1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f703a8f0d6bfc49346d87ff7c112f14e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NG5ZeeE6l2gVS8laPdUQpY2EEmIEUx2HJdKP0wIzWmlf6whJrw0LUKu8hk48SmIeHnqXnronIGS8%7EaOrEEugnhwo3-PxoKywfGNYscGwaqzbMP00Y80sH1bdoijmgPNO4MC9%7EaZ64n3ZUhr4cs3lgZBDu6MLCq1GY4AOpdsbDP7mm7GtbfBsY7SAkI%7E06wITubOGLt0l2HWh8FcgHexd40XUldFItsMwr8T-TSCeeHclrES1IGgbHuDMz0Ti0mvWcpsH76VcvUMAOEwcSWLZBc6PDEFGP-Z5IaRaxGAQgOM530RLeBq-cIIQ0o%7E1a4XIHDp8W424nsT2A0cASi0w7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44e21873fc9ed7920cfa9552ebe1fd61
PDF Text
Text
I,
¥
NATIONALSECULAR society
INGERSOLLISM
DEFENDED AGAINST
ARCHDEACON FARRAR.
G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 23 STONECUTTER STREET, E.0.
1892.
�i
�£ 2-4-^ O
INGERSOLLISM AND DR. FARRAR.
What a swarm of Christian apologists flutter round Colonel
Ingersoll 1 He is a perfect nobody; he has no learning, and
no brains to speak of; nothing he says is new, and it has all
been answered before; in brief, he is a smart pretender, a
showy shallow-pate, and every sensible Christian should
leave him alone. But somehow they cannot leave him alone
He requires no answer, but they will answer him. He is
not worth a thought, but they shower their articles upon
him. Meanwhile the Colonel smiles that great, genial smile
of his, and never loses his temper for a minute. He knows
his own strength, and the strength of his cause, and he knows
the meaning of all this pious blague.
Judge Black tilted at Ingersoll, and would not try a
second round. Then came Dr. Field, then Mr. Gladstone,
then Cardinal Manning, then Dr. Abbott and some smaller
fry, and now comes Archdeacon Farrar with “A Few Words
on Colonel Ingersoll ” in the North American Review. Dr.
Farrar is a prolix gentleman, with a style like a dictionary
with the diarrhoea, and his “few words” extend to fifteen
pages. All he has to say could have been put into a third of
the space. On Mr. Gladstone’s admission, Colonel Ingersoll
“ writes with a rare and enviable brilliancy.” Archdeacon
Farrar writes effeminately, with a vehemence that simulates
strength, and a glare that apes magnificence. He revels in
big adjectives and grandiose sentences, and is a striking
specimen of literary flatulence.
This is not a complimentary description, but the Arch
deacon has invited it. To prove the invitation we quote his
opening sentence. “ Although the views of Colonel Inger
soll,” he says, “ lie immeasurably apart from my own, he will
not find in this paper a word of invective or discourtesy.”
�( 4: )
Now this sentence is loose in style and false in statement.
“ Although ” implies that invective and discourtesy might
well be expected by anyone who differs from Dr. Farrar.
“Immeasurably” is nonsense, for Colonel Ingersoll and Dr.
Farrar both have definite views, and the difference between
them is easily ascertained. “ Discourtesy,” at least, is infe
licitous. Dr. Farrar speaks of Colonel Ingersoll’s “ enormous
arrogance of assumption ” ; of his looking down “ from the
whole height of his own inferiority ”; of thousands of intel
lects that, compared with his, are “ as Dhawalaghari to a
molehill.” Here is “ courtesy ” for you I But this is not all.
With his customary extravagance of language, the Arch
deacon speaks of “ those myriads of students of Holy Writ,
who probably know ten thousand times more of the Scriptures
than Colonel Ingersoll.” What delightful good breeding!
It seems that the Christians have so long enjoyed the right
of “ immeasurably ” abusing Freethinkers, that they fancy
themselves quite polite when they are impudent enough to
invite a kicking.
Let us now see what Dr. Farrar’s “ few words ” amount to.
He accuses Ingersoll of asserting] instead of arguing, of
indulging in “ the unlimited enunciation of immense gene
ralities,” of “ tossing aside the deepest and most permanent
convictions of mankind as though they were too absurd even
to need an answer,” and generally of putting forth arguments
which have been killed by the theologians, and really ought
to feel that they are dead, and to get decently buried. Dr.
Farrar evidently regards Ingersoll aS a sceptical Banquo
who indecently haunts the supper-room of the theological
Macbeth.
But when he condescends to details the Archdeacon cuts a
sorry figure. He takes some of Ingersoll’s “ immense gene
ralities ” and tries to explode them, with shocking results to
himself. Here is number one.
I. The same rules or laws of probability must govern in
religious questions as in others.
This would have been regarded by the great Bishop Butler
as an axiom. But Dr. Farrar is not a Bishop Butler, so he
calls it “ an exceedingly dubious and disputable assertion.”
Revelation appeals to man’s spirit, and - Colonel Ingersoll
�ignores that “ sphere of being.” He is therefore like a blind
man arguing about colors, or a deaf man arguing about
music. In other words, Dr. Farrar cannot prove the truth of
his religion. He knows it intuitively, by means of a high
faculty which Ingersoll does not possess, or only in an
atrophied state. But this piece of fatuous impudence is far
from convincing. Besides, Dr. Farrar is shrewd enough to
see that the sceptic may reply, “ Very well, then, what is the
use of your talking to me ?” Consequently he falls back
upon the contention that the evidences of Christianity are
“ largely historical.” But instead of adducing these evi
dences, and firmly defending them, he flies back immediately
to his special faculty. “ Men of science tell us,” he says,
“ that there are ultra-violet rays of light invisible to the
naked eye. Supposing that such rays can never be made
apprehensible to our individual senses, are we therefore
justified in a categorical denial that such rays exist ?’*
Certainly not. Those ultra-violet rays of light can be
demonstrated. They are apprehensible, though not to the
naked eye. The analogy, therefore, is perfectly fallacious.
Nor would anyone but a hopelessly incapable logician have
adduced such a mat a propos illustration. Dr. Farrar is
affirming the existence of a spiritual faculty as common as
sight, and whose absence is as rare as blindness, and he
adduces an instance of a fact which is only known to
specialists.
II. There is no subject—and can be none—concerning
which any human being is obliged to believe without evi
dence.
This proposition of Ingersoll’s is indisputable. Dr. Farrar
allows its truth'. But he says it “ insinuates that Christianity
is believed without evidence, and this is “ outrageous and
historically absurd.” We will not discuss “ outrageous,” but
we venture to say that “ historically absurd ” is a great
absurdity. Nothing is clearer than that the mass of man
kind, whether Christian or heathen, do believe without
evidence. Their religion is simply a matter of education,
and their faith depends on the geographical accident of their
birth. Dr. Farrar may deny this, but every man of sense
knows it is true.
�( 6 )
We will not follow Dr. Farrar’s tali talk about “ the divine
beauty of Christianity,” the “unparalleled and transcendent
loveliness ” of Christ, and the “proved adaptation ” (heaven
save the mark!) of Christianity “ to the needs of every branch
of the human race.” All this is professional verbiage. It is
like the cry of “ fresh fish!” in the streets, and is perfectly
useless in discussion with Freethinkers.
III. Neither is there any intelligent being who can, by any
possibility, be flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity.
Dr. Farrar cannot deny this, but again he complains of
insinuation. What right has Colonel Ingersoll to stigmatise
as ignorant credulity “ that inspired, inspiring,” etc., etc. ?
IV. The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands
the Old and New T estaments will cease to be an orthodox
Christian.
Dr. Farrar flies into a passion over this proposition, though
the Catholic Church has always acted upon it, and tried to
keep the Bible out of the people’s hands. He also flies off on
the question of “ what is an orthodox Christian ?” Colonel
Ingersoll, he says, would probably include under the word
orthodox “ a great many views which many Christians have
held, but which are in no sense a part of Christian faith, nor
in any way essential to it.” But who constituted Dr. Farrar
the supreme authority on this question ? Colonel Ingersoll
judges for himself. He follows the sensible plan of taking
the Bible as the Christian’s standard. After that he takes
the accepted and published doctrines of the great Christian
Churches. He is not bound to discuss the particular views
of Dr. Farrar. Indeed, it is ludicrous that at this time of
day, nearly two thousand yearB after Christ, *a discussion on
Christianity should be stopped to settle what Christianity is.
V. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any
country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot
be a believer.
Ingersoll’s opinion may be unpalatable to Christians,
though they would endorse it with regard to every religion
but their own. His language, however, is perfectly courteous.
Having to convey such an opinion, he could not have chosen
less irritating words. But this moderation is lost on Dr.
�( 7 )
Farrar, who bursts into a characteristic storm of sound and
fury.
“ Argal, every believer in. any religion is either an incompetent idiot
[did you ever know a competent idiot?] or a coward with a dash of pre
judice ! If Colonel Ingersoll really takes in the meaning implied in his
own words [really!], I should think that he would have [grammar!!]
recoiled before the exorbitant and unparalleled hardihood of thus brand
ing with fatuity, with craven timidity, or with indolent inability to
resist a bias, the majority of mankind, as well as the brightest of human
intellects. Surely no human being can be taken in by the show of self
confidence involved in such assertions as this ! It is as useless to combat
their unsupported obstreperousness as it is to argue with a man who
bawls out a proposition in very loud tones [could he bawl in soft tones ?]
and thumps the table to emphasise his own infallibility. We have but to
glance at the luminous path in the firmament of human greatness to see
thousands of names of men whose intellect was, in comparison with the
Colonel’s, as Dhawalaghari to a molehill, who have yet studied each his
own form of religion with infinitely [infinitely ?] greater power than he
has done, and have set to their seal that God is true.”
Hallelujah! But after all this sputter the question remains
where it was. Dr. Farrar is too fond of “words, words,
words,” and like Gratiano he can “ talk an infinite deal of
nothing.” He would do well to study Ingersoll for a month
or two, and prune the nauseous luxuriance of his own style.
Dr. Farrar gives a curious list of these gentlemen -who have
given God a certificate. It includes Charlemagne, who had
such a fine notion of “ evidence ” that he offered the Saxons
the choice of baptism or instant death, and so converted them
at the rate of twenty thousand a day. It includes Shake
speare, whose irreligion is a byword among the commentators.
It also includes Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, two highlyfeed dignitaries of the Church. Among the scientific names
is that of Faraday, who “ had the Christian faith of a child,”
which is a very happy description, foi’ Faraday deliberately
refused to submit his faith to any test of reason. Dr. Farrar
mentions Darwin, Huxley and Tyndall as “ exceptions.” But
they cease to be exceptions when the names of Haeckel,
Buchner, Clifford, Maudsley, Galton, and a score of others
are added. Among the poets, Tennyson and Browning may
be called believers, but Swinburne, Morris, and Meredith are
not; and in France the foremost living poet, Leconte de
Lisle, is a pronounced Atheist. Sir William Hamilton was a
�( 8 )
believer, but John Stuart Mill was not. Dr. Gardiner, the
historian of England, is a believer, but Grote, the greater
historian of Greece, was an Atheist. After all, however, this
bandying of big names is perfectly idle. Propositions must
ultimately rest on their evidence. What is the use of discus
sion if we are not to judge for ourselves ?
Not only does Dr. Farrar give us a scratch list of eminent
believers—as though every creed and every form of scep
ticism did not boast its eminent men—but he gives another
list of assailants of Christianity, and declares that it has
survived their attacks, as it will survive every assault that
can be made upon it. It survived “ the flashing wit of
Lucian,” which, by the way, never flashed upon the ignorant
dupes who were gathered into the early Christian fold. It
survived “the haughty mysticism of Porphyry.” Yes, but
how ? By burning his books, and decreeing the penalty of
death against everyone who should be found in possession of
his damnable writings. It survived “ the battering eloquence
and keen criticism of Celsus.” Yes, but how ? By destroying
■his writings, so that not a single copy remained, and all that
can be known of them is the extracts quoted in the answer
of Origen. Then there are Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, Voltaire, Diderot, Strauss and Renan
—and “ what have they effected ?”
This is what they have effected. They have broken the
spirit of intolerance, and made it possible for honest thinkers
to express their opinions. They have crippled the power of
priests, tamed their pride, and compelled them to argue with
heretics instead of robbing and murdering them. They have
leavened Christian superstition with human reason, and made
educated Christians ashamed of the grosser aspects of their
faith. They have driven Dr. Farrar himself to juggle with
the words of Scripture in order to get rid of the infamous
doctrine of everlasting torture. They have compelled the
apologists of Christianity to alter their theory of Inspiration,
to discriminate between better and worse in the Bible, and to
practise all kinds of subtle Bhifts in order to patch up a
hollow treaty between religion and science. They have
loosened the Church’s grasp on the mind of the child, and
very largely secularised both private and public life, which
�were once under the domination of priestcraft. They have
made millions of Freethinkers in Christendom, shaken the
faith of the very worshippers in their pews, and helped to
create that ever growing indifference to religion, which is a
theme of wailing at Church Congresses, and bids fair to
absorb all the sects of theology, as the desert absorbs water
or the ocean a fleet of sinking ships.
What have they effected ? Dr. Farrar’s article furnishes
an answer. Fifty years ago what dignitary of the Church
would have replied to an “ infidel ” except with anathemas
and the terrors of the law ? Now the proudest of them rush
to cross swords with Colonel Ingersoll, and, although they
do it with a wry face, they shake hands with him before
beginning the combat. Fifty years ago what “ infidel,” if he
openly avowed his infidelity, had the remotest chance of
occupying any public post? Now Mr. John Morley is Mr.
Gladstone’s first lieutenant, and Mr. Bradlaugh himself was
marked out as a member of the next Liberal administration.
All this may be “ nothing ” to Dr. Farrar, but it is much to
Freethinkers, and they need not argue who has the best
reason to be satisfied.
Dr. Farrar proceeds to tackle Ingersoll’s agnosticism. In
doing so he explains why he introduces the word “ infidel.”
He does not desire “ to create an unfair prejudice.” Why
then does he use the word at all ? Certainly he is incorrect
in saying that “ the word has always been understood to
mean one who does not believe in the existence of God.”
“ Infidel ” was first used by the Christians as a name for the
Mohammedans. It was afterwards applied to the unbelievers
at home. The Deists of last century were called infidels. Vol
taire and Thomas Paine are arch-infidels, and both believed
in the existence of God. Johnson defines “ infidel ” as “ an
unbeliever, a miscreant, a pagan ; one who rejects Chris
tianity.” Bailey as “ a Heathen, or one who believes nothing
of the Christian religion.” A similar definition is given
in Richardson’s great dictionary. It is clear that Dr. Farrar’s
etymology is no improvement on his manners. He covers a
bad fault with a worse excuse. We are ready, however, to
make allowance for him. His mind is naturally loose, and
he is rather the slave than the master of his words. In the
�( 10 )
very next paragraph he says that “ our beliefs are surrounded
by immense and innumerable perplexities,” forgetting that
if they are immense they cannot be innumerable, and if they
are innumerable they cannot be immense.
Ingersoll’s arguments against theology are reduced by Dr.
Farrar under four heads : “ first, the difficulty of conceiving
the nature of God; secondly, the existence of evil; thirdly,
the impossibility of miracles; and fourthly, the asserted
errors and imperfections of the Bible.”
“ Is it possible,” asks Ingersoll, “ for the human mind to
conceive of an infinite personality ?” Dr. Farrar replies,
“ Why, certainly it is ; for human minds innumerable have
done so.” But have they? Dr. Farrar knows they have not.
He knows they cannot. Otherwise he would not argue that
we are bound to believe in the existence of things which are
inconceivable.
“ Can the human mind imagine a beginningless being ?”
asks Ingersoll. Dr. Farrar evades the question. He gives
us another dissertation on conceivability. He asks whether
Ingersoll believes “ there is such a thing as space,” and
presently calls it “ an entity.” We venture to say that Inger
soll believes in nothing of the kind. You may call space “ a
thing,” but it is only indefinite extension, as time is indefinite
succession. The metaphysical difficulty arises when we try
to use the word infinite in a positive sense. Then we are
brought face to face with antinomies because we are trying
to transcend the limits of our faculties. Still, it is absurd to
affirm that “ space is quite as impossible to conceive as God.”
We know extension by experience, and increasing it ad
infinitum is rather an exercise in transcendent geometry
than in practical reason. But what experience have we of
God ? Is it not easier to conceive that to be unlimited of
which we have knowledge than that of which we have no
knowledge at all ? And if God be considered as a personality
—without which he is not God—is it possible to combine in
finitude and personality in the same conception ? Dr. Farrar
affirms that it is. We say it is not, and we appeal to the
judgment of every man who will try to think accurately.
With regard to the existence of evil, all Dr. Farrar can
say is that it is a mystery. Now a mystery, in theology, is
�( u )
simply a contradiction between fact and theory, and arguing
from mystery is only justifying a particular contradiction by
a general contradiction. Dr. Farrar must also be exceedingly
simple to imagine that it is any reply to Ingersoll to appeal
to St. Paul. Nor is it permissible to argue from the assumed
“ restoration of all things ” which is to take place in the
future, unless conjecture and argument are the same thing,
in which case it is idle to discuss at all, for every time the
Christian is beaten he has only to start a fresh assumption.
It is foolish, likewise, to complain that the argument from
evil is an old one, and that there is “ nothing new in the
reiterated objection,” for there is nothing new in the reiter
ated reply, and the objection remains unanswered. The
Catholic theologian would address Dr. Farrar in the same
futile fashion. He would reply to objections against Transubstantiation, for instance, that they are musty with age
and have been answered again and again.
Dr. Farrar finally sees he has a pool’ case and resigns the
argument. After trying to explain away a great deal of the
world’s evil by saying it is “ transitory,” which is question
able; or “phantasmal,” which is a mockery; he ends by
throwing up the sponge altogether. He admits he has “ no
compact logical solution of the problem,” and cries out in
despair that the theologians “ are not called upon to construct
theodicaaas.” But that is precisely what they are called upon
to do, and if they cannot do it they should have the modesty
to be silent. It is their function to “ justify the ways of God
to men.” Let them perform it, or confess they cannot, and
retire from their pretentious business.
