                         24 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

                       UNPUBLISHED REPLIES

          Contents of this file                            page

     REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.                              1
     A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.                          12

                          ****     ****

          This file, its printout, or copies of either
          are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.

          Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201

                The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

                          ****    ****

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

                              1890
                            ________

     This unfinished article was written as a reply to the Rev.
Lyman Abbott's article entitled, "Flaws in Ingersollism," which was
printed in the April 1890 number of the North American Review.
                            ________ 

     In your Open Letter to me, published in this Review, you
attack what you supposed to be my position, and ask several
questions to which you demand answers; but in the same letter, you
state that you wish no controversy with me. Is it possible that you
wrote the letter to prevent a controversy? Do you attack only those
with whom you wish to live in peace, and do you ask questions,
coupled with a request that they remain unanswered?

     In addition to this, you have taken pains to publish in your
own paper, that it was no part of your design in the article in the
North American Review, to point out errors in my statements, and
that this design was distinctly disavowed in the opening paragraph
of your article. You further say, that your simple object was to
answer the question "What is Christianity?" May I be permitted to
ask why you addressed the letter to me, and why do you now pretend
that, although you did address a letter to me, I was not in your
mind, and that you had no intention of pointing out any flaws in my
doctrines or theories? Can you afford to occupy this position?

     You also stated in your own paper, The Christian Union, that
the title of your article had been changed by the editor of the
Review, without your knowledge or consent; leaving it to be
inferred that the title given to the article by you was perfectly
consistent with your statement, that it was no part or your design
in the article in the North American Review, to point out errors in
my (Ingersoll's) statements; and that your simple object was to
answer the question, What is Christianity? And yet, the title which
you gave your own article was as follows: "To Robert G. Ingersoll:
A Reply."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     First. We are told that only twelve crimes were punished by
death: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, fraudulent prophesying,
Sabbath-breaking, rebellion against parents, resistance to judicial
officers, murder, homicide by negligence, adultery, incestuous
marriages, and kidnapping. We are then told that as late as the
year 1600 there were 263 crimes capital in England.

     Does not the world know that all the crimes or offenses
punishable by death in England could be divided in the same way?
For instance, treason. This covered a multitude of offenses, all
punishable by death. Larceny covered another multitude. Perjury --
trespass, covered many others. There might still be made a smaller
division, and one who had made up his mind to define the Criminal
Code of England might have said that there was only one offence
punishable by death -- wrong-doing.

     The facts with regard to the Criminal Code of england are,
that up to the reign of George I. there were 167 offenses
punishable by death. Between the accession of George I. and
termination of the reign of George III., there were added 56 new
crimes to which capital punishment was attached. So that when
George IV. became king, there were 223 offenses capital in England.

     John Bright, commenting upon this subject, says:

     "During all these years, so far as this question goes, our
Government was becoming more cruel and more barbarous, and we do
not find, and have not found, that in the great Church of England,
with its fifteen or twenty thousand ministers, and with its more
than score of Bishops in the House of Lords, there ever was a voice
raised, or an organization formed, in favor of a more merciful
code, or in condemnation of the enormous cruelties which our law
was continually inflicting. Was not Voltaire justified in saying
that the English were the only people who murdered by law?"

     As a matter of fact, taking into consideration the situation
of the people, the number of subjects covered by law, there were
far more offenses capital in the days of Moses, than in the reign
of George IV. Is it possible that a minister, a theologian of the
nineteenth century, imagines that he has substantiated the divine
origin of the Old Testament by endeavoring to show that the
government of God was not quite as bad as that of England?

     Mr. Abbott also informs us that the reason Moses killed so
many was, that banishment from the camp during the wandering in the
Wilderness was a punishment worse than death. If so, the poor
wretches should at least have been given their choice. Few, in my
judgment, would have chosen death, because the history shows that
a large majority were continually clamoring to be led back to
Egypt. It required all the cunning and power of God to keep the
fugitives from returning in a body. Many were killed by Jehovah,
simply because they wished to leave the camp -- because they longed
passionately for banishment, and thought with joy of the flesh-pots
of Egypt, preferring the slavery of Pharaoh to the liberty of
Jehovah. The memory of leeks and onions was enough to set their
faces toward the Nile.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     Second. I am charged with saying that the Christian
missionaries say to the heathen: "You must examine your religion --
and not only so, but you must reject it; and unless you do reject
it, and in addition to such rejection, adopt ours, you will be
eternally damned." Mr, Abbott denies the truth of this statement.

     Let me ask him, If the religion of Jesus Christ is preached
clearly and distinctly to a heathen, and the heathen understands
it, and rejects it deliberately, unequivocally and finally, can he
be saved?

     This question is capable of a direct answer. The reverend
gentleman now admits that an acceptance of Christianity is not
essential to salvation. If the acceptance of Christianity is not
essential to the salvation of the heathen who has heard
Christianity preached -- knows what its claims are, and the
evidences that support those claims, is the acceptance of
Christianity essential to the salvation of an adult intelligent
citizen of the United States? Will the reverend gentleman tell us,
and without circumlocution, whether the acceptance of Christianity
is necessary to the salvation of anybody? If he says that it is,
then he admits that I was right in my statement concerning what is
said to the heathen. If he says that it is not, then I ask him,
What do you do with the following passages of Scripture:

     "There is none other name given under heaven or among men
whereby we must be saved."

     "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature, and whosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;
and whosoever believeth not shall be damned"?

     I am delighted to know that millions of Pagans will be found
to have entered into eternal life without any knowledge of Christ
or his religion.

     Another question naturally arises: If a heathen can hear and
reject the Gospel, and yet be saved, what will become of the
heathen who never heard of the Gospel? Are they all to be saved? If
all who never heard are to be saved, is it not dangerous to 
hear? -- Is it not cruel to preach? Why not stop preaching and let
the entire world become heathen, so that after this, no soul may be
lost?

     Third. You say that I desire to deprive mankind of their faith
in God, in Christ and in the Bible. I do not, and have not,
endeavored to destroy the faith of any man in a good, in a just, in
a merciful God, or in a reasonable, natural, human Christ, or in
any truth that the Bible may contain. I have endeavored -- and with
some degree of success -- to destroy the faith of man in the
Jehovah of the Jews, and in the idea that Christ was in fact the
God of this universe. I have also endeavored to show that there are
many things in the Bible ignorant and cruel -- that the book was
produced by barbarians and by savages, and that its influence on
the world has been bad.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     And I do believe that life and property will be safer, that
liberty will be surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be
more joyous, and death less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah
can be destroyed from the human mind.

     It seems to me that the heart of the Christian ought to burst
into an efflorescence of joy when he becomes satisfied that the
Bible is only the work of man; that there is no such place as
perdition -- that there are no eternal flames -- that men's souls
are not to suffer everlasting pain -- that it is all insanity and
ignorance and fear and horror. I should think that every good and
tender soul would be delighted to know that there is no Christ who
can say to any human being -- to any father, mother, or child --
"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and
his angels." I do believe that he will be far happier when the
Psalms of David are sung no more, and that he will be far better
when no one could sing the 109th Psalm without shuddering and
horror. These Psalms for the most part breathe the spirit of
hatred, of revenge, and of everything fiendish in the human heart.
There are some good lines, some lofty aspirations -- these should
be preserved; and to the extent that they do give voice to the
higher and holier emotions, they should be preserved.

