The times., 1899-07-22

was Nut DIlHGlpltS lOT WHICH luiS man
stood which have been Incorporated into
the life of his people, and that whatever
was imperfect or unwise in his teachings
has been quietly discarded. Ingersoll was
in advance of his time. He formed a rock
around which other and less clear-sighted
men might gather when, bewildered by the
mazes of theology, they determined 10 cut
themselves loose from all doctrine; and
he gave them a creed which, at any rate
was wise and helpful-to be honest, to be
just, to be generous, and to learn their
duty and do it unhinchingly. Whatever
else he taught, it cannot be denied that he
taught these things, and that his whole
career proved his devotion to them.
He was the uncompromising foe OF what
may be called institutional morality. and
when this structure is torn down much
that is good goes with it, He was a born
iconoclast, and in the smashing of idols
there is sometimes wreckage of faith. He
saw no good in compromise with wrong.
and hence he could never have helped to
build up any form of faith, since that which
depends upon the agreement of a number
of persons in matters spiritual must always
be more or less of a compromise and con-
cession. Until the end of time, men of
different traditions, characters, antece-
dents, and aims will never see spiritual
truth just alike, and most Churches are
or have been based on the fiction that they
can be made to do so, if they wear a par
ticular kind of spectacles. Hence such an
influence as that of Ingersoll antagonistic
to anything which can be called hypocrisy
or concession of the truth, can never be
anything but destructive of such estab
lished forms of belief as rest on the united
action of multitudes, and must, with the
changes of time. eventually pass away.
His work was with the individual. He said
TO every man, do what you think is right,
if they send you to the stake for it. Never
be party to injustice or cruelty, in theory
or practice" 1t cannot be said that this
advice seriously disquieted the faith of
those who heard it, since they were almost
all people of no settled form of belief.
Those who might have been made unhappy
by doubts arising from the arguments of
the great agnostic generally absented
themselves from his lectures and declined
to read his books. Those who composed
his audiences were, as a rule merely cCn-
frmed in opinions which they already
held.
One more conspicuous trait in 1ngersolls S
character must be noted. He was a
thorough democrat. 1t may be observed
in passing that real democracy is prob
ably the most striking example of the
Golden Rule. in practical working. that can
be found in earthly affairs. When a man
is able to say that he desires no privileges,
no consideration. no power for himself
which he is not willing to allow to others,
he is doing as he would be done by; and
that is what democracy means, if it means
anything at all. Colonel Ingersoll, in his
private. as in his public. life, carried out
this principle, so that he may be said 10
have accepted in action, if not in thought,
one of the fundamental laws of the faith
which, according to many of its defenders.
he spent his life in trying TO undermine.
This democratic spirit of his was partic-
ularly notable in his domestic life. and
that is the last test of such a trait. He
invariably treated those with whom he
talked, whether they were members of his
family, or friends. or acquaintances, as
if they were in all respects his intellectual
equals. He was never known to begin a
theological controversy, though, naturally,
he was often drawn into argument. When
this happened, he gave his opponent full
opportunity TO present the other side OF
the case, and his reply was always consid-
crate and tactful. and tempered with that
kindly humor which was one of his most
prominent characteristics. 1t must be said
that some of those who have abused him
have not paid him the compliment Of read
ing the works they undertook to denounce.
\ clergyman of this city once offered a
reply to Colonel Ingersoll,' - in which he
said that the latter was a past master of
theosophy," and anyone who knows any
thing of either Colonel Ingersoll or the
osophy can see that that statement is lu-
dicrous. The sarcasm which was one of
his most effective weapons frequently
ranked and stung in the minds of those
who differed from him, and 1t is not to
be wondered at that they occasionally lost
their tempers in replying TO his speeches.
But, as a rule, his sarcasm was rather
humorous than biting. and that lent it an
edge of its own, for no man cares to be
made ridiculous. II the mere use of such a
faculty can be termed ungenerous, it is
difficult to see on what grounds the allega-
tion can be made. since epigram has al
ways been the weapon of the orator, no
matter what his subject or principles.
So far as the general tenor of Ingersoll's
speeches goes. it is Unnecessary to say that
they we're purely democratic in tone. He
wanted no wisdom, no power, no wealth,
no beauty reserved to the exclusive use OF
the few. He was against class distinctions
in society, in politics. in religion. He be-
lieved in the common man, and in an ideal
Of morality which the common man could
revere without any extraordinary efforts
of intellect or power of imagination. He
was as much opposed to plutocracy as he
was to aristocracy, and if he had been
more OF plutocrat than he was he would
have died a much richer man. When he
helped a poor man, 1t was never from a
height; 1t was as man to man, the more
fortunate sharing freely with the less
fortunate. If he could have had his way.
the poor would have shared in all the de-
lights OF beauty. music. art, comfort, now
in part reserved for the rich. Contrasted
with the doctrine which was once, and
sometimes even now is. preached to the
poor-that it is their duty to be content
because it is the will of heaven that there
should be rich and poor. in order that
the rich may enjoy the luxury of charity
and the poor the pleasure of gratitude
this idea. which he believed in and nrac-