{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:my-reviewers-reviewed",
  "slug": "my-reviewers-reviewed",
  "title": "My Reviewers Reviewed",
  "subtitle": "A reply to the clergymen of San Francisco.",
  "excerpt": "A point-by-point reply to the assembled clergy of San Francisco — on slavery, witchcraft, inspiration, miracles, Canaanite genocide, the plan of salvation, and every other orthodox charge brought against his lectures.",
  "year": 1877,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/my-reviewers-reviewed/",
  "wordCount": 20980,
  "body": "• This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San\n    Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various\n    clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon\n    him after the delivery of his lectures, \"The Liberty of Man,\n    Woman and Child,\" and \"The Ghosts.\"\n\nI.\n\nAGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I offer\nin evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent but a small\npart of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that part shall not\nbe defiled or smirched by a single personality. Whatever I say, I shall\nsay because I believe it will tend to make this world grander, man\nnearer just, the father kinder, the mother more loving, the children\nmore affectionate, and because I believe it will make an additional\nflower bloom in the pathway of every one who hears me.\n\nIn the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? What\nhave I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that\nin the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his innocent\nflock. What have I said?\n\nI delivered a lecture entitled, \"The Liberty of Man, Woman and\nChild.\" In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical and\nintellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the right to do\nright; the right to do anything that did not interfere with the real\nhappiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty to be the right to\nthink right, and the right to think wrong—provided you did your best to\nthink right.\n\nThis must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by which we\nseek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to think, whether\nhis thought is in reality right or wrong; and he cannot be accountable\nto any being for thinking wrong. There is upon man, so far as thought\nis concerned, the obligation to think the best he can, and to honestly\nexpress his best thought. Whenever he finds what is right, or what he\nhonestly believes to be the right, he is less than a man if he fears to\nexpress his conviction before an assembled world.\n\nThe right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. \"The right\nof one human being ceases where the right of another commences.\" My\ndefinition of intellectual liberty is, the right to think, whether you\nthink right or wrong, provided you do your best to think right.\n\nI believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality—the Blessed Trinity of\nHumanity.\n\nI believe in Observation, Reason and Experience—the Blessed Trinity of\nScience.\n\nI believe in Man, Woman and Child—the Blessed Trinity of Life and Joy.\n\nI have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor by force\nto compel another to think your way—that man has no right to compel his\nfellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism. I have\nsaid, and still say, that even an infinite God has and can have no right\nto compel by force or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept\na dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such a power is\nincapable of being exercised. You may compel a man to say that he has\nchanged his mind. You may force him to say that he agrees with you. In\nthis way, however, you make hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible\nthat a god wishes the worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage\nof a coward? Does he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is\nit possible that he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I\nwere a god it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of\none grand, brave man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain, than\nthe blind worship, the ignorant adoration, the trembling homage of a\nuniverse of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned by the orthodox\nguardians of this great city not to think. I am told that I am in danger\nof hell; that for me to express my honest convictions is to excite the\nwrath of God. They inform me that unless I believe in a certain way,\nmeaning their way, I am in danger of everlasting fire.\n\nThere was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men with fear.\nThat time has substantially passed away. For a hundred years hell has\nbeen gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly dying out, the\nbrimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have been burning lower and\nlower, and the climate gradually changing. To such an extent has the\nchange already been effected that if I were going there to-night I would\ntake an overcoat and a box of matches.\n\nThey say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief. I deny\nit. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be\na crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so. The god who\npunishes it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As for me, I would\na thousand times rather go to perdition and suffer its torments with\nthe brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go to heaven and keep the\ncompany of a god who would damn his children for an honest belief.\n\nThe next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man; that she\nhas every right that man has, and one more—the right to be protected,\nbecause she is the weaker. I have said that marriage should be an\nabsolutely perfect partnership of body and soul; that a man should treat\nhis wife like a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life with\nperfume and with joy. I have said that a husband had no right to be\nmorose; that he had no right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the\njoy of life.\n\nI have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of light, and\nfill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of the doors and\nwindows and illumine even the darkness of night. I said that marriage\nwas the holiest, highest, the most sacred institution among men; that\nit took millions of years for woman to advance from the condition of\nabsolute servitude, from the absolute slavery where the Bible found her\nand left her, up to the position she occupies at present. I have pleaded\nfor the rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what is more, for\nthe rights of little children. I have said that they could be governed\nby affection, by love, and that my heart went out to all the children\nof poverty and of crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets\nand in the sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear\nthe footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when\nthey hear their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the little\nchildren, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have\nsaid that my heart goes out to them one and all; I have asked fathers\nand mothers to cease beating their own flesh and blood. I have said to\nthem, When your child does wrong, put your arms around him; let him feel\nyour heart beat against his. It is easier to control your child with a\nkiss than with a club.\n\nFor expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the religious\npress and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of\norder, as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I make no\ncomplaint. A few years ago they would have burned me at the stake and I\nshould have been compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces through\nflame and smoke. They cannot do it now or they would. One hundred years\nago I would have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights of men.\nFifty years ago I would have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife\nand my children would have been torn from my arms in the name of the\nmost merciful God. Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living\nin the United States at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not\nthen have been allowed to express my thought; but I can now, and I will.\nAnd when I think about the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is\nilluminated with glory and the air is filled with wings.\n\nI then delivered another lecture entitled \"Ghosts,\" in which I sought to\nshow that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own imagination;\nin which I sought to show these imps of darkness, these devils, had all\nbeen produced by superstition; in which I endeavored to prove that man\nhad groveled in the dust before monsters of his own creation; in which I\nendeavored to demonstrate that the many had delved in the soil that the\nfew might live in idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens\nthat the few might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to\nshow that man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred,\nexcept ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms\nman had covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have\nbeen assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So far\nas any argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any way make\nthe slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man. It cannot in\nany way make the slightest difference whether my personal character is\ngood or bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I am concerned,\nI am willing to stake the whole question upon that issue. That is not,\nhowever, the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The\nquestion is, whether what I said is true.\n\nI did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain things—among other\nthings a book known as the Bible. From the ghosts we received that\nbook; and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that book rests the\ndoctrine of the immortality of the human soul. This I deny.\n\nWhether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and cannot be\nchanged by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If am not, no book\ncan render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I should live again than\nthat I do live.\n\nThe doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The foundation\nof that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality, which, like a\nsea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating with its countless\nwaves of hope and fear against the shores and rocks of fate and time,\nwas not born of any book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child\nof any religion. It was born of human affection; and it will continue to\nebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long\nas love kisses the lips of death. It is the eternal bow—Hope shining\nupon the tears of Grief.\n\nI did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right. If\nthere is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of enslaving\na human being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the master as\nwell. When you put a chain upon the limbs of another, you put a fetter\nalso upon your own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slaveholder.\nThe slave can at least be just—the slaveholder cannot. I had rather be\nrobbed than be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a\nthief. I have said, and I do say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and\nsanctioned the institution of human slavery; and before I get through I\nwill prove it.\n\nI said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree, for the\ndoctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred texts, people\nwere hanged and their bodies burned for getting up storms at sea with\nthe intent of drowning royal vermin. Every possible offence was punished\nunder the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high treason.\n\nI also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the ghosts,\nfor the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy;\nand I will also prove that. And the same book teaches, not political\nliberty, but political tyranny.\n\nI also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts knew\nnothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less, if\npossible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.\n\nThis is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air. I am\nwell aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the truth\nof my words. I have said these things. No one ever said them in better\nnature than I have. I have not the slightest malice—a victor never\nfelt malice. As soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen felt\ncalled upon to answer me. I want to say that if there is anything I like\nin the world it is fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that\nI have had so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean\nand hateful things. I have read a great many religious papers and\ndiscussions and think that I now know all the infamous words in our\nlanguage. I know how to account for every noble action by a mean and\nwretched motive, and that, in my judgment, embraces nearly the entire\nscience of modern theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon \"The\nLiberty of Man, Woman and Child,\" I was charged with having said that\nthere is nothing back of nature, and that nature with its infinite arms\nembraces everything; and thereupon I was informed that I believed in\nnothing but matter and force, that I believed only in earth, that I did\nnot believe in spirit. If by spirit you mean that which thinks, then I\nam a believer in spirit. If you mean by spirit the something that says\n\"I,\" the something that reasons, hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a\nbeliever in spirit. Whatever spirit there is in the universe must be a\nnatural thing, and not superimposed upon nature. All that I can say\nis, that whatever is, is natural. And there is as much goodness, in my\njudgment, as much spirit in this world as in any other; and you are just\nas near the heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere. One of\nyour clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me, that there is\nmatter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without force? What\nwould keep it together? What would keep the finest possible conceivable\natom together unless there was force? Can you imagine such a thing as\nmatter without force? Can you conceive of force without matter? Can you\nconceive of force floating about attached to nothing? Can you possibly\nconceive of this? No human being can conceive of force without matter.