human liberty. It is impossible for me to imaginea greater monster than the God of the Old Testa-88ment. He is unworthy of my worship. He com-mands only my detestation, my execration, and mypassionate hatred. The God who commanded themurder of children is an infamous fiend. The Godwho believed in polygamy, is worthy only of con-tempt. The God who established slavery should behated by every free man. The Jehovah of the Jewswas simply a barbarian, and the Old Testament ismostly the barbarous record of a barbarous people.If the Jehovah of the Jews is the real God, I donot wish to be his friend. From him I neither ask,nor expect, nor would I be willing to receive, even aneternity of joy. According to the Old Testament,he established a government,—a political state,—andyet, no civilized country to-day would re-enact theselaws of God.Question. What do you think of the explanationgiven by Mr. Talmage of the stopping of the sun andmoon in the time of Joshua, in order that a battlemight be completed?Answer. Of course, if there is an infinite God,he could have stopped the sun and moon. No onepretends to prescribe limits to the power of theinfinite. Even admitting that such a being existed,the question whether he did stop the sun and moon,89or not, still remains. According to the account, theseplanets were stopped, in order that Joshua might con-tinue the pursuit of a routed enemy. I take it forgranted that a being of infinite wisdom would notwaste any force,—that he would not throw away any"omnipotence," and that, under ordinary circum-stances, he would husband his resources. I find thatthis spirit exists, at least in embryo, in Mr. Talmage.He proceeds to explain this miracle. He does notassert that the earth was stopped on its axis, but sug-gests "refraction" as a way out of the difficulty. Now,while the stopping of the earth on its axis accounts forthe sun remaining in the same relative position, it doesnot account for the stoppage of the moon. The moonhas a motion of its own, and even if the earth had beenstopped in its rotary motion, the moon would have goneon. The Bible tells us that the moon was stopped. Onewould suppose that the sun would have given sufficientlight for all practical purposes. Will Mr. Talmage bekind enough to explain the stoppage of the moon?Every one knows that the moon is somewhat obscurewhen the sun is in the midst of the heavens. The moonwhen compared with the sun at such a time, is muchlike one of the discourses of Mr. Talmage side by sidewith a chapter from Humboldt;—it is useless.90In the same chapter in which the account of thestoppage of the sun and moon is given, we find thatGod cast down from heaven great hailstones onJoshua's enemies. Did he get out of hailstones?Had he no "omnipotence" left? Was it necessaryfor him to stop the sun and moon and depend entirelyupon the efforts of Joshua? Would not the forceemployed in stopping the rotary motion of the earthhave been sufficient to destroy the enemy? Wouldnot a millionth part of the force necessary to stop themoon, have pierced the enemy's centre, and rolled upboth his flanks? A resort to lightning would havebeen, in my judgment, much more economical andrather more effective. If he had simply opened theearth, and swallowed them, as he did Korah and hiscompany, it would have been a vast saving of"omnipotent" muscle. Yet, the foremost orthodoxminister of the Presbyterian Church,—the one whocalls all unbelievers "wolves and dogs," and "brazen"fools," in his effort to account for this miracle, isdriven to the subterfuge of an "optical illusion."We are seriously informed that "God probably"changed the nature of the air," and performed thisfeat of ledgerdemain through the instrumentality of"refraction." It seems to me it would have been fully91as easy to have changed the nature of the air breathedby the enemy, so that it would not have supportedlife. He could have accomplished this by changingonly a little air, in that vicinity; whereas, accordingto the Talmagian view, he changed the atmosphereof the world. Or, a small "local flood" might havedone the work. The optical illusion and refractionview, ingenious as it may appear, was not originalwith Mr. Talmage. The Rev. Henry M. Morey, ofSouth Bend, Indiana, used, upon this subject, the fol-lowing language; "The phenomenon was simply"optical. The rotary motion of the earth was not"disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by"the same laws of refraction and reflection by which"the sun now appears to be above the horizon when"it is really below. The medium through which the"sun's rays passed, might have been miraculously"influenced so as to have caused the sun to linger"above the horizon long after its usual time for dis-"appearance."I pronounce the opinion of Mr. Morey to be theripest product of Christian scholarship. According tothe Morey-Talmage view, the sun lingered somewhatabove the horizon. But this is inconsistent with theBible account. We are not told in the Scriptures that92the sun "lingered above the horizon," but that it "stood"still in the midst of heaven for about a whole day."The trouble about the optical-illusion view is, that itmakes the day too long. If the air was miraculouslychanged, so that it refracted the rays of the sun, whilethe earth turned over as usual for about a whole day,then, at the end of that time, the sun must have beenagain visible in the east. It would then naturallyshine twelve hours more, so that this miraculous daymust have been at least thirty-six hours in length.There were first twelve hours of natural light, thentwelve hours of refracted and reflected light, and thentwelve hours more of natural light. This makes theday too long. So, I say to Mr. Talmage, as I said toMr. Morey: If you will depend a little less onrefraction, and a little more on reflection, you will seethat