Books: Lectures Of Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Vol. I
C >>
Col. Robert Green Ingersoll >> Lectures Of Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Vol. I
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 | 25 |
26 |
27
For instance, here is a shipwreck, and here is some brave sailor stands
aside and allows a woman whom he never saw before to take his place in
the boat, and he stands there, grand and serene as the wide sea, and he
goes down. Do you tell me there is any God who will push the life-boat
from the shore of eternal life, when that man wishes to step in? Do you
tell me that God can be unpitying to the pitiful, that He can be
unforgiving to the forgiving? I deny it; and from the aspersions of
the pulpit I seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity.
Now, I have read you everything in Matthew on the subject of salvation.
That is all there is. Not one word about believing anything. It is the
gospel of deed, the gospel of charity, the gospel of self-denial; and if
only that gospel had been preached, persecution never would have shed
one drop of blood. Not one. Now, according to the testimony, Matthew
was well acquainted with Christ. According to the testimony, he had
been with Him, and His companion for years, and if it was necessary to
believe anything in order to get to heaven, Matthew should have told us.
But he forgot it. Or he didn't believe it. Or he never heard of it.
You can take your choice.
The next is Mark. Now let us see what he says. And for the purpose of
this lecture it is sufficient for me to say that Mark agrees,
substantially, with Matthew, that God will be merciful to the merciful;
that He will be kind to the kind that He will pity the pitying. And it
is precisely, or substantially, the same as Matthew until I come to the
16th verse of the 16th chapter, and then I strike an interpolation, put
in by hypocrisy, put in by priests, who longed to grasp with bloody
hands the sceptre of universal authority.
Let me read it to you. And it is the most infamous passage in the
Bible. Christ never said it. No sensible man ever said it. "And He
said unto them"--that is, unto His disciples--"Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."
Now, I propose to prove to you that that is an interpolation. Now how
will I do it? In the first place, not one word is said about belief in
Matthew. In the next place, not one word is said about belief in Mark,
until I come to that verse. And when is that said to have been spoken?
According to Mark, it is a part of the last conversation of Jesus
Christ--just before, according to the account, He ascended bodily before
their eyes. If there ever was any important thing happened in this
world, that is one of them. If there was any conversation that people
would be apt to recollect, it would be the last conversation with God
before He rose through the air and seated Himself upon the throne of the
Infinite. We have in this Testament five accounts of the last
conversation happening between Jesus Christ and His apostles. Matthew
gives it. And yet Matthew does not state that in that conversation He
said: "Whoso believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and whoso
believeth not shall be damned." And if He did say those words, they were
the most important that ever fell from His lips. Matthew did not hear
it, or did not believe it, or forgot it.
Then I turn to Luke, and he gives an account of this same last
conversation, and not one word does he say upon that subject. Now it is
the most important thing, if Christ said it, that He ever said.
Then I turn to John, and he gives an account of the last conversation,
but not one solitary word on the subject of belief or unbelief. Not one
solitary word on the subject of damnation. Not one.
Then I turn to the first chapter of the Acts, and there I find an
account of the last conversation; and in that conversation there is not
one word upon this subject. Now, I say, that demonstrates that the
passage in Mark is an interpolation.
What other reason have I got? That there is not one particle of sense
in it. Why? No man can control his belief. You hear evidence for and
against, and the integrity of the soul stands at the scales and tells
which side rises and which side falls. You cannot believe as you wish.
You must believe as you must. And He might as well have said: "Go into
all the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever has red hair shall be
saved, and whosoever hath not shall be damned."
I have another reason. I am much obliged to the gentleman who
interpolated these passages. I am much obliged to him that he put in
some more--two, more. Now hear:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe." Good.
"In My name shall they cast out devils. They shall speak with new
tongues, and they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly
thing it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover."
Bring on your believer! Let him cast out a devil. I do not claim a
large one, "just a little one for a cent." Let him take up serpents.
"And if he drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt him." Let me mix up
a dose for the theological believer, and if it does not hurt him I'll
join a church. O, but, "they say those things only lasted through that
apostolic age." Let us see. "Go ye into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall
follow them that believe."
How long? I think at least until they had gone into all the world.
Certainly these signs should follow until all the world had been
visited. And yet if that declaration was in the mouth of Christ, he
then knew that one-half of the world was unknown and that he would be
dead 1,492 years before his disciples would know that there was another
world. And yet he said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel,"
and he knew then that it would be 1,492 years before anybody went.
Well, if it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the old
world, surely it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the
new world. And the very reason that signs should follow would be to
convince the unbeliever, and there are as many unbelievers now as ever,
and the signs are as necessary today as they ever were. I would like a
few myself.
