with instruments of torture.Now France is not entirely under Catholic control,and yet she is by far the most prosperous nation inEurope. I saw, only the other day, a letter from aProtestant bishop, in which he states that there areonly about a million Protestants in France, and onlyfour or five millions of Catholics, and admits, in avery melancholy way, that thirty-four or thirty-fivemillions are Freethinkers. The bishop is probablymistaken in his figures, but France is the best housed,the best fed, the best clad country in Europe.Only a little while ago, France was overrun, trampledinto the very earth, by the victorious hosts of Ger-many, and France purchased her peace with thesavings of centuries. And yet France is now rich andprosperous and free, and Germany poor, discontented332and enslaved. Hundreds and thousands of Germans,unable to find liberty at home, are coming to theUnited States.I admit that England is a Christian country. Anydoubts upon this point can be dispelled by readingher history—her career in India, what she has donein China, her treatment of Ireland, of the AmericanColonies, her attitude during our Civil war; all thesethings show conclusively that England is a Christiannation.Religion has filled Great Britain with war. Thehistory of the Catholics, of the Episcopalians, ofCromwell—all the burnings, the maimings, the brand-ings, the imprisonments, the confiscations, the civilwars, the bigotry, the crime—show conclusively thatGreat Britain has enjoyed to the full the blessings of"our most holy religion."Of course, Mr. Talmage claims the United Statesas a Christian country. The truth is, our country isnot as Christian as it once was. When heretics werehanged in New England, when the laws of Virginiaand Maryland provided that the tongue of any manwho denied the doctrine of the Trinity should bebored with hot iron,, and that for the second offencehe should suffer death, I admit that this country was333Christian. When we engaged in the slave trade,when our flag protected piracy and murder in everysea, there is not the slightest doubt that the UnitedStates was a Christian country. When we believedin slavery, and when we deliberately stole the laborof four millions of people; when we sold womenand babes, and when the people of the Northenacted a law by virtue of which every Northernman was bound to turn hound and pursue a humanbeing who was endeavoring to regain his liberty, Iadmit that the United States was a Christian nation.I admit that all these things were upheld by the Bible—that the slave trader was justified by the Old Testa-ment, that the bloodhound was a kind of missionaryin disguise, that the auction block was an altar, theslave pen a kind of church, and that the whipping-post was considered almost as sacred as the cross.At that time, our country was a Christian nation.I heard Frederick Douglass say that he lecturedagainst slavery for twenty years before the doorsof a single church were opened to him. In NewEngland, hundreds of ministers were driven fromtheir pulpits because they preached against thecrime of human slavery. At that time, this countrywas a Christian nation.334Only a few years ago, any man speaking in favorof the rights of man, endeavoring to break a chainfrom a human limb, was in danger of being mobbedby the Christians of this country. I admit that Dela-ware is still a Christian State. I heard a story aboutthat State the other day.About fifty years ago, an old Revolutionary soldierapplied for a pension. He was asked his age, and hereplied that he was fifty years old. He was told thatif that was his age, he could not have been in theRevolutionary War, and consequently was not en-titled to any pension. He insisted, however, that hewas only fifty years old. Again they told him thatthere must be some mistake. He was so wrinkled,so bowed, had so many marks of age, that he mustcertainly be more than fifty years old. "Well," saidthe old man, "if I must explain, I will: I lived forty"years in Delaware; but I never counted that time,"and I hope God won't."The fact is, we have grown less and less Christianevery year from 1620 until now, and the fact is thatwe have grown more and more civilized, more andmore charitable, nearer and nearer just.Mr. Talmage speaks as though all the people inwhat he calls the civilized world were Christians. Ad-335mitting this to be true, I find that in these countriesmillions of men are educated, trained and drilled tokill their fellow Christians. I find Europe coveredwith forts to protect Christians from Christians, andthe seas filled with men-of-war for the purpose ofravaging the coasts and destroying the cities of Chris-tian nations. These countries are filled with prisons,with workhouses, with jails and with toiling, ignorantand suffering millions. I find that Christians haveinvented most of the instruments of death, thatChristians are the greatest soldiers, fighters, de-stroyers. I find that every Christian country is taxedto its utmost to support these soldiers; that everyChristian nation is now groaning beneath the grievousburden of monstrous debt, and that nearly all thesedebts were contracted in waging war. These bonds,these millions, these almost incalculable amounts,were given to pay for shot and shell, for rifle andtorpedo, for men-of-war, for forts and arsenals, andall the devilish enginery of death. I find that eachof these nations