notes. Is all this a consequence of the wrath ofGod?We find upon our streets no Jewish beggars. It isa rare sight to find one of these people standing asa criminal before a court. They do not fill our alms-houses, nor our penitentiaries, nor our jails. In-tellectually and morally they are the equal of anypeople. They have become illustrious in every de-partment of art and science. The old cry againstthem is at last perceived to be ignorant. Only a fewyears ago, Christians would rob a Jew, strip him ofhis possessions, steal his money, declare him an out-cast, and drive him forth. Then they would pointto him as a fulfillment of prophecy.If you wish to see the difference between someJews and some Christians, compare the addresses ofFelix Adler with the sermons of Mr. Talmage.290I cannot convince myself that an infinitely goodand wise God holds a Jewish babe in the cradle ofto-day responsible for the crimes of Caiaphas thehigh priest. I hardly think that an infinitely goodbeing would pursue this little babe through all its lifesimply to get revenge on those who died two thou-sand years ago. An infinite being ought certainly toknow that the child is not to blame; and an infinitebeing who does not know this, is not entitled to thelove or adoration of any honest man.There is a strange inconsistency in what Mr. Tal-mage says. For instance, he finds great fault withme because I do not agree with the religious ideasof my father; and he finds fault equally with theJews who do. The Jews who were true to the re-ligion of their fathers, according to Mr. Talmage,have been made a by-word and a hissing and a re-proach among all nations, and only those Jews werefortunate and blest who abandoned the religion oftheir fathers. The real reason for this inconsistencyis this: Mr. Talmage really thinks that a man canbelieve as he wishes. He imagines that evidence de-pends simply upon volition; consequently, he holdsevery one responsible for his belief. Being satisfiedthat he has the exact truth in this matter, he meas-291ures all other people by his standard, and if theyfail by that measurement, he holds them personallyresponsible, and believes that his God does the same.If Mr. Talmage had been born in Turkey, he wouldin all probability have been a Mohammedan, andwould now be denouncing some man who had deniedthe inspiration of the Koran, as the "champion blas-"phemer" of Constantinople. Certainly he wouldhave been, had his parents been Mohammedans;because, according to his doctrine, he would havebeen utterly lacking in respect and love for his fatherand mother had he failed to perpetuate their errors.So, had he been born in Utah, of Mormon parents,he would now have been a defender of polygamy.He would not "run the ploughshare of contempt"through the graves of his parents," by taking theground that polygamy is wrong.I presume that all of Mr. Talmage's forefatherswere not Presbyterians. There must have beena time when one of his progenitors left the faith ofhis father, and joined the Presbyterian Church. Ac-cording to the reasoning of Mr. Talmage, that particularprogenitor was an exceedingly bad man; but had itnot been for the crime of that bad man, Mr. Talmagemight not now have been on the road to heaven.292I hardly think that all the inventors, the thinkers,the philosophers, the discoverers, dishonored theirparents. Fathers and mothers have been madeimmortal by such sons. And yet these sons demon-strated the errors of their parents. A good fatherwishes to be excelled by his children.SIXTH INTERVIEW.It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to callanything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation isnecessarily limited to the first communication—after this, it is only an account of somethingwhich that person says was a revelation made tohim; and though he may find himself obliged tobelieve it, it cannot be incumbent on me tobelieve it in the same manner; for it was not arevelation made to me, and I have only his wordfor it that it was made to him.—Thomas Paine.Question. What do you think of the argu-ments presented by Mr. Talmage in favor ofthe inspiration of the Bible?Answer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground thatthere are more copies of the Bible than of anyother book, and that consequently it must be in-spired.It seems to me that this kind of reasoning provesentirely too much. If the Bible is the inspired wordof God, it was certainly just as true when there wasonly one copy, as it is to-day; and the facts con-tained in it were just as true before they were296written, as afterwards. We all know that it is a factin human nature, that a man can tell a falsehood sooften that he finally believes it himself; but I neversuspected, until now, that a mistake could be printedenough times to make it true.There may have been a time, and probably therewas, when there were more copies of the Koranthan of the Bible. When most Christians were ut-terly ignorant, thousands of Moors were educated;and it is well known that the arts and sciencesflourished in Mohammedan countries in a far greaterdegree than in Christian. Now, at that time, it maybe that there were more copies of the Koran than ofthe Bible. If some enterprising Mohammedan hadonly seen the force of such a fact, he might haveestablished the inspiration of the Koran beyonda doubt; or, if it had been found by actual count thatthe Koran was a little behind, a few years of in-dustry spent in the multiplication of copies, mighthave furnished the evidence of its inspiration.Is it not simply amazing that a doctor of divinity,a Presbyterian clergyman, in this day and age, shouldseriously rely upon the number of copies of the Bibleto substantiate the inspiration of that book? Is itpossible to conceive of anything more fig-leaflessly297absurd? If there is anything at all in this argument,it is, that all books are true in proportion to thenumber of copies that exist. Of course, the