Prof. Van Buren Denslow's \"Modern Thinkers\"
Introduction to Denslow's biographical study of Swedenborg, Adam Smith, Bentham, Paine, Fourier, Comte, Haeckel, and Spencer.

by Robert G. Ingersoll
(1880)

From The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll (Dresden Edition, 1900–1902), Volume 12.
Source: https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/modern-thinkers/
Public domain. CC0 / Public Domain Mark 1.0.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

IF others who read this book get as much information as I did from the
advance sheets, they will feel repaid a hundred times. It is perfectly
delightful to take advantage of the conscientious labors of those who go
through and through volume after volume, divide with infinite patience
the gold from the dross, and present us with the pure and shining coin.
Such men may be likened to bees who save us numberless journeys by
giving us the fruit of their own.

While this book will greatly add to the information of all who read it,
it may not increase the happiness of some to find that Swedenborg was
really insane. But when they remember that he was raised by a bishop,
and disappointed in love, they will cease to wonder at his mental
condition. Certainly an admixture of theology and "dis-prized love"
is often sufficient to compel reason to abdicate the throne of the
mightiest soul.

The trouble with Swedenborg was that he changed realities into dreams,
and then out of the dreams made facts upon which he built, and with
which he constructed his system.

He regarded all realities as shadows cast by ideas. To him the material
was the unreal, and things were definitions of the ideas of God. He
seemed to think that he had made a discovery when he found that ideas
were back of words, and that language had a subjective as well as an
objective origin; that is that the interior meaning had been clothed
upon. Of course, a man capable of drawing the conclusion that natural
reason cannot harmonize with spiritual truth because in a dream, he had
seen a beetle that could not use its feet, is capable of any absurdity
of which the imagination can conceive. The fact is, that Swedenborg
believed the Bible. That was his misfortune. His mind had been
overpowered by the bishop, but the woman had not utterly destroyed his
heart. He was shocked by the liberal interpretation of the Scriptures,
and sought to avoid the difficulty by giving new meanings consistent
with the decency and goodness of God. He pointed out a way to preserve
the old Bible with a new interpretation. In this way Infidelity could
be avoided; and, in his day, that was almost a necessity. Had Swedenborg
taken the ground that the Bible was not inspired, the ears of the
world would have been stopped. His readers believed in the dogma of
inspiration, and asked, not how to destroy the Scriptures, but for some
way in which they might be preserved. He and his followers unconsciously
rendered immense service to the cause of intellectual enfranchisement
by their efforts to show the necessity of giving new meanings to the
barbarous laws, and cruel orders of Jehovah. For this purpose they
attacked with great fury the literal text, taking the ground that if the
old interpretation was right, the Bible was the work of savage men. They
heightened in every way the absurdities, cruelties and contradictions of
the Scriptures for the purpose of showing that a new interpretation must
be found, and that the way pointed out by Swedenborg was the only one by
which the Bible could be saved.

Great men are, after all the instrumentalities of their time. The heart
of the civilized world was beginning to revolt at the cruelties ascribed
to God, and was seeking for some interpretation of the Bible that kind
and loving people could accept. The method of interpretation found by
Swedenborg was suitable for all. Each was permitted to construct his own
"science of correspondence" and gather such fruits as he might prefer.
In this way the ravings of revenge can instantly be changed to mercy's
melting tones, and murder's dagger to a smile of love. In this way and
in no other, can we explain the numberless mistakes and crimes ascribed
to God. Thousands of most excellent people, afraid to throw away the
idea of inspiration, hailed with joy a discovery that allowed them to
write a Bible for themselves.

But, whether Swedenborg was right or not, every man who reads a book,
necessarily gets from that book all that he is capable of receiving.
Every man who walks in the forest, or gathers a flower, or looks at a
picture, or stands by the sea, gets all the intellectual wealth he is
capable of receiving. What the forest, the flower, the picture or the
sea is to him, depends upon his mind, and upon the stage of development
he has reached. So that after all, the Bible must be a different book to
each person who reads it, as the revelations of nature depend upon the
individual to whom they are revealed, or by whom they are discovered.
And the extent of the revelation or discovery depends absolutely upon
the intellectual and moral development of the person to whom, or by
whom, the revelation or discovery is made. So that the Bible cannot be
the same to any two people, but each one must necessarily interpret it
for himself. Now, the moment the doctrine is established that we can
give to this book such meanings as are consistent with our highest
ideals; that we can treat the old words as purses or old stockings
in which to put our gold, then, each one will, in effect, make a new
inspired Bible for himself, and throw the old away. If his mind is
narrow, if he has been raised by ignorance and nursed by fear, he
will believe in the literal truth of what he reads. If he has a little
courage he will doubt, and the doubt will with new interpretations
modify the literal text; but if his soul is free he will with scorn
reject it all.

Swedenborg did one thing for which I feel almost grateful. He gave an
account of having met John Calvin in hell. Nothing connected with the
supernatural could be more perfectly natural than this. The only thing
detracting from the value of this report is, that if there is a hell, we
know without visiting the place that John Calvin must be there.

All honest founders of religions have been the dreamers of dreams, the
sport of insanity, the prey of visions, the deceivers of others and of
themselves. All will admit that Swedenborg was a man of great intellect,
of vast acquirements and of honest intentions; and I think it equally
clear that upon one subject, at least, his mind was touched, shattered
and shaken.

Misled by analogies, imposed upon by the bishop, deceived by the woman,
borne to other worlds upon the wings of dreams, living in the twilight
of reason and the dawn of insanity, he regarded every fact as a patched
and ragged garment with a lining of the costliest silk, and insisted
that the wrong side, even of the silk, was far more beautiful than the
right.

Herbert Spencer is almost the opposite of Swedenborg. He relies upon
evidence, upon demonstration, upon experience, and occupies himself with
one world at a time. He perceives that there is a mental horizon that
we cannot pierce, and that beyond that is the unknown—possibly the
unknowable. He endeavors to examine only that which is capable of being
examined, and considers the theological method as not only useless,
but hurtful. After all, God is but a guess, throned and established by
arrogance and assertion. Turning his attention to those things that
have in some way affected the condition of mankind, Spencer leaves the
unknowable to priests and to the believers in the "moral government" of
the world. He sees only natural causes and natural results, and seeks to
induce man to give up gazing into void and empty space, that he may give
his entire attention to the world in which he lives. He sees that right
and wrong do not depend upon the arbitrary will of even an infinite
being, but upon the nature of things; that they are relations, not
entities, and that they cannot exist, so far as we know, apart from
human experience.

It may be that men will finally see that selfishness and self-sacrifice
are both mistakes; that the first devours itself; that the second is
not demanded by the good, and that the bad are unworthy of it. It may be
that our race has never been, and never will be, deserving of a martyr.
Sometime we may see that justice is the highest possible form of mercy
and love, and that all should not only be allowed, but compelled to reap
exactly what they sow; that industry should not support idleness, and
that they who waste the spring and summer and autumn of their lives
should bear the winter when it comes. The fortunate should assist
the victims of accident; the strong should defend the weak, and the
intellectual should lead, with loving hands, the mental poor; but
Justice should remove the bandage from her eyes long enough to
distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.

Mr. Spencer is wise enough to declare that "acts are called good or bad
according as they are well or ill adjusted to ends;" and he might have
added, that ends are good or bad according as they affect the happiness
of mankind.

It would be hard to over-estimate the influence of this great man. From
an immense intellectual elevation he has surveyed the world of thought.
He has rendered absurd the idea of special providence, born of the
egotism of savagery. He has shown that the "will of God" is not a rule
for human conduct; that morality is not a cold and heartless tyrant;
that by the destruction of the individual will, a higher life cannot
be reached, and that after all, an intelligent love of self extends the
hand of help and kindness to all the human race.

But had it not been for such men as Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer could
not have existed for a century to come. Some one had to lead the way,
to raise the standard of revolt, and draw the sword of war. Thomas Paine
was a natural revolutionist. He was opposed to every government existing
in his day. Next to establishing a wise and just republic based upon
the equal rights of man, the best thing that can be done is to destroy a
monarchy.

Paine had a sense of justice, and had imagination enough to put himself
in the place of the oppressed. He had, also, what in these pages is so
felicitously expressed, "a haughty intellectual pride, and a willingness
to pit his individual thought against the clamor of a world."

I cannot believe that he wrote the letters of "Junius," although the two
critiques combined in this volume, entitled "Paine" and "Junius," make
by far the best argument upon that subject I have ever read. First,
Paine could have had no personal hatred against the men so bitterly
assailed by Junius. Second, He knew, at that time, but little of English
politicians, and certainly had never associated with men occupying the
highest positions, and could not have been personally acquainted with
the leading statesmen of England. Third., He was not an unjust man. He
was neither a coward, a calumniator, nor a sneak. All these delightful
qualities must have lovingly united in the character of Junius. Fourth,
Paine could have had no reason for keeping the secret after coming to
America.

I have always believed that Junius, after having written his letters,
accepted office from the very men he had maligned, and at last became
a pensioner of the victims of his slander. "Had he as many mouths as
Hydra, such a course must have closed them all." Certainly the author
must have kept the secret to prevent the loss of his reputation.

It cannot be denied that the style of Junius is much like that of Paine.
Should it be established that Paine wrote the letters of Junius, it
would not, in my judgment, add to his reputation as a writer. Regarded
as literary efforts they cannot be compared with "Common Sense," "The
Crisis," or "The Rights of Man."

The claim that Paine was the real author of the Declaration of
Independence is much better founded. I am inclined to think that he
actually wrote it; but whether this is true or not, every idea contained
in it had been written by him long before. It is now claimed that the
original document is in Paine's handwriting. It certainly is not in
Jefferson's. Certain it is, that Jefferson could not have written
anything so manly, so striking, so comprehensive, so clear, so
convincing, and so faultless in rhetoric and rhythm as the Declaration
of Independence.

