-American. The Catholic
Church does not control, its members. That Church
prevents no crime. It is not in favor of education. It
is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used
as a political power, but here it dare not assert itself.
There are thousands of good Catholics. As a rule, they
probably believe the creed of the Church. That
Church has lost the power to anathematise. It can no
longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces—
upon persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and
heredity.
« You have stated your objections to the,Churches—
what would you have to take their place ?
Of course there will always be meetings, occasions
when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear
what a man has to say upon some question, but the
idea of going fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody
upon the same subject is absurd.
« Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher
in that statement ?”
Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is
not orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting
when talking against his creed. He delivered a ser
mon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes the
ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, conse
quently, no one could be an infidel. Everyone believes
in kindness, at least theoretically. In that sermon he
throws away all creed and comes to the conclusion
that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of intel
lectual convictions upon certain subjects, 1 he more
sermons like that are preached probably the better.
What I intended was the eternal repetition of the old
story—that God made the world and a man, and then
allowed the Devil to tempt him, and then thought of a
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
19
•scheme of salvation, of vicarious atonement; fifteen
hundred years afterwards drowned everybody except
Noah and his family, and, afterwards, when he failed
to civilise the Jewish people, came in person and suf
fered death, and announced the doctrine that all who
believed on him would be saved, and those who did
not, eternally lost. Now this story, with occasional
references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem,
and the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful
joys of paradise, is the average sermon, and this story
is told again, again, and again by the same man, listened
to by the same people, without any effect except to tire
the speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would
take their texts from Shakespeare, if they would read
every Sunday a selection from some of the great plays,
the result would be infinitely better. They would all
learn something ; the mind would be enlarged, and
the sermon would appear short. Nothing has shown
more clearly the intellectual barrenness of the pulpit
than the baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The
dignified dulness, the solemn stupidity of these
addresses has never been excelled. No question was
met. The poor candidates for the ministry were giyen
no new weapons. Armed with the theological flint
lock of a century ago, they were ordered to do battle
for doctrines older than their weapons. They were
told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by
keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the
sceptic by ignoring the facts. There was a time when
the Protestant clergy were in favor of education ; that
is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a Pro
testant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philo
sopher. The Catholics are also in favor of education
enough to make a savage a Catholic, and there
they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger.
A new idea is a doubt; a doubt is the thres
hold of infidelity. The young ministers are warned
against inquiry. They are educated like robins ; they
swallow whatever is thrown in the mouth—worms or
shingle-nails, it makes no difference—and they are
expected to get their revenge by treating their flock
�20
The Clergy and Common Sense.
precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds
of the Churches are being laughed at. Thousands of
young men say nothing, because they do not wish to
hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden aunts. Thou
sands of business men say nothing, for fear it may
interfere with trade. Politicians keep silent for fear
of losing influence. But when you get at the real
opinions of the people, a vast majority have outgrown
the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people
think these things good for women and children, and
use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep order.
Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of inde
pendence. They are being examined by synods and
committees of ministers, and they are beginning every
where to say that they do not regard tnis life as a
probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punish
ment is too bad ; that the Bible is, in many things,
foolish, absurd, and infamous ; that it must have been
written by men. And the people at large are begin
ning to find that the ministers have kept back the
facts ; have not told the history of the Bible ; have
not given to their congregations the latest advices, and
so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
Christianity has almost outlived its usefulness. The
Church has a great deal to contend with. The scien
tific men are not religious. Geology laughs at Genesis,
and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but
very little of the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Statesmen do not approve of the laws of Moses ; the
intellect of the world has got on the other side. There
is something besides preaching on Sunday. The news
paper is the rival of the pulpit. Nearly all the cars
are running on that blessed day. Steamers take hun
dreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who
has been at work all the week seeks the sight of the
sea, and this has become so universal that the preacher
is following his example. The flock has ceased to be
afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep.
In a little while all the libraries will be open all the
museums. There will be music in the public parks ;
the opera, the theatre. And what will the churches do
then ? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
21
empty pews, unless the Church is wise enough to meet
the intellectual demands of the present.
