{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-6:the-christian-religion",
  "slug": "the-christian-religion",
  "title": "The Christian Religion",
  "subtitle": "A discussion with Jeremiah S. Black.",
  "excerpt": "The famous three-part exchange with Judge Jeremiah S. Black in the North American Review (1881) — Ingersoll's opening case against Christianity, Black's reply, Ingersoll's rejoinder.",
  "year": 1881,
  "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/the-christian-religion/",
  "wordCount": 38125,
  "body": "In the presence of eternity the mountains are as transient as the\nclouds.\n\nA PROFOUND change has taken place in the world of thought. The pews are\ntrying to set themselves somewhat above the pulpit. The layman discusses\ntheology with the minister, and smiles. Christians excuse themselves\nfor belonging to the church, by denying a part of the creed. The idea\nis abroad that they who know the most of nature believe the least about\ntheology. The sciences are regarded as infidels, and facts as scoffers.\nThousands of most excellent people avoid churches, and, with few\nexceptions, only those attend prayer-meetings who wish to be alone. The\npulpit is losing because the people are growing.\n\nOf course it is still claimed that we are a Christian people, indebted\nto something called Christianity for all the progress we have made.\nThere is still a vast difference of opinion as to what Christianity\nreally is, although many warring sects have been discussing that\nquestion, with fire and sword, through centuries of creed and crime.\nEvery new sect has been denounced at its birth as illegitimate, as\na something born out of orthodox wedlock, and that should have been\nallowed to perish on the steps where it was found. Of the relative\nmerits of the various denominations, it is sufficient to say that\neach claims to be right. Among the evangelical churches there is a\nsubstantial agreement upon what they consider the fundamental truths of\nthe gospel. These fundamental truths, as I understand them, are:\n\nThat there is a personal God, the creator of the material universe; that\nhe made man of the dust, and woman from part of the man; that the man\nand woman were tempted by the devil; that they were turned out of the\nGarden of Eden; that, about fifteen hundred years afterward, God's\npatience having been exhausted by the wickedness of mankind, he drowned\nhis children with the exception of eight persons; that afterward he\nselected from their descendants Abraham, and through him the Jewish\npeople; that he gave laws to these people, and tried to govern them in\nall things; that he made known his will in many ways; that he wrought a\nvast number of miracles; that he inspired men to write the Bible; that,\nin the fullness of time, it having been found impossible to reform\nmankind, this God came upon earth as a child born of the Virgin Mary;\nthat he lived in Palestine; that he preached for about three years,\ngoing from place to place, occasionally raising the dead, curing the\nblind and the halt; that he was crucified—for the crime of blasphemy,\nas the Jews supposed, but that, as a matter of fact, he was offered as\na sacrifice for the sins of all who might have faith in him; that he was\nraised from the dead and ascended into heaven, where he now is, making\nintercession for his followers; that he will forgive the sins of all who\nbelieve on him, and that those who do not believe will be consigned to\nthe dungeons of eternal pain. These—it may be with the addition of the\nsacraments of Baptism and the Last Supper—constitute what is generally\nknown as the Christian religion.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that a vast number of people not only\nbelieve these things, but hold them in exceeding reverence, and imagine\nthem to be of the utmost importance to mankind. They regard the Bible as\nthe only light that God has given for the guidance of his children; that\nit is the one star in nature's sky—the foundation of all morality, of\nall law, of all order, and of all individual and national progress. They\nregard it as the only means we have for ascertaining the will of God,\nthe origin of man, and the destiny of the soul.\n\nIt is needless to inquire into the causes that have led so many people\nto believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In my opinion, they\nwere and are mistaken, and the mistake has hindered, in countless ways,\nthe civilization of man. The Bible has been the fortress and defence of\nnearly every crime. No civilized country could re-enact its laws, and in\nmany respects its moral code is abhorrent to every good and tender man.\nIt is admitted that many of its precepts are pure, that many of its laws\nare wise and just, and that many of its statements are absolutely true.\n\nWithout desiring to hurt the feeling? of anybody, I propose to give\na few reasons for thinking that a few passages, at least, in the Old\nTestament are the product of a barbarous people.\n\nIn all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but it is\npassionately asserted, that slavery is and always was a hideous\ncrime; that a war of conquest is simply murder; that polygamy is the\nenslavement of woman, the degradation of man, and the destruction of\nhome; that nothing is more infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men,\nof helpless women, and of prattling babes; that captured maidens should\nnot be given to soldiers; that wives should not be stoned to death on\naccount of their religious opinions, and that the death penalty ought\nnot to be inflicted for a violation of the Sabbath. We know that\nthere was a time, in the history of almost every nation, when\nslavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination were regarded as divine\ninstitutions; when women were looked upon as beasts of burden, and when,\namong some people, it was considered the duty of the husband to murder\nthe wife for differing with him on the subject of religion. Nations that\nentertain these views to-day are regarded as savage, and, probably, with\nthe exception of the South Sea Islanders, the Feejees, some citizens\nof Delaware, and a few tribes in Central Africa, no human beings can be\nfound degraded enough to agree upon these subjects with the Jehovah of\nthe ancient Jews. The only evidence we have, or can have, that a\nnation has ceased to be savage is the fact that it has abandoned these\ndoctrines. To every one, except the theologian, it is perfectly easy to\naccount for the mistakes, atrocities, and crimes of the past, by\nsaying that civilization is a slow and painful growth; that the moral\nperceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of want, of crime,\nand of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the eyes\nof self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the scales of justice;\nthat conscience is born of suffering; that mercy is the child of the\nimagination—of the power to put oneself in the sufferer's place, and\nthat man advances only as he becomes acquainted with his surroundings,\nwith the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take advantage of the\nforces of nature.\n\nBut the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to declare\nthat there was a time when slavery was right—when men could buy, and\nwomen could sell, their babes. He is compelled to insist that there\nwas a time when polygamy was the highest form of virtue; when wars\nof extermination were waged with the sword of mercy; when religious\ntoleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having\nexpressed an honest thought. He must maintain that Jehovah is just as\nbad now as he was four thousand years ago, or that he was just as\ngood then as he is now, but that human conditions have so changed that\nslavery, polygamy, religious persecutions, and wars of conquest are now\nperfectly devilish. Once they were right—once they were commanded by\nGod himself; now, they are prohibited. There has been such a change in\nthe conditions of man that, at the present time, the devil is in favor\nof slavery, polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That\nis to say, the devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah\nheld four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained\nexactly the same—changeless and incapable of change.\n\nWe find that other nations beside the Jews had similar laws and ideas;\nthat they believed in and practiced slavery and polygamy, murdered women\nand children, and exterminated their neighbors to the extent of their\npower. It is not claimed that they received a revelation. It is admitted\nthat they had no knowledge of the true God. And yet, by a strange\ncoincidence, they practised the same crimes, of their own motion, that\nthe Jews did by the command of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man\ncan do wrong without a special revelation.\n\nIt will hardly be claimed, at this day, that the passages in the Bible\nupholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution are evidences\nof the inspiration of that book. Suppose that there had been nothing\nin the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would any modern Christian\nsuspect that it was not inspired, on account of the omission? Suppose\nthat there had been nothing in the Old Testament but laws in favor of\nthese crimes, would any intelligent Christian now contend that it was\nthe work of the true God? If the devil had inspired a book, will some\nbeliever in the doctrine of inspiration tell us in what respect, on the\nsubjects of slavery, polygamy, war, and liberty, it would have differed\nfrom some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose that we should now\ndiscover a Hindu book of equal antiquity with the Old Testament,\ncontaining a defence of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and\nreligious persecution, would we regard it as evidence that the writers\nwere inspired by an infinitely wise and merciful God? As most other\nnations at that time practiced these crimes, and as the Jews would have\npracticed them all, even if left to themselves, one can hardly see\nthe necessity of any inspired commands upon these subjects. Is there a\nbeliever in the Bible who does not wish that God, amid the thunders and\nlightnings of Sinai, had distinctly said to Moses that man should not\nown his fellow-man; that women should not sell their babes; that men\nshould be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that the\nsword should never be unsheathed to shed the blood of honest men? Is\nthere a believer in the world, who would not be delighted to find that\nevery one of these infamous passages are interpolations, and that the\nskirts of God were never reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe?\nIs there a believer who does not regret that God commanded a husband to\nstone his wife to death for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon?\nSurely, the light of experience is enough to tell us that slavery is\nwrong, that polygamy is infamous, and that murder is not a virtue.\nNo one will now contend that it was worth God's while to impart the\ninformation to Moses, or to Joshua, or to anybody else, that the Jewish\npeople might purchase slaves of the heathen, or that it was their duty\nto exterminate the natives of the Holy Land. The deists have contended\nthat the Old Testament is too cruel and barbarous to be the work of a\nwise and loving God. To this, the theologians have replied, that nature\nis just as cruel; that the earthquake, the volcano, the pestilence and\nstorm, are just as savage as the Jewish God; and to my mind this is a\nperfect answer.\n\nSuppose that we knew that after \"inspired\" men had finished the Bible,\nthe devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; what part of\nthe sacred Scriptures would Christians now pick out as being probably\nhis work? Which of the following passages would naturally be selected\nas having been written by the devil—\"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" or\n\"Kill all the males among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all\nthe women children keep alive for yourselves.\"?\n\nIt may be that the best way to illustrate what I have said of the Old\nTestament is to compare some of the supposed teachings of Jehovah with\nthose of persons who never read an \"inspired\" line, and who lived and\ndied without having received the light of revelation. Nothing can be\nmore suggestive than a comparison of the ideas of Jehovah—the inspired\nwords of the one claimed to be the infinite God, as recorded in the\nBible—with those that have been expressed by men who, all admit,\nreceived no help from heaven.\n\nIn all ages of which any record has been preserved, there have been\nthose who gave their ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love and law.\nNow, if the Bible is really the work of God, it should contain the\ngrandest and sublimest truths. It should, in all respects, excel the\nworks of man. Within that book should be found the best and loftiest\ndefinitions of justice; the truest conceptions of human liberty; the\nclearest outlines of duty; the tenderest, the highest, and the noblest\nthoughts,—not that the human mind has produced, but that the human mind\nis capable of receiving. Upon every page should be found the luminous\nevidence of its divine origin. Unless it contains grander and more\nwonderful things than man has written, we are not only justified in\nsaying, but we are compelled to say, that it was written by no being\nsuperior to man. It may be said that it is unfair to call attention\nto certain bad things in the Bible, while the good are not so much as\nmentioned. To this it may be replied that a divine being would not put\nbad things in a book. Certainly a being of infinite intelligence,\npower, and goodness could never fall below the ideal of \"depraved and\nbarbarous\" man. It will not do, after we find that the Bible upholds\nwhat we now call crimes, to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the\nwords are not inspired, what is? It may be said that the thoughts are\ninspired. But this would include only the thoughts expressed without\nwords. If ideas are inspired, they must be contained in and expressed\nonly by inspired words; that is to say, the arrangement of the words,\nwith relation to each other, must have been inspired. For the purpose of\nthis perfect arrangement, the writers, according to the Christian world,\nwere inspired. Were some sculptor inspired of God to make a statue\nperfect in its every part, we would not say that the marble was\ninspired, but the statue—the relation of part to part, the married\nharmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place\nof the marble, and it is the arrangement of these words that Christians\nclaim to be inspired. If there is one uninspired word,—that is, one\nword in the wrong place, or a word that ought not to be there,—to that\nextent the Bible is an uninspired book. The moment it is admitted that\nsome words are not, in their arrangement as to other words, inspired,\nthen, unless with absolute certainty these words can be pointed out, a\ndoubt is cast on all the words the book contains. If it was worth God's\nwhile to make a revelation to man at all, it was certainly worth his\nwhile to see that it was correctly made. He would not have allowed the\nideas and mistakes of pretended prophets and designing priests to become\nso mingled with the original text that it is impossible to tell where he\nceased and where the priests and prophets began. Neither will it do to\nsay that God adapted his revelation to the prejudices of mankind. Of\ncourse it was necessary for an infinite being to adapt his revelation to\nthe intellectual capacity of man; but why should God confirm a barbarian\nin his prejudices? Why should he fortify a heathen in his crimes? If a\nrevelation is of any importance whatever, it is to eradicate prejudices\nfrom the human mind. It should be a lever with which to raise the human\nrace. Theologians Have exhausted their ingenuity in finding excuses\nfor God. It seems to me that they would be better employed in finding\nexcuses for men. They tell us that the Jews were so cruel and ignorant\nthat God was compelled to justify, or nearly to justify, many of their\ncrimes, in order to have any influence with them whatever. They tell us\nthat if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be criminal, the Jews\nwould have refused to receive the Ten Commandments. They insist that,\nunder the circumstances, God did the best he could; that his real\nintention was to lead them along slowly, step by step, so that, in a few\nhundred years, they would be induced to admit that it was hardly fair to\nsteal a babe from its mother's breast. It has always seemed reasonable\nthat an infinite God ought to have been able to make man grand enough to\nknow, even without a special revelation, that it is not altogether right\nto steal the labor, or the wife, or the child, of another. When the\nwhole question is thoroughly examined, the world will find that Jehovah\nhad the prejudices, the hatreds, and superstitions of his day.\n\nIf there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is the air of the\nsoul, the sunshine of life. Without it the world is a prison and the\nuniverse an infinite dungeon.\n\nIf the Bible is really inspired, Jehovah commanded the Jewish people to\nbuy the children of the strangers that sojourned among them, and ordered\nthat the children thus bought should be an inheritance for the children\nof the Jews, and that they should be bondmen and bondwomen forever.\nYet Epictetus, a man to whom no revelation was made, a man whose soul\nfollowed only the light of nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish\nGod, was great enough to say: \"Will you not remember that your servants\nare by nature your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you\nhave bought them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the\nwretched law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the\ngods.\"\n\nWe find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured them that\ntheir bondmen and their bondmaids must be \"of the heathen that were\nround about them.\" \"Of them,\" said Jehovah, \"shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids.\" And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had never been\nenlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral grandeur to\ndeclare: \"They who say that we should love our fellow-citizens, but not\nforeigners, destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, with which\nbenevolence and justice would perish forever.\"\n\nIf the Bible is inspired, Jehovah, God of all worlds, actually said:\n\"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue\na day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\" And yet\nZeno, founder of the Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted\nthat no man could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad,\nwhether the slave had become so by conquest, or by purchase. Jehovah\nordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others, this\ncommand: \"When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou shalt\nsmite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with\nthem, nor show mercy unto them.\" And yet Epictetus, whom we have already\nquoted, gave this marvelous rule for the guidance of human conduct:\n\"Live with thy inferiors as thou would'st have thy superiors live with\nthee.\"\n\nIs it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom\nsaid: \"I will heap mischief upon them: I will spend mine arrows upon\nthem. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,\nand with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon\nthem, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and\nterror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the\nsuckling also, with the man of gray hairs\"; while Seneca, an uninspired\nRoman, said: \"The wise man will not pardon any crime that ought to be\npunished, but he will accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought\nin pardoning. He will spare some and watch over some, because of their\nyouth, and others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not\nfall short of justice, but will fulfill it perfectly.\"\n\nCan we believe that God ever said of any one: \"Let his children be\nfatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually\nvagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate\nplaces; let the extortioner catch all that he hath and let the stranger\nspoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let\nthere be any to favor his fatherless children.\" If he ever said these\nwords, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music, from\nthe Hindu: \"Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the prattle of\ntheir own children.\"\n\nJehovah, \"from the clouds and darkness of Sinai,\" said to the Jews:\n\"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.... Thou shalt not bow down\nthyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous\nGod, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the\nthird and fourth generation of them that hate me.\" Contrast this with\nthe words put by the Hindu into the mouth of Brahma:\n\n\"I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods,\ninvoluntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am\nthe reward of all worshipers.\"\n\nCompare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things\nbegot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid\nwith suns.\n\nII.\n\nWAIVING the contradictory statements in the various books of the New\nTestament; leaving out of the question the history of the manuscripts;\nsaying nothing about the errors in translation and the interpolations\nmade by the fathers; and admitting, for the time being, that the books\nwere all written at the times claimed, and by the persons whose names\nthey bear, the questions of inspiration, probability, and absurdity\nstill remain.\n\nAs a rule, where several persons testify to the same transaction, while\nagreeing in the main points, they will disagree upon many minor things,\nand such disagreement upon minor matters is generally considered as\nevidence that the witnesses have not agreed among themselves upon the\nstory they should tell. These differences in statement we account for\nfrom the facts that all did not see alike, that all did not have the\nsame opportunity for seeing, and that all had not equally good memories.\nBut when we claim that the witnesses were inspired, we must admit that\nhe who inspired them did know exactly what occurred, and consequently\nthere should be no contradiction, even in the minutest detail. The\naccounts should be not only substantially, but they should be actually,\nthe same. It is impossible to account for any differences, or any\ncontradictions, except from the weaknesses of human nature, and these\nweaknesses cannot be predicated of divine wisdom. Why should there\nbe more than one correct account of anything? Why were four gospels\nnecessary? One inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.\n\nOne great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have\nbeen commanded by God, but all the cruelties recounted in the Old\nTestament ceased with death. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped at the\nportal of the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself upon the dead;\nand not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse\nof Malachi, contains the slightest intimation that God will punish in\nanother world. It was reserved for the New Testament to make known the\nfrightful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the teacher of universal\nbenevolence who rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the\nhorrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of hell. Within the breast of\nnon-resistance was coiled the worm that never dies.\n\nOne great objection to the New Testament is that it bases salvation upon\nbelief. This, at least, is true of the Gospel according to John, and of\nmany of the Epistles. I admit that Matthew never heard of the atonement,\nand died utterly ignorant of the scheme of salvation. I also admit that\nMark never dreamed that it was necessary for a man to be born again;\nthat he knew nothing of the mysterious doctrine of regeneration, and\nthat he never even suspected that it was necessary to believe anything.\nIn the sixteenth chapter of Mark, we are told that \"He that believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be\ndamned\"; but this passage has been shown to be an interpolation, and,\nconsequently, not a solitary word is found in the Gospel according to\nMark upon the subject of salvation by faith. The same is also true\nof the Gospel of Luke. It says not one word as to the necessity of\nbelieving on Jesus Christ, not one word as to the atonement, not one\nword upon the scheme of salvation, and not the slightest hint that it is\nnecessary to believe anything here in order to be happy hereafter.\n\nAnd I here take occasion to say, that with most of the teachings of the\nGospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke I most heartily agree. The miraculous\nparts must, of course, be thrown aside. I admit that the necessity of\nbelief, the atonement, and the scheme of salvation are all set forth\nin the Gospel of John,—a gospel, in my opinion, not written until long\nafter the others.\n\nAccording to the prevailing Christian belief, the Christian religion\nrests upon the doctrine of the atonement. If this doctrine is without\nfoundation, if it is repugnant to justice and mercy, the fabric falls.\nWe are told that the first man committed a crime for which all his\nposterity are responsible,—in other words, that we are accountable,\nand can be justly punished for a sin we never in fact committed. This\nabsurdity was the father of another, namely, that a man can be rewarded\nfor a good action done by another. God, according to the modern\ntheologians, made a law, with the penalty of eternal death for its\ninfraction. All men, they say, have broken that law. In the economy of\nheaven, this law had to be vindicated. This could be done by damning the\nwhole human race. Through what is known as the atonement, the salvation\nof a few was made possible. They insist that the law—whatever that\nis—demanded the extreme penalty, that justice called for its victims,\nand that even mercy ceased to plead. Under these circumstances, God, by\nallowing the innocent to suffer, satisfactorily settled with the law,\nand allowed a few of the guilty to escape. The law was satisfied with\nthis arrangement. To carry out this scheme, God was born as a babe into\nthis world. \"He grew in stature and increased in knowledge.\" At the age\nof thirty-three, after having lived a life filled with kindness, charity\nand nobility, after having practiced every virtue, he was sacrificed as\nan atonement for man. It is claimed that he actually took our place,\nand bore our sins and our guilt; that in this way the justice of God was\nsatisfied, and that the blood of Christ was an atonement, an expiation,\nfor the sins of all who might believe on him.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation, there was no remission of sin except\nthrough the shedding of blood. If a man committed certain sins, he\nmust bring to the priest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of\nturtle-doves. The priest would lay his hands upon the animal, and the\nsin of the man would be transferred. Then the animal would be killed in\nthe place of the real sinner, and the blood thus shed and sprinkled upon\nthe altar would be an atonement. In this way Jehovah was satisfied.