the whole story is a barbaric myth and foolishfable.For my part, I do not see why God should bepleased to have me believe a story of this character.I can hardly think that there is great joy in heavenover another falsehood swallowed. I can imaginethat a man may deny this story, and still be an excel-lent citizen, a good father, an obliging neighbor, andin all respects a just and truthful man. I can also93imagine that a man may believe this story, and yetassassinate a President of the United States.I am afraid that Mr. Talmage is beginning to betouched, in spite of himself, with some new ideas. Hetells us that worlds are born and that worlds die.This is not exactly the Bible view. You would thinkthat he imagined that a world was naturally pro-duced,—that the aggregation of atoms was natural,and that disintegration came to worlds, as to men,through old age. Yet this is not the Bible view.According to the Bible, these worlds were not born,—they were created out of "nothing," or out of"omnipotence," which is much the same. Accordingto the Bible, it took this infinite God six days to makethis atom called earth; and according to the account,he did not work nights,—he worked from the morn-ings to the evenings,—and I suppose rested nights,as he has since that time on Sundays.Admitting that the battle which Joshua foughtwas exceedingly important—which I do not think—is it not a little strange that this God, in all subse-quent battles of the world's history, of which weknow anything, has maintained the strictest neu-trality? The earth turned as usual at Yorktown,and at Gettysburg the moon pursued her usual94course; and so far as I know, neither at Waterloonor at Sedan were there any peculiar freaks of "re-"fraction" or "reflection."Question. Mr. Talmage tells us that there was inthe early part of this century a dark day, whenworkmen went home from their fields, and legis-latures and courts adjourned, and that the darknessof that day has not yet been explained. What isyour opinion about that?Answer. My opinion is, that if at that time wehad been at war with England, and a battle hadbeen commenced in the morning, and in the after-noon the American forces had been driven from theirposition and were hard pressed by the enemy, andif the day had become suddenly dark, and so darkthat the Americans were thereby enabled to escape,thousands of theologians of the calibre of Mr. Tal-mage would have honestly believed that there hadbeen an interposition of divine Providence. Nobattle was fought that day, and consequently, eventhe ministers are looking for natural causes. Inolden times, when the heavens were visited bycomets, war, pestilence and famine were predicted.If wars came, the prediction was remembered; if95nothing happened, it was forgotten. When eclipsesvisited the sun and moon, the barbarian fell upon hisknees, and accounted for the phenomena by thewickedness of his neighbor. Mr. Talmage tells usthat his father was terrified by the meteoric showerthat visited our earth in 1833. The terror of thefather may account for the credulity of the son.Astronomers will be surprised to read the declarationof Mr. Talmage that the meteoric shower has neverbeen explained. Meteors visit the earth every yearof its life, and in a certain portion of the orbit theyare always expected, and they always come. Mr.Newcomb has written a work on astronomy thatall ministers ought to read.Question. Mr. Talmage also charges you with"making light of holy things," and seems to be aston-ished that you should ridicule the anointing oil ofAaron?Answer. I find that the God who had no time tosay anything on the subject of slavery, and who foundno room upon the tables of stone to say a wordagainst polygamy, and in favor of the rights ofwoman, wife and mother, took time to give a recipefor making hair oil. And in order that the priests96might have the exclusive right to manufacture this oil,decreed the penalty of death on all who shouldinfringe. I admit that I am incapable of seeing thebeauty of this symbol. Neither could I ever see thenecessity of Masons putting oil on the corner-stoneof a building. Of course, I do not know the exactchemical effect that oil has on stone, and I see no harmin laughing at such a ceremony. If the oil does good,the laughter will do no harm; and if the oil will do noharm, the laughter will do no good. Personally, I amwilling that Masons should put oil on all stones; but,if Masons should insist that I must believe in the effi-cacy of the ceremony, or be eternally damned, Iwould have about the same feeling toward theMasons that I now have toward Mr. Talmage. Ipresume that at one time the putting of oil on acorner-stone had some meaning; but that it ever didany good, no sensible man will insist. It is a customto break a bottle of champagne over the bow ofa newly-launched ship, but I have never consideredthis ceremony important to the commercial interestsof the world.I have the same opinion about putting oil onstones, as about putting water on heads. For mypart, I see no good in the rite of baptism. Still, it97may do no harm, unless people are immersed duringcold weather. Neither have I the slightest objectionto the baptism of anybody; but if people tell me thatI must be baptized or suffer eternal agony, then I denyit. If they say that baptism does any earthly good, Ideny it. No one objects to any harmless ceremony;but the moment it is insisted that a ceremony is neces-sary, the reason of which no man can see, then thepractice of the ceremony becomes hurtful, for thereason that it is maintained only at the expense ofintelligence and manhood.It is hurtful for people to imagine that they canplease God by any ceremony whatever. If there isany God, there is only one way to please him, andthat is, by a conscientious discharge of your obliga-tions to your fellow-men. Millions