{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:a-reply-to-the-new-york-clergy-on-superstition",
  "slug": "a-reply-to-the-new-york-clergy-on-superstition",
  "title": "A Reply to the New York Clergy on Superstition",
  "subtitle": "New York Journal, 1898.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's answer to the various New York clergymen who responded in the pages of the Journal to his 1898 Superstition lecture.",
  "year": 1898,
  "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-the-new-york-clergy-on-superstition/",
  "wordCount": 5298,
  "body": "• New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.\n\nQuestion. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, the interest\nmanifested in the letters to the Journal which have followed your\nlecture of Sunday, and what do you think of them?\n\nAnswer. I have read the letters and reports that have been published\nin the Journal. Some of them seem to be very sincere, some not quite\nhonest, and some a little of both.\n\nThe Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many Christians\ndo not believe in a personal devil, but are still Christians. He states\nthat they hold that the references in the New Testament to the devil\nare simply to personifications of evil, and do not apply to any personal\nexistence. He says that he could give the names of a number of pastors\nwho hold such views. He does not state what his view is. Consequently, I\ndo not know whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.\n\nThe statement that the references in the New Testament to a devil\nare simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any personal\nexistence, seems to me utterly absurd.\n\nThe references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as good and\nsatisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the angels referred\nto in the New Testament simply personifications of good, and are there\nno such personal existences? If devils are only personifications of\nevil, how is it that these personifications of evil could hold arguments\nwith Jesus Christ? How could they talk back? How could they publicly\nacknowledge the divinity of Christ? As a matter of fact, the best\nevidences of Christ's divinity in the New Testament are the declarations\nof devils. These devils were supposed to be acquainted with supernatural\nthings, and consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the\naverage Jew, not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was\nunable to recognize a deity when he met him.\n\nNow, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls them, were\nof various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others could talk, and\nChrist said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they were very difficult\nto expel from the bodies of men; that it required fasting and prayer to\nget them out. Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did not exist?\nThat they were only \"personifications of evil\"?\n\nNow, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted\nby the devil; that is, by a \"personification of evil,\" and that this\npersonification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to\ninduce him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come\nfrom? Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not\nhave been. Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it\nexisted it came from the inside of Christ, so that, according to\nMacArthur, Christ was the creator of his own devil.\n\nI do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur's\nopinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some\ntime he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or\nwhether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New\nTestament can be explained away by calling the devils \"personifications\nof evil.\" Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a\n\"personification of evil\" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the\nworld, and whether Christ expelled seven \"personifications of evil\" from\nMary Magdalene, and how did they come to count these \"personifications\nof evil\"? If the devils, after all, are only \"personifications of evil,\"\nthen, of course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may\nbe different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet\nMary Magdalene had seven.\n\nDr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously\nbeat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take\nit for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in\ntheir creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word\nof God; that they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in\nsalvation by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I\ntake it for granted that they believe these things. Of course, the only\nevidence I have is what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon.\nThey may be dealing only in the \"personification of truth.\"\n\nWhen I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am\ntold that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after\nall, this \"man of straw\" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this\n\"man of straw,\" and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A\npreacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio,\nchallenged this \"man of straw,\" and the straw man put him out.\n\nBoth these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the\nRev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain\nwhat he calls the \"religious thinking of the hour,\" the \"straw man\" will\nput him out too.\n\nDr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of\nrepresentative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which\nleading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have\nthe goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds\nof representative thinkers—that is, of orthodox thinkers—that any\northodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the\nkindness to give just one?\n\nIn my lecture on \"Superstition\" I did say that to deny the existence\nof evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the\ntruth of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps\nof darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that\nif we give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of\nthe Old and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ.\nUpon that declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then\nJesus Christ was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true\naccount of what he said and of what he pretended to do. If the New\nTestament gives a true account of his words and pretended actions, then\nhe did claim to cast out devils. That was his principal business. That\nwas his certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated\nhis mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.\n\nNow, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the\nveracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that\ndivinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the\ngreat fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.\n\nNow, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister,\nbut like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have\na little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become\nspiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious\nand pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into\na corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry\n\"Blasphemy!\" I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply\nmean that they are illogical.\n\nDr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of\nprogressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive\nreligious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If\nreligion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress.\nIt may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but\nif it is not understood when given, why is it called a \"revelation\"?\nThere is no progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better\nmathematicians than others, but the old multiplication table remains the\nsame. So there can be no progress in a revelation from God.\n\nNow, Spain—and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune—has\nremained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to\ntheir superstition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that\nCatholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly\nadmit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with\nSpain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of\nthem has progressed to any great extent.\n\nNow, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man\ngrows better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man\nis, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized,\nwill be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has\nprogressed, it is a demonstration that it was not originally founded on\na revelation from God.\n\nIn my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction\nbetween the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if God\ncreated and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him\nat all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily\nfor famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if\nPresident McKinley thanked God for the victory at Santiago, he also\nshould have thanked him for sending the yellow fever.