{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:the-brooklyn-divines",
  "slug": "the-brooklyn-divines",
  "title": "The Brooklyn Divines",
  "subtitle": "Replies to clergy interviewed by the Brooklyn Union.",
  "excerpt": "A response to a Brooklyn Union symposium in which local clergy were asked whether skepticism was hurting the church, and how it should be answered.",
  "year": 1883,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/the-brooklyn-divines/",
  "wordCount": 10449,
  "body": "• Brooklyn Union, 1883.\n\nQuestion. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost unanimously\nhave declared that the church is suffering very little from the\nskepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers,\nwhose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel, is not great; and\nthat the books of such writers are not read as much as some people think\nthey are. What is your opinion with regard to that subject?\n\nAnswer. It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by\nhis class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for\nthe ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. By\ncomparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that\nhas been made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite\northodox would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy.\nOnly a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and\nDarwin and Humboldt would have been considered as the most infamous of\nmonsters.\n\nOnly a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The\nscientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat\nin hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked\nthe forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that\ntime every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was\nauthority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of\nthe world. Now everything has changed, and everybody knows it except\nthe clergy. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is\nfinding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in\nthe language of the common people; that he was not teaching any science;\nthat he allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them\nthere. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question\nof natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way.\nAll, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be\nregarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute\nof fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of\ninspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in\ncontempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of men who combat\nand deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher\nthan all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought\nthan all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel\ntwenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I\nwould be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn\nleaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and\nemployments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply\ndisbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with\nindifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of\nthousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.\nMillions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of\neternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd\nby millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and\nvicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to\nanswer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful\nreason: That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from\nreading the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he\ncannot defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more\ninfidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the\ntheories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who\nfeels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his congregation is\nconcerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the\nyoung people in his church don't know enough to have intelligent doubts,\nand that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr.\nPullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other\ndefence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity\nshould never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been\nsuccessfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the\nimpossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells\ntells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not\nbe spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling\nof security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great\nmajority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current\ninfidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it\nwould be dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position\nof the infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help\nof God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree.\nDr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is\nall smoke.\n\nHe thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks\nthat the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his\nbrothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that\ninfidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in\nhis general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his\nbrethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never had a\ndiscussion. The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the\ncatechism; that there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the\nbrute force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to\nuse the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the rod is\na divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for their children;\nthat mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the religion of\nuniversal love. The man who cannot raise children without whipping them\nought not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl\nis unfit to have the control of a human being. The father who keeps\na rod in his house keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There\nis nothing reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in fear.\nKindness, guided by intelligence, is the only reforming force. An appeal\nto brute force is an abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and\nchild upon a savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father\nprompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in the\nvictim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is infamous.\nAll this is passing away, however, with orthodox Christianity. That\nchildren are treated better than formerly shows conclusively the\nincrease of what is called infidelity. Infidelity has always been a\nprotest against tyranny in the state, against intolerance in the church,\nagainst barbarism in the family. It has always been an appeal for light,\nfor justice, for universal kindness and tenderness.\n\nQuestion. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is\nthe greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is on the increase?\n\nAnswer. I see that all the ministers you have interviewed regard\nworldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is worldliness? I\nsuppose worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs of this\nworld; getting enjoyment out of this life; gratifying the senses, giving\nthe ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food;\ncultivating the imagination; playing games of chance; adorning the\nperson; developing the body; enriching the mind; investigating the facts\nby which we are surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking;\nworking; inventing; buying; selling; hoping—all this, I suppose, is\nworldliness. These \"worldly\" people have cleared the forests, plowed\nthe land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and\nhave produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the\npreachers denounce them. Were it not for \"worldly\" people how would the\npreachers get along? Who would build the churches? Who would fill the\ncontribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all questions)\nwould pay the salaries? It is the habit of the ministers to belittle men\nwho support them—to slander the spirit by which they live. \"It is as\nthough the mouth should tear the hand that feeds it.