Notes on Ingersoll...

Preface

THESE " Notes on Ingersoll," by the Eeverend Louis A. Lambert, of Waterloo, New York, have already appeared in the columns of the Buffalo Union and Times, much to the delight of readers of that journal ; they have also have extensive] y copied and commented upon by the Catholic press throughout the country. They are, unquestionably, the most crushing reply yet made to that notorious little fraud — Ingersoll — who so loves to pose as a profoundly original thinker ; and who lives, moves, and has his being, in the laughter and applause which his fescennine buffoonery provokes. Regarding them as a complete annihilation of the pretentious scoffer, and desirous that they should reach a much larger public than could be secured by any newspaper, however widely circulated, the present writer pointed out to the author the advisability of having just such writings as the "Notes" spread broadcast in the interest of Eeligion, especially at this time ; and earnestly urged their publication in the present form.

Would that those whose minds have been poisoned by the specious pen and brilliant rhetoric of our American arch-blasphemer could read these " Notes" ! They would then see how untruthful in statement, illogical in reasoning, dishonest in inference, vile in inuendo, and malevolent in purpose, is the man upon whose every utterance they hung with delight. With cold, relentless cruelty, Father Lambert pursues Ingersoll in these pages, step by step, piercing him with keen Damascus blade at every turn ; — aye, dissecting him to the very marrow of his bones — and then holds him up, like another unmasked Mokanna, to the contempt and scorn of mankind.

Herein, too, is shown that this profoundly original thinker is the veriest of plagiarists, palming off, as his own, the worn-out objections of the infidels of other days, which have been answered hundreds of times. Yea, verily, this valiant knight of the theological tournament is nothing but a fraudulent peddler of old infidel junk. He pretends to bring to the polemical market jewels rich and rare, but they are only well-worn paste, which, even when new, were worthless.

Oh ! that we had to-day more Father Lamberts, especially in these United States, to give ns opportune pamphlets like this ; and thus make short work of the blatant revilers of all revealed truth, who, like a reptile brood, hiss forth their venom against Christ and His Church. Liberty, honor, heroism, self-sacrifice, and similar high-sounding phrases, are continually on the lips of these sophists ; whilst they would fain persuade the world that the Christian religion is something that enslaves and degrades. But there is no slavery so galling as the slavery of unbelief. It is the truth thai makes us free. Neither is there intolerance like unto the intolerance of Infidelity. And as for honor, self-sacrifice, heroism, and those other natural virtues that ennoble human nature — destroy the belief in a Hereafter, deny future rewards and punishments — and how long will they flourish? Infidelity knows no standard of Right and Wrong ; and such standard is the corner-stone upon which society rests.

As may be observed, these " Notes'' are written from the broadest Christian standpoint ; so that they ought to lie as welcome to all who believe in Jesus Christ and in the revelation He has made, as to Catholics. We need scarce add the hope that they may have a large circulation ; and we ask all who glory in the triumph of Christian truth to aid in spreading this pamphlet.

Patrick ckonin.

Office of the Catholic Union and Timks, i Buffalo. N. Y., January 5th, 1883. \

INTRODUCTORY. rpHE North American Review for August, 1881, pub- -*- lislied an article on the Christian Religion, by Robert Gr. Ingersoll, together with a reply to it by Jeremiah SL Black, of Washington city. In the Xovember number of the same Review, Mr. Ingersoll replied to Black's defence, and there the controversy came to an abrupt end.

This sudden termination of the debate caused no little surprise. Mr. IngersolFs admirers rejoiced at what they considered Black's defeat, and those Christians who took an interest in this passage-at-arms between the two lawyers were disappointed at Mr. Black's silence. They began to. think that he had entered into a field of action for which he was not well equipped by education and mental structure. They were not, however, left long in doubt as to the reason of his silence. This reason he gives in a letter addressed to the American Christian. Review, a weekly religious paper published in Cincinnati.