\n\"You cannot conceive of force being harnessed or hitched to matter as\nyou would hitch horses to a carriage.\" You cannot. Now, what is spirit?\nThey say spirit is the first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as\nthough spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement.\nThey say it was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without\nany matter—what would that spirit do? No force, no matter!—a spirit\nliving in an infinite vacuum. What would such a spirit turn its\nparticular attention to? This spirit, according to these theologians,\ncreated the world, the universe; and if it did, there must have been a\ntime when it commenced to create; and back of that there must have\nbeen an eternity spent in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that\na spirit existed during an eternity without any force and without any\nmatter? Is it possible that force could exist without matter or spirit?\nIs it possible that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean\nsomething without force? The only answer I can give to all these\nquestions is, I do not know. For my part, I do not know what spirit is,\nif there is any. I do not know what matter is, neither am I acquainted\nwith the elements of force. If you mean by matter that which I can\ntouch, that which occupies space, then I believe in matter. If you mean\nby force anything that can overcome weight, that can overcome what\nwe call gravity or inertia; if you mean by force that which moves the\nmolecules of matter, or the movement itself, then I believe in force.\nIf you mean by spirit that which thinks and loves, then I believe in\nspirit. There is, however, no propriety in wasting any time about the\nscience of metaphysics. I will give you my definition of metaphysics:\nTwo fools get together; each admits what neither can prove, and\nthereupon both of them say, \"hence we infer.\" That is all there is of\nmetaphysics.\n\nThese gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about the\ntreatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of man, all\nthese are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01\nspirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an eternity before\nthere was any force or any matter. Exactly how spirit could act without\nforce we do not understand. That we must take upon credit. How spirit\ncould create matter without force is a serious question, and we are\ntoo reverent to press such an inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied,\nhowever, that spirit is entirely independent of force and matter, and\nany man who denies this must be \"a malevolent and infamous wretch.\"\n\nAnother reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said as the\ndoctrine of negation. And we are informed by him—speaking I presume\nfrom experience—that negation is a poor thing to die by. He tells us\nthat the last hours are the grand testing hours. They are the hours when\natheists disown their principles and infidels bewail their folly—\"that\nVoltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their\ndeath-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital\"—He also states that\n\"another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify Voltaire,\nbut that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken possession of him,\nand he cried 'Retire! it is you that have brought me to my present\nstate—Begone! what a rich glory you have brought me.'\" This, my\nfriends, is the same old, old falsehood that has been repeated again and\nagain by the lips of hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these\nstories a solitary word of truth; and every intelligent man knows all\nthese death-bed accounts to be entirely and utterly false. They\nare taken, however, by the mass of the church as evidence that all\nopposition to Christianity, so-called, fills the bed of the dying\ninfidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So far as my experience\ngoes, the bad die in many instances as placidly as the good. I have\nsometimes thought that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is engraved\nthe record of nearly every possible crime, dies without a shudder,\nwithout a tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering during his\nlast moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in the\nheat of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every\nmurderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never\nthought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life. Neither have\nI imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he suffered death.\nThe fact is, that when man approaches natural death, his powers, his\nintellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a child. He has\nless and less sense. And just in proportion as he loses his reasoning\npowers, he goes back to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes\nof youth cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his mother.\nOf this very fact, there is not a more beautiful description than that\ngiven by Shakespeare when he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack\nFalstaff, in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: \"A' made a finer end, and\nwent away, an it had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between\ntwelve and one, ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him\nfumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his\nfingers' end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp\nas a pen, and a' babbled of green fields.\" As the genius of Shakespeare\nmakes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes, decked with daisies, so\ndeath takes the dying back to the scenes of their childhood, and they\nare clasped once more to the breasts of mothers. They go back, for the\nreason that nearly every superstition in the world has been sanctified\nby some sweet and placid mother. Remember, the superstition has never\nsanctified the mother, but the mother has sanctified the superstition.\nThe young Mohammedan, who now lies dying upon some field of battle,\nthinks sweet and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will, as the\nblood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy verse from the blessed\nKoran. Every superstition in the world that is now held sacred has been\nmade so by mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home. I know\nwhat it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender, to throw away every\nsuperstition, although sanctified by the memory of those they loved.\nWhoever has thrown away these superstitions has been pursued by his\nfellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire the church has pursued\nhim as though he had been the vilest criminal. A little over one hundred\nyears ago, Catholicism, the inventor of instruments of torture, red with\nthe innocent blood of millions, felt in its heartless breast the dagger\nof Voltaire. From that blow the Catholic Church never can recover. Livid\nwith hatred she launched at her assassin the curse of Rome, and ignorant\nProtestants have echoed that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire, and\nwhenever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume floating above\nsome grand knight—a knight who rides to a walled city and demands\nan unconditional surrender. I like him. He was once imprisoned in the\nBastile, and while in that frightful fortress—and I like to tell it—he\nchanged his name. His name was Francois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell\nhe changed this name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years afterward\nthe Bastile was torn down to the very dust, \"Voltaire\" was the battle\ncry of the destroyers who did it. I like him because he did more for\nreligious toleration than any other man who ever lived or died. I admire\nhim because he did more to do away with torture in civil proceedings\nthan any other man. I like him because he was always upon the side of\njustice, upon the side of progress. I like him in spite of his faults,\nbecause he had many and splendid virtues. I like him because his\ndoctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country. I like him\nbecause he hated tyranny; and when he died he died as serenely as ever\nmortal died; he spoke to his servant recognizing him as a man. He said\nto him, calling him by name: \"My friend, farewell.\" These were the last\nwords of Voltaire. And this was the only frightful scene enacted at his\nbed of death. I like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the\nintellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at\nthe foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite\nin Christendom.\n\nI will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a thousand\ndollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death of Voltaire was\nnot as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same absurd story is told\nof Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a patriot—he was the first man in\nthe world to write these words: \"The Free and Independent States of\nAmerica.\" He was the first man to convince the American people that they\nought to separate themselves from Great Britain. \"His pen did as\nmuch, to say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of\nWashington.\" The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic services\nrepay them with slander and calumny. If there is in this world a crime,\ningratitude is a crime. And as for myself, I am not willing to receive\nanything from any man without making at least an acknowledgment of my\nobligation. Y et these clergymen, whose very right to stand in their\npulpits and preach, was secured to them by such men as Thomas Paine,\ndelight in slandering the reputation of that great man. They tell their\nhearers that he died in fear,—that he died in agony, hearing devils\nrattle chains, and that the infinite God condescended to frighten a\ndying man. I will give one thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman\nin San Francisco who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories\nconcerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is not one word of truth in\nthese accounts; not one word.\n\nLet me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what is\ncalled a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and\nVolney and Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying \"My God, My God, why\nhast thou forsaken me?\" what would the clergymen of this city then have\nsaid?\n\nTo resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who have\nopposed the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment, unbecoming\nany intelligent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to die? The\nquestion is, who is right? The great question is not, who died right,\nbut who lived right? There is infinitely more responsibility in living\nthan in dying. The moment of death is the most unimportant moment of\nlife. Nothing can be done then. You cannot even do a favor for a friend,\nexcept to remember him in your will. It is a moment when life ceases to\nbe of value. While living, while you have health and strength, you\ncan augment the happiness of your fellow-men; and the man who has made\nothers happy need not be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they\ncall themselves, these believers who hope for immortality—thousands\nof them, will rob their neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless\nacts of injustice, when, according to their belief, the witnesses of\ntheir infamy will live forever; and the men whom they have injured and\noutraged, will meet them in every glittering star through all the ages\nyet to be.\n\nAs for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the record in\nthe grateful faces of my fellow-men.\n\nThese gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who started\ntheir churches were heretics.\n\nThe first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a heretic.\nThe first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first Christian was\ndenounced as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment they get\nnumerous enough to be in the majority in some locality, begin to call\nthemselves orthodox. Can there be any impudence beyond this?\n\nThe first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was the best\nBaptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always liked him. He\nwas a good man—Roger Williams. He was the first man, so far as I know,\nin this country, who publicly said that the soul of man should be free.\nAnd it was a wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to say\nthat, could think that any particular form of baptism was necessary to\nsalvation. It does strike me that a man of great brain and thought could\nnot possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being, the question\nwhether he should dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves\nof fire, should be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized.\nThat seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is\na matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance\nof baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at the judgment\nseat to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing, should ask a man:\n\n\"Have you been a good man?\" and the man replied:\n\n\"Tolerably good.\"\n\n\"Did you love your wife and children?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Did you try and make them happy?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Did you try and make your neighbors happy?\" \"Yes, I paid my debts: I\ngave heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was thanked for it or\nnot.\"\n\nSuppose the Supreme Being then should say:\n\n\"Were you ever baptized?\" and the man should reply:\n\n\"I am sorry to say I never was.\"\n\nCould a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by the\nSupreme Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own case was\nto be called next?\n\nI happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders—how I\never got into such bad company, I don't know,—and one of them asked\nwhat I thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much about it; did\nnot know much about it; didn't want to say anything, but they insisted\nupon it. I said, \"Well, I'll give you my opinion—with soap, baptism is\na good thing.