Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

great benefit on humanity. I would cast no wanton reflection on creed, nor practice under a creed; but, as matter of history, and as having a direct bearing on this interesting question, will ask: What of Catholic persecutions in the past? Were they right or wrong? If wrong, were those who persecuted, whether pope, prince, or priest, wicked, or were they not? Wicked, we say, in one sense and to some degree, yet to a great extent the victims of a horrible delusion. Of course the exigencies of theology require that broken fragments should be soldered together-that excuses be made for wrongs unspeakable; for it will not do to surrender the doctrine of infallibility. It is the keystone of the Catholic arch, yet at what a sacrifice sustained! Faith in the theological world is exalted above works. Behold the creeds of Christendom! How much is said of belief; how comparatively little of practice. How tolerant the church to those-if they subscribe to dogmatic teachings-who do ill, or neglect opportunities of performing those acts which the laws of justice and charity require; how denunciatory of those, however exemplary in conduct, who dare to utter a dissent from doctrines formulated by self-constituted authority. And note, a special hierarchy, as the keeper of the individual conscience, is to dictate what we may and may not believe, and decide what is and what is not sinless ignorance. Because ecclesiastics think they know, all men must accede to their teachings, under the penalty of eternal damnation. We are told that ignorance should be commiserated but crime punished. True; but consider the subject-matter of the controversy. Was that a crime in the heathen worthy of death, which was passed over as a "venal" sin among the people with whom God was in daily intercourse as guide and instructor?

It is not forgotten that the Jews were "punished," but note God's long forbearance with them, and the comparative severity of their punishment.

"And David commanded his young men, and they slew them and cut off their hands and feet and hanged them up. over the pool of Hebron" (2 Sam. iv. 12). The same David who rewarded them who smote the "lame and blind" among the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 8); and who, in pious glee, in a state of almost perfect nudity, "danced before the Lord with all his might" (2 Sam. vi. 14-20).

The Father talks much of blasphemy. As used by him the word is misleading, and is dust to the eyes of common sense, as well as an incentive to moral cowardice. Do I blaspheme, because in my estimate I exalt God above the Father's conception of him ?

In justification of wars of conquest and of extermination, Father Lambert says: "Mr. Black defended what you (Ingersoll) call the atrocities of the Jews recorded in the Old Testament, on the principle recognized by all peoples and nations, pagan philosophers and Christian apostles, that the right to exist implies the right to repel the opposing force that threatens destruction. If enemies come to conquer, a nation has a right to conquer them; if they give no quarter, they have a right to none; if the death of the whole population be their purpose, it is right to defeat it by putting them all to the sword if necessary. These principles are self-evident, and are recognized by all the nations, and practised by all except Christian nations; and if the latter do not practise them, it is because the benign influence of Christianity has refined the sentiments and softened the harsher features of man's nature, in which, however, something of the savage and the ghoul always remains."

Here we have a false implication as to fact, followed by damaging confessions-confessions, indeed, ruinous to the cause the Father defends. He says: "The right to exist implies the right to repel the invading force that threatens

[graphic]

destruction;" and would, on this principle, justify the barities practised by the Jews, not defensively but offensi on the peoples they came all the way from Egypt to rob exterminate!

But let us apply the Father's logic to the exact poin issue, and see where it will land the Jewish race. "If ene come to conquer, a nation has a right to conquer th The Jews came professedly to conquer: therefore, the hea nations had a right to conquer them. "If they give no q ter, they have a right to none." The Jews gave no qua therefore had a right to none. "If the death of the w population be their purpose, it is right to defeat it by put them all to the sword if necessary." The death of the w population of the heathen nations was the avowed purpos the Jews; hence the right of those nations to defeat that pose by putting all of the Jews to the sword!

And these principles we are told are "practised by all cept Christian nations;" and that if they "do not prac them, it is because the benign influence of Christianity refined the sentiments and softened the harsher features man's nature," etc. If what the Jews did was right, the li of Christianity would only reveal its justice more fully wrong, that light more clearly reveals its atrocious nature rendering its darkness visible. The gospel of love will justify the doctrine of hate.

Lambert.-" God is the Creator, the Supreme Ruler of universe and of all men. As such, man owes him allegia and obedience."

Not so; man owes him allegiance not because he is pow ful, but because he is just; obedience, because of the rig eousness of his law; and love, because his tender mercy over all his works-because he first loved us. What is obedience which power alone commands? What the l

that fear exacts? A kiss to the tyrant's rod. Such low conceptions of deity and of the grounds of human obligation make "Bob" Ingersolls possible.

Here a protest must be entered against the methods of warfare commended by the Father and termed "civilized."

Ingersoll." If they kill the babes in our cradles must we brain theirs?"

Lambert.-" Yes, by all means brain them; tear them limb from limb, salt them, ship them to the Cannibal islands," etc. Reader, do not mistake; the foregoing was not written by a Fiji chief, but by a disciple of the Prince of Peace!

6

CHAPTER XII.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XI.

Wars of Extermination-Slavery-Defensive Wars not Wars of ConquestAlleged Superiority of Physical over Moral Power.

THERE is so much small talk in the "Notes," so many personal flings (I am sorry to say not of a high order of merit), and such laborious attempts to avoid main issues by very small criticisms, that an honest reviewer who desires to meet fairly every salient point in dispute finds the winnowing process unpleasant and laborious.

Why was it necessary for the Father to cloud his argument by interspersing it with personal detractions of Mr. Ingersoll, and with fulsome eulogies on his own performance? What has Mr. Ingersoll's personal character, good or bad, or the Father's cleverness, to do with the subject in dispute? We know the Father is a great man and a perfect exterminator as a disputant, for we are assured of both facts, not only by Reverend Patrick Cronan, but by the Reverend Father Lambert himself, by oft repeated assumptions and assertions which can leave no doubt in the minds of his readers. It is his right to do so that all may know what they might have failed to discover from a perusal of his argument. But it would be a mercy to his readers if he would write an autobiography and, fully portraying his exceeding merit, leave the subject of the present controversy to the elucidation of facts and arguments, free from self-adulation and personal censure. Every human being is equally interested in the present issue; and no man

« ÎnapoiContinuă »