“You speak as if the influences working against
Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out of exist
ence. Do you think that Christianity is any worse off
now than it was during the French Revolution, when
the priests were banished from the country and Reason
was worshipped ; or, in England, a hundred years ago,
when Hume, Bolingbroke, and others made their
attacks upon it ? ”
You must remember that the French Revolution
was produced by Catholicism; that it was a reaction ;
that it went to infinite extremes ; that it was a revolu
tion seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand
those times provided you know the history of the
Catholic Church. The seeds of the French Revolution
•were sown by priests and kings. The people had
Suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years,
and the French Revolution came because human nature
could bear the wrongs no longer. It was something
not reasoned—it was felt. Only a few acted from
intellectual convictions.
The most were stung to
madness, and were carried away with the desire to
destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to tear down
palaces^ to cut throats, and in some way avenge the
wrongs of all the centuries. Catholicism has never
recovered—it never will. The dagger of Voltaire
struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism
has staggered from that day to this. It has been losing
power every moment. At the death of Voltatre there
were twenty million less Catholics than when he was
born. In the French Revolution muscle outran mind,
revenge anticipated reason. There was destruction,
without the genius of construction. They had to use
materials that had been rendered worthless by ages of
Catholicism. The French Revolution was a failure,
because the French people were a failure, and the
French people were a failure because Catholicism had
made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without
reading him. Probably there are not a dozen orthodox
ministers in the world who have read the works of
�22
The Clergy and Common Sense.
Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little
while ago a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I
offered him one hundred dellars to repeat a paragraph,
or to give the title even, of one of Voltaire’s volumes.
Most ministers think he was an Atheist. The trouble
with the infidels of England a hundred years ago was
that they did not go far enough. It may be that they
could not have gone further and been allowed to live.
Most of them took the ground that there was an infi
nite, all-wise, bemficent God, creator of the universe,
and that this all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too
good to be the author of the Bible. They, however,
insisted that this good God was the author of nature,
and the theologians completely turned the tables by
showing that this God of nature was as bad as the God
of the Bible ; that this God of nature was in the pesti-,
lence and plague business, manufactured earthquakes,
overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of necessity,
the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment,
the Deists were all successfully answered. The God of
nature is certainly as bad as the God of the Old Testa
ment. It is only when we discard the idea of a deity,
the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are
able even to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel
that I am neither a favorite nor a victim. Nature
neither loves nor hates me. I do not believe in the
existence of any personal God. I regard the universe
as the one fact, as the one existence—that is, as the
absolute thing. I am part of this. I do not say that
there is no God ; I simply say I do not believe there
is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say
that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit
that I do not know, and the declarations of all the
priests in the world upon that subject give me no light,
and do not even tend to add to my information on the
subject, because I know that they don’t know. The
infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, com
paratively speaking, of geology, nothing of astronomy,
nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin,. nothing
of evolution, nothing, comparatively speaking, of other
religions, nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics;
in other words, the infidels of a hundred years ago
�The Clergy and Common Cense.
23
knew the creed of orthodox Christianity to be false,
but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The infidels
of to-day have the facts. That is the difference. A
hundred years ago it was a guessing prophecy—to-day
it is the fact and fulfilment. Everything in nature is
working against superstition to-day. Superstition is
like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from dust to
stars, is working together to destroy the false. The
smallest pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade
of . grass, rightly understood, destroys the orthodox
creed.
“You say the pews will be empty in the future until
the Church meets the intellectual demands of the
present. Are not the ministers of to-day, generally
speaking, much more intellectual than those of a hun
dred years ago, and are not the ‘ Liberal ’ views in
regard to the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement,
future punishment, the fall of man, and the personal
divinity of Christ which openly prevail in many
churches, an indication that the Church is meeting the
demands of many people who do not care to be classed
as out-and-out disbelievers in Christianity, but who
have advanced views on those and other questions ? ”
The views of the Church are changing, the clergy of
Brooklyn to the contrary" notwithstanding. Orthodox
religion is a kind of boa-constrictor; anything it
can’t dodge it will swallow.
