The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 05 (of 12)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 05 (of 12)

Author: Robert Green Ingersoll

Release date: February 9, 2012 [eBook #38805]

Most recently updated: November 16, 2012

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Widger

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL, VOL. 05 (OF 12) ***

THE WORKS OF

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

"There Can Be But Little Liberty On Earth

While Men Worship A Tyrant In Heaven."

In Twelve Volumes, Volume V.

DISCUSSIONS

1900

DRESDEN EDITION

This eBook has been formatted to match the format of the original printed volume with the line breaks as in the original. This formatting allows the retention of the unusual method the author has used when marking long quotations. Those wishing to view this eBook in a more appealing format for laptops and other computers may click on this line.

Contents.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.

PREFACE.

INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.

FIRST INTERVIEW.

SECOND INTERVIEW.

THIRD INTERVIEW.

FOURTH INTERVIEW.

FIFTH INTERVIEW,

SIXTH INTERVIEW.

THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.

A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.

THE OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK

INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.

SIX INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.

(1882.)

Preface—First Interview: Great Men as Witnesses

to the Truth of the Gospel—No man should quote

the Words of Another unless he is willing to

Accept all the Opinions of that Man—Reasons of

more Weight than Reputations—Would a general

Acceptance of Unbelief fill the Penitentiaries?—

My Creed—Most Criminals Orthodox—Relig-ion and

Morality not Necessarily Associates—On the

Creation of the Universe out of Omnipotence—Mr.

Talmage's Theory about the Pro-duction of Light

prior to the Creation of the Sun—The Deluge and

the Ark—Mr. Talmage's tendency to Belittle the

Bible Miracles—His Chemical, Geological, and

Agricultural Views—His Disregard of Good Manners-

-Second Interview: An Insulting Text—God's Design

in Creating Guiteau to be the Assassin of

Garfield—Mr. Talmage brings the Charge of

Blasphemy—Some Real Blasphemers—The Tabernacle

Pastor tells the exact Opposite of the Truth about

Col. Ingersoll's Attitude toward the Circulation

of Immoral Books—"Assassinating" God—Mr.

Talmage finds Nearly All the Invention of Modern

Times Mentioned in the Bible—The Reverend

Gentleman corrects the Translators of the Bible in

the Matter of the Rib Story—Denies that Polygamy

is permitted by the Old Testament—His De-fence of

Queen Victoria and Violation of the Grave of

George Eliot—Exhibits a Christian Spirit—Third

Interview: Mr. Talmage's Partiality in the

Bestowal of his Love—Denies the Right of Laymen

to Examine the Scriptures—Thinks the Infidels

Victims of Bibliophobia —He explains the Stopping

of the Sun and Moon at the Command of Joshua—

Instances a Dark Day in the Early Part of the

Century—Charges that Holy Things are Made Light

of—Reaffirms his Confidence in the Whale and

Jonah Story—The Commandment which Forbids the

making of Graven Images—Affirmation that the

Bible is the Friend of Woman—The Present

Condition of Woman—Fourth Interview: Colonel

Ingersoll Compared by Mr. Talmage tojehoiakim, who

Consigned Writings of Jeremiah to the Flames—An

Intimation that Infidels wish to have all copies

of the Bible Destroyed by Fire—Laughter

Deprecated—Col. Ingersoll Accused of Denouncing

his Father—Mr. Talmage holds that a Man may be

Perfectly Happy in Heaven with His Mother in Hell-

-Challenges the Infidel to Read a Chapter from St.

John—On the "Chief Solace of the World"—Dis-

covers an Attempt is being made to Put Out the

Light-houses of the Farther Shore—Affirms our

Debt to Christianity for Schools, Hospitals,

etc.—Denies that Infidels have ever Done any

Good—

Fifth Interview: Inquiries if Men gather Grapes of

Thorns, or Figs of Thistles, and is Answered in

the Negative—Resents the Charge that the Bible is

a Cruel Book—Demands to Know where the Cruelty of

the Bible Crops out in the Lives of Christians—

Col. Ingersoll Accused of saying that the Bible

is a Collection of Polluted Writings—Mr. Talmage

Asserts the Orchestral Harmony of the Scriptures

from Genesis to Revelation, and Repudiates the

Theory of Contradictions—His View of Mankind

Indicated in Quotations from his Confession of

Faith—He Insists that the Bible is Scientific—

Traces the New Testament to its Source with St.

John—Pledges his Word that no Man ever Died for a

Lie Cheerfully and Triumphantly—As to Prophecies

and Predictions—Alleged "Prophetic" Fate of the

Jewish People—Sixth Interview: Dr. Talmage takes

the Ground that the Unrivalled Circulation of the

Bible Proves that it is Inspired—Forgets' that a

Scientific Fact does not depend on the Vote of

Numbers—Names some Christian Millions—His

Arguments Characterized as the Poor-est, Weakest,

and Best Possible in Support of the Doctrine of

Inspira-tion—Will God, in Judging a Man, take

into Consideration the Cir-cumstances of that

Man's Life?—Satisfactory Reasons for Not Believ-

ing that the Bible is inspired.

THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.

The Pith and Marrow of what Mr. Talmage has been

Pleased to Say, set forth in the form of a Shorter

Catechism.

A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.

(1877.)

Letter to the New York Observer—An Offer to Pay

One Thousand Dollars in Gold for Proof that Thomas

Paine or Voltaire Died in Terror because of any

Religious Opinions Either had Expressed—

Proposition to Create a Tribunal to Hear the

Evidence—The Ob-server, after having Called upon

Col. Ingersoll to Deposit the Money, and

Characterized his Talk as "Infidel 'Buncombe,'"

Denies its Own Words, but attempts to Prove them—

Its Memory Refreshed by Col. Ingersoll and the

Slander Refuted—Proof that Paine did Not Recant -

-Testimony of Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton, Mr.

Jarvis, B. F. Has-kin, Dr. Manley, Amasa

Woodsworth, Gilbert Vale, Philip Graves, M. D.,

Willet Hicks, A. C. Hankinson, John Hogeboom, W.

J. Hilton, Tames Cheetham, Revs. Milledollar and

Cunningham, Mrs. Hedden, Andrew A. Dean, William

Carver,—The Statements of Mary Roscoe and Mary

Hindsdale Examined—William Cobbett's Account of a

Call upon Mary Hinsdale—Did Thomas Paine live the

Life of a Drunken Beast, and did he Die a Drunken,

Cowardly, and Beastly Death?—Grant Thorbum's

Charges Examined—Statement of the Rev. J. D.

Wickham, D.D., shown to be Utterly False—False

Witness of the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D.—W. H.

Ladd, James Cheetham, and Mary Hinsdale—Paine's

Note to Cheetham—Mr-Staple, Mr. Purdy, Col. John

Fellows, James Wilburn, Walter Morton, Clio

Rickman, Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer,

Mr.

XV

Lovett, all these Testified that Paine was a

Temperate Man—Washington's Letter to Paine—

Thomas Jefferson's—Adams and Washing-ton on

"Common Sense"—-James Monroe's Tribute—

Quotations from Paine—Paine's Estate and His

Will—The Observer's Second Attack (p. 492):

Statements of Elkana Watson, William Carver, Rev.

E. F. Hatfield, D.D., James Cheetham, Dr. J. W.

Francis, Dr. Manley, Bishop Fenwick—Ingersoll's

Second Reply (p. 516): Testimony Garbled by the

Editor of the Observer—Mary Roscoeand Mary Hins-

dale the Same Person—Her Reputation for Veracity-

-Letter from Rev. A. W. Cornell—Grant Thorburn

Exposed by James Parton—The Observer's Admission

that Paine did not Recant—Affidavit of

William B. Barnes.

PREFACE

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.

After thinking the matter over, I became satisfied

that my friends were mistaken, that they had been car-

ried away by the general current of modern thought,

and were not in a frame of mind to feel the force

of the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly see

the candor that characterizes his utterances.

At the first reading, the logic of these sermons does

not impress you. The style is of a character calculated

VI

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 ex-

pression; 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.

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

VII

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 dem-

onstration. 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.

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-

VIII

sophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridi-

cule 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,

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.

He knows that man cannot be saved through

what he knows—but only by means of what he

IX

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 scien-

tific 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.

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.

Better a cross here and a crown there, than a feast

here and a fire there.

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.

Mr. Talmage knows that philosophy is unsafe—

that the sciences are sirens luring souls to eternal

wreck. He knows that the deluded searchers after

X

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, capa-

city, and intellectual courage are dangerous, and this

belief gives him a feeling of personal security.

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 under-

stand the Bible in order to believe it. You must be-

lieve 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

XI

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.

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 ser-

mons, 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 in-

tellectual peace and all the disputes, heartburnings,

jealousies and hatreds born of thought, discussion

and reasoning, would be impossible.

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

XII

heaven. The angels do not think; they believe,

they enjoy. The highest form of religion is re-

pression. 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.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

Washington, D. C,

April; 1882.

INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.

FIRST INTERVIEW.

Polonius. My lord, I will use them according to

their desert.

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.

Question. Have you read the sermon of

Mr. Talmage, in which he exposes your mis-

representations?

Answer. I have read such reports as appeared in

some of the New York papers.

Question. What do you think of what he has

to say?

Answer. 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

16

to afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intel-

lectual 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 per-

fectly 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.

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,

17

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.

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

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

18

right on every subject, witnesses will be extremely

scarce.

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. Chris-

tians 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 The-

odore 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.

19

Although I care but little for names, still I will sug-

gest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more upon

this subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-

tainly 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 any-

body, 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.

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.

It is the same with books as with persons. Proba-

bly there is not a book in the world entirely destitute

20

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 com-

mends 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.

Truth is made no worse by the one who tells it,

and a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of its

author.

Question. 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?

Answer. My creed is this:

1. Happiness is the only good.

2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.

21

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.

3. The time to be happy is now, and the place to

be happy, is here.

4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torch

of progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-

pending upon darkness and dogma, it is far better to

increase that sacred light.

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.

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.

I can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-

trines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.

The doctrine of forgiveness—the idea that 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

22

penitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like the

credit system.

Most criminals of the present day are orthodox be-

lievers, 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 assas-

sination of Garfield, takes the ground that God per-

mitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyes

of the people to the evil effects of infidelity. Accord-

ing to this minister, God, in order to show his hatred

of infidelity, "inspired," or allowed, one Christian to

assassinate another.

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 Chris-

tianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-

abstinence 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 moral-

ists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse

23

example than the criminal. The moralist not only in-

sists that a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,

an affectionate father, without religion, but demon-

strates the truth of his doctrine by his own life;

whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself he

is nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needs

assistance from the church and its ministers.

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.

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 in-

fluences determine individual character, and the re-

24

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.

There have been brave, honest, and intelligent men

in and out of every church.

Question. 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?

Answer. What I said was substantially this: "We

"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the

"beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"If this means anything, it means that God pro-

"duced—caused to exist, called into being—the

"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that

"God formed the heaven and the earth of previously

"existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to

"convey, the idea that the matter of which the

"universe is composed was created."

This has always been my position. I did not sup-

pose that nothing was used as the raw material; but

if the Mosaic account means anything, it means that

whereas there was nothing, God caused something to

25

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 uni-

verse out of nothing, but out of "omnipotence."

Exactly how God changed "omnipotence" into matter

is not stated. If there was nothing in the universe,

omnipotence could do you no good. The weakest man

in the world can lift as much nothing as God.

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 in-

ability to understand, or even to suspect, what the

reverend gentleman means, when he says that God

created the universe out of his "omnipotence."

I admit that the Bible does not tell when God created

26

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 Wednes-

day 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 pro-

duction 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

27

Mr. Talmage—lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles,

and fox-fire. I should think that it would be humili-

ating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to 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.

There is another thing, also, that should not be for-

gotten, and that is, that there is an even balance for-

ever kept between the totals of animal and 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

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

28

created or called into being by any power. I think

that all that is, is all the God there is.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with having

misrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has he

correctly stated your position?

Answer. 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."

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 Gullivers Travels, the Stories of Mun-

chausen, and the Flying Wife, including Robinson

Crusoe, and believed them all; but that Wirt's Life of

Patrick Henry was a litde more than he could stand.

29

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.

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?

30

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 pro-

visions, and would have materially lessened the labor

and anxiety of Noah and his sons.

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.

Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt to

explain the flood by calling it partial.

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

31

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 men-

tioned 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.

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 oppor-

tunity was given for water to run up hill, or in some

32

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.

There is in the literature of ignorance no more

perfectly absurd and cruel story than that of the

deluge.

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

33

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 proba-

bility, 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.

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.

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

34

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.

Question. You are also charged with misrepresen-

tation 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.

Answer. 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 or-

dinary mountain furnishes, as a rule, space enough

35

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.

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 pro-

duce 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.

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.

36

Question. You do not seem to have any great

opinion of the chemical, geological, and agricultural

views expressed by Mr. Talmage?

Answer. 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

37

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.

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. Thou-

sands 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 per-

sonalities. Mr. Talmage should remember that in a

38

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.

39

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.

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

40

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 pro-

tector. 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

41

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?

SECOND INTERVIEW.

Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear

your hair.

Sir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion,

overwhelmed and humiliated.

Por. Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?

Sir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!

Question. I want to ask you a few questions

about the second sermon of Mr. Talmage;

have you read it, and what do you think of it?

Answer. The text taken by the reverend gentle-

man is an insult, and was probably intended as such:

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

Mr. Talmage seeks to apply this text to any one

who denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and is

the infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is per-

fectly 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

46

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.

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 differ-

ently, 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

47

"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, cer-

tainly 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 trans-

action? Is it possible to see "design" in earth-

quakes, 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

48

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 with-

hold 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 re-

sponsible. So, if this world was designed by a being

of infinite power and wisdom, he is responsible for

49

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with being

"the champion blasphemer of America"—what do

you understand blasphemy to be?

Answer. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by su-

perstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-

gates a religion as he would any department of

50

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. Blas-

phemy 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 re-

garded 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 blas-

phemy. To say that she is the Mother of God is

blasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake-

51

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 blas-

phemy. 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 in-

jured. 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 can-

not be answered. The sleight-of-hand performer,

when some one tries to raise the curtain behind which

he operates, cries "blasphemer!" The priest, find-

ing that he has been attacked by common sense,—

52

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.

Question. Then you think that there is no such

thing as the crime of blasphemy, and that no such

offence can be committed?

Answer. 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 com-

mitted 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

53

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.

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."

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 state-

ment, I had introduced a resolution to that effect, and

supported the resolution in a speech. Notwithstand-

ing these facts, hundreds of clergymen have made

haste to tell the exact opposite of the truth. This

54

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 false-

hood 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 ex-

planation. 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:

"But there is a distinction wide as the Mississippi,

"yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all oceans,

"between the literature of immorality and the litera-

"ture of free thought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard,

"and the other an angel with wings of light. Let us

"draw this distinction. Let us understand ourselves.

"Do not make the wholesale statement that all these

"laws ought to be repealed. They ought not to be

"repealed. Some of them are good, and the law

"against sending instruments of vice through the

"mails is good. The law against sending obscene

"pictures and books is good. The law against send-

55

"ing bogus diplomas through the mails, to allow a

"lot of ignorant hyenas to prey upon the sick people

"of the world, is a good law. The law against rascals

"who are getting up bogus lotteries, and sending their

"circulars in the mails is a good law. You know, as

"well as I, that there are certain books not fit to go

"through the mails. You know that. You know there

"are certain pictures not fit to be transmitted, not fit

"to be delivered to any human being. When these

"books and pictures come into the control of the

"United States, I say, burn them up! And when any

"man has been indicted who has been trying to make

"money by pandering to the lowest passions in the

"human breast, then I say, prosecute him! let the

"law take its course."

I can hardly convince myself that when Mr.

Talmage made the charge, he was acquainted with

the facts. It seems incredible that any man, pre-

tending 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 over-

whelming. Even then, I should hesitate long before

making the charge. The side I take on theological

56

questions does not render a resort to slander or

calumny a necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honor-

able 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."

Question. 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"?

Answer. Well, I think that is about as reason-

able 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.

57

He is orthodox and conservative. He believes im-

plicitly 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 mort-

gage 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

58

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?

Question. You notice that Mr. Talmage finds

nearly all the inventions of modern times mentioned

in the Bible?

Answer: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an ex-

ceedingly 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 devel-

opments in physical science. Thousands of preachers

were telling their flocks that the Bible is not a

scientific book; that Joshua was not an inspired as-

tronomer, that God never enlightened Moses about

geology, and that Ezekiel did not understand the

entire art of cookery. These admissions caused

59

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 conclu-

sively 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 discov-

eries 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 diffi-

culty 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

60

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 ex-

celled the inventors and discoverers of our time—

then I will admit that infidelity must become speech-

less forever. Until I read this sermon, I had 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

61

made it the study of their lives and died without in-

venting 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.

Question. Do you see that Mr. Talmage endeav-

ors 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?

Answer. 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

62

"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.

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 sec-

ond chapter.

According to the second account, "God formed

"man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into

"his nostrils the breath of life." And after this,

"God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put

"the man" in this garden. After this, "He made

"every tree to grow that was good for food and

"pleasant to the sight," and, in addition, "the tree

63

"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."

After this, God having noticed that it "was not

"good for man to be alone, formed out of the ground

"every beast of the field, every fowl of the air, and

"brought them to Adam to see what he would call

"them, and Adam gave names to all cattle, and to

"the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

"But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for

"him."

We are not told how Adam learned the language,

or how he understood what God said. I can hardly

believe that any man can be created with the know-

ledge 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

64

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 occa-

sionally addressing the serpent.

In the nursery rhymes of the world there is

nothing more childish than this "inspired" account

of the creation of man and woman.

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 pur-

pose 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 oc-

curred to this God, that it would be a good thing for

65

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.

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."

66

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 su-

perior 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.

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.

Question. Do you still insist that the Old Testa-

ment upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies this

charge, and shows how terribly God punished those

who were not satisfied with one wife.

Answer. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage has

said calculated to change my opinion. It has been

67

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 ac-

count, 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 eight-

eenth 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

68

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 in-

spired writers that polygamy was a crime. Polygamy

was accepted as a matter of course. Women were

simple property.

