isHi 
 
 ^*^ 
 
 fl^ ..a> 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 y 
 
 A 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ip. 
 
 :/ 
 
 't^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 "MM IIM 
 
 iM IIIII2.2 
 
 it^ llilio 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 ^ 
 
 VI 
 
 <% 
 
 y^ 
 
 ^/. 
 
 
 (S-J 
 
 o 
 
 / 
 
 /^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY 14580 
 
 17J6) 872-4503 
 
 iV 
 
 ^v 
 
 L 
 
 •^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 ^^\ ^^ '^^^ 
 
 .jM 
 
 "^ ..^■^^ 
 
 ^^ ^,, 
 

 
 w. 
 
 *% 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiq 
 
 ues 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intSrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6te film6es. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessuus. 
 
 D 
 
 vT 
 
 D 
 
 7 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages detach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite ini^gale de i'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend d^ materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 7 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced ticanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film^ fut reproduit grdce d la 
 gdn^rosit^ de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of tha original copy and in keepmg with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suiv.intes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning 'END '), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
Hon. in. "E-. Gladsl-oi^c. 
 
 c 
 
/ 
 
 THE 
 
 Gladstone 
 
 Ingersoll 
 Controversy. 
 
 
 OXXi 
 
 TORONTO: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE SEOUL Ai; PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 1888. 
 
I 
 
 
(2ol. 2i7gcP2oll on Chrisl'ian^^S 
 
 By the Ut. Hon. W. E. CIi-aikstone, M. P. 
 
 Sonne Remarks on his repbj to Dr. F'uid. 
 
 As a listener t'rum across the broail Athuitic to tlie clash of arms 
 in the combat between Colonel In;;ersoll and Dr. FicM on tlu' most 
 momentous of all subjects, I have nut the jMi-suiuil know K-tlnrt; which 
 assisted these dou<^dity champiMns in niiikiiiL,^ )-eci}>i-i)c-al acknow- 
 ledgments, as broad as couM Im- desii(Ml, with i"et"t ri iice to pt;rs(jnal 
 character and motivt.'. Such acknuwledi^ments an- of hinh value in 
 keeping the issue clear, it not always of all adventitious, yet of all 
 venomous matter. Destitute of tlie experience on which to found 
 them as original testimonies, still, in attempting j)artiii!ly to criticise 
 the remarkable Ht'ply of Colonel Ingrrsoll, 1 eui b(»tli .icecpt in good 
 faith what has iteen said l»y Dr. Field, and ;i,dd vhat it seems to me 
 consonant with the strain of tlu' pages I hnv.- set bef(jre me. Having 
 said this, I shall allow myself the utmost fi-eedom in remarks, which 
 will be addressed exclusively to the matter, not the niiui. 
 
 Let me begin by makin<j several aeknowle(lgnients of another 
 kind, but which 1 feel to be serious. Tlu' Chi-istian Church has 
 lived long enough in external tiiumph ami pros[)erity to expose 
 those of whom it is composed to all such pei-ils of error and mis- 
 feasance, as triumph and prosperity brinu' with them. Belief in 
 divine (guidance is not of necessitv belief that surh iniidance can 
 never bt^ frustrated by the laxity, the intirmity, the peversity of 
 man, alike' in the domani of action ami in the domain of thou<Tht 
 Believers in the perpetuity of the life of the Church are not tied to 
 believdng in the perpetual health of the Church. Even the great 
 Latin Communion, and that Communion even since the Council of 
 the Vatican in l.STO, theoretically a<lniits, or does not exclude, the 
 possibility of a wide range of local and partial eri'or in opinion as 
 well as condu'ct. Elsewhere the admission would bo more un- 
 equivocal. Of such eri-ors in tenet, or in temper and feeling more 
 or less hardened into tenet, there has been a crop ahke abundant 
 and multifarious. Eiich Christian party is sufficiently apt to 
 recognize this fact with regard to every otlier Christian party; 
 
CUL. I.NMiEKSoLL OX CIIUISIIAMTV 
 
 nn<l tlio inoi-f iiiiiiartiiil juhI n'f!ccti\«' minds arc fiwarc tlmt no- 
 [(fii'ly i> iXriiipt IVoiii iiiiNC'liii I's, wliith lie nt the root ot" the Imiiuin 
 C'on>titiiti(jn in its Wiirpccl, ini[>aiiv(i, Jin<l d is I (ten ted condition. 
 Natui'aily ononLih. tliose dttoiiiiitics lielp to indispose men towards 
 beliif; and wli»n tliis indisposition lias been developed into a system 
 of ni'U'ntive WMrt'are, all the faults of all the Christian bodies, and 
 sub-di\isions of ImwHcs, are, as it was natural to ex])eet they would 
 be, earct'ully raked together, and heeonie })art and parcel of the 
 indictment a^^ainst the divine scheme of redemption. I notice these 
 thinu- in tlir mass, without i)articularitv, which miy'lit be invidious, 
 for tww iiiipurtMiit purijo.ses. First, that we all, who hold by tho 
 Go.Npel and th(; Christian Chui'ch, may learn humility and modesty, 
 as well as charity and iniluli;('nce, in tlie ti'«'atment of o]»ponents. 
 from our consciousness that wi; all, alike by oui' exa<jjgvrations and 
 our .shortcomings in I'elief, no less than by faults of conduct, ha\'e 
 conti'ilaiteil to ln-ine- aliout this condition of fashionahle hostility to 
 religious faith: ami, .secondly, that we may res(^lutely decliiie to be 
 heh.l bound to tenets, or t<j consenuences of tenets, which represent 
 not the great Christt-ndom of tlu; ])ast and present, but only some 
 hole and corner of its vast organization; and not the heavenly 
 trea><ure, but the rust ta* the caidcer to which that treasure has been 
 exposed through the incidents of its cuftody in earthen vessels. 
 
 1 do not remember ever to have read a composition, in which 
 the merely local coloring of particidar, and even very limited 
 secti(;ns of Christianity, was UH>re .systematically used as if it had 
 been available and legitimate argument against the whole, than in 
 the Reply before us. C\)lonel Inger.soll writes with a rare and 
 enviable Virillancy, but also with an imjx'tus which he seems unable 
 to courrol. Denunciation, .sarcasm, and invective, may in ciaise- 
 quenee Ik- .said to constitute the stapli> of his work; and, if argu- 
 ment or >ome favorable admission here ami there peeps out for a 
 monient. the wi-iter .soon leaves the dry and barren heights for his 
 favorite amlniore luxurious galloping grounds beneath. Thus, 
 when th.- Reply has consecrated a line (N. A. R., No. 372, p. 47.*^) to 
 the plen-^ing contemplation of his oppoiuMit as " maidy, candicb and 
 geneious.' it inune<liately devotes more than twelve to a declamatory 
 demniciatii^n of a practice (as if it wei-e his) altogether contraiy to 
 generosity and to cauilor, and reproaches those who expect {Ibid.) 
 "to receive as alms an eternity of joy." I take this as a specimen 
 of the mode of statement which permeates the whole Reply. It is 
 not the statement of an untruth. Tlie Christian receives as alms 
 all whatsoever he receives at all. Qui sdlvaudos salvas grdtis is 
 his song of thankful praise. But it is the statement of one-half of 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
COL. I.NCKKSOI.L ()\ 'IIKlSTlANirV 
 
 a tnitli, wliicli lives onlv in its ciitirctv ainl n\' whicli tli* Kciih' 
 
 (fives US (>wl\- ji 1ii;mi"'1i'i1 ainl 1 ilt'ctlilic I'rusf ii iii . For tile l:i>s]m'1 
 teuclics tliat the faith wliich saxes is a li\ iiii,^ anil eiierun/iiiiT taith. 
 ami that the nictst jii'eci<Mis jtai't of the alms whieh Wf leceive lies 
 in an ethical anil sjiiiitual ]t!(iees.s, whieh partly qualities \'n\ hut 
 al-'O anil emphatically c()ni]M)ses, this cont'eJTcil et^-rnity ni' j<>y. 
 Kes'((i-e tliis ethical element to the iii)cti-ine t*n»ni which the h'ej.ly 
 has ruilely (lispha'ed it, ami tlu,- whole force of tlie assault is gone, 
 for there is now fi total ahsenci- of point in the accusation ; it comes 
 only to this, that "mercy anil juil^^nient are met to^t-ther,' ami that 
 '• I'inhteousness ami ])eace ha\-e Uisseij cacli other " (l*s. Ixxw. 10). 
 
 I'erhajts, as we juocreil, there will he sup]»lieil ampler mean> of 
 juili^ini;' whethei" I am waii'anteil in saving' that the in-.t.'.nce 1 ha\e 
 here n-ix-cii is a normal in-^taner of a [tractice .so larL,n'ly ('i)lli.we(l a> 
 to liixest the eiitii'e Ih'idy of that calmuess aii'l .soli|-ii't\' of move- 
 nient which are essential to the just exercisi' of the reasoning' power 
 in .-^ultject matti'r not only grave, l.nt solemn. Pascal has sujiplied 
 us, in the " i'l'tixincial Lettei's." with an iiiiii(Ui' e\am[)le of ea.sy, 
 lirilliant, and fascinating treatm.iit "fa theme hoth profound and 
 complex. Hut where shall we lind another Pascal ( An«l, if we 
 had found him. he would he entitled to j>oint out to lis that the 
 famous wo)-k was not less close and logical tiian it was witt\'. In 
 this rii->e, all attem[»t at continuous ;;rguiiient appears to In; deliber- 
 ately ahjured. not only as to ])ages, hut, as may almost l»e .said, even 
 as to lines. The pa]>er, noteworth\' as it is, leaves on m\' mind the 
 imju't'ssion of a l)attle-iTeld \''here every man sti'ikt'.> at fVcvy man, 
 and all is noise, hurry, and confusion. Hettei', sui'cly had it ]»een. 
 and woi'thier of the great weight and el-'vation of the suhji-ct, if 
 tlie controxei-.sy jiaii heen waged after the pattei*n of those engage- 
 ments where a chosen champion on eitlu-r sidi;, in a sjiace carefully 
 limited and resei'\-ed, does hattle on hehalf (»f each silent and 
 expectant host. The pi'onn'scuous crowds reju'esent all the lower 
 elements whicli entei" into human ci>ntlicts : the chosen champion.s, 
 and the order of their })roceeiling, signify the dominion of rea.son 
 over force, and its just place as the .sovereign arhiter of the great 
 rpiestions that involve the main destiny of man. 
 
 I will give another instance of the tumultuous method in which 
 the Reply conducts, not, indeed, its argument, hut its case. ])r. 
 Field had exhihited an exam])le of what he thought superstition, 
 and had drawn a distinction l»etween superstition and religion. 
 P)Ut to the author of the Keply all religion i.s bupei-stitiou, and, 
 •iccordingly, he writes as foUow.s (p. 475): 
 
OuL. INCiKKSOLL ON CHUISTIAMIY 
 
 " Yuli are sli(»ck»'^l at the Hindoo mother, when slie <rivos her 
 chilli ti> ■It'iith at the supposed coinmaiid of her God. What d<» y«»u 
 think uf Ahraham ? of Jephthah ? What is your opinion of JchoN ah 
 himself ? " 
 
 Taking thfse three Jippoals in th(> reverse order to that in whi«*h 
 they are written, 1 will hrieliy ask, a,s to the closint^' ehalleiige, 
 " Whnt do you think of Jehovah himself?" whether this is the tone 
 in which controversy on<j^ht to he carried on? Not only is the 
 name of .J«'hovah encircled in the heart of every believer with the 
 pr'ifonndest re\-ereMCe and lo\'e. hut the Christian religion teaches, 
 throu^ji the Incarnation, a <loctrine of })ers(.)nal union with (io<l so 
 ]t)fty that it can only be approached in a deep, reverential calm. I 
 do ni>t d«-ny that a per.-^on who deems a f,dven religion to be wicked 
 may I>f led onwai'd by loeical (•on>istfncy to impugn in strong 
 terms thf characti-r of the Author and ()bi(ct C)f that religion, liut 
 he is sur»'ly ixunid by the laws of social morality and decency to 
 C(»nsid«r wtll the term.s and the maiuur of his indictment. If lie 
 founds it upon allegations of fact, these allegations should be care- 
 fullv -tated, so {IS to give his antaiionists reasonable evidence that 
 it is tj'uth and not temper which wrings from him a sentence 
 of ctiudeuniation, delivered in sobi-icty and sadm-ss. and not without 
 a duf commiseration b>r those, whom lie is attempting to undecei\-e, 
 who t!iink he is himself hoth <lecei\t'(| an<l a deceiver, but who 
 surely are entitled, while this (|Uesti<>n is in process of decision, to 
 r-eijuire that He whom they adore should at least be treated witli 
 th<»sf de<*ent n-srrves which are deemed essential when a human 
 being, say a parent, wife, or sister, is in (piestion. But here a 
 contemptuous reference to Jehovah follows, not upon a careful 
 invt'Stigation of the cases of Ahraham and of J.phthah, V>ut upon a 
 int'ie sunmiarv citation of them to surrender themselves, so to 
 speak, as cul|»rits; that is to say, a summons to accept at once, on 
 the authority ()f the Reply, the vivw which the writer is pleased to 
 take of those eases. It is true that he assuivs us in another part 
 of hi- paper that he has read the Scriptures with care ; an<l I feel 
 lioiuid to accept this assurance, hut at the same time to add that 
 if it had not been given I should, for one. not have made the 
 discovery, but might have supposc^d that tlu' author had galloped, 
 n. .t through, but about, the .sacred volume, as a man glances over 
 the pages of an ordinary newspaper or novel. 
 
 Alth'Uigh there is no argunu'nt as to Abraham or Jephthah 
 expressed upon tlie surface, we nuist assume that one is intended, 
 and it seems to be of the following kind : " You are not entitled to 
 
 
COL. INOEUSOLL ON ClliUsTIAMTY. 7 
 
 R'provo tlio Ifiiuloo mother who cast Ikt chilil nndrr the \vlir<|s of 
 thu car of Jii;4grnifiut, For you npprovf of the ('<iii(hjct of .hjilitliah, 
 who (proliulily) sjici-itic<'<l his (Innf^'litcr in fullilmtiit of ii sow 
 (.hi'lgcs xi. 31) tliat lie would make a Itunil oH'ciin^- of wliMtsotvcr, 
 on his safe return, he should miM-t coming* forth from the <lo(»rs of 
 his dwelling." Now the wliole force of this rejoinder drpcnds u\H)n 
 C)ur supposed (tlilipition as }»elievers to approve the eonduct of 
 J»'|)]ithah. It is, thi'i-tfur<', a \'*ry serious (|Ui-tion wh.tlu'r we are. 
 or are not so oliliL,^e(l. Jhit this cpU'stion thi' Reply <loes not con- 
 de.scend eitlur to ar^ue, or even to .state It jumps to an extreme 
 conclusion without tht- decency of an intermediate step. Are not 
 such methods of proceeding.,' more suited to placards at an election, 
 than to disquisitions on these most soK-mn .subjects y 
 
 I atn aware (»f no rfa.s(jn why any hrlifver in Christianity sho\ild. 
 not be free to canvass, re^avt, condemn the act of Jtphthah. So 
 far as the narration which details it is concerned, there is not a 
 word of sanction <nven to it more than to the falsehood of Aliraham 
 in Eixy|)t, or of Jacob and Rebecca in the matter of the hunting 
 (Gen. XX. 1-lS, and (u-n. xxiii.); or to th'- di.ssembling of Saint 
 I'eter in the case of the Judaizing converts {Gul. ii. 11). I am aware 
 of no color of approval given to it elsewhere. But possibly the 
 author of the Reply may have thought he found such an approval 
 in the famous eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 where the apostle, han<lllng his subject with a <liscernment and care 
 very ditlbrent from those uf the Reply, writes thus (Heb. xi. 32): 
 
 "A.nd what shall I say more? For the time would fail me to 
 tell c<f Gideon and of Barak and of Saiiison, and of Jephthali: of 
 David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets." 
 
 Jephthah, then, is distinctly held up to us l>y a amonical writer 
 as an object of praise. lUit of praise on what account ? Why 
 should the Re[)ly assume that it is on accranit of the sacrifice of his 
 child ? Tlie writer of the Reply has given us no reason, and no rag 
 of a reason, in support of such a propcisition. But this was thi' 
 very thing he was bound by every consideration to prove, upon 
 making his indictment again.st the Almighty. In my opinion, he 
 could have one reason only for not giving a reason, and that was 
 that no reason could be found. 
 
 The matter, however, is so full of interest, as illustrating both 
 the method of the Reply and that of the Apostolic writer, that I 
 shall enter farther into it, and draw attention to the very remark- 
 able structure of this noble chapter, which is to Faith what the 
 thirteenth of Cor. I. is to Charity. From the first to the thirty- 
 
 \ 
 
H 
 
 • •(i|. IMiKUsiH.I. <»N I Ill;|-.'llA\n'V 
 
 first Verse, It eiiiimieiiiorjifes the Hcliieveliiellts of lilitll iu tctl 
 liersnilS Aliel, I'Jlncll, .NoJlll, AI'TJllmill, Sai'ull, IsjUlC. .Inciili -InSejlh, 
 
 \|(»ses(iii '^Teiiter <|etiiil than any <>iie rlsi-). an«l finally Walialt, in 
 wilt an, I olist'i'vc ill passinLT. it will liartjly lie jirfti'n<l('<I that she 
 u|»[M'ars ill this list «iii accuniit of the iti'i't'ession she ha«| pursue. 1 
 'IIkii ('•aiies the i'aj)i<l recital (v. .'i I ), without any sjiecitication ..f 
 |)arti('ul.iis whatever, of these fiair names: (iideon, Uarak, Saiiistai, 
 •lej)lifliah, Ni'Xt follows a kiinl of I'ef'oiiinn'ncciuont, imlicatetl hy 
 the woni iilsn; nii'l the ^lorious acts aii<l siiireriiiLTS of the )a'o|iht't.s 
 are set forth lai'mly. with a siiiLTular jiovverand waiinth, hcatled liy 
 the names of |)a\iil ainl Samuel, the rest of the .-^acred hand heiiiir 
 iiieiitioiied only in the mass. 
 
 Now. it is siu'ely very remai'kalile that, in the whole of this 
 recital, till' A|»oHtle. who>»> •feet were shod with the j)re|iaration of 
 the eo>j,,.l of |ieace. Seems with a tender instinct to a\oi(| anythini; 
 like stress on the exploits (»f warriois. ( )f the twelve perstais 
 havin.i' a share in tlie detailed e\|tositi()ns. I)a\ iil is the only warrior, 
 and his eliaia<-ter as a iiiaii of war is eclipsed hy his eriater attri- 
 hutcs as a prophet, or declarer of the l)ivine c(anisels. Jt is yet 
 more noteworthy tliat .loshua, who lia<l so fair a fame, lait who was 
 only a warrior, is ne\er namiMl in the chaptei'. and wii are simply 
 told that "Ity faith the walls of .lei-icho fell down, after th'\\' had 
 lieeii ctiiiijiassed aliout se\en tiiiies' (Helacws \i. .SO). lint the 
 series ol tour names, winch are i;iven without any speciticatioii of 
 their title to a])pe;\r in the list, are all names of distineuislied 
 n'arrior.s. They had all done i^'reat acts of faith and jiatriotisiu 
 ae-ainst the eiiemit's of Israel, -( Jideoii ae'ainst the Midianites, and 
 iJarak a^•ainst the hosts of Syria. Samsiai ae-ainst the Philistines, 
 and Jephthah against the children it Ammon. Their title to ap])ear 
 in the list at all is in their acts of war, and the naMle of their treat- 
 ment as men of war is m strikini.;' accor<lance with the analoi;ies of 
 the chapter. All of them had c<aiiiiiitted ei-rors. (iideon had aeaiu 
 and ai^aiii ilemanded a sieii, and had made a e'oldeii ephod, " which 
 thiui^ Kecaiue a snare unto (lidt'tai and to his house " (Judecs viii. 
 27 1, liarak had refuse«l to i^o U]) apiinst .lahin unless Dehorah 
 Would join the \ eiiture (fhid^n's v. (S). Samson had heeii in dalliance 
 with J)elilaJi. Last came Jejihthah, who had. as wi' assmne, sacri- 
 Hci'<l his daughter in fulliliiieiit of a rash \-ow. No one sujiposes 
 that any of the others are hoiioi-ed iiy mention in the chapiter on 
 account of his sin or error : why should that supposition he nia<le 
 in the case of Jephtliah, at the cost of all tlie rules of orderly 
 iiiter[)retation i 
 
CKL. IN<.i;il.S(j|,|, (»N I lilll>.riAMTV 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 Hiivinj^ now answcn-d tin- cliullfni^c us to .Ifphtliali, I procvoil to 
 tlif ciisi; ()t' AltniluMii. Jt woulil in»t Im- fjiir to siiriiilv t'roiu touching 
 it in its tt'ndci't'st |>'.iiit. That point is nowhi-ic t\j)i'fssly tcuchfu 
 )iy the connMt'ndations hcsttiwrd upon Ahniiiani in Scripture. I 
 speak now of the special I'orni, of the \vor<ls that are en'ployed. Ih- 
 is not c'onniien«Ie(i hecause, heini^Mi father, he made all thf |)rep!ir- 
 ations antecedent to plunijinLj the knife into his son. He is com- 
 nimded (as I read the text) hei'jiusr, having' I'cceived a i^oi'ions 
 jironiise. a pivanise thjit his wife should i»e a iiiothei' of nations, and 
 that kin;^^s shunM he horn of her (( ieii. .xvii.ll), and that hy iiis senl 
 tile Itlessiui^s of redt'iiiption sjionld he e«)nveved to niaii. and tin- 
 fullilint'iit of this promise depmdini; .solely U} ^ the life of I.saac, 
 he was, nevertheless, wiilinj.; that the chain of th'se promises shonid 
 he l»rok«'n hy tlie cxtifiction of that life, h^ ause his fjiiMi assured 
 him that the Almi<;hty would lind the .,ay to (ri\i; etl'ect to His 
 own desi,,r*s (Hell. xi. 17-19). The oflerin*.; of i saac is mentioned 
 as ;i completed ofl'eriii;;, and the intended M d -.he«ldiii^', ot" which 
 I sli.dl s[)eak presently, is not here hi'ou^^dit into view. 
 
 'i'he facts, however, which we have hefoi-e us, and ■•liich an; 
 treateil in Scriptuiv with caution, are <xrave and startiin<^. A fatlu r 
 is commamled to sacrifice his son. J->efoi-e con<unniiation, the 
 sacrifice is interru]>ted. Yet the intiMition of ohedience had heen 
 fornted ami certified hy a series of acts. Tt may ha\e heen 
 (jualified l>y a reser\-e of hope that (Jod would interpose before the 
 final act. hut of this wi' Iuinc no distinct statement, and it can only 
 >tan<l as an allowahle conjecture. It may he concede<l that the 
 nai'i'ative does n(»t su]t]>ly us with a com))lete stateUi -nt of particu- 
 lars. That heini;' .so, it hehoves us to ti'ead cautiously in appi-oachin^ 
 it. Thus nnich, lunvever, I think, may furthei- he .said : the com- 
 mand was adilre.s.seii f^) Ahraham und<'r conchfions <!ssentially 
 different from those which now determine for us the limits of moral 
 ohliyratit^n. 
 
