{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:a-christmas-sermon",
  "slug": "a-christmas-sermon",
  "title": "A Christmas Sermon",
  "subtitle": "Published in the Evening Telegram, December 19, 1891.",
  "excerpt": "The famous Christmas essay — denounced from every pulpit in New York — on what Christmas, stripped of superstition, might actually mean for human beings living together on this earth.",
  "year": 1891,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-christmas-sermon/",
  "wordCount": 19376,
  "body": "• This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel\n    Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December\n    19,1891.\n\nI.\n\nTHE good part of Christmas is not always Christian—it is generally\nPagan; that is to say, human, natural.\n\nChristianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message\nof eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its\nlips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.\n\nIt taught some good things—the beauty of love and kindness in man. But\nas a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has\ngiven infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the\nsoul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled\nthe future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal\npenitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not\nsatisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.\n\nIn answer to this \"Christmas Sermon\" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor\nof the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist\nChurch, wrote an article, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening\nTelegram for publishing such a \"sermon.\"\n\nThis attack was headed \"Lies That Are Mountainous.\" The Telegram\npromptly accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do\nhis utmost. On the very same day it published an answer from Colonel\nIngersoll that echoed throughout America.'\n\nAnd yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the\nold festival called Christmas.\n\nLong before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers\nof Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin\nperceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the\nsun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a\nfestival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is\nthe worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed\nfrom the Pagans the best it has.\n\nI believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy.\nWe in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much\nlike the English.\n\nI think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming\nFrenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman.\nWe take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days—the\nmore the better.\n\nChristmas is a good day to forgive and forget—a good day to throw away\nprejudices and hatreds—a good day to fill your heart and your house,\nand the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.\n\nR. G Ingersoll.\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.\n\nII.\n\nWHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for\nkindness, charity and love.\n\nThe gentle editor of the Christian Advocate charges me with having\nwritten three \"gigantic falsehoods,\" and he points them out as follows:\nFirst—\"Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy? but with\na message of eternal grief.\"\n\nSecond—\"It [Christianity] has filled the future with fear and flame,\nand made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the\nhome of nearly all the sons of men.\"\n\nThird—\"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity] has deprived God of\nthe pardoning power.\"\n\nNow, let us take up these \"gigantic falsehoods\" in their order and see\nwhether they are in accord with the New Testament or not—whether they\nare supported by the creed of the Methodist Church.\n\nI insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but\nwith a message of eternal grief.\n\nAccording to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the tidings\nthat the human race was totally depraved, and that all men were in a\nlost condition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe the new\nreligion, would be tormented in eternal fire.\n\nThese were not \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nIf the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was to be\nwrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would go to\nthe bottom, would they talk about \"tidings of great joy\"? It is to be\npresumed that Christ knew what his mission was, and what he came for.\nHe says: \"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to\nsend peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against\nhis father, and the daughter against her mother.\" In my judgment, these\nare not \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nNow, as to the message of eternal grief:\n\n\"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye\ncursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.\"\n\n\"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous\n[meaning the Methodists] into life eternal.\"\n\n\"He that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\n\"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God\nabideth on him.\"\n\n\"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;\nbut rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in\nhell.\"\n\n\"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.\"\n\nKnowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that during\nthe last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has died in the\nfaith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it can\ntruthfully be said that Christianity came with a message of eternal\ngrief.\n\nNow, as to the second \"gigantic falsehood,\" to the effect that\nChristianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the\nkeeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all\nthe sons of men.\n\nIn the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some other\nworld, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah\nkilled one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was glutted\nwhen the victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future to sleep and\noblivion. But in the New Testament we are told that the punishment\nin another world is everlasting, and that \"the smoke of their torment\nascendeth up forever and ever.\"\n\nThis awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future with\nfear and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox churches have\nconstructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are\nto be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this prison God is the\nkeeper. The doors are opened only to receive.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As I have\noften said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the justice of\nendless pain, is suffering from at least two diseases—petrifaction of\nthe heart and putrefaction of the brain.\n\nThe next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of the\npardoning power.\n\nThe Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life\nis a period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation\nafter death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.\n\nThis is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then\nGod will never release a soul from hell—the pardoning power will never\nbe exercised.\n\nHow happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing\nthat billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers,\nbrothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal\ndungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!\n\nYet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New\nTestament, of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those who\nwould desert brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or\nchildren.\n\nIt seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring \"tidings of great\njoy,\" but that it came with a \"message of eternal grief\"—that it did\n\"fill the future with fear and flame,\" that it did make God \"the keeper\nof an eternal penitentiary,\" that the penitentiary \"was destined to be\nthe home of nearly all the sons of men,\" and that \"it deprived God of\nthe pardoning power.\"\n\nOf course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible, others of\nwar—some filled with mercy, and others cruel as the fangs of a wild\nbeast.\n\nAccording to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison—an everlasting\nSiberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony and shame.\n\nWhat do I think of what the Doctor says about the Telegram for having\npublished my Christmas sermon?\n\nThe editor of the Christian Advocate has no idea of what intellectual\nliberty means. He ought to know that a man should not be insulted\nbecause another man disagrees with him.\n\nWhat right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons, and what\nright has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley? The same right\nthat I have to disagree with them both.\n\nI do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist papers or\nbooks. But I do tell them to investigate for themselves—to stand by\nwhat they believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all things,\nto preserve their mental manhood. The good Doctor wants the Telegram\ndestroyed—wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of\npunishing the Telegram—because it published something with which the\nreverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree with the\nDoctor.\n\nIt is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The doctor\nof theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost its\nlightning—it is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it and\namusing those who hear.\n\nThe Telegram has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest sense, a\nnewspaper—wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to its friends, fair\nwith its enemies, and true to the public.\n\nWhat have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?\n\nNothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say that I\nam incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this\nproves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.\n\nI cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental manners.\nThe cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained\nby an ignorant or a malicious personality.\n\nI know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so I\nsay—More light!\n\nIii\n\nTHE Rev. James M. King—who seems to have taken this occasion to become\nknown—finds fault because \"blasphemous utterances concerning Christmas\"\nwere published in the Telegram, and were allowed \"to greet the eyes of\ninnocent children and pure women.\"\n\nHow is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,\nholier than another—that is to say, two equal spaces of time are\nsubstantially alike. We call a day \"good\" or \"bad\" according to what\nhappens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with\nnoble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and\nmisery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?\n\nA man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of\nDecember, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned,\nwith good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe\nthat Christ was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all\nhis friends unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called \"clean\nfamilies\" be violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to\nwhether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor\nof the triumph of the sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian\nfamilies so weak intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other\nside? Or is their case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows\nit? Why do all these ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise\na question as to the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability\nof the impossible?\n\nA minister says to me that I am going to hell—that I am bound to be\npunished forever and ever—and thereupon I say to him: \"There is no\nhell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to\nsuffer agony forever;\" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me\nthis question: \"Why do you hurt my feelings?\" It does not occur to him\nthat I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal\ngrief.\n\nDoes the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ\nwith him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the\nmemory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his\ndivine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other\nthan a good and heroic man. And there are thousands of people who\nadmire the character of Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever\nexisted—who admire the character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or\nPer-dita, not believing that any of the characters mentioned actually\nlived.\n\nAnd it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any\nreally good man or good woman—that is, no human being hates a man known\nto be good—a woman known to be pure and good. No human being hates a\nlovable character.\n\nIt is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to\nunderstand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad\nmotive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a\nman is a Christian or a Mohammedan \"for revenue only.\" I do not say that\na man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches\nwith the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his\nreasons—with his motives I have nothing to do.\n\nMr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity \"for revenue\nonly.\" Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox\nreligion that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can\nhardly believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far.\nI regret exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his\nremark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for\nany human being to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his\nfellow-men. Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read, even\nin this ignorant present, that there is one man, and that man myself,\nwho advocates human liberty—the absolute enfranchisement of the\nsoul—and does it \"for revenue\"—because this charge is such a splendid\ncompliment to my fellow-men.\n\nPossibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the\nTelegram and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is\nin harmony with the intelligence of the age.\n\nMy opinion is that the Telegram will receive the praise of enlightened\nand generous people.\n\nPersonally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,\nand I would much rather meet on the desert—were I about to perish for\nwant of water—a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a Christian\nwho would not; because, after all is said and done, we are compelled to\njudge people by their actions.\n\nI do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,\ninhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes\nplace there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,\nmasked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we\ncan possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the\nactions of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the\ncharacter, of the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good\nor bad, not by his theories, but by his actions.\n\nUnder no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched\nin becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well\nenough to inquire: What is blasphemy?\n\nA man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain\nthe pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A\nman who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He\nwho runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a\nblasphemer.\n\nIn the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there\nis one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In\nthe presence of this statue the good man worships—the bad man\nblasphemes—that is to say, he is not true to the ideal.\n\nA man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So,\ntoo, a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is\na blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as\nportrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as\nbad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes that the character of\nJehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it\ngood, he is a blasphemer and a coward.\n\nAll laws against \"blasphemy\" have been passed by the numerically strong\nand intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who,\nfinding no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.\n\nBack of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do\nnot say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests\nhad not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to\nGod. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not\nuse, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.\n\nNow, I will not say that all priests have been priests \"for revenue\nonly,\" but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that\nthe sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without\nrevenue.\n\nI am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel\nhas a right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost\ncheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have\never objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of\nothers.\n\nI cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as\nthe Christmas Sermon are \"revolting to a vast majority of the people who\ngive character to the community in which we live.\" I suppose that a\nvery large majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly\nsatisfied that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not\ndisagree with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me.\nAnd I also imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are\nperfectly willing to hear the other side.\n\nI do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that\nhave to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense\nor the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth\npreserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate\nof free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.\n\nI do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words\npublished by, the Telegram. The most that can possibly be said against\nthem, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that they\nwere true—that they cannot be answered except by abuse.\n\nIt is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood\nof intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print.\nThe church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most\nof this time it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many\ncenturies it controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had\nwithin its gift wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world\nis concerned, of heaven and hell—that is to say, of prosperity and\nmisfortune. It pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the\nscaffold with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet\nfor many centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.\nMillions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has made\nmillions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this world,\nbut it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under this\npretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal flames.\n\nAt last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous\nassumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many\nyears gradually losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now\nto the people. The partnership between altar and throne has in many\ncountries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of church and state\nhas ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their honest thoughts.\nIn the arena where speech is free, superstition is driven to the wall.\nMan relies more and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest is\nthe interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its power. In a little\nwhile religion will take its place with astrology, with the black art,\nand its ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand\nperformers.\n\nWith regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but\nlittle to say.\n\nI am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press—that he,\nlike Lucretia Mott, believes in \"truth for authority, and not authority\nfor truth.\" At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am not a\nscientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there is\nany fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be\npointed out. I admit also, that I am a \"sentimentalist\"—that is, that I\nam governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment—that my mind is so that\ncruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and admiration. I\nadmit that I am so much of \"a sentimentalist\" that I have no love for\nthe Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for me\nto believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless\nbillions of men, women and children.\n\nI am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have \"stabbed\nto the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies,\" and I hope to stab\nmany, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the\nheart there will be no foundation left for what I called \"orthodox\"\nChristianity—but goodness will survive, justice will live, and the\nflower of mercy will shed its perfume forever.\n\nWhen we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a\nminister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a\ndivine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion:\n\"If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not\nsee why he could not utilize the Colonel.\" It is natural for a man to\njustify himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however,\nwill remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and\nthat the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that\nthe spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet.\nIt was the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I\nsuggest to the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he\nwill find:—\n\nFirst, that the ass first saw the angel of the Lord; second, that\nthe prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; third, that\nthe prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent\nass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and\ndemonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In\naddition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the\nprophet—in other words, had to work a miracle—in order to make the\nprophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his\ncruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever\nthe ass saw him—the angel—showing that the spiritual discernment of\nthe ass in those days was far superior to that of the prophet.\n\nI regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.\nDixon is not quite polite.\n\nAll of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he\nwho seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.\n\nAnd there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the\njustice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the\nfoundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument\nfails passion comes to the rescue.\n\nLet us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each\nother.\n\nThe course pursued by the Telegram is worthy of all praise. It has not\nonly been just to both sides, but it has been—as is its custom—true to\nthe public.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nIngersoll Again Answers His Critics\n\nIV.\n\nTo the Editor of the Evening Telegram :\n\nSOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the columns of\nthe Telegram have wandered from the questions under discussion. It may\nbe well enough to state what is really in dispute.\n\nI was called to account for having stated that Christianity did not\nbring \"tidings of great joy,\" but a message of eternal grief—that it\nfilled the future with fear and flame—made God the keeper of an eternal\npenitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned\nforever, and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the\npardoning power.\n\nThese statements were called \"mountainous lies\" by the Rev. Dr.\nBuckley, and because the Telegram had published the \"Christmas Sermon\"\ncontaining these statements, he insisted that such a paper should not be\nallowed in the families of Christians or of Jews—in other words, that\nthe Telegram should be punished, and that good people should refuse to\nallow that sheet to come into their homes.\n\nIt will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if the\northodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the bearer of a\nmessage of eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race are to\nbecome eternal convicts, and God has deprived himself of the pardoning\npower. According to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost\ncan ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.\n\nThe Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of\nChristianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that\ndoctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with \"tidings of\ngreat joy.\"\n\nPersonally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I have no\nquarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the human race.\nI find fault with no one for filling the future with joy—for dreaming\nsplendid dreams and for uttering splendid prophecies. I do not object\nto Christianity because it promises heaven to a few, but because it\nthreatens the many with perdition.\n\nIt does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that degree\nthat he died that they might be saved, abandons his children the moment\nthey are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might do something\nfor a soul after it has reached the other world.\n\nIs it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done for a\nmajority of souls in this world?\n\nThink of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in poverty and\ncrime. Think of the millions who are only partially developed in this\nworld. Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of passion. Think\nof the temptations innumerable. Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of\nthe arrogance of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak—and\ncan we then say that an infinite God has done, in this world, all\nthat could be done for the salvation of his children? Is it not barely\npossible that something may be done in another world? Is there nothing\nleft for God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it\nleaves this world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence\nof eternal pain?\n\nI insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did not come\nwith \"tidings of great joy,\" but that its message was and is one of\neternal grief.\n\nIf the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast blunder—an\ninfinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that every pulse of life\nshould cease—better that all the gods should fall palsied from their\nthrones, than that the creed of Christendom should be true.\n\nThere is another question and that involves the freedom of the press.