samerule will work with newspapers; so that the news-paper having the largest circulation can consistentlyclaim infallibility. Suppose that an exceedingly absurdstatement should appear inThe New York Herald,and some one should denounce it as utterly withoutany foundation in fact or probability; what wouldMr. Talmage think if the editor of the Herald, as anevidence of the truth of the statement, should relyon the fact that his paper had the largest circulationof any in the city? One would think that the wholechurch had acted upon the theory that a falsehood re-peated often enough was as good as the truth.Another evidence brought forward by the reverendgentleman to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures,is the assertion that if Congress should undertake topass a law to take the Bible from the people, thirty,millions would rise in defence of that book.This argument also seems to me to prove too much,and as a consequence, to prove nothing. If Con-gress should pass a law prohibiting the reading ofShakespeare, every American would rise in defenceof his right to read the works of the greatest man298this world has known. Still, that would not eventend to show that Shakespeare was inspired. Thefact is, the American people would not allow Con-gress to pass a law preventing them from readingany good book. Such action would not prove thebook to be inspired; it would prove that the Americanpeople believe in liberty.There are millions of people in Turkey who wouldperil their lives in defence of the Koran. A fact likethis does not prove the truth of the Koran; it simplyproves what Mohammedans think of that book, andwhat they are willing to do for its preservation.It can not be too often repeated, that martyrdomdoes not prove the truth of the thing for which themartyr dies; it only proves the sincerity of the martyrand the cruelty of his murderers. No matter howmany people regard the Bible as inspired,—that factfurnishes no evidence that it is inspired. Just as manypeople have regarded other books as inspired; just asmany millions have been deluded about the inspirationof books ages and ages before Christianity was born.The simple belief of one man, or of millions of men,is no evidence to another. Evidence must be based,not upon the belief of other people, but upon facts.A believer may state the facts upon which his belief299is founded, and the person to whom he states themgives them the weight that according to the con-struction and constitution of his mind he must. Butsimple, bare belief is not testimony. We should buildupon facts, not upon beliefs of others, nor upon theshifting sands of public opinion. So much for thisargument.The next point made by the reverend gentlemanis, that an infidel cannot be elected to any office inthe United States, in any county, precinct, or ward.For the sake of the argument, let us admit that thisis true. What does it prove? There was a timewhen no Protestant could have been elected to anyoffice. What did that prove? There was a timewhen no Presbyterian could have been chosen to fillany public station. What did that prove? Thesame may be said of the members of each religiousdenomination. What does that prove?Mr. Talmage says that Christianity must be true,because an infidel cannot be elected to office. Now,suppose that enough infidels should happen to settlein one precinct to elect one of their own number tooffice; would that prove that Christianity was nottrue in that precinct? There was a time when noman could have been elected to any office, who in-300sisted on the rotundity of the earth; what did thatprove? There was a time when no man who deniedthe existence of witches, wizards, spooks and devils,could hold any position of honor; what did thatprove? There was a time when an abolitionist couldnot be elected to office in any State in this Union;what did that prove? There was a time when theywere not allowed to express their honest thoughts;what does that prove? There was a time when aQuaker could not have been elected to any office;there was a time in the history of this country whenbut few of them were allowed to live; what doesthat prove? Is it necessary, in order to ascertain thetruth of Christianity, to look over the election re-turns? Is "inspiration" a question to be settled bythe ballot? I admit that it was once, in the firstplace, settled that way. I admit that books werevoted in and voted out, and that the Bible was finallyformed in accordance with a vote; but does Mr.Talmage insist that the question is not still open?Does he not know, that a fact cannot by any possi-bility be affected by opinion? We make laws forthe whole people, by the whole people. We agreethat a majority shall rule, but nobody ever pretendedthat a question of taste could be settled by an appeal301to majorities, or that a question of logic could beaffected by numbers. In the world of thought, eachman is an absolute monarch, each brain is a king-dom, that cannot be invaded even by the tyranny ofmajorities.No man can avoid the intellectual responsibility ofdeciding for himself.Suppose that the Christian religion had been putto vote in Jerusalem? Suppose that the doctrine ofthe "fall" had been settled in Athens, by an appealto the people, would Mr. Talmage have been willingto abide by their decision? If he settles the inspira-tion of the Bible by a popular vote, he must settle themeaning of the Bible by the same means. There aremore Methodists than Presbyterians—why does thegentleman remain a Presbyterian? There are moreBuddhists than Christians—why does he vote againstmajorities? He will remember that Christianity wasonce settled by a popular vote—that the divinity ofChrist was submitted to the people, and the peoplesaid: "Crucify him!"The next, and about the strongest, argument Mr.Talmage makes is, that I am an infidel because I wasdefeated for Governor of Illinois.When put in plain English, his statement is this:302that