{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:a-reply-to-rev-drs-thomas-and-lorimer",
  "slug": "a-reply-to-rev-drs-thomas-and-lorimer",
  "title": "A Reply to Rev. Drs. Thomas and Lorimer",
  "subtitle": "McVicker's Theatre, Chicago, Nov. 26, 1882.",
  "excerpt": "Preface to a Chicago lecture — Ingersoll's rebuttal to two prominent Chicago ministers who had been preaching against his Talmage interviews from their pulpits.",
  "year": 1882,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "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-reply-to-rev-drs-thomas-and-lorimer/",
  "wordCount": 5689,
  "body": "• Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday\n    afternoon, when he answered the question \"What Must We Do to\n    Be Saved?\" But before doing so he replied to the recent\n    criticisms of city clergymen on his \"Talmagian Theology\"—\n    Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.\n\nLadies and Gentlemen:\n\nWHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their duty to\nreply for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that I am\nblasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always been considered\nby theologians as a crime. Ministers have always said you will have no\nrespect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solemnity is a condition\nprecedent to believing anything without evidence. And if you can only\nget a man solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe anything.\n\nIn this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I may say\nby way of preface that I have always held him in the highest esteem. He\nstruggles, according to his statement, with the problem of my sincerity,\nand he about half concludes that I am not sincere. There is a little\nof the minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always account for a\ndifference of opinion by attacking the motive. Now, to him, it makes no\ndifference whether I am sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my\nargument be answered? Suppose you could prove that the maker of the\nmultiplication table held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times\nten would be a hundred still.\n\nMy sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the argument—not the\nslightest. But this gentleman begins to suspect that I am doing what\nI do for the sake of applause. What a commentary on the Christian\nreligion, that, after they have been preaching it for sixteen or\neighteen hundred years, a man attacks it for the sake of popularity—a\nman attacks it for the purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to\nspeak upon this subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my\nfellow-citizens differed with me; and I was denounced as though I had\nbeen a wild beast. But I have lived to see the majority of the men and\nwomen of intellect in the United States on my side; I have lived to see\nthe church deny her creed; I have lived to see ministers apologize in\npublic for what they preached; and a great and glorious work is going\non until, in a little while, you will not find one of them, unless it\nis some old petrifaction of the red-stone period, who will admit that\nhe ever believed in the Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of\nEternal Agony. The religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the\nintellect of America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go\nto hear infidelity it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the\northodox Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They are beginning\nto hold it in contempt.\n\nBut this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I attacked\ncertain doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain.\nI hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in\nthis universe who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who\ndenies to any human being the right of reformation, then that God is not\ngood, that God is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I\ndespise that doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that\nhorror from the cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that\nhorror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers,\nand sisters. It is a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of\nlife and all the hopes of mankind. I despise it.\n\nAnd the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I admit\nhere to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how\nold it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men were inspired\nor not. I have no reverence for what I believe to be false, and in\ndetermining what is false I go by my reason. And whenever another man\ngives me an argument I examine it. If it is good I follow it. If it is\nbad I throw it away. I have no reverence for any book that upholds human\nslavery. I despise such a book. I have no reverence for any book that\nupholds or palliates the infamous institution of polygamy. I have no\nreverence for any book that tells a husband to kill his wife if she\ndiffers with him upon the subject of religion. I have no reverence for\nany book that defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have\nno reverence for a God that orders his legions to slay the old and\nhelpless, and to whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers\nand babes. I have no reverence for such a book; neither have I any\nreverence for the author of that book. No matter whether he be God or\nman, I have no reverence. I have no reverence for the miracles of the\nBible. I have no reverence for the story that God allowed bears to tear\nchildren in pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but I have\nreverence for the truth, for justice, for charity, for humanity, for\nintellectual liberty, and for human progress.\n\nI have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I have\nnever met any minister that I thought had brain enough to think for\nhimself and for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence for barbarism,\nno matter how ancient it may be, and no reverence for the savagery of\nthe Old Testament; no reverence for the malice of the New. And let me\ntell you here to-night that the Old Testament is a thousand times better\nthan the New. The Old Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the\ngrave. God was satisfied when his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for\nthe New Testament—it was reserved for universal benevolence—to rend\nthe veil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze of man\nupon the abyss of hell. The New Testament is just as much worse than the\nOld, as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the fashion to say that\nthe Old Testament is bad and that the New Testament is good. I have no\nreverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my reason;\nno reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my heart;\nand, no matter how old it is, no matter how many have believed it, no\nmatter how many have died on account of it, no matter how many live for\nit, I have no reverence for that book, and I am glad of it.\n\nDr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things with\ninfinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy,\nor religious persecution, but that I should \"mildly\nsuggest\"—mildly,—should not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to\nchurch the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When I meet one I tell\nhim, \"There is no hell,\" and he says: \"What do you want to hurt our\nfeelings for?