"One of the princ.i.p.al difficulties," he said (of the clergy), "was the prevalence of freethought among the people. There was a time when the New Testament was received by almost everybody * * * But things had changed * * * Some time ago the weapons of skilled historians were turned first against the Old and then against the New Testament * * *
Dr. Norman McLeod, writing from Germany, said, "I am informed on credible testimony that ninety-nine out of every hundred persons here are sceptics." * * * Germany was to-day more Pagan than Christian * * *
The press pa.s.sed up and down the land, scattering into every home things which set men thinking." [Ah! there is the secret; when men begin to think and reason on theological subjects as they do on secular, good-bye creeds! goodbye confessions!] "Goldwin Smith, a man who had so studied the past as to be able to interpret the present, had told us that a religious collapse of the most complete and tremendous character was apparent on every hand." It was only very recently that a sceptical work on "Supernatural Religion" pa.s.sed through a number of editions in a few months. Col. Ingersoll had recently visited the country. He came, he saw, and in some sense he conquered. (Cries of No! No!) The second night he had a much larger attendance than on the first. No matter who, ran Ingersoll down, he was a man of great power of oratory and strong in those qualities which control audiences.
The Rev. gentleman then referred deprecatingly to the inadequate-college training of theological students in "apologetics," as they were not allowed to read the works of sceptics for themselves, but had to take their tutors" version of the sceptics" arguments. This "putting up a little argument and then knocking it down," he said was neither "the fair nor the true way." He recommended putting "the very sceptical works into the hands of the students, and he would even say to go and hear Ingersoll if he came."
That "man"s idea of G.o.d rises with his progress in civilization,"
_Bystander_ admits; but he attempts to explain the fact away on theistic grounds, and dilute its strength as an argument that G.o.d is simply a projection of the human mind. He asks:--
"If this conception" (a conception of G.o.d) "flows from no reality, from what does it flow? It is a phenomenon of which, as of other phenomena, there must be some explanation; and we have not yet chanced to see in the writings of any Agnostic an explanation which seemed at all satisfactory."
I would respectfully suggest to _Bystander_ that there _is_ a satisfactory explanation, though to him it may not be so. In answering his question I will ask another. If the conception of, or belief in, a devil or devils, flows from no reality, from what does it flow? The same of witches, fairies, sprites, hob-goblins, _et hoc genus omne_. Belief in these is quite as general as belief in G.o.d, though _Bystander"s_ question seems to a.s.sume that belief in the latter is universal.
This, however, is not the case, as has been conclusively shown in the foregoing reply to Wend-ling. Therefore, this "conception" argument, like the famous "design" argument, proves too much, and consequently proves nothing. As to the _origin_ of the belief in spiritual agencies, and conceptions of G.o.d, Darwin tells us it is not difficult to comprehend how they arose. He says, "Descent of Man," vol. i, p. 63-5:--
"As soon as the important faculties of imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally have craved to understand what was pa.s.sing around him, and have vaguely speculated on his own existence * *
* The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pa.s.s into the belief of one or more G.o.ds."
_Bystander_, while freely admitting that the Theistic theory is compa.s.sed with difficulties; and requires "re-statement," reminds us that the-"materialistic hypothesis is not free from difficulty." The difficulty he discovers in materialism relates to the order of priority of matter and force. He asks:--
"Which of the two is the First Principle? Force cannot have been produced by matter, for without force, matter cannot move, change, or generate at all. Matter cannot have been produced by force, because force is nothing but the impulsion of matter. Apparently there must have been something before both, which produced them and determined their relations; and it must be something beyond the range of sense."
_Bystander_. I think, has not correctly apprehended the materialistic position here, and hence the argument for a "something before both matter and force which produced them," being built upon a postulated premiss which we cannot accept, has no weight in establishing the existence of a G.o.d behind matter and force. His error lies in the a.s.sumption of the possibility of matter and force existing separately and independently. He asks, "Which of the two is the First Principle?"
