The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-01-07
INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.

Robert G.. Ingersoll's second reply to
DIR. Field, is printed in the North amer
ican Review for January. 1t is of the
same brilliant order of composition as
the former article, but is not in any
wise remarkable for logic in defending
the agnostic position, save in those pas
sages in which the writer brings to the
front the Calvinistic creed which the
Presbyterian doctor of divinity accepts
and believes, so far as it can be believed,
by any sane mind. 1t is in those pas
sages that Mr.. Ingersoll makes his best
arguments against DR.. Field. There
are no such powerful passages as those
in the first article when the heavy mail
ed hand of the agnostic warrior was
laid upon the Westminster Confession
of Faith, with such crushing effect;
but there are passages enough to again
reveal in very clear and decided light
the main source of his opposition to
Christianity, and the influence of the
dogma of eternal torment as factor in
his unbelief.
1t is again made plain by this article
that Mr.. Ingersoll is mainly driven into
the agnostic position in regard to God
and Immortality by the teaching of the
orthodox creeds. No candid person can
read his article and not perceive that
his present unbelief hinges very largely
on the fact that the God which ortho-
doxy presents, and the immortality
which it teaches, is radically unworthy
of the belief of any sane mind or humane
heart. He defends the agnostic posi-
ton not so much from the reasonable
ness of that position as from the fact
that an acknowledgment of God and
Immortality involves, in his mind, the
acceptance also of the terrible doctrines
and superstitions which are associated
with them in the current teachings of
the Christian church. Mr.. Ingersoll
prefers Mature" to the God represent
ed in the popular creeds, and ignores
the immortality which presents so
hopeless a view for untold millions of
the race. 1t is a choice of evils evil
IDENTIFY with the eloquent skeptic. He
recognizes that Nature" without the
true Christian Interpretation to illu-
mine its mysteries, is sad reliance
dark and gloomy background on which
any thoughtful soul can repose but
the alternative presented by orthodoxy
is more odious and repellant, and he
shrinks from it with every instinct Of
his noble nature. 1t is sad that Mr..
Ingersoll, with all his mental acumen,
cannot perceive that there is God and
an immortality which are not part and
parcel of Presbyterianism. 1t is this
defect in his mental vision for which
he needs the services of an intelligent
theological oculist. He should have
the scales removed from his eyes and
be enabled to see that when he repudi-
ates the Presbyterian God-the diabol-
ical being represented in the Westmins-
ter Confession-that he is not there
fore obliged to fall into atheism. And
so with reference to immortality. He
needs to understand that he is not shut
up to the alternative of accepting the
Presbyterian view or rejecting immor-
tality once for all. 1t is on account of
this perversity, which insists on deal
ing with questions of religion on the
current orthodox basis sand rejecting
them because the orthodox interpreta-
tions cannot be accepted, that Mr.. In
gerson reveals his most marked weak
ness. Very rarely in any of his writ
ings does he show that he has any
knowledge of, or interest in, those in
terpretations of Christianity which are
not based on the principles of the evan
gelical churches. He is very attentive
to orthodoxy, and is constantly pre-
senting its doctrines as Christianity, |
but gives liberal Christianity and its