\" He wishes me mildly to suggest that the sun and moon did\nnot stop, that may be the bears only frightened the children, and that,\nafter all, Lot's wife was only scared. Why, there was a minister in this\ncity of Chicago who imagined that his congregation were progressive,\nand, in his pulpit, he said that he did not believe the story of Lot's\nwife—said that he did not think that any sensible man would believe\nthat a woman was changed into salt; and they tried him, and the\ncongregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And finally he went\nbefore that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and owned up to\nthe chloride of sodium, and said: \"I not only take the Bible _cum grano\nsalis_, but with a whole barrelful.\"\n\nMy doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so; no need\nof going away around the bush and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly,\nperadventure. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.\n\nI am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well as the\nbad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one word against\nhonesty, one word against liberty, one word against charity, one word\nagainst any institution that is good. I attack the bad, not the good,\nand I would like to have some minister point out in some lecture or\nspeech that I have delivered, one word against the good, against the\nhighest happiness of the human race.\n\nI have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor of\nliberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in favor of\nprogress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one word in favor\nof the bad, and I never expect to.\n\nDr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in spite of\nus.\n\nDoesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You\nsee, you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell—these are the avenues by\nwhich Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought,\nand you cannot by any possibility help thinking.\n\nNeither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are\nmade independently of your will. \"But,\" says this reverend doctor,\n\"Whence comes this conception of space?\" I can tell him. There is such\na thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies room—space—and,\nin our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes\nnaturally—not supernaturally.\n\nDoes the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God for us to\nconceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something.\nWe can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say space.\n\"But,\" says this gentleman, \"Where do we get the idea of good and bad?\"\nI can tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to\nenjoy and the capacity to suffer—every man. Whenever a man enjoys\nhimself he calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad.\nThe animals that are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the\nhurtful, he calls bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls\ngood; those that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good\nones, he calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is\nout that ministers to him, he says \"this is good;\" when the storm comes\nand blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his crop,\nhe says \"this is bad.\" And all phenomena that affect men well he calls\ngood; all that affect him ill he calls bad.\n\nNow, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect\nin nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That\nis the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man\ncould not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and\nthe words right and wrong never could have passed human lips. There are\nno supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience—some of them\nfrom our forefathers, many from experience. A man works—food does not\ncome of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in\nthe sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a\nrevelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it\nthan the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen,\nwe never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten\nCommandments been given from Mount Sinai.\n\nYou go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and\nlet a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and\nthe hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you\nwould see whether he would need a direct revelation from God in order\nto make up his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of\nright and wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think\nfor a moment he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite\nof us. I heard a story of a man who said, \"No man can think of one thing\na minute, he will think of something else.\" Well, there was a little\nMethodist preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute—that he\ncould say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing. \"Well,\"\nsaid the man, \"I'll tell you what I will do. There is the best\nroad-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you will just\nsay the Lord's Prayer, and not think of another thing.\" And the little\nfellow shut up his eyes: \"Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be\nthy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done—I suppose you will throw\nin the saddle and bridle?\"\n\nI have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some\nfact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of\nthought—that every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown,\nand that some are very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very\nrich. That is my opinion.\n\nAgain he asks: \"If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any\none blamed for thinking as he does?\" It is not a question of blame, it\nis a question of who is right—a question of who is wrong. Admit that\nevery one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought\nis right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.\nAdmit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that\ndoes not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss\nis just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it\nprove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it\nprove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold\nmen responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their\nactions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this—the\nright to do anything that does not interfere with another—in other\nwords, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this—the right to\nthink right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to\nthink right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.\n\nThe reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I\nbelieve in that theory.\n\nIf you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct\ninterference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is right. It is a\ntheory of evolution.\n\nI admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came\nfrom the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in\nscience. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed,\nthe shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the\nspreading and the growing; and that is as true in every other department\nof the world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not\naccount for the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely\ninspired, and it will not do to say God gradually grows. If he is\ninfinite now, he knows as much as he ever will. If he has been always\ninfinite, he knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible as he knows\nto-day; and, consequently, whatever he said then must be as true now\nas it was then. You see they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with\nreligion—a little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the\nsupernatural.\n\nHear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in\nthe world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.