CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.SIX INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.(1882.)Preface—First Interview: Great Men as Witnessesto the Truth of the Gospel—No man should quotethe Words of Another unless he is willing toAccept all the Opinions of that Man—Reasons ofmore Weight than Reputations—Would a generalAcceptance of Unbelief fill the Penitentiaries?—My Creed—Most Criminals Orthodox—Relig-ion andMorality not Necessarily Associates—On theCreation of the Universe out of Omnipotence—Mr.Talmage's Theory about the Pro-duction of Lightprior to the Creation of the Sun—The Deluge andthe Ark—Mr. Talmage's tendency to Belittle theBible Miracles—His Chemical, Geological, andAgricultural Views—His Disregard of Good Manners--Second Interview: An Insulting Text—God's Designin Creating Guiteau to be the Assassin ofGarfield—Mr. Talmage brings the Charge ofBlasphemy—Some Real Blasphemers—The TabernaclePastor tells the exact Opposite of the Truth aboutCol. Ingersoll's Attitude toward the Circulationof Immoral Books—"Assassinating" God—Mr.Talmage finds Nearly All the Invention of ModernTimes Mentioned in the Bible—The ReverendGentleman corrects the Translators of the Bible inthe Matter of the Rib Story—Denies that Polygamyis permitted by the Old Testament—His De-fence ofQueen Victoria and Violation of the Grave ofGeorge Eliot—Exhibits a Christian Spirit—ThirdInterview: Mr. Talmage's Partiality in theBestowal of his Love—Denies the Right of Laymento Examine the Scriptures—Thinks the InfidelsVictims of Bibliophobia —He explains the Stoppingof the Sun and Moon at the Command of Joshua—Instances a Dark Day in the Early Part of theCentury—Charges that Holy Things are Made Lightof—Reaffirms his Confidence in the Whale andJonah Story—The Commandment which Forbids themaking of Graven Images—Affirmation that theBible is the Friend of Woman—The PresentCondition of Woman—Fourth Interview: ColonelIngersoll Compared by Mr. Talmage tojehoiakim, whoConsigned Writings of Jeremiah to the Flames—AnIntimation that Infidels wish to have all copiesof the Bible Destroyed by Fire—LaughterDeprecated—Col. Ingersoll Accused of Denouncinghis Father—Mr. Talmage holds that a Man may bePerfectly Happy in Heaven with His Mother in Hell--Challenges the Infidel to Read a Chapter from St.John—On the "Chief Solace of the World"—Dis-covers an Attempt is being made to Put Out theLight-houses of the Farther Shore—Affirms ourDebt to Christianity for Schools, Hospitals,etc.—Denies that Infidels have ever Done anyGood—Fifth Interview: Inquiries if Men gather Grapes ofThorns, or Figs of Thistles, and is Answered inthe Negative—Resents the Charge that the Bible isa Cruel Book—Demands to Know where the Cruelty ofthe Bible Crops out in the Lives of Christians—Col. Ingersoll Accused of saying that the Bibleis a Collection of Polluted Writings—Mr. TalmageAsserts the Orchestral Harmony of the Scripturesfrom Genesis to Revelation, and Repudiates theTheory of Contradictions—His View of MankindIndicated in Quotations from his Confession ofFaith—He Insists that the Bible is Scientific—Traces the New Testament to its Source with St.John—Pledges his Word that no Man ever Died for aLie Cheerfully and Triumphantly—As to Propheciesand Predictions—Alleged "Prophetic" Fate of theJewish People—Sixth Interview: Dr. Talmage takesthe Ground that the Unrivalled Circulation of theBible Proves that it is Inspired—Forgets' that aScientific Fact does not depend on the Vote ofNumbers—Names some Christian Millions—HisArguments Characterized as the Poor-est, Weakest,and Best Possible in Support of the Doctrine ofInspira-tion—Will God, in Judging a Man, takeinto Consideration the Cir-cumstances of thatMan's Life?—Satisfactory Reasons for Not Believ-ing that the Bible is inspired.THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.The Pith and Marrow of what Mr. Talmage has beenPleased to Say, set forth in the form of a ShorterCatechism.A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.(1877.)Letter to the New York Observer—An Offer to PayOne Thousand Dollars in Gold for Proof that ThomasPaine or Voltaire Died in Terror because of anyReligious Opinions Either had Expressed—Proposition to Create a Tribunal to Hear theEvidence—The Ob-server, after having Called uponCol. Ingersoll to Deposit the Money, andCharacterized his Talk as "Infidel 'Buncombe,'"Denies its Own Words, but attempts to Prove them—Its Memory Refreshed by Col. Ingersoll and theSlander Refuted—Proof that Paine did Not Recant --Testimony of Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton, Mr.Jarvis, B. F. Has-kin, Dr. Manley, AmasaWoodsworth, Gilbert Vale, Philip Graves, M. D.,Willet Hicks, A. C. Hankinson, John Hogeboom, W.J. Hilton, Tames Cheetham, Revs. Milledollar andCunningham, Mrs. Hedden, Andrew A. Dean, WilliamCarver,—The Statements of Mary Roscoe and MaryHindsdale Examined—William Cobbett's Account of aCall upon Mary Hinsdale—Did Thomas Paine live theLife of a Drunken Beast, and did he Die a Drunken,Cowardly, and Beastly Death?—Grant Thorbum'sCharges Examined—Statement of the Rev. J. D.Wickham, D.D., shown to be Utterly False—FalseWitness of the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D.—W. H.Ladd, James Cheetham, and Mary Hinsdale—Paine'sNote to Cheetham—Mr-Staple, Mr. Purdy, Col. JohnFellows, James Wilburn, Walter Morton, ClioRickman, Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer,Mr.XVLovett, all these Testified that Paine was aTemperate Man—Washington's Letter to Paine—Thomas Jefferson's—Adams and Washing-ton on"Common Sense"—-James Monroe's Tribute—Quotations from Paine—Paine's Estate and HisWill—The Observer's Second Attack (p. 492):Statements of Elkana Watson, William Carver, Rev.E. F. Hatfield, D.D., James Cheetham, Dr. J. W.Francis, Dr. Manley, Bishop Fenwick—Ingersoll'sSecond Reply (p. 516): Testimony Garbled by theEditor of the Observer—Mary Roscoeand Mary Hins-dale the Same Person—Her Reputation for Veracity--Letter from Rev. A. W. Cornell—Grant ThorburnExposed by James Parton—The Observer's Admissionthat Paine did not Recant—Affidavit ofWilliam B. Barnes.PREFACESEVERAL people, having read the sermons ofMr. Talmage in which he reviews some of mylectures, have advised me not to pay the slightestattention to the Brooklyn divine. They think thatno new arguments have been brought forward, andthey have even gone so far as to say that some ofthe best of the old ones have been left out.After thinking the matter over, I became satisfiedthat my friends were mistaken, that they had been car-ried away by the general current of modern thought,and were not in a frame of mind to feel the forceof the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly seethe candor that characterizes his utterances.At the first reading, the logic of these sermons doesnot impress you. The style is of a character calculatedVIto throw the searcher after facts and arguments offhis guard. The imagination of the preacher is solurid; he is so free from the ordinary forms of ex-pression; his statements are so much stranger thantruth, and his conclusions so utterly independent ofhis premises, that the reader is too astonished tobe convinced. Not until I had read with great carethe six discourses delivered for my benefit had I anyclear and well-defined idea of the logical force ofMr. Talmage. I had but little conception of hiscandor, was almost totally ignorant of his power torender the simple complex and the plain obscure bythe mutilation of metaphor and the incoherenceof inspired declamation. Neither did I know thegenerous accuracy with which he states the positionof an opponent, and the fairness he exhibits in areligious discussion.He has without doubt studied the Bible as closelyand critically as he has the works of Buckle andDarwin, and he seems to have paid as much attentionto scientific subjects as most theologians. His theoryof light and his views upon geology are strikinglyoriginal, and his astronomical theories are certainly asprofound as practical. If his statements can be reliedupon, he has successfully refuted the teachings ofVIIHumboldt and Haeckel, and exploded the blunders ofSpencer and Tyndall. Besides all this, he has thecourage of his convictions—he does not quail before afact, and he does not strike his colors even to a dem-onstration. He cares nothing for human experience.He cannot be put down with statistics, nor drivenfrom his position by the certainties of science. Hecares neither for the persistence of force, nor theindestructibility of matter.He believes in the Bible, and he has the braveryto defend his belief. In this, he proudly standsalmost alone. He knows that the salvation of theworld depends upon a belief in his creed. Heknows that what are called "the sciences" are ofno importance in the other world. He clearly seesthat it is better to live and die ignorant here, if youcan wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows itis useless to be perfectly familiar with all the sciencesin this world, and then in the next "lift up your eyes,being in torment." He knows, too, that God willnot punish any man for denying a fact in science.A man can deny the rotundity of the earth, theattraction of gravitation, the form of the earths orbit,or the nebular hypothesis, with perfect impunity.He is not bound to be correct upon any philo-VIIIsophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridi-cule the rule of three, conic sections, and even themultiplication table. God permits every humanbeing to be mistaken upon every subject but one.No man can lose his soul by denying physical facts.Jehovah does not take the slightest pride in his geology,or in his astronomy, or in mathematics, or inany school of philosophy—he is jealous only of hisreputation as the author of the Bible. You may denyeverything else in the universe except that book.This being so, Mr. Talmage takes the safe side, andinsists that the Bible is inspired. He knows that atthe day of judgment, not a scientific question will beasked. He knows that the Hæckels and Huxleyswill, on that terrible day, regret that they everlearned to read. He knows that there is no "savinggrace" in any department of human knowledge; thatmathematics and all the exact sciences and all thephilosophies will be worse than useless. He knowsthat inventors, discoverers, thinkers and investigators,have no claim upon the mercy of Jehovah; that theeducated will envy the ignorant, and that the writersand thinkers will curse their books.He knows that man cannot be saved throughwhat he knows—but only by means of what heIXbelieves. Theology is not a science. If it were,God would forgive his children for being mistakenabout it. If it could be proved like geology, orastronomy, there would be no merit in believing it.From a belief in the Bible, Mr. Talmage is not to bedriven by uninspired evidence. He knows that hislogic is liable to lead him astray, and that his reasoncannot be depended upon. He believes that scien-tific men are no authority in matters concerningwhich nothing can be known, and he does not wishto put his soul in peril, by examining by the light ofreason, the evidences of the supernatural.He is perfectly consistent with his creed. Whathappens to us here is of no consequence comparedwith eternal joy or pain. The ambitions, honors,glories and triumphs of this world, compared witheternal things, are less than naught.Better a cross here and a crown there, than a feasthere and a fire there.Lazarus was far more fortunate than Dives. Thepurple and fine linen of this short life are as nothingcompared with the robes of the redeemed.Mr. Talmage knows that philosophy is unsafe—that the sciences are sirens luring souls to eternalwreck. He knows that the deluded searchers afterXfacts are planting thorns in their own pillows—thatthe geologists are digging pits for themselves, andthat the astronomers are robbing their souls of theheaven they explore. He knows that thought, capa-city, and intellectual courage are dangerous, and thisbelief gives him a feeling of personal security.The Bible is adapted to the world as it is. Mostpeople are ignorant, and but few have the capacity tocomprehend philosophical and scientific subjects, andif salvation depended upon understanding even oneof the sciences, nearly everybody would be lost.Mr. Talmage sees that it was exceedingly merciful inGod to base salvation on belief instead of on brain.Millions can believe, while only a few can understand.Even the effort to understand is a kind of treasonborn of pride and ingratitude. This being so, it is farsafer, far better, to be credulous than critical. You areoffered an infinite reward for believing the Bible. Ifyou examine it you may find it impossible for you tobelieve it. Consequently, examination is dangerous.Mr. Talmage knows that it is not necessary to under-stand the Bible in order to believe it. You must be-lieve it first. Then, if on reading it you find anythingthat appears false, absurd, or impossible, you maybe sure that it is only an appearance, and that the realXIfault is in yourself. It is certain that persons whollyincapable of reasoning are absolutely safe, and thatto be born brainless is to be saved in advance.Mr. Talmage takes the ground,—and certainly fromhis point of view nothing can be more reasonable—that thought should be avoided, after one has"experienced religion" and has been the subject of"regeneration." Every sinner should listen to ser-mons, read religious books, and keep thinking, untilhe becomes a Christian. Then he should stop. Afterthat, thinking is not the road to heaven. The realpoint and the real difficulty is to stop thinking just atthe right time. Young Christians, who have no ideaof what they are doing, often go on thinking afterjoining the church, and in this way heresy is born, andheresy is often the father of infidelity. If Christianswould follow the advice and example of Mr. Talmageall disagreements about doctrine would be avoided.In this way the church could secure absolute in-tellectual peace and all the disputes, heartburnings,jealousies and hatreds born of thought, discussionand reasoning, would be impossible.In the estimation of Mr. Talmage, the man whodoubts and examines is not fit for the society ofangels. There are no disputes, no discussions inXIIheaven. The angels do not think; they believe,they enjoy. The highest form of religion is re-pression. We should conquer the passions anddestroy desire. We should control the mind andstop thinking. In this way we "offer ourselves a"living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." Whendesire dies, when thought ceases, we shall be pure.—This is heaven.Robert G. Ingersoll.Washington, D. C,April; 1882.INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.FIRST INTERVIEW.Polonius. My lord, I will use them according totheir desert.Hamlet. God's bodikins, man, much better: useevery man after his desert, and who should 'scapewhipping? Use them after your own honor anddignity: the less they deserve, the more merit isin your bounty.Question. Have you read the sermon ofMr. Talmage, in which he exposes your mis-representations?Answer. I have read such reports as appeared insome of the New York papers.Question. What do you think of what he hasto say?Answer. Some time ago I gave it as my opinionof Mr. Talmage that, while he was a man of mostexcellent judgment, he was somewhat deficient inimagination. I find that he has the disease that seems16to afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intel-lectual toadyism, that uses the names of supposed greatmen instead of arguments. It is perfectly astonishingto the average preacher that any one should have thetemerity to differ, on the subject of theology, withAndrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and other gentlemeneminent for piety during their lives, but who,as a rule, expressed their theological opinions a fewminutes before dissolution. These ministers are per-fectly delighted to have some great politician, somejudge, soldier, or president, certify to the truth of theBible and to the moral character of Jesus Christ.Mr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in oneparticular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.Daniel Webster was in favor of the Fugitive SlaveLaw, and thought it the duty of the North to capturethe poor slave-mother. He was willing to standbetween a human being and his freedom. He waswilling to assist in compelling persons to work withoutany pay except such marks of the lash as they mightreceive. Yet this man is brought forward as a witnessfor the truth of the gospel. If he was false in histestimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth asto the value of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was abrave man, a good general, a patriot second to none,17an excellent judge of horses, and a brave duelist. Iadmit that in his old age he relied considerably uponthe atonement. I think Jackson was really a very greatman, and probably no President impressed himselfmore deeply upon the American people than the heroof New Orleans, but as a theologian he was, in myjudgment, a most decided failure, and his opinion asto the authenticity of the Scriptures is of no earthlyvalue. It was a subject upon which he knew probablyas little as Mr. Talmage does about modern infidelity.Thousands of people will quote Jackson in favor ofreligion, about which he knew nothing, and yet haveno confidence in his political opinions, although hedevoted the best part of his life to politics.No man should quote the words of another, in placeof an argument, unless he is willing to accept all theopinions of that man. Lord Bacon denied the Copernicansystem of astronomy, and, according to Mr.Talmage, having made that mistake, his opinions uponother subjects are equally worthless. Mr. Wesleybelieved in ghosts, witches, and personal devils, yetupon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions werecorrect. The truth is, that nearly everybody is rightabout some things and wrong about most things; andif a man's testimony is not to be taken until he is18right on every subject, witnesses will be extremelyscarce.Personally, I care nothing about names. It makesno difference to me what the supposed great men ofthe past have said, except as what they have saidcontains an argument; and that argument is worth tome the force it naturally has upon my mind. Chris-tians forget that in the realm of reason there are noserfs and no monarchs. When you submit to anargument, you do not submit to the man who made it.Christianity demands a certain obedience, a certainblind, unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyesof the ignorant, with great pomp and pride, the namesof kings, soldiers, and statesmen who have admittedthe truth of the Bible. Mr. Talmage introduces as awitness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This same The-odore Parker denounced the Presbyterian creed asthe most infamous of all creeds, and said that the worstheathen god, wearing a necklace of live snakes, was arepresentation of mercy when compared with the Godof John Calvin. Now, if this witness is false in anyparticular, of course he cannot be believed, accordingto Mr. Talmage, upon any subject, and yet Mr.Talmage introduces him upon the stand as a goodwitness.19Although I care but little for names, still I will sug-gest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more uponthis subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-tainly would have as much confidence in the opinionof Goethe as in that of William H. Seward; and asbetween Seward and Lincoln, I should take Lincoln;and when you come to Presidents, for my part, if Iwere compelled to pin my faith on the sleeve of any-body, I should take Jefferson's coat in preference toJackson's. I believe that Haeckel is, to say the least,the equal of any theologian we have in this country,and the late John W. Draper certainly knew as muchupon these great questions as the average parson. Ibelieve that Darwin has investigated some of thesethings, that Tyndall and Huxley have turned theirminds somewhat in the same direction, that Helmholtzhas a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able,intelligent and honest men differ almost entirely withWebster and Jackson.So far as I am concerned, I think more of reasonsthan of reputations, more of principles than of persons,more of nature than of names, more of facts, than offaiths.It is the same with books as with persons. Proba-bly there is not a book in the world entirely destitute20of truth, and not one entirely exempt from error.The Bible is like other books. There are mistakes init, side by side with truths,—passages inculcatingmurder, and others exalting mercy; laws devilish andtyrannical, and others filled with wisdom and justice.It is foolish to say that if you accept a part, you mustaccept the whole. You must accept that which com-mends itself to your heart and brain. There never wasa doctrine that a witness, or a book, should be thrownentirely away, because false in one particular. If inany particular the book, or the man, tells the truth, tothat extent the truth should be accepted.Truth is made no worse by the one who tells it,and a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of itsauthor.Question. What do you think of the statementthat a general belief in your teachings would fill allthe penitentiaries, and that in twenty years therewould be a hell in this world worse than the oneexpected in the other?Answer. My creed is this:1. Happiness is the only good.2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.21Other things being equal, that man is happiest who isnearest just—who is truthful, merciful and intelligent—in other words, the one who lives in accordance withthe conditions of life.3. The time to be happy is now, and the place tobe happy, is here.4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torchof progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-pending upon darkness and dogma, it is far better toincrease that sacred light.5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietorof himself, honest with himself, and intellectuallyhospitable; and upon every brain reason should beenthroned as king.6. Every man must bear the consequences, atleast of his own actions. If he puts his hands inthe fire, his hands must smart, and not the hands ofanother. In other words: each man must eat thefruit of the tree he plants.I can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-trines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.The doctrine of forgiveness—the idea that somebodyelse can suffer in place of the guilty—the notion thatjust at the last the whole account can be settled—these ideas, doctrines, and notions are calculated to fill22penitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like thecredit system.Most criminals of the present day are orthodox be-lievers, and the gallows seems to be the last round ofthe ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Rev.Dr. Sunderland, of this city, in his sermon on the assas-sination of Garfield, takes the ground that God per-mitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyesof the people to the evil effects of infidelity. Accord-ing to this minister, God, in order to show his hatredof infidelity, "inspired," or allowed, one Christian toassassinate another.Religion and morality do not necessarily go together.Mr. Talmage will insist to-day that morality is notsufficient to save any man from eternal punishment.As a matter of fact, religion has often been the enemyof morality. The moralist has been denounced by thetheologians. He sustains the same relation to Chris-tianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-abstinence society. The total-abstinence people saythat the example of the moderate drinker is far worseupon the young than that of the drunkard—that thedrunkard is a warning, while the moderate drinker isa perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moral-ists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse23example than the criminal. The moralist not only in-sists that a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,an affectionate father, without religion, but demon-strates the truth of his doctrine by his own life;whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself heis nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needsassistance from the church and its ministers.The worst criminals of the modern world have beenChristians—I mean by that, believers in Christianity—and the most monstrous crimes of the modern worldhave been committed by the most zealous believers.There is nothing in orthodox religion, apart from themorality it teaches, to prevent the commission oF crime.On the other hand, the perpetual proffer of forgivenessis a direct premium upon what Christians are pleasedto call the commission of sin.Christianity has produced no greater character thanEpictetus, no greater sovereign than Marcus Aurelius.The wickedness of the past was a good deal like thatof the present. As a rule, kings have been wicked indirect proportion to their power—their power havingbeen lessened, their crimes have decreased. As amatter of fact, paganism, of itself, did not produce anygreat men; neither has Christianity. Millions of in-fluences determine individual character, and the re-24ligion of the country in which a man happens to beborn may determine many of his opinions, withoutinfluencing, to any great extent, his real character.There have been brave, honest, and intelligent menin and out of every church.Question. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that,according to the Bible, the universe was made out ofnothing, and he denounces your statement as a grossmisrepresentation. What have you stated upon thatsubject?Answer. What I said was substantially this: "We"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the"beginning God created the heaven and the earth."If this means anything, it means that God pro-"duced—caused to exist, called into being—the"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that"God formed the heaven and the earth of previously"existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to"convey, the idea that the matter of which the"universe is composed was created."This has always been my position. I did not sup-pose that nothing was used as the raw material; butif the Mosaic account means anything, it means thatwhereas there was nothing, God caused something to25exist—created what we know as matter. I can notconceive of something being made, created, withoutanything to make anything with. I have no moreconfidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat money.Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni-verse out ofnothing, but out of "omnipotence."Exactly how God changed "omnipotence" into matteris not stated. If there wasnothingin the universe,omnipotencecould do you no good. The weakest manin the world can lift as muchnothingas God.Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create somethingfrom nothing is simply a question of strength—that itrequires infinite muscle—that it is only a question ofbiceps. Of course, omnipotence is an attribute, not anentity, not a raw material; and the idea that somethingcan be made out of omnipotence—using that as theraw material—is infinitely absurd. It would havebeen equally logical to say that God made the universeout of his omniscience, or his omnipresence, or hisunchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his holiness,or his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in-ability to understand, or even to suspect, what thereverend gentleman means, when he says that Godcreated the universe out of his "omnipotence."I admit that the Bible does not tell when God created26the universe. It is simply said that he did this "in thebeginning." We are left, however, to infer that "thebeginning" was Monday morning, and that on thefirst Monday God created the matter in an exceedinglychaotic state; that on Tuesday he made a firmamentto divide the waters from the waters; that on Wednes-day he gathered the waters together in seas andallowed the dry land to appear. We are also told thaton that day "the earth brought forth grass and herb"yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding"fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind." Thiswas before the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmagetakes the ground that there are many other sources oflight; that "there may have been volcanoes in activeoperation on other planets." I have my doubts,however, about the light of volcanoes being sufficientto produce or sustain vegetable life, and think it alittle doubtful about trees growing only by "volcanicglare." Neither do I think one could depend upon"three thousand miles of liquid granite" for the pro-duction of grass and trees, nor upon "light that rocksmight emit in the process of crystallization." I doubtwhether trees would succeed simply with the assistanceof the "Aurora Borealis or the Aurora Australis."There are other sources of light, not mentioned by27Mr. Talmage—lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles,and fox-fire. I should think that it would be humili-ating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to insistthat vegetation could exist upon this planet without thelight of the sun—that trees could grow, blossom andbear fruit, having no light but the flames of volcanoes,or that emitted by liquid granite, or thrown off by thecrystallization of rocks.There is another thing, also, that should not be for-gotten, and that is, that there is an even balance for-ever kept between the totals of animal and vegetablelife—that certain forms of animal life go with certainforms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel has shown that"in the first epoch, algæ and skull-less vertebrateswere found together; in the second, ferns and fishes;in the third, pines and reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceousforests and mammals." Vegetable and animallife sustain a necessary relation; they exist together;they act and interact, and each depends upon the other.The real point of difference between Mr. Talmage andmyself is this: He says that God made the universeout of his "omnipotence," and I say that, although Iknow nothing whatever upon the subject, my opinionis, that the universe has existed from eternity—that itcontinually changes in form, but that it never was28created or called into being by any power. I thinkthat all that is, is all the God there is.Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with havingmisrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has hecorrectly stated your position?Answer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that theflood was only partial, and was, after all, not much of aflood. The Bible tells us that God said he would"destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from"under heaven, and that everything that is in the"earth shall die;" that God also said: "I will destroy"man, whom I have created, from the face of the"earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing"and the fowls of the air, and every living substance"that I have made will I destroy from off the face of"the earth."I did not suppose that there was any miracle in theBible larger than the credulity of Mr. Talmage. Theflood story, however, seems to be a little more thanhe can bear. He is like the witness who stated thathe had readGullivers Travels, theStories of Mun-chausen, and theFlying Wife, includingRobinsonCrusoe, and believed them all; but that Wirt'sLife ofPatrick Henrywas a litde more than he could stand.29It is strange that a man who believes that Godcreated the universe out of "omnipotence" shouldbelieve that he had not enough omnipotence left todrown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage seeksto make the story of the flood reasonable. Themoment it is reasonable, it ceases to be miraculous.Certainly God cannot afford to reward a man witheternal joy for believing a reasonable story. Faith isonly necessary when the story is unreasonable, and ifthe flood only gets small enough, I can believe itmyself. I ask for evidence, and Mr. Talmage seeksto make the story so little that it can be believedwithout evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of"local option" flood—a little wet for that part of thecountry.Why was it necessary to save the birds? Theycertainly could have gotten out of the way of a realsmall flood. Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of eachspecies. He was commanded to take of the fowls of theair by sevens—seven of each sex—and, as there areat least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary ofabout 175,000 birds, provided the flood was general.If it was local, there are no means of determining thenumber. But why, if the flood was local, should hehave taken any of the fowls of the air into his ark?30All they had to do was to fly away, or "roost high;"and it would have been just as easy for God to haveimplanted in them, for the moment, the instinct ofgetting out of the way as the instinct of hunting the ark.It would have been quite a saving of room and pro-visions, and would have materially lessened the laborand anxiety of Noah and his sons.Besides, if it had been a partial flood, and greatenough to cover the highest mountains in that country,the highest mountain being about seventeen thousandfeet, the flood would have been covered with a sheetof ice several thousand feet in thickness. If a columnof water could have been thrown seventeen thousandfeet high and kept stationary, several thousand feetof the upper end would have frozen. If, however,the deluge was general, then the atmosphere wouldhave been forced out the same on all sides, and theclimate remained substantially normal.Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt toexplain the flood by calling it partial.Mr. Talmage also says that the window ran clearround the ark, and that if I had only known as muchHebrew as a man could put on his little finger, Iwould have known that the window went clear round.To this I reply that, if his position is correct, then the31original translators of King James' edition did notknow as much Hebrew as they could have put ontheir little fingers; and yet I am obliged to believetheir translation or be eternally damned. If thewindow went clear round, the inspired writer shouldhave said so, and the learned translators should havegiven us the truth. No one pretends that there wasmore than one door, and yet the same language isused about the door, except this—that the exact sizeof the window is given, and the only peculiarity men-tioned as to the door is that it shut from the outside.For any one to see that Mr. Talmage is wrong on thewindow question, it is only necessary to read the storyof the deluge.Mr. Talmage also endeavors to decrease the depthof the flood. If the flood did not cover the highesthills, many people might have been saved. He alsoinsists that all the water did not come from the rains,but that "the fountains of the great deep were broken"up." What are "the fountains of the great deep"?How would their being "broken up" increase thedepth of the water? He seems to imagine that these"fountains" were in some way imprisoned—anxiousto get to the surface, and that, at that time, an oppor-tunity was given for water to run up hill, or in some32mysterious way to rise above its level. According tothe account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves forat least seven months. If this flood was only partial,it seems a little curious that the water did not seek itslevel in less than seven months. With anything likea fair chance, by that time most of it would havefound its way to the sea again.There is in the literature of ignorance no moreperfectly absurd and cruel story than that of thedeluge.I am very sorry that Mr. Talmage should disagreewith some of the great commentators. Dr. Scotttells us that, in all probability, the angels assisted ingetting the animals into the ark. Dr. Henry insiststhat the waters in the bowels of the earth, at God'scommand, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr.Clark tells us that it would have been much easierfor God to have destroyed all the people and madesome new ones, but that he did not want to wasteanything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, whilein the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could bemore amusing than to see a few lions eating good,dry straw. This commentator assures us that thewaters rose so high that the loftiest mountains wereoverflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not33hoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells usthat some of the people got on top of the ark, andhoped to shift for themselves, but that, in all proba-bility, they were washed off by the rain. When weconsider that the rain must have fallen at the rate ofabout eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to thinkthat they were washed off.Mr. Talmage has clearly misrepresented the Bible.He is not prepared to believe the story as it is told.The seeds of infidelity seem to be germinating in hismind. His position no doubt will be a great relief tomost of his hearers. After this, their credulity willnot be strained. They can say that there was probablyquite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered itnecessary for Noah and his family—his dogs, cats,and chickens—to get in a boat. This would not beunreasonable. The same thing happens almost everyyear on the shores of great rivers, and consequentlythe story of the flood is an exceedingly reasonableone.Mr. Talmage also endeavors to account for themiraculous collection of the animals in the ark bythe universal instinct to get out of the rain. Thereare at least two objections to this: 1. The animalswent into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I34have never noticed any great desire on the part ofducks, geese, and loons to get out of the water. Mr.Talmage must have been misled by a line from an oldnursery book that says: "And the little fishes got"under the bridge to keep out of the rain." He tellsus that Noah described what he saw. He is the firsttheologian who claims that Genesis was written byNoah, or that Noah wrote any account of the flood.Most Christians insist that the account of the floodwas written by Moses, and that he was inspired towrite it. Of course, it will not do for me to say thatMr. Talmage has misrepresented the facts.Question. You are also charged with misrepresen-tation in your statement as to where the ark at lastrested. It is claimed by Mr. Talmage that there isnothing in the Bible to show that the ark rested onthe highest mountains.Answer. Of course I have no knowledge as towhere the ark really came to anchor, but after it struckbottom, we are told that a dove was sent out, andthat the dove found no place whereon to rest herfoot. If the ark touched ground in the low country,surely the mountains were out of water, and an or-dinary mountain furnishes, as a rule, space enough35for a dove's foot. We must infer that the ark restedon the only land then above water, or near enoughabove water to strike the keel of Noah's boat. MountArarat is about seventeen thousand feet high; so Itake it that the top of that mountain was where Noahran aground—otherwise, the account means nothing.Here Mr. Talmage again shows his tendency tobelittle the miracles of the Bible. I am astonishedthat he should doubt the power of God to keep anark on a mountain seventeen thousand feet high.He could have changed the climate for that occasion.He could have made all the rocks and glaciers pro-duce wheat and corn in abundance. Certainly God,who could overwhelm a world with a flood, had thepower to change every law and fact in nature.I am surprised that Mr. Talmage is not willing tobelieve the story as it is told. What right has he toquestion the statements of an inspired writer? Whyshould he set up his judgment against the Webstersand Jacksons? Is it not infinitely impudent in himto contrast his penny-dip with the sun of inspiration?What right has he to any opinion upon the subject?He must take the Bible as it reads. He shouldremember that the greater the miracle the greatershould be his faith.36Question. You do not seem to have any greatopinion of the chemical, geological, and agriculturalviews expressed by Mr. Talmage?Answer. You must remember that Mr. Talmagehas a certain thing to defend. He takes the Bible asactually true, and with the Bible as his standard, hecompares and measures all sciences. He does notstudy geology to find whether the Mosaic account istrue, but he reads the Mosaic account for the purposeof showing that geology can not be depended upon.His idea that "one day is as a thousand years with"God," and that therefore the "days" mentioned in theMosaic account are not days of twenty-four hours, butlong periods, is contradicted by the Bible itself. Thegreat reason given for keeping the Sabbath day is, that"God rested on the seventh day and was refreshed."Now, it does not say that he rested on the "seventh"period," or the "seventh good—while," or the"seventh long-time," but on the "seventh day." Inimitation of this example we are also to rest—not onthe seventh good-while, but on the seventh day.Nothing delights the average minister more than tofind that a passage of Scripture is capable of severalinterpretations. Nothing in the inspired book is so37dangerous as accuracy. If the holy writer usesgeneral terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonizea seemingly preposterous statement with the mostobdurate fact. An "inspired" book should containneither statistics nor dates—as few names as possible,and not one word about geology or astronomy. Mr.Talmage is doing the best he can to uphold the fablesof the Jews. They are the foundation of his faith.He believes in the water of the past and the fire of thefuture—in the God of flood and flame—the eternaltorturer of his helpless children.It is exceedingly unfortunate that Mr. Talmage doesnot appreciate the importance of good manners, thathe does not rightly estimate the convincing power ofkindness and good nature. It is unfortunate that aChristian, believing in universal forgiveness, shouldexhibit so much of the spirit of detraction, that heshould run so easily and naturally into epithets, andthat he should mistake vituperation for logic. Thou-sands of people, knowing but little of the mysteries ofChristianity—never having studied theology,—maybecome prejudiced against the church, and doubt thedivine origin of a religion whose defenders seem torely, at least to a great degree, upon malignant per-sonalities. Mr. Talmage should remember that in a38discussion of this kind, he is supposed to represent abeing of infinite wisdom and goodness. Surely, therepresentative of the infinite can afford to be candid,can afford to be kind. When he contemplates thecondition of a fellow-being destitute of religion, afellow-being now travelling the thorny path to eternalfire, he should be filled with pity instead of hate.Instead of deforming his mouth with scorn, his eyesshould be filled with tears. He should take intoconsideration the vast difference between an infideland a minister of the gospel,—knowing, as he does,that a crown of glory has been prepared for theminister, and that flames are waiting for the soulof the unbeliever. He should bear with philosophicfortitude the apparent success of the skeptic, for afew days in this brief life, since he knows that in alittle while the question will be eternally settled inhis favor, and that the humiliation of a day is asnothing compared with the victory of eternity. Inthis world, the skeptic appears to have the bestof the argument; logic seems to be on the sideof blasphemy; common sense apparently goes handin hand with infidelity, and the few things we areabsolutely certain of, seem inconsistent with theChristian creeds.39This, however, as Mr. Talmage well knows, is butapparent. God has arranged the world in this wayfor the purpose of testing the Christian's faith.Beyond all these facts, beyond logic, beyond reason,Mr. Talmage, by the light of faith, clearly sees theeternal truth. This clearness of vision should givehim the serenity of candor and the kindness born ofabsolute knowledge. He, being a child of the light,should not expect the perfect from the children ofdarkness. He should not judge Humboldt andWesley by the same standard. He should rememberthat Wesley was especially set apart and illuminatedby divine wisdom, while Humboldt was left to gropein the shadows of nature. He should also rememberthat ministers are not like other people. They havebeen "called." They have been "chosen" by infinitewisdom. They have been "set apart," and theyhave bread to eat that we know not of. Whileother people are forced to pursue the difficult pathsof investigation, they fly with the wings of faith.Mr. Talmage is perfectly aware of the advantageshe enjoys, and yet he deems it dangerous to be fair.This, in my judgment, is his mistake. If he cannoteasily point out the absurdities and contradictions ininfidel lectures, surely God would never have selected40him for that task. We cannot believe that imperfectinstruments would be chosen by infinite wisdom.Certain lambs have been entrusted to the care of Mr.Talmage, the shepherd. Certainly God would notselect a shepherd unable to cope with an averagewolf. Such a shepherd is only the appearance ofprotection. When the wolf is not there, he is auseless expense, and when the wolf comes, he goes.I cannot believe that God would select a shepherdof that kind. Neither can the shepherd justify hisselection by abusing the wolf when out of sight.The fear ought to be on the other side. A divinelyappointed shepherd ought to be able to convince hissheep that a wolf is a dangerous animal, and oughtto be able to give his reasons. It may be that theshepherd has a certain interest in exaggerating thecruelty and ferocity of the wolf, and even the numberof the wolves. Should it turn out that the wolvesexist only in the imagination of the shepherd, thesheep might refuse to pay the salary of their pro-tector. It will, however, be hard to calculate theextent to which the sheep will lose confidence in ashepherd who has not even the courage to state thefacts about the wolf. But what must be the resultwhen the sheep find that the supposed wolf is, in41fact, their friend, and that he is endeavoring to rescuethem from the exactions of the pretended shepherd,who creates, by falsehood, the fear on which helives?SECOND INTERVIEW.Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tearyour hair.Sir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion,overwhelmed and humiliated.Por. Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?Sir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!Question. I want to ask you a few questionsabout the second sermon of Mr. Talmage;have you read it, and what do you think of it?Answer. The text taken by the reverend gentle-man is an insult, and was probably intended as such:"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."Mr. Talmage seeks to apply this text to any onewho denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and isthe infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is per-fectly satisfied that any man who differs with him onthis question is a "fool," and he has the Christianforbearance and kindness to say so. I presume he46is honest in this opinion, and no doubt regards Bruno,Spinoza and Humboldt as driveling imbeciles. Heentertains the same opinion of some of the greatest,wisest and best of Greece and Rome.No man is fitted to reason upon this question whohas not the intelligence to see the difficulties in alltheories. No man has yet evolved a theory thatsatisfactorily accounts for all that is. No matterwhat his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousanddifficulties, and innumerable things insist upon anexplanation. The best that any man can do is totake that theory which to his mind presents thefewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been educatedin a certain way—has a brain of a certain quantity,quality and form—and accepts, in spite it may be,of himself, a certain theory. Others, formed differ-ently, having lived under different circumstances,cannot accept the Talmagian view, and thereupon hedenounces them as fools. In this he follows theexample of David the murderer; of David, whoadvised one of his children to assassinate another;of David, whose last words were those of hate andcrime. Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especialbrain to reason out a "design" in Nature, and in amoment afterward says that "when the world slew47"Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal"God, if once it could get its hands on Him." Whyshould a God of infinite wisdom create people whowould gladly murder their Creator? Was there anyparticular "design" in that? Does the existenceof such people conclusively prove the existence of agood Designer? It seems to me—and I take it thatmy thought is natural, as I have only been bornonce—that an infinitely wise and good God wouldnaturally create good people, and if he has not, cer-tainly the fault is his. The God of Mr. Talmageknew, when he created Guiteau, that he wouldassassinate Garfield. Why did he create him? Didhe want Garfield assassinated? Will somebody bekind enough to show the "design" in this trans-action? Is it possible to see "design" in earth-quakes, in volcanoes, in pestilence, in famine, inruthless and relentless war? Can we find "design" inthe fact that every animal lives upon some other—that every drop of every sea is a battlefield wherethe strong devour the weak? Over the precipiceof cruelty rolls a perpetual Niagara of blood. Isthere "design" in this? Why should a good Godpeople a world with men capable of burning theirfellow-men—and capable of burning the greatest and48best? Why does a good God permit these things?It is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind andgenerous, infinitely merciful, because when on earthhe cured the sick, the lame and blind. Has he notas much power now as he had then? If he was andis the God of all worlds, why does he not now giveback to the widow her son? Why does he with-hold light from the eyes of the blind? And whydoes one who had the power miraculously to feedthousands, allow millions to die for want of food?Did Christ only have pity when he was part human?Are we indebted for his kindness to the flesh thatclothed his spirit? Where is he now? Where has hebeen through all the centuries of slavery and crime?If this universe was "designed," then all thathappens was "designed." If a man constructs anengine, the boiler of which explodes, we say eitherthat he did not know the strength of his materials, orthat he was reckless of human life. If an infinite beingshould construct a weak or imperfect machine, he mustbe held accountable for all that happens. He cannotbe permitted to say that he did not know the strengthof the materials. He is directly and absolutely re-sponsible. So, if this world was designed by a beingof infinite power and wisdom, he is responsible for49the result of that design. My position is this: I donot know. But there are so many objections to thepersonal-God theory, that it is impossible for me toaccept it. I prefer to say that the universe is all theGod there is. I prefer to make no being responsible.I prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, manmust clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man mustfeed them. I prefer to rely upon human endeavor,upon human intelligence, upon the heart and brainof man. There is no evidence that God has everinterfered in the affairs of man. The hand of earthis stretched uselessly toward heaven. From theclouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwreckedcry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for libertyand light—the world moves on, and the heavens aredeaf and dumb and blind. The frost freezes, the fireburns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the goodsuffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith.Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with being"the champion blasphemer of America"—what doyou understand blasphemy to be?Answer. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by su-perstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-gates a religion as he would any department of50science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradictsa priest, whoever has the impudence to use his ownreason, whoever is brave enough to express hishonest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes of thereligionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly ofthe wooden god of a savage, the savage regards himas a blasphemer. To laugh at the pretensions ofMohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To sayin St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet ofGod is also blasphemy. There was a time when toacknowledge the divinity of Christ in Jerusalem wasblasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemyin New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extenta geographical question. It depends not only on whatyou say, but where you are when you say it. Blas-phemy is what the old calls the new,—what lastyear's leaf says to this year's bud. The founder ofevery religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so re-garded Christ, and the Athenians had the sameopinion of Socrates. Catholics have always lookedupon Protestants as blasphemers, and Protestants havealways held the same generous opinion of Catholics.To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is blas-phemy. To say that she is the Mother of God isblasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake-51skin stuffed with leaves is sacred, and he who thinksotherwise is a blasphemer. It was once blasphemyto laugh at Diana, of the Ephesians. Many peoplethink that it is blasphemous to tell your real opinionof the Jewish Jehovah. Others imagine that wordscan be printed upon paper, and the paper bound intoa book covered with sheepskin, and that the book issacred, and that to question its sacredness is blas-phemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, butnothing can be more absurd than a crime againstGod. If God is infinite, you cannot injure him. Youcannot commit a crime against any being that youcannot injure. Of course, the infinite cannot be in-jured. Man is a conditioned being. By changinghis conditions, his surroundings, you can injure him;but if God is infinite, he is conditionless. If he isconditionless, he cannot by any possibility be injured.You can neither increase, nor decrease, the well-beingof the infinite. Consequently, a crime against Godis a demonstrated impossibility. The cry of blasphemymeans only that the argument of the blasphemer can-not be answered. The sleight-of-hand performer,when some one tries to raise the curtain behind whichhe operates, cries "blasphemer!" The priest, find-ing that he has been attacked by common sense,—52by a fact,—resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is theblack flag of theology, and it means: No argumentand no quarter! It is an appeal to prejudice, topassions, to ignorance. It is the last resort of adefeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point whereargument stops and slander begins. In old times, itwas the signal for throwing stones, for gatheringfagots and for tearing flesh; now it means falsehoodand calumny.Question. Then you think that there is no suchthing as the crime of blasphemy, and that no suchoffence can be committed?Answer. Any one who knowingly speaks in favorof injustice is a blasphemer. Whoever wishes todestroy liberty of thought,—the honest expression ofideas,—is a blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malignhis neighbor, simply because he differs with him upona subject about which neither of them knows anythingfor certain, is a blasphemer. If a crime can be com-mitted against God, he commits it who imputes toGod the commission of crime. The man who saysthat God ordered the assassination of women andbabes, that he gave maidens to satisfy the lust ofsoldiers, that he enslaved his own children,—that man53is a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be farbetter to deny the existence of God entirely. Itseems to me that every man ought to give his honestopinion. No man should suppose that any infiniteGod requires him to tell as truth that which he knowsnothing about.Mr. Talmage, in order to make a point againstinfidelity, states from his pulpit that I am in favor ofpoisoning the minds of children by the circulation ofimmoral books. The statement is entirely false. Heought to have known that I withdrew from the LiberalLeague upon the very question whether the law shouldbe repealed or modified. I favored a modificationof that law, so that books and papers could not bethrown from the mails simply because they were"infidel."I was and am in favor of the destruction ofevery immoral book in the world. I was and amin favor, not only of the law against the circulationof such filth, but want it executed to the letter in everyState of this Union. Long before he made that state-ment, I had introduced a resolution to that effect, andsupported the resolution in a speech. Notwithstand-ing these facts, hundreds of clergymen have madehaste to tell the exact opposite of the truth. This54they have done in the name of Christianity, under thepretence of pleasing their God. In my judgment, itis far better to tell your honest opinions, even uponthe subject of theology, than to knowingly tell a false-hood about a fellow-man. Mr. Talmage may havebeen ignorant of the truth. He may have been misledby other ministers, and for his benefit I make this ex-planation. I wanted the laws modified so that bigotrycould not interfere with the literature of intelligence;but I did not want, in any way, to shield the writers orpublishers of immoral books. Upon this subject Iused, at the last meeting of the Liberal League thatI attended, the following language:"But there is a distinction wide as the Mississippi,"yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all oceans,"between the literature of immorality and the litera-"ture of free thought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard,"and the other an angel with wings of light. Let us"draw this distinction. Let us understand ourselves."Do not make the wholesale statement that all these"laws ought to be repealed. They ought not to be"repealed. Some of them are good, and the law"against sending instruments of vice through the"mails is good. The law against sending obscene"pictures and books is good. The law against send-55"ing bogus diplomas through the mails, to allow a"lot of ignorant hyenas to prey upon the sick people"of the world, is a good law. The law against rascals"who are getting up bogus lotteries, and sending their"circulars in the mails is a good law. You know, as"well as I, that there are certain books not fit to go"through the mails. You know that. You know there"are certain pictures not fit to be transmitted, not fit"to be delivered to any human being. When these"books and pictures come into the control of the"United States, I say, burn them up! And when any"man has been indicted who has been trying to make"money by pandering to the lowest passions in the"human breast, then I say, prosecute him! let the"law take its course."I can hardly convince myself that when Mr.Talmage made the charge, he was acquainted withthe facts. It seems incredible that any man, pre-tending to be governed by the law of commonhonesty, could make a charge like this knowingit to be untrue. Under no circumstances, wouldI charge Mr. Talmage with being an infamousman, unless the evidence was complete and over-whelming. Even then, I should hesitate long beforemaking the charge. The side I take on theological56questions does not render a resort to slander orcalumny a necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honor-able man, he will take back the statement he hasmade. Even if there is a God, I hardly think thathe will reward one of his children for maligninganother; and to one who has told falsehoods about"infidels," that having been his only virtue, I doubtwhether he will say: "Well done good and faithful"servant."Question. What have you to say to the chargethat you are endeavoring to "assassinate God,"and that you are "far worse than the man who at-"tempts to kill his father, or his mother, or his sister,"or his brother"?Answer. Well, I think that is about as reason-able as anything he says. No one wishes, so far as Iknow, to assassinate God. The idea of assassinatingan infinite being is of course infinitely absurd. Onewould think Mr. Talmage had lost his reason! Andyet this man stands at the head of the Presbyterianclergy. It is for this reason that I answer him. Heis the only Presbyterian minister in the UnitedStates, so far as I know, able to draw an audience.He is, without doubt, the leader of that denomination.57He is orthodox and conservative. He believes im-plicitly in the "Five Points" of Calvin, and saysnothing simply for the purpose of attracting attention.He believes that God damns a man for his own glory;that he sends babes to hell to establish his mercy,and that he filled the world with disease and crimesimply to demonstrate his wisdom. He believes thatbillions of years before the earth was, God had madeup his mind as to the exact number that he wouldeternally damn, and had counted his saints. Thisdoctrine he calls "glad tidings of great joy." Hereally believes that every man who is true to himselfis waging war against God; that every infidel is arebel; that every Freethinker is a traitor, and thatonly those are good subjects who have joined thePresbyterian Church, know the Shorter Catechism byheart, and subscribe liberally toward lifting the mort-gage on the Brooklyn Tabernacle. All the rest areendeavoring to assassinate God, plotting the murderof the Holy Ghost, and applauding the Jews for thecrucifixion of Christ. If Mr. Talmage is correct inhis views as to the power and wisdom of God, Iimagine that his enemies at last will be overthrown,that the assassins and murderers will not succeed, andthat the Infinite, with Mr. Talmage s assistance, will58finally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainlyhe ought to have made man grand enough to haveand express an opinion of his own. Is it possiblethat God can be gratified with the applause of moralcowards? Does he seek to enhance his glory byreceiving the adulation of cringing slaves? Is Godsatisfied with the adoration of the frightened?Question. You notice that Mr. Talmage findsnearly all the inventions of modern times mentionedin the Bible?Answer: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an ex-ceedingly important discovery. I admit that I amsomewhat amazed at the wisdom of the ancients.This discovery has been made just in the nick oftime. Millions of people were losing their respectfor the Old Testament. They were beginning tothink that there was some discrepancy between theprophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and the latest devel-opments in physical science. Thousands of preacherswere telling their flocks that the Bible is not ascientific book; that Joshua was not an inspired as-tronomer, that God never enlightened Moses aboutgeology, and that Ezekiel did not understand theentire art of cookery. These admissions caused59some young people to suspect that the Bible, after all,was not inspired; that the prophets of antiquity didnot know as much as the discoverers of to-day. TheBible was falling into disrepute. Mr. Talmage hasrushed to the rescue. He shows, and shows conclu-sively as anything can be shown from the Bible, thatJob understood all the laws of light thousands ofyears before Newton lived; that he anticipated thediscoveries of Descartes, Huxley and Tyndall; thathe was familiar with the telegraph and telephone;that Morse, Bell and Edison simply put his discov-eries in successful operation; that Nahum was, infact, a master-mechanic; that he understood perfectlythe modern railway and described it so accuratelythat Trevethick, Foster and Stephenson had no diffi-culty in constructing a locomotive. He also hasdiscovered that Job was well acquainted with thetrade winds, and understood the mysterious currents,tides and pulses of the sea; that Lieutenant Maurywas a plagiarist; that Humboldt was simply a biblicalstudent. He finds that Isaiah and Solomon werefar in advance of Galileo, Morse, Meyer and Watt.This is a discovery wholly unexpected to me. IfMr. Talmage is right, I am satisfied the Bible is aninspired book. If it shall turn out that Joshua was60superior to Laplace, that Moses knew more aboutgeology than Humboldt, that Job as a scientist wasthe superior of Kepler, that Isaiah knew more thanCopernicus, and that even the minor prophets ex-celled the inventors and discoverers of our time—then I will admit that infidelity must become speech-less forever. Until I read this sermon, I had nevereven suspected that the inventions of modern timeswere known to the ancient Jews. I never supposedthat Nahum knew the least thing about railroads, orthat Job would have known a telegraph if he had seenit. I never supposed that Joshua comprehended thethree laws of Kepler. Of course I have not readthe Old Testament with as much care as some otherpeople have, and when I did read it, I was not lookingfor inventions and discoveries. I had been told sooften that the Bible was no authority upon scientificquestions, that I was lulled into a state of lethargy.What is amazing to me is, that so many men didread it without getting the slightest hint of thesmallest invention. To think that the Jews read thatbook for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yetwent to their graves without the slightest notion ofastronomy, or geology, of railroads, telegraphs, orsteamboats! And then to think that the early fathers61made it the study of their lives and died without in-venting anything! I am astonished that Mr. Talmagehimself does not figure in the records of the PatentOffice. I cannot account for this, except upon thesupposition that he is too honest to infringe on thepatents of the patriarchs. After this, I shall readthe Old Testament with more care.Question. Do you see that Mr. Talmage endeav-ors to convict you of great ignorance in not knowingthat the word translated "rib" should have beentranslated "side," and that Eve, after all, was notmade out of a rib, but out of Adam's side?Answer. I may have been misled by taking theBible as it is translated. The Bible account is simplythis: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall"upon Adam, and he slept. And he took one of"his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"and the rib which the Lord God had taken from"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the"man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my"bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called"woman, because she was taken out of man." IfMr. Talmage is right, then the account should be asfollows: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep62"to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one"of his sides, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"and the side which the Lord God had taken from"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the"man. And Adam said: This is now side of my"side, and flesh of my flesh." I do not see that thestory is made any better by using the word "side"instead of "rib." It would be just as hard for Godto make a woman out of a man's side as out of arib. Mr. Talmage ought not to question the powerof God to make a woman out of a bone, and he mustrecollect that the less the material the greater themiracle.There are two accounts of the creation of man,in Genesis, the first being in the twenty-first verseof the first chapter and the second being in thetwenty-first and twenty-second verses of the sec-ond chapter.According to the second account, "God formed"man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into"his nostrils the breath of life." And after this,"God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put"the man" in this garden. After this, "He made"every tree to grow that was good for food and"pleasant to the sight," and, in addition, "the tree63"of life in the midst of the garden," beside "the tree"of the knowledge of good and evil." And he "put"the man in the garden to dress it and keep it,"telling him that he might eat of everything he sawexcept of "the tree of the knowledge of good and"evil."After this, God having noticed that it "was not"good for man to be alone, formed out of the ground"every beast of the field, every fowl of the air, and"brought them to Adam to see what he would call"them, and Adam gave names to all cattle, and to"the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field."But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for"him."We are not told how Adam learned the language,or how he understood what God said. I can hardlybelieve that any man can be created with the know-ledge of a language. Education cannot be readymade and stuffed into a brain. Each person mustlearn a language for himself. Yet in this account wefind a language ready made for man's use. And notonly man was enabled to speak, but a serpent alsohas the power of speech, and the woman holds aconversation with this animal and with her husband;and yet no account is given of how any language was64learned. God is described as walking in the gardenin the cool of the day, speaking like a man—holdingconversations with the man and woman, and occa-sionally addressing the serpent.In the nursery rhymes of the world there isnothing more childish than this "inspired" accountof the creation of man and woman.The early fathers of the church held that womanwas inferior to man, because man was not made forwoman, but woman for man; because Adam wasmade first and Eve afterward. They had not thegallantry of Robert Burns, who accounted for thebeauty of woman from the fact that God practicedon man first, and then gave woman the benefit ofhis experience. Think, in this age of the world,of a well-educated, intelligent gentleman telling hislittle child that about six thousand years ago amysterious being called God made the world out ofhis "omnipotence;" then made a man out of somedust which he is supposed to have moulded intoform; that he put this man in a garden for the pur-pose of keeping the trees trimmed; that after a littlewhile he noticed that the man seemed lonesome, notparticularly happy, almost homesick; that then it oc-curred to this God, that it would be a good thing for65the man to have some company, somebody to helphim trim the trees, to talk to him and cheer him upon rainy days; that, thereupon, this God causeda deep sleep to fall on the man, took a knife, or along, sharp piece of "omnipotence," and took out oneof the man's sides, or a rib, and of that made awoman; that then this man and woman got alongreal well till a snake got into the garden and inducedthe woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil; that the woman got the man to takea bite; that afterwards both of them were detected byGod, who was walking around in the cool of theevening, and thereupon they were turned out of thegarden, lest they should put forth their hands and eatof the tree of life, and live forever.This foolish story has been regarded as the sacred,inspired truth; as an account substantially written byGod himself; and thousands and millions of peoplehave supposed it necessary to believe this childishfalsehood, in order to save their souls. Nothingmore laughable can be found in the fairy tales andfolk-lore of savages. Yet this is defended by theleading Presbyterian divine, and those who fail tobelieve in the truth of this story are called "brazen"faced fools," "deicides," and "blasphemers."66By this story woman in all Christian countries wasdegraded. She was considered too impure to preachthe gospel, too impure to distribute the sacramentalbread, too impure to hand about the sacred wine,too impure to step within the "holy of holies," in theCatholic Churches, too impure to be touched by apriest. Unmarried men were considered purer thanhusbands and fathers. Nuns were regarded as su-perior to mothers, a monastery holier than a home, anunnery nearer sacred than the cradle. And throughall these years it has been thought better to loveGod than to love man, better to love God than tolove your wife and children, better to worship animaginary deity than to help your fellow-men.I regard the rights of men and women equal. InLove's fair realm, husband and wife are king andqueen, sceptered and crowned alike, and seated onthe self-same throne.Question. Do you still insist that the Old Testa-ment upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies thischarge, and shows how terribly God punished thosewho were not satisfied with one wife.Answer. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage hassaid calculated to change my opinion. It has been67admitted by thousands of theologians that the OldTestament upholds polygamy. Mr. Talmage isamong the first to deny it. It will not do to say thatDavid was punished for the crime of polygamyor concubinage. He was "a man after God's own"heart." He was made a king. He was a successfulgeneral, and his blood is said to have flowed in theveins of God. Solomon was, according to the ac-count, enriched with wisdom above all human beings.Was that a punishment for having had so manywives? Was Abraham pursued by the justice ofGod because of the crime against Hagar, or for thecrime against his own wife? The verse quoted byMr. Talmage to show that God was opposed topolygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the eight-eenth chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuitybe tortured into a command against polygamy. Themost that can be possibly said of it is, that you shallnot marry the sister of your wife, while your wife isliving. Yet this passage is quoted by Mr. Talmageas "a thunder of prohibition against having more"than one wife." In the twentieth chapter ofLeviticus it is enacted: "That if a man take a wife"and her mother they shall be burned with fire." Acommandment like this shows that he might take his68wife and somebody else's mother. These passageshave nothing to do with polygamy. They showwhom you may marry, not how many; and there isnot in Leviticus a solitary word against polygamy—not one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, norExodus, nor in the entire Pentateuch—not oneword. These books are filled with the most minutedirections about killing sheep, and goats and doves;about making clothes for priests, about fashioningtongs and snuffers; and yet, they contain not oneword against polygamy. It never occurred to the in-spired writers that polygamy was a crime. Polygamywas accepted as a matter of course. Women weresimple property.Mr. Talmage, however, insists that, although Godwas against polygamy, he permitted it, and at thesame time threw his moral influence against it.Upon this subject he says: "No doubt God per-"mitted polygamy to continue for sometime, just"as he permits murder and arson, theft and gam-"bling to-day to continue, although he is against"them." If God is the author of the Ten Com-mandments, he prohibited murder and theft, buthe said nothing about polygamy. If he was soterribly against that crime, why did he forget to69mention it? Was there not room enough on thetables of stone for just one word on this subject?Had he no time to give a commandment againstslavery? Mr. Talmage of course insists that Godhad to deal with these things gradually, his idea beingthat if God had made a commandment against them allat once, the Jews would have had nothing more to dowith him.For instance: if we wanted to break cannibalsof eating missionaries, we should not tell them allat once that it was wrong, that it was wicked, toeat missionaries raw; we should induce them firstto cook the missionaries, and gradually wean themfrom raw flesh. This would be the first great step.We would stew the missionaries, and after a timeput a little mutton in the stew, not enough to excitethe suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough to gethim in the habit of eating mutton without knowing it.Day after day we would put in more mutton and lessmissionary, until finally, the cannibal would be perfectlysatisfied with clear mutton. Then we would tell himthat it was wrong to eat missionary. After the can-nibal got so that he liked mutton, and cared nothingfor missionary, then it would be safe to have a lawupon the subject.70Mr. Talmage insists that polygamy cannot existamong people who believe the Bible. In this he ismistaken. The Mormons all believe the Bible. Thereis not a single polygamist in Utah who does not insistupon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.The Rev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consu-lar theologian, once had a discussion, I believe, withElder Orson Pratt, at Salt Lake City, upon the questionof polygamy. It is sufficient to say of this discussionthat it is now circulated by the Mormons as a campaigndocument. The elder overwhelmed the parson.Passages of Scripture in favor of polygamy werequoted by the hundred. The lives of all the patriarchswere brought forward, and poor parson Newman wasdriven from the field. The truth is, the Jews at thattime were much like our forefathers. They werebarbarians, and many of their laws were unjustand cruel. Polygamy was the right of all; practiced,as a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and therich and powerful were envied by the poor. In suchesteem did the ancient Jews hold polygamy, that thenumber of Solomons wives was given, simply to en-hance his glory. My own opinion is, that Solomonhad very few wives, and that polygamy was notgeneral in Palestine. The country was too poor, and71Solomon, in all his glory was hardly able to supportone wife. He was a poor barbarian king with alimited revenue, with a poor soil, with a sparse popu-lation, without art, without science and without power.He sustained about the same relation to other kingsthat Delaware does to other States. Mr. Talmagesays that God persecuted Solomon, and yet, if he willturn to the twenty-second chapter of First Chronicles,he will find what God promised to Solomon. God,speaking to David, says: "Behold a son shall be born"to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him"rest from his enemies around about; for his name shall"be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness"unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house in my"name, and he shall be my son and I will be his father,"and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over"Israel forever." Did God keep his promise?So he tells us that David was persecuted byGod, on account of his offences, and yet I find inthe twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-ninth chapterof First Chronicles, the following account of the deathof David: "And he died in a good old age, full of"days, riches and honor." Is this true?Question. What have you to say to the chargethat you were mistaken in the number of years that72the Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage says thatthey were there 430 years, instead of 215 years.Answer. If you will read the third chapter ofGalatians, sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you willfind that it was 430 years from the time God made thepromise to Abraham to the giving of the law fromMount Sinai. The Hebrews did not go to Egypt for215 years after the promise was made to Abraham,and consequently did not remain in Egypt more than215 years. If Galatians is true, I am right.Strange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the mira-cles. The trouble with this defender of the faith is thathe cares nothing for facts. He makes the strangeststatements, and cares the least for proof, of anyman I know. I can account for what he says of meonly upon the supposition that he has not read mylectures. He may have been misled by the piratededitions; Persons have stolen my lectures, printed thesame ones under various names, and filled them withmistakes and things I never said. Mr. C. P. Farrell,of Washington, is my only authorized publisher.Yet Mr. Talmage prefers to answer the mistakes ofliterary thieves, and charge their ignorance to me.Question. Did you ever attack the character ofQueen Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between73her and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate thereputation of the Queen?Answer. I never said a word against Victoria.The fact is, I am not acquainted with her—never mether in my life, and know but little of her. I neverhappened to see her "in plain clothes, reading the"Bible to the poor in the lane,"—neither did I everhear her sing. I most cheerfully admit that herreputation is good in the neighborhood where sheresides. In one of my lectures I drew a parallelbetween George Eliot and Victoria. I was showingthe difference between a woman who had won herposition in the world of thought, and one who wasqueen by chance. This is what I said:"It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man"to be a king or emperor. The last Napoleon was"not satisfied with being the Emperor of the French."He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold"about his head—he wanted some evidence that he"had something of value in his head. So he wrote"the life of Julius Cæsar that he might become a"member of the French Academy. The emperors,"the kings, the popes, no longer tower above their"fellows. Compare King William with the philoso-"pher Hæckel. The king is one of the 'anointed74"'of the Most High'—as they claim—one upon"whose head has been poured the divine petroleum"of authority. Compare this king with Hæckel, who"towers an intellectual Colossus above the crowned"mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen"Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments given"her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while"George Eliot wears robes of glory, woven in the"loom of her own genius. The world is beginning"to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to heart."I said not one word against Queen Victoria, and didnot intend to even intimate that she was not an ex-cellent woman, wife and mother. I was simply tryingto show that the world was getting great enough toplace a genius above an accidental queen. Mr. Tal-mage, true to the fawning, cringing spirit of ortho-doxy, lauds the living queen and cruelly maligns thegenius dead. He digs open the grave of George Eliot,and tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was thegreatest woman England has produced. He calls her"an adultress." He attacks her because she was anatheist—because she abhorred Jehovah, denied theinspiration of the Bible, denied the dogma of eternalpain, and with all her heart despised the Presbyteriancreed. He hates her because she was great and brave75and free—because she lived without "faith" and diedwithout fear—because she dared to give her honestthought, and grandly bore the taunts and slanders ofthe Christian world.George Eliot tenderly carried in her heart theburdens of our race. She looked through pity's tearsupon the faults and frailties of mankind. She knewthe springs and seeds of thought and deed, and saw,with cloudless eyes, through all the winding ways ofgreed, ambition and deceit, where folly vainly pluckswith thorn-pierced hands the fading flowers of selfishjoy—the highway of eternal right. Whatever herrelations may have been—no matter what I think, orothers say, or how much all regret the one mistake inall her self-denying, loving life—I feel and know thatin the court where her own conscience sat as judge, shestood acquitted—pure as light and stainless as a star.How appropriate here, with some slight change,the wondrously poetic and pathetic words of Laertesat Ophelia's grave:Leave her i' the earth;And from her fair and unpolluted fleshMay violets spring!I tell thee, churlish priest,A ministering angel shall this woman be,When thou liest howling!I have no words with which to tell my loathing fora man who violates a noble woman's grave.76Question. Do you think that the spirit in whichMr. Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordancewith the teachings of Christianity?Answer. I think that he talks like a true Presby-terian. If you will read the arguments of Calvinagainst the doctrines of Castalio and Servetus, you willsee that Mr. Talmage follows closely in the footstepsof the founder of his church. Castalio was such awicked and abandoned wretch, that he taught theinnocence of honest error. He insisted that Godwould not eternally damn a man for being honestlymistaken. For the utterance of such blasphemoussentiments, abhorrent to every Christian mind, Calvincalled him "a dog of Satan, and a child of hell." Inshort, he used the usual arguments. Castalio wasbanished, and died in exile. In the case of Servetus,after all the epithets had been exhausted, an appealwas made to the stake, and the blasphemous wretchwas burned to ashes.If you will read the life of John Knox, you will findthat Mr. Talmage is as orthodox in his methods ofdealing with infidels, as he is in his creed. In myopinion, he would gladly treat unbelievers now, as thePuritans did the Quakers, as the Episcopalians did thePresbyterians, as the Presbyterians did the Baptists,77and as the Catholics have treated all heretics. Ofcourse, all these sects will settle their differences inheaven. In the next world, they will laugh at thecrimes they committed in this.The course pursued by Mr. Talmage is consistent.The pulpit cannot afford to abandon the weapons offalsehood and defamation. Candor sows the seeds ofdoubt. Fairness is weakness. The only way to suc-cessfully uphold the religion of universal love, is todenounce all Freethinkers as blasphemers, adulterers,and criminals. No matter how generous they mayappear to be, no matter how fairly they may deal withtheir fellow-men, rest assured that they are actuatedby the lowest and basest motives. Infidels who out-wardly live honest and virtuous lives, are inwardlyvicious, virulent and vile. After all, morality is onlya veneering. God is not deceived with the varnish ofgood works. We know that the natural man istotally depraved, and that until he has been regene-rated by the spirit of God, he is utterly incapable of agood action. The generosity of the unbeliever is, infact, avarice. His honesty is only a form of larceny.His love is only hatred. No matter how sincerelyhe may love his wife,—how devoted he may be tohis children,—no matter how ready he may be 'to78sacrifice even his life for the good of mankind, God,looking into his very heart, finds it only a den ofhissing snakes, a lair of wild, ferocious beasts, a cageof unclean birds.The idea that God will save a man simply becausehe is honest and generous, is almost too preposterousfor serious refutation. No man should rely upon hisown goodness. He should plead the virtue of another.God, in his infinite justice, damns a good man on hisown merits, and saves a bad man on the merits ofanother. The repentant murderer will be an angelof light, while his honest and unoffending victim willbe a fiend in hell.A little while ago, a ship, disabled, was blown aboutthe Atlantic for eighty days. Everything had beeneaten. Nothing remained but bare decks and hunger.The crew consisted of Captain Kruger and nine others.For nine days, nothing had been eaten. The captain,taking a revolver in his hand, said: "Mates, some"one must die for the rest. I am willing to sacrifice"myself for you." One of his comrades grasped hishand, and implored him to wait one more day. Thenext morning, a sail was seen upon the horizon, andthe dying men were rescued.To an ordinary man,—to one guided by the light of79reason,—it is perfectly clear that Captain Kruger wasabout to do an infinitely generous action. Yet Mr.Talmage will tell us that if that captain was not aChristian, and if he had sent the bullet crashingthrough his brain in order that his comrades might eathis body, and live to reach their wives and homes,—his soul, from that ship, would have gone, by darkand tortuous ways, down to the prison of eternal pain.Is it possible that Christ would eternally damn aman for doing exactly what Christ would have done,had he been infinitely generous, under the same cir-cumstances? Is not self-denial in a man as praise-worthy as in a God? Should a God be worshiped,and a man be damned, for the same action?According to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who foughtfor our country in the Revolutionary war, who wasnot a Christian, is now in hell. Every soldier, not aChristian, who carried the flag of his country to vic-tory—either upon the land or sea, in the war of 1812,is now in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, whofought for the preservation of this Union,—to breakthe chains of slavery—to free four millions of people—to keep the whip from the naked back—every manwho did this—every one who died at Andersonvilleand Libby, dreaming that his death would help make80the lives of others worth living, is now a lost andwretched soul. These men are now in the prison ofGod,—a prison in which the cruelties of Libby andAndersonville would be regarded as mercies,—inwhich famine would be a joy.THIRD INTERVIEW.Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and power?Parson. He is.Sinner. Does he at all times know just what oughtto be done?Parson. He does.Sinner. Does he always do just what ought to bedone?Parson. He does.Sinner. Why do you pray to him?Parson. Because he is unchangeable.Question. I want to ask you a few questionsabout Mr. Talmage's third sermon. What doyou think of it?Answer. I often ask myself the questions: Isthere anything in the occupation of a minister,—any-thing in his surroundings, that makes him incapableof treating an opponent fairly, or decently? Is thereanything in the doctrine of universal forgiveness thatcompels a man to speak of one who differs with himonly in terms of disrespect and hatred? Is it neces-sary for those who profess to love the whole world,to hate the few they come in actual contact with?84Mr. Talmage, no doubt, professes to love all man-kind,—Jew and Gentile, Christian and Pagan. Nodoubt, he believes in the missionary effort, and thinkswe should do all in our power to save the soul of themost benighted savage; and yet he shows anythingbut affection for the "heathen" at home. He lovesthe ones he never saw,—is real anxious for their wel-fare,—but for the ones he knows, he exhibits onlyscorn and hatred. In one breath, he tells us thatChrist loves us, and in the next, that we are "wolves"and dogs." We are informed that Christ forgaveeven his murderers, but that now he hates an honestunbeliever with all his heart. He can forgive theones who drove the nails into his hands and feet,—the one who thrust the spear through his quiveringflesh,—but he cannot forgive the man who entertainsan honest doubt about the "scheme of salvation."He regards the man who thinks, as a "mouth-maker"at heaven." Is it possible that Christ is less for-giving in heaven than he was in Jerusalem? Did heexcuse murderers then, and does he damn thinkersnow? Once he pitied even thieves; does he nowabhor an intellectually honest man?Question. Mr. Talmage seems to think that youhave no right to give your opinion about the Bible.85Do you think that laymen have the same right asministers to examine the Scriptures?Answer. If God only made a revelation forpreachers, of course we will have to depend on thepreachers for information. But the preachers havemade the mistake of showing the revelation. Theyask us, the laymen, to read it, and certainly there isno use of reading it, unless we are permitted to thinkfor ourselves while we read. If after reading the Biblewe believe it to be true, we will say so, if we arehonest. If we do not believe it, we will say so, if weare honest.But why should God be so particular about ourbelieving the stories in his book? Why should Godobject to having his book examined? We do nothave to call upon legislators, or courts, to protectShakespeare from the derision of mankind. Was notGod able to write a book that would command thelove and admiration of the world? If the God ofMr. Talmage is infinite, he knew exactly how thestories of the Old Testament would strike a gentle-man of the nineteenth century. He knew that manywould have their doubts,—that thousands of them—and I may say most of them,—would refuse to believethat a miracle had ever been performed.86Now, it seems to me that he should either have leftthe stories out, or furnished evidence enough to con-vince the world. According to Mr. Talmage, thou-sands of people are pouring over the Niagara ofunbelief into the gulf of eternal pain. Why does notGod furnish more evidence? Just in proportion asman has developed intellectually, he has demandedadditional testimony. That which satisfies a barbarian,excites only the laughter of a civilized man. Cer-tainly God should furnish evidence in harmony withthe spirit of the age. If God wrote his Bible for theaverage man, he should have written it in such a waythat it would have carried conviction to the brain andheart of the average man; and he should havemade no man in such a way that he could not, by anypossibility, believe it. There certainly should be aharmony between the Bible and the human brain. IfI do not believe the Bible, whose fault is it? Mr.Talmage insists that his God wrote the Bible for me.and made me. If this is true, the book and the manshould agree. There is no sense in God writinga book for me and then making me in such a way thatI cannot believe his book.Question. But Mr. Talmage says the reason whyyou hate the Bible is, that your soul is poisoned; that87the Bible "throws you into a rage precisely as pure"water brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia."Answer. Is it because the mind of the infidel ispoisoned, that he refuses to believe that an infiniteGod commanded the murder of mothers, maidens andbabes? Is it because their minds are impure, thatthey refuse to believe that a good God establishedthe institution of human slavery, or that he protectedit when established? Is it because their minds arevile, that they refuse to believe that an infinite Godestablished or protected polygamy? Is it a suresign of an impure mind, when a man insists thatGod never waged wars of extermination against hishelpless children? Does it show that a man hasbeen entirely given over to the devil, because herefuses to believe that God ordered a father to sacri-fice his son? Does it show that a heart is entirelywithout mercy, simply because a man denies thejustice of eternal pain?I denounce many parts of the Old Testamentbecause they are infinitely repugnant to my senseof justice,—because they are bloody, brutal and in-famous,—because they uphold crime and destroyhuman 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 suchextravagant language by Mr. Talmage, and nothingis said touching her character in the least. All hervirtues live in the imagination, and in the imagina-tion alone.Paul, also, in his epistle to the Ephesians, says:"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own hus-"bands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the"head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the"church.""Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ,"so let the wives be to their own husbands, in"everything."You will find, too, that in the seventh chapter ofFirst Corinthians, Paul laments that all men are notbachelors like himself, and in the second verse ofthat chapter he gives the only reason for which hewas willing that men and women should marry. Headvised all the unmarried, and all widows, to remain128as he was. In the ninth verse of this same chapteris a slander too vulgar for repetition,—an estimateof woman and of woman's love so low and vile, thatevery woman should hold the inspired author ininfinite abhorrence.Paul sums up the whole matter, however, by tellingthose who have wives or husbands, to stay withthem—as necessary evils only to be tolerated—butsincerely regrets that anybody was ever married;and finally says that:"They that have wives should be as though they"had none;" because, in his opinion:"He that is unmarried careth for the things that"belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord;"but he that is married careth for the things that are"of the world, how he may please his wife.""There is this difference also," he tells us, "be-"tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman"careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be"holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is"married careth for the things of the world, how she" may please her husband."Of course, it is contended that these things havetended to the elevation of woman.The idea that it is better to love the Lord than to129love your wife, or your husband, is infinitely absurd.Nobody ever did love the Lord,—nobody can—untilhe becomes acquainted with him.Saint Paul also tells us that "Man is the image"and glory of God; but woman is the glory of"man;" and for the purpose of sustaining this posi-tion, says:"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman"of the man; neither was the man created for the"woman, but the woman for the man."Of course, we can all see that man could havegotten along well enough without woman, but woman,by no possibility, could have gotten along withoutman. And yet, this is called "inspired;" and thisapostle Paul is supposed to have known more thanall the people now upon the earth. No wonder Paulat last was constrained to say: "We are fools for"Christ's sake."Question. How do you account for the presentcondition of woman in what is known as "the civilized"world," unless the Bible has bettered her condition?Answer. We must remember that thousands ofthings enter into the problem of civilization. Soil,climate, and geographical position, united with count-130less other influences, have resulted in the civilizationof our time. If we want to find what the influence ofthe Bible has been, we must ascertain the conditionof Europe when the Bible was considered as abso-lutely true, and when it wielded its greatest influence.Christianity as a form of religion had actual posses-sion of Europe during the Middle Ages. At thattime, it exerted its greatest power. Then it had theopportunity of breaking the shackles from the limbsof woman. Christianity found the Roman matron afree woman. Polygamy was never known in Rome;and although divorces were allowed by law, theRoman state had been founded for more than fivehundred years before either a husband or a wifeasked for a divorce. From the foundation of Chris-tianity,—I mean from the time it became the force inthe Roman state,—woman, as such, went down inthe scale of civilization. The sceptre was taken fromher hands, and she became once more the slave andserf of man. The men also were made slaves, andwoman has regained her liberty by the same meansthat man has regained his,—by wresting authorityfrom the hands of the church. While the church hadpower, the wife and mother was not considered asgood as the begging nun; the husband and fatherwas far below the vermin-covered monk; homeswere of no value compared with the cathedral; forGod had to have a house, no matter how many ofhis children were wanderers. During all the years inwhich woman has struggled for equal liberty withman, she has been met with the Bible doctrine thatshe is the inferior of the man; that Adam was madefirst, and Eve afterwards; that man was not made forwoman, but that woman was made for man.I find that in this day and generation, the meanestmen have the lowest estimate of woman; that thegreater the man is, the grander he is, the more hethinks of mother, wife and daughter. I also find thatjust in the proportion that he has lost confidence in thepolygamy of Jehovah and in the advice and philosophyof Saint Paul, he believes in the rights and liberties ofwoman. As a matter of fact, men have risen from aperusal of the Bible, and murdered their wives. Theyhave risen from reading its pages, and inflicted crueland even mortal blows upon their children. Menhave risen from reading the Bible and torn the fleshof others with red-hot pincers. They have laiddown the sacred volume long enough to pour moltenlead into the ears of others. They have stoppedreading the sacred Scriptures for a sufficient time to132incarcerate their fellow-men, to load them with chains,and then they have gone back to their reading,allowing their victims to die in darkness and despair.Men have stopped reading the Old Testament longenough to drive a stake into the ground and collect afew fagots and burn an honest man. Even ministershave denied themselves the privilege of reading thesacred book long enough to tell falsehoods abouttheir fellow-men. There is no crime that Biblereaders and Bible believers and Bible worshipers andBible defenders have not committed. There is nomeanness of which some Bible reader, believer, anddefender, has not been guilty. Bible believers andBible defenders have filled the world with calumniesand slanders. Bible believers and Bible defendershave not only whipped their wives, but they havemurdered them; they have murdered their children.I do not say that reading the Bible will necessarilymake men dishonest, but I do say, that reading theBible will not prevent their committing crimes. I donot say that believing the Bible will necessarily makemen commit burglary, but I do say that a belief in theBible has caused men to persecute each other, toimprison each other, and to burn each other.Only a little while ago, a British clergyman mur-133dered his wife. Only a little while ago, an AmericanProtestant clergyman whipped his boy to death be-cause the boy refused to say a prayer.The Rev. Mr. Crowley not only believed the Bible,but was licensed to expound it. He had been"called" to the ministry, and upon his head hadbeen laid the holy hands; and yet, he deliberatelystarved orphans, and while looking upon theirsunken eyes and hollow cheeks, sung pious hymnsand quoted with great unction: "Suffer little chil-"dren to come unto me."As a matter of fact, in the last twenty years,more money has been stolen by Christian cashiers,Christian presidents, Christian directors, Christiantrustees and Christian statesmen, than by all otherconvicts in all the penitentiaries in all the Christianworld.The assassin of Henry the Fourth was a Bible readerand a Bible believer. The instigators of the massacreof St. Bartholomew were believers in your sacredScriptures. The men who invested their money in theslave-trade believed themselves filled with the HolyGhost, and read with rapture the Psalms of David andthe Sermon on the Mount. The murderers of ScotchPresbyterians were believers in Revelation, and the134Presbyterians, when they murdered others, were alsobelievers. Nearly every man who expiates a crimeupon the gallows is a believer in the Bible. For athousand years, the daggers of assassination and theswords of war were blest by priests—by the believersin the sacred Scriptures. The assassin of PresidentGarfield is a believer in the Bible, a hater of infidelity,a believer in personal inspiration, and he expects in afew weeks to join the winged and redeemed inheaven.If a man would follow, to-day, the teachings of theOld Testament, he would be a criminal. If he wouldfollow strictly the teachings of the New, he would beinsane.FOURTH INTERVIEW.Son. There is no devil.Mother. I know there is.Son. How do you know?Mother. Because they make pictures that look justlike him.Son. But, mother—Mother. Don't "mother" me! You are trying todisgrace your parents.Question. I want to ask you a few questions aboutMr. Talmage's fourth sermon against you, entitled:"The Meanness of Infidelity," in which he comparesyou to Jehoiakim, who had the temerity to throwsome of the writings of the weeping Jeremiah intothe fire?Answer. So far as I am concerned, I really re-gret that a second edition of Jeremiah's roll wasgotten out. It would have been far better for us all,if it had been left in ashes. There was nothing butcurses and prophecies of evil, in the sacred roll that138Jehoiakim burned. The Bible tells us that Jehovahbecame exceedingly wroth because of the destructionof this roll, and pronounced a curse upon Jehoiakimand upon Palestine. I presume it was on account ofthe burning of that roll that the king of Babylondestroyed the chosen people of God. It was onaccount of that sacrilege that the Lord said ofJehoiakim: "He shall have none to sit upon the"throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast"out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the"frost." Any one can see how much a dead bodywould suffer under such circumstances. Imagine aninfinitely wise, good and powerful God taking ven-geance on the corpse of a barbarian king! Whatjoy there must have been in heaven as the angelswatched the alternate melting and freezing of thedead body of Jehoiakim!Jeremiah was probably the most accomplishedcroaker of all time. Nothing satisfied him. He wasa prophetic pessimist,—an ancient Bourbon. Hewas only happy when predicting war, pestilence andfamine. No wonder Jehoiakim despised him, andhated all he wrote.One can easily see the character of Jeremiah fromthe following occurrence: When the Babylonians139had succeeded in taking Jerusalem, and in sackingthe city, Jeremiah was unfortunately taken prisoner;but Captain Nebuzaradan came to Jeremiah, and toldhim that he would let him go, because he had pro-phesied against his own country. He was regardedas a friend by the enemy.There was, at that time, as now, the old fightbetween the church and the civil power. Whenevera king failed to do what the priests wanted, theyimmediately prophesied overthrow, disaster, and de-feat. Whenever the kings would hearken to theirvoice, and would see to it that the priests had plentyto eat and drink and wear, then they all declaredthat Jehovah would love that king, would let him liveout all his days, and allow his son to reign in hisstead. It was simply the old conflict that is still beingwaged, and it will be carried on until universal civil-ization does away with priestcraft and superstition.The priests in the days of Jeremiah were the sameas now. They sought to rule the State. They pre-tended that, at their request, Jehovah would withholdor send the rain; that the seasons were within theirpower; that they with bitter words could blight thefields and curse the land with want and death. Theygloried then, as now, in the exhibition of God's wrath.140In prosperity, the priests were forgotten. Successscorned them; Famine flattered them; Health laughedat them; Pestilence prayed to them; Disaster wastheir only friend.These old prophets prophesied nothing but evil,and consequently, when anything bad happened, theyclaimed it as a fulfillment, and pointed with pride tothe fact that they had, weeks or months, or yearsbefore, foretold something of that kind. They werereally the originators of the phrase, "I told you so!"There was a good old Methodist class-leader thatlived down near a place called Liverpool, on theIllinois river. In the spring of 1861 the old man,telling his experience, among other things said, that hehad lived there by the river for more than thirtyyears, and he did not believe that a year had passedthat there were not hundreds of people during thehunting season shooting ducks on Sunday; that hehad told his wife thousands of times that no goodwould come of it; that evil would come of it; "And"now, said the old man, raising his voice with theimportance of the announcement, "war is upon us!"Question. Do you wish, as Mr. Talmage says, to de-stroy the Bible—to have all the copies burned to ashes?What do you wish to have done with the Bible?141Answer. I want the Bible treated exactly as wetreat other books—preserve the good and throwaway the foolish and the hurtful. I am fighting thedoctrine of inspiration. As long as it is believed thatthe Bible is inspired, that book is the master—nomind is free. With that belief, intellectual liberty isimpossible. With that belief, you can investigateonly at the risk of losing your soul. The Catholicshave a pope. Protestants laugh at them, and yet thepope is capable of intellectual advancement. Inaddition to this, the pope is mortal, and the churchcannot be afflicted with the same idiot forever. TheProtestants have a book for their pope. The bookcannot advance. Year after year, and century aftercentury, the book remains as ignorant as ever. It isonly made better by those who believe in its inspira-tion giving better meanings to the words than theirancestors did. In this way it may be said that theBible grows a little better.Why should we have a book for a master? Thatwhich otherwise might be a blessing, remains a curse.If every copy of the Bible were destroyed, all that isgood in that book would be reproduced in a singleday. Leave every copy of the Bible as it is, andhave every human being believe in its inspiration,142and intellectual liberty would cease to exist. Thewhole race, from that moment, would go back to-ward the night of intellectual death.The Bible would do more harm if more peoplereally believed it, and acted in accordance with itsteachings. Now and then a Freeman puts the knifeto the heart of his child. Now and then an assassinrelies upon some sacred passage; but, as a rule, fewmen believe the Bible to be absolutely true.There are about fifteen hundred million people inthe world. There are not two million who have readthe Bible through. There are not two hundredmillion who ever saw the Bible. There are not fivehundred million who ever heard that such a bookexists.Christianity is claimed to be a religion for allmankind. It was founded more than eighteen cen-turies ago; and yet, not one human being in threehas ever heard of it. As a matter of fact, for morethan fourteen centuries and-a-half after the crucifixionof Christ, this hemisphere was absolutely unknown.There was not a Christian in the world who knewthere was such a continent as ours, and all theinhabitants of this, the New World, were deprivedof the gospel for fourteen centuries and-a-half, and143knew nothing of its blessings until they were in-formed by Spanish murderers and marauders. Evenin the United States, Christianity is not keeping pacewith the increase of population. When we takeinto consideration that it is aided by the momentumof eighteen centuries, is it not wonderful that it is notto-day holding its own? The reason of this is, thatwe are beginning to understand the Scriptures. Weare beginningto see, and to see clearly, that they aresimply of human origin, and that the Bible bearsthe marks of the barbarians who wrote it. The besteducated among the clergy admit that we know butlittle as to the origin of the gospels; that we do notpositively know the author of one of them; that it isreally a matter of doubt as to who wrote the fivebooks attributed to Moses. They admit now, thatIsaiah was written by more than one person; thatSolomon's Song was not written by that king; thatJob is, in all probability, not a Jewish book; thatEcclesiastes must have been written by a Freethinker,and by one who had his doubts about the immortalityof the soul. The best biblical students of the so-called orthodox world now admit that several storieswere united to make the gospel of Saint Luke; thatHebrews is a selection from many fragments, and144that no human being, not afflicted with deliriumtremens, can understand the book of Revelation.I am not the only one engaged in the work ofdestruction. Every Protestant who expresses a doubtas to the genuineness of a passage, is destroying theBible. The gentlemen who have endeavored to treathell as a question of syntax, and to prove that eternalpunishment depends upon grammar, are helping tobring the Scriptures into contempt. Hundreds ofyears ago, the Catholics told the Protestant world thatit was dangerous to give the Bible to the people.The Catholics were right; the Protestants werewrong. To read is to think. To think is to investi-gate. To investigate is, finally, to deny. That bookshould have been read only by priests. Every copyshould have been under the lock and key of bishop,cardinal and pope. The common people should havereceived the Bible from the lips of the ministers.The world should have been kept in ignorance. Inthat way, and in that way only, could the pulpit havemaintained its power. He who teaches a childthe alphabet sows the seeds of heresy. I have livedto see the schoolhouse in many a village larger thanthe church. Every man who finds a fact, is theenemy of theology. Every man who expresses an145honest thought is a soldier in the army of intellectualliberty.Question. Mr. Talmage thinks that you laugh toomuch,—that you exhibit too much mirth, and that noone should smile at sacred things?Answer. The church has always feared ridicule.The minister despises laughter. He who builds uponignorance and awe, fears intelligence and mirth. Thetheologians always begin by saying: "Let us be"solemn." They know that credulity and awe aretwins. They also know that while Reason is thepilot of the soul, Humor carries the lamp. Whoeverhas the sense of humor fully developed, cannot, byany possibility, be an orthodox theologian. He wouldbe his own laughing stock. The most absurd stories,the most laughable miracles, read in a solemn, statelyway, sound to the ears of ignorance and awe liketruth. It has been the object of the church foreighteen hundred years to prevent laughter.A smile is the dawn of a doubt.Ministers are always talking about death, andcoffins, and dust, and worms,—the cross in this life,and the fires of another. They have been theenemies of human happiness. They hate to hear146even the laughter of children. There seems to havebeen a bond of sympathy between divinity anddyspepsia, between theology and indigestion. Thereis a certain pious hatred of pleasure, and those whohave been "born again" are expected to despise"the transitory joys of this fleeting life." In this,they follow the example of their prophets, of whomthey proudly say: "They never smiled."Whoever laughs at a holy falsehood, is called a"scoffer." Whoever gives vent to his natural feel-ings is regarded as a "blasphemer," and whoeverexamines the Bible as he examines other books, andrelies upon his reason to interpret it, is denouncedas a "reprobate."Let us respect the truth, let us laugh at miracles,and above all, let us be candid with each other.'Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have, inyour lectures, satirized your early home; that youhave described with bitterness the Sundays that wereforced upon you in your youth; and that in variousways you have denounced your father as a "tyrant,"or a "bigot," or a "fool"?Answer. I have described the manner in whichSunday was kept when I was a boy. My father for147many years regarded the Sabbath as a sacred day.We kept Sunday as most other Christians did. I thinkthat my father made a mistake about that day. Ihave no doubt he was honest about it, and reallybelieved that it was pleasing to God for him to keepthe Sabbath as he did.I think that Sunday should not be a day of gloom,of silence and despair, or a day in which to hear thatthe chances are largely in favor of your being eternallydamned. That day, in my opinion, should be one ofjoy; a day to get acquainted with your wife andchildren; a day to visit the woods, or the sea, or themurmuring stream; a day to gather flowers, to visitthe graves of your dead, to read old poems, oldletters, old books; a day to rekindle the fires offriendship and love.Mr. Talmage says that my father was a Christian,and he then proceeds to malign his memory. Itseems to me that a living Christian should at leasttell the truth about one who sleeps the silent sleepof death.I have said nothing, in any of my lectures, aboutmy father, or about my mother, or about any of myrelatives. I have not the egotism to bring themforward. They have nothing to do with the subject148in hand. That my father was mistaken upon thesubject of religion, I have no doubt. He was a good,a brave and honest man. I loved him living, andI love him dead. I never said to him an unkindword, and in my heart there never was of him anunkind thought. He was grand enough to say tome, that I had the same right to my opinion that hehad to his. He was great enough to tell me to readthe Bible for myself, to be honest with myself, and ifafter reading it I concluded it was not the word ofGod, that it was my duty to say so.My mother died when I was but a child; and fromthat day—the darkest of my life—her memory hasbeen within my heart a sacred thing, and I have felt,through all these years, her kisses on my lips.I know that my parents—if they are conscious now—do not wish me to honor them at the expense ofmy manhood. I know that neither my father nor mymother would have me sacrifice upon their graves myhonest thought. I know that I can only please them bybeing true to myself, by defending what I believe isgood, by attacking what I believe is bad. Yet this min-ister of Christ is cruel enough, and malicious enough,to attack the reputation of the dead. What he saysabout my father is utterly and unqualifiedly false.149Right here, it may be well enough for me to say,that long before my father died, he threw aside, asunworthy of a place in the mind of an intelligentman, the infamous dogma of eternal fire; that heregarded with abhorrence many passages in the OldTestament; that he believed man, in another world,would have the eternal opportunity of doing right,and that the pity of God would last as long as thesuffering of man. My father and my mother weregood, in spite of the Old Testament. They were mer-ciful, in spite of the one frightful doctrine in the New.They did not need the religion of Presbyterianism.Presbyterianism never made a human being better.If there is anything that will freeze the generouscurrent of the soul, it is Calvinism. If there is anycreed that will destroy charity, that will keep thetears of pity from the cheeks of men and women, itis Presbyterianism. If there is any doctrine calcu-lated to make man bigoted, unsympathetic, andcruel, it is the doctrine of predestination. Neithermy father, nor my mother, believed in the damnationof babes, nor in the inspiration of John Calvin.Mr. Talmage professes to be a Christian. Whateffect has the religion of Jesus Christ had upon him?Is he the product—the natural product—of Chris-150tianity? Does the real Christian violate the sanctityof death? Does the real Christian malign thememory of the dead? Does the good Christiandefame unanswering and unresisting dust?But why should I expect kindness from a Chris-tian? Can a minister be expected to treat withfairness a man whom his God intends to damn? Ifa good God is going to burn an infidel forever, inthe world to come, surely a Christian should havethe right to persecute him a little here.What right has a Christian to ask anybody to lovehis father, or mother, or wife, or child? Accordingto the gospels, Christ offered a reward to any onewho would desert his father or his mother. Heoffered a premium to gentlemen for leaving theirwives, and tried to bribe people to abandon theirlittle children. He offered them happiness in thisworld, and a hundred fold in the next, if they wouldturn a deaf ear to the supplications of a father, thebeseeching cry of a wife, and would leave the out-stretched arms of babes. They were not evenallowed to bury their fathers and their mothers. Atthat time they were expected to prefer Jesus to theirwives and children. And now an orthodox ministersays that a man ought not to express his honest151thoughts, because they do not happen to be in accordwith the belief of his father or mother.Suppose Mr. Talmage should read the Bible care-fully and without fear, and should come to the honestconclusion that it is not inspired, what course wouldhe pursue for the purpose of honoring his parents?Would he say, "I cannot tell the truth, I must lie,"for the purpose of shedding a halo of glory around"the memory of my mother"? Would he say: "Of"course, my father and mother would a thousand"times rather have their son a hypocritical Christian"than an honest, manly unbeliever"? This mightplease Mr. Talmage, and accord perfectly with hisview, but I prefer to say, that my father wished me tobe an honest man. If he is in "heaven" now, I amsure that he would rather hear me attack the"inspired" word of God, honestly and bravely, thanto hear me, in the solemn accents of hypocrisy, defendwhat I believe to be untrue.I may be mistaken in the estimate angels put uponhuman beings. It may be that God likes a pretendedfollower better than an honest, outspoken man—onewho is an infidel simply because he does not under-stand this God. But it seems to me, in my unregeneratecondition, touched and tainted as I am by original sin,152that a God of infinite power and wisdom ought to beable to make a man brave enough to have an opinionof his own. I cannot conceive of God taking anyparticular pride in any hypocrite he has ever made.Whatever he may say through his ministers, orwhatever the angels may repeat, a manly devilstands higher in my estimation than an unmanlyangel. I do not mean by this, that there are anyunmanly angels, neither do I pretend that thereare any manly devils. My meaning is this: If I havea Creator, I can only honor him by being true tomyself, and kind and just to my fellow-men. If I wishto shed lustre upon my father and mother, I canonly do so by being absolutely true to myself.Never will I lay the wreath of hypocrisy upon thetombs of those I love.Mr. Talmage takes the ground that we must defendthe religious belief of our parents. He seems toforget that all parents do not believe exactly alike,and that everybody has at least two parents. Now,suppose that the father is an infidel, and the mothera Christian, what must the son do? Must he "drive"the ploughshare of contempt through the grave of"the father," for the purpose of honoring the mother;or must he drive the ploughshare through the grave153of the mother to honor the father; or must he com-promise, and talk one way and believe another? IfMr. Talmage's doctrine is correct, only persons whohave no knowledge of their parents can have libertyof opinion. Foundlings would be the only freepeople. I do not suppose that Mr. Talmage wouldgo so far as to say that a child would be bound bythe religion of the person upon whose door-steps hewas found. If he does not, then over every foundlinghospital should be these words: "Home of Intel-"lectual Liberty."Question. Do you suppose that we will carenothing in the next world for those we loved in this?Is it worse in a man than in an angel, to care nothingfor his mother?Answer. According to Mr. Talmage, a man canbe perfectly happy in heaven, with his mother in hell.He will be so entranced with the society of Christ,that he will not even inquire what has become of hiswife. The Holy Ghost will keep him in such a stateof happy wonder, of ecstatic joy, that the names,even, of his children will never invade his memory.It may be that I am lacking in filial affection, butI would much rather be in hell, with my parents154in heaven, than be in heaven with my parents in hell.I think a thousand times more of my parents than Ido of Christ. They knew me, they worked for me,they loved me, and I can imagine no heaven, nostate of perfect bliss for me, in which they have noshare. If God hates me, because I love them,I cannot love him.I cannot truthfully say that I look forward with anygreat degree of joy, to meeting with Haggai andHabakkuk; with Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Obadiah,Zechariah or Zephaniah; with Ezekiel, Micah, orMalachi; or even with Jonah. From what littleI have read of their writings, I have not formed avery high opinion of the social qualities of thesegentlemen.I want to meet the persons I have known; and ifthere is another life, I want to meet the really andthe truly great—men who have been broad enough tobe tender, and great enough to be kind.Because I differ with my parents, because I amconvinced that my father was wrong in some ofhis religious opinions, Mr. Talmage insists that I dis-grace my parents. How did the Christian religioncommence? Did not the first disciples advocatetheories that their parents denied? Were they155not false,—in his sense of the word,—to theirfathers and mothers? How could there have beenany progress in this world, if children had notgone beyond their parents? Do you consider thatthe inventor of a steel plow cast a slur upon hisfather who scratched the ground with a woodenone? I do not consider that an invention by theson is a slander upon the father; I regard eachinvention simply as an improvement; and everyfather should be exceedingly proud of an ingeniousson. If Mr. Talmage has a son, it will be impossiblefor him to honor his father except by differing withhim.It is very strange that Mr. Talmage, a believer inChrist, should object to any man for not loving hismother and his father, when his Master, accordingto the gospel of Saint Luke, says: "If any man"come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,"and wife, and children, and brethren, and sis-"ters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my"disciple."According to this, I have to make my choice be-tween my wife, my children, and Jesus Christ. I haveconcluded to stand by my folks—both in this world,and in "the world to come."156Question. Mr. Talmage asks you whether, in yourjudgment, the Bible was a good, or an evil, to yourparents?Answer. I think it was an evil. The worst thingabout my father was his religion. He would havebeen far happier, in my judgment, without it. Ithink I get more real joy out of life than he did.He was a man of a very great and tender heart. Hewas continually thinking—for many years of hislife—of the thousands and thousands going down toeternal fire. That doctrine filled his days withgloom, and his eyes with tears. I think that myfather and mother would have been far happier hadthey believed as I do. How any one can get anyjoy out of the Christian religion is past my compre-hension. If that religion is true, hundreds of mil-lions are now in hell, and thousands of millions yetunborn will be. How such a fact can form any partof the "glad tidings of great joy," is amazing to me.It is impossible for me to love a being who wouldcreate countless millions for eternal pain. It isimpossible for me to worship the God of the Bible,or the God of Calvin, or the God of the WestminsterCatechism.157Question. I see that Mr. Talmage challenges youto read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John. Areyou willing to accept the challenge; or have youever read that chapter?Answer. I do not claim to be very courageous,but I have read that chapter, and am very glad thatMr. Talmage has called attention to it. Accordingto the gospels, Christ did many miracles. He healedthe sick, gave sight to the blind, made the lamewalk, and raised the dead. In the fourteenth chapterof Saint John, twelfth verse, I find the following:"Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth"on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and"greater works than these shall he do, because I go"unto my Father."I am willing to accept that as a true test of abeliever. If Mr. Talmage really believes in JesusChrist, he ought to be able to do at least as greatmiracles as Christ is said to have done. Will Mr.Talmage have the kindness to read the fourteenthchapter of John, and then give me some proof, inaccordance with that chapter, that he is a believer inJesus Christ? Will he have the kindness to performa miracle?—for instance, produce a "local flood,"make a worm to smite a gourd, or "prepare a fish"?158Can he do anything of that nature? Can he evencause a "vehement east wind"? What evidence,according to the Bible, can Mr. Talmage give of hisbelief? How does he prove that he is a Christian?By hating infidels and maligning Christians? LetMr. Talmage furnish the evidence, according to thefourteenth chapter of Saint John, or forever afterhold his peace.He has my thanks for calling my attention to thefourteenth chapter of Saint John.Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you are at-tempting to destroy the "chief solace of the world,"without offering any substitute. How do you answerthis?Answer. If he calls Christianity the "chief solace"of the world," and if by Christianity he means that allwho do not believe in the inspiration of the Scrip-tures, and have no faith in Jesus Christ, are to beeternally damned, then I admit that I am doing thebest I can to take that "solace" from the humanheart. I do not believe that the Bible, when prop-erly understood, is, or ever has been, a comfort toany human being. Surely, no good man can becomforted by reading a book in which he finds that159a large majority of mankind have been sentenced toeternal fire. In the doctrine of total depravity thereis no "solace." In the doctrine of "election" there canbe no joy until the returns are in, and a majorityfound for you.Question. Mr. Talmage says that you are takingaway the world's medicines, and in place of anaes-thetics, in place of laudanum drops, you read anessay to the man in pain, on the absurdities of mor-phine and nervines in general.Answer. It is exactly the other way. I say, letus depend upon morphine, not upon prayer. Donot send for the minister—take a little laudanum.Do not read your Bible,—chloroform is better. Donot waste your time listening to meaningless ser-mons, but take real, genuine soporifics.I regard the discoverer of ether as a benefactor.I look upon every great surgeon as a blessing tomankind. I regard one doctor, skilled in his profes-sion, of more importance to the world than all theorthodox ministers.Mr. Talmage should remember that for hundredsof years, the church fought, with all its power, thescience of medicine. Priests used to cure diseases160by selling little pieces of paper covered with cabalisticmarks. They filled their treasuries by the sale ofholy water. They healed the sick by relics—the teethand ribs of saints, the finger-nails of departed wor-thies, and the hair of glorified virgins. Infidelitysaid: "Send for the doctor." Theology said: "Stick"to the priest." Infidelity,—that is to say, science,—said: "Vaccinate him." The priest said: "Pray;—"I will sell you a charm." The doctor was regardedas a man who was endeavoring to take from God hismeans of punishment. He was supposed to spikethe artillery of Jehovah, to wet the powder of theAlmighty, and to steal the flint from the musket ofheavenly retribution.Infidelity has never relied upon essays, it hasnever relied upon words, it has never relied uponprayers, it has never relied upon angels or gods; ithas relied upon the honest efforts of men and women.It has relied upon investigation, observation, experi-ence, and above all, upon human reason.We, in America, know how much prayers areworth. We have lately seen millions of people upontheir knees. What was the result?In the olden times, when a plague made its ap-pearance, the people fell upon their knees and died.161When pestilence came, they rushed to their ca-thedrals, they implored their priests—and died. Godhad no pity upon his ignorant children. At last,Science came to the rescue. Science,—not in theattitude of prayer, with closed eyes, but in the atti-tude of investigation, with open eyes,—looked for anddiscovered some of the laws of health. Sciencefound that cleanliness was far better than godliness. Itsaid: Do not spend your time in praying;—clean yourhouses, clean your streets, clean yourselves. This pest-ilence is not a punishment. Health is not simply a favorof the gods. Health depends upon conditions, andwhen the conditions are violated, disease is inevitable,and no God can save you. Health depends uponyour surroundings, and when these are favorable,the roses are in your cheeks.We find in the Old Testament that God gaveto Moses a thousand directions for ascertainingthe presence of leprosy. Yet it never occurredto this God to tell Moses how to cure the disease.Within the lids of the Old Testament, we have noinformation upon a subject of such vital importanceto mankind.It may, however, be claimed by Mr. Talmage, thatthis statement is a little too broad, and I will therefore162give one recipe that I find in the fourteenth chapterof Leviticus:"Then shall the priest command to take for him" that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and"cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the priest"shall command that one of the birds be killed in an"earthen vessel over running water. As for the"living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood,"and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them"and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was"killed over the running water. And he shall"sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the"leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean,"and shall let the living bird loose into the open"field."Prophets were predicting evil—filling the countrywith their wails and cries, and yet it never occurredto them to tell one solitary thing of the slightestimportance to mankind. Why did not these inspiredmen tell us how to cure some of the diseases thathave decimated the world? Instead of spendingforty days and forty nights with Moses, telling himhow to build a large tent, and how to cut the gar-ments of priests, why did God not give him a littleuseful information in respect to the laws of health?163Mr. Talmage must remember that the church hasinvented no anodynes, no anaesthetics, no medicines,and has affected no cures. The doctors have notbeen inspired. All these useful things men havediscovered for themselves, aided by no prophet andby no divine Savior. Just to the extent that manhas depended upon the other world, he has failed tomake the best of this. Just in the proportion that hehas depended on his own efforts, he has advanced.The church has always said:"Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not,"neither do they spin." "Take no thought for the"morrow." Whereas, the real common sense of thisworld has said: "No matter whether lilies toil andspin, or not, if you would succeed, you must work;you must take thought for the morrow, you mustlook beyond the present day, you must provide foryour wife and your children."What can I be expected to give as a substitute forperdition? It is enough to show that it does notexist. What does a man want in place of a disease?Health. And what is better calculated to increasethe happiness of mankind than to know that thedoctrine of eternal pain is infinitely and absurdlyfalse?164Take theology from the world, and natural Loveremains, Science is still here, Music will not be lost,the page of History will still be open, the walls ofthe world will still be adorned with Art, and theniches rich with Sculpture.Take theology from the world, and we all shallhave a common hope,—and the fear of hell will beremoved from every human heart.Take theology from the world, and millions ofmen will be compelled to earn an honest living.Impudence will not tax credulity. The vampire ofhypocrisy will not suck the blood of honest toil.Take theology from the world, and the churchescan be schools, and the cathedrals universities.Take theology from the world, and the moneywasted on superstition will do away with want.Take theology from the world, and every brainwill find itself without a chain.There is a vast difference between what is calledinfidelity and theology.Infidelity is honest. When it reaches the confinesof reason, it says: "I know no further."Infidelity does not palm its guess upon an ignorantworld as a demonstration.165Infidelity proves nothing by slander—establishesnothing by abuse.Infidelity has nothing to hide. It has no "holy"of holies," except the abode of truth. It has nocurtain that the hand of investigation has not theright to draw aside. It lives in the cloudless light,in the very noon, of human eyes.Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It doesnot cringe before an angry God.Infidelity says to every man: Investigate foryourself. There is no punishment for unbelief.Infidelity asks no protection from legislatures. Itwants no man fined because he contradicts its doc-trines.Infidelity relies simply upon evidence—not evi-dence of the dead, but of the living.Infidelity has no infallible pope. It relies onlyupon infallible fact. It has no priest except theinterpreter of Nature. The universe is its church.Its bible is everything that is true. It implores everyman to verify every word for himself, and it imploreshim to say, if he does not believe it, that he doesnot.Infidelity does not fear contradiction. It is notafraid of being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny166of all doubters, of all unbelievers. It does not relyupon awe, but upon reason. It says to the wholeworld: It is dangerous not to think. It is dan-gerous not to be honest. It is dangerous not toinvestigate. It is dangerous not to follow whereyour reason leads.Infidelity requires every man to judge for himself.Infidelity preserves the manhood of man.Question. Mr. Talmage also says that you aretrying to put out the light-houses on the coast of thenext world; that you are "about to leave everybody"in darkness at the narrows of death"?Answer. There can be no necessity for theselight-houses, unless the God of Mr. Talmage hasplanted rocks and reefs within that unknown sea.If there is no hell, there is no need of any light-house on the shores of the next world; and onlythose are interested in keeping up these pretendedlight-houses who are paid for trimming invisiblewicks and supplying the lamps with allegorical oil.Mr. Talmage is one of these light-house keepers,and he knows that if it is ascertained that the coastis not dangerous, the light-house will be abandoned,and the keeper will have to find employment else-167where. As a matter of fact, every church is a use-less light-house. It warns us only against breakersthat do not exist. Whenever a mariner tells one ofthe keepers that there is no danger, then all thekeepers combine to destroy the reputation of thatmariner.No one has returned from the other world to tellus whether they have light-houses on that shore ornot; or whether the light-houses on this shore—oneof which Mr. Talmage is tending—have ever sent acheering ray across the sea.Nature has furnished every human being witha light more or less brilliant, more or less powerful.That light is Reason; and he who blows that lightout, is in utter darkness. It has been the business ofthe church for centuries to extinguish the lamp of themind, and to convince the people that their ownreason is utterly unreliable. The church has askedall men to rely only upon the light of the church.Every priest has been not only a light-house buta guide-board. He has threatened eternal damna-tion to all who travel on some other road. Theseguide-boards have been toll-gates, and the principalreason why the churches have wanted people to gotheir road is, that tolls might be collected. They168have regarded unbelievers as the owners of turnpikesdo people who go 'cross lots. The toll-gate manalways tells you that other roads are dangerous—filled with quagmires and quicksands.Every church is a kind of insurance society, andproposes, for a small premium, to keep you frometernal fire. Of course, the man who tells you thatthere is to be no fire, interferes with the business,and is denounced as a malicious meddler and blas-phemer. The fires of this world sustain the samerelation to insurance companies that the fires of thenext do to the churches.Mr. Talmage also insists that I am breaking up the"life-boats." Why should a ship built by infinitewisdom, by an infinite shipbuilder, carry life-boats?The reason we have life-boats now is, that we arenot entirely sure of the ship. We know that manhas not yet found out how to make a ship that cancertainly brave all the dangers of the deep. For thisreason we carry life-boats. But infinite wisdom mustsurely build ships that do not need life-boats. Is thereto be a wreck at last? Is God's ship to go down instorm and darkness? Will it be necessary at last toforsake his ship and depend upon life-boats?For my part, I do not wish to be rescued by a life-169boat. When the ship, bearing the whole world, goesdown, I am willing to go down with it—with mywife, with my children, and with those I have loved.I will not slip ashore in an orthodox canoe withsomebody else's folks,—I will stay with my own.What a picture is presented by the church! A fewin life's last storm are to be saved; and the saved,when they reach shore, are to look back with joyupon the great ship going down to the eternal depths!This is what I call the unutterable meanness of or-thodox Christianity.Mr. Talmage speaks of the "meanness of in-"fidelity."The meanness of orthodox Christianity permits thehusband to be saved, and to be ineffably happy, whilethe wife of his bosom is suffering the tortures of hell.The meanness of orthodox Christianity tells theboy that he can go to heaven and have an eternityof bliss, and that this bliss will not even be cloudedby the fact that the mother who bore him writhes ineternal pain.The meanness of orthodox Christianity allowsa soul to be so captivated with the companionshipof angels as to forget all the old loves and friend-ships of this world.170The meanness of orthodox Christianity, its un-speakable selfishness, allows a soul in heaven to exultin the fact of its own salvation, and at the same timeto care nothing for the damnation of all the rest.The orthodox Christian says that if he can onlysave his little soul, if he can barely squeeze intoheaven, if he can only get past Saint Peter's gate,if he can by hook or crook climb up the oppositebank of Jordan, if he can get a harp in his hand, itmatters not to him what becomes of brother orsister, father or mother, wife or child. He is willingthat they should burn if he can sing.Oh, the unutterable meanness of orthodox Chris-tianity, the infinite heartlessness of the orthodoxangels, who with tearless eyes will forever gaze uponthe agonies of those who were once blood of theirblood and flesh of their flesh!Mr. Talmage describes a picture of the scourgingof Christ, painted by Rubens, and he tells us thathe was so appalled by this picture—by the sight ofthe naked back, swollen and bleeding—that he couldnot have lived had he continued to look; yet thissame man, who could not bear to gaze upon apainted pain, expects to be perfectly happy in heaven,while countiess billions of actual—not painted—men,171women, and children writhe—not in a pictured flame,but in the real and quenchless fires of hell.Question. Mr. Talmage also claims that we areindebted to Christianity for schools, colleges, univer-sities, hospitals and asylums?Answer. This shows that Mr. Talmage has notread the history of the world. Long before Chris-tianity had a place, there were vast libraries. Therewere thousands of schools before a Christian existedon the earth. There were hundreds of hospitalsbefore a line of the New Testament was written.Hundreds of years before Christ, there were hospitalsin India,—not only for men, women and children, buteven for beasts. There were hospitals in Egypt longbefore Moses was born. They knew enough thento cure insanity with music. They surrounded theinsane with flowers, and treated them with kindness.The great libraries at Alexandria were not Chris-tian. The most intellectual nation of the MiddleAges was not Christian. While Christians wereimprisoning people for saying that the earth is round,the Moors in Spain were teaching geography withglobes. They had even calculated the circumferenceof the earth by the tides of the Red Sea.Where did education come from? For a thousand172years Christianity destroyed books and paintings andstatues. For a thousand years Christianity was filledwith hatred toward every effort of the human mind.We got paper from the Moors. Printing had beenknown thousands of years before, in China. A fewmanuscripts, containing a portion of the literature ofGreece, a few enriched with the best thoughts ofthe Roman world, had been preserved from thegeneral wreck and ruin wrought by Christian hate.These became the seeds of intellectual progress.For a thousand years Christianity controlled Europe.The Mohammedans were far in advance of theChristians with hospitals and asylums and institutionsof learning.Just in proportion that we have done away withwhat is known as orthodox Christianity, humanityhas taken its place. Humanity has built all the asy-lums, all the hospitals. Humanity, not Christianity,has done these things. The people of this countryare all willing to be taxed that the insane may becared for, that the sick, the helpless, and the desti-tute may be provided for, not because they areChristians, but because they are humane; and theyare not humane because they are Christians.The colleges of this country have been poisoned by173theology, and their usefulness almost destroyed. Justin proportion that they have gotten from ecclesiasticalcontrol, they have become a good. That college, to-day, which has the most religion has the least truelearning; and that college which is the nearest free,does the most good. Colleges that pit Moses againstmodern geology, that undertake to overthrow theCopernican system by appealing to Joshua, havedone, and are doing, very little good in this world.Suppose that in the first century Pagans had saidto Christians: Where are your hospitals, where areyour asylums, where are your works of charity, whereare your colleges and universities?The Christians undoubtedly would have replied:We have not been in power. There are but fewof us. We have been persecuted to that degreethat it has been about as much as we could do tomaintain ourselves.Reasonable Pagans would have regarded such ananswer as perfectly satisfactory. Yet that questioncould have been asked of Christianity after it hadheld the reins of power for a thousand years, andChristians would have been compelled to say: Wehave no universities, we have no colleges, we haveno real asylums.174The Christian now asks of the atheist: Whereis your asylum, where is your hospital, where is youruniversity? And the atheist answers: There havebeen but few atheists. The world is not yet suffi-ciently advanced to produce them. For hundredsand hundreds of years, the minds of men have beendarkened by the superstitions of Christianity. Priestshave thundered against human knowledge, have de-nounced human reason, and have done all withintheir power to prevent the real progress of mankind.You must also remember that Christianity hasmade more lunatics than it ever provided asylumsfor. Christianity has driven more men and womencrazy than all other religions combined. Hundredsand thousands and millions have lost their reason incontemplating the monstrous falsehoods of Chris-tianity. Thousands of mothers, thinking of theirsons in hell—thousands of fathers, believing theirboys and girls in perdition, have lost their reason.So, let it be distinctly understood, that Christianityhas made ten lunatics—twenty—one hundred—where it has provided an asylum for one.Mr. Talmage also speaks of the hospitals. Whenwe take into consideration the wars that have beenwaged on account of religion, the countless thou-175sands who have been maimed and wounded, throughall the years, by wars produced by theology—then Isay that Christianity has not built hospitals enoughto take care of her own wounded—not enough totake care of one in a hundred. Where Christianityhas bound up the wounds of one, it has pierced thebodies of a hundred others with sword and spear,with bayonet and ball. Where she has providedone bed in a hospital, she has laid away a hundredbodies in bloody graves.Of course I do not expect the church to doanything but beg. Churches produce nothing. Theyare like the lilies of the field. "They toil not, neither"do they spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not"arrayed like most of them."The churches raise no corn nor wheat. Theysimply collect tithes. They carry the alms' dish.They pass the plate. They take toll. Of coursea mendicant is not expected to produce anything.He does not support,—he is supported. The churchdoes not help. She receives, she devours, sheconsumes, and she produces only discord. She ex-changes mistakes for provisions, faith for food,prayers for pence. The church is a beggar. But wehave this consolation: In this age of the world, this176beggar is not on horseback, and even the walking isnot good.Question. Mr. Talmage says that infidels havedone no good?Answer. Well, let us see. In the first place,what is an "infidel"? He is simply a man in advanceof his time. He is an intellectual pioneer. He isthe dawn of a new day. He is a gentleman with anidea of his own, for which he gave no receipt to thechurch. He is a man who has not been branded asthe property of some one else. An "infidel" is onewho has made a declaration of independence. Inother words, he is a man who has had a doubt. Tohave a doubt means that you have thought uponthe subject—that you have investigated the question;and he who investigates any religion will doubt.All the advance that has been made in the religiousworld has been made by "infidels," by "heretics,"by "skeptics," by doubters,—that is to say, bythoughtful men. The doubt does not come from theignorant members of your congregations. Heresy isnot born of stupidity,—it is not the child of the brain-less. He who is so afraid of hurting the reputationof his father and mother that he refuses to advance,177is not a "heretic." The "heretic" is not true tofalsehood. Orthodoxy is. He who stands faithfullyby a mistake is "orthodox." He who, discoveringthat it is a mistake, has the courage to say so, is an"infidel."An infidel is an intellectual discoverer—one whofinds new isles, new continents, in the vast realm ofthought. The dwellers on the orthodox shore de-nounce this brave sailor of the seas as a buccaneer.And yet we are told that the thinkers of newthoughts have never been of value to the world.Voltaire did more for human liberty than all theorthodox ministers living and dead. He broke athousand times more chains than Luther. Luthersimply substituted his chain for that of the Catholics.Voltaire had none. The Encyclopaedists of Francedid more for liberty than all the writers upon theology.Bruno did more for mankind than millions of "be-"lievers." Spinoza contributed more to the growthof the human intellect than all the orthodox theolo-gians.Men have not done good simply because they havebelieved this or that doctrine. They have done goodin the intellectual world as they have thought andsecured for others the liberty to think and to ex-178press their thoughts. They have done good in thephysical world by teaching their fellows how totriumph over the obstructions of nature. Everyman who has taught his fellow-man to think, hasbeen a benefactor. Every one who has supplied hisfellow-men with facts, and insisted upon their rightto think, has been a blessing to his kind.Mr. Talmage, in order to show what Christianshave done, points us to Whitefield, Luther, Oberlin,Judson, Martyn, Bishop Mcllvaine and HannahMore. I would not for one moment compare GeorgeWhitefield with the inventor of movable type, andthere is no parallel between Frederick Oberlin andthe inventor of paper; not the slightest betweenMartin Luther and the discoverer of the New World;not the least between Adoniram Judson and the in-ventor of the reaper, nor between Henry Martynand the discoverer of photography. Of what use tothe world was Bishop Mcllvaine, compared withthe inventor of needles? Of what use were ahundred such priests compared with the inventorof matches, or even of clothes-pins? Suppose thatHannah More had never lived? about the samenumber would read her writings now. It is hardly fairto compare her with the inventor of the steamship?179The progress of the world—its present improvedcondition—can be accounted for only by the discov-eries of genius, only by men who have had thecourage to express their honest thoughts.After all, the man who invented the telescopefound out more about heaven than the closed eyes ofprayer had ever discovered. I feel absolutely certainthat the inventor of the steam engine was a greaterbenefactor to mankind than the writer of the Presby-terian creed. I may be mistaken, but I think thatrailways have done more to civilize mankind, than anysystem of theology. I believe that the printing presshas done more for the world than the pulpit. It ismy opinion that the discoveries of Kepler did athousand times more to enlarge the minds of menthan the prophecies of Daniel. I feel under fargreater obligation to Humboldt than to Haggai.The inventor of the plow did more good than themaker of the first rosary—because, say what youwill, plowing is better than praying; we can live byplowing without praying, but we can not live bypraying without plowing. So I put my faith in theplow.As Jehovah has ceased to make garments for hischildren,—as he has stopped making coats of skins,180I have great respect for the inventors of the spinning-jenny and the sewing machine. As no more lawsare given from Sinai, I have admiration for the realstatesmen. As miracles have ceased, I rely onmedicine, and on a reasonable compliance with theconditions of health.I have infinite respect for the inventors, thethinkers, the discoverers, and above all, for the un-known millions who have, without the hope of fame,lived and labored for the ones they loved.FIFTH INTERVIEW.Parson. You had belter join the church; it isthe safer way.Sinner. I can't live up to your doctrines, and youknow it.Parson. Well, you can come as near it in thechurch as out; and forgivenesswill be easier if you join us.Sinner. What do you mean by that?Parson. I will tell you. If you join the church,and happen to back-slide now and then, Christ willsay to his Father: "That man is a "friend of mine,and you may charge his account to me."Question. What have you to say about thefifth sermon of the Rev. Mr. Talmage in replyto you?Answer. The text from which he preached is:"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"I am compelled to answer these questions in thenegative. That is one reason why I am an infidel.I do not believe that anybody can gather grapes ofthorns, or figs of thistles. That is exactly my doctrine.But the doctrine of the church is, that you can. The184church says, that just at the last, no matter if youhave spent your whole life in raising thorns and thistles,in planting and watering and hoeing and plowingthorns and thistles—that just at the last, if you willrepent, between hoeing the last thistle and taking thelast breath, you can reach out the white and palsiedhand of death and gather from every thorn a clusterof grapes and from every thistle an abundance offigs. The church insists that in this way you cangather enough grapes and figs to last you through alleternity.My doctrine is, that he who raises thorns mustharvest thorns. If you sow thorns, you must reapthorns; and there is no way by which an innocentbeing can have the thorns you raise thrust into hisbrow, while you gather his grapes.But Christianity goes even further than this. Itinsists that a man can plant grapes and gather thorns.Mr. Talmage insists that, no matter how good youare, no matter how kind, no matter how much youlove your wife and children, no matter how manyself-denying acts you do, you will not be allowed toeat of the grapes you raise; that God will step be-tween you and the natural consequences of yourgoodness, and not allow you to reap what you sow.185Mr. Talmage insists, that if you have no faith in theLord Jesus Christ, although you have been goodhere, you will reap eternal pain as your harvest; thatthe effect of honesty and kindness will not be peaceand joy, but agony and pain. So that the churchdoes insist not only that you can gather grapes fromthorns, but thorns from grapes.I believe exactly the other way. If a man is agood man here, dying will not change him, and hewill land on the shore of another world—if there isone—the same good man that he was when he leftthis; and I do not believe there is any God in thisuniverse who can afford to damn a good man. ThisGod will say to this man: You loved your wife,your children, and your friends, and I love you.You treated others with kindness; I will treat youin the same way. But Mr. Talmage steps up tohis God, nudges his elbow, and says: Although hewas a very good man, he belonged to no church;he was a blasphemer; he denied the whale story, andafter I explained that Jonah was only in the whale'smouth, he still denied it; and thereupon Mr. Tal-mage expects that his infinite God will fly in apassion, and in a perfect rage will say: What! didhe deny that story? Let him be eternally damned!186Not only this, but Mr. Talmage insists that a manmay have treated his wife like a wild beast; may havetrampled his child beneath the feet of his rage; mayhave lived a life of dishonesty, of infamy, and yet,having repented on his dying bed, having made hispeace with God through the intercession of his Son,he will be welcomed in heaven with shouts of joy.I deny it. I do not believe that angels can be soquickly made from rascals. I have but little confi-dence in repentance without restitution, and a hus-band who has driven a wife to insanity and death byhis cruelty—afterward repenting and finding himselfin heaven, and missing his wife,—were he worthy tobe an angel, would wander through all the gulfs ofhell until he clasped her once again..Now, the next question is, What must be done withthose who are sometimes good and sometimes bad?That is my condition. If there is another world, Iexpect to have the same opportunity of behavingmyself that I have here. If, when I get there, I failto act as I should, I expect to reap what I sow. If,when I arrive at the New Jerusalem, I go into thethorn business, I expect to harvest what I plant. IfI am wise enough to start a vineyard, I expect tohave grapes in the early fall. But if I do there as I187have done here—plant some grapes and some thorns,and harvest them together—I expect to fare verymuch as I have fared here. But I expect year byyear to grow wiser, to plant fewer thorns everyspring, and more grapes.Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you havetaken the ground that the Bible is a cruel book, andhas produced cruel people?Answer. Yes, I have taken that ground, and Imaintain it. The Bible was produced by cruel people,and in its turn it has produced people like its authors.The extermination of the Canaanites was cruel.Most of the laws of Moses were bloodthirsty andcruel. Hundreds of offences were punishable bydeath, while now, in civilized countries, there are onlytwo crimes for which the punishment is capital. Icharge that Moses and Joshua and David and Samueland Solomon were cruel. I believe that to read andbelieve the Old Testament naturally makes a mancareless of human life. That book has producedhundreds of religious wars, and it has furnished thebattle-cries of bigotry for fifteen hundred years.The Old Testament is filled with cruelty, but itscruelty stops with this world, its malice ends with188death; whenever its victim has reached the grave,revenge is satisfied. Not so with the New Testament.It pursues its victim forever. After death, comeshell; after the grave, the worm that never dies. Sothat, as a matter of fact, the New Testament is in-finitely more cruel than the Old.Nothing has so tended to harden the human heartas the doctrine of eternal punishment, and thatpassage: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be"saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned,"has shed more blood than all the other so-called"sacred books" of all this world.I insist that the Bible is cruel. The Bible inventedinstruments of torture. The Bible laid the foundationsof the Inquisition. The Bible furnished the fagots andthe martyrs. The Bible forged chains not only for thehands, but for the brains of men. The Bible was atthe bottom of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.Every man who has been persecuted for religion'ssake has been persecuted by the Bible. That sacredbook has been a beast of prey.The truth is, Christians have been good in spite ofthe Bible. The Bible has lived upon the reputations ofgood men and good women,—men and women whowere good notwithstanding the brutality they found189upon the inspired page. Men have said: "My mother"believed in the Bible; my mother was good; there-"fore, the Bible is good," when probably the mothernever read a chapter in it.The Bible produced the Church of Rome, andTorquemada was a product of the Bible. Philip ofSpain and the Duke of Alva were produced by theBible. For thirty years Europe was one vast battle-field, and the war was produced by the Bible. The re-vocation of the Edict of Nantes was produced by thesacred Scriptures. The instruments of torture—thepincers, the thumb-screws, the racks, were producedby the word of God. The Quakers of New Englandwere whipped and burned by the Bible—their childrenwere stolen by the Bible. The slave-ship had for itssails the leaves of the Bible. Slavery was upheld inthe United States by the Bible. The Bible was theauction-block. More than this, worse than this,infinitely beyond the computation of imagination, thedespotisms of the old world all rested and still restupon the Bible. "The powers that be" were sup-posed to have been "ordained of God;" and he whorose against his king periled his soul.In this connection, and in order to show the stateof society when the church had entire control of civil190and ecclesiastical affairs, it may be well enough toread the following, taken from theNew York SunofMarch 21, 1882. From this little extract, it will beeasy in the imagination to re-organize the governmentthat then existed, and to see clearly the state of so-ciety at that time. This can be done upon the sameprinciple that one scale tells of the entire fish, or onebone of the complete animal:"From records in the State archives of Hesse-"Darmstadt, dating back to the thirteenth century,"it appears that the public executioner's fee for boiling"a criminal in oil was twenty-four florins; for decapi-"tating with the sword, fifteen florins and-a-half; for"quartering, the same; for breaking on the wheel,"five florins, thirty kreuzers; for tearing a man to"pieces, eighteen florins. Ten florins per head was"his charge for hanging, and he burned delinquents"alive at the rate of fourteen florins apiece. For ap-"plying the 'Spanish boot' his fee was only two"florins. Five florins were paid to him every time he"subjected a refractory witness to the torture of the"rack. The same amount was his due for 'branding"'the sign of the gallows with a red-hot iron upon"'the back, forehead, or cheek of a thief,' as well as"for 'cutting off the nose and ears of a slanderer or191"'blasphemer.' Flogging with rods was a cheap"punishment, its remuneration being fixed at three"florins, thirty kreuzers."The Bible has made men cruel. It is a cruel book.And yet, amidst its thorns, amidst its thistles, amidstits nettles and its swords and pikes, there are someflowers, and these I wish, in common with all goodmen, to save.I do not believe that men have ever been mademerciful in war by reading the Old Testament. I donot believe that men have ever been prompted tobreak the chain of a slave by reading the Pentateuch.The question is not whether Florence Nightingale andMiss Dix were cruel. I have said nothing aboutJohn Howard, nothing about Abbott Lawrence.I say nothing about people in this connection. Thequestion is: Is the Bible a cruel book? not: WasMiss Nightingale a cruel woman? There have beenthousands and thousands of loving, tender and char-itable Mohammedans. Mohammedan mothers lovetheir children as well as Christian mothers can.Mohammedans have died in defence of the Koran—died for the honor of an impostor. There weremillions of charitable people in India—millions inEgypt—and I am not sure that the world has ever192produced people who loved one another better thanthe Egyptians.I think there are many things in the Old Testamentcalculated to make man cruel. Mr. Talmage asks:"What has been the effect upon your children? As"they have become more and more fond of the"Scriptures have they become more and more fond"of tearing off the wings of flies and pinning grass-"hoppers and robbing birds' nests?"I do not believe that reading the bible would makethem tender toward flies or grasshoppers. Accordingto that book, God used to punish animals for thecrimes of their owners. He drowned the animals ina flood. He visited cattle with disease. He bruisedthem to death with hailstones—killed them by thethousand. Will the reading of these things makechildren kind to animals? So, the whole system ofsacrifices in the Old Testament is calculated to hardenthe heart. The butchery of oxen and lambs, the killingof doves, the perpetual destruction of life, the con-tinual shedding of blood—these things, if they haveany tendency, tend only to harden the heart of child-hood.The Bible does not stop simply with the killing ofanimals. The Jews were commanded to kill their193neighbors—not only the men, but the women; notonly the women, but the babes. In accordance withthe command of God, the Jews killed not only theirneighbors, but their own brothers; and according tothis book, which is the foundation, as Mr. Talmagebelieves, of all mercy, men were commanded to killtheir wives because they differed with them on thesubject of religion.Nowhere in the world can be found laws more un-just and cruel than in the Old Testament.Question. Mr. Talmage wants you to tell wherethe cruelty of the Bible crops out in the lives of Chris-tians?Answer. In the first place, millions of Christianshave been persecutors. Did they get the idea ofpersecution from the Bible? Will not every honestman admit that the early Christians, by reading theOld Testament, became convinced that it was notonly their privilege, but their duty, to destroy heathennations? Did they not, by reading the same book,come to the conclusion that it was their solemn dutyto extirpate heresy and heretics? According to theNew Testament, nobody could be saved unless hebelieved in the Lord Jesus Christ. The early Chris-194tians believed this dogma. They also believed thatthey had a right to defend themselves and theirchildren from "heretics."We all admit that a man has a right to defend hischildren against the assaults of a would-be murderer,and he has the right to carry this defence to theextent of killing the assailant. If we have the rightto kill people who are simply trying to kill the bodiesof our children, of course we have the right to killthem when they are endeavoring to assassinate, notsimply their bodies, but their souls. It was in thisway Christians reasoned. If the Testament is right,their reasoning was correct. Whoever believes theNew Testament literally—whoever is satisfied that itis absolutely the word of God, will become a perse-cutor. All religious persecution has been, and is, inexact harmony with the teachings of the Old andNew Testaments. Of course I mean with some ofthe teachings. I admit that there are passages inboth the Old and New Testaments against persecu-tion. These are passages quoted only in time ofpeace. Others are repeated to feed the flames ofwar.I find, too, that reading the Bible and believing theBible do not prevent even ministers from telling false-195hoods about their opponents. I find that the Rev.Mr. Talmage is willing even to slander the dead,—that he is willing to stain the memory of a Christian,and that he does not hesitate to give circulationto what he knows to be untrue. Mr. Talmagehas himself, I believe, been the subject of a churchtrial. How many of the Christian witnesses againsthim, in his judgment, told the truth? Yet they wereall Bible readers and Bible believers. What effect, inhis judgment, did the reading of the Bible have uponhis enemies? Is he willing to admit that the testi-mony of a Bible, reader and believer is true? Is hewilling to accept the testimony even of ministers?