{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:trial-of-c-b-reynolds-for-blasphemy",
  "slug": "trial-of-c-b-reynolds-for-blasphemy",
  "title": "Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy",
  "subtitle": "Address to the Jury, Morristown, New Jersey, 1887.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's celebrated defense of the freethinker C. B. Reynolds before a New Jersey jury — one of the last prosecutions for blasphemy in American legal history.",
  "year": 1887,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Legal",
  "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/trial-of-c-b-reynolds-for-blasphemy/",
  "wordCount": 22167,
  "body": "Address to the Jury.\n  • Within thirty miles of New York, in the city of\n    Morristown, New Jersey, a man was put on trial yesterday for\n    distributing a pamphlet argument against the infallibility\n    of the Bible. The crime which the Indictment alleges Is\n    Blasphemy, for which the statutes of New Jersey provide a\n    penalty of two hundred dollars fine, or twelve months\n    imprisonment, or both. It is the first case of the kind ever\n    tried in New Jersey, although the law dates back to colonial\n    days. Charles B. Reynolds is the man on trial, and the State\n    of New Jersey, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Morris\n    County, is the prosecutor. The Circuit Court, Judge Francis\n    Child, assisted by County Judges Munson and Quimby, sit upon\n    the case. Prosecutor Wilder W. Cutler represents the State,\n    and Robert G. Ingersoll appears for the defendant.\n    Mr. Reynolds went to Boonton last summer to hold \"free-\n    thought\" meetings. Announcing his purpose without any\n    flourish, he secured a piece of ground, pitched a tent upon\n    it, and invited the towns-people to come and hear him. It\n    was understood that he had been a Methodist minister: that,\n    finding it impossible to reconcile his mind to some of the\n    historical parts of the Bible, and unable to accept it in\n    its entirety as a moral guide, he left the church and set\n    out to proclaim his conclusions. The churches in Boonton\n    arrayed themselves against him. The Catholics and Methodists\n    were especially active. Taking this opposition as an excuse,\n    one element of the town invaded his tent. They pelted\n    Reynolds with ancient eggs and vegetables. They chopped away\n    the guy ropes of the tent and slashed the canvas with their\n    knives. When the tent collapsed, the crowd rushed for the\n    speaker to inflict further punishment by plunging him in the\n    duck pond They rummaged the wrecked tent, but in vain. He\n    had made his way ont in the confusion and was no more seen\n    in Boonton.\n    But what he had said did not leave Boonton with him, and the\n    pamphlets he had distributed were read by many who probably\n    would not have looked between their covers had his visit\n    been attended by no unusual circumstances. Boonton was still\n    agitated up on the subject when Mr. Reynolds appeared in\n    Morristown. This time he did not try to hold meetings, but\n    had his pamphlets with him.\n    Mr. Reynolds appeared in Morristown with the pamphlets on\n    October thirteenth. A Boonton delegation was there,\n    clamoring for his indictment for blasphemy. The Grand Jury\n    heard of his visit and found two indictments against him;\n    one for blasphemy at\n    Boonton and the second for blasphemy at Morristown. He\n    furnished a five hundred dollar bond to appear for trial. On\n    account of Colonel Ingersoll's throat troubles the case was\n    adjourned several times through the winter and until Monday\n    last, when it was set peremptorily for trial yesterday.\n    The public feeling excited at Boonton was overshadowed by\n    that at Morristown and the neighboring region. For six\n    months no topic was so interesting to the public as this. It\n    monopolized attention at the stores, and became a fruitful\n    subject of gossip in social and church circles. Under such\n    circumstances it was to be expected that everybody who could\n    spare the time would go to court yesterday. Lines of people\n    began to climb the court house hill early in the morning. At\n    the hour of opening court the room set apart for the trial\n    was packed, and distaffs had to be stationed at the foot of\n    the stairs to keep back those who were not early enough.\n    From nine thirty to eleven o'clock the crowd inside talked\n    of blasphemy in all the phases suggested by this case, and\n    the outsiders waited patiently on the lawn and steps and\n    along the dusty approaches to the gray building.\n    Eleven o'clock brought the train from New York and on it\n    Colonel Ingersoll. His arrival at the court house with his\n    clerk opened a new chapter in the day's gossip. The event\n    was so absorbing indeed, that the crowd failed entirely to\n    notice an elderly man wearing a black frock snit, a silk\n    hat, with an army badge pinned to his coat, and looking like\n    a merchant of means, who entered the court house a few\n    minutes behind the famous lawyer. The last comer was the\n    defendant.\n    All was ready for the case. Within five minutes five jurors\n    were in the box. Then Colonel Ingersoll asked what were his\n    rights about challenges. He was informed that he might make\n    six peremptory challenges and must challenge before the\n    jurors took their seats. The only disqualification the Court\n    would recognize would be the inability of a juror to change\n    his opinion in spite of evidence. Colonel Ingersoll induced\n    the Court to let him examine the five in the box and\n    promptly ejected two Presbyterians.\n    Thereafter Colonel Ingersoll examined every juror as soon as\n    presented. He asked particularly about the nature of each\n    man's prejudice, if he had one. To a juror who did not know\n    that he understood the word, the Colonel replied: \"I may not\n    define the word legally, but my own idea is that a man is\n    prejudiced when he has made up his mind on a case without\n    knowing anything about it.\" This juror thought that he came\n    under that category.\n    Presbyterians had a rather hard time with the examiner.\n    After twenty men had been examined and the defence had\n    exercised five of its peremptory challenges, the following\n    were sworn as jurymen.    \n    The jury having been sworn, Prosecutor Cutler announced that\n    he would try only the indictment for the offence in\n    Morristown. He said that Reynolds was charged with\n    distributing pamphlets containing matter claimed to be\n    blasphemous under the law. If the charge could be proved he\n    asked a verdict of guilty. Then he called sixteen towns-\n    people, to most of whom Reynolds had given a pamphlet.\n    Colonel Ingersoll tried to get the Presbyterian witnesses to\n    say that they had read the pamphlet. Not one of them\n    admitted it. Further than this he attempted no\n    cross-examination.\n    \"I do not know that I shall have any witnesses one way or\n    the other,\" Colonel Ingersoll said, rising to suggest a\n    recess. \"Perhaps after dinner I may feel like making a few\n    remarks.\"\n    \"There will be great disappointment if you do not\" Judge\n    Child responded, in a tone that meant a word for himself as\n    well as for the other listeners. The spectators nodded\n    approval to this sentiment. At 4:20 o'clock Col. Ingersoll\n    having spoken since 2 o'clock, Judge Child adjourned court\n    until this morning.\n    As Colonel Ingersoll left the room a throng pressed after\n    him to offer congratulations. One old man said: \"Colonel\n    Ingersoll I am a Presbyterian pastor, but I must say that\n    was the noblest speech in defence of liberty I ever heard!\n    Your hand, sir; your hand,\"—The Times, New York, May\n    20,1887.\n\nGENTLEMEN of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most important cases\nthat can be submitted to a jury. It is not a case that involves a little\nproperty, neither is it one that involves simply the liberty of one man.\nIt involves the freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty of every\ncitizen of New Jersey.\n\nThe question to be tried by you is whether a man has the right to\nexpress his honest thought; and for that reason there can be no case of\ngreater importance submitted to a jury. And it may be well enough for\nme, at the outset, to admit that there could be no case in which I could\ntake a greater—a deeper interest. For my part, I would not wish to live\nin a world where I could not express my honest opinions. Men who deny to\nothers the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men.\n\nI deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any church, of\nany State, to put a padlock on the lips—to make the tongue a convict.\nI passionately deny the right of the Herod of authority to kill the\nchildren of the brain. A man has a right to work with his hands, to\nplow the earth, to sow the seed, and that man has a right to reap the\nharvest. If we have not that right, then all are slaves except those who\ntake these rights from their fellow-men. If you have the right to\nwork with your hands and to gather the harvest for yourself and your\nchildren, have you not a right to cultivate your brain? Have you not the\nright to read, to observe, to investigate—and when you have so read and\nso investigated, have you not the right to reap that field? And what\nis it to reap that field? It is simply to express what you have\nascertained—simply to give your thoughts to your fellow-men.\n\nIf there is one subject in this world worthy of being discussed, worthy\nof being understood, it is the question of intellectual liberty. Without\nthat, we are simply painted clay; without that, we are poor, miserable\nserfs and slaves. If you have not the right to express your opinions,\nif the defendant has not this right, then no man ever walked beneath\nthe blue of heaven that had the right to express his thought. If others\nclaim the right, where did they get it? How did they happen to have it,\nand how did you happen to be deprived of it? Where did a church or a\nnation get that right?\n\nAre we not all children of the same Mother? Are we not all compelled to\nthink, whether we wish to or not? Can you help thinking as you do? When\nyou look out upon the woods, the fields,—when you look at the solemn\nsplendors of the night—these things produce certain thoughts in your\nmind, and they produce them necessarily. No man can think as he desires.\nNo man controls the action of his brain, any more than he controls the\naction of his heart. The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in spite\nof you. The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The ears hear,\nif they are unstopped, without asking your permission. And the brain\nthinks in spite of you. Should you express that thought? Certainly you\nshould, if others express theirs. You have exactly the same right. He\nwho takes it from you is a robber.\n\nFor thousands of years people have been trying to force other people\nto think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed? No. Why?\nBecause brute force is not an argument. You can stand with the lash over\na man, or you can stand by the prison door, or beneath the gallows, or\nby the stake, and say to this man: \"Recant or the lash descends, the\nprison door is locked upon you, the rope is put about your neck, or the\ntorch is given to the fagot.\" And so the man recants. Is he convinced?\nNot at all. Have you produced a new argument? Not the slightest. And\nyet the ignorant bigots of this world have been trying for thousands of\nyears to rule the minds of men by brute force. They have endeavored to\nimprove the mind by torturing the flesh—to spread religion with the\nsword and torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by putting\ntheir feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, patriots,\nphilosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been the\nresult? Are we any nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then?\n\nNo orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make\npeople think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that\never was established commenced in the minority, and while it was in the\nminority advocated free speech—every one. John Calvin, the founder\nof the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in France, wrote a book on\nreligious toleration in order to show that all men had an equal right to\nthink; and yet that man afterward, clothed in a little authority, forgot\nall his sentiments about religious liberty, and had poor Servetus burned\nat the stake, for differing with him on a question that neither of them\nknew anything about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration—in\nthe majority, he practiced murder.\n\nI want you to understand what has been done in the world to force men\nto think alike. It seems to me that if there is some infinite being who\nwants us to think alike, he would have made us alike. Why did he not do\nso? Why did he make your brain so that you could not by any possibility\nbe a Methodist? Why did he make yours so that you could not be a\nCatholic? And why did he make the brain of another so that he is an\nunbeliever—why the brain of another so that he became a Mohammedan—if\nhe wanted us all to believe alike?\n\nAfter all, may be Nature is good enough and grand enough and broad\nenough to give us the diversity born of liberty. May be, after all, it\nwould not be best for us all to be just the same. What a stupid world,\nif everybody said yes to everything that everybody else might say.\n\nThe most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than\nfood or clothes—more important than gold or houses or lands—more\nimportant than art or science—more important than all religions, is the\nliberty of man.\n\nIf civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree with\nMr. Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would I give up the\nsplendors of the nineteenth century—gladly would I forget every\ninvention that has leaped from the brain of man—gladly would I see all\nbooks ashes, all works of art destroyed, all statues broken, and all\nthe triumphs of the world lost—gladly, joyously would I go back to\nthe abodes and dens of savagery, if that were necessary to preserve the\ninestimable gem of human liberty. So would every man who has a heart and\nbrain.\n\nHow has the church in every age, when in authority, defended itself?\nAlways by a statute against blasphemy, against argument, against free\nspeech. And there never was such a statute that did not stain the book\nthat it was in, and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who\npassed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining blasphemy, the\nchurch sought to prevent discussion—sought to prevent argument—sought\nto prevent a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma,\na doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a statute that prevents your\nspeaking against it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives\nbecause lips are locked. It lives because men are slaves.\n\nIf I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines that in my\njudgment will make this world happier and better. If I know myself,\nI advocate only those things that will make a man a better citizen, a\nbetter father, a kinder husband—that will make a woman a better wife,\na better mother—doctrines that will fill every home with sunshine and\nwith joy. And if I believed that anything I should say to-day would have\nany other possible tendency, I would stop. I am a believer in liberty.