[* Ever since Colonel Ingersoll began the delivery of his
lecture called _The Great Infidels_, the ministers of the
country have made him the subject of special attack. One
week ago last Sunday the majority of the leading ministers
in New York made replies to Ingersoll's latest lecture.
What he has to say to these replies will be found in a
report of an interview with Colonel Ingersoll.
No man is harder to pin down for a long talk than the
Colonel. He is so beset with visitors and eager office
seekers anxious for help, that he can hardly find five
minutes unoccupied during an entire day. Through the shelter
of a private room and the guardianship of a stout colored
servant, the Colonel was able to escape the crowd of seekers
after his personal charity long enough to give some time to
answer some of the ministerial arguments advanced against
him in New York.]
_Question_. Have you seen the attacks made upon you by certain
ministers of New York, published in the _Herald_ last Sunday?
_Answer_. Yes, I read, or heard read, what was in Monday's _Herald_.
I do not know that you could hardly call them attacks. They are
substantially a repetition of what the pulpit has been saying for
a great many hundred years, and what the pulpit will say just so
long as men are paid for suppressing truth and for defending
superstition. One of these gentlemen tells the lambs of his flock
that three thousand men and a few women--probably with quite an
emphasis on the word "Few"--gave one dollar each to hear their
Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. Probably nothing is so
hard for the average preacher to bear as the fact that people are
not only willing to hear the other side, but absolutely anxious to
pay for it. The dollar that these people paid hurt their feelings
vastly more than what was said after they were in. Of course, it
is a frightful commentary on the average intellect of the pulpit
that a minister cannot get so large an audience when he preaches
for nothing, as an Infidel can draw at a dollar a head. If I
depended upon a contribution box, or upon passing a saucer that
would come back to the stage enriched with a few five cent pieces,
eight or ten dimes, and a lonesome quarter, these gentlemen would,
in all probability, imagine Infidelity was not to be feared.
The churches were all open on that Sunday, and all could go who
desired. Yet they were not full, and the pews were nearly as empty
of people as the pulpit of ideas. The truth is, the story is
growing old, the ideas somewhat moss-covered, and everything has
a wrinkled and withered appearance. This gentleman says that these
people went to hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed.
Is it possible that in a city where so many steeples pierce the
air, and hundreds of sermons are preached every Sunday, there are
three thousand men, and a few women, so anxious to hear "their
Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed" that they are willing to
pay a dollar each? The gentleman knew that nobody cursed anybody's
Maker. He knew that the statement was utterly false and without
the slightest foundation. He also knew that nobody had ridiculed
the Savior of anybody, but, on the contrary, that I had paid a
greater tribute to the character of Jesus Christ than any minister
in New York has the capacity to do. Certainly it is not cursing
the Maker of anybody to say that the God described in the Old
Testament is not the real God. Certainly it is not cursing God to
declare that the real God never sanctioned slavery or polygamy, or
commanded wars of extermination, or told a husband to separate from
his wife if she differed with him in religion. The people who say
these things of God--if there is any God at all--do what little
there is in their power, unwittingly of course, to destroy his
reputation. But I have done something to rescue the reputation of
the Deity from the slanders of the pulpit. If there is any God,
I expect to find myself credited on the heavenly books for my
defence of him. I did say that our civilization is due not to
piety, but to Infidelity. I did say that every great reformer had
been denounced as an Infidel in his day and generation. I did say
that Christ was an Infidel, and that he was treated in his day very
much as the orthodox preachers treat an honest man now. I did say
that he was tried for blasphemy and crucified by bigots. I did
say that he hated and despised the church of his time, and that he
denounced the most pious people of Jerusalem as thieves and vipers.
And I suggested that should he come again he might have occasion
to repeat the remarks that he then made. At the same time I admitted
that there are thousands and thousands of Christians who are
exceedingly good people. I never did pretend that the fact that
a man was a Christian even tended to show that he was a bad man.
Neither have I ever insisted that the fact that a man is an Infidel
even tends to show what, in other respects, his character is. But
I always have said, and I always expect to say, that a Christian
who does not believe in absolute intellectual liberty is a curse
to mankind, and that an Infidel who does believe in absolute
intellectual liberty is a blessing to this world. We cannot expect
all Infidels to be good, nor all Christians to be bad, and we might
make some mistakes even if we selected these people ourselves. It
is admitted by the Christians that Christ made a great mistake when
he selected Judas. This was a mistake of over eight per cent.
