Part 1

Produced by David Widger

INGERSOLL IN CANADA

A REPLY TO WENDLING, ARCHBISHOP LYNCH, BYSTANDER; AND OTHERS.

By Allen Pringle

"If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."--_J. S. Mill, On Liberty_.

"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.)

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

TO THE CLERGY AND COLLEGE STUDENTS OF ONTARIO.

Gentlemen,--Through the generous and voluntary liberality of a highly esteemed and estimable Freethought friend, and at his suggestion, I have been enabled to get out this Second Edition of my pamphlet, of upwards of 4,000 copies, chiefly for gratuitous distribution among yourselves. The gentleman referred to conceived the project of supplying every Minister in the Province with a copy, and it was further decided to also supply the College Students.

The compliment to pamphlet and author, which this action on the part of an intelligent and discriminating Liberal implies, I, of course, duly appreciate. When the work was written a few months ago, at the request of fellow-liberals, I had no expectation that it would ultimately go before so critical and learned a body of readers as the Clergy, Graduates, and College Students of Ontario. I supposed one modest edition of 2,000 copies would be all that would ever see the light. But it has been otherwise desired by my readers. I have, therefore, no further apology to make for presenting you with the work (my object being the advancement of truth), and I earnestly submit for your best consideration its subject matter rather than its literary merits or demerits. The time has come when these great questions must be examined, for they _will_ come to the front in spite of the most tenacious conservatism. Everywhere, thoughtful men are earnestly looking into them. That the old landmarks in religious belief are being effaced and the Creeds and Confessions rapidly breaking up is becoming every day more and more apparent. Goldwin Smith, a man of great historical acumen, has recently said "A collapse of religious belief, of the most complete and tremendous kind, is, apparently, now at hand."* The Rev. Hugh Pedley, B.A., Cobourg, in a very able paper in the July (1880) number of the _Canadian Monthly_, on "Theological Students and the Times," says: "There can be no doubt that all forms of thought, all systems of belief, however venerable with age, are being: handled with the utmost freedom. Skepticism is becoming more general, and is protean in its adaptibility to circumstances. There is the philosophical skepticism for the cultured, and popular skepticism for the masses: the Reviews for the select, Col. Ingersoll for the people. No _Index Expurgatorius_, whether Catholic or Protestant, whether ecclesiastical or domestic, is barrier strong enough to stem the incoming tide." He also says: "I would advocate a manly, courageous dealing with the doubts of the age in all our theological schools." * * * "Let there be no timid reserve. Let our young ministers face the whole strength of the rationalistic position." * * * "It is not enough that ministers should be well read in church history, not enough that they should be able to expound in logical fashion the church doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, &c, not enough that they should understand the architecture of a model sermon. These matters are quite right in their place, but the minister should go further. He must go down to the root question, and enquire whether the history, the systematic theology, and the homilectics are based on a really Divine Revelation, or only on a series of beautiful legends which foolish, but reverent, hands have wreathed about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, a wonderful, religious genius that long ago illumined the land of Palestine." Further, Mr. Pedley says: "We find men talking as if thoroughness of investigation would inevitably lead to a loosened hold on Christianity. So much the worse then for Christianity. If young men of average intellect, and more than average morality, find that the more keenly they study Christianity, the less able they are to accept it, and preach it, then must Christianity be relegated to the dusty lumber-room of worn-out and superseded religious systems."

* "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.

INTRODUCTORY

Col. Robt. G. Ingersoll, the American Freethinker and eloquent iconoclast, visited Canada in April last and lectured on theological subjects in various places, including Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Belleville and Napanee, thereby agitating the theological caldron as it has never been agitated before in this country.

