Reply to Rev. L. A. Lambert's "Notes on Ingersoll."

Contents

PREFACE 5

MOTTOES 8

INTRODUCTORY 9

Preface

Should censure be visited upon the writer for having penned the following essay for public inspection, such reproof cannot, in justice, proceed from adherents to the Roman Catholic faith. From attacks from that earnest and devout class the author may safely shelter himself behind the sacred vestments of the Reverend Father whose urgent and repeated invitation has called forth this reply.

The author desires it to be distinctly understood that his present task was undertaken in response to multiple requests and challenges scattered through the length and breadth of the land and wafted in profusion to foreign shores.

This zeal Is not to be deprecated. So confident is the Father of the impenetrability of his armor that, like a second Fitz James, he defies one and all of the friends of free thought to expend their might on his shield and helmet.

**Come one, come all ! this rock shall fly From its firm base, as soon as I."

PREFACE.

This spirit evinces the sublime of moral heroism, and cannot be too highly praised.

Then how commendable in the good priest not to reserve to himself and his church a monopoly of the truth. With lavish beneficence and persistent effort he would fain disseminate those doctrinal verities which gladden his own soul and trace for him a pathway to the skies. In gratifying the desires of such a man the author cannot fear that he is doing amiss.

As to that small and ignorant class who may think that the " Notes " are not endrely worthy of serious reply, let me say, that the Father's work has received the very highest encomiums and has been proclaimed an unmiswerable argument by a very respectable part of the religious and secular press of this and other countries. As a commercial rule, at least, when the maker of paper is of quesdonable solvency It Is legitimate to look to Its endorsers.

That our readers may appreciate these remarks we publish (see Appendix A.) one of the Father's challenges and a few of the many favorable notices from the press which his work has called forth. The Father, surely, will not object to this gratuitous advertisement of his work, which we desire our readers to purchase and peruse. . There be many, not in sympathy with the Roman

PREFACE. y

Catholic faith, who believe that the cause of righteousness can be best subserved by a suppression of truths which seem to them to militate against religion, and of sentiments, however, honestly entertained, which are regarded by the majority as erroneous.

This well-meaning class should remember that there is a correlation of truths as well as of forces, and that two truths cannot possibly antagonize each other. That especially in this age of enlightenment and of intellectual freedom we may safely discard the disguises and spiritual enchantments which lent a charm to primitive faiths ; and that error, exposed to popular scrutiny, is less dangerous than when hidden in the secret recesses of the individual mind or whispered into the ears of the few who may entertain kindred sentiments.

To errors exposed the proper antidotes may be administered; to errors concealed no adequate correctives can be applied.

Philadelphia, /^«aa;7 ist, 1885.

" It is a self-evident principle that when there are equal interests involved in any subject, there are equal rights to investigate and discuss." — Ko7na7iism Not Christianity, by N. L. Rice, D. D.

" In a matter so solemn as that of religion, all men whose temporal interests are not involved in existing institutions earnestly desire to find the truth." — Draper's History of the Conflict bctioeen Religion and Science.

" The successful revolutions have been the triumphs of disproof, they have consisted in the negation of some earlier belief; the explosion of some overgrown superstition." — Westminster Review.

" It is to error that must be attributed those insupportable chains that tyrants and priests have forged for all the nations. It is to error that must be attributed the slavery which the people of almost every country have fallen into, and whom nature designed should pursue their happiness with the most perfect freedom. It is to error that must be attributed those religious terrors that have everywhere petrified man with fear, or made him destroy himself for chimeras. It is to error that must be attributed those inveterate hatreds, those barbarous persecutions, those continual massacres, of which the earth has too often been made the theatre, under pretence of serving the interests of heaven." — System of A^ature, by

MiRABAUD.

" Fixed and invariable are the penalties which follow the violation of the laws of our being, as also the rewards of their observance." — The author.

" Let not him who girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." — Scripture. (8)

INTRODUCTORY.

THE AMENITIES OF CONTROVERSY.

Invective and personally denunciatory words, laden with the virus of vindictiveness, are unbecoming in controversy, especially upon religious topics ; and are not promotive of truth. " Soft words and hard arguments " should be the motto of every controversialist. To expose error or vindicate truth, wit, humor and sarcasm may be often employed with profit; for if used with propriety and with respect to the feelings of an opponent they relieve the tedium of discussion and impart to dry statement a savory flavor. It does not follow because the ideas of another are abhorrent to us that we should indulge in personal detraction. To impugn the sincerity of a disputant is grossly vulgar and unworthy a chivalrous defender of the faith. If error be a crime, still let us love the offender while we hate his offense.