Chaplain Newman takes pains to compare some great Christians with
some great Infidels. He compares Washington with Julian, and
insists, I suppose, that Washington was a great Christian. Certainly
he is not very familiar with the history of Washington, or he never
would claim that he was particularly distinguished in his day for
what is generally known as vital piety. That he went through the
ordinary forms of Christianity nobody disputes. That he listened
to sermons without paying any particular attention to them, no one
will deny. Julian, of course, was somewhat prejudiced against
Christianity, but that he was one of the greatest men of antiquity
no one acquainted with the history of Rome can honestly dispute.
When he was made emperor he found at the palace hundreds of gentlemen
who acted as barbers, hair-combers, and brushers for the emperor.
He dismissed them all, remarking that he was able to wash himself.
These dismissed office-holders started the story that he was dirty
in his habits, and a minister of the nineteenth century was found
silly enough to believe the story. Another thing that probably
got him into disrepute in that day, he had no private chaplains.
As a matter of fact, Julian was forced to pretend that he was a
Christian in order to save his life. The Christians of that day
were of such a loving nature that any man who differed with them
was forced to either fall a victim to their ferocity or seek safety
in subterfuge. The real crime that Julian committed, and the only
one that has burned itself into the very heart and conscience of
the Christian world, is, that he transferred the revenues of the
Christian churches to heathen priests. Whoever stands between a
priest and his salary will find that he has committed the unpardonable
sin commonly known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
This gentleman also compares Luther with Voltaire. If he will read
the life of Luther by Lord Brougham, he will find that in his
ordinary conversation he was exceedingly low and vulgar, and that
no respectable English publisher could be found who would soil
paper with the translation. If he will take the pains to read an
essay by Macaulay, he will find that twenty years after the death
of Luther there were more Catholics than when he was born. And
that twenty years after the death of Voltaire there were millions
less than when he was born. If he will take just a few moments to
think, he will find that the last victory of Protestantism was in
Holland; that there has never been one since, and will never be
another. If he would really like to think, and enjoy for a few
moments the luxury of having an idea, let him ponder for a little
while over the instructive fact that languages having their root
in the Latin have generally been spoken in Catholic countries, and
that those languages having their root in the ancient German are
now mostly spoken by people of Protestant proclivities. It may
occur to him, after thinking of this a while, that there is something
deeper in the question than he has as yet perceived. Luther's last
victory, as I said before, was in Holland; but the victory of
Voltaire goes on from day to day. Protestantism is not holding
its own with Catholicism, even in the United States. I saw the
other day the statistics, I believe, of the city of Chicago, showing
that, while the city had increased two or three hundred per cent.,
Protestantism had lagged behind at the rate of twelve per cent.
I am willing for one, to have the whole question depend upon a
comparison of the worth and work of Voltaire and Luther. It may
be, too, that the gentleman forgot to tell us that Luther himself
gave consent to a person high in office to have two wives, but
prudently suggested to him that he had better keep it as still as
possible. Luther was, also, a believer in a personal Devil. He
thought that deformed children had been begotten by an evil spirit.
On one occasion he told a mother that, in his judgment, she had
better drown her child; that he had no doubt that the Devil was
its father. This same Luther made this observation: "Universal
toleration is universal error, and universal error is universal
hell." From this you will see that he was an exceedingly good man,
but mistaken upon many questions. So, too, he laughed at the
Copernican system, and wanted to know if those fool astronomers
could undo the work of God. He probably knew as little about
science as the reverend gentleman does about history.
_Question_. Does he compare any other Infidels with Christians?
_Answer_. Oh, yes; he compares Lord Bacon with Diderot. I have
never claimed that Diderot was a saint. I have simply insisted
that he was a great man; that he was grand enough to say that
"incredulity is the beginning of philosophy;" that he had sense
enough to know that the God described by the Catholics and Protestants
of his day was simply an impossible monster; and that he also had
the brain to see that the little selfish heaven occupied by a few
monks and nuns and idiots they had fleeced, was hardly worth going
to; in other words, that he was a man of common sense, greatly in
advance of his time, and that he did what he could to increase the
sum of human enjoyment to the end that there might be more happiness
in this world.