\"\n\nThe Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon several\noccasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them\ndown. He said some things about me not entirely pleasant, which I do not\nwish to repeat. In his reply he takes the ground:\n\nFirst. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he swore upon it\nor by it when he joined the Masons.\n\nSecond. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the supposition\nthat he had softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the\nheart.\n\nThird. That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the inhabitants of\nCanaan, according to the doctrine of the \"survival of the fittest.\" He\ntakes the ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the ripping\nopen of women with child by the sword of war, was an act of sublime\nmercy. He justifies a war of extermination; he applauds every act of\ncruelty and murder. He says that the Canaanites ought to have been\nturned from their homes; that men guilty of no crime except fighting for\ntheir country, old men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled,\nprattling children, ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war;\nthat it was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious\npersecution into the bodies of all, old and young. This is what the\nreverend gentleman is pleased to call mercy. If this is mercy let us\nhave injustice. If there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry that\nman exists. All this, however, is justified upon the ground that God\nhas the right to do as he pleases with the being he has created. This I\ndeny. Such a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose I could take a stone\nand in one moment change it into a sentient, hoping, loving human being,\nwould I have the right to torture it? Would I have the right to give it\npain? No one but a fiend would either exercise or justify such a right.\nEven if there is a God who created us all he has no such right. Above\nany God that can exist, in the infinite serenity forever sits the figure\nof justice; and this God, no matter how great and infinite he may be, is\nbound to do justice.\n\nFourth. That God chose the Jews and governed them personally for\nthousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in order that his\npeculiar people might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters; that\nhe wished to make of the Hebrews a great nation, and that, consequently,\nhe was justified in destroying the original inhabitants of that country.\nIt seems to me that the end hardly justified the means. According to the\naccount, God governed the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded\nin civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified him the first\nopportunity they had. Such an administration can hardly be called a\nsuccess.\n\nFifth. The reverend gentleman seems to think that the practice of\npolygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared with the crime\nof exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the corrupting\ninfluence of such pictures he descants at great length, and attacks with\nall the bitterness of the narrow theologian the masterpieces of art.\nAllow me to say one word about art. That is one of the most beautiful\nwords in our language—Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for\nart to go in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of\nRaffaelle. I like the productions of those splendid souls that put their\nideas of beauty upon the canvas uncovered.\n    \"There are brave souls in every land\n    Who worship nature, grand and nude,\n    And who with swift indignant hand\n    Tear off the fig leaves of the prude.\"\n\nSixth. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions slavery, but that\nit is not an immoral book even if it does.\n\nI can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as\nthe reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of Solomon—\"by a\nsoftening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart.\"\n\nIt does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really thought my\nfellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he was going to\nmisery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try and save\nhim. It does seem to me, that instead of having my mouth filled with\nepithets and invectives; instead of drawing the lips of malice back from\nthe teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would be filled with\ntears. It seems to me that I would do what little I could to reclaim\nhim. I would talk to him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms\nof affection about him. I would not speak of him as though he were a\nwild beast. I would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would\nthink of him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the\ndamned, and my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred—my eyes\nwith tears, not scorn.\n\nIf there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed and\nwithered by the blight and breath of superstition, as cheerfully to\ndefend the most frightful crimes of which we have a record—a man so\nhardened and petrified by creed and dogma that he hesitates not to\ndefend even the institution of human slavery—so lost to all sense of\npity that he applauds murder and rapine as though they were acts of the\nloftiest self-denial.\n\nThe next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have said, is the\nRev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled \"Ghosts\nagainst God or Ingersoll against Honesty.\" I presume he imagines himself\nto be the defendant in both cases.\n\nThis gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon the\nground that he had to contribute to the support of a \"materialistic\ndemon.\" To say the least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied.\nI am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so much better than\ndid the infidels in the olden time that I am more than satisfied. It is\na little thing that I bear.\n\nThe brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture. They were\nstretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron boots; they stood\nupon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and\nnative land. They were taken from their firesides, from their wives,\nfrom their children; they were taken to the public square; they were\nchained to stakes, and their ashes were scattered by the countless hands\nof hatred. I am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.\n\nThis gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a\n\"materialistic demon.\" When I saw that statement I will tell you what I\ndid. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom to think\nthat he had contributed a dollar toward my support, toward the support\nof a \"materialistic demon.\" I wrote him a letter and I said:\n\n\"My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime of having\ncontributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I hereby enclose\nthe amount you paid to attend my lecture.\" I then gave him a little\ngood advice. I advised him to be charitable, to be kind, and regretted\nexceedingly that any man could listen to one of my talks for an hour\nand a half and not go away satisfied that all men had the same right to\nthink.\n\nThis man denied having received the money, but it was traced to him\nthrough a blot on the envelope.\n\nThis gentleman avers that everything that I said about persecution\nis applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what he says. The\nCatholics have probably persecuted more than any other church, simply\nbecause that church has had more power, simply because it has been more\nof a church. It has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the\nCatholics come nearer believing what they say about their church than\nother Christians do. Was it a Catholic persecution that drove the\nPuritan fathers from England? Was it not the storm of Episcopal\npersecution that filled the sails of the Mayflower? Was it not a\nProtestant persecution that drove the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be\nhonest. Who went to Scotland and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was\nit that chained to the stake that splendid girl by the sands of the\nsea for not saying \"God save the king\"? She was worthy to have been the\nmother of Caesar. She would not say \"God save the king,\" but she would\nsay \"God save the king, if it be God's will.\" Protestants ordered her to\nsay \"God save the king,\" and no more. She said, \"I will not,\" and they\nchained her to a stake in the sand and allowed her to be drowned by\nthe rising of the inexorable tide. Who did this? Protestants. Who drove\nRoger Williams from Massachusetts? Protestants. Who sold white Quaker\nchildren into slavery? Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers?\nWho burned and destroyed men and women and children charged with\nimpossible crimes? Protestants. The Protestants have persecuted exactly\nto the extent of their power. The Catholics have done the same.\n\nI want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of\nreligious toleration in the New World were the Catholics of Maryland.\nThe next were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger Williams.\nThe Catholics passed the act of religious toleration, and after the\nProtestants got into power again in England, and also in the colony of\nMaryland, they repealed the law of toleration and passed another law\ndeclaring the Catholics from under the protection of all law.\nAfterward, the Catholics again got into power and had the generosity and\nmagnanimity to re-enact the old law. And, so far as I know, it is the\nonly good record upon the subject of religious toleration the Catholics\nhave in this world, and I am always willing to give them credit for it.\n\nThis gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for the world\nin the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not know that\nnearly every man who took a forward step was denounced by the church as\na heretic and infidel? Does he not know that the church has in all ages\npersecuted the astronomers, the geologists, the logicians? Does he not\nknow that even to-day the church slanders and maligns the foremost men?\nHas he ever heard of Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John\nW. Draper, one of the leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of\nAuguste Comte, the great Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of\nLaplace, of Spinoza? In short, has he ever heard of a man who took a\nstep in advance of his time?\n\nOrthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be orthodoxy\nand becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual\ncloaca; it cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity is simply\nfree thought. Every man who really owns his own brain is, in the\nestimation of the church, an infidel.\n\nThere is a paper published in this city called The Occident. The\nEditor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the people who have assembled\nto hear me, in the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible.\nI cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He alleges that the people\nwho assemble to hear me are the low, the debauched and the infamous.\nThe man who reads that paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a\nPresbyterian sheet; and would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated\nCastalio. Castalio was the first minister in the history of Christendom\nwho acknowledged the innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed\nhim like a sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a \"dog of Satan;\"\nsaid that he had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very\ngrave. The editor of this paper is still warming his hands at the fire\nthat burned Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce hatred of\neverything that is free. But what right have we to expect anything good\nof a man who believes in the eternal damnation of infants?\n\nThere may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse\nreligion than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was, from\ncannibalism to civilization, I have never heard of it.\n\nI make a distinction between the members and the creed of that church. I\nknow many who are a thousand times better than the creed—good, warm and\nsplendid friends of mine. I would do anything in the world for them. And\nI have said to them a hundred times, \"You are a thousand times better\nthan your creed.\" But when you come down to the doctrine of the\ndamnation of infants, it is the deformity of deformities. The editor\nof this paper is engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of\nfore-ordination and damnation—those twin comforts of the Presbyterian\ncreed, and warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in\nany manner for themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the\nlowest, the vilest and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men\nwho are longing to commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off all\nrestraint.\n\nMy friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional\nobligation upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a responsibility\nupon his brain and upon his heart. You, who never want responsibility,\ngive your souls to some church. You, who never want the feeling that you\nare under obligation to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are\nwilling to feel and meet responsibility; if you feel that you must give\nan account not only to yourselves but to every human being whom you\ninjure, then you must be free. Where there is no freedom, there can be\nno responsibility.\n\nIt is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so\nmalicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it\nbecause they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is it\nthe result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being written upon\nevery orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual inferiority?\n\nThis same editor assures his readers that what I say is not worth\nanswering, and yet he devotes column after column of his journal to that\nvery purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no orator; and upon the\nsame page admits that he did not hear me, giving as a reason that he\ndoes not think it right to pay money for such a purpose. Recollect, that\nin a religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criticises a statue\nor a painting, condemns it, and at the end of the criticism says that he\nnever saw it. He criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at\nthe end says, \"I never heard him, and I never saw him.