Of all kinds of bitterness the most bitter is engendered by pious controversy. Why ? Because in regard to religious belief timidity braces men against doubt and leads them to affirm, with the most scrupulous and unrelenting dogmatism, tHose doctrines and facts the truth or falsity of which it is impossible to prove. They call this being on the " safe side," and visit with holy hate those who disturb their inglorious repose.

Buckle has shown that in past time the more sincere were men in their religious faith the more zealous were they as persecutors

Who doubts the honesty of Calvin when he kindled the flame that consumed the noble Servetus ? who the honesty of Saul when he breathed out " threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord ? "

Nevertheless, innocence must be torn in fragments when the broad-mouthed hounds of bigotry, cruel and insatiate, are unleashed.

Bigotry is a legacy of the past : like slavery and polygamy it is a relic of barbarism. It must be swept away with the rubbish of barbaric ages, even in its milder and more insinuating forms, while honest, earnest souls are garnering with sedulous care every grain of truth which the past has bequeathed us.

It would be interesting to inquire how predisposition to uncharity grew up ; how in former years it led to the shedding of seas of blood and to the sacrifice, by ignominious torture, of hecatombs of innocent victims, who attested their sincerity by cheerfully enduring agonies by fagot and flame, inflicted as the penalty of honest faith. The flame is extinguished; the fagot applied to holier purposes than human torture. These antidotes to heresy have fallen into disuse. The grand engineries of human thought and honest purpose propel the car of progress, dispensing as it moves the blessings of knowledge with " its vast combinations for the benefits of our race ; " and yet the soul of bigotry still lives and in its impotent rage mutters curses against that untrammelled liberty of thought and speech which is the crowning glory of our age.

I purpose to review a work by Rev. L. A. Lambert, entitled " Notes on Ingersoll." Tli.e reverend gentleman is a Roman Catholic priest of high repute in his own church, and of considerable reputation as a controversialist elsewhere. The history of this contention is as follows: In i88i a controversy

INTRODUCTORY. I I

on religions topics arose between two intellectual gladiators of the highest type, viz., Hon. Jeremiah S, Black and Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. A disagreement arose between Judge Black and the Noj^th American Review, in which both contestants published their essays, and the controversy was discontinued. Since " the end of controversy," certain writers of greater or less merit, not deeming, it would seem, the issue fully settled, while insisting that Mr. Ingersoll had advanced no arguments which have not been answered time and again by Christian apologists, yet enter the arena of polemic conflict, in attempt to vanquish a dead enemy. Surely by this time Mr. Ingersoll should be a sadly mutilated corpse.

With regard to the comparative merits of the arguments of Col. Ingersoll and the late lamented Judge Black I will not act as umpire. Each in the other found a foeman worthy of his steel. Yet, while in such case it were indecorous to espouse the cause of the living against the dead, we may, in 'response to the good priest's invitation to a banquet of reason,, speakfreely on subjects of equal interest to all men. I have to deal with the logic of one high in the confidence of a church claiming to be infallible in all matters of doctrines and morals : one who, without awaiting the popular verdict, proclaims himself victor in language more " gushing " than refined.

This review is prompted rather by the spirit in which the Father's work is written, and by sundry misstatements it contains, than by the cogency of its logic.

It is having a wide circulation among a class which is too liable to mistake utterance for truth. It has also been endorsed, as a triumphant argument, by a number of reputable prints, weekly and daily, religious and secular. Enough has been said to indicate disapprobation of the spirit in which it is written. That spirit should be kindly but firmly rebuked. It will be the aim of the writer not to transcend the courtesies of debate, and when words like "misstatement," "quibble," etc., are used, the word " unintentional" should be considered as going before them. Only an extreme case can justify criminal charges, and slang phrases should nevxr be indulged, especially by the " Lord's anointed." Braggadocio, though not wounding to the feelings of a sensible opponent, vulgarizes those who employ it, and sometimes misleads ignorant and unsophisticated minds. Rev. Father Cronan, in his preface to the " Notes," calls Mr. Ingersoll " that notorious little fraud." What dignified sarcasm ! It would seem to a refined pagan that the " sword of the spirit " employed by the pious priests was somewhat rust-eaten at the beginning of the conflict. I had intended to embellish this essay with a dozen or two of such jewels taken from the body of the work, but my heart fails me. The spirit and literary refinement of the " Notes " is fairly indicated in the concluding paragraph. " Of course we do not expect him [Ingersoll] to reply to us, and for several reasons : first, he won't want to ; second, he can't ; third, he can pretend not to notice an obscure country pastor. Very well, then let some of his disciples or admirers try to rehabilitate his smirched character. We hold ourselves responsible to him, and to all the glib little whiffets of his shallow school."

