ROBERT G. INGERSOLL does not believe the Bible, but on the contrary declares that he believes it his conscientious duty to lecture against it for the gate receipts minus expenses.
This he has a right to do. And this right should be held sacred and defended by all, including those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.
However, this is not the view taken by certain ministers of Hoboken, N.J., who, led by one, Rev. H. T. Beatty, a Presbyterian, recently attempted to prevent Col. Ingersoll from delivering his lecture against the Bible in their city. There is on the statute books of the State the following law:—
If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being or providence, or by contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or the Christian religion, or the holy Word of God (that is, the canonical scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New Testament), or by profane scoffing at or exposing them or any of them to contempt and ridicule, then every person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $200 or imprisonment at hard labor, not exceeding twelve months, or both.
The ministers of Hoboken invoked the old law against Col. Ingersoll, and tried to have the authorities use it to prevent the lecture. But the Corporation Council announced that Mr. Ingersoll could not be prevented from delivering his address, but that should he violate the law, he would be promptly arrested. The agitation of the matter procured for the Colonel an immense audience, among which were the prosecuting preachers and their police. Col. Ingersoll, by ingenuity, succeeded in delivering his address in such a way as to technically escape the law and disappoint the preachers.
The SENTINEL, as our readers know, has not sympathy with Mr. Ingersoll’s attacks on the Bible, but we do demand for him the freedom of speech. The God of the Bible is well able to defend himself, and since he chooses to permit Mr. Ingersoll to express himself freely about the Bible, the preachers had better follow His example. And besides, who is to define what is blasphemy? Col. Ingersoll ridiculed the idea of an eternal burning hell in which sinners writhe in indescribable agony throughout the countless ages of eternity. Doubtless this would be regarded as blasphemy under the law, but if denying this dogma of the Church is regarded as blasphemy, then we would be regarded as blasphemous also, for we deny it, and deny that the Bible teaches it.
The early Christians were regarded as blasphemous because they declared that the gods of the heathen were no gods.
The State has no infallible tribunal by which to determine what is blasphemy, and is therefore not competent to pass upon the question. The preachers may decide for themselves, but let them not call upon the civil law to enforce their decision. We close with the remark that certain preachers, by their so-called higher criticism, are doing more to destroy faith in the Bible than are the lectures of Col. Ingersoll. [88]