\n\nThe Telegram has acted with the utmost fairness and with the highest\ncourage. After all, the American people admire the man who takes\nhis stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality of\nprogress, the press must be free. Only the free can carry a torch.\nLiberty sheds light.\n\nThe editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position, and\nhe must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and ignorant\nchildren. He must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, suppress the\ntruth—neither must he be dictated to by any church or any society of\nbelievers or unbelievers. The Telegram, by its course, has given\na certificate of its manliness, and the public, by its course, has\ncertified that it appreciates true courage.\n\nAll Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and that\nthe sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember that there\nare no such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany, or\nCatholic chemistry. The sciences are secular. .\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues—and yet, in some\nthings, I agree with him. He is certainly right when he says that \"Mr.\nBuckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-American,\" but I\nam not certain that he is right when he says that it is un-Christian.\n\nThe church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with kind\nwords and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always been rather\nrelentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has never forgiven.\nThere is in the history of Christendom no instance where the church has\nextended the hand of friendship to a man who denied the truth of its\ncreed.\n\nThere is in the church no spirit—no climate—of compromise. In the\nnature of things there can be none, because the church claims that it\nis absolutely right—that there is only one road leading to heaven.\nIt demands unconditional surrender. It will not bear contradiction.\nIt claims to have the absolute truth. For these reasons it cannot\nconsistently compromise, any more than a mathematician could change the\nmultiplication table to meet the view of some one who should deny that\nfive times five are twenty-five.\n\nThe church does not give its opinion—it claims to know—it demands\nbelief. Honesty, industry, generosity count for nothing in the absence\nof belief. It has taught and still teaches that no man can reach heaven\nsimply through good and honest deeds. It believes and teaches that the\nman who relies upon himself will be eternally punished—and why should\nthe church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat\nimpatiently to damn?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters asks—and probably honestly thinks that the\nquestions are pertinent to the issues involved—\"What has infidelity\ndone for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it\nfounded? What has it done for the elevation of public morals?\" And he\ninquires what science or art has been originated by infidelity. He asks\nhow many slaves it has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed,\nhow many fallen women it has restored, and what it did for the relief\nof the wounded and dying soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it\never assisted to higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.\n\nAlthough these questions have nothing whatever to do with the matters\nunder discussion, still it may be well enough to answer them.\n\nIt is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been built\nby Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted that\nhospitals and asylums have been built in countries not Christian; that\nthere were such institutions in China thousands of years before Christ\nwas born, and that many centuries before the establishment of any\northodox church there were asylums on the banks of the Nile—asylums for\nthe old, the poor, the infirm—asylums for the blind and for the insane,\nand that the Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity\nwith kindness and affection. The same is true of India and probably of\nmost ancient nations.\n\nThere has always been more or less humanity in man—more or less\ngoodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have always\nloved their children. There must always have been more good than evil,\notherwise the human race would have perished. The best things in the\nChristian religion came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered\nthe sublimest of truths, and all ages have been redeemed by honesty,\nheroism, and love.\n\nBut let me answer these questions in their order.\n\nFirst—As to the schools.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always been\nin favor of education—that is to say, of education enough to make a\nCatholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have\nalways been in favor of enough education to make a Protestant out of a\nCatholic. Many schools and many colleges have been established for the\nspread of what is called the Gospel and for the education of the clergy.\nPresbyterians have founded schools for the benefit of their creed.\nThe Methodists have established colleges for the purpose of making\nMethodists. The same is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of\nfact, these schools have in many important directions hindered rather\nthan helped the cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to\ninvestigate for themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were\ntold that thought is dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with\ncreeds—with the ideas of others. Their credulity was applauded and\ntheir curiosity condemned. If all the people had been educated in these\nsectarian schools, all the people would have been far more ignorant\nthan they are. These schools have been, and most of them still are, the\nenemies of higher education, and just to the extent that they are under\nthe control of theologians they are hindrances, and just to the extent\nthat they have become secularized they have been and are a benefit.\n\nOur public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I admit\nthat it never could have been established without the assistance of\nChristians—neither could it have been supported without the assistance\nof others. But such is the value placed upon education that people of\nnearly all denominations, and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all\nopinions, for the most part agree that the children of a nation should\nbe educated by the nation. Some religious people are opposed to these\nschools because they are not religious—because they do not teach some\ncreed—but a large majority of the people stand by the public schools\nas they are. These schools are growing better and better, simply because\nthey are growing less and less theological, more and more secular.\n\nInfidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that only that\nshould be taught in schools which somebody knows or has good reason to\nbelieve.\n\nThe greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who have the\nleast confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that stand highest\nin the estimation of the most intelligent are those that have drifted\nfarthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought has always been and ever\nmust be the friend of education. Without free thought there can be no\nsuch thing—in the highest sense—as a school. Unless the mind is free,\nthere are no teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and splendid\nsense.\n\nThe church has been and still is the enemy of education, because it has\nbeen in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological schools have\nbeen what might be called the deformatories of the human mind.\n\nFor instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In this\nuniversity he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua\nstopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts the truth\nof the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and yet believes that\nwater was turned into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory of\ncause and effect, and at the same time he thoroughly believes in the\nmiraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes. Can such an institution,\nwith any propriety, be called a seat of learning? Can we not say of such\na university what Bruno said of Oxford: \"Learning is dead and Oxford is\nits widow.\"\n\nYear after year the religious colleges are improving—simply because\nthey are becoming more and more secular, less and less theological.\nWhether infidelity has founded universities or not, it can truthfully be\nsaid that the spirit of investigation, the spirit of free thought, the\nattitude of mental independence, contended for by those who are called\ninfidels, have made schools useful instead of hurtful.\n\nCan it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice against\neducation? Can there be found in the literature of free thought one\nline against the enlightenment of the human race? Has free thought ever\nendeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not always appealed to the\nsenses—to demonstration? It has not said, \"He that hath ears to hear,\nlet him hear,\" but it has said, \"He that hath brains to think, let him\nthink.\"\n\nThe object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every direction,\nto the end that man may know the conditions of happiness—and every\nschool should be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by anything\nexcept a perceived fact. He should not be the slave of a creed, engaged\nin the business of enslaving others.\n\nSo much for schools.\n\nSecond—As to public morals.\n\nChristianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every church\nunconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I do not\nmean by this that any church consciously advocates immorality. I\nmost cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of ministers are\nendeavoring to do good—that they are pure, self-denying men, trying\nto make this world better. But there is a frightful defect in their\nphilosophy. They say to the bank cashier: You must not steal, you must\nnot take a dollar—larceny is wrong, it is contrary to all law, human\nand divine—but if you do steal every cent in the bank, God will as\ngladly, quickly forgive you in Canada as he will in the United States.\nOn the other hand, what is called infidelity says: There is no being in\nthe universe who rewards, and there is no being who punishes—every act\nhas its consequences. If the act is good, the consequences are good; if\nthe act is bad, the consequences are bad; and these consequences must be\nborne by the actor. It says to every human being: You must reap what\nyou sow. There is no reward, there is no punishment, but there are\nconsequences, and these consequences are the invisible and implacable\npolice of nature. They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No\npower can awe them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make\nthem pause. Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant\ntheir victim.\n\nThis great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If all\nmen knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of their own\nactions—if they absolutely knew that they could not injure another\nwithout injuring themselves, the world, in my judgment, would be far\nbetter than it is.\n\nFree thought has attacked the morality of what is called the atonement.\nThe innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the innocent\ndoes suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the\nguilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in some way, causes\nthe innocent to suffer. This being the very essence of wrong, how can\nthe suffering of innocence justify the guilty? If there be a world of\njoy, he who is worthy to enter that world must be willing to carry his\nown burdens in this.\n\nSo much for morality.\n\nThird—As to sciences and art.\n\nI do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any science.\nI do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New Testament.\nThere is not one word, so far as I remember, about education—nothing\nabout any science, nothing about art. The writers of the New Testament\nseem to have thought that the world was about coming to an end. This\nworld was to be sacrificed absolutely to the next. The affairs of this\nlife were not worth speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at\nonce for the other life.\n\nThe sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not interfere\nwith orthodox theology. To the extent that they were supposed to\ninterfere with theology they have been obstructed and denounced.\nAstronomy was found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the\nastronomers were imprisoned and despised. Geology contradicted the\nMosaic account, and the geologists were denounced and persecuted. Every\nstep taken in astronomy was taken in spite of the church, and every fact\nin geology had to fight its way. The same is true as to the science of\nmedicine. The church wished to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and\nprayer, and with the bones of the saints. The church wished man to\nrely entirely upon God—that is to say, upon the church—and not upon\nhimself. The physician interfered with the power and prosperity of the\npriest, and those who appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking\nfaith in God. This state of things existed even in the Old Testament\ntimes. A king failed to send for the prophets, but sent for a physician,\nand then comes this piece of grim humor: \"And Asa slept with his\nfathers.\"\n\nThe great names in science are not those of recognized saints.\n\nBruno—one of the greatest and bravest of men—greatest of all\nmartyrs—perished at the stake, because he insisted on the existence of\nother worlds and taught the astronomy of Galileo.\n\nHumboldt—in some respects the wisest man known to the scientific\nworld—denied the existence of the supernatural and \"the truths of\nrevealed religion,\" and yet he revolutionized the thought of his day and\nleft a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.