{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-3:the-great-infidels",
  "slug": "the-great-infidels",
  "title": "The Great Infidels",
  "subtitle": "The Infidels of one age have been the aureoled saints of the next.",
  "excerpt": "A roll-call of the great infidels — Bruno, Spinoza, Hume, Diderot, Voltaire — the men whose heresies became the common sense of the next generation.",
  "year": 1881,
  "volume": 3,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/the-great-infidels/",
  "wordCount": 17914,
  "body": "I HAVE sometimes thought that it will not make great and splendid\ncharacter to rock children in the cradle of hypocrisy. I do not believe\nthat the tendency is to make men and women brave and glorious when you\ntell them that there are certain ideas upon certain subjects that they\nmust never express; that they must go through life with a pretence as a\nshield; that their neighbors will think much more of them if they\nwill only keep still; and that above all is a God who despises one who\nhonestly expresses what he believes. For my part, I believe men will be\nnearer honest in business, in politics, grander in art—in everything\nthat is good and grand and beautiful, if they are taught from the cradle\nto the coffin to tell their honest opinion.\n\nNeither do I believe thought to be dangerous.\n\nIt is incredible that only idiots are absolutely sure of salvation.\nIt is incredible that the more brain you have the less your chance is.\nThere can be no danger in honest thought, and if the world ever advances\nbeyond what it is to-day, it must be led by men who express their real\nopinions.\n\nWe have passed midnight in the great struggle between Fact and Faith,\nbetween Science and Superstition. The brand of intellectual inferiority\nis now upon the orthodox brain. There is nothing grander than to rescue\nfrom the leprosy of slander the reputation of a good and generous man.\nNothing can be nearer just than to benefit our benefactors.\n\nThe Infidels of one age have been the aureoled saints of the next. The\ndestroyers of the old are the creators of the new. The old passes away,\nand the new becomes old. There is in the intellectual world, as in the\nmaterial, decay and growth, and ever by the grave of buried age stand\nyouth and joy.\n\nThe history of intellectual progress is written in the lives of\nInfidels. Political rights have been preserved by traitors—the liberty\nof the mind by heretics. To attack the king was treason—to dispute the\npriest was blasphemy. The sword and cross were allies. They defended\neach other. The throne and altar were twins—vultures from the same egg.\n\nIt was James I. who said: \"No bishop, no king.\" He might have said: \"No\ncross, no crown.\"\n\nThe king owned the bodies, and the priest the souls, of men. One lived\non taxes, the other on alms. One was a robber, the other a beggar, and\neach was both.\n\nThese robbers and beggars controlled two worlds. The king made laws, the\npriest made creeds. With bowed backs the people received the burdens of\nthe one, and with wonder's open mouth the dogmas of the other. If any\naspired to be free they were crushed by the king, and every priest was\na Herod who slaughtered the children of the brain. The king ruled by\nforce, the priest by fear, and both by both.\n\nThe king said to the people: \"God made you peasants, and he made me\nking. He made rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me. Such\nis the justice of God.\" And the priest said: \"God made you ignorant and\nvile. He made me holy and wise. If you do not obey me, God will punish\nyou here and torment you hereafter. Such is the mercy of God.\"\n\nInfidels are intellectual discoverers. They sail the unknown seas and\nfind new isles and continents in the infinite realms of thought.\n\nAn Infidel is one who has found a new fact, who has an idea of his own,\nand who in the mental sky has seen another star.\n\nHe is an intellectual capitalist, and for that reason excites the envy\nand hatred of the theological pauper.\n\nThe Origin of god and Heaven, Of the Devil and Hell.\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 shall endeavor to take from the coffin its\nhorror, from the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge\nkindled by an infinite fiend.\n\nIs it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of\nHell?\n\nInfinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal\nmeanness. To worship an eternal goaler hardens, debases, and pollutes\neven the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the\nuniverse, no good being can be perfectly happy.\n\nAgainst the heartlessness of the Christian religion every grand and\ntender soul should enter solemn protest. The God of Hell should be held\nin loathing, contempt and scorn. A God who threatens eternal pain should\nbe hated, not loved—cursed, not worshiped. A heaven presided over by\nsuch a God must be below the lowest hell. I want no part in any heaven\nin which the saved, the ransomed and redeemed will drown with shouts of\njoy the cries and sobs of hell—in which happiness will forget misery,\nwhere the tears of the lost only increase laughter and double bliss.\n\nThe idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and\nrevenge. This idea testifies that our remote ancestors were the lowest\nbeasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves, only from mouths filled\nwith cruel fangs, only from hearts of fear and hatred, only from the\nconscience of hunger and lust, only from the lowest and most debased\ncould come this most cruel, heartless and bestial of all dogmas.\n\nOur barbarian ancestors knew but little of nature. They were too\nastonished to investigate. They could not divest themselves of the idea\nthat everything happened with reference to them; that they caused storms\nand earthquakes; that they brought the tempest and the whirlwind; that\non account of something they had done, or omitted to do, the lightning\nof vengeance 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 both\ndemanded praise and worship; that one offered rewards in this world, and\nthe other in the next. The Devil has paid cash—God buys on credit.\n\nMan saw cruelty and mercy in nature, because he imagined that phenomena\nwere produced to punish or to reward him. When his poor hut was torn and\nbroken by the wind, he thought it a punishment. When some town or city\nwas swept away by flood or sea, he imagined that the crimes of the\ninhabitants had been avenged. When the land was filled with plenty, when\nthe seasons were kind, he thought that he had pleased the tyrant of the\nskies.\n\nIt must be remembered that both gods and devils were supposed to be\npresided over by the greatest God and the greatest Devil. The God could\ngive infinite rewards and could inflict infinite torments. The Devil\ncould assist man here; could give him wealth and place in this world, in\nconsideration of owning his soul hereafter. Each human soul was a prize\ncontended for by these deities. Of course this God and this Devil had\ninnumerable spirits at their command, to execute their decrees. The God\nlived in heaven and the Devil in hell. Both were mon-archs and were\ninfinitely jealous of each other. The priests pretended to be the agents\nand recruiting sergeants of this God, and they were duly authorized to\npromise and threaten in his name; they had power to forgive and curse.\nThese priests sought to govern the world by force and fear. Believing\nthat men could be frightened into obedience, they magnified the tortures\nand terrors of perdition. Believing also that man could in part be\ninfluenced by the hope of reward, they magnified the joys of heaven. In\nother words, they promised eternal joy and threatened everlasting pain.\nMost of these priests, born of the ignorance of the time, believed what\nthey taught. They proved that God was good by sunlight and harvest, by\nhealth and happiness; that he was angry, by disease and death. Man,\naccording to this doctrine, was led astray by the Devil, who delighted\nonly in evil. It was supposed that God demanded worship; that he loved\nto be flattered; that he delighted in sacrifice; that nothing made him\nhappier than to see ignorant faith upon its knees; that above all things\nhe hated and despised doubters and heretics, and that he regarded all\ninvestigation as rebellion.\n\nNow and then believers in these ideas, those who had gained great\nreputation for learning and sanctity, or had enjoyed great power, wrote\nbooks, and these books after a time were considered sacred. Most of them\nwere written to frighten mankind, and were filled with threatenings and\ncurses for unbelievers and promises for the faithful. The more frightful\nthe curses, the more extravagant the promises, the more sacred the books\nwere considered. All of the gods were cruel and vindictive, unforgiving\nand relentless, and the devils were substantially the same.\n\nIt was also believed that certain things must be accepted as true, no\nmatter whether they were reasonable or not; that it was pleasing to God\nto believe a certain creed, especially if it happened to be the creed of\nthe majority. Each community felt it a duty to see that the enemies of\nGod were converted or killed. To allow a heretic to live in peace was\nto invite the wrath of God. Every public evil—every misfortune—was\naccounted for by something the community had permitted or done. When\nepidemics appeared, brought by ignorance and welcomed by filth, the\nheretic was brought out and sacrificed to appease the vengeance of God.\nFrom the knowledge they had—from their premises—they reasoned well.\nThey said, if God will inflict such frightful torments upon us here,\nsimply for allowing a few heretics to live, what will he do with the\nheretics? Of course the heretics would be punished forever. They knew\nhow cruel was the barbarian king when he had the traitor in his power.\nThey had seen every horror that man could inflict on man. Of course a\nGod could do more than a king. He could punish forever. The fires he\nwould kindle never could be quenched. The torments he would inflict\nwould be eternal. They thought the amount of punishment would be\nmeasured only by the power of God.\n\nThese ideas were not only prevalent in what are called barbarous times,\nbut they are received by the religious world of to-day.\n\nNo death could be conceived more horrible than that produced by flames.\nTo these flames they added eternity, and hell was produced. They\nexhausted the idea of personal torture.\n\nBy putting intention behind what man called good, God was produced. By\nputting intention behind what man called bad, the Devil was created.\nLeave this \"intention\" out, and gods and devils fade away.\n\nIf not a human being existed the sun would continue to shine, and\ntempests now and then would devastate the world; the rain would fall in\npleasant showers, and the bow of promise would adorn the cloud; violets\nwould spread their velvet bosoms to the sun, and the earthquake would\ndevour; birds would sing, and daisies bloom, and roses blush, and the\nvolcanoes would fill the heavens with their lurid glare; the procession\nof the seasons would not be broken, and the stars would shine just as\nserenely as though the world was filled with loving hearts and happy\nhomes. But in the olden time man thought otherwise. He imagined that\nhe was of great importance. Barbarians are always egotistic. They think\nthat the stars are watching them; that the sun shines on their account;\nthat the rain falls for them, and that gods and devils are really\ntroubling themselves about their poor and ignorant souls.\n\nIn those days men fought for their God as they did for their king. They\nkilled the enemies of both. For this their king would reward them\nhere, and their God hereafter. With them it was loyalty to destroy\nthe disloyal. They did not regard God as a vague \"spirit,\" nor as an\n\"essence\" without body or parts, but as a being, a person, an infinite\nman, a king, the monarch of the universe, who had garments of glory for\nbelievers and robes of flame for the heretic and infidel.\n\nDo not imagine that this doctrine of hell belongs to Christianity alone.\nNearly all religions have had this dogma for a corner-stone. Upon this\nburning foundation nearly all have built. Over the abyss of pain rose\nthe glittering dome of pleasure. This world was regarded as one of\ntrial. Here a God of infinite wisdom experimented with man. Between the\noutstretched paws of the Infinite the mouse, man, was allowed to play.\nHere man had the opportunity of hearing priests and kneeling in temples.\nHere he could read and hear read the sacred books. Here he could have\nthe example of the pious and the counsels of the holy. Here he could\nbuild churches and cathedrals. Here he could burn incense, fast, wear\nhaircloth, deny himself all the pleasures of life, confess to priests,\ncount beads, be miserable one day in seven, make creeds, construct\ninstruments of torture, bow before pictures and images, eat little\nsquare pieces of bread, sprinkle water on the heads of babes, shut his\neyes and say words to the clouds, and slander and defame all who have\nthe courage to despise superstition, and the goodness to tell their\nhonest thoughts. After death, nothing could be done to make him better.