The world has produced few wiser or better men than our American Socrates, Benjamin Franklin. While he lived he was loved and honored by all; when he died, two continents mourned as a child mourns the loss of a beloved father. Eagerly has the church striven to place to her credit the prestige of this wise and good man's name. But in vain; she cannot efface the oft-repeated declarations of his disbelief.
Franklin received a religious training, but his good sense and his humane nature forced him to rebel against the irrational and inhuman tenets of his parents' faith, and at an early age a spirit of skepticism was developed in him, as the following extracts from his Autobiography will show:
"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions,
and I received from my infancy a pious education in the
principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen
years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different
tenets, according as I found them combated in the different
books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself"
(Autobiography, p. 66).
"The time which I devoted to these exercises, and to
reading, was the evening after my day's labor was finished,
the morning before it began, and Sundays when I could escape
divine service. While I lived with my father, he had insisted
on my punctual attendance on public worship, and I still
indeed considered it as a duty, but a duty which I thought I
had no time to practice" (Ibid. P. 16).
"Charmed to a degree of enthusiasm with this mode of
disputing, I adopted it, and renouncing blunt contradictions,
and direct and positive argument, I assumed the character of
a humble questioner. The perusal of Shaftesbury and Collins
had made me a skeptic; and, being previously so as to many
doctrines of Christianity, I found Socrates' method to be both
the safest for myself, as well as the most embarrassing to
those against whom I applied it. It soon afforded me singular
pleasure; I incessantly practiced it; and became very adroit
in obtaining, even from persons of superior understanding,
concessions of which they did not foresee the consequence"
(Ibid, p. 17).
"I began to be regarded, by pious souls, with horror,
either as an apostate or an Atheist" (Ibid, p. 22).
"In Boston, in 1721, when the pulpit had marshaled Quakers and
witches to the gallows, one newspaper, the New England Courant, the
fourth American periodical, was established as an organ of
independent opinion, by James Franklin. Its temporary success was
advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice, a boy of fifteen,
who wrote pieces for its humble columns.
"The little sheet satirized hypocrisy and spoke of
religious knaves as of all knaves the worst. This was
described as tending 'to abuse the ministers of religion in a
manner which was intolerable.' 'I can well remember,' writes
Increase Mather, then more than four score years of age, 'when
the civil government would have taken an effectual course to
suppress such a cursed libel.' "The ministers persevered, and,
in January, 1723, a committee of inquiry was raised by the
legislature. Benjamin Franklin, being examined, escaped with
an admonition; James, the publisher, refusing to discover the
author of the offense, was kept in jail for a month; his paper
was censured as reflecting injuriously on the reverend
ministers of the gospel; and, by a vote of the House and
Council, he was forbidden to print it, 'except it be first
supervised.'"
"This man entered into a conversation with me while I
took some refreshment, and perceiving that I had read a
little, he expressed toward me considerable interest and
friendship. Our acquaintance continued during the remainder of
his life. I believe him to have been what is called an
itinerant doctor; for there was no town in England, or indeed
in Europe, of which he could not give a particular account. He
was neither deficient in understanding nor literature, but he
was a sad Infidel; and, some years after, wickedly undertook
to travesty the Bible, in burlesque verse, as Cotton has
travestied Virgil. He exhibited, by this means, many facts in
a very ludicrous point of view, which would have given umbrage
to weak minds, had this work been published, which it never
was" (Autobiography, p. 25).
In Philadelphia he was associated with a printer named Keimer. Referring to Keimer, he says:
"He formed so high an opinion of my talents for
refutation that he seriously proposed to me to become his
colleague in the establishment of a new religious sect. He was
to propagate the doctrine by preaching, and I to refute every
opponent.
"When he explained to me his tenets, I found many
absurdities which I refused to admit. ... Keimer wore his
beard long, because Moses had somewhere said, 'Thou shalt not
mar the corners of thy beard.' He likewise observed the
Sabbath; and these were with him two very essential points. I
disliked them both" (Autobiography, p. 40).
"Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were
said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's
Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect
precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for
the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be
refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation
itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist" (Ibid, p.
66).
"The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or
praise from us."