"From the beginning,'' says Mr. Black, "it was distinctly understood that my defence was to be published with the accusation. * . * * At the time of the pub-

*Z NOTES OX INGERSOLL.

lication I agreed that if Mr. Ingersoll had any fault to find with the result it might seem cowardly to refuse him another chance on the same terms. I was not afraid of any new assault he might make, if he was not afraid of my defence.

" Three months afterwards fifty pages of the foulest and falsest libel that ever was written against God or man, was sent to me. I was entirely willing to treat it as I had treated the other ; that is, give it the answer I thought it deserved, and let both go together. But it came when I was disabled by an injury from which I could not hope to get well for some weeks, and I so notified the editor. To my surprise I was informed that no contradiction, correction or criticism of mine or anybody else would be allowed to accompany this new effusion of filth. It was to be printed immediately, and would occupy so much space that none could be spared for the other side. I proposed that if its bulk could not be reduced bo as to admit of an answer in the same number, it should be postponed until a reply could be made ready for publication in the next succeeding number. This and divers other offers were rejected, for the express reason that -Mi. Ingersoll would not consent.' Finding the Review controlled by him to suit himself, I do not think I was bound to go further."

This explanation puts the affair in a light which reflects little credit on Mr. Ingersoll and the North American Review. If Mr. Ingersoll had perfect confidence in the strength of his position there is no conceivable reason

INTRODUCTORY. 3

why lie should consent to take this snap judgment on the counsel for the defence. If his purpose had been to stop the controversy, on finding himself in an intellectual combat with a strong man, he could not have devised a better method. Mr. Black was certainly not bound to go further and trust himself or his case to a Review that had outraged his rights, or to a man who had taken advantage of an accident which had temporarily disabled his antagonist.

Mr. Ingersoll in his reply indignantly accused Judge Black of personal detraction, and says, very justly, that " The theme (the Christian Eeligion) is great enough to engage the highest faculties of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a subject vituperation is singularly and vulgarly out of place."

Nothing can be truer than this, but is it not a new departure for Mr. Ingersoll? Vituperation of an individual or of a class, of the living or of the dead, is unrelieved vulgarity, and singularly out of place when treating of a subject that demands the exercise of the highest faculties of the intellect, and which involves the destiny of man. Man's life is a tragedy, his first utterance is a cry of pain, his last the groan of death. It is indeed no subject to make merry over. Be man's future what it may, it is an awful subject from whatever point of view we may consider it. It has occupied the attention of the greatest intellects that ever lit on this earth, and it arouses anxiety in every heart, from the palace of the king to the cottage of the peasant.

4 XOTES OX IXGERSOLL.

But does not Mr. Ingersoll's protest against Mr. Black sound strangely, coming as it does from one who for years past has been making the Christian Religion, its doctrines, institutions and sacred personages the butt of his vituperation and ridicule ? Judaism and Christianity have been burlesqued by him on the stage of the lecture hall. The ministers of the Old and the Xew Covenant have been exhibited as cunning and unprincipled tricksters, vicious knaves and tyrants. Everything held sacred by every Christian heart lias been made the subject of his gibes, and of laughter for his audiences. And all this time while he has been combining the professions of the philosopher, the humorist and the ghoul, he has talked sweetly of delicacy, refinement, sentiment, feeling, honor bright, etc. All this time he has delighted in tearing and wounding and lacerating the hearts and faith and feelings of those by whose tolerance he is permitted to outrage the common sense and sentiment of Christendom. Truly, a protest against vulgarity and vituperation coming from such a source if a surprise — a case of Ivtm a non lucendo.

What is the cause of this sudden chang

The orator of -laughter and applause" is unexpectedly confronted by a lawyer, like himself, who deals with him unceremoniously, but who yet treats him with mor< sideration and decency than he treats the great Hebrew lawgiver Moses, and what is the result?- He stops clatter and pauses in his ribaldry t<> give bis opponent a lecture on delicacy, propriety and politeness ! If Black

INTRODUCTORY.

lias had the bad taste to make use of Ingersoll's methods, Ingersoll should be the last person to complain.

