{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-12:modern-thinkers",
  "slug": "modern-thinkers",
  "title": "Prof. Van Buren Denslow's \\\"Modern Thinkers\\\"",
  "subtitle": "Introduction to Denslow's biographical study of Swedenborg, Adam Smith, Bentham, Paine, Fourier, Comte, Haeckel, and Spencer.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's long introduction to Prof. Van Buren Denslow's 'Modern Thinkers' — a running commentary on Swedenborg, Adam Smith, Bentham, Paine, Fourier, Comte, Haeckel, and Spencer.",
  "year": 1880,
  "volume": 12,
  "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/modern-thinkers/",
  "wordCount": 17524,
  "body": "IF others who read this book get as much information as I did from the\nadvance sheets, they will feel repaid a hundred times. It is perfectly\ndelightful to take advantage of the conscientious labors of those who go\nthrough and through volume after volume, divide with infinite patience\nthe gold from the dross, and present us with the pure and shining coin.\nSuch men may be likened to bees who save us numberless journeys by\ngiving us the fruit of their own.\n\nWhile this book will greatly add to the information of all who read it,\nit may not increase the happiness of some to find that Swedenborg was\nreally insane. But when they remember that he was raised by a bishop,\nand disappointed in love, they will cease to wonder at his mental\ncondition. Certainly an admixture of theology and \"dis-prized love\"\nis often sufficient to compel reason to abdicate the throne of the\nmightiest soul.\n\nThe trouble with Swedenborg was that he changed realities into dreams,\nand then out of the dreams made facts upon which he built, and with\nwhich he constructed his system.\n\nHe regarded all realities as shadows cast by ideas. To him the material\nwas the unreal, and things were definitions of the ideas of God. He\nseemed to think that he had made a discovery when he found that ideas\nwere back of words, and that language had a subjective as well as an\nobjective origin; that is that the interior meaning had been clothed\nupon. Of course, a man capable of drawing the conclusion that natural\nreason cannot harmonize with spiritual truth because in a dream, he had\nseen a beetle that could not use its feet, is capable of any absurdity\nof which the imagination can conceive. The fact is, that Swedenborg\nbelieved the Bible. That was his misfortune. His mind had been\noverpowered by the bishop, but the woman had not utterly destroyed his\nheart. He was shocked by the liberal interpretation of the Scriptures,\nand sought to avoid the difficulty by giving new meanings consistent\nwith the decency and goodness of God. He pointed out a way to preserve\nthe old Bible with a new interpretation. In this way Infidelity could\nbe avoided; and, in his day, that was almost a necessity. Had Swedenborg\ntaken the ground that the Bible was not inspired, the ears of the\nworld would have been stopped. His readers believed in the dogma of\ninspiration, and asked, not how to destroy the Scriptures, but for some\nway in which they might be preserved. He and his followers unconsciously\nrendered immense service to the cause of intellectual enfranchisement\nby their efforts to show the necessity of giving new meanings to the\nbarbarous laws, and cruel orders of Jehovah. For this purpose they\nattacked with great fury the literal text, taking the ground that if the\nold interpretation was right, the Bible was the work of savage men. They\nheightened in every way the absurdities, cruelties and contradictions of\nthe Scriptures for the purpose of showing that a new interpretation must\nbe found, and that the way pointed out by Swedenborg was the only one by\nwhich the Bible could be saved.\n\nGreat men are, after all the instrumentalities of their time. The heart\nof the civilized world was beginning to revolt at the cruelties ascribed\nto God, and was seeking for some interpretation of the Bible that kind\nand loving people could accept. The method of interpretation found by\nSwedenborg was suitable for all. Each was permitted to construct his own\n\"science of correspondence\" and gather such fruits as he might prefer.\nIn this way the ravings of revenge can instantly be changed to mercy's\nmelting tones, and murder's dagger to a smile of love. In this way and\nin no other, can we explain the numberless mistakes and crimes ascribed\nto God. Thousands of most excellent people, afraid to throw away the\nidea of inspiration, hailed with joy a discovery that allowed them to\nwrite a Bible for themselves.\n\nBut, whether Swedenborg was right or not, every man who reads a book,\nnecessarily gets from that book all that he is capable of receiving.\nEvery man who walks in the forest, or gathers a flower, or looks at a\npicture, or stands by the sea, gets all the intellectual wealth he is\ncapable of receiving. What the forest, the flower, the picture or the\nsea is to him, depends upon his mind, and upon the stage of development\nhe has reached. So that after all, the Bible must be a different book to\neach person who reads it, as the revelations of nature depend upon the\nindividual to whom they are revealed, or by whom they are discovered.\nAnd the extent of the revelation or discovery depends absolutely upon\nthe intellectual and moral development of the person to whom, or by\nwhom, the revelation or discovery is made. So that the Bible cannot be\nthe same to any two people, but each one must necessarily interpret it\nfor himself. Now, the moment the doctrine is established that we can\ngive to this book such meanings as are consistent with our highest\nideals; that we can treat the old words as purses or old stockings\nin which to put our gold, then, each one will, in effect, make a new\ninspired Bible for himself, and throw the old away. If his mind is\nnarrow, if he has been raised by ignorance and nursed by fear, he\nwill believe in the literal truth of what he reads. If he has a little\ncourage he will doubt, and the doubt will with new interpretations\nmodify the literal text; but if his soul is free he will with scorn\nreject it all.\n\nSwedenborg did one thing for which I feel almost grateful. He gave an\naccount of having met John Calvin in hell. Nothing connected with the\nsupernatural could be more perfectly natural than this. The only thing\ndetracting from the value of this report is, that if there is a hell, we\nknow without visiting the place that John Calvin must be there.\n\nAll honest founders of religions have been the dreamers of dreams, the\nsport of insanity, the prey of visions, the deceivers of others and of\nthemselves. All will admit that Swedenborg was a man of great intellect,\nof vast acquirements and of honest intentions; and I think it equally\nclear that upon one subject, at least, his mind was touched, shattered\nand shaken.\n\nMisled by analogies, imposed upon by the bishop, deceived by the woman,\nborne to other worlds upon the wings of dreams, living in the twilight\nof reason and the dawn of insanity, he regarded every fact as a patched\nand ragged garment with a lining of the costliest silk, and insisted\nthat the wrong side, even of the silk, was far more beautiful than the\nright.\n\nHerbert Spencer is almost the opposite of Swedenborg. He relies upon\nevidence, upon demonstration, upon experience, and occupies himself with\none world at a time. He perceives that there is a mental horizon that\nwe cannot pierce, and that beyond that is the unknown—possibly the\nunknowable. He endeavors to examine only that which is capable of being\nexamined, and considers the theological method as not only useless,\nbut hurtful. After all, God is but a guess, throned and established by\narrogance and assertion. Turning his attention to those things that\nhave in some way affected the condition of mankind, Spencer leaves the\nunknowable to priests and to the believers in the \"moral government\" of\nthe world. He sees only natural causes and natural results, and seeks to\ninduce man to give up gazing into void and empty space, that he may give\nhis entire attention to the world in which he lives. He sees that right\nand wrong do not depend upon the arbitrary will of even an infinite\nbeing, but upon the nature of things; that they are relations, not\nentities, and that they cannot exist, so far as we know, apart from\nhuman experience.\n\nIt may be that men will finally see that selfishness and self-sacrifice\nare both mistakes; that the first devours itself; that the second is\nnot demanded by the good, and that the bad are unworthy of it. It may be\nthat our race has never been, and never will be, deserving of a martyr.\nSometime we may see that justice is the highest possible form of mercy\nand love, and that all should not only be allowed, but compelled to reap\nexactly what they sow; that industry should not support idleness, and\nthat they who waste the spring and summer and autumn of their lives\nshould bear the winter when it comes. The fortunate should assist\nthe victims of accident; the strong should defend the weak, and the\nintellectual should lead, with loving hands, the mental poor; but\nJustice should remove the bandage from her eyes long enough to\ndistinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.\n\nMr. Spencer is wise enough to declare that \"acts are called good or bad\naccording as they are well or ill adjusted to ends;\" and he might have\nadded, that ends are good or bad according as they affect the happiness\nof mankind.\n\nIt would be hard to over-estimate the influence of this great man. From\nan immense intellectual elevation he has surveyed the world of thought.\nHe has rendered absurd the idea of special providence, born of the\negotism of savagery. He has shown that the \"will of God\" is not a rule\nfor human conduct; that morality is not a cold and heartless tyrant;\nthat by the destruction of the individual will, a higher life cannot\nbe reached, and that after all, an intelligent love of self extends the\nhand of help and kindness to all the human race.\n\nBut had it not been for such men as Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer could\nnot have existed for a century to come. Some one had to lead the way,\nto raise the standard of revolt, and draw the sword of war. Thomas Paine\nwas a natural revolutionist. He was opposed to every government existing\nin his day. Next to establishing a wise and just republic based upon\nthe equal rights of man, the best thing that can be done is to destroy a\nmonarchy.\n\nPaine had a sense of justice, and had imagination enough to put himself\nin the place of the oppressed. He had, also, what in these pages is so\nfelicitously expressed, \"a haughty intellectual pride, and a willingness\nto pit his individual thought against the clamor of a world.\"\n\nI cannot believe that he wrote the letters of \"Junius,\" although the two\ncritiques combined in this volume, entitled \"Paine\" and \"Junius,\" make\nby far the best argument upon that subject I have ever read. First,\nPaine could have had no personal hatred against the men so bitterly\nassailed by Junius. Second, He knew, at that time, but little of English\npoliticians, and certainly had never associated with men occupying the\nhighest positions, and could not have been personally acquainted with\nthe leading statesmen of England. Third., He was not an unjust man. He\nwas neither a coward, a calumniator, nor a sneak. All these delightful\nqualities must have lovingly united in the character of Junius. Fourth,\nPaine could have had no reason for keeping the secret after coming to\nAmerica.\n\nI have always believed that Junius, after having written his letters,\naccepted office from the very men he had maligned, and at last became\na pensioner of the victims of his slander. \"Had he as many mouths as\nHydra, such a course must have closed them all.\" Certainly the author\nmust have kept the secret to prevent the loss of his reputation.\n\nIt cannot be denied that the style of Junius is much like that of Paine.\nShould it be established that Paine wrote the letters of Junius, it\nwould not, in my judgment, add to his reputation as a writer. Regarded\nas literary efforts they cannot be compared with \"Common Sense,\" \"The\nCrisis,\" or \"The Rights of Man.\"\n\nThe claim that Paine was the real author of the Declaration of\nIndependence is much better founded. I am inclined to think that he\nactually wrote it; but whether this is true or not, every idea contained\nin it had been written by him long before. It is now claimed that the\noriginal document is in Paine's handwriting. It certainly is not in\nJefferson's. Certain it is, that Jefferson could not have written\nanything so manly, so striking, so comprehensive, so clear, so\nconvincing, and so faultless in rhetoric and rhythm as the Declaration\nof Independence.