\nWhen he should come into the presence of God, nothing was left except\nto damn him. Priests might convert him here, but God could do nothing\nthere,—all of which shows how much more a priest can do for a soul\nthan its creator; how much more potent is the example of your average\nChristian than that of all the angels, and how much superior earth is to\nheaven for the moral development of the soul. In heaven the Devil is\nnot allowed to enter. There all are pure and perfect, yet they cannot\ninfluence a soul for good.\n\nOnly here, on the earth, where the Devil is constantly active, only\nwhere his agents attack every soul, is there the slightest hope of moral\nimprovement.\n\nStrange! that a world cursed by God, filled with temptations and thick\nwith fiends, should be the only place where hope exists, the only place\nwhere man can repent, the only place where reform is possible! Strange!\nthat heaven, filled with angels and presided over by God, is the\nonly place where reformation is utterly impossible! Yet these are the\nteachings of all the believers in the eternity of punishment.\n\nMasters frightened slaves with the threat of hell, and slaves got a kind\nof shadowy revenge by whispering back the threat. The poor have damned\nthe rich and the rich the poor. The imprisoned imagined a hell for their\ngaolers; the weak built this place for the strong; the arrogant for\ntheir rivals; the vanquished for their victors; the priest for the\nthinker, religion for reason, superstition for science.\n\nAll the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty,\nall the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable,\ngrew, blossomed and bore fruit in this one word—Hell.\n\nFor the nourishment of this dogma cruelty was soil, ignorance was rain,\nand fear was light.\n\nChristians have placed upon the throne of the universe a God of eternal\nhate. I cannot worship a being whose vengeance is boundless, whose\ncruelty is shoreless, and whose malice is increased by the agonies he\ninflicts.\n\nThe Appeal to the Cemetery\n\nWHOEVER attacks a custom or a creed, will be confronted with a list of\nthe names of the dead who upheld the custom, or believed the creed. He\nis asked in a very triumphant and sneering way, if he knows more than\nall the great and honored of the past Every defender of a creed has\ngraven upon his memory the names of all \"great\" men whose actions or\nwords can be tortured into evidence for his doctrine. The church is\nalways anxious to have some king or president certify to the moral\ncharacter of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and the justice\nof the Jewish God. Of late years, confessions of gentlemen about to be\nhanged have been considered of great value, and the scaffold is regarded\nas a means of grace.\n\nAll the churches of our day seek the rich. They are no longer the\nfriends and defenders of the poor. Poverty no longer feels at home\nin the house of God. In the Temple of the Most High, garments out of\nfashion are considered out of place. People now, before confessing to\nGod what worthless souls they have, enrich their bodies. Now words of\npenitence mingle with the rustle of silk, and light thrown from diamonds\nadorns the repentant tear. We are told that the rich, the fortunate, the\nholders of place and office, the fashionable, the respectable, are all\nwithin the churches. And yet all these people grow eloquent over the\npoverty of Christ—boast that he was born in a manger—that the Holy\nGhost passed by all the ladies of titled wealth and fashion and selected\nthe wife of a poor and unknown mechanic for the Mother of God.\n\nThey admit that all the men of Jerusalem who held high positions—all\nthe people of wealth, influence and power—were the enemies of the\nSavior and held his pretensions in contempt. They admit that he had\ninfluence only with the poor, and that he was so utterly unknown—so\nindigent in acquaintance, that it was necessary to bribe one of his\ndisciples to point him out to the police. They assert that he had done a\ngreat number of miracles—had cured the sick, and raised the dead—that\nhe had preached to vast multitudes—had made a kind of triumphal entry\ninto Jerusalem—had scourged from the temple the changers of money—had\ndisputed with the doctors—and yet, notwithstanding all these things,\nhe remained in the very depths of obscurity. Surely he and his disciples\ncould have been met with the argument that the \"great\" dead were opposed\nto the new religion.\n\nThe apostles, it is claimed, preached the doctrines of Christ in Rome\nand Athens, and the people of those cities could have used the arguments\nagainst Christianity that Christians now use in its support. They could\nhave asked the apostles if they were wiser than all the philosophers,\npoets, orators, and statesmen dead—if they knew more, coming as they\ndid from a weak and barbarous nation, than the greatest men produced by\nthe highest civilization of the known world. With what scorn would the\nGreeks listen to a barbarian's criticisms upon Socrates and Plato. How\na Roman would laugh to hear a vagrant Hebrew attack a mythology that had\nbeen believed by Cato and Virgil.\n\nEvery new religion has to overcome this argument of the cemetery—this\nlogic of the grave. Old ideas take shelter behind a barricade of corpses\nand tombstones. They have epitaphs for battle-cries, and malign the\nliving in the name of the dead. The moment, however, that a new religion\nsucceeds, it becomes the old religion and uses the same argument against\na new idea that it once so gallantly refuted. The arguments used to-day\nagainst what they are pleased to call infidelity would have shut the\nmouth of every religious reformer, from Christ to the founder of the\nlast sect. The general objection to the new is, that it differs somewhat\nfrom the old, and the fact that it does differ is urged as an argument\nagainst its truth.\n\nEvery man is forced to admit that he does not agree with all the great\nmen, living or dead. The average Catholic, if not a priest, as a rule\nwill admit that Sir Isaac Newton was in some things his superior, that\nDemosthenes had the advantage of him in expressing his ideas in public,\nand that as a sculptor he is far below the unknown man of whose hand and\nbrain was born the Venus de Milo, but he will not, on account of\nthese admissions, change his views upon the important question of\ntransubstantiation.\n\nMost Protestants will cheerfully admit that they are inferior in brain\nand genius to some men who have lived and died in the Catholic Church;\nthat in the matter of preaching funeral sermons they do not pretend to\nequal Bossuet; that their letters are not so interesting and polished\nas those of Pascal; that Torquemada excelled them in the genius of\norganization, and that for planning a massacre they would not for a\nmoment dispute the palm with Catherine de Medici.\n\nAnd yet, after all these admissions, they would insist that the Pope\nis an unblushing impostor, and that the Catholic Church is a vampire\nfattened by the best blood of a thousand years.\n\nThe truth is, that in favor of almost every sect, the names of some\ngreat men can be pronounced. In almost every church there have been\nmen whose only weakness was their religion, and who in other directions\nachieved distinction. If you call men great because they were emperors,\nkings, noblemen, statesmen, millionaires—because they commanded vast\narmies and wielded great influence in their day, then more names can be\nfound to support and prop the Church of Rome than any other Christian\nsect.\n\nIs Protestantism willing to rest its claims upon the \"great man\"\nargument? Give me the ideas, the religions, not that have been advanced\nand believed by the so-called great of the past, but that will be\ndefended and believed by the great souls of the future.\n\nIt gives me pleasure to say that Lord Bacon was a great man; but I do\nnot for that reason abandon the Copernican system of astronomy, and\ninsist that the earth is stationary. Samuel Johnson was an excellent\nwriter of latinized English, but I am confident that he never saw a\nreal ghost. Matthew Hale was a reasonably good judge of law, but he\nwas mistaken about witches causing children to vomit crooked pins. John\nWesley was quite a man, in a kind of religious way, but in this country\nfew people sympathize with his hatred of republican government, or with\nhis contempt for the Revolutionary Fathers. Sir Isaac Newton, in the\ndomain of science, was the colossus of his time, but his commentary on\nthe book of Revelation would hardly excite envy, even in the breast of\na Spurgeon or a Talmage. Upon many questions, the opinions of Napoleon\nwere of great value, and yet about his bed, when dying, he wanted to\nsee burning the holy candles of Rome. John Calvin has been called\na logician, and reasoned well from his premises, but the burning of\nServetus did not make murder a virtue. Luther weakened somewhat the\npower of the Catholic Church, and to that extent was a reformer, and\nyet Lord Brougham affirmed that his \"Table Talk\" was so obscene that no\nrespectable English publisher would soil paper with a translation. He\nwas a kind of religious Rabelais; and yet a man can defend Luther in his\nattack upon the church without justifying his obscenity. If every man\nin the Catholic Church was a good man, that would not convince me that\nIgnatius Loyola ever met and conversed with the Virgin Mary. The\nfact is, very few men are right in everything. Great virtues may\ndraw attention from defects, but they cannot sanctify them. A pebble\nsurrounded by diamonds remains a common stone, and a diamond surrounded\nby pebbles is still a gem. No one should attempt to refute an argument\nby pronouncing the name of some man, unless he is willing to adopt all\nthe ideas and beliefs of that man. It is better to give reasons and\nfacts than names. An argument should not depend for its force upon the\nname of its author. Facts need no pedigree; logic has no heraldry, and\nthe living should not be awed by the mistakes of the dead.\n\nThe greatest men the world has produced have known but little. They had\na few facts, mingled with mistakes without number. In some departments\nthey towered above their fellows, while in others they fell below the\ncommon level of mankind.\n\nDaniel Webster had great respect for the Scriptures, but very little for\nthe claims of his creditors. Most men are strangely inconsistent. Two\npropositions were introduced into the Confederate Congress by the same\nman. One was to hoist the black flag, and the other was to prevent\ncarrying the mails on Sunday. George Whitefield defended the slave\ntrade, because it brought the negroes within the sound of the gospel,\nand gave them the advantage of associating with the gentlemen who stole\nthem. And yet this same Whitefield believed and taught the dogma\nof predestination. Volumes might be written upon the follies and\nimbecilities of great men. A full rounded man—a man of sterling\nsense and natural logic—is just as rare as a great painter, poet, or\nsculptor. If you tell your friend that he is not a painter, that he has\nno genius for poetry, he will probably admit the truth of what you say,\nwithout feeling that he has been insulted in the least. But if you tell\nhim that he is not a logician, that he has but little idea of the value\nof a fact, that he has no real conception of what evidence is, and\nthat he never had an original thought in his life, he will cut your\nacquaintance. Thousands of men are most wonderful in mechanics, in\ntrade, in certain professions, keen in business, knowing well the\nmen among whom they live, and yet satisfied with religions infinitely\nstupid, with politics perfectly senseless, and they will believe that\nwonderful things were common long ago, such things as no amount of\nevidence could convince them had happened in their day. A man may be a\nsuccessful merchant, lawyer, doctor, mechanic, statesman, or theologian\nwithout one particle of originality, and almost without the ability to\nthink logically upon any subject whatever. Other men display in some\ndirections the most marvelous intellectual power, astonish mankind with\ntheir grasp and vigor, and at the same time, upon religious subjects\ndrool and drivel like David at the gates of Gath.