{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-6:reply-to-archdeacon-farrar",
  "slug": "reply-to-archdeacon-farrar",
  "title": "Reply to Archdeacon Farrar",
  "subtitle": "\\\"A Few Words on Col. Ingersoll\\\" answered.",
  "excerpt": "A fragmentary draft reply — found among Ingersoll's papers — to Archdeacon F. W. Farrar's article 'A Few Words on Col. Ingersoll' in the North American Review.",
  "year": 1890,
  "volume": 6,
  "category": "Discussion",
  "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/reply-to-archdeacon-farrar/",
  "wordCount": 9911,
  "body": "• This fragment (found among Col. Ingersoll's papers) is a\n    mere outline of a contemplated answer to Archdeacon Farrar's\n    article in the North American Review, May, 1810, entitled:\n    \"A Few Words on Col. Ingersoll.\"\n\nARCHDEACON FARRAR, in the opening of his article, in a burst of\nconfidence, takes occasion to let the world know how perfectly angelic\nhe intends to be. He publicly proclaims that he can criticise the\narguments of one with whom he disagrees, without resorting to invective,\nor becoming discourteous. Does he call attention to this because most\ntheologians are hateful and ungentlemanly? Is it a rare thing for the\npious to be candid? Why should an Archdeacon be cruel, or even ill-bred?\nYet, in the very beginning, the Archdeacon in effect says: Behold, I\nshow you a mystery—a Christian who can write about an infidel, without\ninvective and without brutality. Is it then so difficult for those who\nlove their enemies to keep within the bounds of decency when speaking of\nunbelievers who have never injured them?\n\nAs a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised when I read the\nproclamation to the effect that the writer was not to use invective,\nand was to be guilty of no discourtesy; but on reading the article, and\nfinding that he had failed to keep his promise, I was not surprised.\n\nIt is an old habit with theologians to beat the living with the bones of\nthe dead. The arguments that cannot be answered provoke epithet.\n\nARCHDEACON FARRAR criticises several of my statements: _The same rules\nor laws of probability must govern in religious questions as in others_.\n\nThis apparently self-evident statement seems to excite almost the ire of\nthis Archdeacon, and for the purpose of showing that it is not true,\nhe states, first, that \"the first postulate of revelation is that it\nappeals to man's spirit;\" second, that \"the spirit is a sphere of being\nwhich transcends the spheres of the senses and the understanding;\"\nthird, that \"if a man denies the existence of a spiritual intuition,\nhe is like a blind man criticising colors, or a deaf man criticising\nharmonies;\" fourth, that \"revelation must be judged by its own\ncriteria;\" and fifth, that \"St. Paul draws a marked distinction between\nthe spirit of the world and the spirit which is of God,\" and that the\nsame Saint said that \"the natural man receiveth not the things of the\nspirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know\nthem, because they are spiritually discerned.\" Let us answer these\nobjections in their order.\n\n1. \"The first postulate of revelation is that it appeals to man's\nspirit.\" What does the Archdeacon mean by \"spirit\"? A man says that he\nhas received a revelation from God, and he wishes to convince another\nman that he has received a revelation—how does he proceed? Does he\nappeal to the man's reason? Will he tell him the circumstances under\nwhich he received the revelation? Will he tell him why he is convinced\nthat it was from God? Will the Archdeacon be kind enough to tell how the\nspirit can be approached passing by the reason, the understanding,\nthe judgment and the intellect? If the Archdeacon replies that the\nrevelation itself will bear the evidence within itself, what then, I\nask, does he mean by the word \"evidence\"? Evidence about what? Is it\nsuch evidence as satisfies the intelligence, convinces the reason, and\nis it in conformity with the known facts of the mind?\n\nIt may be said by the Archdeacon that anything that satisfies what he\nis pleased to call the spirit, that furnishes what it seems by nature to\nrequire, is of supernatural origin. We hear music, and this music seems\nto satisfy the desire for harmony—still, no one argues, from that\nfact, that music is of supernatural origin. It may satisfy a want in the\nbrain—a want unknown until the music was heard—and yet we all agree\nin saying that music has been naturally produced, and no one claims that\nBeethoven, or Wagner, was inspired.\n\nThe same may be said of things that satisfy the palate—of statues, of\npaintings, that reveal to him who looks, the existence of that of\nwhich before that time he had not even dreamed. Why is it that we love\ncolor—that we are pleased with harmonies, or with a succession of\nsounds rising and falling at measured intervals? No one would answer\nthis question by saying that sculptors and painters and musicians were\ninspired; neither would they say that the first postulate of art is that\nit appeals to man's spirit, and for that reason the rules or laws of\nprobability have nothing to do with the question of art.\n\n2. That \"the spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the spheres of\nthe senses and the understanding.\" Let us imagine a man without senses.\nHe cannot feel, see, hear, taste, or smell. What is he? Would it be\npossible for him to have an idea? Would such a man have a spirit to\nwhich revelation could appeal, or would there be locked in the dungeon\nof his brain a spirit, that is to say, a \"sphere of being which\ntranscends the spheres of the senses and the understanding\"? Admit that\nin the person supposed, the machinery of life goes on—what is he more\nthan an inanimate machine?\n\n3. That \"if a man denies the very existence of a spiritual intuition,\nhe is like a blind man criticising colors, or a deaf man criticising\nharmonies.\" What do you mean by \"spiritual intuition\"? When did this\n\"spiritual intuition\" become the property of man—before, or after,\nbirth? Is it of supernatural, or miraculous, origin, and is it possible\nthat this \"spiritual intuition\" is independent of the man? Is it based\nupon experience? Was it in any way born of the senses, or of the effect\nof nature upon the brain—that is to say, of things seen, or heard, or\ntouched? Is a \"spiritual intuition\" an entity? If man can exist without\nthe \"spiritual intuition,\" do you insist that the \"spiritual intuition\"\ncan exist without the man?\n\nYou may remember that Mr. Locke frequently remarked: \"Define your\nterms.\" It is to be regretted that in the hurry of writing your article,\nyou forgot to give an explanation of \"spiritual intuition.\"\n\nI will also take the liberty of asking you how a blind man could\ncriticise colors, and how a deaf man could criticise harmonies. Possibly\nyou may imagine that \"spiritual intuition\" can take cognizance of\ncolors, as well as of harmonies. Let me ask: Why cannot a blind man\ncriticise colors? Let me answer: For the same reason that Archdeacon\nFarrar can tell us nothing about an infinite personality.\n\n4. That \"revelation must be judged by its own criteria.