Our answer is, there can be no _first_ as between matter and force, for there can be no matter without force, and _vice versa_. The two are inseparable, even in conception, and the existence of one is absolutely essential to the existence of the other. Hence the argument proceeding from the a.s.sumption of their divisibility and possible independence fails. The Theist has no right whatever, logically speaking, to a.s.sume that there "must have been something before matter and force which produced them." So long as matter and force are amply adequate (as far as we can discern) to the production of all cognizable phenomena, we are not warranted in a.s.suming the existence of any being or thing behind them. As soon as the Theist does this, we have the logical right to carry his reasoning further, and at once a.s.sume something else behind it again, and thus not only one but a thousand G.o.ds could be postulated without the shadow of real proof of one of them.
There is an ultimate ground, however, upon which the Theist and Materialist may meet in common, and, so far as I can see, the only ultimate position they can occupy in perfect corelation. The universe exists; man as a part of the universe--a mode of existence--is here; in this we agree. Man, then, being himself the highest intelligence he knows of, continually seeks an explanation of the universe and of himself as a part of it. This is the common ground upon which we all stand--Rationalist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist--barbarous and civilized--the weakest and the mightiest intellect.
All seek to explain the great mystery of the universe--some one way, some another--from the rude thaumaturgic fancies of the primitive barbarian up to the abstruse speculations and subtle reasonings of the cultured Pantheist, intellectual Agnostic, and logical Materialist.
It is true one may be more reasonable and logical than the rest (as I undoubtedly think is the case), yet they all occupy the common ground of uncertainty. Not one can _demonstrate_ his position, and in this we are all alike. (One, however, among all the rest thinks he _knows_ he is _right_ and can prove it, viz., the dogmatic Christian Theist.) We may all, therefore, stand together in the presence of Nature and acknowledge our ignorance. Though each school has its theory, its hypothesis, its solution, yet the mystery of the mighty universe is still an unsolved problem.
REPLY TO "A RATIONALIST"
We have another reply to Ingersoll in a pamphlet of twenty pages, issued in Toronto, with the following modest t.i.tle:--"A Refutation of Col. R.
G. Ingersoll"s Lectures, by "A Rationalist."" This proemial announcement is certainly calculated to excite high expectations; but it is only necessary to look into the rational (?) "refutation" (?) to see that the names the writer has given himself and pamphlet are both misnomers. How such an irrational jumble of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, obsolete philosophy, and moribund metaphysics could by any possibility pa.s.s for rationalism, even in the eyes of its author, is one of those profound mysteries which "no fellah can understand." Is it not a little singular that all these "replies" and "refutations" from the orthodox side come from theological nondescripts--from men who are but half orthodox (the other half not being recognizable), and not one reply from a thoroughly orthodox champion? A correlative fact, not without much significance, is that, though no argument comes from the orthodox side, the denunciations all come from that source. On the other hand in proportion as the opposing champion is unorthodox, in that ratio is he tolerant, courteous, and in favor of free speech and equal rights. "A Rationalist"s" essay is pervaded by the kindliest spirit personally towards his opponent, and this, in a measure, redeems its literary and logical defects.
Though "Rationalist" zealously defends the Bible, and argues for a G.o.d, it is impossible to tell how much of the Bible he accepts, or what G.o.d he believes in. He says, "every jot and t.i.ttle of the Bible is inspired," yet in another place tells us, "The Apostle Paul is not one of the inspired writers," as "His words will not bear a spiritual interpretation." It would, therefore, seem that no part of the Bible is inspired except that which will stand this method of "spiritual interpretation." To get rid of the numerous errors, absurdities, and immoralities contained in the Bible, "Rationalist" spiritualizes them.
