Liberty sustains the same Relation to Mind that Space does to Matter.
THERE is no slavery but ignorance. Liberty is the child of intelligence.
The history of man is simply the history of slavery, of injustice and
brutality, together with the means by which he has, through the dead and
desolate years, slowly and painfully advanced. He has been the sport
and prey of priest and king, the food of superstition and cruel might.
Crowned force has governed ignorance through fear. Hypocrisy and
tyranny--two vultures--have fed upon the liberties of man. From all
these there has been, and is, but one means of escape--intellectual
development. Upon the back of industry has been the whip. Upon the brain
have been the fetters of superstition. Nothing has been left undone
by the enemies of freedom. Every art and artifice, every cruelty and
outrage has been practiced and perpetrated to destroy the rights of man.
In this great struggle every crime has been rewarded and every virtue
has been punished. Reading, writing, thinking and investigating have all
been crimes.
Every science has been an outcast.
All the altars and all the thrones united to arrest the forward march of
the human race. The king said that mankind must not work for themselves.
The priest said that mankind must not think for themselves. One forged
chains for the hands, the other for the soul. Under this infamous
_regime_ the eagle of the human intellect was for ages a slimy serpent
of hypocrisy.
The human race was imprisoned. Through some of the prison bars came a
few struggling rays of light. Against these bars Science pressed its
pale and thoughtful face, wooed by the holy dawn of human advancement.
Bar after bar was broken away. A few grand men escaped and devoted their
lives to the liberation of their fellows.
Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the human mind. Men
began to inquire by what right a crowned robber made them work for him?
The man who asked this question was called a traitor. Others asked by
what right does a robed hypocrite rule my thought? Such men were called
infidels. The priest said, and the king said, where is this spirit
of investigation to stop? They said then and they say now, that it is
dangerous for man to be free. I deny it. Out on the intellectual sea
there is room enough for every sail. In the intellectual air there is
space enough for every wing.
The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to
himself and to his fellow-men.
Every man should stand under the blue and stars, under the infinite flag
of nature, the peer of every other man.
Standing in the presence of the Unknown, all have the same right to
think, and all are equally interested in the great questions of origin
and destiny. All I claim, all I plead for, is liberty of thought and
expression. That is all. I do not pretend to tell what is absolutely
true, but what I think is true. I do not pretend to tell all the truth.
I do not claim that I have floated level with the heights of thought, or
that I have descended to the very depths of things. I simply claim
that what ideas I have, I have a right to express; and that any man who
denies that right to me is an intellectual thief and robber. That is
all.
Take those chains from the human soul. Break those fetters. If I have no
right to think, why have I a brain? If I have no such right, have three
or four men, or any number, who may get together, and sign a creed, and
build a house, and put a steeple upon it, and a bell in it--have they
the right to think? The good men, the good women are tired of the whip
and lash in the realm of thought. They remember the chain and fagot
with a shudder. They are free, and they give liberty to others. Whoever
claims any right that he is unwilling to accord to his fellow-men is
dishonest and infamous.
In the good old times, our fathers had the idea that they could make
people believe to suit them. Our ancestors, in the ages that are gone,
really believed that by force you could convince a man. You cannot
change the conclusion of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism.
But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done.
You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say that
he has changed his mind; but he remains of the same opinion still. Put
fetters all over him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the
last gasp upon the holy rack; burn him, if you please, but his ashes
will be of the same opinion still.
Our fathers in the good old times--and the best thing I can say about
them is, that they have passed away--had an idea that they could force
men to think their way. That idea is still prevalent in many parts, even
of this country. Even in our day some extremely religious people say,
"We will not trade with that man; we will not vote for him; we will not
hire him if he is a lawyer; we will die before we will take his medicine
if he is a doctor; we will not invite him to dinner; we will socially
ostracise him; he must come to our church; he must believe our
doctrines; he must worship our god or we will not in any way contribute
to his support."
In the old times of which I have spoken, they desired to make all men
think exactly alike. All the mechanical ingenuity of the world cannot
make two clocks run exactly alike, and how are you going to make
hundreds of millions of people, differing in brain and disposition, in
education and aspiration, in conditions and surroundings, each clad in
a living robe of passionate flesh--how are you going to make them think
and feel alike? If there is an infinite god, one who made us, and wishes
us to think alike, why did he give a spoonful of brains to one, and a
magnificent intellectual development to another? Why is it that we
have all degrees of intelligence, from orthodoxy to genius, if it was
intended that all should think and feel alike?