\n\nSacred Books\n\nWE have found, at last, that other nations have sacred books much\nolder than our own, and that these books and records were and are\nsubstantiated by traditions and monuments, by miracles and martyrs,\nchrists and apostles, as well as by prophecies fulfilled. In all of\nthese nations differences of opinion as to the authenticity and meaning\nof these books arose from time to time, precisely as they have done and\nstill do with us, and upon these differences were founded sects that\nmanufactured creeds. These sects denounced each other, and preached with\nthe sword and endeavored to convince with the fagot. Our theologians\nwere greatly astonished to find in other bibles the same stories,\nprecepts, laws, customs and commands that adorn and stain our own. At\nfirst they accounted for this, by saying that these books were in part\ncopies of the Jewish Scriptures, mingled with barbaric myths. To such an\nextent did they impose upon and insult probability, that they declared\nthat all the morality of the world, all laws commanding right and\nprohibiting wrong, all ideas respecting the unity of a Supreme Being,\nwere borrowed from the Jews, who obtained them directly from God. The\nChristian world asserts with warmth, not always born of candor, that\nthe Bible is the source, origin, and fountain of law, liberty, love,\ncharity, and justice; that it is the intellectual and moral sun of the\nworld; that it alone gives happiness here, and alone points out the\nway to joy hereafter; that it contains the only revelation from the\nInfinite; that all others are the work of dishonest and mistaken men.\nThey say these things in spite of the fact that the Jewish nation was\none of the weakest and most barbaric of the past; in spite of the fact\nthat the civilization of Egypt and India had commenced to wane before\nthat of Palestine existed. To account for all the morality contained in\nthe sacred books of the Hindus, by saying that it was borrowed from\nthe wanderers in the Desert of Sinai, from the escaped slaves of the\nEgyptians, taxes to the utmost the credulity of ignorance, bigotry, and\nzeal.\n\nThe men who make these assertions are not superior to other men. They\nhave only the facts common to all, and they must admit that these facts\ndo not force the same conclusions upon all. They must admit that men\nequally honest, equally well informed as themselves, deny their premises\nand conclusions. They must admit that had they been born and educated in\nsome other country, they would have had a different religion, and would\nhave regarded with reverence and awe the books they now hold as false\nand foolish. Most men are followers, and implicitly rely upon the\njudgment of others. They mistake solemnity for wisdom, and regard a\ngrave countenance as the titlepage and preface to a most learned volume.\nSo they are easily imposed upon by forms, strange garments, and solemn\nceremonies. And when the teaching of parents, the customs of neighbors,\nand the general tongue approve and justify a belief or creed, no matter\nhow absurd, it is hard even for the strongest to hold the citadel of his\nsoul. In each country, in defence of each religion, the same arguments\nwould be urged. There is the same evidence in favor of the inspiration\nof the Koran and Bible. Both are substantiated in exactly the same way.\nIt is just as wicked and unreasonable to be a heretic in Constantinople\nas in New York. To deny the claims of Christ and Mohammed is alike\nblasphemous. It all depends upon where you are when you make the denial.\nNo religion has ever fallen that carried with it down to dumb death a\nsolitary fact. Mistakes moulder with the temples in which they were\ntaught, and countless superstitions sleep with their dead priests.\n\nYet Christians insist that the religions of all nations that have fallen\nfrom wealth and power were false, with of course the solitary exception\nof the Jewish, simply because the nations teaching them dropped from\ntheir dying hands the swords of power. This argument drawn from the\nfate of nations proves no more than would one based upon the history\nof persons. With nations as with individuals, the struggle for life is\nperpetual, and the law of the survival of the fittest applies equally to\nboth.\n\nIt may be that the fabric of our civilization will crumbling fall to\nunmeaning chaos and to formless dust, where oblivion broods and even\nmemory forgets. Perhaps the blind Samson of some imprisoned force,\nreleased by thoughtless chance, may so wreck and strand the world that\nman, in stress and strain of want and fear, will shudderingly crawl back\nto savage and barbaric night. The time may come in which this thrilled\nand throbbing earth, shorn of all life, will in its soundless orbit\nwheel a barren star, on which the light will fall as fruitlessly as\nfalls the gaze of love upon the cold, pathetic face of death.\n\nFear\n\n'T'HERE is a view quite prevalent, that in some way you can prove\nwhether the theories defended or advanced by a man are right or not, by\nshowing what kind of man he was, what kind of life he lived, and what\nmanner of death he died.\n\nA man entertains certain opinions; he is persecuted. He refuses to\nchange his mind; he is burned, and in the midst of flames cries out\nthat he dies without change. Hundreds then say that he has sealed his\ntestimony with his blood, and his doctrines must be true.\n\nAll the martyrs in the history of the world are not sufficient\nto establish the correctness of an opinion. Martyrdom, as a rule,\nestablishes the sincerity of the martyr,—never the correctness of\nhis thought. Things are true or false in themselves. Truth cannot be\naffected by opinions; it cannot be changed, established, or affected\nby martyrdom. An error cannot be believed sincerely enough to make it a\ntruth.\n\nNo Christian will admit that any amount of heroism displayed by a Mormon\nis sufficient to prove that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired. All the\ncourage and culture, all the poetry and art of ancient Greece, do not\neven tend to establish the truth of any myth.\n\nThe testimony of the dying concerning some other world, or in regard to\nthe supernatural, cannot be any better, to say the least, than that\nof the living. In the early days of Christianity a serene and intrepid\ndeath was regarded as a testimony in favor of the church. At that time\nPagans were being converted to Christianity—were throwing Jupiter away\nand taking the Hebrew God instead. In the moment of death many of these\nconverts, without doubt, retraced their steps and died in the faith of\ntheir ancestors. But whenever one died clinging to the cross of the\nnew religion, this was seized upon as an evidence of the truth of the\ngospel. After a time the Christians taught that an unbeliever, one\nwho spoke or wrote against their doctrines, could not meet death with\ncomposure—that the infidel in his last moments would necessarily be a\nprey to the serpent of remorse. For more than a thousand years they\nhave made the \"facts\" to fit this theory. Crimes against men have been\nconsidered as nothing when compared with a denial of the truth of the\nBible, the divinity of Christ, or the existence of God.\n\nAccording to the theologians, God has always acted in this way. As long\nas men did nothing except to render their fellows wretched; as long as\nthey only butchered and burnt the innocent and helpless, God maintained\nthe strictest and most heartless neutrality; but when some honest man,\nsome great and tender soul expressed a doubt as to the truth of the\nScriptures, or prayed to the wrong God, or to the right one by the wrong\nname, then the real God leaped like a wounded tiger upon his victim, and\nfrom his quivering flesh tore his wretched soul.\n\nThere is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of murder has been\nparalyzed—no truthful account in all the literature of the world of the\ninnocent being shielded by God. Thousands of crimes are committed every\nday—men are this moment lying in wait for their human prey—wives\nare whipped and crushed, driven to insanity and death—little children\nbegging for mercy, lifting imploring, tear-filled eyes to the brutal\nfaces of fathers and mothers—sweet girls are deceived, lured, and\noutraged, but God has no time to prevent these things—no time to defend\nthe good and to protect the pure. He is too busy numbering hairs and\nwatching sparrows.\n\nHe listens for blasphemy; looks for persons who laugh at priests;\nexamines baptismal registers; watches professors in colleges who begin\nto doubt the geology of Moses and the astronomy of Joshua. He does not\nparticularly object to stealing if you won't swear. A great many persons\nhave fallen dead in the act of taking God's name in vain, but millions\nof men, women, and children have been stolen from their homes and used\nas beasts of burden, but no one engaged in this infamy has ever been\ntouched by the wrathful hand of God.\n\nAll kinds of criminals, except infidels, meet death with reasonable\nserenity. As a rule, there is nothing in the death of a pirate to cast\nany discredit on his profession. The murderer upon the scaffold, with\na priest on either side, smilingly exhorts the multitude to meet him in\nheaven. The man who has succeeded in making his home a hell, meets death\nwithout a quiver, provided he has never expressed any doubt as to the\ndivinity of Christ, or the eternal \"procession\" of the Holy Ghost. The\nking who has waged cruel and useless war, who has filled countries with\nwidows and fatherless children, with the maimed and diseased, and who\nhas succeeded in offering to the Moloch of ambition the best and bravest\nof his subjects, dies like a saint.\n\nThe Emperor Constantine, who lifted Christianity into power, murdered\nhis wife Fausta, and his eldest son Crispus, the same year that he\nconvened the Council of Nice to decide whether Jesus Christ was a man or\nthe Son of God. The council decided that Christ was consubstantial\nwith the Father. This was in the year 325. We are thus indebted to a\nwife-murderer for settling the vexed question of the divinity of the\nSavior. Theodosius called a council at Constantinople in 381, and\nthis council decided that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father.\nTheodosius, the younger, assembled another council at Ephesus to\nascertain who the Virgin Mary really was, and it was solemnly decided in\nthe year 431 that she was the Mother of God. In 451 it was decided by a\ncouncil held at Chalcedon, called together by the Emperor Marcian, that\nChrist had two natures—the human and divine. In 680, in another general\ncouncil, held at Constantinople, convened by order of Pognatius, it\nwas also decided that Christ had two wills, and in the year 1274 it was\ndecided at the Council of Lyons, that the Holy Ghost proceeded not only\nfrom the Father, but from the Son as well. Had it not been for these\ncouncils, we might have been without a Trinity even unto this day. When\nwe take into consideration the fact that a belief in the Trinity is\nabsolutely essential to salvation, how unfortunate it was for the world\nthat this doctrine was not established until the year 1274. Think of\nthe millions that dropped into hell while these questions were being\ndiscussed.\n\nThis, however, is a digression. Let us go back to Constantine. This\nEmperor, stained with every crime, is supposed to have died like a\nChristian. We hear nothing of fiends leering at him in the shadows of\ndeath. He does not see the forms of his murdered wife and son covered\nwith the blood he shed. From his white and shrivelled lips issued no\nshrieks of terror. He does not cover his glazed eyes with thin and\ntrembling hands to shut out the visions of hell. His chamber is filled\nwith the rustle of wings—of wings waiting to bear his soul to the\nthrilling realms of joy.\n\nAgainst the Emperor Constantine the church has hurled no anathema. She\nhas accepted the story of his vision in the clouds, and his holy memory\nhas been guarded by priest and pope. All the persecutors sleep in peace,\nand the ashes of those who burned their brothers in the name of Christ\nrest in consecrated ground. Whole libraries could not contain even the\nnames of the wretches who have filled the world with violence and death\nin defence of book and creed, and yet they all died the death of the\nrighteous, and no priest or minister describes the agony and fear, the\nremorse and horror, with which their guilty souls were filled in the\nlast moments of their lives. These men had never doubted—they accepted\nthe creed—they were not infidels—they had not denied the divinity\nof Christ—they had been baptized—they had partaken of the Last\nSupper—they had respected priests—they admitted that the Holy Ghost\nhad \"proceeded,\" and these things put pillows beneath their dying heads,\nand covered them with the drapery of peace.\n\nNow and then, in the history of this world, a man of genius, of sense,\nof intellectual honesty has appeared. These men have denounced the\nsuperstitions of their day. They pitied the multitude. To see priests\ndevour the substance of the people filled them with indignation. These\nmen were honest enough to tell their thoughts. Then they were denounced,\ntried, condemned, executed. Some of them escaped the fury of the people\nwho loved their enemies, and died naturally in their beds.