IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 Km Im Ui 14.0 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 150mm V / m .V V /APPLIED J IISA^GE . Inc .^S 1653 Er-t Main Street ..^= 1; Rochesie., NY 14609 USA ■^= '— Phone: 716/482-0300 .^^^^= Fax: 716/28B-5989 O 1993, Applied Image, Inc., All Rights Reserved .^ % CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notti / Notas 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. a □ n n D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pellicula Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites giographiques 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 distorsion le long de la marge interieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M 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 mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqufa ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagto □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pagesi restaurtes et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages ditachtes 0Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from: / Le titre de I'en-tCte provient: □ Title page of issue/ Page de titre de la livraison □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la livraison □ Masthead/ Generique (periodiques) de la livraison This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ci-dessous. 10X UX 18X 12X 16X 20X 22X 26 X 30X 24 X 28X n 32 X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grfice A la g^ndrositd de: Bibliot lue nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. 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 ilSustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbo! — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbok V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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 images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 da l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film6s en cornmen9ant 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 caa. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant 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. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmfo A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre repr jduit en un seul clichd. il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 32 X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^I iiTTTTTTI im^AAi. Ox Price 25 Cents. iirTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTtTTTTTTTTTTTTTT _:^ Ingersoll, -:ic BT F^EV.L.yV.bAMBERT. TTTTTTTTTTTTtTtTTTTTTTTT-JTTTTTTTTTTTT H TT M TTTTTTT One lar-arLdLiad-tH THovLsand.. ■It- *»• ■^' r' •wMMitNaWMMiMMHiaiNM ^e^^ ■^ ■ «i« to that^otori- 0U8 httle fraud— Ingersofl— who so loves to Dose as a I'^T^' ^"^^^^i^ r^"i"'' »>^^ ^»^° livesrin^v^s,"nd has his being, m the laughter and applause which his fes- oennme butfoonery provokes. Regirliing them as a com- plote anmhilataon of the pretentioSs scoler, and diirons that they should reach a much larger public than could be secured fcy any newspaper, however widely circ^a^jhe present writer pointed out to the author the ^v^sSlmtv 15*^'°Jl^"1*f "°*^ ^>8» ^ ^"^^ " No?es '• spJf^d brS cast m the interest of Religion, especially at this tiX *°wrS?if^^ ?;«^ *\"' publication in the prewntS: Would that those, whose minds have been poisoaedTv Ji^hT^'T P^" »nd brilhant rhetoric of ourAmericaJ arch-Llasphemer, could read these " Notes " I They wouS «n^ I fi^r'^""*^' ^^ ^ «»nuendo, and malevolent S purpMe, IS the man upon whose every utterance they hunff ^^ dehght. With CO d, relentless Jruelty, FatW W bert pursues IngersoU, in these pages, step bv ston nj^ wghlm with keen Damascus bSI a^t evenTtum '-ave* dis^ting him to the verv marrow of his K-"nd ffi holds him up, like another unmasked Mokanna? to the contempt and Bcom of mankind. "««'na, w tne fi»5f'®*°' ^i?**' ^8 shown that this profoundly orimnal tinker is the veriest of plagiarists, palming off. 2f Ss own, the worn-out objections of the infldeli. of nf.h^r^.Sl wi.ioa aave been answered hundreds of timw." Yea~verilv this vriiant knight, of the theological touWmenf s S: ingbut a fraudulent peddler of oTd infidTjSSk He nw tends to bring to the polemical market jiwS rwS?S " PBXrAOI. aiiSl' f?"** Tf !i*1 ^•^•y "Of® Fattier Lamberts, etDeoi. Ski thi '!?J?i^ State.. togiT. I,, opportune pl^^Cte of Ll r?TeaMSS;h"ii* •^S'* workofTe blauSt revileS w ui reveaiea truth, who, like the reptile brood hiu tnrih their venom against Christ and hi. ChurcL L^rtihon^ heroism self-sacrifice, and similar high wunS phra^J* are continually on the lip. of these souLiatl. «KiK tS^ ' ennoble huriian nature— destroy the belief in a HereRf}«V they fiourish ? Infidelity linows no standard of Richt Ind I'iS^'rS^;"^' '"^^"^ ^ *^« corner.stone''u^fw*,;;g As may be obserred, these "Notes" are writf^n fr««, the broaSost Christian standpoint^lo thtrthey Xht to Patbiox OBOMnr. ^"^ ,Vi MOTES ON INGERSOLL. INTRODUCTORY. THE mrth Anurican Review for Ancast 1881 ««k liHhed an art cle on the GhriiiHitn n^7i • C^V. P""* O. IngeraoU, together with »S*° Behgion, by Roberfc Black of WwSton dtv In IJ v ** *'^ Jeremiah S. the same /^e..i.a,X^nMioll ,enM^ .°"?*^' <>' and there the controvers^^l'g'ifa?^^^^^^^^ ^""'^^^^ which he was not well eaufnnS k f^ * ^?^^ °' •*'''o» 'o' structure. Thev wZ !?nf ^i?^ ^^ education and mental to the J^on o? Wssilence Tr"*' ^''* ^**1« »° ^°"b' «» letter addressed to the ir^/mwrf*^^^ ^'•^ 8*^^*' '» • religious paper publiSh^Tn^.^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^'^^ '^ ^««Wy tinc'irSide«l^S'"tSXrrf ^'- ^^*°^' "i* ^'^ d«- with fhe^"SSon * "^ A^hr'? *^ »y P"*'^'^^^^ cation I a.^ed that if M- Tn„ i. u *,*™® °' **^e pubii- with the S. it mil? Lem^"";i^^^^ tS find other chance on th^rmo t^ms TwaJ ^otl'frlt,^7 *"• an7faf^'tT^^th;^'rr^« fifty pages of the foulest man. w^tittom^** I wiTSJirX wn*«?°f ^^^ <>' I had treated th« ;tho™K2H'.^^y_.^'"'.°K !» treat it as bope to ^.T^txz 'i'Xi^-^l^i:^A z 6 NOTIS ON INaXBSOLL. editor. To my Bnrprise I was informed that no contm wonS°Af* n^*^°' ^' °"*i««°» o« mine! oranyb^y e£' « was to be prmted immediately, and would occudv ho afm^nffn ifo ' Its bulk couia not be reduced so as to adimt of an answer m the same number, it should be noat poned until a reply could be made readj^ for mibltation in tre"re^c?S"1%,""°^^^'- ^»^» ^n/diTer^'er^Trs were rejected, for the express reason that ' Mr InMranii Wm to ?„?.£•"'"?,*•; /^W *^« ^'^^^ cfntrolfed by him to smt himself, I do not tlink I was bound to go fu? u*5^" explanation puts the affair in a light which reflecf « his Dos^Sn fhi*^ P^'^^* confidence in the stren^h of con^nt Kip fSii* "** conceivable reason why he should nn fi«S?:. I- PpfPose had been to stop the controversy maS KX1.'if"l,f mtellectual com^bat with aXng ^l!^u^r,9^^^^^y no* bound to go further and trus* himsdf or his case to a Review that haS outriS h* a riS ts or to a man who had taken advantage of an Se?t wS had temporarily disabled his antagonist. ""^'"^^ ''^^^^ BlaJikof'Si'^H^f" ?P^y' "dignantly accuses Judge engajje the highest faculties of tSe W? mind and t a-ar;CV%?ac^"^^-*' vituperatio^VS^- or of a class, of the living or of the dead, is uSved J,Sl*?,;?^ singularly out of place when treating ^^^^^^ subject that demands the exercise of the highest facultieS of the inte lect, and which involves the destiny o* man K«w):'**'^*«^^'i^^« *"* utteran^lacryof paiS; his last, the groan of death. It is indeed no suK to make merry over. Be man's fnf.nr« wW ;* ^-l°.i^_* J^ Sder it^'^n^^" whatever -pate field of Twain, and oth/rswith^h^n^i?^ ^^"^^ Ward. Mark sought new fielS 1^ J^Su ^ V'*''^'^ °°* compete. He thatwhiXliec?dlizedw^Mh°^T°* *^^*°i*y' "elects ReligionrS^tws new , !«!*''" "IY^^^ ^«^^ as sacred- huiSrist) £ is not^nSnf^"lT*J' ^^^st for an American pretends to li a nWIn^l""'*^ ^^^^^K *<>»>«» wit; he feamedin the Scrint^i?^' * '"^^*"«*' » theologian If his olaiiSs to S^Sse 'auaS^^ *°u^ * *»"*o"»°- he is certainly well Mn?nS5/**t*°°* *^ *»« °"»^e good, the intenSnTJto^s iSd^.Sf ?"'"*?^- ^°* J»« l»oks the learningT^d '^fof VoK fT T^' ^' f'*'" P«°«. tration of Hobbes and BnJ?noKri*''?uP*''^°***P^«aJ Penc- of Herbert S^enS.?" he fei^^^^ analytical faSnlty and the oomprehensivL?^ IS • ^^^*? *°^ Jinxley, Stuart MiU. AU theslarm-of '°°-^*''^v ^P^"" «' John Mr. Ingersoll has norsJcceSS T IS.?? ' ^^^^ ^^°°» standing. Wanting in oriSnS^?2 h. i"^***^'?? or under- the writings of Paine VoiS«S^'t-^ ?""V'^ liberally from his points and a?OTments H^ hi'°^^^^^ *°^ «*^^'« ^o' vanoinganytLffSwaaa;n«f%i^*\?°^'"*^^e^«d »» »d. doing fim in3^ to eS it^^^^^^^ i' " the past. %y ma»„. „» . "f* o'tfnrefuted sophistries of im4n.ti„,.%rrge»oii z^°r<^r.i ■! ?">'«?'«' sapless corpses into a mom.„t!tr ' 8»''Miwuig these they wiB sW »« tw . i v J^ »PP«»»>ioe of ifle, but a.*«cti«. Of M^U^'SaS"' ijS'u^ 'cirXtT ^ Black had onW^ theS.*^7" w the next Review. If words of IncSrLfLi-i*''*^' *°^ misrepresented the and miarepSted^iSi^ L**^^' ^*« °»*'ag^ the character disgraced thHS^ he defSd*^' ^T"' ^^ ^.^"^^ '^^^^ ,woSld be severe3nah f«, ft.^^^V*?i"<» condemnation attacked TiI^b f^^^ith SLT^i'*^*" ''^^'^' »»»<* was at leastb^avr WrSf^^*u^ spear in rest; that honored dead, the leadSan^o ^^T'^^J^ithe great and able natio^at ever roi JrST^ • f J?^ "".^^^ "^"^^'k- jackal can gnaw LTflJffW ^^''^"sje? and fell. The the field-mS?i ilav^SS'^-*^??'^! **' '^« ^^ad lion, and The cb^^ter aJd morZ^«^ °° W^eplain. vions to his attec£ as fti f h^^ ^"^ Moses are as imper. javelin of the wande^inrAr^h ^X"""^}^^, «' Egypt to the he passes, and dfsaD»eaS tSSw^ ''"^®«. *^^^' ^ase as of^onder'tofutt^TneStTonsf *''^ '^"^ ^^'^ ^»>J^te ChSi?niraSt\irs?attinr"^^^ ''' "^* *° '^^'^"^ and unphilosophiS alLJks buJ^tn t^f T^°**^^'?«^^ subject to be conBS«ro^.* , *** °^*'^® his article the eveJy statemen? il ^ i *** analyze, with careful scrutiny! An«ximaX%' Zri^^l" **';?'«"l,"'^ -"""Ji". from l^ana. OabSiS'SlMf • ° J-™ 'e'los, down to d'Holdaoh, them: ^"' ^'^^^ »»* *'»'"«. bave nevet answe^ argnmenta irnnftr,«!„; ."*'""" ' ignorance of those peited I do not ™„^°' ?''"'' "''J' ""^y "''onM "» M- Christiamty thSt ia'^jreal kTIS' *^'"' " " '» ■■»» n ia to be L^iS Z^"J^L,^Sl¥'- I°ge«oU'8 artWe. *"? »»?'» to deSmie •„h;t1j;;"^„^£f • "■" "■" M* *• •!i: I'l I1 10 i^OTXd OH iHOBBSOLl* are a mere evolntion of himself on paper. The glittef , sophistirjr, the bad faith, verbal leger-de-main, the pervad- ing egotism, the assnmed infallibility, and the brazen audacity of statement, so conspionons m his 'v?riting8, are the fnll bloom and blosscm of his character. In these Notes I shall follow him throagh his tortnoos -windings as closely as possible. And, that 1 may not mis- represent him, or fall, even nuiutentioBally, into unfair- ness, I mtend that Mr. IngersoU shall always speak for himself in his own very words. From this ont, then, it will be a dialogue between him and his commentator. CHAPTER 1. MB. INOBESOLL'S «*U)1SA," AND WHAT OOMES OF IT. INGERSOLL— •« The universe, according to my idea. is. a ways was, and forever wiU be. * ^ Itfstheine eternal being-the only thing that ever did, d. .s. or ^ Comment— When you say " according to my idea," you leave the inference tjat this theory of an eternal Sive^^ qmred Its full development. Of course you id not intend to mislead or deceive ; you simply meant that your "idea" from the French, or elsewhere. Your phUosoihy. h^ those ^ays, wants the freshness and flavor of Salitv and suffers from bad translation. The old origSS^ from 7^Zn ^^" W' t^'^^S^u* ^* «c«°»bent on them to givH l^S^tlm^^h^''^^ *Se you do not deem this necessary. Jiri J *?« ^"* ^?' y**?. t° formulate your •• idea." To at * tempt to prove It would be beneath you. Is this the reason why you do not advance one single argument to prove the your "idea ''has the force of an argument, or that the science of philosophy must be re-aSjusted iS^a^ yoS hftppen to have an " idea " ? "w-ause you vn!^«f ^''" ^^ • The universe is the one eternal being, &lf *'"*'®' 1?f *° *?" ^«**»^«' '"^torial, ever.cha3 universe of matter. Inasmuch as you have given S «in!S ' ^^*»^o°t»Vy '^'*«°'» °' argnient to support ft^ij ST« iffi.? T? ""^ supererogation to attempt tJ ?efute it. Sil ®"i"* to oppose my Idea to yours. But I wiU io further and see if your idea of etern^ matter dc^s not in! volve a contradiction. Of coarse you know th^ a state mentor proposition, that involves a conti Miction cl^^* wasoS^thusr ^^"^ *^® **®"'*^ ^^ "**tor. On tliisl That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite because, if eternal, it can have nothing to liiSt it IS MovEd otr iKaxssott. T/?"*:ft** ^^^°^ ** ^"^"^*® "^««* *>« "finite In erety way. If limited m any wb ' would not be infinite. Now, matter is lim^ ^. It ig composed of part.,, and composition 18 limitation. It is snb^ctto change and change mvolves limitation. Change supposes sncSeision, and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore, I'mitation. Thus far we are bomboutbi rea- son, experience, and common sense. Then— Matter ia limited, and therefore finite; and if finite in f^y^^}''S,Amtemeveiyihmg ; and if finite in everything, therefore finite m time, and, therefore, not eternal. ^ The idea of an eternal, self -existent being, is incompat- ible, m ev^ry point of view, with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, unchangeable, impassable, and one. The latter is composite, changeable, passable Mid multiple. To assert that matter is etJrnal. is toWrt that aU these antagonistic attributes are identical— a orivi. lege granted, by sano men, to lunatics only. lN0BE80LL-«The universo, according to my idea, is always was, and forever will be." ^ ' ' Comment— We have seen that this "idea" involves » ™lV^i°fW " t^*""^ as to say that parallel Unes can meet, or that a thing can be, and not be, at the same time. But othc^ important consequences follow from your " idea " U this universe of matter alone exists, the mind, intel- lect or soul must be matter, or a form of matter. Subli- mate or attenuate matter to an indefinite extent, it vet remains matter. Now, if the mind is matter, it must o^y the forces that govern and regulate the action of matter. *v,- -f * n * JS*J *^°^®™. ™***®' ^^ invariable. From this It follows that every thought of the philosopher, every calculataonof the mathematician, every imagmatiin anS fancy of the poet, are mere results of material force, en. tirely mdependent of the individuals conceiving them I a J Mn?J?„ ^t ^^'^'^jP^Tf ^*"^ cwafcions of Shakespeare and Milton, the wonderful discoveries of Newton, Araeo and Young, the creations of Raphael and Angelo, are nofli' inir mora than *hA flnwAt>inn anA ui,^^: 3 -__- . "««* tation. Are all the extems of lunatic asylums prepared to accept this philosophy ? *^ f~^^ w But let us go a little further : You are proud of vour philosophy ftQd your wisdom. But why should you 1m so MB. IKOBBSOLL'a IDEA AND WHAT OOHES OF IT. 18 mZSil 5^®!' 5~ ^^ mere regnlts of the forces that govern your wav of thinking if the world must be governed bv the t?l Ta^? A'^;*?' '"•^If ' I ^ ^«««^« « *»»« Holy ?crip! tores. Is that the result of material forces ? If Jo, why try to ijersuade mo to the contrary? If your materiillistio ^TZSr^^'^^'Z'^l} ¥p ^^^ • Ch.istianrif I am the victim of unalterable forces or hiws, why try to co" I?fh?^i^*r"'^® T ^ *^«^* *« yo^* motions, a^ at the same time, compel me to reject them ? Why era- demn kings as tyrants, and priests as hypocrites, if thev Ynn^ iT^'^ '''°*">" ^' .^?« unalterable fS^s of ' "atte?? ™r • *!t*" *?5*.*^®. **' ^"^'ty- » there is anything of value m this world it is liberty. You thrum this tune tiU SrlTir*^ t^ ?' ^*- Now. if there is nothi^ but matter, and if matter is governed by invariable lawsT^A^r* iZXTJ't''^ ""^"^'r- Materiiism destroys hi^n fS^ »°dfiee agency, leaving man the victim of physic^ forces. You who prize hberty so highly should repudiate not be according to your materialisUo doctrine, you are inconsistent when you appeal to his inteUigence C III v^n^XT''^^^^^ " y°? ^?P««* y«« relsoSi^gs to cSn! vince him, smm his conviction must depend on material forces independent of him and you. Ifyou understeid ^our principles jrou are bound, bj the iorlZ 1^^}^^ sUentand wait in patience the outcome of thole fowel which are unaltorafoe, irresistible, and miavSSS>Ie ^f men's thoughts are the result of mere phySS fowes!*it is msaaity to reason with them. As wefi migb^ j^^ »l!*»«~'*»,6 CHAPTER n. aOMBTHINO ABOOT THR LAWS OF NATUEB, AND HOW MB. INQKa- BOLL OATHKE8" AN IDEA— HI8 IDEA OF HYDRAULICS. JNGERSOLL-" We know nothing of what we oaU the fi:«, ft!!l v"**?/®' ?*?®P* ** ^^ «»**^er the idea of law from the uniformity of phenomena springing from hke oon- ditanns. To make myself dear : Water\lways runs dc^n CoMMEiTf — We acquire a knowledge of the laws of nature by observing the effects of the forces of nature ; but we do not gather •♦ an idea of law " from the study of these forces and their effects. The idea of law, in general, L. and must be, prior to the idea of particular laws. We cannot assert a law in a given case without having JfJ K ''' **7 ^ general. We say a particular law is a law because It corresponds with the norm of law which exists intuitively in the mind. The idea of la«r, then, does not TOme from observing phenomena. These phenomena enable us to acquire a knowledge of particular laws, but not of law. The laws of nature, in the last Analysis, are that mtimate and invariable connection which exists be- tween natural causes and effects. This idea of cause and effect, or the prmoiple of causality, as it is called, is the basis on which we make our deductions from phenomena. A stone, thrown up, falls to the ground. The mind, refer- S'S^ii ! **^ »»»twtio«i of causaUty, asks:- What caused It to fall ? The experiment is repeated with a like result. The mmd here does not "gather an idea of law" but begins instmctively to seek the law m the case. To seek for « law presupposes the idea of law, for we do not seek for that of which we have no idea. To talk about " gathering an idea of law from pheno- mena 'is unphilosophical. We conclude or deduce laws from nnAnnmona. Knf. 'ota oann^j. it_-ii .3 •« from anything. To gather an idea is like gathering a hue- kleberry, or an Ingersoll. It is not customary to gather a umt. You confound idea with judgment or deduction. 14 MIL ZNOKBSOLL'S ZDBA AMD WHAT 00MK8 OF IT. 15 The illostration yoa give, to make yourself clear, is on* fortanato. Yoa say : Imoebsoll— •• To make myself dear : Water always nms down hill." OoMMKNT— How, then, did it get up hill ? Or is there a Serennial spring up there ? Water does not always run own hill. To run down hill is an exception to the general mode of the action of wator. In the present condition of the physical world, the tendency of wator is npwa^ and outward. This will be admitted of water m the form 5 steam or vapor. The water that falls as rain has been first taken up by the sun's heat. Water runs up in the capillary tubes of every vegetable that grows. More water ascends in the capillaries of the vegetable world in one day than falls over Niagara in a year. Water runs up in all nvers that run toward the equator. The Mississippi river carries its waters up an inclined plane, a perpendi- cular distance of about four miles. The same is true of a portion of the Nile. This earth on which we live and play the vrfse and the foolish, is not a sphere, but a spheroidf. It is flattened at the poles. The lowest places on the earth are the regions about the North and South poles. The equator, aU around the earth, i$ a mountain thirteen miUt higher than the eurfaoe at the poles. The polar regions are vast sn^en vaUeys. Now I ask: If " water always runs aown hUl," why do not the waters of all the vast oceans flood with impetuosity toward the poles ? Why do not those waters seek their level equi-distant from the centre and make the earth a perfect sphere ? Two-thirds of the earth's surface consists of water. These multitudinous waters do not run down hill— do not flow down towards the valleys of the poles. On the contrary, they remain on a vast slope, that rises toward the equator, a perpendicular lieight of thirteen miles. They remain there on that in- chned plane— on that hiU-side forever. You may say this is caused by the rotation of the earth. I do not care what causes it. The fact of it disproves your statement that water always runs down hill. What you wanted to say was CQia r W«.f«i> lib-A «na4^4-A.. «.. .11 i*.~ 'i.t « —i-is'i to tbe stronger force. In the present case the oenjinf ugal rorce 18 the stronger, and hence the waters of the earth tend up hiU towards the equator. . You saw, somewhere, a bit of water running down a hill, i.i il 16 N0TX8 ON INORBSOLL. ! ! I i Yol^^- Kftthered the idea " that it always does so. Year view was too narrow and local. It wanted breadth and comprehensiveness. You misinterpreted nature as S?„Slf ""v®"^^ *°^ mteinterproted M^ses and revealed reUgion. You have proved yourself an incompetent inter. £SSL ?**"t' »»^,yo". cannot be relied on when you presume to mterpret, criticise, condemn, or deny Oiat which IS above nature. ' IN0ER30LL-" The theist Bays this (water runs down hill) hap^ns because there is behind the phenomenon an^aotive «tnS*l?^m*'I^y® ^^^^ *®®° that von misunderstand nature, and from what you now say it is evident that you do not understand what the theist means. The theisHoesSot •!L*i- !® ,18 behind the phenomenon an active law. He fS£? * 5*®* ***® stupidities you attribute to him. What the iSfch f^n**^ " *^'' : Beliind, prier to. and concomitant with the phenomenon, there is a static or permanent force rS ",°J'«^'««ted when the proper condftions are pS! A stone, thrown up. falls. The power or force that brought it down was there before it was thrown up, and continues, aiter it has fallen, to keep it down. The delation between the stone and the force is constant and permanent. This force asserts itself pemanently. but is manifested to us S?SJ1? iSJ*T «o"<^'?o°8. This force, sometimes im- properly called a law, is what we understand by gravitation. It was projected into nature when God creat^ nature. phenomena" ^' * '"''""' "' '*°*' **^ ^ *^» "^^ «' «»« CoMMBNT—That depends on what you mean by law. If by the word you mean that force which actuates the nhe. nomonon, your statement is not correct, and your plav on the word "law "is beneatti the dignity of a pKopL? INOBBSOLL-" Law docs uot causeWphenLem^n, but the phenomenon causes the idea of law in our minds." Ooiou!NT-If, by law, you mean the force I have spoken of, It does cause the phenomenon. If you mean, bylaw a m«je verbal formula, or statement of ibat a^Ven f oroe Jhl ««L??^' ^?" circumstances, you are trifling with the mteuigenoe of vonr rAadArs. pk«».«~— - ?_". " us to acquire the tnowledge of a law, butTw we^avl fi^L^S'nS^^v*^''* .°*"^.?f originate the idea of law iQ our nuods. You confomid the idw of law with the MB. IMOKRSOLL'S lOKA AMD WHAT COMU OF IT. ft knowledge ot lawi. A philosopher should not write with looseness of expression and inSeterminateness of thonTh* Law. in our language, has more than one meaning When speaking of nature, it may mean the action of natuwl l°Aff"Vw* "f-^ "•^*° * ^t,"^***' 'o'°'»J» or stotement of what that action IS or will be in given oirocmstanoes Your purpose required that these two meanings should bo confounded, and you, accordingly, confounded them Phenomena do not cause the idea of law. The mental faculty of assoc ating Uke events and refei^ng them to. ' common cause, together with the faculty of generalization' enables us to formulate laws. A series of lilo phenomena Idea of law, but it does not and cannot, in the nature of thmgs, "cause the idea of Uw." The idea of law must precede the knowledge of a law. INOERSOLL-" This idea (of liw) is produced from (bv ?i lie fact that. nn<1ov «L-« «;-\.„.v,„i.-:-._-^ *~"*"^ *™P.\?y V the fact that, »»deTlike d^o»"Si.«?,'Sr»n>eTffi phenomenon always happens." ^ Comment— A series of Uke phenomena suggests the eaiit. H^^/JwT" *K '^^^ like circumstances, we are led to con- elude that It IS the same force that is acting in each ewe Further observation of this force's manifestetioMnd^i phenomena are the manifestation of force-enables us to aistingDish It from other forces, to identify it by its invL? JZf^ ^'f ^^^^^ ?' familiarity with a force and its act. ZnZ"" T^ *" T'^' r^** ^* ^»" ^° "'^der given drc?m stances. These formulas are called laws of nature. In this sense these laws arc purely subjective, that is to say. ia?i^rr'T?°^y ^ • ^^^ "^T W^ehending them, and noTfn nJfn^!»i^\^'^ '^ an inherent principlS in the forces of nature which causes them to act fn the same manner under the same circom stances. This, however, is not a Uw, but the nature of the forces themselves. The laws of Mture «,?«;rr*^""°'°°*y understood, are the uniform actton of natural forces expressed in words. When phvsicists sneak of the laws of nature, they refer to the foiSB/S wS^^- laws are but the verbal expression. They sup^ philoai^ phers have sufficient intelligence to nndersfflittSs fiSt; and yet it appears that they are sometimes mistaken, i^ all you say on this subject yon coBfpai)d lav with/iw; ':Ih I !• 18 vom OK nroBBaoLL. Henoe the difference in the weiaht of wnk- L^ i '"^' •riMsfrom the »otiou of thoee & to^^^^^ «». «.W «rS.ma^teSLetol lifer "^ maum, it doea ao under *ff«Mn» SS »^ ii" "^ "*"* Comment— Mr. Black " Drohfth "L.- ^u i. ^ -V »«w* BuuuusoiOQ ana rtNiemblanceT" '^~ OoMir .«T~I| wonld seem that it 'nAAma a^ 4.^ 7«» m„ «^tea tmt idea ^' ♦^."S.t^ ^'J;^"* A TOUGH Of MXTAPBTBICS. I« JoJ -! ' °^*i ^°** g^^J^tinn that it seems so to you, ar« yoa so simple as to advance that as an argument f Your ^ nhbles on the word "law " have been alr«a.i^ expo-.Hl . >w IS the cause of phenomena. The law is ih mere BUtement of what the force will do in a given ^; in nnr mtvAa CHAPTER m, A TOUCH or metaphtbics ; with a tail-phok about " uon ^jst THOUOHT." TNGERSOLL-M,^ t ^ ^^ ^^^ ^, J_ oomwls us to admit that there was a time when noth ing existed except this God." T£°I?"'*"'r7f *J^"P*^n °* *^ "^^^ notJ»«R of the kind. Jrf VnnM "i^'l can place an eternal act.