The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume VIII Part 12

_Question_. What have you to say to the charge that you are preaching the doctrine of despair and hopelessness, when they have the comforting a.s.surances of the Christian religion to offer?

_Answer_. All I have to say is this: If the Christian religion is true, as commonly preached--and when I speak of Christianity, I speak of the orthodox Christianity of the day--if that be true, those whom I have loved the best are now in torment. Those to whom I am most deeply indebted are now suffering the vengeance of G.o.d.

If this religion be true, the future is of no value to me. I care nothing about heaven, unless the ones I love and have loved are there. I know nothing about the angels. I might not like them, and they might not like me. I would rather meet there the ones who have loved me here--the ones who would have died for me, and for whom I would have died; and if we are to be eternally divided --not because we differed in our views of justice, not because we differed about friendship or love or candor, or the n.o.bility of human action, but because we differed in belief about the atonement or baptism or the inspiration of the Scriptures--and if some of us are to be in heaven, and some in h.e.l.l, then, for my part, I prefer eternal sleep. To me the doctrine of annihilation is infinitely more consoling, than the probable separation preached by the orthodox clergy of our time. Of course, even if there be a G.o.d, I like persons that I know, better than I can like him--we have more in common--I know more about them; and how is it possible for me to love the infinite and unknown better than the ones I know? Why not have the courage to say that if there be a G.o.d, all I know about him I know by knowing myself and my friends--by knowing others? And, after all, is not a n.o.ble man, is not a pure woman, the finest revelation we have of G.o.d--if there be one? Of what use is it to be false to ourselves? What moral quality is there in theological pretence? Why should a man say that he loves G.o.d better than he does his wife or his children or his brother or his sister or his warm, true friend? Several ministers have objected to what I said about my friend Mr. Mills, on the ground that it was not calculated to console the living. Mr. Mills was not a Christian. He denied the inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that rest.i.tution was the best repentance, and that, after all, sin is a mistake. He was not a believer in total depravity, or in the atonement. He denied these things. He was an unbeliever. Now, let me ask, what consolation could a Christian minister have given to his family? He could have said to the widow and the orphans, to the brother and sister: "Your husband, your father, your brother, is now in h.e.l.l; dry your tears; weep not for him, but try and save yourselves. He has been d.a.m.ned as a warning to you, care no more for him, why should you weep over the grave of a man whom G.o.d thinks fit only to be eternally tormented? Why should you love the memory of one whom G.o.d hates?" The minister could have said: "He had an opportunity--he did not take it. The life-boat was lowered--he would not get in--he has been drowned, and the waves of G.o.d's wrath will sweep over him forever." This is the consolation of Christianity and the only honest consolation that Christianity can have for the widow and orphans of an unbeliever. Suppose, however, that the Christian minister has too tender a heart to tell what he believes to be the truth--then he can say to the sorrowing friends: "Perhaps the man repented before he died; perhaps he is not in h.e.l.l, perhaps you may meet him in heaven;" and this "perhaps" is a consolation not growing out of Christianity, but out of the politeness of the preacher--out of paganism.

_Question_. Do you not think that the Bible has consolation for those who have lost their friends?

_Answer_. There is about the Old Testament this strange fact--I find in it no burial service. There is in it, I believe, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi, not one word said over the dead as to their place and state. When Abraham died, n.o.body said: "He is still alive--he is in another world." When the prophets pa.s.sed away, not one word was said as to the heaven to which they had gone. In the Old Testament, Saul inquired of the witch, and Samuel rose. Samuel did not pretend that he had been living, or that he was alive, but asked: "Why hast thou disquieted me?" He did not pretend to have come from another world.

And when David speaks of his son, saying that he could not come back to him, but that he, David, could go to his son, that is but saying that he, too, must die. There is not in the Old Testament one hope of immortality. It is expressly a.s.serted that there is no difference between the man and beast--that as the one dieth so dieth the other. There is one little pa.s.sage in Job which commentators have endeavored to twist into a hope of immortality. Here is a book of hundreds and hundreds of pages, and hundreds and hundreds of chapters--a revelation from G.o.d--and in it one little pa.s.sage, which, by a mistranslation, is tortured into saying something about another life. And this is the Old Testament. I have sometimes thought that the Jews, when slaves in Egypt, were mostly occupied in building tombs for mummies, and that they became so utterly disgusted with that kind of work, that the moment they founded a nation for themselves they went out of the tomb business. The Egyptians were believers in immortality, and spent almost their entire substance upon the dead. The living were impoverished to enrich the dead. The grave absorbed the wealth of Egypt. The industry of a nation was buried. Certainly the Old Testament has nothing clearly in favor of immortality. In the New Testament we are told about the "kingdom of heaven,"--that it is at hand--and about who shall be worthy, but it is hard to tell what is meant by the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven was apparently to be in this world, and it was about to commence. The Devil was to be chained for a thousand years, the wicked were to be burned up, and Christ and his followers were to enjoy the earth. This certainly was the doctrine of Paul when he says: "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all _sleep_, but we shall all be _changed_.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the _dead_ shall be _raised_ incorruptible, and _we_ shall be _changed_. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." According to this doctrine, those who were alive were to be changed, and those who had died were to be raised from the dead. Paul certainly did not refer to any other world beyond this. All these things were to happen here. The New Testament is made up of the fragments of many religions. It is utterly inconsistent with itself; and there is not a particle of evidence of the resurrection and ascension of Christ--neither in the nature of things could there be. It is a thousand times more probable that people were mistaken than that such things occurred. If Christ really rose from the dead, he should have shown himself, not simply to his disciples, but to the very men who crucified him--to Herod, to the high priest, to Pilate.

