CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.SIX INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.(1882.)Preface—First Interview: Great Men as Witnessesto the Truth of the Gospel—No man should quotethe Words of Another unless he is willing toAccept all the Opinions of that Man—Reasons ofmore Weight than Reputations—Would a generalAcceptance of Unbelief fill the Penitentiaries?—My Creed—Most Criminals Orthodox—Relig-ion andMorality not Necessarily Associates—On theCreation of the Universe out of Omnipotence—Mr.Talmage's Theory about the Pro-duction of Lightprior to the Creation of the Sun—The Deluge andthe Ark—Mr. Talmage's tendency to Belittle theBible Miracles—His Chemical, Geological, andAgricultural Views—His Disregard of Good Manners--Second Interview: An Insulting Text—God's Designin Creating Guiteau to be the Assassin ofGarfield—Mr. Talmage brings the Charge ofBlasphemy—Some Real Blasphemers—The TabernaclePastor tells the exact Opposite of the Truth aboutCol. Ingersoll's Attitude toward the Circulationof Immoral Books—"Assassinating" God—Mr.Talmage finds Nearly All the Invention of ModernTimes Mentioned in the Bible—The ReverendGentleman corrects the Translators of the Bible inthe Matter of the Rib Story—Denies that Polygamyis permitted by the Old Testament—His De-fence ofQueen Victoria and Violation of the Grave ofGeorge Eliot—Exhibits a Christian Spirit—ThirdInterview: Mr. Talmage's Partiality in theBestowal of his Love—Denies the Right of Laymento Examine the Scriptures—Thinks the InfidelsVictims of Bibliophobia —He explains the Stoppingof the Sun and Moon at the Command of Joshua—Instances a Dark Day in the Early Part of theCentury—Charges that Holy Things are Made Lightof—Reaffirms his Confidence in the Whale andJonah Story—The Commandment which Forbids themaking of Graven Images—Affirmation that theBible is the Friend of Woman—The PresentCondition of Woman—Fourth Interview: ColonelIngersoll Compared by Mr. Talmage tojehoiakim, whoConsigned Writings of Jeremiah to the Flames—AnIntimation that Infidels wish to have all copiesof the Bible Destroyed by Fire—LaughterDeprecated—Col. Ingersoll Accused of Denouncinghis Father—Mr. Talmage holds that a Man may bePerfectly Happy in Heaven with His Mother in Hell--Challenges the Infidel to Read a Chapter from St.John—On the "Chief Solace of the World"—Dis-covers an Attempt is being made to Put Out theLight-houses of the Farther Shore—Affirms ourDebt to Christianity for Schools, Hospitals,etc.—Denies that Infidels have ever Done anyGood—Fifth Interview: Inquiries if Men gather Grapes ofThorns, or Figs of Thistles, and is Answered inthe Negative—Resents the Charge that the Bible isa Cruel Book—Demands to Know where the Cruelty ofthe Bible Crops out in the Lives of Christians—Col. Ingersoll Accused of saying that the Bibleis a Collection of Polluted Writings—Mr. TalmageAsserts the Orchestral Harmony of the Scripturesfrom Genesis to Revelation, and Repudiates theTheory of Contradictions—His View of MankindIndicated in Quotations from his Confession ofFaith—He Insists that the Bible is Scientific—Traces the New Testament to its Source with St.John—Pledges his Word that no Man ever Died for aLie Cheerfully and Triumphantly—As to Propheciesand Predictions—Alleged "Prophetic" Fate of theJewish People—Sixth Interview: Dr. Talmage takesthe Ground that the Unrivalled Circulation of theBible Proves that it is Inspired—Forgets' that aScientific Fact does not depend on the Vote ofNumbers—Names some Christian Millions—HisArguments Characterized as the Poor-est, Weakest,and Best Possible in Support of the Doctrine ofInspira-tion—Will God, in Judging a Man, takeinto Consideration the Cir-cumstances of thatMan's Life?—Satisfactory Reasons for Not Believ-ing that the Bible is inspired.THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.The Pith and Marrow of what Mr. Talmage has beenPleased to Say, set forth in the form of a ShorterCatechism.A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.(1877.)Letter to the New York Observer—An Offer to PayOne Thousand Dollars in Gold for Proof that ThomasPaine or Voltaire Died in Terror because of anyReligious Opinions Either had Expressed—Proposition to Create a Tribunal to Hear theEvidence—The Ob-server, after having Called uponCol. Ingersoll to Deposit the Money, andCharacterized his Talk as "Infidel 'Buncombe,'"Denies its Own Words, but attempts to Prove them—Its Memory Refreshed by Col. Ingersoll and theSlander Refuted—Proof that Paine did Not Recant --Testimony of Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton, Mr.Jarvis, B. F. Has-kin, Dr. Manley, AmasaWoodsworth, Gilbert Vale, Philip Graves, M. D.,Willet Hicks, A. C. Hankinson, John Hogeboom, W.J. Hilton, Tames Cheetham, Revs. Milledollar andCunningham, Mrs. Hedden, Andrew A. Dean, WilliamCarver,—The Statements of Mary Roscoe and MaryHindsdale Examined—William Cobbett's Account of aCall upon Mary Hinsdale—Did Thomas Paine live theLife of a Drunken Beast, and did he Die a Drunken,Cowardly, and Beastly Death?—Grant Thorbum'sCharges Examined—Statement of the Rev. J. D.Wickham, D.D., shown to be Utterly False—FalseWitness of the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D.