Ingersoll’s “Best Argument Ever Advanced Against Christianity”

Vol. I. JANUARY, 1898. No. 3.

INGERSOLL'S "BEST ARGUMENT EVER AD- VANCED AGAINST CHRISTIANITY."

REPLIED TO BV ELDER C. W. PENROSE, ASSISTANT CHURCH HISTORIAN OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

Robert Ingersoll stands in the front rank of the small army of professed sceptics and scorners. Possessed of considerable ability, having a smooth tongue, a jolly countenance, frank manners and an abundant vocabulary, capable of charming his hearers, of carrying with him people who are influenced more by sound than by sense, of puzzling those who do not agree with his sentiments, he succeeds in stirring up the hostility of Christian teachers and of believers in the Jewish scriptures, and also in leading astray men and women who would rather doubt or deny the existence of Deity than bow in obedience to divine commands. His copious streams of oratory run smoothly along, sometimes in poetic channels, adorned with brilliant and pleasing flowers of speech, at others in rivulets of unctuous humor, anon in torrents of vigorous invective, and then in waves of acrid, if not blasphemous assault upon religion and the Deity. He poses as the valiant champion of agnosticism, and is accepted by a multitude of shallow thinkers as a triumphant iconoclast. That he has

succeeded in breaking down and trampling under foot some of the great shams which false religion has set up as idols for mankind to worship or to fear, there is little doubt. But that he has disproved any of the fundamental principles of real Christianity can be emphatically and safely denied. It is a lack of understanding of what is really Christian that causes the admirers of Ingersoll to think he has demolished the Christian creed.

Some time ago an article from his pen was published in a prominent New York paper, entitled, "The Best Argument ever Advanced Against Christianity." It has since been copied, with the same heading, in a number of public journals in different parts of the country. It is for that reason that the present writer refers to it, with desire that its fallacies may be exposed and the poverty of that which is styled "The Best Argument" may be appreciated. It will, therefore, be here presented, paragraph by paragraph, in full, with comments interspersed. Ingersoll commences by saying:

"We now know that we do not know who wrote the four Gospels. Were the authors of these four Gospels inspired? If they were inspired, then the four Gospels must be true. If they are true, they must agree. The four Gospels do not agree. Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds, of charity. They teach that if we forgive others God will forgive us. With this the Gospel of John does not agree. In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we must drink the blood and eat the fiesh of Christ. In this Gospel we find the doctrine of the atonement, and that Christ died for us and suffered in our place. This Gospel is utterly at variance with the other three. If the other three are true, the Gospel of John is false. If the Gospel of John was written by an inspired man, the writers of the other three were uninspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four cannot be true."

According to this logic, which may be fairly termed IngersoUian, if four credible eye-witnesses appear and testify to certain facts, and one of them relates some events and explains some truths connected therewith which were not mentioned by the other three, then the testimony of all four is false! The legal acumen and profundity of reasoning displayed in this so-called "best argument" are certainly remarkable, if not convincing. If John mentioned some incidents in

INGERSOLVS BEST ARGUMENT. 147

the life and teachings of Christ which are not recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke, does that affect in any way the truthfulness of what either of them have written? Ingersoll admits that three of those four witnesses agree, but jumps at the conclusion that because the fourth witness dwells specially on some point of doctrine not elucidated b}' the others, the statements of all four must be rejected as untrue. And yet Robert G. Ingersoll is ranked among the learned lawyers of the American bar!

But is it true that "Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith?" Let us see. Matthew, speaking of the visit of the angel who appeared to Joseph and announced to him the immaculate conception, quotes the angel's words, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. I: 21). See also the following: "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. X: 32, 33). "All things are delivered unto me by my Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Matt. XL 27). "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matt. XVIIL 11). "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. XX: 28). "For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. XXVL 28). So much for Matthew.

Next let us try Mark: "And he said unto them, this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many" (Mark XIV: 24). "And he said unto them, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark XVI: 15, 16).