\n\nPaine was the first man to write these words, \"The United States of\nAmerica.\" He was the first great champion of absolute separation\nfrom England. He was the first to urge the adoption of a Federal\nConstitution; and, more clearly than any other man of his time, he\nperceived the future greatness of this country.\n\nHe has been blamed for his attack on Washington. The truth is, he was\nin prison in France. He had committed the crime of voting, against the\nexecution of the king It was the grandest act of his life, but at that\ntime to be merciful was criminal. Paine; being an American citizen,\nasked Washington, then President, to say a word to Robespierre in\nhis behalf. Washington remained silent. In the calmness of power, the\nserenity, of fortune, Washington the President, read the request of\nPaine, the prisoner, and with the complacency of assured fame, consigned\nto the wastebasket of forgetfulness the patriot's cry for help.\n    \"Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back,\n    Wherein he puts alms for oblivion,\n    A great-sized monster of ingratitudes.\n    Those scraps are good deeds past, which are devour'd\n    As fast as they are made, forgot as soon\n    As done.\"\n\nIn this controversy, my sympathies are with the prisoner.\n\nPaine did more to free the mind, to destroy the power of ministers and\npriests in the New World, than any other man. In order to answer his\narguments, the churches found it necessary to attack his character.\nThere was a general resort to falsehood. In trying to destroy the\nreputation of Paine, the churches have demoralized themselves. Nearly\nevery minister has been a willing witness against the truth. Upon the\ngrave of Thomas Paine, the churches of America have sacrificed their\nhonor. The influence of the Hero author increases every day, and there\nare more copies of the \"Age of Reason\" sold in the United States, than\nof any work written in defence of the Christian religion. Hypocrisy,\nwith its forked tongue, its envious and malignant heart, lies coiled\nupon the memory of Paine, ready to fasten its poisonous fangs in the\nreputation of any man who dares defend the great and generous dead.\n\nLeaving the dust and glory of revolutions, let us spend a moment of\nquiet with Adam Smith. I was glad to find that a man's ideas upon the\nsubject of protection and free trade depend almost entirely upon the\ncountry in which he lives, or the business in which he happens to\nbe engaged, and that, after all, each man regards the universe as a\ncircumference of which he is the center. It gratified me to learn that\neven Adam Smith was no exception to this rule, and that he regarded\nall \"protection as a hurtful and ignorant interference,\" except when\nexercised for the good of Great Britain. Owing to the fact that his\nnationality quarreled with his philosophy, he succeeded in writing\na book that is quoted with equal satisfaction by both parties. The\nprotectionists rely upon the exceptions he made for England, and the\nfree traders upon the doctrines laid down for other countries.\n\nHe seems to have reasoned upon the question of money precisely as we\nhave, of late years, in the United States; and he has argued both sides\nequally well. Poverty asks for inflation. Wealth is conservative, and\nalways says there is money enough.\n\nUpon the question of money, this volume contains the best thing I have\never read: \"The only mode of procuring the service of others, on any\nlarge scale, in the absence of money, is by force, which is slavery.\nMoney, by constituting a medium in which the smallest services can be\npaid for, substitutes wages for the lash, and renders the liberty of\nthe individual consistent with the maintenance and support of society.\"\nThere is more philosophy in that one paragraph than Adam Smith expresses\nin his whole work. It may truthfully be said, that without money,\nliberty is impossible. No one, whatever his views may be, can read the\narticle on Adam Smith without profit and delight.\n\nThe discussion of the money question is in every respect admirable, and\nis as candid as able. The world will sooner or later learn that there is\nnothing miraculous in finance; that money is a real and tangible thing,\na product of labor, serving not merely as a medium of exchange but as\na basis of credit as well; that it cannot be created by an act of the\nLegislature; that dreams cannot be coined, and that only labor, in some\nform, can put, upon the hand of want, Alladin's magic ring.\n\nAdam Smith wrote upon the wealth of nations, while Charles Fourier\nlabored for the happiness of mankind. In this country, few seem\nto understand communism. While here, it may be regarded as vicious\nidleness, armed with the assassin's knife and the incendiary's torch, in\nEurope, it is a different thing. There, it is a reaction from Feudalism.\nNobility is communism in its worst possible form. Nothing can be worse\nthan for idleness to eat the bread of industry. Communism in Europe\nis not the \"stand and deliver\" of the robber, but the protest of the\nrobbed. Centuries ago, kings and priests, that is to say, thieves and\nhypocrites, divided Europe among themselves. Under this arrangement, the\nfew were masters and the many slaves. Nearly every government in the\nOld World rests upon simple brute force. It is hard for the many to\nunderstand why the few should own the soil. Neither can they clearly\nsee why they should give their brain and blood to those who steal their\nbirthright and their bread. It has occurred to them that they who do the\nmost should not receive the least, and that, after all, an industrious\npeasant is of far more value to the world than a vain and idle king.\n\nThe Communists of France, blinded as they were, made the Republic\npossible. Had they joined with their countrymen, the invaders would have\nbeen repelled, and some Napoleon would still have occupied the throne.\nSocialism perceives that Germany has been enslaved by victory, while\nFrance found liberty in defeat. In Russia the Nihilists prefer chaos to\nthe government of the bayonet, Siberia and the knout, and these intrepid\nmen have kept upon the coast of despotism one beacon fire of hope.\n\nAs a matter of fact, every society is a species of communism—a kind\nof co-operation in which selfishness, in spite of itself, benefits the\ncommunity. Every industrious man adds to the wealth, not only of his\nnation, but to that of the world. Every inventor increases human power,\nand every sculptor, painter and poet adds to the value of human life.\nFourier, touched by the sufferings of the poor as well as by the barren\njoys of hoarded wealth, and discovering the vast advantages of combined\neffort, and the immense economy of co-operation, sought to find some way\nfor men to help themselves by helping each other. He endeavored to do\naway with monopoly and competition, and to ascertain some method by\nwhich the sensuous, the moral, and the intellectual passions of man\ncould be gratified.\n\nFor my part I can place no confidence in any system that does away, or\ntends to do away, with the institution of marriage. I can conceive of no\ncivilization of which the family must not be the unit.\n\nSocieties cannot be made; they must grow. Philosophers may predict, but\nthey cannot create. They may point out as many ways as they please; but\nafter all, humanity will travel in paths of its own.\n\nFourier sustained about the same relation to this world that Swedenborg\ndid to the other. There must be something wrong about the brain of one\nwho solemnly asserts that, \"the elephant, the ox and the diamond, were\ncreated by the sun; the horse, the lily and the ruby, by Saturn; the\ncow, the jonquil and the topaz by Jupiter; and the dog, the violet and\nthe opal stones by the earth itself.\"\n\nAnd yet, forgetting these aberrations of the mind, this lunacy of a\ngreat and loving soul, for one, I hold in tender-est regard the memory\nof Charles Fourier, one of the best and noblest of our race.\n\nWhile Fourier was in his cradle, Jeremy Bentham, who read history when\nthree years old, played on the violin at five, \"and at fifteen detected\nthe fallacies of Blackstone,\" was demonstrating that the good was the\nuseful; that a thing was right because it paid in the highest and best\nsense; that utility was the basis of morals; that without allowing\ninterest to be paid upon money commerce could not exist; and that\nthe object of all human governments should be to secure the greatest\nhappiness of the greatest number. He read Hume and Helvetius, threw away\nthe Thirty-nine Articles, and endeavored to impress upon the English\nLaw the fact that its ancestor was a feudal savage. He held the past in\ncontempt, hated Westminster and despised Oxford. He combated the\nidea that governments were originally founded on contract. Locke and\nBlackstone talked as though men originally lived apart, and formed\nsocieties by agreement. These writers probably imagined that at one time\nthe trees were separated like telegraph poles, and finally came together\nand made groves by agreement. I believe that it was Pufendorf who said\nthat slavery was originally founded on contract. To which Voltaire\nreplied:—\"If my lord Pufendorf will produce the original contract\nsigned by the party who was to be the slave, I will admit the truth of\nhis statement.\"\n\nA contract back of society is a myth manufactured by those in power to\nserve as a title to place, and to impress the multitude with the\nidea that they are, in some mysterious way, bound, fettered, and even\nbenefited by its terms.\n\nThe glory of Bentham is, that he gave the true basis of morals, and\nfurnished statesmen with the star and compass of this sentence:—\"The\ngreatest happiness of the greatest number.\"\n\nMost scientists have deferred to the theologians. They have admitted\nthat some questions could not, at present, be solved. These admissions\nhave been thankfully received by the clergy, who have always begged for\nsome curtain to be left, behind which their God could still exist. Men\ncalling themselves \"scientific\" have tried to harmonize the \"apparent\"\ndiscrepancies between the Bible and the other works of Jehovah. In\nthis way they have made reputations. They were at once quoted by\nthe ministers as wonderful examples of piety and learning. These men\ndiscounted the future that they might enjoy the ignorant praise of the\npresent. Agassiz preferred the applause of Boston, while he lived, to\nthe reverence of a world after he was dead. Small men appear great only\nwhen they agree with the multitude.\n\nThe last Scientific Congress in America was opened with prayer. Think\nof a science that depends upon the efficacy of words addressed to the\nUnknown and Unknowable!\n\nIn our country, most of the so-called scientists are professors in\nsectarian colleges, in which Moses is considered a geologist, and\nJoshua an astronomer. For the most part their salaries depend upon\nthe ingenuity with which they can explain away facts and dodge\ndemonstration.\n\nThe situation is about the same in England. When Mr. Huxley saw fit to\nattack the Mosaic account of the creation, he did not deem it advisable\nto say plainly what he meant. He attacked the account of creation as\ngiven by Milton, although he knew that the Mosaic and Miltonic were\nsubstantially the same. Science has acted like a guest without a wedding\ngarment, and has continually apologized for existing. In the presence\nof arrogant absurdity, overawed by the patronizing airs of a successful\ncharlatan, it has played the role of a \"poor relation,\" and accepted,\nwhile sitting below the salt, insults as honors.\n\nThere can be no more pitiable sight than a scientist in the employ of\nsuperstition dishonoring himself without assisting his master. But there\nare a multitude of brave and tender men who give their honest thoughts,\nwho are true to nature, who give the facts and let consequences shirk\nfor themselves, who know the value and meaning of a truth, and who have\nbravely tried the creeds by scientific tests.\n\nAmong the bravest, side by side with the greatest of the world, in\nGermany, the land of science, stands Ernst Haeckel, who may be said\nto have not only demonstrated the theories of Darwin, but the Monistic\nconception of the world. Rejecting all the puerile ideas of a personal\nCreator, he has had the courage to adopt the noble words of Bruno:—\"A\nspirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but it contains a\npart of the divine substance within itself, by which it is animated.\" He\nhas endeavored—and I think with complete success—to show that there is\nnot, and never was, and never can be the Creator of anything. There\nis no more a personal Creator than there is a personal destroyer. Matter\nand force must have existed from eternity, all generation must have been\nspontaneous, and the simplest organisms must have been the ancestors of\nthe most perfect and complex.