Paine was the first man to write these words, "The United States of
America." He was the first great champion of absolute separation
from England. He was the first to urge the adoption of a Federal
Constitution; and, more clearly than any other man of his time, he
perceived the future greatness of this country.

He has been blamed for his attack on Washington. The truth is, he was
in prison in France. He had committed the crime of voting, against the
execution of the king It was the grandest act of his life, but at that
time to be merciful was criminal. Paine; being an American citizen,
asked Washington, then President, to say a word to Robespierre in
his behalf. Washington remained silent. In the calmness of power, the
serenity, of fortune, Washington the President, read the request of
Paine, the prisoner, and with the complacency of assured fame, consigned
to the wastebasket of forgetfulness the patriot's cry for help.
    "Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back,
    Wherein he puts alms for oblivion,
    A great-sized monster of ingratitudes.
    Those scraps are good deeds past, which are devour'd
    As fast as they are made, forgot as soon
    As done."

In this controversy, my sympathies are with the prisoner.

Paine did more to free the mind, to destroy the power of ministers and
priests in the New World, than any other man. In order to answer his
arguments, the churches found it necessary to attack his character.
There was a general resort to falsehood. In trying to destroy the
reputation of Paine, the churches have demoralized themselves. Nearly
every minister has been a willing witness against the truth. Upon the
grave of Thomas Paine, the churches of America have sacrificed their
honor. The influence of the Hero author increases every day, and there
are more copies of the "Age of Reason" sold in the United States, than
of any work written in defence of the Christian religion. Hypocrisy,
with its forked tongue, its envious and malignant heart, lies coiled
upon the memory of Paine, ready to fasten its poisonous fangs in the
reputation of any man who dares defend the great and generous dead.

Leaving the dust and glory of revolutions, let us spend a moment of
quiet with Adam Smith. I was glad to find that a man's ideas upon the
subject of protection and free trade depend almost entirely upon the
country in which he lives, or the business in which he happens to
be engaged, and that, after all, each man regards the universe as a
circumference of which he is the center. It gratified me to learn that
even Adam Smith was no exception to this rule, and that he regarded
all "protection as a hurtful and ignorant interference," except when
exercised for the good of Great Britain. Owing to the fact that his
nationality quarreled with his philosophy, he succeeded in writing
a book that is quoted with equal satisfaction by both parties. The
protectionists rely upon the exceptions he made for England, and the
free traders upon the doctrines laid down for other countries.

He seems to have reasoned upon the question of money precisely as we
have, of late years, in the United States; and he has argued both sides
equally well. Poverty asks for inflation. Wealth is conservative, and
always says there is money enough.

Upon the question of money, this volume contains the best thing I have
ever read: "The only mode of procuring the service of others, on any
large scale, in the absence of money, is by force, which is slavery.
Money, by constituting a medium in which the smallest services can be
paid for, substitutes wages for the lash, and renders the liberty of
the individual consistent with the maintenance and support of society."
There is more philosophy in that one paragraph than Adam Smith expresses
in his whole work. It may truthfully be said, that without money,
liberty is impossible. No one, whatever his views may be, can read the
article on Adam Smith without profit and delight.

The discussion of the money question is in every respect admirable, and
is as candid as able. The world will sooner or later learn that there is
nothing miraculous in finance; that money is a real and tangible thing,
a product of labor, serving not merely as a medium of exchange but as
a basis of credit as well; that it cannot be created by an act of the
Legislature; that dreams cannot be coined, and that only labor, in some
form, can put, upon the hand of want, Alladin's magic ring.

Adam Smith wrote upon the wealth of nations, while Charles Fourier
labored for the happiness of mankind. In this country, few seem
to understand communism. While here, it may be regarded as vicious
idleness, armed with the assassin's knife and the incendiary's torch, in
Europe, it is a different thing. There, it is a reaction from Feudalism.
Nobility is communism in its worst possible form. Nothing can be worse
than for idleness to eat the bread of industry. Communism in Europe
is not the "stand and deliver" of the robber, but the protest of the
robbed. Centuries ago, kings and priests, that is to say, thieves and
hypocrites, divided Europe among themselves. Under this arrangement, the
few were masters and the many slaves. Nearly every government in the
Old World rests upon simple brute force. It is hard for the many to
understand why the few should own the soil. Neither can they clearly
see why they should give their brain and blood to those who steal their
birthright and their bread. It has occurred to them that they who do the
most should not receive the least, and that, after all, an industrious
peasant is of far more value to the world than a vain and idle king.

The Communists of France, blinded as they were, made the Republic
possible. Had they joined with their countrymen, the invaders would have
been repelled, and some Napoleon would still have occupied the throne.
Socialism perceives that Germany has been enslaved by victory, while
France found liberty in defeat. In Russia the Nihilists prefer chaos to
the government of the bayonet, Siberia and the knout, and these intrepid
men have kept upon the coast of despotism one beacon fire of hope.

As a matter of fact, every society is a species of communism—a kind
of co-operation in which selfishness, in spite of itself, benefits the
community. Every industrious man adds to the wealth, not only of his
nation, but to that of the world. Every inventor increases human power,
and every sculptor, painter and poet adds to the value of human life.
Fourier, touched by the sufferings of the poor as well as by the barren
joys of hoarded wealth, and discovering the vast advantages of combined
effort, and the immense economy of co-operation, sought to find some way
for men to help themselves by helping each other. He endeavored to do
away with monopoly and competition, and to ascertain some method by
which the sensuous, the moral, and the intellectual passions of man
could be gratified.

For my part I can place no confidence in any system that does away, or
tends to do away, with the institution of marriage. I can conceive of no
civilization of which the family must not be the unit.

Societies cannot be made; they must grow. Philosophers may predict, but
they cannot create. They may point out as many ways as they please; but
after all, humanity will travel in paths of its own.

Fourier sustained about the same relation to this world that Swedenborg
did to the other. There must be something wrong about the brain of one
who solemnly asserts that, "the elephant, the ox and the diamond, were
created by the sun; the horse, the lily and the ruby, by Saturn; the
cow, the jonquil and the topaz by Jupiter; and the dog, the violet and
the opal stones by the earth itself."

And yet, forgetting these aberrations of the mind, this lunacy of a
great and loving soul, for one, I hold in tender-est regard the memory
of Charles Fourier, one of the best and noblest of our race.

While Fourier was in his cradle, Jeremy Bentham, who read history when
three years old, played on the violin at five, "and at fifteen detected
the fallacies of Blackstone," was demonstrating that the good was the
useful; that a thing was right because it paid in the highest and best
sense; that utility was the basis of morals; that without allowing
interest to be paid upon money commerce could not exist; and that
the object of all human governments should be to secure the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. He read Hume and Helvetius, threw away
the Thirty-nine Articles, and endeavored to impress upon the English
Law the fact that its ancestor was a feudal savage. He held the past in
contempt, hated Westminster and despised Oxford. He combated the
idea that governments were originally founded on contract. Locke and
Blackstone talked as though men originally lived apart, and formed
societies by agreement. These writers probably imagined that at one time
the trees were separated like telegraph poles, and finally came together
and made groves by agreement. I believe that it was Pufendorf who said
that slavery was originally founded on contract. To which Voltaire
replied:—"If my lord Pufendorf will produce the original contract
signed by the party who was to be the slave, I will admit the truth of
his statement."

A contract back of society is a myth manufactured by those in power to
serve as a title to place, and to impress the multitude with the
idea that they are, in some mysterious way, bound, fettered, and even
benefited by its terms.

The glory of Bentham is, that he gave the true basis of morals, and
furnished statesmen with the star and compass of this sentence:—"The
greatest happiness of the greatest number."

Most scientists have deferred to the theologians. They have admitted
that some questions could not, at present, be solved. These admissions
have been thankfully received by the clergy, who have always begged for
some curtain to be left, behind which their God could still exist. Men
calling themselves "scientific" have tried to harmonize the "apparent"
discrepancies between the Bible and the other works of Jehovah. In
this way they have made reputations. They were at once quoted by
the ministers as wonderful examples of piety and learning. These men
discounted the future that they might enjoy the ignorant praise of the
present. Agassiz preferred the applause of Boston, while he lived, to
the reverence of a world after he was dead. Small men appear great only
when they agree with the multitude.

The last Scientific Congress in America was opened with prayer. Think
of a science that depends upon the efficacy of words addressed to the
Unknown and Unknowable!

In our country, most of the so-called scientists are professors in
sectarian colleges, in which Moses is considered a geologist, and
Joshua an astronomer. For the most part their salaries depend upon
the ingenuity with which they can explain away facts and dodge
demonstration.

The situation is about the same in England. When Mr. Huxley saw fit to
attack the Mosaic account of the creation, he did not deem it advisable
to say plainly what he meant. He attacked the account of creation as
given by Milton, although he knew that the Mosaic and Miltonic were
substantially the same. Science has acted like a guest without a wedding
garment, and has continually apologized for existing. In the presence
of arrogant absurdity, overawed by the patronizing airs of a successful
charlatan, it has played the role of a "poor relation," and accepted,
while sitting below the salt, insults as honors.

There can be no more pitiable sight than a scientist in the employ of
superstition dishonoring himself without assisting his master. But there
are a multitude of brave and tender men who give their honest thoughts,
who are true to nature, who give the facts and let consequences shirk
for themselves, who know the value and meaning of a truth, and who have
bravely tried the creeds by scientific tests.

Among the bravest, side by side with the greatest of the world, in
Germany, the land of science, stands Ernst Haeckel, who may be said
to have not only demonstrated the theories of Darwin, but the Monistic
conception of the world. Rejecting all the puerile ideas of a personal
Creator, he has had the courage to adopt the noble words of Bruno:—"A
spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but it contains a
part of the divine substance within itself, by which it is animated." He
has endeavored—and I think with complete success—to show that there is
not, and never was, and never can be the Creator of anything. There
is no more a personal Creator than there is a personal destroyer. Matter
and force must have existed from eternity, all generation must have been
spontaneous, and the simplest organisms must have been the ancestors of
the most perfect and complex.

