                        38 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

                          ****     ****

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

                          ****     ****

          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

                          ****    ****

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

                      ADDRESS TO THE JURY.

     GENTLEMEN of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most
important cases that can be submitted to a jury. It is not a case
that involves a little property, neither is it one that involves
simply the liberty of one man. It involves the freedom of speech,
the intellectual liberty of every citizen of New jersey.

     The question to be tried by you is whether a man has the right
to express his honest thought; and for that reason there can be no
case of greater importance submitted to a jury. And it may be well
enough for me, at the outset, to admit that there could be no case
in which I could take a greater -- a deeper interest. For my part,
I would not wish to  live in a world where I could not express my
honest opinions. Men who deny to others the right of speech are not
fit to live with honest men.

     I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any
church, of any State, to put a padlock on the lips -- to make the
tongue a convict. I passionately deny the right of the Herod of
authority to kill the children of the brain.

     A man has a right to work with his hands, to plow the earth,
to sow the seed, and that man has a right to reap the harvest. If
we have not that right, then all are slaves except those who take
these rights from their fellow-men. If you have the right to work
with your hands and to gather the harvest for yourself and your
children, have you not a right to cultivate your brain? Have you
not the right to read, to observe, to investigate -- and when you
have so read and so investigated, have you not the right to reap
that field? And what is it to reap that field? It is simply to
express what you have ascertained -- simply to give your thoughts
to your fellow-men.

     If there is one subject in this world worthy of being
discussed, worthy of being understood, it is the question of
intellectual liberty. Without that, we are simply painted clay;
without that, we are poor, miserable serfs and slaves. If you have
not the right to express your opinions, if the defendant has not
this right, then no man ever walked beneath the blue of heaven that

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

had the right to express his thought. If others claim the right,
where did they get it? How did they happen to have it, and how did
you happen to be deprived of it? Where did a church or a nation get
that right?

     Are we not all children of the same Mother? Are we not all
compelled to think, whether we wish to or not? Can you help
thinking as you do? When you look out upon the woods, the fields,
-- when you look at the solemn splendors of the night -- these
things produce certain thoughts in your mind, and they produce them
necessarily. No man can think as he desires. No man controls the
action of his brain, any more than he controls the action of his
heart. The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in spite of you.
The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The ears hear, if
they are unstopped, without asking your permission. And the brain
thinks in spite of you. Should you express that thought? Certainly
you should, if others express theirs. You have exactly the same
right. He who takes it from you is a robber.

     For thousands of years people have been trying to force other
people to think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed?
No. Why? Because brute force is not an argument. You can stand with
the lash over a man, or you can stand by the prison door, or
beneath the gallows, or by the stake, and say to this man: "Recant,
or the lash descends, the prison door is locked upon you, the rope
is put about your neck, or the torch is given to the fagot." And so
the man recants. Is he convinced? Not at all. Have you produced a
new argument? Not the slightest. And yet the ignorant bigots of
this world have been trying for thousands of years to rule the
minds of men by brute force. They have endeavored to improve the
mind by torturing the flesh -- to spread religion with the sword
and torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by putting
their feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, patriots,
philosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been the
result? Are we any nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then?

     No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to
make people think its way by force and flame. And yet every church
that ever was established commenced in the minority, and while it
was in the minority advocated free speech -- every one. John
Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in
France, wrote a book on religious toleration in order to show that
all men had an equal right to think; and yet that man afterward,
clothed in a little authority, forgot all his sentiments about
religious liberty, and had poor Serviettes burned at the stake, for
differing with him on a question that neither of them knew anything
about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration -- in the
majority, he practiced murder.

     I want you to understand what has been done in the world to
force men to think alike. It seems to me that if there is some
infinite being who wants us to think alike he would have made us
alike. Why did he not do so? Why did he make your brain so that you
could not by any possibility be a Methodist? Why did he make yours
so that you could not be a Catholic? And why did he make the brain
of another so that he is an unbeliever -- why the brain of another
so that he became a Mohammedan -- if he wanted us all to believe 
alike?

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     After all, maybe Nature is good enough and grand enough and
broad enough to give us the diversity born of liberty. Maybe, after
all, it would not be best for us all to be just the same. What a
stupid world, if everybody said yes to everything that everybody
else might say.

     The most important thing in this world is liberty. More
important than food or clothes -- more important than gold or
houses or lands -- more important than art or science -- more
important than all religions, is the liberty of man.

     If civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree
with Mr. Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would I give
up the splendors of the nineteenth century-gladly would I forget
every invention that has leaped from the brain of man -- gladly
would I see all books ashes, all works of art destroyed, all
statues broken, and all the triumphs of the world lost -- gladly,
joyously would I go back to the abodes and dens of savagery, if
that were necessary to preserve the inestimable gem of human
liberty. So would every man who has a heart and brain.

     How has the church in every age, when in authority, defended
itself? Always by a statute against blasphemy, against argument,
against free speech. And there never was such a statute that did
not stain the book that it was in and that did not certify to the
savagery of the men who passed it. Never. By making a statute and
by defining blasphemy, the church sought to prevent discussion --
sought to prevent argument -- sought to prevent a man giving his
honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a doctrine, is safe
when hedged about by a statute that prevents your speaking against
it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives because lips are
locked. It lives because men are slaves.

     If I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines that in
my judgment will make this world happier and better. If I know
myself, I advocate only those things that will make a man a better
citizen, a better father, a kinder husband -- that will make a
woman a better wife, a better mother -- doctrines that will fill
every home with sunshine and with joy. And if I believed that
anything I should say to-day would have any other possible
tendency, I would stop. I am a believer in liberty. That is my
religion -- to give to every other human being every right that I
claim for myself, and I grant to every other human being, not the
right -- because it is his right -- but instead of granting I
declare that it is his right, to attack every doctrine that I
maintain, to answer every argument that I may urge -- in other
words, he must have absolute freedom of speech.

     I am a believer in what I call "intellectual hospitality." A
man comes to your door. If you are a gentleman and he appears to be
a good man, you receive him with a smile. You ask after his health.
You say: "Take a chair; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you
not break bread with me?" That is what a hospitable, good man does
-- he does not set the dog on him. Now, how should we treat a new
thought? I say that the brain should be hospitable and say to the
new thought: "Come in; sit down; I want to cross-examine you; I
want to find whether you are good or bad; if good, stay; if bad, I 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

don't want to hurt you -- probably you think you are all right, --
but your room is better than your company, and I will take another
idea in your place." Why not? Can any man have the egotism to say
that he has found it all out? No. Every man who has thought, knows
not only how little he knows, but how little every other human
being knows, and how ignorant, after all, the world must be.

     There was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church had power.
And I want it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am
opposed to Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics -- while I am
opposed to Presbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I do
not fight people -- I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never
go into personalities. As I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but
Presbyterianism -- that is, I am opposed to their doctrine. I do
not hate a man that has the rheumatism -- I hate the rheumatism
when it has a man. So I attack certain principles because I think
they are wrong, but I always want it understood that I have nothing
against persons -- nothing against victims.

     There was a time when the Catholic Church was in power in the
Old World. All at once there arose a man called Martin Luther, and
what did the dear old Catholics think? "Oh," they said, "that man
and his followers are going to hell." But they did not go. They
were very good people. They may have been mistaken -- I do not
know. I think they were right in their opposition to Catholicism --
but I have just as much objection to the religion they founded as
I have to the church they left. But they thought they were right,
and they made very good citizens, and it turned out that their
differing from the Mother Church did not hurt them, And then after
awhile they began to divide, and there arose Baptists; and the
other gentlemen, who believed in this law that is now in New
Jersey, began cutting off their ears so that they could hear
better; they began putting them in prison so that they would have
a chance to think. But the Baptists turned out to be good folks --
first rate -- good husbands, good fathers, good citizens. And in a
little while, in England, the people turned to be Episcopalians, on
account of a little war that Henry VIII. had with the Pope, -- and
I always sided with the Pope in that war -- but it made no
difference; and in a little while the Episcopalians turned out to
be just about like other folks -- no worse -- and, as I know of, no
better.

     After awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian said, "We
don't want anything of him -- he is a bad man;" and they finally
drove some of them away and they settled in New England, and there
were among them Quakers, than whom there never were better people
on the earth -- industrious, frugal, gentle, kind and loving -- and
yet these Puritans began hanging them. They said: "They are
corrupting our children; if this thing goes on, everybody will
believe in being kind and gentle and good, and what will become of
us?" They were honest about it. So they went to cutting off ears.
But the Quakers were good people and none of the prophecies were
fulfilled.

     In a little while there came some Unitarians and they said,
"The world is going to ruin, sure;" -- but the world went on as
usual, and the Unitarians produced men like Channing -- one of the 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

tenderest spirits that ever lived -- they produced men like
Theodore Parker -- one of the greatest brained and greatest hearted
men produced upon this continent -- a good man -- and yet they
thought he was a blasphemer -- they even prayed for his death -- on
their bended knees they asked their God to take time to kill him.
Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably.

     After awhile came the Universalists, who said: "God is good.
He will not damn anybody always, just for a little mistake he made
here. This is a very short life; the path we travel is very dim,
and a great many shadows fall in the way, and if a man happens to
stub his toe, God will not burn him forever." And then all the rest
of the sects cried out, "Why, if you do away with hell, everybody
will murder just for pastime -- everybody will go to stealing just
to enjoy themselves." But they did not. The Universalists were good
people -- just as good as any others. Most of them much better.
None of the prophecies were fulfilled, and yet the differences
existed.

     And so we go on until we find people who do not believe the
Bible at all, and when they say they do not, they come within this
statute.

     Now, gentlemen, I am going to try to show yon, first, that
this statute under which Mr. Reynolds is being tried is
unconstitutional -- that it is not in harmony with the constitution
of New jersey; and I am going to try to show you in addition to
that, that it was passed hundreds of years ago, by men who believed
it was right to burn heretics and tie Quakers to the end of a cart;
men and even modest women -- stripped naked -- and lash them from
town to town. They were the men who originally passed that statute,
and I want to show you that it has slept all this time, and I am
informed -- I do not know how it is -- that there never has been a
prosecution in this State for blasphemy.

