{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-6:reply-to-dr-lyman-abbott",
  "slug": "reply-to-dr-lyman-abbott",
  "title": "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott",
  "subtitle": "An answer to \\\"Flaws in Ingersollism.\\\"",
  "excerpt": "An unfinished answer to the Reverend Lyman Abbott's article 'Flaws in Ingersollism' in the North American Review — broken off when Ingersoll was called to Montana on a law case.",
  "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-dr-lyman-abbott/",
  "wordCount": 5780,
  "body": "• This unfinished article was written as a reply to the Rev.\n    Lyman Abbott's article entitled, \"Flaws in Ingersollism,\"\n    which was printed in the April number of the North American\n    Review for 1890.\n\nIN your Open Letter to me, published in this Review, you attack what\nyou supposed to be my position, and ask several questions to which\nyou demand answers; but in the same letter, you state that you wish no\ncontroversy with me. Is it possible that you wrote the letter to prevent\na controversy? Do you attack only those with whom you wish to live in\npeace, and do you ask questions, coupled with a request that they remain\nunanswered?\n\nIn addition to this, you have taken pains to publish in your own paper,\nthat it was no part of your design in the article in the _North American\nReview_, to point out errors in my statements, and that this design\nwas distinctly disavowed in the opening paragraph of your article. You\nfurther say, that your simple object was to answer the question \"What is\nChristianity?\" May I be permitted to ask why you addressed the letter to\nme, and why do you now pretend that, although you did address a letter\nto me, I was not in your mind, and that you had no intention of pointing\nout any flaws in my doctrines or theories? Can you afford to occupy this\nposition?\n\nYou also stated in your own paper, The Christian Union, that the title\nof your article had been changed by the editor of the Review, without\nyour knowledge or consent; leaving it to be inferred that the title\ngiven to the article by you was perfectly consistent with your\nstatement, that it was no part of your design in the article in the\nNorth American Review, to point out errors in my (Ingersoll's)\nstatements; and that your simple object was to answer the question, What\nis Christianity? And yet, the title which you gave your own article was\nas follows: \"To Robert G. Ingersoll: A Reply.\"\n\nFirst. We are told that only twelve crimes were punished by\ndeath: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, fraudulent prophesying,\nSabbath-breaking, rebellion against parents, resistance to judicial\nofficers, murder, homicide by negligence, adultery, incestuous\nmarriages, and kidnapping. We are then told that as late as the year\n1600 there were 263 crimes capital in England.\n\nDoes not the world know that all the crimes or offences punishable\nby death in England could be divided in the same way? For instance,\ntreason. This covered a multitude of offences, all punishable by death.\nLarceny covered another multitude. Perjury—trespass, covered many\nothers. There might still be made a smaller division, and one who had\nmade up his mind to define the Criminal Code of England might have said\nthat there was only one offence punishable by death—wrong-doing.\n\nThe facts with regard to the Criminal Code of England are, that up to\nthe reign of George I. there were 167 offences punishable by death.\nBetween the accession of George I. and termination of the reign of\nGeorge III., there were added 56 new crimes to which capital punishment\nwas attached. So that when George IV. became king, there were 223\noffences capital in England.\n\nJohn Bright, commenting upon this subject, says:\n\n\"During all these years, so far as this question goes, our Government\nwas becoming more cruel and more barbarous, and we do not find, and\nhave not found, that in the great Church of England, with its fifteen\nor twenty thousand ministers, and with its more than score of Bishops\nin the House of Lords, there ever was a voice raised, or an organization\nformed, in favor of a more merciful code, or in condemnation of the\nenormous cruelties which our law was continually inflicting. Was not\nVoltaire justified in saying that the English were the only people who\nmurdered by law?\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, taking into consideration the situation of the\npeople, the number of subjects covered by law, there were far more\noffences capital in the days of Moses, than in the reign of George IV.\nIs it possible that a minister, a theologian of the nineteenth century,\nimagines that he has substantiated the divine origin of the Old\nTestament by endeavoring to show that the government of God was not\nquite as bad as that of England?