 For the conditions, hoth socially and otherwise, were indeed ycry 
 diflerent. 'I'he estimate of human life at the time Wiis difiereut. 
 The position of the father in the family was diflerent; its menil>ei-s 
 were regarde<l as in some .sense his property. There is t^-ery reason 
 to suppose that, around Al)raliam in "the land of Moriah," the 
 l)ractice of human .sac-'fice as an act of reli<,non was in vigor. But 
 wi' may look more deeply into the matti'r. Accoi'<ling to the Book 
 of Gent.'sis, Adam and E\e were placed un<lei- a law, not of consci- 
 ously perceived right and wrong, but of simple obedience. The 
 tree, of which alone they were forbidden to eat, was the tree of the 
 
10 
 
 (•(•!>. I\(;KHS(>LL on CHKISJ-IAXITV. 
 
 knowlt'dirc of good and evil. Duty lay for tlu-in in following the 
 cv)nunanil of the Most Hii,di. Itefoiv and until tlu-y.or their descend- 
 ants, should iK'Come capaMe of appreciating it by an ethical 
 staudar<l. Their condition was greatly anal(jg<jus t-u tliat (»f the 
 infant, who h^is just reaehe(l the stage at which he- can ccjniprehend 
 that he is onlercd to do this or that, hut not the natun- of the 
 thintr so ordered. To the external standard of right and wronu*. 
 and to the oMigati(ai it entails jxt .-^c, the child i.s introduced hy a 
 pr(»ce,ss grailually unfolded with the developnieiit (»f his natui'e, and 
 tlu' opening out of what we term a moral sense. If we pass at once 
 from the epoch of Paradise to the period of the prophets, we per- 
 ceive tlie important progiess that has lieen made in the education 
 <>f the race. The Almighty, in His mediate intercourse with Israel, 
 deigns to appeal to an indepemlently conceived criterion, {is to an 
 arbiter hetween Mis jieople and Himself, "Come, now, and let us 
 reason together, .saith the Lord' (Isaiah i. IS). "Yet ^^e st.'.y the 
 way of the Lord is not e(pial. Hear now, O house of Isi-ael, is not 
 my way e(|ual. are not your ways unequal?" (Ezekiel .Kvii. 25). 
 Between these two epochs how wide a space of moral teaching has 
 been t]'a\tised ! But Ahraham, so far as w^e may judge from the 
 pages of Scripture, belongs I'ssentially to the Adamic pt.'riod. far 
 more than to the prophetic. The notiiai of righteousness and sin 
 was not indeed hidden from, hiui : transgression itself had opened 
 that cha])ter. and it was ne\"er to be closed; but as yet they lay 
 wrapped up, so to speak, in Divine command and prolubition. And 
 what (lod connnande<l. it was for Al)raha,m to Ixdieve that He himself 
 Would adjust to the hannf.)nv of His own charactt;r. 
 
 The faith of Ai>rahani. with respect to this supreme trial, ap- 
 pears to have been centred in this, that he would trust God to all 
 extremities, and in despite of all appearances. The connuand re- 
 ceived was obviously inconsistent with thepronnses which had pre- 
 ceded it. It was also inconsistent with the moralitv iicknowlede-ed 
 in later times, and perhaps too definitely reflected in our minds, by 
 an anachronism easy to conceive, on the da}^ of Abraham. There 
 can be little doubt, as between these two points of view^ that the 
 strain upon his faith was felt mainly, to say the least, in connection 
 with the first mentioned. This faith is not wholly unlike the faith 
 of Job; for Job believed, in des]tiie of what was to the eye of flesh, 
 an unrighteous government of the world. If we mav still trust the 
 Authorized Version, his cry was, "though he .slay me, yet will I 
 trust iu him " (Job xiii. 15). This cry was, how^ever, the expres.sion 
 of one who did not expect to be slain : and it may be that Abraliam, 
 when he said, " My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 k 
 
COL IXCJERSOLL ON CHHISTIANITV. 
 
 11 
 
 il, ap- 
 t(» all 
 
 <\ IV- 
 l [11 V- 
 
 ;, I.y 
 here 
 It the 
 t ctiori 
 faith 
 tlesh 
 1st the 
 will I 
 vssiuu 
 •ahum, 
 tor a 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 liTinit oflerini;', " not only believed ex])licitly that God would do 
 what was I'i^'ht, but, nit in'over, believed implicitly that a way of 
 rescue would be found for his son. I do not say that this case is 
 like the case of Jephtha.h, where the intrudiiction of diHicnlty is 
 only i,n-atuitous. 1 confine myself to these proi)ositions. Thonu,h 
 the law of moral action is the same everywhere and always, it is 
 variously applicable to the human being, as we knt.nv froiu experi- 
 ence, in the various stages of his development; and its iirst form is 
 that of simple obedience to a supri'ior whom there is every ground 
 to trust. And further, if the few straunling ravs of our knowledire 
 in a case of this kin<l rather exhibit a dnikness lying ar«>und us 
 than dispel it, we do not even know all that was in the mind of 
 Abraham, and arc not in a condition to pronounce upon it, and 
 cannot, without departure from sound reason, abandon that anchor- 
 age by which he probaltly held, that the law of Nature wa-; safe in 
 the hands of the Author of Nature though the means of the recon- 
 ciliation between the law and the appearances have not Ijeen fully 
 placed within our reach. 
 
 But the Reply is not entitled to so wide an answer as that which 
 I have given. In the parabel with the casc> of the Hindoo widow, 
 it sins against first principles. An established and habitual practice; 
 of child-slauc'hter, in a country of an old and Itarncd civili/ation. 
 presents to us a case totally ditierent from the issue of a command 
 which was not designiMJ to beol)eyed, an<l which belongs to a period 
 when tl'<.> years of manhood were associated in great part with the 
 character that appertains to childhood. 
 
 It will already have been seen that the method of this Reply is 
 not to argue seriously froui point to point but to set out in masses, 
 without tlie labor of proof, crowds of imputations, which may over- 
 whelm an opp(.)nent like balls from a iiiUrailltiisr. As the chaiges 
 lightly run over in a line or two require pages for exhibition and 
 confutation, an exhaustive answer to the Reply within the just 
 limits of an article is on this account out of the question : and the 
 only proper course left open seems to be to make a selection .»f 
 what appears to be tlu' favorite, or the most formidal)le and telling, 
 assertions, and to deal with these in the serious way which the 
 grave interests of the theme, not the manner of their presentati<.>r», 
 may deserve. 
 
 It was an observation of Aristotle that weight attaches t(» the 
 undemonstrated propositions of those who ai-e able to speak in any 
 given subject matter from experience. The Reply abounds in 
 undemonstrated propositions. They appear, however, to be delivered 
 
I 
 
 12 
 
 COL. IN'CiEHSOLL OX CHRISTIAN II' V. 
 
 without any senso of a necessity tliat eitiier experience or reasoning 
 ai'e rcMjuired in order to crive tluMii a title to acceptance. Tims, for 
 ('xani|)l<\ the system of .Mi\ Darwin is hui'lcd ;iL;ainst Christianity 
 as a (lai't whieh cannot hut lie fatal (p. 475): 
 
 " His (liseoveries. earricil to thcii' legitimate conelnsion. destroy 
 tlie creeds and sacri'<l sci'iptnres of niankiml." 
 
 This wide-sw"epinn' pi'oposition is iiii))osc(l n])on us with no 
 ! :;])osition of the how or the whv ; ami the whole eontrovei'sv of 
 helief one mii^iit suppose is to 'h' determined, as if IVom St. Peters- 
 hurg, hy a sei-ies of id'ascs. It is only adxanced. indee(l, to deeorate 
 the introduction of I)arwin's name in su[)port of the pro|)osition. 
 u'hicli 1 certaiidy should su|)port and not contest, that error and 
 hone.sty are conipatil'le. 
 
 On wliat iri'"und, then, and i'oi- what rea.son, is the system of 
 hai'win fatal to scriptm'es and to creeijs ? 1 do not enter into the 
 (jUotion whether it has ])asse(l from the .stage of woi'king hypoth- 
 esis into that of demon.^tration, hut I assinne, for the pui'po.ses of 
 the argument, all that, in tins respect, the Rejdy can de.sire. 
 
 It is not ])ossihle to disco>ei\ from tin; random language of the 
 Keply. "whether the st-heme of J)arwin is to .sweep away all thei.-.m, 
 or is to l)e content with extinguishing i'( N'eaKyl ivligion. If the 
 latter is meant, 1 should reply that the moi'al historx' of man, in its 
 [irineip-iJ stream, ha^ heen <listinctly an ;••»• ilntifn +':-"m tlie fii-.'^t 
 until now: and that the succinct though grand account of the 
 Ci'eation in (Jem^sis is singularly accordant with the same idea, hut 
 is wi<ler than J)arwinism, snice it includes in the grand progressiiju 
 the inanimate world as ^^•ell as the histoi'v of or<ranisms. But, as 
 this could not !>(■ shown without nuieh detail, the Keply reduces irie 
 to the necessity (jf following its own unsatisfactory example in the 
 hald f ' .rm of an a^sertlot;, that then,' is n(j coloi'ahje gi'-'Uiid for 
 a.^^suminn' evohitiou and revelation to he at variance with one 
 another. 
 
 If, howtnt'i', the meaning l»e that theism is swe])t away hy Dar- 
 winism. I oh.serve that, as hefore, we have oidv an uni'easoned 
 rlogma or dictum to deal with, and, dealing pel-force with the 
 iinknown. we are in dang<'r of stiiking at a will of the wis]i. Still, 
 I venture on renuirking that tluMloctrine of Evolution has ac(|uired 
 hoth })raise an<l dis[)raise which it <loes not deserve. It is lauded 
 in the skeptical camp hecause it is supposed to get rid of tlu; shock- 
 ing itlea of what are termeil sudden acts of creation ; and it is as 
 unjustly dispraised, on the ojtposing side, hecause it is thought to 
 bridge over the ga}) between man and the inferior animals, and to 
 
 • 
 
COL. IXGEllSOLL ON CHRISTIANI'IV 
 
 la 
 
 ■asouing 
 lius, for 
 stiiinity 
 
 • Icstroy 
 
 with no 
 
 vt'isy of 
 
 Pctcrs- 
 
 !»'(■( )rnt»' 
 
 losition. 
 rur ami 
 
 st('in of 
 
 into the 
 
 lypoth- 
 
 ••■ses of 
 
 of tllf 
 
 theism, 
 If the 
 m, in its 
 hh-> first 
 j of tlie 
 ilea, hut 
 gressicjii 
 
 But, as 
 nces me 
 (' ill the 
 nii'l i'ov 
 itli one 
 
 hy ]^ar- 
 •fasoned 
 rith tlie 
 ). Still, 
 leijuired 
 < landed 
 ! shock- 
 it is as 
 ught to 
 i, and to 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 give emphasis to the relationship between them. But hmg hefore 
 the day either of Mr. Darwin or his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus 
 Darwin, this relationship had been state* I, perhaps even more 
 emphatically by one whom, were it not that I have small title to 
 deal in undemonstrated a.ssertion, 1 sliould venture to call the most 
 cautious, the most robust, and the most com])rrhensive of ou.' 
 philosophers. Siippo.se, says Bishop Butler (Analogy, I'art 2, Chap. 
 2), that it was implied in tlu- natural immoi'tality of brutes, that 
 they nuist arrive at great attainments, and become (like us) rational 
 and moivil agents : even tliis would be no difficulty, since we know 
 not what latent powers and capacities they may he endowed with. 
 And if pride causes us to deem it an indignity that our rac(> should 
 have proceeded by propagation from an ascending scale of inferior 
 organisms, why should it be a more repulsive idea to have sprung 
 immediately from soTju'thini!' h-ss than man in brain and bod v, than 
 to have been fashioned acco)'ding to the expression in Genesis 
 (Cliap. II., V. 7) " out of the dust of the ground " ? There are halls 
 and galleries of introihiction in a palacf. but none in a cottage ; 
 and this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever 
 aspiring preparatory series, rather than I»y transition at a step from 
 the inanimate mould of earth, may tend rather to mairnifv than to 
 lower the creation (»f man on its physical side. But if belief hcus 
 (as connncmly) been premature in its alarms, has non-belief been 
 more rel^iective in its exulting anticipations, and its pagans on the 
 assumed disappearance of what are strangely enough ternieil sudden 
 acts of creation from the sphere of our study and contemplation^ 
 
 One strikinir eti'ect of the Darwinian theory of descent is, so far 
 as I understand, to reduce the breadth of all intermctliate distinctions 
 in the scale of animated life. It does not bring till creatures into a 
 single lineage, but all diver.sities are to be traced back, at some 
 point in the scale and bv stai^es indefinitely miinite. to a common 
 ancestry. All is done by steps, nothinu' bv striiles, leaps, or boun<ls ; 
 ail from protoplasm up to Shakespeare, and, again, all from primal 
 night and chaos up to protoplasm. I do not a.sk, and am incom- 
 petent to Judge, whether this is among the things proven, but I 
 take it so for the sake of the argument ; and I ask, first, why and 
 wdiereby does this doctrine eliminate the idea of creation ? Does 
 the new philosophy teach us that if the passage from pure reptile 
 to pure bird is achieved Ijy a spring (so to speak) over a chasm, 
 this implies and requires creation ; but if reptile pa.sses into bird, 
 and rudimental into finished bird, by a thousand slight and but just 
 discernible modifications, each one (^f these is so small that the}' 
 are not entitled to a name so lofty, may be set down to any cause 
 
14 
 
 COL. IN'GERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 or no cause, as we please ? I should have supposed it miserably 
 unphilosophical to treat the distinction between creative and non- 
 creative function as a simply quantitative distinction. As respects 
 the subjective effect on the human mind, creation in small, when 
 closely regarded, awakens reason to admiring wonder, not less than 
 creation in great : and as regards that function itself, to me it 
 appears no less than ridiculous to hold that the l)roadly outlined 
 and large advances of so-called Mosaism are c^ cation, but the retined 
 and stealthy onward steps of Darwinism are only manufacture, and 
 relegate the question of a cause into obscurity, insigniticance, or 
 oblivion. 
 
 But does not reason really require us to go farther, to turn the 
 tables on the adversary, and to contend that evolution, by how much 
 it binds more closely together the myriad ranks of the living, ayu, 
 and of all other orders, by so much the more consolidates, enlarges, 
 and enhances the true argument of design, and the entire theistic 
 position ? If orders are not mutually related, it is <'asier to con- 
 ceive of them as sent at haphazard into the world. We may, 
 indeed, suthciently draw an argument of design from uach separate 
 structure, but we have no further title to build upon the ])()sition 
 which each of them holds as towards any other. But wlicn the 
 connection between these objects has been established, and so 
 established that the points of transition are almost as indiscernible 
 as the passMge from day to night, tlu^n, indeed, each preceding stage 
 is a prophesy of the following, each succeeding one is a memorial 
 of the past, and, throughout the immeasurable series, every single 
 member of it is a witness to all the rest. Th%> Reply ought sundy 
 to dispose of these, and proViably many more arguments in the case, 
 before assuming so absolutely the rights of dictatorship, and laj'ing 
 it down that Darwinism, carried to its legitimate conclusion (and 1 
 have nowhere endeavored to cut short its career), destr(jys tlie 
 creeds and scriptures of mankind. That I may be the more definite 
 in my challenge, I would, with all respect, ask the author of the 
 Reply to set about confuting the succinct and clear argument of 
 his countryman, Mr. Fiske, who, in t]\o earlier part of the small 
 work, entitled " Man's Destiny " (Macmillan, Mondon, IS87) has 
 given what seems to me an admissible and also striking interpreta- 
 tion of the leading Darwinian idea in its bearings on the theistic 
 argument. To this very partial treatment of a great subject I must 
 at present confine myself : and I proceed to another of the notions, 
 as confident as they seem to be crude, which the Reply has drawn 
 into its widecasting net (p. 475) ; 
 
 I t 
 
COL. INGERSULL OX (JHIILSTIANITY. 
 
 l& 
 
 "Why should God dcTiiaud a sacrifice from iiuin ? Wiiy sliould 
 the infinite ask anvthin<^ from the finite ? Siiould the sun lu'ir of 
 the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy 
 of the source of light ^ " 
 
 This is one of tliti cases in which happ}' or showy illustratioii io, 
 in the Reply before me, set to cai'ry with n rush the position which 
 argument would have to approach more lal)oriously and more 
 slowly. The case of the glow-worm with the sun cannot but move 
 a reader's pity, it seems so very hai*d. But let us suppose for a 
 moment that the glow-worm was so constituted, and so related to 
 the sun that an interaction between them was a fundamental 
 condition of its health and life ; that tiie glow-worm must, by the 
 law of its nature, like tlu; moon, refiect upon the sun, according to 
 its strength and measure, the light which it receives, and that only 
 by a process involving that refiection its own store of vitality could 
 be upheld ? It will be said that this is a very large ■petlfio to 
 in. port into the glow-worm's case. Yes, Ijut it is the very petiiio 
 which is absolut«'ly n.'ijuisite in order to make it parallel to the 
 case of the Christian. Tlic argument which the Reply has to 
 destroy is and must be the Cln-istian argument, and not sonie fiffure 
 of straw, fabi'icated at will. It is needless, pei'haps, but it is 
 refreshing, to (piote tlu- nob]*' Psalm (Ps. 1. 10, 12, 14, 15), in which 
 this assumption of the Reply is rebuked. " xVll the beasts of the 
 forest are mine ; an 1 s(j are the cattle upon a th(;usan(.l hills. . . 
 If I be hungry I will not tell thee ; for the whole world is mine, 
 and all that is therein. . . . Oti'er unto God thanksgiving ; and pay 
 thy \'ows unto the Most Highest, and call upon Me in the time of 
 trouble; so will I hear thee, and thou slialt piviise Me." Let me 
 try my hand at a counter-illusti-atiou. if the Infinite is to make 
 no demand upon the finite, by parity of reasoning the great and 
 strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small. Why 
 then should the father make demands of love, obedience, and 
 sacrifice, from his young child ? Is thei'e not some favor of the sun 
 and eflow-worm here ? But every man does so make them, if he is 
 a man of sense and feeling ; and he makes them for the sake and 
 in the interest of the son himself, whose nature, expanding in the 
 warmth of afiection and pious care, requires, by an inward law, to 
 return as well jis to receive. And so God asks of us, in order thai 
 what we give to Him may be far more our own than it ever was 
 liefore the giving, or than it could have been unlass first rendered 
 lip to Him, to become a part of what the gospel calls our treasure 
 in heaven. 
 
\\ 
 
 Ki 
 
 OoJ,. INf;r:!l.S(»LL i)N (;HLtI.>T!ANilV 
 
 H ' 
 
 Altli()',i<^^li tlu; Reply is not careful to supply us with ivhys, it 
 <loes iKit liL'sitiite to Jisk for them (p. 479): 
 
 " Whv should an inhnitely wis(! and powerful God destroy tlie 
 i;t»(nl and preserve the vile ? Wliy shouM He treat ail alike here, 
 and in another world make an infinite ditf'erence { Why 'diouM 
 your (lod allow His W()r"shi[)pers, His adorers, to be destroyed hy 
 His enemies? Why should He all(<w the honest, tlie loving, the 
 noble to perish at the stake { " 
 
 Thf upholders of belief or of revelation, frf)m TMaudian down to 
 Cardinal Newman (see the very remarkable [jassage of the A/toLof/ia 
 j/ro vita xva, pp. -STO-TcS), camiot and do not, seek to deny that the 
 methods of divine yiA n-nment, as they are exhibited by experience, 
 present to us many and varied moral problems, insoluble by our 
 understandin*:". Theii- existence may not, and should not, be 
 disst.Mnbled. Hut neither should tlu'y be exaggerated. Now exag- 
 geration by nu-r<' suggestion is the fault, the glaring fault, of these 
 queries. One who has no knowledge of mundane afi'airs beyond 
 the concepti'm they insinuate vs'ould assume that, as a rule, <'vil has 
 the upper hand in the management of the world. Is this the grav*.' 
 philos()})hi('al conclusion of a careful ol)server, or is it a crude, hasty, 
 and careless overstatement ? 
 
 It is not difficult to conceive how, in times of sadness and of 
 storm, wlieii the sl^»^t'ering soul can (Hscern no light at any point of 
 the horizon, place is foun<l for such an idea of life. It is, of course, 
 opposed to the Apostolic declaration that godliness hath the [)romise 
 of the life that now is (1 Tim. iv. 8), but I am not to expect such a 
 declaration to be accepted as current coin, even of the meanest 
 value, by tlie author of the Reply. Yet I will offer two observations 
 founded on experience in support of it, one taken from a Hunted, 
 another from a larger atid more open sphere. John Wesley, in the 
 full prime of his mission, warned the converts whom he was making 
 It was among English laborersof a spiritual danger that lay far ahead. 
 that,becoming godly, they would l>ecomecareful,and,becomingcarefuL 
 they would become W(althy. It was a just and sober forecast, and 
 it represented with truth the general rule of life, although it be a 
 rule perplexed with exceptions. But, if this be too narrow a sphere 
 of oliservation, let us take a wider one, the widest of all. It is 
 compri.sed in the brief statement that Christendom rules the world, 
 and rules it, perhaps it should be added, by the possession of a vast 
 :".irplus of material as well as moral force. Therefore the assertions 
 carried by implication in the queries of the Reply, which are 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 •'1 
 
CUL. IXUEUSOLL OS CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 17 
 
 whyi-i, it 
 
 itrov the 
 ike here. 
 y '-liouM 
 roytMl l»y 
 •\ iiig, ill*- 
 
 I down to 
 A/><>l(>;/i<f 
 that the 
 qjerieiice. 
 le Ity our 
 L not, be 
 ow exai^'- 
 , of these 
 's l>evon<l 
 e, evil lias 
 the gravt' 
 ide, hasty. 
 
 58 and of 
 point of 
 of course, 
 e promise 
 ■ct such a 
 meanest 
 ovations 
 a limited. 
 sy, in the 
 ,s making 
 'ar ahead, 
 careful, 
 ■cast, and 
 h it 1.>e a 
 a sphere 
 ,11. It is 
 le world, 
 of a vast 
 assertions 
 hich are 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 general, arc because general untrue, although they might have been 
 true within those prudent limitations which the method of this 
 Reply appears especially to eschew. 
 