prays to God to assist it as againstall others; and when one nation has overrun, ravagedand pillaged another, it immediately returns thanksto the Almighty, and the ravaged and pillaged kneeland thank God that it is no worse.336Mr. Talmage is welcome to all the evidence he canfind in the history of what he is pleased to call thecivilized nations of the world, tending to show theinspiration of the Bible.And right here it may be well enough to say again,that the question of inspiration can not be settled bythe votes of the superstitious millions. It can not beaffected by numbers. It must be decided by eachhuman being for himself. If every man in this world,with one exception, believed the Bible to be the in-spired word of God, the man who was the exceptioncould not lose his right to think, to investigate, and tojudge for himself.Question. You do not think, then, that any of thearguments brought forward by Mr. Talmage for thepurpose of establishing the inspiration of the Bible,are of any weight whatever?Answer. I do not. I do not see how it is possibleto make poorer, weaker or better arguments than hehas made.Of course, there can be no "evidence" of the in-spiration of the Scriptures. What is "inspiration"?Did God use the prophets simply as instruments?Did he put his thoughts in their minds, and use their337hands to make a record? Probably few Christianswill agree as to what they mean by "inspiration."The general idea is, that the minds of the writers ofthe books of the Bible were controlled by the divinewill in such a way that they expressed, independentlyof their own opinions, the thought of God. I believe itis admitted that God did not choose the exact words,and is not responsible for the punctuation or syntax.It is hard to give any reason for claiming more forthe Bible than is claimed by those who wrote it.There is no claim of "inspiration" made by the writerof First and Second Kings. Not one word about theauthor having been "inspired" is found in the bookof Job, or in Ruth, or in Chronicles, or in the Psalms,or Ecclesiastes, or in Solomon's Song, and nothing issaid about the author of the book of Esther havingbeen "inspired." Christians now say that Matthew,Mark, Luke and John were "inspired" to write thefour gospels, and yet neither Mark, nor Luke, norJohn, nor Matthew claims to have been "inspired."If they were "inspired," certainly they should havestated that fact. The very first thing stated in eachof the gospels should have been a declaration by thewriter that he had been "inspired," and that he wasabout to write the book under the guidance of God,338and at the conclusion of each gospel there shouldhave been a solemn statement that the writer hadput down nothing of himself, but had in all thingsfollowed the direction and guidance of the divinewill. The church now endeavors to establish theinspiration of the Bible by force, by social ostracism,and by attacking the reputation of every man whodenies or doubts. In all Christian countries, theybegin with the child in the cradle. Each infant istold by its mother, by its father, or by some of itsrelatives, that "the Bible is an inspired book." Thispretended fact, by repetition "in season and out of"season," is finally burned and branded into thebrain to such a degree that the child of averageintelligence never outgrows the conviction that theBible is, in some peculiar sense, an "inspired" book.The question has to be settled for each generation.The evidence is not sufficient, and the foundation ofChristianity is perpetually insecure. Beneath this greatreligious fabric there is no rock. For eighteen centu-ries, hundreds and thousands and millions of peoplehave been endeavoring to establish the fact that theScriptures are inspired, and since the dawn of science,since the first star appeared in the night of theMiddle Ages, until this moment, the number of339people who have doubted the fact of inspirationhas steadily increased. These doubts have not beenborn of ignorance, they have not been suggested bythe unthinking. They have forced themselves uponthe thoughtful, upon the educated, and now the ver-dict of the intellectual world is, that the Bible is notinspired. Notwithstanding the fact that the churchhas taken advantage of infancy, has endeavored tocontrol education, has filled all primers and spelling-books and readers and text books with superstition—feeding all minds with the miraculous and super-natural, the growth toward a belief in the naturaland toward the rejection of the miraculous has beensteady and sturdy since the sixteenth century. Therehas been, too, a moral growth, until many passagesin the Bible have become barbarous, inhuman andinfamous. The Bible has remained the same, whilethe world has changed. In the light of physical andmoral discovery, "the inspired volume" seems inmany respects absurd. If the same progress is madein the next, as in the last, century, it is very easy topredict the place that will then be occupied by theBible. By comparing long periods of time, it is easyto measure the advance of the human race. Com-pare the average sermon of to-day with the average340sermon of one hundred years ago. Compare whatministers teach to-day with the creeds they professto believe, and you will see the immense distancethat even the church has traveled in the last century.The Christians tell us that scientific men havemade mistakes, and that