\n\nMr. Abbott also informs us that the reason Moses killed so many was,\nthat banishment from the camp during the wandering in the Wilderness was\na punishment worse than death. If so, the poor wretches should at least\nhave been given their choice. Few, in my judgment, would have chosen\ndeath, because the history shows that a large majority were continually\nclamoring to be led back to Egypt. It required all the cunning and power\nof God to keep the fugitives from returning in a body. Many were killed\nby Jehovah, simply because they wished to leave the camp—because\nthey longed passionately for banishment, and thought with joy of the\nflesh-pots of Egypt, preferring the slavery of Pharaoh to the liberty\nof Jehovah. The memory of leeks and onions was enough to set their faces\ntoward the Nile.\n\nSecond. I am charged with saying that the Christian missionaries say to\nthe heathen: \"You must examine your religion—and not only so, but you\nmust reject it; and unless you do reject it, and in addition to such\nrejection, adopt ours, you will be eternally damned.\" Mr. Abbott denies\nthe truth of this statement.\n\nLet me ask him, If the religion of Jesus Christ is preached clearly and\ndistinctly to a heathen, and the heathen understands it, and rejects it\ndeliberately, unequivocally, and finally, can he be saved?\n\nThis question is capable of a direct answer. The reverend gentleman now\nadmits that an acceptance of Christianity is not essential to salvation.\nIf the acceptance of Christianity is not essential to the salvation of\nthe heathen who has heard Christianity preached—knows what its claims\nare, and the evidences that support those claims, is the acceptance of\nChristianity essential to the salvation of an adult intelligent citizen\nof the United States? Will the reverend gentleman tell us, and without\ncircumlocution, whether the acceptance of Christianity is necessary to\nthe salvation of anybody? If he says that it is, then he admits that I\nwas right in my statement concerning what is said to the heathen. If he\nsays that it is not, then I ask him, What do you do with the following\npassages of Scripture: \"There is none other name given under heaven or\namong men whereby we must be saved.\"\n\n\"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, and\nwhosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; and whosoever\nbelieveth not shall be damned\"?\n\nI am delighted to know that millions of Pagans will be found to have\nentered into eternal life without any knowledge of Christ or his\nreligion.\n\nAnother question naturally arises: If a heathen can hear and reject\nthe Gospel, and yet be saved, what will become of the heathen who never\nheard of the Gospel? Are they all to be saved? If all who never heard\nare to be saved, is it not dangerous to hear?—Is it not cruel to\npreach? Why not stop preaching and let the entire world become heathen,\nso that after this, no soul may be lost?\n\nThird. You say that I desire to deprive mankind of their faith in\nGod, in Christ and in the Bible. I do not, and have not, endeavored to\ndestroy the faith of any man in a good, in a just, in a merciful God, or\nin a reasonable, natural, human Christ, or in any truth that the Bible\nmay contain. I have endeavored—and with some degree of success—to\ndestroy the faith of man in the Jehovah of the Jews, and in the idea\nthat Christ was in fact the God of this universe. I have also endeavored\nto show that there are many things in the Bible ignorant and cruel—that\nthe book was produced by barbarians and by savages, and that its\ninfluence on the world has been bad.\n\nAnd I do believe that life and property will be safer, that liberty will\nbe surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be more joyous, and\ndeath less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah can be destroyed from\nthe human mind.\n\nIt seems to me that the heart of the Christian ought to burst into an\nefflorescence of joy when he becomes satisfied that the Bible is only\nthe work of man; that there is no such place as perdition—that there\nare no eternal flames—that men's souls are not to suffer everlasting\npain—that it is all insanity and ignorance and fear and horror. I\nshould think that every good and tender soul would be delighted to know\nthat there is no Christ who can say to any human being—to any father,\nmother, or child—\"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for\nthe devil and his angels.\" I do believe that he will be far happier when\nthe Psalms of David are sung no more, and that he will be far better\nwhen no one could sing the 109th Psalm without shuddering and horror.