"I conceive, then, that the Infinite has created many
beings or gods vastly superior to man."
"It may be these created gods are immortals; or it may be that
after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places.
"Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceeding good
and very powerful; and that each has made for himself one
glorious sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable system
of planets.
"It is that particular wise and good God, who is the
author and owner of our system, that I propose for the object
of my praise and adoration" (Franklin's Works, Vol. ii., p.
2).
"The object was to prove, from the attributes of God, his
goodness, wisdom, and power, that there could be no such thing
as evil in the world; that vice and virtue did not in reality
exist, and were nothing more than vain distinctions. I no
longer regarded it as so blameless a work as I had formerly
imagined; and I suspected that some error must have
imperceptibly glided into my argument, by which all the
inferences I had drawn from it had been affected, as
frequently happens in metaphysical reasonings. In a word, I
was at last convinced that truth, probity, and sincerity in
transactions between man and man were of the utmost importance
to the happiness of life; and I resolved from that moment, and
wrote the resolution in my journal, to practice them as long
as I lived" (Autobiography, pp. 66, 67).
"Revelation, indeed, as such had no influence on my mind"
(Ibid, p. 67).
In a letter to the Rev. George Whitefield, written in 1753, when he was forty-seven years old, we have his opinion of Christianity:
"The faith you mention has doubtless its use in the
world. I do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I
desire to lessen it in any way; but I wish it were more
productive of good works than I have generally seen it. I mean
real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public
spirit, not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing, and reading,
performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled
with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men,
and much less capable of pleasing the Deity" (Works, Vol.
vii., p. 75).
"It is pity that good works, among some sorts of people,
are so little valued, and good words admired in their stead.
I mean seemingly pious discourses, instead of humane,
benevolent actions. These they almost put out of countenance
by calling morality, rotten morality; righteousness, ragged
righteousness, and even filthy rags, and when you mention
virtue, pucker up their noses; at the same time that they
eagerly snuff up an empty, canting harangue, as if it were a
posy of the choicest flowers" (Works, Vol. vii., p. 185).
"Improvement in religion is called building up and
edification. Faith is then the ground floor, hope is up one
pair of stairs. My dear beloved Jenny, don't delight so much
to dwell in those lower rooms, but get as fast as you can into
the garret; for in truth the best room in the house is
charity. For my part I wish the house was turned upside down"
(Ibid, p. 184).
"By heaven, we understand a state of happiness, infinite
in degree and eternal in duration. I can do nothing to deserve
such a reward. He that, for giving a draught of water to a
thirsty person, should expect to be paid with a good
plantation, would be modest in his demands compared with those
who think they deserve heaven for the little good they do on
earth. ... for my part, I have not the vanity to think I
deserve it, the folly to expect, or the ambition to desire it"
(Works, Vol. vii., p. 75).
"With regard to future bliss, I cannot help imagining
that multitudes of the zealously orthodox of different sects,
who at the last day may flock together in hopes of seeing each
other damned, will be disappointed, and obliged to rest
content With their own salvation" (Works, Vol. x., p. 366).
"When religious people quarrel about religion, or hungry
people about their victuals, it looks as if they had not much
of either about them" (Works, Vol. vii., p. 438).
"I agreed with you in sentiments concerning the Old
Testament, and thought the clause in our [Pennsylvania]
Constitution, which required the members of the Assembly to
declare their belief that the whole of it was given by divine
inspiration, had better have been omitted. That I had opposed
the clause; but, being overpowered by numbers, and fearing
more in future might be grafted on it, I prevailed to have the
additional clause, 'that no further or more extended
profession of faith should ever be exacted.' I observed to
you, too, that the evil of it was the less, as no inhabitant,
nor any officer of government, except the members of Assembly,
was obliged to make the declaration.
"So much for that letter; to which I may now add, that
there are several things in the Old Testament impossible to be
given by divine inspiration; such as the approbation ascribed
to the angel of the Lord of that abominably wicked and
detestable action of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. If
the rest of the book were like that, I should rather suppose
it given by inspiration from another quarter, and renounce the
whole" (Works, Vol. x., p. 134).