This frightful declaration, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," has filled the world
with agony and crime.
Every letter of this passage has been sword and fagot; every word has
been dungeon and chain.
That passage made the sword of persecution drip with innocent blood for
ten centuries. That passage made the horizon of a thousand years lurid
with the flames of fagots. That passage contradicts the sermon on the
mount. That passage travesties the Lord's prayer. That passage turns
the splendid religion of deed and duty into the superstition of creed
and cruelty. I deny it. It is infamous. Christ never said it! Now I
come to Luke, and it is sufficient to say that Luke substantially agrees
with Matthew and with Mark. Substantially agrees, as the evidence is
read. I like it.
"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Good!
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. Condemn not, and ye shall not
be condemned; forgive and ye shall be forgiven." Good!
"Give, and it shall be given unto you, good measure, pressed down, and
shaken together, and running over." Good! I like it.
"For with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to
you again."
He agrees substantially with Mark; he agrees substantially with
Matthew; and I come at last to the nineteenth chapter.
"And Zaccheus stood and said unto the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, the half of
my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man
by false accusation, I restore him four-fold.' And Jesus said unto him,
'This day is salvation come to this house.'"
That is good doctrine. He didn't ask Zaccheus what he believed. He
didn't ask him, Do you believe in the Bible? Do you believe in the five
points? Have you ever been baptized-sprinkled? Oh! immersed. "Half of
my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man
by false accusation, I restore him four-fold." "And Christ said, 'This
day is salvation come to this house.'" Good!
I read also in Luke that Christ when upon the cross forgave His
murderers, and that is considered the shining gem in the crown of His
mercy--that He forgave His murderers. That He forgave the men who drove
the nails in His hands, in His feet, that plunged a spear in His side;
the soldier that in the hour of death offered Him in mockery the
bitterness to drink; that He forgave them all freely, and that yet,
although He would forgive them, He will in the nineteenth century damn
to eternal fire an honest man for the expression of his honest thoughts.
That won't do. I find too, in Luke, an account of two thieves that were
crucified at the same time. The other gospels speak of them. One says
they both railed upon Him. Another says nothing about it. In Luke we
are told that one did, but one of the thieves looked and pitied Christ,
and Christ said to that thief:
"This day shalt thou meet me in Paradise."
Why did He say that? Because the thief pitied Him. And God cannot
afford to trample beneath the feet of His infinite wrath the smallest
blossom of pity that ever shed its perfume in the human heart!
Who was this thief? To what church did he belong? I don't know. The
fact that he was a thief throws no light on that question. Who was he?
What did he believe? I don't know. Did he believe in the Old
Testament? In the miracles? I don't know. Did he believe that Christ
was God? I don't know. Why, then, was the promise made to him that he
should meet Christ in Paradise. Simply because he pitied innocence
suffering on the cross.
God cannot afford to damn any man that is capable of pitying anybody.
And now we come to John, and that is where the trouble commences. The
other gospels teach that God will be merciful to the merciful, forgiving
to the forgiving, kind to the kind, loving to the loving, just to the
just, merciful to the good.
Now we come to John, and here is another doctrine. And allow me to say
that John was not written until centuries after the others. This, the
Church got up:
"And Jesus answered and said unto him: 'Furthermore I say unto thee
that except a man be born again he cannot see the "Kingdom of God."'"
Why didn't He tell Matthew that? Why didn't He tell Luke that? Why
didn't He tell Mark that? They never heard of it, or forgot it, or they
didn't believe it.
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God." Why?
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'ye must be born
again.' That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is
born of the spirit is spirit,"--and He might have added that which is
born of water is water.
"Marvel not that I say unto thee, 'ye must be born again.'" And then
the reason is given, and I admit I did not understand it myself until I
read the reason, and will understand it as well as I do; and here it is:
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
and canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth." So I find in
the book of John the idea of the real presence.
So I find in the book of John, that in order to be saved we must eat of
the flesh and we must drink of the blood of Jesus Christ, and if that
gospel is true, the Catholic Church is right. But it is not true. I
cannot believe it, and yet for all that it may be true. But I don't
believe it. Neither do I believe there is any God in the universe who
will damn a man simply for expressing his belief.
"Why," they say to me, "suppose all this should turn out to be true, and
you should come to the day of judgment and find all these things to be
true. What would you do then?" I would walk up like a man, and say, "I
was mistaken."
"And suppose God was about to pass judgment on you, what would you say?"
I would say to Him, "Do unto others as you would that others should do
unto you." Why not?
I am told that I must render good for evil. I am told that if smitten
on one cheek I must turn the other. I am told that I must overcome evil
with good. I am told that I must love my enemies; and will it do for
this God who tells me, "Love my enemies," to say, "I will damn mine."