And "when Mars was gone the dogs of war were let loose!" Since Ingersoll's departure there has been a profuse shower of "Replies" and "Refutations" from the press, and a tempest of denunciation and misrepresentation from the pulpit. Indeed, before the departure of the redoubtable idol-smasher, the vituperation and slander commenced, under the aegis of "A warning against the Fallacies of Ingersoll." The pious Evangelists of the Y. M. C. A., of Toronto, (abetted doubtless by the clergy) issued this propagandist gospel-manifesto containing slanderous statements against Mr. Ingersoll. This, with much more zeal than courtesy, they thrust upon all entering the Royal Opera House on the first evening of the lectures. The lecturer, in opening, branded the base slander of this Christian document that he (Ingersoll) had signed a petition to allow obscene matter to pass through the mails, as a wilful and malicious falsehood. As this calumny is yet reiterated from press and pulpit, implicating all Freethinkers as being in favor of obscenity, the Resolution on this subject which Col. Ingersoll submitted to the Cincinnati Convention of Freethinkers in September, 1879, will not be out of place here. It was as follows, and passed unanimously:--

Resolved,--That we are utterly opposed to the dissemination through the mails, or by any other means, of all obscene literature, whether inspired or uninspired, holding in measureless contempt its authors, publishers, and disseminators; that we call upon the Christian world to expunge from the so-called sacred Bible every passage that cannot be read without covering the cheek of modesty with the blush of shame.

The cowardly conduct of the Toronto press, with one or two exceptions, in reference to Ingersoll's lectures, was as astonishing to liberal-minded men as it was deplorable to all, especially in the "Queen City of the West," which is, or ought to be, the centre of intellectual activity and progress in Canada. This exhibition of narrow-minded bigotry on the part of the Toronto press excited (rather unexpectedly to them, no doubt) great surprise and severe animadversion from many quarters. The daily _Globe_ and _Mail_ have, of course, a very wide circulation, and being the leading newspapers in the country, their numerous patrons look to them for _all_ the news on _all_ public questions and events. Imagine, therefore, their surprise and indignation on opening their papers and looking for reports of Col. Ingersoll's lectures in Toronto, to find not a word there! Not a syllable by these puritanical publishers is vouchsafed to their expectant patrons, who pay their money for--not merely what suits the religious whims and prejudices of publishers and editors--but for _all_ the news. But they would scarcely repeat this mistake--or rather imposition on their readers. They have since unmistakably learned that in this act of pusillanimous servility to the priesthood, they took a false measure of their constituencies; and lamentably failed to gauge correctly the intellectual and moral status of a majority of their patrons.

The honorable exceptions to this servility of the Toronto press, were the _Evening Telegram, Weekly Graphic_, and _National_.

In Belleville, also, there was, I believe, one commendable exception to the narrowness of the press in reference to Ingersoll's lectures. This was the _Free Press_, which has on former occasions proved itself broader than most of its contemporaries.

The Montreal _Canadian Spectator_ is another notable exception to this vassalage of the Canadian press; for, though edited by a clergyman, it has proved itself in favor of freedom of speech and liberty of conscience, and boldly denounces the narrow prejudice and bigotry which would gag Ingersoll to-day if it could, and would have burned him two or three centuries ago at the stake.

Chief among the "Replies," and "Refutations" which have issued from the press in Canada since Ingersoll's departure, is that by Hon. Geo. R. Wendling. This honorable gentleman has, for some months past, been shadowing Mr. Ingersoll from place to place with his "reply from a secular stand point;" albeit in Toronto he _preceded_ his opponent, and replied (?) before the people of that city to a lecture of Ingersoll's which they had never heard. But, as with the Dutch judge, so with our Christian friends, _one side_ of the case was enough to hear in order to be able to give a verdict, and Mr. Wendling was duly applauded for his "satisfactory answer" to the absent heretic!

Subsequently, however, Mr. Ingersoll put in an appearance in the Queen City, and gave his lecture on "The Gods," to which his honorable opponent had replied in advance. This eloquent and argumentative lecture was greeted with such obvious favor and vociferous applause that the "Willard Tract Depository and Bible House" of that city deemed it imperative to do something to counteract the "poisonous" influence that had gone forth. They accordingly hastened forthwith to issue Wendling's "Reply to Robert Ingersoll." This Christian politico-religious _brochure_ was heralded by some half dozen Toronto Professors and Doctors of Divinity, and one Vice-Chancellor, to wit: Messrs. McLaren, Rainsford, Potts, Castle, Powis, Antliff and Blake. These gentlemen, in a neat little preface, certify their approval of and admiration for Mr. Wendling's "Reply to the infidelity advocated by Col. Ingersoll," and add the hope that "it may be circulated by thousands."