The gentleman compares him with Lord Bacon, and yet, if he will
read the trials of that day--I think in the year 1620--he will find
that the Christian Lord Bacon, the pious Lord Bacon, was charged
with receiving pay for his opinions, and, in some instances, pay
from both sides; that the Christian Lord Bacon, at first upon his
honor as a Christian lord, denied the whole business; that afterward
the Christian Lord Bacon, upon his honor as a Christian lord,
admitted the truth of the whole business, and that, therefore, the
Christian Lord Bacon was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
forty thousand pounds, and rendered infamous and incapable of
holding any office. Now, understand me, I do not think Bacon took
bribes because he was a Christian, because there have been many
Christian judges perfectly honest; but, if the statement of the
reverend gentlemen of New York is true, his being a Christian did
not prevent his taking bribes. And right here allow me to thank
the gentleman with all my heart for having spoken of Lord Bacon in
this connection. I have always admired the genius of Bacon, and
have always thought of his fall with an aching heart, and would
not now have spoken of his crime had not his character been flung
in my face by a gentleman who asks his God to kill me for having
expressed my honest thought.
The same gentleman compares Newton with Spinoza. In the first
place, there is no ground of parallel. Newton was a very great
man and a very justly celebrated mathematician. As a matter of
fact, he is not celebrated for having discovered the law of
gravitation. That was known for thousands of years before he was
born; and if the reverend gentleman would read a little more he
would find that Newton's discovery was not that there is such a
law as gravitation, but that bodies attract each other "with a
force proportional directly to the quantity of matter they contain,
and inversely to the squares of their distances." I do not think
he made the discoveries on account of his Christianity. Laplace
was certainly in many respects as great a mathematician and
astronomer, but he was not a Christian.
Descartes was certainly not much inferior to Newton as a mathematician,
and thousands insist that he was his superior; yet he was not a
Christian. Euclid, if I remember right, was not a Christian, and
yet he had quite a turn for mathematics. As a matter of fact,
Christianity got its idea of algebra from the Mohammedans, and,
without algebra, astronomical knowledge of to-day would have been
impossible. Christianity did not even invent figures. We got
those from the Arabs. The very word "algebra" is Arabic. The
decimal system, I believe, however, was due to a German, but whether
he was a Christian or not, I do not know.
We find that the Chinese calculated eclipses long before Christ
was born; and, exactness being the rule at that time, there is an
account of two astronomers having been beheaded for failing to tell
the coming of an eclipse to the minute; yet they were not Christians.
There is another fact connected with Newton, and that is that he
wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation. The probability is
that a sillier commentary was never written. It was so perfectly
absurd and laughable that some one--I believe it was Voltaire--said
that while Newton had excited the envy of the intellectual world
by his mathematical accomplishments, it had gotten even with him
the moment his commentaries were published. Spinoza was not a
mathematician, particularly. He was a metaphysician, an honest
thinker, whose influence is felt, and will be felt so long as these
great questions have the slightest interest for the human brain.
He also compares Chalmers with Hume. Chalmers gained his notoriety
from preaching what are known as the astronomical sermons, and, I
suppose, was quite a preacher in his day.
But Hume was a thinker, and his works will live for ages after Mr.
Chalmers' sermons will have been forgotten. Mr. Chalmers has never
been prominent enough to have been well known by many people. He
may have been an exceedingly good man, and derived, during his
life, great consolation from a belief in the damnation of infants.
Mr. Newman also compares Wesley with Thomas Paine. When Thomas
Paine was in favor of human liberty, Wesley was against it. Thomas
Paine wrote a pamphlet called "Common Sense," urging the colonies
to separate themselves from Great Britain. Wesley wrote a treatise
on the other side. He was the enemy of human liberty; and if his
advice could have been followed we would have been the colonies of
Great Britain still. We never would have had a President in need
of a private chaplain. Mr. Wesley had not a scientific mind. He
preached a sermon once on the cause and cure of earthquakes, taking
the ground that earthquakes were caused by sins, and that the only
way to stop them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He also
laid down some excellent rules for rearing children, that is, from
a Methodist standpoint. His rules amounted to about this:
_First_. Never give them what they want.
_Second_. Never give them what you intend to give them, at the time
they want it.
_Third_. Break their wills at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Wesley made every family an inquisition, every father and mother
inquisitors, and all the children helpless victims. One of his
homes would give an exceedingly vivid idea of hell. At the same
time, Mr. Wesley was a believer in witches and wizards, and knew
all about the Devil. At his request God performed many miracles.