\nThese Psalms for the most part breathe the spirit of hatred, of revenge,\nand of everything fiendish in the human heart. There are some good\nlines, some lofty aspirations—these should be preserved; and to the\nextent that they do give voice to the higher and holier emotions, they\nshould be preserved.\n\nSo I believe the world will be happier when the life of Christ, as it is\nwritten now in the New Testament, is no longer believed.\n\nSome of the Ten Commandments will fall into oblivion, and the world will\nbe far happier when they do. Most of these commandments are universal.\nThey were not discovered by Jehovah—they were not original with him.\n\n\"Thou shalt not kill,\" is as old as life. And for this reason a large\nmajority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.\n\"Thou shalt not steal,\" is as old as industry. There never has been a\nhuman being who was willing to work through the sun and rain and heat of\nsummer, simply for the purpose that some one who had lived in idleness\nmight steal the result of his labor. Consequently, in all countries\nwhere it has been necessary to work, larceny has been a crime. \"Thou\nshalt not lie,\" is as old as speech. Men have desired, as a rule, to\nknow the truth; and truth goes with courage and candor. \"Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery,\" is as old as love. \"Honor thy father and thy mother,\"\nis as old as the family relation.\n\nAll these commandments were known among all peoples thousands and\nthousands of years before Moses was born. The new one, \"Thou shalt\nworship no other Gods but me,\" is a bad commandment—because that God\nwas not worthy of worship. \"Thou shalt make no graven image,\"—a bad\ncommandment. It was the death of art. \"Thou shalt do no work on the\nSabbath-day,\"—a bad commandment; the object of that being, that\none-seventh of the time should be given to the worship of a monster,\nmaking a priesthood necessary, and consequently burdening industry with\nthe idle and useless.\n\nIf Professor Clifford felt lonely at the loss of such a companion as\nJehovah, it is impossible for me to sympathize with his feelings. No one\nwishes to destroy the hope of another life—no one wishes to blot out\nany good that is, or that is hoped for, or the hope of which gives\nconsolation to the world. Neither do I agree with this gentleman when\nhe says, \"Let us have the truth, cost what it may.\" I say: Let us have\nhappiness—well-being. The truth upon these matters is of but little\nimportance compared with the happiness of mankind. Whether there is, or\nis not, a God, is absolutely unimportant, compared with the well-being\nof the race. Whether the Bible is, or is not, inspired, is not of as\nmuch consequence as human happiness.\n\nOf course, if the Old and New Testaments are true, then human happiness\nbecomes impossible, either in this world, or in the world to come—that\nis, impossible to all people who really believe that these books are\ntrue. It is often necessary to know the truth, in order to prepare\nourselves to bear consequences; but in the metaphysical world, truth is\nof no possible importance except as it affects human happiness.\n\nIf there be a God, he certainly will hold us to no stricter\nresponsibility about metaphysical truth than about scientific truth.\nIt ought to be just as dangerous to make a mistake in Geology as in\nTheology—in Astronomy as in the question of the Atonement.\n\nI am not endeavoring to overthrow any faith in God, but the faith in a\nbad God. And in order to accomplish this, I have endeavored to show that\nthe question of whether an Infinite God exists, or not, is beyond the\npower of the human mind. Anything is better than to believe in the God\nof the Bible.\n\nFourth. Mr. Abbott, like the rest, appeals to names instead of to\narguments. He appeals to Socrates, and yet he does not agree with\nSocrates. He appeals to Goethe, and yet Goethe was far from a Christian.\nHe appeals to Isaac Newton and to Mr. Gladstone—and after mentioning\nthese names, says, that on his side is this faith of the wisest, the\nbest, the noblest of mankind.\n\nWas Socrates after all greater than Epicurus—had he a subtler mind—was\nhe any nobler in his life? Was Isaac Newton so much greater than\nHumboldt—than Charles Darwin, who has revolutionized the thought of\nthe civilized world? Did he do the one-hundredth part of the good for\nmankind that was done by Voltaire—was he as great a metaphysician as\nSpinoza?\n\nBut why should we appeal to names?