I was defeated because I was an infidel, and thatI am an infidel because I was defeated. This, I be-lieve, is called reasoning in a circle. The truth is,that a good many people did object to me because Iwas an infidel, and the probability is, that if I haddenied being an infidel, I might have obtained anoffice. The wonderful part is, that any Christianshould deride me because I preferred honor to po-litical success. He who dishonors himself for thesake of being honored by others, will find that twomistakes have been made—one by himself, and theother, by the people.I presume that Mr.Talmage really thinks that I wasextremely foolish to avow my real opinions. Afterall, men are apt to judge others somewhat by them-selves. According to him, I made the mistake ofpreserving my manhood and losing an office. Now,if I had in fact been an infidel, and had denied it, forthe sake of position, then I admit that every Christianmight have pointed at me the finger of contempt.But I was an infidel, and admitted it. Surely, I shouldnot be held in contempt by Christians for havingmade the admission. I was not a believer in theBible, and I said so. I was not a Christian, and I saidso. I was not willing to receive the support of any303man under a false impression. I thought it better tobe honestly beaten, than to dishonestly succeed.According to the ethics of Mr. Talmage I made amistake, and this mistake is brought forward asanother evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures.If I had only been elected Governor of Illinois,—thatis to say, if I had been a successful hypocrite, I mightnow be basking in the sunshine of this gentleman'srespect. I preferred to tell the truth—to be anhonest man,—and I have never regretted the courseI pursued.There are many men now in office who, had theypursued a nobler course, would be private citizens.Nominally, they are Christians; actually, they arenothing; and this is the combination that generallyinsures political success.Mr. Talmage is exceedingly proud of the fact thatChristians will not vote for infidels. In other words,he does not believe that in our Government thechurch has been absolutely divorced from the state.He believes that it is still the Christian's duty tomake the religious test. Probably he wishes to gethis God into the Constitution. My position is this:Religion is an individual matter—a something foreach individual to settle for himself, and with which304no other human being has any concern, provided thereligion of each human being allows liberty to everyother. When called upon to vote for men to fill theoffices of this country, I do not inquire as to the re-ligion of the candidates. It is none of my business.I ask the questions asked by Jefferson: "Is he"honest; is he capable?" It makes no difference tome, if he is willing that others should be free, whatcreed he may profess. The moment I inquire into hisreligious belief, I found a little inquisition of my own;I repeat, in a small way, the errors of the past, andreproduce, in so far as I am capable, the infamy ofthe ignorant orthodox years.Mr. Talmage will accept my thanks for his frankness.I now know what controls a Presbyterian when hecasts his vote. He cares nothing for the capacity,nothing for the fitness, of the candidate to dischargethe duties of the office to which he aspires; hesimply asks: Is he a Presbyterian, is he a Protestant,does he believe our creed? and then, no matter howignorant he may be, how utterly unfit, he receives thePresbyterian vote. According to Mr. Talmage, hewould vote for a Catholic who, if he had the power,would destroy all liberty of conscience, rather thanvote for an infidel who, had he the power, would305destroy all the religious tyranny of the world, andallow every human being to think for himself, andto worship God, or not, as and how he pleased.Mr. Talmage makes the serious mistake of placingthe Bible above the laws and Constitution of hiscountry. He places Jehovah above humanity. Suchmen are not entirely safe citizens of any republic.And yet, I am in favor of giving to such men all theliberty I ask for myself, trusting to education and thespirit of progress to overcome any injury they maydo, or seek to do.When this country was founded, when the Con-stitution was adopted, the churches agreed to let theState alone. They agreed that all citizens should haveequal civil rights. Nothing could be more dangerousto the existence of this Republic than to introducereligion into politics. The American theory is, thatgovernments are founded, not by gods, but by men,and that the right to govern does not come fromGod, but "from the consent of the governed." Ourfathers concluded that the people were sufficientlyintelligent to take care of themselves—to make goodlaws and to execute them. Prior to that time, allauthority was supposed to come from the clouds.Kings were set upon thrones by God, and it was the306business of the people simply to submit. In all reallycivilized countries, that doctrine has been abandoned.The source of political power is here, not in heaven.We are willing that those in heaven should controlaffairs there; we are willing that the angels shouldhave a government to suit themselves; but while welive here, and while our interests are upon this earth,we propose to make and execute our own laws.If the doctrine of Mr. Talmage is the true doctrine,if no man should be voted for unless he is a Christian,then no man should vote unless he is a Christian. Itwill not do to say that sinners may vote, that an infidelmay be the repository of political power, but must notbe voted for. A decent Christian who is not willingthat an infidel should be elected to an office, wouldnot be willing to be elected to an office by infidelvotes. If infidels are too bad to be voted for, theyare certainly not good enough to vote, and noChristian should be willing to represent such aninfamous constituency.If the political theory of