His opinion of the Fall of Man, the Atonement, and other Christian doctrines, may be inferred from an anecdote related by him in an essay which he wrote on the "Savages of North America."
"A Swedish minister having assembled the chiefs of the
Susquehanna Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them
with the principal historical facts on which our religion is
founded, such as the fall of our first parents by eating an
apple; the coming of Christ to repair the mischief; his
miracles and sufferings, etc. When he had finished, an Indian
orator stood up to thank him. 'What you have told us,' said
he, 'is all very good. It is indeed bad to eat apples. It is
better to make them all into cider. We are much obliged by
your kindness in coming so far to tell us those things which
you have heard from your mothers. In return, I will tell you
some of those which we have heard from ours. In the beginning,
our fathers had only the flesh of animals to subsist on; and
if their hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of
our young hunters having killed deer, made a fire in the woods
to broil some parts of it. When they were about to satisfy
their hunger, they beheld a beautiful young woman descend from
the clouds, and seat herself on that hill which you see yonder
among the blue mountains. They said to each other, it is a
spirit that perhaps has smelt our broiled venison and wishes
to eat of it; let us offer some to her. They presented her
with the tongue; she was pleased with the taste of it, and
said, 'Your kindness shall be rewarded. Come to this place
after thirteen moons, and you shall find something that will
be of a great benefit in nourishing you and your children to
the latest generations.' They did so and, to their surprise,
found plants they had never seen before; but which, from that
ancient time, have been constantly cultivated among us to our
great advantage. Where her right hand touched the ground they
found maize; where her left hand touched it they found kidney-
beans.' ... The good missionary, disgusted with this idle
tale, said, 'What I delivered to you were sacred truths; but
what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood.' The
Indian, offended, replied, 'My brother, it seems your friends
have not done you justice in your education; they have not
well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw
that we, who understand and practice these rules, believed all
your stories, why do you refuse to believe ours?'
In a letter to Dr. Price he had this to say of religions tests:
"I think they were invented not so much to secure religion as
the emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it
will support, itself; and when it does not support itself, and God
does not take care to support it, so that its professors are
obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I
apprehend, of its being a bad one, (Works, Vol. viii., p. 506).
Clerical conceit and arrogance receive the following merited rebuke from his pen:
"Nowadays we have scarcely a little parson that does not
think it the duty of every man within his reach to sit under
his petty ministration, and that whoever omits this offends
God. To such I wish more humility" (Works, Vol. vii., pp. 76,
77).
"If we look back into history for the character of the
present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not
in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of
persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution
extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one
another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed
persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the
Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into
the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New
England" (Works, Vol. ii., p. 112).
"Most sects in religion think themselves in possession of
all truth, and that whenever others differ from them, it is so
far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the
Pope, that 'the only difference in our two churches, in their
opinions of the certainty of their doctrines, is, the Romish
Church is infallible, and the Church of England never in the
wrong.'"
"He replied that, if I made that offer for Christ's sake
I should not miss of a reward. And I returned, 'Don't let me
be mistaken; it was not for Christ's sake, but for your sake."
One of our common acquaintances jocosely remarked that,
knowing it to be the custom of the saints, when they received
any favor, to shift the burden of obligation from off their
own shoulders and place it in heaven, I had contrived to fix
it on earth."
"My nephew, Mr. Williams, will have the honor of
delivering you this line. It is to request from you a list of
a few good books, to the value of about twenty-five pounds,
such as are most proper to insulate principles of sound
religion and just government. A new town in the state of
Massachusetts having done me the honor of naming itself after
me, and proposing to build a steeple to their meeting house if
I would give them a bell, I have advised the sparing
themselves the expense of a steeple, for the present, and that
they would accept of books instead of a bell, sense being
preferred to sound" (Works, Vol. x., p. 158).
At the age of eighty, in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan, of England, he paid the following tribute to the character of heretics:
"Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price, and to the
honest heretic Dr. Priestley. I do not call him honest by way
of distinction, for I think all the heretics I have known have
been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude, or they
could not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford
to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would
give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not, like
orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or
justify them. Do not, however, mistake me. It is not to my
good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the
contrary, 'tis his honesty that brought upon him the character
of a heretic" (Works, Vol. x., p. 365).