I used to read in books how our fathers persecuted mankind. But I never
appreciated it. I read it, but it did not burn itself into my soul. I
did not really appreciate the infamies that have been committed in the
name of religion, until I saw the iron arguments that Christians used.
I saw the Thumbscrew--two little pieces of iron, armed on the inner
surfaces with protuberances, to prevent their slipping; through each end
a screw uniting the two pieces. And when some man denied the efficacy of
baptism, or may be said, "I do not believe that a fish ever swallowed
a man to keep him from drowning," then they put his thumb between these
pieces of iron and in the name of love and universal forgiveness, began
to screw these pieces together. When this was done most men said, "I
will recant." Probably I should have done the same. Probably I would
have said: "Stop; I will admit anything that you wish; I will admit that
there is one god or a million, one hell or a billion; suit yourselves;
but stop."
But there was now and then a man who would not swerve the breadth of a
hair. There was now and then some sublime heart, willing to die for
an intellectual conviction. Had it not been for such men, we would be
savages to-night. Had it not been for a few brave, heroic souls in every
age, we would have been cannibals, with pictures of wild beasts tattooed
upon our flesh, dancing around some dried snake fetich.
Let us thank every good and noble man who stood so grandly, so proudly,
in spite of opposition, of hatred and death, for what he believed to be
the truth.
Heroism did not excite the respect of our fathers. The man who would not
recant was not forgiven. They screwed the thumbscrews down to the last
pang, and then threw their victim into some dungeon, where, in the
throbbing silence and darkness, he might suffer the agonies of the
fabled damned. This was done in the name of love--in the name of
mercy--in the name of the compassionate Christ.
I saw, too, what they called the Collar of Torture. Imagine a circle
of iron, and on the inside a hundred points almost as sharp as needles.
This argument was fastened about the throat of the sufferer. Then he
could not walk, nor sit down, nor stir without the neck being punctured,
by these points. In a little while the throat would begin to swell, and
suffocation would end the agonies of that man. This man, it may be, had
committed the crime of saying, with tears upon his cheeks, "I do not
believe that God, the father of us all, will damn to eternal perdition
any of the children of men."
I saw another instrument, called the Scavenger's Daughter. Think of a
pair of shears with handles, not only where they now are, but at the
points as well, and just above the pivot that unites the blades, a
circle of iron. In the upper handles the hands would be placed; in the
lower, the feet; and through the iron ring, at the centre, the head of
the victim would be forced. In this condition, he would be thrown prone
upon the earth, and the strain upon the muscles produced such agony that
insanity would in pity end his pain.
This was done by gentlemen who said: "Whosoever smiteth thee upon one
cheek turn to him the other also."
I saw the Rack. This was a box like the bed of a wagon, with a windlass
at each end, with levers, and ratchets to prevent slipping; over each
windlass went chains; some were fastened to the ankles of the sufferer;
others to his wrists. And then priests, clergymen, divines, saints,
began turning these windlasses, and kept turning, until the ankles, the
knees, the hips, the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists of the victim
were all dislocated, and the sufferer was wet with the sweat of agony.
And they had standing by a physician to feel his pulse. What for? To
save his life? Yes. In mercy? No; simply that they might rack him once
again.
This was done, remember, in the name of civilization; in the name of law
and order; in the name of mercy; in the name of religion; in the name of
the most merciful Christ.
Sometimes, when I read and think about these frightful things, it seems
to me that I have suffered all these horrors myself. It seems sometimes,
as though I had stood upon the shore of exile and gazed with tearful
eyes toward home and native land; as though my nails had been torn from
my hands, and into the bleeding quick needles had been thrust; as though
my feet had been crushed in iron boots; as though I had been chained in
the cell of the Inquisition and listened with dying ears for the coming
footsteps of release; as though I had stood upon the scaffold and had
seen the glittering axe fall upon me; as though I had been upon the rack
and had seen, bending above me, the white faces of hypocrite priests;
as though I had been taken from my fireside, from my wife and children,
taken to the public square, chained; as though fagots had been piled
about me; as though the flames had climbed around my limbs and scorched
my eyes to blindness, and as though my ashes had been scattered to the
four winds, by all the countless hands of hate. And when I so feel, I
swear that while I live I will do what little I can to preserve and to
augment the liberties of man, woman, and child.