I am a disciple (learner) of Mr. Ingersoll ; so of any one, be he prince or peasant, who imparts to me aught that can inspire the intellect or ennoble the soul ; but I am not Mr. IngersoU's apostle as much as I admire his intellect, honor his courage, and respect his sincerity. My motto is :

" Seize upon truth where'er 'tis found,

Among your friends, among your foes; On Christian or on heathen ground ; The flower divine where'er it grows; Reject the thistle, but assume the rose."

INTRODUCTORY. 1 3

In this spirit I write. Not to formulate my views further than necessary, for that were foreign to the controversy ; not to show that Mr. IngcrsoU cannot be answered — that is not affirmed. Within a week, a day, the conviction may be forced upon us that he is radically at fault. If so, earnestly would I labor to make his errors manifest to all. A great thinker has said that ** he who says he will not be convinced n^akes himself a slave to present opinion."

Persuade me that the pretensions of Catholicity are well founded, and I will consign myself to the arms and rest in the bosom of *' Mother Church." But what I shall herein attempt to show is that the Reverend Father, on the chief points involved in the present contention, has been eminently unsuccessful in his ambitious attempt. If I succeed, and an arrogant priesthood — arrogant as to exceptions only, I trust — are taught a modicum of modesty when they oppose the views of men as honest as themselves, the labor expended in this behalf will not have been in vain.

If further they are made conscious of the truth that each succeeding age has its new issues, which should be bravely met by the devotees of truth, then will their pulpits cease giving out from day to day a rehash of threadbare, somniferous dogmas, musty with age, and alive only as the mummies of the pyramids are alive, and refresh us with living problems and freshly discovered facts of science, comporting, as they must and should be shown to do, with the material and spiritual interests of mankind. This accomplished, even in small degree, the labor of the writer will be doubly recompensed.

In the beginning of a controversy it is proper to state the real point in issu^. Mr. Ingersoll, as he discloses in his second essay, proposed to discuss the question : " Is all of the

Bible inspired?" He had a right to choose his ground and did so. The North American Review, however, changed the title of his articles. This fact is known to all who have read his rejoinder to Judge Black, for it is therein distinctly stated. I have seen fit, however, to follow the Father in his arguments wheresoever they lead.

Chapter I

REPLY TO REV. LAMBERT's " INTRODUCTORY."

Indecorous Language of Mr. Ingersoll — Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive Methods — " Physician, Heal Thyself" — The Promise to "Grant Nothing and to take Nothing for Granted," followed by the Substitution of Assertion for Proof— "Glib little Whiffets," and " Smirched Character."

In his " Introductory," Father Lambert takes Mr. Ingersoll to task for having perpetrated gibe and jest, while complaining that his opponent had treated him with personal disrespect.

Lambert. — " You may outrage Christian sentiment, you may laugh and burlesque Moses and Christ, but you must be genteel, and polite, and nice when you speak of Mr. Ingersoll."

Does the Father not see that in the discussion carried on between Judge Black and Mr. Ingersoll, the Christian religion, and neither Mr. Black nor Mr. Ingersoll, was on trial ? Moses — or whoever wrote the five books attributed to him — was also in the polemic *' dock," with the leader of the American Bar, as the Nezv York Herald ranked Judge Black (and we do not question this high estimate of his legal ability), for his counsel, and Col. Ingersoll as counter-advocate and accuser.

The people of the universe composed the jury. Let not an appeal to outraged *' Christian sentiment " estop free, fair, and full investigation. We need not fear error '* when truth is left free to combat it." How could Mr. IngersoU defend his positions at all if handicapped by a sentiment he deems spurious, and without shocking the feelings of those whose " sentiments " have been ingrained into their soul's soul? If he dispute the authority of the Catholic Church he shocks Catholic sentiment; if the doctrines of Calvin he outrages Presbyterian sentiment. Yet this may be done, vigorously done, without the least reflection on the character or sincerity of an opponent. But if the example be so pernicious, why does the Father follow it and even outstrip his adversary in a race so ignoble ?

Lambert. — " Mr. IngersoU found the legitimate field of wit and drollery preoccupied by Artemus Ward, Mark Twain, and others, with whom he could not compete. He sought new fields and, with a reckless audacity, selects that which the civilized world has always held sacred — Religion."