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 Com-

mandments, he prohibited murder and theft, but

he said nothing about polygamy. If he was so

terribly against that crime, why did he forget to

69

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.

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 can-

nibal got so that he liked mutton, and cared nothing

for missionary, then it would be safe to have a law

upon the subject.

70

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.

The Rev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consu-

lar 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 en-

hance 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

71

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 popu-

lation, 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?

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?

Question. What have you to say to the charge

that you were mistaken in the number of years that

72

the Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage says that

they were there 430 years, instead of 215 years.

Answer. 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.

Strange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the mira-

cles. 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.

Question. Did you ever attack the character of

Queen Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between

73

her and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate the

reputation of the Queen?

Answer. 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:

"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

74

"'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 ex-

cellent 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. Tal-

mage, true to the fawning, cringing spirit of ortho-

doxy, 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

75

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.

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.

How appropriate here, with some slight change,

the wondrously poetic and pathetic words of Laertes

at Ophelia's grave:

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 have no words with which to tell my loathing for

a man who violates a noble woman's grave.

76

Question. Do you think that the spirit in which

Mr. Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordance

with the teachings of Christianity?

Answer. I think that he talks like a true Presby-

terian. 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.

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,

77

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.

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 suc-

cessfully 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 out-

wardly 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 regene-

rated 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

78

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.

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.

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.

To an ordinary man,—to one guided by the light of

79

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.

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 cir-

cumstances? Is not self-denial in a man as praise-

worthy as in a God? Should a God be worshiped,

and a man be damned, for the same action?

According to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who 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 vic-

tory—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

80

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.

THIRD INTERVIEW.

Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and power?

Parson. He is.

Sinner. Does he at all times know just what ought

to be done?

Parson. He does.

Sinner. Does he always do just what ought to be

done?

Parson. He does.

Sinner. Why do you pray to him?

Parson. Because he is unchangeable.

Question. I want to ask you a few questions

about Mr. Talmage's third sermon. What do

you think of it?

Answer. I often ask myself the questions: Is

there anything in the occupation of a minister,—any-

thing 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 neces-

sary for those who profess to love the whole world,

to hate the few they come in actual contact with?

84

Mr. Talmage, no doubt, professes to love all man-

kind,—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 wel-

fare,—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 for-

giving 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?

Question. Mr. Talmage seems to think that you

have no right to give your opinion about the Bible.

85

Do you think that laymen have the same right as

ministers to examine the Scriptures?

Answer. 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.

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 gentle-

man 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.

86

Now, it seems to me that he should either have left

the stories out, or furnished evidence enough to con-

vince the world. According to Mr. Talmage, thou-

sands 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. Cer-

tainly 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.

Question. But Mr. Talmage says the reason why

you hate the Bible is, that your soul is poisoned; that

87

the Bible "throws you into a rage precisely as pure

"water brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia."

Answer. Is it because the mind of the infidel 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 sacri-

fice his son? Does it show that a heart is entirely

without mercy, simply because a man denies the

justice of eternal pain?

I denounce many parts of the Old Testament

because they are infinitely repugnant to my sense

of justice,—because they are bloody, brutal and in-

famous,—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-

88

ment. He is unworthy of my worship. He com-

mands 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 con-

tempt. 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.

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.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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,

89

or not, still remains. According to the account, these

planets were stopped, in order that Joshua might con-

tinue 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 circum-

stances, 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 sug-

gests "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.

90

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

91

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 fol-

lowing language; "The phenomenon was simply

"optical. The rotary motion of the earth was not

"disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by

"the same laws of refraction and reflection by which

"the sun now appears to be above the horizon when

"it is really below. The medium through which the

"sun's rays passed, might have been miraculously

"influenced so as to have caused the sun to linger

"above the horizon long after its usual time for dis-

"appearance."

I pronounce the opinion of Mr. Morey to be 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

92

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.

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 excel-

lent citizen, a good father, an obliging neighbor, and

in all respects a just and truthful man. I can also

93

imagine that a man may believe this story, and yet

assassinate a President of the United States.

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 pro-

duced,—that the aggregation of atoms was natural,

and that disintegration came to worlds, as to men,

through old age. Yet this is not the Bible view.

According to the Bible, these worlds were not born,—

they were created out of "nothing," or out of

"omnipotence," which is much the same. 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 morn-

ings to the evenings,—and I suppose rested nights,

as he has since that time on Sundays.

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 subse-

quent battles of the world's history, of which we

know anything, has maintained the strictest neu-

trality? The earth turned as usual at Yorktown,

and at Gettysburg the moon pursued her usual

94

course; and so far as I know, neither at Waterloo

nor at Sedan were there any peculiar freaks of "re-

"fraction" or "reflection."

Question. 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 legis-

latures and courts adjourned, and that the darkness

of that day has not yet been explained. What is

your opinion about that?

Answer. 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 after-

noon 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. Tal-

mage 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

95

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage also charges you with

"making light of holy things," and seems to be aston-

ished that you should ridicule the anointing oil of

Aaron?

Answer. 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

96

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 effi-

cacy 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.

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

97

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 neces-

sary, 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.

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 obliga-

tions 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

98

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 calumni-

ating unbelievers.

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."

I suppose that in the next world some ministers,

driven to extremes, may reply: "Once I told a lie

"about an infidel."

Question. You see that Mr. Talmage still sticks to

the whale and Jonah story. What do you think of

his argument, or of his explanation, rather, of that

miracle?

99

Answer. 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. Tal-

mage say that? We are told in the sacred account

that "God prepared a great fish" for the sole pur-

pose 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

100

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.

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. Tal-

mage, 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 hy-

pothesis. 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

101

face, and vainly looking through the open mouth

for signs of land!

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 command-

ment; 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.

But the whale part is, after all, not the most won-

derful portion of the book of Jonah. According to

this wonderful account, "the word of the Lord came

102

"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 them-

selves, 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 pre-

tended 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 con-

sideration 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.

103

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."

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 in-

finite being prepared a worm to smite a gourd

so that it withered, in order to keep the sun from

104

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.

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.

Does Mr. Talmage think that it is absolutely neces-

sary to believe all 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?

105

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.

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

106

about Jonah's. They will also tell him that in this

age of the world, arguments cannot be answered by

"a vehement east wind."

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have

said there are indecencies in the Bible. Are you

still of that opinion?

Answer. 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-

107

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 elimi-

nated.

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 pro-

pose 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.

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 ex-

perience and that appeals to the heart of man. I am

108

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.

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 jus-

tice 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

109

polygamy, if it had cried out against wars of exter-

mination, 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.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with unfair-

ness, because you account for the death of art in

Palestine, by the commandment which forbids the

making of graven images.

Answer. 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

110

Jerusalem. Mr. Talmage, in order to answer that

statement, goes on to show that hundreds and thou-

sands of pictures were produced in the Middle Ages.

That is a departure in pleading. Will he give us 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.

There is another thing that should not be forgotten.

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

with painting and statue—not the Protestant.

The Protestants opposed music and painting, and

refused to decorate their temples. But if Mr. Tal-

mage wishes to know to whom we are indebted for

111

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 Pagan-

ism. 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.

Question. 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?

112

Answer. Of course, I never considered a book up-

holding polygamy to be the friend of woman. Eve,

according to that book, is the mother of us all, 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 sixty-

nine 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.

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,

113

for sixty-six days. The pollution was twice as great

when she had borne a daughter.

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 offer-

ing, 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.

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 re-

garded 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.

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.

114

Question. 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?

Answer. I believe that Esther is his principal

heroine. Let us see who she was.

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 per-

haps—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."

After this, "the king appointed officers in all the

115

"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.

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.

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.

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

116

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 there-

upon 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.

At that time, Bismarck's idea of government being

in full force, any one entering the king's presence with-

out 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

117

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,

118

and as he went through the streets, proclaim: "Thus

"shall it be done to the man whom the king de-

"lighteth to honor."

Thereupon the king told Haman that 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.

Thereupon one of the chamberlains, remembering

the gallows that had been made for Mordecai, men-

tioned 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 de-

sired, hanged all of Haman's folks. He not only did

119

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 glad-

ness and feasting.

One can see from this, what a beautiful Bible

character Esther was—how filled with all that is

womanly, gentle, kind and tender!

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

120

it is claimed to be an inspired book. If Jehovah

wrote it, he certainly cannot be charged with

egotism.

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 re-

garded as somewhat indiscreet, even in the city of

Brooklyn.

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.

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 fol-

lowers 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

121

whole matter should have been investigated by the

grand jury.

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 there-

upon raised her from the dead, and she is never men-

tioned 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?

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

122

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?"

The second time was at the marriage feast in Cana,

when he said to her: "Woman, what have I to do

"with thee?" And the third time was at the cross,

when "Jesus, seeing his mother standing by the

"disciple whom he loved, said to her: Woman, be-

"hold thy son;" and to the disciple: "Behold thy

"mother." And this is all.

The best thing about the Catholic Church 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.

Is it not strange that none of the disciples of Christ

123

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?

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."

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 accept-

ing poverty and want and dishonor, for the love they

bear unworthy men; hundreds and thousands, hun-

dreds and thousands, working day and night, with

124

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.

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.

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

125

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 sus-

pecting that another could suspect, and sought with

dying words to hide her lover's crime.

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.

If we read the New Testament, we will find in the

126

epistle of Paul to Timothy, the following gallant

passages:

"Let the woman learn in silence, with all

"subjection."

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp

"authority over the man, but to be in silence."

And for these kind, gentle and civilized remarks,

the apostle Paul gives the following reasons:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman

"being deceived was in the transgression."

Certainly women ought to feel under great obli-

gation to the apostle Paul.

In the fifth chapter of the same epistle, Paul,

advising Timothy as to what kind of people he

should admit into his society or church, uses the

following language:

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under

"threescore years old, having been the wife of one

"man."

"But the younger widows refuse, for when they

"have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will

"marry."

This same Paul did not seem to think polygamy

wrong, except in a bishop. He tells Timothy that:

127

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one

"wife."

He also lays down the rule that a deacon should be

the husband of one wife, leaving us to infer that the

other members might have as many as they could get.

In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul speaks of

"grandmother Lois," who was referred to in such

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 imagina-

tion alone.

Paul, also, in his epistle to the Ephesians, says:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own hus-

"bands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the

"head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the

"church."

"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ,

"so let the wives be to their own husbands, in

"everything."

You will find, too, that in the seventh chapter 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

128

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.

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:

"They that have wives should be as though they

"had none;" because, in his opinion:

"He that is unmarried careth for the things that

"belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord;

"but he that is married careth for the things that are

"of the world, how he may please his wife."

"There is this difference also," he tells us, "be-

"tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman

"careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be

"holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is

"married careth for the things of the world, how she

" may please her husband."

Of course, it is contended that these things have

tended to the elevation of woman.

The idea that it is better to love the Lord than to

129

love your wife, or your husband, is infinitely absurd.

Nobody ever did love the Lord,—nobody can—until

he becomes acquainted with him.

Saint Paul also tells us that "Man is the image

"and glory of God; but woman is the glory of

"man;" and for the purpose of sustaining this posi-

tion, says:

"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman

"of the man; neither was the man created for the

"woman, but the woman for the man."

Of course, we can all see that man could 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."

Question. 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?

Answer. We must remember that thousands of

things enter into the problem of civilization. Soil,

climate, and geographical position, united with count-

130

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 abso-

lutely true, and when it wielded its greatest influence.

Christianity as a form of religion had actual posses-

sion of Europe during the Middle Ages. At 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 Chris-

tianity,—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.

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

132

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.

Only a little while ago, a British clergyman mur-

133

dered his wife. Only a little while ago, an American

Protestant clergyman whipped his boy to death be-

cause the boy refused to say a prayer.

The Rev. Mr. Crowley not only believed the Bible,

but was licensed to expound it. He had been

"called" to the ministry, and upon his head 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."

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.

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

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.

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.

FOURTH INTERVIEW.

Son. There is no devil.

Mother. I know there is.

Son. How do you know?

Mother. Because they make pictures that look just

like him.

Son. But, mother—

Mother. Don't "mother" me! You are trying to

disgrace your parents.

Question. 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?

Answer. So far as I am concerned, I really re-

gret 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

138

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 ven-

geance 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!

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.

One can easily see the character of Jeremiah from

the following occurrence: When the Babylonians

139

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 pro-

phesied against his own country. He was regarded

as a friend by the enemy.

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 de-

feat. 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 civil-

ization does away with priestcraft and superstition.

The priests in the days of Jeremiah were the same

as now. They sought to rule the State. They pre-

tended 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.

140

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.

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!"

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!"

Question. Do you wish, as Mr. Talmage says, to de-

stroy the Bible—to have all the copies burned to ashes?

What do you wish to have done with the Bible?

141

Answer. 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 inspira-

tion giving better meanings to the words than their

ancestors did. In this way it may be said that the

Bible grows a little better.

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,

142

and intellectual liberty would cease to exist. The

whole race, from that moment, would go back to-

ward the night of intellectual death.

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.

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.

Christianity is claimed to be a religion for all

mankind. It was founded more than eighteen cen-

turies 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

143

knew nothing of its blessings until they were in-

formed 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 so-

called 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

144

that no human being, not afflicted with delirium

tremens, can understand the book of Revelation.

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 investi-

gate. 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

145

honest thought is a soldier in the army of intellectual

liberty.

Question. Mr. Talmage thinks that you laugh too

much,—that you exhibit too much mirth, and that no

one should smile at sacred things?

Answer. 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.

A smile is the dawn of a doubt.

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

146

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."

Whoever laughs at a holy falsehood, is called a

"scoffer." Whoever gives vent to his natural feel-

ings 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."

Let us respect the truth, let us laugh at miracles,

and above all, let us be candid with each other.

'Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have, 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"?

Answer. I have described the manner in which

Sunday was kept when I was a boy. My father for

147

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.

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.

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.

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

148

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.

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.

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 min-

ister 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.

149

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 mer-

ciful, in spite of the one frightful doctrine in the New.

They did not need the religion of Presbyterianism.

Presbyterianism never made a human being better.

If there is anything that will freeze the 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 calcu-

lated 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.

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-

150

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?

But why should I expect kindness from a Chris-

tian? 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.

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 out-

stretched 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

151

thoughts, because they do not happen to be in accord

with the belief of his father or mother.

Suppose Mr. Talmage should read the Bible care-

fully 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.

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 under-

stand this God. But it seems to me, in my unregenerate

condition, touched and tainted as I am by original sin,

152

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.

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

153

of the mother to honor the father; or must he com-

promise, 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."

Question. 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?

Answer. 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

154

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.

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.

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.

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 dis-

grace my parents. How did the Christian religion

commence? Did not the first disciples advocate

theories that their parents denied? Were they

155

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.

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."

According to this, I have to make my choice be-

tween 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."

156

Question. Mr. Talmage asks you whether, in your

judgment, the Bible was a good, or an evil, to your

parents?

Answer. 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 compre-

hension. If that religion is true, hundreds of mil-

lions 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.

157

Question. 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?

Answer. 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:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth

"on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and

"greater works than these shall he do, because I go

"unto my Father."

I am willing to accept that as a true test of 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"?

158

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.

He has my thanks for calling my attention to the

fourteenth chapter of Saint John.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you are at-

tempting to destroy the "chief solace of the world,"

without offering any substitute. How do you answer

this?

Answer. 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 Scrip-

tures, 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 prop-

erly 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

159

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage says that you are taking

away the world's medicines, and in place of anaes-

thetics, in place of laudanum drops, you read an

essay to the man in pain, on the absurdities of mor-

phine and nervines in general.

Answer. 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 ser-

mons, but take real, genuine soporifics.

I regard the discoverer of ether as a benefactor.

I look upon every great surgeon as a blessing to

mankind. I regard one doctor, skilled in his profes-

sion, of more importance to the world than all the

orthodox ministers.

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

160

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 wor-

thies, 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.

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, experi-

ence, and above all, upon human reason.

We, in America, know how much prayers are

worth. We have lately seen millions of people upon

their knees. What was the result?

In the olden times, when a plague made its ap-

pearance, the people fell upon their knees and died.

161

When pestilence came, they rushed to their ca-

thedrals, 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 atti-

tude 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 pest-

ilence 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.

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.

It may, however, be claimed by Mr. Talmage, that

this statement is a little too broad, and I will therefore

162

give one recipe that I find in the fourteenth chapter

of Leviticus:

"Then shall the priest command to take for him

" that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and

"cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the priest

"shall command that one of the birds be killed in an

"earthen vessel over running water. As for the

"living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood,

"and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them

"and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was

"killed over the running water. And he shall

"sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the

"leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean,

"and shall let the living bird loose into the open

"field."

Prophets were predicting evil—filling the 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 gar-

ments of priests, why did God not give him a little

useful information in respect to the laws of health?

163

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:

"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."

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?

164

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.

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.

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.

Take theology from the world, and the churches

can be schools, and the cathedrals universities.

Take theology from the world, and the money

wasted on superstition will do away with want.

Take theology from the world, and every brain

will find itself without a chain.

There is a vast difference between what is called

infidelity and theology.

Infidelity is honest. When it reaches the confines

of reason, it says: "I know no further."

Infidelity does not palm its guess upon an ignorant

world as a demonstration.

165

Infidelity proves nothing by slander—establishes

nothing by abuse.

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.

Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It does

not cringe before an angry God.

Infidelity says to every man: Investigate for

yourself. There is no punishment for unbelief.

Infidelity asks no protection from legislatures. It

wants no man fined because he contradicts its doc-

trines.

Infidelity relies simply upon evidence—not evi-

dence of the dead, but of the living.

Infidelity has no infallible pope. It relies 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.

Infidelity does not fear contradiction. It is not

afraid of being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny

166

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 dan-

gerous not to be honest. It is dangerous not to

investigate. It is dangerous not to follow where

your reason leads.

Infidelity requires every man to judge for himself.

Infidelity preserves the manhood of man.

Question. 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"?

Answer. 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 light-

house 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-

167

where. As a matter of fact, every church is a use-

less 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.

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.

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.

Every priest has been not only a light-house but

a guide-board. He has threatened eternal damna-

tion 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

168

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.

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 blas-

phemer. The fires of this world sustain the same

relation to insurance companies that the fires of the

next do to the churches.