\n\nDarwin—greatest of scientists—so great that our time will probably\nbe known as \"Darwin's Century\"—had not the slightest confidence in any\npossible phase of the so-called supernatural. This great man left the\ncreed of Christendom without a foundation. He brought as witnesses\nagainst the inspiration of the Scriptures such a multitude of facts,\nsuch an overwhelming amount of testimony, that it seems impossible to\nme that any unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain\na believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the\nschools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded. He\nrevolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.\n\nThe writers who have done most for science have been the most bitterly\nopposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries\nof the world that cannot be found on the \"Index Expurgatorius.\" Kant\nand Fichte and Spinoza were far above and beyond the orthodox-world.\nVoltaire did more for freedom than any other man, and yet the church\ndenounced him with a fury amounting to insanity—called him an atheist,\nalthough he believed not only in God, but in special providence. He was\nopposed to the church—that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that\nreason he was despised.\n\nAnd what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of Draper,\nof Haeckel, of Buechner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and\nhundreds and thousands of others who have filled the scientific world\nwith light and the heart of man with love and kindness?\n\nIt may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that Christianity is\nindebted to Greece and Rome for its highest conceptions, and it may be\nwell to add that for many centuries Christianity did the best it could\nto destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and Rome. A few were buried,\nand in that way were saved from Christian fury.\n\nThe same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few fragments\nwere rescued, and these became the seeds of modern literature. A few\nstatues were preserved, and they are to-day models for all the world.\n\nOf course it will be admitted that there is much art in Christian lands,\nbecause, in spite of the creeds, Christians, so-called, have turned\ntheir attention to this world. They have beautified their homes, they\nhave endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and fine linen. They have\nbeen forced from banquets or from luxury by the difficulty of camels\ngoing through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of carrying water\nto the rich man. They have cultivated this world, and the arts have\nlived. Did they obey the precepts that they find in their sacred\nwritings there would be no art, they would \"take no thought for the\nmorrow,\" they would \"consider the lilies of the field.\"\n\nFourth—As to the liberation of slaves.\n\nIt was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he spoke of\nslavery. The Bible upholds human slavery—white slavery. The Bible was\nquoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The man who went to Africa\nto steal women and children took the Bible with him. He planted himself\nfirmly on the Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:\n    \"He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,\n    Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nSo when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the planters\ndefended their action by reading the Bible. When a poor woman was sold,\nher children torn from her breast, the auction block on which she stood\nwas the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her quoted the Scriptures; the\nman who bought her repeated the quotations, and the ministers from\nthe pulpit said to the weeping woman, as her child was carried away:\n\"Servants, be obedient unto your masters.\"\n\nFreethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas Paine\ndid more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood upon the\nwestern world. The first article he ever wrote in this country was one\nagainst the institution of slavery. Freethinkers have also been in favor\nof free bodies. Freethinkers have always said \"free hands,\" and the\ninfidels, the wide world over, have been friends of freedom.\n\nFifth—As to the reclamation of inebriates.\n\nMuch has been said, and for many years, on the subject of\ntemperance—much has been uttered by priests and laymen—and yet there\nseems to be a subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland is\nextremely orthodox, yet it is not extremely temperate. England is\nnothing if not religious, and London is, par excellence, the\nChristian city of the world, and yet it is the most intemperate. The\nMohammedans—followers of a false prophet—do not drink.\n\nSixth—As to the humanity of infidelity.\n\nCan it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying only\nbecause they were orthodox?\n\nIs it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the creed of\nforgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more than one hundred\nand fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true that where the church\nhas cared for one orphan it has created hundreds? Can Christianity\nafford to speak of war?\n\nThe Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each\nother. In Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation—all that can be\nborrowed by pledging the prosperity of the future—the labor of those\nyet unborn—is used for the purpose of keeping Christians in the field,\nto the end that they may destroy other Christians, or at least prevent\nother Christians from destroying them. Europe is covered with churches\nand fortifications, with temples and with forts—hundreds of thousands\nof priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and countless\nbayonets—and that whole country is oppressed and impoverished for the\npurpose of carrying on war. The people have become deformed by labor,\nand yet Christianity boasts of peace.\n\nSeventh—\"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?\"\n\nIs it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying when the\ndying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and that he, unless\nhe has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict? Will it cheer him to\nknow that, even if he is to be saved, countless millions are to be lost?\nIs it possible for the Christian religion to put a smile upon the face\nof death?\n\nOn the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying: What\nhappens to you will happen to all. If there be another world of joy, it\nis for all. If there is another life, every human being will have the\neternal opportunity of doing right—the eternal opportunity to live, to\nreform, to enjoy. There is no monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who\ndelights in the agony of his children. These frightful things are savage\ndreams.\n\nInfidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of pity.\n\nInfidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every grave.\n\nLet us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under\ndiscussion. Let us not wander away.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nJan'y 9, 1891.\n\nIngersoll Continues the Battle\n\nV.\n\nNO one objects to the morality of Christianity.\n\nThe industrious people of the world—those who have anything—are, as\na rule, opposed to larceny; a very large majority of people object to\nbeing murdered, and so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large\nmajority of people believe in what they call, or what they understand\nto be, justice—at least as between others. There is no very great\ndifference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not\nmoral.\n\nIt cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks\nall morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything\nthat tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind; but he attacks\nBuddhism. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack\nkindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been\nadded to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but what he\nbelieves to be the parasite.\n\nIf people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues common\nto all religions, they should not give Christianity credit for all the\ngood that has been done. There were millions of virtuous men and women,\nmillions of heroic and self-denying souls before Christianity was known.\n\nIt does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or\ncharity ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these virtues\nto persecute his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief. If\nChristianity has persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the\nvirtues it has inculcated. If this reason—this cause—is inherent in\nthat something else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then\nChristianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of\ncourse back of Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may\nbe responsible.\n\nIs there anything in Christianity that will account for such\npersecutions—for the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by the church\nthat belief was necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same\ntime that the fate of man was eternal punishment; that the state of man\nwas that of depravity, and that there was but one way by which he could\nbe saved, and that was through belief—through faith. As long as this\nwas honestly believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels\nto preach a doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves\nwhich, in their judgment, would result in the damnation of souls.\n\nThe law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great\nbodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the life\nof a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how much\nmore would he have the right to take the life of one who was about to\nassassinate the soul of his son!\n\nChristians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt that\nGod would hold the community responsible if the community allowed\na blasphemer to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed the\nfreethinker, or rather the free talker, in self-defence.\n\nAt the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of self-defence;\nthat is to say, the defence of the soul. If the founder of Christianity\nhad plainly said: \"It is not necessary to believe in order to be saved;\nit is only necessary to do, and he who really loves his fellow-men, who\nis kind, honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest\"—if he had\nonly said that, there would probably have been but little persecution.\n\nIf he had added to this: \"You must not persecute in my name. The\nreligion I teach is the Religion of Love—not the Religion of Force and\nHatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not stretch them\nupon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them\nalive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour molten lead into\ntheir ears. You must treat all with absolute kindness. If you cannot\nconvert your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument, that is the end.\nYou must never resort to force, and, whether he believes as you do or\nnot, treat him always with kindness\"—his followers then would not have\nmurdered their fellows in his name.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be\ncarried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death\nthrough torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what\nhe must have known, if he were God, would happen.\n\nAll that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless.\nNot only so—it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and\nthe useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless\nremains.\n\nNow, falling back on the old assertion, \"By its fruits we may know\nChristianity,\" then I think we are justified in saying that, as\nChristianity consists of a mixture of morality and something else, and\nas morality never has persecuted a human being, and as Christianity has\npersecuted millions, the cause of the persecution must be the _something\nelse_ that was added to morality.\n\nI cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that\n\"Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of\nhuman nature.\" On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the\nwhole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act\nin accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would be\ndoomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been held up\nto contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions denounced as wicked\nand filthy.\n\nDr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the value of\nfreedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free thought; and\nwhat is freedom worth if the mind is to be enslaved?\n\nDr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their efforts\nto be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for exercising their\nfreedom as against the church.\n\nIt is not true that the church \"has taught and established the fact of\nhuman brotherhood.\" This has been the result of a civilization to which\nChristianity itself has been hostile.\n\nCan we prove that \"the church established human brotherhood\" by\nbanishing the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the tortures\nof the Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland; by the\nburning of Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution of the Irish; by\nwhipping and hanging Quakers in New England; by the slave trade; and by\nthe hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ?\n\nWe all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and most\ncruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded upon a Bible\nthat upholds the institution of slavery has taught and established the\nfact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination to conceive.