—of his brother ministers? Did reading the Biblemake them bad people? Was it a belief in the Biblethat colored their testimony? Or, was it a belief inthe Bible that made Mr. Talmage deny the truth oftheir statements?Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with havingsaid that the Scriptures are a collection of pollutedwritings?Answer. I have never said such a thing. I havesaid, and I still say, that there are passages in theBible unfit to be read—passages that never should196have been written—passages, whether inspired oruninspired, that can by no possibility do any humanbeing any good. I have always admitted that thereare good passages in the Bible—many good, wiseand just laws—many things calculated to make menbetter—many things calculated to make men worse.I admit that the Bible is a mixture of good and bad,of truth and falsehood, of history and fiction, of senseand nonsense, of virtue and vice, of aspiration andrevenge, of liberty and tyranny.I have never said anything against Solomon'sSong. I like it better than I do any book that pre-cedes it, because it touches upon the human. In thedesert of murder, wars of extermination, polygamy,concubinage and slavery, it is an oasis where thetrees grow, where the birds sing, and where humanlove blossoms and fills the air with perfume. I donot regard that book as obscene. There are manythings in it that are beautiful and tender, and it iscalculated to do good rather than harm.Neither have I any objection to the book of Eccle-siastes—except a few interpolations in it. That bookwas written by a Freethinker, by a philosopher.There is not the slightest mention of God in it, norof another state of existence. All portions in which197God is mentioned are interpolations. With some ofthis book I agree heartily. I believe in the doctrineof enjoying yourself, if you can, to-day. I think itfoolish to spend all your years in heaping up treas-ures, not knowing but he who will spend them is tobe an idiot. I believe it is far better to be happy withyour wife and child now, than to be miserable here,with angelic expectations in some other world.Mr. Talmage is mistaken when he supposes that allBible believers have good homes, that all Bible readersare kind in their families. As a matter of fact, nearly allthe wife-whippers of the United States are orthodox.Nine-tenths of the people in the penitentiaries arebelievers. Scotland is one of the most orthodoxcountries in the world, and one of the most intem-perate. Hundreds and hundreds of women arearrested every year in Glasgow for drunkenness.Visit the Christian homes in the manufacturing dis-tricts of England. Talk with the beaters of childrenand whippers of wives, and you will find them be-lievers. Go into what is known as the "Black"Country," and you will have an idea of the Chris-tian civilization of England.Let me tell you something about the "Black"Country." There women work in iron; there women198do the work of men. Let me give you an instance:A commission was appointed by Parliament to ex-amine into the condition of the women in the "Black"Country," and a report was made. In that reportI read the following:"A superintendent of a brickyard where women"were engaged in carrying bricks from the yard to"the kiln, said to one of the women:"'Eliza, you don't appear to be very uppish this"morning.'""'Neither would you be very uppish, sir,' she re-"plied, 'if you had had a child last night.'"This gives you an idea of the Christian civilizationof England.England and Ireland produce most of the prize-fighters. The scientific burglar is a product of GreatBritain. There is not the great difference that Mr.Talmage supposes, between the morality of Pekinand of New York. I doubt if there is a city inthe world with more crime according to the populationthan New York, unless it be London, or it may beDublin, or Brooklyn, or possibly Glasgow, wherea man too pious to read a newspaper published onSunday, stole millions from the poor.I do not believe there is a country in the world199where there is more robbery than in Christian lands—no country where more cashiers are defaulters, wheremore presidents of banks take the money of depositors,where there is more adulteration of food, wherefewer ounces make a pound, where fewer inches makea yard, where there is more breach of trust, morerespectable larceny under the name of embezzlement,or more slander circulated as gospel.Question. Mr. Talmage insists that there are nocontradictions in the Bible—that it is a perfect har-mony from Genesis to Revelation—a harmony asperfect as any piece of music ever written byBeethoven or Handel?Answer. Of course, if God wrote it, the Bibleought to be perfect. I do not see why a ministershould be so perfectly astonished to find that aninspired book is consistent with itself throughout.Yet the truth is, the Bible is infinitely inconsistent.Compare the two systems—the system of Jehovahand that of Jesus. In the Old Testament the doctrineof "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" wastaught. In the New Testament, "forgive your"enemies," and "pray for those who despitefully"use you and persecute you." In the Old Testament200it is kill, burn, massacre, destroy; in the New forgive.The two systems are inconsistent, and one is justabout as far wrong as the other. To live for andthirst for revenge, to gloat over the agony of anenemy, is one extreme; to "resist not evil" is theother extreme; and both these extremes are equallydistant from the golden mean of justice.The four gospels do not even agree as to the termsof salvation. And yet, Mr. Talmage tells us thatthere are four cardinal doctrines taught in the Bible—the goodness of God, the fall of man, the sympatheticand forgiving nature of the Savior, and two desti-nies—one for believers and the other for unbelievers.That is to say:1. That God is good, holy and forgiving.2. That man is a lost sinner.3. That Christ is "all sympathetic," and ready totake the whole world to his heart.4. Heaven for believers and hell for unbelievers.First. I admit that the Bible says that God isgood and holy. But this Bible also tells what Goddid, and if God did what the Bible says he did, then Iinsist that God is not good, and that he is not holy,or forgiving. According to the Bible, this goodGod believed in religious persecution; this good201God believed in extermination, in polygamy, in con-cubinage, in human slavery; this good God com-manded murder and massacre, and this good Godcould only be mollified by the shedding of blood.This good God wanted a butcher for a priest. Thisgood God wanted husbands to kill their wives—wanted fathers and mothers to kill their children.This good God persecuted animals on account of thecrimes of their owners. This good God killed thecommon people because the king had displeased him.This good God killed the babe even of the maidbehind the mill, in order that he might get even witha king. This good God committed every possiblecrime.Second. The statement that man is a lost sinneris not true. There are thousands and thousands ofmagnificent Pagans—men ready to die for wife, orchild, or even for friend, and the history of Pagancountries is filled with self-denying and heroic acts.If man is a failure, the infinite God, if there be one,is to blame. Is it possible that the God of Mr. Tal-mage could not have made man a success? Accord-ing to the Bible, his God made man knowing that inabout fifteen hundred years he would have to drownall his descendants.202Why would a good God create a man that heknew would be a sinner all his life, make hundredsof thousands of his fellow-men unhappy, and who atlast would be doomed to an eternity of suffering?Can such a God be good? How could a devil havedone worse?Third.If God is infinitely good, is he not fully assympathetic as Christ? Do you have to employChrist to mollify a being of infinite mercy? Is Christany more willing to take to his heart the whole worldthan his Father is? Personally, I have not theslightest objection in the world to anybody believingin an infinitely good and kind God—not the slightestobjection to any human being worshiping an infi-nitely tender and merciful Christ—not the slightestobjection to people preaching about heaven, or aboutthe glories of the future state—not the slightest.Fourth. I object to the doctrine of two destiniesfor the human race. I object to the infamous false-hood of eternal fire. And yet, Mr. Talmage is en-deavoring to poison the imagination of men, womenand children with the doctrine of an eternal hell.Here is what he preaches, taken from the "Constitu-"tion of the Presbyterian Church of the United"States:"203"By the decrees of God, for the manifestation of"his glory, some men and angels are predestinated"to everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever-"lasting death."That is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He wor-ships a God who damns people "for the manifesta-"tion of his glory,"—a God who made men, knowingthat they would be damned—a God who damnsbabes simply to increase his reputation with theangels. This is the God of Mr. Talmage. Such aGod I abhor, despise and execrate.Question. What does Mr. Talmage think of man-kind? What is his opinion of the "unconverted"?How does he regard the great and glorious of theearth, who have not been the victims of his particularsuperstition? What does he think of some of thebest the earth has produced?Answer. I will tell you how he looks upon allsuch. Read this from his "Confession of Faith:""Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety"of the tempter, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit."By this sin, they fell from their original righteous-"ness and communion with God, and so became"dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties204"and parts of soul and body; and they being the"root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was"imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted"nature conveyed to all their posterity. From this"original corruption—whereby we are utterly indis-"posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,"and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual"transgressions."This is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.Why did his God make a devil? Why did heallow the devil to tempt Adam and Eve? Why didhe leave innocence and ignorance at the mercy ofsubtlety and wickedness? Why did he put "the"tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in thegarden? For what reason did he place temptationin the way of his children? Was it kind, was it just,was it noble, was it worthy of a good God? Nowonder Christ put into his prayer: "Lead us not"into temptation."At the time God told Adam and Eve not to eat,why did he not tell them of the existence of Satan?Why were they not put upon their guard against theserpent? Why did not God make his appearancejust before the sin, instead of just after. Why didhe not play the role of a Savior instead of that of a205detective? After he found that Adam and Eve hadsinned—knowing as he did that they were thentotally corrupt—knowing that all their childrenwould be corrupt, knowing that in fifteen hundredyears he would have to drown millions of them, whydid he not allow Adam and Eve to perish in accord-ance with natural law, then kill the devil, and make anew pair?When the flood came, why did he not drown all?Why did he save for seed that which was "perfectly"and thoroughly corrupt in all its parts and facul-"ties"? If God had drowned Noah and his sonsand their families, he could have then made a newpair, and peopled the world with men not "wholly"defiled in all their faculties and parts of soul and"body."Jehovah learned nothing by experience. He per-sisted in his original mistake. What would we thinkof a man who finding that a field of wheat wasworthless, and that such wheat never could beraised with profit, should burn all of the field with theexception of a few sheaves, which he saved for seed?Why save such seed? Why should God have pre-served Noah, knowing that he was totally corrupt,and that he would again fill the world with infamous206people—people incapable of a good action? Hemust have known at that time, that by preservingNoah, the Canaanites would be produced, that thesesame Canaanites would have to be murdered, thatthe babes in the cradles would have to be strangled.Why did he produce them? He knew at that time,that Egypt would result from the salvation of Noah,that the Egyptians would have to be nearly de-stroyed, that he would have to kill their first-born,that he would have to visit even their cattle withdisease and hailstones. He knew also that theEgyptians would oppress his chosen people for twohundred and fifteen years, that they would upon theback of toil inflict the lash. Why did he preserveNoah? He should have drowned all, and startedwith a new pair. He should have warned themagainst the devil, and he might have succeeded, inthat way, in covering the world with gentlemen andladies, with real men and real women.We know that most of the people now in theworld are not Christians. Most who have heard thegospel of Christ have rejected it, and the Presby-terian Church tells us what is to become of all thesepeople. This is the "glad tidings of great joy."Let us see:207"All mankind, by their fall, lost communion with"God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made"liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself,"and to the pains of hell forever."According to this good Presbyterian doctrine, allthat we suffer in this world, is the result of Adam'sfall. The babes of to-day suffer for the crime of thefirst parents. Not only so; but God is angry at usfor what Adam did. We are under the wrath of aninfinite God, whose brows are corrugated with eternalhatred.Why should God hate us for being what we areand necessarily must have been? A being that Godmade—the devil—for whose work God is responsible,according to the Bible wrought this woe. God of hisown free will must have made the devil. What didhe make him for? Was it necessary to have a devilin heaven? God, having infinite power, can ofcourse destroy this devil to-day. Why does he per-mit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart hisplans? Why did he permit him to pollute the inno-cence of Eden? Why does he allow him now towrest souls by the million from the redeeming handof Christ?According to the Scriptures, the devil has always208been successful. He enjoys himself. He is called"the prince of the power of the air." He has noconscientious scruples. He has miraculous power.All miraculous power must come of God, otherwiseit is simply in accordance with nature. If the devilcan work a miracle, it is only with the consent andby the assistance of the Almighty. Is the God ofMr. Talmage in partnership with the devil? Dothey divide profits?We are also told by the Presbyterian Church—I quote from their Confession of Faith—that "there"is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.'' YetMr. Talmage tells us that God is good, that he is filledwith mercy and loving-kindness. A child nine or tenyears of age commits a sin, and thereupon it deserveseternal damnation. That is what Mr. Talmage calls,not simply justice, but mercy; and the sympatheticheart of Christ is not touched. The same being whosaid: "Suffer little children to come unto me," tellsus that a child, for the smallest sin, deserves to beeternally damned. The Presbyterian Church tells usthat infants, as well as adults, in order to be saved,need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regen-eration by the Holy Ghost.I am charged with trying to take the consolation209of this doctrine from the world. I am a criminalbecause I am endeavoring to convince the motherthat her child does not deserve eternal punishment.I stand by the graves of those who "died in their"sins," by the tombs of the "unregenerate," over theashes of men who have spent their lives working fortheir wives and children, and over the sacred dust ofsoldiers who died in defence of flag and country,and I say to their friends—I say to the living wholoved them, I say to the men and women for whomthey worked, I say to the children whom they edu-cated, I say to the country for which they died:These fathers, these mothers, these wives, thesehusbands, these soldiers are not in hell.Question. Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible isscientific, and that the real scientific man sees nocontradiction between revelation and science; that,on the contrary, they are in harmony. What is yourunderstanding of this matter?Answer. I do not believe the Bible to be a sci-entific book. In fact, most of the ministers now admitthat it was not written to teach any science. Theyadmit that the first chapter of Genesis is not geo-logically true. They admit that Joshua knew nothing210of science. They admit that four-footed birds didnot exist in the days of Moses. In fact, the onlyway they can avoid the unscientific statements of theBible, is to assert that the writers simply used thecommon language of their day, and used it, not withthe intention of teaching any scientific truth, but forthe purpose of teaching some moral truth. As amatter of fact, we find that moral truths have beentaught in all parts of this world. They were taughtin India long before Moses lived; in Egypt long be-fore Abraham was born; in China thousands ofyears before the flood. They were taught by hundredsand thousands and millions before the Garden ofEden was planted.It would be impossible to prove the truth of arevelation simply because it contained moral truths.If it taught immorality, it would be absolutely certainthat it was not a revelation from an infinitely goodbeing. If it taught morality, it would be no reasonfor even suspecting that it had a divine origin. Butif the Bible had given us scientific truths; if theignorant Jews had given us the true theory of oursolar system; if from Moses we had learned thenature of light and heat; if from Joshua we hadlearned something of electricity; if the minor pro-211phets had given us the distances to other planets;if the orbits of the stars had been marked by thebarbarians of that day, we might have admitted thatthey must have been inspired. If they had said any-thing in advance of their day; if they had pluckedfrom the night of ignorance one star of truth, wemight have admitted the claim of inspiration; butthe Scriptures did not rise above their source, didnot rise above their ignorant authors—above thepeople who believed in wars of extermination, inpolygamy, in concubinage, in slavery, and who taughtthese things in their "sacred Scriptures."The greatest men in the scientific world have notbeen, and are not, believers in the inspiration of theScriptures. There has been no greater astronomerthan Laplace. There is no greater name thanHumboldt. There is no living scientist who standshigher than Charles Darwin. All the professors inall the religious colleges in this country rolled intoone, would not equal Charles Darwin. All the cow-ardly apologists for the cosmogony of Moses do notamount to as much in the world of thought as ErnstHaeckel. There is no orthodox scientist the equalof Tyndall or Huxley. There is not one in thiscountry the equal of John Fiske. I insist, that the212foremost men to-day in the scientific world reject thedogma of inspiration. They reject the science of theBible, and hold in utter contempt the astronomy ofJoshua, and the geology of Moses.Mr. Talmage tells us "that Science is a boy and"Revelation is a man." Of course, like the most hesays, it is substantially the other way. Revelation,so-called, was the boy. Religion was the lullaby ofthe cradle, the ghost-story told by the old woman,Superstition. Science is the man. Science asks fordemonstration. Science impels us to investigation,and to verify everything for ourselves. Most pro-fessors of American colleges, if they were not afraidof losing their places, if they did not know thatChristians were bad enough now to take the breadfrom their mouths, would tell their students that theBible is not a scientific book.I admit that I have said:1. That the Bible is cruel.2. That in many passages it is impure.3. That it is contradictory.4. That it is unscientific.Let me now prove these propositions one by one.First. The Bible is cruel.I have opened it at random, and the very first213chapter that has struck my eye is the sixth of FirstSamuel. In the nineteenth verse of that chapter, Ifind the following:"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because"they had looked into the ark of the Lord; even he"smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score"and ten men."All this slaughter was because some people hadlooked into a box that was carried upon a cart. Wasthat cruel?I find, also, in the twenty-fourth chapter of SecondSamuel, that David was moved by God to numberIsrael and Judah. God put it into his heart to takea census of his people, and thereupon David said toJoab, the captain of his host:"Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from"Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people,"that I may know the number of the people."At the end of nine months and twenty days, Joabgave the number of the people to the king, andthere were at that time, according to that census,"eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the"sword," in Israel, and in Judah, "five hundred"thousand men," making a total of thirteen hundredthousand men of war. The moment this census was214taken, the wrath of the Lord waxed hot againstDavid, and thereupon he sent a seer, by the name ofGad, to David, and asked him to choose whether hewould have seven years of famine, or fly threemonths before his enemies, or have three days ofpestilence. David concluded that as God was somerciful as to give him a choice, he would be moremerciful than man, and he chose the pestilence.Now, it must be remembered that the sin of takingthe census had not been committed by the people,but by David himself, inspired by God, yet thepeople were to be punished for David's sin. So,,when David chose the pestilence, God immediatelykilled "seventy thousand men, from Dan even to"Beersheba.""And when the angel stretched out his hand upon"Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of"the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the"people, It is enough; stay now thine hand."Was this cruel?Why did a God of infinite mercy destroy seventythousand men? Why did he fill his land with widowsand orphans, because King David had taken the cen-sus? If he wanted to kill anybody, why did he notkill David? I will tell you why. Because at that215time, the people were considered as the property ofthe king. He killed the people precisely as he killedthe cattle. And yet, I am told that the Bible is not acruel book.In the twenty-first chapter of Second Samuel, Ifind that there were three years of famine in the daysof David, and that David inquired of the Lord thereason of the famine; and the Lord told him that itwas because Saul had slain the Gibeonites. Why didnot God punish Saul instead of the people? AndDavid asked the Gibeonites how he should makeatonement, and the Gibeonites replied that theywanted no silver nor gold, but they asked that sevenof the sons of Saul might be delivered unto them, sothat they could hang them before the Lord, in Gibeah.And David agreed to the proposition, and thereuponhe delivered to the Gibeonites the two sons of Rizpah,Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Michal, thedaughter of Saul, and the Gibeonites hanged allseven of them together. And Rizpah, more tenderthan them all, with a woman's heart of love keptlonely vigil by the dead, "from the beginning of har-"vest until water dropped upon them out of heaven,"and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest upon"them by day, nor the beast of the field by night."216I want to know if the following, from the fifteenthchapter of First Samuel, is inspired:"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I remember that"which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for"him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now"go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that"they have, and spare them not, but slay both man"and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,"camel and ass."We must remember that those he was commandedto slay had done nothing to Israel. It was somethingdone by their forefathers, hundreds of years before;and yet they are commanded to slay the women andchildren and even the animals, and to spare none.It seems that Saul only partially carried into exe-cution this merciful command of Jehovah. He sparedthe life of the king. He "utterly destroyed all the"people with the edge of the sword," but he keptalive the best of the sheep and oxen and of the fat-lings and lambs. Then God spake unto Samuel andtold him that he was very sorry he had made Saulking, because he had not killed all the animals, andbecause he had spared Agag; and Samuel askedSaul: "What meaneth this bleating of sheep in mine"ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"217Are stories like this calculated to make soldiersmerciful?So I read in the sixth chapter of Joshua, the fateof the city of Jericho: "And they utterly destroyed"all that was in the city, both man and woman,"young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the"edge of the sword. And they burnt the city with"fire, and all that was therein." But we are told thatone family was saved by Joshua, out of the generaldestruction: "And Joshua saved Rahab, the harlot,"alive, and her father's household, and all that she"had." Was this fearful destruction an act ofmercy?It seems that they saved the money of theirvictims: "the silver and gold and the vessels of brass"and of iron they put into the treasury of the house"of the Lord."After all this pillage and carnage, it appearsthat there was a suspicion in Joshua's mind thatsomebody was keeping back a part of the treasure.Search was made, and a man by the name of Achanadmitted that he had sinned against the Lord, that hehad seen a Babylonish garment among the spoils, andtwo hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold offifty shekels' weight, and that he took them and hid2l8them in his tent. For this atrocious crime it seemsthat the Lord denied any victories to the Jews untilthey found out the wicked criminal. When they dis-covered poor Achan, "they took him and his sons"and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses and"his sheep, and all that he had, and brought them unto"the valley of Achor; and all Israel stoned him with"stones and burned them with fire after they had"stoned them with stones."After Achan and his sons and his daughters andhis herds had been stoned and burned to death, weare told that "the Lord turned from the fierceness of"his anger."And yet it is insisted that this God "is merciful,"and that his loving-kindness is over all his works."In the eighth chapter of this same book, the infi-nite God, "creator of heaven and earth and all that is"therein," told his general, Joshua, to lay an ambushfor a city—to "lie in wait against the city, even be-"hind the city; go not very far from the city, but be"ye all ready." He told him to make an attack andthen to run, as though he had been beaten, in orderthat the inhabitants of the city might follow, andthereupon his reserves that he had ambushed mightrush into the city and set it on fire. God Almighty219planned the battle. God himself laid the snare. Thewhole programme was carried out. Joshua madebelieve that he was beaten, and fled, and then thesoldiers in ambush rose out of their places, enter-ed the city, and set it on fire. Then came theslaughter. They "utterly destroyed all the inhabit-"ants of Ai," men and maidens, women and babes,sparing only their king till evening, when theyhanged him on a tree, then "took his carcase down"from the tree and cast it at the entering of the"gate, and raised thereon a great heap of stones"which remaineth unto this day." After havingdone all this, "Joshua built an altar unto the Lord"God of Israel, and offered burnt offerings unto the"Lord." I ask again, was this cruel?Again I ask, was the treatment of the Gibeonitescruel when they sought to make peace but weredenied, and cursed instead; and although permittedto live, were yet made slaves? Read the mandateconsigning them to bondage: "Now therefore ye"are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed"from being bondmen and hewers of wood and"drawers of water for the house of my God."Is it possible, as recorded in the tenth chapter ofJoshua, that the Lord took part in these battles, and220cast down great hail-stones from the battlements ofheaven upon the enemies of the Israelites, so that"they were more who died with hail-stones, than"they whom the children of Israel slew with the"sword"?Is it possible that a being of infinite power wouldexercise it in that way instead of in the interest ofkindness and peace?I find, also, in this same chapter, that Joshua tookMakkedah and smote it with the edge of the sword,that he utterly destroyed all the souls that weretherein, that he allowed none to remain.I find that he fought against Libnah, and smoteit with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyedall the souls that were therein, and allowed none toremain, and did unto the king as he did unto the kingof Jericho.I find that he also encamped against Lachish, andthat God gave him that city, and that he "smote it"with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that"were therein," sparing neither old nor young, help-less women nor prattling babes.He also vanquished Horam, King of Gezer, "and"smote him and his people until he left him none"remaining."221He encamped against the city of Eglon, and killedevery soul that was in it, at the edge of the sword,just as he had done to Lachish and all the others.He fought against Hebron, "and took it and"smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king"thereof,"—and it appears that several cities, theirnumber not named, were included in this slaughter,for Hebron "and all the cities thereof and all the"souls that were therein," were utterly destroyed.He then waged war against Debir and took it, andmore unnumbered cities with it, and all the souls thatwere therein shared the same horrible fate—he didnot leave a soul alive.And this chapter of horrors concludes with thissong of victory:"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and"of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs,"and all their kings: he left none remaining, but"utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord"God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote"them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the"country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these"kings and their land did Joshua take at one time,"because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel."Was God, at that time, merciful?222I find, also, in the twenty-first chapter that manyIcings met, with their armies, for the purpose ofoverwhelming Israel, and the Lord said unto Joshua:"Be not afraid because of them, for to-morrow about"this time I will deliver them all slain before Israel."I will hough their horses and burn their chariots"with fire." Were animals so treated by the com-mand of a merciful God?Joshua captured Razor, and smote all the soulsthat were therein with the edge of the sword, therewas not one left to breathe; and he took all thecities of all the kings that took up arms against him,and utterly destroyed all the inhabitants thereof.He took the cattle and spoils as prey unto himself,and smote every man with the edge of the sword;and not only so, but left not a human being tobreathe.I find the following directions given to the Israel-ites who were waging a war of conquest. They arein the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, from thetenth to the eighteenth verses:"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight"against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it"shall be, if it make thee an answer of peace, and"open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people223"that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee,"and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no"peace with thee, but will war against thee, then"thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy"God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt"smite every male thereof with the edge of the"sword; but the women, and the little ones, and"the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil"thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou"shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the"Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou"do unto all the cities which are very far off from"thee, which are not of the cities of these nations."It will be seen from this that people could taketheir choice between death and slavery, providedthese people lived a good ways from the Israelites.Now, let us see how they were to treat the inhabit-ants of the cities near to them:"But of the cities of these people which the Lord"thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou"shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou"shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites,"and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,"the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God"hath commanded thee."224It never occurred to this merciful God to sendmissionaries to these people. He built them noschoolhouses, taught them no alphabet, gave themno book; they were not supplied even with a copy ofthe Ten Commandments. He did not say "Reform,"but "Kill;" not "Educate," but "Destroy." He gavethem no Bible, built them no church, sent them nopreachers. He knew when he made them that hewould have to have them murdered. When hecreated them he knew that they were not fit to live;and yet, this is the infinite God who is infinitelymerciful and loves his children better than an earthlymother loves her babe.In order to find just how merciful God is, read thetwenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, and see whathe promises to do with people who do not keep all ofhis commandments and all of his statutes. He cursesthem in their basket and store, in the fruit of theirbody, in the fruit of their land, in the increase of theircattle and sheep. He curses them in the city and inthe field, in their coming in and their going out. Hecurses them with pestilence, with consumption, withfever, with inflammation, with extreme burning, withsword, with blasting, with mildew. He tells themthat the heavens shall be as brass over their heads225and the earth as iron under their feet; that the rainshall be powder and dust and shall come down onthem and destroy them; that they shall flee sevenways before their enemies; that their carcasses shallbe meat for the fowls of the air, and the beasts of theearth; that he will smite them with the botch ofEgypt, and with the scab, and with the itch, and withmadness and blindness and astonishment; that hewill make them grope at noonday; that they shall beoppressed and spoiled evermore; that one shall be-troth a wife and another shall have her; that theyshall build a house and not dwell in it; plant a vine-yard and others shall eat the grapes; that theirsons and daughters shall be given to their enemies;that he will make them mad for the sight of theireyes; that he will smite them in the knees and in thelegs with a sore botch that cannot be healed, andfrom the sole of the foot to the top of the head;that they shall be a by-word among all nations; thatthey shall sow much seed and gather but little; thatthe locusts shall consume their crops; that they shallplant vineyards and drink no wine,—that they shallgather grapes, but worms shall eat them; that theyshall raise olives but have no oil; beget sons anddaughters, but they shall go into captivity; that all226the trees and fruit of the land shall be devoured bylocusts, and that all these curses shall pursue themand overtake them, until they be destroyed; that theyshall be slaves to their enemies, and be constantly inhunger and thirst and nakedness, and in want of allthings. And as though this were not enough, theLord tells them that he will bring a nation againstthem swift as eagles, a nation fierce and savage, thatwill show no mercy and no favor to old or young,and leave them neither corn, nor wine, nor oil, norflocks, nor herds; and this nation shall besiege themin their cities until they are reduced to the necessityof eating the flesh of their own sons and daughters;so that the men would eat their wives and theirchildren, and women eat their husbands and theirown sons and daughters, and their own babes.All these curses God pronounced upon them if theydid not observe to do all the words of the law thatwere written in his book.This same merciful God threatened that he wouldbring upon them all the diseases of Egypt—everysickness and every plague; that he would scatterthem from one end of the earth to the other; thatthey should find no rest; that their lives should hangin perpetual doubt; that in the morning they would227say: Would God it were evening! and in the even-ing, Would God it were morning! and that he wouldfinally take them back to Egypt where they shouldbe again sold for bondmen and bondwomen.This curse, the foundation of theAnathemamaranatha; this curse, used by the pope of Rome toprevent the spread of thought; this curse used evenby the Protestant Church; this curse born of barba-rism and of infinite cruelty, is now said to haveissued from the lips of an infinitely merciful God. Onewould suppose that Jehovah had gone insane; thathe had divided his kingdom like Lear, and from thedarkness of insanity had launched his curses upon aworld.In order that there may be no doubt as to themercy of Jehovah, read the thirteenth chapter ofDeuteronomy:"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy"son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or"thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee"secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,"which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers;" * * * thou shalt not consent unto him, nor"hearken unto him; neither shall thine eyes pity him,"neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal228"him; but thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand"shall be first upon him to put him to death, and"afterwards the hand of all the people; and thou"shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he"hath sought to entice thee away from the Lord thy"God."This, according to Mr. Talmage, is a commandmentof the infinite God. According to him, God ordereda man to murder his own son, his own wife, his ownbrother, his own daughter, if they dared even to sug-gest the worship of some other God than Jehovah.For my part, it is impossible not to despise sucha God—a God not willing that one should worshipwhat he must. No one can control his admiration,and if a savage at sunrise falls upon his knees andoffers homage to the great light of the East, he can-not help it. If he worships the moon, he cannot helpit. If he worships fire, it is because he cannot controlhis own spirit. A picture is beautiful to me in spiteof myself. A statue compels the applause of mybrain. The worship of the sun was an exceedinglynatural religion, and why should a man or woman bedestroyed for kneeling at the fireside of the world?No wonder that this same God, in the very nextchapter of Deuteronomy to that quoted, says to his229chosen people: "Ye shall not eat of anything that"dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger"that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou"mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art a holy"people unto the Lord thy God."What a mingling of heartlessness and thrift—thereligion of sword and trade!In the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, Jehovahgives his own character. He tells the Israelites thatthere are seven nations greater and mightier thanthemselves, but that he will deliver them to his chosenpeople, and that they shall smite them and utterlydestroy them; and having some fear that a drop ofpity might remain in the Jewish heart, he says:"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor"show mercy unto them. * * * Know therefore"that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God,"which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that"love him and keep his commandments to a thousand"generations, and repayeth them that hate him to"their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to"him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face."This is the description which the merciful, long-suffer-ing Jehovah gives of himself.So, he promises great prosperity to the Jews if230they will only obey his commandments, and says:"And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness,"and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt"upon thee, but will lay them upon all them that"hate thee. And thou shalt consume all the people"which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine"eye shall have no pity upon them."Under the immediate government of Jehovah,mercy was a crime. According to the law of God,pity was weakness, tenderness was treason, kindnesswas blasphemy, while hatred and massacre werevirtues.In the second chapter of Deuteronomy we findanother account tending to prove that Jehovah is amerciful God. We find that Sihon, king of Heshbon,would not let the Hebrews pass by him, and thereason given is, that "the Lord God hardened his"spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might"deliver him into the hand" of the Hebrews. Sihon,his heart having been hardened by God, came outagainst the chosen people, and God delivered him tothem, and "they smote him, and his sons, and all his"people, and took all his cities, and utterly destroyed"the men and the women, and the little ones of"every city: they left none to remain." And in this231same chapter this same God promises that the dreadand fear of his chosen people should be "upon all the"nations that are under the whole heaven," and that"they should "tremble and be in anguish because of"the Hebrews.Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and seehow the Midianites were slain. You will find that"the children of Israel took all the women of Midian"captives, and their little ones," that they took "all"their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods,"that they slew all the males, and burnt all their citiesand castles with fire, that they brought the captivesand the prey and the spoil unto Moses and Eleazarthe priest; that Moses was wroth with the officersof his host because they had saved all the womenalive, and thereupon this order was given: "Kill"every male among the little ones, and kill every"woman, * * * but all the women children"keep alive for yourselves."After this, God himself spake unto Moses, andsaid: "Take the sum of the prey that was taken,"both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazar the"priest * * * and divide the prey into two"parts, between those who went to war, and between"all the congregation, and levy a tribute unto the232"Lord, one soul of five hundred of the persons,"and the cattle; take it of their half and give it to"the priest for an offering * * * and of the"children of Israel's half, take one portion of fifty of"the persons and the animals and give them unto"the Levites. * * * And Moses and the priest"did as the Lord had commanded." It seems thatthey had taken six hundred and seventy-five thou-sand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves, sixty-onethousand asses, and thirty-two thousand womenchildren and maidens. And it seems, by the fortiethverse,that the Lord's tribute of the maidens was thirty-two,—the rest were given to the soldiers and to thecongregation of the Lord.Was anything more infamous ever recorded in theannals of barbarism? And yet we are told that theBible is an inspired book, that it is not a cruel book,and that Jehovah is a being of infinite mercy.In the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers we findthat the Israelites had joined themselves unto Baal-Peor, and thereupon the anger of the Lord waskindled against them, as usual. No being ever losthis temper more frequently than this Jehovah. Uponthis particular occasion, "the Lord said unto Moses,"Take all the heads of the people, and hang them233"up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce"anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."And thereupon "Moses said unto the judges of Israel,"Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto"Baal-peor."Just as soon as these people were killed, and theirheads hung up before the Lord against the sun, anda horrible double murder of a too merciful Israeliteand a Midianitish woman, had been committed byPhinehas, the son of Eleazar, "the plague was stayed"from the children of Israel." Twenty-four thousandhad died. Thereupon, "the Lord spake unto Moses"and said"—and it is a very merciful commandment—"Vex the Midianites and smite them."In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers is more evi-dence that God is merciful and compassionate.The children of Israel had become discouraged.They had wandered so long in the desert that theyfinally cried out: "Wherefore have ye brought us"up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There"is no bread, there is no water, and our soul loatheth"this light bread." Of course they were hungry andthirsty. Who would not complain under similar cir-cumstances? And yet, on account of this complaint,the God of infinite tenderness and compassion sent234serpents among them, and these serpents bit them—bit the cheeks of children, the breasts of maidens,and the withered faces of age. Why would a Goddo such an infamous thing? Why did he not, as theleader of this people, his chosen children, feed thembetter? Certainly an infinite God had the powerto satisfy their hunger and to quench their thirst.He who overwhelmed a world with water, certainlycould have made a few brooks, cool and babbling,to follow his chosen people through all their jour-neying. He could have supplied them with miracu-lous food.How fortunate for the Jews that Jehovah was notrevengeful, that he was so slow to anger, so patient,so easily pleased. What would they have done hadhe been exacting, easily incensed, revengeful, cruel,or blood-thirsty?In the sixteenth chapter of Numbers, an account isgiven of a rebellion. It seems that Korah, Dathanand Abiram got tired of Moses and Aaron. Theythought the priests were taking a little too muchupon themselves. So Moses told them to have twohundred and fifty of their men bring their censersand put incense in them before the Lord, and standin the door of the tabernacle of the congregation235with Moses and Aaron. That being done, the Lordappeared, and told Moses and Aaron to separatethemselves from the people, that he might consumethem all in a moment. Moses and Aaron, having alittle compassion, begged God not to kill everybody.The people were then divided, and Dathan andAbiram came out and stood in the door of theirtents with their wives and their sons and their littlechildren. And Moses said:"Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent"me to do all these works; for I have not done them"of my mine own mind. If these men die the"common death of all men, or if they be visited"after the common visitation of all men, then the"Lord hath not sent me. But if the Lord make a"new thing, and the earth open her mouth and"swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them,"and they go down quick into the pit, then ye shall"understand that these men have provoked the"Lord." The moment he ceased speaking, "the"ground clave asunder that was under them; and"the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up,"and their houses, and all the men that appertained"unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that"appertained to them went down alive into the pit,236"and the earth closed upon them, and they perished"from among the congregation."This, according to Mr. Talmage, was the act of anexceedingly merciful God, prompted by infinite kind-ness, and moved by eternal pity. What would hehave done had he acted from motives of revenge?What would he Jiave done had he been remorse-lessly cruel and wicked?In addition to those swallowed by the earth, thetwo hundred and fifty men that offered the incensewere consumed by "a fire that came out from the"Lord." And not only this, but the same mercifulJehovah wished to consume all the people, and hewould have consumed them all, only that Moses pre-vailed upon Aaron to take a censer and put firetherein from off the altar of incense and go quicklyto the congregation and make an atonement for them.He was not quick enough. The plague had alreadybegun; and before he could possibly get the censersand incense among the people, fourteen thousand andseven hundred had died of the plague. How manymore might have died, if Jehovah had not been soslow to anger and so merciful and tender to hischildren, we have no means of knowing.In the thirteenth chapter of the same book of237Numbers, we find that some spies were sent overinto the promised land, and that they brought backgrapes and figs and pomegranates, and reported thatthe whole land was flowing with milk and honey, butthat the people were strong, that the cities werewalled, and that the nations in the promised landwere mightier than the Hebrews. They reported thatall the people they met were men of a great stature,that they had seen "the giants, the sons of Anak"which come of giants," compared with whom theIsraelites were "in their own sight as grasshoppers,"and so were we in their sight." Entirely discour-aged by these reports, "all the congregation lifted up"their voice and cried, and the people wept that"night * * * and murmured against Moses and"against Aaron, and said unto them: Would God"that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would"God we had died in this wilderness!" Some ofthem thought that it would be better to go back,—that they might as well be slaves in Egypt as to befood for giants in the promised land. They did notwant their bones crunched between the teeth of thesons of Anak.Jehovah got angry again, and said to Moses:"How long will these people provoke me? * * *238"I will smite them with pestilence, and disinherit"them." But Moses said: Lord, if you do this,the Egyptians will hear of it, and they will say thatyou were not able to bring your people into thepromised land. Then he proceeded to flatter him bytelling him how merciful and long-suffering he hadbeen. Finally, Jehovah concluded to pardon thepeople this time, but his pardon depended upon theviolation of his promise, for he said: "They shall"not see the land which I sware unto their fathers,"neither shall any of them that provoked me see it;"but my servant Caleb, * * * him will I bring"into the land." And Jehovah said to the people:"Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness, and all"that were numbered of you according to your"whole number, from twenty years old and upward,"which have murmured against me, ye shall not"come into the land concerning which I sware to"make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of"Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your"little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them"will I bring in, and they shall know the land"which ye have despised. But as for you, your"carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. And your"children shall wander in the wilderness forty239"years * * * until your carcasses be wasted in"the wilderness."And all this because the people were afraid ofgiants, compared with whom they were but as grass-hoppers.So we find that at one time the people becameexceedingly hungry. They had no flesh to eat.There were six hundred thousand men of war, andthey had nothing to feed on but manna. Theynaturally murmured and complained, and thereupon awind from the Lord went forth and brought quailsfrom the sea, (quails are generally found in the sea,)"and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's"journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey"on the other side, round about the camp, and as it"were two cubits high upon the face of the earth."And the people stood up all that day, and all that"night, and all the next day, and they gathered the"quails. * * * And while the flesh was yet be-"tween their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of"the Lord was kindled against the people, and the"Lord smote the people with a very great plague."Yet he is slow to anger, long-suffering, mercifuland just.In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, is the ac-240count of the golden calf. It must be borne in mindthat the worship of this calf by the people was beforethe Ten Commandments had been given to them.Christians now insist that these commandments musthave been inspired, because no human being couldhave constructed them,—could have conceived ofthem.It seems, according to this account, that Moses hadbeen up in the mount with God, getting the Ten Com-mandments, and that while he was there the peoplehad made the golden calf. When he came down andsaw them, and found what they had done, having inhis hands the two tables, the work of God, he castthe tables out of his hands, and broke them beneaththe mount. He then took the calf which they hadmade, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water,and made the children of Israel drink of it. And in thetwenty-seventh verse we are told what the Lord did:"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man"his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate"to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man"his brother, and every man his companion, and"every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi"did according to the word of Moses; and there fell"of the people that day about three thousand men."241The reason for this slaughter is thus given: "For"Moses had said: Consecrate yourselves to-day to"the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon" his brother, that he may bestow upon you a blessing"this day."Now, it must be remembered that there had notbeen as yet a promulgation of the commandmentu Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Thiswas a punishment for the infraction of a law beforethe law was known—before the commandment hadbeen given. Was it cruel, or unjust?Does the following sound as though spoken by aGod of mercy: "I will make mine arrows drunk"with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh"?And yet this is but a small part of the vengeance anddestruction which God threatens to his enemies, asrecorded in the thirty-second chapter of the book ofDeuteronomy.In the sixty-eighth Psalm is found this mercifulpassage: "That thy foot may be dipped in the blood"of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the"same.So we find in the eleventh chapter of Joshua thereason why the Canaanites and other nations madewar upon the Jews. It is as follows: "For it was of242"the Lord to harden their hearts that they should"come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy"them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but"that he might destroy them."Read the thirtieth chapter of Exodus and you willfind that God gave to Moses a recipe for makingthe oil of holy anointment, and in the thirty-secondverse we find that no one was to make any oil like itand in the next verse it is declared that whoevercompounded