Lectures of Col. R.G. Ingersoll | Page 7

And yet he believed
that Christ was a virtuous and amiable man; that the morality he taught
and practiced was of the most benevolent and elevated character, and
that it had not been exceeded by any. Upon this point he entertained the
same sentiments now held by the Unitarians, and in fact by all the most
enlightened Christians.
In his time the church believed and taught that every word in the Bible
was absolutely true. Since his day it has been proven false in its
cosmogony, false in its astronomy, false in its chronology and geology,
false in its history, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, false in
almost everything. There are but few, if any, scientific men, who
apprehend that the Bible is literally true. Who on earth at this day
would pretend to settle any scientific question by a text from the Bible?
The old belief is confined to the ignorant and zealous. The church itself
will before long be driven to occupy the position of Thomas Paine. The
best minds of the orthodox world, today, are endeavoring to prove the
existence of a personal Deity. All other questions occupy a minor place.
You are no longer asked to swallow the Bible whole, whale, Jonah and
all; you are simply required to believe in God and pay your pew-rent.
There is not now an enlightened minister in the world who will
seriously contend that Sampson's strength was in his hair, or that the
necromancers of Egypt could turn water into blood, and pieces of wood
into serpents. These follies have passed away, and the only reason that
the religious world can now have for disliking Paine, is that they have
been forced to adopt so many of his opinions.
Paine thought the barbarities of the Old Testament inconsistent with
what he deemed the real character of God. He believed the murder,
massacre, and indiscriminate slaughter had never been commanded by
the Deity. He regarded much of the Bible as childish, unimportant and
foolish. The scientific world entertains the same opinion. Paine

attacked the Bible precisely in the same spirit in which he had attacked
the pretensions of the kings. He used the same weapons. All the pomp
in the world could not make him cower. His reason knew no "Holy of
Holies," except the abode of truth. The sciences were then in their
infancy. The attention of the really learned had not been directed to an
impartial examination of our pretended revelation. It was accepted by
most as a matter of course.
The church was all-powerful, and no one else, unless thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of self-sacrifice, thought for a moment of
disputing the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The infamous
doctrine that salvation depends upon belief, upon a mere intellectual
conviction, was then believed and preached. To doubt was to secure the
damnation of your soul. This absurd and devilish doctrine shocked the
common sense of Thomas Paine, and he denounced it with the fervor of
honest indignation. This doctrine, although infinitely ridiculous, has
been nearly universal, and has been as hurtful as senseless. For the
overthrow of this infamous tenet, Paine exerted all his strength. He left
few arguments to be used by those who should come after him, and he
used none that have been refuted.
The combined wisdom and genius of all mankind can not possibly
conceive of an argument against liberty of thought. Neither can they
show why anyone should be punished, either in this world or another,
for acting honestly in accordance with reason; and yet a doctrine with
every possible argument against it has been, and still is, believed and
defended by the entire orthodox world. Can it be possible that we have
been endowed with reason simply that our souls may be caught in its
toils and snares, that we may be led by its false and delusive glare out
of the narrow path that leads to joy into the broad way of everlasting
death? Is it possible that we have been given reason simply that we
may through faith ignore its deductions and avoid its conclusions?
Ought the sailor to throw away his compass and depend entirely upon
the fog? If reason is not to be depended upon in matters of religion, that
is to say, in respect to our duties to the Deity, why should it be relied
upon in matters respecting the rights of our fellows? Why should we
throw away the law given to Moses by God Himself, and have the
audacity to make some of our own? How dare we drown the thunders
of Sinai by calling the ayes and naes in a petty legislature? If reason

can determine what is merciful, what is just, the duties of man to man,
what more do we