Trial of C. B. Reynolds For Blasphemy, at Morristown, N. J., May 1887: Defence

In Short

This volume presents the impassioned courtroom defense of C. B. Reynolds, a freethought lecturer prosecuted for blasphemy in 1887 New Jersey. Defended by the renowned orator Robert Green Ingersoll, Reynolds faced trial for distributing a pamphlet that challenged Christian dogma and satirized his experiences with religious mobs. The text serves as a brilliant, enduring argument for the absolute separation of church and state, framing the freedom of speech not merely as a legal right, but as the essential requirement for a civilized, honest, and truly moral society.

The Story

The conflict begins in the small towns of New Jersey, where C. B. Reynolds, an itinerant lecturer, attempts to share his views on religion. He is met not with debate, but with violence; in Boonton, his tent is destroyed by a mob while local authorities stand idly by. Undeterred, Reynolds moves to Morristown, where he distributes a pamphlet detailing his theological arguments and ridiculing the hostility he encountered. This act of intellectual defiance provides the basis for an indictment for blasphemy—a charge rooted in an archaic, dormant colonial-era statute.

The case moves to the courtroom, where Robert Green Ingersoll takes the floor to mount a defense that transcends the specific facts of the indictment. Ingersoll frames the trial as a collision between two irreconcilable worlds: the suffocating, tradition-bound past and the enlightened, free future. He systematically dissects the concept of "blasphemy," arguing that the term is merely a weapon used by the fearful majority to suppress the honest, intelligent minority. He contends that if it is a crime to criticize the Bible, then every missionary sent abroad to challenge other religions is, by the same logic, a criminal.

As the argument progresses, Ingersoll shifts the focus to the Constitution of New Jersey and the broader American tradition of free inquiry. He demonstrates that the statute in question contradicts the state’s own guarantees of religious and speech freedom. He highlights the absurdity of a legal system that treats the expression of a sincere, non-conforming thought as a crime while claiming to uphold a religion based on mercy. He challenges the jury to consider the historical record, reminding them that the progress of science, philosophy, and human rights has always required the courage to defy the narrow dogmas of the day.

Toward the conclusion, Ingersoll redefines the concept of "worship" itself. He argues that true religion is not found in the rote recitation of creeds or the enforcement of intolerant laws, but in honest labor, the nurturing of children, and the compassionate treatment of one’s neighbors. He calls upon the jury to reject the role of enforcer for an antique, "barbarous" law. Despite his soaring rhetoric and his appeal to the jury’s sense of justice and manhood, the legal machinery of the time prevails; the "religious farce," as described by the publisher, results in a conviction and a fine of twenty-five dollars. The trial ends, but the argument remains, preserved as a classic manifesto for intellectual liberty.

How It Unfolds

The catalyst for conflict The narrative establishes that Reynolds, a missionary of freethought, is targeted by mobs for his lectures. When he documents these attacks in a pamphlet, he is indicted, turning his local advocacy into a state-sanctioned criminal trial.

The constitutional challenge Ingersoll systematically argues that the blasphemy statute is incompatible with the Constitution of New Jersey. He highlights how the state’s own foundational documents guarantee the right to speak, write, and publish one's sentiments without government interference.

The comparison of faiths The defense draws a parallel between local Christians and the foreign missionaries they support. By noting that a missionary in Turkey would be protected by his own claims of truth while the same missionary would jail a visitor for doing the same in Morristown, Ingersoll exposes the hypocrisy of the prosecution.

The definition of true worship The argument moves from law to ethics, suggesting that real religion is demonstrated through acts of kindness and labor. By reframing "blasphemy" as the act of suppressing honest thought, Ingersoll forces the jury to confront the moral cost of their verdict.

The final appeal The trial culminates in a plea for the jury to stand on the side of human progress. Ingersoll asks them to deliver a verdict of "not guilty" as a message of freedom for the future.

The People

C. B. Reynolds acts as the catalyst, a persistent, principled lecturer who seeks only to engage in public discourse. He stands as a representative of the "freethought" movement, facing down the physical and legal threats of a community that prefers silence to argument.

Robert Green Ingersoll serves as the moral and intellectual force of the book. As the defense attorney, his primary goal is to shift the trial from a narrow question of blasphemy to a grand assertion of human rights. He is driven by a deep, almost religious, devotion to liberty, and he seeks to expose the "barbarism" inherent in laws that attempt to police the mind.

The Jury occupies the pivotal position in the narrative. They are tasked with deciding whether to uphold a dormant, antique statute or to recognize the evolving necessity of free speech. Ingersoll treats them as representatives of a modern, civilized society, attempting to guide them away from the "cowardice" of blind obedience to authority.

The Christian establishment is represented by the nameless entities who initiated the indictment. They appear as the champions of the status quo, relying on "brute force" and the "padlock" of the law to keep their religious doctrines shielded from the light of examination.

In Its Own Voice

"I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any church, of any State, to put a padlock on the lips—to make the tongue a convict."

Ingersoll introduces his core philosophy regarding the sanctity of individual expression.

"Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth."

This definition highlights the author's argument that religious intolerance is an attempt to stop the progress of knowledge.

"Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to stay in it."

Ingersoll asserts that ridicule is a valid and necessary tool when confronting ideas that lack logical or moral merit.

What It's Really About

At its core, this work is a defense of "intellectual hospitality"—the idea that a healthy society must tolerate and even embrace the existence of dissenting opinions. It challenges the legal and social mechanism that uses the power of the state to shield specific beliefs from critique. The underlying question is whether a society can claim to be free if it mandates silence on the most fundamental questions of existence. It posits that human progress is not the result of static adherence to ancient dogmas, but the product of constant, open, and sometimes painful debate. Ultimately, the book argues that truth does not need the protection of a prison cell; if an idea is sound, it will survive; if it is not, no amount of force can preserve it.

Why Read It Today

Readers who value the history of civil liberties will find this an essential, electrifying text. It reads like a transcript of a man fighting for the soul of his nation, and the rhythm of the prose is distinctly theatrical, reflecting the oratorical style of the nineteenth century. Those who appreciate the power of language used to dismantle authoritarianism will be captivated; Ingersoll’s ability to weave legal precedent with deep, humanist empathy is remarkable.

However, the reader should be prepared for the dense, period-specific style. The legal arguments are intertwined with extensive, sometimes repetitive, theological dissections that reflect the intellectual skirmishes of the 1880s. The tone is uncompromisingly combative, and the excerpts retain the occasional flashes of the period's social attitudes. While the specific legal statute discussed may be a relic of the past, the central tension—between the desire for a protected, uniform culture and the necessity of unfettered, disruptive speech—feels startlingly modern. It is a book for those who want to understand the high cost paid to secure the freedom to dissent, and it will leave you with a renewed, sharpened sense of why that liberty remains the most "inestimable gem" of a free society.