I approach this part of my prescribed duty with some hesitation, and not
a little reluctance. _Bystander_ is brilliant, learned, independent,
and honest; and for these qualities, though differing from him on
some important subjects, I entertain a respect and esteem amounting to
affection. I hope, therefore, that I may not write a word here having
even the semblance of discourtesy; for of that sort of treatment the
gentleman in question has had a full share since he honored Canadians by
casting his lot amongst us.
For the benefit of some readers who, possibly, may not have seen it, I
may say that _The Bystander_ is a "Monthly Review of Current Events,"
published in Toronto by Messrs. Hunter, Rose & Co., and written by a
certain distinguished literary gentleman, as referred to above, whose
name I would like to give here only that I feel in courtesy bound to
respect the "impersonality of journalism," the protection of which the
gentleman in question has the right, and with good reason, to claim.
The last three issues of _The Bystander_ (for April, May and June) have
each a paper on Col. Ingersoll, his lectures, and cognate subjects; the
general tone of which is very liberal, but, at the same time, containing
strictures upon Mr. Ingersoll and his teachings which I consider unfair
and unjust (unintentionally no doubt), and to which I here propose
briefly to reply.
Having heard Mr. Ingersoll lecture but once I am not in a position from
personal knowledge to speak fully as to the alleged "blasphemy," and
his general "tone" on the platform; but this much I can say, that
_Bystander's_ assertion that "he" (Ingersoll) "repels all decent men,
whatever their convictions; for no decent man likes blasphemy any more
than he likes obscenity," is certainly not true of the one lecture I
heard, or of the score of others of his I have read. I humbly claim
to be myself a "decent man," and I did not find myself "repelled" on
listening to Ingersoll's lecture, but rather attracted. I also saw many
decent people at the lecture (some from a distance), and they did not
seem repelled; but, like myself, well-pleased. In Toronto, according
to the reports in the _Evening Telegram_, there were large audiences of
decent, intelligent people: and instead of being repelled, they greeted
the lecturer with the most enthusiastic approbation and applause,
repeated over and over again. The same reception was accorded him in
Montreal, Belleville and Napanee.
Bystander contrasts Ingersoll's "offensive tone" on the platform with
the "gentleness and sympathy of the Christian preacher on Mars' Hill,"
who, he tells us, "delivered the truths he bore at once with the dignity
of simple earnestness, and with perfect tenderness towards the beliefs
which he came to supersede." Let us, for a moment, examine this claim
of "simple earnestness," and "perfect tenderness" in behalf of Paul the
great preacher of the New Testament. Paul says, (Roman iii. 7) "For if
the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why
yet am I also judged as a sinner?" He also tells us (2nd Cor. 12: 16)
that "being _crafty_, I caught you with guile," and likewise assures us
that he was "all things to all men;" to the Jews he "became as a Jew,"
etc. What "simple earnestness" this is truly! And the Church of Christ
has nearly always acted in accordance with this Scriptural doctrine that
in _lying_ for God's sake the "end justifies the means." Mosheim,
the ecclesiastical historian, tells us that in the early ages of the
Christian Church, "It was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by
that means the interest of the church might be promoted."
As to Paul's "perfect tenderness toward the beliefs which he came to
supersede," let us look a little into that. In writing to the Galatians
he says [tenderly] "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him
be _accursed_." (Gal. 1:9.) That is tender toleration for you! Again,
"A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject"
(Titus 4:9.) "I would they were even cut off which trouble you" (Gal.
5: 12.) We, Freethinkers, would stand a poor chance to-day if Paul's
precepts were carried out! Again, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus
Christ, let him be _Anathema Maranatha_" (1 Cor. 16: 22.)-What "perfect
tenderness" this is! With a vengeance are these curses and maledictions
tender! _Bystander_ may search in vain in Ingersoll's lectures, or any
Freethinkers' writings, for such consummate bigotry, intolerance, and
even cruelty as this "Christian preacher" pours out upon all who venture
to differ from him in belief. And what "perfect tenderness" in Paul
to denounce and stigmatize even those of his own church--his
co-religionists--as "_false apostles, deceitful workers, dogs, and
liars!_" Did _Bystander_ or anybody else ever hear such language from
Ingersoll or any other Freethinker? Is it not "offensive to any sensible
and right-minded man?" Does it not "repel all decent men?"