The Church is
bound to have something for sale that some
body wants to buy. According to the pew demand
will be the pulpit supply. In old times the pulpit
dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology
is now run on business principles. The gentleman
who pays for the theories insists on having them suit
him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and they
must supply the market with such religious vegetables
as the congregation desire. Thousands have given up
belief in the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of
Christ, the atonement idea, and original sin. Millions
believe now that this is not a state of probation ; that
a man, provided he is well off, and has given liberally
to the church, or whose wife has been a regular
%
�24
The Clergy and Common Sense.
attendant, will, in the next world, have another chance;
that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new
trial. Others think that hell is not so warm as it used
to be supposed ; that, while it is very hot in the middle
of the day, the nights are cool ; and that, after all,
there isn’t so much to fear from the future. They
regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and
they give them the old ideas on the same principle
that they give them their old clothes. These ideas,
out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off, some
what ravelled, will, after all, do very well for paupers.
There. is a great trade of this kind going on now—
selling old theological clothes to the colored people in
the South. All I have said applies to all Churches.
The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not
change its ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the
ceremonies, the spirit that clothed the skeleton of
ceremony with the white flesh and blood and throb of
life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathe
drals, the spirit that emptied the wealth of the world
into the lap of Rome, has turned in another direction,
Of course the Churches are all going to endeavor to
meet the demands of the hour. They will find new
readings for old texts. They will re-punctuate and
re-parse the Old Testament. They will find that “ flat ”
meant “a little rounding”; that “six days” meant
“ six long times that the word “ flood ” should have
been translated “ dampness,” “ dew,” or “ threatened
rain”; that Daniel in the lion’s den was an historical
myth ; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do
with this world. All these things will be gradually
explained and made to harmonise with the facts of
modern science. They will not change the words of
the creed; they will simply give new meanings; and
the highest criticism to-day is that which confuses and
avoids. In other words, the Churches will change as
the people change. They will keep for sale that which
can be sold. Already the old goods are being “ marked
down.” If, however, the Church should fall, why
then it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its
existence. It apparently does no good ; it devours
without producing; it eats without planting, and is a
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
25
perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of value. It
misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens
without knowledge and promises without power. In
my judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all
mankind. But if it does not go in name, it must go in
fact, because it must change ; and therefore it is only
a question of time when it ceases to divert from useful
channels the blood and muscle of the world.
* You say that in the baccalaureate sermons de
livered lately the theological students were told to
answer arguments by keeping out of discussion. Is it
not the fact that ministers have, of late years, preached
very largely on scientific disbelief, Agnosticism, and
infidelity, so much as to lead to their being repri
manded by some of their more conservative brethren ? ”
Of course, there are hundreds and thousands of
ministers perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity.
Their answers have done so much harm that the more
conservative among the clergy have advised them to
stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers,
for the most part, are like this : Paine was a black
guard, therefore' the geology of Genesis is on a scientific
basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement is true,
because in the French Revolution they worshipped
Reason. And we know, too, all about the fall of man
and the Garden of Eden, because Voltaire was nearly
frightened to death when he came to die. These are
the usual arguments, supplemented by a few words
concerning myself. And, in my view, they are the
best that can be made. Failing to answer a man’s
argument, the next thing is to attack his character.
You have no case,” said an attorney to the plaintiff.
“No matter,” said the plaintiff, “ I want you to give
the defendant the devil.”
“ What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker’s
statement that he generally buys five or six tickets for
your lectures and gives them to young men, who are
shocked at the flippant way in which you are said to
speak of the Bible ? ”
�26
The Clergy and Common Sense.
Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had
such immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York.
This tends to clear away the mystery. If all the clergy
follow the example of Dr. Baker, that accounts for the
number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker
would not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall
always feel greatly indebted to him, shall hereafter
regard him as one of my agents, and take this occasion
to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all
the converts to Christianity made by hearing me.
Still, I hardly think it honest in the young men to
play a game like that on the doctor.
