goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule—priests and fools. they cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. it has been found the most potent form of argument. euclid used it in his immortal geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? elijah used it against the priests of baal. the christian fathers found it effective against the pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by lucian and celsus. ridicule has been used by bruno, erasmus, luther, rabelais, swift, and voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind.

all these men used it for a serious purpose. they were not comedians who amused the public for pence. they wielded ridicule as a keen rapier, more swift and fatal than the heaviest battle-axe. terrible as was the levin-brand of their denunciation, it was less dreaded than the greek fire of their sarcasm. i repeat that they were men of serious aims, and indeed how could they have been otherwise? all true and lasting wit is founded on a basis of seriousness; or else, as heine said, it is nothing but a sneeze of the reason. hood felt the same thing when he proposed for his epitaph: "here lies one who made more puns, and spat more blood, than any other man of his time."

buckle well says, in his fine vindication of voltaire, that he "used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the scourge of folly." and he adds—

"his irony, his wit, his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the gravest arguments could have done; and there can be no doubt that he was fully justified in using those great resources with which nature had endowed him, since by their aid he advanced the interests of truth, and relieved men from some of their most inveterate prejudices."

victor hugo puts it much better in his grandiose way, when he says of voltaire that "he was irony incarnate for the salvation of mankind."

voltaire's opponents, as buckle points out, had a foolish reverence for antiquity, and they were impervious to reason. to compare great things with small, our opponents are of the same character. grave argument is lost upon them; it runs off them like water from a duck. when we approach the mysteries of their faith in a spirit of reverence, we yield them half the battle. we must concede them nothing. what they call reverence is only conventional prejudice. it must be stripped away from the subject, and if argument will not remove the veil, ridicule will. away with the insane notion that absurdity is reverend because it is ancient! if it is thousands of years old, treat it exactly as if it were told the first time to-day. science recognises nothing in space and time to invalidate the laws of nature. they prevailed in the past as well as in the present, in jerusalem as well as in london. that is how science regards everything; and at bottom science and common-sense are one and the same.

professor huxley, in his admirable little book on hume, after pointing out the improbability of centaurs, says that judged by the canons of science all "miracles" are centaurs. he also considers what would happen if he were told by the greatest anatomist of the age that he had seen a centaur. he admits that the weight of such authority would stagger him, but it would scarcely make him believe. "i could get no further," says huxley, "than a suspension of judgment."

now i venture to say that if johannes müller had told huxley any such thing, he would have at once concluded that the great anatomist was joking or suffering from hallucination. as a matter of fact trained investigators do not see these incredible monstrosities, and huxley's hypothetical case goes far beyond every attested miracle. but i do say that if johannes muller, or anyone else, alleged that he had seen a centaur, huxley would never think of investigating the absurdity.

yet the allegation of, a great anatomist on such a matter is infinitely more plausible than any miraculous story of the christian religion. the "centaurs" of faith were seen centuries ago by superstitious people; and what is more, the relation of them was never made by the witnesses, but always by other people, who generally lived a few generations at least after the time.

what on earth are we to do with people who believe in "centaurs" on such evidence, who make laws to protect their superstition, and appoint priests at the public cost to teach the "centaur" science? the way to answer this question is to ask another. how should we treat people who believed that centaurs could be seen now? why, of course, we should laugh at them.

and that is how we should treat people who believe that men-horses ever existed at all.

does anybody ask that i shall seriously discuss whether an old woman with a divining-rod can detect hidden treasures; whether mr. home floated in the air or mrs. guppy sailed from house to house; whether cripples are cured at lourdes or all manner of diseases at winifred's well? must i patiently reason with a man who tells me that he saw water turned into wine, or a few loaves and fishes turned into a feast for multitudes, or dead men rise up from their graves? surely not. i do what every sensible man does. i recognise no obligation to reason with such hallucinate mortals; i simply treat them with ridicule.

so with the past. its delusions are no more entitled to respect than those of to-day. jesus christ as a miracle-worker is just as absurd as any modern pretender. whether in the bible, the koran, the arabian nights, monte christo, or baron munchausen, a tremendous "walker" is the fit subject of a good laugh. and freethinkers mean to enjoy their laugh, as some consolation for the wickedness of superstition. the christian faith is such that it makes us laugh or cry. are we wrong in preferring to laugh?

there is an old story of a man who was plagued by the devil. the fiend was always dropping in at inconvenient times, and making the poor fellow's life a hell on earth. he sprinkled holy water on the floor, but by-and-bye the "old 'un" hopped about successfully on the dry spots. he flung things at him, but all in vain. at last he resolved on desperate measures. he plucked up his courage, looked the devil straight in the face, and laughed at him. that ended the battle. the devil could not stand laughter. he fled that moment and never returned.

superstition is the devil. treat him to a hearty wholesome laugh. it is the surest exorcism, and you will find laughter medicinal for mind and body too. ridicule, and again ridicule, and ever ridicule!