Mr. Talmage is carriedout, of course the question will arise in a little while,What is a Christian? It will then be necessary towrite a creed to be subscribed by every person beforehe is fit to vote or to be voted for. This of course307must be done by the State, and must be settled,under our form of government, by a majority vote.Is Mr. Talmage willing that the question, What isChristianity? should be so settled? Will he pledgehimself in advance to subscribe to such a creed? Ofcourse he will not. He will insist that he has theright to read the Bible for himself, and that he mustbe bound by his own conscience. In this he wouldbe right. If he has the right to read the Bible forhimself, so have I. If he is to be bound by his con-science, so am I. If he honestly believes the Bible tobe true, he must say so, in order to preserve his man-hood; and if I honestly believe it to be uninspired,—filled with mistakes,—I must say so, or lose my man-hood. How infamous I would be should I endeavorto deprive him of his vote, or of his right to be votedfor, because he had been true to his conscience! Andhow infamous he is to try to deprive me of the rightto vote, or to be voted for, because I am true to myconscience!When we were engaged in civil war, did Mr. Tal-mage object to any man's enlisting in the ranks whowas not a Christian? Was he willing, at that time,that sinners should vote to keep our flag in heaven?Was he willing that the "unconverted" should cover308the fields of victory with their corpses, that this nationmight not die? At the same time, Mr. Talmageknew that every "unconverted" soldier killed, wentdown to eternal fire. Does Mr. Talmage believe thatit is the duty of a man to fight for a government inwhich he has no rights? Is the man who shouldershis musket in the defence of human freedom goodenough to cast a ballot? There is in the heart of thispriest the safne hatred of real liberty that drew thesword of persecution, that built dungeons, that forgedchains and made instruments of torture.Nobody, with the exception of priests, would bewilling to trust the liberties of this country in thehands of any church. In order to show the politicalestimation in which the clergy are held, in order toshow the confidence the people at large have in thesincerity and wisdom of the clergy, it is sufficient tostate, that no priest, no bishop, could by any possi-bility be elected President of the United States. Noparty could carry that load. A fear would fall uponthe mind and heart of every honest man that thiscountry was about to drift back to the Middle Ages,and that the old battles were to be refought. If thebishop running for President was of the MethodistChurch, every other church would oppose him. If309he was a Catholic, the Protestants would as a bodycombine against him. Why? The churches haveno confidence in each other. Why? Because theyare acquainted with each other.As a matter of fact, the infidel has a thousandtimes more reason to vote against the Christian,than the Christian has to vote against the infidel.The Christian believes in a book superior to theConstitution—superior to all Constitutions and alllaws. The infidel believes that the Constitution andlaws are superior to any book. He is not controlledby any power beyond the seas or above the clouds.He does not receive his orders from Rome, or Sinai.He receives them from his fellow-citizens, legally andconstitutionally expressed. The Christian believes ina power greater than man, to which, upon the perilof eternal pain, he must bow. His allegiance, to saythe best of it, is divided. The Christian puts the for-tune of his own soul over and above the temporalwelfare of the entire world; the infidel puts the goodof mankind here and now, beyond and over all.There was a time in New England when onlychurch members were allowed to vote, and it may beinstructive to state the fact that during that timeQuakers were hanged, women were stripped, tied to310carts, and whipped from town to town, and theirbabes sold into slavery, or exchanged for rum. Nowin that same country, thousands and thousands ofinfidels vote, and yet the laws are nearer just, womenare not whipped and children are not sold.If all the convicts in all the penitentiaries of theUnited States could be transported to some island inthe sea, and there allowed to make a government forthemselves, they would pass better laws than JohnCalvin did in Geneva. They would have clearer andbetter views of the rights of men, than unconvictedChristians used to have. I do not say that theseconvicts are better people, but I do say that, in myjudgment, they would make better laws. They cer-tainly could not make worse.If these convicts were taken from the prisons ofthe United States, they would not dream of unitingchurch and state. They would have no religioustest. They would allow every man to vote and to bevoted for, no matter what his religious views mightbe. They would not dream of whipping Quakers, ofburning Unitarians, of imprisoning or burning Uni-versalists or infidels. They would allow all the peopleto guess for themselves. Some of these convicts, ofcourse, would believe in the old ideas, and wouldinsist upon the suppression of free thought. Thosecoming from Delaware would probably repeat withgreat gusto the opinions of Justice Comegys, andinsist that the whipping-post was the handmaid ofChristianity.It would be hard to conceive of a much worsegovernment than that founded by the Puritans.They took the Bible for the foundation of theirpolitical structure. They copied the laws given toMoses from Sinai, and the result was one of theworst governments that ever disgraced this world.They believed the Old Testament to be inspired.They believed that Jehovah made laws for all peopleand for all time. They had not learned the hypoc-risy that believes and avoids. They did not say:This law was once just, but is now unjust; it wasonce good, but now it is infamous; it was given