\nThe greater the crime, the greater the sacrifice—the more blood, the\ngreater the atonement. There was always a certain ratio between the\nvalue of the animal and the enormity of the sin. The most minute\ndirections were given about the killing of these animals, and about\nthe sprinkling of their blood. Every priest became a butcher, and every\nsanctuary a slaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to\na refined and loving soul. Nothing could have been better calculated to\nharden the heart than this continual shedding of innocent blood. This\nterrible system is supposed to have culminated in the sacrifice of\nChrist. His blood took the place of all other. It is necessary to shed\nno more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated, surfeited. The idea\nthat God wants blood is at the bottom of the atonement, and rests\nupon the most fearful savagery. How can sin be transferred from men to\nanimals, and how can the shedding of the blood of animals atone for the\nsins of men?\n\nThe church says that the sinner is in debt to God, and that the\nobligation is discharged by the Savior. The best that can possibly be\nsaid of such a transaction is, that the debt is transferred, not paid.\nThe truth is, that a sinner is in debt to the person he has injured.\nIf a man injures his neighbor, it is not enough for him to get the\nforgiveness of God, but he must have the forgiveness of his neighbor.\nIf a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives him, his hand will\nsmart exactly the same. You must, after all, reap what you sow. No god\ncan give you wheat when you sow tares, and no devil can give you tares\nwhen you sow wheat.\n\nThere are in nature neither rewards nor punishments—there are\nconsequences. The life of Christ is worth its example, its moral force,\nits heroism of benevolence.\n\nTo make innocence suffer is the greatest sin; how then is it possible to\nmake the suffering of the innocent a justification for the criminal? Why\nshould a man be willing to let the innocent suffer for him? Does not\nthe willingness show that he is utterly unworthy of the sacrifice?\nCertainly, no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an\ninnocent person should suffer for his sin. What would we think of a\nman who would allow another to die for a crime that he himself had\ncommitted? What would we think of a law that allowed the innocent to\ntake the place of the guilty? Is it possible to vindicate a just law\nby inflicting punishment on the innocent? Would not that be a second\nviolation instead of a vindication?\n\nIf there was no general atonement until the crucifixion of Christ, what\nbecame of the countless millions who died before that time? And it must\nbe remembered that the blood shed by the Jews was not for other nations.\nJehovah hated foreigners. The Gentiles were left without forgiveness\nWhat has become of the millions who have died since, without having\nheard of the atonement? What becomes of those who have heard but have\nnot believed? It seems to me that the doctrine of the atonement is\nabsurd, unjust, and immoral. Can a law be satisfied by the execution\nof the wrong person? When a man commits a crime, the law demands his\npunishment, not that of a substitute; and there can be no law, human\nor divine, that can be satisfied by the punishment of a substitute. Can\nthere be a law that demands that the guilty be rewarded? And yet, to\nreward the guilty is far nearer justice than to punish the innocent.\n\nAccording to the orthodox theology, there would have been no heaven had\nno atonement been made. All the children of men would have been cast\ninto hell forever. The old men bowed with grief, the smiling mothers,\nthe sweet babes, the loving maidens, the brave, the tender, and the\njust, would have been given over to eternal pain. Man, it is claimed,\ncan make no atonement for himself. If he commits one sin, and with\nthat exception lives a life of perfect virtue, still that one sin would\nremain unexpiated, unatoned, and for that one sin he would be forever\nlost. To be saved by the goodness of another, to be a redeemed debtor\nforever, has in it something repugnant to manhood.\n\nWe must also remember that Jehovah took special charge of the Jewish\npeople; and we have always been taught that he did so for the purpose\nof civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, he would\nhave made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty; because,\nif the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared,—a\npeople whose hearts had not been hardened by the laws and teachings of\nJehovah,—they would not have crucified him, and, as a consequence,\nthe world would have been lost. If the Jews had believed in religious\nfreedom,—in the right of thought and speech,—not a human soul could\never have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary, some\nbrave, heroic soul had rescued him from the holy mob, he would not\nonly have been eternally damned for his pains, but would have rendered\nimpossible the salvation of any human being, and, except for the\ncrucifixion of her son, the Virgin Mary, if the church is right, would\nbe to-day among the lost.\n\nIn countless ways the Christian world has endeavored, for nearly two\nthousand years, to explain the atonement, and every effort has ended\nin an admission that it cannot be understood, and a declaration that it\nmust be believed. Is it not immoral to teach that man can sin, that he\ncan harden his heart and pollute his soul, and that, by repenting\nand believing something that he does not comprehend, he can avoid the\nconsequences of his crimes? Has the promise and hope of forgiveness ever\nprevented the commission of a sin? Should men be taught that sin gives\nhappiness here; that they ought to bear the evils of a virtuous life in\nthis world for the sake of joy in the next; that they can repent between\nthe last sin and the last breath; that after repentance every stain\nof the soul is washed away by the innocent blood of another; that the\nserpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved\nwill not even pity the victims of their own crimes; that the goodness\nof another can be transferred to them; and that sins forgiven cease to\naffect the unhappy wretches sinned against?\n\nAnother objection is that a certain belief is necessary to save the\nsoul. It is often asserted that to believe is the only safe way. If you\nwish to be safe, be honest. Nothing can be safer than that. No matter\nwhat his belief may be, no man, even in the hour of death, can regret\nhaving been honest. It never can be necessary to throw away your reason\nto save your soul. A soul without reason is scarcely worth saving. There\nis no more degrading doctrine than that of mental non-resistance. The\nsoul has a right to defend its castle—the brain, and he who waives that\nright becomes a serf and slave. Neither can I admit that a man, by doing\nme an injury, can place me under obligation to do him a service. To\nrender benefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between\nactions. He who treats his friends and enemies alike has neither love\nnor justice. The idea of non-resistance never occurred to a man with\npower to protect himself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born\nwhen resistance was impossible. To allow a crime to be committed when\nyou can prevent it, is next to committing the crime yourself. And yet,\nunder the banner of non-resistance, the church has shed the blood of\nmillions, and in the folds of her sacred vestments have gleamed the\ndaggers of assassination. With her cunning hands she wove the purple for\nhypocrisy, and placed the crown upon the brow of crime. For a thousand\nyears larceny held the scales of justice, while beggars scorned the\nprincely sons of toil, and ignorant fear denounced the liberty of\nthought.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him, like a\npanorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how his words\nwould be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies,\nwould be committed in his name. He knew that the fires of persecution\nwould climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that brave\nmen would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled with pain; that the\nchurch would use instruments of torture, that his followers would appeal\nto whip and chain. He must have seen the horizon of the future red with\nthe flames of the auto da fe. He knew all the creeds that would spring\nlike poison fungi from every text. He saw the sects waging war against\neach other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests,\nbuilding dungeons for their fellow-men. He saw them using instruments\nof pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with agony, the tears,\nthe blood—heard the shrieks and sobs of all the moaning, martyred\nmultitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with\nswords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition\nwould be born of teachings attributed to him. He saw all the\ninterpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He\nknew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings,\nfor a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He\nknew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh, that\ncradles would be robbed, and women's breasts unbabed for gold, and yet\nhe died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not\ntell his disciples, and through them the world, that man should not\npersecute, for opinion's sake, his fellow-man? Why did he not cry, You\nshall not persecute in my name; you shall not burn and torment those who\ndiffer from you in creed? Why did he not plainly say, I am the Son of\nGod? Why did he not explain the doctrine of the Trinity? Why did he not\ntell the manner of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not say\nsomething positive, definite, and satisfactory about another world? Why\ndid he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven to the glad knowledge\nof another life? Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to\nmisery and to doubt?\n\nHe came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal?\n\"Love thy neighbor as thyself\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Love\nGod with all thy heart\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Return good for\nevil\"? That was said by Buddha seven hundred years before he was born.\n\"Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you\"? This was the\ndoctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster\nhad done this long before: \"Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether\nan action is good or bad, abstain from it.\" Did he come to teach us of\nanother world? The immortality of the soul had been taught by Hindus,\nEgyptians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was born. Long\nbefore, the world had been told by Socrates that: \"One who is injured\nought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do\nan injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil\nto any man, however much we may have suffered from him.\" And Cicero had\nsaid:\n\n\"Let us not listen to those who think that we ought to be angry with\nour enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly: nothing is\nmore praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as\nclemency and readiness to forgive.\"\n\nIs there anything nearer perfect than this from Confucius: \"For benefits\nreturn benefits; for injuries return justice without any admixture of\nrevenge\"?\n\nThe dogma of eternal punishment rests upon passages in the New\nTestament. This infamous belief subverts every idea of justice. Around\nthe angel of immortality the church has coiled this serpent. A finite\nbeing can neither commit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the\ninfinite. A being of infinite goodness and wisdom has no right,\naccording to the human standard of justice, to create any being destined\nto suffer eternal pain. A being of infinite wisdom would not create\na failure, and surely a man destined to everlasting agony is not a\nsuccess.\n\nHow long, according to the universal benevolence of the New Testament,\ncan a man be reasonably punished in the next world for failing to\nbelieve something unreasonable in this? Can it be possible that any\npunishment can endure forever? Suppose that every flake of snow that\never fell was a figure nine, and that the first flake was multiplied by\nthe second, and that product by the third, and so on to the last flake.\nAnd then suppose that this total should be multiplied by every drop of\nrain that ever fell, calling each drop a figure nine; and that total by\neach blade of grass that ever helped to weave a carpet for the earth,\ncalling each blade a figure nine; and that again by every grain of sand\non every shore, so that the grand total would make a line of nines so\nlong that it would require millions upon millions of years for light,\ntraveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles per\nsecond, to reach the end. And suppose, further, that each unit in this\nalmost infinite total stood for billions of ages—still that vast and\nalmost endless time, measured by all the years beyond, is as one flake,\none drop, one leaf, one blade, one grain, compared with all the flakes\nand drops and leaves and blades and grains. Upon love's breast the\nchurch has placed the eternal asp. And yet, in the same book in which is\ntaught this most infamous of doctrines, we are assured that \"The Lord is\ngood to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.\"\n\nIii\n\nSO FAR as we know, man is the author of all books. If a book had been\nfound on the earth by the first man, he might have regarded it as the\nwork of God; but as men were here a good while before any books were\nfound, and as man has produced a great many books, the probability is\nthat the Bible is no exception.\n\nMost nations, at the time the Old Testament was written, believed in\nslavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution;\nand it is not wonderful that the book contained nothing contrary to such\nbelief. The fact that it was in exact accord with the morality of its\ntime proves that it was not the product of any being superior to man.\n\"The inspired writers\" upheld or established slavery, countenanced\npolygamy, commanded wars of extermination, and ordered the slaughter\nof women and babes. In these respects they were precisely like the\nuninspired savages by whom they were surrounded. They also taught and\ncommanded religious persecution as a duty, and visited the most trivial\noffences with the punishment of death. In these particulars they were in\nexact accord with their barbarian neighbors. They were utterly ignorant\nof geology and astronomy, and knew no more of what had happened than of\nwhat would happen; and, so far as accuracy is concerned, their history\nand prophecy were about equal; in other words, they were just as\nignorant as those who lived and died in nature's night.\n\nDoes any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, he\nwould uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has Jehovah\nimproved? Has infinite mercy-become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom\nintellectually-advanced? Will any one claim that the passages upholding\nslavery have liberated mankind; that we are indebted for our modern\nhomes to the texts that made polygamy a virtue; or that religious\nliberty found its soil, its light, and rain in the infamous verse\nwherein the husband is commanded to stone to death the wife for\nworshiping an unknown god?\n\nThe usual answer to these objections is that no country has ever been\ncivilized without the Bible.\n\nThe Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah made his will directly\nknown,—the only people who had the Old Testament. Other nations were\nutterly neglected by their Creator. Yet, such was the effect of the Old\nTestament on the Jews, that they crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly\ninnocent man. They could not have done much worse without a Bible. In\nthe crucifixion of Christ, they followed the teachings of his Father.\nIf, as it is now alleged by the theologians, no nation can be civilized\nwithout a Bible, certainly God must have known the fact six thousand\nyears ago, as well as the theologians know it now. Why did he not\nfurnish every nation with a Bible?\n\nAs to the Old Testament, I insist that all the bad passages were written\nby men; that those passages were not inspired. I insist that a being of\ninfinite goodness never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never\ntold a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never\nordered one nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to\nkill his wife because she suggested the worshiping of some other God.\n\nI also insist that the Old Testament would be a much better book with\nall of these passages left out; and, whatever may be said of the rest,\nthe passages to which attention has been drawn can with vastly more\npropriety be attributed to a devil than to a god.\n\nTake from the New Testament all passages upholding the idea that belief\nis necessary to salvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for\nthe sins of the world; that the punishment of the human soul will go\non forever; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of\nhonest investigation; take from it all miraculous stories,—and I admit\nthat all the good passages are true. If they are true, it makes no\ndifference whether they are inspired or not. Inspiration is only\nnecessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human reason.\nOnly that which never happened needs to be substantiated by miracles.\nThe universe is natural.\n\nThe church must cease to insist that the passages upholding the\ninstitutions of savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of the\natonement must be abandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith.\nThe savagery of eternal punishment must be renounced. Credulity is not\na virtue, and investigation is not a crime. Miracles are the children\nof mendacity. Nothing can be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken,\nsublime, and eternal procession of causes and effects.\n\nReason must be the final arbiter. \"Inspired\" books attested by miracles\ncannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A religion that does not\ncommand the respect of the greatest minds will, in a little while,\nexcite the mockery of all. Every civilized man believes in the liberty\nof thought. Is it possible that God is intolerant? Is an act infamous in\nman one of the virtues of the Deity? Could there be progress in heaven\nwithout intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future to exist only\nin perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that a man acting\nlike Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded for\nbelieving according to evidence, without evidence, or against evidence?\nAre we to be saved because we are good, or because another was virtuous?\nIs credulity to be winged and crowned, while honest doubt is chained and\ndamned?\n\nDo not misunderstand me. My position is that the cruel passages in\nthe Old Testament are not inspired; that slavery, polygamy, wars of\nextermination, and religious persecution always have been, are, and\nforever will be, abhorred and cursed by the honest, the virtuous, and\nthe loving; that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty,\nand that vicarious vice and vicarious virtue are equally absurd; that\neternal punishment is eternal revenge; that only the natural can happen;\nthat miracles prove the dishonesty of the few and the credulity of the\nmany; and that, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, salvation does not\ndepend upon belief, nor the atonement, nor a \"second birth,\" but that\nthese gospels are in exact harmony with the declaration of the great\nPersian: \"Taking the first footstep with the good thought, the second\nwith the good word, and the third with the good deed, I entered\nparadise.\"\n\nThe dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest thought,\nnor satisfy the hunger of the heart. While dusty faiths, embalmed and\nsepulchered in ancient texts, remain the same, the sympathies of men\nenlarge; the brain no longer kills its young; the happy lips give\nliberty to honest thoughts; the mental firmament expands and lifts; the\nbroken clouds drift by; the hideous dreams, the foul, misshapen children\nof the monstrous night, dissolve and fade.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nThe Christian Religion, by Jeremiah S. Black\n\n\"Gratiano speaks of an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in\nall Venice: his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of\nchaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them\nthey are not worth the search.\"—Merchant of Venice.\n\nTHE request to answer the foregoing paper comes to me, not in the form\nbut with the effect of a challenge, which I cannot decline without\nseeming to acknowledge that the religion of the civilized world is an\nabsurd superstition, propagated by impostors, professed by hypocrites,\nand believed only by credulous dupes.\n\nBut why should I, an unlearned and unauthorized layman, be placed in\nsuch a predicament? The explanation is easy enough. This is no business\nof the priests. Their prescribed duty is to preach the word, in the full\nassurance that it will commend itself to all good and honest hearts by\nits own manifest veracity and the singular purity of its precepts. They\ncannot afford to turn away from their proper work, and leave willing\nhearers uninstructed, while they wrangle in vain with a predetermined\nopponent. They were warned to expect slander, indignity, and insult, and\nthese are among the evils which they must not resist.\n\nIt will be seen that I am assuming no clerical function. I am not out on\nthe forlorn hope of converting Mr. Ingersoll. I am no preacher exhorting\na sinner to leave the seat of the scornful and come up to the bench of\nthe penitents. My duty is more analogous to that of the policeman who\nwould silence a rude disturber of the congregation by telling him that\nhis clamor is false and his conduct an offence against public decency.\n\nNor is the Church in any danger which calls for the special vigilance\nof its servants. Mr. Ingersoll thinks that the rock-founded faith\nof Christendom is giving way before his assaults, but he is grossly\nmistaken. The first sentence of his essay is a preposterous blunder. It\nis not true that \"a profound change has taken place in the world of\nthought,\" unless a more rapid spread of the Gospel and a more faithful\nobservance of its moral principles can be called so. Its truths are\neverywhere proclaimed with the power of sincere conviction, and accepted\nwith devout reverence by uncounted multitudes of all classes. Solemn\ntemples rise to its honor in the great cities; from every hill-top in\nthe country you see the church-spire pointing toward heaven, and on\nSunday all the paths that lead to it are crowded with worshipers. In\nnearly all families, parents teach their children that Christ is God,\nand his system of morality absolutely perfect. This belief lies so deep\nin the popular heart that, if every written record of it were destroyed\nto-day, the memory of millions could reproduce it to-morrow. Its\nearnestness is proved by its works. Wherever it goes it manifests itself\nin deeds of practical benevolence. It builds, not churches alone, but\nalmshouses, hospitals, and asylums. It shelters the poor, feeds the\nhungry, visits the sick, consoles the afflicted, provides for the\nfatherless, comforts the heart of the widow, instructs the ignorant,\nreforms the vicious, and saves to the uttermost them that are ready to\nperish. To the common observer, it does not look as if Christianity\nwas making itself ready to be swallowed up by Infidelity. Thus far,\nat least, the promise has been kept that \"the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it.\"\n\nThere is, to be sure, a change in the party hostile to religion—not \"a\nprofound change,\" but a change entirely superficial—which consists, not\nin thought, but merely in modes of expression and methods of attack. The\nbad classes of society always hated the doctrine and discipline which\nreproached their wickedness and frightened them by threats of punishment\nin another world. Aforetime they showed their contempt of divine\nauthority only by their actions; but now, under new leadership, their\nenmity against God breaks out into articulate blasphemy. They assemble\nthemselves together, they hear with passionate admiration the bold\nharangue which ridicules and defies the Maker of the universe; fiercely\nthey rage against the Highest, and loudly they laugh, alike at the\njustice that condemns, and the mercy that offers to pardon them. The\norator who relieves them by assurances of impunity, and tells them that\nno supreme authority has made any law to control them, is applauded to\nthe echo and paid a high price for his congenial labor; he pockets their\nmoney, and flatters himself that he is a great power, profoundly moving\n\"the world of thought.\"\n\nThere is another totally false notion expressed in the opening\nparagraph, namely, that \"they who know most of nature believe the least\nabout theology.\" The truth is exactly the other way. The more clearly\none sees \"the grand procession of causes and effects,\" the more awful\nhis reverence becomes for the author of the \"sublime and unbroken\" law\nwhich links them together. Not self-conceit and rebellious pride, but\nunspeakable humility, and a deep sense of the measureless distance\nbetween the Creator and the creature, fills the mind of him who looks\nwith a rational spirit upon the works of the All-wise One. The heart\nof Newton repeats the solemn confession of David: \"When I consider thy\nheavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast\nordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him or the son of man\nthat thou visitest him?\" At the same time, the lamentable fact must be\nadmitted that \"a little learning is a dangerous thing\" to some persons.\nThe sciolist with a mere smattering of physical knowledge is apt to\nmistake himself for a philosopher, and swelling with his own importance,\nhe gives out, like Simon Magus, \"that himself is some great one.\" His\nvanity becomes inflamed more and more, until he begins to think he\nknows all things. He takes every occasion to show his accomplishments by\nfinding fault with the works of creation* and Providence; and this is an\nexercise in which he cannot long continue without learning to disbelieve\nin any Being greater than himself. It was to such a person, and not\nto the unpretending simpleton, that Solomon applied his often quoted\naphorism: \"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.\" These are\nwhat Paul refers to as \"vain babblings and the opposition of science,\nfalsely so called;\" but they are perfectly powerless to stop or turn\naside the great current of human thought on the subject of Christian\ntheology. That majestic stream, supplied from a thousand unfailing\nfountains, rolls on and will roll forever.\n\nLabitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum.\n\nMr. Ingersoll is not, as some have estimated him, the most formidable\nenemy that Christianity has encountered since the time of Julian the\nApostate. But he stands at the head of living infidels, \"by merit raised\nto that bad eminence.