\n\nIn a contest between Protestantism and Catholicism are you willing\nto abide by the tests of names? In a contest between Christianity and\nPaganism, in the first century, would you have considered the question\nsettled by names? Had Christianity then produced the equals of the great\nGreeks and Romans? The new can always be overwhelmed with names that\nwere in favor of the old. Sir Isaac Newton, in his day, could have been\noverwhelmed by the names of the great who had preceded him. Christ was\noverwhelmed by this same method—Moses and the Prophets were appealed\nto as against this Peasant of Palestine. This is the argument of\nthe cemetery—this is leaving the open field, and crawling behind\ngravestones.\n\nNewton was understood to be, all his life, a believer in the Trinity;\nbut he dared not say what his real thought was. After his death there\nwas found among his papers an argument that he published against the\ndivinity of Christ. This had been published in Holland, because he was\nafraid to have it published in England. How do we really know what the\ngreat men of whom you speak believed, or believe?\n\nI do not agree with you when you say that Gladstone is the greatest\nstatesman. He will not, in my judgment, for one moment compare with\nThomas Jefferson—with Alexander Hamilton—or, to come down to later\ntimes, with Gambetta; and he is immeasurably below such a man as Abraham\nLincoln. Lincoln was not a believer. Gambetta was an atheist.\n\nAnd yet, these names prove nothing. Instead of citing a name, and saying\nthat this great man—Sir Isaac Newton, for instance—believed in our\ndoctrine, it is far better to give the reasons that Sir Isaac Newton had\nfor his belief.\n\nNearly all organizations are filled with snobbishness. Each church has\na list of great names, and the members feel in duty bound to stand by\ntheir great men.\n\nWhy is idolatry the worst of sins? Is it not far better to worship a God\nof stone than a God who threatens to punish in eternal flames the most\nof his children? If you simply mean by idolatry a false conception of\nGod, you must admit that no finite mind can have a true conception\nof God—and you must admit that no two men can have the same false\nconception of God, and that, as a consequence, no two men can worship\nidentically the same Deity. Consequently they are all idolaters.\n\nI do not think idolatry the worst of sins. Cruelty is the worst of\nsins. It is far better to worship a false God, than to injure your\nneighbor—far better to bow before a monstrosity of stone, than to\nenslave your fellow-men.\n\nFifth. I am glad that you admit that a bad God is worse than no God.\nIf so, the atheist is far better than the believer in Jehovah, and far\nbetter than the believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ—because I am\nperfectly satisfied that none but a bad God would threaten to say to any\nhuman soul, \"Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the\ndevil and his angels.\" So that, before any Christian can be better than\nan atheist, he must reform his God.\n\nThe agnostic does not simply say, \"I do not know.\" He goes another step,\nand he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that\nyou are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others.\nHe is not satisfied with saying that you do not know,—he demonstrates\nthat you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact—he\ndrives you from the realm of reason—he drives you from the light, into\nthe darkness of conjecture—into the world of dreams and shadows, and he\ncompels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.\n\nYou say that religion tells us that \"life is a battle with\ntemptation—the result is eternal life to the victors.\"\n\nBut what of the victims? Did your God create these victims, knowing\nthat they would be victims? Did he deliberately change the clay into\nthe man—into a being with wants, surrounded by difficulties and\ntemptations—and did he deliberately surround this being with\ntemptations that he knew he could not withstand, with obstacles that he\nknew he could not overcome, and whom he knew at last would fall a victim\nupon the field of death? Is there no hope for this victim? No remedy for\nthis mistake of your God? Is he to remain a victim forever? Is it not\nbetter to have no God than such a God? Could the condition of this\nvictim be rendered worse by the death of God?\n\nSixth. Of course I agree with you when you say that character is worth\nmore than condition—that life is worth more than place. But I do not\nagree with you when you say that being—that simple existence—is better\nthan happiness. If a man is not happy, it is far better not to be. I\nutterly dissent from your philosophy of life. From my standpoint, I\ndo not understand you when you talk about self-denial. I can imagine a\nbeing of such character, that certain things he would do for the one\nhe loved, would by others be regarded as acts of self-denial, but they\ncould not be so regarded by him. In these acts of so-called selfdenial,\nhe would find his highest joy.