     Now, gentlemen, what is blasphemy? Of course nobody knows what
it is, unless he takes into consideration where he is. What is
blasphemy in one country would be a religious exhortation in
another. It is owing to where you are and who is in authority. And
let me call your attention to the impudence and bigotry of the
American Christians, We send missionaries to other countries. What
for? To tell them that their religion is false, that their gods are
myths and monsters, that their saviors and apostles were impostors,
and that our religion is true. You send a man from Morristown -- a
Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes there, and he tells the
Mohammedans -- and he has it in a pamphlet and he distributes it --
that the Koran is a lie, that Mohammed was not a prophet of God,
that the angel Gabriel is not so large that it is four hundred
leagues between his eyes -- that it is all a mistake -- there never
was an angel so large as that. Then what would the Turks do?
Suppose the Turks had a law like this statute in New Jersey. They
would put the Morristown missionary in jail, and he would send home
word, and then what would the people of Morristown say? Honestly --
what do you think they would say? They would say, "Why, look at
those poor, heathen wretches. We sent a man over there armed with
the truth, and yet they were so blinded by their idolatrous
religion, so steeped in superstition, that they actually put that 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

man in prison." Gentlemen, does not that show the need of more
missionaries? I would say, yes.

     Now, let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes from Turkey to
Morristown. He has got a pamphlet. He says, "The Koran is the
inspired book, Mohammed is the real prophet, your Bible is false
and your Savior simply a myth." Thereupon the Morristown people put
him in jail. Then what would the Turks say? They would say,
Morristown needs more missionaries," and I would agree with them.

     In other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality. Let
the world talk. And see how foolish this trial is. I have no doubt
that the prosecuting attorney agrees with me today, that whether
this law is good or bad, this trial should not have taken place.
And let me tell you why. Here comes a man into your town and
circulates a pamphlet. Now, if they had just kept still, very few
would ever have heard of it. That would have been the end. The
diameter of the echo would have been a few thousand feet. But in
order to stop the discussion of that question, they indicted this
man, and that question has been more discussed in this country
since this indictment than all the discussions put together since
New Jersey was first granted to Charles II.'s dearest brother
James, the Duke of York. And what else? A trial here that is to be
reported and published all over the United States, a trial that
will give Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty millions of people.
And yet this was done for the purpose of stopping a discussion of
this subject. I want to show you that the thing is in itself almost
idiotic -- that it defeats itself, and that you cannot crush out
these things by force. Not only so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right
to be defended, and his counsel has the right to give his opinions
on this subject.

     Suppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argument has not
been sent to jail. That is still going the rounds, free as the
winds. Suppose you keep him at hard labor a year -- all the time he
is there, hundreds and thousands of people will be reading some
account, or some fragment, of this trial. There is the trouble. If
you could only imprison a thought, then intellectual tyranny might
succeed. If you could only take an argument and put a striped suit
of clothes on it -- if you could only take a good, splendid shining
fact and lock it up in some dungeon of ignorance, so that its light
would never again enter the mind of man, then you might succeed in
stopping human progress. Otherwise, no.

     Let us see about this particular statute. In the first place,
the State has a constitution. That constitution is a rule, a
limitation to the power of the Legislature, and a certain
breastwork for the protection of private rights, and the
constitution says to this sea of passions and prejudices: "Thus far
and no farther." The constitution says to each individual: "This
shall panoply you; this is your complete coat of mail; this shall
defend your rights." And it is usual in this country to make as a
part of each constitution several general declarations -- called
the Bill of Rights. So I find that in the old constitution of New
Jersey, which was adopted in the year of grace 1776, although the
people at that time were not educated as they are now -- the spirit
of the Revolution at that time not having permeated all classes of 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

society -- a declaration in favor of religious freedom. The people
were on the eve of a revolution. This constitution was adopted on
the third day of July, 1776, one day before the immortal
Declaration of Independence. Now, what do we find in this -- and we
have got to go by this light, by this torch, when we examine the
statute.

     I find in that constitution, in its Eighteenth Section, this:
"No person shall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable
privilege of worshiping God in a manner agreeable to the dictates
of his own conscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled
to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and
judgment; nor shall he be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any
other rates for the purpose of building or repairing any church or
churches, contrary to what he believes to be true." That was a very
great and splendid step. It was the divorce of church and state. It
no longer allowed the State to levy taxes for the support of a
particular religion, and it said to every citizen of New Jersey:
All that you give for that purpose must be voluntarily given, and
the State will not compel you to pay for the maintenance of a
church in which you do not believe. So far so good.

     The next paragraph was not so good. "There shall be no
establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference
to another, and no Protestant inhabitants of this State shall be
denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his
religious principles; but all persons professing a belief in the
faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves
peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to any office of
profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege
and immunity enjoyed by other citizens."

     What became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not know
-- whether they had any right to be elected to office or not under
this Act. But in 1844, the State having grown civilized in the
meantime, another constitution was adopted. The word Protestant was
then left out. There was to be no establishment of one religion
over another. But Protestantism did not render a man capable of
being elected to office any more than Catholicism, and nothing is
said about any religious belief whatever. So far, so good.

     "No religious test shall be required as a qualification for
any office of public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment
of any civil right on account of his religious principles."

     That is a very broad and splendid provision, "No person shall
be denied any civil right on account of his religious principles."
That was copied from the Virginia constitution, and that clause in
the Virginia constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and
under that clause men were entitled to give their testimony in the
courts of Virginia whether they believed in any religion or not, in
any bible or not, or in any god or not.

     That same clause was afterward adopted by the State of
Illinois, also by many other States, and wherever that clause is,
no citizen can be denied any civil right on account of his
religions principles. It is a broad and generous clause. This 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

statute, under which this indictment is drawn, is not in accordance
with the spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under that clause, no
man can be deprived of any civil right on account of his religions
principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account of
this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute,
the same man who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can
be sent to the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing
his honest thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you
that this statute is unconstitutional.

     But we will go another step: "Every person may freely speak,
write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse of that right"

     That is in the constitution of nearly every State in the
Union, and the intention of that is to cover slanderous words -- to
cover a case where a man under pretence of enjoying the freedom of
speech falsely assails or accuses his neighbor. Of course he should
be held responsible for that abuse.

     Then follows the great clause in the constitution of 1844 --
more important than any other clause in that instrument -- a clause
that shines in that constitution like a star at night. --

          "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
     liberty of speech or of the press."

     Can anything be plainer -- anything be more forcibly stated?

          "No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of
     speech."

     Now, while you are considering this statute, I want you to
keep in mind this other statement:

          "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
     liberty of speech or of the press."

     And right here there is another thing I want to call your
attention to. There is a constitution higher than any statute.
There is a law higher than any constitution. It is the law of the
human conscience, and no man who is a man will defile and pollute
his conscience at the bidding of any legislature. Above all things,
one should maintain his self-respect, and there is but one way to
do that, and that is to live in accordance with your highest ideal.

     There is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they
exist in this poor world -- the absolute consequences of certain
acts -- they are above all. And this higher law is the breath of
progress, the very outstretched wings of civilization, under which
we enjoy the freedom we have. Keep that in your minds. There never
was a legislature great enough -- there never was a constitution
sacred enough, to compel a civilized man to stand between a black
man and his liberty. There never was a constitution great enough to
make me stand between any human being and his right to express his
honest thoughts. Such a constitution is an insult to the human
soul, and I would care no more for it than I would for the growl of


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

a wild beast. But we are not driven to that necessity here. This
constitution is in accord with the highest and noblest aspirations
of the heart -- "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech."

     Now let us come to this old law -- this law that was asleep
for a hundred years before this constitution was adopted -- this
law coiled like a snake beneath the foundations of the Government
-- this law, cowardly, dastardly -- this law passed by wretches who
were afraid to discuss -- this law passed by men who could not, and
who knew they could not, defend their creed -- and so they said:
"Give us the sword of the State and we will cleave the heretic
down." And this law was made to control the minority. When the
Catholics were in power they visited that law upon their opponents.
When the Episcopalians were in power, they tortured and burned the
poor Catholic who had scoffed and who had denied the truth of their
religion. Whoever was in power used that, and whoever was out of
power cursed that -- and yet, the moment he got in power he used
it. The people became civilized -- but that law was on the statute
book. It simply remained. There it was, sound asleep -- its lips
drawn over its long and cruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken
it. And it slept on, and New Jersey has flourished. Men have done
well. You have had average health in this country. Nobody roused
the statute until the defendant in this case went to Boonton, and
there made a speech in which he gave his honest thought, and the
people not having an argument handy threw stones. Thereupon Mr.
Reynolds, the defendant. published a pamphlet on Blasphemy and in
it gave a photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is his
offence. Now let us read this infamous statute:

          "If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of
     God by denying, cursing, or contemptuously reproaching his
     being

     I want to say right here -- many a man has cursed the God of
another man. The Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant.
The Presbyterians have cursed the God of the Catholics -- charged
them with idolatry -- cursed their images, laughed at their
ceremonies. And these compliments have been interchanged between
all the religions of the world. But I say here today that no man
unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the God in whom he believed. No
man, no human being, has ever lived who cursed his own idea of God.
He always curses the idea that somebody else entertains. No human
being ever yet cursed what he believed to be infinite wisdom and
infinite goodness -- and you know it. Every man on this jury knows
that. He feels that that must be an absolute certainty. Then what
have they cursed? Some God they did not believe in -- that is all.
And has a man that right? I say, yes. He has a right to give his
opinion of Jupiter, and there is nobody in Morristown who will deny
him that right. But several thousands years ago it would have been
very dangerous for him to have cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is
just as powerful now as be was then, but the Roman people are not
powerful, and that is all there was to jupiter -- the Roman people.

     So there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the god
of the Greeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to
drink hemlock. Yet now everybody can curse this god. Why? Is the 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

god dead? No. He is just as alive as he ever was. Then what has
happened? The Greeks have passed away. That is all. So in all of
our churches here. Whenever a church is in the minority it clamors
for free speech. When it gets in the majority, no. I do not believe
the history of the world will show that any orthodox church when in
the majority ever had the courage to face the free lips of the
world. It sends for a constable. And is it not wonderful that they
should do this when they preach the gospel of universal forgiveness
-- when they say, "if a man strike you on one cheek turn to him the
other also -- but if he laughs at your religion, put him in the
penitentiary"? Is that the doctrine? Is that the law?