\n\nIt would not do for the church to admit that they died peacefully. That\nwould show that religion was not actually necessary in the last moment.\nReligion got much of its power from the terror of death.\n\nThe Death Test\n\nYOU had better live well and die wicked.\n\nYou had better live well and die cursing than live badly and die\npraying.\n\nIt would not do to have the common people understand that a man could\ndeny the Bible, refuse to look at the cross, contend that Christ was\nonly a man, and yet die as calmly as Calvin did after he had murdered\nServetus, or as did King David after advising one son to kill another.\n\nThe church has taken great pains to show that the last moments of all\ninfidels (that Christians did not succeed in burning) were infinitely\nwretched and despairing. It was alleged that words could not paint the\nhorrors that were endured by a dying infidel. Every good Christian was\nexpected to, and generally did, believe these accounts. They have been\ntold and retold in every pulpit of the world. Protestant ministers have\nrepeated the inventions of Catholic priests, and Catholics, by a kind\nof theological comity, have sworn to the falsehoods told by Protestants.\nUpon this point they have always stood together, and will as long as the\nsame calumny can be used by both.\n\nUpon the death-bed subject the clergy grow eloquent. When describing the\nshudderings and shrieks of the dying unbeliever, their eyes glitter with\ndelight.\n\nIt is a festival.\n\nThey are no longer men. They become hyenas. They dig open graves. They\ndevour the reputations of the dead.\n\nIt is a banquet.\n\nUnsatisfied still, they paint the terrors of hell. They gaze at the\nsouls of the infidels writhing in the coils of the worm that never dies.\nThey see them in flames—in oceans of fire—in gulfs of pain—in abysses\nof despair. They shout with joy. They applaud.\n\nIt is an auto da fe, presided over by God and his angels.\n\nThe men they thus describe were not atheists; they were all believers\nin God, in special providence, and in the immortality of the soul. They\nbelieved in the accountability of man—in the practice of virtue, in\njustice, and liberty, but they did not believe in that collection of\nfollies and fables called the Bible.\n\nIn order to show that an infidel must die overwhelmed with remorse and\nfear, they have generally selected from all the \"unbelievers\" since the\nday of Christ five men—the Emperor Julian, Spinoza, Voltaire, Diderot,\nDavid Hume, and Thomas Paine.\n\nHardly a minister in the United States has attempted to \"answer\" me\nwithout referring to the death of one or more of these men.\n\nIn vain have these calumniators of the dead been called upon to prove\ntheir statements. In vain have rewards been offered to any priestly\nmaligner to bring forward the evidence.\n\nLet us once for all dispose of these slanders—of these pious calumnies.\n\nJulian\n\nTHEY say that the Emperor Julian was an apostate that he was once\na Christian; that he fell from grace, and that in his last moments,\nthrowing some of his own blood into the air, he cried out to Jesus\nChrist, \"Galilean, thou hast conquered!\"\n\nIt must be remembered that the Christians had persecuted and imprisoned\nthis very Julian; that they had exiled him; that they had threatened him\nwith death. Many of his relatives were murdered by the Christians.\nHe became emperor, and Christians conspired to take his life. The\nconspirators were discovered and they were pardoned. He did what he\ncould to prevent the Christians from destroying each other. He held pomp\nand pride and luxury in contempt, and led his army on foot, sharing the\nprivations of the meanest soldier.\n\nUpon ascending the throne he published an edict proclaiming universal\nreligious toleration. He was then a Pagan. It is claimed by some that he\nnever did entirely forget his Christian education. In this I am\ninclined to think there is some truth, because he revoked his edict of\ntoleration, and for a time was nearly as unjust as though he had been\na saint. He was emperor one year and seven months. In a battle with the\nPersians he was mortally wounded. \"Brought back to his tent, and\nfeeling that he had but a short time to live, he spent his last hours in\ndiscoursing with his friends on the immortality of the soul. He reviewed\nhis reign and declared that he was satisfied with his conduct, and had\nneither penitence nor remorse to express for anything that he had done.\"\nHis last words were: \"I submit willingly to the eternal decrees of\nheaven, convinced that he who is captivated with life, when his last\nhour has arrived is more weak and pusillanimous than he who would rush\nto voluntary death when it is his duty still to live.\"\n\nWhen we remember that a Christian emperor murdered Julian's father and\nmost of his kindred, and that he narrowly escaped the same fate, we can\nhardly blame him for having a little prejudice against a church\nwhose members were fierce, ignorant, and bloody—whose priests were\nhypocrites, and whose bishops were assassins. If Julian had said he was\na Christian—no matter what he actually was, he would have satisfied the\nchurch.\n\nThe story that the dying emperor acknowledged that he was conquered\nby the Galilean was originated by some of the so-called Fathers of the\nChurch, probably by Gregory or Theodoret. They are the same wretches\nwho said that Julian sacrificed a woman to the moon, tearing out her\nentrails with his own hands. We are also informed by these hypocrites\nthat he endeavored to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and that\nfire came out of the earth and consumed the laborers employed in the\nsacrilegious undertaking.\n\nI did not suppose that an intelligent man could be found in the world\nwho believed this childish fable, and yet in the January number for\n1880, of the Princeton Review, the Rev. Stuart Robinson (whoever\nhe may be) distinctly certifies to the truth of this story. He says:\n\"Throughout the entire era of the planting of the Christian Church, the\ngospel preached was assailed not only by the malignant fanaticism of the\nJew and the violence of Roman statecraft, but also by the intellectual\nweapons of philosophers, wits, and poets. Now Celsus denounced the new\nreligion as base imposture. Now Tacitus described it as but another\nphase of the _odium generis humani. Now Julian proposed to bring into\ncontempt the prophetic claims of its founder by the practical test\nof rebuilding the Temple_.\" Here then in the year of grace 1880 is a\nPresbyterian preacher, who really believes that Julian tried to rebuild\nthe Temple, and that God caused fire to issue from the earth and consume\nthe innocent workmen.\n\nAll these stories rest upon the same foundation—the mendacity of\npriests.\n\nJulian changed the religion of the Empire, and diverted the revenues\nof the church. Whoever steps between a priest and his salary, will find\nthat he has committed every crime. No matter how often the slanders may\nbe refuted, they will be repeated until the last priest has lost his\nbody and found his wings. These falsehoods about Julian were invented\nsome fifteen hundred years ago, and they are repeated to-day by just as\nhonest and just as respectable people as those who told them at first.\nWhenever the church cannot answer the arguments of an opponent, she\nattacks his character. She resorts to falsehood, and in the domain of\ncalumny she has stood for fifteen hundred years without a rival.\n\nThe great Empire was crumbling to its fall. The literature of the world\nwas being destroyed by priests. The gods and goddesses were driven from\nthe earth and sky. The paintings were torn and defaced. The statues were\nbroken. The walls were left desolate, and the niches empty. Art, like\nRachel, wept for her children, and would not be comforted. The streams\nand forests were deserted by the children of the imagination, and the\nwhole earth was barren, poor and mean.\n\nChristian ignorance, bigotry and hatred, in blind unreasoning zeal, had\ndestroyed the treasures of our race. Art was abhorred, Knowledge\nwas despised, Reason was an outcast. The sun was blotted from the\nintellectual heaven, every star extinguished, and there fell upon the\nworld that shadow—that midnight,—known as \"The Dark Ages.\"\n\nThis night lasted for a thousand years.\n\nThe First Great Star—Herald of the Dawn—was Bruno.\n\nBruno\n\nTHE night of the Middle Ages lasted for a thousand years. The first star\nthat enriched the horizon of this universal gloom was Giordano Bruno. He\nwas the herald of the dawn.\n\nHe was born in 1550, was educated for a priest, became a Dominican\nfriar. At last his reason revolted against the doctrine of\ntransubstantiation. He could not believe that the entire Trinity was in\na wafer, or in a swallow of wine. He could not believe that a man could\ndevour the Creator of the universe by eating a piece of bread. This led\nhim to investigate other dogmas of the Catholic Church, and in\nevery direction he found the same contradictions and impossibilities\nsupported, not by reason, but by faith.\n\nThose who loved their enemies threatened his life. He was obliged to\nflee from his native land, and he became a vagabond in nearly every\nnation of Europe. He declared that he fought, not what priests believed,\nbut what they pretended to believe. He was driven from his native\ncountry because of his astronomical opinions. He had lost confidence\nin the Bible as a scientific work. He was in danger because he had\ndiscovered a truth.\n\nHe fled to England. He gave some lectures at Oxford. He found that\ninstitution controlled by priests. He found that they were teaching\nnothing of importance—only the impossible and the hurtful. He called\nOxford \"the widow of true learning.\" There were in England, at that\ntime, two men who knew more than the rest of the world. Shakespeare was\nthen alive.\n\nBruno was driven from England. He was regarded as a dangerous man,—he\nhad opinions, he inquired after reasons, he expressed confidence in\nfacts. He fled to France. He was not allowed to remain in that country.\nHe discussed things—that was enough. The church said, \"move on.\" He\nwent to Germany. He was not a believer—he was an investigator. The\nGermans wanted believers; they regarded the whole Christian system as\nsettled; they wanted witnesses; they wanted men who would assert. So he\nwas driven from Germany.\n\nHe returned at last to his native land. He found himself without\nfriends, because he had been true, not only to himself, but to the human\nrace. But the world was false to him because he refused to crucify the\nChrist of his own soul between the two thieves of hypocrisy and bigotry.\nHe was arrested for teaching that there are other worlds than this;\nthat many of the stars are suns, around which other worlds revolve; that\nNature did not exhaust all her energies on this grain of sand called the\nearth. He believed in a plurality of worlds, in the rotation of this, in\nthe heliocentric theory. For these crimes, and for these alone, he was\nimprisoned for six years. He was kept in solitary confinement. He was\nallowed no books, no friends, no visitors. He was denied pen and paper.\nIn the darkness, in the loneliness, he had time to examine the great\nquestions of origin, of existence, of destiny. He put to the test what\nis called the goodness of God. He found that he could neither depend\nupon man nor upon any deity. At last, the Inquisition demanded him.\nHe was tried, condemned, excommunicated and sentenced to be burned.\nAccording to Professor Draper, he believed that this world is animated\nby an intelligent soul—the cause of forms, but not of matter; that it\nlives in all things, even in such as seem not to live; that everything\nis ready to become organized; that matter is the mother of forms,\nand then their grave; that matter and the soul of things, together,\nconstitute God. He was a pantheist—that is to say, an atheist. He was\na lover of Nature,—a reaction from the asceticism of the church. He was\ntired of the gloom of the monastery. He loved the fields, the woods, the\nstreams. He said to his brother-priests: Come out of your cells, out of\nyour dungeons: come into the air and light.\n\nThrow away your beads and your crosses. Gather flowers; mingle with your\nfellow-men; have wives and children; scatter the seeds of joy; throw\naway the thorns and nettles of your creeds; enjoy the perpetual miracle\nof life.\n\nOn the sixteenth day of February, in the year of grace 1600, by \"the\ntriumphant beast,\" the Church of Rome, this philosopher, this great and\nsplendid man, was burned. He was offered his liberty if he would recant.\nThere was no God to be offended by his recantation, and yet, as an\napostle of what he believed to be the truth, he refused this offer. To\nthose who passed the sentence upon him he said: \"It is with greater fear\nthat ye pass this sentence upon me than I receive it.