diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38805-h/images/portrait.jpg | bin | 0 -> 59938 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38805-h/images/titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 58917 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38805-h/main.htm | 11114 |
3 files changed, 11114 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38805-h/images/portrait.jpg b/old/orig38805-h/images/portrait.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..94c0f86 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38805-h/images/portrait.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38805-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38805-h/images/titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0ca74f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38805-h/images/titlepage.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38805-h/main.htm b/old/orig38805-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa582aa --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38805-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,11114 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> +<head> +<meta name="generator" content="HTML-Kit Tools HTML Tidy plugin" /> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= +"text/html; charset=us-ascii" /> +<title>The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Volume 5 (of 12) by Robert +G. Ingersoll</title> + +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[*/ + <!-- + body { text-align:justify} + P { margin:15%; + margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; } + img {border: 0;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 30%; margin-right: 20%;} + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: left; + color: gray; + } /* page numbers */ + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; + margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 35%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + CENTER { padding: 10px;} + PRE { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;} + --> +/*]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div style="height: 8em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h1>THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h1> +<br /> +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> +<h3>"There Can Be But Little Liberty On Earth<br /> +While Men Worship A Tyrant In Heaven."</h3> +<br /> +<h3>In Twelve Volumes, Volume V.</h3> +<br /> +<h2>DISCUSSIONS</h2> +<br /> +<h3>1900</h3> +<br /> +<h3>DRESDEN EDITION</h3> +<br /> +<center><img alt="titlepage (57K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" +height="763" width="455" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<center><img alt="portrait (58K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" height= +"581" width="357" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>Contents</h2> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC">CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkPREF">PREFACE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON +TALMAGE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">FIRST INTERVIEW.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">SECOND INTERVIEW.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THIRD INTERVIEW.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">FOURTH INTERVIEW.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">FIFTH INTERVIEW,</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">SIXTH INTERVIEW.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A VINDICATION OF THOMAS +PAINE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkCONC">CONCLUSION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">THE OBSERVER'S SECOND +ATTACK</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">INGERSOLL'S SECOND +REPLY.</a></p> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.</h2> +<blockquote> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">INGERSOLL'S SIX INTERVIEWS ON +TALMAGE.</a></p> +<br /> +(1882.)<br /> +Preface—First Interview: Great Men as Witnesses<br /> +to the Truth of the Gospel—No man should quote<br /> +the Words of Another unless he is willing to<br /> +Accept all the Opinions of that Man—Reasons of<br /> +more Weight than Reputations—Would a general<br /> +Acceptance of Unbelief fill the Penitentiaries?—<br /> +My Creed—Most Criminals Orthodox—Relig-ion and<br /> +Morality not Necessarily Associates—On the<br /> +Creation of the Universe out of Omnipotence—Mr.<br /> +Talmage's Theory about the Pro-duction of Light<br /> +prior to the Creation of the Sun—The Deluge and<br /> +the Ark—Mr. Talmage's tendency to Belittle the<br /> +Bible Miracles—His Chemical, Geological, and<br /> +Agricultural Views—His Disregard of Good Manners-<br /> +-Second Interview: An Insulting Text—God's Design<br /> +in Creating Guiteau to be the Assassin of<br /> +Garfield—Mr. Talmage brings the Charge of<br /> +Blasphemy—Some Real Blasphemers—The Tabernacle<br /> +Pastor tells the exact Opposite of the Truth about<br /> +Col. Ingersoll's Attitude toward the Circulation<br /> +of Immoral Books—"Assassinating" God—Mr.<br /> +Talmage finds Nearly All the Invention of Modern<br /> +Times Mentioned in the Bible—The Reverend<br /> +Gentleman corrects the Translators of the Bible in<br /> +the Matter of the Rib Story—Denies that Polygamy<br /> +is permitted by the Old Testament—His De-fence of<br /> +Queen Victoria and Violation of the Grave of<br /> +George Eliot—Exhibits a Christian Spirit—Third<br /> +Interview: Mr. Talmage's Partiality in the<br /> +Bestowal of his Love—Denies the Right of Laymen<br /> +to Examine the Scriptures—Thinks the Infidels<br /> +Victims of Bibliophobia —He explains the Stopping<br /> +of the Sun and Moon at the Command of Joshua—<br /> +Instances a Dark Day in the Early Part of the<br /> +Century—Charges that Holy Things are Made Light<br /> +of—Reaffirms his Confidence in the Whale and<br /> +Jonah Story—The Commandment which Forbids the<br /> +making of Graven Images—Affirmation that the<br /> +Bible is the Friend of Woman—The Present<br /> +Condition of Woman—Fourth Interview: Colonel<br /> +Ingersoll Compared by Mr. Talmage tojehoiakim, who<br /> +Consigned Writings of Jeremiah to the Flames—An<br /> +Intimation that Infidels wish to have all copies<br /> +of the Bible Destroyed by Fire—Laughter<br /> +Deprecated—Col. Ingersoll Accused of Denouncing<br /> +his Father—Mr. Talmage holds that a Man may be<br /> +Perfectly Happy in Heaven with His Mother in Hell-<br /> +-Challenges the Infidel to Read a Chapter from St.<br /> +John—On the "Chief Solace of the World"—Dis-<br /> +covers an Attempt is being made to Put Out the<br /> +Light-houses of the Farther Shore—Affirms our<br /> +Debt to Christianity for Schools, Hospitals,<br /> +etc.—Denies that Infidels have ever Done any<br /> +Good—<br /> +Fifth Interview: Inquiries if Men gather Grapes of<br /> +Thorns, or Figs of Thistles, and is Answered in<br /> +the Negative—Resents the Charge that the Bible is<br /> +a Cruel Book—Demands to Know where the Cruelty of<br /> +the Bible Crops out in the Lives of Christians—<br /> +Col. Ingersoll Accused of saying that the Bible<br /> +is a Collection of Polluted Writings—Mr. Talmage<br /> +Asserts the Orchestral Harmony of the Scriptures<br /> +from Genesis to Revelation, and Repudiates the<br /> +Theory of Contradictions—His View of Mankind<br /> +Indicated in Quotations from his Confession of<br /> +Faith—He Insists that the Bible is Scientific—<br /> +Traces the New Testament to its Source with St.<br /> +John—Pledges his Word that no Man ever Died for a<br /> +Lie Cheerfully and Triumphantly—As to Prophecies<br /> +and Predictions—Alleged "Prophetic" Fate of the<br /> +Jewish People—Sixth Interview: Dr. Talmage takes<br /> +the Ground that the Unrivalled Circulation of the<br /> +Bible Proves that it is Inspired—Forgets' that a<br /> +Scientific Fact does not depend on the Vote of<br /> +Numbers—Names some Christian Millions—His<br /> +Arguments Characterized as the Poor-est, Weakest,<br /> +and Best Possible in Support of the Doctrine of<br /> +Inspira-tion—Will God, in Judging a Man, take<br /> +into Consideration the Cir-cumstances of that<br /> +Man's Life?—Satisfactory Reasons for Not Believ-<br /> +ing that the Bible is inspired.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.</a></p> +THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.<br /> +The Pith and Marrow of what Mr. Talmage has been<br /> +Pleased to Say, set forth in the form of a Shorter<br /> +Catechism.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A VINDICATION OF THOMAS +PAINE.</a></p> +<br /> +(1877.)<br /> +Letter to the New York Observer—An Offer to Pay<br /> +One Thousand Dollars in Gold for Proof that Thomas<br /> +Paine or Voltaire Died in Terror because of any<br /> +Religious Opinions Either had Expressed—<br /> +Proposition to Create a Tribunal to Hear the<br /> +Evidence—The Ob-server, after having Called upon<br /> +Col. Ingersoll to Deposit the Money, and<br /> +Characterized his Talk as "Infidel 'Buncombe,'"<br /> +Denies its Own Words, but attempts to Prove them—<br /> +Its Memory Refreshed by Col. Ingersoll and the<br /> +Slander Refuted—Proof that Paine did Not Recant -<br /> +-Testimony of Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton, Mr.<br /> +Jarvis, B. F. Has-kin, Dr. Manley, Amasa<br /> +Woodsworth, Gilbert Vale, Philip Graves, M. D.,<br /> +Willet Hicks, A. C. Hankinson, John Hogeboom, W.<br /> +J. Hilton, Tames Cheetham, Revs. Milledollar and<br /> +Cunningham, Mrs. Hedden, Andrew A. Dean, William<br /> +Carver,—The Statements of Mary Roscoe and Mary<br /> +Hindsdale Examined—William Cobbett's Account of a<br /> +Call upon Mary Hinsdale—Did Thomas Paine live the<br /> +Life of a Drunken Beast, and did he Die a Drunken,<br /> +Cowardly, and Beastly Death?—Grant Thorbum's<br /> +Charges Examined—Statement of the Rev. J. D.<br /> +Wickham, D.D., shown to be Utterly False—False<br /> +Witness of the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D.—W. H.<br /> +Ladd, James Cheetham, and Mary Hinsdale—Paine's<br /> +Note to Cheetham—Mr-Staple, Mr. Purdy, Col. John<br /> +Fellows, James Wilburn, Walter Morton, Clio<br /> +Rickman, Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer,<br /> +Mr.<br /> +XV<br /> +Lovett, all these Testified that Paine was a<br /> +Temperate Man—Washington's Letter to Paine—<br /> +Thomas Jefferson's—Adams and Washing-ton on<br /> +"Common Sense"—-James Monroe's Tribute—<br /> +Quotations from Paine—Paine's Estate and His<br /> +Will—The Observer's Second Attack (p. 492):<br /> +Statements of Elkana Watson, William Carver, Rev.<br /> +E. F. Hatfield, D.D., James Cheetham, Dr. J. W.<br /> +Francis, Dr. Manley, Bishop Fenwick—Ingersoll's<br /> +Second Reply (p. 516): Testimony Garbled by the<br /> +Editor of the Observer—Mary Roscoeand Mary Hins-<br /> +dale the Same Person—Her Reputation for Veracity-<br /> +-Letter from Rev. A. W. Cornell—Grant Thorburn<br /> +Exposed by James Parton—The Observer's Admission<br /> +that Paine did not Recant—Affidavit of<br /> +William B. Barnes.<br /></blockquote> +<a name="linkPREF" id="linkPREF"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>PREFACE.</h2> +<p>SEVERAL people, having read the sermons of Mr. Talmage in which +he reviews some of my lectures, have advised me not to pay the +slightest attention to the Brooklyn divine. They think that no new +arguments have been brought forward, and they have even gone so far +as to say that some of the best of the old ones have been left +out.</p> +<p>After thinking the matter over, I became satisfied that my +friends were mistaken, that they had been carried away by the +general current of modern thought, and were not in a frame of mind +to feel the force of the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly +see the candor that characterizes his utterances.</p> +<p>At the first reading, the logic of these sermons does not +impress you. The style is of a character calculated</p> +<center>VI</center> +<p>to throw the searcher after facts and arguments off his guard. +The imagination of the preacher is so lurid; he is so free from the +ordinary forms of expression; his statements are so much stranger +than truth, and his conclusions so utterly independent of his +premises, that the reader is too astonished to be convinced. Not +until I had read with great care the six discourses delivered for +my benefit had I any clear and well-defined idea of the logical +force of Mr. Talmage. I had but little conception of his candor, +was almost totally ignorant of his power to render the simple +complex and the plain obscure by the mutilation of metaphor and the +incoherence of inspired declamation. Neither did I know the +generous accuracy with which he states the position of an opponent, +and the fairness he exhibits in a religious discussion.</p> +<p>He has without doubt studied the Bible as closely and critically +as he has the works of Buckle and Darwin, and he seems to have paid +as much attention to scientific subjects as most theologians. His +theory of light and his views upon geology are strikingly original, +and his astronomical theories are certainly as profound as +practical. If his statements can be relied upon, he has +successfully refuted the teachings of</p> +<center>VII</center> +<p>Humboldt and Haeckel, and exploded the blunders of Spencer and +Tyndall. Besides all this, he has the courage of his +convictions—he does not quail before a fact, and he does not +strike his colors even to a demonstration. He cares nothing for +human experience. He cannot be put down with statistics, nor driven +from his position by the certainties of science. He cares neither +for the persistence of force, nor the indestructibility of +matter.</p> +<p>He believes in the Bible, and he has the bravery to defend his +belief. In this, he proudly stands almost alone. He knows that the +salvation of the world depends upon a belief in his creed. He knows +that what are called "the sciences" are of no importance in the +other world. He clearly sees that it is better to live and die +ignorant here, if you can wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows +it is useless to be perfectly familiar with all the sciences in +this world, and then in the next "lift up your eyes, being in +torment." He knows, too, that God will not punish any man for +denying a fact in science. A man can deny the rotundity of the +earth, the attraction 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</p> +<center>VIII</center> +<p>sophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridicule the rule +of three, conic sections, and even the multiplication table. God +permits every human being 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,</p> +<p>or in his astronomy, or in mathematics, or in any school of +philosophy—he is jealous only of his reputation as the author +of the Bible. You may deny everything else in the universe except +that book. This being so, Mr. Talmage takes the safe side, and +insists that the Bible is inspired. He knows that at the day of +judgment, not a scientific question will be asked. He knows that +the Hæckels and Huxleys will, on that terrible day, regret +that they ever learned to read. He knows that there is no "saving +grace" in any department of human knowledge; that mathematics and +all the exact sciences and all the philosophies will be worse than +useless. He knows that inventors, discoverers, thinkers and +investigators, have no claim upon the mercy of Jehovah; that the +educated will envy the ignorant, and that the writers and thinkers +will curse their books.</p> +<p>He knows that man cannot be saved through what he +knows—but only by means of what he</p> +<center>IX</center> +<p>believes. Theology is not a science. If it were, God would +forgive his children for being mistaken about it. If it could be +proved like geology, or astronomy, there would be no merit in +believing it. From a belief in the Bible, Mr. Talmage is not to be +driven by uninspired evidence. He knows that his logic is liable to +lead him astray, and that his reason cannot be depended upon. He +believes that scientific men are no authority in matters concerning +which nothing can be known, and he does not wish to put his soul in +peril, by examining by the light of reason, the evidences of the +supernatural.</p> +<p>He is perfectly consistent with his creed. What happens to us +here is of no consequence compared with eternal joy or pain. The +ambitions, honors, glories and triumphs of this world, compared +with eternal things, are less than naught.</p> +<p>Better a cross here and a crown there, than a feast here and a +fire there.</p> +<p>Lazarus was far more fortunate than Dives. The purple and fine +linen of this short life are as nothing compared with the robes of +the redeemed.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage knows that philosophy is unsafe— that the +sciences are sirens luring souls to eternal wreck. He knows that +the deluded searchers after</p> +<center>X</center> +<p>facts are planting thorns in their own pillows—that the +geologists are digging pits for themselves, and that the +astronomers are robbing their souls of the heaven they explore. He +knows that thought, capacity, and intellectual courage are +dangerous, and this belief gives him a feeling of personal +security.</p> +<p>The Bible is adapted to the world as it is. Most people are +ignorant, and but few have the capacity to comprehend philosophical +and scientific subjects, and if salvation depended upon +understanding even one of the sciences, nearly everybody would be +lost. Mr. Talmage sees that it was exceedingly merciful in God 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 treason born of pride and ingratitude. This being so, it is +far safer, far better, to be credulous than critical. You are +offered an infinite reward for believing the Bible. If you examine +it you may find it impossible for you to believe it. Consequently, +examination is dangerous. Mr. Talmage knows that it is not +necessary to understand the Bible in order to believe it. You must +believe it first. Then, if on reading it you find anything that +appears false, absurd, or impossible, you may be sure that it is +only an appearance, and that the real</p> +<center>XI</center> +<p>fault is in yourself. It is certain that persons wholly +incapable of reasoning are absolutely safe, and that to be born +brainless is to be saved in advance.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage takes the ground,—and certainly from his 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 sermons, +read religious books, and keep thinking, until he becomes a +Christian. Then he should stop. After that, thinking is not the +road to heaven. The real point and the real difficulty is to stop +thinking just at the right time. Young Christians, who have no idea +of what they are doing, often go on thinking after joining the +church, and in this way heresy is born, and heresy is often the +father of infidelity. If Christians would follow the advice and +example of Mr. Talmage all disagreements about doctrine would be +avoided. In this way the church could secure absolute intellectual +peace and all the disputes, heartburnings, jealousies and hatreds +born of thought, discussion and reasoning, would be impossible.</p> +<p>In the estimation of Mr. Talmage, the man who doubts and +examines is not fit for the society of angels. There are no +disputes, no discussions in</p> +<center>XII</center> +<p>heaven. The angels do not think; they believe, they enjoy. The +highest form of religion is repression. We should conquer the +passions and destroy desire. We should control the mind and stop +thinking. In this way we "offer ourselves a "living sacrifice, +holy, acceptable unto God." When desire dies, when thought ceases, +we shall be pure. —This is heaven.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<p>Washington, D. C,</p> +<p>April; 1882.</p> +<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.</h2> +<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FIRST INTERVIEW.</h2> +<p>Polonius. My lord, I will use them according to their +desert.</p> +<p>Hamlet. God's bodikins, man, much better: use every man after +his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your own +honor and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is in your +bounty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read the sermon of</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage, in which he exposes your misrepresentations?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have read such reports as appeared in some of +the New York papers.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of what he has to say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some time ago I gave it as my opinion of Mr. +Talmage that, while he was a man of most excellent judgment, he was +somewhat deficient in imagination. I find that he has the disease +that seems</p> +<center>16</center> +<p>to afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intellectual +toadyism, that uses the names of supposed great men instead of +arguments. It is perfectly astonishing to the average preacher that +any one should have the temerity to differ, on the subject of +theology, with Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and other gentlemen +eminent for piety during their lives, but who, as a rule, expressed +their theological opinions a few minutes before dissolution. These +ministers are perfectly delighted to have some great politician, +some judge, soldier, or president, certify to the truth of the +Bible and to the moral character of Jesus Christ.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in one +particular, his entire testimony must be thrown away. Daniel +Webster was in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law, and thought it the +duty of the North to capture the poor slave-mother. He was willing +to stand between a human being and his freedom. He was willing to +assist in compelling persons to work without any pay except such +marks of the lash as they might receive. Yet this man is brought +forward as a witness for the truth of the gospel. If he was false +in his testimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth as to +the value of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was a brave man, a good +general, a patriot second to none,</p> +<center>17</center> +<p>an excellent judge of horses, and a brave duelist. I admit that +in his old age he relied considerably upon the atonement. I think +Jackson was really a very great man, and probably no President +impressed himself more deeply upon the American people than the +hero of New Orleans, but as a theologian he was, in my judgment, a +most decided failure, and his opinion as to the authenticity of the +Scriptures is of no earthly value. It was a subject upon which he +knew probably as little as Mr. Talmage does about modern +infidelity. Thousands of people will quote Jackson in favor of +religion, about which he knew nothing, and yet have no confidence +in his political opinions, although he devoted the best part of his +life to politics.</p> +<p>No man should quote the words of another, in place of an +argument, unless he is willing to accept all the opinions of that +man. Lord Bacon denied the Copernican</p> +<p>system of astronomy, and, according to Mr. Talmage, having made +that mistake, his opinions upon other subjects are equally +worthless. Mr. Wesley believed in ghosts, witches, and personal +devils, yet upon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions were +correct. The truth is, that nearly everybody is right about some +things and wrong about most things; and if a man's testimony is not +to be taken until he is</p> +<center>18</center> +<p>right on every subject, witnesses will be extremely scarce.</p> +<p>Personally, I care nothing about names. It makes no difference +to me what the supposed great men of the past have said, except as +what they have said contains an argument; and that argument is +worth to me the force it naturally has upon my mind. Christians +forget that in the realm of reason there are no serfs and no +monarchs. When you submit to an argument, you do not submit to the +man who made it. Christianity demands a certain obedience, a +certain blind, unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyes of +the ignorant, with great pomp and pride, the names of kings, +soldiers, and statesmen who have admitted the truth of the Bible. +Mr. Talmage introduces as a witness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This +same Theodore Parker denounced the Presbyterian creed as the most +infamous of all creeds, and said that the worst heathen god, +wearing a necklace of live snakes, was a representation of mercy +when compared with the God of John Calvin. Now, if this witness is +false in any particular, of course he cannot be believed, according +to Mr. Talmage, upon any subject, and yet Mr. Talmage introduces +him upon the stand as a good witness.</p> +<center>19</center> +<p>Although I care but little for names, still I will suggest that, +in all probability, Humboldt knew more upon this subject than all +the pastors in the world. I certainly would have as much confidence +in the opinion of Goethe as in that of William H. Seward; and as +between Seward and Lincoln, I should take Lincoln; and when you +come to Presidents, for my part, if I were compelled to pin my +faith on the sleeve of anybody, I should take Jefferson's coat in +preference to Jackson'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 much upon these great +questions as the average parson. I believe that Darwin has +investigated some of these things, that Tyndall and Huxley have +turned their minds somewhat in the same direction, that Helmholtz +has a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able, +intelligent and honest men differ almost entirely with Webster and +Jackson.</p> +<p>So far as I am concerned, I think more of reasons than of +reputations, more of principles than of persons, more of nature +than of names, more of facts, than of faiths.</p> +<p>It is the same with books as with persons. Probably there is not +a book in the world entirely destitute</p> +<center>20</center> +<p>of truth, and not one entirely exempt from error. The Bible is +like other books. There are mistakes in it, side by side with +truths,—passages inculcating murder, and others exalting +mercy; laws devilish and tyrannical, and others filled with wisdom +and justice. It is foolish to say that if you accept a part, you +must accept the whole. You must accept that which commends itself +to your heart and brain. There never was a doctrine that a witness, +or a book, should be thrown entirely away, because false in one +particular. If in any particular the book, or the man, tells the +truth, to that extent the truth should be accepted.</p> +<p>Truth is made no worse by the one who tells it, and a lie gets +no real benefit from the reputation of its author.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the statement that a +general belief in your teachings would fill all the penitentiaries, +and that in twenty years there would be a hell in this world worse +than the one expected in the other?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My creed is this:</p> +<p>1. Happiness is the only good.</p> +<p>2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.</p> +<center>21</center> +<p>Other things being equal, that man is happiest who is nearest +just—who is truthful, merciful and intelligent— in +other words, the one who lives in accordance with the conditions of +life.</p> +<p>3. The time to be happy is now, and the place to be happy, is +here.</p> +<p>4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torch of +progress; and instead of blowing that out and depending upon +darkness and dogma, it is far better to increase that sacred +light.</p> +<p>5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietor of himself, +honest with himself, and intellectually hospitable; and upon every +brain reason should be enthroned as king.</p> +<p>6. Every man must bear the consequences, at least of his own +actions. If he puts his hands in the fire, his hands must smart, +and not the hands of another. In other words: each man must eat the +fruit of the tree he plants.</p> +<p>I can not conceive that the teaching of these doctrines would +fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows. The doctrine of +forgiveness—the idea that somebody else can suffer in place +of the guilty—the notion that just at the last the whole +account can be settled— these ideas, doctrines, and notions +are calculated to fill</p> +<center>22</center> +<p>penitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like the credit +system.</p> +<p>Most criminals of the present day are orthodox believers, and +the gallows seems to be the last round of the ladder reaching from +earth to heaven. The Rev. Dr. Sunderland, of this city, in his +sermon on the assassination of Garfield, takes the ground that God +permitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyes of the +people to the evil effects of infidelity. According to this +minister, God, in order to show his hatred of infidelity, +"inspired," or allowed, one Christian to assassinate another.</p> +<p>Religion and morality do not necessarily go together. Mr. +Talmage will insist to-day that morality is not sufficient to save +any man from eternal punishment. As a matter of fact, religion has +often been the enemy of morality. The moralist has been denounced +by the theologians. He sustains the same relation to Christianity +that the moderate drinker does to the totalabstinence society. The +total-abstinence people say that the example of the moderate +drinker is far worse upon the young than that of the +drunkard—that the drunkard is a warning, while the moderate +drinker is a perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moralists. +According to them, the moralist sets a worse</p> +<center>23</center> +<p>example than the criminal. The moralist not only insists that a +man can be a good citizen, a kind husband, an affectionate father, +without religion, but demonstrates the truth of his doctrine by his +own life; whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself he is +nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needs assistance from the +church and its ministers.</p> +<p>The worst criminals of the modern world have been +Christians—I mean by that, believers in Christianity— +and the most monstrous crimes of the modern world have been +committed by the most zealous believers. There is nothing in +orthodox religion, apart from the morality it teaches, to prevent +the commission oF crime. On the other hand, the perpetual proffer +of forgiveness is a direct premium upon what Christians are pleased +to call the commission of sin.</p> +<p>Christianity has produced no greater character than Epictetus, +no greater sovereign than Marcus Aurelius. The wickedness of the +past was a good deal like that of the present. As a rule, kings +have been wicked in direct proportion to their power—their +power having been lessened, their crimes have decreased. As a +matter of fact, paganism, of itself, did not produce any great men; +neither has Christianity. Millions of influences determine +individual character, and the re</p> +<center>24</center> +<p>ligion of the country in which a man happens to be born may +determine many of his opinions, without influencing, to any great +extent, his real character.</p> +<p>There have been brave, honest, and intelligent men in and out of +every church.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that, +according to the Bible, the universe was made out of nothing, and +he denounces your statement as a gross misrepresentation. What have +you stated upon that subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. 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."</p> +<p>This has always been my position. I did not suppose that nothing +was used as the raw material; but</p> +<p>if the Mosaic account means anything, it means that whereas +there was nothing, God caused something to</p> +<center>25</center> +<p>exist—created what we know as matter. I can not conceive +of something being made, created, without anything to make anything +with. I have no more confidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat +money. Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the universe out +of <i>nothing</i>, but out of "omnipotence." Exactly how God +changed "omnipotence" into matter is not stated. If there was +<i>nothing</i> in the universe, <i>omnipotence</i> could do you no +good. The weakest man in the world can lift as much <i>nothing</i> +as God.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create something from nothing +is simply a question of strength—that it requires infinite +muscle—that it is only a question of biceps. Of course, +omnipotence is an attribute, not an entity, not a raw material; and +the idea that something can be made out of omnipotence—using +that as the raw material—is infinitely absurd. It would have +been equally logical to say that God made the universe out of his +omniscience, or his omnipresence, or his unchangeableness, or out +of his honesty, his holiness, or his incapacity to do evil. I +confess my utter inability to understand, or even to suspect, what +the reverend gentleman means, when he says that God created the +universe out of his "omnipotence."</p> +<p>I admit that the Bible does not tell when God created</p> +<center>26</center> +<p>the universe. It is simply said that he did this "in the +beginning." We are left, however, to infer that "the beginning" was +Monday morning, and that on the first Monday God created the matter +in an exceedingly chaotic state; that on Tuesday he made a +firmament to divide the waters from the waters; that on Wednesday +he gathered the waters together in seas and allowed the dry land to +appear. We are also told that on 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." This was before +the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmage takes the ground that +there are many other sources of light; that "there may have been +volcanoes in active operation on other planets." I have my doubts, +however, about the light of volcanoes being sufficient to produce +or sustain vegetable life, and think it a little doubtful about +trees growing only by "volcanic glare." Neither do I think one +could depend upon "three thousand miles of liquid granite" for the +production of grass and trees, nor upon "light that rocks might +emit in the process of crystallization." I doubt whether trees +would succeed simply with the assistance of the "Aurora Borealis or +the Aurora Australis." There are other sources of light, not +mentioned by</p> +<center>27</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage—lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles, and +fox-fire. I should think that it would be humiliating, in this age, +for an orthodox preacher to insist that vegetation could exist upon +this planet without the light of the sun—that trees could +grow, blossom and bear fruit, having no light but the flames of +volcanoes, or that emitted by liquid granite, or thrown off by the +crystallization of rocks.</p> +<p>There is another thing, also, that should not be forgotten, and +that is, that there is an even balance forever kept between the +totals of animal and vegetable life—that certain forms of +animal life go with certain forms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel +has shown that "in the first epoch, algæ and skull-less +vertebrates were found together; in the second, ferns and fishes; +in the third, pines and reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceous</p> +<p>forests and mammals." Vegetable and animal life 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 and myself is this: He says that God made the universe +out of his "omnipotence," and I say that, although I know nothing +whatever upon the subject, my opinion is, that the universe has +existed from eternity—that it continually changes in form, +but that it never was</p> +<center>28</center> +<p>created or called into being by any power. I think that all that +is, is all the God there is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges you with having +misrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has he correctly +stated your position?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that the flood was +only partial, and was, after all, not much of a flood. 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."</p> +<p>I did not suppose that there was any miracle in the Bible larger +than the credulity of Mr. Talmage. The flood story, however, seems +to be a little more than he can bear. He is like the witness who +stated that he had read <i>Gullivers Travels</i>, the <i>Stories of +Munchausen</i>, and the <i>Flying Wife</i>, including <i>Robinson +Crusoe</i>, and believed them all; but that Wirt's <i>Life of +Patrick Henry</i> was a litde more than he could stand.</p> +<center>29</center> +<p>It is strange that a man who believes that God created the +universe out of "omnipotence" should believe that he had not enough +omnipotence left to drown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage +seeks to make the story of the flood reasonable. The moment it is +reasonable, it ceases to be miraculous. Certainly God cannot afford +to reward a man with eternal joy for believing a reasonable story. +Faith is only necessary when the story is unreasonable, and if the +flood only gets small enough, I can believe it myself. I ask for +evidence, and Mr. Talmage seeks to make the story so little that it +can be believed without evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of +"local option" flood—a little wet for that part of the +country.</p> +<p>Why was it necessary to save the birds? They certainly could +have gotten out of the way of a real small flood. Of the birds, +Noah took fourteen of each species. He was commanded to take of the +fowls of the air by sevens—seven of each sex—and, as +there are at least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary of +about 175,000 birds, provided the flood was general. If it was +local, there are no means of determining the number. But why, if +the flood was local, should he have taken any of the fowls of the +air into his ark?</p> +<center>30</center> +<p>All they had to do was to fly away, or "roost high;" and it +would have been just as easy for God to have implanted in them, for +the moment, the instinct of getting out of the way as the instinct +of hunting the ark. It would have been quite a saving of room and +provisions, and would have materially lessened the labor and +anxiety of Noah and his sons.</p> +<p>Besides, if it had been a partial flood, and great enough to +cover the highest mountains in that country, the highest mountain +being about seventeen thousand feet, the flood would have been +covered with a sheet of ice several thousand feet in thickness. If +a column of water could have been thrown seventeen thousand feet +high and kept stationary, several thousand feet of the upper end +would have frozen. If, however, the deluge was general, then the +atmosphere would have been forced out the same on all sides, and +the climate remained substantially normal.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt to explain the flood +by calling it partial.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage also says that the window ran clear round the ark, +and that if I had only known as much Hebrew as a man could put on +his little finger, I would have known that the window went clear +round. To this I reply that, if his position is correct, then +the</p> +<center>31</center> +<p>original translators of King James' edition did not know as much +Hebrew as they could have put on their little fingers; and yet I am +obliged to believe their translation or be eternally damned. If the +window went clear round, the inspired writer should have said so, +and the learned translators should have given us the truth. No one +pretends that there was more than one door, and yet the same +language is used about the door, except this—that the exact +size of the window is given, and the only peculiarity mentioned as +to the door is that it shut from the outside. For any one to see +that Mr. Talmage is wrong on the window question, it is only +necessary to read the story of the deluge.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage also endeavors to decrease the depth of the flood. +If the flood did not cover the highest hills, many people might +have been saved. He also insists 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 the depth of the water? He seems +to imagine that these "fountains" were in some way +imprisoned—anxious to get to the surface, and that, at that +time, an opportunity was given for water to run up hill, or in +some</p> +<center>32</center> +<p>mysterious way to rise above its level. According to the +account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves for at least seven +months. If this flood was only partial, it seems a little curious +that the water did not seek its level in less than seven months. +With anything like a fair chance, by that time most of it would +have found its way to the sea again.</p> +<p>There is in the literature of ignorance no more perfectly absurd +and cruel story than that of the deluge.</p> +<p>I am very sorry that Mr. Talmage should disagree with some of +the great commentators. Dr. Scott tells us that, in all +probability, the angels assisted in getting the animals into the +ark. Dr. Henry insists that the waters in the bowels of the earth, +at God's command, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr. Clark tells +us that it would have been much easier for God to have destroyed +all the people and made some new ones, but that he did not want to +waste anything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, while in +the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could be more amusing than to +see a few lions eating good, dry straw. This commentator assures us +that the waters rose so high that the loftiest mountains were +overflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not</p> +<center>33</center> +<p>hoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells us that some of +the people got on top of the ark, and hoped to shift for +themselves, but that, in all probability, they were washed off by +the rain. When we consider that the rain must have fallen at the +rate of about eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to think that +they were washed off.</p> +<p>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 his mind. His position no +doubt will be a great relief to most of his hearers. After this, +their credulity will not be strained. They can say that there was +probably quite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered it +necessary for Noah and his family—his dogs, cats, and +chickens—to get in a boat. This would not be unreasonable. +The same thing happens almost every year on the shores of great +rivers, and consequently the story of the flood is an exceedingly +reasonable one.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage also endeavors to account for the miraculous +collection of the animals in the ark by the universal instinct to +get out of the rain. There are at least two objections to this: 1. +The animals went into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I</p> +<center>34</center> +<p>have never noticed any great desire on the part of ducks, geese, +and loons to get out of the water. Mr. Talmage must have been +misled by a line from an old nursery book that says: "And the +little fishes got "under the bridge to keep out of the rain." He +tells us that Noah described what he saw. He is the first +theologian who claims that Genesis was written by Noah, or that +Noah wrote any account of the flood. Most Christians insist that +the account of the flood was written by Moses, and that he was +inspired to write it. Of course, it will not do for me to say that +Mr. Talmage has misrepresented the facts.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You are also charged with misrepresentation in +your statement as to where the ark at last rested. It is claimed by +Mr. Talmage that there is nothing in the Bible to show that the ark +rested on the highest mountains.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I have no knowledge as to where the ark +really came to anchor, but after it struck bottom, we are told that +a dove was sent out, and that the dove found no place whereon to +rest her foot. If the ark touched ground in the low country, surely +the mountains were out of water, and an ordinary mountain +furnishes, as a rule, space enough</p> +<center>35</center> +<p>for a dove's foot. We must infer that the ark rested on the only +land then above water, or near enough above water to strike the +keel of Noah's boat. Mount Ararat is about seventeen thousand feet +high; so I take it that the top of that mountain was where Noah ran +aground—otherwise, the account means nothing.</p> +<p>Here Mr. Talmage again shows his tendency to belittle the +miracles of the Bible. I am astonished that he should doubt the +power of God to keep an ark 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 produce wheat and corn in +abundance. Certainly God, who could overwhelm a world with a flood, +had the power to change every law and fact in nature.</p> +<p>I am surprised that Mr. Talmage is not willing to believe the +story as it is told. What right has he to question the statements +of an inspired writer? Why should he set up his judgment against +the Websters and Jacksons? Is it not infinitely impudent in him to +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 should remember that the greater the miracle the greater +should be his faith.</p> +<center>36</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. You do not seem to have any great opinion of +the chemical, geological, and agricultural views expressed by Mr. +Talmage?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. You must remember that Mr. Talmage has a certain +thing to defend. He takes the Bible as actually true, and with the +Bible as his standard, he compares and measures all sciences. He +does not study geology to find whether the Mosaic account is true, +but he reads the Mosaic account for the purpose of 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 the Mosaic account are not days of twenty-four hours, but long +periods, is contradicted by the Bible itself. The great 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." In imitation of this +example we are also to rest—not on the seventh good-while, +but on the seventh day. Nothing delights the average minister more +than to find that a passage of Scripture is capable of several +interpretations. Nothing in the inspired book is so</p> +<center>37</center> +<p>dangerous as accuracy. If the holy writer uses general terms, an +ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous +statement with the most obdurate fact. An "inspired" book should +contain neither 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 fables of the Jews. They are +the foundation of his faith. He believes in the water of the past +and the fire of the future—in the God of flood and +flame—the eternal torturer of his helpless children.</p> +<p>It is exceedingly unfortunate that Mr. Talmage does not +appreciate the importance of good manners, that he does not rightly +estimate the convincing power of kindness and good nature. It is +unfortunate that a Christian, believing in universal forgiveness, +should exhibit so much of the spirit of detraction, that he should +run so easily and naturally into epithets, and that he should +mistake vituperation for logic. Thousands of people, knowing but +little of the mysteries of Christianity—never having studied +theology,—may become prejudiced against the church, and doubt +the divine origin of a religion whose defenders seem to rely, at +least to a great degree, upon malignant personalities. Mr. Talmage +should remember that in a</p> +<center>38</center> +<p>discussion of this kind, he is supposed to represent a being of +infinite wisdom and goodness. Surely, the representative of the +infinite can afford to be candid, can afford to be kind. When he +contemplates the condition of a fellow-being destitute of religion, +a fellow-being now travelling the thorny path to eternal fire, he +should be filled with pity instead of hate. Instead of deforming +his mouth with scorn, his eyes should be filled with tears. He +should take into consideration the vast difference between an +infidel and a minister of the gospel,—knowing, as he does, +that a crown of glory has been prepared for the minister, and that +flames are waiting for the soul of the unbeliever. He should bear +with philosophic fortitude the apparent success of the skeptic, for +a few days in this brief life, since he knows that in a little +while the question will be eternally settled in his favor, and that +the humiliation of a day is as nothing compared with the victory of +eternity. In this world, the skeptic appears to have the best of +the argument; logic seems to be on the side of blasphemy; common +sense apparently goes hand in hand with infidelity, and the few +things we are absolutely certain of, seem inconsistent with the +Christian creeds.</p> +<center>39</center> +<p>This, however, as Mr. Talmage well knows, is but apparent. God +has arranged the world in this way for 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 the +eternal truth. This clearness of vision should give him the +serenity of candor and the kindness born of absolute knowledge. He, +being a child of the light, should not expect the perfect from the +children of darkness. He should not judge Humboldt and Wesley by +the same standard. He should remember that Wesley was especially +set apart and illuminated by divine wisdom, while Humboldt was left +to grope in the shadows of nature. He should also remember that +ministers are not like other people. They have been "called." They +have been "chosen" by infinite wisdom. They have been "set apart," +and they have bread to eat that we know not of. While other people +are forced to pursue the difficult paths of investigation, they fly +with the wings of faith.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage is perfectly aware of the advantages he enjoys, and +yet he deems it dangerous to be fair. This, in my judgment, is his +mistake. If he cannot easily point out the absurdities and +contradictions in infidel lectures, surely God would never have +selected</p> +<center>40</center> +<p>him for that task. We cannot believe that imperfect instruments +would be chosen by infinite wisdom. Certain lambs have been +entrusted to the care of Mr. Talmage, the shepherd. Certainly God +would not select a shepherd unable to cope with an average wolf. +Such a shepherd is only the appearance of protection. When the wolf +is not there, he is a useless expense, and when the wolf comes, he +goes. I cannot believe that God would select a shepherd of that +kind. Neither can the shepherd justify his selection by abusing the +wolf when out of sight. The fear ought to be on the other side. A +divinely appointed shepherd ought to be able to convince his sheep +that a wolf is a dangerous animal, and ought to be able to give his +reasons. It may be that the shepherd has a certain interest in +exaggerating the cruelty and ferocity of the wolf, and even the +number of the wolves. Should it turn out that the wolves exist only +in the imagination of the shepherd, the sheep might refuse to pay +the salary of their protector. It will, however, be hard to +calculate the extent to which the sheep will lose confidence in a +shepherd who has not even the courage to state the facts about the +wolf. But what must be the result when the sheep find that the +supposed wolf is, in</p> +<center>41</center> +<p>fact, their friend, and that he is endeavoring to rescue them +from the exactions of the pretended shepherd, who creates, by +falsehood, the fear on which he lives?</p> +<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SECOND INTERVIEW.</h2> +<p>Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear your hair.</p> +<p>Sir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion, overwhelmed and +humiliated.</p> +<p>Por. Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?</p> +<p>Sir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I want to ask you a few questions about the +second sermon of Mr. Talmage; have you read it, and what do you +think of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The text taken by the reverend gentleman 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 one who denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and is the +infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is perfectly satisfied that +any man who differs with him on this question is a "fool," and he +has the Christian forbearance and kindness to say so. I presume +he</p> +<center>46</center> +<p>is honest in this opinion, and no doubt regards Bruno, Spinoza +and Humboldt as driveling imbeciles. He entertains the same opinion +of some of the greatest, wisest and best of Greece and Rome.</p> +<p>No man is fitted to reason upon this question who has not the +intelligence to see the difficulties in all theories. No man has +yet evolved a theory that satisfactorily accounts for all that is. +No matter what his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousand +difficulties, and innumerable things insist upon an explanation. +The best that any man can do is to take that theory which to his +mind presents the fewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been +educated in 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 differently, having lived under +different circumstances, cannot accept the Talmagian view, and +thereupon he denounces them as fools. In this he follows the +example of David the murderer; of David, who advised one of his +children to assassinate another; of David, whose last words were +those of hate and crime. Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no +especial brain to reason out a "design" in Nature, and in a moment +afterward says that "when the world slew</p> +<center>47</center> +<p>"Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal "God, if +once it could get its hands on Him." Why should a God of infinite +wisdom create people who would gladly murder their Creator? Was +there any particular "design" in that? Does the existence of such +people conclusively prove the existence of a good Designer? It +seems to me—and I take it that my thought is natural, as I +have only been born once—that an infinitely wise and good God +would naturally create good people, and if he has not, certainly +the fault is his. The God of Mr. Talmage knew, when he created +Guiteau, that he would assassinate Garfield. Why did he create him? +Did he want Garfield assassinated? Will somebody be kind enough to +show the "design" in this transaction? Is it possible to see +"design" in earthquakes, in volcanoes, in pestilence, in famine, in +ruthless and relentless war? Can we find "design" in the fact that +every animal lives upon some other— that every drop of every +sea is a battlefield where the strong devour the weak? Over the +precipice of cruelty rolls a perpetual Niagara of blood. Is there +"design" in this? Why should a good God people a world with men +capable of burning their fellow-men—and capable of burning +the greatest and</p> +<center>48</center> +<p>best? Why does a good God permit these things? It is said of +Christ that he was infinitely kind and generous, infinitely +merciful, because when on earth he cured the sick, the lame and +blind. Has he not as much power now as he had then? If he was and +is the God of all worlds, why does he not now give back to the +widow her son? Why does he withhold light from the eyes of the +blind? And why does one who had the power miraculously to feed +thousands, 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 that clothed his spirit? Where is he now? Where has he +been through all the centuries of slavery and crime? If this +universe was "designed," then all that happens was "designed." If a +man constructs an engine, the boiler of which explodes, we say +either that he did not know the strength of his materials, or that +he was reckless of human life. If an infinite being should +construct a weak or imperfect machine, he must be held accountable +for all that happens. He cannot be permitted to say that he did not +know the strength of the materials. He is directly and absolutely +responsible. So, if this world was designed by a being of infinite +power and wisdom, he is responsible for</p> +<center>49</center> +<p>the result of that design. My position is this: I do not know. +But there are so many objections to the personal-God theory, that +it is impossible for me to accept it. I prefer to say that the +universe is all the God there is. I prefer to make no being +responsible. I prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, man must +clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man must feed them. I prefer to +rely upon human endeavor, upon human intelligence, upon the heart +and brain of man. There is no evidence that God has ever interfered +in the affairs of man. The hand of earth is stretched uselessly +toward heaven. From the clouds there comes no help. In vain the +shipwrecked cry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty and +light—the world moves on, and the heavens are deaf and dumb +and blind. The frost freezes, the fire burns, slander smites, the +wrong triumphs, the good suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of +faith.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges you with being "the +champion blasphemer of America"—what do you understand +blasphemy to be?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition +upon common sense. Whoever investigates a religion as he would any +department of</p> +<center>50</center> +<p>science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts a priest, +whoever has the impudence to use his own reason, whoever is brave +enough to express his honest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes +of the religionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly of the +wooden god of a savage, the savage regards him as a blasphemer. To +laugh at the pretensions of Mohammed in Constantinople is +blasphemy. To say in St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of +God is also blasphemy. There was a time when to acknowledge the +divinity of Christ in Jerusalem was blasphemy. To deny his divinity +is now blasphemy in New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extent +a geographical question. It depends not only on what you say, but +where you are when you say it. Blasphemy is what the old calls the +new,—what last year's leaf says to this year's bud. The +founder of every religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so regarded +Christ, and the Athenians had the same opinion of Socrates. +Catholics have always looked upon Protestants as blasphemers, and +Protestants have always held the same generous opinion of +Catholics. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is blasphemy. To +say that she is the Mother of God is blasphemy. Some savages think +that a dried snake</p> +<center>51</center> +<p>skin stuffed with leaves is sacred, and he who thinks otherwise +is a blasphemer. It was once blasphemy to laugh at Diana, of the +Ephesians. Many people think that it is blasphemous to tell your +real opinion of the Jewish Jehovah. Others imagine that words can +be printed upon paper, and the paper bound into a book covered with +sheepskin, and that the book is sacred, and that to question its +sacredness is blasphemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, but +nothing can be more absurd than a crime against God. If God is +infinite, you cannot injure him. You cannot commit a crime against +any being that you cannot injure. Of course, the infinite cannot be +injured. Man is a conditioned being. By changing his conditions, +his surroundings, you can injure him; but if God is infinite, he is +conditionless. If he is conditionless, he cannot by any possibility +be injured. You can neither increase, nor decrease, the well-being +of the infinite. Consequently, a crime against God is a +demonstrated impossibility. The cry of blasphemy means only that +the argument of the blasphemer cannot be answered. The +sleight-of-hand performer, when some one tries to raise the curtain +behind which he operates, cries "blasphemer!" The priest, finding +that he has been attacked by common sense,—</p> +<center>52</center> +<p>by a fact,—resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is the black +flag of theology, and it means: No argument and no quarter! It is +an appeal to prejudice, to passions, to ignorance. It is the last +resort of a defeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point where +argument stops and slander begins. In old times, it was the signal +for throwing stones, for gathering fagots and for tearing flesh; +now it means falsehood and calumny.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then you think that there is no such thing as +the crime of blasphemy, and that no such offence can be +committed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Any one who knowingly speaks in favor of +injustice is a blasphemer. Whoever wishes to destroy liberty of +thought,—the honest expression of ideas,—is a +blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malign his neighbor, simply +because he differs with him upon a subject about which neither of +them knows anything for certain, is a blasphemer. If a crime can be +committed against God, he commits it who imputes to God the +commission of crime. The man who says that God ordered the +assassination of women and babes, that he gave maidens to satisfy +the lust of soldiers, that he enslaved his own children,—that +man</p> +<center>53</center> +<p>is a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be far better to deny +the existence of God entirely. It seems to me that every man ought +to give his honest opinion. No man should suppose that any infinite +God requires him to tell as truth that which he knows nothing +about.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage, in order to make a point against infidelity, states +from his pulpit that I am in favor of poisoning the minds of +children by the circulation of immoral books. The statement is +entirely false. He ought to have known that I withdrew from the +Liberal League upon the very question whether the law should be +repealed or modified. I favored a modification of that law, so that +books and papers could not be thrown from the mails simply because +they were "infidel."</p> +<p>I was and am in favor of the destruction of every immoral book +in the world. I was and am in favor, not only of the law against +the circulation of such filth, but want it executed to the letter +in every State of this Union. Long before he made that statement, I +had introduced a resolution to that effect, and supported the +resolution in a speech. Notwithstanding these facts, hundreds of +clergymen have made haste to tell the exact opposite of the truth. +This</p> +<center>54</center> +<p>they have done in the name of Christianity, under the pretence +of pleasing their God. In my judgment, it is far better to tell +your honest opinions, even upon the subject of theology, than to +knowingly tell a falsehood about a fellow-man. Mr. Talmage may have +been ignorant of the truth. He may have been misled by other +ministers, and for his benefit I make this explanation. I wanted +the laws modified so that bigotry could not interfere with the +literature of intelligence; but I did not want, in any way, to +shield the writers or publishers of immoral books. Upon this +subject I used, at the last meeting of the Liberal League that I +attended, the following language:</p> +<p>"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</p> +<center>55</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>I can hardly convince myself that when Mr. Talmage made the +charge, he was acquainted with the facts. It seems incredible that +any man, pretending to be governed by the law of common honesty, +could make a charge like this knowing it to be untrue. Under no +circumstances, would I charge Mr. Talmage with being an infamous +man, unless the evidence was complete and overwhelming. Even then, +I should hesitate long before making the charge. The side I take on +theological</p> +<center>56</center> +<p>questions does not render a resort to slander or calumny a +necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honorable man, he will take back +the statement he has made. Even if there is a God, I hardly think +that he will reward one of his children for maligning another; and +to one who has told falsehoods about "infidels," that having been +his only virtue, I doubt whether he will say: "Well done good and +faithful "servant."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the charge that 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"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I think that is about as reasonable as +anything he says. No one wishes, so far as I know, to assassinate +God. The idea of assassinating an infinite being is of course +infinitely absurd. One would think Mr. Talmage had lost his reason! +And yet this man stands at the head of the Presbyterian clergy. It +is for this reason that I answer him. He is the only Presbyterian +minister in the United States, so far as I know, able to draw an +audience. He is, without doubt, the leader of that +denomination.</p> +<center>57</center> +<p>He is orthodox and conservative. He believes implicitly in the +"Five Points" of Calvin, and says nothing 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 crime simply to demonstrate +his wisdom. He believes that billions of years before the earth +was, God had made up his mind as to the exact number that he would +eternally damn, and had counted his saints. This doctrine he calls +"glad tidings of great joy." He really believes that every man who +is true to himself is waging war against God; that every infidel is +a rebel; that every Freethinker is a traitor, and that only those +are good subjects who have joined the Presbyterian Church, know the +Shorter Catechism by heart, and subscribe liberally toward lifting +the mortgage on the Brooklyn Tabernacle. All the rest are +endeavoring to assassinate God, plotting the murder of the Holy +Ghost, and applauding the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. If +Mr. Talmage is correct in his views as to the power and wisdom of +God, I imagine that his enemies at last will be overthrown, that +the assassins and murderers will not succeed, and that the +Infinite, with Mr. Talmage s assistance, will</p> +<center>58</center> +<p>finally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainly he ought +to have made man grand enough to have and express an opinion of his +own. Is it possible that God can be gratified with the applause of +moral cowards? Does he seek to enhance his glory by receiving the +adulation of cringing slaves? Is God satisfied with the adoration +of the frightened?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You notice that Mr. Talmage finds nearly all +the inventions of modern times mentioned in the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an exceedingly +important discovery. I admit that I am somewhat amazed at the +wisdom of the ancients. This discovery has been made just in the +nick of time. Millions of people were losing their respect for the +Old Testament. They were beginning to think that there was some +discrepancy between the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and the +latest developments in physical science. Thousands of preachers +were telling their flocks that the Bible is not a scientific book; +that Joshua was not an inspired astronomer, that God never +enlightened Moses about geology, and that Ezekiel did not +understand the entire art of cookery. These admissions caused</p> +<center>59</center> +<p>some young people to suspect that the Bible, after all, was not +inspired; that the prophets of antiquity did not know as much as +the discoverers of to-day. The Bible was falling into disrepute. +Mr. Talmage has rushed to the rescue. He shows, and shows +conclusively as anything can be shown from the Bible, that Job +understood all the laws of light thousands of years before Newton +lived; that he anticipated the discoveries of Descartes, Huxley and +Tyndall; that he was familiar with the telegraph and telephone; +that Morse, Bell and Edison simply put his discoveries in +successful operation; that Nahum was, in fact, a master-mechanic; +that he understood perfectly the modern railway and described it so +accurately that Trevethick, Foster and Stephenson had no difficulty +in constructing a locomotive. He also has discovered that Job was +well acquainted with the trade winds, and understood the mysterious +currents, tides and pulses of the sea; that Lieutenant Maury was a +plagiarist; that Humboldt was simply a biblical student. He finds +that Isaiah and Solomon were far in advance of Galileo, Morse, +Meyer and Watt. This is a discovery wholly unexpected to me. If Mr. +Talmage is right, I am satisfied the Bible is an inspired book. If +it shall turn out that Joshua was</p> +<center>60</center> +<p>superior to Laplace, that Moses knew more about geology than +Humboldt, that Job as a scientist was the superior of Kepler, that +Isaiah knew more than Copernicus, and that even the minor prophets +excelled the inventors and discoverers of our time— then I +will admit that infidelity must become speechless forever. Until I +read this sermon, I had never even suspected that the inventions of +modern times were known to the ancient Jews. I never supposed that +Nahum knew the least thing about railroads, or that Job would have +known a telegraph if he had seen it. I never supposed that Joshua +comprehended the three laws of Kepler. Of course I have not read +the Old Testament with as much care as some other people have, and +when I did read it, I was not looking for inventions and +discoveries. I had been told so often that the Bible was no +authority upon scientific questions, that I was lulled into a state +of lethargy. What is amazing to me is, that so many men did read it +without getting the slightest hint of the smallest invention. To +think that the Jews read that book for hundreds and hundreds of +years, and yet went to their graves without the slightest notion of +astronomy, or geology, of railroads, telegraphs, or steamboats! And +then to think that the early fathers</p> +<center>61</center> +<p>made it the study of their lives and died without inventing +anything! I am astonished that Mr. Talmage himself does not figure +in the records of the Patent Office. I cannot account for this, +except upon the supposition that he is too honest to infringe on +the patents of the patriarchs. After this, I shall read the Old +Testament with more care.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you see that Mr. Talmage endeavors to +convict you of great ignorance in not knowing that the word +translated "rib" should have been translated "side," and that Eve, +after all, was not made out of a rib, but out of Adam's side?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I may have been misled by taking the Bible as it +is translated. The Bible account is simply this: "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." If Mr. Talmage is right, then the +account should be as follows: "And the Lord God caused a deep +sleep</p> +<center>62</center> +<p>"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 the story is made any better by using +the word "side" instead of "rib." It would be just as hard for God +to make a woman out of a man's side as out of a rib. Mr. Talmage +ought not to question the power of God to make a woman out of a +bone, and he must recollect that the less the material the greater +the miracle.</p> +<p>There are two accounts of the creation of man, in Genesis, the +first being in the twenty-first verse of the first chapter and the +second being in the twenty-first and twenty-second verses of the +second chapter.</p> +<p>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 tree</p> +<center>63</center> +<p>"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 saw except of "the tree of the knowledge of good and "evil."</p> +<p>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."</p> +<p>We are not told how Adam learned the language, or how he +understood what God said. I can hardly believe that any man can be +created with the knowledge of a language. Education cannot be ready +made and stuffed into a brain. Each person must learn a language +for himself. Yet in this account we find a language ready made for +man's use. And not only man was enabled to speak, but a serpent +also has the power of speech, and the woman holds a conversation +with this animal and with her husband; and yet no account is given +of how any language was</p> +<center>64</center> +<p>learned. God is described as walking in the garden in the cool +of the day, speaking like a man—holding conversations with +the man and woman, and occasionally addressing the serpent.</p> +<p>In the nursery rhymes of the world there is nothing more +childish than this "inspired" account of the creation of man and +woman.</p> +<p>The early fathers of the church held that woman was inferior to +man, because man was not made for woman, but woman for man; because +Adam was made first and Eve afterward. They had not the gallantry +of Robert Burns, who accounted for the beauty of woman from the +fact that God practiced on man first, and then gave woman the +benefit of his experience. Think, in this age of the world, of a +well-educated, intelligent gentleman telling his little child that +about six thousand years ago a mysterious being called God made the +world out of his "omnipotence;" then made a man out of some dust +which he is supposed to have moulded into form; that he put this +man in a garden for the purpose of keeping the trees trimmed; that +after a little while he noticed that the man seemed lonesome, not +particularly happy, almost homesick; that then it occurred to this +God, that it would be a good thing for</p> +<center>65</center> +<p>the man to have some company, somebody to help him trim the +trees, to talk to him and cheer him up on rainy days; that, +thereupon, this God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, took a +knife, or a long, sharp piece of "omnipotence," and took out one of +the man's sides, or a rib, and of that made a woman; that then this +man and woman got along real well till a snake got into the garden +and induced the woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good +and evil; that the woman got the man to take a bite; that +afterwards both of them were detected by God, who was walking +around in the cool of the evening, and thereupon they were turned +out of the garden, lest they should put forth their hands and eat +of the tree of life, and live forever.