No, it will not do; it will not do.
In the book of John all this doctrine of regeneration; all this doctrine
that it is necessary to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; all the
doctrine that salvation depends upon belief--in this book of John all
these doctrines find their warrant; nowhere else.
Read these three gospels and then read John, and you will agree with me
that the gospels that teach "We must be kind, we must be merciful, we
must be forgiving, and thereupon that God will forgive us," is true, and
then say whether or no that doctrine is not better than the doctrine
that somebody else can be good for you, that somebody else can be bad
for you, and that the only way to get to heaven is to believe something
that you do not understand.
Now upon these gospels that I have read the churches rest; and out of
those things that I have read they have made their creeds. And the
first Church to make a creed, so far as I know, was the Catholic. I take
it that is the first Church that had any power. That is the Church that
has preserved all these miracles for us. That is the Church that
preserved the manuscripts for us. That is the Church whose word we have
to take. That Church is the first witness that Protestantism brought to
the bar of history to prove miracles that took place eighteen hundred
years ago; and while the witness is there Protestantism takes pains to
say: "You can't believe one word that witness says, now."
That Church is the only one that keeps up a constant communication with
heaven through the instrumentality of a large number of decayed saints.
That Church is an agent of God on earth. That Church has a person who
stands in the place of Deity; and that Church, according to their
doctrine, is infallible. That Church has persecuted to the exact extent
of her power--and always will. In Spain that Church stands erect, and
that Church is arrogant. In the United States that Church crawls. But
the object in both countries is the same, and that is the destruction of
intellectual liberty. That Church teaches us that we can make God happy
by being miserable ourselves. That Church teaches you that a nun is
holier in the sight of God than a loving mother with a child in her
thrilled and thrilling arms. That Church teaches you that a priest is
better than a father. That Church teaches you that celibacy is better
than that passion of love that has made everything of beauty in this
world. That Church tells the girl of 16 or 18 years of age, with eyes
like dew and light--that girl with the red of health in the white of her
beautiful checks--tells that girl, "Put on the veil woven of death and
night, kneel upon stones, and you will please God."
I tell you that, by law, no girl should be allowed to take the veil, and
renounce the beauties of the world, until she was at least 25 years of
age. Wait until she knows what she wants.
I am opposed to allowing these spider-like priests weaving webs to catch
the flies of youth; and there ought to be a law appointing
commissioners to visit such places twice a year, and release every
person who expresses a desire to be released. I don't believe in
keeping penitentiaries for God. No doubt they are honest about it. That
is not the question.
Now this Church, after a few centuries of thought, made a creed, and
that creed is the foundation of orthodox religion. Let me read it to
you:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the Catholic faith; which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt, he shall everlastingly perish." Now the faith
is this: "That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity."
Of course you understand how that's done, and there's no need of my
explaining it. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance. You see what a predicament that would leave the Deity in if
you divided, the substance.
"For one is the person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of
the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost is all one "--you know what I mean by Godhead. In glory
equal, and in majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the
Son, such is the Holy Ghost. The Father is uncreated, the Son
uncreated, the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the
Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
And that is the reason we know so much about the thing. "The Father is
eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal," and yet there are not
three eternals, only one eternal, as also there are not three uncreated,
nor three incomprehensibles, only one uncreated, one incomprehensible.
"In like manner, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy
Ghost almighty." Yet there are not three almighties, only one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, and yet not three
Gods; and so likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy
Ghost is Lord, yet there are not three Lords, for as we are compelled by
the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and
Lord, so we are all forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there are
three Gods, or three Lords. "The Father is made of no one, not created
or begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created,
or begotten. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made
nor begotten, but proceeded--" You know what proceeding is.
"So there is one Father, not three Fathers." Why should there be three
Fathers, and only one Son?
"One Son, and not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts;
and in this Trinity there is nothing before or afterward, nothing
greater or less, but the whole three persons are coeternal with one
another, and coequal, so that in all things the unity is to be worshiped
in Trinity, and the Trinity is to be worshiped in unity, and therefore
we will believe." Those who will be saved must thus think of the
Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now the
right of this thing is this: That we believe and confess that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. He is God of the
substance of His Father begotten before the world was. That was a good
while before His mother lived.
"And He is man of the substance of His mother, born in this world,
perfect God and perfect man, and the rational soul in human flesh
subsisting equal to the Father according to His Godhead, but less than
the Father, according to His manhood, who being both God and man is not
two but one--one not by conversion of God into flesh but by the taking
of the manhood into God."
