Answer. The text taken by the reverend gentle-man is an insult, and was probably intended as such:"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."Mr. Talmage seeks to apply this text to any onewho denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and isthe infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is per-fectly satisfied that any man who differs with him onthis question is a "fool," and he has the Christianforbearance and kindness to say so. I presume he46is honest in this opinion, and no doubt regards Bruno,Spinoza and Humboldt as driveling imbeciles. Heentertains the same opinion of some of the greatest,wisest and best of Greece and Rome.No man is fitted to reason upon this question whohas not the intelligence to see the difficulties in alltheories. No man has yet evolved a theory thatsatisfactorily accounts for all that is. No matterwhat his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousanddifficulties, and innumerable things insist upon anexplanation. The best that any man can do is totake that theory which to his mind presents thefewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been educatedin a certain way—has a brain of a certain quantity,quality and form—and accepts, in spite it may be,of himself, a certain theory. Others, formed differ-ently, having lived under different circumstances,cannot accept the Talmagian view, and thereupon hedenounces them as fools. In this he follows theexample of David the murderer; of David, whoadvised one of his children to assassinate another;of David, whose last words were those of hate andcrime. Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especialbrain to reason out a "design" in Nature, and in amoment afterward says that "when the world slew47"Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal"God, if once it could get its hands on Him." Whyshould a God of infinite wisdom create people whowould gladly murder their Creator? Was there anyparticular "design" in that? Does the existenceof such people conclusively prove the existence of agood Designer? It seems to me—and I take it thatmy thought is natural, as I have only been bornonce—that an infinitely wise and good God wouldnaturally create good people, and if he has not, cer-tainly the fault is his. The God of Mr. Talmageknew, when he created Guiteau, that he wouldassassinate Garfield. Why did he create him? Didhe want Garfield assassinated? Will somebody bekind enough to show the "design" in this trans-action? Is it possible to see "design" in earth-quakes, in volcanoes, in pestilence, in famine, inruthless and relentless war? Can we find "design" inthe fact that every animal lives upon some other—that every drop of every sea is a battlefield wherethe strong devour the weak? Over the precipiceof cruelty rolls a perpetual Niagara of blood. Isthere "design" in this? Why should a good Godpeople a world with men capable of burning theirfellow-men—and capable of burning the greatest and48best? Why does a good God permit these things?It is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind andgenerous, infinitely merciful, because when on earthhe cured the sick, the lame and blind. Has he notas much power now as he had then? If he was andis the God of all worlds, why does he not now giveback to the widow her son? Why does he with-hold light from the eyes of the blind? And whydoes one who had the power miraculously to feedthousands, allow millions to die for want of food?Did Christ only have pity when he was part human?Are we indebted for his kindness to the flesh thatclothed his spirit? Where is he now? Where has hebeen through all the centuries of slavery and crime?If this universe was "designed," then all thathappens was "designed." If a man constructs anengine, the boiler of which explodes, we say eitherthat he did not know the strength of his materials, orthat he was reckless of human life. If an infinite beingshould construct a weak or imperfect machine, he mustbe held accountable for all that happens. He cannotbe permitted to say that he did not know the strengthof the materials. He is directly and absolutely re-sponsible. So, if this world was designed by a beingof infinite power and wisdom, he is responsible for49the result of that design. My position is this: I donot know. But there are so many objections to thepersonal-God theory, that it is impossible for me toaccept it. I prefer to say that the universe is all theGod there is. I prefer to make no being responsible.I prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, manmust clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man mustfeed them. I prefer to rely upon human endeavor,upon human intelligence, upon the heart and brainof man. There is no evidence that God has everinterfered in the affairs of man. The hand of earthis stretched uselessly toward heaven. From theclouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwreckedcry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for libertyand light—the world moves on, and the heavens aredeaf and dumb and blind. The frost freezes, the fireburns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the goodsuffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith.Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with being"the champion blasphemer of America"—what doyou understand blasphemy to be?Answer. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by su-perstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-gates a religion as he would any department of50science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradictsa priest, whoever has the impudence to use his ownreason, whoever is brave enough to express hishonest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes of thereligionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly ofthe wooden god of a savage, the savage regards himas a blasphemer. To laugh at the pretensions ofMohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To sayin St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet ofGod is also blasphemy. There was a time when toacknowledge the divinity of Christ in Jerusalem wasblasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemyin New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extenta geographical question. It depends not only on whatyou say, but where you are when you say it. Blas-phemy is what the old calls the new,—what lastyear's leaf says to this year's bud. The founder ofevery religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so re-garded Christ, and the Athenians had the sameopinion of Socrates. Catholics have always lookedupon Protestants as blasphemers, and Protestants havealways held the same generous opinion of Catholics.To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is blas-phemy. To say that she is the Mother of God isblasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake-51skin stuffed with leaves is sacred, and he who thinksotherwise is a blasphemer. It was once blasphemyto laugh at Diana, of the Ephesians. Many peoplethink that it is blasphemous to tell your real opinionof the Jewish Jehovah. Others imagine that wordscan be printed upon paper, and the paper bound intoa book covered with sheepskin, and that the book issacred, and that to question its sacredness is blas-phemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, butnothing can be more absurd than a crime againstGod. If God is infinite, you cannot injure him. Youcannot commit a crime against any being that youcannot injure. Of course, the infinite cannot be in-jured. Man is a conditioned being. By changinghis conditions, his surroundings, you can injure him;but if God is infinite, he is conditionless. If he isconditionless, he cannot by any possibility be injured.You can neither increase, nor decrease, the well-beingof the infinite. Consequently, a crime against Godis a demonstrated impossibility. The cry of blasphemymeans only that the argument of the blasphemer can-not be answered. The sleight-of-hand performer,when some one tries to raise the curtain behind whichhe operates, cries "blasphemer!" The priest, find-ing that he has been attacked by common sense,—52by a fact,—resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is theblack flag of theology, and it means: No argumentand no quarter! It is an appeal to prejudice, topassions, to ignorance. It is the last resort of adefeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point whereargument stops and slander begins. In old times, itwas the signal for throwing stones, for gatheringfagots and for tearing flesh; now it means falsehoodand calumny.Question. Then you think that there is no suchthing as the crime of blasphemy, and that no suchoffence can be committed?Answer. Any one who knowingly speaks in favorof injustice is a blasphemer. Whoever wishes todestroy liberty of thought,—the honest expression ofideas,—is a blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malignhis neighbor, simply because he differs with him upona subject about which neither of them knows anythingfor certain, is a blasphemer. If a crime can be com-mitted against God, he commits it who imputes toGod the commission of crime. The man who saysthat God ordered the assassination of women andbabes, that he gave maidens to satisfy the lust ofsoldiers, that he enslaved his own children,—that man53is a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be farbetter to deny the existence of God entirely. Itseems to me that every man ought to give his honestopinion. No man should suppose that any infiniteGod requires him to tell as truth that which he knowsnothing about.Mr. Talmage, in order to make a point againstinfidelity, states from his pulpit that I am in favor ofpoisoning the minds of children by the circulation ofimmoral books. The statement is entirely false. Heought to have known that I withdrew from the LiberalLeague upon the very question whether the law shouldbe repealed or modified. I favored a modificationof that law, so that books and papers could not bethrown from the mails simply because they were"infidel."I was and am in favor of the destruction ofevery immoral book in the world. I was and amin favor, not only of the law against the circulationof such filth, but want it executed to the letter in everyState of this Union. Long before he made that state-ment, I had introduced a resolution to that effect, andsupported the resolution in a speech. Notwithstand-ing these facts, hundreds of clergymen have madehaste to tell the exact opposite of the truth. This54they have done in the name of Christianity, under thepretence of pleasing their God. In my judgment, itis far better to tell your honest opinions, even uponthe subject of theology, than to knowingly tell a false-hood about a fellow-man. Mr. Talmage may havebeen ignorant of the truth. He may have been misledby other ministers, and for his benefit I make this ex-planation. I wanted the laws modified so that bigotrycould not interfere with the literature of intelligence;but I did not want, in any way, to shield the writers orpublishers of immoral books. Upon this subject Iused, at the last meeting of the Liberal League thatI attended, the following language:"But there is a distinction wide as the Mississippi,"yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all oceans,"between the literature of immorality and the litera-"ture of free thought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard,"and the other an angel with wings of light. Let us"draw this distinction. Let us understand ourselves."Do not make the wholesale statement that all these"laws ought to be repealed. They ought not to be"repealed. Some of them are good, and the law"against sending instruments of vice through the"mails is good. The law against sending obscene"pictures and books is good. The law against send-55"ing bogus diplomas through the mails, to allow a"lot of ignorant hyenas to prey upon the sick people"of the world, is a good law. The law against rascals"who are getting up bogus lotteries, and sending their"circulars in the