We will now examine Luke: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke II: 11). "For the Son of man is come to seek and to

save that which was lost" (Luke XIX: lo). "And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you"(Luke XXH: 19, 20). "Then opened he their understandings that they might understand the scriptures; and he said unto them, thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke XXIV: 46,

47)-

The testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is

united in setting forth the facts of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In this they all agree. Each of them, however, narrates such incidents in the career of Christ as impressed him the most forcibly. John was evidently of a philosophical turn of mind, and was perhaps more devotional, as he was more loving in his disposition, than the others. He enlarged upon the principles taught by the Savior, while the others touched on the historical more than the doctrinal in their writings. This is perfectl}^ compatible with the theory that they were inspired; that is, inspired to write concerning Christ, his life and teachings, according to the best of their knowledge and understanding. Inspiration does not take away a man's agency or his individuality. It does not make him a machine, as IngersoU appears to think, but prompts and quickens his energies in the desired direction. Ingersoll's statement that they do not agree is absolutely untrue, and his reasoning is fallacious and absurd. If John only of the four "Evangelists" wrote of the atonement, it would not prove a disagreement with the other three, unless they had denied that doctrine and testified to the contrary of that which was stated by John. The doctrine of salvation by faith, which John delighted to explain, was not salvation without good works. For instance, after quoting Christ's words in reference to believing on him he cites further: "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that

INGERSOLi:S BEST ARGUMENT. 149

have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation" (John VI: 28, 29). "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him" (XIV: 21). "If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John XV: 10). It should be understood that neither of the writers of the four "Gospels," as they are called, either claims to have written by divine inspiration all that he recorded, or to have given a full and complete account of the doings and sayings of Jesus Christ. Neither did they write in concert. Their testimonies are separate and distinct, yet they all agree in substance, and there is no contradiction either of fact or doctrine. And though John dwelt lovingly on those points which touched his heart in the keenest manner when they fell from the lips of the Savior, and recorded some things not mentioned by the others, he concluded his essay with these words: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (John XXI: 25). Ingersoll goes on to say:

"The accounts of the ascension of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations. Matthew says nothing about the ascension. Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet Matthew, who was present, who saw the Lord rise, ascend and disappear, did not think it worth mentioning. On the other hand, the last words of Christ according to Matthew contradict the ascension: "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. " John who was present, if Christ reall}' ascended, says not one word on the subject. "

On what ground does the bold sceptic make the rash assertion that the Accounts of the ascension of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations? He offers nothing in its support, except the false reasoning, already exposed, that some other witnesses did not say anything on that subject. Matthew and John closed their respective accounts with the resurrection of Christ and his instructions to the Apostles. Mark and Luke went a little further and included brief state

ments concerning the ascension. In this there is no contradiction and no discrepancy. A fuller account of the ascension is recorded in Acts I: 6-11, supposed to have been written by Luke, and that John understood and wrote about the entrance of Christ into heaven, may be seen from Revelations I: 4, 7, 18, and many other parts of the same book, said to have been written by John before he wrote his "gospel."

The assertion concerning the last words of Christ and their contradiction of the ascension, is on a par with the other assumptions and absurdities of the famous promoter of infidelity. In the first place, Matthew does not say that the sentence, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" were "the last words of Christ," as IngersoU asserts, neither do they "contradict the ascension. " They are in complete accord with his promise to his Apostles before his decease, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you yet a little while and the world seeth me no more, but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also" (John XIV: 18, 19). In the second, Christ also promised to be with them always by "the Comforter." "Even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him, but ye know him, for it dwelleth with you and shall be in you" (verse 17). This may not be perfectly clear to Mr. IngersoU, because it is spiritual, and spiritual things are only spiritually discerned; but to those who are able to receive that spirit of truth which manifests both the Father and the Son, it is perfectl}'^ easy to comprehend how Christ can be with his disciples, "even to the end of the world," although he has ascended into heaven.