Haeckel is one of the bitterest enemies of the church, and is,
therefore, one of the bravest friends of man.

Catholicism was, at one time, the friend of education—of an education
sufficient to make a Catholic out of a barbarian. Protestantism was also
in favor of education—of an education sufficient to make a Protestant
out of a Catholic. But now, it having been demonstrated that real
education will make Freethinkers, Catholics and Protestants both are the
enemies of true learning.

In all countries where human beings are held in bondage, it is a crime
to teach a slave to read and write. Masters know that education is an
abolitionist, and theologians know that science is the deadly foe of
every creed in Christendom.

In the age of Faith, a personal god stood at the head of every
department of ignorance, and was supposed to be the King of kings, the
rewarder and punisher of individuals, and the governor of nations.

The worshipers of this god have always regarded the men in love with
simple facts, as Atheists in disguise. And it must be admitted that
nothing is more Atheistic than a fact. Pure science is necessarily
godless, It is incapable of worship. It investigates, and cannot afford
to shut its eyes even long enough to pray. There was a time when those
who disputed the divine right of kings were denounced as blasphemous;
but the time came when liberty demanded that a personal god should be
retired from politics. In our country this was substantially done in
1776, when our fathers declared that all power to govern came from
the consent of the governed. The cloud-theory was abandoned, and one
government has been established for the benefit of mankind. Our fathers
did not keep God out of the Constitution from principle, but from
jealousy. Each church, in colonial times, preferred to live in single
blessedness rather than see some rival wedded to the state. Mutual
hatred planted our tree of religious liberty. A constitution without a
god has at last given us a nation without a slave.

A personal god sustains the same relation to religion as to politics.
The Deity is a master, and man a serf; and this relation is inconsistent
with true progress. The Universe ought to be a pure democracy—an
infinite republic without a tyrant and without a chain.

Auguste Comte endeavored to put humanity in the place of Jehovah, and no
conceivable change can be more desirable than this. This great man did
not, like some of his followers, put a mysterious something called law
in the place of God, which is simply giving the old master a new name.
Law is this side of phenomena, not the other. It is not the cause,
neither is it the result of phenomena. The fact of succession and
resemblance, that is to say, the same thing happening under the same
conditions, is all we mean by law. No one can conceive of a law
existing apart from matter, or controlling matter, any more than he can
understand the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, or motion apart
from substance. We are beginning to see that law does not, and cannot
exist as an entity, but that it is only a conception of the mind to
express the fact that the same entities, under the same conditions,
produce the same results. Law does not produce the entities, the
conditions, or the results, or even the sameness of the results.
Neither does it affect the relations of entities, nor the result of such
relations, but it stands simply for the fact that the same causes, under
the same conditions, eternally have produced and eternally will produce
the same results.

The metaphysicians are always giving us explanations of phenomena which
are as difficult to understand as the phenomena they seek to explain;
and the believers in God establish their dogmas by miracles, and then
substantiate the miracles by assertion.

The Designer of the teleologist, the First Cause of the religious
philosopher, the Vital Force of the biologist, and the law of the
half-orthodox scientist, are all the shadowy children of ignorance and
fear.

The Universe is all there is. It is both subject and object;
contemplator and contemplated; creator and created; destroyer and
destroyed; preserver and preserved; and within itself are all causes,
modes, motions and effects.

Unable in some things to rise above the superstitions of his day,
Comte adopted not only the machinery, but some of the prejudices, of
Catholicism. He made the mistake of Luther. He tried to reform the
Church of Rome. Destruction is the only reformation of which that church
is capable. Every religion is based upon a misconception, not only of
the cause of phenomena, but of the real object of life; that is to say,
upon falsehood; and the moment the truth is known and understood, these
religions must fall. In the field of thought, they are briers, thorns,
and noxious weeds; on the shores of intellectual discovery, they are
sirens, and in the forests that the brave thinkers are now penetrating,
they are the wild beasts, fanged and monstrous.

You cannot reform these weeds. Sirens cannot be changed into good
citizens; and such wild beasts, even when tamed, are of no possible use.
Destruction is the only remedy. Reformation is a hospital where the new
philosophy exhausts its strength nursing the old religion.

There was, in the brain of the great Frenchman, the dawn of that happy
day in which humanity will be the only religion, good the only god,
happiness the only object, restitution the only atonement, mistake the
only sin, and affection, guided by intelligence, the only savior of
mankind. This dawn enriched his poverty, illuminated the darkness of
his life, peopled his loneliness with the happy millions yet to be, and
filled his eyes with proud and tender tears.

A few years ago I asked the superintendent of Pere La Chaise if he knew
where I could find the tomb of Auguste Comte. He had never heard even
the name of the author of the "Positive Philosophy." I asked him if
he had ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte. In a half-insulted tone,
he replied, "Of course I have, why do you ask me such a question?"
"Simply," was my answer, "that I might have the opportunity of saying,
that when everything connected with Napoleon, except his crimes, shall
have been forgotten, Auguste Comte will be lovingly remembered as a
benefactor of the human race."

The Jewish God must be dethroned! A personal Deity must go back to
the darkness of barbarism from whence he came. The theologians must
abdicate, and popes, priests, and clergymen, labeled as "extinct
species," must occupy the mental museums of the future.

In my judgment, this book, filled with original thought, will hasten the
coming of that blessed time.

Washington, D. C., Nov. 29,1879.

Preface to Dr. Edgar C. Beall's "the Brain and the Bible."

THIS book, written by a brave and honest man, is filled with brave and
honest thoughts. The arguments it presents can not be answered by all
the theologians in the world. The author is convinced that the universe
is natural, that man is naturally produced, and that there is a
necessary relation between character and brain. He sees, and clearly
sees, that the theological explanation of phenomena is only a plausible
absurdity, and, at best, as great a mystery as it tries to solve. I
thank the man who breaks, or tries to break, the chains of custom,
creed, and church, and gives in plain, courageous words, the product of
his brain.

It is almost impossible to investigate any subject without somewhere
touching the religious prejudices of ourselves or others. Most people
judge of the truth of a proposition by the consequences upon some
preconceived opinion. Certain things they take as truths, and with this
little standard in their minds, they measure all other theories. If
the new facts do not agree with the standard, they are instantly thrown
away, because it is much easier to dispose of the new facts than to
reconstruct an entire philosophy.

A few years ago, when men began to say that character could be
determined by the form, quantity, and quality of the brain, the
religious world rushed to the conclusion that this fact might destroy
what they were pleased to call the free moral agency of man. They
admitted that all things in the physical world were links in the
infinite chain of causes and effects, and that not one atom of the
material universe could, by any possibility, be entirely exempt from
the action of every other. They insisted that, if the motions of the
spirit—the thoughts, dreams, and conclusions of the brain, were as
necessarily produced as stones and stars, virtue became necessity, and
morality the result of forces capable of mathematical calculation.
In other words, they insisted that, while there were causes for all
material phenomena, a something called the Will sat enthroned above
all law, and dominated the phenomena of the intellectual world. They
insisted that man was free; that he controlled his brain; that he was
responsible for thought as well as action; that the intellectual world
of each man was a universe in which his will was king. They were
afraid that phrenology might, in some way, interfere with the scheme of
salvation, or prevent the eternal torment of some erring soul.

It is insisted that man is free, and is responsible, because he knows
right from wrong. But the compass does not navigate the ship; neither
does it, in any way, of itself, determine the direction that is taken.
When winds and waves are too powerful, the compass is of no importance.
The pilot may read it correctly, and may know the direction the ship
ought to take, but the compass is not a force. So men, blown by the
tempests of passion, may have the intellectual conviction that
they should go another way; but, of what use, of what force, is the
conviction?

Thousands of persons have gathered curious statistics for the purpose of
showing that man is absolutely dominated by his surroundings. By these
statistics is discovered what is called "the law of average." They show
that there are about so many suicides in London every year, so many
letters misdirected at Paris, so many men uniting themselves In marriage
with women older than themselves in Belgium, so many burglaries to one
murder in France, or so many persons driven insane by religion in the
United States. It is asserted that these facts conclusively show
that man is acted upon; that behind each thought, each dream, is the
efficient cause, and that the doctrine of moral responsibility has been
destroyed by statistics.

But, does the fact that about so many crimes are committed on the
average, in a given population, or that so many any things are done,
prove that there is no freedom in human action?

Suppose a population of ten thousand persons; and suppose, further, that
they are free, and that they have the usual wants of mankind. Is it not
reasonable to say that they would act in some way? They certainly would
take measures to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. If these people
differed in intellect, in surroundings, in temperament, in strength, it
is reasonable to suppose that all would not be equally successful. Under
such circumstances, may we not safely infer that, in a little while, if
the statistics were properly taken, a law of average would appear? In
other words, free people would act; and, being different in mind, body,
and circumstances, would not all act exactly alike. All would not be
alike acted upon. The deviations from what might be thought wise, or
right, would sustain such a relation to time and numbers that they could
be expressed by a law of average.

If this is true, the law of average does not establish necessity.

But, in my supposed case, the people, after all, are not free. They have
wants. They are under the necessity of feeding, clothing, and sheltering
themselves. To the extent of their actual wants, they are not free.
Every limitation is a master. Every finite being is a prisoner, and no
man has ever yet looked above or beyond the prison walls.

Our highest conception of liberty is to be free from the dictation of
fellow prisoners.

To the extent that we have wants, we are not free. To the extent that we
do not have wants, we do not act.

If we are responsible for our thoughts, we ought not only to know how
they are formed, but we ought to form them. If we are the masters of our
own minds, we ought to be able to tell what we are going to think at any
future time. Evidently, the food of thought—its very warp and woof—is
furnished through the medium of the senses. If we open our eyes, we
cannot help seeing. If we do not stop our ears, we cannot help hearing.
If anything touches us, we feel it. The heart beats in spite of us.
The lungs supply themselves with air without our knowledge. The blood
pursues its old accustomed rounds, and all our senses act without our
leave. As the heart beats, so the brain thinks. The will is not its
king. As the blood flows, as the lungs expand, as the eyes see, as the
ears hear, as the flesh is sensitive to touch, so the brain thinks.