"The things of this world take up too much of my time, of
which indeed I have too little left, to undertake anything
like a reformation in religion" (Ibid, p. 323).
"He escaped the theology of terror, and became forever
incapable of worshiping a jealous, revengeful, and vindictive
God" (Life of Franklin, Vol. i., p. 71).
"In conversation with familiar friends he called himself
a Deist or Theist, and he resented a sentence in Mr.
Whitefield's journal which seemed to imply that between a
Deist and an Atheist there was little or no difference.
Whitefield wrote: 'M.B. is a Deist; I had almost said an
Atheist.' 'That is,' said Franklin, 'chalk, I had almost said
charcoal" (Ibid, Vol. i., p. 319).
Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of
the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he
ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we
render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul
of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in
another life respecting its conduct in this."
It is not improbable that Franklin had much to do with shaping the Deistic belief of Paine. Parton says:
"Paine was a resident of Philadelphia, a frequenter of
Franklin's house, and was as well aware as we are of Dr.
Franklin's religious opinions. Nor is there much in the
'Age of Reason'
to which Franklin would have refused to assent."
(Life of Franklin, Vol. ii., p. 553).
There was "found" in Franklin's handwriting, or in a handwriting resembling his, the draught of a letter advising against the publication of an anti-religious manuscript which had been submitted to the writer. To relieve a pressing want some enterprising Christian long afterward transformed this letter into a religious novelette, or tract, altering the language and affirming that it was written by Franklin to Paine for the purpose of dissuading him from publishing his "Age of Reason," the manuscript of which he was presumed to have sent to Franklin for his opinion. It was given the suggestive title "Don't Unchain the Tiger," and published as "A true story." In disproof of this story, the following facts may be cited:
Franklin's motion for prayers in the Constitutional Convention has been used as the basis for another clerical falsehood that has been presented to the eyes or ears of nearly every man, woman and child in the United States. We are told that, the Convention for a month opened its sessions without prayer, that at the end of this time nothing had been accomplished, it was in a state of confusion, and on the point of adjourning, when Franklin came forward, proposed that the sessions be opened with prayer, which was adopted, after which the work of the Convention was speedily and successfully performed. This is adduced as a striking proof of the efficacy of prayer. The fact is, there was not a prayer offered in the Convention from the time it convened until it closed. So nearly unanimous were the members in their opposition to Franklin's proposition that not even a vote was taken on it. Franklin himself, referring to it, says: "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary."
Reference may be made here to the oft-quoted Epitaph of Franklin. Regarding this the St. Louis Globe of May 7, 1893, says: "This was written by Franklin simply as a jest; it is not and never was on his gravestone."
The "New American Cyclopedia" contains the following relative to Franklin's religion: "Fault has been found with his religious character. He confesses that during a period of his life, before the age of twenty-one, he had been a thorough Deist; and it has been said that five weeks before his death he expressed a 'cold approbation' of the 'System of morals' of 'Jesus of Nazareth.'"
Johnson's "New Universal Cyclopedia" says: "In youth he was an avowed skeptic in religious matters and of somewhat loose morals, but his practical good sense enabled him to correct his way of living, and he in later life treated the Christian religion with reverence, though never avowing his faith in any religious system."
Sparks, though loth to admit that Franklin was not a Christian, says: "It is deeply to be regretted that he did not bestow more attention than he seems to have done on the evidences of Christianity" (Life of Franklin, p. 517).
The truth is, Franklin bestowed more attention on the evidences of Christianity than his Christian biographer is willing to concede. Had he bestowed less attention on these evidences Christianity might not be compelled to lose the prestige of his illustrious name.
Dr. Franklin and Dr. Priestley were intimate friends. Of Franklin, Priestley writes:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's
general good character and great influence should have been an
unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he
did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography, p.
60).
While in France, Franklin consorted chiefly with Freethinkers, among whom were Mirabeau, D'Holbach, D'Alembert, Buffon, and Condorcet. Respecting his religious belief, Parton classes him with Goethe, Schiller, Voltaire, Hume, and Jefferson, and says they would all have belonged to the same church.
