--_The Times_, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, 1884.
REPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY.
_Question_. Will you take any notice of Mr. Magrath"s challenge?
_Answer_. I do not think it worth while to discuss with Mr. Magrath.
I do not say this in disparagement of his ability, as I do not know the gentleman. He may be one of the greatest of men. I think, however, that Mr. Magrath might better answer what I have already said. If he succeeds in that, then I will meet him in public discussion. Of course he is an eminent theologian or he would not think of discussing these questions with anybody. I have never heard of him, but for all that he may be the most intelligent of men.
_Question_. How have the recently expressed opinions of our local clergy impressed you?
_Answer_. I suppose you refer to the preachers who have given their opinion of me. In the first place I am obliged to them for acting as my agents. I think Mr. Hogan has been imposed upon.
Tacitus is a poor witness--about like Josephus. I say again that we have not a word about Christ written by any human being who lived in the time of Christ--not a solitary word, and Mr. Hogan ought to know it.
The Rev. Mr. Matthews is mistaken. If the Bible proves anything, it proves that the world was made in six days and that Adam and Eve were built on Sat.u.r.day. The Bible gives the age of Adam when he died, and then gives the ages of others down to the flood, and then from that time at least to the return from the captivity. If the genealogy of the Bible is true it is about six thousand years since Adam was made, and the world is only five days older than Adam. It is nonsense to say that the days were long periods of time. If that is so, away goes the idea of Sunday. The only reason for keeping Sunday given in the Bible is that G.o.d made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Mr. Mathews is not candid.
He knows that he cannot answer the arguments I have urged against the Bible. He knows that the ancient Jews were barbarians, and that the Old Testament is a barbarous book. He knows that it upholds slavery and polygamy, and he probably feels ashamed of what he is compelled to preach.
Mr. Jardine takes a very cheerful view of the subject. He expects the light to dawn on the unbelievers. He speaks as though he were the superior of all Infidels. He claims to be a student of the evidences of Christianity. There are no evidences, consequently Mr. Jardine is a student of nothing. It is amazing how dignified some people can get on a small capital.
Mr. Haley has sense enough to tell the ministers not to attempt to answer me. That is good advice. The ministers had better keep still. It is the safer way. If they try to answer what I say, the "sheep" will see how foolish the "shepherds" are. The best way is for them to say, "that has been answered."
Mr. Wells agrees with Mr. Haley. He, too, thinks that silence is the best weapon. I agree with him. Let the clergy keep still; that is the best way. It is better to say nothing than to talk absurdity. I am delighted to think that at last the ministers have concluded that they had better not answer Infidels.
Mr. Woods is fearful only for the young. He is afraid that I will hurt the children. He thinks that the mother ought to stoop over the cradle and in the ears of the babe shout, h.e.l.l! So he thinks in all probability that the same word ought to be repeated at the grave as a consolation to mourners.
I am glad that Mr. Mann thinks that I am doing neither good nor harm. This gives me great hope. If I do no harm, certainly I ought not to be eternally d.a.m.ned. It is very consoling to have an orthodox minister solemnly a.s.sert that I am doing no harm. I wish I could say as much for him.
The truth is, all these ministers have kept back their real thoughts.
They do not tell their doubts--they know that orthodoxy is doomed --they know that the old doctrine excites laughter and scorn. They know that the fires of h.e.l.l are dying out; that the Bible is ceasing to be an authority; and that the pulpit is growing feebler and feebler every day. Poor parsons!
_Question_. Would the Catholicism of General Sherman"s family affect his chances for the presidency?
_Answer_. I do not think the religion of the family should have any weight one way or the other. It would make no difference with me; although I hate Catholicism with all my heart, I do not hate Catholics. Some people might be so prejudiced that they would not vote for a man whose wife belongs to the Catholic Church; but such people are too narrow to be consulted. General Sherman says that he wants no office. In that he shows his good sense. He is a great man and a great soldier. He has won laurels enough for one brow. He has the respect and admiration of the nation, and does not need the presidency to finish his career. He wishes to enjoy the honors he has won and the rest he deserves.
_Question_. What is your opinion of Matthew Arnold?