\" Suppose the\nBible had taught that selfishness, larceny and murder were virtues;\nwould you deny its inspiration? Would not your denial be based upon\na conclusion that had been reached by your reason that no intelligent\nbeing could have been its author—that no good being could, by any\npossibility, uphold the commission of such crimes? In that case would\nyou be guided by \"spiritual intuition,\" or by your reason?\n\nWhen we examine the claims of a history—as, for instance, a history\nof England, or of America, are we to decide according to \"spiritual\nintuition,\" or in accordance with the laws or rules of probability?\nIs there a different standard for a history written in Hebrew, several\nthousand years ago, and one written in English in the nineteenth\ncentury? If a history should now be written in England, in which the\nmost miraculous and impossible things should be related as facts, and\nif I should deny these alleged facts, would you consider that the author\nhad overcome my denial by saying, \"history must be judged by its own\ncriteria\"?\n\n5. That \"the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God,\nfor they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they\nare spiritually discerned.\" The Archdeacon admits that the natural man\ncannot know the things of the spirit, because they are not naturally,\nbut spiritually, discerned. On the next page we are told, that \"the\ntruths which Agnostics repudiate have been, and are, acknowledged by\nall except a fraction of the human race.\" It goes without saying that\na large majority of the human race are natural; consequently, the\nstatement of the Archdeacon contradicts the statement of St. Paul.\nThe Archdeacon insists that all except a fraction of the human race\nacknowledge the truths which Agnostics repudiate, and they must\nacknowledge them because they are by them spiritually discerned; and\nyet, St. Paul says that this is impossible, and insists that \"the\nnatural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God, because they\nare spiritually discerned.\"\n\nThere is only one way to harmonize the statement of the Archdeacon and\nthe Saint, and that is, by saying that nearly all of the human race\nare unnatural, and that only a small fraction are natural, and that the\nsmall fraction of men who are natural, are Agnostics, and only those who\naccept what the Archdeacon calls \"truths\" are unnatural to such a degree\nthat they can discern spiritual things.\n\nUpon this subject, the last things to which the Archdeacon appeals, are\nthe very things that he, at first, utterly repudiated. He asks, \"Are we\ncontemptuously to reject the witness of innumerable multitudes of the\ngood and wise, that—with a spiritual reality more convincing to them\nthan the material evidences which converted the apostles,\"—they have\nseen, and heard, and their hands have handled the \"Word of Life\"? Thus\nat last the Archdeacon appeals to the evidences of the senses.\n\nII.\n\nTHE Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following statement: _There\nis no subject, and can be none, concerning which any human being is\nunder any obligation to believe without evidence_.\n\nOne would suppose that it would be impossible to formulate an objection\nto this statement. What is or is not evidence, depends upon the mind\nto which it is presented. There is no possible \"insinuation\" in this\nstatement, one way or the other. There is nothing sinister in it, any\nmore than there would be in the statement that twice five are ten. How\ndid it happen to occur to the Archdeacon that when I spoke of believing\nwithout evidence, I referred to all people who believe in the existence\nof a God, and that I intended to say \"that one-third of the world's\ninhabitants had embraced the faith of Christians without evidence\"?\n\nCertain things may convince one mind and utterly fail to convince\nothers. Undoubtedly the persons who have believed in the dogmas of\nChristianity have had what was sufficient evidence for them. All I said\nwas, that \"there is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any\nhuman being is under any obligation to believe without evidence.\" Does\nthe Archdeacon insist that there is an obligation resting on any human\nmind to believe without evidence? Is he willing to go a step further and\nsay that there is an obligation resting upon the minds of men to believe\ncontrary to evidence? If one is under obligation to believe without\nevidence, it is just as reasonable to say that he is under obligation to\nbelieve in spite of evidence. What does the word \"evidence\" mean? A man\nin whose honesty I have great confidence, tells me that he saw a dead\nman raised to life. I do not believe him. Why? His statement is not\nevidence to my mind. Why? Because it contradicts all of my experience,\nand, as I believe, the experience of the intelligent world.\n\nNo one pretends that \"one-third of the world's inhabitants have\nembraced the faith of Christians without evidence\"—that is, that all\nChristians have embraced the faith without evidence. In the olden time,\nwhen hundreds of thousands of men were given their choice between being\nmurdered and baptized, they generally accepted baptism—probably they\naccepted Christianity without critically examining the evidence.\n\nIs it historically absurd that millions of people have believed in\nsystems of religion without evidence? Thousands of millions have\nbelieved that Mohammed was a prophet of God. And not only so, but have\nbelieved in his miraculous power. Did they believe without evidence? Is\nit historically absurd to say that Mohammedanism is based upon mistake?\nWhat shall we say of the followers of Buddha, who far outnumber the\nfollowers of Christ? Have they believed without evidence? And is it\nhistorically absurd to say that our ancestors of a few hundred years ago\nwere as credulous as the disciples of Buddha? Is it not true that the\nsame gentlemen who believed thoroughly in all the miracles of the\nNew Testament also believed the world to be flat, and were perfectly\nsatisfied that the sun made its daily journey around the earth? Did they\nhave any evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that they believed\nwithout evidence?\n\nIii\n\n_Neither is there any intelligent being who can by any possibility be\nflattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity._\n\nTHE Archdeacon asks what I \"gain by stigmatizing as ignorant credulity\nthat inspired, inspiring, invincible conviction—the formative principle\nof noble efforts and self-sacrificing lives, which at this moment, as\nduring all the long millenniums of the past, has been held not only\nby the ignorant and the credulous, but by those whom all the ages have\nregarded as the ablest, the wisest, the most learned and the most gifted\nof mankind?\"\n\nDoes the Archdeacon deny that credulity is ignorant? In this connection,\nwhat does the word \"credulity\" mean? It means that condition or state of\nthe mind in which the impossible, or the absurd, is accepted as true.\nIs not such credulity ignorant? Do we speak of wise credulity—of\nintelligent credulity? We may say theological credulity, or Christian\ncredulity, but certainly not intelligent credulity. Is the flattery of\nthe ignorant and credulous—the flattery being based upon that which\nignorance and credulity have accepted—acceptable to any intelligent\nbeing? Is it possible that we can flatter God by pretending to believe,\nor by believing, that which is repugnant to reason, that which upon\nexamination is seen to be absurd? The Archdeacon admits that God cannot\npossibly be so flattered. If, then, he agrees with my statement, why\nendeavor to controvert it?\n\nIV.\n\nThe man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and New\nTestaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian.\n\nTHE Archdeacon says that he cannot pretend to imagine what my definition\nof an orthodox Christian is. I will use his own language to express my\ndefinition. \"By an orthodox Christian I mean one who believes what is\ncommonly called the Apostles' Creed. I also believe that the essential\ndoctrines of the church must be judged by her universal formulae, not by\nthe opinions of this or that theologian, however eminent, or even of\nany number of theologians, unless the church has stamped them with the\nsanction of her formal and distinct acceptance.\"\n\nThis is the language of the Archdeacon himself, and I accept it as a\ndefinition of orthodoxy. With this definition in mind, I say that\nthe man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and New\nTestaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. By \"prejudice,\"\nI mean the tendencies and trends given to his mind by heredity, by\neducation, by the facts and circumstances entering into the life of man.\nWe know how children are poisoned in the cradle, how they are deformed\nin the Sunday School, how they are misled by the pulpit. And we know how\nnumberless interests unite and conspire to prevent the individual soul\nfrom examining for itself. We know that nearly all rewards are in the\nhands of Superstition—that she holds the sweet wreath, and that her\nhands lead the applause of what is called the civilized world. We know\nhow many men give up their mental independence for the sake of pelf\nand power. We know the influence of mothers and fathers—of Church and\nState—of Faith and Fashion. All these influences produce in honest\nminds what may be known as prejudice,—in other minds, what may be known\nas hypocrisy.\n\nIt is hardly worth my while to speak of the merits of students of Holy\nWrit \"who,\" the Archdeacon was polite enough to say, \"know ten thousand\ntimes more of the Scriptures\" than I do. This, to say the least of\nit, is a gratuitous assertion, and one that does not tend to throw the\nslightest ray of light on any matter in controversy. Neither is it true\nthat it was my \"point\" to say that all people are prejudiced, merely\nbecause they believe in God; it was my point to say that no man can read\nthe miracles of the Old Testament, without prejudice, and believe\nthem; it was my point to say that no man can read many of the cruel\nand barbarous laws said to have been given by God himself, and yet\nbelieve,—unless he was prejudiced,—that these laws were divinely\ngiven.\n\nNeither do I believe that there is now beneath the cope of heaven an\nintelligent man, without prejudice, who believes in the inspiration of\nthe Bible.\n\nV.\n\nThe intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country,\nwithout fear and without prejudice, will not and cannot be a believer.\n\nIN answering this statement the Archdeacon says: \"Argal, every\nbeliever in any religion is either an incompetent idiot, or coward—with\na dash of prejudice.\"\n\nI hardly know what the gentleman means by an \"incompetent idiot,\" as I\nknow of no competent ones. It was not my intention to say that believers\nin religion are idiots or cowards. I did not mean, by using the word\n\"fear,\" to say that persons actuated by fear are cowards. That was not\nin my mind. By \"fear,\" I intended to convey that fear commonly called\nawe, or superstition,—that is to say, fear of the supernatural,—fear\nof the gods—fear of punishment in another world—fear of some Supreme\nBeing; not fear of some other man—not the fear that is branded with\ncowardice. And, of course, the Archdeacon perfectly understood my\nmeaning; but it was necessary to give another meaning in order to make\nthe appearance of an answer possible.\n\nBy \"prejudice,\" I mean that state of mind that accepts the false for the\ntrue. All prejudice is honest. And the probability is, that all men are\nmore or less prejudiced on some subject. But on that account I do not\ncall them \"incompetent idiots, or cowards, with a dash of prejudice.\" I\nhave no doubt that the Archdeacon himself believes that all Mahommedans\nare prejudiced, and that they are actuated more or less by fear,\ninculcated by their parents and by society at large. Neither have I any\ndoubt that he regards all Catholics as prejudiced, and believes that\nthey are governed more or less by fear. It is no answer to what I have\nsaid for the Archdeacon to say that \"others have studied every form\nof religion with infinitely greater power than I have done.\" This is a\npersonality that has nothing to do with the subject in hand. It is\nno argument to repeat a list of names. It is an old trick of the\ntheologians to use names instead of arguments—to appeal to persons\ninstead of principles—to rest their case upon the views of kings and\nnobles and others who pretend eminence in some department of human\nlearning or ignorance, rather than on human knowledge.\n\nThis is the argument of the old against the new, and on this appeal the\nold must of necessity have the advantage. When some man announces the\ndiscovery of a new truth, or of some great fact contrary to the opinions\nof the learned, it is easy to overwhelm him with names. There is but one\nname on his side—that is to say, his own. All others who are living,\nand the dead, are on the other side. And if this argument is good, it\nought to have ended all progress many thousands of years ago. If this\nargument is conclusive, the first man would have had freedom of opinion;\nthe second man would have stood an equal chance; but if the third man\ndiffered from the other two, he would have been gone. Yet this is the\nargument of the church. They say to every man who advances something\nnew: Are you greater than the dead? The man who is right is generally\nmodest. Men in the wrong, as a rule, are arrogant; and arrogance is\ngenerally in the majority.\n\nThe Archdeacon appeals to certain names to show that I am wrong. In\norder for this argument to be good—that is to say, to be honest—he\nshould agree with all the opinions of the men whose names he gives. He\nshows, or endeavors to show, that I am wrong, because I do not agree\nwith St. Augustine. Does the Archdeacon agree with St. Augustine? Does\nhe now believe that the bones of a saint were taken to Hippo—that being\nin the diocese of St. Augustine—and that five corpses, having been\ntouched with these bones, were raised to life? Does he believe that a\ndemoniac, on being touched with one of these bones, was relieved of a\nmultitude of devils, and that these devils then and there testified to\nthe genuineness of the bones, not only, but told the hearers that the\ndoctrine of the Trinity was true? Does the Archdeacon agree with St.\nAugustine that over seventy miracles were performed with these bones,\nand that in a neighboring town many hundreds of miracles were performed?