** His creaUve Jn^ T*^' *^ri°'f '^^ co-eternal with His being. The endo the act, that IS. creatiou, could be co-existout with the eternal act, and. therefore, eternal. To deny thil is . to affiun that there could be a moment whence eternil and one omnipotent God could not act, which is contrary to Christian teaching. Christianity does not teach tffihe umverse was actually created /rom eternity, but reason toaches that it oouid fcave been so created. &ut. granS that the universe is not an eternal creation, your conclS would not follow. For in this hypothesis, as time begaS W Zf r? *°^ '^ J^^ measure of its endurance, it fol iTnn?t ^^/o'-e e'^eation was. time was not. Hen^, God d^d not exist in time before creation. God IS. To S there is neither past, present, nor future-only eternity God IS alone before creation was. But grantin/that oS is alone before creation was, what foUows ? ^ INOEEHOLL-" That this God lived from eternity in infi- nite vacuum and absolute idleness." '"«''"*y » inn- CoMMENT-If Uod lived in it. it could not have been ^^!^lt.^Aj^^^ •« that in which no^C is In th« xvF----"-"-i iiias uoa is, lie is something: He is infinifut this does not prnvcut us from knowing? *?-'** ^^^^i^i What we do know.' We know not'diid'airsolutelyrbnrwe know, with certainty, that He is. ' infinitely limited, but little as we know, aU have aa eaoal nght to give their honest thought." ^ -r-- 22 !|]| IfOTES Olf iNGEftsOLt, tbe ^ud^e7j;^1J\»^;S'?hii' f'^t^?^-^on «ense being amostSfinitelylimiS InS^ ^^ knowledge i? Rive their honest thoSSt W °'*y,^ave an equal ri«ft to their hon.3t Zught on all «nl°°".^ ^*^® **^« "«ht to give stances. Common sense^iS^J^^'^** *°,^ ""^«' all circfm! esty of a thonghrd^rnot fivf t^'^^^r*'^^.*^^ The hon-^ truth to it. If 80, Cat^cs f ouldhifv,* u' i^^Po^ance or for none are mo^ honeS 7n fW JS® *^.^* *»^ '^^soners, Thought must be judged w/th leHL^^'l^^^l **^*° **»«y' not with reference to the honestv of M *° 'J" *'."**'' ^nd This plea of honesty in thinSt a in«?fi ""^-^ *^i°^ i*' error and crime, foJ we must 1 5.^^*'^*'**'**° °^ eve:- case, take the th nker WdfoV S. i?® ""V 'i**'''^ »f «^i^"^ Sl'!?"',^ ^e can'SvVC'^r.^,?if^^^^^^^^^^ Guit^;;;i^-irwrz'SvVC'^°"^^^^ thought by^eans of a^Xl^^^^^^^^^^ -""•> " we can De. in claiming the right to livA^^r^u* ^^^ °^*»"^- Then, claim the ^ght to fflz^tCthChfe*. *^°."«^*' y°» and cause it, as far as you cm to ISSLiof °* *^^ P'Mtice, human society. If your da^ foJ E!f *f ' ?°^ o^'^ain m '7tSk?i*t'i{'*iA^"-^^^ S^^^:^S.^'tS^;|^^^^ 3,nr do you interfere witMhniavJffili °t^' ^^ what r^ht the Mormon's honest S^.ugLV?^^^ou^^^^^^^^^ exwessmg honest thought is a miWbSinSf ^^^ "«^* <>' by It you mean that only those whn «!S P'?*ense, or else right of expressing it in woTor^^on t^ ^^" ^»^« *he our loquacious liberals, When ImIv^!;, Sf ^^^^^^es of mean precisely this and nottSSg mwe ' ^ ^* ^""^^ *<> CHAPTER IV. SOHETHINQ ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE UNTVEBSE ', AMD IMQEB* SOLL's " CURIOUS AND WONDERFUL THING." MB. INGERSOLL next proceeds to show that the argument for the existence of God drawn from the plan or design of the universe is not conclusive. As Mr.^ Black did not advance this argument I am at a loss to nn> derstand why it was introduced b^ Mr. Ingersoll, anless it was to give us a specimen of his ability in the way of metaphysical skyrocketing. Let as hear him. Inoebsoll — " It will not do to say that the universe was designed, and, therefore, there must be a designer." Comment — Why not, if all have a right to give their honest thought ? Inoersoll — "There mnst be proof that it was de* signed." Comment — Certainly, and the proof is to be found in every work on theology and philosophy that treats of the subject. As a lawyer, you know that proofs are not to be thrown out of court by a mere stroke of the pen. It was incumbent on you to examine those proofs and show that they are not conclusive, or accept tuem. Instead of this you very cunningly leave the inference that no such proot^ exist. If you knew of those proofs you should, in all candor, have meet them fairly ; if you were ignorant of them, yon should havo informed yourself of tiie arguments on the otiier side before yon undertook to answer them. Tou have said *' candor is the courage of the soul." Let us have courage. The proofs given by theologians and Christian philoso- phers that evidences of plan and design exist in this physi* cal universe have never been met by yon. Accordmg to the rules of logic they are good until yon meet and over« throw them. This you must do by reason, and not by bald assertion. • Inoebsoll—" Tt will not do to say that the universe has a plan, and then assert that tiier« has been an infinite maker." 81 ru « 24 tJOTES OH rtfaERSOU. Comment— Of mnn^r. ,•* -i, out any proofs to ffthp'If f"""* ^"^ *° "^^'^^^ «ay it with things, aid. the^f^re. &sfc!anTvf',*« ^^^ «*y «« ^ny ply those proofs. The Dron?„ Sf • «°hol»w invariably sud does and must follow thM«^-°^ ^^''^ °«*il retuLd\ Wffier, Creator. '^** *^^'« « »« infinite planner, de iNOEBSOLL — «• Thfl i<1oo *v «inning, and that a desf^^r n a, design must have a he ^TolLT?,^^-^^^^ reaches of human ^reas^'X^* '' ^^^ ^^ *he highest the thread of the aSenf i^" ^*^« evidently lost Christian philosophy CnSL^»°A',^ t'yi^'g to refute «gn of the univerftfl J,oS^ i ?^''®'t *liat the clan m.^ teaches that^Kan Jr d*.«^'^""^«- ^° *^« cSSrarv ?fc tX*"?5Sf*^'-S?s't^^^^^^^ wungs. The universe is tho fif^t^if -5 ^^P® °^ ^^ created • -INGEESOLL— «♦ Wo fi„^ „ „ . , and wonderful a tWng mSsThavi h"^ ""^ ^^^ • So curious CoMMENT-The Chri8fci«n i^ ^ ^*** * maker." "*' •"^^^r because it is cuSsir''^*,*^^^'* that it had a shows evidence of bavW hi '''''^^r^"^' »>ut because i? and wonderfulness of ff »^!^? »«arf.. The curiousneso rnteih^ent mB,ket. A mud «1 Sii^^^S^'^^ the idea of an deSTS^eJauie^heis^^udr'^^ ^« °°«o«« and won"^ unfortunate for ChristilniV tf tj?^^' ^"'"y- ^t ^o»S be sent its case. '^^ " ^O" were permitted to m-n! wonderful «„tl,eSS?1;rCfS?^.; «' " - CESiaN OS' TflB tNIVERSe. 25 Comment— You say this, but " we " don't. When we find God, we find the self-existent Being, infinite and efcer- nal, and therefore we say. He must «o^ have had a maker. This 18 the way the Christian reasons, and it is somewhat different from the childish nonsense you would put into his moutb Ingeesoll— " In other words, all things a Uttle wonder- ful must have been created." Comment— You use that word «• wonderful " as a boy uses a toy drum, to the disgust of all who hear it. AU things have been created, not because they are curious and wonderful, but because they exist and are finite. The mi- croscopic grain of sand that is wafted by the winds and the waves proves the existence <^ a Creator as clearly as does this vast and wonderful ur ^erse. It is not, then, as you say, the wonder of the thing that suggests the idea of creation, but the existence of the thing. Ingersoll- " One would suppose that just as the won- der increased, the necessity for a creator increased." Comment— The one who would so suppose must be sun- posed to have a very limited knowledge of philosophy or'a very hmited intellect. If Christian philosophy were as silly as you have represented, or rather misrepresented it above, it would, indeed, be contemptible. Candor and honor require that when you attack a system or an institu- tion, you should attaok if in its own position, and not make fictitious and absurd positions for it, and then pro- ceed with show of logic to demolish the nonsense engen- dered in your own brain and presented to the public as the principles of Christian philosophy. To misrepresent Christian philosophy is a confession of weakness, an ad- mission that it must be misrepresented before it can be successfully assailed. Imokrsoll—" Is it possible that a designer exists from all eternity without a design ?" Comment— Yes, the idea of a self-existent, eternal de- signer excludes the idea of a design prior to or independ- ent of him. This is so self-evident that it needs only to be stated. The philosopher who asks such an absurd question is like bis walc'imaker, a '• curious and wonderfal thing." Inoersoll— " Was there no design in having an infinite designer ?" . ° r II :li| 1 I'll m III! 26 IJOTES ON iKOEftSOLL. be nothing more iaS thlnlh?-**^ 8»«'' Thereof to the eternal. It is as if ?«!? u ® infinite, nothing nHo! thing more circular thL/r,l?*^«W »«k.- Is therl ?S?f a square ? ' '^*" * <^'cle. or anything squarer than commendable himSi^y adS'S^fT^ y^" have, with about questions like Vse i't^ *ilf .^^i^^* you 'know in vo„^.n"'^.-"^ "**'• **»** he migh? in His hAn«fi/.^«*'^"-.™*^h® might use it tn «uo,.>r^_ oreaturea7-i^"mar&TL\-^ ^J?P^»««« of hS dom« «o. produced diafor« tVe^^^^^^^^^^^ "a OtmiOtS AKl) WONDBBTUt tHlNO.** 27 free agent man proved himself nntrne to his trust. He batrayed it, and thus became a victim of the disorder he himself produced. The agent is renponsible to his princi- pal, and a failure to perform the duties assigned him brings upon him punishment and disgrace. The pagan philoso- pher Plato understood this when he wrote : "He (the wrongdoer) is not able to see that evil (suffering), ever unit' ed to each act of wrong, follows him in his insatiate cravings for what is nnholy, and that he has to drag along with him the long chain of his wrongdoings, both while he is moving along upon this earth, and when he shall take, under the earth, (in hell we would say), an endless jour- ney of dishonor and frightful miseries." Evils, that are the results of man's perversion of libertyi cannot ho attributed to thD design of Qod; and those who so attribat.e them are as reasonless as liie shipwrecked mariners who condemn the captain for the sufferings which they brought upon themselves by their disobedience to his commands, or as the criminal who attributes his punish- ment to the judge, when it is the result of his own crime. While admitting the existence of evils and sufferings in the world, the Christian does not, and is not bound, by his principles, to admit that they are the result of the design or plan of God in creating the universe. To those who see in man's nature and destiny nothing higher than that of the grasshopper or the potato-bug, who believe that man's life ends with the death or decom- position of his outer shell, there must be something inex- phcable in the sufferings of this life. But to the Christian who looks upon this life and its vicissitudes as a mere phase of man's immortal career, who considers this world of time as the womb of the eter- nal years, the sufferings of this life are but the temporary inconveniences of the weary traveler on his homeward voyage. Their weight is lightened and their sharpness blunted by the thought of home with its comforts and its rest. He suffers with patience and resignation to the will of his eternal Father, with the consoling hope that, when he is freed from the body of this death, ne will pass into., the eternal day where death and pain are known no more forever. Buoyed up by faith and hope he says in his in> moBtsool: b i < 1 1 I i!i! KOTES ON INGEftSOLt. ''^7r,ft?^S°«'^^*^e -meeting Beyond the farewcill ttnA ♦». Lord, tarry not, but come." \ CHAPTEB V. Does yonr failure to sflfi ff ? * i^ ''o* "» this world ? When you make your li^iL:rr„t,?^ ^** it is uo?? justice you usurp the ft?frn«,7"*°^ *^® measure of God's iudgmeJt abov?HL. aud"ati^^„?' **^« ^^''^te. ?«* your Men have been kindly Ant S*' *° *^«°"« «» Pfece asylums for such phifeX^a^d'''.^''^""^.*^ ^^^^e with them almost every dav'T?i.°"5i°"« visitors meet question of God's eSnS^'f. *ilJ° *^« ^^ analysis a existent BeingrHe S f^'J^°L'^ *^®'e w an infinKelf •in --^'ythingf k^"5'L'*;vSvth1ir^'? ^**^'«' »>« ^-«"^te To assert that He is notlnfiStelv^n^f^^'J^ ^5 ^« J^^tice! Jfltence. But vour 8tftf^»«i«* ^ J°^* ^^i to deny His ex therefore granKislntt^^^ exisLce an"i which exists by the logicof vonr iS«-f- *^®'' *^** Justice you, you should douS, Sot^i^C 'r'^'°°*^«We to vision. This is difficult to a mJ^t *S® P*»^®« of row assertive fift^am-*- v"* .rt * ?^an of almost infinif^ '„"ir iNOEEsoii^r;;^;,^- « \?ji«aom. '- =««■ TB> JUSTXCn ov oos. heartitessneas of this ' plan ' , ,„.„„«,, ouavi justioe. CoMnraNT-As you are not required by Chistian philoso- phy to believe that the evUa you describe were a part of God 8 plan or design in creating the universe, you are not called upon to reconcUe those evils with God's wisdom, benevolence, or justice. If you have been laboring under the notion that God planned and designed the miseries of this world, and under that delusion have tried to reconcile the original plan of this infinitely just God with the facts of life, you have been exhausting your energies in a very foolish piece of business. Your very effort in that durec- tion proves that you have not grasped the situation. In the article of yours that I am now commenting on. vou confess your ignorance of the divine plan or desien and yet you presume to attribute suflFering, death, crime, cruel- ty and mahoe to that plan. Above aU things it behooveth a philosopher to be consistent. It is unphilosophical to attribute to apian objectionable features when you confess Ignorance of that plan. ^ INGEMOLL-" Most Christians have seen and recognized this difficulty (that of reconciling the miseries of this life with the justice of God), and have endeavored to avoid It by giving God an opportunity m another world to recti- fy the seeming mistake of this." Comment— When the position of " most Christians " is properly and truthfully stated there is no difficulty to see or avoid. The other world exists without reference to man s innocence or guilt, happiness or misery in this. Your insinuation that Christians invented the future state shows either discreditable ignorance of the history of human thought, or a desire to misrepresent. There is no middle way out of the dilemma for you. Ignorance is a crime m one who assumes the office of a teacher of his fellow-men, and misrepresentation is, as you would say. "singularly and vulgarly out of place" in treating of a subject that requires tho exercise of the highest faculties 01 the liuman mma. • >*•• The doctrine of a future state of existence has been universally behoved, especially by the well-informed of p»a«kind »« all a|;es and places. History dearlv showi^ ! 1 M H0TK8 ON INGKBSOLL. Brahmists and BSddhfste* ^h«^'*°'' ^H «»"d' t»»em that was JidicKa^d ab?u,S/r„^f&,^°El*^'^^^^^ "^"ch and darknoFs and clouds rested ^l^^C, ^°"''?/* «*»adow8 hopes had penetrated the clSSSvT? *^^'? .^'°^' their of an internal con^ousneMS^hf f^' S^ "« «^idence present world to sat sfy ^e a^«nf f ^^^ejenoy of the fouls Our,Americarid^Ss J^Heve iS"?*!**?' **' **^«« The human race, then In nfi Vf "®^o "> a future state. future state, and Vet iS^i«?l*''^f!'u.*'*« ^^i^^ei in a rent of hi.arth?S«ht yoS hJ^ S,' this Mississippi cur! or ignorance to savTaf Phri ^^^^ ^>'e unutterable audacity a chance tTr^Jf/^e iSSrnfTh'^"^ 'i ^ ^^« Geing too, not merely abstract or possible being, for without the real, there is and can be no possible or abstract. Tbc abstract, iu that it is abstract, is sothing, and therefore unintelligible, that is to sav, no object of knowledge or of the int-ellect. The possible, as possible, is nothing bat the power or ability of the real, and is i-r j r:i -I ' I : I I; 84 VOTES ON INOEBSOLL. ia not is not intellisible rLo *^® Principle that what inteUicenM R r«i fifin- .??«?eqaently, to the reality of reSitrontelLgtSlJ^ffi^^^ sinceVi andfromitMlf or?f {«!«^;- '°? ''^ itself, subsisting by beinpo^^^^^^ nmther necessary nor contingent, or which ishofh^f ^ '^ 18 mconoeivable. and cannot be asLr^Tr sussed ''°°'' naTSj^^t^n^^SS^^e^til^^^^^^^ eter. absolute beini, or exStlnce dp^.^fi?'^' ^""^r. ^" »<>8e". being, and therSoT^°not Sout th« T^^^' ^°''^*« eternal, on which it depends M von fl ,f ^^^sary and and eternal being von Wif ,-o A^ f^^ ** *^ necessary tingent beu.g'T'o'a JtiS TZ:^'\^e"iLi!Z'tl^ ? ^ for^e^^^;teVi^rn^e"c*^^^^^^^^^^ ^-"'S oontingentfsSi^'T^^rhTirbe?^^^ ^^« necessary and eternal Indfiinn^J^*-^. ^'^y *° t^o gible. is intelliSb" as ti,l ront^ ^l"* ''P*' « ^^'^ ^*elli- its being, and tSerefoJS 1^*?^,^^ Sn\-^^^' case you cannot assert the iSiSbjl i-fi, ^V ®''^^' necessary and eternal bein^ and &f^l^°^* asserting sary and eternal beina ia^^ -xu ^f®^®"^®' ^^^^ neces- SSG<3wTSSd dS^"you^„^il°'^t^^^^^ God. or to deny it. it follows Sat in eX tTS S^^"*'^ «ven SotrsifnV-^A^ji^^rP^^^ toOBHsoii— " Logio is not aatSM^ -mt. ., .. i;oM«^x_Ti.« i. « not „Wed- iiS ^^"'^rtion • Browiuon's Qoarterly Bevlew. THE EXISTENCE OF OOD. 86 in reference to it. Bat you are evidently ignorant of what logic means. Logic as a science deals with principles, not assertions ; and logic as an art deals with assertions only. Assertions are the subject matter on which it acts. It simply deduces conclusions from assertions or propositions called premises, and cares not whether these premises are true or false. Hence the very reverse of what you say is true. Logic is satisfied with assertions, and knows and deals with nothing else. Your blunder arose from your confounding reason with logic. Reason deals with prin* ciples and truths, logic with assertions. That reason is not satisfied with assertions becomes moro apparent the more your article on the Christian Keligion is subjected to careful analysis. Inqersoll — " It (logic) cares nothing for the opinion of the great." Comment — If those opinions are formulated into asser- tions, it does care for them, because it deals with nothing else. You mean to say : Reason cares nothing, etc. This careless use of words and confounding of terms indicates a confused and imperfect method of thinking. He who thinks with clearness and precision, will express his thought with clearness and precision, while a slovenly thinker leaves the reader in a state of chronic doubt as to what is meant. Inoersoll — "In the world of science a fact is a legal tender." Comment — Then, before you can assert a legal tender, you must demonstrate a fact. A fact must bo established as such, before it is legal tender. Now the question between you and the Christian is this: What are the facts? The whole controversy rests on the answer to this question. What you offer as facts, the Christian may reject as fallacies and sophistries, and what ha offers en facts you may reject. It follows, therefore, that until both parties agree as to what are the facts, they cannot agree as to what is legal tender. What you intended, then, as a wise saying has no practical sense in it. But fur f.lmao TvVm liiro f.lia.i-. orkt'f. r\9 filtinn if. lo oVrkntr ^Iia amm^. nf w — ^-«— ..*.«, ».>., ».«M,v .»,.^ ^ ,,» ^«Bg.._j .^ ,,j ^^y^.__,^jy ve^T..* ts\rz.v Vi thing they will Uke. Inokrsoll— *• A fact is a legal tender." ' Comment — A counterfeit is a fact ; is it Ic;»;l1 tender 'f 1 no. Well then a fact is not a legal tender until it is :! 86 MOTBS ON ZN0EB80LL. known to be a fact. What is a legal tender ? It is a promise to pay which may not be worth ten cents on a dollar, but which the law compels you to accept when offered. Is this your idea of what facts are ? And do you mtend the facts offered by you to be received in that light ? If so, perhaps you are right. INOEBSOLL—" Assertions and miracles are base and spurious coins." CoMMENT—If this be true, then the assertion yon have juEt made is base and spurious coin. You say all asser- tions are base and spurious. Is it because they are assertions or because they are false ? If all assertions are base and spurious, we cannot believe anything whatever that IS asserted, simply because it is asserted! I assert that two and two make four. This is an assertion. Is it false ? It naust be, if what you say is true. From this it appears that you again failed to say what you meant : for you wiU certainly admit that some assertions are true— your own, for mstance. Perhaps you meant to say false assertions are base and spurious. If so, this is on a par with your legal tender sophism, and involves the same amount of meanincless T^'M- ;.V'f ^""^^ *»' *»"»«y <>' an assertion must be established before you can assert it to be base and spurious. But the truth or fallacy of an assertion is the question in debate. Let ine illustrate : I make the assertion that the Christian religion is of divine origin. You wiU observe that the truth or- fallacy of this assertion is the point in debate, and to assert either one or the other without proof. IS to beg the question. This you do when you assert that assertions are base and spurious. But perhaps I have misunderstood you aU this time. You "probably think "that all assertions favoring Chris- tiamty are base and spurious, while aU those against it have the true ring. If you meant this you shoSd have the "courage of the soul" to say it, and not hide your insinuation ma meaningless, commonphuse pLrasef I notice you are fond of making curt Uttle maHuis. which on examination mean nothing, unless when they cover a lauacv. Thev are Rnn.ftMru ^<«„. .^2.1/ _. ».. tooKiBOU,— " ICiiMlw ue bue and apntioiu ooiaa." QttBXB OBiaiN OF BUMAlt BKASOI^. S7 OomNT— That depends. And here I must make the same distinction I made in regard to assertions. If a miracle is a fact, it is not base and spurious. Now the fact or falla<7 of a miracle is the point in debate. Until that point is settled, not by assertions, but by valid argu- ments, you cannot say that it is spurious, for when you make that assertion you simply beg the question. To beg the question in argument is like asking a knight or a castle from your opponent in a game of chess. It is a sign of conscious weakneBs. Ingersoll— •• We have the right to rejudge the justice even of a god." Comment— If by "a god " you mean some deity of heathen mythology, I cannot stop to consider it. If you mean the infinite Being, whom Christians call God, I deny your right or competency to rejudge His justice, for reasons which I have ahready given, and which I need not here repeat. It is sufficient to say that the finite cannot be the measure of the infinite. Inoersoll— " No one should throw away his reason— the fruit of all experience." Comment— Your purpose here is to leave the impression that, to be a Christian, a man must throw away his reason. Man's reason is a gift of Gca, and God requires him to exercise and use it, and not throw it away. And He will one day ask him to give a strict account of the use he has made of it. While telling us not to throw away our reason, you give a good illustration of how it can be thrown away. Thus you say : Inoersoll — " Reason is the result of all experience." Comment— When you make reason the rrstilt of experi« ence you destroy its proper entity. Experience is impos- sible without something that experiences. What is it that experiences? Reason? No; for if reason is the result of experience it cannot exist until after the experi- ence has been completed. What then is it that experi- ences ? The individual ? But the individual minus reason is incapable of apprehending experience. What then is it that experiences ? There must be some being that expe- .-*—«»-.,. -.,. ,..«^«.. -,„,,_-.. -,/CTXAravl* WJiiav TTZVUUUU «& £>t%UJUC^* The mind ? But mind and reason are identical. Reason is the mind, in action. The fact is, human reason, or con- scious mind is that which experiences; it is therefore priot \ i ! ■ I ' f t^eXuU ^'i^^fe' ^V' P"°' ^ experience, it cannot and twiw iJi,. ^***^<*"' '^0° experience is impossible, and therefore when you make reason the result of experi- ence you throw away both reason and experience tSs fa the logical result of your proposition. Again you say • iNOERsoLL--" Eeason is the fruit of a« experience^' CoMMENT-By this "aU" you mean. I guDDose the experience of all mankind together with 'your o^wn' Bu? you have barred yourself from the right tJ benefit by the ZIZT^ "*' ''f'T' ^°' *^** experience can be madi v«X*T'^°"^/ ^y assertions o? propositions. Now! you have aeclared .^ cathedra that assertions are base and of TheTa°^'''''/f V"J"l*^l^\'^ ^°°*^^P* *»^« state'r^ents of the dead past, by which alone the experience of the on'^hir^ "^^.^ ^i^r^-. ^^'^ ^*^« «*^«d off tie limb exclpryoro^n!'"^'''^"^^' ^°"«^" ^* -'' -P--^ fhfTnf ?i'^",^*,-^'^?'°?> *^ **»« intellectual capital of the soul, the only light, the only guide." CoMMENT-Reason is the soul or iutellect itsolf in con- scious action; hence it cannot be its own intelWuai capital, or its only light and guide. You see^TofoS what vou have sa,d before, namely, that reason is the r^- hght and guide of the soul, and at the same time the re- sult of experience, is to contradict yourself. What lights and guides the soul while it is experiencing ? Eeason? No ; for you have told us that reason is the mS/of that ex- perience. A result is an effect, and an effect cannot^ l\l?L^V^\ '''"'^- .^* ^?"°^/' *^«"' ^'o^ your own deS nition, that reason is not and.oannot be thJ only light or guide of the soul. But even if you had not contradictS light, etc., cannot be accepted, for it is a pitiable begging of the whole question at issue-a denial of revelation as 5 guide to reason, and this you will see is the point between you and the Christian. Your statement tfius cunnS assumes, as proved, that which you set out to prove iSis 18 one of the peculiarities of your method in debate. It « on this account that I am under the nece««,f.v of -"-i-"-- ttimoist every assertion you makei ' "^ «'v='«^ij V OBAFTElt VtL ON THE TEN OOMMANDHBNTS ; AND ART — THB WlfB AND OTBtB VALUABLE PEOPBBTT. INGERSOLL— " Of course it is admitted that most of the Ten Commandments are wise and just." Comment— Most ? Why this indefinite limitation? Is it candid to make a limitation so indefinite as to leave you room to dodge ? Why not specify which, if any, are not wise and just ? Christians are bound and ready to defend them all. Why not point out an unwise or unjust Commandment, that we may come to a direct issue? Ingebsoll— •' In passmg, it may be well enough to say that the commandment, •Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth,' was the absolute death of art, and that not until the destruction of Jerusalem was there a Hebrew painter or sculptor." Comment — There are two assertions here. First, that the Commandment quoted was the absolute death of art, and second, that before the destruction of Jerusalem there was no Hebrew painter or sculptor. The first involves a question of interpretation, the second, a question of history. , , i. Now, I deny both these assertions, and hold that they have no foundation in fact. Here is a direct issue. As to the Commandment, it could not have been the absolute death of art unless it forbade art. But it did not forbid or condemn art, therefore it was not the death of art. Was it candid or honorable in you to suppress that part of the Commandment which explains and makea clear the meaning of that which you quoted? If you garbled the law in quoting it in a court of justice, would not th« judge look upon you as an unprincipled shyster ? Would he not be justified in debarring you for contempt, in trying to deceive and mislead the court? Yoa are fond of preaching candor and honor bright. Was it oaadid or honorable to leave oat of your quotation that sen* m L, i, %• 40 tfOTES Oii IKOERSOU. i^^^I ^^ .T"2 ^x*''® ^®" y°°' assertion without truth, force or pomt ? But you were determined to make you^ £2S?m7ff" ' Tr° ^r ^ Satble the law you quoted, in St . ^4 ^ u ?f°*«°*^,y°° «> uncandidly suppressed is Jw " ^t£? '^f * '''** ^^"-^ *^«" (>•«• imJgeo) nor serve Sl^;«„^#^l °la««e, suppressed by you, ^'explains the meaning of what goes before, showing that it wSs not the making of images, but the making gods of them, that was f«S^°;/ ^^**^ *^i' '^ *^ meaning of the Comiandment IS evident from the fact that the same God who spoke in S Jo?