{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-2:orthodoxy",
  "slug": "orthodoxy",
  "title": "Orthodoxy",
  "subtitle": "A lecture.",
  "excerpt": "A survey of orthodox Christianity in 1884 — its dying creeds, its surviving institutions, and the specific doctrines (depravity, atonement, hell) that no longer hold the educated mind.",
  "year": 1884,
  "volume": 2,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "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/orthodoxy/",
  "wordCount": 19747,
  "body": "IT is utterly inconceivable that any man believing in the truth of the\nChristian religion should publicly deny it, because he who believes in\nthat religion would believe that, by a public denial, he would peril the\neternal salvation of his soul. It is conceivable, and without any great\neffort of the mind, that millions who do not believe in the Christian\nreligion should openly say that they did. In a country where religion\nis supposed to be in power—where it has rewards for pretence, where it\npays a premium upon hypocrisy, where it at least is willing to purchase\nsilence—it is easily conceivable that millions pretend to believe what\nthey do not. And yet I believe it has been charged against myself not\nonly that I was insincere, but that I took the side I am on for the sake\nof popularity; and the audience to-night goes far toward justifying the\naccusation.\n\nOrthodox Religion Dying Out.\n\nIt gives me immense pleasure to say to this audience that orthodox\nreligion is dying out of the civilized world. It is a sick man. It has\nbeen attacked with two diseases—softening of the brain and ossification\nof the heart. It is a religion that no longer satisfies the intelligence\nof this country; that no longer satisfies the brain; a religion against\nwhich the heart of every civilized man and woman protests. It is a\nreligion that gives hope only to a few; that puts a shadow upon the\ncradle; that wraps the coffin in darkness and fills the future of\nmankind with flame and fear. It is a religion that I am going to do what\nlittle I can while I live to destroy. In its place I want humanity,\nI want good fellowship, I want intellectual liberty—free lips, the\ndiscoveries and inventions of genius, the demonstrations of science—the\nreligion of art, music and poetry—of good houses, good clothes, good\nwages—that is to say, the religion of this world.\n\nReligious Deaths and Births.\n\nWe must remember that this is a world of progress, a world of perpetual\nchange—a succession of coffins and cradles. There is perpetual death,\nand there is perpetual birth. By the grave of the old, forever stand\nyouth and joy; and when an old religion dies, a better one is born. When\nwe find out that an assertion is a falsehood a shining truth takes its\nplace, and we need not fear the destruction of the false. The more false\nwe destroy the more room there will be for the true.\n\nThere was a time when the astrologer sought to read in the stars the\nfate of men and nations. The astrologer has faded from the world, but\nthe astronomer has taken his place. There was a time when the poor\nalchemist, bent and wrinkled and old, over his crucible endeavored to\nfind some secret by which he could change the baser metals into purest\ngold. The alchemist has gone; the chemist took his place; and, although\nhe finds nothing to change metals into gold, he finds something that\ncovers the earth with wealth. There was a time when the soothsayer and\naugur flourished. After them came the parson and the priest; and the\nparson and the priest must go. The preacher must go, and in his place\nmust come the teacher—the real interpreter of Nature. We are done with\nthe supernatural. We are through with the miraculous and the impossible.\nThere was once the prophet who pretended to read the book of the future.\nHis place has been taken by the philosopher, who reasons from cause to\neffect—who finds the facts by which we are surrounded and endeavors\nto reason from these premises and to tell what in all probability will\nhappen. The prophet has gone, the philosopher is here. There was a time\nwhen man sought aid from heaven—when he prayed to the deaf sky. There\nwas a time when everything depended on the supernaturalist. That time in\nChristendom is passing away. We now depend upon the naturalist—not upon\nthe believer in ancient falsehoods, but on the discoverer of facts—on\nthe demonstrater of truths. At last we are beginning to build on a\nsolid foundation, and as we progress, the supernatural dies. The leaders\nof the intellectual world deny the existence of the supernatural. They\ntake from all superstition its foundation.\n\nThe Religion of Reciprocity.\n\nSupernatural religion will fade from this world, and in its place we\nshall have reason. In the place of the worship of something we know\nnot of, will be the religion of mutual love and assistance—the great\nreligion of reciprocity. Superstition must go. Science will remain. The\nchurch dies hard. The brain of the world is not yet developed. There\nare intellectual diseases as well as physical—there are pestilences and\nplagues of the mind.\n\nWhenever the new comes the old protests, and fights for its place as\nlong as it has a particle of power. We are now having the same warfare\nbetween superstition and science that there was between the stage coach\nand the locomotive. But the stage coach had to go. It had its day of\nglory and power, but it is gone. It went West. In a little while it will\nbe driven into the Pacific. So we find that there is the same conflict\nbetween the different sects and different schools not only of philosophy\nbut of medicine.\n\nRecollect that everything except the demonstrated truth is liable\nto die. That is the order of Nature. Words die. Every language has a\ncemetery. Every now and then a word dies and a tombstone is erected, and\nacross it is written \"obsolete.\" New words are continually being born.\nThere is a cradle in which a word is rocked. A thought is married to a\nsound, and a child-word is born. And there comes a time when the word\ngets old, and wrinkled, and expressionless, and is carried mournfully\nto the grave. So in the schools of medicine. You can remember, so can I,\nwhen the old allopathists, the bleeders and blisterers, reigned supreme.\nIf there was anything the matter with a man they let out his blood.\nCalled to the bedside, they took him on the point of a lancet to the\nedge of eternity, and then practiced all their art to bring him back.\nOne can hardly imagine how perfect a constitution it took a few years\nago to stand the assault of a doctor. And long after the old practice\nwas found to be a mistake hundreds and thousands of the ancient\nphysicians clung to it, carried around with them, in one pocket a bottle\nof jalap, and in the other a rusty lancet, sorry that they could not\nfind some patient with faith enough to allow the experiment to be made\nagain.\n\nSo these schools, and these theories, and these religions die hard. What\nelse can they do? Like the paintings of the old masters, they are kept\nalive because so much money has been invested in them. Think of the\namount of money that has been invested in superstition! Think of the\nschools that have been founded for the more general diffusion of useless\nknowledge! Think of the colleges wherein men are taught that it is\ndangerous to think, and that they must never use their brains except\nin the act of faith! Think of the millions and billions of dollars that\nhave been expended in churches, in temples, and in cathedrals! Think of\nthe thousands and thousands of men who depend for their living upon the\nignorance of mankind! Think of those who grow rich on credulity and\nwho fatten on faith! Do you suppose they are going to die without a\nstruggle? What are they to do? From the bottom of my heart I sympathize\nwith the poor clergyman that has had all his common sense educated out\nof him, and is now to be thrown upon the cold and unbelieving world. His\nprayers are not answered; he gets no help from on high, and the pews are\nbeginning to criticise the pulpit. What is the man to do? If he suddenly\nchanges he is gone. If he preaches what he really believes he will get\nnotice to quit. And yet, if he and the congregation would come together\nand be perfectly honest, they would all admit that they believe little\nand know nothing.\n\nOnly a little while ago a couple of ladies were riding together from a\nrevival, late at night, and one said to the other, as they rode along:\n\"I am going to say something that will shock you, and I beg of you never\nto tell it to anybody else. I am going to tell it to you.\" \"Well, what\nis it?\" Said she: \"I do not believe the Bible.\" The other replied:\n\"Neither do I.\"\n\nI have often thought how splendid it would be if the ministers could but\ncome together and say: \"Now, let us be honest. Let us tell each other,\nhonor bright\"—like Dr. Curry, of Chicago, did in the meeting the other\nday—\"just what we believe.\" They tell a story that in the old time a\nlot of people, about twenty, were in Texas in a little hotel, and one\nfellow got up before the fire, put his hands behind him, and said:\n\"Boys, let us all tell our real names.\" If the ministers and their\ncongregations would only tell their real thoughts they would find that\nthey are nearly as bad as I am, and that they believe as little.\n\nOrthodoxy dies hard, and its defenders tell us that this fact shows that\nit is of divine origin. Judaism dies hard. It has lived several thousand\nyears longer than Christianity. The religion of Mohammed dies hard.\n\nBuddhism dies hard. Why do all these religions die hard? Because\nintelligence increases slowly.\n\nLet me whisper in the ear of the Protestant: Catholicism dies hard. What\ndoes that prove? It proves that the people are ignorant and that the\npriests are cunning.\n\nLet me whisper in the ear of the Catholic: Protestantism dies hard. What\ndoes that prove? It proves that the people are superstitious and the\npreachers stupid.\n\nLet me whisper in all your ears: Infidelity is not dying—it is\ngrowing—it increases every day. And what does that prove? It\nproves that the people are learning more and more—that they are\nadvancing—that the mind is getting free, and that the race is being\ncivilized.\n\nThe clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.\n\nThe Blows That Have Shattered the Shield and Shivered the Lance of\nSuperstition.\n\nMohammed.\n\nMohammed wrested from the disciples of the cross the fairest part of\nEurope. It was known that he was an impostor, and that fact sowed the\nseeds of distrust and infidelity in the Christian world. Christians made\nan effort to rescue from the infidels the empty sepulchre of Christ.\nThat commenced in the eleventh century and ended at the close of the\nthirteenth. Europe was almost depopulated. The fields were left waste,\nthe villages were deserted, nations were impoverished, every man who\nowed a debt was discharged from payment if he put a cross upon his\nbreast and joined the Crusades. No matter what crime he had committed,\nthe doors of the prison were open for him to join the hosts of the\ncross. They believed that God would give them victory, and they carried\nin front of the first Crusade a goat and a goose, believing that both\nthose animals were blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. And I\nmay say that those same animals are in the lead to-day in the orthodox\nworld. Until the year 1291 they endeavored to gain possession of that\nsepulchre, and finally the hosts of Christ were driven back, baffled and\nbeaten,—a poor, miserable, religious rabble. They were driven back, and\nthat fact sowed the seeds of distrust in Christendom. You know that at\nthat time the world believed in trial by battle—that God would take\nthe side of the right—and there had been a trial by battle between the\ncross and the crescent, and Mohammed had been victorious. Was God at\nthat time governing the world? Was he endeavoring to spread his gospel?\n\nThe Destruction of Art.\n\nYou know that when Christianity came into power it destroyed every\nstatue it could lay its ignorant hands upon. It defaced and obliterated\nevery painting; it destroyed every beautiful building; it burned the\nmanuscripts, both Greek and Latin; it destroyed all the history, all\nthe poetry, all the philosophy it could find, and reduced to ashes every\nlibrary that it could reach with its torch. And the result was, that the\nnight of the Middle Ages fell upon the human race. But by accident,\nby chance, by oversight, a few of the manuscripts escaped the fury of\nreligious zeal; and these manuscripts became the seed, the fruit of\nwhich is our civilization of to-day. A few statues had been buried; a\nfew forms of beauty were dug from the earth that had protected them, and\nnow the civilized world is filled with art, the walls are covered with\npaintings, and the niches filled with statuary. A few manuscripts were\nfound and deciphered. The old languages were learned, and literature\nwas again born. A new day dawned upon mankind. Every effort at mental\nimprovement had been opposed by the church, and yet, the few things\nsaved from the general wreck—a few poems, a few works of the ancient\nthinkers, a few forms wrought in stone, produced a new civilization\ndestined to overthrow and destroy the fabric of superstition.\n\nThe Discovery of America.\n\nWhat was the next blow that this church received? The discovery of\nAmerica. The Holy Ghost who inspired men to write the Bible did not\nknow of the existence of this continent, never dreamed of the Western\nHemisphere. The Bible left out half the world. The Holy Ghost did not\nknow that the earth is round. He did not dream that the earth is round.