\" This man, greater\nthan any naturalist of his day; grander than the martyr of any religion,\ndied willingly in defence of what he believed to be the sacred truth. He\nwas great enough to know that real religion will not destroy the joy\nof life on earth; great enough to know that investigation is not a\ncrime—that the really useful is not hidden in the mysteries of faith.\nHe knew that the Jewish records were below the level of the Greek and\nRoman myths; that there is no such thing as special providence; that\nprayer is useless; that liberty and necessity are the same, and that\ngood and evil are but relative.\n\nHe was the first real martyr,—neither frightened by perdition, nor\nbribed by heaven. He was the first of all the world who died for truth\nwithout expectation of reward. He did not anticipate a crown of glory.\nHis imagination had not peopled the heavens with angels waiting for his\nsoul. He had not been promised an eternity of joy if he stood firm,\nnor had he been threatened with the fires of hell if he wavered and\nrecanted. He expected as his reward an eternal nothing! Death was to him\nan everlasting end—nothing beyond but a sleep without a dream, a night\nwithout a star, without a dawn—nothing but extinction, blank, utter,\nand eternal. No crown, no palm, no \"well done, good and faithful\nservant,\" no shout of welcome, no song of praise, no smile of God, no\nkiss of Christ, no mansion in the fair skies—not even a grave within\nthe earth—nothing but ashes, wind-blown and priest-scattered, mixed\nwith earth and trampled beneath the feet of men and beasts.\n\nThe murder of this man will never be completely and perfectly avenged\nuntil from Rome shall be swept every vestige of priest and pope, until\nover the shapeless ruin of St. Peter's, the crumbled Vatican and the\nfallen cross, shall rise a monument to Bruno,—the thinker, philosopher,\nphilanthropist, atheist, martyr.\n\nThe Church in the Time of Voltaire\n\nWHEN Voltaire was born, the natural was about the only thing in which\nthe church did not believe. The monks sold little amulets of consecrated\npaper. They would cure diseases. If laid in a cradle they would prevent\na child being bewitched. So, they could be put into houses and barns to\nkeep devils away, or buried in a field to prevent bad weather, to delay\nfrost, and to insure good crops. There was a regular formulary by which\nthey were made, ending with a prayer, after which the amulets were\nsprinkled with holy water. The church contended that its servants were\nthe only legitimate physicians. The priests cured in the name of the\nchurch, and in the name of God, by exorcism, relics, water, salt,\nand oil. St. Valentine cured epilepsy, St. Gervasius was good for\nrheumatism, St. Michael de Sanatis for cancer, St. Judas for coughs, St.\nOvidius for deafness, St. Sebastian for poisonous bites, St. Apollonia\nfor toothache, St. Clara for rheum in the eye, St. Hubert for\nhydrophobia. Devils were driven out with wax tapers, with incense, with\nholy water, by pronouncing prayers. The church, as late as the middle of\nthe twelfth century, prohibited good Catholics from having anything to\ndo with physicians.\n\nIt was believed that the devils produced storms of wind, of rain and of\nfire from heaven; that the atmosphere was a battlefield between angels\nand devils; that Lucifer had power to destroy fields and vineyards and\ndwellings, and the principal business of the church was to protect the\npeople from the Devil. This was the origin of church bells. These bells\nwere sprinkled with holy water, and their clangor cleared the air of\nimps and fiends. The bells also prevented storms and lightning. The\nchurch used to anathematize insects. In the sixteenth century, regular\nsuits were commenced against rats, and judgment was rendered. Every\nmonastery had its master magician, who sold magic incense, salt, and\ntapers, consecrated palms and relics.\n\nEvery science was regarded as an outcast, an enemy. Every fact held the\ncreed of the church in scorn. Investigators were enemies in disguise.\nThinkers were traitors, and the church exerted its vast power for\ncenturies to prevent the intellectual progress of man. There was no\nliberty, no education, no philosophy, no science; nothing but credulity,\nignorance, and superstition. The world was really under the control\nof Satan and his agents. The church, for the purpose of increasing her\npower, exhausted every means to convince the people of the existence\nof witches, devils, and fiends. In this way the church had every enemy\nwithin her power. She simply had to charge him with being a wizard, of\nholding communication with devils, and the ignorant mob were ready to\ntear him to pieces.\n\nTo such an extent was this frightful course pursued, and such was the\nprevalence of the belief in the supernatural, that the worship of the\ndevil was absolutely established. The poor people, brutalized by the\nchurch, filled with fear of Satanic influence, finding that the church\ndid not protect, as a last resort began to worship the Devil. The power\nof the Devil was proven by the Bible. The history of Job, the temptation\nof Christ in the desert, the carrying of Christ to the top of\nthe temple, and hundreds of other instances, were relied upon as\nestablishing his power; and when people laughed about witches riding\nupon anointed sticks in the air, invisible, they were reminded of a like\nvoyage when the Devil carried Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple.\n\nThis frightful doctrine filled every friend with suspicion of his\nfriend. It the husband denounce the wife, the children the parents,\nand the parents the children It destroyed all the sweet relations of\nhumanity. It did away with justice in the courts. It destroyed the\ncharity of religion. It broke the bond of friendship. It filled with\npoison the golden cup of life. It turned earth into a very hell, peopled\nwith ignorant, tyrannical, and malicious demons.\n\nSuch was the result of a few centuries of Christianity. Such was the\nresult of a belief in the supernatural. Such was the result of giving\nup the evidence of our own senses, and relying upon dreams, visions, and\nfears. Such was the result of destroying human reason, of depending upon\nthe supernatural, of living here for another world instead of for this,\nof depending upon priests instead of upon ourselves. The Protestants\nvied with the Catholics. Luther stood side by side with the priests\nhe had deserted, in promoting this belief in devils and fiends. To the\nCatholic, every Protestant was possessed by a devil. To the Protestant,\nevery Catholic was the homestead of a fiend. All order, all regular\nsuccession of causes and effects, were known no more. The natural ceased\nto exist. The learned and the ignorant were on a level. The priest had\nbeen caught in the net spread for the peasant, and Christendom was a\nvast madhouse, with insane priests for keepers.\n\nVoltaire\n\nWHEN Voltaire was born, the church ruled and owned France. It was\na period of almost universal corruption. The priests were mostly\nlibertines. The judges were nearly as cruel as venal. The royal palace\nwas simply a house of assignation. The nobles were heartless, proud,\narrogant, and cruel to the last degree. The common people were treated\nas beasts. It took the church a thousand years to bring about this happy\ncondition of things.\n\nThe seeds of the revolution unconsciously were being scattered by\nevery noble and by every priest. They germinated in the hearts of the\nhelpless. They were watered by the tears of agony. Blows began to bear\ninterest. There was a faint longing for blood. Workmen, blackened by the\nsun, bent by labor, looked at the white throats of scornful ladies and\nthought about cutting them.\n\nIn those days witnesses were cross-examined with instruments of torture.\nThe church was the arsenal of superstition. Miracles, relics, angels\nand devils were as common as rags. Voltaire laughed at the evidences,\nattacked the pretended facts, held the Bible up to ridicule, and\nfilled Europe with indignant protests against the cruelty, bigotry, and\ninjustice of the time.\n\nHe was a believer in God, and in some ingenious way excused this God for\nallowing the Catholic Church to exist. He had an idea that, originally,\nmankind were believers in one God, and practiced all the virtues. Of\ncourse this was a mistake. He imagined that the church had corrupted the\nhuman race. In this he was right.\n\nIt may be that, at one time, the church relatively stood for progress,\nbut when it gained power, it became an obstruction. The system of\nVoltaire was contradictory. He described a being of infinite goodness,\nwho not only destroyed his children with pestilence and famine, but\nallowed them to destroy each other. While rejecting the God of the\nBible, he accepted another God, who, to say the least, allowed the\ninnocent to be burned for love of him.\n\nVoltaire hated tyranny, and loved liberty. His arguments to prove the\nexistence of a God were just as groundless as those of the reverend\nfathers of his day to prove the divinity of Christ, or that Mary was the\nmother of God. The theologians of his time maligned and feared him. He\nregarded them as a spider does flies. He spread nets for them. They\nwere caught, and he devoured them for the amusement and benefit of the\npublic. He was educated by the Jesuits, and sometimes acted like one.\n\nIt is fashionable to say that he was not profound, This is because he\nwas not stupid. In the presence of absurdity he laughed, and was called\nirreverent. He thought God would not damn even a priest forever: this\nwas regarded as blasphemy. He endeavored to prevent Christians from\nmurdering each other and did what he could to civilize the disciples\nof Christ. Had he founded a sect, obtained control of some country, and\nburned a few heretics at slow fires, he would have won the admiration,\nrespect and love of the Christian world. Had he only pretended to\nbelieve all the fables of antiquity, had he mumbled Latin prayers,\ncounted beads, crossed himself, devoured the flesh of God, and carried\nfagots to the feet of philosophy in the name of Christ, he might have\nbeen in heaven this moment, enjoying a sight of the damned.\n\nInstead of doing these things, he willfully closed his eyes to the light\nof the gospel, examined the Bible for himself, advocated intellectual\nliberty, struck from the brain the fetters of an arrogant faith,\nassisted the weak, cried out against the torture of man, appealed to\nreason, endeavored to establish universal toleration, succored the\nindigent, and defended the oppressed.\n\nThese were his crimes. Such a man God would not suffer to die in peace.\nIf allowed to meet death with a smile, others might follow his example,\nuntil none would be left to light the holy fires of the auto da fe. It\nwould not do for so great, so successful an enemy of the church, to\ndie without leaving some shriek of fear, some shudder of remorse, some\nghastly prayer of chattered horror, uttered by lips covered with blood\nand foam.\n\nHe was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded with the\ncomforts of life; he was a man of wealth, of genius. Among the literary\nmen of the world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the\nappearance of success. His last years were filled with the intoxication\nof flattery. He stood at the summit of his age.\n\nThe priests became anxious. They began to fear that God would forget, in\na multiplicity of business, to make a terrible example of Voltaire.\n\nToward the last of May, 1778, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire\nwas dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of\nsuperstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.\n\n\"Two days before his death, his nephew went to seek the curé of Saint\nSulpice and the Abbé Gautier and brought them into his uncle's sick\nchamber, who was informed that they were there. 'Ah, well!' said\nVoltaire, 'give them my compliments and my thanks.' The Abbé spoke some\nwords to him, exhorting him to patience. The curé of Saint Sulpice then\ncame forward, having announced himself, and asked of Voltaire, elevating\nhis voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The\nsick man pushed one of his hands against the curé's coif, shoving him\nback, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side, 'Let me die in\npeace.' The curé seemingly considered his person soiled, and his coif\ndishonored, by the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him\na little brushing, and went out with the Abbé Gautier.\"\n\nHe expired, says Wagniere, on the 30th of May, 1778, at about a quarter\npast eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity. Ten minutes\nbefore his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his _valet de\nchambre_, who was watching by him, pressed it and said: \"Adieu, my dear\nMorand, I am gone.\" These were his last words.