* Commandment subsequently ordered images to be made. Moses explains the meaning still further when i^?J?^« ■ ^^i!^"*' 2^'*f> "Y«» shall not make gods of S5t«i°' ^^" y°° "**^® «<^« °^ g°^^-" ^'gai°. the great Hebrewlawgiver was commanded to place two cherSbim on the verv ark iri which the Commandments were kept. ^^^^^?'?.u ?• .^" tiie description of Solomon's tem- oracle.two cherubim of ohve tree.of ten cubits high (1 Kings 6-23) but that ;« all the walls of the temple round about he mrved yfith dmne figures and carvings." (1 Kings 6-29 and ffn^T"'?^ ""T^"; ^\^ Z^^^ chapter abounds with descrS- fe?nw-^ of art.) When David imposed upon Solomon ge injunction of building the house of the LorS, he deliver- ed to him a description of the porch and temple and con- by the hand of the Lord, that I might understand a 1 the r°'i$f ?^^^ pattern •• (1 Chroniclls 28-11. 19.) Thus wl see that God not only commanded the making of unaees Now God who gave the Commandment, and the Jewish people who reived it, had a better knowledge of its mean- ing than you dare pretend to have. David and Solomon understood the law, and it did not occur to them that the? were breaking it when they made cherubim and other ^ images for adornment and ornamentation. «o?^ii?i5,?5°"1?ri°'!''i y°? «*y' ^as the death-and not only the death, hnt the absolute death of art. What ,„, „„ pussussion or you to say this in the ^l^^llT^'''^^^^^}l'^^^ *»' Jerusalem and all the WUkM of art It contained ? Was not the temple itself a tBX TEN OOliMANDMBNtd. 41 work of art? And ^bose images, were they not works of art ? Since the Commandment as interpreted by its maker — not by yott — did not forbid the making of images, it could not have affected art, unless yon claim for art the right to worship false gods and idols. If, therefore, the Jews were not artists yon must seek the reason elsewhere than in this First Commandment. Bat if yon condemn the Jews for not cultivating art whv is it that you have no words of commendation for Christianity under whose in- spiration and influence art was brought to -its highest developir at? / ■ iNOERSi uL — •• Not until the destruction of Jlerusalem was there a Hebrew sculptor or painter." Comment— Well then who •• sculped "the cherubim and other ornamentations for the temple of Jerusalem ? Who made the cherubim to ornament the ark of the covenant ? Who made the golden calf and the brazen serpent ? Surely, it requires all the brass of the brazen serpent to say, in the face of all this, that " there was no Hebrew sculptor before the destruction of Jerusalem." Inoersoll — " Surely a commandment is not inspired that drives from earth the living canvas and the breathing stone— leaves all walls bare, and all the niches desolate." Comment — Surely the inventor of this curious criterion of inspiration deserves recognition of some kind. But this lachrymose ejaculation is entirely uncalled for, since the Commandment, when not garbled by you, does not for- bid the living canvas or the breathing stone, the frescoed wall or ornamented niche. As we have seen, the First Commandment has nothing to do with art, one way or the other. But even if it did banish the living canvas, etc., from the earth, it would not follow that it is not inspired. Your ♦' sukely it is not inspired " is no proof against inspi- ration. One who worships reason and logic should exhibit more of both. From what you say about Art, it is evident that you do not know its meaning and scope. You limit it to sculpture and painting, because you imagine these two forms of art are forbidden by the Commandment. Art is broader than tihn.f.- T ■will aivti vr.n a. oli«" to the senses. It t?eato of ^C InfH^ r?r "« *° »PP«»1 to ^8ion ; lettera and oTheJ meSS"«th?:' "^K*?P^*^ *° .*^« intillecrSJongh the medium of sight; vibratory motion which aoDeala to thZ sense of hearrnB-called mlis.c ; tanri We fo?£^Kich tSk Se^'tLte?" '' ^''^' *°^ --^-a?ionVSh"p^alt miJ2)!i *^? ^®*'*' *^' "^^ ^^ *^e destroction of aU these methods of expression. Do you pretend to say that th^ S «i^,r^'"'^'"^°* 3*^'*^°^« «" ^^^bids all these methodi of expressing or manif .8fciD«< iho Beautiful ? No Wfiil then the First Commandment is not the death' of A ^ nr pi?°"?^ ^"^* '^^ y°» claimrwhioh of cours^^^?J not. Poetry IS ap art-and where can you find mor« Bubhme specimenJof it than in the Psalms^of Drvid tiif ^^^itT"' the maj^ tic flights of Isaiah, and the so^i! piercing threnodies of Jeremiah ? Here we havn ihl S Comment— The relative nature of persons and fhinaa protected by law is not measured by tfiflaw thS protecS them. A law may forbid murder Ld th^t at the wme tune without placW these two crimes on the Sme pS or an exact equality. As a lawyer, you should be famSiS with this fact. This Tenth Commandment forWds to covet a neighbor s wife, and at the same tunTit foSs to covet his property. This prohibition, you wUl S t TaXlci:? to man* ''l/^ *" *^*f,^^^'*^ is most bS^Jd oi ana sacrea to man. It is equally wise and ins* w»i«r, It protects that which is of lels vilue orTmpirtenI to c-n^^f ^""^l ?^ y°'' P'?tond to say that these C^j^cto cannot be at the same time forbidden without putting them men^nTa*wZt!^rl„S J:^L^.°?--l-^ttld%°S omission and heirthatlHeff tli^ wife l^i^l?^^^^^^^ ttio ptoflisftte, or that it placed a higher estimatT^ toe TALtTABtB ^BOPEBTIf. 4S husband s horse or ox than on the wife of his bosom, or that it protected the one while it failed to protect the other, So, whether the command forbids to covet a neigh- bor'a wife, or is silent on the subject, you are not satistied. You are like the Frenchman who was to be hanged, neither a long nor a short rope would suit him. But again ; as a lawyer, you should know that the dis- tmction between objects protected or forbidden by law is not to be found in the law, but in the punishment inflicted by the law. The civil law forbids alike the stealing of fifty cents and one hundred dollars. Does the law put these sums on an exact equality? No; for it sends the hfty-cent thief to jail, while it sends the more ambitious fellow to State's prison. In the same way the Jewish criminal code condemned the wife-stealer to death, while he who stole an ox was required to return it and pay a heavy fine. From the difference of punishment you can see that the Commandment, as understood by those to whom it was given, made a distinction between a wife and an ox, and did not place them on an " exact equality." You argue like a man who places much confidence in the credulity or gullibility of his readers, and imagines that while a few may investigate and know the truth, the larger number will take his word for it, and inquire no further. This policy showp a good knowledge of human nature, for the average man is not overburdened with the faculty of discrimination. He is apt to place too much confidence in the ignorant statements of that monumental bore of modem times, the roving lecturer— admission fifty cents. CHAPTER vm. ON MURDXR — OAMAANITES — CAPTIVE MAIDENg — UARAUDIMO— LTINa SPIRITS AMD FALSE PROPHETS. INGERSOLL— •• He (God) ordered the marder of mil- lions." Comment — He never authorized or ordered the murder of any one, from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and those He places on this earth He can remove at His will. No man has a right to live one instant longer in this wu art Lord of zU, thou makeat thyself gracious to all. I ON MTTBPBR. 47 For thon Bhowest thjr power, when men will nob belieye thee to be absolute m power, and thou convincest the boldness of them that know thee not. But thou, boinc master of power, judgest with tranquility, and with creat M?"^* ^Pm'f*^ °' "^'^""^ *^y I^°^er IS at hand when thou wilt. ♦ * Thou hast made thy children to be of good hope, lieoauae in judj/ing, thou givest place for repentanoe for am». tor If thou didst punish the enemies of thy servants, and them that deserved to die, with so great deUberation, giving them time and place whereby they might be changed Jrom their mckednesa, with what circumspection hast thou jndged thy own children, * ♦ therefore whereas thou chastisest us, thou scourgest our enemies in very many ways, to the end that whm we judge we mag think on thy wu */' " ^^ *""•' *" i"''/3"'''« '"^ '"«'/ ^P« for thy mercy. Wherefore tho:i ha: t also greatly tormented them who in their life have lived foolishly and ungodly, by th^ same things which they worshipped. For they went astray for a long time in the wp ,[ «* or, holding those things for gods which are the ife worthless among beasts, living after the mantis of children without understanding. u u'^ " ^^'^^^ ^"""^ * judgment upon them. * * But they that were not ..mended by mockeries and reprehen- sions, experienced the worthy judgment of God." (Wis- dom, Chaptei xii.) ^ Here we find that those people, whom you beslaver with your gushing sympathy, were sorcerer's, murderers of their own children, offering them with their own hands in sacrifice to idols, and man-eaters. On the otbnr hand we learn the merciful way in which Jehovau warned tiiem and gave them time and placo for repentance. When they rejected His mercy He punished them with justice, nnd, for doing this, you accuse Him of murder, ihoae who, knowing the crimes of these people, condemn «ie punishment inflicted on them are as guilty as they. You condemn Mormonism and Oneida communism, and yet you volunteer to advocate those bestial Sodomites of CaiiM-n whose unnatural crimes disgraced the race to which they belonged, and contaminated the la^A uphinh crod had given them to dwell in. " A fellow-feeling makes xxb wondrous kind." iNOERsoLL— "He (God) gave captive maidens to gratify the lust of i.ii.ptors." » ' t ii 48 N0TK8 ON INOERSOLL. I'--, CoicMENT — ^If I were an infidel or an atheist zealous for the Buccess of the cause, I would counsel you to be less reckless in your statements. Every cause, good or bad, suffers from injudicious advocates. The most in- judicious of all advocates is he who makes a baseless assertion or an appeal to ignorance, because he excites suspicion and brings discredit on tlie cause he advocates. I flatly deny the truth of your statement given above, and appeal to the only record that can give us any informa- tion on the subject, namely, the Old Testament. The Hebrew military laws did not abandon captive women to the insolence or brutality of captors. On the contrary, they made special provision forbidding the first familiari- ties of the soldier with his captives. If you study the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, verses 10 to 14, yon will learn that the soldier was obliged to make the captive his wife, or to respect her person and honor. Instead of tolerating that licentiousness which the customs and laws of other nations authorized, the laws of the Hebrews kept the soldier in restraint. They show that the Hebrews were far in advance of other nations in all those regula- tions that mitigate the horrors of war. The pagan nations of that time allowed every familiarity with captives, and afterwards they were sold as slaves, or given to the lust of slaves. This was strictly and specifically forbidden by the Hebrew law. And yet in the face of all this, you have the effrontery to charge the Almighty with permit- ting the Jews to do that which He forbade, and which they alone, of all ancient nations, prohibited by strict and specific laws. What will honest men of common sense think of a philosophy that has to be propped and bol- ster'^d up by such shameless misrepresentations of history? Inoersoll — '• He (God) gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and herds of others." Comment — Those marauders, as you call them, could not possibly have had a better title. God, as Creator of all, has absolute dominion over all things, and against His title there is none. The right to confiscate property is recognized as existing in all civil society ; now civil society cannot possess and exercise a higher right than its fjreator. Our government confiscated millions of dollars' worth of property during the late war, yet it never oc- Goned to any one but a simian philosopher that such MABAimiNO. 10 loads of cotton passing North towards Pittsburg LmS It belonged to the Southern people, and the wveromMfc had taken it and sold it to Oiem speculatoJL or mS flock and herd. The government had confisoa^ 1?^! gven It away for a consideration. You ^Sati S^s measure, and you are right in doing so. But on what prmciple can you justify our government in a)XcS W the propertv of Its enemies wh3e you condemn ^samf measure wten practised by the Hebrew governmenT? b"e°^^iirrds%rni^r^' ^^^^ '' ^ * --^-^ -«' deSrHT;;;:^?op&""* ^^'^^ '^^ «p-^ ^ OoMMENT~I will give one hundred doUars to the noor of this village If you or any of your disciples wSliSkl good your statement. I am faiiliar witli thrtexte iJ Kings and Ezechiel which you probably imagine wSb^S you out. but if you carefully wmpare thow telte wiS your statement you wiU find that ySur zeal has^awS with your discretion, and that your hatred of your mS 18 more intense than your love for the truth? ^ God abhors Ij Jig spirits, false prophets, false philoso- phers and deceivers of aU kinds, Mcient and £od^ and yet He permits them to exist because He cannot zna^ them mipossible without destroying free will or humS hberty. There were laws enacted condemning these fak» prophets and other popular seducers, but the^ laws wera not enforced because the false prophets, etc., flStoS the passions of the people, telling them pleasant thinS They were popular lecturers in their day, and they ffi' not die without issue. ^ **'^ !| i ! CHAPTER DC. •^ BBUaiOVS TOLBBATION — ^TBEB THOUaHT AND TBEAS02T. INGEBSOLL— «< The religions intolerance of the Old Testament is justified upon the ground that 'blas- phemy waSB a breach of political allegiance,' and that sdolatay was an act of overt treason, and that * to worship the gods of the hostile heathen was deserting to the pubho enemy, and giving him aid and comfort.' " GoinfENT — ^If these positions of Mr. Black are well taken it is difficolt to see how you can escape their logical con- sequence. For yea must admit that overt treason, breach of political allegiance, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy, are crimes that merit severe punishment. If you were a logician you would have known that to refute Mr. Black you should have shown that blasphemy and idolatry were not overt acts of treason. This you did not even at- tempt to do. Hence, so far as argument is concerned, Mr. Black has justified what you call the intolerance of the Old Testament. Is a government intolerant because it will not tolerate treason ? If not, then the Jewish government was not intolerant, and the fact that God was its direct ruler does not change the nature of the case. Every govern- ment that is worthy of the name must be intolerant of all those things that touch its supreme authority, majesty and^ honor. The Southern revolt was no more treason against the United States government, than were idolatry and blarahemy against the Jewish government. You be- came a Colonel to assist the government to punish that at- tack on its supreme authority, majesty and honor. What new light has penetrated your skuU that you now defend treason in Judea ? Is it because God, against whom you seem to have a personal grudge, was the direct ruler there? If you should carry out your theories of toleration to their logical conclusion and realize them in overt acts in this country you would find yourself in due time dansUng from B {ju/uci.-. x» uucB uuu scuui «u uavc wwcarrsa xo you snat it was nooessary to disprove Mr. Black's statement, that idolfttry was treason, before you could drive him from his BBUOZOUg TOLBBAnON. 61 k position. If you grant that idolatry was treason against the Jewish state yoa give away your case, and justify the punishment which that state inflicted on the idolater. No man with an atom of sense will attempt to deny this. To meet Mr. Black fully and logically you should have proved that idolatry was not treason, and if you could not do thi8,a8 most certainly you oould not, you should have " walked up like a man " and admitted that the Jews were right, and not only right, but were bound to punish idolatry and blasphemy w h death, as treason is punished in all times and by all nations, whether Ood is the immediate head of the government or not. Inoersoll— " According to Mr. Black, we should ail have lib'^^ty of conscience, except when governed directly by Gr ' Co —If by "liberty of conscience" you mean liberty to commit overt acts of treason, you should not need to be told that such liberty of conscience is not, and should not be, permitted to exist anywhere, not even in badly regulated lunatic asylums. The slave-holder's conscience told him that secession was right. As long as his conscience was purely specula* tive the government of the United States allowed him to Amuse bimself with it. But when he formulated that con- science of his into overt acts, such as firing on Fort Sumpter, the government sent Col. Ingersoll and other embryo Caesars down to interview and inform him that liberty of conscience was a good thing in its way — a something to keep his mind busy— but if he was such a consummate ass as to imagine that the United States government intended him to 'praotue that liberty publicly he would have to readjust his ideas about it on a more solid basis. Just so with idolatry and blasphemy under the Jewish government. A man might be an idolater in his heart, he might think " damn " to any extent, without becoming amenable to the Jewish criminal code, but when he formu^ lated his conscience into overt acts of treason the sword of Gideon was unsheathed. The Mormon heard of this " Hbertv nf snnsnien^^." %sd "freedom of thought." And taking you at your word, and thinking that your motto of " honor bright " meant some- thin|[, he believed he was conscience firee. He oonclude4 i .' >)'i % i 62 M0TB8 ON INaXBSCLL. to take onto him two wives. Judge of his astonishment when he heard your denunciation of him. He concluded, as every man possessing even a suspicion of brains will conclude, that all your talk about liberty of conscience and liberty of thought is mere misleading twaddle. It appears that "liberty of conscience " means, according to you, only the right to do what you approve of. You condemn polygamy. Do yor, not make your judgment the limit of the Mormon's liberty of conscience ? Jehovah made His ludgment the Umit of Uberty for the Jew, and y« i con- demn Him for it, while you draw a circle of lin bation around the Mormon. You should cry to be consistent. Inoebsoll— •• In that country where God is king libertv cannot exist." ' Comment— This is your conclusion, not Mr. Black's. Grant society or government, and it is of no consequence whether X. Y. or Z. is its king ; the principle of its action must be the same in reference to those things which touch its authority. The most perfect liberty exists where the most perfect government exists— that you will admit. The most per- feet government is that which is directed by the most per- fect wisdom and judgment, which are attributes of the most perfect being only. God is the most perfect being- that you must admit if you admit His existence. Then it follows that where God directs the government, there the most perfect Uberty exists. By Uberty, I of course mean the right to do right. The right or Uberty to do wrong is claimed by no civilized government on earth that assumes to decide between right and wrong ; nor doos any govern- ment admit such right in those subject to its authority. There are individuals, of course, who claim the Uberty to do wrong, but they are comparatively few. Some of them have died suddenly and prematurely, by dislocation of the neck, and some otiiers are in the penitentiary. Poor en- couragement for disciples of liberty of Uoense and heroes of free thought. INGERSOLL— •' Within the Old Testament was no such thing as religious toleration." Co.>iMBNT— Certainly not, and for the very sufficient ;.T — "' ^'\'" "J ^"^' "issua. ivc«muus i>oieraiaou meant liberty of treason. Mr. Black told you that idolatry was tteaaou against the state and against it^ (Qco^pii^^^ (oler. 1 I such teUQIOUd TOLEBATtONi gft CoMMENT-If unbelief culminates in persistent treason name ""^ """''^ ""^"' ^^ government worthy ofTe -iT^?"^"^°' *" who think for themselves, there are threatening curses and anathemas." CoMMENT--llus I deny. Thinking for oneself is not forbidden. Thinking.is an act of wfichTfromlte nature S.«TT. J *^? *^®^^*^ law was for overt acts. Thought was pnnished only when it was treasonable, and when «St forth in overt act. There is a huge faUacy in all tWs cant mteUect— I mean, of course, a sane intellect -is coverned tKu"*wSi^r S%vi 'r^'^'^T' ^y the Ss :? ine wiu. wm to think that two and two make five or JJlera^tel ^''^'" "^"^*' *^^ see if your reLoJ'^Sl INGERSOLL-" Think of an infinite Being who is 8ocrn«] ZugS*' '''"' ""^ ""' ""* *"«^ ^'^ Senlib^r'ty of Comment— It is because He is infinite that He cannot H^^is^Jn^nfri/'^^^^^'^^'r^ ^*^^' mor^e^Ts. BecaSse He 18 mfimte, He cannot permit His children to disobev His known wiU or to reject His teachings as if He were a I'tk. PK ^ ?°^7 ^iS?^*y **^ ^^'^"S*^* y^hicSue does not aUow r^ the liberty to thiuk error, to meditate evil, to plan crime Do you msist on this kind of thinking ? If so, be wisl and keep It carefu ly in your thought, for if you redrcftWs liberty to a t it may lead to thi penitentiiy. wSre ther« are many philosophers of liberty of thoS *^^'^ INOEBSOLL-" Think of an infinite g5i acting au the CoMMBNT—It ia, indeed, a snbjeot worthy of careful thought._ God freed that people from the^ bindl"*'^^ ^aypi Djr a seriftg of most wonderful miracles, fed the^ ' of ?!iSL^*". T"^"^ ^*¥. ^r?*- 8av^h?m the S of Palestine to live m, and blessed them in a thousand ways, and yet He could not command tS loi^ I V^y !■ iMj If 54 KOTES ON iKOltlUSOtt. they were a stiff-necked people. This want of appreciatioil of the divine beneficence is one of the most convincing proofs of man's original fall. Inoersoll — '* Think of the author of all mercy imbruing His hands in the blood of helpless men, women and children simply because He did not furnish theru toith intelli' gence enough to understand His law!" OoMMENT-^Think of a man who is always talking about •' honor bright," manhood and truth, making such a false and groundless statement to intelligent readers. I have italicized the words in the above quotation which contain a blasphemous fallacy. On what evidence or authority do yon assert that men, etc., were punished, simply because they had not inteUigenoe enough to understand the law f What evidence have yon that they did not understand the law ? Did those who were punished ' ver make this plea in ex- tenuation of their crimes ? 'x'his caluc ny against your Creator and Judge is an invention of your own, pure and simple. It is a principle of revealed ethics that those who have not inteUigence enough to understand the law are not bound by the law, and that idiots and the insane are not judged by the I&w. You quote a passage from Deuteronomy xiii., wherein death is decreed against those who entice others to com- mit idolatry, and yon add : iNaEBSOLii— ■" This is the religious liberty of the Bible." GoMMENT — ^Now, as we have seen, idolatry was treason against the state.i Do yon mean by religious liberty the right to commit treason ? If so, religious liberty is incom- patible with social order, making all forms of government nnpossible. We have a case in point. Major Andre enticed Arnold to commit treason. Was Washington an enemy of liberty because he hung the spy ? iNaBRSoiiL — " If yon had hved in Palestine, and if the wife of yonr bosom, dearer to yon than your own soul, had Mud: *I like the religion of India better than that of Palestine,' it would have been yonr duty to kill her." Comment — This is not tme» for the law forbids the en- tietng to idolatry, to acts of treason. And the mere ex* pZ'CSSIUXI UX. BIZ vyzsizvizj worse judgment on the part of the wife, yet her silly say* ing was not what was forbidden by the law. iNOEasoLL^*' If she had said : ' Let va worship the snoi* it was your duty to idU hoc," o tBEASOir. 65 v>OMMENT-.Here we have a dear case of enticinc to treason, which is itself treason. Idolatry was trewon against the sovereign of the Jewish state. The laws of all nations punish treason with death, and we cannot see that It makes any diffe.ence whether a traitor be a man or a woman. The t ritor should be removed from the body politic as you wc ". remove a cancer from your jaw, your mawkish sentimentalism to the contrary notwith- standing. ' iNGKPsoLL—" la it possible that a being of infinite mercy ordered a husband to kill his wife for the crime of Having expressed an opinion on the subject of religion ?" Comment— The law you quoted from Deuteronomy says nothmg about exproasing an opinion on the subject of re- ligion. It says : '• If thy brother, thy son, thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom * * entice thee secretly, saying: Let m go and serve other gods." It seems that there is something more here than an expression of opinion on the subject of religion. Inoersoll— •• Has there been found upon the records of the savage world anything more perfectly fiendish than this commandment of Jehovah ?y Comment— I do not know much about the records of the savage world, or that savages were given to keepina records, but I do know that the law which punishes treason with death is to be found upon the records of all civilized nations on earth. INGERSOLL— " That IS justified on the ground that bias- phemy was a breach of political allegiance, and idolatry an act of overt treason." Comment— And if you were possessed of average logical acumen you would see that, until you overthrow that position, the justification is complete. There are only two ways by which Mr. Black's position can bo overthrown. i^ir8t,by denying his statement as a historical fact, or, second, by provmg that treason ia not a crime, and should not be punished with death. You do not attempt either of these modes of refutation. You content yourself with giving a half -page of the softest and ailliesfc kind nf ansh m which you exhibit, to a remarkable degree, the faculty of Goldsifiith's schoolmaster who, although beaten, could argue still. Here is a speoizaen of your style of argu. ^1 p. ■ ii V 6e MOTES OH INOEBSOLL* Inoeesoll — "We can understand how a human Ung stands in need of the services of his people. We can nn* derstand how the desertion of any of his soldiers weakens his army ; but were the king infinite in power, his strength would still remain the same, and, under no conceivable circumstance, could the enemy triumph." Comment— While you are understanding so many things it would be well to understand that God does not inflict punishment because He fears the loss of power, but be- cause He must insist upon respect and obedience to His supreme authority — He cannot permit himself to be treat- ed as an idiot king or as a liar. You a*^ ould also under- stand that the guilt of treason does not depend on its success. Is treason any the less criminal because it is committed against 'God? or must He refrain from the exercise of power to compel obedience simply because He is all-powerful? Inqeesoll— •' His strength would still remain the same." CoMMENT--Undoubtedly, but it is not a question of strength, it is a question of authority. You should under- stand that the strength of a king or a government is not the measure or criterion of treason. . Treason is an attack on authority, or the right and title to rule. In this, and not in the failure or success, consists its malice. God does not stand in need of His people, but He insists on obedi- ence and respect to His supreme authority. He who has the right to make the law has the right to insist on obedi- ence to law by punishing the law-breaker. ' CHAPTER X. SOME OUStf— METHODS OF WARFARE — CHEEK — THE COLONEL ON INFANTRY TACTICS, BABIES, AND DBYv««m«t tl«.t«» d«,U, to SnSS^ ^d IT * Methods ot WAETARtii. M priBonment to the thief. The form of threat may be different, but the substanco is the same. These threats have no terrors for the law-abiding citizen. Mr. Black in his reply to you said :— " In your treatment of hostile barbarians you not only may lawfjllv, you must necessarily, adopt their mode of warfare ; if they give no quarter, they are entitled to none," etc. With your usual •« candor " you evade the principle involved in this pro- position. If the principle is true, it is true for all, both Christian and pagan. If it is false or unjust or barbarous you should have shown it to be so. This was the only course left to you as a logician. You do not attempt to do this, but tiy to meet it m this way : — Inokrboll— •• For one who follows the Master who said that, when smitten on one cheek, you njust turn the other, and again and again enforced the idea that you must overcome evil with good, it is hardly consistent to declare that a civilized nation must, of necessity, adopt the warfare of savages." ComnsNT— And this is the only reply to your oppo- nent's self-evident proposition I Let us examme it, such as it is. First, then, the Master did not say, as yon re- port Him, that, when smitten on one cheek, you wim«< turn the other, or that you must overcome evil with good. He recommended his followers individually to return good for evil, but he did not forbid them to repel unjust ag. gression by exercising the necessary force, nor did He in* tend His children to be spittoons and footballs for the rest of mankind. Neither did He intend that Christian peoples or governments should lodge murderers, thieves, and savages in palaces and feed them on chicken-pie. He meant that, as individuals, we should be kind, patient, forbearing, charitable, and forgiving. He did not mean that nations as such should be so weak or imbecile as to fail to maintain their own existence, dignity and authority. Nations, however, do sometimes overcome evil by ^ooA— that is, by a good thrashing, judiciously administered to their enemies. E^-doers, murderers, and thieves are overcome by good when the law and punishment are properly applied. . , « « Inoersoll — •• It is hardly consistent (m a follower of the Master) to declare that civilized nations must, of ne- cessity, adopt the warfare of savages." ,i ti:; ;l| l- 60 Konts ON tNaERSottt uSi^ l~^^ you imagine that when your opponent saui this, ho meant fche details or incidents of war? Do you beheve he intended that we must, of necessity, throw away our Reinin«tou rifles, take to bows and arrows, Ko to wearing breech-clouts and eating raw dog, when he meant by •• mode of warfare," when he iiJ:-" If the enemy come to conquer you, you may conquer them: if ^J,J^T.u° ^"*!;*«'^' *hey are entitled to n ae ; if the S«Wf 1 *'i^ ""^^^^ population be their purpose, yin may r«^?ft It^^ exterminating theirs." You ^not^deny oJ refute this position, but you pretend to believe he meant Llf«?j;'?o/°' ravishment, mutUation for mutilaSoS! scalping for scalping, baby-braining for baby-braining S.J. ®/^" an ^opportunity for a displiy of your rhetoric, and It must not be lost. Speaking of braining babies reminds me that infants stanTyou to gou*oh ^oman usS ,^ «1A'**^.*^°^ ""S "Po«l«ce-" This will keep them m good condition untal you want to trot them out aeain S your next lecture on Christianity. ^ lNOBR80Li^«» Is it possible that in fighting, for instance sSa'lpfhe^^^^^ fH?w!;''ir^*^^**-°.***9°« ^0°^ ™0'e *o the killing rii^^^Sl ?*°"®' *** It, because they understand that I«Jj3^.TCn? """"'S./^" ?»« »«°»»>«' ki"ed than on the method of kilhng. This knowledce givAg *ha d^ui^ nation the advantage over the savage. A soldierlS^ F«7 TnSA**®?!?'*'^ *° ^°r ®*«. ^"'^g the battle will send ten Indians to the happy hunting-^und for every scalp INTAMTBT TA0TI08. 61 *' « 1 timi . .^^Ki ? ff^P to take a scalp is to lose predons time; and this is the reason, the only reason, why the soldier should prefer his own tactics to tZe ofThf Iv^ age. u experience proved that scalping would produco £!***f i°J"«»datioii on theniinds of the savages andSu^ ^Zn*?J*^r ^""l^^Fr'^'' ^^^°ff«^ terms of peace Md S^^jri*1f' *"' ^^ beVavioi; u> fntnre. it wouftl be good ?h«!JSL^ P^' f°°^ PO*"' '•/"»«J & ^ mercy to throw aside the nUe and take to sea -.i . t,a .,. ^n as possible. CivUized people go to war to make > v^o if that peace can be se- curedamoker by taking a : ^ scalps than by taking Hvcs It should be done w thout hesitation. It i merely f ques: tien of policy as to the conduct of the war, to bring it to a K^jf/alT"'"*?**^: 4?.Jo°^ as the Indian actually loses ente r? »t is vnse to leave him that field rf iSs; r ''''' ^ *^' *"**^ *" °" "'«"-' '»°«* Comment— Here they are again—yes, by aU means brain them, tear them limb f^m liib. saft thei^ slSp nn JIoVk®- ^a^'^'bahslands, make them read your article on tbe Christian Religion, or your lecture on ♦' Skulls "— do anything with them to keep them from muddling vour braina when you are reasoning with men on subjecte that require all your attention. "' fWfT"'~"^^**^'ty'^°^^^ *»^® o'^' captives, bind them to trees, and if their squaws fill their quivering flesh with sharpened fagots and set them on fire, that th^y mav die clothed m flame, must our wives, our mothers, and our daughters follow their fiendish example ?" Comment— No, and for several reasons. There is a cheaper and qmcker method of getting rid of these fiendish squaws. It is much t tnier to shoot tliem on the spot than to pack oflf to the wilderness of the far west •♦our wives S«^^'*r-°-r^*-«*'^'^" *^ f *'^ sharpened fagote into them. CivUization, among other things, teachTs us the S?il |°o°<»"^y 5 that, when kUling must be done, it should be done quickly and cheaply, that the burden of the tax-payer may not be increased more than necessary. i^c» u5 omjjAiSo a caMe. A hundred of " our captives *' are about to be bound, to undergo the death-tortnre in- flicted by these sc[uaws. The sharpened fagots are ready J^pw, if the brammg of w Iftdiaij b«be would so terrorizQ it n Moras OM nOBBSOLL. tbase maternal iqnaws as to caoae them to desist from their wicked purpose, would the braining of that infant be barbarous. Pat yourself in the place of one of those trembling captives and answer. Will you save the lives of thoce hundred captives by takin(|[ one life ? If yon think oV this for a row moments you will understand what your opponent meant when he said : " We must, of necessity, adopt their mode of warfare." Inoebsoll — '* Is this the conclusion of the most enlight- ened Christianity ? Comment — ^Yes, sir; and the conclusion is of the most enlightened common sense, too. Life is practical, it is neither poetry nor effeminate philosophy. The passions of human nature, civilized or barbarous, make stern alter- natives necessary eind Inebrious cant will not change man's nature or the necessities that arise from it. If those fiendish squaws had lived in Palestine in the days of Josuo and bad been put to the sword by the Jews, you would have accused the latter of murder and made God an abettor of the crime. Much depends on the point of view from which we Ipok at a thing. 'fllB^' m it from uDtbe those ves of think i your issity, light* most it is isions alter- lange those Josue irould d an nt of 4» § m CHAPTER XI, WABS — SLAVEBT — SOUB OF THE colonel's TATIONS. msftEPBEazN* JNGERSOLL--" Mr. Black justiflea the wars of exter- J. mmation Md conquest because the American people fought for the integrity of their own countr fought to do away with the infamous institution of slaveiTj fought to F«^^?'^tu^? ^V^.^}^' ""^ ^^""^y »"* J»8*»°e for themselves and for their children." Comment— I submit this ebullition of eloquence to the reader for the purpose of informing him that it is a mis- representation of Mr. Black, a misrepresentation which it 18 Hard to imagine to have been accidental or uninten- tional. It 18 not true that Black justifies wars of exter- mination because the American people fought for the mtegnty of their country. Here is the way he justifies wars of extermmation : " If they (the enemy) come to con- quer you, they may be conquered by you; if they give no quarter, they are entitled to none; if the death of your wnole population be their purpose, you may defeat it bv exterminating theirs." You could not have been ignorant Of ttus principle, for you quoted these very words in your article. Nor did Black justify wars of conquest beckuse the American people fought for the integrity of their conn- try. He quoted you as saying : «• A war of conquest is «^/''u?""'?^'-'u '^^. ""i^* *^»« statement of ySurs he sa.d . "To show how mefficacious for all practical purpose a mere sentiment is, when substituted for a principle, it is only necessary to recoUect that Mr. Ingersolf is himself a warrior who stood not behind the mighty men of his tribe When they gathered themselves together for a war of con- quest. He took the lead of a rogiment as eager as himself tospoUthe Phihstine, 'and out he went a-coloneling.' •• As you do not seem to have underatood your opponent's argument I wiU put it in a more simple form. It was what 64 NOTES ON INOBBSOLL. Bnt the vrax with the South was a war of conquest. Therefore, the war against the South was simply murder. Now Mr. Ingers^l participated in that war, therefore Mr. Ingersoll was a party to the crime of murder. This was your opponent's argument in logical form. You evidently saw its force. You could not extricate vourself except by misrepresentation, and you did not hesitate a moment. Therefore you said : '* Mr. Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest, because the American people fought for the integrity of their own country." You perpetrated this misrepresentation to make a way to escape from the trap in which you were caught, and to a£Ford you a field for a little sentimental gush about ** slavery " and the " jewels of liberty," hoping, with the instinct of the cuttle-fish, you might get away in the muddiness you had created. But, my dear sir, it will not do, for society is not entirely made up of fools. Our °war -with the South was a war of conquest, for a war of an- quest is a war to conquer, and that is what we meant when we sent armies to the South. If conquest is murder then you are guilty of murder in proportion to your im« portance in that war. But you have said a war of conquest is simply murder. Then according to the adamantine rules of logic you are simply a murderer. That is \vhere your opponent landed yon. You justify the war with the South by saying that it was to maintein the integrity of the country, etc. The lustification is complete ; but what follows from it ? Why, it follows that wars of conquest are sometimes justifiable, which is the "ery thing you denied when you said that " a war of conquest is murder." When you said that your mind was on the Jew, you wanted to lay down a principle that would surely condcAnn him and his God, and you did not see that you were r^aking a murderer of yourself. Ex parte philosophy is poof philosophy. You are a student of the infidel philosopnenb of the last and present centuries, but you have not cai^ght their genius or comprehended their bulk. You take their points here and there and de- pend for the rest on your wit and faculty of drollery. Men btugh with you or at you, but, after all, life is a serious affair, and when the play is over the oLqyrn is the first ^o be forgotten, SLAVEBT. 65 iNaBBSOLL— " Not satisfied with having slavery in this world, llr. Black assures us that it will last through eternity." Coiof BMT>- There is bat one reply to thig, It consists of a vigorous English word of three letters. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Black never assured us of anything from which such an inference could be drawn. On what princi- ple of moral rectitude do you justify this gross misrepre- sentation ? Gertainly not on tnat divine law which forbids vou to bear false witness against your neighbor. If yon had said the above under oath would it not have beeir penury ? Did you say this in view of the fact that you had made arrangemeuiis to prevent your opponent from replying to you? Inobbsoll — "And that forever and forever inferiors must bo subordinate to superiors." OoMMKNT— -This Mr. Black did say, but it is very differ- ent from the assurance you attributed to him just now. To say inferiors must always be subordinate to superiors, is simply to say that the inferior must always be mferior to the superior, which is a self-evidont truth. You should not need to be told that to be subordinate does not mean to be enslaved. The soldier is subordinate to his superior officer, but he is not his slave. To say that your intel- lect is subordinate or inferior to that of Moses, St. Paul, Napoleon, Newton, or Milton is not to make a slave of you. iKflBBSOLL— «« Who is the superior man ?" $ I. OoHMENT— He who docs not lie, or misrepresent, or blaspheme his Maker, is mor aUy superior to him who does. Inobbsoui — " According to Mr. 31ack, he is superior who lives on the unpaid labor of the inferior." Comment — ETere yon are again disregarding that law which requires us to make our words correspond to the truth. It is not at all pleasant to be oonstantiy impeach- ing your veracity, but your wanton use of language makes it necessary. Your opponent said nothing of the kind. Inobbsoll — " With me, the superior man is one who uses his superiority in bettering the condition of the inferior." OoMMENT — '* Here yon admit the fact of inferiority and superiority, and therefore subordination. The man who uses his superiority must be superior prior to its use. According to your own words, the su^riori^ is a fact prior to the use of it. Therefore his superiority does not depend m 6d NOTES ON INaEBSOLL. on the nse of it. Now, as the use of it in bettering the condition of the inferior is subsequent to the superiority, it cannot be the note or criterion by which superiority is affirmed. To Ao good to others is a dgn of moral superi- ority, but not the reason of it. If to do good were the reason of superiority, all men could bo superior by a mere act of the will, but superiority is a fact prior to the act of the will, and, therefore, independent of it. The defini- tion, then, like most of your definitions, means nothing when analyzed. Inoersoui — "The superior man is strength for the weak." Comment — Then he is superior because he is stronger, and he is good because he uses that strength to assist the weak. Here again the SQ{)eriority is prior to the use of it, ani, therefore, the use of it is not the criterion of it. You confound superiority with goodness. The ability to help the weak constitutes superiority ■ the actual helping of the weak constitutes goodness. Inqersoll — " The superior man • is eyes for the blind.' '• Comment — His superiority does not consist in seeing for the blind, but in his ability to see. His disposition to see for the blind is evidence of his goodness. I note these small points to show that you are not an adept in the proper use of words, and that your defijiitions are untrustworthy. Inoeesoll — '• For my part, I would rather be the slave than the master." Comment— For my part, I would rather be the master than the slave ; for bemg the master, I would have it in my power to free the slave and cease to be the master. He who prefers weakness to strength, or inability to ability, when he has the choice, is an intellectual imbecile or a consummate hypocrite. He who prefers to be a fil&ve has the instincts of a slave. It is more manly to will to be the master with the power of manumission, that, by a volun- tary act of the will, one may reach the helping hand to the lowly and unfortunate and tBJse them to freedom and equality. Perhaps, in view of the prone; ese of roan to domineer and play the tyrant, it were betier 4,0 he neither the slave nor the master. lNGEBsoLL-:-"An;;^ man who helps auouber to gain and retain his liberty is superior to any infallible God whg Authorized slavery in Jude^i" the BLATEB^. 67 OoMMENT—Then why do you not advocate the throwing open of our prison-doors that the murderers and thieves cruelly shut up there may gain and retain the liberty they sigh for ? Ah I that would be dangerous. Well then, it is not always right to help others gain and retain their hberty. It is hard for you to say anything without saying toomuch.or toolittlo. You are fond of making general prepositions, but they are dangerous tools and should be handled with care. INGEMOLL—" According to Mr. Black, there will be slavery in heaven." C0MMBNT--I must again call your attention to that divine law which puts a discount on false witnesses. Your Oj:-^. ?.??* oever said anything that justifies your statement. Whatever else you may be you are certainly not a Christiaa. Ingbrsoll—" If some good republican would catch Mr. Black, incorporate hun mto his family, tame him, teach him to think, and give him a knowledge of the true prin- ciples of human liberty and government, he would confer on him a beneficent boon." Comment— Why did you not catch him and teach him when you had a chance ? Your opponent could retort thus : If some good Christian would catch Mr. Ingersoll, teach him to think a little deeper than the surface, give him a knowledge of the true pnndples of probity, impart to him a proper sense of the importance of veracity, and mduce him to forego buffoonery when dealing with great questions, he would confer on him a most beneficent boon. Inoebsoli. — •' Slavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of the kidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer, and hypocrite." Comment— How does it include all other crimes if it be the joint product of them ? A product is an effect. If slavery be a product of crimes it cannot include those crimes ; for to include them it must exist prior to them, and if it exist prior to them, it cannot be a p^" -*5uct of them. You should not contradict yourself. It shows that you have a bad memory, or that there is a screw loose in your logical machine. iKissssc-LL— -" io lacerate the naked back, to Bull wives, to steal babes, to breed blood-hounds, to debauch your own soul—this is slavery." Comment— No, it is poetry, poor poetry of ooorse, but j:4 f ■■■! Ifij M ll 11 !^; mi 68 mOTtB OM INOBBSOIX. noTerthekss poetry, fa? it is a product oi the ii£«;^&aou. Yo mout'i'i.Tj'sof lua,itics ana poets. Tolae?rate the K'^ked badli. ) \ ont« Ity or a puniBJument incident U>, bat not uon< fined to -iiiiO' o T;;iition ;,i Slavery, To sell wives is a prac* tice oou-iy.t.'m i o 5 amaii society in all its stages, and not pecu- liar to dU i-v y. T^^ breed blood-hounds is re more wrong thi^& to bv >;jd cim&r^ birds or poodles, and as iSo debauch- mg yom. Honl, that is done with fadlity whoro slavery is unimown except in same. Then slavery is t^ : te of these, 'although till of them may be incident to tkK abnormal Talation between labor and capital. # •lA ifi,£io]a. ^ord. w any id yoa id not :e it in peats. ittuon- b prao- lipecn«. wrong banch- i'ery is these, lonnal t 4 ^ CHAPTER Xn. UWIBIT— POLTOAKT— BOUSSBAU'S OMNIOH W HfflDiar PHILOSOPHBBS. I^-1tTan^7***' °^"' liberty is not merely ameana Comment— This 'is too ▼ague. We are aU in favor of hbBTty.aswe nndersta^d itfbut wo do not agijL ^^ to what It 18 or onght to be. It is a foohsh loss Sf time to TJZ S%r'l?''*" ^* ^*^« • «>°^°o° idea orTnde^ iSlS, > **"* **'"'?• :,^ ?o« »nean by the word, the ?# f K J M *° "^'^iS^?' Of tl^at ot the Nihilists, or that murderer? AU these appeal to liberty as vocifer- « rv^ J".. y°^ ?**• ^ ?® /°" °o* 8«« *l»it this word Ihal'^S^lr'ii^ ^«fi°«i«»d limited-in othS^wor^ wJl f"8*.,^come a known quantity before it can become a Wmiajie object of debate, if there is any- thmg thoroughly detested and abhorred by logicians it Is a word, or the use of a word, that has no fixed, dear and clean-cut meanmg to it. You use the word "liberty" with what Shakespeare would call "damnable iteration." and m aU your multifarious uses of it you have never, io far as I have seen, given a definition of it. INOBBSOL^" Without that word aU other words are empty sounds." « *« »«» Comment— And that word without a definition-a clear and fixed msamng, mtelligible and comprehensible to all in common. IS the emptiest and most misleading sound that ever echoed m time and space. It is a pet word of lunatics, fools and phUosophers so-caUed. It is like a piece of gum elastJC, short or long, at the wiU of him who fingers it. " Oh. Liberty I" said Madame Roland, as she was carted to the guiUotme, " what crimes are committed in thy name!" The Christian loves liberty as dearly as you do. He would soar from nlanet to nUnaf. ««^ ^~. star to stor, and dnnk in the immensity of the universe. He would dive into the centre of the world and know its secrets. He would penetrate to the ultimate molecule of iS i: i 'V< m 10 i^OTBS OM tKOlMOti.. matter and know ito essenoe. He wotdd introvert himself and know the mystery of his own beipg, but the liberty to do these thmgs evades his grasp as the ever-recedin« rainbow eludes the grasp of the innocent child who hopes to bathe his dimpled fingers in its rays by crossing over a field or two. The physical and the moral law stand watch on the limito of hberty and cry "halt" when we even think to go beyond our sphere. As there are fixed laws of matter, so there are fixed laws of mind. The intellect is governed in ite movements by tbe laws of its action, and when it aoto in defiance of those laws, experte call it msanity. Besides the physical r°2 ^®»p*ellectual, there is a moral world. Man is the link between these three worlds because he partakes of the nature of all of them, and he is the only being who does. As a physical bemg {nan is subject to the laws of physical nature, as an intellectual being he is subject to the laws of mind, as a moral being he is governed by the inflexible law of morals, and if he acts ,in defiance of these laws theologians call it sin. Sin, in the moral world, is what insamty is in the intellectual world— a departure from normal action. There are then thre« laws that act in parallel on man— the physical, the inteUectual and the moral, and all are equally binding. The two former bind torn in such a way that he has no liberty whatevo^, and therefore he is, m no way* responsible for their results. The moral law remains, and it is to this law alone that every sane individual is responsible, for it is through and by this law, only, that he can possibly antagonize God's will as in- teUect amunst mtellect. Man, then, is no more free in the m^^ii'^®' ****** **® *® ™ ***® physical or mteUectual order. The difference is only this: he has it in his power to con- fuse the moral order, to make discord. To do this is to antagonize God's wiU, and to do this is to sin, and in this consists moral evil. ING^RSOLL— •• We are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded or prohibited in the Old lestoment— that it is only discouraged. It seems to me a little legislation on that subject might have tended to ite discouragement. But where is the legislation ?" vou sud that the Bible upheld polygamy as the highest lorm of virtue. Your opponent met your assertion with a * ^LTOAlfY« 71 f » clenial that tfee Bible so held or taught. Here a direct issue was made, a question of veracity raised. And how did you meet it ? Did you stand by your statement and proceed to prove it? Not at all; you reply by sayiniz that the Bible did not legislate against it. This is an admission that your statement could not bo sustained— a raising of the white flag. Ingebsoll— " In the moral code (of the Old Testament) not one word is found on the subject of polygamy." Comment— Then why did you say that the Bible taught polygamy as the highest form of virtue ? If you look in Genesis, Chap. II., verse 24, you wiU find the following words : •• Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, (not wives), and they shall be ttco m one flesh." This is the law in the case ; is it not against polygamy ? This one text is sufficient to upset all your talk about the Bible teachina polygamy. * But on what principle do you condemn polygamy? >^*»"8tians say and believe it is wrong because God has forbidden it. But by what right do you say it is wrong ? You Ignore God and teach : "if there is anything of value It 18 liberty. Liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshme of life ; without it the world is a prison and the universe an infinite dungeon. Liberty is not only a means— it is an end. Without that word, all other words are emptv sounds." Now, in the light of this doctrine of liberty, how dare you to obtrude yourself and your notions between any man and woman. By what right do yoa hmit a woman in her selection of a man, even though that man be the husband of other wives ? If liberty is what you say it is, why do you persist in playing Paul fty, and inserting your nose into other people's business ? Deny God and assert unlimited liberty, and where is the wrong m polygamy ? Why should a man not have all the wives he wants, if there is no God to forbid it, and no woman to refuse ? If man is only an animal destined to perish like the beasts of the forest, why should he not follow his instincts '-p ibey do ? You rob him of every reason of self-denial, r.,.' him of his immortal sonl ana his God reduce him to the level of the beast, and tiien try "to govern him by frothy sentimentalism I Eliminate Ohzis* t^an teaching and divine revelation from bnman thought, 'ijf'i ■1 79 MOTBfl OM iKaKttSOLL. Mid where Is the wrong in polygamy ? Fhid a principle ontaide of reTelafcion that forbids it. There is none. Tako God away, and His mo*''' '- imd there is no reason left why we should not r ; . .