I had a dream, in which I debated a question with a friend. I thought
to myself: "This is a dream, and yet I can not tell what my opponent is
going to say. Yet, if it is a dream, I am doing the thinking for both
sides, and therefore ought to know in advance what my friend will urge."
But, in a dream, there is some one who seems to talk to us. Our own
brain tells us news, and presents an unexpected thought. Is it not
possible that each brain is a field where all the senses sow the seeds
of thought? Some of these fields are mostly barren, poor, and hard,
producing only worthless weeds; and some grow sturdy oaks and stately
palms; and some are like the tropic world, where plants and trees and
vines seem royal children of the soil and sun.

Nothing seems more certain than that the capacity of a human being
depends, other things being equal, upon the amount, form, and quality
of his brain. We also know that health, disposition, temperament,
occupation, food, surroundings, ancestors, quality, form, and texture
of the brain, determine what we call character. Man is, collectively and
individually, what his surroundings have made him. Nations differ from
each other as greatly as individuals in the same nation. Nations depend
upon soil, climate, geographical position, and countless other facts.
Shakespeare would have been impossible without the climate of England.
There is a direct relation between Hamlet and the Gulf Stream. Dr.
Draper has shown that the great desert of Sahara made negroes possible
in Africa. If the Caribbean Sea had been a desert, negroes might have
been produced in America.

Are the effects of climate upon man necessary effects? Is it possible
for man to escape them? Is he responsible for what he does as a
consequence of his surroundings? Is the mind dependent upon causes?
Does it act without cause? Is every thought a necessity? Can man choose
without reference to any quality in the thing chosen?

No one will blame Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones for not writing like
Shakespeare. Should they be blamed for not acting like Christ? We say
that a great painter has genius. Is it not possible that a certain
genius is required to be what is called "good"? All men cannot be
great. All men cannot be successful. Can all men be kind? Can all men be
honest?

It may be that a crime appears terrible in proportion as we realize
its consequences. If this is true, morality may depend largely upon the
imagination. Man cannot have imagination at will; that, certainly, is
a natural product. And yet, a man's action may depend largely upon the
want of imagination. One man may feel that he really wishes to kill
another. He may make preparations to commit the deed; and yet, his
imagination may present such pictures of horror and despair; he may so
vividly see the widow clasping the mangled corpse; he may so plainly
hear the cries and sobs of orphans, while the clods fall upon the
coffin, that his hand is stayed. Another, lacking imagination, thirsting
only for revenge, seeing nothing beyond the accomplishment of the deed,
buries, with blind-and thoughtless hate, the dagger in his victim's
heart.

Morality, for the most part, is the verdict of the majority.
This verdict depends upon the intelligence of the people; and the
intelligence depends upon the amount, form, and quality of the average
brain.

If the mind depends upon certain organs for the expression of its
thought, does it have thought independently of those organs? Is there
any mind without brain? Does the mind think apart from the brain, and
then express its thought through the instrumentality of the brain?
Theologians tell us that insanity is not a disease of the soul, but of
the brain; that the soul is perfectly untouched; but that the instrument
with which, and through which, it manifests itself, is impaired. The
fact, however, seems to be, that the mind, the something that is the
man, is unconscious of the fact that anything is out of order in the
brain. Insane people insist that they are sane.

If we should find a locomotive off the track, and the engineer using the
proper appliances to put it back, we would say that the machine is
out of order, but the engineer is not. But, if we found the locomotive
upside down, with wheels in air, and the engineer insisting that it
was on the track, and never running better, we would then conclude
that something was wrong, not only with the locomotive, but with the
engineer.

We are told in medical books of a girl, who, at about the age of nine
years, was attacked with some cerebral disease. When she recovered, she
had forgotten all she ever knew, and had to relearn the alphabet, and
the names of her parents and kindred. In this abnormal state, she was
not a good girl; in the normal state, she was. After having lived in the
second state for several years, she went back to the first; and all she
had learned in the second state was forgotten, and all she had learned
in the first was remembered.

I believe she changed once more, and died in the abnormal state. In
which of these states was she responsible? Were her thoughts and
actions as free in one as in the other? It may be contended that, in her
diseased state, the mind or soul could not correctly express itself. If
this is so, it follows that, as no one is perfectly healthy, and as
no one has a perfect brain, it is impossible that the soul should ever
correctly express itself. Is the soul responsible for the defects of the
brain? Is it not altogether more rational to say, that what we call mind
depends upon the brain, and that the child—mind, inherits the defects
of its parent—brain?

Are certain physical conditions necessary to the production of what
we call virtuous actions? Is it possible for anything to be produced
without what we call cause, and, if the cause was sufficient, was it not
necessarily produced? Do not most people mistake for freedom the right
to examine their own chains? If morality depends upon conditions, should
it not be the task of the great and good to discover such conditions?
May it not be possible so to understand the brain that we can stop
producing criminals?

It may be insisted that there is something produced by the brain besides
thought—a something that takes cognizance of thoughts—a something
that weighs, compares, reflects and pronounces judgment. This something
cannot find the origin of itself. Does it exist independently of the
brain? Is it merely a looker-on? If it is a product of the brain, then
its power, perception, and judgment depend upon the quantity, form, and
quality of the brain.

Man, including all his attributes, must have been necessarily produced,
and the product was the child of conditions.

Most reformers have infinite confidence in creeds, resolutions, and
laws. They think of the common people as raw material, out of which
they propose to construct institutions and governments, like mechanical
contrivances, where each person will stand for a cog, rope, wheel,
pulley, bolt, or fuel, and the reformers will be the managers and
directors. They forget that these cogs and wheels have opinions of their
own; that they fall out with other cogs, and refuse to turn with other
wheels; that the pulleys and ropes have ideas peculiar to themselves,
and delight in mutiny and revolution. These reformers have theories that
can only be realized when other people have none.

Some time, it will be found that people can be changed only by changing
their surroundings. It is alleged that, at least ninety-five per cent.
of the criminals transported from England to Australia and other penal
colonies, became good and useful citizens in a new world. Free from
former associates and associations, from the necessities of a hard,
cruel, and competitive civilization, they became, for the most part,
honest people. This immense fact throws more light upon social questions
than all the theories of the world. All people are not able to support
themselves. They lack intelligence, industry, cunning—in short,
capacity. They are continually falling by the way. In the midst of
plenty, they are hungry. Larceny is born of want and opportunity. In
passion's storm, the will is wrecked upon the reefs and rocks of crime.

The complex, tangled web of thought and dream, of perception and memory,
of imagination and judgment, of wish and will and want—the woven wonder
of a life—has never yet been raveled back to simple threads.

Shall we not become charitable and just, when we know that every act is
but condition's fruit; that Nature, with her countless hands, scatters
the seeds of tears and crimes—of every virtue and of every joy; that
all the base and vile are victims of the Blind, and that the good and
great have, in the lottery of life, by chance or fate, drawn heart and
brain?

Washington, December 21, 1881.

Preface to "men, Women and Gods."

NOTHING gives me more pleasure, nothing gives greater promise for the
future, than the fact that woman is achieving intellectual and physical
liberty.

It is refreshing to know that here, in our country, there are thousands
of women who think, and express their thoughts—who are thoroughly
free and thoroughly conscientious—who have neither been narrowed nor
corrupted by a heartless creed—who do not worship a being in heaven
whom they would shudderingly loathe on earth—women who do not stand
before the altar of a cruel faith, with downcast eyes of timid
acquiescence, and pay to impudent authority the tribute of a thoughtless
yes. They are no longer satisfied with being told. They examine for
themselves. They have ceased to be the prisoners of society—the
satisfied serfs of husbands, or the echoes of priests. They demand the
rights that naturally belong to intelligent human beings. If wives, they
wish to be the equals of husbands. If mothers, they wish to rear their
children in the atmosphere of love, liberty and philosophy. They believe
that woman can discharge all her duties without the aid of superstition,
and preserve all that is true, pure, and tender, without sacrificing in
the temple of absurdity the convictions of the soul.

Woman is not the intellectual inferior of man. She has lacked, not mind,
but opportunity. In the long night of barbarism, physical strength and
the cruelty to use it, were the badges of superiority. Muscle was more
than mind. In the ignorant age of Faith, the loving nature of woman was
abused. Her conscience was rendered morbid and diseased. It might almost
be said that she was betrayed by her own virtues. At best she secured,
not opportunity, but flattery—the preface to degradation. She was
deprived of liberty, and without that, nothing is worth the having. She
was taught to obey without question, and to believe without thought.
There were universities for men before the alphabet had been taught to
women. At the intellectual feast, there were no places for wives and
mothers. Even now they sit at the second table and eat the crusts and
crumbs. The schools for women, at the present time, are just far enough
behind those for men, to fall heirs to the discarded; on the same
principle that when a doctrine becomes too absurd for the pulpit, it is
given to the Sunday-school.

The ages of muscle and miracle—of fists and faith—are passing away.
Minerva occupies at last a higher niche than Hercules. Now a word
is stronger than a blow. At last we see women who depend upon
themselves—who stand, self poised, the shocks of this sad world,
without leaning for support against a church—who do not go to the
literature of barbarism for consolation, or use the falsehoods and
mistakes of the past for the foundation of their hope—women brave
enough and tender enough to meet and bear the facts and fortunes of this
world.

The men who declare that woman is the intellectual inferior of man, do
not, and cannot, by offering themselves in evidence, substantiate their
declaration.