\nAll the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said\nall the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried\nit last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world\nupon its knees implored God to save one life, and the man died. The man\ndied! Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it\nwas in answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say\nnow? What is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: \"There is\nprayer and there is rain.\" Good. \"Can he that is himself or any one else\nsay there is no possible relation between one and the other?\" I do. Let\nus put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any\none say there is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr.\nThomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year's crops? And yet\nthis gentleman really throws out the idea that there is some possible\nrelation between prayer and rain, between rain and health; and he tells\nus that he would have died twenty-five years ago had it not been for\nprayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon certain\nfacts—not upon prayer. All the prayer in the world cannot take the\nplace of the circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is\nno substitute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take the\nplace of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find that he\neats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This reverend Doctor\nsays: \"Shall we say that all the love of the unseen world\"—how does he\nknow there is any love in the unseen world? \"and the love of God\"—how\ndoes he know there is any love in God? \"heed not the cries and tears of\nearth?\"\n\nI do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious\npersecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons,\nof those who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled prayer with\nthe clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving\nthis God, simply for worshiping this God. And what did God do? Nothing.\nThe chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in\nthe dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God\ndo? Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were\npiled around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did\nGod do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and\nthousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands\nto God and implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and\nwhat did God do?\n\nNothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the\nnaked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children were sold from\nthe arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden\nbeneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did God do? Nothing. Human\nbeings, his children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and\nwhat did God do? Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the\nshipwrecked go down in the billows; and what does God do? Nothing. There\ncome plague and pestilence and famine. What does God do? Thousands\nand thousands perish. Little children die upon the withered breasts of\nmothers; and what does God do? Nothing.\n\nWhat evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever\ntouched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history\nof the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and\nimprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and\nbest. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of\nhelp ever been reached from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe\nit.\n\nDr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he\nto tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much\nbrain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt—and a doubt is\nborn of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church\nto be unorthodox. They have passed on his case and they have found him\nunconstitutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here\nis what he says: \"Christianity\"—orthodox Christianity I suppose\nhe means—\"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and\npunishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles\nof the government of God are the same there as here; that character, and\nnot profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and Dickens, and\nall others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their\njust rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the\ntime, be it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what\nChristianity teaches.\"\n\nIf it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity.\nIt never has taught it. Christianity—orthodox Christianity—teaches\nthat when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity\nfor reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the\neternal line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion\nin this life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That is\nChristianity. They say: \"Now is the accepted time.\" If you put it off\nuntil you die, that is too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world\nis that there is no opportunity for reformation in another world. The\ndoctrine of orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord\nJesus Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in\nthe next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail here,\nGod in his infinite wisdom will never give you another chance. That\nis orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox Christianity, the\ngreatest, the best and the sublimest of the world are now in hell. And\nwhy is it that they say it is not orthodox Christianity? I have made\nthem ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to their attention the\nfact that such men as Darwin, such men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow,\nLaplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in hell, it struck them all at\nonce that the company in heaven would not be very interesting with such\nmen left out.\n\nAnd now they begin to say: \"We think the Lord will give those men\nanother chance.\" I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine\nexpectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have\nmade them ashamed of their doctrine—and that is glory enough. They will\nlet me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine that\nGod will treat us as we treat others—I admit that is taught by Matthew,\nMark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that\nunderstood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he\nwas driven out of the church because he thought God too good to damn\nmen forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic\nChurch is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon that\nquestion. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory—that is, a place\nwhere a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new trial.\n\nDr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell\nyour congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine\ninspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people\nwhether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.\n\nDo not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever upheld\npolygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor of\nreligious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether\nyou honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the\nbad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think\nand there will not be as much difference between you and myself as you\nimagine.\n\nThe next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the\nrescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he\nis a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a choice as to the\nmanner in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman\nregards modern infidelity as \"pitifully shallow\" as to its intellectual\nconceptions and as to its philosophical views of the universe and of\nthe problems regarding man's place in it and of his destiny. \"Pitifully\nshallow!