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

Wesley and Whitfield fell out on the question of predestination. Wesley
insisted that God invited everybody to the feast. Whitfield said He did
not invite those He knew would not come. Wesley said He did. Whitfield
said: "Well, He didn't put plates for them, anyway." Wesley said He
did. So that, when they were in hell, he could show them that there was
a seat left for them. And that Church that they founded is still
active. And probably no Church in the world has done so much preaching
for as little money as the Methodists. Whitfield believed in slavery and
advocated the slave trade. And it was of Whitfield that Whittier made
the two lines:

He bade the slave ships speed from coast to coast, Fanned by the wings
of the Holy Ghost.

We have lately had a meeting of the Methodists, and I find, by their
statistics, that they believe they have converted 130,000 folks in a
year. That in order to do this, they have 26,000 preachers, 226,000
Sunday-school scholars, and about $1,000,000,000 invested in church
property. I find, in looking over the history of the world, that there
are 40,000,000 or 50,000,000,000 of people born a year, and if they are
saved at the rate of 30,000 a year, about how long will it take that
doctrine to save this world? Good, honest people; they are mistaken.

In old times they were very simple. Churches used to be like barns.
They used to have them divided--men on that side, and women on this. A
little barbarous. We have advanced since then, and we now find as a
fact, demonstrated by experience, that a man sitting by the woman he
loves can thank God as heartily as though sitting between two men that
he has never been introduced to.

There is another thing these Methodists should remember, and that is,
that the Episcopalians were the greatest enemies they ever had. And
they should remember that the Free-Thinkers have always treated them
kindly and well.

There is one thing about the Methodist Church in the North that I like.
But I find that it is not Methodism that does that. I find that the
Methodist Church in the South is as much opposed to liberty as the
Methodist Church North is in favor of liberty. So it is not Methodism
that is in favor of liberty or slavery. They differ a little in their
creed from the rest. They do not believe that God does everything.
They believe that He does His part, and that you must do the rest, and
that getting to heaven is a partnership business.

The next church is the Presbyterians--in my judgment the worst of all,
as far as creed is concerned. This Church was founded by John Calvin, a
murderer! John Calvin, having power in Geneva, inaugurated human
torture. Voltaire abolished torture in France. The man who abolished
torture, if the Christian religion be true, God is now torturing in
hell; and the man who inaugurated torture, is now a glorified angel in
heaven. It won't do.

John Knox started this doctrine in Scotland, and there is this
peculiarity about Presbyterianism, it grows best where the soil is
poorest. I read the other day an account of a meeting between John Knox
and John Calvin. Imagine a dialogue between a pestilence and a famine!
Imagine a conversation between a block and an ax! As I read their
conversation it seemed to me as though John Knox and John Calvin were
made for each other; that they fitted each other like the upper and
lower jaws of a wild beast. They believed happiness was a crime; they
looked upon laughter as blasphemy, and they did all they could to
destroy every human feeling, and to fill the mind with the infinite
gloom of predestination and eternal damnation. They taught the doctrine
that God had a right to damn us because He made us. That is just the
reason that He has not a right to damn us. There is some dust.
Unconscious dust! What right has God to change that unconscious dust
into a human being, when He knows that human being will sin; and He
knows that human being will suffer eternal agony? Why not leave him in
the unconscious dust? What right has an infinite God to add to the sum
of human agony? Suppose I knew that I could change that piece of
furniture into a living, sentient human being, and I knew that that
being would suffer untold agony forever. If I did it, I would be a
fiend. I would leave that being in the unconscious dust. And yet we
are told that we must believe such a doctrine, or we are to be eternally
damned! It won't do.

In 1839 there was a division in this Church, and they had a lawsuit to
see which was the Church of God. And they tried it by a judge and jury,
and the jury decided that the new school was the Church of God, and then
they got a new trial, and the next jury decided that the old school was
the Church of God, and that settled it. That Church teaches that
infinite innocence was sacrificed for me! I don't want it! I don't wish
to go to heaven unless I can settle by the books, and go there because I
ought to go there. I have said, and I say again, I don't want to be a
charity angel. I have no ambition to become a winged pauper of the
skies.