He should have made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem after his resurrection, instead of before. He should have shown himself to the Sadducees,--to those who denied the existence of spirit. Take from the New Testament its doctrine of eternal pain--the idea that we can please G.o.d by acts of self-denial that can do no good to others--take away all its miracles, and I have no objection to all the good things in it--no objection to the hope of a future life, if such a hope is expressed--not the slightest. And I would not for the world say anything to take from any mind a hope in which dwells the least comfort, but a doctrine that dooms a large majority of mankind to eternal flames ought not to be called a consolation.

What I say is, that the writers of the New Testament knew no more about the future state than I do, and no less. The horizon of life has never been pierced. The veil between time and what is called eternity, has never been raised, so far as I know; and I say of the dead what all others must say if they say only what they know.

There is no particular consolation in a guess. Not knowing what the future has in store for the human race, it is far better to prophesy good than evil. It is better to hope that the night has a dawn, that the sky has a star, than to build a heaven for the few, and a h.e.l.l for the many. It is better to leave your dead in doubt than in fire--better that they should sleep in shadow than in the lurid flames of perdition. And so I say, and always have said, let us hope for the best. The minister asks: "What right have you to hope? It is sacrilegious in you!" But, whether the clergy like it or not, I shall always express my real opinion, and shall always be glad to say to those who mourn: "There is in death, as I believe, nothing worse than sleep. Hope for as much better as you can. Under the seven-hued arch let the dead rest." Throw away the Bible, and you throw away the fear of h.e.l.l, but the hope of another life remains, because the hope does not depend upon a book--it depends upon the heart--upon human affection. The fear, so far as this generation is concerned, is born of the book, and that part of the book was born of savagery. Whatever of hope is in the book is born, as I said before, of human affection, and the higher our civilization the greater the affection. I had rather rest my hope of something beyond the grave upon the human heart, than upon what they call the Scriptures, because there I find mingled with the hope of something good the threat of infinite evil. Among the thistles, thorns and briers of the Bible is one pale and sickly flower of hope. Among all its wild beasts and fowls, only one bird flies heavenward. I prefer the hope without the thorns, without the briers, thistles, hyenas, and serpents.

_Question_. Do you not know that it is claimed that immortality was brought to light in the New Testament, that that, in fact, was the princ.i.p.al mission of Christ?

_Answer_. I know that Christians claim that the doctrine of immortality was first taught in the New Testament. They also claim that the highest morality was found there. Both these claims are utterly without foundation. Thousands of years before Christ was born--thousands of years before Moses saw the light--the doctrine of immortality was preached by the priests of Osiris and Isis.

Funeral discourses were p.r.o.nounced over the dead, ages before Abraham existed. When a man died in Egypt, before he was taken across the sacred lake, he had a trial. Witnesses appeared, and if he had done anything wrong, for which he had not done rest.i.tution, he was not taken across the lake. The living friends, in disgrace, carried the body back, and it was buried outside of what might be called consecrated ground, while the ghost was supposed to wander for a hundred years. Often the children of the dead would endeavor to redeem the poor ghost by acts of love and kindness. When he came to the spirit world there was the G.o.d Anubis, who weighed his heart in the scales of eternal justice, and if the good deed preponderated he entered the gates of Paradise; if the evil, he had to go back to the world, and be born in the bodies of animals for the purpose of final purification. At last, the good deeds would outweigh the evil, and, according to the religion of Egypt, the latch-string of heaven would never be drawn in until the last wanderer got home. Immortality was also taught in India, and, in fact, in all the countries of antiquity. Wherever men have loved, wherever they have dreamed, wherever hope has spread its wings, the idea of immortality has existed. But nothing could be worse than the immortality promised in the New Testament--admitting that it is so promised--eternal joy side by side with eternal pain.