You may outrage Christian sentiment, you may laugh at and burlesque Moses and Christ, but you must be genteel and polite and " nice" when you speak of Mr. Ingersoll. Judge Black forgot this, and hence the indignant protest.

" The theme/* says Mr. Ingersoll, " is great enough to engage the highest faculties of the human mind."

It may be well asked, What faculties of his mind has he thus far employed on this great theme ? Has it been the faculty of reason, or the faculty of ridicule ?

Our great American wits have been content to allow their peculiar faculties to play on those subjects proper for the exercise of them, and in doing this they afford us amusement and lighten the burdens of life. The best of them have carefully observed the proprieties, and never passed the boundary line that separates the sacred from the profane. Mr. Ingersoll found the legitimate field of wit and drollery pre- occupied by Artemus Ward, Mark Twain, and others with whom he could not compete. He sought for new fields, and with a reckless audacity selects that which the civilized world has always held as sacred — Eeligion. In this new line (new at least for an American humorist) he is not content with trying to be a wit. he pretends to be a philosopher, a moralist, a theologian learned in the scriptures, a hermeneurist, and a historian. If his claims to all these qualifications can be made good, he is certainly well equipped for business. But he lacks

6 NOTES ON IXGERSOLL.

the intense earnestness and masculine vigor of Tom Paine, the learning and wit of Voltaire, the philosophical penetration of Hobbs and Bolingbroke, the analytical faculty of Herbert Spencer, the industry of Tyndall and Hnxley, and the comprehensiveness and incisive logic of John Stewart Mill. All these are masters in their way, whom Mr. Ingersoll has not succeeded in imitating or understanding. Wanting in originality, he draws liberally from the writings of Paine and Voltaire for his points and arguments. He has not succeeded in advancing anything new against Christianity. Perhaps it is doing him injustice to expect it of him. Infidels from the time of Celsus, Porphyry and Julian have exhausted in vain the resources of human invention to discover implements to undermine the sublime fabric of Christianity. We must therefore not expect anything new from a modem infidel or atheist. All we can reasonably look for is a revamping of the old and often refuted sophistries of the past. By means of a ready tongue and a grotesque imagination, Mr. Ingersoll succeeds in galvanizing these sapless corpses into a momentary appearance of life, but they will sink, as they sank before, into oblivion, as the Christian world moves on.

If Mr. Black has been guilty of personal detraction, as Mr. Ingersoll insinuates, he has done wrong ; but in attacking a live man like Mr. Ingersoll, he has shown more courage and manliness than the latter has exhibited in his detractions of Moses, dead. The living can retort ; the dead can only listen and be silent. He who attacks

IXTEODUCTOEY. 7

the dead need not look for an answer in the next Review. If Black had outraged the character and misrepresented the words of Ingersoll, as the latter has outraged the character and misrepresented the words of Moses, he would have disgraced the cause he defended, and no condemnation would be severe enough for the unchristian offence. Black attacked a living foe, with shield and .spear in rest ; that was at least brave. Ingersoll strikes at the great and honored dead, the leader and lawgiver of the most remarkable nation that ever rose and flourished and fell. The jackal can gnaw in safety the tongue of the dead lion, and the field mouse play its antics in hisfootsteps on the plain.

The character and moral code of Moses are as impervious to his attacks as are the pyramids of Egypt to the javelin of the wandering Arab who strikes their base as he passes and disappears, while they remain the objectsof wonder to future generations.