byGod once, but now it can only be obeyed by thedevil. They had not reached the height of biblicalexegesis on which we find the modern theologianperched, and who tells us that Jehovah has reformed.The Puritans were consistent. They did what peoplemust do who honestly believe in the inspiration ofthe Old Testament. If God gave laws from Sinaiwhat right have we to repeal them?312As people have gained confidence in each other,they have lost confidence in the sacred Scriptures.We know now that the Bible can not be used as thefoundation of government. It is capable of too manymeanings. Nobody can find out exactly what itupholds, what it permits, what it denounces, what itdenies. These things depend upon what part youread. If it is all true, it upholds everything bad anddenounces everything good, and it also denouncesthe bad and upholds the good. Then there arepassages where the good is denounced and the badcommanded; so that any one can go to the Bibleand find some text, some passage, to uphold anythinghe may desire. If he wishes to enslave his fellow-men, he will find hundreds of passages in his favor.If he wishes to be a polygamist, he can find hisauthority there. If he wishes to make war, to exter-minate his neighbors, there his warrant can be found.If, on the other hand, he is oppressed himself, andwishes to make war upon his king, he can find abattle-cry. And if the king wishes to put him down,he can find text for text on the other side. So, too,upon all questions of reform. The teetotaler goesthere to get his verse, and the moderate drinkerfinds within the sacred lids his best excuse.313Most intelligent people are now convinced that thebible is not a guide; that in reading it you mustexercise your reason; that you can neither safelyreject nor accept all; that he who takes one passagefor a staff, trips upon another; that while one text isa light, another blows it out; that it is such a ming-ling of rocks and quicksands, such a labyrinth ofclews and snares—so few flowers among so manynettles and thorns, that it misleads rather than di-rects, and taken altogether, is a hindrance and nota help.Another important point made by Mr. Talmage is,that if the Bible is thrown away, we will have nothingleft to swear witnesses on, and that consequently theadministration of justice will become impossible.There was a time when the Bible did not exist, andif Mr. Talmage is correct, of course justice was im-possible then, and truth must have been a strangerto human lips. How can we depend upon the testi-mony of those who wrote the Bible, as there was noBible in existence while they were writing, and con-sequently there was no way to take their testimony,and we have no account of their having been swornon the Bible after they got it finished. It is extremelysad to think that all the nations of antiquity were left314entirely without the means of eliciting truth. Nowonder that Justice was painted blindfolded.What perfect fetichism it is, to imagine that a manwill tell the truth simply because he has kissed anold piece of sheepskin stained with the saliva of allclasses. A farce of this kind adds nothing to thetestimony of an honest man; it simply allows a rogueto give weight to his false testimony. This is reallythe only result that can be accomplished by kissingthe Bible. A desperate villain, for the purpose ofgetting revenge, or making money, will gladly gothrough the ceremony, and ignorant juries and su-perstitious judges will be imposed upon. The wholesystem of oaths is false, and does harm instead ofgood. Let every man walk into court and tell hisstory, and let the truth of the story be judged by itsreasonableness, taking into consideration the charac-ter of the witness, the interest he has, and the posi-tion he occupies in the controversy, and then let itbe the business of the jury to ascertain the real truth—to throw away the unreasonable and the impossi-ble, and make up their verdict only upon what theybelieve to be reasonable and true. An honest mandoes not need the oath, and a rascal uses it simplyto accomplish his purpose. If the history of courts315proved that every man, after kissing the Bible, toldthe truth, and that those who failed to kiss it some-times lied, I should be in favor of swearing all peopleon the Bible; but the experience of every lawyer is,that kissing the Bible is not always the preface of atrue story. It is often the ceremonial embroideryof a falsehood.If there is an infinite God who attends to theaffairs of men, it seems to me almost a sacrilege topublicly appeal to him in every petty trial. If onewill go into any court, and notice the manner inwhich oaths are administered,—the utter lack ofsolemnity—the matter-of-course air with which thewhole thing is done, he will be convinced that it is aform of no importance. Mr. Talmage would probablyagree with the judge of whom the following story istold:A witness was being sworn. The judge noticedthat he was not holding up his hand. He said to theclerk: "Let the witness hold up his right hand.""His right arm was shot off," replied the clerk. "Let"him hold up his left, then." "That was shot off, too,"your honor." "Well, then, let him raise one foot;"no man can be sworn in this court without holding"something up."My own opinion is, that if every copy of the Biblein the world were destroyed, there would be someway to ascertain the truth in judicial proceedings;and any other book would do just as well to swearwitnesses upon, or a block in the shape of a bookcovered with some kind of calfskin could do equallywell, or just the calfskin would do. Nothing is morelaughable than the performance of this ceremony,and I have never seen in court one calf kissing theskin of another, that I did not feel humiliated thatsuch things were done in the name of Justice.Mr. Talmage has still another argument in favorof the preservation of the Bible. He wants toknow what book could take its place on the centre-table.I