{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:to-the-indianapolis-clergy",
  "slug": "to-the-indianapolis-clergy",
  "title": "To the Indianapolis Clergy",
  "subtitle": "Answers to the ministers of Indianapolis.",
  "excerpt": "Answers to a set of questions submitted by the Reverends Walk, Taylor, Reed, and O'Donaghue of Indianapolis — on the character of Jesus, the inspiration of the Bible, and the morality of the Old Testament God.",
  "year": 1883,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/to-the-indianapolis-clergy/",
  "wordCount": 9091,
  "body": "• The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.\n\nTHE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. David\nWalk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D.\nO'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.\n\nQuestion. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the\nFour Gospels, Fictional or Real?—Rev. David Walk.\n\nAnswer. In all probability, there was a man by the name of Jesus\nChrist, who was, in his day and generation, a reformer—a man who was\ninfinitely shocked at the religion of Jehovah—who became almost insane\nwith pity as he contemplated the sufferings of the weak, the poor, and\nthe ignorant at the hands of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and\nbloodthirsty church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted the\ndownfall of the temple. In all probability, he hated, at last, every\npillar and stone in it, and despised even the \"Holy of Holies.\" This\nman, of course, like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion\nhe held in his youth. He changed his views from time to time—fanned the\nspark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon extended\nand widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and better man.\n\nI find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In some\nportions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he\nsays that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because it is God's holy\ncity, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond that expression.\nSo, too, when it is recorded that he drove the money changers from the\ntemple. This, had it happened, would have been the act simply of one who\nhad respect for this temple and not for the religion taught in it.\n\nIt would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in the\nreligion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he wished to\nreform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he devoted\nhis life to its destruction. This view shows that he \"increased in\nstature and grew in knowledge.\"\n\nThis view is also supported by the fact that, at first, according to\nthe account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel was not for\nthe Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more patriotism than\nphilosophy. In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gentiles by\nthe persecution he endured at home. He found, as every Freethinker now\nfinds, that there are many saints not in churches and many devils not\nout.\n\nThe character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in the\nGospels, depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make\na Christ to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth; and\nsince the Gospels were finished, millions of men have been adding to and\nchanging the character of Christ.\n\nThere is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is that\nthe Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take it for\ngranted that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he\nquotes none of them. There is also this remarkable fact: Paul quotes\nnone of the miracles of the New Testament. He says not one word\nabout the multitude being fed miraculously, not one word about the\nresurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son. He had never heard of\nthe lame, the halt, and the blind that had been cured; or if he had, he\ndid not think these incidents of enough importance to be embalmed in an\nepistle.\n\nSo we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the four\nGospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four Gospels were not\nwritten until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more certain than\nthat the early Christians knew nothing of what we call the Gospels of\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these things have been growths. At\nfirst it was believed that Christ was a direct descendant from David. At\nthat time the disciples of Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was\nexpected through the blood of David.—For that reason, the genealogy of\nJoseph, a descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after,\nthat the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the\nson of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given,\nbelieved that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they\ngive the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related to David?\nIn other words, why should the son of God attempt to get glory out of\nthe fact that he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king? There\nis only one answer to this. The Jews expected the Messiah through\nDavid, and in order to prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the\ngenealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea became popularized that\nChrist was the son of God, and then were interpolated the words \"as\nwas supposed\" in the genealogy of Christ. It was a long time before the\ndisciples became great enough to include the world in their scheme, and\nbefore they thought it proper to tell the \"glad tidings of great joy\"\nbeyond the limits of Judea.\n\nMy own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether he\nlived in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is worth its\nexample, its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and heroism.\nIt is of no earthly importance whether he changed water into wine or\nnot. All his miracles are simply dust and darkness compared with what he\nactually said and actually did. We should be kind to each other whether\nLazarus was raised or not. We should be just and forgiving whether\nChrist lived or not. All the miracles in the world are of no use to\nvirtue, morality, or justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to\nignorance, to fear and folly.\n\nNeither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They are\nworth the truth that is in them and no more.\n\nThe words of Paul are often quoted, that \"all scripture is given by\ninspiration of God.