\nDoes he agree with St. Augustine in his estimate of women—placing them\non a par with beasts?\n\nI admit that St. Augustine had great influence with the people of his\nday—but what people? I admit also that he was the founder of the first\nbegging brotherhood—that he organized mendicancy—and that he most\ncheerfully lived on the labor of others.\n\nIf St. Augustine lived now he would be the inmate of an asylum. This\nsame St. Augustine believed that the fire of hell was material—that the\nbody itself having influenced the soul to sin, would be burned forever,\nand that God by a perpetual miracle would save the body from being\nannihilated and devoured in those eternal flames.\n\nLet me ask the Archdeacon a question: Do you agree with St. Augustine?\nIf you do not, do you claim to be a greater man? Is \"your mole-hill\nhigher than his Dhawalagiri\"? Are you looking down upon him from the\naltitude of your own inferiority?\n\nPrecisely the same could be said of St. Jerome. The Archdeacon appeals\nto Charlemagne, one of the great generals of the world—a man who in his\ntime shed rivers of blood, and who on one occasion massacred over four\nthousand helpless prisoners—a Christian gentleman who had, I think,\nabout nine wives, and was the supposed father of some twenty children.\n'This same Charlemagne had laws against polygamy, and yet practiced\nit himself. Are we under the same obligation to share his vices as\nhis views? It is wonderful how the church has always appealed to the\nso-called great—how it has endeavored to get certificates from kings\nand queens, from successful soldiers and statesmen, to the truth of the\nBible and the moral character of Christ! How the saints have crawled in\nthe dust before the slayers of mankind! Think of proving the religion of\nlove and forgiveness by Charlemagne and Napoleon!\n\nAn appeal is also made to Roger Bacon. Yet this man attained all his\neminence by going contrary to the opinions and teachings of the church.\nIn his time, it was matter of congratulation that you knew nothing of\nsecular things. He was a student of Nature, an investigator, and by the\nvery construction of his mind was opposed to the methods of Catholicism.\n\nCopernicus was an astronomer, but he certainly did not get his astronomy\nfrom the church, nor from General Joshua, nor from the story of the\nJewish king for whose benefit the sun was turned back in heaven ten\ndegrees.\n\nNeither did Kepler find his three laws in the Sermon on the Mount, nor\nwere they the utterances of Jehovah on Mount Sinai. He did not make his\ndiscoveries because he was a Christian; but in spite of that fact.\n\nAs to Lord Bacon, let me ask, are you willing to accept his ideas? If\nnot, why do you quote his name? Am I bound by the opinions of Bacon in\nmatters of religion, and not in matters of science? Bacon denied the\nCoperni-can system, and died a believer in the Ptolemaic—died believing\nthat the earth is stationary and that the sun and stars move around it\nas a center. Do you agree with Bacon? If not, do you pretend that your\nmind is greater? Would it be fair for a believer in Bacon to denounce\nyou as an egotist and charge you with \"obstreperousness\" because you\nmerely suggested that Mr. Bacon was a little off in his astronomical\nopinions? Do you not see that you have furnished the cord for me to tie\nyour hands behind you?\n\nI do not know how you ascertained that Shakespeare was what you call a\nbeliever. Substantially all that we know of Shakespeare is found in what\nwe know as his \"works\" All else can be read in one minute. May I ask,\nhow you know that Shakespeare was a believer? Do you prove it by the\nwords he put in the mouths of his characters? If so, you can prove that\nhe was anything, nothing, and everything. Have you literary bread to eat\nthat I know not of? Whether Dante was, or was not, a Christian, I am\nnot prepared to say. I have always admired him for one thing: he had the\ncourage to see a pope in hell.\n\nProbably you are not prepared to agree with Milton—especially in his\nopinion that marriage had better be by contract, for a limited time. And\nif you disagree with Milton on this point, do you thereby pretend to say\nthat you could have written a better poem than Paradise Lost?\n\nSo Newton is supposed to have been a Trinitarian. And yet it is said\nthat, after his death, there was found an article, which had been\npublished by him in Holland, against the dogma of the Trinity.\n\nAfter all, it is quite difficult to find out what the great men have\nbelieved. They have been actuated by so many unknown motives; they\nhave wished for place; they have desired to be Archdeacons, Bishops,\nCardinals, Popes; their material interests have sometimes interfered\nwith the expression of their thoughts. Most of the men to whom you have\nalluded lived at a time when the world was controlled by what may be\ncalled a Christian mob—when the expression of an honest thought would\nhave cost the life of the one who expressed it—when the followers of\nChrist were ready with sword and fagot to exterminate philosophy and\nliberty from the world.\n\nIs it possible that we are under any obligation to believe the Mosaic\naccount of the Garden of Eden, or of the talking serpent, because\n\"Whewell had an encyclopaedic range of knowledge\"? Must we believe that\nJoshua stopped the sun, because Faraday was \"the most eminent man of\nscience of his day\"? Shall we believe the story of the fiery furnace,\nbecause \"Mr. Spottiswoode was president of the Royal Society\"—had\n\"rare mathematical genius\"—so rare that he was actually \"buried in\nWestminster Abbey\"? Shall we believe that Jonah spent three days and\nnights in the inside of a whale because \"Professor Clark Maxwell's death\nwas mourned by all\"?\n\nAre we under any obligation to believe that an infinite God sent two she\nbears to tear forty children in pieces because they laughed at a prophet\nwithout hair? Must we believe this because \"Sir Gabriel Stokes is the\nliving president of the Royal Society, and a Churchman\" besides? Are we\nbound to believe that Daniel spent one of the happiest evenings of his\nlife in the lion's den, because \"Sir William Dawson of Canada, two years\nago, presided over the British Association\"? And must we believe in the\nten plagues of Egypt, including the lice, because \"Professor Max\nMueller made an eloquent plea in Westminster Abbey in favor of Christian\nmissions\"? Possibly he wanted missionaries to visit heathen lands so\nthat they could see the difference for themselves between theory and\npractice, in what is known as the Christian religion.\n\nMust we believe the miracles of the New Testament—the casting out of\ndevils—because \"Lord Tennyson and Mr. Browning stand far above all\nother poets of this generation in England,\" or because \"Longfellow,\nHolmes, and Lowell and Whittier\" occupy the same position in America?\nMust we admit that devils entered into swine because \"Bancroft and\nParkman are the leading prose writers of America\"—which I take this\noccasion to deny?\n\nIt is to be hoped that some time the Archdeacon will read that portion\nof Mr. Bancroft's history in which he gives the account of how\nthe soldiers, commonly called Hessians, were raised by the British\nGovernment during the American Revolution.