\nHe believed it was flat, although he made it himself. At that time\nheaven was just beyond the clouds. It was there the gods lived, there\nthe angels were, and it was against that heaven that Jacob's ladder\nleaned when the angels went up and down. It was to that heaven that\nChrist ascended after his resurrection. It was up there that the New\nJerusalem was, with its streets of gold, and under this earth was\nperdition. There was where the devils lived; where a pit was dug for\nall unbelievers, and for men who had brains. I say that for this reason:\nJust in proportion that you have brains, your chances for eternal joy\nare lessened, according to this religion. And just in proportion that\nyou lack brains your chances are increased. At last they found that the\nearth is round. It was circumnavigated by Magellan. In 1519 that brave\nman set sail. The church told him: \"The earth is flat, my friend; don't\ngo, you may fall off the edge.\" Magellan said: \"I have seen the shadow\nof the earth upon the moon, and I have more confidence in the shadow\nthan I have in the church.\" The ship went round. The earth was\ncircumnavigated. Science passed its hand above it and beneath it, and\nwhere was the old heaven and where was the hell? Vanished forever! And\nthey dwell now only in the religion of superstition. We found there was\nno place there for Jacob's ladder to lean against; no place there for\nthe gods and angels to live; no place to hold the waters of the deluge;\nno place to which Christ could have ascended. The foundations of the\nNew Jerusalem crumbled. The towers and domes fell, and in their places\ninfinite space, sown with an infinite number of stars; not with New\nJerusalems, but with countless constellations.\n\nCopernicus and Kepler.\n\nThen man began to grow great, and with that came Astronomy, In 1473\nCopernicus was born. In 1543 his great work appeared. In 1616 the system\nof Copernicus was condemned by the pope, by the infallible Catholic\nChurch, and the church was about as near right upon that subject as upon\nany other. The system of Copernicus was denounced. And how long do you\nsuppose the church fought that? Let me tell you. It was revoked by Pius\nVII. in the year of grace 1821. For two hundred and seventy-eight years\nafter the death of Copernicus the church insisted that his system was\nfalse, and that the old Bible astronomy was true. Astronomy is the first\nhelp that we ever received from heaven. Then came Kepler in 1609, and\nyou may almost date the birth of science from the night that Kepler\ndiscovered his first law. That was the break of the day. His first law,\nthat the planets do not move in circles but in ellipses; his second law,\nthat they describe equal spaces in equal times; his third law, that the\nsquares of their periodic times are proportional to the cubes of their\ndistances. That man gave us the key to the heavens. He opened the\ninfinite book, and in it read three lines.\n\nI have not time to speak of Galileo, of Leonardo da Vinci, of Bruno, and\nof hundreds of others who contributed to the intellectual wealth of the\nworld.\n\nSpecial Providence.\n\nThe next thing that gave the church a blow was Statistics. We found by\ntaking statistics that we could tell the average length of human life;\nthat this human life did not depend upon infinite caprice; that it\ndepended upon conditions, circumstances, laws and facts, and that these\nconditions, circumstances, and facts were during long periods of time\nsubstantially the same. And now, the man who depends entirely upon\nspecial providence gets his life insured. He has more confidence even\nin one of these companies than he has in the whole Trinity. We found by\nstatistics that there were just so many crimes on an average committed;\njust so many crimes of one kind and so many of another; just so many\nsuicides, so many deaths by drowning, so many accidents on an average,\nso many men marrying women, for instance, older than themselves; so many\nmurders of a particular kind; just the same number of mistakes; and\nI say to-night, statistics utterly demolish the idea of special\nprovidence.\n\nOnly the other day a gentleman was telling me of a case of special\nprovidence. He knew it. He had been the subject of it. A few years ago\nhe was about to go on a ship when he was detained. He did not go, and\nthe ship was lost with all on board.\n\n\"Yes!\" I said, \"Do you think the people who were drowned believed in\nspecial providence?\" Think of the infinite egotism of such a doctrine.\nHere is a man that fails to go upon a ship with five hundred passengers\nand they go down to the bottom of the sea—fathers, mothers, children,\nand loving husbands and wives waiting upon the chores of expectation.\nHere is one poor little wretch that did not happen to go! And he thinks\nthat God, the Infinite Being, interfered in his poor little withered\nbehalf and let the rest all go. That is special providence. Why does\nspecial providence allow all the crimes? Why are the wife-beaters\nprotected, and why are the wives and children left defenceless if the\nhand of God is over us all? Who protects the insane? Why does Providence\npermit insanity? But the church cannot give up special providence. If\nthere is no such thing, then no prayers, no worship, no churches, no\npriests. What would become of National Thanksgiving?\n\nYou know we have a custom every year of issuing a proclamation of\nthanksgiving. We say to God, \"Although you have afflicted all the other\ncountries, although you have sent war, and desolation, and famine on\neverybody else, we have been such good children that you have been\nkind to us, and we hope you will keep on.\" It does not make a bit of\ndifference whether we have good times or not—the thanksgiving is always\nexactly the same. I remember a few years ago a governor of Iowa got out\na proclamation of that kind. He went on to tell how thankful the people\nwere and how prosperous the State had been. There was a young fellow in\nthat State who got out another proclamation, saying that he feared the\nLord might be misled by official correspondence; that the governor's\nproclamation was entirely false; that the State was not prosperous; that\nthe crops had been an almost utter failure; that nearly every farm in\nthe State was mortgaged, and that if the Lord did not believe him, all\nhe asked was that he would send some angel in whom he had confidence, to\nlook the matter over and report.\n\nCharles Darwin.\n\nThis century will be called Darwin's century. He was one of the greatest\nmen who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena\nof life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles\nDarwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived\non the other, and from that name has come more light to the world\nthan from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the\nsurvival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species,\nhas removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox\nChristianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the\ninspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of\nman, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that\nthe Bible is a book written by ignorance—at the instigation of fear.\nThink of the men who replied to him. Only a few years ago there was no\nperson too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more\nignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task. He was held\nup to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and\nyet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her\nnoblest and her grandest. Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual\nworld, and his doctrines are now accepted facts. His light has broken\nin on some of the clergy, and the greatest man who to-day occupies\nthe pulpit of one of the orthodox: churches, Henry Ward Beecher, is a\nbeliever in the theories of Charles Darwin—a man of more genius than\nall the clergy of that entire church put together.\n\nAnd yet we are told in this little creed that orthodox religion is about\nto conquer the world! It will be driven to the wilds of Africa. It must\ngo to some savage country; it has lost its hold upon civilization. It is\nunfortunate to have a religion that cannot be accepted by the intellect\nof a nation. It is unfortunate to have a religion against which every\ngood and noble heart protests. Let us have a good religion or none. My\npity has been excited by seeing these ministers endeavor to warp and\ntwist the passages of Scripture to fit the demonstrations of science. Of\ncourse, I have not time to recount all the discoveries and events that\nhave assisted in the destruction of superstition. Every fact is an\nenemy of the church. Every fact is a heretic. Every demonstration is\nan infidel. Everything that ever really happened testifies against the\nsupernatural.\n\nThe church teaches that man was created perfect, and that for six\nthousand years he has degenerated. Darwin demonstrated the falsity\nof this dogma. He shows that man has for thousands of ages steadily\nadvanced; that the Garden of Eden is an ignorant myth; that the doctrine\nof original sin has no foundation in fact; that the atonement is an\nabsurdity; that the serpent did not tempt, and that man did not \"fall.\"\n\nCharles Darwin destroyed the foundation of orthodox Christianity. There\nis nothing left but faith in what we know could not and did not happen.\nReligion and science are enemies. One is a superstition; the other is\na fact. One rests upon the false, the other upon the true. One is the\nresult of fear and faith, the other of investigation and reason.\n\nThe Creeds.\n\nI have been talking a great deal about the orthodox religion. Often,\nafter having delivered a lecture, I have met some good, religious person\nwho has said to me:\n\n\"You do not tell it as we believe it.\"\n\n\"Well, but I tell it as you have it written in your creed.\"\n\n\"Oh, we don't mind the creed any more.\"\n\n\"Then, why do you not change it?\"\n\n\"Oh, well, we understand it as it is, and if we tried to change it,\nmaybe we would not agree.\"\n\nPossibly the creeds are in the best condition now. There is a tacit\nunderstanding that they do not believe them, that there is a way to\nget around them, and that they can read between the lines; that if they\nshould meet now to form new creeds they would fail to agree; and that\nnow they can say as they please, except in public. Whenever they do so\nin public the church, in self-defence, must try them; and I believe in\ntrying every minister that does not preach the doctrine he agrees to.\nI have not the slightest sympathy with a Presbyterian preacher who\nendeavors to preach infidelity from a Presbyterian pulpit and receives\nPresbyterian money. When he changes his views he should step down and\nout like a man, and say, \"I do not believe your doctrine, and I will not\npreach it. You must hire some other man.\" The Latest Creed.\n\nBut I find that I have correctly interpreted the creeds. There was put\ninto my hands the new Congregational creed. I have read it, and I will\ncall your attention to it to-night, to find whether that church has made\nany advance; to find whether the sun of science has risen in the heavens\nin vain; whether they are still the children of intellectual darkness;\nwhether they still consider it necessary for you to believe something\nthat you by no possibility can understand, in order to be a winged angel\nforever. Now, let us see what their creed is. I will read a little of\nit.\n\nThey commence by saying that they\n\n\"_Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,\nand of all things visible and invisible_.\"\n\nThey say, now, that there is the one personal God; that he is the maker\nof the universe and its ruler. I again ask the old question, Of what did\nhe make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this God\nmade it. Of what did he make it? What did he use for the purpose? There\nwas nothing in the universe except this God. What had the God been doing\nfor the eternity he had been living? He had made nothing—called nothing\ninto existence; never had had an idea, because it is impossible to have\nan idea unless there is something to excite an idea. What had he been\ndoing? Why does not the Congregational Church tell us? How do they know\nabout this Infinite Being? And if he is infinite how can they comprehend\nhim? What good is it to believe in something that you know you do not\nunderstand, and that you never can understand?\n\nIn the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:\n\n\"_There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts\nor passions_.\"\n\nThink of that!—without body, parts, or passions.\n\nI defy any man in the world to write a better description of nothing.\nYou cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than \"without\nbody, parts, or passions.\" And yet this God, without passions, is angry\nat the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a jealous God,\nwhose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God, without passions,\nloves the whole human race; and this God, without passions, damns a\nlarge majority of mankind. This God without body, walked in the Garden\nof Eden, in the cool of the day. This God, without body, talked with\nAdam and Eve. This God, without body, or parts met Moses upon Mount\nSinai, appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses\nface to face as a man speaketh to his friend. This description of God is\nsimply an effort of the church to describe a something of which it has\nno conception.