—W. H.Ladd, James Cheetham, and Mary Hinsdale—Paine'sNote to Cheetham—Mr-Staple, Mr. Purdy, Col. JohnFellows, James Wilburn, Walter Morton, ClioRickman, Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer,Mr.XVLovett, all these Testified that Paine was aTemperate Man—Washington's Letter to Paine—Thomas Jefferson's—Adams and Washing-ton on"Common Sense"—-James Monroe's Tribute—Quotations from Paine—Paine's Estate and HisWill—The Observer's Second Attack (p. 492):Statements of Elkana Watson, William Carver, Rev.E. F. Hatfield, D.D., James Cheetham, Dr. J. W.Francis, Dr. Manley, Bishop Fenwick—Ingersoll'sSecond Reply (p. 516): Testimony Garbled by theEditor of the Observer—Mary Roscoeand Mary Hins-dale the Same Person—Her Reputation for Veracity--Letter from Rev. A. W. Cornell—Grant ThorburnExposed by James Parton—The Observer's Admissionthat Paine did not Recant—Affidavit ofWilliam B. Barnes.PREFACESEVERAL people, having read the sermons ofMr. Talmage in which he reviews some of mylectures, have advised me not to pay the slightestattention to the Brooklyn divine. They think thatno new arguments have been brought forward, andthey have even gone so far as to say that some ofthe best of the old ones have been left out.After thinking the matter over, I became satisfiedthat my friends were mistaken, that they had been car-ried away by the general current of modern thought,and were not in a frame of mind to feel the forceof the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly seethe candor that characterizes his utterances.At the first reading, the logic of these sermons doesnot impress you. The style is of a character calculatedVIto throw the searcher after facts and arguments offhis guard. The imagination of the preacher is solurid; he is so free from the ordinary forms of ex-pression; his statements are so much stranger thantruth, and his conclusions so utterly independent ofhis premises, that the reader is too astonished tobe convinced. Not until I had read with great carethe six discourses delivered for my benefit had I anyclear and well-defined idea of the logical force ofMr. Talmage. I had but little conception of hiscandor, was almost totally ignorant of his power torender the simple complex and the plain obscure bythe mutilation of metaphor and the incoherenceof inspired declamation. Neither did I know thegenerous accuracy with which he states the positionof an opponent, and the fairness he exhibits in areligious discussion.He has without doubt studied the Bible as closelyand critically as he has the works of Buckle andDarwin, and he seems to have paid as much attentionto scientific subjects as most theologians. His theoryof light and his views upon geology are strikinglyoriginal, and his astronomical theories are certainly asprofound as practical. If his statements can be reliedupon, he has successfully refuted the teachings ofVIIHumboldt and Haeckel, and exploded the blunders ofSpencer and Tyndall. Besides all this, he has thecourage of his convictions—he does not quail before afact, and he does not strike his colors even to a dem-onstration. He cares nothing for human experience.He cannot be put down with statistics, nor drivenfrom his position by the certainties of science. Hecares neither for the persistence of force, nor theindestructibility of matter.He believes in the Bible, and he has the braveryto defend his belief. In this, he proudly standsalmost alone. He knows that the salvation of theworld depends upon a belief in his creed. Heknows that what are called "the sciences" are ofno importance in the other world. He clearly seesthat it is better to live and die ignorant here, if youcan wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows itis useless to be perfectly familiar with all the sciencesin this world, and then in the next "lift up your eyes,being in torment." He knows, too, that God willnot punish any man for denying a fact in science.A man can deny the rotundity of the earth, theattraction of gravitation, the form of the earths orbit,or the nebular hypothesis, with perfect impunity.He is not bound to be correct upon any philo-VIIIsophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridi-cule the rule of three, conic sections, and even themultiplication table. God permits every humanbeing to be mistaken upon every subject but one.No man can lose his soul by denying physical facts.Jehovah does not take the slightest pride in his geology,or in his astronomy, or in mathematics, or inany school of philosophy—he is jealous only of hisreputation as the author of the Bible. You may denyeverything else in the universe except that book.This being so, Mr. Talmage takes the safe side, andinsists that the Bible is inspired. He knows that atthe day of judgment, not a scientific question will beasked. He knows that the Hæckels and Huxleyswill, on that terrible day, regret that they everlearned to read. He knows that there is no "savinggrace" in any department of human knowledge; thatmathematics and all the exact sciences and all thephilosophies will be worse than useless. He knowsthat inventors, discoverers, thinkers and investigators,have no claim upon the mercy of Jehovah; that theeducated will envy the ignorant, and that the writersand thinkers will curse their books.He knows that man cannot be saved throughwhat he knows—but only by means of what heIXbelieves. Theology is not a science. If it were,God would forgive his children for being mistakenabout it. If it could be proved like geology, orastronomy, there would be no merit in believing it.From a belief in the Bible, Mr. Talmage is not to bedriven by uninspired evidence. He knows that hislogic is liable to lead him astray, and that his reasoncannot be depended upon. He believes that scien-tific men are no authority in matters concerningwhich nothing can be known, and he does not wishto put his soul in peril, by examining by the light ofreason, the evidences of the supernatural.He is perfectly consistent with his creed. Whathappens to us here is of no consequence comparedwith eternal joy or pain. The ambitions, honors,glories and triumphs of this world, compared witheternal things, are less than naught.Better a cross here and a crown there, than a feasthere and a fire there.Lazarus was far more fortunate than Dives. Thepurple and fine linen of this short life are as nothingcompared with the robes of the redeemed.Mr. Talmage knows that philosophy is unsafe—that the sciences are sirens luring souls to eternalwreck. He knows that the deluded searchers afterXfacts are planting thorns in their own pillows—thatthe geologists are digging pits for themselves, andthat the astronomers are robbing their souls of theheaven they explore. He knows that thought, capa-city, and intellectual courage are dangerous, and thisbelief gives him a feeling of personal security.The Bible is adapted to the world as it is. Mostpeople are ignorant, and but few have the capacity tocomprehend philosophical and scientific subjects, andif salvation depended upon understanding even oneof the sciences, nearly everybody would be lost.Mr. Talmage sees that it was exceedingly merciful inGod to base salvation on belief instead of on brain.Millions can believe, while only a few can understand.Even the effort to understand is a kind of treasonborn of pride and ingratitude. This being so, it is farsafer, far better, to be credulous than critical. You areoffered an infinite reward for believing the Bible. Ifyou examine it you may find it impossible for you tobelieve it. Consequently, examination is dangerous.Mr. Talmage knows that it is not necessary to under-stand the Bible in order to believe it. You must be-lieve it first. Then, if on reading it you find anythingthat appears false, absurd, or impossible, you maybe sure that it is only an appearance, and that the realXIfault is in yourself. It is certain that persons whollyincapable of reasoning are absolutely safe, and thatto be born brainless is to be saved in advance.Mr. Talmage takes the ground,—and certainly fromhis point of view nothing can be more reasonable—that thought should be avoided, after one has"experienced religion" and has been the subject of"regeneration." Every sinner should listen to ser-mons, read religious books, and keep thinking, untilhe becomes a Christian. Then he should stop. Afterthat, thinking is not the road to heaven. The realpoint and the real difficulty is to stop thinking just atthe right time. Young Christians, who have no ideaof what they are doing, often go on thinking afterjoining the church, and in this way heresy is born, andheresy is often the father of infidelity. If Christianswould follow the advice and example of Mr. Talmageall disagreements about doctrine would be avoided.In this way the church could secure absolute in-tellectual peace and all the disputes, heartburnings,jealousies and hatreds born of thought, discussionand reasoning, would be impossible.In the estimation of Mr. Talmage, the man whodoubts and examines is not fit for the society ofangels. There are no disputes, no discussions inXIIheaven. The angels do not think; they believe,they enjoy. The highest form of religion is re-pression. We should conquer the passions anddestroy desire. We should control the mind andstop thinking. In this way we "offer ourselves a"living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." Whendesire dies, when thought ceases, we shall be pure.—This is heaven.Robert G. Ingersoll.Washington, D. C,April; 1882.INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.FIRST INTERVIEW.Polonius. My lord, I will use them according totheir desert.Hamlet. God's bodikins, man, much better: useevery man after his desert, and who should 'scapewhipping? Use them after your own honor anddignity: the less they deserve, the more merit isin your bounty.Question. Have you read the sermon ofMr. Talmage, in which he exposes your mis-representations?Answer. I have read such reports as appeared insome of the New York papers.Question. What do you think of what he hasto say?Answer. Some time ago I gave it as my opinionof Mr. Talmage that, while he was a man of mostexcellent judgment, he was somewhat deficient inimagination. I find that he has the disease that seems16to afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intel-lectual toadyism, that uses the names of supposed greatmen instead of arguments. It is perfectly astonishingto the average preacher that any one should have thetemerity to differ, on the subject of theology, withAndrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and other gentlemeneminent for piety during their lives, but who,as a rule, expressed their theological opinions a fewminutes before dissolution. These ministers are per-fectly delighted to have some great politician, somejudge, soldier, or president, certify to the truth of theBible and to the moral character of Jesus Christ.Mr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in oneparticular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.Daniel Webster was in favor of the Fugitive SlaveLaw, and thought it the duty of the North to capturethe poor slave-mother. He was willing to standbetween a human being and his freedom. He waswilling to assist in compelling persons to work withoutany pay except such marks of the lash as they mightreceive. Yet this man is brought forward as a witnessfor the truth of the gospel. If he was false in histestimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth asto the value of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was abrave man, a good general, a patriot second to none,17an excellent judge of horses, and a brave duelist. Iadmit that in his old age he relied considerably uponthe atonement. I think Jackson was really a very greatman, and probably no President impressed himselfmore deeply upon the American people than the heroof New Orleans, but as a theologian he was, in myjudgment, a most decided failure, and his opinion asto the authenticity of the Scriptures is of no earthlyvalue. It was a subject upon which he knew probablyas little as Mr. Talmage does about modern infidelity.Thousands of people will quote Jackson in favor ofreligion, about which he knew nothing, and yet haveno confidence in his political opinions, although hedevoted the best part of his life to politics.No man should quote the words of another, in placeof an argument, unless he is willing to accept all theopinions of that man. Lord Bacon denied the Copernicansystem of astronomy, and, according to Mr.Talmage, having made that mistake, his opinions uponother subjects are equally worthless. Mr. Wesleybelieved in ghosts, witches, and personal devils, yetupon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions werecorrect. The truth is, that nearly everybody is rightabout some things and wrong about most things; andif a man's testimony is not to be taken until he is18right on every subject, witnesses will be extremelyscarce.Personally, I care nothing about names. It makesno difference to me what the supposed great men ofthe past have said, except as what they have saidcontains an argument; and that argument is worth tome the force it naturally has upon my mind. Chris-tians forget that in the realm of reason there are noserfs and no monarchs. When you submit to anargument, you do not submit to the man who made it.Christianity demands a certain obedience, a certainblind, unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyesof the ignorant, with great pomp and pride, the namesof kings, soldiers, and statesmen who have admittedthe truth of the Bible. Mr. Talmage introduces as awitness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This same The-odore Parker denounced the Presbyterian creed asthe most infamous of all creeds, and said that the worstheathen god, wearing a necklace of live snakes, was arepresentation of mercy when compared with the Godof John Calvin. Now, if this witness is false in anyparticular, of course he cannot be believed, accordingto Mr. Talmage, upon any subject, and yet Mr.Talmage introduces him upon the stand as a goodwitness.19Although I care but little for names, still I will sug-gest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more uponthis subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-tainly would have as much confidence in the opinionof Goethe as in that of William H. Seward; and asbetween Seward and Lincoln, I should take Lincoln;and when you come to Presidents, for my part, if Iwere compelled to pin my faith on the sleeve of any-body, I should take Jefferson's coat in preference toJackson's. I believe that Haeckel is, to say the least,the equal of any theologian we have in this country,and the late John W. Draper certainly knew as muchupon these great questions as the average parson. Ibelieve that Darwin has investigated some of thesethings, that Tyndall and Huxley have turned theirminds somewhat in the same direction, that Helmholtzhas a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able,intelligent and honest men differ almost entirely withWebster and Jackson.So far as I am concerned, I think more of reasonsthan of reputations, more of principles than of persons,more of nature than of names, more of facts, than offaiths.It is the same with books as with persons. Proba-bly there is not a book in the world entirely destitute20of truth, and not one entirely exempt from error.The Bible is like other books. There are mistakes init, side by side with truths,—passages inculcatingmurder, and others exalting mercy; laws devilish andtyrannical, and others filled with wisdom and justice.It is foolish to say that if you accept a part, you mustaccept the whole. You must accept that which com-mends itself to your heart and brain. There never wasa doctrine that a witness, or a book, should be thrownentirely away, because false in one particular. If inany particular the book, or the man, tells the truth, tothat extent the truth should be accepted.Truth is made no worse by the one who tells it,and a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of itsauthor.Question. What do you think of the statementthat a general belief in your teachings would fill allthe penitentiaries, and that in twenty years therewould be a hell in this world worse than the oneexpected in the other?Answer. My creed is this:1. Happiness is the only good.2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.21Other things being equal, that man is happiest who isnearest just—who is truthful, merciful and intelligent—in other words, the one who lives in accordance withthe conditions of life.3. The time to be happy is now, and the place tobe happy, is here.4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torchof progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-pending upon darkness and dogma, it is far better toincrease that sacred light.5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietorof himself, honest with himself, and intellectuallyhospitable; and upon every brain reason should beenthroned as king.6. Every man must bear the consequences, atleast of his own actions. If he puts his hands inthe fire, his hands must smart, and not the hands ofanother. In other words: each man must eat thefruit of the tree he plants.I can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-trines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.The doctrine of forgiveness—the idea that somebodyelse can suffer in place of the guilty—the notion thatjust at the last the whole account can be settled—these ideas, doctrines, and notions are calculated to fill22penitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like thecredit system.Most criminals of the present day are orthodox be-lievers, and the gallows seems to be the last round ofthe ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Rev.Dr. Sunderland, of this city, in his sermon on the assas-sination of Garfield, takes the ground that God per-mitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyesof the people to the evil effects of infidelity. Accord-ing to this minister, God, in order to show his hatredof infidelity, "inspired," or allowed, one Christian toassassinate another.Religion and morality do not necessarily go together.Mr. Talmage will insist to-day that morality is notsufficient to save any man from eternal punishment.As a matter of fact, religion