_Bystander_ admits that when Ingersoll "attacks dogmatic orthodoxy he
is in the right." What more does he attack? This is exactly what he does
attack, and _Bystander_ admits that in so doing he is doing right, thus
showing that he himself does not believe in dogmatic orthodoxy. Now, if
the Christian's God, as described in the Bible, is included in "dogmatic
orthodoxy" (and He surely must be) is Ingersoll blasphemous in attacking
Him? Surely not, according to _Bystander_ himself. _Bystander_ may say,
however, that he does not mean to include the Christian's God in
the "irrational and obsolete orthodoxy," against which he admits
"Ingersoll's arguments are really telling." But does _Bystander_ himself
believe in the God of the Bible? From the tenor of his language he
surely cannot. Does he believe in the God of whom the Bible itself gives
the following description? (For want of time to refer to, and space to
insert chapter and verse, they are not given, but every Bible reader
will recognize the passages given as substantially correct):--
"He burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue
as a devouring fire." "His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks
are thrown down by him." "The Lord awaketh as one out of sleep, and like
a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine." "Smoke came out of his
nostrils, and fire out of his mouth, so that coals were kindled by it."
"He had horns coming out of his hand." "Out of his mouth went a sharp
two-edged sword." "The Lord shall roar from on high. He roareth from
his habitation. He shall shout as they that tread the grapes." "He is
a jealous God." "He stirred up jealousy." "He was jealous to fury."
"He rides upon horses." "The Lord is a man of war." "His anger will
be accomplished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be
_comforted!_" "His arrows shall be drunken with blood." "He is angry
with the wicked every day." "A fire is kindled in mine anger and shall
burn unto the lowest hell. I will heap mischief upon them; I will spend
my arrows upon them I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, and
the poison of the serpents... both the young man and the virgin, the
suckling also, and the man of gray hairs." [What did the "suckling" do
to merit this?] "He reserveth wrath for his enemies." "He became angry
and swore." "He cried and roared."
Does _Bystander_ believe in a God like that? whom it is "blasphemy," it
seems, for Ingersol to attack! It is true there are good qualities and
attributes ascribed to God by the Bible as well as bad; but that
does not affect the fact that these are ascribed to him; while the
co-existence of two diametrically opposite sets of attributes in the
same Being is simply absurd. Why is it blasphemy to attack such a
conception of God, any more than to attack any of the other Pagan gods
of antiquity? As he is represented in the Bible, He is certainly no
better than they; and _Bystander_ himself would have little hesitancy
in making an onslaught on the Pagan gods. When primitive Judaism and
Christianity set up a God for _our_ worship and adoration, and at
the same time tells us, "by the book," that He commanded the cruel,
fiendish, and indiscriminate murder of men, women, and innocent children,
we beg to decline to worship, or adore, or believe in any such Being;
and we do not think it "blasphemy" to attack the false belief and the
false God. When we read in the "word of God" that the Lord commanded
one of his prophets to diet on excrement; that the Lord met Moses at a
tavern and tried to kill him (see Exodus, 4, 24); that the sun and moon
stood still; that it rained forty days and nights, and that nearly the
whole world was drowned; that the first man--Adam--was made of clay, and
Eve of a rib, about 6000 years ago; that the world was made in six days,
and that vegetation flourished before there was any sun,--when we read
of all these wonderful things, we beg to be excused from believing them,
and claim the right to ridicule them to our heart's content. If this is
"disrespect," or "insult," or an "ignoble spirit of irreverence," then
we plead guilty to the charge, and are willing to abide by it.
We do not deny that there may be a God; we only deny the existence
of such a one as the Bible sets forth. We attack only the gods whom
barbarous peoples have fashioned in their own imaginations and set up
for our worship, and not any high or noble conception of a Deity. We
fully admit the existence of a great and mysterious power or force in
the universe which we cannot understand or comprehend. We believe with
Spencer in the great _Unknown_ and _Unknowable_, and have no "attack"
to make upon this power, no word of ridicule, no blasphemy; but, like
Tyndall, stand in its presence with reverence and awe, acknowledging our
ignorance.
While, however, acknowledging this unseen Power, we decline to
anthropomorphise it--to call it a _person_ or _being_, and invest it
with mental and moral functions similar to our own, differing only in
degree not in kind. It is only the anthropomorphism we attack--only
the superstitions, assumptions and dogmas. We only attack that which
is incredible and absurd--that which "shocks reason." We believe in
religion--the Religion of Humanity--to do right--a religion of _works_
instead of faith and creeds, and _Bystander_ himself admits that
"religion is carrying a weight which it cannot bear," and that, "unless
the credible can be separated from the incredible, the reasonable from
that which shocks reason, there will be a total eclipse of faith."