of people imaginethat they can please God by wearing certain kindsof cloth. Think of a God who can be pleased witha coat of a certain cut! Others, to earn a smile ofheaven, shave their heads, or trim their beards, orperforate their ears or lips or noses. Others maimand mutilate their bodies. Others think to pleaseGod by simply shutting their eyes, by swingingcensers, by lighting candles, by repeating poor Latin,by making a sign of the cross with holy water, by98ringing bells, by going without meat, by eating fish,by getting hungry, by counting beads, by makingthemselves miserable Sundays, by looking solemn,by refusing to marry, by hearing sermons; andothers imagine that they can please God by calumni-ating unbelievers.There is an old story of an Irishman who, whendying, sent for a priest. The reputation of thedying man was so perfectly miserable, that the priestrefused to administer the rite of extreme unction.The priest therefore asked him if he could recollectany decent action that he had ever done. The dyingman said that he could not. "Very well," said thepriest, "then you will have to be damned." In amoment, the pinched and pale face brightened, andhe said to the priest: "I have thought of one good"action." "What is it?" asked the priest. And thedying man said, "Once I killed a gauger."I suppose that in the next world some ministers,driven to extremes, may reply: "Once I told a lie"about an infidel."Question. You see that Mr. Talmage still sticks tothe whale and Jonah story. What do you think ofhis argument, or of his explanation, rather, of thatmiracle?99Answer. The edge of his orthodoxy seems to becrumbling. He tells us that "there is in the mouth"of the common whale a cavity large enough for a"man to live in without descent into his stomach,"—and yet Christ says, that Jonah was in the whale'sbelly, not in his mouth. But why should Mr. Tal-mage say that? We are told in the sacred accountthat "God prepared a great fish" for the sole pur-pose of having Jonah swallowed. The size of thepresent whale has nothing to do with the story. Nomatter whether the throat of the whale of to-day islarge or small,—that has nothing to do with it. Thesimple story is, that God prepared a fish and hadJonah swallowed. And yet Mr. Talmage throws outthe suggestion that probably this whale held Jonahin his mouth for three days and nights. I admit thatJonah's chance for air would have been a little betterin his mouth, and his chance for water a little worse.Probably the whale that swallowed Jonah was thesame fish spoken of by Procopius,—both accountsbeing entitled, in my judgment, to equal credence.I am a little surprised that Mr. Talmage forgotto mention the fish spoken of by Munchausen—anequally reliable author,—and who has given, notsimply the bald fact that a fish swallowed a ship, but100was good enough to furnish the details. Mr. Talmageshould remember that out of Jonah's biographygrew the habit of calling any remarkable lie, "a fish"story." There is one thing that Mr. Talmageshould not forget; and that is, that miracles shouldnot be explained. Miracles are told simply to bebelieved, not to be understood.Somebody suggested to Mr. Talmage that, inall probability, a person in the stomach of a whalewould be digested in less than three days. Mr. Tal-mage, again showing his lack of confidence in God,refusing to believe that God could change the natureof gastric juice,—having no opportunity to relyupon "refraction or reflection," frankly admits thatJonah had to save himself by keeping on theconstant go and jump. This gastric-juice theory ofMr. Talmage is an abandonment of his mouth hy-pothesis. I do not wonder that Mr. Talmage thoughtof the mouth theory. Possibly, the two theories hadbetter be united—so that we may say that Jonah,when he got tired of the activity necessary toavoid the gastric juice, could have strolled intothe mouth for a rest. What a picture! Jonahsitting on the edge of the lower jaw, wiping theperspiration and the gastric juice from his anxious101face, and vainly looking through the open mouthfor signs of land!In this story of Jonah, we are told that "the Lord"spake unto the fish." In what language? It mustbe remembered that this fish was only a few hoursold. He had been prepared during the storm, forthe sole purpose of swallowing Jonah. He was afish of exceedingly limited experience. He had nohereditary knowledge, because he did not springfrom ancestors; consequently, he had no instincts.Would such a fish understand any language? Itmay be contended that the fish, having been madefor the occasion, was given a sufficient knowledgeof language to understand an ordinary command-ment; but, if Mr. Talmage is right, I think an orderto the fish would have been entirely unnecessary.When we take into consideration that a thing thesize of a man had been promenading up and downthe stomach of this fish for three days and threenights, successfully baffling the efforts of gastricjuice, we can readily believe that the fish was asanxious to have Jonah go, as Jonah was to leave.But the whale part is, after all, not the most won-derful portion of the book of Jonah. According tothis wonderful account, "the word of the Lord came102"to Jonah," telling him to "go and cry against the"city of Nineveh;" but Jonah, instead of going,endeavored to evade the Lord by taking ship forTarshish. As soon as the Lord heard of this, he"sent out a great wind into the sea," and frightenedthe sailors to that extent that after assuring them-selves, by casting lots, that Jonah was the man, theythrew him into the sea. After escaping from thewhale, he went to Nineveh, and delivered his pre-tended message from God. In consequence of hismessage, Jonah having no credentials from God,—nothing certifying to his official character, the Kingof Nineveh covered himself with sack-cloth