On several occasions he cured his horse of lameness. On others,
dissipated Mr. Wesley's headaches. Now and then he put off rain
on account of a camp meeting, and at other times stopped the wind
blowing at the special request of Mr. Wesley. I have no doubt that
Mr. Wesley was honest in all this,--just as honest as he was
mistaken. And I also admit that he was the founder of a church
that does extremely well in new countries, and that thousands of
Methodists have been exceedingly good men. But I deny that he ever
did anything for human liberty. While Mr. Wesley was fighting the
Devil and giving his experience with witches and wizards, Thomas
Paine helped to found a free nation, helped to enrich the air with
another flag. Wesley was right on one thing, though. He was
opposed to slavery, and, I believe, called it the sum of all
villainies. I have always been obliged to him for that. I do not
think he said it because he was a Methodist; but Methodism, as he
understood it, did not prevent his saying it, and Methodism as
others understood it, did not prevent men from being slaveholders,
did not prevent them from selling babes from mothers, and in the
name of God beating the naked back of toil. I think, on the whole,
Paine did more for the world than Mr. Wesley. The difference
between an average Methodist and an average Episcopalian is not
worth quarreling about. But the difference between a man who
believes in despotism and one who believes in liberty is almost
infinite. Wesley changed Episcopalians into Methodists; Paine
turned lickspittles into men. Let it be understood, once for all,
that I have never claimed that Paine was perfect. I was very glad
that the reverend gentleman admitted that he was a patriot and the
foe of tyrants; that he sympathized with the oppressed, and befriended
the helpless; that he favored religious toleration, and that he
weakened the power of the Catholic Church. I am glad that he made
these admissions. Whenever it can be truthfully said of a man that
he loved his country, hated tyranny, sympathized with the oppressed,
and befriended the helpless, nothing more is necessary. If God
can afford to damn such a man, such a man can afford to be damned.
While Paine was the foe of tyrants, Christians were the tyrants.
When he sympathized with the oppressed, the oppressed were the
victims of Christians. When he befriended the helpless, the helpless
were the victims of Christians. Paine never founded an inquisition;
never tortured a human being; never hoped that anybody's tongue
would be paralyzed, and was always opposed to private chaplains.
It might be well for the reverend gentleman to continue his
comparisons, and find eminent Christians to put, for instance,
along with Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science; somebody by the
side of Darwin, as a naturalist; some gentleman in England to stand
with Tyndall, or Huxley; some Christian German to stand with Haeckel
and Helmholtz. May be he knows some Christian statesman that he
would compare with Gambetta. I would advise him to continue his
parallels.
_Question_. What have you to say of the Rev. Dr. Fulton?
_Answer_. The Rev. Dr. Fulton is a great friend of mine. I am
extremely sorry to find that he still believes in a personal Devil,
and I greatly regret that he imagines that this Devil has so much
power that he can take possession of a human being and deprive God
of their services. It is in sorrow and not in anger, that I find
that he still believes in this ancient superstition. I also regret
that he imagines that I am leading young men to eternal ruin. It
occurs to me that if there is an infinite God, he ought not to
allow anybody to lead young men to eternal ruin. If anything I
have said, or am going to say, has a tendency to lead young men to
eternal ruin, I hope that if there is a God with the power to
prevent me, that he will use it. Dr. Fulton admits that in politics
I am on the right side. I presume he makes this concession because
he is a Republican. I am in favor of universal education, of
absolute intellectual liberty. I am in favor, also, of equal rights
to all. As I have said before we have spent millions and millions
of dollars and rivers of blood to free the bodies of men; in other
words, we have been freeing the cages. My proposition now is to
give a little liberty to the birds. I am not willing to stop where
a man can simply reap the fruit of his hand. I wish him, also, to
enjoy the liberty of his brain. I am not against any truth in the
New Testament. I did say that I objected to religion because it
made enemies and not friends. The Rev. Dr. says that is one reason
why he likes religion. Dr. Fulton tells me that the Bible is the
gift of God to man. He also tells me that the Bible is true, and
that God is its author. If the Bible is true and God is its author,
then God was in favor of slavery four thousand years ago. He was
also in favor of polygamy and religious intolerance. In other
words, four thousand years ago he occupied the exact position the
Devil is supposed to occupy now. If the Bible teaches anything it
teaches man to enslave his brother, that is to say, if his brother
is a heathen. The God of the Bible always hated heathens. Dr.