\n\nGod as a Governor.\n\nSo, too, I find the following:\n\n\"_We believe that the Providence of God, by which he executes his\neternal purposes in the government of the world, is in and over all\nevents._\"\n\nIs God the governor of the world? Is this established by the history of\nnations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and\nnot frightened, in the history of the world, that this universe is\npresided over by an infinitely wise and good God?\n\nHow do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do\nyou account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the\nmaster's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you\naccount for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers—arms\nthat had been reached toward God in supplication? How do you account for\nit? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account\nfor the fact that this God allows people to be burned simply for loving\nhim? Is justice always done? Is innocence always acquitted? Do the\ngood succeed? Are the honest fed? Are the charitable clothed? Are the\nvirtuous shielded? How do you account for the fact that the world has\nbeen filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the\nfact that people have been swallowed by earthquakes, overwhelmned by\nvolcanoes, and swept from the earth by storms? Is it easy to account\nfor famine, for pestilence and plague if there be above us all a Ruler\ninfinitely good, powerful and wise?\n\nI do not say there is none. I do not know. As I have said before, this\nis the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts\nof the universe, and do not know about these things as much as the\nclergy pretend to, but if they know no more about the other world than\nthey do about this, it is not worth mentioning.\n\nHow do they answer all this? They say that God \"permits\" it. What would\nyou say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a\nchild, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say\ntruthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. Is it possible for this\nGod to prevent it? Then, if he does not he is a fiend; he is no god.\nBut they say he \"permits\" it. What for? So that we may have freedom of\nchoice. What for? So that God may find, I suppose, who are good and who\nare bad. Did he not know that when he made us? Did he not know exactly\njust what he was making? Why should he make those whom he knew would be\ncriminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and\ntake the lives of people you would hang me. And if God made a man whom\nhe knew would commit murder, then God is guilty of that murder. If God\nmade a man knowing that he would beat his wife, that he would starve\nhis children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the\nwrecks of ruined homes, then I say the being who knowingly called that\nwretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find\nthe providence of God in the history of nations. What little I have read\nshows me that when man has been helped, man has done it; when the\nchains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when\nsomething bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to\ntrace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You\nneed not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame upon\ngods; you can find the efficient causes nearer home—right here.\n\nThe Love of God.\n\nWhat is the next thing I find in this creed?\n\n\"_We believe that man was made in the image of God, that he might know,\nlove, and obey God, and enjoy him forever._\"\n\nI do not believe that anybody ever did love God, because nobody ever\nknew anything about him. We love each other. We love something that we\nknow. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great\nand beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can\nlove truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice,\nbecause it preserves human joy. We can love charity. We can love every\nform of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we\ncannot love the infinitely unknown. And how can we be made in the image\nof something that has neither body, parts, nor passions?\n\nThe Fall of Man.\n\nThe Congregational Church has not outgrown the doctrine of \"original\nsin.\" We are told that:\n\n\"_Our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation\nof God, and that all men are so alienated from God that there is no\nsalvation from the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming\npower._\"\n\nIs there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in\nthe Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike\nhis forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any\nintelligent man now believe that God made man of dust, and woman of a\nrib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the midst of it? Was\nthere not room outside of the garden to put his tree, if he did not want\npeople to eat his apples?\n\nIf I did not want a man to eat my fruit, I would not put him in my\norchard.\n\nDoes anybody now believe in the story of the serpent? I pity any man or\nwoman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable.\nWhy did Adam and Eve disobey? Why, they were tempted. By whom? The\ndevil. Who made the devil? God. What did God make him for? Why did\nhe not tell Adam and Eve about this serpent? Why did he not watch the\ndevil, instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out,\nwhy did he not keep him from getting in? Why did he not have his flood\nfirst, and drown the devil, before he made a man and woman.\n\nAnd yet, people who call themselves intelligent—professors in colleges\nand presidents of venerable institutions—teach children and young men\nthat the Garden of Eden story is an absolute historical fact. I defy\nany man to think of a more childish thing. This God, waiting around\nEden—knowing all the while what would happen—having made them on\npurpose so that it would happen, then does what? Holds all of us\nresponsible, and we were not there. Here is a representative before the\nconstituency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative I want\na chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known\nall the circumstances, I should have voted \"No!\" And yet, I am held\nresponsible.\n\nWe are told by the Bible and by the churches that through this fall of\nman \"Sin and death entered the world?\"\n\nAccording to this, just as soon as Adam and Eve had partaken of the\nforbidden fruit, God began to contrive ways by which he could destroy\nthe lives of his children. He invented all the diseases—all the fevers\nand coughs and colds—all the pains and plagues and pestilences—all the\naches and agonies, the malaria and spores; so that when we take a breath\nof air we admit into our lungs unseen assassins; and, fearing that some\nmight live too long, even under such circumstances, God invented the\nearthquake and volcano, the cyclone and lightning, animalcules to infest\nthe heart and brain, so small that no eye can detect—no instrument\nreach. This was all owing to the disobedience of Adam and Eve!\n\nIn his infinite goodness, God invented rheumatism and gout and\ndyspepsia, cancers and neuralgia, and is still inventing new diseases.\nNot only this', but he decreed the pangs of mothers, and that by the\ngates of love and life should crouch the dragons of death and pain.\nFearing that some might, by accident, live too long, he planted\npoisonous vines and herbs that looked like food. He caught the serpents\nhe had made and gave them fangs and curious organs, ingeniously devised\nto distill and deposit the deadly drop. He changed the nature of the\nbeasts, that they might feed on human flesh. He cursed a world, and\ntainted every spring and source of joy. He poisoned every breath of air;\ncorrupted even light, that it might bear disease on every ray; tainted\nevery drop of blood in human veins; touched every nerve, that it\nmight bear the double fruit of pain and joy; decreed all accidents and\nmistakes that maim and hurt and kill, and set the snares of life-long\ngrief, baited with present pleasure,—with a moment's joy. Then and\nthere he foreknew and foreordained all human tears. And yet all this is\nbut the prelude, the introduction, to the infinite revenge of the good\nGod. Increase and multiply all human griefs until the mind has reached\nimagination's farthest verge, then add eternity to time, and you may\nfaintly tell, but never can conceive, the infinite horrors of this\ndoctrine called \"The Fall of Man.\" The Atonement.\n\nWe are further told that:\n\n\"_All men are so alienated from God that there is no alleviation from\nthe guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming grace;_\"\n\nAnd that:\n\n\"_We believe that the love of God to sinful man has found its highest\nexpression in the redemptive work of his Son, who became man, uniting\nhis divine nature with our human nature in one person; who was tempted\nlike other men and yet without sin, and by his humiliation, his holy\nobedience, his sufferings, his death on the cross, and his resurrection,\nbecame a perfect redeemer; whose sacrifice of himself for the sins\nof the world declares the righteousness of God, and is the sole and\nsufficient ground of forgiveness and of reconciliation with him_.\"\n\nThe absurdity of the doctrine known as \"The Fall of Man,\" gave birth\nto that other absurdity known as \"The Atonement.\" So that now it is\ninsisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of somebody\nelse, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another. Let us\nleave out of our philosophy both these absurdities. Our creed will read\na great deal better with both of them out, and will make far better\nsense.\n\nNow, in consequence of Adam's sin, everybody is alienated from God. How?\nWhy? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all do wrong. Well, why?\nIs that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes?\nBecause there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite\nnumber of wrong ways; and as long as we are not perfect in our\nintellects we must make mistakes. \"There is no darkness but ignorance,\"\nand alienation, as they call it, from God, is simply a lack of\nintellect. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the\nalienation.\n\nThe church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the shore of\nthis world is against God—naturally hates God; that the little dimpled\nchild in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against\nGod! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men\nwho have worked for wife and child; upon all mothers who have suffered\nand labored, wept and worked; upon all the men who have died for their\ncountry; upon all who have fought for human liberty. Leave out the\nhistory of religion and there is little left to prove the depravity of\nman.\n\nEverybody that comes is against God! Every soul, they think, is like the\nwrecked Irishman, who drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed\nthe shore saw a man and said to him, \"Have you a Government here?\" The\nman replied \"We have.\" \"Well,\" said he, \"I'm forninst it!\"\n\nThe church teaches us that such is the attitude of every soul in the\nuniverse of God. Ought a god to take any credit to himself for making\ndepraved people? A god that cannot make a soul that is not totally\ndepraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And\nif a god has made us, knowing that we are totally depraved, why should\nwe go to the same being to be \"born again?\"\n\nThe Second Birth.\n\nThe church insists that we must be \"born again\" and that all who are not\nthe subjects of this second birth are heirs of everlasting fire. Would\nit not have been much better to have made another Adam and Eve? Would it\nnot have been better to change Noah and his people, so that after that a\nsecond birth would not have been necessary? Why not purify the fountain\nof all human life? Why allow the earth to be peopled with depraved and\nmonstrous beings, each one of whom must be re-made, re-formed, and born\nagain?\n\nAnd yet, even reformation is not enough. If the man who steals\nbecomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his\nfellow-man, changes and loves his fellow-man, that is not enough; he\nmust go through that mysterious thing called the second birth; he must\nbe born again. He must have faith; he must believe something that\nhe does not understand, and experience what they call \"conversion.\"\nAccording to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of God—nothing so\ncorrugates the brows of Jehovah with hatred—as a man relying on his own\ngood works. He must admit that he ought to be damned, and that of the\ntwo he prefers it, before God will consent to save him.\n\nI met a man the other day, who said to me, \"I am a Unitarian\nUniversalist.\" \"What do you mean by that?\" I asked. \"Well,\" said he,\n\"this is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be damned,\nand the Universalist thinks God is too good to damn him, and I believe\nthem both.\"\n\nIs it possible that the sacrifice of a perfect being was acceptable to\nGod? Will he accept the agony of innocence for the punishment of guilt?\nWill he release Barabbas and crucify Christ?\n\nInspiration.\n\nWhat is the next thing in this great creed?