“Every library is an arsenal”
About the same time, or a little before, the
Moors had gone into Europe, and it can be truthfully said that science
was thrust into the brain of Europe upon the point of a Moorish lance.
They gave us paper, and what is printing without paper?
A bird without wings. I tell you paper has been a splendid thing.
The discovery of America, whose shores were trod by the restless feet
of adventure and the people of every nation--out of this strange
mingling of facts and fancies came the great Republic. Every fact has
pushed a superstition from the brain and a ghost from the cloud. Every
mechanical art is an educator; every loom, every reaper, every mower,
every steamboat, every locomotive, every engine, every press, every
telegraph is a missionary of science and an apostle of progress; every
mill, every furnace with its wheels and levers, in which something is
made for the convenience, for the use and the comfort and the
well-being of man, is my kind of church, and every schoolhouse is a
temple. Education is the most radical thing in this world. To teach
the alphabet is to inaugurate a revolution; to build a schoolhouse is
to construct a fort; every library is an arsenal filled with the
weapons and ammunition of progress; every fact is a monitor with sides
of iron and a turret of steel. I thank the inventors and discoverers.
I thank Columbus and Magellan. I thank Locke and Hume, Bacon and
Shakespeare. I thank Fulton and Watt, Franklin and Morse, who made
lightning the messenger of man. I thank Luther for protesting against
the abuses of the Church, but denounce him because he was an enemy of
liberty. I thank Calvin for writing a book in favor of religious
freedom, but I abhor him because he burned Servetus. I thank the
Puritans for saying that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God, and
yet I am compelled to admit that they were tyrants themselves. I thank
Thomas Paine because he was a believer in liberty. I thank Voltaire,
that great man who for half a century was the intellectual monarch of
Europe, and who, from his throne at the foot of the Alps, pointed the
finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Christendom. I thank the
inventors, I thank the discoverers, the thinkers and the scientists,
and I thank the honest millions who have toiled.
“Nothing could be more dangerous to the existence of this Republic than to introduce religion into politics”
and then, no matter how
ignorant he may be, how utterly unfit, he receives the
Presbyterian vote. According to Mr. Talmage, he
would vote for a Catholic who, if he had the power,
would destroy all liberty of conscience, rather than
vote for an infidel who, had he the power, would
305
destroy all the religious tyranny of the world, and
allow every human being to think for himself, and
to worship God, or not, as and how he pleased.
Mr. Talmage makes the serious mistake of placing
the Bible above the laws and Constitution of his
country. He places Jehovah above humanity. Such
men are not entirely safe citizens of any republic.
And yet, I am in favor of giving to such men all the
liberty I ask for myself, trusting to education and the
spirit of progress to overcome any injury they may
do, or seek to do.
When this country was founded, when the Con-
stitution was adopted, the churches agreed to let the
State alone. They agreed that all citizens should have
equal civil rights. Nothing could be more dangerous
to the existence of this Republic than to introduce
religion into politics. The American theory is, that
governments are founded, not by gods, but by men,
and that the right to govern does not come from
God, but "from the consent of the governed." Our
fathers concluded that the people were sufficiently
intelligent to take care of themselves--to make good
laws and to execute them. Prior to that time, all
authority was supposed to come from the clouds.
Kings were set upon thrones by God, and it was the
306
business of the people simply to submit. In all really
civilized countries, that doctrine has been abandoned.
The source of political power is here, not in heaven.
We are willing that those in heaven should control
affairs there; we are willing that the angels should
have a government to suit themselves; but while we
live here, and while our interests are upon this earth,
we propose to make and execute our own laws.
If the doctrine of Mr. Talmage is the true doctrine,
if no man should be voted for unless he is a Christian,
then no man should vote unless he is a Christian.
“Anger blows out the lamp of the mind”
Black
had been challenged by me. To have struck his shield with my lance might
have given birth to the impression that I was somewhat doubtful as to
the correctness of my position. I naturally expected an answer from some
professional theologian, and was surprised to find that a reply had been
written by a "policeman," who imagined that he had answered my arguments
by simply telling me that my statements were false. It is somewhat
unfortunate that in a discussion like this any one should resort to the
slightest personal detraction. The theme is great enough to engage the
highest faculties of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a
subject vituperation is singularly and vulgarly out of place. Arguments
cannot be answered with insults. It is unfortunate that the intellectual
arena should be entered by a "policeman," who has more confidence in
concussion than discussion. Kindness is strength. Good nature is often
mistaken for virtue, and good health sometimes passes for genius.
Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and
important question, every one should be serene, slow-pulsed, and calm.
Intelligence is not the foundation of arrogance. Insolence is not logic.
Epithets are the arguments of malice. Candor is the courage of the soul.
Leaving the objectionable portion of Mr. Black's reply, feeling that so
grand a subject should not be blown and tainted with malicious words, I
proceed to answer as best I may the arguments he has urged.
414. What is Christianity?
Of course it is still claimed that we are a Christian people, indebted
to something we call Christianity, for all the progress we have made.
There is still a vast difference of opinion as to what Christianity
really is, although many wavering sects have been discussing that
question, with fire and sword through centuries of creed and crime.
Every new sect has been denounced at its birth as illegitimate, as
something born out of orthodox wedlock, and that should have been
allowed to perish on the steps where it was found.
“Happiness is not a reward / it is a consequence. Suffering is not a punishment / it is a result.”
According to the logic of this "reply," all good and evil become mixed
and mingled--equally good and equally bad, unless we believe in the
existence of the infallible God who ordered husbands to kill their
wives. We do not know right from wrong now, unless we are convinced
that a being of infinite mercy waged wars of extermination four thousand
years ago. We are incapable even of charity, unless we worship the being
who ordered the husband to kill his wife for differing with him on the
subject of religion.
We know that acts are good or bad only as they effect the actors, and
others. We know that from every good act good consequences flow, and
that from every bad act there are only evil results. Every virtuous deed
is a star in the moral firmament. There is in the moral world, as in
the physical, the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect. For
this reason, the atonement becomes an impossibility. Others may suffer
by your crime, but their suffering cannot discharge you; it simply
increases your guilt and adds to your burden. For this reason happiness
is not a reward--it is a consequence. Suffering is not a punishment--it
is a result.
It is insisted that Christianity is not opposed to freedom of thought,
but that "it is based on certain principles to which it requires the
assent of all." Is this a candid statement? Are we only required to
give our assent to certain principles in order to be saved? Are the
inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and the
Trinity, principles? Will it be admitted by the orthodox world that good
deeds are sufficient unto salvation--that a man can get into heaven by
living in accordance with certain principles? This is a most excellent
doctrine, but it is not Christianity. And right here, it may be well
enough to state what I mean by Christianity. The morality of the world
is not distinctively Christian. Zoroaster, Gautama, Mohammed, Confucius,
Christ, and, in fact, all founders of religions, have said to their
disciples: You must not steal; You must not murder; You must not bear
false witness; You must discharge your obligations. Christianity is the
ordinary moral code, _plus_ the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ, his
crucifixion, his resurrection, his ascension, the inspiration of the
Bible, the doctrine of the atonement, and the necessity of belief.
“We need men with moral courage to speak and write their real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very death.”
Every nation is groaning under a vast debt incurred
in carrying on war against other Christians, or defending itself from
Christian assault. The world is covered with forts to protect
Christians from Christians, and every sea is covered with iron monsters
ready to blow Christian brains into eternal froth. Millions upon
millions are annually expended in the effort to construct still more
deadly and terrible engines of death. Industry is crippled, honest
toil is robbed, and even beggary is taxed to defray the expenses of
Christian murder. There must be some other way to reform this world.
We have tried creed and dogma, and fable, and they have failed--and
they have failed in all the nations dead.
Nothing but education--scientific education--can benefit mankind. We
must find out the laws of nature and conform to them. We need free
bodies and free minds, free labor and free thought, chainless hands and
fetterless brains. Free labor will give us wealth. Free thought will
give us truth. We need men with moral courage to speak and write their
real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very
death. We need have no fear of being too radical. The future will
verify all grand and brave predictions. Paine was splendidly in
advance of his time, but he was orthodox compared to the infidels of
today.