«» e^e*/ pu. . ion .>,nd faculty we possess, to their fullest extent If men do not use tiiis unlimited liberty which you preach, it is because Ood's Moral Code permeates Christian thought, and raakes a healthy pubhc opinion which governs even those .yhodeny that code. It is this healthy Christian senti- nent you appeal to when you condemn polygamy. You Bteal the weapons of Christians to combat that which cannot be combatted by your infidel principles. Inobrsoll— " All languaj4es of the world are not suffl. oient to express the iilth of polygamy." OoMitKNT—Until you produce argument for this state- ment, your opiniomis no bet er than that of the Mormon. the Turk, or the Hindoo. In fact the opinion of t' e is preferable, since they have had experience. Your idea 18 derived from Christian teaching, by which you are un- oonscionBly influenced. In opposing polygamy from an mfidel point of view you have no right to make use of that popular sentiment or judgment which is the result of a religion yon repudiate. Having reject* the Chrisiion rehgion you cannot con«i;>tentIy or logically make use of its weapons in opposing polvgamy. fou cannot appro- Snate the triuni-;hs of Oh? gtianity as victories of in- dehty, or anhghtened } man reason. If Christians Me disposed . . accept your statement ifc is on account of their convictions, founded on Christian teaching, and not because of any p.r«'nment you have or cnn produce, from anmfidc poin, of ,iew, again polygamy. Inoebsoll— «' i(ij (polygamy) makcH man a »> .ast nd woman a slftTe." you ppeai to a sentiruent or >rodr ad by and foundc I on yf reject. This s illogical, eg a, in opposing polygamy, .. ould coavince a Turk r a Mor- mon. But polygamy makes a man a beast, you say. Then it is as bad but no worse than your modern li Mel ^auoBopny. xnis iiniiotiophy makes man a beast by denv- ing the immortahty of his soul and asserting that he is evolved fWHn the monkey or protoplasm. If he is a de- ^ OoKHENT — Here again public opinion which ir Christian principles wLu Yc'ir infidel p< ^jition req to use arguments that Y'O m POhYQAittt n ^nf Li L^Tif***"^ the propensities of his ancestor? Yoo teU him there is nothing above him or beyond him, «li^?»,* ^^ oorafnture. Why then should he aspire when there is no object worthy of his aspirations ? You point to the oyster or to the libidinous ourang-ouUnR as K °fi^°' """^^^^ ^'"^ ^'^ '«*°'« i« • Wank. Why, thei^ to°JJh f h! iS'^ J»i8 passions or limit his impulses ? Is it worth the effort? Ybumal man a beast when you make hiH ongm and destiny the same as that of the beast. Polygamy can do no more than this. And if man is a beast, and If there is no future, what is to prevent him from followmg the instincts of hia animai nature? Reason? Reason must forbid polygamy if it can be shown that there IS anything In it contrary to the first principles of nature. By first principles of nature T mean the object, end, and purpose of marriage, the continuance of human hfe on earth, etc. Does polygamy antagonize any of these objecid ? When you prove it does, you will have proved that It la contrary to reason— not till then. iNOEnsoLL-.- Certainly, Jehovah had time to instruct idcaes s to the infamy of polygamy." Co" NT-- There is no sense in this, except on the as- sump. that you know more about the subject than Jehovah -tli your crude notions of virtue and propriety should govern His actions. r i^ j Rousseau, an infidel like yourself, but an honester and abler man, has given a descriptiou of the class of philos- ophers to which you belong, and it is highly w b-; of attention just here. He says ; — "I have consulted our philosophers, I have vern^A their books, I have examined their several opinioL>3. I have fouiid them all proud, positive and dogmatizing even m theur pretended scepticism, knowing everything, prov- mg nothing, and ridicuhng one another, anc^ this is the only point in which they concur, and in wl ich they are nght. I-annfr when they attack, they defend themselves without vigor. If you consider their arguments, the v have none but for destruction. Where is the philosopher whole human race? W ere is ha who, in the secret of his heart, proposes ai-y other object than his own distin6. tion? Provided he can raise himself above the com- H MotKs otr tMOBitoOLl. monalty, provided he oan eclipse his competitors, he haa E?!^- . *M ?"i.«°' ^^ ambition. The great thing for fcSJ! \ *^*°^ differently from other plople. Among St „t. "t ® ?v*" ?J^®'«*' *™o°8 atheists he is a believer. Sjnun, shun, then, those who, under pretence of explain- mg .atnre, sow in the hearts of men the most dispintinc ^iiJ!°i^C^T ^^VtioiBxn is fur more affirmative and dog- matical than the decided tone of their adversaries, (/nder pretense of being themtelves the only people enliohtened, they tmpertounly ,u}pect u, to their nutgitterial dicmon,] and would Jam palm upon us, for the true causes of thtnys, the untntelltytble systems they have erected in thHr own Lads ; whilst tliey overturn, de8fcrov and trample under foot all Jn^foST^ri """.^"^^^ ?°**°^ ^'^"^ **^« afflicted the only f^^i?? left them m their misery, from the rich and great ^e only curb that cten restrain their passions; tear from i^ti ^^""'l fu '^^o'^® o' vice, all hopes of virtue ; they Btill boast themselves benefactors of mankind. ' Truth ' they say, 'is never hurtful to man,'— I believe that as well B»mey,andthe same, in my opinion, is proof thafwhat iht i teach unot the *r««A."-Bousseau. as qSoted by (HvdJ^'r in his defence of the Ancient Faith. j' v^«uuuJiiu/ anHi? A'i" «^i°° i^ somewhat long, but it is so true, so apt to the present occasion, that I have given it place here. You infidels have not changed much snoe Rom Beau's time, and his description fito yon so VrwiiVw one might imagine he had ?ou in K in 'sTye wtte pezmed the above eloquent wid truthful pussageV Y^"- CHAPTER Xm. woman's nioHTS— motherhood— woman's condition among JEWS AND PAGANS — SOME OF MB. INaSBSOU^'S MIS> STATEMENTS, ETC. INGERSOLL— •• Where will we find, in the Old Tes- tament, the rights of wife, mother and daughter de- fined ?" ^ Comment — They are found in the warp and woof of the whole book. But, before particularizing, it is neces- sary to know what you mean by these " rights " and if your notions on the subject are correct. What you may affirm as " rights " I may deny. Until these rights are determined rightly and independently of your or my sen- timents or feelings, the question as to \irhat the Bible says on the subject cannot be intelligently discussed. INOERSOLL — " Even in the New Testament she (woman) is told to * learn in silence and all subjection.' " Comment — Most excellent advice for man, woman and child. How can you learn otherwise ? Would you have the learner pert and impertinent ? According to the Christian idea, the husband and wife are two in one flesh. They are united by an intimate and mutual love in God, and should edify each other in peace, in fideUty, and mutual support. The husband is the head of the wife, whom he should love, esteem, and respect as himself, :.»id protect. The wife is, within the circle of her duties, at the side of the man, not subject to him as the child is to its father, or as the slave to the master, but as the mother, side by side with the father, having, no less than he, sjicred andiraprescriptable rights. But as in every company or corporation it is necessary that some hold superior rank and authority that order and peace may prevail, so in that association of man and woman called marriage, in which the parties are bound cne to the other, there muHt be a Huporior, while each, ac- cording to rank, has necessities, duties and righta The woman thus raised above that condition of absolute sub- jection and low esteem which she occupies outside of 76 76 KOTES OK IKOtBSOLt. 1 Chnstendom, takes honorable and imposing rank by the side of her husband. Nevertheless, she is, in certain respects, subject to his authority. She should, according to Christian law, obey her husband as a superior, not astf in slayenr, but freely, in the same way that the Church obeys Christ, her head. A loving, pious, moral, interior, laborious hfe is the glory of the woman. The duties of the husband are described by St. Paul. " But yet neither is the man without the woman : nor the woman without ihe man m the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so aJso IS the man by the woman : but all things of God." (1 Cor. 11, 12.) Again: " Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for It. * » So also ought mon to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hatefh his own flesh : but nouriaheth and chensheth it, as also Christ doth the Church. Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. J?or this sause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shaU be two m one flesn. * * Nevertheless, let every one of yon in par. ticular love ills wife as himself." (Ephesians v. 25 to 88.) These are tt' doctrines that have liberated woman. INGEESOLL— "According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had to be purified for the crime of havmg borne sons and daughters." Comment— No race on earth ever held motherhood in higher esteem than the Jewish race. This you must have known unless you are utterly ignorant of the history of that remarkable people as it is recorded in the Bible. Mother- ^^1^*^ *r ^^^^ ^^ *^® matrons of Israel, and the ^ i^^u^'S mourned her unhappy fate, and wept, and prayed the God of Abraham to take away her reproach. Read the Canticle of Anna at the birth of her son Samuel (Samuel ii.), and you wiU learn what you seem not to know, that to become a mother in Judea gave occasion for thanks- gmng and rejoicmg, and to be chUdless was considered an affliction and a judgment of an angry God. When the mother of Samuel came to offer the sacrifice of purifica- tion she placed him m the hands of Heli, the higfi.priest and said ; " For this child did I nrav. and thfl lf« Jh-^^ granted me my petition, which I aiked of him. Therefore I also have lent him to the Lord. And they adored the I i li|«' WOMAN'S OONOmOH AMONO JEWS AND PAQANS. ?? E^^«S®'®**v.H^ Anna prayed and said: My heart hath lejoiced m the Lord. ♦ * There is none iSras the Lord IS. for there is none other beside theef and theV ij tone strong like our God." ^. ««* suei© is Here is a subject for a painter. These sweet, iovful prateful w€*ds come from aiappy mother's heart. ^T^i she ask pardon for having borie a son ? Is there a^ thmg here to suggest that she had been JuUt? of a crime^? SSS^^*^' ^'*T.^^ "» ^'^^^ motler %to yoS nn! truthful words, and how coarse and vulgar you appear in her sacred presence. You taint the atmosphere Kored hoS ""^^ ^^ ^ ""^^^ ^^ ^** surrounded mothM. INGBESOLL-" According to the Old Testament, woman daihte« ••^"^'''''' *^' "'^^ "^ ^*^°8 »^'^« «>^ »*S CoMMENT-This is an untruth. I leave you to say whether it was intentional, or made through ignorance. INGEHSOLL— But " womau had to be purified." €oMMENT--Yes, but this purification W no reference to crime or ^Ut. There were manv purifications reqmred m toe Jewish ritual. To be ritualfy Mclean was no crime or disgrace. A physician who touched his patient, fo"S! stance,tocount his pulse, became unclean by that act a^y. XV. 7). He who performed the charitible act of burying a dead body became unclean, as did he also who iw^iir? u **^ *^® "*?.'^ **®^- When, therefore, you imagine that "unclean" means guilt or crime, and tolk about the crime of bearing sons and daughters, you sim^ 9U so flippantly tolk about. snow your ignorance of what you Pope was right when he said : •• A little learning is a dangerous tiling." biGBESOLL— " The doctrine that woman is the slave or ^-.w -».«. „..^4„„.. ^uv w uratuer jew nor Christian behoves that woman is a shive or a serf, I cannot see the purpose of vQnr remark. ■ ' InobbsoiX--" in no county in the world had woman less liberiiy than in the Holy Land." CojoiBKT— It depends on what you mean by " liberty." m M«- T8 NOTES ON IMaBBSOLL. It 18 trne, women in Jndea had not the liberty to do many thmgs that were permitted to the women of paean nations, just as virtuous women have not the liberty of the depraved and fallen. It is this fact that gives the laws of Moses a pre-eminence over the laws of pagan nations. The honor ofj wives and the modesty of daugh- ters were protected in Judea. The women of Egj^t Chaldea, Persia, Greece, etc., had the liberty to marry their uncles, brothers, fathers, and even mothers were free I^u^*!?^ ^^^i' ^^^ ^°°8- ^^^ cruel in Moses to forbid these hberties to the women of Jndea I Pagan women had the liberty to sacrifice their virtue at the *ewd altars of Venns and Cybele. A description of the wickedness and impurity the worship of these heathens mvolved can be r6ad by no virtuous Christian without a shudder. Moses forbade these abominations, in honor of God and human nature, and for this you accuse him of taking away the " rights " of women. It is to the honor of Hebrew women that they did not practice such •• liberties," and to Hebrew legislation that they were not permitted. If you had read and studied the historians Herodotus and Strabo in reference to the condition of women in Babylon, Xydia, Thrace, Armenia, Medea, India, Egypt and Greece, you would have less to sav about their "hberties." I refer you to these authors, as It would not be proper to quote their descriptions of life manners, and worship in those countries, in a book intend- ed for modem civilized readers. The lives of mother and child were protected in Judea. In those sountries I have mentioned they were at the mercy cf the husband who was master. This was also the case in ancient Rome INOERSOLL— "The position of woman waff far better in Egypt than in Palestine." Comment— This is one of those bold, reckless statements which characterize all your lectures and writings Ac cording to Strabo, who traveled in Egypt before the Christian era, women were the toilers and^the tillers of the soil. Their condition was somewhat analogous to that of the squaws among the Indians of our western territories. ■^ftyp" *o """ iaaa oi Biieaot) aiiu vl myaiery. A^v> origin ancient religion, customs and laws are at the beat matters Of conjecture to the hieroglyphic archaeologist. The stone- #» MISSTATEMENTS, ETO, 19 #» teft? n^M '^M"^ '?^^^- ^«y«^d tl^e seventeenth falT*? °^. ^»°etho, when Joseph was premier of the land, there is no reliable or intelligible history. Egvptolo gists, from Clement of Alexandria down to ChaShon j3\-n°^ Wi kinson, have exhausted their learS and Ttha n2V ^nravelthe mystery of the silent valley of the Nile, to make the footprints of that mysterious C?at« "' something of the past-whence they came' their laws, social customs and habits. The sphinx smilea Ks ofte'n^^a^'r/' T^' °' '^'' Kathe? about the oases ot tbe pyramids, and man s about to eive nn thn long.lost heht breaks forth in all its brilliancv— Wflrsnit speaks, an^ all is light. .• The posiLn of woLn wS far better m Egypt than in PalestinS," says ha. But deMfiir how or where do you learn this ? The history of Eg^SJ b^' SL^arv Ynn'r^^'^t"' "^ apocryphal. Manetho is tament, Herodotus and Strabo, and the two last only echo the dying agonies, the death sighs of a once powerfur E^ Vh«2 '"^^ ^"^°? *^" "«^^S «^°"«« of GrS^e and S old F^f writers only record the last act in the drama statement ""^^^ ^^^ ^"^ '^*'*''^ contradicts your iNGERsou,-" Upon ancient tombs husband and wife are represented as seated in the same chair." nnnS^T"'":;'^^'^ '^ °^ °P consequence whatever; but I quote It for the purpose of asking you how you know tW were represented as husband and wife ; ^ ^ Ingersoll— " In Persia women were priests." Comment— Yes, but a woman-priest meant one who if itS^^Sa^"'" "'"'^P^-'^y. would Lt:i^ of ^viI.T,f \ /^'•.u^*''*^? ^^^^*^« *'^** ^^e'^e was a temple of Venus at Cormth so rich that it maintained abovea &tia;?tPi*:?-hei? "" '^^' *^^ ^^' *^^ ^-^* ^' iiri w NOTES OH XNOBBSOLL. too»B8ox*-«« They goArded the eternal Are/' OOMMENT— And they will probably oontinne to do so. . uiosBsou,-." From their lips oame the oraolea of fate." CoicHEMT— Just as they continue to come from IJie lipa ot female mediums of questionable reputation, fortune- telleiib gypsies, etc. it m:sr^if,:^'i o. fate." ) lips tune- CHAPTER XIV. MOEH ABOUT WOHBK-.BnjLB.KI> RBVBLAmK-HOaB MIBBBP. BB8BNTATI0N. ««iust'. « thousand ye»M " ^*"* "^ "««»* """Te for at least for proofs aod s^^^S^ ffiSf.?^ '."^ "5* » «"' in the pagan worfdSm.n^V^*^??"': '""""J '"""■•n phwedW at hta bMb « t^^ *''• f ^ »t '"ised her up and MdfromVta^ost^e""""'"^''"''"" »^« '»f»»8». raJoS°fSrn'.'"""' ""*"«^ «"»' <*«»>8'' «<>■»» the hoMS^?i^,:JSy7''om? Christianity does not of ET;,f„Eyo ™;"e»eS rir^^K^' "■» dTsobedieno^ %, as Adam waT n 2!IS '«?'??«'''l8 »gent of human- us, that thTrSell IfS?'""'!'' »'™..«8 St. Paul informs world, aid b;"Si;t-»u,?5' »« """•■ «" stored into the ao^bt^hrziesesTXi^t^eSr- -^ -"- - In Adam's fall We Binned all. -o^t'"^o,n^7^^nl' ^r:^\i^%,' f >;^ !f nfr^^f ,,^f^,*"- Eve was the occasion m- V^.V: ?.? °J *h« /a^l' Just as Mary was a!!^e sprS^oml"'"" ''°' '"""^ "'" >»« J^'^-ed v;uMiit^i<; M T — n udge. Ingkrsoll — " Will Mr nUj^h k-„« i.u u • a * few of his objeci to fbe^^evi? '' ^^ ^^"'^ *° «^^ 94 IM 82 HOTBS ON INOERSOLL. OoMMUMT— He is the prince of liars, fall of sophistry and deceit, misleading and nnreliable— « purveyor of Dead Sea apples. Ingersoll— '♦ Again I ask, why were the Jewish peo- ple as wicked, orael and ignorant, with a revelation from God, as other nations were without ?" Comment — This question is based on a false hypothesis. I deny that the Jews were a«; wicked, cruel and ignorant as other nations of their time. They were angels m com- parison with the diseased, rotten and pestiferous races about them. Inoebsoll — " Why were the worshippers of false deities as brave, as kind, and generous as those who knew the only true and living God ?" Comment — Because they were not. If the Canaanites were as brave as the Jews why did they permit the latter, hungry and exhausted from the deuert, to kicik them out of Palestine at the toe of their sandals ? iNGERsoLir— •« Will you tell me why God failed to give the Bible to the whole world ?" Comment— God did not fail to give his revelation to the whole world. In the beginning, He revealed Himseif and His will to man, who afterwards to a great extent for- got that revelation. Man began on this earth with a true knowledge of the true God, but subsequently fell into idolatry. The wise sayings and moral precepts of the philosophers in the remoter ages were but the echoes of that original divine revelaticm. The nearer we approach to the origin of the human race the purer we find both docti'ine and morals. This has been demonstrated by Thebaud in his remarkable work on Oentilism. God then gave mankind originally a revelation, but man, in the couise of time, failed to keep it in his memory and fell into ignorance, idolatry and barbarism. He became a victim, not of evolution, bujb of devilution. Inoersoll—" If Jehovah was in fact God He knew the end from the beginning. He knew that His Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny and hypocrisy would crouch." Comment— Granted. T^Tiattheu? Because He knew that His revelation would be abused, misrepresented and ridiculed by some, must He therefore refuse it to the Vor^dV Ever^ pift of God— food, life, health, abiUty, i# # • KISSTATEMXNTS. I* i 88 reason, are abased bjr some. Mast He deny to man. groping in error, the light of revelation beoaase fie knew the hypocnto woald deny it and blaspheme ? ,iw»T n^u.^^ ^5T ***** ^* ^<>»ld ^ *!»« defence of robbers caUed kings, and hypocrites called priests." OoMMENT-He knew that it would be misquoted in defence of tyranny, and that it would be miarepreaentad by hvpoontes called infidels, but that is no reason why He should not give His revelation to man. ^ iNOERsoLL— "He knew that He taught the Jewish people but little of importance." •'ewisn CoMMENT-You only imagine that you know this. YOU must not confound your knowledge with that of Jehovah. How do you know what He knew? You evi- dently do not need to pray the old Scotch dominie's prayer :— •• O Lord, gie us a gude conceit o' oursel'." 1 -Y?EiwoLL— "He knew that He found them free and left them captives." Comment— He knew that He found them in Eevntian slavery aud made them a powerful nation. lNOERsoLL-.««He knew that He had never fulfilled the promisea made to them." Comment— He knew that the promises made to the Jews were expressly and distinctly conditional on their obedience to His commands and laws, and that they had disregarded those commands and broken those laws. Ibey disobeyed Him and in consequence fell again into bondage— the sct-ptre passed from the hands of Israel INGERSOLL— "I here take occasion to thank Mr. Black for having admitted that Jehovah gave no commandment against the practice of polygamy, that He established slavery, v^aged wars of extermination, and persecuted for opinion's take even unto death." Qomumvi— First. You must have been in a very gushing humor when you so formally thanked your opponent for admitting what no Christian ever dreamt of denying. Your opponent said that "if you were a statesman instead of a mere politician you would see good and sufficient reasons for the forbearance to leeis- '"'"", J "i""."-'' '""^ ~"i" suyjccu {yyjiy^&iuy}," auu that •• it would be improper for him to set them forth " in an article mtended for the generel reader. Not being a statesman, § mpr^ist, or a |)hysiciau, ^ou, of course, do uq^ s^ ^q^ 84 NOTES ON INOERSOLL. t^jt^to which your opponent deUcately directs your at- ^-?'w"u 7^^^^ you say Mr. Black admitted that Jehovah established slavery, you say what is not true. It is the height of unwisdom to make a statement that is so easily refuted. Your thanks were premature, as Mr. Black fhZ' Hi T^ 1,'" **»« ^'^ol?, yoa reply to. admitted any. thing of the kmd. He said:-" Jehovah />er»ii«^d His chosen people to hold the captives they took in war or purchased from the heathen as servants for life." That IS, He pennitted the Jews to follow the custom of the times in this matter. Is this an admission that Jehovah established slavery ? Like a lawyer more " cute " or cun- ning than able, w)u change the word permitted to es- taUuhal. You do not need to be told that there is a difference between to permit and to estahlish. It is very unbecoming to the §reat apostle of " candor " and "honor JSS« fu Ki* ,"^ misrepresent his antagonist, and it must bring the blush of shame even to your cheek to be caught m such petty chicanery. ^»uKm J^aV^""^' t'^^ exterminate, from ex and terminus, mee.na to drive from the border, to expel, to drive out. This the Jews did to the Canaamtes, just as we are extorminat- mg the Indians from this continent. It is the logic of migration, the law of human movement. The raoe in its movements on the surface of the earth is governed by laws of social dynamics of which individuals and natiohs are unconscious. Some gushing philosopher of the future wdl condemn us of the nineteenth century as bitterly for extermmatmg tiie Indian, as you condemn the IsrS for dispossessing the Canaanite. And he wiU have as much influence on his age as you h«ye on your^-and no more. ^ « **« J'ourth. When you say your opponent admitted that Jehovah persecuted " for opinion's s*ke even unto death '' you again misrepresent him. God, as God, holds His in- telligent creatures responsible for e^ery thought, but God as the temporal monarch of Judea inflicted pi^ishment thl^ Z^2"i^'- i^^''" i« "° P«ni8hment mentioned ?n ^IfJl^^^^^""^.}*:^ fo*^ «n« «f thought, or mere ^'u'^'' — ^'^o.-w Au la uui, Irue to say that God nun- l?ff °T P«'r''^«4 fof opinion's sake. Crimes cognizaWe ^ ^9 Jewi^ criminal code were acts capble of proof-^ ili f t iH MlBftBPRESENtATlON. Qft Thewfore M one w^ paaMied te^nZ t'"^- ?' P"^"^' fromTrBla?rtoT«\rt' ^°" ""^representations attribute to him. wtile vo^h«Lv« n.f k*® ^'* ^^** you and a Bar, you begin to whimper about the Stel who teUs them to turn the other nh««lr vZ J!r_ ■^_*"^' ^*^o seriously telT your opponent he oannc , and in4t not! M Kofms ON lirGEksott. according to his principles, biow your brains out ; while you claim the right to shoot him through the heait, if you can. There is no epithet in your vocabulary low or ven- omous enough to fling at priests and theologians, but u^hen a *' policeman " hke Mr. Black ventures to catalogue you, you are up in indignation, and whine and whimper about decency and the etiquette of debate. f you r ven- vhen >you, Ekbout CHAPTER XV. 6LD ANB NEW TEST AMENTS—SLAVERF AND CHRISTIANITY— THJS APOSTLES NEITHER LUNATICS NOR IMP08TER8. T^^M? i?.^^>r'" -^f * « %*'^^ °^ ^*°* and domonstration :taJt • 'I'^'^^^^nS to ^nd a man who believer so thor- anS^mmoraL" ""^"^^'^^'^^ ^^ nuraculous. the impossible Comment— Here you assume to determine what is mon- Btrous miraculous, impossible and immoral ir?8 refieshing in thm age of general educafciou to see an infidel offenng his crude notior.a aR ultimate principles or aiioms ^wfir-'"' ^PP^"?