It is a question of justice, of mercy, of honesty, of intellectual
development. If there is a man in the world who is not willing to give
to every human being every right he claims for himself, he is just so
much nearer a barbarian than I am. It is a question of honesty. The man
who is not willing to give to every other the same intellectual rights
he claims for himself, is dishonest, selfish, and brutal.
It is a question of intellectual development. Whoever holds another man
responsible for his honest thought, has a deformed and distorted brain.
It is a question of intellectual development.
A little while ago I saw models of nearly everything that man has made.
I saw models of all the water craft, from the rude dug-out in which
floated a naked savage--one of our ancestors--a naked savage, with
teeth two inches in length, with a spoonful of brains in the back of
his head--I saw models of all the water craft of the world, from that
dug-out up to a man-of-war, that carries a hundred guns and miles of
canvas--from that dug-out to the steamship that turns its brave prow
from the port of New York, with a compass like a conscience, crossing
three thousand miles of billows without missing a throb or beat of its
mighty iron heart.
I saw at the same time the weapons that man has made, from a club, such
as was grasped by that same savage, when he crawled from his den in
the ground and hunted a snake for his dinner; from that club to the
boomerang, to the sword, to the cross-bow, to the blunderbuss, to the
flint-lock, to the cap-lock, to the needle-gun, up to a cannon cast by
Krupp, capable of hurling a ball weighing two thousand pounds through
eighteen inches of solid steel.
I saw, too, the armor from the shell of a turtle, that one of our brave
ancestors lashed upon his breast when he went to fight for his country;
the skin of a porcupine, dried with the quills on, which this same
savage pulled over his orthodox head, up to the shirts of mail, that
were worn in the Middle Ages, that laughed at the edge of the sword and
defied the point of the spear; up to a monitor clad in complete steel.
I saw at the same time, their musical instruments, from the
tom-tom--that is, a hoop with a couple of strings of raw hide drawn
across it--from that tom-tom, up to the instruments we have to-day, that
make the common air blossom with melody.
I saw, too, their paintings, from a daub of yellow mud, to the great
works which now adorn the galleries of the world. I saw also their
sculpture, from the rude god with four legs, a half dozen arms, several
noses, and two or three rows of ears, and one little, contemptible,
brainless head, up to the figures of to-day--to the marbles that genius
has clad in such a personality that it seems almost impudent to touch
them without an introduction.
I saw their books--books written upon skins of wild beasts--upon
shoulder-blades of sheep--books written upon leaves, upon bark, up to
the splendid volumes that enrich the libraries of our day. When I
speak of libraries, I think of the remark of Plato: "A house that has a
library in it has a soul."
I saw their implements of agriculture, from a crooked stick that was
attached to the horn of an ox by some twisted straw, to the agricultural
implements of this generation, that make it possible for a man to
cultivate the soil without being an ignoramus.
While looking upon these things I was forced to say that man advanced
only as he mingled his thought with his labor,--only as he got into
partnership with the forces of nature,--only as he learned to take
advantage of his surroundings--only as he freed himself from the bondage
of fear,--only as he depended upon himself--only as he lost confidence
in the gods.
I saw at the same time a row of human skulls, from the lowest skull
that has been found, the Neanderthal skull--skulls from Central Africa,
skulls from the Bushmen of Australia--skulls from the farthest isles of
the Pacific sea--up to the best skulls of the last generation;--and I
noticed that there was the same difference between those skulls that
there was between the products of those skulls, and I said to myself,
"After all, it is a simple question of intellectual development." There
was the same difference between those skulls, the lowest and highest
skulls, that there was between the dug-out and the man-of-war and the
steamship, between the club and the Krupp gun, between the yellow daub
and the landscape, between the tom-tom and an opera by Verdi.
The first and lowest skull in this row was the den in which crawled the
base and meaner instincts of mankind, and the last was a temple in which
dwelt joy, liberty, and love.
It is all a question of brain, of intellectual development.
If we are nearer free than were our fathers, it is because we have
better heads upon the average, and more brains in them.
Now, I ask you to be honest with me. It makes no difference to you what
I believe, nor what I wish to prove. I simply ask you to be honest.
Divest your minds, for a moment at least, of all religious prejudice.