\n\nHaeckel is one of the bitterest enemies of the church, and is,\ntherefore, one of the bravest friends of man.\n\nCatholicism was, at one time, the friend of education—of an education\nsufficient to make a Catholic out of a barbarian. Protestantism was also\nin favor of education—of an education sufficient to make a Protestant\nout of a Catholic. But now, it having been demonstrated that real\neducation will make Freethinkers, Catholics and Protestants both are the\nenemies of true learning.\n\nIn all countries where human beings are held in bondage, it is a crime\nto teach a slave to read and write. Masters know that education is an\nabolitionist, and theologians know that science is the deadly foe of\nevery creed in Christendom.\n\nIn the age of Faith, a personal god stood at the head of every\ndepartment of ignorance, and was supposed to be the King of kings, the\nrewarder and punisher of individuals, and the governor of nations.\n\nThe worshipers of this god have always regarded the men in love with\nsimple facts, as Atheists in disguise. And it must be admitted that\nnothing is more Atheistic than a fact. Pure science is necessarily\ngodless, It is incapable of worship. It investigates, and cannot afford\nto shut its eyes even long enough to pray. There was a time when those\nwho disputed the divine right of kings were denounced as blasphemous;\nbut the time came when liberty demanded that a personal god should be\nretired from politics. In our country this was substantially done in\n1776, when our fathers declared that all power to govern came from\nthe consent of the governed. The cloud-theory was abandoned, and one\ngovernment has been established for the benefit of mankind. Our fathers\ndid not keep God out of the Constitution from principle, but from\njealousy. Each church, in colonial times, preferred to live in single\nblessedness rather than see some rival wedded to the state. Mutual\nhatred planted our tree of religious liberty. A constitution without a\ngod has at last given us a nation without a slave.\n\nA personal god sustains the same relation to religion as to politics.\nThe Deity is a master, and man a serf; and this relation is inconsistent\nwith true progress. The Universe ought to be a pure democracy—an\ninfinite republic without a tyrant and without a chain.\n\nAuguste Comte endeavored to put humanity in the place of Jehovah, and no\nconceivable change can be more desirable than this. This great man did\nnot, like some of his followers, put a mysterious something called law\nin the place of God, which is simply giving the old master a new name.\nLaw is this side of phenomena, not the other. It is not the cause,\nneither is it the result of phenomena. The fact of succession and\nresemblance, that is to say, the same thing happening under the same\nconditions, is all we mean by law. No one can conceive of a law\nexisting apart from matter, or controlling matter, any more than he can\nunderstand the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, or motion apart\nfrom substance. We are beginning to see that law does not, and cannot\nexist as an entity, but that it is only a conception of the mind to\nexpress the fact that the same entities, under the same conditions,\nproduce the same results. Law does not produce the entities, the\nconditions, or the results, or even the sameness of the results.\nNeither does it affect the relations of entities, nor the result of such\nrelations, but it stands simply for the fact that the same causes, under\nthe same conditions, eternally have produced and eternally will produce\nthe same results.\n\nThe metaphysicians are always giving us explanations of phenomena which\nare as difficult to understand as the phenomena they seek to explain;\nand the believers in God establish their dogmas by miracles, and then\nsubstantiate the miracles by assertion.\n\nThe Designer of the teleologist, the First Cause of the religious\nphilosopher, the Vital Force of the biologist, and the law of the\nhalf-orthodox scientist, are all the shadowy children of ignorance and\nfear.\n\nThe Universe is all there is. It is both subject and object;\ncontemplator and contemplated; creator and created; destroyer and\ndestroyed; preserver and preserved; and within itself are all causes,\nmodes, motions and effects.\n\nUnable in some things to rise above the superstitions of his day,\nComte adopted not only the machinery, but some of the prejudices, of\nCatholicism. He made the mistake of Luther. He tried to reform the\nChurch of Rome. Destruction is the only reformation of which that church\nis capable. Every religion is based upon a misconception, not only of\nthe cause of phenomena, but of the real object of life; that is to say,\nupon falsehood; and the moment the truth is known and understood, these\nreligions must fall. In the field of thought, they are briers, thorns,\nand noxious weeds; on the shores of intellectual discovery, they are\nsirens, and in the forests that the brave thinkers are now penetrating,\nthey are the wild beasts, fanged and monstrous.\n\nYou cannot reform these weeds. Sirens cannot be changed into good\ncitizens; and such wild beasts, even when tamed, are of no possible use.\nDestruction is the only remedy. Reformation is a hospital where the new\nphilosophy exhausts its strength nursing the old religion.\n\nThere was, in the brain of the great Frenchman, the dawn of that happy\nday in which humanity will be the only religion, good the only god,\nhappiness the only object, restitution the only atonement, mistake the\nonly sin, and affection, guided by intelligence, the only savior of\nmankind. This dawn enriched his poverty, illuminated the darkness of\nhis life, peopled his loneliness with the happy millions yet to be, and\nfilled his eyes with proud and tender tears.\n\nA few years ago I asked the superintendent of Pere La Chaise if he knew\nwhere I could find the tomb of Auguste Comte. He had never heard even\nthe name of the author of the \"Positive Philosophy.\" I asked him if\nhe had ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte. In a half-insulted tone,\nhe replied, \"Of course I have, why do you ask me such a question?\"\n\"Simply,\" was my answer, \"that I might have the opportunity of saying,\nthat when everything connected with Napoleon, except his crimes, shall\nhave been forgotten, Auguste Comte will be lovingly remembered as a\nbenefactor of the human race.\"\n\nThe Jewish God must be dethroned! A personal Deity must go back to\nthe darkness of barbarism from whence he came. The theologians must\nabdicate, and popes, priests, and clergymen, labeled as \"extinct\nspecies,\" must occupy the mental museums of the future.\n\nIn my judgment, this book, filled with original thought, will hasten the\ncoming of that blessed time.\n\nWashington, D. C., Nov. 29,1879.\n\nPreface to Dr. Edgar C. Beall's \"the Brain and the Bible.\"\n\nTHIS book, written by a brave and honest man, is filled with brave and\nhonest thoughts. The arguments it presents can not be answered by all\nthe theologians in the world. The author is convinced that the universe\nis natural, that man is naturally produced, and that there is a\nnecessary relation between character and brain. He sees, and clearly\nsees, that the theological explanation of phenomena is only a plausible\nabsurdity, and, at best, as great a mystery as it tries to solve. I\nthank the man who breaks, or tries to break, the chains of custom,\ncreed, and church, and gives in plain, courageous words, the product of\nhis brain.\n\nIt is almost impossible to investigate any subject without somewhere\ntouching the religious prejudices of ourselves or others. Most people\njudge of the truth of a proposition by the consequences upon some\npreconceived opinion. Certain things they take as truths, and with this\nlittle standard in their minds, they measure all other theories. If\nthe new facts do not agree with the standard, they are instantly thrown\naway, because it is much easier to dispose of the new facts than to\nreconstruct an entire philosophy.\n\nA few years ago, when men began to say that character could be\ndetermined by the form, quantity, and quality of the brain, the\nreligious world rushed to the conclusion that this fact might destroy\nwhat they were pleased to call the free moral agency of man. They\nadmitted that all things in the physical world were links in the\ninfinite chain of causes and effects, and that not one atom of the\nmaterial universe could, by any possibility, be entirely exempt from\nthe action of every other. They insisted that, if the motions of the\nspirit—the thoughts, dreams, and conclusions of the brain, were as\nnecessarily produced as stones and stars, virtue became necessity, and\nmorality the result of forces capable of mathematical calculation.\nIn other words, they insisted that, while there were causes for all\nmaterial phenomena, a something called the Will sat enthroned above\nall law, and dominated the phenomena of the intellectual world. They\ninsisted that man was free; that he controlled his brain; that he was\nresponsible for thought as well as action; that the intellectual world\nof each man was a universe in which his will was king. They were\nafraid that phrenology might, in some way, interfere with the scheme of\nsalvation, or prevent the eternal torment of some erring soul.\n\nIt is insisted that man is free, and is responsible, because he knows\nright from wrong. But the compass does not navigate the ship; neither\ndoes it, in any way, of itself, determine the direction that is taken.\nWhen winds and waves are too powerful, the compass is of no importance.\nThe pilot may read it correctly, and may know the direction the ship\nought to take, but the compass is not a force. So men, blown by the\ntempests of passion, may have the intellectual conviction that\nthey should go another way; but, of what use, of what force, is the\nconviction?\n\nThousands of persons have gathered curious statistics for the purpose of\nshowing that man is absolutely dominated by his surroundings. By these\nstatistics is discovered what is called \"the law of average.\" They show\nthat there are about so many suicides in London every year, so many\nletters misdirected at Paris, so many men uniting themselves In marriage\nwith women older than themselves in Belgium, so many burglaries to one\nmurder in France, or so many persons driven insane by religion in the\nUnited States. It is asserted that these facts conclusively show\nthat man is acted upon; that behind each thought, each dream, is the\nefficient cause, and that the doctrine of moral responsibility has been\ndestroyed by statistics.\n\nBut, does the fact that about so many crimes are committed on the\naverage, in a given population, or that so many any things are done,\nprove that there is no freedom in human action?\n\nSuppose a population of ten thousand persons; and suppose, further, that\nthey are free, and that they have the usual wants of mankind. Is it not\nreasonable to say that they would act in some way? They certainly would\ntake measures to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. If these people\ndiffered in intellect, in surroundings, in temperament, in strength, it\nis reasonable to suppose that all would not be equally successful. Under\nsuch circumstances, may we not safely infer that, in a little while, if\nthe statistics were properly taken, a law of average would appear? In\nother words, free people would act; and, being different in mind, body,\nand circumstances, would not all act exactly alike. All would not be\nalike acted upon. The deviations from what might be thought wise, or\nright, would sustain such a relation to time and numbers that they could\nbe expressed by a law of average.\n\nIf this is true, the law of average does not establish necessity.\n\nBut, in my supposed case, the people, after all, are not free. They have\nwants. They are under the necessity of feeding, clothing, and sheltering\nthemselves. To the extent of their actual wants, they are not free.\nEvery limitation is a master. Every finite being is a prisoner, and no\nman has ever yet looked above or beyond the prison walls.\n\nOur highest conception of liberty is to be free from the dictation of\nfellow prisoners.\n\nTo the extent that we have wants, we are not free. To the extent that we\ndo not have wants, we do not act.\n\nIf we are responsible for our thoughts, we ought not only to know how\nthey are formed, but we ought to form them. If we are the masters of our\nown minds, we ought to be able to tell what we are going to think at any\nfuture time. Evidently, the food of thought—its very warp and woof—is\nfurnished through the medium of the senses. If we open our eyes, we\ncannot help seeing. If we do not stop our ears, we cannot help hearing.