_Answer_. He is a man of talent, well educated, a little fussy, somewhat sentimental, but he is not a genius. He is not creative.
He is a critic--not an originator. He will not compare with Emerson.
--_The Journal_, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, 1884.
SWEARING AND AFFIRMING.
_Question_. What is the difference in the parliamentary oath of this country which saves us from such a squabble as they have had in England over the Bradlaugh case?
_Answer_. Our Const.i.tution provides that a member of Congress may swear or affirm. The consequence is that we can have no such controversy as they have had in England. The framers of our Const.i.tution wished forever to divorce church and state. They knew that it made no possible difference whether a man swore or affirmed, or whether he swore and affirmed to support the Const.i.tution. All the Federal officers who went into the Rebellion had sworn or affirmed to support the Const.i.tution. All that did no good. The entire oath business is a mistake. I think it would be a thousand times better to abolish all oaths in courts of justice. The oath allows a rascal to put on the garments of solemnity, the mask of piety, while he tells a lie. In other words, the oath allows the villain to give falsehood the appearance of truth. I think it would be far better to let each witness tell his story and leave his evidence to the intelligence of the jury and judge. The trouble about an oath is that its tendency is to put all witnesses on an equality; the jury says, "Why, he swore to it." Now, if the oath were abolished, the jury would judge all testimony according to the witness, and then the evidence of one man of good reputation would outweigh the lies of thousands of n.o.bodies.
It was at one time believed that there was something miraculous in the oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew that would torture the truth out of a rascal, and at one time they believed that if a man swore falsely he might be struck by lightning or paralyzed. But so many people have sworn to lies without having their health impaired that the old superst.i.tion has very little weight with the average witness. I think it would be far better to let every man tell his story; let him be cross-examined, let the jury find out as much as they can of his character, of his standing among his neighbors--then weigh his testimony in the scale of reason. The oath is born of superst.i.tion, and everything born of superst.i.tion is bad. The oath gives the lie currency; it gives it for the moment the ring of true metal, and the ordinary average juror is imposed upon and justice in many instances defeated. Nothing can be more absurd than the swearing of a man to support the Const.i.tution.
Let him do what he likes. If he does not support the Const.i.tution, the probability is that his const.i.tuents will refuse to support him. Every man who swears to support the Const.i.tution swears to support it as he understands it, and no two understand it exactly alike. Now, if the oath brightened a man"s intellect or added to his information or increased his patriotism or gave him a little more honesty, it would be a good thing--but it doesn"t. And as a consequence it is a very useless and absurd proceeding. Nothing amuses me more in a court than to see one calf kissing the tanned skin of another.
--_The Courier_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.
REPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC.
_Question_. What have you to say in reply to the letter in to- day"s _Times_ signed R. H. S.?
_Answer_. I find that I am accused of "four flagrant wrongs," and while I am not as yet suffering from the qualms of conscience, nor do I feel called upon to confess and be forgiven, yet I have something to say in self-defence.
As to the first objection made by your correspondent, namely, that my doctrine deprives people of the hope that after this life is ended they will meet their fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers, long since pa.s.sed away, in the land beyond the grave, and there enjoy their company forever, I have this to say: If Christianity is true we are not quite certain of meeting our relatives and friends where we can enjoy their company forever. If Christianity is true most of our friends will be in h.e.l.l. The ones I love best and whose memory I cherish will certainly be among the lost. The trouble about Christianity is that it is infinitely selfish. Each man thinks that if he can save his own little, shriveled, microscopic soul, that is enough. No matter what becomes of the rest.
Christianity has no consolation for a generous man. I do not wish to go to heaven if the ones who have given me joy are to be lost.
I would much rather go with them. The only thing that makes life endurable in this world is human love, and yet, according to Christianity, that is the very thing we are not to have in the other world. We are to be so taken up with Jesus and the angels, that we shall care nothing about our brothers and sisters that have been d.a.m.ned. We shall be so carried away with the music of the harp that we shall not even hear the wail of father or mother.
Such a religion is a disgrace to human nature.