</p> +<p>This foolish story has been regarded as the sacred, inspired +truth; as an account substantially written by God himself; and +thousands and millions of people have supposed it necessary to +believe this childish falsehood, in order to save their souls. +Nothing more laughable can be found in the fairy tales and +folk-lore of savages. Yet this is defended by the leading +Presbyterian divine, and those who fail to believe in the truth of +this story are called "brazen "faced fools," "deicides," and +"blasphemers."</p> +<center>66</center> +<p>By this story woman in all Christian countries was degraded. She +was considered too impure to preach the gospel, too impure to +distribute the sacramental bread, too impure to hand about the +sacred wine, too impure to step within the "holy of holies," in the +Catholic Churches, too impure to be touched by a priest. Unmarried +men were considered purer than husbands and fathers. Nuns were +regarded as superior to mothers, a monastery holier than a home, a +nunnery nearer sacred than the cradle. And through all these years +it has been thought better to love God than to love man, better to +love God than to love your wife and children, better to worship an +imaginary deity than to help your fellow-men.</p> +<p>I regard the rights of men and women equal. In Love's fair +realm, husband and wife are king and queen, sceptered and crowned +alike, and seated on the self-same throne.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you still insist that the Old Testament +upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies this charge, and shows how +terribly God punished those who were not satisfied with one +wife.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage has said +calculated to change my opinion. It has been</p> +<center>67</center> +<p>admitted by thousands of theologians that the Old Testament +upholds polygamy. Mr. Talmage is among the first to deny it. It +will not do to say that David was punished for the crime of +polygamy or concubinage. He was "a man after God's own "heart." He +was made a king. He was a successful general, and his blood is said +to have flowed in the veins of God. Solomon was, according to the +account, enriched with wisdom above all human beings. Was that a +punishment for having had so many wives? Was Abraham pursued by the +justice of God because of the crime against Hagar, or for the crime +against his own wife? The verse quoted by Mr. Talmage to show that +God was opposed to polygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the +eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuity be +tortured into a command against polygamy. The most that can be +possibly said of it is, that you shall not marry the sister of your +wife, while your wife is living. Yet this passage is quoted by Mr. +Talmage as "a thunder of prohibition against having more "than one +wife." In the twentieth chapter of Leviticus it is enacted: "That +if a man take a wife "and her mother they shall be burned with +fire." A commandment like this shows that he might take his</p> +<center>68</center> +<p>wife and somebody else's mother. These passages have nothing to +do with polygamy. They show whom you may marry, not how many; and +there is not in Leviticus a solitary word against polygamy— +not one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, nor Exodus, nor in +the entire Pentateuch—not one word. These books are filled +with the most minute directions about killing sheep, and goats and +doves; about making clothes for priests, about fashioning tongs and +snuffers; and yet, they contain not one word against polygamy. It +never occurred to the inspired writers that polygamy was a crime. +Polygamy was accepted as a matter of course. Women were simple +property.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage, however, insists that, although God was against +polygamy, he permitted it, and at the same 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 Commandments, +he prohibited murder and theft, but he said nothing about polygamy. +If he was so terribly against that crime, why did he forget to</p> +<center>69</center> +<p>mention it? Was there not room enough on the tables of stone for +just one word on this subject? Had he no time to give a commandment +against slavery? Mr. Talmage of course insists that God had to deal +with these things gradually, his idea being that if God had made a +commandment against them all at once, the Jews would have had +nothing more to do with him.</p> +<p>For instance: if we wanted to break cannibals of eating +missionaries, we should not tell them all at once that it was +wrong, that it was wicked, to eat missionaries raw; we should +induce them first to cook the missionaries, and gradually wean them +from raw flesh. This would be the first great step. We would stew +the missionaries, and after a time put a little mutton in the stew, +not enough to excite the suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough +to get him in the habit of eating mutton without knowing it. Day +after day we would put in more mutton and less missionary, until +finally, the cannibal would be perfectly satisfied with clear +mutton. Then we would tell him that it was wrong to eat missionary. +After the cannibal got so that he liked mutton, and cared nothing +for missionary, then it would be safe to have a law upon the +subject.</p> +<center>70</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage insists that polygamy cannot exist among people who +believe the Bible. In this he is mistaken. The Mormons all believe +the Bible. There is not a single polygamist in Utah who does not +insist upon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.</p> +<p>The Rev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consular theologian, +once had a discussion, I believe, with Elder Orson Pratt, at Salt +Lake City, upon the question of polygamy. It is sufficient to say +of this discussion that it is now circulated by the Mormons as a +campaign document. The elder overwhelmed the parson. Passages of +Scripture in favor of polygamy were quoted by the hundred. The +lives of all the patriarchs were brought forward, and poor parson +Newman was driven from the field. The truth is, the Jews at that +time were much like our forefathers. They were barbarians, and many +of their laws were unjust and cruel. Polygamy was the right of all; +practiced, as a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and the +rich and powerful were envied by the poor. In such esteem did the +ancient Jews hold polygamy, that the number of Solomons wives was +given, simply to enhance his glory. My own opinion is, that Solomon +had very few wives, and that polygamy was not general in Palestine. +The country was too poor, and</p> +<center>71</center> +<p>Solomon, in all his glory was hardly able to support one wife. +He was a poor barbarian king with a limited revenue, with a poor +soil, with a sparse population, without art, without science and +without power. He sustained about the same relation to other kings +that Delaware does to other States. Mr. Talmage says that God +persecuted Solomon, and yet, if he will turn 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?</p> +<p>So he tells us that David was persecuted by God, on account of +his offences, and yet I find in the twenty-eighth verse of the +twenty-ninth chapter of First Chronicles, the following account of +the death of David: "And he died in a good old age, full of "days, +riches and honor." Is this true?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the charge that you +were mistaken in the number of years that</p> +<center>72</center> +<p>the Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage says that they were there +430 years, instead of 215 years.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If you will read the third chapter of Galatians, +sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you will find that it was 430 +years from the time God made the promise to Abraham to the giving +of the law from Mount Sinai. The Hebrews did not go to Egypt for +215 years after the promise was made to Abraham, and consequently +did not remain in Egypt more than 215 years. If Galatians is true, +I am right.</p> +<p>Strange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the miracles. The +trouble with this defender of the faith is that he cares nothing +for facts. He makes the strangest statements, and cares the least +for proof, of any man I know. I can account for what he says of me +only upon the supposition that he has not read my lectures. He may +have been misled by the pirated editions; Persons have stolen my +lectures, printed the same ones under various names, and filled +them with mistakes and things I never said. Mr. C. P. Farrell, of +Washington, is my only authorized publisher. Yet Mr. Talmage +prefers to answer the mistakes of literary thieves, and charge +their ignorance to me.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you ever attack the character of Queen +Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between</p> +<center>73</center> +<p>her and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate the reputation of +the Queen?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I never said a word against Victoria. The fact +is, I am not acquainted with her—never met her in my life, +and know but little of her. I never happened to see her "in plain +clothes, reading the "Bible to the poor in the lane,"—neither +did I ever hear her sing. I most cheerfully admit that her +reputation is good in the neighborhood where she resides. In one of +my lectures I drew a parallel between George Eliot and Victoria. I +was showing the difference between a woman who had won her position +in the world of thought, and one who was queen by chance. This is +what I said:</p> +<p>"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 'anointed</p> +<center>74</center> +<p>"'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 did not intend to even intimate +that she was not an excellent woman, wife and mother. I was simply +trying to show that the world was getting great enough to place a +genius above an accidental queen. Mr. Talmage, true to the fawning, +cringing spirit of orthodoxy, lauds the living queen and cruelly +maligns the genius dead. He digs open the grave of George Eliot, +and tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was the greatest +woman England has produced. He calls her "an adultress." He attacks +her because she was an atheist—because she abhorred Jehovah, +denied the inspiration of the Bible, denied the dogma of eternal +pain, and with all her heart despised the Presbyterian creed. He +hates her because she was great and brave</p> +<center>75</center> +<p>and free—because she lived without "faith" and died +without fear—because she dared to give her honest thought, +and grandly bore the taunts and slanders of the Christian +world.</p> +<p>George Eliot tenderly carried in her heart the burdens of our +race. She looked through pity's tears upon the faults and frailties +of mankind. She knew the springs and seeds of thought and deed, and +saw, with cloudless eyes, through all the winding ways of greed, +ambition and deceit, where folly vainly plucks with thorn-pierced +hands the fading flowers of selfish joy—the highway of +eternal right. Whatever her relations may have been—no matter +what I think, or others say, or how much all regret the one mistake +in all her self-denying, loving life—I feel and know that in +the court where her own conscience sat as judge, she stood +acquitted—pure as light and stainless as a star.</p> +<p>How appropriate here, with some slight change, the wondrously +poetic and pathetic words of Laertes at Ophelia's grave:</p> +<pre> + <i>Leave her i' the earth; + And from her fair and unpolluted flesh + May violets spring! + I tell thee, churlish priest, + A ministering angel shall this woman be, + When thou liest howling!</i> +</pre> +<p>I have no words with which to tell my loathing for a man who +violates a noble woman's grave.</p> +<center>76</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that the spirit in which Mr. +Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordance with the teachings +of Christianity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think that he talks like a true Presbyterian. +If you will read the arguments of Calvin against the doctrines of +Castalio and Servetus, you will see that Mr. Talmage follows +closely in the footsteps of the founder of his church. Castalio was +such a wicked and abandoned wretch, that he taught the innocence of +honest error. He insisted that God would not eternally damn a man +for being honestly mistaken. For the utterance of such blasphemous +sentiments, abhorrent to every Christian mind, Calvin called him "a +dog of Satan, and a child of hell." In short, he used the usual +arguments. Castalio was banished, and died in exile. In the case of +Servetus, after all the epithets had been exhausted, an appeal was +made to the stake, and the blasphemous wretch was burned to +ashes.</p> +<p>If you will read the life of John Knox, you will find that Mr. +Talmage is as orthodox in his methods of dealing with infidels, as +he is in his creed. In my opinion, he would gladly treat +unbelievers now, as the Puritans did the Quakers, as the +Episcopalians did the Presbyterians, as the Presbyterians did the +Baptists,</p> +<center>77</center> +<p>and as the Catholics have treated all heretics. Of course, all +these sects will settle their differences in heaven. In the next +world, they will laugh at the crimes they committed in this.</p> +<p>The course pursued by Mr. Talmage is consistent. The pulpit +cannot afford to abandon the weapons of falsehood and defamation. +Candor sows the seeds of doubt. Fairness is weakness. The only way +to successfully uphold the religion of universal love, is to +denounce all Freethinkers as blasphemers, adulterers, and +criminals. No matter how generous they may appear to be, no matter +how fairly they may deal with their fellow-men, rest assured that +they are actuated by the lowest and basest motives. Infidels who +outwardly live honest and virtuous lives, are inwardly vicious, +virulent and vile. After all, morality is only a veneering. God is +not deceived with the varnish of good works. We know that the +natural man is totally depraved, and that until he has been +regenerated by the spirit of God, he is utterly incapable of a good +action. The generosity of the unbeliever is, in fact, avarice. His +honesty is only a form of larceny. His love is only hatred. No +matter how sincerely he may love his wife,—how devoted he may +be to his children,—no matter how ready he may be 'to</p> +<center>78</center> +<p>sacrifice even his life for the good of mankind, God, looking +into his very heart, finds it only a den of hissing snakes, a lair +of wild, ferocious beasts, a cage of unclean birds.</p> +<p>The idea that God will save a man simply because he is honest +and generous, is almost too preposterous for serious refutation. No +man should rely upon his own goodness. He should plead the virtue +of another. God, in his infinite justice, damns a good man on his +own merits, and saves a bad man on the merits of another. The +repentant murderer will be an angel of light, while his honest and +unoffending victim will be a fiend in hell.</p> +<p>A little while ago, a ship, disabled, was blown about the +Atlantic for eighty days. Everything had been eaten. 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 his hand, and implored him to wait one +more day. The next morning, a sail was seen upon the horizon, and +the dying men were rescued.</p> +<p>To an ordinary man,—to one guided by the light of</p> +<center>79</center> +<p>reason,—it is perfectly clear that Captain Kruger was +about to do an infinitely generous action. Yet Mr. Talmage will +tell us that if that captain was not a Christian, and if he had +sent the bullet crashing through his brain in order that his +comrades might eat his body, and live to reach their wives and +homes,— his soul, from that ship, would have gone, by dark +and tortuous ways, down to the prison of eternal pain.</p> +<p>Is it possible that Christ would eternally damn a man for doing +exactly what Christ would have done, had he been infinitely +generous, under the same circumstances? Is not self-denial in a man +as praiseworthy as in a God? Should a God be worshiped, and a man +be damned, for the same action?</p> +<p>According to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who fought for our +country in the Revolutionary war, who was not a Christian, is now +in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, who carried the flag of +his country to victory—either upon the land or sea, in the +war of 1812, is now in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, who +fought for the preservation of this Union,—to break the +chains of slavery—to free four millions of people —to +keep the whip from the naked back—every man who did +this—every one who died at Andersonville and Libby, dreaming +that his death would help make</p> +<center>80</center> +<p>the lives of others worth living, is now a lost and wretched +soul. These men are now in the prison of God,—a prison in +which the cruelties of Libby and Andersonville would be regarded as +mercies,—in which famine would be a joy.</p> +<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THIRD INTERVIEW.</h2> +<h3>Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and power?</h3> +<p>Parson. He is.</p> +<p>Sinner. Does he at all times know just what ought to be done +t</p> +<p>Parson. He does.</p> +<p>Sinner. Does he always do just what ought to be done?</p> +<p>Parson. He does.</p> +<p>Sinner. Why do you pray to him?</p> +<p>Parson. Because he is unchangeable.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I want to ask you a few questions about Mr. +Talmage's third sermon. What do you think of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I often ask myself the questions: Is there +anything in the occupation of a minister,—anything in his +surroundings, that makes him incapable of treating an opponent +fairly, or decently? Is there anything in the doctrine of universal +forgiveness that compels a man to speak of one who differs with him +only in terms of disrespect and hatred? Is it necessary for those +who profess to love the whole world, to hate the few they come in +actual contact with?</p> +<center>84</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage, no doubt, professes to love all mankind,—Jew +and Gentile, Christian and Pagan. No doubt, he believes in the +missionary effort, and thinks we should do all in our power to save +the soul of the most benighted savage; and yet he shows anything +but affection for the "heathen" at home. He loves the ones he never +saw,—is real anxious for their welfare,—but for the +ones he knows, he exhibits only scorn and hatred. In one breath, he +tells us that Christ loves us, and in the next, that we are "wolves +"and dogs." We are informed that Christ forgave even his murderers, +but that now he hates an honest unbeliever with all his heart. He +can forgive the ones who drove the nails into his hands and +feet,— the one who thrust the spear through his quivering +flesh,—but he cannot forgive the man who entertains an 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 forgiving in heaven than he was in Jerusalem? Did he excuse +murderers then, and does he damn thinkers now? Once he pitied even +thieves; does he now abhor an intellectually honest man?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage seems to think that you have no +right to give your opinion about the Bible.</p> +<center>85</center> +<p>Do you think that laymen have the same right as ministers to +examine the Scriptures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If God only made a revelation for preachers, of +course we will have to depend on the preachers for information. But +the preachers have made the mistake of showing the revelation. They +ask us, the laymen, to read it, and certainly there is no use of +reading it, unless we are permitted to think for ourselves while we +read. If after reading the Bible we believe it to be true, we will +say so, if we are honest. If we do not believe it, we will say so, +if we are honest.</p> +<p>But why should God be so particular about our believing the +stories in his book? Why should God object to having his book +examined? We do not have to call upon legislators, or courts, to +protect Shakespeare from the derision of mankind. Was not God able +to write a book that would command the love and admiration of the +world? If the God of Mr. Talmage is infinite, he knew exactly how +the stories of the Old Testament would strike a gentleman of the +nineteenth century. He knew that many would have their +doubts,—that thousands of them— and I may say most of +them,—would refuse to believe that a miracle had ever been +performed.</p> +<center>86</center> +<p>Now, it seems to me that he should either have left the stories +out, or furnished evidence enough to convince the world. According +to Mr. Talmage, thousands of people are pouring over the Niagara of +unbelief into the gulf of eternal pain. Why does not God furnish +more evidence? Just in proportion as man has developed +intellectually, he has demanded additional testimony. That which +satisfies a barbarian, excites only the laughter of a civilized +man. Certainly God should furnish evidence in harmony with the +spirit of the age. If God wrote his Bible for the average man, he +should have written it in such a way that it would have carried +conviction to the brain and heart of the average man; and he should +have made no man in such a way that he could not, by any +possibility, believe it. There certainly should be a harmony +between the Bible and the human brain. If I 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 +man should agree. There is no sense in God writing a book for me +and then making me in such a way that I cannot believe his +book.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But Mr. Talmage says the reason why you hate +the Bible is, that your soul is poisoned; that</p> +<center>87</center> +<p>the Bible "throws you into a rage precisely as pure "water +brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia."</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Is it because the mind of the infidel is +poisoned, that he refuses to believe that an infinite God commanded +the murder of mothers, maidens and babes? Is it because their minds +are impure, that they refuse to believe that a good God established +the institution of human slavery, or that he protected it when +established? Is it because their minds are vile, that they refuse +to believe that an infinite God established or protected polygamy? +Is it a sure sign of an impure mind, when a man insists that God +never waged wars of extermination against his helpless children? +Does it show that a man has been entirely given over to the devil, +because he refuses to believe that God ordered a father to +sacrifice his son? Does it show that a heart is entirely without +mercy, simply because a man denies the justice of eternal pain?</p> +<p>I denounce many parts of the Old Testament because they are +infinitely repugnant to my sense of justice,—because they are +bloody, brutal and infamous,—because they uphold crime and +destroy human liberty. It is impossible for me to imagine a greater +monster than the God of the Old Testa</p> +<center>88</center> +<p>ment. He is unworthy of my worship. He commands only my +detestation, my execration, and my passionate hatred. The God who +commanded the murder of children is an infamous fiend. The God who +believed in polygamy, is worthy only of contempt. The God who +established slavery should be hated by every free man. The Jehovah +of the Jews was simply a barbarian, and the Old Testament is mostly +the barbarous record of a barbarous people.</p> +<p>If the Jehovah of the Jews is the real God, I do not wish to be +his friend. From him I neither ask, nor expect, nor would I be +willing to receive, even an eternity of joy. According to the Old +Testament, he established a government,—a political +state,—and yet, no civilized country to-day would re-enact +these laws of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the explanation given by +Mr. Talmage of the stopping of the sun and moon in the time of +Joshua, in order that a battle might be completed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, if there is an infinite God, he could +have stopped the sun and moon. No one pretends to prescribe limits +to the power of the infinite. Even admitting that such a being +existed, the question whether he did stop the sun and moon,</p> +<center>89</center> +<p>or not, still remains. According to the account, these planets +were stopped, in order that Joshua might continue the pursuit of a +routed enemy. I take it for granted that a being of infinite wisdom +would not waste any force,—that he would not throw away any +"omnipotence," and that, under ordinary circumstances, he would +husband his resources. I find that this spirit exists, at least in +embryo, in Mr. Talmage. He proceeds to explain this miracle. He +does not assert that the earth was stopped on its axis, but +suggests "refraction" as a way out of the difficulty. Now, while +the stopping of the earth on its axis accounts for the sun +remaining in the same relative position, it does not account for +the stoppage of the moon. The moon has a motion of its own, and +even if the earth had been stopped in its rotary motion, the moon +would have gone on. The Bible tells us that the moon was stopped. +One would suppose that the sun would have given sufficient light +for all practical purposes. Will Mr. Talmage be kind enough to +explain the stoppage of the moon? Every one knows that the moon is +somewhat obscure when the sun is in the midst of the heavens. The +moon when compared with the sun at such a time, is much like one of +the discourses of Mr. Talmage side by side with a chapter from +Humboldt;—it is useless.</p> +<center>90</center> +<p>In the same chapter in which the account of the stoppage of the +sun and moon is given, we find that God cast down from heaven great +hailstones on Joshua's enemies. Did he get out of hailstones? Had +he no "omnipotence" left? Was it necessary for him to stop the sun +and moon and depend entirely upon the efforts of Joshua? Would not +the force employed in stopping the rotary motion of the earth have +been sufficient to destroy the enemy? Would not a millionth part of +the force necessary to stop the moon, have pierced the enemy's +centre, and rolled up both his flanks? A resort to lightning would +have been, in my judgment, much more economical and rather more +effective. If he had simply opened the earth, and swallowed them, +as he did Korah and his company, it would have been a vast saving +of "omnipotent" muscle. Yet, the foremost orthodox minister of the +Presbyterian Church,—the one who calls all unbelievers +"wolves and dogs," and "brazen "fools," in his effort to account +for this miracle, is driven to the subterfuge of an "optical +illusion." We are seriously informed that "God probably "changed +the nature of the air," and performed this feat of ledgerdemain +through the instrumentality of "refraction." It seems to me it +would have been fully</p> +<center>91</center> +<p>as easy to have changed the nature of the air breathed by the +enemy, so that it would not have supported life. He could have +accomplished this by changing only a little air, in that vicinity; +whereas, according to the Talmagian view, he changed the atmosphere +of the world. Or, a small "local flood" might have done the work. +The optical illusion and refraction view, ingenious as it may +appear, was not original with Mr. Talmage. The Rev. Henry M. Morey, +of South Bend, Indiana, used, upon this subject, the following +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."</p> +<p>I pronounce the opinion of Mr. Morey to be the ripest product of +Christian scholarship. According to the Morey-Talmage view, the sun +lingered somewhat above the horizon. But this is inconsistent with +the Bible account. We are not told in the Scriptures that</p> +<center>92</center> +<p>the 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 it makes the day too long. If +the air was miraculously changed, so that it refracted the rays of +the sun, while the earth turned over as usual for about a whole +day, then, at the end of that time, the sun must have been again +visible in the east. It would then naturally shine twelve hours +more, so that this miraculous day must have been at least +thirty-six hours in length. There were first twelve hours of +natural light, then twelve hours of refracted and reflected light, +and then twelve hours more of natural light. This makes the day too +long. So, I say to Mr. Talmage, as I said to Mr. Morey: If you will +depend a little less on refraction, and a little more on +reflection, you will see that the whole story is a barbaric myth +and foolish fable.</p> +<p>For my part, I do not see why God should be pleased to have me +believe a story of this character. I can hardly think that there is +great joy in heaven over another falsehood swallowed. I can imagine +that a man may deny this story, and still be an excellent citizen, +a good father, an obliging neighbor, and in all respects a just and +truthful man. I can also</p> +<center>93</center> +<p>imagine that a man may believe this story, and yet assassinate a +President of the United States.</p> +<p>I am afraid that Mr. Talmage is beginning to be touched, in +spite of himself, with some new ideas. He tells us that worlds are +born and that worlds die. This is not exactly the Bible view. You +would think that he imagined that a world was naturally +produced,—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. According to the Bible, it +took this infinite God six days to make this atom called earth; and +according to the account, he did not work nights,—he worked +from the mornings to the evenings,—and I suppose rested +nights, as he has since that time on Sundays.</p> +<p>Admitting that the battle which Joshua fought was exceedingly +important—which I do not think— is it not a little +strange that this God, in all subsequent battles of the world's +history, of which we know anything, has maintained the strictest +neutrality? The earth turned as usual at Yorktown, and at +Gettysburg the moon pursued her usual</p> +<center>94</center> +<p>course; and so far as I know, neither at Waterloo nor at Sedan +were there any peculiar freaks of "re"fraction" or +"reflection."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage tells us that there was in the +early part of this century a dark day, when workmen went home from +their fields, and legislatures and courts adjourned, and that the +darkness of that day has not yet been explained. What is your +opinion about that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My opinion is, that if at that time we had been +at war with England, and a battle had been commenced in the +morning, and in the afternoon the American forces had been driven +from their position and were hard pressed by the enemy, and if the +day had become suddenly dark, and so dark that the Americans were +thereby enabled to escape, thousands of theologians of the calibre +of Mr. Talmage would have honestly believed that there had been an +interposition of divine Providence. No battle was fought that day, +and consequently, even the ministers are looking for natural +causes. In olden times, when the heavens were visited by comets, +war, pestilence and famine were predicted. If wars came, the +prediction was remembered; if</p> +<center>95</center> +<p>nothing happened, it was forgotten. When eclipses visited the +sun and moon, the barbarian fell upon his knees, and accounted for +the phenomena by the wickedness of his neighbor. Mr. Talmage tells +us that his father was terrified by the meteoric shower that +visited our earth in 1833. The terror of the father may account for +the credulity of the son. Astronomers will be surprised to read the +declaration of Mr. Talmage that the meteoric shower has never been +explained. Meteors visit the earth every year of its life, and in a +certain portion of the orbit they are always expected, and they +always come. Mr. Newcomb has written a work on astronomy that all +ministers ought to read.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage also charges you with "making light +of holy things," and seems to be astonished that you should +ridicule the anointing oil of Aaron?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I find that the God who had no time to say +anything on the subject of slavery, and who found no room upon the +tables of stone to say a word against polygamy, and in favor of the +rights of woman, wife and mother, took time to give a recipe for +making hair oil. And in order that the priests</p> +<center>96</center> +<p>might have the exclusive right to manufacture this oil, decreed +the penalty of death on all who should infringe. I admit that I am +incapable of seeing the beauty of this symbol. Neither could I ever +see the necessity of Masons putting oil on the corner-stone of a +building. Of course, I do not know the exact chemical effect that +oil has on stone, and I see no harm in laughing at such a ceremony. +If the oil does good, the laughter will do no harm; and if the oil +will do no harm, the laughter will do no good. Personally, I am +willing that Masons should put oil on all stones; but, if Masons +should insist that I must believe in the efficacy of the ceremony, +or be eternally damned, I would have about the same feeling toward +the Masons that I now have toward Mr. Talmage. I presume that at +one time the putting of oil on a corner-stone had some meaning; but +that it ever did any good, no sensible man will insist. It is a +custom to break a bottle of champagne over the bow of a +newly-launched ship, but I have never considered this ceremony +important to the commercial interests of the world.</p> +<p>I have the same opinion about putting oil on stones, as about +putting water on heads. For my part, I see no good in the rite of +baptism. Still, it</p> +<center>97</center> +<p>may do no harm, unless people are immersed during cold weather. +Neither have I the slightest objection to the baptism of anybody; +but if people tell me that I must be baptized or suffer eternal +agony, then I deny it. If they say that baptism does any earthly +good, I deny it. No one objects to any harmless ceremony; but the +moment it is insisted that a ceremony is necessary, the reason of +which no man can see, then the practice of the ceremony becomes +hurtful, for the reason that it is maintained only at the expense +of intelligence and manhood.</p> +<p>It is hurtful for people to imagine that they can please God by +any ceremony whatever. If there is any God, there is only one way +to please him, and that is, by a conscientious discharge of your +obligations to your fellow-men. Millions of people imagine that +they can please God by wearing certain kinds of cloth. Think of a +God who can be pleased with a coat of a certain cut! Others, to +earn a smile of heaven, shave their heads, or trim their beards, or +perforate their ears or lips or noses. Others maim and mutilate +their bodies. Others think to please God by simply shutting their +eyes, by swinging censers, by lighting candles, by repeating poor +Latin, by making a sign of the cross with holy water, by</p> +<center>98</center> +<p>ringing bells, by going without meat, by eating fish, by getting +hungry, by counting beads, by making themselves miserable Sundays, +by looking solemn, by refusing to marry, by hearing sermons; and +others imagine that they can please God by calumniating +unbelievers.</p> +<p>There is an old story of an Irishman who, when dying, sent for a +priest. The reputation of the dying man was so perfectly miserable, +that the priest refused to administer the rite of extreme unction. +The priest therefore asked him if he could recollect any decent +action that he had ever done. The dying man said that he could not. +"Very well," said the priest, "then you will have to be damned." In +a moment, the pinched and pale face brightened, and he said to the +priest: "I have thought of one good "action." "What is it?" asked +the priest. And the dying man said, "Once I killed a gauger."</p> +<p>I suppose that in the next world some ministers, driven to +extremes, may reply: "Once I told a lie "about an infidel."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You see that Mr. Talmage still sticks to the +whale and Jonah story. What do you think of his argument, or of his +explanation, rather, of that miracle?</p> +<center>99</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The edge of his orthodoxy seems to be crumbling. +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's +belly, not in his mouth. But why should Mr. Talmage say that? We +are told in the sacred account that "God prepared a great fish" for +the sole purpose of having Jonah swallowed. The size of the present +whale has nothing to do with the story. No matter whether the +throat of the whale of to-day is large or small,—that has +nothing to do with it. The simple story is, that God prepared a +fish and had Jonah swallowed. And yet Mr. Talmage throws out the +suggestion that probably this whale held Jonah in his mouth for +three days and nights. I admit that Jonah's chance for air would +have been a little better in his mouth, and his chance for water a +little worse. Probably the whale that swallowed Jonah was the same +fish spoken of by Procopius,—both accounts being entitled, in +my judgment, to equal credence. I am a little surprised that Mr. +Talmage forgot to mention the fish spoken of by Munchausen—an +equally reliable author,—and who has given, not simply the +bald fact that a fish swallowed a ship, but</p> +<center>100</center> +<p>was good enough to furnish the details. Mr. Talmage should +remember that out of Jonah's biography grew the habit of calling +any remarkable lie, "a fish "story." There is one thing that Mr. +Talmage should not forget; and that is, that miracles should not be +explained. Miracles are told simply to be believed, not to be +understood.</p> +<p>Somebody suggested to Mr. Talmage that, in all probability, a +person in the stomach of a whale would be digested in less than +three days. Mr. Talmage, again showing his lack of confidence in +God, refusing to believe that God could change the nature of +gastric juice,—having no opportunity to rely upon "refraction +or reflection," frankly admits that Jonah had to save himself by +keeping on the constant go and jump. This gastric-juice theory of +Mr. Talmage is an abandonment of his mouth hypothesis. I do not +wonder that Mr. Talmage thought of the mouth theory. Possibly, the +two theories had better be united—so that we may say that +Jonah, when he got tired of the activity necessary to avoid the +gastric juice, could have strolled into the mouth for a rest. What +a picture! Jonah sitting on the edge of the lower jaw, wiping the +perspiration and the gastric juice from his anxious</p> +<center>101</center> +<p>face, and vainly looking through the open mouth for signs of +land!</p> +<p>In this story of Jonah, we are told that "the Lord "spake unto +the fish." In what language? It must be remembered that this fish +was only a few hours old. He had been prepared during the storm, +for the sole purpose of swallowing Jonah. He was a fish of +exceedingly limited experience. He had no hereditary knowledge, +because he did not spring from ancestors; consequently, he had no +instincts. Would such a fish understand any language? It may be +contended that the fish, having been made for the occasion, was +given a sufficient knowledge of language to understand an ordinary +commandment; but, if Mr. Talmage is right, I think an order to the +fish would have been entirely unnecessary. When we take into +consideration that a thing the size of a man had been promenading +up and down the stomach of this fish for three days and three +nights, successfully baffling the efforts of gastric juice, we can +readily believe that the fish was as anxious to have Jonah go, as +Jonah was to leave.</p> +<p>But the whale part is, after all, not the most wonderful portion +of the book of Jonah. According to this wonderful account, "the +word of the Lord came</p> +<center>102</center> +<p>"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 for Tarshish. As soon as the Lord heard of this, he +"sent out a great wind into the sea," and frightened the sailors to +that extent that after assuring themselves, by casting lots, that +Jonah was the man, they threw him into the sea. After escaping from +the whale, he went to Nineveh, and delivered his pretended message +from God. In consequence of his message, Jonah having no +credentials from God,— nothing certifying to his official +character, the King of Nineveh covered himself with sack-cloth and +sat down in some ashes. He then caused a decree to be issued that +every man and beast should abstain from food and water; and +further, that every man and beast should be covered with +sack-cloth. This was done in the hope that Jonah's God would +repent, and turn away his fierce anger. When we take into +consideration the fact that the people of Nineveh were not Hebrews, +and had not the slightest confidence in the God of the +Jews—knew no more of, and cared no more for, Jehovah than we +now care for Jupiter, or Neptune; the effect produced by the +proclamation of Jonah is, to say the least of it, almost +incredible.</p> +<center>103</center> +<p>We are also informed, in this book, that the moment God saw all +the people sitting in the ashes, and all the animals covered with +sack-cloth, he repented. This failure on the part of God to destroy +the unbelievers displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very +angry. Jonah was much like the modern minister, who seems always to +be personally aggrieved if the pestilence and famine prophesied by +him do not come. Jonah was displeased to that degree, that he asked +God to kill him. Jonah then went 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. God then "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 we have +this pathetic line: "So Jonah was exceedingly "glad of the +gourd."</p> +<p>God having prepared a fish, and also prepared a gourd, proposed +next morning to prepare a worm. And when the sun rose next day, the +worm that God had prepared, "smote the gourd, so that "it +withered." I can hardly believe that an infinite being prepared a +worm to smite a gourd so that it withered, in order to keep the sun +from</p> +<center>104</center> +<p>the bald head of a prophet. According to the account, after +sunrise, and after the worm had smitten the gourd, "God prepared a +vehement east "wind." This was not an ordinary wind, but one +prepared expressly for that occasion. After the wind had 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 +convince Jonah that a man who would deplore the loss of a gourd, +ought not to wish for the destruction of a city.</p> +<p>Is it possible for any intelligent man now to believe that the +history of Jonah is literally true? For my part, I cannot see the +necessity either of believing it, or of preaching it. It has +nothing to do with honesty, with mercy, or with morality. The bad +may believe it, and the good may hold it in contempt. I do not see +that civilization has the slightest interest in the fish, the +gourd, the worm, or the vehement east wind.</p> +<p>Does Mr. Talmage think that it is absolutely necessary to +believe <i>all</i> the story? Does he not think it probable that a +God of infinite mercy, rather than damn the soul of an honest man +to hell forever, would waive, for instance, the +worm,—provided he believed in the vehement east wind, the +gourd and the fish?</p> +<center>105</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage, by insisting on the literal truth of the 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 the +paths 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 the oriental imagination, a symbol, a parable, +a poem, a dream, a legend, a myth, a divine figure, or a great +truth wrapped in the rags and shreds and patches of seeming +falsehood. His efforts to belittle the miracle, to suggest the +mouth instead of the stomach,—to suggest that Jonah took deck +passage, or lodged in the 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 the loss +of many souls.</p> +<p>If Mr. Talmage will consult with other ministers, they will tell +him to let this story alone—that he will simply "provoke +investigation and discussion"—two things to be avoided. They +will tell him that they are not willing their salary should hang on +so slender a thread, and will advise him not to bother his +gourd</p> +<center>106</center> +<p>about Jonah's. They will also tell him that in this age of the +world, arguments cannot be answered by "a vehement east wind."</p> +<p>Some people will think that it would have been just as easy for +God to have pulled the gourd up, as to have prepared a worm to bite +it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges that you have said there +are indecencies in the Bible. Are you still of that opinion?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Talmage endeavors to evade the charge, 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 being should 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 history of Tamar calculated to +"warn and save and the same may be said of many other passages in +the Old Testament. Most Christians would be glad to know that all +such passages are interpolations. I regret that Shakespeare ever +wrote a line that could not be read any where, and by any person. +But Shakespeare, great as he was, did not rise en</p> +<center>107</center> +<p>tirely above his time. So of most poets. Nearly all have stained +their pages with some vulgarity; and I am sorry for it, and hope +the time will come when we shall have an edition of all the great +writers and poets from which every such passage is eliminated.</p> +<p>It is with the Bible as with most other books. It is a mingling +of good and bad. There are many exquisite passages in the +Bible,—many good laws,— many wise sayings,—and +there are many passages that should never have been written. I do +not propose to throw away the good on account of the bad, neither +do I propose to accept the bad on account of the good. The Bible +need not be taken as an entirety. It is the business of every man +who reads it, to discriminate between that which is good and that +which is bad. There are also many passages neither good nor +bad,—wholly and totally indifferent —conveying 110 +information—utterly destitute of ideas,—and as to these +passages, my only objection to them is that they waste time and +paper.</p> +<p>I am in favor of every passage in the Bible that conveys +information. I am in favor of every wise proverb, of every verse +coming from human experience and that appeals to the heart of man. +I am</p> +<center>108</center> +<p>in favor of every passage that inculcates justice, generosity, +purity, and mercy. I am satisfied that much of the historical part +is false. Some of it is probably true. Let us have the courage to +take the true, and throw the false away. I am satisfied that many +of the passages are barbaric, and many of them are good. Let us +have the wisdom to accept the good and to reject the barbaric.</p> +<p>No system of religion should go in partnership with barbarism. +Neither should any Christian feel it his duty to defend the +savagery of the past. The philosophy of Christ must stand +independently of the mistakes of the Old Testament. We should do +justice whether a woman was made from a rib or from "omnipotence." +We should be merciful whether the flood was general, or local. We +should be kind and obliging whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish +or not. The miraculous has nothing to do with the moral. +Intelligence is of more value than inspiration. Brain is better +than Bible. Reason is above all religion. I do not believe that any +civilized human being clings to the Bible on account of its +barbaric passages. I am candid enough to believe that every +Christian in the world would think more of the Bible, if it had not +upheld slavery, if it had denounced</p> +<center>109</center> +<p>polygamy, if it had cried out against wars of extermination, if +it had spared women and babes, if it had upheld everywhere, and at +all times, the standard of justice and mercy. But when it is +claimed that the book is perfect, that it is inspired, that it is, +in fact, the work of an infinitely wise and good God,—then it +should be without a defect. There should not be within its lids an +impure word; it should not express an impure thought. There should +not be one word in 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 must be rejected; and only that be retained which +is in exact harmony with the brain and heart of the greatest and +the best.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges you with unfairness, +because you account for the death of art in Palestine, by the +commandment which forbids the making of graven images.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have said that that commandment was the death +of art, and I say so still. I insist that by reason of that +commandment, Palestine produced no painter and no sculptor until +after the destruction of</p> +<center>110</center> +<p>Jerusalem. Mr. Talmage, in order to answer that statement, goes +on to show that hundreds and thousands of pictures were produced in +the Middle Ages. That is a departure in pleading. Will he give us +the names of the painters that existed in Palestine from Mount +Sinai to the destruction of the temple? Will he give us the names +of the sculptors between those times? Mohammed prohibited his +followers from making any representation of human or animal life, +and as a result, Mohammedans have never produced a painter nor a +sculptor, except in the portrayal and chiseling of vegetable forms. +They were confined to trees and vines, and flowers. No Mohammedan +has portrayed the human face or form. But the commandment of +Jehovah went farther than that of Momammed, and prevented +portraying the image of anything. The assassination of art was +complete.</p> +<p>There is another thing that should not be forgotten.</p> +<p>We are indebted for the encouragement of art, not to the +Protestant Church; if indebted to any, it is to the Catholic. The +Catholic adorned the cathedral</p> +<p>with painting and statue—not the Protestant. The +Protestants opposed music and painting, and refused to decorate +their temples. But if Mr. Talmage wishes to know to whom we are +indebted for</p> +<center>111</center> +<p>art, let him read the mythology of Greece and Rome. The early +Christians destroyed paintings and statues. They were the enemies +of all beauty. They hated and detested every expression of art. +They looked upon the love of statues as a form of idolatry. They +looked upon every painting as a remnant of Paganism. They destroyed +all upon which they could lay their ignorant hands. Hundred of +years afterwards, the world was compelled to search for the +fragments that Christian fury had left. The Greeks filled the world +with beauty. For every stream and mountain and cataract they had a +god or goddess. Their sculptors impersonated every dream and hope, +and their mythology feeds, to-day, the imagination of mankind. The +Venus de Milo is the impersonation of beauty, in ruin—the +sublimest fragment of the ancient world. Our mythology is +infinitely unpoetic and barren—our deity an old bachelor from +eternity, who once believed in indiscriminate massacre. Upon the +throne of our heaven, woman finds no place. Our mythology is +destitute of the maternal.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage denies your statement that the Old +Testament humiliates woman. He also denies that the New Testament +says anything against woman. How is it?</p> +<center>112</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, I never considered a book upholding +polygamy to be the friend of woman. Eve, according to that book, is +the mother of us all, and yet the inspired writer does not tell us +how long she lived,—does not even mention her +death,—makes not the slightest reference as to what finally +became of her. Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixtynine years, +and yet, there is not the slightest mention made of Mrs. +Methuselah. Enoch was translated, and his widow is not mentioned. +There is not a word about Mrs. Seth, or Mrs. Enos, or Mrs. Cainan, +or Mrs. Mahalaleel, or Mrs. Jared. We do not know the name of Mrs. +Noah, and I believe not the name of a solitary woman is given from +the creation of Eve—with the exception of two of Lamech's +wives—until Sarai is mentioned as being the wife of +Abram.</p> +<p>If you wish really to know the Bible estimation of woman, turn +to the fourth and fifth verses of the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, +in which a woman, for the crime of having borne a son, is unfit to +touch a hallowed thing, or to come in the holy sanctuary for +thirty-three days; but if a woman was the mother of a girl, then +she became totally unfit to enter the sanctuary, or pollute with +her touch a hallowed thing,</p> +<center>113</center> +<p>for sixty-six days. The pollution was twice as great when she +had borne a daughter.</p> +<p>It is a little difficult to see why it is a greater crime to +give birth to a daughter than to a son. Surely, a law like that did +not tend to the elevation of woman. You will also find in the same +chapter that a woman had to offer a pigeon, or a turtle-dove, as a +sin offering, in order to expiate the crime of having become a +mother. By the Levitical law, a mother was unclean. The priest had +to make an atonement for her.</p> +<p>If there is, beneath the stars, a figure of complete and perfect +purity, it is a mother holding in her arms her child. The laws +respecting women, given by commandment of Jehovah to the Jews, were +born of barbarism, and in this day and age should be regarded only +with detestation and contempt. The twentieth and twenty-first +verses of the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus show that the same +punishment was not meted to men and women guilty of the same +crime.</p> +<p>The real explanation of what we find in the Old Testament +degrading to woman, lies in the fact, that the overflow of Love's +mysterious Nile—the sacred source of life—was, by its +savage authors, deemed unclean.</p> +<center>114</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. But what have you to say about the women of the +Bible, mentioned by Mr. Talmage, and held up as examples for all +time of all that is sweet and womanly?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe that Esther is his principal heroine. +Let us see who she was.</p> +<p>According to the book of Esther, Ahasuerus who was king of +Persia, or some such place, ordered Vashti his queen to show +herself to the people and the princes, because she was "exceedingly +fair "to look upon." For some reason—modesty +perhaps—she refused to appear. And thereupon the king "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 that if it should become public that Vashti had +disobeyed, all other wives might follow her example. The king also, +for the purpose of impressing upon all women the necessity of +obeying their husbands, issued a decree 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."</p> +<p>After this, "the king appointed officers in all the</p> +<center>115</center> +<p>"provinces of his kingdom that they might gather "together all +the fair young virgins," and bring them to his palace, put them in +the custody of his chamberlain, and have them thoroughly washed. +Then the king was to look over the lot and take each day the one +that pleased him best until he found the one to put in the place of +Vashti. A fellow by the name of Mordecai, living in that part of +the country, hearing of the opportunity to sell a girl, brought +Esther, his uncle's daughter,—she being an orphan, and very +beautiful—to see whether she might not be the lucky one.</p> +<p>The remainder of the second chapter of this book, I do not care +to repeat. It is sufficient to say that Esther at last was +chosen.</p> +<p>The king at this time did not know that Esther was a Jewess. +Mordecai her kinsman, however, discovered a plot to assassinate the +king, and Esther told the king, and the two plotting gentlemen were +hanged on a tree.</p> +<p>After a while, a man by the name of Haman was made Secretary of +State, and everybody coming in his presence bowed except Mordecai. +Mordecai was probably depending on the influence of Esther. Haman +finally became so vexed, that he made up</p> +<center>116</center> +<p>his mind to have all the Jews in the kingdom destroyed. (The +number of Jews at that time in Persia must have been immense.) +Haman thereupon requested the king to have an order issued to +destroy all the Jews, and in consideration of the order, proposed +to pay ten thousand talents of silver. And thereupon, letters were +written to the governors of the various provinces, sealed with the +king's ring, sent by post in all directions, with instructions to +kill all the Jews, both young and old—little children and +women,—in one day. (One would think that the king copied this +order from another part of the Old Testament, or had found an +original by Jehovah.) The people immediately made preparations for +the killing. Mordecai clothed himself with sack-cloth, and Esther +called upon one of the king's chamberlains, and she finally got the +history of the affair, as well as a copy of the writing, and +thereupon made up her mind to go in and ask the king to save her +people.</p> +<p>At that time, Bismarck's idea of government being in full force, +any one entering the king's presence without an invitation, was +liable to be put to death. And in case any one did go in to see the +king, if the king failed to hold out his golden sceptre, his life +was not spared. Notwithstanding this order, Esther put on</p> +<center>117</center> +<p>her best clothes, and stood in the inner court of the king's +house, while the king sat on his royal throne. When the king saw +her standing in the court, he held out his sceptre, and Esther drew +near, and he asked her what she wished; and thereupon she asked +that the king and Haman might take dinner with her that day, and it +was done. While they were feasting, the king again asked Esther +what she wanted; and her second request was, that they would come +and dine with her once more. When Haman left the palace that day, +he saw Mordecai again at the gate, standing as stiffly as usual, +and it filled Haman with indignation. So Haman, taking the advice +of his wife, made a gallows fifty cubits high, for the special +benefit of Mordecai. The next day, when Haman went to see the king, +the king, having the night before refreshed his memory in respect +to the service done him by Mordecai, asked Haman what ought to be +done for the man whom the king wished to honor. Haman, supposing of +course that the king referred to him, said that royal purple ought +to be brought forth, such as the king wore, and the horse that the +king rode on, and the crown-royal should be set on the man's +head;—that one of the most noble princes should lead the +horse,</p> +<center>118</center> +<p>and as he went through the streets, proclaim: "Thus "shall it be +done to the man whom the king de"lighteth to honor."</p> +<p>Thereupon the king told Haman that Mordecai was the man that the +king wished to honor. And Haman was forced to lead this horse, +backed by Mordecai, through the streets, shouting: "This shall "be +done to the man whom the king delighteth to "honor." Immediately +afterward, he went to the banquet that Esther had prepared, and the +king again asked Esther her petition. She then asked for the +salvation of her people; stating at the same time, that if her +people had been sold into slavery, she would have held her tongue; +but since they were about to be killed, she could not keep silent. +The king asked her who had done this thing; and Esther replied that +it was the wicked Haman.</p> +<p>Thereupon one of the chamberlains, remembering the gallows that +had been made for Mordecai, mentioned it, and the king immediately +ordered that Haman be hanged thereon; which was done. And Mordecai +immediately became Secretary of State. The order against the Jews +was then rescinded; and Ahasuerus, willing to do anything that +Esther desired, hanged all of Haman's folks. He not only did</p> +<center>119</center> +<p>this, but he immediately issued an order to all the Jews +allowing them to kill the other folks. And the Jews got together +throughout one hundred and twenty-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, besides ten sons of Haman; and +in the rest of the provinces, they slew seventy-five thousand +people. And after this work of slaughter, the Jews had a day of +gladness and feasting.</p> +<p>One can see from this, what a beautiful Bible character Esther +was—how filled with all that is womanly, gentle, kind and +tender!</p> +<p>This story is one of the most unreasonable, as well as one of +the most heartless and revengeful, in the whole Bible. Ahasuerus +was a monster, and Esther equally infamous; and yet, this woman is +held up for the 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 the deity is not referred to, directly or +indirectly;—yet</p> +<center>120</center> +<p>it is claimed to be an inspired book. If Jehovah wrote it, he +certainly cannot be charged with egotism.</p> +<p>I most cheerfully admit that the book of Ruth is quite a +pleasant story, and the affection of Ruth for her mother-in-law +exceedingly touching, but I am of opinion that Ruth did many things +that would be regarded as somewhat indiscreet, even in the city of +Brooklyn.</p> +<p>All I can find about Hannah is, that she made a little coat for +her boy Samuel, and brought it to him from year to year. Where he +got his vest and pantaloons we are not told. But this fact seems +hardly enough to make her name immortal.</p> +<p>So also Mr. Talmage refers us to the wonderful woman Abigail. +The story about Abigail, told in plain English, is this: David sent +some of his followers to Nabal, Abigail's husband, and demanded +food. Nabal, who knew nothing about David, and cared less, refused. +Abigail heard about it, and took food to David and his servants. +She was very much struck, apparently, with David and David with +her. A few days afterward Nabal died—supposed to have been +killed by the Lord—but probably poisoned; and thereupon David +took Abigail to wife. The</p> +<center>121</center> +<p>whole matter should have been investigated by the grand +jury.</p> +<p>We are also referred to Dorcas, who no doubt was a good +woman—made clothes for the poor and gave alms, as millions +have done since then. It seems that this woman died. Peter was sent +for, and thereupon raised her from the dead, and she is never +mentioned any more. Is it not a little strange that a woman who had +been actually raised from the dead, should have so completely +passed out of the memory of her time, that when she died the second +time, she was entirely unnoticed?</p> +<p>Is it not astonishing that so little is in the New Testament +concerning the mother of Christ? My own opinion is, that she was an +excellent woman, and the wife of Joseph; and that Joseph was the +actual father of Christ. I think there can be no reasonable doubt +that such was the opinion of the authors of the original gospels. +Upon any other hypothesis, it is impossible to account for their +having given the genealogy of Joseph to prove that Christ was of +the blood of David. The idea that he was the Son of God, or in any +way miraculously produced, was an afterthought, and is hardly +entitled now to serious consideration. The gospels were written so +long after</p> +<center>122</center> +<p>the death of Christ, that very little was known of him, and +substantially nothing of his parents. How is it that not one word +is said about the death of Mary— not one word about the death +of Joseph? How did it happen that Christ did not visit his mother +after his resurrection? The first time he speaks to his mother is +when he was twelve years old. His mother having told him that she +and his father had been seeking him, he replied: "How is it that ye +sought me: wist "ye not that I must be about my Father s +business?"</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>The best thing about the Catholic Church is the deification of +Mary,—and yet this is denounced by Protestantism as idolatry. +There is something in the human heart that prompts man to tell his +faults more freely to the mother than to the father. The cruelty of +Jehovah is softened by the mercy of Mary.</p> +<p>Is it not strange that none of the disciples of Christ</p> +<center>123</center> +<p>said anything about their parents,—that we know absolutely +nothing of them? Is there any evidence that they showed any +particular respect even for the mother of Christ?</p> +<p>Mary Magdalen is, in many respects, the tenderest and most +loving character in the New Testament. According to the account, +her love for Christ knew no abatement,—no change—true +even in the hopeless shadow of the cross. Neither did it die with +his death. She waited at the sepulchre; she hasted in the early +morning to his tomb, and yet the only comfort Christ gave to this +true and loving soul lies in these strangely cold and heartless +words: "Touch "me not."</p> +<p>There is nothing tending to show that the women spoken of in the +Bible were superior to the ones we know. There are to-day millions +of women making coats for their sons,—hundreds of thousands +of women, true not simply to innocent people, falsely accused, but +to criminals. Many a loving heart is as true to the gallows as Mary +was to the cross. There are hundreds of thousands of women +accepting poverty and want and dishonor, for the love they bear +unworthy men; hundreds and thousands, hundreds and thousands, +working day and night, with</p> +<center>124</center> +<p>strained eyes and tired hands, for husbands and +children,—clothed in rags, housed in huts and hovels, hoping +day after day for the angel of death. There are thousands of women +in Christian England, working in iron, laboring in the fields and +toiling in mines. There are hundreds and thousands in Europe, +everywhere, doing the work of men—deformed by toil, and who +would become simply wild and ferocious beasts, except for the love +they bear for home and child.</p> +<p>You need not go back four thousand years for heroines. 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 is +found, they are found.</p> +<p>There is no description of any women in the Bible that equal +thousands and thousands of women known to-day. The women mentioned +by Mr. Talmage fall almost infinitely below, not simply those in +real life, but the creations of the imagination found in the world +of fiction. They will not compare with the women born of +Shakespeare's brain. You will find none like Isabella, in whose +spotless life, love and reason blended into perfect truth; nor +Juliet, within whose heart passion and purity met, like white and +red within the bosom of a rose; nor Cordelia, who chose to</p> +<center>125</center> +<p>suffer loss rather than show her wealth of love with those who +gilded dross with golden words in hope of gain; nor Miranda, who +told her love as freely as 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 hope the cross of shame, +and who at last forgave with all her heart; nor Desdemona, her +innocence so perfect and her love so pure, that she was incapable +of suspecting that another could suspect, and sought with dying +words to hide her lover's crime.</p> +<p>If we wish to find what the Bible thinks of woman, all that is +necessary to do is to read it. We will find that everywhere she is +spoken of simply as property,—as belonging absolutely to the +man. We will find that whenever a man got tired of his wife, all he +had to do was to give her a writing of divorcement, and that then +the mother of his children became a houseless and a homeless +wanderer. We will find that men were allowed to have as many wives +as they could get, either by courtship, purchase, or conquest. The +Jewish people in the olden time were in many respects like their +barbarian neighbors.</p> +<p>If we read the New Testament, we will find in the</p> +<center>126</center> +<p>epistle of Paul to Timothy, the following gallant passages:</p> +<p>"Let the woman learn in silence, with all "subjection."</p> +<p>"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp "authority over +the man, but to be in silence."</p> +<p>And for these kind, gentle and civilized remarks, the apostle +Paul gives the following reasons:</p> +<p>"For Adam was first formed, then Eve."</p> +<p>"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman "being deceived was in +the transgression."</p> +<p>Certainly women ought to feel under great obligation to the +apostle Paul.</p> +<p>In the fifth chapter of the same epistle, Paul, advising Timothy +as to what kind of people he should admit into his society or +church, uses the following language:</p> +<p>"Let not a widow be taken into the number under "threescore +years old, having been the wife of one "man."</p> +<p>"But the younger widows refuse, for when they "have begun to wax +wanton against Christ, they will "marry."</p> +<p>This same Paul did not seem to think polygamy wrong, except in a +bishop. He tells Timothy that:</p> +<center>127</center> +<p>"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one "wife."</p> +<p>He also lays down the rule that a deacon should be the husband +of one wife, leaving us to infer that the other members might have +as many as they could get.</p> +<p>In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul speaks of "grandmother +Lois," who was referred to in such extravagant language by Mr. +Talmage, and nothing is said touching her character in the least. +All her virtues live in the imagination, and in the imagination +alone.</p> +<p>Paul, also, in his epistle to the Ephesians, says:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, "so let the +wives be to their own husbands, in "everything."</p> +<p>You will find, too, that in the seventh chapter of First +Corinthians, Paul laments that all men are not bachelors like +himself, and in the second verse of that chapter he gives the only +reason for which he was willing that men and women should marry. He +advised all the unmarried, and all widows, to remain</p> +<center>128</center> +<p>as he was. In the ninth verse of this same chapter is a slander +too vulgar for repetition,—an estimate of woman and of +woman's love so low and vile, that every woman should hold the +inspired author in infinite abhorrence.</p> +<p>Paul sums up the whole matter, however, by telling those who +have wives or husbands, to stay with them—as necessary evils +only to be tolerated—but sincerely regrets that anybody was +ever married; and finally says that:</p> +<p>"They that have wives should be as though they "had none;" +because, in his opinion:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Of course, it is contended that these things have tended to the +elevation of woman.</p> +<p>The idea that it is better to love the Lord than to</p> +<center>129</center> +<p>love your wife, or your husband, is infinitely absurd. Nobody +ever did love the Lord,—nobody can—until he becomes +acquainted with him.</p> +<p>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 position, says:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Of course, we can all see that man could have gotten along well +enough without woman, but woman, by no possibility, could have +gotten along without man. And yet, this is called "inspired;" and +this apostle Paul is supposed to have known more than all the +people now upon the earth. No wonder Paul at last was constrained +to say: "We are fools for "Christ's sake."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the present condition of +woman in what is known as "the civilized "world," unless the Bible +has bettered her condition?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We must remember that thousands of things enter +into the problem of civilization. Soil, climate, and geographical +position, united with count</p> +<center>130</center> +<p>less other influences, have resulted in the civilization of our +time. If we want to find what the influence of the Bible has been, +we must ascertain the condition of Europe when the Bible was +considered as absolutely true, and when it wielded its greatest +influence.</p> +<p>Christianity as a form of religion had actual possession of +Europe during the Middle Ages. At that time, it exerted its +greatest power. Then it had the opportunity of breaking the +shackles from the limbs of woman. Christianity found the Roman +matron a free woman. Polygamy was never known in Rome; and although +divorces were allowed by law, the Roman state had been founded for +more than five hundred years before either a husband or a wife +asked for a divorce. From the foundation of Christianity,—I +mean from the time it became the force in the Roman +state,—woman, as such, went down in the scale of +civilization. The sceptre was taken from her hands, and she became +once more the slave and serf of man. The men also were made slaves, +and woman has regained her liberty by the same means that man has +regained his,—by wresting authority from the hands of the +church. While the church had power, the wife and mother was not +considered as good as the begging nun; the husband and father was +far below the vermin-covered monk; homes were of no value compared +with the cathedral; for God had to have a house, no matter how many +of his children were wanderers. During all the years in which woman +has struggled for equal liberty with man, she has been met with the +Bible doctrine that she is the inferior of the man; that Adam was +made first, and Eve afterwards; that man was not made for woman, +but that woman was made for man.</p> +<p>I find that in this day and generation, the meanest men have the +lowest estimate of woman; that the greater the man is, the grander +he is, the more he thinks of mother, wife and daughter. I also find +that just in the proportion that he has lost confidence in the +polygamy of Jehovah and in the advice and philosophy of Saint Paul, +he believes in the rights and liberties of woman. As a matter of +fact, men have risen from a perusal of the Bible, and murdered +their wives. They have risen from reading its pages, and inflicted +cruel and even mortal blows upon their children. Men have risen +from reading the Bible and torn the flesh of others with red-hot +pincers. They have laid down the sacred volume long enough to pour +molten lead into the ears of others. They have stopped reading the +sacred Scriptures for a sufficient time to</p> +<center>132</center> +<p>incarcerate 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 +long enough to drive a stake into the ground and collect a few +fagots and burn an honest man. Even ministers have denied +themselves the privilege of reading the sacred book long enough to +tell falsehoods about their fellow-men. There is no crime that +Bible readers and Bible believers and Bible worshipers and Bible +defenders have not committed. There is no meanness of which some +Bible reader, believer, and defender, has not been guilty. Bible +believers and Bible defenders have filled the world with calumnies +and slanders. Bible believers and Bible defenders have not only +whipped their wives, but they have murdered them; they have +murdered their children. I do not say that reading the Bible will +necessarily make men dishonest, but I do say, that reading the +Bible will not prevent their committing crimes. I do not say that +believing the Bible will necessarily make men commit burglary, but +I do say that a belief in the Bible has caused men to persecute +each other, to imprison each other, and to burn each other.