there is very little certaintyin the domain of human knowledge. This I admit.The man who thought the world was flat, and whohad a way of accounting for the movement of theheavenly bodies, had what he was pleased to call aphilosophy. He was, in his way, a geologist and anastronomer. We admit that he was mistaken; butif we claimed that the first geologist and the firstastronomer were inspired, it would not do for us toadmit that any advance had been made, or that anyerrors of theirs had been corrected. We do notclaim that the first scientists were inspired. We donot claim that the last are inspired. We admit thatall scientific men are fallible. We admit that they donot know everything. We insist that they know butlittle, and that even in that little which they are sup-posed to know, there is the possibility of error. Thefirst geologist said: "The earth is flat." Supposethat the geologists of to-day should insist that thatman was inspired, and then endeavor to show that341the word "flat," in the "Hebrew," did not meanquite flat, but just a little rounded; what would wethink of their honesty? The first astronomer in-sisted that the sun and moon and stars revolvedaround this earth—that this little earth was the centreof the entire system. Suppose that the astronomersof to-day should insist that that astronomer was in-spired, and should try to explain, and say that hesimply used the language of the common people, andwhen he stated that the sun and moon and stars re-volved around the earth, he merely meant that they"apparently revolved," and that the earth, in fact,turned over, would we consider them honest men?You might as well say that the first painter was in-spired, or that the first sculptor had the assistance ofGod, as to say that the first writer, or the first book-maker, was divinely inspired. It is more probablethat the modern geologist is inspired than that the an-cient one was, because the modern geologist is nearerright. It is more probable that William Lloyd Gar-rison was inspired upon the question of slavery thanthat Moses was. It is more probable that the authorof the Declaration of Independence spoke by divineauthority than that the author of the Pentateuch did.In other words, if there can be any evidence of342"inspiration," it must lie in the fact of doing orsaying the best possible thing that could have beendone or said at that time or upon that subject.To make myself clear: The only possible evidenceof "inspiration" would be perfection—a perfection ex-celling anything that man unaided had ever attained.An "inspired" book should excel all other books; aninspired statue should be the best in this world; an in-spired painting should be beyond all others. If the Biblehas been improved in any particular, it was not, in thatparticular, ''inspired." If slavery is wrong, the Bible isnot inspired. If polygamy is vile and loathsome, theBible is not inspired. If wars of extermination are crueland heartless, the Bible is not "inspired." If there iswithin that book a contradiction of any natural fact; ifthere is one ignorant falsehood, if there is one mistake,then it is not "inspired." I do not mean mistakes thathave grown out of translations; but if there was inthe original manuscript one mistake, then it is not"inspired." I do not demand a miracle; I do notdemand a knowledge of the future; I simply demandan absolute knowledge of the past. I demand an ab-solute knowledge of the then present; I demand aknowledge of the constitution of the human mind—of the facts in nature, and that is all I demand.343Question. If I understand you, you think that allpolitical power should come from the people; do younot believe in any "special providence," and do youtake the ground that God does not interest himselfin the affairs of nations and individuals?Answer. The Christian idea is that God made theworld, and made certain laws for the government ofmatter and mind, and that he never interferes exceptupon special occasions, when the ordinary laws fail towork out the desired end. Their notion is, that theLord now and then stops the horses simply to showthat he is driving. It seems to me that if an infinitelywise being made the world, he must have made itthe best possible; and that if he made laws for thegovernment of matter and mind, he must have madethe best possible laws. If this is true, not one ofthese laws can be violated without producing a posi-tive injury. It does not seem probable that infinitewisdom would violate a law that infinite wisdom hadmade.Most ministers insist that God now and then in-terferes in the affairs of this world; that he has notinterfered as much lately as he did formerly. Whenthe world was comparatively new, it required alto-gether more tinkering and fixing than at present.344Things are at last in a reasonably good condition,and consequently a great amount of interference isnot necessary. In old times it was found necessary fre-quently to raise the dead, to change the nature of fireand water, to punish people with plagues and famine,to destroy cities by storms of fire and brimstone, tochange women into salt, to cast hailstones uponheathen, to interfere with the movements of ourplanetary system, to stop the earth not only, butsometimes to make it turn the other way, to arrestthe moon, and to make water stand up like a wall.Now and then, rivers were divided by striking themwith a coat, and people were taken to heaven inchariots of fire. These miracles, in addition to curingthe sick, the halt, the deaf and blind, were in formertimes found necessary, but since the "apostolic age,"nothing of the kind has been resorted to except inCatholic countries. Since the death of the lastapostle, God has appeared only to members of theCatholic Church, and all modern miracles have beenperformed for the benefit of Catholicism. There isno authentic account of the Virgin Mary having everappeared to a Protestant. The bones of Protestantsaints have never cured a solitary disease. Protest-ants now say that the testimony of the Catholics can345not be relied upon, and yet, the authenticity of everybook in the New Testament was established by Cath-olic testimony. Some few miracles were performedin Scotland, and in fact in England and the UnitedStates, but they were so small that they are hardlyworth mentioning. Now and then, a man was struckdead for taking the name of the Lord in vain. Nowand then, people were drowned who were found inboats on Sunday. Whenever anybody was about tocommit murder, God has not interfered—the reasonbeing that he gave man free-will, and expects to holdhim accountable in another world, and there is noexception to this free-will doctrine, but in caseswhere men swear or violate the Sabbath. They areallowed to commit all other crimes without any in-terference on the part of the Lord.My own opinion is, that the clergy found it neces-sary to preserve the Sabbath for their own uses, andfor that reason endeavored to impress the peoplewith the enormity of its violation, and for that purposegave instances of people being drowned and suddenlystruck dead for working or amusing themselves on thatday. The clergy have objected to any other places ofamusement except their own, being opened on thatday. They wished to compel people either to go to346church or stay at home. They have also knownthat profanity tended to do away with the feelingsof awe they wished to cultivate, and for that reasonthey have insisted that swearing was one of the mostterrible of crimes, exciting above all others the wrathof God.There was a time when people fell dead for havingspoken disrespectfully to a priest. The priest at thattime pretended to be the visible representative ofGod, and as such, entitled to a degree of reverenceamounting almost to worship. Several cases aregiven in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland wheremen were deprived of speech for having spokenrudely to a parson.These stories were calculated to increase the im-portance of the clergy and to convince people thatthey were under the special care of the Deity. Thestory about the bears devouring the little childrenwas told in the first place, and has been repeatedsince, simply to protect ministers from the laughterof children. There ought to be carved on each sideof every pulpit a bear with fragments of children inits mouth, as this animal has done so much to protectthe dignity of the clergy.Besides the protection of ministers, the drowning347of breakers of the Sabbath, and striking a few peopledead for using profane language, I think there is noevidence of any providential interference in the affairsof this world in what may be called modern times.Ministers have endeavored to show that great calam-ities have been brought upon nations and cities as apunishment for the wickedness of the people. Theyhave insisted that some countries have been visitedwith earthquakes because the people had failed todischarge their religious duties; but as earthquakeshappened in uninhabited countries, and often at sea,where no one is hurt, most people have concludedthat they are not sent as punishments. They haveinsisted that cities have been burned as a punish-ment, and to show the indignation of the Lord, butat the same time they have admitted that if thestreets had been wider, the fire departments betterorganized, and wooden buildings fewer, the designof the Lord would have been frustrated.After reading the history of the world, it is some-what difficult to find which side the Lord is really on.He has allowed Catholics to overwhelm and de-stroy Protestants, and then he has allowed Protestantsto overwhelm and destroy Catholics. He has allowedChristianity to triumph over Paganism, and he allowed348Mohammedans to drive back the hosts of the crossfrom the sepulchre of his son. It is curious that thisGod would allow the slave trade to go on, and yetpunish the violators of the Sabbath. It is simplywonderful that he would allow kings to wage crueland remorseless war, to sacrifice millions upon thealtar of heartless ambition, and at the same timestrike a man dead for taking his name in vain. It iswonderful that he allowed slavery to exist for centu-ries in the United States; that he allows polygamynow in Utah; that he cares nothing for liberty inRussia, nothing for free speech in Germany, nothingfor the sorrows of the overworked, underpaid millionsof the world; that he cares nothing for the innocentlanguishing in prisons, nothing for the patriots con-demned to death, nothing for the heart-brokenwidows and orphans, nothing for the starving, andyet has ample time to note a sparrow's fall. If hewould only strike dead the would-be murderers; ifhe would only palsy the hands of husbands' upliftedto strike their wives; if he would render speechlessthe cursers of children, he could afford to overlookthe swearers and breakers of his Sabbath.For one, I am not satisfied with the governmentof this world, and I am going to do what little I can349to make it better. I want more thought and lessfear, more manhood and less superstition, less prayerand more help, more education, more reason, moreintellectual hospitality, and above all, and over all,more liberty and kindness.Question. Do you think that God, if there be one,when he saves or damns a man, will take into con-sideration all the circumstances of the man's life?Answer. Suppose that two orphan boys, Jamesand John, are given homes. James is taken into aChristian family and John into an infidel. Jamesbecomes a Christian, and dies in the faith. John be-comes an infidel, and dies without faith in Christ.According to the Christian religion, as commonlypreached, James will go to heaven, and John to hell.Now, suppose that God knew that if James hadbeen raised by the infidel family, he would have diedan infidel, and that if John had been raised by theChristian family, he would have died a Christian.What then? Recollect that the boys did not choosethe families in which they were placed.Suppose that a child, cast away upon an island inwhich he found plenty of food, grew to manhood;and suppose that after he had reached mature years,350the island was visited by a missionary who taught afalse religion; and suppose that this islander was con-vinced that he ought to worship a wooden idol; andsuppose, further, that the worship consisted in sacri-ficing animals; and suppose the islander, actuatedonly by what he conceived to be his duty and bythankfulness, sacrificed a toad every night and everymorning upon the altar of his wooden god; thatwhen the sky looked black and threatening he sacri-ficed two toads; that when feeling unwell he sacrificedthree; and suppose that in all this he was honest, thathe really believed that the shedding of toad-bloodwould soften the heart of his god toward him? Andsuppose that after he had become fully-convincedof the truth of his religion, a missionary of the"true religion" should visit the island, and tell thehistory of the Jews—unfold the whole scheme ofsalvation? And suppose that the islander shouldhonestly reject the true religion? Suppose he shouldsay that he had "internal evidence" not only, butthat many miracles had been performed by his god,in his behalf; that often when the sky was blackwith storm, he had sacrificed a toad, and in a fewmoments the sun was again visible, the heavens blue,and without a cloud; that on several occasions, having351forgotten at evening to sacrifice his toad, he foundhimself unable to sleep—that his conscience smotehim, he had risen, made the sacrifice, returned to hisbed, and in a few moments sunk into a serene andhappy slumber? And suppose, further, that the manhonestly believed that the efficacy of the sacrificedepended largely on the size of the toad? Nowsuppose that in this belief the man had died,—whatthen?It must be remembered that God knew when themissionary of the false religion went to the island;and knew that the islander would be convinced of thetruth of the false religion; and he also knew that themissionary of the true religion could not, by anypossibility, convince the islander of the error of hisway; what then?If God is infinite, we cannot speak of him asmaking efforts, as being tired. We cannot con-sistently say that one thing is easy to him, andanother thing is hard, providing both are possible.This being so, why did not God reveal himself toevery human being? Instead of having an inspiredbook, why did he not make inspired folks? Insteadof having his commandments put on tables of stone,why did he not write them on each human brain?352Why was not the mind of each man so made thatevery religious truth necessary to his salvation wasan axiom?Do we not know absolutely that man is greatlyinfluenced by his surroundings? If Mr. Talmagehad been born in Turkey, is it not probable thathe would now be a whirling Dervish? If he hadfirst seen the light in Central Africa, he might nowhave been prostrate before some enormous serpent;if in India, he might have been a Brahmin, running aprayer-machine; if in Spain, he would probably havebeen a priest, with his beads and holy water. Hadhe been born among the North American Indians,he would speak of the "Great Spirit," and solemnlysmoke the the pipe of peace.Mr. Talmage teaches that it is the duty of childrento perpetuate the errors of their parents; conse-quently, the religion of his parents determined histheology. It is with him not a question of reason,but of parents; not a question of argument, but offilial affection. He does not wish to be a philoso-pher, but an obedient son. Suppose his father hadbeen a Catholic, and his mother a Protestant,—whatthen? Would he show contempt for his mother byfollowing the path of his father; or would he show353disrespect for his father, by accepting the religion ofhis mother; or would he have become a Protestantwith Catholic proclivities, or a Catholic with Protest-ant leanings? Suppose his parents had both beeninfidels—what then?Is it not better for each one to decide honestly forhimself? Admitting that your parents were good andkind; admitting that they were honest in their views,why not have the courage to say, that in your opinion,father and mother were both mistaken? No one canhonor his parents by being a hypocrite, or an intellectu-al coward. Whoever is absolutely true to himself, istrue to his parents, and true to the whole world. Who-ever is untrue to himself, is false to all mankind. Re-ligion must be an individual matter. If there is a God,and if there is a day of judgment, the church that a manbelongs to will not be tried, but the man will be tried.It is a fact that the religion of most people was madefor them by others; that they have accepted certaindogmas, not because they have examined them, butbecause they were told that they were true. Most ofthe people in the United States, had they been born inTurkey, would now be Mohammedans, and most ofthe Turks, had they been born in Spain, would nowbe Catholics.354It is almost, if not quite, impossible for a man torise entirely above the ideas, views, doctrines and re-ligions of his tribe or country. No one expects tofind philosophers in Central Africa, or scientistsamong the Fejees. No one expects to find philoso-phers or scientists in any country where the churchhas absolute control.If there is an infinitely good and wise God, ofcourse he will take into consideration the surround-ings of every human being. He understands thephilosophy of environment, and of heredity. Heknows exactly the influence of the mother, of allassociates, of all associations. He will also take intoconsideration the amount, quality and form of eachbrain, and whether the brain was healthy or diseased.He will take into consideration the strength of thepassions, the weakness of the judgment. He willknow exactly the force of all temptation—what wasresisted. He will take an account of every effortmade in the right direction, and will understandall the winds and waves and quicksands and shoresand shallows in, upon and around the sea of everylife.My own opinion is, that if such a being exists, andall these things are taken into consideration, we will355be absolutely amazed to see how small the differenceis between the "good" and the "bad." Certainlythere is no such difference as would justify a beingof infinite wisdom and benevolence in rewarding onewith eternal joy and punishing the other with eternalpain.Question. What are the principal reasons thathave satisfied you that the Bible is not an inspiredbook?Answer. The great evils that have afflicted thisworld are:First. Human slavery—where men have boughtand sold their fellow-men—sold babes from mothers,and have practiced) every conceivable cruelty uponthe helpless.Second. Polygamy—an institution that destroysthe home, that treats woman as a simple chattel, thatdoes away with the sanctity of marriage, and with allthat is sacred in love.Third. Wars of conquest and extermination—by which nations have been made the food of thesword.Fourth. The idea entertained by each nation thatall other nations are destitute of rights—in other356words, patriotism founded upon egotism, prejudice,and love of plunder.Fifth. Religious persecution.Sixth. The divine right of kings—an idea thatrests upon the inequality of human rights, and insiststhat people should be governed without their con-sent; that the right of one man to govern anothercomes from God, and not from the consent of thegoverned. This is caste—one of the most odiousforms of slavery.Seventh. A belief in malicious supernatural be-ings—devils, witches, and wizards.Eighth. A belief in an infinite being who or-dered, commanded, established and approved allthese evils.Ninth. The idea that one man can be good foranother, or bad for another—that is to say, that onecan be rewarded for the goodness of another, orjustly punished for the sins of another.Tenth. The dogma that a finite being can commitan infinite sin, and thereby incur the eternal dis-pleasure of an infinitely good being, and be justlysubjected to eternal torment.My principal objection to the Bible is that it sus-tains all of these ten evils—that it is the advocate of357human slavery, the friend of polygamy; that withinits pages I find the command to wage wars of ex-termination; that I find also that the Jews weretaught to hate foreigners—to consider all humanbeings as inferior to themselves; I also find persecu-tion commanded as a religious duty; that kings wereseated upon their thrones by the direct act of God,and that to rebel against a king was rebellion againstGod. I object to the Bible also because I find withinits pages the infamous spirit of caste—I see the sonsof Levi set apart as the perpetual beggars andgovernors of a people; because I find the air filledwith demons seeking to injure and betray the sonsof men; because this book is the fountain of modernsuperstition, the bulwark of tyranny and the fortressof caste. This book also subverts the idea of justiceby threatening infinite punishment for the sins of afinite being.At the same time, I admit—as I always have ad-mitted—that there are good passages in the Bible—good laws, good teachings, with now and then a trueline of history. But when it is asserted that everyword was written by inspiration—that a being of in-finite wisdom and goodness is its author,—thenI raise the standard of revolt.358Question. What do you think of the declarationof Mr. Talmage that the Bible will be read in heaventhroughout all the endless ages of eternity?Answer. Of course I know but very little as towhat is or will be done in heaven. My knowledgeof that country is somewhat limited, and it may bepossible that the angels will spend most of their timein turning over the sacred leaves of the Old Testa-ment. I can not positively deny the statement of theReverend Mr. Talmage as I have but very little ideaas to how the angels manage to kill time.The Reverend Mr. Spurgeon stated in a sermonthat some people wondered what they would dothrough all eternity in heaven. He said that, as forhimself, for the first hundred thousand years hewould look at the wound in one of the Savior'sfeet, and for the next hundred thousand years hewould look at the wound in his other foot, andfor the next hundred thousand years he wouldlook at the wound in one of his hands, and forthe next hundred thousand years he would look atthe wound in the other hand, and for the nexthundred thousand years he would look at the woundin his side.Surely, nothing could be more delightful than this359A man capable of being happy in such employment,could of course take great delight in reading eventhe genealogies of the Old Testament. It is veryeasy to see what a glow of joy would naturally over-spread the face of an angel while reading the historyof the Jewish wars, how the seraphim and cherubimwould clasp their rosy palms in ecstasy over the fateof Korah and his company, and what laughter wouldwake the echoes of the New Jerusalem as some onetold again the story of the children and the bears;and what happy groups, with folded pinions, wouldsmilingly listen to the 109th Psalm.[Illustration: 371]An orthodox "state of mind"THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.As Mr. Talmage delivered the series of sermonsreferred to in these interviews, for the purposeof furnishing arguments to the young, so that theymight not be misled by the sophistry of moderninfi-delity, I have thought it best to set forth,for use in Sunday schools, the pith and marrow ofwhat he has been pleased to say, in the form ofA SHORTER CATECHISM.Question. Who made you?Answer. Jehovah, the original Presbyterian.Question. What else did he make?Answer. He made the world and all things.Question. Did he make the world out of nothing?Answer. No.Question. What did he make it out of?Answer. Out of his "omnipotence." Many infidelshave pretended that if God made the universe, and ifthere was nothing until he did make it, he had nothingto make it out of. Of course this is perfectly absurdwhen we remember that he always had his "omnipo-tence and that is, undoubtedly, the material used.364Question. Did he create his own "omnipotence"?Answer. Certainly not, he was always omnipo-tent.Question. Then if he always had "omnipotence,"he did not "create" the material of which the uni-verse is made; he simply took a portion of his"omnipotence" and changed it to "universe"?Answer. Certainly, that is the way I under-stand it.Question. Is he still omnipotent, and has he asmuch "omnipotence" now as he ever had?Answer. Well, I suppose he has.Question. How long did it take God to make theuniverse?Answer. Six "good-whiles."Question. How long is a "good-while"?Answer. That will depend upon the future dis-coveries of geologists. "Good-whiles" are of sucha nature that they can be pulled out, or pushed up;and it is utterly impossible for any infidel, or scien-tific geologist, to make any period that a "good-while"won't fit.Question. What do you understand by "the"morning and evening" of a "good-while"?Answer. Of course the words "morning and365"evening" are used figuratively, and mean simplythe beginning and the ending, of each "good-while."Question. On what day did God make vegetation?Answer. On the third day.Question. Was that before the sun was made?Answer. Yes; a "good-while" before.Question. How did vegetation grow without sun-light?Answer. My own opinion is, that it was either"nourished by the glare of volcanoes in the moonor "it may have gotten sufficient light from rivers"of molten granite;" or, "sufficient light might have"been emitted by the crystallization of rocks." Ithas been suggested that light might have been fur-nished by fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs andworms, but this I regard as going too far.Question. Do you think that light emitted byrocks would be sufficient to produce trees?Answer. Yes, with the assistance of the "Aurora"Borealis, or even the Aurora Australis;" but withboth, most assuredly.Question. If the light of which you speak wassufficient, why was the sun made?Answer. To keep time with.Question. What did God make man of?366Answer. He made man of dust and "omnipo-"tence."Question. Did he make a woman at the sametime that he made a man?Answer. No; he thought at one time to avoidthe necessity of making a woman, and he caused allthe animals to pass before Adam, to see what hewould call them, and to see whether a fit companioncould be found for him. Among them all, not onesuited Adam, and Jehovah immediately saw that hewould have to make an help-meet on purpose.Question. What was woman made of?Answer. She was made out of "man's side, out ofhis right side," and some more "omnipotence." Infi-dels say that she was made out of a rib, or a bone, butthat is because they do not understand Hebrew.Question. What was the object of making womanout of man's side?Answer. So that a young man would think moreof a neighbor's girl than of his own uncle or grand-father.Question. What did God do with Adam and Eveafter he got them done?Answer. He put them into