\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these gentlemen who\nthought it necessary to hear what any man said in order to answer him.\n\nThe next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I must\nsay, so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of treatment,\nhe is a kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several mistakes as\nto what I really said, but the fault I suppose must have been in the\nreport. I am made to say in the report of his sermon, \"There is no\nsacred place in all the universe.\" What I did say was, \"There is no\nsacred place in all the universe of thought. There is nothing too holy\nto be investigated, nothing too divine to be understood. The fields of\nthought are fenceless, and without a wall.\" I say this to-night.\n\nMr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only the right\nto do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I really said was, man\nhas the right to do right, and the right to think right, and the right\nto think wrong. Thought is a means of ascertaining truth, a mode by\nwhich we arrive at conclusions. And if no one has a right to think,\nunless he thinks right, he would only have the right to think upon\nself-evident propositions. In all respects, with the exception of these\nmisstatements to which I have called your attention, so far as I can\nsee, Mr. Ijams was perfectly fair, and treated me as though I had the\nordinary rights of a human being. I take this occasion to thank him.\n\nA great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers and a\nmultitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed themselves\nwith the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I can only reply to\nthose who have made a parade of answering me. Many have said it is not\nworth answering, and then proceeded to answer. They have said, he has\nproduced no argument, and then have endeavored to refute it. They have\nsaid it is simply the old straw that has been thrashed over and over\nagain for years and years. If all I have said is nothing, if it is\nall idle and foolish, why do they take up the time of their fellow-men\nreplying to me? Why do they fill their religious papers with criticisms,\nif all I have said and done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr.\nGuard, of \"some little dog barking at a railway train\"? Why stop the\ntrain, why send for the directors, why hold a consultation and finally\nsay, we must settle with that dog or stop running these cars?\n\nProbably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond cavil the\ntruth of what I have said.\n\nDoes the Bible Teach Man to Enslave His Brother\n\nII.\n\nIF this \"sacred\" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is not\ninspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as\nany devil could be.\n\n\"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,\nof them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which\nthey begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.\n\n\"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,\nto inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever.\n\n\"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be\nof the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids.\"—Leviticus xxv.\n\nThis is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another, to buy\na woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child. This makes\nthe whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal tender for labor\nperformed. This is the kind of slavery established by the most merciful\nGod. The reason given for all this, is, that the persons whom they\nenslaved were heathen. You may enslave them because they are not\northodox. If you can find anybody who does not believe in me, the God\nof the Jews, you may steal his wife from his arms, and her babe from\nthe cradle. If you can find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew\nJehovah, you may steal her prattling child from her breast. Can any one\nconceive of anything more infamous? Can any one find in the literature\nof this world more frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all\nthis is found in that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the\n25th of Leviticus—from the Bible—from this sacred gift of God—this\n\"Magna Charta of human freedom.\"\n\n2. \"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the\nseventh he shall go out free for nothing.\n\n3. \"If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were\nmarried, then his wife shall go out with him.\n\n4. \"If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or\ndaughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall\ngo out by himself.\n\n5. \"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and\nchildren; I w ill not go out free:\n\n6. \"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring\nhim to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his\near through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.\"—_Exodus,\nxxi._\n\nThe slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his wife and\nchildren. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife and child. This\nis another of the laws of the most merciful God. This God changes even\nlove into a chain. Children are used by him as manacles and fetters,\nand wives become the keepers of prisons. Any man who believes that such\nhideous laws were made by an infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in\nmy judgment, insane or totally depraved.\n\nThese are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the doctrine\nof the New? What message had he who came from heaven's throne for the\noppressed of earth? What words of sympathy, what words of cheer, for\nthose who labored and toiled without reward? Let us see:\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to\nthe flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto\nChrist.\"—Ephesians, vi.\n\nThis is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a woman\nwho has been robbed of her child—to a man tracked by hounds through\nlonely swamps—to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding—to a mother\nweeping above an empty cradle.\n\n\"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle, but also to the fro ward.\"—I Peter ii., 18.\n\n\"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure\ngrief, suffering wrongfully.\"—I Peter ii., 19.\n\nIt certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man work\npatiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a slave with\nhis wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave escapes\nfrom slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying of the bloodhound\nmust be to the ears of this most merciful God. All this is simply\ninfamous. On the throne of this universe there sits no such monster.\n\n\"Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh; not\nwith eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing\nGod.\"—Col. iii., 22.\n\nThe apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work every moment\nthat his strength permitted. He really seems to have feared that\nhe might not at all times do the very best he could to promote the\ninterests of the thief who claimed to own him. And speaking to all\nslaves, in the name of the Father of All, this apostle says: \"Obey in\nall things your masters, not with eye-service, but with singleness of\nheart, fearing God.\" He says to them in substance, There is no way you\ncan so well please God as to work honestly for a thief.\n\n1. \"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters\nworthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not\nblasphemed.\"\n\nThink of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the name\nand doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own yourself!\n\n2. \"And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them,\nbecause they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are\nfaithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and\nexhort.\"\n\nThat is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of others.\nDo not hold in contempt the \"faithful and beloved, partakers of the\nbenefit,\" who turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.\n\n3. \"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words\neven to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is\naccording to godliness.\n\n4. \"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes\nof words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,\n\n5. \"Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the\ntruth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.\"\n\nThis seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the early\nabolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights, seeking to\ngive labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that divine\ngarment of the soul, Liberty,—all this was denounced by the apostle as\na simple strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings\nand perverse disputing, destitute of truth.\n\n6. \"But godliness with contentment is great gain.\n\n7. \"For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can\ncarry nothing out.\n\n8. \"And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.\"—_I Tim.,\nvi._\n\nThis was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking of his\nchains. This is the reason he should never try to better his condition.\nHe should be contented simply with the right to work for nothing. If\nhe only had food and raiment, and a thief to work for, he should be\ncontented. He should solace himself with the apostolic reflection, that\nas he brought nothing into the world, he could carry nothing out, and\nthat when dead he would be as happily situated as his master.\n\nIn order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word\nservant, I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and\n21:\n\n\"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die\nunder his hand; he shall be surely punished.\n\n\"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:\nfor he is his money.\"\n\nYet, notwithstanding these passages the Christian Advocate says, \"the\nBible is the Magna Charta of our liberty.\"\n\nAfter reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the same\npaper:\n\n\"We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of infidelity and\natheism, not less offensive to good morals than have been the teachings\nof infidelity during the last century. France has been cursed with such\nteachings for a hundred years, and because of it, to-day her citizens\nare incapable of self-government.\"\n\nWhat was the condition of France a century ago? Were they capable of\nself-government then? For fourteen hundred years the common people of\nFrance had suffered. For fourteen hundred years they had been robbed\nby the altar and by the throne. They had been the prey of priests and\nnobles. All were exempt from taxation, except the common people. The\ncup of their suffering was full, and the French people arose in fury and\nfrenzy, and tore the drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air\nwith the dust of thrones.\n\nSurely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced by the\nteachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at the place\nwhere once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison\nstanding as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked by the populace.\nI could see their stormy faces and hear their cries. And I saw that\nancient fortification of tyranny go down forever. And now where once\nstood the Bastile stands the Column of July. Upon its summit is a\nmagnificent statue of Liberty, holding in one hand a banner, in the\nother a broken chain, and upon its shining forehead is the star of\nprogress. There it stands where once stood the Bastile. And France is\nas much superior to what it was when Voltaire was born, as that statue,\nsurmounting the Column of July, is more beautiful than the Bastile that\nstood there once with its cells of darkness, and its dungeons of horror.\n\nAnd yet we are now told that the French people have rendered themselves\nincapable of government, simply because they have listened to the voice\nof progress. There are magnificent men in France. From that country have\ncome to the human race some of the grandest and holiest messages the ear\nof man has ever heard. The French people have given to history some\nof the most touching acts of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the\namazed stars.\n\nFor my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue San\nAntoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to remember that\nthe tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in chains, and\nwhile liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in the Inquisition of Spain.\nAnd yet we are now told by a religious paper, that France is not capable\nof self-government. I suppose it was capable of self-government under\nthe old regime, at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I\nsuppose it was capable of self-government when women were seen yoked\nwith cattle pulling plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government\nwhen all who labored were in a condition of slavery.\n\nIn the old times, even among the priests, there were some good, some\nsincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a sermon\npreached by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. This old\npriest, among other things, said that the soul of a beggar was as dear\nto God as the soul of the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ\ndied as much for a beggar as for a prince. One French peasant, rough\nwith labor, cried out: \"I propose three cheers for Jesus Christ.\" I like\nsuch things. I like to hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris has\nbeen a kind of volcano, and has made the heavens lurid with its lava\nof hatred, but it has also contributed more than any other city to the\nintellectual development of man. France has produced some infamous\nmen, among others John Calvin, but for one Calvin, she has produced a\nthousand benefactors of the human race.\n\nThe moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the church,\nthey will be in the highest sense capable of self-government. The moment\nFrance succeeds in releasing herself from the coils of Catholicism—from\nthe shadows of superstition—from the foolish forms and mummeries of the\nchurch—from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand years—she will not\nonly be capable of self-government, but will govern herself. Let the\npriests be usefully employed. We want no overseers of the mind; no\nslave-drivers for the soul. We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for\ndepriving us of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to\nfrighten our children, and paralyze the intellect of women.