\n\nFrom this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful; from\nthese words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch, all the\nfrightful pictures, all the despairing utterances, have been drawn and\nmade. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed\nall the shameless lies about The death of this great and wonderful man,\ncompared with whom all of his calumniators, dead and living, were and\nare but dust and vermin.\n\nVoltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at\nthe foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite\nin Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin of\nsuperstition. He left the quiver of ridicule without an arrow. Through\nthe shadows of faith and fable, through the darkness of myth and\nmiracle, through the midnight of Christianity, through the blackness of\nbigotry, past cathedral and dungeon, past rack and stake, past altar and\nthrone, he carried, with chivalric hands, the sacred torch of reason.\n\nDiderot\n\nDOUBT IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD TRUTH.\n\nDIDEROT was born in 1713. His parents were in what may be called the\nhumbler walks of life. Like Voltaire he was educated by the Jesuits. He\nhad in him something of the vagabond, and was for several years almost a\nbeggar in Paris. He was endeavoring to live by his pen. In that day and\ngeneration, a man without a patron, endeavoring to live by literature,\nwas necessarily almost a beggar. He nearly starved—frequently going for\ndays without food. Afterward, when he had something himself, he was as\ngenerous as the air. No man ever was more willing to give, and no man\nless willing to receive, than Diderot.\n\nHe wrote upon all conceivable subjects, that he might have bread. He\neven wrote sermons, and regretted it all his life. He and D'Alembert\nwere the life and soul of the Encyclopaedia. With infinite enthusiasm he\nhelped to gather the knowledge of the world for the use of each and all.\nHe harvested the fields of thought, separated the grain from the\nstraw and chaff, and endeavored to throw away the seeds and fruit of\nsuperstition. His motto was, \"_Incredulity is the first step towards\nphilosophy_.\"\n\nHe had the vices of most Christians—was nearly as immoral as the\nmajority of priests. His vices he shared in common, his virtues were his\nown. All who knew him united in saying that he had the pity of a woman,\nthe generosity of a prince, the self-denial of an anchorite, the courage\nof Cæsar, and the enthusiasm of a poet. He attacked with every power\nof his mind the superstition of his day. He said what he thought. The\npriests hated him. He was in favor of universal education—the church\ndespised it. He wished to put the knowledge of the whole world within\nreach of the poorest.\n\nHe wished to drive from the gate of the Garden of Eden the cherubim of\nsuperstition, so that the child of Adam might return to eat once more\nthe fruit of the tree of knowledge. Every Catholic was his enemy. His\npoor little desk was ransacked by the police searching for manuscripts\nin which something might be found that would justify the imprisonment of\nsuch a dangerous man. Whoever, in 1750, wished to increase the knowledge\nof mankind was regarded as the enemy of social order.\n\nThe intellectual superstructure of France rests upon the Encyclopaedia.\nThe knowledge given to the people was the impulse, the commencement,\nof the revolution that left the church without an altar and the king\nwithout a throne. Diderot thought for himself, and bravely gave his\nthoughts to others. For this reason he was regarded as a criminal. He\ndid not expect his reward in another world. He did not do what he did to\nplease some imaginary God. He labored for mankind. He wished to lighten\nthe burdens of those who should live after him. Hear these noble words:\n\n\"The more man ascends through the past, and the more he launches into\nthe future, the greater he will be, and all these philosophers and\nministers and truth-telling men who have fallen victims to the stupidity\nof nations, the atrocities of priests, the fury of tyrants, what\nconsolation was left for them in death? This: That prejudice would\npass, and that posterity would pour out the vial of ignominy upon\ntheir enemies. O Posterity! Holy and sacred stay of the unhappy and\nthe oppressed; thou who art just, thou who art incorruptible, thou who\nfindest the good man, who unmaskest the hypocrite, who breakest down\nthe tyrant, may thy sure faith, thy consoling faith never, never abandon\nme!\" Posterity is for the philosopher what the other world is for the\ndevotee.\n\nDiderot took the ground that, if orthodox religion be true Christ was\nguilty of suicide. Having the power to defend himself he should have\nused it.\n\nOf course it would not do for the church to allow a man to die in\npeace who had added to the intellectual wealth of the world. The moment\nDiderot was dead, Catholic priests began painting and recounting the\nhorrors of his expiring moments. They described him as overcome with\nremorse, as insane with fear; and these falsehoods have been repeated\nby the Protestant world, and will probably be repeated by thousands of\nministers after we are dead. The truth is, he had passed his three-score\nyears and ten. He had lived for seventy-one years. He had eaten his\nsupper. He had been conversing with his wife. He was reclining in\nhis easy chair. His mind was at perfect rest. He had entered, without\nknowing it, the twilight of his last day. Above the horizon was the\nevening star, telling of sleep. The room grew still and the stillness\nwas lulled by the murmur of the street. There were a few moments of\nperfect peace. The wife said, \"He is asleep.\" She enjoyed his repose,\nand breathed softly that he might not be disturbed. The moments wore on,\nand still he slept. Lovingly, softly, at last she touched him. Yes, he\nwas asleep. He had become a part of the eternal silence.\n\nDavid Hume\n\nTHE worst religion of the world was the Presbyterianism of Scotland as\nit existed in the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Kirk had all\nthe faults of the Church of Rome without a redeeming feature. The Kirk\nhated music, painting, statuary, and architecture. Anything touched with\nhumanity—with the dimples of joy—was detested and accursed. God was to\nbe feared—not loved.\n\nLife was a long battle with the Devil. Every desire was of Satan.\nHappiness was a snare, and human love was wicked, weak and vain. The\nPresbyterian priest of Scotland was as cruel, bigoted and heartless as\nthe familiar of the Inquisition.\n\nOne case will tell it all:\n\nIn the beginning of this, the nineteenth century, a boy seventeen\nyears of age, Thomas Aikenhead, was indicted and tried at Edinburgh for\nblasphemy. He had denied the inspiration of the Bible. He had on several\noccasions, when cold, jocularly wished himself in hell that he might get\nwarm. The poor, frightened boy recanted—begged for mercy; but he was\nfound guilty, hanged, thrown in a hole at the foot of the scaffold,\nand his weeping mother vainly begged that his bruised and bleeding body\nmight be given to her.\n\nThis one case, multiplied again and again, gives you the condition of\nScotland when, on the 26th of April, 1711, David Hume was born.\n\nDavid Hume was one of the few Scotchmen of his day who were not owned\nby the church. He had the manliness to examine historical and religious\nquestions for himself, and the courage to give his conclusions to\nthe world. He was singularly capable of governing himself. He was a\nphilosopher, and lived a calm and cheerful life, unstained by an\nunjust act, free from all excess, and devoted in a reasonable degree to\nbenefiting his fellow-men. After examining the Bible he became convinced\nthat it was not true. For failing to suppress his real opinion, for\nfailing to tell a deliberate falsehood, he brought upon himself the\nhatred of the church.\n\nIntellectual honesty is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and whether God\nwill forgive this sin or not his church has not, and never will.\n\nHume took the ground that a miracle could not be used as evidence until\nthe fact that it had happened was established. But how can a miracle be\nestablished? Take any miracle recorded in the Bible, and how could it be\nestablished now? You may say: Upon the testimony of those who wrote\nthe account. Who were they? No one knows. How could you prove\nthe resurrection of Lazarus? Or of the widow's son? How could you\nsubstantiate, today, the ascension of Jesus Christ? In what way could\nyou prove that the river Jordan was divided upon being struck by the\ncoat of a prophet? How is it possible now to establish the fact that the\nfires of a furnace refused to burn three men? Where are the witnesses?\nWho, upon the whole earth, has the slightest knowledge upon this\nsubject?\n\nHe insisted that at the bottom of all good was the useful; that human\nhappiness was an end worth working and living for; that origin\nand destiny were alike unknown; that the best religion was to live\ntemperately and to deal justly with our fellow-men; that the dogma of\ninspiration was absurd, and that an honest man had nothing to fear. Of\ncourse the Kirk hated him. He laughed at the creed.\n\nTo the lot of Hume fell ease, respect, success, and honor. While many\ndisciples of God were the sport and prey of misfortune, he kept steadily\nadvancing.\n\nEnvious Christians bided their time. They waited as patiently as\npossible for the horrors of death to fall upon the heart and brain of\nDavid Hume. They knew that all the furies would be there, and that God\nwould get his revenge.\n\nAdam Smith, author of the \"Wealth of Nations,\" speaking of Hume in his\nlast sickness, says that in the presence of death \"his cheerfulness was\nso great, and his conversation and amusements ran so much in the usual\nstrain, that, notwithstanding all his bad symptoms, many people could\nnot believe he was dying. A few days before his death Hume said: 'I am\ndying as fast as my enemies—if I have any—could wish, and as easily\nand tranquilly as my best friends could desire.'\"\n\nCol. Edmondstoune shortly afterward wrote Hume a letter, of which the\nfollowing is an extract:\n\n\"My heart is full. I could not see you this morning. I thought it was\nbetter for us both. You cannot die—you must live in the memory of your\nfriends and acquaintances; and your works will render you immortal. I\ncannot conceive that it was possible for any one to dislike you, or hate\nyou. He must be more than savage who could be an enemy to a man with the\nbest head and heart and the most amiable manners.\"\n\nAdam Smith happened to go into his room while he was reading the above\nletter, which he immediately showed him. Smith said to Hume that he was\nsensible of how much he was weakening, and that appearances were in many\nrespects bad; yet, that his cheerfulness was so great and the spirit of\nlife still seemed to be so strong in him, that he could not keep from\nentertaining some hopes.\n\nHume answered, \"When I lie down in the evening I feel myself weaker than\nwhen I arose in the morning; and when I rise in the morning, weaker than\nwhen I lay down in the evening. I am sensible, besides, that some of my\nvital parts are affected so that I must soon die.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said Mr. Smith, \"if it must be so, you have at least the\nsatisfaction of leaving all your friends, and the members of your\nbrother's family in particular, in great prosperity.\"\n\nHe replied that he was so sensible of his situation that when he was\nreading Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead, among all the excuses which are\nalleged to Charon for not entering readily into his boat, he could not\nfind one that fitted him. He had no house to finish; he had no daughter\nto provide for; he had no enemies upon whom he wished to revenge\nhimself; \"and I could not well,\" said he, \"imagine what excuse I could\nmake to Charon in order to obtain a little delay. I have done everything\nof consequence which I ever meant to do, and I could, at no time expect\nto leave my relations and friends in a better situation than that in\nwhich I am now likely to leave them; and I have, therefore, every reason\nto die contented.\"\n\n\"Upon further consideration,\" said he, \"I thought I might say to him,\n'Good Charon, I have been correcting my works for a new edition.\nAllow me a little time that I may see how the public receives the\nalterations.' 'But,' Charon would answer, 'when you have seen the effect\nof this, you will be for making other alterations. There will be no\nend to such excuses; so, my honest friend, please step into the boat.'\n'But,' I might still urge, 'have a little patience, good Charon; I have\nbeen endeavoring to open the eyes of the public; if I live a few years\nlonger, I may have the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of some of\nthe prevailing systems of superstition.' And Charon would then lose all\ntemper and decency, and would cry out, 'You loitering rogue, that will\nnot happen these many hundred years. Do you fancy I will grant you a\nlease for so long a time? Get into the boat this instant.'