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?

For my part, I do not wish to be rescued by a life-

169

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.

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 or-

thodox Christianity.

Mr. Talmage speaks of the "meanness of in-

"fidelity."

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.

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.

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 friend-

ships of this world.

170

The meanness of orthodox Christianity, its un-

speakable 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.

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.

Oh, the unutterable meanness of orthodox Chris-

tianity, 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!

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,

171

women, and children writhe—not in a pictured flame,

but in the real and quenchless fires of hell.

Question. Mr. Talmage also claims that we are

indebted to Christianity for schools, colleges, univer-

sities, hospitals and asylums?

Answer. This shows that Mr. Talmage has not

read the history of the world. Long before Chris-

tianity 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.

The great libraries at Alexandria were not Chris-

tian. 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.

Where did education come from? For a thousand

172

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.

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 asy-

lums, 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 desti-

tute may be provided for, not because they are

Christians, but because they are humane; and they

are not humane because they are Christians.

The colleges of this country have been poisoned by

173

theology, and their usefulness almost destroyed. Just

in proportion that they have gotten from ecclesiastical

control, they have become a good. That college, to-

day, 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.

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?

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.

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.

174

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 suffi-

ciently 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 de-

nounced human reason, and have done all within

their power to prevent the real progress of mankind.

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 Chris-

tianity. Thousands of mothers, thinking of their

sons in hell—thousands of fathers, believing their

boys and girls in perdition, have lost their reason.

So, let it be distinctly understood, that Christianity

has made ten lunatics—twenty—one hundred—

where it has provided an asylum for one.

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-

175

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.

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."

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 ex-

changes 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

176

beggar is not on horseback, and even the walking is

not good.

Question. Mr. Talmage says that infidels have

done no good?

Answer. 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.

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 brain-

less. He who is so afraid of hurting the reputation

of his father and mother that he refuses to advance,

177

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."

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 de-

nounce this brave sailor of the seas as a buccaneer.

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 theolo-

gians.

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-

178

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.

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 in-

ventor 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?

179

The progress of the world—its present improved

condition—can be accounted for only by the discov-

eries of genius, only by men who have had the

courage to express their honest thoughts.

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 Presby-

terian 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.

As Jehovah has ceased to make garments for his

children,—as he has stopped making coats of skins,

180

I have great respect for the inventors of the spinning-

jenny 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.

I have infinite respect for the inventors, the

thinkers, the discoverers, and above all, for the un-

known millions who have, without the hope of fame,

lived and labored for the ones they loved.

FIFTH INTERVIEW.

Parson. You had belter join the church; it is

the safer way.

Sinner. I can't live up to your doctrines, and you

know it.

Parson. Well, you can come as near it in the

church as out; and forgiveness

will be easier if you join us.

Sinner. What do you mean by that?

Parson. I will tell you. If you join the church,

and happen to back-slide now and then, Christ will

say to his Father: "That man is a "friend of mine,

and you may charge his account to me."

Question. What have you to say about the

fifth sermon of the Rev. Mr. Talmage in reply

to you?

Answer. The text from which he preached is:

"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

I am compelled to answer these questions in 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

184

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.

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.

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 be-

tween you and the natural consequences of your

goodness, and not allow you to reap what you sow.

185

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.

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. Tal-

mage 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!

186

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 confi-

dence in repentance without restitution, and a hus-

band 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..

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

187

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have

taken the ground that the Bible is a cruel book, and

has produced cruel people?

Answer. 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.

The Old Testament is filled with cruelty, but its

cruelty stops with this world, its malice ends with

188

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 in-

finitely more cruel than the Old.

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.

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.

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

189

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.

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 battle-

field, and the war was produced by the Bible. The re-

vocation 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 sup-

posed to have been "ordained of God;" and he who

rose against his king periled his soul.

In this connection, and in order to show the state

of society when the church had entire control of civil

190

and ecclesiastical affairs, it may be well enough to

read the following, taken from the New York Sun 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 so-

ciety 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:

"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

191

"'blasphemer.' Flogging with rods was a cheap

"punishment, its remuneration being fixed at three

"florins, thirty kreuzers."

The Bible has made men cruel. It is a cruel book.

And yet, amidst its thorns, amidst its thistles, amidst

its nettles and its swords and pikes, there are some

flowers, and these I wish, in common with all good

men, to save.

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 char-

itable 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

192

produced people who loved one another better than

the Egyptians.

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?"

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 con-

tinual shedding of blood—these things, if they have

any tendency, tend only to harden the heart of child-

hood.

The Bible does not stop simply with the killing of

animals. The Jews were commanded to kill their

193

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.

Nowhere in the world can be found laws more un-

just and cruel than in the Old Testament.

Question. Mr. Talmage wants you to tell where

the cruelty of the Bible crops out in the lives of Chris-

tians?

Answer. 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-

194

tians believed this dogma. They also believed that

they had a right to defend themselves and their

children from "heretics."

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 perse-

cutor. 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 persecu-

tion. These are passages quoted only in time of

peace. Others are repeated to feed the flames of

war.

I find, too, that reading the Bible and believing the

Bible do not prevent even ministers from telling false-

195

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 testi-

mony 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?

Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with having

said that the Scriptures are a collection of polluted

writings?

Answer. 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

196

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.

I have never said anything against Solomon's

Song. I like it better than I do any book that pre-

cedes 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.

Neither have I any objection to the book of Eccle-

siastes—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

197

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 treas-

ures, 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.

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 intem-

perate. Hundreds and hundreds of women are

arrested every year in Glasgow for drunkenness.

Visit the Christian homes in the manufacturing dis-

tricts of England. Talk with the beaters of children

and whippers of wives, and you will find them be-

lievers. Go into what is known as the "Black

"Country," and you will have an idea of the Chris-

tian civilization of England.

Let me tell you something about the "Black

"Country." There women work in iron; there women

198

do the work of men. Let me give you an instance:

A commission was appointed by Parliament to ex-

amine into the condition of the women in the "Black

"Country," and a report was made. In that report

I read the following:

"A superintendent of a brickyard where women

"were engaged in carrying bricks from the yard to

"the kiln, said to one of the women:

"'Eliza, you don't appear to be very uppish this

"morning.'"

"'Neither would you be very uppish, sir,' she re-

"plied, 'if you had had a child last night.'"

This gives you an idea of the Christian civilization

of England.

England and Ireland produce most of the prize-

fighters. 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.

I do not believe there is a country in the world

199

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.

Question. Mr. Talmage insists that there are no

contradictions in the Bible—that it is a perfect har-

mony from Genesis to Revelation—a harmony as

perfect as any piece of music ever written by

Beethoven or Handel?

Answer. 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.

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

200

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.

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 desti-

nies—one for believers and the other for unbelievers.

That is to say:

1. That God is good, holy and forgiving.

2. That man is a lost sinner.

3. That Christ is "all sympathetic," and ready to

take the whole world to his heart.

4. Heaven for believers and hell for unbelievers.

First. I admit that the Bible says that God is

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

201

God believed in extermination, in polygamy, in con-

cubinage, in human slavery; this good God com-

manded 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.

Second. 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. Tal-

mage could not have made man a success? Accord-

ing to the Bible, his God made man knowing that in

about fifteen hundred years he would have to drown

all his descendants.

202

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?

Third. 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 infi-

nitely tender and merciful Christ—not the slightest

objection to people preaching about heaven, or about

the glories of the future state—not the slightest.

Fourth. I object to the doctrine of two destinies

for the human race. I object to the infamous false-

hood of eternal fire. And yet, Mr. Talmage is en-

deavoring to poison the imagination of men, 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:"

203

"By the decrees of God, for the manifestation of

"his glory, some men and angels are predestinated

"to everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever-

"lasting death."

That is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He wor-

ships a God who damns people "for the manifesta-

"tion of his glory,"—a God who made men, 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.

Question. What does Mr. Talmage think of man-

kind? What is his opinion of the "unconverted"?

How does he regard the great and glorious of 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?

Answer. I will tell you how he looks upon all

such. Read this from his "Confession of Faith:"

"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety

"of the tempter, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.

"By this sin, they fell from their original righteous-

"ness and communion with God, and so became

"dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties

204

"and parts of soul and body; and they being the

"root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was

"imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted

"nature conveyed to all their posterity. From this

"original corruption—whereby we are utterly indis-

"posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,

"and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual

"transgressions."

This is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.

Why did his God make a devil? Why did 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."

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

205

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 accord-

ance with natural law, then kill the devil, and make a

new pair?

When the flood came, why did he not drown all?

Why did he save for seed that which was "perfectly

"and thoroughly corrupt in all its parts and facul-

"ties"? If God had drowned Noah and his 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."

Jehovah learned nothing by experience. He per-

sisted 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 pre-

served Noah, knowing that he was totally corrupt,

and that he would again fill the world with infamous

206

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 de-

stroyed, 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.

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 Presby-

terian Church tells us what is to become of all these

people. This is the "glad tidings of great joy."

Let us see:

207

"All mankind, by their fall, lost communion with

"God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made

"liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself,

"and to the pains of hell forever."

According to this good Presbyterian doctrine, 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.

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 per-

mit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart his

plans? Why did he permit him to pollute the inno-

cence of Eden? Why does he allow him now to

wrest souls by the million from the redeeming hand

of Christ?

According to the Scriptures, the devil has always

208

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?

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 regen-

eration by the Holy Ghost.

I am charged with trying to take the consolation

209

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 edu-

cated, I say to the country for which they died:

These fathers, these mothers, these wives, these

husbands, these soldiers are not in hell.

Question. 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?

Answer. I do not believe the Bible to be a sci-

entific 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 geo-

logically true. They admit that Joshua knew nothing

210

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 be-

fore 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.

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-

211

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 any-

thing 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."

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 cow-

ardly 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

212

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.

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 pro-

fessors 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.

I admit that I have said:

1. That the Bible is cruel.

2. That in many passages it is impure.

3. That it is contradictory.

4. That it is unscientific.

Let me now prove these propositions one by one.

First. The Bible is cruel.

I have opened it at random, and the very first

213

chapter that has struck my eye is the sixth of First

Samuel. In the nineteenth verse of that chapter, I

find the following:

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because

"they had looked into the ark of the Lord; even he

"smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score

"and ten men."

All this slaughter was because some people had

looked into a box that was carried upon a cart. Was

that cruel?

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:

"Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from

"Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people,

"that I may know the number of the people."

At the end of nine months and twenty days, 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

214

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.

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."

"And when the angel stretched out his hand upon

"Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of

"the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the

"people, It is enough; stay now thine hand."

Was this cruel?

Why did a God of infinite mercy destroy seventy

thousand men? Why did he fill his land with widows

and orphans, because King David had taken the cen-

sus? If he wanted to kill anybody, why did he not

kill David? I will tell you why. Because at that

215

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.

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."

216

I want to know if the following, from the fifteenth

chapter of First Samuel, is inspired:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I remember that

"which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for

"him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now

"go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that

"they have, and spare them not, but slay both man

"and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,

"camel and ass."

We must remember that those he was 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.

It seems that Saul only partially carried into exe-

cution 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 fat-

lings 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?"

217

Are stories like this calculated to make soldiers

merciful?

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?

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."

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

2l8

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 dis-

covered poor Achan, "they took him and his sons

"and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses and

"his sheep, and all that he had, and brought them unto

"the valley of Achor; and all Israel stoned him with

"stones and burned them with fire after they had

"stoned them with stones."

After Achan and his sons and his daughters and

his herds had been stoned and burned to death, we

are told that "the Lord turned from the fierceness of

"his anger."

And yet it is insisted that this God "is merciful,

"and that his loving-kindness is over all his works."

In the eighth chapter of this same book, the infi-

nite God, "creator of heaven and earth and all that is

"therein," told his general, Joshua, to lay an 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

219

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, enter-

ed 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?

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."

Is it possible, as recorded in the tenth chapter of

Joshua, that the Lord took part in these battles, and

220

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"?

Is it possible that a being of infinite power would

exercise it in that way instead of in the interest of

kindness and peace?

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.

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.

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, help-

less women nor prattling babes.

He also vanquished Horam, King of Gezer, "and

"smote him and his people until he left him none

"remaining."

221

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.

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.

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.

And this chapter of horrors concludes with this

song of victory:

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and

"of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs,

"and all their kings: he left none remaining, but

"utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord

"God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote

"them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the

"country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these

"kings and their land did Joshua take at one time,

"because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel."

Was God, at that time, merciful?

222

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 com-

mand of a merciful God?

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.

I find the following directions given to the Israel-

ites who were waging a war of conquest. They are

in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, from the

tenth to the eighteenth verses:

"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight

"against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it

"shall be, if it make thee an answer of peace, and

"open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people

223

"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 inhabit-

ants of the cities near to them:

"But of the cities of these people which the Lord

"thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou

"shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou

"shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites,

"and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,

"the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God

"hath commanded thee."

224

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.

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

225

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 be-

troth a wife and another shall have her; that they

shall build a house and not dwell in it; plant a vine-

yard 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

226

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.

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.

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

227

say: Would God it were evening! and in the even-

ing, 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.

This curse, the foundation of the Anathema

maranatha; 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 barba-

rism 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.

In order that there may be no doubt as to the

mercy of Jehovah, read the thirteenth chapter of

Deuteronomy:

"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

228

"him; but thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand

"shall be first upon him to put him to death, and

"afterwards the hand of all the people; and thou

"shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he

"hath sought to entice thee away from the Lord thy

"God."

This, according to Mr. Talmage, is a 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 sug-

gest 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 can-

not 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?

No wonder that this same God, in the very next

chapter of Deuteronomy to that quoted, says to his

229

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."

What a mingling of heartlessness and thrift—the

religion of sword and trade!

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:

"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor

"show mercy unto them. * * * Know therefore

"that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God,

"which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that

"love him and keep his commandments to a thousand

"generations, and repayeth them that hate him to

"their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to

"him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face."

This is the description which the merciful, long-suffer-

ing Jehovah gives of himself.

So, he promises great prosperity to the Jews if

230

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."

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.

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

231

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.

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."

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

232

"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 thou-

sand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves, sixty-one

thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand women

children and maidens. And it seems, by the fortieth

verse, that the Lord's tribute of the maidens was thirty-

two,—the rest were given to the soldiers and to the

congregation of the Lord.

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.

In the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers we find

that the Israelites had joined themselves unto Baal-

Peor, 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

233

"up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce

"anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."

And thereupon "Moses said unto the judges of Israel,

"Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto

"Baal-peor."

Just as soon as these people were killed, and 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."

In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers is more evi-

dence that God is merciful and compassionate.

The children of Israel had become discouraged.

They had wandered so long in the desert that 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 cir-

cumstances? And yet, on account of this complaint,

the God of infinite tenderness and compassion sent

234

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 jour-

neying. He could have supplied them with miracu-

lous food.

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?

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

235

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:

"Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent

"me to do all these works; for I have not done them

"of my mine own mind. If these men die the

"common death of all men, or if they be visited

"after the common visitation of all men, then the

"Lord hath not sent me. But if the Lord make a

"new thing, and the earth open her mouth and

"swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them,

"and they go down quick into the pit, then ye shall

"understand that these men have provoked the

"Lord." The moment he ceased speaking, "the

"ground clave asunder that was under them; and

"the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up,

"and their houses, and all the men that appertained

"unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that

"appertained to them went down alive into the pit,

236

"and the earth closed upon them, and they perished

"from among the congregation."

This, according to Mr. Talmage, was the act of an

exceedingly merciful God, prompted by infinite kind-

ness, 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 remorse-

lessly cruel and wicked?

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 pre-

vailed 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.

In the thirteenth chapter of the same book of

237

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 discour-

aged by these reports, "all the congregation lifted up

"their voice and cried, and the people wept that

"night * * * and murmured against Moses and

"against Aaron, and said unto them: Would God

"that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would

"God we had died in this wilderness!" Some 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.

Jehovah got angry again, and said to Moses:

"How long will these people provoke me? * * *

238

"I will smite them with pestilence, and disinherit

"them." But Moses said: Lord, if you do this,

the Egyptians will hear of it, and they will say 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

239

"years * * * until your carcasses be wasted in

"the wilderness."

And all this because the people were afraid of

giants, compared with whom they were but as grass-

hoppers.

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."

Yet he is slow to anger, long-suffering, merciful

and just.

In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, is the ac-

240

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.

It seems, according to this account, that Moses had

been up in the mount with God, getting the Ten Com-

mandments, 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."

241

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."

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?

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.

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.

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

242

"the Lord to harden their hearts that they should

"come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy

"them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but

"that he might destroy them."

Read the thirtieth chapter of Exodus and you 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.

In the same chapter, a recipe is given for per-

fumery, and it is declared that whoever shall make

any like it, or that smells like it, shall suffer death.

In the next chapter, it is decreed that if any one fails

to keep the Sabbath "he shall be surely put to death."

There are in the Pentateuch hundreds and hun-

dreds of passages showing the cruelty of Jehovah.

What could have been more cruel than the flood?

What more heartless than to overwhelm a world?

What more merciless than to cover a shoreless sea

with the corpses of men, women and children?

The Pentateuch is filled with anathemas, with

curses, with words of vengeance, of jealousy, of

hatred, and brutality. By reason of these passages,

243

millions of people have plucked from their hearts the

flowers of pity and justified the murder of women

and the assassination of babes.

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."

Of course he obtained his miraculous power from

Jehovah; and there must have been some communi-

cation 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.

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.

244

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.

But all the cruelties in the Old Testament are ab-

solute 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, ven-

geance 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.

And yet we are told that the author of hell is a

being of infinite mercy.

Second; 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.

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.

245

The Old Testament upholds polygamy. That is

infinitely impure. It sanctions concubinage. That

is impure; nothing could or can be worse. Hun-

dreds of things are publicly told that should have re-

mained unsaid. No one is made better by 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.

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. Civiliza-

tion is a growth. It is continually dying, and continu-

ally 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.

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

246

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.

Third. Let us see whether there are any contra-

dictions in the Bible.

A little book has been published, called "Self

"Contradictions of the Bible," by J. P. Mendum, of

The Boston Investigator. I find many of the apparent

contradictions of the Bible noted in this book.

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 direc-

tions 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."