\nThat is my religion—to give to every other human being every right\nthat I claim for myself, and I grant to every other human being, not the\nright—because it is his right—but instead of granting I declare that\nit is his right, to attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer\nevery argument that I urge—in other words, he must have absolute\nfreedom of speech.\n\nI am a believer in what I call \"intellectual hospitality.\" A man comes\nto your door. If you are a gentleman and he appears to be a good man,\nyou receive him with a smile. You ask after his health. You say: \"Take\na chair; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you not break bread with\nme?\" That is what a hospitable, good man does—he does not set the dog\non him. Now, how should we treat a new thought? I say that the brain\nshould be hospitable and say to the new thought: \"Come in; sit down; I\nwant to cross-examine you; I want to find whether you are good or bad;\nif good, stay; if bad, I don't want to hurt you—probably you think you\nare all right,—but your room is better than your company, and I will\ntake another idea in your place.\" Why not? Can any man have the egotism\nto say that he has found it all out? No. Every man who has thought,\nknows not only how little he knows, but how little every other human\nbeing knows, and how ignorant, after all, the world must be.\n\nThere was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church had power. And I\nwant it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am opposed\nto Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics—while I am opposed to\nPresbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I do not fight\npeople,—I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never go\ninto personalities. As I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but\nPresbyterianism—that is, I am opposed to their doctrine. I do not hate\na man that has the rheumatism—I hate the rheumatism when it has a man.\nSo I attack certain principles because I think they are wrong, but I\nalways want it understood that I have nothing against persons—nothing\nagainst victims.\n\nThere was a time when the Catholic Church was in power in the Old World.\nAll at once there arose a man called Martin Luther, and what did the\ndear old Catholics think? \"Oh,\" they said, \"that man and his followers\nare going to hell.\" But they did not go. They were very good people.\nThey may have been mistaken—I do not know. I think they were right in\ntheir opposition to Catholicism—but I have just as much objection to\nthe religion they founded as I have to the church they left. But they\nthought they were right, and they made very good citizens, and it turned\nout that their differing from the Mother Church did not hurt them.\nAnd then after awhile they began to divide, and there arose Baptists;\nand-the other gentlemen, who believed in this law that is now in New\nJersey, began cutting off their ears so that they could hear better;\nthey began putting them in prison so that they would have a chance to\nthink. But the Baptists turned out to be good folks—first rate—good\nhusbands, good fathers, good citizens. And in a little while, in\nEngland, the people turned to be Episcopalians, on account of a little\nwar that Henry VIII. had with the Pope,—and I always sided with the\nPope in that war—but it made no difference; and in a little while\nthe Episcopalians turned out to be just about like other folks—no\nworse—and, as I know of, no better.\n\nAfter awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian said, \"We don't\nwant anything of him—he is a bad man;\" and they finally drove some of\nthem away and they settled in New England, and there were among\nthem Quakers, than whom there never were better people on the\nearth—industrious, frugal, gentle, kind and loving—and yet these\nPuritans began hanging them. They said: \"They are corrupting our\nchildren; if this thing goes on, everybody will believe in being kind\nand gentle and good, and what will become of us?\" They were honest about\nit. So they went to cutting off ears. But the Quakers were good people\nand none of the prophecies were fulfilled.\n\nIn a little while there came some Unitarians and they said, \"The world\nis going to ruin, sure;\"—but the world went on as usual, and the\nUnitarians produced men like Channing—one of the tenderest spirits that\never lived—they produced men like Theodore Parker—one of the greatest\nbrained and greatest hearted men produced upon this continent—a good\nman—and yet they thought he was a blasphemer—they even prayed for his\ndeath—on their bended knees they asked their God to take time to kill\nhim. Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably.\n\nAfter awhile came the Universalists, who said: \"God is good. He will not\ndamn anybody always, just for a little mistake he made here. This is\na very short life; the path we travel is very dim, and a great many\nshadows fall in the way, and if a man happens to stub his toe, God will\nnot burn him forever.\" And then all the rest of the sects cried\nout, \"Why, if you do away with hell, everybody will murder just for\npastime—everybody will go to stealing just to enjoy themselves.\" But\nthey did not. The Universalists were good people—just as good as any\nothers. Most of them much better. None of the prophecies were fulfilled,\nand yet the differences existed.\n\nAnd so we go on until we find people who do not believe the Bible at\nall, and when they say they do not, they come within this statute.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first, that this statute\nunder which Mr. Reynolds is being tried is unconstitutional—that it is\nnot in harmony with the constitution of New Jersey; and I am going to\ntry to show you in addition to that, that it was passed hundreds of\nyears ago, by men who believed it was right to burn heretics and tie\nQuakers to the end of a cart; men and even modest women—stripped\nnaked—and lash them from town to town. They were the men who originally\npassed that statute, and I want to show you that it has slept all this\ntime, and I am informed—I do not know how it is—that there never has\nbeen a prosecution in this State for blasphemy.\n\nNow, gentlemen, what is blasphemy? Of course nobody knows what it is,\nunless he takes into consideration where he is. What is blasphemy in\none country would be a religious exhortation, in another. It is owing to\nwhere you are and who is in authority. And let me call your attention\nto the impudence and bigotry of the American Christians. We send\nmissionaries to other countries. What for? To tell them that their\nreligion is false, that their gods are myths and monsters, that their\nsaviors and apostles were impostors, and that our religion is true.\nYou send a man from Morristown—a Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes\nthere, and he tells the Mohammedans—and he has it in a pamphlet and he\ndistributes it—that the Koran is a lie, that Mohammed was not a prophet\nof God, that the angel Gabriel is not so large that it is four hundred\nleagues between his eyes—that it is all a mistake—there never was an\nangel so large as that. Then what would the Turks do? Suppose the Turks\nhad a law like this statute in New Jersey. They would put the Morristown\nmissionary in jail, and he would send home word, and then what would the\npeople of Morristown say? Honestly—what do you think they would say?\nThey would say, \"Why, look at those poor, heathen wretches. We sent a\nman over there armed with the truth, and yet they were so blinded\nby their idolatrous religion, so steeped in superstition, that they\nactually put that man in prison.\" Gentlemen, does not that show the need\nof more missionaries? I would say, yes.\n\nNow, let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes from Turkey to\nMorristown. He has got a pamphlet. He says, \"The Koran is the inspired\nbook, Mohammed is the real prophet, your Bible is false and your Savior\nsimply a myth.\" Thereupon the Morristown people put him in jail.\nThen what would the Turks say? They would say, \"Morristown needs more\nmissionaries,\" and I would agree with them.\n\nIn other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality. Let the\nworld talk. And see how foolish this trial is. I have no doubt that the\nprosecuting attorney-agrees with me to-day, that whether this law is\ngood or bad, this trial should not have taken place. And let me tell you\nwhy. Here comes a man into your town and circulates a pamphlet. Now,\nif they had just kept still, very few would ever have heard of it. That\nwould have been the end. The diameter of the echo would have been a few\nthousand feet. But in order to stop the discussion of that question,\nthey indicted this man, and that question has been more discussed in\nthis country since this indictment than all the discussions put together\nsince New Jersey was first granted to Charles II.'s dearest brother\nJames, the Duke of York.. And what else? A trial here that is to be\nreported and published all over the United States, a trial that will\ngive Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty millions of people. And yet\nthis was done for the purpose of stopping a discussion of this subject.\nI want to show you that the thing is in itself almost idiotic—that it\ndefeats itself, and that you cannot crush out these things by force. Not\nonly so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right to be defended, and his counsel\nhas the right to give his opinions on this subject.\n\nSuppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argument has not been sent\nto jail. That is still going the rounds, free as the winds. Suppose you\nkeep him at hard labor a year—all the time he is there, hundreds and\nthousands of people will be reading some account, or some fragment, of\nthis trial. There is the trouble. If you could only imprison a thought,\nthen intellectual tyranny might succeed. If you could only take an\nargument and put a striped suit of clothes on it—if you could only\ntake a good, splendid, shining fact and lock it up in some dungeon of\nignorance, so that its light would never again enter the mind of man,\nthen you might succeed in stopping human progress. Otherwise, no.\n\nLet us see about this particular statute. In the first place, the State\nhas a constitution. That constitution is a rule, a limitation to the\npower of the Legislature, and a certain breastwork for the protection\nof private rights, and the constitution says to this sea of passions\nand prejudices: \"Thus far and no farther.\" The constitution says to each\nindividual: \"This shall panoply you; this is your complete coat of mail;\nthis shall defend your rights.\" And it is usual in this country to make\nas a part of each constitution several general declarations—called the\nBill of Rights. So I find that in the old constitution of New Jersey,\nwhich was adopted in the year of grace 1776, although the people at that\ntime were not educated as they are now—the spirit of the Revolution at\nthat time not having permeated all classes of society—a declaration in\nfavor of religious freedom. The people were on the eve of a revolution.\nThis constitution was adopted on the third day of July, 1776, one day\nbefore the immortal Declaration of Independence. Now, what do we find\nin this—and we have got to go by this light, by this torch, when we\nexamine the statute.\n\nI find in that constitution, in its Eighteenth Section, this: \"No person\nshall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable privilege\nof worshiping God, in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own\nconscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any\nplace of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he\nbe obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates for the purpose\nof building or repairing any church or churches, contrary to what he\nbelieves to be true.\" That was a very great and splendid step. It was\nthe divorce of church and state. It no longer allowed the State to levy\ntaxes for the support of a particular religion, and it said to every\ncitizen of New Jersey: All that you give for that purpose must be\nvoluntarily given, and the State will not compel you to pay for the\nmaintenance of a church in which you do not believe. So far so good.\n\nThe next paragraph was not so good. \"There shall be no establishment of\nany one religious sect in this State in preference to another, and no\nProtestant inhabitants of this State shall be denied the enjoyment of\nany civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but all\npersons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who\nshall demean themselves peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to\nany office of profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every\nprivilege and immunity enjoyed by other citizens.\"\n\nWhat became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not know—whether\nthey had any right to be elected to office or not under this Act. But\nin 1844, the State having grown civilized in the meantime, another\nconstitution was adopted. The word Protestant was then left out.\nThere was to be no establishment of one religion over another. But\nProtestantism did not render a man capable of being elected to office\nany more than Catholicism, and nothing is said about any religious\nbelief whatever. So far, so good.\n\n\"No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office\nof public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil\nright on account of his religious principles.\"\n\nThat is a very broad and splendid provision. \"No person shall be denied\nany civil right on account of his religious principles.\" That was\ncopied from the Virginia constitution, and that clause in the Virginia\nconstitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that clause men\nwere entitled to give their testimony in the courts of Virginia whether\nthey believed in any religion or not, in any bible or not, or in any god\nor not.\n\nThat same clause was afterward adopted by the State of Illinois, also by\nmany other States, and wherever that clause is, no citizen can be denied\nany civil right on account of his religious principles. It is a broad\nand generous clause. This statute, under which this indictment is drawn,\nis not in accordance with the spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under\nthat clause, no man can be deprived of any civil right on account of his\nreligious principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account\nof this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute,\nthe same man who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can be\nsent to the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing his\nhonest thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you that\nthis statute is unconstitutional.\n\nBut we will go another step: \"Every person may freely speak, write, or\npublish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse\nof that right.\"\n\nThat is in the constitution of nearly every State in the Union, and the\nintention of that is to cover slanderous words—to cover a case where a\nman under pretence of enjoying the freedom of speech falsely assails or\naccuses his neighbor. Of course he should be held responsible for that\nabuse.\n\nThen follows the great clause in the constitution of 1844—more\nimportant than any other clause in that instrument—a clause that shines\nin that constitution like a star at night.—\n\n\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or\nof the press.\"\n\nCan anything be plainer—anything be more forcibly stated?\n\n\"No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech.\"\n\nNow, while you are considering this statute, I want you to keep in mind\nthis other statement:\n\n\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or\nof the press.