\" The nobility of\nthe Old World hold the honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so\ncontemptible themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor.\nAnd so the minister pretending to be spiritual—pretending to be a\nspiritual guide—looks with contempt upon the men who make it possible\nfor him to live. It may be said by \"worldliness\" they only mean\nenjoyment—that is, hearing music, going to the theater and the opera,\ntaking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea. Of course,\nministers look upon theaters as rival attractions, and most of their\nhatred is born of business views. They think people ought to be driven\nto church by having all other places closed. In my judgment the theater\nhas done good, while the church has done harm. The drama never has\ninsisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On\nthe contrary, upon the stage have forever been found impersonations\nof patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and these\nimpersonations have always been applauded, and have been represented\nthat they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites have been\nworshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and\nexecration. Shakespeare has done far more for the world than the Bible.\nThe ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldliness.\nNothing can be more absurd than this talk of spirituality. As though\nreaders of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were\nengaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher\nthan human love? A man is in love with a girl, and he has determined to\nwork for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is\nthere anything more spiritual than that—anything higher? They marry. He\nclears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of this\nhovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few simple things\nof beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers call \"worldliness.\"\nIs there anything more spiritual? In a little while, in this cabin, in\nthis home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle's rock, while\nsoftly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything more\nspiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender than to see husband\nand wife bending, with clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the\ndimpled miracle of love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you\nlove; spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind—for he who\nimproves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the\nplowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of \"Health &\nHeresy\" rather than the old partnership of \"Disease & Divinity,\" doing\nbusiness at the old sign of the \"Skull & Crossbones.\" Some of the\nministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells\nus the cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and\ncyclones, and things of that character for the purpose of making people\nspiritual; of calling their attention to the fact that everything in\nthis world is of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had great\nfaith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is\na thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for\na banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the average\nChristian that thick soup has, according to Bumble, on the English\npauper: \"It makes 'em impudent.\" The devil made a mistake in not\ndoubling Job's property instead of leaving him a pauper. In prosperity\nthe ministers think that we forget death and are too happy. In the arms\nof those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment forgotten.\nAccording to the ministers, God kills our children in order that we\nmay not forget him. They imagine that the man who goes into Dakota,\ncultivates the soil and rears him a little home, is getting too\n\"worldly.\" And so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs\nof wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers in\nBrooklyn say this is done because we are getting too \"worldly.\" They\nthink we should be more \"spiritual;\" that is to say, willing to live\nupon the labor of others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime,\n\"It is more blessed to give than to receive.\" If this is so, why not\ngive the money back? \"Spiritual\" people are those who eat oatmeal and\nprunes, have great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's \"Task\" and\nPollok's \"Course of Time,\" laugh at the jokes in Harper's Monthly,\nwear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has\nelevated the world \"beggarly elements.\"\n\nQuestion. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit\nthat the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the\nestablishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and\nfashionable churches.\n\nAnswer. The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was\nat hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the\npresence of such a belief what are known as class distinctions could not\neasily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond\nof union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they\nlack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.\nHe took in part the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the\nolder parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the\ntraveler gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As\nthey become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is\nthe same in the church. The church no longer believes the creed, no\nlonger acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the\nsermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister\nto a man just above the falls; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as\na lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If\nhe really believed that the coachman had an immortal soul, capable of\neternal joy, liable to everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make\nthe calling and election of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact\nthe rich man now cares but little for servants. They are not included\nin the scheme of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The church\nhas become a club. It is a social affair, and the rich do not care to\nassociate in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at\nchurch. As they expect to be in heaven together forever, they can afford\nto be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to\nget acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The\nchurch depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of place\nin such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest seat; like\npoor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table\nof Christ they are below the salt.\n\nThey are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they\nfeel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the\nmillionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the\ncontribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the church.\nIt costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary,\nfashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too\nmany jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be\nsuperiority.\n\nQuestion. Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of\nchurches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not the rich there\npredominate and the poor be just as much out of place?\n\nAnswer. I think the effect would be precisely the same, no matter what\nthe society is, what object it has, if composed of rich and poor. Class\ndistinctions, to a greater or less extent, will creep in—in fact, they\ndo not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement, and they\nare born of the different conditions of the members.\n\nThese class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For\ninstance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs. Others\nobtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according\nto the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on intellectual\ngrounds, for instance.