\n\nThese poor wretches were sold at so much apiece. For every one that was\nkilled, so much was paid, and for every one that was wounded a certain\namount was given. Mr. Bancroft tells us that God was not satisfied with\nthis business, and although he did not interfere in any way to save the\npoor soldiers, he did visit the petty tyrants who made the bargains with\nhis wrath. I remember that as a punishment to one of these, his wife was\ninduced to leave him; another one died a good many years afterwards; and\nseveral of them had exceedingly bad luck.\n\nAfter reading this philosophic dissertation on the dealings of\nProvidence, I doubt if the Archdeacon will still remain of the opinion\nthat Mr. Bancroft is one of the leading prose writers of America. If the\nArchdeacon will read a few of the sermons of Theodore Parker, and essays\nof Ralph Waldo Emerson, if he will read the life of Voltaire by James\nParton, he may change his opinion as to the great prose writers of\nAmerica.\n\nMy argument against miracles is answered by reference to \"Dr. Lightfoot,\na man of such immense learning that he became the equal of his successor\nDr. Westcott.\" And when I say that there are errors and imperfections\nin the Bible, I am told that Dr. Westcott \"investigated the Christian\nreligion and its earliest documents au fond, and was an orthodox\nbeliever.\" Of course the Archdeacon knows that no one now knows who\nwrote one of the books of the Bible. He knows that no one now lives who\never saw one of the original manuscripts, and that no one now lives\nwho ever saw anybody who had seen anybody who had seen an original\nmanuscript.\n\nVI.\n\nIs it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite\npersonality?\n\nTHE Archdeacon says that it is, and yet in the same article he quotes\nthe following from Job: \"Canst thou by searching find out God?\" \"It is\nas high as Heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than Hell; what canst thou\nknow?\" And immediately after making these quotations, the Archdeacon\ntakes the ground of the agnostic, and says, \"with the wise ancient\nRabbis, we learn to say, I do not know.\"\n\nIt is impossible for me to say what any other human being cannot\nconceive; but I am absolutely certain that my mind cannot conceive of an\ninfinite personality—of an infinite Ego.\n\nMan is conscious of his individuality. Man has wants. A multitude\nof things in nature seems to work against him; and others seem to be\nfavorable to him. There is conflict between him and nature.\n\nIf man had no wants—if there were no conflict between him and any other\nbeing, or any other thing, he could not say \"I\"—that is to say, he\ncould not be conscious of personality.\n\nNow, it seems to me that an infinite personality is a contradiction in\nterms, says \"I.\"\n\nVii\n\nTHE same line of argument applies to the next statement that\nis criticised by the Archdeacon: _Can the human mind conceive a\nbeginningless being?_\n\nWe know that there is such a thing as matter, but we do not know that\nthere is a beginningless being. We say, or some say, that matter is\neternal, because the human mind cannot conceive of its commencing. Now,\nif we knew of the existence of an Infinite Being, we could not conceive\nof his commencing. But we know of no such being. We do know of the\nexistence of matter; and my mind is so, that I cannot conceive of that\nmatter having been created by a beginningless being. I do not say that\nthere is not a beginningless being, but I do not believe there is, and\nit is beyond my power to conceive of such a being.\n\nThe Archdeacon also says that \"space is quite as impossible to conceive\nas God.\" But nobody pretends to love space—no one gives intention and\nwill to space—no one, so far as I know, builds altars or temples to\nspace. Now, if God is as inconceivable as space, why should we pray to\nGod?\n\nThe Archdeacon, however, after quoting Sir William Hamilton as to the\ninconceivability of space as absolute or infinite, takes occasion to say\nthat \"space is an entity.\" May I be permitted to ask how he knows that\nspace is an entity? As a matter of fact, the conception of infinite\nspace is a necessity of the mind, the same as eternity is a necessity of\nthe mind.\n\nViii\n\nTHE next sentence or statement to which the Archdeacon objects is as\nfollows:\n\n_He who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of\nJehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness or\nwisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for\npestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, and for\nthe triumph of the strong over the weak._\n\nOne objection that he urges to this statement is that St. Paul had made\na stronger one in the same direction. The Archdeacon however insists\nthat \"a world without a contingency, or an agony, could have had no hero\nand no saint,\" and that \"science enables us to demonstrate that much of\nthe apparent misery and anguish is transitory and even phantasmal;\nthat many of the seeming forces of destruction are overruled to ends of\nbeneficence; that most of man's disease and anguish is due to his own\nsin and folly and wilfulness.\"\n\nI will not say that these things have been said before, but I will say\nthat they have been answered before. The idea that the world is a school\nin which character is formed and in which men are educated is very old.\nIf, however, the world is a school, and there is trouble and misfortune,\nand the object is to create character—that is to say, to produce heroes\nand saints—then the question arises, what becomes of those who die\nin infancy? They are left without the means of education. Are they\nto remain forever without character? Or is there some other world of\nsuffering and sorrow?\n\nIs it possible to form character in heaven? How did the angels become\ngood? How do you account for the justice of God? Did he attain character\nthrough struggle and suffering?\n\nWhat would you say of a school teacher who should kill one-third of\nthe children on the morning of the first day? And what can you say of\nGod,—if this world is a school,—who allows a large per cent, of his\nchildren to die in infancy—consequently without education—therefore,\nwithout character?\n\nIf the world is the result of infinite wisdom and goodness, why is the\nChristian Church engaged in endeavoring to make it better; or, rather,\nin an effort to change it? Why not leave it as an infinite God made it?\n\nIs it true that most of man's diseases are due to his own sin and folly\nand wilfulness? Is it not true that no matter how good men are they must\ndie, and will they not die of diseases? Is it true that the wickedness\nof man has created the microbe? Is it possible that the sinfulness of\nman created the countless enemies of human life that lurk in air and\nwater and food? Certainly the wickedness of man has had very little\ninfluence on tornadoes, earthquakes and floods. Is it true that \"the\nsignature of beauty with which God has stamped the visible world—alike\nin the sky and on the earth—alike in the majestic phenomena of\nan intelligent creation and in its humblest and most microscopic\nproduction—is a perpetual proof that God is a God of love\"?