\" Of course that could not have applied to anything\nwritten after that time. It could have applied only to the Scriptures\nthen written and then known. It is perfectly clear that the four Gospels\nwere not at that time written, and therefore this statement of Paul's\ndoes not apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply to anything\nwritten after that statement was written. Neither does it apply to that\nstatement. If it applied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not\nthe New.\n\nChrist has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of the\nmiraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human, he will\nhave gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think of him\nas I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus, of Bruno. I place\nhim with the great, the generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for\nthe man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I think he was in\nmany things mistaken. His reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect.\nHe seemed to believe that his father in heaven would protect him. He\nthought that if God clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he\nprovided for the sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just\nand loving man. In this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death,\noverwhelmed, he cried out: \"Why hast thou forsaken me?\"\n\nI do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever claimed to\nbe inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he\nwas an honest man. These claims were all put in his mouth by others—by\nmistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers, by zealous and credulous\nfollowers, and sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This has\nhappened to all the great men of the world. All historical characters\nare, in part, deformed or reformed by fiction. There was a man by the\nname of George Washington, but no such George Washington ever existed\nas we find portrayed in history. The historical Caesar never lived. The\nhistorical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism\nto rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to\nfind the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the Olympian\ngods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far greater than\nChrist the god.\n\nTo me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said nothing as\nto the obligation man is under to his country, nothing as to the rights\nof the people as against the wish and will of kings, nothing against the\nfrightful system of human slavery—almost universal in his time. What\nhe did not say is altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is\nmarvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing\nabout education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing\nabout art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer a\nreward to those who would desert their wives and families. Of course,\nI do not believe that he said the words that were attributed to him, in\nwhich a reward is offered to any man who will desert his kindred. But if\nwe take the account given in the four Gospels as the true account, then\nChrist did offer a reward to a father who would desert his children. It\nhas always been contended that he was a perfect example of mankind, and\nyet he never married. As a result of what he did not teach in connection\nwith what he did teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm\nin polygamy. They belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of\nthe next. They consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while\nhe would exchange his chains for wings. They comforted the captive by\nsaying that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for the bowers\nof Paradise. His followers believed that he had said that \"Whosoever\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\" This passage was the cross upon which\nintellectual liberty was crucified.\n\nIf Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how to\ncure disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free; if he had\ncrowned the people with their rightful power; if he had placed the home\nabove the church; if he had broken all the mental chains; if he had\nflooded all the caves and dens of fear with light, and filled the future\nwith a common joy, he would in truth have been the Savior of this world.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the difference between the Christian\nand other modern civilizations?\n\nAnswer. I account for the difference between men by the difference in\ntheir ancestry and surroundings—the difference in soil, climate, food,\nand employment. There would be no civilization in England were it not\nfor the Gulf Stream. There would have been very little here had it not\nbeen for the discovery of Columbus. And even now on this continent there\nwould be but little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask:\nHow do you account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was\nthe greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the\nEgyptian religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time when\nthe civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that prove that\nVishnu was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual world for centuries.\nDoes that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of heaven and\nearth? The same may be said of Rome. There was a time when Rome governed\nthe world, and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth of the\nRoman mythology. As a matter of fact, Rome was far better than any\nChristian nation ever was to the end of the seventeenth century. A\nthousand years of Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest\nof Rome. There were no poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no\nphilosophers as great as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors\nlike Marcus Aurelius, no women like the mothers of Rome.