admit that there is much force in this. Supposewe all admitted the Bible to be an uninspired book,it could still be kept on the centre-table. It wouldbe just as true then as it is now. Inspiration can notadd anything to a fact; neither can inspiration makethe immoral moral, the unjust just, or the cruel merci-ful. If it is a fact that God established human slavery,that does not prove slavery to be right; it simplyshows that God was wrong. If I have the right touse my reason in determining whether the Bible is317inspired or not, and if in accordance with my reasonI conclude that it is inspired, I have still the right touse my reason in determining whether the command-ments of God are good or bad. Now, suppose wetake from the Bible every word upholding slavery,every passage in favor of polygamy, every versecommanding soldiers to kill women and children, itwould be just as fit for the centre-table as now. Sup-pose every impure word was taken from it; supposethat the history of Tamar was left out, the biographyof Lot, and all other barbarous accounts of a barbarouspeople, it would look just as well upon the centre-table as now.Suppose that we should become convinced thatthe writers of the New Testament were mistaken asto the eternity of punishment, or that all the passagesnow relied upon to prove the existence of perditionwere shown to be interpolations, and were thereuponexpunged, would not the book be dearer still toevery human being with a heart? I would like tosee every good passage in the Bible preserved. Iwould like to see, with all these passages from theBible, the loftiest sentiments from all other booksthat have ever been uttered by men in all ages andof all races, bound in one volume, and to see that318volume, filled with the greatest, the purest and thebest, become the household book.The average Bible, on the average centre-table, isabout as much used as though it were a solid block.It is scarcely ever opened, and people who see itscovers every day are unfamiliar with its every page.I admit that some things have happened some-what hard to explain, and tending to show that theBible is no ordinary book. I heard a story, not longago, bearing upon this very subject.A man was a member of the church, but after atime, having had bad luck in business affairs, becamesomewhat discouraged. Not feeling able to con-tribute his share to the support of the church, heceased going to meeting, and finally became anaverage sinner. His bad luck pursued him until hefound himself and his family without even a crust toeat. At this point, his wife told him that she be-lieved they were suffering from a visitation of God,and begged him to restore family worship, and see ifGod would not do something for them. Feeling thathe could not possibly make matters worse, he tookthe Bible from its resting place on a shelf whereit had quietly slumbered and collected the dust ofmany months, and gathered his family about him.319He opened the sacred volume, and to his utter as-tonishment, there, between the divine leaves, was aten-dollar bill. He immediately dropped on hisknees. His wife dropped on hers, and the children ontheirs, and with streaming eyes they returned thanksto God. He rushed to the butcher's and boughtsome steak, to the baker's and bought some bread,to the grocer's and got some eggs and butter and tea,and joyfully hastened home. The supper was cooked,it was on the table, grace was said, and every facewas radiant with joy. Just at that happy moment aknock was heard, the door was opened, and a police-man entered and arrested the father for passingcounterfeit money.Mr. Talmage is also convinced that the Bible isinspired and should be preserved because there is noother book that à mother could give her son as heleaves the old home to make his way in the world.Thousands and thousands of mothers have pre-sented their sons with Bibles without knowing reallywhat the book contains. They simply followed thecustom, and the sons as a rule honored the Bible, notbecause they knew anything of it, but because it wasa gift from mother. But surely, if all the passagesupholding polygamy were out, the mother would give320the book to her son just as readily, and he would re-ceive it just as joyfully. If there were not one wordin it tending to degrade the mother, the gift would cer-tainly be as appropriate. The fact that mothers havepresented Bibles to their sons does not prove that thebook is inspired. The most that can be proved bythis fact is that the mothers believed it to be inspired.It does not even tend to show what the book is,neither does it tend to establish the truth of onemiracle recorded upon its pages. We cannot believethat fire refused to burn, simply because the state-ment happens to be in a book presented to a son byhis mother, and if all the mothers of the entire worldshould give Bibles to all their children, this would notprove that it was once right to murder mothers, or toenslave mothers, or to sell their babes.The inspiration of the Bible is not a question ofnatural affection. It can not be decided by the lovea mother bears her son. It is a question of fact, tobe substantiated like other facts. If the Turkishmother should give a copy of the Koran to herson, I would still have my doubts about the in-spiration of that book; and if some Turkish soldiersaved his life by having in his pocket a copy ofthe Koran that accidentally stopped a bullet just321opposite his heart, I should still deny that Mohammedwas a prophet of God.Nothing can be more childish than to ascribemysterious powers to inanimate objects. To imaginethat old rags made into pulp, manufactured intopaper, covered with words, and bound with the skinof a calf or a sheep, can have any virtues when thusput together that did not belong to the articles outof which the book was constructed, is of courseinfinitely absurd.In the days of slavery, negroes used to buy driedroots of other negroes, and put