\n\nThere is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power,\nbut there are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of\ncharacter, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest\nmechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any\none blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with arrogant\nwealth. The right to make the distinction is with all classes, and with\nthe individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have any society\nfor any purpose—that is, where they meet together—without certain\nembarrassments being produced by these distinctions. Nowt for instance,\nsuppose there should be a society simply of intelligent and cultured\npeople. There, wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded. But,\nafter all, the distinction that intelligence draws between talent and\ngenius is as marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and\nwealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such\nvast importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are\nforgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and\nintelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political parties, in\ntime of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion has been\nfounded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions\nare forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave liberty to the\nslave during the Civil war, and clad him in the uniform of the nation;\nwe wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly\nwilling to forget the distinction of color. Common peril produces pure\ndemocracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor young man\ncoming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about\nthe old fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of\nthe trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;\nshouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed;\nlet him have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and\ncoaches; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for more\npolice. He will then say: \"We want protection; the rabble must be put\ndown.\" We have an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country an\naristocracy of literature—men and women who imagine themselves writers\nand who hold in contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces in\nthe most elegant diction—people who look upon a mistake in grammar as\nfar worse than a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy\nof muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness.\nIntellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel as wealth\nwithout a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle without mercy. So that,\nafter all, the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where the\nintellect is directed by the heart.\n\nQuestion. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as cruel\nas the aristocracy of wealth—what do you mean by that?\n\nAnswer. By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to say, the\naristocracy of education—of simple brain—expressed in innumerable\nways—in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say\nthat that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth.\nAfter all, why should a man be proud of something given him by\nnature—something that he did not earn, did not produce—something that\nhe could not help? Is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth which\nyou have accumulated than of brain which nature gave you? And, to carry\nthis idea clearly out, why should we be proud of anything? Is there any\nproper occasion on which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows for\nyou; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And why\nshould a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition or\nof good acts?\n\nQuestion. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of\ncourse, you must recognize the right of every one to select his own\ncompanions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the\ncompanionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace\nand unintelligent persons?\n\nAnswer. All men should have the same rights, and one right that\nevery man should have is to associate with congenial people. There are\nthousands of good men whose society I do not covet. They may be stupid,\nor they may be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested,\nand may be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care\nnothing. In either case they are not congenial. They have the right to\nselect congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus\nmade, they are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the\ngood of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and\nare consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these\ndistinctions in the church more than we do in the club is that the\nchurch talks one way and acts another; because the church insists that a\ncertain line of conduct is essential to salvation, and that every human\nbeing is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were true, then, in\nthe presence of such an infinite verity, all earthly distinctions should\ninstantly vanish. Every Christian should exert himself for the salvation\nof the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness that he\nwould show to save a king. The accidents of wealth, education, social\nposition, should be esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly\nwork side by side with the poorest. The churches will never reach the\npoor as long as they sell pews; as long as the rich members wear their\nbest clothes on Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-room\nare taken to the table of the last supper, the poor will remain in the\nhighways and hedges. Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So\nlong as the ministers shut up their churches, and allow the poor to go\nto hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil without a competitor\nfor three months in the year, the churches will not materially impede\nthe march of human progress. People often, unconsciously and without any\nmalice, say something or do something that throws an unexpected light\nupon a question. The other day, in one of the New York comic papers,\nthere was a picture representing the foremost preachers of the country\nat the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy\neach others society. These ministers are supposed to be the apostles of\nthe religion of kindness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and\nyet the idea that they could associate happily together is regarded as\na joke! After all, churches are like other institutions, they have to\nbe managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather than\nupon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up\nthe doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their\nhold. The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to be a fire,\nand they offered to insure; and as long as the fire was expected\nthe premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then came the\nUniversalist Church, saying that there would be no fire, and yet\nasking the people to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It\nundoubtedly did good by its influence upon other churches. So with the\nUnitarian. That church has no basis for organization; no reason, because\nno hell is threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the\nchurches have lost their belief in eternal fire, they have lost their\ninfluence, and the reason they have lost their belief is on account\nof the diffusion of knowledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and\ninfamous. Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelligent\npeople can no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the\nchurches must finally abandon it, and when they do, that is the end of\nthe church militant.\n\nQuestion. What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic\nChurch, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in\nany particular, in regard to future punishment?\n\nAnswer. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another\nbattle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations\nhave not been converted since then. The time has passed to preach\nwith sword and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no\nmore victories. That church increases in this country mostly from\nimmigration. Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It is at war\nwith the idea of our Government, antagonistic to true republicanism, and\nis in every sense anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control\nits members. That church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of\neducation. It is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used\nas a political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are\nthousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably believe the creed\nof the church. That church has lost the power to anathematize. It can\nno longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces—upon persuasion,\nsophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity.\n\nQuestion. You have stated your objections to the churches, what would\nyou have to take their place?\n\nAnswer. There was a time when men had to meet together for the purpose\nof being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds and\nhundreds of years most people depended for their information on what\nthey heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of\ncourse, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not\nonly all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he\nwas a gentleman; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was\nnecessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no\nway of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily\npress gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you\nthe thoughts of the greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can\ncommand the principal sources of information. There is no necessity for\ngoing to the church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister\nwrite what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,\npeople will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a church in\nthe name of duty and there inflict upon them a sermon that under no\ncircumstances they would read. Of course, there will always be meetings,\noccasions when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear what a\nman has to say upon some questions, but the idea of going fifty-two days\nin a year to hear anybody on the same subject is absurd.\n\nQuestion. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that\nstatement?\n\nAnswer. Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not\northodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his\ncreed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes\nthe ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, consequently, no\none could be an infidel. Every one believes in kindness, at least\ntheoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes to\nthe conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of\nintellectual convictions upon certain subjects. The more sermons like\nthat are preached, probably the better. What I intended was the eternal\nrepetition of the old story: That God made the world and a man, and\nthen allowed the devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme\nof salvation, of vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned\neverybody except Noah and his family, and afterward, when he failed\nto civilize the Jewish people, came in person and suffered death, and\nannounced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved,\nand those who did not, eternally lost. Now, this story, with occasional\nreferences to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding\nheat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of Paradise, is the average\nsermon, and this story is told again, again, and again, by the same men,\nlistened to by the same people without any effect except to tire the\nspeaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would take their texts from\nShakespeare; if they would read every Sunday a selection from some of\nthe great plays, the result would be infinitely better. They would all\nlearn something; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear\nshort. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness of\nthe pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The dignified\ndullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has never been\nexcelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the ministry were\ngiven no new weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock of a century\nago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than their\nweapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by\nkeeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring\nthe facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor\nof education; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a\nProtestant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The\nCatholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a\nCatholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his\nbelief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a\ndoubt; a doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are\nwarned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow\nwhatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes no\ndifference, and they are expected to get their revenge by treating\ntheir flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of\nthe churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing,\nbecause they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden\naunts.\n\nThousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with\ntrade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence. But when you\nget at the real opinions of people, a vast majority have outgrown the\ndoctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good\nfor women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep\norder. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of independence.\nThey are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they\nare beginning everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a\nprobationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad;\nthat the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous; that\nit must have been written by men. And the people at large are beginning\nto find that the ministers have kept back the facts; have not told the\nhistory of the Bible; have not given to their congregations the latest\nadvices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox\nChristianity has outlived its usefulness. The church has a great deal\nto contend with. The scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at\nGenesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of\nthe motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws\nof Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is\nsomething besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival of the\npulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers\ntake hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at\nwork all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so\nuniversal that the preacher is following his example. The flock has\nceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In\na little while all the libraries will be open—all the museums. There\nwill be music in the public parks; the opera, the theater. And what\nwill churches do then? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty\npews, unless the church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands\nof the present.\n\nQuestion. You speak as if the influences working against Christianity\nto-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you think that\nChristianity is any worse off now than it was during the French\nRevolution, when the priests were banished from the country and\nreason was worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume,\nBolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it?\n\nAnswer. You must remember that the French Revolution was produced by\nCatholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to infinite extremes;\nthat it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand\nthose times, provided you know the history of the Catholic Church.\nThe seeds of the French Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The\npeople had suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and\nthe French Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs\nno longer. It was something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted\nfrom intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were\ncarried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to\ntear down palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of\nall the centuries. Catholicism has never recovered—it never will. The\ndagger of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism\nhas staggered from that day to this.