     So I believe the world will be happier when the life of
Christ, as it is written now in the New Testament, is no longer
believed.

     Some of the Ten Commandments will fall into oblivion, and the
world will be far happier when they do. Most of these commandments
are universal. They were not discovered by Jehovah -- they were not
original with him. "Thou shalt not kill," is as old as life. And
for this reason a large majority of people in all countries have
objected to being murdered. "Thou shalt not steal," is as old as
industry. There never has been a human being who was willing to
work through the sun and rain and heat of summer, simply for the
purpose that some one who had lived in idleness might steal the
result of his labor. Consequently, in all countries where it has
been necessary to work, larceny has been a crime. "Thou shalt not
lie,' is as old as speech. Men have desired, as a rule, to know the
truth; and truth goes with courage and candor. "Thou shalt not
commit adultery," is as old as love. "Honor thy father and thy
mother," is as old as the family relation.

     All these commandments were known among all peoples thousands
and thousands of years before Moses was born. The new one, "Thou
shalt worship no other Gods but me," is a bad commandment --
because that God was not worthy of worship. "Thou shalt make no
graven image," -- a bad commandment. It was the death of art. "Thou
shalt do no work on the Sabbath-day," -- a bad commandment; the
object of that being, that one-seventh of the time should be given
to the worship of a monster, making a priesthood necessary, and
consequently burdening industry with the idle and useless.

     If Professor Clifford felt lonely at the loss of such a
companion as Jehovah, it is impossible for me to sympathize with
his feelings. No one wishes to destroy the hope of another life --
no one wishes to blot out any good that is or that is hoped for, or


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

the hope of which gives consolation to the world. Neither do I
agree with this gentleman when he says, "Let us have the truth,
cost what it may." I say: Let us have happiness -- well-being. The
truth upon these matters is of but little importance compared with
the happiness of mankind, Whether there is, or is not, a God, is
absolutely unimportant, compared with the well-being of the race.
Whether the Bible is, or is not, inspired, is not of as much
consequence as human happiness.

     Of course, if the Old and New Testaments are true, then human
happiness becomes impossible, either in this world, or in the world
to come -- that is, impossible to all people who really believe
that these books are true. It is often necessary to know the truth,
in order to prepare ourselves to bear consequences; but in the
metaphysical world, truth is of no possible importance except as it
affects human happiness.

     If there be a God, he certainly will hold us to no stricter
responsibility about metaphysical truth than about scientific
truth. It ought to be just as dangerous to make a mistake in
Geology as in Theology -- in Astronomy as in the question of the
Atonement.

     I am not endeavoring to overthrow any faith in God, but the
faith in a bad God. And in order to accomplish this, I have
endeavored to show that the question of whether an Infinite God
exists, or not, is beyond the power of the human mind. Anything is
better than to believe in the God of the Bible.

     Fourth. Mr. Abbott, like the rest, appeals to names instead of
to arguments. He appeals to Socrates, and yet he does not agree
with Socrates. He appeals to Goethe, and yet Goethe was far from a
Christian. He appeals to Isaac Newton and to Mr. Gladstone -- and
after mentioning these names, says, that on his side is this faith
of the wisest, the best, the noblest of mankind.

     Was Socrates after all greater than Epicures -- had he a
subtler mind -- was he any nobler in his life? Was Isaac Newton so
much greater than Humboldt -- than Charles Darwin, who has
revolutionized the thought of the civilized world? Did he do the
one-hundredth part of the good for mankind that was done by
Voltaire -- was he as great a metaphysician as Spinoza?

     But why should we appeal to names?

     In a contest between Protestantism and Catholicism are you
willing to abide by the tests of names? In a contest between
Christianity and Paganism, in the first century, would you have
considered the question settled by names? Had Christianity then
produced the equals of the great Greeks and Romans? The new can
always be overwhelmed with names that were in favor of the old. Sir
Isaac Newton, in his day, could have been overwhelmed by the names
of the great who had preceded him. Christ was overwhelmed by this
same method -- Moses and the Prophets were appealed to as against
this Peasant of Palestine. This is the argument of the cemetery --
this is leaving the open field, and crawling behind gravestones.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     Newton was understood to be, all his life, a believer in the
Trinity; but he dared not say what his real thought was. After his
death there was found among his papers an argument that he
published against the divinity of Christ. This had been published
in Holland, because he was afraid to have it published in England.
How do we really know what the great men of whom you speak
believed, or believe?

     I do not agree with you when you say that Gladstone is the
greatest statesman. He will not, in my judgment, for one moment
compare with Thomas Jefferson -- with Alexander Hamilton -- or, to
come down to later times, with Gambetta; and he is immeasurably
below such a man as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was not a believer.
Gambetta was an atheist.

     And yet, these names prove nothing. Instead of citing a name,
and saying that this great man -- Sir Isaac Newton, for instance --
believed in our doctrine, it is far better to give the reasons that
Sir Isaac Newton had for his belief.

     Nearly all organizations are filled with snobbishness. each
church has a list of great names, and the members feel in duty
bound to stand by their great men.

     Why is idolatry the worst of sins? Is it not far better to
worship a God of stone than a God who threatens to punish in
eternal flames the most of his children? If you simply mean by
idolatry a false conception of God, you must admit that no finite
mind can have a true conception of God -- and you must admit that
no two men can have the same false conception of God, and that:, as
a consequence, no two men can worship identically the same Deity.
Consequently they are all idolaters.

     I do not think idolatry the worst of sins. Cruelty is the
worst of sins. It is far better to worship a false God, than to
injure your neighbor -- far better to bow before a monstrosity of
stone, than to enslave your fellow-men.

     Fifth. I am glad that you admit that a bad God is worse than
no God. If so, the atheist is far better than the believer in
Jehovah, and far better than the believer in the divinity of Jesus
Christ -- because I am perfectly satisfied that none but a bad God
would threaten to say to any human soul, "Depart, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." So that,
before any Christian can he better than an atheist, he must reform
his God.

     The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes
another step, and he says, with great emphasis that you do not
know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others,
and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you
do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives
you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of
reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of
conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels
you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     You say that religion tells us that "life is a battle with
temptation -- the result is eternal life to the victors."

     But what of the victims? Did your God create these victims,
knowing that they would be victims? Did he deliberately change the
clay into the man -- into a being with wants, surrounded by
difficulties and temptations -- and did he deliberately surmount
this being with temptations that he knew he could not withstand,
with obstacles that he knew he could not overcome, and whom he knew
at last would fall a victim upon the field of death? Is there no
hope for this victim? No remedy for this mistake of your God? Is he
to remain a victim forever? Is it not better to have no God than
such a God? Could the condition of this victim be rendered worse by
the death of God?