^*- belieyes in the monstro. 9, impos- favor-to play the counsel for the prosecution and the judge at the same time-a thing not ^rmissible. «,wti7°'*5f «" ^*?* " *"^ ••demonstration" are to you Jjhat the red flag is to the Spanish matadore; youfi J^a^-^i'tif^';' °^ the people as the matadore rfouts 2ho red flag in the face of his intended victim, and you ima- S^h nf^h'"'" throw down their heads, shut their eyes and rush at them-and be taken in. You are mistaken. You may deceive some-but the people on the average are not fhi''wT''''''~^*J*'- ^^"""^ °°^®« *<» the conclusion that Testfmenr' '' "" ^""^^^ ^^^^^^^ with the New CoMMENT-Mr. Black came to no such conclusion. It is no doubt true that the Old and New Testaments •• are so connected together that if one is true the other Lno? be fa^e. This IS your opponent's statement and it is very different from what you represent him as saying. ^ i« l^^^^l'''~'7i^'^^^^ ^«™« P*^««*>le to ixe that there IS a right-mmded, sane man, except Mr. Black whn believes that a God of infinite kindnL and jmL eve? commanded one nation to extarminata another-" Comment— It, no doubt, appears strange "and hardlv possible to you. after your prodigal use of deceit anJ sophistry, that any one should believe anything at all, 97 i;= ^ ^ %k^ '-"V^ .a^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I Li 12^ Hi m us w 14.0 1.25 WWWA 2.0 11.8 1.6 150mm V OZ ^? y /. >IPPLIED ^ IIVMGE . Inc .^a 1653 East Main Street j^^^ Rochester, NY 14609 USA ^^?^ Phone: 716/482-0300 issr.^ss. Fax. 716/288-5989 1993, Applied Image, Inc., All Rights Raaeived l\ i\' a^ <^ ^'^ •^\ ^^ '^ ^t^ ^ ^i^ i^ ^><;^ ^ ^<^.<^; /^ 88 Kof B8 OK IKOIBSOLL. y^®" ^ «>?»?}ands one nation to exterminate anothef toe Christian believes that there is very serious reason for it. de believes that God knows more than he ; and does not think that to be a philosopher it is necessary to exhaust the resources of his lachrymal glands on every guilty wretch and law-breaker whom the God of justice deems it proper to lash or exterminate. God makes instruments of nations to punish nations. infalhble God estabhshed slavery in Judea, he takes occa- sion to say that • the doctrine that slavery is a crime under all ourcumstanoes was first started by the adherents of a pohtical faction m this country less than forty years OoMMBOT— i'lV**. Mr. Black never made any efforts to prove that God established slavery in Judea, notwith- standmg your inverted commas. Second. In your blundering haste to reply you fail to catch your opponent's meaning. Black says: "The doctnne that slavery |is a crime under aU eiroumtances, was first started, etc., less than forty years ago." When Black made this statement he took it for granted that you ITu if ^?«'en<» between that which is wrong in itself, and that which is wrong by oiroumstances—wia/Mm in »e and malum per aeoidens. Your opponent is too good a historian to say that the anti-slavery movement beean onlv forty years ago. ^ ^ Smoe the advent of Christianity, slavery has been con- sidered a social and circumstantial evil, an improper rela- taon between labor and capital, but it was never considered by men of healthy brains an evil per te, an evil in its nature or essence. This is what Mr. Black meant by " aU ciroumstanoes," but you were in such a hurry you did not see It. This distmotion takes the pith out of aU your eloquence on this point. The anti-slavery movement is as old as Christianity. The councils of the Christian Church have, age after age, labored to abolish it, or to mitigate its TOventies. It ^d not begin forty years ago. Mr. Black does not say it did. He says that the doctrine that slavery was wrong under all ciroumttanoee, was first started forty JL?*!*" ¥^9' .J^. **»iB he is, for all practical Durooses. correct. With this distinction in view, your argument" on this point loses its wind. The Christian Church, during eighteen ftlSB ANt> SMlEAl) Of OHttlStlANITY. 60 i\% centuries, has fought against slavery, and taught that aU ^^"^^^^^^^ioteGod. It was this teaching that in part brought about the persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire. The law-makersof Rome at that time "^^"1.^^ V ?i^®'.^* ?^^y ^^^ '^o* 'eUsh the doctrine preached by the Apostles, that aU men are equal, and thev If^HS ]^^^vl coercion and repression. But the geniuJ of Christian hberty smUed at their imbecile efforts, know-^ mg tiiat she would live to look back through centuries at the forgotten urns of these law-makers, and consider their acts as matters of ancient history. When I say Christianity antagonized slavery I do not mean that it was by a general, indefinite sentiment, but* bv actual lemslation. I will, in proof of this, give iome of the councils which legislated to protect the slave. The council of Elvira, held m the year 806; the council of Epaon, year 617; the council of Toledo, year 694; the fifth council of Aries, year 649 ; Emerita, 666 ; the eleventh ?l ^r^xt^^'X®*? ^'°5 Worms, 868; second of Macon, 686: the 5th of Pans, 614 ; the third of Toledo, 689 ; the fourth of Toledo. 688; of Agde, 0O6; Rheims, 626; the third of Lyons, 688; the council of St. Patrick, celebrated in Ire- land in 460, reqmred church property to be used in redeemmg captives; the second council of Vernenil. 844. did the same. The second council of Lyons excom- munioated tiiose who enslaved others. A counoU held in 922 declared that he who sold another into slavery was ffml *^l*!?°lu*^®-,.> *^P°^^ ^®^^ *" ^°iBN•^-Certainly not, and that is the reason why Mr. Black did not take that ground, althongh you labor to make your readers believe he did. Theoloirians do nn* tea^ii that rapidity of rise and spread, taken "alo^, is evidence of the divine character of Christianity. Hence your flwveval pages devoted to show the nnsoundness of I m t • 00 NOTES ON INOBBSoil.. toat position aro just so much waste natM^r n ;- i That it may S^efthS ^„'° T' ^^^^ invagination! the position /on as^riL to him v^Tf h '^ ^°fV°* ^°M inent in its cJmpletene^ • * '"'" ^®" ^^^'^ ^« »'gn- sons who heard His worS iSd^^^S^ thousands of per. His divinity wiSonTheSitatln "" §*^ ^""I^ *^"«^«^ in creation, nothinHM om^3^°' ®!?°S ^^^ "oming of with which this^reli^rh^srrelS"^^?*^? *^^^^^^^ who were in the noon of Itf « J£^ *^" abroad. Men as a n,alefactori?v^ ?o see Kim iTt""*^^"* **» ^«»*^ organized bodies T beli^«.?S ^°'^*PP®^*« <*od by Koman empiS^^^ i„ » few mZ v. ^T? P,'^^°*^ «' the se^on of ?he generaVS^'Sff t^^^^^t^Tr^ P^^' and wrought a radical change iShSJS J^jfet "*'''''■' Mr^SlLSc\:S?^S^tr^t of H^^^^^^ the case. these circumstances aro an^?ii.-?*"5? ^^ P^«» J and forit.isby themSltX?aSdS^?f'SK"i^^^^ W™ent. tmguishablo from that of nfW , r • ^nnstianity is dis- Christianity iS iTo faL of SiS^"?' ««theriseof constitutes'^the eiSdencJ^f ite SjSL*^?°?"***°^ that continues : »'««noo oi itg divme origin. Mr. Black ant4onizedby^1hee?iuCsS??v.°^**^«- I*™ edness, and the vuIcm orimLT?K **®'',J^® ^"s°«^ ^ck- thepoU8hed^cSSrth?S?nSon**'®,'°'^'**"^«' " ^ell as TiolStly opp^ even bv S ««^*.""^. ' "^^ ™ most and Military heroir"1?lt,^4°^Vottlv ff*^^*^"* anoe and superstition, but thriearnW ^^5 ^^-f**® '^^r- the time. Barbarism and HiSi/ff* ° * *"^ philosophy of enemies. The Sth^^^o^^f^ipn were alike its Seidly and the authorlty^^e^ !Z^ established religioj against it AlftLe combSed*^ t^tSr"* ''r^ »"^ed and Pe-efurdStS;:^,^^^*-^ i ItlMB AMD SPftBAb Of OBBUTtAMlTtr. 01 t #1% the daily peril of their lives. Ts it Mr. Ingersoll'B idea that this happened throngh chance ? If not, there are bnt two other way a to account for it ; either the evidence by which the Apostles were able to prove th».t the super* natural origin of the Oospels was oyBtwhelvaiag and irre- sistible, or else its propagation was provided for and carried on by the direct aid of the Divine Being himself. Between these two infidelity may take its choice." '/his, Mr. Ingei'soU, is your adversary's argument in full* and the reader will see why you try to twist it out of shape b«jfjre you attempt to answer it, and why you notice one p4.rt and ignore the other. Your rejply is that other religions arose and spread -mth equal rapidity. Oranted, for argument's sake. But did they arise undor like circumstances, and did they meet and overcome like obstacles? Christianity met and overcame obstacles " which, according to every human calculation, were insurmountable," says Mr. Black. You do not deny this, and you cannot assert 't of other religions. iNGBBsoLir-** Imagine a Mohammedan answering an infidel; ^onld he not use the argument of Mr. Black, simply substituting Mohammed for Christ, just m efifectu- ally as it has been used against me ? " CoMMKNT— No, because a Mohammedan could not use it with truth or force. It would be equally groundless in the mouth of a Brahmin or a priest of Isis and Osiris, for the rise and spread of these false reL^ions have nothing in common with the rise and progress of Chris- tianity, except perhaps rapidity, and this is not given by Mr. Black as a proof of the divine origin of Chris- tianity. Yon evidently set about answering his argu- ment before you got a good hoW of its fuU foror and meaning. Inoessoll— *< Do you not see that your argument proves too much, and that it is equally applicable to all the religions of the world ? " Comment— No ; the flickering and uncertain glare of your light does not enable me to see it. A better light, that of reason, toother with a little knowledge of the Sssva iu the Cose, wul c^ivixzce your readers that it h appii- ~ cable to Christianity alone of all religions that ever claimed the attention of man. Your efforts to make tb« ^ fr'J od KO*fcd OK mOERSOLt. you have sot hwititSTS^^* "' "'"'*• ^ "" "V. good men or Ken, takL fc °""» '>.Te been eiftet hot two olsMeTof ^^.vi°' f^ted^that there are «^t^«re arL'S"£f el8.e?t,d~''tt- taken they ueUdlS'S'^'^ "* dishonestly mi>. to the two dLSf wW^"S?f "15'* """* «»»e baok granted"? ^^ Wuoh "the old argument takes for insrr'i*e«^m»te."' "Vl '«« " filed with it is their dSmZ have J«^iv*^^'' «°PPo««o» ? Then constitutes the insten^r JfE^^S comnmnications that filled. Now a dJ^1Jrometwi^a\r°.K?y ^«^'y « that can be tested. When »^.„°? .tangible, something a commnnicatioTiom gS Ch3?«T^ ^^ ^^^ '«««»^ed 9ible people teavdtelom^'J^di^^'^^ *°^ *" o*her sen- of his claL, S Tis^Ss tei fw "* Pu'f^' «' *^« *wth guish between^ and >^i*^** ^^J«8 °8 to distin- wmmnnications. ffi?torJ^?*fon7; .*T *"^ P^tended hare claimed to haiS Sv^^d^J?L'°***"'^^^*'«'« *»««> is also full of instMcesThl^ thlS® communications ; it -err;^eS*^r.."°«* -y« *h-*. being good triSSU??UX!S?rsi^U«^S^ «-* were eye-witnesses to ttS ^^IL?® *^*° ^^^ ^ho infidel iay lack, be irn^^L«?*'®T ®^ » ^o^e"* It is his steong ^int. ^"""^ ''*°*»^ ^ assurance. The Arties claimed a divine «ommn«;^x.. , . ^«. xaey worked irirttoiea'in'«^#''''?'^xi' ?°" "**«" Th«» «i«d, i.^ .STto'^a.iar^J ^d^'tolhlS - 1 » s THl AFOSTUt NOT IMPOSTUU. gs Uable witnesB, of evenS f SLfU oetter judge, a more re- years ago in JuleaX^ thl*T£"?Ko"tt„«?.^»?^ saw those events with th«{*. «-«^ ^^ *°®? ^^®^» «^d their own ^? W„„m S''** •yf 1 *»' *»®««d them with ciroumsSoen; tiS l^K f^***"?"*". under the. justice? ®° *8auist theirs in any court of icaUn\tea*?tewhrf^^^^^^^ »»dfanat. God, but tbiad^Bnit^^^,^^^ ^^^^ ^^ » °^««on from real'comSon?LTmS„sfromT^^ "°* »^*d does not destroy ^e iS^^whL «# ^^- • A '*^« P«>Pl»et as a counterfeit non^8**Jot d!S?r^^S« * V°« ^"«' eenuine cn*« t»,«.^ °®'' *»e8troy the value of a StaSs aSd Quein VicSria'^?/ «' «>« United their hallucinations Ste fL^" "»8ane asylums. Do prove that there ?s ^ .^^i,^ '®*^ president's title or Or does ttieddusiii of ??n5/^'!?''." Q'^««'» Victoria? Moses or a St PaTto I SS^JS"" ^^**'°? *^« «^«^« of a the assmnpTiou and artfJ o?vr^'''^°'' ^ Y^* *^« « mission of 4e ApOTtlMl yL^" a'Kument against the is this : ^P<»"es I Your reasoning stated in form Some men have been mistaken, found. W)*ed-if boxes hurge enough oo2d be ' CHAPTER XVI. evidence, common tradition and con'/» "»»««*« wiSiout^ 2J?«SS* *-,°?J y°?f honesty and virtue to be taken tor granted until there Li evidence to the contra^ ?^not ?5*5"f.*»'. by^ l»^t8 or winks or inainuatini quitiJns^ Christianity teaches that ho is, whatever yoS mS^fi with your code of morals. The world, afteineailf tvS oentun^,haj found nothing but hoUiIeM iS X cWwt^J ?n ^! ^^•'*^^^.*e? ?^^y ^»^« «^«d during iSS SS tiSl Patera SXTr«^«t* **' T^^l^' ^^^ *°fide& and oS? vet XSiiTf„^J^%'""?^^ "°i**^8 '^^^ them^and yet, alter this long trial, when their Dwsonal honflaVTia a^rted^ou,,the aiH>stle of fair play aS^ol?TSht" ^ '1 f^"^ " *^** ^°own ?•• fl^w small men canSmA «« fifi^v ^ ? ^**"** performed the miracles recorded in the New Testament. Why would She Jews puttodSS a man able to raise the dead ?" ^ "** OoMMEKT— The miraclea of Chriat reconl«l I'n fi,^ m« m the banks «-the NUe7 The Jem l^TioSlSS^? • 1IIBA0LK8 Oy OHBIST. 97 tho unapeakable word from the temple ; and some of them said he worked miraoleB by the power of the de" I ThS explanations of his miracles are the strongest oydenw^ their reahtv. Porphyry (A.D. 270) said :•' Jesus haWna been raiserfobscnrely. went to Egypt, where having loarnSS to perform some miracles, he returned to Judea and nro claimed himself to be God." «"«»•' naea, ana pro- mi^^'^^A^A^ Emperor and Apostate (861) said: "He (Ohnst) did not dp anything worth speak ng of. untess w2 consider It a great thing to have curS the 5eaf aSd blind and to have expe ed the demons from tliosTwho were possessed m the villages of Bethsaidaand Bethany ° The fnlt^Z r ^^"J* ^«« «o striking and so public that thi anti-christian philosophers were driven to the necessit? of admitting them and trying to explain them^iv Thus, Hierocles, a pagan philosopher, and governor of Al-' exandna under the Emperor Dioclesian. wis not satisfied with persecuting the Christians, but he must, to provrhls loyalty, no doubt, write a book in which ho comS Uie pretended miracles of ApoUonius Thyanwus to those of I'hrist. There were no lecture bureaus at thrtimrand no North American lieview, so Hierocles had to write a book. He wrote his book in which he saS as f^Hots 5m twin ^^ ' ''"^ recognize a certain Ingerwl- " The Christiana make a great noise and rive i af Sfw ^ A^""^ »^28e he gave sight to the bliSd. anj did other wonders. * # We have better reason in kttribut. mg like works to many great men. such as ArteteSs. Pythagoras, ApoUonius." ^*^«»waB, , ¥*«r J?»ving described the wonders worked by Anol. loniua, this pagan philosopher continues : ^ " I speak of these wonders to show that we think mnf« wisely than the Christians; we do not relrf m a gS but as a friend of the gods, a man who his worked suTh gr|at wonders; the Christians, on the contrary. puS that Jesus 18 God on aecount of the trijiing prodirjies he per • formed. Peter, Paul, and some others of that ^ hars. ignoranto. and magicians, have boasted of the actiaS 01 Jesus, Lit Maximua Deffeng. th^ «iiii«Hr.«i — t^--- Philostratus. wise men and lovers of t^tii, hafe toid M°of the miracles of Apollonius." Aooording to Aruobius the pagans held that Jesus had «i W Mons ox nraiBSoix. ■tolen from tho MnotiiMT of the Egyptiftni the luunei of S? wZden ■**"^*' by which he pSrSrmi Now, Mr. Ingersoll, do not aU these attemptii of ancient DhilcMDhert to belittle and explain away ?he woVkii of Jean. (Jhriat. prove that those works were reai-that thev J!2!S ^u^ and admitted? These men knew the facto better than yon do, and instead of denying them as you do. they tried to make little of them or explSn th^ i^'Z'r^'V"'*" Christ performed the miracles recorded In the New Testament, why would the Jews put to doaS ft man able to raise their dead ? " *» • *" uu»bu CoinncOT-~The argument of this question is, that be- cause the Jews piit Shrist to death, they did n^t beUeve In His nairaoles as recorded in the GoepelJ. But this wn! ?#"*? falw. The Jews beUeved*U,at God had to?, bidden them to abandon the law of Moses, even if a pro- phetperformmg miracles requhred them to do so. From ihe tmie of Christ down to the present, the Jews ha^ always and muformlv beUeved in the reaUty of the th?i?Tl^u£ ^''" ^** °^* believe-this, consS? WeU, then, you will ask, if ihey admitted the fact of mj miracles, why did they not accept Him as the Messiah ? While they adm^ the nurades, they did not beUeve ttiat th^ proved Him to be the Messiah. Their piopheto had performed miraclra under the Mosaic law. S'hey had even raised the dead. The Jews in the time of Christ could not understand how miracles could be worked to ***'*^Hu^**>''-. ?^?^ *^**^**» *°d prejudices, ttien^ caused th«a to reject the evidence ot H& miracles whUe they admitted the /act oi them. They attributed them to Beelsebub. Agam, they believed that the promised Son of David was to be a great temporal prince, that He was to free the Jewish neople and estabfish a great JewiSJ enapire. restore the Jewish nobihty. and raise the AaroSc priesthood to ito ancient preeminence and glory. His preachmg and humble life gave no encouragement to them Bones, and they reused to beUeve in Him as the promiwd — ' JH — "r ■"—'J nuuxxcccu iiis xasracies. AiiTEnxvn. inRACLB8 OF OHRtST— JOSBPHUg. miracle?" ^*' ***** ^® *»»d wrought a Christ, that He wrought miiikclfiH tk^oJ^ i • 1 • whatever that it wu e^ diS^ A„ ?k '" "» «"<'e'«» history takes thoM mSes m h^ts ?bJt,^""^- *2 npou a. no long« legitimate" ia'KZte^"^^''* tte m moles of Chnst, it most be taken for Vanted «,f? ^KfiraoSs-iaiHS true ; you actual y call on Christians to prove thit no sucfh evidence ever existed I You sav • «• Mni^ i« ;* i7 !? . it. was not denied V The DevL' hdZV^ *t' - --^* niKiifc of his genius, never 8urpa8sed"thirii;^:5%nn«m« impertinence. You are a lawveTand S^SJ ^""® supposed to know something^^K^^ 102 K0tB8 dM INOERSOLL. that no Bnohe^S!^Tl;l^%^^^'^ZT^''''i?^'9''^ your able opponent in thl\^^„L f°PP<»«« Merrick, you feel like saying of him 9 Whl^^!t L xu ^°** ^°«'<* of him ? This ia thfl tTrSiV. ?* ^**°^'* **^® ^o"' t think when you a^rHow1sT^^Tthi.T T^^^jonrselt in were never defied 7 ° *^** *^® miracles of Christ 4T^^;siit%t7^^ ^^'^^ 0^-^* was -i* pr?pS w;;e^al7o clSh^d^"^..*^*'^ '^^"^^^d ^^at their fhafof raTrgteVi^^fnd'to^^^ P°^«^' ^^^'^ ot^lJelii^*^^-"^^^^^^ histo^rthrii^Clr^^^^^ J- ephus. the best life or death of Chr^t?"' ^^^ '"''^^^^ ^^'O"* the CoMMKNT-Nothing? Here is what he savs- it be^a^f *?rcS^Ht"i *Sf n*?^VK>«%-- « SMe^Sh\i^%-d?S^^^^^ rL^cts^^HSir^r^^^^^ "- fhts^^oTalTOiS?^^^^ adhere to Hi^ FofH?a^^?L*^t^?£l^^^ to the third day ; the divine nSfnhfS.^®^ "i*""® *Sain on it Jot? " ""*""■■« ••«"» *•» J»« "d death of Christ. i» be »S^,; Jn*' ■.'^"«"""' "■ '"^P""' " -fitted t, „2''X'?f?-*«™'<«d by whom? B, ,.„ ..J „.,__ ««3u TOicaire, aud other in«#i<^i» »r~S - — I ""^ ^Biuo, % de ^0SBPBU8* lOB was '* » frateraity cannot get over its foroe except by denvina ita BenninenesB. And this they do aocordSngly. After thia denial, which m itself is of no weight, however, they pro- ceed to the next step in infidel tactics and say, •• it w ad- mitted. Now, sir, it is not admitted that this paracraph is an intem>lation. On the contrary, it is held to be genmne, and for the best of reasons. It is found in aU the copies of Josephus's works now extant, whether printed or manuscript ; m a Hebrew translation preserved in the Vatican Library, and in an Arabic version preserved by the Maronites of Mount Libanus. It is cited by iiusebius, the most ancient of Church historians, by St. Jerome, Rafinus, Isidore of Pelusium, Sozomen, Cassio- dorus, Nicephorus, and many others. Eusebius was the first to quote this passage, and it is morally impossible that he could have forged it without being detected. No objection was made to this passage in the early ages by any of the opponents of the Christian faith. The paragraph is then genuine, according to all rules of evi- dence and all the canons of sound criticism. Inoersoll— 'fls it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these prodigies ?" CoMMENT—The prodigies you refer to are, let, the massacre of the infants by Herod; 2nd, the Star of Beth- lehem ; 8rd, the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, eto. The first IS referred to by Macrobins, a heathen histo- nan, in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the universal belief in the fact. The second is mentioned by Chalddus, a Platonic phil- osopher, who attests the fact in ahnost the same words as the gospel : — This Platonist says:— "There is another history most worthy of our reUgious veneration, which notes the ap. pantion of a star destined to announce to men, no dis- ease or temble mortality, but the advent of a God who came down for the salvation and happiness of the human race.' Julian the Emperor and Apostate admit- ted the truth of the account of this star which led the wise men, by saying that it was the ster Ataph, observed by the Egyptians as making ito apDearanoft overv fonr Dundred years. ~ " - - , - The tWrd (the darkness) is mentionel by Phlegon of Tralliam, a pagan who lived in the middle of (be Mooad 104 ttona ON oroBiisoLt. H ejer been WthSS aIS th!,""' ^l «'*"^««* «»»* visible. A great earthquake t^«i. *^® *\e»vea8 became many hons^ in the o5vo#Sr-P'*^»^*'»** overturned 202nd Olympiad vprfl^ *^' ^''^ **» Bythania." This the ChrisSn 2?; ^ h?« ^fr^"^" ^^'*» «»« 88rd year of fixion. But tet "s go Ck a^fJr v"*^ *^°*" *»' *^« ««<^ M the best histor&n the h1!!* ^°« 8?^ •-•• Josephus ask you. on what pSnc^ie^l^'t^J £L^°°^.-" Now, I Josephus as genuine. wSle tnJS^ "^^^ **•« ^O'^s of thew, Mark, Lke S,d JohnT T^f * **'^ ™^« '^^ ^at- nes. « the evidenoefor thL Lf ?^? Y®'® contempora- of the histories attributed ^ ?h« p"**''**^,.*" ««n»«ei,ess cient to give thS tiie 8^m« !.*^''*"8elists is not suffi! evidence have von fo7 *ifo ^ ?' veracity, what more Josephus? Wh^do?ou w1eKi°'"T 4^ ^eracitTol lists and admit tL wSL of w k "''^^ ^' *^« Evange- ask the question and «vT1«* "^^^sephus ? It is useless to *( t"-,-.~- CHAPTER Xvni. Man came not to be ministerXi^to but fn^.J^l "^'^ °i ^0 f'e hU life a rede^i, Wor^^^^^^^^^ makes the statement word for worf -i I?* ?*i'^ n ""j^' J^f »««e»'»y of belief. a^nSl'"-^:^ fr T"^" ^if'UevHh not shall be oo». thou shiUbe •JJS.W te„"se*li:?1/™r= "? wite, and that a mana««.in°"M™.SffP^. ''''•. ."""^^ any modern senae, it was DoidI,irX>rS!™ n^"",'" '" ha™ been written ^ttaluhr^U.M.i^f-*'™?*'" *• t. mi>acl«i withont exoitSjg „n.'SVr &" "'"™"* 106 106 KottS OK 1K0BB80LL. V^'r^^'^n^S'^.J^^ *^® ***^°' "^^""^ 0' the xjew iestament were better known in the ace in which fanJ^'mhrwi? "*" n ^'*^«' books. 8L^^".-pio ltl\^^^ s *^^* were written for the few, the It d • SSnte^ Th«v*w« ^"^ J««t«°>ent were written fo. .he people. They were read every Sunday to the people. S,1i?ft" **'^^"'« "^-^J?® *h"' rnleof^jonducti^C wSi kl^j;"*?^/'l^"ri^*^«" *°^ ?~'»°e historians were known only to the student; they Sid not enter into why i1erof^«,^J*^v.*^? n^^'' '^*»" » one reason r«2 »KM *u *^®f®. *»"torian8 have survived the Upse of Sf^Aln th*"^ "^^"i^f **' ^P««"^ h»^« comedown to S ^«5 *?^" .completeness. They were therefore put^ iS«f ?® n»»acles recorded in them did excite Sm- ?ews*anrGe^Si:?.*'^ ^^^^^'^^^ '' '"^^^^^^ <>' ^^ INOBBSOLL-" There is not, in all the contempora- fh?H^*?'^^^.u*7®F ** ™*y ha^e »>een, there is little of UrnlT""^^ *^ prove your statement false. JoJephui was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was born^ the Inol fn -m?" ?y. 'i?* "*^?« ^ ^'^^t^ »^« tefltimonj™ ^efw ence to Chnst : " Now. there was about this timJ Jesus a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man " * hS drew over to him many of the Jews, anu also many of £e GentileB. This man was the Christ!" eto. ^ be'TnlSJSJSitil^^'^'^^" ^ '^^P*^"' *« •^^-*<-^ *o Je meaning. They give room for sophistry. A wit- ness may meau oae who has sees an event take place, or it may mean one who gives testimony of what he has Been. The Evangelists were ihe inspired narrators of «» 108 NOTES OH INOERsOLt. I the ETangelists were alfte eto B. .fS'^T?** ""^ by »eota that were „„( S° bV f^f.^"* f,?'?'^« "' ■"«»«• Matthews history ends with'^th„ , ' ""^'. ^vaiiMliet. He ™,,re»i,ed up i^f Wei'^'d'^^tr^-Sg^tte Jpr^^X' r bT^o'ff «"> »*»*« " toport. to this fact, but' that TOs'not mIJi.™^?'"*? """y words remaooor. The diffeiS^ Ww^n h • ""*^'"« ""« ""t a He was inspired to ^^tl^^T^S "^ 3™" ^ this : •And it came to nS. tS?^"„ "'u,*''« ""tnesse^ «,ya- P«ted from them ffia^S^ nn'in^T"^ ""?""• « "^ ..iSr-^^-"''' ■"""'.t-ur»trd"-«;'tofM.rk ne|™g"rjS;*;„^j'4.^'»"*« ""'tt™. by «yi»g ^MrTaS"""" ^- "wh-iisi^ dl^ find •• nothing of thTwnd^ifr^l"^ *'"*^- Now. ^ wl found it, you \imni;ff£^L*,Hl^hen you say you hav! ignorant ad^i^^r'TlitthV^^^^^^^^ t THE ASCENSION. 100 18 # t' at your hands is no exoase for you. The veniAM in f hn Ua^ found in almost all the ancient manuscripts. ThTmoBfc ancient of the fathers admit them, as StfLuffius Te? *??*"• St Clement, St. Ambrose, St? AuZS' and others. AU the oldest Latin, Syriw, and Sic V^es have them, They must, therefore, be consider^ gemffi ?o?r ^ weM.^""" ^'^' '"^^'^ '"' "^^°*^°« «»«^ ^^ Let us now sum up : Jt^u^pSis^^^eLt.^* **^'" ^' ^^^ --' bliJSTSl^J? CouMEHT--.First. The ascension of Christ will not be given up. It should never have been believed if it could w^ents'?'''' ^^ "^^ ^^. ^'"^ ^^^^ y^''^ advin^""i2 5«?o»d. The evidence of the three Evangelists whom I ha^^quoted, does ajeree, and no man of seiise and unbi- assed judgment wiU pretend to the contrary. Thev all ^.f..°?S^°'''^ *°^ micontradictory evidence to^the fact o- the ascension. *»,f **'"''• i?^!"?!,"® ®°^y. '**"' Evangelists. Three of them speak of the ascension, as is sron by the ahove 2e?e1hr«dof''it"^'^'"^' youfind your o.^r three who Butyoucontradictyourself. Acoordinff to vour reason irig onfy one of the HVangeUsto mention! Se^Ze^n event. Now, if only one of four witnesses speak, £ow can they contradict each other? There is sucfa thing m being too smart. You should not let your zeal for godless- ness run away with your judgment. The conclusiBnfrom ^hl^l *5 fw* .f^^ Evangelists do not contradict eiwjh other, and that their testimony is alike on the ascensi^ INOEESOLL-" Again, if an/thin^ could ^ve^t 1£ iiLro^SThrist.'? "^^ '"^' '* "-«* ^-^^ ^- *^« CnMMRMT — Nn rlnnKf. nt i*: Tin..j. i.i a INOBBSOLL—" The last words, accordmg to Matthew are : , "Go ye. therefore, and teach aU mtL?s. bapS them in thename of the Father, and of the sin, Snd o? 110 NOTES ON INOBBSOLU always, even to the end of the worid - ' ^^ y**" accoX;rS:rth^^^^^^^^^ of Christ were the lastlSwhv^n"**^''.'