\n\nThe civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but it\nhas never been increased by any form of superstition. When America was\ndiscovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it would have, for\ninstance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake Michigan put the other\nside of it. The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of commerce\nbecame deserted. The prow of the world turned westward, and, as a\nresult, France, England, and all countries bordering on the\nAtlantic became prosperous. The world has really been civilized by\ndiscoverers—by thinkers. The man who invented powder, and by that means\nreleased hundreds of thousands of men from the occupations of war, did\nmore for mankind than religion. The inventor of paper—and he was not\na Christian—did more than all the early fathers for mankind. The\ninventors of plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the inventors\nof wagons, coaches, locomotives; the inventors of skiffs, sail-vessels,\nsteamships; the men who have made looms—in short, the inventors of\nall useful things—they are the civilizers taken in connection with the\ngreat thinkers, the poets, the musicians, the actors, the painters, the\nsculptors. The men who have invented the useful, and the men who have\nmade the useful beautiful, are the real civilizers of mankind.\n\nThe priests, in all ages, have been hindrances—stumbling-blocks. They\nhave prevented man from using his reason. They have told ghost stories\nto courage until courage became fear. They have done all in their power\nto keep men from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a state of\nchildhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good and wise.\nThey have always known that their reputation for wisdom depended upon\nthe ignorance of the people.\n\nI account for the civilization of France by such men as Voltaire. He did\ngood by assisting to destroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the\nsame way. He did harm in building another church. I account, in part,\nfor the civilization of England by the fact that she had interests\ngreater than the church could control; and by the further fact that her\ngreatest men cared nothing for the church. I account in part for the\ncivilization of America by the fact that our fathers were wise enough,\nand jealous of each other enough, to absolutely divorce church and\nstate. They regarded the church as a dangerous mistress—one not fit to\ngovern a president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson\nand Paine were at that time prominent in the councils of the people.\nThere is this peculiarity in our country—the only men who can be\ntrusted with human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels\nhereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners have an opportunity to\nbe heard.\n\nNeither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in the\nworld. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country was\nvisited by Christians, and they are now used only in those ports where\nChristians are allowed to enter. It has often been claimed that there\nis but one way to make a man temperate, and that is by making him\na Christian; and this is claimed in face of the fact that Christian\nnations are the most intemperate in the world. For nearly thirteen\ncenturies the followers of Mohammed have been absolute teetotalers—not\none drunkard under the flag of the star and crescent. Wherever, in\nTurkey, a man is seen under the influence of liquor, they call him a\nChristian. You must also remember that almost every Christian nation\nhas held slaves. Only a few years ago England was engaged in the slave\ntrade. A little while before that our Puritan ancestors sold white\nQuaker children in the Barbadoes, and traded them for rum, sugar, and\nnegro slaves. Even now the latest champion of Christianity upholds\nslavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.\n\nSometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether perfect.\nWhen I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the\nmany who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the depravity of the\ngreat cities; of the starvation in the manufacturing centers of Great\nBritain, and, in fact, of all Europe; when I see women working like\nbeasts of burden, and little children deprived, not simply of education,\nbut of air, light and food, there is a suspicion in my mind that\nChristian civilization is not a complete and overwhelming success.\n\nAfter all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we have made,\nby the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For the future I\nrely upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the intellect. I rely\nupon labor; upon human interests in this world; upon the love of wife\nand children and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but upon good\nmen and women. I do not rely upon superstition, but upon knowledge; not\nupon miracles, but upon facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living;\nand when we become absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the\nsuperstitions of the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.\n\nNeither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are pleased\nto call \"the heathen.\" Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We\nexchange ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort to force a religion\nupon the people always ends in war. Commerce, founded upon mutual\nadvantage, makes peace. An honest merchant is better than a missionary.\n\nSpain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization, and yet,\nfor hundreds of years, that government was simply an organized crime.\nWhen one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the invasion of\nthe New World, the persecution in the Netherlands, the expulsion of the\nJews, and the Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of Europe\npreserve themselves from each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a\nstanding army of six hundred thousand men, France a half million, and\nall their neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized.\nThey are in the enjoyment of Christian governments—have their hundreds\nof a thousands of ministers, and the land covered with cathedrals and\nchurches—and yet every nation is nearly beggared by keeping armies in\nthe field. Christian kings have no confidence in the promises of each\nother. What they call peace is the little time necessarily spent in\nreloading their guns. England has hundreds of ships of war to protect\nher commerce from other Christians, and to force China to open her ports\nto the opium trade. Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in\none of his dispatches to the English government, used substantially the\nfollowing language: \"England regards the opium question simply as one of\ntrade, but to China, it has a moral aspect.\" Think of Christian England\ncarrying death and desolation to hundreds of thousands in the name of\ntrade. Then think of heathen China protesting in the name of morality.\nAt the same time England has the impudence to send missionaries to\nChina.