     Now, read this law. Do you know as I read it I can almost hear
john Calvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to
him. It is written exactly as he would have written it. There never
was an inquisitor who would not have read that law with a malicious
smile. The Christians who brought the fagots and ran with all their
might to be at the burning, would have enjoyed that law. You know
that when they used to burn people for having said something
against religion, they used to cut their tongues out before they
burned them. Why? For fear that if they did not. the poor, burning
victims might say something that would scandalize the Christian
gentlemen who were building the fire. All these persons would have
been delighted with this law.

     Let us read a little further:

     " -- Or by cursing or contemptuously reproaching Jesus
Christ."

     Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God, was
crucified? How did they come to crucify him? Because they did not
believe in free speech in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a
law against blasphemy in jerusalem -- a law exactly like this. Just
think of it. Oh, I tell you we have passed too many mile-stones on
the shining road of human progress to turn back and wallow in that
blood, in that mire.

     No: Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed
that he was actually a God. Others believed that he was not only a
man, but that he stood as the representative of infinite love and
wisdom. No man ever said one word against that Being for saying "Do
unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." No man
ever raised his voice against him because he said, "Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And are they the "merciful"
who when some man endeavors to answer their argument, put him in
the penitentiary? No. The trouble is, the priests -- the trouble
is, the ministers -- the trouble is, the people whose business it
was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled with each other,
and they put meanings upon human expressions by malice, meanings
that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them. I believe
that nearly all that has been done in this world has been honestly
done. I believe that the poor savage who kneels down and prays to
a stuffed snake -- prays that his little children may recover from
the fever -- is honest, and it seems to me that a good God would
answer his prayer if he could, if it was in accordance with wisdom,
because the poor savage was doing the best he could, and no one can
do any better than that.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that
nearly everybody was going to hell, said exactly what they
believed. The were honest about it, and I would not send one of
them to jail -- would never think of such a thing -- even if he
called the unbelievers of the world "wretches," "dogs," and
"devils." What would I do? I would simply answer him -- that is
all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but I would
answer him in kindness.

     So these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a
necessity. Do you know that all the mechanics that ever lived --
take the best ones -- cannot make two clocks that will run exactly
alike one hour, one minute? They cannot make two pendulums that
will beat in exactly the same time, one beat. If you cannot do
that, how are you going to make hundreds, thousands, billions of
people, each with a different quality and quantity of brain, each
clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh, and each driven by
passion's storm over the wild sea of life -- how are you going to
make them all think alike? This is the impossible thing that
Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been trying to do.
This was the object of the Inquisition and of the foolish
Legislature that passed this statute.

     Let me read you another line from this ignorant statute: --

     "Or the Christian religion."

     Well, what is the Christian religion? "If you scoff at the
Christian religion -- if you curse the Christian religion." Well
what is it? Gentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the
Catholic Church. Is that the Christian religion? The Catholic
believes it is the Christian religion, and you have to admit that
it is the oldest one, and then the Catholics turn round and scoff
at the Protestants. Is that the Christian religion? If so, every
Christian religion has been cursed by every other Christian
religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish statute?

     I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the
Presbyterian and tell him, "Your doctrine is all wrong." I think he
has the right to say to him, "You are leading thousands to hell,"
If he believes it, he not only has the right to say it, but it is
his duty to say it; and if the Presbyterian really believes the
Catholics are all going to the devil, it is his duty to say so. Why
not? I will never have any religion that I cannot defend -- that
is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be mistaken, because
no man is absolutely certain that he knows. We all understand that.
Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each individual
is very narrow, and in his poor sky the stars are few and very
small.

     "Or the Word of God --"

     What is that?

     "The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old
and New Testaments."



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     Now, what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the
right to show that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one
vote, and one only? Has he the right to show that they passed in
convention upon what books they would put in and what they would
not? Has he the right to show that there were twenty-eight books
called "The Books of the Hebrews"? Has he the right to show that?
Has he the right to show that Martin Luther said he did not believe
there was one solitary word of gospel in the Epistle to the Romans?
Has he the right to show that some of these books were not written
till nearly two hundred years afterward? Has he the right to say
it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this is true or not,
but has a man the right to say it if he believes it?

     Suppose I should read the Bible all through right here in
Morristown, and after I got through I should make up my mind that
it is not a true book -- what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my
hand over my mouth and start for another State, and the minute I
got over the line say, "It is not true, It is not true"? Or, ought
I to have the right and privilege of saying right here in New
Jersey, "My fellow-citizens, I have read the book -- I do not
believe that it is the word of God"? Suppose I read it and think it
is true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to Turkey and
read the Koran and make up my mind that it is fake, you would all
say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say so.

     By force you can make hypocrites -- men who will agree with
you from the teeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no
more hypocrites. We have enough in every community. And how are you
going to keep from having more? By having the air free, -- by
wiping from your statute books such miserable and infamous laws as
this.

     "The Holy Scriptures."

     Are they Holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be
sincere? There are thousands of things in the Scriptures that
everybody believes. Everybody believes the Scriptures are right
when they say, "Thou shalt not steal" -- everybody. And when they
say "Give good measure, heaped up and running over," everybody
says, "Good!" So when they say "Love your neighbor," everybody
applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and practices it, does
it make any difference whether he believes in the flood or not? Is
that of any importance? Weather a man built an ark or not -- does
that make the slightest difference? A man might deny it and yet be
a very good man. Another might believe it and be a very mean man.
Could it now, by any possibility, make a man a good father, a good
husband, a good citizen? Does it make any difference whether you
believe it or not? Does it make any difference whether or not you
believe that a man was going through town, and his hair was a
little short, like mine, and some little children laughed at him,
and thereupon two bears from the woods came down and tore to pieces
about forty little children? Is it necessary to believe that?
Suppose a man should say, "I guess that is a mistake; they did not
copy that right; I guess the man that reported that was a little
dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly right." Any harm
in saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary for that?
Can you imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to hell 
because he did not believe the bear story?

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     So I say if you believe the Bible, say so; if you do not
believe it, say so. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost
say, in Protestantism itself. The Protestants when they fought the
Catholics said: "Read the Bible for yourselves -- stop taking it
from your priests -- read the sacred volume with your own eyes; it
is a revelation from God to his children, and you are the
children." And then they said: "If after you read it you do not
believe it, and you say anything against it, we will put you in
jail, and God will put you in hell." That is a fine position to get
a man in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and
look at his pictures, saying: "They are the finest in the place,
and I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at them the other
day said they were daubs, and I kicked him down stairs -- now I
want your candid judgment." So the Protestant Church says to a man,
"This Bible is a message from your Father, -- your Father in
heaven. Read it. judge for yourself. But if after you have read it
you say it is not true, I will put you in the penitentiary for one
year."

     The Catholic Church has a little more sense about that -- at
least more logic. It says: "This Bible is not given to everybody.
It is given to the world, to be sure, but it must be interpreted by
the church. God would not give a Bible to the world unless he also
appointed some one, some organization, to tell the world what it
means." They said: "We do not want the world filled with
interpretations, and all the interpreters fighting each other." And
the Protestant has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying: "judge
for yourself, but if you judge wrong you will go to the
penitentiary here and to hell hereafter."

     Now, let us see further:

     "Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule."

     Think of such a law as that, passed under a constitution that
says, "No law shall abridge the liberty of speech." But you must
not ridicule the Scriptures. Did anybody, ever dream of passing a
law to protect Shakespeare from being laughed at? Did anybody ever
think of such a thing? Did anybody ever want any legislative
enactment to keep people from holding Robert Burns in contempt? The
songs of Burns will be sung as long as there is love in the human
heart. Do we need to protect him from ridicule by a statute? Does
he need assistance from New Jersey? Is any statute needed to keep
Euclid from being laughed at in this neighborhood? And is it
possible that a work written by an infinite Being has to be
protected by a legislature? Is it possible that a book cannot be
written by a God so that it will not excite the laughter of the
human race?

     Why, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in
the human brain. It is the torch of the mind -- it sheds light.
Humor is the readiest test of truth -- of the natural, of the
sensible -- and when you take from a man all sense of humor, there
will only be enough left to make a bigot. Teach this man who has no
humor -- no sense of the absurd -- the Presbyterian creed, fill his
darkened brain with superstition and his heart with hatred -- then
frighten him with the threat of hell, and he will be ready to vote
for that statute. Such men made that law.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     Let us read another clause: --

     "And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined
not exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not
exceeding twelve months, or both."

     I want you to remember that this statute was passed in England
hundreds of years ago -- just in that language. The punishment,
however, has been somewhat changed. In the good old days when the
king sat on the throne -- in the good old days when the altar was
the right -- bower of the throne -- then, instead of saying: "Fined
two hundred dollars and imprisoned one year," it was: "All his
goods shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored with a hot
iron, and upon his forehead he shall be branded with the letter B;
and for the second offence he shall suffer death by burning." Those
were the good old days when people maintained the orthodox religion
in all its purity and in all its ferocity.

     The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case
is: Is this statute constitutional? Is this statute in harmony with
the part of the constitution of 1844 which says: "The liberty of
speech shall not be abridged"? That is for you to say. Is this law
constitutional, or is it simply an old statute that fell asleep,
that was forgotten, that people simply failed to repeal? I believe
I can convince you, if you will think a moment, that our fathers
never intended to establish a government like that. When they
fought for what they believed to be religious liberty -- when they
fought for what they believed to be liberty of speech, they
believed that all such statutes would be wiped from the statute
books of all the States.