We ask, what religion ? Whose religion ? Religion in the abstract or some particular form of faith ? If religion per se be a sacred thing, why should the Christian propagandist lay rude hands upon the heathen's idol, or defame the religions of Zoroaster, Gautama, and Confucius — religions ennobled by many sound doctrines and pure moral precepts? What right have we, logical or otherwise, in an argument with a dissenter, to assttme our own religion as true — to elevate ourselves on theological stilts and imperiously demand a deference for our faith that is equally due to every creed which is honestly professed by intelligent men ? Negation is often entitled to as much respect as affirmation. In regard to theological questions the chances in its favor are as a thousand to one ; for we are assured that there can be but one true religion. If so, all others are spurious and false. Blame not the traveller who, in this interminable wilderness of beliefs, hesitates, and doubts, and distrusts his guide, while confident voices from every side assure him that he is being led on to certain ruin. " Have faith," says the guide. "Whose faith?" asks the pilgrim. " My faith, My faith, My faith," answer a thousand voices, with ever increasing emphasis. What can he do ? He has but one alternative: either to use his own judgment with the aid of the best light he can obtain, or submit to be lead through darkness, he knows not where.

Lambert. — "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."

We ask, is a faith, which is worth being preserved, liable to be torn, and wounded, and lacerated by some one who doubts, and by doubting damns himself? Oh! tender, brittle, fickle faith !

Again, are the hearts of the faithful lacerated by the gospel of love, which affirms that a God of justice and mercy infinite never could have justified slavery or polygamy — the butchery of children, nor the consignment of captive maidens to a brutal soldiery ? Or, is the doctrine of an eternal hell so sweet and savory that its negation wounds and discomfits the hosts of Israel ? May we not, without profanity, hope that between parent and child, husband and wife, there is no eternal barrier — between loving souls no spanless chasm ? By such hopes are fond hearts rent in twain and Christian sentiment defiled ?

You say it is by the " tolerance " of those whose feelings he outrages that he is permitted to speak his thoughts. No, Father, though a vile tyranny has popularized the words, there is no such thing as " religious toleration."

I worship the God of my choice, or none at all, if I hke, not by tolerance but by right — a right inherent, inalienable ; and, though not conferred, yet guaranteed us by our noble national and state constitutions. I know full well if theology could issue its mandates unrebuked by law that the scenes of past ages would be re-enacted. We rejoice in our deliverance from the bondage of superstition and its inquisitorial torments ; but in the exercise of our liberty we enjoy only our rights, grudgingly accorded — but all our own.

If, as alleged, Mr. Ingersoll has advanced nothing new and his arguments are borrowed from Paine, Bolingbroke and others, why has such a bevy of writers, priests and preachers, essayed replies to his writings and lectures ?

Please do not tell us what Celsus, Porphyry and Julian have said — names very unfamiliar to the popular ear — but redeem your pledge, granting " nothing, and taking nothing for granted." Having thus promised, in the next paragraph you speak of the "proofs of Christianity to be found in the writings of the great Christian philosophers and theologians," and you affirm that they never have been successfully answered. Perhaps not ; but it seems that you have taken something for granted at the outset, and have substituted assertion for proof. You indeed say, ** it is not Christianity that is on trial but Mr. Ingersoll's article," but forget not that that article necessarily involves the authenticity and credibility of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and the intelligent investigator will desire to read, not a bald assertion that Mr. Ingersoll has been or can be refuted, but the refutation itself. But, in truth, are there no nczv issues raised in the present which were unknown to the past ? Were those ancient men, Anaximander, Epicurus, Lucretius, or the more modern writers, such as Hobbes, Bolingbroke and Paine, acquainted with the discoveries of modern science, such as the great antiquity of prehistoric man, his progress from a barbarous state to higher and still higher grades of civilization ; or the negation, even by Christian geologists, of a universal deluge ? Astronomy, geology, philology, paleontology and comparative anatomy have recently opened up rich treasuries of scientific fact which have a direct bearing upon the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and which Christian apologists cannot afford to ignore.

Yet the easiest way to gain a logical victory, in the eyes of the unthinking many, is to insist that an opponent is wanting in originality and has been answered successfully, away back in the world's history, by men of unpronounceable names, and of whom only the scholarly kw have either read or heard. This cheap method of disputation is not suited to the requirements of the present age. But after centuries of repetition of effete dogmas, supported by arguments corroded by antique rust, does it become theologians to cavil about a want of originality in those who controvert their teachings ?

Notwithstanding your promise to " analyze with careful scrutiny every statement he adduces, every inference he draws," you have failed to give even a fair synopsis of the arguments you attempt to confute.