\"\n\nTo the Comtesse de Boufflers, the dying man, with the perfect serenity\nthat springs from an honest and loving life, writes:\n\n\"I see death approach gradually without any anxiety or regret.... I\nsalute you with great affection and regard, for the last time.\"\n\nOn the 25th of August, 1776, the philosopher, the historian, the\ninfidel, the honest man, and a benefactor of his race, in the composure\nborn of a noble life, passed quietly and panglessly away.\n\nDr. Black wrote the following account of his death:\n\n\"Monday, 26 August, 1776.\n\n\"Dear Sir: Yesterday, about four o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Hume\nexpired. The near approach of his death became evident on the evening\nbetween Thursday and Friday, when his disease became exhaustive, and\nsoon weakened him so much that he could no longer rise from his bed.\nHe continued to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain\nor feeling of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of\nimpatience; but when he had occasion to speak to the people about him,\nalways did it with affection and tenderness.... When he became very\nweak, it cost him an effort to speak, and he died in such happy\ncomposure of mind that nothing could exceed it.\"\n\nDr. Cullen writes Dr. Hunter on the 17th of September, 1776, from which\nthe following extracts are made:\n\n\"You desire an account of Mr. Hume's last days, and I give it to you\nwith great pleasure.... It was truly an example _des grands hommes qui\nsont morts en plaisantant_; and to me, who have been so often shocked\nwith the horrors of superstition, the reflection on such a death is\ntruly agreeable. For many weeks before his death he was very sensible\nof his gradual decay; and his answer to inquiries after his health was,\nseveral times, that he was going as fast as his enemies could wish, and\nas easily as his friends could desire. He passed most of the time in his\ndrawing-room, admitting the visits of his friends, and with his usual\nspirit conversed with them upon literature and politics and whatever\nelse was started. In conversation he seemed to be perfectly at ease;\nand to the last abounded with that pleasantry and those curious and\nentertaining anecdotes which ever distinguished him.... His senses and\njudgment did not fail him to the last hour of his life. He constantly\ndiscovered a strong sensibility of the attention and care of his\nfriends; and midst great uneasiness and languor never betrayed any\npeevishness or impatience.\" (Here follows the conversation with Charon.)\n\"These are a few particulars which may, perhaps, appear trivial; but to\nme, no particulars seem trivial which relate to so great a man. It is\nperhaps from trifles that we can best distinguish the tranquilness and\ncheerfulness of the philosopher at a time when the most part of mankind\nare under disquiet, and sometimes even horror. I consider the sacrifice\nof the cock as a more certain evidence of the tranquillity of Socrates\nthan his discourse on immortality.\"\n\nThe Christians took it for granted that this serene and placid man died\nfilled with remorse for having given his real opinions, and proceeded to\ndescribe, with every incident and detail of horror, the terrors of his\nlast moments. Brainless clergymen, incapable of understanding what Hume\nhad written, knowing only in a general way that he had held their creeds\nin contempt, answered his arguments by maligning his character.\n\nChristians took it for granted that he died in horror and recounted the\nterrible scenes.\n\nWhen the facts of his death became generally known to intelligent men,\nthe ministers redoubled their efforts to maintain the old calumnies,\nand most of them are in this employment even unto this day. Finding it\nimpossible to tell enough falsehoods to hide the truth, a few of the\nmore intelligent among the priests admitted that Hume not only died\nwithout showing any particular fear, but was guilty of unbecoming\nlevity. The first charge was that he died like a coward; the next that\nhe did not care enough, and went through the shadowy doors of the\ndread unknown with a smile upon his lips. The dying smile of David Hume\nscandalized the believers in a God of love. They felt shocked to see\na man dying without fear who denied the miracles of the Bible; who had\nspent a life investigating the opinions of men; in endeavoring to prove\nto the world that the right way is the best way; that happiness is\na real and substantial good, and that virtue is not a termagant with\nsunken cheeks and hollow eyes.\n\nChristians hated to admit that a philosopher had died serenely without\nthe aid of superstition—one who had taught that man could not make God\nhappy by making himself miserable, and that a useful life, after all,\nwas the best possible religion. They imagined that death would fill such\na man with remorse and terror. He had never persecuted his fellow-men\nfor the honor of God, and must needs die in despair. They were mistaken.\n\nHe died as he had lived. Like a peaceful river with green and shaded\nbanks he passed, without a murmur, into that waveless sea where life at\nlast is rest.\n\nBenedict Spinoza\n\nONE of the greatest thinkers was Benedict Spinoza, a Jew, born at\nAmsterdam, in 1632. He studied medicine and afterward theology. He\nendeavored to understand what he studied. In theology he necessarily\nfailed. Theology is not intended to be understood,—it is only to be\nbelieved. It is an act, not of reason, but of faith. Spinoza put to the\nrabbis so many questions, and so persistently asked for reasons, that\nhe became the most troublesome of students. When the rabbis found\nit impossible to answer the questions, they concluded to silence the\nquestioner. He was tried, found guilty, and excommunicated from the\nsynagogue.\n\nBy the terrible curse of the Jewish religion, he was made an outcast\nfrom every Jewish home. His father could not give him shelter. His\nmother could not give him bread—could not speak to him, without\nbecoming an outcast herself. All the cruelty of Jehovah, all the\ninfamy of the Old Testament, was in this curse. In the darkness of the\nsynagogue the rabbis lighted their torches, and while pronouncing the\ncurse, extinguished them in blood, imploring God that in like manner the\nsoul of Benedict Spinoza might be extinguished.\n\nSpinoza was but twenty-four years old when he found himself without\nkindred, without friends, surrounded only by enemies. He uttered no\ncomplaint.\n\nHe earned his bread with willing hands, and cheerfully divided his crust\nwith those still poorer than himself.\n\nHe tried to solve the problem of existence. To him, the universe was\nOne. The Infinite embraced the All. The All was God. According to his\nbelief, the universe did not commence to be. It is; from eternity it\nwas; to eternity it will be.\n\nHe was right. The universe is all there is, or was, or will be. It is\nboth subject and object, contemplator and contemplated, creator and\ncreated, destroyer and destroyed, preserver and preserved, and hath\nwithin itself all causes, modes, motions and effects.\n\nIn this there is hope. This is a foundation and a star. The Infinite\nis the All. Without the All, the Infinite cannot be. I am something.\nWithout me, the Infinite cannot exist.\n\nSpinoza was a naturalist—that is to say, a pantheist. He took the\nground that the supernatural is, and forever will be, an infinite\nimpossibility. His propositions are luminous as stars, and each of his\ndemonstrations is a Gibraltar, behind which logic sits and smiles at all\nthe sophistries of superstition.\n\nSpinoza has been hated because he has not been answered. He was a\nreal republican. He regarded the people as the true and only source of\npolitical power. He put the state above the church, the people above\nthe priest. He believed in the absolute liberty of worship, thought and\nspeech. In every relation of life he was just, true, gentle, patient,\nmodest and loving. He respected the rights of others, and endeavored to\nenjoy his own, and yet he brought upon himself the hatred of the Jewish\nand the Christian world. In his day, logic was blasphemy, and to think\nwas the unpardonable sin. The priest hated the philosopher, revelation\nreviled reason, and faith was the sworn foe of every fact.\n\nSpinoza was a philosopher, a philanthropist. He lived in a world of his\nown. He avoided men. His life was an intellectual solitude. He was a\nmental hermit. Only in his own brain he found the liberty he loved. And\nyet the rabbis and the priests, the ignorant zealot and the cruel bigot,\nfeeling that this quiet, thoughtful, modest man was in some way forging\nweapons to be used against the church, hated him with all their hearts.\n\nHe did not retaliate. He found excuses for their acts. Their ignorance,\ntheir malice, their misguided and revengeful zeal excited only pity in\nhis breast. He injured no man. He did not live on alms. He was poor—and\nyet, with the wealth of his brain, he enriched the world. On Sunday,\nFebruary 21, 1677, Spinoza, one of the greatest and subtlest of\nmetaphysicians—one of the noblest and purest of human beings,—at the\nage of forty-four, passed tranquilly away; and notwithstanding the curse\nof the synagogue under which he had lived and most lovingly labored,\ndeath left upon his lips the smile of perfect peace.\n\nOur Infidels\n\nIN our country there were three infidels—Paine, Franklin and Jefferson.\nThe colonies were filled with superstition, the Puritans with the spirit\nof persecution. Laws savage, ignorant and malignant had been passed in\nevery colony, for the purpose of destroying intellectual liberty.\nMental freedom was absolutely unknown. The Toleration Acts of\nMaryland tolerated only Christians—not infidels, not thinkers, not\ninvestigators. The charity of Roger Williams was not extended to those\nwho denied the Bible, or suspected the divinity of Christ. It was not\nbased upon the rights of man, but upon the rights of believers, who\ndiffered in non-essential points.\n\nThe moment the colonies began to deny the rights of the king they\nsuspected the power of the priest. In digging down to find an excuse for\nfighting George the Third, they unwittingly undermined the church. They\nwent through the Revolution together. They found that all denominations\nfought equally well. They also found that persons without religion had\npatriotism and courage, and were willing to die that a new nation might\nbe born. As a matter of fact the pulpit was not in hearty sympathy with\nour fathers. Many priests were imprisoned because they would not pray\nfor the Continental Congress. After victory had enriched our standard,\nand it became necessary to make a constitution—to establish a\ngovernment—the infidels—the men like Paine, like Jefferson, and\nlike Franklin, saw that the church must be left out; that a government\nderiving its just powers from the consent of the governed could make no\ncontract with a church pretending to derive its powers from an infinite\nGod.\n\nBy the efforts of these infidels, the name of God was left out of the\nConstitution of the United States. They knew that if an infinite being\nwas put in, no room would be left for the people. They knew that if\nany church was made the mistress of the state, that mistress, like all\nothers, would corrupt, weaken, and destroy. Washington wished a church\nestablished by law in Virginia. He was prevented by Thomas Jefferson. It\nwas only a little while ago that people were compelled to attend church\nby law in the Eastern States, and taxes were raised for the support of\nchurches the same as for the construction of highways and bridges. The\ngreat principle enunciated in the Constitution has silently repealed\nmost of these laws. In the presence of this great instrument, the\nconstitutions of the States grew small and mean, and in a few years\nevery law that puts a chain upon the mind, except in Delaware, will be\nrepealed, and for these our children may thank the Infidels of 1776.\n\nThe church never has pretended that Jefferson or Franklin died in fear.\nFranklin wrote no books against the fables of the ancient Jews. He\nthought it useless to cast the pearls of thought before the swine of\nignorance and fear. Jefferson was a statesman. He was the father of a\ngreat party. He gave his views in letters and to trusted friends. He\nwas a Virginian, author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of a\nuniversity, father of a political party, President of the United\nStates, a statesman and philosopher. He was too powerful for the divided\nchurches of his day. Paine was a foreigner, a citizen of the world. He\nhad attacked Washington and the Bible. He had done these things openly,\nand what he had said could not be answered. His arguments were so good\nthat his character was bad.