Think of living forever, knowing that countless millions are suffering eternal pain! How much better it would be for G.o.d to commit suicide and let all life and motion cease! Christianity has no consolation except for the Christian, and if a Christian minister endeavors to console the widow of an unbeliever he must resort, not to his religion, but to his sympathy--to the natural promptings of the heart. He is compelled to say: "After all, may be G.o.d is not so bad as we think," or, "May be your husband was better than he appeared; perhaps somehow, in some way, the dear man has squeezed in; he was a good husband, he was a kind father, and even if he is in h.e.l.l, may be he is in the temperate zone, where they have occasional showers, and where, if the days are hot, the nights are reasonably cool." All I ask of Christian ministers is to tell what they believe to be the truth--not to borrow ideas from the pagans--not to preach the mercy born of unregenerate sympathy. Let them tell their real doctrines. If they will do that, they will not have much influence. If orthodox Christianity is true, a large majority of the man who have made this world fit to live in are now in perdition. A majority of the Revolutionary soldiers have been d.a.m.ned. A majority of the man who fought for the integrity of this Union--a majority who were starved at Libby and Andersonville are now in h.e.l.l.

_Question_. Do you deny the immortality of the soul?

_Answer_. I have never denied the immortality of the soul. I have simply been honest. I have said: "I do not know." Long ago, in my lecture on "The Ghosts," I used the following language: "The idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the sh.o.r.es and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow Hope, shining upon the tears of grief."

--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., April 30, 1883.

STAR ROUTE AND POLITICS.*

[* Col. Ingersoll entertains very p.r.o.nounced ideas concerning President Arthur, Attorney-General Brewster and divers other people, which will be found presented herewith in characteristically piquant style. With his family, the eloquent advocate has a cottage here, and finds brain and body rest and refreshment in the tumbling waves. This noon, in the height of a tremendous thunder storm, I b.u.mped against his burly figure in the roaring crest, and, after the first shock had pa.s.sed, determined to utilize the providential coincidence. The water was warm, our clothes were in the bathing houses, and comfort was more certain where we were than anywhere else. The Colonel is an expert swimmer and as a floater he cannot be beaten. He was floating when we b.u.mped. Spouting a pint of salt water from his mouth, he nearly choked with laughter as in answer to my question he said:]

No, I do not believe there will be any more Star Route trials.

There is so much talk about the last one, there will not be time for another.

_Question_. Did you antic.i.p.ate a verdict?

_Answer_. I did antic.i.p.ate a verdict, and one of acquittal. I knew that the defendants were ent.i.tled to such a verdict. I knew that the Government had signally failed to prove a case. There was nothing but suspicion, from which malice was inferred. The direct proof was utterly unworthy of belief. The direct witness was caught with letters he had forged. This one fact was enough to cover the prosecution with confusion. The fact that Rerdell sat with the other defendants and reported to the Government from day to day satisfied the jury as to the value of his testimony, and the animus of the Department of Justice. Besides, Rerdell had offered to challenge such jurors as the Government might select.

He handed counsel for defendants a list of four names that he wanted challenged. At that time it was supposed that each defendant would be allowed to challenge four jurors. Afterward the Court decided that all the defendants must be considered as one party and had the right to challenge four and no more. Of the four names on Rerdell's list the Government challenged three and Rerdell tried to challenge the other. This was what is called a coincidence.

Another thing had great influence with the jury--the evidence of the defendants was upon all material points so candid and so natural, so devoid of all coloring, that the jury could not help believing.

If the people knew the evidence they would agree with the jury.

When we remember that there were over ten thousand star routes, it is not to be wondered at that some mistakes were made--that in some instances too much was paid and in others too little.

_Question_. What has been the att.i.tude of President Arthur?

_Answer_. We asked nothing from the President. We wanted no help from him. We expected that he would take no part--that he would simply allow the matter to be settled by the court in the usual way. I think that he made one very serious mistake. He removed officers on false charges without giving them a hearing. He deposed Marshal Henry because somebody said that he was the friend of the defendants. Henry was a good officer and an honest man. The President removed Ainger for the same reason. This was a mistake.

Ainger should have been heard. There is always time to do justice.

No day is too short for justice, and eternity is not long enough to commit a wrong. It was thought that the community could be terrorized:--

_First_. The President dismissed Henry and Ainger.

_Second_. The Attorney-General wrote a letter denouncing the defendants as thieves and robbers.

_Third_. Other letters from Bliss and MacVeagh were published.

_Fourth_. Dixon, the foreman of the first jury, was indicted.

_Fifth_. Members of the first jury voting "guilty" were in various ways rewarded.

_Sixth_. Bargains were made with Boone and Rerdell. The cases against Boone were to be dismissed and Rerdell was promised immunity.