\n\nWhat has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the public\npeace in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so alienated\nnations, nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as\nwhat has been known as religion. The idea that all men must worship the\nsame God, believe the same dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked\nwith bloody hands the flower of pity from the human heart.\n\nOur civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies.\nIt is not a result of \"inspiration.\" It is the child of invention, of\ndiscovery, of applied knowledge—that is to say, of science. When man\nbecomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights;\nwhen thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing\nuseful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our\nfellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized.\n\nQuestion. Since Laplace and other most distinguished astronomers hold\nto the theory that the earth was originally in a gaseous state, and then\na molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable or animal life,\ncould not exist, how do you account for the origin of life on this\nplanet without a \"Creator\"?—Dr. T. B. Taylor.\n\nAnswer. Whether or not \"the earth was originally in a gaseous state\nand afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of vegetable and animal\nlife could not exist,\" I do not know. My belief is that the earth as it\nis, and as it was, taken in connection with the influence of the sun,\nand of other planets, produced whatever has existed or does exist on\nthe earth. I do not see why gas would not need a \"creator\" as much as\na vegetable. Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for\nsome one to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now\nportions of the world in which there is not one particle of vegetable\nlife. It may be that on the wide waste fields of the Arctic zone\nthere are places where no vegetable life exists, and there may be many\nthousand miles where no animal life can be found. But if the poles of\nthe earth could be changed, and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a\ndifferent relative position to the sun, the snows would melt, the hills\nwould appear, and in a little while even the rocks would be clothed with\nvegetation. After a time vegetation would produce more soil, and in a\nfew thousand years forests would be filled with beasts and birds.\n\nI think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account for the\norigin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have come from some\nmeteoric stone falling from some other planet having in it the germs of\nlife. What would you think of a farmer who would prepare his land and\nwait to have it planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you think\nof a Deity who would make a world like this, and allow it to whirl\nthousands and millions of years, barren as a gravestone, waiting for\nsome vagrant comet to sow the seeds of life?\n\nI believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of the\nvegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that crystallization is\nthe first step toward what we call life, and yet I believe life is back\nof that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a gaseous state, it\nwas filled with life. These are subjects about which we know but little.\nHow do you account for chemistry? How do you account for the fact that\njust so many particles of one kind seek the society of just so many\nparticles of another, and when they meet they instantly form a glad and\nlasting union? How do you know but atoms have love and hatred? How\ndo you know that the vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that\ncrystallization itself is not an expression of delight? How do you know\nthat a vine bursting into flower does not feel a thrill? We find sex in\nthe meanest weeds—how can you say they have no loves?\n\nAfter all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The difficulty is\nnot thus solved. You leave your creator as much in need of a creator as\nanything your creator is supposed to have created. The bottom of your\nstairs rests on nothing, and the top of your stairs leans upon nothing.\nYou have reached no solution.\n\nThe word \"God\" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as we can,\nand we say the rest of the way is \"God.\" We look as far as we can,\nand beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we know but\nblindness, we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal segment of a\ncircle, and we say the rest is \"God.\"\n\nMan must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one knows the\norigin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and\nthe whither are questions that no man can answer. In the presence of\nthese questions all intellects are upon a level. The barbarian knows\nexactly the same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher. Only\nthose who think that they have had some supernatural information pretend\nto answer these questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the\nunfathomable, is the realm wholly occupied by the \"inspired.\"\n\nWe are satisfied that all organized things must have had a beginning,\nbut we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be. Forms change,\nbut substance remains eternally the same. A beginning of substance is\nunthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of anything commencing to\nexist without a cause as with a cause. There must be something for\ncause to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing—were such a thing\npossible—would produce nothing. There can be no relation between cause\nand nothing. We can understand how things can be arranged, joined or\nseparated—and how relations can be changed or destroyed, but we cannot\nconceive of creation—of nothing being changed into something, nor of\nsomething being made—except from preexisting materials.\n\nQuestion. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in the\naffirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of\nman after death—which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the\nphenomena of the nineteenth century—what further evidence should\nthoughtful people require in order to settle the question, \"Does death\nend all?\"\n\nAnswer. I admit that in all ages men have believed in spooks and\nghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves nothing. Men have\nfor thousands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped the absurd.