     Sixth. Of course I agree with you when you say that character
is worth more than condition -- that life is worth more than place.
But I do not agree with you when you say that being -- that simple
existence -- is better than happiness. If a man is not happy, it is
far better not to be. I utterly dissent from your philosophy of
life. From my standpoint, I do not understand you when you talk
about self-denial. I can imagine a being of such character, that
certain things he would do for the one he loved, would by others be
regarded as acts of self-denial, but they could not be so regarded
by him. In these acts of so-called self-denial, he would find his
highest joy.

     This pretence that to do right is to carry a cross, has done
an immense amount of injury to the world. Only those who do wrong
carry a cross. To do wrong is the only possible self-denial.

     The pulpit has always been saying that, although the virtuous
and good, the kind, the tender, and the loving, may have a very bad
time here, yet they will have their reward in heaven -- having
denied themselves the pleasures of sin, the ecstasies of crime,
they will be made happy in a world hereafter; but that the wicked,
who have enjoyed larceny, and rascality in all its forms, will be
punished hereafter.

     All this rests upon the idea that man should sacrifice
himself, not for his fellow-men, but for God -- that he should do
something for the Almighty -- that he should go hungry to increase
the happiness of heaven -- that he should make a journey to Our
Lady of Loretto, with dried peas in his shoes; that he should
refuse to eat meat on Friday; that he should say so many prayers
before retiring to rest; that he should do something that he hated
to do, in order that he might win the approbation of the heavenly
powers. For my part, I think it much better to feed the hungry,
than to starve yourself.

     You ask me, What is Christianity? You then proceed to
partially answer your own question, and you pick out what you
consider the best, and call that Christianity. But you have given
only one side, and that side not all of it good. Why did you not
give the other side of Christianity -- the side that talks of
eternal flames, of the worm that dieth not -- the side that
denounces the investigator and the thinker -- the side that 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

promises an eternal reward for credulity -- the side that tells men
to take no thought for the morrow but to trust absolutely in a
Divine Providence?

     "Within thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, faith in
his resurrection had become the inspiration of the church." I ask
you, Was there a resurrection?

     What advance has been made in what you are pleased to call the
doctrine of the brotherhood of man, through the instrumentality of
the church? Was then as much dread of God among the Pagans as there
has been among Christians?

     I do not believe that the church is a conservator of
civilization. It sells crime on credit. I do not believe it is an
educator of good will, It has caused more war than all other
causes. Neither is it a school of a nobler reverence and faith. The
church has not turned the minds of men toward principles of
justice, mercy and truth -- it has destroyed the foundation of
justice. It does not minister comfort at the coffin -- it fills the
mourners with fear. It has never preached a gospel of "Peace on
Earth" -- it has never preached "Good Will toward men."

     For my part, I do not agree with you when you say that: "The
most stalwart anti-Romanist can hardly question that with the Roman
Catholic Church abolished by instantaneous decree, its priests
banished and its churches closed, the disaster to American
communities would be simply awful in its proportions, if not 
irretrievable in its results."

     I may agree with you in this, that the most stalwart
anti-Romanist would not wish to have the Roman Catholic Church
abolished by tyranny, and its priests banished, and its churches
closed. But if the abolition of that church could be produced by
the development of the human mind; and if its priests, instead of
being banished, should become good and useful citizens, and were in
favor of absolute liberty of mind, then I say that there would be
no disaster, but a very wide and great and splendid blessing. The
church has been the Centaur -- not Theses; the church has not been
Hercules, but the serpent.

     So I believe that there is something far nobler than loyalty
to any particular man. Loyalty to the truth as we perceive it --
loyalty to our duty as we know it -- loyalty to the ideals of our
brain and heart -- is, to my mind, far greater and far nobler than
loyalty to the life of any particular man or God. There is a kind
of slavery -- a kind of abdication -- for any man to take any other
man as his absolute pattern and to hold him up as the perfection of
all life, and to feel that it is his duty to grovel in the dust in
his presence. It is better to feel that the springs of action are
within yourself -- that you are poised upon your own feet -- and
that you look at the world with your own eyes, and follow the path
that reason shows.

     I do not believe that the world could be re-organized upon the
simple but radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount. Neither
do I believe that this sermon was ever delivered by one man. It has


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

in it many fragments that I imagine were dropped from many mouths.
It lacks coherence -- it lacks form. Some of the sayings are
beautiful, sublime and tender; and others seem to be weak,
contradictory and childish.

     Seventh. I do not say that I do not know whether this faith is
true, or not. I say distinctly and clearly, that I know it is not
true. I admit that I do not know whether there is any infinite
personality or not, because I do not know that my mind is an
absolute standard. But according to my mind, there is no such
personality; and according to my mind, it is an infinite absurdity
to suppose that there is such an infinite personality. But I do
know something of human nature; I do know a little of the history
of mankind; and I know enough to know that what is known as the
Christian faith, is not true. I am perfectly satisfied, beyond all
doubt and beyond all peradventure, that all miracles are
falsehoods. I know as well as I know that I live -- that others
live -- that what you call your faith, is not true.

     I am glad, however, that yon admit that the miracles of the
Old Testament, or the inspiration of the Old Testament, are not
essentials. I draw my conclusion from what you say: "I have not in
this paper discussed the miracles, or the inspiration of the Old
Testament; partly because those topics, in my opinion, occupy a
subordinate position in Christian faith, and I wish to consider
only essentials." At the same time, you tell us that, "On 
historical evidence, and after a careful study of the arguments on
both sides, I regard as historical the events narrated in the four
Gospels, ordinarily regarded as miracles." At the same time, you
say that you fully agree with me that the order of nature has never
been violated or interrupted. In other words, you must believe that
all these so-called miracles were actually in accordance with the
laws, or facts rather, in nature.

     Eighth, You wonder that I could write the following: "To me
there is nothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. There
is not, so far as I know, a line in the Book of Genesis calculated
to make a human being better." You then call my attention to "The
magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which Genesis
opens; to the beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful
consequences; the inspiring story of Abraham -- the first self-
exile for conscience sake; the romantic story of Joseph the Peasant
boy becoming a Prince," which you say "would have attraction for
any one if he could have found a charm in, for example, the Legends
of the Round Table."

     The "magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which
Genesis opens" is filled with magnificent mistakes, and is utterly
absurd. "The beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful
consequences" is probably the most contemptible story that was ever
written, and the treatment of the first pair by Jehovah is
unparalleled in the cruelty of despotic governments. According to
this infamous account, God cursed the mothers of the world, and
added to the agonies of maternity. Not only so, but he made woman
a slave, and man something, if possible, meaner -- a master.

 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

     I must confess that I have very little admiration for Abraham.
(Give reasons.)

     So far as Joseph is concerned, let me give you the history of
Joseph, -- how he conspired with Pharaoh to enslave the people of
Egypt.

     You seem to be astonished that I am not in love with the
character of Joseph, as pictured in the Bible. Let me tell you who
Joseph was.