Yet, I must admit that there are thousands of wives who still have
faith in the saving power of superstition—who still insist on attending
church while husbands prefer the shores, the woods, or the fields. In
this way, families are divided. Parents grow apart, and unconsciously
the pearl of greatest price is thrown away. The wife ceases to be
the intellectual companion of the husband. She reads _The Christian
Register_, sermons in the Monday papers, and a little gossip about
folks and fashions, while he studies the works of Darwin, Haeckel, and
Humboldt. Their sympathies become estranged. They are no longer mental
friends. The husband smiles at the follies of the wife, and she weeps
for the supposed sins of the husband. Such wives should read this book.
They should not be satisfied to remain forever in the cradle of thought,
amused with the toys of superstition.

The parasite of woman is the priest.

It must also be admitted that there are thousands of men who believe
that superstition is good for women and children—who regard falsehood
as the fortress of virtue, and feel indebted to ignorance for the purity
of daughters and the fidelity of wives. These men think of priests
as detectives in disguise, and regard God as a policeman who prevents
elopements. Their opinions about religion are as correct as their
estimate of woman.

The church furnishes but little food for the mind. People of
intelligence are growing tired of the platitudes of the pulpit—the
iterations of the itinerants. The average sermon is "as tedious as a
twice told tale vexing the ears of a drowsy man."

One Sunday a gentleman, who is a great inventor, called at my house.
Only a few words had passed between us, when he arose, saying that he
must go as it was time for church. Wondering that a man of his mental
wealth could enjoy the intellectual poverty of the pulpit, I asked for
an explanation, and he gave me the following: "You know that I am an
inventor. Well, the moment my mind becomes absorbed in some difficult
problem, I am afraid that something may happen to distract my attention.
Now, I know that I can sit in church for an hour without the slightest
danger of having the current of my thought disturbed."

Most women cling to the Bible because they have been taught that to give
up that book is to give up all hope of another life—of ever meeting
again the loved and lost. They have also been taught that the Bible is
their friend, their defender, and the real civilizer of man.

Now, if they will only read this book—these three lectures, without
fear, and then read the Bible, they will see that the truth or falsity
of the dogma of inspiration has nothing to do with the question of
immortality. Certainly the Old Testament does not teach us that there is
another life, and upon that question even the New is obscure and vague.
The hunger of the heart finds only a few small and scattered crumbs.
There is nothing definite, solid, and satisfying. United with the idea
of immortality we find the absurdity of the resurrection. A prophecy
that depends for its fulfillment upon an impossibility, cannot satisfy
the brain or heart.

There are but few who do not long for a dawn beyond the night. And
this longing is born of and nourished by the heart. Love wrapped in
shadow—bending with tear-filled eyes above its dead, convulsively
clasps the outstretched hand of hope.

I had the pleasure of introducing Miss Gardener to her first audience,
and in that introduction said a few words that I will repeat.

"We do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the
beginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the
folding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless
life that brings the rapture of love to every one.

"Under the seven-hued arch of hope let the dead sleep."

They will also discover, as they read the "Sacred Volume," that it is
not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book,
for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a
drudge, a kind of necessary evil—as mere property. Surely, a book that
upholds polygamy is not the friend of wife and mother.

Even Christ did not place woman on an equality with man. He said not
one word about the sacredness of home, the duties of the husband to the
wife—nothing calculated to lighten the hearts of those who bear the
saddest burdens of this life.

They will also find that the Bible has not civilized mankind. A book
that establishes and defends slavery and wanton war is not calculated to
soften the hearts of those who believe implicitly that it is the work of
God. A book that not only permits, but commands, religious persecution,
has not, in my judgment, developed the affectional nature of man.
Its influence has been bad and bad only. It has filled the world with
bitterness, revenge and crime, and retarded in countless ways the
progress of our race.

The writer of this volume has read the Bible with open eyes. The mist
of sentimentality has not clouded her vision. She has had the courage
to tell the result of her investigations. She has been quick to discover
contradictions. She appreciates the humorous side of the stupidly
solemn. Her heart protests against the cruel, and her brain rejects the
childish, the unnatural and absurd. There is no misunderstanding between
her head and heart. She says what she thinks, and feels what she says.

No human being can answer her arguments. There is no answer. All the
priests in the world cannot explain away her objections. There is no
explanation. They should remain dumb, unless they can show that the
impossible is the probable—that slavery is better than freedom—that
polygamy is the friend of woman—that the innocent can justly suffer for
the guilty, and that to persecute for opinion's sake is an act of love
and worship.

Wives who cease to learn—who simply forget and believe—will fill the
evening of their lives with barren sighs and bitter tears.

The mind should outlast youth. If when beauty fades, Thought, the deft
and unseen sculptor, hath not left his subtle lines upon the face,
then all is lost. No charm is left. The light is out. There is no flame
within to glorify the wrinkled clay.

Hoffman House, New York, July, 22, 1885.

Preface to "for Her Daily Bread."

I HAVE read, this story, this fragment of a life mingled with fragments
of other lives, and have been pleased, interested, and instructed. It
is filled with the pathos of truth, and has in it the humor that
accompanies actual experience. It has but little to do with the world
of imagination; certain feelings are not attributed to persons born
of fancy, but it is the history of a heart and brain interested in the
common things of life. There are no kings, no lords, no titled ladies,
but there are real people, the people of the shop and street whom every
reader knows, and there are lines intense and beautiful, and scenes
that touch the heart. You will find no theories of government, no hazy
outlines of reform, nothing but facts and folks, as they have been, as
they are, and probably will be for many centuries to come.

If you read this book you will be convinced that men and women are good
or bad, charitable or heartless, by reason of something within, and not
by virtue of any name they bear, or any trade or profession they follow,
or of any creed they may accept. You will also find that men sometimes
are honest and mean; that women may be very virtuous and very cruel;
that good, generous and sympathetic men are often disreputable, and that
some exceedingly worthy citizens are extremely mean and uncomfortable
neighbors.

It takes a great deal of genius and a good deal of selfdenial to be
very bad or to be very good. Few people understand the amount of energy,
industry, and self-denial it requires to be consistently vicious. People
who have a pride in being good and fail, and those who have a pride in
being bad and fail, in order to make their records consistent generally
rely upon hypocrisy. The people that live and hope and fear in this
book, are much like the people who live and hope and fear in the actual
world. The professor is much like the professor in the ordinary college.
You will find the conscientious, half-paid teacher, the hopeful poor,
the anxious rich, the true lover, the stingy philanthropist, who cares
for people only in the aggregate,—the individual atom being too small
to attract his notice or to enlist his heart; the sympathetic man who
loves himself, and gives, not for the sake of the beggar, but for
the sake of getting rid of the beggar, and you will also find the man
generous to a fault—with the money of others. And the reader will find
these people described naturally, truthfully and without exaggeration,
and he will feel certain that all these people have really lived.

The reader of this story will get some idea as to what is encountered
by a girl in an honest effort to gain her daily bread. He will find how
steep, how devious and how difficult is the path she treads.

There are so few occupations open to woman, so few things in which she
can hope for independence, that to be thrown upon her own resources
is almost equivalent to being cast away. Besides, she is an object of
continual suspicion, watched not only by men but by women. If she does
anything that other women are not doing, she is at once suspected,
her reputation is touched, and other women, for fear of being stained
themselves, withdraw not only the hand of help, but the smile of
recognition. A young woman cannot defend herself without telling the
charge that has been made against her. This, of itself, gives a kind of
currency to slander. To speak of the suspicion that has crawled across
her path, is to plant the seeds of doubt in other minds; to even deny
it, admits that it exists. To be suspected, that is enough. There is no
way of destroying this suspicion. There is no court in which suspicions
are tried; no juries that can render verdicts of not guilty. Most women
are driven at last to the needle, and this does not allow them to live;
it simply keeps them from dying.

It is hard to appreciate the dangers and difficulties that lie in wait
for woman. Even in this Christian country of ours, no girl is safe in
the streets of any city after the sun has gone down. After all, the sun
is the only god that has ever protected woman. In the darkness she has
been the prey of the wild beast in man.

Nearly all charitable people, so-called, imagine that nothing is easier
than to obtain work. They really feel that anybody, no matter what his
circumstances may be, can get work enough to do if he is only willing to
do the work. They cannot understand why any healthy human being should
lack food or clothes. Meeting the unfortunate and the wretched in the
streets of the great city, they ask them in a kind of wondering way, why
they do not go to the West, why they do not cultivate the soil, and why
they are so foolish, stupid, and reckless as to remain in the town. It
would be just as sensible to ask a beggar why he does not start a bank
or a line of steamships, as to ask him why he does not cultivate the
soil, or why he does not go to the West. The man has no money to pay his
fare, and if his fare were paid he would be, when he landed in the
West, in precisely the same condition as he was when he left the East.
Societies and institutions and individuals supply the immediate wants
of the hungry and the ragged, but they afford only the relief of the
moment.

Articles by the thousand have been written for the purpose of showing
that women should become servants in houses, and the writers of these
articles are filled with astonishment that any girl should hesitate to
enter domestic service. They tell us that nearly every family needs a
good cook, a good chambermaid, a good sweeper of floors and washer of
dishes, a good stout girl to carry the baby and draw the wagon, and
these good people express the greatest astonishment that all girls
are not anxious to become domestics. They tell them that they will be
supplied with good food, that they will have comfortable beds and warm
clothing, and they ask, "What more do you want?" These people have
not, however, solved the problem. If girls, as a rule, keep away from
kitchens and chambers, if they hate to be controlled by other women,
there must be a reason. When we see a young woman prefer a clerkship in
a store,—a business which keeps her upon her feet all day, and sends
her to her lonely room, filled with weariness and despair, and when we
see other girls who are willing to sew for a few cents a day rather than
become the maid of "my lady," there must be some reason, and this reason
must be deemed sufficient by the persons who are actuated by it. What is
it?