“You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story
of Christianity, and say that the more sermons like the
one Mr. Beecher preached lately the better. Is it not
the fact that ministers, at the present time, do preach
very largely on questions of purely moral, social, and
humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke
criticisms on the part of the secular newspaper press ? ”
I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit
to preach about things happening in this world ; in
other words, that the preachers themselves are be
ginning to be touched by “ worldliness.” They find
that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for
persons dealing in real estate in this world. And
thousands of people are losing interest in Abraham,
David, Haggai, and take more interest in gentlemen
who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find
that their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetu
ally of death and coffins, and worms, and dust, and
grave-stones, and shrouds, and epitaphs, and hearses,
biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That
they prefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in
which they have a present interest, and about which
something cheerful can be said. In fact, it is a relief
to hear about politics, a little about art, something
about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it
necessary to advertise that they are going to speak
on something that has happened within the last
eighteen hundred years, and that for the time being,
Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
21
furnace. Of course I think that most ministers are
reasonably honest. Maybe they don’t tell all their
doubts, but undoubtedly they are endeavoring to make
the world better, and most of the church-members
think that they are doing the best that can be done. I
am not criticising their motives, but their methods.
I am not attacking the character or reputation of
ministers, but simply giving my ideas, avoiding any
thing personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor
very bad—just fair to middling.
“You say that Christians will not read for fear that
they will unsettle their beliefs. Father Fransiola
(Roman Catholic) said in the interview I had with him:
‘ If you do not allow man to reason you crush his
manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credi
bility of his faith, and through reason, guided by faith,
he discovers the truth, and so satisfies his wants ? ’ ”
“ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of
Father Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the
wrong end to. I do not think that reason should be
guided by faith ; I think that faith should be guided
by reason. After all, the highest possible conception
of faith would be the science of probabilities, and the
probable must not be based on what has not happened,
but upon what has ; not upon something we know
nothing about, but the nature of the things with which
we are acquainted. The foundation we must know
something about, and whenever we reason we must
have something as a basis, something secular, some
thing that we think we know. About these facts we
reason, sometimes by analogy, and we say so and so
has happened, therefore so and so may happen. We
don’t say so and so may happen, therefore something
else has happened. We must reason from the known
to the unknown, not from the unknown to the known.
This father admits that if you don’t allow a man to
reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he
says faith must govern reason. Who makes the
faith ? The Church. And the Church tells the man
that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and
that he may afterwards reason, taking the faith as a
�28
The Clergy and Common Sense.
fact. This makes him an intellectual slave, and the
poor devil mistakes for liberty the right to examine
his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy
their prisoners by insisting that there is nothing
beyond the walls.
— “ You criticise the Church for not encouraging the
poor to mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the
right of a man to choose his own company. Are not
these same distinctions made by non-professing
Christians in real life, and will there always be some
greater, richer, wiser than the rest ? ”
I do not blame the Church because there are these
distinctions based on wealth, intelligence, and culture.
What I blame the Church for is pretending to do away
with these distinctions. These distinctions in men
are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood,
in education, and they are differences that will exter
nally exist—that is, as long as the human race exists.
Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some
generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What
I wish to do away with is the contempt, and scorn,
and hatred existing between rich and poor. I want
the democracy of kindness—what you might call the
republicanism of justice. I do not have to associate
with a man to keep from robbing him. I can give
him his rights without enjoying his company, and he
can give me my rights without inviting me to dinner.
Why should not poverty have rights? And has not
honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in
contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to
the same Church or not ? We cannot judge men by
their wealth, nor by the position they hold in society.
I like every kind man ; I hate every cruel one. I
like the generous, whether they are poor or rich,
ignorant or cultivated. I like men that love their
families, that are kind to their wives, gentle with their
children, no matter whether they are millionaires or
mendicants. And to me the bloss om of benevolence,
of charity, is the fairest flower, no matter whether it
blooms by the side of a hovel or bursts from a vine
climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
�Th& Clergy and Common Sense.
29
man because he is rich ; I hold in contempt no man
because he is poor.
“ Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infi
delity is greatly exaggerated ; that it makes more noise
and creates more notice than conservative Christianity
simply on account of its being outside of the accepted
line of thonght.”
There was a time when an unbeliever, open and
pronounced, was a wonder. At that time the Church
had great power ; it could retaliate, it could destroy.
The Church abandoned the stake only when too many
men objected to being burnt. At that time infidelity
was clad not simply in novelty, but often in fire. Of
late years the thoughts of men have been turned, by
virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless
influences, to an investigation of the foundation of
orthodox religion. Other religions were put in the
crucible of criticism, and nothing was found but dross.