a garden to see whatthey would do.367Question. Do we know where the Garden of Edenwas, and have we ever found any place where a"river parted and became into four heads"?Answer. We are not certain where this gardenwas, and the river that parted into four heads cannotat present be found. Infidels have had a great dealto say about these four rivers, but they will wishthey had even one, one of these days.Question. What happened to Adam and Eve inthe garden?Answer. They were tempted by a snake who wasan exceedingly good talker, and who probably camein walking on the end of his tail. This suppositionis based upon the fact that, as a punishment, he wascondemned to crawl on his belly. Before that time,of course, he walked upright.Question. What happened then?Answer. Our first parents gave way, ate of theforbidden fruit, and in consequence, disease anddeath entered the world. Had it not been for this,there would have been no death and no disease.Suicide would have been impossible, and a mancould have been blown into a thousand atoms bydynamite, and the pieces would immediately havecome together again. Fire would have refused to368burn and water to drown; there could have been nohunger, no thirst; all things would have been equallyhealthy.Question. Do you mean to say that there wouldhave been no death in the world, either of animals,insects, or persons?Answer. Of course.Question. Do you also think that all briers andthorns sprang from the same source, and that hadthe apple not been eaten, no bush in the worldwould have had a thorn, and brambles and thistleswould have been unknown?Answer. Certainly.Question. Would there have been no poisonousplants, no poisonous reptiles?Answer. No, sir; there would have been none;there would have been no evil in the world if Adamand Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit.Question. Was the snake who tempted them toeat, evil?Answer. Certainly. 'Question. Was he in the world before the for-bidden fruit was eaten?Answer. Of course he was; he tempted them toeat it369Question. How, then, do you account for the factthat, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an evilserpent was in the world?Answer. Perhaps apples had been eaten in otherworlds.Question. Is it not wonderful that such awful con-sequences flowed from so small an act?Answer. It is not for you to reason about it; youshould simply remember that God is omnipotent.There is but one way to answer these things, andthat is to admit their truth. Nothing so puts theInfinite out of temper as to see a human beingimpudent enough to rely upon his reason. Themoment we rely upon our reason, we abandon God,and try to take care of ourselves. Whoever reliesentirely upon God, has no need of reason, andreason has no need of him.Question. Were our first parents under the im-mediate protection of an infinite God?Answer. They were.Question. Why did he not protect them? Whydid he not warn them of this snake? Why did henot put them on their guard? Why did he notmake them so sharp, intellectually, that they couldnot be deceived? Why did he not destroy that370snake; or how did he come to make him; what didhe make him for?Answer. You must remember that, although Godmade Adam and Eve perfectly good, still he was veryanxious to test them. He also gave them the powerof choice, knowing at the same time exactly what theywould choose, and knowing that he had made themso that they must choose in a certain way. A beingof infinite wisdom tries experiments. Knowing ex-actly what will happen, he wishes to see if it will.Question. What punishment did God inflict uponAdam and Eve for the sin of having eaten the for-bidden fruit?Answer. He pronounced a curse upon the woman,saying that in sorrow she should bring forth children,and that her husband should rule over her; that she,having tempted her husband, was made his slave;and through her, all married women have been de-prived of their natural liberty. On account of thesin of Adam and Eve, God cursed the ground, sayingthat it should bring forth thorns and thistles, andthat man should eat his bread in sorrow, and that heshould eat the herb of the field.Question. Did he turn them out of the gardenbecause of their sin?371Answer. No. The reason God gave for turningthem out of the garden was: "Behold the man is"become as one of us, to know good and evil; and"now, lest he put forth his hand and take of the"tree of life and eat and live forever, therefore, the"Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden"to till the ground from whence he was taken."Question. If the man had eaten of the tree of life,would he have lived forever?Answer. Certainly.Question. Was he turned out to prevent hiseating?Answer. He was.Question. Then the Old Testament tells us how welost immortality, not that we are immortal, does it?Answer. Yes; it tells us how we lost it.Question. Was God afraid that Adam and Evemight get back into the garden, and eat of the fruitof the tree of life?Answer. I suppose he was, as he placed "cher-"ubim and a flaming sword which turned every"way to guard the tree of life."Question. Has any one ever seen any of thesecherubim?Answer. Not that I know of.372Question. Where is the flaming sword now?Answer. Some angel has it in heaven.Question. Do you understand that God madecoats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve whenhe turned them out of the garden?Answer. Yes, sir.