The proper way to meet Mr. Ingersoll is not to defend Christianity against his scattering, inconsequent, illogical and unphilosophical attacks, but to make his article the subject to be considered; to analyze with careful scrutiny every statement he makes, every argument he adduces, every inference he draws; to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. The Christian is not bound at the call of Mr. Ingersoll or any one else to reprint the proofs of Christianity that are to be found in the writings of the great Christian philosophers and theologians. These proofs are on record and Mr. Ingersoll's ancestors in b NOTES OX INGEBSOLL.

atheism and unbelief, from Anaximander, Epicurus and

Lucretius down to d'Holbach, Laland, Cabanis, Hobbes and Paine, have never answered them.

It will be time to think of new defences when the old have been captured. Mr. Ingersoll's ignorance of those arguments is not sufficient reason why they should be repeated. I do not propose to repeat them, as it is nol Christianity that is on trial, but Mr. Ingersoll's article. It is to be examined with analytical care and then lefi u> the reader to determine what it is worth.

It has been well said by some keen observer, that whatever else a man writes, he always writes himself. This is conspicuously true of Mr. Ingersoll. His writings are a mere evolution of himself on paper. The glitter, the sophistry, the bad faith, verbal leger de main, the pervading egotism, the assumed infallibility, and the brazen audacity of statement so conspicuous in his writings, are the full bloom and blossom of his character.

In these notes I shall follow him through his tortuous windings as closely as possible. And that I may not misrepresent him, or fall, even unintentionally, into unfairness, I intend that Mr. Ingersoll shall always speak for himself in his own very words. From this out then it will be a dialogue between him immentator.

Chapter I

ME. IXGEESOLL'S "IDEA," AND WHAT COMES OF IT.

F\"G-EBSOLL — " The universe, according to my idea, is, always was, and forever will be. * * It is the one eternal being — the only thing that ever did, does, or can exist."

Comment — When you say "according to my idea" you leave the inference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development. Of course you did not intend to mislead or deceive, you simply meant that your "idea," of the universe, is like most of our modern plays, adapted from the French, Or elsewhere. Your philosophy, like those adapted plays, wants the freshness and flavor of originality, and suffers from bad translation. The old originals from whom you copy thought it incumbent on them to give a reason, or at least a show of reason, for their " idea," In this enlightened age you do not deem this necessary. It is sufficient for you to formulate your "idea." To attempt to prove it would be beneath you. Is this the reason why you do not advance one single argument to prove the eternity of matter ? Have you got so far as to believe that your " idea" has the force of an argument, or that the science of philosophy must be readjusted because you. happen to have an "idea?"

When you say : The universe is the one eternal being you of course mean this visible, material, ever-changing universe of matter. Inasmuch as you have given your

10 NOTES OX INGERS0LL,

"idea" without any reason or argument to support it, it would be a work of supererogation to attempt to refute it. It is sufficient to oppose my idea to yours. But I will go further and see if your idea of eternal matter does not involve a contradiction. Of course you know that a statement or proposition that involves a contradiction cannot be true. You affirm the eternity of matter. On this I reason thus :

That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite because, if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it.

But that which is infinite must be infinite in every way* If limited in any way it would not be infinite.

Xow, matter is limited. It is composed of parts, and composition is limitation. It is subject to change, and change involves limitation. Change supposes succession, and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore limitation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience and common sense. Then- Matter is limited and therefore finite, and if finite in anything, finite in everything ; and if finite in everything, therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal. The idea of an eternal, self -existent being is incompatible in every point of view with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, unchangeable, impassible, and one. The latter is composite, changeable, passible, and multiple. To assert that matter is eternal is to assert that all these antagonistic attributes are identical — a privilege granted by sane men to lunatics only.

Ixgersoll — "The universe, according to my idea. is. always was, and forever will be."

Comment — We have seen that this " idea" involves a contradiction as absurd as to say that parallel lines can

MK. I^GEKSOLL'S IDEA AND WHAT COMES OF IT. 11

meet, or that a thing can be and not be at the same time. But other important consequences follow from your "idea."