At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our
own religion, and this examination has excited great
interest and great comment. People want to hear, and
they want to hear because they have already about
concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in
error. Thousands come to hear me because they are
interested in the question, because they want to hear
a man say what they think. They want to hear their
own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has
turned, and the spirit of investigation, the intelligence,
the intellectual courage of the world, is on the other
side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox minister
who believes in the Thirty-nine Articles with all his
might is regarded to-day as a theological mummy, a
kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic battery of
faith, making strange motions, almost like those of life
—not quite,
<,We need no inspiration, no inspired work. The
industrious man knows that the idle has no right to
rob him of the product of his labor, and the idle man
knows that he has no right to it. It is not wrong
because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was
put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then you find
�30
The Clergy and Common ¡sense.
in the Bible other things upheld that are infamous.
And why ? Because the writers of the Bible were
barbarians in many things, and because that book is a
mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teach
ing morality without miracle. I see no use of miracle.
What can men do with it ? Credulity is not a virtue.
The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder
is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children
should be taught to investigate and to reason for them
selves, and that there are facts enough to furnish a
foundation for all human virtue. We will take two
families ; in the one, the father and mother are both
Christians, and they teach their children the creed ;
teach them that they are naturally totally depraved ;
that they can only hope for happiness in a future life
by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain
belief is necessary to salvation ; that God punishes his
children for ever. Such a home has a certain atmo
sphere. Take another family : the father and mother
teach their children that they should be kind to each
other because kindness produces happiness ; that they
should be gentle ; that they should be just, because
justice is the mother of joy. And suppose this father
and mother say to their children—If you are happy,
it must be as a result of your own actions ; if you do
wrong, you must suffer the consequences. No Christ
can redeem you ; no Savior can suffer for you. You
must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds.
If you plant, you must reap; and you must reap what
you plant. And suppose these parents also to say—•
“You must find out the conditions of happiness. You
must investigate the circumstances by which you are
surrounded. You must ascertain the nature and rela
tion of things so that you can act in accordance with
known facts, to the end that you may have health and
peace.” In such a family there would be a certain
atmosphere, in my judgment, a thousand times better,
and purer, and sweeter than in the other. The
Church generally teaches that rascality pays in this
world, but not in the next ; that here virtue is a losing
game, but the dividends will be large in another
world. They tell the people that they must serve God
�The Clergy and Common Sense-.
31
on credit, but the Devil pays cash here. That is not
my doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right
because it pays, in the highest sense. That is the
reason it is right. The reason a thing is wrong is
because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its
reward here and now. It means health ; it means in
telligence, contentment, success. Vice means exactly
the opposite. Most of us have more passion than
judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the
tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are
wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved by faith, nor
by belief. It is a slower process ; we must be saved by
knowledge, by intelligence,—the only lever capable of
raising mankind.
�Colonel Ingersoll's Works.
-------- 0-------MISTAKES OF MOSES
-10
Ditto.
In cloth 1 6
The only complete edition published in England.
Accurate as Colenso and fascinating as a novel.
DEFENCE OP FREETHOUGHT
0 6
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
0 4
The raciest polemic of the age. With a bio
graphy of Ingersoll.
ROME OR REASON ? 0 4
A Reply to Cardinal Manning
FAITH AND FACT. A Reply to Dr. Field
0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
0 2
LIVE TOPICS -01
MYTH AND MIRACLE
-01
REAL BLASPHEMY -01
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
01
SOCIAL SALVATION -01
THE GREAT MISTAKE
-01
Orders over Sixpence sent Post Free.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PEAD
“THE FREETHINKER,”
Edited by G. W. Foote.
Only Penny Freethought Paper in England.
Published Every Thursday.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The clergy & common sense
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. : ill. (front. port.) ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Colonel Ingersoll's works" listed on back cover. No. 7a in Stein checklist, but pagination differs. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company; (G. W. Foote)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[c1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N326
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
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 clergy & common sense), 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-Controversial Literature
Christianity-Controversial works
Clergy
NSS