\n\n\"_We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the\nrecord of God's revelation of Himself, the work of redemption; that\nthey were written by men under the special guidance of the holy spirit;\nthat they are able to make wise unto salvation; and that they constitute\nan authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct\nare to be regulated and judged._\"\n\nThis is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, the result\nreached by a high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for\ntheir churches; and there we have the statement that the Bible was\nwritten \"by men under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit.\"\n\nWhat part of the Bible? All of it? All of it. And yet what is this Old\nTestament that was written by an infinitely good God? The being who\nwrote it did not know the shape of the world he had made; knew nothing\nof human nature. He commands men to love him, as if one could love upon\ncommand. The same God upheld the institution of human slavery; and the\nchurch says that the Bible that upholds that institution was written by\nmen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy\nSpirit.\n\nThis church tells us that men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit\nupheld the institution of polygamy—I deny it; that under the\nguidance of the Holy Spirit these men upheld wars of extermination and\nconquest—I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these\nmen wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife if\nshe happened to differ with him on the subject of religion—I deny it.\nAnd yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the Congregational\nChurch.\n\nIf the devil had written upon the subject of slavery, which side would\nhe have taken? Let every minister answer. If you knew the devil had\nwritten a work on human slavery, in your judgment, would he uphold\nslavery, or denounce it? Would you regard it as any evidence that he\never wrote it, if it upheld slavery? And yet, here you have a work\nupholding slavery, and you say that it was written by an infinitely good\nGod! If the devil upheld polygamy, would you be surprised? If the devil\nwanted to kill men for differing with him would you be astonished? If\nthe devil told a man to kill his wife, would you be shocked? And yet,\nyou say, that is exactly what God did. If there be a God, then that\ncreed is blasphemy. That creed is a libel upon him who sits on heaven's\nthrone. If there be a God, I ask him to write in the book in which my\naccount is kept, that I denied these lies for him.\n\nI do not believe in a slaveholding God! I do not worship a polygamous\nHoly Ghost, nor a Son who threatens eternal pain; I will not get upon my\nknees before any being who commands a husband to slay his wife because\nshe expresses her honest thought. Suppose a book should be found old as\nthe Old Testament in which slavery, polygamy and war are all denounced,\nwould Christians think that it was written by the devil?\n\nDid it ever occur to you that if God wrote the Old Testament, and\ntold the Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on\nreligion, and that this God afterward took upon himself flesh and came\nto Jerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed\nhim—did it ever occur to you that he reaped exactly what he had sown?\nDid it ever occur to you that he fell a victim to his own tyranny, and\nwas destroyed by his own hand? Of course I do not believe that any God\never was the author of the Bible, or that any God was ever crucified,\nor that any God was ever killed, or ever will be, but I want to ask you\nthat question.\n\nTake this Old Testament, then, with all its stories of murder and\nmassacre; with all its foolish and cruel fables; with all its infamous\ndoctrines; with its spirit of caste; with its spirit of hatred, and\ntell me whether it was written by a good God. If you will read the\nmaledictions and curses of that book, you will think that God, like\nLear, had divided heaven among his daughters, and then, in the insanity\nof despair, had launched his curses on the human race.\n\nAnd yet, I must say—I must admit—that the Old Testament is better\nthan the New. In the Old Testament, when God had a man dead, he let\nhim alone. When he saw him quietly in his grave he was satisfied. The\nmuscles relaxed, and the frown gave place to a smile. But in the New\nTestament the trouble commences at death. In the New Testament God is\nto wreak his revenge forever and ever. It was reserved for one who said,\n\"Love your enemies,\" to tear asunder the veil between time and eternity\nand fix the horrified gaze of man upon the gulfs of eternal fire. The\nNew Testament is just as much worse than the Old, as hell is worse than\nsleep; just as much worse, as infinite cruelty is worse than dreamless\nrest; and yet, the New Testament is claimed to be a gospel of love and\npeace.\n\nIs it possible that: \"_The Scriptures constitute the authoritative\nstandard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be\nregulated and judged\"?_\n\nAre we to judge of conduct by the Old Testament, by the New, or by both?\nAccording to the Old, the slaveholder was a just and generous man; a\npolygamist was a model of virtue. According to the New, the worst can be\nforgiven and the best can be lost. How can any book be a standard,\nwhen the standard itself must be measured by human reason? Is there a\nstandard of a standard? Must not the reason be convinced? and, if so, is\nnot the reason of each man the final arbiter of that man? If he takes a\nbook as a standard, does he so take it because it is to him reasonable?\nIn what way is the human reason to be ignored? Why should a book take\nits place, unless the reason has been convinced that the book is the\nproper standard? If this is so, the book rests upon the reason of those\nwho adopt it. Are they to be saved because they act in accordance with\ntheir reason, and are others to be damned because they act by the same\nstandard—their reason? No two are alike. Can we demand of all the same\nresult? Suppose the compasses were not constant to the pole—no two\ncompasses exactly alike—would you expect all ships to reach the same\nharbor?\n\nThe Reign of Truth and Love.\n\nI also find in this creed the following:\n\n\"_We believe that Jesus Christ came to establish among men the Kingdom\nof God, the reign of truth and love, of righteousness and peace!_\"\n\nWell, that may have been the object of Jesus Christ. I do not deny it.\nBut what was the result? The Christian world has caused more war than\nall the rest of the world beside. Most of the cunning instruments of\ndeath have been devised by Christians. All the wonderful machinery by\nwhich the life is blown from men, by which nations are conquered and\nenslaved—all these machines have been born in Christian brains. And yet\nhe came to bring peace, they say; but the Testament says otherwise: \"I\ncame not to bring peace, but a sword.\" And the sword was brought. What\nare the Christian nations doing to-day in Europe? Is there a solitary\nChristian nation that will trust any other? How many millions of\nChristians are in the uniform of forgiveness, armed with the muskets of\nlove?\n\nThere was an old Spaniard on the bed of death, who sent for a priest,\nand the priest told him that he would have to forgive his enemies before\nhe died. He said, \"I have none.\" \"What! no enemies?\" \"Not one,\" said the\ndying man; \"I killed the last one three months ago.\"\n\nHow many millions of Christians are now armed and equipped to destroy\ntheir fellow-Christians? Who are the men in Europe crying against war?\nWho wishes to have the nations disarmed? Is it the church? No; the men\nwho do not believe in what they call this religion of peace. When there\nis a war, and when they make a few thousand widows and orphans; when\nthey strew the plain with dead patriots, Christians assemble in their\nchurches and sing \"Te Deum Laudamus.\" Why? Because he has enabled a\nfew of his children to kill some others of his children. This is the\nreligion of peace—the religion that invented the Krupp gun, that will\nhurl a ball weighing two thousand pounds through twenty-four inches\nof solid steel. This is the religion of peace that covers the sea with\nmen-of-war, clad in mail, in the name of universal forgiveness. This is\nthe religion that drills and uniforms five millions of men to kill their\nfellows.\n\nThe Wars It Brought.\n\nWhat effect has this religion had upon the nations of the earth? What\nhave the nations been fighting about? What was the Thirty Years' War\nin Europe for? What was the war in Holland for? Why was it that England\npersecuted Scotland? Why is it that England persecutes Ireland even to\nthis day? At the bottom of every one of these conflicts you will find\na religious question. The religion of Jesus Christ, as preached by his\nchurch, causes war, bloodshed, hatred, and all uncharitableness; and\nwhy? Because, they say, a certain belief is necessary to salvation. They\ndo not say, if you behave yourself you will get there; they do not say,\nif you pay your debts and love your wife and love your children, and are\ngood to your friends, and your neighbors, and your country, you will\nget there; that will do you no good; you have got to believe a certain\nthing. No matter how bad you are, you can instantly be forgiven; and no\nmatter how good you are, if you fail to believe that which you cannot\nunderstand, the moment you get to the day of judgment nothing is left\nbut to damn you, and all the angels will shout \"hallelujah.\"\n\nWhat do they teach to-day? Nearly every murderer goes to heaven; there\nis only one step from the gallows to God, only one jerk between the\nhalter and heaven. That is taught by this church.\n\nI believe there ought to be a law to prevent the giving of the slightest\nreligious consolation to any man who has been found guilty of murder.\nLet a Catholic understand that if he imbrues his hands in his brother's\nblood, he can have no extreme unction. Let it be understood that he\ncan have no forgiveness through the church; and let the Protestant\nunderstand that when he has committed that crime the community will not\npray him into heaven. Let him go with his victim. The victim, dying in\nhis sins, goes to hell, and the murderer has the happiness of seeing him\nthere. If heaven grows dull and monotonous, the murderer can again give\nlife to the nerve of pleasure by watching the agony of his victim.\n\nThe truth is, Christianity has not made friends; it has made enemies. It\nis not, as taught, the religion of peace, it is the religion of war.\nWhy should a Christian hesitate to kill a man that his God is waiting\nto damn? Why should a Christian not destroy an infidel who is trying to\nassassinate his soul? Why should a Christian pity an unbeliever—one who\nhas rejected the Bible—when he knows that God will be pitiless forever?\nAnd yet we are told, in this creed, that \"_we believe in the ultimate\nprevalence of the Kingdom of Christ over all the earth._\"\n\nWhat makes you? Do you judge from the manner in which you are getting\nalong now? How many people are being born a year? About fifty millions.\nHow many are you converting a year, really, truthfully? Five or six\nthousand. I think I have overstated the number. Is orthodox Christianity\non the increase? No. There are a hundred times as many unbelievers in\northodox Christianity as there were ten years ago. What are you doing in\nthe missionary world? How long is it since you converted a Chinaman?\nA fine missionary religion, to send missionaries with their Bibles and\ntracts to China, but if a Chinaman comes here, mob him, simply to show\nhim the difference between the practical and theoretical workings of the\nChristian religion. How long since you have had an intelligent convert\nin India? In my judgment, never; there never has been an intelligent\nHindoo converted from the time the first missionary put his foot on\nthat soil; and never, in my judgment, has an intelligent Chinaman been\nconverted since the first missionary touched that shore. Where are they?\nWe hear nothing of them, except in the reports. They get money from poor\nold ladies, trembling on the edge of the grave, and go and tell them\nstories, how hungry the average Chinaman is for a copy of the New\nTestament, and paint the sad condition of a gentleman in the interior\nof Africa without the works of Dr. McCosh, longing for a copy of _The\nPrinceton Review_,—in my judgment, a pamphlet that would suit a savage.\nThus money is scared from the dying, and frightened from the old and\nfeeble.\n\nAbout how long is it before this kingdom is to be established? No one\nobjects to the establishment of peace and good will. Every good man\nlongs for the time when war shall cease. We are all hoping for a day of\nuniversal justice—a day of universal freedom—when man shall control\nhimself, when the passions shall become obedient to the intelligent\nwill. But the coming of that day will not be hastened by preaching the\ndoctrines of total depravity and eternal revenge. That sun will not rise\nthe quicker for preaching salvation by faith. The star that shines\nabove that dawn, the herald of that day, is Science, not\nsuperstition,—Reason, not religion.\n\nTo show you how little advance has been made, how many intellectual bats\nand mental owls still haunt the temple, still roost above the altar,\nI call your attention to the fact that the Congregational Church,\naccording to this creed; still believes in the resurrection of the dead,\nand in their Confession of Faith, attached to the creed, I find that\nthey also believe in the literal resurrection of the body.\n\nThe Resurrection.\n\nDoes anybody believe that, who has the courage to think for himself?