\"\n\nWhat is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception\nis that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern\nconception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms\nall matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has\nbeen, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe.\nAnd this is called \"pitiful.\"\n\nWhat is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the\nuniverse is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who\nmade it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world.\nAnd they even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in\nwhich he signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in\na garden and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of\ninfinite wisdom made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he\nwould have to drown them. That Being peopled a planet like this with\nmen, women and children, knowing that he would have to consign most of\nthem to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That\nis an infamous conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception\nof Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall\nand of every other man who has thought. I love to think of the whole\nuniverse together as one eternal fact. I love to think that everything\nis alive; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy. I love to\nthink that when a bud bursts into blossom it feels a thrill. I love to\nhave the universe full of feeling and full of joy, and not full of\nsimple dead, inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all eternity.\n\nAnother thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose\nto banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our\nrelations to the present and to the possible future from human thought.\n\nI have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do\nnot make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know\nanything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y\nor do not know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of\nheaven. Wait until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble\nthen. This is what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of\nlife from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it.\nLife is a shadowy strange and winding road on which we travel for a few\nshort steps, just a little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love,\nto the low and quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where\nthe only salutation is \"Good-Night!\" Whether there is a good morning I\ndo not know, but I am willing to wait.\n\nLet us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for\nthe future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who\nhappen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of\nHumboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare\ntheir splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist\ncreed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he\ntells me that, \"No one has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and\nDarwin are castaways!\" Why not? They were not Christians. They did\nnot believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the\ninspiration of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they\nare castaways. But he says: \"No one has the right to say that orthodoxy\ncondemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right, and\nwho has tried to bless the earth he is raised on.\" That is what I say,\nbut that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man\nin the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of God, or in the\ndivinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there\nan orthodox minister in this town now who will stand up and say that an\nhonest atheist can be saved? He will not. Let any preacher say it, and\nhe will be tried for heresy.\n\nI will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment,\nand they cross-examine him, and they say to him:\n\n\"Did you believe the Bible?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"Did you belong to the church?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"Did you take care of your wife and children?\"\n\n\"Yes?\"\n\n\"Pay your debts?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Love your country?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Love the whole world?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Never made anybody unhappy?\"\n\n\"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged\nlet them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but,\" said\nhe, \"I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity\nof Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the\nexistence of God. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine.\"\nNow, I want to know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with\nthat man?\n\nHe is sent to hell.\n\nThat is their doctrine.\n\nThen the next fellow comes. He says:\n\n\"Where did you come from?\"\n\nAnd he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and he says:\n\n\"I came from the gallows. I was just hung.\"\n\n\"What were you hung for?\"\n\n\"Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left. The day\nI was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb.\"\n\nThat is Christianity. And they say to him: \"Come in! Let the band play!\"\n\nThat is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is hanged—there is a\nminister there, and the minister tells him he is all right. All he has\nto do is just to believe on the Lord.\n\nAnother objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am scurrilous.\nScurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he is not\nscurrilous, calls infidels, \"donkeys, serpents, buzzards.\" That is\nsimply to show that he is not scurrilous.\n\nDr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks independently of\nthe will; and I propose to prove by him that it does. He is the last\nman in the world to controvert that doctrine—the last man. In spite of\nhimself his mind absorbed the sermon of another man, and he repeated it\nas his own. I am satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind\nacted independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence\nin favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely\nobliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously offered.\n\nHe also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and renders him\nunfit for the discharge of the highest duties pertaining to life, and\nthat we show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor to overthrow\nCalvinism. What is Calvinism? It is the doctrine that an infinite God\nmade millions of people, knowing that they would be damned. I have\nanswered that a thousand times. I answer it again. No God has a right to\nmake a mistake, and then damn the mistake. No God has a right to make\na failure, and a man who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous\nsuccess. No God has a right to make an investment that will not finally\npay a dividend.\n\nThe world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life and all\nmine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all going wrong,\nthat immorality was stalking through the land, that crime was about to\nengulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their prophecies, the world\nhas steadily grown better, and there is more justice, more charity, more\nkindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the world to-day than\never before. And there is more infidelity in the world to-day than ever\nbefore.\n"
}