He has a first-cla.s.s recondite and spiritual meaning for every one of them, which seems to be entirely satisfactory--to himself. With the utmost facility everything is explained away; and armed with his occult style of Bible exegesis he can laugh at the infidel scientist. He says we must "rub off the literal meaning" in order to get at the spiritual, and by this convenient method every difficulty between the two sacred lids vanishes into thin air. This "rubbing off" business he also applies to the G.o.d of the Bible, whose characteristic _anthropomorphism_ "Rationalist," of course, rubs all off, even his _intelligence_. So that there would seem to be little more left of the Jewish Jehovah, under modern scriptural exegesis, than what Beecher describes as a "dim and shadowy influence." "Rationalist" divests Deity of intelligence to escape the effects of the following argument:--
Intelligence presupposes a greater intelligence,
G.o.d has intelligence,
Therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than G.o.d.
Seeing the logical force of this, he quibbles thus: "We do not say that G.o.d _has_ intelligence, but that G.o.d _is_ wisdom in form and love in essence, and therefore the infinite source of all intelligence." This will not do, Mr. "Rationalist!" It is entirely too vague. You must either contend for a personal or an impersonal G.o.d. Give us either Deism or Pantheism, and not an incongruous mixture, and then we will know on what ground to meet you. If you mean that G.o.d is simply the aggregate, or even the essence, of all intelligence, all love, all good, why this is a mere abstraction, and even an Atheist might accept it; but if you are contending for anything like the Christian"s G.o.d, as set forth in the Bible, you will have to alter your definitions very materially.
As a specimen ill.u.s.tration of "Rationalist"s" spiritual method of resolving Scriptural difficulties I give below his version of the story of Elisha, the children, and the bears, under the "rubbing off" process.
We, Freethinkers, he says, will not "object to the bears" when we understand what the story means, and here is his elucidation, _verbatim et literatim_:--
"Elisha represents the external or literal words of Holy Writ on which the mantle of spiritual truth still rests. Children represent affections--don"t fond mothers even yet call them "little loves?"--They also correspond to the opposite, and so evil loves which destroy obedience to the external life of goodness, taught in, at least, some of the literal words of Scripture, naturally mock at the baldness of Elisha. Baldness, since it refers to the head, and the head corresponds to that union of will and intellect in man which rules, and is, the life, and ultimates in the very extreme of its very minute external, corresponds to the most external of the will and thought of Elisha, who represents the literal meaning of Scripture. So this incident means that evil loves could see no ultimate good to _themselves_ in the doing of any good in a practical every-day way even where that was clearly enjoined, and rendered as beautiful externally as hair is, and therefore mocked at it, or rather at what seemed to them the lack of it. Then the bears, which correspond to the animal pa.s.sions of the animal man, came out of the woods--woods correspond to the natural perceptions of natural truth in man--and utterly destroyed these evil loves out of the life.
Again you see we find the same truth; that the Lord implants remains of goodness and truth in every degree of man"s life, even in the natural man, fitted to cope with and conquer his evils, if man himself will but permit it."
There"s a sample of "spiritual interpretation" for you! And what _clearness_ is there, dear reader! Just return to the fourth sentence of the above extract, commencing with "Baldness," and re-read it, and see if you can make anything out of it. What the sentence does really mean is to me as profound a mystery as the incantations of a Gypsy thaumaturgist. It would be interesting to get "Rationalist" to try his hand at spiritualizing some of the following pa.s.sages of Holy Writ:--
"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,"
&c. "And it came to pa.s.s by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him"
(Moses) "and sought to kill him." "I have seen G.o.d face to face." _Per Contra_: "No man hath seen G.o.d at any time." "I am the Lord, I change not, I will not go back, neither will I repent." _Per Contra_: "And G.o.d repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them, and he did it not." "There is no respect of persons with G.o.d." _Per Contra_: "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." "I am a jealous G.o.d, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children." _Per Contra_: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." "It is impossible for G.o.d to lie." _Per Contra_: "If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet." "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." _Per Contra_: "And after these things Jesus would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, "Go number Israel."" _Per Contra_: "And Satan provoked David to number Israel." "I bear witness of myself, yet my record is true." _Per Contra_: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." "A man is not justified by the works of the law." _Per Contra_: "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified." "There shall no evil happen to the just." _Per Contra_: "All that will live G.o.dly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." "Wisdom"s ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace." _Per Contra_: "In much wisdom is much grief and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." "It shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days." _Per Contra_: "Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power." "Thou shalt not: commit adultery." _Per Contra_: "Then said the Lord unto me, "Go get, love a woman, an adulteress.""
Here, certainly, is ample scope for exegetical ingenuity. The pa.s.sages quoted, besides scores of others, many of them too indecent for these pages, would seem to require the touch of "Rationalist"s" spiritual interpretation wand. When the literal meaning is "rubbed off," the occult, spiritual meaning will appear.
As a sample of "Rationalist"s" metaphysical philosophy I give the following:--
"Will and love are identical... Will or love is life. A man cannot think unless he wills to think; and he can only think that which he wills--only that and nothing more. He can only do what he wills and thinks. There is no action which is not the effect of will and its thought. A man wills in order to think," etc. He also tells us that G.o.d gave man a will "as _free_ as His own." Matter is spoken of as "mere dead inert matter."
Is more evidence than this needed that "Rationalist" is living in the past, and has utterly failed to grasp modern thought? His philosophy is bad, but his metaphysics is worse. Any man who at this day attempts to "refute" Materialists should at least be somewhat acquainted with the results of modern thought and scientific research; but "Rationalist" has apparently advanced no further than the occult Swedenborgian mysticism of the last century. Further, to talk to-day of "dead inert matter," is to talk the language of an obsolete philosophy of the past; for modern science and philosophy alike agree that matter is not "that mere empty _capacity_ which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb." As Pope says:--
"See thro" this air, this ocean, and this earth, All matter quick and bursting into birth."
Equally absurd is this talk about "Free Will" and "Free Moral Agency."
These metaphysico-theological dogmas have melted in the light of mental science, and are now as "dead as a door nail," of which fact "Rationalist" will be convinced if he will take the trouble to look into Hamilton, Combe, Mill, Buckle, Lewes, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall, and he will then, probably, write no more such nonsense as quoted above. It is not necessary, however, for any observant and thoughtful man to go to any authorities outside his own mind to be convinced of the fallacy of the "Free Will" dogma, for his own observation and reflection will do it. And "Rationalist" can have the same conviction without the aid of science or philosophy,--without even observation or reflection. Let him turn to his Bible, which he champions, and read it, and he will find abundant proof (such as it is) that man"s will is not free. Let him read the 8th, 9th and 11th Chapters of Romans. Let him then read Phil. 2, 13, "For it is G.o.d which worketh in you _both to will and to do_ of His good _pleasure_." Then read Isaiah, 46, 910, "I am G.o.d and there is none like me, _declaring the end from the beginnings_ and from ancient times _the things_ that are not _yet_ done, saying, my council shall stand, and I will do all my _pleasure_."
Now, I submit that if an omnipotent and omniscient G.o.d has "declared the end from the beginning," and ordered all "the things that are not yet done" (and you have his word for it here) how is it possible for mortal and finite man to do any thing contrary to the thing ordered, or accomplish any "end" but the one "declared from the beginning?" Here you, who believe in G.o.d and the Bible, have his word for it that he has declared all things "from the beginning." Man then _must_ do and think as G.o.d has declared, and can do nothing else, hence he is _not free_.