any like it, or whoever put any of it ona stranger, should be cut off from the Lord's people.In the same chapter, a recipe is given for per-fumery, and it is declared that whoever shall makeany like it, or that smells like it, shall suffer death.In the next chapter, it is decreed that if any one failsto keep the Sabbath "he shall be surely put to death."There are in the Pentateuch hundreds and hun-dreds of passages showing the cruelty of Jehovah.What could have been more cruel than the flood?What more heartless than to overwhelm a world?What more merciless than to cover a shoreless seawith the corpses of men, women and children?The Pentateuch is filled with anathemas, withcurses, with words of vengeance, of jealousy, ofhatred, and brutality. By reason of these passages,243millions of people have plucked from their hearts theflowers of pity and justified the murder of womenand the assassination of babes.In the second chapter of Second Kings we findthat the prophet Elisha was on his way to a placecalled Bethel, and as he was going, there came forthlittle children out of the city and mocked him andsaid: "Go up thou bald head; Go up thou bald"head! And he turned back and looked on them"and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And"there came forth two she bears out of the wood and"tare forty and two children of them."Of course he obtained his miraculous power fromJehovah; and there must have been some communi-cation between Jehovah and the bears. Why did thebears come? How did they happen to be there?Here is a prophet of God cursing children in thename of the Lord, and thereupon these childrenare torn in fragments by wild beasts.This is the mercy of Jehovah; and yet I am toldthat the Bible has nothing cruel in it; that it preachesonly mercy, justice, charity, peace; that all heartsare softened by reading it; that the savage nature ofman is melted into tenderness and pity by it, and thatonly the totally depraved can find evil in it.244And so I might go on, page after page, book afterbook, in the Old Testament, and describe the crueltiescommitted in accordance with the commands ofJehovah.But all the cruelties in the Old Testament are ab-solute mercies compared with the hell of the NewTestament. In the Old Testament God stops withthe grave. He seems to have been satisfied when hesaw his enemies dead, when he saw their flesh rottingin the open air, or in the beaks of birds, or in the teethof wild beasts. But in the New Testament, ven-geance does not stop with the grave. It begins there,and stops never. The enemies of Jehovah are to bepursued through all the ages of eternity. There is tobe no forgiveness—no cessation, no mercy, nothingbut everlasting pain.And yet we are told that the author of hell is abeing of infinite mercy.Second; All intelligent Christians will admit thatthere are many passages in the Bible that, if found inthe Koran, they would regard as impure and immoral.It is not necessary for me to specify the passages,nor to call the attention of the public to such things.I am willing to trust the judgment of every honestreader, and the memory of every biblical student.245The Old Testament upholds polygamy. That isinfinitely impure. It sanctions concubinage. Thatis impure; nothing could or can be worse. Hun-dreds of things are publicly told that should have re-mained unsaid. No one is made better by readingthe history of Tamar, or the biography of Lot, orthe memoirs of Noah, of Dinah, of Sarah andAbraham, or of Jacob and Leah and Rachel and othersthat I do not care to mention. No one is improvedin his morals by reading these things.All I mean to say is, that the Bible is like otherbooks produced by other nations in the same stageof civilization. What one age considers pure, thenext considers impure. What one age may considerjust, the next may look upon as infamous. Civiliza-tion is a growth. It is continually dying, and continu-ally being born. Old branches rot and fall, new budsappear. It is a perpetual twilight, and a perpetualdawn—the death of the old, and the birth of the new.I do not say, throw away the Bible because thereare some foolish passages in it, but I say, throw awaythe foolish passages. Don't throw away wisdombecause it is found in company with folly; but do notsay that folly is wisdom, because it is found in itscompany. All that is true in the Bible is true whether246it is inspired or not. All that is true did not need tobe inspired. Only that which is not true needs theassistance of miracles and wonders. I read the Bibleas I read other books. What I believe to be good,I admit is good; what I think is bad, I say is bad;what I believe to be true, I say is true, and what Ibelieve to be false, I denounce as false.Third. Let us see whether there are any contra-dictions in the Bible.A little book has been published, called "Self"Contradictions of the Bible," by J. P. Mendum, ofThe Boston Investigator. I find many of the apparentcontradictions of the Bible noted in this book.We all know that the Pentateuch is filled with thecommandments of God upon the subject of sacrificinganimals. We know that God declared, again andagain, that the smell of burning flesh was a sweetsavor to him. Chapter after chapter is filled with direc-tions how to kill the beasts that were set apart forsacrifices; what to do with their blood, their flesh andtheir fat. And yet, in the seventh chapter of Jeremiah,all this is expressly denied, in the following language:"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded"them in the day that I brought them out of the land"of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices."247And in the sixth chapter of Jeremiah, the sameJehovah says; "Your burnt offerings are not ac-"ceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."In the Psalms, Jehovah derides the idea ofsacrifices, and says: "Will I eat of the flesh of"bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God"thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most"High."So I find in Isaiah the following: "Bring no more"vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;"the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of as-"semblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even"the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your"appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble"to me; I am weary to bear them." "To what"purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?"saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of"rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not"in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats."When ye come to appear before me, who hath re-"quired this at your hand?"So I find in James: "Let no man say when he is"tempted: I am tempted of God; for God cannot be"tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man;"and yet in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis I248find this: "And it came to pass after these things,"that God did tempt Abraham."In Second Samuel we see that he tempted David.He also tempted Job, and Jeremiah says: "O Lord,"thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." Tosuch an extent was Jeremiah deceived, that in thefourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse we find himcrying out to the Lord: "Wilt thou be altogether"unto me as a liar?"So in Second Thessalonians: "For these things"God shall send them strong delusions, that they"should believe a lie."So in First Kings, twenty-second chapter: "Behold,"the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all"these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil"concerning thee."So in Ezekiel: "And if the prophet be deceived"when he hath spoken a thing, I, the Lord, have de-"ceived that prophet."So I find: "Thou shalt not bear false witness;"and in the book of Revelation: "All liars shall have"their part in the lake which burneth with fire and"brimstone;" yet in First Kings, twenty-secondchapter, I find the following: "And the Lord said:"Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and249"fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this"manner, and another said on that manner. And"there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord,"and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said"unto him: Wherewith? And he said: I will go"forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all"his prophets. And he said: Thou shalt persuade"him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so."In the Old Testament we find contradictory lawsabout the same thing, and contradictory accounts ofthe same occurrences.In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the firstaccount of the giving of the Ten Commandments. Inthe thirty-fourth chapter another account of the sametransaction is given. These two accounts could nothave been written by the same person. Read them,and you will be forced to admit that both of themcannot by any possibility be true. They differ in somany particulars, and the commandments themselvesare so different, that it is impossible that both can betrue.So there are two histories of the creation. If youwill read the first and second chapters of Genesis,you will find two accounts inconsistent with eachother, both of which cannot be true. The first account250ends with the third verse of the second chapter ofGenesis. By the first account, man and woman weremade at the same time, and made last of all. In thesecond account, not to be too critical, all the beastsof the field were made before Eve was, and Adamwas made before the beasts of the field; whereas inthe first account, God made all the animals before hemade Adam. In the first account there is nothingabout the rib or the bone or the side,—that is onlyfound in the second account. In the first account,there is nothing about the Garden of Eden, nothingabout the four rivers, nothing about the mist thatwent up from the earth and watered the whole faceof the ground; nothing said about making man fromdust; nothing about God breathing into his nostrilsthe breath of life; yet according to the second ac-count, the Garden of Eden was planted, and all theanimals were made before Eve was formed. It isimpossible to harmonize the two accounts.So, in the first account, only the word God isused—"God said so and so,—God did so and so."In the second account he is called Lord God,—"the"Lord God formed man,"—"the Lord God caused"it to rain,"—"the Lord God planted a garden." Itis now admitted that the book of Genesis is made up251of two stories, and it is very easy to take them apartand show exactly how they were put together.So there are two stories of the flood, differingalmost entirely from each other—that is to say, socontradictory that both cannot be true.There are two accounts of the manner in whichSaul was made king, and the accounts are inconsistentwith each other.Scholars now everywhere admit that the copyistsmade many changes, pieced out fragments, and madeadditions, interpolations, and meaningless repetitions.It is now generally conceded that the speeches ofElihu, in Job, were interpolated, and most of theprophecies were made by persons whose names evenare not known.The manuscripts of the Old Testament were notalike. The Greek version differed from the Hebrew,and there was no generally received text of the OldTestament until after the beginning of the Christianera. Marks and points to denote vowels were in-vented probably in the seventh century after Christ;and whether these marks and points were put in theproper places, is still an open question. The Alex-andrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint,translated by seventy-two learned Jews assisted by252miraculous power, about two hundred years beforeChrist, could not, it is now said, have been translatedfrom the Hebrew text that we now have. This canonly be accounted for by supposing that we have adifferent Hebrew text. The early Christians adoptedthe Septuagint and were satisfied for a time; but somany errors were found, and so many were scanningevery word in search of something to assist theirpeculiar views, that new versions were produced,and the new versions all differed somewhat from theSeptuagint as well as from each other. These ver-sions were mostly in Greek. The first Latin Biblewas produced in Africa, and no one has ever foundout which Latin manuscript was original. Many wereproduced, and all differed from each other. TheseLatin versions were compared with each other andwith the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was madein the fifth century, and the old ones held their ownfor about four hundred years, and no one knowswhich version was right. Besides, there were Ethi-opie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other ver-sions, all differing from each other as well as from allothers. It was not until the fourteenth century thatthe Bible was translated into German, and not untilthe fifteenth that Bibles were printed in the principal253languages of Europe; and most of these Biblesdiffered from each other, and gave rise to endlessdisputes and to almost numberless crimes.No man in the world is learned enough, nor hashe time enough, even if he could live a thousandyears, to find what books belonged to and consti-tuted the Old Testament. He could not ascertainthe authors of the books, nor when they were written,nor what they mean. Until a man has sufficienttime to do all this, no one can tell whether he be-lieves the Bible or not. It is sufficient, however, tosay that the Old Testament is filled with contradic-tions as to the number of men slain in battle, as tothe number of years certain kings reigned, as to thenumber of a woman's children, as to dates of events,and as to locations of towns and cities.Besides all this, many of its laws are contradictory,often commanding and prohibiting the same thing.The New Testament also is filled with contradic-tions. The gospels do not even agree upon theterms of salvation. They do not even agree as tothe gospel of Christ, as to the mission of Christ.They do not tell the same story regarding the be-trayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascen-sion of Christ. John is the only one that ever heard254of being "born again." The evangelists do not givethe same account of the same miracles, and themiracles are not given in the same order. They donot agree even in the genealogy of Christ.Fourth. Is the Bible scientific? In my judgmentit is notIt is unscientific to say that this world was "cre-"ated that the universe was produced by an infinitebeing, who had existed an eternity prior to such"creation." My mind is such that I cannot possiblyconceive of a "creation." Neither can I conceive ofan infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infi-nite length of time.I do not think it is scientific to say that the uni-verse was made in six days, or that this world is onlyabout six thousand years old, or that man has onlybeen upon the earth for about six thousand years.If the Bible is true, Adam was the first man. Theage of Adam is given, the age of his children, andthe time, according to the Bible, was kept and knownfrom Adam, so that if the Bible is true, man has onlybeen in this world about six thousand years. In myjudgment, and in the judgment of every scientificman whose judgment is worth having or quoting,man inhabited this earth for thousands of ages prior255to the creation of Adam. On one point the Bible isat least certain, and that is, as to the life of Adam.The genealogy is given, the pedigree is there, and itis impossible to escape the conclusion that, accordingto the Bible, man has only been upon this earthabout six thousand years. There is no chance thereto say "long periods of time," or "geological ages."There we have the years. And as to the time of thecreation of man, the Bible does not tell the truth.What is generally called "The Fall of Man" isunscientific. God could not have made a moralcharacter for Adam. Even admitting the rest of thestory to be true, Adam certainly had to make char-acter for himself.The idea that there never would have been anydisease or death in this world had it not been for theeating of the forbidden fruit is preposterously unsci-entific. Admitting that Adam was made only sixthousand years ago, death was in the world millions ofyears before that time. The old rocks are filled with re-mains of what were once living and breathing animals.Continents were built up with the petrified corpses ofanimals. We know, therefore, that death did not enterthe world because of Adam's sin. We know that lifeand death are but successive links in an eternal chain.256So it is unscientific to say that thorns and brambleswere produced by Adam's sin.It is also unscientific to say that labor was pro-nounced as a curse upon man. Labor is not a curse.Labor is a blessing. Idleness is a curse.It is unscientific to say that the sons of God,living, we suppose, in heaven, fell in love with thedaughters of men, and that on account of this aflood was sent upon the earth that covered thehighest mountains.The whole story of the flood is unscientific, and noscientific man worthy of the name, believes it.Neither is the story of the tower of Babel a scien-tific thing. Does any scientific man believe thatGod confounded the language of men for fear theywould succeed in building a tower high enough toreach to heaven?It is not scientific to say that angels were in thehabit of walking about the earth, eating veal dressedwith butter and milk, and making bargains about thedestruction of cities.The story of Lot's wife having been turned into apillar of salt is extremely unscientific.It is unscientific to say that people at one time livedto be nearly a thousand years of age. The history257of the world shows that human life is lengtheninginstead of shortening.It is unscientific to say that the infinite Godwrestled with Jacob and got the better of him, put-ting his thigh out of joint.It is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness ofa flame of fire, inhabited a bush.It is unscientific to say that a stick could bechanged into a living snake. Living snakes can notbe made out of sticks. There are not the necessaryelements in a stick to make a snake.It is not scientific to say that God changed waterinto blood. All the elements of blood are not inwater.It is unscientific to declare that dust was changedinto lice.It is not scientific to say that God caused a thickdarkness over the land of Egypt, and yet allowed itto be light in the houses of the Jews.It is not scientific to say that about seventy peoplecould, in two hundred and fifteen years increase tothree millions.It is not scientific to say that an infinitely goodGod would destroy innocent people to get revengeupon a king.258It is not scientific to say that slavery was onceright, that polygamy was once a virtue, and that ex-termination was mercy.It is not scientific to assert that a being of infinitepower and goodness went into partnership with in-sects,—granted letters of marque and reprisal tohornets.It is unscientific to insist that bread was reallyrained from heaven.It is not scientific to suppose that an infinite beingspent forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plansand specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat,cherubs of gold, a table, four rings, some dishes, somespoons, one candlestick, several bowls, a few knobs,seven lamps, some snuffers, a pair of tongs, some cur-tains, a roof for a tent of rams' skins dyed red, a fewboards, an altar with horns, ash pans, basins and fleshhooks, shovels and pots and sockets of silver andouches of gold and pins of brass—for all of which thisGod brought with him patterns from heaven.It is not scientific to say that when a man commitsa sin, he can settle with God by killing a sheep.It is not scientific to say that a priest, by layinghis hands on the head of a goat, can transfer the sinsof a people to the animal.259Was it scientific to endeavor to ascertain whethera woman was virtuous or not, by compelling her todrink water mixed with dirt from the floor of thesanctuary?Is it scientific to say that a dry stick budded,blossomed, and bore almonds; or that the ashes of ared heifer mixed with water can cleanse us of sin;or that a good being gave cities into the hands of theJews in consideration of their murdering all the in-habitants?Is it scientific to say that an animal saw an angel,and conversed with a man?Is it scientific to imagine that thrusting a spearthrough the body of a woman ever stayed a plague?Is it scientific to say that a river cut itself in twoand allowed the lower end to run off?Is it scientific to assert that seven priests blewseven rams' horns loud enough to blow down thewalls of a city?Is it scientific to say that the sun stood still in themidst of heaven, and hasted not to go down forabout a whole day, and that the moon also stayed?Is it scientifically probable that an angel of theLord devoured unleavened cakes and broth withfire that came out of the end of a stick, as he sat260under an oak tree; or that God made known hiswill by letting dew fall on wool without wetting theground around it; or that an angel of God appearedto Manoah in the absence of her husband, and thatthis angel afterwards went up in a flame of fire, andas the result of this visit a child was born whosestrength was in his hair?Is it scientific to say that the muscle of a man de-pended upon the length of his locks?Is it unscientific to deny that water gushed from ahollow place in a dry bone?Is it evidence of a thoroughly scientific mind tobelieve that one man turned over a house so largethat three thousand people were on its roof?Is it purely scientific to say that a man was oncefed by the birds of the air, who brought him breadand meat every morning and evening, and that after-ward an angel turned cook and prepared two sup-pers in one night, for the same prophet, who ateenough to last him forty days and forty nights?Is it scientific to say that a river divided becausethe water had been struck with a cloak; or that aman actually went to heaven in a chariot of firedrawn by horses of fire; or that a being of infinitemercy would destroy children for laughing at a bald-261headed prophet; or curse children and childrenschildren with leprosy for a father's fault; or that hemade iron float in water; or that when one corpsetouched another it came to life; or that the sun wentbackward in heaven so that the shadow on a sun-dial went back ten degrees, as a sign that a miserablebarbarian king would get well?Is it scientific to say that the earth not onlystopped in its rotary motion, but absolutely turnedthe other way,—that its motion was reversed simplyas a sign to a petty king?Is it scientific to say that Solomon made gold andsilver at Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when weknow that there were kings in his day who couldhave thrown away the value of the whole of Palestinewithout missing the amount?Is it scientific to say that Solomon exceeded allthe kings of the earth in glory, when his countrywas barren, without roads, when his people werefew, without commerce, without the arts, without thesciences, without education, without luxuries?According to the Bible, as long as Jehovah attendedto the affairs of the Jews, they had nothing but war,pestilence and famine; after Jehovah abandoned them,and the Christians ceased, in a measure, to persecute262them, the Jews became the most prosperous of people.Since Jehovah in his anger cast them away, they haveproduced painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen,composers, soldiers and philosophers.It is not scientific to believe that God ever pre-vented rain, that he ever caused famine, that he eversent locusts to devour the wheat and corn, that heever relied on pestilence for the government of man-kind; or that he ever killed children to get even withtheir parents.It is not scientific to believe that the king of Egyptinvaded Palestine with seventy thousand horsemenand twelve hundred chariots of war. There was not,at that time, a road in Palestine over which a chariotcould be driven.It is not scientific to believe that in a battle betweenJeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah slew inone day five hundred thousand chosen men.It is not scientific to believe that Zerah, the Ethio-pian, invaded Palestine with a million of men whowere overthrown and destroyed; or that Jehoshaphathad a standing army of nine hundred and sixtythousand men.It is unscientific to believe that Jehovah advertisedfor a liar, as is related in Second Chronicles.263It is not scientific to believe that fire refused toburn, or that water refused to wet.It is not scientific to believe in dreams, in visions,and in miracles.It is not scientific to believe that children havebeen born without fathers, that the dead have everbeen raised to life, or that people have bodily as-cended to heaven taking their clothes with them.It is not scientific to believe in the supernatural.Science dwells in the realm of fact, in the realm ofdemonstration. Science depends upon human ex-perience, upon observation, upon reason.It is unscientific to say that an innocent man canbe punished in place of a criminal, and for a criminal,and that the criminal, on account of such punishment,can be justified.It is unscientific to say that a finite sin deservesinfinite punishment.It is unscientific to believe that devils can inhabithuman beings, or that they can take possession ofswine, or that the devil could bodily take a man, orthe Son of God, and carry him to the pinnacle of atemple.In short, the foolish, the unreasonable, the false,the miraculous and the supernatural are unscientific.264Question. Mr. Talmage gives his reason foraccepting the New Testament, and says: "You"can trace it right out. Jerome and Eusebius in the"first century, and Origen in the second century,"gave lists of the writers of the New Testament."These lists correspond with our list of the writers"of the New Testament, showing that precisely as"we have it, they had it in the third and fourth cen-"turies. Where did they get it? From Irenæus."Where did he get it? From Polycarp. Where did"Polycarp get it? From Saint John, who was a per-"sonal associate of Jesus. The line is just as clear"as anything ever was clear." How do you under-stand this matter, and has Mr. Talmage stated thefacts?Answer. Let us examine first the witnesses pro-duced by Mr. Talmage. We will also call attentionto the great principle laid down by Mr. Talmage forthe examination of evidence,—that where a witnessis found false in one particular, his entire testimonymust be thrown away.Eusebius was born somewhere about two hundredand seventy years after Christ. After many vicissi-tudes he became, it is said, the friend of Constantine.He made an oration in which he extolled the virtues265of this murderer, and had the honor of sitting at theright hand of the man who had shed the blood of hiswife and son. In the great controversy with regardto the position that Christ should occupy in the Trinity,he sided with Arius, "and lent himself to the perse-"cution of the orthodox with Athanasius." He in-sisted that Jesus Christ was not the same as God,and that he was not of equal power and glory. WillMr. Talmage admit that his witness told the truth inthis? "He would not even call the Son co-eternal"with God."Eusebius must have been an exceedingly truthfulman. He declared that the tracks of Pharaoh's chariotswere in his day visible upon the shores of the RedSea; that these tracks had been through all the yearsmiraculously preserved from the action of wind andwave, as a supernatural testimony to the fact thatGod miraculously overwhelmed Pharaoh and hishosts.Eusebius also relates that when Joseph and Maryarrived in Eygpt they took up their abode in Hermopolis,a city of Thebæus, in which was the superbtemple of Serapis. When Joseph and Mary enteredthe temple, not only the great idol, but all the lesseridols fell down before him.266"It is believed by the learned Dr. Lardner, that"Eusebius was the one guilty of the forgery in the"passage found in Josephus concerning Christ. Un-"blushing falsehoods and literary forgeries of the"vilest character darkened the pages of his historical"writings." (Waites History.)From the same authority I learn that Eusebiusinvented an eclipse, and some earthquakes, to agreewith the account of the crucifixion. It is also be-lieved that Eusebius quoted from works that neverexisted, and that he pretended a work had beenwritten by Porphyry, entitled: "The Philosophy of"Oracles," and then quoted from it for the purposeof proving the truth of the Christian religion.The fact is, Eusebius was utterly destitute of truth.He believed, as many still believe, that he couldplease God by the fabrication of lies.Irenæus lived somewhere about the end of thesecond century. "Very little is known of his early"history, and the accounts given in various biogra-"phies are for the most part conjectural." Thewritings of Irenæus are known to us principallythrough Eusebius, and we know the value of histestimony.Now, if we are to take the testimony of Irenæus,267why not take it? He says that the ministry of Christlasted for twenty years, and that Christ was fifty yearsold at the time of his crucifixion. He also insistedthat the "Gospel of Paul" was written by Luke, "a"statement made to give sanction to the gospel of"Luke."Irenæus insisted that there were four gospels, thatthere must be, and "he speaks frequently of these"gospels, and argues that they should be four in"number, neither more nor less, because there are"four universal winds, and four quarters of the"world;" and he might have added: becausedonkeys have four legs.These facts can be found in "The History of the"Christian Religion to A. D. 200," by Charles B.Waite,—a book that Mr. Talmage ought to read.According to Mr. Waite, Irenæus, in the thirty-third chapter of his fifth book,Adversus Hæreses,cites from Papias the following sayings of Christ:"The days will come in which vines shall grow"which shall have ten thousand branches, and on"each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig"ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot ten thousand"clusters, and in every one of the clusters ten"thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed268"will give five and twenty metrets of wine." Alsothat "one thousand million pounds of clear, pure, fine"flour will be produced from one grain of wheat."Irenæus adds that "these things were borne witness"to by Papias the hearer of John and the companion"of Polycarp."Is it possible that the eternal welfare of a humanbeing depends upon believing the testimony of Poly-carp and Irenæus? Are people to be saved or loston the reputation of Eusebius? Suppose a man isfirmly convinced that Polycarp knew nothing aboutSaint John, and that Saint John knew nothing aboutChrist,—what then? Suppose he is convinced thatEusebius is utterly unworthy of credit,—what then?Must a man believe statements that he has everyreason to think are false?The question arises as to the witnesses named byMr. Talmage, whether they were competent to decideas to the truth or falsehood of the gospels. We havethe right to inquire into their mental traits for thepurpose of giving only due weight to what they havesaid.Mr. Bronson C. Keeler is the author of a bookcalled: "A Short History of the Bible." I availmyself of a few of the facts he has there collected. I269find in this book, that Irenæus, Clement and Origenbelieved in the fable of the Phoenix, and insisted thatGod produced the bird on purpose to prove theprobability of the resurrection of the body. Someof the early fathers believed that the hyena changedits sex every year. Others of them gave as a reasonwhy good people should eat only animals with acloven foot, the fact that righteous people lived notonly in this world, but had expectations in the next.They also believed that insane people were pos-sessed by devils; that angels ate manna; that someangels loved the daughters of men and fell; that thepains of women in childbirth, and the fact that ser-pents crawl on their bellies, were proofs that theaccount of the fall, as given in Genesis, is true; thatthe stag renewed its youth by eating poisonoussnakes; that eclipses and comets were signs of God'sanger; that volcanoes were openings into hell; thatdemons blighted apples; that a corpse in a cemeterymoved to make room for another corpse to be placedbeside it. Clement of Alexandria believed that hailstorms, tempests and plagues were caused by demons.He also believed, with Mr. Talmage, that the eventsin the life of Abraham were typical and propheticalof arithmetic and astronomy.270Origen, another of the witnesses of Mr. Talmage,said that the sun, moon and stars were living crea-tures, endowed with reason and free will, and occa-sionally inclined to sin. That they had free will, heproved by quoting from Job; that they were rationalcreatures, he inferred from the fact that they moved.The sun, moon and stars, according to him, were"subject to vanity," and he believed that they prayedto God through his only begotten son.These intelligent witnesses believed that the blight-ing of vines and fruit trees, and the disease and de-struction that came upon animals and men, were allthe work of demons; but that when they had enteredinto men, the sign of the cross would drive them out.They derided the idea that the earth is round, andone of them said: "About the antipodes also, one"can neither hear nor speak without laughter. It is"asserted as something serious that we should be-"lieve that there are men who have their feet oppo-"site to ours. The ravings of Anaxagoras are more"tolerable, who said that snow was black."Concerning these early fathers, Professor Davidson,as quoted by Mr. Keeler, uses the following lan-guage: "Of the three fathers who contributed"most to the growth of the canon, Irenæus was271"credulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate"and one-sided; and Clement of Alexandria, im-"bued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was"mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics. Their"assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration."These early fathers relied upon by Mr. Talmage,quoted from books now regarded as apocryphal—books that have been thrown away by the churchand are no longer considered as of the slightestauthority. Upon this subject I again quote Mr.Keeler: "Clement quoted the 'Gospel according to"'the Hebrews,' which is now thrown away by the"church; he also quoted from the Sibylline books"and the Pentateuch in the same sentence. Origen"frequently cited the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome"did the same, and Clement believed in the 'Gospel"'according to the Egyptians.' The Shepherd of"Hermas, a book in high repute in the early church,"and one which distinctly claims to have been"inspired, was quoted by Irenæus as Scripture."Clement of Alexandria said it was a divine revela-"tion. Origen said it was divinely inspired, and"quoted it as Holy Scripture at the same time that"he cited the Psalms and Epistles of Paul. Jerome"quoted the 'Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,'272"as divine Scripture. Origen quotes the 'Wisdom"of Solomon' as the 'Word of God' and 'the"'words of Christ himself.' Eusebius of Cæsarea"cites it as a * Divine Oracle,' and St. Chrysostom"used it as Scripture. So Eusebius quotes the"thirteenth chapter of Daniel as Scripture, but as a"matter of fact, Daniel has not a thirteenth chapter,—"the church has taken it away. Clement spoke of"the writer of the fourth book of Esdras as a prophet;"he thought Baruch as much the word of God as"any other book, and he quotes it as divine Scripture."Clement cites Barnabas as an apostle. Origen"quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas, calls it 'Holy" 'Scripture,' and places it on a level with the Psalms"and the Epistles of Paul; and Clement of Alexan-"dria believed in the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and the"'Revelation, of Peter,' and wrote comments upon"these holy books."Nothing can exceed the credulity of the earlyfathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They be-lieved everything that was miraculous. They believedeverything except the truth. Anything that reallyhappened was considered of no importance by them.They looked for wonders, miracles, and monstrousthings, and—generally found them. They revelled273in the misshapen and the repulsive. They did notthink it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause.They interpolated, forged, and changed the records tosuit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quotedfrom persons who never wrote. They misrepresentedthose who had written, and their evidence is abso-lutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous,mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted,hypocritical, and for the most part, insane. Read thebook of Revelation, and you will agree with me thatnothing that ever emanated from a madhouse canmore than equal it for incoherence. Most of thewritings of the early fathers are of the same kind.As to Saint John, the real truth is, that we knownothing certainly of him. We do not know that heever lived.We know nothing certainly of Jesus Christ. Weknow nothing of his infancy, nothing of his youth,and we are not sure that such a person ever existed.We know nothing of Polycarp. We do not knowwhere he was born, or where, or how he died. Weknow nothing for certain about Irenæus. All thenames quoted by Mr. Talmage as his witnessesare surrounded by clouds and doubts, by mist anddarkness. We only know that many of their274statements are false, and do not know that any ofthem are true.Question. What do you think of the following state-ment by Mr. Talmage: "Oh, I have to tell you that no"man ever died for a lie cheerfully and triumphantly"?Answer. There was a time when men "cheerfully"and triumphantly died" in defence of the doctrineof the "real presence" of God in the wafer and wine.Does Mr. Talmage believe in the doctrine of "tran-"substantiation"? Yet hundreds have died "cheer-"fully and triumphantly" for it. Men have died forthe idea that baptism by immersion is the onlyscriptural baptism. Did they die for a lie? If not,is Mr. Talmage a Baptist?Giordano Bruno was an atheist, yet he perished atthe stake rather than retract his opinions. He didnot expect to be welcomed by angels and by God.He did not look for a crown of glory. He expectedsimply death and eternal extinction. Does the factthat he died for that belief prove its truth?Thousands upon thousands have died in defence ofthe religion of Mohammed. Was Mohammed an im-postor? Thousands have welcomed death in defenceof the doctrines of Buddha. Is Buddhism true?275So I might make a tour of the world, and of allages of human history, and find that millions andmillions have died "cheerfully and triumphantly" indefence of their opinions. There is not the slightesttruth in Mr. Talmage's statement.A little while ago, a man shot at the Czar of Russia.On the day of his execution he was asked if hewished religious consolation. He replied that hebelieved in no religion. What did that prove? Itproved only the man's honesty of opinion. All themartyrs in the world cannot change, never didchange, a falsehood into a truth, nor a truth intoa falsehood. Martyrdom proves nothing but thesincerity of the martyr and the cruelty and mean-ness of his murderers. Thousands and thousands ofpeople have imagined that they knew things, thatthey were certain, and have died rather than retracttheir honest beliefs.Mr. Talmage now says that he knows all about theOld Testament, that the prophecies were fulfilled,and yet he does not know when the prophecies weremade—whether they were made before or after thefact. He does not know whether the destruction ofBabylon was told before it happened, or after. Heknows nothing upon the subject. He does not know276who made the pretended prophecies. He does notknow that Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Habakkuk, orHosea ever lived in this world. He does not knowwho wrote a single book of the Old Testament. Heknows nothing on the subject. He believes in theinspiration of the Old Testament because ancientcities finally fell into decay—were overrun and de-stroyed by enemies, and he accounts for the fact thatthe Jew does not lose his nationality by saying thatthe Old Testament is true.The Jews have been persecuted by the Christians,and they are still persecuted by them; and Mr. Tal-mage seems to think that this persecution was a partof Gods plan, that the Jews might, by persecution,be prevented from mingling with other nationalities,and so might stand, through the instrumentality ofperpetual hate and cruelty, the suffering witnesses ofthe divine truth of the Bible.The Jews do not testify to the truth of the Bible,but to the barbarism and inhumanity of Christians—to the meanness and hatred of what we are pleasedto call the "civilized world." They testify to the factthat nothing so hardens the human heart as religion.There is no prophecy in the Old Testament fore-telling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one277word in the Old Testament referring to him in anyway—not one word. The only way to prove thisis to take your Bible, and wherever you find thesewords: "That it might be fulfilled," and "which"was spoken," turn to the Old Testament andfind what was written, and you will see that it hadnot the slightest possible reference to the thing re-counted in the New Testament—not the slightest.Let us take some of the prophecies of the Bible,and see how plain they are, and how beautiful theyare. Let us see whether any human being can tellwhether they have ever been fulfilled or not.Here is a vision of Ezekiel: "I looked, and be-"hold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great"cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness"was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the"color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also"out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four"living creatures. And this was their appearance;"they had the likeness of a man. And every one"had four faces, and every one had four wings."And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of"their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they"sparkled like the color of burnished brass. And"they had the hands of a man under their wings on278"their four sides; and they four had their faces and"their wings. Their wings were joined one to"another; they turned not when-they went; they"went every one straight forward. As for the like-"ness of their faces, they four had the face of a man,"and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they"four had the face of an ox on the left side; they"four also had the face of an eagle."Thus were their faces: and their wings were"stretched upward; two wings of every one were"joined one to another, and two covered their bodies."And they went every one straight forward: whither"the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not"when they went."As for the likeness of the living creatures, their"appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like"the appearance of lamps: it went up and down"among the living creatures; and the fire was bright,"and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the"living creatures ran and returned as the appearance"of a flash of lightning."Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one"wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with"his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and"their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and279"they four had one likeness: and their appearance"and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle"of a wheel. When they went, they went upon"their four sides: and they turned not when they"went. As for their rings, they were so high that"they were dreadful; and their rings were full of"eyes round about them four. And when the living"creatures went, the wheels went by them: and"when the living creatures were lifted up from the"earth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever"the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their"spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over"against them: for the spirit of the living creature"was in the wheels. When those went, these went;"and when those stood, these stood; and when those"were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were"lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the"living creature was in the wheels. And the like-"ness of the firmament upon the heads of the living"creature was as the color of the terrible crystal,"stretched forth over their heads above. And under"the firmament were their wings straight, the one"toward the other; every one had two, which"covered on this side, and every one had two,"which covered on that side, their bodies."280Is such a vision a prophecy? Is it calculatedto convey the slightest information? If so, what?So, the following vision of the prophet Daniel isexceedingly important and instructive:"Daniel spake and said: I saw in my vision by"night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven"strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts"came up from the sea, diverse one from another."The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings:"I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it"was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon"the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to"it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a"bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had"three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of"it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much"flesh."After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard,"which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl;"the beast had also four heads, and dominion was"given to it."After this I saw in the night visions, and behold"a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong ex-"ceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured"and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with281"the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts"that were before it, and it had ten horns. I con-"sidered the horns, and, behold, there came up"among them another little horn, before whom"there were three of the first horns plucked up by"the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like"the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great"things."I have no doubt that this prophecy has been liter-ally fulfilled, but I am not at present in condition togive the time, place, or circumstances.A few moments ago, my attention was called tothe following extract fromThe New York Heraldofthe thirteenth of March, instant:"At the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, Dr. Armi-"tage took as his text, 'A wheel in the middle of a"'wheel'—Ezekiel, i., 16. Here, said the preacher,"are three distinct visions in one—the living crea-"tures, the moving wheels and the fiery throne. We"have time only to stop the wheels of this mystic"chariot of Jehovah, that we may hold holy converse"with Him who rides upon the wings of the wind."In this vision of the prophet we have a minute and"amplified account of these magnificent symbols or"hieroglyphics, this wondrous machinery which de-282"notes immense attributes and agencies and voli-"tions, passing their awful and mysterious course of"power and intelligence in revolution after revolu-"tion of the emblematical mechanism, in steady and"harmonious advancement to the object after which"they are reaching. We are compelled to look"upon the whole as symbolical of that tender and"endearing providence of which Jesus spoke when"He said, 'The very hairs of your head are num-"* bered.'"Certainly, an ordinary person, not having beenilluminated by the spirit of prophecy, would neverhave even dreamed that there was the slightest re-ference in Ezekiel's vision to anything like countinghairs. As a commentator, the Rev. Dr. Armitagehas no equal; and, in my judgment, no rival. Hehas placed himself beyond the reach of ridicule. Itis impossible to say anything about his sermon aslaughable as his sermon.Question. Have you no confidence in any pro-phecies? Do you take the ground that there neverhas been a human being who could predict thefuture?Answer. I admit that a man of average intelli-283gence knows that a certain course, when pursuedlong enough, will bring national disaster, and it isperfectly safe to predict the downfall of any andevery country in the world. In my judgment,nations, like individuals, have an average life.Every nation is mortal. An immortal nation cannotbe constructed of mortal individuals. A nation hasa reason for existing, and that reason sustains thesame relation to the nation that the acorn does tothe oak. The nation will attain its growth—otherthings being equal. It will reach its manhood andits prime, but it will sink into old age, and at lastmust die. Probably, in a few thousand years, menwill be able to calculate the average life of nations,as they now calculate the average life of persons.There has been no period since the morning of his-tory until now, that men did not know of dead anddying nations. There has always been a nationalcemetery. Poland is dead, Turkey is dying. Inevery nation are the seeds of dissolution. Not onlynations die, but races of men. A nation is born,becomes powerful, luxurious, at last grows weak, isovercome, dies, and another takes its place, In thisway civilization and barbarism, like day and night,alternate through all of history's years.284In every nation there are at least two classes ofmen: First, the enthusiastic, the patriotic, who be-lieve that the nation will live forever,—that its flagwill float while the earth has air; Second, the owlsand ravens and croakers, who are always predictingdisaster, defeat, and death. To the last class belongthe Jeremiahs, Ezekiels, and Isaiahs of the Jews.They were always predicting the downfall of Jeru-salem. They revelled in defeat and captivity. Theyloved to paint the horrors of famine and war. Forthe most part, they were envious, hateful, misan-thropic and unjust.There seems to have been a war between churchand state. The prophets were endeavoring to pre-serve the ecclesiastical power. Every king who wouldlisten to them, was chosen of God. He instantlybecame the model of virtue, and the prophets assuredhim that he was in the keeping of Jehovah. But ifthe king had a mind of his own, the prophets im-mediately called down upon him all the curses ofheaven, and predicted the speedy destruction of hiskingdom.If our own country should be divided, if an empireshould rise upon the ruins of the Republic, it wouldbe very easy to find that hundreds and thousands of285people had foretold that very thing. If you will readthe political speeches of the last twenty-two years,you will find prophecies to fit any possible futurestate of affairs in our country. No matter whathappens, you will find that somebody predicted it.If the city of London should lose her trade, if theParliament house should become the abode of molesand bats, if "the New Zealander should sit upon the"ruins of London Bridge," all these things would besimply the fulfillment of prophecy. The fall of everynation under the sun has been predicted by hundredsand thousands of people.The prophecies of the Old Testament can be madeto fit anything that may happen, or that may nothappen. They will apply to the death of a king, orto the destruction of a people,—to the loss of com-merce, or the discovery of a continent. Each pro-phecy is a jugglery of words, of figures, of symbols,so put together, so used, so interpreted, that theycan mean anything, everything, or nothing.Question. Do you see anything "prophetic" inthe fate of the Jewish people themselves? Do youthink that God made the Jewish people wanderers, sothat they might be perpetual witnesses to the truthof the Scriptures?286Answer. I cannot believe that an infinitely goodGod would make anybody a wanderer. Neither canI believe that he would keep millions of people with-out country and without home, and allow them to bepersecuted for thousands of years, simply that theymight be used as witnesses. Nothing could be moreabsurdly cruel than this.The Christians justify their treatment of the Jewson the ground that they are simply fulfilling prophecy.The Jews have suffered because of the horrid storythat their ancestors crucified the Son of God. Chris-tianity, coming into power, looked with horror uponthe Jews, who denied the truth of the gospel. EachJew was regarded as a dangerous witness againstChristianity. The early Christians saw how neces-sary it was that the people who lived in Jerusalemat the time of Christ should be convinced thathe was God, and should testify to the miracles hewrought. Whenever a Jew denied it, the Christianwas filled with malignity and hatred, and immediatelyexcited the prejudice of other Christians against theman simply because he was a Jew. They forgot, intheir general hatred, that Mary, the mother of Christ,was a Jewess; that Christ himself was of Jewishblood; and with an inconsistency of which, of all287religions, Christianity alone could have been guilty,the Jew became an object of especial hatred andaversion.When we remember that Christianity pretends tobe a religion of love and kindness, of charity and for-giveness, must not every intelligent man be shockedby the persecution of the Jews? Even now, in learnedand cultivated Germany, the Jew is treated as thoughhe were a wild beast. The reputation of this greatpeople has been stained by a persecution spring-ing only from ignorance and barbarian prejudice.So in Russia, the Christians are anxious to shedevery drop of Jewish blood, and thousands are to-dayfleeing from their homes to seek a refuge from Chris-tian hate. And Mr. Talmage believes that all thesepersecutions are kept up by the perpetual interventionof God, in order that the homeless wanderers of theseed of Abraham may testify to the truth of the Oldand New Testaments. He thinks that every burningJewish home sheds light upon the gospel,—thatevery gash in Jewish flesh cries out in favor of theBible,—that every violated Jewish maiden shows theinterest that God still takes in the preservation ofhis Holy Word.I am endeavoring to do away with religious288prejudice. I wish to substitute humanity for super-stition, the love of our fellow-men, for the fear ofGod. In the place of ignorant worship, let us putgood deeds. We should be great enough and grandenough to know that the rights of the Jew are pre-cisely the same as our own. We cannot trampleupon their rights, without endangering our own; andno man who will take liberty from another, is greatenough to enjoy liberty himself.Day by day Christians are laying the foundationof future persecution. In every Sunday school littlechildren are taught that Jews killed the God of thisuniverse. Their little hearts are filled with hatredagainst the Jewish people. They are taught as apart of the creed to despise the descendants of theonly people with whom God is ever said to have hadany conversation whatever.When we take into consideration what the Jewishpeople have suffered, it is amazing that every one ofthem does not hate with all his heart and soul andstrength the entire Christian world. But in spite ofthe persecutions they have endured, they are to-day,where they are permitted to enjoy reasonable liberty,the most prosperous people on the globe. The ideathat their condition shows, or tends to show, that289upon them abides the wrath of Jehovah, cannot besubstantiated by the facts.The Jews to-day control the commerce of theworld. They control the money of the world. It isfor them to say whether nations shall or shall not goto war. They are the people of whom nations borrowmoney. To their offices kings come with their hatsin their hands. Emperors beg them to discount theirnotes. 