\" His mental organization has the peculiar defects\nwhich fit him for such a place. He is all imagination and no discretion.\nHe rises sometimes into a region of wild poetry, where he can color\neverything to suit himself. His motto well expresses the character of\nhis argumentation—\"mountains are as unstable as clouds:\" a fancy is\nas good as a fact, and a high-sounding period is rather better than a\nlogical demonstration. His inordinate self-confidence makes him at once\nferocious and fearless. He was a practical politician before he \"took\nthe stump\" against Christianity, and at all times he has proved his\ncapacity to \"split the ears of the groundlings,\" and make the unskillful\nlaugh. The article before us is the least objectionable of all his\nproductions. Its style is higher, and better suited to the weight of\nthe theme. Here the violence of his fierce invective is moderated; his\nscurrility gives place to an attempt at sophistry less shocking if not\nmore true; and his coarse jokes are either excluded altogether, or else\nveiled in the decent obscurity of general terms. Such a paper from such\na man, at a time like the present, is not wholly unworthy of a grave\ncontradiction.\n\nHe makes certain charges which we answer by an explicit denial, and thus\nan issue is made, upon which, as a pleader would say, we \"put\nourselves upon the country.\" He avers that a certain \"something called\nChristianity\" is a false faith imposed on the world without evidence;\nthat the facts it pretends to rest on are mere inventions; that its\ndoctrines are pernicious; that its requirements are unreasonable,\nand that its sanctions are cruel. I deny all this, and assert, on the\ncontrary, that its doctrines are divinely revealed; its fundamental\nfacts incontestably proved; its morality perfectly free from all taint\nof error, and its influence most beneficent upon society in general, and\nupon all individuals who accept it and make it their rule of action.\n\nHow shall this be determined? Not by what we call divine revelation, for\nthat would be begging the question; not by sentiment, taste, or temper,\nfor these are as likely to be false as true; but by inductive reasoning\nfrom evidence, of which the value is to be measured according to those\nrules of logic which enlightened and just men everywhere have adopted to\nguide them in the search for truth. We can appeal only to that rational\nlove of justice, and that detestation of falsehood, which fair-minded\npersons of good intelligence bring to the consideration of other\nimportant subjects when it becomes their duty to decide upon them. In\nshort, I want a decision upon sound judicial principles.\n\nGibson, the great Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania, once said to certain\nskeptical friends of his: \"Give Christianity a common-law trial; submit\nthe evidence pro and con to an impartial jury under the direction of\na competent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.\" This\ndeliverance, coming from the most illustrious judge of his time, not at\nall given to expressions of sentimental piety, and quite incapable of\nspeaking on any subject for mere effect, staggered the unbelief of those\nwho heard it. I did not know him then, except by his great reputation\nfor ability and integrity, but my thoughts were strongly influenced by\nhis authority, and I learned to set a still higher value upon all his\nopinions, when, in after life, I was honored with his close and intimate\nfriendship.\n\nLet Christianity have a trial on Mr. Ingersoll's indictment, and give\nus a decision secundum allegata et probata. I will confine myself\nstrictly to the record; that is to say, I will meet the accusations\ncontained in this paper, and not those made elsewhere by him or others.\n\nHis first specification against Christianity is the belief of its\ndisciples \"that there is a personal God, the creator of the material\nuniverse.\" If God made the world it was a most stupendous miracle, and\nall miracles, according to Mr. Ingersoll's idea are \"the children of\nmendacity.\" To admit the one great miracle of creation would be an\nadmission that other miracles are at least probable, and that would ruin\nhis whole case. But you cannot catch the leviathan of atheism with a\nhook. The universe, he says, is natural—it came into being of its own\naccord; it made its own laws at the start, and afterward improved itself\nconsiderably by spontaneous evolution. It would be a mere waste of\ntime and space to enumerate the proofs which show that the universe was\ncreated by a pre-existent and self-conscious Being, of power and wisdom\nto us inconceivable. Conviction of the fact (miraculous though it\nbe) forces itself on every one whose mental faculties are healthy and\ntolerably well balanced. The notion that all things owe their origin and\ntheir harmonious arrangement to the fortuitous concurrence of atoms is\na kind of lunacy which very few men in these days are afflicted with. I\nhope I may safely assume it as certain that all, or nearly all, who read\nthis page will have sense and reason enough to see for themselves that\nthe plan of the universe could not have been designed without a Designer\nor executed without a Maker.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll asserts that, at all events, this material world had\nnot a good and beneficent creator; it is a bad, savage, cruel piece of\nwork, with its pestilences, storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes; and man,\nwith his liability to sickness, suffering, and death, is not a success,\nbut, on the contrary, a failure. To defend the Creator of the world\nagainst an arraignment so foul as this would be almost as unbecoming\nas to make the accusation. We have neither jurisdiction nor capacity\nto rejudge the justice of God. Why man is made to fill this particular\nplace in the scale of creation—a little lower than the angels, yet far\nabove the brutes; not passionless and pure, like the former, nor mere\nmachines, like the latter; able to stand, yet free to fall; knowing the\nright, and accountable for going wrong; gifted with reason, and impelled\nby self-love to exercise the faculty—these are questions on which we\nmay have our speculative opinions, but knowledge is out of our reach.\nMeantime, we do not discredit our mental independence by taking it for\ngranted that the Supreme Being has done all things well. Our ignorance\nof the whole scheme makes us poor critics upon the small part that comes\nwithin our limited perceptions. Seeming defects in the structure of\nthe world may be its most perfect ornament—all apparent harshness the\ntenderest of mercies.\n    \"All discord, harmony not understood,\n    All partial evil, universal good.\"\n\nBut worse errors are imputed to God as moral ruler of the world than\nthose charged against him as creator. He made man badly, but governed\nhim worse; if the Jehovah of the Old Testament was not merely an\nimaginary being, then, according to Mr. Ingersoll, he was a prejudiced,\nbarbarous, criminal tyrant. We will see what ground he lays, if any, for\nthese outrageous assertions.\n\nMainly, principally, first and most important of all, is the unqualified\nassertion that the \"moral code\" which Jehovah gave to his people \"is\nin many respects abhorrent to every good and tender man.\" Does Mr.\nIngersoll know what he is talking about? The moral code of the Bible\nconsists of certain immutable rules to govern the conduct of all men, at\nall times and all places, in their private and personal relations with\none another. It is entirely separate and apart from the civil polity,\nthe religious forms, the sanitary provisions, the police regulations,\nand the system of international law laid down for the special and\nexclusive observance of the Jewish people. This is a distinction which\nevery intelligent man knows how to make. Has Mr. Ingersoll fallen into\nthe egregious blunder of confounding these things? or, understanding the\ntrue sense of his words, is he rash and shameless enough to assert that\nthe moral code of the Bible excites the abhorrence of good men? In\nfact, and in truth, this moral code, which he reviles, instead of being\nabhorred, is entitled to, and has received, the profoundest respect of\nall honest and sensible persons. The second table of the Decalogue is a\nperfect compendium of those duties which every man owes to himself, his\nfamily, and his neighbor. In a few simple words, which he can commit\nto memory almost in a minute, it teaches him to purify his heart from\ncovetousness; to live decently, to injure nobody in reputation, person,\nor property, and to give every one his own. By the poets, the prophets,\nand the sages of Israel, these great elements are expanded into a volume\nof minuter rules, so clear, so impressive, and yet so solemn and so\nlofty, that no pre-existing system of philosophy can compare with it for\na moment. If this vain mortal is not blind with passion, he will see,\nupon reflection, that he has attacked the Old Testament precisely where\nit is most impregnable.\n\nDismissing his groundless charge against the moral code, we come to his\nstrictures on the civil government of the Jews, which he says was so bad\nand unjust that the Lawgiver by whom it was established must have been\nas savagely cruel as the Creator that made storms and pestilences; and\nthe work of both was more worthy of a devil than a God. His language\nis recklessly bad, very defective in method, and altogether lacking\nin precision. But, apart from the ribaldry of it, which I do not\nfeel myself bound to notice, I find four objections to the Jewish\nconstitution—not more than four—which are definite enough to admit\nof an answer. These relate to the provisions of the Mosaic law on\nthe subjects of (1) Blasphemy and Idolatry; (2) War; (3) Slavery; (4)\nPolygamy. In these respects he pronounces the Jewish system not only\nunwise but criminally unjust.\n\nHere let me call attention to the difficulty of reasoning about justice\nwith a man who has no acknowledged standard of right and wrong. What is\njustice? That which accords with law; and the supreme law is the will of\nGod. But I am dealing with an adversary who does not admit that there is\na God. Then for him there is no standard at all; one thing is as right\nas another, and all things are equally wrong. Without a sovereign\nruler there is no law, and where there is no law there can be no\ntransgression. It is the misfortune of the atheistic theory that it\nmakes the moral world an anarchy; it refers all ethical questions to\nthat confused tribunal where chaos sits as umpire and \"by decision more\nembroils the fray.\" But through the whole of this cloudy paper there\nruns a vein of presumptuous egotism which says as plainly as words can\nspeak it that the author holds himself to be the ultimate judge of\nall good and evil; what he approves is right, and what he dislikes is\ncertainly wrong. Of course I concede nothing to a claim like that. I\nwill not admit that the Jewish constitution is a thing to be condemned\nmerely because he curses it. I appeal from his profane malediction to\nthe conscience of men who have a rule to judge by. Such persons will\nreadily see that his specific objections to the statesmanship which\nestablished the civil government of the Hebrew people are extremely\nshallow, and do not furnish the shade of an excuse for the indecency of\nhis general abuse.\n\nFirst. He regards the punishments inflicted for blasphemy and idolatry\nas being immoderately cruel. Considering them merely as religious\noffences,—as sins against God alone,—I agree that civil laws should\nnotice them not at all. But sometimes they affect very injuriously\ncertain social rights which it is the duty of the state to protect.\nWantonly to shock the religious feelings of your neighbor is a grievous\nwrong. To utter blasphemy or obscenity in the presence of a Christian\nwoman is hardly better than to strike her in the face. Still, neither\npolicy nor justice requires them to be ranked among the highest crimes\nin a government constituted like ours. But things were wholly different\nunder the Jewish theocracy, where God was the personal head of the\nstate. There blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance; idolatry\nwas an overt act of treason; to worship the gods of the hostile heathen\nwas deserting to the public enemy, and giving him aid and comfort. These\nare crimes which every independent community has always punished with\nthe utmost rigor. In our own very recent history, they were repressed at\nthe cost of more lives than Judea ever contained at any one time.\n\nMr. Ingersoll not only ignores these considerations, but he goes the\nlength of calling God a religious persecutor and a tyrant because he\ndoes not encourage and reward the service and devotion paid by his\nenemies to the false gods of the pagan world. He professes to believe\nthat all kinds of worship are equally meritorious, and should meet the\nsame acceptance from the true God. It is almost incredible that such\ndrivel as this should be uttered by anybody. But Mr. Ingersoll not only\nexpresses the thought plainly—he urges it with the most extravagant\nfigures of his florid rhetoric. He quotes the first commandment, in\nwhich Jehovah claims for himself the exclusive worship of His people,\nand cites, in contrast, the promise put in the mouth of Brahma, that\nhe will appropriate the worship of all gods to himself, and reward all\nworshipers alike. These passages being compared, he declares the first\n\"a dungeon, where crawl the things begot of jealous slime;\" the other,\n\"great as the domed firmament, inlaid with suns.\" Why is the living God,\nwhom Christians believe to be the Lord of liberty and Father of lights,\ndenounced as the keeper of a loathsome dungeon? Because he refuses to\nencourage and reward the worship of Mammon and Moloch, of Belial and\nBaal; of Bacchus, with its drunken orgies, and Venus, with its wanton\nobscenities; the bestial religion which degraded the soul of Egypt and\nthe \"dark idolatries of alienated Judah,\" polluted with the moral filth\nof all the nations round about.\n\nLet the reader decide whether this man, entertaining such sentiments and\nopinions, is fit to be a teacher, or at all likely to lead us in the way\nwe should go.\n\nSecond. Under the constitution which God provided for the Jews, they\nhad, like every other nation, the war-making power. They could not have\nlived a day without it. The right to exist implied the right to repel,\nwith all their strength, the opposing force which threatened their\ndestruction. It is true, also, that in the exercise of this power they\ndid not observe those rules of courtesy and humanity which have been\nadopted in modern times by civilized belligerents. Why? Because their\nenemies, being mere savages, did not understand and would not practise,\nany rule whatever; and the Jews were bound ex necessitate rei—not\nmerely justified by the lex talionis—to do as their enemies did. In\nyour treatment of hostile barbarians, you not only may lawfully, but\nmust necessarily, adopt their mode of warfare. If they come to conquer\nyou, they may be conquered by you; if they give no quarter, they\nare entitled to none; if the death of your whole population be their\npurpose, you may defeat it by exterminating theirs. This sufficiently\nanswers the silly talk of atheists and semi-atheists about the warlike\nwickedness of the Jews.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll positively, and with the emphasis of supreme and\nall-sufficient authority, declares that \"a war of conquest is simply\nmurder.\" He sustains this proposition by no argument founded in\nprinciple. He puts sentiment in place of law, and denounces aggressive\nfighting because it is offensive to his \"tender and refined soul;\" the\natrocity of it is therefore proportioned to the sensibilities of his own\nheart. He proves war a desperately wicked thing by continually vaunting\nhis own love for small children. Babes—sweet babes—the prattle of\nbabes—are the subjects of his most pathetic eloquence, and his idea\nof music is embodied in the commonplace expression of a Hindu, that the\nlute is sweet only to those who have not heard the prattle of their own\nchildren. All this is very amiable in him, and the more so, perhaps,\nas these objects of his affection are the young ones of a race in\nhis opinion miscreated by an evil-working chance. But his\nphiloprogenitiveness proves nothing against Jew or Gentile, seeing\nthat all have it in an equal degree, and those feel it most who make the\nleast parade of it. Certainly it gives him no authority to malign the\nGod who implanted it alike in the hearts of us all. But I admit that his\nbenevolence becomes peculiar and ultra when it extends to beasts as well\nas babes. He is struck with horror by the sacrificial solemnities of\nthe Jewish religion. \"The killing of those animals was,\" he says, \"a\nterrible system,\" a \"shedding of innocent blood,\" \"shocking to a\nrefined and sensitive soul.\" There is such a depth of tenderness in this\nfeeling, and such a splendor of refinement, that I give up without\na struggle to the superiority of a man who merely professes it. A\ncarnivorous American, full of beef and mutton, who mourns with indignant\nsorrow because bulls and goats were killed in Judea three thousand\nyears ago, has reached the climax of sentimental goodness, and should\nbe permitted to dictate on all questions of peace and war. Let Grotius,\nVattel, and Pufendorf, as well as Moses and the prophets, hide their\ndiminished heads.\n\nBut to show how inefficacious, for all practical purposes, a mere\nsentiment is when substituted for a principle, it is only necessary to\nrecollect that Mr. Ingersoll is himself a warrior who staid not behind\nthe mighty men of his tribe when they gathered themselves together for\na war of conquest. He took the lead of a regiment as eager as himself\nto spoil the Philistines, \"and out he went a-coloneling.\" How many\nAmale-kites, and Hittites, and Amorites he put to the edge of the sword,\nhow many wives he widowed, or how many mothers he \"unbabed\" cannot\nnow be told. I do not even know how many droves of innocent oxen he\ncondemned to the slaughter.\n\nBut it is certain that his refined and tender soul took great pleasure\nin the terror, conflagration, blood, and tears with which the war was\nattended, and in all the hard oppressions which the conquered people\nwere made to suffer afterwards. I do not say that the war was either\nbetter or worse for his participation and approval. But if his own\nconduct (for which he professes neither penitence nor shame) was right,\nit was right on grounds which make it an inexcusable outrage to call the\nchildren of Israel savage criminals for carrying on wars of aggression\nto save the life of their government. These inconsistencies are the\nnecessary consequence of having no rule of action and no guide for the\nconscience. When a man throws away the golden metewand of the law which\nGod has provided, and takes the elastic cord of feeling for his measure\nof righteousness, you cannot tell from day to day what he will think or\ndo.\n\nThird. But Jehovah permitted his chosen people to hold the captives\nthey took in war or purchased from the heathen as servants for life.\nThis was slavery, and Mr. Ingersoll declares that \"in all civilized\ncountries it is not only admitted, but it is passionately asserted, that\nslavery is, and always was, a hideous crime,\" therefore he concludes that\nJehovah was a criminal. This would be a non sequitur, even if the\npremises were true. But the premises are false; civilized countries have\nadmitted no such thing. That slavery is a crime, under all circumstances\nand at all times, is a doctrine first started by the adherents of a\npolitical faction in this country, less than forty years ago. They\ndenounced God and Christ for not agreeing with them, in terms very\nsimilar to those used here by Mr. Ingersoll. But they did not constitute\nthe civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very\nrespectable portion of it. Politically, they were successful; I need not\nsay by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of the country.\nDoubtless Mr. Ingersoll gets a great advantage by invoking their\npassions and their interests to his aid, and he knows how to use it.\nI can only say that, whether American Abolitionism was right or wrong\nunder the circumstances in which we were placed, my faith and my reason\nboth assure me that the infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when\nhe authorized slavery in Judea. Subordination of inferiors to superiors\nis the groundwork of human society. All improvement of our race, in this\nworld and the next, must come from obedience to some master better and\nwiser than ourselves. There can be no question that, when a Jew took\na neighboring savage for his bond-servant, incorporated him into his\nfamily, tamed him, taught him to work, and gave him a knowledge of the\ntrue God, he conferred upon him a most beneficent boon.\n\nFourth. Polygamy is another of his objections to the Mosaic\nconstitution. Strange to say, it is not there. It is neither commanded\nnor prohibited; it is only discouraged. If Mr. Ingersoll were a\nstatesman instead of a mere politician, he would see good and sufficient\nreasons for the forbearance to legislate directly upon the subject. It\nwould be improper for me to set them forth here. He knows, probably,\nthat the influence of the Christian Church alone, and without the aid\nof state enactments, has extirpated this bad feature of Asiatic manners\nwherever its doctrines were carried. As the Christian faith prevails in\nany community, in that proportion precisely marriage is consecrated\nto its true purpose, and all intercourse between the sexes refined\nand purified. Mr. Ingersoll got his own devotion to the principle of\nmonogamy—his own respect for the highest type of female character—his\nown belief in the virtue of fidelity to one good wife—from the example\nand precept of his Christian parents. I speak confidently, because these\nare sentiments which do not grow in the heart of the natural man without\nbeing planted. Why, then, does he throw polygamy into the face of the\nreligion which abhors it? Because he is nothing if not political. The\nMormons believe in polygamy, and the Mormons are unpopular. They are\nguilty of having not only many wives but much property, and if a war\ncould be hissed up against them, its fruits might be more \"gaynefull\npilladge than wee doe now conceyve of.\" It is a cunning maneuver, this,\nof strengthening atheism by enlisting anti-Mormon rapacity against the\nGod of the Christians. I can only protest against the use he would make\nof these and other political interests. It is not argument; it is mere\nstump oratory.\n\nI think I have repelled all of Mr. Ingersoll's accusations against the\nOld Testament that are worth noticing, and I might stop here. But I will\nnot close upon him without letting him see, at least, some part of the\ncase on the other side.\n\nI do not enumerate in detail the positive proofs which support the\nauthenticity of the Hebrew Bible, though they are at hand in great\nabundance, because the evidence in support of the new dispensation will\nestablish the verity of the old—the two being so connected together\nthat if one is true the other cannot be false.\n\nWhen Jesus of Nazareth announced himself to be Christ, the Son of God,\nin Judea, many thousand persons who heard his words and saw his works\nbelieved in his divinity without hesitation. Since the morning of the\ncreation, nothing has occurred so wonderful as the rapidity with which\nthis religion spread itself abroad. Men who were in the noon of life\nwhen Jesus was put to death as a malefactor lived to see him worshiped\nas God by organized bodies of believers in every province of the Roman\nempire. In a few more years it took complete possession of the general\nmind, supplanted all other religions, and wrought a radical change in\nhuman society. It did this in the face of obstacles which, according to\nevery human calculation, were insurmountable. It was antagonized by all\nthe evil propensities, the sensual wickedness, and the vulgar crimes of\nthe multitude, as well as the polished vices of the luxurious classes;\nand was most violently opposed even by those sentiments and habits of\nthought which were esteemed virtuous, such as patriotism and military\nheroism. It encountered not only the ignorance and superstition, but\nthe learning and philosophy, the poetry, eloquence, and art of the time.\nBarbarism and civilization were alike its deadly enemies. The priesthood\nof every established religion and the authority of every government were\narrayed against it. All these, combined together and roused to ferocious\nhostility, were overcome, not by the enticing words of man's wisdom, but\nby the simple presentation of a pure and peaceful doctrine, preached\nby obscure strangers at the daily peril of their lives. Is it Mr.\nIngersoll's idea that this happened by chance, like the creation of the\nworld? If not, there are but two other ways to account for it; either\nthe evidence by which the Apostles were able to prove the supernatural\norigin of the gospel was overwhelming and irresistible, or else its\npropagation was provided for and carried on by the direct aid of the\nDivine Being himself. Between these two, infidelity may make its own\nchoice.\n\nJust here another dilemma presents its horns to our adversary. If\nChristianity was a human fabrication, its authors must have been either\ngood men or bad. It is a moral impossibility—a mere contradiction in\nterms—to say that good, honest, and true men practised a gross and\nwillful deception upon the world. It is equally incredible that any\ncombination of knaves, however base, would fraudulently concoct a\nreligious system to denounce themselves, and to invoke the curse of God\nupon their own conduct. Men that love lies, love not such lies as that.\nIs there any way out of this difficulty, except by confessing that\nChristianity is what it purports to be—a divine revelation?\n\nThe acceptance of Christianity by a large portion of the generation\ncontemporary with its Founder and his apostles was, under the\ncircumstances, an adjudication as solemn and authoritative as mortal\nintelligence could pronounce. The record of that judgment has come down\nto us, accompanied by the depositions of the principal witnesses. In\nthe course of eighteen centuries many efforts have been made to open\nthe judgment or set it aside on the ground that the evidence was\ninsufficient to support it. But on every rehearing the wisdom and virtue\nof mankind have re-affirmed it. And now comes Mr. Ingersoll, to try\nthe experiment of another bold, bitter, and fierce reargument. I will\npresent some of the considerations which would compel me, if I were\na judge or juror in the cause, to decide it just as it was decided\noriginally.\n\nFirst. There is no good reason to doubt that the statements of the\nevangelists, as we have them now, are genuine. The multiplication of\ncopies was a sufficient guarantee against any material alteration of the\ntext. Mr. Ingersoll speaks of interpolations made by the fathers of the\nChurch. All he knows and all he has ever heard on that subject is\nthat some of the innumerable transcripts contained errors which were\ndiscovered and corrected. That simply proves the present integrity of\nthe documents.\n\nSecond. I call these statements depositions, because they are\nentitled to that kind of credence which we give to declarations made\nunder oath—but in a much higher degree, for they are more than sworn\nto. They were made in the immediate prospect of death. Perhaps this\nwould not affect the conscience of an atheist,—neither would an\noath,—but these people manifestly believed in a judgment after death,\nbefore a God of truth, whose displeasure they feared above all things.