</p> +<p>Only a little while ago, a British clergyman mur</p> +<center>133</center> +<p>dered his wife. Only a little while ago, an American Protestant +clergyman whipped his boy to death because the boy refused to say a +prayer.</p> +<p>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 had been laid the holy hands; and yet, he +deliberately starved orphans, and while looking upon their sunken +eyes and hollow cheeks, sung pious hymns and quoted with great +unction: "Suffer little chil"dren to come unto me."</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, in the last twenty years, more money has +been stolen by Christian cashiers, Christian presidents, Christian +directors, Christian trustees and Christian statesmen, than by all +other convicts in all the penitentiaries in all the Christian +world.</p> +<p>The assassin of Henry the Fourth was a Bible reader and a Bible +believer. The instigators of the massacre of St. Bartholomew were +believers in your sacred Scriptures. The men who invested their +money in the slave-trade believed themselves filled with the Holy +Ghost, and read with rapture the Psalms of David and the Sermon on +the Mount. The murderers of Scotch Presbyterians were believers in +Revelation, and the</p> +<p>134 Presbyterians, when they murdered others, were also +believers. Nearly every man who expiates a crime upon the gallows +is a believer in the Bible. For a thousand years, the daggers of +assassination and the swords of war were blest by priests—by +the believers in the sacred Scriptures. The assassin of President +Garfield is a believer in the Bible, a hater of infidelity, a +believer in personal inspiration, and he expects in a few weeks to +join the winged and redeemed in heaven.</p> +<p>If a man would follow, to-day, the teachings of the Old +Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the +teachings of the New, he would be insane.</p> +<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FOURTH INTERVIEW.</h2> +<p>Son. There is no devil.</p> +<p>Mother. I know there is.</p> +<p>Son. How do you know?</p> +<p>Mother. Because they make pictures that look just like him.</p> +<p>Son. But, mother—</p> +<p>Mother. Don't "mother" me! You are trying to disgrace your +parents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I want to ask you a few questions about Mr. +Talmage's fourth sermon against you, entitled: "The Meanness of +Infidelity," in which he compares you to Jehoiakim, who had the +temerity to throw some of the writings of the weeping Jeremiah into +the fire?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. So far as I am concerned, I really regret that a +second edition of Jeremiah's roll was gotten out. It would have +been far better for us all, if it had been left in ashes. There was +nothing but curses and prophecies of evil, in the sacred roll +that</p> +<center>138</center> +<p>Jehoiakim burned. The Bible tells us that Jehovah became +exceedingly wroth because of the destruction of this roll, and +pronounced a curse upon Jehoiakim and upon Palestine. I presume it +was on account of the burning of that roll that the king of Babylon +destroyed the chosen people of God. It was on account of that +sacrilege that the Lord said of Jehoiakim: "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 body would suffer under such circumstances. +Imagine an infinitely wise, good and powerful God taking vengeance +on the corpse of a barbarian king! What joy there must have been in +heaven as the angels watched the alternate melting and freezing of +the dead body of Jehoiakim!</p> +<p>Jeremiah was probably the most accomplished croaker of all time. +Nothing satisfied him. He was a prophetic pessimist,—an +ancient Bourbon. He was only happy when predicting war, pestilence +and famine. No wonder Jehoiakim despised him, and hated all he +wrote.</p> +<p>One can easily see the character of Jeremiah from the following +occurrence: When the Babylonians</p> +<center>139</center> +<p>had succeeded in taking Jerusalem, and in sacking the city, +Jeremiah was unfortunately taken prisoner; but Captain Nebuzaradan +came to Jeremiah, and told him that he would let him go, because he +had prophesied against his own country. He was regarded as a friend +by the enemy.</p> +<p>There was, at that time, as now, the old fight between the +church and the civil power. Whenever a king failed to do what the +priests wanted, they immediately prophesied overthrow, disaster, +and defeat. Whenever the kings would hearken to their voice, and +would see to it that the priests had plenty to eat and drink and +wear, then they all declared that Jehovah would love that king, +would let him live out all his days, and allow his son to reign in +his stead. It was simply the old conflict that is still being +waged, and it will be carried on until universal civilization does +away with priestcraft and superstition.</p> +<p>The priests in the days of Jeremiah were the same as now. They +sought to rule the State. They pretended that, at their request, +Jehovah would withhold or send the rain; that the seasons were +within their power; that they with bitter words could blight the +fields and curse the land with want and death. They gloried then, +as now, in the exhibition of God's wrath.</p> +<center>140</center> +<p>In prosperity, the priests were forgotten. Success scorned them; +Famine flattered them; Health laughed at them; Pestilence prayed to +them; Disaster was their only friend.</p> +<p>These old prophets prophesied nothing but evil, and +consequently, when anything bad happened, they claimed it as a +fulfillment, and pointed with pride to the fact that they had, +weeks or months, or years before, foretold something of that kind. +They were really the originators of the phrase, "I told you +so!"</p> +<p>There was a good old Methodist class-leader that lived down near +a place called Liverpool, on the Illinois river. In the spring of +1861 the old man, telling his experience, among other things said, +that he had lived there by the river for more than thirty years, +and he did not believe that a year had passed that there were not +hundreds of people during the hunting season shooting ducks on +Sunday; that he had told his wife thousands of times that no good +would come of it; that evil would come of it; "And "now, said the +old man, raising his voice with the importance of the announcement, +"war is upon us!"</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you wish, as Mr. Talmage says, to destroy +the Bible—to have all the copies burned to ashes? What do you +wish to have done with the Bible?</p> +<center>141</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I want the Bible treated exactly as we treat +other books—preserve the good and throw away the foolish and +the hurtful. I am fighting the doctrine of inspiration. As long as +it is believed that the Bible is inspired, that book is the +master—no mind is free. With that belief, intellectual +liberty is impossible. With that belief, you can investigate only +at the risk of losing your soul. The Catholics have a pope. +Protestants laugh at them, and yet the pope is capable of +intellectual advancement. In addition to this, the pope is mortal, +and the church cannot be afflicted with the same idiot forever. The +Protestants have a book for their pope. The book cannot advance. +Year after year, and century after century, the book remains as +ignorant as ever. It is only made better by those who believe in +its inspiration giving better meanings to the words than their +ancestors did. In this way it may be said that the Bible grows a +little better.</p> +<p>Why should we have a book for a master? That which otherwise +might be a blessing, remains a curse. If every copy of the Bible +were destroyed, all that is good in that book would be reproduced +in a single day. Leave every copy of the Bible as it is, and have +every human being believe in its inspiration,</p> +<center>142</center> +<p>and intellectual liberty would cease to exist. The whole race, +from that moment, would go back toward the night of intellectual +death.</p> +<p>The Bible would do more harm if more people really believed it, +and acted in accordance with its teachings. Now and then a Freeman +puts the knife to the heart of his child. Now and then an assassin +relies upon some sacred passage; but, as a rule, few men believe +the Bible to be absolutely true.</p> +<p>There are about fifteen hundred million people in the world. +There are not two million who have read the Bible through. There +are not two hundred million who ever saw the Bible. There are not +five hundred million who ever heard that such a book exists.</p> +<p>Christianity is claimed to be a religion for all mankind. It was +founded more than eighteen centuries ago; and yet, not one human +being in three has ever heard of it. As a matter of fact, for more +than fourteen centuries and-a-half after the crucifixion of Christ, +this hemisphere was absolutely unknown. There was not a Christian +in the world who knew there was such a continent as ours, and all +the inhabitants of this, the New World, were deprived of the gospel +for fourteen centuries and-a-half, and</p> +<center>143</center> +<p>knew nothing of its blessings until they were informed by +Spanish murderers and marauders. Even in the United States, +Christianity is not keeping pace with the increase of population. +When we take into consideration that it is aided by the momentum of +eighteen centuries, is it not wonderful that it is not to-day +holding its own? The reason of this is, that we are beginning to +understand the Scriptures. We are beginningto see, and to see +clearly, that they are simply of human origin, and that the Bible +bears the marks of the barbarians who wrote it. The best educated +among the clergy admit that we know but little as to the origin of +the gospels; that we do not positively know the author of one of +them; that it is really a matter of doubt as to who wrote the five +books attributed to Moses. They admit now, that Isaiah was written +by more than one person; that Solomon's Song was not written by +that king; that Job is, in all probability, not a Jewish book; that +Ecclesiastes must have been written by a Freethinker, and by one +who had his doubts about the immortality of the soul. The best +biblical students of the socalled orthodox world now admit that +several stories were united to make the gospel of Saint Luke; that +Hebrews is a selection from many fragments, and</p> +<center>144</center> +<p>that no human being, not afflicted with delirium tremens, can +understand the book of Revelation.</p> +<p>I am not the only one engaged in the work of destruction. Every +Protestant who expresses a doubt as to the genuineness of a +passage, is destroying the Bible. The gentlemen who have endeavored +to treat hell as a question of syntax, and to prove that eternal +punishment depends upon grammar, are helping to bring the +Scriptures into contempt. Hundreds of years ago, the Catholics told +the Protestant world that it was dangerous to give the Bible to the +people. The Catholics were right; the Protestants were wrong. To +read is to think. To think is to investigate. To investigate is, +finally, to deny. That book should have been read only by priests. +Every copy should have been under the lock and key of bishop, +cardinal and pope. The common people should have received the Bible +from the lips of the ministers. The world should have been kept in +ignorance. In that way, and in that way only, could the pulpit have +maintained its power. He who teaches a child the alphabet sows the +seeds of heresy. I have lived to see the schoolhouse in many a +village larger than the church. Every man who finds a fact, is the +enemy of theology. Every man who expresses an</p> +<center>145</center> +<p>honest thought is a soldier in the army of intellectual +liberty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage thinks that you laugh too +much,—that you exhibit too much mirth, and that no one should +smile at sacred things?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The church has always feared ridicule. The +minister despises laughter. He who builds upon ignorance and awe, +fears intelligence and mirth. The theologians always begin by +saying: "Let us be "solemn." They know that credulity and awe are +twins. They also know that while Reason is the pilot of the soul, +Humor carries the lamp. Whoever has the sense of humor fully +developed, cannot, by any possibility, be an orthodox theologian. +He would be his own laughing stock. The most absurd stories, the +most laughable miracles, read in a solemn, stately way, sound to +the ears of ignorance and awe like truth. It has been the object of +the church for eighteen hundred years to prevent laughter.</p> +<p>A smile is the dawn of a doubt.</p> +<p>Ministers are always talking about death, and coffins, and dust, +and worms,—the cross in this life, and the fires of another. +They have been the enemies of human happiness. They hate to +hear</p> +<center>146</center> +<p>even the laughter of children. There seems to have been a bond +of sympathy between divinity and dyspepsia, between theology and +indigestion. There is a certain pious hatred of pleasure, and those +who have been "born again" are expected to despise "the transitory +joys of this fleeting life." In this, they follow the example of +their prophets, of whom they proudly say: "They never smiled."</p> +<p>Whoever laughs at a holy falsehood, is called a "scoffer." +Whoever gives vent to his natural feelings is regarded as a +"blasphemer," and whoever examines the Bible as he examines other +books, and relies upon his reason to interpret it, is denounced as +a "reprobate."</p> +<p>Let us respect the truth, let us laugh at miracles, and above +all, let us be candid with each other.</p> +<p>'Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have, in your lectures, +satirized your early home; that you have described with bitterness +the Sundays that were forced upon you in your youth; and that in +various ways you have denounced your father as a "tyrant," or a +"bigot," or a "fool"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have described the manner in which Sunday was +kept when I was a boy. My father for</p> +<center>147</center> +<p>many years regarded the Sabbath as a sacred day. We kept Sunday +as most other Christians did. I think that my father made a mistake +about that day. I have no doubt he was honest about it, and really +believed that it was pleasing to God for him to keep the Sabbath as +he did.</p> +<p>I think that Sunday should not be a day of gloom, of silence and +despair, or a day in which to hear that the chances are largely in +favor of your being eternally damned. That day, in my opinion, +should be one of joy; a day to get acquainted with your wife and +children; a day to visit the woods, or the sea, or the murmuring +stream; a day to gather flowers, to visit the graves of your dead, +to read old poems, old letters, old books; a day to rekindle the +fires of friendship and love.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage says that my father was a Christian, and he then +proceeds to malign his memory. It seems to me that a living +Christian should at least tell the truth about one who sleeps the +silent sleep of death.</p> +<p>I have said nothing, in any of my lectures, about my father, or +about my mother, or about any of my relatives. I have not the +egotism to bring them forward. They have nothing to do with the +subject</p> +<center>148</center> +<p>in hand. That my father was mistaken upon the subject of +religion, I have no doubt. He was a good, a brave and honest man. I +loved him living, and I love him dead. I never said to him an +unkind word, and in my heart there never was of him an unkind +thought. He was grand enough to say to me, that I had the same +right to my opinion that he had to his. He was great enough to tell +me to read the Bible for myself, to be honest with myself, and if +after reading it I concluded it was not the word of God, that it +was my duty to say so.</p> +<p>My mother died when I was but a child; and from that +day—the darkest of my life—her memory has been within +my heart a sacred thing, and I have felt, through all these years, +her kisses on my lips.</p> +<p>I know that my parents—if they are conscious now —do +not wish me to honor them at the expense of my manhood. I know that +neither my father nor my mother would have me sacrifice upon their +graves my honest thought. I know that I can only please them by +being true to myself, by defending what I believe is good, by +attacking what I believe is bad. Yet this minister of Christ is +cruel enough, and malicious enough, to attack the reputation of the +dead. What he says about my father is utterly and unqualifiedly +false.</p> +<center>149</center> +<p>Right here, it may be well enough for me to say, that long +before my father died, he threw aside, as unworthy of a place in +the mind of an intelligent man, the infamous dogma of eternal fire; +that he regarded with abhorrence many passages in the Old +Testament; 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 the suffering of man. My father and my mother were +good, in spite of the Old Testament. They were merciful, 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 generous +current of the soul, it is Calvinism. If there is any creed that +will destroy charity, that will keep the tears of pity from the +cheeks of men and women, it is Presbyterianism. If there is any +doctrine calculated to make man bigoted, unsympathetic, and cruel, +it is the doctrine of predestination. Neither my father, nor my +mother, believed in the damnation of babes, nor in the inspiration +of John Calvin.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage professes to be a Christian. What effect has the +religion of Jesus Christ had upon him? Is he the product—the +natural product—of Chris</p> +<center>150</center> +<p>tianity? Does the real Christian violate the sanctity of death? +Does the real Christian malign the memory of the dead? Does the +good Christian defame unanswering and unresisting dust?</p> +<p>But why should I expect kindness from a Christian? Can a +minister be expected to treat with fairness a man whom his God +intends to damn? If a good God is going to burn an infidel forever, +in the world to come, surely a Christian should have the right to +persecute him a little here.</p> +<p>What right has a Christian to ask anybody to love his father, or +mother, or wife, or child? According to the gospels, Christ offered +a reward to any one who would desert his father or his mother. He +offered a premium to gentlemen for leaving their wives, and tried +to bribe people to abandon their little children. He offered them +happiness in this world, and a hundred fold in the next, if they +would turn a deaf ear to the supplications of a father, the +beseeching cry of a wife, and would leave the outstretched arms of +babes. They were not even allowed to bury their fathers and their +mothers. At that time they were expected to prefer Jesus to their +wives and children. And now an orthodox minister says that a man +ought not to express his honest</p> +<center>151</center> +<p>thoughts, because they do not happen to be in accord with the +belief of his father or mother.</p> +<p>Suppose Mr. Talmage should read the Bible carefully and without +fear, and should come to the honest conclusion that it is not +inspired, what course would he 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 might please Mr. Talmage, +and accord perfectly with his view, but I prefer to say, that my +father wished me to be an honest man. If he is in "heaven" now, I +am sure that he would rather hear me attack the "inspired" word of +God, honestly and bravely, than to hear me, in the solemn accents +of hypocrisy, defend what I believe to be untrue.</p> +<p>I may be mistaken in the estimate angels put upon human beings. +It may be that God likes a pretended follower better than an +honest, outspoken man—one who is an infidel simply because he +does not understand this God. But it seems to me, in my +unregenerate condition, touched and tainted as I am by original +sin,</p> +<center>152</center> +<p>that a God of infinite power and wisdom ought to be able to make +a man brave enough to have an opinion of his own. I cannot conceive +of God taking any particular pride in any hypocrite he has ever +made. Whatever he may say through his ministers, or whatever the +angels may repeat, a manly devil stands higher in my estimation +than an unmanly angel. I do not mean by this, that there are any +unmanly angels, neither do I pretend that there are any manly +devils. My meaning is this: If I have a Creator, I can only honor +him by being true to myself, and kind and just to my fellow-men. If +I wish to shed lustre upon my father and mother, I can only do so +by being absolutely true to myself. Never will I lay the wreath of +hypocrisy upon the tombs of those I love.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage takes the ground that we must defend the religious +belief of our parents. He seems to forget 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 mother a +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 +grave</p> +<center>153</center> +<p>of the mother to honor the father; or must he compromise, and +talk one way and believe another? If Mr. Talmage's doctrine is +correct, only persons who have no knowledge of their parents can +have liberty of opinion. Foundlings would be the only free people. +I do not suppose that Mr. Talmage would go so far as to say that a +child would be bound by the religion of the person upon whose +door-steps he was found. If he does not, then over every foundling +hospital should be these words: "Home of Intel"lectual +Liberty."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you suppose that we will care nothing in the +next world for those we loved in this? Is it worse in a man than in +an angel, to care nothing for his mother?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. According to Mr. Talmage, a man can be 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 his wife. The Holy Ghost will keep him in such a state of +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, but I would much rather be in hell, with my +parents</p> +<center>154</center> +<p>in heaven, than be in heaven with my parents in hell. I think a +thousand times more of my parents than I do of Christ. They knew +me, they worked for me, they loved me, and I can imagine no heaven, +no state of perfect bliss for me, in which they have no share. If +God hates me, because I love them, I cannot love him.</p> +<p>I cannot truthfully say that I look forward with any great +degree of joy, to meeting with Haggai and Habakkuk; with Jeremiah, +Nehemiah, Obadiah, Zechariah or Zephaniah; with Ezekiel, Micah, or +Malachi; or even with Jonah. From what little I have read of their +writings, I have not formed a very high opinion of the social +qualities of these gentlemen.</p> +<p>I want to meet the persons I have known; and if there is another +life, I want to meet the really and the truly great—men who +have been broad enough to be tender, and great enough to be +kind.</p> +<p>Because I differ with my parents, because I am convinced that my +father was wrong in some of his religious opinions, Mr. Talmage +insists that I disgrace my parents. How did the Christian religion +commence? Did not the first disciples advocate theories that their +parents denied? Were they</p> +<center>155</center> +<p>not false,—in his sense of the word,—to their +fathers and mothers? How could there have been any progress in this +world, if children had not gone beyond their parents? Do you +consider that the inventor of a steel plow cast a slur upon his +father who scratched the ground with a wooden one? I do not +consider that an invention by the son is a slander upon the father; +I regard each invention simply as an improvement; and every father +should be exceedingly proud of an ingenious son. If Mr. Talmage has +a son, it will be impossible for him to honor his father except by +differing with him.</p> +<p>It is very strange that Mr. Talmage, a believer in Christ, +should object to any man for not loving his mother and his father, +when his Master, according to 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."</p> +<p>According to this, I have to make my choice between my wife, my +children, and Jesus Christ. I have concluded to stand by my +folks—both in this world, and in "the world to come."</p> +<center>156</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage asks you whether, in your judgment, +the Bible was a good, or an evil, to your parents?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it was an evil. The worst thing about my +father was his religion. He would have been far happier, in my +judgment, without it. I think I get more real joy out of life than +he did. He was a man of a very great and tender heart. He was +continually thinking—for many years of his life—of the +thousands and thousands going down to eternal fire. That doctrine +filled his days with gloom, and his eyes with tears. I think that +my father and mother would have been far happier had they believed +as I do. How any one can get any joy out of the Christian religion +is past my comprehension. If that religion is true, hundreds of +millions are now in hell, and thousands of millions yet unborn will +be. How such a fact can form any part of the "glad tidings of great +joy," is amazing to me. It is impossible for me to love a being who +would create countless millions for eternal pain. It is impossible +for me to worship the God of the Bible, or the God of Calvin, or +the God of the Westminster Catechism.</p> +<center>157</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. I see that Mr. Talmage challenges you to read +the fourteenth chapter of Saint John. Are you willing to accept the +challenge; or have you ever read that chapter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not claim to be very courageous, but I have +read that chapter, and am very glad that Mr. Talmage has called +attention to it. According to the gospels, Christ did many +miracles. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, made the +lame walk, and raised the dead. In the fourteenth chapter of Saint +John, twelfth verse, I find the following:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>I am willing to accept that as a true test of a believer. If Mr. +Talmage really believes in Jesus Christ, he ought to be able to do +at least as great miracles as Christ is said to have done. Will Mr. +Talmage have the kindness to read the fourteenth chapter of John, +and then give me some proof, in accordance with that chapter, that +he is a believer in Jesus Christ? Will he have the kindness to +perform a miracle?—for instance, produce a "local flood," +make a worm to smite a gourd, or "prepare a fish"?</p> +<center>158</center> +<p>Can he do anything of that nature? Can he even cause a "vehement +east wind"? What evidence, according to the Bible, can Mr. Talmage +give of his belief? How does he prove that he is a Christian? By +hating infidels and maligning Christians? Let Mr. Talmage furnish +the evidence, according to the fourteenth chapter of Saint John, or +forever after hold his peace.</p> +<p>He has my thanks for calling my attention to the fourteenth +chapter of Saint John.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges that you are attempting to +destroy the "chief solace of the world," without offering any +substitute. How do you answer this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If he calls Christianity the "chief solace "of +the world," and if by Christianity he means that all who do not +believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, and have no faith in +Jesus Christ, are to be eternally damned, then I admit that I am +doing the best I can to take that "solace" from the human heart. I +do not believe that the Bible, when properly understood, is, or +ever has been, a comfort to any human being. Surely, no good man +can be comforted by reading a book in which he finds that</p> +<center>159</center> +<p>a large majority of mankind have been sentenced to eternal fire. +In the doctrine of total depravity there is no "solace." In the +doctrine of "election" there can be no joy until the returns are +in, and a majority found for you.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage says that you are taking away the +world's medicines, and in place of anaesthetics, in place of +laudanum drops, you read an essay to the man in pain, on the +absurdities of morphine and nervines in general.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is exactly the other way. I say, let us depend +upon morphine, not upon prayer. Do not send for the +minister—take a little laudanum. Do not read your +Bible,—chloroform is better. Do not waste your time listening +to meaningless sermons, but take real, genuine soporifics.</p> +<p>I regard the discoverer of ether as a benefactor. I look upon +every great surgeon as a blessing to mankind. I regard one doctor, +skilled in his profession, of more importance to the world than all +the orthodox ministers.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage should remember that for hundreds of years, the +church fought, with all its power, the science of medicine. Priests +used to cure diseases</p> +<center>160</center> +<p>by selling little pieces of paper covered with cabalistic marks. +They filled their treasuries by the sale of holy water. They healed +the sick by relics—the teeth and ribs of saints, the +finger-nails of departed worthies, and the hair of glorified +virgins. Infidelity said: "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 regarded as +a man who was endeavoring to take from God his means of punishment. +He was supposed to spike the artillery of Jehovah, to wet the +powder of the Almighty, and to steal the flint from the musket of +heavenly retribution.</p> +<p>Infidelity has never relied upon essays, it has never relied +upon words, it has never relied upon prayers, it has never relied +upon angels or gods; it has relied upon the honest efforts of men +and women. It has relied upon investigation, observation, +experience, and above all, upon human reason.</p> +<p>We, in America, know how much prayers are worth. We have lately +seen millions of people upon their knees. What was the result?</p> +<p>In the olden times, when a plague made its appearance, the +people fell upon their knees and died.</p> +<center>161</center> +<p>When pestilence came, they rushed to their cathedrals, they +implored their priests—and died. God had no pity upon his +ignorant children. At last, Science came to the rescue. +Science,—not in the attitude of prayer, with closed eyes, but +in the attitude of investigation, with open eyes,—looked for +and discovered some of the laws of health. Science found that +cleanliness was far better than godliness. It said: Do not spend +your time in praying;—clean your houses, clean your streets, +clean yourselves. This pestilence is not a punishment. Health is +not simply a favor of the gods. Health depends upon conditions, and +when the conditions are violated, disease is inevitable, and no God +can save you. Health depends upon your surroundings, and when these +are favorable, the roses are in your cheeks.</p> +<p>We find in the Old Testament that God gave to Moses a thousand +directions for ascertaining the presence of leprosy. Yet it never +occurred to this God to tell Moses how to cure the disease. Within +the lids of the Old Testament, we have no information upon a +subject of such vital importance to mankind.</p> +<p>It may, however, be claimed by Mr. Talmage, that this statement +is a little too broad, and I will therefore</p> +<center>162</center> +<p>give one recipe that I find in the fourteenth chapter of +Leviticus:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Prophets were predicting evil—filling the country with +their wails and cries, and yet it never occurred to them to tell +one solitary thing of the slightest importance to mankind. Why did +not these inspired men tell us how to cure some of the diseases +that have decimated the world? Instead of spending forty days and +forty nights with Moses, telling him how to build a large tent, and +how to cut the garments of priests, why did God not give him a +little useful information in respect to the laws of health?</p> +<center>163</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage must remember that the church has invented no +anodynes, no anaesthetics, no medicines, and has affected no cures. +The doctors have not been inspired. All these useful things men +have discovered for themselves, aided by no prophet and by no +divine Savior. Just to the extent that man has depended upon the +other world, he has failed to make the best of this. Just in the +proportion that he has depended on his own efforts, he has +advanced. The church has always said:</p> +<p>"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 this world has said: "No matter whether lilies toil +and spin, or not, if you would succeed, you must work; you must +take thought for the morrow, you must look beyond the present day, +you must provide for your wife and your children."</p> +<p>What can I be expected to give as a substitute for perdition? It +is enough to show that it does not exist. What does a man want in +place of a disease? Health. And what is better calculated to +increase the happiness of mankind than to know that the doctrine of +eternal pain is infinitely and absurdly false?</p> +<center>164</center> +<p>Take theology from the world, and natural Love remains, Science +is still here, Music will not be lost, the page of History will +still be open, the walls of the world will still be adorned with +Art, and the niches rich with Sculpture.</p> +<p>Take theology from the world, and we all shall have a common +hope,—and the fear of hell will be removed from every human +heart.</p> +<p>Take theology from the world, and millions of men will be +compelled to earn an honest living. Impudence will not tax +credulity. The vampire of hypocrisy will not suck the blood of +honest toil.</p> +<p>Take theology from the world, and the churches can be schools, +and the cathedrals universities.</p> +<p>Take theology from the world, and the money wasted on +superstition will do away with want.</p> +<p>Take theology from the world, and every brain will find itself +without a chain.</p> +<p>There is a vast difference between what is called infidelity and +theology.</p> +<p>Infidelity is honest. When it reaches the confines of reason, it +says: "I know no further."</p> +<p>Infidelity does not palm its guess upon an ignorant world as a +demonstration.</p> +<center>165</center> +<p>Infidelity proves nothing by slander—establishes nothing +by abuse.</p> +<p>Infidelity has nothing to hide. It has no "holy "of holies," +except the abode of truth. It has no curtain that the hand of +investigation has not the right to draw aside. It lives in the +cloudless light, in the very noon, of human eyes.</p> +<p>Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It does not cringe +before an angry God.</p> +<p>Infidelity says to every man: Investigate for yourself. There is +no punishment for unbelief.</p> +<p>Infidelity asks no protection from legislatures. It wants no man +fined because he contradicts its doctrines.</p> +<p>Infidelity relies simply upon evidence—not evidence of the +dead, but of the living.</p> +<p>Infidelity has no infallible pope. It relies only upon +infallible fact. It has no priest except the interpreter of Nature. +The universe is its church. Its bible is everything that is true. +It implores every man to verify every word for himself, and it +implores him to say, if he does not believe it, that he does +not.</p> +<p>Infidelity does not fear contradiction. It is not afraid of +being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny</p> +<center>166</center> +<p>of all doubters, of all unbelievers. It does not rely upon awe, +but upon reason. It says to the whole world: It is dangerous not to +think. It is dangerous not to be honest. It is dangerous not to +investigate. It is dangerous not to follow where your reason +leads.</p> +<p>Infidelity requires every man to judge for himself. Infidelity +preserves the manhood of man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage also says that you are trying to +put out the light-houses on the coast of the next world; that you +are "about to leave everybody "in darkness at the narrows of +death"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There can be no necessity for these light-houses, +unless the God of Mr. Talmage has planted rocks and reefs within +that unknown sea. If there is no hell, there is no need of any +lighthouse on the shores of the next world; and only those are +interested in keeping up these pretended light-houses who are paid +for trimming invisible wicks 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 coast is not +dangerous, the light-house will be abandoned, and the keeper will +have to find employment else</p> +<center>167</center> +<p>where. As a matter of fact, every church is a useless +light-house. It warns us only against breakers that do not exist. +Whenever a mariner tells one of the keepers that there is no +danger, then all the keepers combine to destroy the reputation of +that mariner.</p> +<p>No one has returned from the other world to tell us whether they +have light-houses on that shore or not; or whether the light-houses +on this shore—one of which Mr. Talmage is tending—have +ever sent a cheering ray across the sea.</p> +<p>Nature has furnished every human being with a light more or less +brilliant, more or less powerful. That light is Reason; and he who +blows that light out, is in utter darkness. It has been the +business of the church for centuries to extinguish the lamp of the +mind, and to convince the people that their own reason is utterly +unreliable. The church has asked all men to rely only upon the +light of the church.</p> +<p>Every priest has been not only a light-house but a guide-board. +He has threatened eternal damnation to all who travel on some other +road. These guide-boards have been toll-gates, and the principal +reason why the churches have wanted people to go their road is, +that tolls might be collected. They</p> +<center>168</center> +<p>have regarded unbelievers as the owners of turnpikes do people +who go 'cross lots. The toll-gate man always tells you that other +roads are dangerous— filled with quagmires and +quicksands.</p> +<p>Every church is a kind of insurance society, and proposes, for a +small premium, to keep you from eternal fire. Of course, the man +who tells you that there is to be no fire, interferes with the +business, and is denounced as a malicious meddler and blasphemer. +The fires of this world sustain the same relation to insurance +companies that the fires of the next do to the churches.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage also insists that I am breaking up the "life-boats." +Why should a ship built by infinite wisdom, by an infinite +shipbuilder, carry life-boats? The reason we have life-boats now +is, that we are not entirely sure of the ship. We know that man has +not yet found out how to make a ship that can certainly brave all +the dangers of the deep. For this reason we carry life-boats. But +infinite wisdom must surely build ships that do not need +life-boats. Is there to be a wreck at last? Is God's ship to go +down in storm and darkness? Will it be necessary at last to forsake +his ship and depend upon life-boats?</p> +<p>For my part, I do not wish to be rescued by a life</p> +<center>169</center> +<p>boat. When the ship, bearing the whole world, goes down, I am +willing to go down with it—with my wife, with my children, +and with those I have loved. I will not slip ashore in an orthodox +canoe with somebody else's folks,—I will stay with my +own.</p> +<p>What a picture is presented by the church! A few in life's last +storm are to be saved; and the saved, when they reach shore, are to +look back with joy upon the great ship going down to the eternal +depths! This is what I call the unutterable meanness of orthodox +Christianity.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage speaks of the "meanness of in"fidelity."</p> +<p>The meanness of orthodox Christianity permits the husband to be +saved, and to be ineffably happy, while the wife of his bosom is +suffering the tortures of hell.</p> +<p>The meanness of orthodox Christianity tells the boy that he can +go to heaven and have an eternity of bliss, and that this bliss +will not even be clouded by the fact that the mother who bore him +writhes in eternal pain.</p> +<p>The meanness of orthodox Christianity allows a soul to be so +captivated with the companionship of angels as to forget all the +old loves and friendships of this world.</p> +<center>170</center> +<p>The meanness of orthodox Christianity, its unspeakable +selfishness, allows a soul in heaven to exult in the fact of its +own salvation, and at the same time to care nothing for the +damnation of all the rest.</p> +<p>The orthodox Christian says that if he can only save his little +soul, if he can barely squeeze into heaven, if he can only get past +Saint Peter's gate, if he can by hook or crook climb up the +opposite bank of Jordan, if he can get a harp in his hand, it +matters not to him what becomes of brother or sister, father or +mother, wife or child. He is willing that they should burn if he +can sing.</p> +<p>Oh, the unutterable meanness of orthodox Christianity, the +infinite heartlessness of the orthodox angels, who with tearless +eyes will forever gaze upon the agonies of those who were once +blood of their blood and flesh of their flesh!</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage describes a picture of the scourging of Christ, +painted by Rubens, and he tells us that he was so appalled by this +picture—by the sight of the naked back, swollen and +bleeding—that he could not have lived had he continued to +look; yet this same man, who could not bear to gaze upon a painted +pain, expects to be perfectly happy in heaven, while countiess +billions of actual—not painted—men,</p> +<center>171</center> +<p>women, and children writhe—not in a pictured flame, but in +the real and quenchless fires of hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage also claims that we are indebted to +Christianity for schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and +asylums?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This shows that Mr. Talmage has not read the +history of the world. Long before Christianity had a place, there +were vast libraries. There were thousands of schools before a +Christian existed on the earth. There were hundreds of hospitals +before a line of the New Testament was written. Hundreds of years +before Christ, there were hospitals in India,—not only for +men, women and children, but even for beasts. There were hospitals +in Egypt long before Moses was born. They knew enough then to cure +insanity with music. They surrounded the insane with flowers, and +treated them with kindness.</p> +<p>The great libraries at Alexandria were not Christian. The most +intellectual nation of the Middle Ages was not Christian. While +Christians were imprisoning people for saying that the earth is +round, the Moors in Spain were teaching geography with globes. They +had even calculated the circumference of the earth by the tides of +the Red Sea.</p> +<p>Where did education come from? For a thousand</p> +<center>172</center> +<p>years Christianity destroyed books and paintings and statues. +For a thousand years Christianity was filled with hatred toward +every effort of the human mind. We got paper from the Moors. +Printing had been known thousands of years before, in China. A few +manuscripts, containing a portion of the literature of Greece, a +few enriched with the best thoughts of the Roman world, had been +preserved from the general 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 the Christians with hospitals and asylums and +institutions of learning.</p> +<p>Just in proportion that we have done away with what is known as +orthodox Christianity, humanity has taken its place. Humanity has +built all the asylums, all the hospitals. Humanity, not +Christianity, has done these things. The people of this country are +all willing to be taxed that the insane may be cared for, that the +sick, the helpless, and the destitute may be provided for, not +because they are Christians, but because they are humane; and they +are not humane because they are Christians.</p> +<p>The colleges of this country have been poisoned by</p> +<center>173</center> +<p>theology, and their usefulness almost destroyed. Just in +proportion that they have gotten from ecclesiastical control, they +have become a good. That college, today, which has the most +religion has the least true learning; and that college which is the +nearest free, does the most good. Colleges that pit Moses against +modern geology, that undertake to overthrow the Copernican system +by appealing to Joshua, have done, and are doing, very little good +in this world.</p> +<p>Suppose that in the first century Pagans had said to Christians: +Where are your hospitals, where are your asylums, where are your +works of charity, where are your colleges and universities?</p> +<p>The Christians undoubtedly would have replied: We have not been +in power. There are but few of us. We have been persecuted to that +degree that it has been about as much as we could do to maintain +ourselves.</p> +<p>Reasonable Pagans would have regarded such an answer as +perfectly satisfactory. Yet that question could have been asked of +Christianity after it had held the reins of power for a thousand +years, and Christians would have been compelled to say: We have no +universities, we have no colleges, we have no real asylums.</p> +<center>174</center> +<p>The Christian now asks of the atheist: Where is your asylum, +where is your hospital, where is your university? And the atheist +answers: There have been but few atheists. The world is not yet +sufficiently advanced to produce them. For hundreds and hundreds of +years, the minds of men have been darkened by the superstitions of +Christianity. Priests have thundered against human knowledge, have +denounced human reason, and have done all within their power to +prevent the real progress of mankind.</p> +<p>You must also remember that Christianity has made more lunatics +than it ever provided asylums for. Christianity has driven more men +and women crazy than all other religions combined. Hundreds and +thousands and millions have lost their reason in contemplating the +monstrous falsehoods of Christianity. Thousands of mothers, +thinking of their sons in hell—thousands of fathers, +believing their boys and girls in perdition, have lost their +reason.</p> +<p>So, let it be distinctly understood, that Christianity has made +ten lunatics—twenty—one hundred— where it has +provided an asylum for one.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage also speaks of the hospitals. When we take into +consideration the wars that have been waged on account of religion, +the countless thou</p> +<center>175</center> +<p>sands who have been maimed and wounded, through all the years, +by wars produced by theology—then I say that Christianity has +not built hospitals enough to take care of her own +wounded—not enough to take care of one in a hundred. Where +Christianity has bound up the wounds of one, it has pierced the +bodies of a hundred others with sword and spear, with bayonet and +ball. Where she has provided one bed in a hospital, she has laid +away a hundred bodies in bloody graves.</p> +<p>Of course I do not expect the church to do anything but beg. +Churches produce nothing. They are 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."</p> +<p>The churches raise no corn nor wheat. They simply collect +tithes. They carry the alms' dish. They pass the plate. They take +toll. Of course a mendicant is not expected to produce anything. He +does not support,—he is supported. The church does not help. +She receives, she devours, she consumes, and she produces only +discord. She exchanges mistakes for provisions, faith for food, +prayers for pence. The church is a beggar. But we have this +consolation: In this age of the world, this</p> +<center>176</center> +<p>beggar is not on horseback, and even the walking is not +good.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage says that infidels have done no +good?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, let us see. In the first place, what is an +"infidel"? He is simply a man in advance of his time. He is an +intellectual pioneer. He is the dawn of a new day. He is a +gentleman with an idea of his own, for which he gave no receipt to +the church. He is a man who has not been branded as the property of +some one else. An "infidel" is one who has made a declaration of +independence. In other words, he is a man who has had a doubt. To +have a doubt means that you have thought upon the +subject—that you have investigated the question; and he who +investigates any religion will doubt.</p> +<p>All the advance that has been made in the religious world has +been made by "infidels," by "heretics," by "skeptics," by +doubters,—that is to say, by thoughtful men. The doubt does +not come from the ignorant members of your congregations. Heresy is +not born of stupidity,—it is not the child of the brainless. +He who is so afraid of hurting the reputation of his father and +mother that he refuses to advance,</p> +<center>177</center> +<p>is not a "heretic." The "heretic" is not true to falsehood. +Orthodoxy is. He who stands faithfully by a mistake is "orthodox." +He who, discovering that it is a mistake, has the courage to say +so, is an "infidel."</p> +<p>An infidel is an intellectual discoverer—one who finds new +isles, new continents, in the vast realm of thought. The dwellers +on the orthodox shore denounce this brave sailor of the seas as a +buccaneer.</p> +<p>And yet we are told that the thinkers of new thoughts have never +been of value to the world. Voltaire did more for human liberty +than all the orthodox ministers living and dead. He broke a +thousand times more chains than Luther. Luther simply substituted +his chain for that of the Catholics. Voltaire had none. The +Encyclopaedists of France did more for liberty than all the writers +upon theology. Bruno did more for mankind than millions of +"be"lievers." Spinoza contributed more to the growth of the human +intellect than all the orthodox theologians.</p> +<p>Men have not done good simply because they have believed this or +that doctrine. They have done good in the intellectual world as +they have thought and secured for others the liberty to think and +to ex</p> +<center>178</center> +<p>press their thoughts. They have done good in the physical world +by teaching their fellows how to triumph over the obstructions of +nature. Every man who has taught his fellow-man to think, has been +a benefactor. Every one who has supplied his fellow-men with facts, +and insisted upon their right to think, has been a blessing to his +kind.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage, in order to show what Christians have done, points +us to Whitefield, Luther, Oberlin, Judson, Martyn, Bishop Mcllvaine +and Hannah More. I would not for one moment compare George +Whitefield with the inventor of movable type, and there is no +parallel between Frederick Oberlin and the inventor of paper; not +the slightest between Martin Luther and the discoverer of the New +World; not the least between Adoniram Judson and the inventor of +the reaper, nor between Henry Martyn and the discoverer of +photography. Of what use to the world was Bishop Mcllvaine, +compared with the inventor of needles? Of what use were a hundred +such priests compared with the inventor of matches, or even of +clothes-pins? Suppose that Hannah More had never lived? about the +same number would read her writings now. It is hardly fair to +compare her with the inventor of the steamship?</p> +<center>179</center> +<p>The progress of the world—its present improved +condition—can be accounted for only by the discoveries of +genius, only by men who have had the courage to express their +honest thoughts.</p> +<p>After all, the man who invented the telescope found out more +about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer had ever discovered. I +feel absolutely certain that the inventor of the steam engine was a +greater benefactor to mankind than the writer of the Presbyterian +creed. I may be mistaken, but I think that railways have done more +to civilize mankind, than any system of theology. I believe that +the printing press has done more for the world than the pulpit. It +is my opinion that the discoveries of Kepler did a thousand times +more to enlarge the minds of men than the prophecies of Daniel. I +feel under far greater obligation to Humboldt than to Haggai. The +inventor of the plow did more good than the maker of the first +rosary—because, say what you will, plowing is better than +praying; we can live by plowing without praying, but we can not +live by praying without plowing. So I put my faith in the plow.</p> +<p>As Jehovah has ceased to make garments for his +children,—as he has stopped making coats of skins,</p> +<center>180</center> +<p>I have great respect for the inventors of the spinningjenny and +the sewing machine. As no more laws are given from Sinai, I have +admiration for the real statesmen. As miracles have ceased, I rely +on medicine, and on a reasonable compliance with the conditions of +health.</p> +<p>I have infinite respect for the inventors, the thinkers, the +discoverers, and above all, for the unknown millions who have, +without the hope of fame, lived and labored for the ones they +loved.</p> +<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FIFTH INTERVIEW,</h2> +<p>Parson. You had belter join the church; it is the safer way.</p> +<p>Sinner. I can't live up to your doctrines, and you know it.</p> +<p>Parson. Well, you can come as near it in the church as out; and +forgiveness</p> +<p>will be easier if you join us.</p> +<p>Sinner. What do you mean by that?</p> +<p>Parson. I will tell you. If you join the church, and happen to +back-slide now and then, Christ will say to his Father: "That man +is a "friend of mine, and you may charge his account to me."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say about the fifth sermon of +the Rev. Mr. Talmage in reply to you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. 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 the negative. That is one reason why I am +an infidel. I do not believe that anybody can gather grapes of +thorns, or figs of thistles. That is exactly my doctrine. But the +doctrine of the church is, that you can. The</p> +<center>184</center> +<p>church says, that just at the last, no matter if you have spent +your whole life in raising thorns and thistles, in planting and +watering and hoeing and plowing thorns and thistles—that just +at the last, if you will repent, between hoeing the last thistle +and taking the last breath, you can reach out the white and palsied +hand of death and gather from every thorn a cluster of grapes and +from every thistle an abundance of figs. The church insists that in +this way you can gather enough grapes and figs to last you through +all eternity.</p> +<p>My doctrine is, that he who raises thorns must harvest thorns. +If you sow thorns, you must reap thorns; and there is no way by +which an innocent being can have the thorns you raise thrust into +his brow, while you gather his grapes.</p> +<p>But Christianity goes even further than this. It insists that a +man can plant grapes and gather thorns. Mr. Talmage insists that, +no matter how good you are, no matter how kind, no matter how much +you love your wife and children, no matter how many self-denying +acts you do, you will not be allowed to eat of the grapes you +raise; that God will step between you and the natural consequences +of your goodness, and not allow you to reap what you sow.</p> +<center>185</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage insists, that if you have no faith in the Lord Jesus +Christ, although you have been good here, you will reap eternal +pain as your harvest; that the effect of honesty and kindness will +not be peace and joy, but agony and pain. So that the church does +insist not only that you can gather grapes from thorns, but thorns +from grapes.</p> +<p>I believe exactly the other way. If a man is a good man here, +dying will not change him, and he will land on the shore of another +world—if there is one—the same good man that he was +when he left this; and I do not believe there is any God in this +universe who can afford to damn a good man. This God 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 you in +the same way. But Mr. Talmage steps up to his God, nudges his +elbow, and says: Although he was a very good man, he belonged to no +church; he was a blasphemer; he denied the whale story, and after I +explained that Jonah was only in the whale's mouth, he still denied +it; and thereupon Mr. Talmage expects that his infinite God will +fly in a passion, and in a perfect rage will say: What! did he deny +that story? Let him be eternally damned!</p> +<center>186</center> +<p>Not only this, but Mr. Talmage insists that a man may have +treated his wife like a wild beast; may have trampled his child +beneath the feet of his rage; may have lived a life of dishonesty, +of infamy, and yet, having repented on his dying bed, having made +his peace 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 so quickly made from rascals. I have but little +confidence in repentance without restitution, and a husband who has +driven a wife to insanity and death by his cruelty—afterward +repenting and finding himself in heaven, and missing his +wife,—were he worthy to be an angel, would wander through all +the gulfs of hell until he clasped her once again..</p> +<p>Now, the next question is, What must be done with those who are +sometimes good and sometimes bad? That is my condition. If there is +another world, I expect to have the same opportunity of behaving +myself that I have here. If, when I get there, I fail to act as I +should, I expect to reap what I sow. If, when I arrive at the New +Jerusalem, I go into the thorn business, I expect to harvest what I +plant. If I am wise enough to start a vineyard, I expect to have +grapes in the early fall. But if I do there as I</p> +<center>187</center> +<p>have done here—plant some grapes and some thorns, and +harvest them together—I expect to fare very much as I have +fared here. But I expect year by year to grow wiser, to plant fewer +thorns every spring, and more grapes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges that you have taken the +ground that the Bible is a cruel book, and has produced cruel +people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I have taken that ground, and I maintain 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 +and cruel. Hundreds of offences were punishable by death, while +now, in civilized countries, there are only two crimes for which +the punishment is capital. I charge that Moses and Joshua and David +and Samuel and Solomon were cruel. I believe that to read and +believe the Old Testament naturally makes a man careless of human +life. That book has produced hundreds of religious wars, and it has +furnished the battle-cries of bigotry for fifteen hundred +years.</p> +<p>The Old Testament is filled with cruelty, but its cruelty stops +with this world, its malice ends with</p> +<center>188</center> +<p>death; whenever its victim has reached the grave, revenge is +satisfied. Not so with the New Testament. It pursues its victim +forever. After death, comes hell; after the grave, the worm that +never dies. So that, as a matter of fact, the New Testament is +infinitely more cruel than the Old.</p> +<p>Nothing has so tended to harden the human heart as the doctrine +of eternal punishment, and that passage: "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.</p> +<p>I insist that the Bible is cruel. The Bible invented instruments +of torture. The Bible laid the foundations of the Inquisition. The +Bible furnished the fagots and the martyrs. The Bible forged chains +not only for the hands, but for the brains of men. The Bible was at +the bottom of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Every man who has +been persecuted for religion's sake has been persecuted by the +Bible. That sacred book has been a beast of prey.</p> +<p>The truth is, Christians have been good in spite of the Bible. +The Bible has lived upon the reputations of good men and good +women,—men and women who were good notwithstanding the +brutality they found</p> +<center>189</center> +<p>upon 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 mother never read a chapter in it.</p> +<p>The Bible produced the Church of Rome, and Torquemada was a +product of the Bible. Philip of Spain and the Duke of Alva were +produced by the Bible. For thirty years Europe was one vast +battlefield, and the war was produced by the Bible. The revocation +of the Edict of Nantes was produced by the sacred Scriptures. The +instruments of torture—the pincers, the thumb-screws, the +racks, were produced by the word of God. The Quakers of New England +were whipped and burned by the Bible—their children were +stolen by the Bible. The slave-ship had for its sails the leaves of +the Bible. Slavery was upheld in the United States by the Bible. +The Bible was the auction-block. More than this, worse than this, +infinitely beyond the computation of imagination, the despotisms of +the old world all rested and still rest upon the Bible. "The powers +that be" were supposed to have been "ordained of God;" and he who +rose against his king periled his soul.</p> +<p>In this connection, and in order to show the state of society +when the church had entire control of civil</p> +<center>190</center> +<p>and ecclesiastical affairs, it may be well enough to read the +following, taken from the <i>New York Sun</i> of March 21, 1882. +From this little extract, it will be easy in the imagination to +re-organize the government that then existed, and to see clearly +the state of society at that time. This can be done upon the same +principle that one scale tells of the entire fish, or one bone of +the complete animal:</p> +<p>"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 or</p> +<center>191</center> +<p>"'blasphemer.' Flogging with rods was a cheap "punishment, its +remuneration being fixed at three "florins, thirty kreuzers."</p> +<p>The Bible has made men cruel. It is a cruel book. And yet, +amidst its thorns, amidst its thistles, amidst its nettles and its +swords and pikes, there are some flowers, and these I wish, in +common with all good men, to save.</p> +<p>I do not believe that men have ever been made merciful in war by +reading the Old Testament. I do not believe that men have ever been +prompted to break the chain of a slave by reading the Pentateuch. +The question is not whether Florence Nightingale and Miss Dix were +cruel. I have said nothing about John Howard, nothing about Abbott +Lawrence. I say nothing about people in this connection. The +question is: Is the Bible a cruel book? not: Was Miss Nightingale a +cruel woman? There have been thousands and thousands of loving, +tender and charitable Mohammedans. Mohammedan mothers love their +children as well as Christian mothers can. Mohammedans have died in +defence of the Koran— died for the honor of an impostor. +There were millions of charitable people in India—millions in +Egypt—and I am not sure that the world has ever</p> +<center>192</center> +<p>produced people who loved one another better than the +Egyptians.</p> +<p>I think there are many things in the Old Testament calculated 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?"</p> +<p>I do not believe that reading the bible would make them tender +toward flies or grasshoppers. According to that book, God used to +punish animals for the crimes of their owners. He drowned the +animals in a flood. He visited cattle with disease. He bruised them +to death with hailstones—killed them by the thousand. Will +the reading of these things make children kind to animals? So, the +whole system of sacrifices in the Old Testament is calculated to +harden the heart. The butchery of oxen and lambs, the killing of +doves, the perpetual destruction of life, the continual shedding of +blood—these things, if they have any tendency, tend only to +harden the heart of childhood.</p> +<p>The Bible does not stop simply with the killing of animals. The +Jews were commanded to kill their</p> +<center>193</center> +<p>neighbors—not only the men, but the women; not only the +women, but the babes. In accordance with the command of God, the +Jews killed not only their neighbors, but their own brothers; and +according to this book, which is the foundation, as Mr. Talmage +believes, of all mercy, men were commanded to kill their wives +because they differed with them on the subject of religion.</p> +<p>Nowhere in the world can be found laws more unjust and cruel +than in the Old Testament.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage wants you to tell where the cruelty +of the Bible crops out in the lives of Christians?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. In the first place, millions of Christians have +been persecutors. Did they get the idea of persecution from the +Bible? Will not every honest man admit that the early Christians, +by reading the Old Testament, became convinced that it was not only +their privilege, but their duty, to destroy heathen nations? Did +they not, by reading the same book, come to the conclusion that it +was their solemn duty to extirpate heresy and heretics? According +to the New Testament, nobody could be saved unless he believed in +the Lord Jesus Christ. The early Chris</p> +<center>194</center> +<p>tians believed this dogma. They also believed that they had a +right to defend themselves and their children from "heretics."</p> +<p>We all admit that a man has a right to defend his children +against the assaults of a would-be murderer, and he has the right +to carry this defence to the extent of killing the assailant. If we +have the right to kill people who are simply trying to kill the +bodies of our children, of course we have the right to kill them +when they are endeavoring to assassinate, not simply their bodies, +but their souls. It was in this way Christians reasoned. If the +Testament is right, their reasoning was correct. Whoever believes +the New Testament literally—whoever is satisfied that it is +absolutely the word of God, will become a persecutor. All religious +persecution has been, and is, in exact harmony with the teachings +of the Old and New Testaments. Of course I mean with some of the +teachings. I admit that there are passages in both the Old and New +Testaments against persecution. These are passages quoted only in +time of peace. Others are repeated to feed the flames of war.</p> +<p>I find, too, that reading the Bible and believing the Bible do +not prevent even ministers from telling false</p> +<center>195</center> +<p>hoods 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 circulation to what he knows to be untrue. Mr. Talmage has +himself, I believe, been the subject of a church trial. How many of +the Christian witnesses against him, in his judgment, told the +truth? Yet they were all Bible readers and Bible believers. What +effect, in his judgment, did the reading of the Bible have upon his +enemies? Is he willing to admit that the testimony of a Bible, +reader and believer is true? Is he willing to accept the testimony +even of ministers? —of his brother ministers? Did reading the +Bible make them bad people? Was it a belief in the Bible that +colored their testimony? Or, was it a belief in the Bible that made +Mr. Talmage deny the truth of their statements?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage charges you with having said that +the Scriptures are a collection of polluted writings?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have never said such a thing. I have said, and +I still say, that there are passages in the Bible unfit to be +read—passages that never should</p> +<center>196</center> +<p>have been written—passages, whether inspired or +uninspired, that can by no possibility do any human being any good. +I have always admitted that there are good passages in the +Bible—many good, wise and just laws—many things +calculated to make men better—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 sense and nonsense, +of virtue and vice, of aspiration and revenge, of liberty and +tyranny.</p> +<p>I have never said anything against Solomon's Song. I like it +better than I do any book that precedes it, because it touches upon +the human. In the desert of murder, wars of extermination, +polygamy, concubinage and slavery, it is an oasis where the trees +grow, where the birds sing, and where human love blossoms and fills +the air with perfume. I do not regard that book as obscene. There +are many things in it that are beautiful and tender, and it is +calculated to do good rather than harm.</p> +<p>Neither have I any objection to the book of +Ecclesiastes—except a few interpolations in it. That book was +written by a Freethinker, by a philosopher. There is not the +slightest mention of God in it, nor of another state of existence. +All portions in which</p> +<center>197</center> +<p>God is mentioned are interpolations. With some of this book I +agree heartily. I believe in the doctrine of enjoying yourself, if +you can, to-day. I think it foolish to spend all your years in +heaping up treasures, not knowing but he who will spend them is to +be an idiot. I believe it is far better to be happy with your wife +and child now, than to be miserable here, with angelic expectations +in some other world.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage is mistaken when he supposes that all Bible +believers have good homes, that all Bible readers are kind in their +families. As a matter of fact, nearly all the wife-whippers of the +United States are orthodox. Nine-tenths of the people in the +penitentiaries are believers. Scotland is one of the most orthodox +countries in the world, and one of the most intemperate. Hundreds +and hundreds of women are arrested every year in Glasgow for +drunkenness. Visit the Christian homes in the manufacturing +districts of England. Talk with the beaters of children and +whippers of wives, and you will find them believers. Go into what +is known as the "Black "Country," and you will have an idea of the +Christian civilization of England.</p> +<p>Let me tell you something about the "Black "Country." There +women work in iron; there women</p> +<center>198</center> +<p>do the work of men. Let me give you an instance: A commission +was appointed by Parliament to examine into the condition of the +women in the "Black "Country," and a report was made. In that +report I read the following:</p> +<p>"A superintendent of a brickyard where women "were engaged in +carrying bricks from the yard to "the kiln, said to one of the +women:</p> +<p>"'Eliza, you don't appear to be very uppish this "morning.'"</p> +<p>"'Neither would you be very uppish, sir,' she re"plied, 'if you +had had a child last night.'"</p> +<p>This gives you an idea of the Christian civilization of +England.</p> +<p>England and Ireland produce most of the prizefighters. The +scientific burglar is a product of Great Britain. There is not the +great difference that Mr. Talmage supposes, between the morality of +Pekin and of New York. I doubt if there is a city in the world with +more crime according to the population than New York, unless it be +London, or it may be Dublin, or Brooklyn, or possibly Glasgow, +where a man too pious to read a newspaper published on Sunday, +stole millions from the poor.</p> +<p>I do not believe there is a country in the world</p> +<center>199</center> +<p>where there is more robbery than in Christian lands— no +country where more cashiers are defaulters, where more presidents +of banks take the money of depositors, where there is more +adulteration of food, where fewer ounces make a pound, where fewer +inches make a yard, where there is more breach of trust, more +respectable larceny under the name of embezzlement, or more slander +circulated as gospel.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage insists that there are no +contradictions in the Bible—that it is a perfect harmony from +Genesis to Revelation—a harmony as perfect as any piece of +music ever written by Beethoven or Handel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, if God wrote it, the Bible ought to be +perfect. I do not see why a minister should be so perfectly +astonished to find that an inspired book is consistent with itself +throughout. Yet the truth is, the Bible is infinitely +inconsistent.</p> +<p>Compare the two systems—the system of Jehovah and that of +Jesus. In the Old Testament the doctrine of "an eye for an eye and +a tooth for a tooth" was taught. In the New Testament, "forgive +your "enemies," and "pray for those who despitefully "use you and +persecute you." In the Old Testament</p> +<center>200</center> +<p>it is kill, burn, massacre, destroy; in the New forgive. The two +systems are inconsistent, and one is just about as far wrong as the +other. To live for and thirst for revenge, to gloat over the agony +of an enemy, is one extreme; to "resist not evil" is the other +extreme; and both these extremes are equally distant from the +golden mean of justice.</p> +<p>The four gospels do not even agree as to the terms of salvation. +And yet, Mr. Talmage tells us that there are four cardinal +doctrines taught in the Bible— the goodness of God, the fall +of man, the sympathetic and forgiving nature of the Savior, and two +destinies—one for believers and the other for unbelievers. +That is to say:</p> +<p>1. That God is good, holy and forgiving.</p> +<p>2. That man is a lost sinner.</p> +<p>3. That Christ is "all sympathetic," and ready to take the whole +world to his heart.</p> +<p>4. Heaven for believers and hell for unbelievers.</p> +<p><i>First</i>. I admit that the Bible says that God is</p> +<p>good and holy. But this Bible also tells what God did, and if +God did what the Bible says he did, then I insist that God is not +good, and that he is not holy, or forgiving. According to the +Bible, this good God believed in religious persecution; this +good</p> +<center>201</center> +<p>God believed in extermination, in polygamy, in concubinage, in +human slavery; this good God commanded murder and massacre, and +this good God could only be mollified by the shedding of blood. +This good God wanted a butcher for a priest. This good God wanted +husbands to kill their wives— wanted fathers and mothers to +kill their children. This good God persecuted animals on account of +the crimes of their owners. This good God killed the common people +because the king had displeased him. This good God killed the babe +even of the maid behind the mill, in order that he might get even +with a king. This good God committed every possible crime.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. The statement that man is a lost sinner is not +true. There are thousands and thousands of magnificent +Pagans—men ready to die for wife, or child, or even for +friend, and the history of Pagan countries 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. Talmage could not have made man a success? According to the +Bible, his God made man knowing that in about fifteen hundred years +he would have to drown all his descendants.</p> +<center>202</center> +<p>Why would a good God create a man that he knew would be a sinner +all his life, make hundreds of thousands of his fellow-men unhappy, +and who at last would be doomed to an eternity of suffering? Can +such a God be good? How could a devil have done worse?</p> +<p><i>Third.</i> If God is infinitely good, is he not fully as +sympathetic as Christ? Do you have to employ Christ to mollify a +being of infinite mercy? Is Christ any more willing to take to his +heart the whole world than his Father is? Personally, I have not +the slightest objection in the world to anybody believing in an +infinitely good and kind God—not the slightest objection to +any human being worshiping an infinitely tender and merciful +Christ—not the slightest objection to people preaching about +heaven, or about the glories of the future state—not the +slightest.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. I object to the doctrine of two destinies for the +human race. I object to the infamous falsehood of eternal fire. And +yet, Mr. Talmage is endeavoring to poison the imagination of men, +women and 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:"</p> +<center>203</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>That is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He worships a God who damns +people "for the manifesta"tion of his glory,"—a God who made +men, knowing that they would be damned—a God who damns babes +simply to increase his reputation with the angels. This is the God +of Mr. Talmage. Such a God I abhor, despise and execrate.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What does Mr. Talmage think of mankind? What is +his opinion of the "unconverted"? How does he regard the great and +glorious of the earth, who have not been the victims of his +particular superstition? What does he think of some of the best the +earth has produced?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I will tell you how he looks upon all such. Read +this from his "Confession of Faith:"</p> +<p>"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 faculties</p> +<center>204</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>This is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.</p> +<p>Why did his God make a devil? Why did he allow the devil to +tempt Adam and Eve? Why did he leave innocence and ignorance at the +mercy of subtlety and wickedness? Why did he put "the "tree of the +knowledge of good and evil" in the garden? For what reason did he +place temptation in the way of his children? Was it kind, was it +just, was it noble, was it worthy of a good God? No wonder Christ +put into his prayer: "Lead us not "into temptation."</p> +<p>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 the serpent? Why did not God make his +appearance just before the sin, instead of just after. Why did he +not play the role of a Savior instead of that of a</p> +<center>205</center> +<p>detective? After he found that Adam and Eve had +sinned—knowing as he did that they were then totally +corrupt—knowing that all their children would be corrupt, +knowing that in fifteen hundred years he would have to drown +millions of them, why did he not allow Adam and Eve to perish in +accordance with natural law, then kill the devil, and make a new +pair?</p> +<p>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 sons and +their families, he could have then made a new pair, and peopled the +world with men not "wholly "defiled in all their faculties and +parts of soul and "body."</p> +<p>Jehovah learned nothing by experience. He persisted in his +original mistake. What would we think of a man who finding that a +field of wheat was worthless, and that such wheat never could be +raised with profit, should burn all of the field with the exception +of a few sheaves, which he saved for seed? Why save such seed? Why +should God have preserved Noah, knowing that he was totally +corrupt, and that he would again fill the world with infamous</p> +<center>206</center> +<p>people—people incapable of a good action? He must have +known at that time, that by preserving Noah, the Canaanites would +be produced, that these same Canaanites would have to be murdered, +that the 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 +destroyed, that he would have to kill their first-born, that he +would have to visit even their cattle with disease and hailstones. +He knew also that the Egyptians would oppress his chosen people for +two hundred and fifteen years, that they would upon the back of +toil inflict the lash. Why did he preserve Noah? He should have +drowned all, and started with a new pair. He should have warned +them against the devil, and he might have succeeded, in that way, +in covering the world with gentlemen and ladies, with real men and +real women.</p> +<p>We know that most of the people now in the world are not +Christians. Most who have heard the gospel of Christ have rejected +it, and the Presbyterian Church tells us what is to become of all +these people. This is the "glad tidings of great joy." Let us +see:</p> +<center>207</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>According to this good Presbyterian doctrine, all that we suffer +in this world, is the result of Adam's fall. The babes of to-day +suffer for the crime of the first parents. Not only so; but God is +angry at us for what Adam did. We are under the wrath of an +infinite God, whose brows are corrugated with eternal hatred.</p> +<p>Why should God hate us for being what we are and necessarily +must have been? A being that God made—the devil—for +whose work God is responsible, according to the Bible wrought this +woe. God of his own free will must have made the devil. What did he +make him for? Was it necessary to have a devil in heaven? God, +having infinite power, can of course destroy this devil to-day. Why +does he permit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart his +plans? Why did he permit him to pollute the innocence of Eden? Why +does he allow him now to wrest souls by the million from the +redeeming hand of Christ?</p> +<p>According to the Scriptures, the devil has always</p> +<center>208</center> +<p>been successful. He enjoys himself. He is called "the prince of +the power of the air." He has no conscientious scruples. He has +miraculous power. All miraculous power must come of God, otherwise +it is simply in accordance with nature. If the devil can work a +miracle, it is only with the consent and by the assistance of the +Almighty. Is the God of Mr. Talmage in partnership with the devil? +Do they divide profits?</p> +<p>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.'' Yet Mr. Talmage tells us that God is good, +that he is filled with mercy and loving-kindness. A child nine or +ten years of age commits a sin, and thereupon it deserves eternal +damnation. That is what Mr. Talmage calls, not simply justice, but +mercy; and the sympathetic heart of Christ is not touched. The same +being who said: "Suffer little children to come unto me," tells us +that a child, for the smallest sin, deserves to be eternally +damned. The Presbyterian Church tells us that infants, as well as +adults, in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood of +Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.</p> +<p>I am charged with trying to take the consolation</p> +<center>209</center> +<p>of this doctrine from the world. I am a criminal because I am +endeavoring to convince the mother that 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 the ashes of +men who have spent their lives working for their wives and +children, and over the sacred dust of soldiers who died in defence +of flag and country, and I say to their friends—I say to the +living who loved them, I say to the men and women for whom they +worked, I say to the children whom they educated, I say to the +country for which they died: These fathers, these mothers, these +wives, these husbands, these soldiers are not in hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible is +scientific, and that the real scientific man sees no contradiction +between revelation and science; that, on the contrary, they are in +harmony. What is your understanding of this matter?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe the Bible to be a scientific +book. In fact, most of the ministers now admit that it was not +written to teach any science. They admit that the first chapter of +Genesis is not geologically true. They admit that Joshua knew +nothing</p> +<center>210</center> +<p>of science. They admit that four-footed birds did not exist in +the days of Moses. In fact, the only way they can avoid the +unscientific statements of the Bible, is to assert that the writers +simply used the common language of their day, and used it, not with +the intention of teaching any scientific truth, but for the purpose +of teaching some moral truth. As a matter of fact, we find that +moral truths have been taught in all parts of this world. They were +taught in India long before Moses lived; in Egypt long before +Abraham was born; in China thousands of years before the flood. +They were taught by hundreds and thousands and millions before the +Garden of Eden was planted.</p> +<p>It would be impossible to prove the truth of a revelation simply +because it contained moral truths. If it taught immorality, it +would be absolutely certain that it was not a revelation from an +infinitely good being. If it taught morality, it would be no reason +for even suspecting that it had a divine origin. But if the Bible +had given us scientific truths; if the ignorant Jews had given us +the true theory of our solar system; if from Moses we had learned +the nature of light and heat; if from Joshua we had learned +something of electricity; if the minor pro</p> +<center>211</center> +<p>phets had given us the distances to other planets; if the orbits +of the stars had been marked by the barbarians of that day, we +might have admitted that they must have been inspired. If they had +said anything in advance of their day; if they had plucked from the +night of ignorance one star of truth, we might have admitted the +claim of inspiration; but the Scriptures did not rise above their +source, did not rise above their ignorant authors—above the +people who believed in wars of extermination, in polygamy, in +concubinage, in slavery, and who taught these things in their +"sacred Scriptures."</p> +<p>The greatest men in the scientific world have not been, and are +not, believers in the inspiration of the Scriptures. There has been +no greater astronomer than Laplace. There is no greater name than +Humboldt. There is no living scientist who stands higher than +Charles Darwin. All the professors in all the religious colleges in +this country rolled into one, would not equal Charles Darwin. All +the cowardly apologists for the cosmogony of Moses do not amount to +as much in the world of thought as Ernst Haeckel. There is no +orthodox scientist the equal of Tyndall or Huxley. There is not one +in this country the equal of John Fiske. I insist, that the</p> +<center>212</center> +<p>foremost men to-day in the scientific world reject the dogma of +inspiration. They reject the science of the Bible, and hold in +utter contempt the astronomy of Joshua, and the geology of +Moses.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage tells us "that Science is a boy and "Revelation is a +man." Of course, like the most he says, it is substantially the +other way. Revelation, so-called, was the boy. Religion was the +lullaby of the cradle, the ghost-story told by the old woman, +Superstition. Science is the man. Science asks for demonstration. +Science impels us to investigation, and to verify everything for +ourselves. Most professors of American colleges, if they were not +afraid of losing their places, if they did not know that Christians +were bad enough now to take the bread from their mouths, would tell +their students that the Bible is not a scientific book.</p> +<p>I admit that I have said:</p> +<p>1. That the Bible is cruel.</p> +<p>2. That in many passages it is impure.</p> +<p>3. That it is contradictory.</p> +<p>4. That it is unscientific.</p> +<p>Let me now prove these propositions one by one.</p> +<p>First. The Bible is cruel.</p> +<p>I have opened it at random, and the very first</p> +<center>213</center> +<p>chapter that has struck my eye is the sixth of First Samuel. In +the nineteenth verse of that chapter, I find the following:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>All this slaughter was because some people had looked into a box +that was carried upon a cart. Was that cruel?</p> +<p>I find, also, in the twenty-fourth chapter of Second Samuel, +that David was moved by God to number Israel and Judah. God put it +into his heart to take a census of his people, and thereupon David +said to Joab, the captain of his host:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>At the end of nine months and twenty days, Joab gave the number +of the people to the king, and there 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 hundred thousand men of war. The moment +this census was</p> +<center>214</center> +<p>taken, the wrath of the Lord waxed hot against David, and +thereupon he sent a seer, by the name of Gad, to David, and asked +him to choose whether he would have seven years of famine, or fly +three months before his enemies, or have three days of pestilence. +David concluded that as God was so merciful as to give him a +choice, he would be more merciful than man, and he chose the +pestilence.</p> +<p>Now, it must be remembered that the sin of taking the census had +not been committed by the people, but by David himself, inspired by +God, yet the people were to be punished for David's sin. So,, when +David chose the pestilence, God immediately killed "seventy +thousand men, from Dan even to "Beersheba."</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Was this cruel?</p> +<p>Why did a God of infinite mercy destroy seventy thousand men? +Why did he fill his land with widows and orphans, because King +David had taken the census? If he wanted to kill anybody, why did +he not kill David? I will tell you why. Because at that</p> +<center>215</center> +<p>time, the people were considered as the property of the king. He +killed the people precisely as he killed the cattle. And yet, I am +told that the Bible is not a cruel book.</p> +<p>In the twenty-first chapter of Second Samuel, I find that there +were three years of famine in the days of David, and that David +inquired of the Lord the reason of the famine; and the Lord told +him that it was because Saul had slain the Gibeonites. Why did not +God punish Saul instead of the people? And David asked the +Gibeonites how he should make atonement, and the Gibeonites replied +that they wanted no silver nor gold, but they asked that seven of +the sons of Saul might be delivered unto them, so that they could +hang them before the Lord, in Gibeah. And David agreed to the +proposition, and thereupon he delivered to the Gibeonites the two +sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Michal, the +daughter of Saul, and the Gibeonites hanged all seven of them +together. And Rizpah, more tender than them all, with a woman's +heart of love kept lonely 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."</p> +<center>216</center> +<p>I want to know if the following, from the fifteenth chapter of +First Samuel, is inspired:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>We must remember that those he was commanded to slay had done +nothing to Israel. It was something done by their forefathers, +hundreds of years before; and yet they are commanded to slay the +women and children and even the animals, and to spare none.</p> +<p>It seems that Saul only partially carried into execution this +merciful command of Jehovah. He spared the life of the king. He +"utterly destroyed all the "people with the edge of the sword," but +he kept alive the best of the sheep and oxen and of the fatlings +and lambs. Then God spake unto Samuel and told him that he was very +sorry he had made Saul king, because he had not killed all the +animals, and because he had spared Agag; and Samuel asked Saul: +"What meaneth this bleating of sheep in mine "ears, and the lowing +of the oxen which I hear?"</p> +<center>217</center> +<p>Are stories like this calculated to make soldiers merciful?</p> +<p>So I read in the sixth chapter of Joshua, the fate of 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 that one family was +saved by Joshua, out of the general destruction: "And Joshua saved +Rahab, the harlot, "alive, and her father's household, and all that +she "had." Was this fearful destruction an act of mercy?</p> +<p>It seems that they saved the money of their victims: "the silver +and gold and the vessels of brass "and of iron they put into the +treasury of the house "of the Lord."</p> +<p>After all this pillage and carnage, it appears that there was a +suspicion in Joshua's mind that somebody was keeping back a part of +the treasure. Search was made, and a man by the name of Achan +admitted that he had sinned against the Lord, that he had seen a +Babylonish garment among the spoils, and two hundred shekels of +silver and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels' weight, and that he +took them and hid</p> +<p>2l8</p> +<p>them in his tent. For this atrocious crime it seems that the +Lord denied any victories to the Jews until they found out the +wicked criminal. When they discovered 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."</p> +<p>After Achan and his sons and his daughters and his herds had +been stoned and burned to death, we are told that "the Lord turned +from the fierceness of "his anger."</p> +<p>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 infinite God, "creator of heaven and earth and +all that is "therein," told his general, Joshua, to lay an ambush +for 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 and then to run, as though he had been +beaten, in order that the inhabitants of the city might follow, and +thereupon his reserves that he had ambushed might rush into the +city and set it on fire. God Almighty</p> +<center>219</center> +<p>planned the battle. God himself laid the snare. The whole +programme was carried out. Joshua made believe that he was beaten, +and fled, and then the soldiers in ambush rose out of their places, +entered the city, and set it on fire. Then came the slaughter. They +"utterly destroyed all the inhabit"ants of Ai," men and maidens, +women and babes, sparing only their king till evening, when they +hanged 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 having +done 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?</p> +<p>Again I ask, was the treatment of the Gibeonites cruel when they +sought to make peace but were denied, and cursed instead; and +although permitted to live, were yet made slaves? Read the mandate +consigning 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."</p> +<p>Is it possible, as recorded in the tenth chapter of Joshua, that +the Lord took part in these battles, and</p> +<center>220</center> +<p>cast down great hail-stones from the battlements of heaven 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"?</p> +<p>Is it possible that a being of infinite power would exercise it +in that way instead of in the interest of kindness and peace?</p> +<p>I find, also, in this same chapter, that Joshua took Makkedah +and smote it with the edge of the sword, that he utterly destroyed +all the souls that were therein, that he allowed none to +remain.</p> +<p>I find that he fought against Libnah, and smote it with the edge +of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were +therein, and allowed none to remain, and did unto the king as he +did unto the king of Jericho.</p> +<p>I find that he also encamped against Lachish, and that 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, helpless women nor prattling babes.</p> +<p>He also vanquished Horam, King of Gezer, "and "smote him and his +people until he left him none "remaining."</p> +<center>221</center> +<p>He encamped against the city of Eglon, and killed every soul +that was in it, at the edge of the sword, just as he had done to +Lachish and all the others.</p> +<p>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, their number not named, were included in this +slaughter, for Hebron "and all the cities thereof and all the +"souls that were therein," were utterly destroyed.</p> +<p>He then waged war against Debir and took it, and more unnumbered +cities with it, and all the souls that were therein shared the same +horrible fate—he did not leave a soul alive.</p> +<p>And this chapter of horrors concludes with this song of +victory:</p> +<p>"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?</p> +<center>222</center> +<p>I find, also, in the twenty-first chapter that many Icings met, +with their armies, for the purpose of overwhelming 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 command of a merciful +God?</p> +<p>Joshua captured Razor, and smote all the souls that were therein +with the edge of the sword, there was not one left to breathe; and +he took all the cities 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 +to breathe.</p> +<p>I find the following directions given to the Israelites who were +waging a war of conquest. They are in the twentieth chapter of +Deuteronomy, from the tenth to the eighteenth verses:</p> +<p>"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 +people</p> +<center>223</center> +<p>"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 take their choice between +death and slavery, provided these people lived a good ways from the +Israelites. Now, let us see how they were to treat the inhabitants +of the cities near to them:</p> +<p>"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."</p> +<center>224</center> +<p>It never occurred to this merciful God to send missionaries to +these people. He built them no schoolhouses, taught them no +alphabet, gave them no book; they were not supplied even with a +copy of the Ten Commandments. He did not say "Reform," but "Kill;" +not "Educate," but "Destroy." He gave them no Bible, built them no +church, sent them no preachers. He knew when he made them that he +would have to have them murdered. When he created them he knew that +they were not fit to live; and yet, this is the infinite God who is +infinitely merciful and loves his children better than an earthly +mother loves her babe.</p> +<p>In order to find just how merciful God is, read the +twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, and see what he promises to +do with people who do not keep all of his commandments and all of +his statutes. He curses them in their basket and store, in the +fruit of their body, in the fruit of their land, in the increase of +their cattle and sheep. He curses them in the city and in the +field, in their coming in and their going out. He curses them with +pestilence, with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with +extreme burning, with sword, with blasting, with mildew. He tells +them that the heavens shall be as brass over their heads</p> +<center>225</center> +<p>and the earth as iron under their feet; that the rain shall be +powder and dust and shall come down on them and destroy them; that +they shall flee seven ways before their enemies; that their +carcasses shall be meat for the fowls of the air, and the beasts of +the earth; that he will smite them with the botch of Egypt, and +with the scab, and with the itch, and with madness and blindness +and astonishment; that he will make them grope at noonday; that +they shall be oppressed and spoiled evermore; that one shall +betroth a wife and another shall have her; that they shall build a +house and not dwell in it; plant a vineyard and others shall eat +the grapes; that their sons and daughters shall be given to their +enemies; that he will make them mad for the sight of their eyes; +that he will smite them in the knees and in the legs with a sore +botch that cannot be healed, and from the sole of the foot to the +top of the head; that they shall be a by-word among all nations; +that they shall sow much seed and gather but little; that the +locusts shall consume their crops; that they shall plant vineyards +and drink no wine,—that they shall gather grapes, but worms +shall eat them; that they shall raise olives but have no oil; beget +sons and daughters, but they shall go into captivity; that all</p> +<center>226</center> +<p>the trees and fruit of the land shall be devoured by locusts, +and that all these curses shall pursue them and overtake them, +until they be destroyed; that they shall be slaves to their +enemies, and be constantly in hunger and thirst and nakedness, and +in want of all things. And as though this were not enough, the Lord +tells them that he will bring a nation against them swift as +eagles, a nation fierce and savage, that will show no mercy and no +favor to old or young, and leave them neither corn, nor wine, nor +oil, nor flocks, nor herds; and this nation shall besiege them in +their cities until they are reduced to the necessity of eating the +flesh of their own sons and daughters; so that the men would eat +their wives and their children, and women eat their husbands and +their own sons and daughters, and their own babes.</p> +<p>All these curses God pronounced upon them if they did not +observe to do all the words of the law that were written in his +book.</p> +<p>This same merciful God threatened that he would bring upon them +all the diseases of Egypt—every sickness and every plague; +that he would scatter them from one end of the earth to the other; +that they should find no rest; that their lives should hang in +perpetual doubt; that in the morning they would</p> +<center>227</center> +<p>say: Would God it were evening! and in the evening, Would God it +were morning! and that he would finally take them back to Egypt +where they should be again sold for bondmen and bondwomen.</p> +<p>This curse, the foundation of the <i>Anathema maranatha</i>; +this curse, used by the pope of Rome to prevent the spread of +thought; this curse used even by the Protestant Church; this curse +born of barbarism and of infinite cruelty, is now said to have +issued from the lips of an infinitely merciful God. One would +suppose that Jehovah had gone insane; that he had divided his +kingdom like Lear, and from the darkness of insanity had launched +his curses upon a world.</p> +<p>In order that there may be no doubt as to the mercy of Jehovah, +read the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy:</p> +<p>"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 conceal</p> +<center>228</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>This, according to Mr. Talmage, is a commandment of the infinite +God. According to him, God ordered a man to murder his own son, his +own wife, his own brother, his own daughter, if they dared even to +suggest the worship of some other God than Jehovah. For my part, it +is impossible not to despise such a God—a God not willing +that one should worship what he must. No one can control his +admiration, and if a savage at sunrise falls upon his knees and +offers homage to the great light of the East, he cannot help it. If +he worships the moon, he cannot help it. If he worships fire, it is +because he cannot control his own spirit. A picture is beautiful to +me in spite of myself. A statue compels the applause of my brain. +The worship of the sun was an exceedingly natural religion, and why +should a man or woman be destroyed for kneeling at the fireside of +the world?</p> +<p>No wonder that this same God, in the very next chapter of +Deuteronomy to that quoted, says to his</p> +<center>229</center> +<p>chosen 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."</p> +<p>What a mingling of heartlessness and thrift—the religion +of sword and trade!</p> +<p>In the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, Jehovah gives his own +character. He tells the Israelites that there are seven nations +greater and mightier than themselves, but that he will deliver them +to his chosen people, and that they shall smite them and utterly +destroy them; and having some fear that a drop of pity might remain +in the Jewish heart, he says:</p> +<p>"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-suffering +Jehovah gives of himself.</p> +<p>So, he promises great prosperity to the Jews if</p> +<center>230</center> +<p>they 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."</p> +<p>Under the immediate government of Jehovah, mercy was a crime. +According to the law of God, pity was weakness, tenderness was +treason, kindness was blasphemy, while hatred and massacre were +virtues.</p> +<p>In the second chapter of Deuteronomy we find another account +tending to prove that Jehovah is a merciful God. We find that +Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let the Hebrews pass by him, and +the reason 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 +out against the chosen people, and God delivered him to them, 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 +this</p> +<center>231</center> +<p>same chapter this same God promises that the dread and 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.</p> +<p>Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and see how 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 +cities and castles with fire, that they brought the captives and +the prey and the spoil unto Moses and Eleazar the priest; that +Moses was wroth with the officers of his host because they had +saved all the women alive, 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."</p> +<p>After this, God himself spake unto Moses, and said: "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 the</p> +<center>232</center> +<p>"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 that they had taken six hundred and +seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves, sixty-one +thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand women children and maidens. +And it seems, by the fortieth verse, <i>that the Lord's tribute of +the maidens was thirtytwo</i>,—the rest were given to the +soldiers and to the congregation of the Lord.</p> +<p>Was anything more infamous ever recorded in the annals of +barbarism? And yet we are told that the Bible is an inspired book, +that it is not a cruel book, and that Jehovah is a being of +infinite mercy.</p> +<p>In the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers we find that the +Israelites had joined themselves unto BaalPeor, and thereupon the +anger of the Lord was kindled against them, as usual. No being ever +lost his temper more frequently than this Jehovah. Upon this +particular occasion, "the Lord said unto Moses, "Take all the heads +of the people, and hang them</p> +<center>233</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Just as soon as these people were killed, and their heads hung +up before the Lord against the sun, and a horrible double murder of +a too merciful Israelite and a Midianitish woman, had been +committed by Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, "the plague was stayed +"from the children of Israel." Twenty-four thousand had died. +Thereupon, "the Lord spake unto Moses "and said"—and it is a +very merciful commandment —"Vex the Midianites and smite +them."</p> +<p>In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers is more evidence that God +is merciful and compassionate.</p> +<p>The children of Israel had become discouraged. They had wandered +so long in the desert that they finally 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 and thirsty. Who would not +complain under similar circumstances? And yet, on account of this +complaint, the God of infinite tenderness and compassion sent</p> +<center>234</center> +<p>serpents 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 God do such an infamous thing? Why did he not, +as the leader of this people, his chosen children, feed them +better? Certainly an infinite God had the power to satisfy their +hunger and to quench their thirst. He who overwhelmed a world with +water, certainly could have made a few brooks, cool and babbling, +to follow his chosen people through all their journeying. He could +have supplied them with miraculous food.</p> +<p>How fortunate for the Jews that Jehovah was not revengeful, that +he was so slow to anger, so patient, so easily pleased. What would +they have done had he been exacting, easily incensed, revengeful, +cruel, or blood-thirsty?</p> +<p>In the sixteenth chapter of Numbers, an account is given of a +rebellion. It seems that Korah, Dathan and Abiram got tired of +Moses and Aaron. They thought the priests were taking a little too +much upon themselves. So Moses told them to have two hundred and +fifty of their men bring their censers and put incense in them +before the Lord, and stand in the door of the tabernacle of the +congregation</p> +<center>235</center> +<p>with Moses and Aaron. That being done, the Lord appeared, and +told Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the people, that +he might consume them all in a moment. Moses and Aaron, having a +little compassion, begged God not to kill everybody. The people +were then divided, and Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in the +door of their tents with their wives and their sons and their +little children. And Moses said:</p> +<p>"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,</p> +<center>236</center> +<p>"and the earth closed upon them, and they perished "from among +the congregation."</p> +<p>This, according to Mr. Talmage, was the act of an exceedingly +merciful God, prompted by infinite kindness, and moved by eternal +pity. What would he have done had he acted from motives of revenge? +What would he Jiave done had he been remorselessly cruel and +wicked?</p> +<p>In addition to those swallowed by the earth, the two hundred and +fifty men that offered the incense were consumed by "a fire that +came out from the "Lord." And not only this, but the same merciful +Jehovah wished to consume all the people, and he would have +consumed them all, only that Moses prevailed upon Aaron to take a +censer and put fire therein from off the altar of incense and go +quickly to the congregation and make an atonement for them. He was +not quick enough. The plague had already begun; and before he could +possibly get the censers and incense among the people, fourteen +thousand and seven hundred had died of the plague. How many more +might have died, if Jehovah had not been so slow to anger and so +merciful and tender to his children, we have no means of +knowing.</p> +<p>In the thirteenth chapter of the same book of</p> +<center>237</center> +<p>Numbers, we find that some spies were sent over into the +promised land, and that they brought back grapes and figs and +pomegranates, and reported that the whole land was flowing with +milk and honey, but that the people were strong, that the cities +were walled, and that the nations in the promised land were +mightier than the Hebrews. They reported that all 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 the +Israelites were "in their own sight as grasshoppers, "and so were +we in their sight." Entirely discouraged 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 of them +thought that it would be better to go back,— that they might +as well be slaves in Egypt as to be food for giants in the promised +land. They did not want their bones crunched between the teeth of +the sons of Anak.</p> +<p>Jehovah got angry again, and said to Moses: "How long will these +people provoke me? * * *</p> +<center>238</center> +<p>"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 that you were not able to bring your people into +the promised land. Then he proceeded to flatter him by telling him +how merciful and long-suffering he had been. Finally, Jehovah +concluded to pardon the people this time, but his pardon depended +upon the violation 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 forty</p> +<center>239</center> +<p>"years * * * until your carcasses be wasted in "the +wilderness."</p> +<p>And all this because the people were afraid of giants, compared +with whom they were but as grasshoppers.</p> +<p>So we find that at one time the people became exceedingly +hungry. They had no flesh to eat. There were six hundred thousand +men of war, and they had nothing to feed on but manna. They +naturally murmured and complained, and thereupon a wind from the +Lord went forth and brought quails from 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."</p> +<p>Yet he is slow to anger, long-suffering, merciful and just.</p> +<p>In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, is the ac</p> +<center>240</center> +<p>count of the golden calf. It must be borne in mind that the +worship of this calf by the people was before the Ten Commandments +had been given to them. Christians now insist that these +commandments must have been inspired, because no human being could +have constructed them,—could have conceived of them.</p> +<p>It seems, according to this account, that Moses had been up in +the mount with God, getting the Ten Commandments, and that while he +was there the people had made the golden calf. When he came down +and saw them, and found what they had done, having in his hands the +two tables, the work of God, he cast the tables out of his hands, +and broke them beneath the mount. He then took the calf which they +had made, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water, and made +the children of Israel drink of it. And in the twenty-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."</p> +<center>241</center> +<p>The 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."</p> +<p>Now, it must be remembered that there had not been as yet a +promulgation of the commandment u Thou shalt have no other gods +before me." This was a punishment for the infraction of a law +before the law was known—before the commandment had been +given. Was it cruel, or unjust?</p> +<p>Does the following sound as though spoken by a God 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 and +destruction which God threatens to his enemies, as recorded in the +thirty-second chapter of the book of Deuteronomy.</p> +<p>In the sixty-eighth Psalm is found this merciful passage: "That +thy foot may be dipped in the blood "of thine enemies, and the +tongue of thy dogs in the "same.</p> +<p>So we find in the eleventh chapter of Joshua the reason why the +Canaanites and other nations made war upon the Jews. It is as +follows: "For it was of</p> +<center>242</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Read the thirtieth chapter of Exodus and you will find that God +gave to Moses a recipe for making the oil of holy anointment, and +in the thirty-second verse we find that no one was to make any oil +like it and in the next verse it is declared that whoever +compounded any like it, or whoever put any of it on a stranger, +should be cut off from the Lord's people.</p> +<p>In the same chapter, a recipe is given for perfumery, and it is +declared that whoever shall make any like it, or that smells like +it, shall suffer death.</p> +<p>In the next chapter, it is decreed that if any one fails to keep +the Sabbath "he shall be surely put to death."</p> +<p>There are in the Pentateuch hundreds and hundreds 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 sea with the corpses of +men, women and children?</p> +<p>The Pentateuch is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words +of vengeance, of jealousy, of hatred, and brutality. By reason of +these passages,</p> +<center>243</center> +<p>millions of people have plucked from their hearts the flowers of +pity and justified the murder of women and the assassination of +babes.</p> +<p>In the second chapter of Second Kings we find that the prophet +Elisha was on his way to a place called Bethel, and as he was +going, there came forth little children out of the city and mocked +him and said: "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."</p> +<p>Of course he obtained his miraculous power from Jehovah; and +there must have been some communication between Jehovah and the +bears. Why did the bears come? How did they happen to be there? +Here is a prophet of God cursing children in the name of the Lord, +and thereupon these children are torn in fragments by wild +beasts.</p> +<p>This is the mercy of Jehovah; and yet I am told that the Bible +has nothing cruel in it; that it preaches only mercy, justice, +charity, peace; that all hearts are softened by reading it; that +the savage nature of man is melted into tenderness and pity by it, +and that only the totally depraved can find evil in it.</p> +<center>244</center> +<p>And so I might go on, page after page, book after book, in the +Old Testament, and describe the cruelties committed in accordance +with the commands of Jehovah.</p> +<p>But all the cruelties in the Old Testament are absolute mercies +compared with the hell of the New Testament. In the Old Testament +God stops with the grave. He seems to have been satisfied when he +saw his enemies dead, when he saw their flesh rotting in the open +air, or in the beaks of birds, or in the teeth of wild beasts. But +in the New Testament, vengeance does not stop with the grave. It +begins there, and stops never. The enemies of Jehovah are to be +pursued through all the ages of eternity. There is to be no +forgiveness—no cessation, no mercy, nothing but everlasting +pain.</p> +<p>And yet we are told that the author of hell is a being of +infinite mercy.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>; All intelligent Christians will admit that there +are many passages in the Bible that, if found in the Koran, they +would regard as impure and immoral.</p> +<p>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 honest reader, and the memory of every +biblical student.</p> +<center>245</center> +<p>The Old Testament upholds polygamy. That is infinitely impure. +It sanctions concubinage. That is impure; nothing could or can be +worse. Hundreds of things are publicly told that should have +remained unsaid. No one is made better by reading the history of +Tamar, or the biography of Lot, or the memoirs of Noah, of Dinah, +of Sarah and Abraham, or of Jacob and Leah and Rachel and others +that I do not care to mention. No one is improved in his morals by +reading these things.</p> +<p>All I mean to say is, that the Bible is like other books +produced by other nations in the same stage of civilization. What +one age considers pure, the next considers impure. What one age may +consider just, the next may look upon as infamous. Civilization is +a growth. It is continually dying, and continually being born. Old +branches rot and fall, new buds appear. It is a perpetual twilight, +and a perpetual dawn—the death of the old, and the birth of +the new.</p> +<p>I do not say, throw away the Bible because there are some +foolish passages in it, but I say, throw away the foolish passages. +Don't throw away wisdom because it is found in company with folly; +but do not say that folly is wisdom, because it is found in its +company. All that is true in the Bible is true whether</p> +<center>246</center> +<p>it is inspired or not. All that is true did not need to be +inspired. Only that which is not true needs the assistance of +miracles and wonders. I read the Bible as 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 I +believe to be false, I denounce as false.</p> +<p><i>Third</i>. Let us see whether there are any contradictions in +the Bible.</p> +<p>A little book has been published, called "Self "Contradictions +of the Bible," by J. P. Mendum, of The Boston Investigator. I find +many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible noted in this +book.</p> +<p>We all know that the Pentateuch is filled with the commandments +of God upon the subject of sacrificing animals. We know that God +declared, again and again, that the smell of burning flesh was a +sweet savor to him. Chapter after chapter is filled with directions +how to kill the beasts that were set apart for sacrifices; what to +do with their blood, their flesh and their 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."</p> +<center>247</center> +<p>And in the sixth chapter of Jeremiah, the same Jehovah says; +"Your burnt offerings are not ac"ceptable, nor your sacrifices +sweet unto me."</p> +<p>In the Psalms, Jehovah derides the idea of sacrifices, 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."</p> +<p>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?"</p> +<p>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 I</p> +<center>248</center> +<p>find this: "And it came to pass after these things, "that God +did tempt Abraham."</p> +<p>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." To such an extent was Jeremiah deceived, that in the +fourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse we find him crying out to +the Lord: "Wilt thou be altogether "unto me as a liar?"</p> +<p>So in Second Thessalonians: "For these things "God shall send +them strong delusions, that they "should believe a lie."</p> +<p>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."</p> +<p>So in Ezekiel: "And if the prophet be deceived "when he hath +spoken a thing, I, the Lord, have de"ceived that prophet."</p> +<p>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-second chapter, I find the following: "And the Lord said: +"Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and</p> +<center>249</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>In the Old Testament we find contradictory laws about the same +thing, and contradictory accounts of the same occurrences.</p> +<p>In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first account of +the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth chapter +another account of the same transaction is given. These two +accounts could not have been written by the same person. Read them, +and you will be forced to admit that both of them cannot by any +possibility be true. They differ in so many particulars, and the +commandments themselves are so different, that it is impossible +that both can be true.</p> +<p>So there are two histories of the creation. If you will read the +first and second chapters of Genesis, you will find two accounts +inconsistent with each other, both of which cannot be true. The +first account</p> +<center>250</center> +<p>ends with the third verse of the second chapter of Genesis. By +the first account, man and woman were made at the same time, and +made last of all. In the second account, not to be too critical, +all the beasts of the field were made before Eve was, and Adam was +made before the beasts of the field; whereas in the first account, +God made all the animals before he made Adam. In the first account +there is nothing about the rib or the bone or the side,—that +is only found in the second account. In the first account, there is +nothing about the Garden of Eden, nothing about the four rivers, +nothing about the mist that went up from the earth and watered the +whole face of the ground; nothing said about making man from dust; +nothing about God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life; +yet according to the second account, the Garden of Eden was +planted, and all the animals were made before Eve was formed. It is +impossible to harmonize the two accounts.</p> +<p>So, in the first account, only the word God is used—"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." It is now admitted that the book of Genesis is made up</p> +<center>251</center> +<p>of two stories, and it is very easy to take them apart and show +exactly how they were put together.</p> +<p>So there are two stories of the flood, differing almost entirely +from each other—that is to say, so contradictory that both +cannot be true.</p> +<p>There are two accounts of the manner in which Saul was made +king, and the accounts are inconsistent with each other.</p> +<p>Scholars now everywhere admit that the copyists made many +changes, pieced out fragments, and made additions, interpolations, +and meaningless repetitions. It is now generally conceded that the +speeches of Elihu, in Job, were interpolated, and most of the +prophecies were made by persons whose names even are not known.</p> +<p>The manuscripts of the Old Testament were not alike. The Greek +version differed from the Hebrew, and there was no generally +received text of the Old Testament until after the beginning of the +Christian era. Marks and points to denote vowels were invented +probably in the seventh century after Christ; and whether these +marks and points were put in the proper places, is still an open +question. The Alexandrian version, or what is known as the +Septuagint, translated by seventy-two learned Jews assisted by</p> +<center>252</center> +<p>miraculous power, about two hundred years before Christ, could +not, it is now said, have been translated from the Hebrew text that +we now have. This can only be accounted for by supposing that we +have a different Hebrew text. The early Christians adopted the +Septuagint and were satisfied for a time; but so many errors were +found, and so many were scanning every word in search of something +to assist their peculiar views, that new versions were produced, +and the new versions all differed somewhat from the Septuagint as +well as from each other. These versions were mostly in Greek. The +first Latin Bible was produced in Africa, and no one has ever found +out which Latin manuscript was original. Many were produced, and +all differed from each other. These Latin versions were compared +with each other and with the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was +made in the fifth century, and the old ones held their own for +about four hundred years, and no one knows which version was right. +Besides, there were Ethiopie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other +versions, all differing from each other as well as from all others. +It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was +translated into German, and not until the fifteenth that Bibles +were printed in the principal</p> +<center>253</center> +<p>languages of Europe; and most of these Bibles differed from each +other, and gave rise to endless disputes and to almost numberless +crimes.</p> +<p>No man in the world is learned enough, nor has he time enough, +even if he could live a thousand years, to find what books belonged +to and constituted the Old Testament. He could not ascertain the +authors of the books, nor when they were written, nor what they +mean. Until a man has sufficient time to do all this, no one can +tell whether he believes the Bible or not. It is sufficient, +however, to say that the Old Testament is filled with +contradictions as to the number of men slain in battle, as to the +number of years certain kings reigned, as to the number of a +woman's children, as to dates of events, and as to locations of +towns and cities.</p> +<p>Besides all this, many of its laws are contradictory, often +commanding and prohibiting the same thing.</p> +<p>The New Testament also is filled with contradictions. The +gospels do not even agree upon the terms of salvation. They do not +even agree as to the gospel of Christ, as to the mission of Christ. +They do not tell the same story regarding the betrayal, the +crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascension of Christ. John is +the only one that ever heard</p> +<center>254</center> +<p>of being "born again." The evangelists do not give the same +account of the same miracles, and the miracles are not given in the +same order. They do not agree even in the genealogy of Christ.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. Is the Bible scientific? In my judgment it is +not</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that this world was "cre"ated that the +universe was produced by an infinite being, who had existed an +eternity prior to such "creation." My mind is such that I cannot +possibly conceive of a "creation." Neither can I conceive of an +infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infinite length of +time.</p> +<p>I do not think it is scientific to say that the universe was +made in six days, or that this world is only about six thousand +years old, or that man has only been upon the earth for about six +thousand years.</p> +<p>If the Bible is true, Adam was the first man. The age of Adam is +given, the age of his children, and the time, according to the +Bible, was kept and known from Adam, so that if the Bible is true, +man has only been in this world about six thousand years. In my +judgment, and in the judgment of every scientific man whose +judgment is worth having or quoting, man inhabited this earth for +thousands of ages prior</p> +<center>255</center> +<p>to the creation of Adam. On one point the Bible is at least +certain, and that is, as to the life of Adam. The genealogy is +given, the pedigree is there, and it is impossible to escape the +conclusion that, according to the Bible, man has only been upon +this earth about six thousand years. There is no chance there to +say "long periods of time," or "geological ages." There we have the +years. And as to the time of the creation of man, the Bible does +not tell the truth.</p> +<p>What is generally called "The Fall of Man" is unscientific. God +could not have made a moral character for Adam. Even admitting the +rest of the story to be true, Adam certainly had to make character +for himself.</p> +<p>The idea that there never would have been any disease or death +in this world had it not been for the eating of the forbidden fruit +is preposterously unscientific. Admitting that Adam was made only +six thousand years ago, death was in the world millions of years +before that time. The old rocks are filled with remains of what +were once living and breathing animals. Continents were built up +with the petrified corpses of animals. We know, therefore, that +death did not enter the world because of Adam's sin. We know that +life and death are but successive links in an eternal chain.</p> +<center>256</center> +<p>So it is unscientific to say that thorns and brambles were +produced by Adam's sin.</p> +<p>It is also unscientific to say that labor was pronounced as a +curse upon man. Labor is not a curse. Labor is a blessing. Idleness +is a curse.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that the sons of God, living, we +suppose, in heaven, fell in love with the daughters of men, and +that on account of this a flood was sent upon the earth that +covered the highest mountains.</p> +<p>The whole story of the flood is unscientific, and no scientific +man worthy of the name, believes it.</p> +<p>Neither is the story of the tower of Babel a scientific thing. +Does any scientific man believe that God confounded the language of +men for fear they would succeed in building a tower high enough to +reach to heaven?</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that angels were in the habit of +walking about the earth, eating veal dressed with butter and milk, +and making bargains about the destruction of cities.</p> +<p>The story of Lot's wife having been turned into a pillar of salt +is extremely unscientific.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that people at one time lived to be +nearly a thousand years of age. The history</p> +<center>257</center> +<p>of the world shows that human life is lengthening instead of +shortening.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that the infinite God wrestled with +Jacob and got the better of him, putting his thigh out of +joint.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness of a flame +of fire, inhabited a bush.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that a stick could be changed into a +living snake. Living snakes can not be made out of sticks. There +are not the necessary elements in a stick to make a snake.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that God changed water into blood. +All the elements of blood are not in water.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to declare that dust was changed into +lice.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that God caused a thick darkness +over the land of Egypt, and yet allowed it to be light in the +houses of the Jews.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that about seventy people could, in +two hundred and fifteen years increase to three millions.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that an infinitely good God would +destroy innocent people to get revenge upon a king.</p> +<center>258</center> +<p>It is not scientific to say that slavery was once right, that +polygamy was once a virtue, and that extermination was mercy.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to assert that a being of infinite power +and goodness went into partnership with insects,—granted +letters of marque and reprisal to hornets.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to insist that bread was really rained from +heaven.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to suppose that an infinite being spent +forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plans and +specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat, cherubs of +gold, a table, four rings, some dishes, some spoons, one +candlestick, several bowls, a few knobs, seven lamps, some +snuffers, a pair of tongs, some curtains, a roof for a tent of +rams' skins dyed red, a few boards, an altar with horns, ash pans, +basins and flesh hooks, shovels and pots and sockets of silver and +ouches of gold and pins of brass—for all of which this God +brought with him patterns from heaven.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that when a man commits a sin, he +can settle with God by killing a sheep.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to say that a priest, by laying his hands +on the head of a goat, can transfer the sins of a people to the +animal.</p> +<center>259</center> +<p>Was it scientific to endeavor to ascertain whether a woman was +virtuous or not, by compelling her to drink water mixed with dirt +from the floor of the sanctuary?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that a dry stick budded, blossomed, and +bore almonds; or that the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water +can cleanse us of sin; or that a good being gave cities into the +hands of the Jews in consideration of their murdering all the +inhabitants?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that an animal saw an angel, and +conversed with a man?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to imagine that thrusting a spear through the +body of a woman ever stayed a plague?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that a river cut itself in two and +allowed the lower end to run off?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to assert that seven priests blew seven rams' +horns loud enough to blow down the walls of a city?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that the sun stood still in the midst of +heaven, and hasted not to go down for about a whole day, and that +the moon also stayed?</p> +<p>Is it scientifically probable that an angel of the Lord devoured +unleavened cakes and broth with fire that came out of the end of a +stick, as he sat</p> +<center>260</center> +<p>under an oak tree; or that God made known his will by letting +dew fall on wool without wetting the ground around it; or that an +angel of God appeared to Manoah in the absence of her husband, and +that this angel afterwards went up in a flame of fire, and as the +result of this visit a child was born whose strength was in his +hair?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that the muscle of a man depended upon +the length of his locks?</p> +<p>Is it unscientific to deny that water gushed from a hollow place +in a dry bone?</p> +<p>Is it evidence of a thoroughly scientific mind to believe that +one man turned over a house so large that three thousand people +were on its roof?</p> +<p>Is it purely scientific to say that a man was once fed by the +birds of the air, who brought him bread and meat every morning and +evening, and that afterward an angel turned cook and prepared two +suppers in one night, for the same prophet, who ate enough to last +him forty days and forty nights?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that a river divided because the water +had been struck with a cloak; or that a man actually went to heaven +in a chariot of fire drawn by horses of fire; or that a being of +infinite mercy would destroy children for laughing at a bald</p> +<center>261</center> +<p>headed prophet; or curse children and childrens children with +leprosy for a father's fault; or that he made iron float in water; +or that when one corpse touched another it came to life; or that +the sun went backward in heaven so that the shadow on a sundial +went back ten degrees, as a sign that a miserable barbarian king +would get well?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that the earth not only stopped in its +rotary motion, but absolutely turned the other way,—that its +motion was reversed simply as a sign to a petty king?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that Solomon made gold and silver at +Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when we know that there were +kings in his day who could have thrown away the value of the whole +of Palestine without missing the amount?</p> +<p>Is it scientific to say that Solomon exceeded all the kings of +the earth in glory, when his country was barren, without roads, +when his people were few, without commerce, without the arts, +without the sciences, without education, without luxuries?</p> +<p>According to the Bible, as long as Jehovah attended to 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 persecute</p> +<center>262</center> +<p>them, the Jews became the most prosperous of people. Since +Jehovah in his anger cast them away, they have produced painters, +sculptors, scientists, statesmen, composers, soldiers and +philosophers.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that God ever prevented rain, +that he ever caused famine, that he ever sent locusts to devour the +wheat and corn, that he ever relied on pestilence for the +government of mankind; or that he ever killed children to get even +with their parents.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that the king of Egypt invaded +Palestine with seventy thousand horsemen and twelve hundred +chariots of war. There was not, at that time, a road in Palestine +over which a chariot could be driven.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that in a battle between +Jeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah slew in one day five +hundred thousand chosen men.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, +invaded Palestine with a million of men who were overthrown and +destroyed; or that Jehoshaphat had a standing army of nine hundred +and sixty thousand men.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to believe that Jehovah advertised for a +liar, as is related in Second Chronicles.</p> +<center>263</center> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that fire refused to burn, or +that water refused to wet.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe in dreams, in visions, and in +miracles.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe that children have been born +without fathers, that the dead have ever been raised to life, or +that people have bodily ascended to heaven taking their clothes +with them.</p> +<p>It is not scientific to believe in the supernatural. Science +dwells in the realm of fact, in the realm of demonstration. Science +depends upon human experience, upon observation, upon reason.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that an innocent man can be punished +in place of a criminal, and for a criminal, and that the criminal, +on account of such punishment, can be justified.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to say that a finite sin deserves infinite +punishment.</p> +<p>It is unscientific to believe that devils can inhabit human +beings, or that they can take possession of swine, or that the +devil could bodily take a man, or the Son of God, and carry him to +the pinnacle of a temple.</p> +<p>In short, the foolish, the unreasonable, the false, the +miraculous and the supernatural are unscientific.</p> +<center>264</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Mr. Talmage gives his reason for accepting 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 +understand this matter, and has Mr. Talmage stated the facts?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Let us examine first the witnesses produced by +Mr. Talmage. We will also call attention to the great principle +laid down by Mr. Talmage for the examination of +evidence,—that where a witness is found false in one +particular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.</p> +<p>Eusebius was born somewhere about two hundred and seventy years +after Christ. After many vicissitudes he became, it is said, the +friend of Constantine. He made an oration in which he extolled the +virtues</p> +<center>265</center> +<p>of this murderer, and had the honor of sitting at the right hand +of the man who had shed the blood of his wife and son. In the great +controversy with regard to 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 insisted that +Jesus Christ was not the same as God, and that he was not of equal +power and glory. Will Mr. Talmage admit that his witness told the +truth in this? "He would not even call the Son co-eternal "with +God."</p> +<p>Eusebius must have been an exceedingly truthful man. He declared +that the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots were in his day visible upon +the shores of the Red Sea; that these tracks had been through all +the years miraculously preserved from the action of wind and wave, +as a supernatural testimony to the fact that God miraculously +overwhelmed Pharaoh and his hosts.</p> +<p>Eusebius also relates that when Joseph and Mary arrived in Eygpt +they took up their abode in Hermopolis,</p> +<p>a city of Thebæus, in which was the superb temple of +Serapis. When Joseph and Mary entered the temple, not only the +great idol, but all the lesser idols fell down before him.</p> +<center>266</center> +<p>"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.)</p> +<p>From the same authority I learn that Eusebius invented an +eclipse, and some earthquakes, to agree with the account of the +crucifixion. It is also believed that Eusebius quoted from works +that never existed, and that he pretended a work had been written +by Porphyry, entitled: "The Philosophy of "Oracles," and then +quoted from it for the purpose of proving the truth of the +Christian religion.</p> +<p>The fact is, Eusebius was utterly destitute of truth. He +believed, as many still believe, that he could please God by the +fabrication of lies.</p> +<p>Irenæus lived somewhere about the end of the second +century. "Very little is known of his early "history, and the +accounts given in various biogra"phies are for the most part +conjectural." The writings of Irenæus are known to us +principally through Eusebius, and we know the value of his +testimony.</p> +<p>Now, if we are to take the testimony of Irenæus,</p> +<center>267</center> +<p>why not take it? He says that the ministry of Christ lasted for +twenty years, and that Christ was fifty years old at the time of +his crucifixion. He also insisted that the "Gospel of Paul" was +written by Luke, "a "statement made to give sanction to the gospel +of "Luke."</p> +<p>Irenæus insisted that there were four gospels, that there +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: because donkeys have four legs.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>According to Mr. Waite, Irenæus, in the thirtythird +chapter of his fifth book, <i>Adversus Hæreses</i>, 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 +pressed</p> +<center>268</center> +<p>"will give five and twenty metrets of wine." Also that "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."</p> +<p>Is it possible that the eternal welfare of a human being depends +upon believing the testimony of Polycarp and Irenæus? Are +people to be saved or lost on the reputation of Eusebius? Suppose a +man is firmly convinced that Polycarp knew nothing about Saint +John, and that Saint John knew nothing about Christ,—what +then? Suppose he is convinced that Eusebius is utterly unworthy of +credit,—what then? Must a man believe statements that he has +every reason to think are false?</p> +<p>The question arises as to the witnesses named by Mr. Talmage, +whether they were competent to decide as to the truth or falsehood +of the gospels. We have the right to inquire into their mental +traits for the purpose of giving only due weight to what they have +said.</p> +<p>Mr. Bronson C. Keeler is the author of a book called: "A Short +History of the Bible." I avail myself of a few of the facts he has +there collected. I</p> +<center>269</center> +<p>find in this book, that Irenæus, Clement and Origen +believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and insisted that God +produced the bird on purpose to prove the probability of the +resurrection of the body. Some of the early fathers believed that +the hyena changed its sex every year. Others of them gave as a +reason why good people should eat only animals with a cloven foot, +the fact that righteous people lived not only in this world, but +had expectations in the next. They also believed that insane people +were possessed by devils; that angels ate manna; that some angels +loved the daughters of men and fell; that the pains of women in +childbirth, and the fact that serpents crawl on their bellies, were +proofs that the account of the fall, as given in Genesis, is true; +that the stag renewed its youth by eating poisonous snakes; that +eclipses and comets were signs of God's anger; that volcanoes were +openings into hell; that demons blighted apples; that a corpse in a +cemetery moved to make room for another corpse to be placed beside +it. Clement of Alexandria believed that hail storms, tempests and +plagues were caused by demons. He also believed, with Mr. Talmage, +that the events in the life of Abraham were typical and prophetical +of arithmetic and astronomy.</p> +<center>270</center> +<p>Origen, another of the witnesses of Mr. Talmage, said that the +sun, moon and stars were living creatures, endowed with reason and +free will, and occasionally inclined to sin. That they had free +will, he proved by quoting from Job; that they were rational +creatures, 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 prayed to God through his only begotten son.</p> +<p>These intelligent witnesses believed that the blighting of vines +and fruit trees, and the disease and destruction that came upon +animals and men, were all the work of demons; but that when they +had entered into men, the sign of the cross would drive them out. +They derided the idea that the earth is round, and one 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."</p> +<p>Concerning these early fathers, Professor Davidson, as quoted by +Mr. Keeler, uses the following language: "Of the three fathers who +contributed "most to the growth of the canon, Irenæus was</p> +<pre> + 271 +</pre> +<p>"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 church +and are no longer considered as of the slightest authority. 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,'</p> +<center>272</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it +may be their ignorance. They believed everything that was +miraculous. They believed everything except the truth. Anything +that really happened was considered of no importance by them. They +looked for wonders, miracles, and monstrous things, +and—generally found them. They revelled</p> +<center>273</center> +<p>in the misshapen and the repulsive. They did not think it wrong +to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and +changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. +They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those +who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. They +were ignorant, credulous, mendacious, fanatical, pious, +unreasonable, bigoted, hypocritical, and for the most part, insane. +Read the book of Revelation, and you will agree with me that +nothing that ever emanated from a madhouse can more than equal it +for incoherence. Most of the writings of the early fathers are of +the same kind.</p> +<p>As to Saint John, the real truth is, that we know nothing +certainly of him. We do not know that he ever lived.</p> +<p>We know nothing certainly of Jesus Christ. We know nothing of +his infancy, nothing of his youth, and we are not sure that such a +person ever existed.</p> +<p>We know nothing of Polycarp. We do not know where he was born, +or where, or how he died. We know nothing for certain about +Irenæus. All the names quoted by Mr. Talmage as his witnesses +are surrounded by clouds and doubts, by mist and darkness. We only +know that many of their</p> +<center>274</center> +<p>statements are false, and do not know that any of them are +true.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the following statement by +Mr. Talmage: "Oh, I have to tell you that no "man ever died for a +lie cheerfully and triumphantly"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There was a time when men "cheerfully "and +triumphantly died" in defence of the doctrine of 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 for the idea +that baptism by immersion is the only scriptural baptism. Did they +die for a lie? If not, is Mr. Talmage a Baptist?</p> +<p>Giordano Bruno was an atheist, yet he perished at the stake +rather than retract his opinions. He did not expect to be welcomed +by angels and by God. He did not look for a crown of glory. He +expected simply death and eternal extinction. Does the fact that he +died for that belief prove its truth?</p> +<p>Thousands upon thousands have died in defence of the religion of +Mohammed. Was Mohammed an impostor? Thousands have welcomed death +in defence of the doctrines of Buddha. Is Buddhism true?</p> +<center>275</center> +<p>So I might make a tour of the world, and of all ages of human +history, and find that millions and millions have died "cheerfully +and triumphantly" in defence of their opinions. There is not the +slightest truth in Mr. Talmage's statement.</p> +<p>A little while ago, a man shot at the Czar of Russia. On the day +of his execution he was asked if he wished religious consolation. +He replied that he believed in no religion. What did that prove? It +proved only the man's honesty of opinion. All the martyrs in the +world cannot change, never did change, a falsehood into a truth, +nor a truth into a falsehood. Martyrdom proves nothing but the +sincerity of the martyr and the cruelty and meanness of his +murderers. Thousands and thousands of people have imagined that +they knew things, that they were certain, and have died rather than +retract their honest beliefs.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage now says that he knows all about the Old Testament, +that the prophecies were fulfilled, and yet he does not know when +the prophecies were made—whether they were made before or +after the fact. He does not know whether the destruction of Babylon +was told before it happened, or after. He knows nothing upon the +subject. He does not know</p> +<center>276</center> +<p>who made the pretended prophecies. He does not know that Isaiah, +or Jeremiah, or Habakkuk, or Hosea ever lived in this world. He +does not know who wrote a single book of the Old Testament. He +knows nothing on the subject. He believes in the inspiration of the +Old Testament because ancient cities finally fell into +decay—were overrun and destroyed by enemies, and he accounts +for the fact that the Jew does not lose his nationality by saying +that the Old Testament is true.</p> +<p>The Jews have been persecuted by the Christians, and they are +still persecuted by them; and Mr. Talmage seems to think that this +persecution was a part of Gods plan, that the Jews might, by +persecution, be prevented from mingling with other nationalities, +and so might stand, through the instrumentality of perpetual hate +and cruelty, the suffering witnesses of the divine truth of the +Bible.</p> +<p>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 pleased to call the "civilized world." They +testify to the fact that nothing so hardens the human heart as +religion.</p> +<p>There is no prophecy in the Old Testament foretelling the coming +of Jesus Christ. There is not one</p> +<center>277</center> +<p>word in the Old Testament referring to him in any way—not +one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and +wherever you find these words: "That it might be fulfilled," and +"which "was spoken," turn to the Old Testament and find what was +written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible +reference to the thing recounted in the New Testament—not the +slightest.</p> +<p>Let us take some of the prophecies of the Bible, and see how +plain they are, and how beautiful they are. Let us see whether any +human being can tell whether they have ever been fulfilled or +not.</p> +<p>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 on</p> +<center>278</center> +<p>"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.</p> +<p>"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.</p> +<p>"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.</p> +<p>"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: and</p> +<center>279</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<center>280</center> +<p>Is such a vision a prophecy? Is it calculated to convey the +slightest information? If so, what?</p> +<p>So, the following vision of the prophet Daniel is exceedingly +important and instructive:</p> +<p>"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.</p> +<p>"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.</p> +<p>"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 with</p> +<center>281</center> +<p>"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."</p> +<p>I have no doubt that this prophecy has been literally fulfilled, +but I am not at present in condition to give the time, place, or +circumstances.</p> +<p>A few moments ago, my attention was called to the following +extract from <i>The New York Herald</i> of the thirteenth of March, +instant:</p> +<p>"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</p> +<center>282</center> +<p>"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.'"</p> +<p>Certainly, an ordinary person, not having been illuminated by +the spirit of prophecy, would never have even dreamed that there +was the slightest reference in Ezekiel's vision to anything like +counting hairs. As a commentator, the Rev. Dr. Armitage has no +equal; and, in my judgment, no rival. He has placed himself beyond +the reach of ridicule. It is impossible to say anything about his +sermon as laughable as his sermon.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you no confidence in any prophecies? Do +you take the ground that there never has been a human being who +could predict the future?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I admit that a man of average intelli</p> +<center>283</center> +<p>gence knows that a certain course, when pursued long enough, +will bring national disaster, and it is perfectly safe to predict +the downfall of any and every country in the world. In my judgment, +nations, like individuals, have an average life. Every nation is +mortal. An immortal nation cannot be constructed of mortal +individuals. A nation has a reason for existing, and that reason +sustains the same relation to the nation that the acorn does to the +oak. The nation will attain its growth—other things being +equal. It will reach its manhood and its prime, but it will sink +into old age, and at last must die. Probably, in a few thousand +years, men will 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 history until now, that men did not +know of dead and dying nations. There has always been a national +cemetery. Poland is dead, Turkey is dying. In every nation are the +seeds of dissolution. Not only nations die, but races of men. A +nation is born, becomes powerful, luxurious, at last grows weak, is +overcome, dies, and another takes its place, In this way +civilization and barbarism, like day and night, alternate through +all of history's years.</p> +<center>284</center> +<p>In every nation there are at least two classes of men: First, +the enthusiastic, the patriotic, who believe that the nation will +live forever,—that its flag will float while the earth has +air; Second, the owls and ravens and croakers, who are always +predicting disaster, defeat, and death. To the last class belong +the Jeremiahs, Ezekiels, and Isaiahs of the Jews. They were always +predicting the downfall of Jerusalem. They revelled in defeat and +captivity. They loved to paint the horrors of famine and war. For +the most part, they were envious, hateful, misanthropic and +unjust.</p> +<p>There seems to have been a war between church and state. The +prophets were endeavoring to preserve the ecclesiastical power. +Every king who would listen to them, was chosen of God. He +instantly became the model of virtue, and the prophets assured him +that he was in the keeping of Jehovah. But if the king had a mind +of his own, the prophets immediately called down upon him all the +curses of heaven, and predicted the speedy destruction of his +kingdom.</p> +<p>If our own country should be divided, if an empire should rise +upon the ruins of the Republic, it would be very easy to find that +hundreds and thousands of</p> +<center>285</center> +<p>people had foretold that very thing. If you will read the +political speeches of the last twenty-two years, you will find +prophecies to fit any possible future state of affairs in our +country. No matter what happens, you will find that somebody +predicted it. If the city of London should lose her trade, if the +Parliament house should become the abode of moles and bats, if "the +New Zealander should sit upon the "ruins of London Bridge," all +these things would be simply the fulfillment of prophecy. The fall +of every nation under the sun has been predicted by hundreds and +thousands of people.</p> +<p>The prophecies of the Old Testament can be made to fit anything +that may happen, or that may not happen. They will apply to the +death of a king, or to the destruction of a people,—to the +loss of commerce, or the discovery of a continent. Each prophecy is +a jugglery of words, of figures, of symbols, so put together, so +used, so interpreted, that they can mean anything, everything, or +nothing.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you see anything "prophetic" in the fate of +the Jewish people themselves? Do you think that God made the Jewish +people wanderers, so that they might be perpetual witnesses to the +truth of the Scriptures?</p> +<center>286</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I cannot believe that an infinitely good God +would make anybody a wanderer. Neither can I believe that he would +keep millions of people without country and without home, and allow +them to be persecuted for thousands of years, simply that they +might be used as witnesses. Nothing could be more absurdly cruel +than this.</p> +<p>The Christians justify their treatment of the Jews on the ground +that they are simply fulfilling prophecy. The Jews have suffered +because of the horrid story that their ancestors crucified the Son +of God. Christianity, coming into power, looked with horror upon +the Jews, who denied the truth of the gospel. Each Jew was regarded +as a dangerous witness against Christianity. The early Christians +saw how necessary it was that the people who lived in Jerusalem at +the time of Christ should be convinced that he was God, and should +testify to the miracles he wrought. Whenever a Jew denied it, the +Christian was filled with malignity and hatred, and immediately +excited the prejudice of other Christians against the man simply +because he was a Jew. They forgot, in their general hatred, that +Mary, the mother of Christ, was a Jewess; that Christ himself was +of Jewish blood; and with an inconsistency of which, of all</p> +<center>287</center> +<p>religions, Christianity alone could have been guilty, the Jew +became an object of especial hatred and aversion.</p> +<p>When we remember that Christianity pretends to be a religion of +love and kindness, of charity and forgiveness, must not every +intelligent man be shocked by the persecution of the Jews? Even +now, in learned and cultivated Germany, the Jew is treated as +though he were a wild beast. The reputation of this great people +has been stained by a persecution springing only from ignorance and +barbarian prejudice. So in Russia, the Christians are anxious to +shed every drop of Jewish blood, and thousands are to-day fleeing +from their homes to seek a refuge from Christian hate. And Mr. +Talmage believes that all these persecutions are kept up by the +perpetual intervention of God, in order that the homeless wanderers +of the seed of Abraham may testify to the truth of the Old and New +Testaments. He thinks that every burning Jewish home sheds light +upon the gospel,—that every gash in Jewish flesh cries out in +favor of the Bible,—that every violated Jewish maiden shows +the interest that God still takes in the preservation of his Holy +Word.</p> +<p>I am endeavoring to do away with religious</p> +<center>288</center> +<p>prejudice. I wish to substitute humanity for superstition, the +love of our fellow-men, for the fear of God. In the place of +ignorant worship, let us put good deeds. We should be great enough +and grand enough to know that the rights of the Jew are precisely +the same as our own. We cannot trample upon their rights, without +endangering our own; and no man who will take liberty from another, +is great enough to enjoy liberty himself.</p> +<p>Day by day Christians are laying the foundation of future +persecution. In every Sunday school little children are taught that +Jews killed the God of this universe. Their little hearts are +filled with hatred against the Jewish people. They are taught as a +part of the creed to despise the descendants of the only people +with whom God is ever said to have had any conversation +whatever.</p> +<p>When we take into consideration what the Jewish people have +suffered, it is amazing that every one of them does not hate with +all his heart and soul and strength the entire Christian world. But +in spite of the persecutions they have endured, they are to-day, +where they are permitted to enjoy reasonable liberty, the most +prosperous people on the globe. The idea that their condition +shows, or tends to show, that</p> +<center>289</center> +<p>upon them abides the wrath of Jehovah, cannot be substantiated +by the facts.</p> +<p>The Jews to-day control the commerce of the world. They control +the money of the world. It is for them to say whether nations shall +or shall not go to war. They are the people of whom nations borrow +money. To their offices kings come with their hats in their hands. +Emperors beg them to discount their notes. Is all this a +consequence of the wrath of God?</p> +<p>We find upon our streets no Jewish beggars. It is a rare sight +to find one of these people standing as a criminal before a court. +They do not fill our almshouses, nor our penitentiaries, nor our +jails. Intellectually and morally they are the equal of any people. +They have become illustrious in every department of art and +science. The old cry against them is at last perceived to be +ignorant. Only a few years ago, Christians would rob a Jew, strip +him of his possessions, steal his money, declare him an outcast, +and drive him forth. Then they would point to him as a fulfillment +of prophecy.</p> +<p>If you wish to see the difference between some Jews and some +Christians, compare the addresses of Felix Adler with the sermons +of Mr. Talmage.</p> +<center>290</center> +<p>I cannot convince myself that an infinitely good and wise God +holds a Jewish babe in the cradle of to-day responsible for the +crimes of Caiaphas the high priest. I hardly think that an +infinitely good being would pursue this little babe through all its +life simply to get revenge on those who died two thousand years +ago. An infinite being ought certainly to know that the child is +not to blame; and an infinite being who does not know this, is not +entitled to the love or adoration of any honest man.</p> +<p>There is a strange inconsistency in what Mr. Talmage says. For +instance, he finds great fault with me because I do not agree with +the religious ideas of my father; and he finds fault equally with +the Jews who do. The Jews who were true to the religion of their +fathers, according to Mr. Talmage, have been made a by-word and a +hissing and a reproach among all nations, and only those Jews were +fortunate and blest who abandoned the religion of their fathers. +The real reason for this inconsistency is this: Mr. Talmage really +thinks that a man can believe as he wishes. He imagines that +evidence depends simply upon volition; consequently, he holds every +one responsible for his belief. Being satisfied that he has the +exact truth in this matter, he meas</p> +<center>291</center> +<p>ures all other people by his standard, and if they fail by that +measurement, he holds them personally responsible, and believes +that his God does the same. If Mr. Talmage had been born in Turkey, +he would in all probability have been a Mohammedan, and would now +be denouncing some man who had denied the inspiration of the Koran, +as the "champion blas"phemer" of Constantinople. Certainly he would +have been, had his parents been Mohammedans; because, according to +his doctrine, he would have been utterly lacking in respect and +love for his father and 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 the ground that polygamy is wrong.</p> +<p>I presume that all of Mr. Talmage's forefathers were not +Presbyterians. There must have been a time when one of his +progenitors left the faith of his father, and joined the +Presbyterian Church. According to the reasoning of Mr. Talmage, +that particular progenitor was an exceedingly bad man; but had it +not been for the crime of that bad man, Mr. Talmage might not now +have been on the road to heaven.</p> +<center>292</center> +<p>I hardly think that all the inventors, the thinkers, the +philosophers, the discoverers, dishonored their parents. Fathers +and mothers have been made immortal by such sons. And yet these +sons demonstrated the errors of their parents. A good father wishes +to be excelled by his children.</p> +<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SIXTH INTERVIEW.</h2> +<p><i>It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a +revelation that comes to us at secondhand, either verbally or in +writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first +communication— after this, it is only an account of something +which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he +may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on +me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation +made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to +him.—Thomas Paine.</i></p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the arguments presented by +Mr. Talmage in favor of the inspiration of the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that there are more +copies of the Bible than of any other book, and that consequently +it must be inspired.</p> +<p>It seems to me that this kind of reasoning proves entirely too +much. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, it was certainly +just as true when there was only one copy, as it is to-day; and the +facts contained in it were just as true before they were</p> +<center>296</center> +<p>written, as afterwards. We all know that it is a fact in human +nature, that a man can tell a falsehood so often that he finally +believes it himself; but I never suspected, until now, that a +mistake could be printed enough times to make it true.</p> +<p>There may have been a time, and probably there was, when there +were more copies of the Koran than of the Bible. When most +Christians were utterly ignorant, thousands of Moors were educated; +and it is well known that the arts and sciences flourished in +Mohammedan countries in a far greater degree than in Christian. +Now, at that time, it may be that there were more copies of the +Koran than of the Bible. If some enterprising Mohammedan had only +seen the force of such a fact, he might have established the +inspiration of the Koran beyond a doubt; or, if it had been found +by actual count that the Koran was a little behind, a few years of +industry spent in the multiplication of copies, might have +furnished the evidence of its inspiration.</p> +<p>Is it not simply amazing that a doctor of divinity, a +Presbyterian clergyman, in this day and age, should seriously rely +upon the number of copies of the Bible to substantiate the +inspiration of that book? Is it possible to conceive of anything +more fig-leaflessly</p> +<center>297</center> +<p>absurd? If there is anything at all in this argument, it is, +that all books are true in proportion to the number of copies that +exist. Of course, the same rule will work with newspapers; so that +the newspaper having the largest circulation can consistently claim +infallibility. Suppose that an exceedingly absurd statement should +appear in <i>The New York Herald</i>, and some one should denounce +it as utterly without any foundation in fact or probability; what +would Mr. Talmage think if the editor of the Herald, as an evidence +of the truth of the statement, should rely on the fact that his +paper had the largest circulation of any in the city? One would +think that the whole church had acted upon the theory that a +falsehood repeated often enough was as good as the truth.</p> +<p>Another evidence brought forward by the reverend gentleman to +prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, is the assertion that if +Congress should undertake to pass a law to take the Bible from the +people, thirty, millions would rise in defence of that book.</p> +<p>This argument also seems to me to prove too much, and as a +consequence, to prove nothing. If Congress should pass a law +prohibiting the reading of Shakespeare, every American would rise +in defence of his right to read the works of the greatest man</p> +<center>298</center> +<p>this world has known. Still, that would not even tend to show +that Shakespeare was inspired. The fact is, the American people +would not allow Congress to pass a law preventing them from reading +any good book. Such action would not prove the book to be inspired; +it would prove that the American people believe in liberty.</p> +<p>There are millions of people in Turkey who would peril their +lives in defence of the Koran. A fact like this does not prove the +truth of the Koran; it simply proves what Mohammedans think of that +book, and what they are willing to do for its preservation.</p> +<p>It can not be too often repeated, that martyrdom does not prove +the truth of the thing for which the martyr dies; it only proves +the sincerity of the martyr and the cruelty of his murderers. No +matter how many people regard the Bible as inspired,—that +fact furnishes no evidence that it is inspired. Just as many people +have regarded other books as inspired; just as many millions have +been deluded about the inspiration of books ages and ages before +Christianity was born.</p> +<p>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 belief</p> +<center>299</center> +<p>is founded, and the person to whom he states them gives them the +weight that according to the construction and constitution of his +mind he must. But simple, bare belief is not testimony. We should +build upon facts, not upon beliefs of others, nor upon the shifting +sands of public opinion. So much for this argument.</p> +<p>The next point made by the reverend gentleman is, that an +infidel cannot be elected to any office in the United States, in +any county, precinct, or ward.</p> +<p>For the sake of the argument, let us admit that this is true. +What does it prove? There was a time when no Protestant could have +been elected to any office. What did that prove? There was a time +when no Presbyterian could have been chosen to fill any public +station. What did that prove? The same may be said of the members +of each religious denomination. What does that prove?</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage says that Christianity must be true, because an +infidel cannot be elected to office. Now, suppose that enough +infidels should happen to settle in one precinct to elect one of +their own number to office; would that prove that Christianity was +not true in that precinct? There was a time when no man could have +been elected to any office, who in</p> +<center>300</center> +<p>sisted on the rotundity of the earth; what did that prove? There +was a time when no man who denied the existence of witches, +wizards, spooks and devils, could hold any position of honor; what +did that prove? There was a time when an abolitionist could not be +elected to office in any State in this Union; what did that prove? +There was a time when they were not allowed to express their honest +thoughts; what does that prove? There was a time when a Quaker +could not have been elected to any office; there was a time in the +history of this country when but few of them were allowed to live; +what does that prove? Is it necessary, in order to ascertain the +truth of Christianity, to look over the election returns? Is +"inspiration" a question to be settled by the ballot? I admit that +it was once, in the first place, settled that way. I admit that +books were voted in and voted out, and that the Bible was finally +formed 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 possibility be affected by opinion? We make laws for +the whole people, by the whole people. We agree that a majority +shall rule, but nobody ever pretended that a question of taste +could be settled by an appeal</p> +<center>301</center> +<p>to majorities, or that a question of logic could be affected by +numbers. In the world of thought, each man is an absolute monarch, +each brain is a kingdom, that cannot be invaded even by the tyranny +of majorities.</p> +<p>No man can avoid the intellectual responsibility of deciding for +himself.</p> +<p>Suppose that the Christian religion had been put to vote in +Jerusalem? Suppose that the doctrine of the "fall" had been settled +in Athens, by an appeal to the people, would Mr. Talmage have been +willing to abide by their decision? If he settles the inspiration +of the Bible by a popular vote, he must settle the meaning of the +Bible by the same means. There are more Methodists than +Presbyterians—why does the gentleman remain a Presbyterian? +There are more Buddhists than Christians—why does he vote +against majorities? He will remember that Christianity was once +settled by a popular vote—that the divinity of Christ was +submitted to the people, and the people said: "Crucify him!"</p> +<p>The next, and about the strongest, argument Mr. Talmage makes +is, that I am an infidel because I was defeated for Governor of +Illinois.</p> +<p>When put in plain English, his statement is this:</p> +<center>302</center> +<p>that I was defeated because I was an infidel, and that I am an +infidel because I was defeated. This, I believe, is called +reasoning in a circle. The truth is, that a good many people did +object to me because I was an infidel, and the probability is, that +if I had denied being an infidel, I might have obtained an office. +The wonderful part is, that any Christian should deride me because +I preferred honor to political success. He who dishonors himself +for the sake of being honored by others, will find that two +mistakes have been made—one by himself, and the other, by the +people.</p> +<p>I presume that Mr.Talmage really thinks that I was extremely +foolish to avow my real opinions. After all, men are apt to judge +others somewhat by themselves. According to him, I made the mistake +of preserving my manhood and losing an office. Now, if I had in +fact been an infidel, and had denied it, for the sake of position, +then I admit that every Christian might have pointed at me the +finger of contempt. But I was an infidel, and admitted it. Surely, +I should not be held in contempt by Christians for having made the +admission. I was not a believer in the Bible, and I said so. I was +not a Christian, and I said so. I was not willing to receive the +support of any</p> +<center>303</center> +<p>man under a false impression. I thought it better to be honestly +beaten, than to dishonestly succeed. According to the ethics of Mr. +Talmage I made a mistake, and this mistake is brought forward as +another evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures. If I had +only been elected Governor of Illinois,—that is to say, if I +had been a successful hypocrite, I might now be basking in the +sunshine of this gentleman's respect. I preferred to tell the +truth—to be an honest man,—and I have never regretted +the course I pursued.</p> +<p>There are many men now in office who, had they pursued a nobler +course, would be private citizens. Nominally, they are Christians; +actually, they are nothing; and this is the combination that +generally insures political success.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage is exceedingly proud of the fact that Christians +will not vote for infidels. In other words, he does not believe +that in our Government the church has been absolutely divorced from +the state. He believes that it is still the Christian's duty to +make the religious test. Probably he wishes to get his God into the +Constitution. My position is this:</p> +<p>Religion is an individual matter—a something for each +individual to settle for himself, and with which</p> +<center>304</center> +<p>no other human being has any concern, provided the religion of +each human being allows liberty to every other. When called upon to +vote for men to fill the offices of this country, I do not inquire +as to the religion 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 to me, if he is willing that +others should be free, what creed he may profess. The moment I +inquire into his religious belief, I found a little inquisition of +my own; I repeat, in a small way, the errors of the past, and +reproduce, in so far as I am capable, the infamy of the ignorant +orthodox years.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage will accept my thanks for his frankness. I now know +what controls a Presbyterian when he casts his vote. He cares +nothing for the capacity, nothing for the fitness, of the candidate +to discharge the duties of the office to which he aspires; he +simply asks: Is he a Presbyterian, is he a Protestant, does he +believe our creed? and then, no matter how ignorant he may be, how +utterly unfit, he receives the Presbyterian vote. According to Mr. +Talmage, he would vote for a Catholic who, if he had the power, +would destroy all liberty of conscience, rather than vote for an +infidel who, had he the power, would</p> +<center>305</center> +<p>destroy all the religious tyranny of the world, and allow every +human being to think for himself, and to worship God, or not, as +and how he pleased.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage makes the serious mistake of placing the Bible above +the laws and Constitution of his country. He places Jehovah above +humanity. Such men are not entirely safe citizens of any republic. +And yet, I am in favor of giving to such men all the liberty I ask +for myself, trusting to education and the spirit of progress to +overcome any injury they may do, or seek to do.</p> +<p>When this country was founded, when the Constitution was +adopted, the churches agreed to let the State alone. They agreed +that all citizens should have equal civil rights. Nothing could be +more dangerous to the existence of this Republic than to introduce +religion into politics. The American theory is, that governments +are founded, not by gods, but by men, and that the right to govern +does not come from God, but "from the consent of the governed." Our +fathers concluded that the people were sufficiently intelligent to +take care of themselves—to make good laws and to execute +them. Prior to that time, all authority was supposed to come from +the clouds. Kings were set upon thrones by God, and it was the</p> +<center>306</center> +<p>business of the people simply to submit. In all really civilized +countries, that doctrine has been abandoned. The source of +political power is here, not in heaven. We are willing that those +in heaven should control affairs there; we are willing that the +angels should have a government to suit themselves; but while we +live here, and while our interests are upon this earth, we propose +to make and execute our own laws.</p> +<p>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. It will not do to say that sinners +may vote, that an infidel may be the repository of political power, +but must not be voted for. A decent Christian who is not willing +that an infidel should be elected to an office, would not be +willing to be elected to an office by infidel votes. If infidels +are too bad to be voted for, they are certainly not good enough to +vote, and no Christian should be willing to represent such an +infamous constituency.</p> +<p>If the political theory of Mr. Talmage is carried out, of course +the question will arise in a little while, What is a Christian? It +will then be necessary to write a creed to be subscribed by every +person before he is fit to vote or to be voted for. This of +course</p> +<center>307</center> +<p>must 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 is Christianity? should be so settled? Will he +pledge himself in advance to subscribe to such a creed? Of course +he will not. He will insist that he has the right to read the Bible +for himself, and that he must be bound by his own conscience. In +this he would be right. If he has the right to read the Bible for +himself, so have I. If he is to be bound by his conscience, so am +I. If he honestly believes the Bible to be true, he must say so, in +order to preserve his manhood; and if I honestly believe it to be +uninspired,— filled with mistakes,—I must say so, or +lose my manhood. How infamous I would be should I endeavor to +deprive him of his vote, or of his right to be voted for, because +he had been true to his conscience! And how infamous he is to try +to deprive me of the right to vote, or to be voted for, because I +am true to my conscience!</p> +<p>When we were engaged in civil war, did Mr. Talmage object to any +man's enlisting in the ranks who was 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 cover</p> +<center>308</center> +<p>the fields of victory with their corpses, that this nation might +not die? At the same time, Mr. Talmage knew that every +"unconverted" soldier killed, went down to eternal fire. Does Mr. +Talmage believe that it is the duty of a man to fight for a +government in which he has no rights? Is the man who shoulders his +musket in the defence of human freedom good enough to cast a +ballot? There is in the heart of this priest the safne hatred of +real liberty that drew the sword of persecution, that built +dungeons, that forged chains and made instruments of torture.</p> +<p>Nobody, with the exception of priests, would be willing to trust +the liberties of this country in the hands of any church. In order +to show the political estimation in which the clergy are held, in +order to show the confidence the people at large have in the +sincerity and wisdom of the clergy, it is sufficient to state, that +no priest, no bishop, could by any possibility be elected President +of the United States. No party could carry that load. A fear would +fall upon the mind and heart of every honest man that this country +was about to drift back to the Middle Ages, and that the old +battles were to be refought. If the bishop running for President +was of the Methodist Church, every other church would oppose him. +If</p> +<center>309</center> +<p>he was a Catholic, the Protestants would as a body combine +against him. Why? The churches have no confidence in each other. +Why? Because they are acquainted with each other.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the infidel has a thousand times more +reason to vote against the Christian, than the Christian has to +vote against the infidel. The Christian believes in a book superior +to the Constitution—superior to all Constitutions and all +laws. The infidel believes that the Constitution and laws are +superior to any book. He is not controlled by 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 and +constitutionally expressed. The Christian believes in a power +greater than man, to which, upon the peril of eternal pain, he must +bow. His allegiance, to say the best of it, is divided. The +Christian puts the fortune of his own soul over and above the +temporal welfare of the entire world; the infidel puts the good of +mankind here and now, beyond and over all.</p> +<p>There was a time in New England when only church members were +allowed to vote, and it may be instructive to state the fact that +during that time Quakers were hanged, women were stripped, tied +to</p> +<center>310</center> +<p>carts, and whipped from town to town, and their babes sold into +slavery, or exchanged for rum. Now in that same country, thousands +and thousands of infidels vote, and yet the laws are nearer just, +women are not whipped and children are not sold.</p> +<p>If all the convicts in all the penitentiaries of the United +States could be transported to some island in the sea, and there +allowed to make a government for themselves, they would pass better +laws than John Calvin did in Geneva. They would have clearer and +better views of the rights of men, than unconvicted Christians used +to have. I do not say that these convicts are better people, but I +do say that, in my judgment, they would make better laws. They +certainly could not make worse.</p> +<p>If these convicts were taken from the prisons of the United +States, they would not dream of uniting church and state. They +would have no religious test. They would allow every man to vote +and to be voted for, no matter what his religious views might be. +They would not dream of whipping Quakers, of burning Unitarians, of +imprisoning or burning Universalists or infidels. They would allow +all the people to guess for themselves. Some of these convicts, of +course, would believe in the old ideas, and would insist upon the +suppression of free thought. Those coming from Delaware would +probably repeat with great gusto the opinions of Justice Comegys, +and insist that the whipping-post was the handmaid of +Christianity.</p> +<p>It would be hard to conceive of a much worse government than +that founded by the Puritans. They took the Bible for the +foundation of their political structure. They copied the laws given +to Moses from Sinai, and the result was one of the worst +governments that ever disgraced this world. They believed the Old +Testament to be inspired. They believed that Jehovah made laws for +all people and for all time. They had not learned the hypocrisy +that believes and avoids. They did not say: This law was once just, +but is now unjust; it was once good, but now it is infamous; it was +given by God once, but now it can only be obeyed by the devil. They +had not reached the height of biblical exegesis on which we find +the modern theologian perched, and who tells us that Jehovah has +reformed. The Puritans were consistent. They did what people must +do who honestly believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament. If +God gave laws from Sinai what right have we to repeal them?</p> +<center>312</center> +<p>As 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 the foundation of government. It is capable of too +many meanings. Nobody can find out exactly what it upholds, what it +permits, what it denounces, what it denies. These things depend +upon what part you read. If it is all true, it upholds everything +bad and denounces everything good, and it also denounces the bad +and upholds the good. Then there are passages where the good is +denounced and the bad commanded; so that any one can go to the +Bible and find some text, some passage, to uphold anything he may +desire. If he wishes to enslave his fellowmen, he will find +hundreds of passages in his favor. If he wishes to be a polygamist, +he can find his authority there. If he wishes to make war, to +exterminate his neighbors, there his warrant can be found. If, on +the other hand, he is oppressed himself, and wishes to make war +upon his king, he can find a battle-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 goes there to get his +verse, and the moderate drinker finds within the sacred lids his +best excuse.</p> +<center>313</center> +<p>Most intelligent people are now convinced that the bible is not +a guide; that in reading it you must exercise your reason; that you +can neither safely reject nor accept all; that he who takes one +passage for a staff, trips upon another; that while one text is a +light, another blows it out; that it is such a mingling of rocks +and quicksands, such a labyrinth of clews and snares—so few +flowers among so many nettles and thorns, that it misleads rather +than directs, and taken altogether, is a hindrance and not a +help.</p> +<p>Another important point made by Mr. Talmage is, that if the +Bible is thrown away, we will have nothing left to swear witnesses +on, and that consequently the administration of justice will become +impossible.</p> +<p>There was a time when the Bible did not exist, and if Mr. +Talmage is correct, of course justice was impossible then, and +truth must have been a stranger to human lips. How can we depend +upon the testimony of those who wrote the Bible, as there was no +Bible in existence while they were writing, and consequently there +was no way to take their testimony, and we have no account of their +having been sworn on the Bible after they got it finished. It is +extremely sad to think that all the nations of antiquity were +left</p> +<center>314</center> +<p>entirely without the means of eliciting truth. No wonder that +Justice was painted blindfolded.</p> +<p>What perfect fetichism it is, to imagine that a man will tell +the truth simply because he has kissed an old piece of sheepskin +stained with the saliva of all classes. A farce of this kind adds +nothing to the testimony of an honest man; it simply allows a rogue +to give weight to his false testimony. This is really the only +result that can be accomplished by kissing the Bible. A desperate +villain, for the purpose of getting revenge, or making money, will +gladly go through the ceremony, and ignorant juries and +superstitious judges will be imposed upon. The whole system of +oaths is false, and does harm instead of good. Let every man walk +into court and tell his story, and let the truth of the story be +judged by its reasonableness, taking into consideration the +character of the witness, the interest he has, and the position he +occupies in the controversy, and then let it be the business of the +jury to ascertain the real truth —to throw away the +unreasonable and the impossible, and make up their verdict only +upon what they believe to be reasonable and true. An honest man +does not need the oath, and a rascal uses it simply to accomplish +his purpose. If the history of courts</p> +<center>315</center> +<p>proved that every man, after kissing the Bible, told the truth, +and that those who failed to kiss it sometimes lied, I should be in +favor of swearing all people on the Bible; but the experience of +every lawyer is, that kissing the Bible is not always the preface +of a true story. It is often the ceremonial embroidery of a +falsehood.</p> +<p>If there is an infinite God who attends to the affairs of men, +it seems to me almost a sacrilege to publicly appeal to him in +every petty trial. If one will go into any court, and notice the +manner in which oaths are administered,—the utter lack of +solemnity—the matter-of-course air with which the whole thing +is done, he will be convinced that it is a form of no importance. +Mr. Talmage would probably agree with the judge of whom the +following story is told:</p> +<p>A witness was being sworn. The judge noticed that he was not +holding up his hand. He said to the clerk: "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."</p> +<p>My own opinion is, that if every copy of the Bible in the world +were destroyed, there would be some way to ascertain the truth in +judicial proceedings; and any other book would do just as well to +swear witnesses upon, or a block in the shape of a book covered +with some kind of calfskin could do equally well, or just the +calfskin would do. Nothing is more laughable than the performance +of this ceremony, and I have never seen in court one calf kissing +the skin of another, that I did not feel humiliated that such +things were done in the name of Justice.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage has still another argument in favor of the +preservation of the Bible. He wants to know what book could take +its place on the centretable.</p> +<p>I admit that there is much force in this. Suppose we all +admitted the Bible to be an uninspired book, it could still be kept +on the centre-table. It would be just as true then as it is now. +Inspiration can not add anything to a fact; neither can inspiration +make the immoral moral, the unjust just, or the cruel merciful. If +it is a fact that God established human slavery, that does not +prove slavery to be right; it simply shows that God was wrong. If I +have the right to use my reason in determining whether the Bible +is</p> +<center>317</center> +<p>inspired or not, and if in accordance with my reason I conclude +that it is inspired, I have still the right to use my reason in +determining whether the commandments of God are good or bad. Now, +suppose we take from the Bible every word upholding slavery, every +passage in favor of polygamy, every verse commanding soldiers to +kill women and children, it would be just as fit for the +centre-table as now. Suppose every impure word was taken from it; +suppose that the history of Tamar was left out, the biography of +Lot, and all other barbarous accounts of a barbarous people, it +would look just as well upon the centretable as now.</p> +<p>Suppose that we should become convinced that the writers of the +New Testament were mistaken as to the eternity of punishment, or +that all the passages now relied upon to prove the existence of +perdition were shown to be interpolations, and were thereupon +expunged, would not the book be dearer still to every human being +with a heart? I would like to see every good passage in the Bible +preserved. I would like to see, with all these passages from the +Bible, the loftiest sentiments from all other books that have ever +been uttered by men in all ages and of all races, bound in one +volume, and to see that</p> +<center>318</center> +<p>volume, filled with the greatest, the purest and the best, +become the household book.</p> +<p>The average Bible, on the average centre-table, is about as much +used as though it were a solid block. It is scarcely ever opened, +and people who see its covers every day are unfamiliar with its +every page.</p> +<p>I admit that some things have happened somewhat hard to explain, +and tending to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. I heard a +story, not long ago, bearing upon this very subject.</p> +<p>A man was a member of the church, but after a time, having had +bad luck in business affairs, became somewhat discouraged. Not +feeling able to contribute his share to the support of the church, +he ceased going to meeting, and finally became an average sinner. +His bad luck pursued him until he found himself and his family +without even a crust to eat. At this point, his wife told him that +she believed they were suffering from a visitation of God, and +begged him to restore family worship, and see if God would not do +something for them. Feeling that he could not possibly make matters +worse, he took the Bible from its resting place on a shelf where it +had quietly slumbered and collected the dust of many months, and +gathered his family about him.</p> +<center>319</center> +<p>He opened the sacred volume, and to his utter astonishment, +there, between the divine leaves, was a ten-dollar bill. He +immediately dropped on his knees. His wife dropped on hers, and the +children on theirs, and with streaming eyes they returned thanks to +God. He rushed to the butcher's and bought some 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 face was +radiant with joy. Just at that happy moment a knock was heard, the +door was opened, and a policeman entered and arrested the father +for passing counterfeit money.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage is also convinced that the Bible is inspired and +should be preserved because there is no other book that à +mother could give her son as he leaves the old home to make his way +in the world.</p> +<p>Thousands and thousands of mothers have presented their sons +with Bibles without knowing really what the book contains. They +simply followed the custom, and the sons as a rule honored the +Bible, not because they knew anything of it, but because it was a +gift from mother. But surely, if all the passages upholding +polygamy were out, the mother would give</p> +<center>320</center> +<p>the book to her son just as readily, and he would receive it +just as joyfully. If there were not one word in it tending to +degrade the mother, the gift would certainly be as appropriate. The +fact that mothers have presented Bibles to their sons does not +prove that the book is inspired. The most that can be proved by +this 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 one miracle recorded upon its pages. We +cannot believe that fire refused to burn, simply because the +statement happens to be in a book presented to a son by his mother, +and if all the mothers of the entire world should give Bibles to +all their children, this would not prove that it was once right to +murder mothers, or to enslave mothers, or to sell their babes.</p> +<p>The inspiration of the Bible is not a question of natural +affection. It can not be decided by the love a mother bears her +son. It is a question of fact, to be substantiated like other +facts. If the Turkish mother should give a copy of the Koran to her +son, I would still have my doubts about the inspiration of that +book; and if some Turkish soldier saved his life by having in his +pocket a copy of the Koran that accidentally stopped a bullet +just</p> +<center>321</center> +<p>opposite his heart, I should still deny that Mohammed was a +prophet of God.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more childish than to ascribe mysterious powers +to inanimate objects. To imagine that old rags made into pulp, +manufactured into paper, covered with words, and bound with the +skin of a calf or a sheep, can have any virtues when thus put +together that did not belong to the articles out of which the book +was constructed, is of course infinitely absurd.</p> +<p>In the days of slavery, negroes used to buy dried roots of other +negroes, and put these roots in their pockets, so that a whipping +would not give them pain. Kings have bought diamonds to give them +luck. Crosses and scapularies are still worn for the purpose of +affecting the inevitable march of events. People still imagine that +a verse in the Bible can step in between a cause and its effect; +really believe that an amulet, a charm, the bone of some saint, a +piece of a cross, a little image of the Virgin, a picture of a +priest, will affect the weather, will delay frost, will prevent +disease, will insure safety at sea, and in some cases prevent +hanging. The banditti of Italy have great confidence in these +things, and whenever they start upon an expedition of theft and +plunder, they</p> +<center>322</center> +<p>take images and pictures of saints with them, such as have been +blest by a priest or pope. They pray sincerely to the Virgin, to +give them luck, and see not the slightest inconsistency in +appealing to all the saints in the calendar to assist them in +robbing honest people.</p> +<p>Edmund About tells a story that illustrates the belief of the +modern Italian. A young man was gambling. Fortune was against him. +In the room was a little picture representing the Virgin and her +child. Before this picture he crossed himself, and asked the +assistance of the child. Again he put down his money and again +lost. Returning to the picture, he told the child that he had lost +all but one piece, that he was about to hazard that, and made a +very urgent request that he would favor him with divine assistance. +He put down the last piece. He lost. Going to the picture and +shaking his fist at the child, he cried out: "Miserable bambino, I +am glad they crucified you!"</p> +<p>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 intellectually the same.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage has still another argument in favor</p> +<center>323</center> +<p>of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He takes the ground that +the Bible must be inspired, because so many people believe it.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage should remember that a scientific fact does not +depend upon the vote of numbers;— it depends simply upon +demonstration; it depends upon intelligence and investigation, not +upon an ignorant multitude; it appeals to the highest, instead of +to the lowest. Nothing can be settled by popular prejudice.</p> +<p>According to Mr. Talmage, there are about three hundred million +Christians in the world. Is this true? In all countries claiming to +be Christian—including all of civilized Europe, Russia in +Asia, and every country on the Western hemisphere, we have nearly +four hundred millions of people. Mr. Talmage claims that three +hundred millions are Christians. I suppose he means by this, that +if all should perish tonight, about three hundred millions would +wake up in heaven—having lived and died good and consistent +Christians.</p> +<p>There are in Russia about eighty millions of people —how +many Christians? I admit that they have recently given more +evidence of orthodox Christianity than formerly. They have been +murdering old men;</p> +<center>324</center> +<p>they have thrust daggers into the breasts of women; they have +violated maidens—because they were Jews. Thousands and +thousands are sent each year to the mines of Siberia, by the +Christian government of Russia. Girls eighteen years of age, for +having expressed a word in favor of human liberty, are to-day +working like beasts of burden, with chains upon their limbs and +with the marks of whips upon their backs. Russia, of course, is +considered by Mr. Talmage as a Christian country—a country +utterly destitute of liberty—without freedom of the press, +without freedom of speech, where every mouth is locked and every +tongue a prisoner—a country filled with victims, soldiers, +spies, thieves and executioners. What would Russia be, in the +opinion of Mr. Talmage, 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, who are in favor of human +liberty, are not Christians. The men willing to sacrifice their +lives for the good of others, are not believers in the Christian +religion. The men who wish to break chains are infidels; the men +who make chains are Christians. Every good and sincere Catholic of +the Greek Church is a bad citizen, an enemy of progress, a foe +of</p> +<center>325</center> +<p>human liberty. Yet Mr. Talmage regards Russia as a Christian +country.</p> +<p>The sixteen millions of people in Spain are claimed as +Christians. Spain, that for centuries was the assassin of human +rights; Spain, that endeavored to spread Christianity by flame and +fagot; Spain, the soil where the Inquisition flourished, where +bigotry grew, and where cruelty was worship,—where murder was +prayer. I admit that Spain is a Christian nation. I admit that +infidelity has gained no foothold beyond the Pyrenees. The +Spaniards are orthodox. They believe in the inspiration of the Old +and New Testaments. They have no doubts about miracles—no +doubts about heaven, no doubts about hell. I admit that the +priests, the highwaymen, the bishops and thieves, are equally true +believers. The man who takes your purse on the highway, and the +priest who forgives the robber, are alike orthodox.</p> +<p>It gives me pleasure, however, to say that even in Spain there +is a dawn. Some great men, some men of genius, are protesting +against the tyranny of Catholicism. Some men have lost confidence +in the cathedral, and are beginningto ask the State to erect the +schoolhouse. They are beginning to suspect</p> +<center>326</center> +<p>that priests are for the most part impostors and plunderers.</p> +<p>According to Mr. Talmage, the twenty-eight millions in Italy are +Christians. There the Christian Church was early established, and +the popes are today the successors of St. Peter. For hundreds and +hundreds of years, Italy was the beggar of the world, and to her, +from every land, flowed streams of gold and silver. The country was +covered with convents, and monasteries, and churches, and +cathedrals filled with monks and nuns. Its roads were crowded with +pilgrims, and its dust was on the feet of the world. What has +Christianity done for Italy—Italy, its soil a blessing, its +sky a smile—Italy, with memories great enough to kindle the +fires of enthusiasm in any human breast?</p> +<p>Had it not been for a few Freethinkers, for a few infidels, for +such men as Garibaldi and Mazzini, the heaven of Italy would still +have been without a star.</p> +<p>I admit that Italy, with its popes and bandits, with its +superstition and ignorance, with its sanctified beggars, is a +Christian nation; but in a little while,— in a few +days,—when according to the prophecy of Garibaldi priests, +with spades in their hands, will dig ditches to drain the Pontine +marshes; in a little</p> +<center>327</center> +<p>while, when the pope leaves the Vatican, and seeks the +protection of a nation he has denounced,—asking alms of +intended victims; when the nuns shall marry, and the monasteries +shall become factories, and the whirl of wheels shall take the +place of drowsy prayers —then, and not until then, will Italy +be,—not a Christian nation, but great, prosperous, and +free.</p> +<p>In Italy, Giordano Bruno was burned. Some day, his monument will +rise above the cross of Rome.</p> +<p>We have in our day one example,—and so far as I know, +history records no other,—of the resurrection of a nation. +Italy has been called from the grave of superstition. She is "the +first fruits of them that "slept."</p> +<p>I admit with Mr. Talmage that Portugal is a Christian +country—that she engaged for hundreds of years in the slave +trade, and that she justified the infamous traffic by passages in +the Old Testament. I admit, also, that she persecuted the Jews in +accordance with the same divine volume. I admit that all the crime, +ignorance, destitution, and superstition in that country were +produced by the Catholic Church. I also admit that Portugal would +be better if it were Protestant.</p> +<p>Every Catholic is in favor of education enough to</p> +<center>328</center> +<p>change a barbarian into a Catholic; every Protestant is in favor +of education enough to change a Catholic into a Protestant; but +Protestants and Catholics alike are opposed to education that will +lead to any real philosophy and science. I admit that Portugal is +what it is, on account of the preaching of the gospel. I admit that +Portugal can point with pride to the triumphs of what she calls +civilization within her borders, and truthfully ascribe the glory +to the church. But in a litde while, when more railroads are built, +when telegraphs connect her people with the civilized world, a +spirit of doubt, of investigation, will manifest itself in +Portugal.</p> +<p>When the people stop counting beads, and go to the study of +mathematics; when they think more of plows than of prayers for +agricultural purposes; when they find that one fact gives more +light to the mind than a thousand tapers, and that nothing can by +any possibility be more useless than a priest,—then Portugal +will begin to cease to be what is called a Christian nation.</p> +<p>I admit that Austria, with her thirty-seven millions, is a +Christian nation—including her Croats, Hungarians, Servians, +and Gypsies. Austria was one of the assassins of Poland. When we +remember that John</p> +<center>329</center> +<p>Sobieski drove the Mohammedans from the gates of Vienna, and +rescued from the hand of the "infidel" the beleagured city, the +propriety of calling Austria a Christian nation becomes still more +apparent. If one wishes to know exactly how "Christian" Austria is, +let him read the history of Hungary, let him read the speeches of +Kossuth. There is one good thing about Austria: slowly but surely +she is undermining the church by education. Education is the enemy +of superstition. Universal education does away with the classes +born of the tyranny of ecclesiasticism— classes founded upon +cunning, greed, and brute strength. Education also tends to do away +with intellectual cowardice. The educated man is his own priest, +his own pope, his own church.</p> +<p>When cunning collects tolls from fear, the church prospers.</p> +<p>Germany is another Christian nation. Bismarck is celebrated for +his Christian virtues.</p> +<p>Only a little while ago, Bismarck, when a bill was under +consideration for ameliorating the condition of the Jews, stated +publicly that Germany was a Christian nation, that her business was +to extend and protect the religion of Jesus Christ, and that being +a Christian nation, no laws should be passed</p> +<center>330</center> +<p>ameliorating the condition of the Jews. Certainly a remark like +this could not have been made in any other than a Christian nation. +There is no freedom of the press, there is no freedom of speech, in +Germany. The Chancellor has gone so far as to declare that the king +is not responsible to the people. Germany must be a Christian +nation. The king gets his right to govern, not from his subjects, +but from God. He relies upon the New Testament. He is satisfied +that "the powers that be in Germany are ordained "of God." He is +satisfied that treason against the German throne is treason against +Jehovah. There are millions of Freethinkers in Germany. They are +not in the majority, otherwise there would be more liberty in that +country. Germany is not an infidel nation, or speech would be free, +and every man would be allowed to express his honest thoughts.</p> +<p>Wherever I see Liberty in chains, wherever the expression of +opinion is a crime, I know that that country is not infidel; I know +that the people are not ruled by reason. I also know that the +greatest men of Germany—her Freethinkers, her scientists, her +writers, her philosophers, are, for the most part, infidel. Yet +Germany is called a Christian nation, and ought to be so called +until her citizens are free.</p> +<center>331</center> +<p>France is also claimed as a Christian country. This is not +entirely true. France once was thoroughly Catholic, completely +Christian. At the time of the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, the +French were Christians. Christian France made exiles of the +Huguenots. Christian France for years and years was the property of +the Jesuits. Christian France was ignorant, cruel, orthodox and +infamous. When France was Christian, witnesses were cross-examined +with instruments of torture.</p> +<p>Now France is not entirely under Catholic control, and yet she +is by far the most prosperous nation in Europe. I saw, only the +other day, a letter from a Protestant bishop, in which he states +that there are only about a million Protestants in France, and only +four or five millions of Catholics, and admits, in a very +melancholy way, that thirty-four or thirty-five millions are +Freethinkers. The bishop is probably mistaken in his figures, but +France is the best housed, the best fed, the best clad country in +Europe.</p> +<p>Only a little while ago, France was overrun, trampled into the +very earth, by the victorious hosts of Germany, and France +purchased her peace with the savings of centuries. And yet France +is now rich and prosperous and free, and Germany poor, +discontented</p> +<center>332</center> +<p>and enslaved. Hundreds and thousands of Germans, unable to find +liberty at home, are coming to the United States.</p> +<p>I admit that England is a Christian country. Any doubts upon +this point can be dispelled by reading her history—her career +in India, what she has done in China, her treatment of Ireland, of +the American Colonies, her attitude during our Civil war; all these +things show conclusively that England is a Christian nation.</p> +<p>Religion has filled Great Britain with war. The history of the +Catholics, of the Episcopalians, of Cromwell—all the +burnings, the maimings, the brandings, the imprisonments, the +confiscations, the civil wars, the bigotry, the crime—show +conclusively that Great Britain has enjoyed to the full the +blessings of "our most holy religion."</p> +<p>Of course, Mr. Talmage claims the United States as a Christian +country. The truth is, our country is not as Christian as it once +was. When heretics were hanged in New England, when the laws of +Virginia and Maryland provided that the tongue of any man who +denied the doctrine of the Trinity should be bored with hot iron,, +and that for the second offence he should suffer death, I admit +that this country was</p> +<center>333</center> +<p>Christian. When we engaged in the slave trade, when our flag +protected piracy and murder in every sea, there is not the +slightest doubt that the United States was a Christian country. +When we believed in slavery, and when we deliberately stole the +labor of four millions of people; when we sold women and babes, and +when the people of the North enacted a law by virtue of which every +Northern man was bound to turn hound and pursue a human being who +was endeavoring to regain his liberty, I admit 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 Testament, that the bloodhound was a kind of missionary in +disguise, that the auction block was an altar, the slave pen a kind +of church, and that the whippingpost was considered almost as +sacred as the cross. At that time, our country was a Christian +nation.</p> +<p>I heard Frederick Douglass say that he lectured against slavery +for twenty years before the doors of a single church were opened to +him. In New England, hundreds of ministers were driven from their +pulpits because they preached against the crime of human slavery. +At that time, this country was a Christian nation.</p> +<center>334</center> +<p>Only a few years ago, any man speaking in favor of the rights of +man, endeavoring to break a chain from a human limb, was in danger +of being mobbed by the Christians of this country. I admit that +Delaware is still a Christian State. I heard a story about that +State the other day.</p> +<p>About fifty years ago, an old Revolutionary soldier applied for +a pension. He was asked his age, and he replied that he was fifty +years old. He was told that if that was his age, he could not have +been in the Revolutionary War, and consequently was not entitled to +any pension. He insisted, however, that he was only fifty years +old. Again they told him that there must be some mistake. He was so +wrinkled, so bowed, had so many marks of age, that he must +certainly be more than fifty years old. "Well," said the 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."</p> +<p>The fact is, we have grown less and less Christian every year +from 1620 until now, and the fact is that we have grown more and +more civilized, more and more charitable, nearer and nearer +just.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage speaks as though all the people in what he calls the +civilized world were Christians. Ad</p> +<center>335</center> +<p>mitting this to be true, I find that in these countries millions +of men are educated, trained and drilled to kill their fellow +Christians. I find Europe covered with forts to protect Christians +from Christians, and the seas filled with men-of-war for the +purpose of ravaging the coasts and destroying the cities of +Christian nations. These countries are filled with prisons, with +workhouses, with jails and with toiling, ignorant and suffering +millions. I find that Christians have invented most of the +instruments of death, that Christians are the greatest soldiers, +fighters, destroyers. I find that every Christian country is taxed +to its utmost to support these soldiers; that every Christian +nation is now groaning beneath the grievous burden of monstrous +debt, and that nearly all these debts were contracted in waging +war. These bonds, these millions, these almost incalculable +amounts, were given to pay for shot and shell, for rifle and +torpedo, for men-of-war, for forts and arsenals, and all the +devilish enginery of death. I find that each of these nations prays +to God to assist it as against all others; and when one nation has +overrun, ravaged and pillaged another, it immediately returns +thanks to the Almighty, and the ravaged and pillaged kneel and +thank God that it is no worse.</p> +<center>336</center> +<p>Mr. Talmage is welcome to all the evidence he can find in the +history of what he is pleased to call the civilized nations of the +world, tending to show the inspiration of the Bible.</p> +<p>And right here it may be well enough to say again, that the +question of inspiration can not be settled by the votes of the +superstitious millions. It can not be affected by numbers. It must +be decided by each human being for himself. If every man in this +world, with one exception, believed the Bible to be the inspired +word of God, the man who was the exception could not lose his right +to think, to investigate, and to judge for himself.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You do not think, then, that any of the +arguments brought forward by Mr. Talmage for the purpose of +establishing the inspiration of the Bible, are of any weight +whatever?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not. I do not see how it is possible to make +poorer, weaker or better arguments than he has made.</p> +<p>Of course, there can be no "evidence" of the inspiration of the +Scriptures. What is "inspiration"? Did God use the prophets simply +as instruments? Did he put his thoughts in their minds, and use +their</p> +<center>337</center> +<p>hands to make a record? Probably few Christians will agree as to +what they mean by "inspiration." The general idea is, that the +minds of the writers of the books of the Bible were controlled by +the divine will in such a way that they expressed, independently of +their own opinions, the thought of God. I believe it is 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 for the Bible than is claimed by those who wrote it. +There is no claim of "inspiration" made by the writer of First and +Second Kings. Not one word about the author having been "inspired" +is found in the book of Job, or in Ruth, or in Chronicles, or in +the Psalms, or Ecclesiastes, or in Solomon's Song, and nothing is +said about the author of the book of Esther having been "inspired." +Christians now say that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were +"inspired" to write the four gospels, and yet neither Mark, nor +Luke, nor John, nor Matthew claims to have been "inspired." If they +were "inspired," certainly they should have stated that fact. The +very first thing stated in each of the gospels should have been a +declaration by the writer that he had been "inspired," and that he +was about to write the book under the guidance of God,</p> +<center>338</center> +<p>and at the conclusion of each gospel there should have been a +solemn statement that the writer had put down nothing of himself, +but had in all things followed the direction and guidance of the +divine will. The church now endeavors to establish the inspiration +of the Bible by force, by social ostracism, and by attacking the +reputation of every man who denies or doubts. In all Christian +countries, they begin with the child in the cradle. Each infant is +told by its mother, by its father, or by some of its relatives, +that "the Bible is an inspired book." This pretended fact, by +repetition "in season and out of "season," is finally burned and +branded into the brain to such a degree that the child of average +intelligence never outgrows the conviction that the Bible 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 of Christianity is perpetually insecure. Beneath +this great religious fabric there is no rock. For eighteen +centuries, hundreds and thousands and millions of people have been +endeavoring to establish the fact that the Scriptures are inspired, +and since the dawn of science, since the first star appeared in the +night of the Middle Ages, until this moment, the number of</p> +<center>339</center> +<p>people who have doubted the fact of inspiration has steadily +increased. These doubts have not been born of ignorance, they have +not been suggested by the unthinking. They have forced themselves +upon the thoughtful, upon the educated, and now the verdict of the +intellectual world is, that the Bible is not inspired. +Notwithstanding the fact that the church has taken advantage of +infancy, has endeavored to control education, has filled all +primers and spellingbooks and readers and text books with +superstition— feeding all minds with the miraculous and +supernatural, the growth toward a belief in the natural and toward +the rejection of the miraculous has been steady and sturdy since +the sixteenth century. There has been, too, a moral growth, until +many passages in the Bible have become barbarous, inhuman and +infamous. The Bible has remained the same, while the world has +changed. In the light of physical and moral discovery, "the +inspired volume" seems in many respects absurd. If the same +progress is made in the next, as in the last, century, it is very +easy to predict the place that will then be occupied by the Bible. +By comparing long periods of time, it is easy to measure the +advance of the human race. Compare the average sermon of to-day +with the average</p> +<center>340</center> +<p>sermon of one hundred years ago. Compare what ministers teach +to-day with the creeds they profess to believe, and you will see +the immense distance that even the church has traveled in the last +century.</p> +<p>The Christians tell us that scientific men have made mistakes, +and that there is very little certainty in the domain of human +knowledge. This I admit. The man who thought the world was flat, +and who had a way of accounting for the movement of the heavenly +bodies, had what he was pleased to call a philosophy. He was, in +his way, a geologist and an astronomer. We admit that he was +mistaken; but if we claimed that the first geologist and the first +astronomer were inspired, it would not do for us to admit that any +advance had been made, or that any errors of theirs had been +corrected. We do not claim that the first scientists were inspired. +We do not claim that the last are inspired. We admit that all +scientific men are fallible. We admit that they do not know +everything. We insist that they know but little, and that even in +that little which they are supposed to know, there is the +possibility of error. The first geologist said: "The earth is +flat." Suppose that the geologists of to-day should insist that +that man was inspired, and then endeavor to show that</p> +<center>341</center> +<p>the word "flat," in the "Hebrew," did not mean quite flat, but +just a little rounded; what would we think of their honesty? The +first astronomer insisted that the sun and moon and stars revolved +around this earth—that this little earth was the centre of +the entire system. Suppose that the astronomers of to-day should +insist that that astronomer was inspired, and should try to +explain, and say that he simply used the language of the common +people, and when he stated that the sun and moon and stars revolved +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 +inspired, or that the first sculptor had the assistance of God, as +to say that the first writer, or the first bookmaker, was divinely +inspired. It is more probable that the modern geologist is inspired +than that the ancient one was, because the modern geologist is +nearer right. It is more probable that William Lloyd Garrison was +inspired upon the question of slavery than that Moses was. It is +more probable that the author of the Declaration of Independence +spoke by divine authority than that the author of the Pentateuch +did. In other words, if there can be any evidence of</p> +<center>342</center> +<p>"inspiration," it must lie in the fact of doing or saying the +best possible thing that could have been done or said at that time +or upon that subject.</p> +<p>To make myself clear: The only possible evidence of +"inspiration" would be perfection—a perfection excelling +anything that man unaided had ever attained. An "inspired" book +should excel all other books; an inspired statue should be the best +in this world; an inspired painting should be beyond all others. If +the Bible has been improved in any particular, it was not, in that +particular, ''inspired." If slavery is wrong, the Bible is not +inspired. If polygamy is vile and loathsome, the Bible is not +inspired. If wars of extermination are cruel and heartless, the +Bible is not "inspired." If there is within that book a +contradiction of any natural fact; if there is one ignorant +falsehood, if there is one mistake, then it is not "inspired." I do +not mean mistakes that have grown out of translations; but if there +was in the original manuscript one mistake, then it is not +"inspired." I do not demand a miracle; I do not demand a knowledge +of the future; I simply demand an absolute knowledge of the past. I +demand an absolute knowledge of the then present; I demand a +knowledge of the constitution of the human mind— of the facts +in nature, and that is all I demand.</p> +<center>343</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. If I understand you, you think that all +political power should come from the people; do you not believe in +any "special providence," and do you take the ground that God does +not interest himself in the affairs of nations and individuals?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Christian idea is that God made the world, +and made certain laws for the government of matter and mind, and +that he never interferes except upon special occasions, when the +ordinary laws fail to work out the desired end. Their notion is, +that the Lord now and then stops the horses simply to show that he +is driving. It seems to me that if an infinitely wise being made +the world, he must have made it the best possible; and that if he +made laws for the government of matter and mind, he must have made +the best possible laws. If this is true, not one of these laws can +be violated without producing a positive injury. It does not seem +probable that infinite wisdom would violate a law that infinite +wisdom had made.</p> +<p>Most ministers insist that God now and then interferes in the +affairs of this world; that he has not interfered as much lately as +he did formerly. When the world was comparatively new, it required +altogether more tinkering and fixing than at present.</p> +<center>344</center> +<p>Things are at last in a reasonably good condition, and +consequently a great amount of interference is not necessary. In +old times it was found necessary frequently to raise the dead, to +change the nature of fire and water, to punish people with plagues +and famine, to destroy cities by storms of fire and brimstone, to +change women into salt, to cast hailstones upon heathen, to +interfere with the movements of our planetary system, to stop the +earth not only, but sometimes to make it turn the other way, to +arrest the moon, and to make water stand up like a wall. Now and +then, rivers were divided by striking them with a coat, and people +were taken to heaven in chariots of fire. These miracles, in +addition to curing the sick, the halt, the deaf and blind, were in +former times found necessary, but since the "apostolic age," +nothing of the kind has been resorted to except in Catholic +countries. Since the death of the last apostle, God has appeared +only to members of the Catholic Church, and all modern miracles +have been performed for the benefit of Catholicism. There is no +authentic account of the Virgin Mary having ever appeared to a +Protestant. The bones of Protestant saints have never cured a +solitary disease. Protestants now say that the testimony of the +Catholics can</p> +<center>345</center> +<p>not be relied upon, and yet, the authenticity of every book in +the New Testament was established by Catholic testimony. Some few +miracles were performed in Scotland, and in fact in England and the +United States, but they were so small that they are hardly worth +mentioning. Now and then, a man was struck dead for taking the name +of the Lord in vain. Now and then, people were drowned who were +found in boats on Sunday. Whenever anybody was about to commit +murder, God has not interfered—the reason being that he gave +man free-will, and expects to hold him accountable in another +world, and there is no exception to this free-will doctrine, but in +cases where men swear or violate the Sabbath. They are allowed to +commit all other crimes without any interference on the part of the +Lord.</p> +<p>My own opinion is, that the clergy found it necessary to +preserve the Sabbath for their own uses, and for that reason +endeavored to impress the people with the enormity of its +violation, and for that purpose gave instances of people being +drowned and suddenly struck dead for working or amusing themselves +on that day. The clergy have objected to any other places of +amusement except their own, being opened on that day. They wished +to compel people either to go to</p> +<center>346</center> +<p>church or stay at home. They have also known that profanity +tended to do away with the feelings of awe they wished to +cultivate, and for that reason they have insisted that swearing was +one of the most terrible of crimes, exciting above all others the +wrath of God.</p> +<p>There was a time when people fell dead for having spoken +disrespectfully to a priest. The priest at that time pretended to +be the visible representative of God, and as such, entitled to a +degree of reverence amounting almost to worship. Several cases are +given in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland where men were +deprived of speech for having spoken rudely to a parson.</p> +<p>These stories were calculated to increase the importance of the +clergy and to convince people that they were under the special care +of the Deity. The story about the bears devouring the little +children was told in the first place, and has been repeated since, +simply to protect ministers from the laughter of children. There +ought to be carved on each side of every pulpit a bear with +fragments of children in its mouth, as this animal has done so much +to protect the dignity of the clergy.</p> +<p>Besides the protection of ministers, the drowning</p> +<center>347</center> +<p>of breakers of the Sabbath, and striking a few people dead for +using profane language, I think there is no evidence of any +providential interference in the affairs of this world in what may +be called modern times. Ministers have endeavored to show that +great calamities have been brought upon nations and cities as a +punishment for the wickedness of the people. They have insisted +that some countries have been visited with earthquakes because the +people had failed to discharge their religious duties; but as +earthquakes happened in uninhabited countries, and often at sea, +where no one is hurt, most people have concluded that they are not +sent as punishments. They have insisted that cities have been +burned as a punishment, and to show the indignation of the Lord, +but at the same time they have admitted that if the streets had +been wider, the fire departments better organized, and wooden +buildings fewer, the design of the Lord would have been +frustrated.</p> +<p>After reading the history of the world, it is somewhat difficult +to find which side the Lord is really on. He has allowed Catholics +to overwhelm and destroy Protestants, and then he has allowed +Protestants to overwhelm and destroy Catholics. He has allowed +Christianity to triumph over Paganism, and he allowed</p> +<center>348</center> +<p>Mohammedans to drive back the hosts of the cross from the +sepulchre of his son. It is curious that this God would allow the +slave trade to go on, and yet punish the violators of the Sabbath. +It is simply wonderful that he would allow kings to wage cruel and +remorseless war, to sacrifice millions upon the altar of heartless +ambition, and at the same time strike a man dead for taking his +name in vain. It is wonderful that he allowed slavery to exist for +centuries in the United States; that he allows polygamy now in +Utah; that he cares nothing for liberty in Russia, nothing for free +speech in Germany, nothing for the sorrows of the overworked, +underpaid millions of the world; that he cares nothing for the +innocent languishing in prisons, nothing for the patriots condemned +to death, nothing for the heart-broken widows and orphans, nothing +for the starving, and yet has ample time to note a sparrow's fall. +If he would only strike dead the would-be murderers; if he would +only palsy the hands of husbands' uplifted to strike their wives; +if he would render speechless the cursers of children, he could +afford to overlook the swearers and breakers of his Sabbath.</p> +<p>For one, I am not satisfied with the government of this world, +and I am going to do what little I can</p> +<center>349</center> +<p>to make it better. I want more thought and less fear, more +manhood and less superstition, less prayer and more help, more +education, more reason, more intellectual hospitality, and above +all, and over all, more liberty and kindness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that God, if there be one, when he +saves or damns a man, will take into consideration all the +circumstances of the man's life?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Suppose that two orphan boys, James and John, are +given homes. James is taken into a Christian family and John into +an infidel. James becomes a Christian, and dies in the faith. John +becomes an infidel, and dies without faith in Christ. According to +the Christian religion, as commonly preached, James will go to +heaven, and John to hell.</p> +<p>Now, suppose that God knew that if James had been raised by the +infidel family, he would have died an infidel, and that if John had +been raised by the Christian family, he would have died a +Christian. What then? Recollect that the boys did not choose the +families in which they were placed.</p> +<p>Suppose that a child, cast away upon an island in which he found +plenty of food, grew to manhood; and suppose that after he had +reached mature years,</p> +<center>350</center> +<p>the island was visited by a missionary who taught a false +religion; and suppose that this islander was convinced that he +ought to worship a wooden idol; and suppose, further, that the +worship consisted in sacrificing animals; and suppose the islander, +actuated only by what he conceived to be his duty and by +thankfulness, sacrificed a toad every night and every morning upon +the altar of his wooden god; that when the sky looked black and +threatening he sacrificed two toads; that when feeling unwell he +sacrificed three; and suppose that in all this he was honest, that +he really believed that the shedding of toad-blood would soften the +heart of his god toward him? And suppose that after he had become +fully-convinced of the truth of his religion, a missionary of the +"true religion" should visit the island, and tell the history of +the Jews—unfold the whole scheme of salvation? And suppose +that the islander should honestly reject the true religion? Suppose +he should say that he had "internal evidence" not only, but that +many miracles had been performed by his god, in his behalf; that +often when the sky was black with storm, he had sacrificed a toad, +and in a few moments the sun was again visible, the heavens blue, +and without a cloud; that on several occasions, having</p> +<center>351</center> +<p>forgotten at evening to sacrifice his toad, he found himself +unable to sleep—that his conscience smote him, he had risen, +made the sacrifice, returned to his bed, and in a few moments sunk +into a serene and happy slumber? And suppose, further, that the man +honestly believed that the efficacy of the sacrifice depended +largely on the size of the toad? Now suppose that in this belief +the man had died,—what then?</p> +<p>It must be remembered that God knew when the missionary of the +false religion went to the island; and knew that the islander would +be convinced of the truth of the false religion; and he also knew +that the missionary of the true religion could not, by any +possibility, convince the islander of the error of his way; what +then?</p> +<p>If God is infinite, we cannot speak of him as making efforts, as +being tired. We cannot consistently say that one thing is easy to +him, and another thing is hard, providing both are possible. This +being so, why did not God reveal himself to every human being? +Instead of having an inspired book, why did he not make inspired +folks? Instead of having his commandments put on tables of stone, +why did he not write them on each human brain?</p> +<center>352</center> +<p>Why was not the mind of each man so made that every religious +truth necessary to his salvation was an axiom?</p> +<p>Do we not know absolutely that man is greatly influenced by his +surroundings? If Mr. Talmage had been born in Turkey, is it not +probable that he would now be a whirling Dervish? If he had first +seen the light in Central Africa, he might now have been prostrate +before some enormous serpent; if in India, he might have been a +Brahmin, running a prayer-machine; if in Spain, he would probably +have been a priest, with his beads and holy water. Had he been born +among the North American Indians, he would speak of the "Great +Spirit," and solemnly smoke the the pipe of peace.</p> +<p>Mr. Talmage teaches that it is the duty of children to +perpetuate the errors of their parents; consequently, the religion +of his parents determined his theology. It is with him not a +question of reason, but of parents; not a question of argument, but +of filial affection. He does not wish to be a philosopher, but an +obedient son. Suppose his father had been a Catholic, and his +mother a Protestant,—what then? Would he show contempt for +his mother by following the path of his father; or would he +show</p> +<center>353</center> +<p>disrespect for his father, by accepting the religion of his +mother; or would he have become a Protestant with Catholic +proclivities, or a Catholic with Protestant leanings? Suppose his +parents had both been infidels—what then?</p> +<p>Is it not better for each one to decide honestly for himself? +Admitting that your parents were good and kind; 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 can +honor his parents by being a hypocrite, or an intellectual coward. +Whoever is absolutely true to himself, is true to his parents, and +true to the whole world. Whoever is untrue to himself, is false to +all mankind. Religion must be an individual matter. If there is a +God, and if there is a day of judgment, the church that a man +belongs to will not be tried, but the man will be tried.</p> +<p>It is a fact that the religion of most people was made for them +by others; that they have accepted certain dogmas, not because they +have examined them, but because they were told that they were true. +Most of the people in the United States, had they been born in +Turkey, would now be Mohammedans, and most of the Turks, had they +been born in Spain, would now be Catholics.</p> +<center>354</center> +<p>It is almost, if not quite, impossible for a man to rise +entirely above the ideas, views, doctrines and religions of his +tribe or country. No one expects to find philosophers in Central +Africa, or scientists among the Fejees. No one expects to find +philosophers or scientists in any country where the church has +absolute control.</p> +<p>If there is an infinitely good and wise God, of course he will +take into consideration the surroundings of every human being. He +understands the philosophy of environment, and of heredity. He +knows exactly the influence of the mother, of all associates, of +all associations. He will also take into consideration the amount, +quality and form of each brain, and whether the brain was healthy +or diseased. He will take into consideration the strength of the +passions, the weakness of the judgment. He will know exactly the +force of all temptation—what was resisted. He will take an +account of every effort made in the right direction, and will +understand all the winds and waves and quicksands and shores and +shallows in, upon and around the sea of every life.</p> +<p>My own opinion is, that if such a being exists, and all these +things are taken into consideration, we will</p> +<center>355</center> +<p>be absolutely amazed to see how small the difference is between +the "good" and the "bad." Certainly there is no such difference as +would justify a being of infinite wisdom and benevolence in +rewarding one with eternal joy and punishing the other with eternal +pain.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What are the principal reasons that have +satisfied you that the Bible is not an inspired book?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The great evils that have afflicted this world +are:</p> +<p><i>First</i>. Human slavery—where men have bought and sold +their fellow-men—sold babes from mothers, and have practiced) +every conceivable cruelty upon the helpless.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. Polygamy—an institution that destroys the +home, that treats woman as a simple chattel, that does away with +the sanctity of marriage, and with all that is sacred in love.</p> +<p><i>Third</i>. Wars of conquest and extermination— by which +nations have been made the food of the sword.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. The idea entertained by each nation that all +other nations are destitute of rights—in other</p> +<center>356</center> +<p>words, patriotism founded upon egotism, prejudice, and love of +plunder.</p> +<p><i>Fifth</i>. Religious persecution.</p> +<p><i>Sixth</i>. The divine right of kings—an idea that rests +upon the inequality of human rights, and insists that people should +be governed without their consent; that the right of one man to +govern another comes from God, and not from the consent of the +governed. This is caste—one of the most odious forms of +slavery.</p> +<p><i>Seventh</i>. A belief in malicious supernatural +beings—devils, witches, and wizards.</p> +<p><i>Eighth</i>. A belief in an infinite being who ordered, +commanded, established and approved all these evils.</p> +<p><i>Ninth</i>. The idea that one man can be good for another, or +bad for another—that is to say, that one can be rewarded for +the goodness of another, or justly punished for the sins of +another.</p> +<p><i>Tenth</i>. The dogma that a finite being can commit an +infinite sin, and thereby incur the eternal displeasure of an +infinitely good being, and be justly subjected to eternal +torment.</p> +<p>My principal objection to the Bible is that it sustains all of +these ten evils—that it is the advocate of</p> +<center>357</center> +<p>human slavery, the friend of polygamy; that within its pages I +find the command to wage wars of extermination; that I find also +that the Jews were taught to hate foreigners—to consider all +human beings as inferior to themselves; I also find persecution +commanded as a religious duty; that kings were seated upon their +thrones by the direct act of God, and that to rebel against a king +was rebellion against God. I object to the Bible also because I +find within its pages the infamous spirit of caste—I see the +sons of Levi set apart as the perpetual beggars and governors of a +people; because I find the air filled with demons seeking to injure +and betray the sons of men; because this book is the fountain of +modern superstition, the bulwark of tyranny and the fortress of +caste. This book also subverts the idea of justice by threatening +infinite punishment for the sins of a finite being.</p> +<p>At the same time, I admit—as I always have +admitted—that there are good passages in the Bible— +good laws, good teachings, with now and then a true line of +history. But when it is asserted that every word was written by +inspiration—that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness is +its author,—then I raise the standard of revolt.</p> +<center>358</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the declaration of Mr. +Talmage that the Bible will be read in heaven throughout all the +endless ages of eternity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course I know but very little as to what is or +will be done in heaven. My knowledge of that country is somewhat +limited, and it may be possible that the angels will spend most of +their time in turning over the sacred leaves of the Old Testament. +I can not positively deny the statement of the Reverend Mr. Talmage +as I have but very little idea as to how the angels manage to kill +time.</p> +<p>The Reverend Mr. Spurgeon stated in a sermon that some people +wondered what they would do through all eternity in heaven. He said +that, as for himself, for the first hundred thousand years he would +look at the wound in one of the Savior's feet, and for the next +hundred thousand years he would look at the wound in his other +foot, and for the next hundred thousand years he would look at the +wound in one of his hands, and for the next hundred thousand years +he would look at the wound in the other hand, and for the next +hundred thousand years he would look at the wound in his side.</p> +<p>Surely, nothing could be more delightful than this</p> +<center>359</center> +<p>A man capable of being happy in such employment, could of course +take great delight in reading even the genealogies of the Old +Testament. It is very easy to see what a glow of joy would +naturally overspread the face of an angel while reading the history +of the Jewish wars, how the seraphim and cherubim would clasp their +rosy palms in ecstasy over the fate of Korah and his company, and +what laughter would wake the echoes of the New Jerusalem as some +one told again the story of the children and the bears; and what +happy groups, with folded pinions, would smilingly listen to the +109th Psalm.</p> +<a name="image-0001" id="image-0001"><!--IMG--></a> +<center><img src="images/image.file" width="200" height="150" alt= +" 371 " /></center> +<p>An orthodox "state of mind"</p> +<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.</h2> +<p><i>As Mr. Talmage delivered the series of sermons referred to in +these interviews, for the purpose of furnishing arguments to the +young, so that they might not be misled by the sophistry of modern +infi-delity, I have thought it best to set forth, for use in Sunday +schools, the pith and marrow of what he has been pleased to say, in +the form of</i></p> +<center>A SHORTER CATECHISM.</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who made you?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Jehovah, the original Presbyterian.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What else did he make?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He made the world and all things.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he make the world out of nothing?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did he make it out of?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Out of his "omnipotence." Many infidels have +pretended that if God made the universe, and if there was nothing +until he did make it, he had nothing to make it out of. Of course +this is perfectly absurd when we remember that he always had his +"omnipotence and that is, undoubtedly, the material used.</p> +<center>364</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he create his own "omnipotence"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not, he was always omnipotent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then if he always had "omnipotence," he did not +"create" the material of which the universe is made; he simply took +a portion of his "omnipotence" and changed it to "universe"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly, that is the way I understand it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is he still omnipotent, and has he as much +"omnipotence" now as he ever had?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I suppose he has.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How long did it take God to make the +universe?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Six "good-whiles."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How long is a "good-while"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That will depend upon the future discoveries of +geologists. "Good-whiles" are of such a nature that they can be +pulled out, or pushed up; and it is utterly impossible for any +infidel, or scientific geologist, to make any period that a +"good-while" won't fit.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you understand by "the "morning and +evening" of a "good-while"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course the words "morning and</p> +<center>365</center> +<p>"evening" are used figuratively, and mean simply the beginning +and the ending, of each "good-while."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. On what day did God make vegetation?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. On the third day.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was that before the sun was made?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; a "good-while" before.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did vegetation grow without sunlight?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My own opinion is, that it was either "nourished +by the glare of volcanoes in the moon or "it may have gotten +sufficient light from rivers "of molten granite;" or, "sufficient +light might have "been emitted by the crystallization of rocks." It +has been suggested that light might have been furnished by +fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs and worms, but this I regard as +going too far.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that light emitted by rocks would +be sufficient to produce trees?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, with the assistance of the "Aurora +"Borealis, or even the Aurora Australis;" but with both, most +assuredly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the light of which you speak was sufficient, +why was the sun made?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. To keep time with.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did God make man of?</p> +<center>366</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He made man of dust and "omnipo"tence."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he make a woman at the same time that he +made a man?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; he thought at one time to avoid the necessity +of making a woman, and he caused all the animals to pass before +Adam, to see what he would call them, and to see whether a fit +companion could be found for him. Among them all, not one suited +Adam, and Jehovah immediately saw that he would have to make an +help-meet on purpose.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What was woman made of?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. She was made out of "man's side, out of his right +side," and some more "omnipotence." Infidels say that she was made +out of a rib, or a bone, but that is because they do not understand +Hebrew.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What was the object of making woman out of +man's side?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. So that a young man would think more of a +neighbor's girl than of his own uncle or grandfather.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did God do with Adam and Eve after he got +them done?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He put them into a garden to see what they would +do.</p> +<center>367</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know where the Garden of Eden was, and +have we ever found any place where a "river parted and became into +four heads"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We are not certain where this garden was, and the +river that parted into four heads cannot at present be found. +Infidels have had a great deal to say about these four rivers, but +they will wish they had even one, one of these days.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What happened to Adam and Eve in the +garden?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were tempted by a snake who was an +exceedingly good talker, and who probably came in walking on the +end of his tail. This supposition is based upon the fact that, as a +punishment, he was condemned to crawl on his belly. Before that +time, of course, he walked upright.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What happened then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Our first parents gave way, ate of the forbidden +fruit, and in consequence, disease and death 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 man could have +been blown into a thousand atoms by dynamite, and the pieces would +immediately have come together again. Fire would have refused +to</p> +<center>368</center> +<p>burn and water to drown; there could have been no hunger, no +thirst; all things would have been equally healthy.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you mean to say that there would have been +no death in the world, either of animals, insects, or persons?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you also think that all briers and thorns +sprang from the same source, and that had the apple not been eaten, +no bush in the world would have had a thorn, and brambles and +thistles would have been unknown?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would there have been no poisonous plants, no +poisonous reptiles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, sir; there would have been none; there would +have been no evil in the world if Adam and Eve had not partaken of +the forbidden fruit.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was the snake who tempted them to eat, +evil?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. '</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was he in the world before the forbidden fruit +was eaten?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he was; he tempted them to eat it</p> +<center>369</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. How, then, do you account for the fact that, +before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an evil serpent was in the +world?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Perhaps apples had been eaten in other +worlds.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not wonderful that such awful +consequences flowed from so small an act?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is not for you to reason about it; you should +simply remember that God is omnipotent. There is but one way to +answer these things, and that is to admit their truth. Nothing so +puts the Infinite out of temper as to see a human being impudent +enough to rely upon his reason. The moment we rely upon our reason, +we abandon God, and try to take care of ourselves. Whoever relies +entirely upon God, has no need of reason, and reason has no need of +him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were our first parents under the immediate +protection of an infinite God?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did he not protect them? Why did he not +warn them of this snake? Why did he not put them on their guard? +Why did he not make them so sharp, intellectually, that they could +not be deceived? Why did he not destroy that</p> +<center>370</center> +<p>snake; or how did he come to make him; what did he make him +for?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. You must remember that, although God made Adam +and Eve perfectly good, still he was very anxious to test them. He +also gave them the power of choice, knowing at the same time +exactly what they would choose, and knowing that he had made them +so that they must choose in a certain way. A being of infinite +wisdom tries experiments. Knowing exactly what will happen, he +wishes to see if it will.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What punishment did God inflict upon Adam and +Eve for the sin of having eaten the forbidden fruit?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. 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 +deprived of their natural liberty. On account of the sin of Adam +and Eve, God cursed the ground, saying that it should bring forth +thorns and thistles, and that man should eat his bread in sorrow, +and that he should eat the herb of the field.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he turn them out of the garden because of +their sin?</p> +<center>371</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. The reason God gave for turning them 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."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the man had eaten of the tree of life, would +he have lived forever?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was he turned out to prevent his eating?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He was.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then the Old Testament tells us how we lost +immortality, not that we are immortal, does it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; it tells us how we lost it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was God afraid that Adam and Eve might get back +into the garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose he was, as he placed "cher"ubim and a +flaming sword which turned every "way to guard the tree of +life."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has any one ever seen any of these +cherubim?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not that I know of.</p> +<center>372</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Where is the flaming sword now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some angel has it in heaven.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you understand that God made coats of skins, +and clothed Adam and Eve when he turned them out of the garden?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, sir.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really believe that the infinite God +killed some animals, took their skins from them, cut out and sewed +up clothes for Adam and Eve?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Bible says so; we know that he had patterns +for clothes, because he showed some to Moses on Mount Sinai.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. About how long did God continue to pay +particular attention to his children in this world?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For about fifteen hundred years; and some of the +people lived to be nearly a thousand years of age.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did this God establish any schools or +institutions of learning? Did he establish any church? Did he +ordain any ministers, or did he have any revivals?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; he allowed the world to go on pretty much in +its own way. He did not even keep his own boys at home. They came +down and made</p> +<center>373</center> +<p>love to the daughters of men, and finally the world got +exceedingly bad.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did God do then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He made up his mind that he would drown them. You +see they were all totally depraved,—in every joint and sinew +of their bodies, in every drop of their blood, and in every thought +of their brains.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he drown them all?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, he saved eight, to start with again.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were these eight persons totally depraved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did he not kill them, and start over again +with a perfect pair? Would it not have been better to have had his +flood at first, before he made anybody, and drowned the snake?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "God's way are not our ways;" and besides, you +must remember that "a thousand years "are as one day" with God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did God destroy the people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. By water; it rained forty days and forty nights, +and "the fountains of the great deep were "broken up."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How deep was the water?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. About five miles.</p> +<center>374</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. How much did it rain each day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. About eight hundred feet; though the better +opinion now is, that it was a local flood. Infidels have raised +objections and pressed them to that degree that most orthodox +people admit that the flood was rather local.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If it was a local flood, why did they put birds +of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds could have avoided a +local flood?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If you take this away from us, what do you +propose to give us in its place? Some of the best people of the +world have believed this story. Kind husbands, loving mothers, and +earnest patriots have believed it, and that is sufficient.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. At the time God made these people, did he know +that he would have to drown them all?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know when he made them that they would +all be failures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why, then, did he make them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He made them for his own glory, and no man should +disgrace his parents by denying it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were the people after the flood just as bad as +they were before?</p> +<center>375</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. About the same.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did they try to circumvent God?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They got together for the purpose of building a +tower, the top of which should reach to heaven, so that they could +laugh at any future floods, and go to heaven at any time they +desired.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did God hear about this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did he say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He said: "Go to; let us go down," and see what +the people are doing; I am satisfied they will succeed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How were the people prevented from +succeeding?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. God confounded their language, so that the mason +on top could not cry "mort'!" to the hod-carrier below; he could +not think of the word to use, to save his life, and the building +stopped.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If it had not been for the confusion of tongues +at Babel, do you really think that all the people in the world +would have spoken just the same language, and would have pronounced +every word precisely the same?</p> +<center>376</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If it had not been, then, for the confusion of +languages, spelling books, grammars and dictionaries would have +been useless?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do any two people in the whole world speak the +same language, now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course they don't, and this is one of the +great evidences that God introduced confusion into the languages. +Every error in grammar, every mistake in spelling, every blunder in +pronunciation, proves the truth of the Babel story.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. This being so, this miracle is the best +attested of all?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose it is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not think that a confusion of tongues +would bring men together instead of separating them? Would not a +man unable to converse with his fellow feel weak instead of strong; +and would not people whose language had been confounded cling +together for mutual support?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. According to nature, yes; according to theology, +no; and these questions must be answered according to theology. And +right here, it may be well enough to state, that in theology the +unnatural</p> +<center>377</center> +<p>is the probable, and the impossible is what has always happened. +If theology were simply natural, anybody could be a theologian.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did God ever make any other special efforts to +convert the people, or to reform the world?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom and +Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you suppose it was really brimstone?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Undoubtedly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think this brimstone came from the +clouds?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Let me tell you that you have no right to examine +the Bible in the light of what people are pleased to call +"science." The natural has nothing to do with the supernatural. +Naturally there would be no brimstone in the clouds, but +supernaturally there might be. God could make brimstone out of his +"omnipotence." We do not know really what brimstone is, and nobody +knows exactly how brimstone is made. As a matter of fact, all the +brimstone in the world might have fallen at that time.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Lot's wife was changed into +salt?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course she was. A miracle was per</p> +<center>378</center> +<p>formed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt made by changing +Lot's wife into that article, was standing. Christian travelers +have seen it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do you think she was changed into salt?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. For the purpose of keeping the event fresh in the +minds of men.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. God having failed to keep people innocent in a +garden; having failed to govern them outside of a garden; having +failed to reform them by water; having failed to produce any good +result by a confusion of tongues; having failed to reform them with +fire and brimstone, what did he then do?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He concluded that he had no time to waste on them +all, but that he would have to select one tribe, and turn his +entire attention to just a few folks.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Whom did he select?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. A man by the name of Abram.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What kind of man was Abram?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If you wish to know, read the twelfth chapter of +Genesis; and if you still have any doubts as to his character, read +the twentieth chapter of the same book, and you will see that he +was a man who made merchandise of his wife's body. He had had</p> +<center>379</center> +<p>such good fortune in Egypt, that he tried the experiment again +on Abimelech.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Abraham show any gratitude?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; he offered to sacrifice his son, to show his +confidence in Jehovah.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What became of Abraham and his people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. God took such care of them, that in about two +hundred and fifteen years they were all slaves in the land of +Egypt.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How long did they remain in slavery?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Two hundred and fifteen years.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were they the same people that God had promised +to take care of?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was God at that time, in favor of slavery?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not at that time. He was angry at the Egyptians +for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards authorized the Jews to +enslave other people.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What means did he take to liberate the +Jews?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He sent his agents to Pharaoh, and demanded their +freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing, he afflicted the people, who +had nothing to do with</p> +<center>380</center> +<p>it, with various plagues,—killed children, and tormented +and tortured beasts.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was such conduct Godlike?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. If you have anything against your +neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture his horse, or torment +his dog. Nothing can be nobler than this. You see it is much better +to injure his animals than to injure him. To punish animals for the +sins of their owners must be just, or God would not have done it. +Pharaoh insisted on keeping the people in slavery, and therefore +God covered the bodies of oxen and cows with boils. He also bruised +them to death with hailstones. From this we infer, that "the loving +kindness of God is over all his works."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider such treatment of animals +consistent with divine mercy?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. You know that under the Mosaic +dispensation, when a man did a wrong, he could settle with God by +killing an ox, or a sheep, or some doves. If the man failed to kill +them, of course God would kill them. It was upon this principle +that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians. They had sinned, +and he merely took his pay.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How was it possible, under the old +dispensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?</p> +<center>381</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. All you had to do was to take an innocent animal, +bring it to the altar, cut its throat, and sprinkle the altar with +its blood. Certain parts of it were to be given to the butcher as +his share, and the rest was to be burnt on the altar. When God saw +an animal thus butchered, and smelt the warm blood mingled with the +odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and the smile of +forgiveness shed its light upon his face. Of course, infidels laugh +at these things; but what can you expect of men who have not been +"born "again"? "The carnal mind is enmity with God." +<i>Question</i>. What else did God do in order to induce Pharaoh to +liberate the Jews?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He had his agents throw down a cane in the +presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah changed this cane into a +serpent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did this convince Pharaoh?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; he sent for his own magicians. +<i>Question</i>. What did they do?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They threw down some canes and they also were +changed into serpents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Jehovah change the canes of the Egyptian +magicians into snakes?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose he did, as he is the only one capable +of performing such a miracle.</p> +<center>382</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the rod of Aaron was changed into a serpent +in order to convince Pharaoh that God had sent Aaron and Moses, why +did God change the sticks of the Egyptian magicians into +serpents—why did he discredit his own agents, and render +worthless their only credentials?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, we cannot explain the conduct of Jehovah; +we are perfectly satisfied that it was for the best. Even in this +age of the world God allows infidels to overwhelm his chosen people +with arguments; he allows them to discover facts that his ministers +can not answer, and yet we are satisfied that in the end God will +give the victory to us. All these things are tests of faith. It is +upon this principle that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis, +that he permits astronomy apparently to contradict his holy +word.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did God do with these people after Pharaoh +allowed them to go?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Finding that they were not fit to settle a new +country, owing to the fact that when hungry they longed for food, +and sometimes when their lips were cracked with thirst insisted on +having water, God in his infinite mercy had them marched round and +round, back and forth, through a barren wilder</p> +<center>383</center> +<p>ness, until all, with the exception of two persons, died.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did he do this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because he had promised these people that he +would take them "to a land flowing with "milk and honey."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was God always patient and kind and merciful +toward his children while they were in the wilderness?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, he always was merciful and kind and patient. +Infidels have taken the ground that he visited them with plagues +and disease and famine; that he had them bitten by serpents, and +now and then allowed the ground to swallow a few thousands of them, +and in other ways saw to it that they were kept as comfortable and +happy as was consistent with good government; but all these things +were for their good; and the fact is, infidels have no real sense +of justice.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did God happen to treat the Israelites in +this way, when he had promised Abraham that he would take care of +his progeny, and when he had promised the same to the poor wretches +while they were slaves in Egypt?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because God is unchangeable in his na</p> +<center>384</center> +<p>ture, and wished to convince them that every being should be +perfectly faithful to his promise.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was God driven to madness by the conduct of his +chosen people?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Almost.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know exactly what they would do when he +chose them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Exactly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were. They worshiped other gods —gods +made of wood and stone.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not wonderful that they were not +convinced of the power of God, by the many miracles wrought in +Egypt and in the wilderness?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, it is very wonderful; but the Jews, who must +have seen bread rained from heaven; who saw water gush from the +rocks and follow them up hill and down; who noticed that their +clothes did not wear out, and did not even get shiny at the knees, +while the elbows defied the ravages of time, and their shoes +remained perfect for forty years; it is wonderful that when they +saw the ground open and swallow their comrades; when they saw God +talking face to face with Moses as a man talks with his friend; +after they saw the cloud by day and the</p> +<center>385</center> +<p>pillar of fire by night,—it is absolutely astonishing that +they had more faith in a golden calf that they made themselves, +than in Jehovah.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How is it that the Jews had no confidence in +these miracles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because they were there and saw them.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that it is necessary for us to +believe all the miracles of the Old Testament in order to be +saved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Old Testament is the foundation of the New. +If the Old Testament is not inspired, then the New is of no value. +If the Old Testament is inspired, all the miracles are true, and we +cannot believe that God would allow any errors, or false +statements, to creep into an inspired volume, and to be perpetuated +through all these years.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Should we believe the miracles, whether they +are reasonable or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly; if they were reasonable, they would +not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness that appeals to our +credulity and our faith. It is impossible to have theological faith +in anything that can be demonstrated. It is the office of faith to +believe, not only without evidence, but in spite of evidence. It is +impossible for the carnal mind to</p> +<center>386</center> +<p>believe that Samsons muscle depended upon the length of his +hair. "God has made the wisdom of "this world foolishness." Neither +can the unconverted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept by +ravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel would in and of +itself produce meal, or that an earthen pot could create oil. But +to a Christian, in order that a widow might feed a preacher, the +truth of these stories is perfectly apparent.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How should we regard the wonderful stories of +the Old Testament?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They should be looked upon as "types" and +"symbols." They all have a spiritual significance. The reason I +believe the story of Jonah is, that Jonah is a type of Christ.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe the story of Jonah to be a true +account of a literal fact?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. You must remember that Jonah was not +swallowed by a whale. God "pre"pared a great fish" for that +occasion. Neither is it by any means certain that Jonah was in the +belly of this whale. "He probably stayed in his mouth." Even if he +was in his stomach, it was very easy for him to defy the ordinary +action of gastric juice by rapidly walking up and down..</p> +<center>387</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Jonah was really in the +whale's stomach?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My own opinion is that he stayed in his mouth. +The only objection to this theory is, that it is more reasonable +than the other and requires less faith. Nothing could be easier +than for God to make a fish large enough to furnish ample room for +one passenger in his mouth. I throw out this suggestion simply that +you may be able to answer the objections of infidels who are always +laughing at this story.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really believe that Elijah went to +heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses of fire?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What was this miracle performed for?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. To convince the people of the power of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who saw the miracle?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nobody but Elisha.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was he convinced before that time?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh yes; he was one of God's prophets.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose that in these days two men should leave +a town together, and after a while one of them should come back +having on the clothes of the other, and should account for the fact +that he had</p> +<center>388</center> +<p>his friend's clothes by saying that while they were going along +the road together a chariot of fire came down from heaven drawn by +fiery steeds, and thereupon his friend got into the carriage, threw +him his clothes, and departed,—would you believe it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course things like that don't happen in these +days; God does not have to rely on wonders now.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you mean that he performs no miracles at the +present day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We cannot say that he does not perform miracles +now, but we are not in position to call attention to any particular +one. Of course he supervises the affairs of nations and men and +does whatever in his judgment is necessary.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Samson's strength depended on +the length of his hair?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Bible so states, and the Bible is true. A +physiologist might say that a man could not use the muscle in his +hair for lifting purposes, but these same physiologists could not +tell you how you move a finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, +actuated by the pride of intellect, they insist that the length of +a man's hair could not determine his strength. God says it did; the +physiologist says that it did not; we</p> +<center>389</center> +<p>can not hesitate whom to believe. For the purpose of avoiding +eternal agony I am willing to believe anything; I am willing to say +that strength depends upon the length of hair, or faith upon the +length of ears. I am perfectly willing to believe that a man caught +three hundred foxes, and put fire brands between their tails; that +he slew thousands with a bone, and that he made a bee hive out of a +lion. I will believe, if necessary, that when this man's hair was +short he hardly had strength enough to stand, and that when it was +long, he could carry away the gates of 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 these stories, +he never would have told them, and why should a man put his soul in +peril by trying to disprove one of the statements of the Lord?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose it should turn out that some of these +miracles depend upon mistranslations of the original Hebrew, should +we still believe them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The safe side is the best side. It is far better +to err on the side of belief, than on the side of infidelity. God +does not threaten anybody with eternal punishment for believing too +much.</p> +<center>390</center> +<p>Danger lies on the side of investigation, on the side of +thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutely safe. As they diverge +from that point,—as they rise in the intellectual scale, as +the brain develops, as the faculties enlarge, the danger increases. +I know that some biblical students now take the ground that Samson +caught no foxes,—that he only took sheaves of wheat that had +been already cut and bound, set them on fire, and threw them into +the grain still standing. If this is what he did, of course there +is nothing miraculous about it, and the value of the story is lost. +So, others contend that Elijah was not fed by the ravens, but by +the Arabs. They tell us that the Hebrew word standing for "Arab" +also stands 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 no harm to believe +that ravens brought bread and flesh to a prophet of God. Where they +got their bread and flesh is none of my business; how they knew +where the prophet was, and recognized him; or how God talks to +ravens, or how he gave them directions, I have no right to inquire. +I leave these questions to the scientists, the blasphemers, and +thinkers. There are many people in the church anxious to</p> +<center>391</center> +<p>get the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands, I have no +doubt, would be greatly gratified to learn that there is, in fact, +nothing miraculous in Scripture; but when you take away the +miraculous, you take away the supernatural; when you take away the +supernatural, you destroy the ministry; and when you take away the +ministry, hundreds of thousands of men will be left without +employment.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptians were not +converted by the miracles wrought in their country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, they all would have been, if God had not +purposely hardened their hearts to prevent it. Jehovah always took +great delight in furnishing the evidence, and then hardening the +man's heart so that he would not believe it. After all the miracles +that had been performed in Egypt,—the most wonderful that +were ever done in any country, the Egyptians were as unbelieving as +at first; they pursued the Israelites, knowing that they were +protected by an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them, came +back and worshiped their own false gods just as firmly as before. +All of which shows the unreasonableness of a Pagan, and the natural +depravity of human nature.</p> +<center>392</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did it happen that the Canaanites were +never convinced that the Jews were assisted by Jehovah?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They must have been an exceedingly brave people +to contend so many years with the chosen people of God. +Notwithstanding all their cities were burned time and time again; +notwithstanding all the men, women and children were put to the +edge of the sword; notwithstanding the taking of all their cattle +and sheep, they went right on fighting just as valiantly and +desperately as ever. Each one lost his life many times, and was +just as ready for the next conflict. My own opinion is, that God +kept them alive by raising them from the dead after each battle, +for the purpose of punishing the Jews. God used his enemies as +instruments for the civilization of the Jewish people. He did not +wish to convert them, because they would give him much more trouble +as Jews than they did as Canaanites. He had all the Jews he could +conveniently take care of. He found it much easier to kill a +hundred Canaanites than to civilize one Jew.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the fact that the +heathen were not surprised at the stopping of the sun and moon?</p> +<center>393</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were so ignorant that they had not the +slightest conception of the real cause of the phenomenon. Had they +known the size of the earth, and the relation it sustained to the +other heavenly bodies; had they known the magnitude of the sun, and +the motion of the moon, they would, in all probability, have been +as greatly astonished as the Jews were; but being densely ignorant +of astronomy, it must have produced upon them not the slightest +impression. But we must remember that the sun and moon were not +stopped for the purpose of converting these people, but to give +Joshua more time to kill them. As soon as we see clearly the +purpose of Jehovah, we instantly perceive how admirable were the +means adopted.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not consider the treatment of the +Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. To a totally depraved man, it does look cruel; to +a being without any good in him,—to one who has inherited the +rascality of many generations, the murder of innocent women and +little children does 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 assassination of men, and the +violation of captive maidens,</p> +<center>394</center> +<p>do not seem consistent with infinite goodness. But when one has +been "born again," when "the love "of God has been shed abroad in +his heart," when he 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 violation of women, the slaughter of babes, and the +destruction of countless thousands, is the highest evidence of the +goodness, the mercy, and the long-suffering of God. When a man has +been "born again," all the passages of the Old Testament that +appear so horrible and so unjust to one in his natural state, +become the dearest, the most consoling, and the most beautiful of +truths. The real Christian reads the accounts of these ancient +battles with the greatest possible satisfaction. To one who really +loves his enemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women, and the +cries of babes, make music sweeter than the zephyr's breath.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In your judgment, why did God destroy the +Canaanites?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. To prevent their contaminating his chosen people. +He knew that if the Jews were allowed to live with such neighbors, +they would</p> +<center>395</center> +<p>finally become as bad as the Canaanites themselves. He wished to +civilize his chosen people, and it was therefore necessary for him +to destroy the heathen.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jews after he +had "removed" the Canaanites?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, not entirely. He had to allow the heathen +he had not destroyed to overrun the whole land and make captives of +the Jews. This was done for the good of his chosen people.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not quite.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing +them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, we must admit that the experiment never was +a conspicuous success. The Jews were chosen by the Almighty 430 +years before he appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was their +direct Governor. He attended personally to their religion and +politics, and gave up a great part of his valuable time for about +two thousand years, to the management of their affairs; and yet, +such was the condition of the Jewish people, after they had had all +these advantages, that when there arose among them a perfectly +kind, just, generous and honest man, these people, with whom God +had been laboring for so</p> +<center>396</center> +<p>many centuries, deliberately put to death that good and loving +man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that God really endeavored to +civilize the Jews?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This is an exceedingly hard question. If he had +really tried to do it, of course he could have done it. We must not +think of limiting the power of the infinite. But you must remember +that if he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he had educated +them up to the plane of intellectual liberty, and made them just +and kind and merciful, like himself, they would not have crucified +Christ, and you can see at once the awful condition in which we +would all be to-day. No atonement could have been made; and if no +atonement had been made, then, according to the Christian system, +the whole world would have been lost. We must admit that there was +no time in the history of the Jews from Sinai to Jerusalem, that +they would not have put a man like Christ to death.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. So you think that, after all, it was not God's +intention that the Jews should become civilized?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We do not know. We can only say that "God's ways +are not our ways." It may be that God took them in his special +charge, for the</p> +<center>397</center> +<p>purpose of keeping them bad enough to make the necessary +sacrifice. That may have been the divine plan. In any event, it is +safer to believe the explanation that is the most unreasonable.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Christ knew the Jews would +crucify him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that when he chose Judas he knew +that he would betray him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know when Judas went to the chief priest +and made the bargain for the delivery of Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did he allow himself to be betrayed, if he +knew the plot?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live by, +but you should read the last words of Paine and Voltaire.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Christ knew that Judas would betray him, why +did he choose him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of the French +Revolution—when they carried a woman through the streets and +worshiped her as the goddess of Reason.</p> +<center>398</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would not the mission of Christ have been a +failure had no one betrayed him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and recanted on his +death-bed, and died a blaspheming infidel besides.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not clear that an atonement was +necessary; and is it not equally clear that the atonement could not +have been made unless somebody had betrayed Christ; and unless the +Jews had been wicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course the atonement had to be made. It was a +part of the "divine plan" that Christ should be betrayed, and that +the Jews should be wicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the world +would have been lost.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose Judas had understood the divine plan, +what ought he to have done? Should he have betrayed Christ, or let +somebody else do it; or should he have allowed the world to perish, +including his own soul?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If you take the Bible away from the world, "how +would it be possible to have witnesses "sworn in courts;" how would +it be possible to administer justice?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Christ had not been betrayed and</p> +<center>399</center> +<p>crucified, is it true that his own mother would be in perdition +to-day?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most assuredly. There was but one way by which +she could be saved, and that was by the death of her +son—through the blood of the atonement. She was totally +depraved through the sin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even +her love for the infant Christ was, in the sight of God,— +that is to say, of her babe,—wickedness. It can not be +repeated too often that there is only one way to be saved, and that +is, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Could Christ have prevented the Jews from +crucifying him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He could.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If he could have saved his life and did not, +was he not guilty of suicide?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No one can understand these questions who has not +read the prophecies of Daniel, and has not a clear conception of +what is meant by "the full"ness of time."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What became of all the Canaanites, the +Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans and Chinese? What +became of the billions who died before the promise was made to +Abraham; of the</p> +<center>400</center> +<p>billions and billions who never heard of the Bible, who never +heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ— never knew of "the +scheme of salvation"? What became of the millions and billions who +lived in this hemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himself +seemed perfectly ignorant?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. They were undoubtedly lost. God having made them, +had a right to do with them as he pleased. They are probably all in +hell to-day, and the fact that they are damned, only adds to the +joy of the redeemed. It is by contrast that we are able to perceive +the infinite kindness with which God has treated us.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not possible that something can be done +for a human soul in another world as well as in this?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; this is the only world in which God even +attempts to reform anybody. In the other world, nothing is done for +the purpose of making anybody better. Here in this world, where man +lives but a few days, is the only opportunity for moral +improvement. A minister can do a thousand times more for a soul +than its creator; and this country is much better adapted to moral +growth than heaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a</p> +<center>401</center> +<p>few years, and died without having been converted, has no hope +in another world. The moment he arrives at the judgment seat, +nothing remains but to damn him. Neither God, nor the Holy Ghost, +nor Jesus Christ, can have the least possible influence with him +there.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. When God created each human being, did he know +exactly what would be his eternal fate?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most assuredly he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know that hundreds and millions and +billions would suffer eternal pain?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. But he gave them freedom of choice +between good and evil.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know exactly how they would use that +freedom?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know that billions would use it +wrong?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was it optional with him whether he should make +such people or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Had these people any option as to whether they +would be made or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>, No.</p> +<center>402</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would it not have been far better to leave them +unconscious dust?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. These questions show how foolish it is to judge +God according to a human standard. What to us seems just and +merciful, God may regard in an exactly opposite light; and we may +hereafter be developed to such a degree that we will regard the +agonies of the damned as the highest possible evidence of the +goodness and mercy of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the fact that God did +not make himself known except to Abraham and his descendants? Why +did he fail to reveal himself to the other nations—nations +that, compared with the Jews, were learned, cultivated and +powerful? Would you regard a revelation now made to the Esquimaux +as intended for us; and would it be a revelation of which we would +be obliged to take notice?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, God could have revealed himself, not +only to all the great nations, but to each individual. He could +have had the Ten Commandments engraved on every heart and brain; or +he could have raised up prophets in every land; but he chose, +rather, to allow countless millions of his children to wander in +the darkness and blackness of</p> +<center>403</center> +<p>Nature; chose, rather, that they should redden their hands in +each other's blood; chose, rather, that they should live without +light, and die without hope; chose, rather, that they should +suffer, not only in this world, but forever in the next. Of course +we have no right to find fault with the choice of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Now you can tell a sinner to "believe "on the +Lord Jesus Christ;" what could a sinner have been told in Egypt, +three thousand years ago; and in what language would you have +addressed a Hindu in the days of Buddha—the "divine scheme" +at that time being a secret in the divine breast?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is not for us to think upon these questions. +The moment we examine the Christian system, we begin to doubt. In a +little while, we shall be infidels, and shall lose the respect of +those who refuse to think. It is better to go with the majority. +These doctrines are too sacred to be touched. You should be +satisfied with the religion of your father and your mother. "You +want some book on the "centre-table," in the parlor; it is +extremely handy to have a Family Record; and what book, other than +the Bible, could a mother give a son as he leaves the old +homestead?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not wonderful that all the writers</p> +<center>404</center> +<p>of the four gospels do not give an account of the ascension of +Jesus Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This question has been answered long ago, time +and time again.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Perhaps it has, but would it not be well enough +to answer it once more? Some may not have seen the answer?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Show me the hospitals that infidels have built; +show me the asylums that infidels have founded.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I know you have given the usual answer; but +after all, is it not singular that a miracle so wonderful as the +bodily ascension of a man, should not have been mentioned by all +the writers of that man's life? Is it not wonderful that some of +them said that he did ascend, and others that he agreed to stay +with his disciples always?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. People unacquainted with the Hebrew, can have no +conception of these things. A story in plain English, does not +sound as it does in Hebrew. Miracles seem altogether more credible, +when told in a dead language.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What, in your judgment, became of the dead who +were raised by Christ? Is it not singular that they were never +mentioned afterward?</p> +<center>405</center> +<p>Would not a man who had been raised from the dead naturally be +an object of considerable interest, especially to his friends and +acquaintances? And is it not also wonderful that Christ, after +having wrought so many miracles, cured so many lame and halt and +blind, fed so many thousands miraculously, and after having entered +Jerusalem in triumph as a conqueror and king, had to be pointed out +by one of his own disciples who was bribed for the purpose?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, all these things are exceedingly +wonderful, and if found in any other book, would be absolutely +incredible; but we have no right to apply the same kind of +reasoning to the Bible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacred +books of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs of this world, God +has given us reason; but in the examination of religious questions, +we should depend upon credulity and faith.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Christ came to offer himself a sacrifice, +for the purpose of making atonement for the sins of such as might +believe on him, why did he not make this fact known to all of his +disciples?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He did. This was, and is, the gospel.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How is it that Matthew says nothing about +"salvation by faith," but simply says that God</p> +<center>406</center> +<p>will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive the +forgiving, and says not one word about the necessity of believing +anything?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. But you will remember that Mark says, in the last +chapter of his gospel, that "whoso be"lieveth not shall be +damned."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you admit that Matthew says nothing on the +subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, I suppose I must.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is not that passage in Mark generally admitted +to be an interpolation?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some biblical scholars say that it is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is that portion of the last chapter of Mark +found in the Syriac version of the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If it was necessary to believe on Jesus Christ, +in order to be saved, how is it that Matthew failed to say so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "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."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider it necessary to be +"regenerated"—to be "born again"—in order to be +saved?</p> +<center>407</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Matthew say anything on the subject of +"regeneration"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Mark?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Luke?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is Saint John the only one who speaks of the +necessity of being "born again"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew +anything about the necessity of "regen"eration"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course they did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did they fail to speak of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. 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 and without a compass.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. You will remember that, according to Mark, +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?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he did.</p> +<center>408</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Well, in the gospel set forth by Mark, there is +not a word about "regeneration," and no word about the necessity of +believing anything—except in an interpolated passage. Would +it not seem from this, that "regeneration" and a "belief in the +"Lord Jesus Christ," are no part of the gospel?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing can exceed in horror the last moments of +the infidel; nothing can be more terrible than the death of the +doubter. When the glories of this world fade from the vision; when +ambition becomes an empty name; when wealth turns to dust in the +palsied hand of death, of what use is philosophy then? Who cares +then for the pride of intellect? In that dread moment, man needs +something to rely on, whether it is true or not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would it not have been more convincing if +Christ, after his resurrection, had shown himself to his enemies as +well as to his friends? Would it not have greatly strengthened the +evidence in the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presented +himself before Caiaphas, the high priest; if he had again entered +the temple, and again walked the streets of Jerusalem?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If the evidence had been complete and +overwhelming, there would have been no praise</p> +<center>409</center> +<p>worthiness in belief; even publicans and sinners would have +believed, if the evidence had been sufficient. The amount of +evidence required is the test of the true Christian spirit.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would it not also have been better had the +ascension taken place in the presence of unbelieving thousands; it +seems such a pity to have wasted such a demonstration upon those +already convinced?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. These questions are the natural fruit of the +carnal mind, and can be accounted for only by the doctrine of total +depravity. Nothing has given the church more trouble than just such +questions. Unholy curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divine +mysteries, a desire to know, to investigate, to explain —in +short, to understand, are all evidences of a reprobate mind.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How can we account for the fact that Matthew +alone speaks of the wise men of the East coming with gifts to the +infant Christ; that he alone speaks of the little babes being +killed by Herod? Is it possible that the other writers never heard +of these things?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nobody can get any good out of the Bible by +reading it in a critical spirit. The contra</p> +<center>410</center> +<p>dictions and discrepancies are only apparent, and melt away +before the light of faith. That which in other books would be +absolute and palpable contradiction, is, in the Bible, when +spiritually discerned, a perfect and beautiful harmony. My own +opinion is, that seeming contradictions are in the Bible for the +purpose of testing and strengthening the faith of Christians, and +for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels, "that they might +believe a lie and be damned." <i>Question</i>. Is it possible that +a good God would take pains to deceive his children?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The Bible is filled with instances of that kind, +and all orthodox ministers now know that fossil animals—that +is, representations of animals in stone, were placed in the rocks +on purpose to mislead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley and +Tyndall. It is also now known that God, for the purpose of +misleading the so-called men of science, had hairy elephants +preserved in ice, made stomachs for them, and allowed twigs of +trees to be found in these stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no +such elephants ever lived or ever died. These men who are +endeavoring to overturn the Scriptures with the lever of science +will find that they have been deceived. Through all eternity they +will regret their</p> +<center>411</center> +<p>philosophy. They will wish, in the next world, that they had +thrown away geology and physiology and all other "ologies" except +theology. The time is coming when Jehovah will "mock at their fears +and "laugh at their calamity."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If Joseph was not the father of Christ, why was +his genealogy given to show that Christ was of the blood of David; +why would not the genealogy of any other Jew have done as well?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That objection was raised and answered hundreds +of years ago.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If they wanted to show that Christ was of the +blood of David, why did they not give the genealogy of his mother +if Joseph was not his father?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That objection was answered hundreds of years +ago.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How was it answered?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for a +priest.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How does it happen that the two genealogies +given do not agree?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Perhaps they were written by different +persons.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were both these persons inspired by the same +God?</p> +<center>412</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why were the miracles recorded in the New +Testament performed?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The miracles were the evidence relied on to prove +the supernatural origin and the divine mission of Jesus Christ.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Aside from the miracles, is there any evidence +to show the supernatural origin or character of Jesus Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Some have considered that his moral precepts are +sufficient, of themselves, to show that he was divine.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Had all of his moral precepts been taught +before he lived?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The same things had been said, but they did not +have the same meaning.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the fact that Buddha taught the same tend +to show that he was of divine origin?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not. The rules of evidence applicable +to the Bible are not applicable to other books. We examine other +books in the light of reason; the Bible is the only exception. So, +we should not judge of Christ as we do of any other man.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Christ wrought</p> +<center>413</center> +<p>many of his miracles because he was good, charitable, and filled +with pity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has he as much power now as he had when on +earth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most assuredly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, as he was +then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why does he not now cure the lame and the halt +and the blind?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is well known that, when Julian the Apostate +was dying, catching some of his own blood in his hand and throwing +it into the air he exclaimed: "Galileean, thou hast conquered!"</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider it our duty to love our +neighbor?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is virtue the same in all worlds?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most assuredly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we under obligation to render good for +evil, and to "pray for those who despitefully use us"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Will Christians in heaven love their +neighbors?</p> +<center>414</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do good Christians pity sinners in this +world?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because they regard them as being in great danger +of the eternal wrath of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. After these sinners have died, and been sent to +hell, will the Christians in heaven then pity them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. Angels have no pity.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If we are under obligation to love our enemies, +is not God under obligation to love his? If we forgive our enemies, +ought not God to forgive his? If we forgive those who injure us, +ought not God to forgive those who have not injured him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. God made us, and he has therefore the right to do +with us as he pleases. Justice demands that he should damn all of +us, and the few that he will save will be saved through mercy and +without the slightest respect to anything they may have done +themselves. Such is the justice of God, that those in hell will +have no right to complain, and those in heaven will have no right +to be there. Hell is justice, and salvation is charity.</p> +<center>415</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider it possible for a law to be +jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocent person?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Such is the scheme of the atonement. As man is +held responsible for the sin of Adam, so he will be credited with +the virtues of Christ; and you can readily see that one is exactly +as reasonable as the other.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose a man honestly reads the New Testament, +and honestly concludes that it is not an inspired book; suppose he +honestly makes up his mind that the miracles are not true; that the +devil never really carried Christ to the pinnacle of the temple; +that devils were really never cast out of a man and allowed to take +refuge in swine;—I say, suppose that he is honestly convinced +that these things are not true, what ought he to say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He ought to say nothing.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose that the same man should read the +Koran, and come to the conclusion that it is not an inspired book; +what ought he to say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He ought to say that it is not inspired; his +fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, and it is his duty +to do what he can do to destroy a pernicious superstition.</p> +<center>416</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible, +having become convinced that it is not inspired— honestly +convinced—says nothing—keeps his conclusion absolutely +to himself, and suppose he dies in that belief, can he be +saved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Has the honesty of his belief anything to do +with his future condition?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Nothing whatever.,</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose that he tried to believe, that he hated +to disagree with his friends, and with his parents, but that in +spite of himself he was forced to the conclusion that the Bible is +not the inspired word of God, would he then deserve eternal +punishment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly he would.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can a man control his belief?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He cannot—except as to the Bible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider it just in God to create a man +who cannot believe the Bible, and then damn him because he does +not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Such is my belief.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it your candid opinion that a man who does +not believe the Bible should keep his belief a secret from his +fellow-men?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is.</p> +<center>417</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do I know that you believe the Bible? You +have told me that if you did not believe it, you would not tell +me?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is no way for you to ascertain, except by +taking my word for it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What will be the fate of a man who does not +believe it, and yet pretends to believe it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He will be damned.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then hypocrisy will not save him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. And if he does not believe it, and admits that +he does not believe it, then his honesty will not save him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no better than +hypocrisy on the right side.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know who wrote the gospels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; we do.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we absolutely sure who wrote them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course; we have the evidence as it has come to +us through the Catholic Church.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can we rely upon the Catholic Church now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; assuredly no! But we have the testimony of +Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement,</p> +<center>418</center> +<p>and others of the early fathers, together with that of the +Christian historian, Eusebius.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do we really know about Polycarp?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We know that he suffered martyrdom under Marcus +Aurelius, and that for quite a time the fire refused to burn his +body, the flames arching over him, leaving him in a kind of fiery +tent; and we also know that from his body came a fragrance like +frankincense, and that the Pagans were so exasperated at seeing the +miracle, that one of them thrust a sword through the body of +Polycarp; that the blood flowed out and extinguished the flames and +that out of the wound flew the soul of the martyr in the form of a +dove.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is that all we know about Polycarp?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, with the exception of a few more like +incidents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know that Polycarp ever met St. John?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; Eusebius says so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we absolutely certain that he ever +lived?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, or Eusebius could not have written about +him.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know anything of the character of +Eusebius?</p> +<center>419</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; we know that he was untruthful only when he +wished to do good. But God can use even the dishonest. Other books +have to be substantiated by truthful men, but such is the power of +God, that he can establish the inspiration of the Bible by the most +untruthful witnesses. If God's witnesses were honest, anybody could +believe, and what becomes of faith, one of the greatest +virtues?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the New Testament now the same as it was in +the days of the early fathers?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not. Many books now thrown out, and not +esteemed of divine origin, were esteemed divine by Polycarp and +Irenæus and Clement and many of the early churches. These +books are now called "apocryphal."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you not the same witnesses in favor of +their authenticity, that you have in favor of the gospels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Precisely the same. Except that they were thrown +out.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why were they thrown out?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because the Catholic Church did not esteem them +inspired.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did the Catholics decide for us which are the +true gospels and which are the true epistles?</p> +<center>420</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. The Catholic Church was then the only +church, and consequently must have been the true church.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How did the Catholic Church select the true +books?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Councils were called, and votes were taken, very +much as we now pass resolutions in political meetings.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It was then, but it is not now.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the Catholic Church at that time had thrown +out the book of Revelation, would it now be our duty to believe +that book to have been inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, I suppose not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not true that some of these books were +adopted by exceedingly small majorities?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the Epistle to the Hebrews and to the +Romans, and the book of Revelation had been thrown out, could a man +now be saved who honestly believes the rest of the books?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This is doubtful.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Were the men who picked out the inspired books +inspired?</p> +<center>421</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We cannot tell, but the probability is that they +were.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know that they picked out the right +ones?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, not exactly, but we believe that they +did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we certain that some of the books that were +thrown out were not inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, the only way to tell is to read them +carefully.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If upon reading these apocryphal books a man +concludes that they are not inspired, will he be damned for that +reason?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. Certainly not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If he concludes that some of them are inspired, +and believes them, will he then be damned for that belief?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for believing too +much.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the fact that the books now comprising the +New Testament were picked out by the Catholic Church prevent their +being examined now by an honest man, as they were examined at the +time they were picked out?</p> +<center>422</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; not if the man comes to the conclusion that +they are inspired.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the fact that the Catholic Church picked +them out and declared them to be inspired, render it a crime to +examine them precisely as you would examine the books that the +Catholic Church threw out and declared were not inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I think it does.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. At the time the council was held in which it +was determined which of the books of the New Testament are +inspired, a respectable minority voted against some that were +finally decided to be inspired. If they were honest in the vote +they gave, and died without changing their opinions, are they now +in hell?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, they ought to be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If those who voted to leave the book of +Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel of Saint John out of +the canon, believed honestly that these were not inspired books, +how should they have voted?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I suppose a man ought to vote as he +honestly believes—except in matters of religion.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If the Catholic Church was not infallible, is +the question still open as to what books are, and what are not, +inspired?</p> +<center>423</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I suppose the question is still open— but +it would be dangerous to decide it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If, then, I examine all the books again, and +come to the conclusion that some that were thrown out were +inspired, and some that were accepted were not inspired, ought I to +say so?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not if it is contrary to the faith of your +father, or calculated to interfere with your own political +prospects.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it as great a sin to admit into the Bible +books that are uninspired as to reject those that are inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, it is a crime to reject an inspired book, +no matter how unsatisfactory the evidence is for its inspiration, +but it is not a crime to receive an uninspired book. God damns +nobody for believing too much. An excess of credulity is simply to +err in the direction of salvation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspiration of +the New Testament—believes it to be entirely the work of +uninspired men; and suppose he also believes—but not from any +evidence obtained in the New Testament—that Jesus Christ was +the son of God, and that he made atonement for his soul, can he +then be saved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?</p> +<center>424</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This has not yet been decided by our church, and +I do not wish to venture an opinion.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose a man denies the inspiration of the +Scriptures; suppose that he also denies the divinity of Jesus +Christ; and suppose, further, that he acts precisely as Christ is +said to have acted; suppose he loves his enemies, prays for those +who despitefully use him, and does all the good he possibly can, is +it your opinion that such a man will be saved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No, sir. There is "none other name "given under +heaven and among men," whereby a sinner can be saved but the name +of Christ.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then it is your opinion that God would save a +murderer who believed in Christ, and would damn another man, +exactly like Christ, who failed to believe in him?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; because we have the blessed promise that, +out of Christ, "our God is a consuming "fire."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose a man read the Bible carefully and +honestly, and was not quite convinced that it was true, and that +while examining the subject, he died; what then?</p> +<center>425</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not believe that God would allow him to +examine the matter in another world, or to make up his mind in +heaven. Of course, he would eternally perish.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Could Christ now furnish evidence enough to +convince every human being of the truth of the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he could, because he is infinite.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are any miracles performed now?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Oh, no!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have we any testimony, except human testimony, +to substantiate any miracle?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Only human testimony.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do all men give the same force to the same +evidence?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. By no means.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have all honest men who have examined the Bible +believed it to be inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course they have. Infidels are not honest.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Could any additional evidence have been +furnished?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. With perfect ease.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would God allow a soul to suffer</p> +<center>426</center> +<p>eternal agony rather than furnish evidence of the truth of his +Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. God has furnished plenty of evidence, and +altogether more than was really necessary. We should read the Bible +in a believing spirit.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are all parts of the inspired books equally +true?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Necessarily.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. According to Saint Matthew, God promises to +forgive all who will forgive others; not one word is said about +believing in Christ, or believing in the miracles, or in any Bible; +did Matthew tell the truth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. 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.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. I find in another part of the New Testament, +that a young man came to Christ and asked him what was necessary +for him to do in order that he might inherit eternal life. Christ +did not tell him that he must believe the Bible, or that he must +believe in him, or that he must keep the Sabbathday; was Christ +honest with that young man?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I suppose he was.</p> +<center>427</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. You will also recollect that Zaccheus said to +Christ, that where he had wronged any man he had made restitution, +and further, that half his goods he had given to the poor; and you +will remember that Christ said to Zaccheus: "This day "hath +salvation come to thy house." Why did not Christ tell Zaccheus that +he "must be born again;" that he must "believe on the Lord Jesus +Christ"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course there are mysteries in our holy +religion that only those who have been "born "again" can +understand. You must remember that "the carnal mind is enmity with +God."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it not strange that Christ, in his Sermon on +the Mount, did not speak of "regeneration," or of the "scheme of +salvation"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, it may be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can a man be saved now by living exactly in +accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He can not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Would then a man, by following the course of +conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, lose his +soul?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He most certainly would, because there is not one +word in the Sermon on the Mount about believing on the Lord Jesus +Christ; not one word</p> +<center>428</center> +<p>about 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 absolutely certain that a man +might follow the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, and live in +accordance with its every word, and yet deserve and receive the +eternal condemnation of God. But we must remember that the Sermon +on the Mount was preached before Christianity existed. Christ was +talking to Jews.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did Christ write anything himself, in the New +Testament?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Not a word.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he tell any of his disciples to write any +of his words?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. There is no account of it, if he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do we know whether any of the disciples wrote +anything?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course they did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you know?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because the gospels bear their names.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are you satisfied that Christ was absolutely +God?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he was. We believe that Christ and God +and the Holy Ghost are all the same, that the three form one, and +that each one is three.</p> +<center>429</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was Christ the God of the universe at the time +of his birth?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He certainly was.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Was he the infinite God, creator and controller +of the entire universe, before he was born?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he was. This is the mystery of "God +manifest in the flesh." The infidels have pretended that he was +like any other child, and was in fact supported by Nature instead +of being the supporter of Nature. They have insisted that like +other 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 should appear to be like other +children.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did he know just as much before he was born as +after?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. If he was God of course he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the fact that Saint Luke +tells us, in the last verse of the second chapter of his gospel, +that "Jesus increased in wis"dom and stature"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. That I presume is a figure of speech; because, if +he was God, he certainly could not have increased in wisdom. The +physical part of him could</p> +<center>430</center> +<p>increase in stature, but the intellectual part must have been +infinite all the time.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No; I believe what Luke said. If it appears +untrue, or impossible, then I know that it is figurative or +symbolical.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did I understand you to say that Christ was +actually God?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he was.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then why did Luke say in the same verse of the +same chapter that "Jesus increased in "favor with God"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I dare you to go into a room by yourself and read +the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it necessary to understand the Bible in +order to be saved?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not; it is only necessary that you +believe it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it necessary to believe all the +miracles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It may not be necessary, but as it is impossible +to tell which ones can safely be left out, you had better believe +them all.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Then you regard belief as the safe way?</p> +<center>431</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course it is better to be fooled in this world +than to be damned in the next.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that there are any cruelties on +God's part recorded in the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. At first flush, many things done by God himself, +as well as by his prophets, appear to be cruel; but if we examine +them closely, we will find them to be exactly the opposite.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you explain the story of Elisha and the +children,—where the two she-bears destroyed forty-two +children on account of their impudence?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This miracle, in my judgment, establishes two +things: 1. That children should be polite to ministers, and 2. That +God is kind to animals— "giving them their meat in due +season." These bears have been great educators—they are the +foundation of the respect entertained by the young for theologians. +No child ever sees a minister now without thinking of a bear.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the story of +Daniel—you no doubt remember it? Some men told the king that +Daniel was praying contrary to law, and thereupon Daniel was cast +into a den of lions; but the lions could not touch him, their +mouths having been shut by angels. The next</p> +<center>432</center> +<p>morning, the king, finding that Daniel was still intact, had him +taken out; and then, for the purpose of gratifying Daniels God, the +king had all the men who had made the complaint against Daniel, and +their wives and their little children, brought and cast into the +lions' den. According to the account, the lions were so hungry that +they caught these wives and children as they dropped, and broke all +their bones in pieces before they had even touched the ground. Is +it not wonderful that God failed to protect these innocent wives +and children?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. These wives and children were heathen; they were +totally depraved. And besides, they were used as witnesses. The +fact that they were devoured with such quickness shows that the +lions were hungry. Had it not been for this, infidels would have +accounted for the safety of Daniel by saying that the lions had +been fed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshach and +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 came +out "not a hair of their heads was singed, nor was "the smell of +fire upon their garments"?</p> +<center>433</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The evidence of this miracle is exceedingly +satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you know he was converted?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because immediately after the miracle the 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 become a true +disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If God in those days preserved from the fury of +the fire men who were true to him and would not deny his name, why +is it that he has failed to protect thousands of martyrs since that +time?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. This is one of the divine mysteries. God has in +many instances allowed his enemies to kill his friends. I suppose +this was allowed for the good of his enemies, that the heroism of +the martyrs might convert them.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe all the miracles?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I believe them all, because I believe the Bible +to be inspired.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What makes you think it is inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I have never seen anybody who knew it was not; +besides, my father and mother believed it.</p> +<center>434</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you any other reasons for believing it to +be inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; there are more copies of the Bible printed +than of any other book; and it is printed in more languages. And +besides, it would be impossible to get along without it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why could we not get along without it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. We would have nothing to swear witnesses by; no +book in which to keep the family record; nothing for the +centre-table, and nothing for a mother to give her son. No nation +can be civilized without the Bible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did God always know that a Bible was necessary +to civilize a country?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly he did.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why did he not give a Bible to the Egyptians, +the Hindus, the Greeks and the Romans?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It is astonishing what perfect fools infidels +are.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do you call infidels "fools"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the gospel +according to Matthew the following: "Who"soever shall say 'Thou +fool!' shall be in danger of "hell fire."</p> +<center>435</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have I the right to read the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. You not only have the right, but it is your +duty.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. In reading the Bible the words make certain +impressions on my mind. These impressions depend upon my +brain,—upon my intelligence. Is not this true?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course, when you read the Bible, impressions +are made upon your mind.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Can I control these impressions?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I do not think you can, as long as you remain in +a sinful state.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How am I to get out of this sinful state?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. You must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and +you must read the Bible in a prayerful spirit and with a believing +heart.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose that doubts force themselves upon my +mind?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Then you will know that you are a sinner, and +that you are depraved.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If I have the right to read the Bible, have I +the right to try to understand it?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Most assuredly.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you admit that I have the right to reason +about it and to investigate it?</p> +<center>436</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; I admit that. Of course you cannot help +reasoning about what you read.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does the right to read a book include the right +to give your opinion as to the truth of what the book contains?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course,—if the book is not inspired. +Infidels hate the Bible because it is inspired, and Christians know +that it is inspired because infidels say that it is not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have I the right to decide for myself whether +or not the book is inspired?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. You have no right to deny the truth of God's Holy +Word.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is God the author of all books?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly not.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have I the right to say that God did not write +the Koran?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because the Koran was written by an impostor.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you know?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. My reason tells me so.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you the right to be guided by your +reason?</p> +<center>437</center> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I must be.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you the same right to follow your reason +after reading the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. The Bible is the standard of reason. The +Bible is not to be judged or corrected by your reason. Your reason +is to be weighed and measured by the Bible. The Bible is different +from other books and must not be read in the same critical spirit, +nor judged by the same standard.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What did God give us reason for?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. So that we might investigate other religions, and +examine other so-called sacred books.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. If a man honestly thinks that the Bible is not +inspired, what should he say?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. He should admit that he is mistaken.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. When he thinks he is right?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes. The Bible is different from other books. It +is the master of reason. You read the Bible, not to see if that is +wrong, but to see whether your reason is right. It is the only book +about which a man has no right to reason. He must believe. The +Bible is addressed, not to the reason, but to the ears: "He that +hath ears to hear, let "him hear."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think we have the right to tell</p> +<center>438</center> +<p>what the Bible means—what ideas God intended to convey, or +has conveyed to us, through the medium of the Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, I suppose you have that right. Yes, that +must be your duty. You certainly ought to tell others what God has +said to you.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do all men get the same ideas from the +Bible?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because all men are not alike; they differ in +intellect, in education, and in experience.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Who has the right to decide as to the real +ideas that God intended to convey?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I am a Protestant, and believe in the right of +private judgment. Whoever does not is a Catholic. Each man must be +his own judge, but God will hold him responsible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Does God believe in the right of private +judgment?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Of course he does.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is he willing that I should exercise my +judgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired or not?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. He believes in the exercise of</p> +<center>439</center> +<p>private judgment only in the examination and rejection of other +books than the Bible.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is he a Catholic?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let me tell you that +God will "laugh at your calamity, and "will mock when your fear +cometh." You will be accursed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Why do you curse infidels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Because I am a Christian.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did not Christ say that we ought to "bless +those who curse us," and that we should "love our enemies"?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees and called them +"hypocrites" and "vipers."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for that?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. It simply shows the difference between theory and +practice.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you consider the best way to answer +infidels.</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The old way is the best. You should say that +their arguments are ancient, and have been answered over and over +again. If this does not satisfy your hearers, then you should +attack the character of the infidel—then that of his +parents— then that of his children.</p> +<center>440</center> +<p><i>Question</i>. Suppose that the infidel is a good man, how +will you answer him then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. But an infidel cannot be a good man. Even if he +is, it is better that he should lose his reputation, than that +thousands should lose their souls. We know that all infidels are +vile and infamous. We may not have the evidence, but we know that +it exists.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How should infidels be treated? Should +Christians try to convert them?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Christians should have nothing to do with +infidels. It is not safe even to converse with them. They are +always talking about reason, and facts, and experience. They are +filled with sophistry and should be avoided.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Should Christians pray for the conversion of +infidels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes; but such prayers should be made in public +and the name of the infidel should be given and his vile and +hideous heart portrayed so that the young may be warned.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Whom do you regard as infidels?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The scientists—the geologists, the +astronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one can +overestimate the evil that has been wrought</p> +<center>441</center> +<p>by Laplace, Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Renan, Emerson, +Strauss, Bikhner, Tyndall, and their wretched followers. These men +pretended to know more than Moses and the prophets. They were "dogs +baying at the moon." They were "wolves" and "fools." They tried to +"assassinate "God," and worse than all, they actually laughed at +the clergy,</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think they did, and are doing great +harm?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Certainly. Of what use are all the sciences, if +you lose your own soul? People in hell will care nothing about +education. The rich man said nothing about science, he wanted +water. Neither will they care about books and theories in heaven. +If a man is perfectly happy, it makes no difference how ignorant he +is.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But how can he answer these scientists?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Well, my advice is to let their arguments alone. +Of course, you will deny all their facts; but the most effective +way is to attack their character.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. But suppose they are good men,— what +then?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The better they are, the worse they are.</p> +<center>442</center> +<p>We cannot admit that the infidel is really good. He may appear +to be good, and it is our duty to strip the mask of appearance from +the face of unbelief. If a man is not a Christian, he is totally +depraved, and why should we hesitate to make a misstatement about a +man whom God is going to make miserable forever?</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are we not commanded to love our enemies?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. Yes, but not the enemies of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you fear the final triumph of +infidelity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. No. We have no fear. We believe that the Bible +can be revised often enough to agree with anything that may really +be necessary to the preservation of the church. We can always rely +upon revision. Let me tell you that the Bible is the most peculiar +of books. At the time God inspired his holy prophets to write it, +he knew exactly what the discoveries and demonstrations of the +future would be, and he wrote his Bible in such a way that the +words could always be interpreted in accordance with the +intelligence of each age, and so that the words used are capable of +several meanings, so that, no matter what may hereafter be +discovered, the Bible</p> +<center>443</center> +<p>will be found to agree with it,—for the reason that the +knowledge of Hebrew will grow in the exact proportion that +discoveries are made in other departments of knowledge. You will +therefore see, that all efforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible +will simply result in giving a better translation.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you consider is the strongest argument +in favor of the inspiration of the Scriptures?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The dying words of Christians.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you consider the strongest argument +against the truth of infidelity?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. The dying words of infidels. You know how +terrible were the death-bed scenes of Hume, Voltaire, Paine and +Hobbes, as described by hundreds of persons who were not present; +while all Christians have died with the utmost serenity, and with +their last words have testified to the sustaining power of faith in +the goodness of God.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What were the last words of Jesus Christ?</p> +<p><i>Answer</i>. "My God, my God, why hast thou for"saken me?"</p> +<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.</h2> +<p><i>"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority +of reason, is like administering medicine to the +dead."—Thomas Paine.</i></p> +<p>Peoria, October 8, 1877.</p> +<p>To the Editor of the N Y. Observer:</p> +<p>Sir: Last June in San Francisco, I offered a thousand dollars in +gold—not as a wager, but as a gift—to any one who would +substantiate the absurd story that Thomas Paine died in agony and +fear, frightened by the clanking chains of devils. I also offered +the same amount to any minister who would prove that Voltaire did +not pass away as serenely as the coming of the dawn. Afterward I +was informed that you had accepted the offer, and had called upon +me to deposit the money. Acting upon this information, I sent you +the following letter:</p> +<p>Peoria, Ill., August 31st, 1877.</p> +<p>To the Editor of the New York Observer:</p> +<p>I have been informed that you accepted, in your paper, an offer +made by me to any clergyman in San Francisco. That offer was, that +I would pay</p> +<center>448</center> +<p>one thousand dollars in gold to any minister in that city who +would prove that Thomas Paine died in terror because of religious +opinions he had expressed, or that Voltaire did not pass away +serenely as the coming of the dawn.</p> +<p>For many years religious journals and ministers have been +circulating certain pretended accounts of the frightful agonies +endured by Paine and Voltaire when dying; that these great men at +the moment of death were terrified because they had given their +honest opinions upon the subject of religion to their fellow-men. +The imagination of the religious world has been taxed to the utmost +in inventing absurd and infamous accounts of the last moments of +these intellectual giants. Every Sunday school paper, thousands of +idiotic tracts, and countless stupidities called sermons, have been +filled with these calumnies.</p> +<p>Paine and Voltaire both believed in God—both hoped for +immortality—both believed in special providence. But both +denied the inspiration of the Scriptures—both denied the +divinity of Jesus Christ. While theologians most cheerfully admit +that most murderers die without fear, they deny the possibility of +any man who has expressed his disbelief in the inspiration of the +Bible dying except in an agony of terror. These stories are used in +revivals and in</p> +<center>449</center> +<p>Sunday schools, and have long been considered of great +value.</p> +<p>I am anxious that these slanders shall cease. I am desirous of +seeing justice done, even at this late day, to the dead.</p> +<p>For the purpose of ascertaining the evidence upon which these +death-bed accounts really rest, I make to you the following +proposition:—</p> +<p>First.—As to Thomas Paine: I will deposit with the First +National Bank of Peoria, Illinois, one thousand dollars in gold, +upon the following conditions: This money shall be subject to your +order when you shall, in the manner hereinafter provided, +substantiate that Thomas Paine admitted the Bible to be an inspired +book, or that he recanted his Infidel opinions—or that he +died regretting that he had disbelieved the Bible—or that he +died calling upon Jesus Christ in any religious sense whatever.</p> +<p>In order that a tribunal may be created to try this question, +you may select one man, I will select another, and the two thus +chosen shall select a third, and any two of the three may decide +the matter.</p> +<p>As there will be certain costs and expenditures on both sides, +such costs and expenditures shall be paid by the defeated +party.</p> +<p>In addition to the one thousand dollars in gold, I</p> +<center>450</center> +<p>will deposit a bond with good and sufficient security in the sum +of two thousand dollars, conditioned for the payment of all costs +in case I am defeated. I shall require of you a like bond.</p> +<p>From the date of accepting this offer you may have ninety days +to collect and present your testimony, giving me notice of time and +place of taking depositions. I shall have a like time to take +evidence upon my side, giving you like notice, and you shall then +have thirty days to take further testimony in reply to what I may +offer. The case shall then be argued before the persons chosen; and +their decisions shall be final as to us.</p> +<p>If the arbitrator chosen by me shall die, I shall have the right +to choose another. You shall have the same right. If the third one, +chosen by our two, shall die, the two shall choose another; and all +vacancies, from whatever cause, shall be filled upon the same +principle.</p> +<p>The arbitrators shall sit when and where a majority shall +determine, and shall have full power to pass upon all questions +arising as to competency of evidence, and upon all subjects.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>.—As to Voltaire: I make the same +proposition, if you will substantiate that Voltaire died expressing +remorse or showing in any way that he</p> +<center>451</center> +<p>was in mental agony because he had attacked Catholicism—or +because he had denied the inspiration of the Bible—or because +he had denied the divinity of Christ.</p> +<p>I make these propositions because I want you to stop slandering +the dead.</p> +<p>If the propositions do not suit you in any particular, please +state your objections, and I will modify them in any way consistent +with the object in view.</p> +<p>If Paine and Voltaire died filled with childish and silly fear, +I want to know it, and I want the world to know it. On the other +hand, if the believers in superstition have made and circulated +these cruel slanders concerning the mighty dead, I want the world +to know that.</p> +<p>As soon as you notify me of the acceptance of these propositions +I will send you the certificate of the bank that the money has been +deposited upon the foregoing conditions, together with copies of +bonds for costs. Yours truly,</p> +<p>R. G. Ingersoll.</p> +<p>In your paper of September 27, 1877, you acknowledge the receipt +of the foregoing letter, and after giving an outline of its +contents, say: "As not one of the affirmations, in the form stated +in this letter, was contained in the offer we made, we have no +occasion to substantiate them. But we are prepared</p> +<center>452</center> +<p>to produce the evidence of the truth of our own statement, and +even to go further; to show not only that Tom Paine 'died a +drunken, cowardly, and beastly death,' but that for many years +previous, and up to that event he lived a drunken and beastly +life." In order to refresh your memory as to what you had +published, I call your attention to the following, which appeared +in the N. Y. Observer, July 19, 1877: "Put Down the Money.</p> +<p>"Col. Bob Ingersoll, in a speech full of ribaldry and blasphemy, +made in San Francisco recently, said: "I will give $1,000 in gold +coin to any clergyman who can substantiate that the death of +Voltaire was not as peaceful as the dawn; and of Tom Paine whom +they assert died in fear and agony, frightened by the clanking +chains of devils—in fact frightened to death by God. I will +give $1,000 likewise to any one who can substantiate this 'absurd +story'—a story without a word of truth in it."</p> +<p>"We have published the testimony, and the witnesses are on hand +to prove that Tom Paine died a drunken, cowardly and beastly death. +Let the Colonel deposit the money with any honest man, and the +absurd story, as he terms it, shall be shown to be an ower true +tale. But he wont do it. His talk is Infidel 'buncombe' and nothing +more."</p> +<center>453</center> +<p>On the 31st of August I sent you my letter, and on the 27th of +September you say in your paper: "As not one of the affirmations in +the form stated in this letter was contained in the offer we made, +we have no occasion to substantiate them."</p> +<p>What were the affirmations contained in the offer you made? I +had offered a thousand dollars in gold to any one who would +substantiate "the absurd story" that Thomas Paine died in fear and +agony,frightened by the clanking chains of devils—in fact, +frightened to death by God.</p> +<p>In response to this offer you said: "Let the Colonel deposit the +money with an honest man and the 'absurd story' as he terms it, +shall be shown to be an 'ower true tale.' But he won't do it. His +talk is infidel 'buncombe' and nothing more."</p> +<p>Did you not offer to prove that Paine died in fear and agony, +frightened by the clanking chains of devils? Did you not ask me to +deposit the money that you might prove the "absurd story" to be an +"ower true tale" and obtain the money? Did you not in your paper of +the twenty-seventh of September in effect deny that you had offered +to prove this "absurd story"? As soon as I offered to deposit the +gold and give bonds besides to cover costs, did you not publish a +falsehood?</p> +<center>454</center> +<p>You have eaten your own words, and, for my part, I would rather +have dined with Ezekiel than with you.</p> +<p>You have not met the issue. You have knowingly avoided it. The +question was not as to the personal habits of Paine. The real +question was and is, whether Paine was filled with fear and horror +at the time of his death on account of his religious opinions. That +is the question. You avoid this. In effect, you abandon that charge +and make others.</p> +<p>To you belongs the honor of having made the most cruel and +infamous charges against Thomas Paine that have ever been made. Of +what you have said you cannot prove the truth of one word.</p> +<p>You say that Thomas Paine died a drunken, cowardly and beastly +death.</p> +<p>I pronounce this charge to be a cowardly and beastly +falsehood.</p> +<p>Have you any evidence that he was in a drunken condition when he +died?</p> +<p>What did he say or do of a cowardly character just before, or at +about the time of his death?</p> +<p>In what way was his death cowardly? You must answer these +questions, and give your proof, or all honest men will hold you in +abhorrence. You have made these charges. The man against whom +you</p> +<p>Vindication of thomas paine.</p> +<center>455</center> +<p>make them is dead. He cannot answer you. I can. He cannot compel +you to produce your testimony, or admit by your silence that you +have cruelly slandered the defenceless dead. I can and I will. You +say that his death was cowardly. In what respect? Was it cowardly +in him to hold the Thirty-Nine Articles in contempt? Was it +cowardly not to call on your Lord? Was it cowardly not to be +afraid? You say that his death was beastly. Again I ask, in what +respect? Was it beastly to submit to the inevitable with +tranquillity? Was it beastly to look with composure upon the +approach of death? Was it beastly to die without a complaint, +without a murmur—to pass from life without a fear?</p> +<p>Did Thomas Paine Recant?</p> +<p>Mr. Paine had prophesied that fanatics would crawl and cringe +around him during his last moments. He believed that they would put +a lie in the mouth of Death.</p> +<p>When the shadow of the coming dissolution was upon him, two +clergymen, Messrs. Milledollar and Cunningham, called to annoy the +dying man. Mr. Cunningham had the politeness to say, "You have now +a full view of death you cannot live long, and whosoever does not +believe in the Lord Jesus Christ</p> +<center>456</center> +<p>will asuredly be damned." Mr. Paine replied, "Let me have none +of your popish stuff. Get away with you. Good morning."</p> +<p>On another occasion a Methodist minister obtruded himself when +Willet Hicks was present. This minister declared to Mr. Paine "that +unless he repented of his unbelief he would be damned." Paine, +although at the door of death, rose in his bed and indignantly +requested the clergyman to leave his room. On another occasion, two +brothers by the name of Pigott, sought to convert him. He was +displeased and requested their departure. Afterward Thomas Nixon +and Captain Daniel Pelton visited him for the express purpose of +ascertaining whether he had, in any manner, changed his religious +opinions. They were assured by the dying man that he still held the +principles he had expressed in his writings.</p> +<p>Afterward, these gentlemen hearing that William Cobbett was +about to write a life of Paine, sent him the following note:</p> +<p>New York, April 24, 1818.</p> +<p>"Sir: We have been informed that you have a design to write a +history of the life and writings of Thomas Paine. If you have been +furnished with materials in respect to his religious opinions, +or</p> +<center>457</center> +<p>rather of his recantation of his former opinions before his +death, all you have heard of his recanting is false. Being aware +that such reports would be raised after his death by fanatics who +infested his house at the time it was expected he would die, we, +the subscribers, intimate acquaintances of Thomas Paine since the +year 1776, went to his house. He was sitting up in a chair, and +apparently in full vigor and use of all his mental faculties. We +interrogated him upon his religious opinions, and if he had changed +his mind, or repented of anything he had said or wrote on that +subject. He answered, "Not at all," and appeared rather offended at +our supposition that any change should take place in his mind. We +took down in writing the questions put to him and his answers +thereto before a number of persons then in his room, among whom +were his doctor, Mrs. Bonneville, &c. This paper is mislaid and +cannot be found at present, but the above is the substance which +can be attested by many living witnesses."</p> +<p>Thomas Nixon.</p> +<p>Daniel Pelton.</p> +<p>Mr. Jarvis, the artist, saw Mr. Paine one or two days before his +death. To Mr. Jarvis he expressed his belief in his written +opinions upon the subject of religion. B. F. Haskin, an attorney of +the city of</p> +<center>458</center> +<p>New York, also visited him and inquired as to his religious +opinions. Paine was then upon the threshold of death, but he did +not tremble. He was not a coward. He expressed his firm and +unshaken belief in the religious ideas he had given to the +world.</p> +<p>Dr. Manley was with him when he spoke his last words. Dr. Manley +asked the dying man if he did not wish to believe that Jesus was +the Son of God, and the dying philosopher answered: "I have no wish +to believe on that subject." Amasa Woodsworth</p> +<p>sat up with Thomas Paine the night before his death. In 1839 +Gilbert Vale hearing that Mr. Woodsworth was living in or near +Boston, visited him for the purpose of getting his statement. The +statement was published in the Beacon of June 5, 1839, while +thousands who had been acquainted with Mr. Paine were living.</p> +<p>The following is the article referred to.</p> +<p>"We have just returned from Boston. One object of our visit to +that city, was to see a Mr. Amasa Woodsworth, an engineer, now +retired in a handsome cottage and garden at East Cambridge, Boston. +This gentleman owned the house occupied by Paine at his +death—while he lived next door. As an act of kindness Mr. +Woodsworth visited Mr. Paine every day for six weeks before his +death. He frequently</p> +<center>459</center> +<p>sat up with him, and did so on the last two nights of his life. +He was always there with Dr. Manley, the physician, and assisted in +removing Mr. Paine while his bed was prepared. He was present when +Dr. Manley asked Mr. Paine "if he wished to believe that Jesus +Christ was the Son of God," and he describes Mr. Paine's answer as +animated. He says that lying on his back he used some action and +with much emphasis, replied, "I have no wish to believe on that +subject." He lived some time after this, but was not known to +speak, for he died tranquilly. He accounts for the insinuating +style of Dr. Manley's letter, by stating that that gentleman just +after its publication joined a church. He informs us that he has +openly reproved the doctor for the falsity contained in the spirit +of that letter, boldly declaring before Dr. Manley, who is yet +living, that nothing which he saw justified the insinuations. Mr. +Woodsworth assures us that he neither heard nor saw anything to +justify the belief of any mental change in the opinions of Mr. +Paine previous to his death; but that being very ill and in pain +chiefly arising from the skin being removed in some parts by long +lying, he was generally too uneasy to enjoy conversation on +abstract subjects. This, then, is the best evidence that can be +procured on this subject, and we publish</p> +<center>460</center> +<p>it while the contravening parties are yet alive, and with the +authority of Mr. Woodsworth.</p> +<p>Gilbert Vale.</p> +<p>A few weeks ago I received the following letter which confirms +the statement of Mr. Vale:</p> +<p>Near Stockton, Cal., Greenwood Cottage, July 9, 1877.</p> +<p>Col. Ingersoll: In 1842 I talked with a gentleman in Boston. I +have forgotten his name; but he was then an engineer of the +Charleston navy yard. I am thus particular so that you can find his +name on the books. He told me that he nursed Thomas Paine in his +last illness, and closed his eyes when dead. I asked him if he +recanted and called upon God to save him. He replied, "No. He died +as he had taught. He had a sore upon his side and when we turned +him it was very painful and he would cry out 'O God!' or something +like that." "But," said the narrator, "that was nothing, for he +believed in a God." I told him that I had often heard it asserted +from the pulpit that Mr. Paine had recanted in his last moments. +The gentleman said that it was not true, and he appeared to be an +intelligent, truthful man. With respect, I remain, &c.,</p> +<p>Philip Graves, M. D.</p> +<center>461</center> +<p>The next witness is Willet Hicks, a Quaker preacher. He says +that during the last illness of Mr. Paine he visited him almost +daily, and that Paine died firmly convinced of the truth of the +religious opinions he had given to his fellow-men. It was to this +same Willet Hicks that Paine applied for permission to be buried in +the cemetery of the Quakers. Permission was refused. This refusal +settles the question of recantation. If he had recanted, of course +there could have been no objection to his body being buried by the +side of the best hypocrites on the earth.</p> +<p>If Paine recanted why should he be denied "a little earth for +charity"? Had he recanted, it would have been regarded as a vast +and splendid triumph for the gospel. It would with much noise and +pomp and ostentation have been heralded about the world.</p> +<p>I received the following letter to-day. The writer is well know +in this city, and is a man of high character:</p> +<p>Peoria, Oct. 8th, 1877.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll, Esteemed Friend: My parents were Friends +(Quakers). My father died when I was very young. The elderly and +middleaged Friends visited at my mother's house. We</p> +<center>462</center> +<p>lived in the city of New York. Among the number I distinctly +remember Elias Hicks, Willet Hicks,</p> +<p>and a Mr.-Day, who was a bookseller in Pearl</p> +<p>street. There were many others, whose names I do not now +remember. The subject of the recantation by Thomas Paine of his +views about the Bible in his last illness, or at any other time, +was discussed by them in my presence at different times. I learned +from them that some of them had attended upon Thomas Paine in his +last sickness and ministered to his wants up to the time of his +death. And upon the question of whether he did recant there was but +one expression. They all said that he did not recant in any manner. +I often heard them say they wished he had recanted. In fact, +according to them, the nearer he approached death the more positive +he appeared to be in his convictions.</p> +<p>These conversations were from 1820 to 1822. I was at that time +from ten to twelve years old, but these conversations impressed +themselves upon me because many thoughtless people then blamed the +Society of Friends for their kindness to that "arch Infidel," +Thomas Paine..</p> +<p>Truly yours,</p> +<p>A. C. Hankinson.</p> +<center>463</center> +<p>A few days ago I received the following letter: Albany, New +York, Sept. 27, 1877.</p> +<p>Dear Sir: It is over twenty years ago that professionally I made +the acquaintance of John Hogeboom,</p> +<p>a Justice of the Peace of the county of Rensselaer, New York. He +was then over seventy years of age and had the reputation of being +a man of candor and integrity. He was a great admirer of Paine. He +told me that he was personally acquainted with him, and used to see +him frequently during the last years of his life in the city of New +York, where Hogeboom then resided. I asked him if there was any +truth in the charge that Paine was in the habit of getting drunk. +He said that it was utterly false; that he never heard of such a +thing during the life-time of Mr. Paine, and did not believe any +one else did. I asked him about the recantation of his religious +opinions on his death-bed, and the revolting death-bed scenes that +the world had heard so much about. He said there was no truth in +them, that he had received his information from persons who +attended Paine in his last illness, "and that he passed peacefully +away, as we may say, in the sunshine of a great soul."...</p> +<p>Yours truly,</p> +<p>W. J. Hilton,</p> +<center>464</center> +<p>The witnesses by whom I substantiate the fact that Thomas Paine +did not recant, and that he died holding the religious opinions he +had published, are: First—Thomas Nixon, Captain Daniel +Pelton, B. F. Haskin. These gentlemen visited him during his last +illness for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had in any +respect changed his views upon religion. He told them that he had +not.</p> +<p>Second—James Cheetham. This man was the most malicious +enemy Mr. Paine had, and yet he admits that "Thomas Paine died +placidly, and almost without a struggle." (See Life of Thomas +Paine, by James Cheetham).</p> +<p>Third—The ministers, Milledollar and Cunningham. These +gentlemen told Mr. Paine that if he died without believing in the +Lord Jesus Christ he would be damned, and Paine replied, "Let me +have none of your popish stuff. Good morning." (See Sherwin's Life +of Paine, p. 220).</p> +<p>Fourth—Mrs. Hedden. She told these same preachers when +they attempted to obtrude themselves upon Mr. Paine again, that the +attempt to convert Mr. Paine was useless—"that if God did not +change his mind no human power could."</p> +<p>Fifth—Andrew A. Dean. This man lived upon Paine's farm at +New Rochelle, and corresponded</p> +<center>465</center> +<p>with him upon religious subjects. (See Paine's Theological +Works, p. 308.)</p> +<p>Sixth—Mr. Jarvis, the artist with whom Paine lived. He +gives an account of an old lady coming to Paine and telling him +that God Almighty had sent her to tell him that unless he repented +and believed in the blessed Savior, he would be damned. Paine +replied that God would not send such a foolish old woman with such +an impertinent message. (See Clio Rickman's Life of Paine.)</p> +<p>Seventh—Wm. Carver, with whom Paine boarded. Mr. Carver +said again and again that Paine did not recant. He knew him well, +and had every opportunity of knowing. (See Life of Paine by Gilbert +Vale.)</p> +<p>Eighth—Dr. Manley, who attended him in his last sickness, +and to whom Paine spoke his last words. Dr. Manley asked him if he +did not wish to believe in Jesus Christ, and he replied, "I have no +wish to believe on that subject."</p> +<p>Ninth—Willet Hicks and Elias Hicks, who were with him +frequently during his last sickness, and both of whom tried to +persuade him to recant. According to their testimony, Mr. Paine +died as he had lived—a believer in God, and a friend of man. +Willet Hicks was offered money to say something false against +Thomas Paine. He was even offered</p> +<center>466</center> +<p>money to remain silent and allow others to slander the dead. Mr. +Hicks, speaking of Thomas Paine, said: "He was a good man—an +honest man." (Vale's Life of Paine.)</p> +<p>Tenth—Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him every day for +some six weeks immediately preceding his death, and sat up with him +the last two nights of his life. This man declares that Paine did +not recant and that he died tranquilly. The evidence of Mr. +Woodsworth is conclusive.</p> +<p>Eleventh—Thomas Paine himself. The will of Thomas Paine, +written by himself, commences as follows:</p> +<p>"The last will and testament of me, the subscriber, Thomas +Paine, reposing confidence in my creator God, 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 in perfect +composure and resignation to the will of my creator God."</p> +<p>Twelfth—If Thomas Paine recanted, why do you pursue him? +If he recanted, he died substantially in your belief, for what +reason then do you denounce his death as cowardly? If upon his +death-bed he renounced the opinions he had published, the busi</p> +<center>467</center> +<p>ness of defaming him should be done by Infidels, not by +Christians.</p> +<p>I ask you if it is honest to throw away the testimony of his +friends—the evidence of fair and honorable men—and take +the putrid words of avowed and malignant enemies?</p> +<p>When Thomas Paine was dying, he was infested by +fanatics—by the snaky spies of bigotry. In the shadows of +death were the unclean birds of prey waiting to tear with beak and +claw the corpse of him who wrote the "Rights of Man." And there +lurking and crouching in the darkness were the jackals and hyenas +of superstition ready to violate his grave.</p> +<p>These birds of prey—these unclean beasts are the witnesses +produced and relied upon by you.</p> +<p>One by one the instruments of torture have been wrenched from +the cruel clutch of the church, until within the armory of +orthodoxy there remains but one weapon—Slander.</p> +<p>Against the witnesses that I have produced you can bring just +two—Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale. The first is referred to +in the memoir of Stephen Grellet. She had once been a servant in +his house. Grellet tells what happened between this girl and Paine. +According to this account Paine asked her if she had ever read any +of his writings,</p> +<center>468</center> +<p>and on being told that she had read very little of them, he +inquired what she thought of them, adding that from such an one as +she he expected a correct answer.</p> +<p>Let us examine this falsehood. Why would Paine expect a correct +answer about his writings from one who had read very little of +them? Does not such a statement devour itself? This young lady +further said that the "Age of Reason" was put in her hands and that +the more she read in it the more dark and distressed she felt, and +that she threw the book into the fire. Whereupon Mr. Paine +remarked, "I wish all had done as you did, for if the devil ever +had any agency in any work, he had it in my writing that book."</p> +<p>The next is Mary Hinsdale. She was a servant in the family of +Willet Hicks. She, like Mary Roscoe, 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.</p> +<p>My own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale are one and +the same person, or the same story has been by mistake put in the +mouth of both.</p> +<p>It is not possible that the same conversation should have taken +place between Paine and Mary Roscoe, and between him and Mary +Hinsdale.</p> +<center>469</center> +<p>Mary Hinsdale lived with Willet Hicks and he pronounced her +story a pious fraud and fabrication. He said that Thomas Paine +never said any such thing to Mary Hinsdale. (See Vale's Life of +Paine.)</p> +<p>Another thing about this witness. A woman by the name of Mary +Lockwood, a Hicksite Quaker, died. Mary Hinsdale met her brother +about that time and told him that his sister had recanted, and +wanted her to say so at her funeral. This turned out to be +false.</p> +<p>It has been claimed that Mary Hinsdale made her statement to +Charles Collins. Long after the alleged occurrence Gilbert Vale, +one of the biographers of Paine, had a conversation with Collins +concerning Mary Hinsdale. Vale asked him what he thought of her. He +replied that some of the Friends believed that she used opiates, +and that they did not give credit to her statements. He also said +that he believed what the Friends said, but thought that when a +young woman, she might have told the truth.</p> +<p>In 1818 William Cobbett came to New York. He began collecting +materials for a life of Thomas Paine. In this he became acquainted +with Mary Hinsdale and Charles Collins. Mr. Cobbett gave a</p> +<center>470</center> +<p>full account of what happened in a letter addressed to the +Norwich Mercury in 1819. From this account it seems that Charles +Collins told Cobbett that Paine had recanted. Cobbett called for +the testimony, and told Mr. Collins that he must give time, place, +and the circumstances. He finally brought a statement that he +stated had been made by Mary Hinsdale. Armed with this document +Cobbett, in October of that year, called upon the said Mary +Hinsdale, at No. 10 Anthony street, New York, and showed her the +statement. Upon being questioned by Mr. Cobbett she said, "That it +was so long ago that she could not speak positively to any part of +the matter—that she would not say that any part of the paper +was true—that she had never seen the paper —and that +she had never given Charles Collins authority to say anything about +the matter in her name." And so in the month of October, in the +year of grace 1818, in the mist and fog of forgetfulness +disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale—the last and only +witness against the intellectual honesty of Thomas Paine.</p> +<p><i>Did Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast, and did he +die a drunken, cowardly and beastly death?</i></p> +<p>Upon you rests the burden of substantiating these infamous +charges.</p> +<center>471</center> +<p>You have, I suppose, produced the best evidence in your +possession, and that evidence I will now proceed to examine. Your +first witness is Grant Thorburn. He makes three charges against +Thomas Paine, 1st. That his wife obtained a divorce from him in +England for cruelty and neglect. 2d. That he was a defaulter and +fled from England to America. 3d. That he was a drunkard.</p> +<p>These three charges stand upon the same evidence —the word +of Grant Thorburn. If they are not all true Mr. Thorburn stands +impeached.</p> +<p>The charge that Mrs. Paine obtained a divorce on account of the +cruelty and neglect of her husband is utterly false. There is no +such record in the world, and never was. Paine and his wife +separated by mutual consent. Each respected the other. They +remained friends. This charge is without any foundation in fact. I +challenge the Christian world to produce the record of this decree +of divorce. According to Mr. Thorburn it was granted in England. In +that country public records are kept of all such decrees. Have the +kindness to produce this decree showing that it was given on +account of cruelty or admit that Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.</p> +<p>Thomas Paine was a just man. Although separated from his wife, +he always spoke of her with</p> +<center>472</center> +<p>tenderness and respect, and frequently sent her money without +letting her know the source from whence it came. Was this the +conduct of a drunken beast?</p> +<p>The second charge, that Paine was a defaulter in England and +fled to America, is equally false. He did not flee from England. He +came to America, not as a fugitive, but as a free man. He came with +a letter of introduction signed by another Infidel, Benjamin +Franklin. He came as a soldier of Freedom—an apostle of +Liberty.</p> +<p>In this second charge there is not one word of truth.</p> +<p>He held a small office in England. If he was a defaulter the +records of that country will show that fact.</p> +<p>Mr. Thorburn, unless the record can be produced to substantiate +him, stands convicted of at least two mistakes.</p> +<p>Now, as to the third: He says that in 1802 Paine was an "old +remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated and half asleep."</p> +<p>Can any one believe this to be a true account of the personal +appearance of Mr. Paine in 1802? He had just returned from France. +He had been welcomed home by Thomas Jefferson, who had said that he +was entitled to the hospitality of every American.</p> +<center>473</center> +<p>In 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public dinner in the city +of New York. He was called upon and treated with kindness and +respect by such men as DeWitt Clinton.</p> +<p>In 1806 Mr. Paine wrote a letter to Andrew A. Dean upon the +subject of religion. Read that letter and then say that the writer +of it was an "old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated and half +asleep." Search the files of the New York Observer from the first +issue to the last, and you will find nothing superior to this +letter.</p> +<p>In 1803 Mr. Paine wrote a letter of considerable length, and of +great force, to his friend Samuel Adams. Such letters are not +written by drunken beasts, nor by remnants of old mortality, nor by +drunkards. It was about the same time that he wrote his "Remarks on +Robert Hall's Sermons."</p> +<p>These "Remarks" were not written by a drunken beast, but by a +clear-headed and thoughtful man.</p> +<p>In 1804 he published an essay on the invasion of England, and a +treatise on gunboats, full of valuable maritime +information:—in 1805, a treatise on yellow fever, suggesting +modes of prevention. In short, he was an industrious and thoughtful +man. He sympathized with the poor and oppressed of all lands. He +looked upon monarchy as a species of physical</p> +<center>474</center> +<p>slavery. He had the goodness to attack that form of government. +He regarded the religion of his day as a kind of mental slavery. He +had the courage to give his reasons for his opinion. His reasons +filled the churches with hatred. Instead of answering his arguments +they attacked him. Men who were not fit to blacken his shoes, +blackened his character.</p> +<p>There is too much religious cant in the statement of Mr. +Thorburn. He exhibited too much anxiety to tell what Grant Thorburn +said to Thomas Paine. He names Thomas Jefferson as one of the +disreputable men who welcomed Paine with open arms. The testimony +of a man who regarded Thomas Jefferson as a disreputable person, as +to the character of anybody, is utterly without value. In my +judgment, the testimony of Mr. Thorburn should be thrown aside as +wholly unworthy of belief.</p> +<p>Your next witness is the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D. D., who tells +what an elder in his church said. This elder said that Paine passed +his last days on his farm at New Rochelle with a solitary female +attendant. This is not true. He did not pass his last days at New +Rochelle. Consequently this pious elder did not see him during his +last days at that place. Upon this elder we prove an alibi. Mr. +Paine passed his last days in the city of New York, in a house +upon</p> +<center>475</center> +<p>Columbia street. The story of the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., is +simply false.</p> +<p>The next competent false witness is the Rev. Charles Hawley, +D.D., who proceeds to state that the story of the Rev. J. D. +Wickham, D.D., is corroborated by older citizens of New Rochelle. +The names of these ancient residents are withheld. According to +these unknown witnesses, the account given by the deceased elder +was entirely correct. But as the particulars of Mr. Paine's conduct +"were too loathsome to be described in print," we are left entirely +in the dark as to what he really did.</p> +<p>While at New Rochelle Mr. Paine lived with Mr. Purdy—with +Mr. Dean—with Captain Pelton, and with Mr. Staple. It is +worthy of note that all of these gentlemen give the lie direct to +the statements of "older residents" and ancient citizens spoken of +by the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D., and leave him with his "loathsome +particulars" existing only in his own mind.</p> +<p>The next gentleman you bring upon the stand is W. H. Ladd, who +quotes from the memoirs of Stephen Grellet. This gentleman also has +the misfortune to be dead. According to his account, Mr. Paine made +his recantation to a servant girl of his by the name of Mary +Roscoe. To this girl, accord</p> +<center>476</center> +<p>ing to the account, Mr. Paine uttered the wish that all who read +his book had burned it. I believe there is a mistake in the name of +this girl. Her name was probably Mary Hinsdale, as it was once +claimed that Paine made the same remark to her, but this point I +shall notice hereafter. These are your witnesses, and the only ones +you bring forward, to support your charge that Thomas Paine lived a +drunken and beastly life and died a drunken, cowardly and beastly +death. All these calumnies are found in a life of Paine by a Mr. +Cheetham, the convicted libeler already referred to. Mr. Cheetham +was an enemy of the man whose life he pretended to write.</p> +<p>In order to show you the estimation in which Mr. Cheetham was +held by Mr. Paine, I will give you a copy of a letter that throws +light upon this point:</p> +<p>October 28, 1807.</p> +<p>"Mr. Cheetham: Unless you make a public apology for the abuse +and falsehood in your paper of Tuesday, October 27th, respecting +me, I will prosecute you for lying."</p> +<p>Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>In another letter, speaking of this same man, Mr. Paine says: +"If an unprincipled bully cannot be reformed, he can be punished." +"Cheetham has been so long in the habit of giving false +information, that truth is to him like a foreign language."</p> +<center>477</center> +<p>Mr. Cheetham wrote the life of Paine to gratify his malice and +to support religion. He was prosecuted for libel—was +convicted and fined.</p> +<p>Yet the life of Paine written by this man is referred to by the +Christian world as the highest authority.</p> +<p>As to the personal habits of Mr. Paine, we have the testimony of +William Carver, with whom he lived; 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, with whom he was intimate; +of Thomas Nixon and Captain Daniel Pelton, both of whom knew him +well; of Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him when he died; of John +Fellows, who boarded at the same house; of James Wilburn, with whom +he boarded; of B. F. Haskin, a lawyer, who was well acquainted with +him and called upon him during his last illness; of Walter Morton, +a friend; of Clio Rickman, who had known him for many years; of +Willet and Elias Hicks, Quakers, who knew him intimately and well; +of Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer, and many others. All +these testified to the fact that Mr. Paine was a temperate man. In +those days nearly everybody used spirituous liquors. Paine was not +an exception; but he did not drink to excess. Mr. Lovett, who kept +the City Hotel where</p> +<center>478</center> +<p>Paine stopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham, declared that Paine +drank less than any boarder he had.</p> +<p>Against all this evidence you produce the story of Grant +Thorburn—the story of the Rev. J. D. Wickham that an elder in +his church told him that Paine was a drunkard, corroborated by the +Rev. Charles Hawley, and an extract from Lossing's history to the +same effect. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Will you +have the fairness to admit it? Your witnesses are merely the +repeaters of the falsehoods of James Cheetham, the convicted +libeler.</p> +<p>After all, drinking is not as bad as lying. An honest drunkard +is better than a calumniator of the dead. "A remnant of old +mortality, drunk, bloated and half asleep" is better than a +perfectly sober defender of human slavery.</p> +<p>To become drunk is a virtue compared with stealing a babe from +the breast of its mother.</p> +<p>Drunkenness is one of the beatitudes, compared with editing a +religious paper devoted to the defence of slavery upon the ground +that it is a divine institution.</p> +<p>Do you really think that Paine was a drunken beast when he wrote +"Common Sense"—a pamphlet that aroused three millions of +people, as people were never aroused by a pamphlet before? Was he +a</p> +<center>479</center> +<p>drunken beast when he wrote the "Crisis"? Was it to a drunken +beast that the following letter was addressed:</p> +<p>Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783.</p> +<p>"I have learned since I have been at this place, that you are at +Bordentown.—Whether for the sake of retirement or economy I +know not. Be it for either or both, or whatever it may, if you will +come to this place and partake with me I shall be exceedingly happy +to see you at it. Your presence may remind Congress of your past +services to this country; and if it is in my power to impress them, +command my best exertions with freedom, as they will be rendered +cheerfully by one who entertains a lively sense of the importance +of your works, and who with much pleasure subscribes himself,</p> +<p>"Your Sincere Friend,</p> +<p>"George Washington."</p> +<p>Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter like that?</p> +<p>Do you think that Paine was a drunken beast when the following +letter was received by him?</p> +<p>"You express a wish in your letter to return to America in a +national ship; Mr. Dawson, who brings over the treaty, and who will +present you with this letter, is charged with orders to the captain +of the</p> +<center>480</center> +<p>Maryland to receive and accommodate you back, if you can be +ready to depart at such a short warning. You will in general find +us returned to sentiments worthy of former times; <i>in these it +will be your glory to have steadily labored and with as much effect +as any man living.</i> That you may live long to continue your +useful labors, and reap the reward in the <i>thankfulness of +nations</i>, is my sincere prayer. Accept the assurances of my high +esteem and affectionate attachment."</p> +<p>Thomas Jefferson.</p> +<p>Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter like that?</p> +<p>"It has been very generally propagated through the continent +that I wrote the pamphlet 'Common Sense.' I could not have written +anything in so manly and striking a style."—John Adams.</p> +<p>"A few more such flaming arguments as were exhibited at Falmouth +and Norfolk, added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning +contained in the pamphlet 'Common Sense,' will not leave numbers at +a loss to decide on the propriety of a separation."—George +Washington.</p> +<p>"It is not necessary for me to tell you how much all your +countrymen—I speak of the great mass of the people—are +interested in your welfare.</p> +<center>481</center> +<p>They have not forgotten the history of their own Revolution and +the difficult scenes through which they passed; nor do they review +its several stages without reviving in their bosoms a due +sensibility of the merits of those who served them in that great +and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has not yet stained, +and I trust never will stain, our national character. You are +considered by them as not only having rendered important services +in our own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive scale the +friend of human rights, and a distinguished and able defender of +public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine the Americans are +not, nor can they be indifferent.".. James Monroe.</p> +<p>Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter like that?</p> +<p>"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, +in perspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in +simple and unassuming language."'—Thomas Jefferson.</p> +<p>Was ever a letter like that written about an editor of the +<i>New York Observer?</i></p> +<p>Was it in consideration of the services of a drunken beast that +the Legislature of Pennsylvania presented Thomas Paine with five +hundred pounds sterling?</p> +<center>482</center> +<p>Did the State of New York feel indebted to a drunken beast, and +confer upon Thomas Paine an estate of several hundred acres?</p> +<p>"I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious +duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to +make our fellow-creatures happy."</p> +<p>"My own mind is my own church."</p> +<p>"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally +faithful to himself."</p> +<p>"Any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot +be a true system."</p> +<p>"The Word of God is the creation which we behold."</p> +<p>"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."</p> +<p>"It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action—it begets a +calamitous necessity of going on."</p> +<p>"To read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that +is tender, sympathizing and benevolent in the heart of man."</p> +<p>"The man does not exist who can say I have persecuted him, or +that I have in any case returned evil for evil."</p> +<p>"Of all tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is +the worst."</p> +<center>483</center> +<p>"My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in +doing good and endeavoring to make their 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 affair between +every man and his Maker, and in which no third party has any right +to interfere. The practical part consists in our doing good to each +other."</p> +<p>"No man ought to make a living by religion. One person cannot +act religion for another—every person must perform it for +himself."</p> +<p>"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred +priests."</p> +<p>"Let us propagate morality unfettered by superstition."</p> +<p>"God is the power, or first cause, Nature is the law, and matter +is the subject acted upon."</p> +<p>"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness +beyond this life."</p> +<p>"The key of heaven is not in the keeping of any sect nor ought +the road to it to be obstructed by any."</p> +<p>"My religion, and the whole of it, is the fear and love of the +Deity and universal philanthropy."</p> +<p>"I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I have a good +state of health and a happy mind. I</p> +<center>484</center> +<p>take care of both, by nourishing the first with temperance and +the latter with abundance."</p> +<p>"He lives immured within the Bastile of a word."</p> +<p>How perfectly that sentence describes you! The Bastile in which +you are immured is the word "Calvinism."</p> +<p>"Man has no property in man."</p> +<p>What a splendid motto that would have made for the <i>New York +Observer</i> in the olden time!</p> +<p>"The world is my country; to do good, my religion."</p> +<p>I ask you again whether these splendid utterances came from the +lips of a drunken beast?</p> +<p><i>Did Thomas Paine die in destitution and want?</i></p> +<p>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 without friends and without money. This +charge is just as false as the rest.</p> +<p>Upon his return to this country in 1802, he was worth $30,000, +according to his own statement made at that time in the following +letter addressed to Clio Rickman:</p> +<p>"My Dear Friend: Mr. Monroe, who is appointed minister +extraordinary to France, takes charge of</p> +<center>485</center> +<p>this, to be delivered to Mr. Este, banker in Paris, to be +forwarded to you.</p> +<p>"I arrived at Baltimore the 30th of October, and you can have no +idea of the agitation which my arrival occasioned. From New +Hampshire to Georgia (an extent of 1,500 miles) every newspaper was +filled with applause or abuse.</p> +<p>"My property in this country has been taken care of by my +friends, and is now worth six thousand pounds sterling; which put +in the funds will bring me £400 sterling a year.</p> +<p>"Remember me in affection and friendship to your wife and +family, and in the circle of your friends."</p> +<p>Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>A man in those days worth thirty thousand dollars was not a +pauper. That amount would bring an income of at least two thousand +dollars per annum. Two thousand dollars then would be fully equal +to five thousand dollars now.</p> +<p>On the 12th of July, 1809, the year in which he died, Mr. Paine +made his will. From this instrument we learn that he was the owner +of a valuable farm within twenty miles of New York. He also was the +owner of thirty shares in the New York Phoenix Insurance Company, +worth upwards of fifteen hundred dollars. Besides this, some +personal</p> +<center>486</center> +<p>property and ready money. By his will he gave to Walter Morton, +and Thomas Addis Emmett, brother of Robert Emmett, two hundred +dollars each, and one hundred to the widow of Elihu Palmer.</p> +<p>Is it possible that this will was made by a pauper —by a +destitute outcast—by a man who suffered for the ordinary +necessaries of life?</p> +<p>But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that he was poor and +that he died a beggar, does that tend to show that the Bible is an +inspired book and that Calvin did not burn Servetus? Do you really +regard poverty as a crime? If Paine had died a millionaire, would +you have accepted his religious opinions? If Paine had drank +nothing but cold water would you have repudiated the five cardinal +points of Calvinism? Does an argument depend for its force upon the +pecuniary condition of the person making it? As a matter of fact, +most reformers—most men and women of genius, have been +acquainted with poverty. Beneath a covering of rags have been found +some of the tenderest and bravest hearts.</p> +<p>Owing to the attitude of the churches for the last fifteen +hundred years, truth-telling has not been a very lucrative +business. As a rule, hypocrisy has worn the robes, and honesty the +rags. That day is passing away. You cannot now answer the argu</p> +<center>487</center> +<p>ments of a man by pointing at holes in his coat. Thomas Paine +attacked the church when it was powerful—when it had what was +called honors to bestow—when it was the keeper of the public +conscience—when it was strong and cruel. The church waited +till he was dead then attacked his reputation and his clothes.</p> +<p>Once upon a time a donkey kicked a lion. The lion was dead.</p> +<a name="linkCONC" id="linkCONC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>Conclusion.</h2> +<p>From the persistence with which the orthodox have charged for +the last sixty-eight years that Thomas Paine recanted, and that +when dying he was filled with remorse and fear; from the malignity +of the attacks upon his personal character, I had concluded that +there must be some evidence of some kind to support these charges. +Even with my ideas of the average honor of believers in +superstition— the disciples of fear—I did not quite +believe that all these infamies rested solely upon poorly attested +lies. I had charity enough to suppose that something had been said +or done by Thomas Paine capable of being tortured into a foundation +for these calumnies. And I was foolish enough to think that even +you would be willing to fairly examine the pretended evidence said +to sustain these charges, and</p> +<center>488</center> +<p>give your honest conclusion to the world. I supposed that you, +being acquainted with the history of your country, felt under a +certain obligation to Thomas Paine for the splendid services +rendered by him in the darkest days of the Revolution. It was only +reasonable to suppose that you were aware that in the midnight of +Valley Forge the "Crisis," by Thomas Paine, was the first star that +glittered in the wide horizon of despair. I took it for granted +that you knew of the bold stand taken and the brave words spoken by +Thomas Paine, in the French Convention, against the death of the +king. I thought it probable that you, being an editor, had read the +"Rights of Man;" that you knew that Thomas Paine was a champion of +human liberty; that he was one of the founders and fathers of this +Republic; that he was one of the foremost men of his age; that he +had never written a word in favor of injustice; that he was a +despiser of slavery; that he abhorred tyranny in all its forms; +that he was in the widest and highest sense a friend of his race; +that his head was as clear as his heart was good, and that he had +the courage to speak his honest thought. Under these circumstances +I had hoped that you would for the moment forget your religious +prejudices and submit to the enlightened judgment of the world the +evi</p> +<center>489</center> +<p>dence you had, or could obtain, affecting in any way the +character of so great and so generous a man. This you have refused +to do. In my judgment, you have mistaken the temper of even your +own readers. A large majority of the religious people of this +country have, to a considerable extent, outgrown the prejudices of +their fathers. They are willing to know the truth and the whole +truth, about the life and death of Thomas Paine. They will not +thank you for having presented them the moss-covered, the maimed +and distorted traditions of ignorance, prejudice, and credulity. By +this course you will convince them not of the wickedness of Paine, +but of your own unfairness.</p> +<p>What crime had Thomas Paine committed that he should have feared +to die? The only answer you can give is, that he denied the +inspiration of the Scriptures. If this is a crime, the civilized +world is filled with criminals. The pioneers of human thought +—the intellectual leaders of the world—the foremost men +in every science—the kings of literature and art—those +who stand in the front rank of investigation—the men who are +civilizing, elevating, instructing, and refining mankind, are +to-day unbelievers in the dogma of inspiration. Upon this question, +the intellect of Christendom agrees with the conclusions reached by +the genius of Thomas Paine. Centuries</p> +<center>490</center> +<p>ago a noise was made for the purpose of frightening mankind. +Orthodoxy is the echo of that noise.</p> +<p>The man who now regards the Old Testament as in any sense a +sacred or inspired book is, in my judgment, an intellectual and +moral deformity. There is in it so much that is cruel, ignorant, +and ferocious that it is to me a matter of amazement that it was +ever thought to be the work of a most merciful deity.</p> +<p>Upon the question of inspiration Thomas Paine gave his honest +opinion. Can it be that to give an honest opinion causes one to die +in terror and despair? Have you in your writings been actuated by +the fear of such a consequence? Why should it be taken for granted +that Thomas Paine, who devoted his life to the sacred cause of +freedom, should have been hissed at in the hour of death by the +snakes of conscience, while editors of Presbyterian papers who +defended slavery as a divine institution, and cheerfully justified +the stealing of babes from the breasts of mothers, are supposed to +have passed smilingly from earth to the embraces of angels? Why +should you think that the heroic author of the "Rights of Man" +should shudderingly dread to leave this "bank and shoal of time," +while Calvin, dripping with the blood of Servetus, was anxious to +be judged of God? Is it possible that the persecutors—the +instigators of</p> +<center>491</center> +<p>the massacre of St. Bartholomew—the inventors and users of +thumb-screws, and iron boots, and racks— the burners and +tearers of human flesh—the stealers, whippers and enslavers +of men—the buyers and beaters of babes and mothers—the +founders of inquisitions—the makers of chains, the builders +of dungeons, the slanderers of the living and the calumniators of +the dead, all died in the odor of sanctity, with white, forgiven +hands folded upon the breasts of peace, while the destroyers of +prejudice—the apostles of humanity—the soldiers of +liberty—the breakers of fetters—the creators of +light—died surrounded with the fierce fiends of fear?</p> +<p>In your attempt to destroy the character of Thomas Paine you +have failed, and have succeeded only in leaving a stain upon your +own. You have written words as cruel, bitter and heartless as the +creed of Calvin. Hereafter you will stand in the pillory of history +as a defamer—a calumniator of the dead. You will be known as +the man who said that Thomas Paine, the "Author Hero," lived a +drunken, cowardly and beastly life, and died a drunken and beastly +death. These infamous words will be branded upon the forehead of +your reputation. They will be remembered against you when all else +you may have uttered shall have passed from the memory of men.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK</h2> +<pre> + <i>* From the NY. Observer of Nov. 1, 1877.</i> +</pre> +<center>TOM PAINE AGAIN.</center> +<p>In the Observer of September 27th, in response to numerous calls +from different parts of the country for information, and in +fulfillment of a promise, we presented a mass of testimony, chiefly +from persons with whom we had been personally acquainted, +establishing the truth of our assertions in regard to the dissolute +life and miserable end of Paine. It was not a pleasing subject for +discussion, and an apology, or at least an explanation, is due to +our readers for resuming it, and for occupying so much space, or +any space, in exhibiting the truth and the proofs in regard to the +character of a man who had become so debased by his intemperance, +and so vile in his habits, as to be excluded, for many years before +and up to the time of his death, from all decent society.</p> +<p>Our reasons for taking up the subject at all, and for presenting +at this time so much additional testimony in regard to the facts of +the case, are these: At different periods for the last fifty years, +efforts</p> +<center>493</center> +<p>have been made by Infidels to revive and honor the memory of one +whose friends would honor him most by suffering his name to sink +into oblivion, if that were possible. About two years since, Rev. +O. B. Frothingham, of this city, came to their aid, and undertook a +sort of championship of Paine, making in a public discourse this +statement: "No private character has been more foully calumniated +in the name of God than that of Thomas Paine." (Mr. Frothingham, it +will be remembered, is the one who recently, in a public discourse, +announced the downfall of Christianity, although he very kindly +made the allowance that, "it may be a thousand years before its +decay will be visible to all eyes." It is our private opinion that +it will be at least a thousand and one.) Rev. John W. Chadwick, a +minister of the same order of unbelief, who signs himself, +"Minister of the Second Unitarian Society in Brooklyn," has devoted +two discourses to the same end, eulogizing Paine. In one of these, +which we have before us in a handsomely printed pamphlet, entitled, +"Method and Value of his (Paine's) Religious Teachings," he says: +"Christian usage has determined that an Infidel means one who does +not believe in Christianity as a supernatural religion; in the +Bible as a Supernatural book; in Jesus as a super</p> +<center>494</center> +<p>natural person. And in this sense Paine was an Infidel, and so, +thank God, am I." It is proper to add that Unitarians generally +decline all responsibility for the utterances of both of these men, +and that they compose a denomination, or rather two denominations, +of their own.</p> +<p>There is also a certain class of Infidels who are not quite +prepared to meet the odium that attaches to the name; they call +themselves Christians, but their sympathies are all with the +enemies of Christianity, and they are not always able to conceal +it. They have not the courage of their opinions, like Mr. +Frothingham and Mr. Chadwick, and they work only sideways toward +the same end. We have been no little amused since our last article +on this subject appeared, to read some of the articles that have +been written on the other side, though professedly on no side, and +to observe how sincerely these men deprecate the discussion of the +character of Paine, as an unprofitable topic. It never appeared to +them unprofitable when the discussion was on the other side.</p> +<p>Then, too, we have for months past been receiving letters from +different parts of the country, asking authentic information on the +subject and stating that the followers of Paine are making +extraordinary efforts to circulate his writings against the +Christian</p> +<center>495</center> +<p>religion, and in order to give currency to these writings they +are endeavoring to rescue his name from the disgrace into which it +sank during the latter years of his life. Paine spent several of +his last years in furnishing a commentary upon his Infidel +principles. This commentary was contained in his besotted, degraded +life and miserable end, but his friends do not wish the commentary +to go out in connection with his writings. They prefer to have them +read without the comments by their author. Hence this anxiety to +free the great apostle of Infidelity from the obloquy which his +life brought upon his name; to represent him as a pure, noble, +virtuous man, and to make it appear that he died a peaceful, happy +death, just like a philosopher.</p> +<p>But what makes the publication of the facts in the case still +more imperative at this time is the wholesale accusation brought +against the Christian public by the friends and admirers of Paine. +Christian ministers as a class, and Christian journals are +expressly accused of falsifying history, of defaming "the mighty +dead!" (meaning Paine,) &c., &c. In the face of all these +accusations it cannot be out of place to state the facts and to +fortify the statement by satisfactory evidence, as we are +abundantly able to do.</p> +<center>496</center> +<p>The two points on which we proposed to produce the testimony +are, the character of Paine's life (referring of course to his last +residence in this country, for no one has intimated that he had +sunk into such besotted drunkenness until about the time of his +return to the United States in 1802), and the real character of his +death as consistent with such a life, and as marked further by the +cowardliness, which has been often exhibited by Infidels in the +same circumstances.</p> +<p>It is nothing at all to the purpose to show, as his friends are +fond of doing, that Paine rendered important service to the cause +of American Independence. This is not the point under discussion +and is not denied. No one ever called in question the valuable +service that Benedict Arnold rendered to the country in the early +part of the Revolutionary war; but this, with true Americans, does +not suffice to cast a shade of loveliness or even to spread a +mantle of charity over his subsequent career. Whatever share Paine +had in the personal friendship of the fathers of the Revolution he +forfeited by his subsequent life of beastly drunkenness and +degradation, and on this account as well as on account of his +blasphemy he was shunned by all decent people.</p> +<p>We wish to make one or two corrections of mis</p> +<center>497</center> +<p>statements by Paine's advocates, on which a vast amount of +argument has been simply wasted. We have never stated in any form, +nor have we ever supposed, that Paine actually renounced his +Infidelity. The accounts agree in stating that he died a +blaspheming Infidel, and his horrible death we regard as one of the +fruits, the fitting complement of his Infidelity. We have never +seen anything that encouraged the hope that he was not abandoned of +God in his last hours. But we have no doubt, on the other hand, +that having become a wreck in body and mind through his +intemperance, abandoned of God, deserted by his Infidel companions, +and dependent upon Christian charity for the attentions he +received, miserable beyond description in his condition, and seeing +nothing to hope for in the future, he was afraid to die, and was +ready to call upon God and upon Christ for mercy, and ready perhaps +in the next minute to blaspheme. This is what we referred to in +speaking of Paine's death as cowardly. It is shown in the testimony +we have produced, and still more fully in that which we now +present. The most wicked men are ready to call upon God in seasons +of great peril, and sometimes ask for Christian ministrations when +in extreme illness; but they are often ready on any alleviation of +distress to turn to</p> +<center>498</center> +<p>their wickedness again, in the expressive language of Scripture, +"as the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."</p> +<p>We have never stated or intimated, nor, so far as we are aware, +has any one of our correspondents stated, that Paine died in +poverty. It has been frequently and truthfully stated that Paine +was dependent on Christian charity for the attentions he received +in his last days, and so he was. His Infidel companions forsook him +and Christian hearts and hands ministered to his wants, +notwithstanding the blasphemies of his death-bed.</p> +<p>Nor has one of our correspondents stated, as alleged, that Paine +died at New Rochelle. The Rev. Dr. Wickham, who was a resident of +that place nearly fifty years ago, and who was perfectly familiar +with the facts of his life, wrote that Paine spent "his latter +days" on the farm presented to him by the State of New York, which +was strictly true, but made no reference to it as the place of his +death.</p> +<p>Such misrepresentations serve to show how much the advocates of +Paine admire "truth."</p> +<p>With these explanations we produce further evidence in regard to +the manner of Paine's life and the character of his death, both of +which we have already</p> +<center>499</center> +<p>characterized in appropriate terms, as the following testimony +will show.</p> +<p>In regard to Paine's "personal habits," even before his return +to this country, and particularly his aversion to soap and water, +Elkana Watson, a gentleman of the highest social position, who +resided in France during a part of the Revolutionary war, and who +was the personal friend of Washington, Franklin, and other patriots +of the period, makes some incidental statements in his "Men and +Times of the Revolution." Though eulogizing Paine's efforts in +behalf of American Independence, he describes him as "coarse and +uncouth in his manners, loathsome in his appearance, and a +disgusting egotist." On Paine's arrival at Nantes, the Mayor and +other distinguished citizens called upon him to pay their respects +to the American patriot. Mr. Watson says: "He was soon rid of his +respectable visitors, who left the room with marks of astonishment +and disgust." Mr. W., after much entreaty, and only by promising +him a bundle of newspapers to read while undergoing the operation, +succeeded in prevailing on Paine to "stew, for an hour, in a hot +bath." Mr. W. accompanied Paine to the bath, and "instructed the +keeper, in French, (which Paine did not understand,) gradually to +increase the heat of the water</p> +<center>500</center> +<p>until 'le Monsieur serait bien bouille (until the gentleman +shall be well boiled;) and adds that "he became so much absorbed in +his reading that he was nearlyparboiled before leaving the bath, +much to his improvement and my satisfaction."</p> +<p>William Carver has been cited as a witness in behalf of Paine, +and particularly as to his "personal habits." In a letter to Paine, +dated December 2, 1776, he bears the following testimony:</p> +<p>"A respectable gentlemen from New Rochelle called to see me a +few days back, and said that everybody was tired of you there, and +no one would undertake to board and lodge you. I thought this was +the case, as I found you at a tavern in a most miserable situation. +You appeared as if you had not been shaved for a fortnight, and as +to a shirt, it could not be said that you had one on. It was only +the remains of one, and this, likewise, appeared not to have been +off your back for a fortnight, and was nearly the color of tanned +leather; and you had the most disagreeable smell possible; just +like that of our poor beggars in England. Do you remember the pains +I took to clean you? that I got a tub of warm water and soap and +washed you from head to foot, and this I had to do three times +before I could get you clean." (And then follow more disgusting +details.)</p> +<center>501</center> +<p>"You say, also, that you found your own liquors during the time +you boarded with me; but you should have said, 'I found only a +small part of the liquor I drank during my stay with you; this part +I purchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn of brandy +containing four gallons, and this did not serve me three weeks.' +This can be proved, and I mean not to say anything that I cannot +prove; for I hold truth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known +fact, that you drank one quart of brandy per day, at my expense, +during the different times that you have boarded with me, the +demijohn above mentioned excepted, 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 his letter, which is +full of loathsome descriptions of Paine's manner of life, as +follows:</p> +<p>"Now, sir, I think I have drawn a complete portrait of your +character; yet to enter upon every minutiae would be to give a +history of your life, and to develop the fallacious mask of +hypocrisy and deception under which you have acted in your +political as well as moral capacity of life."</p> +<p>(Signed) "William Carver."</p> +<p>Carver had the same opinion of Paine to his dying day. When an +old man, and an Infidel of the Paine</p> +<center>502</center> +<p>type and habits, he was visited by the Rev. E. F. Hatfield, +D.D., of this city, who writes to us of his interview with Carver, +under date of Sept. 27, 1877: "I conversed with him nearly an hour. +I took special pains to learn from him all that I could about +Paine, whose landlord he had been for eighteen months. He spoke of +him as a base and shameless drunkard, utterly destitute of moral +principle. His denunciations of the man were perfectly fearful, and +fully confirmed, in my apprehension, all that had been written of +Paine's immorality and repulsiveness." Cheetham's Life of Paine, +which was published the year that he died, and which has passed +through several editions (we have three of them now before us) +describes a man lost to all moral sensibility and to all sense of +decency, a habitual drunkard, and it is simply incredible that a +book should have appeared so soon after the death of its subject +and should have been so frequently republished without being at +once refuted, if the testimony were not substantially true. Many +years later, when it was found necessary to bolster up the +reputation of Paine, Cheetham's Memoirs were called a pack of lies. +If only onetenth part of what he publishes circumstantially in his +volume, as facts in regard to Paine, were true, all that has been +written against him in later years does</p> +<center>503</center> +<p>not begin to set forth the degraded character of the man's life. +And with all that has been written on the subject we see no good +reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of Cheetham's portrait of +the man whom he knew so well.</p> +<p>Dr. J. W. Francis, well-known as an eminent physician, of this +city, in his Reminiscences of New York, says of Paine:</p> +<p>"He who, in his early days, had been associated with, 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, now yielded up +the mastery to the most treacherous of tyrants, King Alcohol."</p> +<p>The physician who attended Paine during his last illness was Dr. +James R. Manley, a gentleman of the highest character. A letter of +his, written in October of the year that Paine died, fully +corroborates the account of his state as recorded by Stephen +Grellet in his Memoirs, which we have already printed. He +writes:</p> +<p>"New York, October 2, 1809: I was called upon by accident to +visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of February last, and found him +indisposed with fever, and very apprehensive of an attack of +apoplexy, as he</p> +<center>504</center> +<p>stated that he had that disease before, and at this time felt a +great degree of vertigo, and was unable to help himself as he had +hitherto done, on account of an intense pain above the eyes. On +inquiry of the attendants I was told that three or four days +previously he had concluded to dispense with his usual quantity of +accustomed stimulus and that he had on that day resumed it. To the +want of his usual drink they attributed his illness, and it is +highly probable that the usual quantity operating upon a state of +system more excited from the above privations, was the cause of the +symptoms of which he then complained.... And here let me be +permitted to observe (lest blame might attach to those whose +business it was to pay any particular attention to his cleanliness +of person) that it was absolutely impossible to effect that +purpose. Cleanliness appeared to make no part of his comfort; he +seemed to have a singular aversion to soap and water; he would +never ask to be washed, and when he was he would always make +objections; and it was not unusual to wash and to dress him clean +very much against his inclinations. In this deplorable state, with +confirmed dropsy, attended with frequent cough, vomiting and +hiccough, he continued growing from bad to worse till the morning +of the 8th of June,</p> +<center>505</center> +<p>when he died. Though I may remark that during the last three +weeks of his life his situation was such that his decease was +confidently expected every day, his ulcers having assumed a +gangrenous appearance, being excessively fetid, and discolored +blisters having taken place on the soles of his feet without any +ostensible cause, which baffled the usual attempts to arrest their +progress; and when we consider his former habits, his advanced age, +the feebleness of his constitution, his constant habit of using +ardent spirits ad libitum till the commencement of his last +illness, so far from wondering that he died so soon, we are +constrained to ask, How did he live so long? Concerning his conduct +during his disease I have not much to remark, though the little I +have may be somewhat interesting. Mr. Paine professed to be above +the fear of death, and a great part of his conversation was +principally directed to give the impression that he was perfectly +willing to leave this world, and yet some parts of his conduct were +with difficulty reconcilable with his belief. In the first stages +of his illness he was satisfied to be left alone during the day, +but he required some person to be with him at night, urging as his +reason that he was afraid that he should die when unattended, and +at this period his deportment and his principle seemed to be +con</p> +<center>506</center> +<p>sistent; so much so that a stranger would judge from some of the +remarks he would make that he was an Infidel. I recollect being +with him at night, watching; he was very apprehensive of a speedy +dissolution, and suffered great distress of body, and perhaps of +mind (for he was waiting the event of an application to the Society +of Friends for permission that his corpse might be deposited in +their grave-ground, and had reason to believe that the request +might be refused), when he remarked in these words, 'I think I can +say what they made Jesus Christ to say—"My God, my God! why +hast thou forsaken me?" He went on to observe on the want of that +respect which he conceived he merited, when I observed to him that +I thought his corpse should be matter of least concern to him; that +those whom he would leave behind him would see that he was properly +interred, and, further, that it would be of little consequence to +me where I was deposited provided I was buried; upon which he +answered that he had nothing else to talk about, and that he would +as lief talk of his death as of anything, but that he was not so +indifferent about his corpse as I appeared to be.</p> +<p>"During the latter part of his life, though his conversation was +equivocal, his conduct was singular; he could not be left alone +night or day; he not only</p> +<center>507</center> +<p>required to have some person with him, but he must see that he +or she was there, and would not allow his curtain to be closed at +any time; and if, as it would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was +left alone, he would scream and halloo until some person came to +him. When relief from pain would admit, he seemed thoughtful and +contemplative, his eyes being generally closed, and his hands +folded upon his breast, although he never slept without the +assistance of an anodyne. There was something remarkable in his +conduct about this period (which comprises about two weeks +immediately preceding his death), particularly when we reflect that +Thomas Paine was the author of the 'Age of Reason.' He would call +out during his paroxysms of distress, without intermission, 'O Lord +help me! God help me! Jesus Christ help me! Lord help me!' etc., +repeating the same expressions without the least variation, in a +tone of voice that would alarm the house. It was this conduct which +induced me to think that he had abandoned his former opinions, and +I was more inclined to that belief when I understood from his nurse +(who is a very serious and, I believe, pious woman), that he would +occasionally inquire, when he saw her engaged with a book, what she +was reading, and, being answered, and at the same time asked</p> +<center>508</center> +<p>whether she should read aloud, he assented, and would appear to +give particular attention.</p> +<p>"I took occasion during the nights of the fifth and sixth of +June to test the strength of his opinions respecting revelation. I +purposely made him a very late visit; it was a time which seemed to +suit exactly with my errand; it was midnight, he was in great +distress, constantly exclaiming in the words above mentioned, when, +after a considerable preface, I addressed him in the following +manner, the nurse being present: 'Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a +large portion of the community, have been treated with deference, +you have never been in the habit of mixing in your conversation +words of coarse meaning; you have never indulged in the practice of +profane swearing; you must be sensible that we are acquainted with +your religious opinions as they are given to the world. What must +we think of your present conduct? Why do you call upon Jesus Christ +to help you? Do you believe that he can help you? Do you believe in +the divinity of Jesus Christ? Come, now, answer me honestly. I want +an answer from the lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that +you will not live twenty-four hours.' I waited some time at the end +of every question; he did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the +above</p> +<center>509</center> +<p>manner. Again I addressed him; 'Mr. Paine, you have not answered +my questions; will you answer them? Allow me to ask again, do you +believe? or let me qualify the question, do you wish to believe +that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?' After a pause of some +minutes, he answered, 'I have no wish to believe on that subject.' +I then left him, and knew not whether he afterward spoke to any +person on any subject, though he lived, as I before observed, till +the morning of the 8th. Such conduct, under usual circumstances, I +conceive absolutely unaccountable, though, with diffidence, I would +remark, not so much so in the present instance; for though the +first necessary and general result of conviction be a sincere wish +to atone for evil committed, yet it may be a question worthy of +able consideration whether excessive pride of opinion, consummate +vanity, and inordinate self-love might not prevent or retard that +otherwise natural consequence. For my own part, I believe that had +not Thomas Paine been such a distinguished Infidel he would have +left less equivocal evidences of a change of opinion. Concerning +the persons who visited Mr. Paine in his distress as his personal +friends, I heard very little, though I may observe that their +number was small, and of that number there were not wanting those +who endeavor</p> +<center>510</center> +<p>ed to support him in his deistical opinions, and to encourage +him to 'die like a man,' to 'hold fast his integrity,' lest +Christians, or, as they were pleased to term them, hypocrites, +might take advantage of his weakness, and furnish themselves with a +weapon by which they might hope to destroy their glorious system of +morals. Numbers visited him from motives of benevolence and +Christian charity, endeavoring to effect a change of mind in +respect to his religious sentiments. The labor of such was +apparently lost, and they pretty generally received such treatment +from him as none but good men would risk a second time, though some +of those persons called frequently." The following testimony will +be new to most of our readers. It is from a letter written by +Bishop Fenwick (Roman Catholic Bishop of Boston), containing a full +account of a visit which he paid to Paine in his last illness. It +was printed in the <i>United States Catholic Magazine</i> for 1846; +in the <i>Catholic Herald</i> of Philadelphia, October 15, 1846; in +a supplement to the <i>Hartford Courant</i>, October 23, 1847; and +in <i>Littell's Living Age</i> for January 22, 1848, from which we +copy. Bishop Fenwick writes:</p> +<p>"A short time before Paine died I was sent for by him. He was +prompted to this by a poor Catholic woman who went to see him in +his sickness, and</p> +<center>511</center> +<p>who told him, among other things, that in his wretched condition +if anybody could do him any good it would be a Roman Catholic +priest. This woman was an American convert (formerly a Shaking +Quakeress) whom I had received into the church but a few weeks +before. She was the bearer of this message to me from Paine. I +stated this circumstance to F. Kohlmann, at breakfast, and +requested him to accompany me. After some solicitation on my part +he agreed to do so? at which I was greatly rejoiced, because I was +at the time quite young and inexperienced in the ministry, and was +glad to have his assistance, as I knew, from the great reputation +of Paine, that I should have to do with one of the most impious as +well as infamous of men. We shortly after set out for the house at +Greenwich where Paine lodged, and on the way agreed on a mode of +proceeding with him.</p> +<p>"We arrived at the house; a decent-looking elderly woman +(probably his housekeeper,) came to the door and inquired whether +we were the Catholic priests, for said she, 'Mr. Paine has been so +much annoyed of late by other denominations calling upon him that +he has left express orders with me to admit no one to-day but the +clergymen of the Catholic Church. Upon assuring her that we were +Catholic</p> +<center>512</center> +<p>clergymen she opened the door and showed us into the parlor. She +then left the room and shortly after returned to inform us that +Paine was asleep, and, at the same time, expressed a wish that we +would not disturb him, 'for,' said she, 'he is always in a bad +humor when roused out of his sleep. It is better we wait a little +till he be awake.' We accordingly sat down and resolved to await a +more favorable moment. 'Gentlemen,' said the lady, after having +taken her seat also, 'I really wish you may succeed with Mr. Paine, +for he is laboring under great distress of mind ever since he was +informed by his physicians that he cannot possibly live and must +die shortly. He sent for you to-day because he was told that if any +one could do him good you might. Possibly he may think you know of +some remedy which his physicians are ignorant of. He is truly to be +pitied. His cries when he is left alone are heart-rending. 'O Lord +help me!' he will exclaim during his paroxysms of +distress—'God help me—Jesus Christ help me!' repeating +the same expressions without the least variation, in a tone of +voice that would alarm the house. Sometimes he will say, 'O God, +what have I done to suffer so much!' then, shortly after, 'But +there is no God,' and again a little after, 'Yet if there should +be, what would become of me hereafter.'</p> +<center>513</center> +<p>Thus he will continue for some time, when on a sudden he will +scream, as if in terror and agony, and call out for me by name. On +one of these occasions, which are very frequent, I went to him and +inquired what he wanted. 'Stay with me,' he replied, 'for God's +sake, for I cannot bear to be left alone.' I then observed that I +could not always be with him, as I had much to attend to in the +house. 'Then,' said he, 'send even a child to stay with me, for it +is a hell to be alone.' 'I never saw,' she concluded, 'a more +unhappy, a more forsaken man. It seems he cannot reconcile himself +to die.'</p> +<p>"Such was the conversation of the woman who had received us, and +who probably had been employed to nurse and take care of him during +his illness. She was a Protestant, yet seemed very desirous that we +should afford him some relief in his state of abandonment, +bordering on complete despair. Having remained thus some time in +the parlor, we at length heard a noise in the adjoining +passage-way, which induced us to believe that Mr. Paine, who was +sick in that room, had awoke. We accordingly proposed to proceed +thither, which was assented to by the woman, and she opened the +door for us. On entering, we found him just getting out of his +slumber. A more wretched being in appearance I</p> +<center>514</center> +<p>never beheld. He was lying in a bed sufficiently decent 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, and his whole appearance that of one whose better days +had been one continued scene of debauch. His only nourishment at +this time, as we were informed, was nothing more than milk punch, +in which he indulged to the full extent of his weak state. He had +partaken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as the sides and +corners of his mouth exhibited very unequivocal traces of it, as +well as of blood, which had also followed in the track and left its +mark on the pillow. His face, to a certain extent, had also been +besmeared with it."</p> +<p>Immediately upon their making known the object of their visit, +Paine interrupted the speaker by saying: "That's enough, sir; +that's enough," and again interrupting him, "I see what you would +be about. I wish to hear no more from you, sir. My mind is made up +on that subject. I look upon the whole of the Christian scheme to +be a tissue of absurdities and lies, and Jesus Christ to be nothing +more than a cunning knave and impostor." He drove them out of the +room, exclaiming: Away with you and your God, too; leave the room +instantly; all that you</p> +<center>515</center> +<p>have uttered are lies—filthy lies; and if I had a little +more time I would prove it, as I did about your impostor, Jesus +Christ."</p> +<p>This, we think, will suffice. We have a mass of letters +containing statements confirmatory of what we have published in +regard to the life and death of Paine, but nothing more can be +required.</p> +<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.</h2> +<h3>Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.</h3> +<p>To the Editor of the New York Observer:</p> +<p>You ought to have honesty enough to admit that you did, in your +paper of July 19th, offer to prove that the absurd story that +Thomas Paine died in terror and agony on account of the religious +opinions he had expressed, was true. You ought to have fairness +enough to admit that you called upon me to deposit one thousand +dollars with an honest man, that you might, by proving that Thomas +Paine did die in terror, obtain the money.</p> +<p>You ought to have honor enough to admit that you challenged me +and that you commenced the controversy concerning Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>You ought to have goodness enough to admit that you were +mistaken in the charges you made.</p> +<p>You ought to have manhood enough to do what you falsely asserted +that Thomas Paine did:—you ought to recant. You ought to +admit publicly that you slandered the dead; that you falsified +history; that you defamed the defenceless; that you deliber</p> +<center>517</center> +<p>ately denied what you had published in your own paper. There is +an old saying to the effect that open confession is good for the +soul. To you is presented a splendid opportunity of testing the +truth of this saying.</p> +<p>Nothing has astonished me more than your lack of common honesty +exhibited in this controversy. In your last, you quote from Dr. J. +W. Francis. Why did you leave out that portion in which Dr. Francis +says <i>that Cheetham with settled malignity wrote the life of +Paine?</i> Why did you leave out that part in which Dr. Francis +says that Cheetham in the same way <i>slandered Alexander Hamilton +and De Witt Clinton?</i> Is it your business to suppress the truth? +Why did you not publish the entire letter of Bishop Fenwick? Was it +because it proved beyond all cavil that Thomas Paine did not +recant? Was it because in the light of that letter Mary Roscoe, +Mary Hinsdale and Grant Thorburn appeared unworthy of belief? Dr. +J. W. Francis says in the same article from which you quoted, +"<i>Paine clung to his Infidelity until the last moment of his +life!'</i> Why did you not publish that? It was the first line +immediately above what you did quote. You must have seen it. Why +did you suppress it? A lawyer, doing a thing of this character, is +denominated a</p> +<center>518</center> +<p>shyster. I do not know the appropriate word to designate a +theologian guilty of such an act.</p> +<p>You brought forward three witnesses, pretending to have personal +knowledge about the life and death of Thomas Paine: Grant Thorburn, +Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale. In my reply I took the ground that +Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale must have been the same person. I +thought it impossible that Paine should have had a conversation +with Mary Roscoe, and then one precisely like it with Mary +Hinsdale. Acting upon this conviction, I proceeded to show that the +conversation never could have happened, that it was absurdly false +to say that Paine asked the opinion of a girl as to his works who +had never read but little of them. I then showed by the testimony +of William Cobbett, that he visited Mary Hinsdale in 1819, taking +with him a statement concerning the recantation of Paine, given him +by Mr. Collins, and that upon being shown this statement she said +that "it was so long ago that she could not speak positively to any +part of the matter—that she would not say any part of the +paper was true." At that time she knew nothing, and remembered +nothing. I also showed that she was a kind of standing witness to +prove that others recanted. Willett Hicks denounced her as unworthy +of belief.</p> +<center>519</center> +<p>To-day the following from the New York <i>World</i> was +received, showing that I was right in my conjecture:</p> +<p>Tom Paine's Death-Bed.</p> +<p><i>To the Editor of the World</i>:</p> +<p>Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll discredits Mary +Hinsdale's story of the scenes which occurred at the death-bed of +Thomas Paine. No one who knew that good lady would for one moment +doubt her veracity or question her testimony. Both she and her +husband were Quaker preachers, and well known and respected +inhabitants of New York City, <i>Ingersoll is right in his +conjecture that Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same +person</i>. Her maiden name was Roscoe, and she married Henry +Hinsdale. My mother was a Roscoe, a niece of Mary Roscoe, and lived +with her for some time. I have heard her relate the story of Tom +Paine's dying remorse, as told her by her aunt, who was a witness +to it. She says (in a letter I have just received from her), "he +(Tom Paine) suffered fearfully from remorse, and renounced his +Infidel principles, calling on God to forgive him, and wishing his +pamphlets and books to be burned, saying he could not die in peace +until it was done." (Rev.) A. W. Cornell.</p> +<p>Harpersville, New York.</p> +<center>520</center> +<p>You will notice that the testimony of Mary Hinsdale has been +drawing interest since 1809, and has materially increased. If Paine +"suffered fearfully from remorse, renounced his Infidel opinions +and called on God to forgive him," it is hardly generous for the +Christian world to fasten the fangs of malice in the flesh of his +reputation.</p> +<p>So Mary Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and as Mary Hinsdale has been +shown by her own admission to Mr. Cobbett to have known nothing of +the matter; and as Mary Hinsdale was not, according to Willet +Hicks, worthy of belief—as she told a falsehood of the same +kind about Mary Lockwood, and was, according to Mr. Collins, +addicted to the use of opium—this disposes of her and her +testimony.</p> +<p>There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn. Concerning this +witness, I received, yesterday, from the eminent biographer and +essayist, James Parton, the following epistle:</p> +<p>Newburyport, Mass.</p> +<p>Col. R. G. Ingersoll:</p> +<p>Touching Grant Thorburn, I personally know him to have been a +dishonest man. At the age of ninetytwo he copied, with trembling +hand, a piece from a newspaper and brought it to the office of the +<i>Home Journal, as his own</i>. It was I who received it and</p> +<center>521</center> +<p>detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever going to +continue this subject, I will give you the exact facts.</p> +<p>Fervently yours,</p> +<p>James Parton.</p> +<p>After this, you are welcome to what remains of Grant +Thorburn.</p> +<p>There is one thing that I have noticed during this controversy +regarding Thomas Paine. In no instance that I now call to mind has +any Christian writer spoken respectfully of Mr. Paine. All have +taken particular pains to call him "Tom" Paine. Is it not a little +strange that religion should make men so coarse and +ill-mannered?</p> +<p>I have often wondered what these same gentlemen would say if I +should speak of the men eminent in the annals of Christianity in +the same way. What would 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?</p> +<p>They would <i>say</i> of me then, just what I <i>think</i> of +them now.</p> +<p>Even if we have religion, do not let us try to get along without +good manners. Rudeness is exceedingly unbecoming, even in a saint. +Persons who</p> +<center>522</center> +<p>forgive their enemies ought, to say the least, to treat with +politeness those who have never injured them.</p> +<p>It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I have compelled you to +say that "Paine died a blaspheming Infidel." Hereafter it is to be +hoped nothing will be heard about his having recanted. As an answer +to such slander his friends can confidently quote the following +from the <i>New York Observer</i> of November ist, 1877:</p> +<p>"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NOR HAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED +THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RENOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY. THE ACCOUNTS AGREE IN +STATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."</p> +<p>This for all coming time will refute the slanders of the +churches yet to be.</p> +<p>Right here allow me to ask: If you never supposed that Paine +renounced his Infidelity, why did you try to prove by Mary Hinsdale +that which you believed to be untrue?</p> +<p>From the bottom of my heart I thank myself for having compelled +you to admit that Thomas Paine did not recant.</p> +<p>For the purpose of verifying your own admission concerning the +death of Mr. Paine, permit me to call your attention to the +following affidavit:</p> +<center>523</center> +<p>Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.</p> +<p>Col. R. G. Ingersoll:</p> +<p>Dear Sir: The following statement of facts is at your disposal. +In the year 1833 Willet Hicks made a visit to Indiana and stayed +over night at my father's house, four miles east of Richmond. In +the morning at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks the following +questions:</p> +<p>"Was thee with Thomas Paine during his last sickness?"</p> +<p>Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him every day during the latter part +of his last sickness."</p> +<p>"Did he express any regret in regard to writing the 'Age of +Reason,' as the published accounts say he did—those accounts +that have the credit of emanating from his Catholic +housekeeper?"</p> +<p>Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way by word or +action."</p> +<p>"Did he call on God or Jesus Christ, asking either of them to +forgive his sins, or did he curse them or either of them?"</p> +<p>Mr. Hicks answered: "He did not. He died as easy as any one I +ever saw die, and I have seen many die in my time." William B +Barnes.</p> +<p>Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.</p> +<p>Warren Bigler, Notary Public.</p> +<center>524</center> +<p>You say in your last that "Thomas Paine was abandoned of God." +So far as this controversy is concerned, it seems to me that in +that sentence you have most graphically described your own +condition.</p> +<p>Wishing you success in all honest undertakings, I remain,</p> +<p>Yours truly,</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<div style="height: 6em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<br /> +<table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4"> +<tbody> +<tr> +<td><big><big><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm"> +TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</tbody> +</table> +<br /> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +</body> +</html> |