Under these circ.u.mstances the second trial commenced. But of all the people in this country the citizens of Washington care least for Presidents and members of the Cabinets. They know what these officers are made of. They know that they are simply folks--that they do not hold office forever--that the Jupiters of to-day are often the pygmies of to-morrow. They have seen too many people come in with trumpets and flags and go out with hisses and rags to be overawed by the deities of a day. They have seen Lincoln and they are not to be frightened by his successors. Arthur took part to the extent of turning out men suspected of being friendly to the defence. Arthur was in a difficult place. He was understood to be the friend of Dorsey and, of course, had to do something.

Nothing is more dangerous than a friend in power. He is obliged to show that he is impartial, and it always takes a good deal of injustice to establish a reputation for fairness.

_Question_. Was there any ground to expect aid or any different action on Arthur's part?

_Answer_. All we expected was that Arthur would do as the soldier wanted the Lord to do at New Orleans--"Just take neither side."

_Question_. Why did not Brewster speak?

_Answer_. The Court would not allow two closings. The Attorney- General did not care to speak in the "middle." He wished to close, and as he could not do that without putting Mr. Merrick out, he concluded to remain silent. The defendants had no objection to his speaking, but they objected to two closing arguments for the Government, and the Court decided they were right. Of course, I understand nothing about the way in which the attorneys for the prosecution arranged their difficulties. That was nothing to me; neither do I care what money they received--all that is for the next Congress. It is not for me to speak of those questions.

_Question_. Will there be other trials?

_Answer_. I think not. It does not seem likely that other attorneys will want to try, and the old ones have. My opinion is that we have had the last of the Star Route trials. It was claimed that the one tried was the strongest. If this is so the rest had better be dismissed. I think the people are tired of the whole business.

It now seems probable that all the time for the next few years will be taken up in telling about the case that was tried. I see that Cook is telling about MacVeagh and James and Brewster and Bliss; Walsh is giving his opinion of Kellogg and Foster; Bliss is saying a few words about Cook and Gibson; Brewster is telling what Bliss told him; Gibson will have his say about Garfield and MacVeagh, and it now seems probable that we shall get the bottom facts about the other jury--the actions of Messrs. Hoover, Bowen, Brewster Cameron and others. Personally I have no interest in the business.

_Question_. How does the next campaign look?

_Answer_. The Republicans are making all the mistakes they can, and the only question now is, Can the Democrats make more? The tariff will be one of the great questions, and may be the only one except success. The Democrats are on both sides of the question.

They hate to give up the word "only." Only for that word they might have succeeded in 1880. If they can let "only" alone, and say they want "a tariff for revenue" they will do better. The fact is the people are not in favor of free trade, neither do they want a tariff high enough to crush a cla.s.s, but they do want a tariff to raise a revenue and to protect our industries. I am for protection because it diversifies industries and develops brain--allows us to utilize all the muscle and brain we have. A party attacking the manufacturing interests of this country will fail. There are too many millions of dollars invested and too many millions of people interested. The country is becoming alike interested in this question. We are no longer divided, as in slavery times, into manufacturing and agricultural districts or sections. Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Texas have manufacturing interests.

And the Western States believe in the protection of their industries.

The American people have a genius for manufacturing, a genius for invention. We are not the greatest painters or sculptors or scientists, but we are without doubt the greatest inventors. If we were all engaged in one business we would become stupid.

Agricultural countries produce great wealth, but are never rich.

To get rich it is necessary to mix thought with labor. To raise the raw material is a question of strength; to manufacture, to put it in useful and beautiful forms, is a question of mind. There is a vast difference between the value of, say, a milestone and a statue, and yet the labor expended in getting the raw material is about the same. The point, after all, is this: First, we must have revenue; second, shall we get this by direct taxation or shall we tax imports and at the same time protect American labor? The party that advocates reasonable protection will succeed.*

[* At this point, with far away peals of thunder, the storm ceased, the sun reappeared and a vault of heavenly blue swung overhead. "Let us get out," said Colonel Ingersoll.

Suiting the action to the word, the Colonel struck out l.u.s.tily for the beach, on which, hard as a rock and firm as flint, he soon planted his st.u.r.dy form. And as he lumbered across the sand to the side door of his comfortable cottage, some three hundred feet from the surf, the necessarily suggested contrast between Ingersoll in court and Ingersoll in soaked flannels was ill.u.s.trated with forcible comicality.

Half an hour later he was found in the cozy library puffing a high flavored Havana, and listening to home-made music of delicious quality. Ingersoll at home is pleasant to contemplate. His sense of personal freedom is there aptly pictured. Loving wife and affectionate daughters form, with happy-faced and genial-hearted father, a model circle into which friends deem it a privilege to enter and a pleasure to remain.

Continuing the conversation, ]

_Question_. In view of all this, where do you think the presidential candidate will come from?

_Answer_. From the West.

_Question_. Why so?

_Answer_. The South and East must compromise. Both can trust the West. The West represents the whole country. There is no provincialism in the West. The West is not old enough to have the prejudice of section; it is too prosperous to have hatred, too great to feel envy.