\n\nThis pretence that to do right is to carry a cross, has done an immense\namount of injury to the world. Only those who do wrong carry a cross. To\ndo wrong is the only possible self-denial.\n\nThe pulpit has always been saying that, although the virtuous and good,\nthe kind, the tender, and the loving, may have a very bad time here,\nyet they will have their reward in heaven—having denied themselves the\npleasures of sin, the ecstasies of crime, they will be made happy in\na world hereafter; but that the wicked, who have enjoyed larceny, and\nrascality in all its forms, will be punished hereafter.\n\nAll this rests upon the idea that man should sacrifice himself, not\nfor his fellow-men, but for God—that he should do something for\nthe Almighty—that he should go hungry to increase the happiness of\nheaven—that he should make a journey to Our Lady of Loretto, with dried\npeas in his shoes; that he should refuse to eat meat on Friday; that he\nshould say so many prayers before retiring to rest; that he should\ndo something that he hated to do, in order that he might win the\napprobation of the heavenly powers. For my part, I think it much better\nto feed the hungry, than to starve yourself.\n\nYou ask me, What is Christianity? You then proceed to partially answer\nyour own question, and you pick out what you consider the best, and call\nthat Christianity. But you have given only one side, and that side not\nall of it good. Why did you not give the other side of Christianity—the\nside that talks of eternal flames, of the worm that dieth not—the side\nthat denounces the investigator and the thinker—the side that promises\nan eternal reward for credulity—the side that tells men to take no\nthought for the morrow but to trust absolutely in a Divine Providence?\n\n\"Within thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, faith in his\nresurrection had become the inspiration of the church.\" I ask you, Was\nthere a resurrection?\n\nWhat advance has been made in what you are pleased to call the doctrine\nof the brotherhood of man, through the instrumentality of the church?\nWas there as much dread of God among the Pagans as there has been among\nChristians?\n\nI do not believe that the church is a conservator of civilization. It\nsells crime on credit. I do not believe it is an educator of good will.\nIt has caused more war than all other causes. Neither is it a school of\na nobler reverence and faith. The church has not turned the minds of\nmen toward principles of justice, mercy and truth—it has destroyed the\nfoundation of justice. It does not minister comfort at the coffin—it\nfills the mourners with fear. It has never preached a gospel of \"Peace\non Earth\"—it has never preached \"Good Will toward men.\"\n\nFor my part, I do not agree with you when you say that: \"The most\nstalwart anti-Romanists can hardly question that with the Roman Catholic\nChurch abolished by instantaneous decree, its priests banished and its\nchurches closed, the disaster to American communities would be simply\nawful in its proportions, if not irretrievable in its results.\"\n\nI may agree with you in this, that the most stalwart anti-Romanists\nwould not wish to have the Roman Catholic Church abolished by tyranny,\nand its priests banished, and its churches closed. But if the abolition\nof that church could be produced by the development of the human mind;\nand if its priests, instead of being banished, should become good and\nuseful citizens, and were in favor of absolute liberty of mind, then\nI say that there would be no disaster, but a very wide and great and\nsplendid blessing. The church has been the Centaur—not Theseus; the\nchurch has not been Hercules, but the serpent.\n\nSo I believe that there is something far nobler than loyalty to any\nparticular man. Loyalty to the truth as we perceive it—loyalty to our\nduty as we know it—loyalty to the ideals of our brain and heart—is,\nto my mind, far greater and far nobler than loyalty to the life of\nany particular man or God. There is a kind of slavery—a kind of\nabdication—for any man to take any other man as his absolute pattern\nand to hold him up as the perfection of all life, and to feel that it\nis his duty to grovel in the dust in his presence. It is better to feel\nthat the springs of action are within yourself—that you are poised upon\nyour own feet—and that you look at the world with your own eyes, and\nfollow the path that reason shows.\n\nI do not believe that the world could be re-organized upon the simple\nbut radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount. Neither do I believe\nthat this sermon was ever delivered by one man. It has in it many\nfragments that I imagine were dropped from many mouths. It lacks\ncoherence—it lacks form. Some of the sayings are beautiful, sublime and\ntender; and others seem to be weak, contradictory and childish.