As to the second objection,--that society cannot be held together in peace and good order without h.e.l.l and a belief in eternal torment, I would ask why an infinitely wise and good G.o.d should make people of so poor and mean a character that society cannot be held together without scaring them. Is it possible that G.o.d has so made the world that the threat of eternal punishment is necessary for the preservation of society?
The writer of the letter also says that it is necessary to believe that if a man commits murder here he is destined to be punished in h.e.l.l for the offence. This is Christianity. Yet nearly every murderer goes directly from the gallows to G.o.d. Nearly every murderer takes it upon himself to lecture the a.s.sembled mult.i.tude who have gathered to see him hanged, and invite them to meet him in heaven. When the rope is about his neck he feels the wings growing. That is the trouble with the Christian doctrine. Every murderer is told he may repent and go to heaven, and have the happiness of seeing his victim in h.e.l.l. Should heaven at any time become dull, the vein of pleasure can be re-thrilled by the sight of his victim wriggling on the gridiron of G.o.d"s justice. Really, Christianity leads men to sin on credit. It sells rascality on time and tells all the devils they can have the benefit of the gospel bankrupt act.
The next point in the letter is that I do not preach for the benefit of mankind, but for the money which is the price of blood. Of course it makes no difference whether I preach for money or not.
That is to say, it makes no difference to the preached. The arguments I advance are either good or bad. If they are bad they can easily be answered by argument. If they are not they cannot be answered by personalities or by ascribing to me selfish motives.
It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of logic, of sense-- not a matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. The writer of the letter, R. H. S., may be an exceedingly good person, yet that will add no weight to his or her argument. He or she may be a very bad person, but that would not weaken the logic of the letter, if it had any logic to begin with. It is not for me to say what my motives are in what I do or say; it must be left to the judgment of mankind. I presume I am about as bad as most folks, and as good as some, but my goodness or badness has nothing to do with the question. I may have committed every crime in the world, yet that does not make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it even tend to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not scorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does not go to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale. Let me say right here that if there is another world I believe that every soul who finds the way to that sh.o.r.e will have an everlasting opportunity to do right--of reforming. My objection to Christianity is that it is infinitely cruel, infinitely selfish, and I might add infinitely absurd. I deprive no one of any hope unless you call the expectation of eternal pain a hope.
_Question_. Have you read the Rev. Father Lambert"s "Notes on Ingersoll," and if so, what have you to say of them or in reply to them?
_Answer_. I have read a few pages or paragraphs of that pamphlet, and do not feel called upon to say anything. Mr. Lambert has the same right to publish his ideas that I have, and the readers must judge. People who believe his way will probably think that he has succeeded in answering me. After all, he must leave the public to decide. I have no anxiety about the decision. Day by day the people are advancing, and in a little while the sacred superst.i.tions of to-day will be cast aside with the foolish myths and fables of the pagan world.
As a matter of fact there can be no argument in favor of the supernatural. Suppose you should ask if I had read the work of that gentleman who says that twice two are five. I should answer you that no gentleman can prove that twice two are five; and yet this is exactly as easy as to prove the existence of the supernatural.
There are no arguments in favor of the supernatural. There are theories and fears and mistakes and prejudices and guesses, but no arguments--plenty of faith, but no facts; plenty of divine revelation, but no demonstration. The supernatural, in my judgment, is a mistake. I believe in the natural.
--_The Times_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.
BLASPHEMY.*
[* "If Robert G. Ingersoll indulges in blasphemy to-night in his lecture, as he has in other places and in this city before, he will be arrested before he leaves the city." So spoke Rev. Irwin H. Torrence, General Secretary of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, yesterday afternoon to a _Press_ reporter. "We have consulted counsel; the law is with us, and Ingersoll has but to do what he has done before, to find himself in a cell. Here is the act of March 31, 1860:
""If any person shall willfully, premeditatedly and despitefully blaspheme or speak loosely and profanely of Almighty G.o.d, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth, such person, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding three months, or either, at the discretion of the court.""
Last evening Colonel Ingersoll sat in the dining room at Guy"s Hotel, just in from New York City. When told of the plans of Mr. Torrence and his friends, he laughed and said:]