\"\n\nAnd right here there is another thing I want to call your attention to.\nThere is a constitution higher than any statute. There is a law higher\nthan any constitution. It is the law of the human conscience, and no man\nwho is a man will defile and pollute his conscience at the bidding of\nany legislature. Above all things, one should maintain his selfrespect,\nand there is but one way to do that, and that is to live in accordance\nwith your highest ideal.\n\nThere is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they exist in this\npoor world—the absolute consequences of certain acts—they are\nabove all. And this higher law is the breath of progress, the very\noutstretched wings of civilization, under which we enjoy the freedom\nwe have. Keep that in your minds. There never was a legislature great\nenough—there never was a constitution sacred enough, to compel a\ncivilized man to stand between a black man and his liberty. There never\nwas a constitution great enough to make me stand between any human being\nand his right to express his honest thoughts. Such a constitution is an\ninsult to the human soul, and I would care no more for it than I would\nfor the growl of a wild beast. But we are not driven to that necessity\nhere. This constitution is in accord with the highest and noblest\naspirations of the heart—\"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge\nthe liberty of speech.\"\n\nNow let us come to this old law—this law that was asleep for a hundred\nyears before this constitution was adopted—this law coiled like a\nsnake beneath the foundations of the Government—this law, cowardly,\ndastardly—this law passed by wretches who were afraid: to discuss—this\nlaw passed by men who could not, and who knew they could not, defend\ntheir creed—and so they said: \"Give us the sword of the State and we\nwill cleave the heretic down.\" And this law was made to control the\nminority. When the Catholics were in power they visited that law upon\ntheir opponents. When the Episcopalians were in power, they tortured and\nburned the poor Catholic who had scoffed and who had denied the truth of\ntheir religion. Whoever was in power used that, and whoever was out of\npower cursed that—and yet, the moment he got in power he used it: The\npeople became civilized—but that law was on the statute book. It simply\nremained. There it was, sound asleep—its lips drawn over its long and\ncruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken it. And it slept on, and New\nJersey has flourished. Men have done well. You have had average health\nin this country. Nobody roused the statute until the defendant in this\ncase went to Boonton, and there made a speech in which he gave his\nhonest thought, and the people not having an argument handy, threw\nstones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, published a pamphlet on\nBlasphemy and in it gave a photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is\nhis offence. Now let us read this infamous statute:\n\n\"_If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God by\ndenying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being_\"—\n\nI want to say right here—many a man has cursed the God of another man.\nThe Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant. The Presbyterians\nhave cursed the God of the Catholics—charged them with idolatry—cursed\ntheir images, laughed at their ceremonies. And these compliments have\nbeen interchanged between all the religions of the world. But I say here\nto-day that no man, unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the God in whom\nhe believed. No man, no human being, has ever lived who cursed his own\nidea of God. He always curses the idea that somebody else entertains. No\nhuman being ever yet cursed what he believed to be infinite wisdom and\ninfinite goodness—and you know it. Every man on this jury knows that.\nHe feels that that must be an absolute certainty. Then what have they\ncursed? Some God they did not believe in—that is all. And has a man\nthat right? I say, yes. He has a right to give his opinion of Jupiter,\nand there is nobody in Morristown who will deny him that right. But\nseveral thousands years ago it would have been very dangerous for him to\nhave cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just as powerful now as he was\nthen, but the Roman people are not powerful, and that is all there was\nto Jupiter—the Roman people.\n\nSo there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the god of the\nGreeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to drink\nhemlock. Yet now everybody can curse this god. Why? Is the god dead? No.\nHe is just as alive as he ever was. Then what has happened? The Greeks\nhave passed away. That is all. So in all of our churches here. Whenever\na church is in the minority it clamors for free speech. When it gets in\nthe majority, no. I do not believe the history of the world will show\nthat any orthodox church when in the majority ever had the courage to\nface the free lips of the world. It sends for a constable. And is it\nnot wonderful that they should do this when they preach the gospel of\nuniversal forgiveness—when they say, \"if a man strike you on one cheek\nturn to him the other also—but if he laughs at your religion, put him\nin the penitentiary\"? Is that the doctrine? Is that the law?\n\nNow, read this law. Do you know as I read it I can almost hear John\nCalvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to him. It\nis written exactly as he would have written it. There never was an\ninquisitor who would not have read that law with a malicious smile. The\nChristians who brought the fagots and ran with all their might to be at\nthe burning, would have enjoyed that law. You know that when they used\nto burn people for having said something against religion, they used\nto cut their tongues out before they burned them. Why? For fear that if\nthey did not, the poor, burning victims might say something that would\nscandalize the Christian gentlemen who were building the fire. All these\npersons would have been delighted with this law.\n\nLet us read a little further:\n\n\"—Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ.\"\n\nWhy, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God, was crucified?\nHow did they come to crucify him? Because they did not believe in free\nspeech in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a law against blasphemy\nin Jerusalem—a law exactly like this. Just think of it. Oh, I tell\nyou we have passed too many mile-stones on the shining road of human\nprogress to turn back and wallow in that blood, in that mire.\n\nNo: Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed that he\nwas actually a God. Others believed that he was not only a man, but that\nhe stood as the representative of infinite love and wisdom. No man ever\nsaid one word against that Being for saying \"Do unto others as ye would\nthat others should do unto you.\" No man ever raised his voice against\nhim because he said, \"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain\nmercy.\" And are they the \"merciful\" who when some man endeavors to\nanswer their argument, put him in the penitentiary? No. The trouble is,\nthe priests—the trouble is, the ministers—the trouble is, the people\nwhose business it was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled'\nwith each other, and they put meanings upon human expressions by malice,\nmeanings that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them.\nI believe that nearly all that has been done in this world has been\nhonestly done. I believe that the poor savage who kneels down and prays\nto a stuffed snake—prays that his little children may recover from the\nfever—is honest, and it seems to me that a good God would answer his\nprayer if he could, if it was in accordance with wisdom, because the\npoor savage was doing the best he could, and no one can do any better\nthan that.\n\nSo I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that nearly\neverybody was going to hell, said exactly what they believed. They were\nhonest about it, and I would not send one of them to jail—would never\nthink of such a thing—even if he called the unbelievers of the world\n\"wretches,\" \"dogs,\" and \"devils.\" What would I do? I would simply answer\nhim—that is all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but\nI would answer him in kindness.\n\nSo these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a necessity.\nDo you know that all the mechanics that ever lived—take the best\nones—cannot make two clocks that will run exactly alike one hour, one\nminute? They cannot make two pendulums that will beat in exactly the\nsame time, one beat. If you cannot do that, how are you going to make\nhundreds, thousands, billions of people, each with a different quality\nand quantity of brain, each clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh,\nand each driven by passion's storm over the wild sea of life—how are\nyou going to make them all think alike? This is the impossible thing\nthat Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been trying to do.\nThis was the object of the Inquisition and of the foolish Legislature\nthat passed this statute.\n\nLet me read you another line from this ignorant statute:—\n\n\"Or the Christian religion.\"\n\nWell, what is the Christian religion? \"If you scoff at the Christian\nreligion—if you curse the Christian religion.\" Well what is it?\nGentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the Catholic\nChurch. Is that the Christian religion? The Catholic believes it is the\nChristian religion, and you have to admit that it is the oldest one, and\nthen the Catholics turn round and scoff at the Protestants. Is that the\nChristian religion? If so, every Christian religion has been cursed\nby every other Christian religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish\nstatute?\n\nI say that the Catholic has the right to attack the Presbyterian and\ntell him, \"Your doctrine is all wrong.\" I think he has the right to say\nto him, \"You are leading thousands to hell.\" If he believes it, he not\nonly has the right to say it, but it is his duty to say it; and if the\nPresbyterian really believes the Catholics are all going to the devil,\nit is his duty to say so. Why not? I will never have any religion that\nI cannot defend—that is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be\nmistaken, because no man is absolutely certain that he knows. We all\nunderstand that. Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each\nindividual is very narrow, and in his poor sky the stars are few and\nvery small.\n\n\"Or the Word of God—\"\n\nWhat is that?\n\n\"_The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New\nTestaments_.\"\n\nNow, what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the right to\nshow that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one vote, and one\nonly? Has he the right to show that they passed in convention upon what\nbooks they would put in and what they would not? Has he the right\nto show that there were twenty-eight books called \"The Books of the\nHebrew's\"? Has he the right to show that? Has he the right to show that\nMartin Luther said he did not believe there was one solitary word of\ngospel in the Epistle to the Romans? Has he the right to show that some\nof these books were not written till nearly two hundred years afterward?\nHas he the right to say it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this\nis true or not, but has a man the right to say it if he believes it?\n\nSuppose I should read the Bible all through right here in Morristown,\nand after I got through I should make up my mind that it is not a true\nbook—what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my hand over my mouth and\nstart for another State, and the minute I got over the line say, \"It is\nnot true, It is not true\"? Or, ought I to have the right and privilege\nof saying right here in New Jersey, \"My fellow-citizens, I have read\nthe book—I do not believe that it is the word of God\"? Suppose I read\nit and think it is true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to\nTurkey and read the Koran and make up my mind that it is false, you\nwould all say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say so.\n\nBy force you can make hypocrites—men who will agree with you from the\nteeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no more hypocrites.\nWe have enough in every community. And how are you going to keep from\nhaving more? By having the air free,—by wiping from your statute books\nsuch miserable and infamous laws as this.\n\n\"The Holy Scriptures.\"\n\nAre they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be sincere?\nThere are thousands of things in the Scriptures that everybody believes.\nEverybody believes the Scriptures are right when they say, \"Thou shalt\nnot steal\"—everybody. And when they say \"Give good measure, heaped up\nand running over,\" everybody says, \"Good!\" So when they say \"Love your\nneighbor,\" everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and\npractices it, does it make any difference whether he believes in the\nflood or not? Is that of any importance? Whether a man built an ark or\nnot—does that make the slightest difference? A man might deny it and\nyet be a very good man. Another might believe it and be a very mean\nman. Could it now, by any possibility, make a man a good father, a good\nhusband, a good citizen? Does it make any difference whether you believe\nit or not? Does it make any difference whether or not you believe that a\nman was going through town, and his hair was a little short, like mine,\nand some little children laughed at him, and thereupon two bears from\nthe woods came down and tore to pieces about forty of these children? Is\nit necessary to believe that? Suppose a man should say, \"I guess that is\na mistake; they did not copy that right; I guess the man that reported\nthat was a little dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly\nright.\" Any harm in saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary\nfor that? Can you imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to hell\nbecause he did not believe the bear story?\n\nSo I say if you believe the Bible, say so; if you do not believe it, say\nso. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in Protestantism\nitself. The Protestants when they fought the Catholics said: \"Read the\nBible for yourselves—stop taking it from your priests—read the sacred\nvolume with your own eyes; it is a revelation from God to his children,\nand you are the children.\" And then they said: \"If after you read it you\ndo not believe it, and you say anything against it, we will put you in\njail, and God will put you in hell.\" That is a fine position to get a\nman in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and look at\nhis pictures, saying: \"They are the finest in the place, and I want your\ncandid opinion. A man who looked at them the other day said they were\ndaubs, and I kicked him downstairs—now I want your candid judgment.\" So\nthe Protestant Church says to a man, \"This Bible is a message from your\nFather,—your Father in heaven. Read it. Judge for yourself. But if\nafter you have read it you say it is not true, I will put you in the\npenitentiary for one year.\"\n\nThe Catholic Church has a little more sense about that—at least more\nlogic. It says: \"This Bible is not given to everybody. It is given to\nthe world, to be sure, but it must be interpreted by the church. God\nwould not give a Bible to the world unless he also appointed some one,\nsome organization, to tell the world what it means.\" They said: \"We do\nnot want the world filled with interpretations, and all the interpreters\nfighting each other.