Every human being imagines that the future has something in store for
him. It is natural to build these castles in Spain. It is natural for
a girl to dream of being loved by the noble, by the superb, and it is
natural for the young man to dream of success, of a home, of a good, a
beautiful and loving wife. These dreams are the solace of poverty; they
keep back the tears in the eyes of the young and the hungry. To engage
in any labor that degrades, in any work that leaves a stain, in any
business the mention of which is liable to redden the cheek, seems to be
a destruction of the foundation of hope, a destruction of the future; it
seems to be a crucifixion of his or her better self. It assassinates the
ideal.

It may be said that labor is noble, that work is a kind of religion, and
whoever says this tells the truth, But after all, what has the truth
to do with this question? What is the opinion of society?—What is the
result? It cures no wound to say that it was wrongfully inflicted.
The opinion of sensible people is one way, the action of society is
inconsistent with that opinion. Domestic servants are treated as
though their employment was and is a degradation. Bankers, merchants,
professional men, ministers of the gospel, do not want their sons
to become the husbands of chambermaids and cooks. Small hands are
beautiful; they do not tell of labor.

I have given one reason; there is another. The work of a domestic is
never done. She is liable to be called at any moment, day or night. She
has no time that she can call her own. A woman who works by the piece
can take a little rest; if she is a clerk she has certain hours of labor
and the rest of the day is her own.

And there is still another reason that I almost hate to give, and that
is this: As a rule, woman is exacting with woman. As a rule, woman does
not treat woman as well as man treats man, or as well as man treats
woman. There are many other reasons, but I have given enough.

For many years, women have been seeking employment other than that of
domestic service. They have so hated this occupation, that they have
sought in every possible direction for other ways to win their bread.
At last hundreds of employments are open to them, and, as a consequence,
domestic servants are those who can get nothing else to do.

In the olden time, servants sat at the table with the family; they were
treated something like human beings, harshly enough to be sure, but
in many cases almost as equals. Now the kitchen is far away from the
parlor. It is another world, occupied by individuals of a different
race. There is no bond of sympathy—no common ground. This is especially
true in a Republic. In the Old World, people occupying menial places
account for their positions by calling attention to the laws—to the
hereditary nobility and the universal spirit of caste. Here, there are
no such excuses. All are supposed to have equal opportunities, and those
who are compelled to labor for their daily bread, in avocations that
require only bodily strength, are regarded as failures. It is this fact
that stabs like a knife. And yet in the conclusion drawn, there is but
little truth. Some of the noblest and best pass their lives in daily
drudgery and unremunerative toil—while many of the mean, vicious and
stupid reach place and power.

This story is filled with sympathy for the destitute, for the
struggling, and tends to keep the star of hope above the horizon of the
unfortunate. After all, we know but little of the world, and have but a
faint conception of the burdens that are borne, and of the courage and
heroism displayed by the unregarded poor. Let the rich read these pages;
they will have a kinder feeling toward those who toil; let the workers
read them, and they will think better of themselves.

Preface to "agnosticism and Other Essays."

I.

EDGAR FAWCETT—a great poet, a metaphysician and logician—has been for
years engaged in exploring that strange world wherein are supposed to
be the springs of human action. He has sought for something back of
motives, reasons, fancies, passions, prejudices, and the countless tides
and tendencies that constitute the life of man.

He has found some of the limitations of mind, and knows that beginning
at that luminous centre called consciousness, a few short steps bring
us to the prison wall where vision fails and all light dies. Beyond this
wall the eternal darkness broods. This gloom is "the other world" of the
supernaturalist. With him, real vision begins where the sight fails. He
reverses the order of nature. Facts become illusions, and illusions the
only realities. He believes that the cause of the image, the reality, is
behind the mirror.

A few centuries ago the priests said to their followers: The other world
is above you; it is just beyond where you see. Afterward, the astronomer
with his telescope looked, and asked the priests: Where is the world
of which you speak? And the priests replied: It has receded—it is just
beyond where you see.

As long as there is "a beyond," there is room for the priests' world.
Theology is the geography of this beyond.

Between the Christian and the Agnostic there is the difference of
assertion and question—between "There is a God" and "Is there a
God?" The Agnostic has the arrogance to admit his ignorance, while the
Christian from the depths of humility impudently insists that he knows.

Mr. Fawcett has shown that at the root of religion lies the coiled
serpent of fear, and that ceremony, prayer, and worship are ways and
means to gain the assistance or soften the heart of a supposed deity.

He also shows that as man advances in knowledge he loses confidence in
the watchfulness of Providence and in the efficacy of prayer.

II. Science.

The savage is certain of those things that cannot be known. He is
acquainted with origin and destiny, and knows everything except that
which is useful. The civilized man, having outgrown the ignorance, the
arrogance, and the provincialism of savagery, abandons the vain search
for final causes, for the nature and origin of things.

In nearly every department of science man is allowed to investigate, and
the discovery of a new fact is welcomed, unless it threatens some creed.

Of course there can be no advance in a religion established by infinite
wisdom. The only progress possible is in the comprehension of this
religion.

For many generations, what is known under a vast number of disguises
and behind many masks as the Christian religion, has been propagated
and preserved by the sword and bayonet—that is to say, by force. The
credulity of man has been bribed and his reason punished. Those who
believed without the slightest question, and whose faith held evidence
in contempt, were saints; those who investigated were dangerous, and
those who denied were destroyed.

Every attack upon this religion has been made in the shadow of human and
divine hatred—in defiance of earth and heaven. At one time Christendom
was beneath the ignorant feet of one man, and those who denied his
infallibility were heretics and Atheists. At last, a protest was
uttered. The right of conscience was proclaimed, to the extent of making
a choice between the infallible man and the infallible book. Those
who rejected the man and accepted the book became in their turn
as merciless, as tyrannical and heartless, as the followers of the
infallible man. The Protestants insisted that an infinitely wise and
good God would not allow criminals and wretches to act as his infallible
agents.

Afterward, a few protested against the infallibility of the book, using
the same arguments against the book that had formerly been used against
the pope. They said that an infinitely wise and good God could not be
the author of a cruel and ignorant book. But those who protested against
the book fell into substantially the same error that had been fallen
into by those who had protested against the man. While they denounced
the book, and insisted that an infinitely wise and good being could not
have been its author, they took the ground that an infinitely wise and
good being was the creator and governor of the world.

Then was used against them the same argument that had been used by the
Protestants against the pope and by the Deists against the Protestants.
Attention was called to the fact that Nature is as cruel as any pope or
any book—that it is just as easy to account for the destruction of the
Canaanites consistently with the goodness of Jehovah as to account for
pestilence, earthquake, and flood consistently with the goodness of the
God of Nature.

The Protestant and Deist both used arguments against the Catholic that
could in turn be used with equal force against themselves. So that there
is no question among intelligent people as to the infallibility of the
pope, as to the inspiration of the book, or as to the existence of the
Christian's God—for the conclusion has been reached that the human mind
is incapable of deciding as to the origin and destiny of the universe.

For many generations the mind of man has been traveling in a circle. It
accepted without question the dogma of a First Cause—of the existence
of a Creator—of an Infinite Mind back of matter, and sought in many
ways to define its ignorance in this behalf. The most sincere worshipers
have declared that this being is incomprehensible,—that he is "without
body, parts, or passions"—that he is infinitely beyond their grasp, and
at the same time have insisted that it was necessary for man not only
to believe in the existence of this being, but to love him with all his
heart.

Christianity having always been in partnership with the state,—having
controlled kings and nobles, judges and legislators—having been
in partnership with armies and with every form of organized
destruction,—it was dangerous to discuss the foundation of its
authority. To speak lightly of any dogma was a crime punishable by
death. Every absurdity has been bastioned and barricaded by the power of
the state. It has been protected by fist, by club, by sword and cannon.

For many years Christianity succeeded in substantially closing the
mouths of its enemies, and lived and flourished only where investigation
and discussion were prevented by hypocrisy and bigotry. The church still
talks about "evidence," about "reason," about "freedom of conscience"
and the "liberty of speech," and yet denounces those who ask for
evidence, who appeal to reason, and who honestly express their thoughts.

To-day we know that the miracles of Christianity are as puerile and
false as those ascribed to the medicine-men of Central Africa or the
Fiji Islanders, and that the "sacred Scriptures" have the same claim to
inspiration that the Koran has, or the Book of Mormon—no less, no more.
These questions have been settled and laid aside by free and intelligent
people. They have ceased to excite interest; and the man who now really
believes in the truth of the Old Testament is regarded with a smile—
looked upon as an aged child—still satisfied with the lullabys and toys
of the cradle.

III. Morality.

It is contended that without religion—that is to say, without
Christianity—all ideas of morality must of necessity perish, and that
spirituality and reverence will be lost.

What is morality?

Is it to obey without question, or is it to act in accordance with
perceived obligation? Is it something with which intelligence has
nothing to do? Must the ignorant child carry out the command of the wise
father—the rude peasant rush to death at the request of the prince?

Is it impossible for morality to exist where the brain and heart are
in partnership? Is there no foundation for morality except punishment
threatened or reward promised by a superior to an inferior? If this be
true, how can the superior be virtuous? Cannot the reward and the threat
be in the nature of things? Can they not rest in consequences perceived
by the intellect? How can the existence or non-existence of a deity
change my obligation to keep my hands out of the fire?

The results of all actions are equally certain, but not equally known,
not equally perceived. If all men knew with perfect certainty that to
steal from another was to rob themselves, larceny would cease. It
cannot be said too often that actions are good or bad in the light of
consequences, and that a clear perception of consequences would control
actions. That which increases the sum of human happiness is moral; and
that which diminishes the sum of human happiness is immoral. Blind,
unreasoning obedience is the enemy of morality. Slavery is not the
friend of virtue. Actions are neither right nor wrong by virtue of what
men or gods can say—the right or wrong lives in results—in the nature
of things, growing out of relations violated or caused.

Accountability lives in the nature of consequences—in their absolute
certainty—in the fact that they cannot be placated, avoided, or bribed.

The relations of human life are too complicated to be accurately and
clearly understood, and, as a consequence, rules of action vary from age
to age. The ideas of right and wrong change with the experience of
the race, and this change is wrought by the gradual ascertaining of
consequences—of results. For this reason the religion of one age fails
to meet the standard of another, precisely as the laws that satisfied
our ancestors are repealed by us; so that, in spite of all efforts,
religion itself is subject to gradual and perpetual change.

The miraculous is no longer the basis of morals. Man is a sentient
being—he suffers and enjoys. In order to be happy he must preserve the
conditions of well-being—must live in accordance with certain facts by
which he is surrounded. If he violates these conditions the result is
unhappiness, failure, disease, misery.

Man must have food, roof, raiment, fireside, friends—that is to say,
prosperity; and this he must earn—this he must deserve. He is no
longer satisfied with being a slave, even of the Infinite. He wishes to
perceive for himself, to understand, to investigate, to experiment; and
he has at last the courage to bear the consequences that he brings upon
himself. He has also found that those who are the most religious are not
always the kindest, and that those who have been and are the worshipers
of God enslave their fellow-men. He has found that there is no necessary
connection between religion and morality.

Morality needs no supernatural assistance—needs neither miracle nor
pretence. It has nothing to do with awe, reverence, credulity, or blind,
unreasoning faith. Morality is the highway perceived by the soul, the
direct road, leading to success, honor, and happiness.

The best thing to do under the circumstances is moral.

The highest possible standard is human. We put ourselves in the places
of others. We are made happy by the kindness of others, and we feel that
a fair exchange of good actions is the wisest and best commerce. We know
that others can make us miserable by acts of hatred and injustice,
and we shrink from inflicting the pain upon others that we have felt
ourselves; this is the foundation of conscience.

If man could not suffer, the words right and wrong could never have been
spoken.

The Agnostic, the Infidel, clearly perceives the true basis of morals,
and, so perceiving, he knows that the religious man, the superstitious
man, caring more for God than for his fellows, will sacrifice his
fellows, either at the supposed command of his God, or to win his
approbation. He also knows that the religionist has no basis for morals
except these supposed commands. The basis of morality with him lies not
in the nature of things, but in the caprice of some deity. He seems to
think that, had it not been for the Ten Commandments, larceny and murder
might have been virtues.

IV. Spirituality.

What is it to be spiritual?

Is this fine quality of the mind destroyed by the development of the
brain? As the domain wrested by science from ignorance increases—as
island after island and continent after continent are discovered—as
star after star and constellation after constellation in the
intellectual world burst upon the midnight of ignorance, does the
spirituality of the mind grow less and less? Like morality, is it only
found in the company of ignorance and superstition? Is the spiritual man
honest, kind, candid?—or dishonest, cruel and hypocritical? Does he
say what he thinks? Is he guided by reason? Is he the friend of the
right?—the champion of the truth? Must this splendid quality called
spirituality be retained through the loss of candor? Can we not
truthfully say that absolute candor is the beginning of wisdom?

To recognize the finer harmonies of conduct—to live to the ideal—to
separate the incidental, the evanescent, from the perpetual—to be
enchanted with the perfect melody of truth—open to the influences of
the artistic, the beautiful, the heroic—to shed kindness as the sun
sheds light—to recognize the good in others, and to include the world
in the idea of self—this is to be spiritual.

There is nothing spiritual in the worship of the unknown and unknowable,
in the self-denial of a slave at the command of a master whom he fears.
Fastings, prayings, mutilations, kneelings, and mortifications are
either the results of, or result in, insanity.

This is the spirituality of Bedlam, and is of no kindred with the soul
that finds its greatest joy in the discharge of obligation perceived.

V. Reverence.

What is reverence?

It is the feeling produced when we stand in the presence of our ideal,
or of that which most nearly approaches it—that which is produced by
what we consider the highest degree of excellence.

The highest is reverenced, praised, and admired without qualification.

Each man reverences according to his nature, his experience, his
intellectual development. He may reverence' Nero or Marcus Aurelius,
Jehovah or Buddha, the author of Leviticus or Shakespeare. Thousands of
men reverence John Calvin, Torquemada, and the Puritan fathers; and some
have greater respect for Jonathan Edwards than for Captain Kidd.

A vast number of people have great reverence for anything that is
covered by mould, or moss, or mildew. They bow low before rot and rust,
and adore the worthless things that have been saved by the negligence of
oblivion.

They are enchanted with the dull and fading daubs of the old masters,
and hold in contempt those miracles of art, the paintings of to-day.

They worship the ancient, the shadowy, the mysterious, the wonderful.
They doubt the value of anything that they understand.

The creed of Christendom is the enemy of morality. It teaches that the
innocent can justly suffer for the guilty, that consequences can be
avoided by repentance, and that in the world of mind the great fact
known as cause and effect does not apply.

It is the enemy of spirituality, because it teaches that credulity is of
more value than conduct, and because it pours contempt upon human love
by raising far above it the adoration of a phantom.

It is the enemy of reverence. It makes ignorance the foundation of
virtue. It belittles the useful, and cheapens the noblest of! the
virtues. It teaches man to live on mental alms, and glorifies the
intellectual pauper. It holds candor in contempt, and is the malignant
foe of mental manhood.

VI. Existence of God.

Mr. Fawcett has shown conclusively that it is no easier to establish the
existence of an infinitely wise and good being by the existence of what
we call "good" than to establish the existence of an infinitely bad
being by what we call "bad."

Nothing can be surer than that the history of this world furnishes no
foundation on which to base an inference that it has been governed by
infinite wisdom and goodness. So terrible has been the condition of
man, that religionists in all ages have endeavored to excuse God by
accounting for the evils of the world by the wickedness of men. And the
fathers of the Christian Church were forced to take the ground that this
world had been filled with briers and thorns, with deadly serpents
and with poisonous weeds, with disease and crime and earthquake and
pestilence and storm, by the curse of God.

The probability is that no God has cursed, and that no God will bless,
this earth. Man suffers and enjoys according to conditions. The sun
shines without love, and the lightning blasts without hate. Man is the
Providence of man.

Nature gives to our eyes all they can see, to our ears all they can
hear, and to the mind what it can comprehend. The human race reaps the
fruit of every victory won on the fields of intellectual or physical
conflict. We have no right to expect something for nothing. Man will
reap no harvest the seeds of which he has not sown.

The race must be guided by intelligence, must be free to investigate,
and must have the courage and the candor not only to state what is
known, but to cheerfully admit the limitations of the mind.

No intelligent, honest man can read what Mr. Fawcett has written and
then say that he knows the origin and destiny of things—that he knows
whether an infinite Being exists or not, and that he knows whether the
soul of man is or is not immortal.

In the land of————, the geography of which is not certainly known,
there was for many years a great dispute among the inhabitants as to
which road led to the city of Miragia, the capital of their country, and
known to be the most delightful city on the earth. For fifty generations
the discussion as to which road led to the city had been carried on with
the greatest bitterness, until finally the people were divided into a
great number of parties, each party claiming that the road leading
to the city had been miraculously made known to the founder of that
particular sect. The various parties spent most of their time putting up
guide-boards on these roads and tearing down the guide-boards of others.
Hundreds of thousands had been killed, prisons were filled, and the
fields had been ravaged by the hosts of war.

One day, a wise man, a patriot, wishing to bring peace to his country,
met the leaders of the various sects and asked them whether it was
absolutely certain that the city of Miragia existed. He called their
attention to the facts that no resident of that city had ever visited
them and that none of their fellow-men who had started for the capital
had ever returned, and modestly asked whether it would not be better
to satisfy themselves beyond a doubt that there was such a city, adding
that the location of the city would determine which of all the roads was
the right one.

The leaders heard these words with amazement. They denounced the speaker
as a wretch without morality, spirituality, or reverence, and thereupon
he was torn in pieces.

Preface to "faith or Fact."

I LIKE to know the thoughts, theories and conclusions of an honest,
intelligent man; candor is always charming, and it is a delight to feel
that you have become acquainted with a sincere soul.

I have read this book with great pleasure, not only because I know, and
greatly esteem the author, not only because he is my unwavering friend,
but because it is full of good sense, of accurate statement, of sound
logic, of exalted thoughts happily expressed, and for the further reason
that it is against tyranny, superstition, bigotry, and every form of
injustice, and in favor of every virtue.

Henry M. Taber, the author, has for many years taken great interest
in religious questions. He was raised in an orthodox atmosphere, was
acquainted with many eminent clergymen from whom he endeavored to
find out what Christianity is—and the facts and evidence relied on to
establish the truth of the creeds. He found that the clergy of even the
same denomination did not agree—that some of them preached one way
and talked another, and that many of them seemed to regard the creed as
something to be accepted whether it was believed or not. He found that
each one gave his own construction to the dogmas that seemed heartless
or unreasonable. While some insisted that the Bible was absolutely true
and the creed without error, others admitted that there were mistakes in
the sacred volume and that the creed ought to be revised. Finding these
differences among the ministers, the shepherds, and also finding that
no one pretended to have any evidence except faith, or any facts but
assertions, he concluded to investigate the claims of Christianity for
himself.

For half a century he has watched the ebb and flow of public opinion,
the growth of science, the crumbling of creeds—the decay of the
theological spirit, the waning influence of the orthodox pulpit, the
loss of confidence in special providence and the efficacy of prayer.

He has lived to see the church on the defensive—to hear faith asking
for facts—and to see the shot and shell of science batter into
shapelessness the fortresses of superstition. He has lived to see
Infidels, blasphemers and Agnostics the leaders of the intellectual
world. In his time the supernaturalists have lost the sceptre and have
taken their places in the abject rear.