\n\nThird. The witnesses could not have been mistaken. The nature of the\nfacts precluded the possibility of any delusion about them. For every\naverment they had \"the sensible and true avouch of their own eyes\" and\nears. Besides, they were plain-thinking, sober, unimaginative men, who,\nunlike Mr. Ingersoll, always, under all circumstances, and especially\nin the presence of eternity, recognized the difference between mountains\nand clouds. It is inconceivable how any fact could be proven by evidence\nmore conclusive than the statement of such persons, publicly given and\nsteadfastly persisted in through every kind of persecution, imprisonment\nand torture to the last agonies of a lingering death.\n\nFourth. Apart from these terrible tests, the more ordinary claims to\ncredibility are not wanting. They were men of unimpeachable character.\nThe most virulent enemies of the cause they spoke and died for have\nnever suggested a reason for doubting their personal honesty. But there\nis affirmative proof that they and their fellow-disciples were held by\nthose who knew them in the highest estimation for truthfulness. Wherever\nthey made their report it was not only believed, but believed with a\nfaith so implicit that thousands were ready at once to seal it with\ntheir blood.\n\nFifth. The tone and temper of their narrative impress us with a\nsentiment of profound respect. It is an artless, unimpassioned, simple\nstory. No argument, no rhetoric, no epithets, no praises of friends, no\ndenunciation of enemies, no attempts at concealment. How strongly these\nqualities commend the testimony of a witness to the confidence of judge\nand jury is well known to all who have any experience in such matters.\n\nSixth. The statements made by the evangelists are alike upon every\nimportant point, but are different in form and expression, some of\nthem including details which the others omit. These variations make it\nperfectly certain that there could have been no previous concert\nbetween the witnesses, and that each spoke independently of the\nothers, according to his own conscience and from his own knowledge. In\nconsidering the testimony of several witnesses to the same transaction,\ntheir substantial agreement upon the main facts, with circumstantial\ndifferences in the detail, is always regarded as the great\ncharacteristic of truth and honesty. There is no rule of evidence\nmore universally adopted than this—none better sustained by general\nexperience, or more immovably fixed in the good sense of mankind. Mr.\nIngersoll, himself, admits the rule and concedes its soundness. The\nlogical consequence of that admission is that we are bound to take this\nevidence as incontestably true. But mark the infatuated perversity\nwith which he seeks to evade it. He says that when we claim that the\nwitnesses were inspired, the rule does not apply, because the witnesses\nthen speak what is known to him who inspired them, and all must speak\nexactly the same, even to the minutest detail. Mr. Ingersoll's notion\nof an inspired witness is that he is no witness at all, but an\nirresponsible medium who unconsciously and involuntarily raps out\nor writes down whatever he is prompted to say. But this is a false\nassumption, not countenanced or even suggested by anything contained in\nthe Scriptures. The apostles and evangelists are expressly declared\nto be witnesses, in the proper sense of the word, called and sent to\ntestify the truth according to their knowledge. If they had all told\nthe same story in the same way, without variation, and accounted for its\nuniformity by declaring that they were inspired, and had spoken without\nknowing whether their words were true or false, where would have been\ntheir claim to credibility? But they testified what they knew; and here\ncomes an infidel critic impugning their testimony because the impress of\ntruth is stamped upon its face.\n\nSeventh. It does not appear that the statements of the evangelists\nwere ever denied by any person who pretended to know the facts. Many\nthere were in that age and afterward who resisted the belief that\nJesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and only Saviour of man; but his\nwonderful works, the miraculous purity of his life, the unapproachable\nloftiness of his doctrines, his trial and condemnation by a judge who\npronounced him innocent, his patient suffering, his death on the\ncross, and resurrection from the grave,—of these not the faintest\ncontradiction was attempted, if we except the false and feeble story\nwhich the elders and chief priests bribed the guard at the tomb to put\nin circulation.\n\nEighth. What we call the fundamental truths of Christianity consist\nof great public events which are sufficiently established by history\nwithout special proof. The value of mere historical evidence increases\naccording to the importance of the facts in question, their general\nnotoriety, and the magnitude of their visible consequences. Cornwallis\nsurrendered to Washington at Yorktown, and changed the destiny of Europe\nand America. Nobody would think of calling a witness or even citing an\nofficial report to prove it. Julius Caesar was assassinated. We do not\nneed to prove that fact like an ordinary murder. He was master of the\nworld, and his death was followed by a war with the conspirators, the\nbattle at Philippi, the quarrel of the victorious triumvirs, Actium, and\nthe permanent establishment of imperial government under Augustus. The\nlife and character, the death and resurrection, of Jesus are just as\nvisibly connected with events which even an infidel must admit to be of\nequal importance. The Church rose and armed herself in righteousness for\nconflict with the powers of darkness; innumerable multitudes of the best\nand wisest rallied to her standard and died in her cause; her enemies\nemployed the coarse and vulgar machinery of human government against\nher, and her professors were brutally murdered in large numbers, her\ntriumph was complete; the gods of Greece and Rome crumbled on their\naltars; the world was revolutionized and human society was transformed.\nThe course of these events, and a thousand others, which reach down to\nthe present hour, received its first propulsion from the transcendent\nfact of Christ's crucifixion. Moreover, we find the memorial monuments\nof the original truth planted all along the way. The sacraments of\nbaptism and the supper constantly point us back to the author and\nfinisher of our faith. The mere historical evidence is for these reasons\nmuch stronger than what we have for other occurrences which are regarded\nas undeniable. When to this is added the cumulative evidence given\ndirectly and positively by eye-witnesses of irreproachable character,\nand wholly uncontradicted, the proof becomes so strong that the\ndisbelief we hear of seems like a kind of insanity.\n    \"It is the very error of the moon,\n    Which comes more near the earth than she was wont,\n    And makes men mad!\"\n\nFrom the facts established by this evidence, it follows irresistibly\nthat the Gospel has come to us from God. That silences all reasoning\nabout the wisdom and justice of its doctrines, since it is impossible,\neven to imagine that wrong can be done or commanded by that Sovereign\nBeing whose will alone is the ultimate standard of all justice.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll is still dissatisfied. He raises objections as false,\nfleeting, and baseless as clouds, and insists that they are as stable as\nthe mountains, whose everlasting foundations are laid by the hand of the\nAlmighty. I will compress his propositions into plain words printed in\nitalics, and, taking a look at his misty creations, let them roll away\nand vanish into air, one after another.\n\nChristianity offers eternal salvation as the reward of belief alone.\nThis is a misrepresentation simple and naked. No such doctrine is\npropounded in the Scriptures, or in the creed of any Christian church.\nOn the contrary, it is distinctly taught that faith avails nothing\nwithout repentance, reformation, and newness of life.\n\nThe mere failure to believe it is punished in hell. I have never known\nany Christian man or woman to assert this. It is universally agreed that\nchildren too young to understand it do not need to believe it. And this\nexemption extends to adults who have never seen the evidence, or, from\nweakness of intellect, are incapable of weighing it. Lunatics and idiots\nare not in the least danger, and for aught I know, this category may, by\na stretch of God's mercy, include minds constitutionally sound, but with\nfaculties so perverted by education, habit, or passion that they are\nincapable of reasoning. I sincerely hope that, upon this or some other\nprinciple, Mr. Ingersoll may escape the hell he talks about so much. But\nthere is no direct promise to save him in spite of himself. The plan\nof redemption contains no express covenant to pardon one who rejects\nit with scorn and hatred. Our hope for him rests upon the infinite\ncompassion of that gracious Being who prayed on the cross for the\ninsulting enemies who nailed him there.\n\nThe mystery of the second birth is incomprehensible. Christ\nestablished a new kingdom in the world, but not of it. Subjects were\nadmitted to the privileges and protection of its government by a process\nequivalent to naturalization. To be born again, or regenerated is to be\nnaturalized. The words all mean the same thing. Does Mr. Ingersoll want\nto disgrace his own intellect by pretending that he cannot see this\nsimple analogy?\n\nThe doctrine of the atonement is absurd, unjust, and immoral. The\nplan of salvation, or any plan for the rescue of sinners from the legal\noperation of divine justice, could have been framed only in the councils\nof the Omniscient. Necessarily its heights and depths are not easily\nfathomed by finite intelligence. But the greatest, ablest, wisest,\nand most virtuous men that ever lived have given it their profoundest\nconsideration, and found it to be not only authorized by revelation,\nbut theoretically conformed to their best and highest conceptions of\ninfinite goodness. Nevertheless, here is a rash and superficial man,\nwithout training or habits of reflection, who, upon a mere glance,\ndeclares that it \"must be abandoned,\" because it seems to him \"absurd,\nunjust, and immoral.\" I would not abridge his freedom of thought or\nspeech, and the argumentum ad verecundiam would be lost upon him.\nOtherwise I might suggest that, when he finds all authority, human and\ndivine, against him, he had better speak in a tone less arrogant.\n\n_He does not comprehend how justice and mercy can be blended together in\nthe plan of redemption, and therefore it cannot be true_. A thing is\nnot necessarily false because he does not understand it: he cannot\nannihilate a principle or a fact by ignoring it. There are many truths\nin heaven and earth which no man can see through; for instance, the\nunion of man's soul with his body, is not only an unknowable but an\nunimaginable mystery. Is it therefore false that a connection does exist\nbetween matter and spirit?\n\n_How, he asks, can the sufferings of an innocent person satisfy justice\nfor the sins of the guilty?_ This raises a metaphysical question, which\nit is not necessary or possible for me to discuss here. As matter of\nfact, Christ died that sinners might be reconciled to God, and in that\nsense he died for them; that is, to furnish them with the means of\naverting divine justice, which their crimes had provoked..\n\n_What, he again asks, would we think of a man who allowed another to die\nfor a crime which he himself had committed?_ I answer that a man who, by\nany contrivance, causes his own offence to be visited upon the head of\nan innocent person is unspeakably depraved. But are Christians guilty of\nthis baseness because they accept the blessings of an institution which\ntheir great benefactor died to establish? Loyalty to the King who\nhas erected a most beneficent government for us at the cost of his\nlife—fidelity to the Master who bought us with his blood—is not the\nfraudulent substitution of an innocent person in place of a criminal.\n\n_The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of injuries, reconciliation\nwith enemies, as taught in the New Testament, is the child of weakness,\ndegrading and unjust_. This is the whole substance of a long, rambling\ndiatribe, as incoherent as a sick man's dream. Christianity does not\nforbid the necessary defense of civil society, or the proper vindication\nof personal rights. But to cherish animosity, to thirst for mere\nrevenge, to hoard up wrongs, real or fancied, and lie in wait for the\nchance of paying them back; to be impatient, unforgiving, malicious,\nand cruel to all who have crossed us—these diabolical propensities\nare checked and curbed by the authority and spirit of the Christian\nreligion, and the application of it has converted men from low savages\ninto refined and civilized beings.\n\nThe punishment of sinners in eternal hell is excessive. The future of\nthe soul is a subject on which we have very dark views. In our present\nstate, the mind takes no idea except what is conveyed to it through the\nbodily senses. All our conceptions of the spiritual world are derived\nfrom some analogy to material things, and this analogy must necessarily\nbe very remote, because the nature of the subjects compared is so\ndiverse that a close similarity cannot be even supposed. No revelation\nhas lifted the veil between time and eternity; but in shadowy figures we\nare warned that a very marked distinction will be made between the\ngood and the bad in the next world. Speculative opinions concerning the\npunishment of the wicked, its nature and duration, vary with the temper\nand the imaginations of men. Doubtless we are many of us in error; but\nhow can Mr. Ingersoll enlighten us? Acknowledge ing no standard of\nright and wrong in this world, he can have no theory of rewards and\npunishments in the next. The deeds done in the body, whether good or\nevil, are all morally alike in his eyes, and if there be in heaven a\ncongregation of the just, he sees no reason why the worst rogue should\nnot be a member of it. It is supposed, however, that man has a soul as\nwell as a body, and that both are subject to certain laws, which cannot\nbe violated without incurring the proper penalty—or consequence, if he\nlikes that word better.\n\n_If Christ was God, he knew that his followers would persecute and\nmurder men for their opinions; yet he did not forbid it_. There is\nbut one way to deal with this accusation, and that is to contradict it\nflatly. Nothing can be conceived more striking than the prohibition, not\nonly of persecution, but of all the passions which lead or incite to\nit. No follower of Christ indulges in malice even to his enemy without\nviolating the plainest rule of his faith. He cannot love God and hate\nhis brother: if he says he can, St. John pronounces him a liar. The\nbroadest benevolence, universal philanthropy, inexhaustible charity,\nare inculcated in every line of the New Testament. It is plain that\nMr. Ingersoll never read a chapter of it; otherwise he would not have\nventured upon this palpable falsification of its doctrines. Who told him\nthat the devilish spirit of persecution was authorized, or encouraged,\nor not forbidden, by the Gospel? The person, whoever it was, who imposed\nupon his trusting ignorance should be given up to the just reprobation\nof his fellow-citizens.\n\n_Christians in modern times carry on wars of detraction and slander\nagainst one another_. The discussions of theological subjects by men who\nbelieve in the fundamental doctrines of Christ are singularly free from\nharshness and abuse. Of course I cannot speak with absolute certainty,\nbut I believe most confidently that there is not in all the religious\npolemics of this century as much slanderous invective as can be found\nin any ten lines of Mr. Ingersoll's writings. Of course I do not include\npolitical preachers among my models of charity and forbearance. They\nare a mendacious set, but Christianity is no more responsible for their\nmisconduct than it is for the treachery of Judas Iscariot or the wrongs\ndone to Paul by Alexander the coppersmith.\n\n_But, says he, Christians have been guilty of wanton and wicked\nPersecution_. It is true that some persons, professing Christianity,\nhave violated the fundamental principles of their faith by inflicting\nviolent injuries and bloody wrongs upon their fellow-men. But the\nperpetrators of these outrages were in fact not Christians: they were\neither hypocrites from the beginning or else base apostates—infidels or\nsomething worse—hireling wolves, whose gospel was their maw. Not one of\nthem ever pretended to find a warrant for his conduct in any precept\nof Christ or any doctrine of his Church. All the wrongs of this nature\nwhich history records have been the work of politicians, aided often by\npriests and ministers who were willing to deny their Lord and desert to\nthe enemy, for the sake of their temporal interests. Take the cases most\ncommonly cited and see if this be not a true account of them. The\nauto da fe of Spain and Portugal, the burnings at Smithfield, and the\nwhipping of women in Massachusetts, were the outcome of a cruel, false,\nand antichristian policy. Coligny and his adherents were killed by\nan order of Charles IX., at the instance of the Guises, who headed a\nhostile faction, and merely for reasons of state. Louis XIV. revoked the\nedict of Nantes, and banished the Waldenses under pain of confiscation\nand death; but this was done on the declared ground that the victims\nwere not safe subjects. The brutal atrocities of Cromwell and the\noutrages of the Orange lodges against the Irish Catholics were not\npersecutions by religious people, but movements as purely political as\nthose of the Know-Nothings, Plug-Uglys, and Blood-Tubs of this country.\nIf the Gospel should be blamed for these acts in opposition to its\nprinciples, why not also charge it with the cruelties of Nero, or the\npresent persecution of the Jesuits by the infidel republic of France?\n\nChristianity is opposed to freedom of thought. The kingdom of Christ\nis based upon certain principles, to which it requires the assent of\nevery one who would enter therein. If you are unwilling to own his\nauthority and conform your moral conduct to his laws, you cannot\nexpect that he will admit you to the privileges of his government. But\nnaturalization is not forced upon you if you prefer to be an alien. The\nGospel makes the strongest and tenderest appeal to the heart, reason,\nand conscience of man—entreats him to take thought for his own highest\ninterest, and by all its moral influence provokes him to good works;\nbut he is not constrained by any kind of duress to leave the service or\nrelinquish the wages of sin. Is there anything that savors of tyranny in\nthis? A man of ordinary judgment will say, no. But Mr. Ingersoll thinks\nit as oppressive as the refusal of Jehovah to reward the worship of\ndemons.\n\nThe gospel of Christ does not satisfy the hunger of the heart.\nThat depends upon what kind of a heart it is. If it hungers after\nrighteousness, it will surely be filled. It is probable, also, that if\nit hungers for the filthy food of a godless philosophy it will get what\nits appetite demands. That was an expressive phrase which Carlyle used\nwhen he called modern infidelity \"the gospel of dirt.\" Those who are\ngreedy to swallow it will doubless be supplied satisfactorily.\n\nAccounts of miracles are always false. Are miracles impossible? No one\nwill say so who opens his eyes to the miracles of creation with which\nwe are surrounded on every hand. You cannot even show that they are\na priori improbable. God would be likely to reveal his will to the\nrational creatures who were required to obey it; he would authenticate\nin some way the right of prophets and apostles to speak in his name;\nsupernatural power was the broad seal which he affixed to their\ncommission. From this it follows that the improbability of a miracle is\nno greater than the original improbability of a revelation, and that is\nnot improbable at all. Therefore, if the miracles of the New Testament\nare proved by sufficient evidence, we believe them as we believe any\nother established fact. They become deniable only when it is shown that\nthe great miracle of making the world was never performed. Accordingly\nMr. Ingersoll abolishes creation first, and thus clears the way to his\ndogmatic conclusion that all miracles are \"the children of mendacity.\"\n\n_Christianity is pernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind,\nnarrows the soul, arrests the progress of human society, and hinders\ncivilization_. Mr. Ingersoll, as a zealous apostle of \"the gospel of\ndirt,\" must be expected to throw a good deal of mud. But this is too\nmuch: it injures himself instead of defiling the object of his assault.\nWhen I answer that all we have of virtue, justice, intellectual liberty,\nmoral elevation, refinement, benevolence, and true wisdom came to us\nfrom that source which he reviles as the fountain of evil, I am\nnot merely putting one assertion against the other; for I have\nthe advantage, which he has not, of speaking what every tolerably\nwell-informed man knows to be true. Reflect what kind of a world this\nwas when the disciples of Christ undertook to reform it, and compare it\nwith the condition in which their teachings have put it. In its mighty\nmetropolis, the center of its intellectual and political power, the best\nmen were addicted to vices so debasing that I could not even allude to\nthem without soiling the paper I write upon. All manner of unprincipled\nwickedness was practiced in the private life of the whole population\nwithout concealment or shame, and the magistrates were thoroughly and\nuniversally corrupt. Benevolence in any shape was altogether unknown.\nThe helpless and the weak got neither justice nor mercy. There was\nno relief for the poor, no succor for the sick, no refuge for the\nunfortunate. In all pagandom there was not a hospital, asylum,\nalmshouse, or organized charity of any sort. The indifference to human\nlife was literally frightful. The order of a successful leader to\nassassinate his opponents was always obeyed by his followers with the\nutmost alacrity and pleasure. It was a special amusement of the populace\nto witness the shows at which men were compelled to kill one another,\nto be torn in pieces by wild beasts, or otherwise \"butchered, to make a\nRoman holiday.\" In every province paganism enacted the same cold-blooded\ncruelties; oppression and robbery ruled supreme; murder went rampaging\nand red over all the earth. The Church came, and her light penetrated\nthis moral darkness like a new sun. She covered the globe with\ninstitutions of mercy, and thousands upon thousands of her disciples\ndevoted themselves exclusively to works of charity at the sacrifice\nof every earthly interest. Her earliest adherents were killed without\nremorse—beheaded, crucified, sawn asunder, thrown to the beasts, or\ncovered with pitch, piled up in great heaps, and slowly burnt to death.\nBut her faith was made perfect through suffering, and the law of love\nrose in triumph from the ashes of her martyrs. This religion has come\ndown to us through the ages, attended all the way by righteousness,\njustice, temperance, mercy, transparent truthfulness, exulting hope,\nand white-winged charity. Never was its influence for good more plainly\nperceptible than now. It has not converted, purified, and reformed all\nmen, for its first principle is the freedom of the human will, and there\nare those who choose to reject it. But to the mass of mankind, directly\nand indirectly, it has brought uncounted benefits and blessings. Abolish\nit—take away the restraints which it imposes on evil passions—silence\nthe admonitions of its preachers—let all Christians cease their\nlabors of charity—blot out from history the records of its heroic\nbenevolence—repeal the laws it has enacted and the institutions it has\nbuilt up—let its moral principles be abandoned and all its miracles\nof light be extinguished—what would we come to? I need not answer this\nquestion: the experiment has been partially tried. The French nation\nformally renounced Christianity, denied the existence of the Supreme\nBeing, and so satisfied the hunger of the infidel heart for a time.\nWhat followed? Universal depravity, garments rolled in blood, fantastic\ncrimes unimagined before, which startled the earth with their sublime\natrocity. The American people have and ought to have no special desire\nto follow that terrible example of guilt and misery.\n\nIt is impossible to discuss this subject within the limits of a review.\nNo doubt the effort to be short has made me obscure. If Mr. Ingersoll\nthinks himself wronged, or his doctrines misconstrued, let him not lay\nmy fault at the door of the Church, or cast his censure on the clergy.\n\n\"Adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum.\"\n\nJ. S. Black.\n\nThe Christian Religion, by Robert G. Ingersoll\n\nIII.\n\n\"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do, in\norder to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and religious\nfolly.\" Kant.\n\n\"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do, in\norder to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and religious\nfolly.\" Kant.\n\nSEVERAL months ago, The North American Review asked me to write an\narticle, saying that it would be published if some one would furnish a\nreply. I wrote the article that appeared in the August number, and by\nme it was entitled \"Is All of the Bible Inspired?\" Not until the\narticle was written did I know who was expected to answer. I make this\nexplanation for the purpose of dissipating the impression that Mr. Black\nhad been challenged by me. To have struck his shield with my lance might\nhave given birth to the impression that I was somewhat doubtful as to\nthe correctness of my position. I naturally expected an answer from some\nprofessional theologian, and was surprised to find that a reply had been\nwritten by a \"policeman,\" who imagined that he had answered my arguments\nby simply telling me that my statements were false. It is somewhat\nunfortunate that in a discussion like this any one should resort to the\nslightest personal detraction. The theme is great enough to engage the\nhighest faculties of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a\nsubject vituperation is singularly and vulgarly out of place. Arguments\ncannot be answered with insults. It is unfortunate that the intellectual\narena should be entered by a \"policeman,\" who has more confidence in\nconcussion than discussion. Kindness is strength. Good-nature is often\nmistaken for virtue, and good health sometimes passes for genius.\nAnger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and\nimportant question, every one should be serene, slow-pulsed, and calm.\nIntelligence is not the foundation of arrogance. Insolence is not logic.\nEpithets are the arguments of malice. Candor is the courage of the soul.\nLeaving the objectionable portions of Mr. Black's reply, feeling that so\ngrand a subject should not be blown and tainted with malicious words, I\nproceed to answer as best I may the arguments he has urged.\n\nI am made to say that \"the universe is natural\"; that \"it came into\nbeing of its own accord\"; that \"it made its own laws at the start, and\nafterward improved itself considerably by spontaneous evolution.