247

And in the sixth chapter of Jeremiah, the same

Jehovah says; "Your burnt offerings are not ac-

"ceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."

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."

So I find in Isaiah the following: "Bring no more

"vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;

"the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of as-

"semblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even

"the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your

"appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble

"to me; I am weary to bear them." "To what

"purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?

"saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of

"rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not

"in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

"When ye come to appear before me, who hath re-

"quired this at your hand?"

So I find in James: "Let no man say when he is

"tempted: I am tempted of God; for God cannot be

"tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man;"

and yet in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis I

248

find this: "And it came to pass after these things,

"that God did tempt Abraham."

In Second Samuel we see that he tempted David.

He also tempted Job, and Jeremiah says: "O Lord,

"thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." 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?"

So in Second Thessalonians: "For these things

"God shall send them strong delusions, that they

"should believe a lie."

So in First Kings, twenty-second chapter: "Behold,

"the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all

"these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil

"concerning thee."

So in Ezekiel: "And if the prophet be deceived

"when he hath spoken a thing, I, the Lord, have de-

"ceived that prophet."

So I find: "Thou shalt not bear false witness;"

and in the book of Revelation: "All liars shall have

"their part in the lake which burneth with fire and

"brimstone;" yet in First Kings, twenty-second

chapter, I find the following: "And the Lord said:

"Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and

249

"fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this

"manner, and another said on that manner. And

"there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord,

"and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said

"unto him: Wherewith? And he said: I will go

"forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all

"his prophets. And he said: Thou shalt persuade

"him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so."

In the Old Testament we find contradictory laws

about the same thing, and contradictory accounts of

the same occurrences.

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.

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

250

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 ac-

count, the Garden of Eden was planted, and all the

animals were made before Eve was formed. It is

impossible to harmonize the two accounts.

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

251

of two stories, and it is very easy to take them apart

and show exactly how they were put together.

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.

There are two accounts of the manner in which

Saul was made king, and the accounts are inconsistent

with each other.

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.

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 in-

vented 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 Alex-

andrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint,

translated by seventy-two learned Jews assisted by

252

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 ver-

sions 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 Ethi-

opie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other ver-

sions, 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

253

languages of Europe; and most of these Bibles

differed from each other, and gave rise to endless

disputes and to almost numberless crimes.

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 consti-

tuted 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 be-

lieves the Bible or not. It is sufficient, however, to

say that the Old Testament is filled with contradic-

tions 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.

Besides all this, many of its laws are contradictory,

often commanding and prohibiting the same thing.

The New Testament also is filled with contradic-

tions. The gospels do not even agree upon 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 be-

trayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascen-

sion of Christ. John is the only one that ever heard

254

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.

Fourth. Is the Bible scientific? In my judgment

it is not

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 infi-

nite length of time.

I do not think it is scientific to say that the uni-

verse was made in six days, or that this world is only

about six thousand years old, or that man has only

been upon the earth for about six thousand years.

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

255

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.

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 char-

acter for himself.

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 unsci-

entific. 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 re-

mains 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.

256

So it is unscientific to say that thorns and brambles

were produced by Adam's sin.

It is also unscientific to say that labor was pro-

nounced as a curse upon man. Labor is not a curse.

Labor is a blessing. Idleness is a curse.

It is unscientific to say that the sons of God,

living, we suppose, in heaven, fell in love with the

daughters of men, and that on account of this a

flood was sent upon the earth that covered the

highest mountains.

The whole story of the flood is unscientific, and no

scientific man worthy of the name, believes it.

Neither is the story of the tower of Babel a scien-

tific thing. Does any scientific man believe that

God confounded the language of men for fear they

would succeed in building a tower high enough to

reach to heaven?

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.

The story of Lot's wife having been turned into a

pillar of salt is extremely unscientific.

It is unscientific to say that people at one time lived

to be nearly a thousand years of age. The history

257

of the world shows that human life is lengthening

instead of shortening.

It is unscientific to say that the infinite God

wrestled with Jacob and got the better of him, put-

ting his thigh out of joint.

It is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness of

a flame of fire, inhabited a bush.

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.

It is not scientific to say that God changed water

into blood. All the elements of blood are not in

water.

It is unscientific to declare that dust was changed

into lice.

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.

It is not scientific to say that about seventy people

could, in two hundred and fifteen years increase to

three millions.

It is not scientific to say that an infinitely good

God would destroy innocent people to get revenge

upon a king.

258

It is not scientific to say that slavery was once

right, that polygamy was once a virtue, and that ex-

termination was mercy.

It is not scientific to assert that a being of infinite

power and goodness went into partnership with in-

sects,—granted letters of marque and reprisal to

hornets.

It is unscientific to insist that bread was really

rained from heaven.

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 cur-

tains, 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.

It is not scientific to say that when a man commits

a sin, he can settle with God by killing a sheep.

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.

259

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?

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 in-

habitants?

Is it scientific to say that an animal saw an angel,

and conversed with a man?

Is it scientific to imagine that thrusting a spear

through the body of a woman ever stayed a plague?

Is it scientific to say that a river cut itself in two

and allowed the lower end to run off?

Is it scientific to assert that seven priests blew

seven rams' horns loud enough to blow down the

walls of a city?

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?

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

260

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?

Is it scientific to say that the muscle of a man de-

pended upon the length of his locks?

Is it unscientific to deny that water gushed from a

hollow place in a dry bone?

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?

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 after-

ward an angel turned cook and prepared two sup-

pers in one night, for the same prophet, who ate

enough to last him forty days and forty nights?

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-

261

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 sun-

dial went back ten degrees, as a sign that a miserable

barbarian king would get well?

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?

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?

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?

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

262

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.

It is not scientific to believe that God ever pre-

vented 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 man-

kind; or that he ever killed children to get even with

their parents.

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.

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.

It is not scientific to believe that Zerah, the Ethio-

pian, 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.

It is unscientific to believe that Jehovah advertised

for a liar, as is related in Second Chronicles.

263

It is not scientific to believe that fire refused to

burn, or that water refused to wet.

It is not scientific to believe in dreams, in visions,

and in miracles.

It is not scientific to believe that children have

been born without fathers, that the dead have ever

been raised to life, or that people have bodily as-

cended to heaven taking their clothes with them.

It is not scientific to believe in the supernatural.

Science dwells in the realm of fact, in the realm of

demonstration. Science depends upon human ex-

perience, upon observation, upon reason.

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.

It is unscientific to say that a finite sin deserves

infinite punishment.

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.

In short, the foolish, the unreasonable, the false,

the miraculous and the supernatural are unscientific.

264

Question. 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 under-

stand this matter, and has Mr. Talmage stated the

facts?

Answer. Let us examine first the witnesses pro-

duced 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.

Eusebius was born somewhere about two hundred

and seventy years after Christ. After many vicissi-

tudes he became, it is said, the friend of Constantine.

He made an oration in which he extolled the virtues

265

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 in-

sisted 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."

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.

Eusebius also relates that when Joseph and Mary

arrived in Eygpt they took up their abode in Hermopolis,

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.

266

"It is believed by the learned Dr. Lardner, that

"Eusebius was the one guilty of the forgery in the

"passage found in Josephus concerning Christ. Un-

"blushing falsehoods and literary forgeries of the

"vilest character darkened the pages of his historical

"writings." (Waites History.)

From the same authority I learn that Eusebius

invented an eclipse, and some earthquakes, to agree

with the account of the crucifixion. It is also be-

lieved 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.

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.

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.

Now, if we are to take the testimony of Irenæus,

267

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."

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.

These facts can be found in "The History of the

"Christian Religion to A. D. 200," by Charles B.

Waite,—a book that Mr. Talmage ought to read.

According to Mr. Waite, Irenæus, in the thirty-

third chapter of his fifth book, Adversus Hæreses,

cites from Papias the following sayings of Christ:

"The days will come in which vines shall grow

"which shall have ten thousand branches, and on

"each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig

"ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot ten thousand

"clusters, and in every one of the clusters ten

"thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed

268

"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."

Is it possible that the eternal welfare of a human

being depends upon believing the testimony of Poly-

carp 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?

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.

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

269

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 pos-

sessed 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 ser-

pents 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.

270

Origen, another of the witnesses of Mr. Talmage,

said that the sun, moon and stars were living crea-

tures, endowed with reason and free will, and occa-

sionally inclined to sin. That they had free will, 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.

These intelligent witnesses believed that the blight-

ing of vines and fruit trees, and the disease and de-

struction that came upon animals and men, were 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."

Concerning these early fathers, Professor Davidson,

as quoted by Mr. Keeler, uses the following lan-

guage: "Of the three fathers who contributed

"most to the growth of the canon, Irenæus was

271

"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,'

272

"as divine Scripture. Origen quotes the 'Wisdom

"of Solomon' as the 'Word of God' and 'the

"'words of Christ himself.' Eusebius of Cæsarea

"cites it as a * Divine Oracle,' and St. Chrysostom

"used it as Scripture. So Eusebius quotes the

"thirteenth chapter of Daniel as Scripture, but as a

"matter of fact, Daniel has not a thirteenth chapter,—

"the church has taken it away. Clement spoke of

"the writer of the fourth book of Esdras as a prophet;

"he thought Baruch as much the word of God as

"any other book, and he quotes it as divine Scripture.

"Clement cites Barnabas as an apostle. Origen

"quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas, calls it 'Holy

" 'Scripture,' and places it on a level with the Psalms

"and the Epistles of Paul; and Clement of Alexan-

"dria believed in the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and the

"'Revelation, of Peter,' and wrote comments upon

"these holy books."

Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early

fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They be-

lieved 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

273

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 abso-

lutely 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.

As to Saint John, the real truth is, that we know

nothing certainly of him. We do not know that he

ever lived.

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.

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

274

statements are false, and do not know that any of

them are true.

Question. What do you think of the following state-

ment by Mr. Talmage: "Oh, I have to tell you that no

"man ever died for a lie cheerfully and triumphantly"?

Answer. There was a time when men "cheerfully

"and triumphantly died" in defence of the 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?

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?

Thousands upon thousands have died in defence of

the religion of Mohammed. Was Mohammed an im-

postor? Thousands have welcomed death in defence

of the doctrines of Buddha. Is Buddhism true?

275

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.

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 mean-

ness 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.

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

276

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 de-

stroyed by enemies, and he accounts for the fact that

the Jew does not lose his nationality by saying that

the Old Testament is true.

The Jews have been persecuted by the Christians,

and they are still persecuted by them; and Mr. Tal-

mage seems to think that this persecution was a 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.

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.

There is no prophecy in the Old Testament fore-

telling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one

277

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 re-

counted in the New Testament—not the slightest.

Let us take some of the prophecies of the Bible,

and see how plain they are, and how beautiful they

are. Let us see whether any human being can tell

whether they have ever been fulfilled or not.

Here is a vision of Ezekiel: "I looked, and be-

"hold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great

"cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness

"was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the

"color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also

"out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four

"living creatures. And this was their appearance;

"they had the likeness of a man. And every one

"had four faces, and every one had four wings.

"And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of

"their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they

"sparkled like the color of burnished brass. And

"they had the hands of a man under their wings on

278

"their four sides; and they four had their faces and

"their wings. Their wings were joined one to

"another; they turned not when-they went; they

"went every one straight forward. As for the like-

"ness of their faces, they four had the face of a man,

"and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they

"four had the face of an ox on the left side; they

"four also had the face of an eagle.

"Thus were their faces: and their wings were

"stretched upward; two wings of every one were

"joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.

"And they went every one straight forward: whither

"the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not

"when they went.

"As for the likeness of the living creatures, their

"appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like

"the appearance of lamps: it went up and down

"among the living creatures; and the fire was bright,

"and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the

"living creatures ran and returned as the appearance

"of a flash of lightning.

"Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one

"wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with

"his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and

"their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and

279

"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."

280

Is such a vision a prophecy? Is it calculated

to convey the slightest information? If so, what?

So, the following vision of the prophet Daniel is

exceedingly important and instructive:

"Daniel spake and said: I saw in my vision by

"night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven

"strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts

"came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings:

"I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it

"was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon

"the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to

"it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a

"bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had

"three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of

"it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much

"flesh.

"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard,

"which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl;

"the beast had also four heads, and dominion was

"given to it.

"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold

"a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong ex-

"ceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured

"and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with

281

"the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts

"that were before it, and it had ten horns. I con-

"sidered the horns, and, behold, there came up

"among them another little horn, before whom

"there were three of the first horns plucked up by

"the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like

"the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great

"things."

I have no doubt that this prophecy has been liter-

ally fulfilled, but I am not at present in condition to

give the time, place, or circumstances.

A few moments ago, my attention was called to

the following extract from The New York Herald of

the thirteenth of March, instant:

"At the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, Dr. Armi-

"tage took as his text, 'A wheel in the middle of a

"'wheel'—Ezekiel, i., 16. Here, said the preacher,

"are three distinct visions in one—the living crea-

"tures, the moving wheels and the fiery throne. We

"have time only to stop the wheels of this mystic

"chariot of Jehovah, that we may hold holy converse

"with Him who rides upon the wings of the wind.

"In this vision of the prophet we have a minute and

"amplified account of these magnificent symbols or

"hieroglyphics, this wondrous machinery which de-

282

"notes immense attributes and agencies and voli-

"tions, passing their awful and mysterious course of

"power and intelligence in revolution after revolu-

"tion of the emblematical mechanism, in steady and

"harmonious advancement to the object after which

"they are reaching. We are compelled to look

"upon the whole as symbolical of that tender and

"endearing providence of which Jesus spoke when

"He said, 'The very hairs of your head are num-

"* bered.'"

Certainly, an ordinary person, not having been

illuminated by the spirit of prophecy, would never

have even dreamed that there was the slightest re-

ference 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.

Question. Have you no confidence in any pro-

phecies? Do you take the ground that there never

has been a human being who could predict the

future?

Answer. I admit that a man of average intelli-

283

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 his-

tory 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.

284

In every nation there are at least two classes of

men: First, the enthusiastic, the patriotic, who be-

lieve 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 Jeru-

salem. They revelled in defeat and captivity. They

loved to paint the horrors of famine and war. For

the most part, they were envious, hateful, misan-

thropic and unjust.

There seems to have been a war between church

and state. The prophets were endeavoring to pre-

serve 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 im-

mediately called down upon him all the curses of

heaven, and predicted the speedy destruction of his

kingdom.

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

285

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.

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 com-

merce, or the discovery of a continent. Each pro-

phecy is a jugglery of words, of figures, of symbols,

so put together, so used, so interpreted, that they

can mean anything, everything, or nothing.

Question. 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?

286

Answer. I cannot believe that an infinitely good

God would make anybody a wanderer. Neither can

I believe that he would keep millions of people with-

out 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.

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. Chris-

tianity, 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 neces-

sary 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

287

religions, Christianity alone could have been guilty,

the Jew became an object of especial hatred and

aversion.

When we remember that Christianity pretends to

be a religion of love and kindness, of charity and for-

giveness, 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 spring-

ing 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 Chris-

tian 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.

I am endeavoring to do away with religious

288

prejudice. I wish to substitute humanity for super-

stition, 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 pre-

cisely 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.

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.

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

289

upon them abides the wrath of Jehovah, cannot be

substantiated by the facts.

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?

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 alms-

houses, nor our penitentiaries, nor our jails. In-

tellectually and morally they are the equal of any

people. They have become illustrious in every de-

partment 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 out-

cast, and drive him forth. Then they would point

to him as a fulfillment of prophecy.

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.

290

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 thou-

sand 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.

There is a strange inconsistency in what Mr. Tal-

mage 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 re-

ligion of their fathers, according to Mr. Talmage,

have been made a by-word and a hissing and a re-

proach among all nations, and only those Jews 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 de-

pends 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-

291

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.

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. Ac-

cording 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.

292

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 demon-

strated the errors of their parents. A good father

wishes to be excelled by his children.

SIXTH INTERVIEW.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call

anything a revelation that comes to us at second-

hand, 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.

Question. What do you think of the argu-

ments presented by Mr. Talmage in favor of

the inspiration of the Bible?

Answer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that

there are more copies of the Bible than of any

other book, and that consequently it must be in-

spired.

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 con-

tained in it were just as true before they were

296

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.

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 ut-

terly 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 in-

dustry spent in the multiplication of copies, might

have furnished the evidence of its inspiration.

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

297

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 news-

paper having the largest circulation can consistently

claim infallibility. Suppose that an exceedingly absurd

statement should appear in The New York Herald,

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 re-

peated often enough was as good as the truth.

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.

This argument also seems to me to prove too much,

and as a consequence, to prove nothing. If Con-

gress should pass a law prohibiting the reading of

Shakespeare, every American would rise in defence

of his right to read the works of the greatest man

298

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 Con-

gress 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.

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.

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.

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

299

is founded, and the person to whom he states them

gives them the weight that according to the con-

struction 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.

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.

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?

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-

300

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 re-

turns? 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 possi-

bility 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

301

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 king-

dom, that cannot be invaded even by the tyranny of

majorities.

No man can avoid the intellectual responsibility of

deciding for himself.

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 inspira-

tion 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!"

The next, and about the strongest, argument Mr.

Talmage makes is, that I am an infidel because I was

defeated for Governor of Illinois.

When put in plain English, his statement is this:

302

that I was defeated because I was an infidel, and that

I am an infidel because I was defeated. This, I be-

lieve, is called reasoning in a circle. The truth is,

that a good many people did object to me because 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 po-

litical 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.

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 them-

selves. 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

303

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.

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.

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:

Religion is an individual matter—a something for

each individual to settle for himself, and with which

304

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 re-

ligion of the candidates. It is none of my business.

I ask the questions asked by Jefferson: "Is he

"honest; is he capable?" It makes no difference 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.

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

305

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.

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.

When this country was founded, when the Con-

stitution 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

306

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.

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.

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

307

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 con-

science, so am I. If he honestly believes the Bible to

be true, he must say so, in order to preserve his man-

hood; and if I honestly believe it to be uninspired,—

filled with mistakes,—I must say so, or lose my man-

hood. How infamous I would be should I 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!

When we were engaged in civil war, did Mr. Tal-

mage 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

308

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.

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 possi-

bility 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

309

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.