Fulton also says that the Bible is the basis of all law. Yet, if
the Legislature of New York would re-enact next winter the Mosaic
code, the members might consider themselves lucky if they were not
hung upon their return home. Probably Dr. Fulton thinks that had
it not been for the Ten Commandments, nobody would ever have thought
that stealing was wrong. I have always had an idea that men objected
to stealing because the industrious did not wish to support the
idle; and I have a notion that there has always been a law against
murder, because a large majority of people have always objected to
being murdered. If he will read his Old Testament with care, he
will find that God violated most of his own commandments--all except
that "Thou shalt worship no other God before me," and, may be, the
commandment against work on the Sabbath day. With these two
exceptions I am satisfied that God himself violated all the rest.
He told his chosen people to rob the Gentiles; that violated the
commandment against stealing. He said himself that he had sent
out lying spirits; that certainly was a violation of another
commandment. He ordered soldiers to kill men, women and babes;
that was a violation of another. He also told them to divide the
maidens among the soldiers; that was a substantial violation of
another. One of the commandments was that you should not covet
your neighbor's property. In that commandment you will find that
a man's wife is put on an equality with his ox. Yet his chosen
people were allowed not only to covet the property of the Gentiles,
but to take it. If Dr. Fulton will read a little more, he will
find that all the good laws in the Decalogue had been in force in
Egypt a century before Moses was born. He will find that like laws
and many better ones were in force in India and China, long before
Moses knew what a bulrush was. If he will think a little while,
he will find that one of the Ten Commandments, the one on the
subject of graven images, was bad. The result of that was that
Palestine never produced a painter, or a sculptor, and that no Jew
became famous in art until long after the destruction of Jerusalem.
A commandment that robs a people of painting and statuary is not
a good one. The idea of the Bible being the basis of law is almost
too silly to be seriously refuted. I admit that I did say that
Shakespeare was the greatest man who ever lived; and Dr. Fulton
says in regard to this statement, "What foolishness!" He then
proceeds to insult his audience by telling them that while many of
them have copies of Shakespeare's works in their houses, they have
not read twenty pages of them. This fact may account for their
attending his church and being satisfied with that sermon. I do
not believe to-day that Shakespeare is more influential than the
Bible, but what influence Shakespeare has, is for good. No man
can read it without having his intellectual wealth increased. When
you read it, it is not necessary to throw away your reason. Neither
will you be damned if you do not understand it. It is a book that
appeals to everything in the human brain. In that book can be
found the wisdom of all ages. Long after the Bible has passed out
of existence, the name of Shakespeare will lead the intellectual
roster of the world. Dr. Fulton says there is not one work in the
Bible that teaches that slavery or polygamy is right. He also
states that I know it. If language has meaning--if words have
sense, or the power to convey thought,--what did God mean when he
told the Israelites to buy of the heathen round about, and that
the heathen should be their bondmen and bondmaids forever?
What did God mean when he said, If a man strike his servant so he
dies, he should not be punished, because his servant was his money?
Passages like these can be quoted beyond the space that any paper
is willing to give. Yet the Rev. Dr. Fulton denies that the Old
Testament upholds slavery. I would like to ask him if the Old
Testament is in favor of religious toleration? If God wrote the
Old Testament and afterward came upon the earth as Jesus Christ,
and taught a new religion, and the Jews crucified him, was this
not in accordance with his own law, and was he not, after all, the
victim of himself?
_Question_. What about the other ministers?
_Answer_. Well, I see in the _Herald_ that some ten have said that
they would reply to me. I have selected the two, simply because
they came first. I think they are about as poor as any; and you
know it is natural to attack those who are the easiest answered.
All these ministers are now acting as my agents, and are doing me
all the good they can by saying all the bad things about me they
can think of. They imagine that their congregations have not grown,
and they talk to them as though they were living in the seventeenth
instead of the nineteenth century. The truth is, the pews are
beyond the pulpit, and the modern sheep are now protecting the
shepherds.
_Question_. Have you noticed a great change in public sentiment
in the last three or four years?