\"\n\nI did say that \"the universe is natural,\" but I did not say that \"it\ncame into being of its own accord\"; neither did I say that \"it made its\nown laws and afterward improved itself.\" The universe, according to my\nidea, is, always was, and forever will be. It did not \"come into being,\"\nit is the one eternal being,—the only thing that ever did, does, or can\nexist. It did not \"make its own laws.\" We know nothing of what we\ncall the laws of nature except as we gather the idea of law from the\nuniformity of phenomena springing from like conditions. To make myself\nclear: Water always runs down-hill. The theist says that this happens\nbecause there is behind the phenomenon an active law. As a matter\nof fact, law is this side of the phenomenon. Law does not cause the\nphenomenon, but the phenomenon causes the idea of law in our minds; and\nthis idea is produced from the fact that under like circumstances the\nsame phenomenon always happens. Mr. Black probably thinks that the\ndifference in the weight of rocks and clouds was created by law; that\nparallel lines fail to unite only because it is illegal that diameter\nand circumference could have been so made that it would be a greater\ndistance across than around a circle; that a straight line could enclose\na triangle if not prevented by law, and that a little legislation could\nmake it possible for two bodies to occupy the same space at the same\ntime. It seems to me that law cannot be the cause of phenomena, but is\nan effect produced in our minds by their succession and resemblance.\nTo put a God back of the universe, compels us to admit that there was a\ntime when nothing existed except this God; that this God had lived from\neternity in an infinite vacuum, and in absolute idleness. The mind of\nevery thoughtful man is forced to one of these two conclusions:\neither that the universe is self-existent, or that it was created by a\nself-existent being. To my mind, there are far more difficulties in the\nsecond hypothesis than in the first.\n\nOf course, upon a question like this, nothing can be absolutely known.\nWe live on an atom called Earth, and what we know of the infinite is\nalmost infinitely limited; but, little as we know, all have an equal\nright to give their honest thought. Life is a shadowy, strange,\nand winding road on which we travel for a little way—a few short\nsteps—-just from the cradle, with its lullaby of love, to the low and\nquiet way-side inn, where all at last must sleep, and where the only\nsalutation is—Good-night.\n\nI know as little as any one else about the \"plan\" of the universe; and\nas to the \"design,\" I know just as little. It will not do to say that\nthe universe was designed, and therefore there must be a designer. There\nmust first be proof that it was \"designed.\" It will not do to say that\nthe universe has a \"plan,\" and then assert that there must have been an\ninfinite maker. The idea that a design must have a beginning and that a\ndesigner need not, is a simple expression of human ignorance. We find\na watch, and we say: \"So curious and wonderful a thing must have had a\nmaker.\" We find the watch-maker, and we say: \"So curious and wonderful\na thing as man must have had a maker.\" We find God, and we then say: \"He\nis so wonderful that he must not have had a maker.\" In other words,\nall things a little wonderful must have been created, but it is possible\nfor something to be so wonderful that it always existed. One would\nsuppose that just as the wonder increased the necessity for a creator\nincreased, because it is the wonder of the thing that suggests the idea\nof creation. Is it possible that a designer exists from all eternity\nwithout design? Was there no design in having an infinite designer? For\nme, it is hard to see the plan or design in earthquakes and pestilences.\nIt is somewhat difficult to discern the design or the benevolence in so\nmaking the world that billions of animals live only on the agonies of\nothers. The justice of God is not visible to me in the history of this\nworld. When I think of the suffering and death, of the poverty and\ncrime, of the cruelty and malice, of the heartlessness of this \"design\"\nand \"plan,\" where beak and claw and tooth tear and rend the quivering\nflesh of weakness and despair, I cannot convince myself that it is the\nresult of infinite wisdom, benevolence, and justice.\n\nMost Christians have seen and recognized this difficulty, and have\nendeavored to avoid it by giving God an opportunity in another world\nto rectify the seeming mistakes of this. Mr. Black, however, avoids the\nentire question by saying: \"We have neither jurisdiction nor capacity to\nrejudge the justice of God.\" In other words, we have no right to think\nupon this subject, no right to examine the questions most vitally\naffecting human kind. We are simply to accept the ignorant statements of\nbarbarian dead. This question cannot be settled by saying that \"it would\nbe a mere waste of time and space to enumerate the proofs which show\nthat the Universe was created by a preexistent and self-conscious\nBeing.\" The time and space should have been \"wasted,\" and the proofs\nshould have been enumerated. These \"proofs\" are what the wisest and\ngreatest are trying to find. Logic is not satisfied with assertion.\nIt cares nothing for the opinions of the \"great,\"—nothing for the\nprejudices of the many, and least of all for the superstitions of the\ndead. In the world of Science, a fact is a legal tender. Assertions and\nmiracles are base and spurious coins. We have the right to rejudge the\njustice even of a god. No one should throw away his reason—the fruit\nof all experience. It is the intellectual capital of the soul, the only\nlight, the only guide, and without it the brain becomes the palace of an\nidiot king, attended by a retinue of thieves and hypocrites.\n\nOf course it is admitted that most of the Ten Commandments are wise and\njust. In passing, it may be well enough to say, that the commandment,\n\"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of\nanything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or\nthat is in the water under the earth,\" was the absolute death of Art,\nand that not until after the destruction of Jerusalem was there a Hebrew\npainter or sculptor. Surely a commandment is not inspired that drives\nfrom the earth the living canvas and the breathing stone—leaves all\nwalls bare and all the niches desolate. In the tenth commandment we find\nwoman placed on an exact equality with other property, which, to say the\nleast of it, has never tended to the amelioration of her condition.\n\nA very curious thing about these commandments is that their supposed\nauthor violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the account,\nhe said: \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and yet he ordered the murder of\nmillions; \"Thou shalt not commit adultery,\" and yet he gave captured\nmaidens to gratify the lust of captors; \"Thou shalt not steal,\" and yet\nhe gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and herds of others; \"Thou shalt\nnot covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife,\" and yet he allowed his\nchosen people to destroy the homes of neighbors and to steal their\nwives; \"Honor thy father and thy mother,\" and yet this same God had\nthousands of fathers butchered, and with the sword of war killed\nchildren yet unborn; \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy\nneighbor,\" and yet he sent abroad \"lying spirits\" to deceive his own\nprophets, and in a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit. So far as we\nknow, Jehovah kept only one of these commandments—he worshiped no other\ngod.\n\nThe religious intolerance of the Old Testament is justified upon the\nground that \"blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance,\" that\n\"idolatry was an act of overt treason,\" and that \"to worship the gods\nof the hostile heathen was deserting to the public enemy, and giving him\naid and comfort.\" According to Mr. Black, we should all have liberty of\nconscience except when directly governed by God. In that country where\nGod is king, liberty cannot exist. In this position, I admit that he\nis upheld and fortified by the \"sacred\" text. Within the Old Testament\nthere is no such thing as religious toleration. Within that volume can\nbe found no mercy for an unbeliever. For all who think for themselves,\nthere are threatenings, curses, and anathemas. Think of an infinite\nbeing who is so cruel, so unjust, that he will not allow one of his own\nchildren the liberty of thought! Think of an infinite God acting as the\ndirect governor of a people, and yet not able to command their love!\nThink of the author of all mercy imbruing his hands in the blood of\nhelpless men, women, and children, simply because he did not furnish\nthem with intelligence enough to understand his law! An earthly father\nwho cannot govern by affection is not fit to be a father; what,\nthen, shall we say of an infinite being who resorts to violence, to\npestilence, to disease, and famine, in the vain effort to obtain even\nthe respect of a savage? Read this passage, red from the heart of\ncruelty:\n\n\"_If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods which thou hast\nnot known, thou nor thy fathers,... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor\nhearken unto him, neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou\nspare, neither shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him;\nthine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards\nthe hand of all the people; and thou shalt stone him with stones, that\nhe die_.\"\n\nThis is the religious liberty of the Bible. If you had lived in\nPalestine, and if the wife of your bosom, dearer to you than your\nown soul, had said: \"I like the religion of India better than that of\nPalestine,\" it would have been your duty to kill her.\n\n\"Your eye must not pity her, your hand must be first upon her, and\nafterwards the hand of all the people.\" If she had said: \"Let us worship\nthe sun—the sun that clothes the earth in garments of green—the\nsun, the great fireside of the world—the sun that covers the hills and\nvalleys with flowers—that gave me your face, and made it possible for\nme to look into the eyes of my babe—let us worship the sun,\" it was\nyour duty to kill her. You must throw the first stone, and when against\nher bosom—a bosom filled with love for you—you had thrown the jagged\nand cruel rock, and had seen the red stream of her life oozing from\nthe dumb lips of death, you could then look up and receive the\ncongratulations of the God whose commandment you had obeyed. Is it\npossible that a being of infinite mercy ordered a husband to kill his\nwife for the crime of having expressed an opinion on the subject of\nreligion? Has there been found upon the records of the savage world\nanything more perfectly fiendish than this commandment of Jehovah? This\nis justified on the ground that \"blasphemy was a breach of political\nallegiance, and idolatry an act of overt treason.\" We can understand\nhow a human king stands in need of the service of his people. We can\nunderstand how the desertion of any of his soldiers weakens his army;\nbut were the king infinite in power, his strength would still remain the\nsame, and under no conceivable circumstances could the enemy triumph.\n\nI insist that, if there is an infinitely good and wise God, he beholds\nwith pity the misfortunes of his children. I insist that such a God\nwould know the mists, the clouds, the darkness enveloping the human\nmind. He would know how few stars are visible in the intellectual sky.\nHis pity, not his wrath, would be excited by the efforts of his\nblind children, groping in the night to find the cause of things, and\nendeavoring, through their tears, to see some dawn of hope. Filled with\nawe by their surroundings, by fear of the unknown, he would know that\nwhen, kneeling, they poured out their gratitude to some unseen power,\neven to a visible idol, it was, in fact, intended for him. An infinitely\ngood being, had he the power, would answer the reasonable prayer of an\nhonest savage, even when addressed to wood and stone.\n\nThe atrocities of the Old Testament, the threatenings, maledictions, and\ncurses of the \"inspired book,\" are defended on the ground that the Jews\nhad a right to treat their enemies as their enemies treated them; and\nin this connection is this remarkable statement: \"In your treatment\nof hostile barbarians you not only may lawfully, you must necessarily,\nadopt their mode of warfare. If they come to conquer you, they may be\nconquered by you; if they give no quarter, they are entitled to none; if\nthe death of your whole population be their purpose, you may defeat it\nby exterminating theirs.\"\n\nFor a man who is a \"Christian policeman,\" and has taken upon himself to\ndefend the Christian religion; for one who follows the Master who said\nthat when smitten on one cheek you must turn the other, and who again\nand again enforced the idea that you must overcome evil with good, it is\nhardly consistent to declare that a civilized nation must of necessity\nadopt the warfare of savages. Is it possible that in fighting, for\ninstance, the Indians of America, if they scalp our soldiers we should\nscalp theirs? If they ravish, murder, and mutilate our wives, must we\ntreat theirs in the same manner? If they kill the babes in our cradles,\nmust we brain theirs? If they take our captives, bind them to the trees,\nand if their squaws fill their quivering flesh with sharpened fagots and\nset them on fire, that they may die clothed with flame, must our wives,\nour mothers, and our daughters follow the fiendish example? Is this the\nconclusion of the most enlightened Christianity? Will the pulpits of the\nUnited States adopt the arguments of this \"policeman\"? Is this the last\nand most beautiful blossom of the Sermon on the Mount? Is this the echo\nof \"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do\"?\n\nMr. Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest because the\nAmerican people fought for the integrity of their own country; fought to\ndo away with the infamous institution of slavery; fought to preserve the\njewels of liberty and justice for themselves and for their children.\nIs it possible that his mind is so clouded by political and religious\nprejudice, by the recollections of an unfortunate administration,\nthat he sees no difference between a war of extermination and one of\nself-preservation? that he sees no choice between the murder of helpless\nage, of weeping women and of sleeping babes, and the defence of liberty\nand nationality?\n\nThe soldiers of the Republic did not wage a war of extermination. They\ndid not seek to enslave their fellow-men. They did not murder trembling\nage. They did not sheathe their swords in women's breasts. They gave\nthe old men bread, and let the mothers rock their babes in peace.\nThey fought to save the world's great hope—to free a race and put the\nhumblest hut beneath the canopy of liberty and law.\n\nClaiming neither praise nor dispraise for the part taken by me in the\nCivil war, for the purposes of this argument, it is sufficient to say\nthat I am perfectly willing that my record, poor and barren as it is,\nshould be compared with his.\n\nNever for an instant did I suppose that any respectable American citizen\ncould be found willing at this day to defend the institution of slavery;\nand never was I more astonished than when I found Mr. Black denying that\ncivilized countries passionately assert that slavery is and always was\na hideous crime. I was amazed when he declared that \"the doctrine that\nslavery is a crime under all circumstances and at all times was first\nstarted by the adherents of a political faction in this country less\nthan forty years ago.\" He tells us that \"they denounced God and Christ\nfor not agreeing with them,\" but that \"they did not constitute the\ncivilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very\nrespectable portion of it. Politically they were successful; I need not\nsay by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of the country.\"\n\nSlavery held both branches of Congress, filled the chair of the\nExecutive, sat upon the Supreme Bench, had in its hands all rewards, all\noffices; knelt in the pew, occupied the pulpit, stole human beings in\nthe name of God, robbed the trundle-bed for love of Christ; incited\nmobs, led ignorance, ruled colleges, sat in the chairs of professors,\ndominated the public press, closed the lips of free speech, and\npolluted with its leprous hand every source and spring of power. The\nabolitionists attacked this monster. They were the bravest, grandest\nmen of their country and their century. Denounced by thieves, hated\nby hypocrites, mobbed by cowards, slandered by priests, shunned by\npoliticians, abhorred by the seekers of office,—these men \"of whom the\nworld was not worthy,\" in spite of all opposition, in spite of poverty\nand want, conquered innumerable obstacles, never faltering for one\nmoment, never dismayed—accepting defeat with a smile born of infinite\nhope—knowing that they were right—insisted and persisted until every\nchain was broken, until slave-pens became schoolhouses, and three\nmillions of slaves became free men, women, and children. They did not\nmeasure with \"the golden metewand of God,\" but with \"the elastic cord of\nhuman feeling.\" They were men the latchets of whose shoes no believer\nin human slavery was ever worthy to unloose. And yet we are told by\nthis modern defender of the slavery of Jehovah that they were not even\nrespectable; and this slander is justified because the writer is assured\n\"that the infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when he authorized\nslavery in Judea.\"\n\nNot satisfied with having slavery in this world, Mr. Black assures us\nthat it will last through all eternity, and that forever and forever\ninferiors must be subordinated to superiors. Who is the superior man?\nAccording to Mr. Black, he is superior who lives upon the unpaid labor\nof the inferior. With me, the superior man is the one who uses his\nsuperiority in bettering the condition of the inferior. The superior man\nis strength for the weak, eyes for the blind, brains for the simple;\nhe is the one who helps carry the burden that nature has put upon the\ninferior. Any man who helps another to gain and retain his liberty is\nsuperior to any infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea. For my\npart, I would rather be the slave than the master. It is better to be\nrobbed than to be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a\nthief.\n\nAccording to Mr. Black, there will be slavery in heaven, and fast by\nthe throne of God will be the auction-block, and the streets of the New\nJerusalem will be adorned with the whipping post, while the music of\nthe harp will be supplemented by the crack of the driver's whip. If some\ngood Republican would catch Mr. Black, \"incorporate him into his family,\ntame him, teach him to think, and give him a knowledge of the true\nprinciples of human liberty and government, he would confer upon him a\nmost beneficent boon.\"\n\nSlavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of the\nkidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer, and hypocrite. It degrades labor and\ncorrupts leisure. To lacerate the naked back, to sell wives, to steal\nbabes, to breed bloodhounds, to debauch your own soul—this is slavery.\nThis is what Jehovah \"authorized in Judea.\" This is what Mr. Black\nbelieves in still. He \"measures with the golden metewand of God.\" I\nabhor slavery. With me, liberty is not merely a means—it is an end.\nWithout that word, all other words are empty sounds.\n\nMr. Black is too late with his protest against the freedom of his\nfellow-man. Liberty is making the tour of the world. Russia has\nemancipated her serfs; the slave trade is prosecuted only by thieves and\npirates; Spain feels upon her cheek the burning blush of shame; Brazil\nwith proud and happy eyes is looking for the dawn of freedom's day; the\npeople of the South rejoice that slavery is no more, and every good and\nhonest man (excepting Mr. Black), of every land and clime, hopes that\nthe limbs of men will never feel again the weary weight of chains.\n\nWe are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded nor\nprohibited in the Old Testament—that it is only \"discouraged.\" It seems\nto me that a little legislation on that subject might have tended to its\n\"discouragement.\" But where is the legislation? In the moral code, which\nMr. Black assures us \"consists of certain immutable rules to govern the\nconduct of all men at all times and at all places in their private and\npersonal relations with others,\" not one word is found on the subject of\npolygamy. There is nothing \"discouraging\" in the Ten Commandments, nor\nin the records of any conversation Jehovah is claimed to have had with\nMoses upon Sinai. The life of Abraham, the story of Jacob and Laban,\nthe duty of a brother to be the husband of the widow of his deceased\nbrother, the life of David, taken in connection with the practice of\none who is claimed to have been the wisest of men—all these things are\nprobably relied on to show that polygamy was at least \"discouraged.\"\nCertainly, Jehovah had time to instruct Moses as to the infamy of\npolygamy. He could have spared a few moments from a description of the\npatterns of tongs and basins, for a subject so important as this. A\nfew words in favor of the one wife and the one husband—in favor of the\nvirtuous and loving home—might have taken the place of instructions\nas to cutting the garments of priests and fashioning candlesticks and\nouches of gold. If he had left out simply the order that rams' skins\nshould be dyed red, and in its place had said, \"A man shall have but one\nwife, and the wife but one husband,\" how much better would it have been.\n\nAll the languages of the world are not sufficient to express the filth\nof polygamy. It makes man a beast, and woman a slave. It destroys the\nfireside and makes virtue an outcast. It takes us back to the barbarism\nof animals, and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy\nserpents of most loathsome lust. And yet Mr. Black insists that we owe\nto the Bible the present elevation of woman. Where will he find in the\nOld Testament the rights of wife, and mother, and daughter defined?\nEven in the New Testament she is told to \"learn in silence, with all\nsubjection;\" that she \"is not suffered to teach, nor to usurp any\nauthority over the man, but to be in silence.\" She is told that \"the\nhead of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the\nhead of Christ is God.\" In other words, there is the same difference\nbetween the wife and husband that there is between the husband and\nChrist.\n\nThe reasons given for this infamous doctrine are that \"Adam was first\nformed, and then Eve;\" that \"Adam was not deceived,\" but that \"the woman\nbeing deceived, was in the transgression.\" These childish reasons are\nthe only ones given by the inspired writers. We are also told that \"a\nman, indeed, ought to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and\nglory of God;\" but that \"the woman is the glory of the man,\" and this is\njustified from the fact, and the remarkable fact, set forth in the very\nnext verse—that \"the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the\nman.\" And the same gallant apostle says: \"Neither was the man created\nfor the woman, but the woman for the man;\" \"Wives, submit yourselves\nunto your husbands as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the\nwife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the savior of\nthe body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the\nwives be subject to their own husbands in everything.\" These are the\npassages that have liberated woman!\n\nAccording to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had to be\npurified, for the crime of having borne sons and daughters. If in this\nworld there is a figure of perfect purity, it is a mother holding in her\nthrilled and happy arms her child. The doctrine that woman is the slave,\nor serf, of man—whether it comes from heaven or from hell, from God or\na demon, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem or from the very\nSodom of perdition—is savagery, pure and simple.\n\nIn no country in the world had women less liberty than in the Holy Land,\nand no monarch held in less esteem the rights of wives and mothers than\nJehovah of the Jews. The position of woman was far better in Egypt than\nin Palestine. Before the pyramids were built, the sacred songs of Isis\nwere sung by women, and women with pure hands had offered sacrifices to\nthe gods. Before Moses was born, women had sat upon the Egyptian throne.\nUpon ancient tombs the husband and wife are represented as seated in\nthe same chair. In Persia women were priests, and in some of the oldest\ncivilizations \"they were reverenced on earth, and worshiped afterward\nas goddesses in heaven.\" At the advent of Christianity, in all pagan\ncountries women officiated at the sacred altars. They guarded the\neternal fire. They kept the sacred books. From their lips came the\noracles of fate. Under the domination of the Christian Church, woman\nbecame the merest slave for at least a thousand years. It was claimed\nthat through woman the race had fallen, and that her loving kiss had\npoisoned all the springs of life. Christian priests asserted that but\nfor her crime the world would have been an Eden still. The ancient\nfathers exhausted their eloquence in the denunciation of woman, and\nrepeated again and again the slander of St. Paul. The condition of woman\nhas improved just in proportion that man has lost confidence in the\ninspiration of the Bible.\n\nFor the purpose of defending the character of his infallible God, Mr.\nBlack is forced to defend religious intolerance, wars of extermination,\nhuman slavery, and almost polygamy. He admits that God established\nslavery; that he commanded his chosen people to buy the children of the\nheathen; that heathen fathers and mothers did right to sell their girls\nand boys; that God ordered the Jews to wage wars of extermination and\nconquest; that it was right to kill the old and young; that God forged\nmanacles for the human brain; that he commanded husbands to murder their\nwives for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon; and that every\ncruel, savage passage in the Old Testament was inspired by him. Such is\na \"policeman's\" view of God.\n\nWill Mr. Black have the kindness to state a few of his objections to the\ndevil?\n\nMr. Black should have answered my arguments, instead of calling me\n\"blasphemous\" and \"scurrilous.\" In the discussion of these questions\nI have nothing to do with the reputation of my opponent. His character\nthrows no light on the subject, and is to me a matter of perfect\nindifference. Neither will it do for one who enters the lists as the\nchampion of revealed religion to say that \"we have no right to rejudge\nthe justice of God.\"\n\nSuch a statement is a white flag. The warrior eludes the combat when he\ncries out that it is a \"metaphysical question.\" He deserts the field and\nthrows down his arms when he admits that \"no revelation has lifted the\nveil between time and eternity.\" Again I ask, why were the Jewish people\nas wicked, cruel, and ignorant with a revelation from God, as other\nnations were without? Why were the worshipers of false deities as brave,\nas kind, and generous as those who knew the only true and living God?