\nIf anything touches us, we feel it. The heart beats in spite of us.\nThe lungs supply themselves with air without our knowledge. The blood\npursues its old accustomed rounds, and all our senses act without our\nleave. As the heart beats, so the brain thinks. The will is not its\nking. As the blood flows, as the lungs expand, as the eyes see, as the\nears hear, as the flesh is sensitive to touch, so the brain thinks.\n\nI had a dream, in which I debated a question with a friend. I thought\nto myself: \"This is a dream, and yet I can not tell what my opponent is\ngoing to say. Yet, if it is a dream, I am doing the thinking for both\nsides, and therefore ought to know in advance what my friend will urge.\"\nBut, in a dream, there is some one who seems to talk to us. Our own\nbrain tells us news, and presents an unexpected thought. Is it not\npossible that each brain is a field where all the senses sow the seeds\nof thought? Some of these fields are mostly barren, poor, and hard,\nproducing only worthless weeds; and some grow sturdy oaks and stately\npalms; and some are like the tropic world, where plants and trees and\nvines seem royal children of the soil and sun.\n\nNothing seems more certain than that the capacity of a human being\ndepends, other things being equal, upon the amount, form, and quality\nof his brain. We also know that health, disposition, temperament,\noccupation, food, surroundings, ancestors, quality, form, and texture\nof the brain, determine what we call character. Man is, collectively and\nindividually, what his surroundings have made him. Nations differ from\neach other as greatly as individuals in the same nation. Nations depend\nupon soil, climate, geographical position, and countless other facts.\nShakespeare would have been impossible without the climate of England.\nThere is a direct relation between Hamlet and the Gulf Stream. Dr.\nDraper has shown that the great desert of Sahara made negroes possible\nin Africa. If the Caribbean Sea had been a desert, negroes might have\nbeen produced in America.\n\nAre the effects of climate upon man necessary effects? Is it possible\nfor man to escape them? Is he responsible for what he does as a\nconsequence of his surroundings? Is the mind dependent upon causes?\nDoes it act without cause? Is every thought a necessity? Can man choose\nwithout reference to any quality in the thing chosen?\n\nNo one will blame Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones for not writing like\nShakespeare. Should they be blamed for not acting like Christ? We say\nthat a great painter has genius. Is it not possible that a certain\ngenius is required to be what is called \"good\"? All men cannot be\ngreat. All men cannot be successful. Can all men be kind? Can all men be\nhonest?\n\nIt may be that a crime appears terrible in proportion as we realize\nits consequences. If this is true, morality may depend largely upon the\nimagination. Man cannot have imagination at will; that, certainly, is\na natural product. And yet, a man's action may depend largely upon the\nwant of imagination. One man may feel that he really wishes to kill\nanother. He may make preparations to commit the deed; and yet, his\nimagination may present such pictures of horror and despair; he may so\nvividly see the widow clasping the mangled corpse; he may so plainly\nhear the cries and sobs of orphans, while the clods fall upon the\ncoffin, that his hand is stayed. Another, lacking imagination, thirsting\nonly for revenge, seeing nothing beyond the accomplishment of the deed,\nburies, with blind-and thoughtless hate, the dagger in his victim's\nheart.\n\nMorality, for the most part, is the verdict of the majority.\nThis verdict depends upon the intelligence of the people; and the\nintelligence depends upon the amount, form, and quality of the average\nbrain.\n\nIf the mind depends upon certain organs for the expression of its\nthought, does it have thought independently of those organs? Is there\nany mind without brain? Does the mind think apart from the brain, and\nthen express its thought through the instrumentality of the brain?\nTheologians tell us that insanity is not a disease of the soul, but of\nthe brain; that the soul is perfectly untouched; but that the instrument\nwith which, and through which, it manifests itself, is impaired. The\nfact, however, seems to be, that the mind, the something that is the\nman, is unconscious of the fact that anything is out of order in the\nbrain. Insane people insist that they are sane.\n\nIf we should find a locomotive off the track, and the engineer using the\nproper appliances to put it back, we would say that the machine is\nout of order, but the engineer is not. But, if we found the locomotive\nupside down, with wheels in air, and the engineer insisting that it\nwas on the track, and never running better, we would then conclude\nthat something was wrong, not only with the locomotive, but with the\nengineer.\n\nWe are told in medical books of a girl, who, at about the age of nine\nyears, was attacked with some cerebral disease. When she recovered, she\nhad forgotten all she ever knew, and had to relearn the alphabet, and\nthe names of her parents and kindred. In this abnormal state, she was\nnot a good girl; in the normal state, she was. After having lived in the\nsecond state for several years, she went back to the first; and all she\nhad learned in the second state was forgotten, and all she had learned\nin the first was remembered.\n\nI believe she changed once more, and died in the abnormal state. In\nwhich of these states was she responsible? Were her thoughts and\nactions as free in one as in the other? It may be contended that, in her\ndiseased state, the mind or soul could not correctly express itself. If\nthis is so, it follows that, as no one is perfectly healthy, and as\nno one has a perfect brain, it is impossible that the soul should ever\ncorrectly express itself. Is the soul responsible for the defects of the\nbrain? Is it not altogether more rational to say, that what we call mind\ndepends upon the brain, and that the child—mind, inherits the defects\nof its parent—brain?\n\nAre certain physical conditions necessary to the production of what\nwe call virtuous actions? Is it possible for anything to be produced\nwithout what we call cause, and, if the cause was sufficient, was it not\nnecessarily produced? Do not most people mistake for freedom the right\nto examine their own chains? If morality depends upon conditions, should\nit not be the task of the great and good to discover such conditions?\nMay it not be possible so to understand the brain that we can stop\nproducing criminals?\n\nIt may be insisted that there is something produced by the brain besides\nthought—a something that takes cognizance of thoughts—a something\nthat weighs, compares, reflects and pronounces judgment. This something\ncannot find the origin of itself. Does it exist independently of the\nbrain? Is it merely a looker-on? If it is a product of the brain, then\nits power, perception, and judgment depend upon the quantity, form, and\nquality of the brain.\n\nMan, including all his attributes, must have been necessarily produced,\nand the product was the child of conditions.\n\nMost reformers have infinite confidence in creeds, resolutions, and\nlaws. They think of the common people as raw material, out of which\nthey propose to construct institutions and governments, like mechanical\ncontrivances, where each person will stand for a cog, rope, wheel,\npulley, bolt, or fuel, and the reformers will be the managers and\ndirectors. They forget that these cogs and wheels have opinions of their\nown; that they fall out with other cogs, and refuse to turn with other\nwheels; that the pulleys and ropes have ideas peculiar to themselves,\nand delight in mutiny and revolution. These reformers have theories that\ncan only be realized when other people have none.\n\nSome time, it will be found that people can be changed only by changing\ntheir surroundings. It is alleged that, at least ninety-five per cent.\nof the criminals transported from England to Australia and other penal\ncolonies, became good and useful citizens in a new world. Free from\nformer associates and associations, from the necessities of a hard,\ncruel, and competitive civilization, they became, for the most part,\nhonest people. This immense fact throws more light upon social questions\nthan all the theories of the world. All people are not able to support\nthemselves. They lack intelligence, industry, cunning—in short,\ncapacity. They are continually falling by the way. In the midst of\nplenty, they are hungry. Larceny is born of want and opportunity. In\npassion's storm, the will is wrecked upon the reefs and rocks of crime.\n\nThe complex, tangled web of thought and dream, of perception and memory,\nof imagination and judgment, of wish and will and want—the woven wonder\nof a life—has never yet been raveled back to simple threads.\n\nShall we not become charitable and just, when we know that every act is\nbut condition's fruit; that Nature, with her countless hands, scatters\nthe seeds of tears and crimes—of every virtue and of every joy; that\nall the base and vile are victims of the Blind, and that the good and\ngreat have, in the lottery of life, by chance or fate, drawn heart and\nbrain?\n\nWashington, December 21, 1881.\n\nPreface to \"men, Women and Gods.\"\n\nNOTHING gives me more pleasure, nothing gives greater promise for the\nfuture, than the fact that woman is achieving intellectual and physical\nliberty.\n\nIt is refreshing to know that here, in our country, there are thousands\nof women who think, and express their thoughts—who are thoroughly\nfree and thoroughly conscientious—who have neither been narrowed nor\ncorrupted by a heartless creed—who do not worship a being in heaven\nwhom they would shudderingly loathe on earth—women who do not stand\nbefore the altar of a cruel faith, with downcast eyes of timid\nacquiescence, and pay to impudent authority the tribute of a thoughtless\nyes. They are no longer satisfied with being told. They examine for\nthemselves. They have ceased to be the prisoners of society—the\nsatisfied serfs of husbands, or the echoes of priests. They demand the\nrights that naturally belong to intelligent human beings. If wives, they\nwish to be the equals of husbands. If mothers, they wish to rear their\nchildren in the atmosphere of love, liberty and philosophy. They believe\nthat woman can discharge all her duties without the aid of superstition,\nand preserve all that is true, pure, and tender, without sacrificing in\nthe temple of absurdity the convictions of the soul.\n\nWoman is not the intellectual inferior of man. She has lacked, not mind,\nbut opportunity. In the long night of barbarism, physical strength and\nthe cruelty to use it, were the badges of superiority. Muscle was more\nthan mind. In the ignorant age of Faith, the loving nature of woman was\nabused. Her conscience was rendered morbid and diseased. It might almost\nbe said that she was betrayed by her own virtues. At best she secured,\nnot opportunity, but flattery—the preface to degradation. She was\ndeprived of liberty, and without that, nothing is worth the having. She\nwas taught to obey without question, and to believe without thought.\nThere were universities for men before the alphabet had been taught to\nwomen. At the intellectual feast, there were no places for wives and\nmothers. Even now they sit at the second table and eat the crusts and\ncrumbs. The schools for women, at the present time, are just far enough\nbehind those for men, to fall heirs to the discarded; on the same\nprinciple that when a doctrine becomes too absurd for the pulpit, it is\ngiven to the Sunday-school.\n\nThe ages of muscle and miracle—of fists and faith—are passing away.\nMinerva occupies at last a higher niche than Hercules. Now a word\nis stronger than a blow. At last we see women who depend upon\nthemselves—who stand, self poised, the shocks of this sad world,\nwithout leaning for support against a church—who do not go to the\nliterature of barbarism for consolation, or use the falsehoods and\nmistakes of the past for the foundation of their hope—women brave\nenough and tender enough to meet and bear the facts and fortunes of this\nworld.\n\nThe men who declare that woman is the intellectual inferior of man, do\nnot, and cannot, by offering themselves in evidence, substantiate their\ndeclaration.