IngersoU next makes the following queries:

"If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to his enemies? Why did he not call upon Caiphas, the High Priest? Why did he not make another triumphal entry into Jerusalem? Tf he really ascended why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret, in a corner? It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast multitude — a miracle that could not be simulated — one that would have convinced hundreds of thousands."

These interrogations are prompted by a total misunderstanding of the purpose and object of those phenomena which

INGERSOLL'S BEST ARGUMENT. 151

are usually called miracles. In the divine economy they are not exhibited to cause wonder or create faith. They are not to feed the love of the marvelous or pander to the lust after signs. They are the effect, not the cause, of faith. "These signs," said the Savior, "shall follow them that believe." When he healed the sick, his invariable counsel was "See thou tell no man," and his explanation of the cause of the cure was, "Thy faith hath made thee whole." When Jesus went into his own coimtry to preach he found scepticism instead of faith, and it is written: "And he could do there no mightj' works, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI: 5). On Mr. Ingersoll's hypothesis, that was the place of all others where Christ should have shown forth signs and wonders. What was the answer Jesus always gave when people came to him seeking a sign? It was: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign given it" (Matt. XII: 38, 39; Mark VIII: 11, 12). It is also recorded: "But though he had done so many miracles before them [Pharisees and Greeks] yet they believed not on him (John XII: 37). Christ's appearance to his apostles and afterwards to five hundred of his disciples was a blessing to those who believed. Why should he have appeared to his enemies? Why should he have favored the high priest who unjustly and wickedly condemned him to death? Why should he in the purity of his spiritual existence mingle with the vile and corrupt? IngersoU says that his appearance would have convinced hundreds of thousands. That is one of the many notions which the noted sceptic entertains that are entirel}' different from the views and doctrines of the great Nazarene. When illustrating the very point now in question in a dispute with the Pharisees, he declared: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke XVI: 31). IngersoU remarks further:

"Again I ask: Is the New Testament true? Does anybody now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a celestial greeting; that a star led the wise men of the East; that Herod slew the babes of Bethelehem of two years old and under?"

These questions may be answered in the affirmative. Millions of people believe that at the birth of Christ there was a celestial greeting; also that a star led the wise men of the East, and that Herod caused the babes of Bethlehem to be slain, as narrated in the New Testament. It is easy to ask questions. Ingersoll offers nothing to disprove either of the statements on which he endeavors to cast a doubt. But supposing the majority of people in Christendom doubted or disbelieved the stories in the New Testament of occurrences about the time of the birth of Christ, would that affect the truth of the history? All the events described in the New Testament may have taken place, even though all the wise men of the nineteenth century were of the same mind as the great interrogation point — Ingersoll. It is evident that the testimony given by the shepherds, who, while watching their flocks at night, heard the angelic songs and the announcement of "peace on earth," was believed by the followers of Jesus Christ, and therefore Luke related the circumstance as part of the history of the advent of the Savior. The same may be said concerning the star of Bethelehem, which some modern astronomers declare has a periodical appearance in the firmament, and was due at the time set forth in the New Testament. That Herod caused the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem, is quite probable in view of his many cruelties and indifference to human rights. The Cyclopaedia Brittanica, the American Cyclopaedia, the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. William Smith, editor of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and many other standard authorities, mention that massacre, and account for the failure of Josephusto record it by the fact that the slaying of babes in a small village was a very insignificant matter, when compared with the barbarities of a king who "hesitated at no crime or cruelty to establish his sovereignty." To effect his ends he had his own wife Mariamne and her two sons, with a number of her nearest relatives, executed, and also ordered the execution of his son Antipas. All the items of history embodied in these questions which Ingersoll raises are believed in and have been believed in for centuries, by men and women endowed with common sense, if they cannot be classed with such intellectual giants and re-

INGERSOLUS BEST ARGUMENT. 153

markable logicians as the doubting Ingersoll. It may be added that the great facts of Christ's birth, teachings, atonement, death and resurrection might still be true, even if it could be proved that these minor matters were merely statements accepted by the writers as correct without sufficient evidence to place their truth beyond question. As it is, the record stands unimpeached and cannot be shaken by simply asking three or four or any number of irrelevant questions.

His following "argument," if such it may be called, is this:

"Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils? The writer of three of the Gospels certainly did. John says nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew, Mark and Luke give many instances.

"At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness, insanity and many other diseases were caused by devils; that devils took possession of and lived in the bodies of men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to others and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything, that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the bodies of men. If Christ said and did what the writers of the three Gospels say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was mistaken, certainly he was not God. And, if he was mistaken, certainly he was not inspired.

"Is there anything in the literature of the world more perfectly idiotic? Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every word in the New Testament about casting out devils is utterly false. ' '

The modesty exhibited in the foregoing paragraph is as admirable as the reasoning it contains is astonishing and convincing. Ingersoll disbelieves certain things, and virtually asserts that no person is intelligent who believes in them. Reasserts his knowledge of some other things, and concludes that those who do not know them, know nothing. He has no hesitation in declaring that Christ was mistaken, but appears to have no idea that Ingersoll may be mistaken. But to reply: Yes, there are many intelligent men who believe in the existence of devils; that is to say, they believe in the existence of evil spirits, and that those spirits influence the minds, and sometimes the bodies, of men and women; that persons who yield to their influence may become subject to it until they are

virtually "possessed;" that by the power of God, exercised through faith in the name of Jesus Christ, those evil influences may be overcome and the spirits cast out. The people who believe all this are reflecting, practical, sober individuals, who read current literature, are familiar with this world's affairs, are competent to engage in the ordinary pursuits of life, to conduct business, to hold public office and to discuss rationally the problems that relate to the welfare of the race and the progress of mankind in this world and in the world to come. Some of them are considered intellectual and talented, able to express their thoughts orally and by writing, and while not pretending to the wonderful powers of an IngersoU, can yet give reasons for the faith that is in them in an intelligent and rational manner. Among them are men and women who not only believe in the existence of evil spirits, but know that such beings are living entities, because they have seen them. The gift of the discerning of spirits is not enjoyed by every person, but that it is a gift possessed by some, is attested by a cloud of witnesses. Mr IngersoU seems to think that what he does not know, nobody else knows; what he does not see, nobody else can see; what he has not felt, is impossible for anyone else to feel, and that what is incomprehensible to his towering intellect, must be "perfectly idiotic." Christ did not say that palsy, epilepsy, deafness, insanity and other diseases were always "caused by devils." It does not follow, because certain notions were commonly entertained in the days of Jesus Christ, that he also believed in them. But that he and his apostles recognized the existence and power of evil spirits is certainly true, and the testimony of the New Testament writers goes to show that those spirits were rebuked and cast out of people by Christ and his disciples in numerous instances. IngersoU is wrong in stating that John said nothing about "casting out devils." John's Book of Revelation mentions those beings repeatedly, and so John may be classed with all the other New Testament writers and with Jesus Christ himself in Ingersoll's list of the "mistaken." Now, how does Mr. IngersoU know that diseases are never caused by devils? How does he know that devils never "reside in the bodies of men?" He does not condescend to

INGERSOLL'S BEST ARGUMENT. 156

tell us. The evidence is just as direct and complete and conclusive that devils sometimes cause disease, and sometimes possess the bodies of men, as that disease exists and afflicts the bodies of men. Individuals have been afflicted by the presence within them of a power which causes agony unspeakable, and endows with unnatural strength the unfortunate victim so that a dozen strong men cannot hold one ordinarily weak person. Under this influence sometimes such persons have not only rent their clothing, but torn their bodies with a violence horrifying to behold, and at the rebuke of a servant of God in the name of Jesus Christ, the influence causing these disorders has instantaneously departed, leaving the patient in his right mind and healed of his infirmities.

Ingersoll classes those who are not perfectly satisfied that every word in the New Testament about "casting out devils is utterly false" as unintelligent. The class is very numerous. It includes many of the foremost thinkers of the nineteenth century. They may not be acquainted with the facts in relation to the casting out of devils in the present age, but they believe what is stated concerning those things in the New Testament. Ingersoll asks: 'Ts there anything in the literature of the world more perfectly idiotic" than what the New Testament contains on this subject? The answer is, Yes, it is to be found in "The Best Argument against Christianity," by Robert G. Ingersoll.