and satdown in some ashes. He then caused a decree tobe issued that every man and beast should abstainfrom food and water; and further, that every man andbeast should be covered with sack-cloth. This wasdone in the hope that Jonah's God would repent, andturn away his fierce anger. When we take into con-sideration the fact that the people of Nineveh werenot Hebrews, and had not the slightest confidence inthe God of the Jews—knew no more of, and cared nomore for, Jehovah than we now care for Jupiter, orNeptune; the effect produced by the proclamation ofJonah is, to say the least of it, almost incredible.103We are also informed, in this book, that themoment God saw all the people sitting in the ashes,and all the animals covered with sack-cloth, herepented. This failure on the part of God to destroythe unbelievers displeased Jonah exceedingly, andhe was very angry. Jonah was much like themodern minister, who seems always to be personallyaggrieved if the pestilence and famine prophesied byhim do not come. Jonah was displeased to thatdegree, that he asked God to kill him. Jonah thenwent out of the city, even after God had repented,made him a booth and sat under it, in the shade,waiting to see what would become of the city. Godthen "prepared a gourd, and made it to come up"over Jonah that it might be a shadow over his"head to deliver him from his grief." And then wehave this pathetic line: "So Jonah was exceedingly"glad of the gourd."God having prepared a fish, and also prepareda gourd, proposed next morning to prepare a worm.And when the sun rose next day, the worm thatGod had prepared, "smote the gourd, so that"it withered." I can hardly believe that an in-finite being prepared a worm to smite a gourdso that it withered, in order to keep the sun from104the bald head of a prophet. According to theaccount, after sunrise, and after the worm hadsmitten the gourd, "God prepared a vehement east"wind." This was not an ordinary wind, but oneprepared expressly for that occasion. After the windhad been prepared, "the sun beat upon the head of"Jonah, and he fainted, and wished in himself to"die." All this was done in order to convinceJonah that a man who would deplore the loss of agourd, ought not to wish for the destruction of a city.Is it possible for any intelligent man now tobelieve that the history of Jonah is literally true?For my part, I cannot see the necessity either ofbelieving it, or of preaching it. It has nothing to dowith honesty, with mercy, or with morality. Thebad may believe it, and the good may hold it incontempt. I do not see that civilization has theslightest interest in the fish, the gourd, the worm, orthe vehement east wind.Does Mr. Talmage think that it is absolutely neces-sary to believeallthe story? Does he not think itprobable that a God of infinite mercy, rather thandamn the soul of an honest man to hell forever, wouldwaive, for instance, the worm,—provided he believedin the vehement east wind, the gourd and the fish?105Mr. Talmage, by insisting on the literal truth ofthe Bible stories, is doing Christianity great harm.Thousands of young men will say: "I can't become"a Christian if it is necessary to believe the adven-"tures of Jonah." Mr. Talmage will put into thepaths of multitudes of people willing to do right,anxious to make the world a little better than it is,—this stumbling block. He could have explained it,called it an allegory, poetical license, a child of theoriental imagination, a symbol, a parable, a poem, adream, a legend, a myth, a divine figure, or a greattruth wrapped in the rags and shreds and patches ofseeming falsehood. His efforts to belittle the miracle,to suggest the mouth instead of the stomach,—tosuggest that Jonah took deck passage, or lodged inthe forecastle instead of in the cabin or steerage,—to suggest motion as a means of avoiding digestion,is a serious theological blunder, and may cause theloss of many souls.If Mr. Talmage will consult with other ministers,they will tell him to let this story alone—that he willsimply "provoke investigation and discussion"—twothings to be avoided. They will tell him that theyare not willing their salary should hang on so slendera thread, and will advise him not to bother his gourd106about Jonah's. They will also tell him that in thisage of the world, arguments cannot be answered by"a vehement east wind."Some people will think that it would have beenjust as easy for God to have pulled the gourd up, asto have prepared a worm to bite it.Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you havesaid there are indecencies in the Bible. Are youstill of that opinion?Answer. Mr. Talmage endeavors to evade thecharge, by saying that "there are things in the Bible"not intended to be read, either in the family circle,"or in the pulpit, but nevertheless they are to be"read." My own judgment is, that an infinite beingshould not inspire the writing of indecent things.It will not do to say, that the Bible description of sin"warns and saves." There is nothing in the historyof Tamar calculated to "warn and save and thesame may be said of many other passages in theOld Testament. Most Christians would be gladto know that all such passages are interpolations.I regret that Shakespeare ever wrote a line thatcould not be read any where, and by any person.But Shakespeare, great as he was, did not rise en-107tirely above his time. So of most poets. Nearly allhave stained their pages with some vulgarity; and Iam sorry for it, and hope the time will come whenwe shall have an edition of all the great writers andpoets from which every such passage is elimi-nated.It is with the Bible as with most other books. Itis a mingling of good and bad. There are manyexquisite passages in the Bible,—many good laws,—many wise sayings,—and there are many passagesthat should never have been written. I do