has often been the enemyof morality. The moralist has been denounced by thetheologians. He sustains the same relation to Chris-tianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-abstinence society. The total-abstinence people saythat the example of the moderate drinker is far worseupon the young than that of the drunkard—that thedrunkard is a warning, while the moderate drinker isa perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moral-ists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse23example than the criminal. The moralist not only in-sists that a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,an affectionate father, without religion, but demon-strates the truth of his doctrine by his own life;whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself heis nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needsassistance from the church and its ministers.The worst criminals of the modern world have beenChristians—I mean by that, believers in Christianity—and the most monstrous crimes of the modern worldhave been committed by the most zealous believers.There is nothing in orthodox religion, apart from themorality it teaches, to prevent the commission oF crime.On the other hand, the perpetual proffer of forgivenessis a direct premium upon what Christians are pleasedto call the commission of sin.Christianity has produced no greater character thanEpictetus, no greater sovereign than Marcus Aurelius.The wickedness of the past was a good deal like thatof the present. As a rule, kings have been wicked indirect proportion to their power—their power havingbeen lessened, their crimes have decreased. As amatter of fact, paganism, of itself, did not produce anygreat men; neither has Christianity. Millions of in-fluences determine individual character, and the re-24ligion of the country in which a man happens to beborn may determine many of his opinions, withoutinfluencing, to any great extent, his real character.There have been brave, honest, and intelligent menin and out of every church.Question. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that,according to the Bible, the universe was made out ofnothing, and he denounces your statement as a grossmisrepresentation. What have you stated upon thatsubject?Answer. What I said was substantially this: "We"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the"beginning God created the heaven and the earth."If this means anything, it means that God pro-"duced—caused to exist, called into being—the"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that"God formed the heaven and the earth of previously"existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to"convey, the idea that the matter of which the"universe is composed was created."This has always been my position. I did not sup-pose that nothing was used as the raw material; butif the Mosaic account means anything, it means thatwhereas there was nothing, God caused something to25exist—created what we know as matter. I can notconceive of something being made, created, withoutanything to make anything with. I have no moreconfidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat money.Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni-verse out ofnothing, but out of "omnipotence."Exactly how God changed "omnipotence" into matteris not stated. If there wasnothingin the universe,omnipotencecould do you no good. The weakest manin the world can lift as muchnothingas God.Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create somethingfrom nothing is simply a question of strength—that itrequires infinite muscle—that it is only a question ofbiceps. Of course, omnipotence is an attribute, not anentity, not a raw material; and the idea that somethingcan be made out of omnipotence—using that as theraw material—is infinitely absurd. It would havebeen equally logical to say that God made the universeout of his omniscience, or his omnipresence, or hisunchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his holiness,or his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in-ability to understand, or even to suspect, what thereverend gentleman means, when he says that Godcreated the universe out of his "omnipotence."I admit that the Bible does not tell when God created26the universe. It is simply said that he did this "in thebeginning." We are left, however, to infer that "thebeginning" was Monday morning, and that on thefirst Monday God created the matter in an exceedinglychaotic state; that on Tuesday he made a firmamentto divide the waters from the waters; that on Wednes-day he gathered the waters together in seas andallowed the dry land to appear. We are also told thaton that day "the earth brought forth grass and herb"yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding"fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind." Thiswas before the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmagetakes the ground that there are many other sources oflight; that "there may have been volcanoes in activeoperation on other planets." I have my doubts,however, about the light of volcanoes being sufficientto produce or sustain vegetable life, and think it alittle doubtful about trees growing only by "volcanicglare." Neither do I think one could depend upon"three thousand miles of liquid granite" for the pro-duction of grass and trees, nor upon "light that rocksmight emit in the process of crystallization." I doubtwhether trees would succeed simply with the assistanceof the "Aurora Borealis or the Aurora Australis."There are other sources of light, not mentioned by27Mr. Talmage—lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles,and fox-fire. I should think that it would be humili-ating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to insistthat vegetation could exist upon this planet without thelight of the sun—that trees could grow, blossom