\n\nYet, I must admit that there are thousands of wives who still have\nfaith in the saving power of superstition—who still insist on attending\nchurch while husbands prefer the shores, the woods, or the fields. In\nthis way, families are divided. Parents grow apart, and unconsciously\nthe pearl of greatest price is thrown away. The wife ceases to be\nthe intellectual companion of the husband. She reads _The Christian\nRegister_, sermons in the Monday papers, and a little gossip about\nfolks and fashions, while he studies the works of Darwin, Haeckel, and\nHumboldt. Their sympathies become estranged. They are no longer mental\nfriends. The husband smiles at the follies of the wife, and she weeps\nfor the supposed sins of the husband. Such wives should read this book.\nThey should not be satisfied to remain forever in the cradle of thought,\namused with the toys of superstition.\n\nThe parasite of woman is the priest.\n\nIt must also be admitted that there are thousands of men who believe\nthat superstition is good for women and children—who regard falsehood\nas the fortress of virtue, and feel indebted to ignorance for the purity\nof daughters and the fidelity of wives. These men think of priests\nas detectives in disguise, and regard God as a policeman who prevents\nelopements. Their opinions about religion are as correct as their\nestimate of woman.\n\nThe church furnishes but little food for the mind. People of\nintelligence are growing tired of the platitudes of the pulpit—the\niterations of the itinerants. The average sermon is \"as tedious as a\ntwice told tale vexing the ears of a drowsy man.\"\n\nOne Sunday a gentleman, who is a great inventor, called at my house.\nOnly a few words had passed between us, when he arose, saying that he\nmust go as it was time for church. Wondering that a man of his mental\nwealth could enjoy the intellectual poverty of the pulpit, I asked for\nan explanation, and he gave me the following: \"You know that I am an\ninventor. Well, the moment my mind becomes absorbed in some difficult\nproblem, I am afraid that something may happen to distract my attention.\nNow, I know that I can sit in church for an hour without the slightest\ndanger of having the current of my thought disturbed.\"\n\nMost women cling to the Bible because they have been taught that to give\nup that book is to give up all hope of another life—of ever meeting\nagain the loved and lost. They have also been taught that the Bible is\ntheir friend, their defender, and the real civilizer of man.\n\nNow, if they will only read this book—these three lectures, without\nfear, and then read the Bible, they will see that the truth or falsity\nof the dogma of inspiration has nothing to do with the question of\nimmortality. Certainly the Old Testament does not teach us that there is\nanother life, and upon that question even the New is obscure and vague.\nThe hunger of the heart finds only a few small and scattered crumbs.\nThere is nothing definite, solid, and satisfying. United with the idea\nof immortality we find the absurdity of the resurrection. A prophecy\nthat depends for its fulfillment upon an impossibility, cannot satisfy\nthe brain or heart.\n\nThere are but few who do not long for a dawn beyond the night. And\nthis longing is born of and nourished by the heart. Love wrapped in\nshadow—bending with tear-filled eyes above its dead, convulsively\nclasps the outstretched hand of hope.\n\nI had the pleasure of introducing Miss Gardener to her first audience,\nand in that introduction said a few words that I will repeat.\n\n\"We do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the\nbeginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the\nfolding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless\nlife that brings the rapture of love to every one.\n\n\"Under the seven-hued arch of hope let the dead sleep.\"\n\nThey will also discover, as they read the \"Sacred Volume,\" that it is\nnot the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book,\nfor the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a\ndrudge, a kind of necessary evil—as mere property. Surely, a book that\nupholds polygamy is not the friend of wife and mother.\n\nEven Christ did not place woman on an equality with man. He said not\none word about the sacredness of home, the duties of the husband to the\nwife—nothing calculated to lighten the hearts of those who bear the\nsaddest burdens of this life.\n\nThey will also find that the Bible has not civilized mankind. A book\nthat establishes and defends slavery and wanton war is not calculated to\nsoften the hearts of those who believe implicitly that it is the work of\nGod. A book that not only permits, but commands, religious persecution,\nhas not, in my judgment, developed the affectional nature of man.\nIts influence has been bad and bad only. It has filled the world with\nbitterness, revenge and crime, and retarded in countless ways the\nprogress of our race.\n\nThe writer of this volume has read the Bible with open eyes. The mist\nof sentimentality has not clouded her vision. She has had the courage\nto tell the result of her investigations. She has been quick to discover\ncontradictions. She appreciates the humorous side of the stupidly\nsolemn. Her heart protests against the cruel, and her brain rejects the\nchildish, the unnatural and absurd. There is no misunderstanding between\nher head and heart. She says what she thinks, and feels what she says.\n\nNo human being can answer her arguments. There is no answer. All the\npriests in the world cannot explain away her objections. There is no\nexplanation. They should remain dumb, unless they can show that the\nimpossible is the probable—that slavery is better than freedom—that\npolygamy is the friend of woman—that the innocent can justly suffer for\nthe guilty, and that to persecute for opinion's sake is an act of love\nand worship.\n\nWives who cease to learn—who simply forget and believe—will fill the\nevening of their lives with barren sighs and bitter tears.\n\nThe mind should outlast youth. If when beauty fades, Thought, the deft\nand unseen sculptor, hath not left his subtle lines upon the face,\nthen all is lost. No charm is left. The light is out. There is no flame\nwithin to glorify the wrinkled clay.\n\nHoffman House, New York, July, 22, 1885.\n\nPreface to \"for Her Daily Bread.\"\n\nI HAVE read, this story, this fragment of a life mingled with fragments\nof other lives, and have been pleased, interested, and instructed. It\nis filled with the pathos of truth, and has in it the humor that\naccompanies actual experience. It has but little to do with the world\nof imagination; certain feelings are not attributed to persons born\nof fancy, but it is the history of a heart and brain interested in the\ncommon things of life. There are no kings, no lords, no titled ladies,\nbut there are real people, the people of the shop and street whom every\nreader knows, and there are lines intense and beautiful, and scenes\nthat touch the heart. You will find no theories of government, no hazy\noutlines of reform, nothing but facts and folks, as they have been, as\nthey are, and probably will be for many centuries to come.\n\nIf you read this book you will be convinced that men and women are good\nor bad, charitable or heartless, by reason of something within, and not\nby virtue of any name they bear, or any trade or profession they follow,\nor of any creed they may accept. You will also find that men sometimes\nare honest and mean; that women may be very virtuous and very cruel;\nthat good, generous and sympathetic men are often disreputable, and that\nsome exceedingly worthy citizens are extremely mean and uncomfortable\nneighbors.\n\nIt takes a great deal of genius and a good deal of selfdenial to be\nvery bad or to be very good. Few people understand the amount of energy,\nindustry, and self-denial it requires to be consistently vicious. People\nwho have a pride in being good and fail, and those who have a pride in\nbeing bad and fail, in order to make their records consistent generally\nrely upon hypocrisy. The people that live and hope and fear in this\nbook, are much like the people who live and hope and fear in the actual\nworld. The professor is much like the professor in the ordinary college.\nYou will find the conscientious, half-paid teacher, the hopeful poor,\nthe anxious rich, the true lover, the stingy philanthropist, who cares\nfor people only in the aggregate,—the individual atom being too small\nto attract his notice or to enlist his heart; the sympathetic man who\nloves himself, and gives, not for the sake of the beggar, but for\nthe sake of getting rid of the beggar, and you will also find the man\ngenerous to a fault—with the money of others. And the reader will find\nthese people described naturally, truthfully and without exaggeration,\nand he will feel certain that all these people have really lived.\n\nThe reader of this story will get some idea as to what is encountered\nby a girl in an honest effort to gain her daily bread. He will find how\nsteep, how devious and how difficult is the path she treads.\n\nThere are so few occupations open to woman, so few things in which she\ncan hope for independence, that to be thrown upon her own resources\nis almost equivalent to being cast away. Besides, she is an object of\ncontinual suspicion, watched not only by men but by women. If she does\nanything that other women are not doing, she is at once suspected,\nher reputation is touched, and other women, for fear of being stained\nthemselves, withdraw not only the hand of help, but the smile of\nrecognition. A young woman cannot defend herself without telling the\ncharge that has been made against her. This, of itself, gives a kind of\ncurrency to slander. To speak of the suspicion that has crawled across\nher path, is to plant the seeds of doubt in other minds; to even deny\nit, admits that it exists. To be suspected, that is enough. There is no\nway of destroying this suspicion. There is no court in which suspicions\nare tried; no juries that can render verdicts of not guilty. Most women\nare driven at last to the needle, and this does not allow them to live;\nit simply keeps them from dying.\n\nIt is hard to appreciate the dangers and difficulties that lie in wait\nfor woman. Even in this Christian country of ours, no girl is safe in\nthe streets of any city after the sun has gone down. After all, the sun\nis the only god that has ever protected woman. In the darkness she has\nbeen the prey of the wild beast in man.\n\nNearly all charitable people, so-called, imagine that nothing is easier\nthan to obtain work. They really feel that anybody, no matter what his\ncircumstances may be, can get work enough to do if he is only willing to\ndo the work. They cannot understand why any healthy human being should\nlack food or clothes. Meeting the unfortunate and the wretched in the\nstreets of the great city, they ask them in a kind of wondering way, why\nthey do not go to the West, why they do not cultivate the soil, and why\nthey are so foolish, stupid, and reckless as to remain in the town. It\nwould be just as sensible to ask a beggar why he does not start a bank\nor a line of steamships, as to ask him why he does not cultivate the\nsoil, or why he does not go to the West. The man has no money to pay his\nfare, and if his fare were paid he would be, when he landed in the\nWest, in precisely the same condition as he was when he left the East.\nSocieties and institutions and individuals supply the immediate wants\nof the hungry and the ragged, but they afford only the relief of the\nmoment.\n\nArticles by the thousand have been written for the purpose of showing\nthat women should become servants in houses, and the writers of these\narticles are filled with astonishment that any girl should hesitate to\nenter domestic service. They tell us that nearly every family needs a\ngood cook, a good chambermaid, a good sweeper of floors and washer of\ndishes, a good stout girl to carry the baby and draw the wagon, and\nthese good people express the greatest astonishment that all girls\nare not anxious to become domestics. They tell them that they will be\nsupplied with good food, that they will have comfortable beds and warm\nclothing, and they ask, \"What more do you want?\" These people have\nnot, however, solved the problem. If girls, as a rule, keep away from\nkitchens and chambers, if they hate to be controlled by other women,\nthere must be a reason. When we see a young woman prefer a clerkship in\na store,—a business which keeps her upon her feet all day, and sends\nher to her lonely room, filled with weariness and despair, and when we\nsee other girls who are willing to sew for a few cents a day rather than\nbecome the maid of \"my lady,\" there must be some reason, and this reason\nmust be deemed sufficient by the persons who are actuated by it. What is\nit?