\nOur ancestors have worshiped snakes and birds and beasts. I do not admit\nthat any ghost ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever performed\nexcept in imagination; and what you are pleased to call the \"phenomena\nof the nineteenth century,\" I fear are on an exact equality with the\nphenomena of the Dark Ages.\n\nWe do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows the\norigin of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any\nmore than one knows why or how his heart beats. People, I imagine, have\nalways had dreams. In dreams they often met persons whom they knew to be\ndead, and it may be that much of the philosophy of the present was born\nof dreams. I cannot admit that anything supernatural ever has happened\nor ever will happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you call the\n\"phenomena of the nineteenth century,\" if by such \"phenomena\" you mean\nthe reappearance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future\nstate, because I do not know. Neither do I aver that there is one,\nbecause I do not know. Upon this question I am simply honest. I find\nthat people who believe in immortality—or at least those who say they\ndo—are just as afraid of death as anybody else. I find that the most\ndevout Christian weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who says\nthat death ends all. You see the promises are so far away, and the dead\nare so near. Still, I do not say that man is not immortal; but I do say\nthat there is nothing in the Bible to show that he is. The Old\nTestament has not a word upon the subject—except to show us how we lost\nimmortality. According to that book, man was driven from the Garden of\nEden, lest he should put forth his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree\nof life and live forever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us\nhow we lost immortality. In the New Testament we are told to seek for\nimmortality, and it is also stated that \"God alone hath immortality.\"\n\nThere is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists: The\nSpiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the miracles of\nthe New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the story about the\nwitch of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at the Spiritualists for\nbelieving that the same kind of things happen now. As a matter of fact,\nthe Spiritualists have the best of it, because their witnesses are now\nliving, whereas the Christians take simply the word of the dead—of\nmen they never saw and of men about whom they know nothing. The\nSpiritualist, at least, takes the testimony of men and women that he can\ncross-examine. It would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make\ncommon cause. Then the Christians could prove their miracles by the\nSpiritualists, and the Spiritualists could prove their \"phenomena\" by\nthe Christians.\n\nI believe that thoughtful people require some additional testimony in\norder to settle the question, \"Does death end all?\" If the dead return\nto this world they should bring us information of value.\n\nThere are thousands of questions that studious historians and savants\nare endeavoring to settle—questions of history, of philosophy, of law,\nof art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able to shed a\nflood of light. All the questions of the past ought to be settled. Some\nmodern ghosts ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs, and\ngive us an outline of the history of Egypt. They ought to be able to\nread the arrow-headed writing and all the records of the past. The\nhieroglyphics of all ancient peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts\nand facts that have been imprisoned for so many thousand years should be\nreleased and once again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought\nto be able to give us the history of buried cities. They should clothe\nwith life the dust of all the past. If they could only bring us valuable\ninformation; if they could only tell us about some steamer in distress\nso that succor could be sent; if they could only do something useful,\nthe world would cheerfully accept their theories and admit their\n\"facts.\" I think that thoughtful people have the right to demand such\nevidence. I would like to have the spirits give us the history of\nall the books of the New Testament and tell us who first told of the\nmiracles. If they could give us the history of any religion, or nation,\nor anything, I should have far more confidence in the \"phenomena of the\nnineteenth century.\"\n\nThere is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is, they are\nliberal. They give to others the rights they claim for themselves. They\ndo not pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain. They do\nnot slander and persecute even those who deny their \"phenomena.\" But\nI cannot admit that they have furnished conclusive evidence that death\ndoes not end all. Beyond the horizon of this life we have not seen. From\nthe mysterious beyond no messenger has come to me.\n\nFor the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future a single\nstar. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.\n\nQuestion. How, when, where, and by whom was our present calendar\noriginated,—that is \"Anno Domini,\"—and what event in the history of\nthe nations does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of Jesus of\nNazareth?\n\nAnswer. I have already said, in answer to a question by another\ngentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date\nfrom somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about his having been\nborn on Christmas, because in reading other religions, I find that that\ntime has been celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of it is\nthis:\n\nAbout the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After that the\ndays begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for many centuries\nin most nations they had a festival in commemoration of that event. The\nChristians, I presume, adopted this day, and made the birth of Christ\nfit it. Three months afterward—the 21st of March—the days and nights\nagain become equal, and the day then begins to lengthen. For centuries\nthe nations living in the temperate zones have held festivals to\ncommemorate the coming of spring—the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud\nand flower. This is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians\nadopted that in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a\nmatter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend\nto show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth\nor resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly the\nother way.