The idea that "a man cannot think unless he wills to think" is too preposterous (laying the Bible aside) for any reasonable man to accept who is not a slave to creeds and dogmas. Let "Rationalist," after reading this sentence, stop reading, and a.s.sume a quiescent state (for of course _his free will_ will enable him to do this)--a state of mental pa.s.sivity, as it were,--let him _will nothing_ for the time being,--and then see if thoughts of some kind do not spontaneously arise in his mind. And then let him _will_ to have _no thoughts_ for the s.p.a.ce of five minutes, and see if the thoughts do not steal into his brain (providing of course he has one) unbidden, and in spite of him--in spite of all his boasted freewill power. Let any reader put this impossible and absurd dictum of "Rationalist" to the test, and he will have a living demonstration in his own brain, which will render any further argument on this point entirely superfluous.
"Rationalist" worries himself into inextricable confusion over causes and effects, first causes, first causes and last effects, etc., etc.
Because Ingersoll has said "a first cause is just as impossible as a last effect," Rationalist well nigh swamps himself in a most ludicrous "muss-of-a muddle-of-a-jerry-c.u.m-tumble" of bad diction and worse logic to prove that by such reasoning as Ingersoll"s we come to "chaos" and to "nothing," (hasn"t the gentleman himself come to chaos if not to nothing?) We reason everything out of existence, he says, and just now we will have left "no nature, no G.o.d, no man, no matter" (it would be _no matter_ if some _bipids_ were gone) "no force," no "nothing"-- "literally nothing." Shades of Bacon! let us take breath; for this would certainly be a very bad state of things, from which "good Lord deliver us!" It would be nearly as bad as before the "creation," when nothing existed throughout the infinite realms of s.p.a.ce save Jehovah himself.
I will endeavor to make what materialists mean by the impossibility of a first cause or last effect clear to "Rationalist." We believe in one existence, and only one--the universe--which, though never itself having been created or brought into existence (being eternal), is the primal (or "first" if you like) cause of all phenomena Rationalist will thus see that in one sense there is no _first came_ as the universe is eternal, yet in another sense there _is_ a first cause, viz.: the universe, as it is the primal cause of all phenomena. As to a "last effect," it should be obvious to every _rational_ mind that as matter and force are indestructible, and hence eternal in duration, there can be no last effect; for as long as matter and force exist effects must of necessity ensue.
REPLY TO REV. A. J. BRAY
It is a great relief to a Freethinker to find a man among the clergy like Mr. Bray, in point of religious liberality. It is like coming upon an oasis in the waste desert of orthodox bigotry and intolerance.
Mr. Bray is the able editor of the _Canadian Spectator_, of Montreal; and also preaches, I believe, every Sunday in Zion Church in that city.
Unlike his clerical brethren generally, when Mr. Ingersoll lectured in Montreal, in April last, Mr. Bray went to hear him, and answered him from his pulpit the two following Sundays. These "Discourses" were published in the succeeding numbers of his paper, the _Spectator_. Hear him on free speech:--
"In a free country all kinds of freedom must be allowed, and Mr.
Ingersoll had just as much right to come here and say his say in his own manner, and according to his own discretion, as Mr. Hammond has to come and preach and teach in his way. If men are free to agree with us, they are also free to differ with us; to differ a little, to differ much, to differ altogether. If the Mayor had found a law by which he could prohibit Ingersoll from lecturing against our religious beliefs, I would have started an agitation at once for the repeal of that absurd and antiquated law. If hearing arguments against our faith is likely to unsettle us, then we had better be unsettled. We are badly off with all our religious literature and preaching, if we cannot endure any kind of criticism, and witticism, and argument."
These are brave words, and every fair-minded man in this Dominion will agree with Mr. Bray in his liberal and courageous utterances. They are timely words to go forth in that city where the war of sects has waxed so hot and virulent of late. Montreal needs more men like Bray in her churches, to mollify the bigotry, and stamp out the bitter feuds, and fierce antagonism of Christian against Christian.
As this pamphlet has already reached a much greater length than originally intended, I have but little s.p.a.ce to devote to Mr. Bray"s Reply to Ingersoll. One or two points, however, must be noticed.
Mr. Bray falls into the same error as "Bystander" in accusing