\n\nNeither do I think it true that \"we are indebted to Christianity for the\nadvancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and learning.\"\n\nI cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some\nlearning, and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion\nof the absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have\nhad what might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have\nbeen somewhat broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities,\ncontradictions, and impossibilities. The church was not the friend of\nscience or learning when it burned Vanini for writing his \"Dialogues\nConcerning Nature.\" What shall we say of the \"Index Expurgatorius\"? For\nhundreds of years all books of any particular value were placed on the\n\"Index,\" and good Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of\nscience and learning?\n\nThat we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of science\nseems absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the enemy of\nastronomy, and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy\ntook her revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens\nbears a Christian name.\n\nCan it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of any\ntrue philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.\n\nThe church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object\nis to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result\nthat the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the result\nreached by the mind must be abandoned.\n\nFor hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever\nanything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church\nimmediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been\nchanged, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science\ndoes not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.\n\nCertainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians\ndestroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could lay\ntheir violent hands; and nothing has been produced by the Christian\nworld equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved. There\nhave been many artists who were Christians; but they were not artists\nbecause they were Christians; because there have been many Christians\nwho were not artists. It cannot be said that art is born of any creed.\nThe mode of expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain\ndegree, by the belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and\nfeeling.\n\nSo, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian,\nbut in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so was his creed.\nConsequently, they could not by any possibility have assisted him.\nKepler did not discover or announce what are known as the \"Three Laws\"\nbecause he was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of\nhis creed.\n\nEvery Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and clung to\na fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has\ndone so certainly without the assistance of his creed.\n\nLet me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each other to\nplease God; when they were ready to destroy a man with sword and\nflame for teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in Spain were\nteaching geography to their children with brass globes. So, too, they\nhad observatories and knew something of the orbits of the stars.\n\nThey did not find out these things because they were Mohammedans, or\non account of their belief in the impossible. They were far beyond the\nChristians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically said by Mrs.\nBrowning, that \"Science was thrust into the brain of Europe on the point\nof a Moorish lance.\"\n\nFrom the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the higher\nbranches practical. We also got from them the art of making cotton\npaper, which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence. We\nlearned from them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness possible in\nChristendom.\n\nSo from among people of different religions we have learned many useful\nthings; but they did not discover them on account of their religion.\n\nIt will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true because the\nGreeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor\nof monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men, was born and lived in\na monarchy.\n\nDr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of a vast\nnumber of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects,\nbut of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for\nmany centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by\nChristianity.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result of\ncountless causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way\nof hindrance.\n\nDoes the Doctor think that the material progress of the world was caused\nby this passage: \"Take no thought for the morrow\"?\n\nDoes he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on this\ninspired declaration: \"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye\nof a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven\"?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible has\nproduced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever seen.\n\nThis, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature\nbeen produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many\ngenerations, take the ground that the Bible was the only important book,\nand that books differing from the Bible should be destroyed?\n\nIf Christianity—Catholic and Protestant—could have had its way, the\nworks of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin, Haeckel,\nSpencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gibbon, Buckle and\nBuechner would not have been published. In short, the philosophy that\nenlightens and the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.\n\nThe greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my judgment, the\npoetic—the dramatic; that is to say, the literature of fiction in its\nwidest sense. Certainly if the church could have had control, the plays\nof Shakespeare never would have been written; the literature of the\nstage could not have existed; most works of fiction, and nearly all\npoetry, would have perished in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to\nsay that \"the Bible has produced the richest and most varied literature\nthe world has ever seen.\"\n\nThousands of theological books have been written on thousands of\nquestions of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on\nsubjects not worth discussing—not worth thinking about—and that will,\nin a few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.\n\nMr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:\n\n\"Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone\nof them!\"\n\nStephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best\ncharity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land; and under\nthe roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans\nhave been reared, clothed, fed and educated, not only in books, but in\navocations, and become happy and useful citizens. Under his will\nthere has been distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more than\n$500,000; and this distribution goes on year after year.\n\nOne of the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity\nof James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two cases simply\nto show that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried\naway by his zeal.\n\nSo, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that \"we are indebted to\nChristianity for our chronology.\"\n\nAccording to Christianity this world has been peopled about six thousand\nyears. Christian chronology gives the age of the first man, and then\ngives the line from father to son down to the flood, and from the flood\ndown to the coming of Christ, showing that men have been upon the earth\nonly about six thousand years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and\nI do not believe that there is an intelligent, well-educated Christian\nin the world, having examined the subject, who will say that the\nChristian chronology is correct.\n\nNeither can it, I think, truthfully be said that \"we are indebted\nto Christianity for the continuation of history.\" The best modern\nhistorians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,\nBuckle and Draper.\n\nNeither can I admit that \"we are indebted to Christianity for natural\nphilosophy.\"\n\nI do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been Christians,\nor, rather, that some Christians have been natural philosophers to the\nextent that their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Humboldt and\nDarwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more\nfor natural philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.\n\nWhoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural\nphilosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to interfere\nwith nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind, each\ninconsistent with the other. To the extent that he believes in the\nsupernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with the natural, and to\nthat extent fails to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include the\ncaprice of the Infinite. It is founded on the absolute integrity and\ninvariability of nature.\n\nNeither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that \"we are\nindebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology.\"\n\nThe church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language and\nthat other languages had been derived from that; and for hundreds and\nhundreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested simply\nbecause they started with that absurd assumption and believed in the\nTower of Babel.\n\nChristianity cannot now take the credit for \"metaphysical research.\" It\nhas always been the enemy of metaphysical research. It never has said\nto any human being, \"Think!\" It has always said, \"Hear!\" It does not\nask anybody to investigate. It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely\ntrue, and, instead of asking investigation, it threatens every\ninvestigator with eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroying what\nhas been called Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.\n\nThis gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one. This is his\nargument: Christian countries are the most intelligent; therefore they\nowe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next step is taken.\nChristianity, being the best, having produced these results, must have\nbeen of divine origin.\n\nLet us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the first\nnation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have used the\nsame arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the religion\nof Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: \"Egypt is the most\nintelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all nations; it has\nbeen made so by its religion; its religion is, therefore, divine\"?\n\nSo there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same argument.\nCertainly this argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have\nbeen repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the\nreligion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true,\nor that Jupiter was in fact a god.\n\nIs it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been\ninstitutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been\nobservatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature, the\nworld would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?\n\nCountries depend on something besides their religion for progress.\nNations with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly\npoor religion; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth\nor happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and\nbarren.\n\nReligion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat,\nno corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual\nmendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has the arrogance\nto pretend that it supports the giver.\n\nMr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: \"Every discovery in\nscience, invention and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels\nhave contributed their share, but never one of them has reached the\ngrandeur of originality.\"\n\nThis, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered with\none name—John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics I ever met.\n\nI am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original. Darwin was\ncertainly regarded as such.\n\nI do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some\ndoubts about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph.\n\nNeither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of\nthe abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were\nChristians. But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The\nQuakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the\nChristians of New England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from\ntown to town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their bodied, not\nonly, but took their lives.\n\nMr. Peters asks: \"What name is there among the world's emancipators\nafter which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'\" Well, let me give\nhim a few—Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.\n\nMr. Peters asks: \"Why is it that in Christian countries you find the\ngreatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the greatest\nfreedom of thought, speech, and action?