\n\nWas the World Created in Six Days\n\nIII.\n\nFOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that the earth\nwas made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that\non the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. Geologists have\ndriven the church from this position, and it is now claimed that the\ndays mentioned in the Bible are periods of time. This is a simple\nevasion, not in any way supported by the Scriptures. The Bible\ndistinctly and clearly says that the world was created in six days.\nThere is not within its lids a clearer statement. It does not say six\nperiods. It was made according to that book in six days:\n\n31. \"And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very\ngood. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.\"—Genesis i.\n\n1. \"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of\nthem.\n\n2. \"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he\nrested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.\n\n3. \"And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and sanctified\nit; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created\nand made.\"—Genesis ii.\n\nFrom the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the word\ndays:\n\n15. \"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of\nrest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he\nshall surely be put to death.\"—Served him right!\n\n16. \"Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to\nobserve the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual\ncovenant.\n\n17. \"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for\nin six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he\nrested and was refreshed.\n\n18. \"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with\nhim upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written\nwith the finger of God.\"—Exodus xxxi.\n\n12. \"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up\nthe Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of\nIsrael, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley\nof Ajalon.\n\n13. \"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had\navenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book\nof Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; and hasted not\nto go down about a whole day.\n\n14. \"And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the\nLord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for\nIsrael.\"—Josh. x.\n\nThese passages must certainly convey the idea that this world was made\nin six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were to keep the\nSabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh day—not period.\nIf you say six periods, instead of six days, what becomes of your\nSabbath? The only reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath\nis that God observed it—that he rested from his work that day and was\nrefreshed. Take this reason away and the sacredness of that day has no\nfoundation in the Scriptures.\n\nWhat is the Astronomy of the Bible\n\nIV.\n\nWHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was understood\nby those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. From time to\ntime discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent with the\nScriptures. At first, theologians denounced the discoverers of all facts\ninconsistent with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.\n\nThe Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the universe; that\nthe sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck called the earth.\nThe men who discovered that all this was a mistake were denounced by\nthe ignorant clergy of that day, precisely as the ignorant clergy of our\ntime denounce the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine of the\nearth's place in the solar system was demonstrated; when persecution\ncould no longer conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church\nmade an effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of\nscience. When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation\nbecame apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of\nthe Bible. Then it was pretended that the \"days\" of creation were vast\nperiods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible that the sun\nrevolved around the earth, then the account given by Joshua of the sun\nstanding still for the space of a whole day, was changed into a figure\nof speech. It was said that Joshua merely conformed to the mode of\nspeech common in his day; and that when he said the sun stood still, he\nmerely intended to convey the idea that the earth ceased turning upon\nits axis. They admitted that stopping the sun could not lengthen the\nday, and for that reason it must have been the earth that stopped.\nBut you will remember that the moon stood still in the valley of\nAjalon—that the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves\nupon their enemies.\n\nOne would naturally suppose that the sun would have given sufficient\nlight to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their enemies without\nany assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon had not stopped,\nthe relations between the earth and moon would have been changed.\n\nIs there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched piece of\nignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this nineteenth century\nhas for its basis such childish absurdities? According to this account,\nwhat was the sun, or rather the earth, stopped for? It was stopped in\norder that the Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amorites. For\nthe accomplishment of such a purpose the earth was made to pause. Why\nshould an almost infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of\ndestroying a handful of men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain.\nI strike my hands together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat\ncome from? Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that\nthere can be no destruction of force. It disappears in one form only\nto reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one thousand\nmiles an hour, was stopped. The motion of this vast globe would have\ninstantly been changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of the\ngreatest scientists of the present day that to stop the earth would\ngenerate as much heat as could be produced by burning a world as large\nas this of solid coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the\npaltry purpose of defeating a few poor barbarians. The employment of so\nmuch force for the accomplishment of so insignificant an object would\nbe as useless as bringing all the intellect of a great man to bear in\nanswering the arguments of the clergymen of San Francisco.\n\nThe waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their grand\ncourses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to\ndestroy an insect to which a single drop of water is \"an unbounded\nworld.\" How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect, not only to\nendorse such ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those who do not? Can\nanything be more debasing to the intellect of man than a belief in the\nastronomy of the Bible? According to the Scriptures, the world was\nmade out of nothing, and the sun, moon, and stars, of the nothing that\nhappened to be left. To the writers of the Bible the firmament was\nsolid, and in it were grooves along which the stars were pushed by\nangels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed his geography and astronomy.\nHis book was passed upon by the church, and was declared to be the truth\nconcerning the subjects upon which he treated.\n\nThis eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his guide,\nfound and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second, that it was a\nvast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there was a vast body\nof land, then a strip of water all around it, then a strip of land.\nHe thought that on the outer strip of land people lived before the\nflood—that at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark crossed the strip\nof water and landed on the shore of the country, in the middle of the\nworld, where we now are. This great biblical scholar informed the true\nbelievers of his day that in the outer strip of land were mountains,\naround which the sun and moon revolved; that when the sun was on the\nside of the mountain next the land occupied by man, it was day, and when\non the other side, it was night.\n\nMr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most eminent\nastronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament was solid, and\nthat the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells us that these angels\nattended strictly to their business, that each one watched the motions\nof all the others so that proper distances might always be maintained,\nand all confusion avoided. All this was believed by the gentlemen who\nmade most of our religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to show\nthat the earth must be flat, was the fact that the Bible stated that\nwhen Christ should come the second time, in glory, the whole world\nshould see him. \"Now,\" said Cosmas, \"if the world is round, how could\nthe people on the other side see the Lord when he comes?\" This settled\nthe question.\n\nThese were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men have been\nfor centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long after they had\nbecome dust they governed the world. The superstitions they planted,\ntheir descendants watered with the best and bravest blood. To maintain\ntheir ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed for a\nthousand years, and the infamous work is still being prosecuted.\n\nThe Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all truth.\nAny new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the light, or\nrather in the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that test it\nwas false, it was denounced, and the person bringing it forward forced\nto recant. It would have been a far better course to have discovered\nevery theory found to be in harmony with the Scriptures.\n\nAnd yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this city, that\nthe Bible is the foundation of all science.\n\nDOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED\nWITCHCRAFT?\n\nV.\n\nIT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to give\nup the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent\ntheologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, they were right.\nTo give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great degree at least, the\nsupernatural. To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the mind\nof man to give up the great ones. The founders of nearly all creeds, and\nof all religions properly so called, have taught the existence of good\nand evil spirits. They have peopled the dark with devils and the light\nwith angels. They have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs.\nThe moment these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends,\ndisappear from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted\nfor by natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been\ntaken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While the\nchurch believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified form. The\nevil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and more phenomena\nare accounted for by natural means. Just to the extent that belief has\nbeen lost in spirits, just to that extent the church has lost its power\nand authority. When men ceased to account for the happening of any event\nby ascribing it to the direct action of good or evil spirits, and began\nto reason from known premises, the chains of superstition began to\ngrow weak. Into such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many\nChristians not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take\nthe ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us see:\n\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"—Exodus xxii., 18.\n\n7. \"Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a\nfamiliar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his\nservants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at\nEndor.\n\n8. \"And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went,\nand two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said,\nI pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up,\nwhom I shall name unto thee.\n\n9. \"And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath\ndone, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the\nwizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my\nlife, to cause me to die?\n\n10. \"And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth,\nthere shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.\n\n11. \"Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,\nBring me up Samuel.\n\n12. \"And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice: and the\nwoman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art\nSaul.\n\n13. \"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?\nAnd the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.\n\n14. \"And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man\ncometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that\nit was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed\nhimself.\n\n15. \"And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me\nup?\"—2 Samuels xxviii.\n\nThis reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual seance. Is\nit not one of the wonderful things of the world that men and women who\nbelieve this account of the witch of Endor, who believe all the miracles\nand all the ghost stories of the Bible, deny with all their force the\ntruth of modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I would rather\nbelieve some one who has heard what he relates, who has seen what he\ntells, or at least thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather\nbelieve somebody I know, whose reputation for truth is good among those\nwho know him. I would rather believe these people than to take the words\nof those who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and\nabout whom I know nothing.\n\n31 \"Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after\nwizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your God.\"—_Leviticus\nxix_.