these roots in theirpockets, so that a whipping would not give thempain. Kings have bought diamonds to give themluck. Crosses and scapularies are still worn for thepurpose of affecting the inevitable march of events.People still imagine that a verse in the Bible can stepin between a cause and its effect; really believe thatan amulet, a charm, the bone of some saint, a pieceof a cross, a little image of the Virgin, a picture of apriest, will affect the weather, will delay frost, willprevent disease, will insure safety at sea, and in somecases prevent hanging. The banditti of Italy havegreat confidence in these things, and whenever theystart upon an expedition of theft and plunder, they322take images and pictures of saints with them, suchas have been blest by a priest or pope. They praysincerely to the Virgin, to give them luck, and see notthe slightest inconsistency in appealing to all thesaints in the calendar to assist them in robbing honestpeople.Edmund About tells a story that illustrates the beliefof the modern Italian. A young man was gambling.Fortune was against him. In the room was a littlepicture representing the Virgin and her child. Beforethis picture he crossed himself, and asked the assist-ance of the child. Again he put down his moneyand again lost. Returning to the picture, he told thechild that he had lost all but one piece, that he wasabout to hazard that, and made a very urgent requestthat he would favor him with divine assistance. Heput down the last piece. He lost. Going to thepicture and shaking his fist at the child, he cried out:"Miserable bambino, I am glad they crucified you!"The confidence that one has in an image, in a relic,in a book, comes from the same source,—fetichism.To ascribe supernatural virtues to the skin of a snake,to a picture, or to a bound volume, is intellectuallythe same.Mr. Talmage has still another argument in favor323of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He takes theground that the Bible must be inspired, because somany people believe it.Mr. Talmage should remember that a scientificfact does not depend upon the vote of numbers;—it depends simply upon demonstration; it dependsupon intelligence and investigation, not upon anignorant multitude; it appeals to the highest, in-stead of to the lowest. Nothing can be settledby popular prejudice.According to Mr. Talmage, there are about threehundred million Christians in the world. Is this true?In all countries claiming to be Christian—includingall of civilized Europe, Russia in Asia, and everycountry on the Western hemisphere, we have nearlyfour hundred millions of people. Mr. Talmage claimsthat three hundred millions are Christians. I sup-pose he means by this, that if all should perish to-night, about three hundred millions would wake upin heaven—having lived and died good and consist-ent Christians.There are in Russia about eighty millions of people—how many Christians? I admit that they have re-cently given more evidence of orthodox Christianitythan formerly. They have been murdering old men;324they have thrust daggers into the breasts of women;they have violated maidens—because they were Jews.Thousands and thousands are sent each year to themines of Siberia, by the Christian government ofRussia. Girls eighteen years of age, for having ex-pressed a word in favor of human liberty, are to-dayworking like beasts of burden, with chains upontheir limbs and with the marks of whips upontheir backs. Russia, of course, is considered by Mr.Talmage as a Christian country—a country utterlydestitute of liberty—without freedom of the press,without freedom of speech, where every mouth islocked and every tongue a prisoner—a country filledwith victims, soldiers, spies, thieves and executioners.What would Russia be, in the opinion of Mr. Tal-mage, but for Christianity? How could it be worse,when assassins are among the best people in it?The truth is, that the people in Russia, to-day, whoare in favor of human liberty, are not Christians.The men willing to sacrifice their lives for the goodof others, are not believers in the Christian religion.The men who wish to break chains are infidels;the men who make chains are Christians. Everygood and sincere Catholic of the Greek Churchis a bad citizen, an enemy of progress, a foe of325human liberty. Yet Mr. Talmage regards Russiaas a Christian country.The sixteen millions of people in Spain are claimedas Christians. Spain, that for centuries was the as-sassin of human rights; Spain, that endeavored tospread Christianity by flame and fagot; Spain, thesoil where the Inquisition flourished, where bigotrygrew, and where cruelty was worship,—wheremurder was prayer. I admit that Spain is a Chris-tian nation. I admit that infidelity has gained nofoothold beyond the Pyrenees. The Spaniards areorthodox. They believe in the inspiration of theOld and New Testaments. They have no doubtsabout miracles—no doubts about heaven, no doubtsabout hell. I admit that the priests, the highway-men, the bishops and thieves, are equally true be-lievers. The man who takes your purse on thehighway, and the priest who forgives the robber,are alike orthodox.It gives me pleasure, however, to say that even inSpain there is a dawn. Some great men, some menof genius, are protesting against the tyranny of Cath-olicism. Some men have lost confidence in thecathedral, and are beginningto ask the State to erectthe schoolhouse. They are beginning to suspect326that priests are for the most part impostors andplunderers.According to Mr. Talmage, the twenty-eight mil-lions in Italy are Christians. There the ChristianChurch was early established, and the popes are to-day the successors of St. Peter. For hundreds andhundreds of years, Italy was the beggar of the world,and to her, from every land, flowed streams of goldand silver. The country was covered with convents,and monasteries, and churches, and cathedrals filledwith monks and nuns. Its roads were