not pro-pose to throw away the good on account of thebad, neither do I propose to accept the bad onaccount of the good. The Bible need not be takenas an entirety. It is the business of every man whoreads it, to discriminate between that which is goodand that which is bad. There are also many passagesneither good nor bad,—wholly and totally indifferent—conveying 110 information—utterly destitute ofideas,—and as to these passages, my only objectionto them is that they waste time and paper.I am in favor of every passage in the Bible thatconveys information. I am in favor of every wiseproverb, of every verse coming from human ex-perience and that appeals to the heart of man. I am108in favor of every passage that inculcates justice,generosity, purity, and mercy. I am satisfied thatmuch of the historical part is false. Some of itis probably true. Let us have the courage to takethe true, and throw the false away. I am satisfiedthat many of the passages are barbaric, and many ofthem are good. Let us have the wisdom to acceptthe good and to reject the barbaric.No system of religion should go in partnershipwith barbarism. Neither should any Christian feelit his duty to defend the savagery of the past. Thephilosophy of Christ must stand independently of themistakes of the Old Testament. We should do jus-tice whether a woman was made from a rib or from"omnipotence." We should be merciful whetherthe flood was general, or local. We should be kindand obliging whether Jonah was swallowed by a fishor not. The miraculous has nothing to do with themoral. Intelligence is of more value than inspiration.Brain is better than Bible. Reason is above allreligion. I do not believe that any civilized humanbeing clings to the Bible on account of its barbaricpassages. I am candid enough to believe that everyChristian in the world would think more of the Bible,if it had not upheld slavery, if it had denounced109polygamy, if it had cried out against wars of exter-mination, if it had spared women and babes, if it hadupheld everywhere, and at all times, the standard ofjustice and mercy. But when it is claimed that thebook is perfect, that it is inspired, that it is, in fact,the work of an infinitely wise and good God,—thenit should be without a defect. There should not bewithin its lids an impure word; it should not expressan impure thought. There should not be one wordin favor of injustice, not one word in favor of slavery,not one word in favor of wars of extermination.There must be another revision of the Scriptures.The chaff must be thrown away. The dross mustbe rejected; and only that be retained which is inexact harmony with the brain and heart of thegreatest and the best.Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with unfair-ness, because you account for the death of art inPalestine, by the commandment which forbids themaking of graven images.Answer. I have said that that commandment wasthe death of art, and I say so still. I insist that byreason of that commandment, Palestine produced nopainter and no sculptor until after the destruction of110Jerusalem. Mr. Talmage, in order to answer thatstatement, goes on to show that hundreds and thou-sands of pictures were produced in the Middle Ages.That is a departure in pleading. Will he give us thenames of the painters that existed in Palestine fromMount Sinai to the destruction of the temple? Willhe give us the names of the sculptors between thosetimes? Mohammed prohibited his followers frommaking any representation of human or animal life,and as a result, Mohammedans have never produceda painter nor a sculptor, except in the portrayal andchiseling of vegetable forms. They were confinedto trees and vines, and flowers. No Mohammedanhas portrayed the human face or form. But thecommandment of Jehovah went farther than that ofMomammed, and prevented portraying the image ofanything. The assassination of art was complete.There is another thing that should not be forgotten.We are indebted for the encouragement ofart, not to the Protestant Church; if indebted to any,it is to the Catholic. The Catholic adorned the cathedralwith painting and statue—not the Protestant.The Protestants opposed music and painting, andrefused to decorate their temples. But if Mr. Tal-mage wishes to know to whom we are indebted for111art, let him read the mythology of Greece and Rome.The early Christians destroyed paintings and statues.They were the enemies of all beauty. They hatedand detested every expression of art. They lookedupon the love of statues as a form of idolatry. Theylooked upon every painting as a remnant of Pagan-ism. They destroyed all upon which they could laytheir ignorant hands. Hundred of years afterwards,the world was compelled to search for the fragmentsthat Christian fury had left. The Greeks filled theworld with beauty. For every stream and mountainand cataract they had a god or goddess. Theirsculptors impersonated every dream and hope, andtheir mythology feeds, to-day, the imagination ofmankind. The Venus de Milo is the impersonationof beauty, in ruin—the sublimest fragment of theancient world. Our mythology is infinitely unpoeticand barren—our deity an old bachelor from eternity,who once believed in indiscriminate massacre. Uponthe throne of our heaven, woman finds no place.Our mythology is destitute of the maternal.Question. Mr. Talmage denies your statementthat the Old Testament humiliates woman. He alsodenies that the New Testament says anythingagainst woman. How is it?112Answer. Of course, I never considered a book up-holding polygamy to be the friend of woman. Eve,according to that book, is the mother of us all, andyet the inspired writer does not tell us how long shelived,—does not even mention her death,—makesnot the slightest reference as to what finally becameof her. Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and yet, there is not the slightest mentionmade of Mrs. Methuselah. Enoch was translated,and his widow is not mentioned. There is not aword about Mrs. Seth, or Mrs. Enos, or Mrs. Cainan,or Mrs. Mahalaleel, or Mrs. Jared. We do notknow the name of Mrs. Noah, and I believe not thename of a solitary woman is given from the creationof Eve—with the exception of two of Lamech'swives—until Sarai is mentioned as being the wifeof Abram.If you wish really to know the Bible estimation ofwoman, turn to the fourth and fifth verses of thetwelfth chapter of Leviticus, in which a woman, forthe crime of having borne a son, is unfit to touch ahallowed thing, or to come in the holy sanctuary forthirty-three days; but if a woman was the motherof a girl, then she became totally unfit to enter thesanctuary, or pollute with her touch a hallowed thing,113for sixty-six days. The pollution was twice as greatwhen she had borne a daughter.It is a little difficult to see why it is a greater crimeto give birth to a daughter than to a son. Surely, alaw like that did not tend to the elevation of woman.You will also find in the same chapter that a womanhad to offer a pigeon, or a turtle-dove, as a sin offer-ing, in order to expiate the crime of having become amother. By the Levitical law, a mother was unclean.The priest had to make an atonement for her.If there is, beneath the stars, a figure of completeand perfect purity, it is a mother holding in her armsher child. The laws respecting women, given bycommandment of Jehovah to the Jews, were born ofbarbarism, and in this day and age should be re-garded only with detestation and contempt. Thetwentieth and twenty-first verses of the nineteenthchapter of Leviticus show that the same punishmentwas not meted to men and women guilty of thesame crime.The real explanation of what we find in the OldTestament degrading to woman, lies in the fact, thatthe overflow of Love's mysterious Nile—the sacredsource of life—was, by its savage authors, deemedunclean.114Question. But what have you to say about thewomen of the Bible, mentioned by Mr. Talmage,and held up as examples for all time of all that issweet and womanly?Answer. I believe that Esther is his principalheroine. Let us see who she was.According to the book of Esther, Ahasuerus whowas king of Persia, or some such place, orderedVashti his queen to show herself to the peopleand the princes, because she was "exceedingly fair"to look upon." For some reason—modesty per-haps—she refused to appear. And thereupon theking "sent letters into all his provinces and to every"people after their language, that every man should"bear rule in his own house;" it being feared thatif it should become public that Vashti had disobeyed,all other wives might follow her example. The kingalso, for the purpose of impressing upon all womenthe necessity of obeying their husbands, issued adecree that "Vashti should come no more before"him," and that he would "give her royal estate"unto another." This was done that "all the"wives should give to their husbands honor, both to"great and small."After this, "the king appointed officers in all the115"provinces of his kingdom that they might gather"together all the fair young virgins," and bringthem to his palace, put them in the custody ofhis chamberlain, and have them thoroughly washed.Then the king was to look over the lot and takeeach day the one that pleased him best until he foundthe one to put in the place of Vashti. A fellow bythe name of Mordecai, living in that part of thecountry, hearing of the opportunity to sell a girl,brought Esther, his uncle's daughter,—she being anorphan, and very beautiful—to see whether shemight not be the lucky one.The remainder of the second chapter of thisbook, I do not care to repeat. It is sufficient to saythat Esther at last was chosen.The king at this time did not know that Estherwas a Jewess. Mordecai her kinsman, however,discovered a plot to assassinate the king, and Esthertold the king, and the two plotting gentlemen werehanged on a tree.After a while, a man by the name of Haman wasmade Secretary of State, and everybody coming inhis presence bowed except Mordecai. Mordecai wasprobably depending on the influence of Esther.Haman finally became so vexed, that he made up116his mind to have all the Jews in the kingdomdestroyed. (The number of Jews at that timein Persia must have been immense.) Haman there-upon requested the king to have an order issued todestroy all the Jews, and in consideration of theorder, proposed to pay ten thousand talents of silver.And thereupon, letters were written to the governorsof the various provinces, sealed with the king's ring,sent by post in all directions, with instructions to killall the Jews, both young and old—little children andwomen,—in one day. (One would think that theking copied this order from another part of the OldTestament, or had found an original by Jehovah.) Thepeople immediately made preparations for the killing.Mordecai clothed himself with sack-cloth, and Esthercalled upon one of the king's chamberlains, and shefinally got the history of the affair, as well as a copyof the writing, and thereupon made up her mind togo in and ask the king to save her people.At that time, Bismarck's idea of government beingin full force, any one entering the king's presence with-out an invitation, was liable to be put to death. Andin case any one did go in to see the king, if the kingfailed to hold out his golden sceptre, his life was notspared. Notwithstanding this order, Esther put on117her best clothes, and stood in the inner court of theking's house, while the king sat on his royal throne.When the king saw her standing in the court, heheld out his sceptre, and Esther drew near, and heasked her what she wished; and thereupon sheasked that the king and Haman might take dinnerwith