     Let me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in
this country naturalization laws. People may come here irrespective
of their religion. They must simply swear allegiance to this
country -- they must forswear allegiance to every other potentate,
prince and power -- but they do not have to change their religion.
A Hindoo may become a citizen of the United States, and the
Constitution of the United States, like the constitution of New
Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo believes in a God
-- in a God that no Christian does believe in. He believes in a
sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a collection of
falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Savior -- in Buddha. Now, I ask
you, -- when that man comes here and becomes a citizen -- when the
Constitution is about him, above him -- has he the right to give
his ideas about his religion? Has he the right to say in New
Jersey: "There is no God except the Supreme Brahm -- there is no
Savior except Buddha, the Illuminated, Buddha the Blest"? I say
that he has that right -- and you have no right, because in
addition to that he says, "You are mistaken; your God is not God;
your Bible is not true, and your religion is a mistake," to abridge
his liberty of speech. He has the right to say it, and if he has
the right to say it, I insist before this Court and before this
jury, that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it; and
in giving the reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right,
not simply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of
logic, but he has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use
the smile of ridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this 
world ought not to stay in it.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     So the Persian -- the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of
Good and Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph
forever -- if that is his religion -- he has the right to state it,
and the right to give his reasons for his belief. How infinitely
preposterous for you, one of the States of this Union, to invite a
Persian or a Hindoo to come to your shores. You do not ask him to
renounce his God. You ask him to renounce the Shah. Then when he
becomes a citizen, having the rights of every other citizen, he has
the right to defend his religion and to denounce yours.

     There is another thing. What was the spirit of our Government
at that time? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What
were their opinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is
the defendant in this case? Thomas Jefferson -- and there is, in my
judgment, only one name on the page of American history greater
than his -- only one name for which I have a greater and tenderer
reverence -- and that is Abraham Lincoln, because of all men who
ever lived and had power, he was the most merciful. And that is the
way to test a man. How does he use power? Does he want to crush his
fellow citizens? Does he like to lock somebody up in the
penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? Does he wish
to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist -- like a devil, or
like a man? Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views
entertained by the defendant in this case, and he was made
President of the United States. He was the author of the
Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia,
writer of that clause in the constitution of that State, that made
all the citizens equal before the law. And when I come to the very
sentences here charged as blasphemy, I will show you that these
were the common sentiments of thousands of very great, of very
intellectual and admirable men.

     I have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the
occasion, to call your attention to the infinite harm that has been
done in almost every religious nation by statutes such as this.
Where that statute is, liberty can not be; and if this statute is
enforced by this jury and by this Court, and if it is afterwards
carried out, and if it could be carried out in the States of this
Union, there would be an end of all intellectual progress. We would
go back to the Dark Ages. Every man's mind, upon these subjects at
least, would become a stagnant pool, covered with the scum of
prejudice and meanness.

     And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people
been friends? Here we are to-day in this blessed air -- here amid
these happy fields. Can we imagine, with these surroundings, that
a man for having been found with a crucifix in his poor little
home, had been taken from his wife and children and burned --
burned by Protestants? You cannot conceive of such a thing now.
Neither car you conceive that there was a time when Catholics found
some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of the church,
and took that poor honest wretch -- while his wife wept -- while
his children clung to his hands -- to the public square, drove a
stake in the ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the
fagots, and let the wife whom he loved and his little children see
the flames climb around his limbs -- you cannot imagine that any
such infamy was ever practiced. And yet I tell you that the same 
spirit made this detestable, infamous, devilish statute.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     You can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same
kind of men that made this law said to another man:

     You say this world is round? "Yes, sir; I think it is, because
I have seen its shadow on the moon." "You have?" -- Now, can you
imagine a society, outside of hyenas and boaconstrictors, that
would take that man, put him in the penitentiary, in a dungeon,
turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted from the book of
human life? Years afterward some explorer amid ruins finds a few
bones. The same spirit that did that, made this statute -- the same
spirit that did that, went before the grand jury in this case --
exactly. Give the men that had this man indicted, the power, and I
would not want to live in that particular part of the country. I
would not willingly live with such men. I would go somewhere else,
where the air is free, where I could speak my sentiments to my
wife, to my children, and to my neighbors.

     Now, this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies
of the olden times. What does it mean? It means that the State of
New Jersey has all the light it wants. And what does that mean? It
means that the State of New Jersey is absolutely infallible -- that
it has got its growth and does not propose to grow any more. New
Jersey knows enough, and it will send teachers to the penitentiary.

     It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all
that it is ever going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They
are the clouds. Humanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the
waves of the sea. These waves depend upon the force and direction
of the wind -- that is to say, of passion; but Humanity is the
great sea. And so our religions change from day to day, and it is
a blessed thing that they do. Why? Because we grow, and we are
getting a little more civilized every day, -- and any man that is
not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a
civilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to
everybody else the rights he claims for himself, is not an honest
man.

     Here is a man who says, "I am going to join the Methodist
Church." What right has he? just the same right to join it that I
have not to join it -- no more, no less. But if you are a Methodist
and I am not, it simply proves that you do not agree with me, and
that I do not agree with you -- that is all. Another man is a
Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or is convinced that Catholicism
is right. That is his business, and any man that would persecute
him on that account, is a poor barbarian -- a savage; any man that
would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian -- a savage.

     Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to
any church. How are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he
treats his wife, his children, his neighbors. Does he pay his
debts? Does he tell the truth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a
heart that melts when he hears grief's story? That is the way to
judge him. I do not care what he thinks about the bears, or the
flood, about bibles or gods. When some poor mother is found
wandering in the street with a babe at her breast, does he quote
Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way to judge.
And suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

Christianity is true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should
pity the poor wretch that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You
will get your revenge on him through all eternity -- is not that
enough?

     So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by
theories, not by what we happen to believe -- because that depends
very much on where we were born.

     If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been
a Mohammedan. If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have
been a Buddhist -- I can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland,
on oatmeal, I might have been a Covenanter -- nobody knows. If I
had lived in Ireland, and seen my poor wife and children driven
into the street, I think I might have been a Home-ruler -- no doubt
of it. You see it depends on where you were born -- much depends on
our surroundings.

     Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not
Mohammedans, and there are men born in this country who are not
Christians -- Methodists, Unitarians, or Catholics, plenty of them,
who are unbelievers -- plenty of them who deny the truth of the
Scriptures -- plenty of them who say -- "I know not whether there
be a God or not." Well, it is a thousand times better to say that
honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in God.

     If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his
honest opinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to
talk with a hypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest mind
-- and then you are going to judge him, not by what he says but by
what he does. It is very easy to sail along with the majority --
easy to sail the way the boats are going -- easy to float with the
stream; but when you come to swim against the tide, with the men on
the shore throwing rocks at you, you will get a good deal of
exercise in this world.

     And do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest
obligation to men who have fought the prevailing notions of their
day? There is not a Presbyterian in Morristown that does not hold
up for admiration the man that carried the flag of the
Presbyterians when they were in the minority -- not one. There is
not a Methodist in this State who does not admire John and Charles
Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner of that new and
despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory in them
because they braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose
idiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like this. And there is not
a Universalist that does not worship dear old Hosea Ballou -- I
love him myself -- because he said to the Presbyterian minister:
"You are going around trying to keep people out of hell, and I am
going around trying to keep hell out of the people." Every
Universalist admires him and loves him because when despised and
railed at and spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for the
eternal mercy of God. And there is not a solitary Protestant who
does not honor Martin Luther -- who does not honor the Covenanters
in poor Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out on the sand
of the sea by Episcopalians, and kept there till the rising tide
drowned her, and all she had to do to save her life was to say, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

"God save the king;" but she would not say it without the addition
of the words, "If it be God's will." No one, who is not a
miserable, contemptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration
before such courage, such self-denial -- such heroism. No matter
what the attitude of your body may be, your soul falls on its knees
before such men and such women.

     Let us take another step, Where would we have been if
authority had always triumphed? Where would we have been if such
statutes had always been carried out? We have now a science called
astronomy. That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of
human thought than all things else. We now live in an infinite
universe. We know that the sun is a million times larger than our
earth, and we know that there are other great luminaries millions
of times larger than our sun. We know that there are planets so far
away that light, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-
five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand years to
reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the earth -- and we
now know that all the fields of space are sown thick with
constellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science
would not now be the property of the human mind. That science is
contrary to the Bible, and for asserting the truth you become a
criminal. For what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would
the world have the science of astronomy expunged from the brain of
man? We learned the story of the stars in spite of that statute.

     The first men who said the world was round were scourged for
scoffing at the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one
of the greatest men that ever lived, said: "Does he think with his
little lever to overturn the Universe of God?" Martin Luther
insisted that such men ought to be trampled under foot. If that
statute had been carried into effect, Galileo would have been
impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of the three laws, would have
died with the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind would
have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted. And what
else? If that statute had been carried out, the world would have
been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the philosophy, of
the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of
Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life
-- the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and
helped to civilize a world.

     If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that
enrich the libraries of the world could not have been written. If
that statute had been enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered
the lectures now known as "The Cosmos." If that statute had been
enforced, Charles Darwin would not have been allowed to give to the
world his discoveries that have been of more benefit to mankind
than all the sermons ever uttered. In England they have placed his
sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New Jersey, and
this statute could have been enforced, he would have lived one year
at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went so far as not
simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely to deny the
existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the noblest
and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever lived,
was of the same opinion.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     And so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the
men who are leading the race upward and shedding light in the
intellectual world? They are the men declared by that statute to be
criminals. Mr. Spencer could not publish his books in the State of
New Jersey. He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet
that man has added to the intellectual wealth of the world.

     So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz -- so with
the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern times.

     You may not agree with these men -- and what does that prove?
It simply proves that they do not agree with you -- that is all.
Who is to blame? I do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be
right; but if they had the power, and put you in the penitentiary
simply because you differed with them, they would be savages; and
if you have the power and imprison men because they differ from you
why then, of course, you are savages.

     No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that
have a little horizon to their minds -- a little sky, a little
scope. I hate anything that is narrow and pinched and withered and
mean and crawling, and that is willing to live on dust. I believe
in creating such an atmosphere that things will burst into blossom.
I believe in good will, good health, good fellowship, good feeling
-- and if there is any God on the earth, or in heaven, let us hope
that he will be generous and grand. Do you not see what the effect
will be? I am not cursing you because you are a Methodist, and not
damning you because you are a Catholic, or because you are an
Infidel -- a good man is more than all of these. The grandest of
all things is to be in the highest and noblest sense a man.

     Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the
defendant in this case, has done. Let me read the charges against
him as set out in this indictment.

     I shall insist that this statute does not cover any
publication -- that it covers simply speech -- not in writing, not
in book or pamphlet. Let us see:

     This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the
whole world in his mad fury."

     Well, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the
Bible describe God as having drowned the whole world with the
exception of eight people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know
whether there is anybody in this county who has really read the
Bible, but I believe the story of the flood is there. It does say
that God destroyed all flesh, and that he did so because he was
angry. He says so himself, if the Bible be true.

     The defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible. The
Bible says that God is loving, and says that he drowned the world,
and that he was angry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the "Sacred
Scriptures"?

     Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, ever
supposed it could be." --


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               19

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     Well, the Bible does say that he repented having made man.
Now, is there any blasphemy in saying that the Bible is true? That
is the only question. It is a fact that God, according to the
Bible, did drown nearly everybody. If God knows all things, he must
have known at the time he made them that he was going to drown
them. Is it likely that a being of infinite wisdom would
deliberately do what he knew he must undo? Is it blasphemy to ask
that question? Have you a right to think about it at all? If you
have, you have the right to tell somebody what you think -- if not,
you have no right to discuss it, no right to think about it. All
you have to do is to read it and believe it -- to open your mouth
like a young robin, and swallow -- worms or shingle nails -- no
matter which.

     The defendant further blasphemed and said that: --

     "An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of Patience with
a world which was just what his own stupid blundering had made it,
knew no better way out of the muddle than to destroy it by
drowning!"

     Is that true? Was not the world exactly as God made it?
Certainly. Did he not, if the Bible is true, drown the people? He
did. Did he know be would drown them when he made them? He did. Did
he know they ought to be drowned when they were made? He did. Where
then, is the blasphemy in saying so? There is not a minister in
this world who could explain it -- who would be permitted to
explain it -- under this statute. And yet you would arrest this man
and put him in the penitentiary. But after you lock him in the
cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible that a good
and wise God, knowing that he was going to drown them, made
millions of people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do
not pretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course,
you cannot answer the question. Is there anything blasphemous in
that? Would it be blasphemy in me to say I do not believe that any
God ever made men, women and children -- mothers, with babes
clasped to their breasts, and then sent a flood to fill the world
with death?

     A rain lasting for forty days -- the water rising hour by
hour, and the poor wretched children of God climbing to the tops of
their houses -- then to the tops of the hills. The water still
rising -- no mercy. The people climbing higher and higher, looking
to the mountains for salvation -- the merciless rain still falling,
the inexorable flood still rising. Children falling from the arms
of mothers -- no pity. The highest hills covered -- infancy and old
age mingling in death -- the cries of women, the sobs and sighs
lost in the roar of waves -- the heavens still relentless. The
mountains are covered -- a shoreless sea rolls round the world, and
on its billows are billions of corpses.

     This is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this
crime is called a deed of infinite mercy.

     Do you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I
have the right to say to all the world that this is false.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               20

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     If there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a
wise God, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to
the penitentiary for simply telling the truth?

     Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at science --
whoever by profane language should bring the rule of three into
contempt, or whoever should attack the proposition that two
parallel lines will never include a space, should be sent to the
penitentiary -- what would you think of it? It would be just as
wise and just as idiotic as this.

     And what else says the defendant?

     "The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous."
"Provoked him to anger."

     Is that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous?

     Let us read another line --

     "And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger
burns like hell."

     That is true. The Bible says of God -- "my anger burns to the
lowest hell." And that is all that the defendant says. Every word
of it is in the Bible. He simply does not believe it -- and for
that reason is a " blasphemer."

     I say to you now, gentlemen, -- and I shall argue to the
Court, -- that there is not in what I have read a solitary
blasphemous word -- not a word that has not been said in hundreds
of pulpits in the Christian world. Theodore Parker, a Unitarian,
speaking of this Bible-God -- said: "Vishnu with a necklace of
skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing serpents, is a
figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old Testament."
That, we might call "blasphemy," but not what I have read.

     Let us read on: --

     "He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the
wrath of the enemy."

     That is in the Bible -- word for word. Then the defendant in
astonishment says:

     "The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!"

     That is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible
is true, God was afraid.

     Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?"

     Is not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and
powerful, is it possible, he is afraid of anything? If the
defendant had said that God was afraid of his enemies, that might
have been blasphemy -- but this man says the Bible says that, and 
you are asked to say that it is blasphemy. Now, up to this point


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               21

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

there is no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce this infamous
statute -- this savage law.

     "The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the
most foul and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and
polygamy, perpetrated by God's own saints, and the New Testament
indorse these lecherous wretches as examples for all good
Christians to follow."

     Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold
polygamy? Abraham would have gotten into trouble in New Jersey --
no doubt of that. Sarah could have obtained a divorce in this
State, -- no doubt of that. What is the use of telling a falsehood
about it? Let us tell the truth about the patriarchs.

     Everybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We have all
heard of Solomon -- a gentleman with five or six hundred wives, and
three or four hundred other ladies with whom he was acquainted.
This is simply what the defendant says. Is there any blasphemy
about that? It is only the truth. If Solomon were living in the
United States to-day, we would put him in the penitentiary. You
know that under the Edmunds Mormon law he would be locked up. If
you should present a petition signed by his eleven hundred wives,
you could not get him out.

     So it was with David. There are some splendid things about
David, of course. I admit that, and pay my tribute of respect to
his courage -- but he happened to have ten or twelve wives too
many, so he shut them up, put them in a kind of penitentiary and
kept them there till they died. That would not be considered good
conduct even in Morristown. You know that. Is it any harm to speak
of it? There are plenty of ministers here to set it right --
thousands of them all over the country, every one with his chance
to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word back. The pew
cannot reply to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit there and
take it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, they
ought to answer it. But it is here, and the only answer is an
indictment.

     I say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham, and of
Jacob. Did you ever know of a more despicable fraud practiced by
one brother on another than Jacob practiced on Esau? My sympathies
have always been with Esau. He seemed to be a manly man. Is it
blasphemy to say that you do not like a hypocrite, a murderer, or
a thief, because his name is in the Bible? How do you know what
such men are mentioned for? Maybe they are mentioned as examples,
and you certainly ought not to be led away and induced to imagine
that a man with seven hundred wives is a pattern of domestic
propriety, one to be followed by yourself and your sons. I might go
on and mention the names of hundreds of others who committed every
conceivable crime, in the name of religion -- who declared war, and
on the field of battle killed men, women and babes, even children
yet unborn, in the name of the most merciful God. The Bible is
filled with the names and crimes of these sacred savages, these
inspired beasts. Any man who says that a God of love commanded the
commission of these crimes is, to say the least of it, mistaken. If
there be a God, then it is blasphemous to charge him with the 
commission of crime.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               22

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     But let us read further from this indictment:

     "The aforesaid printed document contains other scandalous,
infamous and blasphemous matters and things, to the tenor and
effect following, that is to say" --

     Then comes this particularly blasphemous line:

     "Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over."

     Gentlemen, there are many things I have read that I should not
have expressed in exactly the same language used by the defendant,
and many things that I am going to read I might not have said at
all, but the defendant had the right to say every word with which
he is charged in this indictment. He had the right to give his
honest thought, no matter whether any human being agreed with what
he said or not, and no matter whether any other man approved of the
manner in which he said these things. I defend his right to speak,
whether I believe in what he spoke or not, or in the propriety of
saying what he did. I should defend a man just as cheerfully who
had spoken against my doctrine, as one who had spoken against the
popular superstitions of my time. It would make no difference to me
how unjust the attack was upon my belief -- how maliciously
ingenious; and no matter how sacred the conviction that was
attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And why? Because no
attack can be answered by force, no argument can be refuted by a
blow, or by imprisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but
the argument is free; you may fell the man to the earth, but the
statement stands.

     The defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs,
thought by the Christian world to be sacred. Yet, after all,
nothing is sacred but the truth, and by truth I mean what a man
sincerely and honestly believes. The defendant says:

     "Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the
mother of God, the mother of your God?"

     The defendant probably asked this question, supposing that it
must be answered by all sensible people in the negative. If the
Christian religion is true, then a Jewish girl was the mother of
Almighty God. Personally, if the doctrine is true, I have no fault
to find with the statement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of
God. -- Millions believe that this is true -- I do not believe, --
but who knows? If a God came from the throne of the universe, came
to this world and became the child of a pure and loving woman, it
would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or the greatness of that
God.

     There is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within the
imagination of man, than a mother holding in her thrilled and happy
arms a child, the fruit of love.

     No matter how the statement is made, the fact remains the
same. A Jewish girl became the mother of God. If the Bible is true,
and to repeat it, even according to your law, is not blasphemous,
and to doubt, or deny it, is not contrary to your constitution.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               23

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     To this defendant it seemed improbable that God was ever born
of woman, was ever held in the lap of a mother; and because he
cannot believe this, he is charged with blasphemy. Could you pour
contempt on Shakespeare by saying that his mother was a woman, --
by saying that he was once a poor, crying, little, helpless child?
Of course he was; and he afterwards became the greatest human being
that ever touched earth, -- the only man whose intellectual wings
have reached from sky to sky; and he was once a crying babe. What
of it? Does that cast any scorn or contempt upon him? Does this
take away any of the music from "Midsummer Night's Dream"? -- any
of the passionate wealth from "Antony and Cleopatra," any
philosophy from "Macbeth," any intellectual grandeur from "King
Lear"? On the contrary, these great productions of the brain show
the growth of the dimpled babe, give every mother a splendid dream
and hope for her child, and cover every cradle with a sublime
possibility.

     The defendant is also charged with having said that:

     "God cried and screamed."

     Why not? If he was absolutely a child, he was like other
children, -- like yours, like mine. I have seen the time, when
absent from home, that I would have given more to have heard my
children cry, than to have heard the finest orchestra that ever
made the air burst into flower. What if God did cry? It simply
shows that his humanity was real and not assumed, that it was a
tragedy, real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant also says
that if the orthodox religion be true, that the

     "God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms,
and made aimless dashes into space with his little fists."