Act, for a few moments, as though you were men and women.
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, if there was one,
at the time this gentleman floated in the dug-out, and charmed his ears
with the music of the tom-tom, had said: "That dug-out is the best boat
that ever can be built by man; the pattern of that came from on high,
from the great god of storm and flood, and any man who says that he can
improve it by putting a mast in it, with a sail upon it, is an infidel,
and shall be burned at the stake;" what, in your judgment--honor
bright--would have been the effect upon the circumnavigation of the
globe?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, if there was
one--and I presume there was a priest, because it was a very ignorant
age--suppose this king and priest had said: "That tom-tom is the most
beautiful instrument of music of which any man can conceive; that is the
kind of music they have in heaven; an angel sitting upon the edge of
a fleecy cloud, golden in the setting sun, playing upon that tom-tom,
became so enraptured, so entranced with her own music, that in a kind of
ecstasy she dropped it--that is how we obtained it; and any man who
says that it can be improved by putting a back and front to it, and
four strings, and a bridge, and getting a bow of hair with rosin, is a
blaspheming wretch, and shall die the death,"--I ask you, what effect
would that have had upon music? If that course had been pursued, would
the human ears, in your judgment, ever have been enriched with the
divine symphonies of Beethoven?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, had said: "That
crooked stick is the best plow that can be invented: the pattern of that
plow was given to a pious farmer in a holy dream, and that twisted straw
is the _ne plus ultra_ of all twisted things, and any man who says he
can make an improvement upon that plow, is an atheist;" what, in your
judgment, would have been the effect upon the science of agriculture?
But the people said, and the king and priest said: "We want better
weapons with which to kill our fellow-Christians; we want better plows,
better music, better paintings, and whoever will give us better weapons,
and better music, better houses to live in, better clothes, we will robe
him in wealth, and crown him with honor." Every incentive was held out
to every human being to improve these things. That is the reason the
club has been changed to a cannon, the dug-out to a steamship, the daub
to a painting; that is the reason that the piece of rough and broken
stone finally became a glorified statue.
You must not, however, forget that the gentleman in the dug-out,
the gentleman who was enraptured with the music of the tom-tom, and
cultivated his land with a crooked stick, had a religion of his own.
That gentlemen in the dug-out was orthodox. He was never troubled with
doubts. He lived and died settled in his mind. He believed in hell; and
he thought he would be far happier in heaven, if he could just lean
over and see certain people who expressed doubts as to the truth of his
creed, gently but everlastingly broiled and burned.
It is a very sad and unhappy fact that this man has had a great many
intellectual descendants. It is also an unhappy fact in nature, that the
ignorant multiply much faster than the intellectual. This fellow in the
dug-out believed in a personal devil. His devil had a cloven hoof, a
long tail, armed with a fiery dart; and his devil breathed brimstone.
This devil was at least the equal of God; not quite so stout but
a little shrewder. And do you know there has not been a patentable
improvement made upon that devil for six thousand years.
This gentleman in the dug-out believed that God was a tyrant; that he
would eternally damn the man who lived in accordance with his highest
and grandest ideal. He believed that the earth was flat. He believed in
a literal, burning, seething hell of fire and sulphur. He had also his
idea of politics; and his doctrine was, might makes right. And it will
take thousands of years before the world will reverse this doctrine, and
believingly say, "Right makes might."
All I ask is the same privilege to improve upon that gentleman's
theology as upon his musical instrument; the same right to improve upon
his politics as upon his dug-out. That is all. I ask for the human
soul the same liberty in every direction. That is the only crime I have
committed. I say, let us think. Let each one express his thought. Let us
become investigators, not followers, not cringers and crawlers. If there
is in heaven an infinite being, he never will be satisfied with the
worship of cowards and hypocrites. Honest unbelief, honest infidelity,
honest atheism, will be a perfume in heaven when pious hypocrisy, no
matter how religious it may be outwardly, will be a stench.
This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim
for yourself. Keep your mind open to the influences of nature. Receive
new thoughts with hospitality. Let us advance.
The religionist of to-day wants the ship of his soul to lie at the wharf
of orthodoxy and rot in the sun. He delights to hear the sails of old
opinions flap against the masts of old creeds. He loves to see the
joints and the sides open and gape in the sun, and it is a kind of bliss
for him to repeat again and again: "Do not disturb my opinions. Do not
unsettle my mind; I have it all made up, and I want no infidelity. Let
me go backward rather than forward."
As far as I am concerned I wish to be out on the high seas. I wish to
take my chances with wind, and wave, and star. And I had rather go down
in the glory and grandeur of the storm, than to rot in any orthodox
harbor whatever.
After all, we are improving from age to age. The most orthodox people in
this country two hundred years ago would have been burned for the crime
of heresy. The ministers who denounce me for expressing my thought would
have been in the Inquisition themselves. Where once burned and blazed
the bivouac fires of the army of progress, now glow the altars of the
church. The religionists of our time are occupying about the same ground
occupied by heretics and infidels of one hundred years ago. The church
has advanced in spite, as it were, of itself. It has followed the army
of progress protesting and denouncing, and had to keep within protesting
and denouncing distance. If the church had not made great progress I
could not express my thoughts.
Man, however, has advanced just exactly in the proportion with which he
has mingled his thought with his labor. The sailor, without control
of the wind and wave, knowing nothing or very little of the mysterious
currents and pulses of the sea, is superstitious. So also is the
agriculturist, whose prosperity depends upon something he cannot
control. But the mechanic, when a wheel refuses to turn, never thinks of
dropping on his knees and asking the assistance of some divine power.
He knows there is a reason. He knows that something is too large or too
small; that there is something wrong with his machine; and he goes to
work and he makes it larger or smaller, here or there, until the wheel
will turn. Now, just in proportion as man gets away from being, as it
were, the slave of his surroundings, the serf of the elements,--of the
heat, the frost, the snow, and the lightning,--just to the extent that
he has gotten control of his own destiny, just to the extent that he has
triumphed over the obstacles of nature, he has advanced physically and
intellectually. As man develops, he places a greater value upon his own
rights. Liberty becomes a grander and diviner thing. As he values his
own rights, he begins to value the rights of others. And when all men
give to all others all the rights they claim for themselves, this world
will be civilized.
A few years ago the people were afraid to question the king, afraid to
question the priest, afraid to investigate a creed, afraid to deny a
book, afraid to denounce a dogma, afraid to reason, afraid to think.
Before wealth they bowed to the very earth, and in the presence of
titles they became abject. All this is slowly but surely changing. We
no longer bow to men simply because they are rich. Our fathers worshiped
the golden calf. The worst you can say of an American now is, he
worships the gold of the calf. Even the calf is beginning to see this
distinction.
It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man to be king or
emperor. The last Napoleon was not satisfied with being the emperor of
the French. He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold about his
head. He wanted some evidence that he had something of value within
his head. So he wrote the life of Julius Caesar, that he might become
a member of the French Academy. The emperors, the kings, the popes,
no longer tower above their fellows. Compare King William with the
philosopher Haeckel. The king is one of the anointed by the most high,
as they claim--one upon whose head has been poured the divine petroleum
of authority. Compare this king with Haeckel, who towers an intellectual
colossus above the crowned mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen
Victoria. The Queen is clothed in garments given her by blind fortune
and unreasoning chance, while George Eliot wears robes of glory woven in
the loom of her own genius.
The world is beginning to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to heart.
We have advanced. We have reaped the benefit of every sublime and heroic
self-sacrifice, of every divine and brave act; and we should endeavor
to hand the torch to the next generation, having added a little to the
intensity and glory of the flame.
When I think of how much this world has suffered; when I think of how
long our fathers were slaves, of how they cringed and crawled at the
foot of the throne, and in the dust of the altar, of how they abased
themselves, of how abjectly they stood in the presence of superstition
robed and crowned, I am amazed.
This world has not been fit for a man to live in fifty years. It was not
until the year 1808 that Great Britain abolished the slave trade. Up to
that time her judges, sitting upon the bench in the name of justice,
her priests, occupying her pulpits, in the name of universal love, owned
stock in the slave ships, and luxuriated upon the profits of piracy and
murder. It was not until the same year that the United States of
America abolished the slave trade between this and other countries, but
carefully preserved it as between the States. It was not until the 28th
day of August, 1833, that Great Britain abolished human slavery in
her colonies; and it was not until the 1st day of January, 1863, that
Abraham Lincoln, sustained by the sublime and heroic North, rendered our
flag pure as the sky in which it floats.