crowded withpilgrims, and its dust was on the feet of the world.What has Christianity done for Italy—Italy, its soil ablessing, its sky a smile—Italy, with memories greatenough to kindle the fires of enthusiasm in anyhuman breast?Had it not been for a few Freethinkers, for a fewinfidels, for such men as Garibaldi and Mazzini, theheaven of Italy would still have been without a star.I admit that Italy, with its popes and bandits, withits superstition and ignorance, with its sanctifiedbeggars, is a Christian nation; but in a little while,—in a few days,—when according to the prophecy ofGaribaldi priests, with spades in their hands, willdig ditches to drain the Pontine marshes; in a little327while, when the pope leaves the Vatican, and seeksthe protection of a nation he has denounced,—askingalms of intended victims; when the nuns shall marry,and the monasteries shall become factories, and thewhirl of wheels shall take the place of drowsy prayers—then, and not until then, will Italy be,—not aChristian nation, but great, prosperous, and free.In Italy, Giordano Bruno was burned. Some day,his monument will rise above the cross of Rome.We have in our day one example,—and so far as Iknow, history records no other,—of the resurrectionof a nation. Italy has been called from the grave ofsuperstition. She is "the first fruits of them that"slept."I admit with Mr. Talmage that Portugal is a Chris-tian country—that she engaged for hundreds of yearsin the slave trade, and that she justified the infamoustraffic by passages in the Old Testament. I admit,also, that she persecuted the Jews in accordancewith the same divine volume. I admit that all thecrime, ignorance, destitution, and superstition in thatcountry were produced by the Catholic Church. Ialso admit that Portugal would be better if it wereProtestant.Every Catholic is in favor of education enough to328change a barbarian into a Catholic; every Protestantis in favor of education enough to change a Catholicinto a Protestant; but Protestants and Catholics alikeare opposed to education that will lead to anyreal philosophy and science. I admit that Portugalis what it is, on account of the preaching of thegospel. I admit that Portugal can point with prideto the triumphs of what she calls civilization withinher borders, and truthfully ascribe the glory to thechurch. But in a litde while, when more railroadsare built, when telegraphs connect her people withthe civilized world, a spirit of doubt, of investigation,will manifest itself in Portugal.When the people stop counting beads, and go tothe study of mathematics; when they think more ofplows than of prayers for agricultural purposes; whenthey find that one fact gives more light to the mindthan a thousand tapers, and that nothing can by anypossibility be more useless than a priest,—then Por-tugal will begin to cease to be what is called aChristian nation.I admit that Austria, with her thirty-seven millions,is a Christian nation—including her Croats, Hungar-ians, Servians, and Gypsies. Austria was one of theassassins of Poland. When we remember that John329Sobieski drove the Mohammedans from the gates ofVienna, and rescued from the hand of the "infidel"the beleagured city, the propriety of calling Austria aChristian nation becomes still more apparent. If onewishes to know exactly how "Christian" Austria is,let him read the history of Hungary, let him readthe speeches of Kossuth. There is one good thingabout Austria: slowly but surely she is underminingthe church by education. Education is the enemyof superstition. Universal education does away withthe classes born of the tyranny of ecclesiasticism—classes founded upon cunning, greed, and brutestrength. Education also tends to do away withintellectual cowardice. The educated man is hisown priest, his own pope, his own church.When cunning collects tolls from fear, the churchprospers.Germany is another Christian nation. Bismarck iscelebrated for his Christian virtues.Only a little while ago, Bismarck, when a bill wasunder consideration for ameliorating the conditionof the Jews, stated publicly that Germany was aChristian nation, that her business was to extendand protect the religion of Jesus Christ, and thatbeing a Christian nation, no laws should be passed330ameliorating the condition of the Jews. Certainly aremark like this could not have been made in anyother than a Christian nation. There is no freedomof the press, there is no freedom of speech, in Ger-many. The Chancellor has gone so far as to declarethat the king is not responsible to the people. Ger-many must be a Christian nation. The king gets hisright to govern, not from his subjects, but from God.He relies upon the New Testament. He is satisfiedthat "the powers that be in Germany are ordained"of God." He is satisfied that treason against theGerman throne is treason against Jehovah. Thereare millions of Freethinkers in Germany. They arenot in the majority, otherwise there would be moreliberty in that country. Germany is not an infidelnation, or speech would be free, and every manwould be allowed to express his honest thoughts.Wherever I see Liberty in chains, wherever theexpression of opinion is a crime, I know that thatcountry is not infidel; I know that the people are notruled by reason. I also know that the greatest menof Germany—her Freethinkers, her scientists, herwriters, her philosophers, are, for the most part, in-fidel. Yet Germany is called a Christian nation, andought to be so called until her citizens are free.331France is also claimed as a Christian country. Thisis not entirely true. France once was thoroughlyCatholic, completely Christian. At the time of themassacre of Saint Bartholomew, the French wereChristians. Christian France made exiles of theHuguenots. Christian France for years and yearswas the property of the Jesuits. Christian Francewas ignorant, cruel, orthodox and infamous. WhenFrance was Christian, witnesses were cross-examined