If this universe of matter alone exists, the mind, intellect or soul must be matter, or a form of matter. Sublimate or attenuate matter to an indefinite extent, it yet remains matter. Now if mind is matter, it must obey the forces that govern and regulate the action of matter. The forces that govern matter are invariable. From this it follows that every thought of the philosopher, every calculation of the mathematician, every imagination and fancy of the poet, are mere results of material forces, entirely independent of the individuals conceiving them !

The sublime conceptions and creations of Shakespeare and Milton, the wonderful discoveries of Newton, Arago, and Young, the creations of Eaphael and Angelo, are nothing more than the flowering and blooming of carnal vegetation. Are all the externs of lunatic asylums prepared to accept this philosophy ?

But let us go a little further : You are proud of your philosophy and your wisdom. But why should you be so if your ideas are the mere results of the forces that govern matter ? And why should you try to convert the world to your way of thinking if the world must be governed by the unalterable laws of matter ? I believe in the Holy Scriptures. Is that the result of material forces ? If so why try to persuade me to the contrary ? If your materialistic theory is true, how can I help being a Christian ? If I am the victim of unalterable forces or laws ,why try to convince or persuade me ? Do these material forces compel you to try to persuade me to assent to your notions and at the same time compel me to reject them?

You are an apostle of liberty and freedom. If there is anything of value in this world it is liberty. Yon repeat this idea till your readers get tired of it. Now, if there is nothing but matter, and if matter is governed by invariable laws, there can be no liberty whatever. Materialism destroys human liberty and free agency, leaving man the victim of fate. You who prize liberty so highly should repudiate a theory that destroys it. If man is not free, and he cannot be according to your materialistic doctrine, you are inconsistent when you appeal to his intelligence. You are equally inconsistent if you expect your reasonings to convince him, since his convictions must, in your theory, depend on material forces independent of him and you. If you understand your principles, you are bound by the force of logic to be silent and wait in patience the outcome of those forces which are unalterable, irresistible and unavoidable. If men's thoughts are the result of mere physical forces it is insanity to reason with them. As well might you reason with a clock for running too fast, with fire for burning, or with a tree for STowino-.

Chapter II

SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAWS OF XATURE, AXD HOW ME. IXGERSOLL '•GATHERS" AX IDEA — HIS IDEA OF HYDRAULICS.

IXG-EESOLL — " We know nothing of what we call the laws of nature, except as we gather the idea of law from the uniformity of phenomena springing from like conditions. To make myself clear : Water always runs down hill."

Comment — We acquire a knowledge of the laws of nature by observing the effects of the forces of nature, hut we do not gather " an idea of law" from the study of these forces and their effects. The idea of law in general is, and must be, prior to the idea of particular laws. We cannot assert a law in a given case without having an idea of law in general. We say a particular law is a law because it corresponds with the norm of law which exists intuitively in the mind. The idea of law then does not come from observing phenomena. These phenomena enable us to acquire a knowledge of particular laws, but not of law. The laws of nature in the last analysis are that intimate and invariable connection which exists between natural causes and effects. This idea of cause and. effect, or the principle of causality as it is called, is the basis on which we make our deductions from phenomena. A stone thrown up falls to the ground. The mind referring to its own intuition of causality, asks : What 13 caused it to fall ? The experiment is repeated with a like result. The mind here does not " gather an idea of law" but begins instinctively to seek the law in the case. To seek for a law presupposes the idea of law, for we do not seek for that of which we have no idea.

To talk about "gathering an idea of law from phenomena" is unphilosophical. We conclude or deduce laws from phenomena, but we cannot " gather an idea of law" from anything. To gather an idea is like gathering a huckleberry, or an Ingersoll. It is not usual to gather a unit. You confound idea with judgment or deduction.

The illustration you give to make yourself clear is unfortunate. You say :

Ixgersoll — " To make myself clear : Water always runs down hill."