     It seems, from the account, that Pharaoh had a dream. None of
his wise men could give its meaning. He applied to Joseph, and
Joseph, having been enlightened by Jehovah, gave the meaning of the
dream to Pharaoh. He told the king that there would be in Egypt
seven years of great plenty, and after these seven years of great
plenty, there would be seven years of famine, and that the famine
would consume the land. Thereupon Joseph gave to Pharaoh some
advice. First, he was to take up a fifth part of the land of Egypt,
in the seven plenteous years -- he was to gather all the food of
those good years. and lay up corn, and he was to keep this food in
the cities. This food was to be a store to the land against the
seven years of famine. And thereupon Pharaoh said unto Joseph,
"Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so
discreet and wise as thou art: thou shalt be over my house, and
according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the
throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph,
See I have set thee over all the land of Egypt."

     We are further informed by the holy writer, that in the seven
plenteous years the earth brought forth by handfuls, and that
Joseph gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in
the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities, and that he
gathered corn as the sand of the sea. This was done through the
seven plenteous years. Then commenced the years of dearth. Then the
people of Egypt became hungry, and they cried to Pharaoh for bread,
and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph. The famine
was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph opened the store-
houses, and sold unto the Egyptians, and the famine waxed sore in
the land of Egypt. There was no bread in the land, and Egypt
fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the
money that was found in the land of Egypt, by the sale of corn, and
brought the money to Pharaoh's house. After a time the money failed
in the land of Egypt, and the Egyptians came unto Joseph and said,
"Give us bread; why should we die in thy presence? for the money
faileth." And Joseph said, "Give your cattle, and I will give you
for your cattle." And they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and he
gave them bread in exchange for horses and flocks and herds, and he
fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When the
year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said, "Our
money is spent, our cattle are gone, naught is left but our bodies
and our lands." And they said to Joseph, "Buy us, and our land, for
bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh; and give
us seed that we may live and not die, that the land be not
desolate." And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for
the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine
prevailed over them. So the land became Pharaoh's. Then Joseph said


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

                   REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.

to the people, "I have bought you this day, and your land; lo, here
is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land." And thereupon the
people said, "Thou hast saved our lives; we will be Pharaoh's
servants." "And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto
this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land
of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's."

     Yet I am asked, by a minister of the nineteenth century,
whether it is possible that I do not admire the character of
Joseph. This man received information from God -- and gave that
information to Pharaoh, to the end that he might impoverish and
enslave a nation. This man, by means of intelligence received from
Jehovah, took from the people what they had, and compelled them at
last to sell themselves, their wives and their children, and to
become in fact bondmen forever. Yet I am asked by the successor of
Henry Ward Beecher, if I do not admire the infamous wretch who was
guilty of the greatest crime recorded in the literature of the
world.

     So, it is difficult for me to understand why you speak of
Abraham as "a self-exile for conscience sake." If the king of
England had told one of his favorites that if he would go to North
America he would give him a territory hundreds of miles square, and
would defend him in its possession. and that he there might build
up an empire, and the favorite believed the king, and went, would
you call him "a self-exile for conscience sake"?

     According to the story in the Bible, the Lord promised Abraham
that if he would leave his country and kindred, he would make of
him a great nation, would bless him, and make his name great, that
he would bless them that blessed Abraham, and that he would curse
him whom Abraham cursed; and further, that in him all the families
of the earth should be blest. If this is true, would you call
Abraham "a self-exile for conscience sake"? If Abraham had only
known that the Lord was not to keep his promise, he probably would
have remained where he was -- the fact being, that every promise
made by the Lord to Abraham, was broken.

     Do you think that Abraham was "a self-exile for conscience
sake" when he told Sarah, his wife, to say that she was his sister
-- in consequence of which she was taken into Pharaoh's house, and
by reason of which Pharaoh made presents of sheep and oxen and man
servants and maid servants to Abraham? What would you call such a
proceeding now? What would you think of a man who was willing that
his wife should become the mistress of the king, provided the king
would make him presents?

     Was it for conscience sake that the same subterfuge was
adopted again, when Abraham said to Abimelech, the King of Gerar,
She is my sister -- in consequence of which Abimelech sent for
Sarah and took her?

     Mr. Ingersoll having been called to Montana, as counsel in a
long and important law suit, never finished this article.

                               END

                          ****     ****

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

                              1890
                            ________

     This fragment (found among Col. Ingersoll's papers) is a mere
outline of a contemplated answer to Archdeacon Farrar's article in
the North American Review, May, 1890, entitled: "A Few Words on
Col. Ingersoll."
                            ________ 

     Archdeacon Farrar, in the opening of his article, in a burst
of confidence, takes occasion to let the world know how perfectly
angelic he intends to be. He publicly proclaims that he can
criticize the arguments of one with whom he disagrees, without
resorting to invective, or becoming discourteous. Does he call 
attention to this because most theologians are hateful and
ungentlemanly? Is it a rare thing for the pious to be candid? Why
should an Archdeacon be cruel, or even ill-bred? Yet, in the very
beginning, the Archdeacon in effect says: Behold, I show you a
mystery -- a Christian who can write about an infidel, without
invective and without brutality. Is it then so difficult for those
who love their enemies to keep within the bounds of decency when
speaking of unbelievers who have never injured them?

     As a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised when I read the
proclamation to the effect that the writer was not to use
invective, and was to be guilty of no discourtesy; but on reading
the article, and finding that he had failed to keep his promise, I
was not surprised.

     It is an old habit with theologians to beat the living with
the bones of the dead. The arguments that cannot be answered
provoke epithet.

                               I.

     Archdeacon Farrar criticizes several of my statements: The
same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious
questions as in others.

     This apparently self-evident statement seems to excite almost
the ire of this Archdeacon, and for the purpose of showing that it
is not true, he states, first, that "the first postulate of
revelation is that it appeals to man's spirit;" second, that "the
spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the spheres of the
senses and the understanding;" third, that "if a man denies the
existence of a spiritual intuition, he is like a blind man
criticizing colors, or a deaf man critici harmonies;" fourth, that
"revelation must be judged by its own criteria;" and fifth, that
"St. Paul draws a marked distinction between the spirit of the
world and the spirit which is of God," and that the same Saint said
that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of
God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." Let us answer these
objections in their order.

     1. "The first postulate of revelation is that it appeals to
man's spirit." What does the Archdeacon mean by "spirit"? A man 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

says that he has received a revelation from God, and he wishes to
convince another man that he has received a revelation -- how does
he proceed? Does he appeal to the man's reason? Will he tell him
the circumstances under which he received the revelation? Will he
tell him why he is convinced that it was from God? Will the
Archdeacon be kind enough to tell how the spirit can be approached
passing by the reason, the understanding, the judgment and the
intellect? If the Archdeacon replies that the revelation itself
will bear the evidence within itself, what then, I ask, does he
mean by the word "evidence"? Evidence about what? Is it such
evidence as satisfies the intelligence, convinces the reason, and
is it in conformity with the known facts of the mind?

