                        14 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

          Contents of this file                            page
     PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.                       1
     CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.                     12
     GENERAL GRANT'S BIRTHDAY DINNER.                       13

                          ****     ****

          This file, its printout, or copies of either
          are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.

          Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201

                The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

                          ****    ****

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

                              1889

     In the February number of the Nineteenth Century, 1889, is an
article by Professor Huxley, entitled "Agnosticism." It seems that
a church congress was held at Manchester in October, 1888, and that
the Principal of King's College brought the topic of Agnosticism
before the assembly and made the following statement:

          "But if this be so, for a man to urge as an escape from
     this article of belief that he has no means of a scientific
     knowledge of an unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant.
     His difference from Christians lies, not in the fact that he
     has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe
     the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call
     himself an Agnostic, but his real name is an older one -- he
     is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word
     infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps
     it is right that it should. It is, and it ought to be, an
     unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does
     not believe in Jesus Christ."

     Let us examine this statement, putting it in language that is
easily understood; and for that purpose we will divide it into
several paragraphs,

          First, -- "For a man to urge that he has no means of a
     scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is
     irrelevant."

     Is there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge? Are
there several kinds of knowing? Is there such a thing as scientific
ignorance? If a man says, "I know nothing of the unseen world
because I have no knowledge upon that subject," is the fact that he
has no knowledge absolutely irrelevant? Will the Principal of
King's College say that having no knowledge is the reason he knows?
When asked to give your opinion upon any subject, can it be said
that your ignorance of that subject is irrelevant? If this be true,
then your knowledge of the subject is also irrelevant?


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

     Is it possible to put in ordinary English a more perfect
absurdity? How can a man obtain any knowledge of the unseen world?
He certainly cannot obtain it through the medium of the senses. It
is not a world that he can visit. He cannot stand upon its shores,
nor can he view them from the ocean of imagination. The Principal
of King's College, however, insists that these impossibilities are
irrelevant.

     No person has come back from the unseen world. No authentic
message has been delivered. Through all the centuries, not one
whisper has broken the silence that lies beyond the grave.
Countless millions have sought for some evidence, have listened in
vain for some word.

     It is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove
the non-existence of another world -- all this does not demonstrate
that death ends all. But it is the justification of the Agnostic,
who candidly says, "I do not know."

          Second. -- The Principal of King's College states that
     the difference between an Agnostic and a Christian "lies, not
     in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that
     he does not believe the authority on which they are stated."

     Is this a difference in knowledge, or a difference in belief
-- that is to say, a difference in credulity?

     The Christian believes the Mosaic account. He reverently hears
and admits the truth of all that he finds within the Scriptures. Is
this knowledge? How is it possible to know whether the reputed
authors of the books of the Old Testament were the real ones? The
witnesses are dead. The lips that could testify are dust. Between
these shores roll the waves of many centuries. Who knows whether
such a man as Moses existed or not? Who knows the author of kings
and Chronicles? By what testimony can we substantiate the
authenticity of the prophets, or of the prophecies, or of the
fulfillments? Is there any difference between the knowledge of the
Christian and of the Agnostic? Does the Principal of King's College
know any more as to the truth of the Old Testament than the man who
modestly calls for evidence? Has not a mistake been made? Is not
the difference one of belief instead of knowledge? And is not this
difference founded on the difference in credulity? Would not an
infinitely wise and good being -- where belief is a condition to
salvation -- supply the evidence? Certainly the Creator of man --
if such exist -- knows the exact nature of the human mind -- knows
the evidence necessary to convince; and, consequently, such a being
would act in accordance with such conditions.

     There is a relation between evidence and belief. The mind is
so constituted that certain things, being in accordance with its
nature, are regarded as reasonable, as probable.

     There is also this fact that must not be overlooked: that is,
that just in the proportion that the brain is developed it requires
more evidence, and becomes less and less credulous. Ignorance and
credulity go hand in hand. Intelligence understands something of 



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

the law of average, has an idea of probability. It is not swayed by
prejudice, neither is it driven to extremes by suspicion. It takes
into consideration personal motives. It examines the character of
the witnesses, makes allowance for the ignorance of the time, --
for enthusiasm, for fear, -- and comes to its conclusion without
fear and without passion.

     What knowledge has the Christian of another world? The senses
of the Christian are the same as those of the Agnostic. He hears,
sees, and feels substantially the same. His vision is limited. He
sees no other shore and hears nothing from another world.

     Knowledge is something that can be imparted. It has a
foundation in fact. It comes within the domain of the senses. It
can be told, described, analyzed, and, in addition to all this, it
can be classified. Whenever a fact becomes the property of one
mind, it can become the property of the intellectual world. There
are words in which the knowledge can be conveyed.

     The Christian is not a supernatural person, filled with
supernatural truths. He is a natural person, and all that he knows
of value can be naturally imparted. It is within his power to give
all that he has to the Agnostic.

     The Principal of King's College is mistaken when he says that
the difference between the Agnostic and the Christian does not lie
in the fact that the Agnostic has no knowledge, I but that he does
not believe the authority on which these things are stated."

     The real difference is this: the Christian says that he has
knowledge; the Agnostic admits that he has none; and yet the
Christian accuses the Agnostic of arrogance, and asks him how he
has the impudence to admit the limitations of his mind. To the
Agnostic every fact is a torch, and by this light, and this light
only, he walks.

     It is also true that the Agnostic does not believe the
authority relied on by the Christian. What is the authority of the
Christian? Thousands of years ago it is supposed that certain men,
or, rather, uncertain men, wrote certain things. It is alleged by
the Christian that these men were divinely inspired, and that the
words of these men are to be taken as absolutely true, no matter
whether or not they are verified by modern discovery and
demonstration.

     How can we know that any human being was divinely inspired?
There has been no personal revelation to us to the effect that
certain people were inspired -- it is only claimed that the
revelation was to them. For this we have only their word, and about
that there is this difficulty: we know nothing of them, and,
consequently, cannot, if we desire, rely upon their character for
truth. This evidence is not simply hearsay -- it is far weaker than
that. We have only been told that they said these things; we do not
know whether the persons claiming to be inspired wrote these things
or not; neither are we certain that such persons ever existed. We
know now that the greatest men with whom we are acquainted are
often mistaken about the simplest matters. We also know that men 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

saying something like the same things, in other countries and in
ancient days, must have been impostors, The Christian has no
confidence in the words of Mohammed; the Mohammedan cares nothing
about the declarations of Buddha; and the Agnostic gives to the
words of the Christian the value only of the truth that is in them.
He knows that these sayings get neither truth nor worth from the
person who uttered them. He knows that the sayings themselves get
their entire value from the truth they express. So that the real
difference between the Christian and the Agnostic does not lie in
their knowledge, -- for neither of them has any knowledge on this
subject, -- but the difference does lie in credulity, and in
nothing else. The Agnostic does not rely on the authority of Moses
and the prophets. He finds that they were mistaken in most matters
capable of demonstration. He finds that their mistakes multiply in
the proportion that human knowledge increases. He is satisfied that
the religion of the ancient Jews is, in most things, as ignorant
and cruel as other religions of the ancient world. He concludes
that the efforts, in all ages, to answer the questions of origin
and destiny, and to account for the phenomena of life, have all
been substantial failures.

     In the presence of demonstration there is no opportunity for
the exercise of faith. Truth does not appeal to credulity -- it
appeals to evidence, to established facts, to the constitution of
the mind. It endeavors to harmonize the new fact with all that we
know, and to bring it within the circumference of human experience.

     The church has never cultivated investigation. It has never
said: Let him who has a mind to think, think; but its cry from the
first until now has been: Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

     The pulpit does not appeal to the reason of the pew; it speaks
by authority and it commands the pew to believe, and it not only
commands, but it threatens.