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-examinedwith 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.Question. Do you really believe that the infiniteGod killed some animals, took their skins from them,cut out and sewed up clothes for Adam and Eve?Answer. The Bible says so; we know that hehad patterns for clothes, because he showed someto Moses on Mount Sinai.Question. About how long did God continueto pay particular attention to his children in thisworld?Answer. For about fifteen hundred years; andsome of the people lived to be nearly a thousandyears of age.Question. Did this God establish any schools orinstitutions of learning? Did he establish any church?Did he ordain any ministers, or did he have any re-vivals?Answer. No; he allowed the world to go onpretty much in its own way. He did not even keephis own boys at home. They came down and made373love to the daughters of men, and finally the worldgot exceedingly bad.Question. What did God do then?Answer. He made up his mind that he would drownthem. You see they were all totally depraved,—inevery joint and sinew of their bodies, in every dropof their blood, and in every thought of their brains.Question. Did he drown them all?Answer. No, he saved eight, to start with again.Question. Were these eight persons totally de-praved?Answer. Yes.Question. Why did he not kill them, and startover again with a perfect pair? Would it not havebeen better to have had his flood at first, before hemade anybody, and drowned the snake?Answer. "God's way are not our ways;" andbesides, you must remember that "a thousand years"are as one day" with God.Question. How did God destroy the people?Answer. By water; it rained forty days and fortynights, and "the fountains of the great deep were"broken up."Question. How deep was the water?Answer. About five miles.374Question. How much did it rain each day?Answer. About eight hundred feet; though thebetter opinion now is, that it was a local flood. In-fidels have raised objections and pressed them to thatdegree that most orthodox people admit that theflood was rather local.Question. If it was a local flood, why did they putbirds of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds couldhave avoided a local flood?Answer. If you take this away from us, what doyou propose to give us in its place? Some of thebest people of the world have believed this story.Kind husbands, loving mothers, and earnest patriotshave believed it, and that is sufficient.Question. At the time God made these people,did he know that he would have to drown them all?Answer. Of course he did.Question. Did he know when he made them thatthey would all be failures?Answer. Of course.Question. Why, then, did he make them?Answer. He made them for his own glory, andno man should disgrace his parents by denying it.Question. Were the people after the flood just asbad as they were before?375Answer. About the same.Question. Did they try to circumvent God?Answer. They did.Question. How?Answer. They got together for the purpose of build-ing a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,so that they could laugh at any future floods, and goto heaven at any time they desired.Question. Did God hear about this?Answer. He did.Question. What did he say?Answer. He said: "Go to; let us go down," andsee what the people are doing; I am satisfied theywill succeed.Question. How were the people prevented fromsucceeding?Answer. God confounded their language, so thatthe mason on top could not cry "mort'!" to thehod-carrier below; he could not think of the wordto use, to save his life, and the building stopped.Question. If it had not been for the confusion oftongues at Babel, do you really think that all thepeople in the world would have spoken just the samelanguage, and would have pronounced every wordprecisely the same?376Answer. Of course.Question. If it had not been, then, for the con-fusion of languages, spelling books, grammars anddictionaries would have been useless?Answer. I suppose so.Question. Do any two people in the whole worldspeak the same language, now?Answer. Of course they don't, and this is one ofthe great evidences that God introduced confusioninto the languages. Every error in grammar, everymistake in spelling, every blunder in pronunciation,proves the truth of the Babel story.Question. This being so, this miracle is the bestattested of all?Answer. I suppose it is.Question. Do you not think that a confusion oftongues would bring men together instead of separa-ting them? Would not a man unable to conversewith his fellow feel weak instead of strong; andwould not people whose language had been con-founded cling together for mutual support?Answer. According to nature, yes; according totheology, no; and these questions must be answeredaccording to theology. And right here, it may bewell enough to state, that in theology the unnatural377is the probable, and the impossible is what has alwayshappened. If theology were simply natural, anybodycould be a theologian.Question. Did God ever make any other specialefforts to convert the people, or to reform the world?Answer. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodomand Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.Question. Do you suppose it was really brim-stone?Answer. Undoubtedly.Question. Do you think this brimstone came fromthe clouds?Answer. Let me tell you that you have no rightto examine the Bible in the light of what people arepleased to call "science." The natural has nothingto do with the supernatural. Naturally there wouldbe no brimstone in the clouds, but supernaturallythere might be. God could make brimstone out ofhis "omnipotence." We do not know really whatbrimstone is, and nobody knows exactly how brim-stone is made. As a matter of fact, all the brimstonein the world might have fallen at that time.Question. Do you think that Lot's wife waschanged into salt?Answer. Of course she was. A miracle was per-378formed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt madeby changing Lot's wife into that article, was standing.Christian travelers have seen it.Question. Why do you think she was changedinto salt?Answer. For the purpose of keeping the eventfresh in the minds of men.Question. God having failed to keep people in-nocent in a garden; having failed to govern themoutside of a garden; having failed to reform them bywater; having failed to produce any good result by aconfusion of tongues; having failed to reform themwith fire and brimstone, what did he then do?Answer. He concluded that he had no time towaste on them all, but that he would have to selectone tribe, and turn his entire attention to just a fewfolks.Question. Whom did he select?Answer. A man by the name of Abram.Question. What kind of man was Abram?Answer. If you wish to know, read the twelfthchapter of Genesis; and if you still have any doubtsas to his character, read the twentieth chapter of thesame book, and you will see that he was a man whomade merchandise of his wife's body. He had had379such good fortune in Egypt, that he tried the experi-ment again on Abimelech.Question. Did Abraham show any gratitude?Answer. Yes; he offered to sacrifice his son, toshow his confidence in Jehovah.Question. What became of Abraham and hispeople?Answer. God took such care of them, that inabout two hundred and fifteen years they were allslaves in the land of Egypt.Question. How long did they remain in slavery?Answer. Two hundred and fifteen years.Question. Were they the same people that Godhad promised to take care of?Answer. They were.Question. Was God at that time, in favor ofslavery?Answer. Not at that time. He was angry at theEgyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwardsauthorized the Jews to enslave other people.Question. What means did he take to liberatethe Jews?Answer. He sent his agents to Pharaoh, and de-manded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing,he afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with380it, with various plagues,—killed children, and tor-mented and tortured beasts.Question. Was such conduct Godlike?Answer. Certainly. If you have anything againstyour neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture hishorse, or torment his dog. Nothing can be noblerthan this. You see it is much better to injure hisanimals than to injure him. To punish animals forthe sins of their owners must be just, or God wouldnot have done it. Pharaoh insisted on keeping thepeople in slavery, and therefore God covered thebodies of oxen and cows with boils. He also bruisedthem to death with hailstones. From this we infer,that "the loving kindness of God is over all his works."Question. Do you consider such treatment of ani-mals consistent with divine mercy?Answer. Certainly. You know that under theMosaic dispensation, when a man did a wrong, hecould settle with God by killing an ox, or a sheep,or some doves. If the man failed to kill them, ofcourse God would kill them. It was upon this prin-ciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.They had sinned, and he merely took his pay.Question. How was it possible, under the old dis-pensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?381Answer. All you had to do was to take an innocentanimal, bring it to the altar, cut its throat, and sprinklethe altar with its blood. Certain parts of it were to begiven to the butcher as his share, and the rest was tobe burnt on the altar. When God saw an animal thusbutchered, and smelt the warm blood mingled withthe odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and thesmile of forgiveness shed its light upon his face.Of course, infidels laugh at these things; but whatcan you expect of men who have not been "born"again"? "The carnal mind is enmity with God."Question. What else did God do in order to in-duce Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?Answer. He had his agents throw down a canein the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovahchanged this cane into a serpent.Question. Did this convince Pharaoh?Answer. No; he sent for his own magicians.Question. What did they do?Answer. They threw down some canes and theyalso were changed into serpents.Question. Did Jehovah change the canes of theEgyptian magicians into snakes?Answer. I suppose he did, as he is the only onecapable of performing such a miracle.382Question. If the rod of Aaron was changed intoa serpent in order to convince Pharaoh that God hadsent Aaron and Moses, why did God change thesticks of the Egyptian magicians into serpents—whydid he discredit his own agents, and render worth-less their only credentials?Answer. Well, we cannot explain the conduct ofJehovah; we are perfectly satisfied that it was forthe best. Even in this age of the world God allowsinfidels to overwhelm his chosen people with argu-ments; he allows them to discover facts that hisministers can not answer, and yet we are satisfiedthat in the end God will give the victory to us. Allthese things are tests of faith. It is upon this prin-ciple that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis,that he permits astronomy apparently to contradicthis holy word.Question. What did God do with these peopleafter Pharaoh allowed them to go?Answer. Finding that they were not fit to settlea new country, owing to the fact that when hungrythey longed for food, and sometimes when their lipswere cracked with thirst insisted on having water,God in his infinite mercy had them marched roundand round, back and forth, through a barren wilder-383ness, until all, with the exception of two persons,died.Question. Why did he do this?Answer. Because he had promised these peoplethat he would take them "to a land flowing with"milk and honey."Question. Was God always patient and kind andmerciful toward his children while they were in thewilderness?Answer. Yes, he always was merciful and kindand patient. Infidels have taken the ground that hevisited them with plagues and disease and famine;that he had them bitten by serpents, and now andthen allowed the ground to swallow a few thousandsof them, and in other ways saw to it that they werekept as comfortable and happy as was consistent withgood government; but all these things were for theirgood; and the fact is, infidels have no real sense ofjustice.Question. How did God happen to treat the Is-raelites in this way, when he had promised Abrahamthat he would take care of his progeny, and when hehad promised the same to the poor wretches whilethey were slaves in Egypt?Answer. Because God is unchangeable in his na-384ture, and wished to convince them that every beingshould be perfectly faithful to his promise.Question. Was God driven to madness by theconduct of his chosen people?Answer. Almost.Question. Did he know exactly what they woulddo when he chose them?Answer. Exactly.Question. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?Answer. They were. They worshiped other gods—gods made of wood and stone.Question. Is it not wonderful that they were notconvinced of the power of God, by the many mira-cles wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness?Answer. Yes, it is very wonderful; but the Jews,who must have seen bread rained from heaven; whosaw water gush from the rocks and follow them up hilland down; who noticed that their clothes did notwear out, and did not even get shiny at the knees,while the elbows defied the ravages of time, andtheir shoes remained perfect for forty years; it iswonderful that when they saw the ground openand swallow their comrades; when they saw Godtalking face to face with Moses as a man talks withhis friend; after they saw the cloud by day and the385pillar of fire by night,—it is absolutely astonishingthat they had more faith in a golden calf that theymade themselves, than in Jehovah.Question. How is it that the Jews had no confi-dence in these miracles?Answer. Because they were there and saw them.Question. Do you think that it is necessary forus to believe all the miracles of the Old Testamentin order to be saved?Answer. The Old Testament is the foundation ofthe New. If the Old Testament is not inspired, thenthe New is of no value. If the Old Testament isinspired, all the miracles are true, and we cannotbelieve that God would allow any errors, or falsestatements, to creep into an inspired volume, and tobe perpetuated through all these years.Question. Should we believe the miracles, whetherthey are reasonable or not?Answer. Certainly; if they were reasonable, theywould not be miracles. It is their unreasonablenessthat appeals to our credulity and our faith. It is im-possible to have theological faith in anything thatcan be demonstrated. It is the office of faith tobelieve, not only without evidence, but in spite ofevidence. It is impossible for the carnal mind to386believe that Samsons muscle depended upon thelength of his hair. "God has made the wisdom of"this world foolishness." Neither can the uncon-verted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept byravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel wouldin and of itself produce meal, or that an earthen potcould create oil. But to a Christian, in order that awidow might feed a preacher, the truth of thesestories is perfectly apparent.Question. How should we regard the wonderfulstories of the Old Testament?Answer. They should be looked upon as "types"and "symbols." They all have a spiritual signifi-cance. The reason I believe the story of Jonah is,that Jonah is a type of Christ.Question. Do you believe the story of Jonah tobe a true account of a literal fact?Answer. Certainly. You must remember thatJonah was not swallowed by a whale. God "pre-"pared a great fish" for that occasion. Neither is it byany means certain that Jonah was in the belly ofthis whale. "He probably stayed in his mouth."Even if he was in his stomach, it was very easyfor him to defy the ordinary action of gastric juiceby rapidly walking up and down..387Question. Do you think that Jonah was really inthe whale's stomach?Answer. My own opinion is that he stayed in hismouth. The only objection to this theory is, that itis more reasonable than the other and requires lessfaith. Nothing could be easier than for God to makea fish large enough to furnish ample room for onepassenger in his mouth. I throw out this suggestionsimply that you may be able to answer the objectionsof infidels who are always laughing at this story.Question. Do you really believe that Elijah wentto heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses offire?Answer. Of course he did.Question. What was this miracle performed for?Answer. To convince the people of the power ofGod.Question. Who saw the miracle?Answer. Nobody but Elisha.Question. Was he convinced before that time?Answer. Oh yes; he was one of God's prophets.Question. Suppose that in these days two menshould leave a town together, and after a while oneof them should come back having on the clothes ofthe other, and should account for the fact that he had388his friend's clothes by saying that while they weregoing along the road together a chariot of fire camedown from heaven drawn by fiery steeds, and there-upon his friend got into the carriage, threw him hisclothes, and departed,—would you believe it?Answer. Of course things like that don't happenin these days; God does not have to rely on wondersnow.Question. Do you mean that he performs nomiracles at the present day?Answer. We cannot say that he does not performmiracles now, but we are not in position to call atten-tion to any particular one. Of course he supervisesthe affairs of nations and men and does whatever inhis judgment is necessary.Question. Do you think that Samson's strengthdepended on the length of his hair?Answer. The Bible so states, and the Bible is true.A physiologist might say that a man could not usethe muscle in his hair for lifting purposes, but thesesame physiologists could not tell you how you movea finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, actuated bythe pride of intellect, they insist that the length of aman's hair could not determine his strength. Godsays it did; the physiologist says that it did not; we389can not hesitate whom to believe. For the purposeof avoiding eternal agony I am willing to believeanything; I am willing to say that strength dependsupon the length of hair, or faith upon the length ofears. I am perfectly willing to believe that a mancaught three hundred foxes, and put fire brands be-tween their tails; that he slew thousands with a bone,and that he made a bee hive out of a lion. I willbelieve, if necessary, that when this man's hair wasshort he hardly had strength enough to stand, andthat when it was long, he could carry away the gatesof a city, or overthrow a temple filled with people.If the infidel is right, I will lose nothing by believing,but if he is wrong, I shall gain an eternity of joy.If God did not intend that we should believe thesestories, he never would have told them, and whyshould a man put his soul in peril by trying to dis-prove one of the statements of the Lord?Question. Suppose it should turn out that someof these miracles depend upon mistranslations of theoriginal Hebrew, should we still believe them?Answer. The safe side is the best side. It isfar better to err on the side of belief, than on theside of infidelity. God does not threaten anybodywith eternal punishment for believing too much.390Danger lies on the side of investigation, on theside of thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutelysafe. As they diverge from that point,—as they risein the intellectual scale, as the brain develops, as thefaculties enlarge, the danger increases. I know thatsome biblical students now take the ground thatSamson caught no foxes,—that he only took sheavesof wheat that had been already cut and bound, setthem on fire, and threw them into the grain stillstanding. If this is what he did, of course there isnothing miraculous about it, and the value of thestory is lost. So, others contend that Elijah was notfed by the ravens, but by the Arabs. They tell usthat the Hebrew word standing for "Arab" alsostands for "bird," and that the word really means"migratory—going from place to place—homeless."But I prefer the old version. It certainly will do noharm to believe that ravens brought bread and fleshto a prophet of God. Where they got their breadand flesh is none of my business; how they knewwhere the prophet was, and recognized him; or howGod talks to ravens, or how he gave them directions,I have no right to inquire. I leave these questionsto the scientists, the blasphemers, and thinkers.There are many people in the church anxious to391get the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands,I have no doubt, would be greatly gratified to learnthat there is, in fact, nothing miraculous in Scripture;but when you take away the miraculous, you takeaway the supernatural; when you take away thesupernatural, you destroy the ministry; and whenyou take away the ministry, hundreds of thousandsof men will be left without employment.Question. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptianswere not converted by the miracles wrought in theircountry?Answer. Yes, they all would have been, if Godhad not purposely hardened their hearts to preventit. Jehovah always took great delight in furnishingthe evidence, and then hardening the man's heart sothat he would not believe it. After all the miraclesthat had been performed in Egypt,—the most won-derful that were ever done in any country, theEgyptians were as unbelieving as at first; they pur-sued the Israelites, knowing that they were protectedby an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them,came back and worshiped their own false gods just asfirmly as before. All of which shows the unreason-ableness of a Pagan, and the natural depravity ofhuman nature.392Question. How did it happen that the Canaaniteswere never convinced that the Jews were assisted byJehovah?Answer. They must have been an exceedinglybrave people to contend so many years with thechosen people of God. Notwithstanding all theircities were burned time and time again; notwith-standing all the men, women and children were putto the edge of the sword; notwithstanding the takingof all their cattle and sheep, they went right onfighting just as valiantly and desperately as ever.Each one lost his life many times, and was just asready for the next conflict. My own opinion is, thatGod kept them alive by raising them from the deadafter each battle, for the purpose of punishing theJews. God used his enemies as instruments for thecivilization of the Jewish people. He did not wishto convert them, because they would give him muchmore trouble as Jews than they did as Canaanites.He had all the Jews he could conveniently take careof. He found it much easier to kill a hundredCanaanites than to civilize one Jew.Question. How do you account for the fact thatthe heathen were not surprised at the stopping of thesun and moon?393Answer. They were so ignorant that they hadnot the slightest conception of the real cause ofthe phenomenon. Had they known the size ofthe earth, and the relation it sustained to the otherheavenly bodies; had they known the magnitude ofthe sun, and the motion of the moon, they would,in all probability, have been as greatly astonished asthe Jews were; but being densely ignorant of as-tronomy, it must have produced upon them not theslightest impression. But we must remember thatthe sun and moon were not stopped for the purposeof converting these people, but to give Joshua moretime to kill them. As soon as we see clearly thepurpose of Jehovah, we instantly perceive how ad-mirable were the means adopted.Question. Do you not consider the treatmentof the Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?Answer. To a totally depraved man, it does lookcruel; to a being without any good in him,—to onewho has inherited the rascality of many generations,the murder of innocent women and little childrendoes seem horrible; to one who is "contaminated in"all his parts," by original sin,—who was "conceived"in sin, and brought forth in iniquity," the assassina-tion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,394do not seem consistent with infinite goodness. Butwhen one has been "born again," when "the love"of God has been shed abroad in his heart," whenhe loves all mankind, when he "overcomes evil with"good," when he "prays for those who despite-"fully use him and persecute him,"—to such a man,the extermination of the Canaanites, the violationof women, the slaughter of babes, and the destruc-tion of countless thousands, is the highest evidenceof the goodness, the mercy, and the long-sufferingof God. When a man has been "born again," allthe passages of the Old Testament that appear sohorrible and so unjust to one in his natural state,become the dearest, the most consoling, and themost beautiful of truths. The real Christian readsthe accounts of these ancient battles with the greatestpossible satisfaction. To one who really loves hisenemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women,and the cries of babes, make music sweeter than thezephyr's breath.Question. In your judgment, why did God destroythe Canaanites?Answer. To prevent their contaminating hischosen people. He knew that if the Jews wereallowed to live with such neighbors, they would395finally become as bad as the Canaanites themselves.He wished to civilize his chosen people, and it wastherefore necessary for him to destroy the heathen.Question. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jewsafter he had "removed" the Canaanites?Answer. Well, not entirely. He had to allow theheathen he had not destroyed to overrun the wholeland and make captives of the Jews. This was donefor the good of his chosen people.Question. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?Answer. Not quite.Question. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizingthem?Answer. Well, we must admit that the experi-ment never was a conspicuous success. The Jewswere chosen by the Almighty 430 years before heappeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was theirdirect Governor. He attended personally to theirreligion and politics, and gave up a great part of hisvaluable time for about two thousand years, to themanagement of their affairs; and yet, such was thecondition of the Jewish people, after they had had allthese advantages, that when there arose among thema perfectly kind, just, generous and honest man, thesepeople, with whom God had been laboring for so396many centuries, deliberately put to death that goodand loving man.Question. Do you think that God really endeav-ored to civilize the Jews?Answer. This is an exceedingly hard question.If he had really tried to do it, of course he couldhave done it. We must not think of limiting thepower of the infinite. But you must remember thatif he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he hadeducated them up to the plane of intellectual liberty,and made them just and kind and merciful, like him-self, they would not have crucified Christ, and youcan see at once the awful condition in which wewould all be to-day. No atonement could havebeen made; and if no atonement had been made,then, according to the Christian system, the wholeworld would have been lost. We must admit thatthere was no time in the history of the Jews fromSinai to Jerusalem, that they would not have put aman like Christ to death.Question. So you think that, after all, it was notGod's intention that the Jews should become civilized?Answer. We do not know. We can only saythat "God's ways are not our ways." It may bethat God took them in his special charge, for the397purpose of keeping them bad enough to make thenecessary sacrifice. That may have been the divineplan. In any event, it is safer to believe the explana-tion that is the most unreasonable.Question. Do you think that Christ knew theJews would crucify him?Answer. Certainly.Question. Do you think that when he choseJudas he knew that he would betray him?Answer. Certainly.Question. Did he know when Judas went to thechief priest and made the bargain for the deliveryof Christ?Answer. Certainly.Question. Why did he allow himself to be be-trayed, if he knew the plot?Answer. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to liveby, but you should read the last words of Paine andVoltaire.Question. If Christ knew that Judas would betrayhim, why did he choose him?Answer. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of theFrench Revolution—when they carried a womanthrough the streets and worshiped her as the goddessof Reason.398Question. Would not the mission of Christ havebeen a failure had no one betrayed him?Answer. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and re-canted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheminginfidel besides.Question. Is it not clear that an atonement wasnecessary; and is it not equally clear that the atone-ment could not have been made unless somebodyhad betrayed Christ; and unless the Jews had beenwicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?Answer. Of course the atonement had to bemade. It was a part of the "divine plan" that Christshould be betrayed, and that the Jews should bewicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the worldwould have been lost.Question. Suppose Judas had understood thedivine plan, what ought he to have done? Shouldhe have betrayed Christ, or let somebody else do it;or should he have allowed the world to perish, in-cluding his own soul?Answer. If you take the Bible away from theworld, "how would it be possible to have witnesses"sworn in courts;" how would it be possible to ad-minister justice?Question. If Christ had not been betrayed and399crucified, is it true that his own mother would be inperdition to-day?Answer. Most assuredly. There was but oneway by which she could be saved, and that was bythe death of her son—through the blood of theatonement. She was totally depraved through thesin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even herlove for the infant Christ was, in the sight of God,—that is to say, of her babe,—wickedness. It can notbe repeated too often that there is only one way tobe saved, and that is, to believe in the Lord JesusChrist.Question. Could Christ have prevented the Jewsfrom crucifying him?Answer. He could.Question. If he could have saved his life and didnot, was he not guilty of suicide?Answer. No one can understand these questionswho has not read the prophecies of Daniel, and hasnot a clear conception of what is meant by "the full-"ness of time."Question. What became of all the Canaanites, theEgyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans andChinese? What became of the billions who diedbefore the promise was made to Abraham; of the400billions and billions who never heard of the Bible,who never heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ—never knew of "the scheme of salvation"? Whatbecame of the millions and billions who lived in thishemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himselfseemed perfectly ignorant?Answer. They were undoubtedly lost. Godhaving made them, had a right to do with them ashe pleased. They are probably all in hell to-day, andthe fact that they are damned, only adds to the joyof the redeemed. It is by contrast that we are ableto perceive the infinite kindness with which God hastreated us.Question. Is it not possible that something canbe done for a human soul in another world as well asin this?Answer. No; this is the only world in whichGod even attempts to reform anybody. In theother world, nothing is done for the purpose ofmaking anybody better. Here in this world, whereman lives but a few days, is the only opportunityfor moral improvement. A minister can do a thou-sand times more for a soul than its creator; and thiscountry is much better adapted to moral growth thanheaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a401few years, and died without having been converted,has no hope in another world. The moment he arrivesat the judgment seat, nothing remains but to damnhim. Neither God, nor the Holy Ghost, nor JesusChrist, can have the least possible influence withhim there.Question. When God created each human being,did he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?Answer. Most assuredly he did.Question. Did he know that hundreds and millionsand billions would suffer eternal pain?Answer. Certainly. But he gave them freedomof choice between good and evil.Question. Did he know exactly how they woulduse that freedom?Answer. Yes.Question. Did he know that billions would useit wrong?Answer. Yes.Question. Was it optional with him whether heshould make such people or not?Answer. Certainly.Question. Had these people any option as towhether they would be made or not?Answer, No.402Question. Would it not have been far better toleave them unconscious dust?Answer. These questions show how foolish it isto judge God according to a human standard. Whatto us seems just and merciful, God may regard in anexactly opposite light; and we may hereafter bedeveloped to such a degree that we will regard theagonies of the damned as the highest possible evi-dence of the goodness and mercy of God.Question. How do you account for the fact thatGod did not make himself known except to Abra-ham and his descendants? Why did he fail toreveal himself to the other nations—nations that,compared with the Jews, were learned, cultivatedand powerful? Would you regard a revelation nowmade to the Esquimaux as intended for us; andwould it be a revelation of which we would beobliged to take notice?Answer. Of course, God could have revealed him-self, not only to all the great nations, but to eachindividual. He could have had the Ten Command-ments engraved on every heart and brain; or hecould have raised up prophets in every land; buthe chose, rather, to allow countless millions of hischildren to wander in the darkness and blackness of403Nature; chose, rather, that they should redden theirhands in each other's blood; chose, rather, that theyshould live without light, and die without hope;chose, rather, that they should suffer, not only in thisworld, but forever in the next. Of course we haveno right to find fault with the choice of God.Question. Now you can tell a sinner to "believe"on the Lord Jesus Christ;" what could a sinner havebeen told in Egypt, three thousand years ago; andin what language would you have addressed a Hinduin the days of Buddha—the "divine scheme" at thattime being a secret in the divine breast?Answer. It is not for us to think upon thesequestions. The moment we examine the Christiansystem, we begin to doubt. In a little while, we shallbe infidels, and shall lose the respect of those whorefuse to think. It is better to go with the majority.These doctrines are too sacred to be touched. Youshould be satisfied with the religion of your fatherand your mother. "You want some book on the"centre-table," in the parlor; it is extremely handyto have a Family Record; and what book, other thanthe Bible, could a mother give a son as he leaves theold homestead?Question. Is it not wonderful that all the writers404of the four gospels do not give an account of theascension of Jesus Christ?Answer. This question has been answered longago, time and time again.Question. Perhaps it has, but would it not bewell enough to answer it once more? Some maynot have seen the answer?Answer. Show me the hospitals that infidelshave built; show me the asylums that infidelshave founded.Question. I know you have given the usual an-swer; but after all, is it not singular that a miracleso wonderful as the bodily ascension of a man, shouldnot have been mentioned by all the writers of thatman's life? Is it not wonderful that some of themsaid that he did ascend, and others that he agreed tostay with his disciples always?Answer. People unacquainted with the Hebrew,can have no conception of these things. A storyin plain English, does not sound as it does in Hebrew.Miracles seem altogether more credible, when told ina dead language.Question. What, in your judgment, became ofthe dead who were raised by Christ? Is it notsingular that they were never mentioned afterward?405Would not a man who had been raised from thedead naturally be an object of considerable interest,especially to his friends and acquaintances? Andis it not also wonderful that Christ, after havingwrought so many miracles, cured so many lame andhalt and blind, fed so many thousands miraculously,and after having entered Jerusalem in triumph as aconqueror and king, had to be pointed out by oneof his own disciples who was bribed for the purpose?Answer. Of course, all these things are exceed-ingly wonderful, and if found in any other book,would be absolutely incredible; but we have noright to apply the same kind of reasoning to theBible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacredbooks of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs ofthis world, God has given us reason; but in theexamination of religious questions, we should de-pend upon credulity and faith.Question. If Christ came to offer himself a sacri-fice, for the purpose of making atonement for thesins of such as might believe on him, why did henot make this fact known to all of his disciples?Answer. He did. This was, and is, the gospel.Question. How is it that Matthew says nothingabout "salvation by faith," but simply says that God406will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgivethe forgiving, and says not one word about thenecessity of believing anything?Answer. But you will remember that Mark says,in the last chapter of his gospel, that "whoso be-"lieveth not shall be damned."Question. Do you admit that Matthew saysnothing on the subject?Answer. Yes, I suppose I must.Question. Is not that passage in Mark generallyadmitted to be an interpolation?Answer. Some biblical scholars say that it is.Question. Is that portion of the last chapter ofMark found in the Syriac version of the Bible?Answer. It is not.Question. If it was necessary to believe on JesusChrist, in order to be saved, how is it that Matthewfailed to say so?Answer. "There are more copies of the Bible"printed to-day, than of any other book in the world,"and it is printed in more languages than any other"book."Question. Do you consider it necessary to be"regenerated"—to be "born again"—in order to besaved?407Answer. Certainly.Question. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-ject of "regeneration"?Answer. No.Question. Did Mark?Answer. No.Question. Did Luke?Answer. No.Question. Is Saint John the only one who speaksof the necessity of being "born again"?Answer. He is.Question. Do you think that Matthew, Mark andLuke knew anything about the necessity of "regen-"eration"?Answer. Of course they did.Question. Why did they fail to speak of it?Answer. There is no civilization without the Bible.The moment you throw away the sacred Scriptures,you are all at sea—you are without an anchor andwithout a compass.Question. You will remember that, according toMark, Christ said to his disciples: "Go ye into all"the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."Did he refer to the gospel set forth by Mark?Answer. Of course he did.408Question. Well, in the gospel set forth by Mark,there is not a word about "regeneration," and noword about the necessity of believing anything—ex-cept in an interpolated passage. Would it not seemfrom this, that "regeneration" and a "belief in the"Lord Jesus Christ," are no part of the gospel?Answer. Nothing can exceed in horror the lastmoments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-rible than the death of the doubter. When theglories of this world fade from the vision; when am-bition becomes an empty name; when wealth turnsto dust in the palsied hand of death, of what use isphilosophy then? Who cares then for the pride ofintellect? In that dread moment, man needs some-thing to rely on, whether it is true or not.Question. Would it not have been more con-vincing if Christ, after his resurrection, had shownhimself to his enemies as well as to his friends?Would it not have greatly strengthened the evidencein the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presentedhimself before Caiaphas, the high priest; if he hadagain entered the temple, and again walked thestreets of Jerusalem?Answer. If the evidence had been complete andoverwhelming, there would have been no praise-409worthiness in belief; even publicans and sinnerswould have believed, if the evidence had been suffi-cient. The amount of evidence required is the testof the true Christian spirit.Question. Would it not also have been betterhad the ascension taken place in the presence ofunbelieving thousands; it seems such a pity to havewasted such a demonstration upon those alreadyconvinced?Answer. These questions are the natural fruit ofthe carnal mind, and can be accounted for only bythe doctrine of total depravity. Nothing has giventhe church more trouble than just such questions.Unholy curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divinemysteries, a desire to know, to investigate, to explain—in short, to understand, are all evidences of a re-probate mind.Question. How can we account for the fact thatMatthew alone speaks of the wise men of the Eastcoming with gifts to the infant Christ; that he alonespeaks of the little babes being killed by Herod? Isit possible that the other writers never heard of thesethings?Answer. Nobody can get any good out of theBible by reading it in a critical spirit. The contra-410dictions and discrepancies are only apparent, and meltaway before the light of faith. That which in otherbooks would be absolute and palpable contradiction,is, in the Bible, when spiritually discerned, a perfectand beautiful harmony. My own opinion is, thatseeming contradictions are in the Bible for the pur-pose of testing and strengthening the faith of Chris-tians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,"that they might believe a lie and be damned."Question. Is it possible that a good God wouldtake pains to deceive his children?Answer. The Bible is filled with instances of thatkind, and all orthodox ministers now know thatfossil animals—that is, representations of animals instone, were placed in the rocks on purpose to mis-lead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley andTyndall. It is also now known that God, for thepurpose of misleading the so-called men of science,had hairy elephants preserved in ice, made stomachsfor them, and allowed twigs of trees to be found inthese stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no suchelephants ever lived or ever died. These men whoare endeavoring to overturn the Scriptures with thelever of science will find that they have been de-ceived. Through all eternity they will regret their411philosophy. They will wish, in the next world, thatthey had thrown away geology and physiology andall other "ologies" except theology. The time iscoming when Jehovah will "mock at their fears and"laugh at their calamity."Question. If Joseph was not the father of Christ,why was his genealogy given to show that Christwas of the blood of David; why would not thegenealogy of any other Jew have done as well?Answer. That objection was raised and answeredhundreds of years ago.Question. If they wanted to show that Christ was ofthe blood of David, why did they not give the gene-alogy of his mother if Joseph was not his father?Answer. That objection was answered hundredsof years ago.Question. How was it answered?Answer. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for apriest.Question. How does it happen that the two gene-alogies given do not agree?Answer. Perhaps they were written by differentpersons.Question. Were both these persons inspired bythe same God?412Answer. Of course.Question. Why were the miracles recorded in theNew Testament performed?Answer. The miracles were the evidence reliedon to prove the supernatural origin and the divinemission of Jesus Christ.Question. Aside from the miracles, is there anyevidence to show the supernatural origin or characterof Jesus Christ?Answer. Some have considered that his moralprecepts are sufficient, of themselves, to show thathe was divine.Question. Had all of his moral precepts beentaught before he lived?Answer. The same things had been said, but theydid not have the same meaning.Question. Does the fact that Buddha taught thesame tend to show that he was of divine origin?Answer. Certainly not. The rules of evidenceapplicable to the Bible are not applicable to otherbooks. We examine other books in the light ofreason; the Bible is the only exception. So, weshould not judge of Christ as we do of any otherman.Question. Do you think that Christ wrought413many of his miracles because he was good, charitable,and filled with pity?Answer. CertainlyQuestion. Has he as much power now as he hadwhen on earth?Answer. Most assuredly.Question. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, ashe was then?Answer. Yes.Question. Why does he not now cure the lameand the halt and the blind?Answer. It is well known that, when Julian theApostate was dying, catching some of his own bloodin his hand and throwing it into the air he exclaimed:"Galileean, thou hast conquered!"Question. Do you consider it our duty to love ourneighbor?Answer. Certainly.Question. Is virtue the same in all worlds?Answer. Most assuredly.Question. Are we under obligation to render goodfor evil, and to "pray for those who despitefully use us"?Answer. Yes.Question. Will Christians in heaven love theirneighbors?414Answer. Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.Question. Do good Christians pity sinners in thisworld?Answer. Yes.Question. Why?Answer. Because they regard them as being ingreat danger of the eternal wrath of God.Question. After these sinners have died, andbeen sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven thenpity them?Answer. No. Angels have no pity.Question. If we are under obligation to love ourenemies, is not God under obligation to love his?If we forgive our enemies, ought not God to forgivehis? If we forgive those who injure us, ought notGod to forgive those who have not injured him?Answer. God made us, and he has therefore theright to do with us as he pleases. Justice demandsthat he should damn all of us, and the few that hewill save will be saved through mercy and withoutthe slightest respect to anything they may have donethemselves. Such is the justice of God, that thosein hell will have no right to complain, and those inheaven will have no right to be there. Hell is justice,and salvation is charity.415Question. Do you consider it possible for a law tobe jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocentperson?Answer. Such is the scheme of the atonement.As man is held responsible for the sin of Adam, sohe will be credited with the virtues of Christ; andyou can readily see that one is exactly as reasonableas the other.Question. Suppose a man honestly reads the NewTestament, and honestly concludes that it is not aninspired book; suppose he honestly makes up hismind that the miracles are not true; that the devilnever really carried Christ to the pinnacle of thetemple; that devils were really never cast out of aman and allowed to take refuge in swine;—I say,suppose that he is honestly convinced that thesethings are not true, what ought he to say?Answer. He ought to say nothing.Question. Suppose that the same man should readthe Koran, and come to the conclusion that it is notan inspired book; what ought he to say?Answer. He ought to say that it is not inspired;his fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, andit is his duty to do what he can do to destroy a per-nicious superstition.416Question. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible,having become convinced that it is not inspired—honestly convinced—says nothing—keeps his con-clusion absolutely to himself, and suppose he dies inthat belief, can he be saved?Answer. Certainly not.Question. Has the honesty of his belief anythingto do with his future condition?Answer. Nothing whatever.,Question. Suppose that he tried to believe, thathe hated to disagree with his friends, and with hisparents, but that in spite of himself he was forced tothe conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired wordof God, would he then deserve eternal punishment?Answer. Certainly he would.Question. Can a man control his belief?Answer. He cannot—except as to the Bible.Question. Do you consider it just in God tocreate a man who cannot believe the Bible, and thendamn him because he does not?Answer. Such is my belief.Question. Is it your candid opinion that a manwho does not believe the Bible should keep hisbelief a secret from his fellow-men?Answer. It is.417Question. How do I know that you believe theBible? You have told me that if you did not be-lieve it, you would not tell me?Answer. There is no way for you to ascertain,except by taking my word for it.Question. What will be the fate of a man whodoes not believe it, and yet pretends to believe it?Answer. He will be damned.Question. Then hypocrisy will not save him?Answer. No.Question. And if he does not believe it, and ad-mits that he does not believe it, then his honesty willnot save him?Answer. No. Honesty on the wrong side is nobetter than hypocrisy on the right side.Question. Do we know who wrote the gospels?Answer. Yes; we do.Question. Are we absolutely sure who wrotethem?Answer. Of course; we have the evidence as ithas come to us through the Catholic Church.Question. Can we rely upon the Catholic Churchnow?Answer. No; assuredly no! But we have thetestimony of Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement,418and others of the early fathers, together with that ofthe Christian historian, Eusebius.Question. What do we really know about Polycarp?Answer. We know that he suffered martyrdom un-der Marcus Aurelius, and that for quite a time the firerefused to burn his body, the flames arching over him,leaving him in a kind of fiery tent; and we also knowthat from his body came a fragrance like frankincense,and that the Pagans were so exasperated at seeingthe miracle, that one of them thrust a sword throughthe body of Polycarp; that the blood flowed out andextinguished the flames and that out of the woundflew the soul of the martyr in the form of a dove.Question. Is that all we know about Polycarp?Answer. Yes, with the exception of a few morelike incidents.Question. Do we know that Polycarp ever metSt. John?Answer. Yes; Eusebius says so.Question. Are we absolutely certain that he everlived?Answer. Yes, or Eusebius could not have writtenabout him.Question. Do we know anything of the characterof Eusebius?419Answer. Yes; we know that he was untruthfulonly when he wished to do good. But God can useeven the dishonest. Other books have to be sub-stantiated by truthful men, but such is the power ofGod, that he can establish the inspiration of the Bibleby the most untruthful witnesses. If God's witnesseswere honest, anybody could believe, and what be-comes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?Question. Is the New Testament now the same asit was in the days of the early fathers?Answer. Certainly not. Many books now thrownout, and not esteemed of divine origin, were esteemeddivine by Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement andmany of the early churches. These books are nowcalled "apocryphal."Question. Have you not the same witnesses infavor of their authenticity, that you have in favor ofthe gospels?Answer. Precisely the same. Except that theywere thrown out.Question. Why were they thrown out?Answer. Because the Catholic Church did not es-teem them inspired.Question. Did the Catholics decide for us whichare the true gospels and which are the true epistles?420Answer. Yes. The Catholic Church was then theonly church, and consequently must have been thetrue church.Question. How did the Catholic Church select thetrue books?Answer. Councils were called, and votes weretaken, very much as we now pass resolutions inpolitical meetings.Question. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?Answer. It was then, but it is not now.Question. If the Catholic Church at that timehad thrown out the book of Revelation, would itnow be our duty to believe that book to have beeninspired?Answer. No, I suppose not.Question. Is it not true that some of these bookswere adopted by exceedingly small majorities?Answer. It is.Question. If the Epistle to the Hebrews and tothe Romans, and the book of Revelation had beenthrown out, could a man now be saved who honestlybelieves the rest of the books?Answer. This is doubtful.Question. Were the men who picked out the in-spired books inspired?421Answer. We cannot tell, but the probability isthat they were.Question. Do we know that they picked out theright ones?Answer. Well, not exactly, but we believe thatthey did.Question. Are we certain that some of the booksthat were thrown out were not inspired?Answer. Well, the only way to tell is to readthem carefully.Question. If upon reading these apocryphal booksa man concludes that they are not inspired, will he bedamned for that reason?Answer. No. Certainly not.Question. If he concludes that some of them areinspired, and believes them, will he then be damnedfor that belief?Answer. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned forbelieving too much.Question. Does the fact that the books now com-prising the New Testament were picked out by theCatholic Church prevent their being examined nowby an honest man, as they were examined at the timethey were picked out?422Answer. No; not if the man comes to the con-clusion that they are inspired.Question. Does the fact that the Catholic Churchpicked them out and declared them to be inspired,render it a crime to examine them precisely as youwould examine the books that the Catholic Churchthrew out and declared were not inspired?Answer. I think it does.Question. At the time the council was held in whichit was determined which of the books of the NewTestament are inspired, a respectable minority votedagainst some that were finally decided to be inspired.If they were honest in the vote they gave, and diedwithout changing their opinions, are they now in hell?Answer. Well, they ought to be.Question. If those who voted to leave the bookof Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel ofSaint John out of the canon, believed honestly thatthese were not inspired books, how should they havevoted?Answer. Well, I suppose a man ought to vote ashe honestly believes—except in matters of religion.Question. If the Catholic Church was not infal-lible, is the question still open as to what books are,and what are not, inspired?423Answer. I suppose the question is still open—but it would be dangerous to decide it.Question. If, then, I examine all the books again,and come to the conclusion that some that werethrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-cepted were not inspired, ought I to say so?Answer. Not if it is contrary to the faith of yourfather, or calculated to interfere with your own po-litical prospects.Question. Is it as great a sin to admit into theBible books that are uninspired as to reject thosethat are inspired?Answer. Well, it is a crime to reject an inspiredbook, no matter how unsatisfactory the evidence isfor its inspiration, but it is not a crime to receive anuninspired book. God damns nobody for believingtoo much. An excess of credulity is simply to err inthe direction of salvation.Question. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-tion of the New Testament—believes it to be entirelythe work of uninspired men; and suppose he also be-lieves—but not from any evidence obtained in the NewTestament—that Jesus Christ was the son of God, andthat he made atonement for his soul, can he then besaved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?424Answer. This has not yet been decided byour church, and I do not wish to venture anopinion.Question. Suppose a man denies the inspirationof the Scriptures; suppose that he also denies thedivinity of Jesus Christ; and suppose, further, thathe acts precisely as Christ is said to have acted;suppose he loves his enemies, prays for those whodespitefully use him, and does all the good he pos-sibly can, is it your opinion that such a man will besaved?Answer. No, sir. There is "none other name"given under heaven and among men," whereby asinner can be saved but the name of Christ.Question. Then it is your opinion that Godwould save a murderer who believed in Christ, andwould damn another man, exactly like Christ, whofailed to believe in him?Answer. Yes; because we have the blessedpromise that, out of Christ, "our God is a consuming"fire."Question. Suppose a man read the Bible care-fully and honestly, and was not quite convinced thatit was true, and that while examining the subject, hedied; what then?425Answer. I do not believe that God would allowhim to examine the matter in another world, or tomake up his mind in heaven. Of course, he wouldeternally perish.Question. Could Christ now furnish evidenceenough to convince every human being of the truthof the Bible?Answer. Of course he could, because he is in-finite.Question. Are any miracles performed now?Answer. Oh, no!Question. Have we any testimony, except humantestimony, to substantiate any miracle?Answer. Only human testimony.Question. Do all men give the same force to thesame evidence?Answer. By no means.Question. Have all honest men who have exam-ined the Bible believed it to be inspired?Answer. Of course they have. Infidels are nothonest.Question. Could any additional evidence havebeen furnished?Answer. With perfect ease.Question. Would God allow a soul to suffer426eternal agony rather than furnish evidence of thetruth of his Bible?Answer. God has furnished plenty of evidence,and altogether more than was really necessary. Weshould read the Bible in a believing spirit.Question. Are all parts of the inspired booksequally true?Answer. Necessarily.Question. According to Saint Matthew, Godpromises to forgive all who will forgive others; notone word is said about believing in Christ, or believ-ing in the miracles, or in any Bible; did Matthew tellthe truth?Answer. The Bible must be taken as a whole;and if other conditions are added somewhere else,then you must comply with those other conditions.Matthew may not have stated all the conditions.Question. I find in another part of the NewTestament, that a young man came to Christ andasked him what was necessary for him to do in orderthat he might inherit eternal life. Christ did not tellhim that he must believe the Bible, or that he mustbelieve in him, or that he must keep the Sabbath-day; was Christ honest with that young man?Answer. Well, I suppose he was.427Question. You will also recollect that Zaccheussaid to Christ, that where he had wronged any manhe had made restitution, and further, that half hisgoods he had given to the poor; and you will re-member that Christ said to Zaccheus: "This day"hath salvation come to thy house." Why did notChrist tell Zaccheus that he "must be born again;"that he must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"?Answer. Of course there are mysteries in ourholy religion that only those who have been "born"again" can understand. You must remember that"the carnal mind is enmity with God."Question. Is it not strange that Christ, in his Ser-mon on the Mount, did not speak of "regeneration,"or of the "scheme of salvation"?Answer. Well, it may be.Question. Can a man be saved now by livingexactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?Answer. He can not.Question. Would then a man, by following thecourse of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermonon the Mount, lose his soul?Answer. He most certainly would, because thereis not one word in the Sermon on the Mount aboutbelieving on the Lord Jesus Christ; not one word428about believing in the Bible; not one word about the"atonement;" not one word about "regeneration."So that, if the Presbyterian Church is right, it is abso-lutely certain that a man might follow the teachingsof the Sermon on the Mount, and live in accordancewith its every word, and yet deserve and receive theeternal condemnation of God. But we must remem-ber that the Sermon on the Mount was preached be-fore Christianity existed. Christ was talking to Jews.Question. Did Christ write anything himself, inthe New Testament?Answer. Not a word.Question. Did he tell any of his disciples to writeany of his words?Answer. There is no account of it, if he did.Question. Do we know whether any of the dis-ciples wrote anything?Answer. Of course they did.Question. How do you know?Answer. Because the gospels bear their names.Question. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-lutely God?Answer. Of course he was. We believe thatChrist and God and the Holy Ghost are all the same,that the three form one, and that each one is three.429Question. Was Christ the God of the universe atthe time of his birth?Answer. He certainly was.Question. Was he the infinite God, creatorand controller of the entire universe, before he wasborn?Answer. Of course he was. This is the mysteryof "God manifest in the flesh." The infidels havepretended that he was like any other child, and wasin fact supported by Nature instead of being thesupporter of Nature. They have insisted that likeother children, he had to be cared for by his mother.Of course he appeared to be cared for by his mother.It was a part of the plan that in all respects he shouldappear to be like other children.Question. Did he know just as much before hewas born as after?Answer. If he was God of course he did.Question. How do you account for the fact thatSaint Luke tells us, in the last verse of the secondchapter of his gospel, that "Jesus increased in wis-"dom and stature"?Answer. That I presume is a figure of speech;because, if he was God, he certainly could not haveincreased in wisdom. The physical part of him could430increase in stature, but the intellectual part must havebeen infinite all the time.Question. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?Answer. No; I believe what Luke said. If itappears untrue, or impossible, then I know that it isfigurative or symbolical.Question. Did I understand you to say that Christwas actually God?Answer. Of course he was.Question. Then why did Luke say in the sameverse of the same chapter that "Jesus increased in"favor with God"?Answer. I dare you to go into a room by your-self and read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!Question. Is it necessary to understand the Biblein order to be saved?Answer. Certainly not; it is only necessary thatyou believe it.Question. Is it necessary to believe all themiracles?Answer. It may not be necessary, but as it is im-possible to tell which ones can safely be left out, youhad better believe them all.Question. Then you regard belief as the safeway?431Answer. Of course it is better to be fooled in thisworld than to be damned in the next.Question. Do you think that there are any cruel-ties on God's part recorded in the Bible?Answer. At first flush, many things done by Godhimself, as well as by his prophets, appear to becruel; but if we examine them closely, we will findthem to be exactly the opposite.Question. How do you explain the story of Elishaand the children,—where the two she-bears destroyedforty-two children on account of their impudence?Answer. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-lishes two things: 1. That children should be politeto ministers, and 2. That God is kind to animals—"giving them their meat in due season." Thesebears have been great educators—they are thefoundation of the respect entertained by the youngfor theologians. No child ever sees a minister nowwithout thinking of a bear.Question. What do you think of the story ofDaniel—you no doubt remember it? Some mentold the king that Daniel was praying contrary tolaw, and thereupon Daniel was cast into a den oflions; but the lions could not touch him, theirmouths having been shut by angels. The next432morning, the king, finding that Daniel was stillintact, had him taken out; and then, for the purposeof gratifying Daniels God, the king had all the menwho had made the complaint against Daniel, andtheir wives and their little children, brought and castinto the lions' den. According to the account, thelions were so hungry that they caught these wivesand children as they dropped, and broke all theirbones in pieces before they had even touched theground. Is it not wonderful that God failed to pro-tect these innocent wives and children?Answer. These wives and children were heathen;they were totally depraved. And besides, they wereused as witnesses. The fact that they were devouredwith such quickness shows that the lions werehungry. Had it not been for this, infidels wouldhave accounted for the safety of Daniel by sayingthat the lions had been fed.Question. Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshachand Abednego were cast "into a burning fiery furnace"heated one seven times hotter than it was wont to"be heated," and that they had on "their coats, their"hosen and their hats," and that when they cameout "not a hair of their heads was singed, nor was"the smell of fire upon their garments"?433Answer. The evidence of this miracle is exceed-ingly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion ofNebuchadnezzar.Question. How do you know he was converted?Answer. Because immediately after the miraclethe king issued a decree that "every people, nation"and language that spoke anything amiss against"the God of Shadrach and Company, should be cut"in pieces." This decree shows that he had becomea true disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.Question. If God in those days preserved fromthe fury of the fire men who were true to him andwould not deny his name, why is it that he has failedto protect thousands of martyrs since that time?Answer. This is one of the divine mysteries.God has in many instances allowed his enemies tokill his friends. I suppose this was allowed for thegood of his enemies, that the heroism of the mar-tyrs might convert them.Question. Do you believe all the miracles?Answer. I believe them all, because I believe theBible to be inspired.Question. What makes you think it is inspired?Answer. I have never seen anybody who knewit was not; besides, my father and mother believed it.434Question. Have you any other reasons for be-lieving it to be inspired?Answer. Yes; there are more copies of the Bibleprinted than of any other book; and it is printed inmore languages. And besides, it would be impossibleto get along without it.Question. Why could we not get along without it?Answer. We would have nothing to swear wit-nesses by; no book in which to keep the familyrecord; nothing for the centre-table, and nothing fora mother to give her son. No nation can be civilizedwithout the Bible.Question. Did God always know that a Bible wasnecessary to civilize a country?Answer. Certainly he did.Question. Why did he not give a Bible tothe Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and theRomans?Answer. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-fidels are.Question. Why do you call infidels "fools"?Answer. Because I find in the fifth chapter of thegospel according to Matthew the following: "Who-"soever shall say 'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of"hell fire."435Question. Have I the right to read the Bible?Answer. Yes. You not only have the right, butit is your duty.Question. In reading the Bible the words makecertain impressions on my mind. These impressionsdepend upon my brain,—upon my intelligence. Isnot this true?Answer. Of course, when you read the Bible, im-pressions are made upon your mind.Question. Can I control these impressions?Answer. I do not think you can, as long as youremain in a sinful state.Question. How am I to get out of this sinful state?Answer. You must believe on the Lord JesusChrist, and you must read the Bible in a prayerfulspirit and with a believing heart.Question. Suppose that doubts force themselvesupon my mind?Answer. Then you will know that you are a sin-ner, and that you are depraved.Question. If I have the right to read the Bible,have I the right to try to understand it?Answer. Most assuredly.Question. Do you admit that I have the right toreason about it and to investigate it?436Answer. Yes; I admit that. Of course you can-not help reasoning about what you read.Question. Does the right to read a book includethe right to give your opinion as to the truth of whatthe book contains?Answer. Of course,—if the book is not inspired.Infidels hate the Bible because it is inspired, andChristians know that it is inspired because infidelssay that it is not.Question. Have I the right to decide for myselfwhether or not the book is inspired?Answer. You have no right to deny the truth ofGod's Holy Word.Question. Is God the author of all books?Answer. Certainly not.Question. Have I the right to say that God didnot write the Koran?Answer. Yes.Question. Why?Answer. Because the Koran was written by animpostor.Question. How do you know?Answer. My reason tells me so.Question. Have you the right to be guided byyour reason?437Answer. I must be.Question. Have you the same right to follow yourreason after reading the Bible?Answer. No. The Bible is the standard of reason.The Bible is not to be judged or corrected by yourreason. Your reason is to be weighed and measuredby the Bible. The Bible is different from otherbooks and must not be read in the same critical spirit,nor judged by the same standard.Question. What did God give us reason for?Answer. So that we might investigate otherreligions, and examine other so-called sacred books.Question. If a man honestly thinks that the Bibleis not inspired, what should he say?Answer. He should admit that he is mistaken.Question. When he thinks he is right?Answer. Yes. The Bible is different from otherbooks. It is the master of reason. You read theBible, not to see if that is wrong, but to seewhether your reason is right. It is the only bookabout which a man has no right to reason. He mustbelieve. The Bible is addressed, not to the reason,but to the ears: "He that hath ears to hear, let"him hear."Question. Do you think we have the right to tell438what the Bible means—what ideas God intended toconvey, or has conveyed to us, through the mediumof the Bible?Answer. Well, I suppose you have that right.Yes, that must be your duty. You certainly oughtto tell others what God has said to you.Question. Do all men get the same ideas fromthe Bible?Answer. No.Question. How do you account for that?Answer. Because all men are not alike; theydiffer in intellect, in education, and in experience.Question. Who has the right to decide as to thereal ideas that God intended to convey?Answer. I am a Protestant, and believe in theright of private judgment. Whoever does not is aCatholic. Each man must be his own judge, but Godwill hold him responsible.Question. Does God believe in the right of privatejudgment?Answer. Of course he does.Question. Is he willing that I should exercise myjudgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired ornot?Answer. No. He believes in the exercise of439private judgment only in the examination and rejec-tion of other books than the Bible.Question. Is he a Catholic?Answer. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let metell you that God will "laugh at your calamity, and"will mock when your fear cometh." You will beaccursed.Question. Why do you curse infidels?Answer. Because I am a Christian.Question. Did not Christ say that we ought to"bless those who curse us," and that we should"love our enemies"?Answer. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees andcalled them "hypocrites" and "vipers."Question. How do you account for that?Answer. It simply shows the difference betweentheory and practice.Question. What do you consider the best way toanswer infidels.Answer. The old way is the best. You shouldsay that their arguments are ancient, and have beenanswered over and over again. If this does notsatisfy your hearers, then you should attack thecharacter of the infidel—then that of his parents—then that of his children.440Question. Suppose that the infidel is a good man,how will you answer him then?Answer. But an infidel cannot be a good man.Even if he is, it is better that he should lose hisreputation, than that thousands should lose theirsouls. We know that all infidels are vile and infa-mous. We may not have the evidence, but we knowthat it exists.Question. How should infidels be treated? ShouldChristians try to convert them?Answer. Christians should have nothing to dowith infidels. It is not safe even to converse withthem. They are always talking about reason, andfacts, and experience. They are filled with sophistryand should be avoided.Question. Should Christians pray for the con-version of infidels?Answer. Yes; but such prayers should be madein public and the name of the infidel should be givenand his vile and hideous heart portrayed so that theyoung may be warned.Question. Whom do you regard as infidels?Answer. The scientists—the geologists, the as-tronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No onecan overestimate the evil that has been wrought441by Laplace, Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel,Renan, Emerson, Strauss, Bikhner, Tyndall, andtheir wretched followers. These men pretended toknow more than Moses and the prophets. Theywere "dogs baying at the moon." They were"wolves" and "fools." They tried to "assassinate"God," and worse than all, they actually laughedat the clergy,Question. Do you think they did, and are doinggreat harm?Answer. Certainly. Of what use are all thesciences, if you lose your own soul? People in hellwill care nothing about education. The rich mansaid nothing about science, he wanted water.Neither will they care about books and theoriesin heaven. If a man is perfectly happy, it makesno difference how ignorant he is.Question. But how can he answer these scientists?Answer. Well, my advice is to let their argu-ments alone. Of course, you will deny all theirfacts; but the most effective way is to attack theircharacter.Question. But suppose they are good men,—what then?Answer. The better they are, the worse they are.442We cannot admit that the infidel is really good. Hemay appear to be good, and it is our duty to stripthe mask of appearance from the face of unbelief. Ifa man is not a Christian, he is totally depraved, andwhy should we hesitate to make a misstatementabout a man whom God is going to make miserableforever?Question. Are we not commanded to love ourenemies?Answer. Yes, but not the enemies of God.Question. Do you fear the final triumph of infi-delity?Answer. No. We have no fear. We believethat the Bible can be revised often enough to agreewith anything that may really be necessary to thepreservation of the church. We can always relyupon revision. Let me tell you that the Bible is themost peculiar of books. At the time God inspired hisholy prophets to write it, he knew exactly what thediscoveries and demonstrations of the future wouldbe, and he wrote his Bible in such a way that thewords could always be interpreted in accordance withthe intelligence of each age, and so that the wordsused are capable of several meanings, so that, nomatter what may hereafter be discovered, the Bible443will be found to agree with it,—for the reason thatthe knowledge of Hebrew will grow in the exactproportion that discoveries are made in other depart-ments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that allefforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simplyresult in giving a better translation.Question. What do you consider is the strongestargument in favor of the inspiration of the Scrip-tures?Answer. The dying words of Christians.Question. What do you consider the strongestargument against the truth of infidelity?Answer. The dying words of infidels. You knowhow terrible were the death-bed scenes of Hume,Voltaire, Paine and Hobbes, as described by hundredsof persons who were not present; while all Christianshave died with the utmost serenity, and with theirlast words have testified to the sustaining power offaith in the goodness of God.Question. What were the last words of JesusChrist?Answer. "My God, my God, why hast thou for-"saken me?"A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE."To argue with a man who has renounced the use andauthority of reason, is like administeringmedicine to the dead."—Thomas Paine.Peoria, October 8, 1877.To the Editor of the N Y. Observer:Sir: Last June in San Francisco, I offered athousand dollars in gold—not as a wager, but as agift—to any one who would substantiate the absurdstory that Thomas Paine died in agony and fear,frightened by the clanking chains of devils. I alsooffered the same amount to any minister who wouldprove that Voltaire did not pass away as serenely asthe coming of the dawn. Afterward I was informedthat you had accepted the offer, and had called uponme to deposit the money. Acting upon this inform-ation, I sent you the following letter:Peoria, Ill., August 31st, 1877.To the Editor of the New York Observer:I have been informed that you accepted, in yourpaper, an offer made by me to any clergyman inSan Francisco. That offer was, that I would pay448one thousand dollars in gold to any minister in thatcity who would prove that Thomas Paine died interror because of religious opinions he had ex-pressed, or that Voltaire did not pass away serenelyas the coming of the dawn.For many years religious journals and ministershave been circulating certain pretended accounts ofthe frightful agonies endured by Paine and Voltairewhen dying; that these great men at the moment ofdeath were terrified because they had given theirhonest opinions upon the subject of religion to theirfellow-men. The imagination of the religious worldhas been taxed to the utmost in inventing absurdand infamous accounts of the last moments of theseintellectual giants. Every Sunday school paper,thousands of idiotic tracts, and countless stupiditiescalled sermons, have been filled with these calumnies.Paine and Voltaire both believed in God—bothhoped for immortality—both believed in specialprovidence. But both denied the inspiration of theScriptures—both denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.While theologians most cheerfully admit that mostmurderers die without fear, they deny the possibilityof any man who has expressed his disbelief in theinspiration of the Bible dying except in an agony ofterror. These stories are used in revivals and in449Sunday schools, and have long been considered ofgreat value.I am anxious that these slanders shall cease. Iam desirous of seeing justice done, even at this lateday, to the dead.For the purpose of ascertaining the evidence uponwhich these death-bed accounts really rest, I maketo you the following proposition:—First.—As to Thomas Paine: I will deposit withthe First National Bank of Peoria, Illinois, one thou-sand dollars in gold, upon the following conditions:This money shall be subject to your order whenyou shall, in the manner hereinafter provided, sub-stantiate that Thomas Paine admitted the Bible to bean inspired book, or that he recanted his Infidelopinions—or that he died regretting that he had dis-believed the Bible—or that he died calling uponJesus Christ in any religious sense whatever.In order that a tribunal may be created to try thisquestion, you may select one man, I will selectanother, and the two thus chosen shall select a third,and any two of the three may decide the matter.As there will be certain costs and expenditures onboth sides, such costs and expenditures shall be paidby the defeated party.In addition to the one thousand dollars in gold, I450will deposit a bond with good and sufficient securityin the sum of two thousand dollars, conditioned forthe payment of all costs in case I am defeated. Ishall require of you a like bond.From the date of accepting this offer you mayhave ninety days to collect and present your testi-mony, giving me notice of time and place of takingdepositions. I shall have a like time to take evi-dence upon my side, giving you like notice, and youshall then have thirty days to take further testimonyin reply to what I may offer. The case shall thenbe argued before the persons chosen; and theirdecisions shall be final as to us.If the arbitrator chosen by me shall die, I shallhave the right to choose another. You shall havethe same right. If the third one, chosen by our two,shall die, the two shall choose another; and all va-cancies, from whatever cause, shall be filled upon thesame principle.The arbitrators shall sit when and where a major-ity shall determine, and shall have full power to passupon all questions arising as to competency ofevidence, and upon all subjects.Second.—As to Voltaire: I make the same prop-osition, if you will substantiate that Voltaire diedexpressing remorse or showing in any way that he451was in mental agony because he had attacked Catholi-cism—or because he had denied the inspiration of theBible—or because he had denied the divinity of Christ.I make these propositions because I want youto stop slandering the dead.If the propositions do not suit you in any particu-lar, please state your objections, and I will modifythem in any way consistent with the object in view.If Paine and Voltaire died filled with childish andsilly fear, I want to know it, and I want the world toknow it. On the other hand, if the believers insuperstition have made and circulated these cruelslanders concerning the mighty dead, I want theworld to know that.As soon as you notify me of the acceptance ofthese propositions I will send you the certificate ofthe bank that the money has been deposited uponthe foregoing conditions, together with copies ofbonds for costs. Yours truly,R. G. Ingersoll.In your paper of September 27, 1877, you acknowl-edge the receipt of the foregoing letter, and aftergiving an outline of its contents, say: "As not oneof the affirmations, in the form stated in this letter,was contained in the offer we made, we have nooccasion to substantiate them. But we are prepared452to produce the evidence of the truth of our ownstatement, and even to go further; to show not onlythat Tom Paine 'died a drunken, cowardly, andbeastly death,' but that for many years previous, andup to that event he lived a drunken and beastly life."In order to refresh your memory as to what youhad published, I call your attention to the following,which appeared in the N. Y. Observer, July 19, 1877:"Put Down the Money."Col. Bob Ingersoll, in a speech full of ribaldryand blasphemy, made in San Francisco recently, said:"I will give $1,000 in gold coin to any clergymanwho can substantiate that the death of Voltaire wasnot as peaceful as the dawn; and of Tom Paine whomthey assert died in fear and agony, frightened by theclanking chains of devils—in fact frightened to deathby God. I will give $1,000 likewise to any one whocan substantiate this 'absurd story'—a story withouta word of truth in it.""We have published the testimony, and the wit-nesses are on hand to prove that Tom Paine died adrunken, cowardly and beastly death. Let the Colo-nel deposit the money with any honest man, and theabsurd story, as he terms it, shall be shown to be anower true tale. But he wont do it. His talk is Infi-del 'buncombe' and nothing more."453On the 31st of August I sent you my letter, andon the 27th of September you say in your paper:"As not one of the affirmations in the form statedin this letter was contained in the offer we made, wehave no occasion to substantiate them."What were the affirmations contained in the offeryou made? I had offered a thousand dollars in goldto any one who would substantiate "the absurd story"that Thomas Paine died in fear and agony,frightenedby the clanking chains of devils—in fact, frightened todeath by God.In response to this offer you said: "Let the Colo-nel deposit the money with an honest man and the'absurd story' as he terms it, shall be shown to bean 'ower true tale.' But he won't do it. His talkis infidel 'buncombe' and nothing more."Did you not offer to prove that Paine died in fearand agony, frightened by the clanking chains ofdevils? Did you not ask me to deposit the moneythat you might prove the "absurd story" to be an"ower true tale" and obtain the money? Did younot in your paper of the twenty-seventh of Septemberin effect deny that you had offered to prove this"absurd story"? As soon as I offered to depositthe gold and give bonds besides to cover costs, didyou not publish a falsehood?454You have eaten your own words, and, for mypart, I would rather have dined with Ezekiel thanwith you.You have not met the issue. You have know-ingly avoided it. The question was not as to thepersonal habits of Paine. The real question wasand is, whether Paine was filled with fear and horrorat the time of his death on account of his religiousopinions. That is the question. You avoid this.In effect, you abandon that charge and make others.To you belongs the honor of having made themost cruel and infamous charges against ThomasPaine that have ever been made. Of what youhave said you cannot prove the truth of one word.You say that Thomas Paine died a drunken,cowardly and beastly death.I pronounce this charge to be a cowardly andbeastly falsehood.Have you any evidence that he was in a drunkencondition when he died?What did he say or do of a cowardly characterjust before, or at about the time of his death?In what way was his death cowardly? You mustanswer these questions, and give your proof, or allhonest men will hold you in abhorrence. You havemade these charges. The man against whom youVindication of thomas paine.455make them is dead. He cannot answer you. Ican. He cannot compel you to produce your testi-mony, or admit by your silence that you havecruelly slandered the defenceless dead. I can and Iwill. You say that his death was cowardly. Inwhat respect? Was it cowardly in him to hold theThirty-Nine Articles in contempt? Was it cowardlynot to call on your Lord? Was it cowardly not tobe afraid? You say that his death was beastly.Again I ask, in what respect? Was it beastly tosubmit to the inevitable with tranquillity? Was itbeastly to look with composure upon the approachof death? Was it beastly to die without a com-plaint, without a murmur—to pass from life withouta fear?Did Thomas Paine Recant?Mr. Paine had prophesied that fanatics wouldcrawl and cringe around him during his last mo-ments. He believed that they would put a lie inthe mouth of Death.When the shadow of the coming dissolution wasupon him, two clergymen, Messrs. Milledollar andCunningham, called to annoy the dying man. Mr.Cunningham had the politeness to say, "You havenow a full view of death you cannot live long, andwhosoever does not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ456will asuredly be damned." Mr. Paine replied, "Letme have none of your popish stuff. Get away withyou. Good morning."On another occasion a Methodist minister ob-truded himself when Willet Hicks was present.This minister declared to Mr. Paine "that unless herepented of his unbelief he would be damned."Paine, although at the door of death, rose in his bedand indignantly requested the clergyman to leavehis room. On another occasion, two brothers bythe name of Pigott, sought to convert him. He wasdispleased and requested their departure. After-ward Thomas Nixon and Captain Daniel Peltonvisited him for the express purpose of ascertainingwhether he had, in any manner, changed his relig-ious opinions. They were assured by the dyingman that he still held the principles he had expressedin his writings.Afterward, these gentlemen hearing that WilliamCobbett was about to write a life of Paine, sent himthe following note:New York, April 24, 1818."Sir: We have been informed that you have a de-sign to write a history of the life and writings ofThomas Paine. If you have been furnished withmaterials in respect to his religious opinions, or457rather of his recantation of his former opinions beforehis death, all you have heard of his recanting is false.Being aware that such reports would be raised afterhis death by fanatics who infested his house at thetime it was expected he would die, we, the subscrib-ers, intimate acquaintances of Thomas Paine sincethe year 1776, went to his house. He was sittingup in a chair, and apparently in full vigor and use ofall his mental faculties. We interrogated him uponhis religious opinions, and if he had changed hismind, or repented of anything he had said or wroteon that subject. He answered, "Not at all," andappeared rather offended at our supposition that anychange should take place in his mind. We tookdown in writing the questions put to him and hisanswers thereto before a number of persons then inhis room, among whom were his doctor, Mrs.Bonneville, etc. paper is mislaid and cannotbe found at present, but the above is the substancewhich can be attested by many living witnesses."Thomas Nixon.Daniel Pelton.Mr. Jarvis, the artist, saw Mr. Paine one or twodays before his death. To Mr. Jarvis he expressedhis belief in his written opinions upon the subject ofreligion. B. F. Haskin, an attorney of the city of458New York, also visited him and inquired as to hisreligious opinions. Paine was then upon the thresh-old of death, but he did not tremble. He was not acoward. He expressed his firm and unshaken beliefin the religious ideas he had given to the world.Dr. Manley was with him when he spoke his lastwords. Dr. Manley asked the dying man if he didnot wish to believe that Jesus was the Son of God,and the dying philosopher answered: "I have nowish to believe on that subject." Amasa Woodsworthsat up with Thomas Paine the night before hisdeath. In 1839 Gilbert Vale hearing that Mr.Woodsworth was living in or near Boston, visitedhim for the purpose of getting his statement. Thestatement was published in the Beacon of June 5,1839, while thousands who had been acquainted withMr. Paine were living.The following is the article referred to."We have just returned from Boston. One ob-ject of our visit to that city, was to see a Mr. AmasaWoodsworth, an engineer, now retired in a hand-some cottage and garden at East Cambridge, Boston.This gentleman owned the house occupied by Paineat his death—while he lived next door. As an actof kindness Mr. Woodsworth visited Mr. Paine everyday for six weeks before his death. He frequently459sat up with him, and did so on the last two nights ofhis life. He was always there with Dr. Manley, thephysician, and assisted in removing Mr. Paine whilehis bed was prepared. He was present when Dr.Manley asked Mr. Paine "if he wished to believethat Jesus Christ was the Son of God," and he de-scribes Mr. Paine's answer as animated. He saysthat lying on his back he used some action and withmuch emphasis, replied, "I have no wish to believeon that subject." He lived some time after this, butwas not known to speak, for he died tranquilly. Heaccounts for the insinuating style of Dr. Manley'sletter, by stating that that gentleman just after itspublication joined a church. He informs us that hehas openly reproved the doctor for the falsity con-tained in the spirit of that letter, boldly declaring be-fore Dr. Manley, who is yet living, that nothingwhich he saw justified the insinuations. Mr. Woods-worth assures us that he neither heard nor saw any-thing to justify the belief of any mental change inthe opinions of Mr. Paine previous to his death; butthat being very ill and in pain chiefly arising fromthe skin being removed in some parts by long lying,he was generally too uneasy to enjoy conversationon abstract subjects. This, then, is the best evidencethat can be procured on this subject, and we publish460it while the contravening parties are yet alive, andwith the authority of Mr. Woodsworth.Gilbert Vale.A few weeks ago I received the following letterwhich confirms the statement of Mr. Vale:Near Stockton, Cal., Green-wood Cottage, July 9, 1877.Col. Ingersoll: In 1842 I talked with a gentle-man in Boston. I have forgotten his name; but he wasthen an engineer of the Charleston navy yard. I amthus particular so that you can find his name on thebooks. He told me that he nursed Thomas Painein his last illness, and closed his eyes when dead. Iasked him if he recanted and called upon God tosave him. He replied, "No. He died as he hadtaught. He had a sore upon his side and when weturned him it was very painful and he would cry out'O God!' or something like that." "But," saidthe narrator, "that was nothing, for he believed in aGod." I told him that I had often heard it assertedfrom the pulpit that Mr. Paine had recanted in hislast moments. The gentleman said that it was nottrue, and he appeared to be an intelligent, truthfulman. With respect, I remain, etc.Philip Graves, M. D.461The next witness is Willet Hicks, a Quakerpreacher. He says that during the last illness ofMr. Paine he visited him almost daily, and thatPaine died firmly convinced of the truth of the relig-ious opinions he had given to his fellow-men. Itwas to this same Willet Hicks that Paine applied forpermission to be buried in the cemetery of theQuakers. Permission was refused. This refusalsettles the question of recantation. If he had re-canted, of course there could have been no objectionto his body being buried by the side of the besthypocrites on the earth.If Paine recanted why should he be denied "alittle earth for charity"? Had he recanted, itwould have been regarded as a vast and splendidtriumph for the gospel. It would with much noiseand pomp and ostentation have been heraldedabout the world.I received the following letter to-day. Thewriter is well know in this city, and is a man ofhigh character:Peoria, Oct. 8th, 1877.Robert G. Ingersoll, Esteemed Friend: Myparents were Friends (Quakers). My father diedwhen I was very young. The elderly and middle-aged Friends visited at my mother's house. We462lived in the city of New York. Among the numberI distinctly remember Elias Hicks, Willet Hicks,and a Mr.-Day, who was a bookseller in Pearlstreet. There were many others, whose names Ido not now remember. The subject of the recanta-tion by Thomas Paine of his views about the Biblein his last illness, or at any other time, was dis-cussed by them in my presence at different times.I learned from them that some of them had attendedupon Thomas Paine in his last sickness and minis-tered to his wants up to the time of his death.And upon the question of whether he did recantthere was but one expression. They all said thathe did not recant in any manner. I often heardthem say they wished he had recanted. In fact,according to them, the nearer he approached deaththe more positive he appeared to be in his con-victions.These conversations were from 1820 to 1822. Iwas at that time from ten to twelve years old, butthese conversations impressed themselves upon mebecause many thoughtless people then blamed theSociety of Friends for their kindness to that "archInfidel," Thomas Paine..Truly yours,A. C. Hankinson.463A few days ago I received the following letter:Albany, New York, Sept. 27, 1877.Dear Sir: It is over twenty years ago that pro-fessionally I made the acquaintance of John Hogeboom,a Justice of the Peace of the county ofRensselaer, New York. He was then over seventyyears of age and had the reputation of being a manof candor and integrity. He was a great admirer ofPaine. He told me that he was personally ac-quainted with him, and used to see him frequentlyduring the last years of his life in the city of NewYork, where Hogeboom then resided. I asked himif there was any truth in the charge that Paine wasin the habit of getting drunk. He said that it wasutterly false; that he never heard of such a thingduring the life-time of Mr. Paine, and did not believeany one else did. I asked him about the recantationof his religious opinions on his death-bed, and therevolting death-bed scenes that the world had heardso much about. He said there was no truth inthem, that he had received his information frompersons who attended Paine in his last illness, "andthat he passed peacefully away, as we may say, inthe sunshine of a great soul."...Yours truly,W. J. Hilton,464The witnesses by whom I substantiate the factthat Thomas Paine did not recant, and that he diedholding the religious opinions he had published, are:First—Thomas Nixon, Captain Daniel Pelton,B. F. Haskin. These gentlemen visited him duringhis last illness for the purpose of ascertaining whetherhe had in any respect changed his views upon relig-ion. He told them that he had not.Second—James Cheetham. This man was themost malicious enemy Mr. Paine had, and yet headmits that "Thomas Paine died placidly, and al-most without a struggle." (See Life of ThomasPaine, by James Cheetham).Third—The ministers, Milledollar and Cunning-ham. These gentlemen told Mr. Paine that if hedied without believing in the Lord Jesus Christ hewould be damned, and Paine replied, "Let me havenone of your popish stuff. Good morning." (SeeSherwin's Life of Paine, p. 220).Fourth—Mrs. Hedden. She told these samepreachers when they attempted to obtrude them-selves upon Mr. Paine again, that the attempt toconvert Mr. Paine was useless—"that if God did notchange his mind no human power could."Fifth—Andrew A. Dean. This man lived uponPaine's farm at New Rochelle, and corresponded465with him upon religious subjects. (See Paine'sTheological Works, p. 308.)Sixth—Mr. Jarvis, the artist with whom Painelived. He gives an account of an old lady comingto Paine and telling him that God Almighty hadsent her to tell him that unless he repented and be-lieved in the blessed Savior, he would be damned.Paine replied that God would not send such a foolishold woman with such an impertinent message. (SeeClio Rickman's Life of Paine.)Seventh—Wm. Carver, with whom Paine boarded.Mr. Carver said again and again that Paine did notrecant. He knew him well, and had every opportun-ity of knowing. (See Life of Paine by Gilbert Vale.)Eighth—Dr. Manley, who attended him in his lastsickness, and to whom Paine spoke his last words.Dr. Manley asked him if he did not wish to believe inJesus Christ, and he replied, "I have no wish tobelieve on that subject."Ninth—Willet Hicks and Elias Hicks, who werewith him frequently during his last sickness, andboth of whom tried to persuade him to recant. Ac-cording to their testimony, Mr. Paine died as he hadlived—a believer in God, and a friend of man.Willet Hicks was offered money to say somethingfalse against Thomas Paine. He was even offered466money to remain silent and allow others to slanderthe dead. Mr. Hicks, speaking of Thomas Paine,said: "He was a good man—an honest man."(Vale's Life of Paine.)Tenth—Amasa Woodsworth, who was with himevery day for some six weeks immediately precedinghis death, and sat up with him the last two nights ofhis life. This man declares that Paine did not recantand that he died tranquilly. The evidence of Mr.Woodsworth is conclusive.Eleventh—Thomas Paine himself. The will ofThomas Paine, written by himself, commences asfollows:"The last will and testament of me, the subscriber,Thomas Paine, reposing confidence in my creatorGod, and in no other being, for I know of no other,nor believe in any other;" and closes in these words;"I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind;my time has been spent in doing good, and I die inperfect composure and resignation to the will of mycreator God."Twelfth—If Thomas Paine recanted, why do youpursue him? If he recanted, he died substantiallyin your belief, for what reason then do you denouncehis death as cowardly? If upon his death-bed herenounced the opinions he had published, the busi-467ness of defaming him should be done by Infidels, notby Christians.I ask you if it is honest to throw away the testi-mony of his friends—the evidence of fair and honor-able men—and take the putrid words of avowed andmalignant enemies?When Thomas Paine was dying, he was infestedby fanatics—by the snaky spies of bigotry. In theshadows of death were the unclean birds of preywaiting to tear with beak and claw the corpse of himwho wrote the "Rights of Man." And there lurk-ing and crouching in the darkness were the jackalsand hyenas of superstition ready to violate his grave.These birds of prey—these unclean beasts are thewitnesses produced and relied upon by you.One by one the instruments of torture have beenwrenched from the cruel clutch of the church, untilwithin the armory of orthodoxy there remains butone weapon—Slander.Against the witnesses that I have produced youcan bring just two—Mary Roscoe and Mary Hins-dale. The first is referred to in the memoir ofStephen Grellet. She had once been a servant in hishouse. Grellet tells what happened between thisgirl and Paine. According to this account Paineasked her if she had ever read any of his writings,468and on being told that she had read very little ofthem, he inquired what she thought of them, addingthat from such an one as she he expected a correctanswer.Let us examine this falsehood. Why would Paineexpect a correct answer about his writings from onewho had read very little of them? Does not such astatement devour itself? This young lady furthersaid that the "Age of Reason" was put in her handsand that the more she read in it the more dark anddistressed she felt, and that she threw the book intothe fire. Whereupon Mr. Paine remarked, "I wishall had done as you did, for if the devil ever had anyagency in any work, he had it in my writing that book."The next is Mary Hinsdale. She was a servantin the family of Willet Hicks. She, like Mary Ros-coe, was sent to carry some delicacy to Mr. Paine.To this young lady Paine, according to her account,said precisely the same that he did to Mary Roscoe,and she said the same thing to Mr. Paine.My own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and MaryHinsdale are one and the same person, or the samestory has been by mistake put in the mouth of both.It is not possible that the same conversation shouldhave taken place between Paine and Mary Roscoe,and between him and Mary Hinsdale.469Mary Hinsdale lived with Willet Hicks and hepronounced her story a pious fraud and fabrication.He said that Thomas Paine never said any suchthing to Mary Hinsdale. (See Vale's Life ofPaine.)Another thing about this witness. A woman bythe name of Mary Lockwood, a Hicksite Quaker,died. Mary Hinsdale met her brother about thattime and told him that his sister had recanted, andwanted her to say so at her funeral. This turnedout to be false.It has been claimed that Mary Hinsdale made herstatement to Charles Collins. Long after the allegedoccurrence Gilbert Vale, one of the biographers ofPaine, had a conversation with Collins concerningMary Hinsdale. Vale asked him what he thoughtof her. He replied that some of the Friends be-lieved that she used opiates, and that they did notgive credit to her statements. He also said that hebelieved what the Friends said, but thought thatwhen a young woman, she might have told thetruth.In 1818 William Cobbett came to New York.He began collecting materials for a life of ThomasPaine. In this he became acquainted with MaryHinsdale and Charles Collins. Mr. Cobbett gave a470full account of what happened in a letter addressedto the Norwich Mercury in 1819. From this ac-count it seems that Charles Collins told Cobbett thatPaine had recanted. Cobbett called for the testi-mony, and told Mr. Collins that he must give time,place, and the circumstances. He finally brought astatement that he stated had been made by MaryHinsdale. Armed with this document Cobbett, inOctober of that year, called upon the said MaryHinsdale, at No. 10 Anthony street, New York, andshowed her the statement. Upon being questionedby Mr. Cobbett she said, "That it was so long agothat she could not speak positively to any part of thematter—that she would not say that any part of thepaper was true—that she had never seen the paper—and that she had never given Charles Collinsauthority to say anything about the matter in hername." And so in the month of October, in theyear of grace 1818, in the mist and fog of forgetful-ness disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale—thelast and only witness against the intellectual honestyof Thomas Paine.Did Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast,and did he die a drunken, cowardly and beastly death?Upon you rests the burden of substantiating theseinfamous charges.471You have, I suppose, produced the best evidencein your possession, and that evidence I will now pro-ceed to examine. Your first witness is Grant Thor-burn. He makes three charges against ThomasPaine, 1st. That his wife obtained a divorce fromhim in England for cruelty and neglect. 2d. Thathe was a defaulter and fled from England to Amer-ica. 3d. That he was a drunkard.These three charges stand upon the same evidence—the word of Grant Thorburn. If they are not alltrue Mr. Thorburn stands impeached.The charge that Mrs. Paine obtained a divorce onaccount of the cruelty and neglect of her husband isutterly false. There is no such record in the world,and never was. Paine and his wife separated bymutual consent. Each respected the other. Theyremained friends. This charge is without any foun-dation in fact. I challenge the Christian world toproduce the record of this decree of divorce. Accord-ing to Mr. Thorburn it was granted in England. Inthat country public records are kept of all such de-crees. Have the kindness to produce this decreeshowing that it was given on account of cruelty oradmit that Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.Thomas Paine was a just man. Although sepa-rated from his wife, he always spoke of her with472tenderness and respect, and frequently sent hermoney without letting her know the source fromwhence it came. Was this the conduct of a drunkenbeast?The second charge, that Paine was a defaulter inEngland and fled to America, is equally false. Hedid not flee from England. He came to America,not as a fugitive, but as a free man. He came witha letter of introduction signed by another Infidel,Benjamin Franklin. He came as a soldier of Free-dom—an apostle of Liberty.In this second charge there is not one word of truth.He held a small office in England. If he was adefaulter the records of that country will show thatfact.Mr. Thorburn, unless the record can be producedto substantiate him, stands convicted of at least twomistakes.Now, as to the third: He says that in 1802 Painewas an "old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloatedand half asleep."Can any one believe this to be a true account ofthe personal appearance of Mr. Paine in 1802? Hehad just returned from France. He had been wel-comed home by Thomas Jefferson, who had said thathe was entitled to the hospitality of every American.473In 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public din-ner in the city of New York. He was called uponand treated with kindness and respect by such menas DeWitt Clinton.In 1806 Mr. Paine wrote a letter to Andrew A.Dean upon the subject of religion. Read that letterand then say that the writer of it was an "old rem-nant of mortality, drunk, bloated and half asleep."Search the files of the New York Observer from thefirst issue to the last, and you will find nothing supe-rior to this letter.In 1803 Mr. Paine wrote a letter of considerablelength, and of great force, to his friend SamuelAdams. Such letters are not written by drunkenbeasts, nor by remnants of old mortality, nor bydrunkards. It was about the same time that hewrote his "Remarks on Robert Hall's Sermons."These "Remarks" were not written by a drunkenbeast, but by a clear-headed and thoughtful man.In 1804 he published an essay on the invasion ofEngland, and a treatise on gunboats, full of valuablemaritime information:—in 1805, a treatise on yellowfever, suggesting modes of prevention. In short, hewas an industrious and thoughtful man. He sympa-thized with the poor and oppressed of all lands. Helooked upon monarchy as a species of physical474slavery. He had the goodness to attack that formof government. He regarded the religion of his dayas a kind of mental slavery. He had the courage togive his reasons for his opinion. His reasons filledthe churches with hatred. Instead of answering hisarguments they attacked him. Men who were notfit to blacken his shoes, blackened his character.There is too much religious cant in the statementof Mr. Thorburn. He exhibited too much anxietyto tell what Grant Thorburn said to Thomas Paine.He names Thomas Jefferson as one of the disreputa-ble men who welcomed Paine with open arms. Thetestimony of a man who regarded Thomas Jeffersonas a disreputable person, as to the character of any-body, is utterly without value. In my judgment, thetestimony of Mr. Thorburn should be thrown asideas wholly unworthy of belief.Your next witness is the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., who tells what an elder in his church said. Thiselder said that Paine passed his last days on his farmat New Rochelle with a solitary female attendant.This is not true. He did not pass his last days atNew Rochelle. Consequently this pious elder didnot see him during his last days at that place. Uponthis elder we prove an alibi. Mr. Paine passed hislast days in the city of New York, in a house upon475Columbia street. The story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-ham, D.D., is simply false.The next competent false witness is the Rev.Charles Hawley, D.D., who proceeds to state thatthe story of the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., is cor-roborated by older citizens of New Rochelle. Thenames of these ancient residents are withheld. Ac-cording to these unknown witnesses, the accountgiven by the deceased elder was entirely correct.But as the particulars of Mr. Paine's conduct "weretoo loathsome to be described in print," we are leftentirely in the dark as to what he really did.While at New Rochelle Mr. Paine lived with Mr.Purdy—with Mr. Dean—with Captain Pelton, andwith Mr. Staple. It is worthy of note that all ofthese gentlemen give the lie direct to the statementsof "older residents" and ancient citizens spoken ofby the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D., and leave himwith his "loathsome particulars" existing only in hisown mind.The next gentleman you bring upon the stand isW. H. Ladd, who quotes from the memoirs ofStephen Grellet. This gentleman also has the mis-fortune to be dead. According to his account, Mr.Paine made his recantation to a servant girl of hisby the name of Mary Roscoe. To this girl, accord-476ing to the account, Mr. Paine uttered the wish thatall who read his book had burned it. I believe thereis a mistake in the name of this girl. Her name wasprobably Mary Hinsdale, as it was once claimed thatPaine made the same remark to her, but this pointI shall notice hereafter. These are your witnesses,and the only ones you bring forward, to supportyour charge that Thomas Paine lived a drunken andbeastly life and died a drunken, cowardly and beastlydeath. All these calumnies are found in a life ofPaine by a Mr. Cheetham, the convicted libeleralready referred to. Mr. Cheetham was an enemyof the man whose life he pretended to write.In order to show you the estimation in which Mr.Cheetham was held by Mr. Paine, I will give you acopy of a letter that throws light upon this point:October 28, 1807."Mr. Cheetham: Unless you make a public apol-ogy for the abuse and falsehood in your paper ofTuesday, October 27th, respecting me, I will prose-cute you for lying."Thomas Paine.In another letter, speaking of this same man, Mr.Paine says: "If an unprincipled bully cannot be re-formed, he can be punished." "Cheetham has beenso long in the habit of giving false information, thattruth is to him like a foreign language."477Mr. Cheetham wrote the life of Paine to gratifyhis malice and to support religion. He was prose-cuted for libel—was convicted and fined.Yet the life of Paine written by this man is referredto by the Christian world as the highest authority.As to the personal habits of Mr. Paine, we havethe testimony of William Carver, with whom helived; of Mr. Jarvis, the artist, with whom he lived;of Mr. Staple, with whom he lived; of Mr. Purdy,who was a tenant of Paine's; of Mr. Burger, withwhom he was intimate; of Thomas Nixon andCaptain Daniel Pelton, both of whom knew himwell; of Amasa Woodsworth, who was with himwhen he died; of John Fellows, who boarded at thesame house; of James Wilburn, with whom heboarded; of B. F. Haskin, a lawyer, who was wellacquainted with him and called upon him during hislast illness; of Walter Morton, a friend; of ClioRickman, who had known him for many years; ofWillet and Elias Hicks, Quakers, who knew him in-timately and well; of Judge Herttell, H. Margary,Elihu Palmer, and many others. All these testifiedto the fact that Mr. Paine was a temperate man. Inthose days nearly everybody used spirituous liquors.Paine was not an exception; but he did not drink toexcess. Mr. Lovett, who kept the City Hotel where478Paine stopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham, declaredthat Paine drank less than any boarder he had.Against all this evidence you produce the story ofGrant Thorburn—the story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-ham that an elder in his church told him that Painewas a drunkard, corroborated by the Rev. CharlesHawley, and an extract from Lossing's history tothe same effect. The evidence is overwhelminglyagainst you. Will you have the fairness to admit it?Your witnesses are merely the repeaters of the false-hoods of James Cheetham, the convicted libeler.After all, drinking is not as bad as lying. Anhonest drunkard is better than a calumniator of thedead. "A remnant of old mortality, drunk, bloatedand half asleep" is better than a perfectly soberdefender of human slavery.To become drunk is a virtue compared with steal-ing a babe from the breast of its mother.Drunkenness is one of the beatitudes, comparedwith editing a religious paper devoted to the defenceof slavery upon the ground that it is a divine insti-tution.Do you really think that Paine was a drunkenbeast when he wrote "Common Sense"—a pamphletthat aroused three millions of people, as people werenever aroused by a pamphlet before? Was he a479drunken beast when he wrote the "Crisis"? Wasit to a drunken beast that the following letter wasaddressed:Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783."I have learned since I have been at this place,that you are at Bordentown.