"The Cosmogony of Moses," says _Bystander_, "will, of course not bear
the scrutiny of modern science; few probably are now so bigoted as
to maintain that it will." If it will not bear such scrutiny, is it
blasphemy to attack it, or its author? for the God of the Bible is the
alleged author of that Cosmogony, inspiring Moses or whoever wrote it.
But _Bystander_ further remarks that the Mosaic Cosmogony "need not fear
comparison with the Cosmogony of any other race." We thank him for that
favor. It is exactly what we claim, to wit, that the Cosmogony of Moses,
like all the others, is simply a human production, for it would be
absurd to talk of "comparing" an _inspired_ Cosmogony of _divine origin_
with _human_ Cosmogonies. Hence, according to _Bystander_ himself, the
Mosaic Cosmogony is simply, like the rest, human: only he thinks it a
little better than the others. It will not, however, "bear the scrutiny
of modern science." Very likely not! What then, becomes of the "fall
of man," the "redemption" the "Ideal Man," and the whole Christian
Superstructure which rests upon the Mosaic Cosmogony? If the pillars are
taken away the building _must_ come down.
It is also admitted by _Bystander_ that "The moral code of Moses is
tribal and primeval; it is alien to us who live under the ethical
conditions of high civilization and the Religion of Humanity." Precisely
so! And for this magnificent favor also, we again thank _Bystander_. No
materialist or utilitarian could have possibly put it better; albeit a
Christian would experience some moral obfuscation in trying to make out
why, if the "moral code of Moses" is from heaven, it should be "alien
to us" and to these times? He would be hardly able to understand why he
should be comparing his _Divine_ code with _Pagan_ codes to see whether
it is "worse or better than other codes framed in the same stage of
human progress?" Let the Freethinkers take courage. _Bystander_, to
all appearances, will soon be squarely on our side; and then we can
truthfully say, that though the Christians have the greatest scientist,
probably, in Canada (Prof. Dawson, of Montreal,) on their side, we will
have the greatest scholar, historian and _literateur_ in Canada on _our_
side. Three cheers in the Liberal camp for _Bystander!_ Indeed, we have
some hopes, too, even of Prof. Dawson, whose Mosaic orthodoxy seems to
be relaxing a little of late; and he evidently feels his isolation, his
scientific brethren all being on our side.
While writing this, the Montreal _Daily Witness_ of June 15th, 1880,
comes to hand from a Freethought octogenarian friend in Port Hope (Wm.
Sisson, Esq.) with the familiar pencil mark, drawing my attention to a
report of the proceedings of "The Congregational Union," at present in
session in Montreal. From it I learn that Rev. Hugh Pedley, B. A., made
an address before the _Union_ on "The Freethought of the Age," from
which I cull the following, as reported in the _Witness_:--
"One of the principal difficulties," he said (of the clergy), "was the
prevalence of freethought among the people. There was a time when the
New Testament was received by almost everybody * * * But things had
changed * * * Some time ago the weapons of skilled historians were
turned first against the Old and then against the New Testament * * *
Dr. Norman McLeod, writing from Germany, said, 'I am informed on
credible testimony that ninety-nine out of every hundred persons here
are sceptics.' * * * Germany was to-day more Pagan than Christian * * *
The press passed up and down the land, scattering into every home things
which set men thinking." [Ah! there is the secret; when men begin to
think and reason on theological subjects as they do on secular, good-bye
creeds! goodbye confessions!] "Goldwin Smith, a man who had so studied
the past as to be able to interpret the present, had told us that a
religious collapse of the most complete and tremendous character was
apparent on every hand." It was only very recently that a sceptical work
on 'Supernatural Religion' passed through a number of editions in a few
months. Col. Ingersoll had recently visited the country. He came, he
saw, and in some sense he conquered. (Cries of No! No!) The second night
he had a much larger attendance than on the first. No matter who, ran
Ingersoll down, he was a man of great power of oratory and strong in
those qualities which control audiences.
The Rev. gentleman then referred deprecatingly to the inadequate-college
training of theological students in "apologetics," as they were not
allowed to read the works of sceptics for themselves, but had to take
their tutors' version of the sceptics' arguments. This "putting up a
little argument and then knocking it down," he said was neither "the
fair nor the true way." He recommended putting "the very sceptical works
into the hands of the students, and he would even say to go and hear
Ingersoll if he came."
That "man's idea of God rises with his progress in civilization,"
_Bystander_ admits; but he attempts to explain the fact away on theistic
grounds, and dilute its strength as an argument that God is simply a
projection of the human mind. He asks:--
"If this conception" (a conception of God) "flows from no reality, from
what does it flow? It is a phenomenon of which, as of other phenomena,
there must be some explanation; and we have not yet chanced to see
in the writings of any Agnostic an explanation which seemed at all
satisfactory."
I would respectfully suggest to _Bystander_ that there _is_ a
satisfactory explanation, though to him it may not be so. In answering
his question I will ask another. If the conception of, or belief in, a
devil or devils, flows from no reality, from what does it flow? The same
of witches, fairies, sprites, hob-goblins, _et hoc genus omne_. Belief
in these is quite as general as belief in God, though _Bystander's_
question seems to assume that belief in the latter is universal.
This, however, is not the case, as has been conclusively shown in the
foregoing reply to Wend-ling. Therefore, this "conception" argument,
like the famous "design" argument, proves too much, and consequently
proves nothing. As to the _origin_ of the belief in spiritual agencies,
and conceptions of God, Darwin tells us it is not difficult to
comprehend how they arose. He says, "Descent of Man," vol. i, p. 63-5:--
"As soon as the important faculties of imagination, wonder, and
curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially
developed, man would naturally have craved to understand what was
passing around him, and have vaguely speculated on his own existence * *
* The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief of
one or more Gods."
_Bystander_, while freely admitting that the Theistic theory is
compassed with difficulties; and requires "re-statement," reminds us
that the-"materialistic hypothesis is not free from difficulty." The
difficulty he discovers in materialism relates to the order of priority
of matter and force. He asks:--
"Which of the two is the First Principle? Force cannot have been
produced by matter, for without force, matter cannot move, change, or
generate at all. Matter cannot have been produced by force, because
force is nothing but the impulsion of matter. Apparently there must have
been something before both, which produced them and determined their
relations; and it must be something beyond the range of sense."
_Bystander_. I think, has not correctly apprehended the materialistic
position here, and hence the argument for a "something before both
matter and force which produced them," being built upon a postulated
premiss which we cannot accept, has no weight in establishing the
existence of a God behind matter and force. His error lies in the
assumption of the possibility of matter and force existing separately
and independently. He asks, "Which of the two is the First Principle?"
Our answer is, there can be no _first_ as between matter and force,
for there can be no matter without force, and _vice versa_. The two are
inseparable, even in conception, and the existence of one is absolutely
essential to the existence of the other. Hence the argument proceeding
from the assumption of their divisibility and possible independence
fails. The Theist has no right whatever, logically speaking, to assume
that there "must have been something before matter and force which
produced them." So long as matter and force are amply adequate (as far
as we can discern) to the production of all cognizable phenomena, we
are not warranted in assuming the existence of any being or thing behind
them. As soon as the Theist does this, we have the logical right to
carry his reasoning further, and at once assume something else behind
it again, and thus not only one but a thousand gods could be postulated
without the shadow of real proof of one of them.
There is an ultimate ground, however, upon which the Theist and
Materialist may meet in common, and, so far as I can see, the only
ultimate position they can occupy in perfect corelation. The universe
exists; man as a part of the universe--a mode of existence--is here;
in this we agree. Man, then, being himself the highest intelligence
he knows of, continually seeks an explanation of the universe and of
himself as a part of it. This is the common ground upon which we
all stand--Rationalist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist--barbarous and
civilized--the weakest and the mightiest intellect.
All seek to explain the great mystery of the universe--some one way,
some another--from the rude thaumaturgic fancies of the primitive
barbarian up to the abstruse speculations and subtle reasonings of the
cultured Pantheist, intellectual Agnostic, and logical Materialist.
It is true one may be more reasonable and logical than the rest (as I
undoubtedly think is the case), yet they all occupy the common ground of
uncertainty. Not one can _demonstrate_ his position, and in this we are
all alike. (One, however, among all the rest thinks he _knows_ he is
_right_ and can prove it, viz., the dogmatic Christian Theist.) We may
all, therefore, stand together in the presence of Nature and acknowledge
our ignorance. Though each school has its theory, its hypothesis, its
solution, yet the mystery of the mighty universe is still an unsolved
problem.