The works of Robert G. Ingersoll

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY O*
CALIFORNIA
SAN DIE©O

. //

Coition

THE WORKS

OF

Robert G. Ingersoll

"TO PLOW IS TO PRAY ; TO PLANT IS TO PRO
PHESY, AND THE HARVEST ANSWERS AND FULFILLS."

IN TWELVE VOLUMES
VOLUME XI.

MISCELLANY

NEW YORK

THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.,
C. P. FARRELL

MCMII

COPYRIGHT, 1900

BY
C. P. FARRELL

COPYRIGHT, igot

BY
THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XL

CIVIL RIGHTS.

Introduction by Frederick Douglass ("Abou Ben Adhem") — Decis
ion of the United States Supreme Court pronouncing the Civil Rights
Act Unconstitutional— Limitations of Judges — Illusion Destroyed by
the Decision in the Dred Scott Case — Mistake of Our Fathers in adopt
ing the Common Law of England — The i3th Amendment to the Con
stitution Quoted — The Clause of the Constitution upholding Slavery —
Effect of this Clause — Definitions of a State by Justice Wilson and
Chief Justice Chase — Effect of the Thirteenth Amendment — Justice
Field on Involuntary Servitude — Civil Rights Act Quoted — Definition
of the Word Servitude by the Supreme Court — Obvious Purpose of
the Amendment — Justice Miller on the i4th Amendment — Citizens
Created by this Amendment — Opinion of Justice Field — Rights and
Immunities guaranteed by the Constitution — Opinion delivered by
Chief-Justice Waite — Further Opinions of Courts on the question of
Citizenship— Effect of the i3th, I4th and I5th Amendments— "Cor
rective" Legislation by Congress — Denial of equal "Social" Privi
leges — Is a State responsible for the Action of its Agent when acting
contrary to Law? — The Word "State" must include the People of
the State as well as the Officers of the State — The Louisiana Civil
Rights Law, and a Case tried under it — Uniformity of Duties essential
to the Carrier — Congress left Powerless to protect Rights conferred
by the Constitution — Definition of " Appropriate Legislation " — Prop
ositions laid down regarding the Sovereignty of the State, the powers
of the General Government, etc. — A Tribute to Justice Harlan — A
Denial that Property exists by Virtue of Law — Civil Rights not a Ques
tion of Social Equality — Considerations upon which Social Equality
depends — Liberty not a Question of Social Equality— The Superior
Man — Inconsistencies of the Past — No Reason why we should Hate the
Colored People— The Issues that are upon Us. . . . 1-52

TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.
ADDRESS TO THE JURY.

Report of the Case from the New York Times (note) — The
Right to express Opinions — Attempts to Rule the Minds of Men
by Force — Liberty the Greatest Good— Intellectual Hospitality De
fined — When the Catholic Church had Power — Advent of the
.Protestants — The Puritans, Quakers, Unitarians, Universalists —
What is Blasphemy ? — Why this Trial should not have Taken Place

(v) VOL. xi.

VI CONTENTS.

—Argument cannot be put in Jail— The Constitution of New Jersey—
A higher Law than Men can Make — The Blasphemy Statute Quoted
and Discussed — Is the Statute Constitutional ? — The Harm dune by
Blasphemy Laws — The Meaning of this Persecution — Religions are
Ephemeral— Let us judge each other by our Actions — Men who have
braved Public Opinion should be Honored — The Blasphemy Law if
enforced would rob the World of the Results of Scientific Research —
It declares the Great Men of to-day to be Criminals — The Indictment
Read and Commented upon — Laws that go to Sleep— Obsolete
Dogmas the Denial of which was once punished by Death — Blasphemy
Characterized — On the Argument that Blasphemy Endangers the
Public Peace — A Definition of real Blasphemy — Trials for Blasphemy
in England — The case of Abner Kneeland — True Worship, Prayer,
and Religion — What is Holy and Sacred — What is Claimed in this
Case — For the Honor of the State — The word Liberty — Result of the
Trial (note). 55-H7

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The Feudal System — Office and Purpose of our Constitution —
Which God shall we Select? — The Existence of any God a Matter of
Opinion — What is entailed by a Recognition of a God in the Con
stitution — Can the Infinite be Flattered with a Constitutional Amend
ment ? — This government is Secular — The Government of God a
Failure — The Difference between the Theological and the Secular
Spirit — A Nation neither Christian nor Infidel -The Priest no longer
a Necessity — Progress of Science and the Development of the Mind.

121-134

A REPLY TO BISHOP SPALDING.

On God in the Constitution — Why the Constitutional Convention
ignored the Question of Religion — The Fathers Misrepresented —
Reasons why the Attributes of God should not form an Organic
Part of the Law of the Land — The Effect of a Clause Recognizing
God • 137-140

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.

The Three Pests of a Community — I. Forms of Punishment and
Torture — More Crimes Committed than Prevented by Governments —
II. Are not Vices transmitted by Nature? — III. Is it Possible for all
People to be Honest?— Children of Vice as the natural Product of
Society — Statistics : the Relation between Insanity, Pauperism, and
Crime — IV. The Martyrs of Vice— Franklin's Interest in the Treat
ment of Prisoners — V. Kindness as a Remedy— Condition of the
Discharged Prisoner — VI. Compensation for Convicts — VII. Pro
fessional Criminals — Shall the Nation take Life ? — Influence of Public
Executions on the Spectators — Lynchers for the Most Part Criminals
at Heart — VIII. The Poverty of the Many a perpetual Menace —
Limitations of Land-holding. — IX. Defective Education by our
Schools — Hands should be educated as well as Head— Conduct

VOL. «.

CONTENTS. Vii

improved by a clearer Perception of Consequences — X. The Disci
pline of the average Prison Hardening and Degrading — While Soci
ety cringes before Great Thieves there will be Little Ones to fill the
Jails — XI. Our Ignorance Should make us Hesitate, . 143-166

A WOODEN GOD.

On Christian and Chinese worship — Report of the Select Committee
on Chinese Immigration — The only true God as contrasted with Joss
— Sacrifices to the " Living God" — Messrs. Wright, Dickey, O'Con
nor and Murch on the " Religious System " of the American Union —
How to prove that Christians are better than Heathens — Injustice
in the Name of God — An honest Merchant the best Missionary — A
Few Extracts from Confucius — The Report proves that the Wise
Men of China who predicted that Christians could not be Trusted
were not only Philosophers but Prophets, .... 169-177

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS.

A New Party and its Purpose — The Classes that Exist in every
Country — Effect of Education on the Common People — Wants In
creased by Intelligence— The Dream of 1776 — The Monopolist and
the Competitor — The War between the Gould and Mackay Cables —
Competition between Monopolies — All Advance in Legislation made
by Repealing Laws— Wages and Values not to be fixed by Law —
Men and Machines — The Specific of the Capitalist : Economy — The
poor Man and Woman devoured by their Fellow-men — Socialism one
of the Worst Possible forms of Slavery— Liberty not to be exchanged
for Comfort — Will the Workers always give their Earnings for the
Useless? — Priests, Successful Frauds, and Robed Impostors, 181-199

ART AND MORALITY.

The Origin of Man's Thoughts — The imaginative Man — " Medicinal
View" of Poetry — Rhyme and Religion — The theological Poets and
their Purpose in Writing — Moral Poets and their ' ' Unwelcome Truths ' '
— The really Passionate are the Virtuous — Difference between the Nude
and the Naked — Morality the Melody of Conduct — The inculcation of
Moral Lessons not contemplated by Artists or great Novelists — Mis
taken Reformers — Art not a Sermon — Language a Multitude of Pic
tures — Great Pictures and Great Statues painted and chiseled with
Words — Mediocrity moral from a Necessity which it calls Virtue — Why
Art Civilizes — The Nude — The Venus de Milo — This is Art, 203-211

THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.

The Way in which Theological Seminaries were Endowed — Re
ligious Guide-boards — Vast Interests interwoven with Creeds — Pre
tensions of Christianity — Kepler's Discovery of his Three Great Laws
— Equivocations and Evasions of the Church — Nature's Testimony
against the Bible — The Age of Man on the Earth — " Inspired" Morality
of the Bible — Miracles — Christian Dogmas — What the church has
been Compelled to Abandon — The Appeal to Epithets, Hatred and
Punishment — "Spirituality" the last Resource of the Orthodox —
What is it to be Spiritual? — Two Questions for the Defenders of

Orthodox Creeds, 215-233

VOL. xi.

Viii CONTENTS.

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?

Part I. Inharmony of Nature and the Lot of Man with the Goodness
and Wisdom of a supposed Deity — Why a Creator is Imagined — Diffi
culty of the Act of Creation — Belief in Supernatural Beings — Belief and
Worship among Savages — Questions of Origin and Destiny — Progress
impossible without Change of Belief— Circumstances Determining Be
lief— How may the True Religion be Ascertained? — Prosperity of Na
tions nor Virtue of Individuals Dependent on Religions or Gods — Unin
spired Books Superior — Part II. The Christian Religion — Credulity —
Miracles cannot be Established — Effect of Testimony — Miraculous
Qualities of all Religions — Theists and Naturalists — The Miracle of In
spiration — How can the alleged Fact of Inspiration be Established ?
— God's work and Man's — Rewards for Falsehood offered by the
Church 237-259

HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

Statement by the Principal of King's College — On the Irrelevancy
of a Lack of Scientific Knowledge — Difference between the Agnostic
and the Christian not in Knowledge but in Credulity — The real name
of an Agnostic said to be " Infidel" — What an Infidel is — " Unpleas
ant" significance of the Word — Belief in Christ — " Our Lord and his
Apostles " possibly Honest Men — Their Character not Involved —
Possession by evil spirits — Professor Huxley's Candor and Clearness —
The splendid Dream of Auguste Conite— Statement of the Positive
Philosophy — Huxley and Harrison, 263-279

ERNEST RENAN.

His Rearing and his Anticipated Biography — The complex Char
acter of the Christ of the Gospels— Regarded as a Man by Renan —
The Sin against the Holy Ghost — Renan on the Gospels—No Evi
dence that they were written by the Men whose Names they Bear —
Written long after the Events they Describe- -Metaphysics of the
Church found in the Gospel of John — Not Apparent why Four Gos
pels should have been Written — Regarded as legendary Biographies
— In "flagrant contradiction one with another" — The Divine Origin
of Christ an After-growth — Improbable that he intended to form a
Church — Renan's Limitations — Hebrew Scholarship — His " People of
Israel " — His Banter and Blasphemy, . . . . 283-301

TOLSTOY AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA."

Tolstoy's Belief and Philosophy — His Asceticism — His View of
Human Love — Purpose of "The Kreutzer Sonata" — Profound Dif
ference between the Love of Men and that of Women — Tolstoy can
not now found a Religion, but may create the Necessity for another
Asylum — The Emotions — The Curious Opinion Dried Apples have of
Fruit upon the Tree — Impracticability of selling All and giving to the
Poor — Love and Obedience — Unhappiness in the Marriage Relation
not the fault of Marriage, . . , . . , , . 305-318

VOL. xi.

CONTENTS. Ix

THOMAS PAINE.

Life by Moncure D. Conway — Early Advocacy of Reforms against
Dueling and Cruelty to Animals — The First to write "The United
States of America" — Washington's Sentiment against Separation
from Great Britain — Paine's Thoughts in the Declaration of Independ
ence — Author of the first Proclamation of Emancipation in America —
Establishment of a Fund for the Relief of the Army — His " Farewell
Address"— The "Rights of Man "—Elected to the French Con
vention — Efforts to save the Life of the King — His Thoughts on
Religion — Arrested— The " Age of Reason " and the Weapons it has
furnished "Advanced Theologians " — Neglect by Gouverneur Morris
and Washington— James Monroe's letter to Paine and to the Com
mittee of General Safety — The vaunted Religious Liberty of Colonial
Maryland — Orthodox Christianity at the Beginning of the igth Cen
tury — New Definitions of God — The Funeral of Paine, . 321-339

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.

I. Mr. A., the Professional Philanthropist, who established a Col
ony for the Enslavement of the Poor who could not take care of
themselves, amassed a large Fortune thereby, built several churches,
and earned the Epitaph, "He was the Providence of the Poor" — II.
Mr. B., the Manufacturer, who enriched himself by taking Advantage
of the Necessities of the Poor, paid the lowest Rate of Wages, con
sidered himself one of God's Stewards, endowed the "B Asylum"
and the " B College," never lost a Dollar, and of whom it was re
corded, " He Lived for Others "—III. Mr. C., who divided his Profits
with the People who had earned it, established no Public Institutions,
suppressed Nobody ; and those who have worked for him said, " He
allowed Others to live for Themselves," .... 343*353

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED?

Trampling on the Rights of Inferiors — Rise of the Irish and Ger
mans to Power — The Burlingame Treaty — Character of Chinese
Laborers — Their Enemies in the Pacific States — Violation of Treaties
— The Geary Law — The Chinese Hated for their Virtues — More
Piety than Principle among the People's Representatives— Shall we
go back to Barbarism ? 357-365

A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.

What the Educated Man Knows— Necessity of finding out the Facts
of Nature — " Scholars " not always Educated Men ; from necessaries
to luxuries ; who may be called educated ; mental misers ; the first
duty of man ; university education not necessary to usefulness, no
advantage in learning useless facts, 369-371

WHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.

Would have the Kings and Emperors resign, the Nobility drop

their Titles, the Professors agree to teach only What they Know, the

^Politicians changed to Statesmen, the Editors print only the Truth —

'Would like to see Drunkenness and Prohibition abolished, Corporal

Punishment done away with, and the whole World free, . 375-376

VOL, xi.

X CONTENTS.

FOOL FRIENDS.

The Fool Friend believes every Story against you, never denies a
Lie unless it is in your Favor, regards your Reputation as Common
Prey, forgets his Principles to gratify your Enemies, and is so friendly
that you cannot Kick him, 379-380

INSPIRATION.

Nature tells a different Story to all Eyes and Ears — Horace Greeley
and the Big Trees — The Man who " always did like rolling land " —
What the Snow looked like to the German— Shakespeare's different
Story for each Reader— As with Nature so with the Bible, 383-387

THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.

People who live by Lying — A Case in point — H. Hodson Rugg's
Account of the Conversion of Ingersoll and 5,000 of his Followers —
The "Identity of Lost Israel with the British Nation" — Old False
hoods about Infidels — The New York Observer and Thomas Paine —
A Rascally English Editor -The Charge that Ingersoll's Son had
been Converted— The Fecundity of Falsehood, . . 391-395

HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER.

The Editor should not narrow his Horizon so that he can see only
One Thing — To know the Defects of the Bible is but the Beginning of
Wisdom — The Liberal Paper should not discuss Theological Ques
tions Alone — A Column for Children -Candor and Kindness — Noth
ing should be Asserted that is not Known — Above All, teach the
Absolute Freedom of the Mind, ..... 399-401

SECULARISM.

The religion of Humanity ; what it Embraces and what it Advo
cates—A Protest against Ecclesiastical Tyranny — Believes in Building
a Home here — Means Food and Fireside — The Right to express your
Thought — Its advice to every Human Being — A Religion without
Mysteries, Miracles, or Persecutions, .... 405-406

CRITICISM OF "ROBERT ELSMERE," "JOHN WARD,
PREACHER," AND "AN AFRICAN FARM."

Religion unsoftened by Infidelity — The Orthodox Minister whose
Wife has a Heart — Honesty of Opinion not a Mitigating Circumstance
— Repulsiveness of an Orthodox Life— John Ward an Object of Pity
— Lyndall of the " African Farm "—The Story of the Hunter— Death
of Waldo — Women the Caryatides of the Church — Attitude of Chris
tianity toward other Religions — Egotism of the ancient Jews, 409-418

THE LIBEL LAWS.

All Articles appearing in a newspaper should be Signed by the
Writer — The Law if changed should throw greater Safeguards around
the Reputation of the Citizen — Pains should be taken to give Promi
nence to Retractions — The Libel Laws like a Bayonet in War, 419-420

VOL. xi.

CONTENTS. XI

REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION.

Mr. Newton not Regarded as a Sceptic— New Meanings given to
Old Words — The vanishing Picture of Hell — The Atonement —
Confidence being Lost in the Morality of the Gospel— Exclusiveness
of the Churches — The Hope of Immortality and Belief in God have
Nothing to do with Real Religion — Special Providence a Mistake,

423-428

AN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.

The Day regarded as a Holiday — A Festival far older than Chris
tianity — Relics of Sun-worship in Christian Ceremonies — Christianity
furnished new Steam for an old Engine— Pagan Festivals correspond
to Ours — Why Holidays are Popular — They must be for the Benefit
of the People, 431-433

HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE?

The Object of Freethought — what the Religionist calls "Affirma
tive and Positive " — The Positive Side of Freethought— Constructive
Work of Christianity, 437-44*

THE IMPROVED MAN.

He will be in Favor of universal Liberty, neither Master nor Slave ;
of Equality and Education ; will develop in the Direction of the
Beautiful ; will believe only in the Religion of this World — His
Motto — Will not endeavor to change the Mind of the " Infinite " —
Will have no Bells or Censers — Will be satisfied that the Supernatural
does not exist— Will be Self-poised, Independent, Candid and Free,

445-447
EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.

The Working People should be protected by Law — Life of no par
ticular Importance to the Man who gets up before Daylight and
works till after Dark — A Revolution probable in the Relations be
tween Labor and Capital — Working People becoming Educated and
more Independent— The Government can Aid by means of Good
Laws— Women the worst Paid — There should be no Resort to Force
by either Labor or Capital, . . . . . . 451-453

THE JEWS.

Much like People of other Religions — Teaching given Christian
Children about those who die in the Faith of Abraham— Dr. John
Hall on the Persecution of the Jews in Russia as the Fulfillment of
Prophecy — Hostility of Orthodox early Christians excited by Jewish
Witnesses against the Faith — An infamous Chapter of History —
Good and bad Men of every Faith — Jews should outgrow their own
Superstitions — What the intelligent Jew Knows, . . 457-460

Vol. JU.

xii CONTENTS.

CRUMBLING CREEDS.

The Common People called upon to Decide as between the Uni
versities and the Synods — Modern Medicine, Law, Literature and
Pictures as against the Old — Creeds agree with the Sciences of their
Day — Apology the Prelude to Retreat — The Presbyterian Creed In
famous, but no worse than the Catholic — Progress begins when Ex
pression of Opinion is Allowed — Examining the Religions of other
Countries — The Pulpit's Position Lost— The Dogma of Eternal Pain
the Cause of the orthodox Creeds losing Popularity — Every Church
teaching this Infinite Lie must Fall, 463-470

OUR SCHOOLS.

Education the only Lever capable of raising Mankind — The School-
house more Important than the Church — Criticism of New York's
School-Buildings — The Kindergarten System Recommended — Poor
Pay of Teachers — The great Danger to the Republic is Ignorance,

471-472

VIVISECTION.

The Hell of Science — Brutal Curiosity of Vivisectors — The Pretence
that they are working for the Good of Man — Have these scientific
Assassins added to useful Knowledge ? — No Good to the Race to be
Accomplished by Torture — The Tendency to produce a Race of
intelligent Wild Beasts, 473-474

THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL CATECHISM.

Right of the Government to ask Questions and of the Citizen to
refuse to answer them — Matters which the Government has no Right
to pry into — Exposing the Debtor's financial Condition — A Man
might decline to tell whether he has a Chronic Disease or not,

475-476

THE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS.

Natural Phenomena and Myths celebrated — The great Day of the
first Religion, Sun-worship — A God that Knew no Hatred nor Sought
Revenge — The Festival of Light, . . . . . . 477

SPIRITUALITY.

A much-abused Word — The Early Christians too Spiritual to be
Civilized — Calvin and Knox — Paine, Voltaire and Humboldt not
Spiritual — Darwin also Lacking — What it is to be really Spiritual —
No connection with Superstition, . . . . . 481-485

SUMTER'S GUN.

What were thereby blown into Rags and Ravelings — The Birth of
a new Epoch announced — Lincoln made the most commanding Fig
ure of the Century — Story of its Echoes, . . . . 487-488

VOL. xi.

CONTENTS.

WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.

What might have been Asked of a Christian 100 years after
Christ — Hospitals and Asylums not all built for Charity — Girard Col
lege—Lick Observatory— Carnegie not an Orthodox Christian —
Christian Colleges — Give us Time, 491-495

CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.

Brockway a Savage — The Lash will neither develop the Brain nor
cultivate the Heart — Brutality a Failure — Bishop Potter's apostolical
Remark, 497-498

LAW'S DELAY.

The Object of a Trial — Justice can afford to Wait — The right of
Appeal — Case of Mrs. Maybrick — Life Imprisonment for Murderers
— American Courts better than the English, . . . 501-503

BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.

Universities naturally Conservative — Kansas State University's Ob
jection to Ingersoll as a commencement Orator — Comment by Mr.
Depew (note; — Action of Cornell and the University of Missouri,

505-506

A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY.

The Chances a few Years ago — Capital now Required — Increasing
competition in Civilized Life— Independence the first Object— If he
has something to say, there will be plenty to listen, . 509-514

SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.

Science goes hand in hand with Imagination — Artistic and Ethical
Development — Science destroys Superstition, not true Religion —
Education preferable to Legislation — Our Obligation to our Children,

517-519

"SOWING AND REAPING."

Moody's Belief accounted for — A dishonest and corrupting Doc
trine — A want of Philosophy and Sense — Have Souls in Heaven no
Regrets ? — Mr. Moody should read some useful Books, . 523-527

SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHILDREN
TO SUNDAY SCHOOL ?

Teachings of orthodox Sunday Schools — The ferocious God of the
Bible — Miracles — A Christian in Constantinople would not send his
Child to a Mosque— Advice to all Agnostics — Strangle the Serpent of

Superstition, . 531-534

VOL. xi.

CONTENTS.

WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
AS A MORAL GUIDE ?

Character of the Bible — Men and Women not virtuous because of
any Book — The Commandments both Good and Bad — Books that do
not help Morality— Jehovah not a moral God — What is Morality? —
Intelligence the only moral guide, . . .... 537*544

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION.

Decline of the Christian Religion in New Hampshire — Outgrown
Beliefs — Present-day Views of Christ and the Holy Ghost — Aban
doned Notions about the Atonement — Salvation for Credulity — The
Miracles of the New Testament — The Bible " not true but inspired "
— The " Higher Critics " riding two Horses — Infidelity in the Pulpit
— The "restraining Influences of Religion " as illustrated by Spain
and Portugal — Thinking, Working and Praying — The kind of Faith
that has Departed, 547-559

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY.

The Truth Seeker congratulated on its Twenty-fifth Birthday —
Teachings of Twenty-five Years ago — Dodging and evading — The
Clerical Assault on Darwin — Draper, Buckle, Hegel, Spencer, Em
erson — Comparison of Prejudices — Vanished Belief in the Devil —
Matter and Force — Contradictions Dwelling in Unity — Substitutes
for Jehovah — A Prophecy, 563-576

POLITICAL MORALITY.

Argument in the contested Election Case of Strobach against Her
bert — The Importance of Honest Elections — Poisoning the Source of
justice— The Fraudulent Voter a Traitor to his Sovereign, the Will
of the People — Political Morality Imperative, . . . 577*578

A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION
OF THE BIBLE.

Date and Manner of Composing the Old Testament — Other Books
not now in Existence, and Disagreements about the Canon — Com
posite Character of certain Books — Various Versions— Why was
God's message given to the Jews alone? — The Story of the Creation,
of the Flood, of the Tower, and of Lot's wife — Moses and Aaron and
the Plagues of Egypt — Laws of Slavery — Instructions by Jehovah
Calculated to excite Astonishment and Mirth — Sacrifices and the
Scapegoat — Passages showing that the Laws of Moses were made
after the Jews had left the Desert— Jehovah's dealings with his People
— The Sabbath Law — Prodigies— Joshua's Miracle— Damned Igno
rance and Infamy — Jephthah's Sacrifice — Incredible Stories — The
Woman of Endor and the Temptation of David— Elijah and Elisha —
Loss of the Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah — The Jews before and
after being Abandoned by Jehovah — Wealth of Solomon and other
Marvels 581-607

VOL. zi.

ADDRESS ON THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT.

CIVIL RIGHTS.

ON the 22d of October, 1883, a vast number of citizens
met at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., to give ex
pression to their views concerning the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, in which it is held that
the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was one of the speakers.

The Hon. Frederick Douglass introduced him as follows :

Abou Ben Adhem — (may his tribe increase !)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw within the moonlight of his room,
Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold :
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold ;
And to the presence in the room he said,

" What writest thou? " The vision raised its head,
And, with a look made all of sweet accord,
Answered, " The names of those who love the Lord."

"And is mine one? " asked Abou. " Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still ; and said, " I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again, with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest ;
And, lo ! Ben Adhem 's name led all the rest.

I have the honor to introduce Robert G. Ingersoll.
MR. INGERSOLL'S SPEECH.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

We have met for the purpose of saying a few words
about the recent decision of the Supreme Court, in which
that tribunal has held the first and second sections of the

Civil Rights Act to be unconstitutional ; and so held in

(i)

2 MISCELLANY.

spite of the fact that for years the people of the North and
South have, with singular unanimity, supposed the Act to
be constitutional — supposed that it was upheld by the i3th
and 1 4th Amendments, — and so supposed because they
knew with certainty the intention of the framers of the
amendments. They knew this intention, because they
knew what the enemies of the amendments and the ene
mies of the Civil Rights Act claimed was the intention.
And they also knew what the friends of the amendments
and the law admitted the intention to be. The prejudices
born of ignorance and of slavery had died or fallen asleep,
and even the enemies of the amendments and the law had
accepted the situation.

But I shall speak of the decision as I feel, and in the
same manner as I should speak even in the presence of the
Court. You must remember that I am not attacking per
sons, but opinions — not motives, but reasons — not judges,
but decisions.

The Supreme Court has decided :

1. That the first and second sections of the Civil Rights
Act of March i, 1875, are unconstitutional, as applied to
the States— not being authorized by the I3th and i4th
Amendments.

2. That the i4th Amendment is prohibitory upon the
States only, and the legislation forbidden to be adopted by
Congress for enforcing it, is not " direct " legislation, but
"corrective," — such as may be necessary or proper for
counteracting and restraining the effect of laws or acts
passed or done by the several States.

3. That the i3th Amendment relates only to slavery and
involuntary servitude, which it abolishes.

4. That the i3th Amendment establishes universal free
dom in the United States.

5. That Congress may probably pass laws directly en-
to.rcing its provisions.

CIVIL RIGHTS. 3

6. That such legislative power in Congress extends only
to the subject of slavery, and its incidents.

7. That the denial of equal accommodations in inns,
public conveyances and places of public amusement, im
poses no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon
the party, but at most infringes rights which are protected
from State aggression by the I4th Amendment.

8. The Court is uncertain whether the accommodations
and privileges sought to be protected by the first and
second sections of the Civil Rights Act are or are not
rights constitutionally demandable, — and if they are, in
what form they are to be protected.

9. Neither does the Court decide whether the law, as it
stands, is operative in the Territories and the District of
Columbia.

10. Neither does the Court decide whether Congress,
under the commercial power, may or may not pass a law
securing to all persons equal accommodations on lines of
public conveyance between two or more States.

11. The Court also holds, in the present case, that until
some State law has been passed, or some State action
through its officers or agents has been taken adverse to the
rights of citizens sought to be protected by the i4th Amend
ment, no legislation of the United States under said amend
ment, or any proceeding under such legislation, can be
called into activity, for the reason that the prohibitions of
the amendment are against State laws and acts done under
State authority. The essence of said decision being, that
the managers and owners of inns, railways, and all public
conveyances, of theatres and all places of public amuse
ment, may discriminate on account of race, color, or pre
vious condition of servitude, and that the citizen so dis
criminated against, is without redress.

* This decision takes from seven millions of people the
shield of the Constitution. It leaves the best of the col-

4 MISCELLANY.

ored race at the mercy of the meanest of the white. It
feeds fat the ancient grudge that vicious ignorance bears
toward race and color. It will be approved and quoted by
hundreds of thousands of unjust men. The masked
wretches who, in the darkness of night, drag the poor
negro from his cabin, and lacerate with whip and thong
his quivering flesh, will, with bloody hands, applaud the
Supreme Court. The men who, by mob violence, prevent
the negro from depositing his ballot — who with gun and
revolver drive him from the polls, and those who insult
with vile and vulgar words the inoffensive colored girl,
will welcome this decision with hyena joy. The basest
will rejoice — the noblest will mourn.

But even in the presence of this decision, we must re
member that it is one of the necessities of government that
there should be a court of last resort ; and while all courts
will more or less fail to do justice, still, the wit of man has,
as yet, devised no better way. Even after reading this
decision, we must take it for granted that the judges of the
Supreme Court arrived at their conclusions honestly and
in accordance with the best light they had. While they
had the right to render the decision, every citizen has the
right to give his opinion as to whether that decision is
good or bad. Knowing that they are liable to be mistaken,
and honestly mistaken, we should always be charitable
enough to admit that others may be mistaken ; and we
may also take another step, and admit that we may be mis
taken about their being mistaken. We must remember,
too, that we have to make judges out of men, and that by
being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and
their intelligence is not increased. No matter whether a
man wears a crown or a robe or a rag. Under the emblem
of power and the emblem of poverty, the man alike resides.
The real thing is the man — the distinction often exists
only in the clothes. Take away the crown — there is only

CIVIL RIGHTS. 5

a man. Remove the robe — there remains a man. Take
away the rag, and we find at least a man.

There was a time in this country when all bowed to a
decision of the Supreme Court. It was unquestioned. It
was regarded as " a voice from on high." The people
heard and they obeyed. The Dred Scott decision destroyed
that illusion forever. From that day to this the people
have claimed the privilege of putting the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the crucible of reason. These decisions
are no longer exempt from honest criticism. While the
decision remains, it is the law. No matter how absurd, no
matter how erroneous, no matter how contrary to reason
and justice, it remains the law. It must be overturned
either by the Court itself (and the Court has overturned
hundreds of its own decisions), or by legislative action, or
by an amendment to the Constitution. We do not appeal
to armed revolution. Our Government is so framed that it
provides for what may be called perpetual peaceful revolu
tion. For the redress of any grievance, for the purpose of
righting any wrong, there is the perpetual remedy of an
appeal to the people.

We must remember, too, that judges keep their backs to
the dawn. They find what has been, what is, but not what
ought to be. They are tied and shackled by precedent,
fettered by old decisions, and by the desire to be consistent,
even in mistakes. They pass upon the acts and words of
others, and like other people, they are liable to make mis
takes. In the olden time we took what the doctors gave
us, we believed what the preachers said ; and accepted,
without question, the judgments of the highest court.
Now it is different. We ask the doctor what the medicine
is, and what effect he expects it to produce. We cross-
examine the minister, and we criticise the decision of the
Chief-Justice. We do this, because we have found that
some doctors do not kill, that some ministers are quite

0 MISCELLANY.

reasonable, and that some judges know something about
law. In this country, the people are the sovereigns. All
officers — including judges — are simply their servants, and
the sovereign has always the right to give his opinion as to
the action of his agent. The sovereignty of the people is
the rock upon which rests the right of speech and the
freedom of the press.

Unfortunately for us, our fathers adopted the common
law of England — a law poisoned by kingly prerogative —
by every form of oppression, by the spirit of caste, and
permeated, saturated, with the political heresy that the
people received their rights, privileges and immunities from
the crown. The thirteen original colonies received their
laws, their forms, their ideas of justice, from the old
world. All the judicial, legislative, and executive springs
and sources had been touched and tainted.

In the struggle with England, our fathers justified their
rebellion by declaring that Nature had clothed all men
with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The moment success crowned their efforts, they changed
their noble declaration of equal rights for all, and basely
interpolated the word " white." They adopted a Consti
tution that denied the Declaration of Independence — a Con
stitution that recognized and upheld slavery, protected the
slave-trade, legalized piracy upon the high seas — that
demoralized, degraded, and debauched the nation, and that
at last reddened with brave blood the fields of the Republic.

Our fathers planted the seeds of injustice, and we
gathered the harvest. In the blood and flame of civil
war, we retraced our fathers' steps. In the stress of
war, we implored the aid of Liberty, and asked once more
for the protection of Justice. We civilized the Constitution
of our fathers. We adopted three Amendments — the i3th,
X4th and x 5th— the Trinity of Liberty.

Let us examine these amendments :

CIVIL RIGHTS. 7

" Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punish
ment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

" Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation."

Before the adoption of this amendment, the Constitution
had always been construed to be the perfect shield of
slavery. In order that slavery might be protected, the
slave States were considered as sovereign. Freedom was
regarded as a local prejudice, slavery as the ward of the
Nation, the jewel of the Constitution. For three-quarters
of a century, the Supreme Court of the United States ex
hausted judicial ingenuity in guarding, protecting and
fo tering that infamous institution. For the purpose of
preserving that infinite outrage, words and phrases were
warped, and stretched, and tortured, and thumbscrewed,
and racked. Slavery was the one sacred thing, and the
Supreme Court was its constitutional guardian.

To show the faithfulness of that tribunal, I call your
attention to the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article
of the Constitution :

"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws
thereof, escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or reg
ulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor
may be due."

The framers of the Constitution were ashamed to use the
word "slave," and thereupon they said "person." They
were ashamed to use the word " slavery," and they evaded
it by saying, "held to service or labor." They were
ashamed to put in the word "master," so they called him
"the party to whom service or labor may be due."

How can a slave owe service? How can a slave owe
labor? How could a slave make a contract? How could
the master have a legal claim against a slave? And yet,

8 MISCELLANY.

the Supreme Court of the United States found no difficulty
in upholding the Fugitive Slave Law by virtue of that
clause. There were hundreds of decisions declaring that
Congress had power to pass laws to carry that clause into
effect, and it was carried into effect.
You will observe the wording of this clause :

" No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service
or labor may be due."

To whom was this clause directed? To individuals or to
States? It expressly provides that the "person" held to
service or labor shall not be discharged from such service
or labor in consequence of any law or regulation in the
"State" to which he has fled. Did that law apply to
States, or to individuals ?

The Supreme Court held that it applied to individuals as
well as to States. Any "person," in any State, interfering
with the master who was endeavoring to steal the person
he called his slave, was liable to indictment, and hundreds
and thousands were indicted, and hundreds languished in
prisons because they were noble enough to hold in infinite
contempt such infamous laws and such infamous decisions.
The best men in the United States — the noblest spirits
under the flag — were imprisoned because they were chari
table, because they were just, because they showed the
hunted slave the path to freedom, and taught him where to
find amid the glittering host of heaven the blessed Northern
Star.

Every fugitive slave carried that clause with him when
he entered a free State ; carried it into every hiding place ;
and every Northern man was bound, by virtue of that
clause, to act as the spy and hound of slavery. The Su
preme Court, with infinite ease, made a club of that clause

CIVIL RIGHTS. <)

with which to strike down the liberty of the fugitive and
the manhood of the North.

In the Dred Scott decision it was solemnly decided that a
man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not,
and could not be, a citizen of a State or of the United States.
The Supreme Court held on the even tenor of its way, and
in the Rebellion that tribunal was about the last fort to
surrender.

The moment the i3th Amendment was adopted, the slaves
became freemen. The distinction between " white " and
" colored " vanished. The negroes became as though they
had never been slaves — as though they had always been
free — as though they had been white. They became citi
zens — they became a part of "the people," and "the people"
constituted the State, and it was the State thus constituted
that was entitled to the constitutional guarantee of a re
publican government.

These freed men became citizens — became a part of the
State in which they lived.

The highest and noblest definition of a State, in our Re
ports, was given by Justice Wilson, in the case of Chisholm,
&c., vs. Georgia;

" By a State, I mean a complete body of free persons, united for their
common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do jus'
tice to others."

Chief Justice Chase declared that :

"The people, in whatever territory dwelling, whether temporaril>
or permanently, or whether organized under regular government, of
united by less definite relations, constitute the State."

Now, if the people, the moment the i3th Amendment was
adopted were all free, and if these people constituted the
State ; if, under the Constitution of the United States, every
State is guaranteed a republican government, then it is the
duty of the General Government to see to it that every
State has such a government. If distinctions are made be
tween free men on account of race or color, the govern-

10 MISCELLANY.

ment is not republican. The manner in which this guarantee
of a republican form of government is to be enforced or
made good, must be left to the wisdom and discretion of
Congress.

The 1 3th Amendment not only destroyed, but it built. It
destroyed the slave-pen, and on its site erected the temple of
Liberty. It did not simply free slaves — it made citizens.
It repealed every statute that upheld slavery. It erased
from every Report every decision against freedom. It took
the word " white " from every law, and blotted from the
Constitution all clauses acknowledging property in man.

If, then, all the people in each State, were, by virtue of the
I3th Amendment, free, what right had a majority to enslave
a minority ? What right had a majority to make any dis
tinctions between free men ? What right had a majority to
take from a minority any privilege, or any immunity, to
which they were entitled as free men ? What right had the
majority to make that unequal which the Constitution made
equal ?

Not satisfied with saying that slavery should not exist, we
find in the amendment the words " nor involuntary servi
tude." This was intended to destroy every mark and badge
of legal inferiority.

Justice Field upon this very question, says :

" It is, however, clear that the words ' involuntary servitude ' in
clude something more than slavery, in the strict sense of the term.
They include also serfage, vassalage, villanage, peonage, and all
other forms of compulsory service for the mere benefit or pleasure of
others. Nor is this the full import of the term. The abolition of
slavery and involuntary servitude was intended to make every one
born in this country a free man, and as such to give him the right to
pursue the ordinary avocations of life without other restraint than
such as affects all others, and to enjoy equally with them the fruits of
his labor. A person allowed to pursue only one trade or calling, and
only in one locality of the country, would not be, in the strict sense of
the term, in a condition of slavery, but probably no one would deny
that he would be in a condition of servitude. He certainly would not
possess the liberties, or enjoy the privileges of a freeman."

CIVIL RIGHTS. II

Justice Field also quotes with approval the language of
the counsel for the plaintiffs in the case :

" Whenever a law of a State, or a law of the United States, makes
a discrimination between classes of persons which deprives the one
class of their freedom or their property, or which makes a caste of
them, to subserve the power, pride, avarice, vanity or vengeance of
others— there involuntary servitude exists within the meaning of the
I3th Amendment."

To show that the framers of the i3th Amendment intended
to blot out every form of slavery and servitude, I call at
tention to the Civil Rights Act, approved April 9, 1866,
which provided, among other things, that :

"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any
foreign power— excluding Indians not taxed— are citizens of the
United States ; and such citizens, of every race and color, without
regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude,
are entitled to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
for the security of person and property enjoyed by white citizens, and
shall be subject to like punishments, pains and penalties— and to
none other — any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the
contrary notwithstanding ; and they shall have the same rights in
every State and Territory of the United States as white persons."

The Supreme Court, in The Slaughter- House Cases, (16
Wallace, 69) has said that the word servitude has a larger
meaning than the word slavery. " The word ' servitude '
implies subjection to the will of another contrary to the
common right." A man is in a state of involuntary servi
tude when he is forced to do, or prevented from doing, a
thing, not by the law of the State, but by the simple will of
another. He who enjoys less than the common rights of a
citizen, he who can be forced from the public highway at the
will of another, who can be denied entrance to the cars of a
common carrier, is in a state of servitude.

The 1 3th Amendment did away with slavery not only, and
with involuntary servitude, but with every badge and brand
and stain and mark of slavery. It abolished forever distinc
tions on account of race and color.

In the language of the Supreme Court :

12 MISCELLANY.

" It was the obvious purpose of the i3th Amendment to forbid all
shades and conditions of African slavery."

And to that I add, it was the obvious purpose of that
amendment to forbid all shades and conditions of slavery,
no matter of what sort or kind — all marks of legal inferiority.
Each citizen was to be absolutely free. All his rights com
plete, whole, unmaimed and unabridged.

From the moment of the adoption of that amendment, the
law became color-blind. All distinctions on account of com
plexion vanished. It took the whip from the hand of the
white man, and put the nation's flag above the negro's hut.
It gave horizon, scope and dome to the lowest life. It
stretched a sky studded with stars of hope above the hum
blest head.

The Supreme Court has admitted, in the very case we are
now discussing, that :

"Under the i3th Amendment the legislation "—meaning the legis
lation of Congress— "so far as necessary or proper to eradicate all
forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, may be
direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether
sanctioned by State legislation or not."

Here we have the authority for dealing with individuals.

The only question then remaining is, whether an individual,
being the keeper of a public inn, or the agent of a railway
corporation, created by a State, can be held responsible in a
Federal Court for discriminating against a citizen of the
United States on account of race, color, or previous condi
tion of servitude. If such discrimination is a badge of
slavery, or places the party discriminated against in a con
dition of involuntary servitude, then the Civil Rights Act
may be upheld by the i3th Amendment.

In The United Slates vs. Harris, 106 U. S., 640, the Supreme
Court says :

" It is clear that the i3th Amendment, besides abolishing forever
slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States, gives
power to Congress to protect all citizens from being in any way sub-

CIVIL RIGHTS. 13

jected to slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment
of crime, and in the enjoyment of that freedom which it was the ob
ject of the amendment to secure."

This declaration covers the entire case.
I agree with Justice Field :

"The i3th Amendment is not confined to African slavery. It is
general and universal in its application — prohibiting the slavery of
white men as well as black men, and not prohibiting mere slavery in
the strict sense of the term, but involuntary servitude in every form."
1 6 Wallace, 90.

The 1 3th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall exist. Who must see to it that
this declaration is carried out ? There can be but one
answer. It is the duty of Congress.

At last the question narrows itself to this : Is a citizen
of the United States, when denied admission to public inns,
railway cars and theatres, on account of his race or color, in
a condition of involuntary servitude? If he is, then he is
under the immediate protection of the General Government,
by virtue of the 1 3th Amendment ; and the Civil Rights
Act is clearly constitutional.

If excluded from one inn, he may be from all ; if from one
car, why not from all ? The man who depends for the
preservation of his privileges upon a conductor, instead of
the Constitution, is in a condition of involuntary servitude.
He who depends for his rights — not upon the laws of the
land, but upon a landlord, is in a condition of involuntary
servitude.

The framers of the i3th Amendment knew that the ne
gro would be persecuted on account of his race and color —
knew that many of the States could not be trusted to protect
the rights of the colored man ; and for that reason, the
General Government was clothed with power to protect the
colored people from all forms of slavery and involuntary
servitude.

Of what use are the declarations in the Constitution that

14 MISCELLANY.

slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist, and that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States shall
be citizens — not only of the United States, but of the States
in which they reside — if, behind these declarations, there is
no power to act — no duty for the General Government to
discharge ?

Notwithstanding the i3th Amendment had been adopted
— notwithstanding slavery and involuntary servitude had
been legally destroyed — it was found that the negro was
still the helpless victim of the white man. Another amend
ment was needed ; and all the Justices of the Supreme
Court have told us why the i4th Amendment was adopted.

Justice Miller, speaking for the entire court, tells us that:

" In the struggle of the civil war, slavery perished, and perished as
a necessity of the bitterness and force of the conflict."

That :

" When the armies of freedom found themselves on the soil of slav
ery, they could do nothing else than free the victims whose enforced
servitude was the foundation of the war."

He also admits that :

"When hard pressed in the contest, the colored men (for they
proved themselves men in that terrible crisis) offered their services,
and were accepted, by thousands, to aid in suppressing the unlawful
rebellion."

He also informs us that :

" Notwithstanding the fact that the Southern States had formerly
recognized the abolition of slavery, the condition of the slave, without
further protection of the Federal Government, was almost as bad as
it had been before."

And he declares that :

"The Southern States imposed upon the colored race onerous
disabilities and burdens — curtailed their rights in the pursuit of liberty
and property, to such an extent that their freedom was of little value,
while the colored people had lost the protection which they had re
ceived from their former owners from motives of interest."

And that :

"The colored people in some States were forbidden to appear in
the towns in any other character than that of menial servants — that
they were required to reside on the soil without the right to purchase

CIVIL RIGHTS. 15

or own it— that they were excluded from many occupations of gain
and profit— that they were not permitted to give testimony in the
courts where white men were on trial — and it was said that their lives
were at the mercy of bad men, either because laws for their protection
were insufficient, or were not enforced."

We are informed by the Supreme Court that, "under
these circumstances," the proposition for the i4th Amend
ment was passed through Congress, and that Congress
declined to treat as restored to full participation in the Gov
ernment of the Union, the States which had been in insur
rection, until they ratified that article by a formal vote of
their legislative bodies.

Thus it will be seen that the rebel States were restored to
the Union by adopting the i4th Amendment. In order to
become equal members of the Federal Union, these States
solemnly agreed to carry out the provisions of that amend
ment.

The 1 4th Amendment provides that :

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the
State wherein they reside."

That is affirmative in its character. That affirmation im
poses the obligation upon the General Government to pro
tect its citizens everywhere. That affirmation clothes the
Federal Government with power to protect its citizens.
Under that clause, the Federal arm can reach to the bound
ary of the Republic, for the purpose of protecting the weak
est citizen from the tyranny of citizens or States. That
clause is a contract between the Government and every
man — a contract wherein the citizen promises allegiance, and
the nation promises protection.

By this clause, the Federal Government adopted ill the
citizens of all the States and Territories, including tli.e Dis
trict of Columbia, and placed them under the shield ot the
Constitution — made each one a ward of the Republic.

Under this contract, the Government is under direct

16 MISCELLANY.

obligation to the citizen. The Government cannot shirk
its responsibility by leaving a citizen to be protected in his
rights, as a citizen of the United States, by a State.
The obligation of protection is direct. The obligation on
the part of the citizen to the Government is direct. The
citizen cannot be untrue to the Government because his
State is, The action of the State under the i4th Amend
ment is no excuse for the citizen. He must be true to the
Government. In war, the Government has a right to his
service. In peace, he has the right to be protected.

If the citizen must depend upon the State, then he owes
the first allegiance to that government or power that is under
obligation to protect him. Then, if a State secedes from the
Union, the citizen should go with the State — should go with
the power that protects.

That is not my doctrine. My doctrine is this : The first
duty of the General Government is to protect each citizen.
The first duty of each citizen is to be true — not to his State,
but to the Republic.

This clause of the i4th Amendment made us all citizens
of the United States — all children of the Republic. Under
this decision, the Republic refuses to acknowledge her
children. Under this decision of the Supreme Court, they
are left upon the doorsteps of the States. Citizens are
changed to foundlings.

If the 1 4th Amendment created citizens of the United
States, the power that created must define the rights of the
citizens thus created, and must provide a remedy where such
rights are infringed. The Federal Government speaks
through its representatives — through Congress ; and Con
gress, by the Civil Rights Act, defined some of the rights,
privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States
— and Congress provided a remedy when such rights and
privileges were invaded, and gave j urisdiction to the Federal
courts.

CIVIL RIGHTS. 17

No State, or the department of any State, can authori
tatively define the rights, privileges and immunities of a citi
zen of the United States. These rights and immunities
must be defined by the United States, and when so defined,
they cannot be abridged by State authority.

In the case of Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wall., p. 140, Jus
tice Field, in a concurring opinion, speaking of the i4th
Amendment, says:

" It grew out of the feeling that a nation which had been maintained
by such costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless, if a citizen could not
be protected in all his fundamental rights, everywhere — North and
South, East and West— throughout the limits of the Republic. The
amendment was not, as held in the opinion of the majority, primarily
intended to confer citizenship on the negro race. It had a much
broader purpose. It was intended to justify legislation extending the
protection of the National Government over the common rights of all
citizens of the United States, and thus obviate objection to the legis
lation adopted for the protection of the emancipated race. It was in
tended to make it possible for all persons — which necessarily included
those of every race and color — to live in peace and security wherever
the jurisdiction of the nation reached. It therefore recognized, if it
did not create, a national citizenship. This national citizenship is
primary and not secondary."

I cannot refrain from calling attention to the splendor
and nobility of the truths expressed by Justice Field in this
opinion.

So, Justice Field, in his dissenting opinion in what are
known as The Slaughter- House Cases, found in 16 Wallace,
p. 95, still speaking of the i4th Amendment, says:

" It recognizes in express terms— if it does not create— citizens of
the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the
place of their birth or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the
constitution or laws of any State, or the condition of their ancestry.
A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing
in that State. The fundamental rights, privileges and immunities
which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen of the United
States, are not dependent upon the citizenship of any State. * * *
" "They do not derive their existence from its legislation, and cannot
be destroyed by its power."

18

MISCELLANY.

What are 'the fundamental rights, privileges and
immunities " which belong to a free man ? Certainly the
rights of all citizens of the United States are equal. Their
immunities and privileges must be the same. He who
makes a discrimination between citizens on account of
color, violates the Constitution of the United States.

Have all citizens the same right to travel on the high
ways of the country ? Have they all the same right to
ride upon the railways created by State authority ? A
railway is an improved highway. It was only by holding
that it was an improved highway that counties and States
aided in their construction. It has been decided, over and
over again, that a railway is an improved highway. A
railway corporation is the creation of a State — an agent of
the State. It is under the control of the State — and upon
what principle can a citizen be prevented from using the
highways of a State on an equality with all other citizens ?

These are all rights and immunities guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States.

Now, the question is — and it is the only question — can
these rights and immunities, thus guaranteed and thus
confirmed, be protected by the General Government ?

In the case of The U. S. vs. Reese, et a/., 92 U. S., p. 207,
the Supreme Court decided, the opinion having been
delivered by Chief- Justice Waite, as follows :

"Rights and immunities created by, and dependent upon, the
Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The
form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress in
the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall provide.
This may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to
be protected."

This decision was acquiesced in by Justices Strong,
Bradley, Swayne, Davis, Miller and Field. Dissenting
opinions were filed by Justices Clifford and Hunt, but
neither dissented from the proposition that;

CIVIL RIGHTS. 19

" Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitu
tion of the United States can be protected by Congress," and that
" the form and manner of the protection may be such as Congress in
the exercise of its legitimate discretion shall provide."

So, in the same case, I find this language :

"It follows that the Amendment "—meaning the I5th— " has in
vested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional
right, which is within the protecting power of Congress. This, under
the express provisions of the second section of the Amendment, Con
gress may enforce by appropriate legislation."

If the 1 5th Amendment invested the citizens of the
United States with a new constitutional right — that is, the
right to vote — and if for that reason that right is within
the protecting power of Congress, then I ask, if the i4th
Amendment made certain persons citizens of the United
States, did such citizenship become a constitutional right ?
And is such citizenship within the protecting power of
Congress ? Does citizenship mean anything except certain
"rights, privileges and immunities"?

Is it not an invasion of citizenship to invade the immuni
ties or privileges or rights belonging to a citizen ? Are
not, then, all the immunities and privileges and rights
under the protecting power of Congress ?

The i3th Amendment found the negro a slave, and made
him a free man. That gave to him a new constitutional
right, and according to the Supreme Court, that right is
within the protecting power of Congress.

What rights are within the protecting power of Congress?
All the rights belonging to a free man.

The i4th Amendment made the negro a citizen. What
then is under the protecting power of Congress ? All the
rights, privileges and immunities belonging to him as a
citizen.

• So, in the case of Tennessee vs, Davis, zoo U. S., 263, the
Supreme Court, held that :

2O MISCELLANY.

" The United States is a government whose authority extends over
the whole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States, and
upon all the people of all the States.

" No State can exclude the Federal Government from the exercise
of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or withhold
' from it for a moment the cognizance of any subject which the Con
stitution has committed to it."

This opinion was given by Justice Strong, and acquiesced
in by Chief-Justice Waite, Justices Miller, Swayne, Bradley
and Harlan.

So in the case of Pensacola Tel, Co. vs. Western Union Tel.
Co., 96 U. S., p. 10, the opinion having been delivered by
Chief -Justice Waite, I find this :

' ' The Government of the United States, within the scope of its
power, operates upon every foot of territory under its jurisdiction. It
legislates for the whole Nation, and is not embarrassed by State
lines."

This was acquiesced in by Justices Clifford, Strong,
Bradley, Swayne and Miller.

So we are told by the entire Supreme Court in the case
of Tiernan vs. Rynker, 102 U. S., 126, that:

"When the subject to which the power applies is national in its
character, or of such a nature as to admit of uniformity of regulation,
the power is exclusive of State authority."

Surely the question of citizenship is " national in its
character." Surely the question as to what are the rights,
privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States
is " national in its character."

Unless the declarations and definitions, the patriotic
paragraphs, and the legal principles made, given, uttered
and defined by the Supreme Court are but a judicial
jugglery of words, the Civil Rights Act is upheld by the
intent, spirit and language of the i4th Amendment.

It was found that the i3th Amendment did not protect
the negro. Then the I4th was adopted. Still the colored
citizen was trodden under foot. Then the ith was

CIVIL RIGHTS. 21

adopted. The i3th made him free, and, in my judgment,
made him a citizen, and clothed him with all the rights of
a citizen. That was denied, and then the i4th declared
that he was a citizen. In my judgment, that gave him the
right to vote. But that was denied — then the isth was
adopted, declaring that his right to vote should never be
denied.

The i3th Amendment made all free. It broke the
chains, pulled up the whipping-posts, overturned the
auction-blocks, gave the colored mother her child, put the
shield of the Constitution over the cradle, destro3'ed all
forms of involuntary servitude, and in the azure heaven of
our flag it put the Northern Star.

The 1 4th Amendment made us all citizens. It is a con
tract between the Republic and each individual — a contract
by which the Nation agrees to protect the citizen, and the
citizen agrees to defend the Nation. This amendment
placed the crown of sovereignty on every brow.

The 1 5th Amendment secured the citizen in his right to
vote, in his right to make and execute the laws, and put
these rights above the power of any State. This amend
ment placed the ballot — the sceptre of authority — in every
sovereign hand.

We are told by the Supreme Court, in the case under
discussion, that:

" We must not forget that the province and scope of the ijth and
i4th Amendments are different ; " that the i3th Amendment " simply
abolished slavery," and that the I4th Amendment "prohibited the
States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States ; from depriving them of life, liberty or property, with
out due process of law ; and from denying to any the equal protection
of the laws."

We are told that :

"The amendments are different, and the powers of Congress under
them are different. What Congress has power to do under one it
may not have power to do under the other." That "under the i3th

22 MISCELLANY.

Amendment it has only to do with slavery and its incidents ; " but
that "under the i4th Amendment it has power to counteract and
render nugatory all State laws or proceedings which have the effect
to abridge any of the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the
United States, or to deprive them of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law, or to deny to any of them the equal protection of
the laws."

Did not Congress have that power under the 1 3th Amend
ment? Could the States, in spite of the i3th Amendment,
deprive free men of life or property without due process of
law? Does the Supreme Court wish to be understood,
that until the I4th Amendment was adopted the States had
the right to rob and kill free men? Yet, in its effort to
narrow and belittle the i3th Amendment, it has been
driven to this absurdity. Did not Congress, under the i3th
Amendment, have power to destroy slavery and involun
tary servitude ? Did not Congress, under that amendment,
have the power to protect the lives, liberty and property of
freemen? And did not Congress have the power "to
render nugatory all State laws and proceedings under which
free men were to be deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law "?

If Congress was not clothed with such power by the i3th
Amendment, what was the object of that amendment ?
Was that amendment a mere opinion, or a prophecy, or the
expression of a hope ?

The 1 4th Amendment provides that :

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of its laws."

We are told by the Supreme Court that Congress has no
right to enforce the i4th Amendment by direct legisla
tion, but that the legislation under that amendment can
only be of a "corrective" character— such as may be

CIVIL RIGHTS. 23

necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the
effect of unconstitutional laws passed by the States. In
other words, that Congress has no duty to perform, except
to counteract the effect of unconstitutional laws by corrective
legislation.

The Supreme Court has also decided, in the present case,
that Congress has no right to legislate for the purpose of
enforcing these clauses until the States shall have taken
action. What action can the State take ? If a State passes
laws contrary to these provisions or clauses, they are void.
If a State passes laws in conformity to these provisions,
certainly Congress is not called on to legislate. Under
what circumstances, then, can Congress be called upon to
act by way of "corrective" legislation, as to these particu
lar clauses ? What can Congress do ? Suppose the State
passes no law upon the subject, but allows citizens of the
State — managers of railways, and keepers of public inns, to
discriminate between their passengers and guests on ac
count of race or color — what then ?

Again, what is the difference between a State that has no
law on the subject, and a State that has passed an uncon
stitutional law? In other words, what is the difference be
tween no law and a void law? If the "corrective " legisla
tion of Congress is not needed where the State has passed
an unconstitutional law, is it needed where the State has
passed no law? What is there in either case to correct?
Surely it requires no particular legislation on the part of
Congress to kill a law that never had life.

The States are prohibited by the Constitution from mak
ing any regulations of foreign commerce. Consequently,
all regulations made by the States are null and void, no
matter what the motive of the States may have been, and it
requires no law of Congress to annul such laws or regula
tions. This was decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States, long ago, in what are known as The License

24 MISCELLANY.

Cases. The opinion ma)' be found in the 5th of Howard,

583-

" The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution, is pro
duced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme."

This was decided by the Supreme Court, the opinion
having been delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, in the
case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 210.

The same doctrine was held in the case of Henderson et
al., -vs. Mayor of New York, et at., 92 U. S. 272 — the opinion
of the Court being delivered by Justice Miller.

So it was held in the case of The Board of Liquidation vs.
McComb — 2 Otto, 541 —

" That an unconstitutional law will be treated by the courts as null
and void" —

citing Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton,
859, and Davis vs. Gray, 16 Wallace, 220.

Now, if the legislation of Congress must be " corrective,"
then I ask, corrective of what? Certainly not of unconsti
tutional and void laws. That which is void, cannot be cor
rected. That which is unconstitutional is not the subject
of correction. Congress either has the right to legislate
directly, or not at all ; because indirect or corrective legis
lation can apply only, according to the Supreme Court, to
unconstitutional and void laws that have been passed by a
Stale ; and as such laws cannot be " corrected," the doc
trine of "corrective legislation " dies an extremely natural
death.

A State can do one of three things: i. It can pass an
unconstitutional law ; 2. It can pass a constitutional law ;
3. It can fail to pass any law. The unconstitutional law.
being void, cannot be corrected. The constitutional law
does not need correction. And where no law has been
passed, correction is impossible.

The Supreme Court insists that Congress can not take

CIVIL RIGHTS. 25

action until the State does. A State that fails to pass any
law on the subject, has not taken action. This leaves the
person whose immunities and privileges have been invaded,
with no redress except such as he may find in the State
Courts in a suit at law ; and if the State Court takes the
same view that is apparently taken by the Supreme Court
in this case, — namely, that it is a " social question," one
not to be regulated by law, and not covered in any way
by the Constitution — then, discrimination can be made
against citizens by landlords and railway conductors, and
they are left absolutely without remedy.
The Supreme Court asks, in this decision,

"Can the act of a mere individual — the owner of the inn, or public
conveyance, or place of amusement, refusing the accommodation, be
justly regarded as imposing any badge of slavery or servitude upon
the applicant, or only as inflicting an ordinary civil injury properly
cognizable by the laws of the State, and presumably subject to re
dress by those laws, until the contrary appears ? "

How is "the contrary to appear"? Suppose a person
denied equal privileges upon the railway on account of race
and color, brings suit and is defeated? And suppose the
highest tribunal of the State holds that the question is of a
"social" character — what then? If, to use the language of
the Supreme Court, it is "an ordinary civil injury, imposing
no badge of slavery or servitude," then, no Federal question
is involved.

Why did not the Supreme Court tell us what may be done
when "the contrary appears"? Nothing is clearer than the
intention of the Supreme Court in this case — and that is,
to decide that denying to a man equal accommodations at
public inns on account of race or color, is not an abridg
ment of a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United
States, and that such person, so denied, is not in a condi
tion of involuntary servitude, or denied the equal protec
tion of the laws. In other words — that it is a "social
question."

26 MISCELLANY.

I have been told by one who heard the decision when it
was read from the bench, that the following phrase was in
the opinion :

' 'There are certain physiological differences of race that cannot be
ignored."

That phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole
decision should be read.

Suppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes
being in a decided majority and having entire control, had
drawn the color line, had insisted that :

"There were certain physiological differences between the races
that could not be ignored,"

and had refused to allow white people to enter their hotels,
to ride in the best cars, or to occupy the aristocratic portion
of a theatre; and suppose that a white man, thrust from
the hotels, denied the entrance to cars, had brought his
suit in the Federal Court. Does any one believe that the
Supreme Court would have intimated to that man that
" there is only a social question involved, — a question with
which the Constitution and laws have nothing to do, and
that he must depend for his remedy upon the authors of the
injury " ? Would a white man, under such circumstances,
feel that he was in a condition of involuntary servitude ?
Would he feel that he was treated like an underling,
like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was
under the protection of the laws, shielded like other men
by the Constitution ? Of course, the argument of color is
just as strong on one side as on the other. The white man
says to the black, " You are not my equal because you are
black ; " and the black man can with the same propriety,
reply, "You are not my equal because you are white."
The difference is just as great in the one case as in the
other. The pretext that this question involves, in the
remotest degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow, and
absurd.

CIVIL RIGHTS. 27

The Supreme Court, some time ago, held that the 4th
Section of the Civil Rights Act was constitutional. That
section declares that :

" No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be
prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit
juror in any court of the United States or of any State, on account of
color or previous condition of servitude."

It also provides that:

" If any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selec
tion or summoning of jurors, shall exclude, or fail to summon, any
citizen in the case aforesaid, he shall, on conviction, be guilty of mis
demeanor and be fined not more than five hundred dollars."

In the case known as Ex-parte vs. Virginia — found in 100
U. S. 339 — it was held that an indictment against a State
officer, under this section, for excluding persons of color
from the jury, could be sustained. Now, let it be re
membered, there was no law of the State of Virginia, by
virtue of which a man was disqualified from sitting on the
jury by reason of race or color. The officer did exclude,
and did fail to summon, a citizen on account of race or
color or previous condition of servitude. And the Supreme
Court held :

"That whether the Statute-book of the State actually laid down
any such rule of disqualification or not, the State, through its officer,
enforced such rule ; and that it was against such State action, through
its officers and agents, that the last clause of the section was
directed."

The Court further held that:

"This aspect of the law was deemed sufficient to divest it of any
unconstitutional character."

In other words, the Supreme Court held that the officer
was an agent of the State, although acting contrary to the
statute of the State ; and that, consequently, such officer,
acting outside of law, was amenable to the Civil Rights
Act, under the i4th Amendment, that referred only to
States. The question arises : Is a State responsible for the
action of its agent when acting contrary to law ? In other

28 MISCELLANY.

words: Is the principal bound by the acts of his agent, that
act not being within the scope of his authority ? Is a State
liable — or is the Government liable — for the act of any
officer, that act not being authorized by law ?

It has been decided a thousand times, that a State is not
liable for the torts and trespasses of its officers. How then
can the agent, acting outside of his authority, be prosecuted
under a law deriving its entire validity from a constitu
tional amendment applying only to States? Does an
officer, by acting contrary to State law, become so like a
State that the word State, used in the Constitution, includes
him?

So it was held in the case of Nealvs. Delaware, — 103 U.
S., 307, — that an officer acting contrary to the laws of the
State — in defiance of those laws — would be amenable to the
Civil Rights Act, passed under an amendment to the Con
stitution now held applicable only to States.

It is admitted, and expressly decided in the case of The
U. S. vs. Reese etal., (already quoted) that when the wrong
ful refusal at an election is because of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude, Congress can interfere and
provide for the punishment of any individual guilty of such
refusal, no matter whether such individual acted under or
against the authority of the State.

With this statement I most heartily agree. I agree that:

" When the wrongful refusal is because of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, Congress can interfere and provide for the pun
ishment of any individual guilty of such refusal."

That is the key that unlocks the whole question. Con
gress has power — full, complete, and ample, — to protect all
citizens from unjust discrimination, and from being de
prived of equal privileges on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude. And this language is just
as applicable to the i3th and i4th,astothe 1 5th Amendment.
If a citizen is denied the acconrnodations of a public inn,

CIVIL RIGHTS. 29

or a seat in a railway car, on account of race or color, or
deprived of liberty on account of race or color, the Consti
tution has been violated, and the citizen thus discriminated
against or thus deprived of liberty, is entitled to redress in
a Federal Court.

It is held by the Supreme Court that the word "State"
does not apply to the "people" of the State — that it applies
only to the agents of the people of the State. And yet, the
word " State," as used in the Constitution, has been held to
include not only the persons in office, but the people who
elected them — not only the agents, but the principals. In
the Constitution it is provided that "no State shall coin
money ; and no State shall emit bills of credit." Accord
ing to this decision, any person in any State, unless pre
vented by State authority, has the right to coin money and
to emit bills of credit, and Congress has no power to legis
late upon the subject — provided he does not counterfeit
any of the coins or current money of the United States.
Congress would have to deal — not with the individuals, but
with the State ; and unless the State had passed some act
allowing persons to coin money, or emit bills of credit,
Congress could do nothing. Yet, long ago, Congress passed
a statute preventing any person in any State from coining
money. No matter if a citizen should coin it of pure gold,
of the requisite fineness and weight, and not in the likeness
of United States coins.he would be a criminal. We have a
silver dollar, coined by the Government, worth eighty-five
cents; and yet, if any person, in any State, should coin
what he called a dollar, not like our money, but with a dol
lar's worth of silver in it, he would be guilty of a crime.

It may be said that the Constitution provides that Con
gress shall have power to coin money, and provide for the
punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin
of the United States ; in other words, that the Constitution
gives power to Congress to coin money and denies it to the

30 MISCELLANY.

States, not only, hut gives Congress the power to legislate
against counterfeiting. So, in the i3th, I4th, and i5th
Amendments, power is given to Congress, and power is
denied to the States, not only, but Congress is expressly
authorized to enforce the amendments by appropriate
legislation. Certainly the power is as broad in the one case
as in the other ; and in both cases, individuals can be
reached as well as States.

So the Constitution provides that :

" Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the
several States."

Under this clause Congress deals directly with individuals.
The States are not engaged in commerce, but the people are ;
and Congress makes rules and regulations for the govern
ment of the people so engaged.

The Constitution also provides that :

"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the Indian
tribes."

It was held in the case of The United States vs. Holliday,
3 Wall., 407, that :

"Commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the
individuals composing those tribes."

And under this clause it has been further decided that
Congress has the power to regulate commerce not only
between white people and Indian tribes, but between
Indian tribes ; and not only that, but between individual
Indians. Worcester vs. The State, 6 Pet., 575; The United
States vs. 4.3 Gallons, 93 U. S., 188; The United States vs.
Shawmux, 2 Saw., 304.

Now, if the word "tribe" includes individual Indians,
may not the word " State " include citi-ens ?

In this decision it is admitted by the Supreme Court that
where a subject is submitted to the general legislative
power of Congress, then Congress has plenary powers of
legislation over the whole subject. Let us apply these

CIVIL RIGHTS. 31

words to the i3th Amendment. In this very decision I
find that the i3th Amendment :

" By its own unaided force and effect, abolished slavery and estab
lished universal freedom."

The Court admits that :

" Legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various
cases and'circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper
modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit."

The Court further admits :

"And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character."

And then gives the reason :

" For the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws estab
lishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery
or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United
States."

I now ask, has that subject — that is to say, Liberty, —
been submitted to the general legislative power of Congress ?
The 1 3th Amendment provides that Congress shall have
power to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation.

In construing the i3th and i4th Amendments and the
Civil Rights Act, it seems to me that the Supreme Court
has forgotten the principle of construction that has been
laid down so often by courts, and that is this : that in
construing statutes, courts may look to the history and
condition of the country as circumstances from which to
gather the intention of the Legislature. So it seems to me
that the Court failed to remember the rule laid down by
Story in the case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 16 Pet., 611, a rule laid down in the interest
of slavery — laid down for the purpose of depriving human
beings of their liberty :

" Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation, after all, will be found
to be to look to the nature and objects of the particular powers,
duties and rights with all the lights and aids of contemporary history,
and to give to the words of each just such operation and force con-

32 MISCELLANY.

Distent with their legitimate meaning, as may fairly secure and attain
the ends proposed."

It must be admitted that certain rights were conferred
by the i3th Amendment. Surely certain rights were con
ferred by the i4th Amendment ; and these rights should be
protected and upheld by the Federal Government. And it
was held in the case last cited, that :

" If by one mode of interpretation the right must become shadowy
and unsubstantial, and without any remedial power adequate to the
end, and by another mode it will attain its just end and secure its
manifest purpose — it would seem, upon principles of reasoning
absolutely irresistable, that the latter ought to prevail. No court ol
justice can be authorized so as to construe any clauses of the Consti
tution as to defeat its obvious ends, when another construction,
equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and
protect them."

In the present case, the Supreme Court holds, that Con
gress can not legislate upon this subject until the State has
passed some law contrary to the Constitution.

I. call attention in reply to this, to the case of Hall vs. De
Cuir, 95 U. S., 486. The State of Louisiana, in 1869, acting
in the spirit of these amendments to the Constitution,
passed a law requiring that all persons engaged within
that State in the business of common carriers of passengers,
should make no discrimination on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude. Under this law, Mrs. De
Cuir, a colored woman, took passage on a steamer, buying
a ticket from New Orleans to Hermitage — the entire trip
being within the limits of the State. The captain of the
boat refused to give her equal accommodations with other
passengers — the refusal being on the ground of her color.
She commenced suit against the captain in the State Court
of Louisiana, and recovered judgment for one thousand
dollars. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of
that State, and the judgment of the lower court was sus
tained. Thereupon, the captain died, and the case was
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States by his

CIVIL RIGHTS. 33

administrator, on the ground that a Federal question was
involved.

You will see that this was a case where the State had
acted, and had acted exactly in accordance with the con
stitutional amendments, and had by law provided that the
privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United
States — residing in the State of Louisiana — should not be
abridged, and that no distinction should be made on
account of race or color. But in that case the Supreme
Court of the United States solemnly decided that the legis
lation of the State was void — that the State of Louisiana
had no right to interfere — no right, by law, to protect a
citizen of the United States from being discriminated
against under such circumstances.

You will remember that the plaintiff, Mrs. De Cuir, was
to be carried from New Orleans to Hermitage, and that
both places were within the State of Louisiana. Notwith
standing this, the Supreme Court held :

"That if the public good required such legislation, it must come
from Congress and not from the State."

What reason do you suppose was given ? It was this :
The Constitution gives to Congress power to regulate com
merce between the States ; and it appeared from the evi
dence given in that case, that the boat plied between the
ports of New Orleans and Vicksburg. Consequently, it
was engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, it was
under the protection of Congress ; and being under the
protection of Congress, the State had no authority to pro
tect its citizens by a law in perfect harmony with the Con
stitution of the United States, while such citizens were
within the limits of Louisiana. The Supreme Court scorns
the protection of a State !

In the case recently decided, and about which we are
talking to-riight, the Supreme Court decides exactly the
other way. It decides that if the public good requires such

34 MISCELLANY.

legislation, it must come from the States, and not from Con
gress ; that Congress cannot act until the State has acted,
and until the State has acted wrong, and that Congress can
then only act for the purpose of "correcting" such State
action. The decision in Hall -vs. De Cuir was rendered in
1877. The Civil Rights Act was then in force, and applied
to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,
and provided expressly that :

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be
entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, privi
leges, and facilities of inns, public conveyances on land or water,
theatres, and other places of public amusement, without regard to
race or color."

And yet the Supreme Court said :

" No carrier of passengers can conduct his business with satisfac
tion to himself, or comfort to those employing him, if on one side of
a State line his passengers, both white and colored, must be per
mitted to occupy the same cabin, and on the other to be kept separate."

What right had the other State to pass a law that pas
sengers should be kept separate, on account of race or color ?
How could such a law have been constitutional? The
Civil Rights Act applied to all States, and to both sides of
the lines between all States, and produced absolute uni
formity — and did not put the captain to the trouble of
dividing his passengers. The Court further said :

"Uniformity in the regulations by which the carrier is to be gov
erned from one end to the other of his route, is a necessity in his
business."

The uniformity had been guaranteed by the Civil Rights
Act, and the statute of the State of Louisiana was in exact
conformity with the i4th Amendment and the Civil Rights
Act. The Court also said :

"And to secure uniformity, Congress, which is untrammeled by
State lines, has been invested with the exclusive power of determining
what such regulations shall be."

Yes. Congress has been invested with such power, and

CIVIL RIGHTS. 35

Congress has used it in passing the Civil Rights Act — and
yet, under these circumstances, the Court proceeds to im
agine the difficulty that a captain would have in dividing
his passengers as he crosses a State line, keeping them
apart until he reaches the line of another State, and then
bringing them together, and so going on through the pro
cess of dispersing and huddling, to the end of his unfor
tunate route.

It is held by the Supreme Court, that uniformity of duties
is essential to the carrier, and so essential, that Congress
has control of the whole matter. If uniformity is so de
sirable for the carrier that Congress takes control, then uni
formity as to the rights of passengers is equally desirable ;
and under the i3th and i4th Amendments, Congress has
the exclusive power to state what the rights, privileges and
immunities of passengers shall be. So that, in 1877, the
Supreme Court decided that the States could not legislate;
and in 1883, that Congress could not, unless the State had.
If Congress controls interstate commerce upon the naviga
ble waters, it also controls interstate commerce upon the
railways. And if Congress has exclusive jurisdiction in
the one case, it has in the other. And if it has exclusive
jurisdiction, it does not have to wait until States take action.
If it does not have to wait until States take action, then the
Civil Rights Act, in so far as it refers to the rights of pas
sengers going from one State to another, must be constitu
tional.

It must be remembered, in this discussion, that the 8th
Section of the Constitution conferred upon Congress the
power :

"To make all laws that may be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Govern
ment of the United States."

So the 2nd Section of the i3th Article provides:

. " Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation."

36 MISCELLANY.

The same language is used in the i4th and i5th Amend
ments.

" This clause does not limit — it enlarges — the powers vested in the
General Government. It is an additional power— not a restriction on
those already granted. It does not impair the right of the Legislature
to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into
execution the constitutional powers of the Government A sound
construction of the Constitution must allow to the National Legisla
ture that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it
confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body
to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial
to the people. Let the end be legitimate — let it be within the scope
of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate — which are
plainly adapted to that end— are constitutional."

This is the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the
case of M'Caulcy, vs. The State, 4 Wheaton, 316.

" Congress must possess the choice of means, and must be em
powered to use any means which are in fact conducive to the exer
cise of a power granted by the Constitution." U. S. vs. Fisher, 2
Cranch, 358.
Again :

" The power of Congress to pass laws to enforce rights conferred
by the Constitution is not limited to the express powers of legislation
enumerated in the Constitution. The powers which are necessary
and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given and
duties expressly enjoined, are always implied. The end being given,
the means to accomplish it are given also." Prigg vs. The Common
wealth, 16 Peters, 539.

This decision was delivered by Justice Story, and is the
same one already referred to, in which liberty was taken
from a human being by judicial construction. It was held
in that case that the 2nd Section of the 4th Article of the
Constitution, to which I have already called attention,
contained " a positive and unqualified recognition of the
right " of the owner in a slave, unaffected by any State law
or regulation. If this is so, then I assert that the i3th
Amendment " contains a positive and unqualified recognition
of the right" of every human being to liberty ; that the I4th
Amendment " contains a positive and unqualified recognition

CIVIL RIGHTS. 37

of the right " to citizenship ; and that the i5th Amendment
"contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the
right " to vote.

Justice Story held in that case that :

" Under and by virtue of that section of the Constitution the owner
of a slave was clothed with entire authority in every State in the na
tion to seize and recapture his slave."

He also held that :

" In that sense, and to that extent, that clause of the Constitution
might properly be said to execute itself, and to require no aid from
legislation — State or National."

" But," says Justice Story :

" The clause of the Constitution does not stop there, but says that
he, the slave, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whomsuch
service or labor may be due. "

And he holds that :

" Under that clause of the section Congress became clothed with
the appropriate authority to legislate for its enforcement."

Now let us look at the i3th and i4th Amendments in the
light of that decision.

First. Liberty and citizenship were given the colored
people by this amendment. And Justice Story tells us that :

"The power of Congress to enforce rights conferred by the Constitu
tion is not limited to the express powers of legislation enumerated in
the Constitution, but the powers which are necessary to protect such
rights are always implied."

Language cannot be stronger ; words cannot be clearer.
But now this decision has been reversed by the Supreme
Court, and Congress is left powerless to protect rights con
ferred by the Constitution. It has been shorn of implied
powers. It has duties to perform, and no power to act.
It has rights to protect, but cannot choose the means. It
is entangled in its own strength. It is a prisoner in the
bastile of judicial construction.
, Let us go further. Justice Story tells us that :

"The words 'but shall be given up on the claim of the person to
whom such labor or service may be due,' clothes Congress with the
appropriate authority to legislate for its enforcement."

38 MISCELLANY.

In the light of this remark, let us look at the i4th Amend
ment:

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."

To which are added these words :

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."

Now, if the words: "But shall be delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due,"
clothes Congress with power to legislate upon the entire
subject, then I ask if the words in the i4th Amendment
declaring that " no law shall be made by any State, or en
forced, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; and that no State shall de
prive any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic
tion the equal protection of the laws," does not clothe Con
gress with the power to legislate upon the entire subject?

In the two cases there is only this difference : The first
decision was made in the interest of human slavery — made
to protect property in man ; and the second decision ought
to have been made for exactly the opposite purpose. Under
the first decision, Congress had the right to select the
means — but now that is denied. And yet it was decided
in M'Cauky -vs. The State, 4 Wheaton, 316, that:

"When the Government has a right to do an act, and has imposed
on it the duty of performing an act, then it must, according to the
dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means."

Again :

" The Government has the right to employ freely every means not
prohibited, for the fulfillment of its acknowledged duties."

The Legd Tender Cases— 12 Wallace, 457,

CIVIL RIGHTS. 39

It will thus be seen that Congress has the undoubted right
to make all laws necessary for the exercise of all the powers
vested in it by the Constitution. When the Constitution
imposes a duty upon Congress, it grants the necessary
means. Congress certainly, then, has the right to pass all
necessary laws for the enforcement of the i3th, i4th and
1 5th Amendments. Any legislation is "appropriate" that
is calculated to accomplish the end sought and that is not
repugnant to the Constitution. Within these limits Con
gress has the sovereign power of choice. No better defi
nition of " appropriate legislation" has been given than that
by the Supreme Court of California, in the case of The
People vs. Washington, 38 California, 658 :

"Legislation which practically tends to facilitate the securing to
all, through the aid of the judicial and executive departments of the
Government, the full enjoyment of personal freedom, is appro
priate."

The Supreme Court despairingly asks :

" If this legislation is appropriate for enforcing the prohibitions of
the Amendment, it is difficult to see where it is to stop. Why may
not Congress, with equal show of authority, enact a code of laws for
the enforcement and vindication of all rights of life, liberty and prop
erty ? "

My answer is : The legislation will stop when and where
the discriminations on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude, stop. Whenever an immunity or
privilege of a citizen of the United States is trodden down
by the State, or by an individual, under the circumstances
mentioned in the Civil Rights Act — that is to say, on ac
count of race, color, or previous condition of servitude —
then the Federal Government must interfere. The Govern
ment must defend the immunities and privileges of its citi
zens, not only from State invasion, but from individual
invaders, when that invasion is based upon the distinction
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, The

4O MISCELLANY.

Government has taken upon itself that duty. This duty
can be discharged by a law making a uniform rule, obliga
tory not only upon States, but upon individuals. All this
will stop when the discriminations stop.

After such examination of the authorities as I have been
able to make, I lay down the following propositions,
namely :

1. The sovereignty of a State extends only to that which
exists by its own authority.

2. The powers of the General Government were not con
ferred by the people of a single State ; they were given by
the people of the United States; and the laws of the
United States, in pursuance of the Constitution, are supreme
over the entire Republic.

3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme
law of each State.

4. The United States is a Government whose authorit}'
extends over the whole territory of the Union, acting upon
all the States and upon all the people of all the States.

5. No State can exclude the Federal Government from
the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Con
stitution, or withhold from it, for a moment, the cognizance
of any subject which that instrument has committed
to it.

6. It is the duty of Congress to enforce the Constitution,
and it has been clothed with power to make all laws neces
sary and proper for carrying into execution all the
powers vested by the Constitution in the General Govern
ment.

7. It is the duty of the Government to protect every
citizen of the United States in all his rights, everywhere,
without regard to race, color, or previous condition of
servitude; and this the Government has the right to do by
direct legislation.

8. Every citizen, when his privileges and immunities are

CIVIL RIGHTS. 41

invaded by the legislature of a State, has the right of ap
peal from such State to the Supreme Court of the nation.

9. When a State fails to pass any law protecting a citizen
from discrimination on account of race or color, and fails,
in fact, to protect such citizen, then such citizen has the
right to find redress in the Federal Courts.

10. Whenever, in the Constitution, a State is prohibited
from doing anything that in the nature of the thing can be
done by any citizen of that State, then the word " State "
embraces and includes all the people of a State.

11. The 1 3th Amendment declares that neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the jurisdiction
of the United States.

This is not a mere negation — it is a splendid affirmation.
The duty is imposed upon the General Government by
that amendment to see to it that neither slavery nor invol
untary servitude shall exist.

It is a question absolutely within the power of the Fed
eral Government, and the Federal Government is clothed
with power to make all necessary laws to enforce that
amendment against States and persons.

12. The 1 4th Amendment provides that all persons born
or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juris
diction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
States wherein they reside. This is also an affirmation. It
is not a prohibition. The moment that amendment was
adopted, it became the duty of the United States to protect-
the citizens recognized or created by that amendment. We
are no longer citizens of the United States because we are
citizens of a State, but we are citizens of the United States
because we have been born or have been naturalized
within the jurisdiction of the United States. It therefore
follows, that it is not only the right, but it is the duty, of
Congress, to pass all laws necessary for the protection of
citizens of the United States.

42 MISCELLANY.

13. Congress can not shirk this responsibility by leaving
citizens of the United States to the care and keeping of the
several States.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court cuts, as with a
sword, the tie that binds the citizen to the nation. Under
the old Constitution, it was not certainly known who were
citizens of the United States. There were citizens of the
States, and such citizens looked to their several States for
protection. The Federal Government had no citizens.
Patriotism did not rest on mutual obligation. Under the
i4th Amendment, we are all citizens of a common country ;
and our first duty, our first obligation, our highest allegi
ance, is not to the State in which we reside, but to the
Federal Government. The i4th Amendment tends to de
stroy State prejudices and lays a foundation for national
patriotism.

14. All statutes — all amendments to the Constitution —
in derogation of natural rights, should be strictly con
strued.

15. All statutes and amendments for the preservation of
natural rights should be liberally construed. Every court
should, by strict construction, narrow the scope of every
law that infringes upon any natural human right ; and every
court should, by construction, give the broadest meaning to
every statute or constitutional provision passed or adopted
for the preservation of freedom.

1 6. In construing the i3th, i4th and i5th Amendments,
the Supreme Court need not go back to decisions rendered
in the days of slavery — when every statute was construed in
favor of the sovereignty of the State and the rights of the
master. These amendments utterly obliterated such de
cisions. The Supreme Court should begin with the amend
ments. It need not look behind them. They are a part of
the fundamental organic law of the nation. They were
adopted to destroy the old statutes, to obliterate the in-

CIVIL RIGHTS. 43

famous clauses in the Constitution, and to lay a new foun
dation for a new nation.

17. Congress has the power to eradicate all forms and
incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, by direct and
primary legislation binding upon States and individuals
alike. And when citizens are denied the exercise of common
rights and privileges — when they are refused admittance to
public inns and railway cars, on an equality with white
persons — and when such denial and refusal are based upon
race and color, such citizens are in a condition of involun
tary servitude.

The Supreme Court has failed to take into consideration
the intention of the framers of these amendments. It has
failed to comprehend the spirit of the age. It has under
valued the accomplishment of the war. It has not grasped
in all their height and depth the great amendments to the
Constitution and the real object of government. To pre
serve liberty is the only use for government. There is no
other excuse for legislatures, or presidents, or courts, for
statutes or decisions. Liberty is not simply a means — it
is an end. Take from our history, our literature, our laws,
our hearts — that word, and we are naught but moulded clay.
Libert}' is the one priceless jewel. It includes and holds and is
the weal and wealth of life. Liberty is the soil and light and
rain — it is the plant and bud and flower and fruit — and in
that sacred word lie all the seeds of progress, love and joy.

This decision, in my judgment, is not worthy of the Court
by which it was delivered. It has given new life to the
serpent of State Sovereignty. It has breathed upon the dy
ing embers of ignorant hate. It has furnished food and
drink, breath and blood, to prejudices that were perishing
of famine, and in the old case of Civilization vs. Barbarism,
it has given the defendant a new trial.

• From this decision, John M. Harlan had the breadth of
brain, the goodness of heart, and the loyalty to logic, tc

44 MISCELLANY.

dissent. By the fortress of Liberty, one sentinel remains
at his post. For moral courage I have supreme respect, and
I admire that intellectual strength that breaks the cords and
chains of prejudice and damned custom as though they were
but threads woven in a spider's loom. This judge has as
sociated his name with freedom, and he will be remembered
as long as men are free.

We are told by the Supreme Court that :

' ' Slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property and
lands and goods can exist without law."

I deny that property exists by virtue of law. I take ex
actly the opposite ground. It was the fact that man had
property in lands and goods, that produced laws for the
protection of such property. The Supreme Court has mis
taken an effect for a cause. Laws passed for the protection of
property, sprang from the possession and ownership of the
thing to be protected. When one man enslaves another, it is
a violation of all justice— a subversion of the foundation of
all law. Statutes passed for the purpose of enabling man to
enslave his fellow-man, resulted from a conspiracy entered
into by the representatives of brute force. Nothing can be
more absurd than to call such a statute, born of such a conspir
acy a law. According to the idea of the Supreme Court,
man never had property until he had passed a law upon the
subject. The first man who gathered leaves upon which to
sleep, did not own them, because no law had been passed on
the leaf subject. The first man who gathered fruit — the
first man who fashioned a club with which to defend him
self from wild beasts, according to the Supreme Court, had
no property in these things, because no laws had been passed,
and no courts had published their decisions.

So the defenders of monarchy have taken the ground
that societies were formed by contract — as though at one
time men all lived apart, and came together by agreement
and formed a government. We might just as well say that

CIVIL RIGHTS. 45

the trees got into groves by contract or conspiracy. Man is
a social being. By living together there grow out of the re
lation, certain regulations, certain customs. These at last
hardened into what we call law — into what we call forms of
government — and people who wish to defend the idea that
we got everything from the king, say that our fathers made
a contract. Nothing can be more absurd. Men did not
agree upon a form of government and then come together ;
but being together, they made rules for the regulation of
conduct. Men did not make some laws and then get some
property to fit the laws, but having property they made
laws for its protection.

It is hinted by the Supreme Court that this is in some
way a question of social equality. It is claimed that social
equality cannot be enforced by law. Nobody thinks it can.
This is not a question of social equality, but of equal
rights. A colored citizen has the same right to ride upon
the cars — to be fed and lodged at public inns, and to visit
theatres, that I have. Social equality is not involved.

The Federal soldiers who escaped from Libby and Ander-
sonville, and who in swamps, in storm, and darkness, were
rescued and fed by the slave, had no scruples about eating
with a negro. They were willing to sit beneath the same
tree and eat with him the food he brought. The white
soldier was then willing to find rest and slumber beneath
the negro's roof. Charity has no color. It is neither white
nor black. Justice and Patriotism are the same. Even
the Confederate soldier was willing to leave his wife and
children under the protection of a man whom he was fight
ing to enslave.

Danger does not draw these nice distinctions as to race
or color. Hunger is not proud. Famine is exceedingly
democratic in the matter of food. In the moment of peril,
prejudices perish. The man fleeing for his life does not
have the same ideas about social questions as he who sits

46 MISCELLANY.

in the Capitol, wrapped in official robes. Position is apt to
be supercilious. Power is sometimes cruel. Prosperity is
often heartless.

This cry about social equality is born of the spirit of
caste — the most fiendish of all things. It is worse than
slavery. Slavery is at least justified by avarice — by a
desire to get something for nothing — by a desire to live in
idleness upon the labor of others — but the spirit of caste is
the offspring of natural cruelty and meanness.

Social relations depend upon almost an infinite number of
influences and considerations. We have our likes and dis
likes. We choose our companions. This is a natural right.
You cannot force into my house persons whom I do not
want. But there is a difference between a public house and
a private house. The one is for the public. The private
house is for the family and those they may invite. The
landlord invites the entire public, and he must serve those
who come if they are fit to be received. A railway is public,
not private. It derives its powers and its rights from the
State. It takes private land for public purposes. It is in
corporated for the good of the public, and the public must
be served. The railway, the hotel, and the theatre, have a
right to make a distinction between people of good and bad
manners — between the clean and the unclean. There are
white people who have no right to be in any place except
a bath-tub, and there are colored people in the same con
dition. An unclean white man should not be allowed to
force himself into a hotel, or into a railway car — neither
should the unclean colored. What I claim is, that in public
places, no distinction should be made on account of race
or color. The bad black man should be treated like the
bad white man, and the good black man like the good white
man. Social equality is not contended for — neither between
white and white, black and black, nor between white and
black.

