The Project Gutenberg EBook of Ingersoll in Canada, by Allen Pringle
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Ingersoll in Canada
A Reply to Wendling, Archbishop Lynch, Bystander; and Others
Author: Allen Pringle
Release Date: December 14, 2011 [EBook #38303]
Last Updated: January 25, 2013
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INGERSOLL IN CANADA ***
Produced by David Widger
"Here's freedom to him that would read,
Here's freedom to him that would write;
Thert's nane ever feared that the truth should be heard,
But they whom the truth would indite."—Burns.
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a a fool; and he who
dares not is a slave."—Philosopher.
PER CONTRA: "Do not try to reason or you are lost."—Moody, the
Evangelist.
"Hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may."
"Fear first made Gods in the world."—Lucretius
"Theology I define to be the art of teaching what nobody knows."—Lord
Brougham
"It matters not to me whether my neighbors believe in one God or twenty"—Jefferson
"The natural world is infinite and eternal. The universe was not called
into being from non-entity."—Plato
"To assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously
unknown, argues, on the part of the assertor, either gross ignorance or
else wilful fraud."—Buckle
"Nature is seen to do all things of herself without the meddling of the
Gods."—Lucretius
"Is there no 'inspiration,' then, but an ancient Jewish, Greekish, Roman
one, with big revenues, loud liturgies, and red stockings?"—Thos.
Carlyle
"Inanity well tailored and upholstered, mild-spoken Ambiguity, decorous
Hypocrisy, which is astonished you should, think it hypocritical, taking
their room and drawing their wages: from zenith to nadir you have Cant,
Cant—a universe of incredibilities which are not even credited,
which each man at best only tries to persuade himself that he credits."—Thomas
Carlyle
"The highest possible welfare of all present mankind is my religion; the
perfectibility of the future of our race here upon this planet is my
faith; and I would the time had come, as it yet will come, that this faith
were the religion of all mankind."—Lord Queensbury (who was
recently excluded from the English House of Lords because of his
unorthodox opinions.)
* "The Prospect of a Moral Interregnum."
—Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1879.
Mr. Pedley then goes on to point out the effects of ignorance, on the part
of the minister, of the arguments and writings of Freethinkers. He says:
"If he be pastor in a reading community, he will know less than his
congregation about matters which it is his special business to understand.
He will stand towards the Bible, as an ignorant Priest stands towards the
Pope, accepting an infallibility that he has never proved. He will appear
before the intelligent world as a spiritual coward, a craven-hearted man,
who dare not face the enemy who is slowly mastering his domains. He will
become a by-word and a reproach to the generation which he is confessedly
unable to lead, and which sweeps by with disdainful tread, leaving him far
in the rear."
These are brave words and frank admissions, which should be well pondered
by every clergyman, minister and priest, and every theological student,
for should they fail to acquaint themselves with the doctrines and
arguments of their opponents, they will speedily find themselves, as Mr.
Pedley warns them, preaching to people who know more than they about
matters which it is their special business to know.
Yours earnestly for Truth,
A. P. Selby, Nov. 22nd, 1880.
* The following appears in the press:—"The New Testament
Revision Committee have struck out as spurious the last
seven verses of the last chapter of St. Mark." Now why have
they done this thing? To an "outside barbarian" the true
reason would appear to be that according to those seven
verses there are no Christians on the earth to-day, as not
one from the Pope of Rome or the Archbishop of Canterbury
down to the humblest follower of Jesus can prove himself a
Christian by the plain test therein given.
Whatever manifests design must have had a designer:
The world manifests design;
Therefore, the world must have had a designer.
This is the whole Christian reasoning on the subject in a nutshell, and it
has been considered by them perfectly conclusive and unanswerable. The
logic is certainly unexceptionable, that is, the conclusion is quite
legitimate from the premises; but it so happens that the premises are
unsound, and in such a case the most unexceptionable logic goes for
naught. If premises be erroneous, though the reasoning be ever so good,
the conclusion must be erroneous. The major premiss of the foregoing
syllogism, that "whatever manifests design must have had a designer," is a
pure assumption, if by design is meant adaptation in Nature. So, likewise,
is the minor premiss an assumption if by design is meant anything more
than the adaptation pervading the universe, or at least that part
cognizable to us. That the fitness and adaptation observable in
Nature do not establish intelligent design, is amply shown by the highest
authorities—by the most eminent naturalists (Hæckel, Darwin, &c.)
of the present day, to whom the reader is referred, and I need not here
amplify in that direction. Nor is it at all necessary for my present
purpose and work. It is only necessary to apply the teductio ad
absurdum to the above argument from design to show its utter fallacy.