\n\n6 \"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and\nafter wizards, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut\nhim off from among his people.\"—Leviticus xx.\n\n10. \"There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination,\nor an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,\n\n11. \"Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or\na necromancer.\n\n12. \"For all that do these things are an abomination unto the\nLord.\"—Deut. xviii.\n\nI have given you a few of the passages found in the Old Testament upon\nthis subject, showing conclusively that the Bible teaches the existence\nof witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits. In the New\nTestament there are passages equally strong, showing that the Savior\nhimself was a believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the\nexistence of a personal devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching\nof the following:\n\n1. \"Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be\ntempted of the devil.\n\n2. \"And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward\nan hungered.\n\n3. \"And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of\nGod, command that these stones be made bread.\n\n4. \"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread\nalone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.\n\n5. \"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on\na pinnacle of the temple.\n\n6. \"And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:\nfor it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and\nin their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy\nfoot against a stone.\n\n7. \"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the\nLord, thy God.\n\n8. \"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and\nsheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.\n\n9. \"And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt\nfall down and worship me.\n\n10. \"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is\nwritten, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou\nserve.\n\n11. \"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered\nunto him.\"—Matt. iv.\n\nIf this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there is\nnothing within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence of\na personal God. If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits,\nthere is nothing in the Bible going to show that good spirits exist\neither in this world or the next.\n\n16. \"When the even was come they brought unto him many that were\npossessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and\nhealed all that were sick.\"—Matt. vii.\n\n1. \"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country\nof the Gadarenes.\n\n2. \"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out\nof the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,\n\n3. \"Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,\nnot with chains:\n\n4. \"Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and\nthe chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in\npieces: neither could any man tame him.\n\n5. \"And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the\ntombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.\n\n6. \"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,\n\n7. \"And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee,\nJesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou\ntorment me not.\n\n8. \"For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.\n\n9. \"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name\nis Legion, for we are many.\n\n11. \"Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine\nfeeding.\n\n12. \"And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine,\nthat we may enter into them.\n\n13. \"And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went\nout, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep\nplace into the sea, and they were about two thousand; and were choked in\nthe sea.\"—Mark v.\n\nThe doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of casting out\ndevils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and followers, and\nto all who might believe in him throughout all the coming time:\n\n17. \"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall\nthey cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.\n\n18. \"And they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly\nthing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they\nshall recover.\"—Mark xvi.\n\nI would like to see the clergy who have been answering me, tested in\nthis way: Let them drink poison, let them take up serpents, let them\ncure the sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then believe that\nthey believe.\n\nI deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in the\nignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them. \"They are\ntales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.\"\nThese devils have covered the world with blood and tears. They have\nfilled the earth with fear. They have filled the lives of children with\ndarkness and horror. They have peopled the sweet world of imagination\nwith monsters. They have made religion a strange mingling of fear and\nferocity. I am doing what I can to reave the heavens of these monsters.\nFor my part, I laugh at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient\nand modern, great and small.\n\nThe Bible Idea of the Rights of Children\n\nVI.\n\nALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the slavery of\nman.\n\n18. \"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey\nthe voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they\nhave chastened him, will not hearken unto them.\n\n19. \"Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him\nout unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of his place.\n\n20. \"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is\nstubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and\na drunkard.\n\n21. \"And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he\ndie; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall\nhear, and fear.\"—Deut. xxi.\n\nAbraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He\nproceeded to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of age,\nwas not consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a man was\nwilling to offer upon the altar his only son. And such was the slavery\nof children, that the only son had not the spirit to resist.\n\nHave you ever read the story of Jephthah?\n\n30 \"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt\nwithout fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,\n\n31. \"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my\nhouse to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon,\nshall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.\n\n32. \"So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against\nthem; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.\n\n33. \"And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even\ntwenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great\nslaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children\nof Israel.\n\n34.\"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter\ncame out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only\nchild; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.\n\n35. \"And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and\nsaid, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one\nof them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I\ncannot go back....\n\n39. \"And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned\nunto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had\nvowed.\"—Judges xi.\n\nIs there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this? What can\nwe think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God?\nAnd what can we think of a God who would accept such a sacrifice? Can\nsuch a God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead for the rights of\nchildren. I plead for the government of kindness and love. I plead\nfor the republic of home, the democracy of the fireside. I plead for\naffection. And for this I am pursued by invective. For this I am called\na fiend, a devil, a monster, by Christian editors and clergymen,\nby those who pretend to love their enemies and pray for those that\ndespitefully use them.\n\nAllow me to give you another instance of affection related in the\nScriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the name of\nJob. The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to meet Satan, said\nto him: \"Are you acquainted with my servant Job? Have you noticed what\nan excellent man he is?\" And Satan replied to him and said: \"Why should\nhe not be an excellent man—you have given him everything he wants? Take\nfrom him what he has and he will curse you.\" And thereupon the Lord gave\nSatan the power to destroy the property and children of Job. In a little\nwhile these high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed\nsomewhat elated with his success, and called again the attention of\nSatan to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body\nand he would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the\nbody of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this, Job\ndid not sin with his lips.\n\nThis book seems to have been written to show the excellence of patience,\nand to prove that at last God will reward all who will bear the\nafflictions of heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The sons and\ndaughters of Job had been slain, and then the Lord, in order to reward\nJob, gave him other children, other sons and other daughters—not the\nsame ones he had lost; but others. And this, according to the writer,\nmade ample amends. Is that the idea we now have of love? If I have a\nchild, no matter how deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody\ncan make the loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want\nthe one I loved and the one I lost.\n\nThe Gallantry of God\n\nVII.\n\nI HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no respect\nfor the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It takes something\nbesides epithets and invectives to prove or disprove anything. Let us\nsee what the sacred volume says concerning the mothers and daughters of\nthe human race.\n\nA man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has not\nthere an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is less than a\nman.\n\n11. \"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.\n\n12. \"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the\nman, but to be in silence.\"\n\nThe reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to the\nsacred writer, was:\n\n13. \"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.\n\n14. \"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the\ntransgression.\n\n15. \"Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they\ncontinue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.\"—1 Tim. ii.\n\n3. \"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and\nthe head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.\"\n\nThat is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man that man\ndoes to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to Christ that Christ\ndoes to God.\n\nThis places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this barbarous\nidiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any woman look other\nthan with contempt upon such passages? How can any woman believe that\nthis is the will of a most merciful God?\n\n7. \"For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is\nthe image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.\"\n\nAnd this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the next\nverse:\n\n8. \"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.\"\n\nThis same chivalric gentleman also says:\n\n9. \"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the\nman.\"—1 Cor. xi.\n\n22. \"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the\nLord.\"\n\nIs it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?\n\n23. \"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head\nof the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.\n\n24. \"Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives\nbe to their own husbands in everything.\"—Eph. v.\n\nEven the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A man could\ndivorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her husband.\n\nEvery noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in contempt.\nAccording to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be\npurified from the crime of having born sons and daughters. To make love\nand maternity crimes is infamous.\n\n10. \"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord\nthy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them\ncaptive,\n\n11. \"And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire\nunto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,\n\n12. \"Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave\nher head, and pare her nails.\"—Deut. xxi.\n\nThis is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from hell,\nfrom a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem\nor from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism complete and utter.\n\nDoes the Bible Sanction Polygamy and Concubinage\n\nVIII.\n\nREAD the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of Numbers—an\norder unfit to be reproduced in print—an order which I am unwilling\nto repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of\nDeuteronomy. Read the-life of Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of\nJacob, and then tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and\nconcubinage. All the languages of the world are insufficient to express\nthe filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast—woman a slave. It destroys\nthe fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild\nbeasts. It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of the\nBible—a doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon. It is by the\nBible that Brigham Young justifies the practice of this beastly horror.\nIt takes from language those sweetest words, husband, wife, father\nmother, child and lover. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals,\nand leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents\nof loathsome lust. Yet the book justifying this infamy is the book upon\nwhich rests the civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I\ndenounce this frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and\nthe infamous Christian Advocate says that the moral sentiment of\nthis State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline for his blasphemous\nutterances and for his base and debasing scurrility.