You see that it is a great deal easier than the other. "One altogether,
not by a confusion of substance, but by unity of person, for as the
rational soul and flesh is one man, so God the man, is one Christ, who
suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead, ascended into heaven, and He sitteth at the right
hand of God, the Father Almighty, and He shall come to judge the living
and the dead."
In order to be saved it is necessary to believe this. What a blessing,
that we do not have to understand it. And in order to compel the human
intellect to get upon its knees, before that infinite absurdity,
thousands and millions have suffered agonies; thousands and millions
have perished in dungeons and in fire; and if all the bones of all the
victims of the Catholic Church could be gathered together, a monument
higher than all the pyramids would rise in our presence, and the eyes
even of priests would be suffused with tears.
That Church covered Europe with cathedrals and dungeons. That Church
robbed men of the jewel of the soul. That Church had ignorance upon its
knees. That Church went into partnership with the tyrants of the
throne, and between these two vultures, the altar and the throne, the
heart of man was devoured. Of course I have met, and cheerfully admit
that there is thousands of good Catholics; but Catholicism is contrary
to human liberty. Catholicism bases salvation upon belief. Catholicism
teaches man to trample his reason under foot. And for that reason, it
is wrong.
Now, the next Church that comes along in the way that I wish to speak of
is the Episcopalian. That was founded by Henry VIII., now in heaven. He
cast off Queen Catherine and Catholicism together. And he accepted
Episcopalianism and Annie Boleyn at the same time. That Church, if it
had a few more ceremonies, would be Catholic. If it had a few less,
nothing. We have an Episcopalian Church in this country, and it has all
the imperfection of a poor relation. It is always boasting of a rich
relative. In England the creed is made by law, the same as we pass
statutes here. And when a gentleman dies in England, in order to
determine whether he shall be saved or not, it is necessary for the
power of heaven to read the acts of Parliament. It becomes a question
of law, and sometimes a man is damned on a very nice point. Lost on
demurrer.
A few years ago, a gentleman by the name of Seabury, Samuel Seabury,
was sent over to England to get some apostolic succession. We hadn't a
drop in the house. It was necessary for the bishops of the English
church to put their hands upon his head. They refused; there was no
act of Parliament justifying--it. He had then to go to the Scotch
Bishops; and, had the Scotch Bishops refused, we never would have had
any apostolic succession in the new world. And God would have been
driven out of half the world; and the true church never could have been
founded. But the Scotch Bishops put their hands on his head, and now we
have an unbroken succession of heads and hands from St. Paul to the last
bishop.
In this country the Episcopal Church has done some good, and I want to
thank that Church. Having, on an average, less religion than the
others, on an average you have done more good to mankind. You preserved
some of the humanities. You did not hate music, you did not absolutely
despise painting, and you did not altogether abhor architecture, and you
finally admitted that it was no worse to keep time with your feet than
with your hands. And some went so far as to say that people could play
cards, and God would overlook it, or would look the other way. For all
these things accept my thanks.
When I was a boy, the other Churches looked upon dancing as probably the
mysterious sin against the Holy Ghost; and they used to teach that when
four boys got in a hay-mow, playing seven-up, that the Eternal God stood
whetting the sword of His eternal wrath waiting to strike them down to
the lowest hell. And so that Church has done some good.
After a while, in England, a couple of gentlemen, or a couple of men by
the name of Wesley and Whitfield, said: "If everybody is going to hell,
nearly, somebody ought to mention it." The Episcopal clergy said:
"Keep still; don't tear your gown." Wesley and Whitfield said: "This
frightful truth ought to be proclaimed from the housetops at every
opportunity, from the highway of every occasion." They were good, honest
men. They believed their doctrine. And they said: "If there is a
hell, and a Niagara of souls pouring over an eternal precipice of
ignorance, somebody ought to say something." They were right; somebody
ought, if such thing was true. Wesley was a believer in the Bible. He
believed in the actual presence of the Almighty. God used to do
miracles for him; used to put off a rain several days to give his
meeting a chance; used to cure his horse of lameness; used to cure Mr.
Wesley's headaches.
And Mr. Wesley also believed in the actual existence of the devil. He
believed that devils had possession of people. He talked to the devil
when he was in folks, and the devil told him that he was going to leave;
and that he was going into another person; that he would be there at a
certain time; and Wesley went to that other person, and there the devil
was, prompt to the minute. He regarded every conversion as an absolute
warfare between God and this devil for the possession of that human
soul. Honest, no doubt. Mr. Wesley did not believe in human liberty.
Honest, no doubt. Was opposed to the liberty of the colonies. Honestly
so. Mr. Wesley preached a sermon entitled, "The Cause and Cure of
Earthquakes," in which he took the ground that earthquakes were caused
by sin and the only way to stop them was to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ. No doubt an honest man.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 | 25 |
26 |
27