\n\nLet us see. The scientists tell us that there is a little microscopic\nanimal, one who is very particular about his food—so particular,\nthat he prefers to all other things the optic nerve, and after he has\nsucceeded in destroying that nerve and covering the eye with the mask of\nblindness, he has intelligence enough to bore his way through the bones\nof the nose in search of the other optic nerve. Is it not somewhat\ndifficult to discover \"the signature of beauty with which God has\nstamped\" this animal? For my part, I see but little beauty in poisonous\nserpents, in man-eating sharks, in crocodiles, in alligators. It would\nbe impossible for me to gaze with admiration upon a cancer. Think, for a\nmoment, of a God ingenious enough and good enough to feed a cancer with\nthe quivering flesh of a human being, and to give for the sustenance of\nthat cancer the life of a mother.\n\nIt is well enough to speak of \"the myriad voices of nature in their\nmirth and sweetness,\" and it is also well enough to think of the other\nside. The singing birds have a few notes of love—the rest are all of\nwarning and of fear. Nature, apparently with infinite care, produces\na living thing, and at the same time is just as diligently at work\ncreating another living thing to devour the first, and at the same time\na third to devour the second, and so on around the great circle of life\nand death, of agony and joy—tooth and claw, fang and tusk, hunger and\nrapine, massacre and murder, violence and vengeance and vice everywhere\nand through all time. [Here the manuscript ends, with the following\nnotes.]\n\nSayings from the Indian\n\n\"The rain seems hardest when the wigwam leaks.\"\n\n\"When the tracks get too large and too numerous, the wise Indian says\nthat he is hunting something else.\"\n\n\"A little crook in the arrow makes a great miss.\"\n\n\"A great chief counts scalps, not hairs.\"\n\n\"You cannot strengthen the bow by poisoning the arrows.\"\n\n\"No one saves water in a flood.\"\n\nOrigen\n\nOrigen considered that the punishment of the wicked consisted in\nseparation from God. There was too much pity in his heart to believe in\nthe flames of hell. But he was condemned as heretical by the Council of\nCarthage, A. D., 398, and afterwards by other councils.\n\nSt. Augustine\n\nSt. Augustine censures Origen for his merciful view, and says: \"The\nchurch, not without reason, condemned him for this error.\" He also held\nthat hell was in the centre of the earth, and that God supplied the\ncentre with perpetual fire by a miracle.\n\nDante\n\nDante is a wonderful mixture of melancholy and malice, of religion and\nrevenge, and he represents himself as so pitiless that when he found his\npolitical opponents in hell, he struck their faces and pulled the hair\nof the tormented.\n\nAquinas\n\nAquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who believed in\nthe undying worm.\n\nIs Corporal Punishment Degrading\n  • This unfinished and unrevised article was found among Col.\n    Ingersoll's papers, and is here reproduced without change.—\n    It is a reply to the Dean of St Paul's Contribution to the\n    North American Review for Dec., 1891, entitled: \"Is Corporal\n    Punishment Degrading?\"\n\nTHE Dean of St. Paul protests against the kindness of parents, guardians\nand teachers toward children, wards and pupils. He believes in the\ngospel of ferule and whips, and has perfect faith in the efficacy of\nflogging in homes and schools. He longs for the return of the good old\ndays when fathers were severe, and children affectionate and obedient.\n\nIn America, for many years, even wife-beating has been somewhat\nunpopular, and the flogging of children has been considered cruel\nand unmanly. Wives with bruised and swollen faces, and children with\nlacerated backs, have excited pity for themselves rather than admiration\nfor savage husbands and brutal fathers. It is also true that the church\nhas far less power here than in England, and it may be that those who\nwander from the orthodox fold grow merciful and respect the rights even\nof the weakest.\n\nBut whatever the cause may be, the fact is that we, citizens of the\nRepublic, feel that certain domestic brutalities are the children of\nmonarchies and despotisms; that they were produced by superstition,\nignorance, and savagery; and that they are not in accord with the free\nand superb spirit that founded and preserves the Great Republic.\n\nOf late years, confidence in the power of kindness has greatly\nincreased, and there is a wide-spread suspicion that cruelty and\nviolence are not the instrumentalities of civilization.\n\nPhysicians no longer regard corporal punishment as a sure cure even for\ninsanity—and it is generally admitted that the lash irritates rather\nthan soothes the victim of melancholia.\n\nCivilized men now insist that criminals cannot always be reformed even\nby the most ingenious instruments of torture. It is known that some\nconvicts repay the smallest acts of kindness with the sincerest\ngratitude. Some of the best people go so far as to say that kindness\nis the sunshine in which the virtues grow. We know that for many ages\ngovernments tried to make men virtuous with dungeon and fagot and\nscaffold; that they tried to cure even disease of the mind with\nbrandings and maimings and lashes on the naked flesh of men and\nwomen—and that kings endeavored to sow the seeds of patriotism—to\nplant and nurture them in the hearts of their subjects—with whip and\nchain.\n\nIn England, only a few years ago, there were hundreds of brave\nsoldiers and daring sailors whose breasts were covered with honorable\nscars—witnesses of wounds received at Trafalgar and Balaklava—while on\nthe backs of these same soldiers and sailors were the marks of\nEnglish whips. These shameless cruelties were committed in the name of\ndiscipline, and were upheld by officers, statesmen and clergymen. The\nsame is true of nearly all civilized nations. These crimes have been\nexcused for the reason that our ancestors were, at that time, in fact,\nbarbarians—that they had no idea of justice, no comprehension of\nliberty, no conception of the rights of men, women, and children.\n\nAt that time the church was, in most countries, equal to, or superior\nto, the state, and was a firm believer in the civilizing influences of\ncruelty and torture.\n\nAccording to the creeds of that day, God intended to torture the wicked\nforever, and the church, according to its power, did all that it could\nin the same direction. Learning their rights and duties from priests,\nfathers not only beat their children, but their wives. In those days\nmost homes were penitentiaries, in which wives and children were\nthe convicts and of which husbands and fathers were the wardens and\nturnkeys. The king imitated his supposed God, and imprisoned, flogged,\nbranded, beheaded and burned his enemies, and the husbands and fathers\nimitated the king, and guardians and teachers imitated them.\n\nYet in spite of all the beatings and burnings, the whippings and\nhangings, the world was not reformed. Crimes increased, the cheeks\nof wives were furrowed with tears, the faces of children white with\nfear—fear of their own fathers; pity was almost driven from the heart\nof man and found refuge, for the most part, in the breasts of women,\nchildren, and dogs.