\nHere is a man, for instance, that weighs 200 pounds and gets sick\nand dies weighing 120; how much will he weigh in the morning of the\nresurrection? Here is a cannibal, who eats another man; and we know that\nthe atoms you eat go into your body and become a part of you. After\nthe cannibal has eaten the missionary, and appropriated his atoms to\nhimself, and then dies, to whom will the atoms belong in the morning of\nthe resurrection? Could the missionary maintain an action of replevin,\nand if so, what would the cannibal do for a body? It has been\ndemonstrated, in so far as logic can demonstrate anything, that there\nis no creation and no destruction in Nature. It has been demonstrated,\nagain and again, that the atoms in us have been in millions of other\nbeings; have grown in the forests and in the grass, have blossomed in\nflowers, and been in the metals. In other words, there are atoms in each\none of us that have been in millions of others; and when we die, these\natoms return to the earth, again appear in grass and trees, are again\neaten by animals, and again devoured by countless vegetable mouths and\nturned into wood; and yet this church, in the nineteenth century,'in a\ncouncil composed of, and presided over by, professors and presidents\nof colleges and theologians, solemnly tells us that it believes in the\nliteral resurrection of the body. This is almost enough to make\none despair of the future—almost enough to convince a man of the\nimmortality of the absurd. They know better. There is not one so\nignorant but knows better.\n\nThe Judgment-Day.\n\nAnd what is the next thing?\n\n\"_We believe in a final judgment, the issues of which are everlasting\npunishment and everlasting life!_\"\n\nAt the final judgment all of us will be there. The thousands, and\nmillions, and billions, and trillions, and quadrillions that have died\nwill be there. The books will be opened, and each case will be called.\nThe sheep and the goats will be divided. The unbelievers will be sent to\nthe left, while the faithful will proudly walk to the right. The saved,\nwithout a tear, will bid an eternal farewell to those who loved them\nhere—to those they loved. Nearly all the human race will go away to\neverlasting punishment, and the fortunate few to eternal life. This\nis the consolation of the Congregational Church! This is the hope that\ndispels the gloom of life!\n\nPious Evasions.\n\nWhen the clergy are caught, they give a different meaning to the\nwords and say the world was not made in seven days. They say \"good\nwhiles\"—\"epochs.\"\n\nAnd in this same Confession of Faith and in this creed they say that the\nLord's day is holy—every seventh day. Suppose you lived near the North\nPole where the day is three months long. Then which day would you keep?\nIf you could get to the North Pole you could prevent Sunday from ever\novertaking you. You could walk around the other way faster than the\nworld could revolve. How would you keep Sunday then? Suppose we invent\nsomething that can go one thousand miles an hour? We can chase Sunday\nclear around the globe. Is there anything that can be more perfectly\nabsurd than that a space of time can be holy? You might as well talk\nabout a virtuous vacuum. We are now told that the Bible is not a\nscientific book, and that after all we cannot depend on what God said\nfour thousand years ago—that his ways are not as our ways—that we must\naccept without evidence, and believe without understanding.\n\nI heard the other night of an old man. He was not very well educated,\nand he got into the notion that he must have reading of the Bible and\nfamily worship. There was a bad boy in the family, and they were reading\nthe Bible by course. In the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians is this\npassage: \"Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery; we shall not all\ndie, but we shall all be changed.\" This boy had rubbed out the \"c\" in\n\"changed.\" So when the old man put on his spectacles, and got down his\nBible, he read: \"Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery, we shall not\nall die, but we shall all be hanged.\" The old lady said, \"Father, I\ndon't think it reads that way.\" He said, \"Who is reading this?\" \"Yes\nmother, it says 'hanged,' and, more than that, I see the sense of it.\nPride is the besetting sin of the human heart, and if there is anything\ncalculated to take the pride out of a man it is hanging.\" It is in this\nway that ministers avoid and explain the discoveries of Science.\n\nPeople ask me, if I take away the Bible what are we going to do? How can\nwe get along without the revelation that no one understands? What are\nwe going to do if we have no Bible to quarrel about What are we to do\nwithout hell? What are we going to do with our enemies? What are we\ngoing to do with the people we love but don't like?\n\n\"No Bible, No Civilization.\"\n\nThey tell me that there never would have been any civilization if it had\nnot been for this Bible. The Jews had a Bible; the Romans had not. Which\nhad the greater and the grander government? Let us be honest. Which of\nthose nations produced the greatest poets, the greatest soldiers, the\ngreatest orators, the greatest statesmen, the greatest sculptors? Rome\nhad no Bible. God cared nothing for the Roman Empire. He let the men\ncome up by chance. His time was taken up with the Jewish people. And\nyet Rome conquered the world, including the chosen people of God. The\npeople who had the Bible were defeated by the people who had not. How\nwas it possible for Lucretius to get along without the Bible?—how did\nthe great and glorious of that empire? And what shall we say of Greece?\nNo Bible. Compare Athens with Jerusalem. From Athens come the beauty and\nintellectual grace of the world. Compare the mythology of Greece with\nthe mythology of Judea; one covering the earth with beauty, and the\nother filling heaven with hatred and injustice. The Hindoos had no\nBible; they had been forsaken by the Creator, and yet they became the\ngreatest metaphysicians of the world. Egypt had no Bible. Compare Egypt\nwith Judea. What are we to do without the Bible? What became of the Jews\nwho had a Bible? Their temple was destroyed and their city was taken;\nand they never found real prosperity until their God deserted them. The\nTurks attributed all their victories to the Koran. The Koran gave them\ntheir victories over the believers in the Bible. The priests of each\nnation have accounted for the prosperity of that nation by its religion.\n\nThe Christians mistake an incident for a cause, and honestly imagine\nthat the Bible is the foundation of modern liberty and law. They forget\nphysical conditions, make no account of commerce, care nothing for\ninventions and discoveries, and ignorantly give the credit to their\ninspired book.\n\nThe foundations of our civilization were laid centuries before\nChristianity was known. The intelligence of courage, of self-government,\nof energy, of industry, that uniting made the civilization of this\ncentury, did not come alone from Judea, but from every nation of the\nancient world.\n\nMiracles of the New Testament.\n\nThere are many things in the New Testament that I cannot accept as true.\n\nI cannot believe in the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. I believe he\nwas the son of Joseph and Mary; that Joseph and Mary had been duly and\nlegally married; that he was the legitimate offspring of that union.\nNobody ever believed the contrary until he had been dead at least one\nhundred and fifty years. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke ever dreamed\nthat he was of divine origin. He did not say to either Matthew, Mark,\nor Luke, or to any one in their hearing, that he was the Son of God,\nor that he was miraculously conceived. He did not say it. It may be\nasserted that he said it to John, but John did not write the gospel\nthat bears his name. The angel Gabriel, who, they say, brought the news,\nnever wrote a word upon the subject. The mother of Christ never wrote\na word upon the subject. His alleged father never wrote a word upon\nthe subject, and Joseph never admitted the story. We are lacking in\nthe matter of witnesses. I would not believe such a story now. I cannot\nbelieve that it happened then. I would not believe people I know, much\nless would I believe people I do not know.\n\nAt that time Matthew and Luke believed that Christ was the son of Joseph\nand Mary. And why? they say he descended from David, and in order to\nshow that he was of the blood of David, they gave the genealogy of\nJoseph. And if Joseph was not his father, why did they not give the\ngenealogy of Pontius Pilate or of Herod? Could they, by giving the\ngenealogy of Joseph, show that he was of the blood of David if Joseph\nwas in no way related to Christ? And yet that is the position into which\nthe Christian world is driven. In the New Testament we find that in\ngiving the genealogy of Christ it says, \"who was the son of Joseph?\" and\nthe church has interpolated the words \"as was supposed.\" Why did they\ngive a supposed genealogy? It will not do. And that is a thing that\ncannot in any way, by any human testimony, be established.\n\nIf it is important for us to know that he was the Son of God, I say,\nthen, that it devolves upon God to give us the evidence. Let him write\nit across the face of the heavens, in every language of mankind. If it\nis necessary for us to believe it, let it grow on every leaf next\nyear. No man should be damned for not believing, unless the evidence is\noverwhelming. And he ought not to be made to depend upon say so, or upon\n\"as was supposed.\" He should have it directly, for himself. A man says\nthat God told him a certain thing, and he tells me, and I have only his\nword. He may have been deceived. If God has a message for me he ought\nto tell it to me, and not to somebody that has been dead four or five\nthousand years, and in another language.\n\nBesides, God may have changed his mind on many things; he has on\nslavery, and polygamy at least, according to the church; and yet his\nchurch now wants to go and destroy polygamy in Utah with the sword. Why\ndo they not send missionaries there with copies of the Old Testament?\nBy reading the lives of Abraham and Isaac, and Lot, and a few other\npatriarchs who ought to have been in the penitentiary, maybe they can\nsoften their hearts.\n\nMore Miracles.\n\nThere is another miracle I do not believe,—the resurrection. I want to\nspeak about it as we would about any ordinary transaction. In the first\nplace, I do not believe that any miracle was ever performed, and if\nthere was, you cannot prove it. Why? Because it is altogether more\nreasonable to believe that the people were mistaken about it than that\nit happened. And why? Because, according to human experience, we know\nthat people will not always tell the truth, and we never saw a miracle\nourselves, and we must be governed by our experience; and if we go by\nour experience, we must say that the miracle never happened—that the\nwitnesses were mistaken.\n\nA man comes into Jerusalem, and the first thing he does is to cure the\nblind. He lets the light of day visit the night of blindness. The eyes\nare opened, and the world is again pictured upon the brain. Another man\nis clothed with leprosy. He touches him and the disease falls from\nhim, and he stands pure, and clean, and whole. Another man is deformed,\nwrinkled, and bent. He touches him, and throws around him again the\ngarment of youth. A man is in his grave, and he says, \"Come forth!\"\nAnd the man walks in life, feeling his heart throb and his blood going\njoyously through his veins. They say that actually happened. I do not\nknow.\n\nThere is one wonderful thing about the dead people that were raised—we\ndo not hear of them any more. What became of them? If there was a man\nin this city who had been raised from the dead, I would go to see him\nto-night. I would say, \"Where were you when you got the notice to come\nback? What kind of a country is it? What kind of opening there for a\nyoung man? How did you like it? Did you meet there the friends you had\nlost? Is there a world without death, without pain, without a tear? Is\nthere a land without a grave, and where good-bye is never heard?\" Nobody\never paid the slightest attention to the dead who had been raised. They\ndid not even excite interest when they died the second time. Nobody\nsaid, \"Why, that man is not afraid. He has been there once. He has\nwalked through the valley of the shadow.\" Not a word. They pass quietly\naway.\n\nI do not believe these miracles. There is something wrong somewhere\nabout that business. I may suffer eternal punishment for all this, but I\ncannot, I do not, believe.\n\nThere was a man who did all these things, and thereupon they crucified\nhim. Let us be honest. Suppose a man came into this city and should meet\na funeral procession, and say, \"Who is dead?\" and they should reply,\n\"The son of a widow; her only support.\" Suppose he should say to the\nprocession, \"Halt!\" and to the undertaker, \"Take out that coffin,\nunscrew that lid. Young man, I say unto thee, arise!\" and the dead\nshould step from the coffin and in a moment afterward hold his mother in\nhis arms. Suppose this stranger should go to your cemetery and find some\nwoman holding a little child in each hand, while the tears fell upon a\nnew-made grave, and he should say to her, \"Who lies buried here?\"\nand she should reply, \"My husband;\" and he should cry, \"I say unto\nthee, oh grave, give up thy dead!