andbear fruit, having no light but the flames of volcanoes,or that emitted by liquid granite, or thrown off by thecrystallization of rocks.There is another thing, also, that should not be for-gotten, and that is, that there is an even balance for-ever kept between the totals of animal and vegetablelife—that certain forms of animal life go with certainforms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel has shown that"in the first epoch, algæ and skull-less vertebrateswere found together; in the second, ferns and fishes;in the third, pines and reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceousforests and mammals." Vegetable and animallife sustain a necessary relation; they exist together;they act and interact, and each depends upon the other.The real point of difference between Mr. Talmage andmyself is this: He says that God made the universeout of his "omnipotence," and I say that, although Iknow nothing whatever upon the subject, my opinionis, that the universe has existed from eternity—that itcontinually changes in form, but that it never was28created or called into being by any power. I thinkthat all that is, is all the God there is.Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with havingmisrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has hecorrectly stated your position?Answer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that theflood was only partial, and was, after all, not much of aflood. The Bible tells us that God said he would"destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from"under heaven, and that everything that is in the"earth shall die;" that God also said: "I will destroy"man, whom I have created, from the face of the"earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing"and the fowls of the air, and every living substance"that I have made will I destroy from off the face of"the earth."I did not suppose that there was any miracle in theBible larger than the credulity of Mr. Talmage. Theflood story, however, seems to be a little more thanhe can bear. He is like the witness who stated thathe had readGullivers Travels, theStories of Mun-chausen, and theFlying Wife, includingRobinsonCrusoe, and believed them all; but that Wirt'sLife ofPatrick Henrywas a litde more than he could stand.29It is strange that a man who believes that Godcreated the universe out of "omnipotence" shouldbelieve that he had not enough omnipotence left todrown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage seeksto make the story of the flood reasonable. Themoment it is reasonable, it ceases to be miraculous.Certainly God cannot afford to reward a man witheternal joy for believing a reasonable story. Faith isonly necessary when the story is unreasonable, and ifthe flood only gets small enough, I can believe itmyself. I ask for evidence, and Mr. Talmage seeksto make the story so little that it can be believedwithout evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of"local option" flood—a little wet for that part of thecountry.Why was it necessary to save the birds? Theycertainly could have gotten out of the way of a realsmall flood. Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of eachspecies. He was commanded to take of the fowls of theair by sevens—seven of each sex—and, as there areat least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary ofabout 175,000 birds, provided the flood was general.If it was local, there are no means of determining thenumber. But why, if the flood was local, should hehave taken any of the fowls of the air into his ark?30All they had to do was to fly away, or "roost high;"and it would have been just as easy for God to haveimplanted in them, for the moment, the instinct ofgetting out of the way as the instinct of hunting the ark.It would have been quite a saving of room and pro-visions, and would have materially lessened the laborand anxiety of Noah and his sons.Besides, if it had been a partial flood, and greatenough to cover the highest mountains in that country,the highest mountain being about seventeen thousandfeet, the flood would have been covered with a sheetof ice several thousand feet in thickness. If a columnof water could have been thrown seventeen thousandfeet high and kept stationary, several thousand feetof the upper end would have frozen. If, however,the deluge was general, then the atmosphere wouldhave been forced out the same on all sides, and theclimate remained substantially normal.Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt toexplain the flood by calling it partial.Mr. Talmage also says that the window ran clearround the ark, and that if I had only known as muchHebrew as a man could put on his little finger, Iwould have known that the window went clear round.To this I reply that, if his position is correct, then the31original translators of King James' edition did notknow as much Hebrew as they could have put ontheir little fingers; and yet I am obliged to believetheir translation or be eternally damned. If thewindow went clear round, the inspired writer shouldhave said so, and the learned translators should havegiven us the truth. No one pretends that there wasmore than one door, and yet the same language isused about the door, except this—that the exact sizeof the window is given, and the only peculiarity men-tioned as to the door is that it shut from the outside.For any one to see that Mr. Talmage is wrong on thewindow question, it is only necessary to read the storyof the deluge.Mr. Talmage also endeavors to decrease the depthof the flood. If the flood did not cover the highesthills, many people might have been saved. He alsoinsists that all the water did not come from the rains,but that "the fountains of the great deep were broken"up." What are "the fountains of the great deep"?How would their being "broken up" increase thedepth of the water? He seems to imagine that