\n\nI stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any\ndistinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If God\ngoverns this world, then everything that happens is the very best that\ncould happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is\nto be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was\nto be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by\ninfinite wisdom and goodness.\n\nIt will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This God who\nmade man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom,\nand consequently this God cannot escape the responsibility for the\nactions of men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is\nresponsible.\n\nIf I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he\nwould murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would\nthink as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with\nme.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss\nIngersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of\ncourse I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the\naddress. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without\nbeing dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis\nParks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants,\ndenounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity\nis not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that\nwe do not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know\nthat there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head\nunder the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.\n\nNow, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the\ndevil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that\nthe devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say\nit honestly?\n\nBut the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go\nalong with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it\nvisited our soldiers, came from God, and that we should thank God for\nit. He does not say the soldiers should thank God for it, or that those\nwho had it should thank God for it, but that we should thank God for it,\nand there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us\nto bear with great fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the\nmisfortunes of others.\n\nHe says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of course I am\nnot as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to\nbe. I have not the faintest idea of what God's purposes are. He works,\neven according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with\nthe little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why God\nshould have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or\ncholera, or why he should ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in\npartnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have\nnever been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my\nignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be\nthat everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not\nbelieve it.\n\nThere is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on\nthe workings of the average orthodox mind.\n\nOne morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father,\n\"One of the ewe lambs is dead.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said the father; \"that is all for the best. Twins never do very\nwell, any how.\"\n\nThe next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the\nold man said, \"Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have\nmore wool.\"\n\nThe next morning the son said, \"The old ewe is dead.\"\n\n\"Well,\" replied the old man; \"that may be for the best, but I don't see\nit this morning.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on\nthe wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly\nobliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily\nrefuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation\nmight be an advertisement for me.\n\nNow, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are\nsome things in the lecture on \"Superstition\" worth the while even of a\nMethodist minister to answer.\n\nDoes Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will\nhe Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that God\ncreated him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this\nquestion: Why did God create a successful rival? When God created the\ndevil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That\nhe was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and\ndid he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That\nin consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that\nhe would have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in\nconsequence of that he himself would have to be born into this world as\na Judean peasant? That he would have to be crucified and suffer for\nthe sins of these people who had been misled by this devil that he\ndeliberately created, and that after all he would be able only to save a\nfew Methodists?\n\nWill the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can\nanswer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no\nadvertisement for him.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I\nnow return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, \"Ingersoll in many\nrespects is like Voltaire.\" I think no finer compliment has been paid me\nby any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank\nthe Rev. Mr. Belcher.\n\nThe Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that\nevery utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that\nevery argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in\nringing the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over\nagain for hundreds of years.\n\nNow, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives;\nthat you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it.\nYou must answer not the man, but the argument.\n\nAnother thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that\nno argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not\nbeen answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is\nstill as fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old\nuntil it has been answered.\n\nIt is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have\nbeen answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course\nit will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.\n\nNow, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you\nbelieve in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and\nwomen become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you\nbelieve that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe\nthe stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?\n\nNow, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.\nAnswer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is\na person, that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you another\nquestion: Why should this devil punish souls in hell for rebelling\nagainst God? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish\nGod's enemies? This may have been answered many times, but one more\nrepetition will do but little harm.\n\nAnother thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you\nbelieve that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which\nopen only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment\nis the highest expression of justice and mercy?\n\nIf you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you\nknew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to hell and\nsuffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing\nthis, you changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend?\nNow, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the\nPresbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.\n\nI say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for\nany of the children of men—I say to you that your God is a wild beast,\nan insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.\n\nAt the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac\nArthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.\n\nThe Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely\nsincere. He is orthodox—true blue. He believes in a devil; in an\nacting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think\nthis devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but\na little more cunning.\n\nAccording to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the\nuniverse—king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will\nnot admit that if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all\ncrumble, but I think he will admit that if the devil does not exist,\nthen Christ was mistaken, or that the writers of the New Testament did\nnot truthfully give us his utterances.\n\nNow, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he\nwas mistaken about the existence of God. In other words, if Christ\nmade a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine,\nalthough ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see\nexactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the\nChristian creeds do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean\northodox creeds. Is there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil\nin it?\n\nNow, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall\nof man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the\nkeystone. Remove him, the arch falls.\n\nNow, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains intact\nwithout crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the atonement and\nthe existence of the devil are all thrown aside?