     Is there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of the best
pictures I ever saw of the Virgin and Child was painted by the
Spaniard, Murillo. Christ appears to be a truly natural, chubby,
happy babe. Such a picture takes nothing from the majesty, the
beauty, or the glory of the incarnation.

     I think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church that it
lifts up for adoration and admiration, a mother, -- that it pays
what it calls "Divine honors " to a woman. There is certainly
goodness in that, and where a church has so few practices that are
good, I am willing to point this one out. It is the one redeeming
feature about Catholicism, that it teaches the worship of a woman.

     The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ: He goes
so far as to say, that:

     "He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes."

     And why not? The Bible says, that "he increased in wisdom and
stature." The defendant might have referred to something far more
improbable. In the same verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, will be found the assertion that
he increased in favor with God and man. The defendant might have
asked how it was that the love of God for God increased.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               24

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     But the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus grew,
as other children grow; that he acted like other children, and if
he did, it is more than probable that he did stare at his own toes.
I have laughed many a time to see little children astonished with
the sight of their feet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the
little toes in motion. Certainly there is nothing blasphemous in
supposing that the feet of Christ amused him, precisely as the feet
of other children have amused them. There is nothing blasphemous
about this; on the contrary, it is beautiful. If I believed in the
existence of God, the Creator of this world, the Being who, with
the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of space with stars, as a
farmer sows his grain, I should like to think of him as a little,
dimpled babe, overflowing with joy, sitting upon the knees of a
loving mother. The ministers themselves might take a lesson even
from the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an effort to
bring an infinite God a little nearer to the human heart.

     The defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ,

     He was nursed at Mary's breast."

     Yes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in
it. Nursed at the breast of woman. No painting, no statue, no words
can make a deeper and a tenderer impression upon the heart of man
than this: The infinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of
woman.

     You see these things do not strike all people the same. To a
man that has been raised on the orthodox desert, these things are
incomprehensible. He has been robbed of his humanity. He has no
humor, nothing but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with
folded wings.

     Imagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every seed of
earth to seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of bud and flower
and fruit. Imagination gathers from every field of thought and
pours the wealth of many lives into the lap of one. To the
contracted, to the cast-iron people who believe in heartless and
inhuman creeds, the words of the defendant seem blasphemous, and to
them the thought that God was a little child is monstrous.

     They cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the breast
of a maiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that he had
the joys and sorrows of other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not
only you, but the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is
known as the " Apocryphal New Testament," books that were once
considered inspired, once admitted to be genuine, and that once
formed a part of our New Testament. I hope you have read the books
of Joseph and Mary, of the Shepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and
of Mary, in which many of the things done by the youthful Christ
are described -- books that were once the delight of the Christian
world; books that gave joy to children, because in them they read
that Christ made little birds of clay, that would at his command
stretch out their wings and fly with joy above his head. If the
defendant in this case had said anything like that, here in the
State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted; the orthodox
ministers would have shouted "blasphemy," and yet, these little 
stories made the name of Christ dearer to children.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               25

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     The church of to-day lacks sympathy; the theologians are
without affection. After all, sympathy is genius. A man who really
sympathizes with another understands him. A man who sympathizes
with a religion, instantly sees the good that is in it, and the man
who sympathizes with the right, sees the evil that a creed
contains.

     But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ is
charged with having said:

     "God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and
was rocked to sleep."

     Yes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that. Let
some great religious genius paint a picture of this kind -- of a
babe smiling with content, rocked in the cradle by the mother who
bends tenderly and proudly above him. There could be no more
beautiful, no more touching, picture than this. What would I not
give for a picture of Shakespeare as a babe, -- a picture that was
a likeness, -- rocked by his mother? I would give more for this
than for any painting that now enriches the walls of the world.

     The defendant also says, that:

     "God was sick when cutting his teeth."

     And what of that? We are told that he was tempted in all
points, as we are. That is to say, he was afflicted, he was hungry,
he was thirsty, he suffered the pains and miseries common to man.
otherwise, he was not flesh, he was not human.

     "He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the
whooping cough."

     Certainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was, in
fact, a child. Other children have them. Other children, loved as
dearly by their mothers as Christ could have been by his, and yet
they are taken from the little family by fever; taken, it may be,
and buried in the snow, while the poor mother goes sadly home,
wishing that she was lying by its side. All that can be said of
every word in this address, about Christ and about his childhood,
amounts to this; that he lived the life of a child; that he acted
like other children. I have read you substantially what he has
said, and this is considered blasphemous.

     He has said, that:

     "According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christen world
commanded People to destroy each other."

     If the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant is
true. Is it calculated to bring God into contempt to deny that he
upheld polygamy, that he ever commanded one of his generals to rip
open with the sword of war, the woman with child? Is it blasphemy
to deny that a God of infinite love gave such commandments? Is such
a denial calculated to pour contempt and scorn upon the God of the 



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               26

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

orthodox? Is it blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children
to murder each other? Is it blasphemous to say that he was
benevolent, merciful and just?

     It is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God is
good. I do not believe that a God made this world, filled it with
people and then drowned them. I do not believe that infinite wisdom
ever made a mistake. If there be any God he was too good to commit
such an infinite crime, too wise to make such a mistake. Is this
blasphemy? Is it blasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous
man, or that David was an adulterer?

     Must we say when this ancient King had one of his best
generals placed in the front of the battle -- deserted him and had
him murdered for the purpose of stealing his wife, that he was "a
man after God's own heart"? Suppose the defendant in this case were
guilty of something like that? Uriah was fighting for his country,
fighting the battles of David, the King. David wanted to take from
him his wife. He sent for Joab, his commander-in-chief, and said to
him:

     "Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front of the
attacking force, and when the people sally forth from the town to
defend its gate, fall back so that this gallant, noble, patriotic
man may be slain."

     This was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is it
blasphemy to tell the truth and to say exactly what David was? Let
us be honest with each other; let us be honest with this defendant.

     For thousands of years men have taught that the ancient
patriarchs were sacred, that they were far better than the men of
modern times, that what was in them a virtue, is in us a crime.
Children are taught in Sunday schools to admire and respect these
criminals of the ancient days. The time has come to tell the truth
about these men, to call things by their proper names, and above
all, to stand by the right; by the truth, by mercy and by justice.
If what the defendant has said is blasphemy under this statute then
the question arises, is the statute in accordance with the
constitution? If this statute is constitutional, why has it been
allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this position: Any law
Made for the preserve of a human right, made to guard a human
being, cannot sleep long enough to die; but any law that deprives
a human being of a natural right -- if that law goes to sleep, it
never wakes, it sleeps the sleep of death.

     I call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case in
England where, only a few years ago, a man appealed to trial by
battle. The law allowing trial by battle had been asleep in the
statute book of England for more than two hundred years, and yet
the court held that, in spite of the fact that the law had been
asleep -- it being a law in favor of a defendant -- he was entitled
to trial by battle. And why? Because it was a statute at the time
made in defence of a human right, and that statute could not sleep
long enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence of this
decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act, doing
away forever with the trial by battle.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               27

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     When a statute attacks an individual right, the State must
never let it sleep. When it attacks the right of the public at
large and is allowed to pass into a state of slumber, it cannot be
raised for the purpose of punishing an individual.

     Now, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost infinite
interest in this trial, and before you decide, I am exceedingly
anxious that you should understand with clearness the thoughts I
have expressed upon this subject. I want you to know how the
civilized feel, and the position now taken by the leaders of the
world.

     A few years ago almost everything spoken against the grossest
possible superstition was considered blasphemous. The altar hedged
itself about with the sword; the Priest went in partnership with
the King. In those days statutes were leveled against all human
speech. Men were convicted of blasphemy because they believed in an
actual personal God; because they insisted that God had body and
parts. Men were convicted of blasphemy because they denied that God
had form. They have been imprisoned for denying the doctrine of
transubstantiation, and they have been torn in pieces for defending
that doctrine. There are but few dogmas now believed by any
Christian church that have not at some time been denounced as
blasphemous.

     When Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the Episcopal
Church a creed was made, and in that creed there were five dogmas
that must, of necessity, be believed. Anybody who denied any one,
was to be punished -- for the first offence, with fine, with
imprisonment, or branding, and for the second offence, with death.
Not one of these five dogmas is now a part of the creed of the
Church of England.

     So I could go on for days and weeks and months, showing that
hundreds and hundreds of religious dogmas, to deny which was death,
have been either changed or abandoned for others nearly as absurd
as the old ones were. It may be, however, sufficient to say, that
wherever the church has had power it has been a crime for any man
to speak his honest thought. No church has ever been willing that
any opponent should give a transcript of his mind. Every church in
power has appealed to brute force, to the sword, for the purpose of
sustaining its creed. Not one has had the courage to occupy the
open field. The church has not been satisfied with calling Infidels
and unbelievers blasphemers. Each church has accused nearly every
other church of being a blasphemer. Every pioneer has been branded
as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin Luther a blasphemer, and
Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer. Pious ignorance
always regards intelligence as a kind of blasphemy. Some of the
greatest men of the world, some of the best, have been put to death
for the crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of
endeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.

     As long as the church has the power to close the lips of men,
so long and no longer will superstition rule this world.

     Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of
the few.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               28

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     After every argument of the church has been answered, has been
refuted, then the church cries, "blasphemy!"

     Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered
truth.

     Blasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a this
year's bud.

     Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.

     Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.

     And let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set out in
this statute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a book. No man
can commit blasphemy by telling his honest thought. No man can
blaspheme a God, or a Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite
cannot be blasphemed.