We will admit the premises and carry the reasoning of our Christian
friends out a little further. By granting the truth of their major
proposition and reasoning, logically from it we can prove more than is
wholesome for the theologian, as thus:—
Whatever manifests design must have had a designer: God, in his alleged personality and attributes, manifests design; Therefore, God must have had a designer.It will thus be seen that Mr. Wendling's design argument from Catwell and Paley proves entirely too much for his own good, and hence it is that the astute theologians of the day have abandoned Paley and his design argument to their fate, where they have been duly relegated by the incisive logic of the modern materialist. Finally, Mr. Wendling comes to the moral argument, and in conscience finds proof of the existence of a personal God. He complacently avers that "God made man with this omnipresent 'I ought' implanted in his nature." Now, in the first place, it is a great mistake that this "I ought" or conscience is universally implanted in man—is "omnipresent," as Mr. Wendling puts it. That there are tribes without the moral sense of conscience, is sustained by the same unimpeachable authorities referred to in proof of the absence in them of any theistic conception or belief; and even in civilized (?) society we unfortunately find an occasional specimen of the genus homo with no noticeable trace of that﹃variable quality﹄we call conscience. That conscience is innate in man, and a God-given faculty, instead of acquired by development, is another convenient assumption without any substantial foundation. If conscience is a Divine gift to humanity, how is it that consciences differ so widely, not only in degree, but in kind? If conscience is a Divine "monitor" and "guide" from heaven, why is it that it so often becomes a very blind guide, and leads people into many by-paths? How is it that under the sanction of conscience the most horrid crimes and cruelties against humanity have been committed in the name of God, its alleged author? How is it, if conscience is an "unerring guide" to conduct, implanted by God, that it has guided man, in the name of its author, to let out the life blood of his fellow-creatures in rivers, on account of differences of opinion conscientiously entertained? Does God give one man one sort of conscience and another man another and wholly different sort, leading them in opposite directions, and then prompt the conscience of one to put the other (his fellow) to death for conscience sake and for God's sake? If so, it is very questionable work, surely, for a good (?) God to be engaged in! If God implants the conscience in man, why not be fair and just and give all men consciences? and give them all the same article? and not give one man a tolerably good article of conscience (the Freethinker, for example) and then go and give others (some of our Christian friends, for example) so poor an article, so to speak—so flexible and elastic—that it allows them to murder, cheat, lie, slander, rob widows and orphans, and run away with other people's money and other men's wives without compunction—without any troublesome pangs from this universal "I ought" over which Mr. Wendling grows so eloquent! The Christian world has been quite long enough teaching an irrational and absurd doctrine about conscience. They not only blunder as to its origin, but as to its nature and functions. Nearly every Christian writer defines conscience as an "inward monitor" to tell us right from wrong; a divine faculty enabling us to "judge between the good and the bad;" a﹃guide to conduct,﹄&c, &c. In the light of our present mental science this definition of conscience is utterly false. Conscience is not an intelligent faculty at all—it is simply a feeling. By modern metaphysics conscience has been relegated from the domain of the intellect to its proper place among the emotions. Hence it decides nothing, judges nothing as between right and wrong, or anything else, for that is a function of intellect. Conscience, instead of being a "guide" or "judge," is but a blind impulse needing itself to be guided. It is simply a feeling for the right—a thirsting for the good—but the intellect must decide what isright; and the nature and character of its decisions will depend upon various circumstances, such as organization, education, &c.; and the decisions of different individuals as to right and wrong will differ as those circumstances differ. We hear a great deal about "enlightening the conscience;" but it cannot be done. You might as well talk of enlightening a sunflower, which instinctively turns its head to the light; or a vine, which instinctively creeps up the portico. The intellect, however, may be enlightened. Reason, which is the only and ultimate arbiter and