Science, the great iconoclast, has been very busy since 1809, and by
the highway of progress are the broken images of the past. On every
hand the people advance. The vicar of God has been pushed from the
throne of the Caesars, and upon the roofs of the Eternal city falls
once more the shadow of the eagle. All has been accomplished by the
heroic few. The men of science have explored heaven and earth, and
with infinite patience have furnished the facts. The brave thinkers
have aided them. The gloomy caverns of superstition have been
transformed into temples of thought, and the demons of the past are the
angels of today.
Science took a handful of sand, constructed a telescope, and with it
explored the starry depths of heaven. Science wrested from the gods
their thunderbolts; and now, the electric spark freighted with thought
and love, flashes under all the waves of the sea.
“The greatest test of courage on earth is to bear defeat without losing heart.”
He left his wife to
defend herself, and he left the prattling babes to be defended by their
mother and by nature. The mother made the living; she planted the corn
and the potatoes, and hoed them in the sun, raised the children, and
in the darkness of night, told them about their brave father, and the
"sacred cause." She told them that in a little while the war would be
over and father would come back covered with honor and glory.
Think of the women, of the sweet children who listened for the footsteps
of the dead--who waited through the sad and desolate years for the dear
ones who never came.
The soldiers of 1776 did not march away with music and banners. They
went in silence, looked at and gazed after by eyes filled with tears.
They went to meet, not an equal, but a superior--to fight five times
their number--to make a desperate stand--to stop the advance of the
enemy, and then, when their ammunition gave out, seek the protection of
rocks, of rivers and of hills.
Let me say here: The greatest test of courage on the earth is to bear
defeat without losing heart. That army is the bravest that can be
whipped the greatest number of times and fight again.
Over the entire territory, so to speak, then settled by our forefathers,
they were driven again and again. Now and then they would meet the
English with something like equal numbers, and then the eagle of victory
would proudly perch upon the stripes and stars. And so they went on as
best they could, hoping and fighting until they came to the dark and
sombre gloom of Valley Forge.
There were very few hearts then beneath that flag that did not begin to
think that the struggle was useless; that all the blood and treasure had
been spent and shed in vain. But there were some men gifted with that
wonderful prophecy that fulfils itself, and with that wonderful magnetic
power that makes heroes of everybody they come in contact with.
And so our fathers went through the gloom of that terrible time, and
still fought on. Brave men wrote grand words, cheering the despondent,
brave men did brave deeds, the rich man gave his wealth, the poor man
gave his life, until at last, by the victory of Yorktown, the old banner
won its place in the air, and became glorious forever.
“My principal objections to orthodox religion are two - slavery here and hell hereafter”
to answer the last question if possible, a _Herald_ reporter
visited Mr. Beecher and Colonel Ingersoll to learn their opinion
of each other. Neither of the gentlemen was aware that the other
was being interviewed.]
_Question_. What is your opinion of Mr. Beecher?
_Answer_. I regard him as the greatest man in any pulpit of the
world. He treated me with a generosity that nothing can exceed.
He rose grandly above the prejudices supposed to belong to his
class, and acted as only a man could act without a chain upon his
brain and only kindness in his heart.
I told him that night that I congratulated the world that it had
a minister with an intellectual horizon broad enough and a mental
sky studded with stars of genius enough to hold all creeds in scorn
that shocked the heart of man. I think that Mr. Beecher has
liberalized the English-speaking people of the world.
I do not think he agrees with me. He holds to many things that I
most passionately deny. But in common, we believe in the liberty
of thought.
My principal objections to orthodox religion are two--slavery here
and hell hereafter. I do not believe that Mr. Beecher on these
points can disagree with me. The real difference between us is--
he says God, I say Nature. The real agreement between us is--we
both say--Liberty.
_Question_. What is his forte?
_Answer_. He is of a wonderfully poetic temperament. In pursuing
any course of thought his mind is like a stream flowing through
the scenery of fairyland. The stream murmurs and laughs while the
banks grow green and the vines blossom.
His brain is controlled by his heart. He thinks in pictures. With
him logic means mental melody. The discordant is the absurd.
For years he has endeavored to hide the dungeon of orthodoxy with
the ivy of imagination. Now and then he pulls for a moment the
leafy curtain aside and is horrified to see the lizards, snakes,
basilisks and abnormal monsters of the orthodox age, and then he
utters a great cry, the protest of a loving, throbbing heart.
He is a great thinker, a marvelous orator, and, in my judgment,
greater and grander than any creed of any church.
“It is a blessed thing that in every age someone has had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions”
Universal obedience is universal stagnation; disobedience is
one of the conditions of progress. Select any age of the world and tell
me what would have been the effect of implicit obedience. Suppose the
church had had absolute control of the human mind at any time, would
not the word liberty and progress have been blotted from the human
speech? In defiance of advice, the world has advanced.
Suppose the astronomers had controlled the science of astronomy;
suppose the doctors had controlled the science of medicine; suppose
kings had been left to fix the form of government! Suppose our fathers
had taken the advice of Paul, who was subject to the powers that be,
"because they are ordained of God;" suppose the church could control
the world today, we would go back to chaos and old night. Philosophy
would be branded as infamous; science would again press its pale and
thoughtful face against the prison bars; and round the limbs of liberty
would climb the bigot's flame.
It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality
enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions; some one who
had the grit to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, "the
church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon,
and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church." On the
prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn and success.
The trouble with most people is that they bow to what is called
authority; they have a certain reverence for the old because it is old.
They think a man is better for being dead, especially if he has been
dead a long time, and that the forefathers of their nation were the
greatest and best of all mankind. All these things they implicitly
believe because it is popular and patriotic, and because they were told
so when very small, and remember distinctly of hearing mother read it
out of a book, and they are all willing to swear that mother was a good
woman. It is hard to overestimate the influence of early training--in
the direction of superstition. You first teach children that a certain
book is true--that it was written by God himself--that to question its
truth is sin, that to deny it is a crime, and that should they die
without believing that book they will be forever damned without benefit
of clergy; the consequence is that before they read that book they
believe it to be true.
“I combat those only who, knowing nothing of the future, prophesy an eternity of pain- those who sow the seeds of fear in the hearts of men- those only who poison all the springs of life, and seat a skeleton at every feast”
Most men are provincial, narrow, one sided, only partially developed. In
a new country we often see a little patch of land, a clearing in which
the pioneer has built his cabin. This little clearing is just large
enough to support a family, and the remainder of the farm is still
forest, in which snakes crawl and wild beasts occasionally crouch. It
is thus with the brain of the average man. There is a little clearing,
a little patch, just large enough to practice medicine with, or sell
goods, or practice law; or preach with, or do some kind of business,
sufficient to obtain bread and food and shelter for a family, while
all the rest of the brain is covered with primeval forest, in which
lie coiled the serpents of superstition and from which spring the wild
beasts of orthodox religion.
Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is it
necessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great enough to
demand a sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and death, of good
and evil, have never yet been solved.
I combat those only who, knowing nothing of the future, prophesy an
eternity of pain--those only who sow the seeds of fear in the hearts of
men--those only who poison all the springs of life, and seat a skeleton
at every feast.
Let us banish the shriveled hags of superstition; let us welcome the
beautiful daughters of truth and joy.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
CONTROVERSY ON CHRISTIANTY
[Ingersoll-Gladstone.]
COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY; SOME REMARKS ON HIS REPLY TO DR.
FIELD.
By Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone.
AS a listener from across the broad Atlantic to the clash of arms in the
combat between Colonel Ingersoll and Dr. Field on the most momentous
of all subjects, I have not the personal knowledge which assisted these
doughty champions in making reciprocal acknowledgments, as broad as
could be desired, with reference to personal character and motive. Such
acknowledgments are of high value in keeping the issue clear, if not
always of all adventitious, yet of all venomous matter. Destitute of
the experience on which to found them as original testimonies, still,
in attempting partially to criticise the remarkable Reply of Colonel
Ingersoll, I can both accept in good faith what has been said by Dr.
“Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice”
While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all
religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for
the hopeful, loving and tender souls who believe that from all this
discord will result a perfect harmony; that every evil will in some
mysterious way become a good, and that above and over all there is a
being who, in some way, will reclaim and glorify everyone of the
children of men; but for those who heartlessly try to prove that
salvation is almost impossible; that damnation is almost certain; that
the highway of the universe leads to hell; who fill life with fear and
death with horror; who curse the cradle and mock the tomb, it is
impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity, contempt and scorn.
Reason, Observation and Experience--the Holy Trinity of Science--have
taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is
now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for
us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any
possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of,
nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel.
Until then, let us stand erect.
Notwithstanding the fact that infidels in all ages have battled for the
rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of
liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with
tearing down without building again. The Church should by this time
know that it is utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions. The
history of religious persecutions fully establishes the fact that the
mind necessarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by
violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for
the new. The moment we comprehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are
of necessity cast aside.
A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render
him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very
learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease; of the curative
properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air and
light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be
restored. These remarks were so full of good sense, and discovered so
much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple,
becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, "Do not, I pray you, take away
my crutches.
“The history of intellectual progress is written in the lives of infidels”
It is just as bad to deny hell as it is to
deny heaven. Prof. Swing says the bible is a poem. Dr. Ryder says it is
a picture. The Garden of Eden is pictorial; a pictorial snake and a
pictorial woman, I suppose, and a pictorial man, and may be it was a
pictorial sin. And only a pictorial atonement!
Man must learn to rely on himself. Reading bibles will not protect him
from the blasts of winter, but houses, fire and clothing will. To
prevent famine one plow is worth a million sermons, and even patent
medicines will cure more diseases than all the prayers uttered since
the beginning of the world.
Ingersoll's Lecture on Voltaire
Ladies and Gentlemen: The infidels of one age have often been the
aureoled saints of the next.
The destroyers of the old are the creators of the new. As time sweeps
on the old passes away and the new in its turn becomes of old.
There is in the intellectual world, as in the physical, decay and
growth, and ever by the grave of buried age stand youth and joy.
The history of intellectual progress is written in the lives of
infidels.
Political rights have been preserved by traitors; the liberty of mind
by heretics.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest was blasphemy.
For many years the sword and cross were allies. Together they attacked
the rights of man. They defended each other.
The throne and altar were twins--two vultures from the same egg.
James I said: "No bishop; no king." He might have added: No cross,
no crown. The king owned the bodies of men; the priest, the souls. One
lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by
fear--both robbers, both beggars.
These robbers and these beggars controlled two worlds. The king made
laws, the priest made creeds. Both obtained their authority from God,
both were the agents of the infinite. With bowed backs the people
carried the burdens of one, and with wonder's open mouth received the
dogmas of the other. If the people aspired to be free, they were
crushed by the king, and every priest was a Herod, who slaughtered the
children of the brain.
“If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”
As a matter of fact, in the last twenty years,
more money has been stolen by Christian cashiers,
Christian presidents, Christian directors, Christian
trustees and Christian statesmen, than by all other
convicts in all the penitentiaries in all the Christian
world.
The assassin of Henry the Fourth was a Bible reader
and a Bible believer. The instigators of the massacre
of St. Bartholomew were believers in your sacred
Scriptures. The men who invested their money in the
slave-trade believed themselves filled with the Holy
Ghost, and read with rapture the Psalms of David and
the Sermon on the Mount. The murderers of Scotch
Presbyterians were believers in Revelation, and the
134
Presbyterians, when they murdered others, were also
believers. Nearly every man who expiates a crime
upon the gallows is a believer in the Bible. For a
thousand years, the daggers of assassination and the
swords of war were blest by priests--by the believers
in the sacred Scriptures. The assassin of President
Garfield is a believer in the Bible, a hater of infidelity,
a believer in personal inspiration, and he expects in a
few weeks to join the winged and redeemed in
heaven.
If a man would follow, to-day, the teachings of the
Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would
follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be
insane.
FOURTH INTERVIEW.
_Son. There is no devil.
Mother. I know there is.
Son. How do you know?
Mother. Because they make pictures that look just
like him.
Son. But, mother--
Mother. Don't "mother" me! You are trying to
disgrace your parents._
_Question_. I want to ask you a few questions about
Mr. Talmage's fourth sermon against you, entitled:
"The Meanness of Infidelity," in which he compares
you to Jehoiakim, who had the temerity to throw
some of the writings of the weeping Jeremiah into
the fire?
_Answer_. So far as I am concerned, I really re-
gret that a second edition of Jeremiah's roll was
gotten out. It would have been far better for us all,
if it had been left in ashes. There was nothing but
curses and prophecies of evil, in the sacred roll that
138
Jehoiakim burned. The Bible tells us that Jehovah
became exceedingly wroth because of the destruction
of this roll, and pronounced a curse upon Jehoiakim
and upon Palestine. I presume it was on account of
the burning of that roll that the king of Babylon
destroyed the chosen people of God.
“I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot.”
They see nothing dangerous--nothing repugnant, in any
of these relations,--but the idea of riding in the same car, stopping at
the same hotel, fills them with fear--fear for the future of our race.
Such people can be described only in the language of Walt Whitman. "They
are the immutable, granitic pudding-heads of the world.".
Liberty is not a social question. Civil equality is not social equality.
We are equal only in rights. No two persons are of equal weight,
or height. There are no two leaves in all the forests of the earth
alike--no two blades of grass--no two grains of sand--no two hairs. No
two any-things in the physical world are precisely alike. Neither mental
nor physical equality can be created by law, but law recognizes the fact
that all men have been clothed with equal rights by Nature, the mother
of us all.
The man who hates the black man because he is black, has the same spirit
as he who hates the poor man because he is poor. It is the spirit
of caste. The proud useless despises the honest useful. The parasite
idleness scorns the great oak of labor on which it feeds, and that lifts
it to the light.
I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot. Men
are not superior by reason of the accidents of race or color. They are
superior who have the best heart--the best brain. Superiority is born of
honesty, of virtue, of charity, and above all, of the love of liberty.
The superior man is the providence of the inferior. He is eyes for
the blind, strength for the weak, and a shield for the defenceless. He
stands erect by bending above the fallen. He rises by lifting others.
In this country all rights must be preserved, all wrongs redressed,
through the ballot. The colored man has in his possession in his care, a
part of the sovereign power of the Republic. At the ballot-box he is
the equal of judges and senators, and presidents, and his vote, when
counted, is the equal of any other. He must use this sovereign power for
his own protection, and for the preservation of his children. The ballot
is his sword and shield. It is his political providence. It is the rock
on which he stands, the column against which he leans. He should vote
for no man who dees not believe in equal rights for all--in the same
privileges and immunities for all citizens, irrespective of race or
color.
“This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves”
Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is the
Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington
to the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in which he
almost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against me, for
what he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter
of fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God, provided
always that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by
the orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is
conditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take
from a man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and
he suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is
because he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless,
he cannot in any way be affected by what anybody else may do; and,
consequently, a sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the
principle of the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy
was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able
to take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind
which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. Injustice is the
only blasphemy that can be committed, and justice is the only true
worship. Man can sin against man, but not against God. But even if man
could sin against God, it has always struck me that an infinite being
would be entirely able to take care of himself without the assistance of
a Chief Justice. Men have always been violating the rights of men, under
the plea of defending the rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so
perfectly delightful to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,
and get God in his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has
taken this occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in
heaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified
copy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help
satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little ahead.
The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware.
“Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense”
But there are so many objections to the
personal-God theory, that it is impossible for me to
accept it. I prefer to say that the universe is all the
God there is. I prefer to make no being responsible.
I prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, man
must clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man must
feed them. I prefer to rely upon human endeavor,
upon human intelligence, upon the heart and brain
of man. There is no evidence that God has ever
interfered in the affairs of man. The hand of earth
is stretched uselessly toward heaven. From the
clouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwrecked
cry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty
and light--the world moves on, and the heavens are
deaf and dumb and blind. The frost freezes, the fire
burns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the good
suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith.
_Question_. Mr. Talmage charges you with being
"the champion blasphemer of America"--what do
you understand blasphemy to be?
_Answer_. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by su-
perstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-
gates a religion as he would any department of
50
science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts
a priest, whoever has the impudence to use his own
reason, whoever is brave enough to express his
honest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes of the
religionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly of
the wooden god of a savage, the savage regards him
as a blasphemer. To laugh at the pretensions of
Mohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To say
in St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of
God is also blasphemy. There was a time when to
acknowledge the divinity of Christ in Jerusalem was
blasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemy
in New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extent
a geographical question. It depends not only on what
you say, but where you are when you say it. Blas-
phemy is what the old calls the new,--what last
year's leaf says to this year's bud. The founder of
every religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so re-
garded Christ, and the Athenians had the same
opinion of Socrates.
“If all the bones of all the victims of the Catholic Church could be gathered together, a monument higher than all the pyramids would rise”
"And He is man of the substance of His mother, born in this world,
perfect God and perfect man, and the rational soul in human flesh
subsisting equal to the Father according to His Godhead, but less than
the Father, according to His manhood, who being both God and man is not
two but one--one not by conversion of God into flesh but by the taking
of the manhood into God."
You see that it is a great deal easier than the other. "One
altogether, not by a confusion of substance, but by unity of person,
for as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God the man, is one
Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
the third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, and He sitteth at
the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, and He shall come to judge
the living and the dead."
In order to be saved it is necessary to believe this. What a blessing,
that we do not have to understand it. And in order to compel the human
intellect to get upon its knees, before that infinite absurdity,
thousands and millions have suffered agonies; thousands and millions
have perished in dungeons and in fire; and if all the bones of all the
victims of the Catholic Church could be gathered together, a monument
higher than all the pyramids would rise in our presence, and the eyes
even of priests would be suffused with tears.
That Church covered Europe with cathedrals and dungeons. That Church
robbed men of the jewel of the soul. That Church had ignorance upon
its knees. That Church went into partnership with the tyrants of the
throne, and between these two vultures, the altar and the throne, the
heart of man was devoured. Of course I have met, and cheerfully admit
that there is thousands of good Catholics; but Catholicism is contrary
to human liberty. Catholicism bases salvation upon belief. Catholicism
teaches man to trample his reason under foot. And for that reason, it
is wrong.
Now, the next Church that comes along in the way that I wish to speak
of is the Episcopalian. That was founded by Henry VIII., now in
heaven. He cast off Queen Catherine and Catholicism together. And he
accepted Episcopalianism and Annie Boleyn at the same time. That
Church, if it had a few more ceremonies, would be Catholic.
“The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith.”
We are asked to justify these frightful passages, these infamous laws
of war, because the bible is the word of God. As a matter of fact,
there never was, and there never can be, an argument, even tending to
prove the inspiration of any book whatever. In the absence of positive
evidence, analogy and experience, argument is simply impossible, and at
the very best, can amount only to a useless agitation of the air. The
instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even
reasoned about, we are mental serfs. It is infinitely absurd to
suppose that a god would address a communication to intelligent beings,
and yet make it a crime, to be punished in eternal flames for them to
use their intelligence for the purpose of understanding his
communication. If we have the right to use our reason, we certainly
have the right to act in accordance with it, and no god can have the
right to punish us for such action.
The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It
is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ is to be
rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason,
observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for
refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of
insanity and ignorance, called "faith." What man, who ever thinks, can
believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of
religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the
blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of
Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the
salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind
can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read
the bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.
Whether the bible is true or false, is of no consequence in comparison
with the mental freedom of the race.
Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from slavery is
inestimable.
As long as man believes the bible to be infallible, that is his master.
The civilization of this century is not the child of faith, but of
unbelief--the result of free thought.
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable
person that the bible is simply and purely of human invention--of
barbarian invention--is to read it.
“A believer is a bird in a cage, a freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing”
No religionist seems capable of comprehending this plain truth. There
is this difference between thought and action: For our actions we are
responsible to ourselves and to those injuriously affected; for
thoughts there can, in the nature of things, be no responsibility to
gods or men, here or hereafter. And yet the Protestant has vied with
the Catholic in denouncing freedom of thought, and while I was taught
to hate Catholicism with every drop of my blood, it is only justice to
say that in all essential particulars it is precisely the same as every
other religion. Luther denounced mental liberty with all the coarse
and brutal vigor of his nature; Calvin despised from the very bottom of
his petrified heart anything that even looked like religious
toleration, and solemnly declared to advocate it was to crucify Christ
afresh. All the founders of all the orthodox churches have advocated
the same infamous tenet. The truth is that what is called religion is
necessarily inconsistent with free thought.
A believer is a songless bird in a cage, a freethinker is an eagle
parting the clouds with tireless wings.
At present, owing to the inroads that have been made by liberals and
infidels, most of the churches pretend to be in favor of religious
liberty. Of these churches we will ask this question: "How can a man
who conscientiously believes in religious liberty worship a God who
does not?" They say to us: "We will not imprison you on account of
your belief, but our God will. We will not burn you because you throw
away the sacred scriptures; but their Author will," "We think it an
infamous crime to persecute our brethren for opinion's sake; but the
God whom we ignorantly worship will on that account damn his own
children forever." Why is it that these Christians do not only detest
the infidels, but so cordially despise each other? Why do they refuse
to worship in the temples of each other? Why do they care so little
for the damnation of men, and so much for the baptism of children? Why
will they adorn their churches with the money of thieves, and flatter
vice for the sake of subscription?
“To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead”
He shouted to
them "These are the times that try men's souls." The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot, will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks
of man and woman.
To those who wished to put the war off to some future day, with a lofty
and touching spirit of self-sacrifice, he said: "Every generous parent
should say: 'If there must be war, let it be in my day, that my child
may have peace'." To the cry that Americans were rebels, he replied:
"He that rebels against reason is a real rebel; but he that in defense
of reason rebels against tyranny, has a better title to 'Defender of
the Faith' than George III."
Some said it was to the interest of the colonies to be free. Paine
answered this by saying: "To know whether it be the interest of the
continent to be independent, we need ask only this simple, easy
question: 'Is it the interest of man to be a boy all his life?"' He
found many who would listen to nothing, and to them he said: "That to
argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine
to the dead." This sentiment ought to adorn the walls of every
orthodox church.
There is a world of political wisdom in this: "England lost her liberty
in a long chain of right reasoning from wrong principles;" and there
is real discrimination in saying: "The Greeks and Romans were strongly
possessed of the spirit of liberty, but not the principles, for at the
time they were determined not to be slaves themselves, they employed
their power to enslave the rest of mankind."
In his letter to the British people, in which he tried to convince them
that war was not to their interest, occurs the following passage
brimful of common sense: "War never can be the interest of a trading
nation any more than quarreling can be profitable to a man in business.
But to make war with those who trade with us is like setting a bull-dog
upon a customer at the shop door."
The Writings of Paine fairly glitter with simple, compact, logical
statements that carry conviction to the dullest and most prejudicial.
“If we admit that some infinite being has controlled the destinies of persons and peoples, history becomes a most cruel and bloody farce”
The element of uncertainty will, in a great measure, be
removed from the domain of the future, and man, gathering courage from
a succession of victories over the obstructions of nature, will attain
a serene grandeur unknown to the disciples of any superstition. The
plans of mankind will no longer be interfered with by the finger of a
supposed omnipotence, and no one will believe that nations or
individuals are protected or destroyed by any deity whatever. Science,
freed from the chains of pious custom and evangelical prejudice, will,
within her sphere, be supreme. The mind will investigate without
reverence and publish its conclusions without fear. Agassiz will no
longer hesitate to declare the Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent
with the demonstrated truths of geology, and will cease pretending any
reverence for the Jewish scriptures. The moment science succeeds in
rendering the church powerless for evil, the real thinkers will be
outspoken. The little flags of truce carried by timid philosophers
will disappear, and the cowardly parley will give place to victory
lasting and universal.
If we admit that some infinite being has controlled the destinies of
persons and people, history becomes a most cruel and bloody farce. Age
after age, the strong have trampled upon the weak; the crafty and
heartless have ensnared and enslaved the simple and innocent, and
nowhere, in all the annals of mankind, has any god succored the
oppressed.
Man should cease to expect aid from on high. By this time he should
know that heaven has no ear to hear, and no hand to help. The present
is the necessary child of all the past. There has been no chance, and
there can be no interference.
If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them. If slaves are freed,
man must free them. If new truths are discovered, man must discover
them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is
done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind, if
the defenseless are protected, and if the right finally triumphs, all
must be the work of man. The grand victories of the future must be won
by man, and by man alone.
Nature, so far as we can discern, without passion and without
intention, forms, transforms, and retransforms forever.