Abraham Lincoln was, in my judgment, in many respects, the grandest
man ever President of the United States. Upon his monument these words
should be written: "Here sleeps the only man in the history of the
world, who, having been clothed with almost absolute power, never abused
it, except upon the side of mercy."
Think how long we clung to the institution of human slavery, how long
lashes upon the naked back were a legal tender for labor performed.
Think of it. The pulpit of this country deliberately and willingly, for
a hundred years, turned the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny,
every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty.
What do I mean by liberty? By physical liberty I mean the right to do
anything which does not interfere with the happiness of another. By
intellectual liberty I mean the right to think right and the right to
think wrong. Thought is the means by which we endeavor to arrive at
truth. If we know the truth already, we need not think. All that can
be required is honesty of purpose. You ask my opinion about anything;
I examine it honestly, and when my mind is made up, what should I tell
you? Should I tell you my real thought? What should I do? There is a
book put in my hands. I am told this is the Koran; it was written by
inspiration. I read it, and when I get through, suppose that I think in
my heart and in my brain, that it is utterly untrue, and you then ask
me, what do you think? Now, admitting that I live in Turkey, and have
no chance to get any office unless I am on the side of the Koran, what
should I say? Should I make a clean breast and say, that upon my honor
I do not believe it? What would you think then of my fellow-citizens if
they said: "That man is dangerous, he is dishonest."
Suppose I read the book called the Bible, and when I get through I make
up my mind that it was written by men. A minister asks me, "Did you read
the Bible?" I answer, that I did. "Do you think it divinely inspired?"
What should I reply? Should I say to myself, "If I deny the inspiration
of the Scriptures, the people will never clothe me with power." What
ought I to answer? Ought I not to say like a man: "I have read it; I do
not believe it." Should I not give the real transcript of my mind? Or
should I turn hypocrite and pretend what I do not feel, and hate myself
forever after for being a cringing coward. For my part I would rather
a man would tell me what he honestly thinks. I would rather he
would preserve his manhood. I had a thousand times rather be a manly
unbeliever than an unmanly believer. And if there is a judgment day,
a time when all will stand before some supreme being, I believe I will
stand higher, and stand a better chance of getting my case decided in my
favor, than any man sneaking through life pretending to believe what he
does not.
I have made up my mind to say my say. I shall do it kindly, distinctly;
but I am going to do it. I know there are thousands of men who
substantially agree with me, but who are not in a condition to express
their thoughts. They are poor; they are in business; and they know that
should they tell their honest thought, persons will refuse to patronize
them--to trade with them; they wish to get bread for their little
children; they wish to take care of their wives; they wish to have homes
and the comforts of life. Every such person is a certificate of the
meanness of the community in which he resides. And yet I do not blame
these people for not expressing their thought. I say to them: "Keep your
ideas to yourselves; feed and clothe the ones you love; I will do
your talking for you. The church can not touch, can not crush, can not
starve, cannot stop or stay me; I will express your thoughts."
As an excuse for tyranny, as a justification of slavery, the church has
taught that man is totally depraved. Of the truth of that doctrine, the
church has furnished the only evidence there is. The truth is, we are
both good and bad. The worst are capable of some good deeds, and the
best are capable of bad. The lowest can rise, and the highest may fall.
That mankind can be divided into two great classes, sinners and saints,
is an utter falsehood. In times of great disaster, called it may be, by
the despairing voices of women, men, denounced by the church as totally
depraved, rush to death as to a festival. By such men, deeds are done
so filled with self-sacrifice and generous daring, that millions pay
to them the tribute, not only of admiration, but of tears. Above all
creeds, above all religions, after all, is that divine thing,--Humanity;
and now and then in shipwreck on the wide, wild sea, or 'mid the rocks
and breakers of some cruel shore, or where the serpents of flame writhe
and hiss, some glorious heart, some chivalric soul does a deed
that glitters like a star, and gives the lie to all the dogmas of
superstition. All these frightful doctrines have been used to degrade
and to enslave mankind.
Away, forever away with the creeds and books and forms and laws and
religions that take from the soul liberty and reason. Down with the idea
that thought is dangerous! Perish the infamous doctrine that man can
have property in man. Let us resent with indignation every effort to put
a chain upon our minds. If there is no God, certainly we should not bow
and cringe and crawl. If there is a God, there should be no slaves.