\n\nWhile we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to say that\nwe get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas\nof algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from the same source.\nSo from the Arabs we receive chemistry, and our first true notions of\ngeography. They gave us also paper and cotton.\n\nOwing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in the exact\ntime of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to\nthe fact that it was a long time before any near approach was made to\nthe actual time, all calendars after awhile became too inaccurate for\ngeneral use, and they were from time to time changed.\n\nRight here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the monuments and\nfestivals in the world are not sufficient to establish an impossible\nevent. No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of living evidence,\ncan substantiate a miracle. The monument only proves the belief of the\nbuilders.\n\nIf we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and\nfestivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated. Turkey\nis filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in such\nfestivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such celebration does\nnot even tend to prove that God, by his special providence, protected\nWashington from the arrows of an Indian. The Hebrews celebrate what is\ncalled the Passover, but this celebration does not even tend to prove\nthat the angel of the Lord put blood on the door-posts in Egypt. The\nMohammedans celebrate to-day the flight of Mohammed, but that does not\ntend to prove that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of God.\n\nNobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a monument.\nMonuments simply prove that people endeavor to substantiate truths and\nfalsehoods by the same means.\n\nQuestion. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest for the\npresent, how do you account for the hell here—namely, the existence\nof pain? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this\npresent time in misery. If for these there is no life to come, their\nexistence is a mistake; but if there is a life to come, it may be that\nthe sequel to the acts of the play to come will justify the pain and\nmisery of this present time?—Rev. Myron W. Reed.\n\nAnswer. There are four principal theories:\n\nFirst—That there is behind the universe a being of infinite power and\nwisdom, kindness, and justice.\n\nSecond—That the universe has existed from eternity, and that it is\nthe only eternal existence, and that behind it is no creator.\n\nThird—That there is a God who made the universe, but who is not\nall-powerful and who is, under the circumstances, doing the best he can.\n\nFourth—That there is an all-powerful God who made the universe, and\nthat there is also a nearly all-powerful devil, and this devil ravels\nabout as fast as this God knits.\n\nBy the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to account\nfor the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a malevolent\nbeing with power enough, and with cunning enough, to frequently\ncircumvent God, the problem of evil becomes solved so far as this world\nis concerned. But why this being was evil is still unsolved; why the\ndevil is malevolent is still a mystery. Consequently you will have to go\nback of this world, on that theory, to account for the origin of evil.\nIf this devil always existed, then, of course, the universe at one time\nwas inhabited only by this God and this devil.\n\nIf the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that God\ndoes not see to it that justice is always done.\n\nIf the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from\neternity, and is without a creator, then we must account for the\nexistence of evil and good, not by personalities behind the universe,\nbut by the nature of things.\n\nIf there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all, it seems\nto me that he should have made a world in which innocence should be a\nsufficient shield. He should have made a world where the just man should\nhave nothing to fear.\n\nMy belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled\nwith wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must protect\nourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our conflict with\nthese obstacles, with each other, and with what may be called the forces\nof nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like\nbegets like; that man gives his constitution, at least in part, to his\nchildren; that weakness and strength are in some degree both hereditary.\nThis is a fact in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for this\nfact—filled as it is with pain and joy. But it seems to me that an\ninfinite God should so have arranged matters that the bad would not\npass—that it would die with its possessor—that the good should\nsurvive, and that the man should give to his son, not the result of his\nvices, but the fruit of his virtues.\n\nI cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in\nanother world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to prevail\nhere, why will he not allow the same thing in the world to come? If\nthere is any being with power to prevent it, why is crime permitted? If\na man standing upon the railway should ascertain that a bridge had been\ncarried off by a flood, and if he also knew that the train was coming\nfilled with men, women, and children; with husbands going to their\nwives, and wives rejoining their families; if he made no effort to\nstop that train; if he simply sat down by the roadside to witness the\ncatastrophe, and so remained until the train dashed off the precipice,\nand its load of life became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be\ndenounced by every good man as the most monstrous of human beings. And\nyet this is exactly what the supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees\nthe train rushing to the gulf. He gives no notice. He sees the ship\nrushing for the hidden rock. He makes no sign. And he so constructed\nthe world that assassins lurk in the air—hide even in the sunshine—and\nwhen we imagine that we are breathing the breath of life, we are taking\ninto ourselves the seeds of death.\n\nThere are two facts inconsistent in my mind—a martyr and a God.\nInjustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.