The other day a young gentleman, a Presbyterian, who had just been
converted, came to me and gave me a tract and he told me he was
perfectly happy. Ugh! Says I: "Do you think a great many people are
going to hell?" "Oh, yes." "And you are perfectly happy?" "Well, he
didn't know as he was quite." "Wouldn't you be happier if they were all
going to heaven?" "O, yes." "Well, then you are not perfectly happy?"
"No, he didn't think he was." Says I: "When you get to heaven, then you
would be perfectly happy?" "Oh, yes." "Now, when we are only going to
hell, you are not quite happy; but when we are in hell, and you in
heaven, then you will be perfectly happy?" You won't be as decent when
you get to be an angel as you are now, will you? "Well," he said,
"that was not exactly it." Said I: "Suppose your mother were in hell,
would you be happy in heaven then?" "Well," he says, "I suppose God
would know the best place for mother." And I thought to myself, then,
if I was a woman, I would like to have five or six boys like that.

It will not do. Heaven is where are those we love, and those who love
us. And I wish to go to no world unless I can be accompanied by those
who love me here. Talk about the consolations of this infamous
doctrine. The consolations of a doctrine that makes a father say, "I
can be happy with my daughter in hell"; that makes a mother say, "I can
be happy with my generous, brave boy in hell"; that makes a boy say, "I
can enjoy the glory of heaven with the woman who bore me, the woman who
would have died for me, in eternal agony." And they call that tidings of
great joy.

I have not time to speak of the Baptists,--that Jeremy Taylor said were
as much to be rooted out as anything that is the greatest pest and
nuisance on the earth. Nor of the Quakers, the best of all, and abused
by all. I can not forget that George Fox, in the year of grace 1640,
was put in the pillory and whipped from town to town, scarred, put in a
dungeon, beaten, trampled upon, and what for? Simply because he preached
the doctrine: "Thou shalt not resist evil with evil. Thou shalt love
thy enemies." Think what the Church must have been that day to scar the
flesh of that loving man! Just think of it! I say I have not time to
speak of all these sects. And of the varieties of Presbyterians and
Campbellites. The people who think they must dive in order to go up.
There are hundreds and hundreds of these sects, all founded upon this
creed that I read, differing simply in degree. Ah but they say to me:
"You are fighting something that is dead. Nobody believes this, now."
The preachers do not believe what they preach in the pulpit. The people
in the pews do not believe what they hear preached. And they say to me:
"You are fighting something that is dead. This is all a form, we do not
believe a solitary creed in it. We sign it and swear that we believe
it, but we don't. And none of us do. And all the ministers they say in
private, admit that they do not believe it, not quite." I don't know
whether this is so or not. I take it that they believe what they
preach. I take it that when they meet and solemnly agree to a creed, I
take it they are honest and solemnly believe in that creed.

The Evangelical Alliance, made up of all orthodox denominations of the
world, met only a few years ago, and here is their creed: They believe
in the divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures; the right and duty of private judgment in the
interpretation of Holy Scriptures, but if you interpret wrong you are
damned. They believe in the unity of the Godhead and the trinity of the
persons therein. They believe in the utter depravity of human nature.
There can be no more infamous doctrine than that. They look upon a
little child as a lump of depravity. I look upon it as a bud of
humanity, that will, under proper circumstances, blossom into rich and
glorious life.