But we must be just to Dr. Farrar. He does supply two
arguments, not for God’s goodness, but for God’s existence.
The first is “ the starry heavens above.” Did they come by
chance ?■—as though God and chance were the only possible
alternatives, or as though chance were anything but contin
gency arising from human ignorance!
“ The starry heavens above.” “ It is all very well, gentlemen, but who
made these?’ asked the young Napoleon, pointing to the stars of heaven,
as he sat with the French savans on the deck of the vessel which was
carrying him to Egypt, after they had proved to their satisfaction that
there is no Grod. To most minds it is a question finally decisive.
�(12)
Colonel Ingersoll must smile at this childish logic. No
doubt to most minds it is finally decisive. Who made the
world or the stars? is a pertinent question to those who have
been taught that they were made. It is an idle question to
anyone with a moderate acquaintance with astronomy. On
that subject the French savans were better informed than
Napoleon.
Dr. Farrar is erroneous in supposing that the Atheist or
Agnostic is bound to “ account for the existence of matter
and force.” Accounting for them can only mean explaining
how they began, and the Atheist or Agnostic is not aware
that they had a beginning. The “ source of life ” is a question
that biology must solve. Until it does, the “ infidel ” waits
for information. No light is shed upon the problem by
supernatural explanations. Still less is the “infidel” called
upon to account for “ the freedom of the will.”' He knows of
no such freedom as Dr. Farrar means by this phrase. As
for “ the obvious design which runs through the whole of
nature,” it is so obvious that Charles Darwin wrote, “ the
longer I live the less I can see proof of design.”
The second of the two things that are “ ample to prove
the being of a God ” is “ the moral law within.” Dr. Farrar
asserts that Conscience “ is the voice of God within us.”
But assertion is not proof. Colonel Ingersoll would reply
that Conscience is the voice of human experience. No student
of evolution would admit Dr. Farrar’s assertion. The origin
and development of morality are seen by evolutionists to be
perfectly natural. It is futile to make assertions which your
opponent contradicts. Argument must rest upon admitted
facts. Dr. Farrar strikes an attitude, makes dogmatic state
ments, draws out the conclusion he has put into them, and
calls that discussion. He has yet to learn the rudiments of
debate. The methods of the pulpit may do for a pious
romance called the Life of Christ, but they are out of place
in a discussion with Colonel Ingersoll.
Misled by his fondness for preaching, Dr. Farrai* has for
gotten two of the four heads under which he reduced Colonel
Ingersoll’s arguments. He says nothing about “ the impos
sibility of miracles ” or “ the errors and imperfections of the
Bible.” But these are the very points that demanded his
�( 13 )
attention. The existence of God, and the problem of evil,
belong to what is called Natural Religion. Dr. Farrai’ is A
champion of Revealed Religion. He is not a Deist but a
Christian. He should therefore have defended the Bible.
His omission to do so may be owing to prudence or negli
gence. He has given us fifteen pages of “ A Few Words on
Colonel Ingersoll.” We should rejoice to see a “ Fewer Words
on Dr. Farrar ”
ARCHDEACON FARRAR’S SEVEN SILLY
QUESTIONS.
“ Archdeacon Farrar’s Seven Questions ” is the title of
a paragraph in the current number of The Young Man,
a paper which is proving the certitude of Christian truth,
after nearly two thousand years of preaching, by carrying
on a symposium on “What is it to be a Christian?” We
have interpolated the word “ Silly,” which is quite accurate,
and for which we owe Dr. Farrar no apology, since he
does not shrink from applying the description of “ stupendous
nonsense ” to the belief of his opponents.
Our method of criticism shall be honest. We shall give
the whole of the paragraph, and then answer the seven
silly questions seriatim.
“If you meet with an Atheist, do not let him entangle you into
the discussion of side issues. As to many points which he raisesyou must make the Rabbi’s answer: ‘I do not know.’ But ask him
these seven questions : 1. Ask him, What did matter come from ? Can
a dead thing create itself ? 2. Ask him, Where did motion come from ?
3. Ask him, Where life came from save the finger tip of Omnipotence ?
4. Ask him, Whence came the exquisite order and design in nature?
If one told you that millions of printers’ types should fortuitously
shape themselves into the divine comedy of Dante, or the plays of
Shakespeare, would you not think him a madman ? 5. Ask him, Whence
�( 14 )
came consciousness ? 6. Ask him, Who gave you free will ? 7. Ask
him, Whence came conscience ? He who says there is no God, in
the face of these questions, talks simply stupendous nonsense.”
These questions, be it observed, are put with great
deliberation. With regard to many points, not one o"
which is specified, Dr. Farrar admits that he can only
say “ I do not know.” But on these particular points
he is cocksure. His mind is not troubled with a scintillation
of doubt. He has no hesitation in saying that those who
differ from him are guilty of “ stupendous nonsense.” It
is a matter for regret, however, that he did not answer
the questions himself. By so doing he would have saved
Christian young men the trouble of hunting up an Atheist,
good at answering queries, in order to get the conundrums
solved; while, as the case now stands, the Christian young
men may go on for ever with a search as weary as that
of Diogenes, unless they happen to light on this number
of the Freethinker.
First (a) Question (we leave out “ Silly ” to avoid
repetition) : What did matter come from 7—First prove
that matter ever came, and we will then discuss what (or
where) it came from. Matter exists, and for all that anyone
knows to the contrary, it always existed. Its beginning
to be and its ceasing to be are alike inconceivable. The
question is like the old catch query, “ When did you leave
off beating your father ? ” the proper answer to which is,
“ When did I begin to beat my father ? ”
First (6) Question: Can a dead .thing create itself?—
The question is paradoxical. “Create itself” is a selfcontradiction. Creation, however defined, is an act, and
an act implies an actor. To create, a thing must first exist;
and self-creation is therefore an absurdity. The question
is consequently meaningless.
Second Question : Where did motion come from ?—Another
nonsensical question. Motion does not “come” as a special
change. Motion is universal and incessant. Molecular
movement is constantly going on even in what appear stable
masses. The presumption is that this was always so in the
past, and will be always so in the future.
Third Question : Where did life come from save the finger
�( "15 )
*
U,„
tip of Omnipotence ?—Why not the big toe of Omnipotence ?
Life is not an entity, but a condition. Its coming from any
where is therefore nonsensical. A living thing might “ come,”
because its position in space can be changed. Then arise
fresh difficulties. Can any man conceive the finger of an
infinite being, or form a mental picture of life, as a some
thing, flowing from the tip of that finger ? The question of
the origin of life pertains to the science of biology. When
biology answers it, as it has answered other perplexed ques
tions, Dr. Farrar will be enlightened. Meanwhile his
ignorance is no excuse for his dogmatism.
Fourth (a) Question : Whence came the exquisite order and
design in nature?—This is tautology. Design in nature
includes order in nature. And the question invites a Scotch
reply. Is there design in nature? No one disputes that
there is adaptation, but this is explained by Natural Selection.
The fit, that is the adapted, survives. But the unfit is produced in greater abundance than the fit. Theologians look
at the result and blink the process. Darwin, who studied
both, said, “ Where one would most expect design, namely,
in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think the less
I can see proof of design.” Dr. Farrar must catch his hare
before he cooks it. He must prove design before he requires
the Atheist to explain it. Perhaps he will begin with idiots,
cripples, deaf mutes, fleas, bugs, lice, eczema, cancers, tumors,
and tapeworms.
Fourth (6) Question: Could millions of printers' types
fortuitously shape themselves into the works of Dante or
Shakespeare ?—No, nor even into the works of Dr. Farrar.
But who evei’ said they could? Why not ask Atheists
whether the moon could be made of green cheese? Dr.
Farrar is no doubt alluding to what is called Chance. But
Atheists do not recognise chance as a cause. Chance is
contingency, and contingency is ignorance. The term
denotes a condition of our minds, not an operation of external
nature.
Fifth Question : Whence came consciousness ?—This is a
very silly or a very fraudulent question. Putting the
problem in this way insinuates a theological answer. Con
sciousness, like life, is not an entity, and did not come from
�( 16 )
anywhere. The only proper question is, What is tw\J
of consciousness ? This is an extremely difficult and in
problem. It will be solved, if at all, by the Darwi/s of
physio-psychology, not by the Farrars of the pulpit. The
worthy Archdeacon and the Christian young men must wait
until their betters have explained the development of con
sciousness. The supposition that they understand it is simply
ludicrous. Nor is any theory to be built on the bog of their
ignorance.
Sixth Question : Who gave you free will ?—Ay, who ? Has
man a free will, in the metaphysical sense of the words?
Martin Luther replied in the negative. He would have
laughed, or snorted, at Dr. Farrar’s question. Atheists are
all with Martin Luther on this point; although, of course,
they reject his theory that Clod and theDevjl are always con
tending for the rulership of the human will. They hold that
the will is determined by natural causes, like everything else
in the universe. To ask an Atheist, therefore, who gave him
free will, is asking him who gave him what he does not possess.
Seventh Question : Whence came conscience ?—This, agaim
is stupidly expressed. Conscience did not “ come ” from any
where. Further, before the Atheist answers Dr. Farrar’s
question, even in an amended form, he requires a definition.
What is meant by Conscience ? If it means the perception of
right and wrong, it is an intellectual faculty, which varies m
individuals and societies, some having greater discrimination
than others. If it means the recognition of distinct, settled
categories of right and wrong, it depends on social and
religious training. In a high state of civilisation these
categories approximate to the laws of social welfare and
disease; in a low state of civilisation they are fantastic and
fearfully distorted by superstition. There is hardly a single
vice that has not been practised as a virtue under a religious
sanction. Finally, if conscience means the feeling of obliga
tion, the sense of “ I ought,” it is a product of social evolu
tion. It is necessarily generated among gregarious beings,
and 'in the course of time Natural Selection weeds out the
individuals in whom it is lacking or deficient. Social types
of feeling survive, and the‘anti-social perish. And this is the
whole “ mystery ” of conscience.
�
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
Ingersollism defended against Archdeacon Farrar
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Reply to Archdeacon Farrar's article A few words on Colonel Ingersoll, published in the North American Review. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N246
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Ingersollism defended against Archdeacon Farrar), 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
Frederick William Farrar
NSS
Robert Green Ingersoll
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3d772fe12215b949e1edf4f05e54d6ab.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I5Vv1g6vHhlXgas55hpHjhCDS4X4x1tsv14RR%7EuFxc7J1Pt1Jbx6QK02TTa3GRtdNSHMisVyWsMrgN-SE7hzR5u9k7T-EPdyFJAhwiI9qUdKV%7EVvU%7E2qHby-rG4gOdsf%7ELjPU-oEp7NksZK9-I5-YvkCp2mtXoXPyFMExQ2OcRFGk0ZUki%7ErgNUxGfZGbBlr8c5LsKmm6LRHQdYViwsPTM8Wn%7EODcr3jR3kppYxMJdPa2FSg00LtFfRo10mZMI%7ElleSIhQO1q9NL-TZ7CaZ2GTcGxuIagL37KEWlYX652t4fRWoYk0yDVYFjYm-26sJqcDMkwdUrt-k%7EyDZXhMjXhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ab0023e38c0026b3cd49a4cef7acb1c6
PDF Text
Text
WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ?
WITH OBSERVATIONS ON
'
HUXLEY, BRADLAUGH, AND INGERSOLL
AND A REPLY TO
GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE
ALSO A
DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
BY
G. W. FOOTE,
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
LONDON
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED,.
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, E.C.
igO2.
�PRINTED BY
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD.,
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�ß 2SiO
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AGNOSTIC PRETENSIONS.
\
I happened to say once that an Agnostic was an Atheist
with a tall hat on. Many a true word is spoken in jest,
and I believe this is a case in point. It may be my
■obtuseness, but I have never been able to discover any
real difference between the Atheist and the Agnostic,
■except that the latter is more in love with respectability ;
■or, if not exactly in love, is anxious to contract a
marriage of convenience. In the old Hall of Science
days, I noticed that sturdy Freethinkers used to come
and sit under Bradlaugh, and proudly call themselves
Atheists. That was while they were comparatively
poor, and free from domestic embarrassments. When
they became better off, and their children (especially
their daughters) grew taller, they gradually edged off
to South-place Chapel, sat under Mr. Conway, and
■called themselves Agnostics. They did not pretend
that their opinions had changed, and they were glad to
sneak into the old place (minus wife and family) on a
stirring occasion ; but they had drifted, and they knew
why, though they never liked to say so. Bradlaugh’s
strength lay amongst those who could, for one reason
or another, afford to defy conventions; such as the
skilled artisans and the lower-middle classes, with a
dash of professional society. Two hundred a year was
fatal to his front-seat people. When they reached that
income they emigrated (with their womenkind) to a
more 81 respectable ” establishment.
�4
I do not shrink from the consequences of the foregoing;
observations. Indeed, I will speak with the utmost
plainness. Charles Bradlaugh was an Atheist becausehe was a man of invincible courage, and did not care:
twopence for the frowns of the Church or the sneers of
Society. Professor Huxley was an Agnostic because he:
had» over a thousand a year, and moved in the “ upper
circles,” and filled certain “ honorable ” positions. He
was too honest to say that he believed what he dis
believed, but he could not afford to bear an odiousname. So he coined the word “ Agnostic,” which wasnewer, longer, and less intelligible than “ Atheist.” And
having got a label that suited him entirely, he devised
many subtle reasons why other Freethinkers should,
wear it too. A number of them jumped at the oppor
tunity. They were delighted to be at once heterodox;
and respectable. It was a new and unexpected sensa
tion. They were able to criticise orthodoxy with great,
freedom, providing they did not touch upon the twovital points of all supernatural faith — namely, the:
belief in God and the doctrine of a future life ; and.
they were also able to chide the Atheist for his vulgar
dogmatism in calling certain religious ideas false, when,
the true philosopher knew that it was impossible todemonstrate the negative of anything.
I used to think that Mr. Holyoake was an Atheist.
At any rate, he wrote a Trial of Theism, in which he
made that ancient faith look a frightful old impostorj
But I conclude that he now wishes this work to b<&
regarded as an academic exercise, a playful effort of
the theoretical intelligence. Many years ago—and still
for all I know—he offered the British public the story
of his prosecution and imprisonment for “blasphemy’'
under the title of The Last Trial for Atheism. He wasreally not tried for Atheism at all, and most of us took
the word as a defiant expression of his principles* Buhl
�5
we were mistaken. Mr. Holyoake explains in a recent
publication that he is not an Atheist now, what
ever he may have been when he was young, ignorant,
-and impulsive. He says that the Atheist is guilty of
■“ preposterous presumption ”—which I think I under
stand, although it is a very loose expression. He calls
Atheism a “ wild assumption.” He professes himself
an Agnostic ; which, as he explains it, is our old friend
Sceptic alive again from the pages of David Hume.
“Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism denote attitudes
of thought in relation to the existence of a Supreme
Cause of Nature. The Theist declares, without mis
giving, that there is such an existence. The Atheist,
without misgiving, declares there is no such existence.
The Agnostic, more modest in pretension, simply says
that, having no information on the subject, he does not
know.”
Mr. Holyoake says, further on, that the Theist and the
Atheist alike have “ no doubt that they knew the solu
tion ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.”
Well, I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at
least one Atheist who does not affect to know this
“ solution.” This particular Atheist does not so much
asknow the meaning of “the cause of eternity.” To
him it is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words!
But this is not enough. I will go further, and
ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who
denies the existence of God. Of course there are
many Atheists who deny the existence of this or that
God, because the definition of such alleged beings
involves a contradiction to obvious facts of universal
■experience. But what Atheist denies the existence of
■any God ; that is to say, of any superhuman or super
mundane power ? All the Atheists I know of take the
position that there is no evidence on which to form a
valid judgment, and that man’s finite intellect seems
�6
incapable of solving an infinite problem. And as I
understand Mr. Holyoake this is the very position taken
by the Agnostic.
Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an Atheist is.
one without God. That is all the “A” before “Theist”'
really means. Now I believe the Agnostic is without God
too.
Practically, at any rate, he is in the same boat
with the Atheist.
Atheism may be called a negative attitude. No doubt
it is so. But every negative involves something positive..
If the Atheist turns away from the “ mighty problem ”
as hopeless, he is likely to tackle more promising pro-«
blems with greater vigor annd effect. But it is admitted
by Mr. Holyoake that Agnosticism is a negative attitude
too. Wherein, then, lies the justification for all the super
fine airs of its advocates ?
When you look into the matter closely, you perceivfl
that Atheism and Agnosticism are both definite in the
same direction. Bradlaugh and Huxley were at one in
their hostile criticism of Christianity. Keeping the mind
free from superstition is an excellent work. It is weeding
the ground. But it is not sowing, and still less reaping.
It merely creates the possibility of sound and useful
growth. We have to fall back upon Secularism at the
finish. Nor is that a finality. Secularism is the affirma
tion of the claims of this life against the usurpations of
the next. But the affirmation would be unncessary if
the belief in a future life disappeared or radically changed..
Secularism itself—whatever Mr. Holyoake may say—is.
an attitude. The face that was turned from God is.
turned towards Man. What will follow is beyond the.
range of Atheism or Agnosticism.
Presently it is.
beyond the range of Secularism. It is not to be deter
mined by any system. It depends on positive knowledge
and the laws of evolution.
�7
AGNOSTICISM AND ORTHODOXY.
During the most vigorous part of his life Mr. Holyoakepassed as an Atheist, but in his old age he prefers to call
himself an Agnostic. Now this is a change that might
be allowed to pass unchallenged, if it were not made the
occasion of an attack on others who elect to remain
under the old flag. Old age is entitled to comforts, or
at least to shelter from hardships ; and if a veteran of
over eighty finds any advantage or convenience in adopt
ing a more tolerable designation, without any actual
renunciation of principle, it is only a curmudgeon that
would deny him the luxury. But when we are practi
cally asked to share it with him we have the right tomake an open refusal. When the fox, in the old story,
lost his tail, and then tried to persuade his brethren that
they would look much handsomer if they dispensed with
theirs, it was time to tell him that the appendages were
both ornamental and useful. If “ Atheist ” is in Mr..