\n\nI would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of\nhappiness hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from them\nthe fear of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for me to\nexplain the facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit the existence of\nan infinite Being. I find in this world that physical and mental evils\nafflict the good. It seems to me that I have the same reason to expect\nthe bad to be rewarded hereafter. I have no right to suppose that\ninfinite wisdom will ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence\nwill increase in kindness, or that the justice of the eternal can\nchange. If, then, this eternal being allows the good to suffer pain\nhere, what right have we to say that he will not allow them to suffer\nforever?\n\nSome people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for the\nproduction of self-denying men and women—that is, for the production\nof character. The statistics show that a large majority die under five\nyears of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster who killed the most\nof his pupils the first day? If this doctrine is true, and if manhood\ncannot be produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are infinitely\nunfortunate.\n\nI admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still, all pain,\nall misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there is an infinitely\nwise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that\nhappens must be for the best. That philosophy of special providence,\ngoing to the extreme, is infinitely better than most of the Christian\ncreeds. There seems to be no half-way house between special providence\nand atheism. You know some of the Buddhists say that when a man commits\nmurder, that is the best thing he could have done, and that to be\nmurdered was the best thing that could have happened to the killed. They\ninsist that every step taken is the necessary step and the best step;\nthat crimes are as necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and\nvirtue is finally the same.\n\nBut whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by the\nfacts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease\nare hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn truth rises\nthe religion of the body. Every man should refuse to increase the misery\nof this world. And it may be that the time will come when man will be\ngreat enough and grand enough utterly to refrain from the propagation\nof disease and deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers\nand mothers. We do know that the misery in this world can be lessened;\nconsequently I believe in the religion of this world. And whether there\nis a heaven or hell here, or hereafter, every good man has enough to\ndo to make this world a little better than it is. Millions of lives are\nwasted in the vain effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny\nof man. This world has been neglected. We have been taught that life\nshould be merely a preparation for death.\n\nTo avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the\naccomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead\nof faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by\nignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.\n\nQuestion. State with what words you can comfort those who have, by\ntheir own fault, or by the fault of others, found this life not worth\nliving?\n\nAnswer. If there is no life beyond this, and so believing I come to\nthe bedside of the dying—of one whose life has been a failure—a \"life\nnot worth living,\" I could at least say to such an one, \"Your failure\nends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is nothing for you—neither\npain nor misery, neither grief nor joy.\" But if I were a good orthodox\nChristen, then I would have to say to this man, \"Your life has been a\nfailure; you have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended\neternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you will be\na failure forever.\"\n\nAdmitting that there is another world, and that the man's life had been\na failure in this, then I should say to him, \"If you live again, you\nwill have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be no time, no\ndate, no matter how many millions and billions of ages may have passed\naway, at which you will not have the opportunity of doing right.\"\n\nUnder no circumstances could I consistently say to this man: \"Although\nyour life has been a failure; although you have made hundreds and\nthousands of others suffer; although you have deceived and betrayed the\nwoman who loved you; although you have murdered your benefactor; still,\nif you will now repent and believe a something that is unreasonable\nor reasonable to your mind, you will, at the moment of death, be\ntransferred to a world of eternal joy.\" This I could not say. I would\ntell him, \"If you die a bad man here, you will commence the life to\ncome with the same character you leave this. Character cannot be made by\nanother for you. You must be the architect of your own.\" There is to me\nunspeakably more comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than\nthat it is to be perpetuated forever.\n\nHow can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died without\nbelieving in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away\nher tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the mother whose brave\nboy fell in defence of his country, she knowing and you knowing, that\nthe boy was not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible, and\nhad no faith in the blood of the atonement? What words of comfort have\nyou for such fathers and for such mothers?\n\nTo me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea that this\nlife is a probationary state—that the few moments spent here decide the\nfate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived more merciless,\nmore unjust. I am doing all I can to destroy that doctrine. I want, if\npossible, to get the shadow of hell from the human heart.\n\nWhy has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of infinite\nwisdom and kindness, why does he make failures? What excuse has infinite\nwisdom for peopling the world with savages? Why should one feel grateful\nto God for having made him with a poor, weak and diseased brain; for\nhaving allowed him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of\ninsanity? Why should one thank God, who lived and died a slave?\n\nAfter all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute truth?\nIs it not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to convey comfort\nthrough falsehood? People must reap not only what they sow, but what\nothers have sown. The people of the whole world are united in spite of\nthemselves.