\n\nSeventh. I do not say that I do not know whether this faith is true, or\nnot. I say distinctly and clearly, that I know it is not true. I admit\nthat I do not know whether there is any infinite personality or\nnot, because I do not know that my mind is an absolute standard. But\naccording to my mind, there is no such personality; and according to\nmy mind, it is an infinite absurdity to suppose that there is such an\ninfinite personality. But I do know something of human nature; I do know\na little of the history of mankind; and I know enough to know that what\nis known as the Christian faith, is not true. I am perfectly satisfied,\nbeyond all doubt and beyond all per-adventure, that all miracles are\nfalsehoods. I know as well as I know that I live—that others live—that\nwhat you call your faith, is not true.\n\nI am glad, however, that you admit that the miracles of the Old\nTestament, or the inspiration of the Old Testament, are not essentials.\nI draw my conclusion from what you say: \"I have not in this paper\ndiscussed the miracles, or the inspiration of the Old Testament; partly\nbecause those topics, in my opinion, occupy a subordinate position in\nChristian faith, and I wish to consider only essentials.\" At the same\ntime, you tell us that, \"On historical evidence, and after a careful\nstudy of the arguments on both sides, I regard as historical the events\nnarrated in the four Gospels, ordinarily regarded as miracles.\" At the\nsame time, you say that you fully agree with me that the order of nature\nhas never been violated or interrupted. In other words, you must believe\nthat all these so-called miracles were actually in accordance with the\nlaws, or facts rather, in nature.\n\nEighth. You wonder that I could write the following: \"To me there is\nnothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. There is not, so\nfar as I know, a line in the Book of Genesis calculated to make a human\nbeing better.\" You then call my attention to \"The magnificent Psalm of\nPraise to the Creator with which Genesis opens; to the beautiful legend\nof the first sin and its fateful consequences; the inspiring story of\nAbraham—the first selfexile for conscience sake; the romantic story\nof Joseph the Peasant boy becoming a Prince,\" which you say \"would have\nattraction for any one if he could have found a charm in, for example,\nthe Legends of the Round Table.\"\n\nThe \"magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which Genesis\nopens\" is filled with magnificent mistakes, and is utterly absurd.\n\"The beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful consequences\"\nis probably the most contemptible story that was ever written, and the\ntreatment of the first pair by Jehovah is unparalleled in the cruelty of\ndespotic governments. According to this infamous account, God cursed the\nmothers of the world, and added to the agonies of maternity. Not only\nso, but he made woman a slave, and man something, if possible, meaner—a\nmaster.\n\nI must confess that I have very little admiration for Abraham. (Give\nreasons.)\n\nSo far as Joseph is concerned, let me give you the history of\nJoseph,—how he conspired with Pharaoh to enslave the people of Egypt.\n\nYou seem to be astonished that I am not in love with the character of\nJoseph, as pictured in the Bible. Let me tell you who Joseph was.\n\nIt seems, from the account, that Pharaoh had a dream. None of his wise\nmen could give its meaning. He applied to Joseph, and Joseph, having\nbeen enlightened by Jehovah, gave the meaning of the dream to Pharaoh.\nHe told the king that there would be in Egypt seven years of great\nplenty, and after these seven years of great plenty, there would be\nseven years of famine, and that the famine would consume the land.\nThereupon Joseph gave to Pharaoh some advice. First, he was to take up a\nfifth part of the land of Egypt, in the seven plenteous years—he was to\ngather all the food of those good years, and lay up corn, and he was to\nkeep this food in the cities. This food was to be a store to the land\nagainst the seven years of famine. And thereupon Pharaoh said unto\nJoseph, \"Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none\nso discreet and wise as thou art: thou shalt be over my house, and\naccording unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne\nwill I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See I have\nset thee over all the land of Egypt.