St. Paul daily globe., 1894-02-26
INGERSOLL'S MISTAKES,
AS cOHTRASTED WITH THOSE BE
CHARGES TO MOSES.
THE AGNOSTIC REVIEWED

ured by Actual Facts-dow
He Misquotes and Dccorates
His Fictitious Assertions With
the Giamor of fWord-Painting- w
The Attempt to Destroy Reiig-
ious Belief Rebuked.
al want to do what can toward civ
iizing the people of this great republic.
| want to educate the people 10 give the
clergy little liberty, SO that they may
feel free to follow their honest convlc-
tons. l want you to give them an op-
portunity to be honest and tell what
they actually believe. l want you to
elevate the intellect or honesty of the
college professor SO that he may be able
to understand, and have the principle
to teach truth; so that he may have the
courage to grasp and reveal the truths
of science, and bury the unreasonable
teachings of God"
That is what Col Robert Ingersoll
proposes to do for the American people
in general, and the clergy and college
professors in particular. but before the
contract is closed it might be wise to
inquire, first, Is there really any such
task 20 perform; and, second, if so, is
Col Ingersoll the right man for the po-
Sition?
We cannot but remember that 1.-The
people of this great republic were at
least partially civilized as early as
George WaShington's day. and the work
has been going on steadily ever since;
SO it would seem that as far as this part
of the work is concerned we might at
least defer the engagement of the
great agnoStic" until times are better
The American people are willing to
give the clergy the same chance as the
scientists. 1t took time for the philoSo-
pliers 10 discover the laws of gravita-
ttOn, although they had existed ever
since the creation of the world. That
they were not discovered sooner is no
reflection either upon the philosophers
or the laws. In like manner we must
give the clergy time to find the spiritual
truth contained i'll the Bible, and if they
have not yet found it all II is no sign
that it is not there to be found, neither
Is 1t sign that the clergy are dishonest.
The American people, as a whole, feel
quite we'll satisfied with the work of the
clergy, and would, think. gain nothing
by turning the business over to other
hands.
But should it be agreed that we need
such service, The question arises, is In
gersoll the man for the place? If the
work is to be done we need a competent
perSOu-one who is posted on all points
on which ne seeks to enlighten Others
we need an honest man. Let us there
fore, before engaging him for such re-
sponsible position, see if he will stand
these two tests. We may do this by ex-
amining his done-oyer etfort-''Some.
Mistakes of Moses" Let US see if it is
not Ingersoll and not Moses, who has
made mistakes.
e. He makes a mistake when he would
lead us to infer that the Pentateuch
deals with "a being IN the vast depth of
the universe, whose dreams are OF the
Stars" This is one Of lngerS0ll'S ora
torical tlights-a sort of ear-jugglery to
deceive people into thinking that they
are getting something for their money.
If he were posted he would know that
the God of the Pentateuch is no dream.
The clergy understand that.
He tells U.s." says IngersoIl, that
Sc world was made out of nothing"
But Mr. IngersOll has failed to tell US
9'here ''He tells US" this. "He tells us"
&othing of the kind, and no wonder Mr..
IngerSoll thinks the American people
IN need of education when they permit
him to make such reckless statement.
What we are told is found in Gen. j., 9:
And the earth was without form and
void. is it the word void that troubles
Mr. IngerSoll? II so, l would refer him
to Webster: "Void-vacant, not occu-
pied, destitute, unfurnisned, free. etc.n
Ihe story begins with the earth, not in
It's present form, and void or unoccu-
pied. We are not told of what 1t was
made.
II cannot conceive of thing being
made of nothing. No more can you,"
would not attempt to conceive of such
an absurd thing, and l cannot conceive
OF an intelligent man raising such A
question in the nineteenth century. II
Is more absurd than the question of the
old philosophers as to how many angels
could stand on the point of a needle.
''ln that vacuum of nothing that ex-
listed before the creation of the world
what was God dong?" Mr.. IngersolI
makes mistake first, IN his premises
about nothing" and, second, in raising
a question which the mind, being finite.
cannot grasp. 1t is a loss of time to
consider such questions, and time
means money when IngersoIl is em-
ployed.s
Nothing" answers Ingersoll. He
makes mistake by not supporting this
sweeping conclusion by authority.
There was nothing to do" How does
he know there was nothing to do in
those days before the creation of the
world? Certainly Moses is not respon-
slule Tor this mistake, which we must
consider mistake if we are to depend
lpon our reason rather than upon the
statement of Mr.. Ingersol, unsupported
rs it is by any authority. The clergy
give US the Bible as proof OF their as
sertions, IngerSOll gives us Ingersoll.
What was he thinking about? Moth
Ing. There was nothing to think about"
Here Mr. lngerSoll makes triple mis-
take. First-In again raising a question
which it is impossible for the human
mind to solve. Second-In concluding
that because the solution is beyond the
power of the finite that therefore it had
no solution. Third-In making the as
sertion that there was nothing to think
about. How does Robert Ingersoll,
haiD0 tI, @f,o !,
nothing to think about before the dawn
of creation? If he will speculate on
such question, from our human stand
point, does it not seem reasonable that
he may nave been planning the great
work? If the smallest duties of life
require forethought, is it reasonable tC
suppose that worlds were hurled into
space-that all orders of life were called
into being without any thought on the
part Of the Creator? Because InpersoI