\n\nNext to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is to\nenjoy an immortality of delight—next to that, is to assure him that a\nplace of eternal punishment does not exist.\n\nAfter all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and\nsplendid sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made no\nexception in favor of man. To the greatest, to the most successful,\nthere comes a time when the fevered lips of life long for the cool,\ndelicious kiss of death—when, tired of the dust and glare of day, they\nhear with joy the rustling garments of the night.\n\nArchibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends. Their views\nin regard to the question of a future life, and the existence of a God,\nwere in perfect accord. They said:\n\n\"'We know so little about these matters that we are not justified in\ngiving them any serious consideration. Our motto and rule of life shall\nbe for each one to make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy\nevery pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself to be influenced\nat all by thoughts of a future life.'\n\n\"Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a time\nwhen no human eye saw him—and he had no belief in a God—Jonathan stole\nevery dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him penniless. He had no\nfear, no remorse; no one saw him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed\nlife immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old\nage he went the way of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were\nagainst him.\n\n\"His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent, dissatisfied with\nmankind and with himself, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and\ndepressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest in painless suicide.\"\n\nQuestion. What are we to think of the rule of life laid down by these\nmen? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is there no remedy to\ncorrect such irregularities?—Rev. D. O'Donaghue.\n\nAnswer. The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain strange ideas as\nto right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan\nNewgate concluded to make themselves as comfortable as they could and\nenjoy every pleasure within their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue\nstates that one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to\nsteal what little money Mr. Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman\nthink that Mr. Newgate made or could make himself comfortable in that\nway? He tells us that Mr. Newgate \"had no remorse,\"—that he \"became\nrich and enjoyed life immensely,\"—that he \"lived in contentment and\npleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all flesh.\"\n\nDoes the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal without\nfear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the\nfruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and happy life,\nthat one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow and delightful old\nage? Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue?\n\nAnd right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.\nO'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without remorse, to\nenjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And why did he allow\nMr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in penury and discontent,\nuntil at last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in suicide? Does\nthe Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say that if there is no future life it\nis wise to steal in this? If the grave is the eternal home, would the\nRev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise people to commit crimes in order that they\nmay enjoy this life? Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God\nor not, truth is better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or\nhell, honesty is always the best policy. There is no world, and can be\nnone, where vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of joy.\n\nAccording to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more fortunate than\nMr. Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had\nrather be of such a disposition that I would be driven to suicide by\nmisfortune than to live in contentment upon the misfortunes of\nothers. The reverend gentleman, however, should have made his question\ncomplete—he should have gone the entire distance. He should have added\nthat Mr. Newgate, after having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly\nconverted, joined the church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the\nvery day that his victim committed suicide.\n\nBut I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a fact.\n\nA young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful, and\ntrustful. She belonged to no church—knew nothing about a future\nworld—basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled with\ngentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her cheeks. She\nbelieved in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved\neverything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered her. He was\ntried; convicted; a motion for a new trial overruled and a pardon\nrefused. In his cell, in the shadow of death, he was converted—he\nbecame a Catholic. With the white lips of fear he confessed to a priest.\nHe received the sacrament.\n\nHe was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the realms of\nbliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs\nof hell.\n\nThe poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while her\nmurderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is the\njustice of the orthodox God.\n\nAllow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: \"Is there no\nremedy to correct such irregularities?\"\n\nAs long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the\nChristian system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart and\nbrain. Of all religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous,\nand absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the enemies of human\nhappiness; they are the assassins of natural joy. Every father, every\nmother, every good man, every loving woman, should hold this doctrine in\nabhorrence; they should refuse to pay men for preaching it; they should\nnot build churches in which this infamy is taught; they should teach\ntheir little children that it is a lie; they should take this horror\nfrom childhood's heart—a horror that makes the cradle as terrible as\nthe coffin.\n"
}