Holyoake’s way, by all means let him get rid of it. Butwhen he advances a reason why others should follow his
example, it is permissible to tell him that his reason is
insufficient. Mr. Holyoake’s reason is this—in brief.
Theism says there is a God, Atheism says there is no
God, and Agnosticism says it does not know. Agnosti
cism, therefore, is modest and accurate; it does not
dogmatise, and it keeps within the limit of its informa
tion. Such is Mr. Holyoake’s argument, and his con
clusion would be sound enough if his premises were not
faulty. But they are faulty. Mr. Holyoake declared
that Atheists, like Theists, had “ no doubt that they
knew the solution ” of the “ mighty problem of the
cause of eternity.” “Well,” I said in reply, “ I beg to
tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist
who does not affect to know this ‘ solution.’ To him it
�is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words ! I will go
further,” I added, “ and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me
to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.**
He has not, however, deigned to reply to this perfectly
legitimate question.
Atheists may, just like Agnostics, deny the existence of
this or that God. It all depends on definitions. A
quarter of a century ago, in criticising a book by Pro
fessor Flint, I wrote as follows :—
“ There be Gods many and Lords many; which of the
long theological list is to be selected as the God ? A
God, like everything else from the heights to the depths,
■can be known only by his attributes; and what the
Atheist does is not to argue against the existence of any
God, which would be sheer lunacy, but to take the
attributes affirmed by Theism as composing its Deity,
and to inquire whether they are compatible with each
other and with the facts of life. Finding that they are
not, the Atheist simply sets Theism aside as not proven,
and goes on his way without further afflicting himself
with such abstruse questions.”
This is precisely the position I took in replying to
Mr. Holyoake recently, and it is the position of all
the Atheists I know or have ever known. Moreover, it
was, as far as I understood him, the position of Mr.
Holyoake himself while we all thought him an Atheist.
During his debate with Mr. Bradlaugh, some thirty
years ago, it was admitted that both were Atheists;
the question in dispute was whether Atheism was
involved in Secularism. I do not recollect that there
was so much as a suggestion that a difference existed
between them as to the meaning of Atheism. Their
difference was over the meaning of Secularism.
I am well aware that persons of a metaphysical turn
of mind, and a good knowledge of the dictionary, can
argue with each other on all sorts of subjects, and keep
�9
it up till death or the day of judgment. But the troublecomes when they have to meet the practical man, the
average man, the man in the street. He has his living •
to get, and lots of things to attend to ; so, instead of
beating about the bush, he goes straight to what seems,
to him to the kernel of the question—the real point at
issue. He may be mistaken, of course ; but that is his
method, and you will never wean him from it. All the
“ revelations ” in the world have been got up for him.
It was found that no impression was made upon him by
Platonic or other long-winded ratiocinations; so specu
lation was presented to him as fact, and fancy as history ;
and in that .way he was nobbled, because he did not
perceive the cheating—though he is beginning to see it
now. Well then, let an Atheist and an Agnostic stand
together before this gentleman; and what difference
will he discover between them ? “ Have you got a
God?” he asks in his blunt way. The Atheist plainly
answers “ No.” The Agnostic hums and ha’s. “ Come
now, straight,” says the questioner, “ have you got a
God?” The Agnostic says : “Well, I------.” “ Here^
that’ll do,” says the man in the street, “ I see you
haven’t got one. You’re just like the other fellow, only
he’s straighter.” And really that practical man, that
average man, that man in the street, is right. He has
' got hold of the substance. All else is shadow. You have
a God, or you have not. There is really no intermediate
position. If you have a God, you are a Theist; if you
have no God, you are an Atheist. Let your reasons be
few or many, plain or subtle, this is what it comes to at
the finish. “ I am the Lord thy God,” cries some Deity
or other through the mouth of a priest. “Not mine,”
says the Atheist. - “ Not precisely mine,” says the
Agnostic, “ at least at present; these things require a
great deal of consideration ; but I promise to keep an
open mind.” Now if the offended Deity were to box.
�IO
the ears of one of them, which do you thin it would
be ? I fancy it would be the Agnostic, for all his
ii reverence.”
Mr. Holyoake’s new attitude is likely to procure him
fresh friends in the fold of faith—which he will probably
not find annoying.
One announced himself in the
Church Gazette, and this is what he said :—
“ One is glad to see that Mr. Holyoake has renounced
the title of ‘Atheist’ in favor of that of ‘Agnostic.’
The Freethinker deprecates his doing so on the ground
that the two terms imply exactly the same thing. We
cannot admit that they do. An ‘ Atheist ’ properly means
a person who positively denies the existence of a God,
while an ‘ Agnostic ’ is simply one who does not know,
but who very often is strongly inclined to believe in a
Deity. Between these attitudes there lies a vast interval.
The first is as dogmatic as that of a Cardinal; the
second is philosophical, and of one who adopts it there is
always a good deal of hope.”
Without inquiring what right a Christian paper has
to define “ Atheism ” for Atheists, I may observe
how consoling it must be to Mr. Holyoake to be told by a
■Christian that he is “ philosophical,” that there is “ a
vast interval ” between himself and a wicked, dogmatic
Atheist, and that there is “ a good deal of hope ” for
him! My own criticism is nothing to this. This
orthodox editor greets Mr. Holyoake’s one leg over the
fence, and “ hopes ” for his whole body. Other orthodox
.editors in the course of time, either before his death or
.after, will perhaps argue that Mr. Holyoake really saw
the error of his ways and probably “ found salvation.”
�11
MR. HOLYOAKE’S VINDICATION.
Mr. Holyoake’s article on “ Agnosticism Higher than
Atheism ” in my own journal, the Freethinker, for
January 6 (1901) opened with a warm defence of his
■own consistency.
Personally, I may say that I do not care two pins, or
■even one, whether Mr. Holyoake has or has not made
or undergone a change in his opinion, his attitude, or
"whatever he or anyone else may please to call it. He
:seems to be quite passionate about it, but it is
really of no importance to anyone but himself.
The only important question is whether he is right in
what he says now. All men but the fossilised have
•changed intellectually, as they have changed physically.
““ In a higher world,” said Newman, “ it is otherwise,
but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect
is to' have changed often.” Emerson stated the same
truth with scornful relation to human vanity. “ A
foolish consistency,” he said, “is the hobgoblin of little
.minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and
•divines.” It may be telling in political debate, where
there is ever a hundred grains of nonsense to one grain
■of sense, to reply to an opponent out of his own mouth,
and show that what he says to-day is answered by what
he said several years ago. Vain politicians fall into this
trap, because they fancy their own consistency is somethingiof infinite moment; not their consistency of prin
ciple or intention, but their consistency of mental
■conclusion. But now and then a stronger politician
laughs at the trap which is laid for him. Some persons
thought it was mere cynicism on Beaconsfield’s part
when he declined to argue a question before parliament
in the light of certain “musty old speeches” of his,
which had been quoted against him in the debate. But
f-
�12
it was sanity and wisdom. It was a personal question1
whether he was right or wrong twenty years before; it
was a public question whether he was right or wrong at
that moment.
Mr. Holyoake, as I understand him, says he never wasan Atheist. He has always an Agnostic, but he lacked
the word to express his attitude. The term he did
suggest was Cosmism as a substitute for Atheism. In
connection with it he quotes the words—from ThomasCooper, I believe—“ I do not say there is no God, but.
this I say—I know not.” Perhaps it will surprisehim to learn—or to be reminded of it if he has forgotten
it—that Charles Bradlaugh, both in print and on theplatform, was fond of quoting those very words asindicating the essential attitude of Atheism. Are we
to conclude, then, that Bradlaugh, too, was an Agnostic
without knowing it ? Are we also to conclude that not
a single Atheist during the past forty years understood
Atheism, and that the only person who did understand it
was Mr. Holyoake, who was never an Atheist at all ?
“ Agnosticism,” Mr. Holyoake says, “ relates only toDeity.” Does it indeed ? Its meaning and application
were not thus restricted by Professor Huxley. This is
what he said in his essay on “ Agnosticism ” (Collected
Essays, vol. v., p. 245) :—
“ Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method»,
the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of M
single principle. That principle is of great antiquity;
it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said
‘ Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the
foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated
the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason
for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of
Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern
science. Positively the principle may be expressed : In
matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it
will take you, without regard to any other consideration-
�i3
And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not
pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the
Agnostic faith.”
This is stated even more compendiously in a later essay
on “Agnosticism and Christianity” (vol. v., p. 310) :—
“ Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘ negative ’
creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so
far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a
principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This
principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that
he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts ; and,
in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.”
These are, I believe, the only two definitions of Agnos
ticism to be found in Huxley’s writings; and, so far
from restricting the application of the term to the
question of the existence of Deity, as Mr. Holyoake
:says it should be, its inventor does not so much as
allude to that question in either of these passages. He
presents Agnosticism as a general method or attitude in
relation to all propositions, and therefore to all subjects
whatsoever.
Mr. Holyoake goes on to say that Agnosticism—his
Agnosticism—“ leaves a man to reason, to con
science, to morality, to nature, to the laws of truth,
of honor, and the laws of the State.” Yes, and it also
leaves him, if he prefers, to the opposite of these—to
folly, vice, and crime, to the workhouse, the lunatic
asylum, and the prison. What Mr. Holyoake says of
Agnosticism is simply an echo of what Bacon said of
Atheism. “ Atheism,” that philosopher said, in the Essay
Of Superstition, “ leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to
natural piety, to laws, to reputation.”
�When Bacon wanted to dig the Atheist in the fifth
rib with a dirty dagger, he treated Atheism as a denial
of God. “None,” he said, “ deny there is a God but
those for whom it maketh that there were no God.’”
Which is equivalant to saying that no one denies God.
but a scoundrel. But when he talks like a candid philo*
sopher his language is very different. “It were better,’”
he declared, “ to have no opinion of God at all, than
such an opinion as is unworthy of him.” That was.
the real difference between Atheism and superstition.
“ No opinion of God at all.” Bacon regarded that
as philosophical Atheism. Mr. Holyoake regards it as
philosophical Agnosticism. Well, this is a free country,
at least to that extent, and I prefer to side with.
Bacon.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoke’s philosophy of
“disbelief” and “ non-belief ” is a sad confusion, abound
ing *in arbitrary statements. Take the following passage»,
for instance :—
“‘Disbelief’ is the state of mind of one who hag;
evidence before him, but finds it so insufficient that ha
disbelieves the proposition to which the evidence:
relates. ‘ Non-belief’ expresses that state of mind whefft
all relevant evidence is absent, and he is therefore in ft.
state of non-belief or absolute unknowingness.”
Now the first sentence is but a pretty waste of wordsRepetition is not definition. It enlightens no one to say
that “disbelief” is the state of mind of a person who
“ disbelieves.” Nor is it true that one who disbelieveshas always evidence before him. He may have none at
all. I disbelieve in the existence of dragons and
centaurs, but I am not aware that there is a scrap of
positive evidence on the subject. On the other hand,
there may be “relevant evidence”—can there be any
irrelevant evidence ?—in the case of “ non-belief,” which
is precisely the same thing as unbelief. My own position
�i5
with regard to the “ microbe theory ” of disease is oneof “ non-belief,” but I should be very ignorant or foolish
to say that “ relevant evidence ” was totally “ absent.”'
And how on earth can “ absolute unknowingness ” haveany relation to belief at all? It is simply a blank.
Nothing is there, and no room exists for any form o£
opinion.
Mr. Holyoake’s “ non-belief ” seems to be a nonentity.
The remaining term is “ disbelief.” This he does not
really define, but he evidently means it to connote a.
state of mind following the recognition that the evidenceadvanced in favor of a proposition is “ insufficient.”
Now I venture to say that this is unbelief or disbelief
simply according to the balance of the evidence. Mr,
Holyoake speaks as though evidence were always for
and never against, whereas it is usually of both kinds.
If the evidence is unsatisfactory, we say we do not
believe the proposition. If the evidence is very unsatis
factory, we say we disbelieve it. The two words
express different degrees of the same general state of
mind.
This view has fbe countenance of common usage, asit certainly has the countenance of etymology. And a.
very remarkable fact may be cited in this connection.
The orthodox term for all sceptics, from the mild.
Unitarian to the terrible Atheist, is “ unbelievers.”
Mr. Holyoake goes to the length of saying that “ Todisbelieve is to deny.” I say it is not. Mr. Holyoakehimself disbelieves the theory of a future life, but he
does not deny it. Denial, in the strict sense of the word,
presupposes knowledge. It is not a mere question of
opinion—like belief, unbelief, or disbelief. < If you say I
have done a certain thing which I know I have not
done ; if you say I was at a certain place yesterday
when I know I was not there ; I deny your assertion.
But if you say that a friend of mine has done a certain
�i6
thing, or was at a certain place yesterday, when I was
not there myself, I cannot deny your assertion. Yet I
may not believe it from what I know of my friend’s
■character and movements, and I may disbelieve it when
I have heard the evidence on both sides.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake made this arbitrary
•affirmation about disbelief and denial because it served
the turn in his argument against Atheism. He proceeds
to say—and with plausibility if his theory of disbelief is
.accurate-—that if you “ take denial out of the word ”
Atheism you “ take the soul out of it.” “ Atheism,” he
repeats, “ which does not deny God is a corpse.” All
this, however, is repetition on repetition of what he is
asked to prove. The idea seems to be that saying a
thing over again, with fresh force and point, is a good
substitute for “ relevant evidence.”
Mr. Holyoake says there are “ brave spirits ” in the
Atheistic camp “ who believe that the existence of God
<an be disproved, and say so.” “ To them,” he adds,
“Atheism, in its old sense—of denial—is the only honest
word.” Of course it is. But who ave, these Atheists ?
AVhy does not Mr. Holyoake give us a little informa
tion ? What is the use of argument without facts ? I
■admit there are Atheists who believe that the reality of
some conceptions of God can be disproved. If reason
is to be trusted—and we have no other guide—it is
perfectly clear that a God of infinite power, infinite
wisdom, and infinite goodness, does not exist. John
Stuart Mill was as firm as a rock on this point, and he
was the author of a classical treatise on Logic. Mr.
Holyoake himself, I believe, would not deny that
Science has practically disproved the existence of the
God of Miracles.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake plays with the
word “ God.” He treats it is a definite word, with one
invariable meaning. But it means anything or nothing,
�.according to definitions. Without a definition, you
might as well pronounce it backwards. It may be true
that the Atheist “ denies the existence of God,” if you
■define God to mean Thor, Jupiter, Jehovah, or Christ.
But is it true that the Atheist denies the existence of
any possible God ? This is a point to which Mr.
Holyoake does not address himself. Nor is he likely to
■ do so while he uses the word “ God ” as loosely as any
^shuffling theologian.
Some conceptions of God are flatly contradicted by
the most familiar facts of experience. These are as
much to be denied as a round square or a bitter sweet.
Some conceptions of God are not contradicted by any
facts of experience. They may be true, and they may
Be false. In the absence of “ relevant evidence,” there
is no way of deciding. It is all a matter of conjecture.
And both information and. denial, in such cases, are
mere expressions of personal preference.
But behind all the metaphysics of this subject there
is a Science of which one could hardly surmise from his
writings that Mr. Holyoake had ever heard. I mean
the Science whith the great David Hume inaugurated
in his Natural History of Religion. Not to go beyond
•our own country, the researches of Spencer, Lubbock,
Tylor, Frazer, Harland, and other workers in this
fruitful field, have thrown a flood of light upon the
.genesis and development of religious belief. The facts
.are seen, and they tell their own tale. And when it is
•once perceived that the “highest” ideas of modern
theology have their roots in the lowest savage super
stitions, the old disputes about the existence of God
.seem almost fantastic.
This is a point, however, which it is not my object to
press. Some of my readers will understand ; others,
perhaps, will take the hint. I wish to conclude this
■criticism by showing that what Mr. Holyoake means by
�Agnosticism, is what Atheists have always meant by
Atheism.
The shortest way is the best. Let us take the most
conspicuous, the most hated, English Atheist of thenineteenth century ; one who was supposed — and
especially by those who knew least about him—to beas extravagant in his speech as he was shocking in his.
character. I refer to Charles Bradlaugh. He was am
Atheist of Atheists, and this is what he wrote:—
The Atheist does not say ‘there is no God,’ but hesays, ‘ I know not what you mean by God; I am with
out idea of God; the word “ God ” is, to me, a sound
conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.
I do not
deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I haves
no conception, and the conception of which, by its.
affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to
me.’ ”
Now let us hear the Agnostic.
Mr. Holyoake says
“ The Agnostic assertion of unknowingness is far
wider, far mo.e defiant and impregnable than the deniaL
of the Atheist who stands upon the defective evidence.
Agnosticism is a challenge. It says: ‘ I do not know J
do you ? Your assertions have no force. Evidence from
the field of facts is wanted’....... the very idea of an
originating Deity has no place in the understanding.’*
Mr. Bradlaugh’s language is that of clear thought..
Is Mr. Holyoake s so ? It is hard to see how an asser
tion of ignorance can be “ defiant,” though it may be
“ impregnable ” because there is nothing to attack. If
the Atheist stands upon the defective evidence, what
else is the A gnostic doing when he says that evidence iswanted ? And is not the last sentence on all-fours with.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s last sentence ? What difference there
is seems in favor of the Atheist. It is one of carefulnessand modesty. Mr. Bradlaugh speaks for himself. Mr.
Holyoake speaks for everybody.
�i9
What substantial difference, I ask, can anyone find,
between these two quotations? Mr. Bradlaugh was asmuch an Agnostic as Mr. Holyoake, and Mr. Holyoake
is as much an Atheist as Mr. Bradlaugh. It is therefore
evident, as far as this particular discussion goes, that
Agnosticism is a new name for the old Atheism.