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 for-

tune 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.

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

310

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.

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 cer-

tainly could not make worse.

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 Uni-

versalists 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.

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 hypoc-

risy 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?

312

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 fellow-

men, 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 exter-

minate 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.

313

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 ming-

ling 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 di-

rects, and taken altogether, is a hindrance and not

a help.

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.

There was a time when the Bible did not exist, and

if Mr. Talmage is correct, of course justice was im-

possible then, and truth must have been a stranger

to human lips. How can we depend upon the testi-

mony of those who wrote the Bible, as there was no

Bible in existence while they were writing, and con-

sequently there was no way to take their testimony,

and we have no account of their having been sworn

on the Bible after they got it finished. It is extremely

sad to think that all the nations of antiquity were left

314

entirely without the means of eliciting truth. No

wonder that Justice was painted blindfolded.

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 su-

perstitious 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 charac-

ter of the witness, the interest he has, and the posi-

tion 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 impossi-

ble, 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

315

proved that every man, after kissing the Bible, told

the truth, and that those who failed to kiss it some-

times 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.

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:

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."

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.

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 centre-

table.

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 merci-

ful. 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

317

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 command-

ments 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. Sup-

pose 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 centre-

table as now.

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

318

volume, filled with the greatest, the purest and the

best, become the household book.

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.

I admit that some things have happened some-

what 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.

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 con-

tribute 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 be-

lieved 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.

319

He opened the sacred volume, and to his utter as-

tonishment, 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 police-

man entered and arrested the father for passing

counterfeit money.

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.

Thousands and thousands of mothers have pre-

sented 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

320

the book to her son just as readily, and he would re-

ceive it just as joyfully. If there were not one word

in it tending to degrade the mother, the gift would cer-

tainly 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 state-

ment 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.

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 in-

spiration 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

321

opposite his heart, I should still deny that Mohammed

was a prophet of God.

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.

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

322

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.

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 assist-

ance 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!"

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.

Mr. Talmage has still another argument in favor

323

of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He takes the

ground that the Bible must be inspired, because so

many people believe it.

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, in-

stead of to the lowest. Nothing can be settled

by popular prejudice.

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 sup-

pose he means by this, that if all should perish to-

night, about three hundred millions would wake up

in heaven—having lived and died good and consist-

ent Christians.

There are in Russia about eighty millions of people

—how many Christians? I admit that they have re-

cently given more evidence of orthodox Christianity

than formerly. They have been murdering old men;

324

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 ex-

pressed 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. Tal-

mage, but for Christianity? How could it be worse,

when assassins are among the best people in it?

The truth is, that the people in Russia, to-day, 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

325

human liberty. Yet Mr. Talmage regards Russia

as a Christian country.

The sixteen millions of people in Spain are claimed

as Christians. Spain, that for centuries was the as-

sassin 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 Chris-

tian 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 highway-

men, the bishops and thieves, are equally true be-

lievers. The man who takes your purse on the

highway, and the priest who forgives the robber,

are alike orthodox.

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 Cath-

olicism. Some men have lost confidence in the

cathedral, and are beginningto ask the State to erect

the schoolhouse. They are beginning to suspect

326

that priests are for the most part impostors and

plunderers.

According to Mr. Talmage, the twenty-eight mil-

lions in Italy are Christians. There the Christian

Church was early established, and the popes are to-

day 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?

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.

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

327

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.

In Italy, Giordano Bruno was burned. Some day,

his monument will rise above the cross of Rome.

We have in our day one example,—and so far as 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."

I admit with Mr. Talmage that Portugal is a Chris-

tian 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.

Every Catholic is in favor of education enough to

328

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.

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 Por-

tugal will begin to cease to be what is called a

Christian nation.

I admit that Austria, with her thirty-seven millions,

is a Christian nation—including her Croats, Hungar-

ians, Servians, and Gypsies. Austria was one of the

assassins of Poland. When we remember that John

329

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.

When cunning collects tolls from fear, the church

prospers.

Germany is another Christian nation. Bismarck is

celebrated for his Christian virtues.

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

330

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 Ger-

many. The Chancellor has gone so far as to declare

that the king is not responsible to the people. Ger-

many 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.

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, in-

fidel. Yet Germany is called a Christian nation, and

ought to be so called until her citizens are free.

331

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.

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.

Only a little while ago, France was overrun, trampled

into the very earth, by the victorious hosts of Ger-

many, and France purchased her peace with the

savings of centuries. And yet France is now rich and

prosperous and free, and Germany poor, discontented

332

and enslaved. Hundreds and thousands of Germans,

unable to find liberty at home, are coming to the

United States.

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.

Religion has filled Great Britain with war. The

history of the Catholics, of the Episcopalians, of

Cromwell—all the burnings, the maimings, the brand-

ings, 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."

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

333

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 Testa-

ment, 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 whipping-

post was considered almost as sacred as the cross.

At that time, our country was a Christian nation.

I heard Frederick Douglass say that he 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.

334

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 Dela-

ware is still a Christian State. I heard a story about

that State the other day.

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 en-

titled 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."

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.

Mr. Talmage speaks as though all the people in

what he calls the civilized world were Christians. Ad-

335

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 Chris-

tian 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, de-

stroyers. 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.

336

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.

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 in-

spired word of God, the man who was the exception

could not lose his right to think, to investigate, and to

judge for himself.

Question. 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?

Answer. I do not. I do not see how it is possible

to make poorer, weaker or better arguments than he

has made.

Of course, there can be no "evidence" of the in-

spiration of the Scriptures. What is "inspiration"?

Did God use the prophets simply as instruments?

Did he put his thoughts in their minds, and use their

337

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,

338

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 centu-

ries, 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

339

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 ver-

dict 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 spelling-

books and readers and text books with superstition—

feeding all minds with the miraculous and super-

natural, the growth toward a belief in the 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. Com-

pare the average sermon of to-day with the average

340

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.

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 sup-

posed 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

341

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 in-

sisted 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 in-

spired, 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 re-

volved around the earth, he merely meant that they

"apparently revolved," and that the earth, in fact,

turned over, would we consider them honest men?

You might as well say that the first painter was in-

spired, or that the first sculptor had the assistance of

God, as to say that the first writer, or the first book-

maker, was divinely inspired. It is more probable

that the modern geologist is inspired than that the an-

cient one was, because the modern geologist is nearer

right. It is more probable that William Lloyd Gar-

rison 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

342

"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.

To make myself clear: The only possible evidence

of "inspiration" would be perfection—a perfection ex-

celling 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 in-

spired 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 ab-

solute 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.

343

Question. 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?

Answer. 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 posi-

tive injury. It does not seem probable that infinite

wisdom would violate a law that infinite wisdom had

made.

Most ministers insist that God now and then in-

terferes 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 alto-

gether more tinkering and fixing than at present.

344

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 fre-

quently 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. Protest-

ants now say that the testimony of the Catholics can

345

not be relied upon, and yet, the authenticity of every

book in the New Testament was established by Cath-

olic 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 in-

terference on the part of the Lord.

My own opinion is, that the clergy found it neces-

sary to preserve the Sabbath for their own uses, 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

346

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.

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.

These stories were calculated to increase the im-

portance 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.

Besides the protection of ministers, the drowning

347

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 calam-

ities 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 punish-

ment, 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.

After reading the history of the world, it is some-

what difficult to find which side the Lord is really on.

He has allowed Catholics to overwhelm and de-

stroy Protestants, and then he has allowed Protestants

to overwhelm and destroy Catholics. He has allowed

Christianity to triumph over Paganism, and he allowed

348

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 centu-

ries 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 con-

demned 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.

For one, I am not satisfied with the government

of this world, and I am going to do what little I can

349

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.

Question. Do you think that God, if there be one,

when he saves or damns a man, will take into con-

sideration all the circumstances of the man's life?

Answer. Suppose that two orphan boys, 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 be-

comes 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.

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.

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,

350

the island was visited by a missionary who taught a

false religion; and suppose that this islander was con-

vinced that he ought to worship a wooden idol; and

suppose, further, that the worship consisted in sacri-

ficing 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 sacri-

ficed 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

351

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?

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?

If God is infinite, we cannot speak of him as

making efforts, as being tired. We cannot con-

sistently 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?

352

Why was not the mind of each man so made that

every religious truth necessary to his salvation was

an axiom?

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.

Mr. Talmage teaches that it is the duty of children

to perpetuate the errors of their parents; conse-

quently, 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 philoso-

pher, 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

353

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 Protest-

ant leanings? Suppose his parents had both been

infidels—what then?

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 intellectu-

al coward. Whoever is absolutely true to himself, is

true to his parents, and true to the whole world. Who-

ever is untrue to himself, is false to all mankind. Re-

ligion must be an individual matter. If there is a God,

and if there is a day of judgment, the church that a man

belongs to will not be tried, but the man will be tried.

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.

354

It is almost, if not quite, impossible for a man to

rise entirely above the ideas, views, doctrines and re-

ligions of his tribe or country. No one expects to

find philosophers in Central Africa, or scientists

among the Fejees. No one expects to find philoso-

phers or scientists in any country where the church

has absolute control.

If there is an infinitely good and wise God, of

course he will take into consideration the surround-

ings 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.

My own opinion is, that if such a being exists, and

all these things are taken into consideration, we will

355

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.

Question. What are the principal reasons that

have satisfied you that the Bible is not an inspired

book?

Answer. The great evils that have afflicted this

world are:

First. Human slavery—where men have bought

and sold their fellow-men—sold babes from mothers,

and have practiced) every conceivable cruelty upon

the helpless.

Second. 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.

Third. Wars of conquest and extermination—

by which nations have been made the food of the

sword.

Fourth. The idea entertained by each nation that

all other nations are destitute of rights—in other

356

words, patriotism founded upon egotism, prejudice,

and love of plunder.

Fifth. Religious persecution.

Sixth. The divine right of kings—an idea that

rests upon the inequality of human rights, and insists

that people should be governed without their con-

sent; 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.

Seventh. A belief in malicious supernatural be-

ings—devils, witches, and wizards.

Eighth. A belief in an infinite being who or-

dered, commanded, established and approved all

these evils.

Ninth. 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.

Tenth. The dogma that a finite being can commit

an infinite sin, and thereby incur the eternal dis-

pleasure of an infinitely good being, and be justly

subjected to eternal torment.

My principal objection to the Bible is that it sus-

tains all of these ten evils—that it is the advocate of

357

human slavery, the friend of polygamy; that within

its pages I find the command to wage wars of ex-

termination; that I find also that the Jews were

taught to hate foreigners—to consider all human

beings as inferior to themselves; I also find persecu-

tion 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.

At the same time, I admit—as I always have ad-

mitted—that there are good passages in the Bible—

good laws, good teachings, with now and then a true

line of history. But when it is asserted that every

word was written by inspiration—that a being of in-

finite wisdom and goodness is its author,—then

I raise the standard of revolt.

358

Question. 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?

Answer. 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 Testa-

ment. 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.

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.

Surely, nothing could be more delightful than this

359

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 over-

spread 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.

[Illustration: 371]

An orthodox "state of mind"

THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.

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

A SHORTER CATECHISM.

Question. Who made you?

Answer. Jehovah, the original Presbyterian.

Question. What else did he make?

Answer. He made the world and all things.

Question. Did he make the world out of nothing?

Answer. No.

Question. What did he make it out of?

Answer. Out of his "omnipotence." Many 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 "omnipo-

tence and that is, undoubtedly, the material used.

364

Question. Did he create his own "omnipotence"?

Answer. Certainly not, he was always omnipo-

tent.

Question. Then if he always had "omnipotence,"

he did not "create" the material of which the uni-

verse is made; he simply took a portion of his

"omnipotence" and changed it to "universe"?

Answer. Certainly, that is the way I under-

stand it.

Question. Is he still omnipotent, and has he as

much "omnipotence" now as he ever had?

Answer. Well, I suppose he has.

Question. How long did it take God to make the

universe?

Answer. Six "good-whiles."

Question. How long is a "good-while"?

Answer. That will depend upon the future dis-

coveries of geologists. "Good-whiles" are of such

a nature that they can be pulled out, or pushed up;

and it is utterly impossible for any infidel, or scien-

tific geologist, to make any period that a "good-while"

won't fit.

Question. What do you understand by "the

"morning and evening" of a "good-while"?

Answer. Of course the words "morning and

365

"evening" are used figuratively, and mean simply

the beginning and the ending, of each "good-while."

Question. On what day did God make vegetation?

Answer. On the third day.

Question. Was that before the sun was made?

Answer. Yes; a "good-while" before.

Question. How did vegetation grow without sun-

light?

Answer. My own opinion is, that it was either

"nourished by the glare of volcanoes in the 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 fur-

nished by fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs and

worms, but this I regard as going too far.

Question. Do you think that light emitted by

rocks would be sufficient to produce trees?

Answer. Yes, with the assistance of the "Aurora

"Borealis, or even the Aurora Australis;" but with

both, most assuredly.

Question. If the light of which you speak was

sufficient, why was the sun made?

Answer. To keep time with.

Question. What did God make man of?

366

Answer. He made man of dust and "omnipo-

"tence."

Question. Did he make a woman at the same

time that he made a man?

Answer. 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.

Question. What was woman made of?

Answer. She was made out of "man's side, out of

his right side," and some more "omnipotence." Infi-

dels say that she was made out of a rib, or a bone, but

that is because they do not understand Hebrew.

Question. What was the object of making woman

out of man's side?

Answer. So that a young man would think more

of a neighbor's girl than of his own uncle or grand-

father.

Question. What did God do with Adam and Eve

after he got them done?

Answer. He put them into a garden to see what

they would do.

367

Question. 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"?

Answer. 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.

Question. What happened to Adam and Eve in

the garden?

Answer. 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.

Question. What happened then?

Answer. 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

368

burn and water to drown; there could have been no

hunger, no thirst; all things would have been equally

healthy.

Question. Do you mean to say that there would

have been no death in the world, either of animals,

insects, or persons?

Answer. Of course.

Question. 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?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Would there have been no poisonous

plants, no poisonous reptiles?

Answer. 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.

Question. Was the snake who tempted them to

eat, evil?

Answer. Certainly. '

Question. Was he in the world before the for-

bidden fruit was eaten?

Answer. Of course he was; he tempted them to

eat it

369

Question. How, then, do you account for the fact

that, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an evil

serpent was in the world?

Answer. Perhaps apples had been eaten in other

worlds.

Question. Is it not wonderful that such awful con-

sequences flowed from so small an act?

Answer. It is not for you to reason about it; 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.

Question. Were our first parents under the im-

mediate protection of an infinite God?

Answer. They were.

Question. 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

370

snake; or how did he come to make him; what did

he make him for?

Answer. 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 ex-

actly what will happen, he wishes to see if it will.

Question. What punishment did God inflict upon

Adam and Eve for the sin of having eaten the for-

bidden fruit?

Answer. He pronounced a curse upon the woman,

saying that in sorrow she should bring forth children,

and that her husband should rule over her; that she,

having tempted her husband, was made his slave;

and through her, all married women have been de-

prived of their natural liberty. On account of 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.

Question. Did he turn them out of the garden

because of their sin?

371

Answer. 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."

Question. If the man had eaten of the tree of life,

would he have lived forever?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Was he turned out to prevent his

eating?

Answer. He was.

Question. Then the Old Testament tells us how we

lost immortality, not that we are immortal, does it?

Answer. Yes; it tells us how we lost it.

Question. Was God afraid that Adam and Eve

might get back into the garden, and eat of the fruit

of the tree of life?

Answer. I suppose he was, as he placed "cher-

"ubim and a flaming sword which turned every

"way to guard the tree of life."

Question. Has any one ever seen any of these

cherubim?

Answer. Not that I know of.

372

Question. Where is the flaming sword now?

Answer. Some angel has it in heaven.

Question. Do you understand that God made

coats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve when

he turned them out of the garden?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. 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?

Answer. The Bible says so; we know that he

had patterns for clothes, because he showed some

to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Question. About how long did God continue

to pay particular attention to his children in this

world?

Answer. For about fifteen hundred years; and

some of the people lived to be nearly a thousand

years of age.

Question. 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 re-

vivals?

Answer. 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

373

love to the daughters of men, and finally the world

got exceedingly bad.

Question. What did God do then?

Answer. 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.

Question. Did he drown them all?

Answer. No, he saved eight, to start with again.

Question. Were these eight persons totally de-

praved?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Why did he not kill them, and 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?

Answer. "God's way are not our ways;" and

besides, you must remember that "a thousand years

"are as one day" with God.

Question. How did God destroy the people?

Answer. By water; it rained forty days and forty

nights, and "the fountains of the great deep were

"broken up."

Question. How deep was the water?

Answer. About five miles.

374

Question. How much did it rain each day?

Answer. About eight hundred feet; though the

better opinion now is, that it was a local flood. In-

fidels have raised objections and pressed them to that

degree that most orthodox people admit that the

flood was rather local.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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.

Question. At the time God made these people,

did he know that he would have to drown them all?

Answer. Of course he did.

Question. Did he know when he made them that

they would all be failures?

Answer. Of course.

Question. Why, then, did he make them?

Answer. He made them for his own glory, and

no man should disgrace his parents by denying it.

Question. Were the people after the flood just as

bad as they were before?

375

Answer. About the same.

Question. Did they try to circumvent God?

Answer. They did.

Question. How?

Answer. They got together for the purpose of build-

ing a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,

so that they could laugh at any future floods, and go

to heaven at any time they desired.

Question. Did God hear about this?

Answer. He did.

Question. What did he say?

Answer. He said: "Go to; let us go down," and

see what the people are doing; I am satisfied they

will succeed.

Question. How were the people prevented from

succeeding?

Answer. 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.

Question. 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?

376

Answer. Of course.

Question. If it had not been, then, for the con-

fusion of languages, spelling books, grammars and

dictionaries would have been useless?

Answer. I suppose so.

Question. Do any two people in the whole world

speak the same language, now?

Answer. 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.

Question. This being so, this miracle is the best

attested of all?

Answer. I suppose it is.

Question. Do you not think that a confusion of

tongues would bring men together instead of separa-

ting them? Would not a man unable to converse

with his fellow feel weak instead of strong; and

would not people whose language had been con-

founded cling together for mutual support?