     It may be said by the Archdeacon that anything that satisfies
what he is pleased to call the spirit, that furnishes what it seems
by nature to require, is of supernatural origin. We hear music, and
this music seems to satisfy the desire for harmony -- still, no one
argues, from that fact, that music is of supernatural origin. It
may satisfy a want in the brain -- a want unknown until the music
was heard -- and yet we all agree in saying that music has been
naturally produced, and no one claims that Beethoven, or Wagner,
was inspired by God.

     The same may be said of things that satisfy the palate -- of
statues, of paintings, that reveal to him who looks, the existence
of that of which before that time he had not even dreamed, Why is
it that we love color -- that we are pleased with harmonies, or
with a succession of sounds rising and falling at measured
intervals? No one would answer this question by saying that
sculptors and painters and musicians were divinely inspired;
neither would they say that the first postulate of art is that it
appeals to man's spirit, and for that reason the rules or laws of
probability have nothing to do with the question of art.

     2. That "the spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the
spheres of the senses and the understanding." Let us imagine a man
without senses. He cannot feel, see, hear, taste, or smell. What is
he? Would it be possible for him to have an idea? Would such a man
have a spirit to which revelation could appeal, or would there be
locked in the dungeon of his brain a spirit, that is to say, a
"sphere of being which transcends the spheres of the senses and the
understanding"? Admit that in the person supposed, the machinery of
life goes on -- what is he more than an inanimate machine?

     3. That "if a man denies the very existence of a spiritual
intuition, he is like a blind man critici colors, or a deaf man
critici harmonies." What do you mean by "spiritual intuition"? When
did this "spiritual intuition" become the property of man --
before, or after, birth? Is it of supernatural, or miraculous,
origin, and is it possible that this "spiritual intuition" is
independent of the man? Is it based upon experience? Was it in any
way born of the senses, or of the effect of nature upon the brain
-- that is to say, of things seen, or heard, or touched? Is
"spiritual intuition" an entity? If man can exist without the
"spiritual intuition," do you insist that the "spiritual intuition"
can exist without the man?



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

     You may remember that Mr. Locke frequently remarked: "Define
your terms." It is to be regretted that in the hurry of writing
your article, you forgot to give an explanation of "spiritual
intuition."

     I will also take the liberty of asking you how a blind man
could critici colors, and how a deaf man could critici harmonies.
Possibly you may Imagine that "spiritual intuition" can take
cognizance of colors, as well as of harmonies. Let me ask: Why
cannot a blind man critici colors? Let me answer: For the same
reason that Archdeacon Farrar can tell us nothing about an infinite
personality.

     4. That "revelation must be judged by its own criteria."
Suppose the Bible had taught that selfishness, larceny and murder
were virtues; would you deny its inspiration? Would not your denial
be based upon a conclusion that had been reached by your reason
that no intelligent being could have been its author -- that no
good being could, by any possibility, uphold the commission of such
crimes? In that case would you be guided by "spiritual intuition,"
or by your reason?

     When we examine the claims of a history -- as, for instance,
a history of England, or of America, are we to decide according to
"spiritual intuition," or in accordance with the laws or rules of
probability? Is there a different standard for a history written in
Hebrew, several thousand years ago, and one written in English in
the nineteenth century? If a history should now be written in
England, in which the most miraculous and impossible things should
be related as facts, and if I should deny these alleged facts,
would you consider that the author had overcome my denial by
saying, "history must be judged by its own criteria"?

     5. That "the natural man receiveth not the things of the
spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot
know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The Archdeacon
admits that the natural man cannot know the things of the spirit,
because they are not naturally, but spiritually, discerned. On the
next page we are told, that "the truths which Agnostics repudiate
have been, and are, acknowledged by all except a fraction of the
human race." It goes without saying that a large majority of the
human race are natural; consequently, the statement of the
Archdeacon contradicts the statement of St. Paul. The Archdeacon
insists that all except a fraction of the human race acknowledge
the truths which Agnostics repudiate, and they must acknowledge
them because they are by them spiritually discerned; and yet, St.
Paul says that this is impossible, and insists that "the natural
man cannot know the things of the spirit of God, because they are
spiritually discerned."

     There is only one way to harmonize the statement of the
Archdeacon and the Saint, and that is, by saying that nearly all of
the human race are unnatural, and that only a small fraction are
natural, and that the small fraction of men who are natural, are
Agnostics, and only those who accept what the Archdeacon calls
"truths" are unnatural to such a degree that they can discern
spiritual things.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

     Upon this subject, the last things to which the Archdeacon 
appeals, are the very things that he, at first, utterly repudiated.
He asks, "Are we contemptuously to reject the witness of
innumerable multitudes of the good and wise, that -- with a
spiritual reality more convincing to them than the material
evidences which converted the apostles -- they have seen, and
heard, and their hands have handled the "Word of Life"? Thus at
last the Archdeacon appeals to the evidences of the senses.

                               II.

     The Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following
statement: There is no subject, and can be none, concerning which
any human being is under any obligation to believe without
evidence.

     One would suppose that it would be impossible to formulate an
objection to this statement. What is or is not evidence, depends
upon the mind to which it is presented. There is no possible
"insinuation" in this statement, one way or the other. There is
nothing sinister in it, any more than there would be in the
statement that twice five are ten. How did it happen to occur to
the Archdeacon that when I spoke of believing without evidence, I
referred to all people who believe in the existence of a God, and
that I intended to say "that one-third of the world's inhabitants
had embraced the faith of Christians without evidence"?

     Certain things may convince one mind and utterly fail to
convince others. Undoubtedly the persons who have believed in the
dogmas of Christianity have had what was sufficient evidence for
them. All I said was, that "there is no subject, and can be none,
concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe
without evidence." Does the Archdeacon insist that there is an
obligation resting on any human mind to believe without evidence?
Is he willing to go a step further and say that there is an
obligation resting upon the minds of men to believe contrary to
evidence? If one is under obligation to believe without evidence,
it is just as reasonable to say that he is under obligation to
believe in spite of evidence. What does the word "evidence" mean?
A man in whose honesty I have great confidence, tells me that he
saw a dead man raised to life, I do not believe him. Why? His
statement is not evidence to my mind. Why? Because it contradicts
all of my experience, and, as I believe, the experience of the
intelligent world.

     No one pretends that "one-third of the world's inhabitants
have embraced the faith of Christians without evidence" -- that is,
that all Christians have embraced the faith without evidence. In
the olden time, when hundreds of thousands of men were given their
choice between being murdered and baptized, they generally accepted
baptism -- probably they accepted Christianity without critically
examining the evidence.

     Is it historically absurd that millions of people have
believed in systems of religion without evidence? Thousands of
millions have believed that Mohammed was a prophet of God. And not
only so, but have believed in his miraculous power. Did they
believe without evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

Mohammedism is based upon mistake? What shall we say of the
followers of Buddha, who far outnumber the followers of Christ?
Have they believed without evidence? And is it historically absurd
to say that our ancestors of a few hundred years ago were as
credulous as the disciples of Buddha? Is it not true that the same
gentlemen who believed thoroughly in all the miracles of the New
Testament also believed the world to be flat, and were perfectly
satisfied that the sun made its daily journey around the earth? Did
they have any evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that they
believed without evidence?