After repeating that Agnosticism “asserts that theexistence of Gcd is a proposition of utter unknowing
ness,” Mr. Holyoake declares that it “leaves Theism,
stranded on the shores of speculation.” What more
has been asserted by any Atheist ? Does it not provethat the Agnostic is “ without God in the world ”? And.
does not this illuminating phrase of the great Apostle
show the real parting of the ways ?
INGERSOLL’S
AGNOSTICISM.
Mr.. Holyoake, I believe, has a great admiration for
the late Colonel Ingersoll. I have a great admiration
for him too. He was a splendid man, a magnificent
orator, and a deep thinker. This last fact is too little
recognised. Many take the clear for the shallow and.
the turbid for the profound. Others love decorum even
though it drops into dulness. Ingersoll’s brightness, noless than his lucidity, was detrimental to his reputation..
It is commonly thought that the witty man cannot be
wise. But a minority know how false this is. Shakes
peare was the wittiest as well as the wisest of men.
Be that as it may, the point is that Mr. Holyoake and.
I both admire Ingersoll. We may therefore appeal tohim on this question of Atheism and Agnosticism. Not
that he is to decide it for us, but it will be profitable tohear what he has to say.
Ingersoll published a lecture entitled Why Am I
An Agnostic ? This was during his mellow maturity,.
�when some hasty persons said he was growing too
■“ respectable.” He was perfectly frank, however, and
even aggressive, on the question of the existence of
Deity. Here is a passage from the very first page of
this lecture :—
“Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that
Jehovah is not God, that the Bible is not an inspired
book, and that the Christian religion, like other religions,
is the creation of man, usually say : ‘ There must be a
Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the
Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an
•over-ruling Providence or Power.’
“ This position is just as untenable as the other. He
who cannot harmonise the cruelties of the Bible with
the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonise the cruelties
of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed
Deity.”
After giving several illustrations of the Deist’s diffi
culty, Ingersoll proceeds as follows, introducing for the
first time the word Agnostic :—
“ It seems to me that the man who knows the limita
tions of the mind, who gives the proper value to human
testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the
hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of compre
hending the supernatural, or conceiving of an infinite
personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver,
and Providence, all meaning falls.”
Mr. Holyoake might reply that he endorses every word
of this paragraph ; but I should have to tell him that
there are much stronger things to come. My point for the
present is that Ingersoll in a lecture on Agnosticism makes
it look remarkably like Atheism. Certainly he dismisses
the only idea of God that a Theist would ever think of
•contending for.
Let us now turn to the last address that Ingersoll ever
■delivered, before the American Free Religious Associa
tion at Boston, on June 2, 1899, only a few weeks prior
�21
to his sudden death. This lecture is published under thetitle of What is Religion ? Curiously it sums up all that
he had ever taught on the subject. There is an autumn
ripeness about it, and its conclusion has the air of a
final deliverance in sight of the grave. Nor is this
astonishing ; for he knew the nature of his malady, and
was aware that death might overtake him at any
monent. It should be added that Ingersoll read this
address, which was printed from his manuscript.
Now this lecture on What is Religion? contains a care
ful and elaborate statement of the speaker’s Materialism.
It runs as follows :—
.
“ If we have a theory we must have facts for the
foundation. We must have corner-stones. We must
not build on guesses, fancies, analogies, or inferences.
The structure must have a basement. If we build, we
must begin at the bottom.
“ I have a theory, and I have four corner-stones.
«The first stone is that matter—substance—cannot
be destroyed, cannot be annihilated.
► The second stone is that force cannot be destroyed,
cannot be annihilated.
“ The third stone is that matter and force cannot
exist apart—no matter without force; no force without
matter,
“ The fourth stone is that that which cannot be destroyed
could not have been created; that the indestructible is
the uncreateable.
** If these corner-stones are facts, it follows as a
necessity that matter and force are from and to eternity ;
that they can neither be increased nor diminished.
“ It follows that nothing has been, or can be,
ereated; that there never has been, or can be, a
creator.
“ It follows that there could not have been any intel
ligence, any design, back of matter and force.
'¿/‘There is no intelligence without force. There is no
force without matter. Consequently there could not by
�22
-any possibility have been any intelligence, any force,
back of matter.
'
’
It therefore follows that the supernatural does not,
•and cannot, exist. If these four corner-stones are facts,
nature has no master. If matter and force are from
and to eternity, it follows as a necessity that no God
exists.”
Here is an argumentative denial of the existence of
'God, as the term is generally understood. It is true
that Ingersoll says, a little later on, that he does not
-pretend to know, but only states what he thinks. This
■qualification, however, while it is a sign of modesty, is
not necessary from a philosophical point of view, since
no man who is not inspired can possibly advance any
thing on this subject but his opinions. This is so from
the very nature of the case, for there is no certainty
• about the strongest argument in the world unless its
•conclusion can be submitted to the test of verification.
According to Mr. Holyoake’s criterion, therefore,
Ingersoll had no right to call himself an Agnostic. He
was not merely a doubter, but a denier, and should
have called himself an Atheist. Not that he denied
any possible God, for no Atheist does that. He denied
the God of Christianity and the God of ordinary Theism.
Now if Ingersoll s statement of the Agnostic position,
thus qualified and understood, is one which Agnostics
m general are ready to endorse, it is perfectly clear that
the only difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is
one of nomenclature.
There is evidence that this was Ingersoll’s own
•opinion. The complete “ Dresden ” edition of his
works contains an important “ Inverview ” headed M My
Belief” (vol. v., pp. 245-248). It is in the form of
•Question and Answer. We will take the following :—■
Question. Do you believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being ?
�23
Answer*—I do not believe in any Supreme personality
or in any Supreme Being who made the universe and
governs nature. I do not say there is no such Being—
all I say is that I do not believe that such a Being
exists.
This is precisely the position taken by all the Atheists
T ever knew. If this is Agnosticism, every Atheist is
Agnostic, and every Agnostic is an Atheist.
■Let it not be said that this is only my inference. It
was Ingersoll’s own view, as is shown by the following
extract:—
Question. Don’t you think that the belief of the
Agnostic is more satisfactory to the believer than that of
the Atheist ?
Answer. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an
Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic
says: “ I do not know, but I do not believe there is any
God.” The Atheist says the same. The orthodox
Christian says he knows there is a God ; but we know
that he does not know. He simply believes. He can
not know. The Atheist cannot know that God does not
exist.
I have given the whole of this Question and Answer
do avoid any possible misunderstanding. The pertinent
>nd decisive words are in the first half of the Answer.
Ingersoll is not with Mr. Holyoake, but against him.
'We have only to reverse the order of three short
sentences to feel the full force of his conclusion. The
^Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic is an Atheist. There
is W difference.
�24
WICKED OPINIONS.
Mr. Holyoake seems to be turning his back upon a prin
ciple which he has often expounded; a principle which
in the justification of Freethought, and without which
persecution is honest jurisprudence. He refers very
strangely to certain “ Atheists whose disbelief in born of
dissoluteness, and who conceal vice by theological outrage
of speech.” This is followed by a scornful reference to“ pot-house Atheism.”
I am not well acquainted with pot-houses, but I should'
imagine that Atheism is not prevalent in them. I have
seen the pot-house people at large on certain holidays,,
but I never noticed much Atheism in their conversation..
Vulgar, malignant Christians, of course, have often
suggested that Atheists hold their meetings in public
houses ; but I hope Mr. Holyoake does not wish tocountenance this calumny.
I should imagine, too, that if a man wanted to
“ conceal ” his “ vice ” he would be a very great fool toresort to “ theological outrage of speech.” It would
pay him better, or rather less badly, to be outrageous
in any other direction. This is precisely the way to
excite odium, to attract hostile regard, and make him
self an object of general suspicion. That a vicious man
should wear a mask of piety is sufficiently intelligible..
Myriads have done it, and many still do it, as we learn
every now and then by the police news. But for a.
vicious man to range himself on the side of an odiousand hated minority, to affront the prejudices of the very
people he wishes to impose upon, and thus to invite a
scrutiny where he desires to practice concealment, would
be an amazing display of imbecility.
But it is still worse to hear Mr. Holyoake stigmatising;
the “disbelief” of certain Atheists—not their affecta-
�25
lions or pretensions, but their disbelief—as “ born of
•dissoluteness.” If this has any meaning at all, it implies
that belief is amenable to volition. If it be so, you
•can change a man’s belief by punishing him ; that is, by
.•giving him a strong inducement to believe otherwise;
and, in that case, the Christians were quite right when
they fined, imprisoned, tortured, and burnt heretics as
.guilty of moral perversity. Such offenders could believe
the orthodox faith, but they would not, and force was
«employed to overcome their obstinacy. But the truth
is, that men do not think as they would, but as they can;
that is to say, as they must. The intellect may be
.affected by the emotions, but not directly. The wish is
:sometimes father to the thought, but it must necessarily
be a case of unconscious paternity. We may be
blinded by passion, but when the mist disperses the
mind’s eye sees the facts according to its capacity and the
laws of mental optics. I do not merely “ disbelieve,” I
deny ” that Atheism ever was, ever is, or ever could
be, born of dissoluteness. “ The fool,” according to the
Psalmist, “ hath said in his heart, there is no God.”
Mr. Holyoake substitutes sinner for fool, and thinks he is
philosophic. I think that he and the Psalmist are in the
.same boat.
Let us take an illustration. A burglar is going to
break into a jeweller’s shop, but he sees a policeman
looking at him from the opposite corner. He wishes to
•crack that crib, he came out to crack that crib, he is
there to crack that crib. Why should he not do it ?
There is a policeman over the way. What of that ?
-Can he not wish the policeman were not there ? Can
be not believe the policeman is not there ? We know he
■cannot. We know the shop is safe for the present.
Now the God that Mr. Holyoake refers to in this con
nection is the heavenly policeman. A vicious man wishes
this God were not looking on, then he believes this God
�26
is not looking on, and thus he becomes a full-blown
Atheist! Could there be a greater absurdity ?
It should be recognised that the human intellect acts
(or functions) according to necessary laws. Given
certain information, and a certain power of judgment,,
and a man s conclusion follows with mathematical pre
cision. His desires, and hopes, and fears have nothing“
to do with the matter. They do not govern his opinions.
His opinions govern them. Our ideas do not accom
modate themselves to our emotions: our emotions
accommodate themselves to our ideas. Love itself,
which is supposed to be absolutely blind, walks with,
some degiee of rationality in the light. Peasants do
not fall in love with a princess. Why ? Because they
know she is beyond their reach.
Actions may be wicked, and intentions may be wicked..
But there cannot be a wicked opinion. An opinion has
only one quality; it is true or false—or, to be still,
more strict, it is accurate or inaccurate. The quantity
of accuracy and inaccuracy may vary, but the quality
is unchangeable.
An opinion may always be reduced to a proposition..
Now if you apply the word “wicked ” to a proposition
you will immediately see its grotesqueness.
It is true that a man may neglect to inform himself
on a subject, either through indolence or wilfulness ; and
his opinion will suffer in consequence. He may even
be dishonest, if inquiry devolved upon him as a duty..
But his opinion cannot be dishonest. You might say it
was born of dishonesty, but that is a very forced
metaphor, and not the language of philosophy. An
opinion is always born of two parents ; a man’s natural,
faculty of judgment and the information on which it
operates.
If there cannot be a dishonest opinion, of course there
cannot be an honest opinion. It is nonsense to talk of
�27
a man’s “honest belief” unless you simply mean that
the belief he expresses is the belief he entertains.
Strictly speaking, the honesty is not in the belief, but in.
the man. He may believe what he says or he may
not; in either case his belief is his belief. He knows
it, if you do not.
Mr. Holyoake, if I recollect aright, has championed,
the cause of “honest disbelief” in his former writings..
The expression was unfortunate, because it was unphilosophical; but I always understood him to mean that
the sceptic had the same right to his thought as a.
believer, So far I agree with him. In any other senseof the words I profoundly differ. And I deeply regret
that Mr. Holyoake has given the sanction of his name
to a view of the formation of opinions which is calcu
lated to serve the cause of bigotry, if not of active per
secution. I fear that the sentence I have specially
criticised will be quoted against Atheists ad nauseam, and
will be a fresh stumbling-block in the path of Freethought advocacy.
BLANK ATHEISM.
Mor® than twenty years ago I was personally acquainted',
with the late Mathilde Blind. James Thomson (“ B.V.”),
the author of that sombre and powerful poem, The City
of Dreadful Night, was with me on more than one occa
sion in her rooms, which were then the centre of some
distinguished intellectual society. Swinburne used
to call there occasionally, though it was never my luck
to meet him. Professor Clifford was another visitor,,
and with him I came into fairly close contact. One
evening I had a little party, consisting of Miss Blind
and a few of her friends, at my own bachelor diggings,
where by request I read them Thomson’s masterpiece..
�28
It was not then published, in the ordinary sense of the
word. I had it as it appeared in the National Reformer—
•a presentation copy from Thomson himself, with the
■omitted stanza added in his own handwriting. It had
Teen a good deal talked about in select circles, and the
members of that little party were very glad to make its
'Complete acquaintance in that fashion. When the flood.gates of criticism were open, one young poet suggested
some rather fatuous improvements. All admired the
work very much, or said they did ; but I noticed that
they all regarded it as a literary curiosity, a striking
poetical /w de force, and not at all as the life-agony of a
man of genius minted into golden verse by his unsubduable art. That aspect of the case did not seem to strike
them a bit, and I felt considerably disappointed at their
■dilettante observations.
But why do I go back to that long-ago ? Why open
and deliberately shut doors of old memories ? Why let
the daylight of recollection into ancient disused chambers,
where the only footfalls are ghostly, and even these are
•deadened by the dust of many years ? Because I cannot
help it. Because a sentence in a book, casually meeting
my gaze, has done it in my despite.
“ What took this soul of mine on the verge of a blank
Atheism, of utter denial and despair; what took it and
led it out of itself to the calm and awful centre of
things ?”
"This was the sentence that arrested my attention in the
Memoir ” which Dr. Garnett contributes to the new
•edition of Mathilde Blind’s Poetical Works. The sentence
is hers. And having raised the question, she supplies
.the answer.
“ It was Buckle. I verily think I owe to him what I
owe to no other human being—an eternal debt of
gratitude for the work he has left. It was the right
book at the right time, the serene proclamation of law
�29
o he unrolled the history of humanity before me from.
, its earliest germs.”
Now I confess to a certain sense of confusion in reading
all this- In the first place, Buckle did not do what he
is alleged to have done. He did not unroll the history
of humanity from its earliest germs. His work was a
great one, but that is not a proper description of it. In
the next place, I can hardly conceive that Mathilde
Blind had not read Buckle when I knew her, and she
was certainly an Atheist then. Clifford was so far from
being ashamed of the designation that he gloried in. it,
and we all understood that Mathilde Blind’s attitude
was precisely similar. What on earth then could she
mean by saying that Buckle saved her from “blank
Atheism ” ? What, indeed, is there in Buckle incom
patible with Atheism ? Did not his orthodox critics call
him a teacher of the Atheistic philosophy? Not that
Le W® fin Atheist, but as far as his book went it was
not unnatural that they (at any rate) should think him
It does not appear that Mathilde Blind herself ever
became a positive Theist. I fancy she called herself to ■
the end fin Agnostic. Her own poetry is not the work
of a believer in God. What on earth then, I repeat,,
did she mean by the statement that she had been saved
from * blank Atheism” ? And what is the meaning of
the words that follow ? “ Utter denial ” of what ? And
44 despair ” of what ? The whole thing is like a Chinese
puzzle.
I cannot help thinking that Mathilde Blind,, writing
perhaps in after years, when Clifford was dead, and
when perhaps the great Bradlaugh struggle had
rendered ® Atheism ” more odious than ever to the great
mob of “ respectable ” people, used the word with that
looseness which is only too common, but of which she
ought »ot to have been guilty. It is curious how so.
many persons, and orthodox teachers especially, are loth
�30
to let “Atheism” stand by itself, and tell its own
story. They seem to feel the necessity of prejudicing
the reader (or hearer) against it at the very outset.
So they hasten to put a suggestive, or even a sinister,
adjective m front of it, as a kind of warning herald.
Sometimes it is “ downright ” Atheism, sometimes it is
utter ” Atheism, sometimes it is “ grovelling ” Atheism
.sometimes it is “ blatant ” Atheism. This, by the way,'
is the favorite adjective of gentlemen like the late Rev.
Mr. Price Hughes. But “ blank ” Atheism is perhaps the
most ingenious form of depreciation. The horrified
imagination of piety is free to fill in the “ blank ” accord
ing to the instant movement of the spirit. Then it has
at least a suggestion of swearing. It sounds like a
polite or fastidious form of “ damned Atheism,” or even
■one of those stronger expletives which are so common
in the streets of Christian cities. Yes, “ blank Atheism ”
is distinctly good, and may be recommended to the
average apologists of religion, who might blunder into
obvious bad language if left to their own resources.
When one comes to think of it, however, it is per
fectly clear that Atheism is only “ blank ” in the sense
that it is not Theism. Atheists dispense with what they
regard as fictions, but they retain what they (and every
body else, for that matter) regard as facts. They dismiss
dreams, but .they cling to realities. They roam the
■ earth, though they believe in no hell under it. They
admire the ever-shifting panorama of the sky, though
they believe in no heaven above it. They breathe the
universal air, though they do not believe it is peopled
with invisible spirits. All that anyone is sure of is
theirs. The “ blank ” in their minds and lives only
relates to the unknown, the incomprehensible, and perhaps
the impossible.
What is it that the Theist knows and the Atheist does
not know? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. To the
�greatest minds, as well as the smallest, God is at the
best an inference ; and the doctrine of a future life can
only be verified (if at all) by dying. In this world, there
fore, and on this side of death, the Atheist has, or may
have, as much information as any religionist. Nor has
he fewer sources of enjoyment, or fewer means of per
sonal development and elevation, or fewer opportunities
-of social usefulness. The “ blank ” only means that he
does not burden his mind with the contradictory fancies
of theology. He objects to wasting his time in trying
to find the value of the infinite X. And he has learnt
from history that the pursuit of such chimeras has pro
duced a very decided “ blank ”—as far as secular science
and civilisation are concerned—in the minds and lives of
many men of genius, and of whole societies of inferior
mortals.