\n\nIn those days, misfortunes were punished as crimes. Honest debtors were\nlocked in loathsome dungeons, and trivial offences were punished with\ndeath. Worse than all that, thousands of men and women were destroyed,\nnot because they were vicious, but because they were virtuous, honest\nand noble. Extremes beget obstructions. The victims at last became too\nnumerous, and the result did not seem to justify the means. The good,\nthe few, protested against the savagery of kings and fathers.\n\nNothing seems clearer to me than that the world has been gradually\ngrowing better for many years. Men have a clearer conception of rights\nand obligations—a higher philosophy—a far nobler ideal. Even kings\nadmit that they should have some regard for the well-being of their\nsubjects. Nations and individuals are slowly outgrowing the savagery of\nrevenge, the desire to kill, and it is generally admitted that criminals\nshould neither be imprisoned nor tortured for the gratification of the\npublic. At last we are beginning to know that revenge is a mistake—that\ncruelty not only hardens the victim, but makes a criminal of him who\ninflicts it, and that mercy guided by intelligence is the highest form\nof justice.\n\nThe tendency of the world is toward kindness. The religious creeds\nare being changed or questioned, because they shock the heart of the\npresent. All civilized churches, all humane Christians, have given up\nthe dogma of eternal pain. This infamous doctrine has for many centuries\npolluted the imagination and hardened the heart. This coiled viper no\nlonger inhabits the breast of a civilized man.\n\nIn all civilized countries slavery has been abolished, the honest debtor\nreleased, and all are allowed the liberty of speech.\n\nLong ago flogging was abolished in our army and navy and all cruel and\nunusual punishments prohibited by law. In many parts of the Republic the\nwhip has been banished from the public schools, the flogger of children\nis held in abhorrence, and the wife-beater is regarded as a cowardly\ncriminal. The gospel of kindness is not only preached, but practiced.\nSuch has been the result of this advance of civilization—of this growth\nof kindness—of this bursting into blossom of the flower called pity, in\nthe heart—that we treat our horses (thanks to Henry Bergh) better than\nour ancestors did their slaves, their servants or their tenants. The\ngentlemen of to-day show more affection for their dogs than most of the\nkings of England exhibited toward their wives. The great tide is toward\nmercy; the savage creeds are being changed; heartless laws have been\nrepealed; shackles have been broken; torture abolished, and the keepers\nof prisons are no longer allowed to bruise and scar the flesh of\nconvicts. The insane are treated with kindness—asylums are in the\nmidst of beautiful grounds, the rooms are filled with flowers, and the\nwandering mind is called back by the golden voice of music.\n\nIn the midst of these tendencies—of these accomplishments—in the\ngeneral harmony between the minds of men, acting together, to the end\nthat the world may be governed by kindness through education and the\nblessed agencies of reformation and prevention, the Dean of St. Paul\nraises his voice in favor of the methods and brutalities of the past.\n\nThe reverend gentleman takes the ground that the effect of flogging on\nthe flogged is not degrading; that the effect of corporal punishment is\nennobling; that it tends to make boys manly by ennobling and teaching\nthem to bear bodily pain with fortitude. To be flogged develops\ncharacter, self-reliance, courage, contempt of pain and the highest\nheroism. The Dean therefore takes the ground that parents should flog\ntheir children, guardians their wards, and teachers their pupils.\n\nIf the Dean is wrong he goes too far, and if he is right he does not go\nfar enough. He does not advocate the flogging of children who obey their\nparents, or of pupils who violate no rule. It follows then that such\nchildren are in great danger of growing up unmanly, without the courage\nand fortitude to bear bodily pain. If flogging is really a blessing it\nshould not be withheld from the good and lavished on the unworthy. The\nDean should have the courage of his convictions. The teacher should not\nmake a pretext of the misconduct of the pupil to do him a great service.\nHe should not be guilty of calling a benefit a punishment He should not\ndeceive the children under his care and develop their better natures\nunder false pretences. But what is to become of the boys and girls who\n\"behave themselves,\" who attend to their studies, and comply with the\nrules? They lose the benefits conferred on those who defy their parents\nand teachers, reach maturity without character, and so remain withered\nand worthless.\n\nThe Dean not only defends his position by an appeal to the Bible, the\nhistory of nations, but to his personal experience. In order to show the\ngood effects of brutality and the bad consequences of kindness, he gives\ntwo instances that came under his observation. The first is that of\nan intelligent father who treated his sons with great kindness and\nyet these sons neglected their affectionate father in his old age. The\nsecond instance is that of a mother who beat her daughter. The wretched\nchild, it seems, was sent out to gather sticks from the hedges, and\nwhen she brought home a large stick, the mother suspected that she had\nobtained it wrongfully and thereupon proceeded to beat the child. And\nyet the Dean tells us that this abused daughter treated the hyena mother\nwith the greatest kindness, and loved her as no other daughter ever\nloved a mother. In order to make this case strong and convincing the\nDean states that this mother was a most excellent Christian.\n\nFrom these two instances the Dean infers, and by these two instances\nproves, that kindness breeds bad sons, and that flogging makes\naffectionate daughters. The Dean says to the Christian mother: \"If\nyou wish to be loved by your daughter, you must beat her.\" And to the\nChristian father he says: \"If you want to be neglected in your old age\nby your sons, you will treat them with kindness.\" The Dean does not\nfollow his logic to the end. Let me give him two instances that support\nhis theory.\n\nA good man married a handsome woman. He was old, rich, kind and\nindulgent. He allowed his wife to have her own way. He never uttered a\ncross or cruel word. He never thought of beating her. And yet, as the\nDean would say, in consequence of his kindness, she poisoned him, got\nhis money and married another man.\n\nIn this city, not long ago, a man, a foreigner, beat his wife according\nto his habit. On this particular occasion the punishment was excessive.\nHe beat her until she became unconscious; she was taken to a hospital\nand the physician said that she could not live. The husband was brought\nto the hospital and preparations were made to take her dying statement.\nAfter being told that she was dying, she was asked if her husband had\nbeaten her. Her face was so bruised and swollen that the lids of her\neyes had to be lifted in order that she might see the wretch who had\nkilled her. She beckoned him to her side—threw her arms about his\nneck—drew his face to hers—kissed him, and said: \"He is not the man.\nHe did not do it\"—then—died.