CIVIL RIGHTS. 47

In all social relations we should have the utmost liberty —
but public duties should be discharged and public rights
should be recognized, without the slightest discrimination
on account of race or color. Riding in the same cars, stop
ping at the same inns, sitting in the same theatres, no more
involve a social question, or social equality, than speaking
the same language, reading the same books, hearing the
same music, traveling on the same highway, eating the
same food, breathing the same air, warming by the same
sun, shivering in the same cold, defending the same flag,
loving the same country, or living in the same world.

And yet, thousands of people are in deadly fear about
social equality. They imagine that riding with colored
people is dangerous — that the chance acquaintance may
lead to marriage. They wish to be protected from such
consequences by law. They dare not trust themselves.
They appeal to the Supreme Court for assistance, and wish
to be barricaded by a constitutional amendment. They are
willing that colored women shall prepare their food — that
colored waiters shall bring it to them — willing to ride in
the same cars with the porters and to be shown to their
seats in theatres by colored ushers — willing to be nursed
in sickness by colored servants. They see nothing danger
ous — 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 Whit
man. " 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 per
sons 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

48 MISCELLANY.

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
greax. 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 provi
dence. 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.

He should not be misled by party cries, or by vague
promises in political platforms. He should vote for the
men, for the party, that will protect him ; for congressmen
who believe in liberty, for judges who worship justice —

CIVIL RIGHTS. 49

whose brains are not tangled by technicalities, and whose
hearts are not petrified by precedents ; and for presidents
who will protect the blackest citizen from the tyranny of the
whitest State. As you cannot trust the word of some white
people, and as some black people do not always tell the
truth, you must compel all candidates to put their principle-
in black and white.

Of one thing you can rest assured : The best white peo
ple are your friends. The humane, the civilized, the just,
the most intelligent, the grandest, are on your side. The
sympathies of the noblest are with you. Your enemies are
also the enemies of liberty, of progress and of justice. The
white men who make the white race honorable believe in
equal rights for you. The noblest living are, the noblest
dead were, your friends. I ask you to stand with your
friends.

Do not hold the Republican party responsible for this
decision, unless the Republican party endorses it. Had the
question been submitted to that party, it would have been
decided exactly the other way — at least a hundred to one.
That party gave you the i3th, i4th and i5th Amendments.
They were given in good faith. These amendments put
you on a constitutional and political equality with white
men. That they have been narrowed in their application
by the Supreme Court, is not the fault of the Republican
party. Let us wait and see what the Republican party will
do. That party has a strange history, and in that history
is a mingling of cowardice and courage. The army of pro
gress always becomes fearful after victory, and courageous
after defeat. It has been the custom for principle to apolo
gize to prejudice. The Proclamation of Emancipation gave
liberty only to slaves beyond our lines — those beneath our
flag were left to wear their chains. We said to the Southern
States: "Lay down your arms, and you shall keep your
slaves," We tried to buy peace at the expense of the negro,

5° MISCELLANY.

We offered to sacrifice the manhood of the North, and the
natural rights of the colored man, upon the altar of the
Union. The rejection of that offer saved us from infamy.
At one time we refused to allow the loyal black man to
come within our lines. We would meet him at the outposts,
receive his information, and drive him back to chain and
lash. The Government publicly proclaimed that the war
was waged to save the Union, with slavery. We were
afraid to claim that the negro was a man — afraid to admit
that he was property — and so we called him "contraband."
We hesitated to allow the negro to fight for his own free
dom — hesitated to let him wear the uniform of the nation
while he battled for the supremacy of its flag.

These are some of the inconsistencies of the past. In
spite of them we advanced. We were educated by events,
and at last we clearly saw that slavery was rebellion ;
that the "institution" had borne its natural fruit — civil
war; that the entire country was responsible for slavery,
and that slavery was responsible for rebellion. We de
clared that slavery should be extirpated from the Republic.
The great armies led by the greatest commander of the
modern world, shattered, crushed and demolished the Re
bellion. The North grew grand. The people became
sublime. The three sacred amendments were adopted.
The Republic was free.

Then came a period of hesitation, apology and fear. The
colored citizen was left to his fate. For years the Federal
arm, palsied by policy, was powerless to protect; and this
period of fear, of hesitation, of apology, of lack of confi
dence in the right, has borne its natural fruit — this decision
of the Supreme Court. .

But it is not for me to give you advice. Your conduct
has been above all praise. You have been as patient as the
earth beneath, as the stars above. You have been law-
abiding and industrious. You have not offensively as-

CIVIL RIGHTS. 51

serted your rights, or offensively borne your wrongs.
You have been modest and forgiving. You have returned
good for evil. When I remember that the ancestors of my
race were in universities and colleges and common schools
while you and your fathers were on the auction-block, in
the slave-pen, or in the field beneath the cruel lash, in
States where reading and writing were crimes, I am
astonished at the progress you have made.

All that I — all that any reasonable man — can ask is, that
you continue doing as you have done. Above all things —
educate your children — strive to make yourselves independent
— work for homes — work for yourselves — and wherever it
is possible become the masters of yourselves.

Nothing gives me more pleasure than to see your little
children with books under their arms, going and coming
from school.

It is very easy to see why colored people should hate us,
but why we should hate them is beyond my comprehension.
They never sold our wives. They never robbed our
cradles.. They never scarred our backs. They never
pursued us with bloodhounds. They never branded our
flesh.

It has been said that it is hard to forgive a man to whom
we have done a great injury. I can conceive of no other
reason why we should hate the colored people. To us they
are a standing reproach. Their history is our shame.
Their virtues seem to enrage some white people — their
patience to provoke, and their forgiveness to insult. Turn
the tables — change places — and with what fierceness, with
what ferocity, with what insane and passionate intensity
we would hate them !

The colored people do not ask for revenge — they simply
ask for justice. They are willing to forget the past — will
ing to hide their scars— anxious to bury the broken chains,

52 MISCELLANY.

and to forget the miseries and hardships, the tears and
agonies, of two hundred years.

The old issues are again upon us. Is this a Nation?
Have all citizens of the United States equal rights, without
regard to race or color? Is it the duty of the General
Government to protect its citizens ? Can the Federal arm
be palsied by the action or non-action of a State ?

Another opportunity is given for the people of this
country to take sides. According to my belief, the supreme
thing for every man to do is to be absolutely true to him
self. All consequences — whether rewards or punishments,
whether honor and power, or disgrace and poverty, are as
dreams undreamt. I have made my choice. I have taken
my stand. Where my brain and heart go, there I will
publicly and openly walk. Doing this, is my highest con
ception of duty. Being allowed to do this, is liberty.

If this is not now a free Government ; if citizens cannot
now be protected, regardless of race or color ; if the three
sacred amendments have been undermined by the Supreme
Court — we must have another; and if that fails, then
another; and we must neither stop, nor pause, until the
Constitution shall become a perfect shield for every right,
of every human being, beneath our flag.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE
BLASPHEMY TRIAL

TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.
ADDRESS TO THE JURY.*

/"""> ENTLEMEN OP THE JURY : I regard this as one of the
V_J most important cases that can be submitted to a jury.
It is not a case that involves a little property, neither is it one
that involves simply the liberty of one man. It involves
the freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty of every
citizen of New Jersey.

The question to be tried by you is whether a man has the
right to express his honest thought; and for that reason
there can be no case of greater importance submitted to a
jury. And it may be well enough for me, at the outset, to
admit that there could be no case in which I could take a
greater — a deeper interest. For my part, I would not wish

* Within thirty miles of New York, in the city of Morristown, New Jersey, & man was
put on trial yesterday for distributing a pamphlet argument against the infallibility of
the Bible. The crime which the indictment alleges is olasphemy, for which the statutes
of New Jersey provide a penalty of two hundred dollars fine, or twelve months imprison
ment, or both. It is the first case of the kind ever tried in New Jersey, although the law
dates back to colonial days. Charles B. Reynolds is the man on trial, and the State of
New Jersey, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Morris County, is the prosecutor.
The Circuit Court, Judge Francis Child, assisted by County Judges Munson and Ouimby,
sit upon the case. Prosecutor Wilder W. Cutler represents the State, and Rooert G.
Ingersoll appears for the defendant.

Mr. Reynolds went to Boonton last summer to hold "free-thought" meetings. An
nouncing his purpose without any flourish, he secured a piece of ground, pitched a tent
npon it, and invited the towns-people to come and hear him. It was understood that he
had been a Methodist minister : that, finding it impossible to reconcile his mind to some
of the historical parts of the Bible, and unable to accept it in its entirety as a moral guide,
he left the church and set out to proclaim his conclusions. The churches in Boonton
arrayed themselves against him. The Catholics and Methodists were especially active.
Taking this opposition as an excuse, one element of the town invaded his tent. They
pelted Reynolds with ancient eggs and vegetables. They chopped away the guy ropes
of the tent and slashed the canvas with their knives. When the tent collapsed, the crowd
rushed for the speaker to inflict further punishment by plunging him in the duck pond
They rummaged the wrecked tent, but m vain. He had made Sis way out in the coufu-
•ion and was no more seen in Boonton.

But what he had said did not leave Boonton with him, and the pamphlets he had dis
tributed were read by many who probably would not have looked between their covers
had his visit been attended by no unusual circumstances. Boonton was still agitated up-
on the subject when Mr. Reynolds appeared in Morristown. This time he did not try to
liold meetings, but had his pamphlets with him.

Mr. Reynolds appeared in Morristown with the pamphlets on October thirteenth. A
Boonton delegation was there, clamoring for his indictment for blasphemy. The Grand
J ory heard of his visit and found two indictments against him; one for blasphemy at

(56)

56 MISCELLANY.

to live in a world where I could not express my honest
opinions. Men who deny to others the right of speech
are not fit to live with honest men.

I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of
any church, of any State, to put a padlock on the lips — to
make the tongue a convict. I passionately deny the right
of the Herod of authority to kill the children of the brain.

A man has a right to work with his hands, to plow the

Boonton and the second for blasphemy at Morristown. He furnished a five hundred dol
lar bond to appear for trial. On account of Colonel Ingersoll's throat troubles the case
was adjourned several times through the winter and until Monday last, when it was set
peremptorily for trial yesterday.

The public feeling excited at Boonton was overshad9wed by that at Morristown and the
neighboring region. For six months no topic was so interesting to the public as this. It
monopolized attention at the stores, and became a fruitful subject of gossip in social and
church circles. Under such circumstances it was to be expected that eveiybodywho
could spare the time would go to court yesterday. Lines of people began to cliiub the
court house hill early in the morning. At the hour of opening court the room set apart
for the trial was packed , and distaffs had to be stationed at the foot of the stairs to keep
back those who were not early enough. From nine thirty to eleven o'clock the crowd in
side talked of blasphemy in all the phases suggested by this case, and the outsiders waited
patiently on the lawn and steps and along the dusty approaches to the gray building.

Eleven o'clock brought the train from New 1'ork and on it Colonel Ingersoll. His
arrival at the court house with his clerk opened a new chapter in the day's gossip. The
event was so absorbing indeed, that the crowd failed entirely to notice an elderly man
wearing a black frock suit, a silk hat. with an army badge pinned to his coat, and looking
like a merchant of means, who entered the court house a few minutes behind the famous
lawyer. The last comer was the defendant.

All was ready for the case. Within five minutes five jurors were in the box. Then
Colonel Ingersoll asked what were his rights about challenges. He was informed that he
might make six peremptory challenges and must challenge before the jurors took their
seats. The only disqualification the Court would recognize would be the inability of a
Juror to change his opinion in spite of evidence. Colonel Ingersoll induced the Court to
let him examine the five in the box and promptly ejected two Presbyterians.

Thereafter Colonel Ingersoll examined every juror as soon as presented. He asked
particularly about the nature of each man's prejudice, if he had one. To a juror who did
not know that he understood the word, the Colonel replied : " I may not define the word
legally, but my own idea is that a man is prejudiced when he has made up his mind on a
case without knowing anything about it. This juror thought that he came under that
category.

Presbyterians had a rather hard time with the examiner. After twenty men had been
examined and thedefence had exercised five of its peremptory challenges, the following
were sworn as jurymen. * * * *

The jury having been sworn, Prosecutor Cutler announced that he would try only the
Indictment for the offence in Morristown. He said that Reynolds was charged with dis
tributing pamphlets containing matter claimed to be blasphemous under the law. If the
charge could be proved he asked a verdict of guilty. Then he called sixteen towns-peo
ple, to most of whom Reynolds had given a pamphlet.

Colonel Ingersoll tried to get the Presbyterian witnesses to say that they had read the
pamphlet. Not one of them admitted it. Further than this he attempted no cross-
examination.

"I do not know that I shall have any witnesses one way or the other, " Colonel
Ingersoll said, rising to suggest a recess. " Perhaps after dinnerl may feel like making a
few remarks."

" There will be great disappointment if you do not " Judge Child responded, in a tone
that meant a word for himself as well as tor the other listeners. The spectators nodded
approval to this sentiment. At 4:20 o'clock Col. Ingersoll having spoken since 2 o'clock,
Judge Child adjourned court until this morning.

As Colonel Ingersoll left the room a throng pressed after him to offer congratulations.
One old man said : " Colonel Ingersoll I am a Presbyterian pastor, but I must say that
was the noblest speech indeienceof liberty I ever Jieard 1 Your hand, eir ; your hand."
— Th* Times, New York, May tt), 1887,

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 57

earth, to sow the seed, and that man has a right to reap the
harvest. If we have not that right, then all are slaves ex
cept those who take these rights from their fellow-men. If
you have the right to work with your hands and to gather
the harvest for yourself and your children, have you not a
right to cultivate your brain ? Have you not the right to
read, to observe, to investigate — and when you have so read
and so investigated, have you not the right to reap that
field ? And what is it to reap that field ? It is simply to
express what you have ascertained — simply to give your
thoughts to your fellow-men.

If there is one subject in this world worthy of being dis
cussed, worthy of being understood, it is the question of
intellectual liberty. Without that, we are simply painted
clay; without that, we are poor, miserable serfs and slaves.
If you have not the right to express your opinions, if the
defendant has not this right, then no man ever walked be
neath the blue of heaven that had the right to express his
thought. If others claim the right, where did they get it ?
How did they happen to have it, and how did you happen
to be deprived of it? Where did a church or a nation get
that right ?

Are we not all children of the same Mother ? Are we not
all compelled to think, whether we wish to or not? Can
you help thinking as you do ? When you look out upon
the woods, the fields, — when you look at the solemn splen
dors of the night — these things produce certain thoughts in
your mind, and they produce them necessarily. No man
can think as he desires. No man controls the action of his
brain, any more than he controls the action of his heart.
The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in spite of you.
The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The ears
hear, if they are unstopped, without asking your permis
sion. And the brain thinks in spite of you. Should you
express that thought ? Certainly you should, if others ex-

58 MISCELLANY.

press theirs. You have exactly the same right. He who
takes it from you is a robber.

For thousands of years people have been trying to force
other people to think their way. Did they succeed ? No.
Will they succeed ? No. Why ? Because brute force is
not an argument. You can stand with the lash over a
man, or you can stand by the prison door, or beneath the
gallows, or by the stake, and say to this man : " Recant
or the lash descends, the prison door is locked upon you,
the rope is put about your neck, or the torch is given to the
fagot." And so the man recants. Is he convinced ? Not
at all. Have you produced a new argument ? Not the
slightest. And yet the ignorant bigots of this world have
been tr}ung for thousands of years to rule the minds of
men by brute force. They have endeavored to improve
the mind by torturing the flesh — to spread religion with the
sword and torch. They have tried to convince their
brothers by putting their feet in iron boots, by putting
fathers, mothers, patriots, philosophers and philanthropists
in dungeons. And what has been the result ? Are we any
nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then ?

No orthodox church ever had power that it did not
endeavor to make people think its way by force and
flame. And yet every church that ever was established
commenced in the minority, and while it was in the
minority advocated free speech — every one. John Calvin,
the founder of the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in
France, wrote a book on religious toleration in order to
show that all men had an equal right to think ; and yet
that man afterward, clothed in a little authority, forgot all
his sentiments about religious liberty, and had poor
Servetus burned at the stake, for differing with him on a
question that neither of them knew anything about. In
the minority, Calvin advocated toleration — in the majority,
he practiced murder.

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 59

I want you to understand what has been done in the
world to force men to think alike. It seems to me that if
there is some infinite being who wants us to think alike,
he would have made us alike. Why did he not do so ?
Why did he make your brain so that you could not by any
possibility be a Methodist ? Why did he make yours so
that you could not be a Catholic ? And why did he make
the brain of another so that he is an unbeliever — why the
brain of another so that he became a Mohammedan — if he
wanted us all to believe alike ?

After all, may be Nature is good enough and grand
enough and broad enough to give us the diversity born of
liberty. May be, after all, it would not be best for us all
to be just the same. What a stupid world, if everybody
said yes to everything that everybody else might say.

The most important thing in this world is liberty. More
important than food or clothes — more important than gold
or houses or lands — more important than art or science —
more important than all religions, is the liberty of man.

If civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree
with Mr. Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would
I give up the splendors of the nineteenth century — gladly
would I forget every invention that has leaped from the
brain of man — gladly would I see all books ashes, all works
of art destroyed, all statues broken, and all the triumphs of
the world lost — gladly, joyously would I go back to the
abodes and dens of savagery, if that were necessary to pre
serve the inestimable gem of human liberty. So would
every man who has a heart and brain.

How has the church in every age, when in authority,
defended itself ? Always by a statute against blasphemy,
against argument, against free speech. And there never
was such a statute that did not stain the book that it was
in, and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who
passed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining

6C MISCELLANY.

blasphemy, the church sought to prevent discussion-
sought to prevent argument — sought to prevent a man
giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a
doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a statute that pre
vents your speaking against it. In the silence of slavery it
exists. It lives because lips are locked. It lives because
men are slaves.

If I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines
that in my judgment will make this world happier and
better. If I know myself, I advocate only those things
that will make a man a better citizen, a better father, a
kinder husband — that will make a woman a better wife, a
better mother — doctrines that will fill every home with sun
shine and with joy. And if I believed that anything I
should say to-day would have any other possible tendency,
I would stop. I am a believer in liberty. That is my
religion — to give to every other human being every right
that I claim for myself, and I grant to every other human
being, not the right — because it is his right — but instead
of granting I declare that it is his right, to attack every
doctrine that I maintain, to answer every argument that I
ma}' urge — in other words, he must have absolute freedom
of speech.

I am a believer in what I call " intellectual hospitality."
A man comes to your door. If you are a gentleman and
he appears to be a good man, you receive him with a
smile. You ask after his health. You say : " Take a
chair ; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you not break
bread with me ? " That is what a hospitable, good man
does — he does not set the dog on him. Now, how should
we treat a new thought? I say that the brain should be
hospitable and say to the new thought : " Come in ; sit
down ; I want to cross-examine you ; I want to find
whether you are good or bad ; if good, stay ; if bad, I don't
want to hurt you — probably you think you are all right, —

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 6l

but your room is better than your company, and I will take
another idea in your place." Why not? Can any man
have the egotism to say that he has found it all out ? No.
Every man who has thought, knows not only how little he
knows, but how little every other human being knows, and
how ignorant, after all, the world must be.

There was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church
had power. And I want it distinctly understood with this
jury, that while I am opposed to Catholicism I am not op
posed to Catholics — while I am opposed to Presbyterianism
I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I do not fight people,
— I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never go into per
sonalities. As I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but
Presbyterianism — that is, I am opposed to their doctrine.
I do not hate a man that has the rheumatism — I hate the
rheumatism when it has a man. So I attack certain prin
ciples because I think they are wrong, but I always want
it understood that I have nothing against persons —
nothing against victims.

There was a time when the Catholic Church was in
power in the Old World. All at once there arose a man
called Martin Luther, and what did the dear old Catholics
think ? " Oh," they said, " that man and his followers are
going to hell." But they did not go. They were very
good people. They may have been mistaken — I do not
know. I think they were right in their opposition to
Catholicism — but I have just as much objection to the
religion they founded as I have to the church they left.
But they thought they were right, and they made very
good citizens, and it turned out that their differing from
the Mother Church did not hurt them. And then after
awhile they began to divide, and there arose Baptists ; and
-the other gentlemen, who believed in this law that is now
in New Jersey, began cutting off their ears so that they
could hear better ; they began putting them in prison so

62 MISCELLANY.

that they would have a chance to think. But the Baptists
turned out to be good folks — first rate — good husbands,
good fathers, good citizens. And in a little while, in
England, the people turned to be Episcopalians, on account
of a little war that Henry VIII. had with the Pope, —
and I always sided with the Pope in that war — but it made
no difference; and in a little while the Episcopalians
turned out to be just about like other folks — no worse —
and, as I know of, no batter.

After awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian
said, "We don't want anything of him — he is a bad man ; "
and they finally drove some of them away and they settled
in New England, and there were among them Quakers, than
whom there never were bettei people on the earth — indus
trious, frugal, gentle, kind and loving — and yet these Puri
tans began hanging them. They said : " They are cor
rupting our children ; if this thing goes on, everybody will
believe in being kind and gentle and good, and what will
become of us ?" They were honest about it. So they went
to cutting off ears. But the Quakers were good people and
none of the prophecies were fulfilled.

In a little while there came some Unitarians and they
said, " The world is going to ruin, sure ; " — but the world
went on as usual, and the Unitarians produced men like
Channing — one of the teuderest spirits that ever lived —
they produced men like Theodore Parker — one of the
greatest brained and greatest hearted men produced upon
this continent — a good man — and yet they thought he was
a blasphemer — they even prayed for his death — on their
bended knees they asked their God to take time to kill him.
Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably.

After awhile came the Universal ists, who said : " God is
good. He will not damn anybody always, just for a little
mistake he made here. This is a very short life ; the path we
travel is very dim, and a great many shadows fall in the

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 63

way, and if a man happens to stub his toe, God will not burn
him forever." And then all the rest of the sects cried out,
" Why, if you do away with hell, everybody will murder
just for pastime — everybody will go to stealing just to en
joy themselves." But they did not. The Universalists
were good people — just as good as any others. Most of
them much better. None of the prophecies were fulfilled,
and yet the differences existed.

And so we go on until we find people who do not believe
the Bible at all, and when they say they do not, they come
within this statute.

Now, gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first,
that this statute under which Mr. Reynolds is being tried
is unconstitutional — that it is not in harmony with the con
stitution of New Jersey ; and I am going to try to show you
in addition to that, that it was passed hundreds of years
ago, by men who believed it was right to burn heretics and
tie Quakers to the end of a cart; men and even modest
women — stripped naked — and lash them from town to town.
They were the men who originally passed that statute, and
I want to show you that it has slept all this time, and I am
informed — I do not know how it is — that there never has
been a prosecution in this State for blasphemy.

Now, gentlemen, what is blasphemy ? Of course nobody
knows what it is, unless he takes into consideration where
he is. What is blasphemy in one country would be a re
ligious exhortation in another. It is owing to where you
are and who is in authority. And let me call your attention
to the impudence and bigotry of the American Christians.
We send missionaries to other countries. What for ? To
tell them that their religion is false, that their gods are
myths and monsters, that their saviors and apostles were
impostors, and that our religion is true. You send a man
from Morristown — a Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He
goes there, and he tells the Mohammedans— and he has it

64 MISCELLANY.

in a pamphlet and he distributes it — that the Koran is a
lie, that Mohammed was not a prophet of God, that the
angel Gabriel is not so large that it is four hundred leagues
between his eyes — that it is all a mistake — there never was
an angel so large as that. Then what would the Turks do?
Suppose the Turks had a law like this statute in New Jer
sey. They would put the Morristown missionary in jail,
and he would send home word, and then what would the
people of Morristown say ? Honestly — what do you think
they would say ? They would say, " Why, look at those
poor, heathen wretches. We sent a man over there armed
with the truth, and yet they were so blinded by their
idolatrous religion, so steeped in superstition, that they
actually put that man in prison." Gentlemen, does not
that show the need of more missionaries ? I would say, yes.

Now, let us turn the tables. A gentleman conies from
Turkey to Morristown. He has got a pamphlet. He says,
"The Koran is the inspired book, Mohammed is the real
prophet, your Bible is false and your Savior simply a
myth." Thereupon the Morristown people put him in
jail. Then what would the Turks say? They would say,
" Morristown needs more missionaries," and I would agree
with them.

In other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality.
Let the world talk. And see how foolish this trial is. I
have no doubt that the prosecuting attorney agrees with
rne to-day, that whether this law is good or bad, this trial
should not have taken place. And let me tell you why.
Here comes a man into your town and circulates a pam
phlet. Now, if they had just kept still, very few would ever
have heard of it. That would have been the end. The
diameter of the echo would have been a few thousand feet.
But in order to stop the discussion of that question, they
indicted this man, and that question has been more dis
cussed in this country since this indictment than all the

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 65

discussions put together since New Jersey was first granted
to Charles II. 's dearest brother James, the Duke of York.
And what else? A trial here that is to be reported
and published all over the United States, a trial that will
give Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty millions of
people. And yet this was done for the purpose of stop
ping a discussion of this subject. I want to show you that
the thing is in itself almost idiotic — that it defeats itself,
and that you cannot crush out these things by force. Not
only so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right to be defended,
and his counsel has the right to give his opinions on this
subject.

Suppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argu
ment has not been sent to jail. That is still going the
rounds, free as the winds. Suppose you keep him at hard
labor a year — all the time he is there, hundreds and thou
sands of people will be reading some account, or some
fragment, of this trial. There is the trouble. If you
could only imprison a thought, then intellectual tyranny
might succeed. If you could only take an argument and
put a striped suit of clothes on it — if you could only take
a good, splendid, shining fact and lock it up in some
dungeon of ignorance, so that its light would never again
enter the mind of man, then you might succeed in stopping
human progress. Otherwise, no.

Let us see about this particular statute. In the first
place, the State has a constitution. That constitution is
a rule, a limitation to the power of the Legislature, and a
certain breastwork for the protection of private rights, and
the constitution says to this sea of passions and pre
judices : " Thus far and no farther." The constitution
says to each individual: "This shall panoply you; this
is your complete coat of mail; this shall defend your
rights." And it is usual in this country to make as a part
of each constitution several general declarations — called

66 MISCELLANY.

the Bill of Rights. So I find that in the old constitution
of New Jersey, which was adopted in the year of grace
1776, although the people at that time were not educated
as they are now — the spirit of the Revolution at that time
not having permeated all classes of society — a declaration
in favor of religious freedom. The people were on the eve
of a revolution. This constitution was adopted on the
third day of July, 1776, one day before the immortal
Declaration of Independence. Now, what do we find in
this — and we have got to go by this light, by this torch,
when we examine the statute.

I find in that constitution, in its Eighteenth Section,
this : "No person shall ever in this State be deprived of
the inestimable privilege of worshiping God in a manner
agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under
any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any place of
worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall
he be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates for the
purpose of building or repairing any church or churches,
contrary to what he believes to be true." That was a very
great and splendid step. It was the divorce of church and
state. It no longer allowed the State to levy taxes for the
support of a particular religion, and it said to every citizen
of New Jersey : All that you give for that purpose must
be voluntarily given, and the State will not compel you to
pay for the maintenance of a church in which you do not
believe. So far so good.

The next paragraph was not so good. " There shall be
no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in
preference to another, and no Protestant inhabitants of
this State shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right
merely on account of his religious principles ; but all per
sons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect,
who shall demean themselves peaceably, shall be capable
of being elected to any office of profit or trust, and shall

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 67

fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity
enjoyed by other citizens."

What became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not
know — whether they had any right to be elected to office
or not under this Act. But in 1844, the State having
grown civilized in the meantime, another constitution was
adopted. The word Protestant was then left out. There
was to be no establishment of one religion over another.
But Protestantism did not render a man capable of being
elected to office any more than Catholicism, and nothing
is said about any religious belief whatever. So far, so
good.

" No religious test shall be required as a qualification
for any office of public trust. No person shall be denied
the enjoyment of any civil right on account of his religious
principles."

That is a very broad and splendid provision. " No per
son shall be denied any civil right on account of his relig
ious principles." That was copied from the Virginia
constitution, and that clause in the Virginia constitution
was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that clause
men were entitled to give their testimony in the courts of
Virginia whether they believed in any religion or not, in
any bible or not, or in any god or not.

That same clause was afterward adopted by the State
of Illinois, also by many other States, and wherever that
clause is, no citizen can be denied any civil right on
account of his religious principles. It is a broad and
generous clause. This statute, under which this indict
ment is drawn, is not in accordance with the spirit of that
splendid sentiment. Under that clause, no man can be
deprived of any civil right on account of his religious
principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account
of this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and
savage statute, the same man who cannot be denied any

68 MISCELLANY.

political or civil right, can be sent to the penitentiary as a
common felon for simply expressing his honest thought.
And before I get through I hope to convince you that this
statute is unconstitutional.

But we will go another step: " Every person may freely
speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects,
being responsible for the abuse of that right,"

That is in the constitution of nearly every State in
the Union, and the intention of that is to cover slanderous
words — to cover a case where a man under pretence of
enjoying the freedom of speech falsely assails or accuses
his neighbor. Of course he should be held responsible for
that abuse.

Then follows the great clause in the constitution of
1844 — more important than any other clause in that in
strument — a clause that shines in that constitution like a
star at night. —

" No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press."

Can anything be plainer — anything be more forcibly
stated ?

" No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of
speech."

Now, while you are considering this statute, I want you
to keep in mind this other statement :

" No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press."

And right here there is another thing I want to call your
attention to. There is a constitution higher than any
statute. There is a law higher than any constitution. It is
the law of the human conscience, and no man who is a man
will defile and pollute his conscience at the bidding of any
legislature. Above all things, one should maintain his self-
respect, and there is but one way to do that, and that is to
live in accordance with your highest ideal.

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 69

There is a law higher than men can make. The facts as
they exist in this poor world — the absolute consequences of
certain acts — they are above all. And this higher law is
the breath of progress, the very outstretched wings of
civilization, under which we enjoy the freedom we have.
Keep that in your minds. There never was a legislature
great enough — there never was a constitution sacred
enough, to compel a civilized man to stand between a
black man and his liberty. There never was a constitution
great enough to make me stand between any human being
and his right to express his honest thoughts. Such a con
stitution is an insult to the human soul, and I would care
no more for it than I would for the growl of a wild beast.
But we are not driven to that necessity here. This con
stitution is in accord with the highest and noblest aspira
tions of the heart — " No law shall be passed to restrain or
abridge the liberty of speech."

Now let us come to this old law — this law that was
asleep for a hundred years before this constitution was
adopted — this law coiled like a snake beneath the founda
tions of the Government — this law, cowardly, dastardly —
this law passed by wretches who were afraid to discuss —
this law passed by men who could not, and who knew they
could not, defend their creed — and so they said : " Give us
the sword of the State and we will cleave the heretic down."
And this law was made to control the minority. When
the Catholics were in power they visited that law upon
their opponents. When the Episcopalians were in power,
they tortured and burned the poor Catholic who had scoffed
and who had denied the truth of their religion. Whoever
was in power used that, and whoever was out of power
cursed that — and yet, the moment he got in power he used
it: The people became civilized — but that law was on the
statute book. It simply remained. There it was, sound
asleep— its lips drawn over its long and cruel teeth. No-

7O MISCELLANY.

body savage enough to waken it. And it slept on, and
New Jersey has flourished. Men have done well. You
have had average health in this country. Nobody roused
the statute until the defendant in this case went to Boon-
ton, and there made a speech in which he gave his honest
thought, and the people not having an argument handy,
threw stones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the defendant,
published a pamphlet on Blasphemy and in it gave a
photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is his offence.
Now let us read this infamous statute :

" If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name
of God by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching
his being " —

I want to say right here — many a man has cursed the
God of another man. The Catholics have cursed the God
of the Protestant. The Presbyterians have cursed the God
of the Catholics — charged them with idolatry — cursed their
images, laughed at their ceremonies. And these compli
ments have been interchanged between all the religions of
the world. But I say here to-day that no man, unless a
raving maniac, ever cursed the God in whom he believed.
No man, no human beiftg, has ever lived who cursed his
own idea of God. He always curses the idea that some
body else entertains. No human being ever yet cursed
what he believed to be infinite wisdom and infinite good
ness — and you know it. Every man on this jury knows
that. He feels that that must be an absolute certainty.
Then what have they cursed? Some God they did not
believe in — that is all. And has a man that right ? I say,
yes. He has a right to give his opinion of Jupiter, and
there is nobody in Morristown who will deny him that
right. But several thousands years ago it would have
been very dangerous for him to have cursed Jupiter, and
yet Jupiter is just as powerful now as he was then, but the
Roman people are not powerful, and that is all there was to
Jupiter —the Roman people.

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 71

So there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus,
the god of the Greeks, and like Socrates, they would have
compelled you to drink hemlock. Yet now everybody can
curse this god. Why ? Is the god dead ? No. He is
just as alive as he ever was. Then what has happened ?
The Greeks have passed away. That is all. So in all of
our churches here. Whenever a church is in the minority
it clamors for free speech. When it gets in the majority,
no. I do not believe the history of the world will show
that any orthodox church when in the majority ever had
the courage to face the free lips of the world. It sends for
a constable. And is it not wonderful that they should do
this when they preach the gospel of universal forgiveness
— when they say, " if a man strike you on one cheek turn
to him the other also — but if he laughs at your religion,
put him in the penitentiary"? Is that the doctrine? Is
that the law?

Now, read this law. Do you know as I read it I
can almost hear John Calvin laugh in his grave. That
would have been a delight to him. It is written exactly as
he would have written it. There never was an inquisitor
who would not have read that law with a malicious smile.
The Christians who brought the fagots and ran with all
their might to be at the burning, would have enjoyed that
law. You know that when they used to burn people for
having said something against religion, they used to cut
their tongues out before they burned them. Why ? For
fear that if they did not, the poor, burning victims might
say something that would scandalize the Christian gentle
men who were building the fire. All these persons would
have been delighted with this law.

Let us read a little further :

" — Or by cursing or coutumeliously reproaching Jesus
Christ."

Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God,

72 MISCELLANY.

was crucified ? How did they come to crucify him ? Be
cause they did not believe in free speech in Jerusalem.
How else? Because there was a law against blasphemy in
Jerusalem — a law exactly like this. Just think of it. Oh,
I tell you we have passed too many mile-stones on the shi
ning road of human progress to turn back and wallow in
that blood, in that mire.

No: Some men have said that he was simply a man.
Some believed that he was actually a God. Others believed
that he was not only a man, but that he stood as the repre
sentative of infinite love and wisdom. No man ever said
one word against that Being for saying " Do unto others as
ye would that others should do unto you." No man
ever raised his voice against him because he said, "Blessed
are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And are
they the " merciful " who when some man endeavors to
answer their argument, put him in the penitentiary ? No.
The trouble is, the priests — the trouble is, the ministers —
the trouble is, the people whose business it was to tell the
meaning of these things, quarreled with each other, and
they put meanings upon human expressions by malice, mean
ings that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them.
I believe that nearly all that has been done in this world
has been honestly done. I believe that the poor savage
who kneels down and prays to a stuffed snake — prays that
his little children may recover from the fever — is honest,
and it seems to me that a good God would answer his
prayer if he could, if it was in accordance with wisdom,
because the poor savage was doing the best he could, and
no one can do any better than that.

So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think
that nearly everybody was going to hell, said exactly what
they believed. They were honest about it, and I would not
send one of them to jail — would never think of such a
thing— even if he called the unbelievers of the world

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 73

"wretches," "dogs," and "devils." What would I do?
I would simply answer him — that is all ; answer him kindly.
I might laugh at him a little, but I would answer him in
kindness.

So these divisions of the human mind are natural. They
are a necessity. Do you know that all the mechanics that
ever lived — take the best ones — cannot make two clocks
that will run exactly alike one hour, one minute ? They
cannot make two pendulums that will beat in exactly the same
time, one beat. If you cannot do that, how are you going
to make hundreds, thousands, billions of people, each with
a different quality and quantity of brain, each clad in a robe
of living, quivering flesh, and each driven by passion's
storm over the wild sea of life — how are you going to make
them all think alike? This is the impossible thing that
Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been try.
ing to do. This was the object of the Inquisition and of
the foolish Legislature that passed this statute.

Let me read you another line from this ignorant statute: —

" Or the Christian religion"

Well, what is the Christian religion ? " If you scoff at
the Christian religion — if you curse the Christian religion."
Well what is it ? Gentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every
day attack the Catholic Church. Is that the Christian re
ligion ? The Catholic believes it is the Christian religion,
and you have to admit that it is the oldest one, and then
the Catholics turn round and scoff at the Protestants. Is
that the Christian religion ? If so, every Christian religion
has been cursed by every other Christian religion. Is not
that an absurd and foolish statute ?

I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the
Presbyterian and tell him, " Your doctrine is all wrong."
I -think he has the right to say to him, "You are leading
thousands to hell." If he believes it, he not only has the
right to say it, but it is his duty to say it ; and if the Pres-

74 MISCELLANY.

byterian really believes the Catholics are all going to the
devil, it is his duty to say so. Why not ? I will never have
any religion that I cannot defend — that is, that I do not
believe I can defend. I may be mistaken, because no man
is absolutely certain that he knows. We all understand
that. Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of
each individual is very narrow, and in his poor sky the
stars are few and very small.

"Or the Word of God— "

What is that ?

" The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old
and New Testaments"

Now, what has a man the right to say about that? Has
he the right to show that the book of Revelation got into
the canon by one vote, and one only ? Has he the right to
show that they passed in convention upon what books they
would put in and what they would not ? Has he the right
to show that there were twenty-eight books called
"The Books of the Hebrews"? Has he the right
to show that? Has he the right to show that Martin
Luther said he did not believe there was one solitary
word of gospel in the Epistle to the Romans ? Has he
the right to show that some of these books were not written
till nearly two hundred years afterward? Has he the
right to say it, if he believes it ? I do not say whether this
is true or not, but has a man the right to say it if he be
lieves it ?

Suppose I should read the Bible all through right
here in Morristown, and after I got through I should make
up my mind that it is not a true book — what ought I to say ?
Ought I to clap my hand over my mouth and start for
another State, and the minute I got over the line say, " It
is not true, It is not true " ? Or, ought I to have the right
and privilege of saying right here in New Jersey, " My fel
low-citizens, I have read the book — I do not believe that it

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 75

is the word of God"? Suppose I read it and think it is
true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to Tur
key and read the Koran and make up my mind that it is
false, you would all say that I was a miserable poltroon if
I did not say so.

By force you can make hypocrites — men who will agree
with you from the teeth out, and in their hearts hate you.
We want no more hypocrites. We have enough in every
community. And how are you going to keep from having
more? By having the air free, — by wiping from your
statute books such miserable and infamous laws as
this.

" The Holy Scriptures."

Are they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the
right to be sincere? There are thousands of things in the
Scriptures that everybody believes. Everybody believes
the Scriptures are right when they say, "Thou shalt not
steal " — everybody. And when they say " Give good
measure, heaped up and running over," everybody says,
" Good ! " So when they say " Love your neighbor,"
everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes that,
and practices it, does it make any difference whether he
believes in the flood or not ? Is that of any importance ?
Whether a man built an ark or not — does that make the
slightest difference? A man might deny it and yet be a
very good man. Another might believe it and be a very
mean man. Could it now, by any possibility, make a man
a good father, a good husband, a good citizen ? Does it
make any difference whether you believe it or not ? Does
it make any difference whether or not you believe that a
man was going through town, and his hair was a little
short, like mine, and some little children laughed at him,
and thereupon two bears from the woods came down and
tore to pieces about forty of these children ? Is it neces
sary to believe that ? Suppose a man should say, " I guess

j6 MISCELLANY.

that is a mistake ; they did not copy that right ; I guess
the man that reported that was a little dull of hearing and
did not get the story exactly right." Any harm in saying
that ? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary for that ?
Can you imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to
hell because he did not believe the bear story ?

So I say if you believe the Bible, say so ; if you do not
believe it, say so. And here is the vital mistake, I might
almost say, in Protestantism itself. The Protestants when
they fought the Catholics said : " Read the Bible for your
selves — stop taking it from your priests — read the sacred
volume with your own eyes ; it is a revelation from God
to his children, and you are the children." And then they
said : " If after you read it you do not believe it, and you
say anything against it, we will put you in jail, and God
will put you in hell." That is a fine position to get a man
in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and
look at his pictures, saying : " They are the finest in the
place, and I want your candid opinion. A man who looked
at them the other day said they were daubs, and I kicked
him downstairs — now I want your candid judgment." So
the Protestant Church says to a man, " This Bible is a mes
sage from your Father, — your Father in heaven. Read it.
Judge for yourself. But if after you have read it you say
it is not true, I will put you in the penitentiary for one
year."

The Catholic Church has a little more sense about
that — at least more logic. It says: " This Bible is not given
to everybody. It is given to the world, to be sure, but it
must be interpreted by the church. God would not give a
Bible to the world unless he also appointed some one, some
organization, to tell the world what it means." They said:
" We do not want the world filled with interpretations, and
all the interpreters fighting each other." And the Protest
ant has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying : " Judge

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 77

for yourself, but if you judge wrong you will go to the
penitentiary here and to hell hereafter."

Now, let us see further :

" Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule"

Think of such a law as that, passed under a constitution
that says, " No law shall abridge the liberty of speech."
But you must not ridicule the Scriptures. Did anybody
ever dream of passing a law to protect Shakespeare from
being laughed at ? Did anybody ever think of such a thing?
Did anybody ever want any legislative enactment to keep
people from holding Robert Burns in contempt? The
songs of Burns will be sung as long as there is love in the
human heart. Do we need to protect him from ridicule by
a statute ? Does he need assistance from New Jersey ? Is
any statute needed to keep Euclid from being laughed at
in this neighborhood ? And is it possible that a work writ
ten by an infinite Being has to be protected by a legisla
ture ? Is it possible that a book cannot be written by a
God so that it will not excite the laughter of the human
race?

Why, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable
things in the human brain. It is the torch of the mind —
it sheds light. Humor is the readiest test of truth — of the
natural, of the sensible — and when you take from a man
all sense of humor, there will only be enough left to make
a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor — no sense of
the absurd— the Presbyterian creed, fill his darkened brain
with superstition and his heart with hatred— then frighten
him with the threat of hell, and he will be ready to vote for
that statute. Such men made that law.

Let us read another clause: —

" And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined
noj, exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor
not exceeding tivelve months, or both."

I want you to remember that this statute was passed in

78 MISCELLANY.

England hundreds of years ago — just in that language.
The punishment, however, has been somewhat changed.
In the good old days when the king sat on the throne — in
the good old days when the altar was the right-bower of
the throne — then, instead of saying: "Fined two hundred
dollars and imprisoned one year," it was: "All his goods
shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored with a hot
iron, and upon his forehead he shall be branded with the
letter B ; and for the second offence he shall suffer death
by burning." Those were the good old days when people
maintained the orthodox religion in all its purity and in all
its ferocity.

The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this
case is: Is this statute constitutional? Is this statute in
harmony with the part of the constitution of 1844 which
says : " The liberty of speech shall not be abridged " ? That
is for you to say. Is this law constitutional, or is it simply
an old statute that fell asleep, that was forgotten, that peo
ple simply failed to repeal? I believe I can convince you,
if you will think a moment, that our fathers never intended
to establish a government like that. When they fought for
what they believed to be religious liberty — when they
fought for what they believed to be liberty of speech, they
believed that all such statutes would be wiped from the
statute books of all the States.

Let me tell you another reason why I believe this. We
have in this country naturalization laws. People may
come here irrespective of their religion. They must simply
swear allegiance to this country — they must forswear
allegiance to every other potentate, prince and power — but
they do not have to change their religion. A Hindoo may
become a citizen of the United States, and the Constitution
of the United States, like the constitution of New Jersey,
guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo believes in a
God — in a God that no Christian does believe in. He

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 79

believes in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon
as a collection of falsehoods. He believes, too, in a
Savior — in Buddha. Now, I ask you, — when that man
conies here and becomes a citizen — when the Constitution
is about him, above him — has he the right to give his ideas
about his religion ? Has he the right to say in New Jersey :
" There is no God except the Supreme Brahm — there is no
Savior except Buddha, the Illuminated, Buddha the
Blest"? I say that he has that right — and you have no
right, because in addition to that he says, " You are mis
taken ; your God is not God ; your Bible is not true, and
your religion is a mistake," to abridge his liberty of speech.
He has the right to say it, and if he has the right to say it,
I insist before this Court and before this jury, that he has
the right to give his reasons for saying it ; and in giving
those reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not
simply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of
logic, but he has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and
to use the smile of ridicule. Anything that can be laughed
out of this world ought not to stay in it.

So the Persian — the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of
Good and Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally
triumph forever — if that is his religion — has the right to
state it, and the right to give his reasons for his belief.
How infinitely preposterous for you, one of the States of
this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to
your shores. You do not ask him to renounce his God.
You ask him to renounce the Shah. Then when he be
comes a citizen, having the rights of every other citizen, he
has the right to defend his religion and to denounce yours.

There is another thing. What was the spirit of our
Government at that time ? You must look at the leading
men. Who were they ? What were their opinions ? Were
most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the defendant in
this case? Thomas Jefferson — and there is, in my judg-

80 MISCELLANY.

ment, only one name on the page of American history
greater than his — only one name for which I have a greater
and tenderer reverence — and that is Abraham Lincoln,
because of all men who ever lived and had power, he was
the most merciful. And that is the way to test a man.
How does he use power ? Does he want to crush his fellow
citizens ? Does he like to lock somebody up in the peni
tentiary because he has the power of the moment ? Does
he wish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist — like a
devil, or like a man ? Thomas Jefferson entertained about
the same views entertained by the defendant in this case,
and he was made President of the United States. He was
the author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of
the University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the con
stitution of that State, that made all the citizens equal
before the law. And when I come to the very sentences
here charged as blasphemy, I will show you that these were
the common sentiments of thousands of very great, of very
intellectual and admirable men.

I have no time, and it may be this is not the place and
the occasion, to call your attention to the infinite harm
that has been done in almost every religious nation by
statutes such as this. Where that statute is, liberty can not
be; and if this statute is enforced by this jury and by this
Court, and if it is afterwards carried out, and if it could be
carried out in the States of this Union, there would be an
end of all intellectual progress. We would go back to the
Dark Ages. Ever}' man's mind, upon these subjects at
least, would become a stagnant pool, covered with the scum
of prejudice and meanness.

And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the
people been friends? Here we are to-day in this blessed
air — here amid these happy fields. Can we imagine, with
these surroundings, that a man for having been found with
a crucifix in his poor little home, had been taken from his

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 8 1

wife and children and burned — burned by Protestants?
You cannot conceive of such a thing now. Neither can
you conceive that there was a time when Catholics found
some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of
the church, and took that poor honest wretch — while his
wife wept — while his children clung to his hands — to the
public square, drove a stake in the ground, put a chain or
two about him, lighted the fagots, and let the wife whom
he loved and his little children see the flames climb around
his limbs — you cannot imagine that any such infamy was
ever practiced. And yet I tell you that the same spirit
made this detestable, infamous, devilish statute.

You can hardly imagine that there was a time when the
same kind of men that made this law said to another man :
"You say this world is round?" "Yes, sir; I think it is,
because I have seen its shadow on the moon." "You
have?" — Now, can you imagine a society, outside of hyenas
and boa-constrictors, that would take that man, put him in the
penitentiary, in a dungeon, turn the key upon him, and let
his name be blotted from the book of human life? Years
afterward some explorer amid ruins finds a few bones. The
same spirit that did that, made this statute — the same spirit
that did that, went before the grand jury in this case —
exactly. Give the men that had this man indicted, the
power, and I would not want to live in that particular part
of the country. I would not willingly live with such men.
I would go somewhere else, where the air is free, where I
could speak my sentiments to my wife, to my children, and
to my neighbors.

Now, this persecution differs only in degree from the in
famies of the olden times. What does it mean ? It means
that the State of New Jersey has all the light it wants.
And what does that mean ? It means that the State of New
Jersey is absolutely infallible — that it has got its growth
and does not propose to grow any more. New Jersey

82 MISCELLANY.

knows enough, and it will send teachers to the peniten
tiary.

It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all
that it is ever going to accomplish. Religions are for a
day. They are the clouds. Humanity is the eternal blue.
Religions are the waves of the sea. These waves depend
upon the force and direction of the wind — that is to say, of
passion; but Humanity is the great sea. And so our
religions change from day to day, and it is a blessed thing
that they do. Why ? Because we grow, and we are getting
a little more civilized every day, — and any man that is not
willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a
civilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not
give to everybody else the rights he claims for himself, is
not in honest man.

Here is a man who says, "I am going to join the Metho
dist Church." What right has he? Just the same right to
join it that I have not to join it — no more, no less. But if
you are a Methodist and I am not, it simply proves that you
do not agree with me, and that I do not agree with you —
that is all. Another man is a Catholic. He was born a
Catholic, or is convinced that Catholicism is right. That
is his business, and any man that would persecute him on
that account, is a poor barbarian — a savage; any man
that would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian — a
savage.

Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to be
long to any church. How are you going to judge him?
Judge him by the way he treats his wife, his children, his
neighbors. Does he pay his debts ? Does he tell the truth ?
Does he help the poor ? Has he got a heart that melts when
he hears grief's story? That is the way to judge him. I
do not care what he thinks about the bears, or the flood,
about bibles or gods. When some poor mother is found
wandering in the street with a babe at her breast, does he

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 83

quote Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the
way to judge. And suppose he does not believe in any
bible whatever? If Christianity is true, that is his mis
fortune, and everybody should pity the poor wretch that is
going down the hill. Why kick him? You will get
your revenge on him through all eternity — is not that
enough?

So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by
theories, not by what we happen to believe — because that
depends very much on where we were born.

If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would
have been a Mohammedan. If I had been born among the
Hindoos, I might have been a Buddhist — I can't tell. If I
had been raised in Scotland, on oatmeal, I might have been
a Covenanter — nobody knows. If I had lived in Ireland,
and seen my poor wife and children driven into the street,
I think I might have been a Home-ruler — no doubt of it.
You see it depends on where you were born — much depends
on our surroundings.

Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not
Mohammedans, and there are men born in this country who
are not Christians — Methodists, Unitarians, or Catholics,
plenty of them, who are unbelievers — plenty of them who
deny the truth of the Scriptures — plenty of them who say :
" I know not whether there be a God or not." Well, it is a
thousand times better to say that honestly than to say dis
honestly that you believe in God.

If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you
want his honest opinion. You do not want to be deceived.
You do not want to talk with a hypocrite. You want to
get straight at his honest mind — and then you are going
to judge him, not by what he says but by what he does. It
is very easy to sail along with the majority — easy to sail
the way the boats are going—easy to float with the stream ;
but when you come to swim against the tide, with the men

84 MISCELLANY.

on the shore throwing rocks at you, you will get a good
deal of exercise in this world.

And do you know that we ought to feel under the
greatest obligation to men who have fought the prevailing
notions of their day ? There is not a Presbyterian in
Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the man
that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they were
in the minority — not one. There is not a Methodist in this
State who does not admire John and Charles Wesley and
Whitefield, who carried the banner of that new and de
spised sect when it was in the minority. They glory in
them because they braved public opinion, because they
dared to oppose idiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like
this. And there is not a Universalist that does not worship
dear old Hosea Ballou — I love him myself — because he said
to the Presbyterian minister : " You are going around try
ing to keep people out of hell, and I am going around try
ing to keep hell out of the people." Every Universalist
admires him and loves him because when despised and
railed at and spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for
the eternal mercy of God. And there is not a solitary
Protestant who does not honor Martin Luther — who does not
honor the Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor girl
who was tied out on the sand of the sea by Episcopalians,
and kept there till the rising tide drowned her, and all she
had to do to save her life was to say, " God save the king ;"
but she would not say it without the addition of the words,
" If it be God's will." No one, who is not a miserable, con
temptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration before such
courage, such self-denial — such heroism. No matter what
the attitude of your body may be, your soul falls on its
knees before such men and such women.

Let us take another step. Where would we have been if
authority had always triumphed ? Where would we have
been if such statutes had always been carried out ? We

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 85

have now a science called astronomy. That science has
done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than
all things else. We now live in an infinite universe. We
know that the sun is a million times larger than our earth,
and we know that there are other great luminaries millions
of times larger than our sun. We know that there are
planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of one
hundred and eighty-five thousand miles a second, requires
fifteen thousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear,
we call the earth — and we now know that all the fields of
space are sown thick with constellations. If that statute
had been enforced, that science would not now be the property
of the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible,
and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For
what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the
world have the science of astronomy expunged from the
brain of man ? We learned the story of the stars in spite
of that statute.

The first men who said the world was round were scourged
for scoffing at the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther,
speaking of one of the greatest men that ever lived, said :
" Does he think with his little lever to overturn the Uni
verse of God?" Martin Luther insisted that such men
ought to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been
carried into effect, Galileo would have been impossible.
Kepler, the discoverer of the three laws, would have died
with the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind
would have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted.
And what else ? If that statute had been carried out, the
world would have been deprived of the philosophy of
Spinoza; of the philosophy, of the literature, of the wit and
wisdom, the justice and mercy of Voltaire, the greatest
Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life — the man who
by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and helped
to civilize a world.

86 MISCELLANY.

If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books
that enrich the libraries of the world could not have been
written. If that statute had been enforced, Humboldt
could not have delivered the lectures now known as " The
Cosmos." If that statute had been enforced, Charles Dar
win would not have been allowed to give to the world his
discoveries that have been of more benefit to mankind than
all the sermons ever uttered. In England they have placed
his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New
Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would
have lived one year at least in your penitentiary. Why ?
That man went so far as not simply to deny the truth of
your Bible, but absolutely to deny the existence of your
God. Was he a good man ? Yes, one of the noblest and
greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who
ever lived, was of the same opinion.

And so I might go on with the great men of to-day.
Who are the men who are leading the race upward and
shedding light in the intellectual world? They are the
men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr. Spencer
could not publish his books in the State of New Jersey.
He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet that
man has added to the intellectual wealth of the world.

So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz — so
with the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern
times.

You may not agree with these men — and what does that
prove? It simply proves that they do not agree with you
— that is all. Who is to blame? I do not know. They
may be wrong, and you may be right ; but if they had the
power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you
differed with them, they would be savages; and if you have
the power and imprison men because they differ from you,
why then, of course, you are savages.

No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 87

that have a little horizon to their minds — a little sky, a
little scope. I hate anything that is narrow and pinched
and withered and mean and crawling, and that is willing to
live on dust. I believe in creating such an atmosphere
that things will burst into blossom. I believe in good will,
good health, good fellowship, good feeling — and if there is
any God on the earth, or in heaven, let us hope that he will
be generous and grand. Do you not see what the effect
will be? I ain not cursing you because you are a Methodist,
and not damning you because you are a Catholic, or because
you are an Infidel — a good man is more than all of these.
The grandest of all things is to be in the highest and
noblest sense a man.

Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the
defendant in this case, has done. Let me read the charges
against him as set out in this indictment.

I shall insist that this statute does not cover any pub
lication — that it covers simply speech — not in writing, not
in book or pamphlet. Let us see:

" This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the
whole world in his mad fury"

Well, the great question about that is, is it true? Does
the Bible describe God as having drowned the whole world
with the exception of eight people? Does it, or does it not?
I do not know whether there is anybody in this county who
has really read the Bible, but I believe the story of the flood
is there. It does say that God destroyed all flesh, and that
he did so because he was angry. He says so himself, if the
Bible be true.

The defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible.
The Bible says that God is loving, and says that he drowned
the world, and that he was angry. Is it blasphemy to
quote from the " Sacred Scriptures " ?

" Becazise it was so much worse than he, knowing all things,
ever supposed it could be." —

88 MISCELLANY.

Well, the Bible does say that he repented having
made man. Now, is there any blasphemy in saying that
the Bible is true? That is the only question. It is a fact
that God, according to the Bible, did drown nearly every
body. If God knows all things, he must have known at
the time he made them that he was going to drown them.
Is it likely that a being of infinite wisdom would delib
erately do what he knew he must undo ? Is it blasphemy
to ask that question ? Have you a right to think about it
at all ? If you have, you have the right to tell somebody
what you think — if not, you have no right to discuss it, no
right to think about it. All you have to do is to read it
and believe it — to open your mouth like a young robin, and
swallow — worms or shingle nails — no matter which.

The defendant further blasphemed and said that : —

" An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience
•with a world which was just what his own stupid blundering
had made it, knew no better way out of the muddle than to de
stroy it by drowning ! "

Is that true ? Was not the world exactly as God made
it ? Certainly. Did he not, if the Bible is true, drown the
people? He did. Did he know he would drown them
when he made them ? He did. Did he know they ought
to be drowned when they were made ? He did. Where
then, is the blasphemy in saying so ? There is not a min
ister in this world who could explain it — who would be
permitted to explain it — under this statute. And yet you
would arrest this man and put him in the penitentiary.
But after you lock him in the cell, there remains the ques
tion still. Is it possible that a good and wise God, knowing
that he was going to drown them, made millions of people?
What did he make them for ? I do not know. I do not
pretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of
course, you cannot answer the question. Is there anything
blasphemous in that ? Would it be blasphemy in me to say

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 89

I do not believe that any God ever made men, women and
children — mothers, with babes clasped to their breasts, and
then sent a flood to fill the world with death ?

A rain lasting for forty days — the water rising hour by
hour, and the poor wretched children of God climbing to the
tops of their houses — then to the tops of the hills. The
water still rising — no mercy. The people climbing higher
and higher, looking to the mountains for salvation — the
merciless rain still falling, the inexorable flood still rising.
Children falling from the arms of mothers — no pity. The
highest hills covered — infancy and old age mingling in
death — the cries of women, the sobs and sighs lost in the
roar of waves — the heavens still relentless. The moun
tains are covered — a shoreless sea rolls round the world,
and on its billows are billions of corpses.

This is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and
this crime is called a deed of infinite mercy.

Do you believe that ? I do not believe one word of it,
and I have the right to say to all the world that this is
false.

If there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be
a wise God, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to
be sent to the penitentiary for simply telling the truth ?

Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at science
— whoever by profane language should bring the rule of
three into contempt, or whoever should attack the proposi
tion that two parallel lines will never include a space,
should be sent to the penitentiary — what would you think
of it? It would be just as wise and just as idiotic
as this.

And what else says the defendant?

" The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous"
-" Provoked him to anger"

Is that true ? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous ?

Let us read another line —

90 MISCELLANY.

"And now he will raise ike mischief with them ; that his
anger burns like hell"

That is true. The Bible says of God — " My anger burns
to the lowest hell." And that is all that the defendant
says. Every word of it is in the Bible. He simply does
not believe it — and for that reason is a " blasphemer."

I say to you now, gentlemen, — and I shall argue to the
Court, — that there is not in what I have read a solitary
blasphemous word — not a word that has not been said in
hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world. Theodore
Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this Bible-God said:
" Vishnu with a necklace of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of
living, hissing serpents, is a figure of Love and Mercy
compared to the God of the Old Testament." That, we
might call " blasphemy," but not what I have read.

Let us read on : —

" He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the
wrath of the enemy."

That is in the Bible — word for word. Then the defend
ant in astonishment says :

" The Almighty God afraid of his enemies ! "

That is what the Bible says. What does it mean ? If
the Bible is true, God was afraid.

" Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy ? "

Is not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise
and powerful, is it possible he is afraid of anything ? If
the defendant had said that God was afraid of his enemies,
that might have been blasphemy — but this man says the
Bible says that, and you are asked to say that it is blas
phemy. Now, up to this point there is no blasphemy, even
if you were to enforce this infamous statute — this savage
law.

"The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the
most foul and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and
polygamy, perpetrated by God's own saints, and the New Testa-

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 9!

ment indorses these lecherous wretches as examples for aU good
Christians to follow."

Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold
polygamy ? Abraham would have gotten into trouble in
New Jersey — no doubt of that. Sarah could have obtained
a divorce in this State, — no doubt of that. What is the use
of telling a falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth about
the patriarchs.

Everybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We
have all heard of Solomon — a gentleman with five or six
hundred wives, and three or four hundred other ladies
with whom he was acquainted. This is simply what the
defendant says. Is there any blasphemy about that ? It is
only the truth. If Solomon were living in the United States
to-day, we would put him in the penitentiary. You know
that under the Edmunds Mormon law he would be locked
up. If you should present a petition signed by his eleven
hundred wives, you could not get him out.

So it was with David. There are some splendid things
about David, of course. I admit that, and pay my tribute
of respect to his courage — but he happened to have ten or
twelve wives too many, so he shut them up, put them in
a kind of penitentiary and kept them there till they died.
That would not be considered good conduct even in Morris-
town. You know that. Is it any harm to speak of it ?
There are plenty of ministers here to set it right — thou
sands of them all over the country, every one with his
chance to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word
back. The pew cannot reply to the pulpit, you know ; it
has just to sit there and take it. If there is any harm in
this, if it is not true, they ought to answer it. But it is
here, and the only answer is an indictment.

I say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham,
and of Jacob. Did you ever know of a more despicable
fraud practiced by one brother on another than Jacob prac-

92 MISCELLANY.

ticed on Esau ? My sympathies have always been with
Esau. He seemed to be a manly man. Is it blasphemy
to say that you do not like a hypocrite, a murderer, or a
thief, because his name is in the Bible ? How do you know
what such men are mentioned for ? May be they are
mentioned as examples, and you certainly ought not to be
led away and induced to imagine that a man with seven
hundred wives is a pattern of domestic propriety, one to
be followed by yourself and your sons. I might go on
and mention the names of hundreds of others who com
mitted every conceivable crime, in the name of religion —
who declared war, and on the field of battle killed men,
women and babes, even children yet unborn, in the name of
the most merciful God. The Bible is filled with the names
and crimes of these sacred savages, these inspired beasts.
Any man who says that a God of love commanded the
commission of these crimes is, to say the least of it, mis
taken. If there be a God, then it is blasphemous to charge
him with the commission of crime.

But let us read further from this indictment :
" The aforesaid printed document contains other scan
dalous, infamous and blasphemous matters and things, to
the tenor and effect following, that is to say " —
Then comes this particularly blasphemous line :
"Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over."
Gentlemen, there are many things I have read that I
should not have expressed in exactty the same language
used by the defendant, and many things that I am going
to read I might not have said at all, but the defendant had
the right to say every word with which he is charged in
this indictment. He had the right to give his honest
thought, no matter whether any human being agreed with
what he said or not, and no matter whether any other man
approved of the manner in which he said these things. I
defend his right to speak, whether I believe in what he

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 93

spoke or not, or in the propriety of saying what he did. I
should defend a man just as cheerfully who had spoken
against niy doctrine, as one who had spoken against the
popular superstitions of ray time. It would make no dif
ference to me how unjust the attack was upon my belief
— how maliciously ingenious ; and no matter how sacred the
conviction that was attacked, I would defend the freedom
of speech. And why ? Because no attack can be answered
by force, no argument can be refuted by a blow, or by im
prisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but
the argument is free ; you may fell the man to the earth,
but the statement stands.

The defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs,
thought by the Christian world to be sacred. Yet, after
all, nothing is sacred but the truth, and by truth I mean
what a man sincerely and honestly believes. The defend
ant says :

"Take time to calmly think it over : Was a Jewish girl the
mother of God, the mother of your God ? "

The defendant probably asked this question, supposing
that it must be answered by all sensible people in the neg
ative. If the Christian religion is true, then a Jewish girl
was the mother of Almighty God. Personally, if the doc
trine is true, I have no fault to find with the statement that
a Jewish maiden was the mother of God. — Millions believe
that this is true — I do not believe, — but who knows? If a
God came from the throne of the universe, came to this
world and became the child of a pure and loving woman,
it would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or the great
ness of that God.

There is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within
the imagination of man, than a mother holding in her
thrilled and happy arms a child, the fruit of love.

No matter how the statement is made, the fact remains
the same. A Jewish girl became the mother of God. If

94 MISCELLANY.

the Bible is true, that is true, and to repeat it, even accord
ing to your law, is not blasphemous, and to doubt it, or to
express the doubt, or to deny it, is not contrary to your
constitution.

To this defendant it seemed improbable that God was
ever born of woman, was ever held in the lap of a mother ;
and because he cannot believe this, he is charged with
blasphemy. Could you pour contempt on Shakespeare by
saying that his mother was a woman, — by saying that he
was once a poor, crying, little, helpless child ? Of course he
was ; and he afterwards became the greatest human being
that ever touched the earth, — the only man whose intel
lectual wings have reached from sky to sky ; and he was
once a crying babe. What of it? Does that cast any
scorn or contempt upon him ? Does this take any of the
music from " Midsummer Night's Dream " ? — any of the
passionate wealth from " Antony and Cleopatra," any
philosophy from " Macbeth," any intellectual grandeur
from "King Lear " ? On the contrary, these great produc
tions of the brain show the growth of the dimpled babe,
give every mother a splendid dream and hope for her child,
and cover every cradle with a sublime possibility.

The defendant is also charged with having said that :
" God cried and screamed."

Why not ? If he was absolutely a child, he was like
other children, — like yours, like mine. I have seen the
time, when absent from home, that I would have given
more to have heard my children cry, than to have heard
the finest orchestra that ever made the air burst into
flower. What if God did cry ? It simply shows that his
humanity was real and not assumed, that it was a tragedy,
real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant also
says that if the orthodox religion be true, that the

" God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms,
and made aimless dashes into space with his little fists"

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 95

Is there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of
the best pictures I ever saw of the Virgin and Child was
painted by the Spaniard, Murillo. Christ appears to be a
truly natural, chubby, happy babe. Such a picture takes
nothing from the majesty, the beauty, or the glory of the
incarnation.

I think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church
that it lifts up for adoration and admiration, a mother, —
that it pays what it calls "Divine honors " to a woman.
There is certainly goodness in that, and where a church
has so few practices that are good, I am willing to point
this one out. It is the one redeeming feature about Cath
olicism, that it teaches the worship of a woman.

The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ.
He goes so far as to say, that :

" He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes."

And why not ? The Bible says, that " he increased in
wisdom and stature." The defendant might have referred
to something far more improbable. In the same verse in
which St. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature, will be found the assertion that he increased in
favor with God and man. The defendant might have
asked how it was that the love of God for God increased.

But the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus
grew, as other children grow; that he acted like other
children, and if he did, it is more than probable that he
did stare at his own toes. I have laughed many a time to
see little children astonished with the sight of their feet.
They seem to wonder what on earth puts the little toes in
motion. Certainly there is nothing blasphemous in sup
posing that the feet of Christ amused him, precisely as the
feet of other children have amused them. There is noth
ing blasphemous about this ; on the contrary, it is beauti
ful. If I believed in the existence of God, the Creator of
this world, the Being who, with the hand of infinity, sowed

96 MISCELLANY.

the fields of space with stars, as a farmer sows his grain, I
should like to think of him as a little, dimpled babe, over
flowing with joy, sitting upon the knees of a loving mother.
The ministers themselves might take a lesson even from
the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an
effort to bring an infinite God a little nearer to the human
heart.

The defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ,
"He was nursed at Mary's breast''

Yes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in
it. Nursed at the breast of woman. No painting, no
statue, no words can make a deeper and a tenderer impres
sion upon the heart of man than this : The infinite God, a
babe, nursed at the holy breast of woman.

You see these things do not strike all people the same.
To a man that has been raised on the orthodox desert,
these things are incomprehensible. He has been robbed
of his humanity. He has no humor, nothing but the
stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with folded wings.

Imagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every
seed of earth to seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of
bud and flower and fruit. Imagination gathers from every
field of thought and pours the wealth of many lives into
the lap of one. To the contracted, to the cast-iron people
who believe in heartless and inhuman creeds, the words of
the defendant seem blasphemous, and to them the thought
that God was a little child is monstrous.

They cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the
breast of a maiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling
clothes, that he had the joys and sorrows of other babes.
I hope, gentlemen, that not only you, but the attorneys for
the prosecution, have read what is known as the " Apocry
phal New Testament," books that were once considered in
spired, once admitted to be genuine, and that once formed
a part of our New Testament. I hope you have read the

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 97

books of Joseph and Mary, of the Shepherd of Hermes, of
the Infancy and of Mary, in which many of the things
done by the youthful Christ are described — books that
were once the delight of the Christian world; books that
gave joy to children, because in them they read that Christ
made little birds of clay, that would at his command stretch
out their wings and fly with joy above his head. If the
defendant in this case had said anything like that, here in
the State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted ; the
orthodox ministers would have shouted "blasphemy,"
and yet, these little stories made the name of Christ dearer
to children.

The church of to-day lacks sympathy ; the theologians
are without affection. After all, sympathy is genius. A
man who really sympathizes with another understands
him. A man who sympathizes with a religion, instantly
sees the good that is in it, and the man who sympathizes
with the right, sees the evil that a creed contains.

But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is
charged with having said :

" God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle
and was rocked to sleep'1

Yes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that.
Let some great religious genius paint a picture of this kind
— of a babe smiling with content, rocked in the cradle by
the mother who bends tenderly and proudly above him.
There could be no more beautiful, no more touching, pic
ture than this. What would I not give for a picture of
Shakespeare as a babe, — a picture that was a likeness, —
rocked by his mother ? I would give more for this than
for any painting that now enriches the walls of the world.

The defendant also says, that :

-" God was sick when cutting his teeth."

And what of that ? We are told that he was tempted in
all points, as we are. That is to say, he was afflicted, he

98 MISCELLANY.

was hungry, he was thirsty, he suffered the pains and
miseries common to man. Otherwise, he was not flesh, he
was not human.

"He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the
whooping cough"

Certainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was,
in fact, a child. Other children have them. Other chil
dren, loved as dearly by their mothers as Christ could have
been by his, and yet they are taken from the little family
by fever; taken, it may be, and buried in the snow, while
the poor mother goes sadly home, wishing that she was
lying by its side. All that can be said of every word in this
address, about Christ and about his childhood, amounts to
this ; that he lived the life of a child ; that he acted like
other children. I have read you substantially what he has
said, and this is considered blasphemous.

He has said, that:

"According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian
world commanded people to destroy each other."

If the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant
is true. Is it calculated to bring God into contempt to deny
that he upheld polygamy, that he ever commanded one of
his generals to rip open with the sword of war, the woman
with child ? Is it blasphemy to deny that a God of infinite
love gave such commandments? Is such a denial calcu
lated to pour contempt and scorn upon the God of the or--
thodox? Is it blasphemous to deny that God commanded
his children to murder each other? Is it blasphemous to
say that he was benevolent, merciful and just?

It is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God
is good. I do not believe that a God made this world, filled
it with people and then drowned them. I do not believe
that infinite wisdom ever made a mistake. If there be any
God he was too good to commit such an infinite crime, too
wise to make such a mistake. Is this blasphemy? Is it

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 99

blasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous man, or
that David was an adulterer?

Must we say when this ancient King had one of his best
generals placed in the front of the battle — deserted him and
had him murdered for the purpose of stealing his wife, that
he was " a man after God's own heart " ? Suppose the de
fendant in this case were guilty of something like that?
Uriah was fighting for his country, fighting the battles of
David, the King. David wanted to take from him his wife.
He sent for Joab, his commander-in-chief, and said to him :

" Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front
of the attacking force, and when the people sally forth from
the town to defend its gate, fall back so that this gallant,
noble, patriotic man may be slain."

This was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is
it blasphemy to tell the truth and to say exactly what
David was ? Let us be honest with each other ; let us be
honest with this defendant.

For thousands of years men have taught that the ancient
patriarchs were sacred, that they were far better than the
men of modern times, that what was in them a virtue, is in
us a crime. Children are taught in Sunday schools to ad
mire and respect these criminals of the ancient days. The
time has come to tell the truth about these men, to call
things by their proper names, and above all, to stand by
the right, by the truth, by mercy and by justice. If what
the defendant has said is blasphemy under this statute then
the question arises, is the statute in accordance with the
constitution ? If this statute is constitutional, why has it
been allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this
position : Any law made for the preservation of a human
right, made to guard a human being, cannot sleep long
enough to die ; but any law that deprives a human being of
a natural right — if that law goes to sleep, it never wakes,
it sleeps the sleep of death.

100 MISCELLANY.

I call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case
in England where, only a few years ago, a man appealed to
trial by battle. The law allowing trial by battle had been
asleep in the statute book of England for more than two
hundred years, and yet the court held that, in spite of the
fact that the law had been asleep — it being a law in favor
of a defendant — he was entitled to trial by battle. And
why ? Because it was a statute at the time made in defence
of a human right, and that statute could not sleep long
enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence of this
decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act,
doing away forever with the trial by battle.

When a statute attacks an individual right, the State
must never let it sleep. When it attacks the right of the
public at large and is allowed to pass into a state of
slumber, it cannot be raised for the purpose of punishing
an individual.

Now, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost
infinite interest in this trial, and before you decide, I am
exceedingly anxious that you should understand with
clearness the thoughts I have expressed upon this subject
I want you to know how the civilized feel, and the position
now taken by the leaders of the world.

A few years ago almost everything spoken against the
grossest possible superstition was considered blasphemous.
The altar hedged itself about with the sword ; the Priest
went in partnership with the King. In those days statutes
were leveled against all human speech. Men were con
victed of blasphemy because they believed in an actual per
sonal God ; because they insisted that God had body and
parts. Men were convicted of blasphemy because they
denied that God had form. They have been imprisoned for
denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and they have
been torn in pieces for defending that doctrine. There are
but few dogmas now believed by any Christian church

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. IOI

that have not at some time been denounced as blasphe
mous.

When Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the
Episcopal Church a creed was made, and in that creed
there were five dogmas that must, of necessity, be believed.
Anybody who denied any one, was to be punished — for the
first offence, with fine, with imprisonment, or branding1, and
for the second offence, with death. Not one of these five
dogmas is now a part of the creed of the Church of Eng
land.

So I could go on for days and weeks and months, show
ing that hundreds and hundreds of religious dogmas, to
deny which was death, have been either changed or aban
doned for others nearly as absurd as the old ones were. It
may be, however, sufficient to say, that wherever the
church has had power it has been a crime for any man to
speak his honest thought. No church has ever been will
ing that any opponent should give a transcript of his mind.
Every church in power has appealed to brute force, to the
sword, for the purpose of sustaining its creed. Not one has
had the courage to occupy the open field. The church has
not been satisfied with calling Infidels and unbelievers
blasphemers. Each church has accused nearly every
other church of being a blasphemer. Every pioneer has
been branded as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin
Luther a blasphemer, and Martin Luther called Copernicus
a blasphemer. Pious ignorance always regards intelligence
as a kind of blasphemy. Some of the greatest men of the
world, some of the best, have been put to death for the
crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of
endeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.

As long as the church has the power to close the lips of
men, so long and no longer will superstition rule this world.

"Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the.
ear of the few.

lOa MISCELLANY.

After every argument of the church has been answered,
has been refuted, then the church cries, "blasphemy!"

Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly dis
covered truth.

Blasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a
this year's bud.

Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.

Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.

And let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set
out in this statute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a
book. No man can commit blasphemy by telling his
honest thought. No man can blaspheme a God, or a Holy
Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite cannot be blas
phemed.

In the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition,
when some poor man was struck by lightning, or when a
blackened mark was left on the breast of a wife and mother,
the poor savage supposed that some god, angered by some
thing he had done, had taken his revenge. What else did
the savage suppose? He believed that this god had the
same feelings, with regard to the loyalty of his subjects, that
an earthly chief had, or an earthly king had, with regard to
the loyalty or treachery of members of his tribe, or citizens
of his kingdom. So the savage said, when his country was
visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the people
away, or the storm scattered their poor houses in fragments :
" We have allowed some Freethinker to live ; some one is in
our town or village who has not brought his gift to the
priest, his incense to the altar ; some man of our tribe or ot
our country does not respect our god." Then, for the pur
pose of appeasing the supposed god, for the purpose of
again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of se
curing a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they
drag the accused man from his home, from his wife and
Children, and with all the ceremonies of pious brutality, shed

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 103

his blood. They did it in self-defence ; they believed that
they were saving their own lives and the lives of their
children ; they did it to appease their god. Most people are
now beyond that point. Now when disease visits a com
munity, the intelligent do not say the disease came because
the people were wicked ; when the cholera comes, it is not
because of the Methodists, of the Catholics, of the Presby
terians, or of the Infidels. When the wind destroys a town
in the far West, it is not because somebody there had spoken
his honest thoughts. We are beginning to see that the wind
blows and destroys without the slightest reference to man,
without the slightest care whether it destroys the good or
the bad, the irreligious or the religious. When the light
ning leaps from the clouds it is just as likely to strike a
good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of
flame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as
gladly and just as joyously, the home of virtue, as they do
the den and lair of vice.

Then the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws
were made on account of a superstition. That superstition
has faded from the minds of intelligent men, and, as a conse
quence, the laws based on the superstition ought to fail.

There is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that
men and nations must reap the consequences of their acts —
reap them in this world, if they live, and in another if there
be one. The man who leaves this world a bad man, a
malicious man, will probably be the same man when he
reaches another realm, and the man who leaves this shore
good, charitable and honest, will be good, charitable and
honestj no matter on what star he lives again. The world
is growing sensible upon these subjects, and as we grow
sensible, we grow charitable.

.Another reason has been given for these laws against
blasphemy, the most absurd reason that can by any possi
bility be given. It is this : There should be laws against

104 MISCELLANY.

blasphemy, because the man who utters blasphemy en
dangers the public peace.

Is it possible that Christians will break the peace ? Is it
possible that they will violate the law? Is it probable
that Christians will congregate together and make a mob,
simply because a man has given an opinion against their
religion? What is their religion? They say, "If a man
smites you on one cheek, turn the other also." They say,
" We must love our neighbors as we love ourselves." Is it
possible then, that you can make a mob out of Christians, —
that these men, who love even their enemies, will attack
others, and will destroy life, in the name of universal love ?
And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to be
laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are
controlled by universal love, will become so outraged, when
they hear an honest man express an honest thought, that
they will leap upon him and tear him in pieces.

What is blasphemy ? I will give you a definition ; I
will give you my thought upon this subject. What is real
blasphemy ?

To live on the unpaid labor of other men — that is blas
phemy.

To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body
— that is blasphemy.

To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the
brain, padlocks upon the lips — that is blasphemy.

To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true
what you believe to be a lie — that is blasphemy.

To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you
may gain the applause of the ignorant and superstitious
mob — that is blasphemy.

To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the
ignorant many — that is blasphemy.

To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-
rnen— that is blasphemy,

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 105

To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal
pain — that is blasphemy.

To violate your conscience — that is blasphemy.

The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge
who pronounces an unjust sentence, are blasphemers.

The man who bows to public opinion against his better
judgment and against his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.

Why should we fear our fellow-men ? Why should not
each human being have the right, so far as thought and
its expression are concerned, of all the world ? What
harm can come from an honest interchange of thought ?

I have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken
freely, and yet the sun rose this morning, just the same as
it always has. There is no particular change visible in the
world, and I do not see but that we are all as happy to-day
as though we had spent yesterday in making somebody
else miserable. I denounced on yesterday the superstitions
of the Christian world, and yet, last night I slept the sleep
of peace. You will pardon me for saying again that I feel
the greatest possible interest in the result of this trial, in
the principle at stake. This is my only apology, my only
excuse, for taking your time. For years I have felt that
the great battle for human liberty, the battle that has cov
ered thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been
won. When I read the history of this world, of what has
been endured, of what has been suffered, of the heroism
and infinite courage of the intellectual and honest few,
battling with the countless serfs and slaves of kings and
priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance and prej
udice, of faith and fear, there was in my heart the hope that
the great battle had been fought, and that the human race,
in its march towards the dawn, had passed midnight, and
that the " great balance weighed up morning." This hope,
this feeling, gave me the greatest possible joy. When I
thought of the many who had been burnt, of how often

106 MISCBLLANY.

the sons of liberty had perished in ashes, of how many of
the noblest and greatest had stood upon scaffolds, and of
the countless hearts, the grandest that ever throbbed in
human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of
church and state, of how many of the noble and loving
had sighed themselves away in dungeons, the only consola
tion was that the last bastile had fallen, that the dungeons
of the Inquisition had been torn down and that the scaf
folds of the world could no longer be wet with heroic blood.

You know that sometimes, after a great battle has been
fought, and one of the armies has been broken, and its
fortifications carried, there are occasional stragglers beyond
the great field, stragglers who know nothing of the fate of
their army, know nothing of the victory, and for that
reason, fight on. There are a few such stragglers in the
State of New Jersey. They have never heard of the great
victory. They do not know that in all civilized countries
the hosts of superstition have been put to flight. They do
not know that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the leaders of
the intellectual armies of the world.

One of the last trials of this character, tried in Great
Britain, — and that is the country that our ancestors fought
in the sacred name of liberty, — one of the last trials in that
country, a country ruled by a state church, ruled by a
woman who was born a queen, ruled by dukes and nobles
and lords, children of ancient robbers — was in the year
1843. George Jacob Holyoake, one of the best of the
human race, was imprisoned on a charge of Atheism,
charged with having written a pamphlet and having made
a speech in which he had denied the existence of the
British God. The judge who tried him, who passed sen
tence upon him, went down to his grave with a stain upon
his intellect and upon his honor. All the real intelligence
of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage. There was
a trial after that to which I will call your attention. Judge

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY.

Coleridge, father of the present Chief Justice of England,"
presided at this trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas
Pooley, a man who dug wells for a living, wrote on the
gate of a priest, that, if people would burn their Bibles and
scatter the ashes on the lands, the crops would be better,
and that they would also save a good deal of money in
tithes. He wrote several sentences of a kindred character.
He was a curious man. He had an idea that the world
was a living, breathing animal. He would not dig a well
beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon
this animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge Col
eridge, on that charge. An infinite God was about to be
dethroned, because an honest well-digger had written his
sentiments on the fence of a parson. He was indicted, tried,
convicted and sentenced to prison. Afterward, many in
telligent people asked for his pardon, on the ground that
he was in danger of becoming insane. The judge refused
to sign the petition. The pardon was refused. Long
before his sentence expired, he became a raving maniac.
He was removed to an asylum and there died. Some of
the greatest men in England attacked that judge, among
these, Mr. Buckle, author of " The History of Civilization
in England," one of the greatest books in this world. Mr.
Buckle denounced Judge Coleridge. He brought him be
fore the bar of English opinion, and there was not a man
in England, whose opinion was worth anything, who did
not agree with Mr. Buckle, and did not with him, declare
the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an infamous out
rage. What were the reasons given ? This, among
others : The law was dead ; it had been asleep for many
years ; it was a law passed during the ignorance of the
Middle Ages, and a law that came out of the dungeon of
religious persecution; a law that was appealed to by
bigots and by hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an honest
man.

108 MISCELLANY.

In many parts of this country, people have entertained
the idea that New England was still filled with the spirit
of Puritanism, filled with the descendants of those who
killed Quakers in the name of universal benevolence, and
traded Quaker children in the Barbadoes for rum, for the
purpose of establishing the fact that God is an infinite
father.

Yet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this,
was when Abner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of
Atheism. He was tried for having written this sentence :
" The Universalists believe in a God which I do not." He
was convicted and imprisoned. Chief Justice Shaw upheld
the decision, and upheld it because he was afraid of public
opinion ; upheld it, although he must have known that the
statute under which Kneeland was indicted was clearly
and plainly in violation of the Constitution. No man can
read the decision of Justice Shaw without being convinced
that he was absolutely dominated, either by bigotry, or
hypocrisy. One of the judges of that court, a noble man,
wrote a dissenting opinion, and in that dissenting opinion
is the argument of a civilized, of an enlightened jurist. No
man can answer the dissenting opinion of Justice Morton.
The case against Kneeland was tried more than fifty years
ago, and there has been none since in the New England
States ; and this case, that we are now trying, is the first
ever tried in New Jersey. The fact that it is the first, cer
tifies to my interpretation of this statute, and it also certifies
to the toleration and to the civilization of the people of this
State. The statute is upon your books. You inherited it
from your ignorant ancestors, and they inherited it from
their savage ancestors. The people of New Jersey were
heirs of the mistakes and of the atrocities of ancient En
gland.

It is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been
allowed to slumber ? Who obtained this indictment ? Were

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 109

they actuated by good and noble motives ? Had they the
public weal at heart, or were they simply endeavoring to be
revenged upon this defendant ? Were they willing to dis
grace the State, in order that they might punish him ?

I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now
the question arises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper?
What is prayer ? What is real religion ? Let me answer
these questions.

Good, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who
ploughs the fields and fells the forests; the man who works
in mines, the man who battles with the winds and waves out
on the wide sea, controlling the commerce of the world ;
these men are worshipers. The man who goes into the
forest, leading his wife by the hand, who builds him a
cabin, who makes a home in the wilderness, who helps to
people and civilize and cultivate a continent, is a worshiper.

Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers ; it is the
only prayer that deserves an answer, — good, honest, noble
work.

A woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter,
gone down to degradation and filth ; the woman who fol
lows him and lifts him out of the mire and presses him to
her noble heart, until he becomes a man once more, this
woman is a worshiper. Her act is worship.

The poor man and the poor woman who work night and
day, in order that they may give education to their children,
so that they may have a better life than their father and
mother had ; the parents who deny themselves the comforts
of life, that they may lay up something to help their chil
dren to a higher place — they are worshipers ; and the
children who, after they reap the benefit of this worship,
become ashamed of their parents, are blasphemers.
. The man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife, — a wife
prematurely old and gray, — the husband who sits by her
bed and holds her thin, wan hand in his as lovingly, and

1 10 MISCELLANY.

kisses it as rapturously, as passionately, as when it was
dimpled, — that is worship ; that man is a worshiper ; that
is real religion.

Whoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper.
He who adds to the sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.

Gentlemen, you can never make me believe — no statute
can ever convince me, that there is any infinite Being in this
universe who hates an honest man. It is impossible to
satisfy me that there is any God, or can be any God, who
holds in abhorrence a soul that has the courage to express
his thought. Neither can the whole world convince me
that any man should be punished, either in this world or in
the next, for being candid with his fellow-men. If you
send men to the penitentiary for speaking their thoughts,
for endeavoring to enlighten their fellows, then the peni
tentiary will become a place of honor, and the victim will
step from it — not stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of
glory.

Let us take one more step.

What is holy, what is sacred ? I reply that human hap
piness is holy, human rights are holy. The body and soul
of man — these are sacred. The liberty of man is of far
more importance than any book; the rights of man. more
.sacred than any religion — than any Scriptures, whether in
spired or not.

What we want is the truth, and does any one suppose
that all of the truth is confined in one book — that the
mysteries of the whole world are explained by one volume ?

All that is — all that conveys information to man — all
that has been produced by the past — all that now exists
— should be considered by an intelligent man. All the
known truths of this world — all the philosophy, all the
poems, all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing
music — the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the
words of honest men, the trumpet calls to duty — all these

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. Ill

make up the bible of the world — everything that is noble
and true and free, you will find in this great book.

If we wi-sh to be true to ourselves, — if we wish to benefit
our fellow-men — if we wish to live honorable lives — we
will give to every other human being every right that we
claim for ourselves.

There is another thing that should be remembered by
you. You are the judges of the law, as well as the judges
of the facts. In a case like this, you are the final judges as
to what the law is ; and if you acquit, no court can reverse
your verdict. To prevent the least misconception, let me
state to you again what I claim :

First. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey de
clares that:

" The liberty of speech shall not be abridged."

Second. That this statute, under which this indictment is
found, is unconstitutional, because it does abridge the
liberty of speech ; it does exactly that which the constitution
emphatically says shall not be done.

Third. I claim, also, that under this law — even if it be
constitutional — the words charged in this indictment do not
amount to blasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in
the darkness, of this statute.

Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that,
no matter what the Court may tell you about the law — how
good it is, or how bad it is — no matter what the Court may
instruct you on that subject — do not forget one thing, and
that is : That the words charged in the indictment are the
only words that you can take into consideration in this case.
Remember that no matter what else may be in the pamphlet
— no matter what pictures or cartoons there may be of the
gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed this man in the name of
universal liberty and love — do not forget that you have
no right to take one word into account except the exact
words set out in this indictment — that is to say, the words

112 MISCELLANY.

that I have read to you. Upon this point the Court
will instruct you that you have nothing to do with any
other line in that pamphlet ; and I now claim, that should
the Court instruct you that the statute is constitutional,
still I insist that the words set out in this indictment do not
amount to blasphemy.

There is still another point. This statute says: "Who
ever shall willfully speak against." Now, in this case, you
must find that the defendant " willfully " did so and so — that
is to say, that he made the statements attributed to him
knowing that they were not true. If you believe that he
was honest in what he said, then this statute does not touch
him. Even under this statute, a man may give his honest
opinion. Certainly, there is no law that charges a man
with "willfully" being honest — "willfully" telling his real
opinion — " willfully" giving to his fellow-men his thought.

Where a man is charged with larceny, the indictment
must set out that he took the goods or the property with
the intention to steal — with what the law calls the animus
furandi. If he took the goods with the intention to steal,
then he is a thief; but if he took the goods believing them
to be his own, then he is guilty of no offence. So in this
case, whatever was said by the defendant must have been
" willfully " said. And I claim that if you believe that what
the man said was honestly said, you cannot find him guilty
under this statute.

One more point: This statute has been allowed to slum
ber so long, that no man had the right to awaken it. For
more than one hundred years it has slept ; and so far as
New Jersey is concerned, it has been sound asleep since
1664. For the first time it is dug out of its grave. The
breath of life is sought to be breathed into it, to the end
that some people may wreak their vengeance on an honest
man.

Is there any evidence — has there been any — to show that

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 113

the defendant was not absolutely candid in the expression
of his opinions ? Is there one particle of evidence tending
to show that he is not a perfectly honest and sincere man ?
Did the prosecution have the courage to attack his reputa
tion ? No. The State has simply proved to you that he
circulated that pamphlet — that is all.

It was claimed, among other things, that the defendant
circulated this pamphlet among children. There was no
such evidence — not the slightest. The only evidence
about schools, or school-children was, that when the de
fendant talked with the bill-poster, — whose business the
defendant was interfering with, — he asked him something
about the population of the town, and about the schools.
But according to the evidence, and as a matter of fact, not
a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any child, or to any
youth. According to the testimony, the defendant went
into two or three stores, — laid the pamphlets on a show
case, or threw them upon a desk — put them upon a stand
where papers were sold, and in one instance handed a
pamphlet to a man. That is all.

In my judgment, however, there would have been no
harm in giving this pamphlet to every citizen of your place.

Again I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep
for all these years — allowed to sleep by reason of the good
sense and by reason of the tolerant spirit of the State of
New Jersey, should not be allowed to leap into life because
a few are intolerant, or because a few lacked good sense and
judgment. This snake should not be warmed into vicious
life by the blood of anger.

Probably not a man on this jury agrees with me about
the subject of religion. Probably not a member of this
jury thinks that I am right in the opinions that I have en
tertained and have so often expressed. Most of you belong
to some church, and I presume that those who do, have
the good of what they call Christianity at heart. There

114 MISCELLANY.

maybe among you some Methodists. If so, they have read
the history of their church, and they know that when it
was in the minority, it was persecuted, and they know that
they can not read the history of that persecution without
becoming indignant. They know that the early Methodists
were denounced as heretics, as ranters, as ignorant pre
tenders.

There are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know
that there is a tendency in many parts of this country to
persecute a man now because he is a Catholic. They also
know that their church has persecuted in times past, when
ever and wherever it had the power ; and they know that
Protestants, when in power, have always persecuted Catho
lics; and they know, in their hearts, that all persecution,
whether in the name of law, or religion, is monstrous, sav
age, and fiendish.

I presume that each one of you has the good of what you
call Christianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to
acquit this man. If you believe Christianity to be a good,
it never can do any church any good to put a man in jail
for the expression of opinion. Any church that imprisons
\ man because he has used an argument against its creed,
will simply convince the world that it cannot answer the
Argument.

Christianity will never reap any honor, will never reap
any profit, from persecution. It is a poor, cowardly,
dastardly way of answering arguments. No gentleman
will do it — no civilized man ever did do it — no decent hu
man being ever did, or ever will.

I take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a
certain affection, for the State in which you live — that you
take a pride in the Commonwealth of New Jersey. If you
do, I beg of you to keep the record of your State clean.
Allow no verdict to be recorded against the freedom of
speech, At present there is not to be found on the records

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 115

of any inferior court, or on those of the Supreme tribunal
— any case in which a man has been punished for speaking
his sentiments. The records h?ve not been stained — have
not been polluted — with such a verdict.

Keep such a verdict from the Reports of your State —
from the Records of your courts. No jury has yet, in the
State of New Jersey, decided that the lips of honest men are
not free — that there is a manacle upon the brain.

For the sake of your State — for the sake of her reputa
tion throughout the world — for your own sakes — and those
of your children, and their children yet to be — say to the
world that New Jersey shares in the spirit of this age, —
that New Jersey is not a survival of the Dark Ages, — that
New Jersey does not still regard the thumbscrew as an
instrument of progress, — that New Jersey needs no
dungeon to answer the arguments of a free man, and does
not send to the penitentiary, men who think, and men who
speak. Say to the world, that where arguments are with
out foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough in the
brains of her people to feel that such arguments can be
refuted by reason.

For the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the
sake of something of far more value to this world than New
Jersey — for the sake of something of more importance to
mankind than this continent — for the sake of Human
Liberty, for the sake of Free Speech, acquit this man.

What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart,
Liberty is to the soul of man. Without it, there come
suffocation, degradation and death.

In the name of Liberty, I implore — and not only so, but
I insist — that you shall find a verdict in favor of this
defendant. Do not do the slightest thing to stay the march
of human progress. Do not carry us back, even for a
moment, to the darkness of that cruel night that good men
hoped had passed away forever,

Il6 MISCELLANY.

Liberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty,
there remains only barbarism. Without Liberty, there can
be no civilization.

If another man has not the right to think, you have not
even the right to think that he thinks wrong. If every man
has not the right to think, the people of New Jersey had no
right to make a statute, or to adopt a constitution — no jury
has the right to render a verdict, and no court to pass its
sentence.

In other words, without liberty of thought, no human
being has the right to form a judgment. It is impossible
that there should be such a thing as real religion without
liberty. Without liberty there can be no such thing as
conscience, no such word as justice. All human actions —
all good, all bad — have for a foundation the idea of human
liberty, and without Liberty there can be no vice, and there
can be no virtue.

Without Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy
— no love, no hatred, no justice, no progress.

Take the word Liberty from human speech and all the
other words become poor, withered, meaningless sounds —
but with that word realized — with that word understood, the
world becomes a paradise.

Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not
blaming the prosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The
officers of the court are simply doing what they feel to be
their duty. They did not find the indictment. That was
found by the grand jury. The grand jury did not find the
indictment of its own motion. Certain people came before
the grand jury and made their complaint — gave their testi
mony, and upon that testimony, under this statute, the
indictment was found.

While I do not blame these people — they not being on
trial — I do ask you to stand ou the side of right.

I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to dis-

TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY. 117

charge a public duty, than to be absolutely true to con
science, true to judgment, no matter what authority may say,
no matter what public opinion may demand. A man who
stands by the right, against the world, cannot help applaud
ing himself, and saying : " I am an honest man."

I want your verdict — a verdict born of manhood, of
courage ; and I want to send a dispatch to-day to a woman
who is lying sick. I wish you to furnish the words of this
dispatch — only two words — and these two words will fill an
anxious heart with joy. They will fill a soul with light.
It is a very short message — only two words — and I ask you
to furnish them : "Not guilty."

You are expected to do this, because I believe you will
be true to your consciences, true to your best judgment, true
to the best interests of the people of New Jersey, true to
the great cause of Liberty.

I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again,
under the flag of the United States — that flag for which has
been shed the bravest and best blood of the world — under
that flag maintained by Washington, by Jefferson, by
Franklin and by Lincoln — under that flag in defence of
which New Jersey poured out her best and bravest blood —
I hope it will never be necessary again for a man to stand
before a jury and plead for the Liberty of Speech.

NOTE : The Jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty. The Judge imposed a fine
of twenty-five dollars and costs amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel
Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.— (X P. FAERELL.

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.

"All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed."

IN this country it is admitted that the power to govern
resides in the people themselves ; that they are the only
rightful source of authority. For many centuries before the
formation of our Government, before the promulgation of
the Declaration of Independence, the people had but little
voice in the affairs of nations. The source of authority was
not in this world ; kings were not crowned by their sub
jects, and the sceptre was not held by the consent of the
governed. The king sat on his throne by the will of God,
and for that reason was not accountable to the people for
the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people
obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the
priest, was lord of their souls. The government of earth
was patterned after the kingdom on high. God was a su
preme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law, and the king
was a supreme autocrat on earth whose \vill was law. The
God in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and the
king on earth had certain favorites and officers to do his.
These officers were accountable to him, and he was respon
sible to God.

The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance
with the divine plan. The people were not governed by
intelligence, but by threats and promises, by rewards and
punishments. No effort was made to enlighten the common
people ; no one thought of educating a peasant — of develop
ing the mind of a laborer. The people were created to sup
port thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil and

(121)

122 MISCELLANY.

obey — to work and want. They were to be satisfied with
huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their chil
dren must expect no more. In the presence of the king
they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they
groveled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided his
earnings with the state, because he imagined it protected his
body ; he divided his crust with the church, believing that
it protected his soul. He was the prey of Throne and
Altar — one deformed his body, the other his mind — and
these two vultures fed upon his toil. He was taught by the
king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest
to despise the believers in all other religions. He was
made the enemy of all people except his own. He had no
sympathy with the peasants of other lands, enslaved and
plundered like himself. He was kept in ignorance, because
education is the enemy of superstition, and because educa
tion is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.

The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the
good and true of every land — the boundaries of countries
are not the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing
for race, or color, he loves those who speak other languages
and worship other gods. Between him and those who
suffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world,
and extends the hand of friendship to the human race. He
does not bow before a provincial and patriotic god — one who
protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of mankind.

Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has
insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God, and
that it alone had the true religion — that the gods of other
nations were false and fraudulent, and that other religions
were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the seeds
of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled
the flames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those
of a different complexion, with those who knelt at other
altars and expressed their thoughts in other words — and

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. 123

even a difference in garments placed them beyond the
sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of
prejudice and the excuse for hatred.

The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by com
merce. People became somewhat acquainted, and they
found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly distrib
uted. At last, subjects became somewhat acquainted with
kings — peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes, and
it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in
rags and names.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from
politics. They declared that "all governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a
contradiction of the then political ideas of the world ; it was,
as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy — a renunciation
of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the independ
ence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and
priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect
themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied
the authority of every "sacred book," and appealed from the
Providence of God to the Providence of Man.

Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Con
stitution for the great Republic.

What was the office or purpose of that Constitution ?

Admitting that all power came from the people, it was
necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for the pur
pose of ascertaining the will of the people, and second, it
was proper and convenient to designate certain departments
that should exercise certain powers of the Government.
There must be the legislative, the judicial and the executive
departments. Those who make laws should not execute
them. Those who execute laws should not have the power
of absolutely determining their meaning or their constitu-
tio'nality. For these reasons, among others, a Constitution
was adopted.

124 MISCELLANY.

This Constitution also contained a declaration of rights.
It marked out the limitations of discretion, so that in the
excitement of passion, men shall not go beyond the point
designated in the calm moment of reason.

When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to
reason, it is well he should define the limits of power, so
that the waves driven by the storm of passion shall not over
bear the shore.

A constitution is for the government of man in this
world. It is the chain the people put upon their servants,
as well as upon themselves. It defines the limit of power
and the limit of obedience.

It follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution
that cannot be enforced by the power of the state — that is,
by the army and navy. Behind every provision of the Con
stitution should stand the force of the nation. Every
sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.

Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and ac
knowledge the existence and supremacy of God — what
becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how is this
amendment to be enforced ? A constitution does not en
force itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legisla
tion. Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this con
stitutional God ? Can the offender be proceeded against in
the criminal courts ? Can his lips be closed by the power
of the state? Would not this be the inauguration of relig
ious persecution ?

And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the
Constitution, the question naturally arises as to which God
is to have this honor. Shall we select the God of the
Catholics — he who has established an infallible church
presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted
with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in
exceedingly common Latin ? Is it the God of the Presby
terian with the Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. "5

enough to harmonize necessity and responsibility, and who
in some way justifies himself for damning most of his own
children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy
— of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the uni
verse, and small enough to allow the destiny of a soul to
depend on whether the body it inhabited was immersed or
sprinkled?

What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution ? Is
it the God of the Old Testament, who was a believer in
slavery and who justified polygamy ? If slavery was right
then, it is right now ; and if Jehovah was right then, the
Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who
issued a commandment against all art — who was the enemy
of investigation and of free speech ? Is it the God who
commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because
she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are we
to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and pun
ish hundreds of offences with death ? What court, what
tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who is to
make known his will ? In his presence, laws passed by
men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be
as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this
supreme God ? Will there be a supreme tribunal composed
of priests ?

Of course all persons elected to office will either swear
or affirm to support the Constitution. Men who do not
believe in this God, cannot so swear or affirm. Such men
will not be allowed to hold any office of trust or honor. A
God in the Constitution will not interfere with the oaths or
affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only ex
clude honest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent
people know that no one knows whether there is a God or
not. The existence of such a Being is merely a matter of
opinion. Men who believe in the liberty of man, who are
willing to die for the honor of their country, will be ex-

126 MISCELLANY.

eluded from taking any part in the administration of its
affairs. Such a provision would place the country under
the feet of priests.

To recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country
would be the destruction of religious liberty. The God in
the Constitution would have to be protected. There would
be laws against blasphemy, laws against the publication of
honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers
in the mails in which this constitutional God should be
attacked. Our land would be filled with theological spies,
with religious eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles
of the lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious au
thority, would uncoil and crawl.

It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful
and rightful Governor of nations ; the one who ordained
the powers that be. If this God is really the Governor of
nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge him in the Con
stitution. This would not add to his power. If he governs
all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of
men. Having this control, why did he not see to it that he
was recognized in the Constitution of the United States ?
If he had the supreme authority and neglected to put him
self in the Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evi
dence that he did not desire to be there ?

For one, I am not in favor of the God who has "ordained
the powers that be." What have we to say of Russia — of
Siberia ? What can we say of the persecuted and enslaved ?
What of the kings and nobles who live on the stolen labor
of others ? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who
wrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice
earned ?

Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional
amendment? The Confederate States acknowledged God
in their constitution, and yet they were overwhelmed by
a people in whose organic law no reference to God is

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. 127

made. All the kings of the earth acknowledge the exist
ence of God, and God is their ally ; and this belief in God is
used as a means to enslave and rob, to govern and degrade
the people whom they call their subjects.

The Government of the United States is secular. It de
rives its power from the consent of man. It is a Govern
ment with which God has nothing whatever to do — and all
forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact
that the people are the source of authority, should be
abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths — no
man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court
should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal
by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God,
and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A
witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should
be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presi
dents should not issue religious proclamations. They
should not call upon the people to thank God. It is no
part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the
horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Con
stitution of the United States to justify this religious
impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our
Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in
putting the legend upon our money : " In God We Trust ; "
and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legisla
tive proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this
is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to th^
Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the
Constitution of the United States. We have taken the
ground that the people can govern themselves without the
assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the
position that the people are the real and only rightful source
of" authority. We have solemnly declared that the people
must determine what is politically right and what is wrong,

128 MISCELLANY.

aud that their legally expressed will is the supreme law.
This leaves no room for national superstition — no room for
patriotic gods or supernatural beings — and this does away
with the necessity for political prayers.

The government of God has been tried. It was tried in
Palestine several thousand years ago, and the God of the
Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and the people
governed by this God lost their nationality. Theocracy was
tried through the Middle Ages. God was the Governor —
the pope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and
cardinal was armed with credentials from the Most High —
and the result was that the noblest and best were in prisons,
the greatest and grandest perished at the stake. The result
was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whip
ped naked through the streets. The result was that hypoc
risy swayed the sceptre of authority, while honesty lan
guished in the dungeons of the Inquisition.

The government of God was tried in Geneva when John
Calvin was his representative ; and under this government
of God the flames climbed around the limbs and blinded
the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he dared to express
an honest thought. This government of God was tried in
Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown,
that bore, through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre
and assassination. This government of God was established
in New England, and the result was that Quakers were
hanged or burned — the laws of Moses re-enacted and the
'' witch was not suffered to live." The result was that
investigation was a crime, and the expression of an honest
thought a capital offence. This government of God was
established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled, the Moors
were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing
left but the ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this
monster. This government of God was tried in the United
States when slavery was regarded as a divine institution,

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. I2Q

when men and women were regarded as criminals because
they sought for liberty by flight, and when others were
regarded as criminals because they gave them food and
shelter. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and
selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave-traders
were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and up
holding the traffic in human flesh.

We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century
of man. Every effort to really better the condition of man
kind has been opposed by the worshipers of some God.
The church in all ages and among all peoples has been the
consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere and at
all times, it has opposed the liberty of thought and expres
sion. It has been the sworn enemy of investigation and of
intellectual development. It has denied the existence of
facts, the tendency of which was to undermine its power. It
has always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.
It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the
dungeon for Thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church is
as much opposed as it ever was to the mental freedom of
the human race.

Of course, there is a distinction made between churches
and individual members. There have been millions of
Christians who have been believers in liberty and in the
freedom of expression — millions who have fought for the
rights of man — but churches as organizations, have been on
the other side. It is true that churches have fought
churches — that Protestants battled with the Catholics for
what they were pleased to call the freedom of conscience ;
and it is also true that the moment these Protestants
obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of con
science to others.

" Let me show you the difference between the theological
and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one
of the noblest of the human race, Giordano Bruno, was

130 MISCELLANY.

burned at Rome by the Catholic Church — that is to say, by
the " Triumphant Beast." This man had committed certain
crimes — he had publicly stated that there were other worlds
than this — other constellations than ours. He had ventured
the supposition that other planets might be peopled. More
than this, and worse than this, he had asserted the helio
centric theory — that the earth made its annual joifrney
about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that
matter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy
to live, and about his body were piled the fagots of the
Catholic Church. This man, this genius, this pioneer of the
science of the nineteenth century, perished as serenely as
the sun sets. The Infidels of to-day find excuses for his
murderers. They take into consideration the ignorance and
brutality of the times. They remember that the world was
governed by a God who was then the source of all
authority. This is the charity of Infidelity, — of philosophy.
But the church of to-day is so heartless, is still so cold and
cruel, that it can find no excuse for the murdered.

This is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy
— between God and man.

If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate.
There is no room for both. If the people of the great
Republic become superstitious enough and ignorant enough
to put God in the Constitution of the United States, the
experiment of self-government will have failed, and the
great and splendid declaration that " all governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"
will have been denied, and in its place will be found this:
All power comes from God ; priests are his agents, and the
people are their slaves.

Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be
left entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge ot
its accountability to a supposed supreme being. With relig
ion, government has nothing whatever to do. Govern-

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. 131

ment is founded upon force, and force should never inter
fere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should
define the rights of men and their duties toward each other,
and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this
world.

A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel — a nation
is incapable of having opinions upon these subjects. If a
nation is Christian, will all the citizens go to heaven ? If
it is not, will they all be damned ? Of course it is admitted
that the majority of citizens composing a nation may be
lieve or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what they
please. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar
saying, "it has no soul." There can be no such thing as a
Christian corporation. Several Christians may form a
corporation, but it can hardly be said that the corporation
thus formed was included in the atonement. For instance :
Seven Christians form a corporation — that is to say, there
are seven natural persons and one artificial — can it be said
that there are eight souls to be saved ?

No human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough,
or experience enough, to say whether there is, or is not, a
God. Into this darkness Science has not yet carried its
torch. No human being has gone beyond the horizon of
the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural, one
man knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as
another. Upon this question, chimpanzees and cardinals,
apes and popes, are upon- exact equality. The smallest
insect discernible only by the most powerful microscope, is
as familiar with this subject, as the greatest genius that has
been produced by the human race.

Governments and laws are for the preservation of rights
and the regulation of conduct. One man should not be
allowed to interfere with the liberty of another. In the
metaphysical world there should be no interference what
ever. The same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot

132 MISCELLANY.

regulate what is or is not music, what is or what is not
beautiful — and constitutions cannot definitely settle and
determine the perfection of statues, the value of paintings,
or the glory and subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and
constitutions the brain will think. In every direction con
sistent with the well-being and peace of society, there should
be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the
theology of another; neither should a minority, however
small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions of a majority,
however large.

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help —
we need not waste our energies in his defence. It is enough
for us to give to every other human being the liberty we
claim for ourselves. There may or may not be a Supreme
Ruler of the universe — but we are certain that man exists,
and we believe that freedom is the condition of progress ;
that it is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and
that without it man will go back to the den of savagery, and
will become the fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts.

We have tried the government of priests, and we know
that such governments are without mercy. In the admin
istration of theocracy, all the instruments of torture have
been invented. If any man wishes to have God recognized
in the Constitution of our country, let him read the history
of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of
millions of men, women and children have been sacrificed
to placate the wrath, or win the approbation of this God.

There has been in our country a divorce of church and
state. This follows as a natural sequence of the declara
tion that "governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed." The priest was no longer a
necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the princi
ple on which the Republic was founded. He represented,
not the authority of the people, but of some " Power from
on High," and to recognize this other Power was inconsist-

GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION. 133

ent with free government. The founders of the Republic
at that time parted company with the priests, and said to
them : " You may turn your attention to the other world —
we will attend to the affairs of this." Equal liberty was
given to all. But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with
this — he wishes to destroy the liberty of the people — he
wishes a recognition of his God as the source of authority,
to the end that the church may become the supreme
power.

But the sun will not be turned backward. The people of
the United States are intelligent. They no longer believe
implicitly in supernatural religion. They are losing con
fidence in the miracles and marvels of the Dark Ages.
They know the value of the free school. They appreciate
the benefits of science. They are believers in education,
in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion that
the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place
with the necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic,
and the professor of the black art.

We have already compared the benefits of theology and
science. When the theologian governed the world, it was
covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and
cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men,
reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were
clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed
bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a
century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the
middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and
elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological
times. But above and over all this, is the development of
mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average
man of to-day — of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a
naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of
the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies, These bene-

134 MISCELLANY.

fits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests.
They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars —
neither were they searched for with holy candles. They
were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor
did they come in answer to superstitious supplication.
They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, ob
servation and experience — and for them all, man is in
debted to man.

Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln.
Let us insist that this, the Republic, is "A government
of the people, by the people, and for the people." — The Arena,
Boston, Mass., January, 1890.

A REPLY TO BISHOP SPALDING.*

BISHOP SPALDING admits that " The introduction of
the question of religion would not only have brought
discord into the Constitutional convention, but would have
also engendered strife throughout the land." Undoubtedly
this is true. I am compelled to admit this, for the reason
that in all times and in all lands the introduction of the ques
tion of religion has brought discord and has engendered
strife.

He also says: "In the presence of such danger, like
wise men and patriots, they avoided irritating subjects " — the
irritating subject being the question of religion. I admit
that it always has been, and promises always to be, an
"irritating subject," because it is not a subject decided by
reason, but by ignorance, prejudice, arrogance and super
stition. Consequently he says: " It was prudence, then,
not skepticism, which induced them to leave the question
of religion to the several States." The Bishop admits that
it was prudent for the founders of this Government to leave
the question of religion entirely to the States. It was
prudent because the question of religion is irritating — be
cause religious questions engender strife and hatred. Now,
if it was prudent for the framers of the Constitution to leave
religion out of the Constitution, and allow that question to
be settled by the several States themselves under that clause
preventing the establishment of religion or the free exercise
thereof, why is it not wise still — why is it not prudent
now?

•An unfinished reply to Bishop J. L. Spalding's article "God in the Constitu
tion," which appeared in the Arena. Boston, Mass., April, 1890. (137)

138 MISCELLANY.

My article was written against the introduction of re
ligion into the Constitution of the United States. I am
opposed to a recognition of God and of Jesus Christ in that
instrument ; and the reason I am opposed to it is, that: "The
introduction of the question of religion would not only
bring discord, but would engender strife throughout the
land." I am opposed to it for the reason that religion is an
"irritating subject," and also because if it was prudent when
the Constitution was made, to leave God out, it is prudent
now to keep him out.

The Bishop is mistaken — as bishops usually are — when
he says : " Had our fathers been skeptics, or anti-theists,
they would not have required the President and Vice-Pres
ident, the Senators and Representatives in Congress, and all
executive and judicial officers of the United States, to call
God to witness that they intended to perform their duties
under the Constitution like honest men and loyal citizens."

The framers of the Constitution did no such thing. They
allowed every officer, from the President down, either to
swear or to affirm, and those who affirmed did not call God to
witness. In other words, our Constitution allowed every
officer to abolish the oath and to leave God out of the
question.

The Bishop informs us, however, that : " The causes
which would have made it unwise to introduce any phase of
religious controversy into the Constitutional convention
have long since ceased to exist." Is there as much division
now in the religious world as then? Has the Catholic
Church thrown away the differences between it and the
Protestants? Are we any better friends to-day than we
were in 1789 ? As a matter of fact, is there not now a cause
which did not to the same extent exist then ? Have we not
in the United States, millions of people who believe in no
religion whatever, and who regard all creeds as the work of
ignorance and superstition ?

REPLY TO BISHOP SPAtDING. t$0

The trouble about putting God in the Constitution in
1789 was, that they could not agree on the God to go in ;
and the reason why our fathers did not unite church and
state was, that they could not agree on which church was to
be the bride. The Catholics of Maryland certainly would
not have permitted the nation to take the Puritan Church,
neither would the Presbyterians of Pennsylvania have
agreed to this, nor would the Episcopalians of New York,
or of any Southern State. Each church said : " Marry me,
or die a bachelor."

The Bishop asks whether there are '" still reasons why
an express recognition of God's sovereignty and providence
should not form part of the organic law of the land " ? I
ask, were there any reasons, in 1789, why an express recog
nition of God's sovereignty and providence should not form
part of the organic law of the land ? Did not the Bishop
say, only a few lines back of that, "that the introduction of
the question of religion into that body would have brought
discord, and would have engendered strife throughout the
land." What is the " question of religion " to which he re
ferred? Certainly "the recognition of God's sovereignty
and providence," with the addition of describing the God as
the author of the supposed providence. Thomas Jefferson
would have insisted on having a God in the Constitution
who was not the author of the Old and New Testaments.
Benjamin Franklin would have asked for the same God;
and on that question John Adams would have voted yes.
Others would have voted for a Catholic God — others for an
Episcopalian, and so on, until the representatives of the
various creeds were exhausted.

I took the ground, and I still take the ground, that there
is nothing in the Constitution that cannot on occasion be
enforced by the army and navy — that is to say, that cannot
be 'defended and enforced by the sword. Suppose God is
acknowledged in the Constitution, and somebody denies the

I4O MISCELLANY.

existence of this God — what are you to do with him?
Every man elected to office must swear or affirm that he
will support the Constitution. Can one who does not be
lieve in this God, conscientiously take such oath, or make
such affirmation ?

The effect, then, of such a clause in the Constitution
would be to drive from public life all except the believers
in this God, and this providence. The Government would
be in fact a theocracy and would resort for its preservation
to one of the old forms of religious persecution.

I took the ground in my article, and still maintain it, that
all intelligent people know that no one knows whether
there is a God or not. This cannot be answered by saying,
" that nearly all intelligent men in every age, including our
own, have believed in God and have held that they had
rational grounds for such faith." This is what is called a
departure in pleading — it is a shifting of the issue. I did
not say that intelligent people do not believe in the exist
ence of God. What I did say is, that intelligent people
know that no one knows whether there is a God or not.

It is not true that we know the conditions of thought.
Neither is it true that we know that these conditions are
unconditioned. There is no such thing as the unconditioned
conditional. We might as well say that the relative is un
related — that the unrelated is the absolute — and therefore
that there is no difference between the absolute and the
relative.

The Bishop says we cannot know the relative without
knowing the absolute. The probability is that he means
that we cannot know the relative without admitting the ex
istence of the absolute, and that we cannot know the
phenomenal without taking the noumenal for granted.
Still, we can neither know the absolute nor the noumenal
for the reason that our mind is limited to relations.

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.*

IN this brief address, the object is to suggest — there being
no time to present arguments at length. The subject has
been chosen for the reason that it is one that should interest
the legal profession, because that profession to a certain
extent controls and shapes the legislation of our country
and fixes definitely the scope and meaning of all laws.

Lawyers ought to be foremost in legislative and judicial
reform, and of all men they should understand the philos
ophy of mind, the causes of human action, and the real
science of government.

It has been said that the three pests of a community are :
A priest without charity ; a doctor without knowledge, and
a lawyer without a sense of justice.

I.

All nations seem to have had supreme confidence in the
deterrent power of threatened and inflicted pain. They
have regarded punishment as the shortest road to reforma
tion. Imprisonment, torture, death, constituted a trinity
under whose protection society might feel secure.

In addition to these, nations have relied on confiscation
and degradation, on maimings, whippings, brandings, and
exposures to public ridicule and contempt. Connected with
the court of justice was the chamber of torture. The in
genuity of man was exhausted in the construction of instru
ments that would surely reach the most sensitive nerve. All
this was done in the interest of civilization — for the protec
tion of virtue, and the well-being of states. Curiously

•An Address delivered before the State Bar Association at Albany, N. Y., January
81, 1890. (148) '

144 MISCELLANY.

enough, the fact is that, no matter how severe the punish
ments were, the crimes increased.

It was found that the penalty of death made little differ
ence. Thieves and highwaymen, heretics and blasphemers,
went on their way. It was then thought necessary to add
to this penalty of death, and consequently, the convicted
were tortured in every conceivable way before execution.
They were broken on the wheel — their joints dislocated on
the rack. They were suspended by their legs and arms,
while immense weights were placed upon their breasts.
Their flesh was burned and torn with hot irons. They were
roasted at slow fires. They were buried alive — given to
wild beasts — molten lead was poured in their ears — their
eye-lids were cut off and the wretches placed with their
faces toward the sun — others were securely bound, so that they
could move neither hand nor foot, and over their stomachs
were placed inverted bowls ; under these bowls rats were con
fined; on top of the bowls were heaped coals of fire, so that the
rats in their efforts to escape would gnaw into the bowels of
the victims. They were staked out on the sands of the sea,
to be drowned by the slowly rising tide — and every means
by which human nature can be overcome slowly, painfully
and terribly, was conceived and carried into execution.
And yet the number of so-called criminals increased.

For petty offences men were degraded — given to the
mercy of the rabble. Their ears were cut off, their nostrils
slit, their foreheads branded. They were tied to the tails of
carts and flogged from one town to another. And yet, in
?pite of all, the poor wretches obstinately refused to become
good and useful citizens.

Degradation has been thoroughly tried, with its maimings
and brandings, and the result was that those who inflicted
the punishments became as degraded as their victims.

Only a few years ago there were more than two hundred
offences in Great Britain punishable by death. The gal-

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 145

lows-tree bore fruit through all the year, and the hangman
was the busiest official in the kingdom — but the criminals
increased.

Crimes were committed to punish crimes, and crimes
were committed to prevent crimes. The world has been
filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips,
with crosses and gibbets, with thumbscrews and racks, with
hangmen and headsmen — and yet these frightful means and
instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for
the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that
governments have committed far more crimes than they
have prevented.

Why is it that men will suffer and risk so much for the
sake of stealing? Why will they accept degradation and
punishment and infamy as their portion ? Some will answer
this question by an appeal to the dogma of original sin;
others by saying that millions of men and women are under
the control of fiends — that they are actually possessed by
devils; and others will declare that all these people act from
choice — that they are possessed of free wills, of intelligence
— that they know and appreciate consequences, and that, in
spite of all, they deliberately prefer a life of crime.

II.

Have we not advanced far enough intellectually to deny
the existence of chance? Are we not satisfied now that
back of every act and thought and dream and fancy is an
efficient cause ? Is anything, or can anything, be produced
that is not necessarily produced ? Can the fatherless and
motherless exist? Is there not a connection between all
events, and is not every act related to all other acts? Is it
not possible, is it not probable, is it not true, that the
actions of all men are determined by countless causes over
which they have no positive control ?

Certain it in that men do not prefer unhappiness to joy.

146 MISCELLANY.

It can hardly be said that man intends permanently to injure
himself, and that he does what he does in order that he may
live a life of misery. On the other hand, we must take it
for granted that man endeavors to better his own condition,
and seeks, although by mistaken ways, his own well-being.
The poorest man would like to be rich — the sick desire
health — and no sane man wishes to win the contempt and
hatred of his fellow-men. Every human being prefers
liberty to imprisonment.

Are the brains of criminals exactly like the brains of
honest men ? Have criminals the same ambitions, the same
standards of happiness or of well-being? If a difference
exists in brain, will that in part account for the difference
in character ? Is there anything in heredity ? Are vices
as carefully transmitted by nature as virtues? Does each
man in some degree bear burdens imposed by ancestors?
We know that diseases of flesh and blood are transmitted —
that the child is the heir of physical deformity. Are dis
eases of the brain — are deformities of the soul, of the mind,
also transmitted ?

We not only admit, but we assert, that in the physical
world there are causes and effects. We insist that there is
and can be no effect without an efficient cause. When any
thing happens in that world, we are satisfied that it was
naturally and necessarily produced. The causes may be
obscure, but we as implicitly believe in their existence as
when we know positively what they are. In the physical
world we have taken the ground that there is nothing
miraculous — that everything is natural — and if we cannot
explain it, we account for our inability to explain, by our
own ignorance. Is it not possible, is it not probable, that
what is true in the physical world is equally true in the
realm of mind — in that strange world of passion and desire ?
Is it possible that thoughts or desires or passions are the
children of chance, born of nothing ? Can we conceive of

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 147

Nothing as a force, or as a cause ? If, then, there is behind
every thought and desire and passion an efficient cause, we
can, in part at least, account for the actions of men.

A certain man under certain conditions acts in a certain
way. There are certain temptations that he, with his
brain, with his experience, with his intelligence, with his
surroundings cannot withstand. He is irresistibly led to
do, or impelled to do, certain things ; and there are other
things that he can not do. If we change the conditions of
this man, his actions will be changed. Develop his mind,
give him new subjects of thought, and you change the
man ; and the man being changed, it follows of necessity
that his conduct will be different.

In civilized countries the struggle for existence is severe
— the competition far sharper than in savage lands. The
consequence is that there are many failures. These
failures lack, it may be, opportunity or brain or moral
force or industry, or something without which, under the
circumstances, success is impossible. Certain lines of con
duct are called legal, and certain others criminal, and the
men who fail in one line may be driven to the other. How
do we know that it is possible for all people to be honest ?
Are we certain that all people can tell the truth ? Is it
possible for all men to be generous or candid or cour
ageous ?

I am perfectly satisfied that there are millions of people
incapable of committing certain crimes, and it may be true
that there are millions of others incapable of practicing
certain virtues. We do not blame a man because he is not
a sculptor, a poet, a painter, or a statesman. We say he
has not the genius. Are we certain that it does not re
quire genius to be good ? Where is the man with intelli
gence enough to take into consideration the circumstances
of each individual case? Who has the mental balance
with which to weigh the forces of heredity, of want, of

148 MISCELLANY.

temptation, — and who can analyze with certainty the mys
terious motions of the brain? Where and what are the
sources of vice and virtue ? In what obscure and shadowy
recesses of the brain are passions born ? And what is it
that for the moment destroys the sense of right and
wrong ?

Who knows to what extent reason becomes the prisoner
of passion — of some strange and wild desire, the seeds of
which were sown, it may be, thousands of years ago in the
breast of some savage? To what extent do antecedents
and surroundings affect the moral sense ?

Is it not possible that the tyranny of governments, the
injustice of nations, the fierceness of what is called the
law, produce in the individual a tendency in the same
direction ? Is it not true that the citizen is apt to imitate
his nation ? Society degrades its enemies — the individual
seeks to degrade his. Society plunders its enemies, and
now and then the citizen has the desire to plunder his.
Society kills its enemies, and possibly sows in the heart
of some citizen the seeds of murder.

III.

Is it not true that the criminal is a natural product, and
that society unconsciously produces these children of vice ?
Can we not safely take another step, and say that the crim
inal is a victim, as the diseased and insane and deformed
are victims ? We do not think of punishing a man because
he is afflicted with disease — our desire is to find a cure. We
send him, not to the penitentiary, but to the hospital, to
an asylum. We do this because we recognize the fact that
disease is naturally produced — that it is inherited from
parents, or the result of unconscious negligence, or it may
be of recklessness—but instead of punishing, we pity. If
there are diseases of the mind, of the brain, as there are
diseases of the body ; and if these diseases of the mind,

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 149

these deformities of the brain, produce, and necessarily
produce, what we call vice, why should we punish the
criminal, and pity those who are physically diseased?

Socrates, in some respects at least one of the wisest of
men, said : " It is strange that you should not be angry
when you meet a man with an ill-conditioned body, and
yet be vexed when you encounter one with an ill-con
ditioned soul."

We know that there are deformed bodies, and we are
equally certain that there are deformed minds.

Of course, society has the right to protect itself, no mat
ter whether the persons who attack its well-being are re
sponsible or not, no matter whether they are sick in mind,
or deformed in brain. The right of self-defence exists,
not only in the individual, but in society. The great
question is, How shall this right of self-defence be exer
cised ? What spirit shall be in the nation, or in society —
the spirit of revenge, a desire to degrade and punish and
destroy, or a spirit born of the recognition of the fact that
criminals are victims ?

The world has thoroughly tried confiscation, degradation,
imprisonment, torture and death, and thus far the world
has failed. In this connection I call your attention to the
following statistics gathered in our own country :

In 1850, we had twenty-three millions of people, and be
tween six and seven thousand prisoners.

In 1860 — thirty -one millions of people, and nineteen
thousand prisoners.

In 1870 — thirty-eight millions of people, and thirty-two
thousand prisoners.

In 1880 — fifty millions of people, and fifty -eight thou
sand prisoners.

It may be curious to note the relation between insanity,
pauperism and crime :

In 1850, there were fifteen thousand insane; in 1860,

150 MISCELLANY.

tweuty-four thousand; in 1870, thirty-seven thousand ; in
1880, ninety-one thousand.

In the light of these statistics, we are not succeeding in
doing away with crime. There were in 1880, fifty-eight
thousand prisoners, and in the same year fifty-seven thou
sand homeless children, and sixty-six thousand paupers
in almshouses.

Is it possible that we must go to the same causes for
these effects?

IV.

There is no reformation in degradation. To mutilate a
criminal is to say to all the world that he is a criminal,
and to render his reformation substantially impossible.
Whoever is degraded by society becomes its enemy. The
seeds of malice are sown in his heart, and to the day of his
death he will hate the hand that sowed the seeds.

There is also another side to this question. A punish
ment that degrades the punished will degrade the man who
inflicts the punishment, and will degrade the government
that procures the infliction. The whipping-post pollutes,
not only the whipped, but the whipper, and not only the
whipper, but the community at large. Wherever its
shadow falls it degrades.

If, then, there is no reforming power in degradation — no
deterrent power — for the reason that the degradation of the
criminal degrades the community, and in this way pro
duces more criminals, then the next question is, Whether
there is any reforming power in torture ? The trouble with
this is that it hardens and degrades to the last degree the
ministers of the law. Those who are not affected by the
agonies of the bad will in a little time care nothing for the
sufferings of the good. There seems to be a little of the
wild beast in men — a something that is fascinated by suffer
ing, and that delights in inflicting pain. When a govern-

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 15!

ment tortures, it is in the same state of mind that the
criminal was when he committed his crime. It requires as
much malice in those who execute the law, to torture a
criminal, as it did in the criminal to torture and kill his
victim. The one was a crime by a person, the other by a
nation.

There is something in injustice, in cruelty, that tends to
defeat itself. There were never as many traitors in Eng
land as when the traitor was drawn and quartered — when
he was tortured in every possible way — when his limbs,
torn and bleeding, were given to the fury of mobs or ex
hibited pierced by pikes or hung in chains. These fright
ful punishments produced intense hatred of the govern
ment, and traitors continued to increase until they became
powerful enough to decide what treason was and who
the traitors were, and to inflict the same torments on
others.

Think for a moment of what man has suffered in the
cause of crime. Think of the millions that have been im
prisoned, impoverished and degraded because they were
thieves and forgers, swindlers and cheats. Think for a
moment of what they have endured — of the difficulties
under which they have pursued their calling, and it will be
exceedingly hard to believe that they were sane and natural
people possessed of good brains, of minds well-poised, and
that they did what they did from a choice unaffected by
heredity and the countless circumstances that tend to de
termine the conduct of human beings.

The other day I was asked these questions : " Has there
been as much heroism displayed for the right as for the
wrong? Has virtue had as many martyrs as vice? "

For hundreds of years the world has endeavored to de
stroy the good by force. The expression of honest thought
was regarded as the greatest of crimes. Dungeons were
filled by the noblest and the best, and the blood of the

152 MISCELLANY.

bravest was shed by the sword or consumed by flame. It
was impossible to destroy the longing in the heart of man
for liberty and truth. Is it not possible that brute force
and cruelty and revenge, imprisonment, torture and death
are as impotent to do away with vice as to destroy
virtue ?

In our country there has been for many years a growing
feeling that convicts should neither be degraded nor tor
tured. It was provided in the Constitution of the United
States that " cruel and unusual punishments should not be
inflicted." Benjamin Franklin took great interest in the
treatment of prisoners, being a thorough believer in the
reforming influence of justice, having no confidence what
ever in punishment for punishment's sake.

To me it has always been a mystery how the average
man, knowing something of the weakness of human nature,
something of the temptations to which he himself has been
exposed — remembering the evil of his life, the things he
would have done had there been opportunity, had he ab
solutely known that discovery would be impossible —
should have feelings of hatred toward the imprisoned.

Is it possible that the average man assaults the criminal
in a spirit of self-defence ? Does he wish to convince his
neighbors that the evil thought and impulse were never in
his mind ? Are his words a shield that he uses to protect
himself from suspicion ? For my part, I sympathize sin
cerely with all failures, with the victims of society, with
those who have fallen, with the imprisoned, with the hope
less, with those who have been stained by verdicts of
guilty, and with those who, in the moment of passion have
destroyed, as with a blow, the future of their lives.

How perilous, after all, is the state of man. It is the
work of a life to build a great and splendid character. It
is the work of a moment to destroy it utterly, from turret
to foundation stone. How cruel hypocrisy is !

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 153

V.

Is there any remedy ? Can anything be done for the
reformation of the criminal ?

He should be treated with kindness. Every right should
be given him, consistent with the safety of society. He
should neither be degraded nor robbed. The State should
set the highest and noblest example. The powerful should
never be cruel, and in the breast of the supreme there
should be no desire for revenge.

A man in a moment of want steals the property of
another, and he is sent to the penitentiary — first, as it is
claimed, for the purpose of deterring others ; and secondly,
of reforming him. The circumstances of each individual
case are rarely inquired into. Investigation stops when
the simple fact of the larceny has been ascertained. No
distinctions are made except as between first and sub-
sequent offences. Nothing is allowed for surroundings.

All will admit that the industrious must be protected. In
this world it is necessary to work. Labor is the foundation
of all prosperity. Larceny is the enemy of industry. So
ciety has the right to protect itself. The question is, Has it
the right to punish ? — has it the right to degrade ? — or
should it endeavor to reform the convict ?

A man is taken to the penitentiary. He is clad in the
garments of a convict. He is degraded — he loses his name
— he is designated by a number. He is no longer treated as
a human being — he becomes the slave of the State. Nothing
is done for his improvement — nothing for his reformation.
He is driven like a beast of burden; robbed of his labor;
leased, it may be, by the State to a contractor, who gets out
of his hands, out of his muscles, out of his poor brain, all the
toil that he can. He is not allowed to speak with a fellow-
" prisoner. At night he is alone in his cell. The relations
that should exist between men are destroyed. He is a con
vict. He is no longer worthy to associate even with his

154 MISCELLANY.

keepers. The jailer is immensely his superior, and the man
who turns the key upon him at night regards himself, in
comparison, as a model of honesty, of virtue and manhood.
The convict is pavement on which those who watch him
walk. He remains for the time of his sentence, and when
that expires he goes forth a branded man. He is given
money enough to pay his fare back to the place from whence
he came.

What is the condition of this man ? Can he get employ
ment ? Not if he honestly states who he is and where he
has been. The first thing he does is to deny his personality,
to assume a name. He endeavors by telling falsehoods to
lay the foundation for future good conduct. The average
man does not wish to employ an ex-convict, because the
average man has no confidence in the reforming power of
the penitentiary. He believes that the convict who comes
out is worse than the convict who went in. He knows that
in the penitentiary the heart of this man has been hardened
— that he has been subjected to the torture of perpetual
humiliation — that he has been treated like a ferocious
beast ; and so he believes that this ex-convict has in his
h^art hatred for society, that he feels he has been degraded
and robbed. Under these circumstances, what avenue is
opened to the ex-convict ? If he changes his name, there
will be some detective, some officer of the law, some meddle
some wretch, who will betray his secret. He is then dis
charged. He seeks employment again, and he must seek it
by again telling what is not true. He is again detected and
again discharged. And finally he becomes convinced that
he cannot live as an honest man. He naturally drifts back
into the society of those who have had a like experience ;
and the result is that in a little while he again stands in the
dock, charged with the commission of another crime.
A^ain he is sent to the penitentiary — and this is the end.
H^ feels that his day is done, that the future has only deg
radation for him.

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 155

The men in the penitentiaries do not work for themselves.
Their labor belongs to others. They have no interest in
their toil — no reason for doing the best they can — and the
result is that the product of their labor is poor. This prod
uct comes in competition with the work of mechanics,
honest men, who have families to support, and the cry is
that convict labor takes the bread from the mouths of vir
tuous people.

VI.

Why should the State take without compensation the
labor of these men ; and why should they, after having been
imprisoned for years, be turned out without the means of
support ? Would it not be far better, far more economical,
to pay these men for their labor, to lay aside their earnings
from day to day, from month to month, and from year to
year — to put this money at interest, so that when the con
vict is released after five years of imprisonment he will have
several hundred dollars of his own — not merely money
enough to pay his way back to the place from which he was
sent, but enough to make it possible for him to commence
business on his own account, enough to keep the wolf of
crime from the door of his heart ?

Suppose the convict comes out with five hundred dollars.
This would be to most of that class a fortune. It would
form a breastwork, a fortress, behind which the man could
fight temptation. This would give him food and raiment,
enable him to go to some other State or country where he
could redeem himself. If this were done, thousands of
convicts would feel under immense obligation to the Govern
ment. They would think of the penitentiary as the place in
which they were saved — in which they were redeemed — and
.they would feel that the verdict of guilty rescued them from
the abyss of crime. Under these circumstances, the law
would appear beneficent, and the heart of the poor convict,

156 MISCELLANY.

instead of being filled with malice, would overflow with
gratitude. He would see the propriety of the course pur
sued by the Government. He would recognize and feel
and experience the benefits of this course, and the result
would be good, not only to him, but to the nation as well.
If the convict worked for himself, he would do the best he
could, and the wares produced in the penitentiaries would
not cheapen the labor of other men.

VII.

There are, however, men who pursue crime as a vocation
— as a profession — men who have been convicted again
and again, and who will persist in using the liberty of in
tervals to prey upon the rights of others. What shall be
done with these men and women ?

Put one thousand hardened thieves on an island — compel
them to produce what they eat and use — and I am almost
certain that a large majority would be opposed to theft.
Those who worked would not permit those who did not, to
steal the result of their labor. In other words, self-preser
vation would be the dominant idea, and these men would in
stantly look upon the idlers as the enemies of their society.

Such a community would be self-supporting. Let women
of the same class be put by themselves. Keep the sexes ab
solutely apart. Those who are beyond the power of refor
mation should not have the liberty to reproduce themselves.
Those who cannot be reached by kindness — by justice —
those who under no circumstances are willing to do their
share, should be separated. They should dwell apart, and
dying, should leave no heirs.

What shall be done with the slayers of their fellow-men
— with murderers? Shall the nation take life?

It has been contended that the death penalty deters
others — that it has far more terror than imprisonment for
life. What is the effect of the example set by a nation ? Is

' CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 157

not the tendency to harden and degrade not only those who
inflict and those who witness, but the entire community as
well?

A few years ago a man was hanged in Alexandria,
Virginia. One who witnessed the execution, on that very
day, murdered a peddler in the Smithsonian grounds at
Washington. He was tried and executed, and one who wit
nessed his hanging went home, and on the same day mur
dered his wife.

The tendency of the extreme penalty is to prevent con
viction. In the presence of death it is easy for a jury
to find a doubt. Technicalities become important, and
absurdities, touched with mercy, have the appearance for
a moment of being natural and logical. Honest and con
scientious men dread a final and irrevocable step. If the
penalty were imprisonment for life, the jury would feel
that if any mistake were made it could be rectified ; but
where the penalty is death a mistake is fatal. A conscien
tious man takes into consideration the defects of human
nature — the uncertainty of testimony, and the countless
shadows that dim and darken the understanding, and re
fuses to find a verdict that, if wrong, cannot be righted.

The death penalty, inflicted by the Government, is a
perpetual excuse for mobs.

The greatest danger in a Republic is a mob, and as
long as States inflict the penalty of death, mobs will follow
the example. If the State does not consider life sacred,
the mob, with ready rope, will strangle the suspected.
The mob will say : " The only difference is in the trial ;
the State does the same — we know the man is guilty — why
should time be wasted in technicalities ? " In other
words, why may not the mob do quickly that which the
. State does slowly ?

Every execution tends to harden the public heart — tends
to lessen the sacreduess of human life. In many States of

158 MISCELLANY.

this Union the mob is supreme. For certain offences the
mob is expected to lynch the supposed criminal. It is the
duty of every citizen — and as it seems to me especially of
every lawyer — to do what he can to destroy the mob spirit.
One would think that men would be afraid to commit any
crime in a community where the mob is in the ascendency,
and yet, such are the contradictions and subtleties of
human nature, that it is exactly the opposite. And there
is another thing in this connection — the men who consti
tute the mob are, as a rule, among the worst, the lowest,
and the most depraved.

A few years ago, in Illinois, a man escaped from jail, and,
in escaping, shot the sheriff. He was pursued, overtaken
— lynched. The man who put the rope around his neck
was then out on bail, having been indicted for an assault
to murder. And after the poor wretch was dead, another
man climbed the tree from which he dangled and, in
derision, put a cigar in the mouth of the dead ; and this
man was on bail, having been indicted for larceny.

Those who are the fiercest to destroy and hang their
fellow-men for having committed crimes, are, for the most
part, at heart, criminals themselves.

As long as nations meet on the fields of war — as long as
the}' sustain the relations of savages to each other — as long
as they put the laurel and the oak on the brows of those
who kill — just so long will citizens resort to violence,
and the quarrels of individuals be settled by dagger and
revolver.

VIII.

If we are to change the conduct of men, we must change
their conditions. Extreme poverty and crime go hand in
hand. Destitution multiplies temptations and destroys
the finer feelings. The bodies and souls of men are apt to
be clad in like garments. If the body is covered with
rags, the soul is generally in the same condition. Self-

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 159

respect is gone — the man looks down — he has neither hope
nor courage. He becomes sinister — he envies the prosper
ous — hates the fortunate, and despises himself.

As long as children are raised in the tenement and gut
ter, the prisons will be full. The gulf between the rich
and poor will grow wider and wider. One will depend
on cunning, the other on force. It is a great question
whether those who live in luxury can afford to allow others
to exist in want. The value of property depends, not on
the prosperity of the few, but on the prosperity of a very
large majority. Life and property must be secure, or that
subtle thing called "value" takes its leave. The poverty
of the many is a perpetual menace. If we expect a pros
perous and peaceful country, the citizens must have homes.
The more homes, the more patriots, the more virtue, and
the more security for all that gives worth to life.

We need not repeat the failures of the old world. To
divide lands among successful generals, or among favorites
of the crown, to give vast estates for services rendered in
war, is no worse than to allow men of great wealth to pur
chase and hold vast tracts of land. The result is precisely
the same — that is to say, a nation composed of a few
landlords and of many tenants — the tenants resorting from
time to time to mob violence, and the landlords depending
upon a standing army. The property of no man, however,
should be taken for either private or public use without
just compensation and in accordance with law. There is
in the State what is known as the right of eminent domain.
The State reserves to itself the power to take the land of
any private citizen for a public use, paying to that private
citizen a just compensation to be legally ascertained.
When a corporation wishes to build a railway, it exercises
this right of eminent domain, and where the owner of land
refuses to sell a right of way, or land for the establishment
of stations or shops, and the corporation proceeds to con-

160 MISCELLANY.

demn the land to ascertain its value, and when the amount
thus ascertained is paid, the property vests in the corpora
tion. This power is exercised because in the estimation
of the people the construction of a railway is a public good.

I believe that this power should be exercised in another
direction. It would be well as it seems to me, for the Legis
lature to fix the amount of land that a private citizen may
own, that will not be subject to be taken for the use of
which I am about to speak. The amount to be thus held
will depend upon many local circumstances, to be decided
by each State for itself. Let me suppose that the amount
of land that may be held for a farmer for cultivation has
been fixed at one hundred and sixty acres — and suppose
that A has several thousand acres. B wishes to buy one
hundred and sixty acres or less of this land, for the purpose
of making himself a home. A refuses to sell. Now, I
believe that the law should be so that B can invoke this
right of eminent domain, and file his petition, have the case
brought before a jury, or before commissioners, who shall
hear the evidence and determine the value, and on the pay
ment of the amount the land shall belong to B.

I would extend the same law to lots and houses in cities
and villages — the object being to fill our country with the
owners of homes, so that every child shall have a fireside,
every father and mother a roof, provided they have the
intelligence, the energy and the industry to acquire the
necessary means.

Tenements and flats and rented lands are, in my judg
ment, the enemies of civilization. They make the rich
richer, and the poor poorer. They put a few in palaces,
but they put many in prisons.

I would go a step further than this. I would exempt
homes of a certain value not only from levy and sale, but
from every kind of taxation, State and National — so that
these poor people would feel that they were in partnership

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. l6l

with nature — that some of the land was absolutely theirs,
and that no one could drive them from their home — so that
mothers could feel secure. If the home increased in value,
and exceeded the limit, then taxes could be paid on the
excess; and if the home were sold, I would have the money
realized exempt for a certain time in order that the family
should have the privilege of buying another home.

The home, after all, is the unit of civilization, of good
government; and to secure homes for a great majority of
our citizens, would be to lay the foundation of our Govern
ment deeper and broader and stronger than that of any
nation that has existed among men.

IX.

No one places a higher value upon the free school than I
do ; and no one takes greater pride in the prosperity of our
colleges and universities. But at the same time, much that is
called education simply unfits men successfully to fight the
battle of life. Thousands are to-day studying things that
will be of exceedingly little importance to them or to others.
Much valuable time is wasted in studying languages that
long ago were dead, and histories in which there is no truth.

There was an idea in the olden time — and it is not yet
dead — that whoever was educated ought not to work ; that
he should use his head and not his hands. Graduates were
ashamed to be found engaged in manual labor, in plough
ing fields, in sowing or in gathering grain. To this manly
kind of independence they preferred the garret and the pre
carious existence of an unappreciated poet, borrowing their
money from their friends, and their ideas from the dead.
The educated regarded the useful as degrading — they were
willing to stain their souls to keep their hands white.

The object of all education should be to increase the use-

' fulness of man — usefulness to himself and others. Every

human being should be taught that his first duty is to take

care of himself, and that to be self-respecting he must be

1 62 MISCELLANY.

self-supporting. To live on the labor of others, either by
force which enslaves, or by cunning which robs, or by bor
rowing or begging, is wholly dishonorable. Every man
should be taught some useful art. His hands should be
educated as well as his head. He should be taught to deal
with things as they are — with life as it is. This would
give a feeling of independence, which is the firmest founda
tion of honor, of character. Every man knowing that he is
useful, admires himself.

In all the schools children should be taught to work in
wood and iron, to understand the construction and use of
machinery, to become acquainted with the great forces that
man is using to do his work. The present system of edu
cation teaches names, not things. It is as though we
should spend years in learning the names of cards, without
playing a game.

In this way boys would learn their aptitudes — would
ascertain what they were fitted for — what they could do. It
would not be a guess, or an experiment, but a demonstra
tion. Education should increase a boy's chances for getting
a living. The real good of it is to get food and roof and
raiment, opportunity to develop the mind and the body and
live a full and ample life.

The more real education, the less crime — and the more
homes, the fewer prisons.

X.

The fear of punishment may deter some, the fear of ex
posure others ; but there is no real reforming power in fear
or punishment. Men cannot be tortured into greatness, into
goodness. All this, as I said before, has been thoroughly
tried. The idea that punishment was the only relief, found
its limit, its infinite, in the old doctrine of eternal pain ;
but the believers in that dogma stated distinctly that the
victims never would be, and never could be, reformed.

As men become civilized they become capable of greater

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 163

pain and of greater joy. To the extent that the average
man is capable of enjoying or suffering, to that extent he
has sympathy with others. The average man, the more
enlightened he becomes, the more apt he is to put himself
in the place of another. He thinks of his prisoner, of his
employe, of his tenant — and he even thinks beyond these ;
he thinks of the community at large. As man becomes
civilized he takes more and more into consideration circum
stances and conditions. He gradually loses faith in the
old ideas and theories that every man can do as he wills,
and in the place of the word " wills," he puts the word
" must." The time comes to the intelligent man when in
the place of punishments he thinks of consequences,
results — that is to say, not something inflicted by some
other power, but something necessarily growing out of
what is done. The clearer men perceive the consequences
of actions, the better they will be. Behind consequences
we place no personal will, and consequently do not regard
them as inflictions, or punishments. Consequences, no
matter how severe they may be, create in the mind no feel
ing of resentment, no desire for revenge. We do not feel
bitterly toward the fire because it burns, or the frost that
freezes, or the flood that overwhelms, or the sea that drowns
— because we attribute to these things no motives, good or
bad. So, when through the development of the intellect
man perceives not only the nature, but the absolute certainty
of consequences, he refrains from certain actions, and this
may be called reformation through the intellect — and surely
there is no better reformation than this. Some may be,
and probably millions have been, reformed, through kind
ness, through gratitude — made better in the sunlight of
charity. In the atmosphere of kindness the seeds of virtue
burst into bud and flower. Cruelty, tyranny, brute force,
do not and can not by any possibility better the heart of
man. He who is forced upon his knees has the attitu.le,
but never the feeling, of prayer.

164 MISCELLANY.

I am satisfied that the discipline of the average prison
hardens and degrades. It is for the most part a perpetual
exhibition of arbitrary power. There is really no appeal.
The cries of the convict are not heard beyond the walls.
The protests die in cells, and the poor prisoner feels that
the last tie between him and his fellow-men has been
broken. He is kept in ignorance of the outer world. The
prison is a cemetery, and his cell is a grave.

In many of the penitentiaries there are instruments of
torture, and now and then a convict is murdered. In
spections and investigations go for naught, because the
testimony of a convict goes for naught. He is generally
prevented by fear from telling his wrongs ; but if he
speaks, he is not believed — he is regarded as less than a
human being, and so the imprisoned remain without
remedy. When the visitors are gone, the convict who
has spoken is prevented from speaking again.

Every manly feeling, every effort toward real reforma
tion, is trampled under foot, so that when the convict's
time is out there is little left on which to build. He has
been humiliated to the last degree, and his spirit has so
long been bent by authority and fear that even the desire
to stand erect has almost faded from the mind. The
keepers feel that they are safe, because no matter what
they do, the convict when released will not tell the story
of his wrongs, for if he conceals his shame, he must also
hide their guilt.

Every penitentiary should be a real reformatory. That
should be the principal object for the establishment of the
prison. The men in charge should be of the kindest and
noblest. They should be filled with divine enthusiasm for
humanity, and every means should be taken to convince
the prisoner that his good is sought — that nothing is done
for revenge — nothing for a display of power, and nothing
for the gratification of malice. He should feel that the

CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS. 165

warden is his unselfish friend. When a convict is charged
with a violation of the rules — with insubordination, or
with any offence, there should be an investigation in due
and proper form, giving the convict an opportunity to be
heard. He should not be for one moment the victim of
irresponsible power. He would then feel that he had
some rights, and that some little of the human remained
in him still. They should be taught things of value —
instructed by competent men. Pains should be taken, not
to punish, not to degrade, but to benefit and ennoble.

We know, if we know anything, that men in the peni
tentiaries are not altogether bad, and that many out are not
altogether good ; and we feel that in the brain and heart
of all, there are the seeds of good and bad. We know, too,
that the best are liable to fall, and it may be that the worst,
under certain conditions, may be capable of grand and
heroic deeds. Of one thing we may be assured — and that
is, that criminals will never be reformed by being robbed,
humiliated and degraded.

Ignorance, filth, and poverty are the missionaries of crime.
As long as dishonorable success outranks honest effort — as
long as societ}' bows and cringes before the great thieves,
there will be little ones enough to fill the jails.

XI.

All the penalties, all the punishments, are inflicted
under a belief that man can do right under all circum
stances — that his conduct is absolutely under his control,
and that his will is a pilot that can, in spite of winds and
tides, reach any port desired. All this is, in my judgment,
a mistake. It is a denial of the integrity of nature. It is
based upon the supernatural and miraculous, and as long
as this mistake remains the corner-stone of criminal juris
prudence, reformation will be impossible.

We must take into consideration the nature of man —
the facts of mind — the power of temptation — the limita-

1 66 MISCELLANY.

tions of the intellect — the force of habit — the result of
heredity — the power of passion — the domination of want —
the diseases of the brain — the tyranny of appetite — the
cruelty of conditions — the results of association — the effects
of poverty and wealth, of helplessness and power.

Until these subtle things are understood — until we know
that man, in spite of all, can certainly pursue the highway
of the right, society should not impoverish and degrade,
should not chain and kill those who, after all, may be the
helpless victims of unknown causes that are deaf and
blind.

We know something of ourselves — of the average man —
of his thoughts, passions, fears and aspirations — something
of his sorrows and his joys, his weakness, his liability to
fall— something of what he resists — the struggles, the vic
tories and the failures of his life. We know something of the
tides and currents of the mysterious sea — something of the
circuits of the wayward winds — but we do not know where
the wild storms are born that wreck and rend. Neither
do we know in what strange realm the mists and clouds are
formed that darken all the heaven of the mind, nor from
whence comes the tempest of the brain in which the will
to do, sudden as the lightning's flash, seizes and holds the
man until the dreadful deed is done that leaves a curse
upon the soul.

We do not know. Our ignorance should make us hesi
tate. Our weakness should make us merciful.

I cannot more fittingly close this address than by quot
ing the prayer of the Buddhist : " I pray thee to have pity
on the vicious — thou hast already had pity on the virtu
ous by making them so."

A WOODEN GOD.

A WOODEN GOD.*

TO THE EDITOR: To-day Messrs. Wright, Dickey,
O'Connor, and Murch, of the select committee on the
causes of the present depression of labor, presented the
majority special report upon Chinese immigration.

These gentlemen are in great fear for the future of our
most holy and perfectly authenticated religion, and have,
like faithful watchmen, from the walls and towers of Zion,
hastened to give the alarm. They have informed Congress
that "Joss has his temple of worship in the Chinese quar
ters, in San Francisco. Within the walls of a dilapidated
structure is exposed to the view of the faithful the god of
the Chinaman, and here are his altars of worship. Here
he tears up his pieces of paper; here he offers up his
prayers; here he receives his religious consolations, and
here is his road to the celestial land ; " that " Joss is lo
cated in a long, narrow room in a building in a back alley,
upon a kind of altar ; " that "he is a wooden image, looking
as much like an alligator as like a human being; " that the
Chinese " think there is such a place as heaven ; " that
"all classes of Chinamen worship idols ; " that " the temple
is open every day at all hours;" that "the Chinese have
no Sunday;" that this heathen god has "huge jaws, a big
red tongue, large white teeth, a half-dozen arms, and big,
fiery eyeballs. About him are placed offerings of meat and
other eatables — a sacrificial offering."

•A letter to the Chicago Times, written at Washington, D. C., March 27, 1880.

(169)

I JO MISCELLANY.

No wonder that these members of the committee were
shocked at such an image of God, knowing as they did that
the only true God was correctly described by the inspired
lunatic of Patmos in the following words :

"And there sat in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks one like
unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and
girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs
were white like wool, as white as snow ; and his eyes were as a flame
of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace ;
and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right
hand seven stars : and out of his mouth went a sharp, two-edged
sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."

Certainly a large mouth filled with white teeth is pref
erable to one used as the scabbard of a sharp, two-edged
sword. Why should these gentlemen object to a god with
big, fiery eyeballs, when their own Deity has eyes like a
flame of fire ?

Is it not a little late in the day to object to people because
they sacrifice meat and other eatables to their god? We
all know that for thousands of years the " real " God was
exceedingly fond of roasted meat ; that he loved the savor
of burning flesh, and delighted in the perfume of fresh,
warm blood.

The following account of the manner in which the
" living God " desired that his chosen people should sacri-
fice, tends to show the degradation and religious blindness
of the Chinese :

"Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin
offering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron brought the
blood unto him : and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it
upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom
of the altar : But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver
of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar ; as the Lord commanded
Moses. And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp.
And he slew the burnt offering ; and Aaron's sons presented unto
him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar. * * *
And he brought the meat offering, and took a handful thereof, and

A WOODEN GOD. 17!

Durnt it upon the altar. * * * He slew also the bullock and the
ram for a sacrifice of peace offering, which was for the people : and
Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon
the altar round about, and the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the
rump, and that which covereth the inwards and the kidneys, and the
caul above the liver, and they put the fat upon the breasts, and he
burnt the fat upon the altar. And the breast and the right shoulder
Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses com
manded."

If the Chinese only did something like this, we would
know that they worshiped the " living " God. The idea
that the supreme head of the " American system of relig
ion" can be placated with a little meat and "ordinary
eatables" is simply preposterous. He has always asked
for blood, and has always asserted that without the shed
ding of blood there is no remission of sin.

The world is also informed by these gentlemen that " the
idolatry of the Chinese produces a demoralizing effect upon
our American youth by bringing sacred things into dis
respect, and making religion a theme of disgust and con
tempt."

In San Francisco there are some three hundred thousand
people. Is it possible that a few Chinese can bring our
" holy religion " into disgust and contempt ? In that city
there are fifty times as many churches as joss- houses.
Scores of sermons are uttered every week ; religious books
and papers are plentiful as leaves in autumn, and some
what dryer ; thousands of Bibles are within the reach of
all. And there, too, is the example of a Christian city.

Why should we send missionaries to China if we can not
convert the heathen when they come here ? When mis
sionaries go to a foreign land, the poor, benighted people
have to take their word for the blessings showered upon
a Christian people ; but when the heathen come here they
can see for themselves. What was simply a story becomes
a demonstrated fact. They come in contact with people

17* MISCELLANY.

who love their enemies. They see that in a Christian land
men tell the truth ; that they will not take advantage of
strangers; that they are just and patient, kind and tender;
that they never resort to force ; that they have no prejudice
on account of color, race, or religion ; that they look upon
mankind as brethren ; that they speak of God as a uni
versal Father, and are willing to work, and even to suffer,
for the good not only of their own countrymen, but of the
heathen as well. All this the Chinese see and know, and
why they still cling to the religion of their country is to
me a matter of amazement.

We all know that the disciples of Jesus do unto others
as they would that others should do unto them, and that
those of Confucius do not unto others anything that they
would not that others should do unto them. Surely, such
peoples ought to live together in perfect peace.

Rising with the subject, growing heated with a kind of
holy indignation, these Christian representatives of a
Christian people most solemnly declare that :

"Anyone who is really endowed with a correct knowledge of our re
ligious system, which acknowledges the existence of a living God
and an accountability to him, and a future state of reward and punish
ment, who feels that he has an apology for this abominable pagan
worship is not a fit person to be ranked as a good citizen of the
American Union. It is absurd to make any apology for its toleration.
It must be abolished, and the sooner the decree goes forth by the
power of this Government the better it will be for the interests of
this land."

I take this, the earliest opportunity, to inform these
gentlemen composing a majority of the committee, that we
have in the United States no " religious system " ; that this
is a secular Government. That it has no religious creed ;
that it does not believe or disbelieve in a future state of
reward and punishment ; that it neither affirms nor denies
the existence of a " living God " ; and that the only god, so
far as this Government is concerned, is the legally expressed

A WOODEN GOD. 173

will of a majority of the people. Under our flag the Chinese
have the same right to worship a wooden god that you
have to worship any other. The Constitution protects
equally the church of Jehovah and the house of Joss. What
ever their relative positions may be in heaven, they stand
upon a perfect equality in the United States.

This Government is an Infidel Government. We have a
Constitution with man put in and God left out ; and it is
the glory of this county that we have such a Constitution.

It may be surprising to you that I have an apology for
pagan worship, yet I have. And it is the same one that I
have for the writers of this report. I account for both by
the word superstition. Why should we object to their wor
shiping God as they please ? If the worship is improper,
the protestation should come not from a committee of Con
gress, but from God himself. If he is satisfied that is
sufficient.

Our religion can only be brought into contempt by the
actions of those who profess to be governed by its teachings.
This report will do more in that direction than millions of
Chinese could do by burning pieces of paper before a wooden
image. If you wish to impress the Chinese with the value
of your religion, of what you are pleased to call " The
American system," show them that Christians are better
than heathens. Prove to them that what you are pleased to
call the " living God " teaches higher and holier things, a
grander and purer code of morals than can be found upon
pagan pages. Excel these wretches in industry, in hon
esty, in reverence for parents, in cleanliness, in frugality •
and above all by advocating the absolute liberty of human
thought.

Do not trample upon these people because they have a
different conception of things about which even this com
mittee knows nothing.

Give them the same privilege you enjoy of making a God

1 74 MISCELLANY.

after their own fashion. And let them describe him as
they will. Would you be willing to have them remain, if
one of their race, thousands of years ago, had pretended to
have seen God, and had written of him as follows :

"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his
mouth devoured : coals were kindled by it, * * * and he rode
upon a cherub and did fly."

Why should you object to these people on account of
their religion ? Your objection has in it the spirit of hate
and intolerance. Of that spirit the Inquisition was born.
That spirit lighted the fagot, made the thumbscrew, put
chains upon the limbs, and lashes upon the backs of men.
The same spirit bought and sold, captured and kidnapped
human beings; sold babes, and justified all the horrors of
slavery.

Congress has nothing to do with the religion of the peo
ple. Its members are not responsible to God for the opinions
of their constituents, and it may tend to the happiness of the
constitutents for me to state that they are in no way re
sponsible for the religion of the members. Religion is an
individual, not a national, matter. And where the nation
interferes with the right of conscience, the liberties of the
people are devoured by the monster superstition.

If 37ou wish to drive out the Chinese, do not make a pre
text of religion. Do not pretend that you are trying to do
God a favor. Injustice in his name is doubly detestable.
The assassin can not sanctify his dagger by falling on his
knees, and it does not help a falsehood if it be uttered as a
prayer. Religion, used to intensify the hatred of men to
ward men under the pretence of pleasing God, has cursed
this world.

A portion of this most remarkable report is intensely
religious. There is in it almost the odor of sanctity ; and
when reading it, one is impressed with the living piety of
its authors. But on the twenty -fifth page there are a few
passages that must pain the hearts of true believers.

A WOODEN GOD. 175

Leaving their religious views, the members immediately
betake themselves to philosophy and prediction. Listen :

" The Chinese race and the American citizen, whether native-born or
one who is eligible to our naturalization laws and becomes a citizen, are
in a state of antagonism. They cannot, or will not, ever meet upon
common ground, and occupy together the same social level. This
is impossible. The pagan and the Christian travel different paths.
This one believes in a living God ; and that one in a type of mon
sters and the worship of wood and stone. Thus in the religion of the
two races of men they are as wide apart as the poles of the
two hemispheres. They cannot now and never will approach the
same religious altar. The Christian will not recede to barbarism,
nor will the Chinese advance to the enlightened belt (whatever it is)
of civilization. * * * He cannot be converted to those modern
ideas of religious worship which have been accepted by Europe and
which crown the American system."

Christians used to believe that through their religion all
the nations of the earth were finally to be blest. In ac
cordance with that belief missionaries have been sent to
every land, and untold wealth has been expended for what
has been called the spread of the gospel.

I am almost sure that I have read somewhere that
" Christ died for all men," and that " God is no respecter
of persons." It was once taught that it was the duty of
Christians to tell all people the " tidings of great joy." I
have never believed these things myself, but have always
contended that an honest merchant was the best mission
ary. Commerce makes friends, religion makes enemies;
the one enriches and the other impoverishes ; the one
thrives best where the truth is told, the other where false
hoods are believed. For myself, I have but little confi
dence in any business or enterprise or investment that
promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders.

But I am astonished that four Christian statesmen, four
members of Congress, in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, who seriously object to people on account of their
religious convictions, should still assert that the very relig-

176 MISCELLANY.

ion in which they believe — and the only religion established
by the "living God," head of the American system— is
not adapted to the spiritual needs of one-third of the human
race. It is amazing that these four gentlemen have, in the
defence of the Christian religion, announced the discovery
that it is wholly inadequate for the civilization of mankind ;
that the light of the cross can never penetrate the darkness
of China; "that all the labors of the missionary, the
example of the good, the exalted character of our civiliza
tion, make no impression upon the pagan life of the
Chinese;" and that even the report of this committee will
not tend to elevate, refine, and Christianize the yellow
heathen of the Pacific coast. In the name of religion these
gentlemen have denied its power, and mocked at the enthu
siasm of its founder. Worse than this, they have predicted
for the Chinese a future of ignorance and idolatry in this
world, and, if the " American system " of religion is true,
hell-fire in the next.

For the benefit of these four philosophers and prophets I
will give a few extracts from the writings of Confucius, that
will, in my judgment, compare favorably with the best
passages of their report :

"My doctrine is that man must be true to the principles of his
nature, and the benevolent exercise of them toward others.

With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and with my bended
arm for a pillow, I still have joy.

Riches and honor acquired by injustice are to me but floating
clouds.

The man who, in view of gain, thinks of righteousness ; who, in
view of danger, forgets life, and who remembers an old agreement,
however far back it extends, such a man may be reckoned a complete
man.

Recompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.

There is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's
life: Reciprocity is that word."

When the ancestors of the four Christian Congressmen
were barbarians, when they lived in caves, gnawed bones,

A WOODEN GOD. 177

and worshiped dried snakes, the infamous Chinese were
reading these sublime sentences of Confucius. When the
forefathers of these Christian statesmen were hunting toads
to get the jewels out of their heads, to be used as charms,
the wretched Chinese were calculating eclipses, and measur
ing the circumference of the earth. When the progenitors
of these representatives of the " American system of relig
ion" were burning women charged with nursing devils,
the people " incapable of being influenced by the exalted
character of our civilization," were building asylums for the
insane.

Neither should it be forgotten that, for thousands of
years, the Chinese have honestly practiced the great prin
ciple known as Civil Service Reform — a something that
even the administration of Mr. Hayes has reached only
through the proxy of promise.

If we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let
us reform our treaties with the vast empire from whence
they came. For thousands of years the Chinese secluded
themselves from the rest of the world. They did not deem
the Christian nations fit to associate with. We forced our
selves upon them. We called, not with cards, but with
cannon. The English battered down the door in the names
of opium and Christ. This infamy was regarded as another
triumph for the gospel. At last, in self-defence, the Chinese
allowed Christians to touch their shores. Their wise men,
their philosophers, protested, and prophesied that time
would show that Christians could not be trusted. This re
port proves that the wise men were not only philosophers,
but prophets.

Treat China as you would England. Keep a treaty while
it is in force. Change it if you will, according to the laws
of nations, but on no account excuse a breach of national
faith by pretending that we are dishonest for God's sake.

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS.

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS.

A NEW party is struggling for recognition — a party with
/~\ leaders who are not politicians, with followers who are
not seekers after place. Some of those who suffer and some of
those who sympathize, have combined. Those who feel
that they are oppressed are organized for the purpose of
redressing their wrongs. The workers for wages, and the
seekers for work have uttered a protest. This party is an
instrumentality for the accomplishment of certain things
that are very near and very dear to the hearts of many
millions.

The object to be attained is a fairer division of profits
between employers and employed. There is a feeling that
in some way the workers should not want — that the indus
trious should not be the indigent. There is a hope that
men and women and children are not forever to be the
victims of ignorance and want — that the tenement house is
not always to be the home of the poor, or the gutter the
nursery of their babes.

As yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these aims
have not been agreed upon. Many theories have been
advanced and none has been adopted. The question is so
vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many
ways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a
solution, or, if any one has furnished a solution, no one
else has been wise enough to understand it.

"The hope of the future is that this question will finally be
understood. It must not be discussed in anger. If a broad

(181)

1 82 MISCELLANY.

and comprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for
hatred or for prejudice. Capital is not to blame. Labor is
not to blame. Both have been caught in the net of circum
stances. The rich are as generous as the poor would be if
they should change places. Men acquire through the
noblest and the tenderest instincts. They work and save
not only for themselves, but for their wives and for their
children. There is but little confidence in the charity of
the world. The prudent man in his youth makes prepara
tion for his age. The loving father, having struggled him
self, hopes to save his children from drudgery and toil

In every country there are classes — that is to say, the
spirit of caste, and this spirit will exist until the world is
truly civilized. Persons in most communities are judged
not as individuals, but as members of a class. Nothing is
more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines
that divide hearts on account of clothes or titles, are grow
ing more and more indistinct, and the philanthropists, the
lovers of the human race, believe that the time is coming
when they will be obliterated. We may do away with
kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich and
poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed,
the industrious and idle, and it may be, the honest and
vicious. These classifications are in the nature of things.
They are produced for the most part by forces that are now
beyond the control of man — but the old rule, that men are
disreputable in the proportion that they are useful, will
certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always held to
be the superior of the industrious peasant, the devourer
better than the producer, and the waster superior to the
worker.

While in this country we have no titles of nobility, we
have the rich and the poor — no princes, no peasants, but
millionaires and mendicants. The individuals composing
these classes are continually changing. The rich of to-day

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 183

may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the poor
may take their places. In this country, the children of the
poor are educated substantially in the same schools with
those of the rich. All read the same papers, many of the
same books, and all for many years hear the same questions
discussed. They are continually being educated, not only
at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by
perpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is
that those who are rich in gold are often poor in thought,
and many who have not whereon to lay their heads have
within those heads a part of the intellectual wealth of the
world.

Years ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute
toward the education of the children of the poor. The
support of schools by general taxation was defended on
the ground that it was a means of providing for the public
welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country
by making better men and women. This policy has been
pursued until at last the schoolhouse is larger than the
church, and the common people through education have
become uncommon. They now know how little is really
known by what are called the upper classes — how little
after all is understood by kings, presidents, legislators,
and men of culture. They are capable not only of under
standing a few questions, but they have acquired the art
of discussing those that no one understands. With the
facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make
barricades of statistics, and chevaux-de-frise of inferences
and assertions. They understand the sophistries of those
who have governed.

In some respects these common people are the superiors
of the so-called aristocracy. While the educated have
been turning their attention to the classics, to the dead
la'nguages, and the dead ideas and mistakes that they con
tain — while they have been giving their attention to

184 MISCELLANY.

ceramics, artistic decorations, and compulsory prayers,
the common people have been compelled to learn the prac
tical things — to become acquainted with facts — by doing
the work of the world. The professor of a college is no
longer a match for a master mechanic. The master
mechanic not only understands principles, but their appli
cation. He knows things as they are. He has come in
contact with the actual, with realities. He knows some
thing of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is the
highest and most valuable form of education. The men
who make locomotives, who construct the vast engines
that propel ships, necessarily know more than those who
have spent their lives in conjugating Greek verbs, looking
for Hebrew roots, and discussing the origin and destiny of
the universe.

Intelligence increases wants. By education the neces
sities of the people become increased. The old wages will
not supply the new wants. Man longs for a harmony be
tween the thought within and the things without. When
the soul lives in a palace the body is not satisfied with rags
and patches. The glaring inequalities among men, the
differences in condition, the suffering and the poverty,
have appealed to the good and great of every age, and
there has been in the brain of the philanthropist a dream —
a hope, a prophecy, of a better day.

It was believed that tyranny was the foundation and
cause of the differences between men — that the rich were
all robbers and the poor all victims, and that if a society or
government could be founded on equal rights and privi
leges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would have
food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable
leisure, and that content would be found by every hearth.

There was a reliance on nature — an idea that men had
interfered with the harmonious action of great principles
which if left to themselves would work out universal well-

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 185

N

being for the human race. Others imagined that the
inequalities between men were necessary — that they were
part of a divine plan, and that all would be adjusted in
some other world — that the poor here would be the rich
there, and the rich here might be in torture there.
Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and
hell their revenge.

When our Government was established it was declared
that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. It was then believed that if all men
had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make
and execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the
frightful inequalities seen in the despotisms and mon
archies of the old world would entirely disappear. This
was the dream of 1776. The founders of the Government
knew how kings and princes and dukes and lords and
barons had lived upon the labor of the peasants. They
knew the history of those ages of want and crime, of
luxury and suffering. But in spite of our Declaration, in
spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal suffrage, the
inequalities still exist. We have the kings and princes,
the lords and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopo
lists, corporations, capitalists, workers for wages, have
taken their places, and we are forced to admit that even
universal suffrage cannot clothe and feed the world.

For thousands of years men have been talking and wri
ting about the great law of supply and demand — and insist
ing that in some way this mysterious law has governed
and will continue to govern the activities of the human
race. It is admitted that this law is merciless— that when
the demand fails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer,
must perish — that the law feels neither pity nor malice —
it simply acts, regardless of consequences. Under this law,
capital will employ the cheapest. The single man can work

1 86 MISCELLANY.

for less than the married. Wife and children are luxuries
not to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have
fewer wants than the educated, and for this reason can
afford to work for less. The great law will give employ
ment to the single and to the ignorant in preference to the
married and intelligent. The great law has nothing to do
with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing
for homes, for penitentiaries, or asylums. It simply acts —
and some men triumph, some succeed, some fail, and some
perish.

Others insist that the curse of the world is monopoly.
And yet, as long as some men are stronger than others, as
long as some are more intelligent than others, they must
be, to the extent of such advantage, monopolists. Every
man of genius is a monopolist.

We are told that the great remedy against monopoly —
that is to say, against extortion, is free and unrestricted
competition. But after all, the history of this world shows
that the brutalities of competition are equaled only by
those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a
monopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other,
the instinct of self-preservation suggests a combination.
In other words, competition is a struggle between two or
more persons or corporations for the purpose of determin
ing which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of ex
tortion.

In this country the people have had the greatest reliance
on competition. If a railway company charged too much a
rival road was built. As a matter of fact, we are indebted
for half the railroads of the United States to the extortion
of the other half, and the same may truthfully be said of
telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions of mo
nopoly constructed new roads and new lines, competition
has either destroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which
is a means of keeping both monopolies alive, or of produc-

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 187

ing a new monopoly with greater needs, supplied by methods
more heartless than the old. When a rival road is built the
people support the rival because the fares and freights are
somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaug
urates war, and the people, glorying in the benefits of com
petition, are absurd enough to support the old. In a little
while the new company, unable to maintain the contest, left
by the people at the mercy of the stronger, goes to the wall,
and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the intelli
gent people pay not only the old price, but enough in
addition to make up for the expenses of the contest.

Is there any remedy for this? None, except with the
people themselves. When the people become intelligent
enough to support the rival at a reasonable price ; when
they know enough to allow both roads to live ; when they
are intelligent enough to recognize a friend and to stand by
that friend as against a known enemy, this question will be
at least on the edge of a solution.

So far as I know, this course has never been pursued except
in one instance, and that is the present war between the Gould
and Mackay cables. The Gould system had been charging
from sixty to eighty cents a word, and the Mackay system
charged forty. Then the old monopoly tried to induce the
rival to put the prices back to sixty. The rival refused,
and thereupon the Gould combination dropped to twelve
and a half, for the purpose of destroying the rival. The
Mackay cable fixed the tariff at twenty-five cents, sa}7ing to
its customers, " You are intelligent enough to understand
what this war means. If our cables are defeated, the Gould
system will go back not only to the old price, but will add
enough to reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If
you really wish for competition, if you desire a reasonable
service at a reasonable rate, you will support us." Fortu
nately an exceedingly intelligent class of people does business
by the cables. They are merchants, bankers, and brokers,

1 88 MISCELLANY.

dealing with large amounts, with intricate, complicated, and
international questions. Of necessity, they are used to
thinking for themselves. They are not dazzled into blind
ness by the glare of the present. They see the future.
They are not duped by the sunshine of a moment or the
promise of an hour. They see beyond the horizon of a
penny saved. These people had intelligence enough to say,
"The rival who stands between us and extortion is our
friend, and our friend shall not be allowed to die."

Does not this tend to show that people must depend upon
themselves, and that some • questions can be settled by the
intelligence of those who buy, of those who use, and that
customers are not entirely helpless ?

Another thing should not be forgotten, and that is this :
there is the same war between monopolies that there is be
tween individuals, and the monopolies for many years have
been trying to destroy each other. They have unconsciously
been working for the extinction of monopolies. These
monopolies differ as individuals do. You find among them
the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unfortunate, mill
ionaires and tramps. The great monopolies have been de
vouring the little ones.

Only a few years ago, the railways in this country were
controlled by local directors and local managers. The
people along the lines were interested in the stock. As a
consequence, whenever any legislation was threatened hos
tile to the interests of these railways, they had local friends
who used their influence with legislators, governors and
juries. During this time they were protected, but when the
hard times came many of these companies were unable to
pay their interest. They suddenly became Socialists. They
cried out against their prosperous rivals. They felt like
joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about
rights and wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have
passed into the hands of the richer roads — they were seized

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 189

by the great monopolies. Now the important railways are
owned by persons living in large cities or in foreign coun
tries. They have no local friends, and when the time conies,
and it may come, for the General Government to say how
much these companies shall charge for passengers and
freight, they will have no local friends. It may be that the
great mass of the people will then be on the other side. So
that after all, the great corporations have been busy settling
the question against themselves.

Possibly a majority of the American people believe to-day
that in some way all these questions between capital and
labor can be settled by constitutions, laws, and judicial de
cisions. Most people imagine that a statute is a sovereign
specific for any evil. But while the theory has all been one
way, the actual experience has been the other — just as the
free traders have all the arguments and the protectionists
most of the facts.

The truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred
years all real advance in legislation has been made by re
pealing laws. Of one thing we must be satisfied, and
that is that real monopolies have never been controlled by
law, but the fact that such monopolies exist, is a demon
stration that the law has been controlled. In our country,
legislators are for the most part controlled by those who,
by their wealth and influence, elect them. The few, in
reality, cast the votes of the many, and the few influence
the ones voted for by the many. Special interests, being
active, secure special legislation, and the object of special
legislation is to create a kind of monopoly — that is to say,
to get some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests, and kings
ruled, robbed, destroyed, and duped, and their places have
been taken by corporations, monopolists, and politicians.
The large fish still live on the little ones, and the fine
theories have as yet failed to change the condition of man
kind.

190 MISCELLANY.

Law in this country is effective only when it is the re
corded will of a majority. When the zealous few get con
trol of the Legislature, and laws are passed to prevent
Sabbath-breaking, or wine- drinking, they succeed only in
putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal
phrase. There was a time when men worked from four
teen to sixteen hours a day. These hours have not been
lessened, they have not been shortened by law. The
law has followed and recorded, but the law is not a
leader and not a prophet. It appears to be impossible to
fix wages — just as impossible as to fix the values of all
manufactured things, including works of art. The field is
too great, the problem too complicated, for the human
mind to grasp.

To fix the value of labor is to fix all values — labor being
the foundation of all values. The value of labor cannot
be fixed unless we understand the relations that all things
bear to each other and to man. If labor were a legal
tender — if a judgment for so many dollars could be dis
charged by so many days of labor, — and the law was that
twelve hours of work should be reckoned as one day, then
the law could change the hours to ten or eight, and the
judgments could be paid in the shortened days. But it is
easy to see that in all contracts made after the passage of
such a law, the difference in hours would be taken into
consideration.

We must remember that law is not a creative force. It
produces nothing. It raises neither corn nor wine. The
legitimate object of law is to protect the weak, to prevent
violence and fraud, and to enforce honest contracts, to the
end that each person may be free to do as he desires, pro
vided only that he does not interfere with the rights of
otneis. Our fathers tried to make people religious by law.
They failed. Thousands are now trying to make people
temperate in the same manner. Such efforts always have

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. igi

been and probably always will be failures. People who
believe that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect
code of laws, must admit that even this code failed to civil
ize the inhabitants of Palestine.

It seems impossible to make people just or charitable
or industrious or agreeable or successful, by law, any
more than you can make them physically perfect or
mentally sound. Of course we admit that good people in
tend to make good laws, and that good laws faithfully and
honestly executed, tend to the preservation of human
rights and to the elevation of the race, but the enactment
of a law not in accordance with a sentiment already exist
ing in the minds and hearts of the people — the very people
who are depended upon to enforce this law — is not a help,
but a hindrance. A real law is but the expression, in an
authoritative and accurate form, of the judgment and de
sire of the majority. As we become intelligent and kind,
this intelligence and kindness find expression in law.

But how is it possible to fix the wages of every man ? To
fix wages is to fix prices, and a government to do this intel
ligently, would necessarily have to have the wisdom general
ly attributed to an infinite Being. It would have to supervise
and fix the conditions of every exchange of commodities
and the value of every conceivable thing. Many things
can be accomplished by law. Employers may be held re
sponsible for injuries to the employed. The mines can be
ventilated. Children can be rescued from the deformities
of toil — burdens taken from the backs of wives and
mothers — houses made wholesome, food healthful — that
is to say, the weak can be protected from the strong, the
honest from the vicious, honest contracts can be enforced,
and many rights protected.

The men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance,
compete not only with other men of strength, but with the
inventions of genius. What would doctors say if physi-

1 92 MISCELLANY.

cians of iron could be invented with curious cogs and
wheels, so that when a certain button was touched the
proper prescription would be written ? How would law
yers feel if a lawyer could be invented in such a way that
questions of law, being put in a kind of hopper and a crank
being turned, decisions of the highest court could be
prophesied without failure ? And how would the minis
ters feel if somebody should invent a clergyman of wood
that would to all intents and purposes answer the purpose ?

Invention has filled the world with the competitors not
only of laborers, but of mechanics — mechanics of the
highest skill. To-day the ordinary laborer is for the most
part a cog in a wheel. He works with the tireless — he
feeds the insatiable. When the monster stops, the man is
out of employment, out of bread. He has not saved any
thing. The machine that he fed was not feeding him, was
not working for him — the invention was not for his bene
fit. The other day I heard a man say that it was almost
impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get em
ployment, and that, in his judgment, the Government ought
to furnish work for the people. A few minutes after, I
heard another say that he was selling a patent for cutting
out clothes, that one of his machines could do the work
of twenty tailors, and that only the week before he had
sold two to a great house in New York, and that over
forty cutters had been discharged.

On every side men are being discharged and machines
are being invented to take their places. When the great
factory shuts down, the workers who inhabited it and
gave it life, as thoughts do the brain, go away and it stands
there like an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force
of habit, gather about the closed doors and broken windows
and talk about distress, the price of food and the coming
winter. They are convinced that they have not had their
share of what their labor created. They feel certain that

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 193

the machines inside were not their friends. They look at
the mansion of the employer and think of the places where
they live. They have saved nothing — nothing but them
selves. The employer seems to have enough. Even when
employers fail, when they become bankrupt, they are far
better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is bet
ter than the toilers' best.

The capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells
the workingman that he must be economical — and yet,
under the present system, economy would only lessen
wages. Under the great law of supply and demand every
saving, frugal, self-denying workingman is unconsciously
doing what little he can to reduce the compensation of
himself and his fellows. The slaves who did not wish to
run away helped fasten chains on those who did. So the
saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough.
Does the great law demand that every worker live on the
least possible amount of bread ? Is it his fate to work one
day, that he may get enough food to be able to work an
other ? Is that to be his only hope — that and death ?

Capital has always claimed and still claims the right to
combine. Manufacturers meet and determine upon prices,
even in spite of the great law of supply and demand.
Have the laborers the same right to consult and combine ?
The rich meet in the bank, the clubhouse, or parlor.
Workingmen, when they combine, gather in the street.
All the organized forces of society are against them.
Capital has the army and the navy, the legislative, the
judicial, and the executive departments. When the rich
combine, it is for the purpose of " exchanging ideas."
When the poor combine, it is a " conspiracy." If they act
in concert, if they really do something, it is a " mob." If
they defend themselves, it is " treason." How is it that
the rich control the departments of government ? In this
country the political power is equally divided among the

194 MISCELLANY.

men. There are certainly more poor than there are rich.
Why should the rich control ? Why should not the
laborers combine for the purpose of controlling the execu
tive, legislative, and judicial departments ? Will they ever
find how powerful they are ?

In every country there is a satisfied class — too satisfied
to care. They are like the angels in heaven, who are never
disturbed by the miseries of earth. They are too happy to
be generous. This satisfied class asks no questions and
answers none. They believe the world is as it should be.
All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When
they talk low, they should not be listened to ; when they
talk loud, they should be suppressed.

The truth is to-day what it always has been — what it
always will be — those who feel are the only ones who
think. A cry comes from the oppressed, from the hungry,
from the down-trodden, from the unfortunate, from men
who despair and from women who weep. There are times
when mendicants become revolutionists — when a rag
becomes a banner, under which the noblest and bravest
battle for the right.

How are we to settle the unequal contest between men
and machines ? Will the machine finally go into partner
ship with the laborer ? Can these forces of nature be con
trolled for the benefit of her suffering children? Will
extravagance keep pace with ingenuity ? Will the workers
become intelligent enough and strong enough to be the
owners of the machines ? Will these giants, these Titans,
shorten or lengthen the hours of labor ? Will they give
leisure to the industrious, or will they make the rich richer,
and the poor poorer ?

Is man involved in the "general scheme of things"? Is
there no pity, no mercy? Can man become intelligent
enough to be generous, to be just ; or does the same law or
fact control him that controls the animal and vegetable

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 195

world ? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller
trees. The strong animals devour the weak — everything
eating something else — everything at the mercy of beak
and claw and hoof and tooth — of hand and club, of brain
and greed — inequality, injustice, everywhere.

The poor horse standing in the street with his dray, over
worked, over-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other
horses groomed to mirrors, glittering with gold and silver,
scorning with proud feet the very earth, probably indulges
in the usual socialistic reflections, and this same horse,
worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into the
dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at
donkeys in a field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist.

In the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak —
actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that man
has made, in spite of all advance in science, literature and
art, the strong, the cunning, the heartless still live on the
weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True, they do not
eat their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they live
on their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness and
want. The poor man who deforms himself by toil, who
labors for wife and child through all his anxious, barren,
wasted life — who goes to the grave without even having
had one luxury — has been the food of others. He has
been devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman living
in the bare and lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing
night and day to keep starvation from a child, is slowly
being eaten by her fellow-men. When I take into con
sideration the agony of civilized life — the number of fail
ures, the poverty, the anxiety, the tears, the withered
hopes, the bitter realities, the hunger, the crime, the hu
miliation, the shame — I am almost forced to say that canni
balism, after all, is the most merciful form in which man
has ever lived upon his fellow-man.

Some of the best and purest of our race have advocated

196 MISCELLANY.

what is known as Socialism. They have not only taught,
but, what is much more to the purpose, have believed that
a nation should be a family ; that the government should
take care of all its children ; that it should provide work
and food and clothes and education for all, and that it
should divide the results of all labor equitably with all.

Seeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the desti
tution and crime, these men were willing to sacrifice, not
only their own liberties, but the liberties of all.

Socialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of
slavery. Nothing, in my judgment, would so utterly
paralyze all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspi
rations that now tend to the civilization of man. In or
dinary systems of slavery there are some masters, a few
are supposed to be free; but in a socialistic state all would
be slaves.

If the government is to provide work it must decide for
the worker what he must do. It must say who shall chisel
statues, who shall paint pictures, who shall compose music,
and who shall practice the professions. Is any government,
or can any government, be capable of intelligently perform
ing these countless duties? It must not only control
work, it must not only decide what each shall do, but it
must control expenses, because expenses bear a direct rela
tion to products. Therefore the government must decide
what the worker shall eat and wherewithal he shall be
clothed ; the kind of house in which he shall live ; the
manner in which it shall be furnished, and, if this gov
ernment furnishes the work, it must decide on the days or
the hours of leisure. More than this, it must fix values ;
it must decide not only who shall sell, but who shall buy,
and the price that must be paid — and it must fix this value
not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be
produced, that can be exchanged or sold.

Is it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this ?

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. 197

The present condition of the world is bad enough, with its
poverty and ignorance, but it is far better than it could by any
possibility be under any government like the one described.
There would be less hunger of the body, but not of the
mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of a large
penitentiarj7, and, as in every well regulated prison, some
body would decide what each should do. The inmates of
a prison retire early ; they rise with the sun ; they have
something to eat ; they are not dissipated ; they have
clothes ; they attend divine service ; they have but little to
say about their neighbors ; they do not suffer from cold;
their habits are excellent, and yet, no one envies their
condition. Socialism destroys the family. The children
belong to the state. Certain officers take the places of
parents. Individuality is lost.

The human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for
any possible comfort. You remember the old fable of the
fat dog that met the lean wolf in the forest. The wolf,
astonished to see so prosperous an animal, inquired of the
dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that there
was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast,
his dinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and
that he had all that he could eat and very little to do. The
wolf said, "Do you think this man would treat me as he
does you?" The dog replied, "Yes, come along with me."
So they jogged on together toward the dog's home. On
the way the wolf happened to notice that some hair was
worn off the dog's neck, and he said, " How did the hair
become worn?" "That is," said the dog, "the mark of
the collar — my master ties me at night." "Oh," said the
wolf, " Are you chained ? Are you deprived of your lib
erty ? I believe I will go back. I prefer hunger."

It -is impossible for any man with a good heart to be
satisfied with this world as it now is. No one can truly
enjoy even what he earns — what he knows to be his own —

198 MISCELLANY.

knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in misery and
want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is
almost heartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering
makes one almost ashamed to be well dressed and warm —
one feels as though his heart was as cold as their bodies.

In a world filled with millions and millions of acres of
land waiting to be tilled, where one man can raise the food
for hundreds, millions are on the edge of famine. Who
can comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of this truth ?

Is there to be no change ? Are " the law of supply and
demand," invention and science, monopoly and competition,
capital and legislation always to be the enemies of those
who toil ?

Will the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid
enough to give their earnings for the useless ? Will they
support millions of soldiers to kill the sons of other work-
ingmen ? Will they always build temples for ghosts and
phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves ? Will
they forever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires
with mitres, to live upon their blood ? Will they remain
the slaves of the beggars they support ? How long will
they be controlled by friends who seek favors, and by re
formers who want office ? Will they always prefer famine
in the city to a feast in the fields ? Will they ever feel
and know that they have no right to bring children into
this world that they cannot support ? Will they use their
intelligence for themselves, or for others ? Will they be
come wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their
own liberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally
see that every man has a right to choose his trade, his pro
fession, his employment, and has the right to work when,
and for whom, and for what he will ? Will they finally say
that the man who has had equal privileges with all others
has no right to complain, or will they follow the example
that has been set by their oppressors? Will they learn

SOME INTERROGATION POINTS. . 199

that force, to succeed, must have a thought behind it, and
that anything done, in order that it may endure, must rest
upon the corner-stone of justice ?

Will they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish
the spark that sheds a little light in every brain? Will
they ever recognize the fact that labor, above all things, is
honorable — that it is the foundation of virtue ? Will they
understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that
every healthy man must earn the right to live? Will
honest men stop taking off their hats to successful fraud ?
Will industry, in the presence of crowned idleness, forever
fall upon its knees, and will the lips unstained by lies
forever kiss the robed impostor's hand? — North American Re
view, March, 1887.

ART AND MORALITY.

ART AND MORALITY.

ART is the highest form of expression, and exists for the
sake of expression. Through art thoughts become visi
ble. Back of forms are the desire, the longing, the brooding
creative instinct, the maternity of mind and the passion
that give pose and swell, outline and color.

Of course there is no such thing as absolute beauty or
absolute morality. We now clearly perceive that beauty
and conduct are relative. We have outgrown the provin
cialism that thought is back of substance, as well as the
old Platonic absurdity, that ideas existed before the
subjects of thought. So far, at least, as man is concerned,
his thoughts have been produced by his surroundings, by
the action and interaction of things upon his mind ; and so
far as man is concerned, things have preceded thoughts.
The impressions that these things make upon us are what
we know of them. The absolute is beyond the human
mind. Our knowledge is confined to the relations that
exist between the totality of things that we call the uni
verse, and the effect upon ourselves.

Actions are deemed right or wrong, according to experi
ence and the conclusions of reason. Things are beautiful
by the relation that certain forms, colors, and modes of
expression bear to us. At the foundation of the beautiful
will be found the fact of happiness, the gratification of the
senses, the delight of intellectual discovery and the sur
prise and thrill of appreciation. That which we call the
beautiful, wakens into life through the association of ideas,
of memories, of experiences, of suggestions of pleasure past
and" the perception that the prophecies of the ideal have
been and will be fulfilled. (aw)

2O4 MISCELLANY.

Art cultivates and kindles the imagination, and quickens
the conscience. It is by imagination that we put ourselves
in the place of another. When the wings of that faculty
are folded, the master does not put himself in the place of
the slave ; the tyrant is not locked in the dungeon, chained
with his victim. The inquisitor did not feel the flames
that devoured the martyr. The imaginative man, giving to
the beggar, gives to himself. Those who feel indignant at
the perpetration of wrong, feel for the instant that they are
the victims ; and when they attack the aggressor they feel
that they are defending themselves. Love and pity are the
children of the imagination.

Our fathers read with great approbation the mechanical
sermons in rhyme written by Milton, Young and Pollok.
Those theological poets wrote for the purpose of convincing
their readers that the mind of man is diseased, filled with
infirmities, and that poetic poultices and plasters tend to
purify and strengthen the moral nature of the human race.
Nothing to the true artist, to the real genius, is so contempt
ible as the " medicinal view."

Poems were written to prove that the practice of virtue
was an investment for another world, and that whoever
followed the advice found in those solemn, insincere and
lugubrious rhymes, although he might be exceedingly
unhappy in this world, would with great certainty be
rewarded in the next. These writers assumed that there
was a kind of relation between rhyme and religion, between
verse and virtue ; and that it was their duty to call the
attention of the world to all the snares and pitfalls of
pleasure. They wrote with a purpose. They had a dis
tinct moral end in view. They had a plan. They were
missionaries, and their object was to show the world how
wicked it was and how good they, the writers, were. They
could not conceive of a man being so happy that everything
in nature partook of his feeling; that all the birds were

ART AND MORALITY. 205

singing for him, and singing by reason of his joy; that
everything sparkled and shone and moved in the glad
rhythm of his heart. They could not appreciate this feel
ing. They could not think of this joy guiding the artist's
hand, seeking expression in form and color. They did not
look upon poems, pictures, and statues as results, as children
of the brain fathered by sea and sky, by flower and star, by
love and light. They were not moved by gladness. They
felt the responsibility of perpetual duty. They had a
desire to teach, to sermonize, to point out and exaggerate
the faults of others and to describe the virtues practiced by
themselves. Art became a colporteur, a distributer of
tracts, a mendicant missionary whose highest ambition was
to suppress all heathen joy.

Happy people were supposed to have forgotten, in a
reckless moment, duty and responsibility. True poetry
would call them back to a realization of their meanness
and their misery. It was the skeleton at the feast, the
rattle of whose bones had a rhythmic sound. It was the
forefinger of warning and doom held up in the presence of
a smile.

These moral poets taught the " unwelcome truths," and
by the paths of life put posts on which they painted hands
pointing at graves. They loved to see the pallor on the
cheek of youth, while they talked, in solemn tones, of age,
decrepitude and lifeless clay.

Before the eyes of love they thrust, with eager hands,
the skull of death. They crushed the flowers beneath their
feet and plaited crowns of thorns for every brow.

According to these poets, happiness was inconsistent
with virtue. The sense of infinite obligation should be per
petually present. They assumed an attitude of superiority.
They denounced and calumniated the reader. They en
joyed his confusion when charged with total depravity.
They loved to paint the sufferings of the lost, the worth-

206 MISCELLANY.

lessness of human life, the littleness of mankind, and the
beauties of an unknown world. They knew but little of
the heart. They did not know that without passion there
is no virtue, and that the really passionate are the virtuous.

Art has nothing to do directly with morality or immoral
ity. It is its own excuse for being; it exists for itself.

The artist who endeavors to enforce a lesson, becomes a
preacher ; and the artist who tries by hint and suggestion
to enforce the immoral, becomes a pander.

There is an infinite difference between the nude and the
naked, between the natural and the undressed. In the
presence of the pure, unconscious nude, nothing can be-
more contemptible than those forms in which are the hints
and suggestions of drapery, the pretence of exposure, and
the failure to conceal. The undressed is vulgar — the nude
is pure.

The old Greek statues, frankly, proudly nude, whose free
and perfect limbs have never known the sacrilege of clothes,
were and are as free from taint, as pure, as stainless, as the
image of the morning star trembling in a drop of perfumed
dew.

Morality is the harmony between act and circumstance.
It is the melody of conduct. A wonderful statue is the
melody of proportion. A great picture is the melody of
form and color. A great statue does not suggest labor ; it
seems to have been created as a joy. A great painting sug
gests no weariness and no effort ; the greater, the easier it
seems. So a great and splendid life seems to have been
without effort. There is in it no idea of obligation, no idea ot
responsibility or of duty. The idea of duty changes to a
kind of drudgery that which should be, in the perfect man,
a perfect pleasure.

The artist, working simply for the sake of enforcing a
moral, becomes a laborer. The freedom of genius is lost,
and the artist is absorbed in the citizen. The soul of the

ART AND MORALITY. 807

real artist should be moved by this melody of proportion as
the body is unconsciously swayed by the rhythm of a
symphony. No one can imagine that the great men who
chiseled the statues of antiquity intended to teach the
youth of Greece to be obedient to their parents. We can
not believe that Michael Angelo painted his grotesque and
somewhat vulgar " Day of Judgment " for the purpose of
reforming Italian thieves. The subject was in all proba
bility selected by his employer, and the treatment was a
question of art, without the slightest reference to the moral
effect, even upon priests. We are perfectly certain that
Corot painted those infinitely poetic landscapes, those cot
tages, those sad poplars, those leafless vines on weather-
tinted walls, those quiet pools, those contented cattle, those
fields flecked with light, over which bend the skies, tender
as the breast of a mother, without once thinking of the ten
commandments. There is the same difference between
moral art and the product of true genius, that there is be
tween prudery and virtue.

The novelists who endeavor to enforce what they are
pleased to call " moral truths," cease to be artists. They
create two kinds of characters — types and caricatures. The
first never has lived, and the second never will. The real
artist produces neither. In his pages you will find indi
viduals, natural people, who have the contradictions and
inconsistencies inseparable from humanity. The great
artists "hold the mirror up to nature," and this mil ror re
flects with absolute accuracy. The moral and the immoral
writers — that is to say, those who have some object besides
that of art — use convex or concave mirrors, or those with
uneven surfaces, and the result is that the images are
monstrous and deformed. The little novelist and the
_little artist deal either in the impossible or the exceptional.
The men of genius touch the universal. Their words and
works throb in unison with the great ebb and flow of

208 MISCELLANY.

things. They write and work for all races and for all
time.

It has been the object of thousands of reformers to de
stroy the passions, to do away with desires ; and could this
object be accomplished, life would become a burden, with
but one desire — that is to say, the desire for extinction.
Art in its highest forms increases passion, gives tone and
color and zest to life. But while it increases passion, it
refines. It extends the horizon. The bare necessities of
life constitute a prison, a dungeon. Under the influence of
art the walls expand, the roof rises, and it becomes a temple.

Art is not a sermon, and the artist is not a preacher. Art
accomplishes by indirection. The beautiful refines. The
perfect in art suggests the perfect in conduct. The harmony
in music teaches, without intention, the lesson of proportion
in life. The bird in his song has no moral purpose, and yet
the influence is humanizing. The beautiful in nature acts
through appreciation and sympathy. It does not browbeat,
neither does it humiliate. It is beautiful without regard to
you. Roses would be unbearable if in their red and per
fumed hearts were mottoes to the effect that bears eat bad
boys and that honesty is the best policy.

Art creates an atmosphere in which the proprieties, the
amenities, and the virtues unconsciously grow. The rain
does not lecture the seed. The light does not make rules
for the vine and flower.

The heart is softened by the pathos of the perfect.

The world is a dictionary of the mind, and in this dic
tionary of things genius discovers analogies, resemblances,
and parallels amid opposites, likeness in difference, and cor-,
roboration in contradiction. Language is but a multitude
of pictures. Nearly every word is a work of art, a picture
represented by a sound, and this sound represented by a
mark, and this mark gives not only the sound, but the pic
ture of something in the outward world and the picture of

ART AND MORALITY. 2OQ

something within the mind, and with these words which
were once pictures, other pictures are made.

The greatest pictures and the greatest statues, the most
wonderful and marvelous groups, have been painted and
chiseled with words. They are as fresh to-day as when
they fell from human lips. Penelope still ravels, weaves,
and waits; Ulysses' bow is bent, and through the level
rings the eager arrow flies. Cordelia's tears are falling
now. The greatest gallery of the world is found in Shakes
peare's book. The pictures and the marbles of the Vatican
and Louvre are faded, crumbling things, compared with his,
in which perfect color gives to perfect form the glow and
movement of passion's highest life.

Everything except the truth wears, and needs to wear, a
mask. Little souls are ashamed of nature. Prudery pre
tends to have only those passions that it cannot feel.
Moral poetry is like a respectable canal that never over
flows its banks. It has weirs through which slowly and
without damage any excess of feeling is allowed to flow.
It makes excuses for nature, and regards love as an inter
esting convict. Moral art paints or chisels feet, faces, and
rags. It regards the body as obscene. It hides with
drapery that which it has not the genius purely to portray.
Mediocrity becomes moral from a necessity which it has
the impudence to call virtue. It pretends to regard
ignorance as the foundation of purity and insists that
virtue seeks the companionship of the blind.

Art creates, combines, and reveals. It is the highest
manifestation of thought, of passion, of love, of intuition.
It is the highest form of expression, of history and
prophecy. It allows us to look at an unmasked soul, to
fathom the abysses of passion, to understand the heights
and depths of love.

Compared with what is in the mind of man, the outward
world almost ceases to excite our wonder. The impression

2IO MISCELLANY.

produced by mountains, seas, and stars is not so great, so
thrilling, as the music of Wagner. The constellations
themselves grow small when we read " Troilus and Cres-
sida," " Hamlet," or " Lear." What are seas and stars in
the presence of a heroism that holds pain and death as
naught? What are seas and stars compared with human
hearts? What is the quarry compared with the statue ?

Art civilizes because it enlightens, develops, strengthens,
ennobles. It deals with the beautiful, with the passionate,
with the ideal. It is the child of the heart. To be great,
it must deal with the human. It must be in accordance
with the experience, with the hopes, with the fears, and
with the possibilities of man. No one cares to paint a
palace, because there is nothing in such a picture to touch
the heart. It tells of responsibility, of the prison, of the
conventional. It suggests a load — it tells of apprehension,
of weariness and ennui. The picture of a cottage, over
which runs a vine, a little home thatched with content,
with its simple life, its natural sunshine and shadow, its
trees bending with fruit, its hollyhocks and pinks, its
happy children, its hum of bees, is a poem — a smile in the
desert of this world.

The great lady, in velvet and jewels, makes but a poor
picture. There is not freedom enough in her life. She is
constrained. She is too far away from the simplicity of
happiness. In her thought there is too much of the mathe
matical. In all art you will find a touch of chaos, of liberty ;
and there is in all artists a little of the vagabond — that is
to say, genius.

The nude in art has rendered holy the beauty of woman.
Every Greek statue pleads for mothers and sisters. From
these marbles come strains of music. They have filled
the heart of man with tenderness and worship. They have
kindled reverence, admiration and love. The Venus de
Milo, that even mutilation cannot mar, tends only to the

ART AND MORALITY. 211

elevation of our race. It is a miracle of majesty and beauty,
the supreme idea of the supreme woman. It is a melody
in marble. All the lines meet in a kind of voluptuous and
glad content. The pose is rest itself. The eyes are filled
with thoughts of love. The breast seems dreaming of a child.

The prudent is not the poetic ; it is the mathematical.
Genius is the spirit of abandon ; it is joyous, irresponsible.
It moves in the swell and curve of billows ; it is careless
of conduct and consequence. For a moment, the chain of
cause and effect seems broken ; the soul is free. It gives
an account not even to itself. Limitations are forgotten ;
nature seems obedient to the will ; the ideal alone exists ;
the universe is a sym phony.

Every brain is a gallery of art, and every soul is, to a
greater or less degree, an artist. The pictures and statues
that now enrich and adorn the walls and niches of the
world, as well as those that illuminate the pages of its liter
ature, were taken originally from the private galleries of
the brain.

The soul — that is to say the artist — compares the pic
tures in its own brain with the pictures that have been
taken from the galleries of others and made visible. This
soul, this artist, selects that which is nearest perfection in
each, takes such parts as it deems perfect, puts them to
gether, forms new pictures, new statues, and in this way
creates the ideal.

To express desires, longings, ecstasies, prophecies and
passions in form and color ; to put love, hope, heroism and
triumph in marble ; to paint dreams and memories with
words; to portray the purity of dawn, the intensity and
glory of noon, the tenderness of twilight, the splendor and
mystery of night, with sounds ; to give the invisible to
sight and touch, and to enrich the common things of earth
with gems and jewels of the mind — this is Art. — North

ican Review, March, 1888.

THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF
FAITH.

T

THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.

" Let determined things to destiny hold unbewailed their way."
'HERE is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the

harmony that he knows must exist between all known
facts. It is hard for the scientist to implicitly believe anything
that he suspects to be inconsistent with a known fact. He
feels that every fact is a key to many mysteries — that every
fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual witness. He
knows that a fact has a countless number of sides, and that
all these sides will match all other facts, and he also suspects
that to understand one fact perfectly — like the fact of the
attraction of gravitation — would involve a knowledge of the
universe.

It requires not only candor, but courage, to accept a fact.
When a new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and
calumniated by the conservatives until denial becomes ab
surd, and then they accept it with the statement that they
always supposed it was true.

The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has
pedigree and respectability ; it is filled with the spirit of
caste; it is associated with great events, and with great
names ; it is intrenched ; it has an income — it represents
property. Besides, it has parasites, and the parasites al
ways defend themselves.

Long ago frightened wretches who had by tyranny or
piracy amassed great fortunes, were induced in the moment
of death to compromise with God and to let their money

2l6 MISCELLANY.

fall from their stiffening hands into the greedy palms of
priests. In this way many theological seminaries were
endowed, and in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities,
known as religious truths, have been perpetuated. In this
way the dead hypocrites have propagated and supported
their kind.

Most religions — no matter how honestly they originated —
have been established by brute force. Kings and nobles
have used them as a means to enslave, to degrade and rob.
The priest, consciously and unconsciously, has been the be
trayer of his followers.

Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows.
Cattle — twenty or thirty at a time — are driven to the place
of slaughter. This ox ' leads the way — the others follow.
When the place is reached, this Bishop Dupanloup turns and
goes back for other victims.

This is the worst side : There is a better.

Honest men, believing that they have found the whole
truth — the real and only faith — filled with enthusiasm, give
all for the purpose of propagating the " divine creed." They
found colleges and universities, and in perfect, pious, igno
rant sincerity, provide that the creed, and nothing but the
creed, must be taught, and that if any professor teaches
anything contrary to that, he must be instantly dismissed —
that is to say, the children must be beaten with the bones of
the dead.

These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a
provision to the effect that the guide-boards must remain,
whether the roads are changed or not, and with the further
provision that the professors who keep and repair the guide-
boards must always insist that the roads have not been
changed.

There is still another side.

Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. They love
their families and have some regard for themselves. There

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 217

is a compromise between their bread and their brain. On
pay-day they believe — at other times they have their
doubts. They settle with their own consciences by giving
old words new meanings. They take refuge in allegory,
hide behind parables, and barricade themselves with oriental
imagery. They give to the most frightful passages a spirit
ual meaning — and while they teach the old creed to their
followers, they speak a new philosophy to their equals.

There is still another side.

A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly
satisfied. They have no doubts. They believe as their
fathers and mothers did. The " scheme of salvation " suits
them because they are satisfied that they are embraced
within its terms. They give themselves no trouble. They
believe because they do not understand. They have no
doubts because they do not t'-iink. They regard doubt as a
thorn in the pillow of orthodox slumber. Their souls are
asleep, and they hate only those who disturb their dreams.
These people keep their creeds for future use. They intend
to have them ready at the moment of dissolution. They
sustain about the same relation to daily life that the small
boats carried by steamers do to ordinary navigation — they
are for the moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like life-pre
servers, are to be used in disaster.

We must also remember that everything in nature — bad
as well as good — has the instinct of self-preservation. All
lies go armed, and all mistakes carry concealed weapons.
Driven to the last corner, even non-resistance appeals to
the dagger.

Vast interests — political, social, artistic, and individual —
are interwoven with all creeds. Thousands of millions of
dollars have been invested ; many millions of people obtain
their bread by the propagation and support of certain re
ligious doctrines, and many millions have been educated for
that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is more natural

ai8 MISCELLANY.

than that they should defend themselves— that they should
cling to a creed that gives them roof and raiment.

Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system.
It included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a
philosophy satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an
astronomy and geology of its own ; it answered all questions
with the same readiness and the same inaccuracy ; it had
within its sacred volumes the history of the past, and the
prophecies of all the future ; it pretended to know all that
was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being of the
human race, here and hereafter.

When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted
the truth of everything that was generally believed that did
not interfere with his system. Imposture always has a
definite end in view, and for the sake of the accomplishment
of that end, it will admit the truth of anything and every
thing that does not endanger its success.

The writers of all sacred books — the inspired prophets —
had no reason for disagreeing with the common people
about the origin of things, the creation of the world, the
rising and setting of the sun, and the uses of the stars, and
consequently the sacred books of all ages have indorsed the
belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred books
the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality
of the ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general
ideas as his foundation, and upon them builds the super
natural structure. For many centuries the astronomy,
geology, philosophy and morality of our Bible were ac
cepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that the
world was too ignorant to question.

A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A
new world was discovered. There was a complete revolu
tion in commerce. The arts were born again. The world
was filled with adventure ; millions became self-reliant ; old
ideas were abandoned — old theories were put aside — and

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.

suddenly, the old leaders of thought were found to be
ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The literature of the
classic world was discovered and translated into modern
languages. The world was circumnavigated; Copernicus
discovered the true relation sustained by our earth to the
solar system, and about the beginning of the seventeenth
century many other wonderful discoveries were made. In
1609, a Hollander found that two lenses placed in a certain
relation to each other magnified objects seen through them.
This discovery was the foundation of astronomy. In a
little while it came to the knowledge of Galileo ; the result
was a telescope, with which man has read the volume of
the skies.

On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the
greatest of his three laws. These were the first great blows
struck for the enfranchisement of the human mind. A
few began to suspect that the ancient Hebrews were not
astronomers. From that moment the church became the
enemy of science. In every possible way the inspired
ignorance was defended — the lash, the sword, the chain, the
fagot and the dungeon were the arguments used by the
infuriated church.

To such an extent was the church prejudiced against the
new philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused
to look through the telescope of Galileo.

At last it became evident to the intelligent world that
the inspired writings, literally translated, did not contain
the truth— the Bible was in danger of being driven from
the heavens.

The church also had its geology. The time when the
earth was created had been definitely fixed and was cer
tainly known. This fact had not only been stated by
jnspired writers, but their statement had been indorsed by
priests, by bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical coun
cils ; that was settled.

220 MISCELLANY.

But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There
were some eyes not always closed in prayer. They looked
at the things about them ; they observed channels that had
been worn in solid rock by streams; they saw the vast
territories that had been deposited by rivers ; their atten
tion was called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas
— to the deposits by volcanoes — to the sedimentary rocks —
to the vast reefs that had been built by the coral, and to the
countless evidences of age, of the lapse of time — and
finally it was demonstrated that this earth had been pur
suing its course about the sun for millions and millions of
ages.

The church disputed every step, denied every fact, re
sorted to every device that cunning could suggest or inge
nuity execute, but the conflict could not be maintained.
The Bible, so far as geology was concerned, was in danger
of being driven from the earth.

Beaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate,
to evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words.
Finally, falsehood having failed to harmonize the guesses
of barbarians with the discoveries of genius, the leading
churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to
teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and
that it was not a scientific book, but that it was written in
the language of the people, and that as to unimportant
things it contained the general beliefs of its time.

The ground was then taken that, while it was not
inspired in its science, it was inspired in its morality, in its
prophecy, in its account of the miraculous, in the scheme
of salvation, and in all that it had to say on the subject of
religion.

The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not in
spired in everything within its lids, the seeds of suspicion
were sown. The priest became less arrogant. The church
was forced to explain. The pulpit had one language for

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 221

the faithful and another for the philosophical, i. e., it be
came dishonest with both.

The next question that arose was as to the origin of man.

The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testi
mony of the stars was against the sacred volume. The
church had also been forced to admit that the world was
not created at the time mentioned in the Bible — so that the
very stones of the earth rose and united with the stars in
giving testimony against the sacred volume.

As to the creation of the world, the church resorted to
the artifice of saying that " days " in reality meant long
periods of time ; so that no matter how old the earth was, the
time could be spanned by six periods — in other words, that
the years could not be too numerous to be divided by six.

But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion, or
artifice, was impossible. The Bible gives the date of the
creation of man, because it gives the age at which the first
man died, and then it gives the generations from Adam to
the flood, and from the flood to the birth of Christ, and in
many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor is
given. So that, according to this account — according to
the inspired figures — man has existed upon the earth only
about six thousand years. There is no room left for any
people beyond Adam.

If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man ;
consequently, we know, if the sacred volume be true, just
how long man has lived and labored and suffered on this
earth.

The church cannot and dare not give up the account of
the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of
Eve from the rib of the man. The church cannot give up
the story of the Garden of Eden — the serpent — the fall and
the expulsion ; these must be defended because they are vital.
Without these absurdities, the system known as Christian
ity cannot exist. Without the fall, the atonement is a non

222 MISCELLANY..

sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were dis
covered and discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful
of men. Lamarck, Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all,
Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is
not a special creation. If anything can be established by
observation, by reason, then the fact has been established
that man is related to all life below him — that he has been
slowly produced through countless years — that the story of
Eden is a childish myth — that the fall of man is an infinite
absurdity.

If anything can be established by analogy and reason,
man has existed upon the earth for many millions of ages.
We know now, if we know anything, that people not only
existed before Adam, but that they existed in a highly
civilized state; that thousands of years before the Garden
of Eden was planted men communicated to each other their
ideas by language, and that artists clothed the marble with
thoughts and passions.

This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in
the Old Testament is untrue — that the account was written
by the ignorance, the prejudice and the egotism of the olden
time.

So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we
do know that civilization is a growth — that man did not
commence a perfect being, and then degenerate, but that
from small beginnings he has slowly risen to the intellectual
height he now occupies.

The church, however, has not been willing to accept
these truths, because they contradict the sacred word.
Some of the most ingenious of the clergy have been
endeavoring for years to show that there is no conflict —
that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony with the
theories of Charles Darwin, and these clergymen in some
way manage to retain their creed and to accept a philosophy
that utterly destroys it.

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 22$

But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to
admit that the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its
geology, or in its anthropology — that is to say, that the
inspired writers knew nothing of the sciences, knew noth
ing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the origin of man
— in other words, nothing of any particular value to the
human race.

It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in
its morality. Let us examine this question.

We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything,
if conscience is more than a word, if there is such a thing
as right and such a thing as wrong beneath the dome of
heaven — we must admit that slavery is immoral. If we are
honest, we must also admit that the Old Testament upholds
slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that Jehovah was
opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew by another.
Christians may quote the commandment " Thou shalt not
steal " as being opposed to human slavery, but after that
commandment was given, Jehovah himself told his chosen
people that they might "buy their bondmen and bond
women of the heathen round about, and that they should
be their bondmen and their bondwomen forever." So all
that Jehovah meant by the commandment " Thou shalt not
steal " was that one Hebrew should not steal from another
Hebrew, but that all Hebrews might steal from the people
of any other race or creed.

It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were
made only for the Jews, not for the world, because the
author of these commandments commanded the people to
whom they were given to violate them nearly all as against
the surrounding people.

A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world
that slavery was wrong. It was upheld by the church.
Ministers bought and sold the very people for whom they
declared that Christ had died. Clergymen of the English

224 MlSCfeLLANl?.

church owned stock in slave-ships, and the man who
denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of morality,
and thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus
Christ. Churches were built with the results of labor
stolen from colored Christians. Babes were sold from
mothers and a part of the money given to send missionaries
from America to heathen lands with the tidings of great
joy. Now every intelligent man on the earth, every decent
man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human slavery.

So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the
earth is immoral, that is. If there is anything calculated to
destroy home, to do away with human love, to blot out the
idea of family life, to cover the hearthstone with serpents,
it is the institution of polygamy. The Jehovah of the Old
Testament was a believer in that institution.

Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality?
Consider for a moment the manner in which, under the
direction of Jehovah, wars were waged. Remember the
atrocities that were committed. Think of a war where
everything was the food of the sword. Think for a
moment of a deity capable of committing the crimes that are
described and gloated over in the Old Testament. The
civilized man has outgrown the sacred cruelties and absurdi
ties.

There is still another side to this question.

A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the
unnatural. Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In
those blessed days, that which actually occurred was not
regarded of sufficient importance to be recorded. A relig
ion without miracles would have excited derision. A
creed that did not fill the horizon — that did not account for
everything — that could not answer every question, would
have been regarded as worthless.

After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted
by the leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 225

still had the power of working miracles. If the Catholic
Church was still in partnership with God, what excuse
could have been made for the Reformation ? The Protes
tants took the ground that the age of miracles had passed.
This was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could
not say that miracles had never been performed, because
that would take the foundation not only from the Catholics
but from themselves ; consequently they were compelled to
admit that miracles were performed in the apostolic days, but
to insist that, in their time, man must rely upon the facts in
nature. Protestants were compelled to carry on two kinds of
war ; they had to contend with those who insisted that mira
cles had never been performed ; and in that argument they
were forced to insist upon the necessity for miracles, on the
probability that they were performed, and upon the truthful
ness of the apostles. A moment afterward, they had to
answer those who contended that miracles were performed
at that time ; then they brought forward against the Catholics
the same arguments that their first opponents had brought
against them.

This has made every Protestant brain "a house divided
against itself." This planted in the Reformation the
" irrepressible conflict."

But we have learned more and more about what we call
Nature — about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon
the mind that force is indestructible — that we cannot
imagine force as existing apart from matter — that we can
not even think of matter existing apart from force — that we
cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an
effect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not
also a cause. We find no room between the links of cause
and effect for a miracle. We now perceive that a miracle
must be outside of Nature — that it can have no father, no
mother — that is to say, that it is an impossibility.

The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous.

226 MISCELLANY.

Most ministers are now ashamed to defend a miracle.
Some try to explain miracles, and yet, if a miracle is
explained, it ceases to exist. Few congregations could
keep from smiling were the minister to seriously assert the
truth of the Old Testament miracles.

Miracles must be given up. That field must be aban
doned by the religious world. The evidence accumulates
every day, in every possible direction in which the human
mind can investigate, that the miraculous is simply the
impossible.

Confidence in the eternal constancy of Nature increases
day by day. The scientist has perfect confidence in the
attraction of gravitation — in chemical affinities — in the
great fact of evolution, and feels absolutely certain that the
nature of things will remain forever the same.

We have at last ascertained that miracles can be per
fectly understood ; that there is nothing mysterious about
them ; that they are simply transparent falsehoods.

The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can
explain the attraction of gravitation. No one knows why
soil and rain and light become the womb of life. No one
knows why grass grows, why water runs, or why the mag
netic needle points to the north. The facts in nature are
the eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing
strange about the miracles of superstition. They are noth
ing but the mistakes of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods
framed by those who wished to live on the labor of others.

In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most
part, take the exact ground occupied by the Deists. They
dare not defend in the open field the mistakes, the cruelties,
the immoralities and the absurdities of the Bible. They shun
the Garden of Eden as though the serpent was still there.
They have nothing to say about the fall of man. They
are silent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy.
They are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 22 7

about these things to Sunday schools and to the elderly
members of their congregations ; but when doing battle for
the faith, they misstate the position of their opponents and
then insist that there must be a God, and that the soul is
immortal.

We may admit the existence of an infinite Being ; we
may admit the immortality of the soul, and yet deny the
inspiration - of the Scriptures and the divine origin of the
Christian religion. These doctrines, or these dogmas, have
nothing in common. The pagan world believed in God
and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far
older than Christianity, and they have been almost uni
versal.

Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the
inspiration of the Bible, on the fall of man, on the atone
ment, on the dogma of the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus
Christ, on his resurrection from the dead, on his ascension
into heaven.

Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the
soul — not simply the immortality of joy — but it teaches the
immortality of pain, the eternity of sorrow. It insists that
evil, that wickedness, that immorality and that every form
of vice are and must be perpetuated forever. It believes in
immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and in a world
of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a
curse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the
dearest hope of the human heart, and he who attacks it is
denounced as the most infamous of men.

Let us see what the church, within a few years, has been
compelled substantially to abandon, — that is to say, what it
is now almost ashamed to defend.

First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures ; second, the
geology ; third, the account given of the origin of man ;
fourth, the doctrine of original sin, the fall of the human
race ; fifth, the mathematical contradiction known as the

228 MISCELLANY.

Trinity ; sixth, the atonement — because it was only on the
ground that man is accountable for the sin of another, that
he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of
another ; seventh, that the miraculous is either the misunder
stood or the impossible; eighth, that the Bible is not in
spired in its morality, for the reason that slavery is not
moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermin
ation are not merciful, and that nothing can be more im
moral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of
the guilty ; and ninth, the divinity of Christ.

All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by
those not afraid to think, by those who have the courage
of their convictions and the candor to express their
thoughts. What then is left ?

Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true, is
left ; it still remains and is still of value. It cannot be said
too often that the truth needs no inspiration ; neither can
it be said too often that inspiration cannot help falsehood.
Every good and noble sentiment uttered in the Bible is
still good and noble. Every fact remains. All that is
good in the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord's
Prayer is not affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the
nobility of forgiveness, and the ineffable splendor of mercy
are with us still. And besides, there remains the great hope
for all the human race.

What is lost ? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all
the absurdities, all the cruelties and all the curses contained
in the Scriptures. We have almost lost the " hope " of
eternal pain — the " consolation " of perdition ; and in time
we shall lose the frightful shadow that has fallen upon so
many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.

The great trouble for many years has been, and still is,
that the clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to
defend the old creed. They have been educated in the uni
versities of the Sacred Mistake — universities that Bruno

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 22Q

would call " the widows of true learning." They have been
taught to measure with a false standard ; they have weighed
with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became convinced
of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them
by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe.
The enthusiasm of life's morning was misdirected. They
went out into the world knowing nothing of value. They
preached a creed outgrown. Having been for so many
years entirely certain of their position, they met doubt with
a spirit of irritation — afterward with hatred. They are
hardly courageous enough to admit that they are wrong.

Once the pulpit was the leader — it spoke with authority.
By its side was the sword of the state, with the hilt toward
its hand. Now it is apologized for — it carries a weight.
It is now like a living man to whom has been chained a
corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has not accepted
the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality
cannot live except in partnership with the sanctified follies
and falsehoods of the past.

The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They
are not within the circumference of reason — they are not
embraced in any of the facts within the experience of man.
All the subterfuges have been exposed ; all the excuses
have been shown to be shallow, and at last the church must
meet, and fairly meet, the objections of our time.

Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no
longer sacred. People are not willing to admit that mis
takes are divine. Truth is more important than belief —
far better than creeds, vastly more useful than superstitions.
The church must accept the truths of the present, must ad
mit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the
mental museums with the fossils and monstrosities of the
past.

The time for personalities has passed ; these questions
cannot be determined by ascertaining the character of the

230 MISCELLANY.

disputants ; epithets are no longer regarded as arguments ;
the curse of the church produces laughter ; theological
slander is no longer a weapon ; argument must be answered
with argument, and the church must appeal to reason, and
by that standard it must stand or fall. The theories and
discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the resolu
tions of synods, or by quotations from the Old Testament.

The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the
same. We must go back to the book — it cannot come to
us — or we must leave it forever. In order to remain
orthodox we must forget the discoveries, the inventions,
the intellectual efforts of many centuries ; we must go back
until our knowledge — or rather our ignorance — will har
monize with the barbaric creeds.

It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been
naturally produced. It is admitted that under the same
circumstances the same religions would again ensnare the
human race. It is also admitted that under the same cir
cumstances the same efforts would be made by the great
and intellectual of every age to break the chains of super
stition.

There is no necessity of attacking people — we should
combat error. We should hate hypocrisy, but not the
hypocrite — larceny, but not the thief — superstition, but not
its victim. We should do all within our power to inform,
to educate, and to benefit our fellow-men.

There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no
reformation in punishment. The soul grows greater and
grander in the air of kindness, in the sunlight of intelligence.

We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the
conclusions of our reason.

For many centuries the church has insisted that man is
totally depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his
natural desires are contrary to the will of God. Only a
few years ago it was solemnly asserted that our senses were

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 231

originally honest, true and faithful, but having been de
bauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars ; that
they constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they
were traps and snares ; that no man could be safe who re
lied upon his senses, or upon his reason ; — he must simply
rely upon faith ; in other words, that the only way for man
to really see was to put out his eyes.

There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual
world. The improvement has been slow in the realm of
religion, for the reason that religion was hedged about,
defended and barricaded by fear, by prejudice and by law.
It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its truth in
question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal ;
whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, became a
blasphemer, a scoffer, a moral leper.

The church defended its mistakes by every means within
its power.

But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and
there are enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it
possible for us to measure the distance that has been
traveled by sensible people.

The world is beginning to see that a minister should be
a teacher, and that " he should not endeavor to inculcate a
particular system of dogmas, but to prepare his hearers
for exercising their own judgments."

As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that
they are not " spiritual " — that they are " of the earth, earthy "
— that they cannot perceive that which is spiritual. They
insist that "God is a spirit, and must be worshiped in
spirit."

But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual? In order to
be really spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the
sake of another? Were the selfish hermits, who deserted
their wives and children for the miserable purpose of sav
ing their own little souls, spiritual ? Were those who put

232 MISCELLANY.

their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the
on account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people ?
Did John Calviti give evidence of his spirituality by burn
ing Servetus? Were they spiritual people who invented
and used instruments of torture — who denied the liberty of
thought and expression — who waged wars for the propaga
tion of the faith ? Were they spiritual people who insisted
that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children
forever ? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to
understand the meaning of the word spiritual ? Is it nec
essary to hate those who disagree with you, and to calum
niate those whose argument you cannot answer, in order to
be spiritual ? Must you hold a demonstrated fact in con
tempt ; must you deny or avoid what you know to be true,
in order to substantiate the fact that you are spiritual ?

What is it to be spiritual ? Is the man spiritual who
searches for the truth — who lives in accordance with his
highest ideal — who loves his wife and children — who dis
charges his obligations — who makes a happy fireside for
the ones he loves — who succors the oppressed — who gives
his honest opinions — who is guided by principle — who is
merciful and just ?

Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful — who is
thrilled by music, and touched to tears in the presence of
the sublime, the heroic and the self-denying ? Is the man
spiritual who endeavors by thought and deed to ennoble
the human race ?

The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should
know that the foundations are insecure.

They should have the courage to defend, or the candor
to abandon. If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to
be true. Its defenders must admit that Jehovah knew the
facts not only about the earth, but about the stars, and that
the Creator of the universe knew all about geology and
astronomy even four thousand years ago.

A DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. 133

The champions of Christianity must show that the
Bible tells the truth about the creation of man, the Garden
of Eden, the temptation, the fall and the flood. They must
take the ground that the sacred book is historically correct;
that the events related really happened ; that the miracles
were actually performed ; that the laws promulgated from
Sinai were and are wise and just, and that nothing is up
held, commanded, indorsed, or in any way approved or
sustained that is not absolutely right. In other words, if
they insist that a being of infinite goodness and intel
ligence is the author of the Bible, they must be ready to
show that it is absolutel)r perfect. They must defend its
astronomy, geology, history, miracle and morality.

If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man
is a special creation, millions of facts must have conspired,
millions of ages ago, to deceive the scientific world of to-day.

If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should
go back to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the
Bible is true, polygamy is the highest form of virtue. If
the Bible is true, nature has a master, and the miraculous
is independent of and superior to cause and effect. If the
Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to
suffer eternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known
as astronomy is a collection of mistakes — the telescope is a
false witness, and light is a luminous liar. If the Bible is
true, the science known as geology is false and every fossil
is a petrified perjurer.

The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the cour
age to candidly answer at least two questions : First, Is the
Bible inspired ? Second, Is the Bible true ? And when
they answer these questions, they should remember that if
the Bible is true, it needs no inspiration, and that if not

true, inspiration Can do it no gOOd. — North American Review,
August, 1888.

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?

PART I.
"With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls."

'T'HEsame rules or laws of probability must govern in relig-
1 ious questions as in others. There is no subject — and
can be none — concerning which any human being is under any
obligation to believe without evidence. Neither is there any
intelligent being who can, by any possibility, be flattered by
the exercise of ignorant credulity. The man who, without
prejudice, reads and understands the Old and New Testaments
will cease to be an orthodox Christian. The intelligent man
who investigates the religion of any country without fear and
without prejudice will not and cannot be a believer.

Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is
not God, that the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the
Christian religion, like other religions, is the creation of man,
usually say : ' ' There must be a Supreme Being, but Jehovah
is not his name, and the Bible is not his word. There must be
somewhere an over-ruling Providence or Power."

This position is just as untenable as the other. He who can
not harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of
Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the
goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it
impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquake
and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the strong over the
weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will find it
impossible to account for martyrs — for the burning of the good,

(237)

338 MISCELLANY.

the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the
infamous.

How can the Deist satisfactorily account for the sufferings of
women and children ? In what way will he justify religious
persecution — the flame and sword of religious hatred ? Why
did his God sit idly on his throne and allow his enemies to wet
their swords in the blood of his friends ? Why did he not
answer the prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless ? And
when he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why
did he not also hear the prayer of the slave ? And when chil
dren were sold from the breasts of mothers, why was he deaf
to the mother's cry?

It seems to me that the man who knows the limitations of
the mind, who gives the proper value to human testimony, is
necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the hope of ascertaining
first or final causes, of comprehending the supernatural, or of
conceiving of an infinite personality. From out the words
Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all meaning falls.

The mind of man pursues the path of least resistance, and
the conclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the
nature and structure of his mind, on his experience, on heredi
tary drifts and tendencies, and on the countless things that
constitute the difference in minds. One man, finding himself
in the midst of mysterious phenomena, comes to the conclusion
that all is the result of design ; that back of all things is an
infinite personality — that is to say, an infinite man ; and he
accounts for all that is by simply saying that the universe was
created and set in motion by this infinite personality, and that
it is miraculously and supernaturally governed and preserved.
This man sees with perfect clearness that matter could not
create itself, and therefore he imagines a creator of matter.
He is perfectly satisfied that there is design in the world, and
that consequently there must have been a designer. It does

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? 239

not occur to him that it is necessary to account for the exist
ence of an infinite personality. He is perfectly certain that
there can be no design without a designer, and he is equally
certain that there can be a designer who was not designed.
The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a
demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was
created and that its creator was not. He assumes that a creator
existed from eternity, without cause, and created what is called
matter out of nothing ; or, whereas there was nothing, this
creator made the something that we call substance.

Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite
personality ? Can it imagine a beginningless being, infinitely
powerful and intelligent ? If such a being existed, then there
must have been an eternity during which nothing did exist
except this being ; because, if the Universe was created, there
must have been a time when it was not, and back of that there
must have been an eternity during which nothing but an
infinite personality existed. Is it possible to imagine an infi
nite intelligence dwelling for an eternity in infinite nothing ?
How could such a being be intelligent ? What was there to
be intelligent about? There was but one thing to know,
namely, that there was nothing except this being. How could
such a being be powerful? There was nothing to exercise
force upon. There was nothing in the universe to suggest an
idea. Relations could not exist — except the relation between
infinite intelligence and infinite nothing.

The next great difficulty is the act of creation. My mind is
so that I cannot conceive of something being created out of
nothing. Neither can I conceive of anything being created
without a cause. Let me go one step further. It is just as
difficult to imagine something being created with, as without,
a cause. To postulate a cause does not in the least lessen the
difficulty. In spite of all, this lever remains without a fulcrum.

240 MISCELLANY.

We cannot conceive of the destruction of substance. The
stone can be crushed to powder, and the powder can be ground
to such a fineness that the atoms can only be distinguished by
the most powerful microscope, and we can then imagine these
atoms being divided and subdivided again and again and
again ; but it is impossible for us to conceive of the annihilation
of the least possible imaginable fragment of the least atom of
which we can think. Consequently the mind can imagine
neither creation nor destruction. From this point it is very
easy to reach the generalization that the indestructible could
not have been created.

These questions, however, will be answered by each individual
according to the structure of his mind, according to his ex
perience, according to his habits of thought, and according to
his intelligence or his ignorance, his prejudice or his genius.

Probably a very large majority of mankind believe in the
existence of supernatural beings, and a majority of what are
known as the civilized nations, in an infinite personality. In
the realm of thought majorities do not determine. Each brain
is a kingdom, each mind is a sovereign.

The universality of a belief does not even tend to prove its
truth. A large majority of mankind have believed in what is
known as God, and an equally large majority have as implicitly
believed in what is known as the Devil. These beings have
been inferred from phenomena. They were produced for the
most part by ignorance, by fear, and by selfishness. Man in
all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and
death, of substance, offeree, for the ebb and flow of things, for
earth and star. The savage, dwelling in his cave, subsisting
on roots and reptiles, or on beasts that could be slain with
club and stone, surrounded by countless objects of terror,
standing by rivers, so far as he knew, without source or end,
by seas with but one shore, the prey of beasts mightier than

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? 24!

himself, of diseases strange and fierce, trembling at the voice
of thunder, blinded by the lightning, feeling the earth shake
beneath him, seeing the sky lurid with the volcano's glare, —
fell prostrate and begged for the protection of the Unknown.

In the long night of savagery, in the midst of pestilence and
famine, through the long and dreary winters, crouched in dens
of darkness, the seeds of superstition were sown in the brain of
man. The savage believed, and thoroughly believed, that
everything happened in reference to him ; that he by his actions
could excite the anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of
the Unseen. He resorted to flattery and prayer. To the best
of his ability he put in stone, or rudely carved in wood, his
idea of this god. For this idol he built a hut, a hovel, and at
last a cathedral. Before these images he bowed, and at these
shrines, whereon he lavished his wealth, he sought protection
for himself and for the ones he loved. The few took advantage
of the ignorant many. They pretended to have received mes
sages from the Unknown. They stood between the helpless
multitude and the gods. They were the carriers of flags of
truce. At the court of heaven they presented the cause of
man, and upon the labor of the deceived they lived.

The Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who bowed
before his idol ; and yet it must be confessed that the god of
stone answered prayer and protected his worshipers precisely
as the Christian's God answers prayer and protects his wor
shipers to-day.

My mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that sub
stance is eternal ; that the universe was without beginning and
will be without end ; that it is the one eternal existence ; that
relations are transient and evanescent ; that organisms are pro
duced and vanish ; that forms change, — but that the substance
of things is from eternity to eternity. It may be that planets
are born and die, that constellations will fade from the infinite

242 MISCELLANY.

spaces, that countless suns will be quenched, — but the substance
will remain.

The questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond the
powers of the human mind.

Heredity is on the side of superstition. All our ignorance
pleads for the old. In most men there is a feeling that their
ancestors were exceedingly good and brave and wise, and that
in all things pertaining to religion their conclusions should be
followed. They believe that their fathers and mothers were of
the best, and that that which satisfied them should satisfy their
children. With a feeling of reverence they say that the religion
of their mother is good enough and pure enough and reasonable
enough for them. In this way the love of parents and the
reverence for ancestors have unconsciously bribed the reason
and put out, or rendered exceedingly dim, the eyes of the
mind.

There is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to live and
die where their parents lived and died — a tendency to go back
to the homes of their youth. Around the old oak of manhood
grow and cling these vines. Yet it will hardly do to say that
the religion of my mother is good enough for me, any more
than to say the geology or the astronomy or the philosophy
of my mother is good enough for me. Every human being is
entitled to the best he can obtain ; and if there has been the
slightest improvement on the religion of the mother, the son is
entitled to that improvement, and he should not deprive himself
of that advantage by the mistaken idea that he owes it to his
mother to perpetuate, in a reverential way, her ignorant mis
takes.

If we are to follow the religion of our fathers and mothers,
our fathers and mothers should have followed the religion of
theirs. Had this been done, there could have been no im
provement in the world of thought. The first religion would

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? 243

have been the last, and the child would have died as ignorant
as the mother. Progress would have been impossible, and on
the graves of ancestors would have been sacrificed the intelli
gence of mankind.

We know, too, that there has been the religion of the tribe,
of the community, and of the nation, and that there has been a
feeling that it was the duty of every member of the tribe or
community, and of every citizen of the nation, to insist upon
it that the religion of that tribe, of that community, of that
nation, was better than that of any other. We know that all
the prejudices against other religions, and all the egotism of
nation and tribe, were in favor of the local superstition. Each
citizen was patriotic enough to denounce the religions of other
nations and to stand firmly by his own. And there is this
peculiarity about man : he can see the absurdities of other
religions while blinded to those of his own. The Christian can
see clearly enough that Mohammed was an impostor. He is
sure of it, because the people of Mecca who were acquainted
with him declared that he was no prophet ; and this declaration
is received by Christians as a demonstration that Mohammed
was not inspired. Yet these same Christians admit that the
people of Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ rejected
him ; and this rejection they take as proof positive that Christ
was the Son of God.

The average man adopts the religion of his country, or,
rather, the religion of his country adopts him. He is domin
ated by the egotism of race, the arrogance of nation, and the
prejudice called patriotism. He does not reason — he feels.
He does not investigate — he believes. To him the religions
of other nations are absurd and infamous, and their gods mon
sters of ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average
man is taught, first, that there is a supreme being ; second,
that he has made known his will ; third, that he will reward

244 MISCELLANY.

the true believer ; fourth, that he will punish the unbeliever,
the scoffer, and the blasphemer ; fifth, that certain ceremonies
are pleasing to this god ; sixth, that he has established a
church ; and seventh, that priests are his representatives on
earth. And the average man has no difficulty in determining
that the God of his nation is the true God ; that the will of
this true God is contained in the sacred scriptures of his nation ;
that he is one of the true believers, and that the people of other
nations — that is, believing other religions — are scoffers ; that
the only true church is the one to which he belongs ; and that
the priests of his country are the only ones who have had or
ever will have the slightest influence with this true God. All
these absurdities to the average man seem self-evident propo
sitions ; and so he holds all other creeds in scorn, and con
gratulates himself that he is a favorite of the one true God.

If the average Christian had been born in Turkey, he would
have been a Mohammedan ; and if the average Mohammedan
had been born in New England and educated at Andover, he
would have regarded the damnation of the heathen as the
" tidings of great joy."

Nations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and hallucinations,
and these find expression in their laws, customs, ceremonies,
morals, and religions. And these are in great part determined
by soil, climate, and the countless circumstances that mould
and dominate the lives and habits of insects, individuals, and
nations. The average man believes implicitly in the religion
of his country, because he knows nothing of any other and has
no desire to know. It fits him because he has been deformed
to fit it, and he regards this fact of fit as an evidence of its
inspired truth.

Has a man the right to examine, to investigate, the religion
of his own country — the religion of his father and mother ?
Christians admit that the citizens of all countries not Christian

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? 245

have not only this right, but that it is their solemn duty.
Thousands of missionaries are sent to heathen countries to
persuade the believers in other religions not only to examine
their superstitions, but to renounce them, and to adopt those
of the missionaries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard
the religion of his country and to hold in contempt the creed
of his father and of his mother. If the citizens of heathen
nations have the right to examine the foundations of their
religion, it would seem that the citizens of Christian nations
have the same right. Christians, however, go further than
this ; they say to the heathen : You must examine your re
ligion, and not only so, but you must reject it ; and, unless
you do reject it, and, in addition to such rejection, adopt ours,
you will be eternally damned. Then these same Christians
say to the inhabitants of a Christian country : You must not
examine ; you must not investigate ; but whether you examine
or not, you must believe, or you will be eternally damned.

If there be one true religion, how is it possible to ascertain
which of all the religions the true one is ? There is but one
way. We must impartially examine the claims of all. The
right to examine involves the necessity to accept or reject.
Understand me, not the right to accept or reject, but the
necessity. From this conclusion there is no possible escape.
If, then, we have the right to examine, we have the right to
tell the conclusion reached. Christians have examined other
religions somewhat, and they have expressed their opinion
with the utmost freedom — that is to say, they have denounced
them all as false and fraudulent ; have called their gods idols
and myths, and their priests impostors.

The Christian does not deem it worth while to read the
Koran. Probably not one Christian in a thousand ever saw a
copy of that book. And yet all Christians are perfectly satis
fied that th§ Koran is the, work of an impostor. No Presby-

246 MISCELLANY.

terian thinks it is worth his while to examine the religious
systems of India ; he knows that the Brahmins are mistaken,
and that all their miracles are falsehoods. No Methodist cares
to read the life of Buddha, and no Baptist will waste his time
studying the ethics of Confucius. Christians of every sort and
kind take it for granted that there is only one true religion, and
that all except Christianity are absolutely without foundation.
The Christian world believes that all the prayers of India are
unanswered ; that all the sacrifices upon the countless altars of
Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome were without effect. They
believe that all these mighty nations worshiped their gods in
vain ; that their priests were deceivers or deceived ; that their
ceremonies were wicked or meaningless ; that their temples
were built by ignorance and fraud, and that no God heard their
songs of praise, their cries of despair, their words of thankful
ness ; that on account of their religion no pestilence was
stayed ; that the earthquake and volcano, the flood and storm
went on their ways of death — while the real God looked on
and laughed at their calamities and mocked at their fears.

We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended,
not upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence
of some god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the
ingenuity, industry, and courage of the people, upon the de
velopment of the mind, on the spread of education, on the
liberty of thought and action; and that in this mighty pan
orama of national life, reason has built and superstition has
destroyed.

Being satisfied that all believe precisely as they must, and
that religions have been naturally produced, I have neither
praise nor blame for any man. Good men have had bad
creeds, and bad men have had good ones. Some of the noblest
of the human race have fought and died for the wrong. The
brain of man has been the trysting-place of contradictions.

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? 247

Passion often masters reason, and ' ' the state of man, like
to a little kingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrec
tion."

In the discussion of theological or religious questions, we
have almost passed the personal phase, and we are now
weighing arguments instead of exchanging epithets and curses.
They who really seek for truth must be the best of friends.
Each knows that his desire can never take the place of fact, and
that, next to finding truth, the greatest honor must be won in
honest search.

We see that many ships are driven in many ways by the
same wind. So men, reading the same book, write many
creeds and lay out many roads to heaven. To the best of my
ability, I have examined the religions of many countries and
the creeds of many sects. They are much alike, and the tes
timony by which they are substantiated is of such a character
that to those who believe is promised an eternal reward. In
all the sacred books there are some truths, some rays of light,
some words of love and hope. The face of savagery is some
times softened by a smile — the human triumphs, and the heart
breaks into song. But in these books are also found the
words of fear and hate, and from their pages crawl serpents
that coil and hiss in all the paths of men.

For my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has not
claimed. Such is the nature of my brain that Shakespeare
gives me greater joy than all the prophets of the ancient world.
There are thoughts that satisfy the hunger of the mind. I am
convinced that Humboldt knew more of geology than the au
thor of Genesis ; that Darwin was a greater naturalist than he
who told the story of the flood ; that Laplace was better ac
quainted with the habits of the sun and moon than Joshua
could liave been, and that Haeckel, Huxley, and Tyndall know
more about the earth and stars, about the history of man, the

248 MISCELLANY.

philosophy of life — more that is of use, ten thousand times —
than all the writers of the sacred books.

I believe in the religion of reason — the gospel of this world ;
in the development of the mind, in the accumulation of intel
lectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from su
perstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the
forces of nature to feed and clothe the world.

Let us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of count
less mysteries ; standing beneath the boundless heaven sown
thick with constellations ; knowing that each grain of sand,
each leaf, each blade of grass, asks of every mind the answer-
less question ; knowing that the simplest thing defies solution ;
feeling that we deal with the superficial and the relative, and
that we are forever eluded by the real, the absolute, — let us
admit the limitations of our minds, and let us have the cour
age and the candor to say : We do not know.

North American Review, December, 1889.

PART II.

THE Christian religion rests on miracles. There are no
miracles in the realm of science. The real philosopher
does not seek to excite wonder, but to make that plain which
was wonderful. He does not endeavor to astonish, but to
enlighten. He is perfectly confident that there are no miracles
in nature. He knows that the mathematical expression of the
same relations, contents, areas, numbers and proportions must
forever remain the same. He knows that there are no miracles
in chemistry ; that the attractions and repulsions, the loves
and hatreds, of atoms are constant. Under like conditions, he
is certain that like will always happen ; that the product ever
has been and forever will be the same ; that the atoms or par
ticles unite in definite, unvarying proportions, — so many of
one kind mix, mingle, and harmonize with just so many of an
other, and the surplus will be forever cast out. There are no
exceptions. Substances are always true to their natures. They
have no caprices, no prejudices, that can vary or control their
action. They are " the same yesterday, to-day, and forever."

In this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity, the
intelligent man has absolute confidence. It is useless to tell
him that there was a time when fire would not consume the
combustible, when water would not flow in obedience to the
attraction of gravitation, or that there ever was a fragment of
a moment during which substance had no weight.

Credulity should be the servant of intelligence. The igno-

(249)

250 MISCELLANY.

rant have not credulity enough to believe the actual, because
the actual appears to be contrary to the evidence of their
senses. To them it is plain that the sun rises and sets, and
they have not credulity enough to believe in the rotary motion
of the earth — that is to say, they have not intelligence enough
to comprehend the absurdities involved in their belief, and the
perfect harmony between the rotation of the earth and all
known facts. They trust their eyes, not their reason. Igno
rance has always been and always will be at the mercy of
appearance. Credulity, as a rule, believes everything except
the truth. The semi-civilized believe in astrology, but who
could convince them of the vastness of astronomical spaces,
the speed of light, or the magnitude and number of suns and
constellations? If Hermann, the magician, and Humboldt, the
philosopher, could have appeared before savages, which would
have been regarded as a god ?

When men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of the corre
lation of force, and of its indestructibility, they were believers
in perpetual motion. So when chemistry was a kind of sleight-
of-hand, or necromancy, something accomplished by the aid
of the supernatural, people talked about the transmutation of
metals, the universal solvent, and the philosopher's stone.
Perpetual motion would be a mechanical miracle ; and the
transmutation of metals would be a miracle in chemistry ; and
if we could make the result of multiplying two by two five,
that would be a miracle in mathematics. No one expects to
find a circle the diameter of which is just one fourth of the cir
cumference. If one could find such a circle, then there would
be a miracle in geometry.

In other words, there are no miracles in any science. The
moment we understand a question or subject, the miraculous
necessarily disappears. If anything actually happens in the
chemical world, it will, under like conditions, happen agaia

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? 25!

No one need take an account of this result from the mouths of
others : all can try the experiment for themselves. There is
no caprice, and no accident.

It is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that the age
of miracles has passed away, and, consequently, miracles can
not at present be established by miracles ; they must be sub
stantiated by the testimony of witnesses who are said by certain
writers — or, rather, by uncertain writers — to have lived several
centuries ago ; and this testimony is given to us, not by the
witnesses themselves, not by persons who say that they talked
with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did not
give the sources of their information.

The question is : Can miracles be established except by
miracles ? We know that the writers may have been mistaken.
It is possible that they may have manufactured these accounts
themselves. The witnesses may have told what they knew to
be untrue, or they may have been honestly deceived, or the
stories may have been true as at first told. Imagination may
have added greatly to them, so that after several centuries of
accretion a very simple truth was changed to a miracle.

We must admit that all probabilities must be against mira
cles, for the reason that that which is probable cannot by any
possibility be a miracle. Neither the probable nor the possible,
so far as man is concerned, can be miraculous. The proba
bility therefore says that the writers and witnesses were either
mistaken or dishonest.

We must admit that we have never seen a miracle ourselves,
and we must admit that, according to our experience, there
are no miracles. If we have mingled with the world, we are
compelled to say that we have known a vast number of persons
— including ourselves — to be mistaken, and many others who
have failed to tell the exact truth. The probabilities are on
the side of our experience, and, consequently, against the

25* MISCELLANY.

miraculous; and it is a necessity that the free mind moves
along the path of least resistance.

The effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and
honesty of the witness and the intelligence of him who weighs.
A man living in a community where the supernatural is ex
pected, where the miraculous is supposed to be of almost daily
occurrence, will, as a rule, believe that all wonderful things are
the result of supernatural agencies. He will expect providen
tial interference, and, as a consequence, his mind will pursue
the path of least resistance, and will account for all phenomena
by what to him is the easiest method. Such people, with the
best intentions, honestly bear false witness. They have been
imposed upon by appearances, and are victims of delusion and
illusion.

In an age when reading and writing were substantially un
known, and when history itself was but the vaguest hearsay
handed down from dotage to infancy, nothing was rescued from
oblivion except the wonderful, the miraculous. The more
marvelous the story, the greater the interest excited. Narra
tors and hearers were alike ignorant and alike honest. At that
time nothing was known, nothing suspected, of the orderly
course of nature — of the unbroken and unbreakable chain of
causes and effects. The world was governed by caprice.
Everything was at the mercy of a being, or beings, who were
themselves controlled by the same passions that dominated
man. Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and the
deductions drawn were honest and monstrous.

It is probably certain that all of the religions of the world
have been believed, and that all the miracles have found cre
dence in countless brains ; otherwise they could not have been
perpetuated. They were not all born of cunning. Those who
told were as honest as those who heard. This being so, noth
ing has been too absurd for human credence.

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? 253

All religions, so far as I know, claim to have been miracu
lously founded, miraculously preserved, and miraculously
propagated. The priests of all claimed to have messages from
God, and claimed to have a certain authority, and the miracu
lous has always been appealed to for the purpose of substanti
ating the message and the authority.

If men believe in the supernatural, they will account for all
phenomena by an appeal to supernatural means or power.
We know that formerly everything was accounted for in this
way except some few simple things with which man thought
he was perfectly acquainted. After a time men found that
under like conditions like would happen, and as to those things
the supposition of supernatural interference was abandoned ;
but that interference was still active as to all the unknown
world. In other words, as the circle of man's knowledge
grew, supernatural interference withdrew and was active only
just beyond the horizon of the known.

Now, there are some believers in universal special providence
— that is, men who believe in perpetual interference by a super
natural power, this interference being for the purpose of pun
ishing or rewarding, of destroying or preserving, individuals
and nations.

Others have abandoned the idea of providence in ordinary
matters, but still believe that God interferes on great occasions
and at critical moments, especially in the affairs of nations, and
that his presence is manifest in great disasters. This is the
compromise position. These people believe that an infinite
being made the universe and impressed upon it what they are
pleased to call "laws," and then left it to run in accordance
with those laws and forces ; that as a rule it works well, and
that the divine maker interferes only in cases of accident, or at
moments when the machine fails to accomplish the original
design.

254 MISCELLANY.

There are others who take the ground that all is natural ;
that there never has been, never will be, never can be any
interference from without, for the reason that nature embraces
all, and that there can be no without or beyond.

The first class are Theists pure and simple ; the second are
Theists as to the unknown, Naturalists as to the known ; and
the third are Naturalists without a touch or taint of superstition.

What can the evidence of the first class be worth ? This
question is answered by reading the history of those nations
that believed thoroughly and implicitly in the supernatural.
There is no conceivable absurdity that was not established by
their testimony. Every law or every fact in nature was vio
lated. Children were born without parents ; men lived for
thousands of years ; others subsisted without food, without
sleep ; thousands and thousands were possessed with evil
spirits controlled by ghosts and ghouls ; thousands confessed
themselves guilty of impossible offences, and in courts, with
the most solemn forms, impossibilities were substantiated by
the oaths, affirmations, and confessions of men, women, and
children.

These delusions were not confined to ascetics and peasants,
but they took possession of nobles and kings ; of people who
were at that time called intelligent ; of the then educated. No
one denied these wonders, for the reason that denial was a
crime punishable generally with death. Societies, nations,
became insane — victims of ignorance, of dreams, and, above
all, of fears. Under these conditions human testimony is not
and cannot be of the slightest value. We now know that
nearly all of the history of the world is false, and we know this
because we have arrived at that phase or point of intellectual
development where and when we know that effects must have
causes, that everything is naturally produced, and that, conse
quently, no nation could ever have been great, powerful, and

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? 255

rich unless it had the soil, the people, the intelligence, and the
commerce. Weighed in these scales, nearly all histories are
found to be fictions.

The same is true of religions. Every intelligent American
is satisfied that the religions of India, of Egypt, of Greece and
Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are false, and that all the mira
cles on which they rest are mistakes. Our religion alone is
excepted. Every intelligent Hindoo discards all religions and
all miracles except his own. The question is : When will peo
ple see the defects in their own theology as clearly as they
perceive the same defects in every other ?

All the so-called false religions were substantiated by mira
cles, by signs and wonders, by prophets and martyrs, precisely
as our own. Our witnesses are no better than theirs, and our
success is no greater. If their miracles were false, ours cannot
be true. Nature was the same in India and in Palestine.

One of the corner-stones of Christianity is the miracle of
inspiration, and this same miracle lies at the foundation of all
religions. How can the fact of inspiration be established?
How could even the inspired man know that he was inspired ?
If he was influenced to write, and did write, and did express
thoughts and facts that to him were absolutely new, on subjects
about which he had previously known nothing, how could he
know that he had been influenced by an infinite being ? And
if he could know, how could he convince others ?

What is meant by inspiration ? Did the one inspired set
down only the thoughts of a supernatural being? Was he
simply an instrument, or did his personality color the message
received and given ? Did he mix his ignorance with the divine
information, his prejudices and hatreds with the love and jus
tice of the Deity ? If God told him not to eat the flesh of any
beast that dieth of itself, did the same infinite being also tell
him to sell this meat to the stranger within his gates ?

$56 MISCELLANY.

A man says that he is inspired — that God appeared to him
in a dream, and told him certain things. Now, the things said
to have been communicated may have been good and wise ;
but will the fact that the communication is good or wise estab
lish the inspiration ? If, on the other hand, the communication
is absurd or wicked, will that conclusively show that the man
was not inspired ? Must we judge from the communication ?
In other words, is our reason to be the final standard ?

How could the inspired man know that the communication
was received from God ? If God in reality should appear to a
human being, how could this human being know who had
appeared? By what standard would he judge? Upon this
question man has no experience ; he is not familiar enough
with the supernatural to know gods even if they exist. Al
though thousands have pretended to receive messages, there
has been no message in which there was, or is, anything above
the invention of man. There are just as wonderful things in
the uninspired as in the inspired books, and the prophecies of
the heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of the Judean
prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot certainly
know that he is inspired, how is it possible for him to demon
strate his inspiration to others ? The last solution of this ques
tion is that inspiration is a miracle about which only the inspired
can have the least knowledge, or the least evidence, and this
knowledge and this evidence not of a character to absolutely
convince even the inspired.

There is certainly nothing in the Old or the New Testament
that could not have been written by uninspired human beings.
To me there is nothing of any particular value in the Penta
teuch. I do not know of a solitary scientific truth contained in
the five books commonly attributed to Moses. There is not,
as far as I know, a line in the book of Genesis calculated to
make a human being better. The laws contained in Exodus,

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? 257

Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for the most part
puerile and cruel. Surely there is nothing in any of these
books that could not have been produced by uninspired men.
Certainly there is nothing calculated to excite intellectual ad
miration in the book of Judges or in the wars of Joshua ; and
the same may be said of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. The
history is extremely childish, full of repetitions of useless de
tails, without the slightest philosophy, without a generalization
born of a wide survey. Nothing is known of other nations;
nothing imparted of the slightest value ; nothing about edu
cation, discovery, or invention. And these idle and stupid
annals are interspersed with myth and miracle, with flattery
for kings who supported priests, and with curses and denun
ciations for those who would not hearken to the voice of the
prophets. If all the historic books of the Bible were blotted
from the memory of mankind, nothing of value would be lost.

Is it possible that the writer or writers of First and Second
Kings were inspired, and that Gibbon wrote ' ' The Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire ' ' without supernatural assistance ?
Is it possible that the author of Judges was simply the instru
ment of an infinite God, while John W. Draper wrote "The
Intellectual Development of Europe ' ' without one ray of light
from the other world? Can we believe that the author of
Genesis had to be inspired, while Darwin experimented, ascer
tained, and reached conclusions for himself.

Ought not the work of a God to be vastly superior to that
of a man ? And if the writers of the Bible were in reality in
spired, ought not that book to be the greatest of books? For
instance, if it were contended that certain statues had been
chiselled by inspired men, such statues should be superior to
any that uninspired man has made. As long as it is admitted
that the Venus de Milo is the work of man, no one will believe
in inspired sculptors — at least until a superior statue has been

358 MISCELLANY.

found. So in the world of painting. We admit that Corot
was uninspired. Nobody claims that Angelo had supernatural
assistance. Now, if some one should claim that a certain
painter was simply the instrumentality of God, certainly the
pictures produced by that painter should be superior to all
others.

I do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human being
to conclude that the Song of Solomon is the work of God, and
that the tragedy of Lear was the work of an uninspired
man. We are all liable to be mistaken, but the Iliad seems
to me a greater work than the Book of Esther, and I prefer it to
the writings of Haggai and Hosea. ^Eschylus is superior to
Jeremiah, and Shakespeare rises immeasurably above all the
sacred books of the world.

It does not seem possible that any human being ever tried
to establish a truth — anything that really happened — by what
is called a miracle. It is easy to understand how that which
was common became wonderful by accretion, — by things added,
and by things forgotten, — and it is easy to conceive how that
which was wonderful became by accretion what was called su
pernatural. But it does not seem possible that any intelligent,
honest man ever endeavored to prove anything by a miracle.

As a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people who
demanded no evidence ; else how could they have believed the
miracle ? It also appears to be certain that, even if miracles
had been performed, it would be impossible to establish that
fact by human testimony. In other words, miracles can only
be established by miracles, and in no event could miracles be
evidence except to those who were actually present ; and in
order for miracles to be of any value, they would have to be
perpetual. It must also be remembered that a miracle actually
performed could by no possibility shed any light on any moral
truth, or add to any human obligation.

WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? 259

If any man has ever been inspired, this is a secret miracle,
known to no person, and suspected only by the man claiming
to be inspired. It would not be in the power of the inspired
to give satisfactory evidence of that fact to anybody else.

The testimony of man is insufficient to establish the super
natural. Neither the evidence of one man nor of twelve can
stand when contradicted by the experience of the intelligent
world. If a book sought to be proved by miracles is true,
then it makes no difference whether it was inspired or not ;
and if it is not true, inspiration cannot add to its value.

The truth is that the church has always — unconsciously, per
haps — offered rewards for falsehood. It was founded upon the
supernatural, the miraculous, and it welcomed all statements
calculated to support the foundation. It rewarded the traveller
who found evidences of the miraculous, who had seen the
pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot had been changed, and
the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots on the sands of the Red Sea.
It heaped honors on the historian who rilled his pages with the
absurd and impossible. It had geologists and astronomers of
its own who constructed the earth and the constellations in
accordance with the Bible. With sword and flame it destroyed
the brave and thoughtful men who told the truth. It was the
enemy of investigation and of reason. Faith and fiction were
in partnership.

To-day the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous.
Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of
Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fab
ric must fall. The natural is true. The miraculous is false.

North American Review, March, 1890.

HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

IN the February number of the Nineteenth Century, 1889,13
an article by Professor Huxley, entitled ' 'Agnosticism. ' ' It
seems that a church congress was held at Manchester in Octo
ber, 1888, and that the Principal of King's College brought
the topic of Agnosticism before the assembly and made the
following statement :

" But if this be so, for a man to urge as an escape from this article
of belief that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of an unseen
world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from Christians lies,
not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he
does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may
prefer to call himself an Agnostic, but his real name is an older one —
he is an infidel ; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel, per
haps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it
should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to
have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."

Let us examine this statement, putting it in language that is
easily understood ; and for that purpose we will divide it into
several paragraphs.

First. — ' ' For a man to urge that he has no means of a scien
tific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is
irrelevant."

Is there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge ?
Are there several kinds of knowing ? Is there such a thing as
scientific ignorance ? If a man says, ' ' I know nothing of the
unseen world because I have no knowledge upon that subject,"

264 MISCELLANY.

is the fact that he has no knowledge absolutely irrelevant ?
Will the Principal of King's College say that having no knowl
edge is the reason he knows ? When asked to give your
opinion upon any subject, can it be said that your ignorance
of that subject is irrelevant ? If this be true, then your knowl
edge of the subject is also irrelevant ?

Is it possible to put in ordinary English a more perfect
absurdity ? How can a man obtain any knowledge of the un
seen world? He certainly cannot obtain it through the
medium of the senses. It is not a world that he can visit. He
cannot stand upon its shores, nor can he view them from the
ocean of imagination. The Principal of King's College,
however, insists that these impossibilities are irrelevant.

No person has come back from the unseen world. No
authentic message has been delivered. Through all the centu
ries, not one whisper has broken the silence that lies beyond
the grave. Countless millions have sought for some evidence,
have listened in vain for some word.

It is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove
the non-existence of another world — all this does not demon
strate that death ends all. But it is the justification of the
Agnostic, who candidly says, ' ' I do not know. ' '

Second. — The Principal of King's College states that the
difference between an Agnostic and a Christian ' ' lies, not in
the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he
does not believe the authority on which they are stated."

Is this a difference in knowledge, or a difference in belief —
that is to say, a difference in credulity ?

The Christian believes the Mosaic account. He reverently
hears and admits the truth of all that he finds within the Scrip
tures. Is this knowledge ? How is it possible to know whether
the reputed authors of the books of the Old Testament were
the real ones ? The witnesses are dead. The lips that could

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 265

testify are dust. Between these shores roll the waves of many
centuries. Who knows whether such a man as Moses existed
or not ? Who knows the author of Kings and Chronicles ?
By what testimony can we substantiate the authenticity of the
prophets, or of the prophecies, or of the fulfillments ? Is there
any difference between the knowledge of the Christian and of
the Agnostic? Does the Principal of King's College know
any more as to the truth of the Old Testament than the man
who modestly calls for evidence? Has not a mistake been
made ? Is not the difference one of belief instead of knowl
edge ? And is not this difference founded on the difference in
credulity? Would not an infinitely wise and good being —
where belief is a condition to salvation — supply the evidence ?
Certainly the Creator of man — if such exist — knows the exact
nature of the human mind — knows the evidence necessary to
convince ; and, consequently, such a being would act in ac
cordance with such conditions.

There is a relation between evidence and belief. The mind
is so constituted that certain things, being in accordance with
its nature, are regarded as reasonable, as probable.

There is also this fact that must not be overlooked : that is,
that just in the proportion that the brain is developed it re
quires more evidence, and becomes less and less credulous.
Ignorance and credulity go hand in hand. Intelligence under
stands something of the law of average, has an idea of proba
bility. It is not swayed by prejudice, neither is it driven to
extremes by suspicion. It takes into consideration personal
motives. It examines the character of the witnesses, makes
allowance for the ignorance of the time, — for enthusiasm, for
fear, — and comes to its conclusion without fear and without
passion.

What knowledge has the Christian of another world ? The
senses of the Christian are the same as those of the Agnostic.

266 MISCELLANY.

He hears, sees, and feels substantially the same. His vision
is limited. He sees no other shore and hears nothing from
another world.

Knowledge is something that can be imparted. It has a
foundation in fact. It comes within the domain of the senses.
It can be told, described, analyzed, and, in addition to all this,
it can be classified. Whenever a fact becomes the property of
one mind, it can become the property of the intellectual world.
There are words in which the knowledge can be conveyed.

The Christian is not a supernatural person, filled with super
natural truths. He is a natural person, and all that he knows
of value can be naturally imparted. It is within his power to
give all that he has to the Agnostic.

The Principal of King's College is mistaken when he says
that the difference between the Agnostic and the Christian does
not lie in the fact that the Agnostic has no knowledge, ' ' but
that he does not believe the authority on which these things
are stated. ' '

The real difference is this : the Christian says that he has
knowledge ; the Agnostic admits that he has none ; and yet
the Christian accuses the Agnostic of arrogance, and asks him
how he has the impudence to admit the limitations of his mind.
To the Agnostic every fact is a torch, and by this light, and
this light only, he walks.

It is also true that the Agnostic does not believe the authority
relied on by the Christian. What is the authority of the Chris
tian ? Thousands of years ago it is supposed that certain men,
or, rather, uncertain men, wrote certain things. It is alleged
by the Christian that these men were divinely inspired, and
that the words of these men are to be taken as absolutely true,
no matter whether or not they are verified by modern discovery
and demonstration.

How can we know that any human being was divinely in-

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 267

spired ? There has been no personal revelation to us to the
effect that certain people were inspired — it is only claimed that
the revelation was to them. For this we have only their word,
and about that there is this difficulty : we know nothing of
them, and, consequently, cannot, if we desire, rely upon their
character for truth. This evidence is not simply hearsay — it
is far weaker than that. We have only been told that they
said these things ; we do not know whether the persons claim
ing to be inspired wrote these things or not ; neither are we
certain that such persons ever existed. We know now that
the greatest men with whom we are acquainted are often mis
taken about the simplest matters. We also know that men
saying something like the same things, in other countries and
in ancient days, must have been impostors. The Christian
has no confidence in the words of Mohammed ; the Moham
medan cares nothing about the declarations of Buddha ; and
the Agnostic gives to the words of the Christian the value only
of the truth that is in them. He knows that these sayings get
neither truth nor worth from the person who uttered them.
He knows that the sayings themselves get their entire value
from the truth they express. So that the real difference be
tween the Christian and the Agnostic does not lie in their
knowledge, — for neither of them has any knowledge on this
subject, — but the difference does lie in credulity, and in noth
ing else. The Agnostic does not rely on the authority of
Moses and the prophets. He finds that they were mistaken
in most matters capable of demonstration. He finds that their
mistakes multiply in the proportion that human knowledge
increases. He is satisfied that the religion of the ancient Jews
is, in most things, as ignorant and cruel as other religions of
the ancient world. He concludes that the efforts, in all ages,
to answer the questions of origin and destiny, and to account
for the phenomena of life, have all been substantial failures.

268 MISCELLANY.

In the presence of demonstration there is no opportunity for
the exercise of faith. Truth does not appeal to credulity — it
appeals to evidence, to established facts, to the constitution of
the mind. It endeavors to harmonize the new fact with all
that we know, and to bring it within the circumference of
human experience.

The church has never cultivated investigation. It has never
said : Let him who has a mind to think, think ; but its cry
from the first until now has been : Let him who has ears to
hear, hear.

The pulpit does not appeal to the reason of the pew ; it
speaks by authority and it commands the pew to believe, and
it not only commands, but it threatens.

The Agnostic knows that the testimony of man is not suffi
cient to establish what is known as the miraculous. We would
not believe to-day the testimony of millions to the effect that
the dead had been raised. The church itself would be the
first to attack such testimony. If we cannot believe those
whom we know, why should we believe witnesses who have
been dead thousands of years, and about whom we know
nothing ?

Third. — The Principal of King's College, growing some
what severe, declares that ' ' he may prefer to call himself an
Agnostic, but his real name is an older one — he is an infidel ;
that is to say, an unbeliever."

This is spoken in a kind of holy scorn. According to this
gentleman, an unbeliever is, to a certain extent, a disreputable
person.

In this sense, what is an unbeliever ? He is one whose mind
is so constituted that what the Christian calls evidence is not
satisfactory to him. Is a person accountable for the consti
tution of his mind, for the formation of his brain ? Is any
human being responsible for the weight that evidence has upon

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 269

him ? Can he believe without evidence ? Is the weight of
evidence a question of choice? Is there such a thing as
honestly weighing testimony ? Is the result of such weighing
necessary? Does it involve moral responsibility? If the
Mosaic account does not convince a man that it is true, is he a
wretch because he is candid enough to tell the truth ? Can he
preserve his manhood only by making a false statement ?

The Mohammedan would call the Principal of King's Col
lege an unbeliever, — so would the tribes of Central Africa, —
and he would return the compliment, and all would be equally
justified. Has the Principal of King's College any knowledge
that he keeps from the rest of the world ? Has he the confi
dence of the Infinite ? Is there anything praiseworthy in be
lieving where the evidence is sufficient, or is one to be praised
for believing only where the evidence is insufficient ? Is a man
to be blamed for not agreeing with his fellow-citizen ? Were
the unbelievers in the pagan world better or worse than their
neighbors? It is probably true that some of the greatest
Greeks believed in the gods of that nation, and it is equally
true that some of the greatest denied their existence. If cre
dulity is a virtue now, it must have been in the days of Athens.
If to believe without evidence entitles one to eternal reward in
this century, certainly the same must have been true in the
days of the Pharaohs.

An infidel is one who does not believe in the prevailing relig
ion. We now admit that the infidels of Greece and Rome
were right. The gods that they refused to believe in are dead.
Their thrones are empty, and long ago the sceptres dropped
from their nerveless hands. To-day the world honors the
men who denied and derided these gods.

Fourth. — The Principal of King's College ventures to sug
gest that ' ' the word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant sig
nificance ; perhaps it is right that it should. ' '

270 MISCELLANY.

A few years ago the word infidel did carry ' ' an unpleasant
significance. ' ' A few years ago its significance was so unpleasant
that the man to whom the word was applied found himself in
prison or at the stake. In particularly kind communities he
was put in the stocks, pelted with offal, derided by hypocrites,
scorned by ignorance, jeered by cowardice, and all the priests
passed by on the other side.

There was a time when Episcopalians were regarded as infi
dels ; when a true Catholic looked upon a follower of Henry
VIII. as an infidel, as an unbeliever ; when a true Catholic
held in detestation the man who preferred a murderer and
adulterer — a man who swapped religions for the sake of ex
changing wives — to the Pope, the head of the universal church.

It is easy enough to conceive of an honest man denying the
claims of a church based on the caprice of an English king.
The word infidel ' ' carries an unpleasant significance ' ' only
where the Christians are exceedingly ignorant, intolerant, big
oted, cruel, and unmannerly.

The real gentleman gives to others the rights that he claims
for himself. The civilized man rises far above the bigotry of
one who has been ' ' born again." Good breeding is far gentler
than " universal love."

It is natural for the church to hate an unbeliever — natural
for the pulpit to despise one who refuses to subscribe, who re
fuses to give. It is a question of revenue instead of religion.
The Episcopal Church has the instinct of self-preservation.
It uses its power, its influence, to compel contribution. It
forgives the giver.

Fifth. — The Principal of King's College insists that " it is,
and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to
say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."

Should it be an unpleasant thing for a man to say plainly
what he believes ? Can this be unpleasant except in an unciv-

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 27 1

ilized community — a community in which an uncivilized church
has authority ?

Why should not a man be as free to say that he does not
believe as to say that he does believe ? Perhaps the real ques
tion is whether all men have an equal right to express their
opinions. Is it the duty of the minority to keep silent ? Are
majorities always right ? If the minority had never spoken,
what to-day would have been the condition of this world ?
Are the majority the pioneers of progress, or does the pioneer,
as a rule, walk alone ? Is it his duty to close his lips ? Must
the inventor allow his inventions to die in the brain ? Must
the discoverer of new truths make of his mind a tomb ? Is
man under any obligation to his fellows ? Was the Episcopal
religion always in the majority? Was it at any time in the
history of the world an unpleasant thing to be called a Pro
testant ? Did the word Protestant ' ' carry an unpleasant sig
nificance " ? Was it " perhaps right that it should " ? Was
Luther a misfortune to the human race ?

If a community is thoroughly civilized, why should it be an
unpleasant thing for a man to express his belief in respectful
language? If the argument is against him, it might be un
pleasant ; but why should simple numbers be the foundation
of unpleasantness ? If the majority have the facts, — if they
have the argument, — why should they fear the mistakes of the
minority ? Does any theologian hate the man he can answer ?

It is claimed by the Episcopal Church that Christ was in fact
God ; and it is further claimed that the New Testament is an
inspired account of what that being and his disciples did and
said. Is there any obligation resting on any human being to
believe this account ? Is it within the power of man to deter
mine the influence that testimony shall have upon his mind ?

If one denies the existence of devils, does he, for that reason,
cease to believe in Jesus Christ ? Is it not possible to imagine

272 MISCELLANY.

that a great and tender soul living in Palestine nearly twenty
centuries ago was misunderstood ? Is it not within the realm
of the possible that his words have been inaccurately reported?
Is it not within the range of the probable that legend and
rumor and ignorance and zeal have deformed his life and be
littled his character ?

If the man Christ lived and taught and suffered, if he was, in
reality, great and noble, who is his friend — the one who attri
butes to him feats of jugglery, or he who maintains that these
stories were invented by zealous ignorance and believed by
enthusiastic credulity ?

If he claimed to have wrought miracles, he must have been
either dishonest or insane ; consequently, he who denies mir
acles does what little he can to rescue the reputation of a great
and splendid man.

The Agnostic accepts the good he did, the truth he said,
and rejects only that which, according to his judgment, is
inconsistent with truth and goodness.

The Principal of King's College evidently believes in the
necessity of belief. He puts conviction or creed or credulity
in place of character. According to his idea, it is impossible
to win the approbation of God by intelligent investigation and
by the expression of honest conclusions. He imagines that
the Infinite is delighted with credulity, with belief without evi
dence, faith without question.

Man has but little reason, at best ; but this little should be
used. No matter how small the taper is, how feeble the ray
of light it casts, it is better than darkness, and no man should
be rewarded for extinguishing the light he has.

We know now, if we know anything, that man in this, the
nineteenth century, is better capable of judging as to the
happening of any event, than he ever was before. We know
that the standard is higher to-day— we know that the intel-

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 273

lectual light is greater — we know that the human mind is better
equipped to deal with all questions of human interest, than at
any other time within the known history of the human race.

It will not do to say that " our Lord and his apostles must at
least be regarded as honest men." Let this be admitted, and
what does it prove ? Honesty is not enough. Intelligence
and honesty must go hand in hand. We may admit now
that ' ' our Lord and his apostles ' ' were perfectly honest men ;
yet it does not follow that we have a truthful account of what
they said and of what they did. It is not pretended that "our
Lord ' ' wrote anything, and it is not known that one of the
apostles ever wrote a word. Consequently, the most that we
can say is that somebody has written something about ' ' our
Lord and his apostles." Whether that somebody knew or
did not know is unknown to us. As to whether what is writ
ten is true or false, we must judge by that which is written.

First of all, is it probable ? is it within the experience of
mankind ? We should judge of the gospels as we judge of
other histories, of other biographies. We know that many
biographies written by perfectly honest men are not correct.
We know, if we know anything, that honest men can be mis
taken, and it is not necessary to believe everything that a man
writes because we believe he was honest. Dishonest men
may write the truth.

At last the standard or criterion is for each man to judge
according to what he believes to be human experience. We
are satisfied that nothing more wonderful has happened than
is now happening. We believe that the present is as wonder
ful as the past, and just as miraculous as the future. If we are
to believe in the truth of the Old Testament, the word evidence
loses its meaning ; there ceases to be any standard of proba
bility, and the mind simply accepts or denies without reason.

We are told that certain miracles were performed for the

274 MISCELLANY.

purpose of attesting the mission and character of Christ. How
can these miracles be verified ? The miracles of the Middle
Ages rest upon substantially the same evidence. The same
may be said of the wonders of all countries and of all ages.
How is it a virtue to deny the miracles of Mohammed and to
believe those attributed to Christ ?

You may say of St. Augustine that what he said was true or
false. We know that much of it was false ; and yet we are not
justified in saying that he was dishonest. Thousands of errors
have been propagated by honest men. As a rule, mistakes
get their wings from honest people. The testimony of a wit
ness to the happening of the impossible gets no weight from
the honesty of the witness. The fact that falsehoods are in the
New Testament does not tend to prove that the writers were
knowingly untruthful. No man can be honest enough to sub
stantiate, to the satisfaction of reasonable men, the happening
of a miracle.

For this reason it makes not the slightest difference whether
the writers of the New Testament were honest or not. Their
character is not involved. Whenever a man rises above his
contemporaries, whenever he excites the wonder of his fellows,
his biographers always endeavor to bridge over the chasm be
tween the people and this man, and for that purpose attribute to
him the qualities which in the eyes of the multitude are desirable.

Miracles are demanded by savages, and, consequently, the
savage biographer attributes miracles to his hero. What
would we think now of a man who, in writing the life of
Charles Darwin, should attribute to him supernatural powers ?
What would we say of an admirer of Humboldt who should
claim that the great German could cast out devils ? We would
feel that Darwin and Humboldt had been belittled ; that the
biographies were written for children and by men who had not
outgrown the nursery.

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 275

If the reputation of ' ' our Lord " is to be preserved — if he
is to stand with the great and splendid of the earth — if he is to
continue a constellation in the intellectual heavens, all claim to
the miraculous, to the supernatural, must be abandoned.

No one can overestimate the evils that have been endured by
the human race by reason of a departure from the standard of
the natural. The world has been governed by jugglery, by
sleight-of-hand. Miracles, wonders, tricks, have been re
garded as of far greater importance than the steady, the sub
lime and unbroken march of cause and effect. The improbable
has been established by the impossible. Falsehood has fur
nished the foundation for faith.

Is the human body at present the residence of evil spirits, or
have these imps of darkness perished from the world ? Where
are they ? If the New Testament establishes anything, it is
the existence of innumerable devils, and that these satanic be
ings absolutely took possession of the human mind. Is this
true ? Can anything be more absurd ? Does any intellectual
man who has examined the question believe that depraved
demons live in the bodies of men ? Do they occupy space ?
Do they live upon some kind of food ? Of what shape are
they ? Could they be classified by a naturalist ? Do they
run or float or fly ? If to deny the existence of these sup
posed beings is to be an infidel, how can the word infidel
" carry an unpleasant significance " ?

Of course it is the business of the principals of most colleges,
as well as of bishops, cardinals, popes, priests, and clergymen
to insist upon the existence of evil spirits. All these gentle
men are employed to counteract the influence of these sup
posed demons. Why should they take the bread out of their
own mouths? Is it to be expected that they will unfrock
themselves ?

The church, like any other corporation, has the instinct of

276 MISCELLANY.

self-preservation. It will defend itself ; it will fight as long as it
has the power to change a hand into a fist.

The Agnostic takes the ground that human experience is the
basis of morality. Consequently, it is of no importance who
wrote the gospels, or who vouched or vouches for the genu
ineness of the miracles. In his scheme of life these things are
utterly unimportant. He is satisfied that " the miraculous " is
the impossible. He knows that the witnesses were wholly in
capable of examining the questions involved, that credulity had
possession of their minds, that "the miraculous" was ex
pected, that it was their daily food.

All this is very clearly and delightfully stated by Professor
Huxley, and it hardly seems possible that any intelligent man
can read what he says without feeling that the foundation of
all superstition has been weakened. The article is as remark
able for its candor as for its clearness. Nothing is avoided —
everything is met. No excuses are given. He has left all
apologies for the other side. When you have finished what
Professor Huxley has written, you feel that your mind has been
in actual contact with the mind of another, that nothing has
been concealed ; and not only so, but you feel that this mind
is not only willing, but anxious, to know the actual truth.

To me, the highest uses of philosophy are, first, to free the
mind of fear, and, second, to avert all the evil that can be
averted, through intelligence — that is to say, through a knowl
edge of the conditions of well-being.

We are satisfied that the absolute is beyond our vision, be
neath our touch, above our reach. We are now convinced
that we can deal only with phenomena, with relations, with
appearances, with things that impress the senses, that can be
reached by reason, by the exercise of our faculties. We are
satisfied that the reasonable road is "the straight road," the
only "sacred way."

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 277

Of course there is faith in the world — faith in this world —
and always will be, unless superstition succeeds in every land.
But the faith of the wise man is based upon facts. His faith is
a reasonable conclusion drawn from the known. He has
faith in the progress of the race, in the triumph of intelligence,
in the coming sovereignty of science. He has faith in the de
velopment of the brain, in the gradual enlightenment of the
mind. And so he works for the accomplishment of great ends,
having faith in the final victory of the race.

He has honesty enough to say that he does not know. He
perceives and admits that the mind has limitations. He
doubts the so-called wisdom of the past. He looks for evi
dence, and he endeavors to keep his mind free from prejudice.
He believes in the manly virtues, in the judicial spirit, and in
his obligation to tell his honest thoughts.

It is uselesss to talk about a destruction of consolations.
That which is suspected to be untrue loses its power to console.
A man should be brave enough to bear the truth.

Professor Huxley has stated with great clearness the attitude
of the Agnostic. It seems that he is somewhat severe on the
Positive Philosophy, While it is hard to see the propriety
of worshiping Humanity as a being, it is easy to understand
the splendid dream of August Comte. Is the human race
worthy to be worshiped by itself— that is to say, should the
individual worship himself? Certainly the religion of human
ity is better than the religion of the inhuman. The Positive
Philosophy is better far than Catholicism. It does not fill the
heavens with monsters, nor the future with pain.

It may be said that Luther and Comte endeavored to re
form the Catholic Church. Both were mistaken, because the
only reformation of which that church is capable is destruction.
It is a mass of superstition.

The mission of Positivism is, in the language of its founder,

278 MISCELLANY.

"to generalize science and to systematize sociality." It seems
to me that Comte stated with great force and with absolute
truth the three phases of intellectual evolution or progress.

First. — " In the supernatural phase the mind seeks causes —
aspires to know the essence of things, and the How and Why
of their operation. In this phase, all facts are regarded as the
productions of supernatural agents, and unusual phenomena
are interpreted as the signs of the pleasure or displeasure of
some god."

Here at this point is the orthodox world of to-day. The
church still imagines that phenomena should be interpreted as
the signs of the pleasure or displeasure of God. Nearly every
history is deformed with this childish and barbaric view.

Second. — The next phase or modification, according to
Comte, is the metaphysical. c ' The supernatural agents are
dispensed with, and in their places we find abstract forces or
entities supposed to inhere in substances and capable of engen
dering phenomena. ' '

In this phase people talk about laws and principles as
though laws and principles were forces capable of producing
phenomena.

Third. — "The last stage is the Positive. The mind, con
vinced of the futility of all enquiry into causes and essences,
restricts itself to the observation and classification of phenom
ena, and to the discovery of the invariable relations of succes
sion and similitude — in a word, to the discovery of the relations
of phenomena."

Why is not the Positive stage the point reached by the
Agnostic ? He has ceased to inquire into the origin of things.
He has perceived the limitations of the mind. He is thor
oughly convinced of the uselessness and futility and absurdity
of theological methods, and restricts himself to the examination
of phenomena, to their relations, to their effects, and endeav-

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM. 279

ors to find in the complexity of things the true conditions of
human happiness.

Although I am not a believer in the philosophy of Auguste
Comte, I cannot shut my eyes to the value of his thought ;
neither is it possible for me not to applaud his candor, his in
telligence, and the courage it required even to attempt to lay
the foundation of the Positive Philosophy.

Professor Huxley and Frederic Harrison are splendid soldiers
in the army of Progress. They have attacked with signal suc
cess the sacred and solemn stupidities of superstition. Both
have appealed to that which is highest and noblest in man.
Both have been the destroyers of prejudice. Both have shed
light, and both have won great victories on the fields of intel
lectual conflict. They cannot afford to waste time in attacking
each other.

After all, the Agnostic and the Positivist have the same end
in view — both believe in living for this world.

The theologians, finding themselves unable to answer the
arguments that have been urged, resort to the old subterfuge
— to the old cry that Agnosticism takes something of value
from the life of man. Does the Agnostic take any consolation
from the world ? Does he blot out, or dim, one star in the
heaven of hope ? Can there be anything more consoling than
to feel, to know, that Jehovah is not God — that the message
of the Old Testament is not from the infinite?

Is it not enough to fill the brain with a happiness unspeaka
ble to know that the words, ' ' Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, ' ' will never be spoken to one of the children
of men ?

, Is it a small thing to lift from the shoulders of industry the
burdens of superstition ? Is it a little thing to drive the mon
ster of fear from the hearts of men ? — North American Review, April,
1889.

ERNEST RENAN.

ERNEST RENAN.

" Blessed are those

Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled
That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please."

ERNEST RENAN is dead. Another source of light ; an
other force of civilization ; another charming personality;
another brave soul, graceful in thought, generous in deed ; a
sculptor in speech, a colorist in words — clothing all in the
poetry born of a delightful union of heart and brain — has
passed to the realm of rest.

Reared under the influences of Catholicism, educated for the
priesthood, yet by reason of his natural genius, he began to
think. Forces that utterly subjugate and enslave the mind of
mediocrity sometimes rouse to thought and action the superior
soul.

Renan began to think — a dangerous thing for a Catholic to
do. Thought leads to doubt, doubt to investigation, investi
gation to truth — the enemy of all superstition.

He lifted the Catholic extinguisher from the light and flame
of reason. He found that his mental vision was improved.
He read the Scriptures for himself, examined them as he did
other books not claiming to be inspired. He found the same
mistakes, the same prejudices, the same miraculous impossibil
ities in the book attributed to God that he found in those
known to have been written by men.

284 MISCELLANY.

Into the path of reason, or rather into the highway, Renan
was led by Henriette, his sister, to whom he pays a tribute
that has the perfume of a perfect flower.

"I was," writes Renan, "brought up by women and
priests, and therein lies the whole explanation of my good
qualities and of my defects." In most that he wrote is the
tenderness of woman, only now and then a little touch of the
priest showing itself, mostly in a reluctance to spoil the ivy
by tearing down some prison built by superstition.

In spite of the heartless ' ' scheme ' ' of things he still found
it in his heart to say, " When God shall be complete, He will
be just," at the same time saying that "nothing proves to us
that there exists in the world a central consciousness — a soul
of the universe — and nothing proves the contrary." So, what
ever was the verdict of his brain, his heart asked for immortal
ity. He wanted his dream, and he was willing that others
should have theirs. Such is the wish and will of all great
souls.

He knew the church thoroughly and anticipated what
would finally be written about him by churchmen : " Having
some experience of ecclesiastical writers I can sketch out in
advance the way my biography will be written in Spanish in
some Catholic review, of Santa Fe, in the year 2,000. Heavens!
how black I shall be ! I shall be so all the more, because the
church when she feels that she is lost will end with malice.
She will bite like a mad dog. ' '

He anticipated such a biography because he had thought for
himself, and because he had expressed his thoughts — because
he had declared that ' ' our universe, within the reach of our
experience, is not governed by any intelligent reason. God,
as the common herd understand him, the living God, the
acting God — the God-Providence, does not show himself in
the universe" — because he attacked the mythical and the

ERNEST RENAN. 28$

miraculous in the life of Christ and sought to rescue from the
calumnies of ignorance and faith a serene and lofty soul.

The time has arrived when Jesus must become a myth or a
man. The idea that he was the infinite God must be abandon
ed by all who are not religiously insane. Those who have
given up the claim that he was God, insist that he was divinely
appointed and illuminated ; that he was a perfect man — the
highest possible type of the human race and, consequently, a
perfect example for all the world.

As time goes on, as men get wider or grander or more com
plex ideas of life, as the intellectual horizon broadens, the idea
that Christ was perfect may be modified.

The New Testament seems to describe several individuals
under the same name, or at least one individual who passed
through several stages or phases of religious development.
Christ is described as a devout Jew, as one who endeavored to
comply in all respects with the old law. Many sayings are
attributed to him consistent with this idea. He certainly was
a Hebrew in belief and feeling when he said, ' ' Swear not by
Heaven, because it is God's throne, nor by earth, for it is his
footstool ; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city. ' ' These
reasons were in exact accordance with the mythology of
the Jews. God was regarded simply as an enormous man,
as one who walked in the garden in the cool of the evening,
as one who had met man face to face, who had conversed
with Moses for forty days upon Mount Sinai, as a great king,
with a throne in the heavens, using the earth to rest his feet
upon, and regarding Jerusalem as his holy city.

Then we find plenty of evidence that he wished to reform the
religion of the Jews ; to fulfill the law, not to abrogate it.
Then there is still another change : he has ceased his efforts to
reform that religion and has become a destroyer. He holds
the Temple in contempt and repudiates the idea that Jerusalem

286 MISCELLANY.

is the holy city. He concludes that it is unnecessary to go to
some mountain or some building to worship or to find God,
and insists that the heart is the true temple, that ceremonies
are useless, that all pomp and pride and show are needless,
and that it is enough to worship God under heaven's dome, in
spirit and in truth.

It is impossible to harmonize these views unless we admit
that Christ was the subject of growth and change ; that in con
sequence of growth and change he modified his views ; that,
from wanting to preserve Judaism as it was, he became con
vinced that it ought to be reformed. That he then abandoned
the idea of reformation, and made up his mind that the only
reformation of which the Jewish religion was capable was de
struction. If he was in fact a man, then the course he pur
sued was natural ; but if he was God, it is perfectly absurd.
If we give to him perfect knowledge, then it is impossible to
account for change or growth. If, on the other hand, the
ground is taken that he was a perfect man, then, it might be
asked, Was he perfect when he wished to preserve, or when
he wished to reform, or when he resolved to destroy, the relig
ion of the Jews ? If he is to be regarded as perfect, although
not divine, when did he reach perfection ?

It is perfectly evident that Christ, or the character that bears
that name, imagined that the world was about to be destroyed,
or at least purified by fire, and that, on account of this curious
belief, he became the enemy of marriage, of all earthly ambi
tion and of all enterprise. With that view in his mind, he said
to himself, " Why should we waste our energies in producing
food f >r destruction ? Why should we endeavor to beautify a
world that is so soon to perish? " Filled with the thought of
coming change, he insisted that there was but one important
thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should
care nothing for the ties of kindred, nothing for wife or child

ERNEST RENAN. 287

or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster. He should
take care of himself. He endeavored, as it is said, to induce
men to desert all they had, to let the dead, bury the dead,
and follow him. He told his disciples, or those he wished to
make his disciples, according to the Testament, that it was
their duty to desert wife and child and property, and if they
would so desert kindred and wealth, he would reward them
here and hereafter.

We know now — if we know anything — that Jesus was mis
taken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he
was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake.
Believing that the end was near, he said, ' ' Take no thought
for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or
wherewithal ye shall be clothed. ' ' It was in view of the de
struction of the world that he called the attention of his disci
ples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the
glory of its raiment. Having made this mistake, having acted
upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in
knowledge.

He is regarded by many millions as the impersonation of
patience, of forbearance, of meekness and mercy, and yet,
according to the account, he said many extremely bitter words,
and threatened eternal pain.

We also know, if the account be true, that he claimed to
have supernatural power, to work miracles, to cure the blind
and to raise the dead, and we know that he did nothing of the
kind. So if the writers of the New Testament tell the truth as
to what Christ claimed, it is absurd to say that he was a per
fect man. If honest, he was deceived, and those who are de
ceived are not perfect.

There is nothing in the New Testament, so far as we know,
that touches on the duties of nation to nation, or of nation to
its citizens ; nothing of human liberty ; not one word about

288 MISCELLANY.

education ; not the faintest hint that there is such a thing as
science ; nothing calculated to stimulate industry, commerce,
or invention ; not one word in favor of art, of music or any
thing calculated to feed or clothe the body, nothing to develop
the brain of man.

When it is assumed that the life of Christ, as described in
the New Testament, is perfect, we at least take upon ourselves
the burden of deciding what perfection is. People who as
serted that Christ was divine, that he was actually God,
reached the conclusion, without any laborious course of rea
soning, that all he said and did was absolute perfection.
They said this because they had first been convinced that he
was divine. The moment his divinity is given up and the
assertion is made that he was perfect, we are not permitted to
reason in that way. They said he was God, therefore perfect.
Now, if it is admitted that he was human, the conclusion that
he was perfect does not follow. We then take the burden
upon ourselves of deciding what perfection is. To decide
what is perfect is beyond the powers of the human mind.

Renan, in spite of his education, regarded Christ as a man,
and did the best he could to account for the miracles that had
been attributed to him, for the legends that had gathered
about his name, and the impossibilities connected with his
career, and also tried to account for the origin or birth of these
miracles, of these legends, of these myths, including the res
urrection and ascension. I am not satisfied with all the con
clusions he reached or with all the paths he traveled. The
refraction of light caused by passing through a woman's tears
is hardly a sufficient foundation for a belief in so miraculous a
miracle as the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ.

There is another thing attributed to Christ that seems to me
conclusive evidence against the claim of perfection. Christ is
reported to have said that all sins could be forgiven except the

ERNEST RENAN. 289

sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin, however, is not de
nned. Although Christ died for the whole world, that through
him all might be saved, there is this one terrible exception :
There is no salvation for those who have sinned, or who may
hereafter sin, against the Holy Ghost. Thousands of persons
are now in asylums, having lost their reason because of their
fear that they had committed this unknown, this undefined,
this unpardonable sin.

It is said that a Roman Emperor went through a form of
publishing his laws or proclamations, posting them so high on
pillars that they could not be read, and then took the lives of
those who ignorantly violated these unknown laws. He was
regarded as a tyrant, as a murderer. And yet, what shall we
say of one who declared that the sin against the Holy Ghost
was the only one that could not be forgiven, and then left an
ignorant world to guess what that sin is ? Undoubtedly this
horror is an interpolation.

There is something like it in the Old Testament. It is as
serted by Christians that the Ten Commandments are the
foundation of all law and of all civilization, and you will find
lawyers insisting that the Mosaic Code was the first informa
tion that man received on the subject of law ; that before that
time the world was without any knowledge of justice or mercy.
If this be true the Jews had no divine laws, no real instruction
on any legal subject until the Ten Commandments were given.
Consequently, before that time there had been proclaimed or
published no law against the worship of other gods or of idols.
Moses had been on Mount Sinai talking with Jehovah. At
the end of the dialogue he received the Tables of Stone and
started down the mountain for the purpose of imparting this
information to his followers. When he reached the camp he
heard music. He saw people dancing, and he found that in
his absence Aaron and the rest of the people had cast a molten

2QO MISCELLANY.

calf which they were then worshiping. This so enraged
Moses that he broke the Tables of Stone and made prepara
tions for the punishment of the Jews. Remember that they
knew nothing about this law, and, according to the modern
Christian claims, could not have known that it was wrong to
melt gold and silver and mould it in the form of a calf. And
yet Moses killed about thirty thousand of these people for
having violated a law of which they had never heard ; a law
known only to one man and one God. Nothing could be
more unjust, more ferocious, than this ; and yet it can hardly
be said to exceed in cruelty the announcement that a certain
sin was unpardonable and then fail to define the sin. Possi
bly, to inquire what the sin is, is the sin.

Renan regards Jesus as a man, and his work gets its value
from the fact that it is written from a human standpoint. At
the same time he, consciously or unconsciously, or may be
for the purpose of sprinkling a little holy water on the heat of
religious indignation, now and then seems to speak of him as
more than human, or as having accomplished something that
man could not.

He asserts that " the Gospels are in part legendary ; that
they contain many things not true ; that they are full of mira
cles and of the supernatural." At the same time he insists
that these legends, these miracles, these supernatural things
do not affect the truth of the probable things contained in
these writings. He sees, and sees clearly, that there is no
evidence that Matthew or Mark or Luke or John wrote the
books attributed to them ; that, as a matter of fact, the mere
tide of "according to Matthew," "according to Mark,"
shows that they were written by others who claimed them to
be in accordance with the stories that had been told by
Matthew or by Mark. So Renan takes the ground that the
Gospel of Luke is founded on anterior documents and "is the

ERNEST RENAN. 29 1

work of a man who selected, pruned and combined, and that
the same man wrote the Acts of the Apostles and in the same
way."

The gospels were certainly written long after the events
described, and Renan finds the reason for this in the fact that
the Christians believed that the world was about to end ; that,
consequently, there was no need of composing books ; it was
only necessary for them to preserve in their hearts during the
little margin of time that remained a lively image of Him whom
they soon expected to meet in the clouds. For this reason the
gospels themselves had but little authority for 150 years, the
Christians relying on oral traditions. Renan shows that there
was not the slightest scruple about inserting additions in the
gospels, variously combining them, and in completing some
by taking parts from others ; that the books passed from hand
to hand, and that each one transcribed in the margin of his
copy the words and parables he had found elsewhere which
touched him; that it was not until human tradition became
weakened that the text bearing the names of the apostles be
came authoritative.

Renan has criticised the gospels somewhat in the same spirit
that he would criticise a modern work. He saw clearly that
the metaphysics filling the discourses of John were deformities
and distortions, full of mysticism, having nothing to do really
with the character of Jesus. He shows too ' ' that the simple
idea of the Kingdom of God, at the time the Gospel according
to St. John was written, had faded away ; that the hope of the
advent of Christ was growing dim, and that from belief the
disciples passed into discussion, from discussion to dogma,
from dogma to ceremony," and, finding that the new Heaven
and the new Earth were not coming as expected, they turned
their attention to governing the old Heaven and the old Earth.
The disciples were willing to be humble for a few days, with

2Q2 MISCELLANY.

the expectation of wearing crowns forever. They were satis
fied with poverty, believing that the wealth of the world was to
be theirs. The coming of Christ, however, being for some
unaccountable reason delayed, poverty and humility grew irk
some, and human nature began to assert itself.

In the Gospel of John you will find the metaphysics of the
church. There you find the Second Birth. There you find
the doctrine of the atonement clearly set forth. There you
find that God died for the whole world, and that whosoever
believeth not in him is to be damned. There is nothing of the
kind in Matthew. Matthew makes Christ say that, if you will
forgive others, God will forgive you. The Gospel ' ' according
to Mark " is the same. So is the Gospel "according to Luke."
There is nothing about salvation through belief, nothing about
the atonement. In Mark, in the last chapter, the apostles are
told to go into all the world and preach the gospel, with the
statement that whoever believed and was baptised should be
saved, and whoever failed to believe should be damned. But
we now know that that is an interpolation. Consequently,
Matthew, Mark and Luke never had the faintest conception of
the ' ' Christian religion. ' ' They knew nothing of the atone
ment, nothing of salvation by faith — nothing. So that if a
man had read only Matthew, Mark and Luke, and had strictly
followed what he found, he would have found himself, after
death, in perdition.

Renan finds that certain portions of the Gospel "according
to John " were added later ; that the entire twenty-first chap
ter is an interpolation ; also, that many places bear the traces
of erasures and corrections. So he says that it would be " im
possible for any one to compose a life of Jesus, with any mean
ing in it, from the discourses which John attributes to him, and
he holds that this Gospel of John is full of preaching, Christ
demonstrating himself; full of argumentation, full of stage

ERNEST RENAN. . 293

effect, devoid of simplicity, with long arguments after each mir
acle, stiff and awkward discourses, the tone of which is often
false and unequal. ' ' He also insists that there are evidently
"artificial portions, variations like that of a musician improvising
on a given theme."

In spite of all this, Renan, willing to soothe the prejudice of
his time, takes the ground that the four canonical gospels are
authentic, that they date from the first century, that the authors
were, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed ;
but he insists that their historic value is very diverse. This is
a back-handed stroke. Admitting, first, that they are authen
tic ; second, that they were written about the end of the first
century ; third, that they are not of equal value, disposes, so
far as he is concerned, of the dogma of inspiration.

One is at a loss to understand why four gospels should have
been written. As a matter of fact there can be only one true
account of any occurrence, or of any number of occurrences.
Now, it must be taken for granted, that an inspired account is
true. Why then should there be four inspired accounts ? It
may be answered that all were not to write the entire story.
To this the reply is that all attempted to cover substantially the
same ground.

Many years ago the early fathers thought it necessary to say
why there were four inspired books, and some of them said,
because there were four cardinal directions and the gospels
fitted the north, south, east and west. Others said that
there were four principal winds — a gospel for each wind. They
might have added that some animals have four legs.

Renan admits that the narrative portions have not the same
authority ; " that many legends proceeded from the zeal of the
second Christian generation ; that the narrative of Luke is
historically weak ; that sentences attributed to Jesus have
been distorted and exaggerated ; that the book was written out-

294 MISCELLANY.

side of Palestine and after the siege of Jerusalem ; that Luke
endeavors to make the different narratives agree, changing
them for that purpose ; that he softens the passages which had
become embarrassing ; that he exaggerated the marvelous,
omitted errors in chronology ; that he was a compiler, a man
who had not been an eye-witness himself, and who had not
seen eye-witnesses, but who labors at texts and wrests their
sense to make them agree." This certainly is very far from
inspiration. So ' ' Luke interprets the documents according to
his own idea ; being a kind of anarchist, opposed to proper
ty, and persuaded that the triumph of the poor was ap
proaching ; that he was especially fond of the anecdotes show
ing the conversion of sinners, the exaltation of the humble,
and that he modified ancient traditions to give them this
meaning. ' '

Renan reached the conclusion that the gospels are neither
biographies after the manner of Suetonius nor fictitious le
gends in the style of Philostratus, but that they are legendary
biographies like the legends of the saints, the lives of Plotinus
and Isidore, in which historical truth and the desire to present
models of virtue are combined in various degrees ; that they
are "inexact ;" that they " contain numerous errors and dis
cordances." So he takes the ground that twenty or thirty
years after Christ, his reputation had greatly increased, that
" legends had begun to gather about Him like clouds," that
"death added to His perfection, freeing Him from all defects
in the eyes of those who had loved Him, that His followers
wrested the prophecies so that they might fit Him. They said,
' He is the Messiah.' The Messiah was to do certain things ;
therefore Jesus did certain things. Then an account would be
given of the doing." All of which of course shows that there
can be maintained no theory of inspiration.

It is admitted that where individuals are witnesses of the

ERNEST RENAN. 295

same transaction, and where they agree upon the vital points
and disagree upon details, the disagreement may be consistent
with their honesty, as tending to show that they have not
agreed upon a story ; but if the witnesses are inspired of
God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything,
and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were
not inspired, but it is not a demonstration that they are not.
honest. While perfect agreement may be evidence of re
hearsal, a failure to perfectly agree is not a demonstration of
the truth or falsity of a story ; but if the witnesses claim to be
inspired, the slightest disagreement is a demonstration that
they were not inspired.

Renan reaches the conclusion, proving every step that he
takes, that the four principal documents — that is to say, the
four gospels — are in "flagrant contradiction one with another."
He attacks, and with perfect success, the miracles of the
Scriptures, and upon this subject says : " Observation, which
has never once been falsified, teaches us that miracles never
happen, but in times and countries in which they are believed
and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle
ever occurred in the presence of men capable of testing its
miraculous character. ' ' He further takes the ground that no
contemporary miracle will bear inquiry, and that consequently
it is probable that the miracles of antiquity which have been
performed in popular gatherings would be shown to be simple
illusion, were it possible to criticise them in detail. In the
name of universal experience he banishes miracles from his
tory. These were brave things to do, things that will bear
good fruit. As long as men believe in miracles, past or pres-
enta they remain the prey of superstition. The Catholic is
taught that miracles were performed anciently not only, but
that they are still being performed. This is consistent incon
sistency. Protestants teach a double doctrine : That miracles

296 MISCELLANY.

used to be performed, that the laws of nature used to be vio
lated, but that no miracle is performed now. No Protestant
will admit that any miracle was performed by the Catholic
Church. Otherwise, Protestants could not be justified in leav
ing a church with whom the God of miracles dwelt. So
every Protestant has to adopt two kinds of reasoning : that
the laws of Nature used to be violated and that miracles
used to be performed, but that since the apostolic age Nature
has had her way and the Lord has allowed facts to exist and to
hold the field. A supernatural account, according to Renan,
" always implies credulity or imposture," — probably both.

It does not seem possible to me that Christ claimed for him
self what the Testament claims for him. These claims were
made by admirers, by followers, by missionaries.

When the early Christians went to Rome they found plenty
of demigods. It was hard to set aside the religion of a demi
god by telling the story of a man from Nazareth. These mis
sionaries, not to be outdone in ancestry, insisted — and this was
after the Gospel "according to St. John " had been written —
that Christ was the Son of God. Matthew believed that he
was the son of David, and the Messiah, and gave the geneal
ogy of Joseph, his father, to support that claim.

In the time of Christ no one imagined that he was of divine
origin. This was an after-growth. In order to ,'place them
selves on an equality with Pagans they started the claim of
divinity, and also took the second step requisite in that coun
try : First, a god for his father, and second, a virgin for his
mother. This was the Pagan combination of greatness, and
the Christians added to this that Christ was God.

It is hard to agree with the conclusion reached by Renan,
that Christ formed and intended to form a church. Such evi
dence, it seems to me, is hard to find in the Testament.
Christ seemed to satisfy himself, according to the Testament,

ERNEST RENAtf. 297

with a few statements, some of them exceedingly wise and
tender, some utterly impracticable and some intolerant.

If we accept the conclusions reached by Renan we will throw
away, the legends without foundation ; the miraculous legends ;
and everything inconsistent with what we know of Nature.
Very little will be left — a few sayings to be found among those
attributed to Confucius, to Buddha, to Krishna, to Epictetus,
to Zeno, and to many others. Some of these sayings are full
of wisdom, full of kindness, and others rush to such extremes
that they touch the borders of insanity. When struck on one
cheek to turn the other, is really joining a conspiracy to secure
the triumph of brutality. To agree not to resist evil is to be
come an accomplice of all injustice. We must not take from
industry, from patriotism, from virtue, the right of self-defence.

Undoubtedly Renan gave an honest transcript of his mind,
the road his thought had followed, the reasons in their order
that had occurred to him, the criticisms born of thought, and
the qualifications, softening phrases, children of old senti
ments and emotions that had not entirely passed away.
He started, one might say, from the altar and, during a con
siderable part of the journey, carried the incense with him.
The farther he got away, the greater was his clearness of vision
and the more thoroughly he was convinced that Christ was
merely a man, an idealist. But, remembering the altar, he
excused exaggeration in the ' ' inspired ' ' books, not because it
was from heaven, not because it was in harmony with our
ideas of veracity, but because the writers of the gospel were
imbued with the Oriental spirit of exaggeration, a spirit per
fectly understood by the people who first read the gospels,
because the readers knew the habits of the writers.

It had been contended for many years that no one could
pass judgment on the veracity of the Scriptures who did not
understand Hebrew. This position was perfectly absurd. No

298 MISCELLANY.

man needs to be a student of Hebrew to know that the shadow
on the dial did not go back several degrees to convince a petty
king that a boil was not to be fatal. Renan, however, filled the
requirement. He was an excellent Hebrew scholar. This was
a fortunate circumstance, because it answered a very old
objection.

The founder of Christianity was, for his own sake, taken
from the divine pedestal and allowed to stand like other men
on the earth, to be judged by what he said and did, by his
theories, by his philosophy, by his spirit.

No matter whether Renan came to a correct conclusion or
not, his work did a vast deal of good. He convinced many
that implicit reliance could not be placed upon the gospels,
that the gospels themselves are of unequal worth ; that they
were deformed by ignorance and falsehood, or, at least, by
mistake ; that if they wished to save the reputation of Christ
they must not rely wholly on the gospels, or on what is found
in the New Testament, but they must go farther and examine
all legends touching him. Not only so, but they must throw
away the miraculous, the impossible and the absurd.

He also has shown that the early followers of Christ endeav
ored to add to the reputation of their Master by attributing to
him the miraculous and the foolish ; that while these stories
added to his reputation at that time, since the world has ad
vanced they must be cast aside or the reputation of the Master
must suffer.

It will not do now to say that Christ himself pretended to do
miracles. This would establish the fact at least that he was
mistaken. But we are compelled to say that his disciples in
sisted that he was a worker of miracles. This shows, either
that they were mistaken or untruthful.

We all know that a sleight-of-hand performer could gain a
greater reputation among savages than Darwin or Humboldt;

ERNEST RENAN. >99

and we know that the world in the time of Christ was filled
with barbarians, with people who demanded the miraculous,
who expected it ; with people, in fact, who had a stronger be
lief in the supernatural than in the natural ; people who never
thought it worth while to record facts. The hero of such
people, the Christ of such people, with his miracles, cannot be
the Christ of the thoughtful and scientific.

Renan was a man of most excellent temper ; candid ; not
striving for victory, but for truth ; conquering, as far as he
could, the old superstitions ; not entirely free, it may be, but
believing himself to be so. He did great good. He has
helped to destroy the fictions of faith. He has helped to
rescue man from the prison of superstition, and this is the
greatest benefit that man can bestow on man.

He did another great service, not only to Jews, but to Chris
tendom, by writing the history of "The People of Israel."
Christians for many centuries have persecuted the Jews. They
have charged them with the greatest conceivable crime — with
having crucified an infinite God. This absurdity has hardened
the hearts of men and poisoned the minds of children. The
persecution of the Jews is the meanest, the most senseless and
cruel page in history. Every civilized Christian should feel
on his cheeks the red spots of shame as he reads the wretched
and infamous story.

The flame of this prejudice is fanned and fed in the Sun
day schools of our day, and the orthodox minister points
proudly to the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews by
the barbarians of Russia as evidences of the truth of the in
spired Scriptures. In every wound God puts a tongue to
proclaim the truth of his book.

If the charge that the Jews killed God were true, it is hardly
reasonable to hold those who are now living responsible for
what their ancestors did nearly nineteen centuries ago.

300 MISCELLANY.

But there is another point in connection with this matter : If
Christ was God, then the Jews could not have killed him with
out his consent ; and, according to the orthodox creed, if he
had not been sacrificed, the whole world would have suffered
eternal pain. Nothing can exceed the meanness of the preju
dice of Christians against the Jewish people. They should not
be held responsible for their savage ancestors, or for their be
lief that Jehovah was an intelligent and merciful God, superior
to all other gods. Even Christians do not wish to be held re
sponsible for the Inquisition, 'for the Torquemadas and the
John Calvins, for the witch-burners and the Quaker-whippers,
for the slave-traders and child-stealers, the most of whom were
believers in our ' ' glorious gospel, ' ' and many of whom had
been born the second time.

Renan did much to civilize the Christians by telling the
truth in a charming and convincing way about the " People of
Israel." Both sides are greatly indebted to him : one he has
ably defended, and the other greatly enlightened.

Having done what good he could in giving what he believed
was light to his fellow-men, he had no fear of becoming a vic
tim of God's wrath, and so he laughingly said: "For my
part I imagine that if the Eternal in his severity were to send
me to hell I should succeed in escaping from it. I would send
up to my Creator a supplication that would make him smile.
The course of reasoning by which I would prove to him that it
was through his fault that I was damned would be so subtle
that he would find some difficulty in replying. The fate
which would suit me best is Purgatory — a charming place,
where many delightful romances begun on earth must be con
tinued."

Such cheerfulness, such good philosophy, with cap and bells,
such banter and blasphemy, such sound and solid sense drive
to madness the priest who thinks the curse of Rome can fright

ERNEST RENAN. 301

the world. How the snake of superstition writhes when he
finds that his fangs have lost their poison.

He was one of the gentlest of men — one of the fairest in dis
cussion, dissenting from the views of others with modesty,
presenting his own .with clearness and candor. His mental
manners were excellent. He was not positive as to the ' ' un
knowable. ' ' He said ' ' Perhaps. ' ' He knew that knowledge
is good if it increases the happiness of man ; and he felt that
superstition is the assassin of liberty and civilization. He lived
a life of cheerfulness, of industry, devoted to the welfare of
mankind.

He was a seeker of happiness by the highway of the natural,
a destroyer of the dogmas of mental deformity, a worshiper
of Liberty and the Ideal. As he lived, he died — hopeful and
serene — and now, standing in imagination by his grave, we
ask : Will the night be eternal ? The brain says, Perhaps ; while
the heart hopes for the Dawn. —

TOLSTOI AND "THE KREUTZER
SONATA."

TOLSTOI AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA."

COUNT TOLSTOI is a man of genius. He is acquainted
with Russian life from the highest to the lowest — that
is to say, from the worst to the best. He knows the vices of
the rich and the virtues of the poor. He is a Christian, a real
believer in the Old and New Testaments, an honest follower of
the Peasant of Palestine. He denounces luxury and ease, art
and music ; he regards a flower with suspicion, believing that
beneath every blossom lies a coiled serpent. He agrees with
Lazarus and denounces Dives and the tax-gatherers. He is
opposed, not only to doctors of divinity, but of medicine.

From the Mount of Olives he surveys the world.

He is not a Christian like the Pope in the Vatican, or a car
dinal in a palace, or a bishop with revenues and retainers, or
a millionaire who hires preachers to point out the wickedness
of the poor, or the director of a museum who closes the doors
on Sunday. He is a Christian something like Christ.

To him this life is but a breathing-spell between the verdict
and the execution ; the sciences are simply sowers of the seeds
of pride, of arrogance and vice. Shocked by the cruelties and
unspeakable horrors of war, he became a non-resistant and
averred that he would not defend his own body or that of his
daughter from insult and outrage. In this he followed the
command of his Master : " Resist not evil." He passed, not
simply from war to peace, but from one extreme to the other,
and advocated a doctrine that would leave the basest of man-

(306)

306 MISCELLANY.

kind the rulers of the world. This was and is the error of a
great and tender soul.

He did not accept all the teachings of Christ at once. His
progress has been, judging from his writings, somewhat grad
ual ; but by accepting one proposition he prepared himself for
the acceptance of another. He is not only a Christian, but has
the courage of his convictions, and goes without hesitation to
the logical conclusion. He has another exceedingly rare
quality ; he acts in accordance with his belief. His creed is
translated into deed. He opposes the doctors of divinity, be
cause they darken and deform the teachings of the Master.
He denounces the doctors of medicine, because he depends on
Providence and the promises of Jesus Christ. To him that
which is called progress is, in fact, a profanation, and property
is a something that the organized few have stolen from the
unorganized many. He believes in universal labor, which is
good, each working for himself. He also believes that each
should have only the necessaries of life — which is bad. Ac
cording to his idea, the world ought to be filled with peasants.
There should be only arts enough to plough and sow and
gather the harvest, to build huts, to weave coarse cloth, to
fashion clumsy and useful garments, and to cook the simplest
food. Men and women should not adorn their bodies. They
should not make themselves desirable or beautiful.

But even under such circumstances they might, like the
Quakers, be proud of humility and become arrogantly meek.

Tolstoi would change the entire order of human develop
ment. As a matter of fact, the savage who adorns himself or
herself with strings of shells, or with feathers, has taken the
first step towards civilization. The tatooed is somewhat in
advance of the unfrescoed. At the bottom of all this is the
love of approbation, of the admiration of their fellows, and
this feeling, this love, cannot be torn from the human heart

TOLSTOI AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA." 307

In spite of ourselves we are attracted by what to us is beautiful,
because beauty is associated with pleasure, with enjoyment.
The love of the well-formed, of the beautiful, is prophetic of
the perfection of the human race. It is impossible to admire
the deformed. They may be loved for their goodness or
genius, but never because of their deformity. There is within
us the love of proportion. There is a physical basis for the
appreciation of harmony, which is also a kind of proportion.

The love of the beautiful is shared with man by most animals.
The wings of the moth are painted by love, by desire. This
is the foundation of the bird's song. This love of approbation,
this desire to please, to be admired, to be loved, is in some
way the cause of all heroic, self-denying, and sublime ac
tions.

Count Tolstoi', following parts of the New Testament, re
gards love as essentially impure. He seems really to think
that there is a love superior to human love ; that the love of
man for woman, of woman for man, is, after all, a kind of glit
tering degradation ; that it is better to love God than woman ;
better to love the invisible phantoms of the skies than the
children upon our knees — in other words, that it is far better
to love a heaven somewhere else than to make one here. He
seems to think that women adorn themselves simply for the
purpose of getting in their power the innocent and unsuspect
ing men. He forgets that the best and purest of human beings
are controlled, for the most part unconsciously, by the hidden,
subtle tendencies of nature. He seems to forget the great fact
of " natural selection," and that the choice of one in preference
to all others is the result of forces beyond the control of the
individual. To him there seems to be no purity in love, be
cause men are influenced by forms, by the beauty of women ;
and women, knowing this fact, according to him, act, and con
sequently both are equally guilty. He endeavors to show that

308 MISCELLANY.

love is a delusion ; that at best it can last but for a few days;
that it must of necessity be succeeded by indifference, then by
disgust, lastly by hatred ; that in every Garden of Eden is a
serpent of jealousy, and that the brightest days end with the
yawn of ennui.

Of course he is driven to the conclusion that life in this world
is without value, that the race can be perpetuated only by vice,
and that the practice of the highest virtue would leave the
world without the form of man. Strange as it may sound to
some, this is the same conclusion reached by his Divine Mas
ter : " They did eat, they drank, they married, they were
given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered the ark and
the flood came and destroyed them all. " " Every one that
hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake,
shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. ' '

According to Christianity, as it really is and really was, the
Christian should have no home in this world — at least none
until the earth has been purified by fire. His affections should
be given to God ; not to wife and children, not to friends or
country. He is here but for a time on a journey, waiting for
the summons. This life is a kind of dock running out into the
sea of eternity, on which he waits for transportation. Nothing
here is of any importance ; the joys of life are frivolous and
corrupting, and by losing these few gleams of happiness in this
world he will bask forever in the unclouded rays of infinite joy.
Why should a man risk an eternity of perfect happiness for
the sake of enjoying himself a few days with his wife and
children ? Why should he become an eternal outcast for the
sake of having a home and fireside here ?

The ' ' Fathers ' ' of the church had the same opinion of mar
riage. They agreed with Saint Paul, and Tolstoi agrees with
them. They had the same contempt for wives and mothers,

TOLSTOI AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA." 309

and uttered the same blasphemies against that divine passion
that has filled the world with art and song.

All this is to my mind a kind of insanity ; nature soured or
withered — deformed so that celibacy is mistaken for virtue.
The imagination becomes polluted, and the poor wretch be
lieves that he is purer than his thoughts, holier than his desires,
and that to outrage nature is the highest form of religion. But
nature imprisoned, obstructed, tormented, always has sought
for and has always found revenge. Some of these victims, re
garding the passions as low and corrupting, feeling humiliated
by hunger and thirst, sought through maimings and mutila
tions the purification of the soul.

Count Tolstoi in "TheKreutzer Sonata," has drawn, with
a free hand, one of the vilest and basest of men for his hero.
He is suspicious, jealous, cruel, infamous. The wife is infi
nitely too good for such a wild unreasoning beast, and yet the
writer of this insane story seems to justify the assassin. If this
is a true picture of wedded life in Russia, no wonder that
Count Tolstoi looks forward with pleasure to the extinction of
the human race.

Of all passions that can take possession of the heart or brain
jealousy is the worst. For many generations the chemists
sought for the secret by which all metals could be changed to
gold, and through which the basest could become the best.
Jealousy seeks exactly the opposite. It endeavors to trans
mute the very gold of love into the dross of shame and crime.

The story of ' ' The Kreutzer Sonata ' ' seems to have been
written for the purpose of showing that woman is at fault ; that
she has no right to be attractive, no right to be beautiful ; and
that she is morally responsible for the contour of her throat,
for the pose of her body, for the symmetry of her limbs, for
the red of her lips, and for the dimples in her cheeks.

The opposite of this doctrine is nearer true. It would be

3IO MISCELLANY.

far better to hold people responsible for their ugliness than for
their beauty. It may be true that the soul, the mind, in some
wondrous way fashions the body, and that to that extent every
individual is responsible for his looks. It may be that the
man or woman thinking high thoughts will give, necessarily, a
nobility to expression and a beauty to outline.

It is not true that the sins of man can be laid justly at the
feet of woman. Women are better than men ; they have
greater responsibilities ; they bear even the burdens of joy.
This is the real reason why their faults are considered greater.

Men and women desire each other, and this desire is a con
dition of civilization, progress, and happiness, and of every
thing of real value. But there is this profound difference in
the sexes : in man this desire is the foundation of love, while
in woman love is the foundation of this desire.

Tolstoi seems to be a stranger to the heart of woman.

Is it not wonderful that one who holds self-denial in such
high esteem should say, ' ' That life is embittered by the fear
of one's children, and not only on account of their real or
imaginary illnesses, but even by their very presence " ?

Has the father no real love for the children ? Is he not paid
a thousand times through their caresses, their sympathy, their
love? Is there no joy in seeing their minds unfold, their
affections develop ? Of course, love and anxiety go together.
That which we love we wish to protect. The perpetual fear of
death gives love intensity and sacredness. Yet Count Tolstoi
gives us the feelings of a father incapable of natural affection ;
of one who hates to have his children sick because the orderly
course of his wretched life is disturbed. So, too, we are told
that modern mothers think too much of their children, care too
much for their health, and refuse to be comforted when they
die. Lest these words may be thought libellous, the following
^xtract is given ;

TOLSTOI AND " THE KREUTZER SONATA. " 311

"In old times women consoled themselves with the belief, The
Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the
name of the Lord. They consoled themselves with the thought that
the soul of the departed had returned to him who gave it ; that it was
better to die innocent than to live in sin. If women nowadays had
such a comfortable faith to support them, they might take their mis
fortunes less hard."

The conclusion reached by the writer is that without faith in
God, woman's love grovels in the mire.

In this case the mire is made by the tears of mothers falling
on the clay that hides their babes.

The one thing constant, the one peak that rises above all
clouds, the one window in which the light forever burns, the
one star that darkness cannot quench, is woman's love.

This one fact justifies the existence and the perpetuation of
the human race. Again I say that women are better than men ;
their hearts are more unreservedly given ; in the web of their
lives sorrow is inextricably woven with the greatest joys ; self-
sacrifice is a part of their nature, and at the behest of love and
maternity they walk willingly and joyously down to the very
gates of death.

Is there nothing in this to excite the admiration, the adora
tion, of a modern reformer? Are the monk and nun superior
to the father and mother ?

The author of " The Kreutzer Sonata" is unconsciously the
enemy of mankind. He is filled with what might be called a
merciless pity, a sympathy almost malicious. Had he lived a
few centuries ago, he might have founded a religion ; but the
most he can now do is, perhaps, to create the necessity for
another asylum.

Count Tolstoi objects to music — not the ordinary kind, but
to great music, the music that arouses the emotions, that ap
parently carries us beyond the limitations of life, that for the

312 MISCELLANY.

moment seems to break the great chain of cause and effect, and
leaves the soul soaring and free. "Emotion and duty," he
declares, " do not go hand in hand." All art touches and
arouses the emotional nature. The painter, the poet, the
sculptor, the composer, the orator, appeal to the emotions, to
the passions, to the hopes and fears. The commonplace is
transfigured ; the cold and angular facts of existence take form
and color ; the blood quickens ; the fancies spread their wings ;
the intellect grows sympathetic ; the river of life flows full and
free ; and man becomes capable of the noblest deeds. Take
emotion from the heart of man and the idea of obligation would
be lost ; right and wrong would lose their meaning, and the
word "ought" would never again be spoken. We are sub
ject to conditions, liable to disease, pain, and death. We are
capable of ecstasy. Of these conditions, of these possibilities,
the emotions are born.

Only the conditionless can be the emotionless.

We are conditioned beings ; and if the conditions are
changed, the result may be pain or death or greater joy. We
can only live within certain degrees of heat. If the weather
were a few degrees hotter or a few degrees colder, we could
not exist. We need food and roof and raiment. Life and
happiness depend on these conditions. We do not certainly
know what is to happen, and consequently our hopes and fears
are constantly active — that is to say, we are emotional
beings. The generalization of Tolstoi, that emotion never
goes hand in hand with duty, is almost the opposite of the
truth. The idea of duty could not exist without emotion.
Think of men and women without love, without desires, with
out passions ? Think of a world without art or music — a world
without beauty, without emotion.

And yet there are many writers busy pointing out the loath
someness of love and their own virtues. Only a little \\hile

TOLSTOi' AND " THE KREUTZER SONATA." 31$

ago an article appeared in one of the magazines in which all
women who did not dress according to the provincial prudery
of the writer were denounced as impure. Millions of refined
and virtuous wives and mothers were described as dripping
with pollution because they enjoyed dancing and were so well
formed that they were not obliged to cover their arms and
throats to avoid the pity of their associates. And yet the
article itself is far more indelicate than any dance or any dress,
or even lack of dress. What a curious opinion dried apples
have of fruit upon the tree !

Count Tolstoi is also the enemy of wealth, of luxury. In
this he follows the New Testament. " It is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter
the Kingdom of Heaven." He gathers his inspiration from
the commandment, " Sell all that thou hast and give to the
poor."

Wealth is not a crime any more than health or bodily or
intellectual strength. The weak might denounce the strong,
the sickly might envy the healthy, just as the poor may de
nounce or envy the rich. A man is not necessarily a criminal
because he is wealthy. He is to be judged, not by his wealth,
but by the way he uses his wealth. The strong man can use
his strength, not only for the benefit of himself, but for the
good of others. So a man of intelligence can be a benefactor
of the human race. Intelligence is often used to entrap the
simple and to prey upon the unthinking, but we do not wish
to do away with intelligence. So strength is often used to
tyrannize over the weak, and in the same way wealth may be
used to the injury of mankind. To sell all that you have and
give to the poor is not a panacea for poverty. The man of
wealth should help the poor man to help himself. Men can
not receive without giving some consideration, and if they have
not labor or property to give, they give their manhood, their

314 MISCELLANY.

self-respect. Besides, if all should obey this injunction, ' ' Sell
what thou hast and give to the poor, ' ' who would buy ? We
know that thousands and millions of rich men lack generosity
and have but little feeling for their fellows. The fault is not in
the money, not in the wealth, but in the individuals. They
would be just as bad were they poor. The only difference is
that they would have less power. The good man should re
gard wealth as an instrumentality, as an opportunity, and he
should endeavor to benefit his fellow-men, not by making them
the recipients of his charity, but by assisting them to assist
themselves. The desire to clothe and feed, to educate and
protect, wives and children, is the principal reason for making
money — one of the great springs of industry, prudence, and
economy.

Those who labor have a right to live. They have a right to
what they earn. He who works has a right to home and fire
side and to the comforts of life. Those who waste the spring,
the summer, and the autumn of their lives must bear the win
ter when it comes. Many of our institutions are absurdly
unjust. Giving the land to the few, making tenants of the
many, is the worst possible form of socialism — of paternal
government. In most of the nations of our day the idlers and
non-producers are either beggars or aristocrats, paupers or
princes, and the great middle laboring class support them both.
Rags and robes have a liking for each other. Beggars and
kings are in accord ; they are all parasites, living on the same
blood, stealing the same labor — one by beggary, the other by
force. And yet in all this there can be found no reason for
denouncing the man who has accumulated. One who wishes
to tear down his barns and build greater has laid aside some
thing to keep the wolf of want from the door of home when he
is dead.

Even the beggars see the necessity of others working, and

TOLSTOI' AND "THE KREtfTZER SONATA.*' 315

the nobility see the same necessity with equal clearness. But it
is hardly reasonable to say that all should do the same kind of
work, for the reason that all have not the same aptitudes, the
same talents. Some can plough, others can paint ; some can
reap and mow, while others can invent the instruments that
save labor ; some navigate the seas ; some work in mines ;
while others compose music that elevates and refines the heart
of the world.

But the worst thing in "The Kreutzer Sonata" is the
declaration that a husband can by force compel the wife to love
and obey him. Love is not the child of fear ; it is not the re
sult of force. No one can love on compulsion. Even Jehovah
found that it was impossible to compel the Jews to love him.
He issued his command to that effect, coupled with threats of
pain and death, but his chosen people failed to respond.

Love is the perfume of the heart ; it is not subject to the will
of husbands or kings or God.

Count Tolstoi' would establish slavery in every house ; he
would make every husband a tyrant and every wife a trembling
serf. No wonder that he regards such marriage as a failure.
He is in exact harmony with the curse of Jehovah when he said
unto the woman : " I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception ; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy
desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

This is the destruction of the family, the pollution of home,
the crucifixion of love.

Those who are truly married are neither masters nor servants.
The idea of obedience is lost in the desire for the happiness of
each. Love is not a convict, to be detained with bolts and
chains. Love is the highest expression of liberty. Love
neither commands nor obeys.

The curious thing is that the orthodox world insists that all
men and women should obey the injunctions of Christ ; that

316 MISCELLANY.

they should take him as the supreme example, and in all
things follow his teachings. This is preached from countless
pulpits, and has been for many centuries. And yet the man
who does follow the Savior, who insists that he will not resist
evil, who sells what he has and gives to the poor, who deserts
his wife and children for the love of God, is regarded as insane.

Tolstoi, on most subjects, appears to be in accord with the
founder of Christianity, with the apostles, with the writers of
the New Testament, and with the Fathers of the church ; and
yet a Christian teacher of a Sabbath school decides, in the
capacity of Postmaster- General, that "The Kreutzer Sonata"
is unfit to be carried in the mails.

Although I disagree with nearly every sentence in this book,
regard the story as brutal and absurd, the view of life pre
sented as cruel, vile, and false, yet I recognize the right of
Count Tolstoi to express his opinions on all subjects, and the
right of the men and women of America to read for themselves.

As to the sincerity of the author, there is not the slightest
doubt. He is willing to give all that he has for the good of
his fellow-men. He is a soldier in what he believes to be a
sacred cause, and he has the courage of his convictions. He
is endeavoring to organize society in accordance with the most
radical utterances that have been attributed to Jesus Christ.
The philosophy of Palestine is not adapted to an industrial and
commercial age. Christianity was born when the nation that
produced it was dying. It was a requiem — a declaration that
life was a failure, that the world was about to end, and that
the hopes of mankind should be lifted to another sphere.
Tolstoi" stands with his back to the sunrise and looks mourn
fully upon the shadow. He has uttered many tender, noble,
and inspiring words. There are many passages in his works
that must have been written when his eyes were filled
with tears. He has fixed his gaze so intently on the miseries

TOLSTOI AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA.*' ^17

and agonies of life that he has been driven to the conclusion
that nothing could be better than the effacement of the human
race.

Some men, looking only at the faults and tyrannies of gov
ernment, have said: "Anarchy is better." Others, looking
at the misfortunes, the poverty, the crimes, of men, have, in a
kind of pitying despair, reached the conclusion that the best
of all is death. These are the opinions of those who have
dwelt in gloom — of the self-imprisoned.

By comparing long periods of time, we see that, on the
whole, the race is advancing ; that the world is growing steadily,
and surely, better ; that each generation enjoys more and
suffers less than its predecessor. We find that our institutions
have the faults of individuals. Nations must be composed of
men and women ; and as they have their faults, nations cannot
be perfect. The institution of marriage is a failure to the ex
tent, and only to the extent, that the human race is a failure.
Undoubtedly it is the best and the most important institution
that has been established by the civilized world. If there is
unhappiness in that relation, if there is tyranny upon one side
and misery upon the other, it is not the fault of marriage.
Take homes from the world and only wild beasts are left.

We cannot cure the evils of our day and time by a return to
savagery. It is not necessary to become ignorant to increase
our happiness. The highway of civilization leads to the light.
The time will come when the human race will be truly en
lightened, when labor will receive its due reward, when the
last institution begotten of ignorance and savagery will disap
pear. The time will come when the whole world will say that
the love of man for woman, of woman for man, of mother for
child, is the highest, the noblest, the purest, of which the heart
is capable.

Love, human love, love of men and women, love of mothers

31 8 MISCELLANY.

fathers, and babes, is the perpetual and beneficent force. Not
the love of phantoms, the love that builds cathedrals and dun
geons, that trembles and prays, that kneels and curses ; but
the real love, the love that felled the forests, navigated the
seas, subdued the earth, explored continents, built count
less homes, and founded nations — the love that kindled the
creative flame and wrought the miracles of art, that gave us all
there is of music, from the cradle-song that gives to infancy its
smiling sleep to the great symphony that bears the soul away
with wings of fire — the real love, mother of every virtue and of
every joy. — North American Review^ September, 1890.

THOMAS PAINE.

A MAGAZINE ARTICLE.

THOMAS PAINE.

" A great man's memory may outlive his life half a year,
But, by'r lady, he must build churches then."

rj IGHTY-THREE years ago Thomas Paine ceased to de
ll^ fend himself. The moment he became dumb all his ene
mies found a tongue. He was attacked on every hand. The
Tories of England had been waiting for their revenge. The
believers in kings, in hereditary government, the nobility of
every land, execrated his memory. Their greatest enemy
was dead. The believers in human slavery, and all who
clamored for the rights of the States as against the sover
eignty of a Nation, joined in the chorus of denunciation. In
addition to this, the believers in the inspiration of the
Scriptures, the occupants of orthodox pulpits, the professors
in Christian colleges, and the religious historians, were his
sworn and implacable foes.

This man had gratified no ambition at the expense of his
fellow-men ; he had desolated no country with the flame and
sword of war ; he had not wrung millions from the poor
and unfortunate ; he had betrayed no trust, and yet he was
almost universally despised. He gave his life for the benefit
of mankind. Day and night for many, many weary years,
he labored for the good of others, and gave himself body
and soul to the great cause of human liberty. And yet he
won the hatred of the people for whose benefit, for whose
emancipation, for whose civilization, for whose exaltation
he gave his life.

Against him every slander that malignity could coin and
hypocrisy pass was gladly and joyously taken as genuine,

(321)

322 MISCELLANY.

and every truth with regard to his career was believed to
be counterfeit. He was attacked by thousands where he
was defended by one, and the one who defended him was
instantly attacked, silenced, or destroyed.

At last his life has been written by Moncure D. Conway,
and the real history of Thomas Paine, of what he attempted
and accomplished, of what he taught and suffered, has been
intelligently, truthfully and candidly given to the world.
Henceforth the slanderer will be without excuse.

He who reads Mr. Conway's pages will find that Thomas
Paine was more than a patriot — that he was a philanthropist
— a lover not only of his country, but of all mankind. He
will find that his sympathies were with those who suffered,
without regard to religion or race, country or complexion.
He will find that this great man did not hesitate to attack
the governing class of his native laud — to commit what was
called treason against the king, that he might do battle for
the rights of men ; that in spite of the prejudices of birth, he
took the side of the American Colonies ; that he gladly at
tacked the political abuses and absurdities that had been
fostered by altars and thrones for many centuries ; that he
was for the people against nobles and kings, and that he put
his life in pawn for the good of others.

In the winter of 1774, Thomas Paine came to America.
After a time he was employed as one of the writers on the
Pennsylvania Magazine.

Let us see what he did, calculated to excite the hatred of
his fellow-men.

The first article he ever wrote in America, and the first
ever published by him anywhere, appeared in that magazine
on the 8th of March, 1775. It was an attack on American
slavery — a plea for the rights of the negro. In that article
will be found substantially all the arguments that can be
urged against that most infamous of all institutions. Every
js full of humanity, pity, tenderness, and love of justice.

THOMAS PAINE 323

Five days after this article appeared the American Anti-
Slavery Society was formed. Certainly this should not ex
cite our hatred. To-day the civilized world agrees with the
essay written by Thomas Paine in 1775.

At that time great interests were against him. The
owners of slaves became his enemies, and the pulpits, sup
ported by slave labor, denounced this abolitionist.

The next article published by Thomas Paine, in the
same magazine, and for the next month, was an attack on
the practice of dueling, showing that it was barbarous, that
it did not even tend to settle the right or wrong of a dispute,
that it could not be defended on any just grounds, and that
its influence was degrading and cruel. The civilized world
now agrees with the opinions of Thomas Paine upon that
barbarous practice.

In May, 1775, appeared in the same magazine another
article written by Thomas Paine, a Protest Against Cruelty
to Animals. He began the work that was so successfully
and gloriously carried out by Henry Bergh, one of the
noblest, one of the grandest, men that this continent has
produced.

The good people of this world agree with Thomas Paine.

In August of the same year he wrote a plea for the
Rights of Woman, the first ever published in the New World.
Certainly he should not be hated for that.

He was the first to suggest a union of the colonies. Be
fore the Declaration of Independence was issued, Paine had
written of and about the Free and Independent States of
America. He had also spoken of the United Colonies as
the " Glorious Union," and he was the first to write these
words : " The United States of America."

'In May, 1775, Washington said: "If you ever hear of
me joining in any such measure (as separation from Great
Britain) you have my leave to set me down for everything
wicked." He had also said : " It is not the wish or inter-

324 MISCELLANY.

est of the government (meaning Massachusetts), or of any
other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set
up for independence." And in the same year Benjamin
Franklin assured Chatham that no one in America was in
favor of separation. As a matter of fact, the people of the
colonies wanted a redress of their grievances — they were not
dreaming of separation, of independence.

In 1775 Paine wrote the pamphlet known as " Common
Sense." This was published on the loth of January, 1776.
It was the first appeal for independence, the first cry for
national life, for absolute separation. No pamphlet, no
book, ever kindled such a sudden conflagration, — a purify
ing flame, in which the prejudices and fears of millions were
consumed. To read it now, after the lapse of more than a
hundred years, hastens the blood. It is but the meagre
truth to say that Thomas Paine did more for the cause of
separation, to sow the seeds of independence, than any other
man of his time. Certainly we should not despise him for
this. The Declaration of Independence followed, and in
that declaration will be found not only the thoughts, but
some of the expressions of Thomas Paine.

During the war, and in the very darkest hours, Paine
wrote what is called " The Crisis," a series of pamphlets
giving from time to time his opinion of events, and his
prophecies. These marvelous publications produced an
effect nearly as great as the pamphlet "Common Sense."
These strophes, written by the bivouac fires, had in them
the soul of battle.

In all he wrote, Paine was direct and natural. He
touched the very heart of the subject. He was not awed
by names or titles, by place or power. He never lost his
regard for truth, for principle — never wavered in his
allegiance to reason, to what he believed to be right. His
arguments were so lucid, so unanswerable, his comparisons
and analogies so apt, so unexpected, that they excited the

THOMAS PAINE. 325

passionate admiration of friends and the unquenchable
hatred of enemies. So great were these appeals to patriot
ism, to the love of liberty, the pride of independence, the
glory of success, that it was said by some of the best and
greatest of that time that the American cause owed as
much to the pen of Paine as to the sword of Washington.

On the 2d day of November, 1779, there was introduced
into the Assembly of Pennsylvania an act for the abolition
of slavery. The preamble was written by Thomas Paine.
To him belongs the honor and glory of having written the
first Proclamation of Emancipation in America — Paine the
first, Lincoln the last.

Paine, of all others, succeeded in getting aid for the
struggling colonies from France. " According to Lamar-
tine, the King, Louis XVI., loaded Paine with favors, and a
gift of six millions was confided into the hands of Franklin
and Paine. On the 25th of August, 1781, Paine reached
Boston bringing two million five hundred thousand livres
in silver, and in convoy a ship laden with clothing and
military stores."

" In November, 1779, Paine was elected clerk to the
General Assembly of Pennsylvania. In 1 780, the Assembly
received a letter from General Washington in the field, say
ing that he feared the distresses in the army would lead to
mutiny in the ranks. This letter was read by Paine to the
Assembly. He immediately wrote to Blair McClenaghan, a
Philadelphia merchant, explaining the urgency, and inclos
ing five hundred dollars, the amount of salary due him as
clerk, as his contribution towards a relief fund. The
merchant called a meeting the next day, and read Paine's
letter. A subscription list was immediately circulated, and
in JSL short time about one million five hundred thousand
dollars was raised. With this capital the Pennsylvania
bank — afterwards the bank of North America — was estab
lished for the relief of the army,"

326 MISCELLANY.

In 1783 " Paine wrote a memorial to Chancellor Living
ston, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Robert Morris, Minister
of Finance, and his assistant, urging the necessity of adding
a Continental Legislature to Congress, to be elected by the
several States. Robert Morris invited the Chancellor and
a number of eminent men to meet Paine at dinner, where
his plea for a stronger Union was discussed and approved.
This was probably the earliest of a series of consultations
preliminary to the Constitutional Convention."

"On the i gth of April, 1783, it being the eighth anniver
sary of the Battle of Lexington, Paine printed a little
pamphlet entitled ' Thoughts on Peace and the Probable
Advantages Thereof.' " In this pamphlet he pleads for "a
supreme Nationality absorbing all cherished sovereignties."
Mr. Con way calls this pamphlet Paine's " Farewell Ad
dress," and gives the following extract :

" It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force
with which it struck my mind, and the dangerous condition in which
the country was in, by courting an impossible and an unnatural recon
ciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of
striking out into the only line that could save her, — a Declaration of
Independence, — made it impossible for me, feeling as I did, to be
silent ; and if, in the course of more than seven years, I have ren
dered her any service, I have likewise added something to the repu
tation of literature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in the
great cause of mankind. . . . But as the scenes of war are closed,
and every man preparing for home and happier times, I therefore
take leave of the subject. I have most sincerely followed it from be
ginning to end, and through all its turns and windings ; and whatever
country I may hereafter be in, I shall always feel an honest pride at
the part I have taken and acted, and a gratitude to nature and prov
idence for putting it in my power to be of some use to mankind."

Paine had made some enemies, first, by attacking African
slavery, and, second, by insisting upon the sovereignty of
the Nation.

During the Revolution our forefathers, in order to justify
making war on Great Britain, were compelled to take the
ground that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the

THOMAS PAINE. 337

pursuit of happiness. In no other way could they justify
their action. After the war, the meaner instincts began to
take possession of the inind, and those who had fought for
their own liberty were perfectly willing to enslave others.
We must also remember that the Revolution was begun and
carried on by a noble minority — that the majority were
really in favor of Great Britain and did what they dared to
prevent the success of the American cause. The minority,
however, had control of affairs. They were active, ener
getic, enthusiastic, and courageous, and the majority were
overawed, shamed, and suppressed. But when peace came,
the majority asserted themselves and the interests of trade
and commerce were consulted. Enthusiasm slowly died,
and patriotism was mingled with the selfishness of traffic.

But, after all, the enemies of Paine were few, the friends
were many. He had the respect and admiration of the
greatest and the best, and was enjoying the fruits of his
labor.

The Revolution was ended, the colonies were free. They
had been united, they formed a Nation, and the United
States of America had a place on the map of the world.

Paine was not a politician. He had not labored for
seven years to get an office. His services were no longer
needed in America. He concluded to educate the English
people, to inform them of their rights, to expose the
pretences, follies and fallacies, the crimes and cruelties of
nobles, kings, and parliaments. In the brain and heart of
this man were the dream and hope of the universal repub
lic. He had confidence in the people. He hated tyranny
and war, despised the senseless pomp and vain show of
crowned robbers, laughed at titles, and the " honorable "
badges worn by the obsequious and servile, by fawners
and followers ; loved liberty with all his heart, and bravely
fought against those who could give the rewards of place
and gold, and for those who could pay only with thanks.

328 MISCELLANY.

Hoping to hasten the day of freedom, he wrote the
" Rights of Man" — a book that laid the foundation for all
the real liberty that the English now enjoy — a book that
made known to Englishmen the Declaration of Nature, and
convinced millions that all are children of the same
mother, entitled to share equally in her gifts. Every
Englishman who has outgrown the ideas of 1688 should
remember Paine with love and reverence. Every English
man who has sought to destroy abuses, to lessen or limit
the prerogatives of the crown, to extend the suffrage, to do
away with " rotten boroughs," to take taxes from knowl
edge, to increase and protect the freedom of speech and the
press, to do away with bribes under the name of pensions,
and to make England a government of principles rather
than of persons, has been compelled to adopt the creed and
use the arguments of Thomas Paine. In England every
step toward freedom has been a triumph of Paine over
Burke and Pitt. No man ever rendered a greater service
to his native land.

The book called the " Rights of Man " was the greatest
contribution that literature had given to liberty. It rests
on the bed-rock. No attention is paid to precedents ex
cept to show that they are wrong. Paine was not misled
by the proverbs that wolves had written for sheep. He
had the intelligence to examine for himself, and the
courage to publish his conclusions. As soon as the
" Rights of Man " was published the Government was
alarmed. Every effort was made to suppress it. The
author was indicted ; those who published, and those who
sold, were arrested and imprisoned. But the new gospel
had been preached — a great man had shed light — a new
force had been born, and it was beyond the power of
nobles and kings to undo what the author-hero had done.

To avoid arrest and probable death, Paine left England.
He had sown with brave hand the seeds of thought, and he

THOMAS PAINE. 339

knew that he had lighted a fire that nothing could ex
tinguish until England should be free.

The fame of Thomas Paine had reached France in many
ways — principally through Lafayette. His services in
America were well known. The pamphlet "Common
Sense" had been published in French, and its effect had
been immense. "The Rights of Man" that had created,
and was then creating, such a stir in England, was also
known to the French. The lovers of liberty everywhere
were the friends and admirers of Thomas Paine. In
America, England, Scotland, Ireland, and France he was
known as the defender of popular rights. He had preached
a new gospel. He had given a new Magna Charta to the
people.

So popular was Paine in France that he was elected by
three constituencies to the National Convention. He
chose to represent Calais. From the moment he entered
French territory he was received with almost royal honors.
He at once stood with the foremost, and was welcomed by
all enlightened patriots. As in America, so in France, he
knew no idleness — he was an organizer and worker. The
first thing he did was to found the first Republican Society,
and the next to write its Manifesto, in which the ground
was taken that France did not need a king ; that the people
should govern themselves. In this Manifesto was this
argument :

" What kind of office must that be in a government which requires
neither experience nor ability to execute ? that may be abandoned to
the desperate chance of birth ; that may be filled with an idiot, a mad
man, a tyrant, with equal effect as with the good, the virtuous, the
wise ? An office of this nature is a mere nonentity ; it is a place of
show, not of use."

He said :

" I am not the personal enemy of kings. Quite the contrary. No
man wishes more heartily than myself to see them all in the happy
and honorable state of private individuals ; but I am the avowed,

330 MISCELLANY.

open and intrepid enemy of what is called monarchy ; and I am such
by principles which nothing can either alter or corrupt, by my attach
ment to humanity, by the anxiety which I feel within myself for the
dignity and honor of the human race."

One of the grandest things done by Thomas Paine was
his effort to save the life of Louis XVI. The Convention
was in favor of death. Paine was a foreigner. His career
had caused some jealousies. He knew the danger he was
in — that the tiger was already crouching for a spring — but
he was true to his principles. He was opposed to the
death penalty. He remembered that Louis XVI. had been
the friend of America, and he very cheerfully risked his
life, not only for the good of France, not only to save the
king, but to pay a debt of gratitude. He asked the Con
vention to exile the king to the United States. He asked
this as a member of the Convention and as a citizen of the
United States. As an American he felt grateful not only
to the king, but to every Frenchman. He, the adversary
of all kings, asked the Convention to remember that kings
were men, and subject to human frailties. He took still
another step, and said : " As France has been the first of
European nations to abolish royalty, let us also be the first
to abolish the punishment of death."

Even after the death of Louis had been voted, Paine
made another appeal. With a courage born of the highest
possible sense of duty he said :

" France has but one ally— the United States of America. That is
the only nation that can furnish France with naval provisions, for the
kingdoms of Northern Europe are, or soon will be, at war with her.
It happens that the person now under discussion is regarded in
America as a deliverer of their country. I can assure you that his
execution will there spread universal sorrow, and it is in your power
not thus to wound the feelings of your ally. Could I speak the
French language I would descend to your bar, and in their name be
come your petitioner to respite the execution of your sentence on
Louis. Ah, citizens, give not the tyrant of England the triumph of
seeing the man perish on the scaffold who helped my dear brothers
of America to break his chains."

THOMAS PAINB. 33 1

This was worthy of the man who had said: "Where

Liberty is not, there is my country."

Paine was second on the committee to prepare the draft'
of a constitution for France to be submitted to the Conven
tion. He was the real author, not only of the draft of the
Constitution, but of the Declaration of Rights.

In France, as in America, he took the lead. His first
thoughts seemed to be first principles. He was clear be
cause he was profound. People without ideas experience
great difficulty in finding words to express them.

From the moment that Paine cast his vote in favor of
mercy — in favor of life — the shadow of the guillotine was
upon him. He knew that when he voted for the King's
life, he voted for his own death. Paine remembered that
the king had been the friend of America, and to him in
gratitude seemed the worst of crimes. He worked to de
stroy the monarch, not the man ; the king, not the friend.
He discharged his duty and accepted death. This was the
heroism of goodness — the sublimity of devotion.

Believing that his life was near its close, he made up his
mind to give to the world his thoughts concerning " re
vealed religion." This he had for some time intended to
do, but other matters had claimed his attention. Feeling
that there was no time to be lost, he wrote the first part of
the " Age of Reason," and gave the manuscript to Joel
Barlow. Six hours after, he was arrested. The second
part was written in prison while he was waiting for death.

Paine clearly saw that men could not be really free, or
defend the freedom they had, unless they were free to think
and speak. He knew that the church was the enemy of
liberty, that the altar and throne were in partnership, that
they helped each other and divided the spoils.

He felt that, being a man, he had the right to examine
the creeds and the Scriptures for himself, and that, being
an honest man, it was his duty and his privilege to tell his
fellow-men the conclusions at which he arrived.

332 MISCELLANY.

He found that the creeds of all orthodox churches were
absurd and cruel, and that the Bible was no better. Of
course he found that there were some good things in the
creeds and in the Bible. These he defended, but the
infamous, the inhuman, he attacked.

In matters of religion he pursued the same course that
he had in things political. He depended upon experience,
and above all on reason. He refused to extinguish the
light in his own soul. He was true to himself, and gave to
others his honest thoughts. He did not seek wealth, or
place, or fame. He sought the truth.

He had felt it to be his duty to attack the institution of
slavery in America, to raise his voice against dueling, to
plead for the rights of woman, to excite pity for the suffer
ings of domestic animals, the speechless friends of man ; to
plead the cause of separation, of independence, of Ameri
can nationality, to attack the abuses and crimes of mon-
archs, to do what he could to give freedom to the world.

He thought it his duty to take another step. Kings as
serted that they derived their power, their right to govern,
from God. To this assertion Paine replied with the
" Rights of Man." Priests pretended that they were the
authorized agents of God. Paine replied with the " Age of
Reason."

This book is still a power, and will be as long as the
absurdities and cruelties of the creeds and the Bible have
defenders. The "Age of Reason" affected the priests just
as the " Rights of Man " affected nobles and kings. The
kings answered the arguments of Paine with laws, the
priests with lies. Kings appealed to force, priests to fraud.
Mr. Con way has written in regard to the "Age of Reason"
the most impressive and the most interesting chapter in
his book.

Paine contended for the rights of the individual, —
tor the jurisdiction of the soul. Above all religions he

THOMAS PAINE. 333

placed Reason, above all kings, Men, and above all men,
Law.

The first part of the " Age of Reason " was written in
the shadow of a prison, the second part in the gloom of
death. From that shadow, from that gloom, came a flood
of light. This testament, by which the wealth of a mar
velous brain, the love of a great and heroic heart were
given to the world, was written in the presence of the
scaffold, when the writer believed he was giving his last
message to his fellow-men.
The " Age of Reason " was his crime.
Franklin, Jefferson, Sumner and Lincoln, the four great
est statesmen that America has produced, were believers in
the creed of Thomas Paine.

The Universalists and Unitarians have found their best
weapons, their best arguments, in the " Age of Rea
son."

Slowly, but surely, the churches are adopting not only
the arguments, but the opinions of the great Reformer.
Theodore Parker attacked the Old Testament and Cal-
vinistic theology with the same weapons and with a bitter
ness excelled by no man who has expressed his thoughts in
our language.

Paine was a century in advance of his time. If he were
living now his sympathy would be with Savage, Chadwick,
Professor Briggs and the " advanced theologians." He,
too, would talk about the " higher criticism " and the
latest definition of " inspiration." These advanced thinkers
substantially are repeating the "Age of Reason." They
still wear the old uniform — clinging to the toggery of
theology — but inside of their religious rags they agree with
Thomas Paine.

Not one argument that Paine urged against the inspira
tion of the Bible, against the truth of miracles, against the
barbarities and infamies of the Old Testament, against the

334 MISCELLANY.

pretensions of priests and the claims of kings, has ever
been answered.

His arguments in favor of the existence of what he was
pleased to call the God of Nature were as weak as those of
all Theists have been. But in all the affairs of this world,
his clearness of vision, lucidity of expression, cogency of
argument, aptness of comparison, power of statement and
comprehension of the subject in hand, with all its bearings
and consequences, have rarely, if ever, been excelled.

He had no reverence for mistakes because they were
old. He did not admire the castles of Feudalism even when
they were covered with ivy. He not only said that the
Bible was not inspired, but he demonstrated that it could
not all be true. This was " brutal." He presented argu
ments so strong, so clear, so convincing, that they could not
be answered. This was " vulgar."

He stood for liberty against kings, for humanity against
creeds and gods. This was " cowardly and low." He gave
his life to free and civilize his fellow-men. This was
" infamous."

Paine was arrested and imprisoned in December, 1793.
He was, to say the least, neglected by Gouverneur Morris
and Washington. He was released through the efforts of
James Monroe, in November, 1794. He was called back to
the Convention, but too late to be of use. As most of the
actors had suffered death, the tragedy was about over and
the curtain was falling. Paine remained in Paris until the
" Reign of Terror " was ended and that of the Corsican
tyrant had commenced.

Paine came back to America hoping to spend the re
mainder of his life surrounded by those for whose happi
ness and freedom he had labored so many years. He ex
pected to be rewarded with the love and reverence of the
American people.

In 1794 James Monroe had written to Paine these words :

THOMAS PAINE, 335

" It is unnecessary for me to tell you how much all your country
men, I speak of the great mass of the people, are interested in your
welfare. They have not forgot the history of their own Revolution
and the difficult scenes through which they passed ; nor do they re
view its several stages without reviving in their bosoms a due sensi
bility of the merits of those who served them in that great and arduous
conflict. The crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, and I hope
never will stain, our national character. You are considered by them
as not only having rendered important services in our own Revolu
tion, but as being on a more extensive scale the friend of human
rights and a distinguished and able advocate of public liberty. To
the welfare of Thomas Paine we are not and cannot be indifferent."

In the same year Mr. Monroe wrote a letter to the Com
mittee of General Safety, asking for the release of Mr.
Paine, in which, among other things, he said :

"The services Thomas Paine rendered to his country in its struggle
for freedom have implanted in the hearts of his countrymen a sense
of gratitude never to be effaced as long as they shall deserve the title
of a just and generous people."

On reaching America, Paine found that the sense of
gratitude had been effaced. He found that the Federalists
hated him with all their hearts because he believed in the
rights of the people and was still true to the splendid prin
ciples advocated during the darkest days of the Revolution.
In almost every pulpit he found a malignant and implacable
foe, and the pews were filled with his enemies. The slave
holders hated him. He was held responsible even for the
crimes of the French Revolution. He was regarded as a
blasphemer, an Atheist, an enemy of God and man. The
ignorant citizens of Bordentown, as cowardly as orthodox,
longed to mob the author of "Common Sense" and "The
Crisis." They thought he had sold himself to the Devil
because he had defended God against the slanderous charges
th'at he had inspired the writers of the Bible — because he
had said that a being of infinite goodness and purity did
not establish slavery and polygamy.

Paine had insisted that men had the right to think for

336 MISCELLANY.

themselves. This so enraged the average American citizen
that he longed for revenge.

In 1802 the people of the United States had exceedingly
crude ideas about the liberty of thought and expressioa
Neither had they any conception of religious freedom.
Their highest thought on that subject was expressed by
the word " toleration," and even this toleration extended
only to the various Christian sects. Even the vaunted re
ligious liberty of colonial Maryland was only to the effect
that one kind of Christian should not fine, imprison and
kill another kind of Christian, but all kinds of Christians
had the right, and it was their duty, to brand, imprison and
kill Infidels of every kind.

Paine had been guilty of thinking for himself and giv
ing his conclusions to the world without having asked the
consent of a priest — just as he had published his political
opinions without leave of the king. He had published his
thoughts on religion and had appealed to reason — to the
light in every mind, to the humanity, the pity, the goodness
which he believed to be in every heart. He denied the
right of kings to make laws and of priests to make creeds.
He insisted that the people should make laws, and that
every human being should think for himself. While some
believed in the freedom of religion, he believed in the re
ligion of freedom.

If Paine had been a hypocrite, if he had concealed his
opinions, if he had defended slavery with quotations from
the " sacred Scriptures " — if he had cared nothing for the
liberties of men in other lands — if he had said that the
state could not live without the church — if he had sought
for place instead of truth, he would have won wealth and
power, and his brow would have been crowned with the
laurel of fame.

He made what the pious call the " mistake " of being
true to himself — of living with an unstained soul. He had

THOMAS PAINE. 337

lived and labored for the people. The people were untrue
to him. They returned evil for good, hatred for benefits
received, and yet this great chivalric soul remembered their
ignorance and loved them with all his heart, and fought
their oppressors with all his strength.

We must remember what the churches and creeds were in
that day, what the theologians really taught, and what the
people believed. To save a few in spite of their vices, and to
damn the many without regard to their virtues, and all for
the glory of the Damner : — this was Calvinism. " He that
hath ears to hear, let him hear," but he that hath a brain to
think must not think. He that believeth without evidence
is good, and he that believeth in spite of evidence is a
saint. Only the wicked doubt, only the blasphemer denies.
This was orthodox Christianity.

Thomas Paine had the courage, the sense, the heart, to
denounce these horrors, these absurdities, these infinite in
famies. He did what he could to drive these theological
vipers, these Calvinistic cobras, these fanged and hissing
serpents of superstition from the heart of man.

A few civilized men agreed with him then, and the world
has progressed since 1809. Intellectual wealth has accumu
lated ; vast mental estates have been left to the world.
Geologists have forced secrets from the rocks, astronomers
from the stars, historians from old records and lost lan
guages. In every direction the thinker and the investigator
have ventured and explored, and even the pews have begun
to ask questions of the pulpits. Humboldt has lived, and
Darwin and Haeckel and Huxley, and the armies led by
them, have changed the thought of the world.

The churches of 1 809 could not be the friends of Thomas
Paine. No church asserting that belief is necessary to
salvation ever was, or ever will be, the champion of true
liberty. A church founded on slavery — that is to say, on
blind obedience, worshiping irresponsible and arbitrary

338 MISCELLANY.

power, must of necessity be the enemy of human free
dom.

The orthodox churches are now anxious to save the little
that Paine left of their creed. If one now believes in God,
and lends a little financial aid, he is considered a good and
desirable member. He need not define God after the manner
of the catechism. He may talk about a " Power that works
for righteousness, " or the tortoise Truth that beats the
rabbit Lie in the long run, or the "Unknowable," or the
"Unconditioned," or the "Cosmic Force," or the "Ulti
mate Atom," or " Protoplasm," or the " What " — provided
he begins this word with a capital.

We must also remember that there is a difference between
independence and liberty. Millions have fought for inde
pendence — to throw off some foreign yoke — and yet were at
heart the enemies of true liberty. A man in jail, sighing to
be free, may be said to be in favor of liberty, but not from
principle; but a man who, being free, risks or gives his
life to free the enslaved, is a true soldier of liberty.

Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life.
One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had
deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned
and abhorred — his virtues denounced as vices — his services
forgotten — his character blackened, he preserved the poise
and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people,
but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a
soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten
and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his
death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him,
their friend — the friend of the whole world — with all their
hearts.

On the 8th of June, 1809, death came — Death, almost his
only friend.

At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession,
no military display. In a carriage, a woman and her sou

THOMAS PAINE. 339

who had lived on the bounty of the dead — On horseback, a
Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed
of his head — and, following on foot, two negroes rilled with
gratitude — constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine.

He who had received the gratitude of many millions, the
thanks of generals and statesmen — he who had been the
friend and companion of the wisest and best — he who had
taught a people to be free, and whose words had inspired
armies and enlightened nations, was thus given back to
Nature, the mother of us all.

If the people of the great Republic knew the life of this
generous, this chivalric man, the real story of his services,
his sufferings and his triumphs — of what he did to compel
the robed and crowned, the priests and kings, to give back
to the people liberty, the jewel of the soul ; if they knew that
he was the first to write, "The Religion of Humanity " ; if
they knew that he, above all others, planted and watered
the seeds of independence, of union, of nationality, in the
hearts of our forefathers — that his words were gladly re
peated by the best and bravest in many lands ; if they
knew that he attempted, by the purest means, to attain the
noblest and loftiest ends — that he was original, sincere, in
trepid, and that he could truthfully say : " The world is my
country, to do good my religion " — if the people only knew
all this — the truth — they would repeat the words of Andrew
Jackson : " Thomas Paine needs no monument made with
hands ; he has erected a monument in the hearts of all

lovers of liberty." — North American Review, August, 1898,

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.

M

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.

" Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail,
And say there is no sin but to be rich. "

R. A. lived in the kingdom of . He was a sincere

professional philanthropist. He was absolutely cer
tain that he loved his fellow-men, and that his views were
humane and scientific. He concluded to turn his attention
to taking care of people less fortunate than himself.

With this object in view he investigated the common peo
ple that lived about him, and he found that they were ex
tremely ignorant, that many of them seemed to take no
particular interest in life or in business, that few of them
had any theories of their own, and that, while many had
muscle, there was only now and then one who had any
mind worth speaking of. Nearly all of them were destitute
of ambition. They were satisfied if they got something to
eat, a place to sleep, and could now and then indulge in
some form of dissipation. They seemed to have great con
fidence in to-morrow — trusted to luck, and took no thought
for the future. Many of them were extravagant, most of
them dissipated, and a good many dishonest.

Mr. A. found that many of the husbands not only failed
to support their families, but that some of them lived on the
labor of their wives ; that many of the wives were careless
of their obligations, knew nothing about the art of cook
ing", nothing about keeping house; and that parents, as a
general thing, neglected their children or treated them with
cruelty. He also found that many of the people were so
shiftless that they died of want and exposure. (343)

344 MISCELLANY.

After having obtained this information Mr. A. made up
his mind to do what little he could to better their condition.
He petitioned the king to assist him, and asked that he be
allowed to take control of five hundred people in considera
tion that he would pay a certain amount into the treasury
of the kingdom. The king being satisfied that Mr. A. could
take care of these people better than they were taking care
of themselves, granted the petition.

Mr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took these
people from their old homes and haunts to a plantation of
his own. He divided them into groups, and over each
group placed a superintendent. He made certain rules and
regulations for their conduct. They were only compelled
to work from twelve to fourteen hours a day, leaving ten
hours for sleep and recreation. Good and substantial food
was provided. Their houses were comfortable and their
clothing sufficient. Their work was laid out from day to
day and from month to month, so that they knew exactly
what they were to do in each hour of every day. These
rules were made for the good of the people, to the end that
they might not interfere with each other, that they might at
tend to their duties, and enjoy themselves in a reasonable
way. They were not allowed to waste their time, or to use
stimulants or profane language. They were told to be re
spectful to the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A. ;
to be obedient, and, above all, to accept the position in
which Providence had placed them, without complaining,
and to cheerfully perform their tasks.

Mr. A. had found out all that the five hundred persons
had earned the year before they were taken control of by
him — just how much they had added to the wealth of the
world. He had statistics taken for the year before with
great care showing the number of deaths, the cases of sick
ness and of destitution, the number who had committed
suicide, how many had been convicted of crimes and mis-

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS, 345

demeanors, how many days they had been idle, and how
much time and money they had spent in drink and for
worthless amusements.

During the first year of their enslavement he kept like
statistics. He found that they had earned several times as
much; that there had been no cases of destitution, no
drunkenness ; that no crimes had been committed ; that
there had been but little sickness, owing to the regular
course of their lives ; that few had been guilty of misde
meanors, owing to the certainty of punishment ; and that
they had been so watched and superintended that for the
most part they had traveled the highway of virtue and
industry.

Mr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride
showed these statistics to his friends. He not only demon
strated that the five hundred people were better off than
they had been before, but that his own income was very
largely increased. He congratulated himself that he had
added to the well-being of these people not only, but had
laid the foundation of a great fortune for himself. On
these facts and these figures he claimed not only to be a
philanthropist, but a philosopher ; and all the people who
had a mind to go into the same business agreed with him.

Some denounced the entire proceeding as unwarranted,
as contrary to reason and justice. These insisted that the
five hundred people had a right to live in their own way
provided they did not interfere with others; that they had
the right to go through the world with little food and with
poor clothes, and to live in huts, if such was their choice.
But Mr. A. had no trouble in answering these objectors.
He insisted that well-being is the only good, and that every
human being is under obligation, not only to take care of
himself, but to do what little he can towards taking care of
others ; that where five hundred people neglect to take care
of themselves, it is the duty of somebody else, who has

346 MISCELLANY.

more intelligence and more means, to take care of them ; that
the man who takes five hundred people and improves their
condition, gives them on the average better food, better
clothes, and keeps them out of mischief, is a benefactor.

" These people," said Mr. A., " were tried. They were
found incapable of taking care of themselves. They lacked
intelligence or will or honesty or industry or ambition or
something, so that in the struggle for existence they fell
behind, became stragglers, dropped by the wayside, died in
gutters ; while many were destined to end their days either
in dungeons or on scaffolds. Besides all this, they were a
nuisance to their prosperous fellow-citizens, a perpetual
menace to the peace of society. They increased the burden
of taxation ; they filled the ranks of the criminal classes,
they made it necessary to build more jails, to employ more
policemen and judges ; so that I, by enslaving them, not
only assisted them, not only protected them against them
selves, not only bettered their condition, not only added to
the well-being of society at large, but greatly increased my
own fortune."

Mr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by giving
him superior intelligence, the genius of command, the
aptitude for taking charge of others, had made it his duty
to exercise these faculties for the well-being of the people
and for the glory of God. Mr. A. frequently declared that
he was God's steward. He often said he thanked God that
he was not governed by a sickly sentiment, but that he was
a man of sense, of judgment, of force of character, and that
the means employed by him were in accordance with the
logic of facts.

Some of the people thus enslaved objected, saying that
they had the same right to control themselves that Mr. A.
had to control himself. But it only required a little disci
pline to satisfy them that they were wrong. Some of the
people were quite happy, and declared that nothing gave

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS. 347

them such perfect contentment as the absence of all respon
sibility. Mr. A. insisted that all men had not been endowed
with the same capacity ; that the weak ought to be cared
for by the strong ; that such was evidently the design of
the Creator, and that he intended to do what little he could
to carry that design into effect.

Mr. A. was very successful. In a few years he had
several thousands of men, women, and children working for
him. He amassed a large fortune. He felt that he had
been intrusted with this money by Providence. He there
fore built several churches, and once in a while gave large
sums to societies for the spread of civilization. He passed
away regretted by a great many people — not including
those who had lived under his immediate administration.
He was buried with great pomp, the king being one of the
pall-bearers, and on his tomb was this :

HE WAS THE PROVIDENCE OF THE POOR.

II.

" And, being rich, my virtue then shall be
To say there is no vice but beggary."

Mr. B. did not believe in slavery. He despised the
institution with every drop of his blood, and was an advocate
of universal freedom. He held all the ideas of Mr. A. in
supreme contempt, and frequently spent whole evenings in
denouncing the inhumanity and injustice of the whole
business. He even went so far as to contend that many of
A.'s slaves had more intelligence than A. himself, and that,
whether they had intelligence or not, they had the right to
be -free. He insisted that Mr. A.'s philanthropy was a
sham ; that he never bought a human being for the purpose
of bettering that being's condition ; that he went into the
business simply to make money for himself ; and that his

348 MISCELLANY.

talk about his slaves committing less crime than when they
were free was simply to justify the crime committed by
himself in enslaving his fellow-men.

Mr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employed some five
or six thousand men. He used to say that these men were
not forced to work for him ; that they were at perfect lib
erty to accept or reject the terms; that, so far as he was
concerned, he would just as soon commit larceny or robbery
as to force a man to work for him. " Every laborer under
my roof," he used to say, " is as free to choose as I am."

Mr B. believed in absolutely free trade ; thought it an
outrage to interfere with the free interplay of forces ; said
that every man should buy, or at least have the privilege
of buying, where he could buy cheapest, and should have
the privilege of selling where he could get the most. He
insisted that a man who has labor to sell has the right to
sell it to the best advantage, and that the purchaser has the
right to buy it at the lowest price. He did not enslave
men — he hired them. Some said that he took advantage of
their necessities ; but he answered that he created no neces
sities, that he was not responsible for their condition, that
he did not make them poor, that he found them poor and
gave them work, and gave them the same wages that he
could employ others for. He insisted that he was abso
lutely just to all ; he did not give one man more than
another, and he never refused to employ a man on account
of the man's religion or politics ; all that he did was simply
to employ that man if the man wished to be employed, and
give him the wages, no more and no less, that some other
man of like capacity was willing to work for.

Mr. B. also said that the price of the article manufac
tured by him fixed the wages of the persons employed, and
that he, Mr. B., was not responsible for the price of the
article he manufactured ; consequently he was not responsi
ble for the wages of the workmen. He agreed to pay them

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS. 348'

a certain price, he taking the risk of selling his articles, and
he paid them regularly just on the day he agreed to pay
them, and if they were not satisfied with the wages, they
were at perfect liberty to leave. One of his private say
ings was : " The poor ye have always with you." And
from this he argued that some men were made poor so that
others could be generous. "Take poverty and suffering
from the world," he said, " and you destroy sympathy and
generosity."

Mr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of his
workmen complained that their wages did not allow them
to live in comfort. Many had large families, and therefore
but little to eat. Some of them lived in crowded rooms.
Many of the children were carried off by disease ; but Mr.
B, took the ground that all these people had the right to
go, that he did not force them to remain, that if they were
not healthy it was not his fault, and that whenever it
pleased Providence to remove a child, or one of the parents,
he, Mr. B., was not responsible.

Mr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were extrava
gant ; that they bought things that they did not need ; that
they wasted in beer and tobacco, money that they should
save for funerals ; that many of them visited places of
amusement when they should have been thinking about
death, and that others bought toys to please the children
when they hardly had bread enough to eat. He felt that
he was in no way accountable for this extravagance, nor
for the fact that their wages did not give them the neces
saries of life, because he not only gave them the same
wages that other manufacturers gave, but the same wages
that other workmen were willing to work for.

Mr. B. said, — and he always said this as though it ended
the argument, — and he generally stood up to say it : " The
great law of supply and demand is of divine origin ; it is
the only law that will work in all possible or conceivable

348' MISCELLANY.

cases; and this law fixes the price of all labor, and from it
there is no appeal. If people are not satisfied with the
operation of the law, then let them make a new world for
themselves."

Some of Mr. B.'s friends reported that on several occa
sions, forgetting what he had said on others, he did declare
that his confidence was somewhat weakened in the law of
supply and demand ; but this was only when there seemed
to be an over-production of the things he was engaged in
manufacturing, and at such times he seemed to doubt the
absolute equity of the great law.

Mr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A., because
when his workmen got old he did not have to care for them,
when they were sick he paid no doctors, and when their
children died he bought no coffins. In this way he was
relieved of a large part of the expenses that had to be borne
by Mr. A. When his workmen became too old, they were
sent to the poorhouse; when they were sick, they were
assisted by charitable societies ; and when they died, they
were buried by pity.

In a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many millions.
He also considered himself as one of God's stewards ; felt
that Providence had given him the intelligence to combine
interests, to carry out great schemes, and that he was
specially raised up to give employment to many thousands
of people. He often regretted that he could do no more
for his laborers without lessening his own profits, or, rather,
without lessening his fund for the blessing of mankind —
the blessing to begin immediately after his death. He was
so anxious to be the providence of posterity that he was
sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with contem
poraries. He felt that it was necessary for him to be
economical, to save every dollar that he could, because in
this way he could increase the fund that was finally to
bless mankind. He also felt that in this way he could lay

THE THREfi PHILANTHROPISTS. 349

the foundations of a permanent fame — that he could build,
through his executors, an asylum to be called the " B.
Asylum," that he could fill a building with books to be
called the " B, Library," and that he could also build and
endow an institution of learning to be called the " B.
College," and that, in addition, a large amount of money
could be given for the purpose of civilizing the citizens of
less fortunate countries, to the end that they might become
imbued with that spirit of combination and manufacture
that results in putting large fortunes in the hands of those
who have been selected by Providence, on account of their
talents, to make a better distribution of wealth than those
who earned it could have done.

Mr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure such
legislation as would protect him from foreign competition.
He did not believe the law of supply and demand would
work when interfered with by manufacturers living in
other countries.

Mr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He had
what is called a level head, was not easily turned aside
from his purpose, and felt that he was in accord with the
general sentiment of his time. By his own exertions he
rose from poverty to wealth. He was born in a hut and
died in a palace. He was a patron of art and enriched his
walls with the works of the masters. He insisted that
others could and should follow his example. For those
who failed or refused he had no sympathy. He accounted
for their poverty and wretchedness by saying: "These
paupers have only themselves to blame." He died without
ever having lost a dollar. His funeral was magnificent,
and clergymen vied with each other in laudations of the
dead. Over his dust rises a monument of marble with *^ 2
words :

HE LIVED FOR OTHERS.

MISCELLANY,

III.

" But there are men who steal, and vainly try
To gild the crime with pompous charity."

There was another man, Mr. C., who also had the genius
for combination. He understood the value of capital, the
value of labor ; knew exactly how much could be done
with machinery ; understood the economy of things ; knew
how to do everything in the easiest and shortest way. And
he, too, was a manufacturer and had in his employ many
thousands of men, women, and children. He was what is
called a visionary, a sentimentalist, rather weak in his will,
not very obstinate, had but little egotism ; and it never
occurred to him that he had been selected by Providence, or
any supernatural power, to divide the property of others.
It did not seem to him that he had any right to take from
other men their labor without giving them a full equivalent.
He felt that if he had more intelligence than his fellow-men
he ought to use that intelligence not only for his own good
but for theirs ; that he certainly ought not to use it for the
purpose of gaining an advantage over those who were his
intellectual inferiors. He used to say that a man strong
intellectually had no more right to take advantage of a man
weak intellectually than the physically strong had to rob
the physically weak.

He also insisted that we should not take advantage of
each other's necessities ; that you should not ask a drown
ing man a greater price for lumber than you would if he
stood on the shore ; that if you took into consideration the
necessities of your fellow-man, it should be only to lessen
the price of that which you would sell to him, not to
increase it. He insisted that honest men do not take
advantage of their fellows. He was so weak that he had
not perfect confidence in the great law of supply and
demand as applied to flesh and blood. He took into consider-

THB THREE PHILANTHROPISTS. 351

ation another law of supply and demand ; he knew that the
workingman had to be supplied with food, and that his
nature demanded something to eat, a house to live in,
clothes to wear.

Mr. C. used to think about this law of supply and demand
as applicable to individuals. He found that men would
work for exceedingly small wages when pressed for the
necessaries of life; that under some circumstances they
would give their labor for half of what it was worth to the
employer, because they were in a position where they must
do something for wife or child. He concluded that he had
no right to take advantage of the necessities of others, and
that he should in the first place honestly find what the work
was worth to him, and then give to the man who did the
work that amount.

Other manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substantially
insane, while most of his workmen looked upon him as
an exceedingly good-natured man, without any particular
genius for business. Mr. C., however, cared little about
the opinions of others, so long as he maintained his respect
for himself.

At the end of the first year he found that he had made a
large profit, and thereupon he divided this profit with the
people who had earned it. Some of his friends said to him
that he ought to endow some public institution ; that there
should be a college in his native town ; but Mr. C. was of
such a peculiar turn of mind that he thought justice ought
to go before charity, and a little in front of egotism, and a
desire to immortalize one's self. He said that it seemed to
him that of all persons in the world entitled to this profit
were the men who had earned it, the men who had made it
by their labor, by days of actual toil. He insisted that, as
they had earned it, it was really theirs, and if it was theirs,
they should have it and should spend it in their own way.
Mr. C. was told that he would make the workmen in

352 MISCELLANY.

other factories dissatisfied, that other manufacturers would
become his enemies, and that his course would scandalize
some of the greatest men who had done so much for the
civilization of the world and for the spread of intelligence.
Mr. C. became extremely unpopular with men of talent,
with those who had a genius for business. He, however,
pursued his way, and carried on his business with the idea
that the men who did the work were entitled to a fair share
of the profits ; that, after all, money was not as sacred as
men, and that the law of supply and demand, as understood,
did not apply to flesh and blood.

Mr. C. said : " I cannot be happy if those who work for
me are defrauded. If I feel I am taking what belongs to
them, then my life becomes miserable. To feel that I have
done justice is one of the necessities of my nature. I do
not wish to establish colleges. I wish to establish no
public institution. My desire is to enable those who work
for me to establish a few thousand homes for themselves.
My ambition is to enable them to buy the books they really
want to read. I do not wish to establish a hospital, but I
want to make it possible for my workmen to have the
services of the best physicians — physicians of their own
choice.

It is not for me to take their money and use it for
the good of others or for my own glory. It is for me to
give what they have earned to them. After I have given
them the money that belongs to them, I can give them my
advice — I can tell them how I hope they will use it ; and
after I have advised them, they will use it as they please.
You cannot make great men and great women by suppres
sion. Slavery is not the school in which genius is born.
Every human being must make his own mistakes for him
self, must learn for himself, must have his own experience ;
and if the world improves, it must be from choice, not from
force; and every man who does justice, who sets the

THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS. 353

example of fair dealing, hastens the coming of universal
honesty, of universal civilization."

Mr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent,
honestly and faithfully. When he died, there were at the
funeral those who had worked for him, their wives and their
children. Their tears fell upon his grave. They planted
flowers and paid to him the tribute of their love. Above
his silent dust they erected a monument with this inscrip
tion:

HE ALLOWED OTHERS TO LIVE FOR THEMSELVES.

North American Review^ December, 1891.

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE
EXCLUDED?

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED ?

THE average American, like the average man of any
cotmtry, has but little imagination. People who speak a
different language, or worship some other god, or wear
clothing unlike his own, are beyond the horizon of his
sympathy. He cares but little or nothing for the suffer
ings or misfortunes of those who are of a different com
plexion or of another race. His imagination is not power
ful enough to recognize the human being, in spite of
peculiarities. Instead of this he looks upon every differ
ence as an evidence of inferiority, and for the inferior he
has but little if any feeling. If these " inferior people "
claim equal rights he feels insulted, and for the purpose of
establishing his own superiority tramples on the rights of
the so-called inferior.

In our own country the native has always considered
himself as much better than the immigrant, and as far
superior to all people of a different complexion. At one
time our people hated the Irish, then the Germans, then
the Italians, and now the Chinese. The Irish and Ger
mans, however, became numerous. They became citizens,
and, most important of all, they had votes. They com
bined, became powerful, and the political parties sought
their aid. They had something to give in exchange for
protection — in exchange for political rights. In conse
quence of this they were flattered by candidates, praised by
the political press, and became powerful enough not only

(887)

358 MISCELLANY.

to protect themselves, but at last to govern the principal
cities in the United States. As a matter of fact the Irish
and the Germans drove the native Americans out of the
trades and from the lower forms of labor. They built the
railways and canals. They became servants. Afterward
the Irish and the Germans were driven from the canals and
railways by the Italians.

The Irish and Germans improved their condition. They
went into other businesses, into the higher and more lucra
tive trades. They entered the professions, turned their
attention to politics, became merchants, brokers, and pro
fessors in colleges. They are not now building railroads
or digging on public works. They are contractors, legis
lators, holders of office, and the Italians and Chinese are
doing the old work.

If matters had been allowed to work in a natural way,
without the interference of mobs or legislators, the Chinese
would have driven the Italians to better employments, and
all menial labor would, in time, be done by the Mongo
lians.

In olden times each nation hated all others. This was
considered natural and patriotic. Spain, after many cen
turies of war, expelled the Moors, then the Moriscoes, and
then the Jews. And Spain, in the name of religion and
patriotism, succeeded in driving from its territory its in
dustry, its taste and its intelligence, and by these mistakes
became poor, ignorant and weak. France started on the
same path when the Huguenots were expelled, and even
England at one time deported the Jews. In those days a
difference of race or religion was sufficient to justify any
absurdity and any cruelty.

In our country, as a matter of fact, there is but little
prejudice against emigrants coming from Europe, except
among naturalized citizens ; but nearly all foreign-born
citizens are united in their prejudice against the Chinese.

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED? 359

The truth is that the Chinese came to this country by in-
vitation. Under the Burlingame Treaty, China and the
United States recognized :

"The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home
and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and
emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country
to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent resi
dents."

And it was provided :

"That the citizens of the United States visiting or residing in
China and Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States
should reciprocally enjoy the same privileges, immunities and ex
emptions, in respect to travel or residence, as shall be enjoyed by
the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, in the country
in which they shall respectively be visiting or residing."

So, by the treaty of 1 880, providing for the limitation or
suspension of emigration of Chinese labor, it was declared :

"That the limitation or suspension should apply only to Chinese
who emigrated to the United States as laborers ; but that Chinese
laborers who were then in the United States should be allowed to go
and come of their own free will and should be accorded all the rights,
privileges, immunities and exemptions, which were accorded to the
citizens and subjects of the most favored nations."

It will thus be seen that all Chinese laborers who came
to this country prior to the treaty of 1880 were to be treated
the same as the citizens and subjects of the most favored
nation ; that is to say, they were to be protected by our
laws the same as we protect our own citizens.

These Chinese laborers are inoffensive, peaceable and
law-abiding. They are honest, keeping their contracts,
doing as they agree. They are exceedingly industrious,
always ready to work and always giving satisfaction to
their employers. They do not interfere with other people.
They cannot become citizens. They have no voice in the
making or the execution of the laws. They attend to their
own business. They have their own ideas, customs, re-

360 MISCELLANY.

ligion and ceremonies — about as foolish as our own; but
they do not try to make converts or to force their dogmas
on others. They are patient, uncomplaining, stoical and
philosophical. They earn what they can, giving reason
able value for the money they receive, and as a rule, when
they have amassed a few thousand dollars, they go back to
their own country. They do not interfere with our ideas,
our ways or customs. They are silent workers, toiling
without any object, except to do their work and get their
pay. They do not establish saloons and run for Congress.
Neither do they combine for the purpose of governing others.
Of all the people on our soil they are the least meddlesome.
Some of them smoke opium, but the opium-smoker does not
beat his wife. Some of them play games of chance, but
they are not members of the Stock Exchange. They eat
the bread that they earn ; they neither beg nor steal, but
they are of no use to parties or politicians except as they
become fuel to supply the flame of prejudice. They are
not citizens and they cannot vote. Their employers are
about the only friends they have.

In the Pacific States the lowest became their enemies and
asked for their expulsion. They denounced the Chinese
and those who gave them work. The patient followers of
Confucius were treated as outcasts — stoned by boys in the
streets and mobbed by the fathers. Few seemed to have
any respect for their rights or their feelings. They were
unlike us. They wore different clothes. They dressed
their hair in a peculiar way, and therefore they were beyond
our sympathies. These ideas, these practices, demoralized
many communities ; the laboring people became cruel and
the small politicians infamous.

When the rights of even one human being are held in
contempt the rights of all are in danger. We cannot de
stroy the liberties of others without losing our own. By
exciting the prejudices of the ignorant we at last produce

SHOULD THE CHINESE BB EXCLUDED? 361

a contempt for law and justice, and sow the seeds of
violence and crime.

Both of the great political parties pandered to the leaders
of the crusade against the Chinese for the sake of electoral
votes, and in the Pacific States the friends of the Chinese
were forced to keep still or to publicly speak contrary to
their convictions. The orators of the " Sand Lots " were
in power, and the policy of the whole country was dictated
by the most ignorant and prejudiced of our citizens. Both
of the great parties ratified the outrages committed by the
mobs, and proceeded with alacrity to violate the treaties
and solemn obligations of the Government. These treaties
were violated, these obligations were denied, and thousands
of Chinamen were deprived of their rights, of their prop
erty, and hundreds were maimed or murdered. The}' were
driven from their homes. They were hunted like wild
beasts. All this was done in a country that sends mission
aries to China to tell the benighted savages of the blessed
religion of the United States.

At first a demand was made that the Chinese should be
driven out, then that no others should be allowed to come,
and laws with these objects in view were passed, in spite
of the treaties, preventing the coming of any more. For a
time that satisfied the haters of the Mongolian. Then
came a demand for more stringent legislation, so that
many of the Chinese already here could be compelled to
leave. The answer or response to this demand is what is
known as the Geary Law.

By this act it is provided, among other things, that any
Chinaman convicted of not being lawfully in the country
shall be removed to China, after having been imprisoned at
hard.labor for not exceeding one year. This law also does
away with bail on habeas corpus proceedings where the
right to land has been denied to a Chinaman. It also com
pels all Chinese laborers to obtain, within one year after the

362 MISCELLANY.

passage of the law, certificates of residence from the revenue
collectors, and if found without such certificate they shall
be held to be unlawfully in the United States.

It is further provided that if a Chinaman claims that he
failed to get such certificate by " accident, sickness or other
unavoidable cause," then he must clearly establish such
claim to the satisfaction of the judge "by at least one credi
ble white witness."

If we were at war with China then we might legally con
sider every Chinaman as an enemy, but we were and are at
peace with that country. The Geary Act was passed by
Congress and signed by the President simply for the sake
of votes. The Democrats in Congress voted for it to save
the Pacific States to the Democratic column; and a Re
publican President signed it so that the Pacific States should
vote the Republican ticket. Principle was forgotten, or
rather it was sacrificed, in the hope of political success. It
was then known, as now, that China is a peaceful nation,
that it does not believe in war as a remedy, that it relies on
negotiation and treaty. It is also known that the Chinese
in this country were helpless, without friends, without
power to defend themselves. It is possible that many mem
bers of Congress voted in favor of the Act believing that
the Supreme Court would hold it unconstitutional, and that
in the meantime it might be politically useful.

The idea of imprisoning a man at hard labor for a year,
and this man a citizen of a friendly nation, for the crime of
being found in this country without a certificate of resi
dence, must be abhorrent to the mind of every enlightened
man. Such punishment for such an " offence " is barbar
ous and belongs to the earliest times of which we know.
This law makes industry a crime and puts one who works
for his bread on a level with thieves and the lowest crimin
als, treats him as a felon, and clothes him in the stripes
of a convict, — and all this is done at the demand of the

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED? 363

ignorant, of the prejudiced, of the heartless, and because
the Chinese are not voters and have no political
power.

The Chinese are not driven away because there is no
room for them. Our country is not crowded. There are
many millions of acres waiting for the plow. There is
plenty of room here under our flag for five hundred mil
lions of people. These Chinese that we wish to oppress
and imprison are people who understand the art of irriga
tion. They can redeem the deserts. They are the best
of gardeners. They are modest and willing to occupy the
lowest seats. They only ask to be day-laborers, washers
and ironers. They are willing to sweep and scrub. They
are good cooks. They can clear lands and build railroads.
They do not ask to be masters — they wish only to serve.
In every capacity they are faithful; but in this country
their virtues have made enemies, and they are hated
because of their patience, their honesty and their in
dustry.

The Geary Law, however, failed to provide the ways and
means for carrying it into effect, so that the probability is
it will remain a dead letter upon the statute book. The
sum of money required to carry it out is too large, and the
law fails to create the machinery and name the persons
authorized to deport the Chinese. Neither is there any
mode of trial pointed out. According to the law there
need be no indictment by a grand jury, no trial by a jury,
and the person found guilty of being here without a cer
tificate of residence can be imprisoned and treated as a
felon without the ordinary forms of trial.

This law is contrary to the laws and customs of nations.
The punishment is unusual, severe, and contrary to our
Constitution, and under its provisions aliens — citizens of a
friendly nation — can be imprisoned without due process of
law. The law is barbarous, contrary to the spirit and

364 MISCELLANY.

genius of American institutions, and was passed in viola
tion of solemn treaty stipulations.

The Congress that passed it is the same that closed the
gates of the World's Fair on the " blessed Sabbath," think
ing it wicked to look at statues and pictures on that day.
These representatives of the people seem to have had more
piety than principle.

After the passage of such a law by the United States is
it not indecent for us to send missionaries to China ? Is
there not work enough for them at home ? We send min
isters to China to convert the heathen ; but when we find a
Chinaman on our soil, where he can be saved by our ex
ample, we treat him as a criminal.

It is to the interest of this country to maintain friendly
relations with China. We want the trade of nearly one-
fourth of the human race. We want to pay for all we get
from that country in articles of our own manufacture. We
lost the trade of Mexico and the South American Republics
because of slavery, because we hated people in whose veins
was found a drop of African blood, and now we are losing
the trade of China by pandering to the prejudices of the
ignorant and cruel.

After all, it pays to do right. This is a hard truth to
learn — especially for a nation. A great nation should be
bound by the highest conception of justice and honor.
Above all things it should be true to its treaties, its con
tracts, its obligations. It should remember that its re
sponsibilities are in accordance with its power and intel
ligence.

Our Government is founded on the equality of human
rights — on the idea, the sacred truth, that all are entitled
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our country
is an asylum for the oppressed of all nations — of all races.
Here, the Government gets its power from the consent of
the governed. After the abolition of slavery these great

SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED? 365

truths were not only admitted, but they found expression
in our Constitution and laws.

Shall we now go back to barbarism?

Russia is earning the hatred of the civilized world by
driving the Jews from their homes. But what can the
United States say ? Our mouths are closed by the Geary
Law. We are in the same business. Our law is as in
human as the order or ukase of the Czar.

Let us retrace our steps, repeal the law and accomplish
what we justly desire by civilized means. Let us treat
China as we would England ; and, above all, let us respect
the rights of men, — North American Review, July, 1893.

A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.

A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.

THE end of life — the object of life — is happiness Noth
ing can be better than that — nothing higher. In order
to be really happy, man must be in harmony with his
surroundings, with the conditions of well-being. In order
to know these surroundings, he must be educated, and
education is of value only as it contributes to the well-
being of man, and only that is education which increases
the power of man to gratify his real wants — wants of body
and of mind.

The educated man knows the necessity of finding out
the facts in nature, the relations between himself and his
fellow-men, between himself and the world, to the end that
he may take advantage of these facts and relations for the
benefit of himself and others. He knows that a man may
understand Latin and Greek, Hebrew and Sanscrit, and be
as ignorant of the great facts and forces in nature as a
native of Central Africa.

The educated man knows something that he can use, not
only for the benefit of himself, but for the benefit of others.
Every skilled mechanic, every good farmer, every man who
knows some of the real facts in nature that touch him, is
to that extent an educated man. The skilled mechanic and
the intelligent farmer may not be what we call " scholars,"
and what we call scholars may not be educated men.

Man is in constant need. He must protect himself from

cold and heat, from sun and storm. He needs food and

ami

37O MISCELLANY.

raiment for the body, and he needs what we call art for the
development and gratification of his brain. Beginning with
what are called the necessaries of life, he rises to what are
known as the luxuries, and the luxuries become necessaries,
and above luxuries he rises to the highest wants of the
soul.

The man who is fitted to take care of himself, in the
conditions he may be placed, is, in a very important sense,
an educated man. The savage who understands the habits
of animals, who is a good hunter and fisher, is a man of
education, taking into consideration his circumstances.
The graduate of a university who cannot take care of him
self — no matter how much he may have studied — is not an
educated man.

In our time, an educated man, whether a mechanic, a
farmer, or one who follows a profession, should know some
thing about what the world has discovered. He should
have an idea of the outlines of the sciences. He should
have read a little, at least, of the best that has been written.
He should know something of mechanics, a little about
politics, commerce, and metaphysics ; and in addition to
all this, he should know how to make something. His
hands should be educated, so that he can, if necessary,
supply his own wants by supplying the wants of others.

There are mental misers — men who gather learning all
their lives and keep it to themselves. They are worse than
hoarders of gold, because when they die their learning dies
with them, while the metal miser is compelled to leave his
gold for others.

The first duty of man is to support himself — to see to it
that he does not become a burden. His next duty is to
help others if he has a surplus, and if he really believes
they deserve to be helped.

It is not necessary to have what is called a university
education in order to be useful or to be happy, any more

A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION-. 371

than it is necessary to be rich, to be happy. Great wealth
is a great burden, and to have more than you can use, is to
care for more than you want. The happiest are those who
are prosperous, and who by reasonable endeavor can sup
ply their reasonable wants and have a little surplus year by
year for the winter of their lives.

So, it is no use to learn thousands and thousands of use
less facts, or to fill the brain with unspoken tongues. This
is burdening yourself with more than you can use. The
best way is to learn the useful.

We all know that men in moderate circumstances can
have just as comfortable houses as the richest, just as com
fortable clothing, just as good food. They can see just as
fine paintings, just as marvelous statues, and they can hear
just as good music. They can attend the same theatres
and the same operas. They can enjoy the same sunshine,
and above all, can love and be loved just as well as kings
and millionaires.

So the conclusion of the whole matter is, that he is edu
cated who knows how to take care of himself ; and that the
happy man is the successful man, and that it is only a bur
den to have more than you want, or to learn those things

that yOU Cannot USe. — The High School Register^ Omaha, Nebraska, Janu
ary, 1891.

WHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.

WHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.

IF I had the power to produce exactly what I want for
next Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors
resign and allow the people to govern themselves.

I would have all the nobility drop their titles and give
their lands back to the people. I would have the Pope
throw away his tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and
admit that he is not acting for God — is not infallible — but
is just an ordinary Italian. I would have all the car
dinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen admit
that they know nothing about theology, nothing about hell
or heaven, nothing about the destiny of the human race,
nothing about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would
have them tell all their "flocks" to think for themselves,
to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in
their power to increase the sum of human happiness.

I would have all the professors in colleges, all the
teachers in schools of every kind, including those in Sun
day schools, agree that they would teach only what they
know, that they would not palm off guesses as demon
strated truths.

I would like to see all the politicians changed to states
men, — to men who long to make their country great and
free, — to men who care more for public good than private
gain — men who long to be of use.

I would like to see all the editors of papers and maga
zines agree to print the truth and nothing but the truth, to
avoid all slander and misrepresentation, and to let the
private affairs of the people alone. (876)

37^ MISCELLANY.

I would like to see drunkenness and prohibition both
abolished.

I would like to see corporal punishment done away with
in every home, in every school, in every asylum, reforma
tory, and prison. Cruelty hardens and degrades, kindness
reforms and ennobles.

I would like to see the millionaires unite and form a
trust for the public good.

I would like to see a fair division of profits between
capital and labor, so that the toiler could save enough to
mingle a little June with the December of his life.

I would like to see an international court established in
which to settle disputes between nations, so that armies
could be disbanded and the great navies allowed to rust
and rot in perfect peace.

I would like to see the whole world free — free from in
justice — free from superstition.

This will do for next Christmas. The following Christ
mas, I may Want more. — TAeArtna,Bo*tou, December, 1897.

FOOL FRIENDS.

FOOL FRIENDS.

NOTHING hurts a man, nothing hurts a party so terri
bly as fool friends.

A fool friend is the sewer of bad news, of slander and all
base and unpleasant things.

A fool friend always knows every mean thing that has
been said against you and against the party.

He always knows where your party is losing, and the
other is making large gains.

He always tells you of the good luck your enemy has
had.

He implicitly believes every story against you, and kindly
suspects your defence.

A fool friend is always full of a kind of stupid candor.

He is so candid that he always believes the statement of
an enemy.

He never suspects anything on your side.

Nothing pleases him like being shocked by horrible news
concerning some good man.

He never denies a lie unless it is in your favor.

He is always finding fault with his party, and is continu
ally begging pardon for not belonging to the other side.

He is frightfully anxious that all his candidates should
stand well with the opposition.

He is forever seeing the faults of his party and the virtues
of the other.

He generally shows his candor by scratching the ticket.

(879)

380 MISCBLLANY,

He always searches every nook and corner of his con-
science to find a reason for deserting a friend or a principle.

In the moment of victory he is magnanimously on your
side.

In defeat he consoles you by repeating prophecies made
after the event.

The fool friend regards your reputation as common prey
for all the vultures, hyenas and jackals.

He takes a sad pleasure in your misfortunes.

He forgets his principles to gratify your enemies.

He forgives your maligner, and slanders you with all his
heart.

He is so friendly that you cannot kick him.

He generally talks for you but always bets the other
way.

\ ' \

INSPIRATION.

INSPIRATION.

WE are told that we have in our possession the inspired
will of God. What is meant by the word " inspired "
is not exactly known ; but whatever else it may mean, cer
tainly it means that the " inspired " must be the true. If
it is true, there is in fact no need of its being inspired — the
truth will take care of itself.

The church is forced to say that the Bible differs from
all other books; it is forced to say that it contains the
actual will of God. Let us then see what inspiration really
is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea says something to
him. It makes an impression upon his mind. It awakens
memory, and this impression depends upon the man's ex
perience — upon his intellectual capacity. Another looks
upon the same sea. He has a different brain ; he has had
a different experience. The sea may speak to him of joy ;
to the other of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the
same thing to any two human beings, because no two
human beings have had the same experience.

Another, standing upon the shore, listening to what the
great Greek tragedian called " The multitudinous laughter
of the sea," may say : Every drop has visited all the shores
of the earth ; every one has been frozen in the vast and icy
North ; every one has fallen in snow, has been whirled by
storms around mountain peaks ; every one has been kissed
to vapor by the sun ; every one has worn the seven-hued
garment of light; every one has fallen in pleasant rain,

(383)

384 MISCELLANY.

gurgled from springs and laughed in brooks while lovers
wooed upon the banks, and every one has rushed with
mighty rivers back to the sea's embrace. Everything in
Nature tells a different story to all eyes that see, and to all
ears that hear.

Once in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley
deliver a lecture. I think the title was " Across the Con
tinent." At last he reached the mammoth trees of Cali
fornia, and I thought, "Here is an opportunity for the old
man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees that have out
lived a thousand human governments. There are limbs
above his head older than the pyramids. While man was
emerging from barbarism to something like civilization,
these trees were growing. Older than history, every one
appeared to be a memory, a witness, and a prophecy. The
same wind that filled the sails of the Argonauts had swayed
these trees." But these trees said nothing of this kind to
Mr. Greeley. Upon these subjects not a word was told
him. Instead, he took his pencil, and after figuring awhile,
remarked : " One of these trees, sawed into inch boards, would
make more than three hundred thousand feet of lumber."

I was once riding in the cars in Illinois. There had
been a violent thunder storm. The rain had ceased, the
sun was going down. The great clouds had floated toward
the west, and there they assumed most wonderful archi
tectural shapes. There were temples and palaces domed
and turreted, and they were touched with silver, with ame
thyst and gold. They looked like the homes of the Titans,
or the palaces of the gods. A man was sitting near me. I
touched him and said, " Did you ever see anything so
beautiful ? " He looked out. He saw nothing of the cloud,
nothing of the sun, nothing of the color ; he saw only the
country, and replied, "Yes, it is beautiful; I always did
like rolling land."

On another occasion I was riding in a stage. There had

INSPIRATION. 385

been a snow, and after the snow a sleet, and all the trees
were bent, and all the boughs were arched. Every fence,
every log cabin, had been transfigured, touched with a glory
almost beyond this world. The great fields were a pure and
perfect white ; the forests.drooping beneath their load of gems,
made wonderful caves, from which one almost expected to
see troops of fairies come. The whole world looked like a
bride, jeweled from head to foot. A German on the back
seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations of wonder,
leaned forward, looked out of the stage window, and said,
" Y-a-a-s ; it looks like a clean table cloth ! "

So, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a
star, or a violet, the more we know, the more we have ex
perienced, the more we have thought, the more we remem
ber, — the more the statue, the star, the painting, the violet,
has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am capable of
understanding — gives all that I can receive.

As with star or flower or sea, so with a book. A man
reads Shakespeare. What does he get from him ? All that
he has the mind to understand. He gets his little cup full.
Let another read him who knows nothing of the drama,
nothing of the impersonations of passion, and what does he
get ? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different story
for each reader. He is a world in which each recognizes
his acquaintances — he may know a few — he may know all.

The impression that Nature makes upon the mind, the
stories told by sea and star and flower, must be the natural
food of thought. Leaving out for the moment the im
pression gained from ancestors, the hereditary fears and
drifts and trends — the natural food of thought must be the
impression made upon the brain by coming in contact,
through the medium of the five senses, with what we call
the outward world. The brain is natural. Its food is
natural. The result — thought — must be natural. The
supernatural can be constructed with no material except

386 MISCELLANY.

the natural. Of the supernatural we can have no con
ception.

" Thought " may be deformed, and the thought of one
may be strange to, and denominated as unnatural by, an
other; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it
may be insane, but it is not supernatural. Above the
natural, man cannot rise. There can be deformed ideas, as
there are deformed persons. There can be religious mon
strosities and misshapen, but they must be naturally pro
duced. Some people have ideas about what they are pleased
to call the supernatural; what they call the supernatural
is simply the deformed. The world is to each man accord
ing to each man. It takes the world as it really is, and
that man to make that man's world, and that man's world
cannot exist without that man.

You may ask, and what of all this ? I reply : As with
everything in Nature, so with the Bible. It has a dif
ferent story for each reader. Is then, the Bible a different
book to every human being who reads it ? It is. Can God,
then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two
persons ? He cannot. Why ? Because the man who reads
it is the man who inspires. Inspiration is in the man, as
well as in the book. God should have " inspired " readers
as well as writers.

You may reply, God knew that his book would be under
stood differently by each one ; really intended that it should
be understood as it is understood by each. If this is so,
then my understanding of the Bible is the real revelation
to me. If this is so, I have no right to take the understand
ing of another. I must take the revelation made to me
through my understanding, and by that revelation I must
stand. Suppose, then, that I do read this Bible honestly,
carefully, and when I get through I am compelled to say,
"The book is not true!"

If this is the honest result, then you are compelled to

INSPIRATION. 387

say, either that God has made no revelation to me, or that
the revelation that it is not true is the revelation made
to me, and by which I am bound. If the book and my
brain are both the work of the same infinite God, whose
fault is it that the book and the brain do not agree?
Either God should have written a book to fit my brain, or
should have made my brain to fit his book.

The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the igno
rance Of him who reads. — The Truth Steker Annual, New York, 1885.

THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.

THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.

THOUSANDS of Christians have asked : How was it pos
sible for Christ and his apostles to deceive the people of
Jerusalem ? How came the miracles to be believed ? Who
had the impudence to say that lepers had been cleansed, and
that the dead had been raised ? How could such impostors
have escaped exposure ?

I ask : How did Mohammed deceive the people of Mecca ?
How has the Catholic Church imposed upon millions of
people ? Who can account for the success of falsehood ?

Millions of people are directly interested in the false.
They live by lying. To deceive is the business of their
lives. Truth is a cripple; lies have wings. It is almost
impossible to overtake and kill and bury a lie. If you do,
some one will erect a monument over the grave, and the lie
is born again as an epitaph. Let me give you a case in
point.

A few days ago the Matlock Register, a paper published
in England, printed the following :

CONVERSION OF THE ARCH ATHEIST.

" Mr. Isaac Loveland, of Shoreham, desires us to insert the follow
ing :—

November 27, 1886.

" DEAR MR. LOVELAND. — A day or two since, I received from Mr.
- Hine the exhilarating intelligence that through his lectures on the
' Identity of the British Nation with Lost Israel,' in Canada and the
United States, that Col. Bob Ingersoll, the arch Atheist, has been
converted to Christianity, and has joined the Episcopal Church.
Praise the Lord! I I 5,000 of his followers have been won for

(391)

392 MISCELLANY.

Christ through Mr. Hine's grand mission work, the other side of the
Atlantic. The Colonel's cousin, the Rev. Mr. Ingersoll, wrote to Mr.
Hine soon after he began lecturing in America, informing him that his
lectures had made a great impression on the Colonel and other
Atheists. I noted it at the time in the Messenger. Bradlaugh will yet
be converted ; his brother has been, and has joined a British Israel
Identity Association. This is progress, and shows what an energetic,
determined man (like Mr. Hine), who is earnest in his faith, can do.

" Very faithfully yours,

I, Grove-road, H. HODSON RUGG."

St. John's Wood, London."

How can we account for an article like that ? Who
made up this story ? Who had the impudence to publish it ?

As a matter of fact, I never saw Mr. Hine, never heard of
him until this extract was received by me in the month of
December. I never read a word about the " Identity of
Lost Israel with the British Nation." It is a question in
which I never had, and never expect to have, the slightest
possible interest.

Nothing can be more preposterous than that the English
man in whose veins can be found the blood of the Saxon,
the Dane, the Norman, the Pict, the Scot and the Celt, is
the descendant of " Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." The
English language does not bear the remotest resemblance
to the Hebrew, and yet it is claimed by the Reverend Hod-
son Rugg that not only myself, but five thousand other
Atheists, were converted by the Rev. Mr. Hine, because of
his theory that Englishmen and Americans are simply Jews
in disguise.

This letter, in my judgment, was published to be used by
missionaries in China, Japan, India and Africa.

If stories like this can be circulated about a living man,
what may we not expect concerning the dead who have
opposed the church ?

Countless falsehoods have been circulated about all the
opponents of superstition. Whoever attacks the popular
falsehoods of his time will find that a lie defends itself by

THE TRUTH OF HISTORY. 393

telling other lies. Nothing is so prolific, nothing can so
multiply itself, nothing can lay and hatch as many eggs, as
a good, healthy, religious lie.

And nothing is more wonderful than the credulity of
the believers in the supernatural. They feel under a kind
of obligation to believe every thing in favor of their religion,
or against any form of what they are pleased to call
" Infidelity."

The old falsehoods about Voltaire, Paine, Hume, Julian,
Diderot and hundreds of others, grow green every spring.
They are answered ; they are demonstrated to be without
the slightest foundation ; but they rarely die. And when
one does die there seems to be a kind of Caesarian operation,
so that in each instance although the mother dies the
child lives to undergo, if necessary, a like operation, leaving
another child, and sometimes two.

There are thousands and thousands of tongues ready to
repeat what the owners know to be false, and these lies are
a part of the stock in trade, the valuable assets, of super
stition. No church can afford to throw its property away.
To admit that these stories are false now, is to admit that
the church has been busy lying for hundreds of years, and
it is also to admit that the word of the church is not and
cannot be taken as evidence of any fact.

A few years ago, I had a little controversy with the editor
of the New York Observer, the Rev. Irenaeus Prime, (who
is now supposed to be in heaven enjoying the bliss of see
ing Infidels in hell), as to whether Thomas Paine recanted
his religious opinions. I offered to deposit a thousand
dollars for the benefit of a charity, if the reverend doctor
would substantiate the charge that Paine recanted. I forced
the New York Observer to admit that Paine did not recant,
and compelled that paper to say that " Thomas Paine died
a blaspheming Infidel."

A few months afterward an English paper was sent to

394 MISCELLANY.

me — a religious paper — and in that paper was a statement
to the effect that the editor of the New York Observer had
claimed that Paine recanted ; that I had offered to give a
thousand dollars to any charity that Mr. Prime might
select, if he would establish the fact that Paine did recant ;
and that so overwhelming was the testimony brought for
ward by Mr. Prime, that I admitted that Paine did recant,
and paid the thousand dollars.

This is another instance of what might be called the
truth of history.

I wrote to the editor of that paper, telling the exact facts,
and offering him advertising rates to publish the denial, and
in addition, stated that if he would send me a copy of his
paper with the denial, I would send him twenty-five dollars
for his trouble. I received no reply, and the lie is in all
probability still on its travels, going from Sunday school to
Sunday school, from pulpit to pulpit, from hypocrite to
savage, — that is to say, from missionary to Hottentot —
without the slightest evidence of fatigue — fresh and strong,
and in its cheeks the roses and lilies of perfect health.

Some person, expecting to add another gem to his crown
of glory, put in circulation the story that one of my
daughters had joined the Presbyterian Church, — a story
without the slightest foundation — and although denied a
hundred times, it is still being printed and circulated for the
edification of the faithful. Every few days I receive some
letter of inquiry as to this charge, and I have industriously
denied it for years, but up to the present time, it shows no
signs of death — not even of weakness.

Another religious gentleman put in print the charge that
my son, having been raised in the atmosphere of Infidelity,
had become insane and died in an asylum. Notwithstand
ing the fact that I never had a son, the story still goes right
on, and is repeated day after day without the semblance of
a blush.

THE TRUTH OP HISTORY. 395

Now, if all this is done while I am alive and well, and
while I have all the facilities of our century for spreading
the denials, what will be done after my lips are closed ?

The mendacity of superstition is almost enough to make
a man believe in the supernatural.

And so I might go on for a hundred columns. Billions
of falsehoods have been told and there are trillions yet to
come. The doctrines of Malthus have nothing to do with
this particular kind of reproduction.

" And there are also many other falsehoods which the
church has told, the which if they should be written every
one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain

the books that Should be Written." — T^ Truth Seeker, New York,
February, 19, 1887.

HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL
PAPER.

HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER.

A LIBERAL paper should be edited by a Liberal man.
And by the word Liberal I mean, not only free, not only
one who thinks for himself, not only one who has escaped
from the prisons of customs and creed, but one who is
candid, intelligent and kind — that is to say, Liberal toward
others.

This Liberal editor should not forever play upon one
string, no matter how wonderful the music. He should
not have his attention forever fixed upon one question —
that is to say, he should not look through a reversed tele
scope and narrow his horizon to that degree that he sees
only one thing.

To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous
people, to know that it is uninspired, to be certain that the
supernatural does not and cannot exist — all this is but
the beginning of wisdom. This only lays the foundation
for unprejudiced observation. To kill weeds, to fell
forests, to drive away or exterminate wild beasts — this is
preparatory to doing something of greater value. Of
course the weeds must be killed, the forests must be felled,
and the beasts must be destroyed before the building of
homes and the cultivation of fields.

A Liberal paper should not discuss theological questions
alone. Intelligent people everywhere have given up most
of the old superstitions. They have pretty well made up

their minds what is false, and they want to know some-

Pl)

400 MISCELLANY.

thing that is true. For this reason, a Liberal paper should
keep abreast of the discoveries of the human mind. No
science should be neglected ; no fact should be overlooked.
Inventions should be described and understood. And not
only this, but the beautiful in thought, in form and color,
should be preserved. The paper should be filled with
things calculated to interest thoughtful, intelligent and
serious people. There should be a column for children as
well as for men.

Above all, it should be perfectly kind and candid. In
discussion there is no place for hatred, no opportunity for
slander. A personality is always out of place. An angry
man can neither reason himself, nor perceive the reason
of what another says. The orthodox world has always
dealt in personalities. Every minister can answer the
argument of an opponent by attacking the character of the
opponent. This example should never be followed by a
Liberal man. Nobody can be bad enough to prove that
the Bible is uninspired, and nobody can be good enough to
prove that it is the word of God. These facts have no re
lation. They neither stand nor fall together.

Nothing should be asserted that is not known. Nothing
should be denied, the falsity of which has not been, or can
not be, demonstrated. Opinions are simply given for what
they are worth. They are guesses, and one guesser should
give to another guesser all the right of guessing that he
claims for himself. Upon the great questions of origin,
of destiny, of immortality, of punishment and reward in
other worlds, every honest man must say, " I do not know."
Upon these questions, this is the creed of intelligence.
Nothing is harder to bear than the egotism of ignorance
and the arrogance of superstition. The man who has
some knowledge of the difficulties surrounding these sub
jects, who knows something of the limitations of the
human mind, must, of necessity, be mentally modest, And

HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER. 40!

this condition of mental modesty is the only one consistent
with individual progress.

Above all, and over all, a Liberal paper should teach the
absolute freedom of the mind, the utter independence of
the individual, the perfect liberty of speech. We should
remember that the world is as it must be ; that the present
is the necessary offspring of the past ; that the future must
be what the present makes it, and that the real work of the
reformer, of the philanthropist, is to change the conditions
of the present, to the end that the future may be better. —

Secular Thought, Toronto, January 8, 1887.

SECULARISM.

SECULARISM,

OEVERAL people have asked ine the meaning of this
O term.

Secularism is the religion of humanity ; it embraces the
affairs of this world; it is interested in everything that
touches the welfare of a sentient being ; it advocates atten
tion to the particular planet in which we happen to live ; it
means that each individual counts for something ; it is a
declaration of intellectual independence ; it means that the
pew is superior to the pulpit, that those who bear the
burdens shall have the profits and that they who fill the
purse shall hold the strings. It is a protest against theo
logical oppression, against ecclesiastical tyranny, against
being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom, or of the
priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting this
life for the sake of one that we know not of. It proposes
to let the gods take care of themselves. It is another name
for common sense ; that is to say, the adaptation of means
to such ends as are desired and understood.

Secularism believes in building a home here, in this
world. It trusts to individual effort, to energy, to intelli
gence, to observation and experience rather than to the
unknown and the supernatural. It desires to be happy on
this side of the grave.

Secularism means food and fireside, roof and raiment,
reasonable work and reasonable leisure, the cultivation of
the tastes, the acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of
the arts, and it promises for the human race comfort, inde-

(406)

406 MISCELLANY.

pendence, intelligence, and above all, liberty. It means the
abolition of sectarian feuds, of theological hatreds. It
means the cultivation of friendship and intellectual hospi
tality. It means the living for ourselves and each other ; for
the present instead of the past, for this world rather than for
another. It means the right to express your thought in
spite of popes, priests, and gods. It means that impudent
idleness shall no longer live upon the labor of honest men.
It means the destruction of the business of those who trade
in fear. It proposes to give serenity and content to the
human soul. It will put out the fires of eternal pain. It
is striving to do away with violence and vice, with igno
rance, poverty and disease. It lives for the ever present
to-day ', and the ever coming to-morrow. It does not believe
in praying and receiving, but in earning and deserving. It
regards work as worship, labor as prayer, and wisdom as
the savior of mankind. It says to every human being,
Take care of yourself so that you may be able to help
others; adorn your life with the gems called good deeds;
illumine your path with the sunlight called friendship and
love.

Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It
has no mysteries, no mummeries, no priests, no ceremonies,
no falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions. It con
siders the lilies of the field, and takes thought for the mor
row. It says to the whole world, Work that you may eat,
drink, and be clothed; work that you may enjoy; work
that you may not want ; work that you may give and never

need. — The Independent Pulpit, Waco, Texas, 1687.

A CRITICISM OF

"ROBERT ELSMERE,"
"JOHN WARD, PREACHER,"

AND

"AN AFRICAN FARM."

A CRITICISM OF ROBERT ELSMERE— JOHN WARD,

PREACHER, AND AN AFRICAN FARM.
F one wishes to know what orthodox religion really is — I

I

mean that religion tmsoftened by Infidelity, by doubt
— let him read "John Ward, Preacher." This book shows
exactly what the love of God will do in the heart of man.
This shows what the effect of the creed of Christendom is,
when absolutely believed. In this case it is the woman
who is free and the man who is enslaved. In "Robert Els-
mere " the man is breaking chains, while the woman pre
fers the old prison with its ivy-covered walls.

Why should a man allow human love to stand between
his soul and the will of God — between his soul and eternal
joy? Why should not the true believer tear every blossom
of pity, of charity, from his heart, rather than put in peril
his immortal soul ?

An orthodox minister has a wife with a heart. Having
a heart she cannot believe in the orthodox creed. She
thinks God better than he is. She flatters the Infinite.
This endangers the salvation of her soul. If she is upheld
in this the souls of others may be lost. Her husband feels
not only accountable for her soul, but for the souls of others
that may be injured by what she says, and by what she
does. He is compelled to choose between his wife and his
duty, between the woman and God. He is not great
enough to go with his heart. He is selfish enough to side
with the administration, with power. He lives a miserable
life and dies a miserable death. (409)

410 MISCELLANY.

The trouble with Christianity is that it has no element
of compromise — it allows no room for charity so far as be
lief is concerned. Honesty of opinion is not even a
mitigating circumstance. You are not asked to understand
— you are commanded to believe. There is no common
ground. The church carries no flag of truce. It does not
say, Believe you must, but, You must believe. No excep
tion can be made in favor of wife or mother, husband or
child. All human relations, all human love must, if nec
essary, be sacrificed with perfect cheerfulness. "Let the
dead bury their dead — follow thou me. Desert wife and
child. Human love is nothing — nothing but a snare. You
must love God better than wife, better than child." John
Ward endeavored to live in accordance with this heartless
creed.

Nothing can be more repulsive than an orthodox life —
than one who lives in exact accordance with the creed. It
is hard to conceive of a more terrible character than John
Calvin. It is somewhat difficult to understand the Puri
tans, who made themselves unhappy by way of recreation,
and who seemed to enjoy themselves when admitting their
utter worthlessness and in telling God how richly they
deserved to be eternally damned. They loved to pluck
from the tree of life every bud, every blossom, every leaf.
The bare branches, naked to the wrath of God, excited their
admiration. They wondered how birds could sing, and the
existence of the rainbow led them to suspect the seriousness
of the Deity. How can there be any joy if man believes
that he acts and lives under an infinite responsibility, when
the only business of this life is to avoid the horrors of the
next ? Why should the lips of men feel the ripple of
laughter if there is a bare possibility that the creed of
Christendom is true ?

I take it for granted that all people believe as they must
— that all thoughts and dreams have been naturally pro-

ROBERT ELSMERE, JOHN WARD, PREACHER, ETC. 4! I

duced— that what we call the unnatural is simply the un
common. All religions, poems, statues, vices and virtues,
have been wrought by nature with the instrumentalities
called men. No one can read "John Ward, Preacher,"
without hating with all his heart the creed of John Ward ;
and no one can read the creed of John Ward, preacher, with
out pitying with all his heart John Ward ; and no one can
read this book without feeling how much better the wife was
than the husband — how much better the natural sympathies
are than the religions of our day, and how much superior
common sense is to what is called theology.

When we lay down the book we feel like saying: No
matter whether God exists or not ; if he does, he can take
care of himself; if he does, he does not take care of us ; and
whether he lives or not we must take care of ourselves.
Human love is better than any religion. It is better to
love your wife than to love God. It is better to make a
happy home here than to sunder hearts with creeds. This
book meets the issues far more frankly, with far greater
candor. This book carries out to its logical sequence the
Christian creed. It shows how uncomfortable a true be
liever must be, and how uncomfortable he necessarily makes
those with whom he comes in contact. It shows how
narrow, how hard, how unsympathetic, how selfish, how
unreasonable, how unpoetic, the creed of the orthodox
church is.

In " Robert Elsmere" there is plenty of evidence of read
ing and cultivation, of thought and talent. So in "John
Ward, Preacher," there is strength, purpose, logic, power of
statement, directness and courage. But " The Story of an
African Farm" has but little in common with the other
two.

It is a work apart — belonging to no school, and not to be
judged by the ordinary rules and canons of criticism.
There are some puerilities and much philosophy, trivialities

412 MISCELLANY.

and some of the profoundest reflections. In addition to this,
there is a vast and wonderful sympathy.

The following upon love is beautiful and profound:
"There is a love that begins in the head and goes down to
the heart, and grows slowly, but it lasts till death and asks
less than it gives. There is another love that blots out wis
dom, that is sweet with the sweetness of life and bitter with
the bitterness of death, lasting for an hour ; but it is worth
having lived a whole life for that hour. It is a blood-red
flower, with the color of sin, but there is always the scent
of a god about it."

There is no character in " Robert Elsmere " or in " John
Ward, Preacher," comparable for a moment to Lyndall in
the " African Farm." In her there is a splendid courage.
She does not blame others for her own faults ; she accepts.
There is that splendid candor that you find in Juliet in
'•' Measure for Measure." She is asked:

" Love you the man that wronged you?"

And she replies :

"Yes ; as I love the woman that wronged him."

The death of this wonderful girl is extremely pathetic.
None but an artist could have written it :

" Then slowly, without a sound, the beautiful eyes closed. The
dead face that the glass reflected was a thing of marvellous beauty
and tranquillity. The gray dawn crept in over it and saw it lying
there."

So the story of the hunter is wonderfully told. This
hunter climbs above his fellows — day by day getting away
from human sympathy, away from ignorance. He lost at
last his fellow-men, and truth was just as far away as ever.
Here he found the bones of another hunter, and as he
looked upon the poor remains the wild faces said :

"So he lay down here, for he was very tired. He went to sleep
forever. He put himself to sleep. Sleep is very tranquil. You are
not lonely when you are asleep, neither do your hands ache nor your
heart"

ROBERT ELSMERE, JOHN WARD, PREACHER, ETC. 413

So the death of Waldo is most wonderfully told. The
book is filled with thought, and with thoughts of the
writer — nothing is borrowed. It is original, true and ex
ceedingly sad. It has the pathos of real life. There is in
it the hunger of the heart, the vast difference between the
actual and the ideal :

" I like to feel that strange life beating up against me. I like to
realize forms of life utterly unlike my own. When my own life feels
small and I am oppressed with it, I like to crush together and see it
in a picture, in an instant, a multitude of disconnected, unlike phases
of human life — a mediaeval monk with his string of beads pac
ing the quiet orchard, and looking up from the grass at his feet to the
heavy fruit trees ; little Malay boys playing naked on a shining sea-
beach ; a Hindoo philosopher alone under his banyan tree, thinking,
thinking, thinking, so that in the thought of God he may lose himself;
a troop of Bacchanalians dressed in white, with crowns of vine-
leaves, dancing along the Roman streets ; a martyr on the night of
his death looking through the narrow window to the sky and feeling
that already he has the wings that shall bear him up; an epicurean
discoursing at a Roman bath to a knot of his disciples on the nature
of happiness ; a Kafir witch-doctor seeking for herbs by moonlight,
while from the huts on the hillside come the sound of dogs barking
and the voices of women and children ; a mother giving bread and
milk to her children in little wooden basins and singing the evening
song. I like to see it all ; I feel it run through me — that life belongs
to me ; it makes my little life larger, it breaks down the narrow walls
that shut me in."

The author, Olive Schreiner, has a tropic zone in her
heart. She sometimes prattles like a child, then suddenly,
and without warning, she speaks like a philosopher — like
one who had guessed the riddle of the Sphinx. She, too,
is overwhelmed with the injustice of the world — with the
negligence of nature — and she finds that it is impossible
to find repose for heart or brain in any Christian creed.

These books show what the people are thinking — the
tendency of modern thought. Singularly enough the three
are written by women. Mrs. Ward, the author of " Robert
Elsmere," to say the least is not satisfied with the Episcopal
Church. She feels sure that its creed is not true. At the
same time, she wants it denied in a respectful tone of voice,

414 MISCELLANY.

and she really pities people who are compelled to give up
the consolation of eternal punishment, although she has
thrown it away herself and the tendency of her book is to
make other people do so. It is what the orthodox call " a
dangerous book." It is a flank movement calculated to
suggest a doubt to the unsuspecting reader, to some sheep
who has strayed beyond the shepherd's voice.

It is hard for any one to read " John Ward, Preacher,"
without hating Puritanism with all his heart and without
feeling certain that nothing is more heartless than the
" scheme of salvation ; " and whoever finishes " The Story
of an African Farm " will feel that he has been brought in
contact with a very great, passionate and tender soul. Is it
possible that women, who have been the Caryatides of the
church, who have borne its insults and its burdens, are to
be its destroyers ?

Man is a being capable of pleasure and pain. The fact
that he can enjoy himself — that he can obtain good — gives
him courage — courage to defend what he has, courage to
try to get more. The fact that he can suffer pain sows in
his mind the seeds of fear. Man is also filled with curiosity.
He examines. He is astonished by the uncommon. He is
forced to take an interest in things because things affect
him. He is liable at every moment to be injured. Count
less things attack him. He must defend himself. As a
consequence his mind is at work ; his experience in some
degree tells him what may happen ; he prepares ; he de
fends himself from heat and cold. All the springs of action
lie in the fact that he can suffer and enjoy. The savage
has great confidence in his senses. He has absolute confi
dence in his eyes and ears. It requires many years of edu
cation and experience before he becomes satisfied that
things are not always what they appear. It would be hard
to convince the average barbarian that the sun does not ac
tually rise and set — hard to convince him that the earth

ROBERT ELSMERE, JOHN WARD, PREACHER, ETC. 415

turns. He would rely upon appearances and would record
you as insane.

As man becomes civilized, educated, he finally has more
confidence in his reason than in his eyes. He no longer
believes that a being called Echo exists. He has found
out the theory of sound, and he then knows that the wave
of air has been returned to his ear, and the idea of a being
who repeats his words fades from his mind ; he begins then
to rely, not upon appearances, but upon demonstration, up
on the result of investigation. At last he finds that he has
been deceived in a thousand ways, and he also finds that he
can invent certain instruments that are far more accurate
than his senses — instruments that add power to his sight, to
his hearing and to the sensitiveness of his touch. Day by
day he gains confidence in himself.

There is in the life of the individual, as in the life of the
race, a period of credulity, when not only appearances are
accepted without question, but the declarations of others.
The child in the cradle or in the lap of its mother, has
implicit confidence in fairy stories — believes in giants and
dwarfs, in beings who can answer wishes, who create
castles and temples and gardens with a thought. So the
race, in its infancy, believed in such beings and in such
creations. As the child grows, facts take the place of the
old beliefs, and the same is true of the race.

As a rule, the attention of man is drawn first, not to his
own mistakes, not to his own faults, but to the mistakes and
faults of his neighbors. The same is true of a nation — it
notices first the eccentricities and peculiarities of other
nations. This is especially true of religious systems.
Christians take it for granted that their religion is true,
that there can be about that no doubt, no mistake. They
begin to examine the religions of other nations. They take
it for granted that all these other religions are false. They
are in a frame of mind to notice contradictions, to discover

4 1 6 MISCELLANY.

mistakes and to apprehend absurdities. In examining
other religions they use their common sense. They carry
in the hand the lamp of probability. The miracles of
other Christs, or of the founders of other religions, appear
unreasonable — they find that they are not supported by evi
dence. Most of the stories excite their laughter. Many of
the laws seem cruel, many of the ceremonies absurd.
These Christians satisfy themselves that they are right in
their first conjecture — that is, that other religions are all
made by men. Afterward the same arguments they
have used against other religions were found to be equally
forcible against their own. They find that the miracles of
Buddha,rest upon the same kind of evidence as the mira
cles in the Old Testament, as the miracles in the New —
that the evidence in the one case is just as weak and
unreliable as in the other. They also find that it is just as
easy to account for the existence of Christianity as for the
existence of any other religion, and they find that the
human mind in all countries has traveled substantially the
same road and has arrived at substantially the same con
clusions.

It may be truthfully said that Christianity by the exam
ination of other religions laid the foundation for its own
destruction. The moment it examined another religion it
became a doubter, a sceptic, an investigator. It began to
call for proof. This course being pursued in the examina
tion of Christianity itself, reached the result that had been
reached as to other religions. In other words, it was im
possible for Christians successfully to attack other religions
without showing that their own religion could be de
stroyed. The fact that only a few years ago we were all
provincial should be taken into consideration. A few
years ago nations were unacquainted with each other — no
nation had any conception of the real habits, customs, re
ligions and ideas of any other. Each nation imagined

ROBERT KLSMERE, JOHN WARD, PREACHER, ETC. 417

itself to be the favored of heaven — the only one to whom
God had condescended to make known his will — the only
one in direct communication with angels and deities.
Since the circumnavigation of the globe, since the inven
tion of the steam engine, the discovery of electricity, the
nations of the world have become acquainted with each
other, and we now know that the old ideas were born of
egotism, and that egotism is the child of ignorance and
savagery.

Think of the egotism of the ancient Jews, who imagined
that they were "the chosen people" — the only ones in
whom God took the slightest interest! Imagine the
egotism of the Catholic Church, claiming that it is the
only church — that it is continually under the guidance of
the Holy Ghost, and that the pope is infallible and occupies
the place of God. Think of the egotism of the Presbyte
rian, who imagines that he is one of "the elect," and that
billions of ages before the world was created, God, in the
eternal counsel of his own good pleasure, picked out this
particular Presbyterian, and at the same time determined to
send billions and billions to the pit of eternal pain. Think
of the egotism of the man who believes in special provi
dence. The old philosophy, the old religion, was made in
about equal parts of ignorance and egotism. This earth
was the universe. The sun rose and set simply for the
benefit of "God's chosen people." The moon and stars
were made to beautify the night, and all the countless hosts
of heaven were for no other purpose than to decorate what
might be called the ceiling of the earth. It was also be
lieved that this firmament was solid — that up there the gods
lived, and that they could be influenced by the prayers and
desires of men.

We have now found that the earth is only a grain of
sand, a speck, an atom in an infinite universe. We now
know that the sun is a million times larger than the earth,

41 8 MISCELLANY.

and that other planets are millions of times larger than the
sun ; and when we think of these things, the old stories of
the Garden of Eden and Sinai and Calvary seem infinitely
out of proportion.

At last we have reached a point where we have the can
dor and the intelligence to examine the claims of our
own religion precisely as we examine those of other
countries. We have produced men and women great
enough to free themselves from the prejudices born of
provincialism — from the prejudices, we might almost say,
of patriotism. A few people are great enough not to be
controlled by the ideas of the dead — great enough to know
that they are not bound by the mistakes of their ancestors
— and that a man may actually love his mother without
accepting her belief. We have even gone further than this,
and we are now satisfied that the only way to really honor
parents is to tell our best and highest thoughts. These
thoughts ought to be in the mind when reading the books
referred to. There are certain tendencies, certain trends of
thought, and these tendencies — these trends — bear fruit;
that is to say, they produce the books about which I have
spoken as well as many others.

THE LIBEL LAWS.

Question. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to
remodeling the libel laws?

Answer. I believe that every article appearing in a paper
should be signed by the writer. If it is libelous, then the
writer and the publisher should both be held responsible in
damages. The law on this subject, if changed, should
throw greater safeguards around the reputation of the
citizen. It does not seem to me that the papers have any
right to complain. Probably a good many suits are brought
that should not be instituted, but just think of the suits that
are not brought.

Personally I have no complaint to make, as it would be
very hard to find anything in any paper against me, but it
has never occurred to me that the press needed any greater
liberty than it now enjoys.

It might be a good thing for a paper to publish each
week, a list of mistakes, if this could be done without
making that edition too large. But certainly when a false
and scandalous charge has been made by mistake or as the
result of imposition, great pains should be taken to give the
retraction at once and in a way to attract attention.

I suppose the papers are liable to be imposed upon —
liable to print thousands of articles to which the attention
of the editor or proprietor was not called. Still, that is not
the fault of the man whose character is attacked. On the
whole I think the papers have the advantage of the average
citizen as the law now is. <«w

420 MISCELLANY.

If all articles had to be signed by the writer, I am satis
fied the writer would be more careful and less liable to
write anything of a libelous nature. I am willing to
admit that I have given but little attention to the subject,
probably for the reason that I have never been a sufferer.

It would hardly do to hold only the writer responsible.
Suppose a man writes a libelous article, leaves the country,
and then the article is published ; is there no remedy ? A
suit for libel is not much of a remedy, I admit, but it is
some. It is like the bayonet in war. Very few are injured
by bayonets, but a good many are afraid that they may be.

—The Herald, New York, October 26, 1888.

REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON
ON A NEW RELIGION.

THE REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON
A NEW RELIGION.

I HAVE read the report of the Rev. R. Heber Newton's
sermon and I am satisfied, first, that Mr. Newton simply
said what he thoroughly believes to be true, and second,
that some of the conclusions at which he arrives are cer
tainly correct. I do not regard Mr. Newton as a heretic or
sceptic. Every man who reads the Bible must, to a greater
or less extent, think for himself. He need not tell his
thoughts ; he has the right to keep them to himself. But if
he undertakes to tell them, then he should be absolutely
honest.

The Episcopal creed is a few ages behind the thought of
the world. For many . years the foremost members and
clergymen in that church have been giving some new
meanings to the old words and phrases. Words are no
more exempt from change than other things in nature. A
word at one time rough, jagged, harsh and cruel, is finally
worn smooth. A word known as slang, picked out of the
gutter, is cleaned, educated, becomes respectable and finally
is found in the mouths of the best and purest.

We must remember that in the world of art the picture
depends not alone on the painter, but on the one who sees
it , So words must find some part of their meaning in the
man who hears or the man who reads. In the old times
the word " hell" gave to the hearer or reader the picture of
a vast pit filled with an ocean of molten brimstone, in

(423)

424 MISCELLANY.

which innumerable souls were suffering the torments of fire,
and where millions of devils were engaged in the cheerful
occupation of increasing the torments of the damned. This
was the real old orthodox view.

As man became civilized, however, the picture grew less
and less vivid. Finally, some expressed their doubts about
the brimstone, and others began to think that if the Devil
was, and is, really an enemy of God he would not spend his
time punishing sinners to please God. Why should the
Devil be in partnership with his enemy, and why should
he inflict torments on poor souls who were his own friends,
and who shared with him the feeling of hatred toward the
Almighty ?

As men became more and more civilized, the idea began
to dawn in their minds that an infinitely good and wise
being would not have created persons, knowing that they
would be eternal failures, or that they were to suffer eternal
punishment, because there could be no possible object in
eternal punishment — no reformation, no good to be accomp
lished — and certainly the sight of all this torment would
not add to the joy of heaven, neither would it tend to the
happiness of God.

So the more civilized adopted the idea that punishment
is a consequence and not an infliction. Then they took
another step and concluded that every soul, in every world,
in every age, should have at least the chance of doing right.
And yet persons so believing still used the word " hell,"
but the old meaning had dropped out.

So with regard to the atonement. At one time it was
regarded as a kind of bargain in which so much blood was
shed for so many souls. This was a barbaric view. After
ward, the mind developing a little, the idea got in the
brain that the life of Christ was worth its moral effect.
And yet these people use the word " atonement," but the
bargain idea has been lost.

REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION. 425

Take for instance the word "justice." The meaning
that is given to that word depends upon the man who uses
it — depends for the most part on the age in which he lives,
the country in which he was born. The same is true of
the word "freedom." Millions and millions of people
boasted that they were the friends of freedom, while at the
same time they enslaved their fellow-men. So, in the
name of justice every possible crime has been perpetrated
and in the name of mercy every instrument of torture has
been used.

Mr. Newton realizes the fact that everything in the
world changes ; that creeds are influenced by civilization,
by the acquisition of knowledge, by the progress of the
sciences and arts — in other words, that there is a tendency
in man to harmonize his knowledge and to bring about a
reconciliation between what he knows and what he believes.
This will be fatal to superstition, provided the man knows
anything.

Mr. Newton, moreover, clearly sees that people are los
ing confidence in the morality of the gospel ; that its
foundation lacks common sense; that the doctrine of for
giveness is unscientific, and that it is impossible to feel that
the innocent can rightfully suffer for the guilty, or that
the suffering of innocence can in any way justify the crimes
of the wicked. I think he is mistaken, however, when he
says that the early church softened or weakened the bar
baric passions. I think the early church was as barbarous
as any institution that ever gained a footing in this world.
I do not believe that the creed of the early church, as
understood, could soften anything. A church that preaches
the eternity of punishment has within it the seed of all
barbarism and the soil to make it grow.

So Mr. Newton is undoubtedly right when he says that
the organized Christianity of to-day is not the leader in
social progress. No one now goes to a synod to find a fact

426 MISCELLANY.

in science or on any subject. A man in doubt does not
ask the average minister; he regards him as behind the
times. He goes to the scientist, to the library. He de
pends upon the untrammelled thought of fearless men.

The church, for the most part, is in the control of the
rich, of the respectable, of the well-to-do, of the unsympa
thetic, of the men who, having succeeded themselves,
think that everybody ought to succeed. The spirit of caste
is as well developed in the church as it is in the average
club. There is the same exclusive feeling, and this feeling
in the next world is to be heightened and deepened to such
an extent that a large majority of our fellow-men are to be
eternally excluded.

The peasants of Europe — the workingmen — do not go to
the church for sympathy. If they do they come home
empty, or rather empty hearted. So, in our own country
the laboring classes, the mechanics, are not depending on
the churches to right their wrongs. They do not expect
the pulpits to increase their wages. The preachers get
their money from the well-to-do — from the employer class
— and their sympathies are with those from whom they re
ceive their wages.

The ministers attack the pleasures of the world. They
are not so much scandalized by murder and forgery as by
dancing and eating meat on Friday. They regard unbelief
as the greatest of all sins. They are not touching the real,
vital issues of the day, and their hearts do not throb in
unison with the hearts of the struggling, the aspiring, the
enthusiastic and the real believers in the progress of the
human race.

It is all well enough to say that we should depend on
Providence, but experience has taught us that while it may
do no harm to say it, it will do no good to do it. We have
found that man must be the Providence of man, and that
one plow will do more, properly pulled and properly held,

REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION. 427

toward feeding the world, than all the prayers that ever
agitated the air.

So, Mr. Newton is correct in saying, as I understand
him to say, that the hope of immortality has nothing to do
with orthodox religion. Neither, in my judgment, has
the belief in the existence of a God anything in fact to do
with real religion. The old doctrine that God wanted man
to do something for him, and that he kept a watchful eye
upon all the children of men ; that he rewarded the virtuous
and punished the wicked, is gradually fading from the
mind. We know that some of the worst men have what
the world calls success. We know that some of the best
men lie upon the straw of failure. We know that honesty
goes hungry, while larceny sits at the banquet. We know
that the vicious have every physical comfort, while the
virtuous are often clad in rags.

Man is beginning to find that he must take care of him
self; that special providence is a mistake. This being so,
the old religions must go down, and in their place man
must depend upon intelligence, industry, honesty; upon
the facts that he can ascertain, upon his own experience,
upon his own efforts. Then religion becomes a thing of
this world — a religion to put a roof above our heads, a
religion that gives to every man a home, a religion that
rewards virtue here.

If Mr. Newton's sermon is in accordance with the
Episcopal creed, I congratulate the creed. In any event, I
think Mr. Newton deserves great credit for speaking his
thought. Do not understand that I imagine that he agrees
with me. The most I will say is that in some things I
agree with him, and probably there is a little too much
truth and a little too much humanity in his remarks to
please the bishop.

There is this wonderful fact, no man has ever yet been
persecuted for thinking God bad. When any one has said

428 MISCELLANY.

that he believed God to be so good that he would, in his
own time and way, redeem the entire human race, and that
the time would come when every soul would be brought
home and sit on an equality with the others around the
great fireside of the universe, that man has been denounced

as a poor, miserable, wicked Wretch. — Neva York Herald, December
18,1888.

AN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.

ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.

MY family and I regard Christmas as a holiday — that is to
say, a day of rest and pleasure — a day to get acquaint
ed with each other, a day to recall old memories, and for the
cultivation of social amenities. The festival now called
Christmas is far older than Christianity. It was known
and celebrated for thousands of years before the establish
ment of what is known as our religion. It is a relic of sun-
worship. It is the day on which the sun triumphs over the
hosts of darkness, and thousands of years before the New
Testament was written, thousands of years before the
republic of Rome existed, before one stone of Athens was
laid, before the Pharaohs ruled in Egypt, before the religion
of Brahma, before Sanscrit was spoken, men and women
crawled out of their caves, pushed the matted hair from
their eyes, and greeted the triumph of the sun over the
powers of tlie night.

There are many relics of this worship — among which is
the shaving of the priest's head, leaving the spot shaven
surrounded by hair, in imitation of the rays of the sun.
There is still another relic — the ministers of our day close
their eyes in prayer. When men worshiped the sun — when
they looked at that luminary and implored its assistance —
they shut their eyes as a matter of necessity. Afterward
the -priests looking at their idols glittering with gems,
shut their eyes in flattery, pretending that they could not
bear the effulgence of the presence ; and to-day, thousands
of years after the old ideas have passed away, the modern

(481)

43 2 MISCELLANY.

parson, without knowing the origin of the custom, closes his
eyes when he prays.

There are many other relics and souvenirs of the dead
worship of the sun, and this festival was adopted by
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and by Christians. As a mat
ter of fact, Christianity furnished new steam for an old
engine, infused a new spirit into an old religion, and, as a
matter of course, the old festival remained.

For all of our festivals you will find corresponding
pagan festivals. For instance, take the eucharist, the com
munion, where persons partake of the body and blood of
the Deity. This is an exceedingly old custom. Among
the ancients they ate cakes made of corn, in honor of Ceres
and they called these cakes the flesh of the goddess, and
they drank wine in honor of Bacchus, and called this the
blood of their god. And so I could go on giving the pagan
origin of every Christian ceremony and custom. The prob
ability is that the worship of the sun was once substantially
universal, and consequently the festival of Christ was
equally wide spread.

As other religions have been produced, the old customs
have been adopted and continued, so that the result is, this
festival of Christmas is almost world-wide. It is popular
because it is a holiday. Overworked people are glad of days
that bring rest and recreation and allow them to meet their
families and their friends. They are glad of days when
they give and receive gifts — evidences of friendship, of
remembrance and love. It is popular because it, is really
human, and because it is interwoven with our customs,
habits, literature, and thought.

For my part I am willing to have two or three a year —
the more holidays the better. Many people have an idea
that I am opposed to Sunday. I am perfectly willing to
have two a week. All I insist on is that these days shall
be for the benefit of the people, and that they shall be

ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS. 433

kept not in a way to make folks miserable or sad or hungry,
but in a way to make people happy, and to add a little to
the joy of life. Of course, I am in favor of everybody
keeping holidays to suit himself, provided he does not
interfere with others, and I am perfectly willing that every
body should go to church on that day, provided he is will
ing that I Should gO Somewhere else. — The Tribune^ New York,
December, 1889.

HAS FREETHOUGHT A CON
STRUCTIVE SIDE?

HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE ?

'T'HE object of the Freethinker is to ascertain the truth —
1 the conditions of well-being — to the end that this life
will be made of value. This is the affirmative, positive,
and constructive side.

Without liberty there is no such thing as real happiness.
There may be the contentment of the slave — of one who is
glad that he has passed the day without a beating — one
who is happy because he has had enough to eat — but the
highest possible idea of happiness is freedom.

All religious systems enslave the mind. Certain things
are demanded — certain things must be believed — certain
things must be done — and the man who becomes the sub
ject or servant of this superstition must give up all idea of
individuality or hope of intellectual growth and progress.

The religionist informs us that there is somewhere in the
universe an orthodox God, who is endeavoring to govern
the world, and who for this purpose resorts to famine and
flood, to earthquake and pestilence — and who, as a last re
sort, gets up a revival of religion. That is called " affirm
ative and positive."

The man of sense knows that no such God exists, and
thereupon he affirms that the orthodox doctrine is in
finitely absurd. This is called a " negation." But to my
mind it is an affirmation, and is a part of the positive side
of Freethought.

A man who compels this Deity to abdicate his throne
renders a vast and splendid service to the human race.

(487)

438 MISCELLANY.

As long as men believe in tyranny in heaven they will
practice tyranny on earth. Most people are exceedingly
imitative, and nothing is so gratifying to the average ortho
dox man as to be like his God.

These same Christians tell us that nearly everybody is
to be punished forever, while a few fortunate Christians
who were elected and selected billions of ages before the
world was created, are to be happy. This they call the
" tidings of great joy." The Freethinker denounces this
doctrine as infamous beyond the power of words to ex
press. He says, and says clearly, that a God who would
create a human being, knowing that that being was to be
eternally miserable, must of necessity be an infinite fiend.

The free man, into whose brain the serpent of supersti
tion has not crept, knows that the dogma of eternal pain is
an infinite falsehood. He also knows — if the dogma be
true — that every decent human being should hate, with
every drop of his blood, the creator of the universe. He
also knows — if he knows anything — that no decent human
being could be happy in heaven with a majority of the
human race in hell. He knows that a mother could not
enjoy the society of Christ with her children in perdition ;
and if she could, he knows that such a mother is simply
a wild beast. The free man knows that the angelic hosts,
under such circumstances, could not enjoy themselves un
less they had the hearts of boa-constrictors.

It will thus be seen that there is an affirmative, a positive,
a constructive side to Freethought.

What is the positive side ?

First: A denial of all orthodox falsehoods — an ex
posure of all superstitions. This is simply clearing the
ground, to the end that seeds of value may be planted. It
is necessary, first, to fell the trees, to destroy the poisonous
vines, to drive out the wild beasts. Then comes another
phase — another kind of work. The Freethinker knows

FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE? 439

that the universe is natural — that there is no room, even in
infinite space, for the miraculous, for the impossible. The
Freethinker knows, or feels that he knows, that there is no
sovereign of the universe, who, like some petty king or
tyrant, delights in showing his authority. He feels that
all in the universe are conditioned beings, and that only
those are happy who live in accordance with the conditions
of happiness, and this fact or truth or philosophy embraces
all men and all gods — if there be gods.

The positive side is this: That every good action has
good consequences — that it bears good fruit forever — and
that every bad action has evil consequences, and bears bad
fruit. The Freethinker also asserts that every man must
bear the consequences of his actions — that he must reap
what he sows, and that he cannot be justified by the good
ness of another, or damned for the wickedness of another.

There is still another side, and that is this : The Free
thinker knows that all the priests and cardinals and popes
know nothing of the supernatural — they know nothing
about gods or angels or heavens or hells — nothing about
inspired books or Holy Ghosts, or incarnations or atone
ments. He knows that all this is superstition pure and sim
ple. He knows also that these people — from pope to priest,
from bishop to parson, do not the slightest good in this
world — that they live upon the labor of others — that they
earn nothing themselves — that they contribute nothing
toward the happiness, or well-being, or the wealth of man
kind. He knows that they trade and traffic in ignorance
and fear, that they make merchandise of hope and grief —
and he also knows that in every religion the priest insists
on five things — First : There is a God. Second : He has
made known his will. Third : He has selected me to ex
plain this message. Fourth : We will now take up a col
lection ; and Fifth : Those who fail to subscribe will cer
tainly be damned.

44O MISCELLANY.

The positive side of Freethought is to find out the truth
—the facts of nature — to the end that we may take advant
age of those truths, of those facts — for the purpose of feed
ing and clothing and educating mankind.

In the first place, we wish to find that which will lengthen
human life — that which will prevent or kill disease — that
which will do away with pain — that which will preserve or
give us health.

We also want to go in partnership with these forces of
nature, to the end that we may be well fed and clothed —
that we may have good houses that protect us from heat
and cold. And beyond this — beyond these simple neces
sities — there are still wants and aspirations, and free-
thought will give us the highest possible in art — the most
wonderful and thrilling in music — the greatest paintings,
the most marvelous sculpture — in other words, free-
thought will develop the brain to its utmost capacity.
Freethought is the mother of art and science, of morality
and happiness.

It is charged by the worshipers of the Jewish myth,
that we destroy, that we do not build.

What have we destroyed ? We have destroyed the idea
that a monster created and governs this world — the declara
tion that a God of infinite mercy and compassion upheld
slavery and polygamy and commanded the destruction of
men, women, and babes. We have destroyed the idea that
this monster created a few of his children for eternal joy,
and the vast majority for everlasting pain. We have de
stroyed the infinite absurdity that salvation depends upon
belief, that investigation is dangerous, and that the torch of
reason lights only the way to hell. We have taken a
grinning devil from every grave, and the curse from death
— and in the place of these dogmas, of these infamies, we
have put that which is natural and that which commends
itself to the heart and brain.

HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE? 441

Instead of loving God, we love each other. Instead of
the religion of the sky — the religion of this world — the
religion of the family — the love of husband for wife, of wife
for husband — the love of all for children. So that now the
real religion is: Let us live for each other; let us live for
this world, without regard for the past and without fear for
the future. Let us use our faculties and our powers for
the benefit of ourselves and others, knowing that if there be
another world, the same philosophy that gives us joy here
will make us happy there.

Nothing can be more absurd than the idea that we can
do something to please or displease an infinite Being. If
our thoughts and actions can lessen or increase the happi
ness of God, then to that extent God is the slave and victim
of man.

The energies of the world have been wasted in the serv
ice of a phantom — millions of priests have lived on the
industry of others and no effort has been spared to prevent
the intellectual freedom of mankind.

We know, if we know anything, that supernatural relig
ion has no foundation except falsehood and mistake. To
expose these falsehoods — to correct these mistakes — to
build the fabric of civilization on the foundation of demon
strated truth — is the task of the Freethinker. To destroy
guide-boards that point in the wrong direction — to correct
charts that lure to reef and wreck — to drive the fiend of
fear from the mind — to protect the cradle from the serpent
of superstition and dispel the darkness of ignorance with
the sun of science — is the task of the Freethinker.

What constructive work has been done by the church ?
Christianity gave us a flat world a few thousand 3^ears ago
— a heaven above it where Jehovah dwells and a hell below
it where most people will dwell. Christianity took the
ground that a certain belief was necessary to salvation and
that this belief was far better and of more importance than

443 M1SCBLLANY.

the practice of all the virtues. It became the enemy of
investigation — the bitter and relentless foe of reason and
the liberty of thought. It committed every crime and
practiced every cruelty in the propagation of its creed. It
drew the sword against the freedom of the world. It
established schools and universities for the preservation of
ignorance. It claimed to have within its keeping the
source and standard of all truth. If the church had suc
ceeded the sciences could not have existed.

Freethought has given us all we have of value. It has
been the great constructive force. It is the only discoverer,

and every Science is its Child. — The Truth Seeker, New York 1890.

THE IMPROVED MAN.

THE IMPROVED MAN.

HE Improved Man will be in iavor of universal liberty —
1 that is to say, he will be opposed to all kings and
nobles, to all privileged classes. He will give to all
others the rights he claims for himself. He will neither
bow nor cringe, nor accept bowing and cringing from
others. He will be neither master nor slave, neither prince
nor peasant — simply man.

He will be the enemy of all caste, no matter whether its
foundation be wealth, title or power, and of him it will be
said : " Blessed is that man who is afraid of no man and of
whom no man is afraid.''

The Improved Man will be in favor of universal educa
tion. He will believe it the duty of every person to shed
all the light he can, to the end that no child may be reared
'in darkness. By education he will mean the gaining of
useful knowledge, the development of the mind along the
natural paths that lead to human happiness.

He will not waste his time in ascertaining the foolish
theories of extinct peoples or in studying the dead lan
guages for the sake of understanding the theologies of ig
norance and fear, but he will turn his attention to the
affairs of life, and will do his utmost to see to it that every
child has an opportunity to learn the demonstrated facts of
science, the true history of the world, the great principles
of- right and wrong applicable to human conduct — the
things necessary to the preservation of the individual and
of the state, and such arts and industries as are essential
to the preservation of all. (44B)

446 MISCELLANY,

He will also endeavor to develop the mind in the direc
tion of the beautiful — of the highest art — so that the
palace in which the mind dwells may be enriched and
rendered beautiful, to the end that these stones, called facts,
may be changed into statues.

The Improved Man will believe only in the religion of
this world. He will have nothing to do with the miracu
lous and supernatural. He will find that there is no room
in the universe for these things. He will know that hap
piness is the only good, and that everything that tends to
the happiness of sentient beings is good, and that to do the
things — and no other — that add to the happiness of man
is to practice the highest possible religion. His motto
will be: "Sufficient unto each world is the evil thereof."
He will know that each man should be his own priest, and
that the brain is the real cathedral. He will know that in
the realm of mind there is no authority — that majorities in
this mental world can settle nothing — that each soul is the
sovereign of its own world, and that it cannot abdicate
without degrading itself. He will not bow to numbers or
force; to antiquity or custom. He, standing under the
flag of nature, under the blue and stars, will decide for him
self. He will not endeavor by prayers and supplication, by
fastings and genuflections, to change the mind of the " In
finite " or alter the course of nature, neither will he employ
others to do those things in his place. He will have no
confidence in the religion of idleness, and will give no part
of what he earns to support parson or priest, archbishop or
pope. He will know that honest labor is the highest form
of prayer. He will spend no time in ringing bells or
swinging censers, or in chanting the litanies of barbarism,
but he will appreciate all that is artistic — that is beautiful —
that tends to refine and ennoble the human race. He will
not live a life of fear. He will stand in awe neither of man
nor ghosts. He will enjoy not only the sunshine of life,

THE IMPROVED MAN. 447

but will bear with fortitude the darkest days. He will have
no fear of death, About the grave, there will be no terrors,
and his life will end as serenely as the sun rises.

The Improved Man will be satisfied that the supernatural
does not exist — that behind every fact, every thought and
dream is an efficient cause. He will know that every human
action is a necessary product, and he will also know that
men cannot be reformed by punishment, by degradation or
by revenge. He will regard those who violate the laws of
nature and the laws of States as victims of conditions, of
circumstances, and he will do what he can for the well-
being of his fellow-men.

The Improved Man will not give his life to the accumu
lation of wealth. He will find no happiness in exciting the
envy of his neighbors. He will not care to live in a palace
while others who are good, industrious and kind are com
pelled to huddle in huts and dens. He will know that
great wealth is a great burden, and that to accumulate be
yond the actual needs of a reasonable human being is to
increase not wealth, but responsibility and trouble.

The Improved Man will find his greatest joy in the hap
piness of others and he will know that the home is the
real temple. He will believe in the democracy of the fire
side, and will reap his greatest reward in being loved by
those whose lives he has enriched.

The Improved Man will be self-poised, independent,
candid and free. He will be a scientist. He will observe,
investigate, experiment and demonstrate. He will use his
sense and his senses. He will keep his mind open as the
day to the hints and suggestions of nature. He will al
ways be a student, a learner and a listener — a believer in
intellectual hospitality. In the world of his brain there
will be continuous summer, perpetual seed-time and har
vest. Facts will be the foundation of his faith. In one
hand he will carry the torch of truth, and with the other

false the fallen. — Tht World, New York, February 28, 1890.

EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.

EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.

I HARDLY know enough on the subject to give an opin
ion as to the time when eight hours are to become a
day's work, but I am perfectly satisfied that eight hours
will become a labor day.

The working people should be protected by law ; if they
are not, the capitalists will require just as many hours as
human nature can bear. We have seen here in America
street-car drivers working sixteen and seventeen hours a
day. It was necessary to have a strike in order to get to
fourteen, another strike to get to twelve, and nobody could
blame them for keeping on striking till they get to eight
hours.

For a man to get up before daylight and work till after
dark, life is of no particular importance. He simply earns
enough one day to prepare himself to work another. His
whole life is spent in want and toil, and such a life is with
out value.

Of course, I cannot say that the present effort is going to
succeed — all I can say is that I hope it will. I cannot see
how any man who does nothing — who lives in idleness —
can insist that others should work ten or twelve hours a
day. Neither can I see how a man who lives on the
luxuries of life can find it in his heart, or in his stomach, to
say that the poor ought to be satisfied with the crusts and
crumbs they get.

I believe there is to be a revolution in the relations
between labor and capital. The laboring people a few

(461)

452 MISCELLANY.

generations ago were not very intellectual. There were no
schoolhouses, no teachers except the church, and the
church taught obedience and faith — told the poor people
that although they had a hard time here, working for noth
ing, they would be paid in Paradise with a large interest.
Now the working people are more intelligent — they
are better educated — they read and write. In order to
carry on the works of the present, many of them are
machinists of the highest order. They must be reasoners.
Every kind of mechanism insists upon logic. The work
ing people are reasoners — their hands and heads are in
partnership. They know a great deal more than the
capitalists. It takes a thousand times the brain to make a
locomotive that it does to run a store or a bank. Think of
the intelligence in a steamship and in all the thousand
machines and devices that are now working for the world.
These working people read. They meet together — they
discuss. They are becoming more and more independent
in thought. They do not believe all they hear. They may
take their hats off their heads to the priests, but they keep
their brains in their heads for themselves.

The free school in this country has tended to put men on
an equality, and the mechanic understands his side of the
case, and is able to express his views. Under these cir
cumstances there must be a revolution. That is to say, the
relations between capital and labor must be changed, and
the time must come when they who do the work — they
who make the money — will insist on having some of the
profits.

I do not expect this remedy to come entirely from the
Government, or from Government interference. I think
the Government can aid in passing good and wholesome
laws — laws fixing the length of a labor day ; laws prevent
ing the employment of children ; laws for the safety and
security of workingmen in mines and other dangerous

EIGHT HOURS MUST COME. 453

places. But the laboring people must rely upon themselves ;
on their intelligence, and especially on their political power.
They are in the majority in this country. They can if
they wish — if they will stand together — elect Congresses
and Senates, Presidents and Judges. They have it in
their power to administer the Government of the United
States.

The laboring man, however, ought to remember that all
who labor are their brothers, and that all women who labor
are their sisters, and whenever one class of workingmen or
working women is oppressed all other laborers ought to
stand by the oppressed class. Probably the worst paid
people in the world are the workingwomen. Think of the
sewing women in this city — and yet we call ourselves
civilized ! I would like to see all working people unite
for the purpose of demanding justice, not only for men, but
for women.

All my sympathies are on the side of those who toil — of
those who produce the real wealth of the world — of those
who carry the burdens of mankind.

Any man who wishes to force his brother to work — to
toil — more than eight hours a day is not a civilized man.

My hope for the workingman has its foundation in the
fact that he is growing more and more intelligent. I have
also the same hope for the capitalist. The time must come
when the capitalist will clearly and plainly see that his in
terests are identical with those of the laboring man. He
will finally become intelligent enough to know that his
prosperity depends on the prosperity of those who labor.
When both become intelligent the matter will be settled.

Neither labor nor capital should resort to force.— The Mom.

ing Journal, April 27, 1890.

THE JEWS.

THE JEWS.

WHEN I was a child, I was taught that the Jews were an
exceedingly hard-hearted and cruel people, and that
they were so destitute of the finer feelings that they had a lit
tle while before that time crucified the only perfect man who
had appeared upon the earth; that this perfect man was
also perfect God, and that the Jews had really stained their
hands with the blood of the Infinite.

When I got somewhat older, I found that nearly all
people had been guilty of substantially the same crime —
that is, that they had destroyed the progressive and the
thoughtful ; that religionists had in all ages been cruel ;
that the chief priests of all people had incited the mob, to
the end that heretics — that is to say, philosophers — that is
to say, men who knew that the chief priests were hypocrites
— might be destroyed.

I also found that Christians had committed more of these
crimes than all other religionists put together.

I also became acquainted with a large number of Jewish
people, and I found them like other people, except that, as
a rule, they were more industrious, more temperate, had
fewer vagrants among them, no beggars, very few criminals ;
and in addition to all this, I found that they were intelli
gent, kind to their wives and children, and that, as a rule,
they kept their contracts and paid their debts.

The prejudice was created almost entirely by religious,
or rather irreligious, instruction. All qhildren in Christian

(457)

MISCELLANY.

countries are taught that all the Jews are to be eternally
damned who die in the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ;
that it is not enough to believe in the inspiration of the Old
Testament — not enough to obey the Ten Commandments —
not enough to believe the miracles performed in the days of
the prophets, but that every Jew must accept the New
Testament and must be a believer in Christianity — that is
to say, he must be regenerated — or he will simply be
eternal kindling wood.

The church has taught, and still teaches, that every Jew
is an outcast ; that he is to-day busily fulfilling prophecy ;
that he is a wandering witness in favor of " the glad tidings
of great joy ; " that Jehovah is seeing to it that the Jews
shall not exist as a nation — that they shall have no abiding
place, but that they shall remain scattered, to the end that
the inspiration of the Bible may be substantiated.

Dr. John Hall of this city, a few years ago, when the
Jewish people were being persecuted in Russia, took the
ground that it was all fulfillment of prophecy, and that
whenever a Jewish maiden was stabbed to death, God put a
tongue in every wound for the purpose of declaring the
truth of the Old Testament.

Just as long as Christians take these positions, of course
they will do what they can to assist in the fulfillment of
what they call prophecy, and they will do their utmost to
keep the Jewish people in a state of exile, and then point
to that fact as one of the corner-stones of Christianity.

My opinion is that in the early days of Christianity all
sensible Jews were witnesses against the faith, and in this
way excited the hostility of the orthodox. Every sensible
Jew knew that no miracles had been performed in Jerusalem.
They all knew that the sun had not been darkened, that
the graves had not given up their dead, that the veil of the
temple had not been rent in twain — and they told what they
knew. They were then denounced as the most infamous

THE JEWS. 459

of human beings, and this hatred has pursued them from
that day to this.

There is no other chapter in history so infamous, so bloody,
so cruel, so relentless, as the chapter in which is told the man
ner in which Christians — those who love their enemies —
have treated the Jewish people. This story is enough to
bring the blush of shame to the cheek, and the words of
indignation to the lips of every honest man.

Nothing can be more unjust than to generalize about
nationalities, and to speak of a race as worthless or
vicious, simply because you have met an individual who
treated you unjustly. There are good people and bad
people in all races, and the individual is not responsible for
the crimes of the nation, or the nation responsible for the
actions of the few. Good men and honest men are found
in every faith, and they are not honest or dishonest be
cause they are Jews or Gentiles, but for entirely different
reasons.

Some of the best people I have ever known are Jews,
and some of the worst people I have known are Christians.
The Christians were not bad simply because they were
Christians, neither were the Jews good because they were
Jews. A man is far above these badges of faith and race.
Good Jews are precisely the same as good Christians, and
bad Christians are wonderfully like bad Jews.

Personally, I have either no prejudices about religion, or
I have equal prejudice against all religions. The conse
quence is that I judge of people not by their creeds, not by
their rites, not by their mummeries, but by their actions.

In the first place, at the bottom of this prejudice lies the
coiled serpent of superstition. In other words, it is a
religious question. It seems impossible for the people of
one religion to like the people believing in another religion.
They have different gods, different heavens, and a great
variety of hells. For the followers of one god to treat the

460 MISCELLANY.

followers of another god decently is a kind of treason. In
order to be really true to his god, each follower must not
only hate all other gods, but the followers of all other gods.

The Jewish people should outgrow their own super
stitions. It is time for them to throw away the idea of
inspiration. The intelligent jew of to-day knows that the
Old Testament was written by barbarians, and he knows
that the rites and ceremonies are simply absurd. He knows
that no intelligent man should care anything about
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three dead barbarians. In
other words, the Jewish people should leave their super
stition and rely on science and philosophy.

The Christian should do the same. He, by this time,
should know that his religion is a mistake, that his creed
has no foundation in the eternal verities. The Christian
certainly should give up the hopeless task of converting the
Jewish people, and the Jews should give up the useless task
of converting the Christians. There is no propriety in
swapping superstitions — neither party can afford to give
any boot.

When the Christian throws away his cruel and heartless
superstitions, and when the Jew throws away his, then they
can meet as man to man.

In the meantime, the world will go on in its blundering
way, and I shall know and feel that everybody does as he
must, and that the Christian, to the extent that he is prej
udiced, is prejudiced by reason of his ignorance, and that
consequently the great lever with which to raise all man*
kind into the sunshine of philosophy, is intelligence.

CRUMBLING CREEDS.

CRUMBLING CREEDS.

'TTHERE is a desire in each brain to harmonize the knowl-
1 edge that it has. If a man knows, or thinks he knows,
a few facts, he will naturally use those facts for the pur
pose of determining the accuracy of his opinions on other
subjects. This is simply an effort to establish or prove
the unknown by the known — a process that is constantly
going on in the minds of all intelligent people.

It is natural for a man not governed by fear, to use what
he knows in one department of human inquiry, in every
other department that he investigates. The average of
intelligence has in the last few years greatly increased.
Man may have as much credulity as he ever had, on some
subjects, but certainly on the old subjects he has less.
There is not as great difference to-day between the mem
bers of the learned professions and the common people. Man
is governed less and less by authority. He cares but
little for the conclusions of the universities. He does not
feel bound by the actions of synods or ecumenical councils
— neither does he bow to the decisions of the highest tri
bunals, unless the reasons given for the decision satisfy his
intellect. One reason for this is, that the so-called " learned "
do not agree among themselves — that the universities dis
pute each other — that the synod attacks the ecumenical
council — that the parson snaps his fingers at the priest, and
even the Protestant bishop holds the pope in contempt. If
the learned can thus disagree, there is no reason why the
common people should hold to one opinion. They are at

least called upon to decide as between the universities or

MM)

464 MISCELLANY.

synods ; and in order to decide, they must examine both
sides, and having examined both sides, they generally
have an opinion of their own.

There was a time when the average man knew nothing
of medicine — he simply opened his mouth and took the
dose. If he died, it was simply a dispensation of Provi
dence — if he got well, it was a triumph of science. Now
this average man not only asks the doctor what is the mat
ter with him — not only asks what medicine will be good
for him, — but insists on knowing the philosophy of the
cure — asks the doctor why he gives it — what result he ex
pects — and, as a rule, has a judgment of his own.

So in law. The average business man has an exceed
ingly good idea of the law affecting his business. There
is nothing now mysterious about what goes on in courts
or in the decisions of judges — they are published in every
direction, and all intelligent people who happen to read
these opinions have their ideas as to whether the opinions
are right or wrong. They are no longer the victims of
doctors, or of lawyers, or of courts.

The same is true in the world of art and literature. The
average man has an opinion of his own. He is no longer a
parrot repeating what somebody else says. He not only
has opinions, but he has the courage to express them. In
literature the old models fail to satisfy him. He has the
courage to say that Milton is tiresome — that Dante is prolix
— that they deal with subjects having no human interest.
He laughs at Young's "Night Thoughts" and Pollok's
" Course of Time " — knowing that both are filled with
hypocrisies and absurdities. He no longer falls upon his
knees before the mechanical poetry of Mr. Pope. He
chooses — and stands by his own opinion. I do not mean
that he is entirely independent, but that he is going in that
diiection.

The same is true of pictures, He prefers the modern to

CRUMBLING CREEDS. 465

the old masters. He prefers Corot to Raphael. He gets
more real pleasure from Millet and Troyon than from all
the pictures of all the saints and donkeys of the Middle
Ages.

In other words, the days of authority are passing away.

The same is true in music. The old no longer satisfies,
and there is a breadth, color, wealth, in the new that makes
the old poor and barren in comparison.

To a far greater extent this advance, this individual in
dependence, is seen in the religious world. The religion
of our day — that is to say, the creeds — at the time they
were made, were in perfect harmony with the knowledge,
or rather with the ignorance, of man in all other depart
ments of human inquiry. All orthodox creeds agreed with
the sciences of their day — with the astronomy and geology
and biology and political conceptions of the Middle Ages.
These creeds were declared to be the absolute and eternal
truth. They could not be changed without abandoning
the claim that made them authority. The priests, through
a kind of unconscious self-defence, clung to every word.
They denied the truth of all discovery. They measured
every assertion in every other department by their creeds.
At last the facts against them became so numerous — their
congregations became so intelligent — that it was necessary
to give new meanings to the old words. The cruel was
softened — the absurd was partially explained, and they
kept these old words, although the original meanings had
fallen out. They became empty purses, but they retained
them still.

Slowly but surely came the time when this course could
not longer be pursued. The words must be thrown away
— the creeds must be changed — they were no longer
believed — only occasionally were they preached. The
ministers became a little ashamed — they began to apolo
gize. Apology is the prelude to retreat.

466 MISCELLANY.

Of all the creeds, the Presbyterian, the old Congrega
tional, were the most explicit, and for that reason the most
absurd. When these creeds were written, those who wrote
them had perfect confidence in their truth. They did not
shrink because of their cruelty. They cared nothing for
what others called absurdity. They failed not to declare
what they believed to be " the whole counsel of God."

At that time, cruel punishments were inflicted by all
governments. People were torn asunder, mutilated, burned.
Every atrocity was perpetrated in the name of justice, and
the limit of pain was the limit of endurance. These people
imagined that God would do as they would do. If they
had had it in their power to keep the victim alive for years
in the flames, they would most cheerfully have supplied
the fagots. They believed that God could keep the victim
alive forever, and that therefore his punishment would be
eternal. As man becomes civilized he becomes merciful, and
the time came when civilized Presbyterians and Congrega-
tionalists read their own creeds with horror.

I am not saying that the Presbyterian creed is any worse
than the Catholic. It is only a little more specific. Neither
am I saying that it is more horrible than the Episcopal.
It is not. All orthodox creeds are alike infamous. All of
them have good things, and all of them have bad things.
You will find in every creed the blossom of mercy and the
oak of justice, but under the one and around the other are
coiled the serpents of infinite cruelty.

The time came when orthodox Christians began dimly
to perceive that God ought at least to be as good as they
were. They felt that they were incapable of inflicting
eternal pain, and they began to doubt the propriety of say
ing that God would do that which a civilized Christian
would be incapable of.

We have improved in all directions for the same reasons.
We have better laws now because we have a better sense of

CRUMBLING CREEDS. 467

justice. We are believing more and more in the govern
ment of the people. Consequently we are believing more
and more in the education of the people, and from that
naturally results greater individuality and a greater desire
to hear the honest opinions of all.

The moment the expression of opinion is allowed in any
department, progress begins. We are using our knowledge
in every direction. The tendency is to test all opinions by
the facts we know. All claims are put in the crucible of
investigation — the object being to separate the true from
the false. He who objects to having his opinions thus
tested is regarded as a bigot.

If the professors of all the sciences had claimed that
the knowledge they had was given by inspiration — that it
was absolutely true, and that there was no necessity of ex
amining further, not only, but that it was a kind of blas
phemy to doubt — all the sciences would have remained as
stationary as religion has. Just to the extent that the
Bible was appealed to in matters of science, science was re
tarded ; and just to the extent that science has been
appealed to in matters of religion, religion has advanced —
so that now the object of intelligent religionists is to
adopt a creed that will bear the test and criticism of
science.

Another thing may be alluded to in this connection. All
the countries of the world are now, and have been for
years, open to us. The ideas of other people — their
theories, their religions — are now known ; and we have
ascertained that the religions of all people have exactly the
.same' foundation as our own — that they all arose in the
same way, were substantiated in the same way, were main
tained by the same means, having precisely the same ob
jects in view.

For many years, the learned of the religious world were
examining the religions, 9$ other countries, and, in that

468 MISCELLANY.

work they established certain rules of criticism — pursued
certain lines of argument — by which they overturned the
claims of those religions to supernatural origin. After
this had been successfully done, others, using the same
methods on our religion, pursuing the same line of argu
ment, succeeded in overturning ours. We have found that
all miracles rest on the same basis — that all wonders were
born of substantially the same ignorance and the same
fear.

The intelligence of the world is far better distributed
than ever before. The historical outlines of all countries
are well known. The arguments for and against all
systems of religion are generally understood. The average
of intelligence is far higher than ever before. All dis
coveries become almost immediately the property of the
whole civilized world, and all thoughts are distributed by
the telegraph and press with such rapidity, that provincial
ism is almost unknown. The egotism of ignorance and
seclusion is passing away. The prejudice of race and
religion is growing feebler, and everywhere, to a greater
extent than ever before, the light is welcome.

These are a few of the reasons why creeds are crum
bling, and why such a change has taken place in the relig
ious world.

Only a few years ago the pulpit was an intellectual
power. The pews listened with wonder, and accepted
without question. There was something sacred about the
preacher. He was different from other mortals. He had
bread to eat which they knew not of. He was oracular,
solemn, dignified, stupid.

The pulpit has lost its position. It speaks no longer
with authority. The pews determine what shall be
preached. They pay only for that which they wish to buy
— for that which they wish to hear. Of course in every
church there is an advance guard and a conservative party,

CRUMBLING CREEDS. 469

and nearly every minister is obliged to preach a little for
both. He now and then says a radical thing for one part
of his congregation, and takes it mostly back on the next
Sabbath, for the sake of the others. Most of them ride
two horses, and their time is taken up in urging one for
ward and in holding the other back.

The great reason why the orthodox creeds have become
unpopular is, that all teach the dogma of eternal pain.

In old times, when men were nearly wild beasts, it was
natural enough for them to suppose that God would do
as they would do in his place, and so they attributed to this
God infinite cruelty, infinite revenge. This revenge, this
cruelty, wore the mask of justice. They took the ground
that God, having made man, had the right to do with him
as he pleased. At that time they were not civilized to the
extent of seeing that a God would not have the right to
make a failure, and that a being of infinite wisdom and
power would be under obligation to do the right, and that
he would have no right to create any being whose life
would not be a blessing. The very fact that he made man,
would put him under obligation to see to it that life should
not be a curse.

The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony
with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox
creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive
and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men
for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies
forever.

No civilized men ever believed in this dogma. The be
lief in eternal punishment has driven millions from the
church. It was easy enough for people to imagine that the
children of others had gone to hell; that foreigners had
been doomed to eternal pain; but when it was brought
home — when fathers and mothers bent above their dead who
had died in their sins — when wives shed their tears on the

470 MISCELLANY.

faces of husbands who had been born but once — love sug
gested doubts and love fought the dogma of eternal revenge.

This doctrine is as cruel as the hunger of hyenas, and is
infamous beyond the power of any language to express —
yet a creed with this doctrine has been called "the glad
tidings of great joy" — a consolation to the weeping world.
It is a source of great pleasure to me to know that all intelli
gent people are ashamed to admit that they believe it —
that no intelligent clergyman now preaches it, except with
a preface to the effect that it is probably untrue.

I have been blamed for taking this consolation from the
world — for putting out, or trying to put out, the fires of
hell; and many orthodox people have wondered how I
could be so wicked as to deprive the world of this hope.

The church clung to the doctrine because it seemed a
necessary excuse for the existence of the church. The
ministers said : " No hell, no atonement ; no atonement, no
fall of man; no fall of man, no inspired book; no in
spired book, no preachers ; no preachers, no salary ; no
hell, no missionaries; no sulphur, no salvation."

At last, the people are becoming enlightened enough to
ask for a better philosophy. The doctrine of hell is now
only for the poor, the ragged, the ignorant. Well-dressed
people won't have it. Nobody goes to hell in a carriage —
they foot it. Hell is for strangers and tramps. No soul
leaves a brown-stone front for hell — they start from the
tenements, from jails and reformatories. In other words,
hell is for the poor. It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a poor man to get into heaven,
or for a rich man to get into hell. The ministers stand by
their supporters. Their salaries are paid by the well-to-do,
and they can hardly afford to send the subscribers to hell.
Every creed in which is the dogma of eternal pain is
doomed. Every church teaching the infinite lie must fall,

and the SOOner the better. — TheTwentieth Century, N, Y., April 81. 1890.

OUR SCHOOLS.

{BELIEVE that education is the only lever capable of
raising mankind. If we wish to make the future of the
Republic glorious we must educate the children of the
present. The greatest blessing conferred by our Govern
ment is the free school. In importance it rises above
every thing else that the Government does. In its influence
it is far greater.

The schoolhouse is infinitely more important than the
church, and if all the money wasted in the building of
churches could be devoted to education we should become
a civilized people. Of course, to the extent that churches
disseminate thought they are good, and to the extent that
they provoke discussion they are of value, but the real ob
ject should be to become acquainted with nature — with the
conditions of happiness — to the end that man may take ad
vantage of the forces of nature. I believe in the schools
for manual training, and that every child should be taught
not only to think, but to do, and that the hand should be
educated with the brain. The money expended on schools
is the best investment made by the Government.

The schoolhouses in New York are not sufficient. Many
of them are small, dark, unventilated, and unhealthy. They
should be the finest public buildings in the city. It would
be far better for the Episcopalians to build a university
than a cathedral. Attached to all these schoolhouses there
should be grounds for the children — places for air and sun
light. They should be given the best. They are the hope
of the Republic and, in my judgment, of the world.

(471)

472 MISCELLANY,

We need far more schoolhouses than we have, and while
money is being wasted in a thousand directions, thousands
of children are left to be educated in the gutter. It is far
cheaper to build schoolhouses than prisons, and it is much
better to have scholars than convicts.

The Kindergarten system should be adopted, especially
for the young ; attending school is then a pleasure — the
children do not run away from school, but to school. We
should educate the children not simply in mind, but edu
cate their eyes and hands, and they should be taught some
thing that will be of use, that will help them to make a liv
ing, that will give them independence, confidence — that is to
say, character.

The cost of the schools is very little, and the cost of land
— giving the children, as I said before, air and light — would
amount to nothing.

There is another thing : Teachers are poorly paid. Only
the best should be employed, and they should be well paid.
Men and women of the highest character should have
charge of the children, because there is a vast deal of edu
cation in association, and it is of the utmost importance
that the children should associate with real gentlemen —
that is to say, with real men ; with real ladies — that is to
say, with real women.

Every schoolhouse should be inviting, clean, well venti
lated, attractive. The surroundings should be delightful.
Children forced to school, learn but little. The schoolhouse
should not be a prison or the teachers turnkeys.

I believe that the common school is the bread of life, and
all should be commanded to eat of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge. It would have been far better to have ex
pelled those who refused to eat.

The greatest danger to the Republic is ignorance. In
telligence is the foundation of free government. — The world,

New York, September 7, 1890.

VIVISECTION.*

VIVISECTION is the Inquisition— the Hell— of Science.
All the cruelty which the human — or rather the in
human — heart is capable of inflicting, is in this one word.
Below this there is no depth. This word lies like a coiled
serpent at the bottom of the abyss.

We can excuse, in part, the crimes of passion. We take
into consideration the fact that man is liable to be caught
by the whirlwind, and that from a brain on fire the soul
rushes to a crime. But what excuse can ingenuity form
for a man who deliberately — with an unaccelerated pulse
— with the calmness of John Calvin at the murder of
Servetus — seeks, with curious and cunning knives, in the
living, quivering flesh of a dog, for all the throbbing nerves
of pain? The wretches who commit these infamous crimes
pretend that they are working for the good of man ; that
they are actuated by philanthropy ; and that their pity for
the sufferings of the human race drives out all pity for the
animals they slowly torture to death. But those who are
incapable of pitying animals are, as a matter of fact, incapa
ble of pitying men. A physician who would cut a living
rabbit in pieces— laying bare the nerves, denuding them
with knives, pulling them out with forceps— would not
hesitate to try experiments with men and women for the
gratification of his curiosity.

To settle some theory, he would trifle with the life of any
patient in his power. By the same reasoning he will justify
Ihe vivisection of animals and patients. He will say that
it is better that a few animals should suffer than that one
human being should die ; and that it is far better that one
patient should die, if through the sacrifice of that one,
several may be saved.

•A letter written to Philip Q. Peabody. May 37, 1890.

474 MISCELLANY,

Brain without heart is far more dangerous than heart
without brain.

Have these scientific assassins discovered anything of
value ? They may have settled some disputes as to the
action of some organ, but have they added to the useful
knowledge of the race ?

It is not necessary for a man to be a specialist in order
to have and express his opinion as to the right or wrong of
vivisection. It is not necessary to be a scientist or a
naturalist to detest cruelty and to love mercy. Above all
the discoveries of the thinkers, above all the inventions of
the ingenious, above all the victories won on fields of in
tellectual conflict, rise human sympathy and a sense of
justice.

I know that good for the human race can never be
accomplished by torture. I also know that all that has
been ascertained by vivisection could have been done by
the dissection of the dead. I know that all the torture has
been useless. All the agony inflicted has simply hardened
the hearts of the criminals, without enlightening their
minds.

It may be that the human race might be physically im
proved if all the sickly and deformed babes were killed,
and if all the paupers, liars, drunkards, thieves, villains,
and vivisectionists were murdered. All this might, in a
few ages, result in the production of a generation of
physically perfect men and women ; but what would such
beings be worth, — men and women healthy and heartless,
muscular and cruel — that is to say, intelligent wild beasts?

Never can I be the friend of one who vivisects his
fellow-creatures. I do not wish to touch his hand.

When the angel of pity is driven from the heart ; when
the fountain of tears is dry, — the soul becomes a serpent
srawling in the dust of a desert.

THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL
CATECHISM.

{SUPPOSE the Government has a right to ask all of these
questions, and any more it pleases, but undoubtedly the
citizen would have the right to refuse to answer them.
Originally the census was taken simply for the purpose of
ascertaining the number of people— first, as a basis of
representation ; second, as a basis of capitation tax ; third,
as a basis to arrive at the number of troops that might be
called from each State ; and it may be for some other pur
poses, but I imagine that all are embraced in the foregoing.

The Government has no right to invade the privacy of
the citizen; no right to inquire into his financial condition,
as thereby his credit might be injured ; no right to pry into
his affairs, into his diseases, or his deformities ; and, while
the Government may have the right to ask these questions,
I think it was foolish to instruct the enumerators to ask
them, and that the citizens have a perfect right to refuse to
answer them. Personally, I have no objection to answering
any of these questions, for the reason that nothing is the
matter with me that money will not cure.

I know that it is thought advisable by many to find out
the amount of mortgages in the United States, the rate of
interest that is being paid, the general indebtedness of
individuals, counties, cities and States, and I see no im
propriety in finding this out in any reasonable way. But
I think it improper to insist on the debtor exposing his

(475)

476 MISCELLANY,

financial condition. My opinion is that Mr. Porter only
wants what is perfectly reasonable, and if left to himself,
would ask only those questions that all people would
willingly answer.

I presume we can depend on medical statistics — on the
reports of hospitals, etc., in regard to diseases and deformi
ties, without interfering with the patients. As to the
financial standing of people, there are already enough of
spies in this country attending to that business. I don't
think there is any danger of the courts compelling a man
to answer these questions. Suppose a man refuses to tell
whether he has a chronic disease or not, and he is brought
up before a United States Court for contempt. In my
opinion the judge would decide that the man could not be
compelled to answer. It is bad enough to have a chronic
disease without publishing it to the world. All intelligent
people, of course, will be desirous of giving all useful in
formation of a character that cannot be used to their injury,
but can be used for the benefit of society at large.

If, however, the courts shall decide that the enumerators
have the right to ask these questions, and that everybody
must answer them, I doubt if the census will be finished
for many years. There are hundreds and thousands of
people who delight in telling all about their diseases, when
they were attacked, what they have taken, how many
doctors have given them up to die, etc., and if the
enumerators will stop to listen, the census of 1890 will not
be published until the next century. — The Worid^w York, June

8, 1890.

THE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS.

AGAIN we celebrate the victory of Light over Darkness,
of the God of day over the hosts of night. Again Sara-
son is victorious over Delilah, and Hercules triumphs once
more over Omphale. In the embrace of Isis, Osiris rises
from the dead, and the scowling Typhon is defeated once
more. Again Apollo, with unerring aim, with his arrow
from the quiver of light, destroys the serpent of shadow.
This is the festival of Thor, of Baldur and of Prometheus.
Again Buddha by a miracle escapes from the tyrant of
Madura, Zoroaster foils the King, Bacchus laughs at the
rage of Cadmus, and Chrishna eludes the tyrant.

This is the festival of the sun-god, and as such let its
observance be universal.

This is the great day of the first religion, the mother of
all religions — the worship of the sun.

Sun worship is not only the first, but the most natural
and most reasonable of all. And not only the most natural
and the most reasonable, but by far the most poetic, the
most beautiful.

The sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of
warmth, of happiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing,
the all-pitying, the all-loving.

This bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never
sought for revenge.

All evil qualities were in the breast of the God of dark
ness, of shadow, of night. And so I say again, this is the
festival of Light. This is the anniversary of the triumph
of the Sun over the hosts of Darkness.

Let us all hope for the triumph of Light — of Right and
Reason — for the victory of Fact over Falsehood, of Science
over Superstition.

And so hoping, let us celebrate the venerable festival

of the Sun. — The Journal, New York, December 25, 1892. (477)

SPIRITUALITY.

SPIRITUALITY.

IF there is an abused word in our language, it is " spirit
uality."

It has been repeated over and over for several hundred
years by pious pretenders and snivelers as though it be
longed exclusively to them.

In the early days of Christianity, the "spiritual " re
nounced the world with all its duties and obligations.
They deserted their wives and children. They became
hermits and dwelt in caves. They spent their useless years
in praying for their shriveled and worthless souls. They
were too " spiritual " to love women, to build homes and to
labor for children. They were too " spiritual " to earn their
bread, so they became beggars and stood by the highways
of Life and held out their hands and asked alms of Indus
try and Courage. They were too " spiritual " to be merciful.
They preached the dogma of eternal pain and gloried in "the
wrath to come." They were too "spiritual" to be civilized, so
they persecuted their fellow-men for expressing their honest
thoughts. They were so "spiritual " that they invented in
struments of torture, founded the Inquisition, appealed to
the whip, the rack, the sword and the fagot. They tore the
flesh of their fellow-men with hooks of iron, buried their
neighbors alive, cut off their eyelids, dashed out the brains
of babes and cut off the breasts of mothers. These " spirit
ual " wretches spent day and night on their knees, praying
for their own salvation and asking God to curse the best and
noblest of the world.

John Calvin was intensely " spiritual " when he warmed
his fleshless hands at the flames that consumed Servetus.

(481)

482 MISCELLANY.

John Knox was constrained by his " spirituality " to
utter low and loathsome calumnies against all women. All
the witch-burners and Quaker-maimers and mutilators were
so " spiritual " that they constantly looked heavenward and
longed for the skies.

These lovers of God — these haters of men — looked upon
the Greek marbles as unclean, and denounced the glories of
Art as the snares and pitfalls of perdition.

These " spiritual " mendicants hated laughter and smiles
and dimples, and exhausted their diseased and polluted im
aginations in the effort to make love loathsome.

From almost every pulpit was heard the denunciation of
all that adds to the wealth, the joy and glory of life. It
became the fashion for the " spiritual " to malign every
hope and passion that tends to humanize and refine the
heart. Man was denounced as totally depraved. Woman
was declared to be a perpetual temptation — her beauty a
snare and her touch pollution.

Even in our own time and country some of the ministers,
no matter how radical they claim to be, retain the aroma,
the odor, or the smell of the " spiritual."

They denounce some of the best and greatest — some of
the benefactors of the race — for having lived on the low
plane of usefulness — and for having had the pitiful ambi
tion to make their fellows happy in this world.

Thomas Paine was a groveling wretch because he de
voted his life to the preservation of the rights of man, and
Voltaire lacked the " spiritual " because he abolished tor
ture in France and attacked, with the enthusiasm of a divine
madness, the monster that was endeavoring to drive the
hope of liberty from the heart of man.

Humboldt was not " spiritual " enough to repeat with
closed eyes the absurdities of superstition, but was so lost
to all the "skyey influences" that he was satisfied to add
to the intellectual wealth of the world.

SPIRITUALITY. 483

Darwin lacked "spirituality," and in its place had noth
ing but sincerity, patience, intelligence, the spirit of in
vestigation and the courage to give his honest conclusions
to the world. He contented himself with giving to his
fellow-men the greatest and the sublimest truths that man
has spoken since lips have uttered speech.

But we are now told that these soldiers of science, these
heroes of liberty, these sculptors and painters, these singers
of songs, these composers of music, lack " spirituality " and
after all were only common clay.

This word " spirituality " is the fortress, the breastwork,
the rifle-pit of the Pharisee. It sustains the same relation
to sincerity that Dutch metal does to pure gold.

There seems to be something about a pulpit that poisons
the occupant — that changes his nature — that causes him
to denounce what he really loves and to laud with the
fervor of insanity a joy that he never felt — a rapture that
never thrilled his soul. Hypnotized by his surroundings,
he unconsciously brings to market that which he supposes
the purchasers desire.

In every church, whether orthodox or radical, there are
two parties — one conservative, looking backward, one radi
cal, looking forward, and generally a minister " spiritual "
enough to look both ways.

A minister who seems to be a philosopher on the street,
or in the home of a sensible man, cannot withstand the
atmosphere of the pulpit. The moment he stands behind
the Bible cushion, like Bottom, he is " translated " and the
Titania of superstition " kisses his large, fair ears."

Nothing is more amusing than to hear a clergyman de
nounce worldliness — ask his hearers what it will profit
them to build railways and palaces and lose their own
souls— inquire of the common folks before him why they
waste their precious years in following trades and pro
fessions, in gathering treasures that moths corrupt and rust

484 MISCELLANY.

devours, giving their days to the vulgar business of making
money, — and then see him take up a collection, knowing
perfectly well that only the worldly, the very people he
has denounced, can by any possibility give a dollar.

" Spirituality " for the most part is a mask worn by idle
ness, arrogance and greed.

Some people imagine that they are "spiritual" when
they are sickly.

It may be well enough to ask : What is it to be really
spiritual ?

The spiritual man lives to his ideal. He endeavors to
make others happy. He does not despise the passions that
have filled the world with art and glory. He loves his
wife and children — home and fireside. He cultivates the
amenities and refinements of life. He is the friend and
champion of the oppressed. His sympathies are with the
poor and the suffering. He attacks what he believes to be
wrong, though defended by the many, and he is willing to
stand for the right against the world. He enjoys the
beautiful. In the presence of the highest creations of Art
his eyes are suffused with tears. When he listens to the
great melodies, the divine harmonies, he feels the sorrows
and the raptures of death and love. He is intensely
human. He carries in his heart the burdens of the world.
He searches for the deeper meanings. He appreciates the
harmonies of conduct, the melody of a perfect life.

He loves his wife and children better than any god. He
cares more for the world he lives in than for any other.
He tries to discharge the duties of this life, to help those
that he can reach. He believes in being useful — in mak
ing money to feed and clothe and educate the ones he loves
— to assist the deserving and to support himself. He does
not wish to be a burden on others. He is just, generous
and sincere.

Spirituality is all of this world, It is a child of this

SPIRITUALITY. 485

earth, born and cradled here. It comes from no heaven,
but it makes a heaven where it is.

There is no possible connection between superstition and
the spiritual, or between theology and the spiritual.

The spiritually-minded man is a poet. If he does not
write poetry, he lives it. He is an artist. If he does not
paint pictures or chisel statues, he feels them, and their
beauty softens his heart. He fills the temple of his soul
with all that is beautiful, and he worships at the shrine of
the Ideal.

In all the relations of life he is faithful and true. He
asks for nothing that he does not earn. He does not wish
to be happy in heaven if he must receive happiness as alms
He does not rely on the goodness of another. He is not
ambitious to become a winged pauper.

Spirituality is the perfect health of the soul. It is noble,
manly, generous, brave, free-spoken, natural, superb.

Nothing is more sickening than the "spiritual" whine —
the pretence that crawls at first and talks about humility
and then suddenly becomes arrogant and says: "I am
' spiritual.' I hold in contempt the vulgar joys of this life.
You work and toil and build homes and sing songs and
weave your delicate robes. You love women and children
and adorn yourselves. You subdue the earth and dig for
gold. You have your theatres, your operas and all the
luxuries of life ; but I, beggar that I am, Pharisee that I
am, am your superior because I am ' spiritual.' "

Above all things, let us be sincere. — The Conservator,

phia, 1891.

SUMTER'S GUN.
1861 — April izth—

FOR about three-quarters of a century the statesmen,
that is to say, the politicians, of the North and South,
had been busy making compromises, adopting constitutions
and enacting laws; busy making speeches, framing plat
forms and political pretences, to the end that liberty and
slavery might dwell in peace and friendship under the
same flag.

Arrogance on one side, hypocrisy on the other.

Right apologized to Wrong for the sake of the Union.

The sources of justice were poisoned, and patriotism be
came the defender of piracy. In the name of humanity
mothers were robbed of their babes.

Thirty years ago to-day a shot was fired, and in a mo
ment all the promises, all the laws, all the constitutional
amendments, and all the idiotic and heartless decisions of
courts, and all the speeches of orators inspired by the hope
of place and power, were blown into rags and ravelings,
pieces and patches.

The North and South had been masquerading as friends,
and in a moment, while the sound of that shot was ringing
in their ears, they faced each other as enemies.

The roar of that cannon announced the birth of a new
epoch. The echoes of that shot went out, not only over
the bay of Charleston, but over the hills, the prairies and
forests of the continent.

These echoes said marvelous things and uttered proph
ecies that none were wise enough to understand.

Who at that time had the slightest conception of the im
mediate future? Who then was great enough to see the

(487)

488 MISCELLANY.

end ? Who then was wise enough to know that the echoes
would be kept alive and repeated for years by thousands
and thousands of cannon, by millions of muskets, on the
fields of ruthless war?

At that time Abraham Lincoln, an Illinois lawyer, was
barely a month in the President's chair, and that shot made
him the most commanding and majestic figure of the nine
teenth century — a figure that stands alone.

Who could have guessed the names of the heroes to be
repeated by countless lips before the echoes of that shot
should have died away ?

There was at that time a young man at Galena, silent,
unobtrusive, unknown ; and yet, the moment that shot was
fired he was destined to lead the greatest host ever
marshaled on a field of war, destined to receive the final
sword of the Rebellion.

There was another, in the Southwest, who heard one of
the echoes of that shot, and who afterward marched from
Atlanta to the sea ; and another, far away by the Pacific,
who also heard one of the echoes, and who became one of
the immortal three.

But, above all, the echoes were heard by millions of men
and women in the fields of unpaid toil, and they knew not
the meaning, but felt that they had heard a prophecy of
freedom. And the echoes told of death and glory for
man}7 thousands — of the agonies of women — the sobs of
orphans — the sighs of the imprisoned, and the glad shouts
of the delivered, the enfranchised, the redeemed.

They who fired that gun did not dream that they were
giving liberty to millions of people, including themselves,
white as well as black, North as well as South, and that
before the echoes should die away, all the shackles would
be broken, all the constitutions and statutes of slavery re
pealed, and all the compromises merged and lost in a great
compact made to preserve the liberties of all.

WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.

WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.

ONE HUNDRED years after Christ had died suppose
some one had asked a Christian, What hospitals have
you built? What asylums have you founded? They would
have said " None." Suppose three hundred years after the
death of Christ the same questions had been asked the
Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two
hundred years more and the answer would have been the
same. And at that time the Christian could have told the
questioner that the Mohammedans had built asylums be
fore the Christians. He could also have told him that
there had been orphan asylums in China for hundreds and
hundreds of years, hospitals in, India, and hospitals for the
sick at Athens.

Here it may be well enough to say that all hospitals and
asylums are not built for charity. They are built because
people do not want to be annoyed by the sick and the in
sane. If a sick man should come down the street and sit
upon your doorstep, what would you do with him ? You
would have to take him into your house or leave him to
suffer. Private families do not wish to take the burden of
the sick. Consequently, in self-defence, hospitals are built
so that any wanderer coming to a house, dying, or suffering
from any disease, may immediately be packed off to a
hospital and not become a burden upon private charity.
The fact that many diseases are contagious rendered hospi
tals necessary for the preservation of the lives of the
citizens. The same thing is true of the asylums. People do

(491)

492 MISCELLANY.

not, as a rule, want to take into their families, all the
children who happen to have no fathers and mothers. So
they endow and build an asylum where those children can
be sent — and where they can be whipped according to law.
Nobody wants an insane stranger in his house. The con
sequence is, that the community, to get rid of these people,
to get rid of the trouble, build public institutions and send
them there.

Now, then, to come to the point, to answer the interroga
tory often flung at us from the pulpit, What institutions
have Infidels built ? In the first place, there have not been
many Infidels for many years and, as a rule, a known
Infidel cannot get very rich, for the reason that the
Christians are so forgiving and loving they boycott him.
If the average Infidel, freely stating his opinion, could get
through the world himself, for the last several hundred
years, he has been in good luck. But as a matter of fact
there have been some Infidels who have done some good,
even from a Christian standpoint. The greatest charity
ever established in the United States by a man — not by a
community to get rid of a nuisance, but by a man who
wished to do good and wished that good to last after his
death — is the Girard College in the city of Philadelphia.
Girard was an Infidel. He gained his first publicity by
going like a common person into the hospitals and taking
care of those suffering from contagious diseases — from
cholera and smallpox. So there is a man by the name of
James Lick, an Infidel, who has given the finest observatory
ever given to the world. And it is a good thing for an
Infidel to increase the sight of men. The reason people
are theologians is because they cannot see. Mr. Lick basin-
creased human vision, and I can say right here that nothing
has been seen through the telescope calculated to prove the
astronomy of Joshua. Neither can you see with that
telescope a star that bears a Christian name. The reason

WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE. 493

is that Christianity was opposed to astronomy. So astron
omers took their revenge, and now there is not one star
that glitters in all the vast firmament of the boundless
heavens that has a Christian name. Mr. Carnegie has been
what they call a public-spirited man. He has given mil
lions of dollars for libraries and other institutions, and he
certainly is not an orthodox Christian.

Infidels, however, have done much better even than that.
They have increased the sum of human knowledge. John
W. Draper, in his work on " The Intellectual Development
of Europe," has done more good to the American people
and to the civilized world than all the priests in it. He was
an Infidel. Buckle is another who has added to the sum of
human knowledge. Thomas Paine, an Infidel, did more
for this country than any other man who ever lived in it.

Most of the colleges in this country have, I admit, been
founded by Christians, and the money for their support
has been donated by Christians, but most of the colleges of
this country have simply classified ignorance, and I think
the United States would be more learned than it is to-day
if there never had been a Christian college in it. But
whether Christians gave or Infidels gave has nothing to
do with the probability of the Jonah story or with the proba
bility that the mark on the dial went back ten degrees
to prove that a little Jewish king was not going to die of
a boil. And if the Infidels are all stingy and the Christians
are all generous it does not even tend to prove that three
men were in a fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than
was its wont without even scorching their clothes.
- The best college in this country — or, at least, for a long
time the best — was the institution founded by Ezra Cornell.
That is a school where people try to teach what they know
instead of what they guess. Yet Cornell Universit)7 was
attacked by every orthodox college in the United States at
the time it was founded, because they said it was without
religion.

494 MISCELLANY.

Everybody knows that Christianity does not tend to
generosity. Christianity says: "Save your own soul,
whether anybody else saves his or not." Christianity says :
"Let the great ship go down. You get into the little
life -boat of the gospel and paddle ashore, no matter
what becomes of the rest." Christianity says you must
love God, or something in the sky, better than you love
your wife and children. And the Christian, even when
giving, expects to get a very large compound interest in
another world. The Infidel who gives, asks no return ex
cept the joy that comes from relieving the wants of
another.

Again the Christians, although they have built colleges,
have built them for the purpose of spreading their super
stitions, and have poisoned the minds of the world, while
the Infidel teachers have filled the world with light.
Darwin did more for mankind than if he had built a
thousand hospitals. Voltaire did more than if he had
built a thousand asylums for the insane. He will prevent
thousands from going insane that otherwise might be
driven into insanity by the "glad tidings of great joy."
Haeckel is filling the world with light.

I am perfectly willing that the results of the labors of
Christians and the labors of Infidels should be compared.
Then let it be understood that Infidels have been in this
world but a very short time. A few years ago there were
hardly any. I can remember when I was the only Infidel
in the town where I lived. Give us time and we will build
colleges in which something will be taught that is of use.
We hope to build temples that will be dedicated to reason
and common sense, and where every effort will be made to
reform mankind and make them better and better in this
world.

I am saying nothing against the charity of Christians ;
nothing against any kindness or goodness. But I say the

WHAT JNFIDELS HAVE DONE. 495

Christians, in my judgment, have done more harm than
they have done good. They may talk of the asylums they
have built, but they have not built asylums enough to hold
the people who have been driven insane by their teachings.
Orthodox religion has opposed liberty. It has opposed
investigation and free thought. If all the churches in
Europe had been observatories, if the cathedrals had been
universities where facts were taught and where nature was
studied, if all the priests had been real teachers, this world
would have been far, far beyond what it is to-day.

There is an idea that Christianity is positive, and Infidel
ity is negative. If this be so, then falsehood is positive and
truth is negative. What I contend is that Infidelity is a
positive religion; that Christianity is a negative religion.
Christianity denies and Infidelity admits. Infidelity stands
by facts ; it demonstrates by the conclusions of the reason.
Infidelity does all it can to develop the brain and the heart
of man. That is positive. Religion asks man to give up
this world for one he knows nothing about. That is
negative. I stand by the religion of reason. I stand by
the dogmas of demonstration.

CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.

IN my judgment, no human being was ever made better,
nobler, by being whipped or clubbed.

Mr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply
a savage. He belongs to the Dark Ages — to the Inquisition,
to the torture-chamber, and he needs reforming more than
any prisoner under his control. To put any man within
his power is in itself a crime. Mr. Brockway is a believer
in cruelty — an apostle of brutality. He beats and bruises
flesh to satisfy his conscience — his sense of duty. He
wields the club himself because he enjoys the agony he
inflicts.

When a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endur
ance, submits or becomes unconscious, he is regarded as
reformed. During the remainder of his term he trembles
and obeys. But he is not reformed. In his heart is the
flame of hatred, the desire for revenge ; and he returns to
society far worse than when he entered the prison.

Mr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up,
and the Eltnira Reformatory should be superintended by
some civilized man — some man with brain enough to know,
and heart enough to feel.

I do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and
lacerating the flesh of another, can reform him. The lash
will neither develop the brain nor cultivate the heart.
There should be no bruising, no scarring of the body in
families, in schools, in reformatories, or prisons. A civilized
man does not believe in the methods of savagery. Brutality

(487)

498 MISCELLANY.

has been tried for thousands of years and through all these
years it has been a failure.

Criminals have been flogged, mutilated and maimed, tor
tured in a thousand ways, and the only effect was to de
moralize, harden and degrade society and increase the
number of crimes. In the army and navy, soldiers and
sailors were flogged to death, and everywhere by church
and state the torture of the helpless was practiced and up
held.

Only a few j^ears ago there were two hundred and twenty-
three offences punished with death in England. Those who
wished to reform this savage code were denounced as the
enemies of morality and law. They were regarded as weak
and sentimental.

At last the English code was reformed through the efforts
of men who had brain and heart. But it is a significant
fact that no bishop of the Episcopal Church, sitting in the
House of Lords, ever voted for the repeal of one of those
savage laws. Possibly this fact throws light on the recent
poetic and Christian declaration by Bishop Potter to the
effect that " there are certain criminals who can only be
made to realize through their hides the fact that the State
has laws to which the individual must be obedient."

This orthodox remark has the true apostolic ring, and is
in perfect accord with the history of the church. But it
does not accord with the intelligence and philanthropy
of our time. Let us develop the brain by education, the
heart by kindness. Let us remember that criminals are
produced by conditions, and let us do what we can to
change the conditions and to reform the criminals.

LAW'S DELAY.

THE LAW'S DELAY.

THE object of a trial is not to convict — neither is it to
acquit. The object is to ascertain the truth by legal
testimony and in accordance with law.

In this country we give the accused the benefit of all
reasonable doubts. We insist that his guilt shall be really
established by competent testimony.

We also allow the accused to take exceptions to the rul
ings of the judge before whom he is tried, and to the ver
dict of the jury, and to have these exceptions passed upon
by a higher court.

We also insist that he shall be tried by an impartial jury,
and that before he can be found guilty all the jurors must
unite in the verdict.

Some people, not on trial for any crime, object to our
methods. They say that time is wasted in getting an im
partial jury ; that more time is wasted because appeals are
allowed, and that by reason of insisting on a strict com
pliance with law in all respects, trials sometimes linger
for years, and that in many instances the guilty escape.

No one, so far as I know, asks that men shall be tried by
partial and prejudiced jurors, or that judges shall be al
lowed to disregard the law for the sake of securing con
victions, or that verdicts shall be allowed to stand unsup
ported by sufficient legal evidence. Yet they talk as if
they asked for these very things. We must remember that
revenge is always in haste, and that justice can always
afford to wait until the evidence is actually heard.

502 MISCELLANY.

There should be no delay except that which is caused by
taking the time to find the truth. Without such delay
courts become mobs, before which, trials in a legal sense
are impossible. It might be better, in a city like New
York, to have the grand jury in almost perpetual session,
so that a man charged with crime could be immediately in
dicted and immediately tried. So, the highest court to
which appeals are taken should be in almost constant ses
sion, in order that all appeals might be quickly decided.

But we do not wish to take away the right of appeal.
That right tends to civilize the trial judge, reduces to a
minimum his arbitrary power, puts his hatreds and passions
in the keeping and control of his intelligence. That right
of appeal has an excellent effect on the jury, because they
know that their verdict may not be the last word. The ap
peal, where the accused is guilty, does not take the sword
from the State, but it is a shield for the innocent.

In England there is no app2al. The trials are shorter,
the judges more arbitrary, the juries subservient, and the
verdict often depends on the prejudice of the judge. The
judge knows that he has the last guess — that he cannot be
reviewed — and in the passion often engendered by the con
flict of trial he acts much like a wild beast.

The case of Mrs. Maybrick is exactly in point, and shows
how dangerous it is to clothe the trial judge with supreme
power.

Without doubt there is in this country too much delay,
and this, it seems to tne, can be avoided without putting
the life or liberty of innocent persons in peril. Take only
such time as may be necessary to give the accused a fair
trial, before an impartial jury, under and in accordance with
the established forms of law, and to allow an appeal to the
highest court.

The State in which a criminal cannot have an impartial
trial is not civilized. People who demand the conviction of

THE LAW'S DELAY. 503

the accused without regard to the forms of law are sav
ages.

But there is another side to this question. Many people
are losing confidence in the idea that punishment reforms
the convict, or that capital punishment materially decreases
capital crimes.

My own opinion is that ordinary criminals should, if
possible, be reformed, and that murderers and desperate
wretches should be imprisoned for life. I am inclined to
believe that our prisons make more criminals than they
reform ; that places like the Reformatory at Elmira plant
and cultivate the seeds of crime.

The State should never seek revenge ; neither should it
put in peril the life or liberty of the accused for the sake of
a hasty trial, or by the denial of appeal.

In my judgment, defective as our criminal courts and
methods are, they are far better than the English.

Our judges are kinder, more humane; our juries nearer
independent, and our methods better calculated to ascertain
the truth.

THE BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.*

T TNIVERSITIES are naturally conservative. They
LJ know that if suspected of being really scientific, or
thodox Christians will keep their sons away, so they
pander to the superstitions of the times.

Most of the universities are exceedingly poor, and
poverty is the enemy of independence. Universities, like
people, have the instinct of self-preservation. The Uni-
versit)' of Kansas is like the rest.

The faculty of Cornell, upon precisely the same ques
tion, took exactly the same action, and the faculty of the
University of Missouri did the same. These institutions
must be the friends and defenders of superstition.

The Vanderbilt College, or University of Tennessee,
discharged Professor Winchell because he differed with the
author of Genesis on geology.

* A newspaper dispatch from Lawrence, Kansas, published yesterday, stated that Col.
Robert (i. Ingersoll had been invited by the law students of the Kansas Sta e University
to address them at the commencement exercises, and that the faculty council had objected
and had invited Chauncey M. Depew instead.

The dispatch also stared that the council had notified representatives of the law pchool
that if they insisted on the great Agnostic speaking before the school, the 1 acuity would
take heroic measures to thwart their design.

It was also stated that the law students had made it clearly understood that the lecture
Ingersoll had been invited to deliver was to be on the subject of law, and that his views
on religion, the Bible and the Deity were not to be alluded to, and they considered that
the faculty council had " subjected them to an insult," and had gone out of its way, also,
to affront rolonel Ingersoll without cause.

Colonel Ingersoll, when seen yesterday and questioned about the matter, took it, as he
does all things of that nature, philosophically and in a true manly spirit.

CUauncey M. Depew wits seen at bis residence, No. 43 West Fifty-fourth Street, last
night and asked if he had been invited to address the students of the Kansas University
in the place of Colonel Ingersoll. He said he had not.

" Would you go if you were invited ?" he was asked.

" No ; 1 would not," he answered. " You see, I am BO busy here ; besides, my social
and semi-political engagements are such that I would not have time to go to such a dis
tant point, anyhow.

•' No. 1 do not care to express any opinion regarding the action of the faculty council
of the Kansas University, but I consider Colonel Ingersoll one of the greatest imellectsof
the centnrv. from wbo-e teaching all can profit."— The Jo urnal, New York, January 24,
1SOG. (605)

506 MISCELLANY.

These colleges act as they must, and we should blame
nobody. If Humboldt and Darwin were now alive they
would not be allowed to teach in these institutions of
" learning."

We need not find fault with the president and professors.
They want to keep their places. The probability is that
they would like to do better — that they desire to be free,
and, if free, would, with all their hearts, welcome the truth.
Still, these universities seem to do good. The minds of
their students are developed to that degree, that they natur
ally turn to me as the defender of their thoughts.

This gives me great hope for the future. The young,
the growing, the enthusiastic, are on my side. All the
students who have selected me are my friends, and I thank
them with all my heart.

A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES
TO-DAY.

A Y<3UNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY.*

A FEW years ago there were many thousand miles of
railroads to be built, a great many towns and cities
to be located, constructed and filled; vast areas of unculti
vated land were waiting for the plow, vast forests the
axe, and thousands of mines were longing to be opened.
In those days every young man of energy and industry had
a future. The professions were not overcrowded; there
were more patients than doctors, more litigants than
lawyers, more buyers of goods than merchants. The }roung
man of that time who was raised on a farm got a little edu-

•Col. Roberto. Ingersoll represents what is intellectually highest among the
whole world' s opponents of religion. He counts theology as the science of a super
stition. He decries reli~ion r.3 it exists, and holds that the broadest thing a man,
or all human nature, can do is to acknowledge ignorance when it cannot know.
He accepts nothing on faith. He h the American who is forever asking, " Why ? "
— who demands a reason and material proof before believing.

As Christianity's corner-stone is faith, ho rejects Christianity, and argues that
all men who are broad enough to know when to narrow their ideas down to fact or
demonstrable theory mu«t reject it. Believe as he does or not, all Americans must
be interested in him. His mind is marvelous, his tongue is silvern, his logic is in-
vincible — as logic.

Col. Ingersoll is a shining example of the oft-quoted fact that, given mental abil
ity, health and industry, a young man may make for himself Avhatever place in life
he desires and is fitted to nil. His early advantages were limited, for his father, a
Congregational minister whose fieid of labor often changed, was a man 9f far too
small an income to send his sons to college. Whatever of mental training the
young man had he was obliged to get by reason of his own exertion, and his splendid
triumphs as an orator, and his solid achievements as a lawyer are all the result of
his own e flfbrts. The only help he had was that which is the common heritage of
all American young men — the chance to fight even handed for success. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Col. Ingersoll feels a deep interest in every bright young
man of his acquaintance who is struggling manfully for the glittering prize so
brilliantly won by the great Agnostic himself. He does not believe, however, that
the young man who goes out into the world nowadays to seek his fortune has so
easy a battle to fight as had the young men of thirty years ago. In conversation with
„ the writer Col. Ingersoll spoke earnestly upon this subject.

Col. Inger-ioll' s views regarding the Bible and Christianity were not generally
understood by the public for some time after he had become famous as an orator,
although he began to diverge from orthodoxy when quite young, and was as pro
nounced an Agnostic when he went into the army, as he is now.

Col. Ingersoll is an inch less th^n six feet tall, and weighs ten more than two
hundred pounds. He will be sixty-one next August, and his hair is snowy. Hia
shoulders are broad and as straight as they were eighteen years ago when he electri
fied a people and place 1 his own name upon the list of a nation' s greate-4 orators with
bis matchless '• Plumed Knight " speech in nominating James Q. Blaine for the

(509)

cation, taught school, read law or medicine — some of the
weaker ones read theology — and there seemed to be plenty
of room, plenty of avenues to success and distinction

So, too, a few years ago a political life was considered
honorable, and so in politics there were many great careers.
So, hundreds of towns wanted newspapers, and in each of
those towns there was an opening for some energetic young
man. At that time the plant cost but little ; a few dollars
purchased the press — the young publisher could get the
paper stock on credit.

Now the railroads have all been built; the canals are
finished ; the cities have been located ; the outside property
has been cut into lots, and sold and mortgaged many times
over. Now it requires great capital to go into business.
The individual is counting for less and less ; the corpora-
presidency. His blue eyes look straight into yours when he speaks to you, and his
sentences are punctuated by engaging little tricks of facial expression— now the
brow is criss-crossed with the lines of a frown, sometimes quizzical and sometimes
indignant — next, the smooth-shaven lips break into a curving smile, which may
grow into a broad grin if the point just made were a. humorous one, and this is
quite likely to be followed by a look of such intense earnestness that you wonder
if he will ever smile again. And all the time his eyes flash, illuminating,6ometimes
anticipatory, glances that add immensely to the clearness with which the thought
he is expressing is set before you. He delights to tall a story, and he never tells any
bat good ones, but^-and in this he is like Lincoln — he is apt to use his stories to
drive some proposition home. This is almost invariably true, even when he sets
out to spin a yarn for the story's simple sake. His mentality seems to be duplex,
quadruplex, multiplex, if you please— and while his Hps and tongue are effectively
delivering the story, his wonderful brain is, seemingly, unconsciously applying the
point of the .story to the proving of a pet theory, and when the tale has been told
the verbal application follows.

His birthplace was Dresden, N. Y. His early boyhood was pnssed In New York
State and his youth and young manhood in Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin.

His handgrasp is hearty and his manner and words are the very essence of
straightforward directness. I called at his office once when the Colonel was closeted
with a person who wished to retain him in a law case involving a good deal of
money. After a bit I was told that I could see him, and as I entered he was saying :
" The case can' t be won, for you are in the wrong. I don' t want it "

"But," pleaded the would-be client, "it seems to ms that a good deal can be
done in such a case by the way it is handled before the jury, and I thought if you
were to be the man I might get a verdict."

"No, sir," was the reply, and the words fell like the lead of a plumb line; "I
won't take it. Good morning, sir."

It has been sometimes said, indulgentlv, of Col. Insersoll that he is indolent, but
no one can hold thit view who is at all familiar with him or his work. As a mat
ter of fact, his industry is phenomenal, though, indeed, it is not carried on aftjr
the fashion of less brainy men. When he has an Important case ahead of him his
devotion to the mastery of its details absorbs him at once and completely. It some
times becomes necessary for him to take up a line of chemical inquiry entirely new
to him; again, to elaborate genealogical researches are necessary; still again, it
may be essential for him to thoroughly inform himself concerning hitherto unin-
vestigated local historical records. But whatever is needful to be studied he
studies, and so thoroughly that his mind becomes saturated wHh the knowledge
required. And once acquired uo sort of information ever leuves him, for he has

A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY. 511

tion, the trust, for more and more. Now a great merchant
employs hundreds of clerks ; a few years ago most of those
now clerks would have been merchants. And so it seems
to be in nearly every department of life. Of course, I do
not know what inventions may leap from the brains of the
future; there may be millions and millions of fortunes yet
to be made in that direction, but of that I am not speaking.

So, I think that a few years ago the chances were far
more numerous and favorable to young men who wished to
make a name for themselves, and to succeed in some de
partment of human energy than now.

In savage life a living is very easy to get. Most any
savage can hunt or fish ; consequently there are few failures.
But in civilized life competition becomes stronger and

a memory quite as marvelous as any other of his altogether marvelous character
istics.

It is the same when he has an address to prepare. Every authority that can be
consulted upon the subject to be treated in the address, is consulted, and often the
material that suggests some of the most telling points is one which no one but
Ingersoll himself would think of referring to. Here again his wonderful memory
stands him in good stead for he has packed away within the convolutions of his
brain a lot of facts that bear upon almost every conceivable branch of human
thought or investigation.

His memory is quite as retentive of the features of a man he has seen as of other
matters ; it retains voices also, as a war time friend of his discovered last summer.
It was a busy day with the Colonel, who had given instructions to his office boy
that under no circumstances was he to be disturbed ; so when his old friend called
he was told that Col. Ingersoll could not see him

" But, " said the visitor: " I must see him. I haven' t seen him for twenty years ;
I am going out of town this afternoon, and I wouldn't miss talking with him for a
few minutes for a good deal of money."

"Well, "said the boy, " he wasn't to be disturbed by anybody."

At this moment the door of the Colonel's private office opened, and the Colonel's
portly form appeared upon the scene.

" Why, Maj. Blank," he said, " come in. I did tell the b9y I wouldn't see any
body, but you are more important than the biggest law case in the world."

The Colonel's memory hud retained the sound of the major's voice, and because
of that, the latter was not obliged to leave New York without seeing and renewing
his old acquaintance.

Col. Ingersoll' s retorts are as quick as a flash-light and as searching. One of
them was so startling and so effective as to give a certain famous long drawn out
railroad suit the nickname. "The Ananias and Sapphira case." Ingersoll was
speaking and had made certain statements highly damaging to the other side, in
such a way as to thoroughly anger a member of the opposing counsel, who sud
denly interrupted the speaker with the abrupt and sarcastic remark :

" I suppo<e the Colonel, in the nature of things, never heard of the story of Ana-
nia« and Sapphira."

There were those present who expected to witness an angry outburst on the part
of Ingersoll in response to this plain implication that his statement had not the
quality of veracity, but they were disappointed. Ingersoll didn't even get angry.
He turned slightly, fixed his limpid blue eyes upon the speaker, and looked cherub
ically. Then he gently drawled out.

" Oh, yes, I have, yes, I have. And I've watched the gentleman, who has Just

512 MISCELLANY.

sharper; consequently, the percentage of failures increases,
and this seems to be the law. The individual is constantly
counting for less. It may be that, on the average, people
live better than they did formerly, that they have more to
eat, drink and wear ; but the individual horizon has less
ened ; it is not so wide and cloudless as formerly. So I
say that the chances for great fortunes, for great success,
are growing less and less.

I think a young man should do that which is easiest for
him to do, provided there is an opportunity ; if there is
none, then he should take the next. The first object of
every young man should be to be self-supporting, no matter
in what direction — be independent. He should avoid being
a clerk and he should avoid giving his future into the

spoken all through this case with a curious interest. I've been expecting every
once in a while to see him drop dead, but he seems to be all right down to the
present moment."

Ingersoll never gets angry when he is interrupted, even if it is in the middle of
an addre-s or a lecture. A man interrupted him in Cincinnati once, cutting right
into one of the lecturer's most resonant periods with a yell :

" That's a lie. Bob Ingersoll, and you know it."

The audience was in an uproar in an instant, and cries of "Put him out ! " " Throw
him down stairs!" and the like were heard from all parts of the house. Ingersoll
stopped talking for a moment and held up his hands, smiling.

"Don't hurt the man," he said. "He thinks he is right. But let me explain this
thing for his especial benefit."

Then he reasoned the matter out in language so simple and plain that no one of any
intelligence whatever could fail to comprehend. The man was not ejected, but pat
througli the entire address, and at the close asked the privilege of begging the lecturer's
pardon.

Like most men of genius, Colonel Ingersoll is a passionate lover of music, and the
harmonies of Wagner seem to him to be the very acme of musical expression

Notwithstanding his thoroughly heretical beliefs or lack of beliefs, or, as he would
say, because of them, Colonel Ingersoll is a very tender-hearted man. No one has ever
made so strong an argument against vivisection in the alleged interests of science as
Ingersoll did in a speech a few years ago. To the presentation of his views against the
refinements of scientific cruelty he brought his most vivid imagination, his most careful
thought and his most impassioned oratory.

Colonel Ingersoll's popularity with those who Know him is proverbial. The clerks
in his offices not only admire him for his ability and his achievements, but they esteem
him for his kindliness of heart and his invariable courtesy in his intercourse with them.
His offices are located in one of the buildings devoted to corporations and professional
' men on the lower part of Nassau street and consist of three rooms. The one used by
the head of the firm is farthest from the entrance. All are furnished in solid black wal
nut. In the Colonel's room there is a picture of his loved brother Ebon, and hanging
below the frame thereof is the tin sign that the two brothers hung out for a shingle
when they went into the law business in Peoria. There are also pictures of a judge or
two. The desks in all the ro >ms are littered with papers. Books are piled to the ceiling.
Everywhere there is an air of personal freedom. There is no servility either to client*
or the head of the business, but there is everywhere an informal courtesy somewhat
akin to that which is born of a fueling of groat comradeship.

Of the Colonel's ideal home life the world has often been told. He lives during the
winter at his town house in Fifth Avenue ; in the summer at Dobbs Ferry, a charming
place a few miles up the Hudson froci New York,—£oston Herald, July, 1894,

A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY. 513

hands of any one person. He should endeavor to get a
business in which the community will be his patron, and
whether he is to be a lawyer, a doctor or a day-laborer
depends on how much he has mixed mind with muscle.

If a younor man imagines that he has an aptitude for
public speakmg — that is, if he has a great desire to make
his ideas known to the world — the probability is that the
desire will choose the way, time and place for him to make
the effort.

If he really has something to say, there will be plenty to
listen. If he is so carried away with his subject, is so in
earnest that he becomes an instrumentality of his thought
— so that he is forgotten by himself ; so that he cares neither
for applause nor censure — simply caring to present his
thoughts in the highest and best and most comprehensive
way, the probability is that he will be an orator.

I think oratory is something that cannot be taught. Un
doubtedly a man can learn to be a fair talker. He can by
practice learn to present his ideas consecutively, clearly
and in what you may call " form," but there is as much
difference between this and an oration as there is between a
skeleton and a living human being clad in sensitive, throb
bing flesh.

There are millions of skeleton makers, millions of people
who can express what may be called "the bones" of a dis
course, but not one in a million who can clothe these bones.

You can no more teach a man to be an orator than you
can teach him to be an artist or a poet of the first class.
When you teach him, there is the same difference between
the man who is taught, and the man who is what he is by
virtue of a natural aptitude, that there is between a pump
and a spring — between a canal and a river — between April
rain and water-works. It is a question of capacity and
feeling — not of education. There are some things that you
can tell an orator not to do. For instance, he should ne\ er

514 MISCELLANY.

drink water while talking, because the interest is broken,
and for the moment he loses control of his audience. He
should never look at his watch for the same reason. He
should never talk about himself. He should never deal in
personalities. He should never tell long stories, and if he
tells any story he should never say that it is a true story,
and that he knew the parties. This makes it a question of
veracity instead of a question of art. He should never clog
his discourse with details. He should never dwell upon
particulars — he should touch universals, because the great
truths are for all time.

If he wants to know something, if he wishes to feel
something, let him read Shakespeare. Let him listen to
the music of Wagner, of Beethoven, or Schubert. If he
wishes to express himself in the highest and most perfect
form, let him become familiar with the great paintings of
the world — with the great statues — all these will lend grace,
will give movement and passion and rhythm to his words.
A great orator puts into his speech the perfume, the feel
ings, the intensity of all the great and beautiful and mar
velous things that he has seen and heard and felt. An
orator must be a poet, a metaphysician, a logician — and
above all, must have sympathy with all.

SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.

SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.

IT was thought at one time by many that science would
do away with poetry — that it was the enemy of the
imagination. We know now that is not true. We know
that science goes hand in hand with imagination. We
know that it is in the highest degree poetic and that the
old ideas once considered so beautiful are flat and stale.
Compare Kepler's laws with the old Greek idea that the
planets were boosted or pushed by angels. The more we
know, the more beauty, the more poetry we find. Igno
rance is not the mother of the poetic or artistic.

So, some people imagine that science will do away with
sentiment. In my judgment, science will not only increase
sentiment but sense.

A person will be attracted to another for a thousand
reasons, and why a person is attracted to another, may, and
in some degree will, depend upon the intellectual, artistic
and ethical development of each.

The handsomest girl in Zululand might not be attractive
to Herbert Spencer, and the fairest girl in England might
not be able to hasten the pulse of a Choctaw brave. This
does 'not prove that there is any lack of sentiment. Men
are influenced according to their capacity, their temper
ament, their knowledge.

Some men fall in love with a small waist, an arched in
step or curly hair, without the slightest regard to mind or
muscle, This we call sentiment (sir)

518 MISCELLANY.

Now, educate such men, develop their brains, enlarge
their intellectual horizon, teach them something of the
laws of health, and then they may fall in love with women
because they are developed grandly in body and mind.
The sentiment is still there — still controls — but back of
the sentiment is science.

Sentiment can never be destroyed, and love will forever
rule the human race.

Thousands, millions of people fear that science will de
stroy not only poetry, not only sentiment, but religion.
This fear is idiotic. Science will destroy superstition, but
it will not injure true religion. Science is the foundation
of real religion. Science teaches us the consequences of
actions, the rights and duties of all. Without science there
can be no real religion.

Only those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the
enemies of science. Real love and real religion are in no
danger from science. The more we know the safer all
good things are.

Do I think that the marriage of the sickly and diseased
ought to be prevented by law ?

I have not much confidence in law — in law that I know
cannot be carried out. The poor, the sickly, the diseased,
as long as they are ignorant, will marry and help fill the
world with wretchedness and want.

We must rely on education instead of legislation.

We must teach the consequences of actions. We must
show the sickly and diseased what their children will be.
We must preach the gospel of the body. I believe the
time will come when the public thought will be so great
and grand that it will be looked upon as infamous to perpet
uate disease— to leave a legacy of agony.

I believe the time will come when men will refuse to fill
the future with consumption and insanity. Yes, we shall
study ourselves. We shall understand the conditions of

SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT. 519

health and then we shall say : We are under obligation to
put the flags of health in the cheeks of our children.

Even if I should get to heaven and have a harp, I know
that I could not bear to see my descendants still on the
earth, diseased, deformed, crazed — all suffering the penal
ties of my ignorance. Let us have more science and more
sentiment — more knowledge and more conscience — more
liberty and more love.

SOWING AND REAPING,

"SOWING AND REAPING."

1HAVE read the sermon on " Sowing and Reaping," and
I now understand Mr. Moody better than I did before.
The other da)', in New York, Mr. Moody said that he
implicitly believed the story of Jonah and really thought
that he was in the fish for three days.

When I read it I was surprised that a man living in the
century of Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and
Haeckel, should believe such an absurd and idiotic story.

Now I understand the whole thing. I can account for
the amazing credulity of this man. Mr. Moody never read
one of my lectures. That accounts for it all, and no
wonder that he is a hundred years behind the times. He
never read one of my lectures ; that is a perfect explana
tion.

Poor man ! He has no idea of what he has lost. He
has been living on miracles and mistakes, on falsehood and
foolishness, stuffing his mind with absurdities when he
could have had truth, facts and good, sound sense.

Poor man !

Probably Mr. Moody has never read one word of Darwin
and so he still believes in the Garden of Eden and the
talking snake and really thinks that Jehovah took some
mud, moulded the form of a man, breathed in its nostrils,
stood it up and called it Adam, and that he then took
one of Adam's ribs and some more mud and manufactured
Eve. Probibly he has never read a word written by any
great geologist and consequently still believes in the story

(523)

524 MISCELLANY.

of the flood. Knowing nothing of astronomy, he still
thinks that Joshua stopped the sun.

Poor man ! He has neglected Spencer and has no idea
of evolution. He thinks that man has, through all the
ages, degenerated, the first pair having been perfect. He
does not believe that man came from lower forms and has
gradually journeyed upward.

He really thinks that the Devil outwitted God and vac
cinated the human race with the virus of total depravity.

Poor man !

He knows nothing of the great scientists — of the great
thinkers, of the emancipators of the human race ; knows
nothing of Spinoza, of Voltaire, of Draper, Buckle, of Paine
or Ren an.

Mr. Moody ought to read something besides the Bible —
ought to find out what the really intelligent have thought
He ought to get some new ideas — a few facts — and I think
that, after he did so, he would be astonished to find how
ignorant and foolish he had been. He is a good man. His
heart is fairly good, but his head is almost useless.

The trouble with this sermon, "Sowing and Reaping," is
that he contradicts it. I believe that a man must reap
what he sows, that every human being must bear the
natural consequences of his acts. Actions are good or bad
according to their consequences. That is my doctrine.

There is no forgiveness in nature. But Mr. Moody tells
us that a man may sow thistles and gather figs, that having
acted like a fiend tor seventy years, he can, between his last
dose of medicine and his last breath, repent; that he can be
washed clean by the blood of the lamb, and that myriads of
angels will carry his soul to heaven — in other words, that
this man will not reap what he sowed, but what Christ
sowed, that this man's thistles will be changed to figs.

This doctrine, to my mind, is not only absurd, but dis
honest and corrupting.

"SOWING AND REAPING." 525

This is one of the absurdities in Mr. Moody's theology.
The other is that a man can justly be damned for the sin
of another.

Nothing can exceed the foolishness of these two ideas —
first: " Man can be justly punished forever for the sin of
Adam." Second : " Man can be justly rewarded with eternal
joy for the goodness of Christ."

Yet the man who believes this, preaches a sermon in
which he says that a man must reap what he sows.
Orthodox Christians teach exactly the opposite. They
teach that no matter what a man sows, no matter how
wicked his life has been, that he can by repentance change
the crop. That all his sins shall be forgotten and that only
the goodness of Christ will be remembered.

Let us see how this works :

Mr. A. has lived a good and useful life, kept his contracts,
paid his debts, educated his children, loved his wife and
made his home a heaven, but he did not believe in the in
spiration of Mr. Moody's Bible. He died and his soul was
sent to hell. Mr. Moody says that as a man sows so
shall he reap.

Mr. B. lived a useless and -wicked life. By his cruelty
he drove his wife to insanity, his children became vagrants
and beggars, his home was a perfect hell, he committed
many crimes, he was a thief, a burglar, a murderer. A few
minutes before he was hanged he got religion and his soul
went from the scaffold to heaven. And yet Mr. Moody
says that as a man sows so shall he reap.

Mr. Moody ought to have a little philosophy — a little
good sense.

' So Mr. Moody says that only in this life can a man secure
the reward of repentance.

Just before a man dies, God loves him — loves him as a
mother loves her babe— but a moment after he dies, he
sends his soul to hell. In the other world nothing can be

526 MISCELLANY.

done to reform him. The society of God and the angels
can have no good effect. Nobody can be made better in
heaven. This world is the only place where reform is pos
sible. Here, surrounded by the wicked in the midst of
temptations, in the darkness of ignorance, a human being
may reform if he is fortunate enough to hear the words of
some revival preacher, but when he goes before his maker
— before the Trinity — he has no chance. God can do noth
ing for his soul except to send it to hell.

This shows that the power for good is confined to people
in this world and that in the next world God can do noth
ing to reform his children. This is theology. This is
what they call "Tidings of great joy."

Every orthodox creed is savage, ignorant and idiotic.

In the orthodox heaven there is no mercy, no pity. In
the orthodox hell there is no hope, no reform. God is an
eternal jailer, an everlasting turnkey.

And yet Christians now say that while there may be
no fire in hell — no actual flames — yet the lost souls will
feel forever the tortures of conscience.

What will conscience trouble the people in hell about ?
They tell us that they will remember their sins.

Well, what about the souls in heaven ? They committed
awful sins, they made their fellow-men unhappy. They
took the lives of others — sent many to eternal torment.
Will they have no conscience? Is hell the only place
where souls regret the evil they have done? Have the
angels no regret, no remorse, no conscience ?

If this be so, heaven must be somewhat worse than
hell.

In old times, if people wanted to know anything they
asked the preacher. Now they do if they don't.

The Bible has, with intelligent men, lost its authority.

The miracles are now regarded by sensible people as the
spawn of ignorance and credulity. On every hand people

" SOWING AND REAPING." 527

are looking for facts — for truth — and all religions are
taking their places in the museum of myths.

Yes, the people are becoming civilized, and so they are
putting out the fires of hell. They are ceasing to believe
in a God who seeks eternal revenge.

The people are becoming sensible. They are asking for
evidence. They care but little for the winged phantoms of
the air — for the ghosts and devils and supposed gods. The
people are anxious to be happy here and they want a little
heaven in this life.

Theology is a curse. Science is a blessing. We do not
need preachers, but teachers ; not priests, but thinkers ; not
churches, but schools ; not steeples, but observatories. We
want knowledge.

Let us hope that Mr. Moody will read some really useful
books.

SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHIL
DREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?

SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHILDREN
TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?

OHOULD parents, who are Infidels, unbelievers or
O Atheists, send their children to Sunday schools and
churches to give them the benefit of Christian education ?

Parents who do not believe the Bible to be an inspired
book should not teach their children that it is. They
should be absolutely honest. Hypocrisy is not a virtue,
and, as a rule, lies are less valuable than facts.

An unbeliever should not allow the mind of his child to
be deformed, stunted and shriveled by superstition. He
should not allow the child's imagination to be polluted.
Nothing is more outrageous than to take advantage of the
helplessness of childhood to sow in the brain the seeds of
falsehoods, to imprison the soul in the dungeon of Fear, to
teach dimpled infancy the infamous dogma of eternal pain
— filling life with the glow and glare of hell.

No unbeliever should allow his child to be tortured in the
orthodox inquisitions. He should defend the mind from
attack as he would the body. He should recognize the
rights of the soul. In the orthdox Sunday schools, children
are taught that it is a duty to believe — that evidence is not
essential — that faith is independent of facts and that relig
ion is superior to reason. They are taught not to use their
natural sense— not to tell what they really think— not to
entertain a doubt— not to ask wicked questions, but to ac
cept an4 believe wha| $heir teachers say. In this way the

(Ml)

532 MISCELLANY.

minds of the children are invaded, corrupted and conquered.
Would an educated man send his child to a school in which
Newton's statement in regard to the attraction of gravita
tion was denied — in which the law of falling bodies, as
given by Galileo, was ridiculed — Kepler's three laws de
clared to be idiotic, and the rotary motion of the earth held
to be utterly absurd ?

Why then should an intelligent man allow his child to
be taught the geology and astronomy of the Bible? Chil
dren should be taught to seek for the truth — to be honest,
kind, generous, merciful and just. They should be taught
to love liberty and to live to the ideal.

Why then should an unbeliever, an Infidel, send his child
to an orthodox Sunday school where he is taught that he
has no right to seek for the truth — no right to be mentally
honest, and that he will be damned for an honest doubt —
where he is taught that God was ferocious, revengeful,
heartless as a wild beast — that he drowned millions of his
children — that he ordered wars of extermination and told
his soldiers to kill gray-haired and trembling age, mothers
and children, and to assassinate with the sword of war the
babes unborn ?

Why should an unbeliever in the Bible send his child to
an orthodox Sunday school where he is taught that God
was in favor of slavery and told the Jews to buy of the
heathen and that they should be their bondmen and bond
women forever ; where he is taught that God upheld
polygamy and the degradation of women?

Why should an unbeliever, who believes in the uni
formity of Nature, in the unbroken and unbreakable chain
of cause and effect, allow his child to be taught that
miracles have been performed ; that men have gone bodily
to heaven ; that millions have been miraculously fed with
manna and quails ; that fire has refused to burn clothes and
flesh of men ; that iron has been made to float ; that the

WHY SEND INFIDEL CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL? 533

earth and moon have been stopped and that the earth has
not only been stopped, but made to turn the other way ;
that devils inhabit the bodies of men and women ; that dis
eases have been cured with words, and that the dead, with
a touch, have been made to live again ?

The thoughtful man knows that there is not the slightest
evidence that these miracles ever were performed. Why
should he allow his children to be stuffed with these foolish
and impossible falsehoods? Why should he give his lambs
to the care and keeping of the wolves and hyenas of
superstition ?

Children should be taught only what somebody knows.
Guesses should not be palmed off on them as demonstrated
facts. If a Christian lived in Constantinople he would not
send his children to the mosque to be taught that Mo
hammed was a prophet of God and that the Koran is an
inspired book. Why? Because he does not believe in
Mohammed or the Koran. That is reason enough. So,
an Agnostic, living in New York, should not allow his
children to be taught that the Bible is an inspired book. I
use the word " Agnostic " because I prefer it to the word
Atheist. As a matter of fact, no one knows that God exists
and no one knows that God does not exist. To my mind
there is no evidence that God exists — that this world is
governed by a being of infinite goodness, wisdom and
power, but I do not pretend to know. What I insist upon
is that children should not be poisoned — should not be
taken advantage of — that they should be treated fairly,
honestly — that they should be allowed to develop from the
inside instead of being crammed from the outside — that
they should be taught to reason, not to believe — to think, to
investigate and to use their senses, their minds.

Would a Catholic send his children to a school to be
taught that Catholicism is superstition and that Science is
the only savior of mankind?

534 MISCELLANY.

Why then should a free and sensible believer in Science,
in the naturalness of the universe, send his child to a
Catholic school ?

Nothing could be more irrational, foolish and absurd.

My advice to all Agnostics is to keep their children from
the orthodox Sunday schools, from the orthodox churches,
from the poison of the pulpits.

Teach your children the facts you know. If you do not
know, say so. Be as honest as you are ignorant. Do all
you can to develop their minds, to the end that they may
live useful and happy lives.

Strangle the serpent of superstition that crawls and hisses
about the cradle. Keep your children from the augurs, the
soothsayers, the medicine-men, the priests of the super
natural. Tell them that all religions have been made by
folks and that all the "sacred books" were written by
ignorant men.

Teach them that the world is natural. Teach them to be
absolutely honest. Do not send them where they will con
tract diseases of the mind — the leprosy of the soul. Let us
do all we can to make them intelligent.

WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?

WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
AS A MORAL GUIDE?*

YOU ask me what I would " substitute for the Bible as a
moral guide."

I know that many people regard the Bible as the only
moral guide and believe that in that book only can be
found the true and perfect standard of morality.

There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and
many good regulations and laws in the Bible, and these
are mingled with bad precepts, with foolish sayings, with
absurd rules and cruel laws.

But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of
many books written centuries apart, and that it in part
represents the growth and tells in part the history of a
people. We must also remember that the writers treat of
many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to
say about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.

The book of Genesis has nothing about morality.
There is not a line in it calculated to shed light on the
path of conduct. No one can call that book a moral guide.
It is made up of myth and miracle, of tradition and legend.

In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which
Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage.

We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the
Egyptians; that the entire stor)' is a fiction. We know
this, because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyp
tian origin, and there is not found in the language of the
Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. This being so, we

« Written for The Boston Investigator. <6ff»

538 MISCELLANTY,

know «hat the Hebrews and Egyptians could not have
lived together for hundreds of years.

Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality.
In that book yon cannot find one word against human
slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah was a believer in
that institution.

The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of
the first-born, so that in every house was death, because
the king refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not
moral ; it was fiendish. The writer of that book regarded
all the people of Egypt, their children, their flocks and
herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and
these cattle were killed, not because they had done anything
wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the king.
Is it possible to get any morality out of this history ?

All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Com
mandments, so far as they are really good and sensible,
were at that time in force among all the peoples of the
world.

Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be,
as long as a majority of people object to being murdered.

Industry always has been and always will be the enemy
of larceny.

The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of
truth and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all
people, truth-telling has been considered a virtue and false
swearing or false speaking a vice.

The love of parents for children is natural, and this love
is found among all the animals that live. So the love of
children for parents is natural, and was not and cannot be
created by law. Love does not spring from a sense of
duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.

So men and women are not virtuous because of anything
in books or creeds.

All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUXbB. $3$

the result of experience. The commandments that were
original with Jehovah were foolish.

The worship of " any other God " could not have been
worse than the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have
been more absurd than the sacredness of the Sabbath.

If commandments had been given against slavery and
potygamy, against wars of invasion and extermination,
against religious persecution in all its forms, so that the
world could be free, so that the brain might be developed
and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call
such commandments a moral guide.

Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Command
ments constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract.
We must throw away some, and write others in their
places.

The commandments that have a known application here,
in this world, and treat of human obligations are good, the
others have no basis in fact, or experience.

Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd
and cruel.

The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.

Most of the punishment for violations of laws are un-
philosophic and brutal. . . . The fact is that the Pen
tateuch upholds nearly all crimes, and to call it a moral
guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful or true.

Nothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or
Judges. These books are 'filled with crimes, with mas
sacres and murders. They are about the same as the real
history of the Apache Indians.

The story of Ruth is not particularly moral.

In first and second Samuel there is not one word cal
culated to develop the brain or conscience.

Jehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David
took a census of the people. David, according to the ac-

540 MISCELLANY,

count, was the guilty one, but only the Innocent were
killed.

In first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical
value. All the kings who refused to obey the priests were
denounced, and all the crowned wretches who assisted the
priests, were declared to be the favorites of Jehovah. In
these books there cannot be found one word in favor of
liberty.

There are some good Psalms, and there are some that are
infamous. Most of these Psalms are selfish. Many of
them ,are passionate appeals for revenge.

The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man.
In this book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some
philosophy, but the story of this drama called Job, is heart
less to the last degree. The children of Job are murdered
to settle a little wager between God and the Devil. After
ward, Job having remained firm, other children are given
in the place of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is
done for the children who were murdered.

The book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only re
deeming feature in the book is that the name of Jehovah is
not mentioned.

I like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human
love, and that is something I can understand. That book
in my judgment, is worth all the ones that go before it, and
is a far better moral guide.

There are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are
selfish and some are flat and commonplace.

I like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find
some sense, some poetry, and some philosophy. Take
away the interpolations and it is a good book.

Of course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make
men better, nothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated
to lessen vice, and only a few passages in Isaiah that can
be used in a good cause.

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE A9 A MORAL GUIDB, 54!

In Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.

In some of the minor prophets there is now and then a
good verse, now and then an elevated thought.

You can, by selecting passages from different books,
make a very good creed, and by selecting passages from
different books, you can make a very bad creed.

The trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its
disposition, its temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The
most fiendish things are commanded, commended and
applauded.

The stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel
and Gideon, and of many others, are hideous ; hellish.

On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a
moral guide.

Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices,
and he lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out
his threats, but he never faithfully kept a promise.

At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testa
ment is a natural production, that it was written by savages
who were slowly crawling toward the light. We must
give them credit for the noble things they said, and we
must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even
their crimes.

I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament
as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and
while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the
Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and
perfect fruit.

I admit that there are many good things in the New
Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas of
eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human
sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood ; if we throw
away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the
idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that poverty
is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away

543 MISCELLANY.

and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct,
then we can make a fairly good moral guide, — narrow, but
moral.

Of course, many important things would be left out.
You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in
favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for in
vestigation, for thought and reason, but still you would
have a fairly good moral guide.

On the other hand, if you would take the foolish pas
sages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that
would satisfy an insane asylum.

If }'ou take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate
eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents,
you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.

It may be that no book contains better passages than the
New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.

Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred;
on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.

The Bible is not a moral guide.

Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an
enemy of society and will probably end his days in a prison
or an asylum.

What is morality ?

In this world we need certain things. We have many
wants. We are exposed to many dangers. We need food,
fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides these wants, there is,
what may be called, the hunger of the mind.

We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends
upon conditions. There are certain things that diminish,
certain things that increase, well-being. There are certain
things that destroy and there are others that preserve.

Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the
only good, and everything, the result of which is to pro
duce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral.
Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad,

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE. 543

that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good
is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.

What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The
shortest possible answer is one word : Intelligence.

We want the experience of mankind, the true history of
the race. We want the history of intellectual development,
of the growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of con
science, of charity, of self-denial. We want to know the
paths and roads that have been traveled by the human
mind.

These facts in general, these histories in outline, the
results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles
evolved, taken together, would form the best conceivable
moral guide.

We cannot depend on what are called " inspired books,"
or the religions of the world. These religions are based on
the supernatural, and according to them we are under obli
gation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or
beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellec
tual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investi
gation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of
man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credu
lity, for what they call faith.

This is not only absurd, but it is immoral.

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make
inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create
artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself
on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to
dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to
express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes
against some god. To give your honest opinion about
Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to mali
ciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt
miracles, is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the
Obedient, the credulous, the wingers, the koeelers, the meek,

544 MISCELLANY.

the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as
moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous
and useful ; not enough to be governed by evidence, by
facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things
are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural concep
tions of virtue.

All "inspired books," teaching that what the super
natural commands is right, and right because commanded,
and that what the supernatural prohibits is wrong, and
wrong because prohibited, are absurdly unphilosophic.

And all " inspired books," teaching that only those who
obey the commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly
virtuous, and that unquestioning faith will be rewarded
with eternal joy, are grossly immoral.

Again I say : Intelligence is the only moral guide.

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY
PROCLAMATION.

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY
PROCLAMATION.

THE Governor of New Hampshire, undoubtedly a good
and sincere man, issued a Fast-Da}' Proclamation to
the people of his State, in which I find the following
paragraph :

"The decline of the Christian religion, particularly in our rural
communities, is a marked feature of the times, and steps should be
taken to remedy it. No matter what our belief may be in religious
matters, every good citizen knows that when the restraining influences
of religion are withdrawn from a community, its decay, moral, mental
and financial, is swift and sure. To me this is one of the strongest
evidences of the fundamental truth of Christianity. I suggest to-day,
as far as possible on Fast-Day, union meetings be held, made up of
all shades of belief, including all who are interested in the welfare of
our State, and that in your prayers and other devotions and in your
mutual councils you remember and consider the problem of the con
dition of religion in the rural communities. There are towns where
no church bell sends forth its solemn call from January to January.
There are villages where children grow to manhood unchristened.
There are communities where the dead are laid away without the
benison of the name of the Christ, and where marriages are solemnized
only by Justices of the Peace. This is a matter worthy of your
thoughtful consideration, citizens of New Hampshire. It does not
augur well for the future. You can afford to devote one day in the
year to your fellow-men, to work and thought and prayer for your
children and your children's children."

'These words of the Governor have caused surprise, dis
cussion and danger. Many ministers have denied that
Christianity is declining, and have attacked the Governor
with the malice of meekness and the savagery of humility.

The question is: Is Christianity declining? <w>

548 -MISCELLANY.

In order to answer this question we must state what
Christianity is.

Christians tell us that there are certain fundamental
truths that must be believed.

We must believe in God, the creator and governor of the
universe ; in Jesus Christ, his only begotten son ; in the
Holy Ghost; in the atonement made by Christ; in salvation
by faith; in the second birth; in heaven for believers, in
hell for deniers and doubters, and in the inspiration of the
Old and New Testaments. They must also believe in a
prayer-hearing and prayer-answering God, in special provi
dence, and in addition to all this they must practice a few
ceremonies. This, I believe, is a fair skeleton of Chris
tianity. Of course I cannot give an exact definition.
Christian s do not and never have agreed among themselves.
They ha"e been disputing and fighting for many centuries,
and to-d^iy they are as far apart as ever.

A few years ago Christians believed the "fundamental
truths " They had no doubts. They knew that God ex
isted ; that he made the world. They knew when he com
menced to work at the earth and stars and knew when he
finished. They knew that he, like a potter, mixed and
moulded clay into the shape of a man and breathed into its
nostrils the breath of life. They knew that he took from
this man a rib and framed the first woman.

It must be admitted that sensible Christians have out
grown this belief. Jehovah the gardener, the potter, the
tailor, has been dethroned. The story of creation is be
lieved only by the provincial, the stupid, the truly orthodox.
People who have read Darwin and Haeckel and had sense
enough to understand these great men, laugh at the legends
of the Jews.

A few years ago most Christians believed that Christ was
the son of God, and riot only the son of God, but God
himself,

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION. 549

This belief is slowly fading from the minds of Christians,
from the minds of those who have minds.

Many Christians now say that Christ was simply a man
— a perfect man. Others say that he was divine, but not
actually God — a union of God and man. Some say that
while Christ was not God, he was as nearly like God as it
is possible for man to be.

The old belief that he was actually God — that he sacri
ficed himself unto himself — that he deserted himself ; thac
he bore the burden of his own wrath ; that he made it pos
sible to save a few of his children by shedding his own
blood ; that he could not forgive the sins of men until they
murdered him — this frightful belief is slowly dying day by
day. Most ministers are ashamed to preach these cruel
and idiotic absurdities. The Christ of our time is not the
Christ of the New Testament — not the Christ of the Middle
Ages ; nor of Luther, Wesley or the Puritan fathers.

The Christ who was God — who wns his own son and his
own father — who was born of a virgin, cast out devils,
rose from the dead, and ascended bodily to heaven — is not
the Christ of to-day.

The Holy Ghost has never been accurately defined or
described. He has always been a winged influence — a di
vine aroma ; a disembodied essence ; a spiritual climate ; an
enthusiastic flame; a something sensitive and unforgiving;
the real father of Jesus Christ.

A few years ago the clergy had a great deal to say about
the Holy Ghost, but now the average minister, while he
alludes to this shadowy deity to round out a prayer, seems
ta have but little confidence in him. This deity is and
always has been extremely vague. He has been repre
sented in the form of a dove; but this form is not associated
with much intelligence.

Formerly it was believed that all men were by nature
wicked, and that it would be perfectly just for God to

550 MISCELLANY.

damn the entire human race. In fact, it was thought that
God, feeling that he had to damn all his children, invented
a scheme by which some could be saved and at the same
time justice could be satisfied. God knew that without the
shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin. For
many centuries he was satisfied with the blood of oxen,
lambs and doves. But the sins continued to increase. A
greater sacrifice was necessary. So God concluded to make
the greatest possible sacrifice — to shed his own blood, that
is to say, to have it shed by his chosen people. This was
the atonement — the scheme of salvation — a scheme that
satisfied justice and partially defeated the Devil.

No intelligent Christians believe in this atonement. It
is utterly unphilosophic. The idea that man made salva
tion possible by murdering God is infinitely absurd. This
makes salvation the blossom of a crime — the blessed fruit
of murder. According to this the joys of heaven are born
of the agonies of innocence. If the Jews had been civilized
— if they had believed in freedom of conscience and had
listened kindly and calmly to the teachings of Christ, the
whole world, including Christ's mother, would have gone
to hell.

Our fathers had two absurdities. They balanced each
other. They said that God could justly damn his children
for the sin of Adam, and that he could justly save his
children on account of the sufferings and virtues of Christ;
that is to say, on account of his own sufferings and virtues.

This view of the atonement has mostly been abandoned.
It is now preached, not that Christ bought souls wdth his
blood, but that he has ennobled souls by his example. The
supernatural part of the atonement has, by the more intelli
gent, been thrown away. So the idea of imputed sin — of
vicarious vice — has been by many abandoned.

Salvation by faith is growing weak. People are be
ginning to see that character is more important than belief;

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION. 551

that virtue is above all creeds. Civilized people no longer
believe in a God who will damn an honest, generous man.
They see that it is not honest to offer a reward for belief.
The promise of reward is not evidence. It is an attempt to
bribe.

If God wishes his children to believe, he should furnish
evidence. He should not endeavor to make promises and
threats take the place of facts. To offer a reward for
credulity is dishonest and immoral — infamous.

To say that good people who never heard of Christ ought
to be damned for not believing on him is a mixture of
idiocy and savagery.

People are beginning to perceive that happiness is a re
sult, not a reward ; that happiness must be earned ; that it
is not alms. It is also becoming apparent that sins cannot
be forgiven ; that no power can step between actions and
consequences ; that men must "reap what they sow ;" that
a man who has lived a cruel life cannot, by repenting be
tween the last dose of medicine and the last breath, be
washed in the blood of the Lamb, and become an angel —
an angel entitled to an eternity of joy.

All this is absurd, but you may say that it is not cruel.
But to say that a man who has lived a useful life; who has
made a happy home; who has lifted the fallen, succored the
oppressed and battled to uphold the right ; to say that such
a man, because he failed to believe M ithout evidence, will
suffer eternal pain, is to say that God is an infinite wild
beast.

Salvation for credulity means damnation for investigation.

'At one time the " second birth" was regarded as a divine
mystery — as a miracle— a something done by a supernatural
power; probably by the Holy Ghost. Now ministers are
explaining this mystery. A change of heart is a change of
ideas. About this there is nothing miraculous.

This happens to most men and women — happens many

552 MISCELLANY.

times in the life of one man. If this happens without ex
citement — as the result of thought — it is called reformation.
If it occurs in a revival — if it is the result of fright — it is
called the "second birth."

A few years ago Christians believed in the inspiration of
the Bible. They had no doubts. The Bible was the stand
ard. If some geologist found a fact inconsistent with the
Scriptures he was silenced with a text. If some doubter
called attention to a contradiction in the Bible he was de
nounced as an ungodly and blaspheming wretch. Chris
tians then knew that the universe was only about six thou
sand years old, and any man who denied this was an enemy
of Christ and a friend of the Devil.

All this has changed. The Bible is no longer the stand
ard. Science has dethroned the inspired volume. Even
theologians are taking facts into consideration. Only
ignorant bigots now believe in the plenary inspiration of
the Bible.

The intelligent ministers know that the Holy Scriptures
are filled with mistakes, contradictions and interpolations.
They no longer believe in the flood, in Babel, in Lot's wife
or in the fire and brimstone storm. They are not sure
about the burning bush, the plagues of Egypt, the division
of the Red Sea or the miracles in the wilderness. All these
wonders are growing foolish. They belong to the Mother
Goose of the past, and many clergymen are ashamed to say
that they believe them. So, the lengthening of the day in
order that General Joshua might have more time to kill,
the journey of Elijah to heaven, the voyage of Jonah in the
fish, and many other wonders of a like kind, have become
so transparently false that even a theologian refuses to
believe.

The same is true of many of the miracles of the New
Testament. No sensible man now believes that Christ cast
devils and unclean spirits out of the bodies of men and

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST- DAY PROCLAMATION. 553

women. A few years ago all Christians believed all these
devil miracles with all the mind they had. A few years
ago only Infidels denied these miracles, but now the theo
logians who are studying the "Higher Criticism" are
reaching the conclusions of Voltaire and Paine. They have
just discovered that the objections made to the Bible by the
Deists are supported by the facts.

At the same time these " Higher Critics," while they
admit that the Bible is not true, still insist that it is in
spired.

The other evening I attended Forepaugh & Sell's Circus
at Madison Square Garden and saw a magnificent panorama
of performances. While looking at a man riding a couple
of horses I thought of the " Higher Critics." They accept
Darwin and cling to Genesis. They admit that Genesis is
false in fact, and then assert that in a higher sense it is
absolutely true.

A lie bursts into blossom and has the perfume of truth.
These critics declare that the Bible is the inspired word of
God, and then establish the tiuth of the declaration by
showing that it is filled with contradictions, absurdities and
false prophecies.

The horses they ride, sometimes get so far apart that it
seems to me that walking would be easier on the legs.

So, I saw at the circus the " Snake Man." I saw him
tie himself into all kinds of knots ; saw him make a necktie
of his legs; saw him throw back his head and force it
between his knees ; saw him twist and turn as though his
bones were made of rubber, and as I watched him I thought
of the mental doublings and contortions of the preachers
who have answered me.

Let Christians say what they will, the Bible is no longer
the actual word of God ; it is no longer perfect ; it is no
longer quite true.

The most that is now claimed for the Bible by the

554 MISCELLANY.

" Higher Critics " is, that some passages are inspired ; that
some passages are true, and that God has left man free to
pick these passages out.

The ministers are preaching Infidelity. What would
Lyinan Beecher have thought of a man like Dr. Abbott ?
He would have consigned him to hell. What would John
Wesley have thought of a Methodist like Dr. Cadman ? He
would have denounced him as a child of the Devil. What
would Calvin have thought of a Presbyterian like Pro
fessor Briggs ? He would have burned him at the stake,
and through the smoke and flame would have shouted,
" You are a dog of Satan." How would Jeremy Taylor
have treated an Episcopalian like Heber Newton?

The Governor of New Hampshire is right when he says
that Christianity has declined. The flames of faith are
flickering, zeal is cooling and even bigotry is beginning to
see the other side. I admit that there are still millions of
orthodox Christians whose minds are incapable of growth,
and who care no more for facts than a monitor does for
bullets. Such obstructions on the highway of progress
are removed only by death.

The dogma of eternal pain is no longer believed by the
reasonably intelligent. People who have a sense of justice
know that eternal revenge cannot be enjoyed by infinite
goodness. They know that hell would make heaven im
possible. If Christians believed in hell as they once did,
the fagots would be lighted again, heretics would be stretched
on the rack, and all the instruments of torture would again
be stained with innocent blood. Christianity has declined
because intelligence has increased.

Men and women who know something of the history of
man, of the horrors of plague, famine and flood, of earth
quake, volcano and cyclone, of religious persecution and
slavery, have but little confidence in special providence.
They do not believe that a prayer was ever answered.

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION. 555

Thousands of people who accept Christ as a moral guide
have thrown away the supernatural.

Christianity does not satisfy the brain and heart. It
contains too many absurdities. It is unphilosophic, un
natural, impossible. Not to resist evil is moral suicide.
To love your enemies is impossible. To desert wife and
children for the sake of heaven is cowardly and selfish.
To promise rewards for belief is dishonest. To threaten
torture for honest unbelief is infamous. Christianity is
declining because men and women are growing better.

The Governor was not satisfied with saying that Chris
tianity had declined, but he added this : " Every good citi
zen knows that when the restraining influences of religion
are withdrawn from a community, its decay, moral, mental
and financial is swift and sure."

The restraining influences of religion have never been
withdrawn from Spain or Portugal, from Austria or Italy.
The " restraining influences " are still active in Russia.
Emperor William relies on them in Germany, and the same
influences are very busy taking care of Ireland. If these
influences should be withdrawn from Spain there would be
"mental, moral and financial decay." Is not this statement
perfectly absurd?

The fact is that religion has reduced Spain to a guitar,
Italy to a hand organ and Ireland to exile. What are the
restraining influences of religion ? I admit that religion
can prevent people from eating meat on Friday, from
dancing in Lent, from going to the theatre on holy days
and from swearing in public. In other words, religion can
restrain people from committing artificial offences. But
the real question is : Can religion restrain people from com
mitting natural crimes?

The church teaches that God can and will forgive sins.

Christianity sells sin on a credit. It says to men and
women, " Be good ; do right ; but no matter how many

556 MISCELLANY.

crimes you commit you can be forgiven." How can such
a religion be regarded as a restraining influence ! There
was a time when religion had power; when the church
ruled Christendom ; when popes crowned and uncrowned
kings. Was there at that time moral, mental and financial
growth ? Did the nations thus restrained by religion,
prosper ? When these restraining influences were weakened,
when popes were humbled, when creeds were denied, did
morality, intelligence and prosperity begin to decay ?

What are the restraining influences of religion ? Did
anybody ever hear of a policeman being dismissed because
a new church had been organized ?

Christianity teaches that the man who does right carries
a cross. The exact opposite of this is true. The cross is
carried by the man who does wrong. I believe in the re
straining influences of intelligence. Intelligence is the only
lever capable of raising mankind. If you wish to make
men moral and prosperous develop the brain. Men must
be taught to rely on themselves. To supplicate the super
natural is a waste of time.

The only evils that have been caused by the decline of
Christianity, as pointed out by the Governor, are that in
some villages they hear no solemn bells, that the dead are
buried without Christian ceremony, that marriages are
contracted before Justices of the Peace, and that children
go unchristened.

These evils are hardly serious enough to cause moral,
mental and financial decay. The average church bell is
not very musical — not calculated to develop the mind or
quicken the conscience. The absence of the ordinary fumeral
sermon does not add to the horror of death, and the failure
to hear a minister say, as he stands by the grave, " One
star differs in glory from another star. There is a differ
ence between the flesh of fowl and fish. Be not deceived.
Evil communications corrupt good manners," does cot

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION. 557

necessarily increase the grief of the mourners. So far as
children are concerned, if they are vaccinated, it does not
make much difference whether they are christened or not.

Marriage is a civil contract, and God is not one of the
contracting parties. It is a contract with which the church
has no business to interfere. Marriage with us is regula
ted by law. The real marriage — the uniting of hearts, the
lighting of the sacred flame in each — is the work of Nature,
and it is the best work that nature does. The ceremony
of marriage gives notice to the world that the real marriage
has taken place. Ministers have no real interest in mar
riages outside of the fees. Certainly marriages by Justices
of the Peace cannot cause the mental, moral and financial
decay of a State.

The things pointed out by the Governor were undoubt
edly produced by the decline of Christianity, but the}7 are
not evils, and they cannot possibly injure the people morally,
mentally or financially. The Governor calls on the people
to think, work and pray. With two-thirds of this I agree.
If the people jpf New Hampshire will think and work with
out praying they will grow morally, mentally and finan
cially. If they pray without working and thinking, they
will decay.

Prayer is beggary — an effort to get something for noth
ing. Labor is the honest prayer.

I do not think that the good and true in Christianity are
declining. The good and true are more clearly perceived
and more precious than ever. The supernatural, the mirac
ulous part of Christianity is declining. The New Testa-
ment has been compelled to acknowledge the jurisdiction
of reason. If Christianity continues to decline at the same
rate and ratio that it has declined in this generation, in a
few years all that is supernatural in the Christian religion
will cease to exist. There is a conflict— a battle between

558 MISCELLANY.

the natural and the supernatural. The natural was baffled
and beaten for thousands of years. The flag of defeat was
carried by the few, by the brave and wise, by the real
heroes of our race. They were conquered, captured, im
prisoned, tortured and burned. Others took their places.
The banner was kept in the air. In spite of countless de
feats the army of the natural increased. It began to gain
victories. It did not torture and kill the conquered. It
enlightened and blessed. It fought ignorance with science,
cruelty with kindness, slavery with justice, and all vices
with virtues. In this great conflict we have passed mid
night. When the morning comes its rays will gild but
one flag — the flag of the natural.

All over Christendom religions are declining. Only
children and the intellectually undeveloped have faith — the
old faith that defies facts. Only a few j'ears ago to be ex
communicated by the pope blanched the cheeks of the
bravest. Now the result would be laughter. Only a few
years ago, for the sake of saving heathen souls, priests
would brave all dangers and endure all hardships.

I once read the diary of a priest — one who long ago went
down the Illinois River, the first white man to be borne on its
waters. In this diary he wrote that he had just been paid
for all that he had suffered. He had added a gem to the
crown of his glory — had saved a soul for Christ. He had
baptized a papoose.

That kind of faith has departed from the world.

The zeal that flamed in the hearts of Calvin, Luther and
Knox, is cold and dead. Where are the Wesleys and Whit-
fields ? Where are the old evangelists, the revivalists who
swayed the hearts of their hearers with words of flarne?
The preachers of our day have lost the Promethean fire.
They have lost the tone of certainty, of authority. "Thus
saith the Lord" has dwindled to "perhaps." Sermons,

GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION. 559

messages from God, promises radiant with eternal joy,
threats lurid with the flames of hell — have changed to
colorless essays ; to apologies and literary phrases ; to in
ferences and peradventures.

" The blood-dyed vestures of the Redeemer are not wav
ing in triumph over the ramparts of sin and rebellion," but
over the fortresses of faith float the white flags of truce.
The trumpets no longer sound for battle, but for parley.
The fires of hell have been extinguished, and heaven itself
is only a dream. The "eternal verities" have changed to
doubts. The torch of inspiration, choked with ashes, has
lost its flame. There is no longer in the church " a sound
from heaven as of a rushing, mighty wind ; " no " cloven
tongues like as of fire ; " no " wonders in the heaven above,"
and no " signs in the earth beneath." The miracles have
faded away and the sceptre is passing from superstition to
science — science, the only possible savior of mankind.

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A
PROPHECY.

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY.*

I CONGRATULATE The Truth Seeker on its twenty-
1 fifth birthday. It has fought a good fight. It has
always been at the front. It has carried the flag, and its
flag is a torch that sheds light.

Twenty -five years ago the people of this country, for the
most part, were quite orthodox. The great " fundamental "
falsehoods of Christianity were generally accepted. Those
who were not Christians, as a rule, admitted that they ought
to be; that the)' ought to repent and join the church, and
this they generally intended to do.

The ministers had few doubts. The most of them had
been educated not to think, but to believe. Thought was
regarded as dangerous, and the clergy, as a rule, kept on
the safe side. Investigation was discouraged. It was de
clared that faith was the only road that led to eternal joy.
Most of the schools and colleges were under sectarian
control, and the presidents and professors were defenders
of their creeds. The people were crammed with miracles
and stuffed with absurdities. They were taught that the
Bible was the "inspired" word of God, that it was abso
lutely perfect, that the contradictions were only apparent,
and that it contained no mistakes in philosophy, none in
science. The great scheme of salvation was declared to be
the result of infinite wisdom and mercy. Heaven and hell
were waiting for the human race. Only those could be
saved who had faith and who had been born twice.

•Written f~r t*ie T"-enty-fiftlj Anniversary Nunaber of the Ntw York TrutK
Seeker, September 3, 1898. ! («»>

564 MISCELLANY.

Most of the ministers taught the geology of Moses, the
astronomy of Joshua, and the philosophy of Christ. They
regarded scientists as enemies, and their principal business
was to defend miracles and deny facts. They knew, how
ever, that men were thinking, investigating in every direc
tion, and they feared the result. They became a little
malicious— somewhat hateful. With their congregations
they relied on sophistry, and they answered their enemies
with epithets, with misrepresentations and slanders ; and
yet their minds were filled with a vague fear, with a sicken
ing dread. Some of the people were reading and some were
thinking. Lyell had told them something about geology,
and in the light of facts they were reading Genesis again.
The clergy called Lyell an Infidel, a blasphemer, but the
facts seemed to care nothing for opprobrious names. Then
the " called," the "set apart," the " Lord's anointed " began
changing the " inspired " word. They erased the word
" day " and inserted " period," and then triumphantly ex
claimed : "The world was created in six periods." This
answer satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and honest ignorance,
but honest intelligence was not satisfied.

More and more was being found about the history of life,
of living things, the order in which the various forms had
appeared and the relations they hid sustained to each other.
Beneath the gaze of the biologist the fossils were again
clothed with flesh, submerged continents and islands re
appeared, the ancient forest grew once more, the air was
filled with unknown birds, the seas with armored monsters,
and the land with beasts of many forms that sought with
tooth and claw each other's flesh.

Haeckel and Huxley followed life through all its chang
ing forms from monad up to man. They found that men,
women, and children had been on this poor world for hun
dreds of thousands of years.

The clergy could not dodge these facts, this conclusion,

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY. 565

by calling "days" periods, because the Bible gives the age
of Adam when he died, the lives and ages to the flood, to
Abraham, to David, and from David to Christ, so that, ac
cording to the Bible, man at the birth of Christ had been
on this earth four thousand and four years and no more.

There was no way in which the sacred record could be
changed, but of course the dear ministers could not admit
the conclusion arrived at by Haeckel and Huxley. If they
did they would have to give up original sin, the scheme of
the atonement, and the consolation of eternal fire.

They took the only course they could. They promptly
and solemnly, with upraised hands, denied the facts, de
nounced the biologists as irreverent wretches, and defended
the Book. With tears in their voices they talked about
"Mother's Bible," about the "faith of the fathers," about
the prayers that the children had said, and they also talked
about the wickedness of doubt. This satisfied bigotry,
hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, but honest intelligence
was not satisfied.

The works of Humboldt had been translated, and were
being read ; the intellectual horizon was enlarged, and the
fact that the endless chain of cause and effect had never
been broken, that Nature had never been interfered with,
forced its way into many minds. This conception of na
ture was beyond the clergy. They did not believe it ; they
could not comprehend it. They did not answer Humboldt,
but they attacked him with great virulence. They meas
ured his works by the Bible, because the Bible was then
the standard.

In examining a philosophy, a system, the ministers
asked : " Does it agree with the sacred book ? " With the
Bible they separated the gold from the dross. Every science
had to be tested by the Scriptures. Humboldt did not agree
with Moses. He differed from Joshua. He had his doubts
about the flood. That was enough.

566 MISCELLANY.

Yet, after all, the ministers felt that they were standing
on thin ice, that they were surrounded by masked batteries,
and that something unfortunate was liable at any moment
to happen. This increased their efforts to avoid, to escape.
The truth was that they feared the truth. They were
afraid of facts. They became exceedingly anxious for
morality, for the young, for the inexperienced. They were
afraid to trust human nature. They insisted that without
the Bible the world would rush to crime. They warned
the thoughtless of the danger of thinking. They knew that
it would be impossible for civilization to exist without the
Bible. They knew this because their God had tried it.
He gave no Bible to the antediluvians, and they became so
bad that he had to destroy them. He gave the Jews only
the Old Testament, and they were dispersed. Irreverent
people might say that Jehovah should have known this
without a trial, but after all that has nothing to do with
theology.

Attention had been called to the fact that two accounts
of creation are in Genesis, and that they do not agree and
cannot be harmonized, and that, in addition to that, the di
vine historian had made a mistake as to the order of crea
tion ; that according to one account Adam was made before
the animals, and Eve last of all, from Adam's rib; and by
the other account Adam and Eve were made after the
animals, and both at the same time. A good many people
were surprised to find that the Creator had written contra
dictory accounts of the creation, and had forgotten the
order in which he created.

Then there was another difficulty. Jehovah had de
clared that on Tuesday, or during the second period, he
had created the " firmament " to divide the waters which
were below the firmament from the waters above the firma
ment. It was found that there is no firmament ; that the
moisture in the air is the result of evaporation, and that

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY. 567

there was nothing to divide the waters above from the
waters below. So that, according to the facts, Jehovah did
nothing on the second day or period, because the moisture
above the earth is not prevented from falling by the firma
ment, but because the mist is lighter than air.

The preachers, however, began to dodge, to evade, to
talk about " oriental imagery." They declared that Gene
sis was a "sublime poem," a divine " panorama of creation,"
an " inspired vision ; " that it was not intended to be exact
in its details, but that it was true in a far higher sense, in
a poetical sense, in a spiritual sense, conveying a truth much
higher, much grander than simple fact. The contradic
tions were covered with the mantle of oriental imagery.
This satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, but
honest intelligence, was not satisfied.

People were reading Darwin. His works interested not
only the scientific, but the intelligent in all the walks of
life. Darwin was the keenest observer of all time, the
greatest naturalist in all the world. He was patient, mod
est, logical, candid, courageous, and absolutely truthful.
He told the actual facts. He colored nothing. He was
anxious only to ascertain the truth. He had no prejudices,
no theories, no creed. He was the apostle of the real.

The ministers greeted him with shouts of derision. From
nearly all the pulpits came the sounds of ignorant laughter,
one of the saddest of all sounds. The clergy in a vague
kind of way believed the Bible account of creation ; they
accepted the Miltonic view; they believed that all animals,
including man, had been made of clay, fashioned by
Jehovah's hands, and that he had breathed into all forms,
not only the breath of life, but instinct and reason. They
were not in the habit of descending to particulars ; they did
not describe Jehovah as kneading the clay or modeling his
forms like a sculptor, but what they did say included these
things.

568 MISCELLANY.

The theory of Darwin contradicted all their ideas on the
subject, vague as they were. He showed that man had not
appeared at first as man, that he had not fallen from per
fection, but had slowly risen through many ages from lower
forms. He took food, climate, and all conditions into con
sideration, and accounted for difference of form, function,
instinct, and reason, by natural causes. He dispensed with
the supernatural. He did away with Jehovah the potter.

Of course the theologians denounced him as a blas
phemer, as a dethroner of God. They even went so far as
to smile at his ignorance. They said : " If the theory of
Darwin is true the Bible is false, our God is a myth, and
our religion a fable."

In that they were right.

Against Darwin they rained texts of Scripture like shot
and shell. They believed that they were victorious and
their congregations were delighted. Poor little frightened
professors in religious colleges sided with the clergy.
Hundreds of backboneless " scientists " ranged themselves
with the enemies of Darwin. It began to look as though
the church was victorious.

Slowly, steadily, the ideas of Darwin gained ground.
He began to be understood. Men of sense were reading
what he said. Men of genius were on his side. In a little
while the really great in all departments of human thought
declared in his favor. The tide began to turn. The smile
on the face of the theologian became a frozen grin. The
preachers began to hedge, to dodge. They admitted that
the Bible was not inspired for the purpose of teaching
science — only inspired about religion, about the spiritual,
about the divine. The fortifications of faith were crumb
ling, the old guns had been spiked, and the armies of the
"living God" were in retreat.

Great questions were being discussed, and freely dis
cussed. People were not afraid to give their opinions,

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY, 569

and they did give their honest thoughts. Draper had
shown in his " Intellectual Development of Europe " that
Catholicism had been the relentless enemy of progress, the
bitter foe of all that is really useful. The Protestants were
delighted with this book.

Buckle had shown in his " History of Civilization in
England " that Protestantism had also enslaved the mind,
had also persecuted to the extent of its power, and that
Protestantism in its last analysis was substantially the
same as the creed of Rome.

This book satisfied the thoughtful.

Hegel in his first book had done a great work and it did
great good in spite of the fact that his second book was
almost a surrender. Lecky in his first volume of " The
History of Rationalism " shed a flood of light on the mean
ness, the cruelty, and the malevolence of " revealed relig
ion," and this did good in spite of the fact that he almost
apologizes in the second volume for what he had said in
the first.

The Universalists had done good. They had civilized a
great many Christians. They declared that eternal punish
ment was infinite revenge, and that the God of hell was an
infinite savage.

Some of the Unitarians, following the example of Theo
dore Parker, denounced Jehovah as a brutal, tribal God.
All these forces worked together for the development of the
orthodox brain.

Herbert Spencer was being read and understood. The
theories of this great philosopher were being adopted. He
overwhelmed the theologians with facts, and from a great
height he surveyed the world. Of course he was attacked,
but not answered.

Emerson had sowed the seeds of thought — of doubt — in
many minds, and from many directions the world was being
flooded with intellectual light. The clergy became apolo-

570 MISCELLANY.

getic ; they spoke with less certainty ; with less emphasis,
and lost a little confidence in the power of assertion. They
felt the necessity of doing something, and they began to
harmonize as best they could the old lies and the new
truths. They tried to get the wreck ashore, and many of
them were willing to surrender if they could keep their side-
arms ; that is to say, their salaries.

Conditions had been reversed. The Bible had ceased to
be the standard. Science was the supreme and final test.

There was no peace for the pulpit; no peace for the
shepherds. Students of the Bible in England and Germany
had been examining the inspired Scriptures. They had
been trying to find when and by whom the books of the
Bible were written. They found that the Pentateuch was
not written by Moses ; that the authors of Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, vSamuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, and Job were not
known ; that the Psalms were not written by David ; that
Solomon had nothing to do with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or
the Song ; that Isaiah was the work of at least three authors ;
that the prophecies of Daniel were written after the hap
pening of the events prophesied. They found many mis
takes and contradictions, and some of them went so far as
to assert that the Hebrews had never been slaves in Egypt ;
that the story of the plagues, the exodus, and the pursuit
was only a myth.

The New Testament fared no better than the Old. These
critics found that nearly all of the books of the New Testa
ment had been written by unknown men ; that it was im
possible to fix the time when they were written; that many
of the miracles were absurd and childish, and that in ad
dition to all of this, the gospels were found filled with mis
takes, with interpolations and contradictions ; that the
writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not understand
the Christian religion as it was understood by the author
of the gospel according to John.

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY. 571

Of course, the critics were denounced from most of the
pulpits, and the religious papers, edited generally by men
who had failed as preachers, were filled with bitter denials
and vicious attacks. The religious editors refused to be
enlightened. They fought under the old flag. When
dogmas became too absurd to be preached, they were
taught in the Sunday schools; when worn out there, they
were given to the missionaries ; but the dear old religious
weeklies, the Banners, the Covenants, the Evangelists, con
tinued to feed their provincial subscribers with known
mistakes and refuted lies.

There is another fact that should be taken into considera
tion. All religions are provincial. Mingled with them all
and at the foundation of all are the egotism of ignorance,
of isolation, the pride of race, and what is called patriotism.
Every religion is a natural product — the result of conditions.
When one tribe became acquainted with another, the ideas
of both were somewhat modified. So when nations and
races come into contact a change in thought, in opinion, is
a necessary result.

A few years ago nations were strangers, and consequent
ly hated each other's institutions and religions. Commerce
has done a great work in destroying provincialism. To
trade commodities is to exchange ideas. So the press, the
steamships, the railways, cables, and telegraphs have
brought the nations together and enabled them to compare
their prejudices, their religions, laws and customs.

Recently many scholars have been studying the religions
of the world and have found them much the same. They
have also found that there is nothing original in Chris
tianity; that the legends, miracles, Christs, and conditions
of salvation, the heavens, hells, angels, devils, and gods
were the common property of the ancient world. They
found that Christ was a new name for an old biography ;
that he was not a life, but a legend ; not a man, but a myth.

573 MISCELLANY,

People began to suspect that our religion had not been
stipernaturally revealed, while others, far older and sub
stantially the same, had been naturally produced. They
found it difficult to account for the fact that poor, ignorant
savages had in the darkness of nature written so well that
Jehovah thousands of years afterwards copied it and
adopted it as his own. They thought it curious that God
should be a plagiarist.

These scholars found that all the old religions had
recognized the existence of devils, of evil spirits,who sought
in countless ways to injure the children of men. In this
respect they found that the sacred books of other nations
were j ust the same as our Bible, as our New Testament.

Take the Devil from our religion and the entire fabric
falls. No Devil, no fall of man. No Devil, no atonement.
No Devil, no hell.

The Devil is the keystone of the arch.

And yet for many years the belief in the existence of the
Devil — of evil spirits — has been fading from the minds of
intelligent people. This belief has now substantially van
ished. The minister who now seriously talks about a per
sonal Devil is regarded with a kind of pitying contempt.

The Devil has faded from his throne and the evil spirits
have vanished from the air.

The man who has really given up a belief in the exist
ence of the Devil cannot believe in the inspiration of the
New Testament — in the divinity of Christ. If Christ
taught anything, if he believed in anything, he taught a
belief in the existence of the Devil. His principal business
was casting out devils. He himself was taken possession
of by the Devil and carried to the top of the temple.

Thousands and thousands of people have ceased to be
lieve the account in the New Testament regarding devils,
and yet continue to believe in the dogma of " inspiration "
and the divinity of Christ.

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY, 573

In the brain of the average Christian, contradictions dwell
in unity.

While a belief in the existence of the Devil has almost
faded away, the belief in the existence of a personal God
has been somewhat weakened. The old belief that back of
nature, back of all substance and force, was and is a per
sonal God, an infinite intelligence who created and governs
the world, began to be questioned. The scientists had
shown the indestructibility of matter and force. Blichner's
great work had convinced most readers that matter and
force could not have been created. They also became
satisfied that matter cannot exist apart from force and that
force cannot exist apart from matter.

They found, too, that thought is a form of force, and that
consequently intelligence could not have existed before
matter, because without matter, force in any form cannot
and could not exist.

The creator of anything is utterly unthinkable.

A few years ago God was supposed to govern the world.
He rewarded the people with sunshine, with prosperity and
health, or he punished with drought and flood, with plague
and storm. He not only attended to the affairs of nations,
but he watched the actions of individuals. He sank ships,
derailed trains, caused conflagrations, killed men and
women with his lightnings, destroyed some with earth
quakes, and tore the homes and bodies of thousands into
fragments with his cyclones.

In spite of the church, in spite of the ministers, the peo
ple began to lose confidence in Providence. The right did
not seem always to triumph. Virtue was not always re
warded and vice was not always punished. The good
failed ; the vicious succeeded ; the strong and cruel enslaved
the weak ; toil was paid with the lash ; babes were sold from
the breasts of mothers, and Providence seemed to be abso
lutely heartless.

574 MISCELLANY.

In other words, people began to think that the God of
the Christians and the God of nature were about the same,
and that neither appeared to take any care of the human
race.

The Deists of the last century scoffed at the Bible God.
He was too cruel, too savage. At the same time they
praised the God of nature. They laughed at the idea of
inspiration and denied the supernatural origin of the Scrip
tures.

Now, if the Bible is not inspired, then it is a natural pro
duction, and nature, not God, should be held responsible
for the Scriptures. Yet the Deists denied that God was the
author and at the same time asserted the perfection of
nature.

This shows that even in the minds of Deists contradic
tions dwell in unity.

Against all these facts and forces, these theories and ten
dencies, the clergy fought and prayed. It is not claimed
that they were consciously dishonest, but it is claimed that
they were prejudiced — that they were incapable of ex
amining the other side — that they were utterly destitute of
the philosophic spirit. They were not searchers for the
facts, but defenders of the creeds, and undoubtedly they
were the product of conditions and surroundings, and acted
as they must.

In spite of everything a few rays of light penetrated the
orthodox mind. Many ministers accepted some of the new
facts, and began to mingle with Christian mistakes a few
scientific truths. In many instances they excited the in
dignation of their congregations. Some were tried for heresy
and driven from their pulpits, and some organized new
churches and gathered about them a few people willing to
listen to the sincere thoughts of an honest man.

The great body of the church, however, held to the creed
— not quite believing it, but still insisting that it was true.

A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY. 575

In private conversation they would apologize and admit
that the old ideas were outgrown, but in public they were
as orthodox as ever. In every church, however, there were
many priests who accepted the new gospel ; that is to say,
welcomed the truth.

To-day it may truthfully be said that the Bible in the
old sense is no longer regarded as the inspired word of
God. Jehovah is no longer accepted or believed in as the
creator of the universe. His place has been taken by the
Unknown, the Unseen, the Invisible, the Incomprehensible
Something, the Cosmic Dust, the First Cause, the Incon
ceivable, the Original Force, the Mystery. The God of the
Bible, the gentleman who walked in the cool of the evening,
who talked face to face with Moses, who revenged himself
on unbelievers and who gave laws written with his finger
on tables of stone, has abdicated. He has become a
myth.

So, too, the New Testament has lost its authority. Peo
ple reason about it now as they do about other books, and
even orthodox ministers pick out the miracles that ought
to be believed, and when anything is attributed to Christ
not in accordance with their views, they take the liberty of
explaining it away by saying "interpolation."

In other words, we have lived to see Science the standard
instead of the Bible. We have lived to see the Bible tested
by Science, and, what is more, we have lived to see reason
the standard not only in religion, but in all the domain of
science. Now all civilized scientists appeal to reason.
They get their facts, and then reason from the foundation.
Now the theologian appeals to reason. Faith is no longer
considered a foundation. The theologian has found that
he must build upon the truth and that he must establish
this truth by satisfying human reason.

This is where we are now.

What is to be the result? Is progress to stop? Are we

5/6 MISCELLANY.

to retrace our steps ? Are we going back to superstition ?
Are we going to take authority for truth ?

Let me prophesy.

In modern times we have slowly lost confidence in the
supernatural and have slowly gained confidence in the
natural. We have slowly lost confidence in gods and have
slowly gained confidence in man. For the cure of disease,
for the stopping of plague, we depend on the natural — on
science. We have lost confidence in holy water and re
ligious processions. We have found that prayers are never
answered.

In my judgment, all belief in the supernatural will be
driven from the human mind. All religions must pass
away. The augurs, the soothsayers, the seers, the preach
ers, the astrologers and alchemists will all lie in the same
cemetery and one epitaph will do for them all. In a little
while all will have had their day. They were naturally
produced and they will be naturally destroyed. Man at
last will depend entirely upon himself — on the development
of the brain — to the end that he may take advantage of the
forces of nature — to the end that he may supply the wants
of his body and feed the hunger of his mind.

In my judgment, teachers will take the place of preachers
and the interpreters of nature will be the only priests.

POLITICAL MORALITY.

THE room of the House Committee on Elections was crowded
this morning with committeemen and spectators to listen to an
argument by Col. Robert G. Ingersoll in the contested election case
of Strobach against Herbert, of the lid Ababama district. Colonel
Ingersoll appeared for Strobach, the contestant. While most of his
argument was devoted to the dry details of the testimony, he entered
into some discussion of the general principles involved in contested
election cases, and spoke with great eloquence and force. In part
he said :

The mere personal controversy, as between Herbert and
Strobach, is not worth talking about. It is a question as
to whether or not the republican system is a failure. Un
less the will of the majority can be ascertained, and surely
ascertained, through the medium of the ballot, the founda
tion of this Government rests upon nothing — the Govern
ment ceases to be. I would a thousand time rather a Demo
crat should come to Congress from this district, or from
any district, than that a Republican should come who was
not honestly elected. I would a thousand times rather that
this country should honestly go to destruction than dis
honestly and fraudulently go anywhere. We want it set
tled whether this form of government is or is not a failure.
That is the real question, and it is the question at issue in
every one of these cases. Has Congress power and has
Congress the sense to say to-day, that no man shall sit as a
maker of laws for the people who has not been honestly
elected ? Whenever you admit a man to Congress and allow
him to vote and make laws, and there is any doubt as to

(577)

578 MISCELLANY.

his title, you poison the source of justice — you poison the
source of power ; and the moment the people begin to think
that many members of Congress are there through fraud,
that moment they cease to have respect for the legislative
department of this Government — that moment they cease
to have respect for the sovereignty of the people represented
by fraud.

Now, as I have said, I care nothing about the personal
part of it, and, maybe you will not believe me, but I care
nothing about the political part. The question is, Who has
the right on his side? Who is honestly entitled to this seat?
That is infinitely more important than any personal or party
question. My doctrine is that a majority of the people
must control — that we have in this country a king, that we
have in this country a sovereign, just as truly as they can
have in any other, and, as a matter of fact, a republic is the
only country that does in truth have a sovereign, and that
sovereign is the legally expressed will of the people. So
that any man that puts in a fraudulent vote is a traitor to
that sovereign; any man that knowingly counts an illegal
vote is a traitor to that sovereign, and is not fit to be a citi
zen of the great Republic. Any man who fraudulently
throws out a vote, knowing it to be a legal vote, tampers
with the source of power, and is, in fact, false to our insti
tutions. Now, these are the questions to be decided, and I
want them decided, not because this case happens to come
from the South any more than if it came from the North.
It is a matter that concerns the whole country. We must
decide it. There must be a law on the subject. We have
got to lay down a stringent rule that shall apply to these
cases. There should be — there must be — such a thing as
political morality so far as voting is concerned. — New York

Tribune, May 13, 1888.

A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING
THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.

A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRA
TION OF THE BIBLE.*

THE Old Testament must have been written nearly two
thousand years before the invention of printing.
There were but few copies, and these were in the keeping
of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations,
and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.

Second. The written Hebrew was composed entirely of
consonants, without any points or marks standing for
vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible.
Anyone can test this for himself by writing an English
sentence, leaving out the vowels. It will take far more
inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants
alone.

Third. The books composing the Old Testament were
not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punc
tuation was known. Think of this a moment and you will
see how difficult it must be to read such a book.

Fourth. There was not among the Jews any dictionary of
their language, and for this reason the accurate meaning of
words could not be preserved. Now the different meanings
of words are preserved so that by knowing the age in
which a writer lived we can ascertain with reasonable cer
tainty his meaning.

•Printed from iranuerript notes found among Colonel Irjjersoll's papers, evidently
wrinen in tie e;:r)y 'tO's. While much of the argument ai-U criticism \\illbe found
embodied in his various lectures magazine urticles arid contributions to the prees, it was
thought to he too valuable in its present form 10 be left cut of a compute edition of
bis works, on account of too much repetition Undoubtedly it was the author's intention
to g» through the Bible in this same manner and to publish in book form. "A few
Keasoas for doubting the inspiration of th« Bible."' (681)

582 MISCELLANY.

Fifth. The Old Testament was printed for the first time
in 1488. Until this date it existed only in manuscript, and
was constantly exposed to erasures and additions.

Sixth. It is now admitted by the most learned in the
Hebrew language that in our present English version of
the Old Testament there are at least one hundred thousand
errors. Of course the believers in inspiration assert that
these errors are not sufficient in number to cast the least
suspicion upon any passages upholding what are called the
"fundamentals."

Seventh. It is not certainly known who in fact wrote any
of the books of the Old Testament. For instance, it is now
generally conceded that Moses was not the author of the
Pentateuch.

Eighth. Other books, not now in existence, are referred to
in the Old Testament as of equal authority, such as the
books of Jasher, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Jehu, Sayings of
the Seers.

Ninth. The Christians are not agreed among themselves
as to what books are inspired. The Catholics claim as in
spired the books of Maccabees, Tobit, Esdras, etc. Others
doubt the inspiration of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song
of Solomon.

Tenth. In the book of Esther and the Song of Solomon
the name of God is not mentioned, and no reference is
made to any supreme being, nor to any religious duty.
These omissions would seem sufficient to ca.st a little doubt
upon these books.

Eleventh. Within the present century manuscript copies of
the Old Testament have been found throwing new light
and changing in many instances the present readings. In
consequence a new version is now being made by a theolog
ical syndicate composed of English and Amerian divines,
and after this is published it may be that our present Bible
will fall into disrepute.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 583

Twelfth. The fact that language is continually changing,
that words are constantly dying and others being born ;
that the same word has a variety of meanings during its
life, shows hew hard it is to preserve the original ideas that
might have been expressed in the Scriptures, for thousands
of years, without dictionaries, without the art of printing,
and without the light of contemporaneous literature.

Thirteenth. Whatever there was of the Old Testament
seems to have been lost from the time of Moses until the
days of Josiah, and it is probable that nothing like the
Bible existed in any permanent form among the Jews until
a few hundred years before Christ. It is said that Ezra
gave the Pentateuch to the Jews, but whether he found or
originated it is unknown. So it is claimed that Nehemiah
gathered up the manuscripts about the kings and prophets,
while the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth, Eccle-
siastes, and some others were either collected or written
long after. The Jews themselves did not agree as to what
books were really inspired.

Foiirteenth. In the Old Testament we find several contra
dictory laws about the same thing, and contradictory ac
counts of the same occurrences. In the twentieth chapter
of Exodus we find the first account of the giving of the
Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth chapter another
account is given. These two accounts could never have
been written by the same person. Read these two accounts
and you will be forced to admit that one of them cannot be
true. So there are two histories of the creation, of the
flood, and of the manner in which Saul became king.

Fifteenth. It is now generally admitted that Genesis must
have been written by two persons, and the parts written by
each can be separated, and when separated they are found
to contradict each other in many important particulars.

Sixteenth. It is also admitted that copyists made verbal
changes not only, but pieced out fragments; that the

584 MISCELLANY.

speeches of Elihu in the book of Job were all interpolated,
and that most of the prophecies were made by persons
whose names we have never known.

Seventeenth. The manuscripts of the Old Testament were
not alike, and the Greek version differed from the Hebrew,
and there was no absolutely received text of the Old Testa
ment until after the commencement of the Christian era.
Marks and points to denote vowels were invented probably
about the seventh century after Christ. Whether these
vowels were put in the proper places or not is still an open
question.

Eighteenth. The Alexandrian version, or what is known
as the Septuagint, translated by seventy learned Jews,
assisted by " miraculous power," about two hundred years
before Christ, could not have been, it is said, translated
from the Hebrew text that we now have. The differences
can only be accounted for by supposing that they had a
different Hebrew text. The early Christian Churches
adopted the Septuagint, and were satisfied for a time. But
so many errors were found, and so many were scanning
every word in search of something to sustain their peculiar
views, that several new versions appeared, all different
somewhat from the Hebrew manuscripts, from the Septua
gint, and from each other. All these versions were in
Greek. The first Latin Bible originated in Africa, but no
one has ever found out which Latin manuscript was the
original. Many were produced, and all differed from each
other. These Latin versions were compared with each
other and with the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was
made in the fifth century, but the old Latin versions held
their own for about four hundred years, and no one yet
knows which were right. Besides these there were Egyp
tian, Ethiopic, Armenian, and several others, all differing
from each other as well as from all others in the world.

It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 585

was translated into German, and not until the fifteenth that
Bibles were printed in the principal languages of Europe.
Of these Bibles there were several kinds— Luther's, the
Dort, King James's, Genevan, French, besides the Danish
and Swedish. Most of these differed from each other, and
gave rise to infinite disputes and crimes without number.
The earliest fragment of the Bible in the " Saxon " lan
guage known to exist was written sometime in the seventh
century. The first Bible was printed in England in 1538.
In 1560 the first English Bible was printed that was
divided into verses. Under Henry VIII. the Bible was
revised ; again under Queen Elizabeth, and once again
under King James. This last was published in 1611, and
is the one now in general use.

Nineteenth. No one in the world has learning enough,
nor has he time enough even if he had the learning, and
could live a thousand years, to find out what books really
belong to and constitute the Old Testament, the authors of
these books, when they were written, and what they really
mean. And until a man has the learning and the time to
do all this he cannot certainly tell whether he believes the
Bible or not.

Twentieth. If a revelation from God was actually necessary
to the happiness of man here and to his salvation hereafter,
it is not easy to see why such revelation was not given to
all the nations of the earth. Why were the millions of
Asia, Egypt, and America left to the insufficient light of
nature. Why was not a written, or what is still better, a
printed revelation given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden ? And why were the Jews themselves without a
Bible until the days of Ezra the scribe ? Why was nature
not so made that it would give light enough? Why did
God mike men and leave them in darkness — a darkness
that he, knew would fill the world with want and crime, and
crowd rrith damned souls the dungeons of his hell ? Were

586 MISCELLANY.

the Jews the only people who needed a revelation ? It may
be said that God had no time to waste with other nations,
and gave the Bible to the Jews that other nations through
them might learn of his existence and his will. If he
wished other nations to be informed, and revealed himself
to but one, why did he not choose a people that mingled
with others ? Why did he give the message to those who
had no commerce, who were obscure and unknown,
and who regarded other nations with the hatred born of
bigotry and weakness? What would we now think of a
God who made his will known to the South Sea Islanders
for the benefit of the civilized world ? If it was of such
vast importance for man to know that there is a God, why
did not God make himself known ? This fact could have
been revealed by an infinite being instantly to all, and
there certainly was no necessity of telling it alone to the
Jews, and allowing millions for thousands of years to die
in utter ignorance.

Twenty-first. The Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Tartars,
Africans, Eskimo, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Poly
nesians, and many other peoples, are substantially ignorant
of the Bible. All the Bible societies of the world have pro
duced only about one hundred and twenty millions of
Bibles, and there are about fourteen hundred million people.
There are hundreds of languages and tongues in which no
Bible has yet been printed. Why did God allow, and why
does he still allow, a vast majority of his children to remain
in ignorance of his will ?

Twenty-second. If the Bible is the foundation of all civili
zation, of all just ideas of right and wrong, of our duties to
God and each other, why did God not give to each nation
at least one copy to start with ? He must have known that
no nation could get along successfully without a Bible, and
he also knew that man could not make one for himself.
Why, then, were not the books furnished ? He must have

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 587

known that the light of nature was not sufficient to reveal
the scheme of the atonement, the necessity of baptism, the
immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the arithmetic of
the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead.

Twenty-third. It is probably safe to say that not one-
third of the inhabitants of this world ever heard of the Bible,
and not one-tenth ever read it. It is also safe to say that
no two persons who ever read it agreed as to its meaning,
and it is not likely that even one person has ever under
stood it. Nothing is more needed at the present time than
an inspired translator. Then we shall need an inspired
commentator, and the translation and the commentary
should be written in an inspired universal language, in
capable of change, and then the whole world should be in
spired to understand this language precisely the same.
Until these things are accomplished, all written revelations
from God will fill the world with contending sects, con
tradictory creeds and opinions.

Twenty-fourth. All persons who know anything of con
stitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words
that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen,
the profcundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real
meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about
the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to
courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers
will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions.
Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand
our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what
the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who
refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would ac
complish in politics what most churches have asked for in
religion.

Twenty-ffth. Is it very wicked to deny that the uni
verse was created of nothing by an infinite being who ex
isted from all eternity ? The human mind is such that it

588 MISCELLANY,

cannot possibly conceive of creation, neither can it conceive
of an infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infinite
length of time.

Twenty-sixth. The idea that the universe was made in
six days, and is but about six thousand years old, is too
absurd for serious refutation. Neither will it do to say
that the six days were six periods, because this does away
with the Sabbath, and is in direct violation of the text.

Twenty -seventh. Neither is it reasonable that this God
made man out of dust, and woman out of one of the ribs
of the man ; that this pair were put in a garden; that they
were deceived by a snake that had the power of speech ;
that they were turned out of this garden to prevent them
from eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal ;
that God himself made them clothes ; that the sons of God
intermarried with the daughters of men ; that to destroy all
life upon the earth a flood was sent that covered the high
est mountains ; that Noah and his sons built an ark and
saved some of all animals as well as themselves ; that the
people tried to build a tower that would reach to heaven ;
that God confounded their language, and in this way frus
trated their design.

Twenty-cigh.h. It is hard to believe that God talked to
Abraham as one man talks to another ; that he gave him
land that he pointed out ; that he agreed to give him land
that he never did; that he ordered him to murder his own
son ; that angels were in the habit of walking about the
earth eating veal dressed with butter and milk, and making
bargains about the destruction of cities.

Twenty-ninth. Certainly a man ought not to be eternally
damned for entertaining an honest doubt about a woman
having been turned into a pillar of salt, about cities being
destroyed by storms of fire and brimstone, and about people
once having lived for nearly a thousand years.

Thirtieth. Neither is it probable that God really wrestled

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 589

with Jacob and put his thigh out of joint, and that for that
reason the Jews refused " to eat the sinew that shrank," as
recounted in the thirty-second chapter of Genesis; that God
in the likeness of a flame inhabited a bush ; that he amused
himself by changing the rod of Moses into a serpent, and
making his hand leprous as snow.

Thirty-first. One can scarely be blamed for hesitating to
believe that God met Moses at a hotel and tried to kill him ;'
that afterward he made this same Moses a god to Pharaoh,
and gave him his brother Aaron for a prophet;2 that he
turned all the ponds and pools and streams and all the
rivers into blood,3 and all the water in vessels of wood and
stone ; that the rivers thereupon brought forth frogs ;* that
the frogs covered the whole land of Egypt ; that he changed
dust into lice, so that all the men, women, children, and
animals were covered with them ;s that he sent swarms of
flies upon the Egyptians ;' that he destroyed the innocent
cattle with painful diseases ; that he covered man and
beast with blains and boils ;7 that he so covered the magi
cians of Egypt with boils that they could not stand before
Moses for the purpose of performing the same feat ;" that
he destroyed every beast and every man that was in the fields,
and every herb, and broke every tree with storm of hail
and fire;9 that he sent locusts that devoured every herb
that escaped the hail, and devoured every tree that grew;10
that he caused thick darkness over the land and put lights
in the houses of the Jews;11 that he destroyed all of the
firstborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh upon the
throne to the firstborn of the maidservant that sat behind
the mill,13 together with the firstborn of all beasts, so that
there was not a house in which the dead were not.13

'Ex. iv, 24. BEx. viii, 16, 17. 9Ex. ix, 25.

8 Ex. vii i. 'Ex. viii, 21. 10Ex. x, 15.

8Ex. viii, 19. 7Ex. iv, 9. "Kx. x, 22, 23.

4 Ex. viii, 3. 8Ex. i.v, n. "Ex. xi, 5.

uiix. xii, 29.

590 MISCELLANY.

Thirty-second. It is very hard to believe that three millions
of people left a country and marched twenty or thirty miles
all in one day. To notify so many people would require a
long time, and then the sick, the halt, and the old would
be apt to impede the march. It seems impossible that such
a vast number — six hundred thousand men, besides women
and children — could have been cared for, could have been
fed and clothed, and the sick nursed, especially when we
take into consideration that " they were thrust out of
Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for
themselves any victual." '

Thirty-third. It seems cruel to punish a man forever for
denying that God went before the Jews by day " in a
pillar of a cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a
pillar of fire to give them light to go by day and night,"
or for denying that Pharaoh pursued the Jews with six
hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and
that the six hundred thousand men of war of the Jews
were sore afraid when they saw the pursuing hosts. It
does seems strange that after all the water in a country had
been turned to blood — after it had been overrun with
frogs and devoured with flies ; after all the cattle had died
with the murrain, and the rest had been killed by the fire
and hail and the remainder had suffered with boils, and
the firstborn of all that were left had died ; that after locusts
had devoured every herb and eaten up every tree of the
field, and the firstborn had died, from the firstborn of the
king on the throne to the firstborn of the captive in the
dungeon ; that after three millions of people had left, car
rying with them the jewels of silver and gold and the
raiment of their oppressors, the Egyptians still had enough
soldiers and chariots and horses left to pursue and destroy
an army of six hundred thousand men, if God had not

interfered.

'Ex. xii, 37-39.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 5QI

Thirty -fourth. It certainly ought to satisfy God to torment
a man for four or five thousand years for insisting that it
is but a small thing for an infinite being to vanquish an
Egyptian army ; that it was rather a small business to
trouble people with frogs, flies, and vermin ; that it looked
almost malicious to cover people with boils and afflict cat
tle with disease ; that a real good God would not torture
innocent beasts on account of something the owners had
done ; that it was absurd to do miracles before a king to in
duce him to act in a certain way, and then harden his heart
so that he would refuse; and that to kill all the firstborn
of a nation was the act of a heartless fiend.

Thirty-fifth. Certainly one ought to be permitted to
doubt that twelve wells of water were sufficient for three
millions of people, together with their flocks and herds,1
and to inquire a little into the nature of manna that was
cooked by baking and seething and yet would melt -in the
suu,a and that would swell or shrink so as to make an ex
act omer, no matter how much or how little there really
was.3 Certainly it is not a crime to say that water cannot
be manufactured by striking a rock with a stick, and that
the fate of battle cannot be decided by lifting one hand up
or letting it fall." Must we admit that God really did come
down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people ; that
he commanded that all who should go up into the Mount
or touch the border of it should be put to death, and that
even the beasts that came near it should be killed ?* Is it
wrong to laugh at this ?* Is it sinful to say that God never
spoke from the top of a mountain covered with clouds these
words to Moses, "Go down, charge the people, lest they
break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them
perish ; and let the priests also, which come near to the
Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon
them " ? ' Can it be that an infinite intelligence takes delight

'Ex. xv. 27. "Ex. xix. 12. 'Ex. xix, la, 13.

»Ex. xvl, 33, ax, «Bx. xvii, H, ia. 'Ex, xix, ai, aa,

592 MISCELLANY.

in scaring savages, and that he is happy only when some
body trembles ? Is it reasonable to suppose that God sur
rounded himself with thunderings and lightnings and thick
darkness to tell the priests that they should not make altars
of hewn stones, nor with stairs ?' And that this God at the
same time he gave the Ten Commandments ordered the
Jews to break the most of them ? According to the Bible
these infamous words came from the mouth of God while
he was wrapped and clothed in darkness and clouds upon
the Mount of Sinai :

If them buy an Hebrew servant six years he shall serve : and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself he
shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out
with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne
him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's,
and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say,
I love my master, my wife, and my children ; I will not go out free :
then his master shall bring him unto the judges ; he shall also bring
him to the door or unto the doorpost ; and his master shall bore his
ear through with an awl ; and he shall serve him forever.2 And if a
man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his
hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a
day or two, he shall not be punished ; for he is his money.3

Do you really think that a man will be eternally damned
for endeavoring to wipe from the record of God those bar
baric words?

Thirty-sixth. Is it because of total depravity that some peo
ple refuse to believe that God went into partnership with
insects and granted letters of marque and reprisal to
hornets;4 that he wasted forty days and nights furnishing
Moses with plans and specifications for a tabernacle, an ark,
a mercy seat and two cherubs of gold, a table, four rings,
some dishes and spoons, one candlestick, three bowls, seven
lamps, a pair of tongs, some .snuff dishes (for all of which
God had patterns), ten curtains with fifty loops, a roof for
the tabernacle of rams' skins dyed red, a lot of boards, an

1 Ex, xix, 25, 26, 8 Ex. xxi, 2-6, 'Ex. xxi, 20, 21, *Ex, xxiii, 28,

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 593

altar with horns, ash pans, basins, and flesh hooks, and fil
lets of silver and pins of brass; that he told Moses to speak
unto all the wise-hearted that he had filled with wisdom,
that they might make a suit of clothes for Aaron, and that
God actually gave directions that an ephod " shall have the
two shoulder-pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof,"
and gave all the orders concerning mitres, girdles, and onyx
stones, ouches, emeralds, breastplates, chains, rings, Urim
and Thunimim, and the hole in the top of the ephod like
the hole of a habergeon ?'

Thirly-sev nth. Is there a Christian missionary who could
help laughing if in any heathen country he had seen the
following command of God carried out? "And thou shalt
take the other ram ; and Aaron and his sons shall put their
hands upon the head of the ram. Then shalt thou kill the
ram and take of his blood and put it upon the tip of the
right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his
sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the
great toe of their right foot.* Does one have to be born
again to appreciate the beauty and solemnity of such a per
formance ? Is not the faith of the most zealous Christian
somewhat shaken while reading the recipes for cooking
mutton, veal, beef, birds, and unleavened dough, found in
the cook book that God made for Aaron and his sons ?

Thirty-eighth. Is it to be wondered at that some people
have doubted the statement that God told Moses how to
make some ointment, hair oil, and perfume, and then made
it a crime punishable with death to make any like them ?
Think of a God killing a man for imitating his ointment ! 8
Think of a God saying that he made heaven and earth in
six days and rested on the seventh day and was refreshed!4
Think of this God threatening to destroy the Jews, and be
ing turned from his purpose because Moses told him that
the Egyptians might mock him !s

»Ex. xxviiandxxvUi. 8E*. xxx, 23, *Ex, xxxii, II, J?.

'Ex. xxix, 19, ao, *Ex. xxxi, 17.

594 MISCELLANY.

Thirty-ninth. What must we think of a man impudent
enough to break in pieces tables of stone upon which God
had written with his finger? What must we think of the
goodness of a man that would issue the following order :
" Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his
sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate
throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
Consecrate yourselves to-day to the Lord, even every man
upon his son, and upon his brother ; that he may bestow
upon you a blessing this day " ? ' Is it true that the God of
the Bible demanded human sacrifice ? Did it please him
for man to kill his neighbor, for brother to murder his
brother, and for the father to butcher his son ? If there is
a God let him cause it to be written in the book of his
memory, opposite my name, that I refuted this slander and
denied this lie.

Fortieth. Can it be true that God was afraid to trust him
self with the Jews for fear he would consume them ? Can it
be that in order to keep from devouring them he kept away
and sent one of his angels in his place ? 3 Can it be that this
same God talked to Moses " face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his friend," when it is declared in the same chapter,
by God himself, " Thou canst not see my face : for there
shall no man see me, and live " ? 8

Forty-first. Why should a man, because he has done a
bad action, go and kill a sheep ? How can man make
friends with God by cutting the throats of bullocks and
goats? Why should God delight in the shedding of
blood ? Why should he want his altar sprinkled with
blood, and the horns of his altar tipped with blood, and his
priests covered with blood ? Why should burning flesh be
a sweet savor in the nostrils of God ? Why did he compel
his priests to be butchers, cutters and stabbers? Why

* Ex, xxxii, 37-39. * Ex, xxxiii, 3, 3. * Ex. xxxiii, », 20.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 595

should the same God kill a man for eating the fat of an ox,
a sheep, or a goat ?

Forty-second. Could it be a consolation to a man when
dying to think that he had always believed that God told
Aaron to take two goats and draw cuts to see which goat
should be killed and which should be a scapegoat ? l And
that upon the head of the scapegoat Aaron should lay both
his hands and confess over him all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and put
them all on the head of the goat, and send him away by the
hand of a fit man into the wilderness ; and that the goat
should bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into a
land not inhabited ? * How could a goat carry away a load
of iniquities and transgressions? Why should he carry
them to a land uninhabited ? Were these sins contagious ?
About how many sins could an average goat carry? Could
a man meet such a goat now without laughing ?

Forty -third. Why should God object to a man wearing a
garment made of woolen and linen? Why should he care
whether a man rounded the corners of his beard ? 9 Why
should God prevent a man from offering the sacred bread
merely because he had a flat nose, or was lame, or had five
fingers on one hand, or had a broken foot, or was a dwarf ?
If he objected to such people, why did he make them ? *

Forty-fourth. Why should we believe that God insisted
upon the sacrifice of human beings ? Is it a sin to deny
this, and to deny the inspiration of a book that teaches it ?
Read the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses of the last
chapter of Leviticus, a book in which there is more folly
and cruelty, more stupidity and tyranny, than in any other
book in this world except some others in the same Bible.
Read the thirty-second chapter of Exodus and you will see
how by the most infamous of crimes man becomes recou-

1 Ley, xyi, 8. • Lev. xvi, 21, 22. * Lev. xix, 19, 27,

4 Lev. xxi, 18-20.

596 MISCELLANY.

ciled to this God. You will see that he demands of fathers
the blood of their sons. Read the twelfth and thirteenth
verses of the third chapter of Numbers, "And I, behold, I
have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel,"
etc.

How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains
of fine linen? How did these absconding slaves make
cherubs of gold ? Where did they get the skins of badgers,
and how did they dye them red ? How did they make
wreathed chains and spoons, basins and tongs ? Where did
they get the blue cloth and their purple ? Where did they
get the sockets of brass ? How did they coin the shekel of
the sanctuary ? How did they overlay boards with gold ?
Where did they get the numberless instruments and tools
necessary to accbmplish all these things ? Where did they
get the fine flour and the oil ? Were all these found in the
desert of Sinai ? Is it a sin to ask these questions ? Are
all these doubts born of a malignant and depraved heart ?
Why should God in this desert prohibit priests from drink
ing wine, and from eating moist grapes ? How could these
priests get wine ?

Do not these passages show that these laws were made
long after the Jews had left the desert, and that they were
not given from Sinai ? Can you imagine a God silly
enough to tell a horde of wandering savages upon a desert
that they must not eat any fruit of the trees they planted
until the fourth year ?

Forty-fifth. Ought a man to be despised and persecuted
for denying that God ordered the priests to make women
drink dirt and water to test their virtue? ' Or for denying
that over the tabernacle there was a cloud during the day
and fire by night, and that the cloud lifted up when God
wished the Jews to travel, and that until it was lifted they
remained in their tents ? * Can it be possible that the " ark
1 Num. v, 12-31. *Num. ix, 16-18.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 597

of the covenant " traveled on its own account, and that
" when the ark set forward " the people followed, as is
related in the tenth chapter of the holy book of Numbers ?

Forty-sixth. Was it reasonable for God to give the Jews
manna, and nothing else, year after year? He had infinite
power, and could just as easily have given them something
good, in reasonable variety, as to have fed them on manna
until they loathed the sight of it, and longingly remembered
the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of
Egypt. And yet when the poor people complained of the
diet and asked for a little meat, this loving and merciful
God became enraged, sent them millions of quails in his
wrath, and while they were eating, while the flesh was yet
between their teeth, before it was chewed, this amiable God
smote the people with a plague and killed all those that
lusted after meat. In a few days after, he made up his
mind to kill the rest, but was dissuaded when Moses told
him that the Canaanites would laugh at him.1 No won
der the poor Jews wished they were back in Egypt. No
wonder they had rather be the slaves of Pharaoh than the
chosen people of God. No wonder they preferred the
wrath of Egypt to the love of heaven. In my judgment,
the Jews would have fared far better if Jehovah had let
them alone, or had he even taken the side of the Egyptians.

When the poor Jews were told by their spies that the
Canaanites were giants, they, seized with fear, said, " Let us
go back to Egypt." For this, their God doomed all except
Joshua and Caleb to a wandering death. Hear the words
of this most merciful God : " But as for you, your carcasses
they shall fall in this wilderness, and your children shall
wander in the wilderness forty years and bear your" sins
" until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness." * And
yet this same God promised to give unto all these people a
land flowing with milk and honey.

'Num. xiv, 15, 16. 'Num. xiv. 33-33,

598 MISCELLANY.

Forty-seventh. " And while the children of Israel were in
the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks
upon the Sabbath day.

" And they that found him gathering sticks brought him
unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

" And they put him in ward, because it was not declared
what should be done to him.

" And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be
surely put to death ; all the congregation shall stone him
with stones without the camp.

" And all the congregation brought him without the
camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died." '

When the last stone was thrown, and he that was a man
was but a mangled, bruised, and broken mass, this God
turned, and, touched with pity, said : " Speak unto the
children of Israel, and bid them that they make them
fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their
generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the bor
ders a riband of blue." *

In the next chapter, this Jehovah, whose loving kind
ness is over all his works, because Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram objected to being starved to death in the wilder
ness, made the earth open and swallow not only them, but
their wives and their little ones. Not yet satisfied, he sent
a plague and killed fourteen thousand seven hundred more.
There never was in the history of the world such a cruel,
revengeful, bloody, jealous, fickle, unreasonable, and fiend
ish ruler, emperor, or king as Jehovah. No wonder the
children of Israel cried out, "Behold we die, we perish,
we all perish."

Forty-eighth. I cannot believe that a dry stick budded,

blossomed, and bore almonds ; that the ashes of a red

heifer are a purification for sin ;" that God gave the cities

into the hands of the Jews because they solemnly agreed

'Num. xv, 32-36. 'Num. xv, 38. »Num. xix, 2-10,

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 599

to murder all the inhabitants ; that God became enraged
and induced snakes to bite his chosen people ; that God
told Balaam to go with the Princess of Moab, and then got
angry because he did go ; that an animal ever saw an
angel and conversed with a man. I cannot believe that
thrusting a spear through the body of a woman ever stayed
a plague ; ' that any good man ever ordered his soldiers to
slay the men and keep the maidens alive for themselves ;
that God commanded men not to show mercy to each
other ; that he induced men to obey his commandments
by promising them that he would assist them in murdering
the wives and children of their neighbors ; or that he ever
commanded a man to kill his wife because she differed with
him about religion;* or that God was mistaken about
hares chewing the cud ; 3 or that he objected to the people
raising horses ; 4 or that God wanted a camp kept clean
because he walked through it at night;6 or that he com
manded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law ;'
or that he ever threatened to give anybody the itch ; 7 or
that he ever secretly buried a man and allowed the corpse
to write an account of the funeral.

Forty-ninth. Does it necessarily follow that a man wishes
to commit some crime if he refuses to admit that the river
Jordan cut itself in two and allowed the lower end to run
away?" Or that seven priests could blow seven ram's
horns loud enough to throw down the walls of a city ; ' or
that God, after Achan had confessed that he had secreted
a garment and a wedge of gold, became good natured as
soon as Achan and his sons and daughters had been stoned
to death and their bodies burned? " Is it not a virtue to
abhor such a God ?

Must we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all

'Num. xxv, 8. 4Deut. xvii, 16. TDeut. xxviii, 27.

*Deut. xiii, 6-10. * Deut. xxiii, 13, 14. " Josh. Hi, 16.

8Deut. xiv, 7. « Deut. xxv, 9., »Josh. vi, 20.

10 Josh, vii, 24, 25.

600 MISCELLANY.

the cruelties and horrors described in the Old Testament ;
that lie waged the most relentless and heartless wars ; that
he declared mercy a crime ; that to spare life was to excite
his wrath ; that he smiled when maidens were violated,
laughed when mothers were ripped open with a sword, and
shouted with joy when babes were butchered in their
mothers' arms ? Read the infamous book of Joshua, and
then worship the God who inspired it if you can.

Fiftieth. Can any sane man believe that the sun stood still
in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a
whole day, and that the moon stayed ? ' That these
miracles were performed in the interest of massacre and
bloodshed ; that the Jews destroyed men, women, and chil
dren by the million, and practiced every cruelty that the
ingenuity of their God could suggest ? Is it possible that
these things really happened ? Is it possible that God com
manded them to be done ? Again I ask you to read the
book of Joshua. After reading all its horrors you will feel
a grim satisfaction in the dying words of Joshua to the
children of Israel: "Know for a certainty that the Lord
your God will no more drive out any of these nations from
before you ; but they shall be snares and traps unto you,
and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until
ye perish from off this good land." a

Think of a God who boasted that he gave the Jews a
land for which they did not labor, cities which they did
not build, and allowed them to eat of oliveyards and vine
yards which they did not plant.3 Think of a God who
murders some of his children for the benefit of the rest,
and then kills the rest because they are not thankful
enough. Think of a God who had the power to stop the
sun and moon, but could not defeat an army that had iron
chariots.4

Fifty-first. Can we blame the Hebrews for getting tired

'Josh, x, 13. . 8Josh. xiii, 13. 3Josh. xxiv, 13. * Judges i, 19.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLB INSPIRATION, 601

of their God? Never was a people so murdered, starved,
stoned, burned, deceived, humiliated, robbed, and outraged.
Never was there so little liberty among men. Never did
the meanest king so meddle, eavesdrop, spy out, harass, tor
ment, and persecute his people. Never was ruler so jealous,
unreasonable, contemptible, exacting, and ignorant as this
God of the Jews. Never was such ceremony, such mum
mery, such stuff about bullocks, goats, doves, red heifers,
lambs, and unleavened dough — never was such directions
about kidneys and blood, ashes and fat, about curtains,
tongs, fringes, ribands, and brass pins — never such details
for killing of animals and men and the sprinkling of blood
and the cutting of clothes. Never were such unjust laws,
such punishments, such damned ignorance and infamy !

Fifty-second. Is it not wonderful that the creator of all
worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his
own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange
that after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered
them from slavery, fed them by miracles, opened the sea
for a path, led them by cloud and fire, and overthrown their
pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their own making?
Is it not beyond belief that this God, by statutes and com
mandments, by punishments and penalties, by rewards and
promises, by wonders and plagues, by earthquakes and
pestilence, could not in the least civilize the Jews — could
not get them bayond a point where they deserved killing ?
What shall we think of a God who gave his entire time for
forty years to the work of converting three millions of peo
ple, and succeeded in getting only two men, and not a single
woman, decent enough to enter the promised land ? Was
there ever in the history of man so detestible an administra
tion of public affairs ? Is it possible that God sold his chil
dren to the king of Mesopotamia ; that he sold them to Jabin,
king of Canaan, to the Philistines, and to the children of Am-
mon ? Is it possible that an angel of the Lord devoured

602 MISCB1LANT,

unleavened cakes and broth with fire that came out of the end
of a stick as he sat under an oak-tree ? ' Can it be true that
God made known his will by making dew fall on wool
without wetting the ground around it ? ' Do you really be
lieve that men who lap water like a dog make the best
soldiers ? 3 Do you think that a man could hold a lamp in
his left hand, a trumpet in his right hand, blow his trumpet,
shout " the sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and break
pitchers at the same time ?*

Fifty-third. Read the story of Jephthah and his daughter,
and then tell me what you think of a father who would
sacrifice his daughter to God, and what you think of a God
who would receive such a sacrifice. This one story should
be enough to make every tender and loving father hold this
book in utter abhorrence. Is it necessary, in order to be
saved, that one must believe that an angel of God appeared
unto Manoah in the absence of her husband ; that this an
gel afterward went up in a flame of fire ; that as a result of
this visit a child was born whose strength was in his hair?
a child that made beehives of lions, incendiaries of foxes,
and had a wife that wept seven days to get the answer to
his riddle ? Will the wrath of God abide forever upon a
man for doubting the story that Samson killed a thousand
men with a new jawbone ? Is there enough in the Bible to
save a soul with this story left out ? Is hell hungry for
those who deny that water gushed from a "hollow place"
in a dry bone ? Is it evidence of a new heart to believe
that one man turned over a house so large that over three
thousand people were on the roof ? For my part, I cannot
believe these things, and if my salvation depends upon my
credulity I am as good as damned already. I cannot be
lieve that the Philistines took back the ark with a present
of five gold mice, and that thereupon God relented.' I can-

1 Judges vi, 21. 'Judges vii, 5. * i Sam. vi. 4.

'Judges vi, 37. 4 Judges vii, 20.

TREASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLS INSPIRATION. 603

not believe that God killed fifty thousand men for looking
into a box.1 It seems incredible, after all the Jews had
done, after all their wars and victories, even when Saul was
king, that there was not among them one smith who could
make a sword or spear, and that they were compelled to go
to the Philistines to sharpen every plowshare, coulter, and
mattock.* Can you believe that God said to Saul, " Now
go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling " ? Can you believe that because Saul took
the king alive after killing every other man, woman, and
child, the ogre called Jehovah was displeased and made
up his mind to hurl Saul from the throne and give his place
to another ? ' I cannot believe that the Philistines all ran
away because one of their number was killed with a stone.
I cannot justify the conduct of Abigail, the wife of Nabal,
who took presents to David. David hardly did right when
he said to this woman, " I have hearkened to thy voice, and
have accepted thy person." It could hardly have been
chance that made Nabal so deathly sick next morning and
killed him in ten days. All this looks wrong, especially as
David married his widow before poor Nabal was fairly
cold.4

Fifty-fourth. Notwithstanding all I have heard of Katie
King, I cannot believe that a witch at Endor materialized
the ghost of Samuel and caused it to appear with a cloak
on.* I cannot believe that God tempted David to take the
census, and then gave him his choice of three punishments :
First, Seven years of famine ; Second, Flying three months
before their enemies; Third, A pestilence of three days;
that David chose the pestilence, and that God destroyed
seventy thousand men.' Why should God kill the people
for what David did ? Is it a sin to be counted ? Can

1 1 Sam. vi, 19. * I Sam. xv. § i Sam. xxyiii.

» I Sam. xiii, 19, 20. « I Sam. xxv. • 2 Sam. xxiv.

604 MISCELLANY,

anything more brutally hellish be Conceived ? Why should
man waste prayers upon such a God ?

Fifty-fifth. Must we admit that Elijah was fed by ravens;
that they brought him bread and flesh every morning and
evening? Must we believe that this same prophet could
create meal and oil, and induce a departed soul to come
back and take up its residence once more in the body ?
That he could get rain by pra3ring for it ; that he could
cause fire to burn up a sacrifice and altar, together with
twelve barrels of water ?' Can we believe that an angel of
the Lord turned cook and prepared two suppers in one
night for Elijah, and that the prophet ate enough to last
him forty days and forty nights?* Is it true that when a
captain with fifty men went after Elijah, this prophet caused
fire to come down from heaven and consume them all?
Should God allow such wretches to manage his fire? Is it
true that Elijah consumed another captain with fifty men
in the same way ? ' Is it a fact that a river divided because
the water was struck with a cloak ? Did a man actually
go to heaven in a chariot of fire drawn by horses of fire, or
was he carried to Paradise by a whirlwind ? Must we be
lieve, in order to be good and tender fathers and mothers,
that because some "little children" mocked at an old man
with a bald head, God — the same God who said, " Suffer
little children to come unto me" — sent two she-bears out
of the wood and tare forty-two of these babes ? Think of
the mothers that watched and waited for their children.
Think of the wailing when these mangled ones were found,
when they were brought back and pressed to the breasts of
weeping women. What an amiable gentleman Mr. Elisha
must have been.4

Fifty-sixth. It is hard to believe that a prophet by lying on
a dead body could make it sneeze seven times ;* or that being

'i Kings xyiii. "2 Kings i. »a Kings iv.

* I Kings xix. * 2 Kings ii.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 605

dipped seven times in the Jordan could cure the leprosy.1
Would a merciful God curse children, and children's chil
dren yet unborn, with leprosy for a father's fault ? * Is it
possible to make iron float in water?' Is it reasonable to
say that when a corpse touched another corpse it came to
life?4 Is it a sign that a man wants to commit a crime
because he refuses to believe that a king had a boil and
that God caused the sun to go backward in heaven so that
the shadow on a sun-dial went back ten degrees as a sign
that the aforesaid would get well?6 Is it true that this
globe turned backward, that its motion was reversed as a
sign to a Jewish king ? If it did not, this story is false,
and that part of the Bible is not true even if it is inspired.

Fifty-seventh. How did the Bible get lost? 6 Where was the
precious Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah? How was it
possible for the Jews to get along without the directions as
to fat and caul and kidney contained in Leviticus ? With
out that sacred book in his possession a priest might take
up ashes and carry them out without changing his panta
loons. Such mistakes kindled the wrath of God.

As soon as the Pentateuch was found Josiah began kill
ing wizards and such as had familiar spirits.

Fifty-eighth. I cannot believe that God talked to Solomon,
that he visited him in the night and asked him what he
should give him ; I cannot believe that he told him, " I will
give thee riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the
kings have had before thee, neither shall there any after thee
have the like." ' If Jehovah said this he was mistaken. It
is not true that Solomon had fourteen hundred chariots of
war in a country without roads. It is not true that he
made gold and silver at Jerusalem as plenteous as stones.
There were several kings in his day, and thousands since,
that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without

'2 Kings v. 82 Kings, yi. 6. 52 Kings xx, i-n.

* 2 Kings v. 27. 42 Kings xiii, 21. «2 Kings xxii, 8.

T 2 Chron. i, 7, 12.

606 MISCfiLLAtfY.

missing the amount. The Holy Land was and is a
wretched country. There are no monuments, no ruins at
testing former wealth and greatness. The Jews had no
commerce, knew nothing of other nations, had no luxuries,
never produced a painter, a sculptor, architect, scientist, or
statesman until after the destruction of Jerusalem. As
long as Jehovah attended to their affairs they had nothing
but civil war, plague, pestilence, and famine. After he
abandoned, and the Christians ceased to persecute them,
they became the most prosperous of people. Since Jehovah,
in anger and disgust, cast them away they have produced
painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen, composers, and
philosophers.

Fifty-ninth. I cannot admit that Hiram, the King of Tyre,
wrote a letter to Solomon in which he admitted that the
" God of Israel made heaven and earth." l This King was
not a Jew. It seems incredible that Solomon had eighty
thousand men hewing timber for the temple, with seventy
thousand bearers of burdens, and thirty-six hundred over
seers.*

Sixtieth. I cannot believe that God shuts up heaven and
prevents rain, or that he sends locusts to devour a land, or
pestilence to destroy the people.3 I cannot believe that God
told Solomon that his eyes and heart should perpetually
be in the house that Solomon had built.4

Sixty-first. I cannot believe that Solomon passed all the
kings of the earth in riches ; that all the kings of the earth
sought his presence and brought presents of silver and
gold, raiment, harness, spices, and mules — a rate year by
year.6 Is it possible that Shishak, a King of Egypt, in
vaded Palestine with seventy thousand horsemen and
twelve hundred chariots of war ? * I cannot believe that in
a battle between Jeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah

1 2 Chron. ii, 12. *2 Chron. vii, 73. 82 Chron. ix, 22-24.

* 2 Chron. ii, 18. 42 Chron. vii, 16. • 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3.

REASONS FOR DOUBTING BIBLE INSPIRATION. 607

actually slew in one day five hundred thousand chosen men.1
Does anyone believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, invaded
Palestine with a million men ? 3 I cannot believe that
Jehoshaphat had a standing army of nine hundred and
sixty thousand men.* I cannot believe that God adver
tised for a liar to act as his messenger.* I cannot believe
that King Amaziah did right in the sight of the Lord, and
that he broke in pieces ten thousand men by casting them
from a precipice.5 I cannot think that God smote a king
with leprosy because he tried to burn incense.' I cannot
think that Pekah slew one hundred and twenty thousand
men in one day.7

1 2 Chron. xiii, 17. 32 Chron. xvii, 14-19. *2 Chron. xxv, 12.
8 2 Chron. xiv, 9. 42 Chron. xviij, 19-22. *2 Chron. xxvi, 19.
* 2 Chron. xxviii, 6.

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

•• ii • in i ii in • i ii i inn i

A 001 341 935 3