Answer. 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

377

is the probable, and the impossible is what has always

happened. If theology were simply natural, anybody

could be a theologian.

Question. Did God ever make any other special

efforts to convert the people, or to reform the world?

Answer. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom

and Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.

Question. Do you suppose it was really brim-

stone?

Answer. Undoubtedly.

Question. Do you think this brimstone came from

the clouds?

Answer. 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 brim-

stone is made. As a matter of fact, all the brimstone

in the world might have fallen at that time.

Question. Do you think that Lot's wife was

changed into salt?

Answer. Of course she was. A miracle was per-

378

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.

Question. Why do you think she was changed

into salt?

Answer. For the purpose of keeping the event

fresh in the minds of men.

Question. God having failed to keep people in-

nocent 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?

Answer. 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.

Question. Whom did he select?

Answer. A man by the name of Abram.

Question. What kind of man was Abram?

Answer. If you wish to know, read the 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

379

such good fortune in Egypt, that he tried the experi-

ment again on Abimelech.

Question. Did Abraham show any gratitude?

Answer. Yes; he offered to sacrifice his son, to

show his confidence in Jehovah.

Question. What became of Abraham and his

people?

Answer. God took such care of them, that in

about two hundred and fifteen years they were all

slaves in the land of Egypt.

Question. How long did they remain in slavery?

Answer. Two hundred and fifteen years.

Question. Were they the same people that God

had promised to take care of?

Answer. They were.

Question. Was God at that time, in favor of

slavery?

Answer. Not at that time. He was angry at the

Egyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards

authorized the Jews to enslave other people.

Question. What means did he take to liberate

the Jews?

Answer. He sent his agents to Pharaoh, and de-

manded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing,

he afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with

380

it, with various plagues,—killed children, and tor-

mented and tortured beasts.

Question. Was such conduct Godlike?

Answer. 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."

Question. Do you consider such treatment of ani-

mals consistent with divine mercy?

Answer. 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 prin-

ciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.

They had sinned, and he merely took his pay.

Question. How was it possible, under the old dis-

pensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?

381

Answer. 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."

Question. What else did God do in order to in-

duce Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?

Answer. He had his agents throw down a cane

in the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah

changed this cane into a serpent.

Question. Did this convince Pharaoh?

Answer. No; he sent for his own magicians.

Question. What did they do?

Answer. They threw down some canes and they

also were changed into serpents.

Question. Did Jehovah change the canes of the

Egyptian magicians into snakes?

Answer. I suppose he did, as he is the only one

capable of performing such a miracle.

382

Question. 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 worth-

less their only credentials?

Answer. 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 argu-

ments; 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 prin-

ciple that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis,

that he permits astronomy apparently to contradict

his holy word.

Question. What did God do with these people

after Pharaoh allowed them to go?

Answer. 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-

383

ness, until all, with the exception of two persons,

died.

Question. Why did he do this?

Answer. Because he had promised these people

that he would take them "to a land flowing with

"milk and honey."

Question. Was God always patient and kind and

merciful toward his children while they were in the

wilderness?

Answer. 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.

Question. How did God happen to treat the Is-

raelites 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?

Answer. Because God is unchangeable in his na-

384

ture, and wished to convince them that every being

should be perfectly faithful to his promise.

Question. Was God driven to madness by the

conduct of his chosen people?

Answer. Almost.

Question. Did he know exactly what they would

do when he chose them?

Answer. Exactly.

Question. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?

Answer. They were. They worshiped other gods

—gods made of wood and stone.

Question. Is it not wonderful that they were not

convinced of the power of God, by the many mira-

cles wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness?

Answer. Yes, it is very wonderful; but the Jews,

who must have seen bread rained from heaven; 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

385

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.

Question. How is it that the Jews had no confi-

dence in these miracles?

Answer. Because they were there and saw them.

Question. Do you think that it is necessary for

us to believe all the miracles of the Old Testament

in order to be saved?

Answer. 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.

Question. Should we believe the miracles, whether

they are reasonable or not?

Answer. Certainly; if they were reasonable, they

would not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness

that appeals to our credulity and our faith. It is im-

possible 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

386

believe that Samsons muscle depended upon the

length of his hair. "God has made the wisdom of

"this world foolishness." Neither can the uncon-

verted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept 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.

Question. How should we regard the wonderful

stories of the Old Testament?

Answer. They should be looked upon as "types"

and "symbols." They all have a spiritual signifi-

cance. The reason I believe the story of Jonah is,

that Jonah is a type of Christ.

Question. Do you believe the story of Jonah to

be a true account of a literal fact?

Answer. 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..

387

Question. Do you think that Jonah was really in

the whale's stomach?

Answer. 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.

Question. Do you really believe that Elijah went

to heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses of

fire?

Answer. Of course he did.

Question. What was this miracle performed for?

Answer. To convince the people of the power of

God.

Question. Who saw the miracle?

Answer. Nobody but Elisha.

Question. Was he convinced before that time?

Answer. Oh yes; he was one of God's prophets.

Question. Suppose that in these days two 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

388

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 there-

upon his friend got into the carriage, threw him his

clothes, and departed,—would you believe it?

Answer. Of course things like that don't happen

in these days; God does not have to rely on wonders

now.

Question. Do you mean that he performs no

miracles at the present day?

Answer. We cannot say that he does not perform

miracles now, but we are not in position to call atten-

tion to any particular one. Of course he supervises

the affairs of nations and men and does whatever in

his judgment is necessary.

Question. Do you think that Samson's strength

depended on the length of his hair?

Answer. The Bible so states, and the Bible is true.

A physiologist might say that a man could not 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

389

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 be-

tween 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 dis-

prove one of the statements of the Lord?

Question. Suppose it should turn out that some

of these miracles depend upon mistranslations of the

original Hebrew, should we still believe them?

Answer. 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.

390

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

391

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.

Question. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptians

were not converted by the miracles wrought in their

country?

Answer. 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 won-

derful that were ever done in any country, the

Egyptians were as unbelieving as at first; they pur-

sued 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 unreason-

ableness of a Pagan, and the natural depravity of

human nature.

392

Question. How did it happen that the Canaanites

were never convinced that the Jews were assisted by

Jehovah?

Answer. 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; notwith-

standing 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.

Question. How do you account for the fact that

the heathen were not surprised at the stopping of the

sun and moon?

393

Answer. 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 as-

tronomy, 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 ad-

mirable were the means adopted.

Question. Do you not consider the treatment

of the Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?

Answer. 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 assassina-

tion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,

394

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 destruc-

tion 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.

Question. In your judgment, why did God destroy

the Canaanites?

Answer. To prevent their contaminating his

chosen people. He knew that if the Jews were

allowed to live with such neighbors, they would

395

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.

Question. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jews

after he had "removed" the Canaanites?

Answer. 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.

Question. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?

Answer. Not quite.

Question. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing

them?

Answer. Well, we must admit that the experi-

ment 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

396

many centuries, deliberately put to death that good

and loving man.

Question. Do you think that God really endeav-

ored to civilize the Jews?

Answer. This is an exceedingly hard question.

If he had really tried to do it, of course he 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 him-

self, 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.

Question. So you think that, after all, it was not

God's intention that the Jews should become civilized?

Answer. 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

397

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 explana-

tion that is the most unreasonable.

Question. Do you think that Christ knew the

Jews would crucify him?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Do you think that when he chose

Judas he knew that he would betray him?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Did he know when Judas went to the

chief priest and made the bargain for the delivery

of Christ?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Why did he allow himself to be be-

trayed, if he knew the plot?

Answer. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live

by, but you should read the last words of Paine and

Voltaire.

Question. If Christ knew that Judas would betray

him, why did he choose him?

Answer. 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.

398

Question. Would not the mission of Christ have

been a failure had no one betrayed him?

Answer. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and re-

canted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheming

infidel besides.

Question. Is it not clear that an atonement was

necessary; and is it not equally clear that the atone-

ment could not have been made unless somebody

had betrayed Christ; and unless the Jews had been

wicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?

Answer. 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.

Question. 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, in-

cluding his own soul?

Answer. 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 ad-

minister justice?

Question. If Christ had not been betrayed and

399

crucified, is it true that his own mother would be in

perdition to-day?

Answer. 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.

Question. Could Christ have prevented the Jews

from crucifying him?

Answer. He could.

Question. If he could have saved his life and did

not, was he not guilty of suicide?

Answer. 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."

Question. 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

400

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?

Answer. 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.

Question. Is it not possible that something can

be done for a human soul in another world as well as

in this?

Answer. 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 thou-

sand 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

401

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.

Question. When God created each human being,

did he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?

Answer. Most assuredly he did.

Question. Did he know that hundreds and millions

and billions would suffer eternal pain?

Answer. Certainly. But he gave them freedom

of choice between good and evil.

Question. Did he know exactly how they would

use that freedom?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Did he know that billions would use

it wrong?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Was it optional with him whether he

should make such people or not?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Had these people any option as to

whether they would be made or not?

Answer, No.

402

Question. Would it not have been far better to

leave them unconscious dust?

Answer. 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 evi-

dence of the goodness and mercy of God.

Question. How do you account for the fact that

God did not make himself known except to Abra-

ham 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?

Answer. Of course, God could have revealed him-

self, not only to all the great nations, but to each

individual. He could have had the Ten Command-

ments 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

403

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.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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?

Question. Is it not wonderful that all the writers

404

of the four gospels do not give an account of the

ascension of Jesus Christ?

Answer. This question has been answered long

ago, time and time again.

Question. Perhaps it has, but would it not be

well enough to answer it once more? Some may

not have seen the answer?

Answer. Show me the hospitals that infidels

have built; show me the asylums that infidels

have founded.

Question. I know you have given the usual an-

swer; 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?

Answer. 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.

Question. What, in your judgment, became of

the dead who were raised by Christ? Is it not

singular that they were never mentioned afterward?

405

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?

Answer. Of course, all these things are exceed-

ingly 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 de-

pend upon credulity and faith.

Question. If Christ came to offer himself a sacri-

fice, 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?

Answer. He did. This was, and is, the gospel.

Question. How is it that Matthew says nothing

about "salvation by faith," but simply says that God

406

will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive

the forgiving, and says not one word about the

necessity of believing anything?

Answer. But you will remember that Mark says,

in the last chapter of his gospel, that "whoso be-

"lieveth not shall be damned."

Question. Do you admit that Matthew says

nothing on the subject?

Answer. Yes, I suppose I must.

Question. Is not that passage in Mark generally

admitted to be an interpolation?

Answer. Some biblical scholars say that it is.

Question. Is that portion of the last chapter of

Mark found in the Syriac version of the Bible?

Answer. It is not.

Question. If it was necessary to believe on Jesus

Christ, in order to be saved, how is it that Matthew

failed to say so?

Answer. "There are more copies of the Bible

"printed to-day, than of any other book in the world,

"and it is printed in more languages than any other

"book."

Question. Do you consider it necessary to be

"regenerated"—to be "born again"—in order to be

saved?

407

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-

ject of "regeneration"?

Answer. No.

Question. Did Mark?

Answer. No.

Question. Did Luke?

Answer. No.

Question. Is Saint John the only one who speaks

of the necessity of being "born again"?

Answer. He is.

Question. Do you think that Matthew, Mark and

Luke knew anything about the necessity of "regen-

"eration"?

Answer. Of course they did.

Question. Why did they fail to speak of it?

Answer. There is no civilization without the Bible.

The moment you throw away the sacred Scriptures,

you are all at sea—you are without an anchor and

without a compass.

Question. 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?

Answer. Of course he did.

408

Question. Well, in the gospel set forth by Mark,

there is not a word about "regeneration," and no

word about the necessity of believing anything—ex-

cept 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?

Answer. Nothing can exceed in horror the last

moments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-

rible than the death of the doubter. When the

glories of this world fade from the vision; when am-

bition 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 some-

thing to rely on, whether it is true or not.

Question. Would it not have been more con-

vincing if Christ, after his resurrection, had 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?

Answer. If the evidence had been complete and

overwhelming, there would have been no praise-

409

worthiness in belief; even publicans and sinners

would have believed, if the evidence had been suffi-

cient. The amount of evidence required is the test

of the true Christian spirit.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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 re-

probate mind.

Question. 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?

Answer. Nobody can get any good out of the

Bible by reading it in a critical spirit. The contra-

410

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 pur-

pose of testing and strengthening the faith of Chris-

tians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,

"that they might believe a lie and be damned."

Question. Is it possible that a good God would

take pains to deceive his children?

Answer. 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 mis-

lead 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 de-

ceived. Through all eternity they will regret their

411

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."

Question. 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?

Answer. That objection was raised and answered

hundreds of years ago.

Question. If they wanted to show that Christ was of

the blood of David, why did they not give the gene-

alogy of his mother if Joseph was not his father?

Answer. That objection was answered hundreds

of years ago.

Question. How was it answered?

Answer. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for a

priest.

Question. How does it happen that the two gene-

alogies given do not agree?

Answer. Perhaps they were written by different

persons.

Question. Were both these persons inspired by

the same God?

412

Answer. Of course.

Question. Why were the miracles recorded in the

New Testament performed?

Answer. The miracles were the evidence relied

on to prove the supernatural origin and the divine

mission of Jesus Christ.

Question. Aside from the miracles, is there any

evidence to show the supernatural origin or character

of Jesus Christ?

Answer. Some have considered that his moral

precepts are sufficient, of themselves, to show that

he was divine.

Question. Had all of his moral precepts been

taught before he lived?

Answer. The same things had been said, but they

did not have the same meaning.

Question. Does the fact that Buddha taught the

same tend to show that he was of divine origin?

Answer. 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.

Question. Do you think that Christ wrought

413

many of his miracles because he was good, charitable,

and filled with pity?

Answer. Certainly

Question. Has he as much power now as he had

when on earth?

Answer. Most assuredly.

Question. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, as

he was then?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Why does he not now cure the lame

and the halt and the blind?

Answer. 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!"

Question. Do you consider it our duty to love our

neighbor?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Is virtue the same in all worlds?

Answer. Most assuredly.

Question. Are we under obligation to render good

for evil, and to "pray for those who despitefully use us"?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Will Christians in heaven love their

neighbors?

414

Answer. Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.

Question. Do good Christians pity sinners in this

world?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Why?

Answer. Because they regard them as being in

great danger of the eternal wrath of God.

Question. After these sinners have died, and

been sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven then

pity them?

Answer. No. Angels have no pity.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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.

415

Question. Do you consider it possible for a law to

be jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocent

person?

Answer. 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.

Question. 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?

Answer. He ought to say nothing.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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 per-

nicious superstition.

416

Question. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible,

having become convinced that it is not inspired—

honestly convinced—says nothing—keeps his con-

clusion absolutely to himself, and suppose he dies in

that belief, can he be saved?

Answer. Certainly not.

Question. Has the honesty of his belief anything

to do with his future condition?

Answer. Nothing whatever.,

Question. 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?

Answer. Certainly he would.

Question. Can a man control his belief?

Answer. He cannot—except as to the Bible.

Question. Do you consider it just in God to

create a man who cannot believe the Bible, and then

damn him because he does not?

Answer. Such is my belief.

Question. Is it your candid opinion that a man

who does not believe the Bible should keep his

belief a secret from his fellow-men?

Answer. It is.

417

Question. How do I know that you believe the

Bible? You have told me that if you did not be-

lieve it, you would not tell me?

Answer. There is no way for you to ascertain,

except by taking my word for it.

Question. What will be the fate of a man who

does not believe it, and yet pretends to believe it?

Answer. He will be damned.

Question. Then hypocrisy will not save him?

Answer. No.

Question. And if he does not believe it, and ad-

mits that he does not believe it, then his honesty will

not save him?

Answer. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no

better than hypocrisy on the right side.

Question. Do we know who wrote the gospels?

Answer. Yes; we do.

Question. Are we absolutely sure who wrote

them?

Answer. Of course; we have the evidence as it

has come to us through the Catholic Church.

Question. Can we rely upon the Catholic Church

now?

Answer. No; assuredly no! But we have the

testimony of Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement,

418

and others of the early fathers, together with that of

the Christian historian, Eusebius.

Question. What do we really know about Polycarp?

Answer. We know that he suffered martyrdom un-

der Marcus Aurelius, and that for quite a time the 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.

Question. Is that all we know about Polycarp?

Answer. Yes, with the exception of a few more

like incidents.

Question. Do we know that Polycarp ever met

St. John?

Answer. Yes; Eusebius says so.

Question. Are we absolutely certain that he ever

lived?

Answer. Yes, or Eusebius could not have written

about him.

Question. Do we know anything of the character

of Eusebius?

419

Answer. 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 sub-

stantiated 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 be-

comes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?

Question. Is the New Testament now the same as

it was in the days of the early fathers?

Answer. 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."

Question. Have you not the same witnesses in

favor of their authenticity, that you have in favor of

the gospels?

Answer. Precisely the same. Except that they

were thrown out.

Question. Why were they thrown out?

Answer. Because the Catholic Church did not es-

teem them inspired.

Question. Did the Catholics decide for us which

are the true gospels and which are the true epistles?

420

Answer. Yes. The Catholic Church was then the

only church, and consequently must have been the

true church.

Question. How did the Catholic Church select the

true books?

Answer. Councils were called, and votes were

taken, very much as we now pass resolutions in

political meetings.

Question. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?

Answer. It was then, but it is not now.

Question. 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?

Answer. No, I suppose not.

Question. Is it not true that some of these books

were adopted by exceedingly small majorities?

Answer. It is.

Question. 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?

Answer. This is doubtful.

Question. Were the men who picked out the in-

spired books inspired?

421

Answer. We cannot tell, but the probability is

that they were.

Question. Do we know that they picked out the

right ones?

Answer. Well, not exactly, but we believe that

they did.

Question. Are we certain that some of the books

that were thrown out were not inspired?

Answer. Well, the only way to tell is to read

them carefully.

Question. If upon reading these apocryphal books

a man concludes that they are not inspired, will he be

damned for that reason?

Answer. No. Certainly not.

Question. If he concludes that some of them are

inspired, and believes them, will he then be damned

for that belief?

Answer. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for

believing too much.

Question. Does the fact that the books now com-

prising 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?

422

Answer. No; not if the man comes to the con-

clusion that they are inspired.