\"\n\nIs this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more\ninfidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty in\nFrance than in Spain.\n\nThere is far more infidelity in England than there was a century ago,\nand there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There is far\nmore infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years ago, and\na hundred infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago; and there\nis far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech and\naction, than ever before.\n\nA few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest extent.\nNow there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand times less\nreligion.\n\nOrthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.\n\nMr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to have\nwandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that when one\ndenies the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man,\nbut when he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes a\nChristian, that he is a very faithful, good and loving son.\n\nMr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that Nature\nhas, or that the State has. I do not think he understands what I have\nsaid. The State ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The\nState may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first, for its\nown protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If\nno one could do the State any injury, certainly the State would have\nno right to punish under the plea of protection; and if no human being\ncould by any possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reformation\ncould not be given.\n\nLet us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him. Therefore\nhe need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn anybody for his\nprotection.\n\nLet us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two\ngrounds—that is, the protection of society and the reformation of the\npunished—how can eternal punishment be justified? In the first place,\nGod does not punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the\npunishment is to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished.\nWhat excuse then is left?\n\nLet us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we say\n\"consequences,\" and that every good man has the right to reap the good\nconsequences of good actions, and that every bad man must bear the\nconsequences of bad actions, then you must say to the good: If you stop\ndoing good you will lose the harvest. You must say to the bad: If you\nstop doing bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it be a fact\nin Nature that all must reap what they sow, there is neither mercy nor\ncruelty in this fact, and I hold no God responsible for it. The trouble\nwith the Christian creed is that God is described as the one who gives\nrewards and the one who inflicts eternal pain.\n\nThere is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have known\nwhen he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned. What right\nhad he to create men, knowing that they were to be damned?\n\nSo much for Mr. Ballou.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He takes the\nground, in the first place, that \"infidelity, Christianity, science, and\nexperience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty, in\nthe inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.\"\nHe then takes the ground that, \"if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we\nmust not sow the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the\ncause; the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this,\nand this only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary.\"\n\nVery good; but that is not the point. The real thing under discussion\nis this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man fails to live\na good life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in\nanother world, if there be one? Can he cease to do evil in the eternal\npenitentiary? and if he does, can he be pardoned—can he be released?\n\nIt is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If the\nconsequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences are\nbad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain acts tend\nto unhappiness and others to happiness.\n\nNow, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live in\nharmony with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we have an\nopportunity of reforming in another world? If not, then the few years\nthat we live here determine whether we shall be angels or devils\nforever.\n\nIt seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do\ngood, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems to me that\nthey may reform.\n\nI do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest in his\nchildren, simply because they leave this world and go where he is. Is\nit possible that an infinite God does all for his children here, in this\npoor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and that if he\nfails to reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make them\neternal convicts?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that \"an\ninfinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up\nunder conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their\nconcentrated agony and not break his heart.\"\n\nI do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an infinite God,\nwithout mercy. I do not admit that there is an infinite Being anywhere\nresponsible for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors\nof this life. I cannot believe that there is in the universe a Being\nwith power to prevent these things. I hold no God responsible. I\nattribute neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps\nnor rejoices. I cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has\nbeen, was created by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent\nGod. But it is far better that we should all go down \"with souls\nunsatisfied\" to the dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the\nvoiceless dust, than that countless millions of human souls should\nsuffer forever.\n\nEternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal\nrevenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.\n\nMr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small\ncompass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is:\n\"If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a\nphysician can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies, ought\nthere to be any escape?\"\n\nHe concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the patient was\nobdurate and suffered the penalty.\n\nThe application he makes is this:\n\n\"The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the Great\nPhysician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain, and a\nlife of eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not\ntidings of great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it not unreasonable on\nthe part of Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak out and throw the blame\non God?\"\n\nThe answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an\ninfinite God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he\ngave us free will it does not change the result, because he knew how we\nwould use the free will.\n\nNow, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take the\nremedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create them?\nThere would have been much less misery in the world had he left them\ndust.\n\nWhat right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change dust into\na sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the heir of endless\nagony?\n\nIf the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to take\nthe medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would refuse to\ntake it, the cases might be parallel.\n\nAccording to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who never\nheard of the medicine or of the \"Great Physician.\"\n\nThere is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly think\nhe could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is the\nfollowing paragraph:\n\n\"Who\" (speaking of Jesus) \"has such an eye to our need; such a lip to\nkiss away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the fire; _such\na foot to trample our enemies_; such a heart to embrace all our\nnecessities?\"\n\nWhat does the reverend gentleman mean by \"_such a foot to trample our\nenemies_\"?\n\nThis, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the\nhistory of the church. In the name of its founder it has \"trampled on\nits enemies,\" and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of\nthe world.\n\nThe Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this discussion\nwith a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states that\n\"Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or\nsorrow comes he\" (meaning the infidel) \"does not paw nor mock nor cry\n'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and\nwhines and howls.\"\n\nThe spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems to\nthink that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being brave,\nor demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of death.\n\nThousands of people have died for false religions and in honor of false\ngods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the religion, but it did\nprove the sincerity of their convictions.\n\nA great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the scaffold\nthe utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage exhibited by dying\nmurderers has never been appealed to in justification of murder.\n\nThe reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies endured by\nThomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that he wished his\nwork had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil ever had any\nagency in any work he had in the writing of that book (meaning \"The Age\nof Reason,\") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus to have mercy\nupon him.\n\nOf course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its falsity has\nbeen demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and yet ministers of\nthe Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.\n\nSo this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close his\nletters with the words, \"Crush the wretch!\" (meaning Christ). This is\nnot so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.\n\nThis gentleman also says that \"Voltaire was the prey of anguish and\ndread, alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he complained\nthat he was abandoned by God; that when he died his friends fled from\nthe room, declaring the sight too terrible to be endured.\"\n\nThere is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read the life\nof Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost serenity.\n\nLet me tell you how Voltaire died.\n\nHe was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the comforts\nof life. He was a man of wealth—of genius. Among the literary men of\nthe world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of\nsuccess. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery.\nHe stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They\nbegan to fear that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to\nmake a terrible example of Voltaire.\n\nToward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire\nwas dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of\nsuperstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.\n\n\"Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the Cure of St.\nSulpice and the Abbe Gautier, and brought them into his uncle's\nsick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.\n\n\"'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my thanks.'\n\n\"The abbe spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to patience. The\nCure of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced himself, and\nasked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of\nour Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands against the\ncure's coif shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other\nside:\n\n\"'Let me die in peace!'\n\n\"The cure seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif dishonored\nby the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him a little\nbrushing and went out with the Abbe Gautier.\n\n\"He expired,\" says Wagniere, \"on the 30th of May, 1788, at about a\nquarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.\n\n\"Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his\nvalet-de-chambre, who was watching by him, pressed it and said:\n'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone!'\n\n\"These were his last words.\"\n\nFrom this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful—from\nthese words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch—all the\nfrightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and\nmade. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed\nall the shameless calumnies about the death of this great and wonderful\nman.\n\nVoltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at\nthe foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite\nin Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin\nof superstition. Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the\ndarkness of myth and miracle; through the midnight of Christianity;\nthrough the blackness of bigotry; past cathedral and dungeon; past rack\nand stake; past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the\nsacred torch of Reason.\n\nLet me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the\npublication of his \"Rights of Man\" and \"The Age of Reason\", every\nfalsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to the\nworld. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another\ninfidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the\npublic streets.