 Taking, tlien, these challenges as they ought to have been given, 
 I admit that great believers, who have been also great masters of 
 wisd(»m and kiKnvledge, are not able to explain the inequalities of 
 adjustment between Imman beiiii^s and the conditions in which 
 they have been set down to work out their destiny. Th»' climax of 
 these ineijualities is perhaps to be found in the fact that, whereas 
 rational belief, viewed at large, founds the Providential government 
 of the world upon the hypothesis of free agency, there are so many 
 cases in which the overbearing mastery of circumstance appears to 
 reduce it to extinction or paralysis. Now, in one. sense, without 
 doubt, these difficulties are matter for our legitimate and necessary 
 cognizance. It is a duty incumlient up(»n us respectively, according 
 to our means and opportunities, to <lecide for our.selves, by the use 
 of the faculty of reason given us, tlie great questions of natural 
 an<l revealed relii]:ion. They are to be decided according to the 
 evidence ; and, if we carniot trim the evidence into a consistent 
 whole, then according to the balance of the evidence. We are not 
 entitled, either for or against belief, to .set np in this province any 
 I'ule of investigation, except such as connnon sense teaches us to use 
 in the ordinary conduct of life. As in ordinary conduct, so in con- 
 sidering the basis of belief, we are bound to look at the evidence as 
 a whole. We have no right to demand demonstrative prijofs, or tlie 
 removal of all conflicting elements, either in the one sphere or in 
 the other. What guides us sufficiently in matters of common 
 practice has the veiy same authority to guide us in matters of 
 speculation ; more properly, perh^xps, to be called the practice of the 
 soul. If the evidence in the aggregate sIk^ws the being of a moral 
 Governor of the world, with the same force as would suffice to 
 establish an obligation to act in a matter of common conduct, we 
 are bound in duty to accept it, and have no right to demand as a 
 condition previous that all occasions of doubt or question be removed 
 out of the way. Our demands of evidence must be limited by the 
 general reason of the cas(.'. Does that gen< '7"al reason of the ca-se- 
 make it probable that a linite being, with a tinite place in a com- 
 prehensive scheme, devised and administered by a Being w^ho is 
 infinite, would be able either to embrace within his view, or rightly 
 to appreciate, all the motives and the aims tliat may have been in 
 mind of the Divine Disposer ? On the contrary, a demand .so 
 
IS 
 
 COL. in(;ek.s()ll on chuistianity. 
 
 unreasonablfi flesorvcs to bo met with the scornful challfiige of 
 JJante (Paradise xix. 79) : 
 
 Or tu chi sei, che vuoi sedorft a scranna 
 Por giudicar da lungi millo mii;lia 
 CoHa vedutA corta d'una spanna 1 
 
 Uiidouhtedly a great d«'al liere (h'pends upon tlif iiucstion wlietlier, 
 and in wliat <legree, our knowledge is limited. And here the Ufply 
 seems to he bv no means in accord witlu Niiwton and with Butler. 
 By its contempt for authority, the Reply .seems to cut oil' from us 
 all kuowletlgo that is not at first hand; but then <dso it seems te> 
 assume an original and tirst hand knowledge of all })(j.ssible kinds 
 of things. I will take an instance, all the easier to deal with 
 because it is outside the inmiediatfi sphere of controversy. In one 
 of those pieces of tine writing with which the Reply abounds, it is 
 determined obiter by a backhanded stroke (N. A. R., p. 4!)1) that 
 Shakespeare is " by far the greatest of the human race." I do not 
 feel entitled to assert that he is not ; but how va.st and com])le.K a 
 question is here determined for us in this airy manner! Has the 
 writer of the Rejdy really weigh(,'d the force, and measured the 
 sweep of his own words ^ \\'h(»ther Shakespeai-e has ov b.is not 
 tl.ie primacy of genius o\-er a very few other names which might be 
 placed in competition with his, is a question which has not yet Ijeen 
 determined bv the ijeneral or deliberate iudmnent of lettere(l man- 
 kind. But lK>hind it lies another (juestion, inex[)ressibly ditlicult, 
 ■vriXce))L for the Re])ly, to solve. That (juestion is, what is the 
 relation of human genius to human greatness. Is genius the sole 
 /Constitutive element of grt;atne.ss, or with what other elements, and 
 in what relations to them, is it condnned ? Is everv man great in 
 pro))ortion to his genius ? Was (Jioldsmith, or was Sheridan, or wtis 
 Burns, <:)!• was Byron, or was Goi'the, or was Napoleon, or was 
 Alcibiades, no smallei", and was John.scai, or was Howard, or was 
 Washington, or was Phocion oi- Leonidas no greater, than in propor- 
 tion to his genius properly so called ? How ar we to fin<l a com- 
 mon measure, again, for diti'erent kinds of greatn«'ss ; how weigh, 
 for exanq)]e, ])ant(^ against .Julius Caesar? And I am speaking of 
 greatntvss properly .so called, not of goodness properly so called. We 
 might seem to be (healing with a writer who.se contempt for 
 authority in gr'ueral is fully balanced, perhaps outweighed, by his 
 respect for one authority in particular. 
 
 The religions of the world, again, have in many cases given to 
 many men material ior life-long study. The study of the Christian 
 Scriptures, to say nothing of Christian life and institutitms, has 
 
 
COL. INGEUSOLL ON CHUISTIAXITY 
 
 19 
 
 illlt'lirre of 
 
 )n vvliotlier, 
 ; tlic Kt'ply 
 ith Ijiitler. 
 )i[' from us 
 it sceiiis to 
 ,sil)l(i kinds 
 (leal witli 
 >y. In one 
 'onnds, it is 
 X 4!)1) that 
 I dt) not 
 coin])l<'X a 
 ! Has the 
 'asuriMl the 
 ())• has n(»t 
 h might he 
 >t vet Ijeen 
 Itt'ied man- 
 y ditlicult, 
 hat is the 
 lis the sole 
 iients, and 
 In great in 
 Ian, or was 
 \\\. or was 
 li'd. or was 
 in propor- 
 |ii<l a com- 
 )\v weigh, 
 Leaking of 
 lalled. We 
 pempt for 
 led, by his 
 
 gi\'en to 
 
 iClu'istian 
 
 :ious, has 
 
 l)eon to many and justly famous men a study " never ending, still 
 beginning"; not, like the world of Alexander, too limited for the 
 powerful faculty that ranged over it ; but, on the contrary, o})e!nng 
 height on height, and with deep answrring to deep, and with 
 increase of fruit ever presci"ibing increase of etibrt. Hut the Reply 
 has sounded all these depths, has found them very shallow, find is 
 quite able to point out (p. 4!)()) the way in which the Saviour of tiie 
 world might have been a nnich greatei' teacher than Me actually 
 was; luvl Me said anything, for instnnet', of the family relation, 
 liad He spoken against slavery and tyranny, had He issue(l a sort of 
 code Niipoleon embracing education, progress, scientific truth, and 
 internati(jnal law. 'i'his observation on the family relation .seems 
 t:0 me beyond even the usual tneasure of extj'a\-!igance when we 
 bear in mind that, according to tlu- ('lii'istian ■scheme, the J^(ji-d of 
 heaven and earth " was subject" (St. Luke ii. 51 ) to a luniian mother 
 and a reputed liuman father, and that He taught (accoi-ding to the 
 widest and, I l)elieve, the best opinion) the ab.solute indissoluliility 
 of marriage. I might cite many other instances in reply. But the 
 broader and the true answei- to the iibjeetic^n is, that the (jospel was 
 promulgated to teach princi))les and not a code ; that it inclmled 
 the foundation of a society in which those pi-inciplrs were to be 
 conserved, developed, and apjilie(l ; and that down to this day there 
 is not a moral (piestion of all those which the Ke])ly does or does 
 not enumei'ate, nor is there a (piestion of duty arising in the course 
 of life fur any (^f us, that is not determinable in all its essentials by 
 applying to it as a touch.st(>ne the princi))les declared in the GospeJ. 
 Is not, then, the hiatib>i, which the Reply has discovered in the 
 teaching of oui' Lord, an imaginaiy h idiu.s f Nay, are the suggested 
 improvements of that teaching really gross dt'tei'ioiations ? Where 
 would have been the wisdom of d(,'li\ering to an uninstructe<.l popu- 
 lation of a particular age a c(xlitie(l religion, whicli was to serve for 
 all nations, all ages, all states of civilization ? Why was not room 
 to be left bn* the career of human thought in Hnding out, and in 
 workinir out, the ada])tation of (^'lu-istianitv to the ever varvincf 
 movement of the world? And how is it that thev who will not 
 admit that a iTvelation is in place when it has in view the great 
 and necessary work of conflict against sin, are so free in recom- 
 mending enlai'gements of that Revelation tor purposes, as to which 
 no such necessity can be pknuled ? 
 
 I have known a pt^rson who, after studj'ing the old classical or 
 Olympian religion for the third part of a century, at length began 
 to hope that he had some partial comprehension of it, some inkHng 
 of what it meant. Woe is him that he was not conversant either 
 
20 
 
 COL. IN0EU80LL ON CHUISTIANITV. 
 
 with tlio faculties or with the motliods of tlie Reply, which a])par- 
 ently can dispose in half an lujur of any problem, doi^Muatic, 
 hist'ti-iciil, (»r moral ; and which accordin^^dy takes occasion to assure 
 us that l^uddha was " in nuiny respects the greatest reli;.;i()Us teacher 
 this wui'ld has ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of 
 them all" (]>. VM). (Jn this I shall only say that an attempt to 
 brinii' Buddha and Buddhism into line together is far beyond my 
 reach, but that every Christian, knowing in some degree what 
 Christ is. and what he has done for the world, can only be thu more 
 thankful if IJuddha, or Confucius, or any other teache,r has in any 
 point, and in any nu'asure, come near to the outskirts of His 
 I ineffable greatness and glory. 
 
 It is my fault or my misfortune to remark, in this Reply, an 
 inaeeuracy of refel'enc(^ which would of itself suthce to render it 
 remarkable. Christ, we are told (pp. 4!)2, 500), denounced the 
 chi».sen people of God as "a generation of viper.s." This phrase is 
 applied by the Baptist to the crowd who came to seek baj)tism 
 from him; but it is only applied by our Lord to Scribes or Pharisees 
 (Luke iii. 7, ^bltthew xxiii. 33, and xii. 34), who are so connnonly 
 plact'd by Him in contrast with the people. The error is repeatcil 
 in the mention of whited sepulchres. Take again the version of the 
 story of Ananias and .Sa})phira. We are told (p. 494) that the 
 Apostles conceived the idea " of having all things in common." In 
 the narrative there is no statement, no suggestion of the kind ; it is 
 a pure interpolation (Acts iv. 32-7). Motives of a reasonable pru- 
 dence are staged as matter of fact to have influenced the offending 
 cou[)le — another pure interpolation. After the catastrophe of 
 Ananias " the Apostles sent for his wife " — a third interpolation. I 
 refer only to these points as exhibitions of an hal)itual and dangerous 
 inaccunicy, and without any attempt at present to discuss the case, 
 in which the ju'lgments of God are exhibited on their severer side, 
 and iu whieh I eammt, like the Reply, undertake sununarily to 
 detei'inine for what cans > the Almighty should or should not take 
 life, or delegate the po^w ci- to take it. 
 
 Airain, Ave have (p. 4.S(; ) these words given as a quotation from 
 the Bible : 
 
 " They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and they 
 who lielieve not shall be damned ; and these shall go away into 
 everla.sting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
 
 The second clause thus reads as if applicable to the persons men- 
 tioned in the first ; that is to say, to those who reject the tidings 
 of the Gospel. But instead of it being a continuous passage, the 
 
 i 
 
COL. INTJERSOLL ON (?HUISTIAKITY. 
 
 21 
 
 » appar- 
 Dt^iiiatic, 
 <) assure 
 ; teacluT 
 actual of 
 ciiipt to 
 '^oiul my 
 )e wliat 
 he more 
 s in any 
 of His 
 
 pply, an 
 
 vnder it 
 
 iced the 
 
 )hrase is 
 
 ba])tism 
 
 'harisees 
 
 niinonly 
 
 Lvpcated 
 
 n of tlie 
 
 ;hat the 
 
 )n." In 
 
 i<l ; it is 
 
 le pru- 
 
 ending 
 
 phe of 
 
 ition. I 
 
 li^aTous 
 
 le case, 
 
 •er side, 
 
 arily to 
 
 lot take 
 
 )n from 
 
 id they 
 ay into 
 
 QS men- 
 tidings 
 age, the 
 
 i 
 
 latter section is ln-uuglit out of anotlu-r j^ospel (St. Mattliew's) and 
 anoth<'r connection; and it is really written, not of those who do 
 not helieve, hut of tho.se who refuse to perform offices of charity to 
 their neighbour in his need. It would be wrong to call this inten- 
 tional misrepresentation ; but can it be called less than somewhat 
 reckless ne^i^'limmcc^ ( 
 
 It is a more .special misfortune to tind a writer arguing on the 
 .same side with his critic, and yet for tlie critic not to be able to 
 agree with him. F.ut .^o it is with refeniiice to the great subject of 
 immortality, as treated in the Reply. 
 
 '■ The idea of immortality, that, like a sea, ha-s ebbed and flowed 
 in the human hefirt, with its countless waves of hope and b-ai' beat- 
 ing against the shores and rocks of time aud fate, was not born of 
 any Ixjok, nor of any creed, nor of any^ religion. It was born of 
 liuman atlection ; and it will t;ontinue to ebb and flow lieiieath thi- 
 mist and clouds of doubt and darkness, as long as love ki.s.ses the 
 lips of death " (p. 483). 
 
 Here we have a very interesting chapter of the history of human 
 opinion disposed of in the usual summary way, by a stat<'ment 
 M'hich, as it appears to me is developed out of the writer's inner 
 consciousnevSs. If the belief in immortality is not connected with 
 any revelation or religion, but is simply the expre.ssion of a 
 subjective want, then plamly we may uxpect the expres.iion ui it lo 
 be strong and clear in pi'oportion to the various degrees in w'dch 
 facultv is developed Minttng the varidus races (»f tnnnkitvl. But how 
 does the matter stand historically ? The Egyptians were not a 
 people of high intellectual development, and yet their religious 
 systcTU was .strictly associated with, I might I'ather .say founded on, 
 the belief in inmiortality. The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, 
 were a race of a.stonishing, ptjrhaps unrivalled, intellectual ca})acity. 
 But not only did they, in prehistoric ages, derive their sclieme of a 
 future w^orld from Egypt ; we find also that, with the lapse of time 
 and the advance of the Hellenic civilization, the constructive ideas 
 of the system lost all life and definite outline, and the most power- 
 ful mind of the Greek philosophy, that of Aristotle, had no clear 
 conception whatever of a personal existence in a future state. 
 
 The favorite doctrine of the Reply is the immunity of all error 
 in belief from moral responsibility. It the first page (p. 473) this 
 is stated with reserve as the "innocence of honest error." But why 
 such a limitation ? The Reply warms with its subject ; it shows 
 us that no error can be otherwise than honest, inasmuch as nothing 
 ^vhich involves honesty, or its reverse, can, from the constitution 
 
22 
 
 CUL. INCiElCSUiJ. UN CiilUSTlANnV. 
 
 if 
 
 ii 
 
 of our rmturc, mtcr int(» tlw t'oiiiiatioii of opinion. Ilm' is thf fulK 
 lilovvn ixposition (|t. 47()): 
 
 Tlu* l»min thinks without askini,' our consent. \Vr IkHcvo, or 
 
 we disliclit'xc, without an ttlort of the w ill. litlief is a nsuit 
 
 It 
 
 I 
 
 is tin- ftll'ct of evidence u{)on the niind. 'I'he scales tui»n in s|Mte of / 
 him who watches. Tlu re <.s' it" inqnn'l ii it it n <>( hnini hniK.sf, m' 
 
 ili.shdiii ■-/, ill tin' fni'iiiittiiin of an oj^finioii. The conclusit)U is. j 
 
 entirely indejx'ndent of desire." j 
 
 The reji.sonini: faculty is. ther«'fore, whollv extrinsic to our tiioi-jil « 
 
 nature, and no intlueiice is or can he received or iinparted hetween % 
 
 tlit'iii. 1 know not whetliej- the iiieanin*.; is that all the I'ji iiltiis of | 
 
 our nature are like S(» jimny .st'pnrate departments in one of the ' 
 
 modei-n shojf^ that su|>|>ly all hnnuin wants; that will, Miemoi-y, j 
 
 iuiauinatit)!!, affection, p.-u^sion. i-ach has its own separate domain, .^ 
 
 aii«l that they Uieet only for a compai'ison of results, just to tell one 
 another what they have severally U'cn doini,^ It is ditlicult to 
 conceive, if this l»e so, wherein consists the ])ersonality, or individu- 
 ality, or oi-;x'H>ic unity of man. It is not ditlicult to see that whiUi 
 tile He])ly aims at ujilil'tiiiii' human natuic. it in reality ]>luni;es us 
 (]x 47')) into tlie ahys,^ of degradation hy the destruction uf moral 
 freedom, responsihility. and lunty. For we are Justly told that 
 " rea.son is tlie snpreiiM' and final test." Action n)ay he niei-ely 
 instincti\'e and hahitual, or it may l>e consciously founde»l on for- 
 mulated thouuht ; hut, in the cases whei'e it is instinctix'e and 
 hahitual, it passes over, so soon Jis it is challenged, into the other 
 category, and finds a hasis fV>r itself in .some form of opinion. LUit, 
 pays the Ke]dy,we havt^ no i-esponsihility for onr opiidons: we can- 
 not help forming- them acco)-(lin<; U) the evidence as it presents itst'lf 
 to us. ()hse)-\'e, the (itK-trine em'n'aces every kind of opinion, and 
 end>races all alike, opinion on suhjects where we like or dislike, as 
 well as upon .suhjects where we merely athrm or deny in some 
 medium ahsolutolv colourless. For, if a distinction be taken 
 between the ct)lourle.ss and the coloured medium, between conclu- 
 sions to which passion or propensity or imau^ination inclines us, and 
 conclusions to which these have nothini^ to say, then the whole 
 ground will \xi cut away from under the feet of the Reply, and it 
 will have to build aijain ah initio. Let us try this by a test case. 
 A father who has believed his son to have been throui;h life upright, 
 suddenly iinds that charges are made from various ([uarters against 
 his integrity. Or a friend, greatly dependent for tlie work of his 
 life on the co-operati(,>n of another friend, is told that that comrade' 
 is counterworking and betraying him. I make no assumption now,- 
 
COL. INliEKSOLL ON UUlilSTIAMl Y 
 
 2^ 
 
 ^ the t'uli; 
 
 ■licvc, oi- 
 su;t It. 
 1 .s[)iti' of 
 
 lusioii is 
 
 III' tliol'jil 
 
 tiltiis of 
 (' of tlu' 
 iiiciiioiy, 
 • loiiiain, 
 I U'll one 
 licult to 
 ii(li\ i<]u- 
 at while 
 lllL^t'S lis 
 
 jf iiiorul 
 1 tliut 
 mi'J't'ly 
 on for- 
 \t' and 
 V other 
 But, 
 \\v can- 
 ts itself 
 ti, and 
 like, as 
 1 some 
 taken 
 conelu- 
 us, and 
 whole 
 and it 
 st case. 
 })right, 
 lii'ainst 
 of his 
 )nirade 
 ■)!! nov".- 
 
 ns to the eviileiH'e or tlie n>sult: l»ut T a>k which of them couU 
 ap{»niach the in\estiLrati(»n without ft'elin^'" a desir*' to he ahle t<» 
 ae(|uit !' And what shall we say of tin- dcsir-e to cond'-itin ■ WoiiM 
 Klizaheth have had no leaning; towards tiiatin^ Mary Siuai-t impli- 
 cated in a coiiMpifacy !* I>id Knulish judices and jurir> aj>|)idaeli 
 witli an unhiassed mind the trials for the l'ojii>li jilot ' \\\iv the- 
 opinions fornn'tj hy tlu- KnL;'lish I'ar-Iiament on tlir 'I'rraty <> 
 Limerick foi'inrd without tlu- ititcr\ I'Ution of tie' will' Did 
 Napoleon Jutl^•<' according to the fvidcncc when lie acipiitted hini- 
 self in the matter of tla- Due dKni^diien <" Does the intellect sit 
 in a solitai'y clwunKer, like (Jalilco in the palace of tie Vatican, and 
 pu;siie celestial obser\ation all untouched, while tiie turmoil of 
 earthly Imsiness is rayini; t'V(>r-yvvher<' around f Accoi'dini^' to the 
 IJfply, it ust he a mistake to suppose that there is anywlnre in 
 the woi'M such a thint;- as hias, or pi'ejudice, oi- |)repo>^rssion : tliey 
 ai'e words without naanin;:;' in re^^ard to our judpnent^, for. eveu 
 if they coultl raise a clamor from w ithout, the intellect sits within, 
 ill an atmosphere of serenity, and, like Justice, is deaf and lilitul, as 
 well as calm. 
 
 In addition to all other fanlts. I hold ihat this philosophy, or 
 pliantasm of philoso[)hy, is emintiity retro(,^ressive. Human natur<', 
 in its compound of ilesh and spiiit, hecomes more complex with the 
 proj,(r«'ss of civilization: with the steady multi])lica,tion (»f wants, 
 and of means f(,)r tlu'ii- sii])ply. With complication, introspection 
 has larg'ely extended, and 1 liclieve that, as olise)\ation extends its 
 field, so far from isolatin;.^ the intelliifeiice and makin<r it autocratic 
 it tends more and more to enhance and multiply the inHnit'Iy 
 Sill )tle, as well as the' hroadn- and moic })alj)Jiiile modfs, in which 
 the interaction of the human facuUics is cariicil on. Wliu amontij 
 lis has not had occasion to ohst ')•%!■, in thf course of Iii.; e:<.pei"ieuc»:, 
 how largely the iniellectual powei of a man is aH'ected by the 
 demands of life on his moral powei'>;. an' how Wu-y open and ^a'ow, 
 or dry up and dwin<lle, according' t(j the manner in which those 
 demands are met. 
 
 CJenius itself, however purely a conception of the intellect, i.s not 
 exempt from the strong intluences of joy and .sutrering, lo\ e and' 
 Jiatred, hope and fear, in the development of its powers. It may 
 be that Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe, basking upon the whole in 
 the sunshine of life, drew little siij)plementary foi'ce from its trial.s 
 and aeitations. But the history of one not less wonderful than 
 nnj' of these, the career of Dante, tells a different tale ; and one of 
 the latest and most searching investigators of his hi.story (Scartaz- 
 zini, Dante Aligliieri, seine zeit, sein lehen, iind seine verkes, B. IL 
 
24 
 
 cor. INTiERSOLL ON CIIUISTIAXITV. 
 
 Ch. 5, p. 119 ; also pp. 4:W, 9. l^i.sl, 18G9) tells, and sliows us, how 
 the ('Xpci'it'iice ol' his life co-oporatiMJ with his t^xti'a(>i'<liiiaiy natural 
 »;it'ts and capalnlities to make liini what he was. Under the three 
 gTeat lie^xds of love, helief, and patriotism, liis life was a continued 
 course of ecstatic or at>'onizin<jf trials. The strain of these trials wa^s 
 disci] )line ; disci])lin<3 was ex])erience ; and exj)ei'ience \f as elevation. 
 No reader of his o-reat woi"k will, I Iielieve, hold with the Reply 
 that his th(ni*ihts, conclusions, jud^inents weiv simple results of an 
 automatic process, in which the will and afiections had no share, 
 that reasoning operations a)'e like the whir of a clock running down, 
 and we can no mor(^ an-est thr- pi'ocess or alter the conclusion than 
 th'> wIkm'Is can sto|> tin' mo\'emeiit or the noise.* 
 
 The doctrine tar.ght in the Kt'})ly, that htdief is, as a general, 
 nay, nni\-ersal, l;iw, independent of the will, surely proves, when 
 t'xamiiifd, tn he a jiliiusihility of the shallowest kind. Even in 
 arirhiiu'tie. if a hoy, thi'ougii dislike of his employment, and conse- 
 (jUi'iit l.ick of attention, ln-ings out a wrong result for Jiis sum, it 
 can hanily hi' said that his conclusii^n is ahsoluttdy and in all 
 res])ects independent of his will. Moving onward, point hy point, 
 towai-d till' cfuti-i' of the argument, I will JH'xt take an illustraticai 
 froiii ni;ilhrniatics. It has (1 apprehmd) hcvn demonstrated that 
 the I'elation of the di.niKftei' to the circumference of a circle is not 
 su.sceptil le of full nuiiiei'ical ex])i"ession. Yet, from time to tinic, 
 trcatiso aie lailmsneO w /ncii ooiUlv announce thai thi-v set forth the 
 >|na(lrature of the circle. 1 'lo not deny tlini this may he purely 
 'i)t"nectn;il "iTor ; li'U would it )"ot, on the othei* hfuidjie hfizai-ilous 
 to assi.'i't tha,t no gi'aiii of egotism oi'and>ition has e\(>r entered into 
 the compo>ition of any one of such treatises { I have selected these 
 in^taners a>, perhaps, the most laNnrahle that can he found to the 
 <loetrine of the Re]ily. But the ti'uth is that, if we set aside 
 matters of trivial import, the enormous majority of human Juiig- 
 ments are those into which the hiassing j)o\ver (jf like.s and dislikes 
 
 *l ])o.sses.s the confession of an illiterate criminal, made, I think, in 1834. 
 under the following circiuu.stances; : The new pcxji- law had just been passed in 
 Kuijland, and it reM.uired j)ers(pns needing relief to go in1,o the workhouse as a 
 t;ondition of receiving it. In some ])arts of the country, this ))i'ovision i)roduced 
 a profound ])opulai' panic. The man in ([uestiou was destitute at the time. He 
 was (1 think) an old widowei' with four very yoiuig sons. He rose in the night 
 and strangled them all, oiu; Ux'ter jwiother, with a blue hankerchief. not fr()m 
 want of fatherly all'ection, hut to keep them out of the workhouse. The con 
 fession «)f this peas'int, simple in phrase, hut intensely im])assiojied stnaigly 
 reminds me of the I'goliu'i of Dante, and apjiears to make some a}>pi'oach to its 
 sublimity. Such, in givuii circumstances, is the eti'ect of moral agony oil 
 mental power. 
 
L'OJ.. INTJERSOLL <)X CHIUSTIaNITY 
 
 2o 
 
 )WS US, llOW 
 
 laiy natural 
 ■r the three 
 a continue*] 
 e trials wn^s 
 IS elevation, 
 the R.q)ly 
 (•suits of an 
 1,(1 no share, 
 niing down, 
 ;lusion than 
 
 ; a s^eneral. 
 
 ■oves, when 
 
 Even in 
 
 , and conse- 
 
 his sum, it 
 
 and in all 
 
 it hy [)oint, 
 
 illustratif)n 
 
 trated that 
 
 ?ircle is not 
 
 ne to time. 
 
 ft forth tilt' 
 
 he purely 
 
 liMzai'dous 
 
 ntcred iiitu 
 
 eeted these 
 
 mud to the 
 
 ' set aside 
 
 man JtiMu- 
 
 nd dislilves 
 
 ink. in IH.'U. 
 jell p.'issod in 
 
 rkhousb !is ;i 
 ion i)r(i(luc6i1 
 liL' time. He 
 
 in the night 
 
 'F. net fi'iiin 
 e. The oen 
 tied strongly 
 I>ro;ieh to its 
 
 d agony on 
 
 more or le.ss lareelv enters. I admit. indee(l, that the illative 
 faculty works under rules upon which choice and incli)iation (tuj^ht 
 to exercise no influence wliatever, But even if it wvn- o-j-anted 
 that in fact the faculty of discxnirse is exenijited from all such 
 inriueiices within its Own province, yet we come no nearer to the 
 mark, bccau.se that faculty has to work u})on materials sujiplied to 
 it by other faculties; it draws conclusions aceordino' to premises, 
 and the question has to be determiuisd whethei' our conceptions .set 
 forth in those premises are or are not iriHuenced liy moral causes. 
 For, if they be so influenced, then in vain will be the jjroof that 
 the understandintr has dealt loyally and exactly with the materials 
 it has to work u])on ; inasmuch jxs, althouoli the intellectual process 
 1)0 normal in itsidf, the operation may have b(?cn tainte<l ab hhitlo 
 by colouring and distorting influences which have falsified the 
 primary conceptions. 
 
 Let me now take an illustration from the extreme' ojiposite 
 (piai'ter to that which I tii-st ilrcw U])on. The system called Thue-- 
 eism. represented in the practice of the Thugs, taught that tlie act, 
 which We descrilje as murder, was imiocent. Was this a,n hone.st 
 erroi' '' Was it due, in its authors as well as in those who blindly 
 followed them, to an automatic process (^f thonght, in which the 
 will was not ecjnsulted, ami which accor<lingly could entail no 
 responsibility? If it was, then it is plain that the \vhole fotinda- 
 tions, not cjf belief, but of social morality, are lifoken u]>. If it wa.s 
 not. then the swc ,)ing doctrine of the pi-e.seiit writer on the nece.'-- 
 s;ii'\- l)lamelessness of erroneous conclusions tumliles to the ground 
 like a liou.se of cards at the breath of the cliild who built it. 
 
 In truth, tlu' pages of tiie Reply, and the Letter w liieli lias nioje 
 i-ecentl}' followed it,* themselves demonsii'are that what the writer 
 has jisserted wJiolesale he overthrows and denii'S in detail. ' Vou 
 will admi^," says the Re])ly (]). 477), " tliat he who now pevsrcuti's 
 for opinions sake is infamous."' Hut why ( Supi»ose he thinks that 
 by persecution he can brijig a man from soul-(lestr(,iying falsehood 
 to .soul-saving truth, this opinion may reflect (»n his intellectual 
 debilitv : but that is his misfortune, not his fault. His ln-ain has 
 thought without asking his consent ; he has believed or disbeli<'ved 
 without an ellbrt of the will (p. 47()). Yet the mmt writer, who 
 has thus estal)lished his title to think, is the first to hurl at him an 
 anathema for thinking. And again, in the Lettei- to Dr. Fi<dd (N. 
 
 * NoKTH American Rkview for Janiutiv, 1H88. "Another Letter to Dr. 
 'i Pield." 
 
2() 
 
 COL. INCJERSOLL UN' CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 A. R., vol. 146, p. 8.S), " the dogma of eternal pain " is described a.«5 
 "that infuTii}' ot' int'ainit*.s." I am not alxnit to discuss the subject 
 of future i-t'trilnition. If I were, it would be my tirst duty to show 
 that this writer lias not ade(|uate-ly eonsideivd either the scope of 
 his own arf^uments (which in no way solve the ditficulties he pre- 
 sents) or the mtiining of his words; atid my second wcaild be t(; 
 recommend his perusal of what Bishop Bnth-r has suggested on this 
 head. But I am at present on ground altogether different. I am 
 trvinir another issue. This author says we believe or disbelieve 
 without the action of th<' will, and, consequently, lielief or disbelief 
 is not the proper subject of praise or lilame. And yet. according to 
 the very same authority, the dogma of eternal pain is what ? — nijt 
 "an error of errors," but an "infamy of infamies:" and though to 
 hold a negative may nttt be a suiiject of moral re})roacli, yet to hold 
 the alfirmativr may. Truly it m.iy be asked, is not tJjis a fountain 
 which sends forth at once sweet watci's and bitter < 
 
 Once more. I ^vill pass away from tend(;r ground, and will 
 endeavour to lodge a broailer appeal to the enlightened judgment 
 of the author. Says Odysseus in the Iliad ( B. II.) ovk dyaOov 
 TToXvKoipava] : and a large part of the world, .sti'etching this .senti- 
 ment bevond its orii^inal meaniuL!'. have ht-ld that the root of civil 
 power is not in the c(jnnnunity, but in its head. In opposition t,> 
 this doctrine, the American written Constitution, and the entire 
 American tradition, teach the right of a nation to self-go\'ernment. 
 And these propositions, which have dividrd and still divide the 
 world, (^pen up resju'ctively into vast systems of in-econeilable ideas 
 and laws, practices and habits of mind. Will any rational man. 
 above all will any Anu'rican, contend that the.se contlicting system -^ 
 have been adopted, ujdield, and enforced on one side and the othei'. 
 in the daylignt of pure reasoning only, and that moral, or innnoral. 
 causes have nothing to do with their adoption ? That the intellect 
 has worked im])artially, like a steam-engine, and that seltislnu-ss. 
 love of fame, love of money, love of power, envy, wratli. and malice. 
 or again bias, in its least noxicnis form, have never had anythinii'to 
 do with generating the opposing movements, or the frightful 
 collisions in which they have resulted ? If we say that they have 
 not, we contradict the universal judgment of mankind. If we say 
 they have, then mental processes are not automatic, but may be 
 influenced bj'- the will and by the passions, affections, habits, fancies, 
 that sway the will ; and this writer will not have advanced a step 
 towards proving the universal innocence of error, until lu' has 
 shown that propo.sitions of religion are t'sscntially unlike almost all 
 other propositions, an<l that no man v^ver has been, or from the. 
 
 nal 
 
 by 
 
 pal 
 
 Wi 
 
 th( 
 
 it 
 
 en( 
 
 dci; 
 
COL. INGERSOL.L ON CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 27 
 
 lescrihed a.'^ 
 the subject 
 itv to show 
 iie scope of 
 ties he pre- 
 
 V'OUld ])L' t(; 
 
 stf<l on this 
 VI it. I Jim 
 ■ disbelieve 
 or disbelief 
 ccordinof t(j 
 ^'hat ? — not 
 tlioiiijh to 
 yet to hold 
 a fountain 
 
 , and will 
 judgment 
 
 ) ovK (xyaBov 
 this senti- 
 )ot of ci\'il 
 :>osition t.) 
 th(.' entire 
 N'l'nuiifnt. 
 lividu thf 
 lablc idt.'Us 
 onal man. 
 i.LT system > 
 
 the othel', 
 ' immoral. 
 <• intellect 
 ■eifishness. 
 
 <1 malice. 
 
 ythinLi' t(; 
 
 frightful 
 tliey have 
 
 If we say 
 may 1 le 
 
 s. fancies, 
 :ed a step 
 il he has 
 
 dmost all 
 
 from tht; 
 
 nature of the ease can be, affected in their acceptance or rejection. 
 by moral causes.* 
 
 To sum up. There are many passages in these notewoi-thy^ 
 papers, which, taken by themselves, are calculated to command 
 warm sympathy. Towards the clo.^e of his iinal, or latest letter, 
 the writer expresses himself as follows (N. A. R., vol. 14(5, p. 4()): 
 
 " Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is 
 it necessary to assert what we «io not know. No cruise is great 
 enough to demand a sacrilice of candor. The mysteries of life and 
 death, of good and evil, have never yet been solved." 
 
 How good, how wise are these words ! But coming at the close 
 of the controversy, have they not some of the inefl'ectual features 
 of a death-bed n^pentance ? They can hardly be said to represent 
 in all points the rules under which the pages preceding them have 
 been composed ; or he, who so justly says that we ought not to 
 assert what we do not know, could hardly have laid down the law 
 as we find it a few pages earlier (ibid, p. 40) when it is pronounced 
 that " an infinite God has no excuse for leaving his children in 
 doubt and darkness." Candor and upright intention are indeed 
 everywhere manifest amidst the flashing coruscations which really 
 compose the staple of the articles. Candor and upright intenti(m 
 also impose upon a commentator the duty of fornmlating his anim- 
 adversions. I sum them up under two heads. Whereas we are 
 placed in an atmosphere of mj^stery, relieved only by a little sphere 
 of light round each of us, like a clearing in an American forest 
 
 ■ (which this writer has so well described), and rarely cjin see fartlier 
 than is necessary for the directiv.in of our own conduct fr(>m day to 
 day, we find here, assumed by a particular person, the character of 
 an univei'sal judge wdthout appeal. And whereas the highest self- 
 restraint is necessary in these dark but, therefore, all the more 
 exciting inquiries, in order to maintain the ever quivering balance 
 of our faculties, this writer cliooses to ride an unbroken horse, and 
 to throw the reins upon his neck. I have endeavoured to give a 
 sample of the results. 
 
 I W. E. Gladstone. 
 
 j *The chief part of these observations were written before I had received the 
 § January number of the .Review, with Ool. IngersoU's additional letter to Dr. 
 I Field. Much of this letter isspecially pointed at Dr. Field, who can defend himself, 
 
 and at Calvin, whose ideas I certainly cannot undertake to defen<l all along the 
 ': line. I do not see that the Letter adds to those, the most salient, points nf the- 
 
 earliw article which I have endeavored to select for animadversion. 
 
Sol. Ingerscll to TDr. ©ladslfoije. 
 
 n i; 
 
 To TFiE Rkjht Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M. P. 
 
 My Dear Sir: — At, the throsliold of tliis reply, it gives me 
 ])leasure to say that for youi' int^'Uect and character I have the 
 gn^atest respect ; and let me say further, tliat T shall coiisidei* youi' 
 jirguiiK.'iits, assertions, and inferences entiicly a])art from your 
 pci-sonality — apart from the exalted position that yon occu})y in tlie 
 (. ^tinlation of the civilized world. I <!'ladlv acknowlc'lo-c the in- 
 rstimahle services that you have rendered, not only to Engiaml, l»ut 
 to niaidcind. Most men are chilled and narrowed by the snows of 
 a^e; their thouo-hts are darkened by the approach of night. Rut 
 you, for many years, have hasteniMl towai'd the light, and your 
 mind lias been " an autumn that grew tlu,' more by reaping." 
 
 Under no circumstances could I feel justified in taking advantage 
 of the admissions that you have made as to the " errors " the " mis- 
 feaF^ance/' the "infirmiticsandthe perversity" of the Christian church. 
 
 It is perfectly apparent that churches, being only aggregations 
 of people, contain the prejudice, the ignorance, the vices an<l th<' 
 vii"tues of ordinnry human beings. The perfect cannot be made 
 out of the imperfect. 
 
 A man is not necessarily a gi-eat mathematician because he 
 admits the correctness of the multiplication table. The best creed 
 may be l)elieved b\' the worst of the human race. Neither the 
 crimes nin- the virtues of the church tend to prove or disprove the 
 supernatural origin of religion. The massacre of St. Bartholomew 
 tends no more to establish the in.spiration of the scriptuivs than 
 the bombardment of Alexandria. 
 
 But there is one thing that cannot be admitted, and that is your 
 statement that the constitution of man is in a " warped, impaired, 
 and dislocated condition," and that " these deformities indispose 
 men to belief." Let us examine this. 
 
 We say that a thing is " warped" that was once nearer level, flat, 
 or straight ; that it is "impaired" when it was once nearer per- 
 fect, and tliat it is " dislocated " wlieu once it was united Cou- 
 
 % 
 
oi}e. 
 
 ^ivos me 
 I li;iv(' the 
 ■li(lo)' yoiii' 
 i-f)in v()ur 
 ii})yiiitho 
 .<;'<' the in- 
 ••land, l)iit 
 
 SDOWs (jf 
 
 i,i2:lit. But 
 111(1 vonr 
 
 Ivantao'e 
 iiie " mis- 
 
 ncliurcJi. 
 
 rogations 
 
 and tlie 
 
 be made 
 
 [-•a use he 
 st creed 
 tlitT the 
 i-Dve the 
 loloiiicw 
 res tliaii 
 
 ' is your 
 n])aired, 
 [idispose 
 
 eol. 'I^. G. Ingcrsoll. 
 
 vel, flat, 
 
 •er ]ier- 
 
 Con- 
 
 -n 
 
 % 
 
41 
 
 seqi 
 was 
 
 witl 
 our 
 war 
 
 h 
 
 "^an( 
 
 I 
 
 
f 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 ai 
 
 seqnently, you have said that at some time the human constitution 
 was unwarped, unimpaired, and with each part workinj^^ in harmony 
 •with all. You seem to l>elieve in the degeneracy' of man, and that 
 ciir unt'ortunati; race, starting at perfection, has travelled down- 
 wai'd thr(^ngh all the wasted years. 
 
 It is hardly possible that our ancestors were perfect. If histoiy 
 proves anything, it establishes the fact that civilization was n(jt 
 first, and savagery afterwards. Certainly the tendency of man is 
 not now toward Itarbai'ism. There nuist luive been a time when 
 language was unknown, when lips had never formed a word. That 
 which man knows, man must have learned. The victories of our 
 race ha\e l)een slowly and painfully won. It is a long distance 
 from the gibberish of the sa\age to the sonnets of Shakespeare — a 
 long and weary road fi'om the pi])e of Pan to the great oi'chestra 
 voiced with every tone fi'om the glad warble of a niated bird to the 
 lionrse thundt-r of the sea. The road is long that lies between the 
 discordant cries uttered by the bar1)Hrian over the gashed boily of 
 his foe and the marvelous music of AVagnt-r and Beethoven. It is 
 hardly ])ossible to conceive of the years tliat lie between the caves 
 in which crouched our naked ancestors crunching the lujnes of wild 
 beasts, and the home of a civilized man with its comforts, its articles 
 of luxury and use, — with its works of art, with its enriched and 
 illuminated walls. Think of the billowed years that must have 
 rolle<l between! tliese shores. Think of the vast distance that man 
 has slowly groped from the dark dens and lairs of ignorance and 
 fear to the int^dh-ctual conquests of our day. 
 
 Is it true that these deformities, these '' warped, impaij-ed, and 
 dislocated constitutions indispose men to belief ?" Can we in this 
 way account for the doubts entertained by the intellectual leaders 
 of mankind ? 
 
 It will not do, in this age and time, to account for unbtlief in 
 this defoj-meil and dislocated way. The exact opposite nmst be 
 true. Ignorance and credulity sustain the relati(jn of cause and 
 effect. Ignoi'ance is satisfied with assertion, with appearance. 
 
 ^As man rises in the scale of intelligence he demands evidence. 
 
 |He begins to look l)ack of appearance. He asks the priest for 
 reasons. The most ignorant part of Christendom is the most 
 
 lorthodox. 
 
 You have simply rep(^ated a favorite assertion of the clergy, 
 
 [to the effect that man rejects the gospel because he is naturally 
 
 lepraved and hard of heart — because, owing to the sin of Adam 
 
 md Eve, he has fallen from the perfection and purity of paradise 
 
82 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 to that " impaired " condition in wliich he is satisfied witli tho 
 filthy rags of reason, observation and experience. 
 
 The truth is, that what you call unbelief is only a higlier and 
 holier faith. Millions of men reject Christianity because of its 
 cruelty. The Bible was never rejected by the cruel. It has been 
 upheld by countless tyrants — by the dealers in human flesh — by 
 the destroyers of nations — by the; enemies of intelligence — by the 
 stealers of babes and the whippers of women. 
 
 It is also true that it has been held as sacred by the good, the 
 self-denying, the virtuous and the loving, who clung to the sacred 
 volume on account of the good it contains and in spite of all its 
 cruelties and crimes. 
 
 You are mistaken when you say that all " the faults of all the 
 Christian bodies and subdivisions of liodies have been carefully 
 raked together " in my Reply to Dr. Field, " and made part and 
 parcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of salvation." 
 
 No thoughtful man pretends that any fault of any Christian 
 body can be used as an argument against what you call the " divine 
 scheme of redemption." 
 
 I find in your Remarks the frequent charge that I am guilty 
 of making assertions and leaving them to stand without the assist- 
 ance of argument or fact, and it may be proper, at this particular 
 point, to inquire how you know that there is " a divine sclieme oi' 
 redemption." 
 
 My objections to this " divine scheme of redemption" are : 
 jvrst, that there is not the slightest evidence that it is divine ; second, 
 that it is not in any sense a " scheme," human or divine ; and third, 
 that it (iannot, by any possibility, result in the redemption of a 
 human beino^. 
 
 It cann<:)t be divine, because it lias no foundation in the nature 
 of things, and is not in accordance with reason. It is based on the 
 idea that right and wrong are the expression of an arbiti-ary will, 
 and not words applied to. and descriptive of, acts in the light of con- 
 sequences. It rests upon the absurdity eddied " pardon," upon tlie 
 assumption that wlien a crime has been committed justice will be 
 satisfied with the punishment of the innocent. One person may 
 sufi'er, or reap a benefit, in consequence of the act of another, but 
 no man can be justly punished for the crime, or justly rewarded 
 for the virtues, of another. A " scheme" that punishes an innocent 
 man for tiie vices of another can hai'dly be called divine. Can a 
 murderer find justification in the agonies of his victim ? There is 
 
 III 
 t.l 
 
 h 
 
 M 
 
COL. INGEUSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 :V,\ 
 
 fiod with tho 
 
 a higlier and 
 •ecauso of its 
 It has been 
 I an fle.sh — by 
 ;cuce — by the 
 
 he good, tho 
 jO the sacred 
 ite of all its 
 
 ts of all the 
 'on carefully 
 ide ])art and 
 salv^atic^n." 
 ay Christian 
 the " divine 
 
 I am ouiltv 
 it the assist - 
 is particular 
 le scheme ot 
 
 « 
 
 ption" are: 
 ine ; second, 
 and tliird, 
 nption of a 
 
 the nature 
 )ased on the 
 )iti-ary will, 
 ight of con- 
 upon the 
 ;tice will be 
 .person may 
 nother, but 
 y rewarded 
 an innocent 
 ine. Can a 
 There is 
 
 Tio vicarious vice; there is no vicarious virtu*'. For me it is iianl 
 to understand how a just and loving being can charge one of his 
 •childi'en with the vices, or credit him with the virtues, of another. 
 
 And why shoul<l we call anything a " <livine sciieme " that has 
 been a failure from the "' fall of man" until the present momuiit ^ 
 What race, what nation has been redeemed through the instrumen- 
 tality of this " divine scheme i" Have not the subjects of it Icinji- 
 tion been for the most part the enemies of civilization ' Has uttl 
 almost every valuaMe Ixxjk since the iuNention of ])rinting beiMi 
 <lenounced by the believers in the ■ divine scheme ;* " Intelligence, 
 the development of the mind, the discoveries of science, the inven- 
 tions of geidus, the cultix'ation of tlie ii)iiij,'ination through art and 
 music, and the practice of virtue will redeem the hu)iian race. 
 These are the saviours of mankind. 
 
 You adndt that the "Christian chui'ches have, by their exagger- 
 ations and shortcomings, and by theii- faults of conduct, contributed 
 to bring about a condition of hostility to religious faith." 
 
 If one wishes to know the worst that man has done, all that 
 ])Ower e-uided by cruelty can do, all the excuses that can 1)0 framed 
 tor the couunission of every crime, the iniinite difference that can 
 exist between that which is professed and tliat which is practiced, 
 the marvelous malignity of meekness, the arrogance of humility 
 and the savae'oi'v of what is known as " universal love," let him 
 read the history of the Christian church. 
 
 Yet, I not only adinit that millions «^f Christians have been 
 nionost in the expression of theii' ojiinioi.s. but that the5' have been 
 among the bo.st and noiilest of oui- ivice. 
 
 And it is further admitted that a creed shouM be examined apart 
 
 from the conduct of those who have assented to its truth. The 
 
 church shoidd be iu<l<''ed as a whole, antl its faults shouM be 
 
 accounted for either l>y tho weakness of human nature, or by reason 
 
 .of some defect or vice in the religion taught. — cjr by l)oth. 
 
 * Is there anvthino- in the Christian reliijion — anvthini,^ in what 
 
 ;■ you are pleased to call the " Sacred Scriptures," tending to cause 
 
 4 the crimes and atrocities that have boon connnitted by the Church ? 
 
 It seems to be natiu'al for a man to defend hiniself and the ones 
 
 he loves. The father sla3^s the man who would kill his child — he 
 
 <lefonds the l)ody. The Christian father burns the heretic — he 
 
 i;-defends the soul. 
 
 ■If 
 
 A If "orthodox Christianity" be true, an intidel has not the right 
 
 ^o live. Every book in which the Bible is attacked should be 
 
34 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 bnrnf'fl with it«! author. Why liesitate to burn a man whose con- 
 stitution is " warp('<l, impaired and dish^catod," for a few moments, 
 when hundreds of others will be saved from eternal flames ? 
 
 In Christianity you will tind the cause of persecution. The 
 idea that belief is essential to salvation — this itrnorant and merci- 
 less do'niia — accounts for the atrocities of the church. This absurd 
 declaration built tlie duuLTeons, used the instruments of torture, 
 erected the scatlblds and ligiiteil the fagots of a thousand years. 
 
 \yiuit, I pray j^ou, is the " heavenlj' treasure " in the keeping of 
 your cluirch ? Is it a belief in an infinite God ? That was believed 
 thousands of years before the serpent tempted Eve. Is it a belief 
 in the innnortalitv of the soul ? That is far older. Is it that man 
 should treat his neighbor as himself''' T]u)t is more ancient. What 
 is the treasure in tile keeping of tiie church ? Let me tell you. It 
 is this : That tliere is but one true religion — Chi'istianity, — and 
 that all others are false ; that the prophets, and Christs, and priests 
 of all others have been and are impostors, or the victims of insanity ; 
 that the Bible is the one inspired book — the one authentic record 
 of the words of God ; that all men are naturally depraved and 
 deserve to be punished witii unspeakable torments forever : that 
 there is only one path that leads to heaven, while countless liigh- 
 wnys lead to hell ; that there is only one name under heaven by 
 which a Innnan being can 1)e saved ; that we must believe in the 
 Lord Jesus C'hrist : tliat tliis life, with its few and fleeting years, 
 lixes the fate of man ; that the few will be saved and the many 
 forever lost. This is the " he^ivenly treasure " within the keeping 
 of your church. ' 
 
 And this " treasure " has been guarded by the cherubim of perse- 
 cution, whose flaming swords were wet for many centuries with the 
 best and bni'est blood. It has been guarded by cunning, by 
 hypocrisy, by mendacity, by honesty, by calunmiating the generous, 
 by maligning the good, by thumbscrews and racks, by charity and 
 love, by robbery and assassination, by poison and fire, by the vir- 
 tues of the ignorant and the vices of the learned, by the violence 
 of mobs and the whirlwinds of war, by every hope and every fear, 
 bj' every cruelty and every crime, and by all there is of the wild 
 beast in the heart of man. 
 
 With great propriety it may be asked : In the keeping of which 
 church is this " heavenlv treasure ? " Did the Catholics have it, 
 and was it taken by Luther ? Did Henry the VIII. seize it, and 
 is it now in the keeping of the Church of England ? Which of 
 the warring sects in America has this treasure ; or have we, in 
 
 ||M~ 
 
COL. IN(iLU.SUhL TO MU. GLADSTONE. 
 
 8(1^ 
 
 hose con- 
 momeiits. 
 
 ion. The 
 nd merci- 
 lis absurd 
 f torture, 
 Tid years. 
 
 eepiiig of 
 s believed 
 t a belief 
 that man 
 nt. What 
 II you. It 
 lity, — and 
 Lud priests 
 :' insanity ; 
 tic record 
 raved an<l 
 iver : tliat 
 less hio'h- 
 leaven by 
 ve in the 
 ing years, 
 die many 
 e keeping 
 
 1 of perse- 
 s with the 
 ming, by 
 generous, 
 arity and 
 y the vir- 
 violence 
 very fear, 
 : the wild 
 
 of which 
 have it, 
 ize it, and 
 Which of 
 ve we, in 
 
 this country, only the " rust and canker?'' Is it in an EpiscopaT 
 Church, that refuses to asscjciate with a coloured man I'ur whom • 
 Christ died, and who is good en(jugh fur tlie society of the angelic • 
 li'.st^ 
 
 r.iit wherever this " heavenly treasure " has been, about it have 
 nhviiys hoNcred the Stymphalian birds of superstition, thrusting 
 tluir brazen beaks and claws deep into the flesh of honest men. 
 
 You were pleased to point out as the particular line justifying 
 yiiur assertion "that denunciation, sarcasm, and invective consti- 
 tutv' the staple of my wurk," that line in which I speak of those 
 who expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy, and add : "1 
 take this as a specimen of the mode of statement which permeates 
 the whole." 
 
 Dr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying : " I am glad 
 that I know you, evr.n thouj/h soint of my bretJiren took upon you 
 an a nionstcr, ht'cditse of your 'wnbdlcf." 
 
 In reply I simply said: " The statement in your Letter that som€- 
 of your brethren look u])on me as a monster on account of my 
 unbelief tends to show that those who love God are not always the 
 friends of their fellow men. Is it not strange that pe^jple who admit 
 that they ought to be eternally dannied — that they are by nature 
 dipraved — tliat there can be no soundness of health in them, can. 
 bf .so ari'oirantlv eu'etistic as to look u])on othei's as monsters? And 
 yet some (jf your brethren who regard unbelievers as infanious^ 
 rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect ta 
 receive as alms an eternity of joy." Is there any denunciation, 
 sarcasm, or invective in this ? 
 
 Wh\' sliould one who admits that he is hiuvself totally depraved 
 call an}^ other man, by way of re])n)ach. a iiion.ster ? Possibly, he 
 might be justified in addressing him as a fellow-monster. 
 
 1 am not satisfied with your statement that "the Christian' 
 receives as alms all whatsoever he I'eceives at all." Is it true that ■ 
 man de.serves only punishment i Does the man who makes the • 
 World better, who works and battles for the right, and dies for the ■ 
 
 food of his fellow men, deserve nothing but pain and anguish ? Is 
 appiness a gift or a consequence ? Is heaven «jnly a well-conducted 
 oorhouse ? Are the angels in their highest estate nothing but 
 appy paupers ? Must all the redeemed feel that they are in heavent 
 simply because there was a miscarriage of justice ? Will the lost 
 be the only ones who will know that the right thing has been done, 
 fiaid will they alone appreciate the "ethical elements of religion?*^ 
 
Cnl,. IN(;i:i!.S()IJ, lO MIt. (II.ADsrnNK. 
 
 Will tht-y repeat the wor'ls that y<»u have (pioled : " Meicy ainl 
 jwdyiiiciit are met toj^^etlier ; ri^diteousjiess niid |>eace liavo kissed 
 ••ac'li other" !* or will those words bo spoken ))y tlic n.'dcnnt'd as 
 tlioy Joyously contemplate the writliini^s of the lost ;" 
 
 No ont! will disjmt*' " that in the discussion ol' imj)ortaiit (]uostion> 
 <*almness and sohriety art- essential." I»ut sol(>mnity ne( d not he 
 carried to the N'ei'n'e of mental pai'aly>is. Inthe>eai'eh for truth, - 
 that e\ erythini^'" in nature seems to hide, — man iieeils the assistance 
 of all his faculties. All the souses shouM he awake. Humoi 
 should carry a toi'ch, Wit should uiNc its suddi'U liu'ht, Candoi- 
 should hold tlie scales, Keason, the final arhiti'r, should put his 
 I'oyal stani]) on eveiy fact, and Memory, with a miser's care, should 
 keep and euai-d the mental ^old. 
 
 The chnrch has always despised the man of huimr, hated lauehtei 
 and eucoui'aef'd the lethargy of solenniity. It is not willini;' thai 
 the mind should suhject its creed to everv test of trutli. It wislu- 
 to ovei-awe. it does not say, "He that hath aniind to think lei 
 liim thi]d\ ' ; hut, '■ He that hath ears to hear let him hear." The 
 church has always ahhoi-re*! wit, — that i" to say, it does not en 
 joy lieing struck hy the lightning of the soul. The foundation of 
 wit is logic, aud it has always heen the enemy of the supernatural 
 the solenni and alisurd. 
 
 You express great i-egi-et tliat no one at the present day is able 
 to write like Itasca! You admire his wit and temlerness, and the 
 uuiriue. brilliant, and fascinating manner in which he ti'eate(l tlu 
 ])rof'auidt'st and nio>t comjilex themes. Shai-ing mi ymii' admiration 
 and regret, 1 call your attention to what inigfit be called one ol 
 iiis religious generaliziitions . " Di.sease is tlie Uritural .state of n 
 Christian." Certainly it e-iunot be sai<l that I ha\'e ever mingled 
 the jii'ofound and com])iex in a moiv.' fascinating manner. 
 
 Another instance isgi\-en of the '' tumultutnis meth(»<l in ^\■hich I 
 «on<Uict. not, indeed, my argtmient. but my case." 
 
 Dr. Field liad drawn a distinction betwi'cn superstition and I'e 
 lieion, to which 1 replied : "^'ou are shocke<i at the Hindoo mother 
 when slio gives hei' child to death at the su])pt)sed command of hei' 
 (lod. W'hal do you thiidv of Al>rahani, of Jephthah ? What is 
 your opinion of .)eln)vah him.self ?" 
 
 These sim})le ({Uestions seem to liave excited you to an unusual 
 deore(\ and \'ou ask in woi-ds of some scN^eritv : " Whether this is 
 the tone in which controversies caight to be carrierl on ?" And you 
 say that — "not only is the name of Jehovah encircled in the heart 
 
 tl 
 
 n 
 I't 
 in 
 tl 
 
 "B 
 
 e 
 
 — 4 11 
 
 Jl 
 
CUL. I\<ii;i{S()M, TO mi: CI.ADS'I'oM:. 
 
 :n 
 
 " Mcicy an. I 
 Imvc kissrd 
 r('(lc'c'iinMl as 
 
 Lilt (jUO.sti(Jll> 
 ll('( (I not lie 
 
 t'oi' truth,- 
 i(^ assistatici' 
 :('. IIiiiiioi 
 .U'lit, Camldi' 
 >iil<l put lii.s 
 ('arc, should 
 
 ti'<] Iaui;'ht('i' 
 will inn' thai 
 It \\ish('> 
 to think let 
 hcai'.'" Tlic 
 l(jt's not I'D- 
 •niiilation of 
 ipfi'uaturai 
 
 "lay is ultli 
 L'ss, and tlif 
 treated tin 
 admiration 
 ailed one oi' 
 1 state ol' ii 
 er mingled 
 r. 
 
 in whicli I 
 
 ion and re 
 doo mothei' 
 nand oK liei' 
 ? Wliat i.s 
 
 an unusual 
 
 ther this is 
 
 And yoii 
 
 u the heart 
 
 of OVnry heiievel* witll tlie |)l'ot'oUn<lest reVen-ner niiij love, hut thnt 
 tln' ( 'hristian religion teaches, thi'ough thi' incarnatiftn, a personal 
 relation withCfod so lofty tiiat it can (ady ht- approachetl in a dfep, 
 rev«'rential call'.' You adiiut that a pcrM»n who detins a given 
 religion to he wickf<l, ma\' he led onwar<l h\' loii-ical (•onsi.st<'ne\' to 
 iMi[»ugn HI strong terms the character of the author and ohject of 
 that religion," hut you insist that such person is " houud hy the 
 laws of social morality and dec< ncy to consiiltr well the terms^ and 
 meaning of ]n"s indictment." 
 
 Was there any lack of " reverential calm " in my fiucstinn ' I 
 ga\c no oj)inion, drew no inilictMunt. hut simply askrd I'oi- the 
 opiniiai of another. Was that a violatiiai (jf the " laws (jf .social 
 morality and dceencv ? " 
 
 It is not necessar\' foi- mi- to discuss this (lutstioii with \'<-u. It 
 liJis heeii settled hy Jeho\ah himself. ^ on )a'olialily ifiiicmlicr the 
 account gi\en in the fighteenth chapter <if 1. Kings, of a c(»ntcst 
 hctween the pi'ophets of Iwial and the piophets of Jehovah, Thei'c 
 Wert! four hundretl and lifty [)ro))hets of the false (Jod, who 
 I iideavoure(l to induce their <leity toe<tnsume with liiv from hea\'en 
 the sacrifice upon his alta,)-. According to tlie account, they were 
 gi'eatly in earnest. They certainly aj)pearctl to have s(.)me hope of 
 success, hut the tire di<l not descend. 
 
 " Anil it ciiiR' ti» |);i.ss jit ikkoi, that Ulijali niockod thoni aivl said ' Cry alnud, 
 luv liu is a gud ; uitliur lit' i.s t.alkiiii,', it liu i.s |iiirsiiiiig. or ho is in a j(»urnuy, ur 
 liciadvouturo he Hlu(j[iuth and mu.st bu awaked. 
 
 J )o you coiisidei' that the ]»roper way to attack the (iod of 
 another'' J )id %)t i'^lijah know that the name (jf J]aa). "was 
 encircled in the heai't of every heliever with the profoundest rever- 
 ence and love (* " ])iil he " violate the laws of social moi'ality and 
 decency ^ "' 
 
 l>ut Jehovah an<l Klijah did not stop at this point. Tiny were 
 not satisfied with mocking the ])ro)thet.; of iJaal, hut tlay hrcaight 
 tliem down to the hl-ook Kislion — tour hundriMl and fifty of them 
 -—and there they niurdei'ed t.-xcry one. 
 
 Does it a])pear to you that on th.at occasion, on the hanks of the 
 hrook Kishon — " ^lerc\' and iuiluinent met tonethcr, an<l that 
 righteousness and peace kissed each other ^ " 
 
 The (juestion ari.ses : Has over}' one who reads the Old Testament 
 the right to exjn-e.ss his thought as to the character of Jehovah ? 
 Vou will admit that as he I'eads his mind will receive some impres- 
 sion, and that when he tinishes the " inspired volume " he will have 
 
38 
 
 COL. INGEKSOLL TO mi GLADSTONE. 
 
 fl 
 
 soiiie opinion as to the character of Jehovah. Has he the right to 
 express tluit opinion ? Is the Bible a revelation from God to man ? 
 Is it a revelation to the man who reads it, or to the man who does 
 not read it ? If to the man who reads it, has he the right to give 
 to others the revelation that God has given to him ? If he comes to 
 the conclusion at \vhich you have arrived, — that Jehovah is God, — 
 has he the right to express that opinion ? 
 
 If he concludes, as I liave d<)n'\ that Jehovah is a myth, must he 
 refrain from giving his honest tliouglit ? Christians do not hesitate 
 to give their opinion of heretics, jtliilosophers and infidels. They 
 iare not restrained by the " laws of social morality and decency." 
 'They have persecuted to the extent of their power, and their 
 Jehovah pronounced upon unbelievers every curse capable of being 
 expressed in the Hebrew dialect. At this moment, thousands of 
 missionaries are attacking the gods of the heathen world, and 
 heaping contempt on the religion of others. 
 
 But as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a 
 moment examine this deity of the ancient Jews. 
 
 There are several tests of character. It may be that all the 
 virtues can be expressed in the word " kindness," and that nearly 
 all the vices are gathered together in the word " cruelty." 
 
 Laui^hter is a test of charactei-. When we knoAV what a man 
 laughs at, we know what he really is. Does he laugh at misfortune, 
 at poverty, at honesty in rags, at industry without food, at the 
 agonies of his fellow men ? Does he laugh when he sees the con- 
 vict clothed in the garments of shame — at the criminal on the 
 =;cartbld ! Does he rub his hands with glee over the embers of an 
 enemy's home ? Think of a man capable of laughing while looking 
 at Marguerite in the prison cell with her dead babe by her side. 
 What must lie the real character of a God who laughs at the 
 calamities of his childi'en, mocks at their fears, their desolation, 
 their distress and anguish ? Would aii infinitely loving CJod hold 
 his ignorant children in derision ? Would he pity, or mock ? Save, 
 or destroy ? Educate, or exterminate ? Would he lead them with 
 gentle hands towards the light, or lie in wait for them like d wild 
 beast ? Think of the echoes of Jehovah's laughter in the rayless 
 caverns of the eternal prison. Can a good man mock at the 
 children of deformity ? Will he deride the misshapen ? Your 
 Jehovah deformed some of his own children, and then held them 
 up to scorn and hatred. These divine mistakes — these blunders of 
 the infinite — were not allow* d to enter the temple erected in honor 
 
le riglit to 
 )d to man ? 
 who does 
 ^ht to give 
 e comes to 
 I is God, — 
 
 h, must he 
 ot hesitate 
 Is. They 
 decency." 
 and their 
 e of beinsr 
 'Usands oi 
 rorld, and 
 
 us for a 
 
 at all the 
 lat nearly 
 
 at a man 
 
 isfortune, 
 >d, at the 
 3 the Gon- 
 ial on the 
 :)ers of an 
 e looking 
 her side. 
 IS at the 
 esoliition, 
 Llod liold 
 ^ ? tSave, 
 K'lll witli 
 ie a wild 
 e rayless 
 k: at the 
 ? Your 
 3ld them 
 inders of 
 in honor 
 
 COL. IXCJEKSOLL TO MR. GLADSTv XE. 
 
 SO 
 
 of him wlio liad dishonored thoni. Does a kind father mock his 
 deformed child ^ What would you tliiuk uf a mother who would 
 deride and taunt her misliapen babe ? 
 
 There is another test. How does a man use power ? Is he gentle, 
 or cruel ? Does he defend the weak, succor the oppressed, or 
 trample on the fallen ? 
 
 If you will road again the twenty-eiglitii clia])ter of Deuteronomy, 
 you will find how Jehovah, th(^ com})assionate, whose name is 
 onslu'ined in so many hearts, threatened to use Ids power. 
 
 "The Lord shall smite thee with a coiisumi)ti()ii, and with a fever, and with 
 an inflauiniatiun, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with 
 blasting and mildew. And thy heaven that is over tliy head .shall be brass, and 
 the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord shall UKike the rain of 
 thy land powder and dust." .... " And thy carcass shall be meat unto 
 all the fowls of tiio air and unto the beasts < if the earth." .... " Tlu- 
 Lord shall smite thue witli madness and blindiu-ss. And thou shalt eat of tlu' 
 fruit of thine own body, the Heali of thy sons and thy daughters. The tendei- 
 and delicate women among you, . . her eye shall l)e evil . . toward 
 
 her voung one and toward her children which she shall bear ; for she shall eat 
 theiu." 
 
 Should it ]>e found that these curses were in fact uttered hy the 
 God of hell, and that the translators had made a mistake in 
 attributing them to Jehovah, could you say tluit the sentiments 
 expre.'^pod are inconsistent witli the supposed character of the 
 Infinite Fiend ? 
 
 A nation is judged ^y its law.s — by the punishment it inflicts. 
 The nation that ouv slies ordinary offences with de^.th is regarded 
 as barbarous, ana one nation that tortures before it kills is 
 f](mounced o' ' •^vao'e. 
 
 What can you say of the government of Jehovah, in which death 
 was the penal y lor liundre<ls of otiencc. ' ''^ath for the expression 
 of an honest thought — death for touching with a good intention a 
 sacred ark — death for making hair oil — for *'ating shew breati — 
 for imitating incense and perfumery ? 
 
 In the history of the world a luoro ciuel code cannot be found. 
 Crimes seem to have been invented to gratify a fiendish desire to 
 shed the blood of men. 
 
 There is another test : TIow .ioc , a man treat the animals in his 
 power — his faithful horse — hi? patimt ox — his loving dog ? 
 
 How did Jehovah treat ti. '■ aninals in Egj'pt ? W^ould a loving 
 (}od, with fierce hail fro?n .lieaven, bruise and kill the innocent 
 cjittle for the crimes of ih«,'ir ;wuers ? Would he torment, torture 
 ?uid destroy them for the sVus of men ? 
 
a 
 
 40 
 
 C(jr.. IXGEKSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 JulioNah was u God ut* Mood. His altar was adorned with the 
 horns of a Ix ast. He estal dished a reh^ion in which every temple 
 was a slaughter house, and e\'ery priest a huteher — a religion that 
 demanded tlie death of the tirst-born, and delighted in the destruc- 
 tion of life. 
 
 There ia still anothej- test: The eivilized man gives to oth rs ihe 
 rights that he claims for himself. He believes in the liberty of 
 thought and expression, and abhors persecution for conscience sake. 
 
 Did Jehovah l<elieve in the innocence of thought and the liberty 
 v.i expression ? Kindness is found with ti-ue greatness. Tyranny 
 lodges only in the brea.st of the small, the narrow, the shriveled 
 and the selfish. Did Jehovah tench and practice generosity ' Was 
 ho' a believer in religious liberty ? If he was and is, lu .. x,t, God, 
 he must have known, even four thousand years ago, that worship 
 must be free, and he who is forced upon his knees cannot, by any 
 possibility, have the spirit of prayer. 
 
 Let me call your attention U) a few passages in the thirteenth 
 chapter of Deuteronomy : 
 
 " If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughtor, or the 
 wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which i.s as thine own soul, entice thee 
 secretly, saying. Let us go and serve other gods, . . . thou shalt not con- 
 sent unti,> him, ntjr hearken inito him ; neither shall thine eyes \nty him, neither 
 slialt thou s])are. neither shalt thou conceal him : but thou shalt surely kill 
 him ; thine iiand shall be hrst upon him to put him to djath, and afterwartls 
 the hand of all tlie people. And thou shalt stone liim with stones, that he die." 
 
 Is it possible for you to find in the literature of "this world more 
 awfid passages than these ^ Did ever savagery, with strange and 
 uncouth marks, with awkward forms of benst and bird, pollute the 
 dri]~>])ing walls of ca^•es with such connnands ? Ai-o thesi' the words 
 of iiitinite luercv ? When 'hey wei'e uttered, did " riohteousness 
 and peace kiss each other?" How can any loving man or woman 
 "encircle the name of Jehovah" — author of these words — "with 
 profoundest reverence and love i' " Do I rebel because my "consti- 
 tution is warped, impaired and dislocated ? " Is it because of " total 
 depravity " that I denounce the bi'utality of Jehovah ^ If my heart 
 were only good — if I loved my neighbor as myself— would I then 
 isee infinite mercy in these hideous words ? Do I hick " reverential 
 calm /" 
 
 Tliese frightful passages, like coiled adders, w re in tlie hearts o£ 
 Jehovah's chosen people when they crucified " ihe Sinless Man." 
 
 Jehovah did not tell the husl)and to reason wl'h his wife. She 
 was to be an.swered only with death. She w^as to be bruised and 
 
 ma 
 brc 
 
 th( 
 wi 
 
 th 
 
 to 
 
 m 
 
 
CUL. IXGERSOLL TO MK. (_.LAJ).ST( >NE. 
 
 41 
 
 lie 
 
 witli tile 
 ty temple 
 gion tliat 
 t destruc- 
 
 >tli rs the 
 iberty of 
 rice sake. 
 
 liberty 
 lyranny 
 shriveled 
 y • Was 
 • .ct, God, 
 worship 
 " by any 
 
 lii'teeiith 
 
 ter, or the 
 iitice thoe 
 It not con- 
 Ill, neither 
 iurely kill 
 ifterwarcls 
 It he die." 
 
 1"1<1 lUUiC 
 
 Liiii'e and 
 llnte the 
 le ^vo^ds 
 :;ousness 
 ' woman 
 — " with 
 "coiisti- 
 if " total 
 ly heart 
 1 1 then 
 erential 
 
 (^arts of 
 fan." 
 
 t'. She 
 sell and 
 
 mangled to a bleeding, >^liapeless mass oi quivering tlesh. for ha\ing 
 breathed an honest thouu:ht. 
 
 If there is arivthitiir <'f importance in this world, it is the faniilv, 
 the home, the marriage <jf true souls, the e(|uality of husbaml an<l 
 wife — the true republicanism of the heart — the real deiiKJcracy of 
 the tireside. 
 
 Let us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis: 
 
 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly nudtiply thy sorrows ami thy con- 
 ception ; in sorrow thou shalt hi'ing forth children ; and thy desire shall be 
 to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
 
 Never will I worship any being who added to the sorrows and 
 agonies of maternity. Never Avill I bow to any (rod who intro- 
 duced slavery into every home — who made the wife a slave and 
 the husband a tvi'ant. 
 
 The Old Testament shows that Jehovah, like liis creators, held 
 women in contempt. They were regarded as property : " Thou 
 shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, — nor his ox." 
 
 Why should a pure woman worship a God who upheld polygamy ? 
 Let us finish this subject : The institution of slavery involves all 
 crimes. Jehovah was a belie vi'r in slavery, 'riiis is enraigh. Wliy 
 should any civilized man worship him ' \\hy shoidd his name "be 
 encircled with love and tenderness in any human heart T' 
 
 He believed that man could become the property of man — that 
 
 ,' vas right for his chosen people to deal in human liesh — to buy 
 
 • .1 sell mothers and baltes. He tauoht that the captives were the 
 
 property of tlu; ca[)tors, and lii'ected hi.s clios^a petjple to kill, to 
 
 nslave, or to pollute. 
 
 In the presence of these commandments, what becomes of the 
 Hue savinLf. " Love thv neiohhor as thyself i " What sliall we sav 
 of a God who established slavery, and then had the etlrontery to 
 say, '' Thou shalt not steal ? " 
 
 It may be insisted that Jehovah is the Father of all — and that 
 he has " made of one blood all the nations of the earth." How, then, 
 can we account for the wars of extermination .'' Does not the 
 commandnumt "Love thy neighbor as thyself," apply to nations 
 precisely the .same as to indi\i<luals i Nations, like individuals, 
 become cn-eat by the practice of virtue. How did Jehovah com- 
 mand his people to treat their neighbors ? 
 
 He commanded his generals to destroy all, men, women and 
 babes: " Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatlieth." 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
l! 
 
 -i2 
 
 COL. IXGIEUSOLL TO MR. GLAD.^tiTOXE. 
 
 "I will make uiiue arrows drunk with blood, and my swoi'd shall devour 
 sflosh." 
 
 ' ' That thy foot may be dipi)ed in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue 
 of thy dogs in the same." 
 
 -' . . . I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of 
 serpents of the dust. . . . ' 
 
 " The sword without and terro!- witliin shall destroy 1)()th the j'oung man and 
 the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of gray hairs." 
 
 Is it possible that these words foil from the lips of the Most 
 Merciful ? 
 
 You may reply that the inliabitauts of Canaan were unfit to li\'e 
 — that they ^''<'.re ignorant and cruel, ^^hy did not Jeliovah, tlic 
 '' Fatlier of ah g-ive t)iom the Ten Commandments ? Wliy did he 
 leave them wi^, .i.; ii, Bible, without prophets and priests? Why 
 did he shower al' +^e blessino-s of revelation on one poor and 
 wretched tribe, and leave the great world in ignorance and crime 
 — an<l why did he order his favorite children to nmi'der those whom 
 iie had neglected ? 
 
 By the question I asked of Dr. Field, the intention was to show 
 that Jephthah, wlien he sacrificed his daugliter to Jehovah, "was as 
 much tht^ slave of superstition as is the Hincioo motlier when she 
 tlirows her babe into th(3 yellow waves of the Ganges. 
 
 It seems that this savage Jephthah was in direct connnunication 
 •with Jfliovah at IMizpeh, and that he made a vow unto the Lord 
 and said : 
 
 " If thou shalt witliout fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 
 ^hbn it sliall 1)e that whatsoever cometli forth of the doors of my house to meet 
 me. when 1 return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the 
 Lord's, and I will offer it uj) as a burnt offering." 
 
 In the first place, it is perfectly clear that the sacrifice intended 
 was a human sacrifice, from the M'ords : " that whatsoever cometh 
 forth of the doors of my house to meet me." Some human being — 
 wife, daughter, friend, was expected to come. According to the 
 account, his dauoliter — his onlv dauo-hter — his onlv child — came 
 tirst. 
 
 If Jephthah was in connnunication with God, why di<l God allow 
 this man to make this vow; and why did he allow the daughter 
 that he loved to be first, and why did he keep siji'iit and allow the 
 v.>w to be ke]")t, while fianies devoured thr daughter's fiesh ? 
 
 8t. Paul is not authority. He praises Samuel, the man who 
 
 hewed Agag in piec(.»s; l)a\id, who compelloil hundreds to pass 
 
 •under the saws and harrows of deatli. and many others who shed 
 
 ;tJie blood of the innocent and helpless. Paul is an unsafe guide. 
 
 i\ 
 
 Jl 
 
 ii] 
 
 CI 
 
 el 
 
COL. IXGEHSULL TO MR. GLAi).STOXE. 
 
 49 
 
 shall devour 
 d the tongue 
 the poison of 
 mg man and 
 
 the Most 
 
 ifit to live 
 lovali, t]ic 
 'hy did he 
 ^s? Why 
 poor and 
 and crime 
 ose whom 
 
 s to slio\v 
 h, M-as as 
 when she 
 
 unication 
 the Lord 
 
 ine hands, 
 
 se to meet 
 >lv be the 
 
 intended 
 • C( )metli 
 beino- — 
 r to tJie 
 I — came 
 
 d allow 
 ^ughter 
 loM^ the 
 
 n who 
 
 bo pass 
 
 »o shed 
 
 .iruido. 
 
 t 
 
 He who commends the brutalities of the past, sows the seeds of 
 future crimes. 
 
 If "believers are not oblic^ed to approve of the conduct of 
 Jephthah," are tli<'y free to condenni the conduct of JehoNah ^ If you 
 will read the account, you will se« that the "'spirit of the Lord was 
 upon Jephthah" when lu,' made the cruel vow. If Paul did not 
 connnend Jephthah for keeping this vow, what was the act that 
 excited his admiration ? Was it because .]e}»hthah sjrw on the 
 banks of the Jordan "forty and two thousand" of the sons (<f 
 Ephraira ? 
 
 In ri'gard to Abraham, the argument is precisely the same, except 
 tljat Jehovah is said to have interfered, and allowed an animal to 
 1)6 slain instead. 
 
 One of the answers given by you is that " it may be allowed that 
 the narrative is not within our coniprelumsion ; " and for that 
 reason you say that " it behooves us to tread cautiously in api)roach- 
 ing it." Why cautiously ? 
 
 1'hese stories of Abraham and Jephthah have cost many an 
 innocent life. Only a few years ago, here in my countiy, a man by 
 tlie name of Freeman, believing that God demanded at least the 
 show of obedience — believing what he had read in the Old Testa- 
 ment that " without the sheddini): of blood there is no remission," 
 and so believing, touched with insanity, sacriflc<'(| Ins little girl — 
 plunged into her innocent breast the dagger, 1 »elieving it to be God's 
 will, and thinkino- that if it were not God's will, his hand would l»e 
 
 <-■■ 
 
 I know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime 
 told bv this man. 
 
 Nothing can be more monstrous than the conce])tion of a God 
 who demands sacritice — of a God who would ask of a t'athi'r that 
 he murdered his son — of a father that he would liurn his daughter. 
 It is far beyond my comprehension how any man ever could have 
 believed such an intinite, such a cruel absurdity. 
 
 At the connnand of the real God — if there be one — I would not 
 sacrifice my child, I woidd not nuirder my wife. P)Ut as long as 
 there are people in the world whose minds nw so that tiny' can 
 believe the stories of Abi-aham an<l Jephthah, just so long there 
 will be men who will take the lives of the ones tlu-y lovj best. 
 
 You have taken the position that the cimditions are dili'erent ; 
 and you say that : " According to the book of Genesis, Adam and 
 Eve were placed under a law, not of consciously percei\'ed right and 
 
44 
 
 COL. i\(;ersoll to mk. Gladstone. 
 
 wroiin-, hut of simple obedience. Thi- troe of which alone t.hoy were- 
 forhiddt'Ti to cat was the tree of the knowledge of f,^ood and evil ; 
 «hity Inv for theui in following the eonmiand of the Most High, 
 In'fore und until they liecanie" capahh,' of {ijjpreciating it l)y an 
 ethical standard. Thru- knowledge was hut that of an infant who 
 had just reached tlu' stage at which he can comprehend that he is 
 oi-dei-ed to do this or tliat, hut not the nature of the thing so 
 ordered." 
 
 If Adam and Eve could not "consciously perceive right and 
 wrong," how is it possihli; for you to say that "duty lay for them 
 in following the connnand of the .Most High '{" How can a person 
 " inca]uxble of perceiving rigiit and wrong" have an idea of duty ? 
 You are driven t< > say "that Adam and Eve had no moral sen^e. 
 How, under sue!, ^'rcumstances, could they have the sense of guilt, 
 or of ohliii'ation ? And whv should such i)ersons l)e puni.shed ? 
 
 *• *• '111 
 
 And why should th ' .'''hole human race liecome tanited by the 
 offence of those ^\ilo had no moral sense ? 
 
 Do you intend to be uuilerstood as saving that Jehovah allowed 
 his children to en.slave each other because "duty lay for them in 
 following the connnand of the Most High ?" Was it for this rcas<m 
 that lie caused them to exterminate each other :* Do you account 
 for the severity of his punishments by the fact that the poor 
 creatui'es punislied were not aware of the enormity of the offences 
 they had connnitted ? What shall w^e say of a Ood who has one of 
 his children stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sunday, and 
 allows another to enslave his ftdlow man ^ Have you discovered 
 any theorj- that will account for both of these facts ? 
 
 Another word as to Abraham: — You defend his willingness to 
 kill his son because " the estimate of human life at the tin)e was 
 different" — because "the position of the father in the family was 
 different ; its members were regarded as in some sense his prop- 
 erty ;" and because " thei-e is every i-eason to suppos(^ that around 
 Abraham in the 'land of Moi'iah' the practice of human sacrifice as 
 an act of religion was in full \igor." 
 
 Let us examine tliese three excuses : Was Jehovah justified in 
 putting a low <'stimate on human life <' Was he in earnest when 
 he said "that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man sliall his blood 
 he shed ? ' Did he ]m)ider to the barl)arian view of the worthle.ss- 
 ness of life ? If the estimate of human life was low, what was the 
 sacrifice worth ? 
 
 Was the son the property of the father ? Did Jehovah uphold 
 this savage view ? Had the father the right to sell or kill his child ? 
 
COL. lyGERSOLL TO MU. GLAD8'J"OXE. 
 
 45 
 
 Do yon defend Jehovali and Abraham 1»ecaus*' the ignorant 
 wretches in tlie " land of Moriali," knowing nothing of the true God, 
 cut the throats of their halves " as an act of religion ? " 
 
 Was Jehovah led away by the example of tlie Gods of Moriah ? 
 Do you not see that yonr <'xeuses are simply the suggestions of 
 other crimes ^ 
 
 You see clearly that the Hindoo mother, when she throws her 
 babe into the Ganges at the conmian<l oi her God, " sins against 
 tii-st principles;" but you excuse Abraham because he lived in the 
 childhood of the race. Can Jehovah be excused because of his 
 3'outh ? Not satistJL'd with yonr exjilanation, your defences an(k 
 excuses, you take the ground that wlifu Abraham said: 'My son, 
 God will provide a lamb foi- a burnt otlering/' he may have 
 " believed implicitly that a wav of rescue would be found for his 
 sorx. In other words, that Al»raham did not believe that he would 
 be required to slied the l)lood of Isaac. So that, after all, tlie faith 
 of Abraham con.sisted in " believing implicitly " that Jehovah was 
 not in earnest. 
 
 You liave discovered a way by wliich, as you think, the neck of 
 orthodoxy can escape the noose of Darwin, and in that connection 
 you use this remarkable lanu'uaofc : 
 
 " I should reply that th(> moral history of man, in its principal 
 stream, has been distinctly an evolution from the first until now.'' 
 
 It is hard to see how tliis statement agrees with the one in the 
 beginning of your Renuxrks, in which you speak of the human con- 
 stitution in its " warpi'd, impaired and dislocated " condition. When 
 you wrote that line, you were certainly a theologian — a believer in 
 the Episcopal creed — and yoxw mind, by mere force of habit, was 
 at that moment contemplating man as he is supposed to ha\'e been 
 cieated — perfect in every })art. At that time you. w^ere endeavor- 
 ing to account for the unbelief now in the world, and you did this 
 by stating that the human constitution is " wai'ped, impaired and 
 dislocated ; " but the moment you are brought face to ^sxr/i with the 
 great truths uttered by Dai-win, you admit " that the mora, history 
 of man has l)een distinctly an tn'olution from the first until now." 
 Is not this a fountain that brings forth sweet and bitter waters? 
 
 I insist, that tlie discoveries of Darwin do away absolutely with 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures — with the account of creation in 
 Genesis, and demonstrate, not simply the falsity, not simply the 
 wickedness, but the foolishness of the " sacred volume." 
 
 There is nothing in Darwin to show that all has been evolved 
 from " primal niglit and from chaos." There is no evidence of 
 
-t 
 
 
 
 4U 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLAD.STOXE. 
 
 
 ** rM»l »-»! rt 1 
 
 iiJrYiV^i- " T'U/-iT..-> ic -no IM-/ ./ >V ,\( llTllT'OVGnl pllfinS 
 
 Did vonr 
 
 u 
 
 Jehovali .spend an eternity in " primal niglit," with no companion 
 but cha(j.s { 
 
 It makes no difference how loni^^ a lower form may recjuire to 
 reach a hii^her. It makes no dilirrence whether forms can be 
 simply modified or absohitely clianm'.l. These facts have not the 
 slightest tendency to throw the slightest light on the beginning or 
 on the destiny of things. 
 
 I mo.st cheerfully athnit that gods have the right to create swiftly 
 or slowly. The reptile may becouu' a bird in one day, or in a thou- 
 sand l>illion year.s — this fact has nothing to do witli the existence or 
 non-existence of the first cause, but it lias .something to do with the 
 truth of the Bible, and with the existence of a personal God of 
 infinite power and wisdom. 
 
 Does not a gradual improvement in the thing ci-eated show a 
 corresponding improvenuiut in the creator ? The church demon- 
 strated the falsity and folly of Darwin's theories by showing that 
 they contradicted the Mosaic account of creation, and now the 
 theories of Darwin having been fairly established, the church says 
 that the Mosaic account is true, because it is in harmony with 
 Darwin. Now, if it should turn out that Darwin was mistaken, 
 what then ? 
 
 To me. it is somowhnf difficult to understand the mental processes 
 of one who really feels tlint " the gap between man and the inferior 
 animals or their relationship was stated, perhaps, even more 
 em])hatically by Bishop Butler than by Darwin." 
 
 Butler answered deists, who objected to the cruelties of the Bible, 
 and yet lauded the God of Nature by showing tliat the God of 
 Nature is as cruel as the God of the Bible. That is to .say, he 
 succeeded in .showing that both Gods are bad. He had no possible 
 conce})tion of the splendid generalizations of Darwin — the great 
 truths that have re^•6lutionized the thought of the world. 
 
 But there was one question asked by Bishop Butler that throws 
 a Hame of light upon the probable origin of most, if not all, reli- 
 gions : "Why might not whole communities and public bodies be 
 seized with hts of insanity as well as individuals ? " 
 
 If you are convinced that Moses and Darwin are in exact accord, 
 will you be good enough to tell who, in your judgment, were the 
 parents: of Adam and Eve? Do j^ou find in Darwin any theory 
 that satisfactorily accounts for the " in.spired fact " that a Rib, 
 commencing with Monogonic Propagation— falling into halves by a 
 
COL. INGEKSOLL TO MR. CJLADvSTOXE. 
 
 4r 
 
 contraction in the middle — rencliing, after many a^es of Evolution, 
 the Ampliigonic stage, and then, by the Survival of the Fittest, 
 assisted by Natural Selection, moulded and modilied by Environ- 
 ment, became at last the mother of the human race ? 
 
 Here is a world in which there are countless varieties of lif(! — 
 these varieties in all probability related to each other — all living 
 upon each other — everything devouring something, and in its turn 
 devoured by something else — everywhere claw and beak, hoof and 
 tooth, — everything seeking the life of something else — ever}- drop 
 of water a battle Held, every atom being for some wild beast a 
 jungle — every place agolgotha — and such a world is declared to be 
 the work of the infinitely wise and compassionate. 
 
 According to your idea, Jehovah prepared a home for his 
 children — first a garden in which they should be tempted and 
 from which they should be driven ; then a world filled with briers 
 and thorns and wild and poisonous beasts — a world in which the 
 air should be filled wnth the enemies of human life — a world in 
 which disease should be contagious, and in which it was impossi- 
 ble to tell, except by actual experiment, the poisonous from the 
 nutritious. And these children were allowed to live in dens and 
 holes and fight their way amongst monstrous serpents and crouching 
 beasts — were allowed to live in igfnorance and fear — to iiave false 
 ideas of this good and loving Cod — ideas so false that they made of 
 him a fiend — ideas so false that they sacrificed their wives and 
 babes to appease the imaginary wrath of this monster. And this 
 God gave to difierent nations different ideas of himself, knowing 
 that in consequence of that these nations would meet upon count- 
 less fields of battle and drain each «)ther's veins. 
 
 Would it not have been better had the world been so that par- 
 ents would transmit only their virtues — only their perfections, 
 physical and mental, — allowing their diseases and their vices to 
 perish with them? 
 
 In my reply to Dr. Field I had asked : Why should God demand 
 a sacritice from man ? Why .should the infinite ask anything from 
 the finite '? Should the sun beg from the glow-worm, and should 
 the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light ? 
 
 Upon which you remark, " that if the infinite is to make no de- 
 mand upon the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong 
 should scarcely make them on the weak and small." 
 
 Can this be called reasoning? Why should the infinite de- 
 mand a sacrifice from man ? In the first place, the infinite ia 
 
48 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 conditionles.s — the intinito cannot want— the infinite has. ^ A con- 
 ditioned being may want; but the irratihcation of a want involves 
 a change of condition. If Goil be conditionle.s.s he can have no 
 wants — consequently, no human being can gratify the infinite. 
 
 But you insist that " if the inhnite is to make no demands upon 
 the finite, by parity "of reasoning the great and strong should 
 scarcely make them on the weak and small." 
 
 The great have wants. The strong are often in need, in peril, 
 and the great and strong often need the services of the small and 
 weak. It WHS the mouse that freed the lion. England is a great 
 and powerful nation — yet she may need the assistance of the weak- 
 est of her citizens. The worhl is tilled with illustrations. 
 
 The lack of logic is in this : The infinite cannot want anything ; 
 the strong and the great may, and as a fact always do. The great 
 and the strong cannot help the intinite — they can help the small 
 and the weak, and the small and the weak can often help the great 
 and strong. 
 
 You ask : " Why then should the father make demands of love, 
 obedience and sacriiice from his young child ? " 
 
 No sensible fcithev ever demanded love from his child. Every 
 civilized fcicher knows that love rises like the perfume from a 
 flower. You cannot command it by simply authority. It can- 
 not oV^ey. A father demands obedience from a child for the 
 good of the child and for the good of himself. i3ut suppose the 
 father to be infinite — why should the child sacrifice anything for 
 him ■? 
 
 But it may be that you answer all these questions, all these dif- 
 ficulties, by admitting, as you have in your Remarks, " that these 
 proV^lems are insoluble by our understanding." 
 
 Why, then, do you accept them ? Why do you defend that 
 which you cannot understand ? Why does your reason volunteer 
 as a soldier under the flag of the incomprehensible? 
 
 I asked of Dr. Field, and I ask again, this question : Why 
 should an intinitely wise and pov.erful God destroy the good and 
 preserve the vile ? 
 
 What do I mean by this question ? Simply this : The earth- 
 quake, the lightning, the pestilence, are no respecters of persons 
 The vile are not always destroyed, the good are not always saved. 
 I asked ; Why should God treat all alike in this world, and in 
 another make an intinite difi'erence 1 This I suppose, is " insoluble 
 to our understanding." 
 
COL. INOEUSOLL TO MU. Ol.ADSTONE. 
 
 •).!> 
 
 Why should Jehovah allow his worshipers, his adorers, to \n- 
 •destroyed by his enemies ? Can you by any poasidility answer tliis 
 question ? 
 
 You nmy account for all these inconsistencies, these cruel contra- 
 dictions, as John Wesley accounted for .arthijuakes when he 
 insisted that they were produced l>y the wicKedne^s of ni'-n. and 
 that the only way to prevent them was for everybody to believ(>on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. And you may have some way of show mi: 
 that Mr. Wesley's idea is entirely consistent with the theories of 
 Mt. Darwin. 
 
 You seem to think that as loni; as there is more ixoodness than 
 evil in the world — as long as there is more joy than sadness — we 
 are compelled to infer that the author of the world is infinitely <,'Ood, 
 powerful, and wise, and that as long as a majority are out of gut- 
 ters and prisons, the " divinity scheme " is a succe.ss. 
 
 According to this S}'stem of logic, if there were a few more un- 
 fortunates — if there was just a little more evil than good — tlien we 
 would be driven to acknowledge that the world was created by an 
 intinitely malevolent being. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the history of the world has been such that 
 not only your theologians but your apostles, and not only your 
 apostles but your pro[)h('ts, and not only your prophets but your 
 Jeliovah, have all been forced to account for the evil, the injustice 
 and the sutl'cring, by the wdckedness of man, the natural depravit}' 
 of the human heart and the wiles and machinations of a malevolent 
 being second only in power to Jehovah himself. 
 
 Again and again you have called me to account for "mere sug- 
 gestions and assertions without proof " ; and yet your remarks are 
 tilled with assertions and mere suggestions without proof. 
 
 You admit that " great believers are not ab 3 explain the 
 inequalities of adjustment between human beings and the conditions 
 in which they have been set down to work out their destiny." 
 
 How do you know " that they have been set down to work out 
 their destiny " ? If that was, and is, the purpose, then the being 
 who settled the " destiny," and the means by which it was to be 
 "worked out," is responsible for all that happens. 
 
 And is this the end of your argument, *' That you are not able 
 to explain the inequalities of adjustment between human beings " ? 
 Is the solution of this problem beyond yoar power ^ Dol>, the 
 bible shed no light ? Is the Christian in the presence of this ques- 
 tion as dumb as the agnostic? Wlien the injustice of this world 
 
.50 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. OLA I)> TONE. 
 
 is SO flaorrant tliat you cannot harmonize that awful fact with the 
 wi.sdom and jroodness of an infinite (;}od, do you not see that you 
 have surrendered, or at least that you have raised a flacj of truce 
 beneath which your adversary accepts as final your statement that 
 you do not know and that your imagination is not sufficient to 
 frame an excuse for God ? 
 
 It gave me great pleasure to find that at last even you have been 
 driven to say that: " it is a duty incuml)ent upon us respectively 
 accortling to our means and opportunities, to decide by the use of 
 the faculty of reason given us, the great (question of natuial and 
 revealed religion." 
 
 You admit " that I am to decide for myself, by the use of my 
 reason," whether tlie bible is the word of God or not — whether 
 there is any revealed religion — and whether there be or be not an, 
 infinite being who created and governs this world. 
 
 You also admit that we are to decide these questions according 
 to the balance of the evidence. 
 
 Is this in accordance with the doctrine of Jehovah ? Did Jehovah 
 say to the husband that if his wife became convinced, according to 
 her means and her opportunities, and decided according to her 
 reason, that it was better to worship some other God than Jehovah, 
 then that he was to say to her : " You are entitled to decide 
 according to the balance of the evidence as it seems to you " ? 
 
 Have you abandoned Jehovah ? Is man more just than he ? 
 Have you appealed from him to the standard of reason ? Is it 
 possible that the leader of the English Liberals is nearer civilized 
 than Jehovah ? 
 
 Do you know that in this sentence you demonstrate the exist- 
 ence of a dawn in your mind ? This sentence makes it certain 
 that in the East of the midnight of Episcopal superstition there is 
 the herald of the coming day. And if this sentence shows a dawn, 
 what shall I say of the next : 
 
 " We are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in 
 this province any rule of investigation except such as common 
 sense teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life " ? 
 
 This certainly is a morning star. Let me take this statement, 
 let me hold i<- as a torch, and by its light I beg of you to read the 
 bible once agait. 
 
 Is it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and lov- 
 ing God would drown a world that he had taken no means to 
 civilize — to whom he had given no bible, no gospel, — taught no- 
 
COL. IN'«;KR.S0LL to MR. QLADSTONE. 
 
 61 
 
 le? 
 [s it 
 ized 
 
 tist- 
 bain 
 |e is 
 Iwn, 
 
 in 
 ion 
 
 lent, 
 [the 
 
 lov- 
 to 
 no 
 
 scicntitic fact and in which the .sceils of art had not Von sown ; 
 that lie would creatf a world that oui^ht to bo drowiu'd ? That a 
 beint,' of inUnite wisdom wtmld creati; a rival, knowinij that tlio 
 rival vvonld iill perdition with countleHs souls destined to sutitT 
 eteriiid pain ? Is it aceonlin;^ to coiiinion Henns than an intinitdy 
 orooil (lod would order some of his children to kill others:* That 
 he would command soldiers to ri]) open with the sword of war the 
 liodies of women — wreaking vengeance on babes unborn i* Is it 
 according to reason that a gooil. loving, compassionate, and just 
 (lod would establisli slavery among men, and that a pure (Jod would 
 upholil polygamy ? Is it accortling to common ^ense that he who 
 wislied to make men mereifid and lovinij would demand the sacri- 
 Hce of animals, so that his altar would be wet with the blood of 
 oxen, sheep and doves ? is it accoftiling to reason that a good 
 (Jod would iiitlict tortures upon his ig? ^rant children — that he 
 won d torture animals to death — and is it in accordance with com- 
 mon senst:! and reason tliat this God would create countless billions 
 of people knowing that they would be eternally damned ? 
 
 What is conuuon sense ? Is it the result of observation, reason 
 and experience, or is it the child of credulity *? 
 
 There is this curious fact : The far past and the far future 
 seem to helong to the nnraculous and tlie monstrous. The present, 
 as a rule, is the reihn of common sense. If you say to a man : 
 " lii^^hteeu hundred vea's aijo the dea I were raised," he will re- 
 ply: •' Ves^ I ka^w that." Aud if you say: "A hundred thou- 
 sand years from now all the dead will be raised," he will probably 
 reply : " I ])resume so." But if you tell him : " I .'^aw a dead 
 man raised to-day," he will ask, " From what madhouse have you 
 escaped ?" 
 
 The moment we decide "acconliiig to reason," "according to 
 the balance of evidence," we are charged with " having violated the 
 laws of social morality and decency," and the defender of the 
 miraculous and the incomprehensible takes another position. 
 
 The theologian has a city of refuge to which he tiit-s — an old 
 breastwork i ehind winch he kneels— a ritle pit into which he 
 crawls. You have described this city, this breastwork, this rifle- 
 pit and also the leaf under which tiie ostrich of theology thrusts 
 its head. Let me quote : 
 
 " Our demands for evidence must be limited by the general 
 reason of the case. Does that general reason of the case make it 
 probable that a finite being, witli a finite place in a comprehen- 
 ' ■ ;d and administered by a being who is infinite. 
 
 sive scheme de^ 
 
m 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 .1 
 
 would be able even to embrace within his view, or rightly to ap- 
 preciate all the motives or aims that there may have been in the 
 mind of the divine disposer ?" 
 
 And this is what you call " deciding by the use of the faculty 
 •of reason," '' according to the evidence," or at least " according to 
 •the balance of evidence." This is a conclusion reached by a 
 *' rule of investigation such as common sense teaches us to use in 
 the ordinary conduct of life." Will you have the kindness to ex- 
 plain what it is to act contrary to evidence, or contrary to com- 
 mon sense ? Can you imagine a superstition so gross that it can- 
 not be defended by that argument ? 
 
 Nothing, it seems to me, could have been easier than for 
 ■Jehovah to have reasonably explained his scheme. You may 
 answer that the human intellect is not sutEcient to understand the 
 explanation. Why then do not theologians stop explaining ? 
 Why do they feel it incumbent upon them to explain that which 
 they admit God would have explained had the human mind been 
 capable of understanding it ? 
 
 How much better would it have been if Jehovah had said a few 
 
 ' things on these subjects. It always seemed wonderful to me that 
 
 he spent several days and nights on Mount Sinai explaining to Moses 
 
 how he could detect the presence of leprosy, without once thinking 
 
 to giv^e him a prescription for its cure. 
 
 There were thousands and thousands of opportunities for this 
 God to withdraw from these questions the shadow and the cloud. 
 When Jehovah out of the whirlwind asked questions of Job, how 
 much better it would have been if Job ha.d asked and Jehovah had 
 answered. 
 
 You say that we should be governed by evidence and hy common 
 ■sense. Then you tell us that the questions are beyond the reach 
 ■oi' reason' and with which common sense has nothing to do. If we 
 then ask for an explanation, you reply in the scornful challenge of 
 Dante. 
 
 You seem to imagine that everyman who gives an opinion, takes 
 ihis solemn ooth that tr.e opinion is the absolute end of all investi- 
 jgation on that subject. 
 
 In my opinion, Shakespeare was, intellectually, the greatest of 
 ■the human race, and my intention was simply to express that view. 
 It never occurred to me that anyone would suppose that I thought 
 Shakespeare a greater actor than Garrick, a more wonderful com- 
 p)3er than Wagner, a better violinist than Remenyi, or a heavier 
 
COL. INGEilSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 53 
 
 Inon 
 
 kach 
 
 we 
 
 le o£ 
 
 ikes 
 isti- 
 
 It of 
 
 liew. 
 ight 
 jom- 
 Lvier 
 
 •man thp.n Daniel Lambert. It is to be re<:^retted that you were mis- 
 led by my words and really supposed that I intended to say that 
 •Shakespeare was a greater general than Caesar. But, after all, 
 your criticism has no possible bearing upon the point at issue. Is 
 it an effort to avoid that which cannot be met ? The real question 
 is this : If we cannot account for Christ without a miracle, how can 
 we account forSiiakespeare ? .13r. Field took the ground that Christ 
 himself was a miracle ; that it was impossible to account for such 
 a being in any natural way ; and, guided by conmion sense, guided 
 by the rule of investigation such as common sense teaches, I called 
 attention to Buddha, IMohamiHed, Confucius, and Shakespeare. 
 
 In another place in your Remarks, when my statement about 
 Shakespeare was not in your mind, you say : " All is done l»y 
 steps— nothmg by str'des, leaps or bounds — all from protoplasm up 
 to Shakespeare." Why did you end the series with Shakespeare ? 
 Did you intend to say Dante, or Bishop Butler ? 
 
 It is curious to see how much ingenuity a great man exercises 
 when guided by what he calls " the rule of investigation as sug- 
 gested by common sense." I pointed out some things that Christ 
 did not teach — among others, that he sairl nothing with regard to 
 the family relation, nothing against slavery, nothing about educa- 
 tion, nothing as to tlie rights and duties of nations, nothing as to 
 any scientitie truth. And this is answered by saying that " I am 
 quite able to point out the way in which the Saviour of the world 
 might have been much greater as a teacher than he actually was." 
 
 Is this an answer, or is it simply taking refuge behind a name ? 
 Would it not have been better if Christ had told his disciples that 
 they must not persecute ; that they had no right to destroy their 
 fellow men ; that they must not put heretics in dungeons, or de- 
 stroy them with flames ; that they must not invent and use instru- 
 ments of torture ; that they must not appeal to brutality, nor en- 
 deavour to sow with bloody hands the seeds of peace ? Would it 
 not have been far better had he said : " I come not to bring a sword, 
 but peace"? Would not this have saved countless cruelties and 
 countless lives ^ 
 
 You seem to think that you have fully answered my objection 
 when you say that Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of 
 
 marriage. 
 
 Why should a husband and wife be compelled to live with each 
 other after love is dead ? Why should the wife still be bound in 
 indissoluble chains to a husband who is cruel, infamous, and false ? 
 Why should her life be destroyed because of his ? Why should 
 
 
 I 
 
r.'S 
 
 54 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 she be chained to a criminal and an outcast ? Nothing can be 
 more unphilosophic than this. Why fill the world with the chil- 
 dren of inditierence and hatred ? 
 
 The marriage contract is the most important, the most sacred, 
 that human beings can make. It will be sacredly kept by good 
 men and by good women. But if a loving woman — tender, noble, 
 and true — makes this contract with a man whom she believed to 
 be worthy of all respect and love, and who is found to be a cruel, 
 worthless wretch, why should her life be lost ? 
 
 Do you not know that the indissolubility of the marriage con- 
 tract leads to its violation, forms an excuse for immorality, eats out 
 the very heart of truth, and gives to vice that which alone belongs 
 to love ? 
 
 But in order that you may know why the objection was raised, 
 I call your attention to the fact that Christ offered a reward, not 
 only in this world 1 utin another, to any husband who would de- 
 sert his wife. And do you know that this hideous offer caused 
 millions to desert their wives and children ? 
 
 Theologians have the habit of using names instead of argu- 
 ments — of appealing to some man, great in some direction, to es- 
 tablish their creed ; but we all know that no man is great enough 
 to be an authority, except in that particular domain in which he 
 won his eminence ; and we all know that great men are not great 
 in ail directions\ Bacon, died a believer in the Pltolemaic system 
 of astronomy. Tycho Brahe kept an imbecile in his service, put- 
 ting down with great care the words that fell from the hanging lip 
 of idiocy, and then endeavoured to put them together in a way to 
 form pi'opliecies. Sir Matthew Uale believed in witchcraft not 
 only, but in its lowest and most vulgar forms; and some of the 
 greatest men of antiijuity examined the entrails of birds to find 
 the secrets of the future. 
 
 It has always seemed to me that reasons are better tlian names. 
 
 After taking the ground that Christ could not have been a 
 greater teacher than he actually was, you ask: "Where would 
 have been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed population 
 of a particular age a codiiiod religion which was to serve for all 
 nations, all ages, all states of civilization ?" 
 
 Does not this question admit that the teacliings of Christ will 
 not serve for all nations, all ages and all states of civilization ? 
 
 But let rue ask : " If it was necessary for Christ " to deliver to 
 an uninstructed population of a particular age a certain religion 
 
COL. IXGEllSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 55 
 
 con- 
 
 suitod only for that particular an^o," why should a civilized and 
 scientific aije eij^/hteen hundred years afterwards be absolutely 
 bound by that religion ? Do you not see that your position can- 
 not be defended, and that you have provided no way for retreat 1 
 If the religion of Christ was for that age, is it for this ? Are you 
 willing to admit that the Ten Commandments are not for all time ? 
 If, then, four thousand years before Christ, commandments were 
 given not simply for ''nan uninstructed population of a particular 
 age, but for all time," can you give a reason why the religion of 
 Christ should not have been of the same character ? 
 
 In the first place you say that God has revealed himself to the 
 world — that he has revealed a religion ; and in the nest place, that 
 " he has not revealed a perfect religion, for the reason that no room 
 would be left for the career of human thounfht." 
 
 Why did not God reveal this imperfect religion to all people 
 instead of to a small and insignificant tribe, a tribe without com- 
 merce and without influence among the nations of the world ? 
 Why did he hide this imperfect light under a bushel ? If the 
 light was necessary for one, was it not necessary for all ? And 
 why did he drown a world to whom he had not even given that 
 light? 
 
 According to your reasoning, would there not have been left 
 greater ro:>m for tlic carucr of human thought, hail no roveiatiou 
 been made ? 
 
 You say that " you have known a person who after studying 
 the old clrtssicalor Olympian religion for a third part of a century, 
 at length began to hope that he had some partial comprehen^sion of 
 it — some inkling of wdiat is meant." You say tins for tlie purpose 
 of showing how impossible it is to understand the bible. If it is 
 so difhcult why do you call it a revelation ? And yet, according 
 to your creed, the man who does not understind the revelation 
 and believe it, or who does not believe it, whether he underst;;uds 
 it or not, is to reap the harv^est of everlasting pain. Ought not 
 the revelation to be revealed ? 
 
 In order to escape from the fact that Christ denounced the 
 chosen people of God as "a generation of vipers" and as '• whited 
 sepulchres," you take the ground that the scribes and pharisees 
 were not the chosen people. Of what blood were they ? It will 
 not do to say that they were not the people. Can you deny that 
 Christ addressed the chosen people when he said: "Jerusalem, 
 which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto 
 thee " ? 
 
56 
 
 COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 You have called me to an account for what I said in regard ta 
 Ananias and Sapphira. First, I am charged with having said 
 that the apostles conceived the idea of having all things in com- 
 mon, and you denounce this as an interpolation ; second, " that 
 motives of prudence are stated as a matter of fact to have influ- 
 enced the offending couple " — and this is charged as an interpola- 
 tion ; and, third, that I stated that the apostles sent for the wife of 
 Ananias — and this is characterized as a pure invention. 
 
 To me it seems reasonable to suppose that the idea of having 
 all things in common was conceived by those who had nothing, or 
 had the least, and not by those who had plenty. In the last 
 verses of the fourth chapter of the Acts, you will find this : 
 
 " Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as weie pos- 
 sessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that 
 were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet ; and distribution was made 
 unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was 
 surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation), a 
 Levite and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the 
 money, and laid it at the apostles' feet." 
 
 Now, it occurred to me that the idea was in all probability sug- 
 gested by the men at whose feet the property was laid. It never 
 entered my mind that the idea originated with those who had 
 land for sale. There may be a different standard by which 
 human nature is measured in your country, than in mine ; but 
 if the thing had happened in the United States, I feel absolutely 
 positive that it would have been at the suggestion of the apostles. 
 
 " Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possessiun and kept back part ot 
 the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it 
 at the apostles' feet," 
 
 In my Letter to Dr. Field I stated — not at the time pretend- 
 ing to quote from the New Testament — that Ananias and Sap- 
 phira, after talking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied 
 with the collaterals, probably concluded to keep a little — just 
 enough to keep them from starvation if the good and pious 
 bankers should abscond. It never occurred to me that any man 
 would imagine that this was a quotation, and I feel like asking 
 your pardon for having led you into this eiror. We are informed 
 in the bible that " they kept back a part of the price." It 
 occurred to me, "judging by the rule of investigation according 
 to common-sense," that there was a reason for this, and I could 
 think of no reason e»'C*»pt that they did not care to trust the 
 
COL. INCEKSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 57 
 
 apostle.s with all, and that they kept back just a little, thinking it 
 might be useful if the rest should be lost. 
 
 According to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks 
 to Ananias, 
 
 " Ananias fell down and gave up the 'jrhost ; . . . . and the young men 
 arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about 
 the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came 
 
 in. 
 
 Whereupon Peter said : 
 
 " ' Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much ? ' And she said, ' Yea, for 
 so much.' Then Peter said unto her, ' How is it that ye have agreed together 
 to tempt the spirit of the Lord ? Behold, the feet of them which have buried 
 thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.' Then fell she down 
 straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost ; and the young men came in» 
 and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband." 
 
 The only objection found to this is, that I inferred that the 
 apostles had sent for her. Sending for her was not the offence. 
 The failure to tell her what had happened to her husband was the 
 offence — keeping his fate a secret from her in order that she might 
 be caught in the same net that had been set for her husband by 
 Jehovah. This was the offence. This was the mean and cruel 
 thing to which I objected. Have you answered that ? 
 
 Of course, I feel sure that the thing never occurred — the prob- 
 ability being that Ananias and Sapphira never lived and never 
 died. It is probably a story invented by the early church to make 
 the collection of subscriptions somewhat easier. 
 
 And yet, we find a man in the nineteenth century, foremost of 
 his fellow citizens in the affairs of a great nation, upholding this 
 barbaric view of God. 
 
 Let me beg of you to use your reason " according to the rule 
 suggested by common sense." Let us do what little we can to 
 rescue the reputation, even of a Jewish myth, from the calumnies 
 of Ignorance and Fear. 
 
 So, again, I am charged with having given certain words as a 
 quotation from the bible in which two passages are combined — 
 " They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who 
 believe not shall be damned. And these shall go away into ever- 
 lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." 
 
 They were given as two passages. No one for a moment sup- 
 posed that they would be read together as one, and no one imagined 
 that any one in answering the argument would be led to believe 
 
5<S 
 
 COL. INGEllSOLL TO Jill. GLADSTONE. 
 
 that thev were intended as one. Neither was there in this the 
 slightest neo-li(Teneo, as I was answering a man who is porrectly 
 fi miliar with the Bible. The objection was too small to make. It 
 is hardly large enough to answer — and had it not been made by 
 you it would not have been answered. 
 
 You are not satisfied with what I have said upon the subject of 
 immortality. What I said was this : The idea of immortality, 
 that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in ^he human heart, w^tli 
 its countless waves of hope and fear Ideating against the shores 
 and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any 
 creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and 
 it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of 
 doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. 
 
 You answer this by saying that " the Egyptians were Ijelievers 
 in immortality, but vrere not a people of high intellectual develop- 
 ment." 
 
 How such a statement tends to answer what I have said, is 
 beyond iDy powers of di<^cernment. Is there tne slightest connec- 
 tion between my statement and your objection ? 
 
 You make still another answer, and say that "the ancii-nt 
 Greeks w^ere a race of perhaps unparalleled intellectual c<).})acity, 
 and that notwithstanding that, the most powerful mind of the 
 Greek pliilu.sophy, th;it of Aristotle, luid no rle;ir conception of a 
 personal existence in a future state." May I be allowed to ask this 
 simple question : Who has ? 
 
 Are you urging an o])jection to the dogma of immortality, when 
 you saj" that a race of unparalleled intellectual capacity had no 
 contidenc(^ in it ? Is that ti doctrine believed f>nly by people who 
 lack intellectual capacity ? I stated that the idea of immortality 
 was born of love. You reply, " The Egyjitians believed it, but 
 the}" were not intellectual." Is not this a non sequitur ? The 
 (question, is : Were they a loving people ? 
 
 Does history show that there is a moral governor of the world ? 
 What witnesses shall we call ? The l»il]i(ms of slaves who were paid 
 with blows ? — the countless mothers whose bal)es were sold ? Have 
 we time to examine the Waldenses, the Covenanters of Scotland, 
 the Catholics of Ireland, the victims of vSt. Bai-tholomew, of the 
 iS])anish Inquisition, all those who liav(! died in tlames '. Shall we 
 liear the storv of Bruno ? Shall we ask Servetus ? Shall we ask 
 the millions slaughtered by Christian swords in America — all the 
 A'ictims of amliition, of perjurv, of ignorance, of superstition and 
 revenge, of storm and earthquake, of famine, flood and fire ? 
 
COL. INGEKSOLL Tu Mil. (JI.A I )ST()XE. 
 
 59 
 
 Can all the agonies and criinos, can all the inoijuaHties ol' tlio 
 world 1 10 answered by reading the " noblt,- Psahu " in which are 
 found the words: " Call ui)on me in the day oi trouble, so I will 
 hear tliee, and thou shalt praise nie ?'' Do you prove the truth of 
 these fine words, tliis honey of Trebizond, by t)ie victims of 
 religious persecution? Shall we hear the sighs and sobs of 
 tSilifi'ia? 
 