\n\nDoes the Bible Uphold and Justify Political Tyranny\n\nIX.\n\nFOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but the right\nto govern himself. All political authority is vested in the people\nthemselves, They have the right to select their officers and agents,\nand these officers and agents are responsible to the people. Political\nauthority does not come from the clouds. Man should not be governed by\nthe aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Republican or Democratic\nbook. Exactly the opposite doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn\nthat the people have no power whatever; that all power and political\nauthority comes from on high, and that all the kings, all the potentates\nand powers, have been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel\nkings have been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of\nDeity. The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one\nduty—the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some of the political\nideas in the great \"Magna Charta\" of human liberty.\n\n1. \"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no\npower but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.\n\n2. \"Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance\nof God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.\"\n\nAccording to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King of Great\nBritian by divine right, and by divine right was the lawful King of the\nAmerican Colonies. The leaders in the Revolutionary struggle resisted\nthe power, and according to these passages, resisted the ordinances of\nGod; and for that resistance they are promised the eternal recompense of\ndamnation.\n\n3. \"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt\nthou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou\nshalt have praise of the same....\n\n5. \"Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also\nfor conscience sake.\n\n6. \"For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's\nministers, attending continually upon this very thing.\"—Romans, xiii.\n\n13. \"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;\nwhether it be to the king as supreme.\n\n14. \"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the\npunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.\n\n15. \"For so is the will of God.\"—1 Pet. ii.\n\nHad these ideas been carried out, political progress in the world would\nhave been impossible. Upon the necks of the people still would have been\nthe feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this infamous doctrine.\nWhether higher powers are ordained of God or not, if those higher powers\nendeavor to destroy the rights of man, I for one shall resist. Whenever\nand wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn in support of a human\nright, I am a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to titled\nwrong and robed injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man.\nThe real rulers are the people, and the rulers so-called are but the\nservants of the people. They are not ordained of any God. All political\npower comes from and belongs to man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest\nthe thrones of Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses have been\nrepeated by brainless kings and heardess priests. For fifteen hundred\nyears each one of these texts has been a bastile in which has been\nimprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of these texts has been\nan obstruction on the highway of humanity. Each one has been a\nfortification behind which have crouched the sainted hypocrites and the\ntitled robbers. According to these texts, a robber gets his right to rob\nfrom God. And it is the duty of the robbed to submit. The thief gets his\nright to steal from God. The king gets his right to trample upon human\nliberty from God. I say, fight the king—fight the priest.\n\nThe Religious Liberty of God\n\nX.\n\nTHE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world with\nblood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, Christians\nare beginning to say that men have a right to differ upon religious\nquestions provided the questions about which they differ are not\nconsidered of great importance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance\nis: \"In non-essentials, Liberty; in essentials, Unity.\"\n\nThe Christian world have condescended to say that upon all non-essential\npoints we shall have the right to think for ourselves; but upon matters\nof the least importance, they will think and speak for us. In this they\nare consistent. They but follow the teachings of the God they worship.\nThey but adhere to the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures.\nWithin that volume there is no such thing as religious toleration.\nWithin that volume there is not one particle of mercy for an\nunbeliever. For all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners\nof their own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any\nChristian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that extent\nfalse to his religion. Let us see what the \"Magna Charta\" of liberty\nsays upon this subject:\n\n6. \"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,\nor the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,\nentice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou\nhast not known, thou, nor thy fathers.\n\n7. \"Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh\nunto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the earth even\nunto the other end of the earth.\n\n8. \"Thou shalt not consent unto him; nor hearken unto him; neither shall\nthine eye pity him; neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal\nhim.\n\n9. \"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him\nto put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.\n\n10. \"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath\nsought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out\nof the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.\"—Deut. xiii.\n\nThat is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your bosom\nhad said, \"I like the religion of India better than the religion of\nPalestine,\" it was then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most\nHigh—understand me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High—said:\n\n\"Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand shall be\nthe first upon her to put her to death.\"\n\nThis I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to believe\nin such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in order to be\nsaved, I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you a few\nmore extracts from the \"Magna Charta\" of human liberty.\n\n2. \"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord\nthy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the\nsight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,\n\n3. \"And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the\nsun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.\n\n4. \"And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired\ndiligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such\nabomination is wrought in Israel.\n\n5. \"Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have\ncommitted that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that\nwoman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.\"\n\nUnder this law if the woman you loved had said: \"Let us worship the sun;\nI am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let us worship the\nsun; let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the world\nwith light and love, when the dawn stands jocund on the mountain's misty\ntop; it is the sun whose beams illumine and cover the earth with verdure\nand with beauty; it is the sun that covers the trees with leaves, that\ncarpets the earth with grass and adorns the world with flowers; I adore\nthe sun because in its light I have seen your eyes; it has given to\nme the face of my babe; it has clothed my life with joy; let us in\ngratitude fall down and worship the glorious beams of the sun.\"\n\nFor this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your hands:\n\n\"Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither shalt\nthou conceal her.\n\n\"But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first upon her to\nput her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.\n\n\"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die.\"\n\nFor my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a God who\nwould make such a law or give such a command. This you may say is the\ndoctrine of the Old Testament—what is the doctrine of the New?\n\n\"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth\nnot shall be damned.\"\n\nThat is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the \"tidings\nof great joy.\"\n\nEvery one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip upon\nthe backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has been a\nsword. Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack. Every one has\nbeen a fountain of tears. These words have filled the hearts of men with\nhatred. These words invented all the instruments of torture. These words\ncovered the earth with blood.\n\nFor the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired book.\nIf then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws commanding\nreligious intolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this same God\ntook upon himself flesh, and came among the Jews and taught a different\nreligion, and they crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown?\n\nDoes the Bible Describe a God of Mercy\n\nXI.\n\nIS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, changeable,\nunjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is\nit possible to read the words said to have been spoken by this Deity,\nwithout a shudder? Is it possible to contemplate his character without\nhatred?\n\n\"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour\nflesh.\"—Deut. xxxii.\n\nIs this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to his\nweak, his wandering and suffering children?\n\n\"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of\nthy dogs in the same.\" Psalms, lxviii.\n\nIs it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the blood of\nhis children?\n\n22. \"And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by\nlittle and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts\nof the field increase upon thee.\n\n23. \"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall\ndestroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.\n\n24. \"And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt\ndestroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to\nstand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.\"—Deut. vii.\n\nIf these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they had been\nspoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have\nbeen surprised. But these things are attributed to a God of infinite\nmercy.\n\n40. \"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,\nand of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none\nremaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of\nIsrael commanded.\"—Josh, x.\n\n14. \"And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of\nIsrael took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with\nthe edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they\nany to breathe.\"—Josh. xi.\n\n19. \"There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,\nsave the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in\nbattle.\n\n20. \"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come\nagainst Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that\nthey might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord\ncommanded Moses.\"—Josh. xi.\n\nThere are no words in our language with which to express the indignation\nI feel when reading these cruel and heartless words.\n\n\"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim\npeace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and\nopen unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein shall be\ntributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no\npeace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege\nit. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou\nshalt smite every male thereof with the sword. But the women, _and the\nlittle ones_, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the\nspoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the\nspoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.\n\n\"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from\nthee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of\nthese people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance,\nthou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.\"\n\nThese terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion. The men\nwho were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their homes, their\nfiresides, for their wives and for their little children. Yet these\nthings, by the clergy of San Francisco, are called acts of sublime\nmercy.\n\nAll this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.\nThe Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words of\nvengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite\nbrutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart the sweet flower\nof pity and trample it in the bloody dust of superstition. Do not, I\nbeseech you, justify the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled\nbabes. Do not let the gaze of the gorgon of superstition turn your\nhearts to stone.\n\nIs there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not with joy\nand gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect that all the\npassages in the Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and concubinage,\npolitical tyranny, the subjection of woman, the enslavement of children,\nestablishing domestic and political tyranny, and that all the commands\nto destroy men, women and children, are but interpolations of kings\nand priests, made for the purpose of subjugating mankind through the\ninstrumentality of fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would\nnot think vastly more of the Bible if all these infamous things were\neliminated from it?\n\nSurely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred from\nthe fact that in the same volume are found the frightful passages I have\nquoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and studied precisely as\nwe read and study any book whatever. The good in it should be preserved\nand cherished, and that which shocks the human heart should be cast\naside forever.