\n\nUnder the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not\nrespected. Under the Constitution that he had first suggested, his life\nwas insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three millions\nof his fellow-citizens, and they were willing to deny it unto him.\n\nHe was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But he\nmaintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind, and\nnever for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died almost alone.\n\nThe moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for his\ndeath-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains,\nand these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even of the\npresent day.\n\nThe truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some ministers\nwere impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he\nordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness\nof arrogance, called that they might enjoy the agonies of the dying\nfriend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments of\nexpiring life fanned into flame by the breath of indignation, had the\ngoodness to curse them both.\n\nHis physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold\nhand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled\near of the dying man: \"Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that\nJesus Christ is the Son of God?\"\n\nAnd the reply was: \"I have no wish to believe on that subject.\"\n\nThese were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as\nserenely as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession of\nhis mind, and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the doctrines of\nhis life.\n\nEvery philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover of\nthe great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the\nsplendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the American\nRevolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, \"The Crisis\" was the first\nstar that glittered in the wide horizon of despair.\n\nWe should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these\nwords: \"The United States of America.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining what\ninfidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though he\nwould like to be present.\n\nFor my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will die in\npeace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades to night.\n\nOf course when I said that \"Christianity did not bring tidings of great\njoy, but a message of eternal grief,\" I meant orthodox Christianity; and\nwhen I said that \"Christianity fills the future with fire and flame,\nand made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in which most of\nthe children of men were to be imprisoned forever,\" I was giving what I\nunderstood to be the Evangelical belief on that subject.\n\nIf the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal punishment, then\nfor one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what little I have done\ntoward that end has not been done in vain.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says:\n\"Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when Death's icy\nfingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his\nlike who have gone before him have done, he will sing another strain.\"\n\nHow shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the writing of\nsuch a sentence?\n\nThe reverend gentleman \"loves his enemies,\" and yet he is filled with\nglee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's icy\nfingers feel for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him no harm.\n\nHe then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the prophet\nIsaiah, commencing: \"The vile person will speak villainy.\"\n\nIs this passage applicable only to me?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the \"Christmas Sermon.\"\nFor his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the \"Christmas Sermon\"\ncontains:\n\nIf orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of\nprobation, that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all who\nhave heard the Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to be\neternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not \"bring tidings of\ngreat joy,\" but a Message of Eternal Grief. And if the orthodox churches\nare still preaching the doctrine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be\nfar better if every church crumbled into dust than that such preaching\nand such teaching should be continued.\n\nIt would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted\nand their congregations enlightened.\n\nI admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside hell; but\nif they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they ought publicly\nto change their creeds.\n\nI admit, also, that the average minister advises his congregation to be\nhonest and to treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these\nministers fail to follow their own advice when they make what they call\n\"replies\" to me.\n\nOf course there are many good things about the church. To the extent\nthat it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes charity,\nit is good. To the extent that it causes men and women to lead moral\nlives it is good. But to the extent that it fills the future with fear\nit is bad. To the extent that it convinces any human being that there is\nany God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal torments on his own\nchildren, it is bad.\n\nAnd such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching does\npollute the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does furrow the\ncheeks of the best and tenderest with tears..Such teaching does rob old\nage of all its joy, and covers every cradle with a curse!\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God. He says:\n\"God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto\nthe world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human mind could\nsuggest for the weal of the race.\"\n\nAccording to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose\nof seeing what the world would do, _knowing all the time exactly what\nwould be done_.\n\nLet us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then all people\nbecame tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what\nis known as \"Original Sin.\"\n\nAccording to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse and\nworse. It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve them,\nbut he patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years without having\nestablished any church, without having given them a Bible, and then he\ndrowned all but eight persons.\n\nNow, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of Original Sin\nwas also in their blood.\n\nIt seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have killed\nthe remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out of his\ngarden, and furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presbyterian\nConfession of Faith.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness\nare the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues\nwere in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will be\nconvinced by the words of Christ himself. He will probably remember\nthe story of the Good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that it is\nexactly in point. The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He was not one\nof \"the chosen people.\" He was a poor, \"miserable heathen,\" who knew\nnothing about the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never heard\nof the \"scheme of salvation.\" And yet, according to Christ, he was far\nmore charitable than the Levites—the priests of Jehovah, the highest\nof \"the chosen people.\" Is it not perfectly plain from this story that\ncharity was in the world before Christianity was established?\n\nA great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though the\nChristians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler\nwill read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of\n\"Mental Diseases,\" he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane\nwith the utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its throne\nby the voice of music; that the temples were resorted to by crowds of\nthe insane; and that \"whatever gifts of nature or productions of art\nwere calculated to impress the imagination were there united. Games\nand recreations were instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens\nsurrounded these holy retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes\ntransported patients to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile.\"\n\nSo in ancient Greece it is said that \"from the hands of the priest the\ncure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medicine,\nwith the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for the\ncure of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples exhibits\na profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The early\nmorning was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and music.\nThen came conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate\ndiet. Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine;\nthen reading, music and conversation concluded the day.\"\n\nSo \"Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders.\nHe recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as\npossible.\" It is also stated that \"the philosophy and arts of Greece\nspread to Rome, and the first special treatise on insanity is that\nof Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper\ntreatment.\"\n\n\"Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and ignorance\nof the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud\nworse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again consigned to the\nmiracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else totally neglected.\nIdiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The\nfrantic and furious were chained in lonesome dungeons and exhibited\nfor money, like wild beasts. The monomaniacs became, according to\ncircumstance, the objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They\nwere regarded as possessed with demons and subjected either to priestly\nexorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel\ntreatment of the insane continued with little or no alleviation down to\nthe end of the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe.\"\n\nLet me quote a description of these Christian asylums.\n\n\"Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan cities of\nEurope, but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome,\nconfined in jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons or\nmade the butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public\nasylums the inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained\nto floors or walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like\nwild beasts. They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of\ntheir keepers.\"\n\nI call particular attention to the following paragraph: \"Such was the\nstate of the insane generally throughout Europe at the commencement of\nthis century. Such it continued to be in England so late as 1815 and\nin Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of parliamentary\ncommissions in those years respectively.\"\n\nDr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.\n\nNot only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance of\nthe Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the\nMohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700 years, and in\naddition to this they treated their lunatics with great kindness.\n\nThe temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent debtors, and\nthe Thesium was a refuge for slaves.\n\nAgain, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of\nChristianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for\npeople, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy\nis that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always\nbeen engaged in maligning human nature—in attacking the human heart—in\nefforts to destroy all natural passions.\n\nPerfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated in\nIndia and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the Christian\nera. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced. All the good that\nChristianity has in it came from the human heart. Everything in that\nsystem of religion came from this world; and in it you will find not\nonly the goodness of man, but the imperfections of man—not only the\nlove of man, but the malice of man.\n\nLet me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected\nor abused the insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly\nsupposed that the insane were filled with devils.\n\nIn regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand it,\nis a doctor of theology—and I should think such theology stood in need\nof a doctor—and the Telegram, I have nothing to say. There is only\none side to that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore criticised\nwhat is known as the \"Christmas Sermon,\" I have answered him, leaving\nbut very little to which I care to reply in his last article.\n\nDr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of\nreasons—instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John\nHoward, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only names;\nand, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give the reasons\nadvanced by those whose names he pronounces.\n\nJonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology\nwas infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible\nfor him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of the\n\"Real Presence.\"\n\nMilton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of\nbrigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular battles;\nbut Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of his\npoetical and absurd vagaries.