\n\nIt has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire there\nwere twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In the French\nRevolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated reason. There\nwas destruction without the genius of construction. They had to use\nmaterials that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.\n\nThe French Revolution was a failure because the French people were a\nfailure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism\nhad made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him.\nProbably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have\nread the works of Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little\nwhile ago, a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one\nhundred dollars to repeat a paragraph, or to give the title, even, of\none of Voltaire's volumes. Most ministers think he was an atheist. The\ntrouble with the infidels in England a hundred years ago was that they\ndid not go far enough. It may be that they could not have gone further\nand been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground that there was\nan infinite, all-wise, beneficent God, creator of the universe, and that\nthis all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of\nthe Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the author of\nnature, and the theologians completely turned the tables by showing\nthat this god of nature was in the pestilence and plague business,\nmanufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of\nnecessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment, the Deists\nwere all successfully answered. The god of nature is certainly as bad as\nthe God of the Old Testament. It is only when we discard the idea of a\ndeity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are able\never to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that I am neither\na favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not\nbelieve in the existence of any personal god. I regard the universe as\nthe one fact, as the one existence—that is, as the absolute thing. I am\na part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply say that I\ndo not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say\nthat man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not know,\nand the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that subject\ngive me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on\nthe subject, because I know that they know that they do not know. The\ninfidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, comparatively speaking,\nof geology; nothing of astronomy; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and\nDarwin; nothing of evolution; nothing, comparatively speaking, of other\nreligions; nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other\nwords, the infidels of a hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox\nChristianity to be false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The\ninfidels of to-day have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred\nyears ago it was a guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and\nfulfillment. Everything in nature is working against superstition\nto-day. Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from\ndust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The smallest\npebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of grass, rightly\nunderstood, destroys the orthodox creed.\n\nQuestion. You say that the pews will be empty in the future unless\nthe church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the\nministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than\nthose of a hundred years ago, and are not the \"liberal\" views in regard\nto the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the\nfall of man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in\nmany churches, an indication that the church is meeting the demands of\nmany people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in\nChristianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions?\n\nAnswer. As to the first part of this question, I do not think the\nministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were a hundred years\nago; that is, I do not think they have greater brain capacity, but\nI think on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The\namelioration of orthodox Christianity is not by the intelligence in the\npulpit, but by the brain in the pews. Another thing: One hundred years\nago the church had intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened\na career. Not so now. There are too many avenues to distinction and\nwealth—too much worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit.\nMartyrs had rather be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day\nare not naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence.\nThere are some great exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers\nnearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher\nis a great man—not the most consistent man in the world—but he is\ncertainly a man of mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get rid\nof the idea that Plymouth Church is necessary to him—after that time\nhe would not utter an orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might\nmention some others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable\nfor intelligence. The intelligent men of the world do not believe in\northodox Christianity. It is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The\nconservative ministers are the stupid ones. The conservative professors\nare those upon whose ideas will be found the centuries' moss, old red\nsandstone theories, pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the second part\nof the question: The views of the church are changing, the clergy of\nBrooklyn to the contrary, notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind\nof boa-constrictor; anything it can not dodge it will swallow. The\nchurch is bound to have something for sale that somebody wants to buy.\nAccording to the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the\npulpit dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on\nbusiness principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories insists\non having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and\nthey must supply the market with such religious vegetables as the\ncongregations desire. Thousands have given up belief in the inspiration\nof the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement idea and original\nsin. Millions believe now, that this is not a state of probation; that\na man, provided he is well off and has given liberally to the church, or\nwhose wife has been a regular attendant, will, in the next world, have\nanother chance; that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new\ntrial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it used to be supposed;\nthat, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are\ncool; and that, after all, there is not so much to fear from the future.\nThey regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give\nthem the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their old\nclothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off,\nsomewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for paupers. There is a\ngreat trade of this kind going on now—selling old theological clothes\nto the colored people in the South. All I have said applies to all\nchurches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not change its\nceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that\nclothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and throb of\nlife and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the spirit\nthat emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned in\nanother direction. Of course, the churches are all going to endeavor to\nmeet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for old texts.\nThey will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They will find\nthat \"flat\" meant \"a little rounding;\" that \"six days\" meant \"six long\ntimes;\" that the word \"flood\" should have been translated \"dampness,\"\n\"dew,\" or \"threatened rain;\" that Daniel in the lion's den was an\nhistorical myth; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with\nthis world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to\nharmonize with the facts of modern science. They will not change the\nwords of the creed; they will simply give \"new meanings and the highest\ncriticism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other words, the\nchurches will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that\nwhich can be sold. Already the old goods are being \"marked down.\" If,\nhowever, the church should fail, why then it must go. I see no reason,\nmyself, for its existence. It apparently does no good; it devours\nwithout producing; it eats without planting, and is a perpetual burden.\nIt teaches nothing of value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents.\nIt threatens without knowledge and promises without power. In my\njudgment, the quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it\ndoes not go in name, it must go in fact, because it must change; and,\ntherefore, it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert from\nuseful channels the blood and muscle of the world.\n\nQuestion. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons delivered lately\nthe theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping out\nof discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years\npreached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosticism, and\ninfidelity, so much so as to lead to their being reprimanded by some of\ntheir more conservative brethren?\n\nAnswer. Of course there are hundreds of thousands of ministers\nperpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so\nmuch harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them\nto stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most\npart, are like this: Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of\nGenesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement\nis true, because in the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And\nwe know, too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because\nVoltaire was nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are\nthe usual arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself.\nAnd, in my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer\na man's argument, the next best thing is to attack his character. \"You\nhave no case,\" said an attorney to the plaintiff. \"No matter,\" said the\nplaintiff, \"I want you to give the defendant the devil.\"\n\nQuestion. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's statement that\nhe generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives them\nto young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are said\nto speak of the Bible?\n\nAnswer. Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such\nimmense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away\nthe mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that\naccounts for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would\nnot misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly\nindebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and\ntake this occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all\nthe converts to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think\nit honest in young men to play a game like that on the doctor.\n\nQuestion. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of\nChristianity and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher\npreached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the\npresent time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral,\nsocial, and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke\ncriticism on the part of the secular newspaper press?\n\nAnswer. I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to\npreach about things happening in this world; in other words, that the\npreachers themselves are beginning to be touched with worldliness.\nThey find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons\ndealing in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are\nlosing interest in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more interest\nin gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find\nthat their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetually of death and\ncoffins; and worms and dust and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs\nand hearses, biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That they\nprefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in which they have a\npresent interest, and about which something cheerful can be said.\nIn fact, it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art,\nsomething about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it\nnecessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something that\nhas happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that, for\nthe time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the\nfurnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably honest.\nMaybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are\nendeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church members\nthink that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not\ncriticising their motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the\ncharacter or reputation of ministers, but simply giving my ideas,\navoiding anything personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor very\nbad—-just fair to middling.\n\nQuestion. You say that Christians will not read for fear that they\nwill unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in\nthe interview I had with him: \"If you do not allow man to reason you\ncrush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credibility of\nhis faith, and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth,\nand so satisfies his wants.\"\n\nAnswer. Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father\nFransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not\nthink that reason should be guided by faith; I think that faith should\nbe guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith\nwould be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be\nbased on what has not happened, but upon what has; not upon something\nwe know nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are\nacquainted. The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we\nreason, we must have something as a basis, something secular, something\nthat we think we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by\nanalogy, and we say thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may\nhappen. We do not say thus and so may happen, therefore something else\nhas happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from\nthe unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you do not allow a\nman to reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must\ngovern reason. Who makes the faith? The church. And the church tells the\nman that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he\nmay afterward reason, taking the faith as a fact. This makes him an\nintellectual slave, and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right\nto examine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their\nprisoners by insisting that there is nothing beyond the walls.\n\nQuestion. You criticise the church for not encouring the poor to\nmingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose\nhis own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-confessing\nChristians in real life, and will not there always be some greater,\nricher, wiser, than the rest?\n\nAnswer. I do not blame the church because there are these distinctions\nbased on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the church for\nis pretending to do away with these distinctions. These distinctions in\nmen are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood, in education,\nand they are differences that will eternally exist—that is, as long as\nthe human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some\ngenerous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with\nis the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich and poor. I\nwant the democracy of kindness—what you might call the republicanism of\njustice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep from robbing him.\nI can give him his rights without enjoying his company, and he can give\nme my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not poverty have\nrights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in\ncontempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same church\nor not? We cannot judge men by their wealth, or by the position they\nhold in society. I like every kind man; I hate every cruel one. I like\nthe generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I\nlike men that love their families, that are kind to their wives,\ngentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or\nmendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is the\nfairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel, or\nbursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no\nman because he is rich; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor.\n\nQuestion. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infidelity is\ngreatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and creates more notice\nthan conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of\nthe accepted line of thought.\n\nAnswer. There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced, was\na wonder. At that time the church had great power; it could retaliate;\nit could destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when too many men\nobjected to being burned. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in\nnovelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been\nturned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless\ninfluences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion.\nOther religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was\nfound but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our\nown religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great\ncomment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have\nalready about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error.\n\nThousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question,\nbecause they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear\ntheir own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the\nspirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage\nof the world is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox\nminister who believes the Thirty-nine articles with all his might, is\nregarded to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by\nthe galvanic battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those\nof life—not quite.\n\nQuestion. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and\nwhat kind of instruction would you give?\n\nAnswer. I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is\nChristianity? I do not include in the word \"Christianity\" the average\nmorality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion;\nthat is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and\nresurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ,\nand eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity\nits miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as\nI understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I\nsuppose Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness.\nI do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my\nfriends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep\nthe viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in\nself-defence. Christianity—that is, the miraculous part—must be\nabandoned. As to morality—morality is born, is born of the instinct of\nself-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word \"conscience\" never\nwould have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime.\nMurder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to\nbeing murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of\nhuman want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired\nwork. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of\nthe product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to\ndo it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume\nit was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible\nother things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of\nthe Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a\nmixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without\nmiracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is\nnot a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder\nis not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to\ninvestigate and to reason for themselves, and that there are facts\nenough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two\nfamilies; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians,\nand they teach their children their creed; teach them that they are\nnaturally totally depraved; that they can only hope for happiness in\na future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain\nbelief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his children\nforever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the\nfather and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each\nother because kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle;\nthat they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And\nsuppose this father and mother say to their children: \"If you are happy\nit must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must\nsuffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer\nfor you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you\nplant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant.\" And suppose\nthese parents also say: \"You must find out the conditions of happiness.\nYou must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You\nmust ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act\nin accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and\npeace.\" In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my\njudgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the\nother. The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this\nworld, but not in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the\ndividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they\nmust serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my\ndoctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the\nhighest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is\nwrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here\nand now. It means health; it means intelligence, contentment, success.\nVice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than\njudgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion\nwe are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved\nby faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We must be saved by\nknowledge, by intelligence—the only lever capable of raising mankind.\n\nQuestion. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says \"that\nman's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.\" What is your\nidea of the chief end of man?\n\nAnswer. It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should\nbe held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal\nreward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy\nhere? Why not go to heaven now—that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the\nsunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad\nenough; so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent\ndeity; but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do\nI believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the\nInfinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no\nsuperiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve\nwhat we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average\nPresbyterian? What good will it do him to know that his course has been\napproved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even,\nfor the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges?\nI do not see how we can help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite\nBeing, certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can\naffect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin\nagainst man. For that reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is\nthe only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with\nthe ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the\nangels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care to\nassociate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such society.\nI suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat touched with\nworldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough\nto say about the Infinite \"I know nothing of eternal joy, I have no\nconception about another world, I know nothing.\" At the same time, I am\nnot attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can\nhope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to\ndrive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out\nthe fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.\n"
}