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."
"How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you?"
"I think the reply of Dr. Thomas in the best possible spirit. I regard
him to day as the best intellect in the Methodist denomination. He
seems to have what is generally understood as a Christian spirit. He
has always treated me with perfect fairness, and I should have said
long ago many grateful things, had I not feared I might hurt with his
own people. He seems to be by nature a perfectly fair man; and I know
of no man in the United States for whom I have a profounder respect.
Of course I don't agree with Mr. Thomas. I think in many things he is
mistaken. But I believe him to be perfectly sincere. There is one
trouble about him,--he is growing; and this fact will no doubt give
great trouble to many of his brethren. Certain Methodist hazelbrush
feel a little uneasy in the shadow of his oak."
"Are you going to make a formal reply to their sermons."
"Not unless something better is done than has been. Of course I don't
know what another Sabbath may bring forth. I am waiting. But of one
thing I feel perfectly assured; that no man in the United States, or in
the world, can account for the fact, if we are to be saved only by
faith in Christ, that Matthew forgot it, that Luke said nothing about
it, and that Mark never mentioned it except in two passages written by
another person. Until that is answered, as one grave-digger says to
the other in "Hamlet," I shall say: 'Ay, tell me that and unyoke.' In
the meantime, I wish to keep on the best terms with all parties
concerned. I cannot see why my forgiving spirit fails to gain their
sincere praise."