her that day, and it was done. While they werefeasting, the king again asked Esther what shewanted; and her second request was, that theywould come and dine with her once more. WhenHaman left the palace that day, he saw Mordecaiagain at the gate, standing as stiffly as usual, and itfilled Haman with indignation. So Haman, takingthe advice of his wife, made a gallows fifty cubitshigh, for the special benefit of Mordecai. The nextday, when Haman went to see the king, the king,having the night before refreshed his memory inrespect to the service done him by Mordecai, askedHaman what ought to be done for the man whomthe king wished to honor. Haman, supposing ofcourse that the king referred to him, said that royalpurple ought to be brought forth, such as the kingwore, and the horse that the king rode on, and thecrown-royal should be set on the man's head;—thatone of the most noble princes should lead the horse,118and as he went through the streets, proclaim: "Thus"shall it be done to the man whom the king de-"lighteth to honor."Thereupon the king told Haman that Mordecaiwas the man that the king wished to honor. AndHaman was forced to lead this horse, backed byMordecai, through the streets, shouting: "This shall"be done to the man whom the king delighteth to"honor." Immediately afterward, he went to thebanquet that Esther had prepared, and the kingagain asked Esther her petition. She then askedfor the salvation of her people; stating at the sametime, that if her people had been sold into slavery,she would have held her tongue; but since theywere about to be killed, she could not keep silent.The king asked her who had done this thing; andEsther replied that it was the wicked Haman.Thereupon one of the chamberlains, rememberingthe gallows that had been made for Mordecai, men-tioned it, and the king immediately ordered thatHaman be hanged thereon; which was done. AndMordecai immediately became Secretary of State.The order against the Jews was then rescinded; andAhasuerus, willing to do anything that Esther de-sired, hanged all of Haman's folks. He not only did119this, but he immediately issued an order to all theJews allowing them to kill the other folks. And theJews got together throughout one hundred andtwenty-seven provinces, "and such was their power,"that no man could stand against them; and there-"upon the Jews smote all their enemies with the"stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and de-"struction, and did whatever they pleased to those"who hated them." And in the palace of the king,the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men, besidesten sons of Haman; and in the rest of the provinces,they slew seventy-five thousand people. And afterthis work of slaughter, the Jews had a day of glad-ness and feasting.One can see from this, what a beautiful Biblecharacter Esther was—how filled with all that iswomanly, gentle, kind and tender!This story is one of the most unreasonable, as wellas one of the most heartless and revengeful, in thewhole Bible. Ahasuerus was a monster, and Estherequally infamous; and yet, this woman is held up forthe admiration of mankind by a Brooklyn pastor.There is this peculiarity about the book of Esther:the name of God is not mentioned in it, and thedeity is not referred to, directly or indirectly;—yet120it is claimed to be an inspired book. If Jehovahwrote it, he certainly cannot be charged withegotism.I most cheerfully admit that the book of Ruth isquite a pleasant story, and the affection of Ruth forher mother-in-law exceedingly touching, but I am ofopinion that Ruth did many things that would be re-garded as somewhat indiscreet, even in the city ofBrooklyn.All I can find about Hannah is, that she made alittle coat for her boy Samuel, and brought it to himfrom year to year. Where he got his vest andpantaloons we are not told. But this fact seemshardly enough to make her name immortal.So also Mr. Talmage refers us to the wonderfulwoman Abigail. The story about Abigail, told inplain English, is this: David sent some of his fol-lowers to Nabal, Abigail's husband, and demandedfood. Nabal, who knew nothing about David, andcared less, refused. Abigail heard about it, and tookfood to David and his servants. She was very muchstruck, apparently, with David and David with her.A few days afterward Nabal died—supposed to havebeen killed by the Lord—but probably poisoned;and thereupon David took Abigail to wife. The121whole matter should have been investigated by thegrand jury.We are also referred to Dorcas, who no doubt was agood woman—made clothes for the poor and gavealms, as millions have done since then. It seemsthat this woman died. Peter was sent for, and there-upon raised her from the dead, and she is never men-tioned any more. Is it not a little strange that awoman who had been actually raised from the dead,should have so completely passed out of the memoryof her time, that when she died the second time, shewas entirely unnoticed?Is it not astonishing that so little is in the NewTestament concerning the mother of Christ? Myown opinion is, that she was an excellent woman, andthe wife of Joseph; and that Joseph was the actualfather of Christ. I think there can be no reasonabledoubt that such was the opinion of the authors of theoriginal gospels. Upon any other hypothesis, it isimpossible to account for their having given thegenealogy of Joseph to prove that Christ was of theblood of David. The idea that he was the Son ofGod, or in any way miraculously produced, was anafterthought, and is hardly entitled now to seriousconsideration. The gospels were written so long after122the death of Christ, that very little was known of him,and substantially nothing of his parents. How is itthat not one word is said about the death of Mary—not one word about the death of Joseph? How didit happen that Christ did