!*^'' "°<* »*y tbey gospel of Matrhew 'a Yt^LmLfT >"*«'T>o'»to «to thj Yon mnst ex^Srme STmn^W^''''^ ^ ^«°«»^« ? facts; yourstat^m^ntis absort^ v^Jli*°^'^ ?,« ^ J^^ Matthew. P^ *'"' '"» '""h repotted by 'w» ewj, - — ^* -.«iu«j« upon is hJ^n;il;t^thTyS!; 3?d^^? 2L^« ^^ ^ -^ ** representing Lnke when von slV^ ^^ y**** ^^^ °»w- milimited fSith in the crednufi o?Vi .^'"' "ns* >ve an bottomless ignorSi^^rthe ^^' «^,W »»d in the whenyonmalestrchastatemeS^Tf^o ^^*? .7°° *PP«»1 that ^eat and learned rhSS.: i*»no*at all surprising to mSet yoiu The reason ST-?^^^ ^'^ »«* ^ men o^8ense It ,« w !i. • *5®? "^®°°® » evident to aside to^^J^i e4 y Wa^Tb1;«Jh^' ^'"^S^ <« *«^ tongue against Christianityfordo^^^^ ^"S* *»» of being a philosonher ^-hn^T v •^^®' '**® pretence iNouBoit-' The lut wotO. w»otding (o John. w«e : *. « v# OBNBALOOT. Ill *. * #1% f TW*1'**^*'I~^**?°*^«"'**> *«" *he reader, after what Eva^cZf ^? '«^'«"<« to .^«' falsificationa of the othJr Evangehsts, that vour assertion as to what St. John savs are squandenuK your reputation too cheaply. in thf ?«?f*Vri,'^"A*°*^.?°* *»' theascensloi is also given ;« *H^A°*« of the Apostles ; and the last wordd of Christ saSXJiie^SJs^^ls^"^^ " ''^ " ^^** ^- ^-« thJrrra^of h^s^^S^n^ ^'-^^ — ^^ - CoMMENT-Luke nowhere testifies that Christ ascended ?i^^ia „r^ t*y **J *"® resurrection. On the contrary, he tells us in his Acts of tJu Apostles, that "He (Christ) showed himself aUve after his"^ passion, by many p?3 for forty days appearing to them and speaking oMhe kingdom of God.;^-i. 8. Here Luke tefltifi^iic?Uy a^ ^'es^Tthii^' *^°^*^"' ^'«"" ^ ^ <^~P«^^ INOEESOLL— " These depositions do not agree." «aS?™^^~? ^ ^?"' *'*^«"^y *»' them that does not fSriepl^Sn^.'"*'^"' "^^ alike whenfairly and truth. mJr ?i,T''^"i ^''*' ^'i?«. ^i*no88«». Matthew and Luke, pve the genealogy of Christ. Matthew says that there were forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ Luke insists that there were forty-two freL, ChrisTto David, while Matthew gives the number as twent^eicht It may be said that this is an old objection. An oMon remains young until it has been answered." ""J««won .•f £'*i'S"*'Tni*' »>Jeed an old objection, and in this It IS like all the objections you have made. They*re aU. aius far, merely the old, oft-repeated, and oft-iswered yes varnished and revamped into modem pmK Ihey lose some of their force in ths trap«"»-«-" »™i S flumSeir *^** ^""^ ^ °^^ "^ ^^ flippan^FSV^: «Jh ^K«,^SJ*;f° ^ ^** Matthew and Luke contract each other m the numbex of generations. Oeneration haii • I tl9 JfO-ng Off iNOKBaOLL. I i sou, etc. Generation in thig sense i/ives us no meaauM of \^^r°^r^'^. individaal in the aXove series mjt have hv^ from twenty to Ave hundred years or more Thi« ^lf«n «?»«'^»««° .i« therefore of noC what^er in c^ on atinR time or hiatorical epochs. It is tcS^ fndofln^te inherit^rr^'Tf" • °"^ ^ P':°^« legitimacy, and the rC of JrlnJi^^' I* « generation in this sense that St.luko iAh!']*^°*?^ ** ^*« his purpose to show that Christ was ,sf?»,i/'"f was the porKoa who, if royalty had oontkmS m the family of Davia. would have legally inherited th« throne Luke was dealing with the questiW reforeice supposed to be thirty-three years. As men live/Ccer in the early history of the rac^ than now, the average gfe S woXen«r J" ,°*^^ ^«"««^- Now MatSZTsiMhe «nn J^T** °° i^J^i^rence to titne-to the average dura^ rS^i.; i''^ when the prophecies concerning the 3ina of was or the royai line of David. Generations of /?«,! then, m the sense used by Matthew, might w^^^^^ twT te' ?. *nf 8«°«?t^0"« o' individuals in SSlSs^ of Luke. It follows, then, that as these two Evange?i«?« were writing about two different things they dM l f io« INOKRSOLL-" Is it not wondorful that Luke and Matth«« JhaeLoke give, the ^. ^ell^ SS^^^JZ^l • « HIMIOH or TBI AH.WUM. „, bluDdenng. ' •'^°" * good deal of ignoranb IN(»KR80LL — •• Til "^ tr n ^,u ' witue.H08 • »« to ^'.aM-fe Go3^f PK°??!°° among tho time that it i« .sal tnJ«*^f' *"*' discovered by this proof of Bu^o iintto TerX'Te' ••^•'r^"'^ -^*»""' proved thatgomething mo^ tSn vonrwn^/P^"°°°« »"»« Voa must specify these diffnrono/ ^ ^"^^^ '« necessary, conflicting ^texts, anrgive tlSr L?' ^P'*^*""' 1"°^ the have done this it will be tim« f^ '^^'Pf^^cos. After you threrSr^'; teef?.'4Vte ' ^"^^-^ '-- "^oae in answer to your stSi^ment tL^fK *^°°S'^°<'- This was nothing of thit do^S!"" i?oVSow lLl*L.^I*"^^^ ^^^^ another dress. This time it i« 5^.' PI*' *^® «*o»e idea in nothing about it. and yoTrive M^evfdi;^ ^»°^« Selists, whom vou asi^rf « Jj evidence the three Evan- row. if it wer J t?ur(^s *itT notUll^^^^^^^^ '""l «"»>J^°'m never referred to the doctriiflnf If *'^''^ Evangelists quote them as witnos s^SgLts^rnr*' J^ °*» y°« ctoctnne ? Your statement is false and wiM?'^!"^ °/ *^»* i./i^rrt^vL'tTs^--^^^^^^^ :^;;:S?ire:,.^'« -^^- ^SUo^t^^-S^ the^TS;;;^'^:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to the m^d Of agree as you assert. ^^ ^"^^ «»ch failure to But thus far your effort to profe 7w n. f-^ inspired, miserable failure. If you llll\ti^J^V^l'^^'^ « a caan wiiau you have alreadv mVo«"'Vr" --.-««* i,u offer men^„.^ the* Ev.agoU,i P^J^ ^LV^ lU NOTES ON INaEBSOLL. iNasBsou/— '* Neither do the witnesses agree as to the last words of Christ, when He was crucified." Comment— You are positive about this. Now let us see. Inoeesoll— «• Matthew says that He cried : ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?' " CoMMENT->Do^ Matthew say that these were tho last words of Christ? The words are the last reported by Matthew, but he does not report them as the last words of Christ. Inoersoll— " Mark agrees with Matthew." Comment — Then, as Matthew reports no words as the last spoken by Christ, it follows that Mark did not. So much for your " last words " thus far. Inoersoll — «• Luke testifies that His last words were : * Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' " Comment— Lukte •• testifies " to nothing of the kind. These are the last words reported by Luke, but he does *not report them as the last words of Christ. Inoeesoll— " John states that He cried: *It is fin- ished.' " Comment— True, but he does not state that these were His last words. The fact is, none of the Evangelists re- port any words as the last words of Christ. It is at best a matter of inference what the last words were. There- fore when you quote the Evangelists as reporting the last words of Christ, you misrepresent them ; and the contra- dictions, which you pretend were made by them,, exist only in your ignorant or unprincipled misrepresentations of the Gospels. It would be interesting to know by what code of morals you are governed, if any. Gautama, Confucius, or Eoang-Foo-Tzee, Zoroaster, Lao-Tzsu, Hermes Trismegistus, Moses, and Mahomet, all forbid lying in their moral codes. What code do you follow, any- how? Inoersoll—" John says that Christ, on the day of His resurrection, said to His disciples ; ' Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' The other disciples do not record this monstrous passage." Comment— The other disciples do not record this pas- sage, eh ? Matibuw was an apostle and a disciple was he not ? Well, Matthew says : " Verily, I say unto you, what- fwerer ^e shall bind on earth shall b^ ll^und io h^ven. MISSION OF THK AP0STLX8. 118 i and whatsoever ye shaU loose npon earth shaU be loosed thee the keys of the kingdom c2 heaven, and whatsoever -X vi 19 "^ **'' ^""* '^'^ ^ *^^d ^ he»vSn!!^ete! von *i?Jf l^r^^ *° P'?^? y^^i ignorant or dishonest, and ft?Jio?S i*^® y°''' ^^^^^^^ <>' position. You should not forget that you are not only sacrificing your ownSfr? Sft'I^Ji?"^'*"* "^ sacrificing anrhumbS^TlS dust, so far as one man can do it, the dimity of our SSentr"''"^^' ^^ ^"'^ ^^' ^^^' Sd WkleS^ d^^^'ru'^'r'l'^^^^- ^f^® AposUes) were not present h«^f pn^i'^J placed ,n thoir hands the keys of heavenwid hell, and put a world beneath the feet of priests." ww'w^''';~^^^^uy.°'l «*r' " They were not present when He placed m their hands the keys," etc., you intended to perpetrate one of those side-splitting jokJs whteh a?e ITli^ '^* ^T ^"^^f°^ ^° a roar.^Theideaof theiJ IS droU, when we come to think of it. But the snbiect 18 very serious, and tiie joke is out of plane. When we miustrels. fiutletus return. %n say that that com! mission which Christ gave to His A^stles to paXn sinners " puts a world beneath the feet^f prieste."^ bS2? wK^'*K P"^*'""»g criminals, which is reposed in the Ket 9 tS.i£T"?v:-PI'^ ^^ P^°P^« *>' *^i« State at ?w 5? ^ ^''^ ^'^ *^'^'°' * moment, and you will learn that there is more sound than sense in your observaS I iii 1 CHAPTER XIX. CONTRADIOTIONS—INOERSOLL'S METHOD OP ACCOUNTING FOR THEM— HOW TO BE SAVED— INGERSOLL's NEW PATENT. INGER80LL— "It is very easy to account for the differences and contradictions in these ' depositions • by saying that eaoh one told the story as he remembered I.LnL5\ ! -J^^M? »*• o'^^l^a* tlie accounts have been SLpif^ of add " " ^*^ "'** *^® witnesses were CoMMENT-It is easy to account by " saying."— Yes, this IS the way y*u account for almost everything. It IS easy indeed, but it has this disadvantage, it does nSt ac- v«S;\/°', «7«7thing- It has been X' misfortune ^f your tlieological career that you have placed too much reliance on '• saying " and too Uttle on proving. wil 1- * *»™«*o account for the contradictions of the Evangelists when those contradictions are made appar- ent. Thus far you have not made them visible. Hence your cunning method of accounting for them bv " savins " rJi^^^i^''^' ""called for, and entirely inconsistent wfth Christian principles. Christianity must be defended by !ffn A*i"®'^*f^^*T'?''* methods, or none. It cannot afford to be defended in the spirit in which you attack It. It must not use so|)histry. or cunning, or wit, or jokes. spSgCt;.'''*^^ •''^'^^ '""'"^ ^ ^^'^^ o"« -- COMMENT-The /act that there were four inspired Gospels written IS sufficient evidence that there was reason for four. God does not act without reason. But Sl/nfT^-'"*" •^^?^^ *^** y°° ^« "*>* understand what is meant by mspiration. An insfired history is not neces- S'JiL^ W'^'.^^torjr. The ipspiration has referent tf^^^^r!^uS::f ^^ *° "^*P"^^ ^"<«'' a°d not to what is While the four Gospels are inspired histories, they are Wt complete and fi5l narrations of aU the eVen^^a^ dOKTBADICtlONS. 117 TINO FOB WENT. b for the ositions ' embered ive been Bes were ;."— Yes, ling. It B not ac- rtane of x> much B of the 3 appar- Hence saying " mt with ided by i cannot I attack r jokes, sinks it one in- nspired re was 1. But what is neces- ference what is ley are 1^ 1^ . New TeStomont to S ™? ^^ other Mthorg of the fawrifaW it did a„r to^&i'^gl'^*" *?» ««, thing that could hn TinLiu\„ ^ ™ *® yinto every, whicli they twat^ TinLJai- ^'^ ^^^^^ ««*>i««* «' there would b^ no ieed for S.nr«7i, "'^*°* *^'« i**ter, ^aiMHbly a.ouf SSir;Sra?roJ £.t-^J{fin<*adictory. can or An&o-Saxon teSoT^J^r^^Tt'^^S f ^T facts and circumstances in «n«S f *°^^- J^ most state thoughts. T^do a3a r«iSir«a ™ »^»y M to meet their thinis -ust^L^'said^'JtT^Tot^^^e"^^^^^^ written for the American reader^ Thi= ,• "-^ history further illustration is unn^ar. v ^^ evident that into sacred histo^ '.Sd ^^Hm 8^7.*^ ^H* '^«» satisfactory reason for four insfcZinff * ^'^^'C'fnt and A Gospel bitten fo?thrjewsto^|'.„Tely ^^^ traditions prophecies, customs, and haWte of life !Sf' aU perfectly familiar to them. A Gosnel wr,?Ln ?' ^^'^ nseof the GentUes would havetoexSunmlnwv' ^% which those people were icnorant A L« "7 *i^«^ <*' arose as to certain pointe tS Wnri.t^*"' ,^ disputes devote more attentiorS t^e p^fnte^^^^^ done had the disputes not arisen tiS?;^ ^^^" V*ve were governed by^th^ coLfdSonl TheTw^f J^ different circumJtances and for Senfc SJ^*®°°^^I S!;'^:?!?" .H.°»?r-»«? .*« >™. who blue^^- dictions of their prophets had b^ iuSiS v.*5®P^- Mark wrote his GosDel for th« ?i«^??"P^*^®**- ^^ Borne.. His obj^r^to'^prolS S^^SirSTw^thl Sovereign Master of aU tWn^. and Ito tlwSStok d^o^ 118 NOtBS OK INOBBSOLt. almost all hia chapters to a recital of the works of Christ, which show His divine power. St. Luke wrote his Gospel more particularly for Theophilas, a pagan convert. Hia design was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Saviour of men, as the facts and circumstances of His life prove. For this purpose he makes known certain facts omitted by Matthew and Mark. St John wrote his Gospel to refute the heresies of the Corinthians, Ebionites, and Valentinians who attacked the divinitv of Christ and denied many of His acts and words which the other Evangelists had omitted. His primary object was to prove the divinity of Christ, and for this purpose he be- gins his Gospel with these sublime words : •' In the be- ginning was the TJTord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Evangelists then differ in their recitals according to the different circumstances in which tiiey wrote and the objects in view. Inoersoll — •• There can be only one true account of anything." Comment — There can be as many true accounts of an event as there are points of view to consider the event, or circumstances that surround it. You confound true with eonvplete or adequate. A history that does not give all the events and circumstances of a man's life, and their relations with others, is true history if its statements are true, although it may be incomplete, inadequate, and de- fective. The four Gospels are true histories, although none of them are complete, for none of them give all the events in the life of Christ— in fact, all of ^em taken together do not. They are all true, different, yet not con- tradictory. The truth of a history depends on what it says, not on what it does not say. When I say : '* Wash- ington was bom, lived, and died," I give a true account. It is not as full, complete and adequate as that of Irving or Sparks, but it is as true what there is of it. You may object that it is short, which I will not deny, but yon cannot say it is not true. You simply confound true with complete or adequate. A school-boy writing his first composition might be excused for an iranrooer nne nf adjectives, bat a philosopher should be more careful— or more honest. INGEB80LL— " That whioh is a test of truth as to ordi. nary witnesjses is a demonstration against their inspiration." *l* TUB WAT to fiE SAVBD. 119 Comment— The test of truth in the case of ordmary witnesses is the fact of their agreement. The fact that the Evangelists agree in the statements made by them 18 evidence of their truth, just as it is in the case of ordinary witnesses. Now, ho n the evidence of their ver- acity can be a demonstration against their inspiration is difficult to understand. You have said if they disagree they cannot be inspired, and you are right. But you are not satisfied ; you now try to prove that if they agree they. • »• cannot be inspired. Any remarks of mine on this reason- ing of yours would only draw the reader from a con- templation of its sublimity. So we will pass in silence to other points. Inoersoll— " My doctrine is that there is only one way to be saved, and that is to act in harmony with your surroundings— to live in accordance with the facts of your being." Comment— Then you have changed your "doctrine" considerably since you began your article. Your "doc- trine " in the first part of it was that there is no God, or at least that we cannot know whether there is or not ; that a future life was " invented " by Christians to give God a chance to rectify the mistakes of this. Your " doctrine " now is that there is one way at least, to be saved— it is " to act in harmony with your BuirouJidings." Well, your surroundings are certainly Christian. If yea lived among Mormons you should be a Mormon; if in Turkey you should have a harem and sit cross-legged like a tailor ; if among Thugs you should be a Thug ; if among assassins, an assassin ; if among thieves, a thief I This theory has the advantage of being in harmony with the " elastic cord of human feeling." But you explain. To live in harmony with your sur- roundings is to live—" in accordance with the facts of your being." Good. This is preci lely What Christianity demands of us. But what are the facts of our being? There's the rub. This question brings the whole con- troversy back to the startmg-point. It is time you should linnArRtll.nd tbnf. illlA whola nnaafinn VkAfmAnn «.nr. ^^A i.1.- Christian, as well as between the heathen, the pagan, the barbarian, and the Christian, is : What are the facta of our being * This question is the root or foundation of all the difference of opinion that ever existed in the world as to 120 K0TE8 ON INGERSOLL. »ot force himseU toThe iZ? / * f"''^*"*' ""^ "honld by his ignorant, g«„X„8to?k ?# r"*""". i-vestigation oothing of tbo mhi^? J . " ^e confessedly knows bento"! hTmri, « S^Tn o'Jtie'Thlgyr ' I' '» ^"^^ but there is notSTadmiSbfe I an """'^ "^^ ^*'^^*' gnorant .an trying to^^^^^ .^1/ aTSr *o^^S.i jKthfn,— ^**'*! «' °« being? dixMiing it intJ tHars S h * *1tvT .;"™«»« it aid ^-afcon after generation froSthhil'^rj?? *^^««"- to the year of our Lord i«ft4 o«5 •* •?, ®' ^^^ down spuntiltheangelof e^ni^vcSi*'"".^'^"'^"^ ^ do Vo^taires, FrerltsroSs^DMerS- T •**'■'*»" «' *i«^«- soils will appear fromS to HtSl' *'°^'' *?^ ^°g«- to survive tL'one, ^X hll ^^'SS^^'^^^^ CHAPTER XX. THE HONEST INFIDEL-THE UPRIGHT ATHEIST-LUNATIC * AND IDIOTS— JUDAS I8CARI0T— HOW ? TNGERSOLL-«'For the honest infidel, according to ± the American Evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven^ , CoMMENT-The cook-book says : The first step in Jook in« a hare is to catch it. I do iot believe any infidel wm !Zw'**.r''f ^°'.^"«*^°"««*y- I havenoLThorlty to speak for the American Evangelical pulpit, but I suppoM If It could be convinced of the " honesty " of an SeT Comment— The upright or downright atheist will ha doubt be treated as the upright rebel or traitor is TreatS by the government whose laws he defies, and whoj^ aT thonty he rejects. Christianity teaches that God^oves the honest man, that He wiU never punish" him forlls honest convictions ; it teaches also that God, who is in! finitely w:.se, knows the diflference between an honest man and a loquacious demagogue. Christianity teaches S honesty is an affair of the heart and conscience, and not a matter of word-spinning or gush. INGERSOLL-" Mr. Black admits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of hell." *uioiia arf^t^lTt^e'^iri:;^^^^^^^^ only^irarra^d'^rifoJ:^?^ ^*^' ^^^ «-^ «^^^^ CoMMENT-He has in His inscrutable ways created more than we poor finjt^ creatures can understand the rewJn for, and He permits them to play their antics before S heaven to an extent that can be explained onlv hv rif?. . eacti bO liiu iUQuiCu patience. " **' ~ "" INGERSOLL-" Why should the fatal gift of brain be given 181 122 KOTES ON INOERSOLt, ip bo^wT""A^*'^° "^^^ 8^^^" *° °»ao *o be used, not to bo abused. According to your theory no man should bo tZi^ tr''^'' ^^^^^i°« **^** ^«"^<5 render him iSble ^J^nJ^L^l A^' °' misfortune of any kind. Reflect for trrodwlw '•^T^'"^ *^^" leads. Yon should not b^ hint 1 **u *.P^«*o'' oi^ a 'azor, or a knife, for you miRht the others. A man should not be permitted to irarn hi.l'1^% *^e*"f! i* "^^«^« »»i«» «aWe to coSt for«e?v° ?^ „ff ?' should be cut off because they render him Ee You should n'TE^'^'S?^.*** *^^ co^sejuent punishment lou should not have the dangerous liberty of eatinc leafc JhonS'&V*V*?° ^"^^^^ "^"d !>« sick; Ld your &gue should be dumb, lest you might be liable to talk noSse or commit perjury. What would you think or say o°^S t ^f IverrfiT ^^ r '^We^*4r, He shouKpri^ ^n/titS ^r *^ '^** "*y u^ *b"««*^' °f everything that canshtutes us men-everything that makes life worth helZl^^'Z'i^,^ - '^^' - tb- -rid. if you can CoMMENT--Bettor be an idiot saved than a phUosonhor damned. But fortunately for men of common a veCo areextrerJ'r'^'^^ T'«^^ ^^^<>^ anTphSosJpK ffcv nf m!??i^7P*'®°°'^l°*^ *°^ exceptional. The major- INOEBSOLL-" A being of infinite wisdom has no right to create a person destined to everlasting pain." ^ Comment— Parsing the question of right, which is to no SaSK^ ^'^' J^^ ^fi'' *^** <*°^ «'«»ted Jy being to Eo damned? God created man to enjoy hapniness forevfir and no man will be damned but he wL damns Sm^5'' INOEB80LL--For nearly two thousand yearaXdas Iscariot has been execrated by mankind"; anJ yS, if the CoMMEOT-^udas is iustly execrated, because he was a ^An w?S?ff "^^ *7'^y h '*"«°^- His treasrhas noThing *^^^°. ^*Sl the doctrine of Atonement. Judas wrr a fr«5 bijrnit^^rt^eatrr^uX"^^^^^^ iNGBMoiA-" Suppose Judas had known of this plan- JUSTICE. 128 known that he was seleoted by Ohrist for tbat Tery pur- pose, that Christ was depending on him." CoMiCENT — Suppose that he was not selected for this very purpose; that Christ was not depending on him. Where did yon learn that Jndas was selected for this very purpose, or that Christ depended on him ? Inobrsoll — •• And suppose." Comment — No, sir ; we must suppose nothing. I want facts, and not suppositions or guesses. Ingbrsou. — " Are you willing to rely upon an argument that justifies the treachery of that wretch (Judas) ?" ^ ComAent — No, I am not, any more than I am rendy to rely upon your assertions. Judas was a bad man, but there are worse men Uving than he. He did not go lectur- ing about Judea, boasting of his crime, and ridiculing the Christ whom he had betrayed — ^he went and hanged him- self. I do not commend his desperate act, because suicide is murder, but the fellow showed some respect for the opinions of his fellow-men by ridding them of his destest- able presence. He loved money, but in this he was not alone. There were no lecture bureaus in those days, and he felt that his career was at an end. Had he known that others would come to continue his work he might hare been terrified, and perhaps repented, but not foreseeing this he only hanged nimself. iNOERSOiiL — " I insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of an innocent man could satisfy justice for the sins of the guilty." Comment— It would have been wiser to have insisted upon knowing the fact than upon knowing the how of it. There are many facts that you know and admit, and yet if you were asked the how of them yon could not answer. How do you think * How 4o yon apprehend a thought ? How do you know that you are, or that you are Ingersoll ? Would it be just to infer that you know nothing because you cannot explain ♦♦ how " you knowl This is precisely what you expect of your opponent. You ask, how can the sufiterings of the innocent satisfy for the sins of the guilty ? Your opponent replies by saying that the answer mvoives a queBtioB of metapbysics. He 25, in my opioion, wroQg in tnis, because he confounds the supernatural with the metaphysical. These terms are not synonyms. To answer your question he had no need to appeu to 194 NoVkS OM INGERSOLL. conflnSn h3" to th? <■ ?" '°„'"'««'» ■■. he "hould hwe "ottotheWof it We d„',;.?V„'i' PJ^'WWy »' ». Md tting; .„a the philo^phe °Vho wLlt^^H " »' "y- adequate answer is nofKin« kI** ^t " *°" expects an minatrel show r^^ f^ *^''®' ****^ a° end man in a boffiandJu;ntcork ^'"T "^ »««>ciated with tSn n.i?u'nTrr^5iS^^^^^^^^ most . disputes and often draC into^he Jvii*'^^^^^^^^ are , do duty under fSse a)C V« ^^H^'^^T ??^ ?*^« *<> consists mainly S liwS^ Tk ^"^ o^/efuting fallacies service. The only dfficSlJv^in^^ words from enforced answer based on somA on« «# Yu ^ should give an word, it might not bTthem^i*^® many meaningl'of the^ and hence my ^swer rSKi^ ^^'""^ you attach to it, your thought, or the diffii?JtvLT"^'- T"^^^ "*>* «»««* This shows with wW^tf^ *^ .*' ®?.'8*s »° yonr mind. «8e wordl * ^^** ^'^^ mtelligent men should ^r'^^\n^l^VZ^^^^ nsed Justice in abstract is a msr. .iS.' !• ? '1'® abstract ? of Its own. A MM lb»JZ?i.?^*"^'T' '"™? "O entity »o duties, no -ffin^'offn'ro^ »X°° °^'^'"'"'' Adam-, fau «.d ^stoT^V^*^' nK^^'^l'J.u'rSL""' "/ toeg,detonLrrS&V'Ut^\.*^' "" "« *» JUSTIOB. 125 Do yon mean justice in its theological sense ? In that sense it is a moral virtue or influence'tonstantly inclining the will of man to render to every one his own. This meaning can have no application to your question, Do you mean legal justice ? Legal justice is that which co-orders the parts or individuals of a community in refer- ence to the whole, and inclines the individual to render to the community what is necessary for the common good. Do you mean distributive justice? This directs the whole in reference to its parts— the community in its acfcion towards the individual. There remain commutative justice, which regulates the actions of the citizen to his fellow citizen, and vindicative justice, by which the superior visits punishment on the guilty. You see the word justice has many meanings. As you are a theolc^ian, philosopher, and lawyer, you should be able to say in what sense you use the word, and you must not imagire youk' opponent to be fool enough to commit himself to any answer till he knows T7hat you ask. The fallacy of your question consists in this : It sup- poses justice to be a thing existing independent of God and man, whereas it is an attribute, in dififerent degrees, of both God and man, and has no existence outside of them. But I am not done with your question yet. You ask : .How can the sufferings of the innocent satv• ■nff«rin«s of the innocent tatirfy for the nns of the gniltr ? The meS^Bufferino? S^i This J^?^°* '^ »«ot satitfy for the m« of The^ISuy of the gmjty, ijhioh i. quite another thin/ Yon cm Set a fine of five dollars fo? a loafer who hi committ^^JJ JJS °f J *"*5 ,'!'*»"« yo"* vicarious sufferinffs to ^e "^tSff J*, f^'^^i?*'"^'^' '^"i* **»« prndshment "h?J dS w? o^a il^. *t*' **** **?®"°«- I **»«»« by thl« time the roader eees that the question upon which you " inSstod " m^l l^if^'a^lx'^^'^ ."»