John Hay, in a posthumous article on "Franklin in France," which appeal the Century for January, 1906, says:
"Franklin became the fashion of the season. For the court
itself dabbled a little in liberal ideas. So powerful was the
vast impulse of Freethought that then influenced the mind of
France -- that susceptible French mind, that always answers
like the wind harp to the breath of every true human
aspiration -- that even the highest classes had caught the
infection of liberalism."
Franklin and Voltaire, a short time before the death of the latter, met for the first time at a theater in Paris. On being introduced, they cordially shook hands. But this was not enough. Each then clasped the other in his arms, and for a moment held him in an affectionate embrace, It was not a mere formal meeting between two aged philosophers; a deeper significance attached to the interesting scene. It was the spontaneous outburst of kindred feelings and a common faith. It was the Deism of the New World, through its most illustrious representative. saluting that of the Old.
Theodore Parker, who made a study of Franklin's religious opinions, writes:
"If belief in the miraculous revelation of the Old
Testament and the New is required to make a man religious,
then Franklin had no religion at all. It would be an insult to
say that he believed in the popular theology of his time, or
of ours, for. I find not a line from his pen indicating any
such belief."
The Rev. Dr. Savage, of New York, in a sermon on Robert G. Ingersoll, said:
"His [Ingersoll's] ideas are very largely those of
Voltaire, of Gibbon, of Hume, of Thomas Paine, of Thomas
Jefferson, of Benjamin Franklin, and of a good many other of
our prominent Revolutionary heroes."
Such were the religious opinions of Franklin. The Christian may, with Dr. Priestley, lament that this learned man "should have been an unbeliever in Christianity," but notwithstanding his lamentations the fact remains. He may distort it, but he cannot disprove it. As Dr. Wilson said of Washington, so must it be said of Franklin -- "He was a Deist and nothing more."
According to the church, every person has at some period in his life been forced to acknowledge the genuineness of her dogmas. The more conservative Freethinkers she would have us believe live devoted Christian lives, while into the dying lips of the more radical ones she puts a recantation. Thus with consummate coolness she informs us that Jefferson , Washington, and Franklin procured their entire religious wardrobe at the Orthodox clothing emporium, and that even Paine was obliged to order his shroud from this establishment.
But these claims, unfounded as they are, must fall. These men were not believers. They were good and virtuous men, but not Christians. They were eminent and patriotic statesmen, but not "Christian statesmen." They had unbounded faith in humanity, but reposed very little in "our particular superstition." Morally and intellectually they were giants, and their large hearts and mighty brains yearned and grasped for something better, for a broader, holier faith than that professed by those around them. It would appear absurd for one to hold up the toys and garments of a child and say, "Behold the armor that Goliath wore!" and it is equally absurd for Christians to exhibit their dwarfish, senseless creeds and claim that these shrunken, threadbare robes were worn by the Fathers of our Republic.
To the realm of Freethought these characters belong. And they are not alone; they have illustrious company. Earth's noblest sons and daughters -- the brightest stars in the constellation of genius -- those who have added most to the riches of science, and literature, and statesmanship, -- Bruno, Spinoza, Galileo, and Descartes; Bacon and Newton; Humboldt and Darwin; Comte and Mill; Draper; Spencer, Tyndall, and Huxley; Haeckel and Helmholtz; Hume and Gibbon; Goethe and Schiller; Shakespeare, Pope, Byron, Burns, and Shelley; Rousseau, Voltaire, and Diderot; D'Alembert, Button, and Condorcet; Frederick and Bolingbroke; Volney; De Steel, Sand, Eliot, and Martineau; Strauss and Renan; Hugo. Carlyle, and Emerson; Lincoln and Sumner; Gambetta and Garibaldi; Bradlaugh and Castellar; our own loved Ingersoll -- these were all disbelievers in the Orthodox faith -- these have each borne the name of infidel, a word in which is concentrated all the hatred and scorn of Christendom. But these so-called Infidels have ever constituted the forlorn hope in the onward march of human progress, and this word, instead of a term of reproach, will become one of the grandest words in all the languages of men.