\" And the Protestant has gone to the infinite\nabsurdity of saying: \"Judge for yourself, but if you judge wrong you\nwill go to the penitentiary here and to hell hereafter.\".\n\nNow, let us see further:\n\n\"Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule\"\n\nThink of such a law as that, passed under a constitution that says, \"No\nlaw shall abridge the liberty of speech.\" But you must not ridicule\nthe Scriptures. Did anybody ever dream of passing a law to protect\nShakespeare from being laughed at? Did anybody ever think of such a\nthing? Did anybody ever want any legislative enactment to keep people\nfrom holding Robert Burns in contempt? The songs of Burns will be sung\nas long as there is love in the human heart. Do we need to protect him\nfrom ridicule by a statute? Does he need assistance from New Jersey?\nIs any statute needed to keep Euclid from being laughed at in this\nneighborhood? And is it possible that a work written by an infinite\nBeing has to be protected by a legislature? Is it possible that a book\ncannot be written by a God so that it will not excite the laughter of\nthe human race?\n\nWhy, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in the human\nbrain. It is the torch of the mind—it sheds light. Humor is the\nreadiest test of truth—of the natural, of the sensible—and when you\ntake from a man all sense of humor, there will only be enough left\nto make a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor—no sense of\nthe absurd—the Presbyterian creed, fill his darkened brain with\nsuperstition and his heart with hatred—then frighten him with the\nthreat of hell, and he will be ready to vote for that statute. Such men\nmade that law.\n\nLet us read another clause:—\n\n\"_And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined nor\nexceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding\ntwelve months, or both_.\"\n\nI want you to remember that this statute was passed in England hundreds\nof years ago—just in that language. The punishment, however, has\nbeen somewhat changed. In the good old days when the king sat on the\nthrone—in the good old days when the altar was the right-bower of\nthe throne—then, instead of saying: \"Fined two hundred dollars and\nimprisoned one year,\" it was: \"All his goods shall be confiscated; his\ntongue shall be bored with a hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall\nbe branded with the letter B; and for the second offence he shall suffer\ndeath by burning.\" Those were the good old days when people maintained\nthe orthodox religion in all its purity and in all its ferocity.\n\nThe first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case is: Is\nthis statute constitutional? Is this statute in harmony with, the part\nof the constitution of 1844 which says: \"The liberty of speech shall not\nbe abridged\"? That is for you to say. Is this law constitutional, or\nis it simply an old statute that fell asleep, that was forgotten, that\npeople simply failed to repeal? I believe I can convince you, if you\nwill think a moment, that our fathers never intended to establish a\ngovernment like that. When they fought for what they believed to be\nreligious liberty—when they fought for what they believed to be liberty\nof speech, they believed that all such statutes would be wiped from the\nstatute books of all the States.\n\nLet me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in this\ncountry naturalization laws. People may come here irrespective of their\nreligion. They must simply swear allegiance to this country—they must\nforswear allegiance to every other potentate, prince and power—but they\ndo not have to change their religion. A Hindoo may become a citizen of\nthe United States, and the Constitution of the United States, like the\nconstitution of New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo\nbelieves in a God—in a God that no Christian does believe in.\nHe believes in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a\ncollection of falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Savior—in Buddha. Now,\nI ask you,—when that man comes here and becomes a citizen—when the\nConstitution is about him, above him—has he the right to give his ideas\nabout his religion? Has he the right to say in New Jersey: \"There is\nno God except the Supreme Brahm—there is no Savior except Buddha, the\nIlluminated, Buddha the Blest\"? I say that he has that right—and you\nhave no right, because in addition to that he says, \"You are mistaken;\nyour God is not God; your Bible is not true, and your religion is a\nmistake,\" to abridge his liberty of speech. He has the right to say it,\nand if he has the right to say it, I insist before this Court and before\nthis jury, that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it; and\nin giving those reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not\nsimply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of logic, but\nhe has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use the smile of\nridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to\nstay in it.\n\nSo the Persian—the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of Good and\nEvil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph forever—if that\nis his religion—has the right to state it, and the right to give his\nreasons for his belief. How infinitely preposterous for you, one of the\nStates of this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to your\nshores. You do not ask him to renounce his God. You ask him to renounce\nthe Shah. Then when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of every\nother citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and to denounce\nyours.\n\nThere is another thing. What was the spirit of our Government at that\ntime? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What were their\nopinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the defendant\nin this case? Thomas Jefferson—and there is, in my judgment, only one\nname on the page of American history greater than his—only one name\nfor which I have a greater and tenderer reverence—and that is Abraham\nLincoln, because of all men who ever lived and had power, he was the\nmost merciful. And that is the way to test a man. How does he use power?\nDoes he want to crush his fellow citizens? Does he like to lock somebody\nup in the penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? Does he\nwish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist—like a devil,\nor like a man? Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views\nentertained by the defendant in this case, and he was made President of\nthe United States. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence,\nfounder of the University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the\nconstitution of that State, that made all the citizens equal before the\nlaw. And when I come to the very sentences here charged as blasphemy, I\nwill show you that these were the common sentiments of thousands of very\ngreat, of very intellectual and admirable men.\n\nI have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the occasion,\nto call your attention to the infinite harm that has been done in almost\nevery religious nation by statutes such as this. Where that statute is,\nliberty can not be; and if this statute is enforced by this jury and\nby this Court, and if it is afterwards carried out, and if it could be\ncarried out in the States of this Union, there would be an end of all\nintellectual progress. We would go back to the Dark Ages. Every man's\nmind, upon these subjects at least, would become a stagnant pool,\ncovered with the scum of prejudice and meanness.\n\nAnd wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people been friends?\nHere we are to-day in this blessed air—here amid these happy fields.\nCan we imagine, with these surroundings, that a man for having been\nfound with a crucifix in his poor little home, had been taken from his\nwife and children and burned—burned by Protestants? You cannot conceive\nof such a thing now. Neither can you conceive that there was a time when\nCatholics found some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of\nthe church, and took that poor honest wretch—while his wife wept—while\nhis children clung to his hands—to the public square, drove a stake in\nthe ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the fagots, and let\nthe wife whom he loved and his little children see the flames climb\naround his limbs—you cannot imagine that any such infamy was ever\npracticed. And yet I tell you that the same spirit made this detestable,\ninfamous, devilish statute.\n\nYou can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same kind of men\nthat made this law said to another man: \"You say this world is round?\"\n\"Yes, sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow on the moon.\"\n\"You have?\"—Now, can you imagine a society, outside of hyenas and\nboa-constrictors, that would take that man, put him in the penitentiary,\nin a dungeon, turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted from\nthe book of human life? Years afterward some explorer amid ruins finds\na few bones. The same spirit that did that, made this statute—the same\nspirit that did that, went before the grand jury in this case—exactly.\nGive the men that had this man indicted, the power, and I would not want\nto live in that particular part of the country. I would not willingly\nlive with such men. I would go somewhere else, where the air is free,\nwhere I could speak my sentiments to my wife, to my children, and to my\nneighbors.\n\nNow, this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies of the\nolden times. What does it mean? It means that the State of New Jersey\nhas all the light it wants. And what does that mean? It means that the\nState of New Jersey is absolutely infallible—that it has got its growth\nand does not propose to grow any more. New Jersey knows enough, and it\nwill send teachers to the penitentiary.\n\nIt is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all that it is\never going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They are the clouds.\nHumanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the waves of the sea. These\nwaves depend upon the force and direction of the wind—that is to say,\nof passion; but Humanity is the great sea. And so our religions change\nfrom day to day, and it is a blessed thing that they do. Why? Because we\ngrow, and we are getting a little more civilized every day,—and any\nman that is not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a\ncivilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to everybody\nelse the rights he claims for himself, is not in honest man.\n\nHere is a man who says, \"I am going to join the Methodist Church.\" What\nright has he? Just the same right to join it that I have not to join\nit—no more, no less. But if you are a Methodist and I am not, it simply\nproves that you do not agree with me, and that I do not agree with\nyou—that is all. Another man is a Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or\nis convinced that Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any\nman that would persecute him on that account, is a poor barbarian—a\nsavage; any man that would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian—a\nsavage.\n\nThen I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to any church.\nHow are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he treats his wife,\nhis children, his neighbors. Does he pay his debts? Does he tell the\ntruth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a heart that melts when he\nhears grief's story? That is the way to judge him. I do not care what\nhe thinks about the bears, or the flood, about bibles or gods. When some\npoor mother is found wandering in the street with a babe at her breast,\ndoes he quote Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way\nto judge. And suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If\nChristianity is true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should pity\nthe poor wretch that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You will get\nyour revenge on him through all eternity—is not that enough?\n\nSo I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories, not\nby what we happen to believe—because that depends very much on where we\nwere born.\n\nIf you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been a\nMohammedan. If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have been a\nBuddhist—I can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on oatmeal, I\nmight have been a Covenanter—nobody knows. If I had lived in Ireland,\nand seen my poor wife and children driven into the street, I think I\nmight have been a Home-ruler—no doubt of it. You see it depends on\nwhere you were born—much depends on our surroundings.\n\nOf course, there are men born in Turkey who are not Mohammedans, and\nthere are men born in this country who are not Christians—Methodists,\nUnitarians, or Catholics, plenty of them, who are unbelievers—plenty of\nthem who deny the truth of the Scriptures—plenty of them who say:\n\n\"I know not whether there be a God or not.\" Well, it is a thousand times\nbetter to say that honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in\nGod.\n\nIf you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his honest\nopinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to talk with a\nhypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest mind—and then you are\ngoing to judge him, not by what he says but by what he does. It is very\neasy to sail along with the majority—easy to sail the way the boats are\ngoing—easy to float with the stream; but when you come to swim against\nthe tide, with the men on the shore throwing rocks at you, you will get\na good deal of exercise in this world.\n\nAnd do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest obligation to\nmen who have fought the prevailing notions of their day? There is not a\nPresbyterian in Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the\nman that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they were in the\nminority—not one. There is not a Methodist in this State who does not\nadmire John and Charles Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner\nof that new and despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory\nin them because they braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose\nidiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like this. And there is not a\nUniversalist that does not worship dear old Hosea Ballou—I love him\nmyself—because he said to the Presbyterian minister: \"You are going\naround trying to keep people out of hell, and I am going around trying\nto keep hell out of the people.\" Every Universalist admires him and\nloves him because when despised and railed at and spit upon, he stood\nfirm, a patient witness for the eternal mercy of God. And there is not a\nsolitary Protestant who does not honor Martin Luther—who does not honor\nthe Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out\non the sand of the sea by Episcopalians, and kept there till the rising\ntide drowned her, and all she had to do to save her life was to say,\n\"God save the king,\" but she would not say it without the addition of\nthe words, \"If it be God's will.\" No one, who is not a miserable,\ncontemptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration before such\ncourage, such self-denial—such heroism. No matter what the attitude of\nyour body may be, your soul falls on its knees before such men and such\nwomen.\n\nLet us take another step. Where would we have been if authority had\nalways triumphed? Where would we have been if such statutes had always\nbeen carried out? We have now a science called astronomy. That science\nhas done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things\nelse. We now live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a\nmillion times larger than our earth, and we know that there are other\ngreat luminaries millions of times larger than our sun. We know that\nthere are planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of\none hundred and eighty-five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen\nthousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the\nearth—and we now know that all the fields of space are sown thick with\nconstellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science would\nnot now be the property of the human mind. That science is contrary to\nthe Bible, and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For\nwhat sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the\nscience of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the\nstory of the stars in spite of that statute.\n\nThe first men who said the world was round were scourged for scoffing at\nthe Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one of the greatest\nmen that ever lived, said: \"Does he think with his little lever to\noverturn the Universe of God?\" Martin Luther insisted that such men\nought to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been carried into\neffect, Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of\nthe three laws, would have died with the great secret locked in his\nbrain, and mankind would have been left ignorant, superstitious, and\nbesotted. And what else? If that statute had been carried out, the\nworld would have been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the\nphilosophy, of the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and\nmercy of Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of\nlife—the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and\nhelped to civilize a world.\n\nIf that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that enrich the\nlibraries of the world could not have been written. If that statute had\nbeen enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now known\nas \"The Cosmos.\" If that statute had been enforced, Charles Darwin would\nnot have been allowed to give to the world his discoveries that have\nbeen of more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever uttered. In\nEngland they have placed his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had\nlived in New Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would\nhave lived one year at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went\nso far as not simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely\nto deny the existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the\nnoblest and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever\nlived, was of the same opinion.\n\nAnd so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the men\nwho are leading the race upward and shedding light in the intellectual\nworld? They are the men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr.\nSpencer could not publish his books in the State of New Jersey. He would\nbe arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet that man has added to the\nintellectual wealth of the world.\n\nSo with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz—so with the greatest\nthinkers and greatest writers of modern times.\n\nYou may not agree with these men—and what does that prove? It simply\nproves that they do not agree with you—that is all. Who is to blame?\nI do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be right; but if they had\nthe power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you differed\nwith them, they would be savages; and if you have the power and imprison\nmen because they differ from you, why then, of course, you are savages.\n\nNo; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that have a little\nhorizon to their minds—a little sky, a little scope. I hate anything\nthat is narrow and pinched and withered and mean and crawling, and that\nis willing to live on dust. I believe in creating such an atmosphere\nthat things will burst into blossom. I believe in good will, good\nhealth, good fellowship, good feeling—and if there is any God on the\nearth, or in heaven, let us hope that he will be generous and grand. Do\nyou not see what the effect will be? I am not cursing you because you\nare a Methodist, and not damning you because you are a Catholic, or\nbecause you are an Infidel—a good man is more than all of these. The\ngrandest of all things is to be in the highest and noblest sense a man.\n\nNow let us see the frightful things that this man, the defendant in this\ncase, has done. Let me read the charges against him as set out in this\nindictment.\n\nI shall insist that this statute does not cover any publication—that\nit covers simply speech—not in writing, not in book or pamphlet. Let us\nsee:\n\n\"_This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the whole world\nin his mad fury_.\"\n\nWell, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the Bible\ndescribe God as having drowned the whole world with the exception of\neight people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know whether there is\nanybody in this county who has really read the Bible, but I believe the\nstory of the flood is there. It does say that God destroyed all flesh,\nand that he did so because he was angry. He says so, himself, if the\nBible be true.\n\nThe defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible. The Bible says\nthat God is loving, and says that he drowned the world, and that he was\nangry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the \"Sacred Scriptures\"?\n\n\"_Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, ever\nsupposed it could be._\"\n\nWell, the Bible does say that he repented having made man. Now, is\nthere any blasphemy in saying that the Bible is true? That is the only\nquestion. It is a fact that God, according to the Bible, did drown\nnearly everybody. If God knows all things, he must have known at the\ntime he made them that he was going to drown them. Is it likely that\na being of infinite wisdom would deliberately do what he knew he must\nundo? Is it blasphemy to ask that question? Have you a right to think\nabout it at all? If you have, you have the right to tell somebody what\nyou think—if not, you have no right to discuss it, no right to think\nabout it. All you have to do is to read it and believe it—to open your\nmouth like a young robin, and swallow—worms or shingle nails—no matter\nwhich.\n\nThe defendant further blasphemed and said that:—\n\n\"_An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience with a world\nwhich was just what his own stupid blundering had made it, knew no\nbetter way out of the muddle than to destroy it by drowning!_\"\n\nIs that true? Was not the world exactly as God made it? Certainly. Did\nhe not, if the Bible is true, drown the people? He did. Did he know he\nwould drown them when he made them? He did. Did he know they ought to\nbe drowned when they were made? He did. Where then, is the blasphemy\nin saying so? There is not a minister in this world who could explain\nit—who would be permitted to explain it—under this statute. And yet\nyou would arrest this man and put him in the penitentiary. But after you\nlock him in the cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible\nthat a good and wise God, knowing that he was going to drown them, made\nmillions of people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do not\npretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course, you cannot\nanswer the question. Is there anything blasphemous in that? Would it\nbe blasphemy in me to say I do not believe that any God ever made men,\nwomen and children—mothers, with babes clasped to their breasts, and\nthen sent a flood to fill the world with death?\n\nA rain lasting for forty days—the water rising hour by hour, and the\npoor wretched children of God climbing to the tops of their houses—then\nto the tops of the hills. The water still rising—no mercy. The people\nclimbing higher and higher, looking to the mountains for salvation—the\nmerciless rain still falling, the inexorable flood still rising.\nChildren falling from the arms of mothers—no pity. The highest hills\ncovered—infancy and old age mingling in death—the cries of women, the\nsobs and sighs lost in the roar of waves—the heavens still relentless.\nThe mountains are covered—a shoreless sea rolls round the world, and on\nits billows are billions of corpses.\n\nThis is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this crime is\ncalled a deed of infinite mercy.\n\nDo you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I have the\nright to say to all the world that this is false.\n\nIf there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a wise\nGod, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to the\npenitentiary for simply telling the truth?\n\nSuppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at science—whoever\nby profane language should bring the rule of three into contempt, or\nwhoever should attack the proposition that two parallel lines will never\ninclude a space, should be sent to the penitentiary—what would you\nthink of it? It would be just as wise and just as idiotic as this.\n\nAnd what else says the defendant?\n\n\"_The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous.\" \"Provoked him to\nanger._\"\n\nIs that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous?\n\nLet us read another line—\n\n\"_And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger bums like\nhell_.\"\n\nThat is true. The Bible says of God—\"My anger burns to the lowest\nhell.\" And that is all that the defendant says. Every word of it is\nin the Bible. He simply does not believe it—and for that reason is a\n\"blasphemer.\"\n\nI say to you now, gentlemen,—and I shall argue to the Court,—that\nthere is not in what I have read a solitary blasphemous word—not a word\nthat has not been said in hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world.\nTheodore Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this Bible-God said: \"Vishnu\nwith a necklace of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing\nserpents, is a figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old\nTestament.\" That, we might call \"blasphemy,\" but not what I have read.\n\nLet us read on:—\n\n\"_He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the wrath of the\nenemy_.\"\n\nThat is in the Bible—word for word. Then the defendant in astonishment\nsays:\n\n\"The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!\"\n\nThat is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible is true,\nGod was afraid.\n\n\"Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?\"\n\nIs not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and powerful, is\nit possible he is afraid of anything? If the defendant had said that God\nwas afraid of his enemies, that might have been blasphemy—but this man\nsays the Bible says that, and you are asked to say that it is blasphemy.\nNow, up to this point there is no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce\nthis infamous statute—this savage law.\n\n\"_The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the most foul\nand bestial instances of fornication, incest, and polygamy, perpetrated\nby God's own saints, and the New Testament indorses these lecherous\nwretches as examples for all good Christians to follow_.\".\n\nNow, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold polygamy?\nAbraham would have gotten into trouble in New Jersey—no doubt of that.\nSarah could have obtained a divorce in this State—no doubt of that.\nWhat is the use of telling a falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth\nabout the patriarchs.\n\nEverybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We have all heard of\nSolomon—a gentleman with five or six hundred wives, and three or four\nhundred other ladies with whom he was acquainted. This is simply what\nthe defendant says. Is there any blasphemy about that? It is only the\ntruth. If Solomon were living in the United States to-day, we would put\nhim in the penitentiary. You know that under the Edmunds Mormon law\nhe would be locked up. If you should present a petition signed by his\neleven hundred wives, you could not get him out.\n\nSo it was with David. There are some splendid things about David, of\ncourse. I admit that, and pay my tribute of respect to his courage—but\nhe happened to have ten or twelve wives too many, so he shut them up,\nput them in a kind of penitentiary and kept them there till they died.\nThat would not be considered good conduct even in Morristown. You know\nthat. Is it any harm to speak of it? There are plenty of ministers here\nto set it right—thousands of them all over the country, every one with\nhis chance to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word back. The pew\ncannot reply to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit there and\ntake it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, they ought to\nanswer it. But it is here, and the only answer is an indictment.\n\nI say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham, and of Jacob. Did you\never know of a more despicable fraud practiced by one brother on another\nthan Jacob practiced on Esau? My sympathies have always been with Esau.\nHe seemed to be a manly man. Is it blasphemy to say that you do not like\na hypocrite, a murderer, or a thief, because his name is in the Bible?\nHow do you know what such men are mentioned for? May be they are\nmentioned as examples, and you certainly ought not to be led away and\ninduced to imagine that a man with seven hundred wives is a pattern\nof domestic propriety, one to be followed by yourself and your sons. I\nmight go on and mention the names of hundreds of others who committed\nevery conceivable crime, in the name of religion—who declared war, and\non the field of battle killed men, women and babes, even children yet\nunborn, in the name of the most merciful God. The Bible is filled with\nthe names and crimes of these sacred savages, these inspired beasts. Any\nman who says that a God of love commanded the commission of these crimes\nis, to say the least of it, mistaken. If there be a God, then it is\nblasphemous to charge him with the commission of crime.\n\nBut let us read further from this indictment:\n\n\"The aforesaid printed document contains other scandalous, infamous and\nblasphemous matters and things, to the tenor and effect following, that\nis to say—\"\n\nThen comes this particularly blasphemous line:\n\n\"Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over .\"\n\nGentlemen, there are many things I have read that I should not have\nexpressed in exactly the same language used by the defendant, and many\nthings that I am going to read I might not have said at all, but the\ndefendant had the right to say every word with which he is charged in\nthis indictment. He had the right to give his honest thought, no matter\nwhether any human being agreed with what he said or not, and no matter\nwhether any other man approved of the manner in which he said these\nthings. I defend his right to speak, whether I believe in what he spoke\nor not, or in the propriety of saying what he did. I should defend a man\njust as cheerfully who had spoken against my doctrine, as one who had\nspoken against the popular superstitions of my time. It would make\nno difference to me how unjust the attack was upon my belief—how\nmaliciously ingenious; and no matter how sacred the conviction that\nwas attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And why? Because no\nattack can be answered by force, no argument can be refuted by a blow,\nor by imprisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but the\nargument is free; you may fell the man to the earth, but the statement\nstands.\n\nThe defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs, thought by the\nChristian world to be sacred. Yet, after all, nothing is sacred but the\ntruth, and by truth I mean what a man sincerely and honestly believes.\nThe defendant says:\n\n\"_Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the mother of\nGod, the mother of your God?_\"\n\nThe defendant probably asked this question, supposing that it must\nbe answered by all sensible people in the negative. If the Christian\nreligion is true, then a Jewish girl was the mother of Almighty God.\nPersonally, if the doctrine is true, I have no fault to find with the\nstatement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of God.—Millions believe,\nthat this is true—I do not believe,—but who knows? If a God came from\nthe throne of the universe, came to this world and became the child of\na pure and loving woman, it would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or\nthe greatness of that God.\n\nThere is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within the imagination\nof man, than a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms a child,\nthe fruit of love.\n\nNo matter how the statement is made, the fact remains the same. A Jewish\ngirl became the mother of God. If the Bible is true, that is true, and\nto repeat it, even according to your law, is not blasphemous, and to\ndoubt it, or to express the doubt, or to deny it, is not contrary to\nyour constitution.\n\nTo this defendant it seemed improbable that God was ever born of woman,\nwas ever held in the lap of a mother; and because he cannot believe\nthis, he is charged with blasphemy. Could you pour contempt on\nShakespeare by saying that his mother was a woman,—by saying that he\nwas once a poor, crying, little, helpless child? Of course he was; and\nhe afterwards became the greatest human being that ever touched the\nearth,—the only man whose intellectual wings have reached from sky to\nsky; and he was once a crying babe. What of it? Does that cast any scorn\nor contempt upon him? Does this take any of the music from \"Midsummer\nNight's Dream\"?—any of the passionate wealth from \"Antony and\nCleopatra,\" any philosophy from \"Macbeth,\" any intellectual grandeur\nfrom \"King Lear\"? On the contrary, these great productions of the brain\nshow the growth of the dimpled babe, give every mother a splendid\ndream and hope for her child, and cover every cradle with a sublime\npossibility.\n\nThe defendant is also charged with having said that: \"_God cried and\nscreamed_.\"\n\nWhy not? If he was absolutely a child, he was like other children,—like\nyours, like mine. I have seen the time, when absent from home, that I\nwould have given more to have heard my children cry, than to have heard\nthe finest orchestra that ever made the air burst into flower. What if\nGod did cry? It simply shows that his humanity was real and not assumed,\nthat it was a tragedy, real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant\nalso says that if the orthodox religion be true, that the\n\n\"_God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms, and made\naimless dashes into space with his little fists_.\"\n\nIs there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of the best pictures\nI ever saw of the Virgin and Child was painted by the Spaniard, Murillo.\nChrist appears to be a truly natural, chubby, happy babe. Such a\npicture takes nothing from the majesty, the beauty, or the glory of the\nincarnation.\n\nI think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church that it lifts\nup for adoration and admiration, a mother,—that it pays what it calls\n\"Divine honors\" to a woman. There is certainly goodness in that, and\nwhere a church has so few practices that are good, I am willing to point\nthis one out. It is the one redeeming feature about Catholicism, that it\nteaches the worship of a woman.\n\nThe defendant says more about the childhood of Christ. He goes so far as\nto say, that:\n\n\"He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes.\"\n\nAnd why not? The Bible says, that \"he increased in wisdom and stature.\"\nThe defendant might have referred to something far more improbable. In\nthe same verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and\nstature, will be found the assertion that he increased in favor with God\nand man. The defendant might have asked how it was that the love of God\nfor God increased.\n\nBut the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus grew, as other\nchildren grow; that he acted like other children, and if he did, it is\nmore than probable that he did stare at his own toes. I have laughed\nmany a time to see little children astonished with the sight of their\nfeet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the little toes in motion.\nCertainly there is nothing blasphemous in supposing that the feet of\nChrist amused him, precisely as the feet of other children have amused\nthem. There is nothing blasphemous about this; on the contrary, it is\nbeautiful. If I believed in the existence of God, the Creator of this\nworld, the Being who, with the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of\nspace with stars, as a farmer sows his grain, I should like to think of\nhim as a little, dimpled babe, overflowing with joy, sitting upon the\nknees of a loving mother. The ministers themselves might take a lesson\neven from the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an effort to\nbring an infinite God a little nearer to the human heart.\n\nThe defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ, \"_He was nursed\nat Mary's breast._\"\n\nYes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in it. Nursed\nat the breast of woman. No painting, no statue, no words can make a\ndeeper and a tenderer impression upon the heart of man than this: The\ninfinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of woman.\n\nYou see these things do not strike all people the same. To a man\nthat has been raised on the orthodox desert, these things are\nincomprehensible. He has been robbed of his humanity. He has no humor,\nnothing but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with folded wings.\n\nImagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every seed of earth\nto seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of bud and flower and fruit.\nImagination gathers from every field of thought and pours the wealth\nof many lives into the lap of one. To the contracted, to the cast-iron\npeople who believe in heartless and inhuman creeds, the words of the\ndefendant seem blasphemous, and to them the thought that God was a\nlittle child is monstrous.\n\nThey cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the breast of a\nmaiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that he had the joys\nand sorrows of other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not only you,\nbut the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is known as the\n\"Apocryphal New Testament,\" books that were once considered inspired,\nonce admitted to be genuine, and that once formed a part of our New\nTestament. I hope you have read the books of Joseph and Mary, of the\nShepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and of Mary, in which many of the\nthings done by the youthful Christ are described—books that were once\nthe delight of the Christian world; books that gave joy to children,\nbecause in them they read that Christ made little birds of clay, that\nwould at his command stretch out their wings and fly with joy above his\nhead. If the defendant in this case had said anything like that, here\nin the State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted; the orthodox\nministers would have shouted \"blasphemy,\" and yet, these little stories\nmade the name of Christ dearer to children.\n\nThe church of to-day lacks sympathy; the theologians are without\naffection. After all, sympathy is genius. A man who really sympathizes\nwith another understands him. A man who sympathizes with a religion,\ninstantly sees the good that is in it, and the man who sympathizes with\nthe right, sees the evil that a creed contains.\n\nBut the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is charged with\nhaving said:\n\n\"_God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and was rocked\nto sleep._\"\n\nYes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that. Let some great\nreligious genius paint a picture of this kind—of a babe smiling with\ncontent, rocked in the cradle by the mother who bends tenderly and\nproudly above him. There could be no more beautiful, no more touching,\npicture than this. What would I not give for a picture of Shakespeare as\na babe,—a picture that was a likeness,—rocked by his mother? I would\ngive more for this than for any painting that now enriches the walls of\nthe world.\n\nThe defendant also says, that:\n\n\"God was sick when cutting his teeth.\"\n\nAnd what of that? We are told that he was tempted in all points, as we\nare. That is to say, he was afflicted, he was hungry, he was thirsty,\nhe suffered the pains and miseries common to man. Otherwise, he was not\nflesh, he was not human.\n\n\"_He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the whooping\ncough_.\"\n\nCertainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was, in fact,\na child. Other children have them. Other children, loved as dearly by\ntheir mothers as Christ could have been by his, and yet they are taken\nfrom the little family by fever; taken, it may be, and buried in the\nsnow, while the poor mother goes sadly home, wishing that she was lying\nby its side. All that can be said of every word in this address, about\nChrist and about his childhood, amounts to this; that he lived the\nlife of a child; that he acted like other children. I have read you\nsubstantially what he has said, and this is considered blasphemous.\n\nHe has said, that:\n\n\"_According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian world\ncommanded people to destroy each other._\"\n\nIf the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant is true. Is it\ncalculated to bring God into contempt to deny that he upheld polygamy,\nthat he ever commanded one of his generals to rip open with the sword\nof war, the woman with child? Is it blasphemy to deny that a God of\ninfinite love gave such commandments? Is such a denial calculated to\npour contempt and scorn upon the God of the orthodox?\n\nIs it blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children to murder each\nother? Is it blasphemous to say that he was benevolent, merciful and\njust?\n\nIt is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God is good.\nI do not believe that a God made this world, filled it with people and\nthen drowned them. I do not believe that infinite wisdom ever made a\nmistake. If there be any God he was too good to commit such an infinite\ncrime, too wise, to make such a mistake. Is this blasphemy? Is it\nblasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous man, or that David was\nan adulterer?\n\nMust we say when this ancient King had one of his best generals placed\nin the front of the battle—deserted him and had him murdered for the\npurpose of stealing his wife, that he was \"a man after God's own heart\"?\nSuppose the defendant in this case were guilty of something like that?\nUriah was fighting for his country, fighting the battles of David, the\nKing. David wanted to take from him his wife. He sent for Joab, his\ncommander-in-chief, and said to him:\n\n\"Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front of the attacking\nforce, and when the people sally forth from the town to defend its gate,\nfall back so that this gallant, noble, patriotic man may be slain.\"\n\nThis was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is it blasphemy to\ntell the truth and to say exactly what David was? Let us be honest with\neach other; let us be honest with this defendant.\n\nFor thousands of years men have taught that the ancient patriarchs were\nsacred, that they were far better than the men of modern times, that\nwhat was in them a virtue, is in us a crime. Children are taught in\nSunday schools to admire and respect these criminals of the ancient\ndays. The time has come to tell the truth about these men, to call\nthings by their proper names, and above all, to stand by the right, by\nthe truth, by mercy and by justice. If what the defendant has said is\nblasphemy under this statute then the question arises, is the statute in\naccordance with the constitution? If this statute is constitutional, why\nhas it been allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this position:\nAny law made for the preservation of a human right, made to guard a\nhuman being, cannot sleep long enough to die; but any law that deprives\na human being of a natural right—if that law goes to sleep, it never\nwakes, it sleeps the sleep of death.\n\nI call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case in England\nwhere, only a few years ago, a man appealed to trial by battle. The law\nallowing trial by battle had been asleep in the statute book of England\nfor more than two hundred years, and yet the court held that, in spite\nof the fact that the law had been asleep—it being a law in favor of a\ndefendant—he was entitled to trial by battle. And why? Because it was\na statute at the time made in defence of a human right, and that statute\ncould not sleep long enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence\nof this decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act, doing\naway forever with the trial by battle.\n\nWhen a statute attacks an individual right, the State must never let it\nsleep. When it attacks the right of the public at large and is allowed\nto pass into a state of slumber, it cannot be raised for the purpose of\npunishing an individual.\n\nNow, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost infinite interest\nin this trial, and before you decide, I am exceedingly anxious that you\nshould understand with clearness the thoughts I have expressed upon this\nsubject I want you to know how the civilized feel, and the position now\ntaken by the leaders of the world.\n\nA few years ago almost everything spoken against the grossest possible\nsuperstition was considered blasphemous. The altar hedged itself about\nwith the sword; the Priest went in partnership with the King. In those\ndays statutes were leveled against all human speech. Men were convicted\nof blasphemy because they believed in an actual personal God; because\nthey insisted that God had body and parts. Men were convicted of\nblasphemy because they denied that God had form. They have been\nimprisoned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and they\nhave been torn in pieces for defending that doctrine. There are but few\ndogmas now believed by any Christian church that have not at some time\nbeen denounced as blasphemous.\n\nWhen Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the Episcopal Church a\ncreed was made, and in that creed there were five dogmas that must,\nof necessity, be believed. Anybody who denied any one, was to be\npunished—for the first offence, with fine, with imprisonment, or\nbranding, and for the second offence, with death. Not one of these five\ndogmas is now a part of the creed of the Church of England.\n\nSo I could go on for days and weeks and months, showing that hundreds\nand hundreds of religious dogmas, to deny which was death, have been\neither changed or abandoned for others nearly as absurd as the old ones\nwere. It may be, however, sufficient to say, that wherever the church\nhas had power it has been a crime for any man to speak his honest\nthought. No church has ever been willing that any opponent should give\na transcript of his mind. Every church in power has appealed to brute\nforce, to the sword, for the purpose of sustaining its creed. Not one\nhas had the courage to occupy the open field. The church has not been\nsatisfied with calling Infidels and unbelievers blasphemers. Each church\nhas accused nearly every other church of being a blasphemer. Every\npioneer has been branded as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin\nLuther a blasphemer, and Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer.\nPious ignorance always regards intelligence as a kind of blasphemy. Some\nof the greatest men of the world, some of the best, have been put to\ndeath for the crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of\nendeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.\n\nAs long as the church has the power to close the lips of men, so long\nand no longer will superstition rule this world.\n\n\"Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of the\nfew.\"\n\nAfter every argument of the church has been answered, has been refuted,\nthen the church cries, \"blasphemy!\"\n\nBlasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth.\n\nBlasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a this year's bud.\n\nBlasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.\n\nBlasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.\n\nAnd let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set out in this\nstatute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a book. No man can commit\nblasphemy by telling his honest thought. No man can blaspheme a God, or\na Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite cannot be blasphemed.\n\nIn the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition, when some\npoor man was struck by lightning, or when a blackened mark was left on\nthe breast of a wife and mother, the poor savage supposed that some god,\nangered by something he had done, had taken his revenge. What else did\nthe savage suppose? He believed that this god had the same feelings,\nwith regard to the loyalty of his subjects, that an earthly chief had,\nor an earthly king had, with regard to the loyalty or treachery of\nmembers of his tribe, or citizens of his kingdom. So the savage said,\nwhen his country was visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the\npeople away, or the storm scattered their poor houses in fragments:\n\"We have allowed some Freethinker to live; some one is in our town or\nvillage who has not brought his gift to the priest, his incense to the\naltar; some man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our\ngod.\" Then, for the purpose of appeasing the supposed god, for the\npurpose of again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of\nsecuring a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they drag the\naccused man from his home, from his wife and children, and with all\nthe ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They did it in\nself-defence; they believed that they were saving their own lives and\nthe lives of their children; they did it to appease their god. Most\npeople are now beyond that point. Now when disease visits a community,\nthe intelligent do not say the disease came because the people were\nwicked; when the cholera comes, it is not because of the Methodists, of\nthe Catholics, of the Presbyterians, or of the Infidels. When the wind\ndestroys a town in the far West, it is not because somebody there had\nspoken his honest thoughts. We are beginning to see that the wind\nblows and destroys without the slightest reference to man, without the\nslightest care whether it destroys the good or the bad, the irreligious\nor the religious. When the lightning leaps from the clouds it is just as\nlikely to strike a good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of\nflame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly and just\nas joyously, the home of virtue, as they do the den and lair of vice.\n\nThen the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws were made on\naccount of a superstition. That superstition has faded from the minds\nof intelligent men, and, as a consequence, the laws based on the\nsuperstition ought to fail.\n\nThere is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that men and nations\nmust reap the consequences of their acts—reap them in this world, if\nthey live, and in another if there be one. The man who leaves this\nworld a bad man, a malicious man, will probably be the same man when\nhe reaches another realm, and the man who leaves this shore good,\ncharitable and honest, will be good, charitable and honest, no matter\non what star he lives again. The world is growing sensible upon these\nsubjects, and as we grow sensible, we grow charitable.\n\nAnother reason has been given for these laws against blasphemy, the most\nabsurd reason that can by any possibility be given. It is this: There\nshould be laws against blasphemy, because the man who utters blasphemy\nendangers the public peace.\n\nIs it possible that Christians will break the peace? Is it possible\nthat they will violate the law? Is it probable that Christians will\ncongregate together and make a mob, simply because a man has given an\nopinion against their religion? What is their religion? They say, \"If\na man smites you on one cheek, turn the other also.\" They say, \"We must\nlove our neighbors as we love ourselves.\" Is it possible then, that you\ncan make a mob out of Christians,—that these men, who love even their\nenemies, will attack others, and will destroy life, in the name of\nuniversal love? And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to\nbe laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are controlled\nby universal love, will become so outraged, when they hear an honest man\nexpress an honest thought, that they will leap upon him and tear him in\npieces.\n\nWhat is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give you my\nthought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy?\n\nTo live on the unpaid labor of other men—that is blasphemy.\n\nTo enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body—that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, padlocks\nupon the lips—that is blasphemy.\n\nTo deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what you\nbelieve to be a lie—that is blasphemy.\n\nTo strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain the\napplause of the ignorant and superstitious mob—that is blasphemy.\n\nTo persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant\nmany—that is blasphemy.\n\nTo forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-men—that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal pain—that is\nblasphemy.\n\nTo violate your conscience—that is blasphemy.\n\nThe jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge who pronounces an\nunjust sentence, are blasphemers.\n\nThe man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment and\nagainst his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.\n\nWhy should we fear our fellow-men? Why should not each human being have\nthe right, so far as thought and its expression are concerned, of all\nthe world? What harm can come from an honest interchange of thought?\n\nI have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken freely, and yet\nthe sun rose this morning, just the same as it always has. There is no\nparticular change visible in the world, and I do not see but that we are\nall as happy to-day as though we had spent yesterday in making somebody\nelse miserable. I denounced on yesterday the superstitions of the\nChristian world, and yet, last night I slept the sleep of peace. You\nwill pardon me for saying again that I feel the greatest possible\ninterest in the result of this trial, in the principle at stake. This is\nmy only apology, my only excuse, for taking your time. For years I\nhave felt that the great battle for human liberty, the battle that has\ncovered thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been won. When\nI read the history of this world, of what has been endured, of what has\nbeen suffered, of the heroism and infinite courage of the intellectual\nand honest few, battling with the countless serfs and slaves of kings\nand priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance and prejudice, of\nfaith and fear, there was in my heart the hope that the great battle had\nbeen fought, and that the human race, in its march towards the dawn, had\npassed midnight, and that the \"great balance weighed up morning.\" This\nhope, this feeling, gave me the greatest possible joy. When I thought\nof the many who had been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty had\nperished in ashes, of how many o! the noblest and greatest had stood\nupon scaffolds, and of the countless hearts, the grandest that ever\nthrobbed in human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of church\nand state, of how many of the noble and loving had sighed themselves\naway in dungeons, the only consolation was that the last bastile had\nfallen, that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn down and that\nthe scaffolds of the world could no longer be wet with heroic blood.\n\nYou know that sometimes, after a great battle has been fought, and one\nof the armies has been broken, and its fortifications carried, there\nare occasional stragglers beyond the great field, stragglers who know\nnothing of the fate of their army, know nothing of the victory, and for\nthat reason, fight on. There are a few such stragglers in the State of\nNew Jersey. They have never heard of the great victory. They do not know\nthat in all civilized countries the hosts of superstition have been put\nto flight. They do not know that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the\nleaders of the intellectual armies of the world.\n\nOne of the last trials of this character, tried in Great Britain,—and\nthat is the country that our ancestors fought in the sacred name of\nliberty,—one of the last trials in that country, a country ruled by a\nstate church, ruled by a woman who was born a queen, ruled by dukes and\nnobles and lords, children of ancient robbers—was in the year 1843.\nGeorge Jacob Holyoake, one of the best of the human race, was imprisoned\non a charge of Atheism, charged with having written a pamphlet and\nhaving made a speech in which he had denied the existence of the British\nGod. The judge who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went down\nto his grave with a stain upon his intellect and upon his honor. All the\nreal intelligence of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage. There\nwas a trial after that to which I will call your attention. Judge\nColeridge, father of the present Chief Justice of England, presided at\nthis trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas Pooley, a man who dug wells\nfor a living, wrote on the gate of a priest, that, if people would burn\ntheir Bibles and scatter the ashes on the lands, the crops would be\nbetter, and that they would also save a good deal of money in tithes. He\nwrote several sentences of a kindred character. He was a curious man. He\nhad an idea that the world was a living, breathing animal. He would not\ndig a well beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon\nthis animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge Coleridge, on that\ncharge. An infinite God was about to be dethroned, because an honest\nwell-digger had written his sentiments on the fence of a parson. He\nwas indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Afterward, many\nintelligent people asked for his pardon, on the ground that he was in\ndanger of becoming insane. The judge refused to sign the petition. The\npardon was refused. Long before his sentence expired, he became a raving\nmaniac. He was removed to an asylum and there died. Some of the greatest\nmen in England attacked that judge, among these, Mr. Buckle, author of\n\"The History of Civilization in England,\" one of the greatest books in\nthis world. Mr. Buckle denounced Judge Coleridge. He brought him before\nthe bar of English opinion, and there was not a man in England, whose\nopinion was worth anything, who did not agree with Mr. Buckle, and did\nnot with him, declare the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an infamous\noutrage. What were the reasons given? This, among others: The law was\ndead; it had been asleep for many years; it was a law passed during the\nignorance of the Middle Ages, and a law that came out of the dungeon\nof religious persecution; a law that was appealed to by bigots and by\nhypocrites, to punish, to imprison an honest man.\n\nIn many parts of this country, people have entertained the idea that New\nEngland was still filled with the spirit of Puritanism, filled with\nthe descendants of those who killed Quakers in the name of universal\nbenevolence, and traded Quaker children in the Barbadoes for rum, for\nthe purpose of establishing the fact that God is an infinite father.\n\nYet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this, was when\nAbner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of Atheism. He was tried for\nhaving written this sentence: \"The Universalists believe in a God which\nI do not.\" He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief Justice Shaw upheld\nthe decision, and upheld it because he was afraid of public opinion;\nupheld it, although he must have known that the statute under which\nKneeland was indicted was clearly and plainly in violation of the\nConstitution. No man can read the decision of Justice Shaw without\nbeing convinced that he was absolutely dominated, either by bigotry,\nor hypocrisy. One of the judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a\ndissenting opinion, and in that dissenting opinion is the argument of\na civilized, of an enlightened jurist. No man can answer the dissenting\nopinion of Justice Morton. The case against Kneeland was tried more\nthan fifty years ago, and there has been none since in the New England\nStates; and this case, that we are now trying, is the first ever\ntried in New Jersey. The fact that it is the first, certifies to my\ninterpretation of this statute, and it also certifies to the toleration\nand to the civilization of the people of this State. The statute is\nupon your books. You inherited it from your ignorant ancestors, and they\ninherited it from their savage ancestors. The people of New Jersey were\nheirs of the mistakes and of the atrocities of ancient England.\n\nIt is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been allowed to\nslumber? Who obtained this indictment? Were they actuated by good and\nnoble motives? Had they the public weal at heart, or were they simply\nendeavoring to be revenged upon this defendant? Were they willing to\ndisgrace the State, in order that they might punish him?\n\nI have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the question\narises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper? What is prayer? What is\nreal religion? Let me answer these questions.\n\nGood, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who ploughs the fields\nand fells the forests; the man who works in mines, the man who battles\nwith the winds and waves out on the wide sea, controlling the commerce\nof the world; these men are worshipers. The man who goes into the\nforest, leading his wife by the hand, who builds him a cabin, who makes\na home in the wilderness, who helps to people and civilize and cultivate\na continent, is a worshiper.\n\nLabor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only prayer that\ndeserves an answer,—good, honest, noble work.\n\nA woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter, gone down to\ndegradation and filth; the woman who follows him and lifts him out of\nthe mire and presses him to her noble heart, until he becomes a man once\nmore, this woman is a worshiper. Her act is worship.\n\nThe poor man and the poor woman who work night and day, in order that\nthey may give education to their children, so that they may have a\nbetter life than their father and mother had; the parents who deny\nthemselves the comforts of life, that they may lay up something to help\ntheir children to a higher place—they are worshipers; and the children\nwho, after they reap the benefit of this worship, become ashamed of\ntheir parents, are blasphemers.\n\nThe man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife,—a wife prematurely old\nand gray,—the husband who sits by her bed and holds, her thin, wan hand\nin his as lovingly, and kisses it as rapturously, as passionately, as\nwhen it was dimpled,—that is worship; that man is a worshiper; that is\nreal religion.\n\nWhoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper. He who adds to\nthe sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.\n\nGentlemen, you can never make me believe—no statute can ever convince\nme, that there is any infinite Being in this universe who hates an\nhonest man. It is impossible to satisfy me that there is any God, or\ncan be any God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that has the courage to\nexpress his thought. Neither can the whole world convince me that any\nman should be punished, either in this world or in the next, for being\ncandid with his fellow-men. If you send men to the penitentiary for\nspeaking their thoughts, for endeavoring to enlighten their fellows,\nthen the penitentiary will become a place of honor, and the victim will\nstep from it—not stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.\n\nLet us take one more step.\n\nWhat is holy, what is sacred? I reply that human happiness is holy,\nhuman rights are holy. The body and soul of man—these are sacred. The\nliberty of man is of far more importance than any book; the rights of\nman more sacred than any religion—than any Scriptures, whether inspired\nor not.\n\nWhat we want is the truth, and does any one suppose that all of the\ntruth is confined in one book—that the mysteries of the whole world are\nexplained by one volume?\n\nAll that is—all that conveys information to man—all that has been\nproduced by the past—all that now exists—should be considered by an\nintelligent man. All the known truths of this world—all the philosophy,\nall the poems, all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing\nmusic—the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the words of honest\nmen, the trumpet calls to duty—all these make up the bible of the\nworld—everything that is noble and true and free, you will find in this\ngreat book.\n\nIf we wish to be true to ourselves,—if we wish to benefit our\nfellow-men—if we wish to live honorable lives—we will give to every\nother human being every right that we claim for ourselves.\n\nThere is another thing that should be remembered by you. You are the\njudges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In a case like\nthis, you are the final judges as to what the law is; and if you acquit,\nno court can reverse your verdict. To prevent the least misconception,\nlet me state to you again what I claim:\n\nFirst. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares that:\n\n\"The liberty of speech shall not be abridged.\" Second. That this\nstatute, under which this indictment is found, is unconstitutional,\nbecause it does abridge the liberty of speech; it does exactly that\nwhich the constitution emphatically says shall not be done.\n\nThird. I claim, also, that under this law—even if it be\nconstitutional—the words charged in this indictment do not amount to\nblasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the darkness, of this\nstatute.\n\nDo not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no matter\nwhat the Court may tell you about the law—how good it is, or how bad\nit is—no matter what the Court may instruct you on that subject—do not\nforget one thing, and that is: That the words charged in the indictment\nare the only words that you can take into consideration in this case.\nRemember that no matter what else may be in the pamphlet—no matter what\npictures or cartoons there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed\nthis man in the name of universal liberty and love—do not forget that\nyou have no right to take one word into account except the exact words\nset out in this indictment—that is to say, the words that I have\nread to you. Upon this point the Court will instruct you that you have\nnothing to do with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now claim,\nthat should the Court instruct you that the statute is constitutional,\nstill I insist that the words set out in this indictment do not amount\nto blasphemy.\n\nThere is still another point. This statute says: \"Whoever shall\nwillfully speak against.\" Now, in this case, you must find that the\ndefendant \"willfully\" did so and so—that is to say, that he made the\nstatements attributed to him knowing that they were not true. If you\nbelieve that he was honest in what he said, then this statute does not\ntouch him. Even under this statute, a man may give his honest opinion.\nCertainly, there is no law that charges a man with \"willfully\" being\nhonest—\"willfully\" telling his real opinion—\"willfully\" giving to his\nfellow-men his thought.\n\nWhere a man is charged with larceny, the indictment must set out that\nhe took the goods or the property with the intention to steal—with\nwhat the law calls the animus furandi. If he took the goods with\nthe intention to steal, then he is a thief; but if he took the goods\nbelieving them to be his own, then he is guilty of no offence. So in\nthis case, whatever was said by the defendant must have been \"willfully\"\nsaid. And I claim that if you believe that what the man said was\nhonestly said, you cannot find him guilty under this statute.\n\nOne more point: This statute has been allowed to slumber so long, that\nno man had the right to awaken it. For more than one hundred years it\nhas slept; and so far as New Jersey is concerned, it has been sound\nasleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug out of its grave. The\nbreath of life is sought to be breathed into it, to the end that some\npeople may wreak their vengeance on an honest man.\n\nIs there any evidence—has there been any—to show that the defendant\nwas not absolutely candid in the expression of his opinions? Is there\none particle of evidence tending, to show that he is not a perfectly\nhonest and sincere man? Did the prosecution have the courage to\nattack his reputation? No. The State has simply proved to you that he\ncirculated that pamphlet—that is all.\n\nIt was claimed, among other things, that the defendant circulated this\npamphlet among children. There was no such evidence—not the slightest.\nThe only evidence about schools, or school-children was, that when the\ndefendant talked with the bill-poster,—whose business the defendant was\ninterfering with,—he asked him something about the population of the\ntown, and about the schools. But according to the evidence, and as a\nmatter of fact, not a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any child, or\nto any youth. According to the testimony, the defendant went into two or\nthree stores,—laid the pamphlets on a show case, or threw them upon a\ndesk—put them upon a stand where papers were sold, and in one instance\nhanded a pamphlet to a man. That is all.\n\nIn my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in giving this\npamphlet to every citizen of your place.\n\nAgain I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep for all these\nyears—allowed to sleep by reason of the good sense and by reason of\nthe tolerant spirit of the State of New Jersey, should not be allowed\nto leap into life because a few are intolerant, or because a few lacked\ngood sense and judgment. This snake should not be warmed into vicious\nlife by the blood of anger.\n\nProbably not a man on this jury agrees with me about the subject of\nreligion. Probably not a member of this jury thinks that I am right in\nthe opinions that I have entertained and have so often expressed. Most\nof you belong to some church, and I presume that those who do, have the\ngood of what they call Christianity at heart. There maybe among you some\nMethodists. If so, they have read the history of their church, and they\nknow that when it was in the minority, it was persecuted, and they know\nthat they can not read the history of that persecution without becoming\nindignant. They know that the early Methodists were denounced as\nheretics, as ranters, as ignorant pretenders.\n\nThere are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know that there is a\ntendency in many parts of this country to persecute a man now because he\nis a Catholic. They also know that their church has persecuted in\ntimes past, whenever and wherever it had the power; and they know that\nProtestants, when in power, have always persecuted Catholics; and they\nknow, in their hearts, that all persecution, whether in the name of law,\nor religion, is monstrous, savage, and fiendish.\n\nI presume that each one of you has the good of what you call\nChristianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to acquit this man. If\nyou believe Christianity to be a good, it never can do any church any\ngood to put a man in jail for the expression of opinion. Any church that\nimprisons a man because he has used an argument against its creed, will\nsimply convince the world that it cannot answer the argument.\n\nChristianity will never reap any honor, will never reap any profit,\nfrom persecution. It is a poor, cowardly, dastardly way of answering\narguments. No gentleman will do it—no civilized man ever did do it—no\ndecent human being ever did, or ever will.\n\nI take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a certain\naffection, for the State in which you live—that you take a pride in the\nCommonwealth of New Jersey. If you do, I beg of you to keep the record\nof your State clean. Allow no verdict to be recorded against the freedom\nof speech. At present there is not to be found on the records of any\ninferior court, or on those of the Supreme tribunal—any case in which a\nman has been punished for speaking his sentiments. The records have not\nbeen stained—have not been polluted—with such a verdict.\n\nKeep such a verdict from the Reports of your State—from the Records of\nyour courts. No jury has yet, in the State of New Jersey, decided that\nthe lips of honest men are not free—that there is a manacle upon the\nbrain.\n\nFor the sake of your State—for the sake of her reputation throughout\nthe world—for your own sakes—and those of your children, and their\nchildren yet to be—say to the world that New Jersey shares in the\nspirit of this age,—that New Jersey is not a survival of the Dark\nAges,—that New Jersey does not still regard the thumbscrew as an\ninstrument of progress,—that New Jersey needs no dungeon to answer the\narguments of a free man, and does not send to the penitentiary, men who\nthink, and men who speak. Say to the world, that where arguments are\nwithout foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough in the brains of\nher people to feel that such arguments can be refuted by reason.\n\nFor the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the sake of something\nof far more value to this world than New Jersey—for the sake of\nsomething of more importance to mankind than this continent—for the\nsake of Human Liberty, for the sake of Free Speech, acquit this man.\n\nWhat light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty is to the\nsoul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, degradation and death.\n\nIn the name of Liberty, I implore—and not only so, but I insist—that\nyou shall find a verdict in favor of this defendant. Do not do the\nslightest thing to stay the march of human progress. Do not carry us\nback, even for a moment, to the darkness of that cruel night that good\nmen hoped had passed away forever.\n\nLiberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there remains\nonly barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no civilization.\n\nIf another man has not the right to think, you have not even the right\nto think that he thinks wrong. If every man has not the right to think,\nthe people of New Jersey had no right to make a statute, or to adopt a\nconstitution—no jury has the right to render a verdict, and no court to\npass its sentence.\n\nIn other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has the right\nto form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be such a thing\nas real religion without liberty. Without liberty there can be no such\nthing as conscience, no such word as justice. All human actions—all\ngood, all bad—have for a foundation the idea of human liberty, and\nwithout Liberty there can be no vice, and there can be no virtue.\n\nWithout Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy—no love, no\nhatred, no justice, no progress.\n\nTake the word Liberty from human speech and all the other words become\npoor, withered, meaningless sounds—but with that word realized—with\nthat word understood, the world becomes a paradise.\n\nUnderstand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the\nprosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the court\nare simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did not find the\nindictment. That was found by the grand jury. The grand jury did not\nfind the indictment of its own motion. Certain people came before the\ngrand jury and made their complaint—gave their testimony, and upon that\ntestimony, under this statute, the indictment was found.\n\nWhile I do not blame these people—they not being on trial—I do ask you\nto stand on the side of right.\n\nI cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge a public\nduty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to judgment, no\nmatter what authority may say, no matter what public opinion may demand.\nA man who stands by the right, against the world, cannot help applauding\nhimself, and saying: \"I am an honest man.\"\n\nI want your verdict—a verdict born of manhood, of courage; and I want\nto send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick. I wish you to\nfurnish the words of this dispatch—only two words—and these two words\nwill fill an anxious heart with joy. They will fill a soul with light.\nIt is a very short message—only two words—and I ask you to furnish\nthem: \"Not guilty.\"\n\nYou are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true to your\nconsciences, true to your best judgment, true to the best interests of\nthe people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty.\n\nI sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under the flag\nof the United States—that flag for which has been shed the bravest and\nbest blood of the world—under that flag maintained by Washington, by\nJefferson, by Franklin and by Lincoln—under that flag in defence of\nwhich New Jersey poured out her best and bravest blood—I hope it will\nnever be necessary again for a man to stand before a jury and plead for\nthe Liberty of Speech.\n    Note: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty.\n    The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs\n    amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel\n    Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.—C. P. Farrell.\n"
}