�SOME PUBLICATIONS BY G. W. FOOTE.
Bible Romances.
Cloth.
160 pp.
2s.
Bible Heroes.
200 pp.
Cloth.
2S. 6d.
Bible Handbook
Paper Covers, is. 6d,
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Book of God
In the Light of the Higher Criticism.
Paper, is.
Cloth, 2s.
Flowers of Freethought.
FIRST AND SECOND SERIES.
Cloth, 2s, 6d. (each).
Scores of Essays and Articles on a vast variety of
Freethought Topics.
Crimes of Christianity.
Hundreds of References to Standard Authorities.
Cloth, 2S. 6d.
Theism or Atheism?
Public Debate with Rev. W. T. Lee.
Boards, is.
Christianity and Secularism.
Public Debate with Rev. Dr. McCann.
Paper Covers, is. Cloth, is. 6d.
Comic Sermons & other Fantasias
Paper Covers, 8d.
Darwin on God.
Paper Covers, 6d.
London : The Freethought Publishing Company, Ltd..
2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C.
** A
�
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
What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Selective list of author's other works on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N268
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
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 (What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism), 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
Charles Bradlaugh
George Jacob Holyoake
NSS
Robert Green Ingersoll
Thomas Henry Huxley
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/40780009574ede084d06f439f95c955a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pS1tdI8XDmhAx09w3KeTxC%7E7PB68ReG%7E5XmqVDi4deHlWve5KQoihm0jImWB-5a3HavRWRAQ-4gkcaGFxjO8yDo1%7EDI60rd8z%7ERCeOJQYi79f65zfsTZU44454WjZSnFnI-9ZgoVyLjCwLYLn%7E4e%7Evwo8DkAbTU8asQavVk-rYqBs4G5XBA04BCKOyw5qOl4GHRx4-ViHMA371h3yERDUmGFMlYljOpYNjVAv6YLTy6-MZQ8Kyjim68Gex5S-GvSuC6wPOEhXp-wCmd8mO-UCSvkhGcR9VCqjNz3CJ5JYqKn5UrxfcmchwqIlquzzUwRDAMLtu%7EBmxkRejsd-qFBZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d6ac6132940af3150b99570711062bfe
PDF Text
Text
BY GEO. STAND RING,
Editor of 11 The Republican.”
SECOND EDITION.—RE-WRITTEN AND ENLARGED.
LONDON:
Printed and Published at “ The'PaI^ Pr!ess,” 8, Finsbury St., E.O.
K*--'.giffi.<g~J n-!
CJDIWZEJ
E“BE2I^TIW3r,
�GUMMED READY FOR USE,
POST FREE—NO MORE LOST BOOKS !
Address: 8, Finsbury Street London, E,C,
In neat Wrapper, post free 3|d.
EARLY MARRIAGE and LATE PARENTAGE:
The Only Solution of the Social Problem.
By OXONIENSIS.
A most useful resume of the Population Question.
London: Geo. Standring, 8
a
9, Finsbury-st., E.C.
�BIOGRAPHY OF COL INGERSOLL
HE extraordinary and sustained popularity in this
country of Colonel Ingersoll’s lectures and
writings affords ample justification for the publi
cation of a biographical sketch of the distinguished orator.
His works have been issued from various publishing
houses in England, and have circulated by hundreds of
thousands amongst the most thoughtful sections of the
community. Every new effort is enthusiastically received
by his innumerable admirers in this land; and, so far
from his hold upon the public being relaxed, he gains
every year a wider circle of appreciative readers.
Ingersoll has for many years been a well-known figure
in America, and there have been frequent references to
him and to his lectures in the press of that country. > He
is recognised there as the embodiment of aggressive
Freethought; and the “righteous” of America look upon
“ Bob ” in much the same way as the people in this
country regard “ Bradlaugh.” The smart writers on the
press quote his witty sayings with simulated censure, and
they really, no doubt, admire the humorous lecturer even
while they pretend to condemn him. Paragraphers take
advantage of his popularity to work his sayings into their
fugitive witticisms; for example, we have seen in one
paper “ hell ” obliquely referred to as “Bob Ingersoll’s
no such place.” This tends to show that R. G. Ingersoll
has gained a wide-spread renown in his native land, j
To the biographer, a very difficult task is presented
when he undertakes a record of Colonel Ingersoll’s career.
The materials are fragmentary and scattered, and it is
practically impossible to verify and correct such details
as are available. We shall endeavour to make i this
sketch as complete and accurate as the circumstances of
the case will permit.
�( 4 )
^Robert G. Ingersoll is the son of a New School Presby
terian minister, and was born in Western New York,
about the year 1830. While Robert was very young, his
father moved into Ohio, and thence into Illinois, at that
time regions almost wholly uninhabited, and thus his
early years were passed amidst the forests and prairies of
the Western States. Ingersoll left home when very young,
and sought his fortune in the Far West. The cause of
this separation does not appear to be known, but it is not
at all improbable that it was due to the lad’s free-thinking
tendency, which was evinced at an early age. The father,
as stated above, was a minister belonging to a sect that
has never been distinguished by tolerant feeling; and
young Ingersoll found himself when quite a lad in active
hostility to the dogmas taught by his parent. “ I can’t
remember,” he says, “ when I believed the Bible doctrine
of eternal punishment. I have a dim recollection of
hating Jehovah when I was exceedingly small.” In one
of his discourses, he told his hearers this striking anecdote
of his boyhood’s days :—u When I was a lad I sometimes
used to wonder how the mercy of God lasted as long as
it did—because I remember that on several occasions I
had not been at school when I was supposed to be there.
Why I was not burned to a crisp was a mystery to me.
There was one day in each week too good for a child to
be happy in. On that day we were all taken to church,
and the dear old minister used to ask us, ‘ Boys, do you
know that you all ought to be in hell ? ” and we answered
up as cheerfully as we could under such circumstances,
‘Yes, sir.’ ‘ Well, boys, do you know that you would go
to hell if you died in your sins ?’ and we said, ‘ Yes, sir.’
And then came the great test: ‘ Boys, if it was God’s
will that you should go to hell, would you be willing to
go ?” and every little liar said ‘ Yes, sir.’ Then, in order
to tell how long we should stay there, he used to say,
* Suppose once in a million ages a bird should come from
a far distant .clime, and carry off in its bill one little grain
of sand, the time would finally come when the last grain
of sand would be carried away—do you understand ?’
�( 5 )
1 Yes, sir? * Boys, by that time it would not be sun-up
in hell.’ ”♦
It is not difficult to see that the relations between a
clerical parent and a heterodox son of Ingersoll’s bold
and independent nature would soon become intolerably
strained. There is, however, reason to believe that his
father was by no means a bigoted man. The old gentle
man on one occasion became somewhat angry at young
Robert’s outspoken heretical views, and endeavoured to
dissuade him from uttering them. But the lad boldly
said, “ Well, father, if you want me to lie, you may make
me pretend to believe like you, but if you want me to be
honest, I must talk as I do,” and the parent wisely chose
the better part, the heretic rather than the hypocrite.
Before his death the father modified his own views, and
ceased to preach the abominable doctrine of eternal
punishment.
The reason that prompted Ingersoll to leave his home
is unknown, and is not a fitting subject for conjecture;
certain jt is that he entered on the battle of life at an
age when most lads are still under domestic tutelage.
In the Western States he worked in various places,
educating himself meanwhile for the legal profession.
His acute, penetrating mind, combined with a power of
eloquence that has placed him in the foremost rank of
modern orators, soon brought him to the front, and in a
few years from the time when he commenced practising
he became known as a lawyer of unmatched eloquence
and influence with juries. It is many years since Ingersoll
relinquished criminal business. The reason he gave for
this step was that it was too great a tax upon his mind.
His entire energy was devoted to the interests of his
client, and he observes that when defending a prisoner in
a doubtful murder case, his whole mental and physical
force was absorbed in his task. He could think, act, and
speak of nothing else. To a man of wide sympathy and
* Tliis ridiculous metaphor appears in one of Father Furniss’s hellish works
for children. Ingersoll, in narrating it, has introduced an American phrase,
44sun-up” for sun-rise.
�*
.fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl|
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
|fl
fl|
..fl
fl
fl
jfl
M
fl
flfl
flfl
^fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
^fl
.1
fl
fl
.fl
fl
varied activity, this overpowering strain must have been »
aA dangerous as it was inconvenient. A mind employed,
in different directions could not long resist the destructiye influence of such toil..
On the outbreak of the American Civil War, Ingersoll
naturally threw himself with enthusiasm into the cause
of the North. His deep detestation of slavery in every
form—mental as well as physical—impelled him to labor
actively for the side that had undertaken the extinction
of forced servitude in the States. It was not, however,
for the purpose of gratifying his ambition or of indulging
a taste for bloodshed that Ingersoll participated in the
war. Perhaps ho man was less fitted to engage in
sudh unholy work. He says:—“I was not fit to be a
sdldieE I never saw our men fire but I thought of the
widow's and orphans they would make, and wished that
they would miss.” Despite his high-minded abhorrence
of violence and bloodshed, he felt that the abolition of
slavery was an end that justified the means, and he raised
a regiment of cavalry, of which he was placed in command,
arid &8sighed to the Western Department. He was in
the battle of Shiloh and other engagements, and subseqilently fell a prisoner to the Confederates. As he is one
of the wittiest and best talkers in America, in private, as
well as on the platform, he was soon a great favorite,
and Forrest, whose command captured him, treated him
with, the greatest consideration, once telling him that he
would get him exchanged the first chance that offered,
because the prisoner was getting so popular with the
rebels that he began to doubt the fidelity of his own men.
His deep horror of warfare is a feeling to which
Ingersoll frequently gives most eloquent expression in his
works, but it does not proceed from physical or mental
coWardice. True bravery does not exist alone on the
battle-field, where so many adventitious circumstances
combine to inflame the heart' and steel the nerves. The
brtital instinct in mankind is aroused by the blare of
trumpets, the clash of arms, the fierce delight of confliegb, the hope of glory, and the dread of shame. Many
�(< 7 )
men who would shrink in terror from contact with a fever
patient would march without a tremor to certain death
on the e< field of glory.” But the truest, noblest bravery
is often exhibited under conditions which do not include
the stimulating effect of public achievement.
That Ingersoll is a man of courage and self-devotion is
plainly shown by an incident of this character. On the
fatal day when the fanatic Guiteau shot Garfield, the
Colonel was amongst the gentlemen in the President’s
company. The first shots did their fell work before any
attempt could be made to protect the President; but,
when Ingersoll saw Guiteau preparing to fire yet again
at his innocent victim, he threw his body before him, and
would undoubtedly have received the bullet had not the
assassin been seized and disarmed. “ Greater love hath ;
no man than this, to lay down his life for his friend:”
and that Ingersoll endeavored to shield Garfield from >
danger, at the risk of his own life, is an historical incident |
that will for ever redound to his glory.
In America, as in every other country, the avowal of f
heresy subjects the individual to certain pains and .
penalties at the hands of the bigoted. Although our
Transatlantic brethren have cast off the yoke of
monarchy, and for over a century have lived under the £
*
flag of the Republic, they have not yet emancipated <
themselves from the thraldom of superstition. It would
be impossible to over-estimate the work which Ingersoll,
by his wit and eloquence, has done in “ breaking the
fetters” imposed by the adherents of superstition upon
the thought and speech of man. But in this noble
iconoclastic mission the Colonel has drawn upon himself'
the fierce wrath of the bigots. As a politician, Ingersoll j
would by right of ability have taken a commanding
position. But his freely-spoken heterodox views have
operated against him, as may be seen from a character
istic anecdote. A gentleman went to see Colonel
Ingersoll when he lived in Peoria, and, finding a fine
copy of Voltaire in his library, said, “ Pray, sir, what did
this cost you ?” “ I believe it cost me the governorship
�( 8 )
of the State of Illinois,” was the swift and pregnant
answer. Doubtless, however, the Colonel does not regret
his exclusion from political honors. His heart is in the
Freethought work of which he is the acknowledged
leader in America, and his practice at the bar must
absorb a great deal of his time and energy. Political
life in the States is not of a nature to invite high-minded
and pure-hearted men to engage in it. From various
causes that are totally independent of the form of govern
ment, politics in that great country is too often a game
in which dishonesty and chicanery are the leading
features. Let us hope that in years to come the
machinery of State will be re-organised in such a manner
as to make it a credit to the glorious principles of
Republicanism!
Although Ingersoll occupies no official position in the
State, his ability, energy, and unsullied integrity make
him a great force in politics. He is a Republican, and is
a thorough “ party man ” in its widest, noblest sense.
He described his position in a trenchant manner in sup
porting the candidature of Garfield a few years ago:—“ I
belong to a party that is prosperous. I belong to the
party that believes in good crops; that is glad when a
fellow finds a gold mine; that rejoices when there are
forty bushels of wheat to an acre; that laughs when
every railroad declares its dividend; that claps both its
hands when every investment pays; when the rain falls
for the farmer; when the dew lies lovingly upon the
grass. I belong to the party that is happy when the
people are happy; when the labouring man gets three
dollars a day; when he has roast beef on his table ; when
he has a carpet on the floor; when he has a picture of
Garfield on the wall.”
Drawing the lines of distinction between the two great
parties in American politics, Ingersoll remarked :—“ A
man is a Republican because he loves something. A man
is a Democrat mostly because he hates something. A
Republican takes a man, as it were, by the collar, and
says, f You must do your best, you must climb the
�( 9 )
infinite hill of human progress as long as you live? Now
and then one gets tired, lets go all hold, and rolls down
to the very bottom of the hill, and as he strikes the mud,
he springs upon his feet transfigured, and says, ‘ Hurrah
for Hancock? ”
It will be seen from these excerpts that Ingersoll’s
adhesion to a party is conceived in no narrow spirit of
selfish supremacy or personal gain. One side represents
the forward, the other the backward, movement, and to
the former he unhesitatingly gives his allegiance because
the progress of the people is bound up with it.
Colonel Ingersoll is admittedly the leading jury-lawyer
at the American bar. His eloquence is irresistible when
brought to bear upon the twelve “ good men and true ”
who are supposed to form the palladium of the constitu
tion. In the great Star Route case, which has recently
been concluded after years of litigation and an expenditure
of over two millions of dollars, the Colonel was leading
counsel for the defence; and, apart from the merits of
the case, it may be a source of satisfaction to know that
Ingersoll’s side won the day. This circumstance would
seem to show that he is not only an adept at persuading
a jury, but that he is also an able and profound lawyer,
for the nature of the issues in this case needed all the
resources that a legal mind could bring to bear upon
them.
In personal appearance Colonel Ingersoll is as distin
guished as his intellect and powers of expression are
above the average of humanity. He stands fully six feet
in height, and weighs over two hundred pounds. His head
is remarkable for mental capacity, and his face habitually
wears a pleasant and genial expression The portrait
which appears on the front of this pamphlet is beyond
doubt the best wood-cut representation of his features;
but even that does not convey the sunny serenity por
trayed in the best photographs of him. The soft
shadows and subtle tints of photography can be rarely
translated with proper effect in a wood engraving, which
at the best can be nothing more than an approximate
�( 10 )
representation. In a splendid lithographic drawing that
has been sold in this country, the Colonel is represented
standing at full length, in a graceful negligent attitude,
with one hand in pocket; and the expression of his face
is extremely benevolent and good-natured.
In his domestic relations, Ingersoll is almost romanti
cally happy. His wife and children are not regarded by
him as inferior creatures, whose destiny is simply to
minister to the pleasure of the “ master,” and to obey
his behests. He is demonstrative, loving, and generous.
His fire-side is his heaven, his wife and daughters the
angels therein. His views with regard to domestic
finance have been thus expressed upon the platform :—“ I
despise a stingy man. I have known men who would
trust their wives with their hearts and honor, but not
with their pocket-book ; not with a dollar. When I see
a man of that kind, I always think he knows which of
these articles is the most valuable. Think of making
your wife a beggar! Think of her having to ask you
every day for a dollar, or for two dollars, or fifty cents !
‘ What did you do with that dollar I gave you last week ?’
Think of having a wife that is afraid of you ! Oh, I tell
you, if you have but a dollar in the world, and you have
got to spend it, spend it like a king, spend it as though
it were a dry leaf, and you the owner of unbounded
forests !” A story is current that he keeps in his house
a drawer filled with money, to which his family have free
access, and no account is ever required of the sums taken
or how they are expended. This may appear to some
to be munificence run mad; but Ingersoll is not the man
to act like an idiot, and doubtless he has found that, in
his case at least, the plan works well. At his residence
in Washington he dispenses a profuse hospitality, enter
taining friends and even wayfarers with a hearty cordiality
that makes every guest feel “ at home ” in that gracious
circle.
Ingersoll is essentially a popular orator. There is in
his speeches no shadow of obscurity, no perplexity of
meaning. He speaks in short crisp sentences; and he
�never involves one idea by running another into it. At
the same time his simplicity never becomes jejune : one
can always feel the mighty force of the orator, though
his language is so vivid and clear that a child cannot
mistake his meaning. Often and often he compresses
into a few brilliant words an idea that other men would
require as many sentences to express. This is really the
secret of his success as an orator. In the crucible of his
mind the metal is separated from the dross : and, just as
a small nugget of fine gold may represent all that is of
value in a huge lump of ore, so. a single sentence of
Ingersoll’s may contain the whole pith and substance of
a common-place discourse.
The greater part of Ingersoll’s orations have been
issued in this country. We believe that the Freethought
Publishing Company first introduced them to English
readers, in a neat volume containing many of his best
works, and printed in uniform style. The collection
comprises the lecture on “ Humboldt,” the “ Arraign
ment of the Churches,” the “ Oration on the Gods,” the
“ Oration on Thomas Paine,” and others. An aesthetic
edition of small size and somewhat eccentric typography,
has been issued under the title of “ The Leek Bijou,”
comprising “ What must I do to be saved ?” “ The
Christian Religion,” and one or two others. Mr. Morrish,
of Bristol, has also published several, including “ Farm
Life in America,” “ Breaking the Fetters,” “ Difficulties
of Belief,” &c. These lectures, though rather imperfectly
edited, have had a very large circulation, and their popu
larity is by no means yet exhausted. Messrs. Heywood,
of Manchester, have brought out several of the lectures in
a neat and handy edition. More recently the “ Decora
tion Day Oration ” has been issued from the Paine Press,
and a cheap edition, from the original stereotype plates,
of “ Thomas Paine Glorified.” The latter has been very
favorably received. The Progressive Publishing Com
pany has introduced the latest of Ingersoll’s orations
under the title, “Doi Blaspheme?” One unfortunate
result of the various publications is that the editions are
�( 12 )
, not of uniform size, and it is consequently impossible to
make a single bound collection of the orations. Perhaps
in the future some enterprising firm may find it possible
to‘issue such a series.
*
J- It will thus be seen that Ingersoll is a “household
'Word ” amongst English Freethinkers. Although he has
never appeared amongst them, his individuality is as
'familiar to them as that of an old friend. If he could be
. induced to visit this country his welcome would be most
enthusiastic. Every admirer of his wit and eloquence—
and their name is legion—’-would flock to hear his voice
and participate in the charm of his presence. There is,
we fear, small chance of this ardent hope being realised.
Ingersoll’s work in America is of a nature that prevents
him from leaving his native shores. -Nevertheless,
although the Secularists of England cannot reasonally
anticipate the delight of personal communication with
him, they send across the Atlantic their heartiest goo4
wishes, and trust he may/lqng continue his noble work
of emancipating the minds of the human- race from the
detestable yoke of superstition.
ru
. * Since this was written, the': Freethought Publishing Company has
issued, n c^0aP uniform edition (df; the lectures,- paged ’ continuously for
^■•‘ RADICAL READING;
♦
i
r
r
r
;;. Life of C. Bradlaugh,. M. Pt; o' - idJ
' Court Flunkeys (20th thousand) id.
- Does Royalty Pay?' - id.,
Ingersoll Answers Questions; h £d. >
; Interview with Ingersoll -id. ■
MaccallNewest Materialisrrir\ is. 1.
The Republican (monthly) .
id.
�
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
Life of Col. R.G. Ingersoll
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Stein checklist. No. 368 in Stein checklist, but with variant title. Engraving of Ingersoll on front cover. 'Radical Reading', titles listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, George
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Paine Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1881]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N622
Subject
The topic of the resource
Robert Green Ingersoll
Free thought
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 (Life of Col. R.G. Ingersoll), 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
Robert Green Ingersoll
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/944fc26e602d23dde74c4eee741a7598.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ewxdFygO1ic3zNO-4Dd8-PC8cnPaQ%7EpOZRbjoUfn54kSir00-63iLJj4dtpIVHJiExk8F517AbfoO4eya4h5fR3ffuXag6ukmXM0ER0JI%7E0rJhyBiwcC3sUnreJThCUdk5Y0Oj0ubcYndnVqdM5BxadlZQ7j0PQEPvrP3bErwnQUSMF7SoNodip9ztXLYrTWhauJxbotIOkSdBSY2DM7Y8TxB2cAepTJ6aJzgJcUxC2GUgbEa9wWL6ULSs9Tb0bx5XXdxtKkKQTVQQ6lgx%7El6Xof3HCekrHHSZ%7E-oSSDGecEze3dX35Kz6VSU9Eu04UZfVVZ8yctEYRzMp3MHNLnDA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
417015e612c7ad0ceda46cb8b41eaddb
PDF Text
Text
GUILTY
OR
NOT
GUILTY?
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
The Rev. Dr. R. A. TORREY,
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
“M/ /
PRINTED FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle Street, London, E.C,
19Q5.
.■iW*’
��GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY?
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
DR. R. A. TORREY.
—♦►—
Sir,—
I write you this open letter as the most
convenient and effective way of addressing you and
others at the same time. The subject it deals with
is a matter of public interest and importance.
You have therefore no reason to complain of in
justice or incivility. I desire to be just to you as
well as to the truth—and to the truth as well as to
you; and if I have occasion to express myself
severely I shall keep well within the limits of
allowable language.
To come to the point then. It is widely known
that a pamphlet of mine, bearing the title of
Dr. Torrey and the Infidels, was distributed outside
the Albert Hall on the opening night of your
Mission there, and continuously afterwards. You
have yourself admitted that this pamphlet was
distributed in tens of thousands. It was also
reprinted in the Clarion, whose editor, Mr. Robert
Blatchford, thought he was performing a public
duty in promoting its circulation. I should add that
it was printed for “ free distribution,” my friends
having subscribed the means for that purpose.
You will thus understand—or at least others will—
that there was a principle involved io its publication
and distribution.
�In that pamphlet I endeavored, and I believe
successfully, to vindicate the characters of Thomas
Paine and Colonel Ingersoll against your slanderous
aspersions. You had represented Paine as having
taken away another man’s wife and lived with her.
I proved that this was an absolute falsehood. You
had represented Ingersoll as having assisted in the
dissemination of obscene literature in America. I
also proved that this was an absolute falsehood.
You entered into conversation with some of those
who gave their evenings to distribute my pamphlet
outside the Albert Hall. This happened on several
occasions. When they asked you why you did not
substantiate or withdraw your charges against Paine
and Ingersoll you gave various replies. You said
that you had something better to do ; you said that
my pamphlet would do you no harm and you did not
care ; you also said that it was anonymous, and that
anonymous attacks were beneath your notice. This
last statement you repeated in letters that came
under my own observation. I therefore thought it
advisable to send you the following letter, which I
registered for security, and with which I enclosed a
copy of my pamphlet for the same reason :—
“ 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street,
London, E.C.,
March 27, 1905.
Dear Sir,—
I understand that you are professing ignorance as
to who is the author of the pamphlet “ Dr. Torrey and
the Infidels,” of which thousands of copies have been
distributed outside the Albert Hall. Indeed, I have seen
letters by you stating that this pamphlet is anonymous.
I have therefore to draw your attention to the fact that
every copy of the pamphlet contains an announcement
at the end that it was written by the editor of the Free
thinker. This is a perfectly sufficient identification of
the author. The editor of the Freethinker is a wellknown person, and his name appears in bold letters
right under the title in every copy of every issue of
that paper. However, in order to destroy that loop
hole of escape, I hereby inform you that I am the
�5
editor of the Freethinker, that I am the author of the
pamphlet “ Dr. Torrey and the Infidels,” and that I am
determined to continue my public exposure of your
infamous libels on Thomas Paine and Colonel Ingersoll
until you have the manliness to retract them as openly
as you made them.
Yours truly,
Dr. R. A. Torrey,
G. W. Foote.”
66 Sinclair-road, W.
This letter elicited from you the following reply,
in which—as I want it to be noted, even now—you
do not challenge any specific allegation in my
pamphlet:—
“ 66 Sinclair-road, London, W.,
March 28, 1905.
Mr. G. W. Foote,
2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E.C.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of March 27 received. You say, “ I under
stand that you are professing ignorance as to who is the
author of the pamphlet on ‘ Dr. Torrey and the Infidels.’ ”
In reply would say, I am not professing any ignorance of
the kind. I have referred to the pamphlet as “ anony
mous,” and so it is. After the pamphlet was handed me
I looked at the front to see if the name of the author
was given, and it was not. Then I looked at the end,
and the name was not given there. Thereupon I treated
it with the same silent contempt that I do all anonymous
pamphlets and letters. I had not noticed the little note
at the bottom. I am not in the habit of reading adver
tisements at the end of anonymous pamphlets; but even
since you have called my attention to this advertisement
of your paper, this does not alter the essential fact
at all. The name of the author is not given in this ad, vertisement. I think you are aware that it is not the
usual custom of authors of pamphlets and books to
declare their authorship by advertisements, and then not
to declare it by name. I suppose a great majority of
those to whom the pamphlet was given at the Albert
Hall neither know nor care who the editor of the Free
thinker is. I take it for granted that you know the
meaning of the word “ anonymous,” and the pamphlet
is anonymous.
�6
Now as to the other matter in your letter, permit me
to say that as soon as you or any one else will show me
anything that I have said in any of my books, in any
of my lectures as correctly reported, or in any authentic
letter regarding Mr. Thomas Paine or Col. Ingersoll that
is not strictly true, I shall be more than glad to retract
it. But I am not likely to retract anything that I have
not said, or to retract anything that I have said that is
true. I am not willing to be held responsible for
incorrect reports in papers of what I have said, nor any
mere hearsay reports which are always inaccurate, nor
am I willing to be held responsible for deliberate falsi
fications of my statements.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
To this letter of yours I returned the following
answer:—
“ 2 Newcastle-street, E.C.,
April 4, 1905.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of March 28, apparently posted later,
reached me safely, and I should have given it an
earlier reply if I had not seen by the newspapers that
several important personages, including the Queen and
yourself, were taking a holiday on the Continent.
You use a great many words to say very little. I
infer rather than perceive from your letter that, in
your opinion, a drama by the author of Hamlet, a
poem by the author of Paradise Lost, or a novel by
the author of David Copperfield, would be anonymous.
Etymologically you may be right, but when such hair
splitting involves a pretence of ignorance, and an evasion
of responsibility, it is more worthy of a prisoner in the
dock than of a public teacher of religion and morality.
However, I will take care that this hole of escape shall
be closed up. Further impressions of my pamphlet
shall state, not only that it is written by the editor of
the Freethinker, but that the name of the editor is
G. W. Foote.
You say that the majority of your auditors who saw
my pamphlet did not know who was the editor of the
Freethinker. Do you really believe this ?
The last part of your letter is the unworthiest of all.
You must know what you have said about Paine and
�7
Ingersoll, and if you were a straightforward person you
would either admit what you did say or deny what you
did not say. Instead of doing this, you stand abso
lutely on the defensive, like a person indicted for a
criminal offence.
You want to know what you have said about Paine or
Ingersoll that is “ not strictly true.” I have told you
in my pamphlet. I shall not waste time in telling you
again. My object now is to place the pamphlet in as
many hands as possible.
When you come to your senses, which will probably
be when your own people are tired of your perpetual
evasions; when you lead the procession to your own
penitent form, and confess your “ sin ” and resolve to
make atonement; I shall rejoice to know that the
revivalist is revived, and that the soul of the soul
saver has found its “ Resurrection.”
Yours truly,
Dr. R. A. Torrey,
G. W. Foote.”
66 Sinclair-road, W.
You know perfectly well, sir, why I did not put
my name on the title-page of the pamphlet. Had I
done so I should have defeated my object. When
you told your friends inside the Albert Hall, with a
meaning smile, that they “ knew what to do ” with
“ those pamphlets,” you only indicated what I had
foreseen. I wished to put the pamphlet into the
hands of your auditors, and I wished it to be read.
For that reason I kept my name off the front. But
I also wished its authorship to be known. For that
reason I had the announcement made at the end
that it was written by the Editor of the Freethinker.
It was honest information for those who had read
the pamphlet through, and for those who had not it
was unnecessary.
My pamphlet has been distributed in tens of
thousands all over Great Britain as well as at your
Mission meetings, and I have not heard of anyone
being in doubt as to its authorship. You yourself
were not in doubt. You cleverly avoided saying that
you were. But even if your ignorance had been so
phenomenal you could easily have enquired of your
�8
English friends, and you would soon have ascertained
my identity. The Freethinker is a paper that every
body affects not to know, and that everybody knows.
Men who have suffered a long imprisonment for
their principles are not so numerous in England
that any one of them can easily be forgotten. It
may be different in America. I do not know. But
I have not heard that you ever suffered for your
convictions, and I do not suppose I shall live to see
your name in any genuine list of martyrs.
So much for the “ anonymous ” character of my
pamphlet, and the technical excuse you pleaded for
not answering it. That excuse was utterly unworthy
of a public teacher, one who sets himself up to save
other people’s souls, and incidentally to elevate
their morals. This is not simply my opinion. It is
the opinion of many of your Christian friends. I
happen to know that some of them have expostu
lated with you on your embarrassing silence. You
begin to feel that you are in a tighter corner than
you thought. You have too much pride to admit a
mistake, and not enough honesty to admit a more
serious offence. Your only possible line of escape,
therefore, is to suggest—for you are too astute to
assert—that you never uttered those slanders against
Paine and Ingersoll. And this is the line you are
taking.
Now I have proved that what I alleged you said
about Paine and Ingersoll was flagrantly false. I
will now prove that you said it. And the fact that
this task is forced upon me will enable candid men,
even of your own party, to understand the kind of
person you are.
To begin with I beg to observe that, so far from
the libels on Paine and Ingersoll being unlike you, as
I hear you are suggesting, they bear all the marks
of your parentage. Specific libels are really no
worse than general libels—although they may prove
more dangerous. You denied, during your Dublin
mission, as reported in the Irish Times, that an
“ infidel ” could “ remain an honest one.” You declared
�9
that “ infidelity and whisky went together,” and that
the “ stronghold of infidelity ” was “the public-house,
the racecourse, the gambling-hell, and the brothel.”
This is general slander, it is true; but a general
slander is a slander by presumption against every
one in the category who is not expressly exempted.
You may reply, as I am told you do reply, that you
will not be responsible for “unauthorised” reports
of your addresses in the newspapers. This is a very
convenient policy when you are challenged. But it
is easy to checkmate you in this instance ; for in
your article in the Daily Chronicle, on the eve of
your London mission, you wrote that “ Infidelity
and immorality are Siamese twins. They always
exist and always grow and always fatten together.”
This covers by implication everything in the Irish
Times report of your speech—and as much more of
the same kind as your own charitable imagination
could possibly invent. I must point out, also, that
I quoted in my pamphlet a passage from your
Hard Problems of Scripttire in which you stated that
“ The unclean classes, both men and women, were
devoted admirers of Colonel Ingersoll ” and that
they “ did frequent his lectures.” This could only
mean that Ingersoll’s audiences were largely com
posed of drunkards, prostitutes, and whoremongers.
And it passes my comprehension how you could say
this, and then expect anyone to believe that the
slanders I confuted as to Paine and Ingersoll are so
unlike you. They are perfectly like you ; they smell
and taste of their natural source. And the source is
unique. You alone, I believe, amongst men of any
considerable position in the Christian world, are
capable of treating the public to such delicacies.
So much for the presumption, and now for the
precise evidence of your guilt.
I lay no stress upon the fact that your reflections
on the characters of Paine and Ingersoll were
reported to me by several correspondents in different
places. Your cue is to dispute everything at a
venture, and to take the chance of what can be
�10
proved, and you are prepared to deny everything that
would not be considered strict evidence in a court
of law. I shall therefore go at once to a particular
speech of yours at Liverpool in the latter part of
1903, and to a correspondence which gathered
round it.
Mr. W. Cain, of Liverpool, wrote me the following
letter, which I published in the Freethinker of
October 11, 1903 (and here let me say, to prevent
misconceptions, that my paper is dated for Sunday,
but is printed on Wednesday, and is on sale all over
the country on Thursday):—
“ Sir,—Dr. Torrey, in his course of evangelistic enter
tainments in this city, included two addresses to business
men, on the causes and cure of “ infidelity.”
I attended at the City Hall, Eberle-street, on Tuesday
and Wednesday last to hear the Yankee savior’s views
on this subject, and learned that almost all cases of
‘ infidelity ’ ought to be attributed to one at least of
the following five causes, viz., misrepresentation (either
of biblical teaching and interpretation, or of true
Christianity by the inconsistent conduct of professed
Christians), ignorance of the Bible, conceit, sin, resist
ance to the spirit of God.
On Tuesday evening I wrote to Dr. Torrey a letter, in
which I gave the names of several men whose life
records I thought would justify us in seeking elsewhere
than in the above list for an explanation of their ‘ infi
delity.’ The names were—John Morley, Charles
Bradlaugh, Professor Haeckel, Charles Darwin, Pro
fessor Huxley, Colonel Ingersoll, and Thomas Paine.
On Wednesday Dr. Torrey read out my letter, and
replying to it, made reference first to Haeckel, whose
writings, he said, indicated the Professor’s complete
ignorance of the Bible. Then of Darwin, he stated
that this great man had declared that at one time he
resisted the spirit of God lest it should interfere with
his scientific labors. Huxley, we were told, was not
remarkable for his candor, as anyone reading his works
would discover. Ingersoll also, was found guilty of
complete ignorance of the Bible, whilst Thomas Paine,
according to the wonderful Doctor, ‘ ran away to Paris
with another man’s wife, and eventually died in America,
leaving her deprived of all hope.’
�11
It is significant that the names of Bradlaugh and
Morley were passed over without any remark, perhaps
because their reputations are too popularly known in
England to be tampered with.
Proceeding with his lecture Dr. Torrey made a further
statement regarding Ingersoll, who, he said, had been
charged with assisting in the dissemination of obscene
literature in America, and having instituted an action
for libel, wished the case to be tried in private. On his
request being refused, said Dr. Torrey, Ingersoll with
drew the case.
It would be a great pleasure and advantage to myself,
and doubtless to others, to read any remarks you may
make upon these utterances, throughout the whole of
which no instance was quoted, nor reference to any
authority given. Simply bald statement and nothing
else. Of the story of Ingersoll and the libel case,
will yon state the true facts of the case, if such
there was ?
Perhaps you will devote at least a good substantial
‘ acid drop ’ to this matter.
William Cain.”
To this letter from Mr. Cain I appended an
editorial note, advising him to write you another
letter and ask you for particzdars. Mr. Cain took
my advice, and received the following letter
from you, which I published in the Freethinker of
November 1, with a long criticism from my own
pen:—
“ Mather’s Hotel, Dundee,
Mr. Wm. Cain,
October 14, 1903.
Liverpool.