mails is a good law. You know, as"well as I, that there are certain books not fit to go"through the mails. You know that. You know there"are certain pictures not fit to be transmitted, not fit"to be delivered to any human being. When these"books and pictures come into the control of the"United States, I say, burn them up! And when any"man has been indicted who has been trying to make"money by pandering to the lowest passions in the"human breast, then I say, prosecute him! let the"law take its course."I can hardly convince myself that when Mr.Talmage made the charge, he was acquainted withthe facts. It seems incredible that any man, pre-tending to be governed by the law of commonhonesty, could make a charge like this knowingit to be untrue. Under no circumstances, wouldI charge Mr. Talmage with being an infamousman, unless the evidence was complete and over-whelming. Even then, I should hesitate long beforemaking the charge. The side I take on theological56questions does not render a resort to slander orcalumny a necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honor-able man, he will take back the statement he hasmade. Even if there is a God, I hardly think thathe will reward one of his children for maligninganother; and to one who has told falsehoods about"infidels," that having been his only virtue, I doubtwhether he will say: "Well done good and faithful"servant."Question. What have you to say to the chargethat you are endeavoring to "assassinate God,"and that you are "far worse than the man who at-"tempts to kill his father, or his mother, or his sister,"or his brother"?Answer. Well, I think that is about as reason-able as anything he says. No one wishes, so far as Iknow, to assassinate God. The idea of assassinatingan infinite being is of course infinitely absurd. Onewould think Mr. Talmage had lost his reason! Andyet this man stands at the head of the Presbyterianclergy. It is for this reason that I answer him. Heis the only Presbyterian minister in the UnitedStates, so far as I know, able to draw an audience.He is, without doubt, the leader of that denomination.57He is orthodox and conservative. He believes im-plicitly in the "Five Points" of Calvin, and saysnothing simply for the purpose of attracting attention.He believes that God damns a man for his own glory;that he sends babes to hell to establish his mercy,and that he filled the world with disease and crimesimply to demonstrate his wisdom. He believes thatbillions of years before the earth was, God had madeup his mind as to the exact number that he wouldeternally damn, and had counted his saints. Thisdoctrine he calls "glad tidings of great joy." Hereally believes that every man who is true to himselfis waging war against God; that every infidel is arebel; that every Freethinker is a traitor, and thatonly those are good subjects who have joined thePresbyterian Church, know the Shorter Catechism byheart, and subscribe liberally toward lifting the mort-gage on the Brooklyn Tabernacle. All the rest areendeavoring to assassinate God, plotting the murderof the Holy Ghost, and applauding the Jews for thecrucifixion of Christ. If Mr. Talmage is correct inhis views as to the power and wisdom of God, Iimagine that his enemies at last will be overthrown,that the assassins and murderers will not succeed, andthat the Infinite, with Mr. Talmage s assistance, will58finally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainlyhe ought to have made man grand enough to haveand express an opinion of his own. Is it possiblethat God can be gratified with the applause of moralcowards? Does he seek to enhance his glory byreceiving the adulation of cringing slaves? Is Godsatisfied with the adoration of the frightened?Question. You notice that Mr. Talmage findsnearly all the inventions of modern times mentionedin the Bible?Answer: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an ex-ceedingly important discovery. I admit that I amsomewhat amazed at the wisdom of the ancients.This discovery has been made just in the nick oftime. Millions of people were losing their respectfor the Old Testament. They were beginning tothink that there was some discrepancy between theprophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and the latest devel-opments in physical science. Thousands of preacherswere telling their flocks that the Bible is not ascientific book; that Joshua was not an inspired as-tronomer, that God never enlightened Moses aboutgeology, and that Ezekiel did not understand theentire art of cookery. These admissions caused59some young people to suspect that the Bible, after all,was not inspired; that the prophets of antiquity didnot know as much as the discoverers of to-day. TheBible was falling into disrepute. Mr. Talmage hasrushed to the rescue. He shows, and shows conclu-sively as anything can be shown from the Bible, thatJob understood all the laws of light thousands ofyears before Newton lived; that he anticipated thediscoveries of Descartes, Huxley and Tyndall; thathe was familiar with the telegraph and telephone;that Morse, Bell and Edison simply put his discov-eries in successful operation; that Nahum was, infact, a master-mechanic; that he understood perfectlythe modern railway and described it so accuratelythat Trevethick, Foster and Stephenson had no diffi-culty in constructing a locomotive. He also hasdiscovered that Job was well acquainted with thetrade winds, and understood the mysterious currents,tides and pulses of the sea; that Lieutenant Maurywas a plagiarist; that Humboldt was simply a biblicalstudent. He finds that Isaiah and Solomon werefar in advance of Galileo, Morse, Meyer and Watt.This is a discovery wholly unexpected to me. IfMr. Talmage is right, I am satisfied the Bible is aninspired book. If it shall turn out that Joshua was60superior to Laplace, that Moses knew more aboutgeology than Humboldt, that Job as a scientist wasthe superior of Kepler, that Isaiah knew more thanCopernicus, and that even the minor prophets ex-celled the inventors and discoverers of our time—then I will admit that infidelity must become speech-less forever. Until I read this sermon, I had nevereven suspected that the inventions of modern timeswere known to the ancient Jews. I never supposedthat Nahum knew the least thing about railroads, orthat Job would have known a telegraph if he had seenit. I never supposed that Joshua comprehended thethree laws of Kepler. Of course I have not readthe Old Testament with as much care as some otherpeople have, and when I did read it, I was not lookingfor inventions and discoveries. I had been told sooften that the Bible was no authority upon scientificquestions, that I was lulled into a state of lethargy.What is amazing to me is, that so many men didread it without getting the slightest hint of thesmallest invention. To think that the Jews read thatbook for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yetwent to their graves without the slightest notion ofastronomy, or geology, of railroads, telegraphs, orsteamboats! And then to think that the early fathers61made it the study of their lives and died without in-venting anything! I am astonished that Mr. Talmagehimself does not figure in the records of the PatentOffice. I cannot account for this, except upon thesupposition that he is too honest to infringe on thepatents of the patriarchs. After this, I shall readthe Old Testament with more care.Question. Do you see that Mr. Talmage endeav-ors to convict you of great ignorance in not knowingthat the word translated "rib" should have beentranslated "side," and that Eve, after all, was notmade out of a rib, but out of Adam's side?Answer. I may have been misled by taking theBible as it is translated. The Bible account is simplythis: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall"upon Adam, and he slept. And he took one of"his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"and the rib which the Lord God had taken from"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the"man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my"bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called"woman, because she was taken out of man." IfMr. Talmage is right, then the account should be asfollows: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep62"to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one"of his sides, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"and the side which the Lord God had taken from"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the"man. And Adam said: This is now side of my"side, and flesh of my flesh." I do not see that thestory is made any better by using the word "side"instead of "rib." It would be just as hard for Godto make a woman out of a man's side as out of arib. Mr. Talmage ought not to question the powerof God to make a woman out of a bone, and he mustrecollect that the less the material the greater themiracle.There are two accounts of the creation of man,in Genesis, the first being in the twenty-first verseof the first chapter and the second being in thetwenty-first and twenty-second verses of the sec-ond chapter.According to the second account, "God formed"man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into"his nostrils the breath of life." And after this,"God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put"the man" in this garden. After this, "He made"every tree to grow that was good for food and"pleasant to the sight," and, in addition, "the tree63"of life in the midst of the garden," beside "the tree"of the knowledge of good and evil." And he "put"the man in the garden to dress it and keep it,"telling him that he might eat of everything he sawexcept of "the tree of the knowledge of good and"evil."After this, God having noticed that it "was not"good for man to be alone, formed out of the ground"every beast of the field, every fowl of the air, and"brought them to Adam to see what he would call"them, and Adam gave names to all cattle, and to"the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field."But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for"him."We are not told how Adam learned the language,or how he understood what God said. I can hardlybelieve that any man can be created with the know-ledge of a language. Education cannot be readymade and stuffed into a brain. Each person mustlearn a language for himself. Yet in this account wefind a language ready made for man's use. And notonly man was enabled to speak, but a serpent alsohas the power of speech, and the woman holds aconversation with this animal and with her husband;and yet no account is given of how any language was64learned. God is described as walking in the gardenin the cool of the day, speaking like a man—holdingconversations with the man and woman, and occa-sionally addressing the serpent.In the nursery rhymes of the world there isnothing more childish than this "inspired" accountof the creation of man and woman.The early fathers of the church held that womanwas inferior to man, because man was not made forwoman, but woman for man; because Adam wasmade first and Eve afterward. They had not thegallantry of Robert Burns, who accounted for thebeauty of woman from the fact that God practicedon man first, and then gave woman the benefit ofhis experience. Think, in this age of the world,of a well-educated, intelligent gentleman telling hislittle child that about six thousand years ago amysterious being called God made the world out ofhis "omnipotence;" then made a man out of somedust which he is supposed to have moulded intoform; that he put this man in a garden for the pur-pose of keeping the trees trimmed; that after a littlewhile he noticed that the man seemed lonesome, notparticularly happy, almost homesick; that then it oc-curred to this God, that it would be a good thing for65the man to have some company, somebody to helphim trim the trees, to talk to him and cheer him upon rainy days; that, thereupon, this God causeda deep sleep to fall on the man, took a knife, or along, sharp piece of "omnipotence," and took out oneof the man's sides, or a rib, and of that made awoman; that then this man and woman got alongreal well till a snake got into the garden and inducedthe woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil; that the woman got the man to takea bite; that afterwards both of them were detected byGod, who was walking around in the cool of theevening, and thereupon they were turned out of thegarden, lest they should put forth their hands and eatof the tree of life, and live forever.This foolish story has been regarded as the sacred,inspired truth; as an account substantially written byGod himself; and thousands and millions of peoplehave supposed it necessary to believe this childishfalsehood, in order to save their souls. Nothingmore laughable can be found in the fairy tales andfolk-lore of savages. Yet this is defended by theleading Presbyterian divine, and those who fail tobelieve in the truth of this story are called "brazen"faced fools," "deicides," and "blasphemers."66By this story woman in all Christian countries wasdegraded. She was considered too impure to preachthe gospel, too impure to distribute the sacramentalbread, too impure to hand about the sacred wine,too impure to step within the "holy of holies," in theCatholic Churches, too impure to be touched by apriest. Unmarried men were considered purer thanhusbands and fathers. Nuns were regarded as su-perior to mothers, a monastery holier than a home, anunnery nearer sacred than the cradle. And throughall these years it has been thought better to loveGod than to love man, better to love God than tolove your wife and children, better to worship animaginary deity than to help your fellow-men.I regard the rights of men and women equal. InLove's fair realm, husband and wife are king andqueen, sceptered and crowned alike, and seated onthe self-same throne.Question. Do you still insist that the Old Testa-ment upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies thischarge, and shows how terribly God punished thosewho were not satisfied with one wife.Answer. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage hassaid calculated to change my opinion. It has been67admitted by thousands of theologians that the OldTestament upholds polygamy. Mr. Talmage isamong the first to deny it. It will not do to say thatDavid was punished for the crime of polygamyor concubinage. He was "a man after God's own"heart." He was made a king. He was a successfulgeneral, and his blood is said to have flowed in theveins of God. Solomon was, according to the ac-count, enriched with wisdom above all human beings.Was that a punishment for having had so manywives? Was Abraham pursued by the justice ofGod because of the crime against Hagar, or for thecrime against his own wife? The verse quoted byMr. Talmage to show that God was opposed topolygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the eight-eenth chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuitybe tortured into a command against polygamy. Themost that can be possibly said of it is, that you shallnot marry the sister of your wife, while your wife isliving. Yet this passage is quoted by Mr. Talmageas "a thunder of prohibition against having more"than one wife." In the twentieth chapter ofLeviticus it is enacted: "That if a man take a wife"and her mother they shall be burned with fire." Acommandment like this shows that he might take his68wife and somebody else's mother. These passageshave nothing to do with polygamy. They showwhom you may marry, not how many; and there isnot in Leviticus a solitary word against polygamy—not one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, norExodus, nor in the entire Pentateuch—not oneword. These books are filled with the most minutedirections about killing sheep, and goats and doves;about making clothes for priests, about fashioningtongs and snuffers; and yet, they contain not oneword against polygamy. It never occurred to the in-spired writers that polygamy was a crime. Polygamywas accepted as a matter of course. Women weresimple property.Mr. Talmage, however, insists that, although Godwas against polygamy, he permitted it, and at thesame time threw his moral influence against it.Upon this subject he says: "No doubt God per-"mitted polygamy to continue for sometime, just"as he permits murder and arson, theft and gam-"bling to-day to continue, although he is against"them." If God is the author of the Ten Com-mandments, he prohibited murder and theft, buthe said nothing about polygamy. If he was soterribly against that crime, why did he forget to69mention it? Was there not room enough on thetables of stone for just one word on this subject?Had he no time to give a commandment againstslavery? Mr. Talmage of course insists that Godhad to deal with these things gradually, his idea beingthat if God had made a commandment against them allat once, the Jews would have had nothing more to dowith him.For instance: if we wanted to break cannibalsof eating missionaries, we should not tell them allat once that it was wrong, that it was wicked, toeat missionaries raw; we should induce them firstto cook the missionaries, and gradually wean themfrom raw flesh. This would be the first great step.We would stew the missionaries, and after a timeput a little mutton in the stew, not enough to excitethe suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough to gethim in the habit of eating mutton without knowing it.Day after day we would put in more mutton and lessmissionary, until finally, the cannibal would be perfectlysatisfied with clear mutton. Then we would tell himthat it was wrong to eat missionary. After the can-nibal got so that he liked mutton, and cared nothingfor missionary, then it would be safe to have a lawupon the subject.70Mr. Talmage insists that polygamy cannot existamong people who believe the Bible. In this he ismistaken. The Mormons all believe the Bible. Thereis not a single polygamist in Utah who does not insistupon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.The Rev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consu-lar theologian, once had a discussion, I believe, withElder Orson Pratt, at Salt Lake City, upon the questionof polygamy. It is sufficient to say of this discussionthat it is now circulated by the Mormons as a campaigndocument. The elder overwhelmed the parson.Passages of Scripture in favor of polygamy werequoted by the hundred. The lives of all the patriarchswere brought forward, and poor parson Newman wasdriven from the field. The truth is, the Jews at thattime were much like our forefathers. They werebarbarians, and many of their laws were unjustand cruel. Polygamy was the right of all; practiced,as a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and therich and powerful were envied by the poor. In suchesteem did the ancient Jews hold polygamy, that thenumber of Solomons wives was given, simply to en-hance his glory. My own opinion is, that Solomonhad very few wives, and that polygamy was notgeneral in Palestine. The country was too poor, and71Solomon, in all his glory was hardly able to supportone wife. He was a poor barbarian king with alimited revenue, with a poor soil, with a sparse popu-lation, without art, without science and without power.He sustained about the same relation to other kingsthat Delaware does to other States. Mr. Talmagesays that God persecuted Solomon, and yet, if he willturn to the twenty-second chapter of First Chronicles,he will find what God promised to Solomon. God,speaking to David, says: "Behold a son shall be born"to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him"rest from his enemies around about; for his name shall"be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness"unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house in my"name, and he shall be my son and I will be his father,"and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over"Israel forever." Did God keep his promise?So he tells us that David was persecuted byGod, on account of his offences, and yet I find inthe twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-ninth chapterof First Chronicles, the following account of the deathof David: "And he died in a good old age, full of"days, riches and honor." Is this true?Question. What have you to say to the chargethat you were mistaken in the number of years that72the Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage says thatthey were there 430 years, instead of 215 years.Answer. If you will read the third chapter ofGalatians, sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you willfind that it was 430 years from the time God made thepromise to Abraham to the giving of the law fromMount Sinai. The Hebrews did not go to Egypt for215 years after the promise was made to Abraham,and consequently did not remain in Egypt more than215 years. If Galatians is true, I am right.Strange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the mira-cles. The trouble with this defender of the faith is thathe cares nothing for facts. He makes the strangeststatements, and cares the least for proof, of anyman I know. I can account for what he says of meonly upon the supposition that he has not read mylectures. He may have been misled by the piratededitions; Persons have stolen my lectures, printed thesame ones under various names, and filled them withmistakes and things I never said. Mr. C. P. Farrell,of Washington, is my only authorized publisher.Yet Mr. Talmage prefers to answer the mistakes ofliterary thieves, and charge their ignorance to me.Question. Did you ever attack the character ofQueen Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between73her and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate thereputation of the Queen?Answer. I never said a word against Victoria.The fact is, I am not acquainted with her—never mether in my life, and know but little of her. I neverhappened to see her "in plain clothes, reading the"Bible to the poor in the lane,"—neither did I everhear her sing. I most cheerfully admit that herreputation is good in the neighborhood where sheresides. In one of my lectures I drew a parallelbetween George Eliot and Victoria. I was showingthe difference between a woman who had won herposition in the world of thought, and one who wasqueen by chance. This is what I said:"It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man"to be a king or emperor. The last Napoleon was"not satisfied with being the Emperor of the French."He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold"about his head—he wanted some evidence that he"had something of value in his head. So he wrote"the life of Julius Cæsar that he might become a"member of the French Academy. The emperors,"the kings, the popes, no longer tower above their"fellows. Compare King William with the philoso-"pher Hæckel. The king is one of the 'anointed74"'of the Most High'—as they claim—one upon"whose head has been poured the divine petroleum"of authority. Compare this king with Hæckel, who"towers an intellectual Colossus above the crowned"mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen"Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments given"her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while"George Eliot wears robes of glory, woven in the"loom of her own genius. The world is beginning"to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to heart."I said not one word against Queen Victoria, and didnot intend to even intimate that she was not an ex-cellent woman, wife and mother. I was simply tryingto show that the world was getting great enough toplace a genius above an accidental queen. Mr. Tal-mage, true to the fawning, cringing spirit of ortho-doxy, lauds the living queen and cruelly maligns thegenius dead. He digs open the grave of George Eliot,and tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was thegreatest woman England has produced. He calls her"an adultress." He attacks her because she was anatheist—because she abhorred Jehovah, denied theinspiration of the Bible, denied the dogma of eternalpain, and with all her heart despised the Presbyteriancreed. He hates her because she was great and brave75and free—because she lived without "faith" and diedwithout fear—because she dared to give her honestthought, and grandly bore the taunts and slanders ofthe Christian world.George Eliot tenderly carried in her heart theburdens of our race. She looked through pity's tearsupon the faults and frailties of mankind. She knewthe springs and seeds of thought and deed, and saw,with cloudless eyes, through all the winding ways ofgreed, ambition and deceit, where folly vainly pluckswith thorn-pierced hands the fading flowers of selfishjoy—the highway of eternal right. Whatever herrelations may have been—no matter what I think, orothers say, or how much all regret the one mistake inall her self-denying, loving life—I feel and know thatin the court where her own conscience sat as judge, shestood acquitted—pure as light and stainless as a star.How appropriate here, with some slight change,the wondrously poetic and pathetic words of Laertesat Ophelia's grave:Leave her i' the earth;And from her fair and unpolluted fleshMay violets spring!I tell thee, churlish priest,A ministering angel shall this woman be,When thou liest howling!I have no words with which to tell my loathing fora man who violates a noble woman's grave.76Question. Do you think that the spirit in whichMr. Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordancewith the teachings of Christianity?Answer. I think that he talks like a true Presby-terian. If you will read the arguments of Calvinagainst the doctrines of Castalio and Servetus, you willsee that Mr. Talmage follows closely in the footstepsof the founder of his church. Castalio was such awicked and abandoned wretch, that he taught theinnocence of honest error. He insisted that Godwould not eternally damn a man for being honestlymistaken. For the utterance of such blasphemoussentiments, abhorrent to every Christian mind, Calvincalled him "a dog of Satan, and a child of hell." Inshort, he used the usual arguments. Castalio wasbanished, and died in exile. In the case of Servetus,after all the epithets had been exhausted, an appealwas made to the stake, and the blasphemous wretchwas burned to ashes.If you will read the life of John Knox, you will findthat Mr. Talmage is as orthodox in his methods ofdealing with infidels, as he is in his creed. In myopinion, he would gladly treat unbelievers now, as thePuritans did the Quakers, as the Episcopalians did thePresbyterians, as the Presbyterians did the Baptists,77and as the Catholics have treated all heretics. Ofcourse, all these sects will settle their differences inheaven. In the next world, they will laugh at thecrimes they committed in this.The course pursued by Mr. Talmage is consistent.The pulpit cannot afford to abandon the weapons offalsehood and defamation. Candor sows the seeds ofdoubt. Fairness is weakness. The only way to suc-cessfully uphold the religion of universal love, is todenounce all Freethinkers as blasphemers, adulterers,and criminals. No matter how generous they mayappear to be, no matter how fairly they may deal withtheir fellow-men, rest assured that they are actuatedby the lowest and basest motives. Infidels who out-wardly live honest and virtuous lives, are inwardlyvicious, virulent and vile. After all, morality is onlya veneering. God is not deceived with the varnish ofgood works. We know that the natural man istotally depraved, and that until he has been regene-rated by the spirit of God, he is utterly incapable of agood action. The generosity of the unbeliever is, infact, avarice. His honesty is only a form of larceny.His love is only hatred. No matter how sincerelyhe may love his wife,—how devoted he may be tohis children,—no matter how ready he may be 'to78sacrifice even his life for the good of mankind, God,looking into his very heart, finds it only a den ofhissing snakes, a lair of wild, ferocious beasts, a cageof unclean birds.The idea that God will save a man simply becausehe is honest and generous, is almost too preposterousfor serious refutation. No man should rely upon hisown goodness. He should plead the virtue of another.God, in his infinite justice, damns a good man on hisown merits, and saves a bad man on the merits ofanother. The repentant murderer will be an angelof light, while his honest and unoffending victim willbe a fiend in hell.A little while ago, a ship, disabled, was blown aboutthe Atlantic for eighty days. Everything had beeneaten. Nothing remained but bare decks and hunger.The crew consisted of Captain Kruger and nine others.For nine days, nothing had been eaten. The captain,taking a revolver in his hand, said: "Mates, some"one must die for the rest. I am willing to sacrifice"myself for you." One of his comrades grasped hishand, and implored him to wait one more day. Thenext morning, a sail was seen upon the horizon, andthe dying men were rescued.To an ordinary man,—to one guided by the light of79reason,—it is perfectly clear that Captain Kruger wasabout to do an infinitely generous action. Yet Mr.Talmage will tell us that if that captain was not aChristian, and if he had sent the bullet crashingthrough his brain in order that his comrades might eathis body, and live to reach their wives and homes,—his soul, from that ship, would have gone, by darkand tortuous ways, down to the prison of eternal pain.Is it possible that Christ would eternally damn aman for doing exactly what Christ would have done,had he been infinitely generous, under the same cir-cumstances? Is not self-denial in a man as praise-worthy as in a God? Should a God be worshiped,and a man be damned, for the same action?According to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who foughtfor our country in the Revolutionary war, who wasnot a Christian, is now in hell. Every soldier, not aChristian, who carried the flag of his country to vic-tory—either upon the land or sea, in the war of 1812,is now in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, whofought for the preservation of this Union,—to breakthe chains of slavery—to free four millions of people—to keep the whip from the naked back—every manwho did this—every one who died at Andersonvilleand Libby, dreaming that his death would help make80the lives of others worth living, is now a lost andwretched soul. These men are now in the prison ofGod,—a prison in which the cruelties of Libby andAndersonville would be regarded as mercies,—inwhich famine would be a joy.THIRD INTERVIEW.Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and power?Parson. He is.Sinner. Does he at all times know just what oughtto be done?Parson. He does.Sinner. Does he always do just what ought to bedone?Parson. He does.Sinner. Why do you pray to him?Parson. Because he is unchangeable.Question. I want to ask you a few questionsabout Mr. Talmage's third sermon. What doyou think of it?Answer. I often ask myself the questions: Isthere anything in the occupation of a minister,—any-thing in his surroundings, that makes him incapableof treating an opponent fairly, or decently? Is thereanything in the doctrine of universal forgiveness thatcompels a man to speak of one who differs with himonly in terms of disrespect and hatred? Is it neces-sary for those who profess to love the whole world,to hate the few they come in actual contact with?84Mr. Talmage, no doubt, professes to love all man-kind,—Jew and Gentile, Christian and Pagan. Nodoubt, he believes in the missionary effort, and thinkswe should do all in our power to save the soul of themost benighted savage; and yet he shows anythingbut affection for the "heathen" at home. He lovesthe ones he never saw,—is real anxious for their wel-fare,—but for the ones he knows, he exhibits onlyscorn and hatred. In one breath, he tells us thatChrist loves us, and in the next, that we are "wolves"and dogs." We are informed that Christ forgaveeven his murderers, but that now he hates an honestunbeliever with all his heart. He can forgive theones who drove the nails into his hands and feet,—the one who thrust the spear through his quiveringflesh,—but he cannot forgive the man who entertainsan honest doubt about the "scheme of salvation."He regards the man who thinks, as a "mouth-maker"at heaven." Is it possible that Christ is less for-giving in heaven than he was in Jerusalem? Did heexcuse murderers then, and does he damn thinkersnow? Once he pitied even thieves; does he nowabhor an intellectually honest man?Question. Mr. Talmage seems to think that youhave no right to give your opinion about the Bible.85Do you think that laymen have the same right asministers to examine the Scriptures?Answer. If God only made a revelation forpreachers, of course we will have to depend on thepreachers for information. But the preachers havemade the mistake of showing the revelation. Theyask us, the laymen, to read it, and certainly there isno use of reading it, unless we are permitted to thinkfor ourselves while we read. If after reading the Biblewe believe it to be true, we will say so, if we arehonest. If we do not believe it, we will say so, if weare honest.But why should God be so particular about ourbelieving the stories in his book? Why should Godobject to having his book examined? We do nothave to call upon legislators, or courts, to protectShakespeare from the derision of mankind. Was notGod able to write a book that would command thelove and admiration of the world? If the God ofMr. Talmage is infinite, he knew exactly how thestories of the Old Testament would strike a gentle-man of the nineteenth century. He knew that manywould have their doubts,—that thousands of them—and I may say most of them,—would refuse to believethat a miracle had ever been performed.86Now, it seems to me that he should either have leftthe stories out, or furnished evidence enough to con-vince the world. According to Mr. Talmage, thou-sands of people are pouring over the Niagara ofunbelief into the gulf of eternal pain. Why does notGod furnish more evidence? Just in proportion asman has developed intellectually, he has demandedadditional testimony. That which satisfies a barbarian,excites only the laughter of a civilized man. Cer-tainly God should furnish evidence in harmony withthe spirit of the age. If God wrote his Bible for theaverage man, he should have written it in such a waythat it would have carried conviction to the brain andheart of the average man; and he should havemade no man in such a way that he could not, by anypossibility, believe it. There certainly should be aharmony between the Bible and the human brain. IfI do not believe the Bible, whose fault is it? Mr.Talmage insists that his God wrote the Bible for me.and made me. If this is true, the book and the manshould agree. There is no sense in God writinga book for me and then making me in such a way thatI cannot believe his book.Question. But Mr. Talmage says the reason whyyou hate the Bible is, that your soul is poisoned; that87the Bible "throws you into a rage precisely as pure"water brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia."Answer. Is it because the mind of the infidel ispoisoned, that he refuses to believe that an infiniteGod commanded the murder of mothers, maidens andbabes? Is it because their minds are impure, thatthey refuse to believe that a good God establishedthe institution of human slavery, or that he protectedit when established? Is it because their minds arevile, that they refuse to believe that an infinite Godestablished or protected polygamy? Is it a suresign of an impure mind, when a man insists thatGod never waged wars of extermination against hishelpless children? Does it show that a man hasbeen entirely given over to the devil, because herefuses to believe that God ordered a father to sacri-fice his son? Does it show that a heart is entirelywithout mercy, simply because a man denies thejustice of eternal pain?I denounce many parts of the Old Testamentbecause they are infinitely repugnant to my senseof justice,—because they are bloody, brutal and in-famous,—because they uphold crime and destroy