                              III.

     Neither is there any intelligent being who can by any possi-
bility be flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity.

     The Archdeacon asks what I "gain by stigmatizing as ignorant
credulity that inspired, inspiring, invincible conviction -- the
formative principle of noble efforts and self-sacrificing lives,
which at this moment, as during all the long millenniums of the
past, has been held not only by the ignorant and the credulous, but
by those whom all the ages have regarded as the ablest, the wisest,
the most learned and the most gifted of mankind?"

     Does the Archdeacon deny that credulity is ignorant? In this
connection, what does the word "credulity" mean? It means that
condition or state of the mind in which the impossible, or the
absurd, is accepted as true, Is not such credulity ignorant? Do we
speak of wise credulity -- of intelligent credulity? We may say
theological credulity, or Christian credulity, but certainly not
intelligent credulity. Is the flattery of the ignorant and
credulous -- the flattery being based upon that which ignorance and
credulity have accepted -- acceptable to any intelligent being? Is
it possible that we can flatter God by pretending to believe, or by
believing, that which is repugnant to reason, that which upon
examination is seen to he absurd? The Archdeacon admits that God
cannot possibly be so flattered. If, then, he agrees with my
statement, why endeavor to controvert it?

                               IV.

     The man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old
and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. 

                            ________

     The Archdeacon says that he cannot pretend to imagine what my
definition of an orthodox Christian is. I will use his own language
to express my definition. "By an orthodox Christian I mean one who
believes what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed. I also
believe that the essential doctrines of the church must be judged
by her universal formulae, not by the opinions of this or that
theologian, however eminent, or even of any number of theologians,
unless the church has stamped them with the sanction of her formal
and distinct acceptance."




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

     This is the language of the Archdeacon himself, and I accept
it as a definition of orthodoxy. With this definition in mind, I
say that the man who without prejudice reads and understands the
Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. By
"prejudice," I mean the tendencies and trends given to his mind by
heredity, by education, by the facts and circumstances entering
into the life of man. We know how children are poisoned in the
cradle, how they are deformed in the Sunday School, how they are
misled by the pulpit. And we know how numberless interests unite
and conspire to prevent the individual soul from examining for
itself. We know that nearly all rewards are in the hands of
Superstition -- that she holds the sweet wreath, and that her hands
lead the applause of what is called the civilized world. We know
how many men give up their mental independence for the sake of pelf
and power. We know the influence of mothers and fathers -- of
Church and State -- of Faith and Fashion. All these influences
produce in honest minds what may be known as prejudice, -- in other
minds, what may be known as hypocrisy.

     It is hardly worth my while to speak of the merits of students
of Holy Writ "who," the Archdeacon was polite enough to say, "know
ten thousand times more of the Scriptures" than I do. This, to say
the least of it, is a gratuitous assertion, and one that does not
tend to throw the slightest ray of light on any matter in
controversy. Neither is it true that it was my "point" to say that
all people are prejudiced, merely because they believe in God; it
was my point to say that no man can read the miracles of the Old
Testament, without prejudice, and believe them; it was my point to
say that no man can read many of the cruel and barbarous laws said
to have been given by God himself, and yet believe, -- unless he
was prejudiced, -- that these laws were divinely given.

     Neither do I believe that there is now beneath the cope of
heaven an intelligent man, without prejudice, who believes in the
inspiration of the Bible.

     The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any
country, without fear and without prejudice, will not and cannot be
a believer.

     In answering this statement the Archdeacon says: "Argal, every
believer in any religion is either an incompetent idiot, or coward
-- with a dash of prejudice."

     I hardly know what the gentleman means by an "incompetent
idiot," as I know of no competent ones. It was not my intention to
say that believers in religion are idiots or cowards. I did not
mean, by using the word "fear," to say that persons actuated by
fear are cowards. That was not in my mind. By "fear," I intended to
convey that fear commonly called awe, or superstition, -- that is
to say, fear of the supernatural, -- fear of the gods -- fear of
punishment in another world -- fear of some Supreme Being; not feat
of some other man -- not the fear that is branded with cowardice.
And, of course, the Archdeacon perfectly understood my meaning; but
it was necessary to give another meaning in order to make the
appearance of an answer possible.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

     By "prejudice," I mean that state of mind that accepts the
false for the true. All prejudice is honest. And the probability
is, that all men are more or less prejudiced on some subject. But
on that account I do not call them "incompetent idiots, or cowards,
with a dash of prejudice."

     I have no doubt that the Archdeacon himself believes that all
Mohammedans are prejudiced, and that they are actuated more or less
by fear, inculcated by their parents and by society at large.
Neither have I any doubt that he regards all Catholics as
prejudiced, and believes that they are governed more or less by
fear. It is no answer to what I have said for the Archdeacon to say
that "others have studied every form of religion with infinitely
greater power than I have done." This is a personality that has
nothing to do with the subject in hand. It is no argument to repeat
a list of names. It is an old trick of the theologians to use names
instead of arguments -- to appeal to persons instead of principles
-- to rest their case upon the views of kings and nobles and others
who pretend eminence in some department of human learning or
ignorance, rather that on human knowledge.

     This is the argument of the old against the new, and on this
appeal the old must of necessity have the advantage. When some man
announces the discovery of a new truth, or of some great fact
contrary to the opinions of the learned, it is easy to overwhelm
him with names. There is but one name on his side -- that is to
say, his own. All others who are living, and the dead, are on the
other side. And if this argument is good, it ought to have ended 
all progress many thousands of years ago. If this argument is
conclusive, the first man would have had freedom of opinion; the
second man would have stood an equal chance; but if the third man
differed from the other two, he would have been gone. Yet this is
the argument of the church. They say to every man who advances
something new: Are you greater than the dead? The man who is right
is generally modest. Men in the wrong, as a rule, are arrogant; and
arrogance is generally in the majority.

     The Archdeacon appeals to certain names to show that I am
wrong. In order for this argument to be good -- that is to say, to
be honest -- he should agree with all the opinions of the men whose
names he gives. He shows, or endeavors to show, that I am wrong,
because I do not agree with St. Augustine. Does the Archdeacon
agree with St. Augustine? Does he now believe that the bones of a
saint were taken to Hippo -- that being in the diocese of St.
Augustine -- and that five corpses, having been touched with these
bones, were raised to life? Does he believe that a demoniac, on
being touched with one of these bones, was relieved of a multitude
of devils, and that these devils then and there testified to the
genuineness of the bones, not only, but told the hearers that the
doctrine of the Trinity was true? Does the Archdeacon agree with
St. Augustine that over seventy miracles were performed with these
bones, and that in a neighboring town many hundreds of miracles
were performed? Does he agree with St. Augustine in his estimate of
women -- placing them on a par with beasts?

     I admit that St. Augustine had great influence with the people
of his day -- but what people? I admit also that he was the founder


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

of the first begging brotherhood -- that he organized mendicancy --
and that he most cheerfully lived on the labor of others.

     If St. Augustine lived now he would be the inmate of an
asylum. This same St. Augustine believed that the fire of hell was
material -- that the body itself having influenced the soul to sin,
would be burned forever, and that God by a perpetual miracle would
save the body from being annihilated and devoured in those eternal
flames.

     Let me ask the Archdeacon a question: Do you agree with St.
Augustine? If you do not, do you claim to be a greater man? Is
"your mole-hill higher than his Dhawalagiri"? Are you looking down
upon him from the altitude of your own inferiority?

     Precisely the same could be said of St. Jerome. The Archdeacon
appeals to Charlemagne, one of the great generals of the world --
a man who in his time shed rivers of blood, and who on one occasion
massacred over four thousand helpless prisoners -- a Christian
gentleman who had, I think, about nine wives, and was the supposed
father of some twenty children. This same Charlemagne had laws
against polygamy, and yet practiced it himself. Are we under the
same obligation to share his vices as his views? It is wonderful
how the church has always appealed to the so-called great -- how it
has endeavored to get certificates from kings and queens, from 
successful soldiers and statesmen, to the truth of the Bible and
the moral character of Christ! How the saints have crawled in the
dust before the slayers of mankind! Think of proving the religion
of love and forgiveness by Charlemagne and Napoleon!

     An appeal is also made to Roger Bacon, Yet this man attained
all his eminence by going contrary to the opinions and teachings of
the church. In his time, it was matter of congratulation that you
knew nothing of secular things. He was a student of Nature, an
investigator, and by the very construction of his mind was opposed
to the methods of Catholicism.

     Copernicus was an astronomer, but he certainty did not get his
astronomy from the church, nor from General Joshua, nor from the
story of the Jewish king for whose benefit the sun was turned back
in heaven ten degrees.

     Neither did Kepler find his three laws in the Sermon on the
Mount, nor were they the utterances of Jehovah on Mount Sinai. He
did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian; but in
spite of that fact.

     As to Lord Bacon, let me ask, are you willing to accept his
ideas? If not, why do you quote his name? Am I bound by the
opinions of Bacon in matters of religion, and not in matters of
science? Bacon denied the Copernican system, and died a believer in
the Ptolemaic -- died believing that the earth is stationary and
that the sun and stars move around it as a center, Do you agree
with Bacon? If not, do you pretend that your mind is greater? Would
it be fair for a believer in Bacon to denounce you as an egotist
and charge you with "obstrepemusness" because you merely suggested
that Mr. Bacon was a little off in his astronomical opinions? Do 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               19

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

you not see that you have furnished the cord for me to tie your
hands behind you?

     I do not know how you ascertained that Shakespeare was what
you call a believer. Substantially all that we know of Shakespeare
is found in what we know as his "works" All else can be read in one
minute. May I ask, how you know that Shakespeare was a believer? Do
you prove it by the words he put in the mouths of his characters?
If so, you can prove that he was anything, nothing, and everything.
Have you literary bread to eat that I know not of? Whether Dante
was, or was not, a Christian, I am not prepared to say. I have
always admired him for one thing: he had the courage to see a pope
in hell.

     Probably you are not prepared to agree with Milton --
especially in his opinion that marriage had better be by contract,
for a limited time. And if you disagree with Milton on this point,
do you thereby pretend to say that you could have written a better
poem than Paradise Lost?

     So Newton is supposed to have been a Trinitarian. And yet it
is said that, after his death, there was found an article, which
had been published by him in Holland, against the dogma of the
Trinity.

     After all, it is quite difficult to find out what the great
men have believed. They have been actuated by so many unknown
motives; they have wished for place; they have desired to be
Archdeacons, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes; their material interests
have sometimes interfered with the expression of their thoughts.
Most of the men to whom you have alluded lived at a time when the
world was controlled by what may be called a Christian mob -- when
the expression of an honest thought would have cost the life of the
one who expressed it -- when the followers of Christ were ready
with sword and fagot to exterminate philosophy and liberty from the
world.

     Is it possible that we are under any obligation to believe the
Mosaic account of the Garden of Eden, or of the talking serpent,
because "Whewell had an encyclopedic range of knowledge"? Must we
believe that Joshua stopped the sun, because Faraday was "the most
eminent man of science of his day"? Shall we believe the story of
the fiery furnace, because "Mr, Spottiswoode was president of the
Royal Society" -- had "rare mathematical genius" -- so rare that he
was actually "buried in Westminster Abbey"? Shall we believe that
Jonah spent three days and nights in the inside of a whale because
"Professor Clark Maxwell's death was mourned by all"?

     Are we under any obligation to believe that an infinite God
sent two she bears to tear forty children in pieces because they
laughed at a prophet without hair? Must we believe this because
"Sir Gabriel Stokes is the living president of the Royal Society,
and a Churchman" besides? Are we bound to believe that Daniel spent
one of the happiest evenings of his life in the lion's den, because
"Sir William Dawson of Canada, two years ago, presided over the
British Association"? And must we believe in the ten plagues of
Egypt, including the lice, because "Professor Max Muller made an 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               20

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

eloquent plea in Westminster Abbey in favor of Christian missions"?
Possibly he wanted missionaries to visit heathen lands so that they
could see the difference for themselves between theory and
practice, in what is known as the Christian religion.

     Must we believe the miracles of the New Testament -- the
casting out of devils -- because "Lord Tennyson and Mr. Browning
stand far above all other poets of this generation in England," or
because "Longfellow, Holmes, and Lowell and Whittier" occupy the
same position in America? Must we admit that devils entered into
swine because "Bancroft and Parkman are the leading prose writers
of America" -- which I take this occasion to deny?

     It is to be hoped that some time the Archdeacon will read that
portion of Mr. Bancroft's history in which he gives the account of
how the soldiers, commonly called Hessians, were raised by the
British Government during the American Revolution.

     These poor wretches were sold at so much apiece. For every one
that was killed, so much was paid, and for every one that was 
wounded a certain amount was given. Mr. Bancroft tells us that God
was not satisfied with this business, and although he did not
interfere in any way to save the poor soldiers, he did visit the
petty tyrants who made the bargains with his wrath. I remember that
as a punishment to one of these, his wife was induced to leave him;
another one died a good many years afterwards; and several of them
had exceedingly bad luck.

     After reading this philosophic dissertation on the dealings of
Providence, I doubt if the Archdeacon will still remain of the
opinion that Mr. Bancroft is one of the leading prose writers of
America. If the Archdeacon will read a few of the sermons of
Theodore Parker, and essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, if he will read
the life of Voltaire by James Parton, he may change his opinion as
to the great prose writers of America.

     My argument against miracles is answered by reference to "Dr.
Lightfoot, a man of such immense learning that he became the equal
of his successor Dr. Westcott." And when I say that there are
errors and imperfections in the Bible, I am told that Dr. Westcott
"investigated the Christian religion and its earliest documents au
fond and was an orthodox believer." Of course the Archdeacon knows
that no one now knows who wrote one of the books of the Bible. He
knows that no one now lives who ever saw one of the original
manuscripts, and that no one now lives who ever saw anybody who had
seen anybody who had seen an original manuscript.

                               VI.

     Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite
personality?
                             ________

     The Archdeacon says that it is, and yet in the same article he
quotes the following from Job: "Canst thou by searching find out
God?" "It is as high as Heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than
Hell; what canst thou know?" And immediately after making these 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               21

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

quotations, the Archdeacon takes the ground of the agnostic, and
says, "with the wise ancient Rabbis, we learn to say, I do not
know."

     It is impossible for me to say what any other human being
cannot conceive; but I am absolutely certain that my mind cannot
conceive of an infinite personality -- of an infinite Ego.

     Man is conscious of his individuality. Man has wants. A
multitude of things in nature seems to work against him; and others
seem to be favorable to him. There is conflict between him and
nature, In the midst of this conflict he says "I."

     If man had no wants -- if there where no conflict between him
and any other being, or any other thing, he could not say "I" --
that is to say, he could not be conscious of personality.

     Now, it seems to me that an infinite personality is a
contradiction in terms.

                              VII.

     The same line of argument applies to the next statement that
is criticized by the Archdeacon: Can the human mind conceive a
beginningless being?

     We know that there is such a thing as matter, but we do not
know that there is a beginningless being. We say, or some say, that
matter is eternal, because the human mind cannot conceive of its
commencing. Now, if we knew of the existence of an Infinite Being,
we could not conceive of his commencing. But we know of no such
being. We do know of the existence of matter; and my mind is so,
that I cannot conceive of that matter having been created by a
beginningless being. I do not say that there is not a beginningless
being, but I do not believe there is, and it is beyond my power to
conceive of such a being.

     The Archdeacon also says that "space is quite as impossible to
conceive as God." But nobody pretends to love space -- no one gives
intention and will to space -- no one, so far as I know, builds
altars or temples to space. Now, if God is as inconceivable as
space, why should we pray to God?

     The Archdeacon, however, after quoting Sir William Hamilton as
to the inconceivability of space as absolute or infinite, takes
occasion to say that "space is an entity." May I be permitted to
ask how he knows that space is an entity? As a matter of fact, the
conception of infinite space is a necessity of the mind, the same
as eternity is a necessity of the mind.

                              VIII.

     The next sentence or statement to which the Archdeacon objects
is as follows:

     He who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the
goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               22

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

the goodness or wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it
impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquakes
and storm, for slavery, and for the triumph of the strong over the
week.

     One objection that he urges to this statement is that St. Paul
had made a stronger one in the same direction. The Archdeacon
however insists that "a world without a contingency, or an agony,
could have had no hero and no saint," and that "science enables us 
to demonstrate that much of the apparent misery and anguish is
transitory and even phantasmal; that many of the seeming forces of
destruction are overruled to ends of beneficence; that most of
man's disease and anguish is due to his own sin and folly and
wilfulness."

     I will not say that these things have been said before, but I
will say that they have been answered before. The idea that the
world is a school in which character is formed and in which men are
educated is very old. If, however, the world is a school, and there
is trouble and misfortune, and the object is to create character --
that is to say, to produce heroes and saints -- then the question
arises, what becomes of those who die in infancy? They are left
without the means of education. Are they to remain forever without
character? Or is there some other world of suffering and sorrow?

     Is it possible to form character in heaven? How did the angels
become good? How do you account for the justice of God? Did he
attain character through struggle and suffering?

     What would you say of a school teacher who should kill
one-third of the children on the morning of the first day? And what
can you say of God, -- if this world is a school, -- who allows a
large per cent. of his children to die in infancy -- consequently
without education -- therefore, without character?

     If the world is the result of infinite wisdom and goodness,
why is the Christian Church engaged in endeavoring to make it
better; or, rather, in an effort to change it? Why not leave it as
an infinite God made it?

     Is it true that most of man's diseases are due to his own sin
and folly and wilfulness? Is it not true that no matter how good
men are they must die, and will they not die of diseases? Is it
true that the wickedness of man has created the microbe? Is it
possible that the sinfulness of man created the countless enemies
of human life that lurk in air and water and food? Certainly the
wickedness of man has had very little influence on tornadoes,
earthquakes and floods. Is it true that "the signature of beauty
with which God has stamped the visible world -- alike in the sky
and on the earth -- alike in the majestic phenomena of an
intelligent creation and in its humblest and most microscopic
production -- is a perpetual proof that God is a God of love"?

     Let us see. The scientists tell us that there is a little
microscopic animal, one who is very particular about his food -- so
particular, that he prefers to all other things the optic nerve,
and after he has succeeded in destroying that nerve and covering 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               23

                  A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

the eye with the mask of blindness, he has intelligence enough to
bore his way through the bones of the nose in search of the other
optic nerve. Is it not somewhat difficult to discover "the
signature of beauty with which God has stamped" this animal? For my
part, I see but little beauty in poisonous serpents, in man-eating
sharks, in crocodiles, in alligators. It would be impossible for me
to gaze with admiration upon a cancer. Think, for a moment, of a
God ingenious enough and good enough to feed a cancer with the
quivering flesh of a human being, and to give for the sustenance of
that cancer the life of a mother.

     It is well enough to speak of "the myriad voices of nature in
their mirth and sweetness," and it is also well enough to think of
the other side. The singing birds have a few notes of love -- the
rest are all of warning and of fear. Nature, apparently with
infinite care, produces a living thing, and at the same time is
just as diligently at work creating another living thing to devour
the first, and at the same time a third to devour the second, and
so on around the great circle of life and death, of agony and joy
-- tooth and claw, fang and tusk, hunger and rapine, massacre and
murder, violence and vengeance and vice everywhere and through all
time. [Here the manuscript ends, with the following notes.]

                    SAYINGS FROM THE INDIAN.
     "The rain seems hardest when the Wigwam leaks."

     "When the tracks get too large and too numerous, the wise
Indian says that He is hunting something else."

     "A little crook in the arrow makes a great miss."

     "A great Chief counts scalps, not hairs."

     "you cannot strengthen the bow by poisoNing the arrows."

     "No one saves water in a flood."

                             ORIGIN.
     Origin considered that the punishment of the wicked consisted
in separation from God. There was too much pity in his heart to
believe in the flames of hell. But he was condemned as heretical by
the Council of Carthage, A.D., 398, and afterwards by other
councils.

                         ST. AUGUSTINE.
     St. Augustine censures origin For his merciful view, and says:
"The church, not without reason, condemned him for this error." He
also held that hell was in the center of the earth, and that God
supplied the center with perpetual fire by a miracle.

                             DANTE.
     Dante is a wonderful mixture of melancholy and malice, of
religion and revenge, and he represents himself as so pitiless that

when he found his political opponents in hell, he struck their
faces and pulled the hair of the tormented.

                            AQUINAS.
     Aquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who 
believed in the undying worm.

                               24
   