Fifty years ago the orthodox Christians believed their creeds. To them
the Bible was an actual revelation from God. Every word was true.
Moses and Joshua were regarded as philosophers and scientists. All the
miracles and impossibilities recorded in the Bible were accepted as
facts. Credulity was the greatest of virtues. Everything, except the
reasonable, was believed, and it was considered wickedly presumptuous
to doubt anything except facts. The reasonable things in the Bible could
safely be doubted, but to deny the miracles was like the sin against
the Holy Ghost. In those days the preachers were at the helm. They spoke
with authority. They knew the origin and destiny of the soul. They were
on familiar terms with the Trinity—the three-headed God. They knew the
narrow path that led to heaven and the great highway along which the
multitude were traveling to the Prison of Pain.

While these reverend gentlemen were busy trying to prevent the
development of the brain and to convince the people that the good in
this life were miserable, that virtue wore a crown of thorns and carried
a cross, while the wicked and ungodly walked in the sunshine of joy,
yet that after death the wicked would be eternally tortured and the
good eternally rewarded. According to the pious philosophy the good
God punished virtue, and rewarded vice, in this world—and in the next,
rewarded virtue and punished vice. These divine truths filled their
hearts with holy peace—with pious resignation. It would be difficult
to determine which gave them the greater joy—the hope of heaven for
themselves, or the certainty of hell for their enemies. For the grace of
God they were fairly thankful, but for his "justice" their gratitude
was boundless. From the heights of heaven they expected to witness the
eternal tragedy in hell.

While these good divines, these doctors of divinity, were busy
misinterpreting the Scriptures, denying facts and describing the glories
and agonies of eternity, a good many other people were trying to find
out something about this world. They were busy with retort and crucible,
searching the heavens with the telescope, examining rocks and craters,
reefs and islands, studying plant and animal life, inventing ways to
use the forces of nature for the benefit of man, and in every direction
searching for the truth. They were not trying to destroy religion or to
injure the clergy. Many of them were members of churches and believed
the creeds. The facts they found were honestly given to the world. Of
course all facts are the enemies of superstition. The clergy, acting
according to the instinct of self-preservation, denounced these "facts"
as dangerous and the persons who found and published them, as Infidels
and scoffers.

Theology was arrogant and bold. Science was timid. For some time
the churches seemed to have the best of the controversy. Many of the
scientists surrendered and did their best to belittle the facts and
patch up a cowardly compromise between Nature and Revelation—that is,
between the true and the false.

Day by day more facts were found that could not be reconciled with the
Scriptures, or the creeds. Neither was it possible to annihilate facts
by denial. The man who believed the Bible could not accept the facts,
and the man who believed the facts could not accept the Bible. At
first, the Bible was the standard, and all facts inconsistent with that
standard were denied. But in a little while science became the standard,
and the passages in the Bible contrary to the standard had to be
explained or given up. Great efforts were made to harmonize the mistakes
in the Bible with the demonstrations of science. It was difficult to be
ingenious enough to defend them both. The pious professors twisted and
turned but found it hard to reconcile the creation of Adam with the slow
development of man from lower forms. They were greatly troubled about
the age of the universe. It seemed incredible that until about six
thousand years ago there was nothing in existence but God—and nothing.
And yet they tried to save the Bible by giving new meanings to the
inspired texts, and casting a little suspicion on the facts.

This course has mostly been abandoned, although a few survivals, like
Mr. Gladstone, still insist there is no conflict between Revelation and
Science. But these champions of Holy Writ succeed only in causing the
laughter of the intelligent and the amazement of the honest. The more
intelligent theologians confessed that the inspired writers could not
be implicitly believed. As they personally know nothing of astronomy or
geology and were forced to rely entirely on inspiration, it is wonderful
that more mistakes were not made. So it was claimed that Jehovah cared
nothing about science, and allowed the blunders and mistakes of the
ignorant people concerning everything except religion, to appear in his
supernatural book as inspired truths.

The Bible, they said, was written to teach religion in its highest and
purest form—to make mankind fit to associate with God and his angels.
True, polygamy was tolerated and slavery established, yet Jehovah
believed in neither, but on account of the wickedness of the Jews was in
favor of both.

At the same time quite a number of real scholars were investigating
other religions, and in a little while they were enabled to show that
these religions had been manufactured by men—that their Christs and
apostles were myths and that all their sacred books were false and
foolish. This pleased the Christians. They knew that theirs was the only
true religion and that their Bible was the only inspired book.

The fact that there is nothing original in Christianity, that all the
dogmas, ceremonies and festivals had been borrowed, together with some
mouldy miracles used as witnesses, weakened the faith of some and sowed
the seeds of doubt in many minds. But the pious petrifactions, the
fossils of faith, still clung to their book and creed. While they were
quick to see the absurdities in other sacred books, they were either
unconsciously blind or maliciously shut their eyes to the same
absurdities in the Bible. They knew that Mohammed was an impostor,
because the citizens of Mecca, who knew him, said he was, and they knew
that Christ was not an impostor, because the people of Jerusalem who
knew him, said he was. The same fact was made to do double duty. When
they attacked other religions it was a sword and when their religion was
attacked it became a shield.

The men who had investigated other religions turned their attention to
Christianity. They read our Bible as they had read other sacred books.
They were not blinded by faith or paralyzed by fear, and they found that
the same arguments they had used against other religions destroyed our
own.

But the real old-fashioned orthodox ministers denounced the
investigators as Infidels and denied every fact that was inconsistent
with the creed. They wanted to protect the young and feeble minded. They
were anxious about the souls of the "thoughtless."

Some ministers changed their views just a little, not enough to be
driven from their pulpits—but just enough to keep sensible people
from thinking them idiotic. These preachers talked about the "higher
criticism" and contended that it was not necessary to believe every word
in the Bible, that some of the miracles might be given up and some of
the books discarded. But the stupid doctors of divinity had the Bible
and the creeds on their side and the machinery of the churches was in
their control. They brought some of the offending clergymen to the bar,
and had them tried for heresy, made some recant and closed the mouths
of others. Still, it was not easy to put the heretics down. The
congregations of ministers found guilty, often followed the shepherds.
Heresy grew popular, the liberal preachers had good audiences, while the
orthodox addressed a few bonnets, bibs and benches.

For many years the pulpit has been losing influence and the sacred
calling no longer offers a career to young men of talent and ambition.

When people believed in "special providence," they also believed that
preachers had great influence with God. They were regarded as celestial
lobbyists and they were respected and feared because of their supposed
power.

Now no one who has the capacity to think, believes in special
providence. Of course there are some pious imbeciles who think that
pestilence and famine, cyclone and earthquake, flood and fire are the
weapons of God, the tools of his trade, and that with these weapons,
these tools, he kills and starves, rends and devours, drowns and burns
countless thousands of the human race.

If God governs this world, if he builds and destroys, if back of every
event is his will, then he is neither good nor wise, He is ignorant and
malicious.

A few days ago, in Paris, men and women had gathered together in the
name of Charity. The building in which they, were assembled took fire
and many of these men and women perished in the flames.

A French priest called this horror an act of God.

Is it not strange that Christians speak of their God as an assassin?

How can they love and worship this monster who murders, his children?

Intelligence seems to be leaving the orthodox church. The great divines
are growing smaller, weaker, day by day. Since the death of Henry Ward
Beecher no man of genius has stood in the orthodox pulpit. The ministers
of intelligence are found in the liberal churches where they are allowed
to express their thoughts and preserve their manhood. Some of these
preachers keep their faces toward the East and sincerely welcome the
light, while their orthodox brethren stand with their backs to the
sunrise and worship the sunset of the day before.

During these years of change, of decay and growth, the author of this
book looked and listened, became familiar with the questions raised, the
arguments offered and the results obtained. For his work a better man
could not have been found. He has no prejudice, no hatred. He is by
nature candid, conservative, kind and just. He does not attack persons.
He knows the difference between exchanging epithets and thoughts. He
gives the facts as they appear to him and draws the logical conclusions.
He charges and proves that Christianity has not always been the friend
of morality, of civil liberty, of wives and mothers, of free though and
honest speech. He shows that intolerance is its nature, that it always
has, and always will persecute to the extent of its power, and that
Christianity will always despise the doubter.

Yet we know that doubt must inhabit every finite mind. We know that
doubt is as natural as hope, and that man is no more responsible for his
doubts than for the beating of his heart. Every human being who knows
the nature of evidence, the limitations of the mind, must have "doubts"
about gods and devils, about heavens and hells, and must know that there
is not the slightest evidence tending to show that gods and devils ever
existed.

God is a guess.

An undesigned designer, an uncaused cause, is as incomprehensible to the
human mind as a circle without a diameter.

The dogma of the Trinity multiplies the difficulty by three.

Theologians do not, and cannot believe that the authority to govern
comes from the consent of the governed. They regard God as the monarch,
and themselves as his agents. They always have been the enemies of
liberty.

They claim to have a revelation from their God, a revelation that is the
rightful master of reason. As long as they believe this, they must be
the enemies of mental freedom. They do not ask man to think, but command
him to obey.

If the claims of the theologians are admitted, the church becomes the
ruler of the world, and to support and obey priests will be the business
of mankind. All these theologians claim to have a revelation from their
God, and yet they cannot agree as to what the revelation reveals. The
other day, looking from my window at the bay of New York, I saw many
vessels going in many directions, and yet all were moved by the same
wind. The direction in which they were going did not depend on the
direction of the breeze, but on the set of the sails. In this way the
same Bible furnishes creeds for all the Christian sects. But what would
we say if the captains of the boats I saw, should each swear that his
boat was the only one that moved in the same direction the wind was
blowing?

I agree with Mr. Taber that all religions are founded on mistakes,
misconceptions and falsehoods, and that superstition is the warp and
woof of every creed.

This book will do great good. It will furnish arguments and facts
against the supernatural and absurd. It will drive phantoms from the
brain, fear from the heart, and many who read these pages will be
emancipated, enlightened and ennobled.

Christianity, with its ignorant and jealous God—its loving and
revengeful Christ—its childish legends—its grotesque miracles—its
"fall of man"—its atonement—its salvation by faith—its heaven for
stupidity and its hell for genius, does not and cannot satisfy the free
brain and the good heart.