\n\nEvery human being imagines that the future has something in store for\nhim. It is natural to build these castles in Spain. It is natural for\na girl to dream of being loved by the noble, by the superb, and it is\nnatural for the young man to dream of success, of a home, of a good, a\nbeautiful and loving wife. These dreams are the solace of poverty; they\nkeep back the tears in the eyes of the young and the hungry. To engage\nin any labor that degrades, in any work that leaves a stain, in any\nbusiness the mention of which is liable to redden the cheek, seems to be\na destruction of the foundation of hope, a destruction of the future; it\nseems to be a crucifixion of his or her better self. It assassinates the\nideal.\n\nIt may be said that labor is noble, that work is a kind of religion, and\nwhoever says this tells the truth, But after all, what has the truth\nto do with this question? What is the opinion of society?—What is the\nresult? It cures no wound to say that it was wrongfully inflicted.\nThe opinion of sensible people is one way, the action of society is\ninconsistent with that opinion. Domestic servants are treated as\nthough their employment was and is a degradation. Bankers, merchants,\nprofessional men, ministers of the gospel, do not want their sons\nto become the husbands of chambermaids and cooks. Small hands are\nbeautiful; they do not tell of labor.\n\nI have given one reason; there is another. The work of a domestic is\nnever done. She is liable to be called at any moment, day or night. She\nhas no time that she can call her own. A woman who works by the piece\ncan take a little rest; if she is a clerk she has certain hours of labor\nand the rest of the day is her own.\n\nAnd there is still another reason that I almost hate to give, and that\nis this: As a rule, woman is exacting with woman. As a rule, woman does\nnot treat woman as well as man treats man, or as well as man treats\nwoman. There are many other reasons, but I have given enough.\n\nFor many years, women have been seeking employment other than that of\ndomestic service. They have so hated this occupation, that they have\nsought in every possible direction for other ways to win their bread.\nAt last hundreds of employments are open to them, and, as a consequence,\ndomestic servants are those who can get nothing else to do.\n\nIn the olden time, servants sat at the table with the family; they were\ntreated something like human beings, harshly enough to be sure, but\nin many cases almost as equals. Now the kitchen is far away from the\nparlor. It is another world, occupied by individuals of a different\nrace. There is no bond of sympathy—no common ground. This is especially\ntrue in a Republic. In the Old World, people occupying menial places\naccount for their positions by calling attention to the laws—to the\nhereditary nobility and the universal spirit of caste. Here, there are\nno such excuses. All are supposed to have equal opportunities, and those\nwho are compelled to labor for their daily bread, in avocations that\nrequire only bodily strength, are regarded as failures. It is this fact\nthat stabs like a knife. And yet in the conclusion drawn, there is but\nlittle truth. Some of the noblest and best pass their lives in daily\ndrudgery and unremunerative toil—while many of the mean, vicious and\nstupid reach place and power.\n\nThis story is filled with sympathy for the destitute, for the\nstruggling, and tends to keep the star of hope above the horizon of the\nunfortunate. After all, we know but little of the world, and have but a\nfaint conception of the burdens that are borne, and of the courage and\nheroism displayed by the unregarded poor. Let the rich read these pages;\nthey will have a kinder feeling toward those who toil; let the workers\nread them, and they will think better of themselves.\n\nPreface to \"agnosticism and Other Essays.\"\n\nI.\n\nEDGAR FAWCETT—a great poet, a metaphysician and logician—has been for\nyears engaged in exploring that strange world wherein are supposed to\nbe the springs of human action. He has sought for something back of\nmotives, reasons, fancies, passions, prejudices, and the countless tides\nand tendencies that constitute the life of man.\n\nHe has found some of the limitations of mind, and knows that beginning\nat that luminous centre called consciousness, a few short steps bring\nus to the prison wall where vision fails and all light dies. Beyond this\nwall the eternal darkness broods. This gloom is \"the other world\" of the\nsupernaturalist. With him, real vision begins where the sight fails. He\nreverses the order of nature. Facts become illusions, and illusions the\nonly realities. He believes that the cause of the image, the reality, is\nbehind the mirror.\n\nA few centuries ago the priests said to their followers: The other world\nis above you; it is just beyond where you see. Afterward, the astronomer\nwith his telescope looked, and asked the priests: Where is the world\nof which you speak? And the priests replied: It has receded—it is just\nbeyond where you see.\n\nAs long as there is \"a beyond,\" there is room for the priests' world.\nTheology is the geography of this beyond.\n\nBetween the Christian and the Agnostic there is the difference of\nassertion and question—between \"There is a God\" and \"Is there a\nGod?\" The Agnostic has the arrogance to admit his ignorance, while the\nChristian from the depths of humility impudently insists that he knows.\n\nMr. Fawcett has shown that at the root of religion lies the coiled\nserpent of fear, and that ceremony, prayer, and worship are ways and\nmeans to gain the assistance or soften the heart of a supposed deity.\n\nHe also shows that as man advances in knowledge he loses confidence in\nthe watchfulness of Providence and in the efficacy of prayer.\n\nII. Science.\n\nThe savage is certain of those things that cannot be known. He is\nacquainted with origin and destiny, and knows everything except that\nwhich is useful. The civilized man, having outgrown the ignorance, the\narrogance, and the provincialism of savagery, abandons the vain search\nfor final causes, for the nature and origin of things.\n\nIn nearly every department of science man is allowed to investigate, and\nthe discovery of a new fact is welcomed, unless it threatens some creed.\n\nOf course there can be no advance in a religion established by infinite\nwisdom. The only progress possible is in the comprehension of this\nreligion.\n\nFor many generations, what is known under a vast number of disguises\nand behind many masks as the Christian religion, has been propagated\nand preserved by the sword and bayonet—that is to say, by force. The\ncredulity of man has been bribed and his reason punished. Those who\nbelieved without the slightest question, and whose faith held evidence\nin contempt, were saints; those who investigated were dangerous, and\nthose who denied were destroyed.\n\nEvery attack upon this religion has been made in the shadow of human and\ndivine hatred—in defiance of earth and heaven. At one time Christendom\nwas beneath the ignorant feet of one man, and those who denied his\ninfallibility were heretics and Atheists. At last, a protest was\nuttered. The right of conscience was proclaimed, to the extent of making\na choice between the infallible man and the infallible book. Those\nwho rejected the man and accepted the book became in their turn\nas merciless, as tyrannical and heartless, as the followers of the\ninfallible man. The Protestants insisted that an infinitely wise and\ngood God would not allow criminals and wretches to act as his infallible\nagents.\n\nAfterward, a few protested against the infallibility of the book, using\nthe same arguments against the book that had formerly been used against\nthe pope. They said that an infinitely wise and good God could not be\nthe author of a cruel and ignorant book. But those who protested against\nthe book fell into substantially the same error that had been fallen\ninto by those who had protested against the man. While they denounced\nthe book, and insisted that an infinitely wise and good being could not\nhave been its author, they took the ground that an infinitely wise and\ngood being was the creator and governor of the world.\n\nThen was used against them the same argument that had been used by the\nProtestants against the pope and by the Deists against the Protestants.\nAttention was called to the fact that Nature is as cruel as any pope or\nany book—that it is just as easy to account for the destruction of the\nCanaanites consistently with the goodness of Jehovah as to account for\npestilence, earthquake, and flood consistently with the goodness of the\nGod of Nature.\n\nThe Protestant and Deist both used arguments against the Catholic that\ncould in turn be used with equal force against themselves. So that there\nis no question among intelligent people as to the infallibility of the\npope, as to the inspiration of the book, or as to the existence of the\nChristian's God—for the conclusion has been reached that the human mind\nis incapable of deciding as to the origin and destiny of the universe.\n\nFor many generations the mind of man has been traveling in a circle. It\naccepted without question the dogma of a First Cause—of the existence\nof a Creator—of an Infinite Mind back of matter, and sought in many\nways to define its ignorance in this behalf. The most sincere worshipers\nhave declared that this being is incomprehensible,—that he is \"without\nbody, parts, or passions\"—that he is infinitely beyond their grasp, and\nat the same time have insisted that it was necessary for man not only\nto believe in the existence of this being, but to love him with all his\nheart.\n\nChristianity having always been in partnership with the state,—having\ncontrolled kings and nobles, judges and legislators—having been\nin partnership with armies and with every form of organized\ndestruction,—it was dangerous to discuss the foundation of its\nauthority. To speak lightly of any dogma was a crime punishable by\ndeath. Every absurdity has been bastioned and barricaded by the power of\nthe state. It has been protected by fist, by club, by sword and cannon.\n\nFor many years Christianity succeeded in substantially closing the\nmouths of its enemies, and lived and flourished only where investigation\nand discussion were prevented by hypocrisy and bigotry. The church still\ntalks about \"evidence,\" about \"reason,\" about \"freedom of conscience\"\nand the \"liberty of speech,\" and yet denounces those who ask for\nevidence, who appeal to reason, and who honestly express their thoughts.\n\nTo-day we know that the miracles of Christianity are as puerile and\nfalse as those ascribed to the medicine-men of Central Africa or the\nFiji Islanders, and that the \"sacred Scriptures\" have the same claim to\ninspiration that the Koran has, or the Book of Mormon—no less, no more.\nThese questions have been settled and laid aside by free and intelligent\npeople. They have ceased to excite interest; and the man who now really\nbelieves in the truth of the Old Testament is regarded with a smile—\nlooked upon as an aged child—still satisfied with the lullabys and toys\nof the cradle.\n\nIII. Morality.\n\nIt is contended that without religion—that is to say, without\nChristianity—all ideas of morality must of necessity perish, and that\nspirituality and reverence will be lost.\n\nWhat is morality?\n\nIs it to obey without question, or is it to act in accordance with\nperceived obligation? Is it something with which intelligence has\nnothing to do? Must the ignorant child carry out the command of the wise\nfather—the rude peasant rush to death at the request of the prince?\n\nIs it impossible for morality to exist where the brain and heart are\nin partnership? Is there no foundation for morality except punishment\nthreatened or reward promised by a superior to an inferior? If this be\ntrue, how can the superior be virtuous? Cannot the reward and the threat\nbe in the nature of things? Can they not rest in consequences perceived\nby the intellect? How can the existence or non-existence of a deity\nchange my obligation to keep my hands out of the fire?\n\nThe results of all actions are equally certain, but not equally known,\nnot equally perceived. If all men knew with perfect certainty that to\nsteal from another was to rob themselves, larceny would cease. It\ncannot be said too often that actions are good or bad in the light of\nconsequences, and that a clear perception of consequences would control\nactions. That which increases the sum of human happiness is moral; and\nthat which diminishes the sum of human happiness is immoral. Blind,\nunreasoning obedience is the enemy of morality. Slavery is not the\nfriend of virtue. Actions are neither right nor wrong by virtue of what\nmen or gods can say—the right or wrong lives in results—in the nature\nof things, growing out of relations violated or caused.