\n\nWhile the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with disease,\nfamine, war, pestilence and death, there are no threatenings of\npunishment beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punishment is a\ndogma of the New Testament. This doctrine, the most cruel, the most\ninfamous of which the human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at\nall, in the Bible—in the New Testament. One cannot imagine what the\nhuman heart has suffered by reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal\ndamnation. It is a doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so\ninfinitely cruel, that it is impossible for me to respect either the\nhead or heart of any human being who teaches or fears it. This\ndoctrine necessarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite\npunishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes committed by finite\nbeings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am astonished it ever\nfound lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we can be happy in\nheaven while those we loved on earth are suffering infinite torments in\neternal fire, defames and calumniates the human heart.\n\nThe Plan of Salvation\n\nXII.\n\nWE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the salvation\nof all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made\nmanifest to the children of men. According to the great scheme of the\natonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in order to satisfy a\nlaw. What kind of law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of\ninnocence? Who made this law? If God made it he must have known that the\ninnocent would have to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is\nto me a medley of contradictions, impossibilities and theological\nconclusions. We are told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the\nGarden of Eden death never would have entered the world. We are further\ninformed that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not\nhave been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death\nnever would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first\nparents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world, you and\nI never would have existed. The earth would have been filled thousands\nof generations before you and I were born. At the feast of life, death\nmade seats vacant for us. According to this doctrine, we are indebted\nto the devil for our existence. Had he not tempted Eve—no sin. If there\nhad been no sin—no death. If there had been no death the world would\nhave been filled ages before you and I were born. Therefore, we owe our\nexistence to the devil. We are further informed that as a consequence of\noriginal sin the scheme called the atonement became necessary; and that\nif the Savior had not taken upon himself flesh and come to this atom\ncalled the earth, and if he had not been crucified for us, we should all\nhave been cast forever into hell. Had it not been for the bigotry of\nthe Jews and the treachery of Judas Iscariot, Christ would not have been\ncrucified; and if he had not been crucified, all of us would have had\nour portion in the lake that burneth with eternal fire.\n\nAccording to this great doctrine, according to this vast and most\nwonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to the devil,\nour salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.\n\nSo far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of\nsalvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of\nbelieving a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,\nample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal fire simply\nbecause there is not testimony enough to satisfy his mind? Can there be\nsuch a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?\n\nAnd yet this same Deity says to me, \"resist not evil; pray for those\nthat despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will eternally damn\nmine.\" It seems to me that even gods should practice what they preach.\n\nAll atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its\nprovisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever\nhe is guilty of a wicked action he says, \"charge it.\" This kind of\nbookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in sin.\n\nThe truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most creeds\nare better than the Bible, and most men are better than their God.\n\nOther Religions\n\nXIII.\n\nWE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in all ages\nendeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and Whither? He has\nendeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to pluck the secret of\nhis existence from the night. He has questioned the spectres of his own\nimagination. He has explored the mysterious avenues of dreams. He\nhas peopled the heavens with spirits. He has mistaken his visions for\nrealities. In the twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows\nfor gods. In all ages he has been the slave of misery, the dupe of\nsuperstition and the fool of hope. He has suffered and aspired.\n\nReligion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we throw\naside the grosser and absurder forms of faith—practically at first by\nceasing to observe them, and lastly, by denying them altogether. Every\nchurch necessarily by its constitution endeavors to prevent this natural\ngrowth or development. What has happened to other religions must happen\nto ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing\naway. Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as noble\nas ours can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say the least,\nbeen as reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.\n\nMan has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these questions\nin all the countries of the world, and I respect all such men and women;\nbut let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you that in other\ncountries there is something.\n\nThe Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the three stairs\nthat lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said: \"Who is there?\"\n\"Thy servant, O God!\" But the gates would not open. For seven years he\ndid every act of kindness; again he came, and the voice said: \"Who is\nthere?\" And he replied: \"Thy slave, O God!\" Yet the gates were shut. Yet\nseven other years of kindness, and the man again knocked; and the voice\ncried and said: \"Who is there?\" \"Thyself, O God!\" And the gates wide\nopen flew.\n\nI say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.\n\nA Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful\ndescriptions of perdition, wrote these words: \"Two angels flying out\nfrom the blissful city of God—the angel of love and the angel of\npity—hovered over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of\nhell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and one tear of pity\nextinguished all the fires.\" Has orthodoxy produced anything as\ngenerously beautiful as this? Let me read you this: Sectarians, hear\nthis: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this: Clergy of America who\nexpect to have your happiness in heaven increased by seeing me burning\nin hell, hear this:\n\nThis is the prayer of the Brahmins—a prayer that has trembled from\nhuman lips toward heaven for more than four thousand years:\n\n\"Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation. Never will\nI enter into final bliss alone. But forever and everywhere will I labor\nand strive for the final redemption of every creature throughout all\nworlds, and until all are redeemed. Never will I wrongly leave this\nworld to sin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain and work and suffer\nwhere I am.\"\n\nHas the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the infinite\ncharity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all the shining\nworlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine that a\nlarge majority are going to eternal ruin.\n\nCompare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it with the\nimprecation of Christ: \"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared\nfor the devil and his angels;\" with the ideas of Jeremy Taylor, with the\ncreeds of Christendom, with all the prayers of all the saints, and in no\nchurch except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like this.\n\n\"When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain\nfrom it.\"\n\nSince the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human conduct\ngiven superior to this?\n\nAre the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius? He was\nasked if there was any single word comprising the duties of man. He\nreplied: \"Reciprocity.\" Upon being asked what he thought of the\ndoctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: \"That is not\nmy doctrine. If you return benefits for injuries what do you propose\nfor benefits? My doctrine is; For benefits return benefits; for injuries\nreturn justice without any admixture of revenge.\"\n\nTo return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I cannot\nput a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an injury.\n\nNow, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it doing, I\nask you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth\ncentury? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this except from the honesty\nof my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a consolation to us now? Is it\neven a consolation when those we love die? The dead are so near and the\npromises are so far away. It is covered with the rubbish of the past.\nI ask you, is it all that is demanded by the brain and heart of the\nnineteenth century?\n\nWe want something better; we want something grander; we want\nsomething that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want to\nadvance—that is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a\nheretic—you cannot do it.\n\nNearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and\nbloodshed. They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon the\nhuman brain. They have all, however, been perfectly natural productions,\nand under similar circumstances would all be reproduced. Only by\nintellectual development are the old superstitions outgrown. As only\nthe few intellectually advance, the majority is left on the side of\nsuperstition, and remains there until the advanced ideas of the few\nthinkers become general; and by that time there are other thinkers still\nin advance.\n\nAnd so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully proceeds\nfrom age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the\nheretics denounce their denouncers as the disciples of superstition\nand ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod was orthodox. Socrates was a\nblasphemer. Anytus worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while\nthe sellers of indulgences were the best of Catholics. Roger Williams\nwas a heretic, while the Puritans who drove him from Massachusetts were\nall orthodox. Every step in advance in the religious history of the\nworld has been taken by heretics. No superstition has been destroyed\nexcept by a heretic. No creed has been bettered except by a heretic.\nHeretic is the name that the orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing\npioneer. It is shouted by the dwellers in swamps to the people upon the\nhills. It is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn. It is\nwhat the rotting says of the growing. Heretic is the name that a stench\ngives to a perfume.\n\nWith this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from the lips\nof the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud—heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is\nan epitaph—heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a\nmist—heresy the star shining forever above the child of truth.\n\nI am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe that Want\nwill forever extend its withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for\ncharity. I do not believe that the children will forever be governed by\ncruelty and brute force. I do not believe that poverty will dwell with\nman forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever cover the earth,\nor that the shadow of the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I\ndo not believe that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that\nmalice and superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.\n\nI believe the time will come when there will be charity in every heart,\nwhen there will be love in every family, and when law and liberty and\njustice, like the atmosphere, will surround this world.\n\nWe have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated ourselves\nbefore the ignorance of the past.\n\nLet us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the brightening\nfuture. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not throw away our idea\nof justice for the sake of any book or of any religion whatever. Let us\nlive according to our highest and noblest and purest ideal.\n\nBy this time we should know that the real Bible has not been written.\n\nThe real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or\napostles, or evangelists, or of Christs.\n\nEvery man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great\nbook. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes\nno appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no\npunishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man\nin the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no\nfear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and\nunderstood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims\nto be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader\nto verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed.\nThis book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists\ntestifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and\ncrowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with\nits every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower,\nconfirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite\nabysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.\n\nLadies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this evening; you\ncannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual hospitality of this great\ncity by the Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you—I thank you\nagain and again, a thousand times.\n"
}