\n\nThomas Paine\n\nTHOMAS PAINE was born in Thetford, England. He came from the common\npeople. At the age of thirty-seven he left England for America. He\nwas the first to perceive the destiny of the New World. He wrote the\npamphlet \"Common Sense,\" and in a few months the Continental Congress\ndeclared the colonies free and independent States—a new nation was\nborn. Paine having aroused the spirit of independence, gave every energy\nof his soul to keep the spirit alive. He was with the army. He shared\nits defeats and its glory. When the situation became desperate, he gave\nthem \"The Crisis.\" It was a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night,\nleading the way to freedom, honor, and to victory.\n\nThe writings of Paine are gemmed with compact statements that carry\nconviction to the dullest. Day and night he labored for America, until\nthere was a government of the people and for the people. At the close\nof the Revolution, no one stood higher than Thomas Paine. Had he been\nwilling to live a hypocrite, he would have been respectable, he at least\ncould have died surrounded by other hypocrites, and at his death there\nwould have been an imposing funeral, with miles of carriages, filled\nwith hypocrites, and above his hypocritical dust there would have been a\nhypocritical monument covered with lies.\n\nHaving done so much for man in America, he went to France. The seeds\nsown by the great infidels were bearing fruit in Europe. The eighteenth\ncentury was crowning its gray hairs with the wreath of progress.\nUpon his arrival in France he was elected a member of the French\nConvention—in fact, he was selected about the same time by the people\nof no less than four Departments. He was one of the committee to draft\na constitution for France. In the Assembly, where nearly all were\ndemanding the execution of the king, he had the courage to vote against\ndeath. To vote against the death of the king was to vote against his own\nlife. This was the sublimity of devotion to principle. For this he\nwas arrested, imprisoned, and doomed to death. While under sentence of\ndeath, while in the gloomy cell of his prison, Thomas Paine wrote to\nWashington, asking him to say one word to Robespierre in favor of the\nauthor of \"Common Sense.\" Washington did not reply. He wrote again.\nWashington, the President, paid no attention to Thomas Paine, the\nprisoner. The letter was thrown into the wastebasket of forgetfulness,\nand Thomas Paine remained condemned to death. Afterward he gave his\nopinion of Washington at length, and I must say, that I have never found\nit in my heart to greatly blame him.\n\nThomas Paine, having done so much for political liberty, turned his\nattention to the superstitions of his age. He published \"The Age of\nReason;\" and from that day to this, his character has been maligned by\nalmost every priest in Christendom. He has been held up as the terrible\nexample. Every man who has expressed an honest thought, has been\nwarningly referred to Thomas Paine. All his services were forgotten. No\nkind word fell from any pulpit. His devotion to principle, his zeal for\nhuman rights, were no longer remembered. Paine simply took the ground\nthat it is a contradiction to call a thing a revelation that comes to us\nsecond-hand. There can be no revelation beyond the first communication.\nAll after that is hearsay. He also showed that the prophecies of the Old\nTestament had no relation whatever to Jesus Christ, and contended that\nJesus Christ was simply a man. In other words, Paine was an enlightened\nUnitarian. Paine thought the Old Testament too barbarous to have been\nthe work of an infinitely benevolent God. He attacked the doctrine that\nsalvation depends upon belief. He insisted that every man has the right\nto think.\n\nAfter the publication of these views every falsehood that malignity\ncould coin and malice pass was given to the world. On his return to\nAmerica, after the election to the presidency of another infidel, Thomas\nJefferson, it was not safe for him to appear in the public streets. He\nwas in danger of being mobbed. Under the very flag he had helped to put\nin heaven his rights were not respected. Under the Constitution that he\nhad suggested, his life was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to\nmore than three millions of his fellow-citizens, and they were willing\nto deny it unto him. He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned, and\ncursed. He enjoyed the seclusion of a leper; but he maintained through\nit all his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind. Never for\none moment did he hesitate or waver.\n\nHe died almost alone. The moment he died Christians commenced\nmanufacturing horrors for his death-bed. They had his chamber filled\nwith devils rattling chains, and these ancient lies are annually\ncertified to by the respectable Christians of the present day. The truth\nis, he died as he had lived. Some ministers were impolite enough to\nvisit him against his will. Several of them he ordered from his room.\nA couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness of hypocrisy, called\nthat they might enjoy the agonies of a dying friend of man. Thomas\nPaine, rising in his bed, the few embers of expiring life blown into\nflame by the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both.\nHis physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold\nhand of death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dull\near of the dying man: \"Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that\nJesus Christ is the son of God?\" And the reply was: \"I have no wish to\nbelieve on that subject.\"\n\nThese were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as\nserenely as ever Christian passed away. He died in the full possession\nof his mind, and on the very brink and edge of death proclaimed the\ndoctrines of his life.\n\nEvery Christian, every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty,\nshould feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the splendid service\nrendered by him in the darkest days of the American Revolution. In the\nmidnight of Valley Forge, \"The Crisis\" was the first star that glittered\nin the wide horizon of despair. Every good man should remember\nwith gratitude the brave words spoken by Thomas Paine in the French\nConvention against the death of Louis. He said: \"We will kill the king,\nbut not the man. We will destroy monarchy, not the monarch.\"\n\nThomas Paine was a champion, in both hemispheres, of human liberty; one\nof the founders and fathers of this Republic; one of the foremost men of\nhis age. He never wrote a word in favor of injustice. He was a despiser\nof slavery. He abhorred tyranny in every form. He was, in the widest and\nbest sense, a friend of all his race. His head was as clear as his heart\nwas good, and he had the courage to speak his honest thought.\n\nHe was the first man to write these words: \"The United States of\nAmerica.\" He proposed the present Federal Constitution. He furnished\nevery thought that now glitters in the Declaration of Independence.\n\nHe believed in one God and no more. He was a believer even in special\nprovidence, and he hoped for immortality.\n\nHow can the world abhor the man who said:\n\n\"I believe in the equality of man, and that religious duties consist\nin doing justice, in loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our\nfellow-creatures happy.\"—\n\n\"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to\nhimself.\"—\n\n\"The word of God is the creation which we behold.\"—\n\n\"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.\"—\n\n\"My opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing good\nand endeavoring to make their fellow-mortals happy, will be happy\nhereafter.\"—\n\n\"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.\"—\n\n\"I believe in one God, and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this\nlife.\"—\n\n\"Man has no property in man\"—and \"The key of heaven is not in the\nkeeping of any sect!\"\n\nHad it not been for Thomas Paine I could not deliver this lecture here\nto-night..\n\nIt is still fashionable to calumniate this man—and yet Channing,\nTheodore Parker, Longfellow, Emerson, and in fact all the liberal\nUnitarians and Universalists of the world have adopted the opinions of\nThomas Paine.\n\nLet us compare these Infidels with the Christians of their time:\n\nCompare Julian with Constantine,—the murderer of his wife,—the\nmurderer of his son,—and who established Christianity with the same\nsword he had wet with their blood. Compare him with all the Christian\nemperors—with all the robbers and murderers and thieves—the parricides\nand fratricides and matricides that ever wore the imperial purple on the\nbanks of the Tiber or the shores of the Bosphorus.\n\nLet us compare Bruno with the Christians who burned him; and we will\ncompare Spinoza, Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, Jefferson, Paine—with the men\nwho it is claimed have been the visible representatives of God.\n\nLet it be remembered that the popes have committed every crime of which\nhuman nature is capable, and that not one of them was the friend of\nintellectual liberty—that not one of them ever shed one ray of light.\n\nLet us compare these Infidels with the founders of sectarian churches;\nyou will see how narrow, how bigoted, how cruel were their founders, and\nhow broad, how generous, how noble, were these infidels.\n\nLet us be honest. The great effort of the human mind is to ascertain the\norder of facts by which we are surrounded—the history of things.\n\nWho has accomplished the most in this direction—the church, or\nthe unbelievers? Upon one side write all that the church has\ndiscovered—every phenomenon that has been explained by a creed, every\nnew fact in Nature that has been discovered by a church, and on the\nother side write the discoveries of Humboldt, and the observations and\ndemonstrations of Darwin!\n\nWho has made Germany famous—her priests, or her scientists?\n\nGoethe.\n\nKant: That immortal man who said: \"Whoever thinks that he can please\nGod in any way except by discharging his obligations to his fellows, is\nsuperstitious.\"\n\nAnd that greatest and bravest of thinkers, Ernst\n\nHaeckel.\n\nHumboldt.\n\nItaly:—Mazzini. Garibaldi.\n\nIn France who are and were the friends of freedom—the Catholic priests,\nor Renan? the bishops, or Gambetta?—Dupanloup, or Victor Hugo?\n\nMichelet—Taine—Auguste Comte.\n\nEngland:—Let us compare her priests with John Stuart Mill,—Harriet\nMartineau, that \"free rover on the breezy common of the\nuniverse.\"—George Eliot—with Huxley and Tyndall, with Holyoake and\nHarrison—and above and over all—with Charles Darwin.\n\nConclusion\n\nLET us be honest. Did all the priests of Rome increase the mental wealth\nof man as much as Bruno? Did all the priests of France do as great a\nwork for the civilization of the world as Diderot and Voltaire? Did all\nthe ministers of Scotland add as much to the sum of human knowledge as\nDavid Hume? Have all the clergymen, monks, friars, ministers, priests,\nbishops, cardinals and popes, from the day of Pentecost to the last\nelection, done as much for human liberty as Thomas Paine?—as much for\nscience as Charles Darwin?\n\nWhat would the world be if infidels had never been?\n\nThe infidels have been the brave and thoughtful men; the flower of all\nthe world; the pioneers and heralds of the blessed day of liberty and\nlove; the generous spirits of the unworthy past; the seers and\nprophets of our race; the great chivalric souls, proud victors on the\nbattlefields of thought, the creditors of all the years to be.\n\nWhy should it be taken for granted that the men who devoted their lives\nto the liberation of their fellow-men should have been hissed at in\nthe hour of death by the snakes of conscience, while men who defended\nslavery, practiced polygamy, justified the stealing of babes from\nthe breasts of mothers, and lashed the naked back of unpaid labor are\nsupposed to have passed smilingly from earth to the embraces of the\nangels? Why should we think that the brave thinkers, the investigators,\nthe honest men, must have left the crumbling shore of time in dread\nand fear, while the instigators of the massacre of St. Bartholomew; the\ninventors and users of thumbscrews, of iron boots and racks; the burners\nand tearers of human flesh; the stealers, the whippers and the enslavers\nof men; the buyers and beaters of maidens, mothers, and babes; the\nfounders of the Inquisition; the makers of chains; the builders of\ndungeons; the calumniators of the living; the slanderers of the\ndead, and even the murderers of Jesus Christ, all died in the odor of\nsanctity, with white, forgiven hands folded upon the breasts of peace,\nwhile the destroyers of prejudice, the apostles of humanity, the\nsoldiers of liberty, the breakers of fetters, the creators of light,\ndied surrounded by the fierce fiends of God?\n"
}