Dear Sir :—
Your note of October 8 at hand, and also the
clipping sent me from another source containing your
letter to the ‘ Free Thinker.’ You have quoted me
very inaccurately in this letter, in regard to what I said
about Ingersoll, about Payne, and about Darwin. I
presume this misquotation was unintentional, but it
allows a loophole for one to deny the statement. How
ever, the main facts stand. Does the editor of ‘ The
Free Thinker ’ deny that Thomas Payne took another
man’s wife with him to France and lived with her ? If
this commonly believed outrageous action of Thomas
�Payne’s is not correct history, it should be known and
I certainly for one should be glad to know it, for I believe
in giving any man his due. I did not suppose that
infidels denied the conduct of Thomas Payne. In regard
to the statement about Robert Ingersoll, the alleged
libellous statements about him were made by Dr. A. C.
Dixon at that time of Brooklyn, now of Boston. Dr.
Dixon did not show any disposition to take back his
statements when Col. Ingersoll brought action against
him for libel; on the contrary, he prepared to defend
his statements in court then, had secured considerable
evidence to do it, and Col. Ingersoll requested that the
trial might be in private, but to this Dr. Dixon would
not assent and the action was withdrawn. I am sur
prised that the editor of the “ Truth Seeker” did not
know this, as it is a matter of common knowledge in
America. I am writing to America by this mail for
more details concerning the matter.
I am somewhat surprised at the difference of tone
toward me that you take in your letter to me and in the
public letter that you sent to the editor of the “ Free
Thinker.’
.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
In the Freethinker of December 6, 1903, there was
an editorial paragraph referring to another letter
you had written to Mr. Cain, in which you said that
you had “ received the facts ” from America, but
that you would not use them “ damaging as they
were to Colonel Ingersoll ” because you had “ no
desire to blacken his reputation, even though it
could be justly done.” You added that you were
“ concerned with principles, not with men.” Which
led me to ask why you advanced grave charges against
leading Freethinkers, and only made “ insolent faces
and cowardly retreats” when “asked for proof.”
Now I ask, in the name of common sense, if it can
be imagined that all that correspondence and com
ment, printed in a public journal eighteen months
ago, was invented ? Is human cleverness equal to
such an amazing feat ? How could Mr. Cain know
that you were staying at Mather’s Hotel in Dun
dee? How could he forge letters bearing the marks
�18
of your composition in every sentence ? How could
they be printed in my paper, which is watched with
cat-like vigilance by its enemies, without provoking
a prompt denial ?
I cannot produce the original of your letter to
Mr. Cain dated October 14, 1903. It was type
written and it went up into the composing room as
copy. But I still have the original of your last
letter to Mr. Cain, which was not printed in the
Freethinker, but only referred to; and this letter proves
the correspondence and establishes its character. I
have also the originals of a correspondence you had
with Mr. James, of Liverpool, at the very same time ;
and in your part of it you refer to your correspondence
with Mr. Cain, and repeat in almost identical words
your ^slander against Thomas Paine.
Your last letter to Mr. Cain ran as follows:—
“ Grand Hotel, Aytoun-street,
Manchester,
Mr. Wm. Cain,
November 19, 1903.
Wavertree, Liverpool.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of November 15th received. In reply
would say I have not seen the article in the ‘ Free Thinker ’
I am not a regular reader of the ‘ Free Thinker.’ I have a
better use for my time. Quite likely I should not have
replied to it if I had seen it, for it is absolutely im
possible to keep up with all the attacks that are made
upon a public man. If I should do this, I could do
nothing else, for everywhere I go these attacks are
made. I have a large and important correspondence
for people who are sincere seekers after truth. I try to
answer their letters as far as possible but in order to do
that, it puts me at the expense of hiring someone to do
this work. If one answers a letter of this kind, it leads
to endless discussion. Your own correspondence is a
case in point. You wrote me apparently an innocent
letter, whieh I thought I ought to answer. It was you
who drove me into making those personal statements.
I seek to avoid them, and you see what a correspondence
it has involved at a tremendous cost of time.
I have received the facts about the Ingersoll case and
have them in my possession, but as damaging as they
�14
are to Col. Ingersoll I have no time to spend in endless
discussion over them. I have no desire to blacken his
reputation, even though it could be justly done. I am
concerned with principles not with men. It was your
letter that forced the personal statement.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
This letter has your personality written all over it.
You talk of being attacked when you are brought to
book for your own attacks on others ; you doubt Mr.
Cain’s being an “ innocent letter ” because he had
not warned you that he was a Freethinker; and you
speak of being “ forced ” into personalities. You
were evidently feeling uneasy. But the main point
is that you admit having made “ those personal
statements.” And what were they but the libels on
Paine and Ingersoll ? Libels, by the way, which
you did not originate ; for they had done duty in the
gutter-walks of “ Christian Evidence ” long before
you picked them out for your own campaign.
I come now to your letters to Mr. James. Much
in them has no reference to this controversy. I
therefore give only pertinent extracts. In your
letter dated October 14, 1903, from Mather’s Hotel,
Dundee, you write :—
“ Yours of October 8th received. Please let me
thank you for the clipping from the ' Free Thinker ’
that you have sent me. It has been useful to me.
Does the Editor of the ‘ Free Thinker ’ mean to deny
that Thomas Payne went with another man’s wife to
France and lived with her ? Mr. Cain’s quotations of
what I said were not accurate, but if this part of the
statement about Thomas Payne is not true, I should
like to know it. I supposed that this was admitted as
a fact of commonly known history.”
In your next letter to Mr. James, dated October 20,
1903, also from Mather’s Hotel, Dundee, you say
something of still greater importance, while again
referring to your correspondence with Mr. Cain :—
In regard to Thomas Paine’s name being misspelled,
■ I am not responsible for the spelling in my letters. A
�15
person that has oftentimes a hundred letters a day cannot
’ reply to them with his own hand, but has to dictate replies.
I do not think yet that his character has been
cleared. If it can be cleared, I certainly for one,
should be glad, for I like to see any man have justice
done him. You ask why I refer to this moral obloquy
anyway. Simply because a direct question was asked
me by Mr. Cain, which I could not honorably dodge in
answering. I dislike these personalities, but the
question was asked and I had to answer it, which I did
from the facts of history as commonly believed in spite
of admirers and special pleaders to blot the course of
recorded history. I think a man’s character has a
good deal of bearing upon his judgment of the Bible.
Tom Paine attacks the Bible on account of its immor
alities. If he is indulging in immoralities, which he
says are justified by the Bible, he certainly is playing
the part of a hypocrite and his judgment is not of
much account. You ask, ‘ Why should you persist in
attributing wickedness to your antagonists ?’ For the
simple reason, in practical experience by the con
fessions of countless men, I have found that immor
ality lay at the basis of their infidelity and that when
they give up their immorality, they get that clear
vision of truth that enabled them to see there is a God
and that the Bible is His Word.”
Here you defend the wisdom of the very “ person
alities ” you “ dislike.” You explain why you
attacked the character of Thomas Paine. We have
thus the fact and the justification—both from your
own hand.
Your letters to Mr. James, which can all be
produced, refer to your correspondence with Mr.
Cain. They also contain the very libel on Thomas
Paine which you uttered in your first letter to
Mr. Cain, after having uttered it at a public meeting
in Liverpool. Your guilt with respect to Thomas
Paine is thus demonstrated.
Your second letter to Mr. Cain, which can also be
produced, clearly shows that you had been attacking
the character of Colonel Ingersoll; and your state
ment that you had “ received the facts about the
Ingersoll case ” proves the authenticity of the first
�letter in which you said that you were “ writing to
America by this mail for more details concerning
the matter.” Thus your guilt with respect to
Ingersoll is also demonstrated.
Your letters to Mr. Cain and to Mr. James further
show that you were quite aware of what was
appearing in the Freethinker. .And when you said,
in the second of the above letters to Mr. James,
that you did “not think yet that his [Paine’s]
character had been cleared” you were obviously
referring to my vindication of Paine in the Freethvnker, to which Mr. James had drawn your
attention.
-v These patent facts and inevitable conclusions,
together with your present equivocal attempts at
repudiation, make you look odious as a libeller and
contemptible as a coward. I say this with sorrow
as well as disgust, for I do not like to think ill of a
fellow being, I have no delight in any man’s humili
ation, and I would rather hear of your repentance
even at this late hour than see you continue in your
evil courses. You probably entered upon them as
sinners usually do, little by little, a step at a time.
You found that stories about “ wicked infidels ”
tickled the palate of your orthodox audiences, and
you went on from bad to worse, until ease and
impunity made you reckless. You did not count on
a day of reckoning. You overlooked the possibility
of being challenged. You forgot, in defiling the
graves of dead Freethinkers, that a living one might
stride in and arrest you. I have done that. If I
have nothing else I have love for the heroes you
calumniated. And you who libelled them are but as
a grain of sand which the wind lifts to the top of a
P5™mid'
Yours, etc.,
2 Newcastle-street,
G. W. Foote.
London, E. C ,
May 29, 1905.
The Freethinker is published every Thursday, price Twopence,
at 2 Newcastle Street, E.C,
t
�
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
Guilty or not guilty? an open letter to the Rev. Dr R.A. Torrey
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Concerns the publication and distribution of Foote's pamphlet Dr Torrey and the infidels, in which Foote "endeavoured to vindicate the characters of Thomas Paine and Colonel Ingersoll against [Torrey's] slanderous aspersions." -- p.4. Signature at head of cover title: B.G. Ralph-Brown [?], Bristol 1905. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N243
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Guilty or not guilty? an open letter to the Rev. Dr R.A. Torrey), 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
R.A. (Reuben Archer) Torrey
Robert Green Ingersoll
Thomas Paine
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/76059d73f90036ceccb7376834df2c1d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OvJOEJ17yaYzlVYGB4NGDZbQ7dWyPYdEis24XJF%7Eskud4KS-s0bgZg3Lb2FEIii5em3A1uF0TsGF6ouXYnZPcC5YhwCbysyw0%7EKicMonoqTgbtTTvm%7Ehf0OuhMJ3COeWfGyLnwUnTdtaK8aFXp1RkOp1QfWI0mLNQ98UlHsFor8R2Zn6frRaFM4ALLh50LdISjqgHvIyL1-P4V%7EART5olAq%7EBli6-cVXRCfsfigNv6ubOBmug-oblWqAuG1z7xcFcKvvOGiL8XFAzQUzCXl9ShFnN4ytBQC1P%7EVGdD8D-KPPVNbdLLB38LwP5GQo5DWrFohTtKVuakGuy1IVHdBqOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9845ede9feba52d3e7672f58f89ee4ab
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
COL. INGERSOLL
AT HOME
Biographical Notes,
Occasional Utterances,
Characteristics.
{Trade supplied bp
JOHN HEYWOOD
RIDGEFIELD, JOHN DALTON STREET, MANCHESTER
ii PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, LONDON
ONE PENNY
�DISCOURSES BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES,
•
GREAT INFIDELS,
•
•
•
.
’
HOW GODS GROW,
GODS : PAST AND PRESENT.
SALVATION : HERE AND HEREAFTER,
’
'
.
Id.
'
ld-
•
ld-
SPIRIT OF THE AGE; OR, MODERN THINKERS,
Id-
-
COLONEL INGERSOLL AT HOME—a Biography,
Id.
2d.
HELL,
.-•••■
PROSE POEMS : Spoken on Memorable Occasions,
.
2d.
REPLY TO MR TALMAGE ON BLASPHEMY, &C.,
•
2d.
GHOSTS
■
•
•
(handsome edition)
This is not a reprint, and Publisher reserves right.
6d.
�V3n?3
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
Robert G. Ingersoll, who is known throughout the length
and breadth of the United States as a freethinker of the
boldest type, as a public speaker of fine intellectual endow
ment, possessing in a rare degree the gifts of eloquence and
wit, and above all, as a man of high character, is the son of a
New-School Presbyterian Minister. He was born in Western
New York, but his father moved, when his son was very young,
into Ohio, and thence into Illinois, both of these States
not being “ howling ” wildernesses at the time, because
American forests are oppressively silent—but regions almost
wholly uninhabited. Robert’s early years were thus passed
face to face with the unsubdued forests and prairies, and this
life doubtless helped to form his habit of independent thought
and utterance, and to give him a physical constitution that
can endure extreme and continuous toil when he chooses to
test it.
Col. Ingersoll has been a freethinker from his earliest boy
hood. He says, “ I can’t remember when I believed the
Bible doctrine of eternal punishment. I have a dim recollec
tion of hating Jehovah when I was exceedingly small.” Be
fore he was 10 years old he had repeated discussions with his
father, in which he argued against his father’s creed. The
conditions that make one man a freethinker and another a
chief among believers are not easily traced. Somewhere in
the physical organisation they lie ; it may be a mere difference
of weight of brain. The freethinker will spring from the
most unlikely stock, and more than one stout Calvinist tree
has borne infidel fruit. It certainly cannot be said that
�4
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
Robert’s scepticism was the result of a stern upbringing, al
though the austerity of an old-style Presbyterian household,
especially on Sundays, undoubtedly intensified his natural
unbelief in any form of faith that causes a man to seek any
where but in his own heart or in nature for truth, scientific,
religious, or ethical. An early recollection bearing on this
period is attributed to Robert’s brother. The old clergyman
once got a little angry at his son’s inborn infidelity, but when the
boy said, “ Well, father, if you want me to lie, you may make
me pretend to believe like you, but if you want me to be
honest, I must talk as I do,” the wise father preferred to
have a sincere child rather than a hypocrite. Before his
death, the father gave up the idea that this life is a period of
probation, abandoning the doctrine of eternal punishment.
When still a mere boy, Robert left home, wandering in
the west, and working at various places, until he contrived
to educate himself for the legal profession. He soon bp.ca.rne
famous in his district—that of Southern Illinois—as a lawyer
of unmatched eloquence and influence with juries. Probably
he is without an equal as a jury-lawyer in the country to-day.
Certainly he has no equal in the West. Stories are told in
Illinois of his power over juries that rival the strongest illus
trations of the influence of eloquence in the annals of the
English or American bar. His marvellous power of drawing
poetical pictures of domestic life, and of arousing sympathy
on behalf of his client, enabled him to carry the toughest
cases. The jury were emotionalised, and consequently im
pervious to the most skilfully put legal arguments from the
opposite side. He abandoned criminal practice, because “ it
wore on him so much.” When he had an uncertain murder
case on hand it absorbed him; all his sympathies were
enlisted; he could not sleep or take up any other work until
his client was safe. This absorption is almost suicidal to an
emotional nature, especially if it is a large nature.
Of Col. Ingersoll’s war record very little has been made
known. When the war broke out, his constitutional detesta
tion of slavery in every form found outlet in the active work
of raising a regiment of cavalry, of which he was placed in
command, and assigned to the Western Department. He
�Col. Ingersoll at Home.
5
was in the battle of Shiloh and other engagements. The
following narrative should be taken as showing the popular
estimate of his character, as a man of ready wit, and of in
finite good-fellowship, rather than as being literally accurate.
On one occasion he was ordered to guard a ford, with in
structions to delay an advancing army of Rebels as long as
possible, in order that the army of the North might make
certain counter movements. He held his position for some
time, but the enemy came up in such overwhelming force,
that he had no course left but to order a retreat—every man
as best he could to save himself. It was devil take the hind?
most. As Col. Ingersoll was galloping away with his men
as fast as their horses could get over the ground, his horse
stumbled in a lane and threw him. Just as he fell several
balls struck the logs, near him, and on looking up he saw
some Rebels raising their carbines at him. With character
istic quickness and presence of mind, he shouted at the top
of his voice; “ Hold on there ! Don’t make blank fools of
yourselves. I’ve been doing nothing else for the last five
minutes, but wishing for a good chance to recognise your
blank Confederacy.” A southern officer ordered the men to
stop, and laughing at the unknown Yankee’s impudence they
took him prisoner. At that time he was little known outside
Illinois and Indiana.
As he is one of the wittiest and best talkers in America, in
private as well as on the platform, he was soon a great favour
ite, and Forrest, whose command captured him, treated him
with the greatest consideration, once telling him that he would
get him exchanged the first chance that offered, because he
was getting so popular with the Rebels that he began to doubt
the fidelity of his own men.
The following remark touching Ingersoll’s military career is,
without doubt, a true utterance of the tender great-hearted
gentleman. He says—“ I was not fit to be a soldier ; I never
saw our men fire but I thought of the widows and orphans
they would make, and wished that they would miss.”
As a lecturer Col. Ingersoll’s career has been an unqualified
success. By his anti-Christian themes, and his reputation as
an infidel, he necessarily drove from him a very large part of
�6
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
the ordinary lecture-goers, because the majority of these are
church-going people. But, on the other hand, he called
around him a new class everywhere,—mostly men, and chiefly
young men or old ones; not so much middle-aged men. The
young men wanted to hear him, the old ones were the con
firmed free-thinkers. The ordinary lecture audience, every
where in the east, is composed of about equal numbers of the
sexes, generally more women than men; but Ingersoll’s
audiences showed something like five men to every woman,
and sometimes the disproportion was even greater. The
women in America, as in Great Britain, are the chief sup
porters of the church, and tend to Conservatism in every
thing. But when women did go to hear his lecture on
“ The Liberty of Man, Woman, and Child,” they were the
most delighted and enthusiastic listeners ever seen in any
audience. They forgave his poor opinion of the church for
his good opinion of the women. No more popular lecture
has perhaps ever been delivered than this magnificent plea
for human liberty. The same lecture has been delivered
under the titles of “Intellectual Development ” and “ Skulls,”
and the substance of it has been reprinted in England with
still another title ; but everywhere, whether spoken or read,
it has commanded admiration. To his more recent lectures,
notably to the powerful discourse, “ What shall I do to be
saved?” delivered in Chicago, women have been attracted in
large numbers, and have evinced the liveliest interest. The
generous passion, the tremulous sympathy, the truth and
poetry of feeling which mark Col. Ingersoll’s addresses,
remove from Ereethought the reproach of being a synonym
for intellectual baldness. He has elevated womanhood; and
in winning the heart and arousing the active emotions of
women he is preparing the final victory of Freethought.
The business side of Col. Ingersoll’s lecturing career has
been thought worthy of special notice by his numerous critics.
It is believed that some of his audiences have yielded more
money than Jias ever before been recorded, even in a country
of phenomenal lecturing successes. Accordingly he has been
taunted with aiming merely at popularity, and of roystering
around as the popular advocate of Atheism at 25,000 dollars
�Col. Ingersoll at Home.
7
a year. To this Col. Ingersoll has made the following pun
gent reply:—“ Is it honest in Dr Collyer to assail my motive ?
Let him answer my argument. Is it honest and fair in him
to say I am doing a certain thing because it is popular ? Has
it got to this, that in this Christian country where they have
preached every day hundreds and thousands of sermons,—has
it got to this, that infidelity is so popular in the United
States ? If it has, I take courage. And I not only see the
dawn of a brighter day, but the day is here. Think of it!
A minister tells me in this year of grace, 1879, that a man is
an infidel simply that he may be popular. I am glad of it.
Simply that he may make money. Is it possible that we can
make more money tearing down churches than in building
them up 1 Is it possible that we can make more money
denouncing the God of slavery than we can praising the God
that took liberty from man 1 If so, I am glad.”
If JFreethought advocacy brings Colonel Ingersoll a hand
some income, it is no more than a fitting reward of his
splendid gifts and services. It is not surprising that this
should be grudged by clergymen, who envy him his liberty
as well as his power and success ; just as ineffably dull and
stupid critics are chagrined at the popular response to his
swift and incisive wit. But if common report be true, Colonel
Ingersoll spends as handsomely as hepiarns. He has a theory
that the moment a man starts out to save, he becomes selfish,
and begins to petrify. He says, “ I despise a stingy man. I have
known men who would trust their wives with their hearts
and their honour, but not with their pocket-book ; not with
a dollar. When I see a man of that kind, I always think he
knows which of these articles is the most valuable. Think
of making your wife a beggar ! Think of her having to ask
you every day for a dollar, or for two dollars, or fifty
cents ! ‘ What did you do with that dollar I gave you last
week ? ’ Think of having a wife that is afraid of you ! Oh,
I tell you, if you have but a dollar in the world, and you have
got to spend it, spend it like a king, spend it as though it
were a dry leaf, and you the owner of unbounded forests ! ”
This is a philosophy, however, by no means incompatible
with a very shrewd outlook upon the outgoings and incomings
of the dollars.
�8
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
In the conversational art Colonel Ingersoll is said to
be as striking as he is in oratory. Indeed, except in his
great passages, his private talk excels in pathos, in rare
insight, in poetic imagery, and in delicate fancies. He has
often an oriental style of rhetoric in his most familiar conver
sations. He employs such phrases as abound in Hafiz, and
Saadi, and in many of the sacred books of the East, phrases
that blend mental states with the memory of familiar
things. For example, if an ultra conservative had to be
described, an ordinary speaker might say that he is a man of
stubborn prejudices who refuses to listen to argument, and
then says that because he never makes any progress, the
world stands still. The oriental singer would, however, say
something like this : “ He stretches himself on the couch of
contentment, and draws the cap of prejudice over the eyes of
reason, and swears that the car of progress is shackled by
the gods in the streets of eternal repose.” Of course, this
illustration is absurdly exaggerated, but it suggests the
oriental imagery, of which Ingersoll’s talk is full. In his
lectures this rhetorical artifice is generally most effective,
although by repetition it becomes transparent, and tends to
degenerate into mere use of stock metaphors. On the other
hand, his humour is western, and wholly American. He is
swift as lightning in repartee, keen and also kind in his wit,
unless he is talking of religious dogmas, and then his sar
casm is merciless, and meant to wound, and no woman is
quicker to respond to the gentlest breath of pathos. Often
after his lecture of two hours, delivered after travelling a long
distance in the cars, he has sat up talking with friends until past
midnight; and his talks on such occasions are remembered
as being better on the average than his best public orations,
though possibly friendship has helped this opinion by kindly
exaggeration. His conversation is full of phrases that would
be conceded gems in a great writer. Speaking of a sanguine
man, he said, “ Show him an egg, and instantly the air is
full of feathers.” He has remarkable power of concrete
illustration, and ripples with bright sayings. Then, again,
his conversation has a breadth that pertains rather to the
men of old, and the listener constantly wonders whether
�Col. Ingersoll at Home.
9
Burns, Rabelais, Voltaire, or Shakspeare has had. the greatest
effect in forming his spoken style.
It needs no special art to divine that in his family life, Col.
Ingersoll is blessed among men. An unfriendly reader might
charge him with being unable to keep women out of his
lectures. Every freethought speech he has delivered contains
some splendid pleadings for the full freedom and equality of
woman. When he speaks on this subject, or of fireside joys,,
his words have a deep and homely eloquence, that reveals the
heart firmly resting on tried affection. He is remarkable
among Americans in having preserved his family life sacred
from the eye of vulgar curiosity, and only in so far as he
has himself permitted the public to cross the threshold
shall any reference be made here to a side of his life which
should be free from the intrusion either of praise or blame.
His residence in Peoria, Illinois, and latterly in Washington,
is dedicated by gracious presences to a simple and cordial
hospitality, to the charms of friendship, and the freedom of
an abounding comradeship. With intellectual and untram
melled life, a generous, wise, and genial host, whoever enters
finds a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humour,,
a poetic insight, and a delicious frankness, which renders .an
evening there a veritable symposium. The 'wayfarer who
passes is charmed, and he who comes frequently goes always
away with delighted memories. What matters it that opinions
differ; such as he and his make common life the sweeter.
An hour or two spent in the attractive parlours of the In
gersoll homestead, amid that rare group, lends a new meaning
to the idea of home, and a more secure beauty to the fact of
family life.
It is not amiss to say that a man’s conduct in his home is
the true test of his character. To his family, to his immediate
relatives, and the friends who are his daily companions, Col.
Ingersoll is as nearly perfect as any man can be. His home
is his heaven, and he wants no other heaven. There, is
probably no happier family group to be found anywhere, and
had he been a Christian his home would have been held up as
a model Christian household. He has himself made public
reference to his daughters. Neither of the two young ladies
�IO
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
has ever been inside a church. The Colonel said that one
night when the children—they were quite young at the time
—were in bed, and he supposed them to be asleep, he was
reading a sermon about the torments of hell to his wife.
Suddenly one of the girls rose up in bed and asked, “ Who
said such things about God ? ” He told her it was a sermon,
and that the doctrine was taught in the church. “ Then,”
said the young girl, “ I’ll never go inside of one.” And she
has never been within a church, although, when in Europe,
her father advised her to visit some of the old cathedrals.
In the world of politics Colonel Ingersoll fills a unique
position. Holding no office, he nevertheless, by his mastery
of the public ear, wields a power hardly inferior to that
of politicians of the first rank. He enjoys the friendship of
Secretary Blaine and other members of the Government, and
in the stir of the presidential elections the principles and men
of the Republican party have no more eloquent advocate and
defender.
In free America as well as in England to avow free
thought is to place a barrier in the path to political honours.
Col. Ingersoll has already had a taste of martyrdom. It
will be remembered that some years ago he was appointed
American Ambassador to the Court of Berlin, but had
to forego the preferment on account of the active bigotry of
the orthodox. An incident is told which further illustrates
this: A gentleman went to see Colonel Ingersoll when
he lived in Peoria, and finding a fine copy of Voltaire in his
library, said, “ Pray, sir, what did this cost you ? ” “I
believe it cost me the governorship of the State of Illinois,”
was the swift and pregnant answer.
On that evil day when Garfield was shot, Colonel Ingersoll
was in the Station-house at Washington, and is reported to
have sprang forward to interpose between the assassin and
his victim. The exciting three weeks that followed found
him a busy man. It was well that amid the first fierce fury
of anger and excitement, and the subsequent more bitter, if
not as noble outpouring of faction’s suspicions, and inuendoes,
so manly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, was enabled
to hold so positive a balance. Cabinet officers, legal
�Col. Ingersoll at Home.
JI
functionaries, detectives, citizens—all felt his wise humane
instincts and capacious hrain, influencing for fair equipoise
nnd calmer judgment.
In 1876 Colonel Ingersoll in a short, but finely conceived,
? oration, proposed Mr Blaine as the nominee of Illinois
for the Presidency. In this, speech, as well as those delivered
in the contest in 1880, which resulted in the return of
Garfield, an English reader will perceive a certain extrava
gance of eulogy as well as a subordination of close argument
to rhetoric. But America’s problems are not ours, and
Colonel Ingersoll’s mode of political persuasion is manifestly
well suited to the temper of his audiences, and nicely
calculated to win votes. His political meetings in the fall of
1880 elicited a quite unprecedented enthusiasm. At a great
meeting in Brooklyn he was introduced by the Rev. H. Ward
Beecher as “the most brilliant speaker of the English
tongue of all men on this globe,” and a great wave of emotion
Seems to have swept over the vast audience at the spectacle
of freethinker and clergyman occupying a common platform
in a spirit of liberty and fraternity.
As a politician, Colonel Ingersoll grounds his faith on
■certain broad principles, to the enunciation of which, and
ignoring small party shifts, he bends his oratorical art. He
is a Republican because that party crushed the infamy of
slavery; because it is in favour of free speech, and honest
ballot'; because it is honestly redeeming the public debt;
because it everywhere fosters humanising influences ; because
it secures the equal rights of all under the great Republic.
Flashes of humour, familiar references, flights of imagination
are in turn at the command of the orator to drive these
principles home to the minds and hearts of his hearers. His
skill in putting his points reminds one of the best models of
ancient times. He is supporting the candidature of Garfield;—
“I belong to a party that is prosperous when the country is pros
perous. I belong to the party that believes in good crops ; that
is glad when a fellow finds a gold mine; that rejoices when there
are forty bushels of wheat to the acre; that laughs when
every railroad declares its dividend; that claps both its
hands when every investment pays; when the rain falls for
�I2
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
the farmer; when the dew lies lovingly upon the grass. I
belong to the party that is happy when the people are happy •
when the labouring man gets three dollars a day; when he
has roast beef on his table; when he has a carpet on th®'
floor ; when he has a picture of Garfield on the wall.”
Hardly less neatly planted is this blow at the Democrats
and their candidate
A man is a Republican because he
loves something. A man is a Democrat mostly because he
hates something. A Republican takes a man, as it were, by
the collar, and says, 6 You must do your best, you must
climb the infinite hill of human progress as long as you live?
Now and then one gets tired, lets go all hold, and rolls down
to the very bottom of the hill, and as he strikes the mud, he
springs upon his feet transfigured, and says, ‘Hurrah for
Hancock.’ ”
His fertility of illustration is remarkable. In the inter
minable discussion of the currency question, there has not
yet been placed upon record a wittier, truer, or more luminous
passage than the following:—“ The greenback, unless you
have the gold behind it, is no more a dollar than a bill of fare
is a dinner. You cannot make a paper dollar without taking
a dollar’s worth of paper. We must have paper that repre
sents money. I want it issued by the Government, and I
want behind it either a gold or silver dollar, so that every
greenback under the flag can lift up its hand and swear, 11
know that my redeemer liveth.’ ”
Of the alertness of a memory, richly furnished with capital
stories, and the irresistible way in which they are used as apt
illustration of a position or principle, every discourse of
Colonel Ingersoll furnishes proof. Speaking of the Demo
cratic party in connection with the collection of the revenue,
he recounts :—“ Two ministers were holding a revival meet
ing in a certain place. After the services one of them passed
around the hat. When it was returned, he found in it pieces
of slate pencils and nails and buttons, but not a solitary cent,
and his brother got up and looked at the contribution and
said, ‘Let us thank God!’ ‘What for?’ said the other.
‘ Because we’ve got the hat back.’” The moral was obvious.
He has moreover a power of lucid, pithy, and quaint
�»__ OL-
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
13
phrasing that fixes a truth on the memory. “ The Republican
party lives on hope ; the Democratic on memory ; the Demo
crat keeps his back to the sun, and imagines himself a
great man because he casts a great shadow; ” this is a
definition which combines literary charm and argumentative
force. Or take this utterance on money, which is not un
worthy to stand with the epigrammatic endeavours of Emer
son and Ruskin on the same subject: “ Money is the most
social thing in this world. If a man has a dollar in his
pocket, and meets another with two, the solitary dollar
is absolutely homesick until it joins the other two.”
The weapons which Col. Ingersoll draws from his intel
lectual armoury to smite the giant orthodoxy are generally
common sense and wit. He evidently cares little about the
results of Biblical criticism, or refinements in theological
belief. He pins the Christian down to the Bible and says :
“ Do you believe this book inspired by God ? Answer yes
or no. Don’t tell me it is a poem, or that it is to be taken
in spirit, and not in fact. It is the word of God, or it is not
the word of God, If it is the former you must accept the
burden of its falsities, and immoralities. If the latter, be
honest, acknowledge that the world has been mistaken, and
let us unite in driving the cloud of superstition from the
heart of man.” This is the answer he furnishes to critics of
every hue—Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Moodyite. It is a
matter not of theology, but of plain honesty.
His oommon-sense, sledge-hammer-like logic would, how
ever, not be the unique thing it is were it not allied to a
keen sense of drollery, and a swift wit. He has subjected socalled sacred themes to a breadth and boldness of treatment
that startles readers out of their conventional propriety.
Christians who find nothing shocking in the idea of a hell,
profess to be horrified by a non-theological use of the name.
You may speak of flames, but you must not mention brim
stone. Even freethinkers have a gingerly way of touching
Bible themes ; some from an affectation of superiority ; others
out of supposed respect to dominant opinion. No Bible
personage, or subject has immunity from Col. Ingersoll’s
onset. The lightnings of his wit play around the once
�]4
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
august figure of Moses. Deity itself is made to enact the
comic role. In the words of one of his critics, Col. Ingersoll
seems to say to orthodoxy, “ I will dethrone your God to
day amid pleas of laughter ; blow his being down the wind
on the wings of my epigrams.’' The sting of all this lies in
the fact that the wit tells, that the laughter becomes con
tagious. Clergymen in the States have confessed that they
are ashamed longer to preach the doctrine of hell. Theology
may resist grave argument, it may even bear up under elo
quent denunciation, but when it becomes a subject for a
people’s laughter its days are numbered.
This humoristic method is not less effective when dealing
with church rites, as the following quotation may show:—
“ Roger Williams was a Baptist, but how he, or any one not
destitute of good sense, could be one, passes my comprehen
sion. Let me illustrate :
“ Suppose it was the Day of Judgment to-night and we
were all assembled, as the ghosts say we will be, to be judged,
and God should ask a man :
“ ‘ Have you been a good man ? ’
“ 1 Yes.’
££ £ Have you loved your wife and children ? ’
“ £ Yes.’
“ £ Have you taken good care of them and made them
happy?’
££ £ Yes.’
“ £ Have you tried to do right by your neighbours ? ’
££ £ Yes.’
“ ‘ Paid all your debts 1 ’
“ £ Yes.’
And then cap the climax by asking :
‘ “ Were you ever baptised ? ’
££ Could a solitary being hear that question without laugh
ing? I think not. I once happened to be in the company of
six or seven Baptist elders (I never have been able to under
stand since how I got into such bad company), and they
wanted to know what I thought of baptism. I answered that
I had not given the matter any attention, in fact, I had no
special opinion upon the subject. But they pressed me, and
�Col. Ingersoll at Home.
15
finally I told them that I thought, with soap, baptism was a
g°Ofbourne Col. Ingersoll has been decried as a mere
iconoclast.
' ?TtaSveh1uXubShe:<ra little book, entitled ‘Some Mis, v 1
Mo^es ’ hi which I have endeavoured to give most
takes of M - ,
m-o-ed against the Pentateuch in a
a+ rebuilding simply because he exposes a sham, 01
and not rebuilding
py
obligation to build
detests a lie. I do not feel unae
y
„
j
something in the place of a‘ Hn the p“ e of a detected lie is
"taS to see them live and
etheir livesto the defence of delusions
the people shouldI ta hear nm; saythrt^o^
17 adlhaHs good, Ind tender, and holy in human nature ;
?Lk that I wish to tear down the churches, destroy all
sheep that thy
?
the ^00p No doubt most of
willing to give e
they consid.er
£ d”TXl"’may, they feel the ^slipping
estimation
,
are not absolutely necessary for the
protecXTsooiety. They know that the intellectual world
'
�i6
Col. Ingersoll at Home.
cares little for• whaT'theT'sav^anTT^
~"
human progress flows on Lellss ofH^ u
great tide of
The Church long enioveddi\ ht 7^Ip Or hi^ance.»
tual freeman as infidel, unbelievef But tT"1
have brought a sweeping revenue Who *
rodlng years
believers ■ Bruno Galileo
i Wbo are now deemed the
that
to-day has a different -charge laid nnnn V ?
freethlnker
is not enough, he is told X ? ?P?
^integration
Perceiving the
-^ising’tHathXiXtedS „r?leS ' ‘he
is «
his own ? . “ Libertv ”
T
desire to raise fabrics of
I worship, and will over worshinat which
V p bJtitutes intellectual freedom • foMh^loT^ f d°gma
of God he substitutes faith in man and wnrW
Service
narrower creed contents him
d
k f°r man- Ko
tan^T’1 * “
and bears out what his disennr
i eBe^tuality and feeling,
Ws is a roundeIX™„l!rZ “PV6Aaiready
tinctly an original His stvff ’ r /^-s a sPeaker he is disthe qualities of' statelVsiSl c
? Mr BrWin
OUS passion. He lacks Mr t^M?mely,.patbos’ aild Se’nerhtaour is too active ft t“ susSenT^
ffis
some amount of outward passivitv Tn th V ™ lmP]Png
human sense, invective fnd wiZ’hJh
blendl“g of sound
word-paintings, the sustained flio-ht r*® no.nval5 and the
march of the rhetoric in his grea&t na^ lmaglnafclon> and the
the use of the English tonguf.
P
g6S are a delation in
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
Col. Ingersoll at home : biographical notes, occasional utterances, characteristics
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Manchester; London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 'Discourses by Robert G. Ingersoll' inside front cover. No. A3 in Stein checklist, but with different (earlier?) imprint.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
John Heywood
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N415
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Col. Ingersoll at home : biographical notes, occasional utterances, characteristics), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
NSS
Robert Green Ingersoll