Comment — How then did it get up the hill ? Or is

there a perennial spring up there ? Water does not always run down hill. To run down hill is an exception to the general mode of the action of water. In the present condition of the physical world, the tendency of water is upward and outward. This will be admitted of water in the form of steam or vapor. The water that falls as rain has been first taken up by the sun's heat- Water runs up in the capillary tubes of every vegetable that grows. More water ascends in the capillaries of the vegetable world in one day than falls over Niagara in a year. Water runs up in all rivers that run toward the equator. The Mississippi river carries its waters up an inclined plane a perpendicular distance of about four miles. The same in proportion is true of the Nile. This earth on which we live and play the wise and the foolish, is not a sphere, but a spheroid. It is flattened at the poles. The lowest places on the earth are the regions

HIS IDEA OF HYDRAULICS 15

about the North and South poles. The equator all around the earth is a mountain thirteen miles higher than the surface at the poles. The polar regions are vast sunken valleys. Xow I ask : If " water always runs down-hill/' why do not the waters of all the vast oceans flood with impetuosity toward the poles ? Why do not those waters seek their level equidistant from the centre and make the earth a perfect sphere ? Two-thirds of the earth's surface consists of water. These multitudinous waters do not run down-hill — do not flow down towards the valleys of the poles. On the contrary, they remain on a vast slope that rises toward the equator a perpendicular height of thirteen miles. They remain there on that inclined plane — on that hill-side forever. You may say this is caused by the rotation of the earth. I do not care what causes it. The fact of it disproves your statement that water always runs down-hill.

You saw somewhere a bit of water running down a hill, and you "gathered the idea" that it always does so. Your view was too narrow and local. It wanted breadth and comprehensiveness. You misinterpret nature as you misunderstood and misinterpreted Moses and revealed religion. You have proved yourself an incompetent interpreter of nature, and you cannot be relied on when you presume to interpret, criticise, condemn, or deny that which is above nature.

Ixgersoll — " The theist says that this (water runs down hill) happens because there is behind the phenomenon an active law."

Commext — We have seen that you misunderstand nature, and from what you now say it is evident that you do not understand what the theist means. The theist does not say there is behind the phenomenon an active law. He repudiates the stupidities you attribute to him. What the theist does say is this : Behind, prior to, and concomitant with the phenomenon, there is a static or permanent force which is manifested when the proper conditions are placed. A stone thrown up falls. The power or force that brought it down was there before it was thrown up, and continues after it has fallen, to keep it down. The relation between the stone and the force is constant and permanent. This force as itself permanently, hut is manifested to us only under certain conditions. • This force, sometimes improperly called a law, is what we understand by gravitation. It was projected into nature, when God created nature.

Ingersoll — " As a matter of fact, law is this side of the phenomenon."

Comment — That depends on what you mean by law. If by the word you mean that force which actuates the phenomenon, your statement is not correct, and your play on the word ••law" is beneath the dignity of a philosopher.

Ixgersoll — •• Law does not cause the phenomenon, but the phenomenon causes the idea of law in our minds."

Comment — If by law you mean the force I have spoken of, it does cause the phenomenon. If you mean by law a mere verbal formula or statement of what a given force will do under given circumstances, you are trifling with the intelligence of your readers. Phenomena may enable us to acquire the knowledge of a law, but as we have already seen, they cannot cause or originate the id law in our minds. You confound the idea of law with the knowledge of laws. A philosopher should noi write with looseness of expression and indeterminatem thought. L'nr in our language lias more than one

MR. LKTGERSOLL'S IDEA AXD WHAT COMES OF IT. 1?

meaning. When speaking of nature,, it may mean the action of natural forces, or it may mean a verbal formula or statement of what that action is, or will be in given circumstances. Your purpose required that these two meanings should be confounded, and you accordingly confounded them.

Phenomena do not cause the idea of law. The mental faculty of associating like events and referring them to a common cause, together with the faculty of generalization, enables us to formulate laws. A series of like phenomena may suggest a law to the mind already possessed of the idea of law, but it does not and cannot in the nature of things " cause the idea of law." The idea of law must precede the knowledge of a law.