 Another thing. Why .should you, from the page of Greek his- 
 tory, with the .spongt^ of your judgnicnt, wipe out all names but 
 one, and tell us that the most powerful mind of the (Jrt'ck philoso- 
 phy was that of .A.ristotle ? How did you ascertain this fact ? Is 
 it not fair to suppose that you merely intended to say that, 
 acc(jrding to your \iew, Aristotle had the most powerful mind 
 aincjng all the philoso])h(M-sof Greece ? I should not call attention 
 to this, except for ytau" criticism on a like remark of mine as to tin* 
 intellectual sup(;riority of Shakti.speare. But if you knew the 
 trouble I liave had in finding out your meaning, from your words, 
 ^•uu would iiai'don me for callin^■ attention to a simj-le line from 
 An.stotle : "Cleare.ss is the virtue of style." 
 
 To me. Epicurus seems far greati/r than Aristotle. He had clearer 
 vision. His che^ek was closer to the breast of nature, and he 
 planted his philosophy nearer to the bed-rock of fact. He was 
 prnr-fcipal enough to know thai: virtue is the means, and happiness 
 the end : that the highest philosophy is the art of living. He was 
 wise enough to say that nothing is of the slightest value to man 
 that does not increase or preserve his well-being, and he was grt/at 
 enough to know, and courageous enough to dechu'i', th;it all the gods 
 and ghosts were monstrous phantoms boi'n of ignorance and fear. 
 
 I still insist, that human arl'ection is the foundation of the idea, of 
 innnortality ; thai love was the first to speak that woi-d, no matter 
 whether they who spoke it were savage or civil ize< I, Egyptian or 
 Greek. But if we are innnortal — if there be another world — why 
 was it not clearly set forth in the Old Tc'stainent ? Certaiidy, the 
 authors of that book had an opportunity to learn it from the 
 Egyptians. Why was it not revealed hy Jehovah { Wliy diil lie 
 waste his time in giving ordei's for the consecration of priests — in 
 saying that they nuist have sheep's blooil ])Ut on thidr right ears, 
 and on their right tlnnnbs, and on their right big toes? Ciadd a 
 God Avith any sense of humour give such directions, or watch, with- 
 out huge laughter, the ptM'formance of such a ceremony ;' In order 
 to see the beauty, the depth and tenderness of such a consecration, 
 essential to be in a state of "reverential calm ;'" 
 
 IS 
 
CO 
 
 COL. IXGEllSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 m 
 
 
 ri 
 
 Is it not strange that Christ did nijt tell of another world dis- 
 tinctly, clearly, without parable, and without the mist of meta- 
 phor ? 
 
 The fact is that the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and 
 the Romans taught the innnortality of the soul, not as a glittering 
 guess — a possible perhaps — but as a clear and demonstrated truth 
 for many centuries before the birth of Christ. 
 
 If the Old Testament proves anything, it is that death ends all. 
 And the New Testament, by basing immortality on the resurrection 
 of tlie body, but " keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks 
 it to our hope." 
 
 In my Reply to Ur. Field, I said : " The truth is, that no one can 
 justly he held responsible for his thoughts. Tlie brain thinks with- 
 out asking our consent ; we believe, or disbelieve, without an effort 
 of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon 
 the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who watches. There is 
 no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in th(3 formation of an 
 opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We 
 must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish." 
 
 Does the brain think without our consent ? Can we control our 
 thought ? Can we tell what we are going to think to-morrow ? 
 
 Can we stop thinking ? 
 
 Is belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a 
 product of the will ? Can the scali s in which reason weighs 
 evidence be turned by the will ? Why, then, should evidence be 
 weighed ? If it all depends on the will, what is evidence ? Is there 
 any opportunity of being dishonest in tho. formation of an opinion ? 
 Must not the man who forms the opinion know what it is ? He 
 cannot knowingly cheat himself. He cannot bo deceived with dice 
 that he loads. He cannot play unfairly at solitaire without knowing 
 that he has lost the game. He cannot knowinolv weiu'h with false 
 scales and believe in the correctness of the result. 
 
 You have not even attempted to answer my arguments upon 
 these points, but you have unconsciously avoided them. You did 
 not attack the citadel. In military parlance, you proceeded to 
 " shell the woods." The noise is precisely the same as though 
 every shot had been directed against the enemy's position, but the 
 result is not. You do not seem willing to implicitly trust the 
 correctness of your aim. You prefer to place the target after the 
 shot. 
 
 The Question is whether the will knowinijlv can chano;e evi- 
 denee, and whether there is any opportunity of being dishonest 
 
COL. IN(ii:US()LL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 01. 
 
 in the formation of an opinion. You have changed the issue. You 
 have erased the word formation and interpolated the word expression. 
 Let us suppose that a man has given an opinion, knowing that 
 it is not based on any fact. Can you say that he has given his 
 opiniiju ? The moment a prejudice is known to be a prejudice, it 
 disappears. Ignorance is the soil in which prejudice must grow. 
 Touched by a ray of light, it dies. The judgment of man may be 
 warjjed by prejudice and passion, but it cannot be consciously 
 warped. It is impossible for any man to be influenced by a known 
 i:)rejudice, because a known prejudice cannot exist. 
 
 I am not contending that all opinions have been honestly 
 expressed. What I contend is, that when a dishonest opinion has 
 been expressed, it is not the opinion that was formed. 
 
 The cases suggested by you are not in point. Fathers are hon- 
 estly swayed, if really swayed, by love ; and queens and judges 
 have pretended to be swayed by the highest motives, by the clear- 
 est evidence, in order that they might kill rivals, reao rewards, and 
 gratify revenge. But what has all this to do with the fact that he 
 who watches the scales in which evidence is weighed knows the 
 actual result ? 
 
 Let us examine your case : If a father is consciously swayed by 
 his love for his son, and for that reason says that his son is inno- 
 cent, then he has not expressed his opinion. If he is unconsciously 
 swayed and says that his son is innocent, then he has expressed, 
 his opinion. In both instances, his opinion was independent of his 
 will ; but in the first instance, he did not express his opinion. You 
 will certainly see this distinction between the formation and the 
 expression of an opinion. 
 
 The same argument applies to the man who con.sciously has a 
 desire to condemn. Such a conscious desire cannot affect the 
 testimony — cannot affect the opinion. Queen Elizabeth undoubt- 
 edly desired the death of Mary Stuart, but this conscious desire 
 could not have been the foundation on which rested Elizabeth's 
 opinion fis to the guilt or innocence of her rival. It is barely pos- 
 sible that Elizabeth did not express her real opinion. Do you 
 believe that the English judges, in the matter of the Popish Plot, 
 gave judgment in accordance with their opinions ? Are you sat- 
 isfied' that Napoleon expressed his real opinion when he justified 
 himself for the assassination of the Due d'Enghien ? 
 
 If you answer these questions in the affirmative, you admit that 
 I am right. If you answer in the negative, you admit that you are 
 wrong, The moment you admit that the opinion formed cannot be 
 
02 
 
 cor.. IXGEllSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. 
 
 changed by expres.sinf]f a pretendod opinion, your argument is 
 turned against yourself. 
 
 It is admitted that prejudice strengthens, weakens and colors 
 evidence ; but prejudice is honest. And when one M,cts knowingly 
 against the evidence, that is not by reasun of prejudice. 
 
 According to my views of propriety, it would be unbecoming for 
 me to say that your argument on these questions is " a piece of 
 plausible ahallowness." Such language might be regarded as lack- 
 ing " reverential calm," and I therefore refrain from even charac- 
 terizing it !is plausible. 
 
 Is it not perfectly apparent that you have changed the issue, 
 and that instead of showing that opinions are creatures of the will, 
 you have discussed the quality of actions? Whnt have corrupt 
 and cruel judgments pronounced by corrupt and cruel judges to do 
 with their real opinions ? When a judge forms one opinion and 
 renders another he is called corrupt. The corruption doos not con- 
 sist in forming his opinion, but in rendering one that he did not 
 form. Does a dishonest creditor, who incorrectly adds a number 
 of items, making the aggregate too large, necessarily change his 
 opinion as to the relations of numbers ? When an error is known, 
 it is not a mistake ; but a conclusion reached by a mistake, or by a 
 prejudice, or by both, is a necessary conclusion. He who pretends 
 to couie to ii coiiclasiori by a mistake wliich he knrv/s is not a mis- 
 take, knows that he has not expressed his real opinion. 
 
 Can anythinqr be more illoprical than the assertion that because 
 a boy reaches, through negligence in adding h'gures, a wrong result, 
 that he is accountable for his opinion of the result'? If he knew 
 he was negligent what must his opinion of the result have been ? 
 
 So with the man who boldly announces that he has discovered 
 the numerical expression of the relation sustained by the diametei' 
 to the circumference of a circle. If he is honest in the an/iounre- 
 ment, then the announcement was caused not bv his will but b^,- his 
 ignorance. His will cannot make the announcement true, aiul he 
 could not by any possibility have supposed that his will could 
 ati'ect the correctness of his announcement. The will of one who 
 thinks that he has invented or discovered what is called perpetual 
 motion, is not at fault. The man, if honest, has been misled ; if not 
 honest, he endeavours to mislead others. There is prejudice, and 
 prejudice does raise a clamour, and the intellect is atiected and the 
 judgment is darkened and the opinion is deformed; but the preju- 
 dice is real and the clamour is sincere and the judgment is upright 
 and the opinion is honest. 
 
 . ^ 
 
 \i\'- 
 
COL. INGERSOIJ, TO MH. (iLADSTONE. 
 
 6.^ 
 
 The intelleet is not always .supreme. It is surrounded by clouds. 
 It sometimes sits in darkness. It is often misled—sometimes, in 
 superstitious fear, it alxlieates. It is not always a white lij^ht. The 
 passions and prejudices are prisi iatic---tht'y colour tliou^lits. 
 Desires betray the judj^ment and cunnin<:(ly mislead the will. 
 
 You soem to think that tlie fact of rosponsil)ility is in dan<,'i r 
 unless it rests upon the will, and this will you regard as >om(thing 
 without, a cause, sprinij^inpf into being in some mysterious way with- 
 out father or mother, without seed or soil, or rain or light. You 
 musu admit that man is a conditioned being---that ho has wants, 
 olijff.'ts, ends, and aims, and that these are gratified ami attained 
 only l>y the use of mean^^. Do not these wants and these oi)iects 
 have something to do with the will, and does not the intellect have 
 something to do with the means ? Is not the will a product ? In- 
 dependently of conditions, can it exist ? Is it not necessarily pro- 
 duced ? Behind every wish and thought, every dream and fancy, 
 every fear and hope, are there not countless causes ? Man feels 
 shame. What does this prove ? He pities himself. What does 
 this demonstrate ? 
 
 The dark continent of motive and desire has never been explored. 
 In the brain, that wondrous world with one inhabitant, there are 
 recesses dim and dark, treacherous sands and dangerous shores, 
 where seeming sirens tempt and fade; streams that rise in unknown 
 lands from hidden springs, strange seas with ebb and flow c^f tides, 
 resistless billows urged by storms of tiame, profound and awful 
 depths hidden by mist of dreams, obscure and phan om realms 
 where vague and fearful thing -s are half revealed, jungles where 
 passion's tigers crouch, and skies of cloud and blue where fancies 
 tly with painted wings that dazzle and mislead ; and '.he poor 
 sovereign of this pictured world is led by old desires and ancient 
 hates, and stained by crimes of many vanished years, and pushed 
 by hands that long ago were dust, until he feels like some bewil- 
 dered slave that Mockery has throned and crowned. 
 
 No one pretends tlia^ the mind of man is perfect— that it is not 
 affected by desires, colored by hopes, weakened by fears, <lef)rmed 
 b}^ ignorance and distorted by superstition. But all this has 
 nothing to do with the innocence of opinion. 
 
 It may be that the Thugs were taught that murder is innocent ; 
 but did the teachers believe what they taught ? Did the pupils 
 believe the teachers ? Did not Jehovah teach that the act that 
 we describe as murder was a duty ? Were not his teachings prac- 
 ticed by Moses and Joshua and Jephthah and Samuel and David ? 
 
/ 
 
 '64 
 
 COL. INtJEHSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 I!>! 
 
 Were they hone.st ? But what has all this to do with the point at 
 iasuo ? 
 
 Society has the right to protect itself, even from honest mur- 
 derers and conscientious thieve.s. The belief of the criminal does 
 not disarm society ; it protects itself from him as from a poisonous 
 serpent, or from a beast that lives on human tlesh. We are under 
 no obligation to stand still and allow ourselves to be murdered by 
 one who honestly thinks that it is his duty to take our lives. And 
 yet, according to your argument, we have no right to defend our- 
 selves from honest Thugs. Was Saul of Tarsus a Thug when he 
 persecuted Christians ''even unto strange cities"? Is the Thug 
 of India more ferocious than Torquemada, the Thug of Spain ? 
 
 If belief depends upon the will, can all men have correct opinions 
 who will to have them ? Acts are good, or bad, according to their 
 consequences, and not according to the intentions of the actors. 
 Honest opinions may be wrong, and opinions dishonestly expressed 
 may be right. 
 
 Do you mean to say that because passion and prejudice, the 
 reckless " pilots 'twixt the dangerous sh(jres of will and judgment," 
 sway the mind, that the opinions which you have expres.sed in your 
 Remarks to me are not your opinions ? Certainly you will admit 
 that in all probability you have prejudices and passions, and if so, 
 can the opinions that you have expressed, according to your argu- 
 ment, be honest ? My lack of confidence in your argument give:j 
 me perfect confidence in your candor. You may remember the 
 philosopher who retained his reputation for veracity, in spite of the 
 fact that he kept saying : " There is no truth in man." 
 
 Are only those opinions honest that are formed without any 
 interference of passion, aliection, habit or fancy ? What would 
 the opinion of a man without passions, atfection or fancies be wo'th 
 The alchemist gave up his search for an universal solvent u 
 being asked in what kind of vessel he expected to keep it wi. u 
 found. 
 
 It may be admitted that Biel "shows us how the life of Dantf^ 
 co-operated with his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities 
 to make him whvit he was," but does this tend to .show that Daite 
 changed his opinions by an act of his will, or that he reached 
 honest opinions by knowingly using false weights and measures ? 
 
 You must admit that the opinions, habits and religions of men 
 depend, at least in some degree, on race, occupation, training and 
 capacity. Is not every thoughtful man compelled to agree with 
 
 H ^**K 
 
 li 
 
/ 
 
 COL. IX(}K11S()I,I> TO MU. OLADSTONK. 
 
 ().') 
 
 h-^ 
 
 II 
 
 Edpjar Faw(«;tt, in whoso l>min are unitetl tho beauty of tlio poet 
 iiiul tliu subtlety of the loj^iciaii, 
 
 " Who sees how vice her vpmm wreaks 
 On the frail babe before it speaks, 
 And how heredity enslaves 
 With phostly hands that reach from graves " r 
 
 Why do you hold the intellect eriniinally responsible for opin- 
 ions, when you admit that it is controlliMl by the will ? And why 
 do you hold the will rasponsible, when you insist that it is swayed 
 by the passions and affections i* But all this has nothin<ir to do 
 with the fact that every opinion has bei.'U honestly fornietl wliether 
 liouestly expressed or not. 
 
 No one protend^ <^hat all governments have been honestly formed 
 and honestly adiuinisi' i^d. All vices, and some virtues, are repre- 
 sented in most nation,'. In my opinion a n^public is bettor than a 
 monarchy. The legally expressed will of the people is the only 
 riyfhtful soveroi<jfn. This sovereifjntv, however, does not embrace 
 the realm of thoun^ht or ojiinion. In that world each human being 
 is a sovertiign, — throned and crowned : One is a majority. The 
 good citizens of that realm give to others all rights that they claim 
 for themselves, and those who appeal to foi'ce are the only traitors. 
 
 The existence of theological despotisms, of God-anointfed kings, 
 does not tend to prove that a known prejudice can deterniine the 
 Aveight of evidence. When men wen; so ignorant as to suppose 
 that God would destroy them unless they burned heretics, they 
 lighted the fagots in self-defence. 
 
 Feeling as 1 do that man is not responsible for his opinions, I 
 characterized persecution for opinion's sake as infamous. So, it 
 is perfectly clear to me, that it would be; the infamy of infamies 
 for an infinite being to create vast nuinl)ers of men knowing thnt 
 they would suffer eternal pain. If an infinite (Jod creates a man 
 on purpose to damn him, or creates him knowing that he will be 
 damned, is not the crime the same ? We make mistakes and 
 fa^''ures because we are finite; but can you conceive of any ex- 
 cuse for an infinite being who creates failures ? If you had the 
 power to change, by a wish, a statue into a human being, and 
 you knew that this being would die without a " change of heart " 
 jQnd suffer endless pain, what would you do? 
 
 Can you think of any excuse for an earthly father, who, hav- 
 ing wealth, learning and leisure, leaves his own children in igno- 
 id darkness ? Do vou believe 
 
 •to 
 
 irance 
 
 you 
 
00 
 
 COL. IN(iERSOLL TO Mil. GLADSTONE. 
 
 dom, justice and love called countless <j;enerations of men into beings, 
 knowing that they would be used as fuel for the eternal tire ? 
 
 Many will regret that you did not give your views upon the 
 main qaestions — the principal issues — involved, instead of calling 
 attention, for the most part, to the unimportant. If men were 
 discussing the causes and results of the Franco-Prussian war, it 
 would har.lly be worth while for a third person to interrupt the 
 argument for tlie purpose of calling attention to a misspelled w^ord 
 in the terms of surrender. 
 
 If we admit that a man is responsible for his opinions and his 
 thoughts, and that his will is perfectly free, still these admissions 
 do not even tend to prove the inspiration of the bible, or the 
 "divine scheme of redemption." 
 
 In my judgment, the days of the supernatural are numbered. 
 The dogma of inspiration must be abandoned. As man advances, 
 — as his intellect enlarges, as his knosvledge increases, as his 
 ideals become notJer, the bibles and creeds will lose their autlior- 
 ity, the miiaculous will be classed with the impossible, and the 
 idea of special providence will be discarded. Thousands of reli- 
 gions have perished, innumerable gods have died, and why should 
 the religion of our time be exempt from the common fate ? 
 
 Creeds cannot remain permanent in a world in which know- 
 ledge increases. Science and superstition cannot peaceably 
 occupy the same brain. This is an age of investigation, of dis- 
 covery and thought. Science destroys the dogmas that mislead 
 the mind and waste the energies of man. It points out the ends 
 that can be accomplished ; takes into consideration the limits of 
 our faculties ; fixes our attention on the affairs of this world, and 
 erects beacons of warning on the dangerous shores. It seeks to 
 ascertain the conditions of health, to the end that life may be en- 
 riched and lengthened, and it reads with a smile this passage : 
 
 " And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his 
 body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases de- 
 parted from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." 
 
 Science is the enemy of fear and credulity. It invites in- 
 vestigation, challenges the reason, stimulates inquiry, and wel- 
 comes the unbeliever. It seeks to give food and shelter, and 
 raiment, education and liberty to the human race. It welcomes 
 every fact and every truth. It has furnished a foundation for 
 morals, a philosophy for the guidance of man. From all books 
 it selects the good, and from a,ll theories the true. It seeks to 
 
 ]V 
 
 -^ 
 
 •^. 
 
 \ 
 
r \ 
 
 5( 
 
 COL. INGEllSOrX TO MR. GLADSl'ONK 
 
 G7 
 
 civilize the human race by the cultivation of the intellect and 
 hcnrt. It refines through art, music and the drama, iijiving voice 
 and expression to every noble thought. The mysterious does not 
 excite the feeling of worship, but tlie ambition to understand. It 
 does not pray, it works. It does not answer inquiry with the 
 malicious cry of " blasphemy." Its feelings are not hurt b-\^ contra- 
 diction, neither does it ask to be protected by law from the laughter 
 of heretics. It has taught man that he cannot walk beyond the 
 horizon, that the questions of (U'igin and destin}- cannot be an- 
 swered, that an infinite personality cannot be comprehended by a 
 finite being, and the truth of any system of religion ba.'^ed on the 
 supernatural cannot by any possibility be established, such a reli- 
 gion not being within the domain of evidence. And, ab,)ve all, it 
 teaches that all our duties are here, that all our obligations are to 
 spintient beings ; that intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest 
 possible wisdom ; and that " man believe.^ not what he would but 
 what he can." 
 
 And, after all, it may be that, " to ride an unbroken horse with 
 the reins thrown upon his neck," as you charge me wit'i doing, 
 gives a greater variety of sensations, a keener delight, and a better 
 prospect of winning the race than to sit solemnly astride of a dead 
 [one, in " a deep reverential calm,'' with the bridle firmly in your 
 hand. 
 
 Again assuring you of my profound respect, I remain, 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 ROREIIT G. IXOERSOLL 
 
 ^m. 
 
 <^m^ 
 
 
"SECULAR THOUGHT" 
 
 (The Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union.) 
 A Journal of Liberal Thought. Fuhlished Weekly, $2 per year. 
 
 CIIARL.es watts, Editor. 
 
 " I am greatly pleased with " Secular Thought,"— with its form, nrranproment and 
 contents— above all, with its spirit. It is splendid. I doii't see how it could be better. 
 1 read it with the greatest pleasure."— Col. llobcrt G. luKersoll. 
 
 " Mr. Watts publishes a solid paper. It is the best Liberal paper that now comes to 
 me."— B. F. Underwood. 
 
 " I heartily congratulate our Canarlian friends ujion the fact that tlu^y are represented 
 by " Secular Thought," a paper of which they can be justly jiroud, und wtiichtlicy need 
 never hesitate to t, and to their most delicate-minded friends, however religious they 
 may be."— Helen H. Gardener. 
 
 TPIE SECULiAR PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 ARE NOW PBEPAKED TO DO ALL KINDS OF 
 
 litjoks, Pamphlets, Bill Heads, Tags, Cards, Bills of Fare, Programmes, 
 Envelopes, Note and Letter Headings, Circulars, Suatements, «fcc. 
 
 We want our friends to send all their Printing t-.o 'in ''F^ 
 
 Address all onhrs to 
 
 SECITLAR PUBLISHING COMPANY, 
 
 S9 Adelaide Street East, Tvrontx 
 
 / 
 
 The Field - Ingersoll Discussion. 
 
 W 
 
 ,iu. 
 
 <♦••• » 
 
 Two leaders of thought are here arrayed in fiiendly antagoTiism — one the 
 acknowledged intellectual giant of Freethouglit in this century and the other 
 ail accepted chanipiun of the Church. The weapons arc of their own choice. 
 How deftly wielded, and with what ell'ect, the leaders on c^ach siile will 
 determine. It is certain tliat intellectual liberty iias been and will be ad- 
 vanced by the discussion, and that many th<»usands of eager spectators will 
 come to this book to witness the .splendid coud)at. 
 
 AU the Letters complete. Price 25 cents. 
 
 ScikI orders to the S(»cnlar Piiltlislnnc; (^>, Torotito.