\n\nAccountability lives in the nature of consequences—in their absolute\ncertainty—in the fact that they cannot be placated, avoided, or bribed.\n\nThe relations of human life are too complicated to be accurately and\nclearly understood, and, as a consequence, rules of action vary from age\nto age. The ideas of right and wrong change with the experience of\nthe race, and this change is wrought by the gradual ascertaining of\nconsequences—of results. For this reason the religion of one age fails\nto meet the standard of another, precisely as the laws that satisfied\nour ancestors are repealed by us; so that, in spite of all efforts,\nreligion itself is subject to gradual and perpetual change.\n\nThe miraculous is no longer the basis of morals. Man is a sentient\nbeing—he suffers and enjoys. In order to be happy he must preserve the\nconditions of well-being—must live in accordance with certain facts by\nwhich he is surrounded. If he violates these conditions the result is\nunhappiness, failure, disease, misery.\n\nMan must have food, roof, raiment, fireside, friends—that is to say,\nprosperity; and this he must earn—this he must deserve. He is no\nlonger satisfied with being a slave, even of the Infinite. He wishes to\nperceive for himself, to understand, to investigate, to experiment; and\nhe has at last the courage to bear the consequences that he brings upon\nhimself. He has also found that those who are the most religious are not\nalways the kindest, and that those who have been and are the worshipers\nof God enslave their fellow-men. He has found that there is no necessary\nconnection between religion and morality.\n\nMorality needs no supernatural assistance—needs neither miracle nor\npretence. It has nothing to do with awe, reverence, credulity, or blind,\nunreasoning faith. Morality is the highway perceived by the soul, the\ndirect road, leading to success, honor, and happiness.\n\nThe best thing to do under the circumstances is moral.\n\nThe highest possible standard is human. We put ourselves in the places\nof others. We are made happy by the kindness of others, and we feel that\na fair exchange of good actions is the wisest and best commerce. We know\nthat others can make us miserable by acts of hatred and injustice,\nand we shrink from inflicting the pain upon others that we have felt\nourselves; this is the foundation of conscience.\n\nIf man could not suffer, the words right and wrong could never have been\nspoken.\n\nThe Agnostic, the Infidel, clearly perceives the true basis of morals,\nand, so perceiving, he knows that the religious man, the superstitious\nman, caring more for God than for his fellows, will sacrifice his\nfellows, either at the supposed command of his God, or to win his\napprobation. He also knows that the religionist has no basis for morals\nexcept these supposed commands. The basis of morality with him lies not\nin the nature of things, but in the caprice of some deity. He seems to\nthink that, had it not been for the Ten Commandments, larceny and murder\nmight have been virtues.\n\nIV. Spirituality.\n\nWhat is it to be spiritual?\n\nIs this fine quality of the mind destroyed by the development of the\nbrain? As the domain wrested by science from ignorance increases—as\nisland after island and continent after continent are discovered—as\nstar after star and constellation after constellation in the\nintellectual world burst upon the midnight of ignorance, does the\nspirituality of the mind grow less and less? Like morality, is it only\nfound in the company of ignorance and superstition? Is the spiritual man\nhonest, kind, candid?—or dishonest, cruel and hypocritical? Does he\nsay what he thinks? Is he guided by reason? Is he the friend of the\nright?—the champion of the truth? Must this splendid quality called\nspirituality be retained through the loss of candor? Can we not\ntruthfully say that absolute candor is the beginning of wisdom?\n\nTo recognize the finer harmonies of conduct—to live to the ideal—to\nseparate the incidental, the evanescent, from the perpetual—to be\nenchanted with the perfect melody of truth—open to the influences of\nthe artistic, the beautiful, the heroic—to shed kindness as the sun\nsheds light—to recognize the good in others, and to include the world\nin the idea of self—this is to be spiritual.\n\nThere is nothing spiritual in the worship of the unknown and unknowable,\nin the self-denial of a slave at the command of a master whom he fears.\nFastings, prayings, mutilations, kneelings, and mortifications are\neither the results of, or result in, insanity.\n\nThis is the spirituality of Bedlam, and is of no kindred with the soul\nthat finds its greatest joy in the discharge of obligation perceived.\n\nV. Reverence.\n\nWhat is reverence?\n\nIt is the feeling produced when we stand in the presence of our ideal,\nor of that which most nearly approaches it—that which is produced by\nwhat we consider the highest degree of excellence.\n\nThe highest is reverenced, praised, and admired without qualification.\n\nEach man reverences according to his nature, his experience, his\nintellectual development. He may reverence' Nero or Marcus Aurelius,\nJehovah or Buddha, the author of Leviticus or Shakespeare. Thousands of\nmen reverence John Calvin, Torquemada, and the Puritan fathers; and some\nhave greater respect for Jonathan Edwards than for Captain Kidd.\n\nA vast number of people have great reverence for anything that is\ncovered by mould, or moss, or mildew. They bow low before rot and rust,\nand adore the worthless things that have been saved by the negligence of\noblivion.\n\nThey are enchanted with the dull and fading daubs of the old masters,\nand hold in contempt those miracles of art, the paintings of to-day.\n\nThey worship the ancient, the shadowy, the mysterious, the wonderful.\nThey doubt the value of anything that they understand.\n\nThe creed of Christendom is the enemy of morality. It teaches that the\ninnocent can justly suffer for the guilty, that consequences can be\navoided by repentance, and that in the world of mind the great fact\nknown as cause and effect does not apply.\n\nIt is the enemy of spirituality, because it teaches that credulity is of\nmore value than conduct, and because it pours contempt upon human love\nby raising far above it the adoration of a phantom.\n\nIt is the enemy of reverence. It makes ignorance the foundation of\nvirtue. It belittles the useful, and cheapens the noblest of! the\nvirtues. It teaches man to live on mental alms, and glorifies the\nintellectual pauper. It holds candor in contempt, and is the malignant\nfoe of mental manhood.\n\nVI. Existence of God.\n\nMr. Fawcett has shown conclusively that it is no easier to establish the\nexistence of an infinitely wise and good being by the existence of what\nwe call \"good\" than to establish the existence of an infinitely bad\nbeing by what we call \"bad.\"\n\nNothing can be surer than that the history of this world furnishes no\nfoundation on which to base an inference that it has been governed by\ninfinite wisdom and goodness. So terrible has been the condition of\nman, that religionists in all ages have endeavored to excuse God by\naccounting for the evils of the world by the wickedness of men. And the\nfathers of the Christian Church were forced to take the ground that this\nworld had been filled with briers and thorns, with deadly serpents\nand with poisonous weeds, with disease and crime and earthquake and\npestilence and storm, by the curse of God.\n\nThe probability is that no God has cursed, and that no God will bless,\nthis earth. Man suffers and enjoys according to conditions. The sun\nshines without love, and the lightning blasts without hate. Man is the\nProvidence of man.\n\nNature gives to our eyes all they can see, to our ears all they can\nhear, and to the mind what it can comprehend. The human race reaps the\nfruit of every victory won on the fields of intellectual or physical\nconflict. We have no right to expect something for nothing. Man will\nreap no harvest the seeds of which he has not sown.\n\nThe race must be guided by intelligence, must be free to investigate,\nand must have the courage and the candor not only to state what is\nknown, but to cheerfully admit the limitations of the mind.\n\nNo intelligent, honest man can read what Mr. Fawcett has written and\nthen say that he knows the origin and destiny of things—that he knows\nwhether an infinite Being exists or not, and that he knows whether the\nsoul of man is or is not immortal.\n\nIn the land of————, the geography of which is not certainly known,\nthere was for many years a great dispute among the inhabitants as to\nwhich road led to the city of Miragia, the capital of their country, and\nknown to be the most delightful city on the earth. For fifty generations\nthe discussion as to which road led to the city had been carried on with\nthe greatest bitterness, until finally the people were divided into a\ngreat number of parties, each party claiming that the road leading\nto the city had been miraculously made known to the founder of that\nparticular sect. The various parties spent most of their time putting up\nguide-boards on these roads and tearing down the guide-boards of others.\nHundreds of thousands had been killed, prisons were filled, and the\nfields had been ravaged by the hosts of war.\n\nOne day, a wise man, a patriot, wishing to bring peace to his country,\nmet the leaders of the various sects and asked them whether it was\nabsolutely certain that the city of Miragia existed. He called their\nattention to the facts that no resident of that city had ever visited\nthem and that none of their fellow-men who had started for the capital\nhad ever returned, and modestly asked whether it would not be better\nto satisfy themselves beyond a doubt that there was such a city, adding\nthat the location of the city would determine which of all the roads was\nthe right one.\n\nThe leaders heard these words with amazement. They denounced the speaker\nas a wretch without morality, spirituality, or reverence, and thereupon\nhe was torn in pieces.\n\nPreface to \"faith or Fact.\"\n\nI LIKE to know the thoughts, theories and conclusions of an honest,\nintelligent man; candor is always charming, and it is a delight to feel\nthat you have become acquainted with a sincere soul.\n\nI have read this book with great pleasure, not only because I know, and\ngreatly esteem the author, not only because he is my unwavering friend,\nbut because it is full of good sense, of accurate statement, of sound\nlogic, of exalted thoughts happily expressed, and for the further reason\nthat it is against tyranny, superstition, bigotry, and every form of\ninjustice, and in favor of every virtue.\n\nHenry M. Taber, the author, has for many years taken great interest\nin religious questions. He was raised in an orthodox atmosphere, was\nacquainted with many eminent clergymen from whom he endeavored to\nfind out what Christianity is—and the facts and evidence relied on to\nestablish the truth of the creeds. He found that the clergy of even the\nsame denomination did not agree—that some of them preached one way\nand talked another, and that many of them seemed to regard the creed as\nsomething to be accepted whether it was believed or not. He found that\neach one gave his own construction to the dogmas that seemed heartless\nor unreasonable. While some insisted that the Bible was absolutely true\nand the creed without error, others admitted that there were mistakes in\nthe sacred volume and that the creed ought to be revised. Finding these\ndifferences among the ministers, the shepherds, and also finding that\nno one pretended to have any evidence except faith, or any facts but\nassertions, he concluded to investigate the claims of Christianity for\nhimself.\n\nFor half a century he has watched the ebb and flow of public opinion,\nthe growth of science, the crumbling of creeds—the decay of the\ntheological spirit, the waning influence of the orthodox pulpit, the\nloss of confidence in special providence and the efficacy of prayer.\n\nHe has lived to see the church on the defensive—to hear faith asking\nfor facts—and to see the shot and shell of science batter into\nshapelessness the fortresses of superstition. He has lived to see\nInfidels, blasphemers and Agnostics the leaders of the intellectual\nworld. In his time the supernaturalists have lost the sceptre and have\ntaken their places in the abject rear.\n\nFifty years ago the orthodox Christians believed their creeds. To them\nthe Bible was an actual revelation from God. Every word was true.