\n\nAll the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend to prove\nthe existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions\nand millions of the most devoted men could not, by their devotion,\nsubstantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.\n\nThere are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that\nought not to be passed over in silence.\n\nThe first is to the effect that I was invited to write an article for\nthe North American Review, Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that\nJudge Black was improperly treated.\n\nNow, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did write\none; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is also true\nthat Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his reply appeared\nin the same number of the Review.\n\nDr. Buckley alleges that the North American Review gave me an\nopportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an\nopportunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in\nfact. Mr. Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the Review, is\nstill living and will tell the facts. Personally I had nothing to do\nwith it, one way or the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as\nformidable, and was not only willing that he should be heard again, but\nanxious that he should.\n\nSo much for that.\n\nAs to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them to say\nwhether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor,\nby his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my respect and\nlove.\n\nMost ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a\nblasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips.\nThey cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as much and with\nas sincere devotion as they love God. They cannot imagine that another\nprizes liberty above all gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine\nthat any mind is so that it places Justice above all persons, a mind\nthat cannot conceive even of a God who is not bound to do justice.\n\nIf God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice.\n\nNeither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah and\nJupiter as substantially the same, with this exception—that he thinks\nfar more of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human feelings.\n\nI do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who states his\nhonest thoughts in proper language, his object being, not to torture\nthe feelings of others, but simply to give his thought—to find and\nestablish the truth.\n\nDr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be without\nfoundation. Speaking of myself, he said: \"In him the laws to prevent the\ncirculation of obscene publications through the mails have found their\nmost vigorous opponent.\"\n\nIt is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are\nthat an effort was made to classify obscene literature with what the\npious call \"blasphemous and immoral works.\" A petition was forwarded to\nCongress to amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could\nnot be thrown from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be\nmade, the law should be repealed.\n\nIt was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly should have\ndone so had it been presented to me. The petition was absolutely proper.\n\nA few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while it bore\nmy name it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes of this\nanswer I am perfectly willing that the signature should be regarded as\ngenuine, as there is nothing in the petition that should not have been\ngranted.\n\nThe law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League—but not a member\nof that society was in favor of the circulation of obscene literature;\nbut they did think that the privacy of the mails had been violated, and\nthat it was of the utmost importance to maintain the inviolability of\nthe postal service.\n\nI disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of obscene\nliterature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it\nthrough the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to that\neffect that were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others\nwere passed, and I resigned from the League on that account.\n\nNothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or indirectly, or\ncould have been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications\nthrough the mails; and I will pay a premium of $1,000 a word for\neach and every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene\npublications through the mails.\n\nI might use much stronger language. I might follow the example of\nDr. Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy all\nunprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.\n\nNow, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to read\nthat even now, and I believe the readers of the Telegram would like to\nread it once more; so here it is:\n\n\"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the\nskeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is\nthe mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine\nand the shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields; the\nbreath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth\nof summer and autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned light.\nDrink it and you will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the\n'Harvest Home,' mingled with the laughter of children. Drink it and you\nwill feel within your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks\nof many perfect days. For forty years this liquid joy has been within\nthe happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips of men.\"\n\nI re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very\naccurate, made some mistakes in his version.\n\nNow, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have sunk in\nthis direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco,\nand here it is:\n\n\"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed\nisland of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.\nAbove their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene,\nand in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were\nkind, innocent, gentle and loving.\n\n\"The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and of this\nclimate the sacred leaves were born—the leaves that breed in the mind\nof him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they grew.\n\n\"These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the vows of\npeace. They have given consolation to the world. They are the companions\nof the lonely—the friends of the imprisoned, of the exile, of workers\nin mines, of fellers of forests, of sailors on the desolate seas. They\nare the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds of\nthose who build with thought and dream the temples of the soul.\n\n\"They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of\npain—drive fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the mind and\nfill the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof\nsome potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that, when released by fire,\ndoth softly steal within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the\ncaptured sentinels of care and grief.\n\n\"These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke, like\nincense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile of the\nsea.\"\n\nThere are some people so constituted that there is no room in the heaven\nof their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread their\nwings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest. Such men would\nhold Shakespeare responsible for what Falstaff said about \"sack,\" and\nfor Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety.\n\nThere is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: \"In the presence\nof human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless.\"\n\nJohn Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense of humor.\nHe preached a sermon on \"The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes.\" He insisted\nthat they were caused by the wickedness of man, and that the only way to\ncure them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nThe man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in danger of\nfalling into the pit of Absurdity.\n\nThe Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,\ncontributes his part to the discussion.\n\nHe took a text from John, as follows: \"He that committeth sin is of the\ndevil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose\nthe Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the\ndevil.\"\n\nAccording to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed\nsin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is not a\nmetaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand with words.\nHe stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth,\nbut a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a physical\nbody, and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.\n\nAccording to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the\nbeginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the\nbeginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the\nCreator of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of\nthe devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies,\nand Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil—that is to say, the\ngrandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost \"blasphemous.\"\n\nThe Doctor also tells us \"that Jesus believed as much in the personality\nof the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter.\"\n\nThat I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be\ntrue, that Christ believed in a personal devil—a devil with whom he had\nconversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and\nendeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below.\n\nOf course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed\nin thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary\nMagdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or,\nrather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might\ngo into a drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man.\n\nI not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that\nsome devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.\n\nDr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the\nintegrity of the New Testament.\n\nThe Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New\nTestament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says:\n\n\"The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,\nshrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the\nauthority of God's law.\"\n\nHow does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial\nintellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd\nand persevering?\n\nIf the devil has an \"imperial intellect,\" why does he attempt the\nimpossible?\n\nRobert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the\ndevil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and\nmend.\n\nDr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems\nto be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the \"Arch Enemy of God\"—of\nthat \"organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the\nchurch\"—the Doctor says:\n\n\"The devil may be conceded to be sincere.\"\n\nIt has been said:\n\n\"An honest God is the noblest work of man,\" and it may now be added: A\nsincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.\n\nBut, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the\nDoctor says that he \"cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver\nlectures\" (like myself, I suppose), \"edit a newspaper\" (like the editor\nof the Telegram), \"or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his\nservants to do these things for him.\"\n\nThere is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting\n(I quote from the Telegram's report):\n\n\"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of the\nBible—not the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures—is\noperating to overcome all these works.\"\n\nI take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have said\nabout Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I give it\nhere:\n\n\"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have\ninfinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has\ndied for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that\ngreat and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my admiration and my\ntears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. He\nwas regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites,\nwho have, in all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and\nmanhood out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have\nbeen his friend, and should he come again he will not find a better\nfriend than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation\nI have a different feeling.\"\n\nI have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither have I\nmentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to\nthank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have manfully advocated the\nright of free speech, and who have upheld the Telegram in the course\nit has taken.\n\nI thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel quite\ngrateful to those who have failed to say unkind words. Epithets are\nnot arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice\nillogical.\n\nAnd, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist that\northodox Christianity did not come with \"tidings of great joy,\" but with\na message of eternal grief.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nNew York, February 5, 1892.\n"
}