these"fountains" were in some way imprisoned—anxiousto get to the surface, and that, at that time, an oppor-tunity was given for water to run up hill, or in some32mysterious way to rise above its level. According tothe account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves forat least seven months. If this flood was only partial,it seems a little curious that the water did not seek itslevel in less than seven months. With anything likea fair chance, by that time most of it would havefound its way to the sea again.There is in the literature of ignorance no moreperfectly absurd and cruel story than that of thedeluge.I am very sorry that Mr. Talmage should disagreewith some of the great commentators. Dr. Scotttells us that, in all probability, the angels assisted ingetting the animals into the ark. Dr. Henry insiststhat the waters in the bowels of the earth, at God'scommand, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr.Clark tells us that it would have been much easierfor God to have destroyed all the people and madesome new ones, but that he did not want to wasteanything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, whilein the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could bemore amusing than to see a few lions eating good,dry straw. This commentator assures us that thewaters rose so high that the loftiest mountains wereoverflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not33hoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells usthat some of the people got on top of the ark, andhoped to shift for themselves, but that, in all proba-bility, they were washed off by the rain. When weconsider that the rain must have fallen at the rate ofabout eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to thinkthat they were washed off.Mr. Talmage has clearly misrepresented the Bible.He is not prepared to believe the story as it is told.The seeds of infidelity seem to be germinating in hismind. His position no doubt will be a great relief tomost of his hearers. After this, their credulity willnot be strained. They can say that there was probablyquite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered itnecessary for Noah and his family—his dogs, cats,and chickens—to get in a boat. This would not beunreasonable. The same thing happens almost everyyear on the shores of great rivers, and consequentlythe story of the flood is an exceedingly reasonableone.Mr. Talmage also endeavors to account for themiraculous collection of the animals in the ark bythe universal instinct to get out of the rain. Thereare at least two objections to this: 1. The animalswent into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I34have never noticed any great desire on the part ofducks, geese, and loons to get out of the water. Mr.Talmage must have been misled by a line from an oldnursery book that says: "And the little fishes got"under the bridge to keep out of the rain." He tellsus that Noah described what he saw. He is the firsttheologian who claims that Genesis was written byNoah, or that Noah wrote any account of the flood.Most Christians insist that the account of the floodwas written by Moses, and that he was inspired towrite it. Of course, it will not do for me to say thatMr. Talmage has misrepresented the facts.Question. You are also charged with misrepresen-tation in your statement as to where the ark at lastrested. It is claimed by Mr. Talmage that there isnothing in the Bible to show that the ark rested onthe highest mountains.Answer. Of course I have no knowledge as towhere the ark really came to anchor, but after it struckbottom, we are told that a dove was sent out, andthat the dove found no place whereon to rest herfoot. If the ark touched ground in the low country,surely the mountains were out of water, and an or-dinary mountain furnishes, as a rule, space enough35for a dove's foot. We must infer that the ark restedon the only land then above water, or near enoughabove water to strike the keel of Noah's boat. MountArarat is about seventeen thousand feet high; so Itake it that the top of that mountain was where Noahran aground—otherwise, the account means nothing.Here Mr. Talmage again shows his tendency tobelittle the miracles of the Bible. I am astonishedthat he should doubt the power of God to keep anark on a mountain seventeen thousand feet high.He could have changed the climate for that occasion.He could have made all the rocks and glaciers pro-duce wheat and corn in abundance. Certainly God,who could overwhelm a world with a flood, had thepower to change every law and fact in nature.I am surprised that Mr. Talmage is not willing tobelieve the story as it is told. What right has he toquestion the statements of an inspired writer? Whyshould he set up his judgment against the Webstersand Jacksons? Is it not infinitely impudent in himto contrast his penny-dip with the sun of inspiration?What right has he to any opinion upon the subject?He must take the Bible as it reads. He shouldremember that the greater the miracle the greatershould be his faith.36Question. You do not seem to have any greatopinion of the chemical, geological, and agriculturalviews expressed by Mr. Talmage?Answer. You must remember that Mr. Talmagehas a certain thing to defend. He takes the Bible asactually true, and with the Bible as his standard, hecompares and measures all sciences. He does notstudy geology to find whether the Mosaic account istrue, but he reads the Mosaic account for the purposeof showing that geology can not be depended upon.His idea that "one day is as a thousand years with"God," and that therefore the "days" mentioned in theMosaic account are not days of twenty-four hours, butlong periods, is contradicted by the Bible itself. Thegreat reason given for keeping the Sabbath day is, that"God rested on the seventh day and was refreshed."Now, it does not say that he rested on the "seventh"period," or the "seventh good—while," or the"seventh long-time," but on the "seventh day." Inimitation of this example we are also to rest—not onthe seventh good-while, but on the seventh day.Nothing delights the average minister more than tofind that a passage of Scripture is capable of severalinterpretations. Nothing in the inspired book is so37dangerous as accuracy. If the holy writer usesgeneral terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonizea seemingly preposterous statement with the mostobdurate fact. An "inspired" book should containneither statistics nor dates—as few names as possible,and not one word about geology or astronomy. Mr.Talmage is doing the best he can to uphold the fablesof the Jews. They are the foundation of his faith.He believes in the water of the past and the fire of thefuture—in the God of flood and flame—the eternaltorturer of his helpless children.It is exceedingly unfortunate that Mr. Talmage doesnot appreciate the importance of good manners, thathe does not rightly estimate the convincing power ofkindness and good nature. It is unfortunate that aChristian, believing in universal forgiveness, shouldexhibit so much of the spirit of detraction, that heshould run so easily and naturally into epithets, andthat he should mistake vituperation for logic. Thou-sands of people, knowing but little of the mysteries ofChristianity—never having studied theology,—maybecome prejudiced against the church, and doubt thedivine origin of a religion whose defenders seem torely, at least to a great degree, upon malignant per-sonalities. Mr. Talmage should remember that in a38discussion of this kind, he is supposed to represent abeing of infinite wisdom and goodness. Surely, therepresentative of the infinite can afford to be candid,can afford to be kind. When he contemplates thecondition of a fellow-being destitute of religion, afellow-being now travelling the thorny path to eternalfire, he should be filled with pity instead of hate.Instead of deforming his mouth with scorn, his eyesshould be filled with tears. He should take intoconsideration the vast difference between an infideland a minister of the gospel,—knowing, as he does,that a crown of glory has been prepared for theminister, and that flames are waiting for the soulof the unbeliever. He should bear with philosophicfortitude the apparent success of the skeptic, for afew days in this brief life, since he knows that in alittle while the question will be eternally settled inhis favor, and that the humiliation of a day is asnothing compared with the victory of eternity. Inthis world, the skeptic appears to have the bestof the argument; logic seems to be on the sideof blasphemy; common sense apparently goes handin hand with infidelity, and the few things we areabsolutely certain of, seem inconsistent with theChristian creeds.39This, however, as Mr. Talmage well knows, is butapparent. God has arranged the world in this wayfor the purpose of testing the Christian's faith.Beyond all these facts, beyond logic, beyond reason,Mr. Talmage, by the light of faith, clearly sees theeternal truth. This clearness of vision should givehim the serenity of candor and the kindness born ofabsolute knowledge. He, being a child of the light,should not expect the perfect from the children ofdarkness. He should not judge Humboldt andWesley by the same standard. He should rememberthat Wesley was especially set apart and illuminatedby divine wisdom, while Humboldt was left to gropein the shadows of nature. He should also rememberthat ministers are not like other people. They havebeen "called." They have been "chosen" by infinitewisdom. They have been "set apart," and theyhave bread to eat that we know not of. Whileother people are forced to pursue the difficult pathsof investigation, they fly with the wings of faith.Mr. Talmage is perfectly aware of the advantageshe enjoys, and yet he deems it dangerous to be fair.This, in my judgment, is his mistake. If he cannoteasily point out the absurdities and contradictions ininfidel lectures, surely God would never have selected40him for that task. We cannot believe that imperfectinstruments would be chosen by infinite wisdom.Certain lambs have been entrusted to the care of Mr.Talmage, the shepherd. Certainly God would notselect a shepherd unable to cope with an averagewolf. Such a shepherd is only the appearance ofprotection. When the wolf is not there, he is auseless expense, and when the wolf comes, he goes.I cannot believe that God would select a shepherdof that kind. Neither can the shepherd justify hisselection by abusing the wolf when out of sight.The fear ought to be on the other side. A divinelyappointed shepherd ought to be able to convince hissheep that a wolf is a dangerous animal, and oughtto be able to give his reasons. It may be that theshepherd has a certain interest in exaggerating thecruelty and ferocity of the wolf, and even the numberof the wolves. Should it turn out that the wolvesexist only in the imagination of the shepherd, thesheep might refuse to pay the salary of their pro-tector. It will, however, be hard to calculate theextent to which the sheep will lose confidence in ashepherd who has not even the courage to state thefacts about the wolf. But what must be the resultwhen the sheep find that the supposed wolf is, in41fact, their friend, and that he is endeavoring to rescuethem from the exactions of the pretended shepherd,who creates, by falsehood, the fear on which helives?SECOND INTERVIEW.Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tearyour hair.Sir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion,overwhelmed and humiliated.Por. Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?Sir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!Question. I want to ask you a few questionsabout the second sermon of Mr. Talmage;have you read it, and what do you think of it?