Question. 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?

Answer. I think it does.

Question. 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?

Answer. Well, they ought to be.

Question. 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?

Answer. Well, I suppose a man ought to vote as

he honestly believes—except in matters of religion.

Question. If the Catholic Church was not infal-

lible, is the question still open as to what books are,

and what are not, inspired?

423

Answer. I suppose the question is still open—

but it would be dangerous to decide it.

Question. If, then, I examine all the books again,

and come to the conclusion that some that were

thrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-

cepted were not inspired, ought I to say so?

Answer. Not if it is contrary to the faith of your

father, or calculated to interfere with your own po-

litical prospects.

Question. Is it as great a sin to admit into the

Bible books that are uninspired as to reject those

that are inspired?

Answer. 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.

Question. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-

tion of the New Testament—believes it to be entirely

the work of uninspired men; and suppose he also be-

lieves—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?

424

Answer. This has not yet been decided by

our church, and I do not wish to venture an

opinion.

Question. 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 pos-

sibly can, is it your opinion that such a man will be

saved?

Answer. No, sir. There is "none other name

"given under heaven and among men," whereby a

sinner can be saved but the name of Christ.

Question. 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?

Answer. Yes; because we have the blessed

promise that, out of Christ, "our God is a consuming

"fire."

Question. Suppose a man read the Bible care-

fully and honestly, and was not quite convinced that

it was true, and that while examining the subject, he

died; what then?

425

Answer. 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.

Question. Could Christ now furnish evidence

enough to convince every human being of the truth

of the Bible?

Answer. Of course he could, because he is in-

finite.

Question. Are any miracles performed now?

Answer. Oh, no!

Question. Have we any testimony, except human

testimony, to substantiate any miracle?

Answer. Only human testimony.

Question. Do all men give the same force to the

same evidence?

Answer. By no means.

Question. Have all honest men who have exam-

ined the Bible believed it to be inspired?

Answer. Of course they have. Infidels are not

honest.

Question. Could any additional evidence have

been furnished?

Answer. With perfect ease.

Question. Would God allow a soul to suffer

426

eternal agony rather than furnish evidence of the

truth of his Bible?

Answer. God has furnished plenty of evidence,

and altogether more than was really necessary. We

should read the Bible in a believing spirit.

Question. Are all parts of the inspired books

equally true?

Answer. Necessarily.

Question. According to Saint Matthew, God

promises to forgive all who will forgive others; not

one word is said about believing in Christ, or believ-

ing in the miracles, or in any Bible; did Matthew tell

the truth?

Answer. The Bible must be taken as a whole;

and if other conditions are added somewhere else,

then you must comply with those other conditions.

Matthew may not have stated all the conditions.

Question. I find in another part of the 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 Sabbath-

day; was Christ honest with that young man?

Answer. Well, I suppose he was.

427

Question. 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 re-

member 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"?

Answer. 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."

Question. Is it not strange that Christ, in his Ser-

mon on the Mount, did not speak of "regeneration,"

or of the "scheme of salvation"?

Answer. Well, it may be.

Question. Can a man be saved now by living

exactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?

Answer. He can not.

Question. Would then a man, by following the

course of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon

on the Mount, lose his soul?

Answer. 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

428

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 abso-

lutely 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 remem-

ber that the Sermon on the Mount was preached be-

fore Christianity existed. Christ was talking to Jews.

Question. Did Christ write anything himself, in

the New Testament?

Answer. Not a word.

Question. Did he tell any of his disciples to write

any of his words?

Answer. There is no account of it, if he did.

Question. Do we know whether any of the dis-

ciples wrote anything?

Answer. Of course they did.

Question. How do you know?

Answer. Because the gospels bear their names.

Question. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-

lutely God?

Answer. Of course he was. We believe that

Christ and God and the Holy Ghost are all the same,

that the three form one, and that each one is three.

429

Question. Was Christ the God of the universe at

the time of his birth?

Answer. He certainly was.

Question. Was he the infinite God, creator

and controller of the entire universe, before he was

born?

Answer. 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.

Question. Did he know just as much before he

was born as after?

Answer. If he was God of course he did.

Question. 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"?

Answer. 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

430

increase in stature, but the intellectual part must have

been infinite all the time.

Question. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?

Answer. No; I believe what Luke said. If it

appears untrue, or impossible, then I know that it is

figurative or symbolical.

Question. Did I understand you to say that Christ

was actually God?

Answer. Of course he was.

Question. Then why did Luke say in the same

verse of the same chapter that "Jesus increased in

"favor with God"?

Answer. I dare you to go into a room by your-

self and read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!

Question. Is it necessary to understand the Bible

in order to be saved?

Answer. Certainly not; it is only necessary that

you believe it.

Question. Is it necessary to believe all the

miracles?

Answer. It may not be necessary, but as it is im-

possible to tell which ones can safely be left out, you

had better believe them all.

Question. Then you regard belief as the safe

way?

431

Answer. Of course it is better to be fooled in this

world than to be damned in the next.

Question. Do you think that there are any cruel-

ties on God's part recorded in the Bible?

Answer. At first flush, many things done by 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.

Question. 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?

Answer. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-

lishes 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.

Question. 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

432

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 pro-

tect these innocent wives and children?

Answer. 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.

Question. 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"?

433

Answer. The evidence of this miracle is exceed-

ingly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of

Nebuchadnezzar.

Question. How do you know he was converted?

Answer. 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.

Question. 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?

Answer. 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 mar-

tyrs might convert them.

Question. Do you believe all the miracles?

Answer. I believe them all, because I believe the

Bible to be inspired.

Question. What makes you think it is inspired?

Answer. I have never seen anybody who knew

it was not; besides, my father and mother believed it.

434

Question. Have you any other reasons for be-

lieving it to be inspired?

Answer. 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.

Question. Why could we not get along without it?

Answer. We would have nothing to swear wit-

nesses by; no book in which to keep the family

record; nothing for the centre-table, and nothing for

a mother to give her son. No nation can be civilized

without the Bible.

Question. Did God always know that a Bible was

necessary to civilize a country?

Answer. Certainly he did.

Question. Why did he not give a Bible to

the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and the

Romans?

Answer. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-

fidels are.

Question. Why do you call infidels "fools"?

Answer. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the

gospel according to Matthew the following: "Who-

"soever shall say 'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of

"hell fire."

435

Question. Have I the right to read the Bible?

Answer. Yes. You not only have the right, but

it is your duty.

Question. 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?

Answer. Of course, when you read the Bible, im-

pressions are made upon your mind.

Question. Can I control these impressions?

Answer. I do not think you can, as long as you

remain in a sinful state.

Question. How am I to get out of this sinful state?

Answer. You must believe on the Lord Jesus

Christ, and you must read the Bible in a prayerful

spirit and with a believing heart.

Question. Suppose that doubts force themselves

upon my mind?

Answer. Then you will know that you are a sin-

ner, and that you are depraved.

Question. If I have the right to read the Bible,

have I the right to try to understand it?

Answer. Most assuredly.

Question. Do you admit that I have the right to

reason about it and to investigate it?

436

Answer. Yes; I admit that. Of course you can-

not help reasoning about what you read.

Question. Does the right to read a book include

the right to give your opinion as to the truth of what

the book contains?

Answer. 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.

Question. Have I the right to decide for myself

whether or not the book is inspired?

Answer. You have no right to deny the truth of

God's Holy Word.

Question. Is God the author of all books?

Answer. Certainly not.

Question. Have I the right to say that God did

not write the Koran?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Why?

Answer. Because the Koran was written by an

impostor.

Question. How do you know?

Answer. My reason tells me so.

Question. Have you the right to be guided by

your reason?

437

Answer. I must be.

Question. Have you the same right to follow your

reason after reading the Bible?

Answer. 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.

Question. What did God give us reason for?

Answer. So that we might investigate other

religions, and examine other so-called sacred books.

Question. If a man honestly thinks that the Bible

is not inspired, what should he say?

Answer. He should admit that he is mistaken.

Question. When he thinks he is right?

Answer. Yes. The Bible is different from 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."

Question. Do you think we have the right to tell

438

what the Bible means—what ideas God intended to

convey, or has conveyed to us, through the medium

of the Bible?

Answer. 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.

Question. Do all men get the same ideas from

the Bible?

Answer. No.

Question. How do you account for that?

Answer. Because all men are not alike; they

differ in intellect, in education, and in experience.

Question. Who has the right to decide as to the

real ideas that God intended to convey?

Answer. 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.

Question. Does God believe in the right of private

judgment?

Answer. Of course he does.

Question. Is he willing that I should exercise my

judgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired or

not?

Answer. No. He believes in the exercise of

439

private judgment only in the examination and rejec-

tion of other books than the Bible.

Question. Is he a Catholic?

Answer. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let me

tell you that God will "laugh at your calamity, and

"will mock when your fear cometh." You will be

accursed.

Question. Why do you curse infidels?

Answer. Because I am a Christian.

Question. Did not Christ say that we ought to

"bless those who curse us," and that we should

"love our enemies"?

Answer. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees and

called them "hypocrites" and "vipers."

Question. How do you account for that?

Answer. It simply shows the difference between

theory and practice.

Question. What do you consider the best way to

answer infidels.

Answer. 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.

440

Question. Suppose that the infidel is a good man,

how will you answer him then?

Answer. But an infidel cannot be a good man.

Even if he is, it is better that he should lose his

reputation, than that thousands should lose their

souls. We know that all infidels are vile and infa-

mous. We may not have the evidence, but we know

that it exists.

Question. How should infidels be treated? Should

Christians try to convert them?

Answer. 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.

Question. Should Christians pray for the con-

version of infidels?

Answer. 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.

Question. Whom do you regard as infidels?

Answer. The scientists—the geologists, the as-

tronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one

can overestimate the evil that has been wrought

441

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,

Question. Do you think they did, and are doing

great harm?

Answer. 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.

Question. But how can he answer these scientists?

Answer. Well, my advice is to let their argu-

ments alone. Of course, you will deny all their

facts; but the most effective way is to attack their

character.

Question. But suppose they are good men,—

what then?

Answer. The better they are, the worse they are.

442

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?

Question. Are we not commanded to love our

enemies?

Answer. Yes, but not the enemies of God.

Question. Do you fear the final triumph of infi-

delity?

Answer. No. We have no fear. We 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

443

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 depart-

ments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that all

efforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simply

result in giving a better translation.

Question. What do you consider is the strongest

argument in favor of the inspiration of the Scrip-

tures?

Answer. The dying words of Christians.

Question. What do you consider the strongest

argument against the truth of infidelity?

Answer. 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.

Question. What were the last words of Jesus

Christ?

Answer. "My God, my God, why hast thou for-

"saken me?"

A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and

authority of reason, is like administering

medicine to the dead."—Thomas Paine.

Peoria, October 8, 1877.

To the Editor of the N Y. Observer:

Sir: Last June in San Francisco, I offered 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 inform-

ation, I sent you the following letter:

Peoria, Ill., August 31st, 1877.

To the Editor of the New York Observer:

I have been informed that you accepted, in your

paper, an offer made by me to any clergyman in

San Francisco. That offer was, that I would pay

448

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 ex-

pressed, or that Voltaire did not pass away serenely

as the coming of the dawn.

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.

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

449

Sunday schools, and have long been considered of

great value.

I am anxious that these slanders shall cease. I

am desirous of seeing justice done, even at this late

day, to the dead.

For the purpose of ascertaining the evidence upon

which these death-bed accounts really rest, I make

to you the following proposition:—

First.—As to Thomas Paine: I will deposit with

the First National Bank of Peoria, Illinois, one thou-

sand dollars in gold, upon the following conditions:

This money shall be subject to your order when

you shall, in the manner hereinafter provided, sub-

stantiate 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 dis-

believed the Bible—or that he died calling upon

Jesus Christ in any religious sense whatever.

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.

As there will be certain costs and expenditures on

both sides, such costs and expenditures shall be paid

by the defeated party.

In addition to the one thousand dollars in gold, I

450

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.

From the date of accepting this offer you may

have ninety days to collect and present your testi-

mony, giving me notice of time and place of taking

depositions. I shall have a like time to take evi-

dence 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.

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 va-

cancies, from whatever cause, shall be filled upon the

same principle.

The arbitrators shall sit when and where a major-

ity shall determine, and shall have full power to pass

upon all questions arising as to competency of

evidence, and upon all subjects.

Second.—As to Voltaire: I make the same prop-

osition, if you will substantiate that Voltaire died

expressing remorse or showing in any way that he

451

was in mental agony because he had attacked Catholi-

cism—or because he had denied the inspiration of the

Bible—or because he had denied the divinity of Christ.

I make these propositions because I want you

to stop slandering the dead.

If the propositions do not suit you in any particu-

lar, please state your objections, and I will modify

them in any way consistent with the object in view.

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.

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,

R. G. Ingersoll.

In your paper of September 27, 1877, you acknowl-

edge 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

452

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.

"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."

"We have published the testimony, and the wit-

nesses are on hand to prove that Tom Paine died a

drunken, cowardly and beastly death. Let the Colo-

nel 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 Infi-

del 'buncombe' and nothing more."

453

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."

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.

In response to this offer you said: "Let the Colo-

nel deposit the money with an honest man and the

'absurd story' as he terms it, shall be shown to be

an 'ower true tale.' But he won't do it. His talk

is infidel 'buncombe' and nothing more."

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?

454

You have eaten your own words, and, for my

part, I would rather have dined with Ezekiel than

with you.

You have not met the issue. You have know-

ingly 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.

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.

You say that Thomas Paine died a drunken,

cowardly and beastly death.

I pronounce this charge to be a cowardly and

beastly falsehood.

Have you any evidence that he was in a drunken

condition when he died?

What did he say or do of a cowardly character

just before, or at about the time of his death?

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

Vindication of thomas paine.

455

make them is dead. He cannot answer you. I

can. He cannot compel you to produce your testi-

mony, 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 com-

plaint, without a murmur—to pass from life without

a fear?

Did Thomas Paine Recant?

Mr. Paine had prophesied that fanatics would

crawl and cringe around him during his last mo-

ments. He believed that they would put a lie in

the mouth of Death.

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

456

will asuredly be damned." Mr. Paine replied, "Let

me have none of your popish stuff. Get away with

you. Good morning."

On another occasion a Methodist minister ob-

truded 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. After-

ward Thomas Nixon and Captain Daniel Pelton

visited him for the express purpose of ascertaining

whether he had, in any manner, changed his relig-

ious opinions. They were assured by the dying

man that he still held the principles he had expressed

in his writings.

Afterward, these gentlemen hearing that William

Cobbett was about to write a life of Paine, sent him

the following note:

New York, April 24, 1818.

"Sir: We have been informed that you have a de-

sign to write a history of the life and writings of

Thomas Paine. If you have been furnished with

materials in respect to his religious opinions, or

457

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 subscrib-

ers, 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, etc. paper is mislaid and cannot

be found at present, but the above is the substance

which can be attested by many living witnesses."

Thomas Nixon.

Daniel Pelton.

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

458

New York, also visited him and inquired as to his

religious opinions. Paine was then upon the thresh-

old 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.

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

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.

The following is the article referred to.

"We have just returned from Boston. One ob-

ject of our visit to that city, was to see a Mr. Amasa

Woodsworth, an engineer, now retired in a hand-

some 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

459

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 de-

scribes 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 con-

tained in the spirit of that letter, boldly declaring be-

fore Dr. Manley, who is yet living, that nothing

which he saw justified the insinuations. Mr. Woods-

worth assures us that he neither heard nor saw any-

thing to justify the belief of any mental change 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

460

it while the contravening parties are yet alive, and

with the authority of Mr. Woodsworth.

Gilbert Vale.

A few weeks ago I received the following letter

which confirms the statement of Mr. Vale:

Near Stockton, Cal., Green-

wood Cottage, July 9, 1877.

Col. Ingersoll: In 1842 I talked with a gentle-

man in Boston. I have forgotten his name; but he 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, etc.

Philip Graves, M. D.

461

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 relig-

ious 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 re-

canted, of course there could have been no objection

to his body being buried by the side of the best

hypocrites on the earth.

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.

I received the following letter to-day. The

writer is well know in this city, and is a man of

high character:

Peoria, Oct. 8th, 1877.

Robert G. Ingersoll, Esteemed Friend: My

parents were Friends (Quakers). My father died

when I was very young. The elderly and middle-

aged Friends visited at my mother's house. We

462

lived in the city of New York. Among the number

I distinctly remember Elias Hicks, Willet Hicks,

and a Mr.-Day, who was a bookseller in Pearl

street. There were many others, whose names I

do not now remember. The subject of the recanta-

tion by Thomas Paine of his views about the Bible

in his last illness, or at any other time, was dis-

cussed by them in my presence at different times.

I learned from them that some of them had attended

upon Thomas Paine in his last sickness and minis-

tered to his wants up to the time of his death.

And upon the question of whether he did 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 con-

victions.

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..

Truly yours,

A. C. Hankinson.

463

A few days ago I received the following letter:

Albany, New York, Sept. 27, 1877.

Dear Sir: It is over twenty years ago that pro-

fessionally I made the acquaintance of John Hogeboom,

a Justice of the Peace of the county 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 ac-

quainted 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."...

Yours truly,

W. J. Hilton,

464

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 relig-

ion. He told them that he had not.

Second—James Cheetham. This man was the

most malicious enemy Mr. Paine had, and yet he

admits that "Thomas Paine died placidly, and al-

most without a struggle." (See Life of Thomas

Paine, by James Cheetham).

Third—The ministers, Milledollar and Cunning-

ham. 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).

Fourth—Mrs. Hedden. She told these same

preachers when they attempted to obtrude them-

selves 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."

Fifth—Andrew A. Dean. This man lived upon

Paine's farm at New Rochelle, and corresponded

465

with him upon religious subjects. (See Paine's

Theological Works, p. 308.)

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 be-

lieved 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.)

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 opportun-

ity of knowing. (See Life of Paine by Gilbert Vale.)

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."

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. Ac-

cording 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

466

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.)

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.

Eleventh—Thomas Paine himself. The will of

Thomas Paine, written by himself, commences as

follows:

"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."

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-

467

ness of defaming him should be done by Infidels, not

by Christians.

