Doesn"t it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You see, you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell--these are the avenues by which Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought, and you cannot by any possibility help thinking.
Neither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are made independently of your will. "But," says this reverend doctor, "Whence comes this conception of s.p.a.ce?" I can tell him. There is such a thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies room--s.p.a.ce--and, in our minds, s.p.a.ce is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes naturally--not supernaturally.
Does the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of G.o.d for us to conceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something.
We can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say s.p.a.ce.
"But," says this gentleman, "Where do we get the idea of good and bad?"
I can tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to enjoy and the capacity to suffer--every man. Whenever a man enjoys himself he calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad.
The animals that are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the hurtful, he calls bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls good; those that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good ones, he calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is out that ministers to him, he says "this is good;" when the storm comes and blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his crop, he says "this is bad." And all phenomena that affect men well he calls good; all that affect him ill he calls bad.
Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect in nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That is the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man could not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and the words right and wrong never could have pa.s.sed human lips. There are no supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience--some of them from our forefathers, many from experience. A man works--food does not come of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in the sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a revelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it than the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen, we never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten Commandments been given from Mount Sinai.
You go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and let a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and the hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you would see whether he would need a direct revelation from G.o.d in order to make up his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of right and wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think for a moment he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite of us. I heard a story of a man who said, "No man can think of one thing a minute, he will think of something else." Well, there was a little Methodist preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute--that he could say the Lord"s Prayer and never think of another thing. "Well,"
said the man, "I"ll tell you what I will do. There is the best road-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you will just say the Lord"s Prayer, and not think of another thing." And the little fellow shut up his eyes: "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done--I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"
I have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some fact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of thought--that every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown, and that some are very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very rich. That is my opinion.
Again he asks: "If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any one blamed for thinking as he does?" It is not a question of blame, it is a question of who is right--a question of who is wrong. Admit that every one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought is right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.
Admit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that does not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss is just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it prove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it prove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold men responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their actions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this--the right to do anything that does not interfere with another--in other words, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this--the right to think right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to think right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.
The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I believe in that theory.
If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct interference of an infinite G.o.d, the gradual theory is right. It is a theory of evolution.
I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came from the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in science. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed, the shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the spreading and the growing; and that is as true in every other department of the world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not account for the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely inspired, and it will not do to say G.o.d gradually grows. If he is infinite now, he knows as much as he ever will. If he has been always infinite, he knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible as he knows to-day; and, consequently, whatever he said then must be as true now as it was then. You see they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with religion--a little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the supernatural.
Hear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in the world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.
All the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said all the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried it last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world upon its knees implored G.o.d to save one life, and the man died. The man died! Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it was in answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say now? What is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: "There is prayer and there is rain." Good. "Can he that is himself or any one else say there is no possible relation between one and the other?" I do. Let us put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any one say there is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr.
Thomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year"s crops? And yet this gentleman really throws out the idea that there is some possible relation between prayer and rain, between rain and health; and he tells us that he would have died twenty-five years ago had it not been for prayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon certain facts--not upon prayer. All the prayer in the world cannot take the place of the circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is no subst.i.tute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take the place of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find that he eats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This reverend Doctor says: "Shall we say that all the love of the unseen world"--how does he know there is any love in the unseen world? "and the love of G.o.d"--how does he know there is any love in G.o.d? "heed not the cries and tears of earth?"
I do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious persecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons, of those who lifted their chained hands to G.o.d and mingled prayer with the clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving this G.o.d, simply for worshiping this G.o.d. And what did G.o.d do? Nothing.
The chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in the dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did G.o.d do? Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, f.a.gots were piled around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did G.o.d do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and thousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands to G.o.d and implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and what did G.o.d do?
Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the naked back of toil. What did G.o.d do? Nothing. Children were sold from the arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden beneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did G.o.d do? Nothing. Human beings, his children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and what did G.o.d do? Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the shipwrecked go down in the billows; and what does G.o.d do? Nothing. There come plague and pestilence and famine. What does G.o.d do? Thousands and thousands perish. Little children die upon the withered b.r.e.a.s.t.s of mothers; and what does G.o.d do? Nothing.