But why indulge in wanton abuse? Why employ epithets vile ? Foul words give no weight to statement ; no point to argument.

If, indeed, you have, as you claim, exterminated your adversary ; if you have " smirched his character" beyond rehabilitation, let pity constrain you. Reverend Sir, from further exercise of the severity of your wrath. Rather let your anger be stirred against the " glib little whiffets of his shallow school," while he, dejected and dismayed, sulks in his tent.

Chapter II. Reply To Chapter L

Priestly Metaphysics, according to which God, Time, Space and Matter must be Annihilated ! — Freedom of the Will — Unsolved Problems.

In the first chapter of the " Notes " we are treated to a metaphysical disquisition.

IngcrsolL — " 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."

Lambert. — " 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."

How trenchant this logic! how irresistible its conclusion! The words, " according to my idea," are here said to imply primitive conception. Because I say " I have an idea," I leave the inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before.

Let us try the good priest's logic on himself According to his idea the Catholic Church is infallible, the priest can forgive sins,* and so of every doctrine of his church. TJicrcforc his brain first conceived these dogmas. True our Reverend

* I had never supposed that forgiveness of sins by the priest was a do^ma of the Roman Catholic Church, until I heard Father Lambert distinctly state the fact in a lecture delivered by him in Oil City, Pa. Before that time I had often occasion to defend his church against this charge, alleging that the priest claimed simply the power to declare, ex officio, forgiveness of sins already pardoned by Almighty God.

Father may claim that his faith is more than an " idea," but this only shows the superior modesty of Mr. IngersoU, Pardon me, this is wasting powder on too small game. No reference to the Father, but to the sophistical averment he inadvertently let slip.

The remark made by Mr. IngersoU was merely prefatory, and given to indicate his position to his adversary, and is followed in the next paragraph by the modest confession, " of course, upon a question like this, nothing can be absolutely known."

But let us come down to " hard-pan " and examine the Father's metaphysics. He says, " You [IngersoU] 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 [italics ours]. If limited in any way, it would not be infinite.

" Now, 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."

Waiving the question of the power of " experience " to bear us out in our ideas of the eternal, the infinite, and the illimitable, is it true that that which is infinite must be infinite in " every way ? " Every way is indefinite, but let us suppose it means in every attribute.

The human soul at death. Scripture being the judge, starts on an eternal pilgrimage. It never dies. Its life is eternal life.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." — Matt. xxv. 46.

Yet who believes that the human soul is, in any of its attributes, equal to that Spirit which religious conception portrays as omnipotent, perfect in holiness, in justice, mercy and truth, whose days are from everlasting to everlasting ? Yet as to infinity of duration fiitiLVe, the lives of angels and men are co-extensive with the life of Deity. So the Scriptures teach us. Space, which has been aptly defined as that which has its centre everywhere and its circumference nowhere, is infinite expansion but nothing more. It is therefore limited by unity of attribute. So of time: it is infinite duration only.

A line infinite in length, extending through space, may be imagined, or symbolized, as readily as we may symbolize space or eternal duration regarded as the sum total of infinite diurnal successions. Yet the supposed line would have infinite length without appreciable breadth or thickness. Therefore though infinite in one respect yet finite in others.

The same fallacy is perpetrated in the scquitur\o the above : " Matter is limited and therefore finite, and if finite in an}-- thing, finite in everything; and if finite in everything, therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal."

Does the good priest not see, his premises being admitted, that with one breath he has blown away the whole fabric of theology with its hope of heaven and fear of hell ? How dear to the Christian believer is his hope of the resurrection of the body ! But we are told : *' 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 matter composing our bodies, according to the " Notes," is finite in that it had a beginning, is a composite, and is subject to change. Therefore finite in everything it cannot be eternal, but must fade away like the shadows which flit before us and are no more. So also of the glorified body of the Lord. More painful still, according to priestly logic, God himself, with matter, time, and space, must cease to be. It will scarcely be denied that even he is limited by the attributes of his own being. Again, it is inconceivable that he could annihilate space, create a being equal to himself, or make the diameter of a circle equal to its circumference. Dr. Adam Clark, in his posthumous work on theology, says that God can do anything which does not involve contradiction or absurdity. How we are to determine what proposition involves contradiction or absurdity he has not informed us. How he knows that the creation of matter out of nothing — which is the old way of putting it — does not involve contradiction and absurdity we are not told. To our mind the act is inconceivable. Be that as it may, here are limitations even to divine power, and, " if limited in any way," he cannot be infinite ; if not infinite, not eternal ; and, if not eternal, he must cease to be !