guide to conduct, may be enlightened; and we may thus modify, guide and direct the blind impulses of conscience. The truth is, conscience in man, such as it is, is a development—is acquired rather than innate; has been developed by Nature instead of "implanted" by God. The moral sense, without doubt, gradually developed in man as he rose in the scale of intelligence. Where there is little or no intelligence, the moral sense would be inapplicable and incongruous, and is not needed, hence does not exist. When it is required, Nature, in perfect keeping with all her other adaptations, develops it. Darwin, in the "Descent of Man," vol. i, pp. 68-9, says:— "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." On this point John Stuart Mill also has the following in his "Utilitarianism," p. 45:— "If, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural." The reader is also referred to "Psychological Inquiries," by Sir B. Brodie, for further evidence on this subject. The moral sense, therefore, which exists in a portion of mankind—distinct traces of which are also found in some of the lower animals—has been gradually acquired during the evolution of man from a lower to a higher condition. It has come down to us from primitive barbarism through long ages of hereditary transmission. The "spiritual yearnings" of man's nature, thought by Christians to prove a God as their author, have, in like manner, been gradually acquired. These subjective emotions and desires—whether you call them carnalorspiritual—are, unquestionably, in the light of modern science, all matters of gradual development, hereditary inheritance, and education. The great doctrine of EVOLUTION in nature explains them all. Having thus dealt with the arguments of Mr. Wendling in evidence of a personal God—a primary assumption upon which he predicates many other assumptions—there is little else in his﹃Reply to Robert Ingersoll﹄demanding attention. One or two, however, of his extraordinary assertions, it may not be amiss to look into a little; especially as Mr. Wendling, having waxed valiant over the supposed conclusiveness of his arguments, triumphantly throws down the glove to "infidelity" in this wise:— "To my mind the great central thought of Christianity is that every living soul, of every race, of every clime, of every creed, of every condition, of every color—every living soul is worthy the Kingdom * * * And here I challenge infidelity. I lay the challenge broadly down. I challenge infidelity to name an era or a school in which this doctrine was taught prior to the advent of the Ideal Man." Here, again, Mr. Wendling's orthodoxy is badly out of joint, and his facts at loose ends. This "central thought" that﹃every living soul is worthy the Kingdom﹄has no place in Christianity. It is by no means biblical doctrine, however well so humane an idea may fit into Mr. W.'s own mind. Hence, to designate the brotherhood of man the "great central thought of Christianity"—a system which is to consign a majority of mankind to an endless hell of fire and brimstone—is purely gratuitous. To claim benevolent fatherhood or brotherhood for a religion which declares that the road to hell is "broad," and many shall go in thereat, while the way to Heaven is "narrow," and few shall go in thereat, is to play fast and loose with the Bible. To say that﹃every soul is worthy the Kingdom,﹄and call this the﹃great central thought of Christianity,﹄in the face of what the "Word of God" cheerfully tells us on this subject, is, indeed, a "marvellous flexibility of language," which I do not at all propose to tolerate in discussion with "a lawyer,"﹃a politician,﹄"a man of the world," or any other man. Hear ye! O! non-elect, what comforting things the Scripture saith to you on your "future prospects!" "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate."﹃For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.﹄"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans, 8th and 9th Chapters.)﹃The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.﹄(Psalm 58.) "Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep." (John 10.) "Ye be reprobates." (II. Corinth. 13.)﹃Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.﹄(Romans 9.) He hardened their hearts, "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand." (Mark 4.) "Hath not the potter power over the clay." &c. (Romans 9.) "He that believeth not shall be damned." This is benevolent (?) fatherhood, and the spirit of the brotherhood of humanity, with a vengance! We are distinctly told that God,﹃from the beginning,﹄has deliberately fixed upon the ultimate misery and destruction of a portion of His hapless creatures; that He moulds them as clay in the hands of the potter; hardens their hearts and blinds their eyes, and then tells them He will damn them for not doing what He has prevented them from doing, and what He knows, beforehand, they cannot and will not do! This is what Mr. Wendling calls the "great central thought of Christianity—that 'every soul is worthy the Kingdom,'"—and he calls loudly upon "infidelity" to name an era or a school in which this doctrine was taught before the "Ideal Man" taught it. He is right! We cannot do it! We may search the philosophies and sacred writings of the Pagans in vain for so fiendish a doctrine. For pure, unadulterated malevolence, the Vedas, the Shaster, the Zend-Avesta, afford no parallel for this truly Christian doctrine. If, however, Mr. Wendling challenges us to name an era or school in which the brotherhood of man (as we understand it) was taught before the time of the "Ideal Man," we unhesitatingly accept his challenge. It was taught by Buddha, Confucius, and numerous Pagan writers and philosophers long before the time of Jesus, for proof of which I refer the reader to Prof. Max Muller, Sir Wm. Jones, Lord, Amberly, &c, or to the writings themselves. Mr. Wendling desires us to "Tell me (him) why it is that all the creeds of Christendom and all the civilized nations unite in accepting the Ideal Man of Christianity despite the laws of climate and of race?" I will answer this question in the Irishman's fashion, by asking one or two others. Tell me why it is, if Christianity is a divine system, and its author omnipotent, that, after eighteen centuries of active propagandism and aggression, compassing sea and land to make proselytes, it has to-day, according to recent statistics, but the meagre following of 399,200,000; while Buddhism has 405,600,000, and Brahmanism, Mohammedanism, etc., 500,000,000? Not nearly one-third of the world's population Christians, and the number rapidly diminishing! Tell me why it is, if Christianity is true that its foundations are melting down like wax in the light of Modern Science?' Tell me why it is, if the Bible is an inspired book, a divine revelation, that scarcely a single really eminent scientist or scholar of the present day accepts it as such? Tell me why it is that Atheism, Agnosticism, and Rationalism are making such rapid headway among the educated and intelligent, in every civilized country, both in the church and out of it? That the dogmas upon which Christianity rests are doomed; and as Froude, the historian, says, "Doctrines once fixed as a rock are now fluid as water?"* If the Bible can bear the light of science and historical research, how is it that these have already irrevocably sapped its very foundations; and that, as a consequence, the world is completely "honey-combed with infidelity," as a Toronto paper recently asserted of that city? The only answer Mr. Wendling can give to these questions is this: Because Christianity is unable to show its titles; because the Bible, being human in its origin, and, as a consequence, abounding in errors, both in science and morals, cannot bear the penetrating light of modern science and criticism.
* "Science and Theology, Ancient and Modern."—The
International Religio-Science Series.—Rose-Belford
Publishing Company, Toronto.
* I am well aware that the Protestant sects of Christianity
repudiate this charge of the intolerant and persecuting
spirit of Christianity in general, and vainly attempt to
shift the whole onus and odium upon the Church of Rome. They
tell us that Christianity itself is not persecuting—that it
is not responsible for having reddened the earth with blood
—but that this was all done contrary to the spirit and
teachings of Christianity by men who were not really
Christians. We deny it. We take the position that
Christianity itself is essentially intolerant and
persecuting in spirit; and, we take the New Testament itself
to prove it. We take Christ's alleged words as reported
there, and Paul's alleged words as reported there, and can
thereby abundantly sustain our charge.『He that believeth
not shall be damned.』"A man that is a heretic after the
first and second admonition, reject." What is that but the
quintessence of bigotry and intolerance?『I would they were
even cut off which trouble you.』How kind!『Think not that I
come to send peace on earth, etc., etc』Scores of passages
could be quoted from the New Testament of similar import,
and the Old Testament is worse yet, for it recommends
putting even your wives or brothers to death should they try
to persuade you to worship their God.—See Deut. 13, 6, 7
and 8.
Intelligence presupposes a greater intelligence,
God has intelligence,
Therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than God.
Seeing the logical force of this, he quibbles thus: "We do not say that
God has intelligence, but that God iswisdom in form and
love in essence, and therefore the infinite source of all intelligence."
This will not do, Mr. "Rationalist!" It is entirely too vague. You must
either contend for a personal or an impersonal God. Give us either Deism
or Pantheism, and not an incongruous mixture, and then we will know on
what ground to meet you. If you mean that God is simply the aggregate, or
even the essence, of all intelligence, all love, all good, why this is a
mere abstraction, and even an Atheist might accept it; but if you are
contending for anything like the Christian's God, as set forth in the
Bible, you will have to alter your definitions very materially.
As a specimen illustration of "Rationalist's" spiritual method of
resolving Scriptural difficulties I give below his version of the story of
Elisha, the children, and the bears, under the "rubbing off" process. We,
Freethinkers, he says, will not "object to the bears" when we understand
what the story means, and here is his elucidation, verbatim et
literatim:—
"Elisha represents the external or literal words of Holy Writ on which the
mantle of spiritual truth still rests. Children represent affections—don't
fond mothers even yet call them 'little loves?'—They also correspond
to the opposite, and so evil loves which destroy obedience to the external
life of goodness, taught in, at least, some of the literal words of
Scripture, naturally mock at the baldness of Elisha. Baldness, since it
refers to the head, and the head corresponds to that union of will and
intellect in man which rules, and is, the life, and ultimates in the very
extreme of its very minute external, corresponds to the most external of
the will and thought of Elisha, who represents the literal meaning of
Scripture. So this incident means that evil loves could see no ultimate
good to themselves in the doing of any good in a practical
every-day way even where that was clearly enjoined, and rendered as
beautiful externally as hair is, and therefore mocked at it, or rather at
what seemed to them the lack of it. Then the bears, which correspond to
the animal passions of the animal man, came out of the woods—woods
correspond to the natural perceptions of natural truth in man—and
utterly destroyed these evil loves out of the life. Again you see we find
the same truth; that the Lord implants remains of goodness and truth in
every degree of man's life, even in the natural man, fitted to cope with
and conquer his evils, if man himself will but permit it."
There's a sample of "spiritual interpretation" for you! And what clearness
is there, dear reader! Just return to the fourth sentence of the above
extract, commencing with "Baldness," and re-read it, and see if you can
make anything out of it. What the sentence does really mean is to me as
profound a mystery as the incantations of a Gypsy thaumaturgist. It would
be interesting to get "Rationalist" to try his hand at spiritualizing some
of the following passages of Holy Writ:—
"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired," &c.
"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him" (Moses)
"and sought to kill him." "I have seen God face to face." Per Contra:
"No man hath seen God at any time."﹃I am the Lord, I change not, I will
not go back, neither will I repent.﹄Per Contra:﹃And God repented
of the evil that he said he would do unto them, and he did it not.﹄"There
is no respect of persons with God." Per Contra:﹃Jacob have I
loved, and Esau have I hated.﹄"I am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquities of the fathers upon the children." Per Contra:﹃The son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father.﹄"It is impossible for God to
lie." Per Contra:﹃If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a
thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet.﹄"Be not afraid of them that
kill the body." Per Contra:﹃And after these things Jesus would not
walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.﹄"And the anger of the
Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say,
'Go number Israel.'" Per Contra:﹃And Satan provoked David to
number Israel.﹄"I bear witness of myself, yet my record is true." Per
Contra: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."﹃A man
is not justified by the works of the law.﹄Per Contra:﹃Ye see,
then, how that by works a man is justified.﹄"There shall no evil happen
to the just." Per Contra:﹃All that will live godly in Christ Jesus
shall suffer persecution.﹄"Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness and all
her paths are peace." Per Contra:﹃In much wisdom is much grief and
he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.﹄"It shall not be well
with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days." Per Contra:
"Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power."
"Thou shalt not: commit adultery." Per Contra: "Then said the Lord
unto me, 'Go get, love a woman, an adulteress.'"
Here, certainly, is ample scope for exegetical ingenuity. The passages
quoted, besides scores of others, many of them too indecent for these
pages, would seem to require the touch of "Rationalist's" spiritual
interpretation wand. When the literal meaning is "rubbed off," the occult,
spiritual meaning will appear.
As a sample of "Rationalist's" metaphysical philosophy I give the
following:—
﹃Will and love are identical... Will or love is life. A man cannot think
unless he wills to think; and he can only think that which he wills—only
that and nothing more. He can only do what he wills and thinks. There is
no action which is not the effect of will and its thought. A man wills in
order to think,﹄etc. He also tells us that God gave man a will﹃as free
as His own.﹄Matter is spoken of as "mere dead inert matter."
Is more evidence than this needed that "Rationalist" is living in the
past, and has utterly failed to grasp modern thought? His philosophy is
bad, but his metaphysics is worse. Any man who at this day attempts to
"refute" Materialists should at least be somewhat acquainted with the
results of modern thought and scientific research; but "Rationalist" has
apparently advanced no further than the occult Swedenborgian mysticism of
the last century. Further, to talk to-day of "dead inert matter," is to
talk the language of an obsolete philosophy of the past; for modern
science and philosophy alike agree that matter is not﹃that mere empty capacity
which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who
brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb.﹄As Pope says:—
"See thro' this air, this ocean, and this earth, All matter quick and
bursting into birth."
Equally absurd is this talk about "Free Will" and "Free Moral Agency."
These metaphysico-theological dogmas have melted in the light of mental
science, and are now as "dead as a door nail," of which fact "Rationalist"
will be convinced if he will take the trouble to look into Hamilton,
Combe, Mill, Buckle, Lewes, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall, and he will then,
probably, write no more such nonsense as quoted above. It is not
necessary, however, for any observant and thoughtful man to go to any
authorities outside his own mind to be convinced of the fallacy of the
"Free Will" dogma, for his own observation and reflection will do it. And
"Rationalist" can have the same conviction without the aid of science or
philosophy,—without even observation or reflection. Let him turn to
his Bible, which he champions, and read it, and he will find abundant
proof (such as it is) that man's will is not free. Let him read the 8th,
9th and 11th Chapters of Romans. Let him then read Phil. 2, 13, "For it is
God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."
Then read Isaiah, 46, 910, "I am God and there is none like me, declaring
the end from the beginnings and from ancient times the things
that are not yet done, saying, my council shall stand, and I will
do all my pleasure."
Now, I submit that if an omnipotent and omniscient God has﹃declared the
end from the beginning,﹄and ordered all﹃the things that are not yet
done﹄(and you have his word for it here) how is it possible for mortal
and finite man to do any thing contrary to the thing ordered, or
accomplish any "end" but the one "declared from the beginning?" Here you,
who believe in God and the Bible, have his word for it that he has
declared all things "from the beginning." Man then must do and
think as God has declared, and can do nothing else, hence he is not
free.
The idea that "a man cannot think unless he wills to think" is too
preposterous (laying the Bible aside) for any reasonable man to accept who
is not a slave to creeds and dogmas. Let "Rationalist," after reading this
sentence, stop reading, and assume a quiescent state (for of course his
free will will enable him to do this)—a state of mental
passivity, as it were,—let him will nothing for the time
being,—and then see if thoughts of some kind do not spontaneously
arise in his mind. And then let him will to have no thoughts
for the space of five minutes, and see if the thoughts do not steal into
his brain (providing of course he has one) unbidden, and in spite of him—in
spite of all his boasted freewill power. Let any reader put this
impossible and absurd dictum of "Rationalist" to the test, and he will
have a living demonstration in his own brain, which will render any
further argument on this point entirely superfluous.
"Rationalist" worries himself into inextricable confusion over causes and
effects, first causes, first causes and last effects, etc., etc. Because
Ingersoll has said "a first cause is just as impossible as a last effect,"
Rationalist well nigh swamps himself in a most ludicrous﹃muss-of-a
muddle-of-a-jerry-cum-tumble﹄of bad diction and worse logic to prove that
by such reasoning as Ingersoll's we come to "chaos" and to "nothing,"
(hasn't the gentleman himself come to chaos if not to nothing?) We reason
everything out of existence, he says, and just now we will have left﹃no
nature, no God, no man, no matter﹄(it would be no matter if some
bipids were gone) "no force," no "nothing"—﹃literally
nothing.﹄Shades of Bacon! let us take breath; for this would certainly be
a very bad state of things, from which "good Lord deliver us!" It would be
nearly as bad as before the "creation," when nothing existed throughout
the infinite realms of space save Jehovah himself.
I will endeavor to make what materialists mean by the impossibility of a
first cause or last effect clear to "Rationalist." We believe in one
existence, and only one—the universe—which, though never
itself having been created or brought into existence (being eternal), is
the primal (or "first" if you like) cause of all phenomena Rationalist
will thus see that in one sense there is no first came as the
universe is eternal, yet in another sense there isa first cause,
viz.: the universe, as it is the primal cause of all phenomena. As to a
"last effect," it should be obvious to every rational mind that as
matter and force are indestructible, and hence eternal in duration, there
can be no last effect; for as long as matter and force exist effects must
of necessity ensue.
* Materialists, in using the phrase "law of Nature," use a
popular expression, but not in the popular sense as
presupposing a law-giver. By "law of Nature" we simply mean
natural sequence—the uniformity of Nature's operations.
Nature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference
by any God or gods. In the primeval ages of ignorance and barbarism the
gods were supposed to do everything, from the production of wind, rain,
tempest, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia and
potato-bugs. Science now explains all these things and a thousand others.
Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no room for the gods in the
Universe, and nothing left for them to do. And there cannot be any room beyond
it for them, for "above Nature we cannot rise."
The Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is but one
existence, the Universe, and that it is eternal—without
beginning or end—that the matter of the Universe never could have
been created, for ex nihilo nihil fit, (from nothing nothing can
come,) and that it contains within itself the potency adequate to the
production of all phenomena. This we think to be more conceivable and
intelligent than the Christian theory that there are two existences—God
and the Universe—and that there was a time when there was but one
existence, God, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and
"masterly inactivity" He finally created a Universe either out of Himself
or out of nothing—either one of which propositions is
philosophically absurd. And in either case, to say that God would be
infinite would be equally absurd.
Respectfully,
ALLEN PRINGLE.
Napanee, Ont., April 23, 1880.
* Since writing this I have been informed by one of the
witnesses alluded to, that no blame can be fairly imputed to
the presiding Judge in this case, as he felt compelled,
against his sympathies, to carry out the unjust law.
In England they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of
Rationalists in this respect are conceded to them. Here we have no state
religion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are utterly
out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast being swept
away in every civilized country. The Bradlaugh imbroglio recently in the
English House of Commons has had the effect of opening some people's eyes,
especially those conservative Christians who are still afflicted with
lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and persecuting spirit which
formerly lighted the fires of Smithfleld, hung quakers, imprisoned
so-called "blasphemers," and violated civil contracts in the name of God.
In the last election in England, a few months ago, Charles Bradlaugh, the
eminent Atheist and Republican, was elected to the English House of
Commons for the borough of Northampton, and in entering the House he
claimed his right, instead of taking the Parliamentary oath, to affirm
under the Act referred to above. The House at first refused, vacillated,
appointed Committees, and vigorously debated the matter; while the bigoted
members at once proceeded to unbudget themselves in true Christian style
against the "vermin" Atheist. Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knew what
he was about, and, as the sequel showed, proved himself more than a match
for the English House of Commons. Meanwhile also, the people of England—the
working classes—were-watching the whole business, and finally when
Bradlaugh was refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep
the Atheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) promptly
came to the front. Just then it began to dawn on "the powers that be" that
vox populi, vox Dei had more truth than poetry in it. The people of
England—the producers—(called "lower classes" by the "upper"
non-producers) assembled in scores of thousands in indignation
mass-meetings all over England, demanding the admission of Charles
Bradlaugh (their best friend) to his rightful seat in the English House of
Commons. The aforesaid "powers that be" took the alarm. Seeing that the
"voice of the people" was even more potent than the "voice of God," they
prudently bowed to its mandate. They perceived that no Clock Tower, or
other tower in England would hold the workingman's friend even for the
space of seven days. Bradlaugh must be released or the House of Brunswick
might peradventure soon be in mourning—not, probably, for spilled
blood, but for a crown, aye, a crown! No wonder the English Government
feared to see Charles Bradlaugh enter the House of Commons. He had
impeached the House of Brunswick. And it was no "soft impeachment." No,
but a terribly hard indictment! Was it ever answered? No, it was too true
to answer. The only answer was from Lord Randolph Churchill in the House
of Commons, and it was characteristic. This rabid monarchist, with much
more Christian zeal than knowledge or discretion, took Bradlaugh's
"Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" and cast it viciously under his
feet on the floor of the House of Commons. That was the way the
"Impeachment" was answered! Well, as Shakspeare says,﹃let the galled
jades wince!﹄But the Atheist had his revenge! They had put him in the
Tower, but they very soon let him out. He had been somewhat accustomed to
fighting the English Government, having beaten them twice, and he feared
not. He was imprisoned one day, but released the next. An Act was speedily
passed giving more even than Bradlaugh at first demanded—giving
every member who wishes in future, the right to affirm instead of taking
the Christian Oath. Bradlaugh has accordingly made his affirmation as he
at first demanded, and has taken his seat in the English House of Commons
as M. P. for Northampton,* And now let every Freethinker throughout the
civilized world rejoice, for this is a great victory for our cause! The
eloquent champion of our dearest rights has achieved a glorious victory on
the very threshold of the English Parliament before he enters it! Let us
take courage! The indomitable and invincible Iconoclast has now attained a
position where his voice will be heard in behalf of liberty and the rights
of man the world over! He is called "coarse" by some over-cultured people,
but his coarseness is of the kind the world needs, and therefore we
do not object to it. The superstitions, and errors, and wrongs, and
oppressions still weighing down our fellow-men need bare-handed ("coarse")
handling, without gloves, and Bradlaugh wears none of these, but
fearlessly throws down the gauntlet to falsehood and oppression whenever
and wherever found. But I fear I am getting a little off the Oath Question
here in my enthusiasm for Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for
Northampton.
* The press of Canada, with very few exceptions, have done
Mr. Bradlaugh a great injustice in connection with the oath
question, as they have (perhaps unintentionally) utterly
misrepresented him. They have charged that he『flaunted his
Atheism before the House of Commons,』 that he at first
refused to take the oath on conscientious grounds and
subsequently "swallowed his scruples" and offered to take
the oath; and that, therefore, the Atheist is without
conscience and without principle, sacrificing all for place.
Now, this is all utterly untrue. He did not flaunt his
Atheism before the House. He did not refuse to take the
oath, but simply claimed to be allowed to affirm. The
Speaker having intimated to Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired
to address the House in explanation of his claim he would be
permitted to do so, Mr. Bradlaugh said,『I have repeatedly,
for nine years past, made an affirmation in the highest
courts of jurisdiction in this realm: I am ready to make
such a declaration or affirmation.』And subsequently when
Mr. Bradlaugh offered to take the oath, it was after he had
made an explanation that although a portion of it to him was
a meaningless form, yet that the oath as a whole, if he took
it would be binding on his conscience substantially the same
as an affirmation. These are the facts, all taken from
authentic official sources, and not from what bigoted and
prejudiced correspondents have sent us across the ocean. My
authority is the record of the proceedings of the
Parliamentary Committees on the Bradlaugh case, where the
facts I have stated were distinctly brought out in evidence,
to which source I beg to refer the newspapers of this
country and call upon them to make the amende honorable by
setting this matter right before their readers.
In conclusion, I beg to again urge upon my fellow Freethinkers throughout
Canada the necessity of taking such action as will secure for us our legal
rights in the Courts of this country. I trust that the petitions to
Parliament for an Evidence Amendment Act, which we design ere long to put
in circulation, may be numerously signed and diligently circulated by the
liberal friends in the various places to which they will be sent.
Selby, Lennox Co., Ont., July, 1880
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Ingersoll in Canada, by Allen Pringle
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INGERSOLL IN CANADA ***
***** This file should be named 38303-h.htm or 38303-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/3/0/38303/
Produced by David Widger
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase『Project
Gutenberg』is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the『Right
of Replacement or Refund』described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.