^ cleane/of its wpWstry ^d iNOBasoLL— " To answer an arinunent. is it onlv »«««. '^Zt'^^ *^v** *V*^» * loetapfi^S^^iieBtio^^' ~~' ohS?S\'''''~^**' **"' * questioS, to deiSrve m answer should haye some sense in it. *«««»»» m answer. nr qDM* nnooent ga alone I guilty, toe sins Muipay tted aa in the to the do not reader meani ry and I when should qne8« i|When neoes- Eiawer, CHAPTER XXI. MULISH 8TUBB0RNWB8S VBRSUS RATIONAL OBEDIRMCK— STANUARD OV ItlOHT AND WRONG, WHAT la IT ? — MR. INQERSOLL'S FOOT-LIOHT DEriNITIONS W0BTHLKS8 — U MURDBB A OaiMB OB A VIRTUE ? INOERSOLL— ** The idea of non-resistanco never oo< curred to a man who had the power to protect him< self. This doctrine is the child of weakness, born when resistance waH impossible." Comment — This is one of your soft, indefinite gener* alities. Let us see what it means and what it is worth practically. Non-resistance to what ? Resistance or non-resistance has place only where there is aggression. Aggression ma^ \e just or unjust, and the lawfulness of resistance to it depends on this distinction. Aggression is any infringement whatever on your natural rights. Your natural rights are necessarily limited or infringed on by society. The individual must yield to society many of his natural rights for the common good. Without this, society Would be impossible. Society is necessary for human life, for man is a social being, and cannot live out of society. Therefore the aggression which society makes on the natural rights of the individual is just, and therefore the individual yields them up, not because he must, but because he ought to. It is a question of duti/. Now society aggresses on your natural rights for the common good. You yield because yon consider the benefit you derive from living in society a fair set-off to the rights which vou give up. You do not resist, because common sense tells you you would be wrong if you did. Then the idea of non-resistance must have occurred to you, otherwise you would not consent to the arrangement. Again. Society, to exist, must have government, which costs money. To meet the expenses the tax collector ag- gresses on you. You feel that the demand is just, and yoa vieid and pay, not because you kaow you can be made to pay, but because you know you ought to — ^here a^aiii the idea of non-resiatance. m 128 NOTES ON INOERSOLL. The idea of non-resistance occnrs to every honest man vrho lives in society, and who believes in his duty to obey the laws and support his government. Woe to that government whose citizens obey only because they must, or because they cannot protect themselves agaiust the power that enforces law. Such citizens cannot be trusted m timtf of danger. They are latent rebels, every one of them. Resistance to the just requirements of law is sin- ful, and non-resistance a duty. Hence the idea of it should and does occur to every honest, loyal citizen. You will say that you meant non-resistance to unjust power or tyranny. Probably you did. But you did not say it, and a man of your power of talk is expected to say what he means. Ingersoll— -" I do not believe in the doctrine of non- resistance." Comment— Ntk-resistance to what ? As you reject the doctrine of non-resistance without limitation, it follows that you hold the opposite doctrine without limitation, which is that you believe in resistance to everything. But you are not original in this. The world is familiar with men of this kind, and has provided for them as comfortably as circumstances will permit. Ingersoll— •' IVTr. Black insists that without belief in God there can be no perception of right and wrong and that it is impossible for an atheist to have a con'^ science." Comment— Mr. Black makes no such statement— in- sists on neither of the things which you attribute to him. Why this persistent misrepresentation? To give the reader an idea of your sense of «' honor bright," and your method of meeting an opponent, I will here quote Mr. Black's words on this point. He says : " Here let me call attention to the difficulty of reasoning about justice with a man who has no acknowledged standard of right and wrong. What is justice ? That which accords with law ; and the supreme law is the will of God. But I am dealing with an adversary who does not admit that there is a God ; then for him there ig^ no standard at all ; one thing is as right as^nother, and all things are equally wrong. With- out a soTereign tuier there is no law, and where there is no law there can be no transgression. It is the misfortune of the atheistic theory that it makes the moral world aq 3nest man ity to obey ) to that 5hey must, taAast the be trusted ry one of law is sin- dea of it Ken. to unjust Qu did not ted to say le of non- reject the it follows imitation, ing. But iliar with mfortably belief in d wrong e a con- dent — in- to him. Sive the md your note Mr. 3 let me t justice •ight and ith law ; 1 dealing isaOod; ng is as . With- there is isfortune 7orld an fBS STAHDABir OT BJOHT AMD WBOMO. 1S9 aaarohjr, it fefom all ethiool qneBtfons to ^at oobfaBed tribnnal where chaos aits as mnpire. wd ' by decision more embroUa the frw.' Bat Uirongh the whole of this (Ingwaoll's) p^;Mt t&ere runs a rem of piesomptaons Motism which says as plainly as words can speak n that the aatiior holdii km$e{f to be the ultimate Judge of all good and evil ; what he approves is righi, tad what he dis- likes is certainhr wron£. Of comrse I concede nothing to a daim like tbat"--^'tfrf& Anuriotm Beview for Augtut. ISBl, pa^t IBS. ' T Iliis IS the only paragraph in your opponent's artlole referring to this sabjeot. Where does he msist that with- ■ oat a belief in 0od there can bo no perception of right and wtoiDft—no niflitition of consdeiice in the whole paragraph. He says that you, denyfoa Ood, have no ttandard of right and wrong. Now it ooes not require moch brains or education to distinguish between a perception of right and a standard of rfght. A perception ci right is as different from tiie standud of right as tiie perception of length is from a yardstick, by which Imigth is mearaxed. Your next statement illustrates this. iNttSBsour- -** Mr. Black, the Christian, the believer in Qod, upholds wars of eztonnination. I dieaionnce such wars as murders.** Comain— Now how is this difference of opini(m be-^ tween yon and Mr. Black to be determined ? Your oon- science tells yon that such wars are murders; his con- sdeQce tells hhn the contrary. Whose conscience teaches the iAfgti ? His opinion of right and wrong is evidently different frem yours. Which of yon is rieht ? And how isittobd4«tormine$f He will not yield hia Judgment to yours : yott will not yield yours to his. What is to be done ? Will yod appeal to reason ? But his reason and yours have already drawn their conolusicMis, and they are oppc»ed to each other. WiU you appeal to force ? Then might makes right. Then slavery is ri|[ht as long as it can be eui^orbed : and polygamy is right m Turkey and in Utah, since it preiriliB in those places, and that which pre- tyj^ha8.fQr tofttimaat leaat,the superior force behind ii Do y— ** And evervtbiss is ynana tihtat isdreases the sum of human misery." " "' OoHMBNT— Certainly. But who is to determine whidli of ill and e?ery act ol his inaceaset the aom of human ttandard or THB 8TAin>Aia> 0» RIGHT AMD WBONQ. 181 ak iDdfeaBea misery f Yonr definition of wrong ii as Taeae and onaatia. factory as your definition of right; ""•B'WMaunaaBa. tooBBsoLt— •• What is cousoienoe ?•♦ 2S? JS^^®°* ***** y'*" ^® "»* J™ow what it is. iSid I SSiSSf **"rl?^ y^" • ^^^^^ «»titude ofe^ w the one which does so. Now.no man can know this- and hence, «>cording to your criterion, no man^ know thenatureof any given act. Your standard tiie^affoSI ^mi P««*»«a fnfpmation as to the nature of any act which he may be called upon to Derfflrm. ItimtA^^t^ ussuciy worthiess. ~ ~ " ' — '-■ «^-«» nbe ^ mm^tnjcam, the dillloDl^»till nmSoa. ff i r r i.i 183 Nom cm woBBsraiL. iNdiBsoLL— " If consaqnenoes are good, so lathe action.*' Ogmmeht — According to this diotam, yoa oannot sav a cold-blooded niarder or aa asgassinatidn ia good or bad nntil yoa hat^ leimed the oomeqaences of itl The con- ■e^aenoea^ef Garfield's taldng your death oannot be known, it follows that you£ muMor %2ight be a good or bad act I This is the rebuH or c>fase(iaen<» of your philosophy. From a Ohris- ti&n ^idhit of view it is a very bad o(mseqaeQoe» and there- fore, n there is any virtue in ktfio. your philosophy is ba& The Gbrfstiaa holds not only t£«t murder is a crima, but tiiat evon the intention, determination, or iimaetnated re- solve jle a orims, deserving of hell. It is tbos that the Christian retigioc strikes at the very root of this murder- c«as propensity in man, and kills the dragon before he Issues from hn Innermost den in the human heart. The dootHne that acts take their nature and quality from their x^ETilts is m logical and necessary oonsequuioe of the denial of Ood. It destooys individiMl resioonsibility and is dubversive of all government and social order. It denim all appeal to ri^t, and destroys not only jtutioe^ but the very idea of it. It contemplates uothu^ but re* BoltB^i^ysioalr cognisable xesults. ^'»l< OHAMEBXXa BOLL'S PLAU8IBL. Zs^S^mtZ^lJ: "«• «'<'«»- —A CHALLBNQK TO TBS OUB iiJ^*"^*^"* "* ^ 'OOUS INOBB80LL SCHOOL. ''"''* ^WirKTS OW THB 0«^t^#h- K^ "r'&? -"-anences. they not actions th^^to^^f «o? bl ti^^ « 'I •?«<«« we« actors. Yon can no^w ^m!l ***^^ "« fr«n their «qaence than yoa Si?*S? ^5Sh«n"f ^^^^ '^"»°"* » «» the conwqnenoes of aote are sTm^^Jh*" !2^';: '» '»«*» continued under new Itomf Bnf ?,S® ~^ themselves consequences, it doeanoSwiwM^ every act has takes Its quaUty from tho8?oJS^n«Il5»^« «««»» *»»at it Inokbsoll— •« Man di«l^«»4i^??***'®*' "eqnonoes of ac^ Swn Oof hn*"#i"**'''«^ o' con. teaaoa:' «*« «om «od, but from expSienoe and Bi[tb^;e^l^ &2isf?t i^'^^.J^'^''^^^ of get It fromeSperienceand «,S^!f'*"**r* **»* he did not held that maTae^i^V^V »n^ no Christian ever all acts from qT oS C^A ^J con».qnences of physicdl acts is limited to a Wl!2^**' ^°^<« «ven of are two orders of acS/physi^fa^^^T !?'°*«' ^^ *here are two orders of waaH S! •?^ »ntellectual, so there moral. Man cSinot SlT £ n?&?^ ^"lintell^stni, or purely physical act! Cast a JSSS T^\^*^^^ simples? what are the consequeniL ? w if '"***, **»® ocean, and of gravitation w) tw2 s^^J JL^^ f^^^^ Newton's law time it wiU chan«nhe3»f.^-^^x.*^'* ^« ^"^ that in «"s» *5 wiii ohanse thA naU»^_ V*" '?*"°«' i?«ot onlv which t«osiii„ d;^^J^~ •« »h. mooS i 184 MOTES ON nfOEBSOLL* tinne as long as matter and its law last, for the arrange* ment of the molecnles of matter will never again be the same as they wonld have been if that pebble had not been cast. This is « mere general oatline of the limit- less results of that act. Now, who can tell or know, but Ood, these resalts in detail ? The resalts ^ «noral or hnman acts are still more diffi- cnlt to know, for a homau act, that is an intellectual act, has its ooontless effects in the intellectual world in time and eternity. A false principle taught to a child will grow with it and spread from it to others, and from these others to yet ethers, and thns on throngh the ages, uid when time oeases it will continue into eternity and aJffect heaven and helL. Thus this one act of Sr false teacher changes the current and harmony of the world. This is a l^neral. outline; bnt who can tell us the nature of each individual result— of each Unk in the endless chain ? To know all these oonseqnenoes by experience we must ac- tually experience them; we most not only experience them individually and in detail, bnt we must also experi- enoe their united and combined result. This is a task be- yond the power of the human race combined. Hence to talk of learning results by experience is to babble nonsense like an infant. That man did not get aU his knowledge of the consequences of physical acts from God direotiy we admit, with astonishment that a man of your calibre should deem it necessary to state it. We must, however, assert that man cannot associate facts with prior facts, in the relation of cause and effect, without an intuition or primary revelation of that relation between two events which is called cause and effect. In other words, the human mind could never associate two events in the re- lation to each other of causb s,isd. effect unless the idea of this relationship had been revealed by God in some man- ner. As the fashion of denying everything is so popular we may as well join in the rout and deny that there is any such relation as cause and effect, or cause aud consequence. And as long as yon deny the existence of the first cause we must deny in toto that sequence of events known as Cftuse 3uit*x enscv. i.i!sa uusu jroc provv imaii tiQere sn^ such things as causes and ^eots, the standard of mocalitT whioh you dednoe from them is but the basotoss fabrio of a cueam. Denial, yon wiU observe, is a two-edged 'Ul SXPEftlBMOB MO BVAMDABD. 105 calibre jword. You seem to have taken it Into onrliead that Chnstians admit anything and everything that brings grist to your infidel miU, andlSat anything yo5 " admitTaSds no further proof. In this you are mistaken. The Chris- tian nants you nothmg— absolutely nothing. And unless you admit a Jirst cause, God, he denies the existence of all causes whatsoever, and therefore of aU eflfects. If von deny God vou deprive yourself of the right to base a standard of morals on causes and effects, because without God, the first cause, thoy are inconceivable. lN0EE80LL--«If man by actt I experience discovered^' the right and wrong of actions, .a it not utterly illogical to declare that they who do not believe in God can have no standard of right or wrong ? " CoMMENT-As man cannot by actual experience dis- cover the nght and wrong of actions, it folfows that he must learn It m some other way, and as there is no other way left but to learn it from God, it is most logical to de- Clare that thejr who do not beUeve m God cannot have the true standard of right and wrong. Man cannot learn the right and wrong of actions by experience, for aU human experience is necessarUy incomplete, and aU knowledge derived from mcomplete experience must be incom. plete also. Hence a standard of right and wrong that IS derived from incomplete experience must necessarily be incomplete, imperfect, defective— in a Tvord, worthless' We may learn some things from the experience of the past, but if you deny divine teaching how can you know that the experience of the futurr niay not cause us to re- ject all those things which you imagine the experience of the past has taught us ? How do you know but that the experience of the future may demonstrate that polygamv and slavery and wars are nght, because in the long run they may prove beneficial to society ? How can yS as- sert, with any show of consisteney, that these are wronff. th°m 9^^^®"®"** **** °®* *^ y®* "Po^en ^ h»t words about Tnoersoli^" Consequences are the standard by whteh actions are judged." ' "««*« CoMMENT-^Then sin<^ the consequences of acts oannol k! .l!E ?"f;i*i;?*?*'S ^''^o* ^ known. Philosophew heretofore held that efiFects took their nature from the? cause, and not the oause from the effects. They ooiild I 186 ttOTBS 611 IKOBBSOLL. 'B t not see how that which w could take its nature from that which w notf or how aft effect could be the canse of its own oan8e*8 nature. They were keen-sighted enongh to see that this involved the dogma of Lord Dondreary, that the tail wags the dog. Inobusoll— "God or no God, larceny is an enemy of udostry." ' Comment— To sa^ an act is a larceny is to determine Its nature— its quahtjr. You have said that the qtkality of an action is determined by its consequences. How then can you assert that any given act m a larceny tiU its con- sequences are known? To assert larceny you most assert it of particular acts, for larceny in the al»btrat t is simply nothing, and can have none bat abstract con- sequences^ which are no consequences at all, and there- fore cannot be an enemy of industry, unless it be industry m the abstract, which again is no industry at all. Lar- ceny, to injure industry, must be larceny m act and prao- face— the act of A., B. or 0. Bnt how can yon assert that the act of A., B. or 0. is evil or larcenous till its oonse- qnences are known ? for, according to your philosophy, the nature of the act of A., B. or 0. can be known and judged only by its consequences. LiOBBSOLL— " Indusb^ is the mother of prosperity." CoMMBNT— Industry, aside from industrious acts, is an abstraction, having no more reality than larceny aside from a larcenous act. Indiistry, to exist, must exist as the acts of A., B. or C. Bnt here you are again met by your philosophy that " consequences determine the quality of actions, ' and you cannot assert that the actions of A., B. or 0. are industrious or idle till you know the con. sequences. . iNOEBSOiiL— "Prosperity is good." Comment— Accordmg to your standard prosperity is good only when its consequences are good. But the philo- sophy of history teaches that prosperity leads to the downfall of nations as well as of individuals. What did prosperity do for Egypt, Greece, and Rome ? It made the people luxurious, voluptuous and imbecile, and buried tge mpn^anents of hardier ages in mjns. It was the m«t>a toaii £bd Hauuibal, Alesander and uaesar to untimely grave8,«nd Napoleon to Moscow and Waterloo. Pros- perilgr lead^ to decay, national, individual, hxteUeotual, .''T^..- fXJLITBtBUi ttOtfSKNSX. m ■• d^ifSif^lf'^' When prosperity is at its seniih. iTkS. « * *^® door I whea th^ tre« is in fnU bloom there ?J^!Li ^ '**®P ^ ^^ ^^ *»* 7^°^ J«rf- Prosperity S!L!^ consequences ; and if. as'you say, oonwo^S detennine the qnahty of actions, tow caS'pro^ri^b! »»iS!2; ^^*^^^^7* wide from those who prosper, is an abstraction, noteg. and therefore the gocS ySu assert of It IS equaUy an abstraction, a delnsion ind a snareT^ INOKBSOLL-." God or no God, murder is a crime!^ OoMMKNT-It is a bad thing for one to foraet one'a^' L'l^S.fn^'iSP^^- rJ^°.^^? '^ *»^** "conaequSces de^ tTfiJ"!"^ ^^*^< **^ actions." How then^ you as- aert that murder is a crime until you know the conse- quences of it f Murder in the abstrwt is at b^t SSlTi ^ ^'^^2^?'^J^ the act of A., B. or C. Buthow clmwS assert that the act of. A.. B. or 0. is murder w a^T^ SSi?S^**^S?~^^"«"*^^ According to thrnow standard of nght and wrong set up by votu I have tiie same right to asserii that muJder is a 4tue s* ySJ havl to asserti it is a crime, until aU the consequences 5 the sS! must determine che nature of the act. "-^^uwiweB ^«B8oix-« There has always been • law against CoMMKNT-Yes, but the law is unjust if larceny be a wtue. And you cannot asserii it is not, as long as iu the consequences of the larceny are not knowntlince they are, aocordmg to you, the standard by which the act is to be judged. If there is no God the "law against Wny fcaf^r*^2L^^^ obligations, for if^ade b/ mSJ whThid Jot. ^ ^"^"^ ^^"^ *^' ftgainst^those But those who have not axe in the majority in the world. r^nSff^trS ^"'^^ no right to impose^laws on SS majority. » there is no God, the reaTthieves are those who have and hold the goods of this world from the neat majon^ who have not This is in fact the docteS^ , prorfiet of infidelity. Ian it down as a maximtibi rk robbery.^ The^erenpe between yoa 23 is this: hedemea God and carries that d«2iS I8d iroTM OH nroBiMottit i S hL^^^ «m>|»queiM»a, whUe yon, without an a'otrt Ja right ; hnt God or no God, yon are wronir. """""" I. S""">™— Conyictod nraideron objeot to beins killed • ina^;'tf^*™^.°.?P'y- T*»« *» *»>e consequence of t°y. ing to xeason without a standard of truth and morality sSSdT^^oteaS™!^^^^^^^ - CoMMBNT^You ought to be ashamed to misrenreHAnf SJiS?«TSv ^ jftegonist. Mr. Black iSve? SXHSr SSoSni »^i, ^*'^- 1.?^ complained of the difficulty ?tenSS^«rf i^hi ^nS ^± ^°^ St° *^»? "« acknowledge uJ^^^^^^lii^ possible that only those who be. iievemtheGod who persecuted for opinion's sake hftv« any standard of right and wrong ?" ^ ^^""^ •w***^VP"i*y ^^ whofcelieve in the true God ZIo °? L®" /**?®Jy '"^"^o of persecuting, can have the ■ conscience and his acta. MiSi^U^' *1?»^° worthless ones; b^^ afflwUty d knowing where to find yon. ifa. iSa^ ftAmnjJt K0M8KN81. 189 i an a'oni asert the Proadhon ig killed, ig killed ; m ? But Des above nrhioh ao> > objection f murder I us to be- th, since se of try- tnorality. nan who Bdges no present that, nor in infer- lifSoulty mledged tint was ir to him I contra- who be* ke have ne Ood, the trus > not be* rom the is, such the ex- len Mr. > rubber tne and lisaeto, Dce the tta<^ complaint la t lat you hare no standard that holds yon. ?L „fi. PT*l^*"i 7^"* '~°* *^*^"« "^« **»« "*«« joker ii the game of thimble— now you see it, and now you don't. INQERSOLL-H Were the greatest men of aU antiqiSty without ♦his standard ?" •u.Mjim.y CoMMBNT-Whioh standard? Do you refer to the tnu standard, or to some standard? These great men had a standard-the will of the gods. They thus reco,,nuzed a u^i^"i!~''^°*»*'"*^ 5 namely, that the standard of morals should be B mil superior to the human will. They erred in iooating this superior or supreme wiU, buUhey recog- nized Its necessity tometchere. In doing this these great men paid a magnificent tribute to the tme God aud to humaa reason. These men whosf^ genius the world honors St?«^^^ ^"^^ and failed only to identify Him, or under- stand His nature. They honored the tme God when by mistake they accepted a false one, as you would honor a genuine United States bon i by accepting a counterfeit through ignorance. Th jy had then a standard of right and wrong, and althouffh it was not the true one, yet they were consistent and held themselves amenable to it in their lives and m their logic. Their philosophy and theology begun where yours end. It is your misfortune : 1 ?&."5^^' studied them profoundly, as they deserve to be studied, for they were giants, these men of old. lN0BRS0LL--"In the eyes of the intelligent men of Grepoe and Home, were all deeds, whether good or evU. morally alike ?" ^ ' CoMM|NT-No, sir. As we have seen, they had a standard-the will of the gods-and therefore all deeds r^/ w°*' lu ^^^" eyes, morally alike. Their standard, not being the true one, did not enable them to correctly distinguish the right from the wrong, but it taught them that there was a right and a wrong. In this their stand- ard was superior to any you have advanced; for your denial of God destroys all diflference betw«;n right and wrong, and leaves the words crime and virtue without ameanmg. These men of Greece and Rome were not so naupiu »3 w sjeii«»5 j^oui uieOrv that consequences deter- -Sf-wi® °*i"" of actions. They never stole the truths, teantiea and magdfioeBt reanlta of the Christian reli^ udtnedtomaktt belieye they were the fruits of p4i^ uo MoYu oy nrasBsoxx* Ism, M modern infidels try to make it aoDAAr fthnfc ♦».««« f»'S."'"5i "^""i' ! dilferenoe between rightjnd^;' £irJ!'Sey delS^Sf^' "• " "^^ >""> <^^: »■ U^n* »/1f r"^" ? " P<»»iM« that a being ounot be icrt V'^!:^i^^^^ wbJtin.tic'S'viJssii: not cynt«n the'doo^r yA^^uVoTp^lT^J^ ricuonlons. God is jast brmnu he is Jutiiee , an.1 iWi™ SS^Hta^hf •°'*'°?.!l°^ ,""" because He is^ani^r e^iJt^ ^'^ indicate bete Christian princiolc. ■ tf ni^yi^X'^^rf^''^ believe in so™ befe, M. that ihoM nd ezperi* Rome had d of lying. exJBtenoa r Btftndard Igence, or no right, sen them. no stand* standard > say that id wrong, the con- 9t be jest infinitely on very for every r to him- l>oing to irtae are ^n God mpposes worthy osopher er does luestion simply justice d with- aything Im ; to is with which )8iirate ig ifi. WMTi AND ofmrm. 141 iKOEMou^.. If there fa » Ood, taLto ta^^ ^^ OonnNT— It is no pleasant task i£% »«&•<%« «.j*u i^lnli^iL* g«» •b«»*»o«on~a nonentity TwJ w.?***^*"^^* "■ oonilne oorselves to this t i i* i. tte only one yoo professedly know anythS^ about Y^! have nren a standi of right and wrJng to wS I iSS actions/' As long as you hold yourself iSnnd ht thif ttandajd, your td£ about virtiue aid or^,e iTZni^S ^pocrisy ; for. until the conwquences uf l^ ^ ffi^ there is no differanoe whateve? between ^toe^d ^J!2' iMGBMOix^MIhave insisted, a .d ttill tosiBt^aJTS; STte^KSie^? "^ ^ ^--^* '^ ^ ' ^-'4i!J OoHminv-A little more reason and a little lam ««o«. SS^K? J/"* "-£P"^i' however and nS OhrisS ^e? thought of asserting the contrary. Finite man in »« more experi«ioe infinite suffering tJan he ^n SpSn^ mfimte happiness, for between 5ie finite Md tS^X^^S there can be no equation, We have had o««Jw *™»*? your attention to tiiis latent f^rbSore^^^^i**" doubt, be astoniafafid *« Cm tw\^ui?t__ *^. ^. no vigorously is asserted with equal ^ii^^w'/Sbrfl*^'' "w.** sophy. ftyouhad.puSSSZaM^^toPSSSi ■tatement. You are arguing against everS^ pjffi 143 M0TK8 ON UrOBSMUiL. Fr ment ; and yoa bagin by stating a self-evident propositinn. This being admitted, you proceed to joggle in another»and Tory different idea. Here is year argument in short: Finite man oannot suffer infinite pnnii^ent ; therefore he cannot snffor enerhuting punishmont. Why do yon oon- found these terms ? Was it through ignorance or design ? I| through ignorance, you are to be pitied ; if through de- sign, you are not honest. Iniinite and eyerUstinff are not convertible terms. Man cannot, because he is finite, suffer vnfinite punishment ; but it does not follow, as you seem to think, that he cannot suffer everlasflng punishment. With this distinction your whole argument on this point collapses like a punctured balloon. Happiness and misery are limited by the capacity of the receiver; a, finite zeceiver cannot receive uifinite happiness or punishment, but an everlatting receiver can receive evertaating happiness or misery. Man is everlasting, and therefore ot^pable of ever- lasting happmess or punishment ; and aU your *• insisting " to the contrary is of no consequence. Inoebsoll — ** Of the supernatural we have no ooncoD- tion." *^ OoMMSNT— U yon have no conc^tion of it, how can yon affirm or deny anvthing about it ? To admit that you have no conception <» the supematun^ after having talked abont it through thirty-five p^es of the North Ameriean Review IB to advertise yourself a thouffhtlees gabbler. A moment's reflection should show you that it is ab$olutely iwpoaeibU to think or say anything whatever-— even non- 8ense---abont that of which yon have no conception. That of which we have no bonoeptoon is to us tiiat which is not, and that which is not, is not, and caniurt be, the object of human thought at fnteUigMico. It is not sunurising then, under the circumstances, that you have saiomany curious and wonderful tlvings in your reply to Mr. Black. iNOBBSoxxr— •' Mr. Black takw the ground that if a man believes in the creation of the universe * * he has no right to deny anything." OoMMENT— This is mere trifling, and shows what an in- fidel philosopher is capable of when put to ti^ stretch. There is not a word of truth in what yon say, and vou knew yon, in utter disr^gazd of ii» obUeatioiM of veradty, achate to him. A VALSIITKB. 148 the Pagin u^^m"*™*""' •''™»»»ed the teaUty ot aU when we C dSwd wSho