\n\nHow do you explain the fact that while Jehovah was waging wars of\nextermination, establishing slavery, and persecuting for opinion's sake,\nheathen philosophers were teaching that all men are brothers, equally\nentitled to liberty and life? You insist that Jehovah believed in\nslavery and yet punished the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews. Was your\nGod once an abolitionist? Did he at that time \"denounce Christ for not\nagreeing with him\"? If slavery was a crime in Egypt, was it a virtue\nin Palestine? Did God treat the Canaanites better than Pharaoh did\nthe Jews? Was it right for Jehovah to kill the children of the people\nbecause of Pharaoh's sin? Should the peasant be punished for the king's\ncrime? Do you not know that the worst thing that can be said of Nero,\nCaligula, and Commodus is that they resembled the Jehovah of the Jews?\nWill you tell me why God failed to give his Bible to the whole world?\nWhy did he not give the Scriptures to the Hindu, the Greek, and Roman?\nWhy did he fail to enlighten the worshipers of \"Mammon\" and Moloch, of\nBelial and Baal, of Bacchus and Venus? After all, was not Bacchus as\ngood as Jehovah? Is it not better to drink wine than to shed blood?\nWas there anything in the worship of Venus worse than giving captured\nmaidens to satisfy the victor's lust? Did \"Mammon\" or Moloch do anything\nmore infamous than to establish slavery? Did they order their soldiers\nto kill men, women, and children, and to save alive nothing that had\nbreath? Do not answer these questions by saying that \"no veil has been\nlifted between time and eternity,\" and that \"we have no right to rejudge\nthe justice of God.\"\n\nIf Jehovah was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. He knew\nthat his Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny and hypocrisy\nwould crouch; that it would be quoted by tyrants; that it would be the\ndefence of robbers, called kings, and of hypocrites called priests. He\nknew that he had taught the Jewish people but little of importance. He\nknew that he found them free and left them captives. He knew that he\nhad never fulfilled the promises made to them. He knew that while other\nnations had advanced in art and science, his chosen people were savage\nstill. He promised them the world, and gave them a desert. He promised\nthem liberty, and he made them slaves. He promised them victory, and he\ngave them defeat. He said they should be kings, and he made them\nserfs. He promised them universal empire, and gave them exile. When one\nfinishes the Old Testament, he is compelled to say: Nothing can add to\nto the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!\n\nAnd here I take occasion to thank Mr. Black for having admitted that\nJehovah gave no commandment against the practice of polygamy, that he\nestablished slavery, waged wars of extermination, and persecuted for\nopinion's sake even unto death. Most theologians endeavor to putty,\npatch, and paint the wretched record of inspired crime, but Mr. Black\nhas been bold enough and honest enough to admit the truth. In this age\nof fact and demonstration it is refreshing to find a man who believes\nso thoroughly in the monstrous and miraculous, the impossible and\nimmoral—who still clings lovingly to the legends of the bib and\nrattle—who through the bitter experiences of a wicked world has kept\nthe credulity of the cradle, and finds comfort and joy in thinking about\nthe Garden of Eden, the subtle serpent, the flood, and Babel's tower,\nstopped by the jargon of a thousand tongues—who reads with happy eyes\nthe story of the burning brimstone storm that fell upon the cities\nof the plain, and smilingly explains the transformation of the\nretrospective Mrs. Lot—who laughs at Egypt's plagues and Pharaoh's\nwhelmed and drowning hosts—eats manna with the wandering Jews, warms\nhimself at the burning bush, sees Korah's company by the hungry earth\ndevoured, claps his wrinkled hands with glee above the heathens'\nbutchered babes, and longingly looks back to the patriarchal days of\nconcubines and slaves. How touching when the learned and wise crawl back\nin cribs and ask to hear the rhymes and fables once again! How charming\nin these hard and scientific times to see old age in Superstition's lap,\nwith eager lips upon her withered breast!\n\nMr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact\nharmony with the New Testament, and that the two are \"connected\ntogether;\" and \"that if one is true the other cannot be false.\"\n\nIf this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other\ncannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a\nright-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of\ninfinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate\nanother; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes;\never established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the\nauction-block as an altar, or a bloodhound as an apostle.\n\nMr. Black contends (after having answered my indictment against the Old\nTestament by admitting the allegations to be true) that the rapidity\nwith which Christianity spread \"proves the supernatural origin of the\nGospel, or that it was propagated by the direct aid of the Divine Being\nhimself.\"\n\nLet us see. In his efforts to show that the \"infallible God established\nslavery in Judea,\" he takes occasion to say that \"the doctrine that\nslavery is a crime under all circumstances was first started by the\nadherents of a political faction in this, country less than forty years\nago;\" that \"they denounced God and Christ for not agreeing with them;\"\nbut that \"they did not constitute the civilized world; nor were they,\nif the truth must be told, a very respectable portion of it.\" Let it be\nremembered that this was only forty years ago; and yet, according to Mr.\nBlack, a few disreputable men changed the ideas of nearly fifty millions\nof people, changed the Constitution of the United States, liberated\na race from slavery, clothed three millions of people with political\nrights, took possession of the Government, managed its affairs for more\nthan twenty years, and have compelled the admiration of the civilized\nworld. Is it Mr. Black's idea that this happened by chance? If not, then\naccording to him, there are but two ways to account for it; either the\nrapidity with which Republicanism spread proves its supernatural origin,\n\"or else its propagation was provided for and carried on by the direct\naid of the Divine Being himself.\" Between these two, Mr. Black may make\nhis choice. He will at once see that the rapid rise and spread of any\ndoctrine does not even tend to show that it was divinely revealed.\n\nThis argument is applicable to all religions. Mohammedans can use it as\nwell as Christians. Mohammed was a poor man, a driver of camels. He was\nwithout education, without influence, and without wealth, and yet in a\nfew years he consolidated thousands of tribes, and made millions of\nmen confess that there is \"one God, and Mohammed is his prophet.\"\nHis success was a thousand times greater during his life than that\nof Christ. He was not crucified; he was a conqueror. \"Of all men, he\nexercised the greatest influence upon the human race.\" Never in the\nworld's history did a religion spread with the rapidity of his. It burst\nlike a storm over the fairest portions of the globe. If Mr. Black is\nright in his position that rapidity is secured only by the direct aid of\nthe Divine Being, then Mohammed was most certainly the prophet of God.\nAs to wars of extermination and slavery, Mohammed agreed with Mr. Black,\nand upon polygamy, with Jehovah. As to religious toleration, he was\ngreat enough to say that \"men holding to any form of faith might be\nsaved, provided they were virtuous.\" In this, he was far in advance both\nof Jehovah and Mr. Black.\n\nIt will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and spread of a\nreligion demonstrates its divine character. Years before Gautama\ndied, his religion was established, and his disciples were numbered by\nmillions. His doctrines were not enforced by the sword, but by an\nappeal to the hopes, the fears, and the reason of mankind; and more than\none-third of the human race are to-day the followers of Gautama. His\nreligion has outlived all that existed in his time; and according to Dr.\nDraper, \"there is no other country in the world except India that\nhas the religion to-day it had at the birth of Jesus Christ.\" Gautama\nbelieved in the equality of all men; abhorred the spirit of caste, and\nproclaimed justice, mercy, and education for all.\n\nImagine a Mohammedan answering an infidel; would he not use the\nargument of Mr Black, simply substituting Mohammed for Christ, just as\neffectually as it has been used against me? There was a time when India\nwas the foremost nation of the world. Would not your argument, Mr.\nBlack, have been just as good in the mouth of a Brahmin then, as it is\nin yours now? Egypt, the mysterious mother of mankind, with her pyramids\nbuilt thirty-four hundred years before Christ, was once the first in\nall the earth, and gave to us our Trinity, and our symbol of the cross.\nCould not a priest of Isis and Osiris have used your arguments to prove\nthat his religion was divine, and could he not have closed by saying:\n\"From the facts established by this evidence it follows irresistibly\nthat our religion came to us from God\"? Do you not see that your\nargument proves too much, and that it is equally applicable to all the\nreligions of the world?\n\nAgain, it is urged that \"the acceptance of Christianity by a large\nportion of the generation contemporary with its founder and his\napostles was, under the circumstances, an adjudication as solemn and\nauthoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.\" If this is true,\nthen \"the acceptance of Buddhism by a large portion of the generation\ncontemporary with its founder was an adjudication as solemn and\nauthoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.\" The same could\nbe said of Mohammedanism, and, in fact, of every religion that has\never benefited or cursed this world. This argument, when reduced to its\nsimplest form, is this: All that succeeds is inspired.\n\nThe old argument that if Christianity is a human fabrication its authors\nmust have been either good men or bad men, takes it for granted that\nthere are but two classes of persons—the good and the bad. There is at\nleast one other class—the mistaken, and both of the other classes may\nbelong to this. Thousands of most excellent people have been deceived,\nand the history of the world is filled with instances where men have\nhonestly supposed that they had received communications from angels and\ngods.\n\nIn thousands of instances these pretended communications contained the\npurest and highest thoughts, together with the most important truths;\nyet it will not do to say that these accounts are true; neither can they\nbe proved by saying that the men who claimed to be inspired were good.\nWhat we must say is, that being good men, they were mistaken; and it is\nthe charitable mantle of a mistake that I throw over Mr. Black, when\nI find him defending the institution of slavery. He seems to think it\nutterly incredible that any \"combination of knaves, however base, would\nfraudulently concoct a religious system to denounce themselves, and to\ninvoke the curse of God upon their own conduct.\" How did religions\nother than Christianity and Judaism arise? Were they all \"concocted by\na combination of knaves\"? The religion of Gautama is filled with most\nbeautiful and tender thoughts, with most excellent laws, and hundreds of\nsentences urging mankind to deeds of love and self-denial. Was Gautama\ninspired?\n\nDoes not Mr. Black know that thousands of people charged with witchcraft\nactually confessed in open court their guilt? Does he not know that\nthey admitted that they had spoken face to face with Satan, and had sold\ntheir souls for gold and power? Does he not know that these admissions\nwere made in the presence and expectation of death? Does he not know\nthat hundreds of judges, some of them as great as the late lamented\nGibson, believed in the existence of an impossible crime?\n\nWe are told that \"there is no good reason to doubt that the statements\nof the Evangelists, as we have them now, are genuine.\" The fact is, no\none knows who made the \"statements of the Evangelists.\"\n\nThere are three important manuscripts upon which the Christian world\nrelies. \"The first appeared in the catalogue of the Vatican, in 1475.\nThis contains the Old Testament. Of the New, it contains the four\ngospels,—the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles, nine of the Pauline\nEpistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as far as the fourteenth verse\nof the ninth chapter,\"—and nothing more. This is known as the Codex\nVatican. \"The second, the Alexandrine, was presented to King Charles\nthe First, in 1628. It contains the Old and New Testaments, with\nsome exceptions; passages are wanting in Matthew, in John, and in II.\nCorinthians. It also contains the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, a letter\nof Athanasius, and the treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms.\" The last\nis the Sinaitic Codex, discovered about 1850, at the Convent of St.\nCatherine's, on Mount Sinai. \"It contains the Old and New Testaments,\nand in addition the entire Epistle of Barnabas, and a portion of the\nShepherd of Hermas—two books which, up to the beginning of the fourth\ncentury, were looked upon by many as Scripture.\" In this manuscript,\nor codex, the gospel of St. Mark concludes with the eighth verse of the\nsixteenth chapter, leaving out the frightful passage: \"Go ye into all\nthe world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be\ndamned.\"\n\nIn matters of the utmost importance these manuscripts disagree, but even\nif they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of\ntheir truth. It will not do to call the statements made in the gospels\n\"depositions,\" until it is absolutely established who made them, and the\ncircumstances under which they were made. Neither can we say that \"they\nwere made in the immediate prospect of death,\" until we know who made\nthem. It is absurd to say that \"the witnesses could not have been\nmistaken, because the nature of the facts precluded the possibility of\nany delusion about them.\" Can it be pretended that the witnesses could\nnot have been mistaken about the relation the Holy Ghost is alleged\nto have sustained to Jesus Christ? Is there no possibility of delusion\nabout a circumstance of that kind? Did the writers of the four gospels\nhave \"'the sensible and true avouch of their own eyes' and ears\" in\nthat behalf? How was it possible for any one of the four Evangelists\nto know that Christ was the Son of God, or that he was God? His mother\nwrote nothing on the subject. Matthew says that an angel of the Lord\ntold Joseph in a dream, but Joseph never wrote an account of this\nwonderful vision. Luke tells us that the angel had a conversation with\nMary, and that Mary told Elizabeth, but Elizabeth never wrote a word.\nThere is no account of Mary or Joseph or Elizabeth or the angel, having\nhad any conversation with Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in which one word\nwas said about the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. The persons who\nknew did not write, so that the account is nothing but hearsay. Does Mr.\nBlack pretend that such statements would be admitted as evidence in any\ncourt? But how do we know that the disciples of Christ wrote a word of\nthe gospels? How did it happen that Christ wrote nothing? How do we know\nthat the writers of the gospels \"were men of unimpeachable character\"?\n\nAll this is answered by saying \"that nothing was said by the most\nvirulent enemies against the personal honesty of the Evangelists.\" How\nis this known? If Christ performed the miracles recorded in the New\nTestament, why would the Jews put to death a man able to raise their\ndead? Why should they attempt to kill the Master of Death? How did\nit happen that a man who had done so many miracles was so obscure, so\nunknown, that one of his disciples had to be bribed to point him out? Is\nit not strange that the ones he had cured were not his disciples? Can\nwe believe, upon the testimony of those about whose character we know\nnothing, that Lazarus was raised from the dead? What became of Lazarus?\nWe never hear of him again. It seems to me that he would have been an\nobject of great interest. People would have said: \"He is the man who was\nonce dead.\" Thousands would have inquired of him about the other world;\nwould have asked him where he was when he received the information that\nhe was wanted on the earth. His experience would have been vastly\nmore interesting than everything else in the New Testament. A returned\ntraveler from the shores of Eternity—one who had walked twice through\nthe valley of the shadow—would have been the most interesting of human\nbeings. When he came to die again, people would have said: \"He is not\nafraid; he has had experience; he knows what death is.\" But, strangely\nenough, this Lazarus fades into obscurity with \"the wise men of the\nEast,\" and with the dead who came out of their graves on the night of\nthe crucifixion. How is it known that it was claimed, during the life of\nChrist, that he had wrought a miracle? And if the claim was made, how\nis it known that it was not denied? Did the Jews believe that Christ was\nclothed with miraculous power? Would they have dared to crucify a man\nwho had the power to clothe the dead with life? Is it not wonderful that\nno one at the trial of Christ said one word about the miracles he had\nwrought? Nothing about the sick he had healed, nor the dead he had\nraised?\n\nIs it not wonderful that Josephus, the best historian the Hebrews\nproduced, says nothing about the life or death of Christ; nothing about\nthe massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word about the wonderful\nstar that visited the sky at the birth of Christ; nothing about the\ndarkness that fell upon the world for several hours in the midst of day;\nand failed entirely to mention that hundreds of graves were opened, and\nthat multitudes of Jews arose from the dead, and visited the Holy\nCity? Is it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these\nprodigies? and is it not more amazing than all the rest, that Christ\nhimself concealed from Matthew, Mark, and Luke the dogma of the\natonement, the necessity of belief, and the mystery of the second birth?\n\nOf course I know that two letters were said to have been written by\nPilate to Tiberius, concerning the execution of Christ, but they have\nbeen shown to be forgeries. I also know that \"various letters were\ncirculated attributed to Jesus Christ,\" and that one letter is said to\nhave been written by him to Abgarus, king of Edessa; but as there was\nno king of Edessa at that time, this letter is admitted to have been a\nforgery. I also admit that a correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul\nwas forged.\n\nHere in our own country, only a few years ago, men claimed to have found\ngolden plates upon which was written a revelation from God. They founded\na new religion, and, according to their statement, did many miracles.\nThey were treated as outcasts, and their leader was murdered. These men\nmade their \"depositions\" \"in the immediate prospect of death.\" They were\nmobbed, persecuted, derided, and yet they insisted that their prophet\nhad miraculous power, and that he, too, could swing back the hingeless\ndoor of death. The followers of these men have increased, in these\nfew years, so that now the murdered prophet has at least two hundred\nthousand disciples. It will be hard to find a contradiction of these\npretended miracles, although this is an age filled with papers,\nmagazines, and books. As a matter of fact, the claims of Joseph Smith\nwere so preposterous that sensible people did not take the pains to\nwrite and print denials. When we remember that eighteen hundred years\nago there were but few people who could write, and that a manuscript did\nnot become public in any modern sense, it was possible for the gospels\nto have been written with all the foolish claims in reference to\nmiracles without exciting comment or denial. There is not, in all the\ncontemporaneous literature of the world, a single word about Christ\nor his apostles. The paragraph in Josephus is admitted to be an\ninterpolation, and the letters, the account of the trial, and several\nother documents forged by the zeal of the early fathers, are now\nadmitted to be false.\n\nNeither will it do to say that \"the statements made by the Evangelists\nare alike upon every important point.\" If there is anything of\nimportance in the New Testament, from the theological standpoint, it is\nthe ascension of Jesus Christ. If that happened, it was a miracle great\nenough to surfeit wonder. Are the statements of the inspired witnesses\nalike on this important point? Let us see.\n\nMatthew says nothing upon the subject. Either Matthew was not there, had\nnever heard of the ascension,—or, having heard of it, did not believe\nit, or, having seen it, thought it too unimportant to record. To this\nwonder of wonders Mark devotes one verse: \"So then, after the Lord\nhad spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the\nright-hand of God.\" Can we believe that this verse was written by one\nwho witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ; by one who watched his\nMaster slowly rising through the air till distance reft him from his\ntearful sight? Luke, another of the witnesses, says: \"And it came to\npass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried\nup into heaven.\" John corroborates Matthew by saying nothing on the\nsubject. Now, we find that the last chapter of Mark, after the eighth\nverse, is an interpolation; so that Mark really says nothing about the\noccurrence. Either the ascension of Christ must be given up, or it must\nbe admitted that the witnesses do not agree, and that three of them\nnever heard of that most stupendous event.\n\nAgain, if anything could have left its \"form and pressure\" on the\nbrain, it must have been the last words of Jesus Christ. The last words,\naccording to Matthew, are: \"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.\" The last words, according to the inspired witness known as Mark,\nare: \"And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall\nthey cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take\nup serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;\nthey shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\" Luke tells us\nthat the last words uttered by Christ, with the exception of a blessing,\nwere: \"And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but\ntarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from\non high.\" The last words, according to John, were: \"Peter, seeing Him,\nsaith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him,\nIf I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou\nme.\"\n\nAn account of the ascension is also given in the Acts of the Apostles;\nand the last words of Christ, according to that inspired witness, are:\n\"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you;\nand ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\" In this\naccount of the ascension we find that two men stood by the disciples in\nwhite apparel, and asked them: \"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing\nup into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.\"\nMatthew says nothing of the two men. Mark never saw them. Luke may have\nforgotten them when writing his gospel, and John may have regarded them\nas optical illusions.\n\nLuke testifies that Christ ascended on the very day of his resurrection.\nJohn deposes that eight days after the resurrection Christ appeared to\nthe disciples and convinced Thomas. In the Acts we are told that\nChrist remained on earth for forty days after his resurrection. These\n\"depositions\" do not agree. Neither do Matthew and Luke agree in their\nhistories of the infancy of Christ. It is impossible for both to be\ntrue. One of these \"witnesses\" must have been mistaken.\n\nThe most wonderful miracle recorded in the New Testament, as having been\nwrought by Christ, is the resurrection of Lazarus. While all the writers\nof the gospels, in many instances, record the same wonders and the\nsame conversations, is it not remarkable that the greatest miracle is\nmentioned alone by John?\n\nTwo of the witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give the genealogy of Christ.\nMatthew says that there were forty-two generations from Abraham to\nChrist. Luke insists that there were forty-two from Christ to David,\nwhile Matthew gives the number as twenty-eight. It may be said that\nthis is an old objection. An objection-remains young until it has been\nanswered. Is it not wonderful that Luke and Matthew do not agree on a\nsingle name of Christ's ancestors for thirty-seven generations?\n\nThere is a difference of opinion among the \"witnesses\" as to what the\ngospel of Christ is. If we take the \"depositions\" of Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke, then the gospel of Christ amounts simply to this: That God will\nforgive the forgiving, and that he will be merciful to the merciful.\nAccording to three witnesses, Christ knew nothing of the doctrine of the\natonement; never heard of the second birth; and did not base salvation,\nin whole nor in part, on belief. In the \"deposition\" of John, we find\nthat we must be born again; that we must believe on the Lord Jesus\nChrist; and that an atonement was made for us. If Christ ever said these\nthings to, or in the hearing of, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they forgot to\nmention them.\n\nTo my mind, the failure of the evangelists to agree as tu what is\nnecessary for man to do in order to insure the salvation of his soul, is\na demonstration that they were not inspired.\n\nNeither do the witnesses agree as to the last words of Christ when he\nwas crucified. Matthew says that he cried: \"My God, my God, why hast\nthou forsaken me?\" Mark agrees with Matthew. Luke testifies that his\nlast words were: \"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.\" John\nstates that he cried: \"It is finished.\"\n\nLuke says that Christ said of his murderers: \"Father, forgive them; for\nthey know not what they do.\" Matthew, Mark, and John do not record these\ntouching words. John says that Christ, on the day of his resurrection,\nsaid to his disciples: \"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted\nunto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.\"\n\nThe other disciples do not record this monstrous passage. They did not\nhear the abdication of God. They were not present when Christ placed\nin their hands the keys of heaven and hell, and put a world beneath the\nfeet of priests.\n\nIt is easy to account for the differences and contradictions in these\n\"depositions\" (and there are hundreds of them) by saying that each one\ntold the story as he remembered it, or as he had heard it, or that the\naccounts have been changed, but it will not do to say that the witnesses\nwere inspired of God. We can account for these contradictions by the\ninfirmities of human nature; but, as I said before, the infirmities of\nhuman nature cannot be predicated of a divine being.