     In the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition,
when some poor man was struck by lightning, or when a blackened
mark was left on the breast of a wife and mother, the poor savage
supposed that some god, angered by something he had done, had taken
his revenge. What else did the savage suppose? He believed that
this god had the same feelings, with regard to the loyalty of his
subjects, that an earthly chief had, or an earthly king had, with
regard to the loyalty or treachery of members of his tribe, or
citizens of his kingdom. So the savage said, when his country was
visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the people away, or the
storm scattered their poor houses in fragments: "We have allowed
some Freethinker to live; some one is in our town or village who
has not brought his gift to the priest, his incense to the altar;
some man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our god."
Then, for the purpose of appeasing the supposed god, for the
purpose of again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of
securing a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they drag
the accused man from his home, from his wife and children, and with
all the ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They did it
in self-defence; they believed that they were saving their own
lives and the lives of their children; they did it to appease their
god. Most people are beyond that point. Now when disease visits a
community, the intelligent do not say the disease came because the
people were wicked; when the cholera comes, it is not because of
the Methodists, of the Catholics, of the Presbyterians, or of the
Infidels. When the wind destroys a town in the far West, it is not
because somebody there had spoken his honest thoughts. We are
beginning to see that the wind blows and destroys without the
slightest reference to man, without the slightest care whether it
destroys the good or the bad, the irreligious or the religious.
When the lightning leaps from the clouds it is just as likely to
strike a good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of
flame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly and
just as joyously, the home of virtue, as they do the den and lair
of vice.





                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               29

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     Then the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws were
made on account of a superstition. That superstition has faded from
the minds of intelligent men, and, as a consequence, the laws based
on the superstition ought to fail.

     There is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that men
and nations must reap the consequences of their acts -- reap them
in this world, if they live, and in another if there be one. The
man who leaves this world a bad man, a malicious man, will probably
be the same man when he reaches another realm, and the man who
leaves this shore good, charitable and honest, will be good,
charitable and honest, no matter on what star he lives again. The
world is growing sensible upon these subjects, and as we grow
sensible, we grow charitable.

     Another reason has been given for these laws against
blasphemy, the most absurd reason that can by any possibility be
given. It is this: There should be laws against blasphemy, because
the man who utters blasphemy endangers the public peace.

     Is it possible that Christians will break the peace? Is it
possible that they will violate the law? Is it probable that
Christians will congregate together and make a mob, simply because
a man has given an opinion against their religion? What is their
religion? They say, "If a man smites you on one cheek, turn the
other also." They say, "We must love our neighbors as we love
ourselves." Is it possible then, that you can make a mob out of
Christians, -- that these men, who love even their enemies, will
attack others, and will destroy life, in the name of universal
love? And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to be
laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are
controlled by universal love, will become so outraged, when they
hear an honest man express an honest thought, that they will leap
upon him and tear him in pieces.

     What is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give
you my thought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy?

     To live on the unpaid labor of other men -- that is blasphemy.

     To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body --
that is blasphemy.

     To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain,
padlocks upon the lips -- that is blasphemy.

     To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what
you believe to be a lie -- that is blasphemy.

     To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain
the applause of the ignorant and superstitious mob -- that is
blasphemy.

     To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the
ignorant many -- that is blasphemy.

     To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-men
-- that is blasphemy.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               30

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal
pain -- that is blasphemy.

     To violate your conscience -- that is blasphemy.

     The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge who
pronounces an unjust sentence, are blasphemers.

     The man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment
and against his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.

     Why should we fear our fellow-men? Why should not each human
being have the right, so far as thought and its expression are
concerned, of all the world? What harm can come from an honest
interchange of thought?

     I have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken freely,
and yet the sun rose this morning, just the same as it always has.
There is no particular change visible in the world, and I do not
see but that we are all as happy to-day as though we had spent
yesterday in making somebody else miserable. I denounced on
yesterday the superstitions of the Christian world, and yet, last
night I slept the sleep of peace. You will pardon me for saying
again that I feel the greatest possible interest in the result of
this trial, in the principle at stake. This is my only apology, my
only excuse, for taking your time. For years I have felt that the
great battle for human liberty, the battle that has covered
thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been won. When I
read the history of this world, of what has been endured, of what
has been suffered, of the heroism and infinite courage of the
intellectual and honest few, battling with the countless serfs and
slaves of kings and priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance
and prejudice, of faith and fear, there was in my heart the hope
that the great battle had been fought, and that the human race, in
its march towards the dawn, had passed midnight, and that the
"great balance weighed up morning." This hope, this feeling, gave
me the greatest possible joy. When I thought of the many who had
been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty had perished in ashes,
of how many of the noblest and greatest had stood upon scaffolds,
and of the countless hearts, the grandest that ever throbbed in
human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of church and
state, of how many of the noble and loving had sighed themselves
away in dungeons, the only consolation was that the last bastille
had fallen, that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn down
and that the scaffolds of the world could no longer be wet with
heroic blood.

     You know that sometimes, after a great battle has been fought,
and one of the armies has been broken, and its fortifications
carried, there are occasional stragglers beyond the great field,
stragglers who know nothing of the fate of their army, know nothing
of the victory, and for that reason, fight on. There are a few such
stragglers in the State of New Jersey. They have never heard of the
great victory. They do not know that in all civilized countries the
hosts of superstition have been put to flight. They do not know
that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the leaders of the
intellectual armies of the world.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               31

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     One of the last trials of this character, tried in Great
Britain, -- and that is the country that our ancestors fought in
the sacred name of liberty, -- one of the last trials in that
country, a country ruled by a state church, ruled by a woman who
was born a queen, ruled by dukes and nobles and lords, children of
ancient robbers -- was in the year 1843. George Jacob Holyoake, one
of the best of the human race, was imprisoned on a charge of
Atheism, charged with having written a pamphlet and having made a
speech in which he had denied the existence of the British God. The
judge who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went down to his
grave with a stain upon his intellect and upon his honor. All the
real intelligence of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage.
There was a trial after that to which I will call your attention.
judge Coleridge, father of the present Chief justice of England,
presided at this trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas Pooley, a
man who dug wells for a living, wrote on the gate of a priest,
that, if people would burn their Bibles and scatter the ashes on
the lands, the crops would be better, and that they would also save
a good deal of money in tithes. He wrote several sentences of a
kindred character. He was a curious man. He had an idea that the
world was a living, breathing animal. He would not dig a well
beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon this
animal, the earth. He was tried before judge Coleridge, on that
charge. An infinite God was about to be dethroned, because an
honest well-digger had written his sentiments on the fence of a
parson. He was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison.
Afterward, many intelligent people asked for his pardon, on the
ground that he was in danger of becoming insane. The judge refused
to sign the petition. The pardon was refused. Long before his
sentence expired, he became a raving maniac. He was removed to an
asylum and there died. Some of the greatest men in England attacked
that judge, among these, Mr. Buckle, author of "The History of
Civilization in England," one of the greatest books in this world.
Mr. Buckle denounced judge Coleridge. He brought him before the bar
of English opinion, and there was not a man in England, whose
opinion was worth anything, who did not agree with Mr. Buckle, and
did not with him, declare the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an
infamous outrage. What were the reasons given? This, among others:
The law was dead; it had been asleep for many years; it was a law
passed during the ignorance of the Middle Ages, and a law that came
out of the dungeon of religious persecution; a law that was
appealed to by bigots and by hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an
honest man.

     In many parts of this country, people have entertained the
idea that New England was still filled with the spirit of
Puritanism, filled with the descendants of those who killed Quakers
in the name of universal benevolence, and traded Quaker children in
the Barbadoes for rum, for the purpose of establishing the fact
that God is an infinite father.

     Yet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this,
was when Abner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of Atheism. He was
tried for having written this sentence: "The Universalists believe
in a God which I do not." He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief
Justice Shaw upheld the decision, and upheld it because he was
afraid of public opinion; upheld it, although he must have known 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               32

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

that the statute nuder which Kneeland was indicted was clearly and
plainly in violation of the Constitution. No man can read the
decision of Justice Shaw without being convinced that he was
absolutely dominated, either by bigotry, or hypocrisy. One of the
judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a dissenting opinion, and
in that dissenting opinion is the argument of a civilized, of an
enlightened jurist. No man can answer the dissenting opinion of
Justice Morton. The case against Kneeland was tried more than fifty
years ago, and there has been none since in the New England States;
and this case, that we are now trying, is the first ever tried in
New jersey. The fact that it is the first, certifies to my
interpretation of this statute, and it also certifies to the
toleration and to the civilization of the people of this State. The
statute is upon your books. You inherited it from your ignorant
ancestors, and they inherited it from their savage ancestors. The
people of New Jersey were heirs of the mistakes and of the
atrocities of ancient England.

     It is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been
allowed to slumber? Who obtained this indictment? Were they
actuated by good and noble motives? Had they the public weal at
heart, or were they simply endeavoring to be revenged upon this
defendant? Were they willing to disgrace the State, in order that
they might punish him?

     I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the
question arises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper? What is
prayer? What is real religion? Let me answer these questions.

     Good, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who ploughs
the fields and fells the forests; the man who works in mines, the
man who battles with the winds and waves out on the wide sea,
controlling the commerce of the world; these men are worshipers.
The man who goes into the forest, leading his wife by the hand, who
builds him a cabin, who makes a home in the wilderness, who helps
to people and civilize and cultivate a continent, is a worshiper.

     Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only
prayer that deserves an answer, -- good, honest, noble work.

     A woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter, gone down
to degradation and filth; the woman who follows him and lifts him
out of the mire and presses him to her noble heart, until he
becomes a man once more, this woman is a worshiper. Her act is
worship.

     The poor man and the poor woman who work night and day, in
order that they may give education to their children, so that they
may have a better life than their father and mother had; the
parents who deny themselves the comforts of life, that they may lay
up something to help their children to a higher place -- they are
worshipers; and the children who, after they reap the benefit of
this worship, become ashamed of their parents, are blasphemers.

     The man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife, -- a wife
prematurely old and gray, -- the husband who sits by her bed and
holds her thin, wan hand in his as lovingly, and kisses it as 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               33

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

rapturously, as passionately, as when it was dimpled, -- that is
worship; that man is a worshiper; that is real religion.

     Whoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper. He who
adds to the sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.

     Gentlemen, you can never make me believe -- no statute can
ever convince me, that there is any infinite Being in this universe
who hates an honest man. It is impossible to satisfy me that there
is any God, or can be any God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that
has the courage to express his thought. Neither can the whole world
convince me that any man should be punished, either in this world
or in the next, for being candid with his fellow-men. If you send
men to the penitentiary for speaking their thoughts, for
endeavoring to enlighten their fellows, then the penitentiary will
become a place of honor, and the victim will step from it -- not
stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.

     Let us take one more step.

     What is holy, what is sacred? I reply that human happiness is
holy, human rights are holy. The body and soul of man -- these are
sacred. The liberty of man is of far more importance than any book;
the rights of man, more sacred than any religion -- than any
Scriptures, whether inspired or not.

     What we want is the truth, and does any one suppose that all
of the truth is confined in one book -- that the mysteries of the
whole world are explained by one volume?

     All that is -- all that conveys information to man -- all that
has been produced by the past -- all that now exists -- should be
considered by an intelligent man. All the known truths of this
world -- all the philosophy, all the poems, all the pictures, all
the statues, all the entrancing music -- the prattle of babes, the
lullaby of mothers, the words of honest men, the trumpet calls to
duty -- all these make up the bible of the world -- everything that
is noble and true and free, you will find in this great book.

     If we wish to be true to ourselves, -- if we wish to benefit
our fellow-men -- if we wish to live honorable lives -- we will
give to every other human being every right that we claim for
ourselves.

     There is another thing that should be remembered by you. You
are the judges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In
a case like this, you are the final judges as to what the law is;
and if you acquit, no court can reverse your verdict. To prevent
the least misconception, let me state to you again what I claim:

     First. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares
that:

     "The liberty of speech shall not be abridged."

     Second. That this statute, under which this indictment is
found, is unconstitutional, because it does abridge the liberty of 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               34

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

speech; it does exactly that which the constitution emphatically
says shall not be done.

     Third. I claim, also, that under this law -- even if it be
constitutional -- the words charged in this indictment do not
amount to blasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the
darkness, of this statute.

     Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no
matter what the Court may tell you about the law -- how good it is,
or how bad it is -- no matter what the Court may instruct you on
that subject -- do not forget one thing, and that is: That the
words charged in the indictment are the only words that you can
take into consideration in this case. Remember that no matter what
else may be in the pamphlet -- no matter what pictures or cartoons
there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed this man in the
name of universal liberty and love -- do not forget that you have
no right to take one word into account except the exact words set
out in this indictment -- that is to say, the words that I have
read to you. Upon this point the Court will instruct you that you
have nothing to do with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now
claim, that should the Court instruct you that the statute is
constitutional, still I insist that the words set out in this
indictment do not amount to blasphemy.

     There is still another point. This statute says: "Whoever
shall willfully speak against." Now, in this case, you must find
that the defendant "willfully" did so and so -- that is to say,
that he made the statements attributed to him knowing that they
were not true. If you believe that he was honest in what he said,
then this statute does not touch him. Even under this statute, a
man may give his honest opinion. Certainly, there is no law that
charges a man with "willfully" being honest -- "willfully" telling
his real opinion -- "willfully" giving to his fellow-men his
thought.

     Where a man is charged with larceny, the indictment must set
out that he took the goods or the property with the intention to
steal -- with what the law calls the animus furandi. If he took the
goods with the intention to steal, then he is a thief; but if he
took the goods believing them to be his own, then he is guilty of
no offence. So in this case, whatever was said by the defendant
must have been "willfully" said. And I claim that if you believe
that what the man said was honestly said, you cannot find him
guilty under this statute.

     One more point: This statute has been allowed to slumber so
long, that no man had the right to awaken it. For more than one
hundred years it has slept; and so far as New Jersey is concerned,
it has been sound asleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug
out of its grave. The breath of life is sought to be breathed into
it, to the end that some people may wreak their vengeance on an
honest man.

     Is there any evidence -- has there been any -- to show that
the defendant was not absolutely candid in the expression of his
opinions? Is there one particle of evidence tending to show that he


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               35

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

is not a perfectly honest and sincere man? Did the prosecution have
the courage to attack his reputation? No. The State has simply
proved to you that he circulated that pamphlet -- that is all.

     It was claimed, among other things, that the defendant
circulated this pamphlet among children. There was no such evidence
-- not the slightest. The only evidence about schools, or school-
children was, that when the defendant talked with the bill-poster,
-- whose business the defendant was interfering with, -- he asked
him something about the population of the town, and about the
schools. But according to the evidence, and as a matter of fact,
not a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any child, or to any
youth. According to the testimony, the defendant went into two or
three stores, -- laid the pamphlets on a show case, or threw them
upon a desk -- put them upon a stand where papers were sold, and in
one instance handed a pamphlet to a man. That is all.

     In my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in
giving this pamphlet to every citizen of your place.

     Again I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep for all
these years -- allowed to sleep by reason of the good sense and by
reason of the tolerant spirit of the State of New Jersey, should
not be allowed to leap into life because a few are intolerant, or
because a few lacked good sense and judgment. This snake should not
be warmed into vicious life by the blood of anger.

     Probably not a man on this jury agrees with me about the
subject of religion. Probably not a member of this jury thinks that
I am right in the opinions that I have entertained and have so
often expressed. Most of you belong to some church, and I presume
that those who do, have the good of what they call Christianity at
heart. There may be among you some Methodists. If so, they have
read the history of their church, and they know that when it was in
the minority, it was persecuted, and they know that they can not
read the history of that persecution without becoming indignant.
They know that the early Methodists were denounced as heretics, as
ranters, as ignorant pretenders.

     There are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know that
there is a tendency in many parts of this country to persecute a
man now because he is a Catholic. They also know that their church
has persecuted in times past, whenever and wherever it had the
power; and they know that Protestants, when in power, have always
persecuted Catholics; and they know, in their hearts, that all
persecution, whether in the name of law, or religion, is monstrous,
savage, and fiendish.

     I presume that each one of you has the good of what you call
Christianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to acquit this
man. If you believe Christianity to be a good, it never can do any
church any good to put a man in jail for the expression of opinion.
Any church that imprisons a man because he has used an argument
against its creed, will simply convince the world that it cannot
answer the argument.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               36

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     Christianity will never reap any honor, will never reap any
profit, from persecution. It is a poor, cowardly, dastardly way of
answering arguments. No gentleman will do it -- no civilized man
ever did do it -- no decent human being ever did, or ever will.

     I take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a
certain affection, for the State in which you live -- that you take
a pride in the Commonwealth of New Jersey. If you do, I beg of you
to keep the record of your State clean. Allow no verdict to be
recorded against the freedom of speech. At present there is not to
be found on the records of any inferior court, or on those of the
Supreme tribunal -- any case in which a man has been punished for
speaking his sentiments. The records have not been stained -- have
not been polluted -- with such a verdict.

     Keep such a verdict from the Reports of your State -- from the
Records of your courts. No jury has yet, in the State of New
Jersey, decided that the lips of honest men are not free -- that
there is a manacle upon the brain.

     For the sake of your State -- for the sake of her reputation
throughout the world -- for your own sakes -- and those of your
children, and their children yet to be -- say to the world that New
Jersey shares in the spirit of this age, -- that New Jersey is not
a survival of the Dark Ages, -- that New Jersey does not still
regard the thumbscrew as an instrument of progress, -- that New
Jersey needs no dungeon to answer the arguments of a free man, and
does not send to the penitentiary, men who think, and men who
speak. Say to the world, that where arguments are without
foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough in the brains of her
people to feel that such arguments can be refuted by reason.

     For the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the sake of
something of far more value to this world than New Jersey -- for
the sake of something of more importance to mankind than this
continent -- for the sake of Human Liberty, for the sake of Free
Speech, acquit this man.

     What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty
is to the soul of man. Without it, there come suffocation,
degradation and death.

     In the name of Liberty, I implore -- and not only so, but I
insist -- that you shall find a verdict in favor of this defendant.
Do not do the slightest thing to stay the march of human progress.
Do not carry us back, even for a moment, to the darkness of that
cruel night that good men hoped had passed away forever.

     Liberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there
remains only barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no
civilization.

     If another man has not the right to think, you have not even
the right to think that he thinks wrong. If every man has not the
right to think, the people of New Jersey had no right to make a
statute, or to adopt a constitution -- no jury has the right to
render a verdict, and no court to pass its sentence.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               37

              TRIAL OF C.B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.

     In other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has
the right to form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be
such a thing as real religion without liberty. Without liberty
there can be no such thing as conscience, no such word as justice.
All human actions -- all good, all bad -- have for a foundation the
idea of human liberty, and without Liberty there can be no vice,
and there can be no virtue.

     Without Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy -- no
love, no hatred, no justice, no progress.

     Take the word Liberty from human speech and all the other
words become poor, withered, meaningless sounds -- but with that
word realized -- with that word understood, the world becomes a
paradise.

     Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming
the prosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the
court are simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did
not find the indictment. That was found by the grand jury. The
grand jury did not find the indictment of its own motion. Certain
people came before the grand jury and made their complaint -- gave
their testimony, and upon that testimony, under this statute, the
indictment was found.

     While I do not blame these people -- they not being on trial
-- I do ask you to stand on the side of right.

     I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge
a public duty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to
judgment, no matter what authority may say, no matter what public
opinion may demand. A man who stands by the right, against the
world, cannot help applauding himself, and saying: "I am an honest
man."

     I want your verdict -- a verdict born of manhood, of courage;
and I want to send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick.
I wish you to furnish the words of this dispatch -- only two words
-- and these two words will fill an anxious heart with joy. They
will fill a soul with light. It is a very short message -- only two
words -- and I ask you to furnish them: "Not guilty."

     You are expected to do this, because I believe you will be
true to your consciences, true to your best judgment, true to the
best interests of the people of New Jersey, true to the great cause
of Liberty.

     I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under
the flag of the United States -- that flag for which has been shed
the bravest and best blood of the world -- under that flag
maintained by Washington, by Jefferson, by Franklin and by Lincoln
-- under that flag in defence of which New Jersey poured out her
best and bravest blood -- I hope it will never be necessary again
for a man to stand before a jury and plead for the Liberty of
Speech.

          NOTE: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of 
guilty. The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs
amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel Ingersoll
paid, giving his service free. -- C.P. Farrell.

                               38