\n\nAccording to the philosophy of the Dean, these instances show that\nkindness causes crime, and that wife-beating cultivates in the highest\ndegree the affectional nature of woman.\n\nThe Dean, if consistent, is a believer in slavery, because the lash\njudiciously applied brings out the finer feelings of the heart.\nSlaves have been known to die for their masters, while under similar\ncircumstances hired men have sought safety in flight.\n\nWe all know of many instances where the abused, the maligned, and the\ntortured have returned good for evil—and many instances where\nthe loved, the honored, and the trusted have turned against their\nbenefactors, and yet we know that cruelty and torture are not superior\nto love and kindness. Yet, the Dean tries to show that severity is the\nreal mother of affection, and that kindness breeds monsters. If kindness\nand affection on the part of parents demoralize children, will not\nkindness and affection on the part of children demoralize the parents?\n\nWhen the children are young and weak, the parents who are strong beat\nthe children in order that they may be affectionate. Now, when the\nchildren get strong and the parents are old and weak, ought not the\nchildren to beat them, so that they too may become kind and loving?\n\nIf you want an affectionate son, beat him. If you desire a loving wife,\nbeat her.\n\nThis is really the advice of the Dean of St Paul. To me it is one of the\nmost pathetic facts in nature that wives and children love husbands and\nfathers who are utterly unworthy. It is enough to sadden a life to\nthink of the affection that has been lavished upon the brutal, of the\ncountless pearls that Love has thrown to swine.\n\nThe Dean, quoting from Hooker, insists that \"the voice of man is as\nthe sentence of God himself,\"—in other words, that the general voice,\npractice and opinion of the human race are true.\n\nAnd yet, cannibalism, slavery, polygamy, the worship of snakes and\nstones, the sacrifice of babes, have during vast periods of time been\npracticed and upheld by an overwhelming majority of mankind. Whether the\n\"general voice\" can be depended on depends much on the time, the epoch,\nduring which the \"general voice\" was uttered. There was a time when the\n\"general voice\" was in accord with the appetite of man; when all nations\nwere cannibals and lived on each other, and yet it can hardly be said\nthat this voice and appetite were in exact accord with divine goodness.\nIt is hardly safe to depend on the \"general voice\" of savages, no matter\nhow numerous they may have been. Like most people who defend the cruel\nand absurd, the Dean appeals to the Bible as the supreme authority in\nthe moral world,—and yet if the English Parliament should re-enact the\nMosaic Code every member voting in the affirmative would be subjected\nto personal violence, and an effort to enforce that code would produce a\nrevolution that could end only in the destruction of the government.\n\nThe morality of the Old Testament is not always of the purest; when\nJehovah tried to induce Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, he never took the\nground that slavery was wrong. He did not seek to convince by argument,\nto soften by pity, or to persuade by kindness. He depended on miracles\nand plagues. He killed helpless babes and the innocent beasts of the\nfields. No wonder the Dean appeals to the Bible to justify the beating\nof children. So, too, we are told that \"all sensible persons, Christian\nand otherwise, will admit that there are in every child born into the\nworld tendencies to evil that need rooting out.\"\n\nThe Dean undoubtedly believes in the creed of the established church,\nand yet he does not hesitate to say that a God of infinite goodness and\nintelligence never created a child—never allowed one to be born into\nthe world without planting in its little heart \"tendencies to evil that\nneed rooting out.\"\n\nSo, Solomon is quoted to the effect \"that he that spareth his rod hateth\nhis son.\" To me it has always been a matter of amazement why civilized\npeople, living in the century of Darwin and Humboldt, should quote as\nauthority the words of Solomon, a murderer, an ingrate, an idolater, and\na polygamist—a man so steeped and sodden in ignorance that he really\nbelieved he could be happy with seven hundred wives and three hundred\nconcubines. The Dean seems to regret that flogging is no longer\npracticed in the British navy, and quotes with great cheerfulness a\npassage from Deuteronomy to prove that forty lashes on the naked back\nwill meet with the approval of God. He insists that St. Paul endured\ncorporal punishment without the feeling of degradation not only, but\nthat he remembered his sufferings with a sense of satisfaction. Does the\nDean think that the satisfaction of St. Paul justified the wretches who\nbeat and stoned him? Leaving the Hebrews, the Dean calls the Greeks as\nwitnesses to establish the beneficence of flogging. They resorted to\ncorporal punishment in their schools, says the Dean and then naively\nremarks \"that Plutarch was opposed to this.\"\n\nThe Dean admits that in Rome it was found necessary to limit by law the\npunishment that a father might inflict upon his children, and yet he\nseems to regret that the legislature interfered. The Dean observes that\n\"Quintillian severely censured corporal punishment\" and then accounts\nfor the weakness and folly of the censure, by saying that \"Quintillian\nwrote in the days when the glories of Rome were departed.\" And then adds\nthese curiously savage words: \"It is worthy of remark that no children\ntreated their parents with greater tenderness and reverence than did\nthose of Rome in the days when the father possessed the unlimited power\nof punishment.\"\n\nNot quite satisfied with the strength of his case although sustained by\nMoses and Solomon, St. Paul and several schoolmasters, he proceeds\nto show that God is thoroughly on his side, not only in theory, but in\npractice; \"whom the Lord loveth lie chasteneth, and scourgeth every sou\nwhom he receiveth.\".\n\nThe Dean asks this question: \"Which custom, kindness or severity, does\nexperience show to be the less dangerous?\" And he answers from a new\nheart: \"I fear that I must unhesitatingly give the palm to severity.\"\n\n\"I have found that there have been more reverence and affection,\nmore willingness to make sacrifices for parents, more pleasure in\ncontributing to their pleasure or happiness in that life where the\ntendency has been to a severe method of treatment.\"\n\nIs it possible that any good mail exists who is willing to gain the\naffection of his children in that way? How could such a man beat and\nbruise the flesh of his babes, knowing that they would give him in\nreturn obedience and love; that they would fill the evening of his\ndays—the leafless winter of his life—with perfect peace?\n\nThink of being fed and clothed by children you had whipped—whose\nflesh you had scarred! Think of feeling in the hour of death upon your\nwithered lips, your withered cheeks, the kisses and the tears of one\nwhom, you had beaten—upon whose flesh were still the marks of your\nlash!\n\nThe whip degrades; a severe father teaches his children to dissemble;\ntheir love is pretence, and their obedience a species of self-defence.\nFear is the father of lies.\n"
}