\n\nAgain, I ask, why should there be more than one inspired gospel? Of\nwhat use were the other three? There can be only one true account of\nanything. All other true accounts must simply be copies of that. And\nI ask again, why should there have been more than one inspired\ngospel? That which is the test of truth as to ordinary witnesses is a\ndemonstration against their inspiration. It will not do at this late day\nto say that the miracles worked by Christ demonstrated his divine origin\nor mission. The wonderful works he did, did not convince the people\nwith whom he lived. In spite of the miracles, he was crucified. He was\ncharged with blasphemy. \"Policemen\" denounced the \"scurrility\" of his\nwords, and the absurdity of his doctrines. He was no doubt told that\nit was \"almost a crime to utter blasphemy in the presence of a Jewish\nwoman;\" and it may be that he was taunted for throwing away \"the golden\nmetewand\" of the \"infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea,\" and\ntaking the \"elastic cord of human feeling.\"\n\nChristians tell us that the citizens of Mecca refused to believe on\nMohammed because he was an impostor, and that the citizens of Jerusalem\nrefused to believe on Jesus Christ because he was not an impostor.\n\nIf Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him—if he had cured\nthe maimed, the leprous, and the halt—if he had changed the night of\nblindness into blessed day—if he had wrested from the fleshless hand\nof avaricious death the stolen jewel of a life, and clothed again with\nthrobbing flesh the pulseless dust, he would have won the love and\nadoration of mankind. If ever there shall stand upon this earth the king\nof death, all human knees will touch the ground.\n\nWe are further informed that \"what we call the fundamental truths of\nChristianity consist of great public events which are sufficiently\nestablished by history without special proof.\"\n\nOf course, we admit that the Roman Empire existed; that Julius Caesar\nwas assassinated; and we may admit that Rome was founded by Romulus and\nRemus; but will some one be kind enough to tell us how the assassination\nof Caesar even tends to prove that Romulus and Remus were suckled by\na wolf? We will all admit that, in the sixth century after Christ,\nMohammed was born at Mecca; that his victorious hosts vanquished half\nthe Christian world; that the crescent triumphed over the cross upon a\nthousand fields; that all the Christians of the earth were not able to\nrescue from the hands of an impostor the empty grave of Christ. We will\nall admit that the Mohammedans cultivated the arts and sciences; that\nthey gave us our numerals; taught us the higher mathematics; gave us our\nfirst ideas of astronomy, and that \"science was thrust into the brain of\nEurope on the point of a Moorish lance;\" and yet we will not admit that\nMohammed was divinely inspired, nor that he had frequent conversations\nwith the angel Gabriel, nor that after his death his coffin was\nsuspended in mid-air.\n\nA little while ago, in the city of Chicago, a gentleman addressed a\nnumber of Sunday-school children. In his address, he stated that some\npeople were wicked enough to deny the story of the deluge; that he was\na traveler; that he had been to the top of Mount Ararat, and had brought\nwith him a stone from that sacred locality. The children were then\ninvited to form in procession and walk by the pulpit, for the purpose of\nseeing this wonderful stone. After they had looked at it, the lecturer\nsaid: \"Now, children, if you ever hear anybody deny the story of the\ndeluge, or say that the ark did not rest on Mount Ararat, you can tell\nthem that you know better, because you have seen with your own eyes a\nstone from that very mountain.\"\n\nThe fact that Christ lived in Palestine does not tend to show that he\nwas in any way related to the Holy Ghost; nor does the existence of the\nChristian religion substantiate the ascension of Jesus Christ. We all\nadmit that Socrates lived in Athens, but we do not admit that he had a\nfamiliar spirit. I am satisfied that John Wesley was an Englishman, but\nI hardly believe that God postponed a rain because Mr. Wesley wanted\nto preach. All the natural things in the world are not sufficient to\nestablish the supernatural. Mr. Black reasons in this way: There was a\nhydra-headed monster. We know this, because Hercules killed him. There\nmust have been such a woman as Proserpine, otherwise Pluto could not\nhave carried her away. Christ must have been divine, because the Holy\nGhost was his father. And there must have been such a being as the Holy\nGhost, because without a father Christ could not have existed. Those who\nare disposed to deny everything because a part is false, reason exactly\nthe other way. They insist that because there was no hydra-headed\nmonster, Hercules did not exist. The true position, in my judgment, is\nthat the natural is not to be discarded because found in the company\nof the miraculous, neither should the miraculous be believed because\nassociated with the probable. There was in all probability such a man\nas Jesus Christ. He may have lived in Jerusalem. He may have been\ncrucified, but that he was the Son of God, or that he was raised from\nthe dead, and ascended bodily to heaven, has never been, and, in the\nnature of things, can never be, substantiated.\n\nApparently tired with his efforts to answer what I really said, Mr.\nBlack resorted to the expedient of \"compressing\" my propositions and\nputting them in italics. By his system of \"compression\" he was enabled\nto squeeze out what I really said, and substitute a few sentences of his\nown. I did not say that \"Christianity offers eternal salvation as the\nreward of belief alone,\" but I did say that no salvation is offered\nwithout belief. There must be a difference of opinion in the minds of\nMr. Black's witnesses on this subject. In one place we are told that\na man is \"justified by faith without the deeds of the law;\" and in\nanother, \"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth\nthe ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness;\" and the\nfollowing passages seem to show the necessity of belief:\n\n\"_He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not\nis condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of\nthe only begotten Son of God.\" \"He that believeth on the Son hath\neverlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life;\nbut the wrath of God abideth on him.\" \"Jesus said unto her, I am the\nresurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead,\nyet shall he live.\" \"And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me, shall\nnever die.\" \"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.\"\n\"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves;\nit is the gift of God.\" \"Not of works, lest any man should boast.\"\n\"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in\nhim, and he in God.\" \"Whosoever believeth not shall be damned._\"\n\nI do not understand that the Christians of to-day insist that simple\nbelief will secure the salvation of the soul. I believe it is stated in\nthe Bible that \"the very devils believe;\" and it would seem from this\nthat belief is not such a meritorious thing, after all. But Christians\ndo insist that without belief no man can be saved; that faith is\nnecessary to salvation, and that there is \"none other name under heaven\ngiven among men whereby we can be saved,\" except that of Christ. My\ndoctrine is that there is only one way to be saved, and that is to act\nin harmony with your surroundings—to live in accordance with the facts\nof your being. A Being of infinite wisdom has no right to create a\nperson destined to everlasting pain. For the honest infidel, according\nto the American Evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven. For the upright\natheist, there is nothing in another world but punishment. Mr. Black\nadmits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of hell. This being\nso, his God should have created only lunatics and idiots. Why should the\nfatal gift of brain be given to any human being, if such gift renders\nhim liable to eternal hell? Better be a lunatic here and an angel there.\nBetter be an idiot in this world, if you can be a seraph in the next.\n\nAs to the doctrine of the atonement, Mr. Black has nothing to offer\nexcept the barren statement that it is believed by the wisest and the\nbest. A Mohammedan, speaking in Constantinople, will say the same of the\nKoran. A Brahmin, in a Hindu temple, will make the same remark, and so\nwill the American Indian, when he endeavors to enforce something upon\nthe young of his tribe. He will say: \"The best, the greatest of our\ntribe have believed in this.\" This is the argument of the cemetery, the\nphilosophy of epitaphs, the logic of the coffin. Who are the greatest\nand wisest and most virtuous of mankind? This statement, that it has\nbeen believed by the best, is made in connection with an admission that\nit cannot be fathomed by the wisest. It is not claimed that a thing is\nnecessarily false because it is not understood, but I do claim that\nit is not necessarily true because it cannot be comprehended. I still\ninsist that \"the plan of redemption,\" as usually preached, is absurd,\nunjust, and immoral.\n\nFor nearly two thousand years Judas Iscariot has been execrated by\nmankind; and yet, if the doctrine of the atonement is true, upon his\ntreachery hung the plan of salvation. Suppose Judas had known of this\nplan—known that he was selected by Christ for that very purpose, that\nChrist was depending on him. And suppose that he also knew that only\nby betraying Christ could he save either himself or others; what ought\nJudas to have done? Are you willing to rely upon an argument that\njustifies the treachery of that wretch?\n\nI insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of an innocent man could\nsatisfy justice for the sins of the guilty. To this, Mr. Black replies\nas follows: \"This raises a metaphysical question, which it is not\nnecessary or possible for me to discuss here.\" Is this considered an\nanswer? Is it in this way that \"my misty creations are made to roll away\nand vanish into air one after another?\" Is this the best that can be\ndone by one of the disciples of the infallible God who butchered babes\nin Judea? Is it possible for a \"policeman\" to \"silence a rude disturber\"\nin this way? To answer an argument, is it only necessary to say that\nit \"raises a metaphysical question\"? Again I say: The life of Christ\nis worth its example, its moral force, its heroism of benevolence. And\nagain I say: The effort to vindicate a law by inflicting punishment on\nthe innocent is a second violation instead of a vindication.\n\nMr. Black, under the pretence of \"compressing,\" puts in my mouth the\nfollowing: \"The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of injuries,\nreconciliation with enemies, as taught in the New Testament, is the\nchild of weakness, degrading and unjust.\"\n\nThis is entirely untrue. What I did say is this: \"The idea of\nnon-resistance never occurred to a man who had the power to protect\nhimself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born when resistance\nwas impossible.\" I said not one word against the forgiveness of\ninjuries, not one word against the reconciliation of enemies—not\none word. I believe in the reconciliation of enemies. I believe in a\nreasonable forgiveness of injuries. But I do not believe in the doctrine\nof non-resistance. Mr. Black proceeds to say that Christianity forbids\nus \"to cherish animosity, to thirst for mere revenge, to hoard up wrongs\nreal or fancied, and lie in wait for the chance of paying them back; to\nbe impatient, unforgiving, malicious, and cruel to all who have crossed\nus.\" And yet the man who thus describes Christianity tells us that it is\nnot only our right, but our duty, to fight savages as savages fight us;\ninsists that where a nation tries to exterminate us, we have a right\nto exterminate them. This same man, who tells us that \"the diabolical\npropensities of the human heart are checked and curbed by the spirit of\nthe Christian religion,\" and that this religion \"has converted men from\nlow savages into refined and civilized beings,\" still insists that the\nauthor of the Christian religion established slavery, waged wars of\nextermination, abhorred the liberty of thought, and practiced the divine\nvirtues of retaliation and revenge. If it is our duty to forgive our\nenemies, ought not God to forgive his? Is it possible that God will hate\nhis enemies when he tells us that we must love ours? The enemies of\nGod cannot injure him, but ours can injure us. If it is the duty of the\ninjured to forgive, why should the uninjured insist upon having revenge?\nWhy should a being who destroys nations with pestilence and famine\nexpect that his children will be loving and forgiving?\n\nMr. Black insists that without a belief in God there can be no\nperception of right and wrong, and that it is impossible for an atheist\nto have a conscience. Mr. Black, the Christian, the believer in God,\nupholds wars of extermination. I denounce such wars as murder. He\nupholds the institution of slavery. I denounce that institution as the\nbasest of crimes. Yet I am told that I have no knowledge of right and\nwrong; that I measure with \"the elastic cord of human feeling,\" while\nthe believer in slavery and wars of extermination measures with \"the\ngolden metewand of God.\"\n\nWhat is right and what is wrong? Everything is right that tends to the\nhappiness of mankind, and everything is wrong that increases the sum of\nhuman misery. What can increase the happiness of this world more than to\ndo away with every form of slavery, and with all war? What can increase\nthe misery of mankind more than to increase wars and put chains\nupon more human limbs? What is conscience? If man were incapable of\nsuffering, if man could not feel pain, the word \"conscience\" never would\nhave passed his lips. The man who puts himself in the place of another,\nwhose imagination has been cultivated to the point of feeling the\nagonies suffered by another, is the man of conscience. But a man who\njustifies slavery, who justifies a God when he commands the soldier\nto rip open the mother and to pierce with the sword of war the child\nunborn, is controlled and dominated, not by conscience, but by a cruel\nand remorseless superstition.\n\nConsequences determine the quality of an action. If consequences are\ngood, so is the action. If actions had no consequences, they would be\nneither good nor bad. Man did not get his knowledge of the consequences\nof actions from God, but from experience and reason. If man can, by\nactual experiment, discover the right and wrong of actions, is it not\nutterly illogical to declare that they who do not believe in God can\nhave no standard of right and wrong? Consequences are the standard by\nwhich actions are judged. They are the children that testify as to the\nreal character of their parents. God or no God, larceny is the enemy of\nindustry—industry is the mother of prosperity—prosperity is a good,\nand therefore larceny is an evil. God or no God, murder is a crime.\nThere has always been a law against larceny, because the laborer wishes\nto enjoy the fruit of his toil. As long as men object to being killed,\nmurder will be illegal.\n\nAccording to Mr. Black, the man who does not believe in a supreme being\nacknowledges no standard of right and wrong in this world, and therefore\ncan have no theory of rewards and punishments in the next. Is it\npossible that only those who believe in the God who persecuted for\nopinion's sake have any standard of right and wrong? Were the greatest\nmen of all antiquity without this standard? In the eyes of intelligent\nmen of Greece and Rome, were all deeds, whether good or evil, morally\nalike? Is it necessary to believe in the existence of an infinite\nintelligence before you can have any standard of right and wrong? Is it\npossible that a being cannot be just or virtuous unless he believes in\nsome being infinitely superior to himself? If this doctrine be true, how\ncan God be just or virtuous? Does he believe in some being superior to\nhimself?\n\nIt may be said that the Pagans believed in a god, and consequently had\na standard of right and wrong. But the Pagans did not believe in the\n\"true\" God. They knew nothing of Jehovah. Of course it will not do to\nbelieve in the wrong God. In order to know the difference between right\nand wrong, you must believe in the right God—in the one who established\nslavery. Can this be avoided by saying that a false god is better than\nnone?\n\nThe idea of justice is not the child of superstition—it was not born of\nignorance; neither was it nurtured by the passages in the Old Testament\nupholding slavery, wars of extermination, and religious persecution.\nEvery human being necessarily has a standard of right and wrong; and\nwhere that standard has not been polluted by superstition, man abhors\nslavery, regards a war of extermination as murder, and looks upon\nreligious persecution as a hideous crime. If there is a God, infinite\nin power and wisdom, above him, poised in eternal calm, is the figure of\nJustice. At the shrine of Justice the infinite God must bow, and in her\nimpartial scales the actions even of Infinity must be weighed. There\nis no world, no star, no heaven, no hell, in which gratitude is not a\nvirtue and where slavery is not a crime.\n\nAccording to the logic of this \"reply,\" all good and evil become mixed\nand mingled—equally good and equally bad, unless we believe in the\nexistence of the infallible God who ordered husbands to kill their\nwives. We do not know right from wrong now, unless we are convinced\nthat a being of infinite mercy waged wars of extermination four thousand\nyears ago. We are incapable even of charity, unless we worship the being\nwho ordered the husband to kill his wife for differing with him on the\nsubject of religion.\n\nWe know that acts are good or bad only as they effect the actors, and\nothers. We know that from every good act good consequences flow, and\nthat from every bad act there are only evil results. Every virtuous deed\nis a star in the moral firmament. There is in the moral world, as in\nthe physical, the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect. For\nthis reason, the atonement becomes an impossibility. Others may suffer\nby your crime, but their suffering cannot discharge you; it simply\nincreases your guilt and adds to your burden. For this reason happiness\nis not a reward—it is a consequence. Suffering is not a punishment—it\nis a result.\n\nIt is insisted that Christianity is not opposed to freedom of thought,\nbut that \"it is based on certain principles to which it requires the\nassent of all.\" Is this a candid statement? Are we only required to\ngive our assent to certain principles in order to be saved? Are the\ninspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and the\nTrinity, principles? Will it be admitted by the orthodox world that good\ndeeds are sufficient unto salvation—that a man can get into heaven by\nliving in accordance with certain principles? This is a most excellent\ndoctrine, but it is not Christianity. And right here, it may be well\nenough to state what I mean by Christianity. The morality of the world\nis not distinctively Christian. Zoroaster, Gautama, Mohammed, Confucius,\nChrist, and, in fact, all founders of religions, have said to their\ndisciples: You must not steal; You must not murder; You must not bear\nfalse witness; You must discharge your obligations. Christianity is the\nordinary moral code, plus the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ, his\ncrucifixion, his resurrection, his ascension, the inspiration of the\nBible, the doctrine of the atonement, and the necessity of belief.\nBuddhism is the ordinary moral code, plus the miraculous illumination\nof Buddha, the performance of certain ceremonies, a belief in the\ntransmigration of the soul, and in the final absorption of the human\nby the infinite. The religion of Mohammed is the ordinary moral code,\nplus the belief that Mohammed was the prophet of God, total abstinence\nfrom the use of intoxicating drinks, a harem for the faithful here and\nhereafter, ablutions, prayers, alms, pilgrimages, and fasts.\n\nThe morality in Christianity has never opposed the freedom of thought.\nIt has never put, nor tended to put, a chain on a human mind, nor a\nmanacle on a human limb; but the doctrines distinctively Christian—the\nnecessity of believing a certain thing; the idea that eternal punishment\nawaited him who failed to believe; the idea that the innocent can suffer\nfor the guilty—these things have opposed, and for a thousand years\nsubstantially destroyed, the freedom of the human mind. All religions\nhave, with ceremony, magic, and mystery, deformed, darkened, and\ncorrupted the soul. Around the sturdy oaks of morality have grown and\nclung the parasitic, poisonous vines of the miraculous and monstrous.\n\nI have insisted, and I still insist, that it is impossible for a finite\nman to commit a crime deserving infinite punishment; and upon this\nsubject Mr. Black admits that \"no revelation has lifted the veil between\ntime and eternity;\" and, consequently, neither the priest nor the\n\"policeman\" knows anything with certainty regarding another world. He\nsimply insists that \"in shadowy figures we are warned that a very marked\ndistinction will be made between the good and bad in the next world.\"\nThere is \"a very marked distinction\" in this; but there is this rainbow\non the darkest human cloud: The worst have hope of reform. All I insist\nis, if there is another life, the basest soul that finds its way to that\ndark or radiant shore will have the everlasting chance of doing right.\nNothing but the most cruel ignorance, the most heartless superstition,\nthe most ignorant theology, ever imagined that the few days of human\nlife spent here, surrounded by mists and clouds of darkness, blown over\nlife's sea by storms and tempests of passion, fixed for all eternity the\ncondition of the human race. If this doctrine be true, this life is but\na net, in which Jehovah catches souls for hell.\n\nThe idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation unsheathed the\nswords and lighted the fagots of persecution. As long as heaven is the\nreward of creed instead of deed, just so long will every orthodox church\nbe a bastile, every member a prisoner, and every priest a turnkey.\n\nIn the estimation of good orthodox Christians, I am a criminal, because\nI am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters,\nhusbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally arising from\na belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to tear, break, and\nscatter to the winds the God that priests erected in the fields of\ninnocent pleasure—a God made of sticks, called creeds, and of old\nclothes, called myths. I have tried to take from the coffin its horror,\nfrom the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge kindled by\nthe savages of the past. Is it necessary that heaven should borrow its\nlight from the glare of hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty,\nendless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler\nhardens, debases, and pollutes the soul. While there is one sad and\nbreaking heart in the universe, no perfectly good being can be perfectly\nhappy. Against the heartlessness of this doctrine every grand and\ngenerous soul should enter its solemn protest. I want no part in any\nheaven where the saved, the ransomed, and redeemed drown with\nmerry shouts the cries and sobs of hell—in which happiness forgets\nmisery—where the tears of the lost increase laughter and deepen the\ndimples of joy. The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality,\nfear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea tends to show that our remote\nancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves—only\nfrom mouths filled with cruel fangs—only from hearts of fear and\nhatred—only from the conscience of hunger and lust—only from the\nlowest and most debased, could come this most cruel, heartless, and\nabsurd of all dogmas.\n\nOur ancestors knew but little of nature. They were too astonished\nto investigate. They could not divest themselves of the idea that\neverything happened with reference to them; that they caused storms and\nearthquakes; that they brought the tempest and the whirlwind; that on\naccount of something they had done, or omitted to do, the lightning of\nvengeance leaped from the darkened sky. They made up their minds that\nat least two vast and powerful beings presided over this world; that\none was good and the other bad; that both of these beings wished to get\ncontrol of the souls of men; that they were relentless enemies, eternal\nfoes; that both welcomed recruits and hated deserters; that one offered\nrewards in this world, and the other in the next. Man saw cruelty and\nmercy in nature, because he imagined that phenomena were produced to\npunish or to reward him. It was supposed that God demanded worship; that\nhe loved to be flattered; that he delighted in sacrifice; that nothing\nmade him happier than to see ignorant faith upon its knees; that above\nall things he hated and despised doubters and heretics, and regarded\ninvestigation as rebellion. Each community felt it a duty to see that\nthe enemies of God were converted or killed. To allow a heretic to\nlive in peace was to invite the wrath of God. Every public evil—every\nmisfortune—was accounted for by something the community had permitted\nor done. When epidemics appeared, brought by ignorance and welcomed by\nfilth, the heretic was brought out and sacrificed to appease the anger\nof God. By putting intention behind what man called good, God was\nproduced. By putting intention behind what man called bad, the Devil was\ncreated. Leave this \"intention\" out, and gods and devils fade away. If\nnot a human being existed, the sun would continue to shine, and tempest\nnow and then would devastate the earth; the rain would fall in pleasant\nshowers; violets would spread their velvet bosoms to the sun, the\nearthquake would devour, birds would sing and daisies bloom and roses\nblush, and volcanoes fill the heavens with their lurid glare; the\nprocession of the seasons would not be broken, and the stars would shine\nas serenely as though the world were filled with loving hearts and happy\nhomes. Do not imagine that the doctrine of eternal revenge belongs\nto Christianity alone. Nearly all religions have had this dogma for a\ncorner-stone. Upon this burning foundation nearly all have built. Over\nthe abyss of pain rose the glittering dome of pleasure. This world was\nregarded as one of trial. Here, a God of infinite wisdom experimented\nwith man. Between the outstretched paws of the Infinite, the\nmouse—man—was allowed to play. Here, man had the opportunity of\nhearing priests and kneeling in temples. Here, he could read, and hear\nread, the sacred books. Here, he could have the example of the pious and\nthe counsels of the holy. Here, he could build churches and cathedrals.\nHere, he could burn incense, fast, wear hair-cloth, deny himself all the\npleasures of life, confess to priests, construct instruments of torture,\nbow before pictures and images, and persecute all who had the courage\nto despise superstition, and the goodness to tell their honest thoughts.\nAfter death, if he died out of the church, nothing could be done to make\nhim better. When he should come into the presence of God, nothing was\nleft except to damn him. Priests might convert him here, but God could\ndo nothing there. All of which shows how much more a priest can do for\na soul than its creator. Only here, on the earth, where the devil is\nconstantly active, only where his agents attack every soul, is there\nthe slightest hope of moral improvement. Strange! that a world cursed by\nGod, filled with temptations, and thick with fiends, should be the only\nplace where man can repent, the only place where reform is possible!