     The Agnostic knows that the testimony of man is not sufficient
to establish what is known as the miraculous. We would not believe
to-day the testimony of millions to the effect that the dead had
been raised. The church itself would be the first to attack such
testimony. If we cannot believe those whom we know, why should we
believe witnesses who have been dead thousands of years, and about
whom we know nothing?

          Third. -- The Principal of King's College, growing.
     Somewhat severe, declares that "he may prefer to call himself
     an Agnostic, but his real name is an older one -- he is an
     infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever."

     This is spoken in a kind of holy scorn. According to this
gentleman, an unbeliever is, to a certain extent, a disreputable
person.

     In this sense, what is an unbeliever? He is one whose mind is
so constituted that what the Christian calls evidence is not
satisfactory to him. Is a person accountable for the constitution
of his mind, for the formation of his brain? Is any human being
responsible for the weight that evidence has upon him? Can he 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

believe without evidence? Is the weight of evidence a question of
choice? Is there such a thing as honestly weighing testimony? Is
the result of such weighing necessary? Does it involve moral
responsibility? If the Mosaic account does not convince a man that
it is true, is he a wretch because he is candid enough to tell the
truth? Can he preserve his manhood only by making a false
statement?

     The Mohammedan would call the Principal of King's College an
unbeliever, -- so would the tribes of Central Africa, -- and he
would return the compliment, and all would be equally justified.
Has the Principal of King's College any knowledge that he keeps
from the rest of the world? Has he the confidence of the Infinite?
Is there anything praiseworthy in believing where the evidence is
sufficient, or is one to be praised for believing only where the
evidence is insufficient? Is a man to be blamed for not agreeing
with his fellow-citizen? Were the unbelievers in the pagan world
better or worse than their neighbors? It is probably true that some
of the greatest Greeks believed in the gods of that nation, and it
is equally true that some of the greatest denied their existence.
If credulity is a virtue now, it must have been in the days of
Athens. If to believe without evidence entitles one to eternal
reward in this century, certainly the same must have been true in
the days of the Pharaohs.

     An infidel is one who does not believe in the prevailing
religion. We now admit that the infidels of Greece and Rome were
right. The gods that they refused to believe in are dead. Their
thrones are empty, and long ago the scepters dropped from their
nerveless hands. To-day the world honors the men who denied and
derided these gods.

          Fourth. -- The Principal of King's College ventures to
     suggest that "the word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant
     significance; perhaps it is right that it should."

     A few years ago the word infidel did carry "an unpleasant
significance." A few years ago its significance was so unpleasant
that the man to whom the word was applied found himself in prison
or at the stake. In particularly kind communities he was put in the
stocks, pelted with offal, derided by hypocrites, scorned by
ignorance, jeered by cowardice, and all the priests passed by on
the other side.

     There was a time when Episcopalians were regarded as infidels;
when a true Catholic looked upon a follower of Henry VIII. as an
infidel, as an unbeliever; when a true Catholic held in detestation
the man who preferred a murderer and adulterer -- a man who swapped
religions for the sake of exchanging wives -- to the Pope, the head
of the universal church.

     It is easy enough to conceive of an honest man denying the
claims of a church based on the caprice of an English king. The
word infidel "carries an unpleasant significance " only where the
Christians are exceedingly ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, cruel,
and unmannerly.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

     The real gentleman gives to others the rights that he claims
for himself. The civilized man rises far above the bigotry of one
who has been "born again." Good breeding is far gentler than
"universal love."

     It is natural for the church to hate an unbeliever -- natural
for the pulpit to despise one who refuses to subscribe, who refuses
to give. It is a question of revenue instead of religion. The
Episcopal Church has the instinct of self-preservation. It uses its
power, its influence, to compel contribution. It forgives the
giver.

          Fifth -- The Principal of King's College insists that "it
     is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have
     to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."

     Should it be an unpleasant thing for a man to say plainly what
he believes? Can this be unpleasant except in an uncivilized
community -- a Community in which an uncivilized church has
authority?