I ask you if it is honest to throw away the testi-

mony of his friends—the evidence of fair and honor-

able men—and take the putrid words of avowed and

malignant enemies?

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 lurk-

ing and crouching in the darkness were the jackals

and hyenas of superstition ready to violate his grave.

These birds of prey—these unclean beasts are the

witnesses produced and relied upon by you.

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.

Against the witnesses that I have produced you

can bring just two—Mary Roscoe and Mary Hins-

dale. 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,

468

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.

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."

The next is Mary Hinsdale. She was a servant

in the family of Willet Hicks. She, like Mary Ros-

coe, was sent to carry some delicacy to Mr. Paine.

To this young lady Paine, according to her account,

said precisely the same that he did to Mary Roscoe,

and she said the same thing to Mr. Paine.

My own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and Mary

Hinsdale are one and the same person, or the same

story has been by mistake put in the mouth of both.

It is not possible that the same conversation should

have taken place between Paine and Mary Roscoe,

and between him and Mary Hinsdale.

469

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.)

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.

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 be-

lieved 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.

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

470

full account of what happened in a letter addressed

to the Norwich Mercury in 1819. From this ac-

count it seems that Charles Collins told Cobbett that

Paine had recanted. Cobbett called for the testi-

mony, 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 forgetful-

ness disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale—the

last and only witness against the intellectual honesty

of Thomas Paine.

Did Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast,

and did he die a drunken, cowardly and beastly death?

Upon you rests the burden of substantiating these

infamous charges.

471

You have, I suppose, produced the best evidence

in your possession, and that evidence I will now pro-

ceed to examine. Your first witness is Grant Thor-

burn. 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 Amer-

ica. 3d. That he was a drunkard.

These three charges stand upon the same evidence

—the word of Grant Thorburn. If they are not all

true Mr. Thorburn stands impeached.

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 foun-

dation in fact. I challenge the Christian world to

produce the record of this decree of divorce. Accord-

ing to Mr. Thorburn it was granted in England. In

that country public records are kept of all such de-

crees. Have the kindness to produce this decree

showing that it was given on account of cruelty or

admit that Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.

Thomas Paine was a just man. Although sepa-

rated from his wife, he always spoke of her with

472

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?

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 Free-

dom—an apostle of Liberty.

In this second charge there is not one word of truth.

He held a small office in England. If he was a

defaulter the records of that country will show that

fact.

Mr. Thorburn, unless the record can be produced

to substantiate him, stands convicted of at least two

mistakes.

Now, as to the third: He says that in 1802 Paine

was an "old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated

and half asleep."

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 wel-

comed home by Thomas Jefferson, who had said that

he was entitled to the hospitality of every American.

473

In 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public din-

ner in the city of New York. He was called upon

and treated with kindness and respect by such men

as DeWitt Clinton.

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 rem-

nant 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 supe-

rior to this letter.

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."

These "Remarks" were not written by a drunken

beast, but by a clear-headed and thoughtful man.

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 sympa-

thized with the poor and oppressed of all lands. He

looked upon monarchy as a species of physical

474

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.

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 disreputa-

ble 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 any-

body, is utterly without value. In my judgment, the

testimony of Mr. Thorburn should be thrown aside

as wholly unworthy of belief.

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

475

Columbia street. The story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-

ham, D.D., is simply false.

The next competent false witness is the Rev.

Charles Hawley, D.D., who proceeds to state that

the story of the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., is cor-

roborated by older citizens of New Rochelle. The

names of these ancient residents are withheld. Ac-

cording 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.

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.

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 mis-

fortune 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-

476

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.

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:

October 28, 1807.

"Mr. Cheetham: Unless you make a public apol-

ogy for the abuse and falsehood in your paper of

Tuesday, October 27th, respecting me, I will prose-

cute you for lying."

Thomas Paine.

In another letter, speaking of this same man, Mr.

Paine says: "If an unprincipled bully cannot be re-

formed, he can be punished." "Cheetham has been

so long in the habit of giving false information, that

truth is to him like a foreign language."

477

Mr. Cheetham wrote the life of Paine to gratify

his malice and to support religion. He was prose-

cuted for libel—was convicted and fined.

Yet the life of Paine written by this man is referred

to by the Christian world as the highest authority.

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 in-

timately 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

478

Paine stopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham, declared

that Paine drank less than any boarder he had.

Against all this evidence you produce the story of

Grant Thorburn—the story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-

ham 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 false-

hoods of James Cheetham, the convicted libeler.

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.

To become drunk is a virtue compared with steal-

ing a babe from the breast of its mother.

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 insti-

tution.

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

479

drunken beast when he wrote the "Crisis"? Was

it to a drunken beast that the following letter was

addressed:

Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783.

"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 exceed-

ingly 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,

"Your Sincere Friend,

"George Washington."

Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter

like that?

Do you think that Paine was a drunken beast

when the following letter was received by him?

"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

480

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; in these it will be your glory to have

steadily labored and with as much effect as any man

living. That you may live long to continue your

useful labors, and reap the reward in the thankfulness

of nations, is my sincere prayer. Accept the assur-

ances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment."

Thomas Jefferson.

Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter

like that?

"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.

"A few more such flaming arguments as were

exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the

sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning con-

tained in the pamphlet 'Common Sense,' will not

leave numbers at a loss to decide on the propriety of

a separation."—George Washington.

"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.

481

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.

Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter

like that?

"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and famil-

iarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happiness

of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming lan-

guage."'—Thomas Jefferson.

Was ever a letter like that written about an editor

of the New York Observer?

Was it in consideration of the services of a

drunken beast that the Legislature of Pennsylvania

presented Thomas Paine with five hundred pounds

sterling?

482

Did the State of New York feel indebted to a

drunken beast, and confer upon Thomas Paine an

estate of several hundred acres?

"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-creat-

ures happy."

"My own mind is my own church."

"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he

be mentally faithful to himself."

"Any system of religion that shocks the mind of

a child cannot be a true system."

"The Word of God is the creation which we

behold."

"The age of ignorance commenced with the

Christian system."

"It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action—it

begets a calamitous necessity of going on."

"To read the Bible without horror, we must undo

everything that is tender, sympathizing and benev-

olent in the heart of man."

"The man does not exist who can say I have per-

secuted him, or that I have in any case returned evil

for evil."

"Of all tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in

religion is the worst."

483

"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."

"No man ought to make a living by religion. One

person cannot act religion for another—every person

must perform it for himself."

"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a

hundred priests."

"Let us propagate morality unfettered by super-

stition."

"God is the power, or first cause, Nature is the

law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope

for happiness beyond this life."

"The key of heaven is not in the keeping of any

sect nor ought the road to it to be obstructed

by any."

"My religion, and the whole of it, is the fear and

love of the Deity and universal philanthropy."

"I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I

have a good state of health and a happy mind. I

484

take care of both, by nourishing the first with tem-

perance and the latter with abundance."

"He lives immured within the Bastile of a

word."

How perfectly that sentence describes you! The

Bastile in which you are immured is the word

"Calvinism."

"Man has no property in man."

What a splendid motto that would have made for

the New York Observer in the olden time!

"The world is my country; to do good, my

religion."

I ask you again whether these splendid utterances

came from the lips of a drunken beast?

Did Thomas Paine die in destitution and want?

The charge has been made, over and over again,

that Thomas Paine died in want and destitution—

that he was an abandoned pauper—an outcast with-

out friends and without money. This charge is just

as false as the rest.

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:

"My Dear Friend: Mr. Monroe, who is appointed

minister extraordinary to France, takes charge of

485

this, to be delivered to Mr. Este, banker in Paris, to

be forwarded to you.

"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.

"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.

"Remember me in affection and friendship to your

wife and family, and in the circle of your friends."

Thomas Paine.

A man in those days worth thirty thousand dol-

lars was not a pauper. That amount would bring an

income of at least two thousand dollars per annum.

Two thousand dollars then would be fully equal to

five thousand dollars now.

On the 12th of July, 1809, the year in which he

died, Mr. Paine made his will. From this instru-

ment 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 fif-

teen hundred dollars. Besides this, some personal

486

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.

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?

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 Calvin-

ism? 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.

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-

487

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 con-

science—when it was strong and cruel. The church

waited till he was dead then attacked his reputation

and his clothes.

Once upon a time a donkey kicked a lion. The

lion was dead.

Conclusion.

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 con-

cluded 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 some-

thing had been said or done by Thomas Paine capa-

ble 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 pre-

tended evidence said to sustain these charges, and

488

give your honest conclusion to the world. I sup-

posed 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 Con-

vention, 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 tyr-

anny 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-

489

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 preju-

dices 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 dis-

torted traditions of ignorance, prejudice, and credulity.

By this course you will convince them not of the

wickedness of Paine, but of your own unfairness.

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 investiga-

tion—the men who are civilizing, elevating, instruct-

ing, 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

490

ago a noise was made for the purpose of frightening

mankind. Orthodoxy is the echo of that noise.

The man who now regards the Old Testament as

in any sense a sacred or inspired book is, in my judg-

ment, 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.

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 de-

spair? 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 cheer-

fully 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

491

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 calum-

niators 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 sur-

rounded with the fierce fiends of fear?

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, coward-

ly 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 re-

membered against you when all else you may have

uttered shall have passed from the memory of men.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

THE OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK

* From the NY. Observer of Nov. 1, 1877.

TOM PAINE AGAIN.

In the Observer of September 27th, in 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.

Our reasons for taking up the subject at all, and

for presenting at this time so much additional testi-

mony in regard to the facts of the case, are these:

At different periods for the last fifty years, efforts

493

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 down-

fall 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, "Min-

ister of the Second Unitarian Society in Brooklyn,"

has devoted two discourses to the same end, eulogiz-

ing Paine. In one of these, which we have before

us in a handsomely printed pamphlet, entitled,

"Method and Value of his (Paine's) Religious

Teachings," he says: "Christian usage has determ-

ined 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-

494

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 responsibil-

ity for the utterances of both of these men, and that

they compose a denomination, or rather two denom-

inations, of their own.

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 Chris-

tianity, 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 depre-

cate the discussion of the character of Paine, as an

unprofitable topic. It never appeared to them un-

profitable when the discussion was on the other side.

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

495

religion, and in order to give currency to these writ-

ings 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.

But what makes the publication of the facts in the

case still more imperative at this time is the whole-

sale 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,) etc. 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.

496

The two points on which we proposed to produce

the testimony are, the character of Paine's life (refer-

ring of course to his last residence in this country,

for no one has intimated that he had sunk into 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.

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 Inde-

pendence. 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 man-

tle of charity over his subsequent career. Whatever

share Paine had in the personal friendship of the

fathers of the Revolution he forfeited by his subse-

quent life of beastly drunkenness and degradation,

and on this account as well as on account of his

blasphemy he was shunned by all decent people.

We wish to make one or two corrections of mis-

497

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 Infidel-

ity. 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 de-

pendent upon Christian charity for the attentions he

received, miserable beyond description in his condi-

tion, 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 min-

istrations when in extreme illness; but they are

often ready on any alleviation of distress to turn to

498

their wickedness again, in the expressive language

of Scripture, "as the sow that was washed to her

wallowing in the mire."

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 de-

pendent 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.

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.

Such misrepresentations serve to show how much

the advocates of Paine admire "truth."

With these explanations we produce further evi-

dence in regard to the manner of Paine's life and the

character of his death, both of which we have already

499

characterized in appropriate terms, as the following

testimony will show.

In regard to Paine's "personal habits," even before

his return to this country, and particularly his aver-

sion 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 inci-

dental 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 dis-

tinguished 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 dis-

gust." 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 under-

stand,) gradually to increase the heat of the water

500

until 'le Monsieur serait bien bouille (until the gentle-

man shall be well boiled;) and adds that "he became

so much absorbed in his reading that he was nearly-

parboiled before leaving the bath, much to his im-

provement and my satisfaction."

William Carver has been cited as a witness in be-

half of Paine, and particularly as to his "personal

habits." In a letter to Paine, dated December 2,

1776, he bears the following testimony:

"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.)

501

"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:

"Now, sir, I think I have drawn a complete por-

trait 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 de-

ception under which you have acted in your political

as well as moral capacity of life."

(Signed) "William Carver."

Carver had the same opinion of Paine to his dying

day. When an old man, and an Infidel of the Paine

502

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 one-

tenth 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

503

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 sub-

stantial accuracy of Cheetham's portrait of the man

whom he knew so well.

Dr. J. W. Francis, well-known as an eminent phy-

sician, of this city, in his Reminiscences of New York,

says of Paine:

"He who, in his early days, had been 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."

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 Octo-

ber 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:

"New York, October 2, 1809: I was called upon

by accident to visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of Feb-

ruary last, and found him indisposed with fever, and

very apprehensive of an attack of apoplexy, as he

504

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 priva-

tions, was the cause of the symptoms of which he

then complained.... And here let me be per-

mitted 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 ap-

peared 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 un-

usual 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,

505

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 hav-

ing 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? Con-

cerning 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 con-

versation was principally directed to give the impres-

sion that he was perfectly willing to leave this world,

and yet some parts of his conduct were with 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-

506

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, watch-

ing; he was very apprehensive of a speedy dissolu-

tion, and suffered great distress of body, and perhaps

of mind (for he was waiting the event of an applica-

tion 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.

"During the latter part of his life, though his con-

versation was equivocal, his conduct was singular;

he could not be left alone night or day; he not only

507

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 assist-

ance of an anodyne. There was something remark-

able 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 inter-

mission, '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

508

whether she should read aloud, he assented, and

would appear to give particular attention.

"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 mix-

ing in your conversation words of coarse meaning;

you have never indulged in the practice of profane

swearing; you must be sensible that we are ac-

quainted 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

509

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 unaccount-

able, 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 sin-

cere 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 equivo-

cal 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-

510

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 sys-

tem 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), con-

taining a full account of a visit which he paid to

Paine in his last illness. It was printed in the United

States Catholic Magazine for 1846; in the Catholic

Herald of Philadelphia, October 15, 1846; in a sup-

plement to the Hartford Courant, October 23, 1847;

and in Littell's Living Age for January 22, 1848,

from which we copy. Bishop Fenwick writes:

"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

511

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 Shak-

ing 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 circum-

stance 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.

"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

512

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.'

513

Thus he will continue for some time, when on a sud-

den 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.'

"Such was the conversation of the woman who

had received us, and who probably had been employ-

ed to nurse and take care of him during his illness.

She was a Protestant, yet seemed very desirous that

we should afford him some relief in his state of

abandonment, bordering on complete despair. Hav-

ing 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 pro-

posed 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

514

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 par-

taken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as the

sides and corners of his mouth exhibited very un-

equivocal 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."

Immediately upon their making known the object

of their visit, Paine interrupted the speaker by say-

ing: "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

515

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."

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.

INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.

Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.

To the Editor of the New York Observer:

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.

You ought to have honor enough to admit that

you challenged me and that you commenced the

controversy concerning Thomas Paine.

You ought to have goodness enough to admit

that you were mistaken in the charges you made.

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-

517

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.

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 that Cheetham with settled malignity wrote the

life of Paine? Why did you leave out that part in

which Dr. Francis says that Cheetham in the same

way slandered Alexander Hamilton and De Witt

Clinton? 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 un-

worthy of belief? Dr. J. W. Francis says in the

same article from which you quoted, "Paine clung to

his Infidelity until the last moment of his life!' Why

did you not publish that? It was the first line im-

mediately 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

518

shyster. I do not know the appropriate word to

designate a theologian guilty of such an act.

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 hap-

pened, 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 con-

cerning 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 noth-

ing. I also showed that she was a kind of standing

witness to prove that others recanted. Willett Hicks

denounced her as unworthy of belief.

519

To-day the following from the New York World

was received, showing that I was right in my

conjecture:

Tom Paine's Death-Bed.

To the Editor of the World:

Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll dis-

credits Mary Hinsdale's story of the scenes 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, Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that Mary

Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same person. 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.

Harpersville, New York.

520

You will notice that the testimony of Mary Hins-

dale 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.

So Mary Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and as

Mary Hinsdale has been shown by her own admis-

sion 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 false-

hood 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.

There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn.

Concerning this witness, I received, yesterday, from

the eminent biographer and essayist, James Parton,

the following epistle:

Newburyport, Mass.

Col. R. G. Ingersoll:

Touching Grant Thorburn, I personally know him

to have been a dishonest man. At the age of ninety-

two he copied, with trembling hand, a piece from a

newspaper and brought it to the office of the Home

Journal, as his own. It was I who received it and

521

detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever go-

ing to continue this subject, I will give you the exact

facts.

Fervently yours,

James Parton.

After this, you are welcome to what remains of

Grant Thorburn.

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?

I have often wondered what these same gentle-

men 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?

They would say of me then, just what I think of

them now.

Even if we have religion, do not let us try to get

along without good manners. Rudeness is exceed-

ingly unbecoming, even in a saint. Persons who

522

forgive their enemies ought, to say the least, to

treat with politeness those who have never injured

them.

It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I have com-

pelled 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 New York Observer of November

ist, 1877:

"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NOR

HAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RE-

NOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY. THE ACCOUNTS AGREE IN

STATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."

This for all coming time will refute the slanders of

the churches yet to be.

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?

From the bottom of my heart I thank myself for

having compelled you to admit that Thomas Paine

did not recant.

For the purpose of verifying your own admission

concerning the death of Mr. Paine, permit me to call

your attention to the following affidavit:

523

Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.

Col. R. G. Ingersoll:

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 morn-

ing at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks the

following questions:

"Was thee with Thomas Paine during his last

sickness?"

Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him every day dur-

ing the latter part of his last sickness."

"Did he express any regret in regard to writing

the 'Age of Reason,' as the published accounts say

he did—those accounts that have the credit of ema-

nating from his Catholic housekeeper?"

Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way by

word or action."

"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?"

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.

Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.

Warren Bigler, Notary Public.

524

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 condi-

tion.

Wishing you success in all honest undertakings, I

remain,

Yours truly,

Robert G. Ingersoll.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL, VOL. 05 (OF 12) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

"There Can Be But Little Liberty On Earth While Men Worship A Tyrant In Heaven." In Twelve Volumes, Volume V.

DISCUSSIONS

1900 DRESDEN EDITION

Contents.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE