The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume II Part 17

In the Episcopalian creed G.o.d is described as follows:

"_There is but one living and true G.o.d, everlasting, without body, parts or pa.s.sions_."

Think of that!--without body, parts, or pa.s.sions.

I defy any man in the world to write a better description of nothing.

You cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without body, parts, or pa.s.sions." And yet this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, is angry at the wicked every day; this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, is a jealous G.o.d, whose anger burneth to the lowest h.e.l.l. This G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, loves the whole human race; and this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, d.a.m.ns a large majority of mankind. This G.o.d without body, walked in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day. This G.o.d, without body, talked with Adam and Eve. This G.o.d, without body, or parts met Moses upon Mount Sinai, appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses face to face as a man speaketh to his friend. This description of G.o.d is simply an effort of the church to describe a something of which it has no conception.

G.o.d as a Governor.

So, too, I find the following:

"_We believe that the Providence of G.o.d, by which he executes his eternal purposes in the government of the world, is in and over all events._"

Is G.o.d the governor of the world? Is this established by the history of nations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and not frightened, in the history of the world, that this universe is presided over by an infinitely wise and good G.o.d?

How do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do you account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the master's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you account for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers--arms that had been reached toward G.o.d in supplication? How do you account for it? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account for the fact that this G.o.d allows people to be burned simply for loving him? Is justice always done? Is innocence always acquitted? Do the good succeed? Are the honest fed? Are the charitable clothed? Are the virtuous s.h.i.+elded? How do you account for the fact that the world has been filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the fact that people have been swallowed by earthquakes, overwhelmned by volcanoes, and swept from the earth by storms? Is it easy to account for famine, for pestilence and plague if there be above us all a Ruler infinitely good, powerful and wise?

I do not say there is none. I do not know. As I have said before, this is the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts of the universe, and do not know about these things as much as the clergy pretend to, but if they know no more about the other world than they do about this, it is not worth mentioning.

How do they answer all this? They say that G.o.d "permits" it. What would you say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a child, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say truthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. Is it possible for this G.o.d to prevent it? Then, if he does not he is a fiend; he is no G.o.d.

But they say he "permits" it. What for? So that we may have freedom of choice. What for? So that G.o.d may find, I suppose, who are good and who are bad. Did he not know that when he made us? Did he not know exactly just what he was making? Why should he make those whom he knew would be criminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and take the lives of people you would hang me. And if G.o.d made a man whom he knew would commit murder, then G.o.d is guilty of that murder. If G.o.d made a man knowing that he would beat his wife, that he would starve his children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the wrecks of ruined homes, then I say the being who knowingly called that wretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find the providence of G.o.d in the history of nations. What little I have read shows me that when man has been helped, man has done it; when the chains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when something bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to trace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You need not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame upon G.o.ds; you can find the efficient causes nearer home--right here.

The Love of G.o.d.

What is the next thing I find in this creed?

"_We believe that man was made in the image of G.o.d, that he might know, love, and obey G.o.d, and enjoy him forever._"

I do not believe that anybody ever did love G.o.d, because n.o.body ever knew anything about him. We love each other. We love something that we know. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great and beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can love truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice, because it preserves human joy. We can love charity. We can love every form of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we cannot love the infinitely unknown. And how can we be made in the image of something that has neither body, parts, nor pa.s.sions?

The Fall of Man.

The Congregational Church has not outgrown the doctrine of "original sin." We are told that:

"_Our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation of G.o.d, and that all men are so alienated from G.o.d that there is no salvation from the guilt and power of sin except through G.o.d's redeeming power._"

Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any intelligent man now believe that G.o.d made man of dust, and woman of a rib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the midst of it? Was there not room outside of the garden to put his tree, if he did not want people to eat his apples?

If I did not want a man to eat my fruit, I would not put him in my orchard.

Does anybody now believe in the story of the serpent? I pity any man or woman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable.

Why did Adam and Eve disobey? Why, they were tempted. By whom? The devil. Who made the devil? G.o.d. What did G.o.d make him for? Why did he not tell Adam and Eve about this serpent? Why did he not watch the devil, instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out, why did he not keep him from getting in? Why did he not have his flood first, and drown the devil, before he made a man and woman.

And yet, people who call themselves intelligent--professors in colleges and presidents of venerable inst.i.tutions--teach children and young men that the Garden of Eden story is an absolute historical fact. I defy any man to think of a more childish thing. This G.o.d, waiting around Eden--knowing all the while what would happen--having made them on purpose so that it would happen, then does what? Holds all of us responsible, and we were not there. Here is a representative before the const.i.tuency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative I want a chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known all the circ.u.mstances, I should have voted "No!" And yet, I am held responsible.

We are told by the Bible and by the churches that through this fall of man "_Sin and death entered the world?_"

According to this, just as soon as Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, G.o.d began to contrive ways by which he could destroy the lives of his children. He invented all the diseases--all the fevers and coughs and colds--all the pains and plagues and pestilences--all the aches and agonies, the malaria and spores; so that when we take a breath of air we admit into our lungs unseen a.s.sa.s.sins; and, fearing that some might live too long, even under such circ.u.mstances, G.o.d invented the earthquake and volcano, the cyclone and lightning, animalcules to infest the heart and brain, so small that no eye can detect--no instrument reach. This was all owing to the disobedience of Adam and Eve!

In his infinite goodness, G.o.d invented rheumatism and gout and dyspepsia, cancers and neuralgia, and is still inventing new diseases.

Not only this', but he decreed the pangs of mothers, and that by the gates of love and life should crouch the dragons of death and pain.

Fearing that some might, by accident, live too long, he planted poisonous vines and herbs that looked like food. He caught the serpents he had made and gave them fangs and curious organs, ingeniously devised to distill and deposit the deadly drop. He changed the nature of the beasts, that they might feed on human flesh. He cursed a world, and tainted every spring and source of joy. He poisoned every breath of air; corrupted even light, that it might bear disease on every ray; tainted every drop of blood in human veins; touched every nerve, that it might bear the double fruit of pain and joy; decreed all accidents and mistakes that maim and hurt and kill, and set the snares of life-long grief, baited with present pleasure,--with a moment's joy. Then and there he foreknew and foreordained all human tears. And yet all this is but the prelude, the introduction, to the infinite revenge of the good G.o.d. Increase and multiply all human griefs until the mind has reached imagination's farthest verge, then add eternity to time, and you may faintly tell, but never can conceive, the infinite horrors of this doctrine called "The Fall of Man." The Atonement.

We are further told that:

"_All men are so alienated from G.o.d that there is no alleviation from the guilt and power of sin except through G.o.d's redeeming grace;_"

And that:

"_We believe that the love of G.o.d to sinful man has found its highest expression in the redemptive work of his Son, who became man, uniting his divine nature with our human nature in one person; who was tempted like other men and yet without sin, and by his humiliation, his holy obedience, his sufferings, his death on the cross, and his resurrection, became a perfect redeemer; whose sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world declares the righteousness of G.o.d, and is the sole and sufficient ground of forgiveness and of reconciliation with him_."

The absurdity of the doctrine known as "The Fall of Man," gave birth to that other absurdity known as "The Atonement." So that now it is insisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of somebody else, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another. Let us leave out of our philosophy both these absurdities. Our creed will read a great deal better with both of them out, and will make far better sense.

Now, in consequence of Adam's sin, everybody is alienated from G.o.d. How?

Why? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all do wrong. Well, why?

Is that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes?

Because there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite number of wrong ways; and as long as we are not perfect in our intellects we must make mistakes. "There is no darkness but ignorance,"

and alienation, as they call it, from G.o.d, is simply a lack of intellect. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the alienation.

The church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the sh.o.r.e of this world is against G.o.d--naturally hates G.o.d; that the little dimpled child in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against G.o.d! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men who have worked for wife and child; upon all mothers who have suffered and labored, wept and worked; upon all the men who have died for their country; upon all who have fought for human liberty. Leave out the history of religion and there is little left to prove the depravity of man.

Everybody that comes is against G.o.d! Every soul, they think, is like the wrecked Irishman, who drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed the sh.o.r.e saw a man and said to him, "Have you a Government here?" The man replied "We have." "Well," said he, "I'm forninst it!"

The church teaches us that such is the att.i.tude of every soul in the universe of G.o.d. Ought a G.o.d to take any credit to himself for making depraved people? A G.o.d that cannot make a soul that is not totally depraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And if a G.o.d has made us, knowing that we are totally depraved, why should we go to the same being to be "born again?"

The Second Birth.

The church insists that we must be "born again" and that all who are not the subjects of this second birth are heirs of everlasting fire. Would it not have been much better to have made another Adam and Eve? Would it not have been better to change Noah and his people, so that after that a second birth would not have been necessary? Why not purify the fountain of all human life? Why allow the earth to be peopled with depraved and monstrous beings, each one of whom must be re-made, re-formed, and born again?

And yet, even reformation is not enough. If the man who steals becomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his fellow-man, changes and loves his fellow-man, that is not enough; he must go through that mysterious thing called the second birth; he must be born again. He must have faith; he must believe something that he does not understand, and experience what they call "conversion."

According to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of G.o.d--nothing so corrugates the brows of Jehovah with hatred--as a man relying on his own good works. He must admit that he ought to be d.a.m.ned, and that of the two he prefers it, before G.o.d will consent to save him.

I met a man the other day, who said to me, "I am a Unitarian Universalist." "What do you mean by that?" I asked. "Well," said he, "this is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be d.a.m.ned, and the Universalist thinks G.o.d is too good to d.a.m.n him, and I believe them both."

Is it possible that the sacrifice of a perfect being was acceptable to G.o.d? Will he accept the agony of innocence for the punishment of guilt?

Will he release Barabbas and crucify Christ?

Inspiration.

What is the next thing in this great creed?

"_We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the record of G.o.d's revelation of Himself, the work of redemption; that they were written by men under the special guidance of the holy spirit; that they are able to make wise unto salvation; and that they const.i.tute an authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be regulated and judged._"

This is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, the result reached by a high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for their churches; and there we have the statement that the Bible was written "by men under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit."

What part of the Bible? All of it? All of it. And yet what is this Old Testament that was written by an infinitely good G.o.d? The being who wrote it did not know the shape of the world he had made; knew nothing of human nature. He commands men to love him, as if one could love upon command. The same G.o.d upheld the inst.i.tution of human slavery; and the church says that the Bible that upholds that inst.i.tution was written by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy Spirit.