—Whether for the sakeof retirement or economy I know not. Be it foreither or both, or whatever it may, if you will cometo this place and partake with me I shall be exceed-ingly happy to see you at it. Your presence mayremind Congress of your past services to this country;and if it is in my power to impress them, commandmy best exertions with freedom, as they will berendered cheerfully by one who entertains a livelysense of the importance of your works, and who withmuch pleasure subscribes himself,"Your Sincere Friend,"George Washington."Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letterlike that?Do you think that Paine was a drunken beastwhen the following letter was received by him?"You express a wish in your letter to return toAmerica in a national ship; Mr. Dawson, who bringsover the treaty, and who will present you with thisletter, is charged with orders to the captain of the480Maryland to receive and accommodate you back, if youcan be ready to depart at such a short warning. Youwill in general find us returned to sentiments worthyof former times;in these it will be your glory to havesteadily labored and with as much effect as any manliving.That you may live long to continue youruseful labors, and reap the reward in thethankfulnessof nations, is my sincere prayer. Accept the assur-ances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment."Thomas Jefferson.Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letterlike that?"It has been very generally propagated throughthe continent that I wrote the pamphlet 'CommonSense.' I could not have written anything in somanly and striking a style."—John Adams."A few more such flaming arguments as wereexhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to thesound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning con-tained in the pamphlet 'Common Sense,' will notleave numbers at a loss to decide on the propriety ofa separation."—George Washington."It is not necessary for me to tell you howmuch all your countrymen—I speak of the greatmass of the people—are interested in your welfare.481They have not forgotten the history of their ownRevolution and the difficult scenes through whichthey passed; nor do they review its several stageswithout reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility ofthe merits of those who served them in that greatand arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude hasnot yet stained, and I trust never will stain, ournational character. You are considered by them asnot only having rendered important services in ourown Revolution, but as being on a more extensivescale the friend of human rights, and a distinguishedand able defender of public liberty. To the welfareof Thomas Paine the Americans are not, nor canthey be indifferent.".. James Monroe.Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letterlike that?"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and famil-iarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happinessof elucidation, and in simple and unassuming lan-guage."'—Thomas Jefferson.Was ever a letter like that written about an editorof theNew York Observer?Was it in consideration of the services of adrunken beast that the Legislature of Pennsylvaniapresented Thomas Paine with five hundred poundssterling?482Did the State of New York feel indebted to adrunken beast, and confer upon Thomas Paine anestate of several hundred acres?"I believe in the equality of man, and I believethat religious duties consist in doing justice, lovingmercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creat-ures happy.""My own mind is my own church.""It is necessary to the happiness of man that hebe mentally faithful to himself.""Any system of religion that shocks the mind ofa child cannot be a true system.""The Word of God is the creation which webehold.""The age of ignorance commenced with theChristian system.""It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action—itbegets a calamitous necessity of going on.""To read the Bible without horror, we must undoeverything that is tender, sympathizing and benev-olent in the heart of man.""The man does not exist who can say I have per-secuted him, or that I have in any case returned evilfor evil.""Of all tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny inreligion is the worst."483"My own opinion is, that those whose lives havebeen spent in doing good and endeavoring to maketheir fellow-mortals happy, will be happy hereafter.""The belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.""The intellectual part of religion is a private affairbetween every man and his Maker, and in which nothird party has any right to interfere. The practicalpart consists in our doing good to each other.""No man ought to make a living by religion. Oneperson cannot act religion for another—every personmust perform it for himself.""One good schoolmaster is of more use than ahundred priests.""Let us propagate morality unfettered by super-stition.""God is the power, or first cause, Nature is thelaw, and matter is the subject acted upon.""I believe in one God and no more, and I hopefor happiness beyond this life.""The key of heaven is not in the keeping of anysect nor ought the road to it to be obstructedby any.""My religion, and the whole of it, is the fear andlove of the Deity and universal philanthropy.""I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for Ihave a good state of health and a happy mind. I484take care of both, by nourishing the first with tem-perance and the latter with abundance.""He lives immured within the Bastile of aword."How perfectly that sentence describes you! TheBastile in which you are immured is the word"Calvinism.""Man has no property in man."What a splendid motto that would have made fortheNew York Observerin the olden time!"The world is my country; to do good, myreligion."I ask you again whether these splendid utterancescame from the lips of a drunken beast?Did Thomas Paine die in destitution and want?The charge has been made, over and over again,that Thomas Paine died in want and destitution—that he was an abandoned pauper—an outcast with-out friends and without money. This charge is justas false as the rest.Upon his return to this country in 1802, he wasworth $30,000, according to his own statement madeat that time in the following letter addressed to ClioRickman:"My Dear Friend: Mr. Monroe, who is appointedminister extraordinary to France, takes charge of485this, to be delivered to Mr. Este, banker in Paris, tobe forwarded to you."I arrived at Baltimore the 30th of October, andyou can have no idea of the agitation which myarrival occasioned. From New Hampshire toGeorgia (an extent of 1,500 miles) every newspaperwas filled with applause or abuse."My property in this country has been taken careof by my friends, and is now worth six thousandpounds sterling; which put in the funds will bringme £400 sterling a year."Remember me in affection and friendship to yourwife and family, and in the circle of your friends."Thomas Paine.A man in those days worth thirty thousand dol-lars was not a pauper. That amount would bring anincome of at least two thousand dollars per annum.Two thousand dollars then would be fully equal tofive thousand dollars now.On the 12th of July, 1809, the year in which hedied, Mr. Paine made his will. From this instru-ment we learn that he was the owner of a valuablefarm within twenty miles of New York. He alsowas the owner of thirty shares in the New YorkPhoenix Insurance Company, worth upwards of fif-teen hundred dollars. Besides this, some personal486property and ready money. By his will he gave toWalter Morton, and Thomas Addis Emmett, brotherof Robert Emmett, two hundred dollars each, andone hundred to the widow of Elihu Palmer.Is it possible that this will was made by a pauper—by a destitute outcast—by a man who suffered forthe ordinary necessaries of life?But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that hewas poor and that he died a beggar, does that tendto show that the Bible is an inspired book and thatCalvin did not burn Servetus? Do you really regardpoverty as a crime? If Paine had died a millionaire,would you have accepted his religious opinions? IfPaine had drank nothing but cold water would youhave repudiated the five cardinal points of Calvin-ism? Does an argument depend for its force uponthe pecuniary condition of the person making it?As a matter of fact, most reformers—most men andwomen of genius, have been acquainted with poverty.Beneath a covering of rags have been found some ofthe tenderest and bravest hearts.Owing to the attitude of the churches for the lastfifteen hundred years, truth-telling has not been avery lucrative business. As a rule, hypocrisy hasworn the robes, and honesty the rags. That day ispassing away. You cannot now answer the argu-487ments of a man by pointing at holes in his coat.Thomas Paine attacked the church when it waspowerful—when it had what was called honors tobestow—when it was the keeper of the public con-science—when it was strong and cruel. The churchwaited till he was dead then attacked his reputationand his clothes.Once upon a time a donkey kicked a lion. Thelion was dead.Conclusion.From the persistence with which the orthodoxhave charged for the last sixty-eight years thatThomas Paine recanted, and that when dying hewas filled with remorse and fear; from the malignityof the attacks upon his personal character, I had con-cluded that there must be some evidence of somekind to support these charges. Even with my ideasof the average honor of believers in superstition—the disciples of fear—I did not quite believe that allthese infamies rested solely upon poorly attestedlies. I had charity enough to suppose that some-thing had been said or done by Thomas Paine capa-ble of being tortured into a foundation for thesecalumnies. And I was foolish enough to think thateven you would be willing to fairly examine the pre-tended evidence said to sustain these charges, and488give your honest conclusion to the world. I sup-posed that you, being acquainted with the history ofyour country, felt under a certain obligation toThomas Paine for the splendid services rendered byhim in the darkest days of the Revolution. It wasonly reasonable to suppose that you were aware thatin the midnight of Valley Forge the "Crisis," byThomas Paine, was the first star that glittered in thewide horizon of despair. I took it for granted thatyou knew of the bold stand taken and the bravewords spoken by Thomas Paine, in the French Con-vention, against the death of the king. I thought itprobable that you, being an editor, had read the"Rights of Man;" that you knew that ThomasPaine was a champion of human liberty; that he wasone of the founders and fathers of this Republic; thathe was one of the foremost men of his age; that hehad never written a word in favor of injustice; thathe was a despiser of slavery; that he abhorred tyr-anny in all its forms; that he was in the widest andhighest sense a friend of his race; that his head wasas clear as his heart was good, and that he had thecourage to speak his honest thought. Under thesecircumstances I had hoped that you would for themoment forget your religious prejudices and submitto the enlightened judgment of the world the evi-489dence you had, or could obtain, affecting in any waythe character of so great and so generous a man. Thisyou have refused to do. In my judgment, you havemistaken the temper of even your own readers. Alarge majority of the religious people of this countryhave, to a considerable extent, outgrown the preju-dices of their fathers. They are willing to know thetruth and the whole truth, about the life and death ofThomas Paine. They will not thank you for havingpresented them the moss-covered, the maimed and dis-torted traditions of ignorance, prejudice, and credulity.By this course you will convince them not of thewickedness of Paine, but of your own unfairness.What crime had Thomas Paine committed that heshould have feared to die? The only answer youcan give is, that he denied the inspiration of theScriptures. If this is a crime, the civilized world isfilled with criminals. The pioneers of human thought—the intellectual leaders of the world—the foremostmen in every science—the kings of literature andart—those who stand in the front rank of investiga-tion—the men who are civilizing, elevating, instruct-ing, and refining mankind, are to-day unbelievers inthe dogma of inspiration. Upon this question, theintellect of Christendom agrees with the conclusionsreached by the genius of Thomas Paine. Centuries490ago a noise was made for the purpose of frighteningmankind. Orthodoxy is the echo of that noise.The man who now regards the Old Testament asin any sense a sacred or inspired book is, in my judg-ment, an intellectual and moral deformity. There isin it so much that is cruel, ignorant, and ferociousthat it is to me a matter of amazement that it wasever thought to be the work of a most merciful deity.Upon the question of inspiration Thomas Painegave his honest opinion. Can it be that to give anhonest opinion causes one to die in terror and de-spair? Have you in your writings been actuated bythe fear of such a consequence? Why should it betaken for granted that Thomas Paine, who devotedhis life to the sacred cause of freedom, should havebeen hissed at in the hour of death by the snakes ofconscience, while editors of Presbyterian papers whodefended slavery as a divine institution, and cheer-fully justified the stealing of babes from the breasts ofmothers, are supposed to have passed smilingly fromearth to the embraces of angels? Why should youthink that the heroic author of the "Rights of Man"should shudderingly dread to leave this "bank andshoal of time," while Calvin, dripping with the bloodof Servetus, was anxious to be judged of God? Isit possible that the persecutors—the instigators of491the massacre of St. Bartholomew—the inventors andusers of thumb-screws, and iron boots, and racks—the burners and tearers of human flesh—the stealers,whippers and enslavers of men—the buyers andbeaters of babes and mothers—the founders ofinquisitions—the makers of chains, the builders ofdungeons, the slanderers of the living and the calum-niators of the dead, all died in the odor of sanctity,with white, forgiven hands folded upon the breastsof peace, while the destroyers of prejudice—theapostles of humanity—the soldiers of liberty—thebreakers of fetters—the creators of light—died sur-rounded with the fierce fiends of fear?In your attempt to destroy the character of ThomasPaine you have failed, and have succeeded only inleaving a stain upon your own. You have writtenwords as cruel, bitter and heartless as the creed ofCalvin. Hereafter you will stand in the pillory ofhistory as a defamer—a calumniator of the dead.You will be known as the man who said that ThomasPaine, the "Author Hero," lived a drunken, coward-ly and beastly life, and died a drunken and beastlydeath. These infamous words will be branded uponthe forehead of your reputation. They will be re-membered against you when all else you may haveuttered shall have passed from the memory of men.Robert G. Ingersoll.THE OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK* From the NY. Observer of Nov. 1, 1877.TOM PAINE AGAIN.In the Observer of September 27th, in responseto numerous calls from different parts of the countryfor information, and in fulfillment of a promise, wepresented a mass of testimony, chiefly from personswith whom we had been personally acquainted,establishing the truth of our assertions in regard tothe dissolute life and miserable end of Paine. It wasnot a pleasing subject for discussion, and an apology,or at least an explanation, is due to our readers forresuming it, and for occupying so much space, orany space, in exhibiting the truth and the proofs inregard to the character of a man who had become sodebased by his intemperance, and so vile in hishabits, as to be excluded, for many years before andup to the time of his death, from all decent society.Our reasons for taking up the subject at all, andfor presenting at this time so much additional testi-mony in regard to the facts of the case, are these:At different periods for the last fifty years, efforts493have been made by Infidels to revive and honor thememory of one whose friends would honor him mostby suffering his name to sink into oblivion, if thatwere possible. About two years since, Rev. O. B.Frothingham, of this city, came to their aid, andundertook a sort of championship of Paine, makingin a public discourse this statement: "No privatecharacter has been more foully calumniated in thename of God than that of Thomas Paine." (Mr.Frothingham, it will be remembered, is the one whorecently, in a public discourse, announced the down-fall of Christianity, although he very kindly madethe allowance that, "it may be a thousand yearsbefore its decay will be visible to all eyes." It isour private opinion that it will be at least a thousandand one.) Rev. John W. Chadwick, a minister ofthe same order of unbelief, who signs himself, "Min-ister of the Second Unitarian Society in Brooklyn,"has devoted two discourses to the same end, eulogiz-ing Paine. In one of these, which we have beforeus in a handsomely printed pamphlet, entitled,"Method and Value of his (Paine's) ReligiousTeachings," he says: "Christian usage has determ-ined that an Infidel means one who does not believein Christianity as a supernatural religion; in theBible as a Supernatural book; in Jesus as a super-494natural person. And in this sense Paine was anInfidel, and so, thank God, am I." It is proper toadd that Unitarians generally decline all responsibil-ity for the utterances of both of these men, and thatthey compose a denomination, or rather two denom-inations, of their own.There is also a certain class of Infidels who arenot quite prepared to meet the odium that attachesto the name; they call themselves Christians, buttheir sympathies are all with the enemies of Chris-tianity, and they are not always able to conceal it.They have not the courage of their opinions, likeMr. Frothingham and Mr. Chadwick, and they workonly sideways toward the same end. We have beenno little amused since our last article on this subjectappeared, to read some of the articles that have beenwritten on the other side, though professedly on noside, and to observe how sincerely these men depre-cate the discussion of the character of Paine, as anunprofitable topic. It never appeared to them un-profitable when the discussion was on the other side.Then, too, we have for months past been receivingletters from different parts of the country, askingauthentic information on the subject and stating thatthe followers of Paine are making extraordinaryefforts to circulate his writings against the Christian495religion, and in order to give currency to these writ-ings they are endeavoring to rescue his name fromthe disgrace into which it sank during the latteryears of his life. Paine spent several of his lastyears in furnishing a commentary upon his Infidelprinciples. This commentary was contained in hisbesotted, degraded life and miserable end, but hisfriends do not wish the commentary to go out inconnection with his writings. They prefer to havethem read without the comments by their author.Hence this anxiety to free the great apostle ofInfidelity from the obloquy which his life broughtupon his name; to represent him as a pure, noble,virtuous man, and to make it appear that he died apeaceful, happy death, just like a philosopher.But what makes the publication of the facts in thecase still more imperative at this time is the whole-sale accusation brought against the Christian publicby the friends and admirers of Paine. Christianministers as a class, and Christian journals areexpressly accused of falsifying history, of defaming"the mighty dead!" (meaning Paine,) etc. Inthe face of all these accusations it cannot be out ofplace to state the facts and to fortify the statementby satisfactory evidence, as we are abundantly ableto do.496The two points on which we proposed to producethe testimony are, the character of Paine's life (refer-ring of course to his last residence in this country,for no one has intimated that he had sunk into suchbesotted drunkenness until about the time of hisreturn to the United States in 1802), and the realcharacter of his death as consistent with such a life,and as marked further by the cowardliness, whichhas been often exhibited by Infidels in the samecircumstances.It is nothing at all to the purpose to show, as hisfriends are fond of doing, that Paine renderedimportant service to the cause of American Inde-pendence. This is not the point under discussionand is not denied. No one ever called in questionthe valuable service that Benedict Arnold renderedto the country in the early part of the Revolutionarywar; but this, with true Americans, does not sufficeto cast a shade of loveliness or even to spread a man-tle of charity over his subsequent career. Whatevershare Paine had in the personal friendship of thefathers of the Revolution he forfeited by his subse-quent life of beastly drunkenness and degradation,and on this account as well as on account of hisblasphemy he was shunned by all decent people.We wish to make one or two corrections of mis-497statements by Paine's advocates, on which a vastamount of argument has been simply wasted. Wehave never stated in any form, nor have we eversupposed, that Paine actually renounced his Infidel-ity. The accounts agree in stating that he died ablaspheming Infidel, and his horrible death we regardas one of the fruits, the fitting complement of hisInfidelity. We have never seen anything thatencouraged the hope that he was not abandoned ofGod in his last hours. But we have no doubt, onthe other hand, that having become a wreck in bodyand mind through his intemperance, abandoned ofGod, deserted by his Infidel companions, and de-pendent upon Christian charity for the attentions hereceived, miserable beyond description in his condi-tion, and seeing nothing to hope for in the future, hewas afraid to die, and was ready to call upon Godand upon Christ for mercy, and ready perhaps in thenext minute to blaspheme. This is what we referredto in speaking of Paine's death as cowardly. It isshown in the testimony we have produced, and stillmore fully in that which we now present. The mostwicked men are ready to call upon God in seasonsof great peril, and sometimes ask for Christian min-istrations when in extreme illness; but they areoften ready on any alleviation of distress to turn to498their wickedness again, in the expressive languageof Scripture, "as the sow that was washed to herwallowing in the mire."We have never stated or intimated, nor, so far aswe are aware, has any one of our correspondentsstated, that Paine died in poverty. It has beenfrequently and truthfully stated that Paine was de-pendent on Christian charity for the attentions hereceived in his last days, and so he was. His Infidelcompanions forsook him and Christian hearts andhands ministered to his wants, notwithstanding theblasphemies of his death-bed.Nor has one of our correspondents stated, asalleged, that Paine died at New Rochelle. TheRev. Dr. Wickham, who was a resident of that placenearly fifty years ago, and who was perfectly familiarwith the facts of his life, wrote that Paine spent "hislatter days" on the farm presented to him bythe State of New York, which was strictly true,but made no reference to it as the place of hisdeath.Such misrepresentations serve to show how muchthe advocates of Paine admire "truth."With these explanations we produce further evi-dence in regard to the manner of Paine's life and thecharacter of his death, both of which we have already499characterized in appropriate terms, as the followingtestimony will show.In regard to Paine's "personal habits," even beforehis return to this country, and particularly his aver-sion to soap and water, Elkana Watson, a gentlemanof the highest social position, who resided in Franceduring a part of the Revolutionary war, and whowas the personal friend of Washington, Franklin,and other patriots of the period, makes some inci-dental statements in his "Men and Times of theRevolution." Though eulogizing Paine's efforts inbehalf of American Independence, he describes himas "coarse and uncouth in his manners, loathsomein his appearance, and a disgusting egotist." OnPaine's arrival at Nantes, the Mayor and other dis-tinguished citizens called upon him to pay theirrespects to the American patriot. Mr. Watson says:"He was soon rid of his respectable visitors, wholeft the room with marks of astonishment and dis-gust." Mr. W., after much entreaty, and only bypromising him a bundle of newspapers to read whileundergoing the operation, succeeded in prevailingon Paine to "stew, for an hour, in a hot bath." Mr.W. accompanied Paine to the bath, and "instructedthe keeper, in French, (which Paine did not under-stand,) gradually to increase the heat of the water500until 'le Monsieur serait bien bouille (until the gentle-man shall be well boiled;) and adds that "he becameso much absorbed in his reading that he was nearly-parboiled before leaving the bath, much to his im-provement and my satisfaction."William Carver has been cited as a witness in be-half of Paine, and particularly as to his "personalhabits." In a letter to Paine, dated December 2,1776, he bears the following testimony:"A respectable gentlemen from New Rochellecalled to see me a few days back, and said thateverybody was tired of you there, and no one wouldundertake to board and lodge you. I thought thiswas the case, as I found you at a tavern in a mostmiserable situation. You appeared as if you hadnot been shaved for a fortnight, and as to a shirt, itcould not be said that you had one on. It was onlythe remains of one, and this, likewise, appeared notto have been off your back for a fortnight, and wasnearly the color of tanned leather; and you had themost disagreeable smell possible; just like that ofour poor beggars in England. Do you remember thepains I took to clean you? that I got a tub of warmwater and soap and washed you from head to foot, andthis I had to do three times before I could get youclean." (And then follow more disgusting details.)501"You say, also, that you found your own liquorsduring the time you boarded with me; but youshould have said, 'I found only a small part of theliquor I drank during my stay with you; this part Ipurchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn ofbrandy containing four gallons, and this did not serveme three weeks.' This can be proved, and I meannot to say anything that I cannot prove; for I holdtruth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact,that you drank one quart of brandy per day, at myexpense, during the different times that you haveboarded with me, the demijohn above mentionedexcepted, and the last fourteen weeks you were sick.Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner and supper?"This chosen witness in behalf of Paine, closes hisletter, which is full of loathsome descriptions ofPaine's manner of life, as follows:"Now, sir, I think I have drawn a complete por-trait of your character; yet to enter upon everyminutiae would be to give a history of your life, andto develop the fallacious mask of hypocrisy and de-ception under which you have acted in your politicalas well as moral capacity of life."(Signed) "William Carver."Carver had the same opinion of Paine to his dyingday. When an old man, and an Infidel of the Paine502type and habits, he was visited by the Rev. E. F.Hatfield, D.D., of this city, who writes to us of hisinterview with Carver, under date of Sept. 27, 1877:"I conversed with him nearly an hour. I tookspecial pains to learn from him all that I could aboutPaine, whose landlord he had been for eighteenmonths. He spoke of him as a base and shamelessdrunkard, utterly destitute of moral principle. Hisdenunciations of the man were perfectly fearful, andfully confirmed, in my apprehension, all that had beenwritten of Paine's immorality and repulsiveness."Cheetham's Life of Paine, which was publishedthe year that he died, and which has passed throughseveral editions (we have three of them now beforeus) describes a man lost to all moral sensibility andto all sense of decency, a habitual drunkard, and it issimply incredible that a book should have appearedso soon after the death of its subject and should havebeen so frequently republished without being at oncerefuted, if the testimony were not substantially true.Many years later, when it was found necessary tobolster up the reputation of Paine, Cheetham'sMemoirs were called a pack of lies. If only one-tenth part of what he publishes circumstantially inhis volume, as facts in regard to Paine, were true, allthat has been written against him in later years does503not begin to set forth the degraded character of theman's life. And with all that has been written onthe subject we see no good reason to doubt the sub-stantial accuracy of Cheetham's portrait of the manwhom he knew so well.Dr. J. W. Francis, well-known as an eminent phy-sician, of this city, in his Reminiscences of New York,says of Paine:"He who, in his early days, had been associatedwith, and had received counsel from Franklin, was,in his old age, deserted by the humblest menial; he,whose pen has proved a very sword among nations,had shaken empires, and made kings tremble, nowyielded up the mastery to the most treacherous oftyrants, King Alcohol."The physician who attended Paine during his lastillness was Dr. James R. Manley, a gentleman of thehighest character. A letter of his, written in Octo-ber of the year that Paine died, fully corroboratesthe account of his state as recorded by StephenGrellet in his Memoirs, which we have alreadyprinted. He writes:"New York, October 2, 1809: I was called uponby accident to visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of Feb-ruary last, and found him indisposed with fever, andvery apprehensive of an attack of apoplexy, as he504stated that he had that disease before, and at thistime felt a great degree of vertigo, and was unableto help himself as he had hitherto done, on accountof an intense pain above the eyes. On inquiry ofthe attendants I was told that three or four dayspreviously he had concluded to dispense with hisusual quantity of accustomed stimulus and that hehad on that day resumed it. To the want of hisusual drink they attributed his illness, and it is highlyprobable that the usual quantity operating upon astate of system more excited from the above priva-tions, was the cause of the symptoms of which hethen complained.... And here let me be per-mitted to observe (lest blame might attach to thosewhose business it was to pay any particular attentionto his cleanliness of person) that it was absolutelyimpossible to effect that purpose. Cleanliness ap-peared to make no part of his comfort; he seemedto have a singular aversion to soap and water; hewould never ask to be washed, and when he was hewould always make objections; and it was not un-usual to wash and to dress him clean very muchagainst his inclinations. In this deplorable state,with confirmed dropsy, attended with frequent cough,vomiting and hiccough, he continued growing frombad to worse till the morning of the 8th of June,505when he died. Though I may remark that duringthe last three weeks of his life his situation was suchthat his decease was confidently expected every day,his ulcers having assumed a gangrenous appearance,being excessively fetid, and discolored blisters hav-ing taken place on the soles of his feet without anyostensible cause, which baffled the usual attempts toarrest their progress; and when we consider hisformer habits, his advanced age, the feebleness of hisconstitution, his constant habit of using ardent spiritsad libitum till the commencement of his last illness,so far from wondering that he died so soon, we areconstrained to ask, How did he live so long? Con-cerning his conduct during his disease I have notmuch to remark, though the little I have may besomewhat interesting. Mr. Paine professed to beabove the fear of death, and a great part of his con-versation was principally directed to give the impres-sion that he was perfectly willing to leave this world,and yet some parts of his conduct were with difficultyreconcilable with his belief. In the first stages of hisillness he was satisfied to be left alone during theday, but he required some person to be with him atnight, urging as his reason that he was afraid thathe should die when unattended, and at this periodhis deportment and his principle seemed to be con-506sistent; so much so that a stranger would judge fromsome of the remarks he would make that he was anInfidel. I recollect being with him at night, watch-ing; he was very apprehensive of a speedy dissolu-tion, and suffered great distress of body, and perhapsof mind (for he was waiting the event of an applica-tion to the Society of Friends for permission that hiscorpse might be deposited in their grave-ground, andhad reason to believe that the request might berefused), when he remarked in these words, 'I thinkI can say what they made Jesus Christ to say—"MyGod, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" Hewent on to observe on the want of that respect whichhe conceived he merited, when I observed to himthat I thought his corpse should be matter of leastconcern to him; that those whom he would leavebehind him would see that he was properly interred,and, further, that it would be of little consequence tome where I was deposited provided I was buried;upon which he answered that he had nothing else totalk about, and that he would as lief talk of his deathas of anything, but that he was not so indifferentabout his corpse as I appeared to be."During the latter part of his life, though his con-versation was equivocal, his conduct was singular;he could not be left alone night or day; he not only507required to have some person with him, but he mustsee that he or she was there, and would not allowhis curtain to be closed at any time; and if, as itwould sometimes unavoidably happen, he was leftalone, he would scream and halloo until some personcame to him. When relief from pain would admit,he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his eyesbeing generally closed, and his hands folded uponhis breast, although he never slept without the assist-ance of an anodyne. There was something remark-able in his conduct about this period (which comprisesabout two weeks immediately preceding his death),particularly when we reflect that Thomas Paine wasthe author of the 'Age of Reason.' He would callout during his paroxysms of distress, without inter-mission, 'O Lord help me! God help me! JesusChrist help me! Lord help me!' etc., repeating thesame expressions without the least variation, in atone of voice that would alarm the house. It wasthis conduct which induced me to think that he hadabandoned his former opinions, and I was moreinclined to that belief when I understood from hisnurse (who is a very serious and, I believe, piouswoman), that he would occasionally inquire, when hesaw her engaged with a book, what she was reading,and, being answered, and at the same time asked508whether she should read aloud, he assented, andwould appear to give particular attention."I took occasion during the nights of the fifthand sixth of June to test the strength of his opinionsrespecting revelation. I purposely made him a verylate visit; it was a time which seemed to suit exactlywith my errand; it was midnight, he was in greatdistress, constantly exclaiming in the words abovementioned, when, after a considerable preface, Iaddressed him in the following manner, the nursebeing present: 'Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a largeportion of the community, have been treated withdeference, you have never been in the habit of mix-ing in your conversation words of coarse meaning;you have never indulged in the practice of profaneswearing; you must be sensible that we are ac-quainted with your religious opinions as they aregiven to the world. What must we think of yourpresent conduct? Why do you call upon JesusChrist to help you? Do you believe that he canhelp you? Do you believe in the divinity of JesusChrist? Come, now, answer me honestly. I wantan answer from the lips of a dying man, for I verilybelieve that you will not live twenty-four hours.' Iwaited some time at the end of every question; hedid not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above509manner. Again I addressed him; 'Mr. Paine, youhave not answered my questions; will you answerthem? Allow me to ask again, do you believe? orlet me qualify the question, do you wish to believethat Jesus Christ is the Son of God?' After a pauseof some minutes, he answered, 'I have no wish tobelieve on that subject.' I then left him, and knewnot whether he afterward spoke to any person onany subject, though he lived, as I before observed,till the morning of the 8th. Such conduct, underusual circumstances, I conceive absolutely unaccount-able, though, with diffidence, I would remark, not somuch so in the present instance; for though the firstnecessary and general result of conviction be a sin-cere wish to atone for evil committed, yet it may bea question worthy of able consideration whetherexcessive pride of opinion, consummate vanity, andinordinate self-love might not prevent or retard thatotherwise natural consequence. For my own part,I believe that had not Thomas Paine been such adistinguished Infidel he would have left less equivo-cal evidences of a change of opinion. Concerningthe persons who visited Mr. Paine in his distress ashis personal friends, I heard very little, though I mayobserve that their number was small, and of thatnumber there were not wanting those who endeavor-510ed to support him in his deistical opinions, and toencourage him to 'die like a man,' to 'hold fast hisintegrity,' lest Christians, or, as they were pleased toterm them, hypocrites, might take advantage of hisweakness, and furnish themselves with a weapon bywhich they might hope to destroy their glorious sys-tem of morals. Numbers visited him from motivesof benevolence and Christian charity, endeavoring toeffect a change of mind in respect to his religioussentiments. The labor of such was apparently lost,and they pretty generally received such treatmentfrom him as none but good men would risk a secondtime, though some of those persons called frequently."The following testimony will be new to most ofour readers. It is from a letter written by BishopFenwick (Roman Catholic Bishop of Boston), con-taining a full account of a visit which he paid toPaine in his last illness. It was printed in theUnitedStates Catholic Magazinefor 1846; in theCatholicHeraldof Philadelphia, October 15, 1846; in a sup-plement to theHartford Courant, October 23, 1847;and inLittell's Living Agefor January 22, 1848,from which we copy. Bishop Fenwick writes:"A short time before Paine died I was sent for byhim. He was prompted to this by a poor Catholicwoman who went to see him in his sickness, and511who told him, among other things, that in hiswretched condition if anybody could do him anygood it would be a Roman Catholic priest. Thiswoman was an American convert (formerly a Shak-ing Quakeress) whom I had received into the churchbut a few weeks before. She was the bearer of thismessage to me from Paine. I stated this circum-stance to F. Kohlmann, at breakfast, and requestedhim to accompany me. After some solicitation onmy part he agreed to do so? at which I was greatlyrejoiced, because I was at the time quite young andinexperienced in the ministry, and was glad to havehis assistance, as I knew, from the great reputationof Paine, that I should have to do with one of themost impious as well as infamous of men. Weshortly after set out for the house at Greenwichwhere Paine lodged, and on the way agreed on amode of proceeding with him."We arrived at the house; a decent-looking elderlywoman (probably his housekeeper,) came to thedoor and inquired whether we were the Catholicpriests, for said she, 'Mr. Paine has been so muchannoyed of late by other denominations calling uponhim that he has left express orders with me to admitno one to-day but the clergymen of the CatholicChurch. Upon assuring her that we were Catholic512clergymen she opened the door and showed us intothe parlor. She then left the room and shortly afterreturned to inform us that Paine was asleep, and, atthe same time, expressed a wish that we would notdisturb him, 'for,' said she, 'he is always in a badhumor when roused out of his sleep. It is better wewait a little till he be awake.' We accordingly satdown and resolved to await a more favorable moment.'Gentlemen,' said the lady, after having taken herseat also, 'I really wish you may succeed with Mr.Paine, for he is laboring under great distress of mindever since he was informed by his physicians that hecannot possibly live and must die shortly. He sentfor you to-day because he was told that if any onecould do him good you might. Possibly he maythink you know of some remedy which his physiciansare ignorant of. He is truly to be pitied. His crieswhen he is left alone are heart-rending. 'O Lordhelp me!' he will exclaim during his paroxysms ofdistress—'God help me—Jesus Christ help me!'repeating the same expressions without the leastvariation, in a tone of voice that would alarm thehouse. Sometimes he will say, 'O God, what haveI done to suffer so much!' then, shortly after, 'Butthere is no God,' and again a little after, 'Yet ifthere should be, what would become of me hereafter.'513Thus he will continue for some time, when on a sud-den he will scream, as if in terror and agony, andcall out for me by name. On one of these occasions,which are very frequent, I went to him and inquiredwhat he wanted. 'Stay with me,' he replied, 'forGod's sake, for I cannot bear to be left alone.' Ithen observed that I could not always be with him,as I had much to attend to in the house. 'Then,' saidhe, 'send even a child to stay with me, for it is ahell to be alone.' 'I never saw,' she concluded, 'amore unhappy, a more forsaken man. It seems hecannot reconcile himself to die.'"Such was the conversation of the woman whohad received us, and who probably had been employ-ed to nurse and take care of him during his illness.She was a Protestant, yet seemed very desirous thatwe should afford him some relief in his state ofabandonment, bordering on complete despair. Hav-ing remained thus some time in the parlor, we atlength heard a noise in the adjoining passage-way,which induced us to believe that Mr. Paine, who wassick in that room, had awoke. We accordingly pro-posed to proceed thither, which was assented to bythe woman, and she opened the door for us. Onentering, we found him just getting out of hisslumber. A more wretched being in appearance I514never beheld. He was lying in a bed sufficientlydecent of itself, but at present besmeared with filth;his look was that of a man greatly tortured in mind;his eyes haggard, his countenance forbidding, andhis whole appearance that of one whose better dayshad been one continued scene of debauch. His onlynourishment at this time, as we were informed, wasnothing more than milk punch, in which he indulgedto the full extent of his weak state. He had par-taken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as thesides and corners of his mouth exhibited very un-equivocal traces of it, as well as of blood, which hadalso followed in the track and left its mark on thepillow. His face, to a certain extent, had also beenbesmeared with it."Immediately upon their making known the objectof their visit, Paine interrupted the speaker by say-ing: "That's enough, sir; that's enough," and againinterrupting him, "I see what you would be about.I wish to hear no more from you, sir. My mind ismade up on that subject. I look upon the whole ofthe Christian scheme to be a tissue of absurditiesand lies, and Jesus Christ to be nothing more than acunning knave and impostor." He drove them outof the room, exclaiming: Away with you and yourGod, too; leave the room instantly; all that you515have uttered are lies—filthy lies; and if I had alittle more time I would prove it, as I did aboutyour impostor, Jesus Christ."This, we think, will suffice. We have a mass ofletters containing statements confirmatory of whatwe have published in regard to the life and death ofPaine, but nothing more can be required.INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.To the Editor of the New York Observer:You ought to have honesty enough to admit thatyou did, in your paper of July 19th, offer to provethat the absurd story that Thomas Paine died interror and agony on account of the religious opinionshe had expressed, was true. You ought to havefairness enough to admit that you called upon meto deposit one thousand dollars with an honest man,that you might, by proving that Thomas Paine diddie in terror, obtain the money.You ought to have honor enough to admit thatyou challenged me and that you commenced thecontroversy concerning Thomas Paine.You ought to have goodness enough to admitthat you were mistaken in the charges you made.You ought to have manhood enough to do whatyou falsely asserted that Thomas Paine did:—youought to recant. You ought to admit publicly thatyou slandered the dead; that you falsified history;that you defamed the defenceless; that you deliber-517ately denied what you had published in your ownpaper. There is an old saying to the effect thatopen confession is good for the soul. To you ispresented a splendid opportunity of testing the truthof this saying.Nothing has astonished me more than your lackof common honesty exhibited in this controversy. Inyour last, you quote from Dr. J. W. Francis. Whydid you leave out that portion in which Dr. Francissaysthat Cheetham with settled malignity wrote thelife of Paine?Why did you leave out that part inwhich Dr. Francis says that Cheetham in the samewayslandered Alexander Hamilton and De WittClinton?Is it your business to suppress the truth?Why did you not publish the entire letter of BishopFenwick? Was it because it proved beyond allcavil that Thomas Paine did not recant? Was itbecause in the light of that letter Mary Roscoe,Mary Hinsdale and Grant Thorburn appeared un-worthy of belief? Dr. J. W. Francis says in thesame article from which you quoted, "Paine clung tohis Infidelity until the last moment of his life!'Whydid you not publish that? It was the first line im-mediately above what you did quote. You musthave seen it. Why did you suppress it? A lawyer,doing a thing of this character, is denominated a518shyster. I do not know the appropriate word todesignate a theologian guilty of such an act.You brought forward three witnesses, pretendingto have personal knowledge about the life and deathof Thomas Paine: Grant Thorburn, Mary Roscoeand Mary Hinsdale. In my reply I took the groundthat Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale must havebeen the same person. I thought it impossible thatPaine should have had a conversation with MaryRoscoe, and then one precisely like it with MaryHinsdale. Acting upon this conviction, I proceededto show that the conversation never could have hap-pened, that it was absurdly false to say that Paineasked the opinion of a girl as to his works who hadnever read but little of them. I then showed by thetestimony of William Cobbett, that he visited MaryHinsdale in 1819, taking with him a statement con-cerning the recantation of Paine, given him by Mr.Collins, and that upon being shown this statementshe said that "it was so long ago that she could notspeak positively to any part of the matter—that shewould not say any part of the paper was true." Atthat time she knew nothing, and remembered noth-ing. I also showed that she was a kind of standingwitness to prove that others recanted. Willett Hicksdenounced her as unworthy of belief.519To-day the following from the New YorkWorldwas received, showing that I was right in myconjecture:Tom Paine's Death-Bed.To the Editor of the World:Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll dis-credits Mary Hinsdale's story of the scenes whichoccurred at the death-bed of Thomas Paine. Noone who knew that good lady would for one momentdoubt her veracity or question her testimony. Bothshe and her husband were Quaker preachers, andwell known and respected inhabitants of New YorkCity,Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that MaryRoscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same person. Hermaiden name was Roscoe, and she married HenryHinsdale. My mother was a Roscoe, a niece ofMary Roscoe, and lived with her for some time. Ihave heard her relate the story of Tom Paine's dyingremorse, as told her by her aunt, who was a witnessto it. She says (in a letter I have just received fromher), "he (Tom Paine) suffered fearfully from remorse,and renounced his Infidel principles, calling on Godto forgive him, and wishing his pamphlets and booksto be burned, saying he could not die in peace untilit was done." (Rev.) A. W. Cornell.Harpersville, New York.520You will notice that the testimony of Mary Hins-dale has been drawing interest since 1809, and hasmaterially increased. If Paine "suffered fearfullyfrom remorse, renounced his Infidel opinions andcalled on God to forgive him," it is hardly generousfor the Christian world to fasten the fangs of malicein the flesh of his reputation.So Mary Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and asMary Hinsdale has been shown by her own admis-sion to Mr. Cobbett to have known nothing of thematter; and as Mary Hinsdale was not, according toWillet Hicks, worthy of belief—as she told a false-hood of the same kind about Mary Lockwood, andwas, according to Mr. Collins, addicted to the use ofopium—this disposes of her and her testimony.There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn.Concerning this witness, I received, yesterday, fromthe eminent biographer and essayist, James Parton,the following epistle:Newburyport, Mass.Col. R. G. Ingersoll:Touching Grant Thorburn, I personally know himto have been a dishonest man. At the age of ninety-two he copied, with trembling hand, a piece from anewspaper and brought it to the office of theHomeJournal, as his own. It was I who received it and521detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever go-ing to continue this subject, I will give you the exactfacts.Fervently yours,James Parton.After this, you are welcome to what remains ofGrant Thorburn.There is one thing that I have noticed during thiscontroversy regarding Thomas Paine. In no instancethat I now call to mind has any Christian writerspoken respectfully of Mr. Paine. All have takenparticular pains to call him "Tom" Paine. Is it nota little strange that religion should make men socoarse and ill-mannered?I have often wondered what these same gentle-men would say if I should speak of the men eminentin the annals of Christianity in the same way. Whatwould they say if I should write about "Tim"Dwight, old "Ad" Clark, "Tom" Scott, "Jim"McKnight, "Bill" Hamilton, "Dick" Whately, "Bill"Paley, and "Jack" Calvin?They wouldsayof me then, just what Ithinkofthem now.Even if we have religion, do not let us try to getalong without good manners. Rudeness is exceed-ingly unbecoming, even in a saint. Persons who522forgive their enemies ought, to say the least, totreat with politeness those who have never injuredthem.It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I have com-pelled you to say that "Paine died a blasphemingInfidel." Hereafter it is to be hoped nothing will beheard about his having recanted. As an answer tosuch slander his friends can confidently quote thefollowing from theNew York Observerof Novemberist, 1877:"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NORHAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RE-NOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY. THE ACCOUNTS AGREE INSTATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."This for all coming time will refute the slanders ofthe churches yet to be.Right here allow me to ask: If you never supposedthat Paine renounced his Infidelity, why did you tryto prove by Mary Hinsdale that which you believedto be untrue?From the bottom of my heart I thank myself forhaving compelled you to admit that Thomas Painedid not recant.For the purpose of verifying your own admissionconcerning the death of Mr. Paine, permit me to callyour attention to the following affidavit:523Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.Col. R. G. Ingersoll:Dear Sir: The following statement of facts is atyour disposal. In the year 1833 Willet Hicks madea visit to Indiana and stayed over night at my father'shouse, four miles east of Richmond. In the morn-ing at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks thefollowing questions:"Was thee with Thomas Paine during his lastsickness?"Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him every day dur-ing the latter part of his last sickness.""Did he express any regret in regard to writingthe 'Age of Reason,' as the published accounts sayhe did—those accounts that have the credit of ema-nating from his Catholic housekeeper?"Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way byword or action.""Did he call on God or Jesus Christ, asking eitherof them to forgive his sins, or did he curse them oreither of them?"Mr. Hicks answered: "He did not. He died aseasy as any one I ever saw die, and I have seenmany die in my time." William B Barnes.Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.Warren Bigler, Notary Public.524You say in your last that "Thomas Paine wasabandoned of God." So far as this controversy isconcerned, it seems to me that in that sentence youhave most graphically described your own condi-tion.Wishing you success in all honest undertakings, Iremain,Yours truly,Robert G. Ingersoll.