_Answer_. Yes, I think there are ten times as many Infidels to-
day as there were ten years ago. I am amazed at the great change
that has taken place in public opinion. The churches are not
getting along well. There are hundreds and hundreds who have not
had a new member in a year. The young men are not satisfied with
the old ideas. They find that the church, after all, is opposed
to learning; that it is the enemy of progress; that it says to
every young man, "Go slow. Don't allow your knowledge to puff you
up. Recollect that reason is a dangerous thing. You had better
be a little ignorant here for the sake of being an angel hereafter,
than quite a smart young man and get damned at last." The church
warns them against Humboldt and Darwin, and tells them how much
nobler it is to come from mud than from monkeys; that they were
made from mud. Every college professor is afraid to tell what he
thinks, and every student detects the cowardice. The result is
that the young men have lost confidence in the creeds of the day
and propose to do a little thinking for themselves. They still
have a kind of tender pity for the old folks, and pretend to believe
some things they do not, rather than hurt grandmother's feelings.
In the presence of the preachers they talk about the weather or
other harmless subjects, for fear of bruising the spirit of their
pastor. Every minister likes to consider himself as a brave shepherd
leading the lambs through the green pastures and defending them at
night from Infidel wolves. All this he does for a certain share
of the wool. Others regard the church as a kind of social
organization, as a good way to get into society. They wish to
attend sociables, drink tea, and contribute for the conversion of
the heathen. It is always so pleasant to think that there is
somebody worse than you are, whose reformation you can help pay
for. I find, too, that the young women are getting tired of the
old doctrines, and that everywhere, all over this country, the
power of the pulpit wanes and weakens. I find in my lectures that
the applause is just in proportion to the radicalism of the thought
expressed. Our war was a great educator, when the whole people of
the North rose up grandly in favor of human liberty. For many
years the great question of human rights was discussed from every
stump. Every paper was filled with splendid sentiments. An
application of those doctrines--doctrines born in war--will forever
do away with the bondage of superstition. When man has been free
in body for a little time, he will become free in mind, and the
man who says, "I have a equal right with other men to work and reap
the reward of my labor," will say, "I have, also, an equal right
to think and reap the reward of my thought."
In old times there was a great difference between a clergyman and
a layman. The clergyman was educated; the peasant was ignorant.
The tables have been turned. The thought of the world is with the
laymen. They are the intellectual pioneers, the mental leaders,
and the ministers are following on behind, predicting failure and
disaster, sighing for the good old times when their word ended
discussion. There is another good thing, and that is the revision
of the Bible. Hundreds of passages have been found to be
interpolations, and future revisers will find hundreds more. The
foundation crumbles. That book, called the basis of all law and
civilization, has to be civilized itself. We have outgrown it.
Our laws are better; our institutions grander; our objects and aims
nobler and higher.
_Question_. Do many people write to you upon this subject; and
what spirit do they manifest?
_Answer_. Yes, I get a great many anonymous letters--some letters
in which God is asked to strike me dead, others of an exceedingly
insulting character, others almost idiotic, others exceedingly
malicious, and others insane, others written in an exceedingly good
spirit, winding up with the information that I must certainly be
damned. Others express wonder that God allowed me to live at all,
and that, having made the mistake, he does not instantly correct
it by killing me. Others prophesy that I will yet be a minister
of the gospel; but, as there has never been any softening of the
brain in our family, I imagine that the prophecy will never by
fulfilled. Lately, on opening a letter and seeing that it is upon
this subject, and without a signature, I throw it aside without
reading. I have so often found them to be so grossly ignorant,
insulting and malicious, that as a rule I read them no more.
_Question_. Of the hundreds of people who call upon you nearly
every day to ask your help, do any of them ever discriminate against
you on account of your Infidelity?
_Answer_. No one who has asked a favor of me objects to my religion,
or, rather, to my lack of it. A great many people do come to me
for assistance of one kind or another. But I have never yet asked
a man or woman whether they were religious or not, to what church
they belonged, or any questions upon the subject. I think I have
done favors for persons of most denominations. It never occurs to
me whether they are Christians or Infidels. I do not care. Of
course, I do not expect that Christians will treat me the same as
though I belonged to their church. I have never expected it. In
some instances I have been disappointed. I have some excellent
friends who disagree with me entirely upon the subject of religion.
My real opinion is that secretly they like me because I am not a
Christian, and those who do not like me envy the liberty I enjoy.
--New York correspondent, _Chicago Times_, May 29, 1881.