not visit his mother after hisresurrection? The first time he speaks to his motheris when he was twelve years old. His mother havingtold him that she and his father had been seekinghim, he replied: "How is it that ye sought me: wist"ye not that I must be about my Father s business?"The second time was at the marriage feast in Cana,when he said to her: "Woman, what have I to do"with thee?" And the third time was at the cross,when "Jesus, seeing his mother standing by the"disciple whom he loved, said to her: Woman, be-"hold thy son;" and to the disciple: "Behold thy"mother." And this is all.The best thing about the Catholic Church isthe deification of Mary,—and yet this is denouncedby Protestantism as idolatry. There is somethingin the human heart that prompts man to tell his faultsmore freely to the mother than to the father. Thecruelty of Jehovah is softened by the mercy ofMary.Is it not strange that none of the disciples of Christ123said anything about their parents,—that we knowabsolutely nothing of them? Is there any evidencethat they showed any particular respect even for themother of Christ?Mary Magdalen is, in many respects, the tenderestand most loving character in the New Testament.According to the account, her love for Christ knewno abatement,—no change—true even in the hopelessshadow of the cross. Neither did it die with hisdeath. She waited at the sepulchre; she hasted inthe early morning to his tomb, and yet the onlycomfort Christ gave to this true and loving soul liesin these strangely cold and heartless words: "Touch"me not."There is nothing tending to show that the womenspoken of in the Bible were superior to the ones weknow. There are to-day millions of women makingcoats for their sons,—hundreds of thousands ofwomen, true not simply to innocent people, falselyaccused, but to criminals. Many a loving heart isas true to the gallows as Mary was to the cross.There are hundreds of thousands of women accept-ing poverty and want and dishonor, for the love theybear unworthy men; hundreds and thousands, hun-dreds and thousands, working day and night, with124strained eyes and tired hands, for husbands andchildren,—clothed in rags, housed in huts and hovels,hoping day after day for the angel of death. There arethousands of women in Christian England, working iniron, laboring in the fields and toiling in mines. Thereare hundreds and thousands in Europe, everywhere,doing the work of men—deformed by toil, and whowould become simply wild and ferocious beasts,except for the love they bear for home and child.You need not go back four thousand years forheroines. The world is filled with them to-day.They do not belong to any nation, nor to any religion,nor exclusively to any race. Wherever woman isfound, they are found.There is no description of any women in the Biblethat equal thousands and thousands of women knownto-day. The women mentioned by Mr. Talmage fallalmost infinitely below, not simply those in real life, butthe creations of the imagination found in the world offiction. They will not compare with the women bornof Shakespeare's brain. You will find none likeIsabella, in whose spotless life, love and reasonblended into perfect truth; nor Juliet, within whoseheart passion and purity met, like white and red withinthe bosom of a rose; nor Cordelia, who chose to125suffer loss rather than show her wealth of love withthose who gilded dross with golden words in hopeof gain; nor Miranda, who told her love as freelyas a flower gives its bosom to the kisses of the sun;nor Imogene, who asked: "What is it to be false?"nor Hermione, who bore with perfect faith and hopethe cross of shame, and who at last forgave with allher heart; nor Desdemona, her innocence so perfectand her love so pure, that she was incapable of sus-pecting that another could suspect, and sought withdying words to hide her lover's crime.If we wish to find what the Bible thinks ofwoman, all that is necessary to do is to read it.We will find that everywhere she is spoken ofsimply as property,—as belonging absolutely to theman. We will find that whenever a man got tiredof his wife, all he had to do was to give her a writingof divorcement, and that then the mother of hischildren became a houseless and a homeless wanderer.We will find that men were allowed to have asmany wives as they could get, either by courtship,purchase, or conquest. The Jewish people in theolden time were in many respects like their barbarianneighbors.If we read the New Testament, we will find in the126epistle of Paul to Timothy, the following gallantpassages:"Let the woman learn in silence, with all"subjection.""But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp"authority over the man, but to be in silence."And for these kind, gentle and civilized remarks,the apostle Paul gives the following reasons:"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.""And Adam was not deceived, but the woman"being deceived was in the transgression."Certainly women ought to feel under great obli-gation to the apostle Paul.In the fifth chapter of the same epistle, Paul,advising Timothy as to what kind of people heshould admit into his society or church, uses thefollowing language:"Let not a widow be taken into the number under"threescore years old, having been the wife of one"man.""But the younger widows refuse, for when they"have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will"marry."This same Paul did not seem to think polygamywrong, except in a bishop. He tells Timothy that:127"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one"wife."He also lays down the rule that a deacon should bethe husband of one wife, leaving us to infer that theother members might have as many as they could get.In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul speaks of"grandmother Lois," who was referred to in such