     Why should not a man be as free to say that he does not
believe as to say that he does believe? Perhaps the real question
is whether all men have an equal right to express their opinions.
Is it the duty of the minority to keep silent? Are majorities
always right? If the minority had never spoken, what to-day would
have been the condition of this world? Are the majority the
pioneers of progress, or does the pioneer, as a rule, walk alone?
Is it his duty to close his lips? Must the inventor allow his
inventions to die in the brain? Must the discoverer of new truths
make of his mind a tomb? Is man under any obligation to his
fellows? Was the Episcopal religion always in the majority? Was it
at any time in the history of the world an unpleasant thing to be
called a Protestant? Did the word Protestant "carry an unpleasant
significance"? Was it perhaps right that it should"? Was Luther a
misfortune to the human race?

     If a community is thoroughly civilized, why should it be an
unpleasant thing for a man to express his belief in respectful
language? If the argument is against him, it might be unpleasant;
but why should simple numbers be the foundation of unpleasantness?
If the majority have the facts, -- if they have the argument, --
why should they fear the mistakes of the minority? Does any
theologian hate the man he can answer?

     It is claimed by the Episcopal Church that Christ was in fact
God; and it is further claimed that the New Testament is an
inspired account of what that being and his disciples did and said.
Is there any obligation resting on any human being to believe this
account? Is it within the power of man to determine the influence
that testimony shall have upon his mind?

     If one denies the existence of devils, does he, for that
reason, cease to believe in Jesus Christ? Is it not possible to
imagine that a great and tender soul living in Palestine nearly
twenty centuries ago was misunderstood? Is it not within the realm
of the possible that his words have been inaccurately reported? Is 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

it not within the range of the probable that legend and rumor and
ignorance and zeal have deformed his life and belittled his
character?

     If the man Christ lived and taught and suffered, if he was, in
reality, great and noble, who is his friend -- the one who
attributes to him feats of jugglery, or he who maintains that these
stories were invented by zealous ignorance and believed by
enthusiastic credulity?

     If he claimed to have wrought miracles, he must have been
either dishonest or insane; consequently, he who denies miracles
does what little he can to rescue the reputation of a great and
splendid man.

     The Agnostic accepts the good he did, the truth he said, and
rejects only that which, according to his judgment, is inconsistent
with truth and goodness.

     The Principal of King's College evidently believes in the
necessity of belief. He puts conviction or creed or credulity in
place of character. According to his idea, it is impossible to win
the approbation of God by intelligent investigation and by the
expression of honest conclusions. He imagines that the Infinite is
delighted with credulity, with belief without evidence, faith
without question.

     Man has but little reason, at best; but this little should be
used. No matter how small the taper is, how feeble the ray of light
it casts, it is better than darkness, and no man should be rewarded
for extinguishing the light he has.

     We know now, if we know anything, that man in this, the
nineteenth century, is better capable of judging as to the
happening of any event, than he ever was before. We know that the
standard is higher to-day -- we know that the intellectual light is
greater -- we know that the human mind is better equipped to deal
with all questions of human interest, than at any other time within
the known history of the human race.

     It will not do to say that "our Lord and his apostles must at
least be regarded as honest men." Let this be admitted, and what
does it prove? Honesty is not enough. Intelligence and honesty must
go hand in hand. We may admit now that "our Lord and his apostles"
were perfectly honest men; yet it does not follow that we have a
truthful account of what they said and of what they did. It is not
pretended that "our Lord" wrote anything, and it is not known that
one of the apostles ever wrote a word. Consequently, the most that
we can say is that somebody has written something about "our Lord
and his apostles." Whether that somebody knew or did not know is
unknown to us. As to whether what is written is true or false, we
must judge by that which is written.

     First of all, is it probable? is it within the experience of
mankind? We should judge of the gospels as we judge of other
histories, of other biographies. We know that many biographies
written by perfectly honest men are not correct. We know, if we 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

know anything, that honest men can be mistaken, and it is not
necessary to believe everything that a man writes because we
believe he was honest. Dishonest men may write the truth.

     At last the standard or criterion is for each man to judge
according to what he believes to be human experience. We are
satisfied that nothing more wonderful has happened than is now
happening. We believe that the present is as wonderful as the past,
and just as miraculous as the future. If we are to believe in the
truth of the Old Testament, the word evidence loses its meaning;
there ceases to be any standard of probability, and the mind simply
accepts or denies without reason.

     We are told that certain miracles were performed for the
purpose of attesting the mission and character of Christ. How can
these miracles be verified? The miracles of the Middle Ages rest
upon substantially the same evidence. The same may be said of the
wonders of all countries and of all ages. How is it a virtue to
deny the miracles of Mohammed and to believe those attributed to
Christ?

     You may say of St. Augustine that what he said was true or
false. We know that much of it was false; and yet we are not
justified in saying that he was dishonest. Thousands of errors have
been propagated by honest men. As a rule, mistakes get their wings
from honest people. The testimony of a witness to the happening of
the impossible gets no weight from the honesty of the witness. The
fact that falsehoods are in the New Testament does not tend to
prove that the writers were knowingly untruthful. No man can be
honest enough to substantiate, to the satisfaction of reasonable
men, the happening of a miracle.

     For this reason it makes not the slightest difference whether
the writers of the New Testament were honest or not. Their
character is not involved. Whenever a man rises above his
contemporaries, whenever he excites the wonder of his fellows, his
biographers always endeavor to bridge over the chasm between the
people and this man, and for that purpose attribute to him the
qualities which in the eyes of the multitude are desirable.

     Miracles are demanded by savages, and, consequently, the
savage biographer attributes miracles to his hero. What would we
think now of a man who, in writing the life of Charles Darwin,
should attribute to him supernatural powers? What would we say of
an admirer of Humboldt who should claim that the great German could
cast out devils? We would feel that Darwin and Humboldt had been
belittled; that the biographies were written for children and by
men who had not outgrown the nursery.

     If the reputation of "our Lord" is to be preserved -- if he is
to stand with the great and splendid of the earth -- if be is to
continue a constellation in the intellectual heavens, all claim to
the miraculous, to the supernatural, must be abandoned.

     No one can overestimate the evils that have been endured by
the human race by reason of a departure from the standard of the
natural. The world has been governed by jugglery, by sleight-of-


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

hand. Miracles, wonders, tricks, have been regarded as of far
greater importance than the steady, the sublime and unbroken march,
of cause and effect. The improbable has been established by the
impossible. Falsehood has furnished the foundation for faith.

     Is the human body at present the residence of evil spirits, or
have these imps of darkness perished from the world? Where are
they? If the New Testament establishes anything, it is the
existence of innumerable devils, and that these satanic beings
absolutely took possession of the human mind. Is this true? Can
anything be more absurd? Does any intellectual man who has examined
the question believe that depraved demons live in the bodies of
men? Do they occupy space? Do they live upon some kind of food? Of
what shape are they? Could they be classified by a naturalist? Do
they run or float or fly? If to deny the existence of these
supposed beings is to be an infidel, how can the word infidel carry
an unpleasant significance"?

     Of course it is the business of the principals of most
colleges, as well as of bishops, cardinals, popes, priests, and
clergymen to insist upon the existence of evil spirits. All these
gentlemen are employed to counteract the influence of these
supposed demons. Why should they take the bread out of their own
mouths? Is it to be expected that they will unfrock themselves?

     The church, like any other corporation, has the instinct of
self-preservation. It will defend itself it will fight as long as
it has the power to change a hand into a fist.

     The Agnostic takes the ground that human experience is the
basis of morality. Consequently, it is of no importance who wrote
the gospels, or who vouched or vouches for the genuineness of the
miracles. In his scheme of life these things are utterly
unimportant. He is satisfied that "the miraculous" is the
impossible. He knows that the witnesses were wholly incapable of
examining the questions involved, that credulity had possession of
their minds, that "the miraculous" was expected, that it was their
daily food.

     All this is very clearly and delightfully stated by Professor
Huxley, and it hardly seems possible that any intelligent man can
read what he says without feeling that the foundation of all
superstition has been weakened. The article is as remarkable for
its candor as for its clearness. Nothing is avoided -- everything
is met. No excuses are given. He has left all apologies for the
other side. When you have finished what Professor Huxley has
written, you feel that your mind has been in actual contact with
the mind of another, that nothing has been concealed; and not only
so, but you feel that this mind is not only willing, but anxious,
to know the actual truth.

     To me, the highest uses of philosophy are, first, to free the
mind of fear, and, second, to avert all the evil that can be
averted, through intelligence -- that is to say, through a
knowledge of the conditions of well-being.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

     We are satisfied that the absolute is beyond our vision,
beneath our touch, above our reach. We are now convinced that we
can deal only with phenomena, with relations, with appearances,
with things that impress the senses, that can be reached by reason,
by the exercise of our faculties. We are satisfied that the
reasonable road is "the straight road," the only "sacred way.

     Of course there is faith in the world -- faith in this world
-- and always will be, unless superstition succeeds in every land.
But the faith of the wise man is based upon facts. His faith is a
reasonable conclusion drawn from the known. He has faith in the
progress of the race, in the triumph of intelligence, in the coming
sovereignty of science. He has faith in the development of the
brain, in the gradual enlightenment of the mind. And so he works
for the accomplishment of great ends, having faith in the final
victory of the race.

     He has honesty enough to say that he does not know. He
perceives and admits that the mind has limitations. He doubts the
so-called wisdom of the past. He looks for evidence, and he
endeavors to keep his mind free from prejudice. He believes in the
manly virtues, in the judicial spirit, and in his obligation to
tell his honest thoughts.

     It is useless to talk about a destruction of consolations.
That which is suspected to be untrue loses its power to console. A
man should be brave enough to bear the truth.

     Professor Huxley has stated with great clearness the attitude
of the Agnostic. It seems that he is somewhat severe on the
Positive Philosophy. While it is hard to see the propriety of
worshiping Humanity as a being, it is easy to understand the
splendid dream of August Comte. Is the human race worthy to be
worshiped by itself -- that is to say, should the individual
worship himself? Certainly the religion of humanity is better than
the religion of the inhuman. The Positive Philosophy is better far
than Catholicism. It does not fill the heavens with monsters, nor
the future with pain.

     It maybe said that Luther and Comte endeavored to reform the
Catholic Church. Both were mistaken, because the only reformation
of which that church is capable is destruction. It is a mass of
superstition.

     The mission of Positivism is, in the language of its founder
"to generalize science and to systematize society." It seems to me
that Comte stated with great force and with absolute truth the
three phases of intellectual evolution or progress.

          First -- "In the supernatural phase the mind seeks causes
     -- aspires to know the essence of things, and the How and Why
     of their operation. In this phase, all facts are regarded as
     the productions of supernatural agents, and unusual phenomena
     are interpreted as the signs of the pleasure or displeasure of
     some god."

 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

     Here at this point is the orthodox world of to-day. The church
still imagines that phenomena should be interpreted as the signs of
the pleasure or displeasure of God. Nearly every history is
deformed with this childish and barbaric view.

          Second. -- The next phase or modification, according to
     Comte, is the metaphysical. "The supernatural agents are
     dispensed with, and in their places we find abstract forces or
     entities supposed to inhere in substances and capable of
     engendering phenomena."

     In this phase people talk about laws and principles as though
laws and principles were forces capable of producing phenomena.

          Third. -- "The last stage is the Positive. The mind,
     convinced of the futility of all enquiry into causes and
     essences, restricts itself to the observation and
     classification of phenomena, and to the discovery of the
     invariable relations of succession and similitude -- in a
     word, to the discovery of the relations of phenomena."

     Why is not the Positive stage the point reached by the
Agnostic? He has ceased to inquire into the origin of things. He
has perceived the limitations of the mind. He is thoroughly
convinced of the uselessness and futility and absurdity of
theological methods, and restricts himself to the examination of
phenomena, to their relations, to their effects, and endeavors to
find in the complexity of things the true conditions of human
happiness.

     Although I am not a believer in the philosophy of Auguste
Comte, I cannot shut my eyes to the value of his thought; neither
is it possible for me not to applaud his candor, his intelligence,
and the courage it required even to attempt to lay the foundation
of the Positive Philosophy.

     Professor Huxley and Frederic Harrison are splendid soldiers
in the army of Progress. They have attacked with signal success the
sacred and solemn stupidities of superstition. Both have appealed
to that which is highest and noblest in man. Both have been the
destroyers of prejudice. Both have shed light, and both have won
great victories on the fields of intellectual conflict. They cannot
afford to waste time in attacking each other.

     After all, the Agnostic and the Positivist have the same end
in view -- both believe in living for this world.

     The theologians, finding themselves unable to answer the
arguments that have been urged, resort to the old subterfuge -- to
the old cry that Agnosticism takes something of value from the life
of man. Does the Agnostic take any consolation from the world? Does
he blot out, or dim, one star in the heaven of hope? Can there be
anything more consoling than to feel, to know, that Jehovah is not
God -- that the message of the Old Testament is not from the
infinite?




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

                PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.

     Is it not enough to fill the brain with a happiness
unspeakable to know that the words, "Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire," will never be spoken to one of the children
of men?

     Is it a small thing to lift from the shoulders of industry the
burdens of superstition? Is it a little thing to drive the monster
of fear from the hearts of men?

                              North American Review, April, 1889.

                          ****     ****


               CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.

     IN my judgment, no human being was ever made better, nobler,
by being whipped or clubbed.

     Mr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply a
savage. He belongs to the Dark Ages -- to the Inquisition, to the
torture-chamber, and he needs reforming more than any prisoner
under his control. To put any man within his power is in itself a
crime. Mr. Brockway is a believer in cruelty -- an apostle of
brutality. He beats and bruises flesh to satisfy his conscience --
his sense of duty. He wields the club himself because he enjoys the
agony he inflicts.

     When a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endurance,
submits or becomes unconscious, he is regarded as reformed. During
the remainder of his term he trembles and obeys. But he is not
reformed. In his heart is the flame of hatred, the desire for
revenge; and he returns to society far worse than when he entered
the prison.

     Mr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up, and the
Elmira Reformatory should be superintended by some civilized man --
some man with brain enough to know, and heart enough to feel.

     I do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and
lacerating the flesh of another, can reform him. The lash will
neither develop the brain nor cultivate the heart. There should be
no bruising, no scarring of the body in families, in schools, in
reformatories, or prisons. A civilized man does not believe in the
methods of savagery. Brutality has been tried for thousands of
years and through all these years it has been a failure.

     Criminals have been flogged, mutilated and maimed, tortured in
a thousand ways, and the only effect was to demoralize, harden and
degrade society and increase the number of crimes. In the army and
navy, soldiers and sailors were flogged to death, and everywhere by
church and state the torture of the helpless was practiced and
upheld.

     Only a few years ago there were two hundred and twenty-three
offenses punished with death in England. Those who wished to reform
this savage code were denounced as the enemies of morality and law.
They were regarded as weak and sentimental.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

               CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.

     At last the English code was reformed through the efforts of
men who had brain and heart. But it is a significant fact that no
bishop of the Episcopal Church, sitting in the House of Lords, ever
voted for the repeal of one of those savage laws. Possibly this
fact throws light on the recent poetic and Christian declaration by
Bishop Potter to the effect that "there are certain criminals who
can only be made to realize through their hides the fact that the
State has laws to which the individual must be obedient."

     This orthodox remark has the true apostolic ring, and is in
perfect accord with the history of the church. But it does not
accord with the intelligence and philanthropy of our time. Let us
develop the brain by education, the heart by kindness. Let us
remember that criminals are produced by conditions, and let us do
what we can to change the conditions and to reform the criminals.

                               END

                          ****     ****

                GENERAL GRANT'S BIRTHDAY DINNER.

                      New York, April 27, 1888.

                             TOAST.

                         General Grant.

     GEN. SHERMAN AND GENTLEMEN: I firmly believe that any nation
great enough to produce and appreciate a great and splendid man is
great enough to keep his memory green. No man admires more than I
do men who have struggled and fought for what they believed to be
right. I admire General Grant, as well as every soldier who fought
in the ranks of the Union, -- not simply because they were
fighters, not simply because they were willing to march to the
mouth of the guns, but because they fought for the greatest cause
that can be expressed in human language -- the liberty of man. And
to-night while General Mahone was speaking, I could not but think
that the North was just as responsible for the war as the South.
The South upheld and maintained what is known as human slavery, and
the North did the same; and do you know, I have always found in my
heart a greater excuse for the man who held the slave, and lived on
his labor, and profited by the rascality, than I did for a Northern
man that went into partnership with him with a distinct
understanding that he was to have none of the profits and half of
the disgrace. So I say, that, in a larger sense -- that is, when we
view the question from a philosophic height -- the North was as
responsible as the South; and when I remember that in this very
city, in this very city, men were mobbed simply for advocating the
abolition of slavery, I cannot find it in my heart to lay a greater
blame upon the South than upon the North. If this had been a war of
conquest, a war simply for national aggrandizement, then I should
not place General Grant side by side with or in advance of the
greatest commanders of the world. But when I remember that every
blow was to break a chain, when I remember that the white man was
to be civilized at the same time the black man was made free, when
I remember that this country was to be made absolutely free, and 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

                GENERAL GRANT'S BIRTHDAY DINNER.

the flag left without a stain, then I say that the great General
who commanded the greatest army ever marshaled in the defence of
human rights, stands at the head of the commanders of this world.

     There is one other idea, -- and it was touched upon and
beautifully illustrated by Mr. Depew. I do not believe that a more
merciful general than Grant ever drew his sword. All greatness is
merciful. All greatness longs to forgive. All true grandeur and
nobility is capable of shedding the divine tear of pity.

     Let me say one more word in that direction. The man in the
wrong defeated, and who sees the justice of his defeat, is a
victor; and in this view -- and I say it understanding my words
fully -- the South was as victorious as the North.

     No man, in my judgment, is more willing to do justice to all
parts of this country than I; but, after all, I have a little
sentiment -- a little. I admire great and splendid deeds, the
dramatic effect of great victories; but even more than that I
admire that "touch of nature which makes the whole world kin." I
know the names of Grant's victories. I know that these shine like
stars in the heaven of his fame. I know them all. But there is one
thing in the history of that great soldier that touched me nearer
and more deeply than any victory he ever won, and that is this:
When about to die, he insisted that his dust should be laid in no
spot where his wife, when she sleeps in death, could not lie by his
side. That tribute to the great and splendid institution that rises
above all others, the institution of the family, touched me even
more than the glories won upon the fields of war.

     And now let me say, General Sherman, as the years go by, in
America, as long as her people are great, as long as her people are
free, as long as they admire patriotism and courage, as long as
they admire deeds of self-denial, as long as they can remember the
sacred blood shed for the good of the whole nation, the birthday of
General Grant will be celebrated. And allow me to say, gentlemen,
that there is another with us to-night whose birthday will be
celebrated. Americans of the future, when they read the history of
General Sherman, will feel the throb and thrill that all men feel
in the presence of the patriotic and heroic.

     One word more -- when General Grant went to England, when he
sat down at the table with the Ministers of her Britannic Majesty,
he conferred honor upon them. There is one change I wish to see in
the diplomatic service -- and I want the example to be set by the
great Republic -- I want precedence given here in Washington to the
representatives of Republics. Let us have some backbone ourselves.
Let the representatives of Republics come first and the ambassadors
of despots come in next day. In other words, let America be proud
of American institutions, proud of a Government by the people. We
at last have a history, we at last are a civilized people, and on
the pages of our annals are found as glorious names as have been
written in any language.

                          ****     ****

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14