\" and the husband should rise, and in a\nmoment after have his lips upon his wife's, and the little children with\ntheir arms around his neck; do you think that the people of this city\nwould kill him? Do you think any one would wish to crucify him? Do\nyou not rather believe that every one who had a loved one out in that\ncemetery would go to him, even upon their knees, and beg him to give\nback their dead? Do you believe that any man was ever crucified who was\nthe master of death?\n\nLet me tell you to-night if there shall ever appear upon this earth the\nmaster, the monarch, of death, all human knees will touch the earth. He\nwill not be crucified. All the living who fear death; all the living who\nhave lost a loved one, will bow to him. And yet we are told that this\nworker of miracles, this man who could clothe the dead dust in the\nthrobbing flesh of life, was crucified. I do not believe that he worked\nthe miracles, I do not believe that he raised the dead, I do not believe\nthat he claimed to be the Son of God, These things were told long after\nhe was dead; told because the ignorant multitude demanded mystery and\nwonder; told, because at that time the miraculous was believed of all\nthe illustrious dead. Stories that made Christianity powerful then,\nweaken it now. He who gains a triumph in a conflict with a devil, will\nbe defeated by science.\n\nThere is another thing about these foolish miracles. All could have\nbeen imitated. Men could pretend to be blind; confederates could feign\nsickness, and even death.\n\nIt is not very difficult to limp or to hold an arm as though it were\nparalyzed; or to say that one is afflicted with \"an issue of blood.\" It\nis easy to say that the son of a widow was raised from the dead, and\nif you fail to give the name of the son, or his mother, or the time and\nplace where the wonder occurred, it is quite difficult to show that it\ndid not happen.\n\nNo one can be called upon to disprove anything that has not apparently\nbeen established. I say apparently, because there can be no real\nevidence in support of a miracle.\n\nHow could we prove, for instance, the miracle of the loaves and fishes?\nThere were plenty of other loaves and other fishes in the world? Each\none of the five thousand could have had a loaf and a fish with him. We\nwould have to show that there was no other possible way for the people\nto get the bread and fish except by miracle, and then we are only half\nthrough. We must then show that they did, in fact, get enough to\nfeed five thousand people, and that more was left than was had in the\nbeginning.\n\nOf course this is simply impossible. And let me ask, why was not the\nmiracle substantiated by some of the multitude?\n\nWould it not have been a greater wonder if Christ had created instead\nof multiplied the loaves and fishes?\n\nHow can we now prove that a certain person more than eighteen hundred\nyears ago was possessed by seven devils?\n\nHow was it ever possible to prove a thing like that?\n\nHow can it be established that some evil spirits could talk while others\nwere dumb, and that the dumb ones were the hardest to control?\n\nIf Christ wished to convince his fellow-men by miracles, why did he not\ndo something that could not by any means have been a counterfeit?\n\nInstead of healing a withered arm, why did he not find some man whose\narm had been cut off, and make another grow?\n\nIf he wanted to raise the dead, why did he not raise some man of\nimportance, some one known to all?\n\nWhy did he do his miracles in the obscurity of the village, in the\ndarkness of the hovel?\n\nWhy call back to life people so insignificant that the public did not\nknow of their death?\n\nSuppose that in May, 1865, a man had pretended to raise some person by\nthe name of Smith from the dead, and suppose a religion had been founded\non that miracle, would it not be natural for people, hundreds of years\nafter the pretended miracle, to ask why the founder of that religion\ndid not raise from the dead Abraham Lincoln, instead of the unknown and\nobscure Mr. Smith?\n\nHow could any man now, in any court, by any known rule of evidence,\nsubstantiate one of the miracles of Christ?\n\nMust we believe anything that cannot in any way be substantiated?\n\nIf miracles were necessary to convince men eighteen centuries ago, are\nthey not necessary now?\n\nAfter all, how many men did Christ convince with his miracles? How many\nwalked beneath the standard of the master of Nature?\n\nHow did it happen that so many miracles convinced so few? I will\ntell you. The miracles were never performed. No other explanation is\npossible.\n\nIt is infinitely absurd to say that a man who cured the sick, the halt\nand blind, raised the dead, cast out devils, controlled the winds and\nwaves, created food and held obedient to his will the forces of the\nworld, was put to death by men who knew his superhuman power and who\nhad seen his wondrous works. If the crucifixion was public, the miracles\nwere private. If the miracles had been public, the crucifixion could not\nhave been. Do away with the miracles, and the superhuman character of\nChrist is destroyed. He becomes what he really was—a man. Do away with\nthe wonders, and the teachings of Christ cease to be authoritative. They\nare then worth the reason, the truth that is in them, and nothing more.\nDo away with the miracles, and then we can measure the utterances of\nChrist with the standard of our reason. We are no longer intellectual\nserfs, believing what is unreasonable in obedience to the command of a\nsupposed god. We no longer take counsel of our fears, of our cowardice,\nbut boldly defend what our reason maintains.\n\nChrist takes his appropriate place with the other teachers of mankind.\nHis life becomes reasonable and admirable. We have a man who hated\noppression; who despised and denounced superstition and hypocrisy; who\nattacked the heartless church of his time; who excited the hatred of\nbigots and priests, and who rather than be false to his conception of\ntruth, met and bravely suffered even death.\n\nThe Resurrection.\n\nThe miracle of the resurrection I do not and cannot believe. If it was\nthe fact, if the dead Christ rose from the grave, why did he not appear\nto his enemies? Why did he not visit Pontius Pilate? Why did he not call\nupon Caiaphas, the high priest? upon Herod? Why did he not again enter\nthe temple and end the old dispute with demonstration? Why did he not\nconfront the Roman soldiers who had taken money to falsely swear that\nhis body had been stolen by his friends? Why did he not make another\ntriumphal entry into Jerusalem? Why did he not say to the multitude:\n\"Here are the wounds in my feet, and in my hands, and in my side. I am\nthe one you endeavored to kill, but Death is my slave\"? Simply because\nthe resurrection is a myth. It makes no difference with his teachings.\nThey are just as good whether he wrought miracles or not. Twice two are\nfour; that needs no miracle. Twice two are five—a miracle can not help\nthat. Christ's teachings are worth their effect upon the human race.\nIt makes no difference about miracle or wonder. In that day every\none believed in the impossible. Nobody had any standing as teacher,\nphilosopher, governor, king, general, about whom there was not supposed\nto be something miraculous. The earth was covered with the sons and\ndaughters of gods and goddesses.\n\nIn Greece, in Rome, in Egypt, in India, every great man was supposed to\nhave had either a god for his father, or a goddess for his mother. They\naccounted for genius by divine origin. Earth and heaven were at that\ntime near together. It was but a step for the gods from the blue arch\nto the green earth. Every lake and valley and mountain top was made rich\nwith legends of the loves of gods. How could the early Christians have\nmade converts to a man, among a people who believed so thoroughly in\ngods—in gods that had lived upon the earth; among a people who had\nerected temples to the sons and daughters of gods? Such people could not\nhave been induced to worship a man—a man born among barbarous people,\ncitizen of a nation weak and poor and paying tribute to the Roman power.\nThe early Christians therefore preached the gospel of a god.\n\nThe Ascension.\n\nI cannot believe in the miracle of the ascension, in the bodily\nascension of Jesus Christ. Where was he going? In the light shed upon\nthis question by the telescope, I again ask, where was he going?\n\nThe New Jerusalem is not above us. The abode of the gods is not there.\nWhere was he going? Which way did he go? Of course that depends upon\nthe time of day he left. If he left in the evening, he went exactly\nthe opposite way from that he would have gone had he ascended in the\nmorning. What did he do with his body? How high did he go? In what way\ndid he overcome the intense cold? The nearest station is the moon, two\nhundred and forty thousand miles away. Again I ask, where did he go? He\nmust have had a natural body, for it was the same body that died. His\nbody must have been material, otherwise he would not as he rose have\ncircled with the earth, and he would have passed from the sight of his\ndisciples at the rate of more than a thousand miles per hour.\n\nIt may be said that his body was \"spiritual.\" Then what became of the\nbody that died? Just before his ascension we are told that he partook of\nbroiled fish with his disciples. Was the fish \"spiritual?\"\n\nWho saw this miracle?\n\nThey say the disciples saw it. Let us see what they say. Matthew did not\nthink it was worth mentioning. He does not speak of it. On the contrary,\nhe says that the last words of Christ were:\n\n\"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\" Is it\npossible that Matthew saw this, the most miraculous of miracles, and\nyet forgot to put it in his life of Christ? Think of the little miracles\nrecorded by this saint, and then determine whether it is probable that\nhe witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ.\n\nMark says: \"So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was\nreceived up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.\" This is all\nhe says about the most wonderful vision that ever astonished human eyes,\na miracle great enough to have stuffed credulity to bursting; and yet\nall we have is this one, poor, meagre verse. We know now that most of\nthe last chapter of Mark is an interpolation, and as a matter of fact,\nthe author of Mark's gospel said nothing about the ascension one way or\nthe other.\n\nLuke says: \"And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from\nthem and was carried up into Heaven.\"\n\nJohn does not mention it. He gives as Christ's last words this address\nto Peter: \"Follow thou Me.\" Of course, he did not say that as he\nascended. It seems to have made very little impression upon him; he\nwrites the account as though tired of the story. He concludes with an\nimpatient wave of the hand.\n\nIn the Acts we have another account. A conversation is given not\nspoken of in any of the others, and we find there two men clad in white\napparel, who said: \"Ye men of Galilee why stand ye here gazing up into\nheaven? This same Jesus that was taken up into heaven shall so come in\nlike manner as ye have seen him go up into heaven.\"\n\nMatthew did not see the men in white apparel, did not see the ascension.\nMark forgot the entire transaction, and Luke did not think the men in\nwhite apparel worth mentioning. John had not confidence enough in the\nstory to repeat it. And yet, upon such evidence, we are bound to believe\nin the bodily ascension, or suffer eternal pain.\n\nAnd here let me ask, why was not the ascension in public?\n\nCasting out Devils.\n\nMost of the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ were recorded\nto show his power over evil spirits. On many occasions, he is said to\nhave \"cast out devils\"—devils who could speak, and devils who were\ndumb.\n\nFor many years belief in the existence of evil spirits has been fading\nfrom the mind, and as this belief grew thin, ministers endeavored to\ngive new meanings to the ancient words. They are inclined now to put\n\"disease\" in the place of \"devils,\" and most of them say, that the\npoor wretches supposed to have been the homes of fiends, were simply\nsuffering from epileptic fits! We must remember that Christ and these\ndevils often conversed together. Is it possible that fits can talk?\nThese devils often admitted that Christ was God. Can epilepsy certify to\ndivinity? On one occasion the fits told their name, and made a contract\nto leave the body of a man provided they would be permitted to take\npossession of a herd of swine. Is it possible that fits carried Christ\nhimself to the pinnacle of a temple? Did fits pretend to be the owner\nof the whole earth? Is Christ to be praised for resisting such a\ntemptation? Is it conceivable that fits wanted Christ to fall down and\nworship them?\n\nThe church must not abandon its belief in devils. Orthodoxy cannot\nafford to put out the fires of hell. Throw away a belief in the devil,\nand most of the miracles of the New Testament become impossible, even\nif we admit the supernatural. If there is no devil, who was the original\ntempter in the garden of Eden? If there is no hell, from what are\nwe saved; to what purpose is the atonement? Upon the obverse of the\nChristian shield is God, upon the reverse, the devil. No devil, no hell.\nNo hell, no atonement. No atonement, no preaching, no gospel.\n\nNecessity of Belief.