\"\n\nWe are further informed by the holy writer, that in the seven plenteous\nyears the earth brought forth by handfuls, and that Joseph gathered up\nall the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and\nlaid up the food in the cities, and that he gathered corn as the sand of\nthe sea. This was done through the seven plenteous years. Then commenced\nthe years of dearth. Then the people of Egypt became hungry, and they\ncried to Pharaoh for bread, and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go\nunto Joseph. The famine was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph\nopened the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians, and the famine\nwaxed sore in the land of Egypt. There was no bread in the land, and\nEgypt fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the\nmoney that was found in the land of Egypt, by the sale of corn, and\nbrought the money to Pharaoh's house. After a time the money failed in\nthe land of Egypt, and the Egyptians came unto Joseph and said, \"Give\nus bread; why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.\" And\nJoseph said, \"Give your cattle, and I will give you for your cattle.\"\nAnd they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and he gave them bread in\nexchange for horses and flocks and herds, and he fed them with bread for\nall their cattle for that year. When the year was ended, they came unto\nhim the second year, and said, \"Our money is spent, our cattle are gone,\nnaught is left but our bodies and our lands.\" And they said to Joseph,\n\"Buy us, and our land, for bread, and we and our land will be servants\nunto Pharaoh; and give us seed that we may live and not die, that the\nland be not desolate.\" And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for\nPharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine\nprevailed over them. So the land became Pharaoh's. Then Joseph said to\nthe people, \"I have bought you this day, and your land; lo, here is\nseed for you, and ye shall sow the land.\" And thereupon the people said,\n\"Thou hast saved our lives; we will be Pharaoh's servants.\" \"And Joseph\nmade it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should\nhave the fifth part, _except the land of the priests only, which became\nnot Pharaoh's_.\"\n\nYet I am asked, by a minister of the nineteenth century, whether it is\npossible that I do not admire the character of Joseph. This man received\ninformation from God—and gave that information to Pharaoh, to the end\nthat he might impoverish and enslave a nation. This man, by means of\nintelligence received from Jehovah, took from the people what they had,\nand compelled them at last to sell themselves, their wives and their\nchildren, and to become in fact bondmen forever. Yet I am asked by the\nsuccessor of Henry Ward Beecher, if I do not admire the infamous wretch\nwho was guilty of the greatest crime recorded in the literature of the\nworld.\n\nSo, it is difficult for me to understand why you speak of Abraham as \"a\nself-exile for conscience sake.\" If the king of England had told one of\nhis favorites that if he would go to North America he would give him\na territory hundreds of miles square, and would defend him in its\npossession, and that he there might build up an empire, and the favorite\nbelieved the king, and went, would you call him \"a self-exile for\nconscience sake\"?\n\nAccording to the story in the Bible, the Lord promised Abraham that if\nhe would leave his country and kindred, he would make of him a great\nnation, would bless him, and make his name great, that he would bless\nthem that blessed Abraham, and that he would curse him whom Abraham\ncursed; and further, that in him all the families of the earth should\nbe blest. If this is true, would you call Abraham \"a self-exile for\nconscience sake\"? If Abraham had only known that the Lord was not to\nkeep his promise, he probably would have remained where he was—the fact\nbeing, that every promise made by the Lord to Abraham, was broken.\n\nDo you think that Abraham was \"a self-exile for conscience sake\" when he\ntold Sarah, his wife, to say that she was his sister—in consequence of\nwhich she was taken into Pharaoh's house, and by reason of which Pharaoh\nmade presents of sheep and oxen and man servants and maid servants to\nAbraham? What would you call such a proceeding now? What would you think\nof a man who was willing that his wife should become the mistress of the\nking, provided the king would make him presents?\n\nWas it for conscience sake that the same subterfuge was adopted again,\nwhen Abraham said to Abimelech, the King of Gerar, She is my sister—in\nconsequence of which Abimelech sent for Sarah and took her?\n\nMr. Ingersoll having been called to Montana, as counsel in a long and\nimportant law suit, never finished this article.\n"
}