\n\nMasters frightened slaves with the threat of hell, and slaves got a\nkind of shadowy revenge by whispering back the threat. The imprisoned\nimagined a hell for their gaolers; the weak built this place for the\nstrong; the arrogant for their rivals; the vanquished for their victors;\nthe priest for the thinker; religion for reason; superstition for\nscience. All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all\nthe cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is\ncapable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word—Hell. For\nthe nourishment of this dogma, cruelty was soil, ignorance was rain, and\nfear was light.\n\nWhy did Mr. Black fail to answer what I said in relation to the doctrine\nof inspiration? Did he consider that a \"metaphysical question\"? Let us\nsee what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea says\nsomething to him. It makes an impression on his mind. It awakens memory,\nand this impression depends upon his experience—upon his intellectual\ncapacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a different brain;\nhe has a different experience. The sea may speak to him of joy, to the\nother of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the same thing to any two\nhuman beings, because no two human beings have had the same experience.\nOne may think of wreck and ruin, and another, while listening to the\n\"multitudinous laughter of the sea,\" may say: Every drop has visited\nall the shores of earth; every one has been frozen in the vast and icy\nNorth, has fallen in snow, has whirled in storms around the mountain\npeaks, been kissed to vapor by the sun, worn the seven-hued robe of\nlight, fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs, and laughed in\nbrooks while lovers wooed upon the banks. Everything in nature tells a\ndifferent story to all eyes that see and to all ears that hear. So, when\nwe look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a violet, the\nmore we know, the more we have experienced, the more we have thought,\nthe more we remember, the more the statue, the star, the painting,\nthe violet has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am capable of\nunderstanding—gives all that I can receive. As with star, or flower,\nor sea, so with a book. A thoughtful man reads Shakespeare. What does he\nget? All that he has the mind to understand. Let another read him, who\nknows nothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of passion,\nand what does he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different\nstory for each reader. He is a world in which each recognizes his\nacquaintances. The impression that nature makes upon the mind, the\nstories told by sea and star and flower, must be the natural food\nof thought. Leaving out for the moment the impressions gained from\nancestors, the hereditary fears and drifts and trends—the natural food\nof thought must be the impressions made upon the brain by coming in\ncontact through the medium of the senses with what we call the outward\nworld. The brain is natural; its food is natural; the result, thought,\nmust be natural. Of the supernatural we have no conception. Thought may\nbe deformed, and the thought of one may be strange to, and denominated\nunnatural by, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it\nmay be insane, but it is not supernatural. Above the natural, man cannot\nrise. There can be deformed ideas, as there are deformed persons.\nThere may be religions monstrous and misshapen, but they were naturally\nproduced. The world is to each man according to each man. It takes the\nworld as it really is and that man to make that man's world.\n\nYou may ask, And what of all this? I reply, As with everything in\nnature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is,\nthen, the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It\nis. Can God, through the Bible, make precisely the same revelation to\ntwo persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads is not inspired.\nGod should inspire readers as well as writers.\n\nYou may reply: God knew that his book would be understood differently by\neach one, and intended that it should be understood as it is understood\nby each. If this is so, then my understanding of the Bible is the\nreal revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to take the\nunderstanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me through\nmy understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose then,\nthat I read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through am\ncompelled to say, \"The book is not true.\" If this is the honest result,\nthen you are compelled to say, either that God has made no revelation to\nme, or that the revelation that it is not true is the revelation made to\nme, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain are both the work\nof the same infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and brain do\nnot agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my brain, or\nshould have made my brain to fit his book. The inspiration of the Bible\ndepends on the credulity of him who reads. There was a time when\nits geology, its astronomy, its natural history, were thought to be\ninspired; that time has passed. There was a time when its morality\nsatisfied the men who ruled the world of thought; that time has passed.\n\nMr. Black, continuing his process of compressing my propositions,\nattributes to me the following statement: \"The gospel of Christ does not\nsatisfy the hunger of the heart.\" I did not say this. What I did say\nis: \"The dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest\nthought, nor satisfy the hunger of the heart.\" In so far as Christ\ntaught any doctrine in opposition to slavery, in favor of intellectual\nliberty, upholding kindness, enforcing the practice of justice and\nmercy, I most cheerfully admit that his teachings should be followed.\nSuch teachings do not need the assistance of miracles. They are not in\nthe region of the supernatural. They find their evidence in the glad\nresponse of every honest heart that superstition has not touched and\nstained. The great question under discussion is, whether the immoral,\nabsurd, and infamous can be established by the miraculous. It cannot be\ntoo often repeated, that truth scorns the assistance of miracle. That\nwhich actually happens sets in motion innumerable effects, which, in\nturn, become causes producing other effects. These are all \"witnesses\"\nwhose \"depositions\" continue. What I insist on is, that a miracle cannot\nbe established by human testimony. We have known people to be mistaken.\nWe know that all people will not tell the truth. We have never seen the\ndead raised. When people assert that they have, we are forced to weigh\nthe probabilities, and the probabilities are on the other side. It will\nnot do to assert that the universe was created, and then say that such\ncreation was miraculous, and, therefore, all miracles are possible. We\nmust be sure of our premises. Who knows that the universe was created?\nIf it was not; if it has existed from eternity; if the present is the\nnecessary child of all the past, then the miraculous is the impossible.\nThrow away all the miracles of the New Testament, and the good teachings\nof Christ remain—all that is worth preserving will be there still. Take\nfrom what is now known as Christianity the doctrine of the atonement,\nthe fearful dogma of eternal punishment, the absurd idea that a certain\nbelief is necessary to salvation, and with most of the remainder the\ngood and intelligent will most heartily agree.\n\nMr. Black attributes to me the following expression: \"Christianity is\npernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind, narrows the soul,\narrests the progress of human society, and hinders civilization.\" I said\nno such thing. Strange, that he is only able to answer what I did\nnot say. I endeavored to show that the passages in the Old Testament\nupholding slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious\nintolerance had filled the world with blood and crime. I admitted\nthat there are many wise and good things in the Old Testament. I also\ninsisted that the doctrine of the atonement—that is to say, of moral\nbankruptcy—the idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation,\nand the frightful dogma of eternal pain, had narrowed the soul, had\ndarkened the mind, and had arrested the progress of human society. Like\nother religions, Christianity is a mixture of good and evil. The church\nhas made more orphans than it has fed. It has never built asylums enough\nto hold the insane of its own making. It has shed more blood than light.\n\nMr. Black seems to think that miracles are the most natural things\nimaginable, and wonders that anybody should be insane enough to deny the\nprobability of the impossible. He regards all who doubt the miraculous\norigin, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, as afflicted\nwith some \"error of the moon,\" and declares that their \"disbelief seems\nlike a kind of insanity.\"\n\nTo ask for evidence is not generally regarded as a symptom of a brain\ndiseased. Delusions, illusions, phantoms, hallucinations, apparitions,\nchimeras, and visions are the common property of the religious and the\ninsane. Persons blessed with sound minds and healthy bodies rely on\nfacts, not fancies—on demonstrations instead of dreams. It seems to me\nthat the most orthodox Christians must admit that many of the miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament are extremely childish. They must see that\nthe miraculous draught of fishes, changing water into wine, fasting for\nforty days, inducing devils to leave an insane man by allowing them to\ntake possession of swine, walking on the water, and using a fish for a\npocket-book, are all unworthy of an infinite being, and are calculated\nto provoke laughter—to feed suspicion and engender doubt.\n\nMr. Black takes the ground that if a man believes in the creation of the\nuniverse—that being the most stupendous miracle of which the mind can\nconceive—he has no right to deny anything. He asserts that God created\nthe universe; that creation was a miracle; that \"God would be likely to\nreveal his will to the rational creatures who were required to obey it,\"\nand that he would authenticate his revelation by giving his prophets and\napostles supernatural power.\n\nAfter making these assertion, he triumphantly exclaims: \"It therefore\nfollows that the improbability of a miracle is no greater than the\noriginal improbability of a revelation, and that is not improbable at\nall.\"\n\nHow does he know that God made the universe? How does he know what God\nwould be likely to do? How does he know that any revelation was made?\nAnd how did he ascertain that any of the apostles and prophets were\nentrusted with supernatural power? It will not do to prove your premises\nby assertions, and then claim that your conclusions are correct, because\nthey agree with your premises.\n\nIf \"God would be likely to reveal his will to the rational creatures\nwho were required to obey it,\" why did he reveal it only to the Jews?\nAccording to Mr. Black, God is the only natural thing in the universe.\n\nWe should remember that ignorance is the mother of credulity; that\nthe early Christians believed everything but the truth, and that\nthey accepted Paganism, admitted the reality of all the Pagan\nmiracles—taking the ground that they were all forerunners of their own.\nPagan miracles were never denied by the Christian world until late in\nthe seventeenth century. Voltaire was the third man of note in Europe\nwho denied the truth of Greek and Roman mythology. \"The early Christians\ncited Pagan oracles predicting in detail the sufferings of Christ. They\nforged prophecies, and attributed them to the heathen sibyls, and they\nwere accepted as genuine by the entire church.\"\n\nSt. Irenaeus assures us that all Christians possessed the power of\nworking miracles; that they prophesied, cast out devils, healed the\nsick, and even raised the dead. St. Epiphanius asserts that some rivers\nand fountains were annually transmuted into wine, in attestation of the\nmiracle of Cana, adding that he himself had drunk of these fountains.\nSt. Augustine declares that one was told in a dream where the bones\nof St. Stephen were buried, that the bones were thus discovered, and\nbrought to Hippo, and that they raised five dead persons to life, and\nthat in two years seventy miracles were performed with these relics.\nJustin Martyr states that God once sent some angels to guard the human\nrace, that these angels fell in love with the daughters of men, and\nbecame the fathers of innumerable devils.\n\nFor hundreds of years, miracles were about the only things that\nhappened. They were wrought by thousands of Christians, and testified\nto by millions. The saints and martyrs, the best and greatest, were the\nwitnesses and workers of wonders. Even heretics, with the assistance\nof the devil, could suspend the \"laws of nature.\" Must we believe\nthese wonderful accounts because they were written by \"good men,\" by\nChristians, \"who made their statements in the presence and expectation\nof death\"? The truth is that these \"good men\" were mistaken. They\nexpected the miraculous. They breathed the air of the marvelous. They\nfed their minds on prodigies, and their imaginations feasted on effects\nwithout causes. They were incapable of investigating. Doubts were\nregarded as \"rude disturbers of the congregation.\" Credulity and\nsanctity walked hand in hand. Reason was danger. Belief was safety.\nAs the philosophy of the ancients was rendered almost worthless by the\ncredulity of the common people, so the proverbs of Christ, his religion\nof forgiveness, his creed of kindness, were lost in the mist of miracle\nand the darkness of superstition.\n\nIf Mr. Black is right, there were no virtue, justice, intellectual\nliberty, moral elevation, refinement, benevolence, or true wisdom,\nuntil Christianity was established. He asserts that when Christ came,\n\"benevolence, in any shape, was altogether unknown.\"\n\nHe insists that \"the infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea\"\nestablished a government; that he was the head and king of the Jewish\npeople; that for this reason heresy was treason. Is it possible that God\nestablished a government in which benevolence was unknown? How did it\nhappen that he established no asylums for the insane? How do you account\nfor the fact that your God permitted some of his children to become\ninsane? Why did Jehovah fail to establish hospitals and schools? Is it\nreasonable to believe that a good God would assist his chosen people to\nexterminate or enslave his other children? Why would your God people\na world, knowing that it would be destitute of benevolence for four\nthousand years? Jehovah should have sent missionaries to the heathen.\nHe ought to have reformed the inhabitants of Canaan. He should have sent\nteachers, not soldiers—missionaries, not murderers. A God should not\nexterminate his children; he should reform them.\n\nMr. Black gives us a terrible picture of the condition of the world at\nthe coming of Christ; but did the God of Judea treat his own children,\nthe Gentiles, better than the Pagans treated theirs? When Rome enslaved\nmankind—when with her victorious armies she sought to conquer or to\nexterminate tribes and nations, she but followed the example of Jehovah.\nIs it true that benevolence came with Christ, and that his coming\nheralded the birth of pity in the human heart? Does not Mr. Black know\nthat, thousands of years before Christ was born, there were hospitals\nand asylums for orphans in China? Does he not know that in Egypt, before\nMoses lived, the insane were treated with kindness and wooed back to\nnatural thought by music's golden voice? Does he not know that in all\ntimes, and in all countries, there have been great and loving souls who\nwrought, and toiled, and suffered, and died that others might enjoy? Is\nit possible that he knows nothing of the religion of Buddha—a religion\nbased upon equality, charity and forgiveness? Does he not know that,\ncenturies before the birth of the great Peasant of Palestine, another,\nupon the plains of India, had taught the doctrine of forgiveness; and\nthat, contrary to the tyranny of Jehovah, had given birth to the sublime\ndeclaration that all men are by nature free and equal? Does he not know\nthat a religion of absolute trust in God had been taught thousands of\nyears before Jerusalem was built—a religion based upon absolute special\nprovidence, carrying its confidence to the extremest edge of human\nthought, declaring that every evil is a blessing in disguise, and that\nevery step taken by mortal man, whether in the rags of poverty or the\nroyal robes of kings, is the step necessary to be taken by that soul in\norder to reach perfection and eternal joy? But how is it possible for\na man who believes in slavery to have the slightest conception of\nbenevolence, justice or charity? If Mr. Black is right, even Christ\nbelieved and taught that man could buy and sell his fellow-man. Will\nthe Christians of America admit this? Do they believe that Christ from\nheaven's throne mocked when colored mothers, reft of babes, knelt by\nempty cradles and besought his aid?\n\nFor the man Christ—for the reformer who loved his fellow-men—for the\nman who believed in an Infinite Father, who would shield the innocent\nand protect the just—for the martyr who expected to be rescued from the\ncruel cross, and who at last, finding that his hope was dust, cried out\nin the gathering gloom of death: \"My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken\nme?\"—for that great and suffering man, mistaken though he was, I have\nthe highest admiration and respect. That man did not, as I believe,\nclaim a miraculous origin; he did not pretend to heal the sick nor raise\nthe dead. He claimed simply to be a man, and taught his fellow-men\nthat love is stronger far than hate. His life was written by reverent\nignorance. Loving credulity belittled his career with feats of jugglery\nand magic art, and priests, wishing to persecute and slay, put in his\nmouth the words of hatred and revenge. The theological Christ is the\nimpossible union of the human and divine—man with the attributes of\nGod, and God with the limitations and weaknesses of man.\n\nAfter giving a terrible description of the Pagan world, Mr. Black says:\n\"The church came, and her light penetrated the moral darkness like a new\nsun; she covered the globe with institutions of mercy.\"\n\nIs this true? Do we not know that when the Roman empire fell, darkness\nsettled on the world? Do we not know that this darkness lasted for a\nthousand years, and that during all that time the church of Christ held,\nwith bloody hands, the sword of power? These years were the starless\nmidnight of our race. Art died, law was forgotten, toleration ceased\nto exist, charity fled from the human breast, and justice was unknown.\nKings were tyrants, priests were pitiless, and the poor multitude were\nslaves. In the name of Christ, men made instruments of torture, and the\nauto da fe took the place of the gladiatorial show. Liberty was in\nchains, honesty in dungeons, while Christian superstition ruled mankind.\nChristianity compromised with Paganism. The statues of Jupiter were used\nto represent Jehovah. Isis and her babe were changed to Mary and the\ninfant Christ. The Trinity of Egypt became the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost. The simplicity of the early Christians was lost in heathen rites\nand Pagan pomp. The believers in the blessedness of poverty became rich,\navaricious, and grasping, and those who had said, \"Sell all, and give to\nthe poor,\" became the ruthless gatherers of tithes and taxes. In a\nfew years the teachings of Jesus were forgotten. The gospels were\ninterpolated by the designing and ambitious. The church was infinitely\ncorrupt. Crime was crowned, and virtue scourged. The minds of men were\nsaturated with superstition. Miracles, apparitions, angels, and devils\nhad possession of the world. \"The nights were filled with incubi and\nsuccubi; devils', clad in wondrous forms, and imps in hideous shapes,\nsought to tempt or fright the soldiers of the cross. The maddened\nspirits of the air sent hail and storm. Sorcerers wrought sudden death,\nand witches worked with spell and charm against the common weal.\"\nIn every town the stake arose. Faith carried fagots to the feet of\nphilosophy. Priests—not \"politicians\"—fed and fanned the eager flames.\nThe dungeon was the foundation of the cathedral.\n\nPriests sold charms and relics to their flocks to keep away the wolves\nof hell. Thousands of Christians, failing to find protection in the\nchurch, sold their poor souls to Satan for some magic wand. Suspicion\nsat in every house, families were divided, wives denounced husbands,\nhusbands denounced wives, and children their parents. Every calamity\nthen, as now, increased the power of the church. Pestilence supported\nthe' pulpit, and famine was the right hand of faith. Christendom was\ninsane.\n\nWill Mr. Black be kind enough to state at what time \"the church covered\nthe globe with institutions of mercy\"? In his reply, he conveys the\nimpression that these institutions were organized in the first century,\nor at least in the morning of Christianity. How many hospitals for the\nsick were established by the church during a thousand years? Do we not\nknow that for hundreds of years the Mohammedans erected more hospitals\nand asylums than the Christians? Christendom was filled with racks\nand thumbscrews, with stakes and fagots, with chains and dungeons, for\ncenturies before a hospital was built. Priests despised doctors. Prayer\nwas medicine. Physicians interfered with the sale of charms and relics.\nThe church did not cure—it killed. It practiced surgery with the sword.\nThe early Christians did not build asylums for the insane. They charged\nthem with witchcraft, and burnt them. They built asylums, not for the\nmentally diseased, but for the mentally developed. These asylums were\ngraves.\n\nAll the languages of the world have not words of horror enough to\npaint the agonies of man when the church had power. Tiberius, Caligula,\nClaudius, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus were not as cruel, false, and\nbase as many of the Christians Popes. Opposite the names of these\nimperial criminals write John the XII., Leo the VIII., Boniface the\nVII., Benedict the IX., Innocent the III., and Alexander the VI.\n\nWas it under these pontiffs that the \"church penetrated the moral\ndarkness like a new sun,\" and covered the globe with institutions of\nmercy? Rome was far better when Pagan than when Catholic. It was better\nto allow gladiators and criminals to fight than to burn honest men.\nThe greatest of the Romans denounced the cruelties of the arena. Seneca\ncondemned the combats even of wild beasts. He was tender enough to say\nthat \"we should have a bond of sympathy for all sentient beings, knowing\nthat only the depraved and base take pleasure in the sight of blood\nand suffering.\" Aurelius compelled the gladiators to fight with blunted\nswords. Roman lawyers declared that all men are by nature free and\nequal. Woman, under Pagan rule in Rome, became as free as man. Zeno,\nlong before the birth of Christ, taught that virtue alone establishes a\ndifference between men. We know that the Civil Law is the foundation\nof our codes. We know that fragments of Greek and Roman art—a few\nmanuscripts saved from Christian destruction, some inventions and\ndiscoveries of the Moors—were the seeds of modern civilization.\nChristianity, for a thousand years, taught memory to forget and reason\nto believe. Not one step was taken in advance. Over the manuscripts of\nphilosophers and poets, priests with their ignorant tongues thrust out,\ndevoutly scrawled the forgeries of faith. For a thousand years the torch\nof progress was extinguished in the blood of Christ, and his disciples,\nmoved by ignorant zeal, by insane, cruel creeds, destroyed with flame\nand sword a hundred millions of their fellow-men. They made this world\na hell. But if cathedrals had been universities—if dungeons of the\nInquisition had been laboratories—if Christians had believed in\ncharacter instead of creed—if they had taken from the Bible all the\ngood and thrown away the wicked and absurd—if domes of temples had been\nobservatories—if priests had been philosophers—if missionaries had\ntaught the useful arts—if astrology had been astronomy—if the black\nart had been chemistry—if superstition had been science—if religion\nhad been humanity—it' would have been a heaven filled with love, with\nliberty, and joy.\n\nWe did not get our freedom from the church. The great truth, that all\nmen are by nature free, was never told on Sinai's barren crags, nor by\nthe lonely shores of Galilee.\n\nThe Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and crime, and the New\ngives us a future filled with pain for nearly all the sons of men. The\nOld describes the hell of the past, and the New the hell of the future.\nThe Old tells us the frightful things that God has done—the New the\ncruel things that he will do. These two books give us the sufferings of\nthe past and future—the injustice, the agony, the tears of both\nworlds. If the Bible is true—if Jehovah is God—if the lot of countless\nmillions is to be eternal pain—better a thousand times that all the\nconstellations of the shoreless vast were eyeless darkness and eternal\nspace. Better that all that is should cease to be. Better that all the\nseeds and springs of things should fail and wither from great Nature's\nrealm. Better that causes and effects should lose relation and become\nunmeaning phrases and forgotten sounds. Better that every life should\nchange to breathless death, to voiceless blank, and every world to blind\noblivion and to moveless naught.\n\nMr. Black justifies all the crimes and horrors, excuses all the tortures\nof all the Christian years, by denouncing the cruelties of the French\nRevolution. Thinking people will not hasten to admit that an infinitely\ngood being authorized slavery in Judea, because of the atrocities of the\nFrench Revolution. They will remember the sufferings of the Huguenots.\nThey will remember the massacre of St. Bartholomew. They will not forget\nthe countless cruelties of priest and king. They will not forget the\ndungeons of the Bastile. They will know that the Revolution was an\neffect, and that liberty was not the cause—that atheism was not the\ncause. Behind the Revolution they will see altar and throne—sword and\nfagot—palace and cathedral—king and priest—master and slave—tyrant\nand hypocrite. They will see that the excesses, the cruelties, and\ncrimes were but the natural fruit of seeds the church had sown. But the\nRevolution was not entirely evil. Upon that cloud of war, black with\nthe myriad miseries of a thousand years, dabbled with blood of king and\nqueen, of patriot and priest, there was this bow: \"Beneath the flag of\nFrance all men are free.\" In spite of all the blood and crime, in spite\nof deeds that seem insanely base, the People placed upon a Nation's brow\nthese stars:—Liberty, Fraternity, Equality—grander words than ever\nissued from Jehovah's lips.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n"
}