OCR Text |
Show One of Ingersoll's Maxims. THE writer was presented at a recent dinner party, when the conversation, conversa-tion, which at first was topical, vagrant and general, as such conversations conversa-tions invariably are, drifted at last into an animated discussion of Robert In-Sersoll In-Sersoll and his attitude toward Christianity, Chris-tianity, which protracted the dinner beyond be-yond the usual limit, but gave it relish and seasoning in the form of wit, humor hu-mor and sarcasm, which were freely and liberally indulged in. It is not our purpose to record the discussion here in detail, for, while it may be interesting, inter-esting, it may not be at the same time edifying, since we would not be sure that some personalities were not, however how-ever good-naturedly, indulged in. Suffice Suf-fice it to recall such portions only as will be instructive and edifying, as well as interesting, to our readers.' The conversation was at this time about matters of faith, and some one -rFv.iui.ajf, r.sKea: "nat do you think of Ingersoll's maxim, 'I believe as I must, not as I will'? is it true or is.it false?" One of the party-took' up the question with enthusiasm, en-thusiasm, immediately declared himself him-self in favor of the "maxim," and argued ar-gued his point at some length. His reasoning, on the whole was apparently plausible, until he spoiled it all by saj ing :"Let me illustrate my position by means of an example an example is the only thing that can bring the matter mat-ter tangibly before the mind: I believe in the law of abstinence on Fridays, not because .' -vlU, but because I must." This example was unfortunate, inasmuch inas-much as it was a matter of discipline rather than of faith, and it was accordingly accord-ingly "tabled" as being, in the language lan-guage of the law, "incompetent, irrelevant irre-levant and immaterial." Others at this point entered into the discussion and labored long and hard in the solution of the problem, but with as little," if not less, success-some success-some succeeding only in getting themselves them-selves into the front line, where they became the target for a volley of wit and sarcasm from Ihe opposition, and from which they emerged not much the hot ter, and certainly none the calmer, for the exeprience. Here the proposer of the problem, being a man of broad charity, as well as of sound logical acquirements, ac-quirements, put an end to the heated discussion by volunteering his own opinion. He, too, accepted the "maxim" "max-im" as true, and followed in substance the line of argument pursued by the first disputant, objecting only to his example. "You," said he, "were unhappy in your choice of an example, but here is one more to the point: Suppose you return from a visit to the city, where you read a dispatch at a newspaper office reporting a railroad rail-road accident, in .which my brother was killed. I believe it, not because I will, but because I must; or, in other words, I beleive it against my will." This seemed to satisfy all present, and with it ended the discussion and the dinner as-well. We judged then, as we do now, that this was a matter by no means unworthy? un-worthy? of notice, and hence Ave resolved re-solved at the first opportunity to devote some of our leisure hours to its careful study. We have since done so, and after due consideration we have come to the conclusion that the discussion at the dinner table was erratic on the whole, and that the principle or "maxim" "max-im" itself, is, under all circumstances, unphilosophic, false and absurd. ; '.. Ingersoll in; using these words: "I believe be-lieve as I' must, not as I will,"', was ; "playing , to the gallery," and .trifling . with the intelligence of his hearers and readers. In this he had an object, and ! this object was to show that faith destroys de-stroys freedom, and is therefore unreasonable; un-reasonable; that Christianity, as de- manding this faith jfrorn its adherents, is irrational and inhuman, and that all Christians are slaves. Now, faith is, as St. Paul tells us, "the evidence of things that 'appear not." It Is the acquiscence of the mind to a stated proposition on the evidence of competent authority testifying to its truth. ' Faith must be a human act, and Christian theology teaches that for every human acb three conditions are necessary, cognition or advertance of the intellect, volition,, and freedom of action for the will. Faith, therefore, in the Christian sense, can exist only when the intellect has recognised and accepted the article or dogma as true, and the will has given its consent without with-out coercion. And therefore again Christian faith does not mean "human slavery." Christian faith, to be of any avail, must come spontaneously. Faith is generated in this manner: A dogma, or article of faith, is proposed pro-posed to us; our intellect examines the authority, testi nionv and evidences on which the dogma or article is propounded pro-pounded and tests. If the authority, testimony and evidences are strong enough to convince the intellect of the truth of the dogma, it accepts it as true, and then submits it to the w 111 for Its approval. The will approves it; why? Because the object of the will is the "good" (bonum); and that which is true must also be good. The intellect proposes the truth, the will accepts it as good, and it becomes an act of faith. With this process fixed in the mind, it will be readily seen that the second example given in the discussion at the dinner table is false: "I believe my brother is dead, not because I will, but because I must." The "must" has reference ref-erence to the convincing nature of the evidence, and not to the act of the will. And when he added: "I believe it .against my will,: he did not mean it. He meant to say that he believed it against his wish or desire, but not "against his will," for he certainly must have "willed" to believe it first, or he would not have believed it at all. In like manner, all other examples of this kind can be shown to be false, and with them Ingersoll's maxim. |