\nMoses and Joshua were regarded as philosophers and scientists. All the\nmiracles and impossibilities recorded in the Bible were accepted as\nfacts. Credulity was the greatest of virtues. Everything, except the\nreasonable, was believed, and it was considered wickedly presumptuous\nto doubt anything except facts. The reasonable things in the Bible could\nsafely be doubted, but to deny the miracles was like the sin against\nthe Holy Ghost. In those days the preachers were at the helm. They spoke\nwith authority. They knew the origin and destiny of the soul. They were\non familiar terms with the Trinity—the three-headed God. They knew the\nnarrow path that led to heaven and the great highway along which the\nmultitude were traveling to the Prison of Pain.\n\nWhile these reverend gentlemen were busy trying to prevent the\ndevelopment of the brain and to convince the people that the good in\nthis life were miserable, that virtue wore a crown of thorns and carried\na cross, while the wicked and ungodly walked in the sunshine of joy,\nyet that after death the wicked would be eternally tortured and the\ngood eternally rewarded. According to the pious philosophy the good\nGod punished virtue, and rewarded vice, in this world—and in the next,\nrewarded virtue and punished vice. These divine truths filled their\nhearts with holy peace—with pious resignation. It would be difficult\nto determine which gave them the greater joy—the hope of heaven for\nthemselves, or the certainty of hell for their enemies. For the grace of\nGod they were fairly thankful, but for his \"justice\" their gratitude\nwas boundless. From the heights of heaven they expected to witness the\neternal tragedy in hell.\n\nWhile these good divines, these doctors of divinity, were busy\nmisinterpreting the Scriptures, denying facts and describing the glories\nand agonies of eternity, a good many other people were trying to find\nout something about this world. They were busy with retort and crucible,\nsearching the heavens with the telescope, examining rocks and craters,\nreefs and islands, studying plant and animal life, inventing ways to\nuse the forces of nature for the benefit of man, and in every direction\nsearching for the truth. They were not trying to destroy religion or to\ninjure the clergy. Many of them were members of churches and believed\nthe creeds. The facts they found were honestly given to the world. Of\ncourse all facts are the enemies of superstition. The clergy, acting\naccording to the instinct of self-preservation, denounced these \"facts\"\nas dangerous and the persons who found and published them, as Infidels\nand scoffers.\n\nTheology was arrogant and bold. Science was timid. For some time\nthe churches seemed to have the best of the controversy. Many of the\nscientists surrendered and did their best to belittle the facts and\npatch up a cowardly compromise between Nature and Revelation—that is,\nbetween the true and the false.\n\nDay by day more facts were found that could not be reconciled with the\nScriptures, or the creeds. Neither was it possible to annihilate facts\nby denial. The man who believed the Bible could not accept the facts,\nand the man who believed the facts could not accept the Bible. At\nfirst, the Bible was the standard, and all facts inconsistent with that\nstandard were denied. But in a little while science became the standard,\nand the passages in the Bible contrary to the standard had to be\nexplained or given up. Great efforts were made to harmonize the mistakes\nin the Bible with the demonstrations of science. It was difficult to be\ningenious enough to defend them both. The pious professors twisted and\nturned but found it hard to reconcile the creation of Adam with the slow\ndevelopment of man from lower forms. They were greatly troubled about\nthe age of the universe. It seemed incredible that until about six\nthousand years ago there was nothing in existence but God—and nothing.\nAnd yet they tried to save the Bible by giving new meanings to the\ninspired texts, and casting a little suspicion on the facts.\n\nThis course has mostly been abandoned, although a few survivals, like\nMr. Gladstone, still insist there is no conflict between Revelation and\nScience. But these champions of Holy Writ succeed only in causing the\nlaughter of the intelligent and the amazement of the honest. The more\nintelligent theologians confessed that the inspired writers could not\nbe implicitly believed. As they personally know nothing of astronomy or\ngeology and were forced to rely entirely on inspiration, it is wonderful\nthat more mistakes were not made. So it was claimed that Jehovah cared\nnothing about science, and allowed the blunders and mistakes of the\nignorant people concerning everything except religion, to appear in his\nsupernatural book as inspired truths.\n\nThe Bible, they said, was written to teach religion in its highest and\npurest form—to make mankind fit to associate with God and his angels.\nTrue, polygamy was tolerated and slavery established, yet Jehovah\nbelieved in neither, but on account of the wickedness of the Jews was in\nfavor of both.\n\nAt the same time quite a number of real scholars were investigating\nother religions, and in a little while they were enabled to show that\nthese religions had been manufactured by men—that their Christs and\napostles were myths and that all their sacred books were false and\nfoolish. This pleased the Christians. They knew that theirs was the only\ntrue religion and that their Bible was the only inspired book.\n\nThe fact that there is nothing original in Christianity, that all the\ndogmas, ceremonies and festivals had been borrowed, together with some\nmouldy miracles used as witnesses, weakened the faith of some and sowed\nthe seeds of doubt in many minds. But the pious petrifactions, the\nfossils of faith, still clung to their book and creed. While they were\nquick to see the absurdities in other sacred books, they were either\nunconsciously blind or maliciously shut their eyes to the same\nabsurdities in the Bible. They knew that Mohammed was an impostor,\nbecause the citizens of Mecca, who knew him, said he was, and they knew\nthat Christ was not an impostor, because the people of Jerusalem who\nknew him, said he was. The same fact was made to do double duty. When\nthey attacked other religions it was a sword and when their religion was\nattacked it became a shield.\n\nThe men who had investigated other religions turned their attention to\nChristianity. They read our Bible as they had read other sacred books.\nThey were not blinded by faith or paralyzed by fear, and they found that\nthe same arguments they had used against other religions destroyed our\nown.\n\nBut the real old-fashioned orthodox ministers denounced the\ninvestigators as Infidels and denied every fact that was inconsistent\nwith the creed. They wanted to protect the young and feeble minded. They\nwere anxious about the souls of the \"thoughtless.\"\n\nSome ministers changed their views just a little, not enough to be\ndriven from their pulpits—but just enough to keep sensible people\nfrom thinking them idiotic. These preachers talked about the \"higher\ncriticism\" and contended that it was not necessary to believe every word\nin the Bible, that some of the miracles might be given up and some of\nthe books discarded. But the stupid doctors of divinity had the Bible\nand the creeds on their side and the machinery of the churches was in\ntheir control. They brought some of the offending clergymen to the bar,\nand had them tried for heresy, made some recant and closed the mouths\nof others. Still, it was not easy to put the heretics down. The\ncongregations of ministers found guilty, often followed the shepherds.\nHeresy grew popular, the liberal preachers had good audiences, while the\northodox addressed a few bonnets, bibs and benches.\n\nFor many years the pulpit has been losing influence and the sacred\ncalling no longer offers a career to young men of talent and ambition.\n\nWhen people believed in \"special providence,\" they also believed that\npreachers had great influence with God. They were regarded as celestial\nlobbyists and they were respected and feared because of their supposed\npower.\n\nNow no one who has the capacity to think, believes in special\nprovidence. Of course there are some pious imbeciles who think that\npestilence and famine, cyclone and earthquake, flood and fire are the\nweapons of God, the tools of his trade, and that with these weapons,\nthese tools, he kills and starves, rends and devours, drowns and burns\ncountless thousands of the human race.\n\nIf God governs this world, if he builds and destroys, if back of every\nevent is his will, then he is neither good nor wise, He is ignorant and\nmalicious.\n\nA few days ago, in Paris, men and women had gathered together in the\nname of Charity. The building in which they, were assembled took fire\nand many of these men and women perished in the flames.\n\nA French priest called this horror an act of God.\n\nIs it not strange that Christians speak of their God as an assassin?\n\nHow can they love and worship this monster who murders, his children?\n\nIntelligence seems to be leaving the orthodox church. The great divines\nare growing smaller, weaker, day by day. Since the death of Henry Ward\nBeecher no man of genius has stood in the orthodox pulpit. The ministers\nof intelligence are found in the liberal churches where they are allowed\nto express their thoughts and preserve their manhood. Some of these\npreachers keep their faces toward the East and sincerely welcome the\nlight, while their orthodox brethren stand with their backs to the\nsunrise and worship the sunset of the day before.\n\nDuring these years of change, of decay and growth, the author of this\nbook looked and listened, became familiar with the questions raised, the\narguments offered and the results obtained. For his work a better man\ncould not have been found. He has no prejudice, no hatred. He is by\nnature candid, conservative, kind and just. He does not attack persons.\nHe knows the difference between exchanging epithets and thoughts. He\ngives the facts as they appear to him and draws the logical conclusions.\nHe charges and proves that Christianity has not always been the friend\nof morality, of civil liberty, of wives and mothers, of free though and\nhonest speech. He shows that intolerance is its nature, that it always\nhas, and always will persecute to the extent of its power, and that\nChristianity will always despise the doubter.\n\nYet we know that doubt must inhabit every finite mind. We know that\ndoubt is as natural as hope, and that man is no more responsible for his\ndoubts than for the beating of his heart. Every human being who knows\nthe nature of evidence, the limitations of the mind, must have \"doubts\"\nabout gods and devils, about heavens and hells, and must know that there\nis not the slightest evidence tending to show that gods and devils ever\nexisted.\n\nGod is a guess.\n\nAn undesigned designer, an uncaused cause, is as incomprehensible to the\nhuman mind as a circle without a diameter.\n\nThe dogma of the Trinity multiplies the difficulty by three.\n\nTheologians do not, and cannot believe that the authority to govern\ncomes from the consent of the governed. They regard God as the monarch,\nand themselves as his agents. They always have been the enemies of\nliberty.\n\nThey claim to have a revelation from their God, a revelation that is the\nrightful master of reason. As long as they believe this, they must be\nthe enemies of mental freedom. They do not ask man to think, but command\nhim to obey.\n\nIf the claims of the theologians are admitted, the church becomes the\nruler of the world, and to support and obey priests will be the business\nof mankind. All these theologians claim to have a revelation from their\nGod, and yet they cannot agree as to what the revelation reveals. The\nother day, looking from my window at the bay of New York, I saw many\nvessels going in many directions, and yet all were moved by the same\nwind. The direction in which they were going did not depend on the\ndirection of the breeze, but on the set of the sails. In this way the\nsame Bible furnishes creeds for all the Christian sects. But what would\nwe say if the captains of the boats I saw, should each swear that his\nboat was the only one that moved in the same direction the wind was\nblowing?\n\nI agree with Mr. Taber that all religions are founded on mistakes,\nmisconceptions and falsehoods, and that superstition is the warp and\nwoof of every creed.\n\nThis book will do great good. It will furnish arguments and facts\nagainst the supernatural and absurd. It will drive phantoms from the\nbrain, fear from the heart, and many who read these pages will be\nemancipated, enlightened and ennobled.\n\nChristianity, with its ignorant and jealous God—its loving and\nrevengeful Christ—its childish legends—its grotesque miracles—its\n\"fall of man\"—its atonement—its salvation by faith—its heaven for\nstupidity and its hell for genius, does not and cannot satisfy the free\nbrain and the good heart.\n"
}