\n\nDoes belief depend upon evidence? I think it does somewhat in some\ncases. How is it when a jury is sworn to try a case, hearing all the\nevidence, hearing both sides, hearing the charge of the judge, hearing\nthe law, are upon their oaths equally divided, six for the plaintiff and\nsix for the defendant? Evidence does not have the same effect upon all\npeople. Why? Our brains are not alike. They are not the same shape. We\nhave not the same intelligence, or the same experience, the same sense.\nAnd yet I am held accountable for my belief. I must believe in the\nTrinity—three times one is one, once one is three, and my soul is to be\neternally damned for failing to guess an arithmetical conundrum. That\nis the poison part of Christianity—that salvation depends upon\nbelief. That is the accursed part, and until that dogma is discarded\nChristianity will be nothing but superstition.\n\nNo man can control his belief. If I hear certain evidence I will believe\na certain thing. If I fail to hear it I may never believe it. If it is\nadapted to my mind I may accept it; if it is not, I reject it. And what\nam I to go by? My brain. That is the only light I have from Nature, and\nif there be a God it is the only torch that this God has given me to\nfind my way through the darkness and night called life. I do not depend\nupon hearsay for that. I do not have to take the word of any other man\nnor get upon my knees before a book. Here in the temple of the mind I\nconsult the God, that is to say my reason, and the oracle speaks to me\nand I obey the oracle. What should I obey? Another man's oracle? Shall\nI take another man's word—not what he thinks, but what he says some God\nhas said to him?\n\nI would not know a god if I should see one. I have said before, and I\nsay again, the brain thinks in spite of me, and I am not responsible for\nmy thoughts. I cannot control the beating of my heart. I cannot stop\nthe blood that flows through the rivers of my veins. And yet I am held\nresponsible for my belief. Then why does not God give me the evidence?\nThey say he has. In what? In an inspired book. But I do not understand\nit as they do. Must I be false to my understanding? They say: \"When you\ncome to die you will be sorry if you do not.\" Will I be sorry when I\ncome to die that I did not live a hypocrite? Will I be sorry that I\ndid not say I was a Christian when I was not? Will the fact that I was\nhonest put a thorn in the pillow of death? Cannot God forgive me for\nbeing honest? They say that when he was in Jerusalem he forgave his\nmurderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing from\nhim on the subject of the Trinity.\n\nThey say that God says to me, \"Forgive your enemies.\" I say, \"I do;\" but\nhe says, \"I will damn mine.\" God should be consistent. If he wants me to\nforgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies\nwho can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt\nhim. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be. And I\nwant no God to forgive me unless I am willing to forgive others, and\nunless I do forgive others. All I ask, if that be true, is that this God\nshould act according to his own doctrine. If I am to forgive my enemies,\nI ask him to forgive his. I do not believe in the religion of faith,\nbut of kindness, of good deeds. The idea that man is responsible for his\nbelief is at the bottom of religious intolerance and persecution.\n\nHow inconsistent these Christians are! In St. Louis the other day I read\nan interview with a Christian minister—one who is now holding a\nrevival. They call him the boy preacher—a name that he has borne for\nfifty or sixty years. The question was whether in these revivals, when\nthey were trying to rescue souls from eternal torture, they would allow\ncolored people to occupy seats with white people; and that revivalist,\npreaching the unsearchable riches of Christ, said he would not allow the\ncolored people to sit with white people; they must go to the back of the\nchurch. These same Christians tell us that in heaven there will be no\ndistinction. That Christ cares nothing for the color of the skin. That\nin Paradise white and black will sit together, swap harps, and cry\nhallelujah in chorus; yet this minister, believing as he says he does,\nthat all men who fail to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will eternally\nperish, was not willing that a colored man should sit by a white man and\nhear the gospel of everlasting peace.\n\nAccording to this revivalist, the ship of the world is going down;\nChrist is the only life-boat; and yet he is not willing that a colored\nman, with a soul to save, shall sit by the side of a white brother,\nand be rescued from eternal death. He admits that the white brother\nis totally depraved; that if the white brother had justice done him he\nwould be damned; that it is only through the wonderful mercy of God that\nthe white man is not in hell; and yet such a being, totally depraved,\nis too good to sit by a colored man! Total depravity becomes arrogant;\ntotal depravity draws the color line in religion, and an ambassador of\nChrist says to the black man, \"Stand away; let your white brother hear\nfirst about the love of God.\"\n\nI believe in the religion of humanity. It is far better to love our\nfellow-men than to love God. We can help them. We cannot help him. We\nhad better do what we can than to be always pretending to do what we\ncannot.\n\nVirtue is of no color; kindness, justice and love, of no complexion.\n\nEternal Punishment.\n\nNow I come to the last part of this creed—the doctrine of eternal\npunishment. I have concluded that I will never deliver a lecture in\nwhich I will not attack the doctrine of eternal pain. That part of the\nCongregational creed would disgrace the lowest savage that crouches\nand crawls in the jungles of Africa. The man who now, in the nineteenth\ncentury, preaches the doctrine of eternal punishment, the doctrine of an\neternal hell, has lived in vain. Think of that doctrine! The eternity of\npunishment! I find in this same creed—in this latest utterance of\nCongregationalism—that Christ is finally going to triumph in this world\nand establish his kingdom. This creed declares that \"we believe in the\nultimate prevalence of the kingdom of God over all the earth.\" If\ntheir doctrine is true he will never triumph in the other world. The\nCongregational Church does not believe in the ultimate prevalence of the\nkingdom of Christ in the world to come. There he is to meet with eternal\nfailure. He will have billions in hell forever.\n\nIn this world we never will be perfectly civilized as long as a gallows\ncasts its shadow upon the earth. As long as there is a penitentiary,\nwithin the walls of which a human being is immured, we are not a\nperfectly civilized people. We shall never be perfectly civilized until\nwe do away with crime. And yet, according to this Christian religion,\nGod is to have an eternal penitentiary; he is to be an everlasting\njailer, an everlasting turnkey, a warden of an infinite dungeon, and\nhe is going to keep prisoners there forever, not for the purpose of\nreforming them—because they are never going to get any better, only\nworse—but for the purpose of purposeless punishment. And for what?\nFor something they failed to believe in this world. Born in ignorance,\nsupported by poverty, caught in the snares of temptation, deformed by\ntoil, stupefied by want—and yet held responsible through the countless\nages of eternity! No man can think of a greater horror; no man can dream\nof a greater absurdity. For the growth of that doctrine ignorance was\nsoil and fear was rain. It came from the fanged mouths of serpents, and\nyet it is called \"glad tidings of great joy.\" Some Who are Damned.\n\nWe are told \"God so loved the world\" that he is going to damn almost\neverybody. If this orthodox religion be true, some of the greatest, and\ngrandest, and best who ever lived are suffering God's torments to-night.\nIt does not appear to make much difference with the members of the\nchurch. They go right on enjoying themselves about as well as ever. If\nthis doctrine is true, Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest and best of\nmen, who did so much to give us here a free government, is suffering\nthe tyranny of God to-night, although he endeavored to establish freedom\namong men. If the churches were honest, their preachers would tell their\nhearers: \"Benjamin Franklin is in hell, and we warn all the youth not to\nimitate Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration\nof Independence, with its self-evident truths, has been damned these\nmany years.\"\n\nThat is what all the ministers ought to have the courage to say. Talk\nas you believe. Stand by your creed, or change it. I want to impress it\nupon your minds, because the thing I wish to do in this world is to put\nout the fires of hell. I will keep on as long as there is one little red\ncoal left in the bottomless pit. As long as the ashes are warm I shall\ndenounce this infamous doctrine.\n\nI want you to know that according to this creed the men who founded this\ngreat and splendid Government are in hell to-night. Most of the men who\nfought in the Revolutionary war, and wrested from the clutch of Great\nBritain this continent, have been rewarded by the eternal wrath of God.\nThousands of the old Revolutionary soldiers are in torment tonight. Let\nthe preachers have the courage to say so. The men who fought in 1812,\nand gave to the United States the freedom of the seas, have nearly all\nbeen damned. Thousands of heroes who served our country in the Civil\nwar, hundreds who starved in prisons, are now in the dungeons of God,\ncompared with which, Andersonville was Paradise. The greatest of heroes\nare there; the greatest of poets, the greatest scientists, the men who\nhave made the world beautiful—they are all among the damned if this\ncreed is true.\n\nHumboldt, who shed light, and who added to the intellectual wealth\nof mankind; Goethe, and Schiller, and Lessing, who almost created the\nGerman language—all gone—all suffering the wrath of God tonight, and\nevery time an angel thinks of one of those men he gives his harp an\nextra twang. Laplace, who read the heavens like an open book—he is\nthere. Robert Burns, the poet of human love—he is there. He wrote\nthe \"Prayer of Holy Willie.\" He fastened on the cross the Presbyterian\ncreed, and there it is, a lingering crucifixion. Robert Burns increased\nthe tenderness of the human heart. Dickens put a shield of pity before\nthe flesh of childhood—God is getting even with him. Our own Ralph\nWaldo Emerson, although he had a thousand opportunities to hear\nMethodist clergymen, scorned the means of grace, lived to his highest\nideal, gave to his fellow-men his best and truest thought, and yet his\nspirit is the sport and prey of fiends to-night.\n\nLongfellow, who has refined thousands of homes, did not believe in the\nmiraculous origin of the Savior, doubted the report of Gabriel, loved\nhis fellow-men, did what he could to free the slaves, to increase the\nhappiness of man, yet God was waiting for his soul—waiting to cast\nhim out and down forever. Thomas Paine, author of the \"Rights of Man;\"\noffering his life in both hemispheres for the freedom of the human race;\none of the founders of this Republic, is now among the damned; and yet\nit seems to me that if he could only get God's attention long enough\nto point him to the American flag he would let him out. Auguste Comte,\nauthor of the \"Positive Philosophy,\" who loved his fellow-men to that\ndegree that he made of humanity a god, who wrote his great work in\npoverty, with his face covered with tears—they are getting their\nrevenge on him now.\n\nVoltaire, who abolished torture in France; who did more for human\nliberty than any other man, living or dead; who was the assassin\nof superstition, and whose dagger still rusts in the heart of\nCatholicism—he is with the rest. All the priests who have been\ntranslated have had their happiness increased by looking at Voltaire.\n\nGiordano Bruno, the first star of the morning after the long night;\nBenedict Spinoza, the pantheist, the metaphysician, the pure and\ngenerous man; Diderot, the encyclopedist, who endeavored to get all\nknowledge in a small compass, so that he could put the peasant on an\nequality intellectually with the prince; Diderot, who wished to sow all\nover the world the seed of knowledge, and loved to labor for mankind,\nwhile the priests wanted to burn; who did all he could to put out the\nfires—he was lost, long, long ago. His cry for water has become so\ncommon that his voice is now recognized through all the realms of\nheaven, and the angels laughing, say to one another, \"That is Diderot.\"\n\nDavid Hume, the Scotch philosopher, is there, with his inquiry about\nthe \"Human Understanding\" and his argument against miracles. Beethoven,\nmaster of music, and Wagner, the Shakespeare of harmony, who made the\nair of this world rich forever, they are there; and to-night they have\nbetter music in hell than in heaven!\n\nShelley, whose soul, like his own \"Skylark,\" was a winged joy, has been\ndamned for many, many years; and Shakespeare, the greatest of the human\nrace, who did more to elevate mankind than all the priests who ever\nlived and died, he is there; but founders of inquisitions, builders\nof dungeons, makers of chains, inventors of instruments of torture,\ntearers, and burners, and branders of human flesh, stealers of babes,\nand sellers of husbands and wives and children, and they who kept the\nhorizon lurid with the fagot's flame for a thousand years—are in heaven\nto-night. I wish heaven joy!\n\nThat is the doctrine with which we are polluting the souls of children.\nThat is the doctrine that puts a fiend by the dying bed and a prophecy\nof hell over every cradle. That is \"glad tidings of great joy.