Mr. Ingersoll thus proceeds with his "best argument:"

"Can we believe that Christ raised the dead? A widow living in Nain is following her son to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession and raises the young man from the dead and gives him back to the arms of his mother. This young man disappears. He is never heard of again; no one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned from the realms of death. Luke is the only one who tells the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark and John never heard it, or did not believe it, and so failed to record it. John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead; Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it.

"Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked him about the other world. No one enquired of him about their dead friends.

' 'We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evidence is far greater, far better."

"Can we believe that Christ raised the dead?" That

depends upon the evidence presented and our willingness to accept the evidence if sufficient to convince. Mr. IngersoU, taking the ground of the disbeliever that such things are impossible, cannot be moved from his position by any amount of testimony no matter how conclusive it may be to the less sceptical. He pronounces the evidence as to the miracles of Mohammed as well attested as that of the raising of the dead by Christ. He further admits that the evidence as to the miracles performed by Joseph Smith is far greater, far better than as to the miracles of Mohammed or of Christ. Yet he declares, "we have no confidence in the miracles performed by Joseph Smith." Why not? If Joseph Smith performed miracles, why should we not have confidence in them? The same question may be reasonably asked in relation to the "miracles of Mohammed." The trouble with Mr. IngersoU is that no matter how well attested may be the occurrence of something beyond his comprehension, he will reject it because it is contrary to his opinion of what is possible. There are many living witnesses to the manifestations of the power of God through Joseph Smith and his followers, in healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, causing the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and even in the raising of the apparently dead to life. It is not surprising that, rejecting this living testimony borne by intelligent persons who gain nothing by their evidence, Mr. IngersoU should also reject the testimony of persons who are dead, which has come down to us from the first century of the Christian era. IngersoU the lawyer never gained a case in court on evidence as strong, as harmonious, as conclusive and as numerously attested as that now in existence as to the "miracles" performed by Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the nineteenth centur}^ and his associates and successors in the ministry. Yet IngersoU the sceptic utterly refuses to accept this evidence, simply because it is something that he does not know, or claim to know, and which he does not understand.

The same fallacy runs through this alleged "argument" of Mr. IngersoU's as that which has already been exposed. The fact that Matthew, Mark, and John did not record the occurrence mentioned by Luke, is no evidence that they

INGERSOLUS BEST ARGUMENT. 157

never heard of it or that they did not believe it. Each of the writers of the "Gospels" mentions some things not spoken of by the others, but everyone of them testifies to the raising of the dead by Jesus of Nazareth. Mr. Ingersoll is not a careful reader of the New Testament, or he purposely ignores some very important parts of it which ought to be considered in connection with the subject on which he treats. Matthew gives particulars of the resuscitation by the Savior of a young maiden, whose father had faith in him (Matt. IX: 18-25). Mark also testifies to the raising from the dead of J aims' daughter (^Mark, V: 22-43). John, as Mr. Ingersoll admits, relates the raising of Lazarus. Thus all the four "Evangelists" place on record their evidence on the main question at issue, which is: "Can we believe that Christ raised the dead?" Now as to the objection that the young man of Nain "was never heard of again," that the raising of Lazarus "did not excite the least interest:" and that "no one asked them about the other world." Let us see how accurate the critical sceptic is in his rash assertions. Matthew says, "And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land" (verse 26). Mark states that when Jesus went to the house of Jairus, "Much people followed him and thronged him;" also that when the damsel arose, "they were astonished with a great astonishment" (verses 24, 42 ). Luke declares that when the widow's son was raised from the dead at Nain, "Many of his disciples went with him and much people" * * * "And

there came a fear on all, and they glorified God, saying that a great prophet is risen up among us; and that God hath visited His people. And this rumor of him went forth throughout all Judea and throughout all the region round about" (Luke VH: 11-17). Luke also adds his testimony to the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke VIII: 41-56). Next as to the alleged lack of interest in the raising of Lazarus: The account given by John shows that a great number of the Jews were present, and after Lazarus came forth, "Then many of the Jews which came to Mary and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and

Pharisees a council and said, what do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation. * * * Then from that day

forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." (John XI: 19-53). They also plotted to put Lazarus to death. (See John XII: g, 17, 18). How much truth is there then in Ingersoll's bold assertion that these things "did not excite the least interest?"

How does Mr. Ingersoll know that the friends of Lazarus did not enquire about the other world? How does he know that the young man of Nain was "never heard of again?" Does Mr. Ingersoll, or any other sceptic, seriously entertain the notion that the New Testament writers who gave a brief account of some of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ, are unworthy of credence because they did not give the pedigree and the full history of the lives of people who were healed or restored to life by Christ's administrations? Those writers narrated the essential circumstances relating to the cures and "miracles" wrought by the Savior, and that was sufficient to accomplish the end in view. On Mr. Ingersoll's reasoning, if his queries may be dignified with such a term, no credence should be placed on any history that has ever been written, whether sacred or profane.

Now for the next point in his argument:

' 'Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was found to say a word in his favor? 'No man stood forth and said, I was a leper and this man cured me with a touch.' No woman said, 'I am the widow of Nain, and this is my son whom this man raised from the dead. ' No man said, 'I was blind and this man gave me sight. ' All silent."

No, it is not at all strange. Christ did not say a word in his own defense He did not summon any witnesses in his behalf. "He was led like a lamb to the slaughter." The excitement and prejudice and hatred against him were so intense that even his nearest friends and closest disciples "all forsook him and fled." Even the valiant Peter was so overcome by the hostility of the multitude, that he denied any knowledge of Jesus. Mr. Ingersoll professes to be a lawyer. Why should he expect people who had been healed of some

INGERSOLV S BEST ARGUMENT. 159

disease, or who had witnessed the raising of some person from the dead, to bear testimony of these facts to disprove a charge of treason? If all the people who had been benefited by the ministrations of Christ had been willing to testify and had been permitted to speak, what bearing would their evidence have had upon the accusation before Pontius Pilate that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews? Mr. Ingersoll does not seem to shine with any greater effulgence in this "argument" than as an expounder of the New Testament. But let us hear him still further:

"Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect — that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech. Let us see: "Resist not evil; if smitten on one cheek turn the other. " Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this? Christ takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right of self-defense. Vice becomes the master of the world, and the good become the victims of the mfamous. No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any absurdity beyond this?

"Love your enemies." Is this possible? Did Christ love his when he denounced them as whited sepulchres, hypocrites and vipers? We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is absurd; to love your enemies is impossible.

"Take no thought of the morrow." The idea was that God would take care of us as he did the sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that belief?"

Again Mr. IngersoU's reading of the scriptures is at fault. The quotations he makes in reference to the philosophy of Christ are taken from instructions given to his disciples. Many injunctions which were applicable to them might not be to people of the world. Believers in Christ should, and ought to, practice those teachings which were specially intended for them. The Sermon on the Mount was not addressed, as is commonly supposed, to the heterogeneous multitude, but to Christ's disciples. "And seeing the multitude, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying, (Matt. V: I, 2). That is the introduction that Matthew gives in his report of the grandest sermon ever published. The philosophy and rules for moral conduct it contains were for those who listened to them. The Mosaic law in vogue among the Jews was adapted to a lower condition of society than

that which Christ sought to establish. Instead of rendering evil for evil, exacting "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," Christ taught the higher law of overcoming evil with good. IngersoU asks, "is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this?" Yes, there is the profoundest philosophy and the highest wisdom. The world has practiced the opposite policy for ages, and the consequences are strife, bloodshed, the triumph of the strong over the weak, war, rapine and horror. Christ's philosophy, if practiced, would banish these woes and establish an era of peace and good will. But, as stated, his precepts were for his people, and among them they can be eminently practicable. Evil returned for evil is adding fuel to Satanic fire. Forbearance, charity, kindness and love are heavenly waters to quench the destroying flames. The true disciples of Christ are brethren, who should dwell together in unity. And if one brother gives way to anger, the object of his wrath can better overcome that ebullition of evil by kindness than by retaliation. It would seem that anyone not blinded by the clouds of infidelity, would be able to perceive the beauty of the exalted philosophy and of the grand wisdom of Christ's precepts, in contrast with the worldly methods which put force against force and pit violence against violence, keeping society in a ferment and perpetuating the reign of evil. But, is it true that Christ's teachings "take away from goodness the right of self defense?" Certainly not. That is only the inference of IngersoU and others of his school. Why did Christ say, "And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one?" (Luke XXII: 36). All the absurdities which Mr. IngersoU sees as the result of the teachings of Christ are simply the result of his own false reasoning, founded on a perversion of the meaning of those teachings. No man is debarred thereby from protecting himself, his property and his family from the assaults of his foes. No nation is forbidden to defend its rights when assailed. No government is denied the authority to punish criminals. Apply the commandments of Christ to the disciples of Christ, for whom they are intended, and the difficulties conjured up by Mr. IngersoU are banished like mists from the swamps when the morning sun beams upon the face of nature.

INGERSOLV S BEST ARGUMENT. 161

"Take no thought for the morrow." To whom were these words addressed? To men called by Christ to go forth and preach the gospel, "taking neither brass nor gold nor script for their journey, neither two coats," but to depend upon God for their daily support through people who would receive them and minister to their necessities. This was Christ's method of evangelism. The salary system, which obtains among modern ministers, is in utter violation of his rule. His apostles were to take no thought for the morrow. They were to be supplied by the people among whom they labored in the gospel. IngersoU takes this rule, intended only for the preachers of Christ's gospel, and applies it to the whole world, and asks, "Is there any absurdity beyond this?" We do not think there is, if the querj'^ is asked as to Ingersoll's prostitution of the teachings of the Savior.

He wants to know whether Christ loved his enemies when he denounced them as whited sepulchres, hypocrites, etc. Why not? Christ could love the men but detest their evil works and ways. He showed no hatred in rebuking their iniquity. The best good that can be done to some men is to show them their wickedness and their folly. And Jesus was seeking the "greatest good to the greatest number" in his ministry. He taught the truth and exposed error. He condemned hypocrisy, but desired the reform of the hypocrite. He sought to put down wickedness for the good of mankind, but had no animosity against the individuals whose acts he condemned. This is a distinction with a difference that even Mr. IngersoU ought to be able to appreciate. But this heappears to be unable or unwilling to admit. In attempting to criticise the Hebrew scriptures, he should also take into account the oriental style of language in which they were written, which was in common use and which abounds in hyperbole and metaphor. In taking literally the sentences he quotes he is neither fair nor literary. But then he is nothing if not IngersoU.

Here is the final standpoint of his peculiar position:

"If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies would be committed in his name. I{e knew that the hungry flames

162 IMFROVEMENT EN A

of persecutions would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled with pain. He knew that his church would invent and use instruments of torture; that his followers would appeal to whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw all wars that would be waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rackings. these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned, that cruelty and credulity would rule the world; knew that his church would extinguish reason's holy light and leave the world without a star. He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flaying them alive, cutting out their tongues, searching for all the nerves of pain. And yet he died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: 'You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men?' "

Mr. Ingersoll forgets the important doctrine of the New Testament that Christ was human as well as divine. He was "God manifest in the flesh." His conclusion, therefore, that Christ must of necessity "know all the future" is founded on incorrect premises and is illogical. In his mortality Christ had to receive light, wisdom and power from the Father. He said: "I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear I judge; and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me" (Matt. V: 30). He said further: "My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me. If any man shall do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself" (John VII: 16, 17). And again he said: "I have many things to say and to judge of you, but he that sent me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. * * * I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things" (John VIII: 26, 28). Jesus might have known something of the future, as the Father showed it him, and yet not have known "all the future." Ingersoll, in jumping at conclusions, is unrivalled as a literary acrobat. But supposing Jesus knew how his words would be interpreted, or rather misinterpreted; supposing he knew of all the crimes, horrors and infamies that would be committed in his name; is he to be held responsible for those iniquities? Was he to hold his peace and refrain from declaring the grand truths which he came to teach, desist from the work which he was ap-

INGERSOLV S BEST ARGUMENT. 163

pointed to perform for the salvation of mankind, because he could foresee that his doctrines would be perverted, that his words would be misinterpreted, that wrongs would be wrought in his name? Is there anybody living and sane, except R. G. IngersoU, who would intimate such a palpable absurdity?

Is there any truth in the assertions of this assailant of the Savior that Christ's "church" invented and used instruments of torture and inflicted the punishments that racked the world for a thousand years? That Christ's disciples tortured the bodies of men and women and crushed out their lives in anguish? How is it possible, in view of what IngersoU himself has set forth as to the doctrine of Christ, that his church or his disciples could be guilty of such abominations? The diabolical deeds performed by bigots and fanatics whose assumption of priestly power and divine authority was a blasphemy against Christ, were so opposite to the teachings and spirit of the Savior, of his church and of his disciples, as the blackness of night is to the glory of mid-day and as hell is to heaven. What if the wretches, who maimed and butchered their fellow creatures, in vain attempts to promote their own faiths or accomplish their own ends, called themselves Christ's disciples, and their hierarchy Christ's church, is that any reason for charging up their enormities against him whose teachings and commandments they violated to the utmost?

Mr. IngersoU says that against such dreadful things Christ "died with voiceless lips," and asks "why did he fail to speak?" The assertion is a direct falsehood, the question is an infamy. IngersoU has furnished the refutation of his own calumny, and the answer to his own interrogation. The very philosophy which he pronounces the utmost height of absurdity, was a denunciation of such cruelties and an emphatic injunction against all the terrible deeds depicted by Mr. IngersoU. The Sermon on the Mount, which he ridicules, bristles with pointed shafts against violence and wrong. In view of the precepts which IngersoU quotes and laughs at as absurd, such as "love your enemies," "resist not evil," "if smitten on one cheek, turn the other," how can he. have the impudence, to say nothing of the injustice and wickedness, to

assert that Christ died with "voiceless lips," against the wrongs which have been wrought blasphemously in Christ's sacred name? Is it possible that Ingersoll does not see how he contradicts Ingersoll? How he disproves his own base assumptions? How he shatters to pieces his own "best argument?" The whole tenor of Christ's teachings, the spirit which he breathed, the life that he led, the words that he uttered in his dying agonies — "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" — proclaim peace, good will, brotherhood, kindness and charity. Men are not his disciples who have not his spirit and who obey not his commandments, the chief of which is, "Love one Another!"

Robert G. Ingersoll is both to be pitied and to be blamed. Pitied because of his spiritual blindness, which is a greater affliction than physical blindness. It is a misfortune for which some people are not altogether responsible. It may be to some extent at least an hereditary evil. But he is to blame for wilful attempts to pervert the teachings of real Christianity, to distort the sayings of Christ, to misquote the text of the New Testament, to exaggerate the plain meaning of Christ's philosophy in one breath and deny its utterance in another, and for the pettifoggery to which he resorts when, with flowery sentences and flights of rhetoric, he assails a religion which has brought to him and to the world most of the joys, the liberty and the civilization that lighten the darkness of this yet imperfect state of being. It is difficult by the exercise of the greatest charity to believe that he is honest or sincere, and the indignation that naturally arises in view of his many perversions of fact and theory, greatly weakens the pity that is felt for his defective spiritual vision. If his latest effort is "The best argument ever advanced against Christianity," all other efforts in that direction must be unworthy of notice, and Christianity stands not only triumphant, but actually untouched.