To this no Freethinker has, of course, any objection, so long as he enjoys an equal right to circulate his documents too. Of this right I propose to avail myself, and briefly review the salient points (if there are any) of some of Ingersoll's Canadian critics. Not that I feel called upon to defend Col. Ingersoll. Should defence be necessary, he is amply able to defend himself. But as our Christian friends, like drowning men catching at straws, have, in their alarm for the safety of their creed, desperately clutched a _layman_, and issued with their unqualified endorsation, this "lay" reply of Mr. Wendling, who comes before the public, he tells us, "as a citizen, as a business man, as a lawyer, and as a politician," and withal as a "man of the world," I have thought that for another layman--a materialistic layman--(though no lawyer or politician) to examine some of Mr. Wendling's lay logic and legal sophistry and politico-religious hash would be a move in the right direction in the interests of truth.

Our Christian friends, in issuing their pamphlet, have very judiciously "improved the occasion" by a liberal sprinkling of admonitory Scripture texts, which adorn the insides of the covers, etc. By these texts we are reminded that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and that "if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life," etc., etc. But these, our Christian opponents, are not quite consistent. Verily, the Christian Church is not willing to take its own medicine--the medicine it mixes for "infidels." _We_ are warned that if we criticise that book, or take away from the words of it, or ridicule its absurdities, we will surely incur the wrath and "plagues" of an angry God; yet these Christians themselves are complacently doing this very thing. They have already eliminated from its sacred pages infant damnation, and eternal torture; while a "Bible Revision Committee," composed of learned and distinguished dignitaries of different branches of the Christian Church, are now actually engaged in "taking away from the words of this book!"* Consistency! thou art a jewel!! Greg, Strauss, Colenso, Renan, Ingersoll, Underwood, and a thousand others, are consigned to Hades for their destructive criticism of the Christians' Bible; while those learned Christian Doctors of Divinity of the "Revision Committee" can tamper with the "Word of God" and alter it to suit the enlightenment of the age with impunity! They can excise whole passages without incurring the "plagues" we are told shall be visited upon any man who adds to or takes from it.

Now, I have thought if I should adopt the advice contained in the Latin proverb, _fas est ab hoste doceri_, and take a lesson from the ingenious propagandic tactics of our Christian friends in placing conspicuously before their readers choice texts from their Evangelists and Apostles, it may not be amiss. Hence, we, too, will do a little skirmishing with some choice sayings of some of the most eminent and learned apostles of our school. And to those trenchant utterances of Huxley, Tyndall, Mill, Carlyle, etc., herein given, I beg to direct the careful attention of the reader.

To disarm possible criticism, I may say that this little pamphlet has been written by request, amidst a pressure of farm work, in snatches of time intervening between other more imperative duties: and to the advanced Materialist who has gone over the same ground on the different subjects as myself, I may say it is not written for him, as he does not require it. But it is for another class of _quasi_ liberals, and Christians who have read Wendling and the others replied to, and are in an inquiring mood after truth. And if the arguments are not wholly _new_ I would simply urge in extenuation that there is scarcely anything new under the sun, and also my entire agreement with Montaigne, when he declares he "has as clear a right to think Plato's thoughts as Plato had."

ALLEN PRINGLE.

Selby, Ont., June 25, 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.

REPLY TO WENDLING

On reading Mr. Wendling's "Reply to Robert Ingersoll," it is difficult to determine precisely its theological status, or what are Mr. Wendling's positions, doctrinally, in reference to Christianity. By the flexibility of doctrine, and dubious orthodoxy, displayed therein, it is no easy matter to _place_ Mr. Wendling; and his uncertain positions and theological gyrations remind one of the famous mathematical definition of Infinity--"a sphere whose circumference is everywhere and whose centre is anywhere."

Mr. Wendling says he "champions no creed, no sect," and he assures us he "places humanity above all creeds." Now, Christianity is undoubtedly a creed; albeit, some modern theologians, seeing that the dogmas on which it rests are fast crumbling away, have discovered that Christianity is simply a "life." As to "placing humanity above all creeds," this move is decidedly rationalistic and utilitarian. It is clearly a positive doctrine of the Atheistic philosophy; and it looks more than suspicious that this shrewd lawyer has been "stealing our thunder," for he will find no such doctrine in the Bible, and it certainly has no place in Christian ethics or philosophy. The Bible represents man as below everything else rather than above--"a mere worm of the dust" It represents him as utterly depraved, "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," and without any good in him. Christianity, instead of holding humanity above all creeds, has, without compunction, immolated man by scores of thousands on the bloody altar of creed and dogma. To maintain its creeds intact, Christianity has reddened the surface of the earth with human blood. Therefore, whatever Mr. Wendling may think about the elevation of man above creeds, Christianity does not hold humanity above its creeds.

With respect to the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible, Mr. Wendling's position is extremely dubious. He tells us that "so much of that book" (the Bible) "as properly records His" (Christ's) "works and truthfully reports His sayings, must be true." But who is to decide which the particular portions are which "properly record" and "_truthfully_ report" Christ's works, especially as these "records" and "reports" are self-contradictory, and more especially as nothing was recorded in Christ's time of His sayings or doings, nor until half a century or more after His death, as historical criticism and research abundantly prove? If Mr. Wendling believes the Bible to be an inspired book, wholly authentic and true, the foregoing statement about "so much of it" as "_truthfully_ reports," &c, is surely a most extraordinary one. Again, Mr. W. says, "I say so much of that book as bears upon the Ideal Man" (Christ) "and so much of that book as the Ideal Man has set the seal of His approval on, we may accept as the long sought for moral teacher," &c. As before, I would ask, who is to decide what particular part or parts of this book "the Ideal Man has set the seal of His approval on?" or whether the "Ideal Man" ever set His seal upon any of it? or, indeed, whether this "Ideal Man" ever had other than a purely _ideal_ or subjective existence in the minds of men? Some able scholars--notably Rev. Robt. Taylor--have, after careful historical research, come to the conclusion that the Christ of the Gospels never existed. But, be this as it may, scholars now generally agree that whether such a person as Jesus of Nazareth lived or not, we have no authentic account of Him; and not a syllable of His alleged sayings was recorded during His alleged lifetime, nor for more than half a century after His death. The reader who wishes to pursue this subject of the wholly unauthentic character of the Gospels, &c, &c, is referred to Greg's "Creed of Christendom," Lord Amberley's "Analysis of Religious Belief," and the great work lately published in England, and now reprinted here by the Messrs. Belford of Toronto, viz., "Supernatural Religion."

It will thus be seen that Mr. Wendling's doctrinal attitude towards the Bible and Christianity is extremely problematical, and a Materialist scarcely knows where to place him, or how to deal with his mongrel positions. Being, as he tells us, "a business man," "a lawyer," "a politician," and "a man of the world," this versatile gentleman has evidently imbibed largely of the utilitarian and humanitarian spirit of the age, while at the same time retaining his Christian predilections; and hence the hybrid homily with which we have to deal, and which he calls a "Reply to Robert Ingersoll from a Secular Standpoint." That a layman, however, should give so uncertain a sound as to his orthodox whereabouts, and, in attempting to defend his positions (whatever they are) and answer Freethinkers, should bring forth such a doctrinal nondescript, is not indeed to be much wondered at, seeing that the clergy themselves, being mercilessly driven from pillar to post by modern science and research, occupy the most inconsistent and incongruous, not to say ridiculous, positions, in doctrine and dogma, in ecclesiastical formulary and Biblical exegesis.

However, though of dubious doctrine and doubtful orthodoxy, some of Mr. Wendling's positions, or rather assumptions and assertions, are clear enough, and not to be misunderstood; and in a few of the more important of these I propose to follow him.