\n\nOf course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being\ngood, forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not Christianity.\nOrthodox Christians say that a man must believe on Christ, must have\nfaith, and that to act as Christ did, is not enough; that a man who acts\nexactly as Christ did, dying without faith, would go to hell. So when\nMr. Campbell speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox\nChristian.\n\nNow, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he knows\na good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every conceivable\ndisguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring lion; that at\nanother time he is a god of this world; on another occasion a dragon,\nand in the afternoon of the same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light,\nand all the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often assumes the\ndisguise of the serpent.\n\nSo the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the\nwilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made him\nmore than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ could\nnot see through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil with a mask\nto fool God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ\nby offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they already belonged to\nChrist, and when Christ knew that the devil had no title, and when the\ndevil knew that Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil\nknew that Christ knew that he was the devil, and when the devil knew\nthat he was Christ? Does the reverend gentleman still think that it was\nthe disguise of the devil that tempted Christ?\n\nI would like some of these questions answered, because I have a very\ninquiring mind.\n\nSo Mr. Campbell tells us—and it is very good and comforting of\nhim—that there is a time coming when the devil shall deceive the\nnations no more. He also tells us that God is more powerful than the\ndevil, and that he is going to put an end to him.\n\nWill Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the devil?\nIf he is going to put an end to him why did he start him? Was it not a\nwaste of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair to let this devil,\nso powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put\nAdam and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his power, and not\nonly Adam and Eve within his power, but their descendants, so that the\nslime of the serpent has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence\nof what happened in the Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless\nmillions in the presence of the most merciful God?\n\nNow, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these things.\nHe may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think of his own\ncongregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves of doubt and\nthought.\n\nThe Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good sense; one\nwho thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of\ncourse I am sorry that he does not agree with me, but I have become used\nto that, and so I thank him for the truths he utters.\n\nHe does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I guess by\nfollowing him up we would find that he did not believe in the existence\nof a personal God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In fact,\nhe tells us that he has given up the infallibility of the Bible. At the\nsame time, he says it is the most perfect compendium of religious and\nmoral thought. In that I think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast\ndeal of irreligion in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral\nthought in the Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired\nnor infallible.\n\nThe Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church, declares\nthat those who do not believe in a personal God do not believe in a\npersonal Satan, and vice versa. The one, he says, necessitates the\nother. In this I do not think he is quite correct. I think many people\nbelieve in a personal God who do not believe in a personal devil, but I\nknow of none who do believe in a personal devil who do not also believe\nin a personal God. The orthodox generally believe in both of them, and\nfor many centuries Christians spoke with great respect of the devil.\nThey were afraid of him.\n\nBut I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny a\npersonal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I agree with\nthis because I suppose by \"God's word\" he means the Bible.\n\nHe further says, and I agree with him, that a \"Christian\" needs no\nscientific argument on which to base his belief in the personality of\nSatan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a scientific\nargument it is equally true that he never will have one.\n\nYou see this word \"Science\" means something that somebody knows; not\nsomething that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but\nsomething that somebody knows.\n\nOf course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the existence\nof the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says,\nand I thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove the existence\nof the devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse, and I do agree with him\nthat the \"revealed word\" teaches the existence of a personal devil,\nand that all truly orthodox Christians believe that there is a personal\ndevil, and the Rev. Mr. Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he\nproves that without this devil there could be no redemption for the\nevil spirits; so he brings forward the temptation of Christ in the\nwilderness. At the same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what\nthe Bible says, he insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme,\nand then he drops into humor and says that if any further arguments are\nneeded to prove the existence of the devil, that I furnish them.\n\nHow a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can have\nanything like a sense of humor is beyond even my imagination.\n\nNow, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask him\nthe same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture on\n\"Superstition.\"\n\nNow, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a being of\ninfinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he created has\nbeen governed by him.\n\nNow, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions, with\nthe request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr.\nKraeling, had the power to make a world, would you make an exact copy of\nthis? Would you make a man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing that\nthey would be deceived, knowing that they would fall? Knowing that all\nthe consequences believed in by orthodox Christians would follow from\nthat fall? Would you do it? And would you make your world so as to\nprovide for earthquakes and cyclones? Would you create the seeds of\ndisease and scatter them in the air and water? Would you so arrange\nmatters as to produce cancers? Would you provide for plague and\npestilence? Would you so make your world that life should feed on life,\nthat the quivering flesh should be torn by tooth and beak and claw?\nWould you?\n\nNow, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be honest.\n\nWould you make different races of men? Would you make them of different\ncolors, and would you so make them that they would persecute and enslave\neach other? Would you so arrange matters that millions and millions\nshould toil through many generations, paid only by the lash on the back?\nWould you have it so that millions and millions of babes would be sold\nfrom the breasts of mothers? Be honest, would you provide for religious\npersecution? For the invention and use of instruments of torture? Would\nyou see to it that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was\nnot overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong\nwould triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not be\na shield? Would you make a world where the best would be loaded with\nchains? Where the best would die in the darkness of dungeons? Where the\nbest would make scaffolds sacred with their blood?\n\nWould you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud should\nrepresent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of honest\ncredulity?\n\nWould you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war? Would\nyou so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens, so that\nwoman would be a slave, so that children would be trampled upon as\nthough they were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the woods with wild\nbeasts? Would you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm your children? Would\nyou provide for earthquakes that would swallow them? Would you make them\nignorant, savage, and fill their minds with all the phantoms of horror?\nWould you?\n\nNow, it will only take you a few moments to answer these questions, and\nif you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the\northodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If you say you would not, I\nwill admit that there is a little dawn of intelligence in your brain.\n\nAt the same time I want it understood with regard to all these\nministers that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize their\ncongregations, so that the congregations may allow the ministers to\ndevelop, to grow, to become really and truly intelligent. The process is\nslow, but it is sure.\n"
}