What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever touched the heart of G.o.d? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history of the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and imprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and best. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of help ever been reached from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe it.
Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he to tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much brain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt--and a doubt is born of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church to be unorthodox. They have pa.s.sed on his case and they have found him unconst.i.tutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here is what he says: "Christianity"--orthodox Christianity I suppose he means--"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and punishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles of the government of G.o.d are the same there as here; that character, and not profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and d.i.c.kens, and all others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their just rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the time, be it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what Christianity teaches."
If it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity.
It never has taught it. Christianity--orthodox Christianity--teaches that when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity for reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the eternal line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion in this life, you will be eternally d.a.m.ned in the next. That is Christianity. They say: "Now is the accepted time." If you put it off until you die, that is too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world is that there is no opportunity for reformation in another world. The doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in the next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail here, G.o.d in his infinite wisdom will never give you another chance. That is orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox Christianity, the greatest, the best and the sublimest of the world are now in h.e.l.l. And why is it that they say it is not orthodox Christianity? I have made them ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to their attention the fact that such men as Darwin, such men as Emerson, d.i.c.kens, Longfellow, Laplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in h.e.l.l, it struck them all at once that the company in heaven would not be very interesting with such men left out.
And now they begin to say: "We think the Lord will give those men another chance." I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have made them ashamed of their doctrine--and that is glory enough. They will let me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine that G.o.d will treat us as we treat others--I admit that is taught by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that understood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he was driven out of the church because he thought G.o.d too good to d.a.m.n men forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic Church is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon that question. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory--that is, a place where a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new trial.
Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell your congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine inspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people whether, in your judgment, G.o.d ever upheld slavery.
Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether G.o.d ever upheld polygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether G.o.d was ever in favor of religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether you honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the bad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think and there will not be as much difference between you and myself as you imagine.
The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the rescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he is a Baptist. He believes that the infinite G.o.d has a choice as to the manner in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman regards modern infidelity as "pitifully shallow" as to its intellectual conceptions and as to its philosophical views of the universe and of the problems regarding man"s place in it and of his destiny. "Pitifully shallow!"
What is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception is that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern conception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms all matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has been, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe.
And this is called "pitiful."
What is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the universe is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who made it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world.
And they even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in which he signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in a garden and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of infinite wisdom made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he would have to drown them. That Being peopled a planet like this with men, women and children, knowing that he would have to consign most of them to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That is an infamous conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception of Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall and of every other man who has thought. I love to think of the whole universe together as one eternal fact. I love to think that everything is alive; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy. I love to think that when a bud bursts into blossom it feels a thrill. I love to have the universe full of feeling and full of joy, and not full of simple dead, inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all eternity.
Another thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose to banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our relations to the present and to the possible future from human thought.
I have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do not make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know anything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y or do not know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of heaven. Wait until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble then. This is what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of life from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it.
Life is a shadowy strange and winding road on which we travel for a few short steps, just a little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love, to the low and quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where the only salutation is "Good-Night!" Whether there is a good morning I do not know, but I am willing to wait.
Let us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for the future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who happen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of Humboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare their splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist creed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he tells me that, "No one has a right to say that d.i.c.kens, Longfellow, and Darwin are castaways!" Why not? They were not Christians. They did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they are castaways. But he says: "No one has the right to say that orthodoxy condemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right, and who has tried to bless the earth he is raised on." That is what I say, but that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man in the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of G.o.d, or in the divinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there an orthodox minister in this town now who will stand up and say that an honest atheist can be saved? He will not. Let any preacher say it, and he will be tried for heresy.
I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment, and they cross-examine him, and they say to him:
"Did you believe the Bible?"
"No."
"Did you belong to the church?"
"No."
"Did you take care of your wife and children?"
"Yes?"
"Pay your debts?"
"Yes."
"Love your country?"
"Yes."
"Love the whole world?"
"Yes."
"Never made anybody unhappy?"
"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged let them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but," said he, "I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the existence of G.o.d. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine."
Now, I want to know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with that man?
He is sent to h.e.l.l.
That is their doctrine.
Then the next fellow comes. He says: