The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-09-08

should be remembered that popular un-
belief does not concern itself with a
careful and fair Interpretation of Chris
tian doctrine, nor does it limit its in
vidious criticisms to the several phases
of faith. 1t assails the moral funda-
mentals, principles on which the actual
integrity of the individual and the per-
manent safety of society are founded.
Wit and ridicule are altogether out of
place in such controversy. The man
who relies upon either for the carrying
of his convictions, must have either a
most despicable cause or else he relies
upon the most despicable means for its
defense. And so, after the unreasoned
laugh occasioned by coarse wit,
thoughtful people must feel chagrined
and wonder at the want of gravity and
judgment in those who are thus i'm
posed upon.
Let us not think for moment that
the progress of religious unbelief is an
advantage to US as church, or to the
welfare of society. AS matter of fact
there are many orthodox interpreta-
lions of doctrine that we cannot en-
dorse; but the spirit of popular infidel-
ity is Numerically opposed to all forms
of Christianity. Love and liberty,
truth and justice, which Mr.. Ingersoll
SO eloquently defends, are the essential
elements Of Christianity, and have been
developed by it's influence on the life
and thought of man.
What is the intellectual and moral
value of infidelity? In the first place,
it virtually denies the common faith
that men have in God, assuming not
only that it is devoid of proof, but that
whether we appeal to nature or to the
Bible, we cannot reasonably believe in
Being of boundless wisdom and good
ness. The sufferings and pains of life
are considered by Mr.. Ingersoll as con-
elusive proofs that Coda Being of in
finite wisdom and goodness not
exist. 1t is we'll known that the exist
ence of sin and suffering has been
the most perplexing problem that man
has ever had to meet. The most per-
picking whether we consider it in its
relation to belief in an over ruling in
telligence; or, practically, as an object
of human effort and ingenuity. We
are told that a good God would not
create evil, that if all-powerful he would
exterminate it, and if all-wise he would
devise some plan for its conquest.
Much stress has been laid on this argu-
ment, as if it successfully disposed of
the question. For my own part do
not see that, as an argument, it settles
anything. 1t overlooks the moral ele-
ment in human life and the necessity
Of struggle for the development of
these qualities in men, and institutions
in society that constitute the nobility
of man and the excellence Of civiliza-
ton. 1t is certainly reasonable to sup
pose that evil cannot appear to Cod
the creator and ruler of all things-as
it often appears to us. And yet our
highest philosophy, the most rational
deductions of both experience and
science, show US that out of wrong has
come the right, that without previous
oppression there never could be any ap-
probation and love Of liberty, and that
the wrongs of life, its cruelties, sins
and anxieties are necessary to the
wholesome discipline Of man. 1t
might be pleasant to contemplate a
world without pain, suffering and sin,
but such a world would negative the
possibility of sympathy, of art, of gen.
ius, of conscious liberty, and of all
those virtues that endear life.
The phenomena of nature and of life
compel us to accept one of two hypo-
thesis: either that everything is the re-
suit of chance or design. By chance, 1
mean action without intelligent pur-
pose. There is no other alternative
conceivable. 1t is only necessary to
ask which is the most reasonable; to
suppose that the universal order of ma
ture simply happens so, or that it is
the necessary consequence of fixed
purpose? The question is not whether
we are able to comprehend that purpose,
hut which of the two explanations is
the most reasonable and satisfactory.
No honest seeker after truth, no I'M
biased mind will start an inquiry on
such profound subject, by caviling at
things which form a part of nature.
We cheerfully "admit that an infinitely
wise and merciful God designed the
fangs of serpents, the machinery by
which the poison is distilled, the ducts
by which it is carried to the fang" etc.
We may also admit that what we are
disposed to call the omlnous phenomena
of nature form part of the universal
design. We do not blink the seeming
evils of nature and of life, but we affirm
that no man is jus tilted in assailing the
religious beliefs of men by reflection
on and aspersion of the order and con-
stitution of nature. Mr.. Ingersoll las