\"\n\nOnly a little while ago, when the great flood came upon the Ohio, sent\nby him who is ruling the world and paying particular attention to the\naffairs of nations, just in the gray of the morning they saw a house\nfloating down and on its top a human being. A few men went out to the\nrescue. They found there a woman, a mother, and they wished to save her\nlife. She said: \"No, I am going to stay where I am. In this house I\nhave three dead babes; I will not desert them.\" Think of a love so\nlimitless—stronger and deeper than despair and death! And yet, the\nChristian religion says, that if that woman, that mother, did not happen\nto believe in their creed God would send her soul to eternal fire! If\nthere is another world, and if in heaven they wear hats, when such a\nwoman climbs the opposite bank of the Jordan, Christ should lift his to\nher.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal pain is my trouble with this Christian religion.\nI reject it on account of its infinite heartlessness. I cannot tell them\ntoo often, that during our last war Christians, who knew that if they\nwere shot they would go right to heaven, went and hired wicked men to\ntake their places, perfectly willing that these men should go to hell\nprovided they could stay at home. You see they are not honest in it,\nor they do not believe it, or as the people say, \"they don't sense it.\"\nThey have not imagination enough to conceive what it is they believe,\nand what a terrific falsehood they assert. And I beg of every one\nwho hears me to-night, I beg, I implore, I beseech you, never to give\nanother dollar to build a church in which that lie is preached. Never\ngive another cent to send a missionary with his mouth stuffed with\nthat falsehood to a foreign land. Why, they say, the heathen will go to\nheaven, any way, if you let them alone. What is the use of sending them\nto hell by enlightening them? Let them alone. The idea of going and\ntelling a man a thing that if he does not believe, he will be damned,\nwhen the chances are ten to one that he will not believe it, is\nmonstrous. Do not tell him here, and as quick as he gets to the other\nworld and finds it is necessary to believe, he can say \"Yes.\" Give him a\nchance.\n\nAnother Objection.\n\nMy objection to orthodox religion is that it destroys human love, and\ntells us that the love of this world is not necessary to make a heaven\nin the next.\n\nNo matter about your wife, your children, your brother, your sister—no\nmatter about all the affections of the human heart—when you get there,\nyou will be with the angels. I do not know whether I would like the\nangels. I do not know whether the angels would like me. I would rather\nstand by the ones who have loved me and whom I know; and I can conceive\nof no heaven without the loved of this earth. That is the trouble with\nthis Christian relief-ion. Leave your father, leave your mother, leave\nyour wife, leave your children, leave everything and follow Jesus\nChrist. I will not. I will stay with my people. I will not sacrifice on\nthe altar of a selfish fear all the grandest and noblest promptings of\nmy heart.\n\nDo away with human love and what are we? What would we be in another\nworld, and what would we be here? Can any one conceive of music without\nhuman love? Of art, or joy? Human love builds every home. Human love is\nthe author of all beauty. Love paints every picture, and chisels every\nstatue. Love builds every fireside. What could heaven be without human\nlove? And yet that is what we are promised—a heaven with your wife\nlost, your mother lost, some of your children gone. And you expect to be\nmade happy by falling in with some angel! Such a religion is infamous.\nChristianity holds human love for naught; and yet Love is the only bow\non Life's dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines\nupon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the\nmother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher. It is the air\nand light of every heart—builder of every home, kindler of every fire\non every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the\nworld with melody—for music is the voice of love. Love is the magician,\nthe enchanter, that changes worthless things to joy, and makes right\nroyal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that\nwondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine\nswoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are\ngods.\n\nAnd how are you to get to this heaven? On the efforts of another.\nYou are to be a perpetual heavenly pauper, and you will have to admit\nthrough all eternity that you never would have been there if you had not\nbeen frightened. \"I am here,\" you will say, \"I have these wings, I have\nthis musical instrument, because I was scared. I am here. The ones who\nloved me are among the damned; the ones I loved are also there—but I am\nhere, that is enough.\"\n\nWhat a glorious' world heaven must be! No reformation in that world—not\nthe slightest. If you die in Arkansas that is the end of you! Think of\ntelling a boy in the next world, who lived and died in Delaware, that he\nhad been fairly treated! Can anything be more infamous?\n\nAll on an equality—the rich and the poor, those with parents loving\nthem, those with every opportunity for education, on an equality with\nthe poor, the abject and the ignorant—and this little day called life,\nthis moment with a hope, a shadow and a tear, this little space between\nyour mother's arms and the grave, balances eternity.\n\nGod can do nothing for you when you get there. A Methodist preacher can\ndo more for the soul here than its creator can there. The soul goes to\nheaven, where there is nothing but good society; no bad examples; and\nthey are all there, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet they can do\nnothing for that poor unfortunate except to damn him. Is there any sense\nin that?\n\nWhy should this be a period of probation? It says in the Bible, I\nbelieve, \"Now is the accepted time.\" When does that mean? That means\nwhenever the passage is pronounced. \"Now is the accepted time.\" It will\nbe the same to-morrow, will it not? And just as appropriate then\nas to-day, and if appropriate at any time, appropriate through all\neternity.\n\nWhat I say is this: There is no world—there can be no world—in which\nevery human being will not have the eternal opportunity of doing right.\n\nThat is my objection to this Christian religion; and if the love\nof earth is not the love of heaven, if those we love here are to be\nseparated from us there, then I want eternal sleep. Give me a good cool\ngrave rather than the furnace of Jehovah's wrath. I pray the angel of\nthe resurrection to let me sleep. Gabriel, do not blow! Let me alone!\nIf, when the grave bursts, I am not to meet the faces that have been my\nsunshine in this life, let me sleep. Rather than that this doctrine of\nendless punishment should be true, I would gladly see the fabric of our\ncivilization crumbling fall to unmeaning chaos and to formless dust,\nwhere oblivion broods and even memory forgets. I would rather that the\nblind Samson of some imprisoned force, released by chance, should so\nwreck and strand the mighty world that man in stress and strain of want\nand fear should shudderingly crawl back to savage and barbaric night. I\nwould rather that every planet should in its orbit wheel a barren star!\n\nWhat I Believe.\n\nI think it is better to love your children than to love God, a thousand\ntimes better, because you can help them, and I am inclined to think that\nGod can get along without you. Certainly we cannot help a being without\nbody, parts, or passions!\n\nI believe in the religion of the family. I believe that the roof-tree is\nsacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft cool clasp of earth,\nto the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the sun, and like a\nspendthrift gives its perfume to the air. The home where virtue dwells\nwith love is like a lily with a heart of fire—the fairest flower in all\nthe world. And I tell you God cannot afford to damn a man in the next\nworld who has made a happy family in this. God cannot afford to cast\nover the battlements of heaven the man who has a happy home upon this\nearth. God cannot afford to be unpitying to a human heart capable of\npity. God cannot clothe with fire the man who has clothed the naked\nhere; and God cannot send to eternal pain a man who has done something\ntoward improving the condition of his fellow-man. If he can, I had\nrather go to hell than to heaven and keep the company of such a god.\n\nImmortality.\n\nThey tell me that the next terrible thing I do is to take away the hope\nof immortality! I do not, I would not, I could not. Immortality was\nfirst dreamed of by human love; and yet the church is going to take\nhuman love out of immortality. We love, therefore we wish to live. A\nloved one dies and we wish to meet again; and from the affection of the\nhuman heart grew the great oak of the hope of immortality. Around\nthat oak has climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. Theologians,\npretenders, soothsayers, parsons, priests, popes, bishops, have taken\nadvantage of that. They have stood by graves and promised heaven. They\nhave stood by graves and prophesied a future filled with pain. They have\nerected their toll-gates on the highway of life and have collected money\nfrom fear.\n\nNeither the Bible nor the church gave us the idea of immortality. The\nOld Testament tells us how we lost immortality, and it does not say a\nword about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last\ncurse in Malachi. There is not in the Old Testament a burial service.\n\nNo man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, \"We shall meet\nagain.\" From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world.\n\nAnd when we get to the New Testament, what do we find? \"They that are\naccounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead.\"\nAs though some would be counted unworthy to obtain the resurrection of\nthe dead. And in another place. \"Seek for honor, glory, immortality.\"\nIf you have it, why seek it? And in another place, \"God, who alone hath\nimmortality.\" Yet they tell us that we get our idea of immortality from\nthe Bible. I deny it.\n\nI would not destroy the faintest ray of human hope, but I deny that\nwe got our idea of immortality from the Bible. It existed long before\nMoses. We find it symbolized through all Egypt, through all India.\nWherever man has lived he has made another world in which to meet the\nlost of this.\n\nThe history of this belief we find in tombs and temples wrought and\ncarved by those who wept and hoped. Above their dead they laid the\nsymbols of another life.\n\nWe do not know. We do not prophesy a life of pain. We leave the dead\nwith Nature, the mother of us all. Under the bow of hope, under the\nseven-hued arch, let the dead sleep.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, why did he not plainly say there is another\nlife? Why did he not tell us something about it? Why did he not turn\nthe tear-stained hope of immortality into the glad knowledge of another\nlife? Why did he go dumbly to his death and leave the world in darkness\nand in doubt? Why? Because he was a man and did not know.\n\nWhat consolation has the orthodox religion for the widow of the\nunbeliever, the widow of a good, brave, kind man? What can the orthodox\nminister say to relieve the bursting heart of that woman? What can he\nsay to relieve the aching hearts of the orphans as they kneel by the\ngrave of that father, if that father did not happen to be an orthodox\nChristian? What consolation have they? When a Christian loses a friend\nthe tears spring from his eyes as quickly as from the eyes of others.\nTheir tears are as bitter as ours. Why? The echoes of the words spoken\neighteen hundred years ago are so low, and the sounds of the clods upon\nthe coffin are so loud; the promises are so far away, and the dead are\nso near.\n\nWe do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the\nbeginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the\nfolding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless\nlife that brings the rapture of love to everyone. A Fable.\n\nThere is the fable of Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice had been captured\nand taken to the infernal regions, and Orpheus went after her, taking\nwith him his harp and playing as he went. When he came to Pluto's realm\nhe began to play, and Sysiphus, charmed by the music, sat down upon the\nstone that he had been heaving up the mountain's side for so many years,\nand which continually rolled back upon him; Ixion paused upon his wheel\nof fire; Tantalus ceased his vain efforts for water; the daughters of\nthe Danaides left off trying to fill their sieves with water; Pluto\nsmiled, and for the first time in the history of hell the cheeks of the\nFuries were wet with tears. The god relented, and said, \"Eurydice may\ngo with you, but you must not look back.\" So Orpheus again threaded the\ncaverns, playing as he went, and as he reached the light he failed to\nhear the footsteps of Eurydice. He looked back, and in a moment she was\ngone. Again and again Orpheus sought his love. Again and again looked\nback.\n\nThis fable gives the idea of the perpetual effort made by the human mind\nto rescue truth from the clutch of error.\n\nSome time Orpheus will not look back. Some day Eurydice will reach the\nblessed light, and at last there will fade from the memory of men the\nmonsters of superstition.\n"
}