Total depravity of human nature! Here is a woman whose husband has been
lost at sea; the news comes that he has been drowned by the ever-hungry
waves, and she waits. There is something in her heart that tells her he
is alive. And she waits. And years afterwards as she looks down toward
the little gate, she sees him; he has been given back by the sea, and
she rushes to his arms and covers his face with kisses, and with tears.
And if that infamous doctrine is true, every tear is a crime, and every
kiss a blasphemy. It won't do. According to that doctrine, if a man
steals and repents, and takes back the property, the repentance and the
taking back of the property are two other crimes if he is totally
depraved: It is an infamy. What else do they believe? "The
justification of a sinner by faith alone," without works, just faith.
Believing something that you don't understand. Of course God cannot
afford to reward a man for believing anything that is reasonable. God
rewards only for believing something that is unreasonable, if you
believe something that you know is not so. What else? They believe in
the eternal blessedness of the righteous, and in the eternal punishment
of the wicked. Tidings of great joy! They are so good that they will
not associate with Universalists. They will not associate with
Unitarians. They will not associate with scientists. They will only
associate with those who believed that God so loved the world that He
made up his mind to damn the most of us. Then they say to me: "What do
you propose? You have torn this down; what do you propose to give in
the place of it?" I have not torn the good down. I have only
endeavored to trample out the ignorant, cruel fires of hell. I do not
tear away the passage, "God will be merciful to the merciful." I do not
destroy the promise, "If you will forgive others, God will forgive
you." I would not for anything blot out the faintest stars that shine
in the horizon of human despair, nor in the horizon of human hope; but
I will do what I can to get that infinite shadow out of the heart of
man.

"What do you propose to put in place of this?"

Well, in the first place, I propose good fellowship--good friends all
around. No matter what we believe, shake hands and let it go. That is
your opinion. This is mine: "Let us be friends." Science makes
friends, religion--superstition--makes enemies. They say, "Belief is
important." I say no, good actions are important. Judge by deed, not by
creed, good fellowship. We have had too many of these solemn people.
Whenever I see an exceedingly solemn man, I know he is an exceedingly
stupid man. No man of any humor ever founded any religion--never.
Humor sees both sides, while reason is the holy light; humor carries
the lantern and the man with a keen sense of humor is preserved from
the solemn stupidities of superstition. I like a man who has got good
feeling for everybody--good fellowship. One man said to another:

"Will you take a glass of wine?"

"I don't drink."

"Will you smoke a cigar?"

"I don't smoke."

"Maybe you will chew something?"

"I don't chew."

"Let us eat some hay."

"I tell you I don't eat hay."

"Well, then, good-bye; for you are no company for man or beast."

I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, the gospel of good nature, the
gospel of good health. Let us pray to our bodies. Take care of our
bodies, and our souls will take care of themselves. Good health! And I
believe that the time will come when the public thought will be so great
and grand that it will be looked upon as infamous to perpetuate disease.
I believe the time will come when man will not fill the future with
consumption and insanity. I believe the time will come when we study
ourselves, and understand the laws of health, that we will say, "We are
under obligation to put the flags of health in the cheeks of our
children." Even if I got to heaven, and had a harp, I would hate to
look back upon my children and grandchildren, and see them diseased,
deformed, crazed, all suffering the penalties of crimes I had committed.

I, then, believe in the gospel of good health, and I believe in a gospel
of good living. You can not make any God happy by fasting. Let us have
good food, and let us have it well cooked--and it is a thousand times
better to know how to cook it than it is to understand any theology in
the world. I believe in the gospel of good clothes. I believe in the
gospel of good houses, in the gospel of water and soap. I believe in
the gospel of intelligence, in the gospel of education. The school-
house is my cathedral. The universe is my Bible. I believe in that
gospel of justice that we must reap what we sow.

I do not believe in forgiveness. If I rob Mr. Smith and God forgives
me, how does that help Smith? If I, by slander, cover some poor girl
with the leprosy of some imputed crime, and she withers away like a
blighted flower, and afterward I get forgiveness, how does that help
her? If there is another world we have got to settle. No bankrupt
court there. Pay down. The Christians say, that among the ancient
Jews, if you committed a crime you had to kill a sheep, now they say,--
"Charge it." "Put it upon the slate." It won't do, for every crime you
commit you must answer to yourself and to the one you injure. And if you
have ever clothed another with unhappiness, as with a garment of pain,
you will never be quite as happy as though you hadn't done that thing.
No forgiveness. Eternal, inexorable, everlasting justice. That is what
I believe in. And if it goes hard with me, I will stand it, and I will
stick to in logic and I will bear it like a man.

And I believe, too, in the gospel of liberty, in giving to others what
we claim for ourselves. I believe there is room everywhere for thought,
and the more liberty you give away the more you will have. In liberty,
extravagance is economy. Let us be just. Let us be generous to each
other.

I believe in the gospel of intelligence. That is the only lever capable
of raising mankind. Intelligence must be the savior of this world.
Humanity is the grand religion, and no God can put another in hell in
another world who has made a little heaven in this. God cannot make a
man miserable if that man has made somebody else happy. God cannot hate
anybody who is capable of loving anybody.

So I believe in this great gospel of generosity.

"Ah! but," they say, "it won't do. You must believe. I say no. My
gospel of health will bring life. My gospel of intelligence, my gospel
of good living, my gospel of good-fellowship will cover the world with
happy homes. My doctrine will put carpets upon your floors, pictures
upon your walls. My doctrine will put books upon your shelves, ideas in
your minds. My doctrine will rid the world of the abnormal monsters
born of the ignorance of superstition. My doctrine will give us health,
wealth, and happiness. That is what I want. That is what I believe in.
Give us intelligence. In a little while a man may find that he cannot
steal without robbing himself. He will find that he cannot murder
without assassinating his own joy. He will find that every crime is a
mistake. He will find that only that man carries the cross who does
wrong, and that the man who does right the cross turns to wings upon his
shoulders that will bear him upwards forever. He will find that
intelligent self-love embraces within its mighty arms all the human
race.

"Oh," but they say to me, "you take away immortality." I do not. If we
are immortal it is a fact in nature, and we are not indebted to priests
for it, nor to Bibles for it, and it cannot be destroyed by unbelief.

As long as we love we will hope to live, and when the one dies that we
love, we will say: "Oh, that we could meet again!" And whether we do
or not, it will not be the work of theology. It will be a fact in
nature. I would not for my life destroy one star of human hope; but I
want it so that when a poor woman rocks the cradle, and sings a lullaby
to the dimpled darling, that she will not be compelled to believe that,
ninety-nine chances in a hundred, she is raising kindling-wood for hell.
One world at a time--that is my doctrine.

It is said in the Testament, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof" and I say, sufficient unto each world is the evil thereof. And
suppose, after all, that death does end all, next to eternal joy, next
to being forever with those we love and those who have loved us, next to
that is to be wrapt in the dreamless drapery of eternal peace.

Next to external life is eternal death. Upon the shadowy shore of death
the sea of trouble casts no wave. Eyes that have been curtained by the
everlasting dark will never know again the touch of tears. Lips that
have been touched by eternal silence will never utter another word of
grief. Hearts of dust do not break; the dead do not weep. And I had
rather think of those I have loved, and those I have lost, as having
returned, as having become a part of the elemental wealth of the world--
I would rather think of them as unconscious dust--I would rather think
of them as gurgling in the stream, floating in the clouds, bursting in
the foam of light upon the shores of worlds--I would rather think of
them as the inanimate and eternally unconscious, that to have even a
suspicion that their naked souls had been clutched by an orthodox God.

But for me, I will leave the dead where nature leaves them. And
whatever flower of hope springs up in my heart I will cherish; but I
can not believe that there is any being in this universe who has created
a human soul for eternal pain. And I would rather that every God would
destroy himself; I would rather that we all should go to eternal chaos,
to black and starless night, that that just one soul should suffer
eternal agony. I have made up my mind that if there is a God, he will
be merciful to the merciful. Upon that rock I stand. That he will
forgive the forgiving. Upon that rock I stand. That every man should
be true to himself, and that there is no world, no star, in which
honesty is a crime. And upon that rock I stand. The honest man, the
good, kind, sweet woman, the happy child, has nothing to fear, neither
in this world, nor the world to come. And upon that rock I stand.

INGERSOLL'S ANSWER TO PROF. SWING, DR. THOMAS, AND OTHERS

After looking over the replies made to his new lecture, Col. Ingersoll
was asked by a Tribune reporter what he thought of them. He replied as
follows:

I think they dodge the point. The real point is this: If salvation by
faith is the real doctrine of Christianity, I asked on Sunday before
last, and I still ask, why didn't Matthew tell it? I still insist that
Mark should have remembered it, and I shall always believe that Luke
ought, at least, to have noticed it. I was endeavoring to show that
modern Christianity has for its basis an interpolation. I think I
showed it. The only gospel on the orthodox side is that of John, and
that was certainly not written, or did not appear in its present form,
until long after the others were written. I know very well that the
Catholic Church claimed during the Dark Ages, and still claims, that
references had been made to the gospels by persons living in the first,
second and third centuries; but I believe such manuscripts were
manufactured by the Catholic Church. For many years in Europe there was
not one person in 20,000 who could read and write. During that time the
Church had in its keeping the literature of our world. They
interpolated as they pleased. They created. They destroyed. In other
words, they did whatever in their opinion was necessary to substantiate
the faith. The gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the
question, and I again call upon the clergy to explain to the people why,
if salvation depended upon belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew did
not mention it. Some one has said that Christ didn't make known this
doctrine of salvation by belief or faith until after His resurrection.
Certainly none of the gospels were written until after His resurrection;
and if He made that doctrine known after His resurrection, and before
His ascension, it should have been in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well
as John.

The replies of the clergy show that they have not investigated the
subject; that they are not well acquainted with the New Testament. In
other words, they have not read it except with the regulation
theological bias. There is one thing I wish to correct here. In an
editorial in the Tribune it was stated that I had admitted that Christ
was beyond and above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and others. I didn't
say so. Another point was made against me, and those who made it seemed
to think it was a good one. In my lecture I asked why it was that the
Disciples of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, in fact, they understood
only Hebrew. It is now claimed that Greek was the language of Jerusalem
at that time; that Hebrew had fallen into disuse; that no one
understood it except the literati and the highly educated. If I fell
into an error upon this point it was because I relied upon the New
Testament. I find in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts an account of
Paul having been mobbed in the city of Jerusalem; that he was protected
by a Chief Captain and some soldiers; that, when upon the stairs of the
castle to which he was being taken for protection, he obtained leave
from the Captain to speak unto the people. In the fortieth verse of
that chapter I find the following:

"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and
beckoned with the hand unto the people; and when there was made a great
silence he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying--"

And then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives an account of his
conversion. It seems a little curious to me that Paul for the purpose
of quieting the mob, would speak to that mob in an unknown language. If
I were mobbed in the city of Chicago, and wished to defend myself with
an explanation, I certainly would not make that explanation in Chocktaw,
even if I understood that tongue. My present opinion is that I would
speak in English; and the reason I would speak in English is, because
that language is generally understood in this city. And so I conclude
from the account in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts that "Hebrew
was the language of Jerusalem at that time, or that Paul would not have
addressed the mob in that tongue."

"Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer?"

"I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and think some of his
quotations very good; and have no doubt that the authors will feel
complimented by being quoted."

"But what about there being belief in Matthew?"

"Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured of diseases on account
of faith. Admitting that mumps, measles, and whooping-cough could be
cured in that way, there is not even a suggestion that salvation
depended upon a like faith. I think he can hardly afford to rely upon
the miracles of the New Testament to prove his doctrine. There is one
instance in which a miracle was performed by Christ without His
knowledge. And I hardly think that even Mr. Courtney would insist that
any faith could have been great enough for that. The fact is, I believe
that all these miracles were ascribed to Christ long after His death,
and that Christ never, at any time or place, pretended to have any
supernatural power whatever. Neither do I believe that He claimed any
supernatural origin. He claimed simply to be a man--no less, no more.
I don't believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own reply."

"And now as to Prof. Swing?"

"Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church so long that he seems to
have forgotten the reasons for which he left it. I don't believe there
is an orthodox minister in the city of Chicago who will agree with Mr.
Swing that salvation by faith is no longer preached. Prof. Swing seems
to think it of no importance who wrote the Gospel of St. Matthew. In
this I agree with him. Judging from what he said, there is hardly
difference enough of opinion between us to justify a reply on his part.
He, however, makes one mistake. I did not in the lecture say one word
about tearing churches down. I have no objection to people building all
the churches they wish. While I admit that it is a pretty sight to see
children on a morning in June going through the fields to the country
church, I still insist that the beauty of that sight doesn't answer the
question how it is that Matthew forgot to say anything about salvation
through Christ. Prof. Swing is a man of poetic temperament; but this
is not a poetic question."

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